If Christine O'Donnell commits suicide, I trust BIAS CHARGES to be filed against the corrupt and biased Associated Press, CNN, MSNBC, and all of the rest of the mainstream media. You think that is ridiculous? Maybe such charges should be filed whether she commits suicide or not. What am I talking about? I am talking about this headline now "featured" on the corrupt Yahoo "News"--a story from the corrupt AP, as is always true of "news" stories featured n the Yahoo "News" "welcome" page. Here is the headline:

"Bias Crime Charges Weighed in N.J. Teen's Suicide"

Say what? Have we gone NUTS? Is it illegal in New Jersey (and maybe Delaware) to be BIASED? Does Governor Christie know that? Can we expect charges against NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Yahoo, MSNBC, and the Associated Press to be filed shortly? They are clearly biased against conservatives.

Nope. This is ridiculous. It is what is EVIL about "hate crimes" legislation. Such legislation is also stupid. In case you have missed it, this is the case where two teens allegedly "drove" another teen to suicide with a sex video. Let us stipulate that is terrible behavior. But how is the behavior "better" or "worse" based on whether the video posting was the result of "bias" or not? I am serious here. "Bias" against a conservative? If not, why is on kind of bias wore than another? And why is ANY bias worse than simple hate? In other words, say the teens posted the video just because they DISLIKED the teen in the sex video? Does that make the conduct better than if they had some politically correct "bias" against him? No, this is NUTS.

You see what is going on here, and what the very purpose of "hate crime" legislation is? The prosecutors are looking for an excuse to GET these teens because of the publicity involved in this case, and the result (suicide). Yes, I am telling you it would be a massive injustice to charge these teens with--in effect--murder (death from criminal "bias"). What about Paris Hilton? If she committed suicide over that sex video, would it have been murder? I admit it. I am"biased" against Paris Hilton. If I had posted her sex video, and she committed suicide, would that make me a murderer? Yes, I think it would make me a despicable human being, but would it be a crime? Should it be a crime? Well, I can see a crime of "invasion of privacy", but BIAS? Give me a break. This is absurd. Its only purpose is to give authorities a way to GET people when they want to "get" them, and to pander to leftists out there who think they can use this irrational kind of law to build up favor with their constituencies/ As President Bush once said, as to the "hate crime" of dragging " I can only execute them once."

Criminal conduct should be criminal conduct, whether directed against gays, conservatives, or just someone a person dislikes. No other position is even really defensible. The only reason these laws are so "popular" is that they seem to have no downside (a mistake leftists make in trying to vigorously assert the "rights" of terrorists and Islamic extremists--most people don't care much whether such "rights" are violated). No one really defends "picking on" people. So they think: "What is the harm in letting these crazy leftists have their way. Maybe the governor of Texas CAN figure out a way to execute people twice. He is, after all, a TEXAN.". What people don't understand is that this kind of law allows prosecutors to "get" people for mainly POLITICAL reasons (or because of public pressure and outrage, which amounts to the same thing).

Say Christine O'Donnell loses in Delaware, which would be a permanent stain on the reputation of Delaware--but might happen. She could then perform a public service. She could move to New Jersey and commit suicide (bear with me here). Of course, she would have to leave a suicide note blaming MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and all of the rest for their BIAS toward her, including the replaying of all of those irrelevant videos about masturbation, witchcraft, etc.

Would Governor Christie then have the cojones to PROSECUTE the members of the mainstream media for MURDER? I think so. Governor Christie has shown he has pretty big cojones. Yes, O'Donnell should accuse the mainstream media os SEXISM as well--noting the difference in treatment of her and her MALE opponent.

I know this is a big sacrifice to ask of Christine. But look at the sacrifice she has made already--exposing herself to the ridicule of the establishments of both parties, and of the mainstream media. Hell, KARL ROVE could be a defendant in this "bias" trial of the century (message to Rove: BITE ME). I think the sacrifice would be worth it (admittedly easy for me to say). Christine O'Donnell would go down in history for producing the murder trial of not just the century, but of all centuries. She would be a martyr (albeit a dead one, like most martyrs). Joan of Arc would be a piker in comparison.

I am to tender hearted to suggest this to Christine O'Donnell myself. Will one of you do it for me, IF she loses n Delaware? Thanks.

am an agnostic. Sharon Angle is a Christian (really is, as distinguished from Nancy Pelosi, for example, who does not believe in her religion). How can it be that Sharon Angle and I share the very same view of the way Reid, Pelosi,, Obama and most leftists look at the Federal Government? Let me explain.

I just heard the First Commandment clip that the most corrupt parts of the mainstream media have been trying to use against Sharon Angle. Contrary to the way it has been portrayed, and to the way Chris Matthews portrayed it right after playing it (how can you get more dishonest than that?), Sharon Angle did not say that the Federal Government violated the First Commandment (presumably the Commandment that there is One True God, and that you are to worship only that God and not any false gods and idols--it having been a LONG time since my Presbyterian Bible class where I memorized the 10 Commandments). What Sharon Angle said is that Reid and Pelosi have tried to make a ("false" being implied God out of the Federal Government--something essentially to be worshiped (although she did not expressly say that). She went on to say that could be considered a violation of the First Commandment. Now the terminology is different than I use, as an agnostic, but that happens to be exactly my position (merely expressed in the terminology of a Christian rather than the terminology of an agnostic).

My articles have regularly explained the "magic wand" theory of government advocated by Reid, Pelosi, Obama, and the rest on the left. That is the theory that all the Federal Government has to do is wave a magic wand, and solve any and all of our problems. I have also--correctly--asserted that, for leftists, this is a RELIGION--their main religion, instead of Christianity or any other recognized religion. Is this not the very thing that Sharon Angle has said? Of course it is, except Sharon Angle has said the same thing from the point of view of a Christian. I have said that leftists have made the Federal Government into a false god, and leftism into a false religion. So has Sharon Angle. Now Sharon Angle believes in One True God, while I am a skeptic (without being sure she is wrong). So Sharon Angle can talk about this raising of the Federal Government to a position of a god to be worshipped as a violation of the First Commandment. I can only say it is a violation of both theory (of economics and government) and of the lessons of all of recorded history.

