It appears that our government let the New York City bomber GET ON A PLANE. Nope. This has nothing to do with whether there was a real danger he would "get away". Airport security LET HIM ON A PLANE!!!!! That is nuts. What if he had a bomb?


My brother is till irritated that his young teen daughters were searched almost every time he brought them to Nashville (3 of them). That was because my brother always bought a one-way ticket, since he did not know when they wre going back (as if a smart terrorist--exclusively ISLAMIC in recent decades--would not buy a round trip ticket, knowing the "red flag" of a one-way ticket). Nobody looked LESS like a terrorist than my brother's slightly built, blondish teenage girls. But we engage in this INSANITY because we are "politically correct", and refused to concentrate our attention on the most likely real threats (Middle Eastern males, for one).


PLEASE tell me that this New York bomber was thoroughly SEARCHED at airport security!!!!! Is our corrupt mainstream media even interested? They are hardly interested that this is yt another Muslim extremist (from all indications), inspired by other Muslim extremists (even if nit the actual agent of an Islamic terrorist organization, which is still possible).


Nope. The Obama Administration can "spin" this all they want. They had no business letting this guy get on a plane. Are we so "politically correct' that we don't even "profile" as to BOMBING SUSPECTS? That I even ask this question shows how little confidence I have in the Obama Administration, and how much confidence I have in the corruption of our mainstream media (confidence that they are mainly interested in AGENDA, and in covering for the Obama Administration--not to mention an apparent policy of covering for extremist Islam).

Some of you--fools that you are--may have doubted me as I have proven that there is no worse "news" organization in the universe (including known and unknown planets) than the despicable Associated Press--because it is impossible to be worse. Or some of you may have considered me harsh when I have suggested you BOYCOTT YAHOO. Consider these three headlines I encountered on Sunday when I logged on to AT&T (meaning I get the Yahoo News welcome page):


"NYPD: No evidence that Taliban linked to SUV" (AP)


This is what the despicable AP, and Yahoo News, regard as the most IMPORTANT "news" out of New York on that terrorist attack averted by LUCK. Isn't that one of you greatest worries? That the Taliban might be SLANDERED by an unjust accusation. Well, it IS one of the greatest worries of the anti-American mainstream media. Nope. I am not saing this should not be reported. As a HEADLINE, it is DISGRACEFUL. Meaningless, too. Note that the story does not prove there is no link with the Taliban. Remember the Ft. Hood initial mainstream media attempt to avoid a Muslim connection, only to have all of those embarrassing emails surface?


"Obama states that he will do everything "humanly possible" on spill>" (AP)


Again.A HEADLINE? Can you imagine the mainstream media trying to COVER President Bush with this kind of headline on Katrina, where the Federal Government did NOT have primary "first response" responsibility, which it DOES have on the oil spill? Aren't you comforted that it took Obama TEN DAYS to SAY he will do everything "humanly possible"?


"Arizona''s largest newspaper says Pols failed on immigration." (AP)


This last is the WORST of a bad lot, and again proves the despicable AP to be a TOTALLY CORRUPT organization, from the janitors up to every single "journalist". Only EVIL, lying people work for the despicable Associated Press.


First, note the "journalistic" INCOMPETENCE. You don't even find out the NAME of the newspaper from the despicable AP in the headline, or in the first paragraph or two. I never even got to the name, because I never not past the first two paragraphs. I ASSUME we are talking about the Arizona Republic here--a LEFTIST newspaper (as are most mainstream newspapers, if only because they rely on the despicable AP for a good number of their stories--but usually because they also want to be).


Yes, this is INCEST. This "largest newspaper" (an attempt at propaganda in itself) is probably PART of the Associated Press, in the sense of being associated with it. It has the same AGENDA as the despicable AP. Yet, the AP is trying to BOOTSTRAP the opinion of a mainstream media outlet to bolster the mainstream media AGENDA on the new Arizona law. The second paragraph of the AP story refers to the supposed boycott of Arizona, being pushed by the mainstream media. What if an Arizona newspaper did a front page editorial SUPPORTING the Arizona law? There is no chance the AP would do this kind of story. CORRUPT. That is the despicable AP. CORRUPT to its core.


