The numbre of new unemployment claims for last week wsa released today, as it is every Thursday, and it was total FICTION. But before analyzing why that is true, we need to look at the past.
First, last week's dishonesty. For about the 103rd week bout of the last 105, or maybe 151 out of 154, this blog was right and the dishoonest Labor Department/media wrong. The initial number of new unemplyment claims annunced last week (for the previus week) was REVISED (as it always is, but in only one directin in the most consistent dishonesty of which I am aware, extending over years) from 367,0000 to 369,000 (UP 2,000, as it is always UP). Last week, this blog, as usual, had estimated the CORRECT (but see beloow, as to "correct") number at 370,0000. Notice how this blog, as usual, was CLOSER to the "right" number than the Labor Department/media.
Thee is a reason this is especially relevant. For the fourth, or maybe fifth time, the media used the SAME headline today: "New unemplyment claims reach four-year low." That headline has been used at least 4 times now since mid-February. "But, Skip, that just shows how much 'progrss' we have made since mid-February, as we keep making new four-year lows." Ah, that is exactly what it des NOT show. In mid-February, new unempoyment claims (as reported byt he Labor Department) reached a REVISED "low" of 351,000 (the 'unrevised" low was 348,0000). That is the SAME 4-year "low" that the media headlines TODAY say was breached--even though the SAME media headline was used at least 3 previous times as to the SAME 351,000 "low' in mid-February. Howis that possible? Oly if yu are DISHOENST and/or INCOMPETENT (as usual, I vote for both). Read the previus paragraph. The Labor Department, and especailly our media, did the SAME THING at least 3 previus times this year. They FALSELY "reported" that the UNREVISED figure was a "new four-year low" (even thugh the 351,000 "low" in mid-February was a REVISED figure), and it turned out every time that the REVISED number was 351,000 or higher. Can you get more dishonest than this: to reccycle the same FALSE headline time after time. In my previus articles on this, I even said that the media would get to AGAIN use the sAME HEADLINE (on the smae 'low") again: the only question being whether they would still be using the SAME HEADLINE, on the SAME NUMBERS, ten years from now.
Okay. This particular dishonest game may be over, for now. The number of new unemployment claims (for last week) was announced today as 339,000 (fiction though that is). This, of course, is a dishonest number (for same reason that media has been "able' to previosly, falsely, use that headline about a "new four-year low"). The actual number, if YEARS of dishonesty is any guide, is likely 342,0000 or higher: the REVISED number to be released next week. You will note, however, that 342,000 is still below 351,0000, meaning that "new four-year low" MAY actaully stand (as the "new four-year low" did NOT the previus 3 times the media used this SAME headline since mid-February). Why 'may"? Well, the consistent REVISION is 3,000 UP (often 4,000, and sometimes 2,000). However, on a few occasions the REVISION has been an upward revision of 12,000 or more. Note that a revison upward of 12,000 wuld leave us at that same 351,000, giving ur dishonest media the chance to USE THIS SAME HEADLINE again, with the same 351,000 previuos "low" as the basis for the headline. oj
All of the above is merely the consistent dishonesty. Now for the fiction. Our media would have you believe that these numbers make sense, as they would with the even more obviusly FALSE, inconsistent monthly employment numbers (where the Labor Department and media assserted that 873,000 equals 114,000, and that those numbres were "concistent" just because they came from different "measuring" instruments---see Sunday's blog article). The problem is that the weekly number of new unemplyment claims went UP last week, and has been in the 365,00-380,000 range since July. Indeed, the YEARLY range has been 351,0000-392,000, and we have recently been right in the MIDDLE o tthat range. What could possibly have happened LAST WEEK to DROP the number of new unemplyment clamims by a supposed 30,000 (agasin, most likely 27,000 or less, once todays number is REVISED).? NOTHING. I am serius. There is NO possible REAL "improvement", in one week (when there is NO concistent trend of previus improvement) that can exlain this FICTIONAL number.
'Okya, Skip. The number is obviosly not a real, sudden change in the ecoomy such that layoffs really 'improved' that much in a single week, after going UP the previus week and moth. But yu, yourself, have noted that this weekly number is volatile--gong up and down rather violkently for no apparent reason (sometimes with an obvius reason). What is your explanatin?"
This is correct We start off with the obvious, and ocrrect, idea that this sudden 30,000 job 'improvement' is fictinoal. That has to be true. At the very least, it means NOTHING until subsequent weeks indicate where we really are. The ECONMY/job market did NOT suddenly 'improve" this dramaticaly in one week. Is this the ELECTION? Again, we know that the Labor Department weekly figures are consistently dishoenst and inaccurate (re-read first part of this article). The weekly figure has been WAY off sometimes. People generating these numbers KNOW that there is an election coming up. My own opinionn is that this WAS a factor in the FALSE monthy unemployment rate report. The Labor Department is collecting this weekly data from all kinds of sources, and concistently gets it WRONG in one directin. Is it hard to believe that the same kind of thing that leads to CONSISTENT ERROR every week could be exacerbated when everyone KNOW that the electin is looming? I think that is a reasonable conclusion. However, there is another factor seemingly at work here.
The pATTERN of weekly new unemployment claims has been the SAME since the beginning of 2010--extending even to late 2009, Things seem to "improve' in the fall and winter. Then, as we head toward spring, the job market APPEARS to deteriorate. Then we reach the fall and winter, and the job market APPEARS to "improve" (with the SAME orgasmic media headlines every time about how we have "turned the corner"). This same pattern, as this blog has noted a number of times before, has RECURRED in 2010,2011 and 2012. Note that the 342,0000 new unemplyment claims (expected REVISED number) announced this week is abut the SAME as the 351,000 "low' in mid-February. In a number this volatile, a difference of 9,000 is trivial. Therefore, there is still NO TRNED this year. The weekly number has gone up and down, bascially repeating the SAME pattern that haS existed for 3 years. WHY?
Think "seasonal adjustment'. This weeky nummber of new unemplyment claims, as is true of the monthly employment numbers, is SEASONALLY ADJUSTED using a Labor Department "formula'. That formula obviusly is NOT correctly "predicting" the current seasonal patterns in employment. If y combine this GITCH in the seasonal adjustment formula with a possible incentive to exacerbate the weekly dishoensty, I think the APPARENT--but too large-"improvement" in the weekly number of new unemployment claims this one week is explained pretty completely. There is no longer any doubt that we have a DIFFERENT seaonsal pattern in employment than is reflected in the Labor Department "odel" used for its seasonal adjustment.
Given that the INCENTIVE for dieshoensty (not "conspiracy", but jsut by the same people giving you a consistent ERROR in one directin every week), are these employment figures going to have any meaning from now to the electin? I have my doubts. And the 3year seasonal pattern is toing to make the numbers look better than they should in any event. The overally YEAR shoes NO IMPROVEMENT in the econmy, and I think that thee numbers can only have ANY meaning over tieme. Our DISHOENST media may refuse to report things accurately, and report these short-term numbers as if they are just "counting". You get the truth from this blog.
This week's number of new unemployment claims MIGHT be a "four-year low", by an insignificantly smal number (rather than reflecting any trend). And I thik you have to regard it as a eeasonably good number, if only because it indicates that there probably is no DETERIORATIN in the economy. This blog's recent--realy entire year--analysis is still holding true: We are STUCK (STALLED in a bad plcace), with the economy and job market not getting any worse, but not getting any better. We have reallly been about in this same place since January of 2010, and it is really NO ACCIDENT. What Obama and Bailout Ben Bernanke have done is make a real recovery impossilbe. The numbers can bounce around, based on seaonsal adjustment glitches and even dishonesty, but the overall situatin is clear: STUCK.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Think of it as a challenge for ou--a BONUS as I give yu a "word puzzle" in additin to my brillian substantive analysis, without charge. You LUCKY peopole!!!!!
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Erin Burnett Calls Obama a Liar (Correctly): The 5 Trillion Dollar Lie
No. Erin Burnett, on CNN Tuesday, did not use the word "liar", but she noted one of the prime examples--among many--of Obama as a sociopathic liar who does not even care about the turth. Actually, she cited TWO of the prime examples, since she also again noted (as she recenty has) that the Obama Administratin version of events in Libya keeps being exposed daily as a LIE (again, Burnett not using the word). See my previous article on Libya, th efacts of which Burnett confirmed right down the line. However, the specific example of a CONSSITENT Obama lie, even after his own peole have acknowledged the truth, is what I call the "5 trillion dollar lie": this lie that the Romney "ex plan" calls for a 5 trillion dollar "tax cut" over 10 years. What the Romney plan does, of course, is a from of TAX REFORM, in the Simpson-Bowles model, where tax RATES uld be reduced 20% across the board, while tax "expenditures" (deductions, credits and loopholses) will be ENDED. Romney's idea--ocrreect or not-has ALWAYS been taht that this "tax reform" plan would cost NO REVENUE (as tax "increasess" from ending "tax expenditures" wuld equal the immediate decrease in revnue from lower tax RATES). As I say, this is the main conceopt of the Simpson-Bowles report: Obama's OWN "commissoion" on the subject of taqx reform. I do think it SHULD be part of Ropmney's plan that this kind of TAX REFORM will actaully RAISE tax revenue (to a degree) byeond ending "tax expenditues", by reducing the INCENTIVE for people to EVADE the tax RATES. If you get to keep 3 dollars ut of every fur, then you are much less likely to SPEND MONEY (and create hassle) to AVOID paying the LOWER TAX RATE. Yes, a simple tax system, with lower rates, also will create more ROTH (if we can ever create a PERMANENT, STABBLE such systtem). But our deficit problem is so bad that I don't know that yu can COUNT on any specific amount of "growth" to "offset" the lower tax rates. In short, Roney really should treat the whole subject as a DYNAMIC problem, bsed on the LIE that higher tax rates "raise' their "face value" in revenue, and that lower tax rats diminish tax revenue from them by their "face value".
After the debate, Obama was trying to sell the LIE that Romney lied about his 5 trillion dolar "tax plan". Romney did not--at least in the simplistic way Obama wa s LYING about in CAMPAIGN SPEECHES. Even CnN (beyond Erin Burnett) conncluded that Obama's attempt to suggest that Romney's "ta x plan" would be a 5 trillion dollar "tax cut" was FALSE. In comon language, OBAMA LIED. But it gets far worse. Notice that I am not--for purposes of this article--even making a big point out of the OBAMA LIE that Romney's "tax plan' is for "the rich", and the even BIGGER LIE (that Joe Biden specifically put forward) taht Rmney's tax plan wouuld RAISE taxes on an average middle class family by $2000.00.
What happpened was that Erin Burnett had an OFFICIAL spokeswoman from the Obama campaign on to "exain" Obama's LIE on the 5 trillin dollar tax cut that isn't. It turned out that the spokeswoman ended up having to ADMIT--she even used the wrrd "stiulate" that Romney later picked up in resonse to the desicable Wolf Blitzer--that Romney's tax plan did NOT represent a "net" 5 trillion dollar "tax cut'. Waht the spokeswoman eventualy said--like pulling teeth--was that Romney's numbers did not add up, and that it ws likely that Romney's "extra revenue" would fall at least 1 trillin dolalrs (over twen years) short of "paying for" the cut in tax RATES. This persn did continue the LIE that such a discrepancy meant that Romnbey would "have to "raise taxes" on the middle class: an Orwellian Big Lie. One thing we KNOW is that the GOP--thank Grover Norquist and his "pledge"--will NOT raise NET INCOME TAXES at all especially on the "middle class". That is an absurd allegatiion.
Okay. Do you get the picture. The OBAMA CAMPAIGN has admitted that their own candidate is a LIAR, and that Romney is NOT proposing a "5 trillin dolalr tax cut'. What did Ern Burnett do on Tuesday? She actually did what a real "journalist" might do, and what CNN almsst never does: Ms. Burnett actually compared what Obama CONTINUED TO SAY in his campaign sppeeches with what the Obama campaign hadd told her. Guess waht? Yu guessed it. Obama DID NOT CHANGE his campaign speeches, even after his own campaign spokesman had indicated this 5 trilllion dollar number ws FALSE. In factr, I jsut saw an ad tonight that where Obama "approved" the sAME "5 trillion" dolalr message/lie. Why do I see these ads? Believe it or not, El PaSo is a BATTLEGROUND CITY, although not becuase Texas is in issue. El paso is a big part of the MEDIA MARKET for southern New Mexico (which is a "battlegroundd state"). Thus, El Paso gets these ads.
What can you say about a person (Obama) who gets CALLED on his false statements and contnues to make them? "Liar" is the KINDEST thing you can cal him. Wolf Blitzer, by the way REEPEATED THESE LIES in his interview of Romney, as if Erin Burnett---n his own network--had not exposed the truth. Memo to Wolf Bliter: You are one of the most dishonest, desicable human beings who has ever lived. I hope to someday have the opportunity to say that to yur face.
