Yet again, this blog got it right. Just in this last week, and several times before that, this blog told you that Mike Huckabee would be one of the frontrunners for the Repubican nomination for President, EXCEPT that there was a BIG question about whether he was going to run (liking his present life too mcuh).
In fact (you will have to take my word for this one), my 89 year old mother asked me on Saturday, before Huckabee's announcement he would not run, what I thought the announcement would be. She thought he would run. I told her, correctly, that I thought he would not run. Foresight is my specialty.
No, I don't think it (Huckabee's decision) had anything to do with "fear" of Obama. My view of Huckabee was formed long ago, when he was Don Imus' favorite Repubican--except for John McCain. Huckabee was so often a guest on Imus' morning radio program, back in the 1990s, that he was virtually a regular. Imus has shown a talent for pushing PHONIES, publicity hounds, and generally suspect politicians and media figures. John Kerry? Imus featured him? Dan Rather? Imus geatured him, before realizing he was a phony. Joyhn McCain? He was Imus' favorite politician. To me, Huckabee was in the same mold: he liked to hear his own voice way too mch. And it is ONLY on social issues that Huckabee is pretty reliable. Otherwise, his principles are very elastic.
Huckabee HAS what he was seeking so long, from all appearances, at the time he was so often featured on Imus in the Morning. Hcukabee HAS, on Fox, his own program and a forum for his ego. Why give that up? I think this applies even more strongly to Sarah Palin, who has not only Fox, but major influence in the Tea Party, movement and elsewhere. Why give that up to run for President. She SHULD NOT. I don't think she will, BUT I do think that Sarah Palin has a hunger for VALIDATION that Huckabee may not have. The media, leftists, and establishment Repubicans have trashed her. The temptation to take them on has to be overwhelming. I hope she resists it.
Yes, I clearly would have voted for Huckabee against Obama, although it is doubtful I would have suppported Huckabee for the nomination. That is because I think I can trust Huckabee on ABORTION, and other social issues, even though I can't trust him otherwise (like on illegal immigration) I will, much more enthusiastically, support Sarah Palin for President, if she gets the nomination. I am even fairly likely to support Palin for the nomijnation. Still, for her sake, and probably the sake of the conservative movement, I hnope she decides not to run (this time). I am pretty convinced she is not running, albeit with the caveat stated.
Huckabee is out. Ron Paul will not be Prfesident (see previous article). Mitch Daniels is my LEAST favorite of the present Repubicans--an inarticulate stiff with no ability to sell conservative ideas (if Daniels really has any, besides the ideas of the boring accountant he looks and sounds like). Tim Pawlenty continues to UNIMPRESS. Who is left? Palin should not run, and faces an uphill battle. Trump is a joke, and IS NOT RUNNING. Huntsman, of Utah, has no chance. The governor of Mississippi, rightly, decided not to run (no chance). Who is left? As I told you previously, you have the obvius, default choice of Mitt Romney (not trusted, but not disliked and generally perceived as at least competent--my choice in 2008, AND the choice , if too late, of Limabugh, Hannity and the rest). But--as previusly stated in this blog, the road is clear for another candiate to catch fire. Herman Cain is a possiblity. I think Rick Santorum is a possibility. Chris Christie would be a major contender, except he appears not to be running. I don't consider this a "weak" field, in terms of ABILITY. Gary Johnson--the other libertarian, besides Ron Paul, is an idea man who has climbed Everest). What is true, however, is that all of these people have failed to CATCH FIRE. The first Repubican to really CATCH FIRE is going to win, especailly if people like Limbaugh do not betray conservatives, like in 2008, letting someone like McCain get the nomination. Nope. Gingrich has no chance, and will not be President. Some Repubican needs to start saying things like: "President Obama is DESTROYING MEDICARE", and saying them like he or she means them, with aggressive explanations. Michelle Bockman is a person I could support completely, but she has yet to convince me (and many others) that she can really catch fire.
The point is that the Repubicans running are going to have to get over the idea of keeping a low profile, and being the "lat man--or woman--standing". There is a lot of talent here. But someone has to go out and TAKE THE NOMINATION BY TAKING ON OBAMA. Otherwise, it is not that Republicans automatically lose. It is that they are going to be totally relying on the PEOPLE to oppose Obama, rather than favor a Repubican. That may work, but it is a DANGEROUS way to run for office.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (eyesight). I noticed, by the way, that I have been spelling "Huckabee" wrong all of these years. Mental block, rather than my usual typos and inability to see to proofread. I have speleed it "Huckaby" as long as I can remember--from the beginning, I think. That is the spelling written in my mind. Hey. Can I help it if Huckabee spells his name wrong, as Herman Cain does (should be spelled "Kane")? lol. I apologize to Huckabee. Not intentiaonal, although you may think it is a Freudian reaction to my innder doubts about Huckabee. However, I have no such preconceived notions about Cain, and still spelled his name wrong. So I think it is just that I get things in my mind, and just don't register that my mind is fixed on the wrong spelling until the light suddenly dawns.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Ron Paul: Principles, But No President
Yes, this is another example of this blog always being right--although I have a lot of company on this particular prediction and analysis (not so much company with the correct DETAILS of the analysis). Ron Paul will never be President of the United States, even though he is the most principled politician I have ever seen. This blog has told you that repeatedly, over many years, as other libertarian conservatives (albeit I am not nearly as libertarian as Ron Paul) read into Ron Paul what they WANT to hear--as do anti-war people and others who are looking for a different kind of politician. The problem, of course, is that many of these people have little in common with Ron Paul, and little in common with each other, beyond an intense disaffection (which I share) with present-day polilticians AND with "traditional values" (which I do not share). In short, the people who support Ron Paul are NUTS, just like he is, but do not represent a coherent movement (beyond the extreme libertarian movement, with few real--if very passionate--adherents). In contrast, I see Ron Paul for exactly what he is, and still LIKE HIM *without being willng to vote for him for President, except , perhaps, against Barack Obama).
You would not think I would be PROVEN right on Ron Paul, would you, even though I--and others--are so clearly right. Wrong, monkey brain (may a deranged llama defecate on our ice cream--Johnny Carson/Karnak reference). Ron Paul, last week, said that it was a BAD thing for Barack Obama to send those Navy Seals into Pakistan to kill bin Laden, and that Paul would not have done it. Now that is PRINCIPLE. Even I marvel at that much devotion to principle, and even admire it, despite recognizing it as NUTS. You have to admit that Ron Paul has now PROVEN he will never be President of the United states. As I have stated repeatedly, Paul is the ONLY major politician who would dismantle more of the Federal Government than I would (given the chance), but at the same time is an extreme ISOLATIONIST (really a 19th Century concept discredited at Pearl Harbor, if not before).
Look at how Ron Paul has exposed the LEFT, including CNN and the rest of the mainstream media, for the HYPOCRITES they are. Rape and murder a mother and her teenage daughers? Don't despaair. You have SUPPORT on the left--at least for the idea that it would be BARBARIC to EXECUTE you. In fact, a good part of the left might consider you SICK, to be cured rather than punished. Damn right that includes CNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CNN and the mainstream media OPPOSE the death penalty, along with most of the rest of the left, and you merely expose your own agenda and/or ignorance/stupidity if you don't recognize that. Barack Obama condemned Osama bin Laden to death, without a trial. Where are the PRINCIPLES on the left? on CNN? Ron paul has shown those people what PRINCIPLE is all about. I say that as someone who is more than willing to execute BOTH the killer/rapist (:and almost every other murderer) AND Osama bin Laden (yes, without a trial). You can see why the people who support Ron Paul are PASSOIONATE about it--even as you can see that Paul will never be President of the Untied States. As repeatedly stated on this blog--and Ron Paul has again proven-CNN, and most other leftists, are the worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four. They are willing to trade ANY "principle for POWER, because imposeing their leftist beliefs on the rest of us is more important to them than any principle. Ron Paul does not have that kind of arrogant hypocirsy in him. Yes, that is one of the reasons I like Paul much BETTER than I like any ESTABLISHMENT REPUPLICAN, as well.
