Hey Jeff Jarvis and NYT

Let this post be a follow-up to Even Their Little Theories Are Bunk where I discussed the inane proposition that Hillary Clinton's people were wagging Matt Drudge.

Since that last posting I started saving all the unbehooving pics Drudge featured on his page so as to to provide evidence to the contrary.













Can you say FUPA?

















Clearly, Drudge is an Obama supporter...

[for you Morons that don't read my blog...the above is sarcasm.]

Agitprop Update

"The oil companies, the predatory student loan companies, the insurance companies and the drug companies have had seven years of a president who stands up for them. I will be a president who stands up for all of you...."

That's a quote from Hillary Clinton's campaign speech yesterday.

I must admit, I haven't heard the expression "predatory student loan companies" before. It must be a new bogeyman.

Even Their Little Theories Are Bunk

That's a snapshot of this morning's Drudge Report. She looks 75 years old, does she not? Click the pic to enlarge.

I have to laugh every time they put an unbehooving pic of Hillary Clinton up. In fact, I usually save them for future personal use. So far I have an entire little folder of unflattery.

Here's why it's funny. Not long ago, after a barrage of Drudge headlines to the effect of "Hillary leads election fundraising", the New York Times and other pinheads suggested that Hillary had now learned to use Drudge to her advantage. Now that was complete nonsense. Matt Drudge, by no means a loner, absolutely hates Hillary Clinton and always has.

Know-nothings were assuming that a fundraising advantage meant anything at all. Look at the New York Yankees or the New York Knicks. Look at Howard Dean's fundraising advantage from back in the 2004 presidential election; the guy didn't even get nominated. I don't know how many times I have said it, but money doesn't mean squat. Money is always the scapegoat of idiots who least understand it.

So, not only did the Morons assume these Drudge headlines were both meaningful and positive for Hillary's campaign, they wrongly assumed that Hillary had tamed Drudge to her advantage.

Here's another Drudge snapshot from just last week.



Mr. Drudge is laughing at Hillary every chance he gets.

And he's probably falling out of his chair at the suggestion that Hillary is wagging him.

UPDATE - This post has been updated here.

Pot Calling The Kettle Black

Just days after increasingly acrimonious exchanges in Thursday’s Democratic debate, agents of Mrs Clinton were quoted as saying that they had obtained unspecified “scandalous information” about Mr Obama.

If this is indeed true, that he has scandalous skeletons in his closet...

Then Barack Obama is finished in terms of his presidential aspirations.

We all know that a dirty Obama can't compete with a squeaky clean Hillary!!!

(If you live under a rock, in profound stupidity, or in the distant future...my last remark was a jest).

Rudy's Last Chance to Save NY and America

Hillary Proposes to Confiscate Oil Profits

Yeah, that's a great idea - go ahead and wipe out $440 billion dollars (Exxon) of investors' money. Of course they have to impoverish the shareholders of Chevron, Shell, and all of the other oil service companies all over the globe too. Apparently no pension funds, widows, or orphans own the stock of oil companies. The total market cap of oil names is over $1 trillion. Do you think they are all owned by old white men in Texas?

If so, turn your speakers on and click here.

Here's exactly what would happen in the face of profit confiscation - even if euphemized as "windfall taxation". Not only would investors lose multiples of the money they lost on Enron, oil and gasoline would skyrocket in price. Food, heat, air conditioning and every other consumer expense would inflate. Home prices would deflate; jobs would be lost. What an orgy of prosperity to look forward to!!!

Only in a thoroughly economically illiterate nation can a would-be President trumpet such inanity.

As this news made the rounds today, oil shot up $1.70, a huge move. Just a coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

Make no mistake - Big Government advocates want oil to skyrocket in price. They intentionally strangle the businessman, the consumer, and the student with their regulation, taxation, and de-humanization and then use the resultant popular angst to argue for more power. Their failures are always excuses for more money and larger mandates. Imagine if you told your boss that your work was sub-par because he didn't give you enough time AND was underpaying you. How would that go over?

"Energy independence"????

