You will remember that tis blog has consistently shown yu that the people of CNN, including Anderson Cooper, are dishoenst hypocrites: professing to be "neutral" and "factual", when every word they utter is PARTISAN OPINION.
A number of people have told me (mainly female, and including my two daughters and only close, if platonic, female friend): "Skip we don't understnad why you make such a big pont out of how Anderson Cooper has used hi sprogram mainly for gay activist propaganda, and how CNN is The Liar Network, The Anti-Christian Network, and The Hypocrite Network. Everyone knows that CNN, Anderson Coo[per, and other leftist mainstream media outlets present things from the left. No, they are not honest when they say they are 'neutral', or are trying to present factual informatin withut an agenda. However, lpeople who watch CNN and Anderson Cooper KNOW that they re getting a form of propaganda, and they don't care. They are coffortable with the propaganda of CNN, and want to watch it. "Everyone does it': pretends to be neutral when they are not. Eeditor's comment: the reference here is probably to Fox, as well as to MSNBC and the rest of the media, but primarily to Fox as the only MAJOR "news '" network that does not put out essentially the same propaganda). Since there is no such thing as either a neutral source of factual information, or an honest 'news' source, why worry about it? If you don't like CNN and Anderson Cooper, who everyoine but yoiu knew ws gay anyway and presenting propaganda on gay activist talking ponts, don't watch. Watch something else, or listen to Rush Limbaugh. No one is being misled here. People how watch the leftist propaganda of CNN know exctly what they are getting, and they discount the opinion stuff, jsut like you say yoiu can get factual informatin by listenting to Rush Limbaugh (editing out the opinions in yur mind)."
Hogwash. Yes, I know what I just called my daughters, my female friend, and alomsost every other female on the planet. I jsut said they are little different from the obvius hypocrites of CNN and the media.
Doubt me? Never do that. It jsut embarrasses yoiu. Notice that all of these females are saying that CNN,--including Anderson Cooper--and Rush Limbaugh are the SAME: both putting out "news" slanted by politicaly partisan and/or ideological positions (yes, slanted just as much by CNN as by Rush Libmaugh, or more, with the difference that Rush Limbuah is HOENST about presenting a point of view rather than an "objective" "news" program). But do they--these people wo say that I shuld not criticize Anderson Copr and CNN for lputting out false and tenditious propaganda--treat Rush Limbaugh the same: rejecting criticism of Rush Limbaugh because only people who WANT to here him listen?
Not a chance (especialy true of my female friend, Sylvia--which I dare to say because I know she does nto read this blog o my life wuld not be worth a plug nickel). Rush Limbuagh refers to a leftist activist woman as a "slut" (much less offesnive, in context than the things that have ben said about Sarah Palin, not only by Bill Maher but by the people on CNN). That is suddently IMPORTANT: esepcailly to the HYPOCRITES of CNN and the mainstream media. Do people like the the females who criticize me DISMISS these attacks on Rush Libmaugh as worthless, because people who do't want to listen to Rush Limbaugh know what they are getting? Again, not a chance. Instead, people like Sylvia, if asked aobut Rush Limbuahg, wil lrefer to him as an 'extremist", and as a destrkuctive, divisive force in American Scoiety. Why, exactly, is Rush Limbaugh a more destructive and divistive force than the LEFTIST PROPAGANDA of CNN and MSNBC? They really have no anser to that, other than just that Rush Limbaugh says such harsh things.
Harsh? CNN and Anderson Coopoer tried ot LYNCH George Zimmerman. CNN had the osition, and STILL has the positin, that "Tea Party" people are much more RACIST than othe people (usch as the peole of CNN). CNN routinely calls peole RACIST. You kno wht? That is WORSE than calling a leftist activist a "slut". It is more DIVISIVE. In fact, as this blog has shown, it encurages RACIAL HATRED and actually tends to incite RACE WAR. The idea that most of the "white" people of America are out to "get" balck peole, and all other "peole of color", is DESTRUCTIVE and DIVISIVE--more so than anyting Rush Limbaugh says. No, I reject the idea that th ePARTISAN PROPAGANDA of CNN does nto have EVIL EFFECTS, which cannot be "solved" by me jsut refuing to watch CNN (alnong with most of the rest of America). CNN tells Hispanics that Arizona, and those who support Arizona, are "out to get them", lumping legal and illegal immigrants together as a matter of POLICY (CNN policy), and y tell me that all I have to do to "cure' my problem is to not watch CNN? You eally are STUPID, aren't you? Oh, I accept the criticism that I py too much attentin to CN, because NO ONE WATCHES. However, CNN--as is true of the despicable AP and all other leftist media I reference by name--is merely an example of wht the entire mainstream media is dong. When I talk about CNN, I am talking aoubt the nentire mainstream media in this country, as the eifferences between the individuals are immaterial. Oh, MSNBC is like a caucus of the LEFTR WING of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, rather than just a let wing proopaganda outlet, but there is less and less difference between the "left wing' of the Democratic Party and the "mainstram" of the Democratic Party. Other than "obviiusness', I now notice almost no difference between CNN and MSNBC. Again, you might even regard MSNBC as more "honest" about hwhere they are coming from.
Let us go back to Anderson Coope. You--mainly you feamles out there, or many of you--say that Anderson Cooper is not as 'extreme" as Rush Limbaugh? I say that is FALSE. Anderson Cooper is vastly mroe "extreme", and definitely more dishoenst. Let us do a "thught experiment". Imagine if Rush Limbaugh wre reveled to be a "partner" in some sort of religious organization/private group which is pushing the 'cure" of homosexual "orientation". Let us further assume that Limbaugh was not "up front" abut this, but simply started leading off almost every program with some sort of story ATTACKING homosexuals. Then assume that Limbaugh's associaton with this attempt to "cure" homosexuals were RVEALED explicitly. Can yo even IMAGNE the FLAK that Limbaugh would get for that? "Hypocrite" and 'dishoenst" would be the KINDEST words you heard. They are, in fact, the kindest words I ahve for the despicable Anderson Cooper.
I kid you not. For at lleast the last year, and probably long before that, Cooiper has used his program as a POPAGANDA vehicle for gay activist "talking points", INCLUIDNG "featuring" on hi sprogram almost EVERY "pastor" in America who has said anythng "controversial" aobut homosexuals (incuding almost every item that has been pushed on gay activist internet sites. Sure, CNN as a whole has done that, but Anderson Cooper has been MUCH WORSE than even the ret of CNN, which shows just how close the analogy is to Rush Limbuagh being revealed as a "homoseuxal cure' guy after featuring "anti-homoseuxal" "news" on almost every program. Limbuahg, by the way, has featured very few of the knid of "news" items featred by Coope: news items TRASHING isolated peole how may say something about homosexuals and Christians. Sure, Limbaugh may occasioinally talk about how a "gay activist" has trashed a Christian church, or 'invaded" one, but it is hardly a rgular feature of Limbaugh's program. When Limbaugh talks about the "issues" of gay marrraige and the likfe, he talks aobut the ISSUES. When Anderon Cooper talks aobut the "issues", he TRASHES individual oppoents of gay activist issues; obviusly trying to discredit opponents of things in which Cooper feels he has a SELF-INTEREST by means of "gilt by association. Again, Anderson Cooper is clearly MORE EXTREME (by far) than Rush Limbaugh--especially on "gay issues". And Anderson Cooper, as indicated, goes beyond merely gay activist propaganda. Cooper TRASHES evangelical Christians at every opportuinity, in some of the most VICIUS material I have ever seen on television.
For example. Cooper openly ADOVATED taking away the Federal tax exmmption for a pastor in North Carolina, as Cooper made the whoe issue of "gay marriage' in North Carolina aobut the individual statements of a few "pastors" featured by gay activists in there FAILED attempt to stop the North Carolina ban on gay marriage. ONE PASTOR. ONE CHURCH. And he was featured on MUYLTIPLE Anderson Cooper programs trying to discredit the North Carolina vote, and tryhing to DESTROY this pastor, including AFTER the vote (60% gainst the CNN/Cooper propaganda position). I say "one pastor", and "one church", but I shuld have said ONE AT A TIME. Because Anderson Cooper had previusly tried to DEMONIZE another single pastor, and single church, in North Carolina because the pastor said that any parent who saw a child with a "limp wrist" should "crack that wrist". The second pastor, referenced above, said that homosexuals should be 'rounded up" in fenced areas (sort of like FDR did with the Japanese-Americans) and allowed to "die off" (obvius, if somewhat offensive, hyperbole, but hardly the "issue" in North Carolina). Cooper hasATTACKED--nver th eyears--pastor after pastor: sometimes for statements aobut homosexuals, but often extending the attacks to reflect a HATRED of Christians who Cooper thingks disaporve of his lifestyle.
For example, Cooper--in a series of segments over WEEKS, and even MONTHS--culminating last Labor Day, accused a Christian "author" of MURDER (kid you not) for wrfing a book on "strict Christian child rearing" (whihc book really just advocated STANDARD, "don't spare the rod" child rearing accepted for most of the hihstory of the United States, including my own childhood eyars). No. Cooper does NOT believe in FREE SPEECH (talk about EXTGREME!!!!). The Cooper idea was that the fact tihs book advocating "stinging" physical punishment (like nuns striking children on the kncukles with a ruler, as often described by O'Reily) was found in the nomes of a few peole who committed real CHILD ABUSE. I wonde if those females hwo thought it is enough just not to watch CNN would criticize Anderson Cooper for not letting peole who CHOSE to read these books on child discipine live in "peace"? Obvisly, you can argue abut methods of child discipline. But that is NOT what Anderson Coper did. He, rather--typically-tried to discredt "stict" methods of child discipline by Coper's stand technique of "guilt by associatoin". This time, Cooper went so far as to accuse an AUTHOR--who did NOT advocate physically injuring any child--by accusin g that author of being "responsbile" fo rMURDER and CHILD ABUSE. Do Anderson Cooper and CNN regard themselves as "responsbile" for inciting RACE HATRED, and encouraging Muslims to make TERRORIST ATTCKS on the basis that CNN has reorted anti-Muslim "bigotry" in America? Maybe they should. They certainly should, if they applied the standards used by the despicable, anti-Christian Anderson Cooper.
