The Maverick Conservative

Payroll "Tax Cut" Bill: Another Reason to Defeat All Members of Congress, and to Ignore the Incompetent, Corrupt Members of Our Media

2012-02-11T08:12:00.001-08:00

Remember that fraudulent payroll "tax cut" bill? I wil refer yo to previous blog articles on just how bad the bill is. Suffice it to say that you--if you are a GOP member of Congress--are a DISHONEST HYPOCRITE (Mitt Romney, thi smeans you, even if you are nnot a member of Congress) to talk about the "debt ceiling" at the same time you want to REQUIRE that hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars be added to the debt ceiling in the next year because of this particular bill. Dishonest "conservative" after dishonest "conservative" AGREES wth this blog on how bad this bil is, and yet says that thegOP "has" to seel out the country to aovid being beaten in the election. Enough. The pont of tihs article is what was said about htis TWO MONTH (a truly disgraceful thing, whih is ALONE suffficent reason to DEFEAT every single incumbent member of Congress) extension of the payroll "tax cut" bill at the end of 2011.

What were we told? I will tell you, since no one else will. We were told, and you are expected to forget, that Congress would "diligently" work on a "final" bill extending the payroll "tax cut" (lol) for an entire year, along with those other deficti increasing portions of the bill (REQURING a raise in the debt ceiling--FYI Mitt Romney, who supports this atrocity). The idea that the "time pressure" was just too much, and that Congress would "work diligently together".........................................................sorry, on the floor againin my fetal position, laughing/crying...........so as not to come up again against this deadline. HAH. I told you that it would not happen. Congress WANTS to come "up agaisnt the deadline", and WILL. Read my articles at the end of the year. They were written in foresight, and are going to be proven correct (basically already have been).

No. The GOP is NOT going to "fight" over this bill. That was one of the DISONEST parts of that two month extention. It was a "total cave" disguised wth FALSE representatins as to what was gong to happen. I actually heard more than one Congressman say that the bill would be "done" within TWo WEEKS (maybe even before Congress was formallly back in session).....................................................................sorry, agai...........I should not say things that I KNOW will bring on these attacks. The reason the GOP WANTS to come up against the "deadline" agan is to JUSTIFY another SHAM bill. That is what they did with the 2011 "spending debate". It is what they did with the "debt ceiling debate". It is what they did with this "debate" at the end of 20011, on a bill they needed to DEFEAT (not pass with fraudulent representations). The GOP is going to say: "Waht choice did we have? Democrats pushed us to the wall. They know we are COWARDS. We can't cvhange orur nature, and--whine-the American peole don't want us to take away their BRIBE. They won't accept us taking that money out of their monthly chekck. We HAVE to pass this bill. We "fought' it as hard as we could, to 'pay for it' (a lie), but we cold nt afford to have the American peole believe we wanted to impose a 'tax increase' (yet another lie) on the American middle class." you can see that I added a few pejorative words, but otherwise this IS exactly what the GOP members of Congress are going to say. DEFEAT JOHN BOEHNER. DEFEAT ERIC CANTOR. DEFEAT THEM ALL.

There is another possibity, although the above "answer" is still what you are going to get if GOP members of Congress are challenged. I SAY that this payroll "tax cut" bill has still not passed, even though we are already heading toward March. Do I KNOW that to be tru? No, becasue the other possiblity is for this bil--a SHAM BILL which obviusly increases our debt, with only SHAM "cuts--will pass Congress IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT, without either the GOP or the "news" media botherng to take notice. Do oyo realy think that the GOP is gong to 'fight" srouisly over this bill, when they have put themselves in a position that they MUST pass the bill? Don't be silly. How is the GOP gong to explain that they (from the media/Democrat pont of vie) DECREASED the amont in people's paychecks, after sayig that they AGREED that shoud not happnen. Some things are beyond my imagingation.

Does that mean that the bill WILL be extended the full year? It does, provided DEMOCRATS give the GOP even a SHAM way out. As this blog has told you, "A coard dies a thousand times, while a brave man dies but once.". Democrats are in postion to make GOP members of Congess DIE A THOUSAND TIMES, like the cowards they are. Waht is the one RELIGIOUS principle that the GOP members of Congress refuse to abandon, even as they abandon ALL othe principles? Right. NO TAX INCRFESE. It is even the mistaken excuse for approving this budget-busting, debt creating payroll "tax cut" bill. What if Democrats INSIST on "apying for" the bill with that "surtax" on "millionaires and billionaires". I WOULD, if I were a Democrat, at least to the very end (insisting upon someting like the PLANNED PARENTHOOD PAYOFF--see previous article--for letting the GOP off of the hook). Why should Dmoecrats not do this? The GOP ha put itself in this impossible position. GOP memmbers of Congrress have PROMISED that this bil WILL PASS. Now THAT is a lesson in "negotiating" strategy (lol, as I lie here in a fetal positin).

Thus, the bill WILL pass, unles DEMOCRATS make it impossible for the GOP to pas it (preferring the campaign issue). The only questin is likely to be the GOP "explanation", if the GOP bothers to even try to give one (instaed of adopting the "dead of night" strategy to dishonesty in politics). What if Democrats absolutely REFUSE to pass a bill which does not contain a surtax on millionaires and billionaires? Obama's proposed "budget"..............................................................sorry, the Democat Senate has not even proosed a budget in more than 1,000 days, and the Obama budget is a joke. I told myself I would not end upon the floor again, but this was too much for me.. the Obama proposed "budget" already--headline today--proposes a TAX FIGHT over increasing taxes on "the rich" in this election year. How can Democrats aovid the temptation to hold firm on this payroll "tax cut" bill, on which the GOP has put itself in such a bad positon? THAT is how we could end up with NO bill, with Demcrats blaming the GOP for "protectiong millionaires and billionaires" on the backs of the middle class (as Rmoney spins in the wind). The odds are that teh estension will pass, even though the "apying for" will be a JOKE (as it is anyway, since the debt will be increased NOW and EVERY "pay for" is over "ten years').

I jsut can't stand it. DEFEAT THEM ALL. Defeat EVERY GOP member o fCongress (preferably n a primary), and EVERY Democrat member of Congress. I know. How can there be 10% wo actualy "approve' of these peole? I told you to ignore polls. That 10% HAS to be the MENTALLY RETARDED, isname, drunks, an dpeole who did not understand the question. Think of the INCOMPETNET=, STUPID media who keep highlighiting this pll (while ingoring the unpopuliarity of Congress when Bush was President) as if it MEANS something. Sure, Congress is unopular. I am telling you to DEFEAT THEM ALL. But the media wuld HATE the Congress I want. In other words, it does not ELL you antything about where peole want this coutnry to go to say that tey "disapprove" of Congress. DUH. Means nothign, unless you DEFEAT THEM ALL.

Stay tuned on this payroll "tax cut" bill. It is actually one of the more disgraceful performances Congrress has ever put in, and enough reason in itself to vote against every single one of thsese bozos (both on the merits, and the way the bil has been handled).

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

ObamaCare: The Worst Bill in the History of the United States, as Democrat Obsession with Social Issues Threatens to Destoroy the United States

2012-02-11T07:10:00.000-08:00

See my previous article posted in this blog, as to whic I stand by every word--except, perhaps, the assertion that this was a matter of Obama taking the language of the bill (deliberately dsigned this way, as the previous article said) and unilaterally IMPOSING his own "values" on the country. Now that happened, but WAS it "unilateral", or did the massive ObamaCare bill cotaain a specific provison REQURING that women be given "free" (a lie) contraceptive care?

I am not sure, which is an INDICTMENT of both the 'news" media (including the unfair and unbalanced network) and GOP politicians. Further, this is NOT hindsight on the part of this blog. Articles in this blog, AT THE TIME (of the ObamaCare bill) told you, correctly that the MAIN obligation of a true "jolurnalist" (no such creature now exists) was to EXPLAIN the DETAILS of the bill. That was alos what GOP politicians needed to do, beyond the correct attack on the concept of the bill. Both FAILED as baldy as people can fail. Thus, since the article posted yesterday, I have heard "news" reports implying that there is a sPECIFIC provison in the ObamaCare bill on contraception (which Obama has constured to includ abortion, at least tot he extent of the "morning after" pill).

Even now, the media is basically UNINTERESTED in the real questions. Exactly what is the language of teh bill upon which Obama is relying? Why was it in th ebill at all? In other words, with all of the FIGHT abut abortion in the fight over ObamaCare, HOW could a provision like this (sliding over into abortion) possibly get into the bill "without notice". Can it be true that BOTH the GOP and Democrasts CONSPRIED to ignore the "issue' in ObamaCare? Of course it can. DEFEAT THEM ALL. It is disgraceful if our politicians did NOT know that there was a specific, FANATIC provision in ObamaCare making "contraception" the most "important" health "issue' in this country--more i"important" than cancer or anything else. Again, apart from abortion, the issue here is NOT 'contraception" (which most people favor--even Catholics). The issue here is FREEDOM. Just where to Democrats get off saying that contraception is so 'important" that it justifies taking away people's FREEDOM? This, alone, is enough for you to vote against EVERY DEMOCRAT. The fact that GOP politicans did not highlight the individual parts of tthe ObamaCare bill, as well as the many other reasons given daily in this blog, tell you that you should vote against EVERY CURRENT GOP MEMBER OF CONGRESS, as well. DEFEAT THEM ALL. Now you cannot 'defeat", exactly, the "newss" media, except you can. You can IGNORE THEM. You can bascially refuse to pay attention to anyhhing they say, and hod them in UTTER CONTEMPT (which most of you-"you" including th enetire country and ot just readers of this blog--do).

IF ObamaCare containted outrageous language ofn contracepton, in additon to its vague language makng the President a virtual dictator over our helath care system, includng our health insurance system, WHO put that language in and WHY? The media will not tell you, because they are INCOMPETENT, EVIL and UNINTERESTED in acaul facts. I will tell you, without even any special knowledge.

This is a POLITICAL PAYOFF for Planned Parenthood. This provisin, if exists (and this regulation, whether or not a specific provsions exists in ObamaCare), was designed to FUND Planned Parenthood, which is why Planned Parehtnood is out there so vehmently defending this regualation. Look at what this regulatoin does. Not only does it "guarantee" Palnned Parenthood payment for contraception "services", but it was designed to RUN THE COMPETITION OUT OF BUSINESS. The idea was to FROCE Catholics, and other religioius organizations, out of the "family plannning" and "family counseling" business, by making them choose between their principles and exiting the business. Nope. The regulatoin is a disgrace. Any specific provison in the bill is a disgrace. The whole thing is additonal proof that ObamaCare is the worst bill to ever come out of the Untied States Congress. This is enoguh to COMPEL lyou to vote against VERY current Democrat in Congress. As sated in this blog, you should also vote against every current GOP member of Congress, and the GOLP has hardly distinghished itself in actualy INTREPRETING the specific provisoins of the ObamaCare bill. The GOP--DEFEAT THEM ALL--was too busy ATTACKING Sarah Palin for CORRECTLY stating that ObamaCare was a takeover of our health care system that fully authorized the idea of 'death panels", as the ogvernment DECIDES every single thing that will be covered by your health insurance. DEFEAT THEM ALL. I beg you.

Doubt me? Look at what Obama and the Democrats are dong for Planned Parenthood!!!!! Then look at the COWARDS of the GOP, who--despite the POEWER to do so--have beeeen too COWRDLY to "defund" Planned Parenthood (which still receives Federal MONEY, in additin to the intended WINDFALL from this "consequence" (intended) of ObamaCare. Why should you vote for these COWARDS (GOP members of Congrress). I will not. DMOECRATS evidenty have the courage to take the political hit o nbehalf of FANATIC attempts to push their "social issues", and satisfy Planned Parenthood. The GOP is not willing to take anyhy "hits" at all. .They are COWARDS-each and every one onf them. No, you have nNOT seen even Michele Bachmann out there YELLING and SCREAMING about Planned Parenthood, or even such things as funding for the National Endowment for the Arts or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. DEFEAT THEM ALL

"But, Skip, if we 'defeat them all', how does ObamaCare get repealed." Well,first, "defeating them all" would give the GOP massive control of the Senate. And it would mean the defeat of Obama (part of "defeat them all", although here I simply cannot stomach my own advice, because I refuse to vote for a GOP estalbishment politican until I have absolute proof that Hell has frozen over). "But, Skip, DEMOCRATS will never take your adive. If conservatives vote to 'defeat them all', it will just mean massive Democrat victories.". Maybe so. But, if so, we are DOOMED. What does it MEAN when polls assert that "Concress" has a 10% "approval rating" if people refuse to ACT on it. IF most INCUMBENTS lost (in primaries-where EVERY GOP member of Congrss should aface a primary opponet, who should WIN), the MESSAGTE might beging to get through. As is said of handling mules: "First, you hit the mule across the head with a 2 by 4, just to get his attention.'.

You think the GOP has problems? Look at the oor DEMCRATS. If Obama does get reelected, this latest falp shows that he is going to DESTROY the Democratic Party. Obama even directly SAID that the is putting off all of these major decisions, INCLUDING the "final" regulations on ObamaCare, until AFTER the 2012 electon. That was DELIBERATE. But this latest surprise out of ObamaCare shows you exactly what is going to hapen to the Democratic Party once Obama is released from the restraints imosed upon our Liar-in-Chief by the necessities of reelection. In the 2014 electin, if Obama is Preisdent, Democrats may not win even TEN of the total nubmer of elections held for members of Congress. Indeed, this is a reason that conservatives wll be better off, in the long run, if Obama is elected, rahter than someone like Mitt Romney.

Problem: In the long run, we ae all dead. In other words, Obama will--I am confidant--DESTROYU the Democratic Party for at least a generaton. Maybe he will even pave the way for a third aparty of conservatives that can WIN. However, in the process. Obama will likely DESTROY THE COUNTRY. That is why this supposed "lack of enthusiasm" for GOP candidates fails to impress me. I see a LOT of entusiasm out there for DEFEATNG OBAMA with ANYBODY That is the position of most of my brothers. As stated in this pragraph, it is actually a POWERFUL argument that we simply cannot afford 4 more years of an UNLEASHED Obama acting as dictator (with the law--ObamaCare--behind him). I don't condemn people who think this way. I jsut can't stomach, myself, voing, eve again, for a GOP estalbishment candidate. "But, Skip,, who determines who is a 'GOP establishment' candidate?" That one is easy: I DO. Hey, I never said that Obama and I were that different in the ARROGANCE department.

I have digressed, as usual. Bottom line: ObamaCare is the worst piece of legislation to ever pass the Untied States Congress, and that it could even hapen is an indictment of EVERY member of Congress (especialy the Democrats, but even th GOP) and of a "news" media totally UNINTERSTED in giving us actual INFORMATION about what is hapening in Congress.--abut the real meaning of bils. You will remember (DEFEAT THEM ALL) that Democrats, GOP members of Congress, and the "news" media ALL gave a totall FALSE idea of what was in the TARP "baillut" legislation. We were "assured", without any demurrer from the media, that the President and the Secretary of the Reasury were not being given a "blank check", but that the "purchase of tocic assets" (whta the DEBATE had been about) was gong to have "strict oversight". Well, it turned out that Treausry and the President (both obama and Bush) did not like the "oversight", and deicided to treat the bill like the BLANK CHECK it really was. Taht was how we ended up with the direct balouts of banks and the rest. ObamaCare is a similar "blank check", only worse. I said tat the time that you should DEFEAT any person who supported that fraudulent TARP legislation: another good reason to OPPOSE Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Am I digressing aain? it only appears that way, since this is ll aobut the SAME DISHONEST SICKNESS that pervades Washington and ur "news' media.

No proofreading or spell checking (bd eyesight).

Obama, ObamaCare, Freedom, and Freedom of Conscience: Liar-in-Chief (religuis red herrings and death panels)

2012-02-10T19:12:00.000-08:00

Do you remember how Obama "sold" ObamaCare (sociopathic liar that he is!!!)? I quote Obama and his Democrat allies: "If you are happy with the insurance yoiu have, you can keep it. We are not "'taknig over' control of either th ehealth care system or the health insurance system. "

Obvama, in his favorite role as Liar-in-chief, LIED. No this is-yet again--not a matter of opinion. Obama has just PROVEN that he LIED. But he does not caree, because he doesnot think he will be "called out" on it by the GOP ort he American peole. I hope hhe is wrong on that, because the OBAMA LIES are fudnamental to our identity as a natioin with a Consitutinally LIMITED goverfnment (the Federal Government).

I am talking aoubt hs flap over the attempt by Obama to FORCEW religious organizations to provide their emplyees with "coverage" (either directly or through insurance) that GUARANTGEES "free" "contraceptive" (including early ABORTION through th e"morning after pll"). No co-pay.

No. I am sorry. This is NOT a matter mainly of religiouis freedom. That is merely a POLITICAL grab for votres by clueless GOP politicians. This is all about FREEDOM, and the Constitutional limits of the Federal Government. Forget religion, which is merely a red herring here (even if it does bring in votes for politicians to concentrate on that angle--or so thye think). Just where in the Consitution does it give Obama (or Congress, how passed a bill giving UNLIMITED power over the health industry to the executive, as Obama has now made clear--making himself out a LIAR in the process). the POWER to tell privatge employers EXACT

Not convinced? It gets worse. Obama, in 'reonse" to the outcry over his OVERREACHING--making it obvoius that he was asserting the right to fully CONTROL our health care system, has now said that he is "accommodating" religious groups by merely ORDERING the entire health insurance industry to offer free"conraceptive" care (including, as stated, abortion inducing pills) as part of EVERY health insurance olicy issued in this country No wonder Planned Parenthood APPLAUDED this "ordere". It represents a further POLITICAL PAYOOF to Planned Parenthood, which gets a further source of indirect government funding (not even that indiret, as the government provided insurance for "poorer" people will ALL include this "free" coverfag--no co-pay even). In other words, Palnned Parenthood is even being PREFERRED to CANCER DOCTORS. That actually represents accurately tghe priorities of Obama and leftist Democrats. But this is no more about aborttion and Planned Parenthood than it is about religon. This is about POWER, and the breathtaking asseriton by Obama that he has the POWER to ORDER the entire health care industry; the entire health insurance industry; and the all employers to do what Obama WANTS (whether for his reelection or because he believes in thises things--probably both). Obama, in contrast to what he was saying when ObamaCare was passed, is now saying that he has UNLIMITED POWER over the health care system in this nation, with the power to ORDER health insurance companies, health care providers, AND emplyers to do exactly what Obama wants. I you do not see how this is an invasion of FREEDOM--a violation of the very principles upon thishc this country was founded--then there is no hope for you. This should SCARE you. It ALMOST scares me eough to vote for a GOP establishment canddiate like Romney jsut to gett rid of this megalomanic we now have as President (not to mention a sociopathic liar). In case you have any doubt, by the way, I DID jsut call our President UNAMERICAN, and I stand by it. This is the most Un-American approraiton of power I have ever seen.

Death pnaels? Why not? Or, rather, who needs theem. Obama has jsut ASSESRTED the POWER to INSTRUCT insurance companies what to "cover" and what not to "cover"--alng with the POWWER to insruct employers and health care providers. This is UNLIMITED poer that makes a mockery of the claim that we have a "limited" Feeral Government. My 89 year old other, for whom FDR was the hero of her youth and her ideal as a politician, Barack Obama wants to be a DICTATOR. She has held that positon long before this latest atrocity. My mother has been proven RIGHT. Obama ahas the mind and soul of a central planning, un-American DICTATOR--not to mention an economic fascist (see previous article). It is FREEDOM that is at stake her, NOT jsut "religious freedom". My mother is convinced Obama is out to KILL her, because ObamaCare cannot afford to keep here alive. Besides, she seees Obama PREFERRING contraception, and Planned Parenthood, to other ofroms of health care. Who is to say my motehr is wrong? Obama is asseriting the POWER to do exactly what my mother thinks he is trying to do to her. (No, by the wya, I do not encourage my mother to belivve that Obama is NOW out to kll her--although I do believe that Obama, or peole like him, will get there.). If Obama puts in a REGULATION that insurance companies are not allowed to "cover" ANY "invasive" treatement for peole 80 years of age and above, is Obama not asserting the OWER to do exactly that? Sure he is. Sure, you can assert taht Obama would never be this obvious, because he wants the votges. That just means that this dishonest man would have to be DSISHONEST (as he really has been on these particular regulations in isssue). Obama would have to figure out a ay to conceal exactly what he is doing.

Let us go to "freedomof conscience"--or just plain freedom I am an agnostic, as readers of this blog know (raised Presbyterian, and NOT Catholic). Yet, I am as much opposed to abortion (although not contraceptives which are not abortion inducing morning after pills) as ANY Catholic (includng the Pope). No. I do not favor abortion in cases of rape or "incest" (inclusin of which always puzzles me), just as I do not fovor INFANTICIDE in cases of rape and incest. I do faovr abortion to save the life of the mother, or deal with large risk to her physical life, which may be VERY slightly lesss anti-abortion thaan the Pope. What is the pont? No, the point is not to argue abortio in this article. The pont is that I regard abortion as a from of INFANTICIDE. I--as a plaintiffs' tril lawyer for more than 30 years--was an EMPLOYER for most of that time. Explan to me WHY the Federal Government hs the POWER to tell me I MUST provide health coverage for a from of aborton, or even for contraception (despite my having no qualms about pre-sex contraception)? Look at what Obama is dong!!!! He is saying that there MUST be NO DEDUCTIBLE on contraception, and it MUST be covered. Waht if I, as an emplyer, belive that is NOT the coverage I awant? As stated above, Obama has certainly made a MOCKERY of the idea that you can "keep" your present coverage. HE LIED. But it is absolutley insane, and a viiolation of FREEDOM, for a CENTRAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (essentially ONE MAN) to tell ME, as an emplyerf, exaclty what coverage, deductibles and co-pay I have to have. And Obama is ORDERING the insurance compnies to ONLYU offer policies that HE APPROVES. Again, this is INSANE. It is not even defensible. I would hope that NO supporter of Ron Paul could ever vote for this man (me not exaclty being a supporter of Ron Paul, having endorsed Santorum, but having correclty said that Ron Paul is the ONLY other politican for whom I can votae for President). Again, jsut consider what Obama is claiming. He is claiming that he--his Administration following his orders--can ORDER exactly what is covered, and wht is not covered, by health insurance in this country. If this is not a Federal Government "takeover" of our health insurance system, and really our entire health care system, then the word has no meaning.

Again, consider MY "conscience". As an emplyer, who considers aboriton to be infanticide, why should the Federal Government be able to FORCE me to provide insurance coveratgge for something my conscience finds so abhorrent? For that matter, as stated, if i belive that the best "bang for the buck" health insurance either does not provide contraceptive coverage, or provides a deductible for it, why should the Federal Government have the POWER to overrule my judgment? Again, the Federal Government (unlike states, except as specifically limited by the Cnstitution) is supposed to be a government of LIMITED POWER. This is UNLIMITED POER to control the very essence of yoru lives and consineces. The thing abut sates is that it is EASY to fight battles on a state level to CHANGE things. At worst, you can move to another state. The Federal Government is a CENTGRAL government controlled by ONE MAN (especially when that man deliberately gets Congress to pass a bill that he will say give him UNLIMITED POWE). That potential for destorying freedom is why the Federal Government was supposed to be agovernment of limited powers. If Obama gets away with this (talking aobut ObamaCare, and not his DISHONEST "compromise"), then our system of government (as set up by the Founders) no longer exists. Oh, yes. Obama is FORCING taxpayers to pay for exactly the insurance coerage HE is gong to "guarantee" to pporer peole--no more and no less. Again, that is insane. I KNOW that it is the Medicare system (actually a problem with the Medicare system, especiallly under someone like Obama), but htat does not mean we should ABOLISH FREEDOM for everyone. Even Medicare does not purport to DEMAND that health care providers honor it, or that PRIVATE insurance companies involuntariyly provide OBAMA APPROVED coerage in private health insurance politices. Nope. I stand by what I have said. this is the WORST, most UNAMBERICAN power grab in the history of this country. And it has little to do with "religious" freedom. As stated, why is MY conscience less subject to being outraged than that of Caholics? My knowledge of suppsed "Caholics" like Nancy Pelosi would indicate that MY principles are much stronger than many of theirs. No. This is jsut not about religion. It is, however, about FREEDOM.

I heard that some of those attorneys general who are suing to have the health care bill (ObamaCare) declared unconstitutional are planning another lawusit based on religious freedom. That is a MISTAKE--except as a subset of a larger attack based on FREDOM and limited government. Why is this OBAMA OWR GRAB not at least as unconsitutional as the "individual mandate"--probably more so? I see no reason to lmit a challenge to RELIGION. That would be counterproductive, unless the real "goal' here is to GET CATHOLIC VOTES (which I am afraid is the case) . I hope Santourm sees this. I have few hopes for Romney.

Rush Limbuahg, by the way, GOT IT RIGHT. Yes, I heard--as usual-- a portion of the Limbauhg radio program today. Limbaugh nailed it, as he often does (more than any other prominent conservative out there, despite my farily frequent criticisms of specific Limbaugh positions). Limbaugh said basically wht I say above: that the prolem here is FREEDOM and a POWR GRAB. He is right. I said some things above that Limbaugh did not say, but Limbaugh still pretty much nailed it. I hope Santurm is listening, along with others claiming to be GOP "conservatives'. Again, the idea that hisis all about RELIGION merely lays into the hands of Obama and the evil people of Planned Parenthood. It is not ture. It is a Big Lie. I would hope Cahtolic clergy would realize this, as well, although I have found TUNNEL VISDION to be the problem. Peole get so conerned about their own little empire, that they don't realize that the ONLY way they will ultimately keep THEIR freedom is to make sure that everyone else keeps his or her freedom. If Obama and the Feeral Government succeedin this power grab, the position of the Cahotlic Church will eventually be OVERWHLEMED. You already know that Obama WANTS to do that. And there are many people like Obama. Obama intends ObamaCare to fully cover aobriotn, in the end. Make no mistake about that. No, I don't see how any Catholic can vote for AnY leftist Democrat who faovrs abortion--especially in the FANATIC way that leftist Democrats usually do. But I am not a Caholic. So I will let them speak for themselves. No, I don't see how someone who FAVORS aborin is really a Caholic. A Caholic friend of mine says that, in the Caholic religion, abortion is a MORTAL SIN (presubably putting in danger your immortal soul). Again, however, I leave it to religious peole to explain how they can belive the things they say they believe, and still believe other things (like the leftist position on abortion) . As an agnostic, i don't pretned to be able to really "understand' religious peole--even though I am much more TOLERANT of them than any and all LEFTISTS I am aware of. As a gruly skeptical agnostic, I recognize the possiblity that my SKEPTICISM may be totally WRTONG. That was the position of the Rolman philosoher Lucian, and I donn't see how a ture agnostic (Bill Maher is NOT such a person) can have any oterh positoin.

Yes, I have a habit of digression. But the main pont of this article is virtually inarguable: The assertin of UNLIMITED POWER by Obama represents a threat to liberty such as this nation has never faced to this degree. And it has nothing to do with relgion, except as a lmited subset of the GREATER DESTRUCTIN OF FREEDOM involved here.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checknig (bad eyesight). By the way, this central palnning of what MUST be "free" ("there ain't no such thing as a free lunch") in ObamaCare will necessariy INCREASE YOUR COST FOR HEALTH INSURANCE (another lie of ObamaCare being that cost wil go down).

Obama, Banks, Housing and Economic Fascism: Liar-in-Chief

2012-02-10T05:03:00.000-08:00

Obama gave one of those oxymoronic speeches yesterday--announcing that "deal" arising out of economic fascism by which Obama again asserted his TTOAL CONTROL over the financial industry of this country, even as Obama (along with "Bailout Ben" Bernanke) CONTINUE to bail out those very same banks (and Wall Steet) with YOUR MONEY.

You should know the "deal" I am talking abut. Banks have "agreed" (at th epont of a gun) to "give" 25 billion dollars to unspecified peole to 'compensate" or what "they" did to people. To make it even clearer what he is doing, Obama is gong to appont anothe "czar" to TELL the banks exactly lwhat they MUST do. This, of course, has NO resemblance to free market capitalism, where these same banks would have been "held accountable" by LETTING THEM FAIL. Instead, Obama and leftists bailed them out, but at the "price" of a MAFIA DON. Obama regards these people to now be HIS CREATURES--bholden to HIM and "accountable" to HIM. Their money--the attitude of a mafia loan shark--is HIS money. Their business is HIS business. Make no mistake. This is NOT about "fixing" housing, or holding people "accountable" (such as the GOVERNMENT entities--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--MOST responsible fore the housing problems). It is all about OBAMA, and CONTROL by Obama of every aspect of the economy, and your lives, that he can control.

Oh. Economic fascism? Nope, that has little to do with Hitler, and nothing to do with Hitler's "final soluton". Economic fascism is this incredible idea that what we need is a PARTNERSHIP between Big Business and Big Government to CONTROL the eocnomy, and basically your lives. It has been defined this way: "socialism with a capitalist veneer." As this definition implies, this "partnership" is just like the "partnership" the mafia develops when it gets its hooks into a business (as the government has now done wiht so much of American buisness). The DOMINANT p"partner" is the government, no matter how much the "business" peole may think that they are "equal" partners. It would not matter, by the way, even if this were not true. If you think you are better off with Big Business and Big Government JOINLY contolling your lies with CENTRAL PALLING (a government of MEN, and not laws), then there is no way I can help you. You are beyond help. Yes, Obama controlling every aspect of life in this country is truly a disturbing thing. But it is no more disturbing than if he truly "joined' with Big Business, banks and Wall Street to do the same thing (as he is professing to do). GOP politicians, by the way, have pretty much provent thesmselves to be ECONMIC FASCISTS, almost to the same degree as Obama and leftist Democrats. I will put it as bluntly as I can; Mitt Romney is an economic fascist, as is ture of the MAJROITY of the GOP incumbents in Congress (INCLUDING most of the supposed "Tea Party" politicians).

Why "Liar-in-Chief"? It is because of the blatant way Obama LIES. In that speech, Obama started off by saying how Americans who bought/intended to buy "houses they could afford", and duly made their payments on time, were BETRAYED by banks. That is a bald-faced LIE. If peole had done that, we would have had no problem. Obama tried, deliberately, to give the impression that he was not intending to help people who deliberately bought houses they could NOT afford, or ended up not being able to afford (partly because of Obama and the government dragging on this disastrous economic slowdown so long). That is NOT TURE. This "program' is NOT inteneded to help those people who SACRIFICED to keep their pauments current, and to buy only houses they could afford. The program is inteneded as a BRIBE to those people who buoght houses they culd NOT afford, or ended up not being able to afford because of Obama's "food stamp economy" of economic fascism. How can Obama LIE like this with a straight face (acting like he would NEVER "bail out" people who did not deserve it)? Easy. He DOES NOT CARE. All he wants ois to SOUND GOOD. He does not expect to be called on it--least of all by either the media OR GOP politicians (COWARDS and fellow economic fascists).

What is this "program" really about? I TOLD you, above. It is about CONTGROL. But it is even more directly about Obama GETTIN HIS WAY, even when Congress wll only go so far. We know that the GOP, despite what they SAY, has not "cut" ONE THINK DIME from Federal spending. However, Obama cannot get Congress to actually continue to appropriate UNLIMITED aditonal money (however much they would like to do so, the people they represent would not stand for it). Thus, this latest SABOTAGE of the American economy can best be looked at as ANOTHER OBAMA STIMULUS PROGRAM. Obama can't get Congress to appropriate money, so what does he do? Like any good economic fasicist (or mafia don), Obama goes to his 'partners" and EXTORTS the money out of them--claiming POLITICAL "credit" for it.

Why is this a disaster for the American ecnomy Easy. It jsut guarantees that the housing "crisis" will LINGER on. This is what has happened wiht all of the other government attmepts to interfere to "solve' the housing crisis. Remember that 8,000 'tax credit"? Remember the previous Obama programs to BAIL OUT homeowners facing foreclosure (more, by the way, a bailout of BANKS)? ALL of those things made the problem worse, as MOST people who managed to take "advantage" of special programs DEFAULTED AGAIN. The market is distorted, and the problems are jsut dragged out. Any number of people, of course, hav ealready lost their house through foreclosure. There is going to be NO rhyme or reason as to WHO gets "bailed out' (other than we know that the BANKS are getting gailed out every single day). Where do you think this 25 BILLIOIN dollars comes from? No, you are more deluded than I hope you are if you believe it comes out of bankers' pockets. It comes from YOU. Either you pay more for a house. Or you can't get a loan for a house or a business, as banks have 25 billion dollars LESS to lend. Or the money is jsut BAILUT money (perhaps through the Federal Reserve) passing from YOU to the banks, an then back to selected "victims" (who may or may not get any gbenefit at all). In the process, of course, much money gets SIPHONED off by peole lie this new "czr", who have taxpayer money STICK TO THEIR FINGERS.

Nope. This is meant to be a BRIBE, pure and simpele, to BUY VOTES (while at the same time helping the "government class" and the leftist "community organizers" of this country).

You may not have even perceived one of the most obvious LIES from our Liar-in-Chief. He said that banks had "deprived" people of the "American dream" by putting so many peple in a foreclosure situation. Tis is a blatant LIE. No, I am NOT a "defender" of banks. For most of my adult life, I SUED banks as a plaintiffs' trial lawyer. I have as low an opinion of banks and bankers as any person living. However, waht CREATED the housing "bubble" was the attempt to provide the "American dream" (of a house) to EVERY person--whether such person could afford the houses or not . Waht would have happened if banks had acted responsibliy, depite the government presssure and incentives to make it possible fore EVEROYONE to buy a house? The people WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BUY THE HOUSES. How can you say that banks "deprived" people of the "American dream", when the entire problem is that they SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH THAT "DREAM' IN THE FIRST PLACE. In fact, I have never been too clear why peole who got houses they could not afford have been "damaged". Oh, I understand that they may have lost credit, and the opportunity to buy a house later on that they could afford. But, by the same token, they got to LIVE in a BETTER house than they could afford--when often they could not really afford any house at all--and DID NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR IT (certainly not totally, and often staing in the house without making mortgage payments for months at a time).

Let me tell you a dirty little secret. I am gong to tell you HOW the housing 'crisi" occurred, and this blog was telling you as early as 2006 (and as I told people on AOL blogs when I was still on my "dial up" connection). This is actually relevant TODAY, and not just because we need to know what happened. We are again in a SToKC MARKET BUBLE, as the economic fascists on Wall Street have totally bought into economic fascism, and believe that governments (and central bankers) around the world will BAIL EVERYBODY OUT with a magic wand every time trouble appears. There is actually NOTHIGN--no particular policy--more dangerous than this IDEA OF ECONOMIC FASCISM. The housing "crisis" occurred because of the hoousing BUBBLE, where EVERONE (banks, house buyers, and everyone else) assumed one thing: the price of houses will continue to go up, and we have a PARTNER in the government makng sure we can make money on a house.

Did banks really believe that people could really "pay back" all of these loans? Of course not. But this does NOT make them "predatroy". Look at what happens if the PRICE of the house continues to go up. NO ONE LOSES. Peole NEVER have to actually make the mortgage payments (for anylength of time, or when the "real" mortgage payment kicks in, as in "interest only" loans or the like). Rather, when the loan becomes "too burdensome" for the person "buying" the house, that person can jsut SELL the house. So long as housing prices keep going up, as EVERNE (except peple like me) assumed they would, then there is no problem. The loan gets "paid" out of the SALES PRICE of the house. Even if a person is so much a slacker as to abandon the house, the mortgage compnay does not lose much. The "value" of the house has gone UP. Atworst, the mortgage compny pretty much gets all of its money back-even in a "distress" sale.

Problem? This is why the people on Wall Street are The Stupidest People on Earth, as proven by the fact they have "learned" NOTHING. Markets do NOT go up FOREVER. And RISKS exist, as they obviously do in a stock market that is ignroing them right now. "Derivatives" came into existence on the assumption that house prices would continue to go UP forever--NOT the assumptioin that peple would be able to pay all of these loans IF tghe "value" of their house went DOWN. But that is what happens in a BUBBLE, as Ron Paul tells you. The bubble bursts. Prices go DOWN. If EVERONE--government, lenders and borrowers alike--is assuming that prices will go ever upward, then you get a "crisis'. The governent is actually trying to REPEAT the very same mistake, and you are deluded if you think the banks, and people on Wall Sttreet (Jim Cramer, this means YOU, you IDIOT), have l"learned" ANYTHING. Wll, I admit I am wrong. They THINK they hav "learned" ONE thing, which may DOOM us all. They think they have "learned" that they will be BAILED OUT. They still are demanding that with EUROPE.

Again, you see why I periodically end up on the floor in a fetal position, laughing/crying. We can't go down this road, and yet we are. The GOP is going down the same road, just not quite so fast. The DOOM is the same in the end. Never say that this blog does not make you fell better. I, personally, always fell much better after crying/laughing on the floor, in that fetal ositin, for 15 minutes or so.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). And no, I have no problem with INDIVIDUALS suing banks for any actual DAMAGE they suffered because banks did something wrong. That is NOT what this fascist EXTORTION is all about. you don't have people in court suing for damages. You have the GOVERNMENT asserting control over 25 billion dollars. The idea of INDIVIDUAL "accountability" is AMIERCAN. The idea of soem sort of "industry" "accountabliity"--making the insudtry part of the government--is UN-AMERICAN. The most American of all is the FREE MARKET method of holding "capitalists" accountable by letting them FAIL.

Celll Phones and Abortioin: Which is the Greater "Right"

2012-02-09T20:21:00.000-08:00

Hacker Boy (hackng into this disgraceful bog and still denying Si8p's assertoin that I am Piers Morgan, or some other agent of the parent company of the unfair and unbalanced netrwork who learned this sort of hacking in the U.K.): "Skip, you can't possibly be equating the Constitutional right to an abortion with cell phones. You are becoming more unhinged every day."

Skip: "I can always depend on Hacker Boy to miss the point It is not ME who has become unhinged, but the government of our country. Back to the article, to explain this to Hacker Boy (and the rest of you).

I just learned todaythat the Obama Administratonion is giving FREE CELL PHONES to people who qualify for food stamps (itself an incredible number, fully justifying Gingrich's characterization of Obama as the "food stamp Presdient"). No, it is nott just that you can get a free phone courtesy of the government (which my brother tells me are known as "Obama phones"--my brother being previoiusly aware of this, while I was not), but your monthly ACCOUNT is PAID by the government (up to a certain amount of "free" minutes, sort of like an ordianry cell phone account that some of you actualy PAY FOR (fools that you are, when the government will take carfe of you--see Ayn Rand and "Atlas Shrugged", who predicted it all more than 50 years ago). Why did this subject make news today? Well, it came out that the government is not only providing FREE cell phone service to people, but is providing a REFERRAL REWARD for referring people to get one of these Obama phones, and set up one of these GOVERNMENT accounts (the reward being something like 100 additonal free minutes). No one cold make this stuff up. The government is paying a REWARD for people to sign up to TAKE TAXPAYER MONEY.

I don't have a cell phone. I have never had a cell phone. You heard me. I tend to think we would be better off without them. I have never felt the urge to have one. Oh, I understand how they can be useful, even if I wonder how when I cn NEVER seem to finish a consersation with someone who has one. If I were still a practicing attorney, as I was for more than 30 years in Texas, I would probably be virtually forced to have one (although I successfully avoidedit in the last years of my practice). Still, I am living proof that you don't HAVE to have a cell phone. I don't remember that we gave FREE PHONE SERVICE (regular phone service) to people in the past (or even now?). We, as a country, have simply gone certifiably insane.

No, I am sorry. You do NOT have a "right' to have ME (who does not even own a cell phone, or use one in my daily life) help pay for YOUR cell phone service. Again, we have gone NUTS. This, alone, should get Obama DEFEATED . However, are we going to here ROMNEY bring this upo as an ABSURD program? Any bets? Maybe he HAS brought it up. If so, I invite someone to comment and give the facts. Waht about Santorum (who I endorse, while refusing to vote for Romney againstgainst anybody)? Santorum REALLY needs to start USING examples like this. This "program" evidently is costing something like 1.6 BILLIN dollars a year, and they are obvisuly pushing to EXPAND the program (with INCENTIVES, yet, to REFER peole to take taxpayer money--I still can't even believe it).

The headline is actually someting of a trick. Did you know that there is NO "right' to abortion in this country? No, I am not kidding, or giving you an opinion. This is a FACT. Now Planned Parenthood, and most of the left, will try to give you the idea that there is such a "right" in this country declared byt he Surpeme Court. That is NOT TRUE. By the way, there is a BETTER case for taking my money togive peole free cell phone service than there is for taking my money to provide people with what I regard as INFANTICIDE service. However, it is NOT TRUE that the Surpeme Court decided that women have a "right" to an abortion--notwithstanding the LIES of Palnned Parenthood (by far the most dishonest, non-criminal organization to ever exist in this country, and my tax money IS being used to SUPPORT that orgainzation, without the GOP being willing to do anything about it--another reason I have LEFT the GOP FOREVER).

Hacker Boy (ignoring Skip's insulting dismissal and condescension): "Skip, you may have heard of Roe v. Wade, since you claim to have been an attorney who graduated from the Unitversity of Texas Law Scholl with high honors."

Skip: "Hacker Boy is just like the team that was there to lose to the Harlem Globetrotters--always defeated. Roe v. Wade did NOT provide for a Constitutinal "right' to an abortion, desite the LIES of the left."

What (returning to the article) Roe v. Wade did was say that the government could not "invade privacy" to RESTRICT abortion in ways that the legislators of the Supreme Court did not like. The Supreme Court, by the way, has pretty much ABANDONED the "privacy" rationale of Roe v. Wade, while still keeping the holding. Thus, the Supreme Court held--wrongly--that the government (state governments in the case of aboriton) can "invade lpricacy" by PROHIBITING fishermaen from killing dolphin, but cannot declare abortion a form of infanticide. Absurd. But a far cry from a "right" to abortion. Nope. This is a FACT: Abortion is NOT a "constitutional right", even under the present decisions of the Supreme Court. Rather, the state is simply not allowed to "invade a private decison of the "mother" (whose womb becomes a death trap for the life within her). The state is perfectly free to CNDEMN abortion (like in a resolution), or PROMOTE alternatives to abortion The state is perfectly free, as is the Federal Government, to REFUSE to pay for aboritons. The state simply cannot unduly RESTRICT the supposed "private decision" of the "mother". No one has ever explained why the state can restrict the "PRIVATE DECISION of both parents not to commit infanticide after birth. Still, the point remains. This is NOT a Constitutional "right" to an abortion, and leftists LIE (not an opinion, ubt a fact) every time they represent otherwise. The Supreme Court has NEVER held that women have a "right' to an abortioni. The Supreme Court has simply held that the state cannot invade the "private decision" of the mothe. Now I would say that the Supreme Court could use the SAME rationale to STRIKE DOWN OBAMACARE, since why is it not a private decision" whehter to purchase health care insurance, or WHAT kind of health care insurance you want to purchase. However, the analogy is flawed, since the laws PROHIBITING abortion date back to the founding of this country, while the idea that the government can FORCE you to buy health insurance--health insurance of a SPECIFIC TYPE--is totally new to this country and to the idea of a Constitutionally limited Federal Government. in other words, the case against Obamacare is MUCH BETTER than the case against abortion laws (a totally manufactured case which never had ANY justification in the Constitution itself). The Supreme Court decison on abortion and ObamaCare are BOTH cases of FEDERAL OVERREACING, in violatin of the Constitution. Yep. The Supreme Court IS part of the Federal Government.

I don't want the "subplots" to get in the way of the central plt here: There is NO "right" to abortion in this country, and the Supreme Court has never held otherwise. There evidenty is, however--according to the Obama Administration--a "right" to cell phone service.

Who knew we now lived in this kind of country. You can see, I hope, why I keep ending up in a fetal position on the floor--laughing and/or crying (you can't tel which) hysterically. It also explains why I get depressed. HOW can we possibly "cut" spending, the deficit or debt if we (read the GOP here) cannot even "cut' things like "free" cell phone service. What a country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (And, in this particular instance, I do NOT mean this in a good way.)

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

Unemployment and the Media: The Lies Continue

2012-02-09T07:16:00.000-08:00

"U./S. Jobless Claims Drop 15,000, to 358,00"

Yes, the above is the LIE that passes for a headline (and story) in today's media: a media totally uninterested in actual informatioin in favor of the HYPE and LIES that now represent their stock ain trade.