Bottom line. BOYCOTT the Arizona Republic--whether you live in Arizona or elsewhere. BOYCOTT Yahoo News. BOYCOTT any "news" outlet that relies upon the despicable AP. The above "news" headlines are NOT "news". They are CORRUPT propaganda.


When is the last time you saw a mere newspaper editorial bootstrapped into national "news"? Nope. The AP is totally corrupt. But it is ironic that one of the main targets of the AP CORRUPTION was former media darling John McCain. Now you could say this is a deep plot to get McCain elected, since NO ONE likes or trusts "journalists" today. But that would be giving the despicable AP too much credit. The AP thinks it is atttacking REPUBLICANS--not realizing that people like me AGREE that McCain has FAILED on immigration as badly as a stupid politician has failed. However, this is not because we agree with the AP, or the Arizona Republic. What we agree with is that the McCain-Kennedy "comprehensive" immigration approach was always a FAILURE, and a stupidity. Yes, I continue to advise you to vote AGAINST McCain in Arizona, even if it means joining the Devil (the despicable AP).

Obama's 6 Month Failure: Jobs Data Shows NO Improvement for 6 Months, as Corrupt AP Lies Again (Obama Loses Another 448,000 Jobs)

"WASHINGTON – The number of Americans filing claims for unemployment benefits dropped for a second consecutive week, further evidence that the job market is slowly improving.
The Labor Department said Thursday that initial applications for jobless benefits dropped by 11,000 to 448,000, the lowest level in four weeks। The new total was slightly higher than economists had expected."

The above is the PROPAGANDA from the despicable, corrupt Associated Press, and the mainstream media। For at least six months (26 weeks), I have been giving you the actual facts।

In this case, the numbers (over the past six months) don't lie. The AP lies, and the mainstream media lies. For six months, and certainly since December, the job market has NOT been "slowly improving". In fact, it--objectively, and contrary to the AP lie--has NOT IMPROVED AT ALL. Further, and you can tell this by correctly interpreting the AP story itself, the job market has also NOT IMPROVED over the past four weeks. For six months, I have been giving you these numbers, and the situation has not changed over that entire time. We are in the SAME job situation--a bad one--we were in December (and really before).

Let's go to the numbers. The AVERAGE first-time unemployment claims number (the weekly layoff number) 2as 455,000. The LOW was 435,000 or so. We have gotten WORSE since then--MONTHS of NO progress. Here is the weekly number for the past 4 weeks: 462,000, 480,000!!!!! (the AP LIES that week were amazing--nothing about "deteriorating" labor market"), 456,000 (adjusted to 459,000) and 448,000. The AVERAGE is still above 460,000 for the past fuor weeks--MORE than the average for December (and about the same as the average for each month since December).

What was the weekly number five weeks ago? It was 442,000 (although I think it was adjusted upward to 445,000 or so). In other words, despite the LIE from the despicable AP, and the rest of the mainstream media, there has been NO IMPROVEMENT over the past 5 weeks (or, of course, for the past FIVE MONTHS). Only the despicable liars at the AP could call this "slowly improving", or use the LIE about "further evidence". The EVIDENCE--as I have informed you over the past six months--is that we are STUCK. No improvement at all. Sure, it has not been getting worse. But it is only to the LIARS at the AP, and to the CORRUPT mainstream media, that "not getting worse" translates to a continuous story line of "slowly improving".

What did the despicable AP say when the first-time unemployment claims ROSE 42,000 in two weeks? Well, they said that was a "statistical glitch" caused by Easter and "difficulties" with the seasonal adjustment. Does that not mean that the supposed "improvement" the past two weeks (after "two straight weeks" of a RISE) represented merely a return to the SAME bad situation we were in? Of course it means that we have merely returned to where we were (or never really changed where we were), unless you are one of the corrupt liars in the AP, or in the mainstream media.

