View From Above

Prepare To Be Disappointed

2011-12-28T15:41:00.005-05:00

For those of you have been long time readers here at the "View", I know many of you might not consider yourselves Tea Party people, but I think you can agree with what they stand for: fiscal sanity, smaller government, and a return to Constitutional values. Although the Tea Party was largely responsible for propelling a majority of the freshman class of Republicans into the Congress in 2010, thereby turning over power to the GOP, we are repeatedly told that this means nothing and that they have to get in line with the "Republican Establishment" and follow the rules (i.e., roll over and play dead for the Democrats).

I have never seen a more disgusting bunch of wimps in my life as those who portray themselves as the "Grand Old Party". I think GOP stands for the "Great Onion Party" (guaranteed to make you cry), or perhaps the "Girlie Officials Party". At a time when we need someone to stand up to Obama and the Deviouscrats, we get this bunch of turkeys. No, that would be demeaning to turkeys. How about, this load of "stuff"? ... unprincipled jerks who are more worried about their image than they are about the fate of the nation. God have mercy on their souls!

Therefore, it is with great sadness that I regret to inform you that this election cycle will produce nothing like the Tea Party values that the election of 2010 promised to give birth to. Indeed, I predict that President Barack Hussein Obama will be re-elected to a second term.

I make my prognostication on the following basis. First, it is clear that the "Republican Establishment" will not allow anyone other than Mitt Romney to take the nomination. Whenever confronted by the possibility that a true (or even a vaguely true) conservative started surging in the polls as the "anti-Romney", then the evil GOP forces of darkness went into operation. Karl Rove has blasted every potential GOP candidate with the exception of Romney. Bill O'Reilly and most of the other (supposedly conservative) FOX pundits went into the tank immediately for Romney and "pooh-poohed" the others as being unelectable.

The general wisdom among such talking heads seems to be that in order to get elected as a Republican, you must be half-Democrat in order to appeal to the independents. What a crock! More than 60% of people in this country identify themselves as conservatives, therefore we are forced to choose between a Marxist Democrat and a Liberal Republican? Next they'll be telling us we have to choose between a Communist Democrat and a Marxist Republican. Where does it end?

You might as well plan then on having Mitt Romney as the GOP candidate. You don't have any choice in the matter. It's already been decided by people in "high places". George H.W. Bush has given his nod to Romney, as has Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, Bret Baier, Brit Hume, and Ann Coulter.

Even the Left-wing media wants him to be the Republican candidate, and that should be a signal that something is wrong here. Why would the libs want Romney? Because he is nothing more than Obama-lite. If Romney should win, they can live with him. And the Left knows that Romney won't generate any excitement among his conservative base, so they are hoping that Tea Party people will get disgusted and stay home on election day. And, they reason, if you liked Romneycare, then why not try Obamacare? What's the difference? It's just bigger and better.

And with Romney as the candidate, there is a statistically higher than average chance that a Ron Paul and/or a Donald Trump will jump into the race. GREAT! That should be FUN. Why don't we just split the Republican vote two or even three ways! That will simply hand the election to Obama and here we go... 4 more years.

Why don't you just shoot me now and get it over with?

Warmest Christmas Wishes

2011-12-25T12:48:00.001-05:00

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. --Isaiah 9:6-7

Merry Christmas to all. May you be blessed by Him as we await His glorious return to rule in righteousness and justice.

Is the Eurozone Crisis being Engineered?

2011-11-28T21:54:00.001-05:00

I am not one who is readily prone to endorsing conspiracy theories. I prefer hard, cold facts to speculation. Yet, I have been "bitten" in the past by those unsubstantiated e-mails that just sound "SOOO TRUE". Snopes, despite its real or imagined leftward tilt, has prevented me on more than one occasion from dispatching the latest e-mail rant to all my friends that just sounded too good to NOT be true.

For example, I completely reject the "911 truthers" and their allegations that 911 was an inside job. I reject the idea that aliens were stored in hangars at Roswell, New Mexico. And I reject the idea that either Elvis Presley or John F. Kennedy are still alive and living on some island in the Caribbean. I'm not sure about Osama bin Laden, but I'm pretty sure he's fish food.

Yet, I could certainly qualify - on scientific grounds - to be a global warming "denier" (or perhaps more correctly, an anti-alarmist). And I suppose I could also qualify as a "birther", but not so much on the basis of where I believe that BHO was (or was not) born, but rather because I believe that the definition of "natural born citizen" requires that both parents of any prospective Presidential candidate be born in the United States.

With that in mind, I am a bit reluctant to suggest the following hypothetical, if only for fear that it will reduce my credibility in the eyes of some from "kook" to "nutjob".

But having kept current on the Eurozone crisis, I have watched as the debt "contagion" has spread from country to country. First Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain, then Italy. And now potentially Belgium, Netherlands, France and Germany. I have been amazed at how the failure of the socialist welfare state in Greece could somehow bring into question the economic powerhouse of Germany. It seems to be a non-sequitur: a country like Greece that spends too much and has a lousy economy borrows money from an economic powerhouse like Germany, therefore, Germany's stability is now in question? How did that happen?

I have watched as Angela Merkel in Germany has been steadfast against the idea of a Eurobond, or the loss of German sovereignty in any way to some "supra-national" organization. That is a position that clearly resonates with the German people. And yet, in the final analysis, it seems clear that the "only hope" (or so the pundits say) for keeping the Euro from collapse, is if some greater authority (ie, the European Central Bank, the European Financial Stability Facility, or the International Monetary Fund) provides some sort of "guarantee" to prop up the Euro.

Here's where the questions begin to emerge. Why have Germany's Merkel and France's Sarkozy been so desperate to keep the Euro alive? Are the two countries so financially tied to the Euro that they could not survive if they had to go back to the German Mark or the French Franc? That seems highly unlikely. Yes, they might take a serious "haircut" on their investments if the Euro collapses, but taking on more debt from the IMF or some other supra-national agency and saddling your country with that debt seems to be a stupid way to address debt problems.

Or are Merkel and Sarkozy simply enamored with the concept of an EU, a United States of Europe? Being the biggest and richest players in the bloc gives them both inherent power over the other member nations. Merkel and Sarkozy are not merely each a head of state, but they are both a "head of states". As the old saying goes: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Or is there something else at work here? Perhaps there is a more devious source to the cause of these problems. Consider George Soros for example. Known as the man who brought down the Bank of England, Soros is the kind of man who thinks nothing of ruining a national economy for the sake of making a profit. He is also a well-known globalist who wrote a book saying that global capitalism could be "improved" by "the increasing domination of national economies by global financial markets and multinational corporations."

Don't believe me? Then go to the following link...

http://books.google.com/books?id=gFyoVTQyegMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

and then scroll down a few pages to the "Preface". You won't have to read more than a few lines to see what I'm talking about. If you keep reading, you'll be amazed at how much this man wants to do. He wants to supersede national sovereignty and institutions with international counterparts. He wants to supplement international financial markets with international "political arrangements" (page vii). This man is clearly dangerous. He is one of the wealthiest men on the planet and he has a mission. He wants a one-world government whereby he can redistribute wealth from the rich nations to the less fortunate... and he is spending his money to achieve those aims.

Is it merely a coincidence then that this Eurozone crisis might just result in all of the EU countries turning over a portion of their sovereignty to a supra-national political organization that would oversee the financial and banking system of nearly the entire European continent? I think not. We have too often heard the leftist phrase of late: "Never let a good crisis go to waste." And this is a crisis that is just too good for socialists like George Soros to pass up.

That's why I think I smell a rat. Forgive me if I'm a bit cynical, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this whole crisis is being manipulated behind the scenes by people like Soros. Super-rich people with devious ambitions are not to be trusted under any circumstances.

Just sayin'.

Obama is Love

2011-10-27T12:10:00.002-04:00

I attended a wedding recently, and as is often the case at such events, one of the readings was the famous passage from 1 Corinthians 13 on the meaning of love. I have heard or read this passage a dozen times or more, and have always viewed it in the context of interpersonal relationships such as marriage, family, friendship, etc. But for some strange reason, the wretched name "Barack Obama" mysteriously drifted through my brain as the reading began. Why, I know not.

Nevertheless, I suddenly began to hear the words of the famous passage as it applies to Obama, and I asked myself, "Is this a man who 'loves' his country? Is this a man who 'loves' America's citizens? Is this a man who 'loves' anyone?" You be the judge...

Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
--1 Corinthians 13:4-7

Perhaps we could just remove the word "love" and insert "Obama" in its place to make the point more clearly...

Obama is patient and kind; Obama is not jealous or boastful; Obama is not arrogant or rude. He does not insist on his own way; he is not irritable or resentful; he does not rejoice at wrong [especially when it befalls his opponents], but he rejoices in the right. Obama bears all things [and never blames anyone for anything], he believes all things [are possible for our great country - that shining city on a hill], he hopes all things [changes all things], and he endures all things [like going without vacations until the economy gets better, or intense scrutiny from an impartial media].

Don't you just feel all warm and fuzzy inside now?

Freedom is Color Blind

2011-10-26T20:40:00.002-04:00

I posted this once before back in 2010, but I ran across it and thought it might be worth another look. It seems like Herman Cain might be using it in his campaign.

W.O.W.S. !!

2011-10-10T22:35:00.001-04:00

W.O.W.S. = Wackos Occupy Wall Street

Click to enlarge.
Hmmmmm! I know I had something to say about this, but somehow I just couldn't get past the headline. If you have anything to add, please feel free to comment.

Oh, and thanks for "Viewing".

(:D) Best regards...

My Rememberance of 9/11

2011-09-09T20:54:00.031-04:00

My First Reactions

It was like any other typical morning in the last 13 years. I woke up at the regular time, left for work at the regular time, and got to work at the regular time. While my office location had changed a few times during that 13 years, they were not really far apart. All of them were within a few miles of each other in central NJ.

As far as I can recall, the only thing that was truly different about the morning of September 11th, 2001, was that the sky was crystal clear. There was not a cloud to be seen in any direction. The air was cool and crisp, and ironically I thought: "This is going to be a great day."

With a travel distance of only 48 miles from my office to the World Trade Center, I was close enough to experience the same weather conditions as NYC, but far enough removed to be unable to experience the immediacy of the events that would soon transpire there.

When I first heard that a plane had hit the World Trade Center, I was hard at work, in the typical paperwork grind... issuing purchase requisitions, checking on equipment monitoring logs, collecting data for the next monthly report, etc, etc, etc. The usual boring crap.

My first assumption was that it must have been a small plane that hit the World Trade Center, like a Cessna or something. When I heard that it was a regular commercial jet liner, I could barely believe it. It was such a beautiful clear day. It seemed unbelievable to me that a commercial airliner could hit one of the two largest buildings in New York City by accident, in broad daylight, on a day like today.

We had no radio or TV in our office so I went on working. I figured that I would wait for better information. Then we started hearing reports that a bomb had gone off in the World Trade Center. Things were getting very confusing, but there was nothing I could do about it, so I just went on working. [There is a certain reassurance to working, to following a routine, and that's exactly what I did... I followed my routine.]

Before long, my wife called me and said that a plane had hit the WTC. I told her that I had heard about it, and that I couldn't believe it. After we hung up, I was still convinced that it must have been a small Cessna or a Piper. In my mind, a commercial jetliner was still out of the realm of possibility. So again, I did what a loyal and faithful employee does, I went back to work. Little did I know that my wife had put a VHS tape into the recorder minutes after she turned on the TV, and therefore recorded history in the making.

Then the people in my office started to become really emotional and agitated. They heard that a second plane had hit the second tower of the WTC. It then occurred to me that this was a terrorist attack. I told many of my co-workers that I believed it was Osama bin Laden, possibly working in conjunction with the Iraqis. It did not surprise me to hear later that both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein praised the perpetrators.

Not more than a few people have asked me how I concluded so quickly that it was Osama bin Laden. And for those of us who follow such things, the Osama trademark of multiple simultaneous attacks was most clearly demonstrated in the twin embassy bombings of Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Unfortunately, most people do not follow such things and as a result had no clue.

I can distinctly remember at how outraged I was at the time that terrorists like Osama bin Laden and Abu Nidal seemed to be able to elude capture for years or decades. I felt that our country not only appeared to be impotent, but WAS impotent. My fervent prayer was that we could finally put a stop to the madness, and start putting the terrorists in jail (or in a grave). Justice needed to be done, and who better to impose justice than the United States of America.

Of course we now know that the attacks of 9/11 were in fact perpetrated by Osama bin Laden. However, a link to the Iraqis has never been proven... at least not yet... not beyond a reasonable doubt. Someday we will know the truth. Someday we will know why Saddam Hussein celebrated on 9/11. Perhaps there is no linkage at all. Perhaps Saddam was merely a madman.

After it was clear what had actually transpired on that day, I remember discussing the days events with one of our Human Resources reps who happened to be on site. She was a Danish woman with a long history in the United States... not long enough to escape her European accent, but long enough to have been a personal friend of Louis "Satchmo" Armstrong. As we walked around the site in beautiful clear weather, instinctively she said: "We will always remember this day." And she was more than correct.

Reminder of A Prophecy
Like most people, when I got home from work I watched TV in horror and disbelief as we learned that both towers of the WTC had collapsed, that the Pentagon had been struck, and that a plane had gone down in Pennsylvania. Of course the news media focused on the scenes from New York, and as I sat there watching the pictures of Manhattan island with boats in the foreground, a prophecy from the Book of Revelation began to bubble up into my mind.