Here is a more CORRECT headline and story: ""Labor Department Revises Previous Week's New Unemployment Calims to 373,000 from 357,0000--Continuing Trendless Meandering of This Number." And the LEAD pararph could begin: "Last week's intitial estimate of new unemoployment claims proved to be too optimistic, as the actual number of 373,000 was right in line with previuos weeks, shwoing that the weekly number of new unempllyment claims has pretty much stalled. We will have to see whehter this week's initial llestimate of 358,0000 will hold lup. That is a drop of 9,000 from the initial estimate last week. That is not a significant drop, and not really out of line with recent numbers (assuming today's number is revised to 360,000 or above). However, it the number could continue a more steady decline, instead of bouncing around an average of about 375,000, it might indicate an improving labor market. This number is seasonally adjusted. The non-seasonally adjusted number for the previous week was (media has not bothered to report this information0), which compares wiht a number of (again no media report) for last year."

No. Again, this is not a matter of opinion. The media headline is a LIE. On an apples-to-apples basis, the number did NOT drop 15,000. It dropped 9,000. Further, the 6,000 upward revison of last week's initially reported number shows the LIE in the way the media reports this weekl;y number as an exact number. It is a LIE that there is a present "improving" TREND. As this blog has shown, over the past few ONTHS this weeklyu number has STALLED (at a time when weather alone could explain the SLIGHT "improvement" from the same time last year). The statement that the number of new unemployment claims last wek was 358,000 is a LIE--an outright lie. That is this week's ESTIMATE, based on a FALLIBE "seasonal adjustment", and to be REVISED next week. That revision AVERAGES about 4,000 UPWARD, and was 6,000 UPWARD this week (from the initial report for last week).

Notice how the constant UPWARD revision ALWAYS makes this week's HEADLINE look "better" than it actually should be. The media is ALWAYS comparfing this week's initially reported number with last week's rEVISED numer. That is a LIE. Further, it is a LIE that mainly works just one way, since the REVISED number from last week is almost always HIGHER than the UNREVISED number initially reported, and this week's number is almost always LOWER than the REVISED number to be reported next week.

The media should be ashamed, except the truly contempticble, incompetent people have no shame.

Oh, is the initial estimate of new unemployment claims "reported" (estimated) this morning BAD news? Of course not. It is hardly great news, and it does NOT show an 'improving trend". It is,m in fact, pretty much in line with the weekly numbers that have been reported for more than two months--well within the expected marging of error. However, the numbers for the past few months, while not shwoing a real "improving trend", do tend to show a labor market that is NOT GETTING WORSE. In that sense, today's initial estimate is "good" news. Over the next few weeks, NO numbers reported could really show a deteriorating trend. Sure, I would expect the number (estimate) reported next week to go UP toward the recent average of 375,0000 or so. But even if it jumped toward 400,000 (posssible), it would not MEAN much. (other than to expose the media LIES once again). However, if the number were to DROP below 350,000, and STAY there a few weeks in a row, it would at least be a "sign" of an "improving" labor market. Todya's number does NOT represent such a "sign". It jsut sets it up so that we would have to see WEEKS of truly BAD numbers before we could be sure that the labor market is "deteriorating" (more likely, that the present numbers are a SEASONAL ILLUSIOIN, based on "seasonal adjustments" that are not reflecting the real, present seasonal pattern of the U.S. economy). This eweky numberf (estimate) of new unemployment claims began to DETERIORATE, from pretty close to this level, in late February of last year. The quesitn is whether history will repeat, or whether our labor market really is (slowly) "improving". We will see.

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

Romney Will Lose to Obama

2012-02-08T22:16:00.002-08:00

Okay, the headline is misleading, even though I will NOT support Mitt Romneh against Barack Obama (not, of course, being able to support Obama either). Here is the correct headline: "Romney will loe to Obama IF he is able to win against Santorum (and Gingrich) with VICIOUS, NEGATIVE ATTACKS.

Yes, you can say that Romney has "taken out" Gingrich by going "totaly negative", and actually taking on Gingrich HIMSELF (instead of jsut though negative ads he can disingenuously disown). However, Romney PAID A PRICE for those negqative attacks. He never has "connected" with people, and now he is coming acorss as affirmatively NOT LIKABLE. What Romney FAILED to do was SELL himself as the person to actually take on Barack Obama with IDEAS.

In a way, Romney has "gotten away with it" with Gingrich--because Gingrich really has so very much baggage. But for Romney to ATTACK Santorum as a "Washington insider" (which he may be), being challenged by an OUTSIDER (Romney) is ABSURD. It makes Romney LOOK ABSURD and DISHONEST (which he is) . Romeny, as the blog has stated, is the POSTER CHILD for the GOP "estalbishment". For God's sake, Romney has been endorsed by JOHN MCCAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I never undrestood how OBAMA culd get away with this "outsider" business, when Obama had been PART OF WASHINGTON (Seante) when the economy collapsed under a DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY IN CONGRESS. But Romney does not have the advantage of a totally sycophantic media, like Romney just can't get away with DESTROYING SANTORUM. Oh, I don't know whether he can do it or not, with almost total support of the entire GOP estalbihhment. But if Romny DOES do it THIS WAY (toatlly negative), he WILL LOSE TO OBAMA. I ahve no real doubt about that (my only "doubt" being whether Obama might be in som much trouble by Novemember (meaning teh country will be) that ANYONE could defeat Obama--inclulding Ron Paul.

No. Ropmney cannot do it with me. That ship has sailed. However, there are people not as unforgiving as me. Romney COULD convince those people that he is the man to BEAT Obama, IF he shows that he can really come acorss as an impressively PRESIDENTIAL man who UNDERSTANDS the conservative principles he mouths. Right now Roney seems to have ONLY two messages: 1. Look at how BAD the other guys are. 2. I am the "inevitagbgle" candidate who can beat Obama BECAUSE independents are not SCARED of me. Why are "independents" not "scared" of Roney? That is because they KNOW that Romeny has few real principles, and is not really going to "push" a conservative agenda. Romney, as the GOP establishment always does, is merely asserting he can MANAGE th egovernment better than Democrats--without realy "rockng the boat".

Not good enough. I don't think it is good enough even if Romney does nto come across as an UNPRINCIPLED BULLY. If Romey does come across as an UNPRINCIPLED BULLY, however, he cannot betat Obama. (unless ANYONE could beat Obama). No, it does not matter if Rommney somehow SUCCEEDS in BULYING Santorum into defeat. I actually think that could LOSE Romney the nomination, even if it did work with Gingrich. But even if it WINS Romney the nomination, it will probably be the most obvious Pyrrhic (sp.?) victory of all time. In fact, Romney may get poor King Pyrrhus off of the hook ("any more vicotries like this and we are surely lost"). Forever after, a person who destorys HIMSELF winning a short-term "vicotry" will be referred to as a "Romney".

Yes, even Santorum has to watch these "attacks' on Romney as "just like Obama". In a lot of ways, I AGREE with that attack, but Santorum's problem is to actually SELL himself as a CREDIBLE candidate against Obama. Taht means shwong how he will ARGUE AGASINT OBAMA (not Romney). Sure, Santorum needs to keep pointing out that he can CONTRAST himmself with Obama, while Romney has to keep explaining why he has AGREED with Obama on so many things (including the very language of the "middle class" who neeed to be "helped" more than the "rich" and the "poor"). No, I don't think Romney can do it without pretty much compromising himself as a general election candidate. Romney may win. But it will probably be a victory not wroth winning (again, always recognizing that the country MAY be in really BAD shape so that ANYONE can defeat Obama--in which case we dont' need Romney).

When I refer to "we" above, I do NOT mean that I consider myself as part of the GOP (Grand, Outdated Party). By "we", I mean conservatives, even if many conservatives may notconsider me as one of "them" (certainly true of the GOP estalbishment type of "conservative"). I have left the GOP in my ear view mirror (even if I don't drive nayomore) FOREVER (at least barring the "second coming" of Rnald Reagan). Nope., I am one of those INDEPENDENTS the media keeps LYIG aobut (as if there IS usch a recognizable group). You may remember how well Ron Paul is doing with "independents". I am that very type of "independent", even though I can't bring myself to support Paul for the nomination. There are too many thingas about Paul that bother me, including an "isolationism" DISCREDITED at Pearl Harbor. Still, I prefer Paul to Romney or Obama, and would vote for him (if he, by some miracle, won the nomination) as a person who would at least SHAKE TINGS UP in a way that would put the emphasis back on what this country was originally all about.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). The articles tonight represent my analysis of where we are in teh GOP nomination race--including the BOX I think Mitt Romney is in (including the BOX of his OWN THINKING, where he seems to kn ow no other way to react to defeat except to SAVAGE his opponent: to BULLY his opponent as he did to Newt Gingrich and is giving every indication of intending to do wth Rick Santorum.). If you have no real princiiples, I guess that is the only way you CAN react if ou don't have the rhetorical skills of Brack Obama (also wearing thin, I think).

Rick Santorum: Blog Gets it Right (Before Limbaugh, as Usual)

2012-02-08T21:13:00.002-08:00

Only if you have no life, and have read this blog for four years, do ou know that I BLAME Rush Blimabugh for the disaster of John McCain in 2008. In 2008, this blog endoresed Mitt Romney as the OHNLY realistic candidate to stop John McCain, and this blog did so in DECEMBER of 2007, BEFORE the Iowa caucuses and at a time when McCain would still be stopped. Limbuagh would not come out for Romney until after New Hampshire, and it ws TOO LATE. Make no mistake about it, and I have heard Limbaugh deny it (his major DIHONESTY being this habit of being way too "cute" about what he has done in the past and why), but Limbaugh LOST in 2008. In the process, he betrayed conservati es, and I siad so IN FORESIGHT (before Iowa). Notw Limbaugh (too cute, again) will tell youy that he can't really determine who will be elected, and I agree with that. Limbaugh, unfornately, cannot make up for lack of a conservative POLITICAL leader (which we don't have--and I include Santorum in that assessment). But that misses the point, and Limbaugh (deliberately) misees the pint. If Limbaugh is going to set himself up as a vocie for conservatives, as he does, then he has an OBLIGATION to fgiure out what is goign on IN TIME, and let his audience know what conservatives should be considering in tringt o advance their cause in the unreliable GOP. No, it is not just ME that says the GOP is unreliable. LIMBAUGH (again copyig me LATE, and without really following through on what it means) is saying things just as harsh agaisnt the GOP estalbishment--including the "conservative" estabilshment--as anything this blog is saying. The difference is that this blog tells you that you cannot let the GOP establishment get away with it. Limbaugh, in contrast, is a PARTISAN first, which means lthat he NEVER ultimately holds the GOP establishment to account for what they do (even while telling his audience what they are doing). McCain is a prefect example. Not only was Limbaugh LATE in coming out firmly for Romney as the only real 'conservative" alternative to stop McCain, even though we all knew Romney was not really a conservative, but Limbaugh SUPPORTED McCain in the general election. This blog continues to maintain that conservatives would be WORSE off if McCain had been electged, and that the country would be NO BETTER OFF. It was this blog, by the way, that FIRST suggested that the way to STOP OBAMA in the DEMOCRATIC primary wsa for conservatives to vote FOR Hillary Clinton (as the blog author did in Texas). Limbuagh would eventually come around to this "strategy"--without giving this blog credit (lol)--although Limbuahg never went as far as this blog (where I promised to vote FOR Hillary Clinton in the general election against McCain--having said that the obvious strategly for the GOP was to vote FOR HILLARY CLINTON, but that I was not interested in a GOP win for John McCain).

Yep. this blog endorsed Romney in 2008, despite RomneyCare (which never bothered me that much). That was because Romney is right that RomneyCare was a STATE plan--bad as I think it is. In 2008, Romney SOUNDED conservatvive, against the hopless McCain. No, and this blog said so, I never quitre believed Romney, but I had hopes he would STAY BOUGHT (and understoodd the principles he said he had adopted). Every day since 2008 has proven to me that I was wrong about Romney. Foool me oncdee cahme on you. SHAME ON YOU, MITT ROMNEY. Fool me twice, shame on me. Mitt Romney will not fool me twice. From bailouts to debt to "global warming", Romney has been a disaster since 2008. See the previous article on the fraudulent payroll t"tax cut". Thus, this blog endorsed Rick Santorum as the CONSERVATIVE ALTERNATIVE to John McCain clone Mitt Romney, and did so before Rush Limbaugh yet again. No, Limbaugh has not "endorsed" Santorum, but Limbuah--for two weeks or so now, which is about 3 weeks after this blog said thse same thing--has been sahying that Santorum is the only "solid conservative" left in the race. Limbaugh has correctly said that Santorum's record over decades has been SOLIDLY CONSERVATIVE, with many fewer BETRAYALS than Romney or Gingrich (Ron Paul always being Ron Paul). That is why this blog corretly stated, at the time of the Iowa caucuses 9before the actual caucus) that Santourm was the ONLY credible conservative left in the race (Ron Paul being more libertariian and isolationist than a conservative of my ltype, although I have libertarian leanings, and would still vote for Pual agaisnt Obama, while I will not do that for Romney). In 2008, I actually sent my articles to Limbuah--incuding the accusatin that he was BETRAYING conservatives. I did not bother to do that this time. Stil, history has repreated, with Limbaugh jumping on this blog's bandwagon eventually, just like in 2008. Again, as in 2008, this bolg has been PROVEN RIGHT. Tuesday's Santorum "seep" shows that Santorum is, indeed, the only CREDIBLE conservative alternative to Romney. No, Santorum is by no means perfect. But he IS solidly conservative, even if not consistently "inspiring" and persuasive. I have no prolbem voting for Santourm, even if I don't consider him a Reagan-type savior. But there has been only ONE Reagan in my lifetime--and I am now 64 years old. Even Goldwater--my nitial conservative hero--was never the kind of conservative leader that Reagan was. Contrary to what readers of this blog might often think, I do NOT insist on "perfection". What I inisist upon is PRINCIPLE. LYou can be wrong and not lose my support. You can't be wrong on the BIG things, and then act like ou have no clue as to what princiiples we are even talkng aobut (even as yhou mouth the words that you think will FOOL people into voting for you as a "conservative"). Thus, I can vote for Santorum, even though he was wrong on earmarks and even though I don't like his "gimmick" BRIBE for "manufacuring". He is at least right on the payroll "tax cut" BRIBE, and really has been solidly conservative his whole public career.

No, this blog was NOT clairvoyant enough to PRFEDICT the 3 state seweep of Santorum. This blog has made lpredictions as prescient as that in the past, but not this time. Again, however, this blog was proven right that Santorum is truely the only conservative alternative to a totally unprincipled Mitt Romney (except in his personal life, where he really seems to have a spotless life). The reason that this blog did not endorse Santorum even sooner was that he simply could not seem to CATCH FIRE. That is why I don't blame Limbuah so much this time as in 2008 Realy,k Santorum could never quite seem to get any kind of tractino (depite the showing in Iowa). This blog still endorsed him, since it was obvius he was the only conservative with any kind of credibility left int hte race. But even after Santorum WON the two debatges in Florida, and seemed to be getting much bvetter at delibering his message, he still seemed to gain little traction. No, it was NOT a "surprise" taht Santorum won ONE of the three contests on Tuesday. He especially seemed set up for Missouir, as Gingrich was not even on the (non-binding) ballot. Still, this blog simply could nto see Santorum SWEEPING all three states, after the debacles in Florida, Nevada, and even South Carolina. It looked like the GOP establishment had WON, which actually depressed me. Romney was NOT winning with conservative ideas. He was winning with MONEy and ATTQACKS. Rick Santorum got it right in his speech on Tuesday night. Romney will NOT have the advantage of money and an opponent unable to respond to attacks in November. If Romney does not have more than that, he will LOSE in November. Simply referrng to himself as a "businessman" is not gong to do it either, even if it is a desirable thing to be considered in his vaovr. Romney DOES know how the private sector "works'. But so does WARREN BUFFETT (big Obama supporter), and a lot of other Wall Street leftists. I have come to believe that Romney has more in common with THEM than he does with any principled conservative.

Thus, this blog--having picked the only credible conservative left in the race--continues to endorse Rick Santorum. A solid conservative record, and conservative principles in which he appears to reall believe--as shown by DECADES of only occasioinally "straing" (as with "No Child Left" Behind" and--I think--the Medicare Drug Benefit Program. Those, ou will remember, were BUSH iniatives--very hard for a GOP lawmaker to actively oppose. As I said, sSabntorum is hardly perfect. But perfecton is not what I require. Wht I require is at least some indication of HONESTY (on principles) in actually BELIEIVING in SOME of the things I believe in (includig the main principles). Romeny simply does not qualify. Santorum does, even if not as the inspiring conservative leader I would like to see.

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

Mitt Romney: Dishonest Establishment Politician

2012-02-08T17:51:00.002-08:00

Did you know that Mitt Romney (as well as Newt Gingrich) favors that disgraceful, fraudulent payroll "tax cut" (undermining the very CONCEPT of a self-funding Social Security system where people supposedly have a stake in their own retirement, even if Rick Perry is right that your Social Security taxes do NOT go to your OWN retirement, but to pay forCURRENT recipients of Social Seucrity payments)? Rick Santorum has OPPOSED this payroll "tax cut". Why does that make Mitt Romney one of the most DISHONEST polilticians (not personally dishonest, but in terms of what he says) who has ever lived?

It is because one of the NEGATIVE ATTACKS that Romney makes on Santorum is that Santroum voted a number of times for raising the debt ceiling. As readers of this blog know, this is actually one of my main beefs with DISHONEST TEA PARTY POLITICIANS, as well as with mitt Romney and the entire GOP establishlment. This NETATIVE ATTACK by Romney is essentially a LIE. Why is it a lie, when Romney was never in Congress to vote on extending the debt ceiling? It is a LIE because raising the debt ceiling is a SYPTOM, and not a CUSE. The GOP controls the House. The House of Representatives, supposedly controlled byt he "Tea Party" (I hope not, as far as my opinion of that movement is concerned) MUJST approve EVERY DIME spent by the Federal Government. Why does the debt ceiling HAVE to be reaised? Right. If we vote to SPEND the money, we MUST raise the debt ceiling. No, one the GOP in the House mae an ISSUE out of "raising the debt ceiling", I wwould have NOT voted tho reaise the debt ceiling without MAJOR spending cuts. But the gOP cut NOTHING (I mean ZEROP) from spending for WITHER 2011 or 2012--NOT ONE THIN DIME. In fact, they voted to INCREASE spending. What does that have to do with extending the payroll "tax cut", where the votge in the Seante (for this really fraudulent two month extension) was 89-10 in the Senate and passed by what amounts to a UNANIMOUS vote in the House (in that any SERIOUS OBJECTION by ONE House GOP member would have required that the House be reconvened for a vote)?

Remember, again, that Romney SUPPORTS the full year extenson of the payroll "tax cut". That payroll "tqax cut" (along with the accompanying extensoin of the 99 weeks of unemplyment, whre we pay peple not to work) was originally started in 2010 in one of those "Christmas deals" by the GOP. Romney was not objecting to that "compromise", and now affirmatively faovrs extending this DEBT CEILING RAISING BILL. You heard what I said. This one bill, over two years (Romney faovfring extgending ti for the full additoinal year) will ADD 300 BILLION DOLLARS to the amount lthat the debt ceiling MUST BE RAISED. What if we don't/didn't raise the debt ceiling? .............................................................................................................Sorry, I was on the floor laughing/crying again. IF the GOP had the COURAGE...............sorry laughing on the floor again.......to ataully refuse to raise the debt ceiling, it would be IMMEDIATELY cutting more than ONE TRILLION DOLLARS from our spending (including stopping BRIBES like that fraudulent payroll "tax cut'). Ron Paul has propsed CUTTING ONE TRILLION DOLLARS from our spendin gin ONE YEAR. Romney has not. That is because Romney is DISHONEST. IF Romney were in Congress, \where he WANTED to be, Romney would have voted for the same debt ceiling increases tlhat Santroum votred for. At least Santorum has the COURAGE to OPPOSE adding 300 BILLIN DOLLARS tro the debt (required raise in the debt celing). Romney has favored it, and has proposed (jsut like the GOP in Congress, where Santorum is NOT these days, but where Romney supporters like McCain ARE) NO serious "cuts" in spending or our defict. Oh, just like the GOP members of Congress, Romney SAYS he wants a balanced budget, but he has NO proposal for actually bringing it about, nor any "criticism" of the FAILURE of the GOP in Congress to cut ONE DIME from our defict.

No. I am sorry. Mitt Romney is one of the most dishonest politicians who has ever lived. You simply can't "criticize" Rick Santorum for voting for debt ceiling increases, when the GOP has shown that is a DISHONEST FRAUD (to act like you really are gonig to do somethinbg about the debt ciling incrases, when yuou don't CUT SPENDING or stop budget busting measures like this payroll "atax cut' bill.

YHou say that Rick Santorum has no real record of stopping spending or controlling the deficit? I agree with you. That is my main criticism of Santorum: ;he is too much of a standard GOP politician. But Romney is the POSTER CHILD for establishment GOP politicians. I can support Santorum, as a solid conservative who has at least fought SOME of the right batles. Romney has shonw NO inclination to fight ANY real battles. For Romney to make it an "issue" that Santorum is a "standard GOP politician" is BEyOND HYPOCRISY. It makes Romney, as stated, one of the most dishoenst politicians who has ever lived.

I continue to endorse Snatorum, despite my eyes being open as far as how "radical" he really will be in taking on our deficit and debt. I cannot support Mitt Romney--against Obama or anybody else--even though I supported him against McCain in 2008. That is because Romney has become MORE DISHOENST since 2008. The man hardly can say a word without it being like scraping chalk across a blakboard for a conservative.

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

Unemployment and Employment: Lies and the Media

2012-02-08T07:09:00.000-08:00

What happened with last Friday's employment data for January? Was it not "freat" "news". No, it was not. Oh, it was not BAD "news", unless you correctly consider that the overall news shows no real IMPROVEMENT in the employment situation. But what the report really did was again PROVE that this blog is right about the fundamental LIE in the way these reports are reported by an INCOMPETNET media all about agenda.

What is that fundamental LIE? This blog has told you over and over again. The LIE is that these are CONCRETE, EXACT NUMBERS. This is not a matter of opinion. This is a BLATANT LIE. Thu7s, the "gain" in employment for the PREVIOUS two months was "adjusted" upward by 60,000. Further, the total number for 2011 was "adjusted" upwad by six figures. These monthly employment numbers are a SUBJECTIEV ESTIMATE. The unemploymnet RATE is based on a SURVEY of households (a POLL). I don't know what Gallup is showing, but in some previous months Gallup was showing an unemployment rate (their own poll) of more than 10%, while the government figure was 9%. These constant "adjustments" to previous figures show that the "margin of error" in these monthly figures is huge: MORE than ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND as to the monthly employment number. Yet, the media REPORTS these numbers as if they represent a real COUNT. The employment "gain" or "loss" is based on another SURVEY of empoyers. It is obvious that this is not a "count", when you realize that there is no REPORT filed in this country (for now, until freedom is totally submerged in government requirements) whenever a person is hired. Thus, the ADP (private payroll processing firm) showed a gain of 170,000 in private jobs for January. The government showed 250,000. As I said, the numbers themselves show a margin of error every month of at least 100,000. It gets WORSE.

What happened last January, and again this January (evidently even more obviously for this January)? The government CHANGES ITS METHODOLOGY in making this ESTIMATE it makes every month. The Fox business network (really part of the "unfair and unbalanced network"--probably meaning I should NOT use the "Fox" name BANNED from this blog) reported that the government itself--the people who put out these numbers--said that you cold not really "comparte" December and January, because of the substantial change in methodology, including SUBSTANTIAL "adjustments" made because of Cnesus data. Say what? About the ONLY "use" these numbers have is a COMPARISON, since the individual numbers are nothing but an ESTIMATE (undermining the comparison as well, but making a mockery of the idea that the numbers for ach month are some sort of "holy writ" that give you an exact idea of the unemployment rate and number of people employed).

So did the unfair and unbalanced network concude that the numbers for January MEANT NOTHING--at least until you could see how the numbers proceed this year under the new "methodology'? Not on your life. These are INCOMPETENT people with an AGENDA. No, I am not saying that the agenda here, with this network,is to support Obama (although it IS to support the ESTABLISHMENT). Rather, as Michael Crichton devastatingly showed in his "fictional" novel, "Airframe", what you can say for certain is that the agenda has NOTHING to do with real INFORMATION. Topday's media is NOT INTERESTED in INFORMATION. Yep. The person on the unfair and unbalanced network SAID EXACTLY THAT (if not qite in those words).

What the unfair and unbalanced network told you was that the details of these numbers, and what they really mean, is going INTO THE WEEDS (one of the faovrite terms on the unfair and unbalanced network, to attempt to exucse their INCOMEPETENCE and total disinterest in real information)--which no modern "journalist" wants to do for fear of lBORING you DOLTS out there who just want the media to give you HYPE. Do you reciprocate this total CONTEMPT, in terms of your oopinioni of modern "journalists'? I do. In fact, my CONTEMPT of them is ten times their contempt of me. Thuys, the guy on the unfair and unbalanced network said that" "It is up to economists and the like to figure out these numbers.".............................................................................................................................Sorry, I was on the floor laughing/crying again. It is why there was a lag in new articles in this blgo. It really is getting to be too much for me. The dishonesty and incompetence is simply beyond belief.

The "business anchor" on the unfair and unbalanced network even "denied" that these numbers are "MANIPULATED". First, that is a LIE. The numbers ARE "manipulated". that is a FACT. The only question is whether they are MANIPULATED for the DELIBERATE purpose of DISTORTING the "news" to help the present adimnistration. You are hardly being a real "journalist" if yo DISMISS this possibility out of hand. No, as I have often said, I don't believe in "conspiracy thwories". Thuys, I do NOT beliveve that the Obama Administraitn has ORDERED that this data be "fudged". But these numbers are so SUBJECTIVE--especailly the monthly numbers based on SURVEYS--that the POSSIBITY exists that the people coming up with these numbers are pushing their own agenda (even, perhaps, unconsciously).

That is the reason I prefer the weekly "report' of new unemoplyment calims. As this blog has reported for YEARSD, the media LIES about the weekly reort, and the "significance" of each weekly number. The "seasonal adjustment" leads to an enormous "margin of error" in EACH weekly number. However, there is a CUNT involved here (unlike with the unemoplyment rate and the number of people employed, except to the extent you can use SOCIAL SEUCRITY reports to make such a "count"). As this blog has stated, the media SHOULD report the CONT of new unemplylment claims every week, and compare that with the previous year, or even multipl,e years, to see whether there is any 'year-oer-year" mprovement. At the very least, the "raw" count MUST be reported, along with the "seasonally adjusted number, to give an idea of the ture margin of error here, and to allow people to see the actual INFORMATION. But look at what you can do with the unemplyment claims. You can COMPARE the FULL YEAR counts. There can be NO "seasonal' adjustment" here!!!!!!!!!! The number of people on unemployment is a CONT (mainly), as is the total number of new claims in a year. The number of people on unemllyent changes as people "dorp off" the list, when their benefits run out. But the TOTAL number of new claims can be "calculated" by simply ADDING the weekly count. If you add the non-seasonally adjusted new claims for the entire year, then you SHOULD come up with the SAME number as adding the "seasonally sdjusted" claims. I suspet you don't, but I leave it as an exercise for peole who can see better than I to figure that out from Lbaor Department records. Still, the weekly number of new unempllyment claims, OVER TIME, can be CHECKED as to the "accuracy" of the weekly "adjustments'. That makes these numbers LESS subject to "manipulation" than the monthlly numbres on emplyment, or even the YEARLY numbers. The yearly numbers on emlplyment have been "adjusted" as much as 900,000 LATER (not currently, but in other years). As this blog has told you, these numbers are WRITTEN ON WATER.

What does the weeky unemplyment claims data, as well as the GDP data, tell you over the last YEAR? Someone else will have to tell me--someone who can naviage the webiste-what the media SHOULD tell me and youy: how the YEARLY new unemplyment calims (no "seasonal adjustment" necessary or possible) compare for 20111 and 2010. But the REORTED (in the media) data shows NO IMPROVEMENT in all of 2011. That is , the weekly number dropped to 375,000 in February of 2011, and the four-week AVERAGE dropped below 400,0000. That is about where we are now. Oh, there ha been some SLUGHT 'year-over-yer" "improvement", but that SIGHT improvement could be TOTALLY explained--more than explained, realy--by WEATHER affecting winter constuction (wich affects weekly unemplyment claims, but NOT the real emplyment situatin, except maybe slightly). The weeky new unemlyment claims ROSE in the late sring and summer of 20111 to well OVER 40,000, which is supposed ot INCREASE the unemplyment rate and show a DTERIORATING emplyment sit;uation. There was some SLUIGHT increase in the unemplyment RATE, but the "number of juobs" reported monthly was INCONSISTENT with the other data. That includes the GDP data, showing a SLOWDOWN in the first sixx months of last year (still prettymuch continuing). Thuys, the MONTHLY emplyment data has to be somewhat SUSPECT. The "underemployment" rate is stil a sky high 15.2%--"down" hardly at all from the December 15.3%.

What is "funny" is that this is NOT HELPING Obama (any "manipulation"--intentionally or simply as a sresult of te continued tinkering and "massaging" of thes numbers). The INCOMPETENT media act like the 2012 election is being held TOMORROW. That, of course, is NOT TURE. It does not matter whether these "adjusted" numbers for January are accurate or not, or whether the people are being MISLED. What matters is how the economy looks going into NOVEMBER of this year. That meanst hat what matters are the numbers for June, July, August and September--starting maybe in April and May. Unless thye change the "methodology" AGAIN, "good' numbers NOW don't matter at all, and even make a hard "comparison" as to whether the situatioin is 'improving" over the course of this year (as the numbes showed it did NOT over the course of 2011--at least up to November). This blog has told you that the real problem with Obama policies is that they make a real 'recovery' IMPOSSIBLE--not that they prevent the economy from showing SIGNS of a TEMPORARY recovery. This bog has also told you that the economy is showing signs of being much more SEASONAL--whether just because of the COOKING of the nujmbers or because of a truly different seasonal pattern. Obama's problem is that this "new" seasonal pattern--if it continues--would make the economy look WORSEW in the SUMMER, right before the November election. Will that "trend" hold? I obviulsy don't know, but it is an example of media LIES to report "polls' on Obama NOW as being some sort of real indicaiton of how things will look at the end of October. It is not just thatthose polls are not definitive. Rather, they mean NOTHING--noting at all.

Nor do the January empllyment numbers mean much. Oh, as this blog has stated for some time, the overall numbers mean that the economy is NOT getting WORSE. You would have to say that the econmy has even gotten SLIGHTLY better since 20009. But it is the weakest "recovery" since the Great Depression, and the real quesitn is whether I am rigtht on Obama ppolicies (and Bernake policies): Have those poicies made a REAL RECOVERY IMPOSSIBLE? Tie will give us the answer to that. Time and LUCK. Wht do I mean by "luck"? Well, I could be right, as usual, and Obama still be reelected because the econmy SEEMS to be looking great at the end of Octobver. That is not impossible. I doubt it will happen. But it COULD hapen, in which case Obama MIGHT win. What we can say for certain is that the emplyment numbers for January will have NO effect on how things look in September and October (except to the extent that the change in "methodology" makes it EASEIER to show a "false" improvement by changing the "starting point" of the data).

The weeky unemoplyment claims number will appear again on Thursday. Again, the "best guess" would be that the numbver will return to the recent "average of between 375,000 and 380,000--with a revision of last week's reported number up to about 370,000. But these weekly numbers are volatile. All you can be sure of is that MY "guidance" will be BETTER than that consistenty WRONG "survey" of econmist "expectations" (those constatnly "surprised" econmists beloved of our icompetent media and of our Wall Street peoplee--who are jointly The Stupidest People on Earth).

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

Jobless Claims: No Trend, No Improvement and Media Lies

2012-02-02T06:58:00.000-08:00

"Weekly jobless claims fall 12,000, to 367,0000"

Yes, it is Thursda,l which means that the weekly report on new unempoloymne tclaims (filed the previious week) came out. My question: Do our media people EVER get tired of exosing themselves as LIARS every single week? The basic lie is to report this number as if it is an EXACT number, when it is a number written on water: REVISED the next week and with a "margin of error" of at leawst 50,0000 (because it is an ADJSUTED number, based on a fallible "seasonal adjustment). See this blog's articles over YEARS, and specifically the two artiles last week (Wednesday night, and Thursday morning, as the Wednesday night article PREDICTED the Thursday results almost EXACTLY).

Look at the SPECIFIC lies in the quoted headline. Did the number really "fall" 12,000? Nope. that is a LIE. On an apples-to-apples basis, the number fell 10,000. The number REPORTED LAST WEEK was 377,000. That is a "fall" of 10,000. Yes, that number was REVISED this week to 379,000. But, if you are not a LIAR (as ALL of our media people are), youi compare that REVISED number with teh REVISED number to be reported NEXT WEEK. You will note that last Thursday I TOLD you (next week's news this week in this blog) that the 377,000 number would be REVISED to about 380,000. It was revised to 379,000. It is almost always revised UP an average of about 3,000. Thus, the 367,000 number is another media LIE. It is not onlyl subject to seasonal adjustment errors, but it is noting but an ESTIMATE (and should be reported that way, along with the "raw" number--before seasonal adjustment--along with the raw and seasonally adjusted numbers for the SAME WEEK LAST YEAR)). The pretty good (for January) weather alone is enough to account for the "seasonally adjusted" "improvement" between last year and this year. Even so, the numbers over the past 3 months or so show NO IMPROVEMENT, and NO TREND (not matter twhat the LIARS in the media tell you).

Doubt me? Never do that. Here are the numbers for the past 4 weeks, starting with the most distant week: 402,000 (REVISED from 399,000); 356,000 (REVISED from 352,000; 379,000 (REVISED from 377,000) and 367,000 (not yet REVISED, but most likely about 370,000). Notice how these numbers go UP and DOWN, with NO TREND and NO IMPROVEMENT (on average). It is even more obvius if you go bac before the 402,000. Thyat number itself was UP from a number around 380,000. Previiusly the weekly numbers had varied (for twomonths or so) between 365,000 and 385,000 (approximately). This is NO TREND. Oh, it is true that the average number is down from the 400,000 level at which it was STUCK for another several months, and down more significantly from last summer, but that is the POINT. The number went BELOW 400,000 at the begining of LAST YEAR, before RISING i the slate spring and sumemr. Is THAT the real "rend" here? There is certainly no CONSISTENT "trend" in the weekly number over the PAST YEAR, nor over the past THREE MONTHS. You have to pick you STARTING POINT carefully, and then IGNORE the fluctuations in between, to come up with an alleged "trend". But that is what the media are: LIARS. As stated, to the exent there is any SMALL "improvement" over last year, or over the 400,000 level we reached arounnd the early fall, the WEATHER is enough to fully explani it. But even the "sasonally adjusted" numbers, as they stand, show NO TREND. Want to do a thought experiment on the LIE here?

To be completed. Actually, it WAS completed, but cmputers are ruining the world. The last part oft the article was somehow DELETED, and I will have to redo it (not saved). Have I told you that Google anoys me? Well, it does.

John Boehner and the GOP: Dishonest Politicians

2012-01-27T20:09:00.000-08:00

Remember that "GOP", in this blog, means "Grand, Outdated Party". Every time I listen to Hohn Boehner, I eralize just how INCOMPATIBLE I have been with the GOP since at least 2006 (when this blog officially disowned Presdient Bush (to be followed by refusing to suppport John McCain in the 2008 election. Nope. I fully understood just how BAD Brack Obama was going to be. The problem is that I also fully understood just how BAD John McCain was going to be, in combination with other GOP politicians (who would have had NO incentive at all to OPPOSE McCain policies, which may well have resutled in a WORSE situation than we have now, even though McCai--if both Obama and McCain got everything they wanted---may THEORETICALLY have been a little better than Obama).

What prompted this nwew tirade against th eGOP? I listened to John Boehner explain WHY the GOP hass NOT CUT ONE THIN DIME OUT OF SPENDINGj(current spending) since the GOP took control of the House of Representatives. Boehner actaully WHINED about it. He said: "We kept asking the Seanate whehter there was ANYTING they were willing to cut, and they kepts saying no (unliess every dime in "cuts" was matched by a tax increase). Democrats contorl the Senate and the White House. We tried, but there awas nothing we could do." ..........................................................................................................................Sorry, I was CR:YING (no luaghing this time--too painful--on the floor again, in a fetal positioin." Boehner--I kid you not--actually admitted that the GOP managed to cut NOTHING, "because" the Democrats would not let them....NO, if I collapse and start crying again, I may nott ever get up.

My 89 year old mother, without any prompting from me, asked me some thime ago: "I thought the GOP contgrolled the House. Don't they have to approve al of this spending. That was severfal months ago. She said the same thing today, after I started my tirade to HER about how NOTHING is being cut from spending. My mother does not read this blog. She feels that she suffers enough from having to talk to me personally. She also has eyesightt problems, although not quite as bad as mine (even though she is 25 years older).

My mother is right. Boehner is DISHONEST. Jim Demint (Tea Party Senator) is DISHONEST. Yep, I think I have noted in this blog that I acttauly heard Jim Demint say the SAME thing--lamenting that the GOP could do NOTHING unless voters ave them control o fthe Senate and the Presidency. That is simply NOT TURE. Again, my mother is absolutely right. The GOP, with control of ONE HOUSE of Congress, has VETO POWER over ALL SPENDING. Not ONE DIME can be spent each year without the VOTE of teh GO House of Representatives. Our Constitutional system is set up so that BOTH HOUSES have to AGREE on spending, and these budget matters are supposed to START in the House of Representatives. If the House of Representatives simply REFUSED to approve excess spending, it coulld not happen.

"But, Skip, if the GOP House insisted on these "cuts" on the grounds that they simply refused to approve any more spending than their bill, Obama and the Dmoecrats would SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT, and "blame" the GOP because the GOOP insisted on it being their way or the highway." Read what Boehner said again, and I have quoted him accurately. Boehner, and Demint, said that DEMOCRATS have told the GOOP that it will be their (the Democrats) way or the highway. Yet, look at the CONSTITUTIONAL LEVERAGE the GOP has. TheGOP House can REFUSE to appprove spending, and the money CAN'T be spent. The Democrats can propose tax increases all they want, but tax increases require an AFFIRMATIVEW VOTE (so long as we are not talking about the stupid 'sprining tax increease" set up by the Bush tax cuts, and later GOP "compromises", meaning those tax rates will "expire" without affirmative vote).

This blog correctly told youu, during the farce of a "budget debate", that the GOP House could simply say that it would IMOSE ITS OWN SPENDING LIM MITS--its own "plan"--no matter wahtt he Democrats and Obama did What if the Democrats shut the government down? Fine, let it be shut down, unti lthe Democrats "cry uncle", as they ultimately would HAVE to do (or the government would be shut down for YEARS). What about the military and Social Security checks? If Obama and the Democrats want to refuse to send out Social Security checks, and und the military, let it be on their hed. The GOP would obviously be willing ot FUND those programs. That is the point. The GOP would be WILLING to fund the "government" taht the GOP is wiling to pay for--authorize spending for. The GOP woul d simply not approve funding for government in EXCESS of what the GOP is willing to fund. And the GOP has a perfect "right", induer our Constitution, to do this. Again, the Consittution provides taht BOTH HOUSES have to approve EVERY DIME of spending, and there is no "right' to keep spending at the same level it was at the previuos year (much less the "projected" level that is built into the present spenindg process).

No. It is 100% certain that the GOP has the POWER to actualy CUT spending. Yep. I just correclty called John Boehner, Senator Demint, and almost every totehr GOP politician a LIAR. Waht the GOP lacks is not POWER, but COURAGE. GOP politicians are perfectgly willing to SELL OUT the countgy based on what they perceive to be the "necessities" of their own reelection. I refuse to let them take this position, which is why I say: DEFEAT THEM ALL (every member of Congress, Democrat or GOP).

"But, Skip, you don't understand reality. The reality is thqat IF the GOP followed your "advice", then leftist Democrats would likely take over the government completely (because of the defeat of most GOP politicians). You don't understand that the MEDIA plays ever "shut down" of the government as caused by an unreasonable GOP."

I "understand" this argument all too well, and it simply won't do. In the end, it is a DISASTER for the gOP. Sure, say the GOP did what Ron Paul advocates, and really cut ONE TRILLION dollars from Federal Spending in ONE YER (and itt is really only "one year" that matters each year). Would it be "reasonable to "compromise" on that figure, if Democrats still contrl the Senate and the Presidency, because to insist on FORCING your "way" down everyone's throats reallly would be perceived as "unreasoanble"--no matter how much you taked about the Constitutional system where the House is supposed to aGREE to all spending. But look at what the GOP is doing. They are not "compromiseing" (like proposing 500 billion in cuts and accepting 250 billion, or propsing 250 billion and accepting 100 billions). Not a chance. What the GOP is doing is simply accepting the Democrat refusal to CUT ANYTHING. What the Democas are saying is that funding Planned Parenthood, the Corporation for Pbulic Broadcasing, and tehe National Endowment for the Arts are MORE IMPORTNAT than people receiving Social Seucirty checks and the military being funded. Yet, Boehner and Demint--every GOP member of Congress, really--are saying that they can't even make the case that teh DEMOCRATS are respsoinsible for shutting down the government if they refuse to accept rEASONABLE spenidng cuts. What do "taes" ahve to do with it. The GOP had to make this about SPENDING, and they FAILED (when they did not have to fail). The GOP PROMISED to "cut" 100 billion dollars from spending TWICE (for 2011 and 2012). They cut NOTING. 100 BILLION dollars is LESS than 10% of the defict, and LESS than 3% of the total budget. If the GOP cannot even make the POLITICAL case for doing this, and does not have to COURAGE to go to the mat for it (even if Social Secuirty checks do not go out), the GOP is WORTHLESS. Democrats are willing ot see Social Security checks not go out, if you believe them, to fund PLANNED PARENTHOOD with taxpayer money, as well as pubic broadcasting. In other wwrds, Democrats are telling us that they are willing ofr Social Security checks not to go out rather than CUT ANYTHING. That is what Boehner and Demint are telling you, and they say the GOP cannot do "anything" abou it. DEFEAT THEM. I beg you. DEFEAT THEM. Did I just say to DEFEAT Jim Demnint--about the BEST of teh GOP members of CongresS? Yes, I did say thta. I have had it with this self-defeating DISHONESTY. Democrats are willing to go to the mat--even to the point of having Social Seucrity checks not go uot--for what they believe in, but the GOP is NEVER willing to call their bluff. YouLOSE that way.

Nope. The GOP did not even fight the right battle at the right time, as this blog told you. How can you make this debate all about the 'debt ceiling", as the GOP did thi s cummer, and then "cut" NOTHING from spending. Does that not mean that the debt ceiling is REQUIRED to be raised, and that it was the GOP VOTGESD thaqt authorized that SPENDING? Sure it means that. The GOP, as this blog has told you, has ABANDONED the debt and deficts as a real "issue'. The GOP House has VOTED for ALL of this spending since the GOP toolk control of the House. How can the GOP complain aobut the rise in the debt when GOP VOTES authorized the SPENDING thaqt created it? This is a LOSER for the GOP. They have BLOWN the issue that WON for them in 2010. And no, they did NOT 'try". They FOLDED, wihout even ever calling the blufff. TheGOP had the POWER to FORCE any spending "cuts' they wanted to makke. They jsut did not have the COURAGE to USE this power to at least make SOME meaningful cuts. Instead, they are ADMITTING they made NO cuts, and trying to use taht as an "argument" for putting MORE of these COWARDS in Congress!!!!!!!!! Tis is absrud. I will NEVER go along with this kind of reasonabing, and I do not. It will ultimately destroy this country (may already have).