"Jobless claims return to same level as before Easter."

Yes, the above is the CORRECT headline (neutral). The actual, corrupt, lying AP/Yahoo News headline was: "Jobless claims decline to lowest level in four weeks" (which happened to be HIGHER than five weeks ago).

In other words, we lost 42,000 EXTRA jobs over two weeks (or else it was merely statistical noise). Then we "gained" only 35,000 (actually only 32,000, after the adjustment to last week's number) of that deterioration back over the next two weeks (or else it was more statistical, short-term noise). Leaving us about where we started five weeks ago: a labor market NOT IMPROVING, but bumping along the bottom at the same bad level layoffs have been for some six months.

It has been an established fact for some time: The despicable AP, and the rest of the mainstream media, are the worst "journalists" who have ever existed on this Earth. Yes, they are worse than the days of William Randolph Hearst ("you provide the photographs; I will provide the war"). For more than six years, I have DOCUMENTED the lies and CORRUPTION of the despicable AP. I will go further, based on what I have documented: There is no worse "news" organization in this universe, or any other possible universe, tha n the Associated Press. That is so, even though I am not familiar will all of the "news" organisations in all universes, simply because it is impossible to be any worse. God is not reputed to have spent more than six years looking for a person worth saving in Sodom and Gomorrah. For six years, and more, I have looked for an AP writer who is not a corrupt liar. I have not yet found one, and I don't think one exists.

Who else do you know who has written a weekly article on jobless claims numbers for SIX MONTHS, and more, and been proven right every time? Often, I have called the shot in advance, like Babe Ruth pointing to the stands. I know. This means I have no life. But I have to do it, because the AP is not. The AP is corrupt, and composed of liars. Someone has to do the job, which is supposed to be their job. I have taken on that task. You are lucky I am so good at it, however crazy you think I am for doing it.

P.S. The parenthetical headline ("Obama Loses 448,000 More Jobs Last Week") is my PARODY of an AP/Yahoo/mainstream media headline. It is at least as accurate as the actual AP/Yahoo News (boycott Yahoo) headline.

Jobs: Obama Fails Again, as Census Adds 27,000 Fewer Jobs Than Expected Because of Private Job Josses (Media Corruption Goes Nuclear)

How can you have anything but CONTEMPT for a mainstream media--and government--that lies to you, and KNOWS they are lying to you, but are so CORRUPT that they do not care. In fact, they are so CORRUPT that they are deliberately trying to prove Lincoln wrong: To prove that you CAN "fool all of the people all of the time".



Yes, I told you what would happen in my article last night. The CENSUS has added hundreds of thousands of TEMPORARY jobs in this country--distorting the employment numbers for March. This will be duly noted by the CORRUPT mainstream media, and the government, when those TEMPORARY jobs DISAPPEAR later this summer. In fact, "economists" wrongly predicted that 189,000 jobs would be "added" in March, for this very reason. ADP--the leading expert in the area, and leader in payroll services, already reported this week that the PRIVATE economy--private employers--LOST 23,000 jobs in March. The government, because of the Census, reported a gain of 162,000 jobs in March, 27,000 LESS than "expected".


What are the mainstream media headlines this morning (as expected, and predicted, by ME)? "Employers added most jobs in three years" (AP/Yahoo--boycott Yahoo, although not just for this). Market watch had that same sort of headline, without using the LYING word "employers", but proceeded to say that the "U.S. economy created 162,000 jobs in March".


How can you get any more CORRUPT than that. Those headlines LIE. They KNOW they lie. They will say so, without ever admitting the previous lies, when they "explain" how future BAD numbers are distorted by the end of the temporary Census employment of all of those workers.


Employers" did NOT add the "most jobs in 3 years". ONE employer--singular--added ALL of those extra jobs in March: the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Nope. The U.S. economy did NOT add 162,000 jobs in March. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT added 162,000 jobs in March. --actually more than that, as predicted by those economists, but the PRIVATE economy LOST jobs in March.Just how do you get more CORRUPT than our mainstream media? I don't think it can be done. These people deserve to go out of business. Luckily, they are going out of business.