The prophecy is found in Revelation Chapter 18 and refers to a CITY which is called "The Great Harlot." Now, I don't want to mislead you and suggest that what happened in New York is a fulfillment of this prophecy. Actually, I believe that the fulfillment of this prophecy is very specific and refers to something else entirely. Yet, there are some similarities and I just could not get them out of my mind...

As she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, so give her a like measure of torment and grief. Since in her heart she says, 'I rule as a queen; I am no widow, and I will never see grief,' therefore her plagues will come in a single day-- pestilence and mourning and famine-- and she will be burned with fire; for mighty is the Lord God who judges her." And the kings of the earth, who committed fornication and lived in luxury with her, will weep and wail over her when they see the smoke of her burning; they will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, "Alas, alas, the great city, Babylon, the mighty city! For in one hour your judgment has come."

"Alas, alas, the great city, clothed in fine linen, in purple and scarlet, adorned with gold, with jewels, and with pearls! For in one hour all this wealth has been laid waste!" And all shipmasters and seafarers, sailors and all whose trade is on the sea, stood far off and cried out as they saw the smoke of her burning, "What city was like the great city?"

Photos courtesy Associated Press

America's Response
I must say that I was very impressed by the initial response of President Bush to this crisis. In fact, the response of most Americans from the President on down was inspiring. Of course the police and the fire fighters, the rescue workers and the steel workers at "Ground Zero" were absolutely heroic. Ordinary citizens poured out their feelings with donations of time and money, equipment and medicines, gifts and crafts. At such a moment, I was never prouder to call myself an American.

As for our military response, I supported it wholeheartedly. While I understand the comments of some who feel that violence is not the answer, I was disappointed by those who marched in protest. When confronted by those who would remind me that "God is Love," and "Jesus tells us to love one another," I can only tell them that if one seeks answers from the Bible, then one must be acquainted with the entire Bible. The Bible tells us that God has established the government and without God, no government can stand. It further tells us that those who obey the law have no fear from the government. Only the wicked and the evil-doers need fear the government. In Romans 13 (NRSV) we read:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God's servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer.

Actually, I like the King James Version which brings it out a little more clearly:

"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil... But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

So it was with great respect that I listened to President Bush call terrorists "evil-doers" and Osama bin Laden "the evil one." He was exactly correct. No political argument can justify the pre-meditated deaths of thousands of innocent civilians. (In my opinion, that includes Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the way). And now the sword of God has executed His righteous wrath on the evil-doers. Praise be to God!

Why Did God Allow This?
That's the big question, isn' it? How could God allow this to happen? Was God judging us, like the prophecy about Babylon I quoted above? Was God angry with us? Well, I have to admit that I have no idea what God may be thinking. Since I am not God, to imagine that I know what He is thinking would be presumptuous to say the least.

That being said, we do have God's Word - The Bible - to give us guidance on what God may be thinking from time to time, and to explain the nature of things in general. Based on the teachings of the Bible, I have mixed emotions on this subject. While on one hand I think that America has been self-absorbed and blind to the sufferings of other people around the world (and probably needed a wake up call of some kind) I cannot hardly bring myself to believe that God would use Osama bin Laden as the tool of His wrath.

Secondly, I would have to say that "God IS Love!" It is not God's desire that any should perish, as the Bible tells us in 2 Peter, but that all should come to repentance. God is a God of life, not of death. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life."

On the other hand, the Bible in John chapter 8 calls the devil "the murderer" and the "father of lies." The name Satan means "The Adversary." He has been God's adversary since the creation. He wants to see God's creation corrupted and ruined. If God wants life, the devil wants death. If God wants joy, the devil wants sorrow. So let's put the blame where the blame belongs, on the devil.

Yet, God can stop the devil whenever He wants to can't He? Of course He can. So then, the question comes back around. Why did God allow this to happen? Well, it must be pointed out that in fact Man did this. It was not God and it was not the Devil. The devil may have inspired it, but it was Man that did it... Man who has been given free will by God. With free will, Man can choose to love or to hate. With free will, Man can choose to obey God or to obey the devil. It is really up to us to choose life or death isn't it? It's all about choices.

The Bible tells us that Jesus is the Light of the World. He came into the world to bring us light; to show us the way. But there are those who reject Christ, who flee from the light...

"And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God."

Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda death merchants plot and plan in darkness. They do not come to the light that their deeds might be exposed. They plan death, destruction and murder. If they do it in the name of Allah, then Allah is not God, because God is Life and Light.

As a Christian, all I can say is... make the right choices. Choose life. Choose love. Choose God. Choose Jesus. Choose light rather than darkness.

Obama's Crime

2011-08-20T00:05:00.002-04:00

A hat-tip goes to OnlineAnalyst for pointing me to a recent article by Monty Pelerin (a pseudonym), in which the author points out how things have gotten worse since Barack Obama became President, including: the economy, inflation, housing, job prospects, and foreign relations among others. The author then concludes...

Two hypotheses are often cited to explain why things have gotten so much worse:

1. Obama is incompetent.
2. Obama knows what he is doing and is deliberately destroying the country.

These hypotheses are not mutually exclusive. Evidence is consistent with either or a combination of both. The remainder of this article deals only with the first. Readers should not assume that the second is unimportant, inoperable or impossible.

Since "Monty Pelerin" chose to focus on only the first of those two possibilities, allow me to address the second hypothesis. Naturally, the suggestion that Obama is "knowingly and deliberately" trying to destroy this country is a bold accusation that implies nothing less than a criminal act. In fact, it goes beyond "high crimes and misdemeanors" for which impeachment would be an appropriate response. Indeed, it may constitute treason, which could theoretically demand the death penalty.

Perhaps then we should clarify hypothesis #2 above and bring it into sharper focus. Frankly, I contend that Barack Obama does NOT advocate the COMPLETE destruction of America, but merely seeks to reduce its status from "superpower" to "average" nation. I believe that Obama wants America to be nothing more than one country among equals. He does not want the US to be viewed as being superior in any arena, including: military, economic, space exploration, nuclear weapons, energy production, standard of living, health care, etc. In my opinion, he has an underlying commitment to egalitarianism that drives his policies both domestically and internationally.

Yet, despite the fact that Obama may not advocate the COMPLETE destruction of the United States, any actions he may have undertaken to knowingly impair the country whether militarily, economically or otherwise, may still constitute "treason" in the sense that they represent a betrayal of the nation. If his actions against the United States have resulted in an advantageous position for America's enemies, then it is even harder to deny that he commited "treason"...

Trea-son noun 1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign. 2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state. 3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Treason... mean[s] disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government. Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government.

Likewise, any actions he may have undertaken to knowingly impair the country clearly violates the Constitution of the United States...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If Obama in any way purposely impaired the country's economy and military even for egalitarian purposes, then it can be argued that he sought to: form a "less perfect" Union, undermine the "common defence", and diminish the "general Welfare". Naturally, this would be a violation of his oath of office wherein he promised to "Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". And considering the way he's added to America's debt, he clearly has no concern about securing "Blessings... to ourselves and our Posterity".

If Obama in any way purposely impaired the country's economy, then it can also be argued that he actively restricted one of the most basic of God-given rights established in the Declaration of Independence; that is, the ability of Americans to "pursue happiness". America's founders implicitly understood that the "pursuit of happiness" derived from economic freedom. If one is not free to pursue a job, career, or business opportunity because the government has imposed unnecessary drilling bans, restrictive environmental permitting requirements, or created an unreasonable regulatory climate on business, then that government has driven a wedge between its citizens and their pursuit of happiness.

As with any alleged crime, we need to determine "means, motive and opportunity". Let's start with motive. For that, we need only cite the primary points Pelerin makes in his (or her) article...

In short, Obama is an ideologue, narrowly (and poorly) educated. As a result, he is ignorant in the ways of the world... Obama has virtually no understanding of basic economics. Exploitation ideology is the basis for his world and economic view. This ideology sees the world as a zero-sum game. In essence a fixed pie is divided. If one person gets more, others necessarily get less.

[Obama believes that] A country becomes successful by taking advantage of other countries. This naive view, based on the long discredited concept of mercantilism, sees success as exploitation. Freedom, markets, institutions, incentives or voluntary trade have no place in Obama’s world. Success or failure is determined by one variable - whether you are the exploiter or the exploited.

[...]

Obama’s ideology blinds him to relevant variables. Incentives, institutional frameworks, profit and loss, individual initiative, saving and investment, hard work, etc. have no role in his simplistic world. He is a political creation with no experience in relevant matters...

In Obama’s world, success and failure are moral rather than economic outcomes. Success is a marker for evil. Failure is due to someone else’s success rather than personal shortcomings. Failure represents passivity, the choice to not exploit others. Proper moral behavior produces failure.

For Obama, economics itself is inconsistent with morality. Hence economics itself must be evil.

[...]

Successful allies (think Israel and Great Britain among others) are morally inferior to unsuccessful, backward nations who only are so as a result of exploitation. Third-world nations require restitution for the evils imposed by successful nations. That some of these are enemies of the US makes them even more deserving. The US, heretofore the greatest success, therefore represents the greatest evil. Obama’s world-apology tours and treatment of allies can be understood in light of such convoluted beliefs.

[...]

Individual success is simply a microcosm of national success. It too is achieved by exploiting others. That explains Obama’s “Joe the Plumber” moment. If the pie is fixed in size, the rich make others poor. That is the fallacy underlying Obama’s belief that people are entitled to only so much income or wealth.

In his mind, he has a right, probably a moral obligation, to confiscate and redistribute wealth. The rich and successful must be punished at some level of success. Their success causes the poor their pain.

[...]

Obama is doing what he believes right and just. Sophomoric understanding, however, does not explain why the inequities of the world are assumed to be Obama’s responsibility... Some psychologists and psychiatrists have answered this question in terms of Obama’s ego and pathological narcissism... Obama’s narcissistic disorder apparently enables him to see himself as the President of The World, the Great Rectifier and the One We Are Waiting For. Some supporters speak of Obama in messianic terms, as he himself has arrogantly done. This behavior pattern could be indicative of severe delusion, even megalomania.

The motivation then for Barack Obama to knowingly and deliberately impair the success of the US becomes "transparent" (pun intended): 1) he has no understanding of basic economics and views wealth as a fixed pie to be divided, 2) he was narrowly (and poorly) educated by Communists, Marxists and collectivists, 3) he is an idealogue and blind to economic realities, 4) he has an exploitation world view, 5) he views success as evil and failure as morality, 6) he views wealth as a commodity which must be shared equally by all, 7) he sees the most successful countries (ie, the US, UK, and Israel) as the most exploitive (therefore evil) countries, and poor countries, including our enemies, as the most moral, 8) he believes he has a right, if not a moral obligation, to redistribute wealth, 9) his narcissism allows him to believe he has power to equalize nations (ie, redistribute wealth from successful countries to poorer nations), and 10) he is delusional perhaps even megalomaniacal.

Second, did he have the "means" to commit such a crime? I think it is fair to say that as President of the United States Barack Obama has had more power to commit such a crime than any other person in the country.

Third, did he have the "opportunity" to commit such a crime? Again, I think it is fair to say that as President of the United States Barack Obama has had more than ample opportunity to commit such a crime.

But, it should be pointed out that "evidence of motive, means, opportunity, and [even] consciousness of guilt are not enough to establish guilt... the evidence must prove that an opportunity presented was indeed taken by the accused and for the crime with which he or she is charged." (See Means, Motive and Opportunity)

So the question then presents itself: Is there any evidence that President Barack Obama purposely sought to undermine the US military, its economy, or its success in general? Is there any evidence that President Obama sought to favor other poorer nations at the expense of the United States? Is there any evidence that President Obama sought to undermine our traditional "successful" allies (ie, the UK and Israel) in favor of less fortunate "exploited" nations?

And to be fair, since "reasonable" budget-cutting might be viewed as evidence for impairing America's military or economy, let's ignore such instances. Let's consider only those events, executive orders, etc. which seem inexplicable for any other reason than to somehow undermine our nation, or benefit other nations at our expense.

Furthermore, let's not rely on only one or two incidents. We need to determine if there is a pattern of behavior at work here. The Old Testament required the testimony of only two witnesses to establish guilt, but in order to indict a sitting President of the United States a much higher threshold of evidence is required. So let's see what we can come up with...