NOTHING. That is how much spending the GOP has "cut", while ADDING close to 300 BILLION to the debgt and defict, over the past two years, with the payroll "tax cut" and the extension of extended unemployment benefits (assuming, as the GOP is assuming, that theese things are going to be extended through 2012, afther that ridiculous two month extension that the GOP voted for at the end of 2011). Debt ceiling "issue". There is NONE. Deficit "issue". There is NONE. Spending "issue". There is NONE. The GOP is reduced to merely arguign around the edges. Thre is NO indication that the GOP will actually CUT government substantially--which Ron Paul has correctly told you. The GOP will certanly not do it if it requires ANY COURAGE (and it will). NOTHING. I still can't believe it. The GOP is out there ADMITTING that they accomplished NOTHING on the issue that owon them victory i 2010. That is a DEFEAT--something like the drubbing the Germans inflcited as they overran Europe at the beginning of World War II---UNLESS you ealize that the GOP never eally MEANT to "cut" antything real. Again, I cannot and will not forgive them for that.

No, I am not through. Let us assume that the GOP has been SO INEFFECITVE that they could not even avoid responsibiity for "shutting down the government" by insisting upon eliminating funding for pubic broadcasting (to pick one egregious example). That is bad enough. But the GOP politicians are not even out there trying to PREPARE THE GROUND for reveersing this defeat. Oh, sure, they still talk about Democrat "spending". But they do it in GENERALITIES. They are NOT talking aobut Democrats being willing to shut down tte government, and take away Social Seucirty checks, to protect ublic broadcasting, Palnned Parenthood and ALL other spending. Why not? Come on. YOu know this one. It is because if theGOP starts tryng to expalin their RIGHT to refuse to approve SPENDING that is KILLING this country, and that it is DEMOCRATS who are undermining the Constitution by insisting that THEY have to "approve" al "cuts' in spending, then people will ask the obvious: "Okay, you COWARDS, why are you telling us this instead of calling their bluff". What answer can the GOP make to this? There is NONE, except the obvious one: "Yes, we ARE COWARDS, because we know that the media and the public let Democrats get away with shutting down the government, while we get blamed." Obvious response: "So you admit that Democrats can take their case to the people better than you can. How, then, do you EVER expect to CONSISTENTLY wn elecctions?"

No, this is absurd. Boehener, Demint and every GOP politician are DISHONEST. They are not even making a real attempt to "sell" their supposed "principles' (which they don't have). They are siplly relying upon the MESS that the Democrats are makng of ths country. And that MAY work, if things are BAD this November (partly becaues the gOP had NO COURAGE to fight for the future of the country, even if it risked their election). But what happens if the GOP wins, and they are doing their best to take away every issue they might have had? They will not have SOLD the Amerian people on anything other than that Obama and the Democrats were BAD. Nor will the GOP show any more COURAGE when they are in power (as they did not last time). Thus, especailly if the eocnomy contnues to be BAD (as it figures to be for some time), theGOP wil lthen LOSE the next time :(as Democrats come in and again win by saying how BAD the GOP is).

No. I can't stand it. This DISHONESTY has to stop. Notice that the media jsut refuses to point this OBVIUS stuff out. No one asked Boehner: "What do you meaan, that you could not do anything about it. Did not the House of Representatives have to VOTE forf eVERY DIME of spending, or it could not happen.? Skips, 89 year old mother knows that. Why don't you? Does this not indicate a lack of courage on your part, and the part of the GOP?"

There really is no answer to this. The GOP has placed itself in a BOX, with no way out EXCEPT peole believing Obama is WORSE. I refuse to play that game any longer. Sure, leftist Democrats are "worse", but the PRACTICAL EFFECT of the GOP being 'in power" may be WORSE than if Obama were in power. Taht is because the gOP has at least the INCENTIVE to oppose Obama, even if not always the COURAGE.

P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight) . Oh, you may think I have beocme a "politican" (fighiting words) myself, but I still plan to post that article on: U.S. Marines and the American Media: Urination Fetish". I promised the article a week ago, but these daily political developments eat up the time I ahve. i will still get to it. For those of ou who are thinkng: I wishSkip's mother woud write this blog insttead of him. She even sees better"; I have two words: BITE ME. As I have noted fror years, and postedon this blog, my mother is a KOIOK. She still "believes" (purports to believe) that Obama was born in Kenya, and tghat he is a Msulim. I, at least, limict msyelf to the CORRECT statement that: "Obama is not a Chrisitan"--a statement made by both myself and Bill Maher. Watch for what you wish for. You may get it. I may turn this blo over to mey motgher (no appluase, please, as I miate the idiots of NBC). You say I would never say these things if my mother actually READ this blog? You are probably right. But that is because you know that I am DEATHLY AFRAID of all women. That includes my mother, and my daughters (not just my ex-wife). Feel sorry for Gignrich, and people like him. He has MULTIPLE ex-wives. Worse than that, it means he was MARRIED to more than one womnan. One is more than enough. That is why I look with awe on those MEN (not women) who commit adultery. They actualy think they can handle MORE THAN ONE WOMAN AT THE SAME TIME. I was never tghat much of a fool.

Karl Rove: Selling Out His Country

2012-01-26T21:25:00.000-08:00

ead my previous article on Greta Van Susteren, and how she seems willing to believe that a whole lot of people (including, I think, herself) are willing to SELL OUT their country just to ensure that the "gay rights' "movement' succeeds in putting "gays" into a new "category" of "victimes' that has never previously existed in this country--not to mention that 'gay marriage" has not existed in ALL of human history up to the f21st Century, which you cannot say about incest and polygamy. Well, I saw Kal Rove--also on the unfair and unbalanced network, without challenge, and HE is willing to SELL OUT his country too, althouhg he ADMITS it.

I laugh, cry, or froth at the mouth--often all three--whenver I hear a GOP person talk about the "payroll tax cut". I can't even count the number of times that a GOP person, or enve a supposed "conservative", has said that the payroll "tax cut" is BAD POLICY. The Wall Street Journal has said it (on the unfari and unbalanced network) , Any number of other people have said it. But Karl Rove has now said it more directly than it is usually said. He directly said that the payroll "tax cut" is BAD POLICY that undermines funding for Social Seucirty. Say wht? Wel, Karl, I am happy for your support. I am sure you ewill be with me on this NEXT DEADLINE (end of February) on the extension of this fraudulent payroll "tax cut"?

Oh no. I went on listening, after I got what appeared to be SUPPORT for my positioni. It turns out that Rove DOES SUPPORT MY POLICY POSITION, but stil says that the GOP must extend this fruad (at thesex pense of ADDING at least 100 BILLLION to our debt) through 2012. Why? You know the answer to that: because we need to get past this ELECTION.

I just can't stand it. Karl Rove is willing ot SELL OUT his country for an ELECTION. I am sure Rove would say that there are more important issues at stake than this. Not really. The problem the GOP has is that NO ONE--especailly me--believes that GOP politicians have any real PRINCIPLES at all. How can the GOP taqlk about DEBT, when they are votnig to INCRFEASE THE DEBTG jsut to win an electin. and they did this on SPENDING, as well as on the payroll "tax cut" and extgension of unemployment benefits.

Nope. The GOP DESEVES TO LOSE. If they continue this way, they will lose. As to Rove, this willingness to SELL OUT his country is no suruprise., For YEARS-all of the way from when Rove as a power int he Bush Administrration--this bog has written aritcles about Karl Rove. He could be the POSTER CHILD for the GOP estalbishment, and antoher reason taht Hell will freeze over before I evere vote for another GOP establishment candidate. Is it possible to stand up for "principle', and VOTE jstu to get past an election? Yes, I know that Obama is doing it on the Keystone Pipeline, and other things. But does that make it RIGHt. And howdo you oppose Obama on DEBT, when you are willing ot vote for MORE DEBT as apolitical BRIBE? Is Obama doing much different? Well the SCALE of what Obama is dong is larger, but the PRINCIPLE is the same. This blog has previously given this message to Karl Rove: "Just Go Away." I hereby repreat the same message.

Greta Van Susteren: Fitting Right Into the Unfair and Unbalanced Network

2012-01-26T20:40:00.000-08:00

As yo shold know, I am suggesting you BOYCOTT the unfair and unbalanced network. As partoof my own personal boycott, I am watcing NONE of the "prime time' lnieup, an=d only "surfing" the daytime 'news' a few minutes a day (if that) . Thus, I have not seen Greta Van Susteren in MONTHS. I have not missed anything. As I have previuosly stated, my respect for the unfair and unbalanced network goes DONW every single MINUTE I actualy "surf" the network. And this TRND has been in effect for YEARS.

What did Van Susteren do? Remember, this occurred in only about 30 seconds, which is all I coudl satnad (only doing that because I was cruious as to who the unfari and unbalanced network considered the "winner" of the debate). Well, I watched CNN for maybe 15 minutes (after the debate itself, and VanSutern managed to be WORRSE than ANYTHING said on CNN. That is what I jsut said. Tonight, except for the "defense" of Wolf Blitzer, the unfair and unbalanced network was WORSE than CNN. How LOW can they sink. I may not know, becuase I may not see them enough. But I am afraid thaey can sink REEALLY LOW.

What am I talking aobut/ Well, what do YOU think is RickSantorum's MAIN problem in becoming President? if yuo got this right, apply for a job at the unfair and unbalanced network. I have advised my two attorney daughters to apply, since they are BOTH at least doube the intteeligence of any of the presen twoemn there (even if they, unfortunately, are not conservatives). I am gong to have to warn my daughters aobut how to DUMB DOWN for any interview they might get. Van Susteren actually dismissed Santorum as probalby "unelectable" becaues of his positoins on GAY RIGHTS. In other words, Brit Humer was correctly saying that Santorum won the debate, and Van susteren ws dismessing Santourm because of the "gay" issue. My opinon o fHume is actualy gong DOWN because he HUMORED her-as he didtoo often before I pretty mch stoped watcing the unfair and unbalanced network (that is, Humer did it regularly with regard to Juan Willimans and others) .

Gay rights???????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What is the OFFICIAL positon of teh "establishment" (of which Van Susteren is a card carrying member) on "gay rights? It is that the American people are all about JOBS, DEBT, DEFICTS and the EcONOMY. Who cares about "gay rights"? And who says that the American people are ready to discared theTHOUSANDS of years of human history oveer "gay marriage" (which our PRESIDENT still "officially" opposes)? You remember "Dishonest Jack" Cafferty? He is the CNN person who said that the GOP cannot win so long as they "talk" baout "social issues' after a debate where CNN insisted on ASKING questionas about "social issues'. What Cafferty really meant, of course, his that HE put "social issues' AHEAD of the SURVIVAL of this country. IN other word, Cafferty was willing to SELL OUT his country on the IMPORTANT issues of our survival, because HE thinkgs issues like' gay rights' and "abortin" are the MOST IMPORTANT issues in this country (unless you are RIGHT on them--agree with Cafferty).

What can I say VanSusteren is a SOUL MATE to "Disonest Jack" Cafferty. Van Susteren, like Cafferty, thinks the American peole (read HER, or at least the peole she talks to) are willng to SELL OUT their country, and electt a President who will DESTOROY that country, because Santorum has the "wrong' position on homosexual "rights'. Not only is Vansusteren a soul mate of "Dishonest Jack" Cafferty, but she is INCOMPETENT (a poistion I was already arriveing at when I finally began my boycott of the unfair and unbalanced network). It is WRrRONG--absurd--to suggest that the American people would DEFEAT Rick Santourm over "gay rights. What Van Sust4eren is really saying, and it is DISHONEST as well as incomopetent, is that people in the media--like VAN SUSTERNE--will NOT ALLOW Rick Snatorum to talk about he real issues because THEY will focus so mcuh on the "social issues' that Santorum will never have a chance to tell people about the issues upon which this country's survivla depedns. Again, Greta, this tells me that you are willing to SEELL OUT ouyr country rather than try to focus --as a media person--on the REAL ISSUES> Nope. Ms. Van Susteren, I no longer have ANY respect for you. Go awy. I will never hear a word lyou say agan, at least on your own program.

If lyu believe nothing else I have ever said, believe this: Rick Santorum will NOT lose lths election based on his position on "gay rights". "But, Skip, did you not say , yourself, that Santorum let himself be labeled as only a "social issues" candidate", and that may have kept him from suring early?" Yep. I said that, and stand behind it. But look how DIFFERENT that is from what Van susteren said. What I was saing is that people woh THINK LIKE VANSUSTGEREN (wrongly) BOXED Snatourm in as a "social issues' cncidate--a RELIGOUS right candidate. Now it is true lthat the MEDI--Bill Maher typoes ALL, including Van Susteren--thinks that being associated with the "religious right' is a DEATH KNELL for a candidate. Taht is why the ANTI-CHRISITAN media keeps makng those associations with the GOP candidates--even those not emphasizing religion in their campaign. If Van Susteren wanted to say that Santorum had been too 'pigeon-holed" into being exclusvively a "religius right', social issues candidate, I would not crucify her this way. She would have a pont--even if it would ingore the COMPLICITY of the unfari and unbalanced network in this EVIL. But what Van Susteren did is limit hereself to saying that Snatorum's positon on gay rights-specifically gay marriage, but hshe owould probably expand it to other 'gay rights' issues like gasy in the military--would DEFEAST Rick Snatourm. That is RIDICULOUS. Taht "issue' would NOT HURT Rick Santourm AT ALL. I might not actually HELP hi, but it would NOT HURT. That is as close to a FACT as ny "opinion" you are likely to hear, an dmuch close to a FACT than the vomit that Van Susteren is puttin gout.

P.S No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). Why does ANY "conservative", or conservative leanign person, bother to watch the unfair and unbalanced network.? Nope. I do NOT think they are "better " than CNN. Listen to Rush Limbuagh. SURF a LOT of sources (like I do). There is NO reason to watch the unfari and unbalanced network. You don't get real 'journalism", and you don't get 'fairness'. You get cable TV EVIL, with a slight slant toward the GOP estalbishment for RATINGS. Yep. The unfarir and unbalanced network gives more TOKEN acknowledgement to the Tea Party than MSNBC, but so does the GOP establishment. The unfair and unbalanced nework DOES NOT MEAN IT, and their "news' operation is fully as bad as CNN. I remind you that my FIRST cirticism of John Roberts came when he was workng for CNN, and he has tit right in the unfiar and unbalanced netowrk (as does Greta Van susteren). Not ehe real pon here. To even ASK Rick Snatourm whetehr "homoseuality is a isin", as the EVIL Piers Moragan did, or to aks hime aobut it in AnY interview as if it is the most importaqnt issue he faces, is to prove yourself INCOMPETENT as a "journalists'. What you PROVE is tghat you have an AGENDA. It is NOT a tgurlyl important issue. Snatorum has his position, and that should be reported (as a minor positoin). But the idea that this is one of the most imortant issues of our time, for which peole will SELL OUT their country on, say jobs and the economy, is STUPID. Yep. I jsut called Greta Van Susteren STUPID, and I stand by it.

GOP Debate: Rick Santorum, Clear Winer

2012-01-26T19:55:00.000-08:00

In the immediate post-debate analysis, EVERYONE (and this means the lefitsts of CNN, as well as more conservatie commentators, agreed that Rick Santorum won tonight's debate on SUBSTANCE. The ONLY 'knowck" (aside from the terrible Greta van Susteren ont he unfair and unbalanced network--another article) abainst Rick Santourum is that people don't hink he can win, and therefore he has NO MMNEY ( to speak of).

Santorum handed Romney's head to him over RomneyCare tonight. Santorum actually got Romney to give the SAME "defense" of the individual mandate in RomneyCare that Obama gives for ObamaCare. In fact, Romney's "defense" was the SAME right down the line, INCLUDING Romney's assertion that it is NOT a "government", top-down program which encurages people to PAY A FINE rahter than be insured (since they basically have insurance ANYWAY). I agree with Romney that states have the RIGHT to adoopt RomneyCare, while the Federal Government has no Constitutional right to adoopt ObamaCare. However, I am the last ture federalist in America. I guarantee yu that ROMNEY....................................................................sorry, on the flooor laughing/crying.......is not a true "federalist". Does Romney faovr FEDERAL "tort reform" on the SATATE issue of medical malpractice? Of course he does, because Rmney no more turly believes in federaism than he trly believes in free markets (note Romney faovred the BAILUTS, as Santroum aslo ponted out, and has FLIRTED in the past with "Cap and Trade" and "global warming').

No. Rick Santorum won this deate. And I am sure, as I waas not totally sure on Monday night, that I am not letting myu own endorsement of Santorum influence my opinion As I said, EVERYONE seems to have recognized that Santroum WON on substance. Most simply don't bvelieve it matters. And I cant' honestly tell you that Santourm is suddenly going to chllenge for the nomination. It stil seems a longshot, because Snatorum is scoring iwith SUBSTANCE, and not FALSHY SOUND BITES lke Newt Gingrich. It may be an indictment of the public that FLASHY moments can overcome solid dconservatrtive substance, even as the terrible GOP ESTABLISHMENT controls the ultimate nominee with MONEY (and more than money, as the media either ignores someone like Santorum or cooperates to TEAR DONW any 'nonestalbishment" candidate). Santorum has never "cught fire", despite his winin Iowa. He is not entirely without fault here, as he needed to SHARPEN his message earlier away from the social issue "box" that the MEIDA has tried to paint him into (with to mcuh of his own cooperation). No, I hhave NO problem with Santorum's views on "social issues". I jsut think he desperately needed, EARLLY, to avid being "labeled" the "social issue candidate". It may hae won him Iowa, but cost him any chance at the nomination.

Ah. Romney and Gingrich. UNIMPRESSIVE. I actauly think the media, including the DISHONEST Wolf Blitzer (see previous article), have deliberately set out to "rein in" Gingrich's chance for "South carolina" momnents. Gingrich is not getting the kind of questions he can knockout of the park, for the most part, and ROMNEY is deliberately trying to defelct Gingrich's debate points with overbearing ATTACKS. This put s Gingrich on the defensive, when he desperately needs to be on the attack. Gingrich had good moments tonight. He actually gotoff a number of good "one-liners", and it was ROMNEY who SABOTAGED what was really a good Gingrich moment with Wolf Blitzer. Sure, this was GOOD tactics by Romney, to keep Gingrich from getting credit once again for knockng down the media (as they should be knocked down).

But Romney. Romney was obviusly, as a matter of TACTICS, much more "energized" tonigh--more "apssionate"--rather than his previous "steady", "calm", "above-the-fray" approach. He evidently even has a new debate coach. That probably explains why Romney was UP AND DOWN tonight. No, Romney was NOT "steady". He made GAFFES. He was really unble to handle Santorum on RomneyCare. He was not taht good on illegal immigration--feeding my suspicion that Romney is "squishy" on the issue--as Romney tirried to say (at the SAME TIME, just like Obama) that he was NOT proposing that we deport grandmothers, but tath he was insisting that the laws be enforced. Not convincnig. Then there was Romney basically lalying everything ooff on the trustee of the "blind trust". However, that was not the major GAFFE. Romney DENIED that he was running a VICIOUS ad in Florida saing that Gingrich had referred to Spanish speaking people as "in the ghetto" (or something like this). This is Romney as HYPCRITE, as Romney's positoin on ENGLISH is basically the SAME as Gingrich, and all Gingrich had done was say that Englush needs to be taubht to everyone in this country. Agian, that is ROMNEY'S position. Worse, Romney DENIED that he knew anything about the ad. Then Wol Blitzer said lthat the ad had been CHECKED, and that Romney was on the ad saing that he "approved this ad". That is bad eenough. But then Romney, when congronted, fell back on the OLD ROMNEY--demanding to kninow whether Newt Ginrich had "said' something like what the ad said he said, even if out of ocntgext. Nope. Won't wash. That was a TRuLYU BAD moment for Rmoney. It would have been even wrose if the media ddi not seem to be out to COVER for Romney, until he comes up against Obama (when this kind of bobbing and disonest weaving wil be CRUCIFIED, ven as Obama gaets the "pass" Romney is now partially receiving). I give Wolf Blitzer credit for at least calling Romney on the attempt to say he was nto even responsible for the ad. But how BAD does Romney look to not beven be aware--to listen to him--of what was in the add, and then to try to DEFEND the ad Romney says he has not even seen. Nope. Not defensible.. And a MAJOR GAFFE. Against Obama, it would be FATAL.

No, Romney was not impressive. The best you can say is that he seems to be LEARNING to be more "energized". But, again, he could nto handle Santorum, and--overall--he id no better than a DRAW with Gingrich (subject ot the 'spin" helng it appear better for Romney). As the real frontrunner, it is probably right that a DRAW for Romey, who has control of the ad wars, is really a "win". It may well win him Florida. Yet, Gingrich actually gave a good answer--more than one, actually--on KNOWING about isssues in Florida. Romney gave no such answer. No, I don't thinkRomney actually "beat" Gingrich, except that Gingrich did not deliber the kind of "win" that propelled him in South Carolina. Unless media in Florida hammer Romney over being out of touch with Florida, I do expect that the debate hurt the chacnes of Gignrich to win Florida. Gingrich does not have the MONEY (or overall estalbishment support) to DRAW debates. But his problem is probably more MONDAY--despite thaqt being a snnozer--than tonight. Gingrich gained NOTHING on Monday, and set himself up for needing too mcuh tonight. He was like a basketball player hwo cannot "et his own shot". Gingirhc seemed ot need OPENINGS to really deliver "xingers", and cold nto MAKE his own operings. That may be ultimately ftal to a man almost basing his campaign on his debaing ability.

I repeat this blog's endorsement of Rick Santourm, wihout bving honestly able to say that he has much of a chance for the nomination. Too bad. I will vote for him in Texas, if he is still in the race. Otherwise, Iwill voete for Ron Paul (who WILL still be in the race) .

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

Wolf Blitzer: Liar on The Liear Network

2012-01-26T19:15:00.000-08:00

You have to follow this closely, because it is classic Wolf Blitzer: liar and alll-around despiocable, evil person. Here is the NONSENSE, trulyu STUPID, question Wolf Blitzer asked Newt Gingrich:

"Mitt Romney has now released his tax returns. You hae said you are satisfied wtih that. I want to get it clear: Are lyou now satisfied with Mitt Romney's disclosures on his persoanl finances." (Now Wolf may have left out the wrod "disclousures", but that would have been DISHONEST; what am I saying? Wolf Blitzer is a DIHHONEST person on a DISHONEST network.)

Gingrich's (correctr) answer:, looking at Rick Santourm, who had just complained aoubt talking aoubt these "side" personal issues instead of the real issues: "We worked together a long time (referring to Sntourm). You are ifghhht. Thisis a NONSENSE question."

Wolf Blitzer, LIar: "Well, Speaker Gignrich , you are th eone who said this week that Mitt Romney had Swiss bank accounts, and accounts int he Cayman Islands. If you are going to make a major, serious attack on another canddiate, you should be willing to aanswer questions about it.".

Do yoou see the LIE here? The DISPICABLE LIE on The Liear Network? You should. Wol f Blitzer did NOT ask Netw Gingrich about Mitt Romney's investments in the Cayman Islands or Swiss bank accounts. Thus, the real qeustion here is WHY Wolf Blitzer LIED so blatanntly here? Was it an example of CNN being IN THE TANK for Romney, and trying to derail Gingrich? Maybe. Maybe not. But Wolf Blitzer for some reason PROVED (through his own words) that he asked a deliberately DISHOENST question. His question purported to be about whether Gingrich was satisfied with Romney's disclosure of his tax returns, when Blitzer deliberately tried to MORPH the question into a HIDDEN attempt to get Gingrich to say he was"satisfied" with ALL of the Mitt Romney's "personal finances". I know that the question did not say "all". But that is the LIE. You cannot interpret wolf Blitzer said, when challenged abut a NONSENSE question, other than that Blizer was trying to set a SECRET TGRAP for Gingrich, by referring to release of tax returns when Blitgazer was LATER going to say the question was about something else (a more general endorsement of ALL of Romney's finances). YOU LIAR, WOLF BLITZER. This blog has shown many times that ou are one of the most DISHONEST "newsw" people who has ever lived. Doubtr me? Never do tha sse the earlier article today) I am not through.

Wolf Blitzer, as is usal on The Liar Network (and all of the media), was able to immediately get the support of ALL of CNN, as the media ALWAYS stands behind its ownl--even when it makes almost all people view them with total CONTEMPT (as I do). Anyway, in this friendly forum, Gold old LIAR Wol LIED yet again. He said: "You notice that when I did not back down, Gingrich eventrtually ansered the question>" There are TOW LIEWS here. First, Gingrich did NOT "answer" the ORIGINAL QUESITON. What happened was that Romney (not to his credit) intervened as Gingrich was trying to get support on state for limiting the debate to more substance. Romney said: "A canddiate who says someting outside these debates should be willing to deend what he says in the debate forum. That is a big problem here." (or wwrods to taht effectt).

Gingrich "answered" ROMNEY (as he had to do), and NOT Wolf Blitzer. And it was a DIFFERENT question (about those Swiss bank accounts and accounts in the Cayman Islands). Wolf, you just PROVED lyourself to be a LIAR, twice over.

Now remember this blog's CHALLENGE to the media: Are yo not interested in WHY Mitt Romney had accounts in the Cayman Islands? What was the PURPOSE of those accounts? What kind of accoutns? WHY in the Cayman Island? This is another case where Wolf Blitzer is a LIEAR on The Liar Network. MSNBC is already-as this blog said--makng a big deal about thos FOREIGN accounts, and the Cayman Islands are NOTORIOUS about operating as TQAX DODGES, or other legal, but somewhat shady, types of transactions. Against Barack Obama, what will CNN say about the Cayman Isalands? Maybe some on CNN are already saying it, but NOT when it could be of help to Newt Gingrich. suddenly, CNN is gong to think it is "funny" that Romney had foreing bank accounts, blind trust or no blind trust, includingin a lplace known for being used as a DODGE for taxes or other concealment. Again, however, note theat Wolf Blitzer and the mainstream media are NOT INTERESTED in WHY there were those accounts int he Cayman Islands. Thre must be a REASON. Invetments? That is a reason you might invest in, say, CHINA. The Cayman Islands are really known for one thing: FINACIAL SHENNIGANS. There is not really such a thing as "investment" in the Cayman Islands (at least, not without explanation) If any financial insitution is offering 'higher returns" int he Cayman Islands, you might well wonder whether it has something to do with what the Cayman Islands are FAMOUS for. No one simply "invests" in theCayman Islands, rather than, say, Wells Fargo 9r, yes, Swiss banks. This is NOT a matter of "diversification"--one of the most DISHONEST things Romney said tonight. As this blog has suggested, the Cayman Islands hardly even exist as a "real" contry. A Cayman Islands "address" is often about the equivalent of a post office box. Nope. I am NOT saying this is a reason to vote against Romney. I am saing that I am MILKDLY CUROUS as to WHY Romney would have "investments" in the Cayman Islands. "Diversification" is NOT an answer. It is an EVASIONI. I don't have any such curiosity about Siwss bank accounts.

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

Unemployment Claims: Not Improving (This Blog: Tomorroe's News Today)

2012-01-26T09:26:00.000-08:00

Rea my previous article, posted LAST NIGHT on th is blog--with NO 'inside' information. It has to be one of the best exaamples of ORESIGHT ever put in print, even though it is fairly routine for this blog. The number for new unemployment claims was releaed, as usual, this Thursday, and her is the Bloomberg headline:

"Jobless claims rise, showing seasonal volatility"

Yep. I not only told you WHAT would happen. I told you WHY. And some of you people doubt me, like on whether women should have the vote. What did I tell you last night? First, I told you about the SEASONAL VOLATILITY. Second, I told you that the numbers releasd the past two weeks were URE FICTION, and that the best GUESs as to what the "real" number might be would be to AVERAGE the numbers the prviuos two weeks (which turned out to be 356,000 and 399,000o). I told lyou that the number released last wek would probably be REVISED by 3,000 or 4,000. It WAS--to 356,000 from 352,000. I told you that the BEST GUESS for the number to be released TODAY was that AVERAGE of teh past two weks, or about 380,000 (between 375,000 and 380,000). . The actual number (a LIE) released today was 377,000. How is it POSSIBLE to make a more accurate PREDICTION than this. Forget "surveying" perpetually "surpirised" economists. COME TO ME. Oh, why is the 377,000 number a LIE? Again, that number will be REVISED next eek--most likely UP the usual 3,00 or 4,000. On an apples-to-apples basis, joblesss claims rose 265,,000 this week (from 352,000 to 377,00) The headlines says that they rose 21,000, becaue the headlines ALWAYS LIEF--comparing this week's UNREVISED NUMBER with last week's REVISED NUMBER.

If you read last night's article, you will also get the correct information that these numbers are NOT EXACT, and have a LARGE marging of error. That makes it even more impresssive that I predicted today's number ALMOST EXACTLY, considering that these numbes are written on water and only have any significance at all over time. This should prove to you thatt he way the media REPORTS these weeky and monthly numbers is DISGRACEFUL--showing them to be INCOMPETENT and DISHONEST.

Okay, so today's number was aboutt he same as the average of the numbers for the previous two weeks. More than that, the number has been basically UNCHANGED for at least 6 weeks. Yet, you may see the media tell you that there is some kind of 'trend" established. Hogwash. The weekly number is NOT "steadily dropping", een after you filter out the fictional noise. All you can say is that there was somewhat of a ONE-TIME "drop" in the jobless claims number in the holiday season (from right around 400,0000 to 381,000--confirmed in subsequent weeks, but with NO IMOPROVEMENT SINCE THEN). Even this could be simply a combiantion of the new seasonal pattern that the U.S .economy may have fallen into, along with the mild WEATHER. Still, NO "steady trend", or any TREND AT ALL. The only "trnd" is taht we seem to be repeating the pattern of last year, when the weeky number fell l under 400,000 for a number of weeks, only to rebound in the spring and summer.

What about next week? Obviously, the "bst guess' would be around that same 375,000-380,000 number that seems to have been about the AVERAGE for more than two months now--without significant change, after filtering out that noise. But, obviously, the number could either JUMP back to 400,000, or DROP back down. some. And YOU--if not the mmedia---KNOW (becxause this blog has told you) that any such ISOLATED, one-week "move" in the number is MEANGINGLESS, until confirmed in subsequent weekyy numbes. We now have NO TREND (up or down), and not really any trend from LAST YEAR (no real improvement), other than this new seasonal pattern that the jobless claims number--and other numbers on teh economy--see to get better in the second half of the year, with the jobless claims number looking good at the end of the year and first twomonths of the next year (in comaprions with the previus summer), only to have the jobless claims number SPIKE as we approach summer.

Will history reporeat, or is the economy doomed to "falter" again? And what do GASOLINE prices and "Bailout Ben" Bernanke have to do with this "buming along the bottom". Stay tuned. We will all find out. Contrary to the media, I will even give yu SOME guidance anlng the way, even though I can't possibly predict the future, in the future, quite as well as I did last night (not consistently, anway).

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

Jobless Claims: Fiction and Media Lies

2012-01-25T20:57:00.000-08:00

Look at this blog's article two weeks ago, when new unemployment claims were reported just under 400,000 (really a meaningless number, in terms of whehter the number is a few thousand above or below that number, but a number thant the media has been focusing on), at 299,000. As this blog told lyou, the media LIED 9as they do every single week) when they said that the number was "under" 400,000. That is not only because there is NO difference between 399,000 and 400,000, as te marging of error is much greater than 1000 in all events. But, specifically, the weekly number of new unemplyment calims is ALWAYS revised the next week-usually UP by 3,000 or 4,000. This blog told you that the likelihood was that the number reported two weeks ago would be rEVISED to above 400,000. It WAS. That made the overall score: This blog 10,934 Media 0. This reporting of the weekly unemlplyment claims number as an EXACT number is a weekly LIE from our incompetent, dishonest media. By the way, that 399,000 number ORIGINALLY reported i sSUSPICIOUS. If you are not cyncial enough to know why, I cannnot help you.

What else did I tell you two weeks ago? I told you that the number of waeekly unempployment calims is SEASONALLY ADJUSTED (not mere counting), and that the WEEKLY seasonsal adjustment is UNRELIABLE. I told lyou that this atually producing a margin of error in the WEEKLY number of as much as 50,000. You may have doubted me on that, but last week's number PROVED me right. The actual COUNTED number varies WILDY week-to-week, and if the seasonal adjustment (as much as 150,0000 or more) is not correct because the seasonal pattern has not operated exactly as the formula assumes, then the REORTED number (the media NEVER reporting the actual number, before the seasonal adjustment) is gong to be WRONG by tens of thousands. Thus, that 402,000 number for two weeks ago was UPO almost 30,000, but I told you that such rise did NOT mean much unless and until the DETERIROATION was confirmed OVER TIME. Indeed, Isuggested that the jury is stil out on whether the whle economy has entered into a PATTERN where it looks like it is improving in the second half of a ywar (as it has since 2009), and then looks like it is deteriorating in teh first half of the next year--while all it is really doing is BuMPING ALONG TH EBOTTOM without either getting much worse or getting much better. Well, the jury is still out on that theory, but last week's reported number shwoed what I meant about each week's number being pretty meaningless (in terms of meaning anything as an isolated number).

The number of new unemplyment claims reported last week dropped a WHOPPING 50,000 from the REVISED 402,000 the week before. That was FICTION. No, there is NO doubt about that. Indded, what that number proved is that the 402,000 number was also FICTION. The seasonal adjustmentssimply failed to work right for those two weeks. Wat is the CORRECT number--"seasonally adjusted" corrrectly? Oh, it is impossible to really know. TIME will tell, and thiss week's rport of new unmpllyment calaims will come out tomorrow. it wil give us SOME idea, although MORE TIME, and numbers, are necessary to estalbish a "trend". As it is, the numbers have been soerratic, involving holiday and post-holiday weeks, thatNO TREND can be discerned (despite media LIES to the contrary). The best GUESS would probably be to AVERAGE out the previous two weeks, whch would average around 380,00 (especially after tehe expected REVISON of last week's 352,000 number UP 3,000 or so). That AVERAGE of 375,000 to 380,000 is actualy UP from the average for the previous four weeks--although fairly close (wee within the LARGE marging for error). Thus, despite the wide swings, the previous two weeks MAY have just meant an UNCHANGED layoff situation. I would also mention that the WEATHER has been very good this winterm compared with the last two winterw, and that could DISTORT the seasonal pattern. In all events, you should be able to see how my "estimate" of a "marging of error" of 50,000 was PROVEN right. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the actual labor marktet to have CHANGED from deteriorating almost 30,000 in one week, and then improving 50,000 in the next week. Q.E.D. These numbers are FICTIN (as to the isolated weeks), and there is a marging of error of at least 50,000 possible in each week's reported number.

Does that mean that the 352,000 number was not "good" news? Not exactly. The main sense in which it was "good" news is that the RISE to above 400,000 th eprevius week was shown to probably be FICTIno (as was the 352,000 number). The LIE of the media is reporting these weekly numbers as if they actually mean anytnhing for AN INDIVIDUAL WEEK. As state, the last two weeks--best guess, until we get more numbers---0woul dseem to indicate an UNCHANGED labor market over the past several months. Under, 400,000, but WIHOUT a "trnd" of steadily improving numbers. And the question still remains whether this is a real improvement (the drop below 400,00, which happened at the beginning of last year as well--although this year has done SLIGHTLY better), or thether we are just dealing with a new pattern of seasonality in the U.S. economy. The WEATHER alone might account for the SLIGHT improvement in this December and January over December and Januarya year ago.

Well, the weekly number of new unemploymenbt callaims will be reorted tomorrow (today on the East Coast, as it is after midnight there). What will it mean? In isolation, it will mean VERY LITTLE, even though the media will again LIE about the significance of whatever number is reported. You wuld EXPECT the nuber to go up substantially, toward the AVERAGE of tgeh previous two weeks. IF the number stays around 350,000, that MIGHT (if continued to be confiremed in the weeks aghead) mean that the 402,000 number awas an ABERRATION, and that the weekly number is actual IMPROVING. IF we go back to 390,000 to 400,000, then we just know that we are still dealing with FICTION, and that the weekly swing is too violent to be real. The 'real" numbe might be alomst anyting, because there would be NO consistent pattern--meaning the formula has broken down. The four-week average might be the bestiindicatior of which diretn we are moving, but when the sings are this wild even the four-week average is DISTORTED. Onllyl TIME can tell us (approximately) where we are. I continue to assert that REAL "journalists' would report the RAW number every week, along with the revised nubmer. Sure, you can find it out from teh Labor Deaprtment site. But the job of the media is to INFORM the people--not to LIE to them and trust them to figure it out themselves. This reufsal to examine the REAL significance of ALL of the weekly numbes, in context over the entire prevouis year, is not only bad "journalism". It MAY make it easier to MANIPULATE the numbers, as nobody really examines whether this "ADJUSTED" weekly number is being reported correctly. Since presumbably SOME people are looking at the raw numbers, and comparing them with previous years--along with comparing the adjustments for previous years--you would HOPE that no real manipulation is taking place. But I stand behind the assertino that failing to investigate and report what thewse weekly numbers really mean, and how they compare with the raw and adjusted numbers in previous years, makes it EASIER for manipulation to occur> I doubt if any real serious manipulation is occurring, because I don't believe in conspiracy theories (they fall apart--too many people know hat its going on). Att he very least, however, the media owe it to the PUBLIC to actually look into these nubers week by week, and not act like the weekly number has a meaning it DOES NOT HAVE--or an EXACTNESS that it DOES NOT HAVE>

What has thiis article done? Well, if lyou can follow it, and my lack of proofreading and spell checking has not ggarbled it too much (bad eyesight makng it effetgively impossible fore me to do those things), this article has informed you HOW to look at the weekly unemployment number to be reported Thursday, and lkook THROUGH THE MEDIA LIES to have some underfstanding of what the number actually means, and how fallible it is (espeically in isolation). You could even, if you wanted., look at the Labro Department site and do waht the media SHOULD do: "investigatgte" the raw number, tghe "seasonally adjusted" number, and how this compares with what happened with those numbers LAST YEAR (and even the year befroe that). No, it really is too difficult (eyesight again) for me to do this FOR YOU. So I leave it as an exercise for the reader. I don't even expect it to be any kind of "exercise" of the "journalists" supposedly reporting this stupff, because those peole are INCOMPETENT FOOLS who LIE to you every single week on the "meaning" of the weekly number (not to mention the exactness of it--which affects the meaning).

Eric Cantor: Defeat Him (Defeat the GOP Series)

2012-01-25T14:56:00.000-08:00

I saw an Erick Cantor interview this morning. It confirmed my previous opinioin: DEFEAT H:M, or any office and for every office.

This is part of my "Defeat the GOP" series, although the official position of this blog is to DEFEAT THEM ALL (all incumbents, Democrat or members of tghe Grand, Outdated Party, who are incumbents).

But I am highlighting GOP politicians wo are especailly worthy of defeat. Eric Cantor is on e of those politicians. What has the GOP House, in which Cantorin in the leadership, ACCOMPLISHED? Not a ting. As this blog has reported before, the GOP did not "cut" ONE THIN DIME in net spending, and actgualy ADDED to teh defict and erquired increase in the debt ceiling (includng with this fraudulent payroll "tax cut" and exenions of extended unemployment benefits paying people not to work). Well, Cantor was aske d basicaly what the GOP had DONE to control spending.

You know what Cantor said, if you thoought about it at all He BLAMED Obama and the Democrats, talking about how theGOP "tried" (totally inefectually). Hogwash. Dishonest hogwash, and teh reason I am down n even supposed Tea Party oikutucuabs kuje Hun /Denubt abd Narci rybui,. The GOP House had to voe for EVERY DIME of spending, or the money could not be spent. "But, Skip, it would have been political suicide for the gOP to let Obama and teh Demcrats shut down the government, and blame gthe GOP." Read that last sentence, and understand how COWRDLY GOP politicians are includng those supposed Tea Party politicians. The GOP House has the POWER to FORCE the government to "cut" ONE TRILLION dollars from the budget IN ONE YEAR, as Ron Pauuls says he wil do. Nope. It does nto matter that the Dmeocrats control the Senate, and the Presidency. The House GOP has a VETO over any spending. They CHOSE never to use that "veto". In otehr words, the House could simply say that it will only approve so much spending. There is NOTHING Democrats and Obama could do about it, except "shut down the government".

Okay Let us concede that the GOP was not going to realistically cut one trillion dollars out of a one-year budget, even though Ron paul is right that something like that needs to be done (at least $5000 BILLIN in one year, and not this STUPIDITY about a "ten-year plan"--Soviet Union styple). Seill, look at how much more PRINCIPLED--not to metinon politicall effective--the Democratws were. They have a WEAK--nonexistent, really--LEAL hand. The House MUST approve EVERY DIME of spending,or the money does nto get spent. Yet, even though they had NO legal power to STOP the House from"cutting" whatever tghe House wanted to "cut" (simply not authorize), the Dmoecrats rpevevented the GOP from c"cutting" ANYTHING. This is not "trying". This is SURRENDER, and that is what the COWARDSD of the GOP did You can tgry to sugar coat it, Eric Cantor, you you can't dispute that this is exactly what happened. Let us assume that the GOP would have been "curucified" for taknig this correct position: "You can spend ONLY the money that we approve, and we are not going to approve much." Still , the GOP had the LEVERAGE to FORCE at least some REAL "cuts", like th 100 bilion the GOP promised TWICE. Instead, the GO P RAN like the COWARDS they are, and now Eric Cantor is WHINING that it is all the fault of those Democrats--even though Eric Cantor had to APPROVE every dime the Democrats spent. It doesn't wash.

Nope. Eric Cantor. You need to be DEFEATED, along with every other GOP member of the House and Senate. But you, especially, have distinguished yourself as a man to be DEFEATED.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Stay tuned. Next in the "Defeat the GOP" seies will probably be Senator Corker and Congresswoman Blackburn of Tennessee.

Obama: No Bailouts, Unless I Want There to Be (Liar-in-Chief)

2012-01-25T07:20:00.000-08:00

President Obama again, last night, gave an outstanding performance as Liar-in-Chief. He may have set a new record, although statisticians are still evaluating that. It is close. It is hard to top those speeches where Obama said, in one pargraph, that govenment has to "live withoin ints means, like ordinary failites"--only in about the next paragraph to propose expanding spending and/or opposing spending/deficit cuts. Still, last night Obama MAY have managed to contradict himself in CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES. That is what is being checked: whehter he has done ti before, with present indications being that he HAS done it before--meaning that he FAILED to set a new record last night.

The section of the speech I am talkng about is the section where President Obama was talking aobut how POURD he is of his bailout of General Motors. Then, immediately, Obama had an "applause" line saing "No bailouts, ..., no copouts." Say what? Did I not hear Obaama jsut say tthat he would not let jobs be lost at GM if he could do anything aobut it (bailiout)? this proves again that our Liar-in-Chief will say ANYTHING that he thins SOUNDS GOOD, knowng he can count on the mainstream media not to call him on it. Obama still says taht one of the way he kept us out of a "dpressioin" was to BAIL OUT our financial system, as well as GM. Then you have "Bailout Ben" Bernanke, who is STILL bailing out bands, Wall Street and even Europe, with the entire cooperation of teh Obama Administrration. Can you get any MORE dishonest than this? Well, you would not think so, but I have confidence in our Liar-in-Chief. YS HE CAN. Our statisticians--working as this was being typed--THINK they have found previus instances where our Liar-in=Chief has contradicted himslef within the same sentence.

No, I did NOT waste my tie listenting to the class warfare speech, which evidenty had a number of contradictions as Obama just went for what SUNDS GOOD--whether it contradicts something he just said or not. However, as I mentionned in my P.S. last night, I reserved the right to comment on CLIPS. And I did see a rather extensive clip about how Obama talked about "sving GM" and "ou auto industry", and then turned around as said "No bailouts". Now the clip i saw implied this ws in consecutive sentences, but obviusly there is a possibility that editing compressed the sentences together. Doesn't matter. The DIRECT CONTRADICTIN is there, and it is an OBVIOUS contradictioin. That, again, raises the question of why Obama thiks he can GET AWY WITH this kind of obvioius contradiction. What does he ven MEAN when he says "no bailouts"? Somebody should ASK him. "Mr. President, did you mean that-if the same kind of situation arises in the future,-that you will NOT favor bailouts of financial institutions and imortant companies like GM? Does that meean you now think that the gailousts that you did, and supoported, were a MISTAKE? " Somehow, President Obama just never gets asked those questions. For example, is it not an OBVIOUS question: "President Obama, you have often said that the Federal Government has to live withnin its means,like ordinary families. What did you MEAN by that, considering that you are continuing to run tirllion dollar deficits every year, and seem to OPOSE almsot all efforts to REDUCE current deficits? Do you raealize that ordinary families cannot simply say that they will "solve" the problem ten years from now,while coninuing to live beyond their means in the present?"