Just last week, I wrote an article giving my personal opinion that President Obama is not a Christian. That is not because I think he is a Muslim. I don't. It is because his only ral religion is leftism. I can only express my opinion on Obama, based on circumstantial evidence, but I can flatly state that Nancy Pelosi has no religion but leftism. I have PROVEN that in previous articles, using her own words. For example, she said (when asked to rationalize her fanatic pro-abortion position with the position of the Catholic religion in which she supposedly believes) that: "God gave me a brain and free will for a purpose. He must have expected me to use them. I will discuss it with Him when the time comes' (Or words to that effect, which I quoted exactly in the original article). Pelosi's positron happens to be EXACTLY my position--after taking into account that I am a lot smarter than she is. One of the reasons I don't believe in religion is that I refuse to turn my will and brain over to God. It is a horrible thing to realize that Nancy Pelosi and I are soul mates--of a sort. Sharon Angle is right. Nancy Pelosi's only God is Big Government, and her only religion is leftism.

Didn't President Obama convince me he is a Christian in that "back yard" in New Mexico (not far from here in El Paso, where Obama managed to previously speak at Ft. Bliss without hardly mentioning the war zone right across the river in Juarez, Mexico, with stray bullets spraying El Paso from time to time)? Nope. Obama merely further convinced me he believes in no religion but leftism, and no God but the God of Big Government. Did Obama say that he accepted God, and Jesus Christ, into his heart, and felt their touch? Not on your lief. I think he would be EMBARRASSED to say anything like that, while Sharon Angle would not be. What Obama said was that the was "attracted" to the "precepts" of Jesus Christ--mentioning the Golden Rule (nor original or exclusive with Christianity) and "my brother's keeper" (which phrase was not used so much by Jesus Christ as--in a different context--in the Old Testament story of Cain and Abel). But the point is not whether Obama got his scripture right, but that Obama talked about a CHOICE he made as an adult based on whether Christianity agreed with HIM (Obama). You do not choose a religion like Christianity the same way you choose a political party. If you choose to be a Christian because you believe in your view of the message of Jesus Christ on POLICY MATTERS, then you are choosing a religion for the wrong reason. Obama is asserting the right, just like Pelosi, to evaluate whether God is getting it right. I firmly believe that most--not all, but most--leftists think the same way. That is exactly the opposite to the way a true believer looks at religion--where God is supposed to instruct the true believer. As I say, and have said, I agree with Sharon Angle that Obama' true religion is leftism, and that his false god is Big Government directed from an all-powerful Federal Government. As an agnostic, I don't care whether he is "really" a Christian. I do care that his substitute religion is so dangerous, and so destructive of the country and the traditions that made this country great.

Don't you admire that Sharon Angle and I ae able to "reach across the spiritual aisle" and find common ground? You say you would be more impressed if Sharon Angle felt the same way? Well, maybe you are right. Not too many women can stomach me, and I have been told I am going to Hell more than one time (mostly jokingly, I THINK). The problem is that I will share Hell, if it exists, with som many leftists--especially "journalists". I digress. I still think it is rather amazing that Sharon Angle and I--not to mention t Nancy Pelosi and I--can arrive at exactly the same point from very different starting places. Now Angle and I arrived at the same point on matter os this world, while differing on spiritual matters, while Pelosi and I arrive at agreement on spiritual matters, while disagreeing strongly on matters of this world. Agreement nevertheless (although at least Pelosi would probably deny that she agrees with me on the basics of agnostic skepticism, because she is simply too stupid to realize the implications of her own "philosophy").

The evil assumption here is that Sharon Angle is not "allowed" to look at things through the prism of her own religious philosophy, just as much as I am "allowed" to look at things through the prism of my own agnostic/skeptical philosophy. To even raise the question whether Angle has a "right" to refer to religion to make her secular point is an intolerant insult. She clearly has that right, and criticism of such religious references in misplaced. Our Declaration of Independence says that people are "endowed by their Creator..." with inalienable rights. Imagine if Sharon Angle had said THAT!!!!!!!!! As I have stated i a previous article, I believe that is thre reason President Obama (deliberately, in my view) misquoted the Declaration of Independence in a recent speech, leaving out "by their Creator". He was catering to the anti-religious left, and mainstream media, just as his "explanation" of his Christian "faith" in new Mexico was a cynical, and deliberate, attempt to defuse "doubts" about whether he is a Christian. And some on the anti-religious left have criticized Obama for it. They would like all references to God to be deleted from our public discourse--absurd and intolerant as that position is.

Nope. Sharon Angle is NOT saying that God is "on her side" in politics. What she said was that--frm her point of view, stated in terms she expected her audience to understand--leftist Democrats have raised the Federal Government to god-like status. I agree totally with her, even to that terminology, although I would not go on--as an agnostic--and refer to the First Commandment. What is the fundamental characteristic of God? I would say that it is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and the source of all good in the universe. Is that not the way leftist Democrats look at the Federal Government? I think so, and it is a perfectly reasonable SECULAR position. Indeed, that is the fundamental flaw in the leftist world view. If God exists, He may be all of those things. The Federal Government is not. Politicians and Federal bureaucrats are merely fallible people, incapable of running everything with a magic wand. They do not have infinite knowledge, and their attempt to suggest that they do have a god-like ability to run our entire economy, and all of our lives, is a DELUSION that threatens to destroy us. Yes, I did just say that it is leftist Democrats who are insane, and not Sharon Angle. You say I am also saying that some establishment Republicans are equally insane? I am glad you are finally getting it.

