Tag Archives: leftists

Video Bill Whittle – The Media, The Left and GOP Elitists vs. Sarah Palin and you as well as me.

This just about says it all…and more. It is worth 60 minutes of your time but only asks for 12. Spend it.

We must without a doubt acknowledge that we are in a fight to the death with the left and that they have only one result in mind. We lose they win.

Losing means we are enslaved. Don’t believe me? Check this video out.

 

Now off you go to check out Bill Whittle…

Pajamas TV – Afterburner with Bill Whittle – The Media, The Left and GOP Elitists vs. Sarah Palin: A Lesson on How to Destroy a Leader – Video

Darn Those Consumers Why Aren’t They Running Up the Credit Cards Like They Used To? Hmmm…

That sure is a steep drop for an economy with only 8.9% of the populace unemployed. Could the Government be fudging the unemployment numbers?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — U.S. consumer borrowing fell more than expected in March, plunging a record $11.1 billion, a Federal Reserve report showed Thursday.

March consumer credit fell at an annual rate of 5.2% to a total of $2.55 trillion. This was the biggest percentage drop since December 1990.

February’s decrease was revised to $8.1 billion from an originally reported $7.5 billion drop.

Analysts polled by Reuters were expecting a $3.5 billion drop in consumer borrowing for March.

Non-revolving credit, which includes closed-end loans for big-ticket items like cars, boats, college education and holidays, dropped $5.7 billion, or at a 4.2% rate, to $1.6 trillion.

Revolving credit, made up of credit and charge cards, fell $5.4 billion, or at a 6.8% rate, to $946 billion in March. This compared with a revised $9.7 billion drop in February.  Consumer credit falls a record $11.1 billion in March – May. 7, 2009

After all if only 8.9% of the folks are unemployed like the Government says than why is this happening? Could the Government be full of shit about the unemployment numbers? Nah, the Government never lies. They would never change the way unemployment is calculated to make themselves look better.

Well let me just say that if you are interested in the economy and you don’t have a subscription to John Williams website then you are missing the real story.

Here is a taste and here is the link to the site, Shadow Stats.

JOHN WILLIAMS’ SHADOW GOVERNMENT STATISTICS FLASH UPDATE May 8, 2009 __________ Better-Than-Expected April Jobs Report Had A Bad Odor to It 539,000 Jobs Loss was 605,000 Net of Revisions, 491,000 Net of CSFB Birth-Death Bias Showed Unusual Jump in April __________ PLEASE NOTE:

The next planned Flash Update will follow the release of the April retail sales report on Wednesday, May 13th, with a subsequent update following the April CPI report on Friday, May 15th. – Best wishes to all, John Williams CBS news radio this morning (May 8th) was headlining and hyping a likely improvement in the jobs picture, well before the April employment report was released. Where the White House formally received the employment detail after the markets closed on Thursday (and probably had a good sense of the number a week before), today’s reporting looked very much like an orchestrated event. News organizations usually are pretty conservative about touting market-moving reports in advance of a release.

Continuing a pattern seen in the last seven monthly payroll reports, today’s estimates included negative revisions to the previously-report February and March payroll changes (see the Reporting/Market Focus in the most recent SGS Newsletter No. 50, for further background on this indication of flawed reporting), but the Concurrent Seasonal Factor Bias (CSFB) reversed in April (see below). There also was an unusual surge in birth-death modeling bias. Separately, unusual seasonal adjustments were apparent in the unemployment report, which, unlike the payroll reporting, was exactly as bad as expected by consensus forecasts.

I Told You So Will Seem So Trite When We Are Left Foraging For Food…So Let Me Say It Now America, “I Told You So”

This just about covers it.

Barack Obama inauguration: this Emperor has no clothes, it will all end in tears

Barack Obama, Freedom of Choice Act, Neil Kinnock, stimulus package, Tony Blair

This will end in tears. The Obama hysteria is not merely embarrassing to witness, it is itself contributory to the scale of the disaster that is coming. What we are experiencing, in the deepening days of a global depression, is the desperate suspension of disbelief by people of intelligence – la trahison des clercs – in a pathetic effort to hypnotise themselves into the delusion that it will be all right on the night. It will not be all right.

