I need to clarify the earlier entry today on Newt Gingrich (without withdrawing a word of it). I heard a more elaborate story on CBS radio later this morning, as the mainstream media predictably (and as Gingrich knew they would) expanding this into one of the main stories of the day--complete with commentrary on why Gingrich did it. That follow up story made clear that gingrich was "directly" criticizing HIMSELF for being "too direct", and calling Sonia Sotmayor a "racist". Only indirectly was he criticizing Rush Limbaugh and me. The original CBS story this morning was not clear, as it seemed to suggest merely that Gingrich had said that anyone calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist was being "too strong and too direct". Gingrich was, of course, doing that, but in the context of withdrawing his own comment. The later story said that he was withdrawing his previous comment because of "criticims" that made him realize he (Gingrich) had "gone too far."
Yep. This only makes it WORSE. Gingrich clearly cares more about the opinion of the mainstream media, and people willing to dump on Rush Limbaugh, than he does about the opinion of people who made Gingrich's original career. The man is totally infected with the establishment Republican disease of fear of saying anything "direct" in criticism of leftists, or anything "direct" that "offends" the sensiblility of the MAINSTREAM MEDIA.
Nope. I wanted to clearify the facts, which CBS had not previously made very clear. But every word I said about Gingrich stands. He is an irrelevant blowhard. I would not follow him to the bathroom, even if I had to go, much less follow him in any political cause. Is that "direct" enough for you, Newt? Or do you think it is "too direct"?
Ridicule is all Newt deserves for this one. He has become a bog. fat joke (reference is to Al Franken's title on his book with Rush Limbaugh in the title--Franken being a joke himself).
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Newt Gingrich: Irrelevant Blowhard
Readers of this blog know that I have previously washed my hands of New Gingrich, as he has tried to become a "new" Republican and media "star". In the process, Newt has lost his soul (if he ever had one), as he has tarnished the memory of the Gingrich Revolution which brough Republican/conservative control of the House in 1994 (bringing in a decade of prosperity, as the Regan legacy was momentraily rescued from the betray of President Bush 41, before the subsequent betrayal of BOTH the Republican Congress and Bush 43 in the first decade of the 21st Century--along witht the betrayal of Gingrich himself).
Yes, Newt has insutlted me and Rush Limbaugh again. Oh, I realize he does not know he is insulting me, but he is fully aware he is insulting Rush Limbaugh. He has done it too often for it to be an accident. In fact, insulting Rush Limbaugh seems to have become a major Repubican pastime. I had a previsous entry or two entirled "Republican Party, R.I.P. Never was I more right. The Republican Party is DEAD, and insulting Rush Limabaugh merely poounds more nails in the coffin. Need I remind you that I AM NO LONGER A REPUBLICAN. Nor do I any longer respect Newt Gingrich. He truly has become an irrelevant blowhard.
Oh. you want to know what he said? Well, he said that it was "too strong and direct" for people like me, and Rush Limbaugh, to lablel Sonia Sotomayor as a "racist". WIMP (talking about Gingrich). SUCK UP WIMP. How long has the left, inclduing the mainstream media, labeled conservatives as "racist", FOR LESS REASON than there is to pin that label on Sonia Sotomayor?
Nope. Gingrich truly is irrelevant, and unwilling to be "direct". he prefers now to cater to the maintream media, and what he views as the "establishment" he once took on. Only on immigration has Gingrich been at all correct lately, Oh, he has been right on oil drilling, but that is the kind of thing the Republican establishment is willing to accept. Otherwise, Gingrich has become a complete sell out--I believe for personal gain, unless this is his REAL personal and the 1994 persona was for personal gain.
P.S.: Yes, this story came to my attention as one of the LEAD stories on CBS radio news, as Newt knew it would be. "Blowhard" is a kind descrtiption for what I think of Newt's new incarnation. The mainstream media eats this stuff up, and Newt is deliberately catering to them (as John Cornyn was--see earlier entry this week).
Yes, Newt has insutlted me and Rush Limbaugh again. Oh, I realize he does not know he is insulting me, but he is fully aware he is insulting Rush Limbaugh. He has done it too often for it to be an accident. In fact, insulting Rush Limbaugh seems to have become a major Repubican pastime. I had a previsous entry or two entirled "Republican Party, R.I.P. Never was I more right. The Republican Party is DEAD, and insulting Rush Limabaugh merely poounds more nails in the coffin. Need I remind you that I AM NO LONGER A REPUBLICAN. Nor do I any longer respect Newt Gingrich. He truly has become an irrelevant blowhard.