Doubt me, or Paul (on this rampant hypocrisy on CNN and the rest of the left). Consider the MANTRA of CNN and the left as Republicans threatened to (sham that it was) let DEMOCRATS "shut down" the government rather than keep spending the same amount of money (battle over last year's budget). The CNN (heard them myself) and leftist Democrat "position" was that it was ridiculous to worry over mere BILLIONS of dollars when we face debt and deficits of TRILLIONS of dollars. Dishonest, partisan political hack Jessica Yellen--putting forth the official CNN position--did a "special report" on how the "deluded public" did not realize that Repubicans were only talking about 12% of the budget, while ignoring the REAL "problem" of MEDICARE< SOCIAL SECURITY, and the other "entitlements" (as Obama is creating a NEW "entitlement" to worry about, with ObamaCare). But what was the CNN/leftist Democrat reaction to Repubicans actually proposing to do something about Medicare? What was the CNN reaction to leftist Democrats trying to make a big issue out of WO BILLION dollars in "subsidies" to Big Oil?
Yes. YOu have finally got it. CNN, and leftist Democrats in general (including the rest of the mainstream media, the desicable AP and equally despicable Yahoo "News"), ARE the worst hypocirtes to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. The AP doess a major headline: "Senate Democrat: Big Oil does not need tax breaks".. CNN playyed the DEMOCRAT "hearing' on Big Oil fo rall it was worth. And CNN, joined by the rest of the mainstream media, is gearing up to support the Democrat election strategy for 2012: ATTACK REPUPICANS ON MEDICARE, WITHOUT PROPSOING ANYTHING SERIOUS THEMSELVES. Will CNN and the mainstream media jump on Democrats for thieir blatant political HYPOCRISY, and blatant refusal to propose any serious "reforms" of Medicare? Not a chance. These are the same people who, in the 2010 election, kept demanding that REPUBICNANS show exactly where they would "cut", but let DEMOCRATS get away with NO BUDGET (not even a proposed budgeg)--the very reason for the fight over last year's budget THIS YEAR in the first place.
No, Ron Paul does not have that kind of hyocrisy in him. It is the best thing about him. In fact, I thijnk it is a SAD (and bad) thing that it is now PROVEN that Ron Paul can never be President of the United States. So long as we, the public, let the mainstream media , and other lleftist Democrats (not to mention establishment Repubilcans) LABEL people with real principles as "extgremists" wh cannot be elected, we are stuck with politics as usual. I WISH I could support Ron Paul for President. I am tired of my country being dominated by the worst hypocrites who ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four, even as no one watches CNN or really believes the mainstream media anymore. No, I would be glad to vote for Ron Paul, even though he opposed the raid on Osama bin Laden That is the kind of "gotcha" thing we have to get over if we are going to stop the hypocrites from telling us we can only have hypocritical politicians elected. Unfortunately, my disagreements with Ron Paul on policy are just oo fundamental for me to support him for President--except, perhaps, against Barack Obama.
No. I am NOT a hypocrite. I am MUCH more likely to vote for Ron Paul against Barack Obama than I ever would be to vote for JOHN McCAIN against anyone. You will note that I did NOT vote for John McCain against Barack Obama, and remain much more willing to vote for Ron Paul than I am to vote for a McCain style establishment Repubican in the 2012 election.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking, as usual (eyesight).
You would not think I would be PROVEN right on Ron Paul, would you, even though I--and others--are so clearly right. Wrong, monkey brain (may a deranged llama defecate on our ice cream--Johnny Carson/Karnak reference). Ron Paul, last week, said that it was a BAD thing for Barack Obama to send those Navy Seals into Pakistan to kill bin Laden, and that Paul would not have done it. Now that is PRINCIPLE. Even I marvel at that much devotion to principle, and even admire it, despite recognizing it as NUTS. You have to admit that Ron Paul has now PROVEN he will never be President of the United states. As I have stated repeatedly, Paul is the ONLY major politician who would dismantle more of the Federal Government than I would (given the chance), but at the same time is an extreme ISOLATIONIST (really a 19th Century concept discredited at Pearl Harbor, if not before).
Look at how Ron Paul has exposed the LEFT, including CNN and the rest of the mainstream media, for the HYPOCRITES they are. Rape and murder a mother and her teenage daughers? Don't despaair. You have SUPPORT on the left--at least for the idea that it would be BARBARIC to EXECUTE you. In fact, a good part of the left might consider you SICK, to be cured rather than punished. Damn right that includes CNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CNN and the mainstream media OPPOSE the death penalty, along with most of the rest of the left, and you merely expose your own agenda and/or ignorance/stupidity if you don't recognize that. Barack Obama condemned Osama bin Laden to death, without a trial. Where are the PRINCIPLES on the left? on CNN? Ron paul has shown those people what PRINCIPLE is all about. I say that as someone who is more than willing to execute BOTH the killer/rapist (:and almost every other murderer) AND Osama bin Laden (yes, without a trial). You can see why the people who support Ron Paul are PASSOIONATE about it--even as you can see that Paul will never be President of the Untied States. As repeatedly stated on this blog--and Ron Paul has again proven-CNN, and most other leftists, are the worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four. They are willing to trade ANY "principle for POWER, because imposeing their leftist beliefs on the rest of us is more important to them than any principle. Ron Paul does not have that kind of arrogant hypocirsy in him. Yes, that is one of the reasons I like Paul much BETTER than I like any ESTABLISHMENT REPUPLICAN, as well.
Doubt me, or Paul (on this rampant hypocrisy on CNN and the rest of the left). Consider the MANTRA of CNN and the left as Republicans threatened to (sham that it was) let DEMOCRATS "shut down" the government rather than keep spending the same amount of money (battle over last year's budget). The CNN (heard them myself) and leftist Democrat "position" was that it was ridiculous to worry over mere BILLIONS of dollars when we face debt and deficits of TRILLIONS of dollars. Dishonest, partisan political hack Jessica Yellen--putting forth the official CNN position--did a "special report" on how the "deluded public" did not realize that Repubicans were only talking about 12% of the budget, while ignoring the REAL "problem" of MEDICARE< SOCIAL SECURITY, and the other "entitlements" (as Obama is creating a NEW "entitlement" to worry about, with ObamaCare). But what was the CNN/leftist Democrat reaction to Repubicans actually proposing to do something about Medicare? What was the CNN reaction to leftist Democrats trying to make a big issue out of WO BILLION dollars in "subsidies" to Big Oil?
Yes. YOu have finally got it. CNN, and leftist Democrats in general (including the rest of the mainstream media, the desicable AP and equally despicable Yahoo "News"), ARE the worst hypocirtes to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. The AP doess a major headline: "Senate Democrat: Big Oil does not need tax breaks".. CNN playyed the DEMOCRAT "hearing' on Big Oil fo rall it was worth. And CNN, joined by the rest of the mainstream media, is gearing up to support the Democrat election strategy for 2012: ATTACK REPUPICANS ON MEDICARE, WITHOUT PROPSOING ANYTHING SERIOUS THEMSELVES. Will CNN and the mainstream media jump on Democrats for thieir blatant political HYPOCRISY, and blatant refusal to propose any serious "reforms" of Medicare? Not a chance. These are the same people who, in the 2010 election, kept demanding that REPUBICNANS show exactly where they would "cut", but let DEMOCRATS get away with NO BUDGET (not even a proposed budgeg)--the very reason for the fight over last year's budget THIS YEAR in the first place.