So I apporve of Mitt Romney on taxes? Not so fast, bison breath (Johnny Carson/Karnak reference). I DON"T. Romney haS not changed, and I have not changed (despite the Obama LIE that Romney has "flip-flopped" trying to seem "moderate"). Way back int he GOP nominatin campaing, this blog had articles saying that Romney was more than willing to BUY INTO OBAMA'S CLASS WARFARE on taxes. Romney kept making the ont that his 'tax plan' was for the "middle class" to get actual tax cuts, and Romney even used the Obama $2000,000-$250,000 numbers. I rad Romney CORRECTly while peole with an agenda read him incorrectly. Now Romney is merely making it more obvius that he is PANDERING to the idea that it is only the "middle class" that matters, and that we shuld NEVER have an actual "tax cut" for the "rich". Romney threw overboard long ago the idea of a SIMPLE tax ystemn that is CONSISTENT. My own goal?: a Regan-type SIMPLE tax system with only TWO tax rates (25% and 12.5%), but where you do not CONCEAL betrayal of this concept by-say---"phasing out" the mortgage deductin for the rich", whikle keeping it for the middle class. I won't go into the questoni here of what it will do o the housing market to fiddle with the housing subsidy deductions. But the point is that Romney is so AFRAID of this label of 'favoring the rich" that he is about as much of a CLASS WARRIOR as Obama. Not quite (as noe one could be), but Romney is unwilling to really defend the PRINCIPLE that the it is DISASTER to keep relying on an ever FEWER number of peole to "support" the REST OF US (what Ayn Rand called 'slavery".). This blog told you all about this MONTHS AGO--although it is evidently news to Obama and the media (mainly because they are all so dishoenst).
Does Obama have a legetimate pont lurking here? Of course he does, but he is usch a LIER that he wants his NARRATIVVE--o matter how UNTRUE it is. Obama's "narrative" is that Romney 'favors the rich", and is out to "get' the middle class. Absurd. Obama shouuld lOSE on this absurdity alone.
What yoou can say about Romney is that he is not SERIOUS abut DEFICIT REDUCTIN. Romney is a Big Government Guy. He probably does not believe in taxes on Obama's level, but Romney's campaign is NOT based on real conservative principles. Romney's campaign--the debate confirmed it for me rather than calling tit into question-is based on the idea that Romney can MANAGE better than Obama. Romney an dRyan (yes, Ryan) have actually proposed NO real reductins in current spending. Thus, is there a suspicion that Romney is willing to BRIBE peole with "tax cuts" for the "middle class" (with the 'rich" maybe getting crumbs) that will really rasie the deficit? Again, I see NO evidence that Romney cares about the deficit. It is jsut one of those thingss he talks about, like Obama. Again, I said that all of this year (not jsut after the debatrte). So Obama COULD accuse Romney's numbers of not adding up, and say that Romney is shwoing himself willing ot make the defict worse.
Problem for Obama (and reason he is going with the LIES): EVERYNE (and I do mean EVERYONE) realizes that OBAMA cares LESS about the deficit than R:omney. Obama, when he mentins it, will SAY that he favors long-term deficit reductin. He and Romney ae not different there. But we KNOW that Obama does not intend to really do naything about the deficit, beyond taxes on the 'rich" (not nearly enough to do anything real about the defict). We all know that Obama wil SPEND more than Romney, even wthouh you should all know that Romney will spend ENOUGH to show taht he is a Big Government Guy as well. You can argue taht Romney will take in less in taxes (if you ignroe the "dynamic" analysis of REVENUE generated by taxes), but Obama can hardly WIN an electin based on caring MORE abut the deficit than Romney. It is a LOSER for Obama. Obama long ago decided to make this elecitn about CLASS WARFARE, and GROUP WARFARE,, and he will NEVEr really change that narrativ. Since the narrative is basically FALSE, especially in its details, Obama is FORCED into LIE after LIE (as he has been in Libya, because of his narrative that his POLICIES had nothing to do with anything, but that it was all about that anti-Muslim video).
I am willing to state bluntly: President Obama is the worst liear to ever be President of the United States. He is wiling to continue to LIE even after he is CAUGHT. That is waht Erin Burnett really exposed on Tuesday.
Notice how much INFLUENCE this blog really has, despite having abutt eh same audience as CNN. This lblog criticized Erin Burnett for being a PARTISAN HACK in articles prior to the past few weeks, and she has IMPROVED. I am not modest. I think it is ME that convinced her she realy was becoming a CNN partisan hack. Ture,. I have not haD that effect on the terribble Wolf Blitzer, but Wolf Btzer was lost to the dark side long ago. Being a dishonest partisan hack is part of the very essence of Wolf Blitzer's being, and here is no hpel that even I can save him how. Erin Burunett is actualy showing some hpe, even though she mainly stil puts forth the CNN party line. It has to take some COURAGE for Erin Burnett to, in effectg, call the Preisdent a liar on more than one occasion (again, not with the word, but in fact). I have to salute here for having that CURAGE on CNN.
Another Romney disappointment: What in the Hell are you donig giving an interview to Wolf Blitzer? Really, Roney bothers me. His whole campaign is about taking two steps forward at the same time he takes two steps back. NO GOP candidate has any business giving an intervie w to Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, Soledad O'Grien, or almost any of the DISHOENST PARTISAN HACKS of CNN. Romney keeps donig his best to SAY NOTHING, and be everything to everybody (even such pond scum as Blitzer). I would say Obama has LOST this electin, EXCEPT that I remain convinced that it is ossible for Romney to pull defesat out of the jaws of victory,. Romney raly seems to have concluded that he "on" the debate by just being "moderate", and talking about issues as if he understands them (while Obama clearly does not). This Romney idea that all he as to do is command 'facts", but AVOID ALL PRINCIPLE or definite commitment to any real policies, annoys me no end. He is blessed in his opponent. But Romney is so mired in CAUTION and COWARDICE that his picture is used as an illustratin for both words int he dictioonary. Srue, he MAY win that way. And he might lose, too, for the very reason that he ALWAYS says LESS than he seems to be saying. No, Rmney is not the LIE that Obama has attempted to create. But what he is may be worse, in my own view. Still can't support him, even though the idea of Obama back in the White ouse for fur more years fills me with horror. Again, I balame this PARALYSIS on the media, who hvave dones such a good job of convincing me that being an "independent" is the ultimate virtue.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
After the debate, Obama was trying to sell the LIE that Romney lied about his 5 trillion dolar "tax plan". Romney did not--at least in the simplistic way Obama wa s LYING about in CAMPAIGN SPEECHES. Even CnN (beyond Erin Burnett) conncluded that Obama's attempt to suggest that Romney's "ta x plan" would be a 5 trillion dollar "tax cut" was FALSE. In comon language, OBAMA LIED. But it gets far worse. Notice that I am not--for purposes of this article--even making a big point out of the OBAMA LIE that Romney's "tax plan' is for "the rich", and the even BIGGER LIE (that Joe Biden specifically put forward) taht Rmney's tax plan wouuld RAISE taxes on an average middle class family by $2000.00.
What happpened was that Erin Burnett had an OFFICIAL spokeswoman from the Obama campaign on to "exain" Obama's LIE on the 5 trillin dollar tax cut that isn't. It turned out that the spokeswoman ended up having to ADMIT--she even used the wrrd "stiulate" that Romney later picked up in resonse to the desicable Wolf Blitzer--that Romney's tax plan did NOT represent a "net" 5 trillion dollar "tax cut'. Waht the spokeswoman eventualy said--like pulling teeth--was that Romney's numbers did not add up, and that it ws likely that Romney's "extra revenue" would fall at least 1 trillin dolalrs (over twen years) short of "paying for" the cut in tax RATES. This persn did continue the LIE that such a discrepancy meant that Romnbey would "have to "raise taxes" on the middle class: an Orwellian Big Lie. One thing we KNOW is that the GOP--thank Grover Norquist and his "pledge"--will NOT raise NET INCOME TAXES at all especially on the "middle class". That is an absurd allegatiion.
Okay. Do you get the picture. The OBAMA CAMPAIGN has admitted that their own candidate is a LIAR, and that Romney is NOT proposing a "5 trillin dolalr tax cut'. What did Ern Burnett do on Tuesday? She actually did what a real "journalist" might do, and what CNN almsst never does: Ms. Burnett actually compared what Obama CONTINUED TO SAY in his campaign sppeeches with what the Obama campaign hadd told her. Guess waht? Yu guessed it. Obama DID NOT CHANGE his campaign speeches, even after his own campaign spokesman had indicated this 5 trilllion dollar number ws FALSE. In factr, I jsut saw an ad tonight that where Obama "approved" the sAME "5 trillion" dolalr message/lie. Why do I see these ads? Believe it or not, El PaSo is a BATTLEGROUND CITY, although not becuase Texas is in issue. El paso is a big part of the MEDIA MARKET for southern New Mexico (which is a "battlegroundd state"). Thus, El Paso gets these ads.
What can you say about a person (Obama) who gets CALLED on his false statements and contnues to make them? "Liar" is the KINDEST thing you can cal him. Wolf Blitzer, by the way REEPEATED THESE LIES in his interview of Romney, as if Erin Burnett---n his own network--had not exposed the truth. Memo to Wolf Bliter: You are one of the most dishonest, desicable human beings who has ever lived. I hope to someday have the opportunity to say that to yur face.
So I apporve of Mitt Romney on taxes? Not so fast, bison breath (Johnny Carson/Karnak reference). I DON"T. Romney haS not changed, and I have not changed (despite the Obama LIE that Romney has "flip-flopped" trying to seem "moderate"). Way back int he GOP nominatin campaing, this blog had articles saying that Romney was more than willing to BUY INTO OBAMA'S CLASS WARFARE on taxes. Romney kept making the ont that his 'tax plan' was for the "middle class" to get actual tax cuts, and Romney even used the Obama $2000,000-$250,000 numbers. I rad Romney CORRECTly while peole with an agenda read him incorrectly. Now Romney is merely making it more obvius that he is PANDERING to the idea that it is only the "middle class" that matters, and that we shuld NEVER have an actual "tax cut" for the "rich". Romney threw overboard long ago the idea of a SIMPLE tax ystemn that is CONSISTENT. My own goal?: a Regan-type SIMPLE tax system with only TWO tax rates (25% and 12.5%), but where you do not CONCEAL betrayal of this concept by-say---"phasing out" the mortgage deductin for the rich", whikle keeping it for the middle class. I won't go into the questoni here of what it will do o the housing market to fiddle with the housing subsidy deductions. But the point is that Romney is so AFRAID of this label of 'favoring the rich" that he is about as much of a CLASS WARRIOR as Obama. Not quite (as noe one could be), but Romney is unwilling to really defend the PRINCIPLE that the it is DISASTER to keep relying on an ever FEWER number of peole to "support" the REST OF US (what Ayn Rand called 'slavery".). This blog told you all about this MONTHS AGO--although it is evidently news to Obama and the media (mainly because they are all so dishoenst).
Does Obama have a legetimate pont lurking here? Of course he does, but he is usch a LIER that he wants his NARRATIVVE--o matter how UNTRUE it is. Obama's "narrative" is that Romney 'favors the rich", and is out to "get' the middle class. Absurd. Obama shouuld lOSE on this absurdity alone.
What yoou can say about Romney is that he is not SERIOUS abut DEFICIT REDUCTIN. Romney is a Big Government Guy. He probably does not believe in taxes on Obama's level, but Romney's campaign is NOT based on real conservative principles. Romney's campaign--the debate confirmed it for me rather than calling tit into question-is based on the idea that Romney can MANAGE better than Obama. Romney an dRyan (yes, Ryan) have actually proposed NO real reductins in current spending. Thus, is there a suspicion that Romney is willing to BRIBE peole with "tax cuts" for the "middle class" (with the 'rich" maybe getting crumbs) that will really rasie the deficit? Again, I see NO evidence that Romney cares about the deficit. It is jsut one of those thingss he talks about, like Obama. Again, I said that all of this year (not jsut after the debatrte). So Obama COULD accuse Romney's numbers of not adding up, and say that Romney is shwoing himself willing ot make the defict worse.
Problem for Obama (and reason he is going with the LIES): EVERYNE (and I do mean EVERYONE) realizes that OBAMA cares LESS about the deficit than R:omney. Obama, when he mentins it, will SAY that he favors long-term deficit reductin. He and Romney ae not different there. But we KNOW that Obama does not intend to really do naything about the deficit, beyond taxes on the 'rich" (not nearly enough to do anything real about the defict). We all know that Obama wil SPEND more than Romney, even wthouh you should all know that Romney will spend ENOUGH to show taht he is a Big Government Guy as well. You can argue taht Romney will take in less in taxes (if you ignroe the "dynamic" analysis of REVENUE generated by taxes), but Obama can hardly WIN an electin based on caring MORE abut the deficit than Romney. It is a LOSER for Obama. Obama long ago decided to make this elecitn about CLASS WARFARE, and GROUP WARFARE,, and he will NEVEr really change that narrativ. Since the narrative is basically FALSE, especially in its details, Obama is FORCED into LIE after LIE (as he has been in Libya, because of his narrative that his POLICIES had nothing to do with anything, but that it was all about that anti-Muslim video).
I am willing to state bluntly: President Obama is the worst liear to ever be President of the United States. He is wiling to continue to LIE even after he is CAUGHT. That is waht Erin Burnett really exposed on Tuesday.
Notice how much INFLUENCE this blog really has, despite having abutt eh same audience as CNN. This lblog criticized Erin Burnett for being a PARTISAN HACK in articles prior to the past few weeks, and she has IMPROVED. I am not modest. I think it is ME that convinced her she realy was becoming a CNN partisan hack. Ture,. I have not haD that effect on the terribble Wolf Blitzer, but Wolf Btzer was lost to the dark side long ago. Being a dishonest partisan hack is part of the very essence of Wolf Blitzer's being, and here is no hpel that even I can save him how. Erin Burunett is actualy showing some hpe, even though she mainly stil puts forth the CNN party line. It has to take some COURAGE for Erin Burnett to, in effectg, call the Preisdent a liar on more than one occasion (again, not with the word, but in fact). I have to salute here for having that CURAGE on CNN.