Oh. you want to know what he said? Well, he said that it was "too strong and direct" for people like me, and Rush Limbaugh, to lablel Sonia Sotomayor as a "racist". WIMP (talking about Gingrich). SUCK UP WIMP. How long has the left, inclduing the mainstream media, labeled conservatives as "racist", FOR LESS REASON than there is to pin that label on Sonia Sotomayor?
Nope. Gingrich truly is irrelevant, and unwilling to be "direct". he prefers now to cater to the maintream media, and what he views as the "establishment" he once took on. Only on immigration has Gingrich been at all correct lately, Oh, he has been right on oil drilling, but that is the kind of thing the Republican establishment is willing to accept. Otherwise, Gingrich has become a complete sell out--I believe for personal gain, unless this is his REAL personal and the 1994 persona was for personal gain.
P.S.: Yes, this story came to my attention as one of the LEAD stories on CBS radio news, as Newt knew it would be. "Blowhard" is a kind descrtiption for what I think of Newt's new incarnation. The mainstream media eats this stuff up, and Newt is deliberately catering to them (as John Cornyn was--see earlier entry this week).
President Obama and the Emergence of Muslim Roots: Hypocrisy Gone Nuclear (Again)
Remember all of that stuff about how you are not even supposed to mention President Obama's middle name ("Hussein") because it plays into that false slur that Obama had Muslim roots? Forget it. As always with Obama and the media, that was then and now is ow.
Yep. The present headline on Drudgem linked to a story on an ABC NEWS blog and evidently reflecting thinking withint the Obmama camp (the mainstream media clears this stuff in advance with Obama people), screams out: "EMERGENCE OF OBAMA'S MUSLIM ROOTS."
Yep. It appears that Obama now wants to play up, in connection with his trip to the Muslim world, that he UNDERSTANDS Muslims because of his Muslim roots--his Muslim father, his time in Indonesia, etc.
Now I never thought Obama's Muslim connections were important, unlike other conservatives--not nearly as important, as, and a distraction from, his radical leftist policy views. It does bother me, because it so reflects Obama, that he is now willing to play up his Muslim connections while virtually asserting it was racism to metnion them during the campaign. It bothers me even more that Obama thinks that he can "solve" our problems with Muslim extremists by cozying up to them with the Obma WORDS that worked so well in the United States. Oh, many will APPLAUD, but heir CONDUCT will not change. This real fondness of Obama for WORDS over substance really scares me. The idea that Muslim extremists will simply lay down their arms and be friends because Obama "understands" them scares me a whole lot.
The other thing that bothers me is the EXTREME hypocrisy of the mainstream media here: the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth on two legs. Yes, I am back to what I consider one of the most revealing examples of that hypocristy.
I am referring to the "hit" piece by the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (always use complete, official name in first reference) on Mitt Romney's Mormon ancestry. Yes, I am talking about the breathless AP story that Mitt Romney's great grandfather was a POLYGAMIST (horrorss!!!!). Of course, President Obama's ancestors including POLYGAMISTS (horrors??????), but Obama's MUSLIM ancestors were out of bounds. You can't get any more hypocritical than that, but--from all evidecne--ALL AP people are HYPOCRITES of the most despicable kind. That polygamy story on Romney was NOT a story baoubt how despicable that kind of smear is, but a straight story as if it were relevant to his Presidential campaign. I stand by what I have said: Thees mainstream media people are EVIL hypocrites. I fully expect to meet them in Hell. In fact, I regard it as a certainty (so long as Hell exists).
As I have said before, leftists in general are the worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth. The Obama administration proves that every day. This "emergence" of Obama's Muslim roots is merely another example.
P.S.: President Obama, and the mainstream media, did their best to INGORE Obama's father, and his relatives on his father's side of the family, during the campaign. Now Muslims may applaud Obama's virtual invitation to consider him a "secret Muslim"--what Obama and the mainstream media regarded as a vicious SMEAR during the campaign. However, they might wonder about the way Obama has cut himself off from his Muslim "roots" for political gain (or because he was not interested). For example, there is that brother (half-brother) living in the hut outside of Narobi on $12 (or some such amount) PER YEAR. And there is the beloved aunt, mentioned in Obama's book, left apparently to rot in a BOSTON SLUM. Maybe Muslims would not applaud so much if they were completely aware of the way Obama distanced himself from his Muslim "roots" and family for political gain. Again, that is the problem with Obma. What he said yesterday is forgotten today, and he expects everyone else to forget. I don't care if Obama has Muslim ancestors. I DO care about the cynical manipulation evident here. I further care about the MASSVIE HYPOCRISY of the mainstream media that thinks it is relevant that Mitt Romney had a polygamist great grandfather, but ignores Obama's closer ancestors until Obama himslef signifies that it is okay to start talking about them.