No, Ron Paul does not have that kind of hyocrisy in him. It is the best thing about him. In fact, I thijnk it is a SAD (and bad) thing that it is now PROVEN that Ron Paul can never be President of the United States. So long as we, the public, let the mainstream media , and other lleftist Democrats (not to mention establishment Repubilcans) LABEL people with real principles as "extgremists" wh cannot be elected, we are stuck with politics as usual. I WISH I could support Ron Paul for President. I am tired of my country being dominated by the worst hypocrites who ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four, even as no one watches CNN or really believes the mainstream media anymore. No, I would be glad to vote for Ron Paul, even though he opposed the raid on Osama bin Laden That is the kind of "gotcha" thing we have to get over if we are going to stop the hypocrites from telling us we can only have hypocritical politicians elected. Unfortunately, my disagreements with Ron Paul on policy are just oo fundamental for me to support him for President--except, perhaps, against Barack Obama.
No. I am NOT a hypocrite. I am MUCH more likely to vote for Ron Paul against Barack Obama than I ever would be to vote for JOHN McCAIN against anyone. You will note that I did NOT vote for John McCain against Barack Obama, and remain much more willing to vote for Ron Paul than I am to vote for a McCain style establishment Repubican in the 2012 election.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking, as usual (eyesight).
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Obama Loses 1,747,000 Jobs in Four Weeks: Obama Jobs Failure, as Media Lies Continue
As usual, the number of new jnemployment claims (seasonally adjusted) was reported this morning. Hee are the numbers for the past fou weeks: 404,000 (rvised from 403,000, and a BAD number at the time because it stayed above 4000,000), 4331,0000 (revised from 427,000, and a TERRIBLE number), 478,000 (revised from 474,000, and an INCREDIBLY TERRIBLE number--Armageddon), and today's reported number of 434,0000 (to be revised next week--almost surely upward, as an incompetent media continues to report each week as a concrete number, when the number is always revised and pretty meaningless as an isolated weekly number).
You can see just how BAD this mornings reported 344,0000 new unemployment claims was. It RAISED the four-week average to about 437,000. That is the worst number since the fall of 2010 (fairly early fall). The TWO WEEK number of 912,000 is similarly the worst since the early fall of 2010.. Yes, the number of new unemployment claims (the volatile ONE WEEK number) fell 44,000, but that was only because last week's number was so obviolusly exaggerated the other way. The number of new claims ROSE last week by 47,000. Thus, the AVERAGE for the past two weeks was 456,000, as we did not even return to the same TERIBLE one week number of two weeks earlier (that 41,000).
To put this in perspective, the four-week average from December of 2009 to Well into September of 2010 failed to improve for 10 months--staying in a range of 445,000 (approximately) to 485,000 (approximately). Then that number began--apparently--to improve. By the end of last year, the four-week average was approaching 400,000. For ALL of this year, that average has hovered right around 400,0000--NOT IMPROVING (although dipping slightly below 400,000 at times), but an improvement from the first 9 months of 2010. Now we have regressed almost back to the "bad old day's" of those first 9 months of 2010. We are ALMOST back into that 445.000-490,000 range. Notice that the four-week average will RISE NEXT WEEK, unless next week's number is 404,000 or below. Even that would be BAD, in that the four-week average will still remain above 430,000.
In short, thee job picture, as represented by the number of new unempolyment claims filed, has NOT IMPROVED IN SIX MONNTHS (as Obama has inisisted he is "concentrating" daily on jobs and the economy, while making POLITICAL trips like the one on Tuesday to El Paso for the sole purpose of looking for the Hispanic vote--not exactly "concentrating" on jobs and the economy). Indeed, the job picture seems to be reverting back to the levvel (that 445,000-490,000 weekly new unemployment claim range) we reached starting at the end of November of 2009. The number of new unemployment claims has improved very little in 17 months, as the apparent improvement in the fall of 2010 seems to be in the process of being reversed. As I have consistently shown, the only way these numbers have any meaning is OVER TIME. Over time, the situation is looking really grim. Notice that there is NO NUMBER (no conceivable number) of new unemployment claims that can be reported NEXT WEEK that will be a "goood" number. All you can have is a bad number, or a worse number. The four-week average will remain ABOVE the level of this entire year, not matter what (that is, no matter what conceivable number is reprted next Thursday). These numbers can only improve OVER TIME, as they have gotten worse OVER TIME (always understanding that the number is NOT a hard, concrete number in the first place, as is also true of the other employment numbers).
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. That old cliche' should be on the tombstone of every modern mainstream media "journalist" (not to mention every economist and Wall Street "analyst"). Yes, the mainstream media LIED about today's reported number, by incorrectly using statistics (after playing down last week's almost inconceibably TERRIBLE number). Here are two correctd headlines:
"Two week average of new unemployment claims highest in more than six months"
"Four-week average of unemployment claims reaches six month high"
Here is a third accurate headline:
"Fall in new unemployment claims fails to match last week''s rise, as average disappoints"
Here is the actual headline from the LIARS of the incoompetent Associated Press, as featured on Yahoo "News":
"Fewer peoople apllied for new unemployment benefits last week"
Then, the truly despicable AP (boycott Yahoo for for essentiallly featureing only the AP, and otherwise pushing leftist propaganda) then went on to say (early i the article, before any caveats) that the number of new unemployment claims fell "more stteply" than any time since February. Yep. The AP failed to not that the 44,0000 fall FAILED to even match the 47,000 RISE the previous week, and that the AVERAGE has reached a truly TERRIBLE level. See how statistics can LIE, in the hands of DISHONEST people like those of the mainstream media? Yes, these are also incompetent people, meaning that you can never be quite sure they even understand the lies they are telling. However, periodically, over the past two years, reportng of this volatile weekly number of new unemployment claims has empasized that the four-week average is the more reliable guage of the number of new unemployment claims than the volatile weekly number. That is usually when the four-wek number fits the AGENDA of the partisan hacks of the mainstream media. My personal opinion is that these people--dishonest that they are--have pretty much given up on the four-week average (realizing, finally, how STUPID their mainpulatioin of "reporting that number seemed to be), in favor of "SPINNING" the weekly number (playing it down when it is bad, and playing it up when it can be SPUN to be a "good" number).
Thus, the mainstream media has treated today's "news' on new unemployment claims as GOOD "news". As shown above, it is actually TERRIBLE news. Economists (using the "metod" I told you about last week, because everyone realized the 474,000 reported last week had to be an exaggerated number) "predicted" today's number of new unemployment claims would come in at 428,000. Everyone new that today's number had to come down from last week's extremely high numbre, or esle we weere again at Armageddon. Yes, it is possible that this week's number could have been worse. That, however, does not change that today's reported number was a TERRIBLE number, under any objective analysis.
But what about the "fact" that the economy "added" 244,000 jobs in April, while the numbers on new unemployment claims were so BAD? Yes, what about that? The economy "grew" in the first quarter by a miniscule 1.8%--a number which economists agree is NOT ENOUGH to "create" a significant number of jobs. New unemployment claims rose in April to the highest rate of the year. The unemployment RATE rose to 9% in April. Thos numbers are INCONSISTENT with the supposed growth in net jobs in Apirl (my hedline referring to GROSS job loss, to satirize Obama's use of GROSS JOB GAIN when it suits his purposes). In other words, all of the employment data is consistent with the other data, EXCEPT the supposed reasonably good (not great) reported net job gain for April. That emphasizes tow things. First this data is SUBJECTIVE, rather than representing hard numbers. Second, the supposed reasonably "good" job 'growth" for April is probably FALSE--inconsistent with the other data.