My headline is more accurate. Yes, I could come up with the kind of "neutral" headline the mainstream media should have used, because I am a better "journalist" than any of them. For example: "Census adds enough jobs to grow U.S. employment in March". Or: "Aided by Census and government employment, U.S. job growth reaches 3 year high.." But if the mainstream media is going to be totally CORRUPT, I need to try to counter it with my headline--admittedly biased but far more accurate than theirs.


Will the CORRUPTION of our mainstream media ever end? Yes, it will--with their EXTINCTION (not by suppression, which is the tactic of the left, but by the people "voting" with their patronage).

Yes, it was a big, ------- deal last week (in the censored words of our Vice President). No, I am not talking about the disastrous health care bill, although that WILL destroy us--in terms of being anything like the great country we once were. I am talking about Social Security, which has some relevance on the health care bill. It has some relevance because Social Security is another government managed program that has been mismanaged to the point of destroying us. This is on top of a 36 TRILLION dollar unfunded liability for Medicare/Medicaid (obviously directly relevant on the absolute insanity of creating an even bigger new entitlement such as the new "universal health care" entitlement).
What happened last week? It was announced that Social Security is, or will be, in the RED (adding to the deficit) THIS YEAR. That is six years ahead of "schedule"--ahead of the calculations of the bean eaters--rather than "bean counters"--pf the gas passing CBO (Congressional Budget Office--one of the sources for that six year estimate). What does that mean for our budget deficit? It means DISASTER#ER, given all of our other spending, whether or not we pull an Enron scam and simply declare Social Security "off budget".There is simply not enough money to do all we need to do, and try to create another entitlement bureaucracy at the same time (not to mention get out of this stubborn economic downturn). We NEED to "save" Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, before we even dared to think about distracting ourselves with this ObamaCare nonsense.
The problem is that Social Security (not to mention Medicare and Medicaid) was a Ponzi scheme from the beginning--whether we should have "privatized it" or not. Did you think that you are putting money into Social Security for YOUR retirement? Think again. Social Security taxes from current workers pay for CURRENT retirees--NOT for a retirement account for the people paying the taxes. It is well established that you--as a current worker--have NO RIGHT to any certain level of Social Security (or, indeed, to any Social Security at all). This is the true definition of a Ponzi/Bernie Madooff tpe scheme, where current "investors" pay for "benefits" for earlier investors. As my accountant/former business owner brother likes to point out to me, HE would have gone to jail for this sort of thing. Bernie Madoff did.
This all arose from the way FDR and Congress set u Social Security as a Big Government program, rather than a true retirement account (INVESTED). As I said in my social science honors class at New Mexico State University way back in about 2968, Social Security made no sense--the way it is set up--as a retirement/insurance program. It also made no sense as a welfare program. It was always a political SCAM. My professor, by the way, showing that leftist thinking is not new in even more "conservative" universities", said that I was being "mean" to want to deprive senior citizens of the "dignity" of the fantasy that they actually "purchased" their retirement entitlement.
It was not, of course, ME who has deprived most senior citizens of dignity, but leftist Democrats and other politicians. Who paid for the Social Security of those who were elderly when the law was passed? Answer: the same people who have been praying for current Social Security benefits ever since--namely CURRENT WORKERS. The government merely collects taxes from CURRENT workers, and uses those taxes to "pay for" current Social Security recipients. The government sets both the level of taxes and payments, and there is really not such thing as a RETIREMENT INVESTMENT. It did not have to be that way.
Could we have set up actual RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS for every living American? Sure we could have. There are a number of entities allowed to "opt out" of Social Security, such as local governments, and those managed retirement accounts have generally done very well. There were many options here. One was a separate account for every single individual (basically a "defined contribution" plan). Another option was a "defined benefit" plan, but treated as an actual INVESTMENT ACCOUNT for which the government would be contractually obligated--basically a "defined benefit plan". I don't like this option, because it lends itself to the kind of manipulation that has actually taken place. However, it would have been better than what we got. What we actually got was BERNIE MADOFF--a political scam that left control in the hands of politicians.