Iran, Ahmadinejad, Insanity and Evil: The Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press (Iran's opinion of the NYC imam and proposed mosque?)

" Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provoked yet another controversy Thursday saying a majority of people in the United States and around the world believe the American government staged the Sept. 11 terror attacks in an attempt to assure Israel's survival."

The above is the lead paragraph from the "Anti-American, Despicabble Associated Press" now featured on Yahoo "News" (BOYCOTT YAHOO).

Nope. The story just does not cut it. The AP has again earned its official name (quoted above), as it did when it featured a story that the Hugo Chavez Administraton in Venezuela believed that 9/11 was an "inside job" of the Bush Administration. Yep, the AP presented that previous story as a perfectly reasonable, straight "news" story ("despicable" is too kind a word for the anti-American AP).

"...rovoked a controversy"? Give me a break. Yes, I could tell the AP how to do this, but if the AP hired anyone like me they would not be the truly incompetent, evil people that they are. Nope. I am sorry. There is no "controversy" here. As with the Chavez story, this was merely the INSANE, evil Iranian President insultng the United States with that KOOK conspiracy theory of the American left. This is NOT "provacative" (as the AP said in the next paragraph). It is using a KOOK assertion as a mortal insult. Christine O'Donnell would kill for this kind of neutral story from the despicable AP.

Think how the desicable AP would have reported this story if the Iran President had said that Barack Obama was not legitimate because he was born outside of the United States (ALMOST as much of a kook theory--"almost" because it is slightly more possible that it might have hapened, although there is no evidence that it did). The mind boggles at what the AP would say to the "birther" statement (I recommend it to Ahmadinejad, but I think he knows that he is appealing to the left here). I assure you that the story would not be that the Iran President had "provoked controversy".

You may think I am overreacting here. I am not. I know the despicable AP, and the people who write for it, better than any other person on Earth. If anything, I have not been strong

JFK: Right Wing Kennedy Nut Gives Rich Tax Break; Corrupt and Biased Yahoo (Boycott Yahoo

Yes, I was in high school--in the high school library, in fact--when I heard President Kennedy had been assassinated. JFK was the LAST Democrat I ever supported for President (admittedly, as a child). who I ever supported for President, although I made a vow to support Hillary Clinton (feminist--oh, the SHAME--that I am) if she had only won the nomination. And I regret not supporting Bill Clinton against Bush 41 (traitors that both of the Bush Presidents have been to conservatives--although the thought of Al Gore and John Kerry keeps me from regretting my votes for Bush 43).

By today's leftist Democrat standards, JFK was a RIGHT WING NUT. He lowered the top income tax rate on the rich, and could be regarded as the inspiration of the later Reagan tax cuts that brought us out of the Carter malaise and recession. Reagan, of course, began the best 20 years that any political entity has ever had on this Earth. That included the Clinton/Gingrich years, after the 1994 Republican takeover of the House resulting from that former failure of Hillarycare. JFK was also a HAWK on foreign policy (blockade of Cuba, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, etc.). In fact, I can still remember JFK assusing the Eisenhower (lol) Administration of letting a missile GAP develop with the Soviet Union. So even though JFK brought a lot of these leftist elitists into government, JFK could be regarded as more of an ancestor of today's TEA PARTY than of today's leftist Democrats.

Now you know, and I know, that the present Kennedy family are generally as FAR LEFT as you can get. That is far from the right wing politics of JFK. But what is does mean is that every time a Republican tries to simply assert that present day Republicans are more in tune with JFK (the President) than present day Democrats, the Kennedy family asserts that they have sole control over the memory of JFK, and that the Republican is dishonoring that memory. Sez who? JFK was assassinated about FIFTY YEARS ago. As President, he "belonged" to us all. The idea that the leftist Kennedy family "controls" his memory is absurd. Of course they can DISPUTE the accuracy of any Republican attack based on the right wing politics of JFK, or they can argue that he would be a leftist Democrat if he were alive today. But to assert that there is something wrong with a Republican running a JFK clip/ad is ABSURD.

Segue to Yahoo "news". As I have proven time and time again, Yahoo is one of the most CORRUPT and BIASED "news" outlets in America today (BOYCOTT YAHOO). No, Yahoo is not much different that the CORRUPT other members of the mainstream media, but Yahoo is my Uverse default page. That means I SEE Yahoo every day. Therefore, I know what I am talking about on Yahoo (BOYCOTT YAHOO).

Linda McMahon (Republican candidate for the Senate against the guy who MISREPRESENTED his Vietnam serve--something as to which I also have personal knowledge, since I served in the United States Army during Vietnam, but would never imagine that I would suggest that I had actually served in Vietnam because of that army service)--Linda McMahon has run an ad featuring JFK. The LEFT WING Kennedy family has predictably objected. The CORRUPT Yahoo has made this non-story the FEATURED "picture story" on Yahoo "News" at this time--from the point of view of the Kennedy family (politically motivated) that Linda McMahon is in "hot water" with the Kennedy family. This is CORRUPT "journalism". It is a CORRUPT corporation (Yahoo). Nope. This idea that this is a major national story because the Kennedy family wants it to be is EVIL stuff. Let me be as blunt as I can: It is the Kennedy family who's is trading on the memory of JFK, fifty years after the fact. I regard that as a shameful thing, but not as shameful as the PANDERING of Yahoo to the Kennedy family.

The FACT is that JFK was MUCH more conservative than today's Democrats, and that his main economic achievement was a TAX CUT FOR THE RICH (among others). Yes, Kennedy only reduced the top rate (which NOBODY paid) from 90% to 70% (think of how many BILLIONS or TRILLIONS of dollars that meant to the "rich"). But Ronald Reagan would continue the JFK revolution, after Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson almost destroyed the country (along with establishment Republicans like Nixon and Ford).