Another Romney disappointment: What in the Hell are you donig giving an interview to Wolf Blitzer? Really, Roney bothers me. His whole campaign is about taking two steps forward at the same time he takes two steps back. NO GOP candidate has any business giving an intervie w to Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, Soledad O'Grien, or almost any of the DISHOENST PARTISAN HACKS of CNN. Romney keeps donig his best to SAY NOTHING, and be everything to everybody (even such pond scum as Blitzer). I would say Obama has LOST this electin, EXCEPT that I remain convinced that it is ossible for Romney to pull defesat out of the jaws of victory,. Romney raly seems to have concluded that he "on" the debate by just being "moderate", and talking about issues as if he understands them (while Obama clearly does not). This Romney idea that all he as to do is command 'facts", but AVOID ALL PRINCIPLE or definite commitment to any real policies, annoys me no end. He is blessed in his opponent. But Romney is so mired in CAUTION and COWARDICE that his picture is used as an illustratin for both words int he dictioonary. Srue, he MAY win that way. And he might lose, too, for the very reason that he ALWAYS says LESS than he seems to be saying. No, Rmney is not the LIE that Obama has attempted to create. But what he is may be worse, in my own view. Still can't support him, even though the idea of Obama back in the White ouse for fur more years fills me with horror. Again, I balame this PARALYSIS on the media, who hvave dones such a good job of convincing me that being an "independent" is the ultimate virtue.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Obama and Libya: Scandal of a Dishoenst President--Liar-in-Chief
Just how dishoenst was President Obama, and the entire Obama Administratin, on the Libyan terrorist attack that MURDERED our ambassador (and 3 other Americans)? As dishoenst as a President of the United Staes has ever been, and MORE dishoent than ANY President of whom I am aware on something so importatn as the KILLING of an American ambassaodr. As I have said previusly, this is the WORST series of lies, for POLITICAL reasons, I have ever seen from an American President. For me, it disqualifies Obama from being Presdient of the United States (yes, should be an impeachable offense, except the Aermifan peole have the VOTE on that in a month, and that has to be the final verdict). IF Presdient Bush actualy KNEW that Iraq had no weaons of mass destructin, of which I have seen NO evidence, I would regard that as a greater lie. But that would also disqualify President Bush from being Presdient, and I am sure the American peole would have regarded it in that light.
No. Thre is no sugar coating it. President Obama LIED about the death of a U.S. ambassador for POLITICAL reasons, and that is indefensible (not to mentin the other 3 Americans who were killed). Doubt me? There you go again. The State Department officially annunced today wht I had told my borther days ago (and what had been reported weeks ago): There was NO "protest demonstration" going on--abut that anti-Muslim video trailer or anything else--when the TERRORIST ATTACK OCCURRED. What about that "spontaneous demonstratin" that Obama sent our U.N. ambassador to some FIVE Sunday shows to talk about: t that "spontaneous demonstratin" "copy catting" the Egyptian attack on our ebassy where the movie was at least used as an EXCUSE to stir up anger? The State Department admitted today that our U.N. ambassador is a LIAR, and that there was NO "spontaneous demonstratino". The KILLERS did NOT "use' an ongoing demonstratin to "inspire" them to attack our consulatte and kill our ambassador. There was NO "demosntration" before the attack occurred.--"spontaneous" or otherwise. Problem: The U.N. ambassaodr was NOT presenting the results of here own "inveestigation". She was presenting the OBAMA ADMINISTRAITN viiew: A LIE. No. This was not a "good faith" error in communication. It was a LIE. Within 24 hours, it was known that this was not some sort of "spontganeous demonstratin. Yet, for more than a week, the Obama Administratin ketpt up the LIE that this the problem was--even in Libya--entirely the result of "demonstratins" agistnst this "video".
Again. The State Department said today that there was NO DEMONSTRATIN in Libya going on in the area of our consulate, before the attack that killed our ambassador. The POLITCLAL LIE that the Obama Administration then went with is simly UNACCEPTABLE. The State Department statement today is an ADMISSION that the Obama Administratin LIED about the DEATH of an AmericaN ambassador for mroe than a week. Even now, I ma not sure ur PRESIDENT hs EVER used the wrod "terror" in connectin with this attack. I know. I should not attack someone for his DISABILITY. As this blog has prfeviuslyl revealed--in a scoop--Presdient Obama suffers from "terrorphobia": an unreasonable and overwhelming fear of teh WORD "terror". Still, the man should not be President.
I lived trhugh Jimy Carter. Nope. Carter never LIED on somehting like this. I don't know of ANY President, in my lifetime, who I think lied on something this obvius and this IMPORTANT. How can ANYONE vote for a man--President Obama--who is FALSELY blaming the death of our ambassador on a VIDEO, when tit wsa actually an ATTACK on the United States? I now. There are also those reportes in the past few days that more secirty ws REQUESTED for the consulate in Libya, and that the Obama Administratin had failed to take the reqeusts seriusly. Should the Obama Adminstratin have done more to protect our consulate, and our ambassdor? Almost surely so. But, to a degree, this is HINDSIGHT. The attemt to seep the whole thing under a rug, and "balame' it all on a n anti-Mulsim video, is the INEXCUSABLE part of this. Seriously, I will be ashamed of our country if we reelect Obama as Persident of the Unitd States. Does that mean I will be ashamed of myself, since my vote for Gary Johnson will be regarded by at lest one of my other brothers aas a vote for Obama? Maybe so. If so, I iwll have to live with that shame. But I culd never live wwith myself if I voted for Obama. I caN't even conceive of a eprson doing that, except for an extreme PARTISAN (me being an independent--see previous article)
One of my borthers--not the same one mentined in the previus paragraph--tod me tonight that "ll politicians lie". That is, of curuse, true, as to the reality of their own political ositions. However, I don't think it is quite true that Presdients routinely lie abut matters so imporant as the fACTS concerning a DEADLY ATTACK on a U.S. ambassador. To me, this MAGNITUDE of lie is a new experience. And if politicins Do hthink this is just another acceptable political lie, then we need to TEACH THEM OTHERWISE. if this is apart of the 'politics as usual" that I have been telling you is unacceptable, it is jsut more evidence of how right I am. Nope. The idea that it is ACCEPTABLE for a President of the United States to LIE about something like this is UNACCEPTABLE to me. I will never forgive the man (Obama).
Lyndon Johnson? Richard Nixon? Jimy Carter? Gerald Ford? Bill Clinton--yes, Beill Clintn? George H. W. Bush? George W. Bush (despite Iaq and "weapons of mass destrucitn")? I lived hrough the Prresidencies of them all--essentially as an adult. No. I don't think AnY of them was CAPABLE of the kind of LIES that Obama haS told on Libya, for POLITICAL reasons. Nixn? Dishoenst, yes. Johnson? Again, dishonest. Carter was really pretty honest, but STUPID. George W. Bush? I would say about as honest as n ordinary politican, as I have never been convinced he was aware that he was "misrepresenting" Iraq's "weapons of mass destructin". Bill Clinton? As dishoenst as they come. But it wss, and is, my judgment that Bill Clinton would NEVER hve put out the kind of lies that Obama has on Libya. Is it really "onesty", or were these named Presidents just SMART enough to know that this kind of lie is ridiculous? It amounts to the same thing, and we will never know. All I know is that it is my judgment that NO Preisdent I have seen, except Barack Obama, wuld have LIED about this attack in Libya being the result of a "spontaneus demonstratin" that did not even hapen--"blaming" it all on a "video" as a matter of political narrative.
"But, Skip, maybe Obama is so wrapped up in his own fantasy world that he is jsut not interested in facts--does not even want to be bothered with facts abut the death of an American ambassador, when the anti-Islam video fit his long-time narrative so much better?" And yu think this kind of "honesty" makes it MORE acceptable for Brack Obama to be the most dishonest Presdient to ever serve as President of the United States? See future article son this subject, if you dubt me on this. But, on Libya alone, if Obama lives in a FANTASY WORLD this powerful, then he has no business being Presdient of the United Sttates. He shuuld not be, and I cn'at believe any reasonable person can support the man.
P.S No proofrading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I sand by my assertin that even Bill Clinton (or any other preivus Presdient I named) would NOT have tried to deceive the American peole on somethign like this. Sure, the line between what is "politics as usual" for someone amoral like Clinton (or others named), and what is unacceptable, is not an easy line to draw. And I submit we shuuld start drawing the line muc more in faovr of HONESTY. But I don't care where you draw the line,, unless you are willing to terat the killing of an American ambassdor as a political event: Obama's tissue of LIES on LIibya is UNACCEPTABLE. Tha t is not a matter of politicas, but of the basic DECENCY and HONESTY (on truly important things) that we must expect from a Presdient of the United States.
No. Thre is no sugar coating it. President Obama LIED about the death of a U.S. ambassador for POLITICAL reasons, and that is indefensible (not to mentin the other 3 Americans who were killed). Doubt me? There you go again. The State Department officially annunced today wht I had told my borther days ago (and what had been reported weeks ago): There was NO "protest demonstration" going on--abut that anti-Muslim video trailer or anything else--when the TERRORIST ATTACK OCCURRED. What about that "spontaneous demonstratin" that Obama sent our U.N. ambassador to some FIVE Sunday shows to talk about: t that "spontaneous demonstratin" "copy catting" the Egyptian attack on our ebassy where the movie was at least used as an EXCUSE to stir up anger? The State Department admitted today that our U.N. ambassador is a LIAR, and that there was NO "spontaneous demonstratino". The KILLERS did NOT "use' an ongoing demonstratin to "inspire" them to attack our consulatte and kill our ambassador. There was NO "demosntration" before the attack occurred.--"spontaneous" or otherwise. Problem: The U.N. ambassaodr was NOT presenting the results of here own "inveestigation". She was presenting the OBAMA ADMINISTRAITN viiew: A LIE. No. This was not a "good faith" error in communication. It was a LIE. Within 24 hours, it was known that this was not some sort of "spontganeous demonstratin. Yet, for more than a week, the Obama Administratin ketpt up the LIE that this the problem was--even in Libya--entirely the result of "demonstratins" agistnst this "video".
Again. The State Department said today that there was NO DEMONSTRATIN in Libya going on in the area of our consulate, before the attack that killed our ambassador. The POLITCLAL LIE that the Obama Administration then went with is simly UNACCEPTABLE. The State Department statement today is an ADMISSION that the Obama Administratin LIED about the DEATH of an AmericaN ambassador for mroe than a week. Even now, I ma not sure ur PRESIDENT hs EVER used the wrod "terror" in connectin with this attack. I know. I should not attack someone for his DISABILITY. As this blog has prfeviuslyl revealed--in a scoop--Presdient Obama suffers from "terrorphobia": an unreasonable and overwhelming fear of teh WORD "terror". Still, the man should not be President.
I lived trhugh Jimy Carter. Nope. Carter never LIED on somehting like this. I don't know of ANY President, in my lifetime, who I think lied on something this obvius and this IMPORTANT. How can ANYONE vote for a man--President Obama--who is FALSELY blaming the death of our ambassador on a VIDEO, when tit wsa actually an ATTACK on the United States? I now. There are also those reportes in the past few days that more secirty ws REQUESTED for the consulate in Libya, and that the Obama Administratin had failed to take the reqeusts seriusly. Should the Obama Adminstratin have done more to protect our consulate, and our ambassdor? Almost surely so. But, to a degree, this is HINDSIGHT. The attemt to seep the whole thing under a rug, and "balame' it all on a n anti-Mulsim video, is the INEXCUSABLE part of this. Seriously, I will be ashamed of our country if we reelect Obama as Persident of the Unitd States. Does that mean I will be ashamed of myself, since my vote for Gary Johnson will be regarded by at lest one of my other brothers aas a vote for Obama? Maybe so. If so, I iwll have to live with that shame. But I culd never live wwith myself if I voted for Obama. I caN't even conceive of a eprson doing that, except for an extreme PARTISAN (me being an independent--see previous article)
One of my borthers--not the same one mentined in the previus paragraph--tod me tonight that "ll politicians lie". That is, of curuse, true, as to the reality of their own political ositions. However, I don't think it is quite true that Presdients routinely lie abut matters so imporant as the fACTS concerning a DEADLY ATTACK on a U.S. ambassador. To me, this MAGNITUDE of lie is a new experience. And if politicins Do hthink this is just another acceptable political lie, then we need to TEACH THEM OTHERWISE. if this is apart of the 'politics as usual" that I have been telling you is unacceptable, it is jsut more evidence of how right I am. Nope. The idea that it is ACCEPTABLE for a President of the United States to LIE about something like this is UNACCEPTABLE to me. I will never forgive the man (Obama).
Lyndon Johnson? Richard Nixon? Jimy Carter? Gerald Ford? Bill Clinton--yes, Beill Clintn? George H. W. Bush? George W. Bush (despite Iaq and "weapons of mass destrucitn")? I lived hrough the Prresidencies of them all--essentially as an adult. No. I don't think AnY of them was CAPABLE of the kind of LIES that Obama haS told on Libya, for POLITICAL reasons. Nixn? Dishoenst, yes. Johnson? Again, dishonest. Carter was really pretty honest, but STUPID. George W. Bush? I would say about as honest as n ordinary politican, as I have never been convinced he was aware that he was "misrepresenting" Iraq's "weapons of mass destructin". Bill Clinton? As dishoenst as they come. But it wss, and is, my judgment that Bill Clinton would NEVER hve put out the kind of lies that Obama has on Libya. Is it really "onesty", or were these named Presidents just SMART enough to know that this kind of lie is ridiculous? It amounts to the same thing, and we will never know. All I know is that it is my judgment that NO Preisdent I have seen, except Barack Obama, wuld have LIED about this attack in Libya being the result of a "spontaneus demonstratin" that did not even hapen--"blaming" it all on a "video" as a matter of political narrative.