Note that I have said NOTHING about "privatization", in terms of leaving investment decisions up to the individual--within restrictions. That is merely an OPTION--although one I would have favored, at least to a degree. It has NOTHING to do with setting up Social Security as a real RETIREMENT INVESTMENT.
"Wait a minute,", you say. What about all of those people who contributed nothing--especially in the beginning. Even later, there are still people who contributed little. And wives were an issue--more then than now, but some women still know when they have it good. Well, this is the bad WELFARE program I criticized back in 2968 (leaving aside wives, as to whom there were several alternatives, including something like what was actually done). In other words, the people who did not pay enough in to set up an adequate account could simply have been treated as WELFARE RECIPIENTS, where the government SUPPLEMENTED their account every year (sort of like the "earned income tax credit"). Obviously--and this was basically a deficit scam to rival the new health care bill--the first Social Security recipients were WELFARE RECIPIENTS. Their payments should have simply been set up that way. Notice an actual retirement ACCOUNT, like a 401(k), would be YOURS to keep. And an actual managed investment account would surely have created greater return than the government regulated payments people actually get today. Most people would have ENOUGH for a comfortable retirement on Social Security alone.
Could we afford it, or have afforded it? Sure we could. What we could not afford is what we have actually done. Obviously, some part of "richer" people's Social Security taxes would have had to go to pay those initial welfare payments, and to supplement the accounts of those not able to pay a minim amount into their retirement. But that supplemented amount would still BELONG to those individual people, and NOT to the government. Sure, some people would get more than others, btu they do today. ALL people would probably get more than they do today, if this had been the original approach--even if it had to be phased in.
What has actually happened? Well, first the government (including Republicans) realized that Social Security was really a FICTION--nothing more than a government program transferring money from one group (current workers) to another (senior citizens and some other recipients). So long as this was a SURPLUS--more tax money than payments--this was an easy way to CUT THE BUDGET DEFICIT. Indeed, unlike the health care bill budget scam--it is actually true that Social Security SHOULD be part of the budget. It is nothing more or less than a government program--a general obligation of the Federal Government.
The problem, of course, was that the politicians--as with the new health care bill--spend money we do not have. This included the Social Security surplus, even though the politicians knew that we were fast approaching the point that current workers would not be sufficient to "pay for" the benefits of current Social Security recipients. We have now reached that point, with more "baby boomers" retiring every year. The recession, of course, did not help. but it is not like recessions are a new thing. You can see that this result was almost inevitable from the beginning, by making Social Security a Big Government program, under the control of the politicians, rather than a true retirement program. Sure, there were a lot of details to be worked out, but IT DID NOT HAVE TO BE THAT WAY. You could have had a real retirement account, without politicians being able to use the taxes for their own purposes (power).
If you do not understand how badly this has worked out, I disown you (as I did President Bush in 2006, even though he was right about trying to reform Social Security to give people a REAL retirement account). You are hopeless (if you do not understand how you have been HAD).
If you do realize this basic point--the Madoff scheme that Social Security turned into--then it is only a very short step for you to realize that the new health care bill is another total disaster. I will leave the actual reasoning--aside from the fact that the new Social Security deficit makes clear that we absolutely cannot afford it--to you as an exercise in intelligence. No applause please (for not making you read another 1000 words).