Linda McMahon has a perfect right to invoke the legacy of JFK--a legacy for us all. It is YAHOO which deserves to be in "hot water", and is (with me, anyway).

Christine O'Donnell and the Salem Witch Trials: Burning Conservatives at the Stake (Did MSNBC and CNN Really Burn Joan of Arc?)

"Thou shalt not suffer a conservative to live."

Yep. That is what it says in the CNN/MSNBC?mainstream media version of the Bible.

Did I just say that CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the mainstream media are as bad as those who committed evil in the name of Christianity at the Salem Witch Trials? How perceptive of you. That is exactly what I just said--the only difference being that no one has yet died (not always true of the mainstream media, as illustrated by their frequent efforts to stoke Muslim hatred in the world, as with the FALSE Newsweek story about a GITMO guard supposedly urinating on the Koran).

You might remember how the left used to think it was so bad--before they became the main practitioners of the practice, without as much justification--that people were harassed over any association with the Communist Party--even a youthful one. The Communist Part of the United States, yoiu understand, was later revealed--from KGB Russian files--to be an AGENT of the Soviet Union. That made members of the Communist Party--knowingly or unknowingly--traitors to the USA.

Well, these nuclear level hypocrites on the left, and in the mainstream media, have discovered a video (from the old Bill Maher TV show, which was supposed to be a lighthearted program--a video of Christine O'Donnell saying she once "dabbled in witchcraft". The video is some 12 years old, and O'Donnell was referring to HIGH SCHOOL. Yet, the mainstream media is pl laying this video clip over and over again--proving nothing about Christine O'Donnell but proving that the mainstream media is on a level with the evil of the Salem Witch Trails and the Spanish Inquisition. Never have evil people so clearly exposed themselves to be evil as have the mainstream media, and the rest of the left, with regard to Christine O'Donnell.

One of the "explanations" of the Salem Witch Trials is that people who did not "fit in" with the establishment were targeted for being "different". That is definitely the "explanation" for the Inquisition: a deliberate attempt to punish any variations from "orthodoxy"--as defined by whoever was in charge of the establishment. It was a dark time for a large part of Christianity (as today is a dark time for a large part of Islam, which is about at the level of the old Inquisition). This leads to this conclusion: This is a really DARK time for the mainstream media in America, as a desperate, failing mainstream media turns to the tactics of the Inquisition.

It is ironic that Christine O'Donnell's opponent has admitted to being a MARXIST (at least in the past)--surely more relevant than a teenage fascination with the TRAPPINGS of witchcraft। When I previously used this quote ("thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"), some smart alack commented that the Bible could more accurately be translated as "poisoner" rather than "witch". I did not, and do not, quite buy that, but it is absolutely true that the Bible refers to a specific type of evil creature doing evil things, and NOT to Elizabeth Montgomery in "Bewitched", harry Potter, or the numerous other fantasy type of "witchcraft" in which Christine O'Donnell may have "dabbled" in high school.

Who are the most narrow minded hypocrites in the world today? Well, you start with the mainstream media. Then you go on to the rest of the left. You go on to the Islamic extremists--where you can expect Ahmadinead to get a more respectful reception from Larry King and CNN than CNN would give Christine O'Donnell. Finally, byou may get to the more narrow minded of the evangelical Christians. Am I saying that evangelical Christians are more brad minded and tolerant than CNN and MSNBC? Dman right. As an agnostic myself, I can evaluate this with objectivity. The people of CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the mainstream media are about the most narrow minded hypocrites to exist in the world today.

And their (CNN, MSNBC and the rest) contempt for Christians knows no bounds. What is the real purpose of this attempt to SMEAR Christine O'Donnell with this "dabbled with witchcraft" stuff? Does the left--of which the mainstream media is a part--CARE if President Obama, or any other oon-conservative, sacrificed a sheep to SATAN last night? Not a chance. If they found out any such thing, they would cover it up as "irrelevant". So what is this high school playing with witchcraft irrelevance all about? oh, come on. You know this one. It is about the mainstream media assuming CHRISTIANS to be as narrow minded and stupid as the mainstream media thinks they are, and as the mainstream media really is. The mainstream media thinks CHRISTIANS (a more alien race to the mainstream media than I am to Christians) will PUNISH Christine O'Donnell for this, while ignoring that her opponent i,s or was, a CONFESSED MARXIST (and still as left as they come--referring to the Democrat running against O'Donnell). Can you Christians even imagine the utter CONTEMPT in which the mainstream media holds you? If you did, not a single on of you who is really a Christian would ever vote for a candidate supported by CNN or MSNBC or the left.

Can you not see Karl Rove in the Vincent Price movie role as the hypocritical Grand Inquisitor of the Inquisition using his establishment power for his own selfish ends? I can. It is a role Rove is already playing--making him a new star for the hypocrites in the mainstream media.

Think of how good Christine O'Donnell must really be. The MAIN allegations CNN and MSNBC are making against her are that she was against masturbation (as a yung woman) and played around a little with witchcraft in high school (maybe she even went to Halloween parties as a witch!!!!!!!!). I have said that Christine O'Donnell is no Thomas Jefferson. I take it back. If this is the WORST that can be said about Christine O'Donnell, then Thomas Jefferson was no Christine O'Donnell. The woman much be just about perfect.

Nope. If you profess to think it is "relevant" that Christine O'Donnell said she "dabbled in witchcraft" in high school, then you are one of tow things: a liar or a truly evil person on a par with the people who were responsible for the Salem Witch Trials. I visited Salem about a year ago, and saw the graves of the victims. It is my fondest wish that Christine O'Donnell be remembered, like those victims, long after the evil people persecuting her are dead (the persecutors of Salem only being remembered,of course, for the EVIL they did--like Cotton Mather, if I am remembering the name.