Yep. The present headline on Drudgem linked to a story on an ABC NEWS blog and evidently reflecting thinking withint the Obmama camp (the mainstream media clears this stuff in advance with Obama people), screams out: "EMERGENCE OF OBAMA'S MUSLIM ROOTS."
Yep. It appears that Obama now wants to play up, in connection with his trip to the Muslim world, that he UNDERSTANDS Muslims because of his Muslim roots--his Muslim father, his time in Indonesia, etc.
Now I never thought Obama's Muslim connections were important, unlike other conservatives--not nearly as important, as, and a distraction from, his radical leftist policy views. It does bother me, because it so reflects Obama, that he is now willing to play up his Muslim connections while virtually asserting it was racism to metnion them during the campaign. It bothers me even more that Obama thinks that he can "solve" our problems with Muslim extremists by cozying up to them with the Obma WORDS that worked so well in the United States. Oh, many will APPLAUD, but heir CONDUCT will not change. This real fondness of Obama for WORDS over substance really scares me. The idea that Muslim extremists will simply lay down their arms and be friends because Obama "understands" them scares me a whole lot.
The other thing that bothers me is the EXTREME hypocrisy of the mainstream media here: the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth on two legs. Yes, I am back to what I consider one of the most revealing examples of that hypocristy.
I am referring to the "hit" piece by the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (always use complete, official name in first reference) on Mitt Romney's Mormon ancestry. Yes, I am talking about the breathless AP story that Mitt Romney's great grandfather was a POLYGAMIST (horrorss!!!!). Of course, President Obama's ancestors including POLYGAMISTS (horrors??????), but Obama's MUSLIM ancestors were out of bounds. You can't get any more hypocritical than that, but--from all evidecne--ALL AP people are HYPOCRITES of the most despicable kind. That polygamy story on Romney was NOT a story baoubt how despicable that kind of smear is, but a straight story as if it were relevant to his Presidential campaign. I stand by what I have said: Thees mainstream media people are EVIL hypocrites. I fully expect to meet them in Hell. In fact, I regard it as a certainty (so long as Hell exists).
As I have said before, leftists in general are the worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth. The Obama administration proves that every day. This "emergence" of Obama's Muslim roots is merely another example.
P.S.: President Obama, and the mainstream media, did their best to INGORE Obama's father, and his relatives on his father's side of the family, during the campaign. Now Muslims may applaud Obama's virtual invitation to consider him a "secret Muslim"--what Obama and the mainstream media regarded as a vicious SMEAR during the campaign. However, they might wonder about the way Obama has cut himself off from his Muslim "roots" for political gain (or because he was not interested). For example, there is that brother (half-brother) living in the hut outside of Narobi on $12 (or some such amount) PER YEAR. And there is the beloved aunt, mentioned in Obama's book, left apparently to rot in a BOSTON SLUM. Maybe Muslims would not applaud so much if they were completely aware of the way Obama distanced himself from his Muslim "roots" and family for political gain. Again, that is the problem with Obma. What he said yesterday is forgotten today, and he expects everyone else to forget. I don't care if Obama has Muslim ancestors. I DO care about the cynical manipulation evident here. I further care about the MASSVIE HYPOCRISY of the mainstream media that thinks it is relevant that Mitt Romney had a polygamist great grandfather, but ignores Obama's closer ancestors until Obama himslef signifies that it is okay to start talking about them.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Dick Cheney and Republicans: Why Should the "Religious Right" Vote Republican?
What is the EXTREME judicial positon on abortion? Well, the "left wing" extreme position is the one that Roe v. Wade "enacted" into law by dictatorial judicial fiat. The "right wing" extreme position, or what I might call the "anti-federalist" position on the pro-life side, was that the Constitutioin PROTECTED a fetus (finding a "right to life" in the Constitution--certainly no less "fundamental" than a made up "right to privacy", a lying phrase which does NOT refer to your 4th Amendment right to be secrue from unreasonable serarch and seizure).