"But, Skip, maybe Obama is so wrapped up in his own fantasy world that he is jsut not interested in facts--does not even want to be bothered with facts abut the death of an American ambassador, when the anti-Islam video fit his long-time narrative so much better?" And yu think this kind of "honesty" makes it MORE acceptable for Brack Obama to be the most dishonest Presdient to ever serve as President of the United States? See future article son this subject, if you dubt me on this. But, on Libya alone, if Obama lives in a FANTASY WORLD this powerful, then he has no business being Presdient of the United Sttates. He shuuld not be, and I cn'at believe any reasonable person can support the man.
P.S No proofrading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I sand by my assertin that even Bill Clinton (or any other preivus Presdient I named) would NOT have tried to deceive the American peole on somethign like this. Sure, the line between what is "politics as usual" for someone amoral like Clinton (or others named), and what is unacceptable, is not an easy line to draw. And I submit we shuuld start drawing the line muc more in faovr of HONESTY. But I don't care where you draw the line,, unless you are willing to terat the killing of an American ambassdor as a political event: Obama's tissue of LIES on LIibya is UNACCEPTABLE. Tha t is not a matter of politicas, but of the basic DECENCY and HONESTY (on truly important things) that we must expect from a Presdient of the United States.
Obama Wraps Up Communist/Socialist Vote: Endorsed by Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro's Sister
One of the items of news last week was that Venezuelan socialist Hugo Chavez endorsed President Obama for re-election. This blog previously reported, because I saw it in a CNN interview, that Raul Castro's sister (I tink, although my daughter thught it wsa Castro's daughter)--as one "citizen of the world" endorsing another--endorsed Obama early on Raul Castro, of couse, is the Communist dictatior of Cuba. His sister (or daughter) was in the U.S. on a "special visa" to support 'gay rights".
We know that Obama is all about GROUPS, rather than individuals. Thus, I saw a mainstream media interview, with one of the Zogbys, talking about the "important" Arab-American vote. Obama, and the mainstream media, like to "target" women, Hispanics, unionn members (including public employee unions), Africa-Americans, etc. The idea is that we are in a zero-sum game, where you can win an "eletion' so long as you BRIBE identifiable groups, and propoose to HURT only people that are not liked (especially the "rich", but including "white males" and other scum, who are ot "saved" by being in one of the favored classes). Now that Oama has WRAPPPED UP the Communist/socialist vote, can we expect to see the mainstream media bragging about that? What about a POLL as to how many socialists and Communists support Obama? I would bet that his support among that "voting bloc" is at least 90%.
Then there are "independents" (ME). I actually heard "independents" referred to again today as an imprtant "voting bloc" (I hink on thee unfair and unbalanced network, but I hear the same thing every day from ALL of our mentally challenged media peoiple. I am sorry. "Independent" "voting bloc" is an OXYMORON, brought to you by the regular morons in our media--a seslf-contradictory phrase. You cannot be an "independent", and be part of a "voting bloc'.
Doubt me/ Never expose ourself as a fool that way. As stated, I am an "independent". Now Kenda, my older daughter, has said: "Daddy, you are not an 'independent'. You don't even support gay marriage. It is Boston yuppies like me who are the real 'independents'."
Sorry. My daughter has been influenced by Massachusetts/Boston first, and the dishonest, stupid people of the media second. By definition, I AM an "independent". I disowned the GOP, forever, in 2006, and said I would never, ever regard myself a member of that party again (although I MIGHT support individual GOP candidates). I did NOT support either Hohn McCain ro Barack Obama in 2008--supporting the Libertarian cnadidate AFTER my first choice--a left-handed choice for the good of the countgr--failed to get the nominaiton: HILLARY CLINTON. You can look it up in this blog archives, if they are sitill there. Unlike Rush Limbaugh--I came up with the idea first--I promised to vote for Hilklary Clinton in the general election (after John McCain won nomination). But Clinton lost, and I ended up supporting the Libertarian candidate. Again this year, I support the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. However, I am NOT a "libertarain", although I lean somewhat tto the libertarian side of conservatism. I did NOT suppport Gary Johnson for the GOP nomination, although I could have supported Ron Paul (despite reservations) if the race had ever come down to a ral race between Paul and Romney (never gong to happen). In actual fact, I supported Herman Cain and Rick Santorum, in that order, while naming Paul an acceptable alternative. There is no way I culd ever be a Democrat. If I am not GOP, Democrat, OR Libertarian, what am I? Right. I HAVE to be an "independent", and I am.
Did not Mitt Romney win the debate with Obama (our Liar-in-Chief). Yep. He won big. But I did not comment on it in this blog--although I will comment on the aftermath here shortly--because it did not change my views at all. I know Obama for what he is, and knew him in 2008. My problem is that Romney merely again confirmed for me who HE is, and I can't support hmi. OH. I have never thought Romney was "unlikable". I don't care about the LIES about Bain Capitabl and taxes. And I do think the debate shows that Romney IS a better "manager", who might actually WORK at the JOB of being President (instead of watning to be merely a speech maker and CELEBRITY with the title of "President"). Not enough for me. Later articles will get into the Obam/mainstream media LIE about how Romney 'changed" his positns. If you have listened carefully, as I have, Romney did NOT "change" his positions. He has always been a "moderate"--GOP estalbishment person--and he still is. He jsut emphacized the "conservative" side of his rehetoric while running for the GOP nomination, and now puts somewhat more emphasis on his 'moderate" rhetoric. The mainstream media actually HELPED him with that in the nomination The POSITIONS HAVE NOT CHANGED. Why do o think I did not support Romney in the nomination, and said I would NOT vote for him? I KNOW where Romney 'stands", and so should anyone. Some of you may even like ti. When Obama says he was "shocked" by Romney lies at the debate, what Obama is really saying is that he was "shocked" taht Romney did not present himself as the CARICATURE/CARTOON that Obama has been MISREPRESENTING him to be. No. Rush Limbaugh is NOT that cartoon. But it has always been an absurd LIE to suggest taht Romney is some sort of letist idea of a conservative cartoon character. romney has ALWAYS been a "moderate" (yes, even in the GOP debates, as this blog told you), even if he was smart enough not to really scream that in the GOP nomination fight. Even McCain was smarter than that. Obama is now complainging about Romney not buying into Obama's LIE: a LIE upon which Obama has based his entire campaign. It is abusrd to suggest ANY conservative would be "against the middle class", and for policies that make the "middle class pay for the rich". When yu base your campaign on a LIE, you can hardly complain that your opponent does not cooperatte by endorsing the lie. More on this in later articles.
Still. Obama's attempt to appeal to GROUPS, instead of individuals interested int eh future of this country, is obviusly WORKING He has clearly sewed up the Communist/socialist vote. He may have a big advantage int he Arab-American vote (Zogby seemed to suggest so). I have questioned whehter women--the most practical of sexes and least likely to STAY BOUGHT--will end up seling ut their country because of BRIBES and supposed "attitude". In the end, I thik women will vote what they perceive to be their OVERALL self-interest. I don't see them, as a ssex, believing that Obama really is likely to hellp their future (bribes or no bribes). Again, women are the most practical of creatures. Romney should really appeal to them more than I think he should, as I don't think Romney has an ideological bone in his body. And then there are Hispanics. Do Hispanics really VOTE on who most identifies them with ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS? I don't think so. So this Obama idea of pitting groups against each other, and almost everybody agaisnt "the rich", has major flaws. But the media is trying to MAKE IT WORK. And Obama had these LIES (Biden actually said that Rmoney faovred a $2000 increase on the 'middle class"--an outright LIE) that have been pushed in all of those negative ads. That is Obama's debate problem. He NEEDS the MEDIA to PUSH THE LIES. If he has to actually debate the FACTS, Obama can't First, he does not KNOW the facts. Second, khe likes to make speeches that ignore the facts altogether. Unless the media debate questioners--like Wolf Bitzer in his interview of Romney today--PUSH the LIES, it is hard for Obama to really debate Romney (so long as Romney has command of tkhe facts). Is Obama, by the way, "writing off" white males? Seems so. I still don't see a 25% difference in the votes of men and women--which is what CNN was pushing. Something wrong with that.
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
We know that Obama is all about GROUPS, rather than individuals. Thus, I saw a mainstream media interview, with one of the Zogbys, talking about the "important" Arab-American vote. Obama, and the mainstream media, like to "target" women, Hispanics, unionn members (including public employee unions), Africa-Americans, etc. The idea is that we are in a zero-sum game, where you can win an "eletion' so long as you BRIBE identifiable groups, and propoose to HURT only people that are not liked (especially the "rich", but including "white males" and other scum, who are ot "saved" by being in one of the favored classes). Now that Oama has WRAPPPED UP the Communist/socialist vote, can we expect to see the mainstream media bragging about that? What about a POLL as to how many socialists and Communists support Obama? I would bet that his support among that "voting bloc" is at least 90%.
Then there are "independents" (ME). I actually heard "independents" referred to again today as an imprtant "voting bloc" (I hink on thee unfair and unbalanced network, but I hear the same thing every day from ALL of our mentally challenged media peoiple. I am sorry. "Independent" "voting bloc" is an OXYMORON, brought to you by the regular morons in our media--a seslf-contradictory phrase. You cannot be an "independent", and be part of a "voting bloc'.
Doubt me/ Never expose ourself as a fool that way. As stated, I am an "independent". Now Kenda, my older daughter, has said: "Daddy, you are not an 'independent'. You don't even support gay marriage. It is Boston yuppies like me who are the real 'independents'."
Sorry. My daughter has been influenced by Massachusetts/Boston first, and the dishonest, stupid people of the media second. By definition, I AM an "independent". I disowned the GOP, forever, in 2006, and said I would never, ever regard myself a member of that party again (although I MIGHT support individual GOP candidates). I did NOT support either Hohn McCain ro Barack Obama in 2008--supporting the Libertarian cnadidate AFTER my first choice--a left-handed choice for the good of the countgr--failed to get the nominaiton: HILLARY CLINTON. You can look it up in this blog archives, if they are sitill there. Unlike Rush Limbaugh--I came up with the idea first--I promised to vote for Hilklary Clinton in the general election (after John McCain won nomination). But Clinton lost, and I ended up supporting the Libertarian candidate. Again this year, I support the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. However, I am NOT a "libertarain", although I lean somewhat tto the libertarian side of conservatism. I did NOT suppport Gary Johnson for the GOP nomination, although I could have supported Ron Paul (despite reservations) if the race had ever come down to a ral race between Paul and Romney (never gong to happen). In actual fact, I supported Herman Cain and Rick Santorum, in that order, while naming Paul an acceptable alternative. There is no way I culd ever be a Democrat. If I am not GOP, Democrat, OR Libertarian, what am I? Right. I HAVE to be an "independent", and I am.
Did not Mitt Romney win the debate with Obama (our Liar-in-Chief). Yep. He won big. But I did not comment on it in this blog--although I will comment on the aftermath here shortly--because it did not change my views at all. I know Obama for what he is, and knew him in 2008. My problem is that Romney merely again confirmed for me who HE is, and I can't support hmi. OH. I have never thought Romney was "unlikable". I don't care about the LIES about Bain Capitabl and taxes. And I do think the debate shows that Romney IS a better "manager", who might actually WORK at the JOB of being President (instead of watning to be merely a speech maker and CELEBRITY with the title of "President"). Not enough for me. Later articles will get into the Obam/mainstream media LIE about how Romney 'changed" his positns. If you have listened carefully, as I have, Romney did NOT "change" his positions. He has always been a "moderate"--GOP estalbishment person--and he still is. He jsut emphacized the "conservative" side of his rehetoric while running for the GOP nomination, and now puts somewhat more emphasis on his 'moderate" rhetoric. The mainstream media actually HELPED him with that in the nomination The POSITIONS HAVE NOT CHANGED. Why do o think I did not support Romney in the nomination, and said I would NOT vote for him? I KNOW where Romney 'stands", and so should anyone. Some of you may even like ti. When Obama says he was "shocked" by Romney lies at the debate, what Obama is really saying is that he was "shocked" taht Romney did not present himself as the CARICATURE/CARTOON that Obama has been MISREPRESENTING him to be. No. Rush Limbaugh is NOT that cartoon. But it has always been an absurd LIE to suggest taht Romney is some sort of letist idea of a conservative cartoon character. romney has ALWAYS been a "moderate" (yes, even in the GOP debates, as this blog told you), even if he was smart enough not to really scream that in the GOP nomination fight. Even McCain was smarter than that. Obama is now complainging about Romney not buying into Obama's LIE: a LIE upon which Obama has based his entire campaign. It is abusrd to suggest ANY conservative would be "against the middle class", and for policies that make the "middle class pay for the rich". When yu base your campaign on a LIE, you can hardly complain that your opponent does not cooperatte by endorsing the lie. More on this in later articles.