P.S. I am aware that burning at the stake was not the preferred punishment at Salem. However, it was previously one of the usual punishments for heresy and witchcraft. You might remember Joan of Arc, who--unless my memory is betraying me--was burned at the stake as a witch. I actually believe CNN and MSNBC had time travel agents who trashed Joan of Arc, and arranged her burning. You will remember that her main crime was to stand up for "her" people against the establishments of the time. Was she really mentaly ill, as some now calim, or was that just the SMEAR spread by CNN and MSNBC.

P.P.S. When I talk about President Obama sacrificing a sheep to Satan above, the original version had him sacrificing a human fetus. I decided to go with the sheep, but the original was probably more apt.

The weekly report on new unemployment claims (for last week) came out again Thursday. It shows that President Obama lost 464,000 (gross, but that is the way he counts "created/saved" jobs) last week--representing more than 30,000 more jobs A WEEK being lost. In other words, the number was up more than 30,000 from last week's reported number. You will remember that the mainstream media (lol--as if these comic geniuses/corrupt liars are anything but stupid political hacks) HYPED last week's report (falsely) as the "lowest number in two years". In fact, the corrupt liars at the Associated Press, and equally corrupt Yahoo "news", had this headline this morning: "New jobless claims jump from two year low.". The story itself proves the headline a LIE. What really happened here. I told you last week--in foresight rather than hindsight. Last week's reported weekly number of new unemployment claims was 429,000 In isolation, that was a GOOD "news" kind of number--if confirmed to be real. As I told you last week, there were reasons to believe the number was NOT REAL, but a result of a statistical glitch in the "seasonal adjustment caused--at least in part--by a decision by "Government Motors" (GM) not to do the usual July layoffs for retooling. My brother---former co-woner of a trucking company who had to know these things for business reasons--confirmed that GM ALWAYS shut down the first two week's of July. However, now that it is owned by the government, GM chose not to do so this year. That messed up the "seasonal adjustment" all to Hell--along with probably other glitches in the seasonal adjustment made, by formula, every week to get to the reported number. In other words, last week's 429,000 reported number was FICTION--not real at all, but the result of a statistical fluke/glitch. I told you last week that this was very possibly true, but that we would have to wait for this week's number to know for sure. Well, we now know, and it is conclusively proven that last week's reported number was FICTION. The corrupt liars at the AP even say so, in the body of the AP story, while the headline still lies by referring to last week as a "two year low". As I stated last week, even the fictional 429,000 was not statistically a "two year low", because the number had reached that level in the November-December (of 2009) time period. If anything hs proven by the past two weeks, it is that a variation of several thousand in this weekly jobless claims number is MEANINGLESS, from ANY statistical point of view. As I correctly told you last week, the four week average is a better gauge of where we really are on layoffs (every new unemployment claim representing a laid off worker). The four week average for all of December (7 months ago) was 455,000. What is the four week average right now? Right. Essentially that same 455,00000. Obama has FAILED. We have NOT IMPROVED in more than seven months. President Obama said he was "focusing like a laser beam" on "jobs, jobs, jobs", and he has FAILED. Layoffs are the same now as they were in December--not just this last week but the four week average week after week. Does this week's reported number of new jobless claims "erase" last week's number, as the corrupt liars at the AP asserted when the weekly numbers went from 459,000 to 475,000 and back to 458,0000 (the three weeks prior to last week's fictional number of 429,000)? Well, I am not a liar like the people of the AP. This week's number does not QUITE "erase" last week's "improvement". At least, we cannot show that to be tre from these numbers alone. To "erase" the previous drop, the two week average would have to be about 458,000. The two week average (this week and last week's reported numbers) is slightly under 450,000. That has happened a number of times since December, and does not represent any kind of "trend". It does not change that there has been NO IMPROVEMENT in the weekly jobless claims number since December. But we can't quite say that the effect oft eh 429,000, fictional number of last week has been "erased", since the two week average has not returned to the previous week's 458,0000. Can we say that the last two week's represent any "improvement" at all. Nope. That is not true. First, as stated, there have been a number of occasions since December where the two week average--even the four week average--has been below 450,000. That average has always returned above 450,000--above 450,000 being where it is today. Further, the past two weeks have obviously been BAD weeks for the statistical formula used to "adjusts" the weekly reported number--unusual weeks. There is no way we can say that the average of the past two weeks represents a "real" number. It is entirely possible--even likely--that there are still statistical glitches affecting the two week totals (as well as the one week numbers). Thus, again, we have to wait for numbers in future weeks to show us where we really are. However, SEVEN MONTHS of numbers have shown us we have NO IMPROVEMENT over those seven months--whatever the situation over a few weeks here or a few weeks there. (Note that the four week average is not perfect; that 475,0000 number will drop off next week, leaving the 429,00000 fictional number to perhaps distort the four week average--but note that the four week average will still give you a better idea of what is going on than the individual weeks). As I have repeatedly told you, the message here is that these weekly "new unemployment claim" numbers ONLY mean something OVER TIME. Each weekly number means very little, in itself. Last week's 429,000 number would have meant something if it were confirmed by this week's number. As it is, the two weeks together merely confirm that we are at the same position of NO IMPROVEMENT in which we have been for 7 months. The "good news" is that we have not gotten substantially worse. The bad news is that we have had NO IMPROVEMENT--a total FAILURE of Obama's "laser-beam" focus on jobs. Yes, this weekly number (for the week we are in) will again come out next Thursday, as it does every Thursday (holidays excluded--rather postponed). Thus, we woill always have new numbers. The question is: Will the CORRUPT LIARS at the AP--and tose at Yahoo "News" that feature these AP stories and misleading headlines--ever learn to look at these numbers in context, and even report them in context? Well, lyou know my positioin there. "Corrupt liars" is what I said, and "corrupt liars" is what I meant. I don't think this is just stupidity--although stupidity is there. For the AP, it is all about agenda, and you can't believe a word they say. If you want to know what these numbers really mean, in context, you need to read my articles. What this week's new unemployment claims number (for last week) means is: NO IMPROVEMENT for 7 months, although no evidence we have gotten substantially worse (the problem being that we are in a BAD place, and not getting worse is not good enough).