Military Policy

1) In a campaign speech in 2008, then-Senator Obama called for major cuts in defense spending, for slowing or suspending the development of future combat systems, for the abolition of spending on the "weaponizing of space" ("Star Wars") and the slashing of investment in our ballistic missile defense program. He also promised to produce "deep cuts" in our nuclear arsenal. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRGru2CPC4E&feature=related)

2) He also promised to support the policies of 'Caucus 4 Priorities', a liberal pacifist organization. The group's policies include: "reducing the National Missile Defense program to a basic research program; cutting spending on platforms like the F-22 Raptor, the Virginia-class Submarine, the V-22 Osprey airplane/helicopter hybrid, the DDG-1000 destroyer, and the Army's Future Combat System. Also, the group advocates reducing America's force structure by eliminating two Air Force fighter wings and one aircraft carrier battle-group." (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/post_17.html)

3) He announced that he would cut our missile defense systems the day after the North Koreans launched a test missile showing that they potentially have the capability of reaching parts of the United States with such a weapon. (http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama-to-cut-missile-defense-after.html)

4) On 21 July 2009, President Obama threatened to use a presidential veto on funding for the F-22 Raptor, a premier fifth generation stealth fighter aircraft. President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 in October 2009, without F-22 funding. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Production_termination)

5) On Thursday, April 8, 2010, President Obama and Russian President Medvedev signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) treaty, which calls on both sides to reduce nuclear arsenals by about one-third. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35522.html)

6) The Obama administration is freely giving Russia sensitive information about missile defense that weakens U.S. national security. President Barack Obama's administration recently threatened to veto the defense budget, citing "serious concerns" over provisions that limit the U.S. missile defense know-how that the White House is permitted to share with Moscow. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/07/giving_away_the_farm?page=0,0)

Foreign Policy

1) President Obama slighted Britain (a traditional American ally and "successful nation") during Prime Minister Gordon Brown's first official White House visit, by giving him a set of 25 DVDs as a gift. Brown on the other hand, gave Obama a carved ornamental penholder from the wood of the anti-slavery ship HMS Gannet. Worse yet, the DVDs don't work in Europe because they require a different format. One of Obama's State Department officials, when asked by the Sunday Telegraph about the DVDs, said "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/4953523/Barack-Obama-too-tired-to-give-proper-welcome-to-Gordon-Brown.html)

2) Obama in his first formal TV interview, which he chose to conduct with the Al-Aribya network, announced that he was willing to form a new partnership with the Muslim world (which includes countries that are our enemies): "...we are looking at the region as a whole, and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest." (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/president-ob-10.html)

3) He said he would be willing to meet with Iran's Ahmadenijad (an American enemy) without any preconditions. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p21dr1gr2_A)

4) He said he would consider dropping a key demand on Iran (an American enemy), allowing it to keep its nuclear facilities open during negotiations over its atomic program (thus endangering Israel, a traditional American ally and "successful nation"). (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/world/middleeast/14diplo.html)

5) He said he would not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon under any circumstances, but then later said Iran can continue their atomic energy program for "peaceful nuclear power". But Obama is merely turning a blind eye to Iran's intentions to develop a nuclear weapon. This threatens Israel and perhaps at some point, an American city, with annihilation. (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32156)

6) He attempted to drop the embargo on Cuba (a traditional American enemy) without any preconditions. Cuba is an oppressive communist country with major human rights violations, including the long-term imprisonment of political opponents. After preliminary signs of thawing relations from Raul Castro, Fidel Castro said Obama "misinterpreted" his brother's words, and that Cuba would not be willing to negotiate about human rights. Despite the rebuff from Fidel, Obama directed the unilateral easing of restrictive measures against Cuba, including the lifting of all restrictions on the ability of individuals to visit relatives and to send cash remittances.
(http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2009/04/08/Obama-ready-to-end-Cuba-embargo/UPI-93491239207960/)

Economic Policy

1) President Obama endorses an energy policy which, in his own words, would cause electricity prices "to necessarily skyrocket". President Obama must know that causing energy prices to "skyrocket" would have a negative effect on the economy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHL404zhcU)

2) His stated goal is to bankrupt coal-fired power plants. He is quoted as saying: “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” On July 7, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled tough new air pollution regulations aimed at coal-fired power plants, a move analysts say will likely cause scores of older, inefficient plants to become uneconomical and be shut down. A move which will also cause electricity prices "to necessarily skyrocket". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw)

3) He increased the FY-2009 budget deficit from $569 billion to $1.4 trillion. His programs create annual deficits that will never again fall below $500 billion and will increase dramatically after 2012. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxQgqqnpxo4)

4) He proposed a FY-2010 budget of $3.5 trillion that shocked almost everyone, including Democrats, with its huge deficit-spending programs. (http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-columbia/obama-s-unprecedented-3-5-trillion-dollar-budget)

5) When Congress refused to pass his Cap and Trade legislation, he did an end-run around around the lawmakers and had the EPA issue a ruling that greenhouse gases "endanger public health and welfare". In this way, he could effectively impose his draconion anti-energy measures on the unsuspecting public without allowing the public to have any say in the matter. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97KBAC00)

6) He banned all oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico eliminating thousands of jobs. Not only were the jobs of oil rig workers themselves affected, but also those of land-based enterprises that supported the oil rigs. Such businesses included shipping companies that transported supplies out to the rigs and brought wastes back from the rigs. It included companies that supplied tools, parts and materials to the rigs. It included dozens of services that fed, clothed and housed the oil rig workers while they were on shore. (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-01/politics/obama.gulf.drilling_1_drilling-rig-oil-drilling-gulf-spill?_s=PM:POLITICS)

7) At the same time that Obama was banning US companies from drilling off shore, he was contributing $2 billon of US taxpayer money to Brazil so that they COULD drill off shore. In fact, he told Brazil that he wanted the US to be Brazil's "best customer". (http://www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/obama-to-brazil-we-will-buy-your-oil-after-giving-you-2-billion-to-drill-it)

8) When Boeing announced plans to open a new aircraft manufacturing facility in South Carolina, the Obama administration did everything in its power to stop it. Rather than support an effort by a private company to expand operations and put people to work, Obama used its National Labor Relations Boad (NLRB) to stifle employment and see to it that the people of South Carolina did NOT get jobs. (http://biggovernment.com/laborunionreport/2011/04/21/in-shot-heard-around-business-world-obamas-labor-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing/)

Conclusion

On the face of it, one might assume that these few examples of military policy, foreign policy, and economic policy, were but isolated incidents. One could conjecture that they were but an effort on my part to exaggerate in order to smear a President of the opposing party and an opposing political belief system. Unfortunately, these are not isolated cases and numerous others could have been spelled out here. Frankly, it is the lack of space and a determined effort on my part against inundating my readers with "information overload" that prevents me from citing other, more or less flagrant examples.

In my humble opinion, such examples suggest a pattern of criminal behavior. To be honest, it is not the bold, rash behavior of a John Wilkes Booth, a Lee Harvey Oswald or a Benedict Arnold. His behavior is not so overt as that. Rather, it is more subversive, and therefore much more insidious. Like the 15th century Dutch workers who would throw their "sabots" (wooden shoes) into the gears of the wooden textile looms to break the cogs, President Obama is a "saboteur". When he thinks no one is paying attention, he does what he can to bring America down a notch.

In the name of "environmentalism", or "fairness", or a "Restart" button, or a "new partnership", or the "middle class", or whatever constitutes the raison du jour, President Obama cares little for the hard-working people of America and their needs. Instead, he favors the opinion of liberals, socialists, radicals, terrorists, Muslims, Europeans, dictators and union thugs.

In my opinion, there is more than adequate evidence to support the notion that President Obama is guilty of the crime of subverting America. But I will leave that up to you, my dear readers to decide.

No Double-Dipping

2011-08-05T00:10:00.001-04:00

According to this article, apparently President Obama doesn't think we have to worry about a double-dip recession...

Press Secretary Jay Carney said there is no question that economic growth and job creation have slowed over the past half year. But, Carney told a White House briefing, "We do not believe that there is a threat of a double-dip recession."

Too bad those idiots in the White House don't realize that we are already in a double-dip recession. It has already started. Yes, it will take another month or two to confirm it, but trust me, it's already here. You think I'm kidding? Well just consider the following:

1) The Obama Stimulus Package was a total failure. In Obama's own words, those "shovel-ready" projects weren't quite as shovel-ready as he thought. Worse, very little of the money in the stimulus package was designed to go towards infrastructure projects. Most of the money was aimed at public school teachers or state and local governments in districts that supported him during the 2008 election. In other words, the stimulus was used as a taxpayer-funded kickback to Obama's pals. It was cronyism of the worst sort.

Well, the bad news is that there is no more "stimulus" money left. Whatever positive effects on the economy that the stimulus program MAY have had, the program is essentially over... done... caput... finis. And as a country, we are too broke to consider another stimulus program, even a good one. Which leads to...

2) Layoffs in state and local governments. Without any further support from the federal government, state and local governments have been forced to make significant layoffs. According to CNN Money...

State and local governments are forecast to shed up to 110,000 jobs in the third quarter, the first time the blood-letting has risen into the triple digits, according to IHS Global Insight. "We're on a downward path," said Greg Daco, principal U.S. economist at IHS. "It's not looking good." State and local government employment has been a drag on the economy all year, averaging a loss of 23,000 jobs a month over the past three months.

And it's not only state and local governments that are laying off...

3) Private sector layoffs. According to Forbes, private sector layoffs are rising...

Chicago-based outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas reported that downsizing announcements surged to a 16-month high of roughly 66,000 in July, up 60% from the previous month, when employers said they planned to cut 41,000 workers. Last month’s layoff number was also 59% higher than the cuts recorded a year earlier, in July 2010.

A number of firms announced layoffs this month, including Merck, Borders, Cisco Systems, Lockheed Martin and Boston Scientific. A half dozen Wall Street firms also said they would be cutting their staffs. Goldman Sachs, HSBC, UBS, Credit Suisse, Barclays and Lloyds of London all said they planned to downsize.

4) QE2 is over. The Federal Reserve's second round of "quantitative easing", that is, buying billions of new federal debt (read: printing money), and dubbed "QE2", ended as of July 1st. The goal of the program was to prevent deflation, and in that respect it was successful. Indeed, it can be argued that printing $600 billion of new currency actually caused inflation. But more on that in a moment.

So, was QE2 a success? Well, according to TIME Magazine, maybe not so much...

At the end of the day, the Federal Reserve's program to purchase $600 billion of medium term bonds, which has been dubbed QE2 - because it was the Fed's second round of trying to lower interest rates by buying bonds, which in economic terms is called quantitative easing - did complete the task it was supposed to. Interest rates, i.e. borrowing costs, dropped. Since the start of the program last fall, mortgage rates dropped to a recent 4.6%, from 5%. Corporations, too, are now able to borrow more cheaply than they did before the program was started.

Yet, most Americans didn't see the pay off. Falling house prices and tight credit kept many people away from the housing market. Corporations didn't seem to use the money they saved on borrowing to hire more workers, at least not recently. So we come to the end of QE2 and the economy seems to [be] at best no better than when we started, and perhaps a bit worse. [Emphasis added]

So what happened to all that money that the Fed pumped into the economy? Why is credit still "tight"? You would think with all that liquidity, the banks would have plenty of money to lend. The short answer is that the banks who received that money from the Fed didn't want to lend it out to anyone but their "best customers" (ie, large companies).

The banks view small companies and individuals as "risks" to be avoided. And as we have seen, the large companies who benefited from lower borrowing costs, did not use the money they borrowed to hire new employees. Why? Because they didn't know what the ramifications would be of all the new regulations being pumped out of Washington, D.C. at a break-neck pace.

But what about the rest of the money that the banks got from the Fed? What did they do with that? Well, the banks used that money to invest in the stock market. That's why the Dow Jones and the other stock market indices were going up for so long. For all practical purposes, the Fed was pumping money into the stock market.

Well, the QE2 program just ended, so as you may have noticed, the stock market has now begun to falter... umm, crash? Today the stock market just dropped 512+ points. Don't be surprised if it gets worse. Investors seem to be fleeing the market. It seems that the safety of Treasury bonds is suddenly very attractive, even with the low rates of return. The banks are probably transferring their money (or planning to do so) even as I write this. In fact the rush by large investors to put money in the bank is so great, that one bank is charging fees to put money INTO the bank... unbelievable.

And if banks aren't buying stocks and investors aren't buying stocks, that means demand is down. And when demand goes down, prices naturally follow. Not just a few economists and stock market analysts have been predicting a stock market crash for some time now. The recent bull market was a Fed-fueled bubble that was bound to collapse. And a stock market crash will result in the loss of wealth and produce psychological pressure on investors to save rather than spend. That does not bode well for the economy.

5) Inflation is sapping spending power. The prices of oil, gas, food, and other commodities are all up. In fact, they are up so much that in some cases the increased prices are causing average families to cancel or postpone other discretionary spending. And, since consumer spending contributes roughly 70% to the economy, any negative effects in this area have serious repercussions.

And while it is convenient for the government to eliminate food and fuel prices from the general measurement of inflation, those are precisely the purchases that average American consumers are forced to make every single week, and the ones they are most familiar with. They know inflation far better than the government does. It hits them directly, and it hits them hard. High prices for food and fuel reduce wealth, and therefore spending in other areas. And if you don't think inflation is particularly bad, then what would you say if you found out it was close to 8.3%? That's what the folks at MIT are saying...

Click to enlarge.

6) Credit is still tight. Even with all that money that the Federal Reserve pumped into the economy, the banks are still reluctant to lend to small businesses and individuals. Since small businesses generate the majority of new jobs in this country, their inability to get credit prevents them from spending and hiring. Weak hiring by small businesses means that unemployment will remain stubbornly high for longer than necessary (if not in fact increase).

And when banks don't lend to individuals, then those individuals are unable to make the purchases they were intending to make with those funds. People don't borrow money from the bank at 4% or 5% so they can put it into savings at 0.25%. People borrow money in order to spend it. They take out loans to buy homes, cars, furniture, major appliances, or to start a business, etc. Inability for potential consumers to spend only hurts the economy. When home buyers can't get a loan, then it means that the supply of homes increases, and the price of homes decreases. Therefore...

7) Housing prices have dropped dramatically. (Ask me. I have personal experience in this area.) The effect of this price collapse is twofold. First, it puts some home buyers "underwater". In other words, the mortgage they took out costs well more than what the house they bought is now worth. Who wants to pay a $200,000 mortgage on a house that is only worth $150,000? The unfortunate result is that many people have simply walked away from their house and their mortgage. They packed up what belongings they could into their car, and simply drove off. Others have stopped paying their mortgage and are just waiting for the bank to foreclose on them. Dumping houses onto the market like this has caused the supply of homes to increase and the prices to decrease.