Q.E.D The mainstream media are composed of lying, incompetnet partisan hacks. And Obama has FAILED on jobs, as he lies about "concentrating" on jobs and the economy. What he is "concentrating" on is his reelection. CAMPAIGNING (where hhe thinks he can say anything, and not be acalled on it, for good reason) is what Obama LIKES to do anyway.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking, as usual. Here, again, are the terrible reported number of new unemployment claims for the past 4 weeks, after the media had made much of the weekly number falling below 400,0000 fairly consistently (although hovering right around 400,000): 404,000, 431,000, 478,000 and 434,000 (434,000 being this week's number, still to be revised next week). I repeat the numbers just in case I typed them wrong, or otherwise garbled them in the text above.. Any fool can really see how bad those numbers are over the past four weeks, in comparison with the rest of the year. But the mainstream media "journalists" make fools look good.
You can see just how BAD this mornings reported 344,0000 new unemployment claims was. It RAISED the four-week average to about 437,000. That is the worst number since the fall of 2010 (fairly early fall). The TWO WEEK number of 912,000 is similarly the worst since the early fall of 2010.. Yes, the number of new unemployment claims (the volatile ONE WEEK number) fell 44,000, but that was only because last week's number was so obviolusly exaggerated the other way. The number of new claims ROSE last week by 47,000. Thus, the AVERAGE for the past two weeks was 456,000, as we did not even return to the same TERIBLE one week number of two weeks earlier (that 41,000).
To put this in perspective, the four-week average from December of 2009 to Well into September of 2010 failed to improve for 10 months--staying in a range of 445,000 (approximately) to 485,000 (approximately). Then that number began--apparently--to improve. By the end of last year, the four-week average was approaching 400,000. For ALL of this year, that average has hovered right around 400,0000--NOT IMPROVING (although dipping slightly below 400,000 at times), but an improvement from the first 9 months of 2010. Now we have regressed almost back to the "bad old day's" of those first 9 months of 2010. We are ALMOST back into that 445.000-490,000 range. Notice that the four-week average will RISE NEXT WEEK, unless next week's number is 404,000 or below. Even that would be BAD, in that the four-week average will still remain above 430,000.
In short, thee job picture, as represented by the number of new unempolyment claims filed, has NOT IMPROVED IN SIX MONNTHS (as Obama has inisisted he is "concentrating" daily on jobs and the economy, while making POLITICAL trips like the one on Tuesday to El Paso for the sole purpose of looking for the Hispanic vote--not exactly "concentrating" on jobs and the economy). Indeed, the job picture seems to be reverting back to the levvel (that 445,000-490,000 weekly new unemployment claim range) we reached starting at the end of November of 2009. The number of new unemployment claims has improved very little in 17 months, as the apparent improvement in the fall of 2010 seems to be in the process of being reversed. As I have consistently shown, the only way these numbers have any meaning is OVER TIME. Over time, the situation is looking really grim. Notice that there is NO NUMBER (no conceivable number) of new unemployment claims that can be reported NEXT WEEK that will be a "goood" number. All you can have is a bad number, or a worse number. The four-week average will remain ABOVE the level of this entire year, not matter what (that is, no matter what conceivable number is reprted next Thursday). These numbers can only improve OVER TIME, as they have gotten worse OVER TIME (always understanding that the number is NOT a hard, concrete number in the first place, as is also true of the other employment numbers).
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. That old cliche' should be on the tombstone of every modern mainstream media "journalist" (not to mention every economist and Wall Street "analyst"). Yes, the mainstream media LIED about today's reported number, by incorrectly using statistics (after playing down last week's almost inconceibably TERRIBLE number). Here are two correctd headlines:
"Two week average of new unemployment claims highest in more than six months"
"Four-week average of unemployment claims reaches six month high"
Here is a third accurate headline:
"Fall in new unemployment claims fails to match last week''s rise, as average disappoints"
Here is the actual headline from the LIARS of the incoompetent Associated Press, as featured on Yahoo "News":
"Fewer peoople apllied for new unemployment benefits last week"
Then, the truly despicable AP (boycott Yahoo for for essentiallly featureing only the AP, and otherwise pushing leftist propaganda) then went on to say (early i the article, before any caveats) that the number of new unemployment claims fell "more stteply" than any time since February. Yep. The AP failed to not that the 44,0000 fall FAILED to even match the 47,000 RISE the previous week, and that the AVERAGE has reached a truly TERRIBLE level. See how statistics can LIE, in the hands of DISHONEST people like those of the mainstream media? Yes, these are also incompetent people, meaning that you can never be quite sure they even understand the lies they are telling. However, periodically, over the past two years, reportng of this volatile weekly number of new unemployment claims has empasized that the four-week average is the more reliable guage of the number of new unemployment claims than the volatile weekly number. That is usually when the four-wek number fits the AGENDA of the partisan hacks of the mainstream media. My personal opinion is that these people--dishonest that they are--have pretty much given up on the four-week average (realizing, finally, how STUPID their mainpulatioin of "reporting that number seemed to be), in favor of "SPINNING" the weekly number (playing it down when it is bad, and playing it up when it can be SPUN to be a "good" number).
Thus, the mainstream media has treated today's "news' on new unemployment claims as GOOD "news". As shown above, it is actually TERRIBLE news. Economists (using the "metod" I told you about last week, because everyone realized the 474,000 reported last week had to be an exaggerated number) "predicted" today's number of new unemployment claims would come in at 428,000. Everyone new that today's number had to come down from last week's extremely high numbre, or esle we weere again at Armageddon. Yes, it is possible that this week's number could have been worse. That, however, does not change that today's reported number was a TERRIBLE number, under any objective analysis.
But what about the "fact" that the economy "added" 244,000 jobs in April, while the numbers on new unemployment claims were so BAD? Yes, what about that? The economy "grew" in the first quarter by a miniscule 1.8%--a number which economists agree is NOT ENOUGH to "create" a significant number of jobs. New unemployment claims rose in April to the highest rate of the year. The unemployment RATE rose to 9% in April. Thos numbers are INCONSISTENT with the supposed growth in net jobs in Apirl (my hedline referring to GROSS job loss, to satirize Obama's use of GROSS JOB GAIN when it suits his purposes). In other words, all of the employment data is consistent with the other data, EXCEPT the supposed reasonably good (not great) reported net job gain for April. That emphasizes tow things. First this data is SUBJECTIVE, rather than representing hard numbers. Second, the supposed reasonably "good" job 'growth" for April is probably FALSE--inconsistent with the other data.
Q.E.D The mainstream media are composed of lying, incompetnet partisan hacks. And Obama has FAILED on jobs, as he lies about "concentrating" on jobs and the economy. What he is "concentrating" on is his reelection. CAMPAIGNING (where hhe thinks he can say anything, and not be acalled on it, for good reason) is what Obama LIKES to do anyway.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking, as usual. Here, again, are the terrible reported number of new unemployment claims for the past 4 weeks, after the media had made much of the weekly number falling below 400,0000 fairly consistently (although hovering right around 400,000): 404,000, 431,000, 478,000 and 434,000 (434,000 being this week's number, still to be revised next week). I repeat the numbers just in case I typed them wrong, or otherwise garbled them in the text above.. Any fool can really see how bad those numbers are over the past four weeks, in comparison with the rest of the year. But the mainstream media "journalists" make fools look good.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
El Paso, Obama, the Associated Press and Yahoo: Dissing El Paso (Bigots?)
Look at yesterday's article about President Obama's POLITICAL visit to El Paso to push illegal immigration (by making it legal). Has Obama DISRESPECTED El Paso by ignoring the truly dangerous situation in Juarez, Mexico, until Obama began his reelection campaign and decided he is pushing for Hispanic votes? Darn right. In fact, Obama has DISSED Hispanics (the vast majority) by deliberately associating Hispanics with ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. That is the main bigotry going on here: a cynical type of group politics that assumes that His panics can be SOLD on the idea that it HELPS them to be associated with illegal immigrants, and that those people who want to actually stop illegal immigration are bigoted against Hipanics. As stated, it is actually the opposite. Presdient Obama, the Associated Press, Yahoo and the mainstream media are BIGOTS who look at people solely as members of groups who can be induced, by propaganda, to vote one way because of GROUP power politics. But there is a more direct disrespect of El Paso going on here.