I could go on, but enough. Do you see why Rush Limbaugh is LESs EXTREME than CNN? You shuld. Rush Limbaugh does not call peole RACIST nearly as often as CNN. In fact, I call peple on the left racist more than Limbaugh, in my "don't turn the other cheek, nonChristian" phiosophy. It is not Limbaugh wo calls America a "racist country", or makes everything abut race. It is not Rush Limbaugh who affirmatively TRASHES atheists and agnostics (like me) the way CNN trahses Christians. In fact, no ne except Bill Maehr TRASHES CHRISTIANS as consistently as Anderson Coper--in a deliberate attempt at "tuilt by association". It is CNN that consistently gets its facts wrong--not Rush Limbaugh. It is the BIGOTS of CNN who kept talking abut Mitt Romney being a Mormon, even after the "religous right' had effectively abandoned oppositon to Romney (outside of the few fanatics featured on CNN). I have never seen such BIGOTRY from Limbaugh. It is CNN who tried to PRMOTE and SUGAR COAT the ridiculous "Occupy" "movement'--much more dishoenstly than Limbaugh ever did with the Tea Party. ONE sign in a Tea Party rally involving thousands of peole was enough for CNN to CONDEMN the entire Tea Party. With "Occupy" people, the fact that at least 1/3 of the peole were INSANE (often literaly), did not change the fact that the "Occupy" peole were expressing the 'frustratin" out there against Wall Street and capitalism.
Q.E.D. (although I couud go on foreever--see previus articles in this blog over YEARS): Anderson Cooper, and CNN, are MORE EXTREME than Rush Limbaugh. There is not even any qestion that they are MORE DISHOENST than Limbaugh.
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Yes, I do tend to get worse in my typkng on a Sunday ev3ening as I get tired, in a long article. Tough it out. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. The "proofreading" never changes--0nly the yping. There is NONE (except as my bad eyesight allows at the moment I am tyong).
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Friday, July 6, 2012
George Zimmerman: The Persecution Continues
Didn't George Zimmerman get out of jail today? That was the story I saw. "So, Skip, what is yourproblem."
See my previus article on this whole ridiculous bail business. What is he PURPOSE of bail? It is to ensure appearnance at tril. It is NOT to "punish", or take away every dime a person may have. $250,000 seemed to me to be a perfectly reasonable bail--even slightly high--for a case which really appears to be basically a mansluaghter case (if anything, rather tghan the second degree murder case the persecutin--oops!!! prosecutin) has turned it into. I never saw why it was such a big deal that Zimmerman--really his wife and lawyer--had misled the court on the assets he had. What if Zimmerman had played it SMART and simply made sure that the assets were out of his control and ownerslihiop before the bail heearing, or had not even accepted "onctributinos" unitl after the bail heearing? Much ado about noting.
But say the judge was 'offended" at being misled. That does not change the PURPOSE of bail. Okay. I can see some sort of increase in the bail just to send the MEWSSSAGE that the judge will not toerate "games" being played in his court (although he appears to have no problem with the games being played by the prosecutino). Raise the bail to $350,000 or $4000,000? Fine.
Instead, the judge evidently raised the bil to a cool ONE MILIN dolalrs (sort of like you had Warren Buffett in jail on a real feony murder case or something). Nope. This is PUNITIVE--a violatin of the purpose of bail.
The whole purpose seems to be--on the part of the judge and the prosecutin--to take away as MUCH of the "public defense" "contribution" money as possible. This makes sense if you are talking aobut try;ing to deprive a eprson of DRUG money, where you will probably jsut CONFISCATE the money (instead of letting it go to a bail bondsman). I see NO "public policy" against PUBLIC DFENSE MONEY, and see no reason its existence shululd vastly increase the bial. Yes, I am perfectly aware that Zimmerman only pays 10% to the bail bondsman (somewhat negotiable, but the standard fee). That is the pont here, and the questin about the pont of what the judge did. What is the PURPOSE here? Again, it appears to be to ENRICH the bail bondsman, and PUNISH Zimmerman.
I don't like it. As I have said before, there has ALWYS been a possible "mansluaghter" charge here, although Zimmermna's defense to even that charge may be pretty good. But this PERSECUTIN, based on alleged RACISM that has now pretty much been debunked, is a bad thing. Wouul dthis make sense for even the AGRESSOR in a BAR FIIGHT (the best analogy here)., who is still caliming self-defense? I don't see it, except for the RACIAL POLIICS.
As far as I can see, the RACISM in the George Zimmerman case is on the part of the media, racial politicians, the prosecution and the judge. Zimmerman, an Hispanic, alppears to be treated differentlyll--to the pont of lynching-soley BECAUSE he killed a black man/teen (who hwppened to be beating him up at the time, even if Zimmerman should probably have never got into that situatin). Again, no "hate crime" noow appears to be even arguably present, unless you think an Hispanic killing a blackj man shouuld ALWAYS be regarded as some "special" kind of hate crime (one aspect of the RACISM here).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Yes, I do realize that Zimmerman will probably have much fewer money worries han I have, lalmost no matter what the judge set as bail. That is totally beside the point. Indeed, what the judge MAY have done is simplly deprive the Trayvon Martin family of assets to go after in a CIVIL LAWSUIT, which I think will surely be filed. It is hard to know how Zimmerman will end up out of all of this, despite his obvious access to money as a "famous" person. He and his wife have their own lawyer fees, including in the probable civil lawsuit. There are things like this bail and the possible civil judgment. Zimmerman had BETTER make money out of this--net money--because he has little chance of living a normal life. In orther words, I would not want to be him, after this LYNCHING he has undergone (tuilty or not guilty--of whatever crime). Rush Limbaugh I would like to be. Well, he IS married. Still.....yess, I would still like to be Rush Limbaugh. But I would not like to be George Zimmerman.
See my previus article on this whole ridiculous bail business. What is he PURPOSE of bail? It is to ensure appearnance at tril. It is NOT to "punish", or take away every dime a person may have. $250,000 seemed to me to be a perfectly reasonable bail--even slightly high--for a case which really appears to be basically a mansluaghter case (if anything, rather tghan the second degree murder case the persecutin--oops!!! prosecutin) has turned it into. I never saw why it was such a big deal that Zimmerman--really his wife and lawyer--had misled the court on the assets he had. What if Zimmerman had played it SMART and simply made sure that the assets were out of his control and ownerslihiop before the bail heearing, or had not even accepted "onctributinos" unitl after the bail heearing? Much ado about noting.
But say the judge was 'offended" at being misled. That does not change the PURPOSE of bail. Okay. I can see some sort of increase in the bail just to send the MEWSSSAGE that the judge will not toerate "games" being played in his court (although he appears to have no problem with the games being played by the prosecutino). Raise the bail to $350,000 or $4000,000? Fine.
Instead, the judge evidently raised the bil to a cool ONE MILIN dolalrs (sort of like you had Warren Buffett in jail on a real feony murder case or something). Nope. This is PUNITIVE--a violatin of the purpose of bail.
The whole purpose seems to be--on the part of the judge and the prosecutin--to take away as MUCH of the "public defense" "contribution" money as possible. This makes sense if you are talking aobut try;ing to deprive a eprson of DRUG money, where you will probably jsut CONFISCATE the money (instead of letting it go to a bail bondsman). I see NO "public policy" against PUBLIC DFENSE MONEY, and see no reason its existence shululd vastly increase the bial. Yes, I am perfectly aware that Zimmerman only pays 10% to the bail bondsman (somewhat negotiable, but the standard fee). That is the pont here, and the questin about the pont of what the judge did. What is the PURPOSE here? Again, it appears to be to ENRICH the bail bondsman, and PUNISH Zimmerman.
I don't like it. As I have said before, there has ALWYS been a possible "mansluaghter" charge here, although Zimmermna's defense to even that charge may be pretty good. But this PERSECUTIN, based on alleged RACISM that has now pretty much been debunked, is a bad thing. Wouul dthis make sense for even the AGRESSOR in a BAR FIIGHT (the best analogy here)., who is still caliming self-defense? I don't see it, except for the RACIAL POLIICS.
As far as I can see, the RACISM in the George Zimmerman case is on the part of the media, racial politicians, the prosecution and the judge. Zimmerman, an Hispanic, alppears to be treated differentlyll--to the pont of lynching-soley BECAUSE he killed a black man/teen (who hwppened to be beating him up at the time, even if Zimmerman should probably have never got into that situatin). Again, no "hate crime" noow appears to be even arguably present, unless you think an Hispanic killing a blackj man shouuld ALWAYS be regarded as some "special" kind of hate crime (one aspect of the RACISM here).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Yes, I do realize that Zimmerman will probably have much fewer money worries han I have, lalmost no matter what the judge set as bail. That is totally beside the point. Indeed, what the judge MAY have done is simplly deprive the Trayvon Martin family of assets to go after in a CIVIL LAWSUIT, which I think will surely be filed. It is hard to know how Zimmerman will end up out of all of this, despite his obvious access to money as a "famous" person. He and his wife have their own lawyer fees, including in the probable civil lawsuit. There are things like this bail and the possible civil judgment. Zimmerman had BETTER make money out of this--net money--because he has little chance of living a normal life. In orther words, I would not want to be him, after this LYNCHING he has undergone (tuilty or not guilty--of whatever crime). Rush Limbaugh I would like to be. Well, he IS married. Still.....yess, I would still like to be Rush Limbaugh. But I would not like to be George Zimmerman.