The MODERATE judicial position in 1970 was the one that I held--the federalist position. That is the position that the Constitution says nothing on abortion, and that meand that you are left with state by state DEMOCRACY (leftists, of course, do NOT believe in democracy). That also means that a Federal law on abortion would be unconstitutional (in 1970).
I do not "turn the other cheek", and nor do I take positions that guarantee the other side victory once they have supposedly "won" (in this ccase, by CHEATING). I would still, if I were on the Stupreme Court, take the "moderate" position on abortion (reversing Roe v. Wade, and letting the question be demoratically decided in the states, as should always have been true).
But since Roe v. Wade, I have supported a Constitutional Amendment on abortion to PROHIBIT most abortions. Note that this is NOT a violation of "federalism", because a Constitutional Amednment is ALLLOWED under our Constitution. Leftists simply ignore this process, and impose their views by having judges impose their personal opinions on the Constitution (without an Amendment). However, I would not care if it were a violation of federalism. The other side has violated federalsim on this very issue, and I have no compunction in ignoring federalism to overturn their dictatorial actioin. That said, a return to what should have been: a democratic, state by state resolution of the "issue" is the most feasible way to overturn Roe v. Wade. It is also the ONLY way to have the two sides have "common ground". Do I have any common ground with people who have CHEATED me out of my vote, and out of my right to fight for my views in the political arena. Not likely. I do not, and I never will have.
Patience. I am getting to Dick Cheney and the "religious right" (of which I am not a part, despite my numberous policy agreements with them, since I do not believe in religion--the same position as Nancy "total failure" Pelosi). Do i respect REPUBLICANS who refuse to support a Constitutional Amendment on abortion because they think that should be an "issue for the states". Hell no. That is a DISHONEST position. It is the position of Rudy Giuliani, and it is DISHONEST. The Supreme Court has already taken the issue out of the arena of the states, and to say that Congress should do NOTHING at this point means that you are helping the other side CHEAT. This is especailly true if you have not vigorously supported a Constitutional Amednment to return the question to the states--as most of this type of Republicans have not. These Republicans MEAN to be DISHONEST. And they succeed. Just like President Obama MEANS to be DISHONEST when he suggests that pro-life people SHUT uup and "seek "common ground" (while accepting defeat).
We are finally at Dick Cheney (a "hero" to most conservatives on foreign policy, where he probably deserves much of that designationi, but NEVER a "conservative on domestic issues of all kinds, which he shares with President Bush). Dick Cheney says he has no problem with any kind of union (translation: homosexual marriage), but that he thinks the issue should be "left up to the states". Hogwash. DISHONEST hogwash. DISHONEST Republican establishment hogwash. And the "religious right" knows it. That is why they ONLY "voted Republican" in 20004, and may never do so again (which, of course, applies to me, except I routinely voted Republican before 2006, but will probably never so vote again).
Are homosexuals "winning" democratically? Don't be silly. Their major victories hve been ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, as judges in places like California and Massachusetts have taken the issue away from the democratic process. Leftists, as stated, do NOT believe in democracy. As with the case BEFORE Roe v, Wade imposed the leftist position on abrotion, leftists fully intend to win this issue IN THE COURTS--ultimately in the United States Supreme Court. I view it as almost inevitable that they succeed at that some day, with only token "opposition" from the Republican Party.
Let me be as blunt as I can (and if you conclude this means that I would have NO regrets if the Republican Party were absolutely destroyed--as if it has not destroyed itself--you are right): The Repubican Party COULD have gotten a Constitutional Amendment through Congress, and probably ratification, IF the Repubican Party had serously pushed that Amendment. As I said, that is NOT a violation of "federalism", since--unlike leftists--they would have been using the Amendment process set up in the Constitution for that purpose. The reason it is DISHONEST to oppose such an Amendment, as many Republicans did (including, I think, McCain), is that you (and they) KNOW that the left is well on its way to taking this decisiion away from the people, and the "states". If you opposed a pre-emptive strike in this area, you FAVOR homosexual marriage (or at least are too wimpy to want to try to really stop it). Dont' bleat to me about "federalism". Almost all of these Republicans could not care less about "federalism", except when it suits their purpose. I have said before that I am really about the only person left in America who believes in federalism, and I am right on that. This is simply a DISHONES way for Republicans to duck this issue. Am I calling Dick Cheny DISHONEST? On this issue, I am.