Nope. We have a Liar-in-Chief, and he does not even CARE. He EXPECTS to "get aay wiht it", becaue he counts on a sycophantic media not to call him on it.

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

Obama and Evolution: Does Obama, as a Christian, Believe That theTheory of Evolutoni Full Explains the Development of Human Beings?

2012-01-24T18:04:00.000-08:00

You hear GOP candidates continually asked, by today's EVIL "journalists", whether they believe in evolution. What you don't hear is Barack Obama being asked whether he, as a Christian, believes in that the existence of thinkng human beings is fully explained by the Theory of Evoluton. That is because today's "journalists" are the worst, most dishonest hypocrites to ever walk the Earth. It is also becasue "journalists" do not believe, any mroe than I do, that Obama is really a BELIEVING Christian. As readers of this blog know, my position is that if the mainstream media is going to make RELIGONI a n issue in political campaigns--although only for GOP candidates--then this blog is going to ARGUE eligion as a political issue--specifically from the--correctr--point of view that Obama is NOT a Christian (exposing his HYPOCRISY, as well as the HYPOCRISY of "journalists"). No, I don't do this as a Chrisitan, since I am an agnostic :(skeptic). However, that makes me NEUTRAL on religion, as religion. I know someone who is NOT a Christian, and Obama is not one.

Sample queston that Obama SHOULD be asked, if "journalists" are going to ask GOP candidatges about eviolutoni:

Present scientific theory, in cluding the Theory of Evolutoin, is that life on Earh develope, BY CHANCE, from non-living chemiclas; and that then human beings devlopoed, BY CHANCE MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION, beginning with one-celled organisms and ending with thinking human beings. Do you, Mr. Presdient, agre--as a Christian--that human beings developed, by chance alone, sarting with non-living chemicals and then one-celled life?

Now here is an ANSWER I wish I would hear a GOP "religious" canddiate give who is asked this truely evil and insulting question about evilutoin:

This question is not an appropriate question, because it is really a question about my religion. But I will give you my personal opinioni--which has no bearing on any public policy issue as to the office for which I am running. First, there is the issue of practical biology and genetgics. It was LEFTIST ideology--not Chritian theology, that killed MILLIONS of peoople in the Soviet Union because Joseph Stalin imosed the ideas of Lysenko on Soviet agriculture. That KILLED millions of people through starvation. This was because central planning imosed the WRONG theory of biology on a whole country, because Stalin thought it fit better the Communist, leftist politcal ideology. Mendel was a MONK who first started teh modern theory of genes and genetics, which has helped us deveop the greatest agriculture in the wrold, while the Soviet Union was held back by a Godless central planning philosophy which tryied to impose things from above. Taht, in my opinion, i swhat Barack Obama is tryihng to do with global warming--more of a religion of leftist ideology than true science. That does all of this have to do with whether HUMAN BEINGS came into existence as a mateter of pure chance, starting with non-lving chemicals? That is the ponit. The PRACTICAL aspects of genetic theory and natural selection are not at issue. Christians are certainly not trying to tell scientists lthat they cannot work on the sicence to make our life better. Now, there may sometimes be a chance that scientists wil make our life worse, as with human cloning. But, again, thowse are issues that have nothing to do with whether human beings arose on this Earth solely as a matter of CHANCE--starting with non-living chemicals. As a Christian, I don't believe anything in this universe is solely the result of chance. Scientists have a lot of trouble explaining how thinking human beings arose, in the end, from chance combinations of non-living chemicals and molecules, and how chance, randum mutations just happened to lead to the evolution of thinking human beings. I believe in GOD as a Guiding Force in our universe, and I don't think anything in science shows that is not so. In fact, I would argue that there is a lot in science that pints toward GOD, a Gudiding Force that made us what we are. The fact that genetics and evolutoin can explain some things does not indicate that they can adequately explain everything. I don't think they do. Einstein once said, in criticizing quantum mechanics, that: God does not play dice with the universe." I prefer to blieve taht God didnot rely on longshot chances to create human beings. I believe that there was divine direction invoolved. Now why don't you go ask Barack Obama this fquestion, or are you just a partidan trying to use religion againt GOP candidates when it is not appropriate to do so? You "journalists" who ask this question of GOP candidates jsut don't seem very honest to me. Why don't you ask Barack Obama whether he believes, as a Chisrtian, wheter human beings came into existence by chance alone, as contemplated by theTehory of Evloution in its modern form? "

No, I know that no GOP candidate would dare give lthe above anser. Among other things, it is taoo complicated. Nevertheless, I would vote for any GOP candidate who DID give essentailly that answer. And I have no doubt at all that these candidates need to aTTACK on questins like this--whehter they give an opinion on how human beings cae to be on this Earth or not. That is why Newt Gingrich has "surged". He has shwon that he is unwiling--at least at times--to let evil "journalists" get away with these ridiculously unfair questions. The fact is that the mainstream media wants to push the idea that the GOP is "too religious", while giving Democrats a "pass" on the whole subject. This is EVIL stuff, and I will continue to say so untile November, and beyond--as I have for a decade on the inteernet.

Me? Does tthe above 'answer" represent my views? NOt entirely. Most if it is entirely accurate. However, you know I am a SKEPTIC on religion, even though I acknowledge I may be wrong. Do I really believe that living organisms were "created" in the non-living "soup" of the original atmosphere on Earth? Do I thien believe that CAHNCE MUTATIN (when mutations are more likely to be bad than good) led to thinking human beings, even over the LONG periord of time involved? Well,, I would say I RELUCTANTLY believe that, in a mild way, but taht I don't believe that we know the whole story. I don't think the Theory of Evolution--valuable and mostly correct as it is--explains everything It woul d be strange if it did, when the DETAILS of how all of this happened over so many years are so OBSCUFRE. Is there a NATURAL "force" "diredting" mutations so that there is a better than pure chance likelihood that the right mutation will occur at the right time? Is "intellligence" merely a matte r of evolutin? I am willing ot admit I DON'T KNOW on these questins, and I really don't see how I can condment a CHRISTIAN for seeing the hand of God in these matters, or even believing that human intelligence is outside of evilution altogether.

Again, you will see this blog take on the mainsteam media in BOTH religion and science. I have a degree in physics from New Mexico State University, and I took both biology and genetics (getting an "A" in both). Science has been a lifelong interest of mine, including an early interest in the scientific specullation of science fiction. This is true even though my career ended up being as a lawyer (graduating from the University of Texas at Austin School of Law). I would also say that the philosophy of religion--not religioous doctrine--has been a lifelong interestr of mine. I did not become an agnostic at approximately the age of 12, after being raised Presbyterian, BY ACCIDENT. Thus, I am perfectly willing to take on the media on thsese subjects, and definitely not AFRAID to discuss them. Since the media clearly WANTWS to--evil as it is--make THEIR view of religion amajor discussion in politics, you can expet this blog to CALL THEM on it all of this election

Oh. Beill Maher and I continue to believe that Barack Obama is NOT a Christian, but a secular humanist (meaning his real religion is leftist ideology). Well, I may not be entirely accurate about Bill Maher, since I don't folow him or what he labughably calls his "thinking". I heard hims say that Brack Obama is not a Christian. Does Maher STILL say that, or has he said he did not really meant it? I don't know. I suspect he has backed off of that direct statemetn, or said something like "you can be a secular humanist and still profess to be a Christian" (dishoenst as that would be). But I may be unfair to Bill Maher. Maybe he has stuck to his guns, and still does say that Obama is nto a Christian. He is RIGHT, after all, as am I.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Oh, yo will NOT see an "analysis" of Obama's State of the Union speech in this blog. I have absolutely NO desire to hear another CAMPAIGN SPEECH from Barack Obama, and thiat is ALL this speech is going to be. It is barely possible that I will comment on a "clip" or two of the speech I may hear later. But I have no intentino of wasing my time listening to the speech. Obama and the Democrats are becoming more and more about "class warfare". Yep, I DO wish that both Romney and Gingrich had not bought into the class warfare rhetoric--each in his own way. And then there are the BRIBES of the GOP in Congress, includng that "payroll tax cut". Don't get me started, or this article will never end.

Mitt Romney and the Cayman Islands: WHY?

2012-01-24T06:58:00.000-08:00

This is an example of how our media is NOT INTERESTED in INFORMATIONI. I am not intreseted in Mitt Romney's taxes, so long as he did not fail to pay the tases he legally owed (like Obama's Secretary of the Treasury). I am not intrested in how much money Mitt Romney earned, or how much money he has. I don't hink Mitt Romney's specific example, as an individucal, has anything to do with what tax POLICY should be, although if you favor a dramaticaly lower capital gains tax raate, you have to acknowledge that people in Romney's situation will be able to earn a LOT of money on CPITAL without paying much (relatively) in taxes. But that is a "problem" for ou (if, say, you are Gingrich) fully as much if you, yourself, pay 35% in taxes--o earn a small amount of income--as if yu earned the same investment income as Mitt Romney. I actually thnik peole in general "get" this, even though our media people do not. The issue here is overall POLICY, and not whether certain individuals "benefit" from a partticlar policy and others do not. As blog articles have explained, I thik the 15% capital gains rate is totally appropriate, while I think a zero percent capitalgainss rate is a mistake-because it encourages GAMES by people manipulating the form in which they earn money in order to save money on taxes. Yes, you can often CHOOSE whk;ether you earn ordinary income or capital gains, and I don't think the tax system should push you into ckoices based on taxes (or overly reward FORM in the tax system). But that is a problem for you, as a politician faovring a really low capital gains tax rate, whether you eearn money to the extent Romney does or ear $50,000 a year You still have to defend the POLICY you ddvocate. This PERSONAL poitcs is truly an evil thing. I digress (a little).

As stated, I am NOT INTERESTED in Romney's personal taxes, income or money However, I am MILDLY INTERESTED in his alleged account in the Cayman Islands. Now Romney, and Romney people, have said that money Romney sent to the Cayman Islands (or to a Cayman Island based entity, which may often by the equivalent of a post office box in terms of actual connectin to the Cayman Islands, was not for "tax avoidance. I am MILDLY interested in this; What WAS the purpose of "investing" money in the Cayman Islands? In otgher words, I am interested in INFORMATION (distinguishing me from the incompetent POLITICAL HACKS of the mediaj). I can make my own decision as to what to think of th information. Todya's media is only interested in teling you WHAT TO THINK about their "spin" on information, rather than reporting the neutral facts themselves.

Thus, hre is the question I would like to hear answered by Romney: "Mri. Romney, it has been reported that you have invested money in one or more Cayman Island based entities. Is that tre? Have you had acconts or investments nt he Cayman Islands? If so, how much and with what entities,. And why did you ut money in Cayman Island based entities, rahter than in United States entities and/or financial institutions? Yes, it might take more than one question to get the INFORMATION, but a real "journalists" could do it IF he were INTESTED. At the very least, such a real "journalist" could get Romney to explain why he thninks the detailed FACTS and REASONS are irrelevant.

This article was prompted by a 15 second "surf" of MSNBC this morning, where the reference to a Mitt Romney account in the Cayman Islands was used basically as an all-pupose set of CURSE WORDS. You know Something like: "You goddamned Cayman Island f------ rich guy have no business running for President of the 99%!!!!" I only exaggerate slightly.

Again, I would be MILDLY interested in the FACTS as to the connecton between Mitt Romney and the Cayman Islands. No, as with MSNBC, this will have NOTHING to do with why I oppose Mitt Romney for President. I already opose him for other reasons, as does MSNBC. Does the fact that Newt Gingrich got "consulting" money from Freddie Mac have anything to do with why MOST people who OPPOSE him do so? Not a chance. It is the other way around, as it is too often with the media. Still, the FACTGS regarding Gingrich and Freddie Mac have the potential to be a relevant consideration to weigh with ALL OF THE OTHER FACTS. That is someting that can't be said about Gingrich's personal, sexual life, which is not relevant at all. Similarly, the FACTS of Romney's "connection" to the Cayman Islands seem to me to have POTENTIAL relevance, even if they are hardly likely to be the mani factor in why you vote for or against Mitt Romey. I would be mildly interested in knowing those FACTS, without needing to know the business details of every transactin, so I could make up my own mind as to their impact (at least enough facts to make up my mind whether the whole subject has any relevance). I hae NO interest in peole merely using the Romney Cayman Island acccount as an alll-purpose SLUR onRomney.

P.S. No proofreading or spel checkng (bad eyesight). A political partisan, by the way, is perfectly free to "spin" the facts to suport his or her candidate. A "journlist", however, has a DUTY to develop the FACTS first, and present them, putting aside his own politcal partisanship to do so. Such a "journalist" no lnoger exists, although this blog DOES actually approach things the way a real "journalist" should, interested in the facts first. "Skip, how can you say that when you use such derogatory terms in describing people and when you have such an obviusly extreme political point of view?" I did not say that I do not have a strong (wich is the word I prefer instead of "extreme") political point of view, and I generally make clear what that point of view is. However, I do NOT deliberately distort facts to push my point of view. I may interpret facts through the prism of my own ideology (less htan most, I think), but I do NOT ditort facts because I am suporting a particular party or person. Nope. That is NOT true of the odern "journalist", who not only distorts facts for those reasons, but distorts them additoinally because his "profession" (now more and more like The Oldest Profession, except much worse) is al about 'storyline" and AMBITION for the "journalist". See Michael Crichton's "Airframe" for what I mean.--a novel that sketches out odern "journalism" with such devastating effet that I don't know how any "journalist" could read it and not feel a dagger has been inserted into his or her heart.

GOP Debate: Dull (Rcik Santorum Winner--Gringrich-Romney Race Not Much Affected)

2012-01-23T21:18:00.000-08:00

I saw the whole NBC debate tonigh, and I don't know why. The questions were dull and not calculated ot get real INFORMATINO 9as no media queston is). Ther ewas no energy in the room. The answers were mainly dull. The reason I give the debate to Santorum i sbecaue of his LAST answer as to why he is the "real" conservative. Santorum actually had an edge, for a changed, in his answer, and he was CORRECT in everytnhing he said.

But did not Romney launch ATTACKS on Gingrich is a DESPERATE , negative attempt to tear newt down? Yes, Romney rried to actuallyl VIOLATE debate "rules", and simply "overwhlem" Newt with attacks as Romney jsut KEPT TALKING. Not effective, in my view. It certainly does not make me want to support ROMNEY. But wan't it "exciting"? Actuall, no. It ws like a TOOTHLESS, DCLAWED TIGER attacking a rubber doll. Gingrich chose not to "engage" with counterpunches, teh way he did with John King and Juan Williams. Newt just let the attacks bounce off. MAYBE that was "smart". I am not sure. I think Newt makes a mistake to suddenly start acting like a FRONTRUNNER. He needs to keep doing what brought him to this point, even though Brian WEilliams have him little chance (probably deliberately). I jsut wasnot impressed by either Romney or gingrich tonight. No, Gingrich did NOT "hurt" himself. But neither did he much help himself. Romney's OBVIOUS attempt to ATTACK at all cost, in a negative way, seemed DESPERATE and CALCULATED reather than effective.

I would give the Romney-Gingrich battle to Gingrich, except taht Gingrich had NO "Gingrich moment" where Gingrich gave an insight that no one esle on state gave, oris even capable of giving. When Gingrich is reduced to merely "shrugging off" attacks, and "explaining" the substance of his positions, he is NOT that good. As I think this blog has made clear, I am generally NOT impressed with Gingrich when he satrts talking aobu tPOLICY . I don't think Romney gets anywhere accusing Gingrich of "influence peddling", or callling him similar names. But Gingrich doesn't get too far when he talks about his "routine" ideas. No, I don't think Ginrich is especailly good talking abut his tax plan,--where the zero percent cap;ital gains rate can be criticized, as I have, as encouraging tax GAMES. Gingrich did get a softball questioin on the "Dream Act", and knocked it out of the park (getting to say that he likes the MILITARY SERVICE section of that act, which EVERYONE does, including me). In general, however, when Gingrich is reduced to being a regular politician, talking about the standard things, Gingirch comes across as the regular politican he CAN BE--not as someone who will easlily defeat Barack Obama in debatees. Gingrich id NOT easily defeat Mittt Romney tonight, and that is really a little bit of a SETBACK for Gingrich. Yes, it does showjust how strong that Gingrich has been in debates that I can say it is a "setback" for him not to clearly win--even though he did reasonably well and made no obvioius mistakes.

My advice to Gingrich: Do NOT assume that you can suddently start acting "Presidential" like Romney acted so long. Gingrich has to do better than that. My advice to Romney: you BETTER make a BETTER case for YOU, and not rely on TEARING DOWN Gingich with negative attacks.

Again, a DULL debate which really did not help ANYONE decide for whom to vote. Rick Santorum still comes across as teh consistent conservative in the race, but still can't seem to catch fire. Dull. That may slow Gingrich's momentum a LITTLE, but it hardly helped Romney. Did it help Santourm? I don't know. It should have helped him a little, but he has so LITTLE money, and franklyu so little 'charisma", that it probalby won't matter--UNLESS the other tw simply tear each otehr apart (possible).

Ron Paul was Ron Paul, altough he and Gingrich sort of "flirted wth each otehr" on stage. But Paul will do that sort of thing when invited, as Gingrich did try to appeal to Paul supporters. Doesn't mean much--other than that Romney just won't take ANY risks (even to the extent of taking abut Ron Paul being right on the Federal Reerve).

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

Newt Gingrich and Religion: Is Barack Obama a Muslim?

2012-01-23T18:13:00.000-08:00

The headline is a trick question, because this blog has already labeled you a KIOK if you believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim (art of this blog's "your are a kook if:" series). Yep. My 89 yar old mother is a KOOK. What can I say? She is a woman and a lifelong Democrat (from th Great Depression, and FDR, her hero). I digress. The hedline arises because of this continuing agenda of the ANTI-CHRISTIAN mainstream media to both DEFEND Obama on religion and ATTACK the GOP andd conservatives ON RELIGION.

The particular "inspiraton" for this article was--a CNN report this time, I am pretty sure--TheAnti-Christian Network)--on an interview queston to Rick Santorum. The question was a direct attempt to SUYPPORT Barakc Obama on religoin, worded someting lik ethis: "Waht are you doing to make sure that the American peple do not believe this propaganda lie that Barack Obama is a Muslim.". You may think I am exaggerating the question, but the fact is that I am hardly exaggerating it at all. I have seen this done multiple times. The mainstream media seems to think it is a GOP RESPONSIBITIY to convince people that Barack Obama is a Christian. What is funny, of course, is that Barakc Obama is NOT a Christian, although he is not a Muslim either .Bill Maher (CNN/mainstream media favorite atheist) and I agree that Barack Obama is a "secular humanist"--in other words a LEFTIST who does not believe in ANY religion other than leftist ideology. But the mainstream media believe that they can "help" Barack Obama by putting GOP politicians "on the spot' by"making them" VALIDATE Obama's relgioin. Thi, of course, is desicable stuff (the media), but GOP poiticians have a problem because they will not act like Newt Ginrcih and ATTACK the qestioin< OR ATTACK Obama's record on religion (easily attacked). GOP politicians know that the mainstream meida is going to try to ATTACK them on attackng the President's religoin, and they are COWARDS.

Santourm, who this blog stil endorses, said that he has stated that BarackObama is not a Muslim, but feels no responsibility to go out every day and make it a missoni to convince people of that. Santorum is right about that, but the answer is nOT up to Gingrich standards.

I am often asked whether there is ANYTHING Newt Ginrich could do to get me to support him agaisnt Barack Obama (much les for the nomination). Okay. I am NEVER asked this, but I am going to anser it anyway. Actually, there is. Yes,, jumping on questions from Juan Williams and Joh King is a stepin the right direction, but not nearly enough. THIS would probably be enough:

Question to Gingrich from media person trying to support Obama on religion: "Don't yo feel an obligation to convince people that the President of the United Sates is not a Muslim, which you know he isn't/" Or: "You believe that Barack Obama is a Christian, don't yoou?" Yes, there could be any number of variations on this questiong. But this should be the Gingrich answer if he wants MY supoport:

"I see no evidence that President Obama is a Muslim, although I think he as undermined the secrity of Israel fully as effectively as if he were a radical Muslim. Do yoou really want me to give my personal opnion on his religion? I think his POLICIES are attacknig religion, but I thin it is not right to make a political issue out of a person's personal religious beliefs. I don't want to be thought to be evading a question, however, Do ou really want me to give my personal opinon on President Obama's religion?"

Questioner: "Yes, Mr. Speaker, President Obam ais being attacked on his religino. Dont yo feel an obligatin to defend or Preisdent against those attacks?"

Ginrch: "No. (followed by a puase). I agree with Bill Maher--at least what he has said in the past--that Barack Obama is not a believing Christian, but a secular humanist who reallly believes only in leftist ideology. Could I be wrong? Sure. I can't look withoin President Obama to see his soul. The balanceof the evidence, though , is that he is a hypocrite. He say he is a Christian when he thinks it is politically advantageous for him to do so. He then misquotes the Declaration of Indppendence to leave out "by their Creator'--to leave out GOD in what I think ws a deliberate attempt to avoid offending the ACLUL. He tallks about peole "clinging to their religin". And his POLITICES attck Christian religious groups, without any sensitivity to their sincere religious beliefs. I don't think that Preisident Obama' sperosanl religious beliefs should be a political issue, altough I think his ATTACKS on reltion should be. Bt, since you ask MY OPINIOIN, my opinin is that President Obama does not truly believe in any religion--including the Christian religion. "

Now if Newt Gingrich said something like THAT, I would be FORCED to support hm, despite the many reasons I have for not supporting him (not, by the way, having anything to do with his adultery or marriages or the like). ANY GOP politician with THAT kind of courage is a politican I would HAVE to support, despite my qualms, jsut as I will suport Ron Pual if no one else is left besides Romney and/or Obama.

The mainstream media is perfectly willihng to talk about the Moron religion being a cult, or to talk negatively abuot "evangelicals" or the "religious right'. They are even willing to talk about the religoius beliefes of GOP opoliticians, such as wehether they "believe" in evollution, or wheher homosexuaity is a sin. Someone HAS to CALL THIEM on this EVIL HYPOCRISY. If Newt Ginrich were to do that effectivel, I would have to FORGIVE ALL.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). For the record, once again (see previous articles), I an an AGNOSTIC (the same thing that Bill Maher callls himself). To me, that means I see things as they ARE, rather than through an agenda, as far as religion is concerned. The media, in contrast, is all about AGENDA, and they LIE when they try to make religion an "issue" for GOP candidates, but condemn it as an "issue" for Barack Obama. I repeat what is 95% certain to be the truth: Barack Obama is NOT a believing Christian, but a hypocrite.

Evangelicals and Or Anti-Christian Media

2012-01-23T17:32:00.000-08:00

For the anti-Chrristian mainstream media, a GOP nomination campaign is all abut RELIGION, because the mainstream media blieves that they an successfullly DEMONIZE (pujn intended) the "religious right". Bhe mainsteam media believe that people in general do not really 'believe" in their religion, because the mainmsteam media people do not. Is the mainsteam medaia RIGHT on this? I am not totally sure,. I believe a LOT of people don't let their religion "interfere" with their LIFE, the way-for example--fundamentalist Christians do. In other words, religioin has no moe ffect on their THINKING and ACTIONS tghan it does on Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama. But it is easy to overplay this, and I believe the mainsteream media has long since gone overoboad on bein ANTI-CHRISTIAN (the real explanation of why so much of the mainstrream media comes across as PRO-MUSLIM). Doubt me? Never do that. It just makes you look foolish.

Here is what I heard on the LEFTIST MSNBC today (I think it was on MSNBC, althouth CNN is officially The Anti-Christian Network)--as the commentator was commenting on the mainstream media theme that relision "dominates" the GOP: ";You can see this operating in South Caroina, where Gingrich got more than 40% of the evangelical vote."

Say what/ You can't say someting like this, stating that Gingrich can thank kthe religious voter dominating the GOP for his victory. Welll, you CAN say it. I heard the MSNBC person say it. But all you do is expose yourself for the antiChristian, DISHONEST, political hack that your are. Gingrich got 40% of the vote of almsot EVERY GROUP in South Carolna That is the ONLY way you get a landslide. "Evangelicals voted JUST LIKE EVERYOHNE ELSE. Gingrich won among men Gingrich won among married women (among all women, as well). Gingrich won among conservatives. Gingrich won amon "independents" (a FICTITIOUS GROUP, of which I am a 'membe--just as all of this "grouping" is divisive, meaninglesss and somewhat fictitious). Gingrich AMOST won among "moderates". That is the only way you administer this kind of BUUTT KICKING. You have to win EVERHNOE. But for the anti-Christian BIOGTS of the mainstreammedia, it is all aobut "religious" GOP voters.

Just look at how BAD that statement I heard ws. The person was trying to make the pont that "evangelicals" (this "religious right" the mdia loves to HATE) gave Gingrich the victory in South Carolina by VOTING LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. Just how can you be any more DISHONEST than that? You can't.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Just for the record: I continue to be an AGNOSTIC myself (since the age of about 12-never hainvg been an "evangelical" in my life, althogh having been raised--to age 12--as a Presbyterian). I also OPPOSE Gingrich for President, although he is getting this ANTI-CHRISITAN attitude of our "elites" exactly right. My older daughter was aan intern for a justice on a United States Court of Apppeals while she was in Cornell Law School, My daughter told me that the judge for whom she worked (for college credit)--an obviously ESTABLISHMENT, ELITE guy seemed more concerend about this country becoming a THEOCRACY...........................................................................................Sorry, laughing/crying on the floor again, tthan any other "issue". My daughter, by the way, is like her father (if not nearly as smart) in not believing in any religion. As I said, Gingrich is getting this EXACTLY RIGHTHT. Our "elites" rally aer AFRAID OF peole hwho actually BELIEVE in their religion. As readers of this blog know, I am not (afraid of tose peple---nor do I look down upon them). It is too bad that my daughter is not nearly as smart as I am, although smarter than EVERY woman on the unfair and unbalanced network. I attribbute that to both our modern educatin systemn and teh fact that she is a WOMNA (even though i was forced to make that blog applogy to the women of South Carolina--especially the married women).

Haley Barbour and the GOP Establishment: Blog 5475, GOP Establishment 0 (Tomorrow's News Today)

2012-01-23T08:31:00.000-08:00

Haley Barbour ws governor of Mississippi. Yet, he was NOT a consrvative. He was a GOP estalbishment guy, and is a depsicable human being (to quote Newt Gingrich on John King). This blog wrote at least one,, and probably more than one , article saing this about Halye Barbour BEFORE he made it clear by pardoning murderers with whom he happened to have personal contact--in complet3e disregard for the VICITMS, and the fact that the murderers had PREVENTED the VICTIMS from ever having the chance to make something better of their life. Some of you may wonder why I doggedly support the death penalty, even though we had shown that we are too COWARDLY to implement it without extreme cost and "Bleak House" kind of delay. This is the reason. IF we execute a murderer, at least yu won't have a LEFTIST (in his soul, like most of the GOP estaablishment politicians) come along and PARDON THEM. Even if they just stay on death row forever, it is HARD to do something really stupid like these pardons.

Yep. This is yet another example of this blgo being RIGHT IN FORESIGHT. This blog told you that Haley Bararour was a typical, despccable GOP estrabishment guy IN ADVANCE, and while peole like Rush Limbaugh and the peopole of the unfair and unbalanced netowrk, would still have been wiling to call Barbour a "conservative'. At the time I wrote the article(s) I am thinking of, Barbour ws onte of CNN's favorite "conservatives". This blog blew the whistle on him, as I think this blog had done even beffore than (I certainly knew it years ago). A CNN conservative (not limited to just those who apppear on CNN) bears the same relationship to a real conservative that a Cooper Indian (Mark Twian's satiric view of the Indian characters of James Fenimore Cooper) bears to a real Indian.

As this blog proves right time and time again about the GOP establishment, and GOP establishment politicians, you should be getting an idea of why I make this statement: Hell will freeze over and the sun will go out befoore I will EVER vote for another member of the GOP establishment (as it now exists), even if that person is running against Satan himself. Haley Barbour, as this blogo told you in advance, is a TYPICAL member of the GOP establishment. NO principles at all. NO honor at all. NO intelligence at all. The policians of the GOP estalbishment are clueless, as Mitt Romney is proving.

"But, Skip, who determines who is a member of the GOP estalbishment? If we can't even trust a Mississippi governor to be a real conservative, who can we turst?" Well, you can't TRUST any politician. Look at this blog's resent exposure of Marco Rubio as pretty much another GOP estalbishment politician. But you have no prolem--so long as I am around--determining who is part of this despicable GOP estalbishment.

That's right. It is I who determine who is part of t the GOP estalbishmennt mindset, and there is NO APPEAL from my decision. And there are NO PARDONS, short of maybe a posthumous pardon for (politically) throwing yourself on a grenade in the interest of a conservative cause you have somehonw embraced after your career as a no-principled GOP estalbishment person.

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

Obama Is Not a Christian, as Bill Maher and tThis Blog Agree

2012-01-22T23:17:00.000-08:00

"Skip, I thought you said that it was EVIL to argue direct religious beliefs in a political campaign.'

I did. But I have also told you that I am NOT a Christian, and do not turn the other cheek. Read the previous article, and numerous others this blog has posted ove the past decade or so. CNN, and the entire mainstream media-including the unfair and unbalanced netwokr--are DETERMINED to make RELIGION a MAJOR topic in political campaings, so long as it is ut out THEIR WAY. That they want to do is HANG conservatives iwth THEIR view of religion in politics. I refuse to allow that.

If there is one thing you should realize, it is that I am perfectly willing to ARGUE RELIGION, and o note when the mainstream media are being RELIGIOUS BIOTS and ANTI-CHRISIIAN distorters of our Constitution.

Thus, you can expect me to use this headline about every onther day between now and November. First, it is TRUE. It is 95% certain that Barakc Obama is NOT a believing Christian. If he acted like the were, CNN and the rest of the mainsream media and the left would not support him. Nor would he, Obama, say th things he does, or do the things he does (like misquoting the Delcaration of Independece).

But Obama continues to CLAIM to be a Christian for POLITICAL CONVENIENCE 9votes). That makes our Presdient a HYPOCRITE. No, that does not ]man I think it is appropirate to make his "religious beliefs" (as distinguished from policies) adirect political issue. We just should nto be in the business of EVLUATING a person's connection with God, as part of public political campaigns (even if our beliefs influence us idividually). And it is only tthe DISONEST peole of CNN (and other media entities and people) who use "hypocrisy" as an EXCUSE to do EVIL Ype This ies exaclty true of these SMEARS like those of Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain. A person's personal life should nNOT be part of poli tical campaings (within reason), because it is SORDID and UNFAIR. We can't possibly, without massive infasiosn of privacy, KNOW that a person' real religious beliefs are, OR what a person's sexual "morality" is really like. The media wants us to discard the distinction between "public issues' and "privateissues' that used to prevail in American politics. That is what makes the media, among otehr things, so EVIL. Waht they "advocate" to be the basis of political campaigns is BACK FENCE GOSSIP and negative ad attaqcks (prfesented by TME, masquerading as "news").

Nope. This stuuff is really bad, but I refuse to levae the field of battele to these EVIL media peole. That means you will continue to see this headline. You will also see me continue to say this: I don't understnad how AnY Christian can voee for Barack Obama. No, it is not really that Obama is NOT a Christian, altough that is true. Obama is ANTI-CHRISTIAN, just like Bill Maher and CNN> I am NOT a Christian, and so I cannot fully udnerstand the Christian mind. But I am not sure WHY you would want to vote for a person who is YOUR ENEMY. Again, I am putting it in these terms because that is the field of batle upon which the media is fighting. It is, of coure, perfectly valied to say--correctly--that Obama is conducting a war on rligon (as Rick Perry did). That is NOT a "religious" issue. tat is a POLICY issue. But I dont likmit myself to that plicy argument, for reasons I have stated. I will continue to ARGUE the "religious" issues, because that is what the media is trying to do. I would advise GOP candidates to stick to OICY, as Newt Gingirch is doing. I am not running for anything, however, and I will take on CNN and the rest of the media on their own ground.

So you can expect me to ARGUE RELIGION, and Obama's lack of it, untiil at least November, ponitin gout the RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY of the media the whole time. CNN is The Anti-Christian Network, and you can expect this blog to say THAT all of the way to November (and beyond) ,.

John King, Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer: Evil, Evil Religioius Bigots on the Anti-Christian Network

2012-01-22T21:12:00.000-08:00

Exit polls are EVIL things theselves. They are incaccurate and serve NO peruporse other than to attempt to DIVIDE us into groups. For John King, however, joined by Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer, however, exit pollss are even more EVIL than that. They repesent a tool for RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY (notto mention outright stupidity).

Now it turned out that almost ALL grooups voted for New Gingrich in a bbout the sam epercentage: "evangeliclas", "conservatives", "married women": They ALL gave a little more than 40% of their votes to Newt Gignrich. The onlyl groupo that did not was "moderatges", and Gingrich was pretty close to EVEN there. Plus, after the New Hampshire primary, polls were showng Mitt Romney with AT LEAST a 17 percentage point lead in South Carolina--polls at least as accurate (although just as eveil and meaningless) as the notriously inaccurate exit polls. Th eonly logical conclusion from this is that RELIGIION played NO part in the Gingrich landslide victory in South Carolina. This did not stop CNN from another attempt--part of their "storyline" on the GOP vote--to make RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE an Issue" in GOP politcis (but NOT Democrat poitics) . Thus, CNN attempted to USE the ONE evague exit poll question on religiojhn to advance the CNN EVIL AGENDA to make RELIGION a mjor part of the olitcal debate in the GOP nominiation. This was after Johking--world calas dishonest HPOCRITE---had said it was an EVI thinkg to make Oba'a's religion an "issue", because a eprson's religion (or lack therefo, in the case of Obama) should NOT be an "issue" in poolitics.

The vague exit poll question was: "Was your religion "veryimprotant" in your decisoin on how to vote; "somewhat importatn", and so on. Look how STUPID this question is. What does it even MEAN? If you REALLY believe in your religion, do you not believe that your religion is IMPORTANT in EVERY major decision that you make? Now the questin may have been worded someting like whether it was "imprtant" that a candidate SHARE your religious views, although again the quesint was MEANINGLESS (religious BIGOTRY, really, in the every question itself). But how did the DESPIBCABLE John King (shown to be that by THIS BLOG long before Newt Gingrich showed him to be despicable John King charcterize these voters, and this question, to NODS fraom the BIGOTED Anderson Coop[er and Wolf Blitzer? Here is how:

These people who vote for a cnadidate "BASED ON HOW HE PRAYS" voted like thi....." The hihgighted wores are an EXACT QUOTE!!!!!!!! I promise you,: I could never ake this up. I could not even imagine, even knowing CNN, that ONE MAN and ONE NETWORK could be this EVIL and BIGOTED. This truly is The Anti-Christian Network, and John King, Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper are anti-Chrisitan bigots on teh anti-Christian network This is also,needless to say, The Liar Network.

Did the exit poll questin say anything about peole voting based on "how candidates pray". Of course not, and the very idea is ABSURD. IT is EViL BIGOTRY rying desperately to USE religion--a religion against which CNNN is BIGOTED-as a SMEAR against the GOP. Newt ir ight on this one: "Our 'elites' are ANI-CHRRISTIIAN." That is certainly true of CNN in general, and John King, Anderson Cooper and Wolf Bitzer in particular. "based on how they pray" indeed. How can any person say something like that? Just how bad can Jon King be? I don't think we have even reached the depths of hwow bad he can be. If he will say something THIS BIOTED, there is no BIGOTED thing he would not think or say. As I said, this entire media "focus' on religion and the GOP is a deliberate SMEAR desinged to make religion---as religion--an"issue" on politcs? You doubt me on this? Never do that. Exlain, then why CNN eatured an article, and promoted it on ari, entitled "The Gospel according to Herman Cain." For CNN, the GOP i sall about "religion", the "Tea Party,", and all of those hother things agaisnt which CNN is PREJUDICED. CNN fully agrees with Obama about smal town voters (GOP voters) "clinging to their religion".

No. This is EVIL stuff,. In fact, it does nto really get any more evil than this kind of bigotry. John King, wo asserted on air that there was "no evidence" of "wrondoing" on Solyndra (a LIE), had NO EVIDENCE that people who said religion was "important" in the way they voted really voted "based on the way candidates pray". That just shows how ANTI-CHRISTIAN CNN really is. That is what John King and CNN think of religiion: it is just about the "way people pray". A peson who will say that, of course, cannot really believe in a religion. To people who really believe, eligion is FUNDAMENTAL TO YOUR LIFE. No, it is NOT fundamental to mine, because I am an AGNOSTIC. But iI am not BIOGED, and cluesless, like John King and CNN.

Let me come at this another way. Is a cnadidate's religion "improtant' to Joh King, Anderson Cooper and Wolf Bitzer when they vote? Is it important to Bll Maher (professed agnostic, like me, although really an anti-religous fanatic)? I am sure that these people would say "no", but they would be LYING. I am lplanning a foolow up article on the front page article of one of the main Tennessee newspapers, which my brother living in Nashville did not believe, talking about how the RELIGON of GOP CANDIDATES affects their "thinking" too much (really the very same BIGOTED pont that CNN is trying to push, and certanly believes).

Would John King votte AGAINST Rick Perry, for example, because of the "way he prays"? I guarantee that John King, Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper would vote AGAINST any person whose religioous beliefs are like Rick Perry's, or Rick Santorum's, because they think those religious beliefs lead to a state of mind that si comletely contrary to what CNN people think is proper. U understand that John Kin gwould DENY (dihonest lliar that he is) that he would vote against Rick Perry becaues of the 'way he prays'. He would be, of course, right, but only in the snesne I ham right that john kng has shown himself to be a dishonest, evil person. NO ONE--absoutely no one--would ever say that they vote agasint someone, or for someone, based on the "way he prarys. It is absurd to even say it, and John King is absurd. John King and Bill Maher are likely to vote for someone who is NOT a "undamentalist" Christian--because they think "fundamentalist" Christians don't share their 'values". They don't TURST them. And they know that they are likely to oppose their policy positions. Yet, that is ALL religious people are saying twhen they say that they want to vote for people who "share their religious valutes". They believe that their religous values are RIGHT, jsut as much as Billl Maher and CNN believe that their values are right. Piers Morgan, on The Gay Network, has said epeatedly that he thinks it is EVIL (in effect) to believe, and especailly to say, that homosexual conduct is a "sin". Do yuo believe that Peris Morgan would vote for people based on the "way they praY" (in the sense thae exit poll can be TWISTED in that EviL manner)? How can you not believe that. Peris Mragan would NEVER vote for a "fundamentalist" Christian, amd that is obviisly true of almost all of the peole at CNN. But we dont' have POLSS on that.

We don have pols on whether peole think Barack Obama is a Christian, which he is NOT (as Bill Maher and I agree). But those polls are then ATTACKED, as John King did, on the basis that EVIL people are tying to make "religon" an "issue" in politcs. Did I just ssay that John King, and CNN, have called John King and CNN EVIL. Damn right that is what I just said. It is CNN, and others in the media, that are trying to make the details of a person's religion into something to be exhaustively discussed as a POLITICAL ISSUE. Yep, It is CNN, and NOT either GOP politicans or evangelicals, who are trying to bring discusson of rellition directly into POLITCS. CNN ihas called that an evil thing (in essence) and CNN is right. John King, Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer and CNN are EVIL people for trying to make religion into such a big "issue" in political discusson.

This blog tells you the truth. Three is NOTHING WRONG with a person wanting to vote for a candidate who shares that person's fundamental beliefs. This has NOTHING to do--notwistanding the despicable John King--with "the way a person prays'. It has to to with voing for a person who you are pretty confident SHARES YOUR VALIUES> What is WRFONG is to make RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE, or the DETAILS of religioous belief (such as wheth3er Mormonism is a "cult') in to a POLITICAL issue to be PUBLICCLY ARGUED> That is exaclty what CNN is trying to do, and what even most "fundamentalist" Christians are NOT tryihng to do. Are evangelical PASOTORS out therei CAMPAIGNING against Mitt Romney because a Mormon should never be President? No, except when CNN goes out and LOOKS for one--the BIOTS (referring to CNN). Evnagelical leaders may throw their support behind someone other than Romney because they think such candidate shares their values mroe (as CNNN believes that Brack Obama shares their values more than ANY fundamentalist Christian--especially one who is a member of the GOP)> But these evangelical leaders are NOT out there saying that there is no way you should ever vote for Romney because he is a Mromon. It may have SOMETHING to do with who they coose to support, just as the fact taht a candidate is a fundamentalist Christian may have someting to do with for whom John King votes, but they are not making it an ISSUE to be "argued' in the public arena. That is amost entirely CNN.

That is the difference between right and wrong--between good and evil--as to which CNN has no clue. There is NOTHING wrong with a person believing his or her religion is "important", , even in deciding for whom to vote. There is EVERYTHING wrong with trying to ARGUE RELIGION as part of our POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS (which is exactly what CNN is trying to do, in as dishonest a way as possible) .

As stated in previous articles, evangelical VOTERS have shown themselves to have more TOLERANCE than CNN and the media even come close to having. "Evangelicals' were READY to give Romney a BIG win in South Carolina, until Romney showed he had feet of clay (as a candidate). Evangelicals have shown that they are willng to vote for Gingrich--despite his "sins", and despite the fact that he is a CAHOLIC. Evangelicals have REFUSED to vote for the most OBVIOUS "fundamentalist Christians' in the race: Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann. Reaons: Evanglecials are clearly willing to put their COUNTRY ahead of stict religious doctrine and religoius "judgment' on conduct. Even Rick Santorum is a CATHOLIC. I don't know how you were raised. But I was raised Presbyterina in a small Arkanssas town (Mt. Ida). I was basically "tuaght" that that the CATHJOLIC religion is WRONG--bringing all kinds of idol worshiop and other heresies into the original Chirstian faith ("saints", for examle). What, exactly do you think that the Protestant Reformation was all about? It was about the Catholic Chruch h=having CORRUPTED the Christain relgiion, with a lot of justice. You will remember that history tells us that the Caholic Chruch started SELLING CHURCH BENEFITS, and oterwis becoing obviously corrupt (see Will Duran'ts "Story of Civilization). Popes became POLITICAL, and even had mistresses and children. No, I am not intending to ATTACK the Caholic Churhc, although I was certainly not raised to admire it. The idea that GOP voteres are "voting their religion" is a CNN LIE>

GOP votes may--unlike Obama---tend to BELIEVE in their relgion more than leftist Demorats and CNN "journalists". Would I vote, by the way, for a RADICAL ISLAMIST who endorsed the INTOLERANT form of the Muslim relgion which is taught in Saudi Arabia (from which the Taliban and al-Qaida arose)?? Not a chance. In that sense, religion is important to ME. I actually have no problem with fjudamentalist Christian religions, as an agnostic, even if the thinking is alen to mine (even as we end up in the SAME political place) . Indded, I have NEVER had a "fundamentalist Christian" be UNKIND to me, even though I never misrepresent my religion (although I regard it as RUDE to act like the ACULU and try to TRASH another' preson's religion) I have my l Have my limits, however, and I refuse to support the intolerant religon of RADICAL ISLAM. I could NEVER vote for a person who believed in that version of Islam, and it has NOTHING to do with how "they praray". I still can't believe John King said that, but I heard him. I think I COULD, by the way, support a Msulim who made it clear that he did NOT support the intolerance of extreme IslamistsBut that is one case where I wuold expect the canddiate to make clear exactly what KIND of Muslim he was. The same would apply to the POLYGAMIST Mormon sects who are no lnger part of the Mormon relgion (even thought the BIGOTS at the AP--EVIL BIGOTS--had the nerve to run a "serious" news' story in 2008 taht Mitt Romney's grat-grandafter ahd been a polygamist). But I had no problem, unlike CNN, with regarding it as a SMEAR to assert taht Sarah Palin had belonged to a Christian church belonging to that Christian movement known for "speaking in tonges". That was CNN BIGOTRY, pure an dsmple. Religious doctrine does not concern me, unless it is doctrine of INTOLERANCE of other religos IN THIS WORLD (should be left to GOD) .