Still. Obama's attempt to appeal to GROUPS, instead of individuals interested int eh future of this country, is obviusly WORKING He has clearly sewed up the Communist/socialist vote. He may have a big advantage int he Arab-American vote (Zogby seemed to suggest so). I have questioned whehter women--the most practical of sexes and least likely to STAY BOUGHT--will end up seling ut their country because of BRIBES and supposed "attitude". In the end, I thik women will vote what they perceive to be their OVERALL self-interest. I don't see them, as a ssex, believing that Obama really is likely to hellp their future (bribes or no bribes). Again, women are the most practical of creatures. Romney should really appeal to them more than I think he should, as I don't think Romney has an ideological bone in his body. And then there are Hispanics. Do Hispanics really VOTE on who most identifies them with ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS? I don't think so. So this Obama idea of pitting groups against each other, and almost everybody agaisnt "the rich", has major flaws. But the media is trying to MAKE IT WORK. And Obama had these LIES (Biden actually said that Rmoney faovred a $2000 increase on the 'middle class"--an outright LIE) that have been pushed in all of those negative ads. That is Obama's debate problem. He NEEDS the MEDIA to PUSH THE LIES. If he has to actually debate the FACTS, Obama can't First, he does not KNOW the facts. Second, khe likes to make speeches that ignore the facts altogether. Unless the media debate questioners--like Wolf Bitzer in his interview of Romney today--PUSH the LIES, it is hard for Obama to really debate Romney (so long as Romney has command of tkhe facts). Is Obama, by the way, "writing off" white males? Seems so. I still don't see a 25% difference in the votes of men and women--which is what CNN was pushing. Something wrong with that.
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Monday, October 8, 2012
Unemployment Rate: Sex, Lies and Videotape: Fiction Reported as Fact
The unemplyment rate reported on Friday was total fiction. No, that is not opinion. That is fact, from the Labor Department's own figures. The "sex" is tn the title is the reference to the ORGASMS media partisans had, or pretended to have, about a toally fictioinal unemplyment rate.
Is the Labor Department honest? No. But the media is far more dishoienst and incompetent. For literally hundreds of weeks, I have shwon yu that the Labor Department's numbers for any individual week or month are not concrete numbers. For example, the weekly number of new unemplyment claims comes out every Thusrsday It is almost ALWAYS a LIE. Even by the Labor Department's own figures, the number is ALWAYS, and CONSISTENTLY, revised UPWARD the next week: the revision being ALWAYS in one direction, understating the number of new nemplyment claims by usually 3,000 and more. And monthly eplylment numbrs are ALWAYS revised by substantial amounts. For example, the emplylment numbers released on Friday REVISED the previous two months "jobs added" figures to "create" more than 80,0000 jobs for the previoius two months, after the revisions for July and August (released first Friday in September) "uncreated" more than 40,0000 jobs previusly reported in those months. Thus, you have the Labor Department consistently understating the number of new unempyment claims by a number so conistent that it has to be dishoenst (whether "normal procedure" 9r not). Then you have so many numbers floating around, from sto many places--numbers that are consistently WRONG under the Labor Department's own figures in later months, it is obvius that each month's numbers are compiled with input from a number of sources. Is it surprising that the people GENERATING the monthy numbers could--n their own, wihtout even "conspiring" with one antoher--"fudge" the the numbers in such a way as to inflence the reported number? They do it every week, on the weekly jobless claims number. See Thursday's article posted on this blog, before the Friday employment numbers, and teh HUNDRES of preivous blog articles. I don't believe in huge coincidences, and an obivusly FALSE unemplyment rate, in the most crucial monthly report before the election (the October report the Friday before the electino being too late to have a s much effect), is just too much of a cincidence for me. No, I do't believe in big "conspiracies" to put togehter a false report. But neither do I believe in incredible coiincidences. Therefore, it is obvius to me that SOME people going through the process to generate these numbers did some things to "help" the unemplyment rate, which is a POLLWe KNOW that "polls" can be influenced, since it is the validity of the sample that matters (see the "explanatin" for the consistently dismal performance of exit polls, especialy i 2004). But it does not matter. The main "story" here--and the ignroing of it is what makes our media so DISHOENST--is the FALSE and INCONSISTENT numbers in themonthly emplyment rate. Waht the media shuld be 'reporting' is the questin of WHY the numbers are false and inconsistent: not "shooting down' conspiracy theories". Any "conspiracy theory" may be wrong about what is going on, but the FACT is that Friday's number on the unemplyment rate was a JOKE.
Let us go to the videotape. Second quarter GDP was jsut revised DOWN to 1.2$--insufficient (all economists agree) to lower the unemplyment rate). Weekly numbers of new unemplyment claims have been in the SAME "range' all year: 350,000-390,000, and they are now EXACTLY in themiddle of that range (see Thursday's article). Aain, all economists agree that this NO IMPROVEMENT is not good enough to lower the unemplyument rate. "Jobs added" have been consistently at 1000,000, or less, since March. Here is the most important item, and the most obvius inconsistency: "Jobs added" for September were CNSISTENT with prvious months, at only 114,000 (only 103,000 private jobs). ALL economists agree that 114,000 "new jobs' is NOT good enough to lower the unemplyment rate. But it is worse than that. The LABOR DEPARTMENT figures show that 114,000 "new jobs' is not nearly good enough to lower the unemplyment rate. No. I am not talking abut "discouraged workers", "underemployed workers", or the like--imiportant tas those subjects may be. I am talking about an OBVIUSLY FALSE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, inconsistent with the other numbers int eh Labor Department report.
"Wait a second, Skip. You say that the Labor Department's own figures show that 114,000 new jobs is not enough to lower the unemployment rate. Then how can the Labor Department calculate an unemplyment rate of 7.8%, when they are using their own numbers to do that calculation.' Ah. Now you have lurched into the crucial pont: The unempllyment RATE is calculated on DIFFERENT numbers than the numbers used to calculate the "official" number of jobs added. Thus, the 114,000 number of jobs added last month ws based on a survey of EMP:PUERS (of actual payrolls). The unemplyment RATE was NOT calculated on this number, but on the different number of "jobs added" in the HOUSEHOLD SURVEY (poll of "representative" sample of households). What if a significant number of those "sample' households LIED in the PHONE POL (which I recommend people do in any poll)? Do you see how many places the result of this poll could be DISTORTED? In choosing the "sample". In what the people in the sample SAY. Etc. This is whre real "journalism", which no longer exists, culd be useful. The "Household Survey" purported to show a 'job gain" of 873,000. Bhat is an IMPOSSIBLE number, as the other Labor Department figures show. It is INCONSISTENT with--cannot be reconciled with--the 114,000 number of OFFICIAL "jobs added" from the separate survey of employoers. Can you see that 114,000 was NOT sufficient to decrease the unemployment rate? You should. Rather, the supposed, FALSE, decrease int he unemployment rate was the result of a supposed 873,000 increase in jobs i the separate "Household Survey", whihc is an obviusly false number.
Wehn does 873,0000 equal 114,000? No. Not Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Not the strange world of quantum mechanics. This only hpappens in the strange, impossible world of ur DISHOENST MEDIA (uninterested in looking into HOW these INCONSISTENT numbers can both be true), and int the strange and wonderful world of our Labor Department and economists. If ou ran up againstt this INCONSISTENCY in balancing your checkbook,, you wuld LOOK FOR THE ERROR. Our media--especially the mainstream media like CNN--instead look to "slap down", and ridicule", people asserting a "conspiracy" to create some exact false number. This is a red herring, to CONCEL and DECEIVE. It does not matter whether there is a "conspiracy" or not The 873,000 number used to assert a decrease int he unemployment rate is obviusly FALSE. That is a FACT. What we should be looking to determine is WHY it is false. What created this obvius glitch in the numbers--this obvius conlfict between 873,000 added jobs and 114,000 added jobs. The discrepancy s too large. Both of those numbers cannot be true.
"But, Skip, how do you know that it is the 873,000 that is false/" Well, you COULD simply disregrad the entire report, as interanlly inconsistent and false. However, the 114,000 is CONSISTENT with other numbers, while the 873,000 is not. The 873,000 is the largest increase in that "Household Survey" number since 1983, in what EVERYONE agrees is a sluggish economy (GDP growth of only 1.3% in the second quarter--the wrost since 2009). The 11,0000 is consistent with previus months. It is consistent with the weekly lack of improvement in new unemployment claims. But the "Household Survey" would suggest we are in a BOOM. Absurd. No. The 873,000 is FALSE, and should be reported as such (or at least as inconsistent with the other numbers). I agree, by the way that Mitt Romney cannot quite say it that way. But Mitt Romney CAN, and SHOULD, if asked aobut the numbers, say that this inconsistency exists between the 873,000 jobs suposedly addeed to reduce the unemploument rate, and thwe 114,000 jobs officially added in September. No. Romney hsouuld say he is NOT suggesting a conspiracy: only that the numbers do not add up, for whatever reason.
What is the "defense" to this Friday JOKE of an unemploymeht rate? The "defense' is a PROCESS "dfense": No defense at all. The "defesne" is that the Labor Department followed its decades old normal process, and that this difference between the "Employer Survey" and "Household Survey" is part of that "normal process". So what? That does not change a thing. The nubmres are INCONSISTENT, and not just by a littlle. The numbers are MASSIVELY INCONSISTENT, and the 873,000 number has to be regarded as FALSE. Now, if pressed, you will see some peole "admit" that the numbers are gard to reconcile, but they will--if lthey are the usual, dishonest tyes--simplly say that this kind of inconsistency is "normal'. NO. It is NOT. An 800% difference in these numbers is nOT "normal", and shows that at least one of these numbers (114,000 or 873,000) is WRONG. In this case, the 873,000 has to be wrong.
As I said at the beginning, I do not believe in totally convenient coincidence. That there woulduld be this kind of descrepancy in what is really the most important employment report before the electin strikes me as a DISTORTION that goes beyond coincidence. But I admit I don't know exaclty what the source of this DISTROTION is It is even barely possilbe that there was just a glitch in the normal process. I jsut don't believe in that magnitude of coincidence. As stated, it does not matter. What matters is that the unemploymnent RATE released on Friday is obviusly FALSE, and INCONSISTENT with other numbers releasesd by the same LaborDepartment on Friday. If you are a "journalists", and do not report that, then yoou are a LIAR.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Is the Labor Department honest? No. But the media is far more dishoienst and incompetent. For literally hundreds of weeks, I have shwon yu that the Labor Department's numbers for any individual week or month are not concrete numbers. For example, the weekly number of new unemplyment claims comes out every Thusrsday It is almost ALWAYS a LIE. Even by the Labor Department's own figures, the number is ALWAYS, and CONSISTENTLY, revised UPWARD the next week: the revision being ALWAYS in one direction, understating the number of new nemplyment claims by usually 3,000 and more. And monthly eplylment numbrs are ALWAYS revised by substantial amounts. For example, the emplylment numbers released on Friday REVISED the previous two months "jobs added" figures to "create" more than 80,0000 jobs for the previoius two months, after the revisions for July and August (released first Friday in September) "uncreated" more than 40,0000 jobs previusly reported in those months. Thus, you have the Labor Department consistently understating the number of new unempyment claims by a number so conistent that it has to be dishoenst (whether "normal procedure" 9r not). Then you have so many numbers floating around, from sto many places--numbers that are consistently WRONG under the Labor Department's own figures in later months, it is obvius that each month's numbers are compiled with input from a number of sources. Is it surprising that the people GENERATING the monthy numbers could--n their own, wihtout even "conspiring" with one antoher--"fudge" the the numbers in such a way as to inflence the reported number? They do it every week, on the weekly jobless claims number. See Thursday's article posted on this blog, before the Friday employment numbers, and teh HUNDRES of preivous blog articles. I don't believe in huge coincidences, and an obivusly FALSE unemplyment rate, in the most crucial monthly report before the election (the October report the Friday before the electino being too late to have a s much effect), is just too much of a cincidence for me. No, I do't believe in big "conspiracies" to put togehter a false report. But neither do I believe in incredible coiincidences. Therefore, it is obvius to me that SOME people going through the process to generate these numbers did some things to "help" the unemplyment rate, which is a POLLWe KNOW that "polls" can be influenced, since it is the validity of the sample that matters (see the "explanatin" for the consistently dismal performance of exit polls, especialy i 2004). But it does not matter. The main "story" here--and the ignroing of it is what makes our media so DISHOENST--is the FALSE and INCONSISTENT numbers in themonthly emplyment rate. Waht the media shuld be 'reporting' is the questin of WHY the numbers are false and inconsistent: not "shooting down' conspiracy theories". Any "conspiracy theory" may be wrong about what is going on, but the FACT is that Friday's number on the unemplyment rate was a JOKE.
Let us go to the videotape. Second quarter GDP was jsut revised DOWN to 1.2$--insufficient (all economists agree) to lower the unemplyment rate). Weekly numbers of new unemplyment claims have been in the SAME "range' all year: 350,000-390,000, and they are now EXACTLY in themiddle of that range (see Thursday's article). Aain, all economists agree that this NO IMPROVEMENT is not good enough to lower the unemplyument rate. "Jobs added" have been consistently at 1000,000, or less, since March. Here is the most important item, and the most obvius inconsistency: "Jobs added" for September were CNSISTENT with prvious months, at only 114,000 (only 103,000 private jobs). ALL economists agree that 114,000 "new jobs' is NOT good enough to lower the unemplyment rate. But it is worse than that. The LABOR DEPARTMENT figures show that 114,000 "new jobs' is not nearly good enough to lower the unemplyment rate. No. I am not talking abut "discouraged workers", "underemployed workers", or the like--imiportant tas those subjects may be. I am talking about an OBVIUSLY FALSE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, inconsistent with the other numbers int eh Labor Department report.