Obama Fails on Jobs This Entire Year: The Maverick Conservative Gets It Right Again
Read yesterday's posted article in this blog, and see who was right: The Maverick Conservative or the despicable AP/Yahoo "New2s". The articles in this blog have been telling you that BAD monthly empoyment numbers were already 'baked in" for June because of previouis economic data--especially the unimproving number of new unemployment claims each week. Thus, this blog correctly PREDICTED yesterday that the June emplooyment numbers whuold show SOME "job growth" (because the weekly number of new unemplyment claims has not gotten substantially WORSE, although it has deteriorated slightly and definitely NOT IMPROVED), but that the "job growth" could NOT BE GOOD (unless the number was inconsistent with other data). This turned out to be exactly right.
80,000 jobs were "creatged" in June. That is a BAD number--really not much different than zero. The number is "seasonally adjusted", and subject to substantial REVISION (although, unlike the weekly number of new unemplyment claims, the revisioin is not ALWAYS in the same unfavorable direction). The unemployment rate--a poll--stayed at 8.2%. You will remember that the CALCULATION of both the unempllyment ratge and employment numbers was CHANGED in January, making even the Lbaor Department say tat you really can't compare this year's numbers (in any confident manner) with last year's numbers. Thus, what matters is how we are doing THIS YEAR (for comparison purposes, since those are the numbers that can best be compared on an "apples-to-apples" basis).
The January unemplyment rate was 8.2%. Thus, the unemplyment RATE has not really changed THIS ENTIRE YEAR. "Job creation" has TANKED since Januarty-February (when changes in calculation had the most effect AND when the "seasonal adjustment" was SUSPECT, including because of the good weather)--reaching less tha 100,000 for at least the last 3 months. As this blog has told you week after eek, the number of new unemplyment claims has NOT IMPROVED this entire year, desite apparent "improvement" in January and February, which has REVERSED (apparently) over the past three months until we are at about the same level at which we started the year. At the same time, economic "growth rate" has DELCINED to less than 2%. This data all provides a CONSISTENT picture of OBAMA FAILURE ON JOBS: no improvement in the job market this entire year, and very little i"improvement" in the economy n general. The "apparent' "improvement" in January and February was probably FICTINAL, as changes in calculatin and glitches in "seasonal adjustments" probaly resulted in numbers a little better than reality. Does that mean that present numbers may be a little worse than reality? Sure, it does, but the overall picture is of a job market and an economy NOT IMPROVING, and which have not improved this entire year.
The problem is that there does not alppear to be any reason things will get any better, and many reasons they MAY get worse. Europe is a disaster area. China is in some trouble, to the oknt that the truly STUPID peole on Wall Street are counting on "stimulus" in China--as well as Europe and the U.S (from Bailout Ben Bernanke)j--to "save" us. This Bernanke idea that central bannkers and governments can, and SHOULD, bail out Wall Street and financial people is one of the evils of our time. One of my brothers calls this Bailout Ben "olution" to problems the 'money button", where Ben Bernanke (and other "central bankers" and governments) have an electonic "button", where al they have to do to CREATE INFINITE AMOUNTS OF MONEY is to PUSH THE BUTTON--and the money "magiclaly" appears electronically. This is an obvius "improvement' on the old money "printing press", since yu don't even have to physically print any money (the only apparent expalnation for the LIE by Bailout Ben that the Federal Reserve has not been engaging in the printing of money). But there is no actual reason to believe that we can push the "money button" ans "solve' the major problems in Europe, and around the world.
What about here? We have a deficit still out of control. The Obama Administratin are putting out mor regulations every day, except when Obama announces some cosmetic, political "initiative" to "reduce" the burden on business). TAXES are set to RISE next year, includnig the supposed end of the FRAUDULENT "payroll tax credit"). ObamaCare alone puts more of a BLACK COUOUD over our economy than any other law in the history of this country. And, with the Supreme Court betrakyal, there is no "clean' way to end ObamaCare. That is why the Supreme Court decisin was BAD for President Obama, as well as for the country. We alrady have "stealth inflation", as FOOD prices are going through the roof, while even gasoline prices are HIGHTER than they shuld be (much highter). Notice how our poilicies have made a real "recovery" IMPOSSIBLE. IF we actualy started to 'improve" in any substantial way, OILK and GASOLINE prices will EXPLODE (along with inflatin in general)--stopping any "recovery" in its tracks. Taht is also the effect of our ever building DEBT. It is also the effect of ObamaCare and ever increasing regulatin HANGING OVER the economy. There is no chance for a real recovery, and little chance for any "blip" of real "improvement" for the economy by electin day. This blog has alrady predicted that Obama will LOSE the electin, IF the econmy does not show substantial improvement by electin day (or at least apparent "improvement").
Against all of this, what are the economic fascists on CNBC counting on? GAS PRICES (lol). Yes, gasoline prices are the third highest they have ever been, and SHOULD be around that $250 that Michele Bachmann was "ridiculed" for "promising", but the truly stupid peole on Wall Street are "counting on" the drop in the price of oil and gasoline to "bail us out" (along with, of curse, Bailout Ben Bernanke "having their backs"). What can you say abut a fantasy this ludicrous? Oil and gasolne prices have dropped--not nearly as much as they should have dropped--because of a WEAK world economy (whihc has resulted in a STONGER DOLLAR--hurting our economy is some ways while helping it in thngs like the price of oil in dollar terms). Problem? Not only do oil and gasoline prices remain TOO HIGH, but they are offset by things like FOOD (which I can tell yuu--as I do my own grocery shopping--has SKYROCKETED). Then there is the HEAT WAVE (which "helped" the eocnmy n January and February, and reduced the need for heating oil, but is now INCREASING UTILITY BILLS). It is obvius that lower gasoline prices WILL NOT SAVE US, although the Bernanke-caused spike upward in gasoline prices this spring had something to do with the seasonal stalling of the economy this spring.
Doom and gloom? Maybe, but I call them the way I see them. The econmy has really been stalled since the end of 2009, and the underlying "piollars" of our "free market" econmy are ROTTING. It is hard to see how we can have any 'recovery" before things get worse again. No, they are not getting substantially worse YET, but we are constantly on the preciice, with NO way to actually "recover". So, yes, I am pessimistic. We are gong down the wrong path, with no margin at al for error. Some DRAMATIC change of directin is needed, and even that cannot be done without pain, but there seems no prospect of such actin (not a government 'solution" with a political "magic wand" or Bernanke's "money button", but a return to a real "rfree market" economy without government siphoning all of the vitality out of the private sector).
"Skip, how can yoiu be popular, if you keep saing things this pessimistic?" Ah. President Obama LIES to yo, and says he does not care aobut politics in things like ObamaCare and "gay rights". But you will NEVER be told what I think you want to hear in this blog. Even Rush Limbaugh will do that more than this bog will. Let me be very clear: I have said repeatedly, and sy now, that a POLITICIAN must be POSITIVE to get elected. That was the genius of Ronald Reagan: He could remain amiable and positive, while still asserting strong principles that may have had negative aspects, but which Reagan presented POSITIVELY and with a POSITIVE vision of the future. Taht is what a conservative running for office needs to be: PRINCIPLED, but POSITIVE (and with a visin). We have NO such politician now. However, I think that peole are ready for "plain talk" (not from John McCain, who never gave it). People will accept a "negative' view of where we are, if only they see a VSIIN of where we CAN BE. Regan was able to do that. No prsent conservative politician can. And I am to much of a pessimist to do it. I think I do have the "vision". I just see the problems of where we are too clearly, and am too honet with myself to pretend I see an EASY way out. The way out from here is HARD, although a few leaders like Reagan could make it easier. The problem is that we are not even on the path of a "way out", but digging ourselves steadlily deeper into the swamp.
P.S. No proofreaidng or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
80,000 jobs were "creatged" in June. That is a BAD number--really not much different than zero. The number is "seasonally adjusted", and subject to substantial REVISION (although, unlike the weekly number of new unemplyment claims, the revisioin is not ALWAYS in the same unfavorable direction). The unemployment rate--a poll--stayed at 8.2%. You will remember that the CALCULATION of both the unempllyment ratge and employment numbers was CHANGED in January, making even the Lbaor Department say tat you really can't compare this year's numbers (in any confident manner) with last year's numbers. Thus, what matters is how we are doing THIS YEAR (for comparison purposes, since those are the numbers that can best be compared on an "apples-to-apples" basis).
The January unemplyment rate was 8.2%. Thus, the unemplyment RATE has not really changed THIS ENTIRE YEAR. "Job creation" has TANKED since Januarty-February (when changes in calculation had the most effect AND when the "seasonal adjustment" was SUSPECT, including because of the good weather)--reaching less tha 100,000 for at least the last 3 months. As this blog has told you week after eek, the number of new unemplyment claims has NOT IMPROVED this entire year, desite apparent "improvement" in January and February, which has REVERSED (apparently) over the past three months until we are at about the same level at which we started the year. At the same time, economic "growth rate" has DELCINED to less than 2%. This data all provides a CONSISTENT picture of OBAMA FAILURE ON JOBS: no improvement in the job market this entire year, and very little i"improvement" in the economy n general. The "apparent' "improvement" in January and February was probably FICTINAL, as changes in calculatin and glitches in "seasonal adjustments" probaly resulted in numbers a little better than reality. Does that mean that present numbers may be a little worse than reality? Sure, it does, but the overall picture is of a job market and an economy NOT IMPROVING, and which have not improved this entire year.
The problem is that there does not alppear to be any reason things will get any better, and many reasons they MAY get worse. Europe is a disaster area. China is in some trouble, to the oknt that the truly STUPID peole on Wall Street are counting on "stimulus" in China--as well as Europe and the U.S (from Bailout Ben Bernanke)j--to "save" us. This Bernanke idea that central bannkers and governments can, and SHOULD, bail out Wall Street and financial people is one of the evils of our time. One of my brothers calls this Bailout Ben "olution" to problems the 'money button", where Ben Bernanke (and other "central bankers" and governments) have an electonic "button", where al they have to do to CREATE INFINITE AMOUNTS OF MONEY is to PUSH THE BUTTON--and the money "magiclaly" appears electronically. This is an obvius "improvement' on the old money "printing press", since yu don't even have to physically print any money (the only apparent expalnation for the LIE by Bailout Ben that the Federal Reserve has not been engaging in the printing of money). But there is no actual reason to believe that we can push the "money button" ans "solve' the major problems in Europe, and around the world.