Now, when I use the word "intolerance", that is what I mean: intolerance of RELIGOUS BELIEFS that do not lead to human sacrifice, terrorism or the life. What CNN means when ththey talk about "tolerance' is "tolerance" of CONDUCT that is not part of the "way eple pray", at all. If you don't believe in abortion BECAUSE of your relligon, there is nothing wrong with that. Technically, if you reALLLY believe in teh Christian, you should believe that ALL morality comes from GOD,, includin gyour opposition to MURDER of an adult. Abortion is a SECULAR issue, no matter why you believe it should be illegal. That is ture of homsexual conduct, polygamy, incest, pedophilia, beastility, or any number of other things. It is a person's RELIGION that should no be a DEBATED political issue (like whether Catholics go to Hell, or whether Mromonism is a cult). Those thinhgs can be debated THEOLOGICALLY, and you may prefer to vote individually for someone who shares your IMPORTANT beliefs in this area, but it is an EVIL thinng to start debating these things as part of our political campaigns.

Nope. It is NOT okay to try to figure out whether religion has an "influence' in how people vote. In ther first palce, as with CNN, there is ALWAYS a hiddne political agenda. IN the second, palce, as stated, it DIVIDES us . Yep I DO think that it is REACIST tot try to separate racisl and ethnic groupos in terms of how they vote. So What? What are wesupposed to DO if Hispancis vote more for Democrats than the GOP? It is IRRELEVANT to any public policy issue, just as it is IRRELEVANT who evangelicals vote, as distinguished fomr FAT PEOPLE. It is just an invitatin to BIGOTRY, and that is how CNN uses it: to advance anti-Christian bigotry. No, even if 100% of Hispanics vote Democratic, it should NOT cause GOP politicians to change what they think is right for ALL of the peple If you don't underastand this, then you shuld appply to work in the mainstream media. We should, for example, do the RIGHT policy on illegal immigraitni, NOT the policy that "appeals" to Hispanic VOTERS. Sure, we should EXPLAIN to Hispanic voters why our olicy is RIGHT, , but his PANDERING to GROUPS is an evil thing encouraged by "exit polls" (and other polls).

Say 2/3 of evangelicals, or 3/3 of Hispanics, vote a certain way thinking they are advacing their "group interst". Is there ANY reason to assume that the 2/3 is right, and the 1/3 wrong? Nope. In fact,g read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", on whihc I did a term paper in my college philosophy class. Joun Stuart Mill's CORRECT idea of "liberty" can be summed up in this one sentence (foreign to leftist, including CNN): 'All of the people of the world but one are no more justified shutting up that one person, than that one person would be in shutting up the entire rest of the population of the world." Evangelicals have a right to ACT upon their religious beliefes, just like Bill Maher hass a RIGHT to actu upon his belief in "secular humanism" (which he corretly says Barak Obama shares). What evnagelicals, Bill Maher and CNN do NOT have a right to do is SHUT UP their opposition. CNN and leftists make much more effort to do tha than evalngelical Christians. You should see why I like Ron Paul, even though hI think he is (politically) NUTS. I am more conservative than I am libertarian, but I do have strong libertarian leanings. And you already know I am a SKEPTIC, becase I am a religouis agnostic (a real one, who is not even sure I am right, rather than a FALSE, intolerant one like Bill Maher and the anti-Christian bigots of CNN).

Jesus (pun intended). Voting "basedon the way they pray". I still don't believe that John King said that. He, and CNN, are WORSE than I thought, and my opinion of them was already as low as I thought it could get.

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

Wall Street Journal, Tone Deaf and Politically--and Acually--Stupid: Killing Off Mitt Romney

2012-01-22T07:12:00.000-08:00

Did you know thatt The Wall Street Journal wants Mitt Romney to run a campaign based on Bain Capital SAVING America? Did Bain Captial sae America? You don't believe that. I don't believe that. NON ONE blieves that, except thedespicable Wall Stretet Journal and the economic fascists of Wall street--who want a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street and for Wall Street (I offer lthis line to Gingrich free of charge, even though I don't support him for President).

Even the Wll Street Journal--which the author of this blog DISWNED some 40 years ago, and has never found cause to believe he was wrong--cannot possibly believe that Bain Capital literally "saved America". Even Mitt Romney does not try to say this, even as he uts TTO MUCH emphaiss on Bain Capital PROVING he"knows" how to create jobs, without EXPLAINING ow that translates into GOVERNMENT POLICY (see previouis article). As I said in the previous article, Bain Capital is a MILD PSITIVE for Mitt Romney, It CANNT be the end-all of his campaign. But what the Wall Streeet Journal wants Romney to do is to say that WALL STREET SAVED AMERICA. Read the line in my first paragraph agai. The people on Wall Street LITERALLY think that way. I am not intending to exaggerate. These truly are, as this blog has been saing for a DCADE or so: The Stupidest People on Earth (along with "journalists").

Say what/ Yes, for as long as I have know anythinhg about the Wall Street Journal, it has taken the positon that BIG MERGERS are "necessary" to make business "more efficient", and weed out the weeak. This is a VIOILATION of free market theory-this Wall Street Journal idea that BIG is GOOD. In other words, the Wall sTreet Journal setill EMBRACES "too big to fail". The Wall Street Journal calls this "consolodation" that makes business more 'efficient" (translation, people get FIRED). Free market THEORY (the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith) is based on multiple free market units acting in their own sef interst, who allocate resources corrctly by the COMBIANTION of all of their decisions--beteter than the FALIBLE "cnetral planning" decisoins of either government or some masssive Wall Street organized companies. Free market theory BRAKS DOWN if the "units" whose decisioins combine to make up the 'invisible hand" of Adam Smith have enough POWER to KNOWINGLY affect the marke. In other words, "too big to fail' is aVALIDATION of free market theory: that if "free market" units are big enough, or powerful enough, to exercise CONTROL over the market, then you no longer have a "free market". What you have is COPORATE CENTRAL PLAANNING, iwth the SAME defects as Big Government. Yuo haev, in short, a "too big to fai" philosopphy of economic fascismm: a philosopphy of a PARNERSHIP betwenn Bib Business and Big Goverfnment to CONTROL the economy (and, incidentally, to always BAIL OUT Wall Street, even as the poor and hungry and others are not allowed to be "bailed out".

That is what the Wall Street Journal wantss Mitt Romney to do; to base his campaign on WALL STREET. I mean the headline, againm, literally. This blog would lie to KILL OFF the candidacy of Mitt Romney. You would think thee Wall Street Journal was acting as the AGENT of this blog. There is NOTHING more CERTAN than that the Mitt Roomnety campaign is DEAD if he bases his entire campaign on WALL STREET (as illustrated by Bain Capital) saving America.

Yep. The unfair and unbalanced network is still "all in" for Romney, as that network--like a lemming heading for the sea-heads for the dustbin of history. I did NOT "read" the Wall Street Jouranl for this article. I have essentially boyctotted the Wall STreet Joournal for 40 years. I head the Wall STreet Journal athor FEATURED on the unafiar and unbalanced network, talking about how American corpoartins had become "ineefficient" --building up too much cash jut waiting for CORPOARATE RAIDERS--as 50% of all public companies faced HOSTILE TAKEOVER bids. The wall Street Journal position is that these HNOSTILE takeover bids--big mergers between public companies, as well as "leveraged buyouts" using the company's own money to buy it--were necessary to "week out' (Darwin style) the "inefficient" companies (those managed for tomorrow, sometimes, and not just for today's Wall Street stupid person). The whle alleged goal is "efffficiency" (FIRING people in the interest of making money for Wal lStreet, and DESTORYING free market theory). Goog luck Romney. I ENCOURAGE you to campaign on tis thoery,. I willwrite your eulogy. , And yes, you ARE coming too close already to comapiaigning on this idea that it is WALL STREET efforts like Bain Capital who will lead this country back to the "promised land" (NOT free market theory).

Let me be clear. Bain Capital is not the kind of Wall Street, free market destroying econmic fascism that onlly the despicable Wall Street Journal could defend. Bain mainly involved VENTURE CAPITAL (a good thing), and turning around SMALLER corporations. It is a BAD thing for government to interfere in that sort of operation, and the operation itself is POSITIVE (net) for the eoncomy. Yet, it is hradly right that this kind of operatioins "saved' America. What could "save" America is FREE MARKET theory, indstead of the theoretial and practical FAILURE of CENTRAL PLANNING (whether by Walll Street peole or by governmnet).

What about this idea that WALL STREET "saved America"? ..................................................................................................Sorry ,. I almost died again, here on the flor laughing and crying. Wall Street was DEAD It was DEAD AS A DOORNAIL. It had KILLED ITSELF. Like the economic fascists they are, they LOOKED TO GOVEERNMENT to save them. They looked to YOU and to ME to SAVE them by BAILING THEM OUT. No, it is no good to say that government policies led us into that debacle. Sure they did. But Wall Street bought into it all, and even added things like derivatives--leading to a house of cards ready to FALL. And it DID FALL. Then WE were asked to bail them out. How can I say thesese are The Stupidest People on Earth, when they got US to bail THMEM out? Obviusly, in their own SELF INTERST--hsort-term self intrest--in AMAKING MONEY they are not so stupid. But in terms of developng a healthy system, they ARE The Stupidest People on Earth. And tTHIS is what the Wall street Journal wants Mitt Romney to EMBFRRACE. Give me a break.

You think Wall stret has learned anything? Not a chance. They have DOUBLED DOWN on economnic fasicism. They want to be TAILED OUT in Europe--includnig by the AmERICAN taxpayer. They want to be CONTINUALLY BAILED OUT by Ben Bernanke and tghe Fed, and one of the dirty little secrets out there is that Wll Street is STILL being bailed out every single day by our government and our Federal Reserve. The stock market goes UP every time a new Fed BAILUT is announced or implied, and every time a POLITICIAN says taht he or she is ging to do what Wall Street wants (generally a GUARANTEE that Wall Street will not be allowed to FAIL),

I not longer think Mitt Romney CAN beat Barack Obama, short of a complete economic collapse by November (more than possible). I get the impression that Romney's instincts ARE Wall Street instincts. Here is my favorite definition of economic fascism: "socialism with an capitalist veneer" Did I jsut call Romney a SOCIALIST. In a way. I jut called him an ECONMIC FASCIST--a guy who seemss to want government of Wall Street, for Wall Street, and by Wall Street. Yes, you and I know that such a government, as implied by the definition I just gave, ends up DESTORYING not ony a free market economy but the Wall Street epole who buy into it. But we are smart. Mitt Romney is not smart. Wall Street people are not smart. It is not accient that MOST supported BARACK OBAMA. It turns out that BAIN CAPITAL people donated more money to DEMOCRATS than to GOP candidates overall. That, too, is not accident.

Newt Gingirch made a bad mistake in the WAY in which he attacked Bain Capital. However, Gingrich could not make a big enough mistake to save Mitt Romey if Romney embraces the Wall Street/Wall Street Journal theory of government. He is comng close. If he follows the "adice" of teh Wall Street Journal, and the unfairand unbalanced network, nothing can save him. Personally, I think it is too late, unless Romney IVOTS away into a real EBRACE of rree market thoery, instead of embracing government of, by and for Wall Street. You know what would HELP Romney, as this blog has said about the GOP in general? If Romney wre to come out AGAINST BIG MERGERS (which would NOT be against operations like Bain), and say that we were STUPID to let companies get "too big to fail" by MERGER, he would suddently get beyond this TRAP of being ONE with WALL STREET. Romney, the GOP and conservatives seem to simply be unable to make this STAND against CENTRAL PALNNING (whether by government or BIG corpoarte entities), in favor of free market theories. Too bad.

P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I am not kidding above. Ever since the inception of this blgo, and YEARS before Wall Street EXCESSES created "too big to fail" and essetnailly almost brought down this country (as they still may), I wrned about us creating this house of cards ready to fall by making it more than possible fore the bad deicisons of a FEW to bring down our economy. That is the main FALW in central planning (practial falw and theoreticla flaw). When the decisions of a FEW go wrong, it is FATAL. It is not that "cnetral palnneing" deicsioins--the decisons of individual MEN controlling our economy--are always WRONG. The roblem is that when they are wrong, as will alsys SOMETIMES happen with fallible men, the result is CATASTROPHIC FAILURE> By "efficiencecy" Wall Seet means something far from the "efficient' allocation of resources provided by an "infinite' number of small decisons by entites who cannot singly affect the market (or know the resut of their individual deicisons on the whole maret) ., What Wall Street means by "efficiency" is the OPOPOSITE of frfee market theory: where WALL STREET peole CONTROL the way the market works--the essence of CENTRAL PLANNING. Do ou see yet why I could never vote for the present Mitt Romney for President? It does not matter. Even if you do not, the Wall Street Journal and the unfiar and unbalanced network are acting as MY AGENTS to KILL OFF Mitt Romney (politically speaking).

Romney "Unscathed" In Debates? This Blog Proven Right and Yahoo/Mainstream media (ABC?) Proven Wrong

2012-01-21T23:07:00.000-08:00

You will recall that this blog RIDICULED the Yahoo "News" "featured" headline that Romney had "emerged unscathed" from the South Carolina debates. Current audited count: This blog 9,357 , Mainstream media: 3. I have challengfed the "3", and I think I just got 3 bad calls.

Again, the unfair and unbalanced network was NO BETTER than the rest of the mainstream media in completely MISREPRESENTING the debates that Romney clearly LOST BADLY, as this blog told you at the time. "The Five", on the unfair and unbalanced network, even went so far as to say that Romney's opponents had not come up with a "wedge issue" against Romney . How can you be this STUPID, and still present ourself on television as "experts"? Beats me. NONE of these people (modern TV "journalists" or commentators) are woth watching or listening to. The continuing mantrra of the unfair and unbalanced network was that Romney was cruising, until it was obvious to everyone that this was not ture.

I can explain part of this, besides AGENDA. The TV peole, an "journalists" in general, are way too much into establishment "story lines". The "storyline" here was that Romney was the inevibale nominee, unless he mad a MAJOR GAFFE. Well, as this blog told you, Romney's reaction to the tax return questions WAS a "majro gaffe". But it goes beyond that, and seems to reflect a DELUSION of Romney himself.

It is ABUSRSD to say that the "anoninted" estalbishment candidate is "entitled" to the nomination undless he is "knoocked out"--has a "Perry Mason moment", or "Rick Perry moment", where the candidate collapses like a murderer being exposed by Mason on the stand,. Romney had to contnue to MAKE HIS CASE, and could not just sit idly by while GINGRICH MADE A BETTER CASE. You can LOSE without a major "gaffe", and you can WIN despite not convincing the MEDIA that you have 'knocked out" your opponent with some sort of NEGATIVE attack. As this blog has said in other articles, the Gingrich NEGATIVE ATTACKS on Romney wre really not succesfful. ROMNEY did Romney in, not with "one moment' but TWO terrible overall debates--while Gingrich was having two great debates (again, NOT on ATTACKS on Romney, but knockng media questions out of the park).

The fundamental expalantion for this, besides agenda, is taht the media is NOT INTRESTED in real issues and real information. The media is only interested in the FIGHT, and the "negative ad" attacks that the MEDIA makes every day (disguised as "news"). The media is NOT INTERESTED in giving voteers actgual INFORMATION about the overall performance of the cnadidates, or how well the candidates are commuincating their positoins. What the media is interested in are thse GOTCHA moments. They may DELUDE themselves that they MISSED a "gotcha" moment or moments, as Rompney tried to "explain" his totally confused "position" on disclosing his tax returns. They may even DLUDE themselves, as Romney seems to have deluded himself, that Gingrich SCORED with those attacks on Bain capital But the turth is that Gingrich KEPT showing that he was able to EX:PRESS HIMSELF, and show actual INTELLIGENCE and WIT, while Romney came acorrss as some sort of out-of-toch rich guy unable to communicate with ordinary Americans. No, ordinarly Americans, outside of the Obama crowd, do nto CARE if Romney is "rich". Bu tneither do they give him CREDIT for merely being rich (credit he seems to EXPECT). Romney's challenge is to show that he actually understands, and CAN EXPLAIN, conservative IDEAS, and not jst claim he should be elected because he was "talented" at getting rich. Conrary to what Romney seems to think, merely being "successsful" at Bain Capital does not PROVE he will make a good President, any more than John Corzine being "successful" at Goldman Sachs PROVED he would make a good governor or President (which, of course, he will never be).

Romney being "successsful" at Bain Capital is only a MILD POSITIVE. It is not to bvbe apologized for, or attacked (as Gingrich as done, to his discredit), but Romney sitll has to show why he would make a GOOD PRESIDENT (and not jsut a good Wall Street-type venture capitalist). That, Rmney has NOT done!!!!!!!! No, conservatives do NOT believe that Romney was THAT good a governor of Massachusetts. We may be willing to believe that he was not bad, as I did when endosrsing him in 2008. But he, Rpomney, has been LESS effective in convincing me he would be a good President almsot every month since he dropped out of the 2008 race. There are LOTS of peole out there who MADE MONEY as Wll Street people and venture capitalists. Mitt Romney seems to say that any ONE of those would be a beter President than Rick Santourm, Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul. Romney, n other words, seems to say that you are DISQULAIFID from being President if you have not "worked int he private sector"in a job that involved making money like a Wll Street venture capitalist. Again, this is a MILD POSITIVE, and not a substitute for CONVINCING people that you know how to lead the country.

For exmaple, WHAT did you "lewarn" at Bain Capital about "creating jobs"? Surely, Mittt, you are NOT saying that you would turn the government into a "venture capital" operaion? If that is your plan, you had better EXPLAIN IT> All conservatives agree that government does not" creeate" jobs by waving a magic, bureaucratic wand. We all aregee that the FREE MARKET economy creates jobs. So what? As President, you wil be IN GOVERNMENT. It is GOVERNMENT POLICY that you can influence. You will NOT be "creating jobs" in the private eocnomy. You wil be PART OF GOVERNMENT. As part of government, HOW will you enact pollicyies that will help the private economy "create jobs". And, when you do that, are you not DONING THE SAME THING that Newt Ginrcih said he ws doing as Speaker of the HOuse? No, MItt, it realy makes no sense--the "case" you are tyrying to make. Yo uCANNOT, at the same time, be "crfeating jobs" in the private economy and be President of the Untied States. As President, you will--again--be PART OF GOVERNMENT. Sure, you may have LEARNED things in the private economy that will HELP wyou know what PUBLIC POLICIES will be best for the eocnomy, but you need to EXPLAIN what those public policies are, and WhY yours will hellp the eocnomy more than those of the other candidates (including Barack Obama).

Nope. The MEDIA may "buty" the Mitt Romney "storylne". I do not, even though I regard Bain Capital as a MILD POSITIVE. To me, Mitt Romney comes across as an ESTABLISHMENT, Big Government guy, who just thinks he knows how to MANGE the government better than others (wtihout having any real "philosophy" of smller, more limited government). Look at Michael Bloomberg, in New York City. He MADE A LOT OF MONEY IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. And he is stil a BIG GOVERNMENT GUY. Steve JObs called himself essentially a Democrat--at least left of center. Warren Buffett is about the most successful Wall Street-type businessman who has everlived--a man who has acutally been responsible fo rthe OPERATION of MANY COMPANIES he ahs bought, and made much more mneyh on INVESTMENTS than Mitt Romney. Buffett SUPPORTS OBVAMA and MORE TAXEWS. He is also a disnoest polliticl hack. But, if all it takes is knowing how private sector jobs are created, Warrn Buffett has a BETTER CASE than Mitt Romney . That is just NOT ENOUGH. Kowing how business works is a PLUS, but it is only a MINOR plus.

I have called most of presnet-day Wall Street ECONOMIC FASCISTS who don't relly believe in the FREE MARKET SYSTEM. To me, Mitt Romney is mcuh more along those lines than a real "free market" guy. Romney was for the Wall Street bailouts (TARP). Am I wrong? My brother thinks Romney is a DMOCRAT, jsut like McCAin and Gworge W. Bush (on fundamental governmental philosophy) . The pont is that Romney has not CONVINCED me that he really BELIEVES in what I believe in--or even major portions of it. He has not done so any more than Michael Bloombeerg or Warren Buffett ahve convinced me that THERI views are ight. Romney seemst o think he does not HAVE to actually "convince me", but that his "record" is enough. Sorry, Mitt, it is NOT. Bloomberg and Buffett--jot to mention Jobs--were MORE successful than you. So what. I wqould NOT want Bloomberg or Buffett as President. I don't want YOU. And no, the media is NOT INTERESTED in tring to nvstigate what kind of President you would really ake, or the ISSUES as to what should be done. The media is only interesteed in AGNEDA, in POLLS, and in "GOTCHA".

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

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

Women, Newt Gingrich, CNN and This Blog: This Blog Apologies to South Carolina Women, Even as This Blo is Proven Right ON CNN and Polls

2012-01-21T22:36:00.001-08:00

You will remember that this blog cited a CNN 'story" (LIE) about how some poll allegedly showed that Newt Gingrich hasd an impossibly large "gender gap' with women. CNN said that this gap ws so large that men were TWICE AS LIKELY to vote for Newt as women.

This blog's article noted the EVIL of polls, and how this much of a disparity was IMPOSSIBLE to believe. As usual, this blog was RIGHT (assuming exit polls--also evil things-can be trusted). CNN reported tonight that Gingrich WON the South Carolina primary among women by ABOUT the same margin he won among men. He won something like 38% of women, and 42% of men. You will note that this is well within the MARGIN OF ERROR for exit polls. Even CNN said that they had LIED (wel, they didn't say that), and that there was really no obvious gender gap in South Carolina (they did say that).

Okay. So far, so good. You already know that this blog gives you TOMORROW'S NEWS TOPDAY. Thus, it was almost a sure thing that this blog was right about cNN "exaggerating" (ling) about the extent of the "gende gap" in South Carolina. However, I could not resist going on to push one of my own PREJUDICE. This alleged "gender gap" has been a long-standing mantra for the media. For years, I have used it to PUSH my own theory that WOMNE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE VOTE--that the vicous, intellectually challenged creeatures don't know how to handle it. This is not so much a "prejudice", as a JUDGMENT based on quite a bit of evidence, but CNN led me into ERROR here, even as I noted that CNN was probably LYING.

Thus, I did not stop with questoning the CNN LIE (The Liar Network). I suggested that this--questionalbe as the CNN figures were--merely reinforced tis blog's position that women should never have been given the vote., and that men and women think VERY differently (to, essentially, the discredit of women).

This is really hard for me, but I have to do it. I APOLOGIZE TO THE WOMEN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. You seem to have proved that you are not so easlily moved by leftist propaganda, including MEDIA SMEARS, as I thought you were. You seem to have stood up to the GOP estalbishment,, in favor of a SMART (if unprincipled) GUY, despite your general impression that "men are sucm". Further, you idd so, putting our country ahead of the grievances of your sex, despite evidence (not this ridiculous 'open marriage" stuff) that this particular man (Gingrich) is scum (in the sense that women use the word in connection with men). It was not only CNN that misled me, but he WOMEN OF THE MEDIA. This misled me, even though I KNOW that women of the media are STUPOID because of their MEDIA CONNECTION and not necessarily because they are women.

Like CNN, I could wish for better exit poll questions (as CNN wanted to bolster their evil religious BIGOTRY). Are South Carolina women BETTER than other women, or are women LEARNING to follow the thinknig of conservative MEN in politics? In other words, did I make a MISTAKE by living in Texas (great as this state sis), rather than moving to South Carolina early in my life? Would I have been able to RELATE to women in South Carolina better than I have been able to relate to women elsewhere? I have never been in South Carolina. I just don't know the answers to these questons, although it is too late for them to do me any good anyway.

However, there is no doubt that I owe the women of South Carolina an apology. They pretty much voted with their men. MAYBE this is a good sign for the future of this country. We shall see. Unfortunately, I KNOW that women on TV are daily advertisements for the position that women should not have the vote. Thus, I now we have a long way to go. However every journey has to start with a single step. Is South Carolina evidence that we have taken that step? Time will tell.

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

Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio: Just How Much of a Hypocrite is Marco Rubio?

2012-01-21T22:01:00.000-08:00

This blog article plays off of the CNN ENTHUSIASM for JEB BUSH. You nknoow that this is pure HYPOCRISY by some of the worst hypocrites to ever walk this Earth, on two legs or four. If Jebb Bsuh were RUNNING for Presdient, CNN would be tring to crucify him--including askng whether we really want "another Bush" in national politics again after the "debacle" of George W. Bush. But CNN was all excited tonight that their "sources" indicated that Mitt Romney had "secured" the endorsement of Jeb Bush. As with the endorsement by John McCain, is this really "good" for Mitt Romney (assuming it is true?

First, everyone knows that the GOP estalbishment, including the Bush "wing" of the party, is for Mitt Romney. Does it really "help" Romney to get more establishment endorsements? CNN insists on saying that Jeb Bush is "popular" in Florida. I wonder.

Yep, This is how we get to Marco Rubio, who has DISAPPONTED this blog in seeveral ways recently--acing like an estalbishment GOP politican. This blog has called Rubio a hypocrite for his hypocrisy on the "debt ceiling", even as he votes to INCREASE deficits (REQURING a raise in the debt ceiling). Then there is SOPA. Here, Rubio was a CO-SPONSER, before changing his mind afer the outcry against that outrageouslly intrusive bill into the INTERNET. In other words, Rubio was FOR the bill before the was AGAINST it.

Now let us go back in time to 2010--not so lng ago. Rubio was the ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT candidate. Charlie Crist was JEB BUSH'S MAN. Crist was the "anointed" GOP candidate for the Senate-anointeedd by teh GOP estalbishment (including, I believe, Jeb Bush, for whom Crist had been lieutenant governor). You will remember that Rubio defeated Crist in teh GOP PRIMARY, and that Crist then ABANDONED the GOP to run as basically an Obama-supporting "independent". Crist refused to say that he would vote with the GOP in the Senate (as LIsa Murkowski did in Alaska). At this point,m Jeb Bush may have abaondoned Crist.

Still, Marco Rubio CHALLENGED the JEB BUSH ESTABLISHMENT in Florida, and WON. Rubio was one of the "Tea Party" candidatges. We saw the South Carolina governor come out for Mitt Romney, even though she was supposedly one of the "Tea Party" candidates. Would it be another HYPOCRITICAL act for Marco Rubio to support Mitt Romney? I thnks so,. For all I know, Rubio has ALREADY made an endorsement int he race, although I have not heard it.

This blog has already noted jsut how far so many of these "Tea Party" candidates have "drifited" toward the establishment since their election, to the pint that htis blog has said to DEFEAT THEM ALL (all lpresent GOP members of Copngress running in the 2012 electons).

You don't have to go along with my rather "extreme" position on GOP members of Congress to realize that Jeb Bush did NOT have enough "power" in Florida to help Charlie Crist. In fact, what was Jeb Bush doing running with Charle Crist? And you don't have to agree totally with me to see how HYPOCRITICAL it would be for Marco Rubio to side with the OLD GOP establishment in Florida against the Tea lParty people (wo will PROBABLY mostly support Newt Gingrich--absent Gingrich mistakes).

You might accurately say that Rubio has already "lost" me. He is in a dangerous place here. He may LOSE a lot more people than me if he sides with the GOP establishment in Florida, and endorses Romney.

I will answer my own queston: I don't think a Jeb Bush endorsement really helps Mitt Romney. In a way, it just plays into the hands of Newt Gingirch. This does nto mean that ingrich automatically wins Florida. It jsut means that I think that if Romney wins Florida, it will NOT be because of an endorsement from Jeb Bush. I don't think such an endorsment helps Romney at all. It probably does nto hurt Romney much, but it may actually send the wrong message that Romney really is the candidatge of the OLD GOP (Grand, Outdated Party--if you do not know what GOP stands for).

No, I don't think I would support Jeb Bush for President, any more than I can ssuprt Romney (or any more than I did support McCain--who I refused to support). I am willing ot make this bunt statement: Jeb Bush is on the verge of going down with the GOP establishment, whether Mitt Romney wins this nomination or not. A Bush endorsement is unlikely to help Mitt Romney. But it is even more likely to HURT the future career of Jeb Bush, if he thinks he will have one.

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

South Carolina to GOP Establishment: Go to Hell--as This Blog Agrees

2012-01-21T21:39:00.000-08:00

Unlike CNN would mean it, the above headline is not meant "ironically", or as a failed pun on RELIGION. It is cNN who is BIGOTED and EVIL about religion, along with bascially the entire mainstream media (including the unfair and unbalanced network). CNN, and the media, like to OVEREMPHSIZE trhe effect of religion on GOP voters. For once, my headline is just meant as a straightforward emphasis of just how BAD a night it was for the GOP estalbishment.

This blog does nto favor Newt Gingrich, and I have said since 2008 that Newt Gingrich will never be President (having nothing to do with SMEARS on marraiges, adultery, "open marriage", and only slightly to do with Freddie Mac). The reason I SLIGHTLY favor Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney, and leaveopen a SLIGHT possiblitiy I might vote for Gingrich agasint Barack Obama, is that voting for Gingrich STICKS IT IN THE EYE of the GOP, Democrat AND media establishment. I don't delude myself that Gingrich iss a "conservative", although I am not sure WHAT he is (as he can PASSIONATELY argue on about 3 sides of every issue, adn often has--the difference between Gingrich and Obama being that you SHJOULD KNOW where Obama really stands, while I have no idea whether even Gingrich knows where Gingrich really stands. I do know that Gingrich is SMARTER than the rest, and that he COULD be a GREAT President. He could also be--somewhat more likely--a TERRIBLE President. Tooo risky for me, and I am willing to commit to voting for RON PAUL. In other words, I consider both Romney and Gingrich MORE DANGEROUS than Ron Paul to this country, and to conservatives. This blog still endorse Rick Sntaourm, with a little reluctance. But Snatourm cannot now WIN the nomination, undless BOTH Gingrich and Romney LOSE it first (perhaps not even then, if we arrive at a deadlocked convention--still somewhat unlikely, but possible).

The theme of this blog is that the countery cannot afford another estalbishment President (or Obama, if you falsely htink he is not an estalbishment candidate, although more leftist than most). That is why this blgo is glad Romney LOST in South Carolina, even if not so glad that Gincrich won. Gingrich marches to his own drummer too much to be "estalbishment", although he does not have a consistent conservative "philosophy" either.

Romney: Sore Loser (Ungracious)--as Albert Pujols Makesa a Guest Appearance

2012-01-21T20:51:00.001-08:00

I saw Romney's "concession" speech this Saturday night. It was not graciious. Rick Santorum, by contrast, gave a gracious concession speech. For example, Yahoo "News' tonight is featureing a headline saying taht Romney "rips" into Gingrich, without using hisname. Unusual for Yahoo "news", and the mainstream media "sources" it uses for its "featured" stories, I thought this headline was accurate (my borther in Nashville did ot see the Romney speech as that bad as far as ripping into Gingrich, although he aagrees it was not a god speech, but the speech realy did set the wrong tone just after you have had your BUTT KICKED.

Santorum did much better, giving Gingrich gracous credit for such a strong victory. No, Romney did not have to say that the South Carolina results mean that Gingrich is the better candidate, or veven that Gingrich ran a fair campaign. Howecver, I believe it was ESSENTIL for Romney to give Gingrich credit bor winning a strong victory. Romney did not do that. It amde him apear PETULANT (See McClintock", I think it was, where John Wayne jumped on his daughter for using this owrd as to her mother--the difference being that the word is ACCURATE to describve Romney's speech tonight. The speech also made Ronney appear somewhat of a WHINER (admittedly somewhat of a synonym for "petulant") .

I say this as a person who AGREES with the Romney assertion that Gingrich made a bad mistake to criticize theoperation of Bain capital, which was basically an Obaa-type assault on "caitalbimm". My brother says that he even heard Gingrich say_I heard things almost as bad--that there was no rason Bain could not have made 60 millin,, instead of f130 million, on a deal No, the numbers are aribrary, on both Gingrich's part and mine, and Gingrich may not have used these particular numbers. The point is that the GOVERNMENT (or yuou, I or Gingrich) has NO BUSINESS telling a private business how much money that business can make in private transactioins, just as the government, you, I and Newt Gingrich have NO BUINESS saying that Albert Pujols shoudl not receive 254 MIKKON dollars for PLAYING BASEASEBALL for the California Angels (over ten years). Could not Albert Pujols be satisfied with 100 million, so that FANS may not have to pay so much for ticket prices? Since I am a lifelong Stu. Louis Cardinal fan, I have MORWE reasn to be unhappy with Pujols' "greed" than with Mitt Romney, but I have no problem with him earning what he can (although I can question whetehr he might have been HAPIER staing where he was, but that is HIS decison and NONE OF MY BUSINESS--even if he were to run for office).

Problem (reason this made Romney look like a WHINER); This is NOT the reason that Romney lost, or that Gingrich won. Gingrich acctually showed PASSION, and an ability to think on his fett and realat to people, with his debate performances. Even Charles Kruathammmerf--an establishment guy--said taht Gingrich's answer to Juan Williams EXPLAINED the conservative positin on dependecy and work better than Romney is CAPABLE of doing. This is essentially the old cliche' that Gingrich made new: "Give a person a fish,and you give that person a mel; teach that person to fish, and you feeed taht person FOR A LIFETIME. Meanwhile, while Gingrich is makng conservative points in ways that people understand, and standing up to the media guys, Romney is prattling on about how he RESENTS being attacked for being "successful". It just does nto work, for Romney. Bain capital did NOT hurt Mitt Roney. Romney's REACTION to being asked about his tax returns, taxes, and--yes--the money he made DID HURT ROMNEY. This blog told you so, and this blog was right.

And that is why Romney's REACTION to this DEFEAT is SO BAD. Hs reaction is to GO AFTER NEWT GINGRICH. Yes, this is a little like Gingrich's reaction after Romney (I know, the "independent" SuperPAC) KILLED Gingrich i Iowa with negative ads. But Gingrich did NOT gain any traction in New Hamshire, and his attmept to retaliate in kid agaisnt Romney DID OT WORK. What was different in Soouth Carolina? Romney SHOT HIMSELF IN THE FOOT (as Gingrich did, to somee degree, in Iowa), and Gingrich showed an ability to COMMUNICATE conservative IDEAS in the two DEBATES in South Carolina (includng the ability to turn disgraceful, "old news" questons around on an evil media). Romney is simply WRONG to assume that it was the BAIN CAPITAL attacks on Romney that hurt him. If Romney--whether it arises because he is so "rich", or because of someting else--comes across as "out-of-touch with ordinary peooople, and unable to effectively communicate, then that is BAD for the GOP (if Romney is the nominee).

No. I stand behind what I say above. Romney was UNGRACIOUS, and took entirely the wrong tone in his "concession" speech. And the media is WRONG, as well as Romney, to say that PERSONAL ATTACKS by Romney on Gingrich can "rehabilitate" Romney. If Gingirch has the wrong reaction to attacks, and does a "Roney", it is posssilbe attacks may "wrok" (in a sense). But they CANNOT make up for a lack IN ROMNEY of an ability to communicate with ordinary people on a larege scale. If Gingrich handles the attacks even moderately well, they wil HURT ROMNEY (maybe destoy his candidacy). That almost happened to GINGRICH in New Hampsire, wher he finished FOURTH (way behind Ron Paul). Romney has learned the WRONG LESSON. Even if he somehow, with the help of Gingrich, tears down Gingrich, Romney will hurt himself. Romney is now raising the question of whether HE can win against Obama--a question this blog raised a number of times in the past few weeks.

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

Adulterer or a Mormon: The Evil of Yahoo News (Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate Award Winnder)

2012-01-21T06:12:00.000-08:00

"Evangelical Dilemma in South Caolina: an adulterer or a Mormoon"

Yes, this is this blog's second article on the above "story" "featured" on Yahoo "News" last night--from the mainstram media, although Yahoo failed to make the orignal source real clear. Doesn't mater. It reflects the EVIL of the enfire mainstream media, and Yahoo clearly adopted this EVIL as its own. The above represents the WORST headline I have ever seen, and that is saying a lot.

Let us consider the BOGOTRY of Yahoo (obviuslyNOT evangelicals) in comparing adultery and Mormonism. Then consider the LIE of the headline. The voters of South Carolina obvioiusly have another choic, who is the endorsement of this blog (not for this reason) and---from all appearances--a very CHRISTIAN man. Yep. I am talking about Rick Snatourm. Of course, Santorum is a CAHOLIC (as Newt Gingirch now is). I really am surprised that the EVIL BIGOTS of Yahhoo (and AT&T, which provides my default page from Yahoo, as a joint AT&T/Yahoo page) did not say "an adulterer, a Mormon and a Catholic". These peole of Yahoo have to be some of the mos BIGOTED, DISHONEST lpeoiple who have ever lived.

Some of you may think I was too "harsh" in my articles yesterday as far as comparing John King and Chris Wallace--really the entire mainstream media, including the unfair and unbalanced network-with NAZIS. I stand by the comparison, in terms of EVIL, and a "defense" ("this is what peole are talking about") that is PURE EVIL. This is a headline (the quoted headline) that COULD havbe been used by Hitler and the Nazis against Hiter's opponents as Hitler was rising to power. It represents the same kind of BIGOTRY and DEMONIZATION. There is NO "defense" for it. These people of YAHOO and the mainstream media aer EVIL, BIGOTED people.

Again, note now much BETTER "evangelicals" are. Evnagelicls, in the ain (ussposedly 60% of the vote in Sluth Carolina-a BIGOTED statement in itself) , are obviously more TOLERANT and thoughtful than our evil media. They are obviusly willing to consider the WHOLE PERSON, and the COUNTRY. Yahoo, in contrast, is not ony BIGOTED, but willing to SELL OUT this country in the name of bigotry. .Yaho is willing to say that it is ACCPETABLE to selll out this country rather than choose a Mormon as President, even if that is the best person to lead this country.

If egangelicals were really as narrow minded as the EViL PEOPLKE of the mainstream media, they would obviuosly vote for Rick Santorum (or Ron Pual--still another choice). Santorum has been endoresed by evangelical "leaders", and is clearly the best RELIGIOUS fit with believing Christians--Catholic though he is. I endorse Santorum,, but I am an agnosic, and do NOT endorse a religious "test" for voting for a candidate. In fact, I do not endorse the religion itself (as distinct from ISSUE concerns involving religious beliefs) being part of political campaigns. Yahoo and the mainstream media--obviouslyu NOT most evangelicals-do ENDORSE the idea of voting based on NARROW religious concerns. That is because Yahoo is BIGOTED, and rally ANT*-CHRISTIAN, along with the rest of the mainstream media. You Christians out there: Why would you EVER pay ANY attention to these people, who--like Barack Obama--consider you narrow minded HICKS (when th enarrow mindedness and BIGOTRY is really THEIRS)?

What I have said, of course, is that there is noting wrong with a person having at least a mild preference for someone who shares his or her religon. Why do oo lyout believe in a religon--a religion, by the way, that suggests we are ALLL sinners, and FORGIVENESS for individual sins--unless you thik that religioni reflects well on youyr character? However, if NARROW religious concerns were what motivated "evangelicals", then RICK PERRY woud have won in South Carolina. Perry is ONE OF THEM. He did not even get the endorsement of evangelical LEADERS. And he had to drop out before even getting to the vote in South Carrolina. Again, the INTOLERANT, NARROW-MINDED peple her are the people of Yahoo and the mainstream media. There is NOTHING wrong with factoriing in your religioius beliefs in the way you vote. There is EVERYTHIGN worng with religion being directly part of POLITICAL campaigns. It is the MEDIA, including YAHOO, who are engaing in this EviL deliberately, and with malice aforethought.

BOYCOTT AT&T and YAHOO. Message to Yahoo: You are now the recipient of this blog's Flying Fickle Finger of Fate award ("The Finger") for conspicuous wrongdoing/evil during a week. In this case, this log has reincarnated this award just for you, and not just for an evil limited to a single week, but as (hopefully) the WORST EVIL of the year. This is this blog's reincarnation of the old "Laugh In" award, represented by a statuette of a pointing INDEX FINGER.

Award ceremony (a virtual ceremony taking place entirely in the imagination). This bog recommends that you VISUALIZE Dick Martin giving the award on the old "Laugh In" program, solely as a visual aid and not suggesting any connection between Maritin or "Laugh In" and this reincarnation of the awward:

Imagine Dick Martin pickng up the statuette of The Finger, and THRUSTING it at the camer, saying: "Yahoo, this is for YOUY. YouDESERVE it for evil above and beyond the ordianry media evil of today." Thus, Yahoo has become the latest proud recipient of The Finger.

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

Dick Martin (hacking into this disgracful blog, and you don't want to know from where): "Skip, I hae WARNED you about using my name this way . You know that I don't endorse your crazy flights into fancy, and I strony objet to your use of MY NAME. Sometime, in this life or the next, I am going to make you PAY for this."

P.P.S. Martin has made these threats before. I am BRAVE (unlike GOP politicians. I ignore them. Hey, where did taht bright light come from. Hey. that is HOT. OWWWWWWWWWW. Cut it out, Martin. OWWWWWWWWWWWWWW. Just for that, I may reincarnate my reincarnation of your award on a regular basis again.

ABC "News": Some of the Most Dishonest People to Ever Walk teh Earth

2012-01-20T19:50:00.000-08:00

Did you hear about how ABC "News" "pushed back" on Newt Gingrich's claim that he offered them PROF that the (evil) "charge" they were making (baout "open marriage") was false? It was a response worthy of a POLITICAN (of the worst kind).

ABC said that they "offered" to INTERVIEW people that Gingrich said supported his "innocence" on this "open marriage' SMEAR. .........................................................................................................Sorry, I am on the floor laughing and crying again.

Why does the ABC "response" strike me as totally dishoenst? You just have to know how these things wrok. Gingrich is giving ABC affadavits, or statments, that a SPECIFIC CHARTGE is false. What does ABC want to d? ABC--I virtually guarantee you this is the case--wantstto INTERVIEW the people that Ginrich wants to present on this NARROW SUBJECT. But does ABC want to LIMIT the interviews to the 'open marriage" issue? Of course not. What ABC wants is to aDD TO THE SMEAR by having ON-CAMERA interveiws gong into Gingrich's PRIVARTE LIVE (including the things that have been out there for years). There is now ay that Gingrich could possibly "win" on this DINOSNEST "offer". And Gingrich new it.

What Gingrich wsa saihng, in n the debateis that he was producing REBUTTAL of the SPECIFIC CHARGE that ABC was gong to SMEAR him with, and that ABCE had no baiss to run such a "questionable" sotry as a "news' sotry. What ABC wanted to do was to USE Gingrich's "witnesses" to ADVANCE THE SMEAR.

Message to ABC: You are EVIL, and your people are among the most dishoenst who have ever lived. You woul dNEVER present this THIN a story on Barakc Obama. So you are also the WORST HYPOCRITES to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four.

Offer to ABC: I would be HAPPY to "interview" someone involed in this story. In fact, I INVITE ouu--as you did NOT do with Newt--to present an UNEDITED "comment" to this article. If you fail to take advantage of this fair offer (lol), they I will ASSUME ou are not interested in rebutting this article, and that it is true in every respect. I even promise--as you did NOT--not to EIDT or DELETE any comment you want to make. I don't prmise, of course, not to USE any comment lyou make agasint you (that part being consistent whith what you say you "offered" Newt).

How did I get in this position of defending Newt Gingrich? Yo uknow thaqt one. Newt, like Nixon (who I also did not like) before him, MAKES THE RIGHT ENEMIES. I just wish he made the right friends.

ABC "standards" (lol): "You ordinariy need TWO sources for a story (All the President's Men), unless o of course, it is an EX-WIFE (with no ax to grind--lol again). Then, of course, here unsupportred woord is more than enough, even in the facte of DISPUTE from multiple sources. You jsut can't get any more DISHOENST than these people (ABC).

Yahoo 'News': Evil and Anti-Christian--Religon and the Evil Media

2012-01-20T19:01:00.000-08:00

Read the previous articlle posted on this blog, and then consider this CURRENT "eatured" article on my AT&T default page provided by Yahooo 'News" (Bocycott both Yahoo and AT&T):

"Evangelical dilemma in South Caroline: Vote fo r an adulterer or a Mormon?" (With my eyesight, I can't figure out where Yahoo "News' got this EVIL article typical of today's EVIL media, but I am perfectly willing to give the "credit" to Yahoo. They obviously want the credit, and I am giving it to them-EVILAnti-Christian peop;le that they obviuoslly are. I am still waiting for the healdine, by the way: "Is Obama really a Christina, or is Bill Maher right that he is a secular humanist?" Don't hold your breath.