"Wait a second, Skip. You say that the Labor Department's own figures show that 114,000 new jobs is not enough to lower the unemployment rate. Then how can the Labor Department calculate an unemplyment rate of 7.8%, when they are using their own numbers to do that calculation.' Ah. Now you have lurched into the crucial pont: The unempllyment RATE is calculated on DIFFERENT numbers than the numbers used to calculate the "official" number of jobs added. Thus, the 114,000 number of jobs added last month ws based on a survey of EMP:PUERS (of actual payrolls). The unemplyment RATE was NOT calculated on this number, but on the different number of "jobs added" in the HOUSEHOLD SURVEY (poll of "representative" sample of households). What if a significant number of those "sample' households LIED in the PHONE POL (which I recommend people do in any poll)? Do you see how many places the result of this poll could be DISTORTED? In choosing the "sample". In what the people in the sample SAY. Etc. This is whre real "journalism", which no longer exists, culd be useful. The "Household Survey" purported to show a 'job gain" of 873,000. Bhat is an IMPOSSIBLE number, as the other Labor Department figures show. It is INCONSISTENT with--cannot be reconciled with--the 114,000 number of OFFICIAL "jobs added" from the separate survey of employoers. Can you see that 114,000 was NOT sufficient to decrease the unemployment rate? You should. Rather, the supposed, FALSE, decrease int he unemployment rate was the result of a supposed 873,000 increase in jobs i the separate "Household Survey", whihc is an obviusly false number.
Wehn does 873,0000 equal 114,000? No. Not Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Not the strange world of quantum mechanics. This only hpappens in the strange, impossible world of ur DISHOENST MEDIA (uninterested in looking into HOW these INCONSISTENT numbers can both be true), and int the strange and wonderful world of our Labor Department and economists. If ou ran up againstt this INCONSISTENCY in balancing your checkbook,, you wuld LOOK FOR THE ERROR. Our media--especially the mainstream media like CNN--instead look to "slap down", and ridicule", people asserting a "conspiracy" to create some exact false number. This is a red herring, to CONCEL and DECEIVE. It does not matter whether there is a "conspiracy" or not The 873,000 number used to assert a decrease int he unemployment rate is obviusly FALSE. That is a FACT. What we should be looking to determine is WHY it is false. What created this obvius glitch in the numbers--this obvius conlfict between 873,000 added jobs and 114,000 added jobs. The discrepancy s too large. Both of those numbers cannot be true.
"But, Skip, how do you know that it is the 873,000 that is false/" Well, you COULD simply disregrad the entire report, as interanlly inconsistent and false. However, the 114,000 is CONSISTENT with other numbers, while the 873,000 is not. The 873,000 is the largest increase in that "Household Survey" number since 1983, in what EVERYONE agrees is a sluggish economy (GDP growth of only 1.3% in the second quarter--the wrost since 2009). The 11,0000 is consistent with previus months. It is consistent with the weekly lack of improvement in new unemployment claims. But the "Household Survey" would suggest we are in a BOOM. Absurd. No. The 873,000 is FALSE, and should be reported as such (or at least as inconsistent with the other numbers). I agree, by the way that Mitt Romney cannot quite say it that way. But Mitt Romney CAN, and SHOULD, if asked aobut the numbers, say that this inconsistency exists between the 873,000 jobs suposedly addeed to reduce the unemploument rate, and thwe 114,000 jobs officially added in September. No. Romney hsouuld say he is NOT suggesting a conspiracy: only that the numbers do not add up, for whatever reason.
What is the "defense" to this Friday JOKE of an unemploymeht rate? The "defense' is a PROCESS "dfense": No defense at all. The "defesne" is that the Labor Department followed its decades old normal process, and that this difference between the "Employer Survey" and "Household Survey" is part of that "normal process". So what? That does not change a thing. The nubmres are INCONSISTENT, and not just by a littlle. The numbers are MASSIVELY INCONSISTENT, and the 873,000 number has to be regarded as FALSE. Now, if pressed, you will see some peole "admit" that the numbers are gard to reconcile, but they will--if lthey are the usual, dishonest tyes--simplly say that this kind of inconsistency is "normal'. NO. It is NOT. An 800% difference in these numbers is nOT "normal", and shows that at least one of these numbers (114,000 or 873,000) is WRONG. In this case, the 873,000 has to be wrong.
As I said at the beginning, I do not believe in totally convenient coincidence. That there woulduld be this kind of descrepancy in what is really the most important employment report before the electin strikes me as a DISTORTION that goes beyond coincidence. But I admit I don't know exaclty what the source of this DISTROTION is It is even barely possilbe that there was just a glitch in the normal process. I jsut don't believe in that magnitude of coincidence. As stated, it does not matter. What matters is that the unemploymnent RATE released on Friday is obviusly FALSE, and INCONSISTENT with other numbers releasesd by the same LaborDepartment on Friday. If you are a "journalists", and do not report that, then yoou are a LIAR.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Obama Loses 370,000 Jobs Last Week: No Improvement Thie Year--As Media Lies Continue
Look at the article two weeks ago, when I was again EXACTLY right on the weekly number of new unemplyment claims released every Thursday, as I was last week (on Twitte--mavconservative--rather than on this blog, where you have seen these articles many times before) For about 102 out of the last 104 weeks (two full years), and more, I have been right and the DISHOENST Labro Deaprtment and media WRONG.
Two weeks ago, I told lyou that it was an obvius media LIE that the number of new unempyment claims "slightly dropoped", when the intial number (to be revised the next week) was the very SAME 382,0000 as the Labor Department reported iniitially the previous week. That previous week's number had been REVISED to 385,000, and I told you two weeks ago that the new 382,000 wwsa likely to be REVISED to the same 385,000. It was, last week. This blog was EXACTlY right yet again. The media LIES were again confirmed, including the LIES by Marketwathc.com.
Three weeks ago,k the Labor Deptarment "explained" the "jump" in new unemployment claims, to 385,000 (initially reported as that 382,000) as the result of Hurricane Isaac. I correctly told y the problem with this, and the essence of media (including financial "reporters", specifically includng the unfair and unbalanced network) LIIES. I have tolld you for YEARS that "specail factors" can influence the weeky report on new unemplyment claims, including the "seasonal adjustment' simply not taking into account new seasonal patters, and sepcial events making the "seasonal adjustment' simply wrong. Thus, for 3 years (2010, 2011, and 2012), there has appear3ed to be a NEW "seasonal pattern", whre the labor market APPEARS to get better in the first part of the eyar, alnog wtih the eocnmy in general (usualy a "carryonver" from an APPARENT "improvement" at the end of the previuis year):; but then the labor market APPEARS to agan DETERORATE in the spring and summer. This leaads to the conclustion that the labor market, and econmy in general, has been STUCK /STALLED since the end of 2009: the only "normal" "snap back" recovery occurring in the second half of 2009, BEFORE Obama policies had any chance to have any real effect. All Obama/Bernanke policies have done is make any real "recovery": IMPOSSIBLE That editorial comment aside, the FACT is that the same pattern has prevailded in 2010,2011 and 2012: a FALSE "recvery", whre media peole have ORGASMS talking about how the ecomy and labor market havefinaly "turned the corner", only to have the APPARENT "recovery" STALL in the spring and summer. The most obvius explanatin is that there is a NEW seasonal pattern NOT adequately reflected in the "seasonal adjustmetn", nad that there has not been a continuous cycle of "improvement" and "deterioration". Rather, there has simply been no REAL IMPROVMENT any time during the time since January of 2010.
The problem with the Labor Department, and the media, is that they will "cite' special factors to "explan" a RISE in new unemplylment claims (as 3 weeks ago), but then will LIE about what an equallly FICTIONAL "drop" in uenmplyment cllaims--for a short time--means. Thus, the media went into those ORGASMS again from mid-January to mid-March of this year, when the APPARTENT range of new unemplyment claims settled in between 350,000 and 365,000 This blob, of course, told yu CORRECTLY that ths seemed to jut REPEAT the pattern from 2010 and 2011, without the knid of stady improvement from week to week that would indicate a real recovery. Sure, any ONE week, or even a few weeks, can result rfrom an aberratin. But we are not really IMPROVING if lthe weekly number merely jumps around in a new range, without any apparent "improvement'. Thus, there was NO IMPROVEMENT from mid-January to mid-March, even though the new range was lower than the highter numbers in the middle of last year. Then, of course, the same PATATERN repeated, and new unempllyment claims shot Up to about 390,000. Then they dropped back toward the top of that previus 350,000 to 365,000 range, ohnly to AVERAGE almost 390,000 in the first four weeks of June. Did the economy 'jump around' like this? NO. This seemed to be merely statistical NOISE as we remain STALLED/STUCK. WE have been in a range of 350,000 to 390,000 this ENTIRE YEAR, with NO IMPROVING TREND. Right now, we hapen to be EXACTLY in the meiddle of that range. The number of new unemplyment calaims was reported TODAY at 367,000, but that will (most likely) be REVISED next week to 370,000. This was too much even for the LIARS at Marketwatch.com, and their headline today correctly said that "job availability" is NOT IMPROVING. If they were really honest, they would have said it has NOT IMPROVED this entire year.
But that is NOT how it was reported LAST WEEK, as we had another one of those FICTIONAL drops in new unemplyhment claims. The initially reported number was 359,000. As I stated on Twitter, that number was bnd to be REVISED upward to 462,000 or more. It WAS REVISED todya, ggain exactly as I predicted, although the revisino was to 363,000 rather than to 362,000. Last wek, the media trumpeted that "drop" of 26,0000 (actually 22,000, after I had predicted 23,000) as a major "drop in new claims. That was ABSURD on its face: the report of DISHOENST people being as DISHOINEST as a persn can be. Can REAL ecoomic changes "explain" how new unemplyment claims first JUMP to 385,000 for two weeks in a row, and then suddentlyl fall back to 363,000. Nope. ABSURD. As the Labor Department said 3 weeks ago, and as I said MIGHT be correct (as I correctly said would only be determined OVER TIME), the media still acted like this sudden "drop" was REAL. This Thrusday proved it was NOT REAL, as the number of claims went right back to the MIDDLE of that 350,000-390,000 yearly range, where it was BEFORE lthat somewhat ficitnal "jump" to 385,000. How DISHOENST are you when you are willng ot talk about 'special factors" ONLY ONE WAY, and not look at al of this OVER TIME? You have to be abut the most dishoenst peole who ever lived. That describes our present media. The Lbar Deparmetn is bad enough, but our media peole are pathetic examples of incompetency and dishonesty.
It is even worse. Last week, as the media was talking about how "great" the weekly unemplyment claims number wsa, the GDP "growth" for the second quarter waws REVISED DOWNWARD from 2.7% to 1.3%. This REVISIN in "growth" was a DROP of almost 25% from the the previus estimate, indicating the media LIE in reporting these numbers as "concret" when the initial ESTIMATES are put out. Both the GDP numbers AND the empllyment numbers (weekly and monthly) are WRITTEN ON WATER. To show how BAD this 1.3% GDP "growth was, the GDP (at least as initially reported, as I dont even know what the final numbers were) "growth" for the first TWO quarters of 2008 was about 1% each quarter. Whaqt is significant about that? wel, first, both Democrats and the media were asserting taht we might well be in a RECESSION ANYWAY, despitte the GROWTH in GDP reported for the first 2 quarters. More importantly, it was later "determined' that the Great Recession DID "start" on January 1,2008.
Are we BACK in recessin NOW? We MIGHT be. What have I jsut shown you? I have shown yu that the "call" on "recession" is a HINDSIGTHT CALL. IF the ecomy DETERIORATED from here, it is entirely possible that a HINDSIGHT analysis woulld indicate we are laready back in recessin. Remember, the THIRD QUARTER has already ended, but the SECOND QUARTER GDP "growth' was just REVISED downward to only 1.3%. That means that if the THRID QUARTER is anywhere CLOSE to ZERO "growth", it is entirely possible for that to be LATERR revised to a NEGATIVE "growth" quarter. Q.E.D. It is entirely possible that we are NOW in a rECESSION, although that "call' can ONLY be made after the fact. It is more likely--and it hardly makes a difference whether we are officially back in a recessin or not, as I said back int he summer of 2008 as well--that we have STALLED in a BAD PLACE: right around no growth at all.
Monthly "jobs report" comes out Friday. But you alreadyKNOW the report, IN ADVANCE. The monthly "jobs created" CANNOT be "good". That would be totally inconsistent with the weekly numbers on new unemplyment claims AND the REVISED GDP "growth" for the second quarter of a minuscule 1.3%. Any "good" number would simplly be a LIE (well, a staqtistical glitch). What would be a Big Lie: Orwellian, "1984", size? IF the unemplyment RATE were to slupposedly go 'down" tomorrrow to 7.9%, the media would again have ORGAMSS, and Obama people would calim "victory". ABSURD. I expect that the unemplyment rate will stay at 8% or above, after NOT IMRVONG this entire year (started at 8.3% for January, and was 8.1% last month). But there is a lot of STATISTICAL NOISE in that unemplyment RATE number. It is a SURVEY (a PLL). And "benchmarks" keep changing, as well. Plus, peole keep DROPPING OUT of the labor force, The labor force "participatin" has fallen to the LOWEST level in modern times (some 63%). Thus, IF the unemplyment rate wre to fall BARELY under 8%, it would be a LIE to make much of tahat--especailly with all of the other numbers.