What has the Republican Party done for the "religious right"? Well, it gave us Roe v. Wade, and David Souter (who protected Roe v. Wade when we seemed about to return to the "moderate" judicial position returning the issue to the states). Yes, a Repubican President is the only CHANCE the "religious right", not to mention people who believe in "federalism" and democracy, have to get an acceptable appointment to the Supreme Court. But on issue after issue that has PROVEN to be a very weak reed to stop the leftist subversion of democracy. Otherwise, the Republican Party has given the "religious right" effectively NOTHING. Forget it. The boat has sailed. The Republican Party will NEVER regain the credit they seemed to be gaining witht he "religious right" (seemingly the MAIN reason Republican won in 2004, on the very issue of homosexual marriage upon which Republicans BETRAYED them).
P.S.: Did Dick Cheney have to take this dishonest position because of his lesbian daughter? Nope. Cheney did not have to disown her, or criticize her in any way. The difference is the difference between "tolerance" and overturning thousands of years of human history and wisdom on the meaning of marriage. Homosexual activists, and their sympathiers, do not WANT "tolerance". They want absolute APPROVAL. Cheney did not have to give them that. But it is what he really did, and I believe meant to do. As I say, I AM accusing him of being DISHONEST here, and I stand by that conclusion (as I stand by that conclusion about the Republican establishment on many issues).
The MODERATE judicial position in 1970 was the one that I held--the federalist position. That is the position that the Constitution says nothing on abortion, and that meand that you are left with state by state DEMOCRACY (leftists, of course, do NOT believe in democracy). That also means that a Federal law on abortion would be unconstitutional (in 1970).
I do not "turn the other cheek", and nor do I take positions that guarantee the other side victory once they have supposedly "won" (in this ccase, by CHEATING). I would still, if I were on the Stupreme Court, take the "moderate" position on abortion (reversing Roe v. Wade, and letting the question be demoratically decided in the states, as should always have been true).
But since Roe v. Wade, I have supported a Constitutional Amendment on abortion to PROHIBIT most abortions. Note that this is NOT a violation of "federalism", because a Constitutional Amednment is ALLLOWED under our Constitution. Leftists simply ignore this process, and impose their views by having judges impose their personal opinions on the Constitution (without an Amendment). However, I would not care if it were a violation of federalism. The other side has violated federalsim on this very issue, and I have no compunction in ignoring federalism to overturn their dictatorial actioin. That said, a return to what should have been: a democratic, state by state resolution of the "issue" is the most feasible way to overturn Roe v. Wade. It is also the ONLY way to have the two sides have "common ground". Do I have any common ground with people who have CHEATED me out of my vote, and out of my right to fight for my views in the political arena. Not likely. I do not, and I never will have.
Patience. I am getting to Dick Cheney and the "religious right" (of which I am not a part, despite my numberous policy agreements with them, since I do not believe in religion--the same position as Nancy "total failure" Pelosi). Do i respect REPUBLICANS who refuse to support a Constitutional Amendment on abortion because they think that should be an "issue for the states". Hell no. That is a DISHONEST position. It is the position of Rudy Giuliani, and it is DISHONEST. The Supreme Court has already taken the issue out of the arena of the states, and to say that Congress should do NOTHING at this point means that you are helping the other side CHEAT. This is especailly true if you have not vigorously supported a Constitutional Amednment to return the question to the states--as most of this type of Republicans have not. These Republicans MEAN to be DISHONEST. And they succeed. Just like President Obama MEANS to be DISHONEST when he suggests that pro-life people SHUT uup and "seek "common ground" (while accepting defeat).
We are finally at Dick Cheney (a "hero" to most conservatives on foreign policy, where he probably deserves much of that designationi, but NEVER a "conservative on domestic issues of all kinds, which he shares with President Bush). Dick Cheney says he has no problem with any kind of union (translation: homosexual marriage), but that he thinks the issue should be "left up to the states". Hogwash. DISHONEST hogwash. DISHONEST Republican establishment hogwash. And the "religious right" knows it. That is why they ONLY "voted Republican" in 20004, and may never do so again (which, of course, applies to me, except I routinely voted Republican before 2006, but will probably never so vote again).
Are homosexuals "winning" democratically? Don't be silly. Their major victories hve been ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, as judges in places like California and Massachusetts have taken the issue away from the democratic process. Leftists, as stated, do NOT believe in democracy. As with the case BEFORE Roe v, Wade imposed the leftist position on abrotion, leftists fully intend to win this issue IN THE COURTS--ultimately in the United States Supreme Court. I view it as almost inevitable that they succeed at that some day, with only token "opposition" from the Republican Party.