P.S. Why was/is Social Security a BAD welfare program, when you consider its welfare component separately from its (equally bad, or worse) insurance/retirement compoent? Come on. You know this one. The Social Security tax is the ultimate in REGRESSIVE taxes in the way it "takes care of" people who did not contribute much to the system. Poorer people pay a GREATER percentage of their income than "richer" people, because the Social Security tax is only paid on the first so many dollars of income (which keeps going up). As I hope I have proven to you, Social Security was never an "insurance/retirement" program at all. That was just how it was SOLD. If you are paying attention, you realize that leftist Democrats are about ready to discard the entire FICTION of an "insurance" program which you pay for with your Social Security taxes, in favor of treating Social Security as totally a Big Government program to be "paid for" by the "rich". Republicans--ever people of NO real principle--have tried to buy into this concept with the idea of "temporary" payroll tax "rebates" "paid for" out of general tax revenue. If you think these people (politicians and Federal bureaucrats) are capable of running health care, or any other part of our economy, you are beyond delusional. These (our politicians--especially recently--are dishonest, stupid people. And I have never excluded Republicans from that assessment, although you can trust Republicans more in OPPOSITION to a leftist Democrat like Obama. But it is especially Democrats who want to make Social Security merely another political football--as they attempt to do every election--a constantly manipulated instrument of policial POWER, with ont even a pretense that it is any kind of real retirement program.

WASHINGTON – New claims for unemployment benefits fell more than expected last week as layoffs ease and hiring slowly recovers.

The Labor Department said Thursday that first-time claims for jobless benefits dropped by 14,000 to a seasonally adjusted 442,000. That's below analysts' estimates of 450,000, अच्कोर्डिंग