What about here? We have a deficit still out of control. The Obama Administratin are putting out mor regulations every day, except when Obama announces some cosmetic, political "initiative" to "reduce" the burden on business). TAXES are set to RISE next year, includnig the supposed end of the FRAUDULENT "payroll tax credit"). ObamaCare alone puts more of a BLACK COUOUD over our economy than any other law in the history of this country. And, with the Supreme Court betrakyal, there is no "clean' way to end ObamaCare. That is why the Supreme Court decisin was BAD for President Obama, as well as for the country. We alrady have "stealth inflation", as FOOD prices are going through the roof, while even gasoline prices are HIGHTER than they shuld be (much highter). Notice how our poilicies have made a real "recovery" IMPOSSIBLE. IF we actualy started to 'improve" in any substantial way, OILK and GASOLINE prices will EXPLODE (along with inflatin in general)--stopping any "recovery" in its tracks. Taht is also the effect of our ever building DEBT. It is also the effect of ObamaCare and ever increasing regulatin HANGING OVER the economy. There is no chance for a real recovery, and little chance for any "blip" of real "improvement" for the economy by electin day. This blog has alrady predicted that Obama will LOSE the electin, IF the econmy does not show substantial improvement by electin day (or at least apparent "improvement").
Against all of this, what are the economic fascists on CNBC counting on? GAS PRICES (lol). Yes, gasoline prices are the third highest they have ever been, and SHOULD be around that $250 that Michele Bachmann was "ridiculed" for "promising", but the truly stupid peole on Wall Street are "counting on" the drop in the price of oil and gasoline to "bail us out" (along with, of curse, Bailout Ben Bernanke "having their backs"). What can you say abut a fantasy this ludicrous? Oil and gasolne prices have dropped--not nearly as much as they should have dropped--because of a WEAK world economy (whihc has resulted in a STONGER DOLLAR--hurting our economy is some ways while helping it in thngs like the price of oil in dollar terms). Problem? Not only do oil and gasoline prices remain TOO HIGH, but they are offset by things like FOOD (which I can tell yuu--as I do my own grocery shopping--has SKYROCKETED). Then there is the HEAT WAVE (which "helped" the eocnmy n January and February, and reduced the need for heating oil, but is now INCREASING UTILITY BILLS). It is obvius that lower gasoline prices WILL NOT SAVE US, although the Bernanke-caused spike upward in gasoline prices this spring had something to do with the seasonal stalling of the economy this spring.
Doom and gloom? Maybe, but I call them the way I see them. The econmy has really been stalled since the end of 2009, and the underlying "piollars" of our "free market" econmy are ROTTING. It is hard to see how we can have any 'recovery" before things get worse again. No, they are not getting substantially worse YET, but we are constantly on the preciice, with NO way to actually "recover". So, yes, I am pessimistic. We are gong down the wrong path, with no margin at al for error. Some DRAMATIC change of directin is needed, and even that cannot be done without pain, but there seems no prospect of such actin (not a government 'solution" with a political "magic wand" or Bernanke's "money button", but a return to a real "rfree market" economy without government siphoning all of the vitality out of the private sector).
"Skip, how can yoiu be popular, if you keep saing things this pessimistic?" Ah. President Obama LIES to yo, and says he does not care aobut politics in things like ObamaCare and "gay rights". But you will NEVER be told what I think you want to hear in this blog. Even Rush Limbaugh will do that more than this bog will. Let me be very clear: I have said repeatedly, and sy now, that a POLITICIAN must be POSITIVE to get elected. That was the genius of Ronald Reagan: He could remain amiable and positive, while still asserting strong principles that may have had negative aspects, but which Reagan presented POSITIVELY and with a POSITIVE vision of the future. Taht is what a conservative running for office needs to be: PRINCIPLED, but POSITIVE (and with a visin). We have NO such politician now. However, I think that peole are ready for "plain talk" (not from John McCain, who never gave it). People will accept a "negative' view of where we are, if only they see a VSIIN of where we CAN BE. Regan was able to do that. No prsent conservative politician can. And I am to much of a pessimist to do it. I think I do have the "vision". I just see the problems of where we are too clearly, and am too honet with myself to pretend I see an EASY way out. The way out from here is HARD, although a few leaders like Reagan could make it easier. The problem is that we are not even on the path of a "way out", but digging ourselves steadlily deeper into the swamp.
P.S. No proofreaidng or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Obama Loses 377,000 Jobs Last Week: June Worst month of Year (Failure on Jobs Continues)
No, the above is not the media headline. That is because our media LIES.
First, let us go to last week's LIES (althugh the Bloomberg headline pretty much got it right last week). The weekly number of new unemployoment claims filed the previuos week comes out every Thursday. The number is based on very subjective "seasonal adjustments", and is especially unreliable around holidays. You will note that last week led into the 4th of July holiday week. The number is also REVISED (almost always UPWARD) each succeeding Thursday. Thus, the initial number announced two weeks ago on Thursday was RVISED upward 5,0000 last Thrusday (to 392,000 from 387,0000). This made the number APPEAR to "drop" 5,0-00 from the previus week's REVISED number, as the intial number released last Thursday was 386,000. You will note that is abut the SAME (as Bloomberg accurately reported) as the initial 386,000 released the previous Thursday (before the revision to 392,000). The pont is that this number only means somethning OVER TIME., and AFTER REVISIONS. Last week's initial number, of 386,000, for example, was REVIOSED UPWARD (as this blog again CORRECTLY predicted) to 388,0000 (a meaningless 1,000 less than the usual upward revision of 3,000 or more).
Okay. Look at June. For almost all of June, the AVERAGE of new unemployment claims was right around 390,0000--a BAD number. June was the WORST month of the year, even with today's UNREVISED number of 374,0000 (expected, unless lou are a media LIAR, to be REVISED UPWARD to 377,0000 or more nextg week). By any measure, June wa a BAD MONTH, and hshowed NO IMPROVEMENT in the "job market" the entire first half of the year. You will remember that the (fictional?) "range' estalbished around lthe month of February was 350,0000-365,0000. Today's number was at least 10,000 ABOVE that range, and hardly a "good" number.
That did not stop the media LIARS. Again, the despicable AP headline, "featured" on Yahoo "News", was that: "Hopeful signs emerge for struggling job market." The "lead" paragraph said that "emcpoyers stepped up hiring in June.' As I have just shown yu, EMPLOYERS STEPPED UP FIRING IN JUNE. The other media headline that LIED was that: "Jobless claims fall 14,000 last week, to 374,000". As usual, that headline is an outright, objective LIE. On an "aples-to-apples' basis, claims "fell" a meaningless 12,000 (386,000--the INITIAL rlrep;orted number for last week--to 386,000 (the INITIAL reported number for this week). Based on the CONSISTENT upward revisions, it is even more of a LIE, since you can EXPECT an upward revisin next week of at least 3,000. Remember, the revison of the initial 387,0000 number released two weeks ago was a full 5,0000, all of the way to 392,000.. That revision HAS been as much as 12,000 and more, although that is rare (not, however, any more rare--less rare--than a DOWNWARD revision). Remember, ALL of June shows the labor "market" at its WORST level of the year (as far as new unemployment claims are concerned).
Therefore, how can the LIARS of the AP, and rest of the media, talk about 'hopeful signs". Easy. They did what they always do. They IGNORED the data inconsistent with their NARRRATIVE (agenda), and only considered the data in the most "favorable' way possible for the propaganda they wan to spread. Thus, they have pretty much IGNORED the BAD DATA for all of June (previous weeks going past the BAD news as quickly as possilble), while playing up ONE PRE-HOLIDAY WEEK as an "important sign" (which it is not). Then they used the ADP (payroll processing outfit for which my friend Sylvia works as a "configuratin analyst") data for June as a "further indication" of "hopeful signs" (when the media has previously IGNORED ADP data when it is unfavorable. ADP data "showed" that private employers "added" 175,000 jobs in June. But ow is that POSSIBLE, when June was the WORST omnth (at the very least tied for that spot) for JOB LOSSES all year? The answer is that it is NOT POSSIBLE. That is, the data is INCONSISTENT. Somewhere, the "seasonal adjustmetns' are gong awry. Sure, it is p9ossible that the BASD newson new unemplyment claims is misleading, and that it is THOSE numbers which are "wrong". But there is no reason to assume that. All yu can say right now is that the ADP number--even though a number under 200,000 is NOT GOOD in the first place--is INCONSISTENT with other months, when FEWER JOBS were "added", despite BETTER (ven if only slightly) jobless claims numbers.
No. The record of new unemplyment claims thiis entire year has been a recorxcd of Obama fAILURE, and media LIES cannot alter that fact.
Oh. The headline. Did Obama really "lose" 377,000 jobs last week? First, yu will note that I have ADJUSTED the number to reflect the EXPECTED REVISION nextt week. I have done that often in recent weeks, and i have ALWAYS (ever single time) been MOE ACCURATE than the initial number HYPED by the media (as initially releaed lby the Labor Department, before the inevitable revisin the next week). But how can Obama "lose' 377,000 jobs this week, and an average of 390,000 jobs for about the previus 4 weeks, and still "add" jobs for the month (as jobs are expected to be added, even if the ADP number is inflated)? Easy. We are talking about the difference between GROSS JOBS and NET JOBS. The wekly number of new unemplyment claims--NOT IMPROVED this entire year--is a measure of GROSS JOB LOSSES. Those job losses can be offset by hiring. "Skip, aren't you ashamed of yyourself for misleading people?" Not at all I am merely using the OBAMA MEASURE for evaluating his 'stimulus" efforts, where Obama and his supporters only try to "measure' GROSS JOBS "saved" (lol) or 'created". Taht does not take into account the jobs that may have been LOST because of the government DOMINATION of the 'job maraket", and rfreezing out of the "private sector". in other words, how many jobs have Obama's policies COST. Since this is the WORST RECOVERY since the Great depression, the EVIDENCE is that Obama's policies have COST "net jobs". Our economy should be ROARING by now, in any normal "recovery"--should have been ROARING in 2010 and 2011. Instead, we have been limping along, and continue to limp along. No, we are not YET facing Armageddon, but we WILL if we keep limping along thi way.