This week's 464,000 number (for new unemployment claims last week) proves that last week's 429,000 number was FALSE--not correct in any meaningful way. Despite the implication in the AP article on the subject, and even in my references to "averaging" the last two weeks above, the converses is not true. In other words, it is pretty likely that tthis week's 464,000 number is CORRECT--not distorted by a problem with the seasonal adjustment. That is often not true. And it will take a week or two or three to be sure, but there is n0ot much reason to suspect the seasonal adjustment for this week, while the lack of GM layoffs because of GM's decision not to do its customary shut down the first two weeks of Jilly is an obvious "explanation" for the problem last week. That "problem" is NOT "reversed" this week, as it may be when weather or other factors are involved, sice GM did NOT choose to do its layoffs one week later. GM just failed to shut down at alll. And it is difficult to evaluate the matter from "news" reports, because you are not getting "news" (just propaganda and "interpretation" from idiots). If the AP--for example, were interested in "news", it would EXPLAIN the "seasonal adjustment" formula, and why last week was distorted (and any reason this week was distorted the other way). The likelihood is that this week was not distorted, although the raw number (another thing NOT reported by the propagandists at the AP) did go down last week--indicating that the correct number might be below 460,0000 for last week (but still 450,0000 or above).


How should the mainstream media report these numbers, if they were not corrupt liars (not to mentin incompetent)? Easy. NEVER "report" a single week, or a single month (for monthly numbers, like the unemployment rate) without putting the number in context. This means putting the number both in context of pssible distortions AND in context of the numbers over time. A number inconsistent with numbers over time, such as last week's 429,000 number, is a candidate to be WRONG. That should be reported, and the importance of looking at all of theses numbers over time should be emphasized. That means REPORTING the numbers over time. For example, the media should--every week--not only emphasize the four week average, but REPORT (say) the monthly averages for six months, or even a year. Similarly, each month's unemployment RATE, and jobs supposedly added (payroll report) should be reported ONLY in context of 6 or 12 month figures. As stated, possible distortions should be reported, including possible red flags raised in the "raw numbers" and seasonal adjustment formula. None of this is ordinarily done, which is why the AP can get away with CORRUPT LIES week after week. Yes, so can President Obama and other politicians, counting on the media not to correctly do their reporting. I am talking about reporting the relevant FACTS here, and not presenting an "interpretation" of those facts as if it is the "news". For example, the "lead" AP paragraph NEVER simply presents the numbers, including the numbers over time, but ALWAYS present the AP "spin" on the numbers. You don't learn--usually--ANY of the numbers until you get down in the article, and then very little "in context" information (unless it happens to fit the AP agenda).


Again, next week's new unemployment claim number will clarify if the 429,000 number reported last week should simply be DISCARDED (for averaging purposes), or whether it represented a "real" fluctuation in the weekly number. However, we can already say that this weekly number--OVER THE LAST 7 MONTHS--shows NO IMPROVEMENT over at least that amount of time. That means Obama HAS FAILED over that period of time--just when his policies should have been showing results.

Remember how we hot to the present point in Afghanistan, where President Obama is looking to General Petraeus to save his ass--after Obama, Clinton and other Democrats TRASHED General Petraeus in hi original confirmation hearings when President Bush appointed him to save us in Iraq. Remember the "General Betray Us" add by Moveon.org, which Democrats refused to really criticize? In fact, Democrats like Hillary Clnton endorsed the substance of the add--virtually calling Petraeus a liar--without endorsing the disgraceful headline of the ad. I noted this in articles of mine at the time. Yet, there was hardly a peep out of the mainstream media about the extraordinary admission by Democrats--without ever saying so--as to how WRONG they were on Petraeus (including the President himself). Instead of pointing this out, the mainstream media could only talk about how "brilliant" the obvious appointment of Petraeus was by Obama.


What happened on Afghanistan when Obama came into office? Come on. You remember this one. Obama had been boxed in by the leftist position that Afghanistan was the "good war", which Bush had ignored in favor of Iraq. Now you and I know that most of the left did not really mean it--including most of the mainstream media--but were merely trying to criticize Bush. Most of the left never really supported the war in Afghanistan any more than they supported the war in Iraq. By the way, did you notice that we pretty much WON in Iraq--why Petraeus was approved 99-0--even after Democrats like Harry Reid had declared the war LOST. I digress, sort of. Obama was elected promising to more vigorously prosecute the war in Afghanistan, even to the point of INVADING PAKISTAN. But Obama was faced with the problem that his leftist base really wanted to pull back in Afghanistan, rather than "choose" Afghanistan as the "good war" that Bush had neglected--rather, in other words, than "choose" Afghanistan as a war to be fought harder. True, Obama had essentially just promised to pursue Bush's policy in Afghanistan, only with more emphasis on Afghanistan than Iraq, but it was still a conscious choice on Obama's part to increase the intensity of the war in Afghanistan.


But. Obama equivocated, agonized, and searched tea leaves (or consulted George Soros and MSNBC about how to get out of the box he was in). /"To be (in Afghanistan), or not to be ()in Afghanistan), that is the question. Whether it is nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of an outraged left, or............cut and run." (Apologies to Shakespeare). The generals said they needed more troops in Afghanistan, if Obama was to follow through on his promise to do what was needed in Afghanistan.