Everything in their larger agenda is hellbent on suffocating human independence. As I articulated in a prior post,

They believe everyone should DEPEND on the government for healthcare, housing, birth control, welfare, free lunches, disaster relief, education, retirement, etc. Yet when it comes to energy, all of a sudden they start singing paeans to SELF-SUFFICIENCY. Of course their idea of "energy independence" is based on "alternative" mythology, not on domestic oil production.

The utopists endeavor to control it all.

Please, don't be fooled.

More Economic Illiteracy and a Hillary Cameo

A few years ago my wife was in need of an air conditioner. Her friend/neighbor informed her that another building tenant was coincidently trying to sell his. So my wife went up to see it. The seller wanted $150, my wife bid $130 (don’t ever say “offered”, the buyer “bids” and the seller “offers”), and the air conditioner changed hands at $130.

My wife went home and communicated the sale to that facilitating friend/neighbor of hers. My wife was quite happy with her procurement and described the very simple bidding process. Well guess what, her friend/neighbor became furious and claimed that it was unfair and deceitful to underbid the offer. She declaimed, “if you could afford $150, then you should have paid $150 !!!!!” Of course , my wife was taken aback by the no longer latent stupidity of now, just her neighbor.

“Pay what you can afford” or “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need” - a central tenet of socialism.

Next exhibit of economic illiteracy and somewhat of a corollary to the forementioned:

As a busy mother of a newborn, my wife found a forum, charlotte mommies, to be quite helpful. She would post questions pertaining to local pediatricians, daycare, teething, etc. and was almost overwhelmed with the enormity of instantaneous and helpful replies she would get. The site was truly a great find.

Of course, sometimes the posters got slightly off-topic. One “mommy” posted a tearful message that she had caught her husband cheating and with two small kids at home, she didn’t know what to do. Well that comment thread exploded right away. It was quite amazing to see the “reply” number jump into the hundreds.

Since we were moving to Boston, my wife sought out and found a similar forum for Boston mothers. Now consider this off-topic post from a Boston “mommy”:

“Does anyone know what the going rate is for maid service? ….I think I am underpaying mine…”

Do you think this woman throws in a few extra bucks when her steak at Outback is particularly tasty? Or pays 50 cents extra at the Mass Pike toll booth because the road is clean? (No way she is smart enough to have EZ-Pass or Fast Lane)?

This “mommy” thinks she is being compassionate by presuming that her maid is so damn stupid as to be unable to discern a fair wage for herself. Boston is not like rural Brazil or anything – despite being the anti-business exemplar; there are plenty of other job opportunities for this UN-exploited maid.

This “mommy” would definitely vote for William Galvin for governor.

Now for today’s last example of economic illiteracy that will certainly “one-up” its predecessors:

Hillary Clinton speaking to her “choir” in Aspen. From the Weekly Standard,

Hillary wasn't done giving us her mad moments in her Aspen Ideas Festival speech (and don't think Mad wouldn't have a field day with the concept of an Ideas Festival, either). Later in her remarks, she delivered this eye-popping economic analysis for the Colorado audience: "Ours will be the last generation to rely so exclusively on fossil fuels." She added that the "ups and downs of the global oil market cost the U.S. economy $7 trillion last year . . . almost enough to pay off our entire national debt."

Seven trillion dollars? That would surprise most economists, as well as Mad magazine readers who learned both to question authority and check sources, since the entire American GDP for 2004 amounted to $11.735 trillion according to the BEA; $1.5 trillion came from imports of goods. Energy goods (both domestic and imported) only accounted for $250 billion, making it extremely unlikely that price fluctuations in a single import commodity market could have generated anywhere near the kind of economic damage Senator Clinton cited.


Ignore the vapid global warming rhetoric and consider the ridiculous $7 trillion number she threw out there. It wouldn’t be near accurate to call her economically illiterate – I am going to have to search for a new term, maybe on a psychiatric website.

Given the long memory of today's de-monopolized internet media, I can't believe any aspiring politician would utter such nonsense. But I can see why Hillary likes to ban the (free) press from her "choir" fundraisers.