Note that I stand behind what I said on ObamaCare, and how the Supreme Court decisn HURT OBAMA. ObamaCare remains a BLACK CLOUD over the U.S. economy, PREVENTING any real "jobs recovery". If the Supreme Cuort had removed that cloud, even at the cost of rightly delcaring Obama to have acted unconstitutionally, it woulld have BOOSTED the economy (the main obstacle in the way of Obama's re-electin) AND given Obama a campaign isssue. Again, objectively (and I AM "neutral", since I cnanot support Romney), the decision hurt Obama pretty badly.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight), although I do try to keep the numbers right. If i leave off a "zero", or make an obvius typo in a number, there is enough redundancy in the article so that you shuld easily be able to figure it out. Substantively, the numbers are RIGHT.--week after week proven to be much MORE RIGHT than the liars of the media. The monthy FEDERAL job figures of June, and the unemplyment rate, will be realeased tomorrow. Expect those numbers to be viewed in the same biased way by the media (and Obama, but that goes without saying). As this blog has told you, these "monthy" emllyment numbers are SUBJECTIVE, and not "concrete", "counting" numbers. You can expect some sort of "job gain", as the weekly number of new unemplyment claims has not been bad enough to actaully "lose" NET jobs. But any really 'good" number (like close to 200,000) will be INCONSISTENT with the weely numbers on new unemplyment claims. The numbers on weekly new unemloyment claims are simply not good enogh to lower the unemplyment rate, ecept as a matter of statistical "noise". As this blog has told you, of course, what matters is how the economy "looks' in SEPTEMBER and OCTOBER. Any slight--probably "fictional"--"improvement" in June is NOT gong to matter, UNLESS it continues in future months. As this blog has told you, Obama LOSES unless the economy IMPROVES SUBSTANTIALLY (or at least appears to do so) by election day. I don't see how that can happen, with ObamaCare and all of the rest (taxes, regulatins, etc.). But maybe miracles happen (skeptical agnostic though I am). You can take it to the bank: Data today, and any data tomorrow, are NOT 'hopeful signs" 'emerging". That only happens OVER TIMME, and when the data is CONSISTENT.
First, let us go to last week's LIES (althugh the Bloomberg headline pretty much got it right last week). The weekly number of new unemployoment claims filed the previuos week comes out every Thursday. The number is based on very subjective "seasonal adjustments", and is especially unreliable around holidays. You will note that last week led into the 4th of July holiday week. The number is also REVISED (almost always UPWARD) each succeeding Thursday. Thus, the initial number announced two weeks ago on Thursday was RVISED upward 5,0000 last Thrusday (to 392,000 from 387,0000). This made the number APPEAR to "drop" 5,0-00 from the previus week's REVISED number, as the intial number released last Thursday was 386,000. You will note that is abut the SAME (as Bloomberg accurately reported) as the initial 386,000 released the previous Thursday (before the revision to 392,000). The pont is that this number only means somethning OVER TIME., and AFTER REVISIONS. Last week's initial number, of 386,000, for example, was REVIOSED UPWARD (as this blog again CORRECTLY predicted) to 388,0000 (a meaningless 1,000 less than the usual upward revision of 3,000 or more).
Okay. Look at June. For almost all of June, the AVERAGE of new unemployment claims was right around 390,0000--a BAD number. June was the WORST month of the year, even with today's UNREVISED number of 374,0000 (expected, unless lou are a media LIAR, to be REVISED UPWARD to 377,0000 or more nextg week). By any measure, June wa a BAD MONTH, and hshowed NO IMPROVEMENT in the "job market" the entire first half of the year. You will remember that the (fictional?) "range' estalbished around lthe month of February was 350,0000-365,0000. Today's number was at least 10,000 ABOVE that range, and hardly a "good" number.
That did not stop the media LIARS. Again, the despicable AP headline, "featured" on Yahoo "News", was that: "Hopeful signs emerge for struggling job market." The "lead" paragraph said that "emcpoyers stepped up hiring in June.' As I have just shown yu, EMPLOYERS STEPPED UP FIRING IN JUNE. The other media headline that LIED was that: "Jobless claims fall 14,000 last week, to 374,000". As usual, that headline is an outright, objective LIE. On an "aples-to-apples' basis, claims "fell" a meaningless 12,000 (386,000--the INITIAL rlrep;orted number for last week--to 386,000 (the INITIAL reported number for this week). Based on the CONSISTENT upward revisions, it is even more of a LIE, since you can EXPECT an upward revisin next week of at least 3,000. Remember, the revison of the initial 387,0000 number released two weeks ago was a full 5,0000, all of the way to 392,000.. That revision HAS been as much as 12,000 and more, although that is rare (not, however, any more rare--less rare--than a DOWNWARD revision). Remember, ALL of June shows the labor "market" at its WORST level of the year (as far as new unemployment claims are concerned).
Therefore, how can the LIARS of the AP, and rest of the media, talk about 'hopeful signs". Easy. They did what they always do. They IGNORED the data inconsistent with their NARRRATIVE (agenda), and only considered the data in the most "favorable' way possible for the propaganda they wan to spread. Thus, they have pretty much IGNORED the BAD DATA for all of June (previous weeks going past the BAD news as quickly as possilble), while playing up ONE PRE-HOLIDAY WEEK as an "important sign" (which it is not). Then they used the ADP (payroll processing outfit for which my friend Sylvia works as a "configuratin analyst") data for June as a "further indication" of "hopeful signs" (when the media has previously IGNORED ADP data when it is unfavorable. ADP data "showed" that private employers "added" 175,000 jobs in June. But ow is that POSSIBLE, when June was the WORST omnth (at the very least tied for that spot) for JOB LOSSES all year? The answer is that it is NOT POSSIBLE. That is, the data is INCONSISTENT. Somewhere, the "seasonal adjustmetns' are gong awry. Sure, it is p9ossible that the BASD newson new unemplyment claims is misleading, and that it is THOSE numbers which are "wrong". But there is no reason to assume that. All yu can say right now is that the ADP number--even though a number under 200,000 is NOT GOOD in the first place--is INCONSISTENT with other months, when FEWER JOBS were "added", despite BETTER (ven if only slightly) jobless claims numbers.
No. The record of new unemplyment claims thiis entire year has been a recorxcd of Obama fAILURE, and media LIES cannot alter that fact.
Oh. The headline. Did Obama really "lose" 377,000 jobs last week? First, yu will note that I have ADJUSTED the number to reflect the EXPECTED REVISION nextt week. I have done that often in recent weeks, and i have ALWAYS (ever single time) been MOE ACCURATE than the initial number HYPED by the media (as initially releaed lby the Labor Department, before the inevitable revisin the next week). But how can Obama "lose' 377,000 jobs this week, and an average of 390,000 jobs for about the previus 4 weeks, and still "add" jobs for the month (as jobs are expected to be added, even if the ADP number is inflated)? Easy. We are talking about the difference between GROSS JOBS and NET JOBS. The wekly number of new unemplyment claims--NOT IMPROVED this entire year--is a measure of GROSS JOB LOSSES. Those job losses can be offset by hiring. "Skip, aren't you ashamed of yyourself for misleading people?" Not at all I am merely using the OBAMA MEASURE for evaluating his 'stimulus" efforts, where Obama and his supporters only try to "measure' GROSS JOBS "saved" (lol) or 'created". Taht does not take into account the jobs that may have been LOST because of the government DOMINATION of the 'job maraket", and rfreezing out of the "private sector". in other words, how many jobs have Obama's policies COST. Since this is the WORST RECOVERY since the Great depression, the EVIDENCE is that Obama's policies have COST "net jobs". Our economy should be ROARING by now, in any normal "recovery"--should have been ROARING in 2010 and 2011. Instead, we have been limping along, and continue to limp along. No, we are not YET facing Armageddon, but we WILL if we keep limping along thi way.
Note that I stand behind what I said on ObamaCare, and how the Supreme Court decisn HURT OBAMA. ObamaCare remains a BLACK CLOUD over the U.S. economy, PREVENTING any real "jobs recovery". If the Supreme Cuort had removed that cloud, even at the cost of rightly delcaring Obama to have acted unconstitutionally, it woulld have BOOSTED the economy (the main obstacle in the way of Obama's re-electin) AND given Obama a campaign isssue. Again, objectively (and I AM "neutral", since I cnanot support Romney), the decision hurt Obama pretty badly.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight), although I do try to keep the numbers right. If i leave off a "zero", or make an obvius typo in a number, there is enough redundancy in the article so that you shuld easily be able to figure it out. Substantively, the numbers are RIGHT.--week after week proven to be much MORE RIGHT than the liars of the media. The monthy FEDERAL job figures of June, and the unemplyment rate, will be realeased tomorrow. Expect those numbers to be viewed in the same biased way by the media (and Obama, but that goes without saying). As this blog has told you, these "monthy" emllyment numbers are SUBJECTIVE, and not "concrete", "counting" numbers. You can expect some sort of "job gain", as the weekly number of new unemplyment claims has not been bad enough to actaully "lose" NET jobs. But any really 'good" number (like close to 200,000) will be INCONSISTENT with the weely numbers on new unemplyment claims. The numbers on weekly new unemloyment claims are simply not good enogh to lower the unemplyment rate, ecept as a matter of statistical "noise". As this blog has told you, of course, what matters is how the economy "looks' in SEPTEMBER and OCTOBER. Any slight--probably "fictional"--"improvement" in June is NOT gong to matter, UNLESS it continues in future months. As this blog has told you, Obama LOSES unless the economy IMPROVES SUBSTANTIALLY (or at least appears to do so) by election day. I don't see how that can happen, with ObamaCare and all of the rest (taxes, regulatins, etc.). But maybe miracles happen (skeptical agnostic though I am). You can take it to the bank: Data today, and any data tomorrow, are NOT 'hopeful signs" 'emerging". That only happens OVER TIMME, and when the data is CONSISTENT.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
God Bless the USA: Happy 4th of July
"Skip, you can't say that. You are an AGNOSTIC."