Let me be as blunt as I can (and if you conclude this means that I would have NO regrets if the Republican Party were absolutely destroyed--as if it has not destroyed itself--you are right): The Repubican Party COULD have gotten a Constitutional Amendment through Congress, and probably ratification, IF the Repubican Party had serously pushed that Amendment. As I said, that is NOT a violation of "federalism", since--unlike leftists--they would have been using the Amendment process set up in the Constitution for that purpose. The reason it is DISHONEST to oppose such an Amendment, as many Republicans did (including, I think, McCain), is that you (and they) KNOW that the left is well on its way to taking this decisiion away from the people, and the "states". If you opposed a pre-emptive strike in this area, you FAVOR homosexual marriage (or at least are too wimpy to want to try to really stop it). Dont' bleat to me about "federalism". Almost all of these Republicans could not care less about "federalism", except when it suits their purpose. I have said before that I am really about the only person left in America who believes in federalism, and I am right on that. This is simply a DISHONES way for Republicans to duck this issue. Am I calling Dick Cheny DISHONEST? On this issue, I am.
What has the Republican Party done for the "religious right"? Well, it gave us Roe v. Wade, and David Souter (who protected Roe v. Wade when we seemed about to return to the "moderate" judicial position returning the issue to the states). Yes, a Repubican President is the only CHANCE the "religious right", not to mention people who believe in "federalism" and democracy, have to get an acceptable appointment to the Supreme Court. But on issue after issue that has PROVEN to be a very weak reed to stop the leftist subversion of democracy. Otherwise, the Republican Party has given the "religious right" effectively NOTHING. Forget it. The boat has sailed. The Republican Party will NEVER regain the credit they seemed to be gaining witht he "religious right" (seemingly the MAIN reason Republican won in 2004, on the very issue of homosexual marriage upon which Republicans BETRAYED them).
P.S.: Did Dick Cheney have to take this dishonest position because of his lesbian daughter? Nope. Cheney did not have to disown her, or criticize her in any way. The difference is the difference between "tolerance" and overturning thousands of years of human history and wisdom on the meaning of marriage. Homosexual activists, and their sympathiers, do not WANT "tolerance". They want absolute APPROVAL. Cheney did not have to give them that. But it is what he really did, and I believe meant to do. As I say, I AM accusing him of being DISHONEST here, and I stand by that conclusion (as I stand by that conclusion about the Republican establishment on many issues).
Iran and Nuclear Weapons: President Obama, Comic Genius, Goes Around the Bend (Does Iran Laugh?)
"President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful."
The above is from the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (always use complete, official name in first reference), and is headlined on Drudge with a link to the Washington Post website.
I have two reactions to the above:
1. Is President Obama NUTS? Don't answer that unless you want to incriminate your country and/or ruin your own peace of mind.
2. What the heck does that MEAN!!!!!! This, of coure, is my normal reaction to most of what President Obama says. He obviously does not know what he means himself, most of the time, because he often says the exact opposite the very next day. For example, what does it MEAN when President Obama says that we can't "ustain" the incredible deficits we are running, or when Geitner says that "no one" is "more concerned about the deficit than Obama? Is Obama calling HIMSELF nuts?
How can Iran "prove" by the end of the year that it has only peaceful intent? We KNOW that is NOT TRUE. That is what bothers me most about President Obama. He has no nesitancy about saying the most incredible, nutty absurd things as if they made sense.
Nope. It served no purpose to say that Iran has a "right" to nuclear power. They, of course, assert a "right" to have nuclear weapons, if they want them. Is Obama sayihng that Iran has a "right" to nuclear weapons? I doubt it, but IRAN is going to construe it something like that.
It remains true that it will be a DISASTER for the wolrd for Iran to get nuclear weapons. And what is this business about "by the end of the year". Jesus. Why not send them a "strong note". Oops!!!! I forgot. We have already sent them a WEAK NOTE, and tried the "strong note" approach with North Korea.
This blog has noted that President Obama truly is a comic genius. However, I am convinced. I do not need him to PROVE it every single day. I am afraid the country will not survive it.
The above is from the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (always use complete, official name in first reference), and is headlined on Drudge with a link to the Washington Post website.
I have two reactions to the above:
1. Is President Obama NUTS? Don't answer that unless you want to incriminate your country and/or ruin your own peace of mind.