For sis long months, or so, President Obama agonized over the decision as to what to do in Afghanistan (undermining whatever decision he made). Obama have such a good portrayal of Hamlet that he won an Oscar, Emmy AND a Tony award--the first to ever sweep all three awards in a single year. Obama said he was "weighing all options" in Afghanistan. In the end, Obama tried to cut the baby in half. After agonizing all of those months, Obama decided to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, but arbitrarily (for no apparent reason other than to show he was not giving General McChrystal everything he wanted) reduce the number of additional troops 20 or 30 thousand (I forget) from the number requested. Worse, Obama confused everyone--except the enemy--by saying that we are, indeed, on our way out of Afghanistan (the "cut and run" option), but not until 2011. The confusion as to what this means still exists today.


Did not Obama make Afghanistan "Obama's War", even if it is also Bush's war? Sure, he did. It could even be said that "Afghanistan is a war of Obama's choosing", the way it is now being fought. What else was Obama agonizing over all of those months?


Go back to Vietnam. Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson's war. Johnson was a Democrat. However, that did not stop Democrats from ALMOST running against the Vietnam War in 1968. RFK would probably have done so, as the nominee, if not for Sirhan Sirhan. Democrats DID run against the war in 1972, with George McGovern, even though a Democratic President had got us into the war. In fact, you could say that TWO Democratic Presidents got us into Vietnam with troops, although--in fairness--JFK only put in "ad visors" without committing us to a major war. That did not stop Democrats, in 1972, from trying to make Vietnam "Nixon's war" (even though Nixon was already in the process of pulling us out).


Enter Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican Party (as if anyone but the mainstream media thinks that is important, or that what he says is really important). You will remember that Howard Dean was chairman of the Democratic Party, but that the mainstream media pretty much ignored what Dean said--and what he says now. Here is the hysterical mainstream media reaction to Michael Steele criticizing the war in Afghanistan, and calling it a "war of Obama's choosing":


"As criticism swelled, Steele issued a statement stressing his support for U.S. troops, but he did not acknowledge his factual error about a war launched by former President George W. Bush in response to the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. A senior official in Bush's administration said it would be impossible for the Republican National Committee to speak with credibility on foreign policy if Steele remained chairman."

Yes, before the above paragraph, the mainstream media reporter quoted conservatives, WITH APPROVAL. That, of course, only happens when conservatives criticize a Republican, or another conservative. For example, I actually heard Chris Matthews pretty much trash Obama's Afghanistan policy, and I believe MSNBC regularly does so, but there is not much reporting that "even leftists" are criticizing President Obama on Afghanistan. Note that the story did NOT quote Republican POLITICIANS, but conservative commentators (mostly). Those are the people thqt the mainstream media never mentions in any other context, unless they say something that the mainstream media things can be used against them (and other conservatives, in "guilt by association").


Note how the mainstream media has emphasized that the war was not of Obama's choosing", but "launched" by President Bush (and stated lby Democrats ever since as the war President Bush should have been concentrating on). Yes, the word "choosing" was confusing by Steele, and surely not the best word. But is that all the mainstream media thinks is important--that Steele is trying to "blame" Obama for a war started by President Bush (in an entirely different original manner, supporting the Northern Alliance rather than in a totally American enterprise like in Iraq)?


As usual, the mainstream media is being stupid, for political reasons. What is wrong with Steele's statement is NOT that he is "blaming" Obama for Bush's war. There is, in fact, an isolationist part of the Republican Party, and of old-style (pre-Goldwater) conservatism, that opposed both the Iraq war and the continuing war in Afghanistan. If Ron Paul had taken over the Republican Party, or even become as influential as Howard Dean became in the Democratic Party, there would be little wrong with Steele's statement other than an inartful choice of words ("choosing"). Ron Paul people--as enthusiastic as the Howard Dean people once were, and a fairly significant , if minority, part of the Tea Party movement--generally OPPOSE the war in Iraq, and I think the war in Afghanistan. It is, in fact, perfectly reasonable to say that we should not be bogged down in an extended war in Afghanistan, and that the war in Iraq was counterproductive. Leftists oppose these wars as IMMORAL (evil America), which they are not, unless you are a pacifist). Some on the right--including, I think, Ron Paul--oppose these wars as a MISTAKE in terms of our own treasure and best interest. If the Republican Party had adopted that position, Steele would be fine. And any Republican CANDIDATES taking that position are fine, even if President Bush did get us into Afghanistan. You are not allowed to vote against President Bush. He is not on the ballot. The question is what we do NOW.


Problem for Michael Steele: There may be, and are, a significant number of people--even a majority--who don't really like what we are NOW doing in Afghanistan. As I imply, I don't like the way Obama has done things, including those ridiculous "rules of engagement", although I think it would be a mistake to abandon Afghanistan (unless we have no choice, which I don't think is YET true--having to do with whether there is any potential to end up with an Afghanistan government that can eventually handle the Taliban). Too many people--for Michael Steele--in the Republican Party are like me (even if I am not really any longer in the Republican Party): We generally support Obama's policy in Afghanistan, even if we don't like a lot of the details. Further, we think that we CAN "win" in Afghanistan (if there is any government there, or even potential government, that will not totally undermine our efforts). Further, Republican CANDIDATES are not generally running against the Afghan War.


That is Michael Steele's real problem--not "foot in mouth disease" over one word, hyped by an antagonistic mainstream media. This is not the first time Steele has done this. Even my mother is aware of other statements by Steele undermining the POSITIONS, and people, of the Republican Party (or a large part of it). More and more, Steele has seemed to have one principle: Michael Steele. He certainly does not have conservative principles, and he has not been very smart about that one principle he does have. You can't have the chairman of the Republican Party out there undermining Republican candidates. That is what Steele has consistently done. No, not in an IMPORTANT way, because candidates don't have a problem disavowing the mere chairman of the party, and voters don't pay much attention to that (despite the best efforts of the mainstream media to help Democrats hype this meaningless stuff--meaningless in terms of voting for a particular candidate).