Yes, I amand the phrase may nbot have the same heartfelt meaning coming from me, as it would coming from someone who is a believing Christian (which leaves President Obama out, as Bill Maher and I agree). If God exists, and it is certainly possible He does, then I DO want God to "bless" America. The difference between me, and leftists such as Maher and teh peole of CNN (The Anti-Christian Network) is that they are INTOLERANT and INSECXURE. I am "comfortable in my own skin" (to use the owrds of the commercial. I am not THREATENED by mere exposure to the majority religion of the ocuntry. Nor am I threatened by the idea of my CHILDREN being "exposed" to religion (in school or elsewhere). In fact, my wife and I sent my two daughters to a CATHOLIC SCHOOL for a couple of years, before TLHEY insisted on going to ublic schol. It did not hurt them. In fact, I wish they had taken some of the "lessons" more to heart. Both of them, by the way, turned out at least as skeptical of religion as I am (my older duaghter turning ut too much like Bill Maher, with an actual intolerance for relifion, for my taste). I am a true SKEPTIC, in the mode oof the Roman philosopher Lucian: I am skeptical of EVERYTHING, including my6 won skepticism.
I think one of the msot telling moments recently abut the LEFT was that school principal who refused to let a group of young schoolchildren sing "God Blless the USA" on school grounds. Even more telling ere the leftists who HECKLED the children, when they sang the sog off of school grounds. Nope. It does NOT create a "theocracy" to let a group of schoolchildren sing "God Bless the USA" (or post the Ten Commandments) on school grounds. I know the MEANING of "theocracy". The left does not, or pretends not to because they are so INTOLERANT, and such HYPOCRITES.
"But, Skip, young children don't even know what they are singing, and they are being INDOCTRINATED in a religion that may be contrary to that of their parents." Give me a break. You leftists really are INTOLERANT BOOBS, aren't lyou? Children in this country do not have a "right' not to ever "encounter" the Christian religion. Unless the INTOLERANT LEFT has their way, children in this country ARE gong to encunter the Christian religin. Despite the ACLU (which really does want to BAN it, if only they could manage it), CHRISTIAMAS is swtill a NTAINAL HOLIDLAY (a RELITIOUS holiday) . in fact, although we have almsot succeeded in denying it, THANKSGIVING is a RELIGIUS hoiday. The idea that children in pubic schools should be "protected" from any "contact" with the Christian religin is simply absurd. I knew I was an agnostic from the age of 12 (I am notw almoast 65). I can't tell you how many times I have said the Pledge of Allegiance, INCLUDING "under God". Why should that bother m? If God, as an omnipotent being, exists, then we are certainly "under God'. If He doe nto exist, the phrase is simply MEANINGLESS. As I have said repeatedly in this blog, I have NO problem being present at a PRAYER. As a matter of COURTESY and TOLEANCE to the beliefs of others, which would be true if I were a guest where a MUSLIM prayer was said, I merely bow my head and DO NOT PRAY. As stated, n the USA you WILL encunter the Christian relgiion, and I see no reason for CHRISTIANS to be GUILTY about expressing their religion in public (when it is natural to do so, which is MUCH more often than leftists think it is natural to do so).
What prompted this article? My daughter in New York City called me today, and she (along with two friends of hers) SERENATED me with a verse of Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA." Now my daughter, as stated above, is not religious, but SHE had NO problem with that. And she KNOWS that she is not catering to MY religion (lack thereof--again, like President Obama). To her, it was jsut a PATRIOTIC song. She is absolutely right. Whether you believe in God, or do not believe in God, there is nothing wrong with the song as a patriotic song.
I regard this as an opportunity for a teaching moment: a chance to agin explain the difference between myself and INTOLERANT, anti-Christian leftist like Bill Maher. Remember when school children, and young children, SANG THE PRAISES OF OBAMA? Leftists generallyl had no problem with that. That is because leftists are generally the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth,on two legs or four. I would actualy have had no problem with "God bless Obama", as someting said in a lppublic school as a matter of respect for the OFFICE of the Presidency. Don't we, again, WANT God to "bless" and "guide" (good luck on that one, God) our President, if God exists? I certainly hope we want that.
But this idea that it is LESS OFFENSIVE to "praise Obama" (in a "scripted" way) than it is to "priase God is INSANE. Iknow. For leftist, AND for Obama himself, Obaqma IS God. But I don't want to be too critical of the religion of others here, and will let that lie. Did young children rally knw what they were singing when signing the praises of Obama? To some small degree, maybe they did. But mainly they did not. COLLEGE students don't even know what they are saying on public issues, or have you not listened to some of those interviews with "Occupy" "protesters?" I am serious here. Do children know MORE about what they are saing when they talk about "God" (relatively absract, remote, all-powerful figure) than they do talking aobut current politicla figures? I believe you are a FOOL if you do not realize the truth here: it is SAHAMEFUL to USE children to "promote" a current political figure, while you can hardly take the same positoin abut 'God". I know. The LEFT wants to make God "plitical", because the LEFT wants to run against HRISTIANS who really believe in their religion. Oh, I am perfectly aware that "Chistian" organizatins (religious right") have made their "religion" into an "issue" against the left. But have they not generally been reacting to the LEFT turning againt religion? in other owrds, is not the INTOLERANCE of te left towward religin not a legitimate issue? Of course it is. Sure, there is something wrong with "teacing" Areligon as the "truth" in a public shcool, but there is equally something wrong with BANNING the mere MENTION of God and relign in a ublic school. That was actualy the stated positin of the "skeptic" in the movie about the "Scopes Monkey Trial in 2925, titled "Inherit the Wind": "How woululd you feel if the BIBLE, and metninon of the Bible, was BANNED from public schols? " that was the questin that the "skeptic" (Spencer Tracy, plaing, I think, Clarence Darrow) asked of William Jennings Bryan (I think), the defender of the BAN on teacing evolution in the public shcools of Arkansas. The movvie was made at abut the time that we started down this indefensible road: BANNING almost any MENTION of religon in the public shcools, ecept in some "neutral" class on comparative religion.
No. I have no tolerance for this Bill Maher/CNN/leftist intolerance. Therefore, I make no apology at al for saying "God Bless the USA." It is not me who is the hypocrite here. It is the intolerant hypocrites on the left.
Anyway, I hope you had a happy 4th of July, even if yu are on the left and a hypocrite.
Oh. Maybe I will do an article someday about the absolute absurdity of the media suddenly makng a big "pont" aobut this NOT being 'Independence Day", because the actual "vote" for independence was on July 2 instead of July 4 (when the offical Declaratin of Independence" wa adopted. Oh, relevant to the article above is that the OFFICIAL Delcaratin of Independence credits the "rights" of the "people" as coming from "their Creator". Can we rEAD the Declaratin of Independence in shcool? It is no accident that Prfesident Obama TWIE deleted the wrods "by their Creator" when he "quoted" the Declaratin (a year or two ago, although I would not put it past him to have repreated the same "mistake" again TODAY.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
Yes, I amand the phrase may nbot have the same heartfelt meaning coming from me, as it would coming from someone who is a believing Christian (which leaves President Obama out, as Bill Maher and I agree). If God exists, and it is certainly possible He does, then I DO want God to "bless" America. The difference between me, and leftists such as Maher and teh peole of CNN (The Anti-Christian Network) is that they are INTOLERANT and INSECXURE. I am "comfortable in my own skin" (to use the owrds of the commercial. I am not THREATENED by mere exposure to the majority religion of the ocuntry. Nor am I threatened by the idea of my CHILDREN being "exposed" to religion (in school or elsewhere). In fact, my wife and I sent my two daughters to a CATHOLIC SCHOOL for a couple of years, before TLHEY insisted on going to ublic schol. It did not hurt them. In fact, I wish they had taken some of the "lessons" more to heart. Both of them, by the way, turned out at least as skeptical of religion as I am (my older duaghter turning ut too much like Bill Maher, with an actual intolerance for relifion, for my taste). I am a true SKEPTIC, in the mode oof the Roman philosopher Lucian: I am skeptical of EVERYTHING, including my6 won skepticism.
I think one of the msot telling moments recently abut the LEFT was that school principal who refused to let a group of young schoolchildren sing "God Blless the USA" on school grounds. Even more telling ere the leftists who HECKLED the children, when they sang the sog off of school grounds. Nope. It does NOT create a "theocracy" to let a group of schoolchildren sing "God Bless the USA" (or post the Ten Commandments) on school grounds. I know the MEANING of "theocracy". The left does not, or pretends not to because they are so INTOLERANT, and such HYPOCRITES.