Look again at that AP/Yahoo (featured on the despicable Yahoo "News") referenced by me in my article yesterday. The headline (not quoted by me yesterday, but consistent with the lead paragraph I did quotge) did not MENTIION EL PASO. The headline did mention TEXAS, even thoiugh those who live in El Paso (like me) recognize that El Paso has very little relationship with the rest of Texas. Nope. I am NOT saying that El Paso is more associated with MEXICO. Rather, El Paso is virtually surrounded by NEW MEXICO--tucked in a corner of Texas between Mexico and New Mexico (some 550-600 miles from Texas power and population centers in Dallas, San Antonio and Austin, and more than that from Houston).
WHY was El Paso not even mentiioned by the desicable Associated Press? Is it BIGOTRY? Indirfectlyl, it is. As tated above, the whole purpose of the Obama trip was to PROMOTE illegal immigration and (:he hopes) the Hispanic vote. That troup polkitics is BIGOTED. It also explains why EL PASO was not emphasized--the mainstream media always taking their lead from Obama and the Democrats. El Paso (always a pretty much Democratic city in Texas, but with a limited number of Texas votes, as politicians know) is NOT going to "help" Obama get reelected. But Obama is counting on HISPANICS. Obama is, in fact, not interested in El Paso OR the Mexican border. Why else did he wait until now to come to the border to push his reelection--while IGNORING the Mexican border in his previous trip to make a speech at Ft. Blisss (in El Paso)??
Nope. The despicable AP was DELIBERATELY DISSING El Paso. Yahoo was DELIBERATELY DISSING EL PASO. This was all about Obama's reelection, and that is why the despicable AP ignnored El Paso yesterday in its "lead". It is why the AP and Yahoo ignored El Paso in the headline. It is why Obama paid no attention to BULLETS hitting El Paso from across the border in Juarez, even when tghe Texas attorney general wrote him a letter and Governor Perry tried to talk to him about the border situation, but NOW visits El Paso (while, at the same time, dissing El Paso.).
Yes, I tried to talk to Obama in my secret meeting--the real purpose of the visit being an attempt by Obama to somehow defuse this blog. You saw the response I got to my constructive advice on illegal immigration and bigotry. Obama MOCKED me!!!! Oh, I know. The despicable mainstream media--including the AP--said Obama was "mocking the GOP" (in yet anoterh appeal to "civility", as he was internally concentrating on "jobs and the economy"). . However, Obama was really mocking ME, because he can't handle the truth (which he got from me in our secret meeting).
In the meantime, people in El Paso should feel good--NOT--by the dissing of El Paso, in this cynical Obama push for the Hispanic vote.
Look again at that AP/Yahoo (featured on the despicable Yahoo "News") referenced by me in my article yesterday. The headline (not quoted by me yesterday, but consistent with the lead paragraph I did quotge) did not MENTIION EL PASO. The headline did mention TEXAS, even thoiugh those who live in El Paso (like me) recognize that El Paso has very little relationship with the rest of Texas. Nope. I am NOT saying that El Paso is more associated with MEXICO. Rather, El Paso is virtually surrounded by NEW MEXICO--tucked in a corner of Texas between Mexico and New Mexico (some 550-600 miles from Texas power and population centers in Dallas, San Antonio and Austin, and more than that from Houston).
WHY was El Paso not even mentiioned by the desicable Associated Press? Is it BIGOTRY? Indirfectlyl, it is. As tated above, the whole purpose of the Obama trip was to PROMOTE illegal immigration and (:he hopes) the Hispanic vote. That troup polkitics is BIGOTED. It also explains why EL PASO was not emphasized--the mainstream media always taking their lead from Obama and the Democrats. El Paso (always a pretty much Democratic city in Texas, but with a limited number of Texas votes, as politicians know) is NOT going to "help" Obama get reelected. But Obama is counting on HISPANICS. Obama is, in fact, not interested in El Paso OR the Mexican border. Why else did he wait until now to come to the border to push his reelection--while IGNORING the Mexican border in his previous trip to make a speech at Ft. Blisss (in El Paso)??
Nope. The despicable AP was DELIBERATELY DISSING El Paso. Yahoo was DELIBERATELY DISSING EL PASO. This was all about Obama's reelection, and that is why the despicable AP ignnored El Paso yesterday in its "lead". It is why the AP and Yahoo ignored El Paso in the headline. It is why Obama paid no attention to BULLETS hitting El Paso from across the border in Juarez, even when tghe Texas attorney general wrote him a letter and Governor Perry tried to talk to him about the border situation, but NOW visits El Paso (while, at the same time, dissing El Paso.).
Yes, I tried to talk to Obama in my secret meeting--the real purpose of the visit being an attempt by Obama to somehow defuse this blog. You saw the response I got to my constructive advice on illegal immigration and bigotry. Obama MOCKED me!!!! Oh, I know. The despicable mainstream media--including the AP--said Obama was "mocking the GOP" (in yet anoterh appeal to "civility", as he was internally concentrating on "jobs and the economy"). . However, Obama was really mocking ME, because he can't handle the truth (which he got from me in our secret meeting).
In the meantime, people in El Paso should feel good--NOT--by the dissing of El Paso, in this cynical Obama push for the Hispanic vote.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Oba a: Campaigning for Hispanic Vote, a/k/a Fiddling While United States Jobs and Economy BURN (AP and Yahoo Lies)
" President Barack Obama is making his first trip as president to the U.S.-Mexico border, using the setting to sharpen his call for a remake of the nation's immigration laws and try to cast the GOP as the obstacle standing in its way."
Did I call it correctly or what (see last night's article--foresight being my specialty)? Can it be more clear that Obama's trip here to El Paso is solely POLITICS--all about his own reelectio? The above is the lead paragraph from the despicable Associated Press (a lead paragraph that LIES), as featured on Yahoo "News". Obama--in his role as partisan hack--is PICKING A FIGHT with the GOP on the issue of illegal immigration, KNOWING that he has no chance of passing the AMNESTY bill encouraging illegal immigration that Obama wants to pass. You will remember that Obama's only problem with the BSUH amnesty bill was that it was NOT LIBERAL ENOUGH--Obama being in the midst of Bush's third term in so many ways, including the good way of continuing Bush's terror policies in most ways (getting Osama bin Lande, with the "help" of the Navy Seals, while undremining those lsame policies with WORDS atttacking "torture" and apologizing all of the time for the United States).
What about the "reassurance" that President Obama have the American people over the weekend that his first priority, when not accompanying Navy seals on the raid to get bin Laden, is jobs and the economy. STOPPING illegal immigration, and securing the border, is the only wayto help jobs and the economy, but Obama's sole purpose in coming to El Paso is to highlight the "pro-illegal immigration" forces with sob stroies about the "plight" of illegal immigrants. In all events, Obama KNOWS that he cannot pass "his" AMNESTY billl. When Repubicans raise an issue like this, which they know is useless, they are accused of "distracting" from the "real issue": JOBS AND THE ECONOMY. This merely proves that Obama is only interested in one thing at this point: his reelection. And no, he does NOT intend to let his reelection depend on an economy where he has made a real "recovery" impossible (see this week's earlier article).