No. Whatever the "official" numbers tomorrow, the situatin is BAD. It is only a matter of how much the media and Obama Administraitn are willng to LIE about it. We are NOT IMPROVING, and have not rimpofed for this ENTIRE YEAR. These numbers oNLY mean somehting OVER TIME, and over the TIME of this entire year they are BAD: not "going in the right direction". We are STALLED,at best. Did I mentin that the new "seasonal pattern" would also indicate that any supposed "iimprovement" will be FICTION. Again, for 2010, 2011, and 2012 (up until now), the econmy, and "jobs', have DETERIORATED from "encouraging" early signs as we have gone itno and through summer. That has pahppened again in 2012, but in 2010 and 2011 the dta began to look BETTER as we went into September-October, and the RAMP UP to Christmas (getting earier and earlier every year). IF that new seasonal pattern repeats, we would expect some APPARENT improvement to start as we reach the end of September. There are a number of reasons I thimk we are alctually in WORSE shape (for the future) than we were at the endo of the summers of 2011 and 2010, maknig me doubtful that even the apparent numbers can "improve' much. Th enew jobless claims numbers would not seem to indicati any such "improvement". The newly revised GDP number certainly does not. But ou never know There are MANY reasons one month could "show' 'unexpectedly" "strong' numbers on "jobs created" and unempolyment RATE. Again, a 7.9% unempoyment rate would NOT show any"progress", but you NOW how the media would persent it. Am I "predicting" a 7.9% rate? No, but I AM saying it is entirely possible with NO "improvemetn" in the econmy at all. What I expect is right around 8% on the rate, wit "jobs created" between 100,000 and 150,000 (another number which will later be REVISED, as the previus two months were REVISED DOWNWARD a total of more than 40,0000 at the end of August).
I have given you the facts, plus how to "intrepret" the numbers tomorrow (including the fact that one month means nothing to an econmy which has NOT IMPROVED this entire year). Watch out for the lies, and the "spn".
PS. No proofreading or spelll checkng (bad eyesight).
Two weeks ago, I told lyou that it was an obvius media LIE that the number of new unempyment claims "slightly dropoped", when the intial number (to be revised the next week) was the very SAME 382,0000 as the Labor Department reported iniitially the previous week. That previous week's number had been REVISED to 385,000, and I told you two weeks ago that the new 382,000 wwsa likely to be REVISED to the same 385,000. It was, last week. This blog was EXACTlY right yet again. The media LIES were again confirmed, including the LIES by Marketwathc.com.
Three weeks ago,k the Labor Deptarment "explained" the "jump" in new unemployment claims, to 385,000 (initially reported as that 382,000) as the result of Hurricane Isaac. I correctly told y the problem with this, and the essence of media (including financial "reporters", specifically includng the unfair and unbalanced network) LIIES. I have tolld you for YEARS that "specail factors" can influence the weeky report on new unemplyment claims, including the "seasonal adjustment' simply not taking into account new seasonal patters, and sepcial events making the "seasonal adjustment' simply wrong. Thus, for 3 years (2010, 2011, and 2012), there has appear3ed to be a NEW "seasonal pattern", whre the labor market APPEARS to get better in the first part of the eyar, alnog wtih the eocnmy in general (usualy a "carryonver" from an APPARENT "improvement" at the end of the previuis year):; but then the labor market APPEARS to agan DETERORATE in the spring and summer. This leaads to the conclustion that the labor market, and econmy in general, has been STUCK /STALLED since the end of 2009: the only "normal" "snap back" recovery occurring in the second half of 2009, BEFORE Obama policies had any chance to have any real effect. All Obama/Bernanke policies have done is make any real "recovery": IMPOSSIBLE That editorial comment aside, the FACT is that the same pattern has prevailded in 2010,2011 and 2012: a FALSE "recvery", whre media peole have ORGASMS talking about how the ecomy and labor market havefinaly "turned the corner", only to have the APPARENT "recovery" STALL in the spring and summer. The most obvius explanatin is that there is a NEW seasonal pattern NOT adequately reflected in the "seasonal adjustmetn", nad that there has not been a continuous cycle of "improvement" and "deterioration". Rather, there has simply been no REAL IMPROVMENT any time during the time since January of 2010.
The problem with the Labor Department, and the media, is that they will "cite' special factors to "explan" a RISE in new unemplylment claims (as 3 weeks ago), but then will LIE about what an equallly FICTIONAL "drop" in uenmplyment cllaims--for a short time--means. Thus, the media went into those ORGASMS again from mid-January to mid-March of this year, when the APPARTENT range of new unemplyment claims settled in between 350,000 and 365,000 This blob, of course, told yu CORRECTLY that ths seemed to jut REPEAT the pattern from 2010 and 2011, without the knid of stady improvement from week to week that would indicate a real recovery. Sure, any ONE week, or even a few weeks, can result rfrom an aberratin. But we are not really IMPROVING if lthe weekly number merely jumps around in a new range, without any apparent "improvement'. Thus, there was NO IMPROVEMENT from mid-January to mid-March, even though the new range was lower than the highter numbers in the middle of last year. Then, of course, the same PATATERN repeated, and new unempllyment claims shot Up to about 390,000. Then they dropped back toward the top of that previus 350,000 to 365,000 range, ohnly to AVERAGE almost 390,000 in the first four weeks of June. Did the economy 'jump around' like this? NO. This seemed to be merely statistical NOISE as we remain STALLED/STUCK. WE have been in a range of 350,000 to 390,000 this ENTIRE YEAR, with NO IMPROVING TREND. Right now, we hapen to be EXACTLY in the meiddle of that range. The number of new unemplyment calaims was reported TODAY at 367,000, but that will (most likely) be REVISED next week to 370,000. This was too much even for the LIARS at Marketwatch.com, and their headline today correctly said that "job availability" is NOT IMPROVING. If they were really honest, they would have said it has NOT IMPROVED this entire year.
But that is NOT how it was reported LAST WEEK, as we had another one of those FICTIONAL drops in new unemplyhment claims. The initially reported number was 359,000. As I stated on Twitter, that number was bnd to be REVISED upward to 462,000 or more. It WAS REVISED todya, ggain exactly as I predicted, although the revisino was to 363,000 rather than to 362,000. Last wek, the media trumpeted that "drop" of 26,0000 (actually 22,000, after I had predicted 23,000) as a major "drop in new claims. That was ABSURD on its face: the report of DISHOENST people being as DISHOINEST as a persn can be. Can REAL ecoomic changes "explain" how new unemplyment claims first JUMP to 385,000 for two weeks in a row, and then suddentlyl fall back to 363,000. Nope. ABSURD. As the Labor Department said 3 weeks ago, and as I said MIGHT be correct (as I correctly said would only be determined OVER TIME), the media still acted like this sudden "drop" was REAL. This Thrusday proved it was NOT REAL, as the number of claims went right back to the MIDDLE of that 350,000-390,000 yearly range, where it was BEFORE lthat somewhat ficitnal "jump" to 385,000. How DISHOENST are you when you are willng ot talk about 'special factors" ONLY ONE WAY, and not look at al of this OVER TIME? You have to be abut the most dishoenst peole who ever lived. That describes our present media. The Lbar Deparmetn is bad enough, but our media peole are pathetic examples of incompetency and dishonesty.
It is even worse. Last week, as the media was talking about how "great" the weekly unemplyment claims number wsa, the GDP "growth" for the second quarter waws REVISED DOWNWARD from 2.7% to 1.3%. This REVISIN in "growth" was a DROP of almost 25% from the the previus estimate, indicating the media LIE in reporting these numbers as "concret" when the initial ESTIMATES are put out. Both the GDP numbers AND the empllyment numbers (weekly and monthly) are WRITTEN ON WATER. To show how BAD this 1.3% GDP "growth was, the GDP (at least as initially reported, as I dont even know what the final numbers were) "growth" for the first TWO quarters of 2008 was about 1% each quarter. Whaqt is significant about that? wel, first, both Democrats and the media were asserting taht we might well be in a RECESSION ANYWAY, despitte the GROWTH in GDP reported for the first 2 quarters. More importantly, it was later "determined' that the Great Recession DID "start" on January 1,2008.
Are we BACK in recessin NOW? We MIGHT be. What have I jsut shown you? I have shown yu that the "call" on "recession" is a HINDSIGTHT CALL. IF the ecomy DETERIORATED from here, it is entirely possible that a HINDSIGHT analysis woulld indicate we are laready back in recessin. Remember, the THIRD QUARTER has already ended, but the SECOND QUARTER GDP "growth' was just REVISED downward to only 1.3%. That means that if the THRID QUARTER is anywhere CLOSE to ZERO "growth", it is entirely possible for that to be LATERR revised to a NEGATIVE "growth" quarter. Q.E.D. It is entirely possible that we are NOW in a rECESSION, although that "call' can ONLY be made after the fact. It is more likely--and it hardly makes a difference whether we are officially back in a recessin or not, as I said back int he summer of 2008 as well--that we have STALLED in a BAD PLACE: right around no growth at all.
Monthly "jobs report" comes out Friday. But you alreadyKNOW the report, IN ADVANCE. The monthly "jobs created" CANNOT be "good". That would be totally inconsistent with the weekly numbers on new unemplyment claims AND the REVISED GDP "growth" for the second quarter of a minuscule 1.3%. Any "good" number would simplly be a LIE (well, a staqtistical glitch). What would be a Big Lie: Orwellian, "1984", size? IF the unemplyment RATE were to slupposedly go 'down" tomorrrow to 7.9%, the media would again have ORGAMSS, and Obama people would calim "victory". ABSURD. I expect that the unemplyment rate will stay at 8% or above, after NOT IMRVONG this entire year (started at 8.3% for January, and was 8.1% last month). But there is a lot of STATISTICAL NOISE in that unemplyment RATE number. It is a SURVEY (a PLL). And "benchmarks" keep changing, as well. Plus, peole keep DROPPING OUT of the labor force, The labor force "participatin" has fallen to the LOWEST level in modern times (some 63%). Thus, IF the unemplyment rate wre to fall BARELY under 8%, it would be a LIE to make much of tahat--especailly with all of the other numbers.
No. Whatever the "official" numbers tomorrow, the situatin is BAD. It is only a matter of how much the media and Obama Administraitn are willng to LIE about it. We are NOT IMPROVING, and have not rimpofed for this ENTIRE YEAR. These numbers oNLY mean somehting OVER TIME, and over the TIME of this entire year they are BAD: not "going in the right direction". We are STALLED,at best. Did I mentin that the new "seasonal pattern" would also indicate that any supposed "iimprovement" will be FICTION. Again, for 2010, 2011, and 2012 (up until now), the econmy, and "jobs', have DETERIORATED from "encouraging" early signs as we have gone itno and through summer. That has pahppened again in 2012, but in 2010 and 2011 the dta began to look BETTER as we went into September-October, and the RAMP UP to Christmas (getting earier and earlier every year). IF that new seasonal pattern repeats, we would expect some APPARENT improvement to start as we reach the end of September. There are a number of reasons I thimk we are alctually in WORSE shape (for the future) than we were at the endo of the summers of 2011 and 2010, maknig me doubtful that even the apparent numbers can "improve' much. Th enew jobless claims numbers would not seem to indicati any such "improvement". The newly revised GDP number certainly does not. But ou never know There are MANY reasons one month could "show' 'unexpectedly" "strong' numbers on "jobs created" and unempolyment RATE. Again, a 7.9% unempoyment rate would NOT show any"progress", but you NOW how the media would persent it. Am I "predicting" a 7.9% rate? No, but I AM saying it is entirely possible with NO "improvemetn" in the econmy at all. What I expect is right around 8% on the rate, wit "jobs created" between 100,000 and 150,000 (another number which will later be REVISED, as the previus two months were REVISED DOWNWARD a total of more than 40,0000 at the end of August).
I have given you the facts, plus how to "intrepret" the numbers tomorrow (including the fact that one month means nothing to an econmy which has NOT IMPROVED this entire year). Watch out for the lies, and the "spn".
PS. No proofreading or spelll checkng (bad eyesight).
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Obama,Clinton and Terror: Obama Terrorophobia, or is it "Terrorphobia", Confirmed (even by Erin Burnett on CNN)
And some of you (all of yu?) think I have no influence. Yesterday, I coined the word for that neurotic mental condition of Presdient Obama that prevents him from being able to use the wrod "terror" in connectin with Muslim terrorist attacks. "Terrorophobia" was the word I coined for this condition, although critics have suggested that the last "o" is not really correctt, and that the word should be "terrorphobia". Maybe so, although I am not sure it has the right ring. obviusly I tried to tailor my cointed word after that leftist MADE UP (and inaccurate) word: "homophobia". But this semantic "controversy" is irrelevant. the point is that iI IDENTIFIED the condidtin, and suggested a roughly correct word that can be used for it. The rest is just a matter os SPELLING.
Thus, Erin Burnett said on her CNNshow tonight: "President Obama seems unable, for some reason, to SAY the word 'terror'. He talked about the attack in Libya, which Hillary Clinton has now called a 'terrorist attack' linked to al-Qaida affiliated groups', thourghout his entire address to the United Nations, but avoided using the word 'terror' even oNCE in connectin with the attakc" Thus, Erin Burnett has endorsed the "Obama disease" of "terrorophobia", or "terrorphobia", wihout using a word for it. She noted that Obama has FAILED and REFUSED to use the word "terror' in connectin witht he Libyan attack that killed our ambassador, for the ENTIRE period of more than TWO WEEKS after the attack, even though even his press secretary has (reluctantly) usedd the word.