"But, Skip, young children don't even know what they are singing, and they are being INDOCTRINATED in a religion that may be contrary to that of their parents." Give me a break. You leftists really are INTOLERANT BOOBS, aren't lyou? Children in this country do not have a "right' not to ever "encounter" the Christian religion. Unless the INTOLERANT LEFT has their way, children in this country ARE gong to encunter the Christian religin. Despite the ACLU (which really does want to BAN it, if only they could manage it), CHRISTIAMAS is swtill a NTAINAL HOLIDLAY (a RELITIOUS holiday) . in fact, although we have almsot succeeded in denying it, THANKSGIVING is a RELIGIUS hoiday. The idea that children in pubic schools should be "protected" from any "contact" with the Christian religin is simply absurd. I knew I was an agnostic from the age of 12 (I am notw almoast 65). I can't tell you how many times I have said the Pledge of Allegiance, INCLUDING "under God". Why should that bother m? If God, as an omnipotent being, exists, then we are certainly "under God'. If He doe nto exist, the phrase is simply MEANINGLESS. As I have said repeatedly in this blog, I have NO problem being present at a PRAYER. As a matter of COURTESY and TOLEANCE to the beliefs of others, which would be true if I were a guest where a MUSLIM prayer was said, I merely bow my head and DO NOT PRAY. As stated, n the USA you WILL encunter the Christian relgiion, and I see no reason for CHRISTIANS to be GUILTY about expressing their religion in public (when it is natural to do so, which is MUCH more often than leftists think it is natural to do so).
What prompted this article? My daughter in New York City called me today, and she (along with two friends of hers) SERENATED me with a verse of Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA." Now my daughter, as stated above, is not religious, but SHE had NO problem with that. And she KNOWS that she is not catering to MY religion (lack thereof--again, like President Obama). To her, it was jsut a PATRIOTIC song. She is absolutely right. Whether you believe in God, or do not believe in God, there is nothing wrong with the song as a patriotic song.
I regard this as an opportunity for a teaching moment: a chance to agin explain the difference between myself and INTOLERANT, anti-Christian leftist like Bill Maher. Remember when school children, and young children, SANG THE PRAISES OF OBAMA? Leftists generallyl had no problem with that. That is because leftists are generally the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth,on two legs or four. I would actualy have had no problem with "God bless Obama", as someting said in a lppublic school as a matter of respect for the OFFICE of the Presidency. Don't we, again, WANT God to "bless" and "guide" (good luck on that one, God) our President, if God exists? I certainly hope we want that.
But this idea that it is LESS OFFENSIVE to "praise Obama" (in a "scripted" way) than it is to "priase God is INSANE. Iknow. For leftist, AND for Obama himself, Obaqma IS God. But I don't want to be too critical of the religion of others here, and will let that lie. Did young children rally knw what they were singing when signing the praises of Obama? To some small degree, maybe they did. But mainly they did not. COLLEGE students don't even know what they are saying on public issues, or have you not listened to some of those interviews with "Occupy" "protesters?" I am serious here. Do children know MORE about what they are saing when they talk about "God" (relatively absract, remote, all-powerful figure) than they do talking aobut current politicla figures? I believe you are a FOOL if you do not realize the truth here: it is SAHAMEFUL to USE children to "promote" a current political figure, while you can hardly take the same positoin abut 'God". I know. The LEFT wants to make God "plitical", because the LEFT wants to run against HRISTIANS who really believe in their religion. Oh, I am perfectly aware that "Chistian" organizatins (religious right") have made their "religion" into an "issue" against the left. But have they not generally been reacting to the LEFT turning againt religion? in other owrds, is not the INTOLERANCE of te left towward religin not a legitimate issue? Of course it is. Sure, there is something wrong with "teacing" Areligon as the "truth" in a public shcool, but there is equally something wrong with BANNING the mere MENTION of God and relign in a ublic school. That was actualy the stated positin of the "skeptic" in the movie about the "Scopes Monkey Trial in 2925, titled "Inherit the Wind": "How woululd you feel if the BIBLE, and metninon of the Bible, was BANNED from public schols? " that was the questin that the "skeptic" (Spencer Tracy, plaing, I think, Clarence Darrow) asked of William Jennings Bryan (I think), the defender of the BAN on teacing evolution in the public shcools of Arkansas. The movvie was made at abut the time that we started down this indefensible road: BANNING almost any MENTION of religon in the public shcools, ecept in some "neutral" class on comparative religion.
No. I have no tolerance for this Bill Maher/CNN/leftist intolerance. Therefore, I make no apology at al for saying "God Bless the USA." It is not me who is the hypocrite here. It is the intolerant hypocrites on the left.
Anyway, I hope you had a happy 4th of July, even if yu are on the left and a hypocrite.
Oh. Maybe I will do an article someday about the absolute absurdity of the media suddenly makng a big "pont" aobut this NOT being 'Independence Day", because the actual "vote" for independence was on July 2 instead of July 4 (when the offical Declaratin of Independence" wa adopted. Oh, relevant to the article above is that the OFFICIAL Delcaratin of Independence credits the "rights" of the "people" as coming from "their Creator". Can we rEAD the Declaratin of Independence in shcool? It is no accident that Prfesident Obama TWIE deleted the wrods "by their Creator" when he "quoted" the Declaratin (a year or two ago, although I would not put it past him to have repreated the same "mistake" again TODAY.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
Monday, July 2, 2012
Anderson Cooper Is Gay: The Maverick Conservative Gets It Right ("Anderson Cooper Is Gay" Series)
Anderson Cooper: 'The fact is, I'm gay." That is the present featured "picture story" on Yahoo 'News".
Is this the result of The Maverick Conservative articles, begun maybe a month or six weeks ago, under the headline: "Anderson Cooper Is Gay?" And you people doubt the INFLUENCE of this blog.
I know. I know. I was evidently about the LAST person on Earth to know that Anderson Coper was gay. My NUMBEROUS female sources for my rticles ridiculed me for not knowng it years ago. Still. Yahoo 'News" thought this a big enough deal to BEATURE Coper's statement.
As I have said, I don't care if Anderson Cooper is gay (in the absstra ct). The blog article TOLD lyou the rESON that I suddenly started to worry about it. And that is why it matters ("keeping him honest'). Anderson Coooper, and ALL of CNN, have been the source of FANATIC gay actiivst PROPAGANDAon Anderson Cooper's sow (as well as on all of CNN)--but Coop9er's show being far the worst).
Is tlhere something wrong with a gay man using his prime time program to treat "gay rights" as the MOST IMORTANT issue in America? My daughters disagree with me on this, but I hink there is something BADLY WRONG with this--especially when Cooper failed to be "up front' ("keeping him hionest") a to the REASONS he is so FANATIC about featureing "gay rights issues' on his probram (from only one point of view).
This blog has also tod you what i s bvoious: The fact that Anderson Cooper is gay also explains lhis fanatic ANTI-CHRISITAN crusade on his CNN program-again, even mroe fanatic than the rest of CNN, even though CNN is The Anti-Christian Network.
What if Rush Limbaugh had CONCEALED (by not being really lup front about it) lthe fact that he was a polygamist, while CRUSIADING for the "llegalization" of polygamy? Nope. I have NO respect for Anderson Cooper, and I am willing to say so. That really does not have anything to do with the fact that he is gay, but everything to do with the way he has USED his progtrram to BULLY people based on his PERSONAL interest. No respect at all. My daughters: "What does it matter to your life that Anderson Cooper is gay?" As I tell them, it DOES matter to my life that Anderson Cooper has presented himself as a "neutral" "journalists", wile PUSHING gay activist llPROPAGANDA on CNN. The fact that Anderson Cooper is only slightly worse than the rest of the evvil propagandists on CNN doe not mattter. What matters is the DISHONESTY and HYOPOCRISY here: including this constant theme about "keeping them honest>'
Nope. I don't give Anderson Cooepr or CnN a "pass" on this. I hold them accountable, and will continue to do so ("keeping them honest").
Is this blgo EVER wrong? Almot ne er.
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Is this the result of The Maverick Conservative articles, begun maybe a month or six weeks ago, under the headline: "Anderson Cooper Is Gay?" And you people doubt the INFLUENCE of this blog.
I know. I know. I was evidently about the LAST person on Earth to know that Anderson Coper was gay. My NUMBEROUS female sources for my rticles ridiculed me for not knowng it years ago. Still. Yahoo 'News" thought this a big enough deal to BEATURE Coper's statement.
As I have said, I don't care if Anderson Cooper is gay (in the absstra ct). The blog article TOLD lyou the rESON that I suddenly started to worry about it. And that is why it matters ("keeping him honest'). Anderson Coooper, and ALL of CNN, have been the source of FANATIC gay actiivst PROPAGANDAon Anderson Cooper's sow (as well as on all of CNN)--but Coop9er's show being far the worst).
Is tlhere something wrong with a gay man using his prime time program to treat "gay rights" as the MOST IMORTANT issue in America? My daughters disagree with me on this, but I hink there is something BADLY WRONG with this--especially when Cooper failed to be "up front' ("keeping him hionest") a to the REASONS he is so FANATIC about featureing "gay rights issues' on his probram (from only one point of view).
This blog has also tod you what i s bvoious: The fact that Anderson Cooper is gay also explains lhis fanatic ANTI-CHRISITAN crusade on his CNN program-again, even mroe fanatic than the rest of CNN, even though CNN is The Anti-Christian Network.
What if Rush Limbaugh had CONCEALED (by not being really lup front about it) lthe fact that he was a polygamist, while CRUSIADING for the "llegalization" of polygamy? Nope. I have NO respect for Anderson Cooper, and I am willing to say so. That really does not have anything to do with the fact that he is gay, but everything to do with the way he has USED his progtrram to BULLY people based on his PERSONAL interest. No respect at all. My daughters: "What does it matter to your life that Anderson Cooper is gay?" As I tell them, it DOES matter to my life that Anderson Cooper has presented himself as a "neutral" "journalists", wile PUSHING gay activist llPROPAGANDA on CNN. The fact that Anderson Cooper is only slightly worse than the rest of the evvil propagandists on CNN doe not mattter. What matters is the DISHONESTY and HYOPOCRISY here: including this constant theme about "keeping them honest>'
Nope. I don't give Anderson Cooepr or CnN a "pass" on this. I hold them accountable, and will continue to do so ("keeping them honest").
Is this blgo EVER wrong? Almot ne er.