2. What the heck does that MEAN!!!!!! This, of coure, is my normal reaction to most of what President Obama says. He obviously does not know what he means himself, most of the time, because he often says the exact opposite the very next day. For example, what does it MEAN when President Obama says that we can't "ustain" the incredible deficits we are running, or when Geitner says that "no one" is "more concerned about the deficit than Obama? Is Obama calling HIMSELF nuts?
How can Iran "prove" by the end of the year that it has only peaceful intent? We KNOW that is NOT TRUE. That is what bothers me most about President Obama. He has no nesitancy about saying the most incredible, nutty absurd things as if they made sense.
Nope. It served no purpose to say that Iran has a "right" to nuclear power. They, of course, assert a "right" to have nuclear weapons, if they want them. Is Obama sayihng that Iran has a "right" to nuclear weapons? I doubt it, but IRAN is going to construe it something like that.
It remains true that it will be a DISASTER for the wolrd for Iran to get nuclear weapons. And what is this business about "by the end of the year". Jesus. Why not send them a "strong note". Oops!!!! I forgot. We have already sent them a WEAK NOTE, and tried the "strong note" approach with North Korea.
This blog has noted that President Obama truly is a comic genius. However, I am convinced. I do not need him to PROVE it every single day. I am afraid the country will not survive it.
Wall Street: The Stupidest People on Earth
Wall Street truly contains the Stupidest People on Earth. Yesterday, for example, based apparently (not really--it is all based no hype, momentum, and computer gaming) on the BANKRUPTCY of General Motors (with NO reason to believe that GM has solved its fundamental problems), went up more than 200 points on the Dow (more on the NASDAQ). And people were stilll BUYING at that level. A rational stock market would have PULLLED BACK from shuch "irrational exuberance".
It is not that the stock market has gone up that is the problem. The problem is HOW MUCH it has gone up. We are now well abobve the overall level we were at even at the end of the RALLY last October (the fictional rally based on "optimism"--hype--about the probabable electon of Obama).
Yep. We are now in fully as much of a BU:BBLE in both stock prcies and oil prices as we were when the Dow was 14,000 and oil prices $147 a barrel. That is because the prospects (PROSPECTS, as well as the current econoomy) are so much WORSE now (even in comparison terms). In other words, teh stock market, and oil prices, are HIGHTER now, in comparison with economic prospects, than they were at the height of the irrational bubbles that crashed in 2008.
These truly are the Stupidest People on Earth. They seay they learn, but they do not learn--EVER. As I have repeatedly said, sports bettors learn much better than these people (adjusting odds BETTER to reality).
Do you realize that the calender is rushing toward late July? Do you realize that the stock market has suffered a MAJOR decline EVERY YEAR fro 15 consecutive years (including, of course, the truly major decline in 2008), some time during the period from mid-July to the beginning of October? Yet, the stock market is making this IRRATIONAL jump right before this dangerous period. Tock market people (the Stupidest People on Earth) even quote the maxim: "Sell in May, and walk away." Then they act like thee is no reason for that saying. Of course, the major declines have not generally happened right after June, but a little later. But they SHOULD be happening in June, or May (sometimes, at least), if stock market people were even nearly as smart as sports bettors at acting upon trends.
Stock market people are NOT as smart as sports bettors. They are the Supidest People on Earth.
It is not that the stock market has gone up that is the problem. The problem is HOW MUCH it has gone up. We are now well abobve the overall level we were at even at the end of the RALLY last October (the fictional rally based on "optimism"--hype--about the probabable electon of Obama).
Yep. We are now in fully as much of a BU:BBLE in both stock prcies and oil prices as we were when the Dow was 14,000 and oil prices $147 a barrel. That is because the prospects (PROSPECTS, as well as the current econoomy) are so much WORSE now (even in comparison terms). In other words, teh stock market, and oil prices, are HIGHTER now, in comparison with economic prospects, than they were at the height of the irrational bubbles that crashed in 2008.
These truly are the Stupidest People on Earth. They seay they learn, but they do not learn--EVER. As I have repeatedly said, sports bettors learn much better than these people (adjusting odds BETTER to reality).