Not e the AP and lYahoo LIE--objective lie, and not a matter of opiniion. First, 3,000 people are being MURDERED every year in Juarez, Mexicao--El Paso's sister city which will be mere YARDS (a stone's throw or bullet's path) away from Obama if he actually approaches the Rio Grande. That is not to mention the OTHER U.S. border areas looking down gun barrels at chaos in Mexico. Yet, the AP is telling you that this is the FIRST visit President Obama has made to the Mexican border since he has been President. How many times has he visited FOREIGN COUNTRIES during that time? Presumably, this "information" came from the Obama Administration, and it is NOT TRUE (except in a revealing sense that is obje tively false). Yep. The Associated Press has again proven itself INCOMPETENT (boycott Yahoo, which uses the despicalbe APP as almost its total "source" of featured daily "news").
I live in El Paso. It was a maater of mere months ago that President Obama spoke at FT> BLISS. For those of you who do not know, Ft. Bliss is the army base IN EL PASO. Yes, Ft. Bliss (by any reasonable measure, is "on the Mexican border". President Obama HAD to take a "trip" to El Paso (the Mexican border) in order to speak at Ft. Bliss. Yes, I know. .President Obama did NOT speak about illegal immigration at Ft. Bliss. But it was certainly a "trip to the Mexican border" while President Obama was President. Ask yourself WHY President Obama did not use the previus trip to Ft. Bliss to also HIGHLIGHT the Mexican border by affirmatively touring the Mexican border? It is because everything is all about Obama. Obama did not WANT to highlight the Mexican border on his previous trip (maybe during the 2010 political campaign). Now Obama WANTS to make the trip to the Mexican border "unprecedented" evidence of his "concern" about......what? NOT about "securing our border", but about (he hopes) Hispanic voters who do not like our immigratioin laws and (timid) GOP attempts to enforce them.
See my continuing articles/dispatches from the front lines of the continuing WAR in Mexico--generally under the headline: "Mexico, a Failed Country". Stray bullets have struck the El Paso City Hall from gun battles in Juarez. Similar stray bullets have struck our local UNIVERSITY (UTEP). A part of DOWNTOWN EL PASO was SHUT DOWN last year because of bullets flying from a gun battle in Juarez, right across the river. My only female friend, Sylvia (Hispanic, who formerly visited Juarez all of the time) was PROUD of her extreme bravery in the past week in going to Juarez (to save money on tile) for the first time n years. I think she regards it as the bravest thing she has ever done--certainly braver than President Obama authorizing the Navy Seals to take out bin Laden (if not, of course, braver than the seals themselves). Yet, according to the AP and Yahoo, this is the FIRST time, as President, that Obama has thought it worth while to specifically "take a trip" to the Mexican border. And this trip is obviously all about VOTES. What a guy our President is!!!!!!!!!!
No, I never get tired of being right. I do get tired of the despicalbe AP, Yahoo, and all of the mainstream media being always WRONG. And I get tired of a President who thinks everything is all about him, and who is incapable of doing things for any other reason--also incapable of telling the truth/ It is abut time for another "assurance" that our President is "concentrating" on jobs and the economy every single day. He did it this last weekend, and immediately proved himself a liar. I am sure he will be back to that sae theme next weekend.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (my eyesight).
Did I call it correctly or what (see last night's article--foresight being my specialty)? Can it be more clear that Obama's trip here to El Paso is solely POLITICS--all about his own reelectio? The above is the lead paragraph from the despicable Associated Press (a lead paragraph that LIES), as featured on Yahoo "News". Obama--in his role as partisan hack--is PICKING A FIGHT with the GOP on the issue of illegal immigration, KNOWING that he has no chance of passing the AMNESTY bill encouraging illegal immigration that Obama wants to pass. You will remember that Obama's only problem with the BSUH amnesty bill was that it was NOT LIBERAL ENOUGH--Obama being in the midst of Bush's third term in so many ways, including the good way of continuing Bush's terror policies in most ways (getting Osama bin Lande, with the "help" of the Navy Seals, while undremining those lsame policies with WORDS atttacking "torture" and apologizing all of the time for the United States).
What about the "reassurance" that President Obama have the American people over the weekend that his first priority, when not accompanying Navy seals on the raid to get bin Laden, is jobs and the economy. STOPPING illegal immigration, and securing the border, is the only wayto help jobs and the economy, but Obama's sole purpose in coming to El Paso is to highlight the "pro-illegal immigration" forces with sob stroies about the "plight" of illegal immigrants. In all events, Obama KNOWS that he cannot pass "his" AMNESTY billl. When Repubicans raise an issue like this, which they know is useless, they are accused of "distracting" from the "real issue": JOBS AND THE ECONOMY. This merely proves that Obama is only interested in one thing at this point: his reelection. And no, he does NOT intend to let his reelection depend on an economy where he has made a real "recovery" impossible (see this week's earlier article).
Not e the AP and lYahoo LIE--objective lie, and not a matter of opiniion. First, 3,000 people are being MURDERED every year in Juarez, Mexicao--El Paso's sister city which will be mere YARDS (a stone's throw or bullet's path) away from Obama if he actually approaches the Rio Grande. That is not to mention the OTHER U.S. border areas looking down gun barrels at chaos in Mexico. Yet, the AP is telling you that this is the FIRST visit President Obama has made to the Mexican border since he has been President. How many times has he visited FOREIGN COUNTRIES during that time? Presumably, this "information" came from the Obama Administration, and it is NOT TRUE (except in a revealing sense that is obje tively false). Yep. The Associated Press has again proven itself INCOMPETENT (boycott Yahoo, which uses the despicalbe APP as almost its total "source" of featured daily "news").
I live in El Paso. It was a maater of mere months ago that President Obama spoke at FT> BLISS. For those of you who do not know, Ft. Bliss is the army base IN EL PASO. Yes, Ft. Bliss (by any reasonable measure, is "on the Mexican border". President Obama HAD to take a "trip" to El Paso (the Mexican border) in order to speak at Ft. Bliss. Yes, I know. .President Obama did NOT speak about illegal immigration at Ft. Bliss. But it was certainly a "trip to the Mexican border" while President Obama was President. Ask yourself WHY President Obama did not use the previus trip to Ft. Bliss to also HIGHLIGHT the Mexican border by affirmatively touring the Mexican border? It is because everything is all about Obama. Obama did not WANT to highlight the Mexican border on his previous trip (maybe during the 2010 political campaign). Now Obama WANTS to make the trip to the Mexican border "unprecedented" evidence of his "concern" about......what? NOT about "securing our border", but about (he hopes) Hispanic voters who do not like our immigratioin laws and (timid) GOP attempts to enforce them.
See my continuing articles/dispatches from the front lines of the continuing WAR in Mexico--generally under the headline: "Mexico, a Failed Country". Stray bullets have struck the El Paso City Hall from gun battles in Juarez. Similar stray bullets have struck our local UNIVERSITY (UTEP). A part of DOWNTOWN EL PASO was SHUT DOWN last year because of bullets flying from a gun battle in Juarez, right across the river. My only female friend, Sylvia (Hispanic, who formerly visited Juarez all of the time) was PROUD of her extreme bravery in the past week in going to Juarez (to save money on tile) for the first time n years. I think she regards it as the bravest thing she has ever done--certainly braver than President Obama authorizing the Navy Seals to take out bin Laden (if not, of course, braver than the seals themselves). Yet, according to the AP and Yahoo, this is the FIRST time, as President, that Obama has thought it worth while to specifically "take a trip" to the Mexican border. And this trip is obviously all about VOTES. What a guy our President is!!!!!!!!!!
No, I never get tired of being right. I do get tired of the despicalbe AP, Yahoo, and all of the mainstream media being always WRONG. And I get tired of a President who thinks everything is all about him, and who is incapable of doing things for any other reason--also incapable of telling the truth/ It is abut time for another "assurance" that our President is "concentrating" on jobs and the economy every single day. He did it this last weekend, and immediately proved himself a liar. I am sure he will be back to that sae theme next weekend.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (my eyesight).