I have strongly, and correctly, criticized Erin Burnett in this blog. She has obviusly decided that the ony way for her to IMPROVE is to PAY ATTENTIN to what this blog is saying, and go with it on her program. This neurotic aversin by Barack Obama to the woord "terror", at least in connectin with Muslim extremism, is so marked as to be similar to the beatnik character in the TV show "Dobie Gillis" ("Maynard G. Krebs? sp.?), who just coud not say the word "work". However, this is not a OMIC character. This is the President of the United States, whose "aversino" to the wrod "terror" is forr POLITICAL and IDEOLOGICAL reasons. From an objective point of view (since I still support neiter Obama nor Romney), this DISQUALIFIES Obama from being President of the United States, or SHOULD. What if the American peole still reelectg him? If lthey do, so be it. That will be a verdict on THEM (or should I say US, even though I would never actualy vote for Obama, because of his Libyan reactino alone, if I had not already made that decision).
Hillary Clintons sudden "conversion" , by the way, to the (obviusly correct view) taht the attack in Libya that kKILLED our abasssador--and three other Americans--was a TERRORIST ATTACK linked to al-Qaida affiliated groups, was a EVERSAL of what Clinton said a mere WEEK AGO. A week ago--still pushing the Obama Administratin 'spontaneous mob" LIE which Obama also sent out our U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, to push--Clinton had said there was "no evidence" that linked the Libyan attack to anything but that MYTHcIAL "spontaneous mob". The rats are deserting the sinking ship (CNN and Hillary Clinton being in the position of "rats" here).
I stand by this statement I have made as much as a week ago: It is UNACCEPTABLE for an American President to react to the TERRORIST MURDER of an American ambassador with th LIE that it was the result of a "spontaneous mob" reacting to an anti-Muslim movvie. I stand by my assertin that this particular LIE is an IMPEACHABLE offensae, although it would be absurd to attempt to "impeach" Obama over it. No. I woulld NOT be in faovr of tryng to impeach Prfesident Obama AFTERWARD, if he WINS this electin. The AMERICNN PEOLE know everything they need to know here. If why want to elect Barakc Obama ANYUWAY, then they (we?)) deserve what they (we?) get. I am perfectly aware that my own failure to push ROMNEY'S electin could be regarded as contributing, at least in a smal way, to this unacceptable resutl But I have my own PHOBIA., and my own VOW. I jstu can't acutally VOE for a GOIP candidate I regard as a BAD GOP establishment canddiate--which is exctly what I regard Romney as. As a conservative who has lived through too many of these electins, I jsut CAN'T STOMACH IT.
It bould be the BEST thing to ever happen to this country if a THRRD PARTY canddiate would WIN a Presidential electin We jsut can't afford "politics as usual". Yet, we keep ending up in a situation of "ppolitgics as usual". Until we break that vicious cycle, I don't see how we ever get through to our politicans. No, I don't thinkk we can SRUVIVE more 'politics as usual", which means I do not think we SURVVIVE the results of tghis elecitn (Obama or Romney)--at least as the kind of country we have been.
However, I can't accept Obama's Big Lie on Libya as "politics as usual". I don't think George W. Bush would have done it. I don't think Bill Clinton would have done it. I don't think ANY other Presdient, of whom I am aware, would have LIED abouta the MURDER of a U.S. ambassador the way that Barack Obama did. MAYBE the LEFT has become so DISHOENST than MOST LEFITST politicans would have done it. But I doubt it. This particular PHOBIA, and sociopathic//psychopathic lies, seems to be mainly an OBAMA PROBLEM. I say that, but the LEFT in general is willihng to still EXCUSE Obama for this FATAL LFLAW. To me, that is also unacceptable. The idea that this is just ACCEPTABLE POLITICCS is one I caN't even fathom, even from our LEFT. It is not "acceptable politics". Again, it DISQUALIFEIS Obama fro being President of the United States, for rational people not totally blinded by partisan politics.
It is jsut not acceptable for our P:RESIDENT to have a PHOBIA (basedon POLITICS and IDEOLOGY) whcih causes him to MISLEAD the Amerifan peole as to a TERRORIST ATTACK which KILLED Americans--including an American ambassador. That--kiling an Aemrican ambassador--is an ACT OF WAR. But Obama siimpy seems unable to get his mind around a WAR ON TERROR--even as he "ifghts" that WAR with PREDATOR DRONES that KILL PEOPLE WIHOUT TRIAL. The man--Obama--is "schizophrenic" in the true meaning of that word: disassociated from reality.
No. It does not MATTER if we had CONCLUSIVE evidence that the Libyan attack was a terrorist attack at the beginning. Many peole said so, including the Libyan President. But the probblem heere is not the President being "cautiuos" abut putting out the wrong informatin That is EXACTLY what the Obama Administratin did; PUT OUT THE WRONG INFORMATIN, for POLITICAL REASONS. The problem here is not being to " cautious", but PUSHING the "rush to judgment"--for POLITICAL REASONS--that this TERRORIST ATTACK was really jsut "spontaneous mob actin" keye to that "video' which the Obama Administratin wantte d to BLAME for ALL of the violence in the Arab world. It was bad enough--uunacceptable--to try to balme ANTI-AMEIRCAN attacks on our EMBASSIES on this "video". To try to b"blame" the vidoeo, and "spontaneous mob actin", for the Libyan attack was DESPICALBE. There can be NO "justificatin for it. It was UNWORHTY of AnY Pesident of the United Sates. It really is hard to see how Obama thought he could get away with this. And WILL Romney really take it to him, n the debates, on this/ I wonder. He sould. No matter. There is NOTHING Obma can say or do to excuse this MORAL CRIME of "pplaying politics" with the TERRORRIST MURDER of a united States ambassador. Obama is obviusly COUN TING ON the media to COVER for him--at least to the point of just looking at this as "politics as usua"--no big deal.
The media hsuld be UPSET that Obama expects them to COVER for this kind of MORAL FAILURE of a United States lPresident George W. Bush could NEVER have SURVIVED this. Obama should not survive it. We will see.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). This is just th elatest of MANY instances where what this blog says seem to affectg what happens in the maisntream media the very next day, or within a few days. Do I INFLUENCE what is "reported", or merely ANTICIPATE TRUTHS so obiuvs that even the media cannot keep ignoring them? Either way, it shows why you should keep reading this blgg.
Thus, Erin Burnett said on her CNNshow tonight: "President Obama seems unable, for some reason, to SAY the word 'terror'. He talked about the attack in Libya, which Hillary Clinton has now called a 'terrorist attack' linked to al-Qaida affiliated groups', thourghout his entire address to the United Nations, but avoided using the word 'terror' even oNCE in connectin with the attakc" Thus, Erin Burnett has endorsed the "Obama disease" of "terrorophobia", or "terrorphobia", wihout using a word for it. She noted that Obama has FAILED and REFUSED to use the word "terror' in connectin witht he Libyan attack that killed our ambassador, for the ENTIRE period of more than TWO WEEKS after the attack, even though even his press secretary has (reluctantly) usedd the word.
I have strongly, and correctly, criticized Erin Burnett in this blog. She has obviusly decided that the ony way for her to IMPROVE is to PAY ATTENTIN to what this blog is saying, and go with it on her program. This neurotic aversin by Barack Obama to the woord "terror", at least in connectin with Muslim extremism, is so marked as to be similar to the beatnik character in the TV show "Dobie Gillis" ("Maynard G. Krebs? sp.?), who just coud not say the word "work". However, this is not a OMIC character. This is the President of the United States, whose "aversino" to the wrod "terror" is forr POLITICAL and IDEOLOGICAL reasons. From an objective point of view (since I still support neiter Obama nor Romney), this DISQUALIFIES Obama from being President of the United States, or SHOULD. What if the American peole still reelectg him? If lthey do, so be it. That will be a verdict on THEM (or should I say US, even though I would never actualy vote for Obama, because of his Libyan reactino alone, if I had not already made that decision).
Hillary Clintons sudden "conversion" , by the way, to the (obviusly correct view) taht the attack in Libya that kKILLED our abasssador--and three other Americans--was a TERRORIST ATTACK linked to al-Qaida affiliated groups, was a EVERSAL of what Clinton said a mere WEEK AGO. A week ago--still pushing the Obama Administratin 'spontaneous mob" LIE which Obama also sent out our U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, to push--Clinton had said there was "no evidence" that linked the Libyan attack to anything but that MYTHcIAL "spontaneous mob". The rats are deserting the sinking ship (CNN and Hillary Clinton being in the position of "rats" here).
I stand by this statement I have made as much as a week ago: It is UNACCEPTABLE for an American President to react to the TERRORIST MURDER of an American ambassador with th LIE that it was the result of a "spontaneous mob" reacting to an anti-Muslim movvie. I stand by my assertin that this particular LIE is an IMPEACHABLE offensae, although it would be absurd to attempt to "impeach" Obama over it. No. I woulld NOT be in faovr of tryng to impeach Prfesident Obama AFTERWARD, if he WINS this electin. The AMERICNN PEOLE know everything they need to know here. If why want to elect Barakc Obama ANYUWAY, then they (we?)) deserve what they (we?) get. I am perfectly aware that my own failure to push ROMNEY'S electin could be regarded as contributing, at least in a smal way, to this unacceptable resutl But I have my own PHOBIA., and my own VOW. I jstu can't acutally VOE for a GOIP candidate I regard as a BAD GOP establishment canddiate--which is exctly what I regard Romney as. As a conservative who has lived through too many of these electins, I jsut CAN'T STOMACH IT.
It bould be the BEST thing to ever happen to this country if a THRRD PARTY canddiate would WIN a Presidential electin We jsut can't afford "politics as usual". Yet, we keep ending up in a situation of "ppolitgics as usual". Until we break that vicious cycle, I don't see how we ever get through to our politicans. No, I don't thinkk we can SRUVIVE more 'politics as usual", which means I do not think we SURVVIVE the results of tghis elecitn (Obama or Romney)--at least as the kind of country we have been.
However, I can't accept Obama's Big Lie on Libya as "politics as usual". I don't think George W. Bush would have done it. I don't think Bill Clinton would have done it. I don't think ANY other Presdient, of whom I am aware, would have LIED abouta the MURDER of a U.S. ambassador the way that Barack Obama did. MAYBE the LEFT has become so DISHOENST than MOST LEFITST politicans would have done it. But I doubt it. This particular PHOBIA, and sociopathic//psychopathic lies, seems to be mainly an OBAMA PROBLEM. I say that, but the LEFT in general is willihng to still EXCUSE Obama for this FATAL LFLAW. To me, that is also unacceptable. The idea that this is just ACCEPTABLE POLITICCS is one I caN't even fathom, even from our LEFT. It is not "acceptable politics". Again, it DISQUALIFEIS Obama fro being President of the United States, for rational people not totally blinded by partisan politics.
It is jsut not acceptable for our P:RESIDENT to have a PHOBIA (basedon POLITICS and IDEOLOGY) whcih causes him to MISLEAD the Amerifan peole as to a TERRORIST ATTACK which KILLED Americans--including an American ambassador. That--kiling an Aemrican ambassador--is an ACT OF WAR. But Obama siimpy seems unable to get his mind around a WAR ON TERROR--even as he "ifghts" that WAR with PREDATOR DRONES that KILL PEOPLE WIHOUT TRIAL. The man--Obama--is "schizophrenic" in the true meaning of that word: disassociated from reality.
No. It does not MATTER if we had CONCLUSIVE evidence that the Libyan attack was a terrorist attack at the beginning. Many peole said so, including the Libyan President. But the probblem heere is not the President being "cautiuos" abut putting out the wrong informatin That is EXACTLY what the Obama Administratin did; PUT OUT THE WRONG INFORMATIN, for POLITICAL REASONS. The problem here is not being to " cautious", but PUSHING the "rush to judgment"--for POLITICAL REASONS--that this TERRORIST ATTACK was really jsut "spontaneous mob actin" keye to that "video' which the Obama Administratin wantte d to BLAME for ALL of the violence in the Arab world. It was bad enough--uunacceptable--to try to balme ANTI-AMEIRCAN attacks on our EMBASSIES on this "video". To try to b"blame" the vidoeo, and "spontaneous mob actin", for the Libyan attack was DESPICALBE. There can be NO "justificatin for it. It was UNWORHTY of AnY Pesident of the United Sates. It really is hard to see how Obama thought he could get away with this. And WILL Romney really take it to him, n the debates, on this/ I wonder. He sould. No matter. There is NOTHING Obma can say or do to excuse this MORAL CRIME of "pplaying politics" with the TERRORRIST MURDER of a united States ambassador. Obama is obviusly COUN TING ON the media to COVER for him--at least to the point of just looking at this as "politics as usua"--no big deal.
The media hsuld be UPSET that Obama expects them to COVER for this kind of MORAL FAILURE of a United States lPresident George W. Bush could NEVER have SURVIVED this. Obama should not survive it. We will see.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). This is just th elatest of MANY instances where what this blog says seem to affectg what happens in the maisntream media the very next day, or within a few days. Do I INFLUENCE what is "reported", or merely ANTICIPATE TRUTHS so obiuvs that even the media cannot keep ignoring them? Either way, it shows why you should keep reading this blgg.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)