" Isn't it neat how the mainstream media--the despicably AP, CNN, MSNBC, and every other "news" outlet using the despicable AP, often including Fox News--feels free to LIE. They feel free to lie because they are both stupid and do not expect to be called on the lies--except by me. For more than six years, I have exposed the lies of the despicable AP, as well as other mainstream media outlets, on a detailed basis you will not get anywhere else (as regularly). Nope. We are not talking matters of opinion here. The AP tells objective lies, and I have documented that over at least the last six years more fullly than any other person. In case you had not guessed, the qobe quoted paragraphs come from the despicable Associated Press, Notice that the first--lead--paragraph quoted above, from the AP story, contains nothing but lies. There is no truth in that first paragraph, and all of the FACTS are in the second--non-lead--paragraph. That shows you how far "journalism" has fallen, and why you should have nothing but CONTEMPT for the "journalists" of the AP, and almost all of the mainstream media. Let us get to the specifics. No, this is an analysis piece, and I felt no obligation to try to put the facts in the "lead" paragraph. The AP should have, but the AP is too busy lying to worry about "journalism". First, this was not, in fact, an "unexpected" number, despite the use of that word in the headline and the use of "more than expected" in the first paragraph. As the AP well knows, since it uses the word almost every week (since economists almost NEVER get the number right, often missing by 20,000 or ore), it is ridiculous to say that 442,000 was "unexpected", when the economist "estimate" was 450,000 (meaning economists were estimating a DROP in claims). For economists, coming this close is GOOD, and the actual number is not "unexpected" at all. And that is probably the least of the multiple lies in that short "lead" paragraph from the AP. Second, the jobless claims number--especially when the "improvement" is as small as 14,000, and then only getting back to the four week AVERAGE of 3 to 4 months ago--says NOTHING about hiring. The AP made that up. It is a total, inexcusable LIE. The jobless claims number does NOT indicate, in ANY way, that "hiring is slowly recovering". In fact, the only numbers available indicate that not only is it a lie to suggest that you can conclude that from this jobless claims number, but that the statement is simply a flat lie (from oteher data that DOES measure hiring). The best measure of NET hiring (the only kind that matters) is the JOBS LOST number. That number was EVEN in November, 85,000 (or so) in December, some 30,000 in January, and some 20,000 in February. In other words, the economy has LOST JOBS (NO "recovery" in hiring) since November. In fact, the economy has LOST JOBS in 25 out of the last 26 months--the only exception being that stand-off in No ember. Not only is hiring not "slowly recovering", but it is not recovering at all. It is not even improving in the past 4 months. Indeed, the unemployment rate has stayed essentially the same since last July-August (for the last EIGHT months). The jobless claims rate measures ONLY "layoffs", and it does that--with any significance--only over a longer period of time than one week. The AP well knows that, because it points it out when the numbers go UP in an individual week. Thus, it is another AP LIE that this week's jobless claims number shows an "ease" in layoffs. In isolation, the 14,000 drop is almost statistically insignificant. Note that these numbers are SEASONALLY ADJUSTED--one of the smaller lies in the first paragraph being that this is not even mentioned until the second paragraph. A 14,000 "seasonally adjusted" "drop" is not of much significance--other than indicating that we are not getting significantly WORSE. It is a number that shows NO IMPROVEMENT--especially when considered with the weekly jobless claims number over the past 4 months (that is, the weekly numbers over that 4 month period). Let us, therefore, go back over the numbers (which the lying AP never does, except when it is necessary for the agenda of the AP). For that matter, the despicable AP does not report the number his way ("shows hiring is slowly DETERIORATING") when the weekly number goes up. 14,000, 5,000, 6,000, and 29,000: those are the improving numbers for the past 4 weeks. Now, if you don't really understand the weekly volatility in the weekly number, you could take this to mean that the "recovery" is STALLING (going from 29,000 to a much lesser "improvement" in the next three weeks). But it is much worse than that. For the two weeks immediately before the four weekly "drops" I cite, the number of unemployment claims went UP 66,000 (33,000 and 22,00). In other words, the last four weeks have just brought us back to the same level we were at a month ago. And that big LOSS of jobs in those two weeks was blamed on the SNOW--which meant you would EXPECT the number to "normalize". Wait. It gets still WORSE (for the LIARS of the AP). The AVERAGE number of weekly jobless claims for DECEMBER was about 455,000. The AVERAGE for January was 466,000 or so. The AVERAGE for February was higher still (blamed on SNOW, remember). The present 4 week moving average is close to that same 455,000 average for December, and about the same as the lowest 4 week moving average (in the last year) was about the same 442,000 we got for this ONE SINGLE WEEK. The low fro a single week was LESS than 435,000. The lows--average and single week--were all FOUR MONTHS AGO. Conclusion: NO IMPROVEMENT over the past four months. The best that can be said is that we have stabilized, and are not getting worse. Indeed, as I have proved in previous articles, the unemployment situation pretty much stabilized by last August, before the Obama "stimulus" could have accomplished anything. The "stimulus" has accomplished NOTHING as far as NET employment is concerned. That is the "inside joke" in the headline. Yes, Obama cannot be blamed for the whole 442,000 layoffs last week. At the same time, he cannot be credited--as he and his supporters want desperately to do--with the GROSS jobs "created/saved" (lol) by the Federal Government. Just like there were people HIRED last week not "measured" (one way or the other) in the layoff number (seasonally adjusted and volatile week to week), the Obama ""stimulus" has COST jobs in many ways. Simply calculating the GROSS jobs "created" by any Federal program is irrelevant. It is only the NET jobs that count, and Obama has created essentially NONE (by the official numbers--showing NO net job creation and an unemployment rate that has been about the same for eight months). Q.E.D. The AP lies. Nor can it be mere stupidity, although AP "journalists" are stupid. The AP regularly cites the four week moving average as the more meaningful number, when the AP wants to do so. And the AP regularly cites factors which make one week jobless claims numbers pretty meaningless. It is only when the weekly number moves in the "right" direction, no matter how small a movement, that the AP writes a sentence like that "lead" paragraph above. Instead, when the number goes UP, the AP STILL talks about the "trend" of a "recovering" job market. If you get nothing else out of this article, you should realize that the AP LIES: that there is NO TREND of improving employment over at least the past 4 months (with no trend in unemployment for EIGHT months). NO IMPROVEMENT, and that includes this week. No, it is not getting worse, either, but that does not change the fact that the AP routinely lies.


P.S. 442,000 new unemployment claims--besides not representing an improvement--is NOT a "good" number--I hasten to mention lest you get lost in the underbrush of words above where I try to lay out the LIES of the despicable AP. Buried in an earlier AP story--months ago, when the weekly number of new unemployment claims seemed headed under 430,00000--was the information that the weekly jobless claims number needed to get to 425,000 (at least) before there could be ANY job "growth". In other words, 442,000 is a weekly number that--even in isolation--shows a WEAK job market that is likely still LOSING (net) jobs (although likely at the same "slow" rate as recent months).