Monday, May 9, 2011
Obama, Liar-in-Chief: Economy, Jobs and Illegal Immigration Deception (Obama Comes to El Paso to Meet Blog Author)
One of those "news" headlines (propaganda headlines) was about how Obama had "reassured" people that his main concentration, focus and priority every day is on jobs and the economy. Is the man a comic genius or what? What you have to admire (or cry about) with Obama is how he feels no need to even PRETEND to tell the truth from one day to the nesxt. Obama has only ONE "priority" right now, and that is to get REELECTED. Every single thing he is doing is geared to that.
Where will Obama be tomorrow? Hint: I live in El Paso, right on the Mexican border. Yep. That is right. President Obama will be in EL PASO tomorrow. Why? A SOCIAL ISSUE (at least to Juan Willkiams, and others in the mainstream media when REPUBLICANS bring it up). According to the El Paso Times, as my mother breathlessly informed me on the phone, says Obama is coming here to "listen" to all of those sob stories about how mothers can't take care of their American citizen children because they can't get citizenship, and other DECEPTIOINS of the pro-illegal immigratioin forces. In no way is Obama "concentrating" on jobs and the economy--except jobs for illegal aliens. And if you want to here REAL sob stories, consider the CHILDREN (and adults) in our siter city of Juarez, Mexico--where there are some 8 murdres a DAY (more than 3,000 last year).
Yes, those who favor illegal immigration (and they do--one of the deceptions being to deny that) are incapable of anything but DECEPTION. In 2006, this blog ran a series of some 30 articles exposing deception after deception in the "arguments" for illegal immigrants and illegal immigration.
One of the key deceptions (the Democrat/Harry Reid "Dream Act) is to USE CHILDREN as a cynical wedge to try to bootstap into amnesty for illegal immigrants. Follow this. Firt, the children be come citizens--sometimes (in El Paso, where my other personally observed it as a nurse in the country hospital) by simply "camping out" (that is, hanging around) the couty hospital until the mother's baby is in the process of being born. Magic. And a major FLAEW in our law. We suddenly have a new American citizen. Or illegal immigrants have babies in this country, paid for by American TAXPAYERS. Again, lMAGIC. We immediatelly have a new American citizen. And--so the "argument" goes--that American citizen now NEEDS HIS OR HER PRENTS (ignoring that the parents can take th echildren to Mexico, where they should have been born in the first place--or whatever country the parents are from). This is absurd and DISHONEST> Did I just call Harry Reid, and most Democrat politicians, DISHONEST? Well, yes, but you already know that.
Annd the dishonesty is led by our Liar-in-Chief. Are you not "reassured" by what is happening tomorrow that Obama's first "priority" is on jobs and the economy? I did not think so.
Where will Obama be tomorrow? Hint: I live in El Paso, right on the Mexican border. Yep. That is right. President Obama will be in EL PASO tomorrow. Why? A SOCIAL ISSUE (at least to Juan Willkiams, and others in the mainstream media when REPUBLICANS bring it up). According to the El Paso Times, as my mother breathlessly informed me on the phone, says Obama is coming here to "listen" to all of those sob stories about how mothers can't take care of their American citizen children because they can't get citizenship, and other DECEPTIOINS of the pro-illegal immigratioin forces. In no way is Obama "concentrating" on jobs and the economy--except jobs for illegal aliens. And if you want to here REAL sob stories, consider the CHILDREN (and adults) in our siter city of Juarez, Mexico--where there are some 8 murdres a DAY (more than 3,000 last year).
Yes, those who favor illegal immigration (and they do--one of the deceptions being to deny that) are incapable of anything but DECEPTION. In 2006, this blog ran a series of some 30 articles exposing deception after deception in the "arguments" for illegal immigrants and illegal immigration.
One of the key deceptions (the Democrat/Harry Reid "Dream Act) is to USE CHILDREN as a cynical wedge to try to bootstap into amnesty for illegal immigrants. Follow this. Firt, the children be come citizens--sometimes (in El Paso, where my other personally observed it as a nurse in the country hospital) by simply "camping out" (that is, hanging around) the couty hospital until the mother's baby is in the process of being born. Magic. And a major FLAEW in our law. We suddenly have a new American citizen. Or illegal immigrants have babies in this country, paid for by American TAXPAYERS. Again, lMAGIC. We immediatelly have a new American citizen. And--so the "argument" goes--that American citizen now NEEDS HIS OR HER PRENTS (ignoring that the parents can take th echildren to Mexico, where they should have been born in the first place--or whatever country the parents are from). This is absurd and DISHONEST> Did I just call Harry Reid, and most Democrat politicians, DISHONEST? Well, yes, but you already know that.
Annd the dishonesty is led by our Liar-in-Chief. Are you not "reassured" by what is happening tomorrow that Obama's first "priority" is on jobs and the economy? I did not think so.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Gas Prices: An Economy That Cannot Recover and a Dishonest Mainstream Media (Boycott Yahoo)
In one of the more dishonest moves by massivelyl dishonest people, the mainstream media is in the process of conducting an orchestrated PROPAGANDA campaign to convince you that gasoline prices have peaked, and are on the way down. The mainstream media, of course, has no way of knowing that. We are not even at Memorial Day--the recognized START of the heavy driving season.
Is it possible that gas prices have reached at least a temporary peak? Sure, although the DISHONEST mainstream media, and tame "experts" they quote, have no way of knowing that. If it happens, moreover, it will be because of a SLOWDOWN in the economy that prevents gasoline demand from rising. That includes a SLOWDOWN in vehicle sales and gasoline sales as people stop driving so much--and switch to less profitable "fuel efficient" vehicles (less profitable for the auto companies). That would mean, also, that summer recreational areas would HURT as people cannot afford to drive to vacation spots, and recreational areas. BAD for the economy. But, if demand does NOT slow down, then gasoline prices will continue high, or even increase. Yes, this will eventually SHUT DOWN the economy, bringing the prices back down.
You see what we have done with the endless government "stimulus", and endless printing of money by the Federal Reserve? We have made a REAL recovery IMPOSSIBLE. The moment the REAL economy starts to recover, higher commodity prices knocks it down. There was already a SLOWDOWN in the first quarter of this year, and gasoline prices CONTINUED TO RISE (because of Federal reserve deliberately inflatinary policy encouraged by this Administration). We have created a perfect storm: Carter style STAGFLATION until the final collapse caused by our exploding debt and ever more "centrally planned" economy.
That is why I could not let pass this Saturday's FEATURED headline on Yahoo "News" (BOYCOTT YAHOO!!!), from the dishonest, partisan political hacks at the Associated Press (a headline featured LONGER than the rise in the unemployument rate reported on Friday and the rise in layofffs reported on Thursday). Here is the truly despicable headline:
"Gas Prices Expected to Fall 500 Cents by Summer."
Look at that NAKED PROPAGANDA--everyone at the AP and Yahoo "News" should be arrested for indecent exposure (of propaganda hacks). This is not "news"--much less the type of "news" worth featuring. Expected by WHOM, you ask, besides the PROPAGANDA HACKS of the mainstream media? Well, maybe the same economists who are surprised WEEKLY by the report on new unemployment claims--and surprised by so many other things. Just when have these people got anything RIGHT? This is not "news". It does not even pretend to be "news". It is speculatioin for purposes of propaganda. As stated above, if gas rices do go down, it will be BAD news. If they go up, it will be bad news. We have created a situatiion where nothing but bad news is possible. But even if you disagree with me on that, it is absurd to issue a "news" story SPECULATING on FUTURE gasoline prices. WHEN the prices go down, that might be a story (although not much of a story if that drop is a fraction of a cent, which the media OVERHYPED at the end of last week, as gasoline prices stopped rising for the first time in 44 weeks).
"Uh, Ski."
"You again. How do you get access to my blog?""
"Wouldn't you like to know. Skip, you can't really believe this is propagand for purposes of helping Obama. The election will not be until November of 2012."