The second effect of this price collapse is that many senior citizens who were counting on the proceeds of a home sale to help fund their retirement years, are now forced to reduce spending and increase savings in order to make up the difference. Reduced spending means less money going into the economy. And increased savings is often accomplished by working later in life than originally anticipated. The continued presence of older people in the work force crowds out opportunities for younger people to enter the workplace.

8) Interest rates are TOO low. The Federal Reserve is trying to maintain artificially low borrowing rates in hopes that people and businesses will borrow (and hence spend). Therefore, they lend money to banks at interest rates that are at or near 0%. But as we have seen, the banks are unwilling to lend to just anybody who comes along, so the banks themselves are frustrating the plans of the Fed.

Worse still, because the banks have been able to acquire these huge sums of money from the Fed at or near 0% interest, they have had no incentive to pay out any significant interest rates to other lenders (ie, the general public). In other words, the interest rates that banks pay to lenders (on CDs or savings accounts for example) is completely dependent on the availability of cash. When cash gets tight, the banks are forced to raise the rates they pay to lenders in order to attract capital. When banks are flush with cash, because the Fed dumps it on them, the interest rates they pay drops.

The unfortunate effect of banks paying out low interest rates to lenders is that those who depend on their interest income to survive (ie, seniors), get burned. When seniors don't get the kind of interest income that they need, then it impacts their spending patterns. These people are forced to make decisions that might be unpalatable to other age groups. Do I spend the little income I have on food or medicine? Do I go to the restaurant, or just make a baloney sandwich? And since seniors are living longer and becoming an increasingly larger portion of the demographics, a negative impact in this area of the economy also has serious repercussions.

When the Fed stops printing money and cash becomes tighter for banks, then interest rates will rise and those who depend on interest income will feel wealthier and begin to spend again. The Fed's program of quantitative easing (ie, printing money) has been, in my opinion, a total failure. The Fed gave cheap money to banks who then refused to lend it to those who really wanted it to make purchases or to hire people for their small businesses. Instead, they lent it to big companies who then refused to hire new employees because they were afraid of what all the new government regulations might entail. And what money the banks didn't loan out, they invested in the stock market. Sure, it made them some money for awhile, but how much did those banks lose in the past month? How much did they lose in the past day? How much will they lose in the days ahead?

9) Government debt is too high. As of yesterday, one day after President Obama signed the new debt deal into law, the U.S. government borrowed another $238 billion which brings the national debt up from $14.29 trillion to $14.53 trillion. It just so happens that the entire national GDP at the end of 2010 was... you guessed it... $14.53 trillion!

In other words, if the United States government could confiscate the entire output of every single business in the country, it would just barely have enough money to pay off the national debt, which by the way, is rising faster than GDP! It has already been proven conclusively that a nation that reaches this point (ie, debt equals GDP), is at a significant risk of default. The credit ratings agencies have begun to issue warnings that the United States should reduce its debt-to-GDP ratio down to 74%, or face the possible downgrade of its AAA bond rating.

These problems might not be so bad if the U.S. economy was steadily expanding, clicking along at a robust rate, creating new jobs and new taxpayers. But instead, the economy is contracting, or... perilously close to doing so. The unemployment rate is at 9.2% and little change is expected in tomorrow's DOL employment report. This recession is already one of the longest in U.S. history, and if, as I suspect, a double-dip recession has already begun, then we could truly be calling this era the GREATEST RECESSION. God help us all.

What To Do About The Economy

2011-06-03T22:17:00.005-04:00

On Amy Proctor's blog site, I read the following comment about the current weakness of the U.S. economy...

Can I hear 1 idea from the right winger/conservatives/republicans that would bring an immediate lowering of the unemployment rate (and by immediate i mean like within 6 months to a year). And by lower i mean back down to 4-5%.

I tried to post the following response, but for some reason I was unable to do so (must be Obama's henchmen who "View" my post as a cyber-attack. Anyway, here is my response...

Sure, I'll take up your challenge. Here we go:

First, repeal Obamacare. Since businesses have the weight of those unknown costs and regulations looming over their heads, they are scared to invest and hire because they don't know how much it's going to ultimately cost them. Uncertainty breeds fear. Fear leads investors to stay on the sidelines until they know what's going on.

Second, eliminate the corporate business tax. This is nothing but a double tax...

"There has always been considerable tension between the corporation income tax and the individual income tax, because corporations are owned, directly or indirectly, by individuals who (ultimately) receive a share of the corporations’ incomes. This can result in the same income being taxed twice..."

Stockholders are every day people, and it is they who own corporations, not just those "greedy fat cats" that liberals love to bash. Pension funds are stockholders too. When the government taxes businesses, it reduces the return on investment to the pension fund and ultimately threatens those senior citizens who rely on their pension.

It should be noted that there were no corporate business taxes in the United States until 1894. In fact, that first corporate business tax of 1894 was ruled unconstitutional. Crafty (and no doubt liberal) legislators managed to find a "constitutional" way to tax businesses in 1909. However, the United States arguably enjoyed its greatest period of economic expansion and manufacturing innovation during the period following the Civil War until the beginning of the twentieth century when the so-called "Progressives" began to influence the government (and hence, the economy).

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the "Progressives" (tongue-in-cheek), have done nothing but continually effect measures that have retarded the U.S. economy. [Please note that I am in no way suggesting that liberals are "retards", or attempting to demean people with Downs Syndrome. The word does have another meaning. If you're not familiar with it, look it up.]

In order to avoid paying the U.S. corporate tax (which at 35% is the second highest in the world only after Japan's 36% rate), businesses spend valuable time and money to look for ways to make money overseas where they are not taxed as much. These companies ship jobs overseas because they can pay less taxes on their profits, reinvest that saved money into the business, and expand their business. Too bad we can't do that in the United States.

And the really shrewd businesses set up shell companies in countries that have little or no corporate taxes and figure out how to divert their profits from the overseas operations to those shell companies and then back into the United States tax free. I know it sounds illegal, but believe me it's not. Everything they do is legit, and they only do it because they want to keep their own money.

That's right. You heard it here first. Corporations make money and it BELONGS TO THEM. It does NOT belong to the government. Corporations work hard to make their money. They invest. They innovate. They take risks. They watch their budget. They make tough decisions and hope they are the right ones. They provide REAL products and services. They do it as efficiently as they can. They WORK to earn their money.

And then the government (that paramount of efficiency) steps in and says: "Hey there. Glad you're doing so well! Please give me 35% of the money you've slaved for." On what basis can they do that? What did the government do to "EARN" that 35% confiscatory money grab... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!, that's what. It's highway robbery. The government uses its force of arms to wrest real treasure from its people. Let's just call it what it is... STEALING. And in God's eyes, stealing is a SIN. Our government is sinning against its own people. Lord have mercy on our nation.

Finally, reduce energy prices. Businesses run on energy. Businesses need electricity, natural gas, oil, propane, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, and everything else that's available in the energy spectrum. The cheaper these commodities are, the more efficient and profitable U.S. businesses become. When energy prices are low, businesses don't "waste" money on powering their plants. It gives them extra money to spend on other things like innovation and technology.

If you want to kill industry and jobs in this country, then just follow the example of the Obama administration. Stop all offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Do NOT under any circumstances renew the permits of oil companies to continue drilling offshore. Clamp down on the energy companies in the Gulf States and prevent them from renewing their air emissions permits as they are now structured. Be sure to impose much tougher standards on them. And while you're at it, just give $2 billion to Brazil so that they CAN drill for oil while telling them that we want to be their best CUSTOMER. And while you're at it, give some money to Mexico too so that they can drill in the Gulf where U.S. companies cannot. That seems totally FAIR.

And don't drill in ANWR. And don't drill off the coast of California (where the oil that seeps up through the seabed is worse because we are NOT pumping out the oil). And don't drill off the coast of Florida. And don't drill off the coast of New Jersey. And don't use the new "fracking" method for recovering huge amounts of natural gas that have swelled U.S. natural gas reserves to all-time highs. And don't... WELL, DON'T DO A G.D. THING.

Please make sure that this country spends billions of dollars on a Department of Energy that was established in 1979 to provide us with energy independence. We have been SO successful at weaning ourselves from Muslim oil that we should continue to fund this "glorious" epitome of epic governmental success. We are SO energy independent that... excuse me while I stick my finger down my throat.

OK... breathe... relax... calm down... rant over... OK, I'm better now (trust me). You want my short answer? OK, here it is. If you want to improve the economy in this country, then absolutely DO NOT do anything like what Obama and his idiots are doing now. End of story. Simple as that. He's an academician (and I don't mean that in a complimentary sense). He's surrounded by academicians (more so than any previous administration going back decades). They've never run businesses. They've never had to make payrolls. They've never had to lay off people. They've never had to deal with the G.D. government in a confrontational manner!

If you want to DESTROY this country, then please agree with EVERYTHING that Obama and his idiots are doing. If Obama and his friends feel that the U.S. is the cause of all the world's problems and our country needs to be "reigned in", then so be it. That's his opinion (and perhaps yours as well). But if you DON'T agree with that sentiment, then DON'T keep electing these jerks and their buddies. Frankly, they think you're STUPID. They think that you are USEFUL IDIOTS. "Just feed them a line and they'll take it hook-line-and-sinker".

Is that who YOU are? Is that what YOU want for this country? Don't take it any more. Go to the window, open it up and yell: "I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE!!!" And then... THROW THE BUMS OUT!!!

Happy Birthday to the View

2011-04-10T16:11:00.002-04:00

It's hard to believe that this blog is already 6 years old. I know the posts have been few and far between lately, but my life has been in a bit of turmoil. I'm now living in Tennessee. Just bought a new house here. My wife is still living in Downtown, NJ. I have a new job and work long hours with a pretty long commute at each end. In my spare time I'm cooking, cleaning, shopping, etc. I read my e-mails and try to get a bit of TV in and then it's time for bed so I can start all over again the next day. It doesn't leave much time for blogging. Hopefully things will settle down some day. 'Til then...

(:D) Best regards, and thanks for Viewing.

Stimulus Spending And Job Growth: Final Update

2011-03-22T20:52:00.003-04:00

Well, here we are at last. The final time to update Obama's stimulus-driven job creation results. For the month of February, there was a net gain of 192,000 jobs. That is the best monthly performance we've seen since October of last year, which itself was unmatched since April of 2010. And although it is good, it is still well below what's needed to drive the economy forward. December and January's job figures were revised upwards slightly according to the latest data from the US Dept of Labor.

Barack Obama said his stimulus package would create approximately 4 million "new" jobs over two years, and that unemployment would not exceed 8%. That assumes of course, that there would not be a net loss of existing jobs. In order to create 4 million new jobs in 24 months, the Obama administration would have had to create approximately 166,667 jobs per month to reach his target, assuming linear job growth. That scenario is shown as violet in the following graph.

I developed a curve showing what I thought might be a more "Likely" scenario -- plotted as light blue in the following graph. As you can see from the graph, the actual trend was worse than I had predicted -- plotted as yellow and red. The trend generally followed the trajectory I had originally envisioned until about May of this year (Month 15). Since then, job growth has been trending upwards slightly, but at a very anemic rate.

President Obama is only about 5,308,000 jobs below his original projection. Oh, too bad! He "missed it by that much"...

Sorry I was so late in posting this article, but my new job is keeping me busy. I'm up at 5:00 AM every morning so I can get out of the house by 6:00 AM, and to work by 7:00 AM. I work 'til 5:00 PM every day, and I'm not home until 6:00 PM (or later if I have to stay over). Then I try to get something to eat, call my wife (who is still in NJ), watch a bit of TV, check my e-mail, and then before you know it... it's time for bed (so I can do it all over again the next day). I often have to work on weekends or holidays, because the plant is so busy that they are operating nearly 24/7. Good for business, but bad for Maintenance people and Plant Engineers... sigh.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining. Just explaining why I haven't had much time for blogging. Thank God that Obama found this job for me. (:D)

I'm scheduled to close on the purchase of a house here in Murfreesboro, TN on March 28th. Now all I have to do is sell the one in NJ. I've lowered the price on it twice already. Hoping I won't have to do that again. I'm single-handedly ruining the housing values in Downtown, NJ. Pray that God will bless those special people who buy the house that our family has enjoyed so much for 25 years. We're going to miss it... including my daughter who cried at the thought she might not ever again see the home where she grew up.

Stimulus Spending And Job Growth: Update 20

2011-02-04T23:08:00.001-05:00

Well, it's that time again. Time to update Obama's stimulus-driven job creation results. For the month of January, there was a net gain of 36,000 jobs. That is REALLY bad news for President Obama, because it is once again lower than analysts had predicted. November and December's job figures were revised upwards slightly according to the latest data from the US Dept of Labor.

Barack Obama said his stimulus package would create approximately 4 million "new" jobs over two years. In order to create 4 million jobs in 24 months, the Obama administration would have had to create approximately 166,667 jobs per month to reach his target, assuming linear job growth. That scenario is shown as violet in the following graph.

I developed a curve showing what I thought might be a more "Likely" scenario -- plotted as light blue in the following graph. As you can see from the graph, the actual trend was somewhat worse than I had predicted -- plotted as yellow and red. The trend generally followed the trajectory I had originally envisioned until about May of this year (Month 15). Since then, job growth has been very anemic.

Instead of having to create 166,667 new jobs per month to reach his original target of 4 million new jobs, President Obama now needs to create 5,558,000 jobs during the remaining one month of his projected 24 month period (in order to make up for the nearly 2 million jobs that were lost since the stimulus bill was signed). He's cutting it close, but I'm sure that if President Obama puts his mind to it, HE CAN DO IT!