See lthe last article. WHO is it who is tryiong to put RELIGIN in POLITICS? Is it evangelicals? Not that I can notice. They appear to be simply trying to figure out what is best for the CONTRY. They are the TOLERANT ones here. Nop. It is the EVIL MEDIA who are injecting religion in politics, and in the most EVIL way possible.

sI will not try to exlain this much, because that above quoted headline speaks for itself. First, is it not OBVIOUS tghat the media--this being a typical sentimetn exprfessed throughout our media--are LIARS. I that really the 'choice" in South Carolina? Nope. That is an obvious LIE. But what else is new for our EViL media. Message to Yahoo: You are an EVILL company. Should evangelicals voteon the NARROWEST and MEANEST view of their religion? Does being an "adulterer" (human weakness, as we are LL SINNERS--Christian doctrne) even RELEVANT to whether you should vote for a person for President? Why is this question DIFFERENT for an "evangelical". Do you MEDIA PEOPE BELIEVE IN ADULTERY. Well, maybe you do. The headline isABUSRD, and as EVIL as you can get--as dESPICABEL as lyou can get, in the wrods of Newt Gingrich. The headline assumes that "evangelicals' SHOUD "vote their religion" in the narrowest, most false sense possible.

Yes. I know. What the headline really "assumes"--why YahooIS anti-Christian--is that "evangelicals" are NARROW MINDED HICKS who areincapble of looking past single aspects of their religion and voting for what is best for the country. But the media is willing to USE what they think of evangelicls to "turn" evangelicls agaisnt the GOP candicates (hoping that they wil disregard that OBAMA IS NOT A CHRISTIN). No, lthe media people are not "hicks'. They are wore. They are EVIL, DISONEST, BIGOTED, STuPID and the WORST LHPOCRITES TO EVER WALK THE EARTH.

REad that headline again. I dont' see how you can fail to agree on me on this. Again, I say that as a person who has ABANDONED the GOP as an institution, and has said ltat I cannot support EITHER Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich (even though NOT be cuase of adultery or Mormonism). Of course, ou also know that I am an AGNOSTIC.

If you can read the above-quoted headline, and not recognize it as EvIL, then I am sorry for you. You should appply for a job with the mainstream media (including the unfair and unbalanced network).

This mere "cncentration" on the "evangelical vote" is an EVIL thing, as is the attmept to DIVIDE us by talkng about the "Hispanic vote", the African-American votte", the "white vote", the female vote", or any of the rest of the EVIL POLSS that the media try to throw at us to indicate that we should not vote FOR THE OCUNTRY (rather than our particular group). Does it bother our EVIL MEDIA that "narrow-minded evangelicls" appear to be LESS INTERESTED in religion in politcs than our EviL MEDIA? Not so you can notice, but therse pople (our media) have NO SHAME. Yep. I do think that your average "evangelical" is ar SUPERIOR to your average "journalist". it is not even close. For one thing, I think your average evangelical IS capable of SH:MAE, and some sense of right and wrong.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checknig (bad eyesght). Yep. These past few articles in this blog should tell you WHY Newt Gingrich got a standing ovation in South Carolina, and may win South Carolina. Romney was dong perfectly well so long as his only "problem" was that he is a "Mormon". Your average evangelical is boviously more TOLERANT than your aveage "journalists". Romneyh has gotten into trouble because he cannot connect with MOST PEOLE, and NOT because of any thing in the Mormon religion. As I have said repeately in this blgo, evangelicals are like anyone else: they would LIKE to vote for someone who obviously shares theri "values'. However, they are willing to PUT THEIR COUNTGRY FIRST. I hope--a hope I have expressed for YEARS in this blog--that evangelicals have finaly STOPPED letting HYPOCRITES and EVIL LIEARS of the media lead them around--cynically tyring to "play" them like that disgraceful healine above. As I have stated in this blog, evangelicals would have NO better FRIEND in the White House than I would be, if they are interested in POLICY (as they should be, as far as POLITICS is concerned). Me being an agnostic may mean I go to Hell, but your VOTE should not be about who you think might go to Helll. It should be about who can best REPRESENT your agenda in political office. Let me be as blunt as I can: No one KNOWS who is going to Hell. It is arrogant of yo uto even think you know. By that, I am not even talking aobut my own agnostic beliefs. I mean that yo have NO WAY of knowing what is really in another person's heaart, when God judges on Judgment Day. You actually have a much BETTER chance of making a decision on who will advance YOUR AGENDA in teh White House, I would go so far as to say that, for most evangelicals, PART of tghat agenda is a HEALTHY COUNTRY faithful to our founding principles, including a healthy ECONOMY and jobs. "Adultery" and "Mormonism" really are IRRELEVANT to this, EXCEPT if you have a chance to vote for "one of your own" who ALSO is at least as good as others in leading this country. By this standard, it would be RARE that you should "votge your religion", except as to a person who you believe will advance your AGENDA (including the policy porsitions your religon leads you to support).

John King, Chris Wallace and the Nazis: Nazis Had a BETTER Defense (Clinton Oen Marriage?)

2012-01-20T17:43:00.000-08:00

See the previous article. Yep, in case it was not clear, Chirs Wallace (as the article suggested) SUPPORTED the kind of questoin John King asked. What was his "rfeason" for supporting this EVIL "negative ad" view of political "reporting? It is the SAME reason as John King--what we can call the media "talking point": "people were talking aobut it, abd tgerefire are interested in having this kind of question asked."

Yep. This is a case where t;he EXPLANATION is MORE EVIL tghan the original EVIL question. So Chirss Wallace and John King haave a "standard" fo "journalism" that people are "talking aobut it". What LIARS. What HYPOCRITES. What EVIL people.

I told you to see two OLDER moviews: "The Children's Hour" and "People Will Talk". "The Children's Hour", iwth Shirley MacLaine, is about two women whose lives are RUINED by "allegations" and TALK about a suuposed lesbian relationshiop betwwen tow woman TEACHERS (and proprieters of a girls'school). The second movie is "People will Talk", with Cary Grant, about a young and stupid woman who gets pregnant, without being married, only to fall in love and marry the doctor (Cary Grant) who tells here she is not really pregnant (movie rating, 100 on a scaleof 100). Again, the main EVIL in the movie is a SMEAR against the woman and her shusband.--trying to ruin their lives with BACK FENCE GOOSSIP. The pont of thiese movies, made back when Hollywood had some idea of god and evil, is that this kind of back fence gossip is an EVIL thing. As sated in my previious article, "The Children's Hour is a remake of a movie about back fence gossip of a HETEROSEXXUAL kind. The pont of the movie is the EVIL of this knnd of SMEAR, and not the "lestian' angale that Hollywood threw in when it remade the movie as "The Children's Hour". By the way, in "The Children's Hour", the "gossip" is only partly false. It turns out that one of the womn really is a lesbian, who would LIKE to have ahad a relationship with the otehr won. But I have always agreed with the pont of this movie--the EVIL of back fence gossip, which now is considered" "journalism". Nope. I did NOT arrive at this position this week, or this campaign. This blgo has fought this battle from the very betinning of this blog--a decade or so ago, especailly if you go back to my original posts on AOL as I firtst became "active", in my small way, on the internet.

As the headline says, the NAZIS had a BETTER defense. On, I would not put John Knig and Chris Wallace in thes same class as the Nazis on EVIL. But the Nazi DEFENSE was more convincing. You know the "defense": "We were just following orders, and w would have been shot if we did not." The reason this 'defense" has SOMNE merit, evin if not nearly good enough to excuse the conduct involved, is that the Gestapo DID SHOOT PEOPLE. Do you have any doubt of that? I don't either. John King and Chirs Wallace mayh not be as evvil as the Nazis, but they are alsoin ONO danger of being SHOT. Yet, the supposed "defense" of Chris Wallace and John King is that people "are talking about it". Gee, why don't you gys just go out and ANNOUNCE that you are disciples of EVIL? Waht do you hthink SMEARS and GOSSIP are all about? Again, the "defense" is WORSE than the original crime. And, of course, it goes without saying that the unfair and unbalanced network is fully as bad as CNN--NO differenc ce.

"But, Skip, atg least John King and Chris Wallace are honest about what they think th epeople should know, even if they are not as intelligent and well informed on good and evil as you are". .......................................................................................................................Sorry. ON th efloor luaghing and crying again. These are some of the most DISHONEST people who ever lived--teh biggest hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth--on two legs or four. Doubt me? Never do that.

Let us go to Barack Obama and the "birther" issue. You: John King and Chirs Wallace (and CNN and the unfair and unbalanced network). Did you KNOW that "people were talking" about whether Barack Obama was born in the Untited States? You did? Of course you did. Did LYOU then ask President Obama, or push others to ask, a SEROUS question as to Baack Obama's (the) failure to produce a copy of his birth certificate? You know you did not. That is because you are LIARS and HYPOCRITES. You only favor this kind of EVIL-PURE EVIL--question when lyou think it wil find FAVOR with lyour "journalistic" colleagues. You, John King and Chris Wallace, are so DISHONEST that I can hardly stand it. I am ashamed to breath the same ari that you breather. You are a disgrace to the human race, as are virtually ALL of you "journalists' out there. No, I never thought that it was a legitimate "issue" whether Barack Obama ws born in the Untied states. I called my own mother a KOOK for buying into that one (part of my "you are a kook if:" seriesl). But people were talking about it. And, Jouh King and Chris Wallace, YOU LIE if you say tha tyou "coverfed" thie "issue'. What you did was RIDICULE the "issue", and effetively call it an EVIL thing for people to be dragging our politics down to that leve. YOU LIERS> YOU HYPOCRITES. Where was that "serious" queston to Barack Obama as toWHY he did not settle the questin by releasing, or directing Hawii to release, ha copy of hi soriginal birth certificate? Again, people were talking about it, as illustrated lby the fact that Obama--helped along my Donald Trump--was eventually "forced' to releaste a copy of that birth certicficate. Acttually, owever, people are STIL "talkng" about it.

Then there are Bill Haher (noted atheist) and me (noted--lol--agnostic). Bill Maher and I AGREE that Barack Obama is NOT a Christian. Again, people are certainly "talinking about it". CNN regularly talks abut how HORRIBLE it is that peole keep raising that issue, even as John King and CNN sespecficially rasie RELIGION as an "issue" against GOP candidates. Joh king said--I heard him--that it is EVIL for religion to be part of a political campaignl-citing Oma. Then he and CNN RAISE RELIGION as a "legitimate issue" al of the time, including way back when Sarah Palin's religion was broughtg into question. Again,these are the wrost HYPOCRITES to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. Again, the NAZIS had a better "defense" for EVIL (even if their evil was on a whole new level)).

I am still waitng for Barack Obama to be asked the SERIOUS question: "Bill Mahe has said you are not a Chrisitan, but a secular hujmanist. What do you say to that?". Or: Mr. President, you have talked abut people "clinging' to their religion. You have misquoted the Declaration of Independence to leave out "by their Creator". Y:ou have tried to deny money to religius health care givers adn organziations because they act upon their religious beliefs. Do you understand why people may question whether you are really a Christian, and think that may be just a matter of political expediency on your part?" Message to John King and Chris Wallace: These propoesed questions are NOT AS BAD as lthe questins you two defend. Yep. This blog has said that actual religious beliefs should NOT be a part of American politcal campaings, even though people have a perfect right to VOTE on their beliefs. But this blog has also said that I am not a Christian, and do not believe in "turning the other cheek". So, if YOU, Jon King and Chris Wallace, think you can get away with SELECTIVE EVIL, an dw\without me CALLING YOU THE EVIL HYPOCRITES LYOU ARE, then you are sadly mistaken.

Oh yes. The parenthesis in the headline. I ask yoiu HONEST readers out there: Do you believe that the Clintons had an "open marriage"--that is, a politcal ARRANGEMENT at some pont rather than a real marriage? Do oyou believe that Bill Clinton regarded himsef as free to "go his own way", so long as he was discrett? I would bet that at least 80% of the people, if they were HONEST, would say that the Clintons had some sort of "arrangement" when Bil ran for President, rather than a "real" marriage (whatever that is). The media, however, was UNINTERESTED in going into that issue, even as people "talked about it". Nope. These HYPOCRITES fall back upon "hypocrisy". Tha is jsut media speak to try to JUSTIFY BIAS against the GOP. Do DEMOCRATS "favor' "open marriage"? Dod they favor adultery? Does Newt gingrich TALK abut "family values" a lot? Give me a brak. John King. You and CNN are HYPOCRITES;; the wrost hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four.

The nthere is Reverend Wright. Did you see CNN, or really any "journalists', really PReSSING candidate Obama on REverend WWright? CNN keeps bringing up the Rick Perry supporting pastor who merely asnwered a RELIGIOUS QUSTION in a religioious way: "Mormonism is a cult" (in that pastor's opinion). And CNN brings in "evangelicals" to talk about Mormonism. Where were th e "evangelicals' brought in to talk aobut Reverend Wright, or to talk SEROUSLY (rather han as a subject of CCN ridicule) as to whether Barack Obama is a real Christian. Nope. IF "religion" is going to be MADE an issue by John King and CNN, then it needs to be TREATED as an issue for EVERyONE. If Sarah Palin belonging to a church that is famous for "speaking in tongues" (that is, that movement is), then WHY are not the DETAILS of Presiden't Obama's "church" and religiouis beliefs not an ISSUE? CNN says that is EViL. . I agree with them. CNN IS EVIL. JOHN KING IS EVIL. CHIRS WALALCE IS EVIL. CNN will do a WRITTEN ARTICLE on the "Gospel according to Herman Cain", and then will dismiss any fqesutins regarding Barak Obama's religion. These people are LIARS. They are HYPOCRITES. They are EVIL.

Agian, I worry that I have not expressed my ture feelings here. Do you really understand how much CONTEMPT I have for John King, Chris Wallace, and essentially every modern "journalsit"? I hope so. I keep trying to adequately convey it to you. CNN would not even REPORT on Reverend Wright until Barak Obama deined to notice it (because peole were "talking").

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Here is another question I would like to see asked of Barack Obama (which may end up being the title of a full article in itself): "You profess to be a Christian. Most Christian religions teach that if you do not accept Jesus as your Savior, you will go to Hell (where Skip may be there to meet you--editorial commetn). Do you, Barack Obama, as a Christian, believe that people who are not Christians will go to Hell?" If CNN is going to be "allowed" to bring religion into politicas, and Democrats are, then lets us REAlLY go into religion. I am READY. Are you? Or do you want to RETHINK this idea that we should be talking about religoius beliefs in POLITICAL CMPAIGNS, "journalistic" coverage, AT ALL. As stated, peole--including pastors--are NOT doing anything wrong to vote for someone who they think SHARES their fundamental beliefs. But this does NOT mean tghat those beliefs shoud be an ISSUE in campaings. That is an EVIL thing, and CNN is more a paricipant tiint hat EVI than almsot anyone else. See planned article on THAT. One of the OFFICIAL names for CNN is The Anti-Chrisitain Network.

Chris Wallace: Evil Personh Spreading Evil on the Unfair and Unbalanced Network (Or Is It CNN: Wh Can Tell?)

2012-01-20T07:00:00.000-08:00

The unfair and unbalanced network remains "all in" for Mitt Romney. The business network (unfaira and unbalanced as well) even went so far as to say Romney had a GREAT debate last night. If you will say that, lyou will say ANYTHING in aid of your AGENDA. That is absoutely true of the unfair and unbalanced network: from Megyn Kelllly to Bill O'Reilly. What can I say? BOYCOTT them.

But this article is about Chirs Wallace and how an EVILk, STUPID man can try to convince youo that the "issue" that people care most about is not JOBS or the ECONMY, but the "meaning" of "grandiose". This blog has featured Wallace before. Nope. This is NTO an "honest" appraisal. This is a MAINSTREAM MEDIA TALKING POINT that I first he\ard on CNN's post-debate analysis last night. Did Chirs Wallace get it from CNN, or his mainstream media clones, or does he jut think like them? yep. I admit it. That is a CHRIS WALLACE type question. The man has NO inteligence and NO honsty .

What is this about? it is about an attempted ATTACK on Newt Gingrich for the WRFONG reaosn-meeting Gingrichon his won ground and LOSING. What are we talking about? Well, Rick Santorum made a pretty valid pont in the debate last nigh--although hradly calculated to really advance him in the primary vote because he phjrased it too much as a PERSONAL ATTACK on Gingrich (which the media, including the unfair and unbalanced netowrk like, but voters do NOT like). Santorum accused Gingrich of knowing all about "grandiosity", with essentially an inflated ego and willingness to embrace almsot any grandiose idea that happens to occur to him-without thinkng it through. This last part is the VALID part of the attack--the use of "grandiosity" is the stupid part of the attack (especially for Santorum, who jsut cannnot really carry it of). Gingrich's response was a shade too "cute", but effective. Gijngrich basically EMBRACED the idea that he is all about BIG ideas, andis not content--like the other candidates--to be satisfied with TIMID approaches. Gingrich might have cited the United States of America itself, and the "grnadiose" idea of a real democratic republic.--taking on the most powerful military nation in the world in the process. Or Gingrich might have cited the JFK MOON (Apollo) program. Or the Wright Brothers. You get the point, even if the turly dense--or pretending to be dense--Ch;ris Wallace did not. In the process of his ansower, Gingrich said that he did, in fact, have "grandiose" ideas, because he refused to be satisfied with SMALL, TIMID ideas.

What do you do with this if ou are truly STUPID and EVIL? Do you say, as I do, that Gingrich was being a little too cute, and not really addresssing the criticism that he flits from idea to idea? Nope, if you are a STUPID JOURNALIST (reudndancy), you go to the dictionary and look up "grnadiose". You "learn" that the diictionary definition of "grandiose" is EXCESSIVLY grnad notions and view of oneself. Problem: If you WATCHED Gingrich, you had no problem understanding what he was saying. Wallancce implied that Gingrich was giving tghe word a WRONG definition. Wllace, it is YOU that is WRONG--wrong in every way, including your character, that it is possible to be wrong. And all your were doing was picking up-as you usally do--on a deevelopng, dishonest mainstream media "talking pont".

What Gingrich was saing had NOTHING to do with the "definitioin" of "grandiose", excdet using it as an ironic springboard to make his point. What Gingrich ws clearly saying was that if you did not RISK being called 'grandiose", and did not consider ideas that OTHERS might think are "grandiose", then you are not the man for these times (and not a great man at any time). Gingrich would say that Abraham Linconln, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington and so many otehrs had "grandiose" ideas, from the pont of view of timid people. And Gingrich would be right. The arrogance of Gingrich, of course, is that he has not really shown the ability (as Santorum tried to say) to carry thorugh on a CONSISTENT set of big ideas. Gingrich had the GRAT "big idea" of the "Contract with America", or at least made it work. At the same, time, he BETRAYED parts of that contract almsot immediately after coming to "power".

"Okay, Skip. We understand what Gingrich was tring to say, but he did NOT say it the way you do above. He actually seemed to embrace the the word 'grandiose'." Ah, that is where both you and Rick Santorum do NOT understand, and why Gingrich MIGHT win the South Carolina primary tomorrow. If you EXPLAIN how you have to RISK being thought 'grandiose" if you are going to promote turly BIG ideas that are more necessary than ever in today's times, you BORFE people. You cause attention to wander. You seem like an ordinary politican. But what if you say that one of your VIRTUES is that you have 'grandiose" ideas? Well, you run th erisk that SECOND HAND "descriptions, like thouse of the EVIL Chris Wallace, will color wht people think of you But for peop;le who HER you, you make our pont in a way they both understand and REMEMBER. It is no accident that Gingrich's IRONY went right over the head of Chriss Wallace. Not only does Wallace have an AGENDA, but Gingrich is much SMARTER than Chris Wallace (as am I--to be "grandiose" abut it).

Nope. As I say, and I gave Santourm a SLIGHT edge in the debate (see previous article), I thought the Ginrich performance was a little "too cute", after the had already made the debate a success with his media attack prompted by the first John King question. Yes, you could say that even that first answer was a little 'too cut", but here lyou would be WRONG. You cannot "defnd" "seriously" an allegation that you asked you second wife for a n "open marriage". ALL yu can do with that kind of EVIL question--with any hope of success--is ATTACK THE QUESTION. This blog told Herman Cain that. Newt Gingrich is the one who CORRECTLy took this blog's advice. But Gingirch was NOT in that same kind of positon on the "grandiose" pont. Unlike Wallace, I THINK Gingrich was effective. I certainly KNOW that Gingrich cannot be SUCCESSFULLY attacked on the meaning of "grandiose". However, tit was still a DEVICE to EVADE the question about flitting from idea to idea, wihout being able to settle on those that really make sense (however "grandiose" they may be thought to be by small-minded men) . THAT is what I call being a shade "too cute". Still, with the help of people like Wallace, CNN a, and the unfair and unbalanced network, Gingrich MAY bet away with it. I do NOT gaet the feeling that Santourm really helped hwimself, although I hope I am wrong on that . Santorum still has the FEELING of being a man who has not caught fire, and this exchange may show why. Gingrich can PULL OFF "frandiose" rhreotrical attacks AND "grandiose" DEFENSES. Santorum--indeed no one esle in the GOP fiedl--has not shown that ability.

Gingrich does not matter here. What matters is that Wallace is an EVIL, STUPID person in a profession now filled with such persons, and on a network now filled with such persons.

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

Ex-Wives

2012-01-19T22:55:00.000-08:00

Another reason I could never run for office. Read the previus article. Then realize that the problem is not jsut the CONTENT of the articles I writge (bad enough).

Imagine what MY ex-wife would say about ME, if she were interviewed. The mind boggles. And I even had a "friendly" divorcxe, and get along fairly well with her (so long as we dont talk more than about 30 mnutes in any mth--even better recently, as she lives in a different city now and has remarried. We have not really talkged in a year or more, atlthoug I expectg I will probably see here at my older daugher's wedding scheduled in Boston for this September.

Nom, in case you are curious, I have never remarried (now more than 20 years later). The applause and sighs of relief I get from women when they find out that I am admant on this pont are amazing. Women seem to feel that my attitude has saved one or more women from a fate worse than death. My own daughter, mother, and only female friend (Sylvia) hae ALL recently called me a "grumpy old man". Oh well. Being a g "grumpy old man" isn't so bad. Look at Ron Paul. Peooople sort of make allowances for you, although in my case women sometimes forget to do so.

Newt Gingrich and the Open Marriage SMEAR (Evil People Spreading Evil)

2012-01-19T22:06:00.000-08:00

Does the media have any business "reporting" on the ALLEGATIONS of Newt Gingrich's second wife about Gingrich ALLEGEDLY requestion an "open marriage"? How ABSURD, and EVIL John King, EVIL PERSON, even gave this "defense": Wel, I understand why people out there think this is inappropriate in a political campaign, but it is being "talked about". I take it back. Joh=n King, and the people of CNN, are EVIL, EVIL PERSONS. They are obviusly adovcates of BACK FENCE GOSSIP, especailly when it fits their AGENDA.

Doubt me? Never do that. See the movie, "The Children's Hour", which was a remake with a lesbian subtheme of a 1930s movie about how people TALKING can DESTORY other people. This used to be understood as EVIL, even if tooo many people stil did it. Or see another old mov movie--a really GREAT movie--titled "People Will Talk", with Cary Grant. Again, the theme was that TALK (gossip is an EVIL thing. But the media has EMBRACED EVIL--whta everyone used to KNOW was EVIL, even if they might engage in it. ABC should never have reported ths "story" to start with, and the rest of the media (including the unfair and unbalanced network) should NOT have made a big deal about it because an EVIL network had first reported it Did I mentino NAZI defenses that did not work? This one about OTHER "news' people reporting something has al of the earmarks of a NAZI defense. If they did not use it, it was only because they did not hink of it as even plausible (as it is not).

Remember, to make this worse, this is a mere ALLEGATIN from an EX-WIFE. Now that is a reliable source--NOT. Are we now going to run political cmapaings based on mere "allegations" from epole with an ax to grind, on something that has nothing to do with whether Gingrich should be Preisdent? How SORDID.. I am NOT tlakng aobut Gingrich. I am talknig about these EVIL peole in the media. No, I don't care whehter the allegatino is TRUE. It is NOT RELEVANT. But are we really going to make poliiical acampaigns about what was SAID in a marriage that is now disolved? Give me a break!!!!! I take it back. These are EVIL, EVIL, EVIL people (media). Remember, again, that I OPPOSE Newt Gingrich for the nomination, and amunlikely to vote for him even if he is running agaisnt Obama. You should be able to see why Gingrich got a STANDING OVATION from the crowd in South Carolina. And, yet, id does not seem to bother these EVIL media peole that so many people KNOW that they are EVIL--not just me.

Nope. I do NOT think that Gingrich's adimitted adulteries are relevant as to whether he should be President. Now CNN made a big pont of how WOMEN don't think that way. My mother, for example, does not. Again, this blog is lproven right is so many ways every day. Yep. It is one of my long-stated theories that WOMNE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN GIVEN TH EVOTE. They don't know how to handle this sort of thing, in general, as to what is IMPORTANT in judging a candidate for office. One of their main grievances is that "men are sucm", and they PUNISH someone like Gingrich who feeds into that major grievance onf theirs. They don't care what kind of President Gingrich would make (a bad one, I think, but not for this reason). Women REFUSE to vote for a man who has "injured'" one or more of their "kind'. They think: There, but for the grace fo God, toes me, and--come to think of it--one of more men HAVE done pretty much the same thing to me."

As yuou know, or should know, I regard olls as evil things (not a coincidence that they are such a big part of modern "journalism"). Still, this particular poll has a ring of probable (partial) truth. Gingrich is supposed to have TWICE as much support among MEN in South Carolina as women. now I really don't--don't want to think THIS badly of women?--believe that the disparity is quite that great. But if you wonder whether women thingk DIFFERENTLY than men, you want to consider this poll. I know. Women would say that men ARE SCUM, and mostly act jsut like Gingrich, which is why they don't have a problem with Gingrich's conduct. But I think it is more than that (although that certainly enters into it). I thnk women take things much more PERSONALLY than do men, and jsut are unwilling to look beyond what amounts to a personal grievance to consider whether it really makes any sense to make our political campaigns about the SORDID subject of who gets CAUGHT (or can be spun to get "cuaght") acting like scum toward women, or a woman. Remember Herman Cain? Another SMER that jsut makes our politis DIRTIER.

For a long time, women have skewed mch more lEFT than men, and seem to pay much more attention to even non-sexual SMEARS than men do. Q.E.D. Women have proven that they cannot handle the vote.

I know. My borther Marc has ruined my fantaqsy of Angelina Jole shownig up at my door demanding sex (as if I would know what to do with her). Marc tells me that if that were ever to hapen, I need to RN LIKE HELL (because women as a sex have decided to TAKE ME OUT). And Marc's wife refuses to even consider making dinner for me, like she does for my brother basically every night, because of the above attitude toward women. Luckily, I don't lieve in Nashville, and therefore don't feel the STING of this as much as if I lived right there in the same town, where I might be able to get something besides tV didnners.

You men in South Carolina: If you want to stand up for your sex, you should probably vote for Gingrich to teach oth th emedia and womwn a lesson. No, I am not entirely serious on THIS part of the article, since I support Santorum, but the suggestin does have some merit.

P.S. No proofreaidng or spell checking (bad eyesight). No, I know that there are HORDES of women out thre wo will feel sorry for me, and VOUNTEER to make me home cooked meals. But I am afraid I jsut can't handle dealing with women, even for ome cooked meals, and therefore I cannot respnd to the massive outpouring from women that I expect. What is ironic, of course, is that I have always favored men adopting the 'single standard" of 1950s women as far as sexaul relatoinships go. I have advocated a course for EVERY teenage boy to help bring this about, which would show at least 20 FILM NOIR movies (documentaries on how VICIOUS owmen, as a sex, are). Instea, hat has happened, from my observation, is that women have adopted the PROMISCOUS standard of men. But they are HYPOCRITES about it, and still PUNISH men for doing what THEY are now ofent doing. Just an observation. Yep. I do hav e TWO daughters. Sorry, I have to go to the door. There seems to be some truly gorgeous woman at my door............

P.P.S. Google announcement: This blog will now be under new management, due to an unfortunate incident regarding the late previous author. The new author has promised to follow in Skip's footsteps, and has vowed not to be intimideated by what happened to the orginal Skip.

GOP Debate: Santorum, Gingrich, Paul and Romney--In That Order

2012-01-19T20:58:00.000-08:00

Rick Santorum was even mroe solid tonight than usual, with a somewhat toughter edge (on the verge of being a little TOO "tougH' on the other GOP candidatges). On substance, Santorum was the dlear winner, as he got across a message of consistent, EFFECTIVE conservative representation over two decades. Plus, he was RIGHT on how the "law " works as leftists USE the courts to FORCE things to be done their way. Unless you PROHIBIT public money from being used for abortion, it WILL be used for abortion. In fact, Ron Paul was also right, and partially explained the DISHONESTY of Planned Parenthood and its suppporters. If Planned Parenthood is the PRIMARY entity behind abortion int his country, it is NO DIFFERENT giving Palnnned Parenthood money for ABORTIOIN and giving Planned Parenthood PUBLIC MONEY for "other wervices". Money is money. It can be moved around. It makes NO economic difference to Planned Parenthood whether Planned Parenthood gets 250 millioin dollars for abortion or 250 million dollars for those other servicess. Why not? Becakuse all lPlanned Parenthood does is use the omney it gets from OTHER SOURCES to make up the lack of fudning for, say, abortion. Thus, Planned Parenthood might ordinarily use 250 million dollars from PRIVATE DONATIONS to fund "other services" besides abortion. But, instead, Panned Parenthood ALLOCATES taht money to ABORTIONS, and allocates teh FEDREAL TAXPAAYER MONEY to "other services" besides abortions. The TOTAL Planned Parenthood budget is the SAME. It does not matter from which pocket the money comes. Money is fungible (to use an accountant word my accountat brother likes). I digress, other than to say that Mitt Romney was somewhat unconvincing, as usual, on RomneyCare, aalthough fairly good on being an overall "pro-life" governor.

Newt Gingrich probably "won" the debate POLITICALLY, even ahead of Santorum. As stated in the previous aarticle, Santorum HAS to come close in South Carolina (lathough not necessariy w"win"). It does nto matter whether Santorum is "third", even. Waht mattrs is that he be within 5% of the TOP spot. Gingrich got what John King, the dishonest CNN political hack who moderated) considered a "hardball" (dishoenst, ridculous--see next articlel) question. For Gingrich, however, it was a SOFTBALL questoion, because it gave Gingrich an opportunity to ATTACK the media, whihc Gingrich does BETTER than any GOP politican out there (when Gingrich chooses to do it, or gets this kind of opportunity). Gingrich knocked the question out of the partk, and it was the FIRST question (showing just how EVIL John King really is, to ssuppose that this is the Most improtant" "issue' the country faces). Nope, it is not even a legitimate "issue" at all. Again, see the next article., I will remind you that I OPPOSE Gingrich for the nomination strongly, but I tell you the truth (unlike Johnn King and CNN--The Liar Network). Even CNN, afterward, was amost unanimous after the debate that John King may well have WON the South Carolina primary for Newt Gingrich.

Why do I say Gingrich was not as ood as Santorum on SUBSTANCE (deifferent from counterpunching the media, valuable as that skill is)? Well, Gingrich sounds no better on illegal immigration than he ever has. He never really expalined, when challenged by Santorum, how he (Gingrich) could have STILL been for an "individual mandate" YEARS after most GOP politicians and conservatives had ababandoned the idea. Santorum was convincing that he, Santorum, had NEVER been for such a thing. Gingrich's answer? Basically: "Better late than never". You get the felling, or at least I do, that this is Gingrich's attitude toward EVERY idea. He is always ready to try out a new own, and PASSIONATELY defend it with wit and skill, even if he argued the other side the day before. Gingrich got another standing ovation on that first question and answer on "open marriage", but afterward he really did not have that many oppportunites for crackerjack answers. He AVOIDED Santorum's point that Gingrich had put abortion, and other "social issues', on the "back burner" as recently as the 2010 election. Gingrich did not disute that. He only cited his pro-life voting record and the alleged pro-life record of new freshmanen elected to Congreess (which does not explain how Planned Parenthood--so far as I know--STILL is getting funds from the Federal taxpayers, along with the Corporation for Pubic Broadcasting). You can attribute it to my "bias" in favor of Santorum, if you like, but Gingrich ws not really that impressive AFTER that first softball question. Still, he was good enough that CNN may be right: Gingrich might WIN South Carolina on his answer to that first question CNN, of course, spent a good part of their post-debate "analysis" DEFENDING John King, just like the unfair and unbalanced network has spent DAYS "defending" the INSULTING question from Juan Williams. For these people, it is all about THEM, and NOT about providing USEFUL INFORMATIN . That was, by the way, John king's "defense": that this Open marriage" SMEAR is what people are "talking aobut", and therefore it was a questin that "had" to be asked. Uh-huh. That is the SAME "defense" given by Bret Baire to indensible questions from the unfair and unbalanced network in other debates. It is an EvIL Ldefense, based onm RATINGS and "reputation" for asking the "tough", "current" SMEAR questoin. Yep. The NAZIS failed with this "defense" at Nuremburg (sp? not quite sure), So John King was 'under orders", or just doing that his fellow, EVIL"journalists" expected him to do . To be fairer to Kng than he is to other people, he did say it was ENTIRELY his decision to ask this question. This, of course, is DISHONEST, even if technically "true'. Att he very least, King did what he thought his CNN colleagues EXPECTED him to do. King, you will remember, is the person who suggested that threre was NO PROOF of "wrongdoing" in connection with Solyndra and the Obama Aministration Any perso who will say THAT wil say ANYTHNG, and John King WILL Again, he is an EVIL PERSON SPREADING FEVIL EVERY DAY. He is also the reason Newt MAY win South Carolina.

Romney had another BAD debate. Rn Paul should really be in a different category, because Rn Paul is ALWAYS Ron Paul. That is why pepe like myself, and even my 89 year old mother, LIKE Ron Paull. But it is virtualy impossible for Paul to do 'better" or "wrose". If you hear him a few times, you know exactly what he is all about, and you either like him or think he is an extremely dangerous man (or both, as the case is with me) .

Back to Romney. Again, Romney was UNABLE TO HANDLE the question on his tax returns. He TRIED to give a Gingrich answer, blaming the media and the Democrats, but FAILED. He even said "maybe' as to whether he would follow the example of his father. He really seemed somewhat disconnected, and unable to deal with his "ealth" and personal taxes. Now the GOP, and conservatives, have no problem with wealth. And we have no problem with REFUSING to disclose your tax returns. But Romney has played this as BADLY as you can possibly play it. See last night's article suggesting that Romney's REAL problem is coming across as an out-of-touch "rich guy" wo is tiotally unable to relate to ordinary Americans. NO. This is NOT the same as "class warfare". It is NOT that Romney is far richer than the rest of us. Rather, it is that he cannot convince us, or anyone else, that he UNDERSTANDS ordinary people, and can relate to them. Now, as a person who has trouble relating to peopole myself, I don't discount the idea that Romney is jjsut a little bit of a "cold sigh" in public, who is just naturally a little stiff and uncomfortable talking about PERSONAL things. But remember my older daughter's example of Romney trying to ride the "T" (Boston subway) as an "example" to peoplle, but showng he had NO IDEA of what the "T" was all about, giving every indicatin that he had never ridden on it before. Unfari attack by those LIBERALS in Massachusetts? Entirely possible. But it is Roomney's major problem, along with thi stotal inability to really exlain DETAILS of CONSERVATIVE ideas (although he has taught himself how to exzpress the "vision thing"). Can Rmney really win by saying that he is a "businessman" unconnected with Washington, when he is so obviously an ESTABLISHEMTN WALL STREET GUY? I wonder.

Anwaqy, Romney lost another debate. Gingrich came close to wining another debate. Santorum did really well. Ron Paul was Ron Paul Romney, for example, went off on a tangent about how her refused to apoliogize for being "successful", and that he was proud of being successful, when he was not even being ATTACKED on that gound. Thais wsa an explanation as t why he was gong to DELAY disclosing his tax returns, and refuses to disclose them piecmeal. Really sort of embarrassing, and overly defensive.

No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). You are going to think I am becoming a POLITICIAN on promies, but I still paln to get to that issue of our marines and the URINATION FETISH of our mainstream media. Will probably be tomorrrow, although it will surely be by Saturday. Then there is tehe palnned article on th eRELIGIOUS BIOGRY of CNN, as it tries to make the DETAILS of religiuos doctrine an ISSUE in this campaign. Did I tell you that CNN, including John King, is composed of EVIL PEOPLE? I know I did. Who knows when I will get to this one. No time. New thngs every day, like this "open marriage" SMEAR.

Romney, Santorum, Iowa, and the Liars of the Media: Hisotirc Lies Exposed--as You Should Never Believe a Single Word Today's Media Tells You

2012-01-19T16:32:00.000-08:00

Headlines today featured on Yahoo "News":

"Santorum may hoave won in Iowa--Romney says it was "a virtual tie" (yet another reason to vote GAINST Ropmne--NO grace at all, and a hypocrite)

"Rick Santorum belated win in Iowa: to late to matter" (current "featured" headline)

Notice how the FIRST headline does nto even really acknowledge the "win" of Santorum in Iowa. These are DISHOENST peopoe, spreading HISHONESTY every single day. Buyt it is much worse than that.

Go back to the night of the Iowa primary. Waht did this blog tell you? This blog told you that it DID NOT MATTER whether Rick Santorum had "won" Iowa by a few votes or had "lost" Iowa by a few votges. It was a TIE. I wote that when Santourm was actually ahead a few votres, but I told you -then and later--that the vote wsa so close that it was a TIE. 8 votes NEVER meant anything. I would have more respect form Mitt Romney IF he had said THEN that it ws a tie (ta;lomg apbit tje sicceeddomg days when the media was talking aoubt Romney's "historic' feat of "seeping" Iowa and New Hampshire). As it is, I havce little respect for Romney--really less every single day. Of course, I ahve NO respect for the media, including the unfair and unblanced network. They have YET AGIAIN been exposed as LIARS--rist, last and always. They insisted upon attaching significance to that 8 vote Romney "win" in Iowa, when it NEVER had any significance at all. And this is NOT hindsight on the part of this bog. It is FORESIGHT. I told you this right after the Iowa vote, and in every article in which I have mentioned the subjet since. I TOLD you that the Iowa vote was so close that it could eve CHANGE. Talk about TOMORROW'S NEWS TODAY!!!!!!! That is what you get from this blog.

Is this a correctg headline: "Did Media LIars, including Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, Megyn Kelly, Bret Baire, and all of the rest, COST Santorum the nmination by LYING aboujt the significance of the Iowa resutls, and the fact that EITHER Snatorum or Romney might eventaly be declared the "winner" in a vorte this close?"

In actual fact, I don't think the media did "cost" Santorum the nominatin. Santorum MUST get within 5% of the lead in South Carolina (NOT a "victory"), or his campaign is essentially over. Right now , it is likely Santorum will NOT get that vote. I say that NOT because of EVIL polls, but because Rick Perry endorsed Gingrich. Would Perry have done that if he thought Santourm had a real chance at the vote in South Carolina, or at the nomination? I don't think so. But it is really the MEDIA--including the unfair and unbalanced network--who are this STUPID, and all about AGENDA rather than FACTS. NONE of them would know an actual FACT if it fell on their head out of the sky. Nevertheless, Santourm just has filed to CATCH FIRE. He is simply--as this blog has told you--toom much of a standard politician, even if he is the most solid conservative in the race and pretty much RIGHT on most things. This blog continues to endorse Santourm, for that reason, but the ONLY reason for him to stay in the race, IF he cannot come within 5% of the "winner" in South Carolina, is to hope for either a DEADLOCKED convention or a MAJOR gaffe by both Gingrich and Romney. Santorum cannot stand a DISTANT thrid place finish in South Carolina, although he would be fine if his t"third palce" finish was with;in 5% of the top. What is it the media does nto understand about MEANINGLESS differences in these primary/caucus votes? Well, they may, sort of--these are turly STUPID people--"understand". They just DON'T CARE. They are LIARS to theri very core,not intterested in INFORMATION (or, God forbid, "turth"), but only in their particular way of HYONG their own ratings and how they think these things can be "SPUN". O'Reilly's "o spin zone"................................................................................................sorry, on the foor laughing/crying agani.....is oen of lthe BIGGEST LIES ever invented in media, right after "teh fair and unbalanced network".

If lyou can't "blame" the media for Rick Santroum not doing better,, yhou can balme them ALL for LYING to you. And I do. For more lthan eight yyears, I have esposed those LIES. You will remember my futuile Sodom and Gommorah searhc--I will never forgive Him for sticking me with that "assignment", as a punishment for me being an agnostic--for an honest, competent AP reporter. No such animal exists. But I will go further; There is NO such thing as an honest, competent "journalist" in today's world. Nope.. I will NOT accept the extended Sodom and Gomorrah assiganment of TESTING this statemetn. ep. I continue to suggest you BOYCOTT the unfair and unblanced network.

But the headline contins mmy strongest recommendation: Do NOT believe, or act upon, a single word these peole (today's media) say. What you MUST do, is conslt blogs like this one, along with multiiple "news" "sources" (like Drudge), and then READ BETWEEN THE LINES. Ignore the S+MEARS. Yep. This "open marriage" SMEAR against Gingrich is something yuou should INGORE, except to cause you to have yet more CONTMPT for "journalists", who wre th ePRIMARY purveyors of NEGTIVE ADS in this country. What is this "oopen marriage" tripe, from an EX-WIEF, other than a vicious NEGATIVWE AD. It has NOTHING to do with whether Gingrich should be President., and I say that as someone who wil NOT vote for Gingrich--even against Obama (reserving the right to change my mind here, if Gngrich somehow manages to stay FOCUSED on the RIGTHT things for months at a time, instead of his usual HOURS).

How can yuou have ANY respect for, or pay anty attention to, peole (media) who LIE to you, and then say that it is too bad that Santourm was not declared the winner EARLIER-too bad that the Meia MISPRESENTED the results for so many weeks (unlike this blog, which told you the truth).

I worry that I am holind back again, and not giving you the full idea of how ANTRY I am at these people (our media, including the unfair and unbalanced network). The problem is that non-curse words just don't exist that are adequate to show my CONTEMPT for these peole sABC? CBS? NBC? MSNBC? LIARS all, and BENEATH CONTEMPT. Scu? Not an adequate word? Whores? An insult to honest whores who provide a serivice, althouygh I sort of like my recurrent headline: "Andrea Mitchell is a whore.". Evil.. Well, that is both taure, and almsot adequate, but nobody believes you are serious when you use a word like "evil". I AM serious. I have often stated that I look forward to MEETING ALL OF THES PEOPLE IN HELL, IF HELL EXISTS. Maybe that is the bbest I can do to show jsut how much contempt I have for these people. Just LOOK at those headlines I quote above, and remember all of the LIES you have bben told ove th e past several weeks. What esle is adequate?

I say I have LESS respect for Romney every day, and that is true. However, I have some qualms about condemning Romney for NOW saing that Iowa was "a virtual tie", and not saing it THEN. (after that "official" 8 vote "margin"). Do I KNOW that Romney did ot say it? No, because the MEIDA are sluch LIARS and INCOMPETENTS. It is possible that Romney DID say it, and the media just ignored it as "modestry" No, I am pretty convinced that Romney did NOT say it as STRONGLY as he shoudl have, and as consistently. But jhe MAY have said it. It would NOT have been reported. Romneh's prolbem remains--see last nights's article--that he does NOT "connect" with eeople, and contiues to put out PABLUM that is "focus grouop tested". No way I will eVER vote for Mitt Romne for President. As stated, myh opnion of him has gone DOWN almsot eveery day since 2998, when I endorsed him for the GOP nomination (partly, let us be honest, because MCCAIN was his main opoponent).

No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

P.

Mitt Romney: Is it Easier for Mitt Romney to Get Through the Eye of a Needle Than for a Rich Man to Get Inoto Heaven?