"Yep. Exactly right. These people are bone deep SSTUPID, as well as being corrupt and dishonest. It is NEXT SUMMER that gasoline prices really matter. Not this summer. In the meantime, are the people of the despicable AP and Yahoo "News" really telling you that you should ACT on the assumption that gasoline will DROP in price? Can you SUE these people for MALPRACTICE if they RUIN YUOR LIFE? They will tell you "no", and the First Amendment pprobably agrees with them. But, morally, these are EVIL people committing dhishonest evil.. What are you supopposed to DO with this speculative "news"? Obviously, nothing, because it is not "news" at all. It is speculative propaganda."
"Now, Skip, don't go off on one of your famous rants, with your usual typos getting worse as your emotions rise. I agree that the story is not really news, but it is hardly a big ddeal. What will happen will happen. That is your point, isn't it?"
"Yes, and no. My point is that these people are DISHONEST and STUPID, meaning that you can't rely on anything they say. They deserve nothing but contempt, and womeone has to call them on it. Lukily, more and more people are. These people are becoming irrelevant. For example, these people are still OVERHYPING the Osama bin Laden raid--as many as 4 or 5 of the 7 or so featured stories on the Yahoo "News" "welcome" page (U-Verse) being mostly NON-NEWS stories about the bin Laden raid. Yes, the raid was a success, and Obama deserves credit for going ahead with it (although he had little choice, and did not "plan" th eoperation). But yesterday you had a story about how a "candid" video shows an "unkempt" bin Laden we are not used to seeing. SO WHAT. That is not "news". It is absurdity. Today, Obama is quoted as syaying the "risks" of the operation were "worth it to get our man". SO WHAT. I assume he thought that, or he would not have granted his approval. And WHO is saying that the risks were not "worth it"? Certainly not me, or anyone who thinks like me on the right. This is all an atempt to "keep a story alive" that the partisan media think is helping Obama (stupid people that they are, as whatever help Obama got from his correct action--ignnoring things like trying to give Muslim "respect" to the body--has already happened. By next November, it will be an almost forgotten minor triumph by a President facing a world of problems bigger than bin Laden (satisfying as it was to "get" him). "
"Skip, I keep trying, but you refuse to stop these rants."
"The rants will continue as long as these dishonest ppeople in the mainstream media continue. I DARE any ONE of them to explain exactly what they want people to DO based on their "prediction" that gasoline prices are going down. Post pone your vacation in the expectation it will be cheaper later? Give me a break."
Nope. As my hacking critic has indicated, no proofreading or spell checking of the above rants. .
Is it possible that gas prices have reached at least a temporary peak? Sure, although the DISHONEST mainstream media, and tame "experts" they quote, have no way of knowing that. If it happens, moreover, it will be because of a SLOWDOWN in the economy that prevents gasoline demand from rising. That includes a SLOWDOWN in vehicle sales and gasoline sales as people stop driving so much--and switch to less profitable "fuel efficient" vehicles (less profitable for the auto companies). That would mean, also, that summer recreational areas would HURT as people cannot afford to drive to vacation spots, and recreational areas. BAD for the economy. But, if demand does NOT slow down, then gasoline prices will continue high, or even increase. Yes, this will eventually SHUT DOWN the economy, bringing the prices back down.
You see what we have done with the endless government "stimulus", and endless printing of money by the Federal Reserve? We have made a REAL recovery IMPOSSIBLE. The moment the REAL economy starts to recover, higher commodity prices knocks it down. There was already a SLOWDOWN in the first quarter of this year, and gasoline prices CONTINUED TO RISE (because of Federal reserve deliberately inflatinary policy encouraged by this Administration). We have created a perfect storm: Carter style STAGFLATION until the final collapse caused by our exploding debt and ever more "centrally planned" economy.
That is why I could not let pass this Saturday's FEATURED headline on Yahoo "News" (BOYCOTT YAHOO!!!), from the dishonest, partisan political hacks at the Associated Press (a headline featured LONGER than the rise in the unemployument rate reported on Friday and the rise in layofffs reported on Thursday). Here is the truly despicable headline:
"Gas Prices Expected to Fall 500 Cents by Summer."
Look at that NAKED PROPAGANDA--everyone at the AP and Yahoo "News" should be arrested for indecent exposure (of propaganda hacks). This is not "news"--much less the type of "news" worth featuring. Expected by WHOM, you ask, besides the PROPAGANDA HACKS of the mainstream media? Well, maybe the same economists who are surprised WEEKLY by the report on new unemployment claims--and surprised by so many other things. Just when have these people got anything RIGHT? This is not "news". It does not even pretend to be "news". It is speculatioin for purposes of propaganda. As stated above, if gas rices do go down, it will be BAD news. If they go up, it will be bad news. We have created a situatiion where nothing but bad news is possible. But even if you disagree with me on that, it is absurd to issue a "news" story SPECULATING on FUTURE gasoline prices. WHEN the prices go down, that might be a story (although not much of a story if that drop is a fraction of a cent, which the media OVERHYPED at the end of last week, as gasoline prices stopped rising for the first time in 44 weeks).
"Uh, Ski."
"You again. How do you get access to my blog?""
"Wouldn't you like to know. Skip, you can't really believe this is propagand for purposes of helping Obama. The election will not be until November of 2012."
"Yep. Exactly right. These people are bone deep SSTUPID, as well as being corrupt and dishonest. It is NEXT SUMMER that gasoline prices really matter. Not this summer. In the meantime, are the people of the despicable AP and Yahoo "News" really telling you that you should ACT on the assumption that gasoline will DROP in price? Can you SUE these people for MALPRACTICE if they RUIN YUOR LIFE? They will tell you "no", and the First Amendment pprobably agrees with them. But, morally, these are EVIL people committing dhishonest evil.. What are you supopposed to DO with this speculative "news"? Obviously, nothing, because it is not "news" at all. It is speculative propaganda."
"Now, Skip, don't go off on one of your famous rants, with your usual typos getting worse as your emotions rise. I agree that the story is not really news, but it is hardly a big ddeal. What will happen will happen. That is your point, isn't it?"
"Yes, and no. My point is that these people are DISHONEST and STUPID, meaning that you can't rely on anything they say. They deserve nothing but contempt, and womeone has to call them on it. Lukily, more and more people are. These people are becoming irrelevant. For example, these people are still OVERHYPING the Osama bin Laden raid--as many as 4 or 5 of the 7 or so featured stories on the Yahoo "News" "welcome" page (U-Verse) being mostly NON-NEWS stories about the bin Laden raid. Yes, the raid was a success, and Obama deserves credit for going ahead with it (although he had little choice, and did not "plan" th eoperation). But yesterday you had a story about how a "candid" video shows an "unkempt" bin Laden we are not used to seeing. SO WHAT. That is not "news". It is absurdity. Today, Obama is quoted as syaying the "risks" of the operation were "worth it to get our man". SO WHAT. I assume he thought that, or he would not have granted his approval. And WHO is saying that the risks were not "worth it"? Certainly not me, or anyone who thinks like me on the right. This is all an atempt to "keep a story alive" that the partisan media think is helping Obama (stupid people that they are, as whatever help Obama got from his correct action--ignnoring things like trying to give Muslim "respect" to the body--has already happened. By next November, it will be an almost forgotten minor triumph by a President facing a world of problems bigger than bin Laden (satisfying as it was to "get" him). "
"Skip, I keep trying, but you refuse to stop these rants."
"The rants will continue as long as these dishonest ppeople in the mainstream media continue. I DARE any ONE of them to explain exactly what they want people to DO based on their "prediction" that gasoline prices are going down. Post pone your vacation in the expectation it will be cheaper later? Give me a break."
Nope. As my hacking critic has indicated, no proofreading or spell checking of the above rants. .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)