According to US DOL statistics, the official unemployment rate dropped to 9.0%, because the number of people looking for work dropped from 14.5 million to 13.9 million. In other words, 600,000 people dropped out of the work force. This is on top of the 2.8 million people who were already "marginally" attached to the work force because they did not actively seek work during the last month and therefore were not included in the numbers. And there were another 8.4 million people who were working part-time because their hours had been cut or because they could not find a full-time job. But have no fear, OBAMA IS HERE!

For those of you who may be interested, my new job in Tennessee is going well so far. Glad to be working. Glad to be a contributing member of society. Thank God that Obama found this job for me.

(:D)

Stimulus Spending And Job Growth: Update 19

2011-01-17T21:22:00.004-05:00

Well, it's that time again (actually well past that time). Time to update Obama's stimulus-driven job creation results. For the month of December, there was a net gain of 103,000 jobs. That's bad news for President Obama, because it's once again lower than analysts had predicted. October and November's job figures were revised upwards slightly according to the latest data from the US Dept of Labor.

Barack Obama said his stimulus package would create approximately 4 million "new" jobs over two years. In order to create 4 million jobs in 24 months, the Obama administration would have had to create approximately 166,667 jobs per month to reach his target, assuming linear job growth. That scenario is shown as violet in the following graph.

I developed a curve showing what I thought might be a more "Likely" scenario -- plotted as light blue in the following graph. As you can see from the graph, the actual trend was somewhat worse than I had predicted -- plotted as yellow and red. The trend generally followed the trajectory I had originally envisioned until about May of this year (Month 15). Since then, job growth has been essentially anemic.

Instead of having to create 166,667 new jobs per month to reach his original target of 4 million new jobs, President Obama now needs to create 2,817,000 jobs per month -- in order to make up for the nearly 2 million jobs that were lost since the stimulus bill was signed.

According to US DOL statistics, the official unemployment rate dropped to 9.4%, because the number of people looking for work dropped from 15.1 million people to 14.5 million. In other words, 556,000 people dropped out of the work force. This is on top of the 2.6 million people who were already "marginally" attached to the work force because they did not actively seek work during the last month and therefore were not included in the numbers. And there were another 8.9 million people who were working part-time because their hours had been cut or because they could not find a full-time job.

However, I am pleased to report that I no longer remain unemployed. After 15 months of unemployment, I am once again a "productive" member of society. My prayers go out to those who are still looking for work.

Krauthammer Is Wrong This Time

2010-12-10T15:10:00.003-05:00

[Editor's Note: This article has been corrected regarding the 2% payroll tax deduction.]

It's a rare occasion that I disagree with syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, but this time I am forced to. In a December 9th article, he dubs the recent deal that President Obama struck with Republicans as "the biggest stimulus in American history". But I don't see it that way.

Keep in mind here, that when I use the term "stimulus", I am referring to the classical definition of government fiscal policy which is designed "to increase aggregate demand in the economy". In other words, in order for government fiscal policy to be "stimulative", it must create incentives for a significant percentage of the population [hence the word 'aggregate'] want to go out and spend money [hence the word 'demand'].

For starters, this agreement has the Bush era tax cuts being extended for two years. These are NOT new "tax cuts" as Charles characterizes them. They are an extension of cuts that went into effect years ago. This agreement simply keeps things the same as they are today. And while it is safe to say that allowing the Bush era tax cuts to expire would result in the biggest tax hike in American history and have a disastrous effect on the economy, it does not follow conversely that maintaining the status quo will have a "stimulative" effect. How does NOT changing things stimulate the economy?

Second, the temporary nature of the tax cut extensions does not imply that the rich are going to immediately run out and start spending money like drunken sailors and stimulate the economy. On the contrary, they know and understand that the day of reckoning has simply been postponed for two years. Now, if the extension of the tax cuts had been permanent, that might have been "stimulative". Everyone could breathe a sigh of relief and get on with their lives. Postponing things until the next election cycle only adds to the sense of uncertainty, and uncertainty does not breed investment.

Third, this agreement has unemployment benefits being extended for another 13 months. Again, this is nothing more than maintaining the status quo. We provide unemployment benefits now, and we will continue to provide the same benefits in the future. And while it is safe to say that allowing those benefits to expire might have negative consequences for the economy, and especially for those who are unemployed, it does not follow that keeping things the same as they are today will have a stimulative effect on the economy. Again I ask, how does NOT changing things stimulate the economy?

Fourth, this agreement maintains the Obama tax cuts that were implemented as part of his "Stimulus Package" -- the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act. And I put the term "Stimulus Package" here in quotes for a reason. Clearly, it had little or no stimulative effect. Putting an extra $10-15 in a person's weekly paycheck will not stimulate the economy because it does not increase aggregate demand. The incremental difference in the weekly paycheck is so insignificant as to be almost undetectable. Maintaining this failed policy will not hurt the economy, but neither will it provide "stimulus".

Fifth, there is the one year 2% payroll tax deduction, that will theoretically allow people to keep more of their own money. Those who make $50,000 would be able to keep an additional $1000 per year in their pocket. Those who make $500,000 would be able to keep $10,000. [But that does not mean that this money is tax-free. Since the tax rates themselves are not changing, it means that employees will have less withholding taken out of their paychecks, but they will still have to pay taxes on that money at the end of the year. Smart families won't spend that money, but be careful to simply set it aside to pay the tax bill in April 2012.] This is perhaps the only part of the agreement that is actually stimulative.

And then there is the Estate Tax. This year it is zero. Next year it will jump to 35%. And while it is true that it would have gone to 55% without any intervention, how does raising a tax from 0% to 35% provide a "stimulative" effect? How does raising ANY tax stimulate the economy?

And then there are some add-ons like extending the Child Tax Credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the tax credit for college tuition. Again, eliminating them might have had negative consequences for the economy, but maintaining them does NOT stimulate the economy.

And finally, none of these measures are paid for. ALL of this spending must be borrowed. More and more borrowing will improve neither the Federal Budget Deficit nor the National Debt. When will people wake up and realize that you cannot spend your way out of debt? Increasing our debt and deficit will NOT help the economy.

If passed as it now stands, I foresee this agreement being a total disaster. It merely maintains the status quo at great expense. It may prevent things from getting worse, but it will do little or nothing to stimulate the economy.

In order to do that, we need to make some major overhauls. We need to slash government spending, eliminate entire agencies and departments, repeal Obamacare and loads of other regulations. We need to cut corporate business tax rates, free up our energy resources like coal, oil and gas. We need to stop propping up failed businesses and banks whose bad leadership made bad decisions that resulted in financial ruin.

And we need to let the marketplace do it's thing. People have to stop thinking of "profit" as a dirty word. Profit = wealth. Wealth = savings, consumption, and investment. Savings produces lending. Lending permits investment. Investment and consumption create jobs. Jobs produce wealth. Wealth is good. Profit = wealth. Therefore, profit is good. Just sayin'.

Stimulus Spending And Job Growth: Update 18

2010-12-08T11:09:00.004-05:00

Well, it's that time again. Time to update Obama's stimulus-driven job creation results. For the month of November, there was a net gain of 39,000 jobs. That's bad news for President Obama, because it's a lot lower than analysts had predicted. September and October's job figures were revised upwards slightly according to the latest data from the US Dept of Labor.

Barack Obama said his stimulus package would create approximately 4 million "new" jobs over two years. In order to create 4 million jobs in 24 months, the Obama administration would have had to create approximately 166,667 jobs per month to reach his target, assuming linear job growth. That scenario is shown as violet in the following graph.

I developed a curve showing what I thought might be a more "Likely" scenario -- plotted as light blue in the following graph. As you can see from the graph, the actual trend was somewhat worse than I had predicted -- plotted as yellow and red. The trend generally followed the trajectory I had originally envisioned until about May of this year (Month 15). Since then, job growth has essentially flat-lined.

Instead of having to create 166,667 new jobs per month to reach his original target of 4 million new jobs, President Obama now needs to create 1,935,500 jobs per month -- in order to make up for the 2 million jobs that were lost since the stimulus bill was signed.

According to US DOL statistics, the official unemployment rate bumped up to be 9.8%, because there were 15.1 million unemployed people in the United States who were actively seeking work. But there were another 2.5 million people who were only "marginally" attached to the work force because they did not actively seek work during the last month and therefore were not included in the numbers. And there were another 9.0 million people who were working part-time because their hours had been cut or because they could't find a full-time job.

I am sorry to once again report that I continue to remain unemployed. However, there may be something positive brewing. I have an interview coming up next week. If it bears fruit, it will result in something of a small miracle. (More on that another time if I get the job.) I sense God's hand at work here, and I continue to covet your prayers.

Day of Infamy

2010-12-07T08:14:00.002-05:00

December 7th, 1941, a date which will live in infamy...

Click to enlarge.

Still Autumn in NJ

2010-11-18T14:10:00.005-05:00

Most of the leaves are down around my house, but here's a couple that are still going as of today. A big maple in front of my house, and a smaller one alongside my back deck...

God Bless...

I Honor Back

2010-11-13T18:34:00.004-05:00

Hat-tip to Heirborn Ranger for this one. Best viewed in full screen mode...

Green and Mean

2010-11-11T10:31:00.003-05:00

We've all heard that phrase "Lean and Mean". It is descriptive of an organization, typically a company, that is not overstaffed and perhaps a bit understaffed. It is "lean" because there is no extra fat to cut out. Cutting anyone from the organization would mean cutting into "muscle". In other words, it would be painful and counter-productive. The word "mean" implies aggressiveness. The organization is ready to do battle in the marketplace where it operates. The phrase exudes efficiency and competitiveness.

You might be forgiven then, if you thought that's where I was headed with this article. Perhaps the phrase "Green and Mean" conjures up visions, like a slick TV commercial, of efficient "green" companies that boast of: using solar panels or wind turbines, making their product from recycled materials, or reducing CO2 emissions more than their competitors. But you would be wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth.

"Green" companies are not more efficient than others. In fact, they are often less efficient. Electric power generated from "green" renewable sources generally costs more than that made from fossil fuels. Solar panels don't make electricity very well when it gets dark or when they are covered with snow. The inverters they use to convert electricity from DC into AC require maintenance, and sometimes they need replacement before the installation has paid for itself. Wind turbines don't make electricity when the wind stops blowing. In fact, the big wind turbines actually consume power to keep them running, because stopping and starting those suckers is hard on the gears.

And companies that introduce "green" programs spend time, effort and money on something other than making their intended product or streamlining the services they offer. Companies that make their products from recycled materials generally face problems and costs that another company which uses new raw materials will not have to deal with. "Green" chemicals typically cost more and may not work as well as the standard garden variety. So there is nothing inherently efficient or competitive about "green" companies whatsoever. For the cynics, going "green" is nothing more than a marketing ploy. For the believers, it is an effort to do something "noble".

No, when the phrase "Green and Mean" came into my head I was thinking about the fact that some environmentalists have a tendency to be downright mean. I was thinking about Al Gore, who has no qualms about forcing his propaganda slide show onto young school children so they can have nightmares about ocean levels rising and drowning them while they sleep in their beds. And all so he can make millions of dollars on some phony carbon credit trading scheme.

No, I was thinking about the people who make TV commercials that show polar bears falling from airplanes, or the end of the world as we know it, or teachers exploding students that are less than enthusiastic about the green agenda. I was thinking about eco-terrorist groups like the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) who burn down or blow up homes, offices, laboratories, and vehicles in the name of the environment. I was thinking about people like Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) who go around attacking commercial fishing vessels. I was thinking about the animal rights activists who care more about fish and birds than they do about human beings. And I was thinking about those environmentalists who could dare contemplate the extermination of millions of humans because, in their view, humanity is a disease that infects the planet.

The Bible teaches us that man was made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27, 5:1). It says that the Creator made man "little less than God" (Psalm 8:5). It says that we were made by God to "have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth" (Genesis 1:26). God told mankind to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it" (Genesis 1:28).

And that is what mankind has done. We have been fruitful and multiplied. We have been subduing the earth, one small step at a time. We have tamed animals. We have tamed the land and made it grow crops. We have tamed the rivers and the tides. We have tamed the elements by building homes that are warm in winter and cool in summer. We have tamed travel by building vehicles that take us across town, across the ocean, around the globe, and even into outer space. We have explored the depths of the sea. We have tamed long distances with communication devices. We have tamed diseases. We have tamed ignorance through education. We have tamed weather to the extent that we can predict most of it days in advance. We have tamed the energy of the atom through nuclear power.

God has blessed mankind with abundance. He has given us plants and animals for food. He has given us water to drink. He has given us stones to build with. He has given us minerals and metals to fashion implements. He has given us gas and oil for fuels. And He has given us intelligence to mold and manipulate the world around us, in order to make it a better place in which to live. We have used what God has given us and obeyed His will to subdue the earth. Yes, we should not pollute the earth, but we have even made great strides to reduce pollution.

But now, after all this progress, the environmentalists would have us abandon our Creator and worship His creation instead. They would have us worship the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, and the plants of the field. These environmentalists are tyrants that would make the earth into a god and mankind into slaves that serve it. They make humanity meaningless and nature preeminent. You can be put in jail for killing a baby eagle, but not for killing a baby human that survives an abortion procedure. You must protect the life of a tiny fish on the endangered species list, but it's acceptable to assist in the suicide of a living human being.