2012-01-18T21:49:00.000-08:00

This blog has tol dyou from the beginning the problem with Mitt Romney, and the reason hRpomney may NOT be the GOIP candidate best able to beat Barack Obama. Romney is certainly NOT a "conservative", and everyone knows it. He makes it more clear every single day. Charles Krauthammer says that Romney does not know HOW to "explain " conservative principles (nd Krauthammer is an ESTABLISHMENT HACK from the unfari and unbalanced network-which network is "all in" for Romney, and has "circled the wagons" in suport of LEFTIST HCK Juan Willians). Rush Limbaugh said that Romne had a terrible debate on Monday. Time Maganize, as featured on the desicable Yahoo "News". accurately says that Roney utterly FUMBLED the question on TAX RETURNS int he Monday debate.

This all goes to what this blog told you from the very geginning, citng my older daugher IN BOSTON as the first source of this insight: Romney can be portrayed as a RICH GUY OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. No, Romneyh has NO problem with being a Mormon. That is LEFTIST, MEDIA BIGOTRY (not evangelistic bigotry) No, Romney has NO problem with Bain Capital, where most Amricans understnad PRIVATE business dealings, and do not hold those dealings against a candidate. In fact, most Americans probably do, and SHOULD, respect Romney for knowing a LOT about how business workds. So what was my older daughter's INSIGHT years ago (before the 2008 campaing)?

My older daugher told me that Romney was RIDICULED in Boston because he supposedly decided to ride the Boston subway---the "T"-to show that it was "safe" (at a time when the eivl media was HYPING the "danger" to subway systems). Problem (according to my daughhter, and realize that my daugher is in BOSTON, and subjectg to BOSTON liberal propaganda from both media sources and HER FRIENDS): Romeny showed hat he had NO IDEA how to "ride' the "T". in other words, my daughter says that Romney mad eit clear that he had nver ridden the "T" in his life, and realy had no clue as to what riding the "T" was all about. Yep. I HAVE ridden the "T", a LOT, including with my daughter.

It does not matter whether you BELIEVE the leftist propaganda absorbed by my daughter (a high powered lawyer) in Boston. This has ALWAYS been the VULNERABLIITY of Romney. It is finaly beginning to filter through to the GOP establishment, as exhibited by Krauthamemr. Romney is VULNERABLE on the question of being an OUT OF TOOUCH RICH GUY. H ecomes across as a STIFF ELITIST. He comes across as a person with NOTHING in common with the ordinary American. He FAiLED to be th enominee in 2008 because he could NOT connect with ordinary Americans. IF Romney an beat Obama, it is ONLY by makng the race about Obama. Romney is NOT ghoing to beat Obama by CONNECTING with ordinary Americans. As stated, this is what this blog has been telling you for YEARS. This is Romney's MAIN PROBLEM--rather than the SMEARS on Bain Capital or Mormonism. It is a problem i think it is DOUBTFUL he can overcome.

No, I don't think Americans hold it against peole tht they are "rich". Okay. Occupy Wall Street types do. But those are a small MINORITY of people. However, Americans have never been that fond of the VERY RICH. Bloomberg? No chance to be President. Trump? No chance to be President. Steve Forbes? No chance to be Presidetnt. . Time Magazine, in that Yahoo "News' featured story, said that it MATTERS that Romney's tax rate is only 15^%/. NO, it does not. If Romhey supports a caital gainsts tax rate of 15% for ALL "rich" people, does it matter whether ROMNEY has "benefitted' from that rate? Of course not. However, Romnheyh is IN TROUBLE if he is perceived as an OUT OF TOUCH RICH GUY (which I truly think he is, in some degree or another) Romney is a very rich ESTABLISHMENT GOP Wall Street0type guyt his bvery core, and I think that come s thnrough. No, you can't get anywhere attackng Romney on anti-capitalist grounds. But yyou CAN get a long ways atttackng Ropmney as having no undrstanding of ordinary Americans, or of conservative principles.

That comes to the STUJPID peole of ABC and Yahoo "News'> That was yet another featured ESTABLISHMNT story n Romney. The ABC/Yahoo/AT&T headline was: "Romney emerges unscathed from debate." That was an outright LIE, and events have PROVEN it a LIe.

Romney came across int hat debate as an OUT OF TOUCH rich guy playing it way too cute. Rush Limbuagh recognized that Time recognized that. C=harles Krauthammer recognized that (a person this blog has CRUCIFIED as willing to SELL OUT conservative principles) . When Romney tire dot get away with saying that he was not required to disclose his tax returns, but would "probably" do so in April, an dthen said the next day that his "tax reate" was about 15%, Romney was SCATED. Maybe he can survive it. But Romney, in that entire debate, ws TOO CUTE--too much the arrogant rich gyy bobbing and weaving. No connetion. No effetive communication of conservative principles. NO PRINCIPLES> ABC, and the "all in" unfair and unbalancd network, seem to think that Romney has a RIGHT to the nomination unless is opoenents PROVE that he is not qualified to be President. In waht universe? Romney stil has an obligatin to MAKE HIS CASE, and he totally FAILED to do that in the debate. Worse, for Romney, Romney SET UP the "tax' issue as a way to highlight the issue of him as an OUT OF TOUCH RICH GUY. Nope., ABC and Yahoo LIED TO YOU The last debate was a DISASTER for Romeny. This blog ACCURTELY analyzed that debate for you.

Romne may still be the favorite for the nomination. I would say he is. But he was HURT by the last debate, and hie is MAKNIG NO CASE for himself. Can the "establishmetn" contnue to push a candidate who may be a DISASTER? I wonder. Krauthammer would seem to indicate that the establishment is becoming nervoous about Romney, even as the unfair and unbalanced network is "all in" for Romney in one of the most disgraceful performances by a TV network in any election--fully as bad as the CNN and MSNBC campaigns for Obama. Juan Williams, for example, asked an INSULTING question for which he SHOUDLD have bee booed. The unfair and unbalanced network seems unable to recognize this, but that is only a minor reaons you should BOYCOTT that network. Day in and day out, they are TERRRIBLE.

Again, this blog has told you the TRUTH, for YEARS The main problem with Romney is whether he can CONNECT to the Amrican peole. He has STILL not shown thaqt he can. He definitely does not know how to explain conservaiteve ideas. That is becazuse he is NOT a conservative. He really is a "rich guy" who wants to be Preisdent because the thinks he can MANAGE the Federal Government better than those who have been doing it. In that, he may well be right. But that is nto a substitute for PRINCIPELE< or a real connecitn with people. That remains Romney's vulnerability, and it may be FATAL (if not in the nomination, then in the genreral election)

Yep. I AM saying that the American peo;ple seem better able to vote for ORDINARY RICH PEOLE, like Obama, Reagan, etc., than they are able to vote for SUPER RICH people like Romney, Bloomberg,, Trump, etc. Romney COULD have overcome that if he were able to communicate PRINCIPLE. He is nto able to do that, and donsistently comes across as an elitist rich guy . As stated, that may be FATAL. It has nothing to do with Bain Caital an dtax rates. It has everything to do with CONNECTING with peole.

P.S. No proofreading or spel checking (bad eyssith). Yep, I still plan that URINATINO FETISH article on those 4 marines, but it will have to wait for tomorrow--alng with the article on CNN, Anderson Cooper, and RELIGIOUS BIGORY more blatant and evil than AnY "evangelical" grouop out there.

Yahoo, AT&T, Reuters, CNN: Some of the Worst Religious Biots to Ever Live on this Earth

2012-01-18T21:31:00.000-08:00

The mainstream media in this country are composed of RELIGIOUS BIGOTS> This blog has conclusively shown this for EIGHT YEARS. Doubt me? Never, ever , do that. Here is one of tonight's FEATURED headlines from Yahoo "News', in partnership with AT&T and ABC, from a Reuters storty:

"in Bain Capital deals, Rpm,ney gave stock to Mormon church"

So what, NLESS you are a RELIGIOUS BIGOT trying to appeal to BIGOTRY. That appleis to Reuters, CNN, ABC, AT&T and the entire mainstrream media. Nope. I am wiling to state the obvious: EVANGELICAL CHRISTIIANS are NOT the pople tyring to make Romnney's Mormon religiohn a POLITICAL "issue" in this campaign. That is reserved for ANDERSON COOPOER, CNN, Reuters, and the mainstream media in general.

WHO has a right to "complain" abut Romney "giving" stock to the Mormon church? Not the maisntream media, but they are BIGOTS--as stated, some of the WORST religious bigots wo have ever lived on th;is Erath. They are EVKL people, who I look forward to meeting IN HELL, if Hell exists. Noope, I give these peole NO pass. They are EVIL [people. Yep. I am referring to the people of Reuters, the despicable AP, Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitezer, all of CNN, Reters, and the rest of the mainstream media. You are EVIL peo;le, spreding evil. And I mean it. literally, This is EvIL , bigoted stuff you are spreading. AT&T and Yahooo? You are EVIL lpeople. That is what I think of youy,. if you want to defend yourselves, I invitfe you or uour idiot defenders, to TRY to do so in commetns on this blgo. WARNIGN.. I will HAND YOU YOUR HEAD. Yep. I am an AGNOSTIC, who OPOSES Romney for President. I wil STILL HAND YOU YOUR HEAD, because you are EViL BIOTS spreadig evil.

ONLY the owners of Bain capital--the people with a MONETARY interest--have a "right" to complain of how Romney allocated stock. The obviously did NOTG complain. The idea that it is RELEVANT politically whether Romney "gave" stock to the Mormoon church is ure EVIL, ut out by EVIL people, spreading EVIL thoroughout this land. I worry that I am not converfying to you adequately my CONTGEMPOT for these EVI people--that I am holding back. Well, I can only do so much. But you shoudl get the idea. My CONEMPT for these "journalists" knows NO bounbds. SErial kilerrs? Terrorists? Reallity show producers? Doesnnt' matter. My COPNTEMPT for "journalists' is as bad as my contempt for anyu of the OTHER evil people on this planet.

More on this in future articles, especially on CNN and the truly evil Anderson Cooper.

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

Obama, Keystone and the GOP: Country Be Damned (Debt Ceiling and Pyrrhic "Victories")

2012-01-18T12:28:00.000-08:00

The GOP betrayed every supposed "principle' the GOP has by both supporting a year's extension of the fraudulent "payroll tax cut" and the extension of those 99 weeeks of unemployumnet. Oh, I know. The GOP politic ians would say hat they did not betray the principle of favoring "tax cuts", but that merely highlights how FRAUDULENT GOP( pliticians have become in their attempts to match Obama and the Democrats in BRIBERY. The "payroll tax cut" is NOT a "tax ctu". It is a BRIBE, pure and simple.,, which REQU:IRES that the dEBT CEILING be RAISED 150 BILINON dollars (that bill alone--not to mention the SEDNING BILLS for twich the GOP votged) . I still can't' even believe that, after this vote, Marco Rubio wrote a letter to the President jumping on the President for propsing another 1.2 trillioin dollar increase int he debtg ceiling. Message to Marco Rubio (again); You, Senator Rubio, are a HYPOCCRITE--an industrial grade, to-the-core hypocrite. Message to the GOP politicans in general: yoou are almsot ALL DISHONEST HYPOCRITES. You have voete FOR every single bill that will rEQUIREW the debt ceiling to be raised, including this "payroll tax cut", and you should ALL BE DEFEATED (including, of course, all Democrat politicans).

Doubt me? Never do that. Look at what happened today (the reason for this article). Obama REJECTED the Keystone pipeline--saying, of course, that the firm can "reapply". This is the major VICOTRY that GOP Senators, and some "conservative" conmmentators, were claiming that the GOP had gotten in that ridiculous twomonth extension of the payroll tax "cut' (undermining funding for Social Security) and extension of unemployment benefits. What the GP got in the bill was a "requirment" that Obama "make a decision" on the Keystone project within 60 days. What a "victory) (king Pyrrhus would understand uch better than today's GOP politicians). Any more "victories" like this and the COUNTRY will be lost. But the CONTRY had nothing to do with either Obama's decision or the GOP actions. It was ALL POLITICS, ALL OF THE TIME.

Why did th eGOP give the im pression that Obama would be "forced" to alpprove the Keystone pipeline just because the gOP forced him inoto an affirmative decision he did not want to make? This blog tiried to give you the message that this was not a "victory" at all. Obama, today, has shown why this blog was right. But the GOP bil wsa NEVER about the COPUNTRY. It was an attemtpt to make POLITICAL POINTS. For both Obama and the GOP: CPOUNTRY BE DAMEND is the attitude.

What did the GOP want? They wanted two things. They wanted an EXCUSE to SELL OUT the country (adn especially their own supporters) by INCREASING THE DEFIICAT AND THE DEBT (which this payroll "tax cut' requires be done, along with this extensoin of unemployment benefits). In other words, the GOP wanted to be part of the BRIBE known as the "ayroll tax cut", but they did not want their upporters to realzie what FRAUDS they really are. This is where the Keystone pipeline comes in. The GOP thinks they hage the POLITICAL upper hand there. Thus, they tried to put Obama in a POLITICAL bind by making him take the POLITICAL heat for "rejeting" the ipeline. Obama, of curse, is now going to say that he was just being "cautious" and "careful" to make sure that the ipeline makes sense--the same thing he was saying ANYWAY. What did hte GOp accomplish FOR THE COUNTRY? NOTHING. They gained a very fleeting POLITICAL advantage, which is all they ever really wanted. And they HOPE they gainted COVER in BETRAYING people like me. Dream on, GOP.. You get NO cover from me. Even peole not as adamant as I am are coing to see you for how you are.

Let us go back to that two month extension of teh "payroll tax cut" and "extended unemployment benefits". The ONLY "leverage" the GOP had (since they were too COWARDS to actually stand on priciiple and reject the INCREAS E IN THE DEBT) to get "real concessoins...............................................................................................................................Sorry, I really almost died laughing that time.....was the DEADLINE. Remeber how everyone was saying how they wuld get to work IMMEDIATELY to keep it from going down to the NEW DEADLINE? We are now almost at the end of January. The deadline is presumably the end of February. Where are we on that? And how does the GOP "justiry" voting "for" this DEBT INCREASING bill notw that Obama had REJECTED the Keysone piipline. As this blog has told you, it is not only that the GOP has NO PRINCIPLES. It is that they are SO STUPID. They now are in a POLITICAL BOX. Sure, they have 'gained" whatever POLITICAL "advantage" they expected to get out of an Obama rejection of the Keystone project, but Obama has removed that card from the deck. How do GOP memebers of Congress NOW explain their NEXT vote on the 'payroll tax cut"? Thew GOP has only itself to blame for this coming POLITICAL AGONY, and I have no sympathy for ANY of them. DEFEAT THEM ALL. They set themselves up for this.

And look at how our entire estalbishment-GOP and Democrat--has proven itself to be composed of LIARS. All of this was ging to be "wroked out". Obama would figure out a way to approve the Kyestone project. This "payroll tax cut" would now be "worked out", and the one -year extension would be a foregone concluson Well, it MAY be, but only if the GOP makes absolutely clear that they have LOST LTHE WAR. in fact, unlike King Pyrrhus, they did ntot even win the battle. Yep. The MEDIA lLIED to ;you (big surpirse--NOT) by not telling you what this "two month extension" was really seetting up. The politicans LIED to you (no surprise agaain) by saying that they would immediately get these things resolved, and not come down to yet another "deadline". Yet, the MEDIA wants you to continue to ay attentin to them. You should NOT. And the oliticians want you to keep electing them. You should DEFEAT THEM ALL. And the estalbishment thinks they should keep controllkng the way you vote--including with Mitt Romney. This blog has told lyou : Hell will freeze over before I EVER vote for an estalbishment candidate again. I think LESS of all of these groups every day---media, politicians, and our estalbishment peole. Readers of this blog would have thought that wsa impossible, but it s true. I keep thinking these people cannot get any LOWER in my estimatiin, and they keep finding a way.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Yep. I still plan on the seond article on those mariens being posted tonight, but you can tell this particular news set off a flash oint within me--agian proving this blog RIGHT. You will have to wiat for my article on the media URINAITON FETISH with regard to radical Islam. By the way, Obama seems willing to take politcal heat for what his LEFTIST BACKERS want him to do. Is it only the GOP that is comoposed of COWARDS? I wonder. They ALL RHN at the sign of any actual political heat. I wish this blog was more influential. If it were, I would show the GOP what political "heat" is all about. Well, I can only do what I can do. And I will.

Obama, Marines and AbuGhraib: Generals as Partisan Political Hacks

2012-01-17T19:29:00.000-08:00

Is Obama responsible for those marines who urinated on dead Taliban bodies--bodies of people the marines had appparently just KILLED?

Let me put it this way: Obama is just as responsible for those marines urinating on dead bodies (and the video) as President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld were for Abu Ghaib games by military guards with Muslim prisoners (also recorded on video).

NO. It is a LIE to say that President Bush and Rumsfeld were shown to be involved in the Abu Ghraib matter. There was NO EVIDENCE that the matter was anything more than a case of indificual soldiers getting carried away.

This brings us to CNN, The Liar Network (at least, I think it was CNN, although these networks are all the same--including the unfair and unbalanced network--this could have been MSNBC). The interviewee was one of those retired generals who make you glad most of these generls have little to do with actual military operatons. These gusy are PARTISAN POLITICAL HACKS, and probably got to be generals by political gamesmanship raither than military competence. "Skip, you can't say that about our generals." Hey, I just did. And if you doubt that generals can be incompetnet, you need to brush up on your Civil War history--especailly the hisotory of Lincoln's experience with Unioin generls put in charge of the Army of the Ptotomac before Grant. I digress (sort of). Back to this partisan political hack of a general.

This gneral made a point out of saying something that was FALSE--without any contradicton from the CNN (or MSNBC) host: "The difference between Abu Ghraib and this incident of marines urinating on dead Taliban is that Abu Ghraib was a matter of POLICY . This incident with the marines was jsut those marines breaking the discipline of their training. General, you are a LIAR. Yep. I just called a former United States geneal a LIEAR, and I stand by it. Again, there is NO EVIDENCE that the Abu Ghraib videotaped abuse of prisoners (albeit without physical injury--more mental abuse through physical humiliation) was "policy", or in aid of any official policy any more than what the maires did in Afghanistan was in aid of Obama's official policy. In fact, the EVIDENCE is that the soldiers at Abu Ghraib VIOOLATED POLICY jsut as much as the marines in Afhanistan who urinated on dead bodies. Again, general, you are a LIAR. I fear for any troops ever under your command. I often get that feeling about Wesley Clark, by the way, altough I don't think (not entirely sure) this general was Wesley Clark).

You know and I know why the media wanted to HANG Bush and Rumsfeld for Abu Ghraib, and want to COVER UP for Obama on the matter of these marines (not that a "cover up" is really necessary but the media has gone out of its way to shot down even the idea of any possible responsibility on the part of Obama) . You know, and I know, that Abu Ghraib was just an excuse for the media to GO AFTGER Bush and Rumsfeld because the media was opposed to the Iraq war, as well as Bush generally. In contrast, even if the media may not like the war in Afghanistan, the media FAVORS Barack Obama, and does not even want an "issue" reaised as to Obama. Let us go back to CNN (The Liar Network) and John King, as I set forth in a previous article. King and CNN took the posion that there was NO EVIDENCE of "wrondoing" as to the OBAmA Sllyndra scandal. What that means is that CNN did not see CONCLUSIVE evidence that OBAMA did anything CRIMINALLY wrong with regard to Solyndra. Contrast that wiht how CCNN treated Bush and Rumsfeld, and is still treating them, with regard to AbuGhraib. In fact, of course, there is all kinds of "evidence' of "wrongdoing" on the part of the Obama Administration with regard to Solyndra--including violateing the law requriing American taxpayers to be FIRST in line before other creditors--and the fact that Obama may not have committed an impeachable offense is hardly the pont.

Okay, what is the MEDIA 'party line" on these marines. Yep, this general expresed that too, but this was repeated on EVERY NETWORK. And it is HOGWASH. It is part of a whitewashing of both Obama (the reason it is not challenged now, when it was at Abu Ghraib) and the military (which does not need this kind of whitewasing). This "party line' is that our marines are the best trained and most disciplined solidiers to ever exist on this Earth, and that this VIDO shows an aberration that ws limited to these particular marines. The 'party line' is that it is almsot impossible to imagine marines as well trained as ours are disregarding their trainging and discipline to this extent, and "going rogue". Again, HOGWASH.

Am I saying that our marines are not well trained? Of course not. However, I was in the Untied States Army during the middle of the Vietnam War (although I never served in Vietnam) . Further, myh son-in-law was a marine for more than 8 years, and served in Iraq (now separated from my daughter, although I always admired him for telling my daugher, FROM IRAQ, that he thought he "needed more space", which happened years before the separation in a rather stormy marriage). Marines especailly, but soldiers in general, are TRAINED TO KILL. In additon, they are HUMAN BEINGS. More than most, they are also YOUNG MEN with (usuallly) a healthy dose of testosterone. Again, I feel sorry for uor troops if they are being led by generals who really believe that it is hard to imagine our troops urinating on dead bodies. I coudl easily imagine my son-in-law doing it, while he was in the marines, and his rather macho persona would have led you to believe he was capable of it too. The same was true when I was in the army at the time of Vietnam. No, I don't think most of our military in Vietnam were like William Calley and his crew, shooting HUNDREDS of defenseless peole in a ditch. I generally have a lot of respect for professonal military men, and did so at the time of Vietnam (when I was in the army, and afterward). But I NEVER confused these men with ANGELS. They were generally not angels to start with, and the STRESS (and sometimes exhileration, of war makes it easy for men to do what they would not do if they were not int the excitement of the moment.

All these marines did was urinate on men they had just KILLED. See my planned next article on the OVEREACTION by our media. These men have the "example" of Presidetnt Obama crowing over killing Osama bin Laden (as Obama had a right to do). They have the example of the Navy SEALS killing Osam bin Laden and summarily disposing of the body 9as I HNOPE they did, rahter than give bin Laden the "honors' of a Muslim burial)). Could yo uimagine the Navy SEALS SPITRTING ON bin Laden? I certainly could. And I woould not even think badly of them for it.

The 'problem" here is the VIDO Nope. I absolutely do not believe that this kind of thing does not happen fairly regularly with young soldiers. The 'pary line' made much of the fact that this was an "elite " sniper team specially trained. Does not ARROGANCE necessarily go with that kind of elite team? Damn right it does. It is a little distressing that these men let a VIDEO be made., but do you really believe that similar things do not happen regularly NOT RECOREDED ON VIDEO? Give me a break. Of course they happen. And those sanctimonous propagandists who say that this kind of thing is almost impossible are spouting nonsense. And they mostly know it.

Agai, see the next article, whre I examine the actual CONDUCT. I tend to think the conduct otf these oyoung men is not nearly as bad as those lying hypocrites who are crucifying them. Of course they have to be disciplined. That is now you maintain discipline. But we killed some huge number of Pastani SOLIDERS with an erroneous drone strike. And we go tis wildover urinating on DEAD bodies, which wil remain just as ded? See what I mean by HYPOCRISY. These men ar taught to KILL with macho pride, and then we don't understand when they get carried away? Again, give me a break. yep. They have to be disciplined. That is HOW you maintain discipline. However, I refuse to be "hnorrified" by what these marines did.

Then there is Obama. Every time anythng happens, Obama promises a "full investigationi". The media duly reports this as if it means something. It does NOT. Have you ever heard the results of the "full investigation" of the Ft. Hood shooting incident? Have you ever heard the results of the "ful investiagtion" of the "Fast and Furious" program? The Christmas day bomber? Oh, things happen after these events, but usually as the result of invetigation by OTHERS. This TRIPEW about a "full investigation" is just that: TRIPE that "sounds good".

In this particular case, I don't even think an huge, "full investigation" is appropriate, excpet maybe into the VIDEO . Again, see the next article. What is there to "investigaate"? Are we REALLY going to "investigate" whether oung marines may do this sort of thing more often than we would like? Give me a break.

Do you see why I feel like cring because we jsut can't deal with simple facts, without letting agenda obscure everything? It really accomplishes nothing to falsely suggest that there is "no way" young men taught to be killes should ever go "off the beam"--especaily in this MINOR way. President Bush is not to blame for Abu Ghraib just because you don't like his Iraq policy, and Obama is not FREE of blame for thsese marines just becuse you like Obama (albeit he is free of blame for the sam reason President Bush is free of blame for Abu Ghraib). Military men are NOT agnels, and never will be. Nor are they devils. They have good training, but no amount of training can prepare you for the reality of combat. I don't know that from personal experience, but I do know it from people who do have personal experience. Did our soldiers in World War II never spit on "Japs" or Nazis, or even urinate on them? I would be shocked if that did not happen. No, you don't have to APPROVE of it. As stated, discipline is important. See, again, the next article. But to go around moaning about how you "don't understand" how these particular marines could go so far of f of the beam is NUTS. I don't have respect for peole who do things like that. I liked Rick Perry more than I have in the past when I saw a headline about how Perry had DEFENDED the marines accused of this breach of discipline. Good for Rick Perry.

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

ABC "News" and Yahoo "News": Incompetent Political Hacks

2012-01-17T13:09:00.000-08:00

"Romney reveals that his tax rate is "closer to 15 percent"

Marvel at the abo e headline, presently "featured" on my Yahoo "News" default page provided by AT&T (ype, I strongly recommend you BOYCOT ALL OF THESE ENTITIES). You don't see what is wrong with this headline? Do I have to do AL of your thining for you? The sory is from ABC "News", now "partners" with Yahoo "News".

CLOSER THAN WHAT? I am serious. "Closser" to 5 percent than to 100%? The headline is STUPID. It gets WORSE in the body of the story, impossible as that is to believe.

The "lead" paragraph--now an AGENDA paragraph for the modern "journalist" rather than a "who, when, how, what" factual paragraph--repeats the same STUPID headline in the body of the paragraph, just sort of haning there, without any indication of "closer than WHAT". As if realizing that they have not yet provided ANY facts, but only a nonsense phrase, ABC "News" repats the same phrase AGAIN (I could never make this up) in the second paragraph, but this ttime actually suggests how Romney actualy said it: ".........closer to 16 percent than anything". Okay, this is STUPID too,, and it is a little hard to believe that Romney ended with "anything", But do you see the obvious queston for a rel "journalist" (:as if they exist now--my CONTEMPT for the entire current professon knows no bounds, or deptsh)? "Mr. Romney, what do you MEAN by 'closer to 15 percent than anything'? What is 'anything'. And why don't you clear the whole thing up by releasing lyour 2010 AND 2011 tax returns. Do you think that voters in South Carolina should have to rely on these VAGUE statements of yhours about your tax rate being 'closer' to 15 percent than to some unstated number.?" See last night's blog article again--this blog specializing in tomorrow's news. Did iI not tell you Romney was heading for trouble in the way he tried to finesse" the "issue" of his tax returns?

No, I am not through with the CRIMES ("journalistic" crime) of ABC "News". What did ABC "News" DO in that "lead" paragraph, besides REPEAT the headline and the phrase that would be quoted more completely in the very next sentence? What did I tell you? I told you that the "lead" paragraph is ow the AGENDA paragraph. Thus, ABC went on to estalbish the AGENDA of ABC. Thus, the rest of the lead paragraph was devoted to saying that Romney seems to have paid a lesser tax rate than most middle income people, even though he is 'worth" 250 million dollars.

Talk abut a non-sequitur!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ABC does not care. This is all about AGENDA. What does it matter whether Romney has WEALTH of 250 millioin dollars? This is an INCOME tax. This merely sounds good as an OBAMA sound bite :(how it was meant), but is IRRELEVANT. It is POSSIBLE that Romney could pay almsot NO income tax, because he LOST MONEY in his investments and had not other type of income. IF ABC had reported the FACTS, they would not have had this problem. But they were NOT INTERESTED in the facts.

Waht Romney apparently actually said was that most of his income (which I think you can therefore assume was substantial, although the tax return itself is the BEST EVIDENCE of these things) came from INVESTMENTS, and that therefore his tax rate was close to the clapital gain/dividend rate of 155^. You will recall that Warren Buffett--also earning his money mainly from investments--claimed that he had a tax rate of 15% (also apparently without releasing the actual tax return, but this blog has already conclusivelyl shown that Warren Buffett is a DISHOENST POILITICAL HACK). ABC could have FACTUALLY reported what Romney actually said, with a less stupid headline, and THEN mentioned that Warrn Buffett says he paid about the same kind of rate for the same reason. This would have actually fit the ABC agenda as well, or better, than what they actually ddi, but these people are INCOMPETENT---as well as being partisan political hacks.

Yep. The real questin here is WHY Mitt Romney , and other "rich" people, might be paying a low effective tax rate. And does this mean we should CHANGE tax olicy toward some sort of a "flat tax" system (cany you say "9-9-9"?). It also shows why the GOP RELIGION that "capital gains" tax rates should be eliminated, or reduced drastically, is so MISGUIDED. It is too easy for these "rich' people to CONVERT what might otherwise be regualr income into capital gains, or to ARRANGE that the income be "capital gains' rather than ordinary income. The present 5% capital gains rate strikes me as about right, although it is TOO DISPARATE from the top ordinary income rate of 35%. However, I think that top ordinary income rate should be 25%, and that therfore a 15% capital gains rate is appropraite (for many reasons, which I will not go into here, but leave it as an exercise for the reader).

This does show, yet again , the absurdity of HIGH TAX RWTES. Romney almost surely has a marginal tax rate of 36%. It doesn't matter, because Romney DOES NOT PAY THAT RATE. That is what happens when you RAISE TAX RATES, or keep them too high. PEOPLE AVOID THE HIGHER RATE. It is much better to have a SIMPLE tax system, without so many "tax expenditures" (like Obama's "green energy" credits). As stated, I would keep a disparity between the capital gains rate and the ordinary earned income rate, because "investment" is a different kind of animal (with many different forms) than ordinary earned income. But I think the GOP, and too many conservatives, are simply insane to want to "elminate" the capital gains tax rate, or reduce it to almost nothing, when that encourages GAMES to make sure "income" is capital gains income rather than ordinarly income. IF the "flat tax" rate is low enough, I would nto regard it as that bad to have the capital gains rate andordinary income rate at the same level, but I would keep them different if the top rate is still as high as 25%. But what you should see here is that the FACTS help.

Romneyh's tax rate is what it is, and he should eithe keep his income tax returns private (which he is not going to do), or release them NOW (when they can be considered by primary voters). I faovr keepng income tax returns private, but I believe in PRINCIPLE. Romney does not. In all events, Romney's "effective tax rate" has NOTHING to do with Romney (other than, as he said, he got his income from certain kinds of sources). GOP candidates--all of them-SHOULD have to answer why they think capital gains rates should be lower than the rate on high WAGES,, but that has nothing to do with te tax rate Romney actually pays. Is OBAMA voluntariy paying a HIGHER tax rate than the law reuires him to pay? Nope. Neither is that HYPOCRITE Warren Buffett. No. There are FACTS here that actaully relate to real issues, but this AGENDA reporting totally misses the pint (deliberately, because the people of ABC and Yahoo are PARTISAN POLITICAL HACKS who don't WANT to talk about the "tax breaks' OBAMA wants to give to rich people--like his Solyndra pals--because they are interested in political agenda rather than a full discussion of tax policy).

The question remains: Can Romney get away with refusing to release his 2011 tax return until April--after he things the nomination will be decided? Can he get away with NEVER releasing his 2010 return, or will that be April as well? And, by trhe way, how many years should a candidate have to go back? 5? 10? The whole thing is a massive invasion of privacy, and candidates should NOT release ANY of their tax returns. But today's GOP politicians have less courage than that Italian cruise ship captain, who evidently refused to go back in the ship and help the passengers that he had put in danger. That guy is the PERFECT candidate for the current GOP. Expect him to appear as the GOP "establishment" candidate in 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the meantime, Romney is trying to "finesse" the whole thing, which leads to these nonsense statements about his "effective tax rate", and even mroe stupid media absurdities.

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

GOP Debate: Gingrich, Santorum-Perry: Winners (in that order); Romney and Paul Losers (Definitive Analysis)

2012-01-16T20:37:00.000-08:00

No, I am not supporting Newt Gingrich for President. I have said--and mean it--that I would not even supotrt Newt against Barack Obama (although I reserve the right to change my mind). Thus, you can be assured that when I say Gingrich won tonight's GOP debate, Gingrrich won tonigh'ts GOP debate. Now his bad moments wre at the beginnigng, when he was taking the exact opposite position from the position he originallly took: that people have a "right' to be told about the record of an opposing candidate, even if it is in a negative way. Ginbrich would have been better off simply to give the obvious answer: hthat he was getting KILLED with negative ads, and simply could not afford to "unilaterally disarm". Gingrich actually said that at the start, but then tried (unsuccessfullly) to argue that what he is now doing is "right". But that was the last foot Gingrich set wrong. He got a STANDING OVATION in his defense of WORKand the need to encourage the work ethic. His answer to killing our enemies, quoting a 13 year old Anldreew Jackson ("Old Hickory"--the hero of the battle of New Orleans and really the first "outsider"-"Western-type" President) was a classic. Time after time Gingrich came up with the RIHGT LINE--without it apearing to be merely a political device.I have quoted Maxwell Smart before: "If only he had used his talents for good instead of evil"." No, I am not saying that Gingriuch was using his talents for evil tonight, but too often he has (including his decision to attack Mitt Romney on Bain Capital).

Rick Perry was again surprisingly good. He gave a good answer on te border, and even better answers on what President Obama is doing to this country (including the Obama war on religoin). However, it ws Rick Santorum who again hshowed that he really understood "family values", and their value to MINORITIES especially. Santorum was solid overall, and even did pretty well in his give and take with Romney. As for Perry, it is a matter of what might have been. Perry will not win, and lyou get the feeling he knows it. However, he has IMROVED basically every debatge. If he had been this good all along, we would probably be talking about President Perry in November. Perry even properly stood up for those marienes who evidently urinated on ENEMY people they had killed (ont in the debate, as far as I heard, but in public over the past few days). Of course, I donn't want to make the mistake of SPORTSCASTERS (basically ALL of them---turly The Stupidest People Who Have Ever Lived, within the "journalistic" group which shares that designation with Wall Street people). This mistake is to assume that everything else would have remained the same if one thing (Perry's debate performances) had changed. If Perry had been more comfortable debating at the beginning, would he have avoided other mistakes under pressure.? Impossible to really know. But he had a window of opportunity to win the nomination, and his recent debate performances show taht he COULD have taken advantae of teh opportunity if he had somehow PREPARED himself better for the race (perhaps by making an earlier decisioin to rlun? Or skipping early debates right after he announced?--see what I mean about not knowing how the CHANGED race would have gone?).

Ron Paul lost just be being Ron Paul. Sure, he was hhonest, as he always is. But 0% taxes? As I have said, Ron Paul is the ONLY person I have ever heard of who would dismantel MORe of the Federal Government than I would. No laws againt cocaine and heoin? Pull back from ALL of the world? Pay attention to "international law" with regard to Iran and Pakistan? I just can't see Ron Paul as President of the United States, even if he is one of the few GOP candidates I wouuuld vote for against Obama (basically him and Santorum--with widely different reservations about each of them). Paul could be a "spoiler" IF several candidates STAY in the race to the bitter end, since he can win delegaes. Paul simplly cannot be the nominee, even if he did give a somewhat CORRECT (again showing the "jurnalist" to be STUPID) explanation of how we can CUT defense spending without cutting bases and defense IN THE UNITED STATES. Paul's lproblem is that he wants to WITHDRAW from the rewt of the world--a policy discredited at Pearl Harbor. Paul's problem is NOT that he wantsto "cut" the military power of the United States. Anyway, I continue to believe that Paul LOSES debates where his really "out there" positoins (like eliminating the income tax, and not replacing it with any other taxes) get exposed.

Ah. Then there is Mitt Romney. This was Romney's WORST debate. No, it was not because of Bain Capital. Romney handled Bain Capital pretty well, and other GOP candidates simply cannot get anywhere with this HYPOCRITICAL attack o capitalism. We are mainly talking aobut Gingrich and Perry here. Santorum has pretty much disavoewed that mode of attack FROM THE LEFT. Now I think it is fair to say that Romney is a WALL STREET kind of person (explaining why he supported the initial bailouts, along with Gingrich), rather than a "businessman" like Herman Cain providing a product or service. But that is not really an "attack". It is merely a correct observation that Romney is a little "elitist", wihout much contact with the ordinary person or businessman. But that hardly means you can really attack Romney for "firing people", and ou can't. So far, so god. Romney was solid on this topic at the very beginning of the debate. He was not solid again in the debate, except on illegal immigration (and maybe another flash or two attackng Presdietn Obama and getting government out of the economy).

Examples (on Romney)? Well, there is hsi BOBBING AND WEAVING on his SuperPAC. Romney keeps saying: IF any ad put out by the SuperPAC supporting me is inaccurate, I want them to take the inaccurate informatino out of the ad. Can you get any mroe DISINGENUOUS than that? I don't think os. Snatourm almsot had to pull teeth to get Romney to comment on the negative ad against Santorum, and then Romney was DISHONEST. Yep. I stand by the word. Santorum's complaint was that Romney's SuperPAC is running an ad showing a PRISONER in a PRISON JUMPSUIT alleging that Santourm wants FELONS to have the vote. What Santourm did was votre for a bill that would give REFORMED (in the sense of completely completing their entire sentence, including probation and parole) felons the vote, becaue it is such a big issue in the minority community (especailly among African-American advocates who say so many are affectged by the drug laws). Then Romney said that the ad "appears" to be "accurate" because Santourm did slupport restoring the vote to people who some would stil lconsider "felons", even if they had paid their debt to society. This, of course, ignores Santourm's real complaint: taht the ad leaves the impressoin--deliberately--that Santourm supports giving the votge to CURRENT FELONS. Romney actually had the nuerve to suggest the ad was okay, because Romney does not support giving the vote, EVER, to 'violent felons", while Santurm does uspport that once they have paid their debt to society.

Under this logic (teh Romney DISHONEST logic), the same ROMNEY SuperPAC ad could be run against ROMNEY. Yes, Santourm pointed out that Romney did not even TRY to eliminate a MORE LIBERAL Massachusetts law givng felons the right to vote. Under Romney standards, this alone would seem to make an ad saying Romney favors the vote for FELONS "accurate". But it is worse than that. Look at Roney's tlypical "weasall-worded" statemetn of his positon. Romney says he does not support giving the vote to people EVER convicted of VIOLENT FELONIES. First, I think this is STUPID,. I don't think that a distinctiion between violetn and non-violent FELONIES is workable, or makes sense. You neeed ONE LAW for all felonies (although preferably on a state level). But look at waht Romney SAID!!!!!! He actually said that he, Romney, SUPPORTS GIVING TGHE VOTE TO FELONS. In other words, the Romney ad could be used against ROPMNEY--at least using ROMNEY'S standards for "accuracy". Did not Romney say that he could support a law giving the vote to NON-VIOLENT FELONS? He did, even though no one seems to have recognized it.

This is the kind of thing Romney did all debate, except on illegal immigration (his best answer outside of the required Bain Capital defense). Look at the "issue' of income tax returns. I actually think candidates should stop being INTIMIDATED on this "issue' of providng a FISHING EXPEDITION for the mainstream media to go over tax returns with a fine tooth comb. It is a useless invaion of privacy, with NO legitimate purpose. No, I do NOT think I have a "right to know', as a voter. Texas, and probably most states, considers income tax returns to be PRIVILEGED, which are not even discoverable by litigants absent a COMPELLING issue (and then only as to the parts relevant to that issue).

But look at what Romney did!!!!! As usual. He did NOT "stand on principle". Rather, he made a very CALCULATED gamble, which he thinks he can get away with in the GOP nomination fight, but not in the general election. What Romney said tonight wastthat he has "investigated" what oterh candidates like John McCain and George W. Bush have done, and that the is inclined to folow "precedent". This means that Romney will THINK ABOUT releasing his income tax returns in APRIL. Waht is significant about APRIL? Right. Romney thinks that the GOP race will be OVER by April, and that it will not matter if South Carolina voters REGRET their choice once Romney releases his tax returns. Too cute by more than half. in itself, this is ENOUGH for you to vote AGAINST Romney. Ah, you say, but who do I vote FOR? I have chosen Santorum, but I admit it is a poser.. It is not that the field is "weak". It is much STRONGER than the Democrat field in 2008 (with the three main candidates being a community organizer, a woman who gained her real stature as a WIFE, and who was sitll counting on her husband to attract votes, and a SLEAZEBALL named John Edwards). But these candidates are all FLAWED in MAJOR ways from a CONSERVATRIVE pont of view. Romney's performance tonight emphasized his FLAWES, even though the overall quality of the debate performances (includng, at times, Romney) was HIGH. The GOP candidates really have been getting better tat this as they go alnog. And Gingrich has ALWAYS been as strong as ou can get in the DEBATES. He was also, yo remember , SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE (third in line for the Rpesidency). Rick Perryhas been governor of Texas for LONGER than any other person--our leading state (forget California). So much for a "weak" field--if only they did not all have those FLAWS.

Ah, Romney. I will give you only one more example. Romney was asked--alnog with the rest--what he regarded as the HIGHEST tax rate any individual should pay. Perry have his 20% flat tax idea, which is part of his CAMPAIGN. Gingrich gave his 15% tax plan idea, which is part of his CAMPAIGN. Santourm talked aobut his REAGAN tax rates (10 and 28 percent).--part of his campaing. Paul--God love him--came up with ZERIO, and metnioned that we did not have an income tacx before 1913 Constitutional Amendment, which I doubt we would even bother with today, if we did not already have it). What can you say about Romney? NO CORE? Trying to be all things to all people? Afarid to be bold? All of the above? What Romney said was that the CURRRENT RATE is 35%, and that people should pay that rate so lnog as it is in effect. Say what? THEN Romney went on to say that his view was that no one should pay more than 25% (also, by the way, my personal view, although I agee with Santourm that there was nothing much wrong iwth the Reagan rages), and thqat we should be working to loer taxes. What does that MEAN? It means that Romney doe NOT HAVE A REAL TAX PLAN. Romney's only "plan' is to cut the capital gainsts, interest and dividend rate ONLY FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS (using the very same class warfare language as Obama, as Santourm ponted out in a debate). In other words, the other candidates gave their CAMPAING POSITIONS. Romney does nto have a real campaign position on taxes. I simply can't vote for this man. My problem is that I LISTEN to him. And every time I listen,, I get the heebie jeebies. I was willng ot live iwth RomneyCare in 2008, when I endorsed Romney. Since then, Romney has CONVINCED me I cannot vever support him.

Let me give Romney his due on one more thing. He have an "explanation" of his change of position on abortion that actually was pretty impressive-if not very convincing. Romney said that he had tried to reconcile his personal views on abortion with trying to keep government out of it, but that he had been faced with a bill in Massachusetts encouraging the discarding of embryoes, and that h, Ropmney, simply faced his own soul (my words) and could not sign it. Romney then came out and said he was "pro-life", and that he could nto kid himself any lnoger. He said he served as a pro-life governor. Why not convincing? Well, it COUYLD be ture. The problem is that Romney was pro-life, before he ran against Ted Kennedy and became pro-abortion (I never use " pro-choice"). Then he ran for governor in Massachusetts as a GOP MODERATE. Then Romney became pro-life again. A CYNIC (of whom I am notoroiously one) would say that Romney always adopted the POLITICALLY CONVIENT position--including the last time. Was Romney already pklanning to run for the GOP nominaiton in 2008 when he suddenly became "pro-life' again in Massachusetts? It seems likely to me.

Nope. Rom;ney LOST this debate, and in ways that show why he really should not be the nominee. That begs the question of who SHOULD be the nominee, but this blog can only help you so far (if you believe that Santorum can't beat Obama). But, really, Romney did more bobbing and weaving tonight than all of the other candidates COMBINED. Not mpressive at all. The income tax dodge alone should HURT him. Again, I could have supported PRINCIPLE maintained under pressure. The actual Romney dodge is disgraceful.--so disgraceful that I wonder whether he can stick by it, even in the nomination fight where the mainstream media is not yet fully pushing Obama SMEARS (sort of supporting Romney, while trying to weaken him a litttle for Obama).