We have been here before. In the spring of 1997, to be precise, when a charismatic, young prime minister entered Downing Street, cheered by children bussed in for the occasion waving plastic Union Jacks. A very few of us at that time incurred searing reproaches for denouncing the Great Charlatan (as I have always denominated Tony Blair) and dissenting from the public hysteria. Three times a deluded Britain elected that transparent fraud. Yesterday, when national bankruptcy became a formal reality, we reaped the bitter harvest of the Blair/Brown imposture.

The burnt child, contrary to conventional wisdom, does not fear the fire. After the Blair experience there is no excuse for anybody in Britain falling for Obama. Yet today, in this country, even some of those who remained sane during the emotional spasm of the Diana aberration are pumping the air for Princess Barack. At a time of gross economic and geopolitical instability throughout the Western world, this is beyond irresponsibility.

To anyone who kept his head, the string of Christmas cracker mottoes booming through the public address system on Washington’s National Mall can only excite scepticism. It is crucial to recall the reality that lies behind the rhetoric. Denouncing "those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents" comes ill from a man whose flagship legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act, will impose abortion, including partial-birth abortion, on every state in the Union. It seems the era of Hope is to be inaugurated with a slaughter of the innocents.

Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is like one of those toxic packages traded by bankers: it camouflages many unaffordable gifts to his client state. With a federal deficit already at $1.2 trillion, Obama wants to squander $825 billion (which will undoubtedly mushroom to more than $1 trillion) on creating 600,000 more government jobs and a further 459,000 in "green energy" (useless wind turbines and other Heath-Robinson contraptions favoured by Beltway environmentalists).

It is frightening to think there is a real possibility that the entire world economy could go into complete meltdown and famine kill millions. Yet Western – and British – commentators are cocooned in a warm comfort zone of infatuation with America’s answer to Neil Kinnock. We should be long past applauding politicians of any hue: they got us into this mess. The best deserve a probationary opportunity to prove themselves, the worst should be in jail.

It is questionable whether the present political system can survive the coming crisis. Whatever the solution, teenage swooning sentimentality over a celebrity cult has no part in it. The most powerful nation on earth is confronting its worst economic crisis under the leadership of its most extremely liberal politician, who has virtually no experience of federal politics. That is not an opportunity but a catastrophe.

These are frank, even ungracious, words: they have the one merit that, unlike almost everything else written today about Obama, they will not require to be eaten in the future. Barack Obama inauguration: this Emperor has no clothes, it will all end in tears :: Gerald Warner

A Very Interesting Look at the Election…The Left’s Big Blunder

This is very interesting and while it is a long article it is very much worth your time.

The Left’s Big Blunder

The disastrously counter-productive strategy of Obama’s supporters

October 15, 2008

Two campaigns are being waged right now for the presidency of the United States. No, I’m not talking about the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign. I’m talking about the real-world campaign and the meta-campaign.
The real-world campaign involves speeches and proposals and facts and scandals and political positions and news events. These details, however, are becoming increasingly irrelevant, and have become subsumed by the meta-campaign, which consists of perceptions, polls, reactions, analyses and summations. Until very recently, elections were decided by real-world facts — but not anymore. Facts and events in and of themselves are no longer important; what’s important is how everyone reacts to them. And how do we find out the public’s mood concerning this or that incident? Why, the media tells us, that’s how.
Or so we’ve been led to believe.