Although mankind has progressed over the centuries, there remains at least one earthly obstacle that man has not subdued, and that is tyranny. In order for freedom and liberty to flourish, tyranny must be abolished. Tyranny is the mountain we must scale, the ocean we must cross, the disease we must cure, the enemy we must defeat. Tyranny comes in many forms, and radical environmentalism is just one of them.

Stimulus Spending And Job Growth: Update 17

2010-11-05T19:40:00.003-04:00

Well, it's that time again. Time to update Obama's stimulus-driven job creation results. For the month of October, there was a net gain of 151,000 jobs. That's good news for President Obama, because there had been a string of net job losses for the last several months. August and September's job figures were also revised upwards according to the latest data from the US Dept of Labor. This meant fewer job losses in September than originally reported, and an actual net job gain for August (discounting the temporary census job losses).

Barack Obama said his stimulus package would create approximately 4 million "new" jobs over two years. In order to create 4 million jobs in 24 months, the Obama administration would have had to create approximately 166,667 jobs per month to reach his target, assuming linear job growth. That scenario is shown as violet in the following graph.

I developed a curve showing what I thought might be a more "Likely" scenario -- plotted as light blue in the following graph. As you can see from the graph, the actual trend was somewhat worse than I had predicted -- plotted as yellow and red. The trend generally followed the trajectory I had originally envisioned until about May of this year (Month 15). Obama's "Summer of Recovery" was virtually non-existent. Since May, job growth has essentially flat-lined.

Instead of having to create 166,667 new jobs per month to reach his original target of 4 million new jobs, President Obama now needs to create 1,471,000 jobs per month -- in order to make up for the 2 million jobs that were lost since the stimulus bill was signed.

According to US DOL statistics, the official unemployment rate continues to be 9.6%, because there are 14.8 million unemployed people in the United States who are actively seeking work. But there are another 2.6 million people who are only "marginally" attached to the work force because they did not seek work in the last month, and another 9.2 million people who are working part-time only because they can't find a full-time job.

I am sorry to once again report that I continue to remain unemployed. Activity has fallen off in recent weeks. I know God has a plan for me, but I continue to covet your prayers.

Autumn in New Jersey

2010-11-01T13:48:00.001-04:00

Some views from around my house October 31, 2010...

Sign The Repeal Pledge

2010-11-01T12:10:00.004-04:00

I know the first doctor in this commercial. She is a lifelong friend of my wife...

Go to The Repeal Pledge.

American Hero

2010-10-29T08:03:00.002-04:00

I Fought For You

2010-10-26T16:24:00.003-04:00

Chinese Professor - 2030 AD

2010-10-21T21:29:00.001-04:00

Stimulus Spending And Job Growth: Update 16

2010-10-16T15:33:00.004-04:00

Well, it's that time again (actually past that time). Time to update Obama's stimulus-driven job creation results. For the month of September, there was a net loss of 95,000 jobs, which included the layoff of another 77,000 temporary census workers. That's surprising, because I had gotten the impression that the census was complete in August, and that all temporary employees were laid off last month. Obviously my last article on this subject (Update #15) was incorrect in this regard.

As you may remember, back in May (Update #12), I discounted the hiring of 411,000 temporary census workers because of the temporary nature of those jobs. Therefore, I was compelled to discount the layoffs of those workers in the following months. Going back and checking my records, I discounted 225,000 layoffs in June, 143,000 in July, and 114,000 in August, for a total of 482,000 layoffs (or 71,000 more than the original 411,000 hires). This month there were an additional 77,000 layoffs.

That can only mean one thing: that additional census workers were hired during the months of June through August, but which I did not account for and likewise did not discount. Therefore, I have decided that since I only discounted the original hiring of 411,000 census workers, I will only discount the layoffs of those same 411,000 workers. Therefore, I have gone back and added 71,000 job losses to the 60,000 jobs gained in August, for a net loss of 11,000 jobs.

I have also adjusted the July and August job figures downwards according to the latest data from the US Dept of Labor. There were 12,000 more job losses in July than originally reported, bringing the net job gain from 89,000 down to 77,000. In August there were an additional 3,000 jobs lost raising the total from 11,000 jobs lost (see above) to 14,000.

Barack Obama said his stimulus package would create approximately 4 million "new" jobs over two years. In order to create 4 million jobs in 24 months, the Obama administration would have had to create approximately 166,667 jobs per month to reach his target, assuming linear job growth. That scenario is shown as violet in the following graph.

I developed a curve showing what I thought might be a more "Likely" scenario -- plotted as light blue in the following graph. As you can see from the graph, the actual trend was somewhat worse than I had predicted -- plotted as yellow and red. However, the trend generally followed the trajectory I had originally envisioned until about May of this year (Month 15). Obama's "Summer of Recovery" was virtually non-existent. Since May, job growth has been essentially flat, and now appears to be headed on a downward trajectory.

Instead of having to create 166,667 new jobs per month to reach his original target of 4 million new jobs, President Obama now needs to create 1,223,600 jobs per month -- in order to make up for the 2 million jobs that were lost since the stimulus bill was signed.

According to US DOL statistics, the official unemployment rate continues to be 9.6%, because there are 14.8 million unemployed people in the United States who are actively seeking work. But there are another 2.5 million people who are only "marginally" attached to the work force because they did not seek work in the last month, and another 9.5 million people who are working part-time only because they can't find a full-time job.

I am sorry to once again report that I continue to remain unemployed. This coming Monday, October 18th will mark 13 months without a job. However, I am happy to report that I have seen more activity in the last 6 weeks than I have in the preceeding 11-1/2 months. I have had phone interviews, face-to-face interviews, or calls from headhunters for positions with a number of well-known companies including Coca-Cola, Wrigley's, Johnson & Johnson, AT&T and Alcoa, as well as some other not so well-known companies. I continue to covet your prayers.

OOOPS

2010-10-09T09:34:00.003-04:00

The presidential seal fell off President Barack Obama's podium and interrupted a speech that he was delivering to Fortune magazine's "Most Powerful Women Summit" on Tuesday, October 5th. The president was joking with the audience when the incident occurred. He got more laughs after the incident than during the speech. "All of you know who I am," he quipped. Someone in the crowd allegedly whispered: "Yeah, you're the guy who can't do ANYTHING right."

Biggest Tax Increase in American History

2010-09-23T12:03:00.002-04:00

Get ready. Here it comes...

Driving Us Crazy

2010-09-23T11:36:00.001-04:00

My latest 'toon'...

Click to enlarge.

Spelling Error?

2010-09-22T14:29:00.003-04:00

Hat-tip to Evan Coyne Maloney at Brain-Terminal...

Obama - Jedi Master

2010-09-17T16:36:00.003-04:00

Nine Years Ago Today

2010-09-14T17:11:00.001-04:00

Never Forget

2010-09-11T09:40:00.001-04:00

The Forgotten Man

2010-09-10T08:08:00.001-04:00

US Capitol Tour with David Barton

2010-09-09T15:56:00.002-04:00

Hat-tip to Heirborn Ranger...

Stimulus Spending And Job Growth: Update 15

2010-09-07T10:21:00.002-04:00

Well, it's that time again. Time to update Obama's stimulus-driven job creation results. Let's look at the latest picture. In August, there was a net loss of 54,000 jobs, but this job loss number was due in large part to the layoff of the last 114,000 temporary census workers. Again, since I did not include the temporary census workers in earlier job increases, I cannot then include the losses here. Therefore, in the graph below, I have discounted the census job losses and allowed for a net gain of 60,000 jobs. The unemployment rate bumped up to 9.6%.

Barack Obama said his stimulus package would create approximately 4 million "new" jobs over two years. In order to create 4 million jobs in 24 months, the Obama administration would have had to create approximately 166,667 jobs per month to reach his target, assuming linear job growth. That scenario is shown as violet in the following graph.

I developed a curve showing what I thought might be a more "Likely" scenario -- plotted as light blue in the following graph. As you can see from the graph, the actual trend was somewhat worse than I had predicted -- plotted as yellow and red. However, the trend has generally followed the trajectory I had originally envisioned. Obama's "Summer of Recovery" has been virtually non-existent. Since May of this year (Month 15), job growth has been anemic at best.

I have revised the June and July job figures upwards according to the latest data from the US Dept of Labor. Now, instead of having to create 166,667 new jobs per month to reach his original target of 4 million new jobs, President Obama needs to create 989,500 jobs per month -- in order to make up for the 2 million jobs that were lost since the stimulus bill was signed.

I am sorry to once again report that I was not one of those fortunate 60,000 who found work in August. However, I am happy to report that I have seen more activity in the last 2 weeks than I have in the last 11-1/2 months. Yes, I will soon be unemployed for a year. It's amazing how quickly that time went by. Perhaps it will not be much longer now.

Bill Whittle on the Ground Zero Mosque

2010-08-21T22:18:00.001-04:00

A must-see video...

Extreme

2010-08-21T15:34:00.002-04:00

Summer of Fundraising

2010-08-21T15:31:00.001-04:00

Rainbows And Unicorns

2010-08-21T15:19:00.003-04:00

The Comeback Starts in 2010

2010-08-21T15:06:00.001-04:00

Freedom Is Color Blind

2010-08-20T14:13:00.003-04:00

Hat-tip to Chairbabe...

Barack Obama's Endgame

2010-08-17T19:52:00.003-04:00

From Eric Cantor & You Cut.

Those Voices Don't Speak For The Rest Of Us

2010-08-17T12:07:00.006-04:00

Hat-tip to Heirborn Ranger...

From ResistNet.com

Is a Crash Coming? Ten Reasons to Be Cautious

2010-08-16T11:21:00.003-04:00

From Bret Arends at the Wall Street Journal...

Could Wall Street be about to crash again? This week's bone-rattlers may be making you wonder. I don't make predictions. That's a sucker's game. And I'm certainly not doing so now. But way too many people are way too complacent this summer. Here are 10 reasons to watch out.

1. The market is already expensive. Stocks are about 20 times cyclically-adjusted earnings, according to data compiled by Yale University economics professor Robert Shiller. That's well above average, which, historically, has been about 16. This ratio has been a powerful predictor of long-term returns. Valuation is by far the most important issue for investors. If you're getting paid well to take risks, they may make sense. But what if you're not?

2. The Fed is getting nervous. This week it warned that the economy had weakened, and it unveiled its latest weapon in the war against deflation: using the proceeds from the sale of mortgages to buy Treasury bonds. That should drive down long-term interest rates. Great news for mortgage borrowers. But hardly something one wants to hear when the Dow Jones Industrial Average is already north of 10000.

3. Too many people are too bullish. Active money managers are expecting the market to go higher, according to the latest survey by the National Association of Active Investment Managers. So are financial advisers, reports the weekly survey by Investors Intelligence. And that's reason to be cautious. The time to buy is when everyone else is gloomy. The reverse may also be true.

4. Deflation is already here. Consumer prices have fallen for three months in a row. And, most ominously, it's affecting wages too. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that, last quarter, workers earned 0.7% less in real terms per hour than they did a year ago. No wonder the Fed is worried. In deflation, wages, company revenues, and the value of your home and your investments may shrink in dollar terms. But your debts stay the same size. That makes deflation a vicious trap, especially if people owe way too much money.

5. People still owe way too much money. Households, corporations, states, local governments and, of course, Uncle Sam. It's the debt, stupid. According to the Federal Reserve, total U.S. debt—even excluding the financial sector—is basically twice what it was 10 years ago: $35 trillion compared to $18 trillion. Households have barely made a dent in their debt burden; it's fallen a mere 3% from last year's all-time peak, leaving it twice the level of a decade ago.

6. The jobs picture is much worse than they're telling you. Forget the "official" unemployment rate of 9.5%. Alternative measures? Try this: Just 61% of the adult population, age 20 or over, has any kind of job right now. That's the lowest since the early 1980s—when many women stayed at home through choice, driving the numbers down. Among men today, it's 66.9%. Back in the '50s, incidentally, that figure was around 85%, though allowances should be made for the higher number of elderly people alive today. And many of those still working right now can only find part-time work, so just 59% of men age 20 or over currently have a full-time job. This is bullish?

(Today's bonus question: If a laid-off contractor with two kids, a mortgage and a car loan is working three night shifts a week at his local gas station, how many iPads can he buy for Christmas?)

7. Housing remains a disaster. Foreclosures rose again last month. Banks took over another 93,000 homes in July, says foreclosure specialist RealtyTrac. That's a rise of 9% from June and just shy of May's record. We're heading for 1 million foreclosures this year, RealtyTrac says. And naturally the ripple effects hurt all those homeowners not in foreclosure, by driving down prices. See deflation (No. 4) above.

8. Labor Day is approaching. Ouch. It always seems to be in September-October when the wheels come off Wall Street. Think 2008. Think 1987. Think 1929. Statistically, there actually is a "September effect." The market, on average, has done worse in that month than any other. No one really knows why. Some have even blamed the psychological effect of shortening days. But it becomes self-reinforcing: People fear it, so they sell.

9. We're looking at gridlock in Washington. Election season has already begun. And the Democrats are expected to lose seats in both houses in November. (Betting at InTrade, a bookmaker in Dublin, Ireland, gives the GOP a 62% chance of taking control of the House.) As our political dialogue seems to have collapsed beyond all possible hope of repair, let's not hope for any "bipartisan" agreements on anything of substance. Do you think this is a good thing? As Davis Rosenberg at investment firm Gluskin Sheff pointed out this week, gridlock is only a good thing for investors "when nothing needs fixing." Today, he notes, we need strong leadership. Not gonna happen.