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Hunger Advocates: Not an Oxymoron, But a Movement to Promote Hunger
What is a "hunger advocate?" Well, I did not know anyone would be so stupid as to embrace that phrase, until a few months ago--in El Pas--hwere such a creature I heard such a creature on the rradio, or described in a news report on the radiio. This news report was at least mildly favorable--rather than giving the group the RIDICULE it deserves--describing a GROUP of people "conncerned" that no ENOUGH people are getting food stamps, and taking advantage of Federal Government programs designed against "hunger". I kid you not. This "hunger advocate" said that "only 5%" of people "entitled" to food stamps are getting them.
Back up here. I live in El Paso. For at least a year, and more, it has been a well publicized statistic that 40$ of all El Pasoans receive food stamps. Therefore, what is thiss group of "hunger advocates" saying? I will tell you EXACTLY what they are saying. Thyey are saying that 80% of El Pasoans SHUOLD be on food stamps. No, they did nto draw that obvius conclusion, but that is the ONLY conclusoni yu can draw from an assertino that "onlyl" 50% of El Pasoans "entitled" to food stampls are getting them. Now El Paso is a "poor" city, but this is INSANE.
Now, an itmem of news in the past few days is that the Federal Government is HEAVILY ADVERTISING that more peole should apply for fod stamps. Yep. I just called the entire Federal Government INSANE< because they are obviusly totally on board with these "hunger advocates". Newt Gingrich was dead right; President Obama is the FOOD STAMP PRESIDENT.
What is really gong on here? Right, Thee peole, including Prfesident Obama, really are "advocating hunger". They WANT as many peple as possible to be DEPENDENT on the Federal Government, and to believe that they are "benefitting" from Federal polices that KEEP THEM NEEDING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE THEM WITH FOOD (or perceiving such a "need", with help from "hunger advocates" and the Federal Goverfnment). Forget the idea that yu huld only apply for welfare if you REALLY NEED IT. These "hungar advocates"--again, including Obama--WANT a many people as possible to apply for benefits, even if they don't think they areally need them. It is not going to far that these people--again incuding Obama--WANT people to be HUNGRY , or at least PERCEIVE themselves to "need" the Federal Government to SAVE them from "hunger". Notice how these people--again incuding Obama--GAIN from "hunger", and a lack of a healthy private economy (especiallyl if that healthy private economy does not DEPEND on Federal "stimuuls" and control). Is this why we are going backwards on "hunger"? YES (at least in part). The whole idea here is to MAKE more and more people PERCEIVE that they are DEPENDENT on the Federal Government for the every food they eat--a well as everything else.
There is also, by the way, that Phantom statistic" that 1 in 5 children in this country"go to bed hungry. I am sure that this absurd statistic comes form the SAME people who are "hunger advocates'. No. It is ABSURD-an Orwellian Big Lie, Someone did an ABSURD "survey" as to how many children (not objectively reviewing every child, but some sort of "sample" using methods that guaranteed the result) hwave "gone to bed hungry" at least ONCE in the previous year (or month, or some such rather long period of time). Then, this basically MADE UP number was "morphed" into the FALSE statement that 1 child in 5 goes to bed hungry (not ture, even in thisbiased survey, as the "survey" deliberatelly basically asked whether children EVER go to be "hungry").
Now you may well wonder here whehter one part of the Federal Government ("hunger advoates") is trying to KILL children (according to another part of the Federal Government). Doubt me? Never, ever do that. What else can you say when part of the Federal Government is saying that the MAJOR problem facing children in this country is OBESITY--not "hunger". One lpart of the Federal Government obviusly thinks that we would be a loot better off if MORE children "went to bed hungry" in this country. Thi is expecially true when you consider that 'hunger" is a SUBJECTIVE sensatin. My only female friend, Sylvia, is CONSTANTLY on a DIET. She is CONSTANTLY "gooing to bed hungry" (by her own choice). The whole concept ("going to bed hungry") is a MEANINGLESS concept.
I know. I know "hunge advocates" (lol) would say that I "miss the pont'--that you can't tehir "meaning" of "hunger" (which they would try to say is not having enough food to eat to LIVE) wwith my meaning of 'hunger" (being hungry). Hogwash. What they really mean is that they don't want to be CALLED on usnig an entirely PHONY concept/analysis in place of a REAL "study" on exaclty what CALORIES children in this country are getting. Obviously, even that is not 3enough. Even "hunger advocates" would almot have to AGREE that almost all children in this country are getting ENOUGH CALORIES (most too many, if the "obesity advocate" are to be beliefved). But is this really a matter of not having the "right' foods "available", or a mattrer of BAD EATING HABITS. That is, instead of Mayor Bloomberg concetratin on eliminating Big Gulps, would we be better off SEVERELY RESSTRICTING the use of food sstamps to "only" HEALTHY "foods". OR, would that cause MORE HUNGER (law of unintended consequences). There is certainly more JUSTIFICATIN for SUPERVISING the fodds purchased with food stamps than there is denying t the FREEDOM of those of us who PURCHASE OUR OWN FOOD. This idea that FREEDOM should be RESTRICTED, while TAXPAYERS should ahve nothing to say about how THEIR MONEY is spent, goest BYEOND INSNE all of the way to PSYCHOTIC.
How can you summarize all of this? Well, here is one possible bumper sticker: "Save a child by putting him to bed HUNGRY tonight."
P.S. No proofreading or spell lchecking (bad eyesight).
Back up here. I live in El Paso. For at least a year, and more, it has been a well publicized statistic that 40$ of all El Pasoans receive food stamps. Therefore, what is thiss group of "hunger advocates" saying? I will tell you EXACTLY what they are saying. Thyey are saying that 80% of El Pasoans SHUOLD be on food stamps. No, they did nto draw that obvius conclusion, but that is the ONLY conclusoni yu can draw from an assertino that "onlyl" 50% of El Pasoans "entitled" to food stampls are getting them. Now El Paso is a "poor" city, but this is INSANE.
Now, an itmem of news in the past few days is that the Federal Government is HEAVILY ADVERTISING that more peole should apply for fod stamps. Yep. I just called the entire Federal Government INSANE< because they are obviusly totally on board with these "hunger advocates". Newt Gingrich was dead right; President Obama is the FOOD STAMP PRESIDENT.
What is really gong on here? Right, Thee peole, including Prfesident Obama, really are "advocating hunger". They WANT as many peple as possible to be DEPENDENT on the Federal Government, and to believe that they are "benefitting" from Federal polices that KEEP THEM NEEDING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE THEM WITH FOOD (or perceiving such a "need", with help from "hunger advocates" and the Federal Goverfnment). Forget the idea that yu huld only apply for welfare if you REALLY NEED IT. These "hungar advocates"--again, including Obama--WANT a many people as possible to apply for benefits, even if they don't think they areally need them. It is not going to far that these people--again incuding Obama--WANT people to be HUNGRY , or at least PERCEIVE themselves to "need" the Federal Government to SAVE them from "hunger". Notice how these people--again incuding Obama--GAIN from "hunger", and a lack of a healthy private economy (especiallyl if that healthy private economy does not DEPEND on Federal "stimuuls" and control). Is this why we are going backwards on "hunger"? YES (at least in part). The whole idea here is to MAKE more and more people PERCEIVE that they are DEPENDENT on the Federal Government for the every food they eat--a well as everything else.
There is also, by the way, that Phantom statistic" that 1 in 5 children in this country"go to bed hungry. I am sure that this absurd statistic comes form the SAME people who are "hunger advocates'. No. It is ABSURD-an Orwellian Big Lie, Someone did an ABSURD "survey" as to how many children (not objectively reviewing every child, but some sort of "sample" using methods that guaranteed the result) hwave "gone to bed hungry" at least ONCE in the previous year (or month, or some such rather long period of time). Then, this basically MADE UP number was "morphed" into the FALSE statement that 1 child in 5 goes to bed hungry (not ture, even in thisbiased survey, as the "survey" deliberatelly basically asked whether children EVER go to be "hungry").
Now you may well wonder here whehter one part of the Federal Government ("hunger advoates") is trying to KILL children (according to another part of the Federal Government). Doubt me? Never, ever do that. What else can you say when part of the Federal Government is saying that the MAJOR problem facing children in this country is OBESITY--not "hunger". One lpart of the Federal Government obviusly thinks that we would be a loot better off if MORE children "went to bed hungry" in this country. Thi is expecially true when you consider that 'hunger" is a SUBJECTIVE sensatin. My only female friend, Sylvia, is CONSTANTLY on a DIET. She is CONSTANTLY "gooing to bed hungry" (by her own choice). The whole concept ("going to bed hungry") is a MEANINGLESS concept.
I know. I know "hunge advocates" (lol) would say that I "miss the pont'--that you can't tehir "meaning" of "hunger" (which they would try to say is not having enough food to eat to LIVE) wwith my meaning of 'hunger" (being hungry). Hogwash. What they really mean is that they don't want to be CALLED on usnig an entirely PHONY concept/analysis in place of a REAL "study" on exaclty what CALORIES children in this country are getting. Obviously, even that is not 3enough. Even "hunger advocates" would almot have to AGREE that almost all children in this country are getting ENOUGH CALORIES (most too many, if the "obesity advocate" are to be beliefved). But is this really a matter of not having the "right' foods "available", or a mattrer of BAD EATING HABITS. That is, instead of Mayor Bloomberg concetratin on eliminating Big Gulps, would we be better off SEVERELY RESSTRICTING the use of food sstamps to "only" HEALTHY "foods". OR, would that cause MORE HUNGER (law of unintended consequences). There is certainly more JUSTIFICATIN for SUPERVISING the fodds purchased with food stamps than there is denying t the FREEDOM of those of us who PURCHASE OUR OWN FOOD. This idea that FREEDOM should be RESTRICTED, while TAXPAYERS should ahve nothing to say about how THEIR MONEY is spent, goest BYEOND INSNE all of the way to PSYCHOTIC.
How can you summarize all of this? Well, here is one possible bumper sticker: "Save a child by putting him to bed HUNGRY tonight."
P.S. No proofreading or spell lchecking (bad eyesight).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)