We’re all part of the campaign now. Every single one of us. Our opinions, our actions, are bundled together as a group and used as weapons in the race for the White House. When the media reports on what people think, either through public-opinion polling or reportage about anecdotal incidents, it becomes an endless feedback loop, in which the media’s representation of most people’s purported thoughts is supposed to influence everyone else’s thoughts. And then they take another poll to determine how effective the first poll was in influencing public opinion, and the cycle starts all over again. Since everyone now knows that any public expression of their political opinions might be reported by the media, even the most innocent activity becomes a calculated campaign action. Saying how you intend to vote is not simply an expression of how you intend to vote, but rather a component of the public barometer of how the majority intends to vote, which is then used by the media and the blogs to influence everyone else. Nothing is done in all innocence anymore.
It’s no longer a matter of dispute that the mainstream media, overall, very strongly leans to the left. Over 90% of journalists classify themselves politically as "liberal" to varying degrees, and innumerable instances of left-wing bias on the part of the media have been pointed out by bloggers over the years. Yes, a small subset of media outlets are identifiably conservative, but they are vastly outnumbered, both in sheer numbers and in influence, by the liberal media. This fact takes on intense importance in an era when the "news" becomes (as it has become) a subjective matter. Nearly any fact or incident can be "spun" to Obama’s benefit.
Obama’s supporters and his official campaign have taken great advantage of this felicitous informational landscape — first, that the meta-campaign trumps reality, and second, that the media is cooperative and complicit. For example, after presidential debates, the leading left-wing blogs always coordinate massive online opinion-poll-stuffing campaigns. After the Palin-Biden vice-presidential debate, the overwhelming consensus on conservative and centrist blogs was that Palin had won handily, and that Biden spoke mostly in a soporific monotone while spewing a continuous stream of easily debunked falsehoods. And yet readers of DailyKos, the Huffington Post, Democratic Underground and dozens of other top left-wing blogs swarmed en masse to vote (often repeatedly) in mainstream online polls about the debate, so that afterward, CNN (among many others) could run headlines that said "57% Think Biden Won Debate," basing their conclusion on the results of the online polls. And once enough of these articles get published, then they themselves become "proof" of the debate’s supposed outcome, and before long (often just a matter of hours) it becomes a "fact" no longer up for discussion that Biden won the debate. This fact is then referenced by pundits, and slips into supposedly neutral news stories.
The illusory quest for conformist decision-making in the 2008 presidential election
Say, for example, that you were an Obama supporter who watched the Vice Presidential debate and felt that Palin had done well and was a more effective debater than Biden — though not well enough to change your mind about voting for the Obama-Biden ticket. Immediately afterward you encounter an online poll, asking you to vote on who won the debate. What do you do? I suspect that most, if not nearly all, Obama supporters would lie and still vote in the poll that Biden had won the debate, even though they felt that Palin had in fact defeated him. But why do so? As an Obama supporter, you still want your candidate to win, so that every action you take should revolve around only one question: Will this help Obama win? Probably unconsciously, people assume without really thinking about why, that if enough people say Biden won the debate, then a general consensus will be reached that Biden did win the debate, and as a result some vague category of Americans who up until that point had not been Obama supporters will change their allegiances and in reality vote for Obama-Biden on election day.
The Obama campaign itself also takes advantage of the sympathetic media to construct a facade of inevitability. The campaign will stage-manage crowds and dictate camera angles so that Obama is seen to not only have overwhelming numbers of fans but the correct demographic proportion of fans; the campaign will coordinate Obama appearances to coincide with rock concerts or other festivals so they can point to the huge crowds who showed up to watch Obama; and the media plays right along.

McCain supporters often complain about this strategy by the Left, going to great pains to point out the poll stuffing, the deceptive photos, the crowd overestimation, the slanted media coverage, and so forth. But should conservatives be so concerned? I propose that McCain supporters should be GLAD this is happening — because the Left is in fact making a disastrous strategic blunder.
A substantial portion of the Left’s strategy during this campaign is to create the perception that as many people as possible are supporting Obama. They strive to not simply show that he has a lot of supporters (which, obviously, he has), but to purposely inflate or exaggerate the numbers in order to make his support seem larger than it really is. The drive to do this seems almost automatic; it is assumed by Obama’s supporters to be the most effective campaign strategy. It’s so automatic that they perhaps are no longer even aware that it is a strategy. But why? What purpose is possibly served by this behavior? Has anyone on the Left ever paused, stepped back, and asked, "Wait a minute — why are we doing this? Are we sure it’s the correct course of action?" Doing everything possible to inflate the perceived support of Democratic candidates has become so de rigueur that the Left has long ago forgotten why they’re even doing it.
This essay examines the underlying faulty assumptions of this strategy — and shows why it’s not only counter-productive, but could backfire disastrously. The Left’s Big Blunder