10. All sorts of other indicators are flashing amber. The Institute for Supply Management's manufacturing index, while still positive, weakened again in July. So did ISM's new-orders indicator. The trade deficit has widened, and second-quarter GDP growth was much lower than first thought. ECRI's Weekly Leading Index has been flashing warning lights for weeks (though the most recent signals have looked somewhat better). Europe's industrial production in June turned out considerably worse than expected. Even China's steamroller economy is slowing down. Tech bellwether Cisco Systems has signaled caution ahead. Individually, each of these might mean little. Collectively, they make me wonder. In this environment, I might be happy to buy shares if they were cheap. But not so much if they're expensive. See No. 1 above.

Add to that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's statement that the outlook for the economy is "unusually uncertain" (a real confidence builder there). Then there's the recent flattening of the monthly employment numbers that had been steadily improving. And on top of that, an unusual event occurred last week known as the "Hindenberg Omen"...

The blog Zero Hedge, writing in a vein that seems made for professional boxing or WWE pay-per-view event hype, describes the Hindenburg Omen as "Easily the most feared technical pattern in all of chartism (for the bullishly inclined). Those who know what it is, tend to have an atavistic reaction to its mere mention."

In case you hadn't heard, Thursday's action on the New York Stock Exchange registered a technical anomaly known as the Hindenburg Omen. Read: just like the doomed German airship, the markets are fated to crash and burn. Still worse, Wednesday's trading action almost sparked Hindenburg Omen conditions. It takes two Hindenburg Omen trading days within a 36 day window to trigger the end of life in the markets as we know it...

The Hindenburg Omen occurs when an unusually high number of companies in the New York Stock Exchange reach 52-week highs and lows at the same time. The proportion of NYSE stock highs and lows must both exceed 2.2% of the total listed on the exchange. The Hindenburg Omen last occurred in October 2008, according to UBS data.

Additionally, the Hindenburg Omen is only valid in a rising market -- as measured by the NYSE composite rolling average over the past 10 weeks; the number of stocks at a 52-week high must not be more than twice those stocks at a 52-week low...

--Eric Rosenbaum, Hindenburg Omen: Is a Stock Market Crash Imminent?, 13 August 2010

Watch your wallets and purses my friends.

The Broken Window Fallacy

2010-08-14T10:32:00.001-04:00

November Anthem

2010-08-12T07:59:00.003-04:00

Hat-tip to Heirborn Ranger...

From Patriots For America.

Olson's Fallacy

2010-08-09T11:29:00.006-04:00

If you watched Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace yesterday, then you probably saw the segment with Ted Olson. Ted Olson is a conservative who has argued (55) cases before the Supreme Court and spoken out against judicial activism. Therefore, it was quite a shock to learn that it was he who successfully argued the case in California to overturn Prop 8's ban on same-sex marriage. A move which most conservatives would consider to be judicial activism or legislating from the bench.

It was a very interesting interview, and Olson made a compelling case. He stated that marriage is a constitutional right as determined by 14 Supreme Court rulings. He contends that if marriage is a right, then it should be applied equally under the law, which also makes sense. According to Olson, same-sex partners deserve the same "happiness" as everyone else.

Apparently it is Olson's opinion that overturning the Prop 8 ban was not an act of judicial activism, because voting on an issue does not automatically make it correct. He then cited cases where people voted to ban inter-racial marriages, and said that the Supreme Court was clearly correct in overturning such laws.

I must admit that Olson was very persuasive, and even found myself questioning whether or not I should reconsider my position on the matter. Apparently Chris Wallace was impressed as well. At the end of the segment, Wallace said that after Olson's appearance there, he couldn't understand how Olson lost any cases before the Supreme Court. If you didn't see it, you can watch the exchange here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJwSprkiInE

But after further reflection on the subject, it suddenly occurred to me that there is one glaring fallacy in Olson's line of reasoning, that is, that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is equivalent to discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity or gender. Obviously, that is not true.

Characteristics such as race, ethnicity and gender are traits acquired at birth, and over which a person has absolutely no choice. A person has no say about what gender or ethnicity he or she will become. They can only learn about it after they are born. Therefore, discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity or gender is patently unfair, because the person being discriminated against had absolutely no choice in the matter of their birth. They are being discriminated against for something which is no fault of their own.

Not so for sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is ALL about choice. Sexual orientation is a conscious decision on the part of an individual to participate in one form of sexual behavior in favor of another. No one "forces" gays and lesbians to participate in that type of sexual behavior. Even if they are psychologically "predisposed" to it for some reason, they can still "choose" to refrain from doing so if they wish.

And for those who would suggest that homosexuality is rooted in genetics, that is a completely unsubstantiated claim. No scientist has yet found the "homosexual" gene, and I don't think they ever will. Sexual orientation is a "preference", and as such, it does not qualify for protected status on the same grounds as race, ethnicity or gender. [Trust me, very few African-Americans would consider the gay rights movement to be right up there with the civil rights movement.]

Allow me to go even further with some analogies. The mere existence of thieves who "prefer" to participate in the "behavior" of stealing, and who may derive much "happiness" from it, does not provide a sound legal argument for the legalizing of robbery. The mere existence of sadists who "prefer" to participate in the "behavior" of inflicting pain on others, and who may derive much "happiness" from it, does not provide a sound legal argument for the legalizing of torture. Likewise, the mere existence of gays and lesbians who "prefer" to participate in the "behavior" of homosexuality, and who may derive much "happiness" from it, does not provide a sound legal argument for the legalizing of same-sex marriage.

The Angel Flight

2010-08-06T22:15:00.003-04:00

Hat-tip to Heirborn Ranger for this one...

Jay Leno On Obama's Birthday

2010-08-06T21:48:00.002-04:00

Hat-tip to Upnorthlurkin for this one...

Stimulus Spending And Job Growth: Update 14

2010-08-06T11:22:00.003-04:00

Well, it's that time again. Time to update Obama's stimulus-driven job creation results. Let's look at the latest picture. In July, there was a net loss of 131,000 jobs, but this job loss number was due in large part to the layoff of 143,000 temporary census workers. Again, since I did not include the temporary census workers in May's job increases, I cannot then include the losses here. Therefore, in the graph below, I have discounted the census job losses and allowed for a net gain of 12,000 jobs. The unemployment rate remained at 9.5%.

Barack Obama said his stimulus package would create approximately 4 million "new" jobs over two years. In order to create 4 million jobs in 24 months, the Obama administration would have had to create approximately 166,667 jobs per month to reach his target, assuming linear job growth. That scenario is shown as violet in the following graph.

I developed a curve showing what I thought might be a more "Likely" scenario -- plotted as light blue in the following graph. As you can see from the graph, the actual trend of job losses was somewhat worse than I had predicted -- plotted as yellow and red. However, the trend generally followed the trajectory I had originally envisioned until about May of this year (Month 15). Since then, job growth seems to have flat-lined.

I have revised the May and June job figures downwards according to the latest data from the US Dept of Labor. Now, instead of having to create 166,667 new jobs per month to reach his original target of 4 million new jobs, President Obama now needs to create 874,285 jobs per month -- in order to make up for the more than 2 million jobs that were lost since the stimulus bill was signed.

I am sorry to once again report that I was not one of those fortunate 12,000 who found work in July. It is now beginning to appear that not only has Obama's Stimulus Package failed, but that his policies are making things worse. The "Likely" scenario I projected was based on a natural economic recovery which should have occurred regardless of the stimulus. If the job numbers continue on their present slow growth trend (or get worse), then it can only suggest that Obama's policies are to blame.

Democrats' Chronic Denial

2010-08-04T16:37:00.001-04:00

14 Weeks

2010-07-29T16:43:00.002-04:00

14 Weeks from Republican Governors Association on Vimeo.

Anti-Ground Zero Mosque Ad

2010-07-15T07:59:00.001-04:00

From Andrew Breitbart's Big Journalism...

Who Do You Believe?

2010-07-11T13:23:00.001-04:00

Is Government the problem... or the solution?

The Obama Strategy

2010-07-06T14:30:00.001-04:00

A fellow blogger Radaractive was questioning what lies behind Obama's actions in response to the BP oil spill. It soon became apparent from my response, that Obama seems to follow a pattern, which I have dubbed as the Obama Strategy...

Q: So what is it? Is the President stupid and indecisive, or is he simply pursuing a course of action that would dynamically and completely change America into Venezuela North?

A: I believe that there are/were a number of things running through Obama's brain.

1) Find somebody to blame. If something goes wrong, make sure you have someone to blame... and it's never yourself. Economic problems? Blame Bush. War in Afghanistan? Blame Bush. Health care problems? Blame doctors and insurance companies. Big bonuses for financial execs? Blame Wall Street "fat cats".

2) Arouse your base against the perceived "culprit". Give a speech or two vilifying the "bad guy" and get some photo-ops with people cheering and clapping. Never stop campaigning.

3) Shake down the "bad guys" for money. Evil "rich" people? Tax them. Nasty health insurance companies? Impose taxes. Greedy Wall Street "fat cats"? Cut their salaries and get them to return their bonuses. BP? Make them put $20 billion in escrow.

4) Take care of your friends. Stimulus money available? Make sure it goes "overwhelmingly" to blue states and districts that voted for you. GM going bankrupt? Seize money from the bondholders and give it to the union. California wants to cut the pay of SEIU members? Threaten CA to cut off stimulus funds. Oil spill? Don't waive the Jones Act.

5) Punish those who resist you. Tea Party people? Call them racist, right-wing, extremists. Stimulus money available? Make sure as little as possible goes to states and districts that voted for McCain. Need to close some Chrysler dealerships? Make sure they belong to Republicans. Red states along the Gulf of Mexico? Let them eat tarballs.

6) Never let a good crisis go to waste. Economic crisis? Use it to seize banks. Auto companies in trouble? Seize them. Health care costs skyrocketing? Seize 1/6th of the US economy (and the student loan industry while we're at it). BP oil spill? Use it to push "green energy" and "cap-and-tax".

7) Be persistent. Health care stalled? Keep pushing. Polls running against health care? Shove it down their throats. Scott Brown win in MA? Use reconciliation. People still not convinced about "green energy" after the oil spill? Shut down all the oil rigs in the Gulf.

8) Hide your lack of executive experience. Lots of issues to deal with? Appoint czars. Need legislation? Let Pelosi and Reid come up with it. McChrystal asks for 40,000 more troops? Say you need time to "re-evaluate the strategy". Oil spill? Let BP and the Coast Guard handle it. People crying for action? Appoint a commission.

9) Enjoy yourself. Play some golf. Have a few parties. Host some celebrities. Go out on date night at the taxpayers' expense. You've "earned" it.

John Boehner's Questions For Obama

2010-07-05T20:20:00.002-04:00

NASA's New Mission

2010-07-05T20:12:00.002-04:00

What the heck is this all about? NASA's new mission is to make Muslims feel good about themselves...?

11 Reasons To Vote Democrat

2010-07-05T00:48:00.001-04:00

I Fought For You

2010-07-05T00:34:00.003-04:00

Happy Independence Day

2010-07-04T14:50:00.003-04:00

Stimulus Spending And Job Growth: Update 13

2010-07-03T12:40:00.001-04:00

Well, it's that time again. Time to update Obama's stimulus-driven job creation results. Let's look at the latest picture. In June, there was a net loss of 125,000 jobs, but this job loss number was due primarily to the layoff of 225,000 temporary census workers. However, since I did not include the temporary census workers in last month's job increases, I cannot then include them here. Therefore, in the graph below, I have discounted the census job losses and allowed for a net gain of 100,000 jobs. The unemployment rate dropped from 9.7% to 9.5% because about 650,000 people dropped out of the work force.

Barack Obama said his stimulus package would create approximately 4 million "new" jobs over two years. In order to create 4 million jobs in 24 months, the Obama administration would have had to create approximately 166,667 jobs per month to reach his target, assuming linear job growth. That scenario is shown as violet in the following graph.

I developed a curve showing what I thought might be a more "Likely" scenario -- plotted as light blue in the following graph. As you can see from the graph, the actual trend of job losses was somewhat worse than I had predicted -- plotted as yellow and red. However, the trend continues to generally follow the trajectory I had originally envisioned.

I have revised the April and May job figures according to the latest data from the US Dept of Labor. Now, instead of having to create 166,667 new jobs per month to reach his original target of 4 million new jobs, President Obama now needs to create 754,375 jobs per month -- in order to make up for the more than 2 million jobs that were lost since the stimulus bill was signed.

I am sorry to once again report that I was not one of those fortunate 100,000 who found work in June. I should also point out that, in my opinion, the current trend has had little or nothing to do with Obama's Stimulus Package. Rather, it was the result of a natural economic recovery which would have occurred anyway. I would go even further and suggest that the policies of this President and this Congress have only acted to slow down the recovery.

Oil Spill Timeline

2010-06-30T16:14:00.005-04:00

Oil Spill Timeline from RightChange on Vimeo.

The Importance of Gratitude

2010-06-20T12:28:00.001-04:00

Why Obama Won't Secure The Border

2010-06-20T12:09:00.002-04:00

What Took So Long?

2010-06-17T16:55:00.001-04:00

Don Quixobama

2010-06-16T10:00:00.001-04:00

Click to enlarge

Stimulus Spending And Job Growth: Update 12

2010-06-13T10:26:00.003-04:00

Well, it's that time again. Time to update Obama's stimulus-driven job creation results. Let's look at the latest picture. In May, there were 431,000 new jobs, but of those new jobs 411,000 were temporary census workers. Not only that, but there is some indication that the 411,000 figure has been inflated. Therefore, in the graph below, I have discounted the temporary census jobs and allowed for a net gain of only 20,000 jobs. The unemployment rate dropped from 9.9% to 9.7% because 286,000 people dropped out of the work force.