I say these things about Michael Steele with some reluctance. I thought Steele was the most impressive Republican candidate--of any color, running for any office--in 2006. I said that in print, even after he lost his bid for the United States Senate in Maryland. I thought he lost that bid mainly because of RACIST leftist and mainstream media types who refuse to give a black Republican the respect they give a black Democrat. Of course, 2006 was a Democratic year, and that hurt Steele too. You can tell how impressive he was that year in that he came fairly CLOE to winning, despite these handicaps. Yes, I was well aware that Steele was never a "real" conservative, but I still thought he was extremely impressive (much the way I initially thought Scott Brown was impressive, until he actually got in the Senate). Steele may not have believed everything most conservatives believe, but he was very strong in explaining those things where he did agree with me. What happened?


Well, just like Scott Brown, I don't think Michael Steele was ever "real". In fact, he is a lot like Obama. He seems to be good at saying what people like to hear--even people who know better, like me--but with no real core of principle and intelligence to back up that charisma. Sad, but true. Steele will, and should, make little difference in the 2010 elections, even if he stays in his position. The candidates are what matter, and throwing the present rascals out (then throwing the new rascals, like Scott Brown, out, if they fail to come through). Steele has nothing to do with any of that, except to the extent he could have been a positive force helping Republican candidates (and in the media). He will simply, in my view, not be that kind of force, which leaves it up to the individual;al candidates--and US--to handle it without Steele (ignoring him). This may affect money, but Republicans should have no problem with money this time around (if the individual candidate has any ability at all, or if the Democrat is really disliked, which applies to almost all of them). Scott Brown had little money in the beginning, and little support from the RNC


What about Scott Brown? I see the same problem. There is no core of principle and intelligence there, except a short-term ability to tell people what they want to hear (to promote SCOTT BROWN, in other words). Yes, we knew Brown was not really a conservative, but he was saying so many of the right things about government, spending, and taxes. He was even talked about (by that same stupid mainstream media) as a potential PRESIDENT. You don't hear that anymore, for good reason. It is not the Brown VOTES that are so very bad. It is that Brown instantly became the "go to" guy for the Obama Administration to use some cosmetic "concession" to vote for the Obama agenda. The 2300 page financial "reform" bill was an example. Brown gave Democrats "cover" on that bill by getting it initially through the Senate. Now Brown has discovered "problems" with that bill, as it came out of the "conference", even though he KNEW that was going to happen. And no one who really believes in spending restraint and limited government could have voted for the bill in its Senate form. I give Brown--correctly--NO credit for now reversing himself, when the revised bill came out. Nor do I give him credit for getting some taxes (fees) removed from the revised bill. The spending is still there. The vast increase in government power is still there. The REASONS Brown gives for his actions are worse than the votes themselves. It seems that, like Steele, Brown never had any real principles at all.


Does Obama have any real principles? Unfortunately, I think he does. No, not on Afghanistan, where he has tried to have it all ways. But Obama is LEFT to the core. The way he is like Steele and Brown, as well as most politicians, is that Obama is good at telling people what he thinks they want to hear. In fact, Obama was really good at it--better than either Steele or Brown. In other words, Obama is perfectly willing to HIDE his principles with WORDS. However, the leftist principles are there. I have come to the conclusion that Steele and Brown have no core principles at all that they are "hiding". There is just nothing much there. I am disappointed in myself for being fooled by Steele (more than Brown, since what can you expect out of Massachusetts). Steele shows why, even though he is not in a real position of power, we--as voters--have to learn to THROW THE BUMS OUT. It is impossible not to be occasionally fooled by a charismatic politician. We just have to stop electing these people over and over again. Term limits, yes. But WE have the power to impose term limits, if we use it, including the power to limit politicians to ONE term, if they disappoint.


P.S. Remember Obama's speech when he finally quit playing Hamlet, and announced his decision on the troop surge in Afghanistan? He said that his long delay in making a decision did not delay the actual troop surge by even ONE DAY (lol--Obama is a piece of work). That ridiculous statement was far worse--more untrue-obviously untrue--than anything Steele said. The military promptly said so: saying that they could not meet the troop surge target dates fully because they had not even been able to plan to add troops until Obama made his decision. The mainstream media pretty much ignored Obama's obvious lie--in which he was immediately caught. They did not ask, for example, whether voters would hold the lie against Democrats in the 2010 elections, or whether voters would forget by then. (Obama's later, ridiculous, assertion that he was on top of the Gulf oil spill from Day One carried eerie echoes of this earlier "one day" absurdity. Obama says whatever he thinks sounds good--regardless of the truth--and repeats the same type of rhetorical absurdities over and over again, counting on the media to help bail him out by helping people's memories to be short.)


P.P.S. Is the mainstream media really suggesting that voters SHOULD vote against Republican candidates because of what Michael Steele said? Well, almost. They never quite go that far, except maybe on MSNBC, but the mainstream media obviously WANTS to say that--not matter how ridiculous it is. What else can you say about asking whether Steele is bailing out Democrats in November, or whether voters will FORGET by then. Forget what? If voters vote TODAY, only STUPID voters would vote against an actual CANDIDATE because of what Steele said. This kind of reaction actually shows the CONTEMPT in which the mainstream media holds people. They, and leftist Democrats, think people vote for STUPID reasons (partly because they have sometimes been successful in convincing people to do that). I don't share that view. Voters are not generally that dumb, and I think they are getting smarter. That is why the mainstream media is headed for the dustbin of history. Michael Steele's dumb statement--dumb for the reasons I state--should, and will, affect the career of MICHAEL STEELE. It has nothing to do with how voters should, or will, vote on actual CANDIDATES in November.