P.S. 2: No, I do NOT forgive you for refusing to go through the torture of wading throgh the "underbrush of words" I refer to above--including enduring the typos and garbled sentences which sometimes result from my lack of good proofreading (only partially explained by the fact I can't see). If you don't pay attention, the despicable AP gets away with its "journalistic" CRIMES, because no one else is analyzing those crimes in the kind of detail I do. So there!!!!!!!

Obama, Iran and Israel: Obama and Pelosi Fiddle (with Health Care) While the World Burns

It has not just been the economy and jobs which have stalled while Obama obsessed over health care (destroying the Democratic Party in the process--seer yesterday's article, "Democrats R.I.P.).


Remember how Obama said--in one of his characteristic flat statements that he obviously did not mean, much like: I will focus on jobs like a laser beam"--that we could not afford to let Iran have nuclear weapons? What has Obama done to STOP: Iran from getting nuclear weapons? NOTHING. Absolutely nothing.


No real sanctions. No effective "negotiations. Nothing. Certainly no attack taking out Iran's nuclear facilities (as Israel did with Syria). Indeed, all we have done is antagonize Israel--our ally--while allowing Iran to stall for the entire Obama Presidency.


Prediction: Short of a major attack, there is now no way to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Therefore, it is going to happen, since an attack is not in the cards (unless by Israel, which really cannot afford to let Iran become a nuclear power, whatever the cost).


For Israel, Iran should be like a government takeover of health care has been fro Obama: Worth any cost--including bribery, cheating, lying and slash/burn tactics to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons. But it is going to be a tough job for Israel, and the total failure of the Untied States to do any thing about Iran--even support the dissidents there--is a major error.


I have said that the country may not survive Obama's obsession with health care (in its present form). The total failure to deal with Iran is yet another way in which that may be a true prediction, besides the economy.


Now don't get me wrong. President Bush was not successful, either, with Iran. At least, however, I think Iran was a little AFRAID of President Bush. They are obviously not afraid of Obama. Who could be, if you are a country who does not like the USA. Obama does little but apologize for this country, when he is not obsessed with health care.


It is ironic, is it not, that IRAQ may be the big foreign policy SUCCESS of the Bush Administration--even if it took too long and cost too much. Oh, the overall War on Terror was a success, and the initial invasion of Afghanistan was a success. But Bush accomplished little with Iran, except a little intimidation. Ditto with North Korea. And Afghanistan is a continuing problem, as is Pakistan. Overall, if you told either me or President Bush that Iraq would be in the present position--even if fragile--I think that would have been regarded as SUCCESS (especially if you don't look at the pain getting to this point). Any truly objective observer would have to agree. Indeed, Joe Biden--in one of the most cynical ploys in American history--tried to take credit for the Obama Administration as to how well Iraq is doing (relatively).


Obama, on the other hand, has NO foreign policy "success". Oh, he has killed some terrorists with drones in Pakistan--in an aggressive policy begun in the Bush Administration but apparently expanded under Obama. However, Obama's allies on the left--such as the ACLU--OPPOSE this kind of killing of terrorists without giving them Miranda rights (dropping leaflets?). Meanwhile, with health care, Obama is not paying much attention. I trust our military is capable of handling things without him, because that is what they have been doing. It took Obama about 6 months just to decide whether to give the generals the troops they wanted, and then--military genius (lol) that Obama is, he CUT the number and told the terrorists how long the troops would stay).


Iran, however, is where Obama has really dropped the ball. Again, we are going to have trouble surviving Obama's concentration on health care.


P.S. Yes, a powerful Iran not only threatens world stability, but threatens to undermine our hard-won (with blood and treasure) success in Iraq. We could never expect more in Iraq than to give the people of Iraq a CHANCE to build a stable country not under the thumb of a tyrant. Even World War II resulted in the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union rather than a free Eastern Europe. But the CHANCE we have given Iraq could be negated if we allow Iran to dominate the region.