Do you realize that the calender is rushing toward late July? Do you realize that the stock market has suffered a MAJOR decline EVERY YEAR fro 15 consecutive years (including, of course, the truly major decline in 2008), some time during the period from mid-July to the beginning of October? Yet, the stock market is making this IRRATIONAL jump right before this dangerous period. Tock market people (the Stupidest People on Earth) even quote the maxim: "Sell in May, and walk away." Then they act like thee is no reason for that saying. Of course, the major declines have not generally happened right after June, but a little later. But they SHOULD be happening in June, or May (sometimes, at least), if stock market people were even nearly as smart as sports bettors at acting upon trends.
Stock market people are NOT as smart as sports bettors. They are the Supidest People on Earth.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Government Motors: Dave Ramsey Gets It Right; General Motors and the Government Central Planners Get It Wrong
The GM debacle should tell you why the economy is NOT "okay" (contrary to what you would belive from the coputer gamers on Wall Street acting on HYPE and momentum--truly the Stupidest People on Earth).
Dave Ramnsey got it right tody: Government Motors (formerly General Motors) should have filed for bankruptcy protection nine months or a year ago. Ramsey actually said GM should have filed six months ago, but an inetlligent mananagement (which GM has almost never had) would have done it even earlier. The earlier it was done--as Ramsey correctly said--the better chance GM would have had--because of all of the money that would have been SAVED by not continuing to lose money on every car GM sold.
The whole attempted bailout of GM has been a DISASTER, and continued to be a disaster. This blog (in foresight, as usual) told you that GM could not avoid bankruptchy. I will go further and say that the delayed bankruptcy filing, and government--central planning--contorl will DOOM GM. Now th egovernment may continue to pour in money--delaying the end. YOU (taxpayers) are laready going to pour in another 30 BILLION dollars, on top of what has already been "invested". Yet, one of the "prices" GM is apying for this is that the government is going to DEMAND that GM continue to make cars that people do not want (in coparison to the Japanese) at a price people do not want to pay. The government is even going to accelearate the process. I have already told you the the Chevrolet Volt is anoather DISASTER--a car no one is gong to want at a cost no one (except environmental nuts) is going to be willing to pay. That is if the car words at al as it is supposed to.
The GM debacle really is an example of what you get with cenral planning and government control. You get people competing for GOVENNMENT money, instead of competing in the free market and making rational economic decisions (like a MUCH earlier bankruptcy for GM).
Wh should GM get bailed out and others not? Because it is so "big"? now that is a rational policy--NOT.
What if GM had gone into bankruptcy EARLY, and divided into several different companies (for example, Saturn is "sold" by GM as a different, separate company. Why should it not be such a company. That is what we have needed all along. MORE auto companies, and SMALLER auto companies. Instead, our central planners seem determined to keep BIG--and even expand it. That includes both Big Government and Big Business.
Dave Ramnsey got it right tody: Government Motors (formerly General Motors) should have filed for bankruptcy protection nine months or a year ago. Ramsey actually said GM should have filed six months ago, but an inetlligent mananagement (which GM has almost never had) would have done it even earlier. The earlier it was done--as Ramsey correctly said--the better chance GM would have had--because of all of the money that would have been SAVED by not continuing to lose money on every car GM sold.
The whole attempted bailout of GM has been a DISASTER, and continued to be a disaster. This blog (in foresight, as usual) told you that GM could not avoid bankruptchy. I will go further and say that the delayed bankruptcy filing, and government--central planning--contorl will DOOM GM. Now th egovernment may continue to pour in money--delaying the end. YOU (taxpayers) are laready going to pour in another 30 BILLION dollars, on top of what has already been "invested". Yet, one of the "prices" GM is apying for this is that the government is going to DEMAND that GM continue to make cars that people do not want (in coparison to the Japanese) at a price people do not want to pay. The government is even going to accelearate the process. I have already told you the the Chevrolet Volt is anoather DISASTER--a car no one is gong to want at a cost no one (except environmental nuts) is going to be willing to pay. That is if the car words at al as it is supposed to.
The GM debacle really is an example of what you get with cenral planning and government control. You get people competing for GOVENNMENT money, instead of competing in the free market and making rational economic decisions (like a MUCH earlier bankruptcy for GM).
Wh should GM get bailed out and others not? Because it is so "big"? now that is a rational policy--NOT.
What if GM had gone into bankruptcy EARLY, and divided into several different companies (for example, Saturn is "sold" by GM as a different, separate company. Why should it not be such a company. That is what we have needed all along. MORE auto companies, and SMALLER auto companies. Instead, our central planners seem determined to keep BIG--and even expand it. That includes both Big Government and Big Business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)