No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

Media Incompetence: Anti-American, Despicable, Incompetent Associated Press

2012-01-13T17:51:00.000-08:00

The "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Pres" (complete, official name) strrikes again, on the equally bad Yahoo "News"/ABC/AT&T "top stories" page:

"Tensioins high, as U.S. wants Iran not to block shipping"

The above is a current FATURED headline on my AT&T/Uverse default page provided by Yahoo, with the story and headline coming from the despicable Associated Press. Tere is, of course, no wore news organization in this, or any; other, universe than the despicable AP. As readers of this blog know, He had me--an agnostic, yet--engaged in this futile Sodom and Gomorrah search for an honest, competent AP reporter, before finally acknowledging my insistence that no such animal exists. So much for omnipotence. I told Him, and he just would not accept it--keepng me at the sstupid, useless searchfor 8 long yars. Of course, you and I know that He was really just pinising me for being an agnostic.

What is my problem? Did you READ the headline I quote above. Oooooooooooooooo!!!!! Iran is surely shaking in its boots. Was the headline DRAFTED by Obama, or is the despicable AP just accurately representing his WEAKNESS in its own words. So the U.S. "wants Iran not to block shiipping"? This is what the despicable AP considers "news", and probably what the Obama Administration considers a "steern warning". WHY is the headline not: "U.S. issues strong THREAT to Iran about blocking shippping". Or even the wimpier: "U.S., issues Iran STERN WARNING about blocking shipping. The way the despicable AP wrote the headline, it is like we just have this desire that Iran not be so "rude" as to block shiipping: like I "want' steak for dinner. The AP obviouisly feels there was a possibility that the U.S. would not even care if Iran blocked shipping. Why else does this headline represent "news"?

Neough. If you think this WIMPY headline is "news", you are beyond hope. My own hope is that this headline does not accurately reflect the thinking of our present Administration. I am afraid it does.

If we really WANT Iran not to block shipping in crucial oil shipping waters, why are we not SENDING A MISSLE OVER IRAN. I am seriouis here. Iran puts on war games to threaten shipping. Why should we not send a rEAL missle (without a warhead) OVER IRAN into those same wathers? At least send a CRUISE MISSLE over PART of Iran.

Nope. Alo we do is tell the AP that we "want" Iran not to block shipping. As usual, I feel like cryuing. If the AP is not getting the message that we are SERIOUS, how can Iran be getting that message?

Retail Sales: Media Lies and Incompetence (CNBC: Liars All)

2012-01-12T21:54:00.000-08:00

It is not jsut weekly an dmonthly employment numbers about which the meida LIE. Remember "Black Friday", and all of those reportes abut MASSIVE increases in Christmas season sales? There were media reports talknig about inceases of 30 or 40 PERCENT. Thease were basically MEANGINGLWESS NUMBERS. And the media does it EVERY YEAR. They LIE every year. Yep. I just called the people of CNBC LIARS, and they represent themselves to be "experts". Christmas sales are almost always "mddiling", and these reports of massive sales increases were a LIE.

It is really the same type of LIE represented by the reporting of employment numbres (see previous article). What do numbers MEAN? These "flash" estimates of SINGLE DAY sales, or single week sales, or "online sales" mean NOTHING. It is a LIE to report them as if they have any meaning. Sure, 'online sales' mean something as far as chaning buing habits, but they mean NOTHING as far as total sales. The ONLY numbers than mean ANYTHING are sales numbres for the WHOLE MONTHS OF NOVENMBER AND DECEMBER, where you don't have to worry "much) about factors making more specialized numbers MEANINGLESS (on total sales). Doubt me? Never do that.

What was the sales increase for teh month of December? 30%? 20$%? 10%? 1%? Don't be silly,. Every single one of those numbreers is off by at least a multipe of 10--10% being off by a multiple of 100. Yep. The TOTAL retail sales increase for December was ..1%. That is ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT. In other words, sales were FLAT in December. Say what? What happened? The medai--especailly the financial media--LIE. That is what happened. It is not just that they left the WRONG impression about the final number. They MISREPRESENTED the significance of the numbers that they presented to give ou the idea that sales were EXPLODING.

Liars one and all, unless you take the "charitable" view that they are really this STUPID (including the financial "reporters"). I vote for BOTH. They are LIARS, and they really are that STUPID. It is just a question of which quality is dominant in any particular misrepresentation.

Obama Loses 642,000 Jobs Last Week: No Improvement in a Year--Seasonally Adjusted Number above 400,000 for First Time in Two Months

2012-01-12T20:24:00.000-08:00

Look at last week's article on the employment situation, and especially the new unemploymnet claims numbers that come out every Thursday. This blog told you--deaon on yet again, in foresight--that the media's "spin" of a conistent improving TREND in the weekly jobless claims numbe was FALSE--sheer propaganda. You will remember that the weekly number reached a low of about 365,000 (seasonally adjusted), similar to what the number did at the ned of 2010 and the beginning of 2011 (with the same FALSE conclusion--noted again in this blog at the time--that an "improving trend" had been established). You will remember that this same number reached 375,000 in February of 2011, and had gone rather consistently under 400,000 at that time. However, the number--at the beginning of 2011, as the media was rpoclaiming a "steady, if slow, improvement" began to JUMP AROUND the 400,000 level until finallyl going CONSISTENTLY ABOVE that level in Arpil-May of 2011.

History seems to be repeaing. We reached that low of 365,000 new unemployment claims almost a month ago. Since then, here are the numbers: 387,000 (revised from 381,000); 375,000 (revised from 372,000); and 399,000 (yet to be revidsed, but almsot surely ABOVE 400,000). Notice that the headline says that the weekly number went above 400,000. I just gav e you today's UNREVISED figure of 399,0000 (coincidence or MANIPUALATION that the number is right under 400,000?). However, the weeklyh number is almost ALWAYS (90% of the time) reviesed UP at least 3,000 in the following week (as it ws this week, after being revised up 6,000 in the previous weeek).

Yep. As I keep teling you, the way these numbers is reported is a LIE. It is a LIE EVERY SINGLE WEEK. Did you hear about the NEW TREND in the WRONG DIRECTION, which has now coninued for 3 staright weeks? Not a chance. But the media, as they did last year, were quick to see a "trend" in the two month "drop" in the new unemoployment calims number, even though it was only those two weeks below 370,000 that represented much of a drop. But that is not even the most obvious LIE. As stated, these numbers are always rEVISED the next week, usually UP--the bad direction--at least 3,000. It is worse than that. The SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT makes the reported number an ESTIMATE (a subjective number, based on a formula rather than COUNTING). Seasonal patterns can CHANGE. That makes these "seasonally adjusted" numbers very unreliable--especially in the short run. As this blo told ou last week, the main TREND that appears to be developing (have to seee mroe numbers to be sure--even all of teh way to spring and summer) is for IMPROVEMENT to APPEAR to take place in the second half of the year--especially the last quarter as to employment numbers--only to see apparent DETERIORATION occur in the first half of the next year. A case can be made that NEITHER the deterioration or "improvement" is very real. Our economy may just have become very SEASONAL (which my brother, the accountant, says is a symptom of a BAD economy). In all events, we know that the way these "seasonally adjusted" numbers are reported is a LIE. They are reported as CONCRETE numbers, like they were COUNTED, when they are numbers WRITTEN ON WATER. At best--assuming no manipulation, they are ESTIMATES based on seasonal patterns that can CHANGE (or the forumal be because of factors that the formula does not adequately evaluate).

Yes, we now come to the HEADLINE. Obama did lose 642,000 GROSS jobs last week. That si the "raw" (counting) number. That number was "seasonally adjusted", because we know that jobs are usually lost after the Christmas season because of the seasonal change in demand (even if the economy is fairly good). The "raw" number jumps around. For example, when the number first dropped to 381,000 or so in December, the "raw" number was someting like 522,000. Then, then next week, the seasonally adjusted number dropped to around 365,000, but the "raw" number dropped much more substantially (to around 433,000---still much higher than the seasonally adjusted number). Notice how the "raw" number CHNGED almost 100,000 in a single week (not unusual for that number). Now Rich Santelli, who is the ONLY person regularly featured on CNBC who is not an economic fascist, said (on CNBC) that this "wild' jumping around is why it makes no sense to report the "raw nubmer. The theory is that it will only "confuse" people.

Sorry Rick. So you LIE. Yes, it si--sorry again, Rick--a LIE the way these weekly numbers are reported ( or the monthly "jobs created" number, also "seasonally adjusted"). Sure, to merely report the "raw" number would be somewhat misleading,, but not the LIE that the present "reporting" repreesents. The wy these numbers are presently calculated and reported presents a FALSE EXACTNESS to these numbers. And that is the real reason for the numbers. Do the people making POLICY just look at the "seasonally adjusted" number, and accept it? I darn sure hope not. I would hate to think even those people are THAT dumb, and I think they are pretty dumb. Nope, Rick, here is the real "position" of you, and the peole who have deivised this stupid system: YOU BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. Therefore, you give them the LIE. For example, what if you reported BOTH the "raw" number and the "seasonally adjusted" number, along with the number for the SAME WEEK THE PREVIUS YEAR? Better, right? Actual information, right? But today's media is NOT INTERESTED in providing information, and neither is the government. Notice that the way these numbers are being reported, the public has NO WAY of evaluating whether the "seasonal adjustment" is being done right, or makes nay sense. I know you can go to the Labor Deparment and look at al of the information, but the PUBLIC is not going to do that. It is what a real "journalist" woululd do, and REP:ORT IT. But we don't have any real "jounalists" anymore. Yep. The way the Labor Department does this leaves the numbers open to MANIPULATION. Now is any obivous manipulation being done? I doubt it, only because I would hope SOMEBODY (with enough knowledge to put it all together) is looking at the Labor Department BACKUP information. But I am not totally sure that manipulation can't happen. Note that the media should, along with givnig more PUBLIC informaiton on the "seasonally adjusted" number, compared with the real number, should report the YEARLY number. There should be NO "seasonal adjustment" on a YEARLY basis. One calendar year shoiuld be pretty much equivalent to another. Thus, th ecombined weeekly and monthly numbers should be CHECKED with the YEARLY numbers (the yearly numbes being the numbers which SHOULD be fairly accurate, without any number games). IF the combined weekly and/or monthly numbers do NOT add up close to the YEARLY numbers, then we KNOW that something is WRONG. Eitehr the "seasonal adjustment" is WRONG, or someone is manipulating the numbers somewhere (or botgh).

If I have not convinced you how BADLY this information is being REPORTEDE by our media, assuming no amjor typos on my part, then I think you are the right audience for today's media and politicians. The way these numbers are reproted is a LIE--every week and month--and there is no justification for it. There may be no "manipulation" (I dislike "conspiracy theories"), but the whole thing is nothing but LIES.--starting with the main LIE that these weekly land monthly numbers are CONCRETE and EXACT. They are not. As I showed abvoe, if you were pa8ing attention, the "margine of error" i this weekly number of new unemployment calims could be as high as 100,000. What happens if the "seasonal pattern" CHANGES, so that what happens one week last year happens a DIFFEENT WEEK this year? Look at the above reference to Rick Santelli and the "raw" numbers "jumping around". The weeks Santelli was talking abut were those two weeks where the "raw" number went down 90,000 or so, while the "seasaonlly adjusted number" went down 16,000 or so. That is an obvious POTENTIAL ERROR of 74,000. Why? Obviously the "seasonal adjustment" FORMULA is calcualting that--probably oversimplifying a little--the "normal" weely job loss would have been 74,000, instead of 90,000. But these are BIG numbers. What if the "normal" has CHANGED. so that what happened before does not predict what happened this year? You could easliy get a 70,000 ERROR. That sort of thing happened in an obvious manner a couple of years ago, when the auto industry CHANGED its yearly practive of shutting down plants to retool at the beginning of July., This resulted in at least a 25,000--maybe 50,000--ERROR in the number of new unemployment claims reorted for that week.

If I have not convinced you of anything else, you have to understand that these wekkly jobless claims numbers are UNRELIABLE. , They only become somewhat meaningful OVER TIME--months of time, or even quarters of time.

Meanwhile, are we in a NEW seasonal pattern where the American economy LOOKS better in the second half of every year--especially on employment--than it does in the first haf. In fact, have we reached a point whre the EMPLOYMNENT picture looks much better in the LAST QUARTER than it does in the FIRST NINE MONTHS? That is a reasonable hypothesis. Onyh TIME will really tell. In the meantime, there is NO TREND. We are back essentially where we were at the end of 2010 and first few months of 2011. The "seasonally" adjusted number for this past week was likely above 40,000. Thus, we have had NO IMPROVEMENT in a year, although we have had some "improvement" form the apparently DETERORIATED numbers of this past summmer. You would EXPECT the number next week to go DOWN some, if only because the number this week was UP so very much. Unless the number goes WAY down (in which case you KNOW that the seasonal adjustment was at fault), the four-week average is going to be back above 380,000. Indeed, if the number goes UP next week, we will suddenly be closing in on a four-week average approaching 400,000 again. No tren (yet), no way.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). But, if you can follow the above,you are getting better analysis of these numbres than you get AnYWHERE else.

Homeland Security, The Drudge Report, and The Maverick Conservative

2012-01-11T21:42:00.001-08:00

The present banner headline on Drudge (drudgereport.com) is a link to an article which cites the New York Times for the assertion that Homeland Security is MONITORING "The Drudge Report".

Does that mean that The Maverick Conservative (this blog) is being MONITORED. I hope so. I would be disappointed (to the point of being suicidal) if Homeland Security thought The Drudge Report was more of a SUBVERSIVE THREAT than this blog.

I know. Drudge has a MILLION TIMES more "hits" than this blog. So what? This blog makes up with QUALITY (of subversive thought) what it lacks in QUANTITY (of readers). I would hate to add Momeland Security to my "enemies list" becaue they have failed to add me to THERI enemies list. But it may come to that.

Obama and my 89 Year Old Mother

2012-01-11T20:29:00.000-08:00

I have mentioined my 89 year old mother before, who grew up in the Great Depression with FDR as her hero. I might as well turn this blog over to my mother, who has the sense (as do most) not to read it--even when she is featured. Why do I say that ? Here is my mother's assessment of Obama:

"he wansts to give things to people free, and tell people what to do."

No. My mother does NOT think that FDR fits this description. My mother said FDR wanted pepeople to WORK for whtat they got, even if it came from the government. Of course, my mohter is (mainly) RIGHT about tis side of FDR, IN HIS TIME. As my motehr realizes, the GOP today is WORSE than fDR on any level (including size of government). Where my mother may be somewhat naive, and colored by here feeling that FDR made sure she got enough to eat (she has eaten REALLY slowly all of her life, and she acknowledges that not having enough food to eat early in her life is probably the reason she got in the habit of stretching out her meals, she has gotten the ESSENMCE of Obama and modern leftism in one snetence. Look at this article. My mother's devastatting assessment of Obama (and modern politicians) takes one sentence. My "explanation" takes FOREVER.

The way my mother is naive about FDR, by the way, is that FDR ws the BENINNING of modern leftist philosophy--Big Government, welfare sate philosophy. What FDR actually did was indeed MILD and mostly TEMPORARY. Sure, FDR gave us Social Security, but we SHOULD have Social Security. Even my mother NOW recofgnizes that FDR did Socail Security WRONG by making it a Bi Government program instead of FORCED RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS that are really OWNED by the people who pay their money in--in owther words, the money you pay into Social Seucrity actually going to your OWN Social Seucrity account, which you OWN. This mistake was mainly POLITCAL--trying to appeal to people who thought like my mother--since the payments for people ALREADY 65--under FDR-would have bee OBVIOUS WELFARE if FDR (and big government peole) did not SELL the supposedly "self-funding" Big Government appraoch. That is how it should have been done, however--a combination of WELFARE for the already elderly and PERSONAL ACCOUNTS for the ret. But FDR did NOT give us Medicare. That would not happen until almost 20 years after FDR died. FDR ddi NOT give us Medicaid. That did not happen unitl AFTER MEDICARE. FDR did NOT give us WELFARE (for people who did not work). The real excesses of that would also wait for Lyndon Johnson. FDR DIDD give us "keynsian economics". But thre is something a little attractive, and it attractged my mother, about the WPA as a TEMPORARY thing. What if we did INFRASTRUCTURE (now just a BUZZ WORD for Federal spending--including, again, by the GOP) maintenance with people getting MINIMUYM WAGE , instad of using UNION contractors costing way too much to HELP UNIONS> My motherf also likes that FDR OPPOSED PUBLIC UNIONS (he was right). But would FDR have LIKED all of these things if he were around NOW? I tend to thnk so, but I did not LIVE through FDR like my motehr did.

Whatever yu think of FDR, my mother is right on--in one sentence--regarding Obama and modern leftists. She is even right tao use the word "free", even though she knows it is NOT FREE. Leftists act like Federal money is "free" money, and Bernanke has virtally insitutionalized that attitude in the Federal Reserve AND THE WORLD (Wall street and Bernanke still lobbying for Europe to PRINT MONEY--bailing out big banks AROUND THE WORLD, as well aws Wall Street yet again. Bernanke remains The Worst Failure in the History of World fFinance. I think my mother agrees, but I dont' have a one sentence evaluatiln of Bernanke from her.

Oh. The GOP? I just got a headache. How can the GOP use my mother's line when they have the SAME ultimate philosopy. Look at that fraudulent "payroll tax cut" and extgended unemloyment benefits. That is EXACTLY what my mother is talking aoubt: a "free" $1000 per year for EVERY WORKER (averaged out), and PAYING LPEOPLE NOT TO WORK FOR TWO YEARS. No, if you thiknk the GOP can campaign on my mother's words, you are much more naive than seh ever was abut FDR. Gimmick after gimmick and lie after lie--about "cuts". That is ALL the GOP is now about, and why I have abandoned them FOREVER.

You proably have guessed. My mother agrees with my brothers that the country cannot stand another 4 years of Obama. Thus, she adn my brothers, all think I am betraying the country by failing to vote for the GOP nominee (if it is Mitt Romney), since my family ALL think Obama will be the end of this country (a point on which I pretty much agree). This is so even though my family, with maybe one exception, recognizes that the FOP is ALMOST as hopelless as Obama. I operate on this philosophy: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me". The GOP, to my SHAME, has fooled me (not reallyl, but I went with the lesser evil theory) manyy more times than once. I can't take it anyumore. I refuse to take it anymore. My family, and everyone else I know, can seemingly take it. I can't. My problem is that I think the GOP depedns on people TAKING IT, and it has to stop sometime, somewhere.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Yes, I would regard Rick Santourm, who I still endorse (sort of forlornly) as a "lesser evil", but at least one that does not fell me with SHAME (if I were to vote for, say, Mitt Romney). Ron Paul is on the edge of being SHAMEWORTHY to vote for, but he is SO VERY GOOD on domesitc policy (even if the only pesnalive who would dismantle MORE of the Federal Government than I would) that I would vote for him and take the risk that his foreing policy would destory this country. Not a lproblem: Ron Paul is not going to get the nomination. Neither, I am afraid, is Rick Santorum. Is Romney "home rfree"? Not so sure abut that. I have quoted Dame Agatha: "And then there were none.' Romney could STILL be derailed. But WHO will defeat him? Interesting problem. If Dame Agatha were still around, maybe she (as the best mystery plotter who ever lived) could "solve' this mystery.

Ron Paul and Independents: Should the GOP Be More Like Ron Paul to Attract Independents?

2012-01-09T21:02:00.001-08:00

Ron Paul is, by far, the GOP candidate who most closely agrees with me on domestic ECONOMIC policy. The GOP as a wholle, INCLUDING TGHE TEA PARTY, has "cut" NOTHING from spending, and has done nothing but INCREASE the debt. Ron Paul says he would cut--actually cut--ONE TRILLION DOLLARS from our spending in ONE YEAR. I believe him--or at least that he wwou,d TRY. I don't believe ANYONE else, although I am impressed enough with Santorum to vote for him. I cant support Pau for the nomination, because, like Santorum, I am more of a consrvative than I am an ISOLATIONIST LIBERTARIAN (the best description of Pual), . Like, Paul, I am primarily a LIBERTARIAN myself on economic matters, and I have libertarian leanings on any numbber of things (including illegal drugs, but I just can't convince myself that having legal, RECREATIONAL drugs is a good idea (talking cocaine,m heroin adnd even marijuana). Nope, I just can't support Paul for the GOP nomination, although I could support him in the general election (if the gets that far--impossible in terms of the GOP nommination)>

What is the point here? The point is that Ron Paul supposedly got the votes of 5 out of 7 people who called themselves "independents" in the Iowa GOP votte (according to those turly EVIL exit polls--as all polls are EVIL things that divide us and suppress real debatge). Does this mean that the GOP needs to nominate somone like RON PAUL to appeal to independents? This is the kind of box you paint yourself into when you are a 'journalist" (as a group, The Stupidest People on Earth, in a tie with Wall Street/financil people like Ben Bernanke and the people of Goldman Sachs and CNBC).

Say what? I thought "independents" just want us to "all get along", and HATE EXTREMISTS. How can you reconcile this "conventional wisdom" with the FACT that so many "independents" support Ron Paul, and the fact that I AM AN INDEPENDNET. I am certaliny not a member of the GOP. I refused to support John McCain, and have promised NOT to support Mitt Romney (in the general election--not just thenomination processs). You can't gt more "independent" tahn I am. True, I call myself a "conservative, but I am at least as much an independent maverick like Ron Paul as I am an orthodox conservative. I am an AGNOSIIC, for God's sake (pun intended).

This is the point. There is NO SUCH GROUP as "independents". Those are jsut people who cannot presently identify themselves with any political party. That does not mean they have ANYTHING else in common. As this blog has stated, Ron Paul is the only person I have ever even heard of wh would dismantle MORFE of the Federal Government FASTER than I would. I would not even abolish the Federal Reserve (I don't think, although Bernanke has gone a long way toward making me reconsider Paul's view on this, and I would certainly rein in the Federal Reserve in a major way). So Paul is MORE EXTREME than I am on domestic policy, and CNN (or the unfair and unbalanced network) would consider ME extreme on my ideas of "conservative" domestic policy. Waht CNN wants to do, of course, is say that Paul attracts "independents" because of his ANTI-WAR positions (more isolationist than truly "anti-war", although th Paul policies would have the same effect in places like Afghanistan, Iran, etc.).

There is NO EVIDENCE taht Ron Paul appels to "independents" only because of his position on pullin gback our military presence around the globe. I, myself, believe he has a pont as war as TOO MANY military bases overseas, and TOO MUCH counterproductive "foreign aid" we can no longer afford. But, to the extent I support Paul (more han I support most GOP politicians), I do so DESPITE his foreign policy and htings like "legalizing' cocaine, heroin and marijuana.

So what is it that "independents" admrie about Ron Pal? First, this is a trick question. Again, there is NO SUCH GROUP AS INDEPENDENTS with a COOMMON set of ideas, principles and goals. But it is an IDIOCY to mistake "independents" for MODERATE LEFTISTS (as CNN, MSNBC and the GOP establishment do, in a clear case of PROJECTION). For MSNBC, as a matter of fact, and for at least some at CNN, "independents" are FAR LEFTISTS. To an extent this is even correct. Are not people who have LEFT the Democratic Party on the LEFT the same as ME leaving the GOP on what I would call the RIGHT?

This is why Mitt Romney is really a pretty WEAK candidate, as are all GOP establishment candidates who deliberately apppeal to "moderates" and BRIBERY. What people LIKE about Ron Paul, even as they disagree with him on many specifics, is that he has PRINCIPLES. And MANY of those principles not only make a lot of sense, but are UNIQUE. No one else really has them. Yep. I am talking aobut SPENDING, the DEBT, DEFICITS, the SIZE of the FederalGovernment, and all of those similar things that GOP politicians SAY they believe in (and DOIN'T). Those GOP politicians have ONE goal: getting elected. People LIKE the idea that Ron Paul is not like that. People are ready to ABANDON Mitt Romney at any excuse. If Romney wins the Presidency, as he may, it will be because President Obama DEFEATED HIMSELF, and Romney did not "rock the boat". Ro;mney, like Barack Obama, can sometimes talk a good game. He doesn't mean it. Ron Paul does mean it. Make no mistake: CNN, MSNBC, the mainstream media in general, the GOP establishment, and the unfari and unbalanced network do NOT want a candidate that "appeals" to independents in THAT WAY. They want a candidate who can DECEIVE independents because the media thinks that independents HAVE NO PRINCIPLES> I think that is wrong. Many independents maynot KNOW what principles they believe in, or be LOOKING for leaders to convince them what principles they believe in, but that is NOT the same as thinking that independents want politicina s with NO PRINCIIPLES>

Ronalld Reagan proved this to be the case, and the GOP promptly forgot the lesson. Ron Paul shows that you can CONVINCE independents that your PRINCIPLES are RIGHT. What you can't do is get any enduring loyalty from independents by BRIBING them, or just convincing them that you are "less dangerous" than the other guys. I am not kidding., CNN wants America to be LIKE THEM, but America is not "like them". Thus, "independents" are supposed to "dislike' social issues, and yet it is the mainstream media that makes such a BIG DEAL about social issues. As this blog has pointed ut, the real position of our "elite" here is that "social issues' are SO IMPORTANT that we sould SELL OUT our country rather than take hte "wrong" position on "social issu". Thhese dishoenst hypocritges actually tgreat "social issues" as MORE IMPORTANT than almost anyobdy else. They jsut insist that you have THEIR position on "social issues", or otherwise label yourself as an unintelligent HICK. Do you understand why I consider theese peole (media people like those on CNN) EVIL people spreading EVIL? I hopse so. That has probably been the main mission of this blog.

No, I don't think "independents" reject the conservative positoin on "social issues",. Again, it is a matter of LEADEERSHI. If you start wit the the idea that you can DECEIVE an d BRIBE people, and don't understnad your own supposed positon on "social issues", then you are NOT gong to convince independents.. President Obama and the Democrats were willing, and are still willing, to SHUT DOWN the entire government just to keep GOVERNMENT FUNDING (which we cannot afford, adn cannot justify) for PLANNED PARENTHOOD (not to mention the Corporation for Public Broadcasing). And the GOP cannot even make the CASE against this STUPIDTY (and even immorality, if the Democrats were actually to shut down the government because of their EXTREME positions on "social issues"). No, I have no more confidence in the ordinary GOP politican on social issues than I do on economic issues. There is a REASON I am an INDEPENDENT>

Do you think I ma;y just have KILLED the word "indeppendnet" as the "key" to election? No, I am not talking about how I have jsut exposed the fact that the emperor is not wearing any clothes, because there is NO SUCH GROUP. I mean that I have now officialy "come out of the closet" as an "independnet", just as I was forced by leftists to come out of the closet as one of the leading FEMINISS of our time. Have you noticed that the word "FEMNIST" seems to have been in extreme decline ever since I was forced out of the closet? I ask you. Do CNNN, and even real "independents" out there, want to be ASSOCIATE WITH ME< UNDER THE SAME CATEGORY? Think about it. In a political science class in 1964, with a professor who thought this pablum that passes for thought today as well, the professor wanted me to explain the INDEPENDENT approach to politics. Even then, at 18, I realized that this is ABSURD--the idea that there is really some "independent" approach to politcs beyond tghe fact that you just can't find a political party you like. The profeessor had a GOP pont of view, a Democrat pont of view, and I REFUSED to give the "independent" point of view because I said THEN that I was a Republican (at 18). Well, I COULD give the "independent" pont of view NOW, as the GO{P has LEFT me. But that does nto change the fact that there is no such ting as an "independent" GROUP representing some sort of voting "bloc".

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Yes, by the way, that professor wanted me to give the "independnet" pont of view because I was obviously the smartest person in the class, and the professor tought I had a similar thinking process to himself. I did not. And no, my views on PRINCIPLES have not changed since I was 18. That is why Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley attracted me (despite the patrician Buckley, while I have always been a little bit of an anti-establishment rebel, even while reidculuing the LEFTIST rebels (remember the HIPPIES, and FREE LOVE--actually, to our vast detriment, I think the "fee love' movement pretty well triumphed). Somebody ought to do a doctoral disseration: "The difference between the Hippie movement of the late sixties and early seventies and the "Occcupy Wall Street" movement of today". No, by the way, I ahve NOT changed principles as far as being an agnostic, as I have been that since at least the age of TWELVE--although I was raised Presbyterian without apparent harm, unless you want to blame the porr Presbyterian Church for creating me as the person I am today.

My 89 Year Old Mother, AT&T and the Unfair and Unbalanced Network (Blog Influence Proven Again)

2012-01-09T15:28:00.000-08:00

You will remember--as this blog says about every other day--that I recommend BOYCOTTING the unfiar and unbalanced network, but that I also recommend boycotting TT&T/Yahh/ABC News, who combine for my disgraceful "default" Yahoo "News" page (which I keep just to keep up WITH LEFTIST PROPAGANDA--it beig less time consuming than surfing the unfair and unbalanced netwokr or CNN).

How do tahese things relate: my 89 year ol dmother, AT&T an dthe unfair and unbalanced netowrk (namely my BOYCOTT of that network). Amazingly enough, they DO relate. AT&T has actually JOINED my bycott of the unfair and unbalanced network--or at least has FORCED lots of people to joijn my boycott. It this an attempt by AT&T to curry FAVOR with this blog, becaue of AT&T didgraceful support of Yahoo "News'? I know Hacker Boy (Piers Morgan, or some other hacker out of the News Corps hacker network howho regularly hacks into this blog), but I have often noted that this blog SEEMS to have much more influence than would appear from the SMALL audience. Hacker Boy would say that this is just another example of my megalomania, because AT&T has no idea I even exist. AHacker Boy would say that the AT&T action was just MERCENARY, or some sort of "business dispute".

What am I talking abou? AT&T has DROPPED the unfair and unbalanced network--at least in El Paso--from its "basic" (cheapest) Uverse TV package. AT&T has KEPT CNN, MSNBC, HLN, and similar networks in its "basic" TV package. You can see that AT&T, especailly in a relatively poor city like El Paso, is FORCING lots of people to BOYCOTT the unfair and unbalanced network. My own mother, for example, is now officially part of my BOYCOTT of the unfair and unbalanced network. She would NOT do i FOR HER SON--and she does not red this blog, although I have told here about the boycott---but she WILL do it because AT&T has forced her to consider whether she really neds the unfair and unbalanced network This is only PARTLy because AT&T is ASKING MORE MONEY. AT&T (really a pretty disgraceful company) gave my mother the RUNAROUND (infinite hold and people who keep referring you to other peple), when she tried to find out why her TV suddenly did not carry the unfair and unbalanced network. Yep., The Uvrse basic service HAD carfried the network up until about two weeks or so ago,, and AT&T did not exactly ANNNOUNCE that the service was changing. Further, my mother could not get a coherent answer (partly because sheis no longre good at this kind of communication, but these TV "package" arraangements would try tthe patience of a saint, and the communicatian skils of Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan). So it is ADIOS to the nfair and unbalanced network, as AT&T has clearly RECRUITED more people to my boycott than theis blog ever haad any hope of converting. Is this an accident, or did this blog have something to do with it? Just asking.

My mother, by the way, AGREES wtih me that the unfair and unbalanced network has been getting steadily WORSE. She, too, has found it hardly worth watching. However, she is 89 years old. I find myself this way at "only" 64. She was USED to the unfair and unbalanced network. She is on oxygen (as a lifelong smoker until she ended up this way) 24 hours a day . She does nto walk very well. In shrot, although she is still alert and lives alone, my moterh is SHUT IN her house (even more than my owhn hermit existgence). She no longer drives, and really simply does not leave her house. Thus, she usually has the TV on as BACKGROUND, if for no other reason. It is alos a way of KEEPNG TIME. O'Reiilly and Greta and Hannity come on at a set time every day, and my motehr is USED tao that schedule. She even knos the WEEKEND schedule of the unfair and unbalanced netwokrk (at least the evening schedule), which is more than I do.

Why should the unfair and unbalanced network be WORRIED.? You should be able to guess this one. Now that AT&T ha FORCED my mother to join her son's boycott (more strictlyl than her son follows his own boycott), my mother gets to test whether she MISSES the unfair and unbalanced network. She does ntot. It gets worse. She has switched to CNN as her "background companioin" in the house, and she SEES NO DIFFERENCE. As this blog has stated, neither do I.

Is the unfair and unbalanced network headig for a fall? I tend to think so. IF CNN wer to actually get away from its AGENDA coverage, could people go BACK to CNN, and give it more audience than a test pattern? Mayb. Of course, this is FANTASY. The reason that the unfair and unbalanced network is no better than CNN is a current JOURNALISM problem, and noot jsut a problem of "bias". Present da 'journalists" are NOT INTERESTED in actual information, in contrast to agenda. See Michael Crichton's great book, "Airframe". Plus, "jounalists" are now TAUGHT this junk, and the people coming out of "journalism" school are almost ALLL leftists (even far leftists). Taht is ture of the peole hired by the unfair and unbalanced network, as well as for CNN and the rest. In addition, these people almost ALL use the DESPICABLE Associated Press. It is no mystery that these peole all apear to think down similar paths, even if the unfair and unbalanced network may still ut on a few more conservative "voices' in their OPINION coverage. Even here, I find PANELS on the unfaira nd unbalanced network to be now NO DIFFERENT from panels on the mainstream media networks. Theese people are pretty much CLONES of one another--the SLIGHTLY "establishment GOP" views "pushed" on the unfair and unbalanced network being no more than a NUANCE "different" from the views on CNN. My kind of conservative or Rush Limbuagh's kind? Forget it. Ron Paul's kind of conservative? Forget it. NONE of f these people are worth listening to, except to see how STUPID our "establishment" has really become. I automatically discard everything these peole say, except to read between the lines, using the FEW actual FACTS given--using MULTIPLE "surf" sources. If not for my eyesight, I would actually range even wider, on the internet especailly.

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

Unfari and Unbalanced Network: Pious and Dishonest Baloney

2012-01-08T19:39:00.000-08:00

This blog gave you a correctg analyuis of Saturday night's ABC debate. The unfair and unbalanced network gave you a disgraceful, lying "report". ("We give you pious baloney, and yoiu decide.")

What did the unfairaand unbalanced network do? They MISREPRESENTED the importance of the section of the debate about "social issues". They ignored that it wsa not the CNADIATES that tried to put any emphasis on "social issues', but ABC (no surprise). But that was not even the major CRIME (and it was a "journalistic" crime).

Look at my article. Drudge carried a link to anotehr article about how Stehpanopoulos "struggled with bias". When Stehanopoulos asked aobut "contraceptioni", ROMNEY ridiculed the question (as he should have). The unfair and unbalanced network did not even MENTION this, or feature ANY of that footage. They just carried a "montage" of BLAND comments on social issues, including the NON-ISSUE of contracepton, without even suggesting the fact that Stephanopoulous had hs head handed to him. Nope. This wa NO accident. The unfair and unbalanced network will simly not report this sort of thing. Gingrich, for example, in the same section of the debvate, gave a BRILLIANT analysis of the ANTI-CHIRSTIAN bias of the mainstream media, and how the mainstream media keeps focusing on only the GOP candidates on "social issues" 9wihtut asking any challenging questions of Obama or Democrats).

Did I jsut call the unfaiar and unbalanced network ANTI-CHRISTINA? As a matter of fact, yes I did. Sure, O'REilly will take on the anti-Christian and anti-Christmas bias of the left, at the same time the hypocritical pompous ass will cater to the mainstream media smears in things like his interview of Santorum (see previous blog article). But O'Reily himself has said that the "news" operation of the unfair and unbalanced netowrk is DIFFERENT from its OPINION prime time lineup (which has become pretty bad itself, really). Yep. I jsut called the unfair and unbalanced netowrk BIASED (to the LEFT), in addition to being anti-Christian.

I am willing to make this flat statement: In the "news' it presents, the unfair and unbalanced network is JUST AS BAD AS CNN. I have called it "CNN Light". I withdraw that. It is now jsut CNN. They might as well merge. Sure, there are more conservative VOICES on the unfair and unbalanced network, but their overall presentation is jsut as bad as the AP (source of many of their stories) and CNN. I ACCUSE the unfair and unbalanced network of bieng jsut as bad as the rest of the mainstream media. yep. I ACCUSE the unfair and unbalanced network of being PART of the mainstream mmeida, and NO BETTER than many others in that media. Sometimes, they are WORSE. (as in O'Reily's disgraceful interview of Santourm, and this "report' of the debate last night on ABC).

To the extent the unfair and unbalanced network has any "different" biases than the rest of the mainstream meida, it is an "establishment", left leaning GOP point of view. Thus, the unfair and unbalanced network is jsut as "biased' as CNN on "social issues". It is jsut as biasesd as CNN on actually CUTTING GOVERNMENT. It is jsut as biased as CNN on SMEARS of conservatives. Overall, the conservative voices on the unfair and unbalanced network are only TOKEN VENEER, in terms of the "reporting" that goes on. I have mentioned John Roberts before, who was one of the WORST of the CNN "reporters", and is now on the unfair and unbalanced network. I have often mentioned Chris Wallace, who is jsut like a CNN or MSNBC "reporter". On weekends, teh unfair and unbalanced network is usually WORSE than cNN (excluding opinoni shows like Huckabee).

No. I stand by what I have been saying for months. Conservatives should BOYCOTT the unfari and unbalanced netowrk. I "surfed" for about a ninute and a half today. I no longer watch ANY of the prime time lineup, and surf the rest no more than two minutes a day (just to see how bad the mainstrem media is getting, by sampling them all).

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). No. This is not even an agenda driven critique of the unfair and unbalanced network My primary reaons for saying they are not worth watching is that the network--on "news" or oopinion shows--is totally UNINTERESTED in FACTS. It si all about AGENDA (on "news" or opinion programs). The unfair and unbalanced network LIES every time it says: "We report, you decide". THYE try to "decide", and they DON'T REPORT (unless lyou think that CNN and the AP "report", which they don't).

Newt Gingrich: Pious Baloney (App9lies to the GOP, Democrats, and EVERY "Journalist")

2012-01-08T18:50:00.000-08:00

One of those great Gingrich phrases from that useless GOP debate this moringing was "pious baloney" Gingrich applied the phrase to Mitt Romney's continued asserion that he is a "private sector" guy who just feels called to SERVE, when Ropmney has constantly run for office for 20 years or so. gingrich is right. Romney is an etalbishment politican, and the fact that he was also a Wall Street "venture capital" guy does not change that.

But what Gingrich has done is create a phrase for ALL Democrat and GOP politicans, and for EVERY "journalist" (in today's world, anyway). Look at the prevoius blog article on Marco Rubio. What can you say about GOP politicians--probably including Gingrich--who make a big deal out of the 'debt ceiling', and then vote for ADDITIONS to ur debt that they could have STOPPED? "Pious baloney". Do MOST GOP politicians cae about reallyh CUTTGING spending? Not a chance. "Pious baloney" . What abut the "Balanced Budgetr Amendment"? Piouse Baloney. That is hwy so many people, incluidng me, sort of like Ron Paul We mostly KNOW that he is NUTS (from a political/policy pint of view), but there is very LITTLE pious baloney. I realize that it is part of the job description of politicians that they put out at least some "pious baloney". But that is LL we now get. I can't stand it, and don't put up with it (even if it means NO TVOING).

Then there ar Obama and the Democrats. How many times has Obama said that we HAVE to learn to "live within our means, just like ordinary families?" 100? 10000? More? This is actually WORSE than "pious baloney". That is why I call Obama our Liear-in_Chief. But how much better is the GOP when they make such a lPOLITICAL big deal about the debtg ceiing, when they KNOW that their votes REQUiIRE the debt ceiiling to be raised (even if Obama and the Democrats would raise our debt faster and further)? Remember, President Obama played this POLITICAL GAME when President Bush was President, and the GOP had to vote to raise the debt ceiling. Then, when HE is Presient, Obam asays that he has "changed his mind" about "using" the debt ceiling as a means of imposing fiscal discipline. That statement of Obama is obviously IOUS BALONEY. The problem is that the GOP politicans have again made clear that they are playing the SAME POLITICAL GAME as Obama. A pox on them all.

Then there are "journalists'. CNN, MSNBC and the unfair and unblanced network are the PRIME source of NEGATIVE ADS (masquerading as "news" sotreis) in this country. Then they turn around and talk about how much the public HATES those ads (without seeming to realzie that the same public HATES THEM for about the same reason, along with many others). I have written a blog article about how CNN condemns "negative ads< expet when it is Mitt Romeny running negative ads against Newt Gingrich (in otehr words, condemns "negative ads", except when they are against a perceived conservative. Definitely pious baloney. The same applies to the constant "journalist" assertion that they have no agenda or bias. Pious baloney. And what aobut the "journalist" assertion that "money" should be taken OUT of "politics". What happens then? Right. The POWE and INFLUECNCE of "journalists' becomes much too great, and peole who are on the wrong end of medai attacks HAVE NO REMEDY. Pious baloney. Partisanship> There is NOBODY (not Chuck Schumer, Obama or Pelosi) who is MORE PARTISAN than the people of CNN and MSNBC. I am not talkhng about "politcal party" here. I am talikng abut partisan toward an AGENDA. Doubt me? Tink about GAY RIGHTS. Tink about ABORTION. Think about SOCIAL SECURITY. Think abut MEDICARE. Think about HEALTH CARE. I could go on, but o ou DOUBT that "journalists' mostly have a PARTISAN AGENDA on thesee issues? YOu can't possibly be that stupid. They, of course, would say it is a question of "right and wrong". Funny, that is what I say about THEM. Think about the fraud of "global warming". It jsut goes on and on, and 'journliasts' are more about pious baloney than almost ANY politican out there. That is what this blog has been mainly about for 8 years an dmore.

Thus, I thak Newt for the PHRASEW. I will use it often. And I will apply it IMPARTIALLY to the GOP, Democrats AND "journalists".

Thris Wallace, by the way, suggested --on the unfair and unbalanced network, which specializes in "pious baloney"--that Gingrich did something "wrong" by applying that phrase to what Romney had said. Chris Wallace, of course, has been the subject of at least THREE blog articles accusing him (correctly) of PIOUS BALONEY (and worse). He was guilty agan today (in the 20 seconds I watched the unfair and unbalanced netowrk today--the other minute or so being the subject of a FUTURE article balsting the unfair and unbalanced network). Aagain, that is what people--including me, altough I dont' think it out tweighs the negatives on Newt--LIKE about Newt. He SOMETIMES tells the truth in a way people can understand. It is too bad he does nto do it more of the time, instead of so often being guilty of "pious baloney" himself. Chris Walace, among other things you are STUPID. You implied that the Gingrich phrase was some sort of "personal attack" on Romney. That is NOT TURE. It was merely a CORRECT CHARACTAERIZATION of what Romney has SAID over an dover agian. It is not even "uncivil". You mean that politicans cannot even point out baloney when they hear it? No, Chris Wallace, you are a DISHONEST HYPOCRITE. You sepcialize in NEGATIE ADS (disguised as "news") yourself, and you don't want politicins to speak the TRUTH (just because the language is such as will highlight yoru assertion)? Nope. Wllace, you are a TERRIBLE HUMAN BEING, and a totally useless, dishoenst "journalist". See my past aritcles for chapter and verse. "piouis baloney" is a really useful phrase, and we should ALL be grateful to Gingrich for it (even if it may be applied to Gingrich himself on many things, like his "position" on illegal immigration).

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Yes, it is phrases like this that make me wonder wehther Gingrich can again resurrect himself form the dead. My conclusinn, of years standing, that Newt Gingrich willl never be President of the United States sill seems to me to be safe, but sometimes Newt says things that cause me to have passing doubt. Actually, Newt says such thngs fairly often, but then I hear hm on other things, and my opinion is reaffirmed. He is problay now too obviously an angry, vindictive man (against Romney, and not becuase of this phrase, whch I find totally fair). In the end, I don't think that will play that well, even if CNN and the rest actually CRITICIZED Gingrich (pious hypocrites putting out pious baloney that they are) for NOT "fighitting back" in Iowa. Gingrich got NO "credit" form these "journalists" for his avoidance of negative attacks in Iowa, and Romney got NOT BLAME. Pious baloney. Chirs Wallace called that phrase "mean spirited". Pious baloney. BUT. Gingrich is putting out a lot of stuff now that IS "mean spirited". I am doubtful it can work. We shall see. isn't it nice how "objective" peole like Wallace (lol) are willing to call GINGRICH "mean spirited", and yet the unfair and unblanced netowrk was unwilling to really take on Romney over calling Gincrich "ZANY" (which I think really was mean spirited). Pious baloney all over the place.