Barack Obama said his stimulus package would create approximately 4 million "new" jobs over two years. In order to create 4 million jobs in 24 months, the Obama administration would have had to create approximately 166,667 jobs per month to reach his target, assuming linear job growth. That scenario is shown as violet in the following graph.

I developed a curve showing what I thought might be a more "Likely" scenario -- plotted as light blue in the following graph. As you can see from the graph, the actual trend of job losses was somewhat worse than I had predicted -- plotted as yellow and red. The jobless rate continues to generally follow the trajectory I had originally envisioned.

I have revised the March and April job figures according to the latest data from the US Dept of Labor. Now, instead of having to create 166,667 new jobs per month to reach his original target of 4 million new jobs, President Obama now needs to create 684,444 jobs per month -- in order to make up for the more than 2 million jobs that were lost since the stimulus bill was signed. He still has a long way to go to reach his target.

I am sorry to once again report that I was not one of those fortunate 20,000 who found work in May. I should also point out that, in my opinion, the recent upturn in job gains has had little or nothing to do with Obama's Stimulus Package. Rather, it was the result of a natural economic recovery which would have occurred anyway. In fact, this recovery cycle has been longer than most in history. In other words, we were overdue for a turnaround.

I would go even further and suggest that the policies of this President and this Congress have only acted to slow the recovery.

This Was The Moment

2010-06-13T09:48:00.001-04:00

Another one of my videos. Watch it now before it gets pulled for copyright violations...

The Usurper

2010-06-07T20:14:00.003-04:00

Another one of my videos. Something to think about...

Or, you can see a larger version at YouTube here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mGs2RQpW-Q

Memorial Day Tribute To America's Heroes

2010-05-29T20:58:00.001-04:00

This Present Darkness

2010-05-27T11:13:00.003-04:00

My motivation for writing this came from a fellow-blogger. Here are a few excerpts from a recent article of his...

Let's see: four students in a Californication high school got suspended on 5 May because they wore American-flag-logo tee-shirts to class...

A 6th-grader in Texas was sentenced to a week of detention because she was in possession of a single Gummy Bear, in violation of the state school's "zero-tolerance" policy.

A War memorial, in the configuration of a cross, was finally freed from its plywood cover after the Supreme Court ruled it is legal to display on public property. A few days later, it was stolen.

In spite of only running about ten pages - depending on what font you use to print it out - the Arizona law has not been read by [President Obama], the attorney general, or Minister of Homeland Security Napolitano, among others. Nevertheless, they keep up the "Nazi!" police-state rhetoric...

So, we slam Jan Brewer and Arizona domestically, then apologize to the Chinese, of all people, and allow Mexican president Calderon to stand before a joint session of Congress and bad-mouth us for "racial profiling"...

Meanwhile, I think the Gulf of Mexico has stopped burning, but the level of toxic "oil dispersants" is rising by the hour...

Nothing - not the most optimistic visions of George Lucas, or the grimmest prognostications of Phillip K. Dick - could have prepared me for what we're living through today. Food police, thought police, subservience by the greatest power on earth, religious persecution and 16th century holy war, leaders obsessed with becoming reality-show celebrities, dynastic totalitarian nuclear threats, and planetary upheavals like volcanoes and oil leaks. Incompetence is a virtue, faith is a vice, reality is a politically malleable entity, and common sense is a myth.

I've never seen anything like it in my damn life.

--Possumtrot, Spring Fever and Small Outrages, 25 May 2010

It's enough to make you ask: "What the hell is going on?" I hear that question a lot these days - on the blogs, on TV, from my friends and neighbors, and even from complete strangers. So what the hell IS going on?

Some people write it off to incompetent politicians. Others to the failure of Liberal programs and policies. Some blame it on "Chicago politics". Some see more sinister plots and conspiracies by international Socialists and Marxists.

Frankly, I'm inclined toward the latter - conspiracy theories, that is. But not so much a conspiracy of international Socialists or Marxists, as much as a conspiracy of more epic proportions. The "conspiracy" to which I refer, is the one outlined in the Bible. It concerns the devil, and goes back to dawn of creation...

In the Bible, we see that before God created mankind or even the earth itself, He had already created angels...

[God asks Job]: "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? ...when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" --Job 38:4,7

And we are elsewhere told that the greatest of these "morning stars" or "sons of God" was known as "Lucifer", which means: "Day Star, Son of Dawn" (Isaiah 14:12). Lucifer we learn, was a beautiful creature who eventually succumbed to the sin of pride...

Thus says the Lord GOD: "You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, carnelian, topaz, and jasper, chrysolite, beryl, and onyx, sapphire, carbuncle, and emerald; and wrought in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared. With an anointed guardian cherub I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you. In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned; so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God, and the guardian cherub drove you out from the midst of the stones of fire. Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor. --Ezekiel 28:12b-17a

So then, what was the "iniquity" that was found in Lucifer? What was the act he performed that incurred God's wrath? It was no less than an attempt to make himself equal to God. Lucifer sought to be worshiped by the other angels. He wanted to place a throne for himself in heaven next to God's.

How you are fallen from heaven, O [Lucifer] Day Star, Son of Dawn! How you are cut down... You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High.' --Isaiah 14:12a, 13-14

But Lucifer failed in his attempt. God cast out Lucifer "as a profane thing". In anger, Lucifer turned a third of the angels against God. When God created mankind, Lucifer turned them against God. He tempted Adam and Eve to sin, saying "when you eat of it [the fruit] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God". And so mankind succumbed to the same sin as Lucifer himself - the sin of pride. They ate the fruit because they wanted to "be like God".

Since then, Lucifer has been known as "Satan", which means "Adversary" or "Enemy". Satan is God's enemy and has been since the dawn of creation. Satan has continually sought to: corrupt God's creation; turn man against God; kill and maim; wreak havoc and destruction; spread evil, lies and disease; tempt, manipulate and enslave humans.

It is Satan and his wicked angels who cause death. [Yes, God "permits" it, but Satan "performs" it.] Jesus called Satan "a murderer from the beginning" (John 8:44).

It is Satan who causes violence. In the passage we read a moment ago, we saw that "violence" is a part of Satan's "trade" (Ezekiel 24:16).

It is Satan who causes crime. We see this in the Book of Job. In one case, Satan incites the Sabeans to steal Job's oxen and asses and then to slay his servants "with the edge of the sword" (Job 1:15). In another case, Satan incites the Chaldeans to steal Job's camels and then to slay the servants who were tending them (Job 1:17).

It is Satan who causes disease. In Job 2:7 we read: "So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD, and afflicted Job with loathsome sores from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head."

It is even Satan who causes "natural" disasters. In Job 1:18, Satan creates a great windstorm to destroy the home of Job's eldest son, where it just so happens that all of Job's sons and daughters are gathered - and perish. In Job 1:16, Satan uses fire to destroy Job's sheep and shepards.

[Editor's Note: All of Job's "friends" and even one of his servants wanted to blame everything on God. A servant describes the fire that killed the sheep as "fire of God [that] fell from heaven". Job's "friends" try to convince him that he must have sinned and that God is punishing him (even though God describes Job as "blameless and upright"). Even Job's wife tells him to "Curse God, and die." Isn't that what people still do today... try to blame everything on God? They refer to natural disasters as "an act of God". They "curse God" for everything bad that happens.]

It was Satan who raised up evil empires like those of the Romans and the Persians (and more recent ones like those of Hitler and Stalin). He tempts humans "to set their throne" above other men, to "be like God". He uses their armies to kill and slaughter millions of people. He uses their political power to enslave people.

It is Satan who spreads lies. Jesus said: "the devil... has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44).

And it is Satan who hates America. America is the last great bastion of Judeo-Christian values in the world, and it drives the devil nuts. Satan seeks to subvert America, its heritage, its wealth and therefore, its generosity. He makes use of the "godless" among us to pervert that which is good, clean and honorable. He incites people and organizations to crush our freedoms, restrict our worship, belittle our patriotism, and silence our voices.

To summarize then, THAT is what "the hell" is going on. Our civilization is daily being accosted by Satan and his wicked spiritual host. We are struggling against the devil and the evil he spews out upon us...

For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. --Ephesians 6:12

We are commanded by Jesus to keep fighting the good fight. We are commanded to remain "the salt of the earth". In the days of Jesus, salt was used as a preservative to prevent meat from going rancid. We Christians are the "salt" that prevents "the earth" from going rancid. We are commanded to be the "light of the world", to bring "enlightenment" to a world in darkness...

You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men. You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. --Matthew 5:13-16

If you think things are bad now, just wait... they will get worse. How do we know that? Because of the epic "conspiracy theory" that has been outlined for us in the Bible. The Bible tells us that as we get closer to the end of this age - the Age of Human Government - things will go from bad to worse. Wickedness will multiply. Men's love for one another will grow cold. Christians will be hated by all nations. And then, after the worst is over, when it appears that evil has triumphed over good, Christ Himself will intervene and set up a new government on earth. It will be no human government, but the Kingdom of God. It will be a kingdom of peace and justice and righteousness...

Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. And then many will fall away, and betray one another, and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because wickedness is multiplied, most men's love will grow cold. But he who endures to the end will be saved... Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken; then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory --Matthew 24:9-13, 29-30

And the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this. --Isaiah 9:6b-7

Thus, the great "conspiracy theory" has been laid out from beginning to end. The world is dying because of the repeated failures of human government. We are watching it die before our very eyes. We must stand tall and do what we can to try and slow the process, but He who is infinite and eternal has seen the end already. He has not only "seen the movie and read the book"... He WROTE "the Book". He has already lived through the events and watched them transpire.

More importantly, He has chosen to warn us about them. He has chosen to warn us that Christians and Jews will be persecuted in the last days by another religion. A religion that only bears the appearance of religion. A religion that espouses violence and murders its opponents. A religion that believes in a false god... a god who is none other than the devil himself.

God has chosen to warn us that there will be false christs and false prophets misleading the world with "deceptive signs and wonders". He has chosen to warn us that things will get desperate; so desperate that it will seem as if Jesus will never return; so desperate that Christians will fall away from the faith in great numbers; so desperate that anyone without the "Mark of the Beast" will not be able to "buy or sell" in those days; so desperate that Christians will go to their death for not pledging allegiance to the Antichrist.

But don't get too worried yet. I personally do not believe that these things will happen too soon. The Bible teaches us that no one knows "the day and hour" of Christ's return. Yet, though we may not know the exact "day and hour", I think we can get a good idea of the general timeframe.

Sir Isaac Newton believed that Christ's Second Coming would not take place before the year 2060. That date is only 50 years away, and so far it appears as if he may be correct. It is not well known that Newton's first passion was the Bible, and that science was a somewhat distant second. Newton considered himself to be one of a select group of individuals who were specially chosen by God for the task of understanding Biblical scripture, and he was a strong believer in prophetic interpretation of the Bible.

Newton's claim that the Second Coming would not take place before the year 2060 was based on a number of calculations he made regarding the interpretation of various passages that refer to "days", where the "days" (according to Newton and others) are meant to be interpreted as "years". According to his calculations, Newton felt that the very soonest Christ could return was 2060 AD (or A.C. as Newton referred to it).

[This age] may end later, but I see no reason for its ending sooner. This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fancifull men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, & by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail. --Sir Isaac Newton, Yahuda MS 7.3g, f. 13v

I bring up Newton's claim because: 1) I have only recently learned of it, and 2) I agree with at least one of Newton's calculations. Among his calculations, Newton specifically refers to the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14. The prophecy in question speaks of 2300 days ("evenings and mornings") during which the Temple in Jerusalem will have been defiled...

Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to the one that spoke, "For how long is the vision concerning the continual burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled under foot?" And he said to him, "For two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state." --Daniel 8:13-14

There are only two dates that could be considered for the "giving over of the sanctuary... to be trampled under foot." The most obvious would be 70 AD when the Temple was destroyed by the Romans. An earlier date might be 167 BC when Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Temple. So then, 2300 years from 70 AD would yield a date of 2370 AD. Conversely, 2300 years from 167 BC would yield a date of 2132 AD...

Therefore the 2300 years do not end before [the] year 2132 nor after 2370. --Sir Isaac Newton, Yahuda MS 7.3o, f. 8r

This happens to be what I believe, that is, that Christ's Second Coming cannot come before 2132 AD at the earliest, and possibly not until 2370 AD. And although that might seem distant, 2132 is really just around the corner. You and I may not be there to see it, but in the grand scheme of things, it is not a distant date.

Consider what must happen before Christ's Second Coming from a Biblical perspective. Among other things, Christians and Jews must become despised the world over. Though the Jews may seem to be well on their way towards reaching that goal, they still have a friend in America (if not in this administration).

Since the time of Jesus, Christianity has mostly been in the ascendancy. As recently as 1789 years after the birth of Jesus, an entire nation - the U.S. - was founded upon the principles and values of Christianity. It wasn't until the late 1800s that anti-Christian movements like those of the liberal theologians, Karl Marx and Charles Darwin took root. It wasn't until the 1920s that the anti-Christian "Progressive" movement became active.

Thus, the devil knows his time may be short. He may have as little as 120 years to: 1) destroy America, 2) turn the entire world against Christianity, 3) grow and popularize a false religion that persecutes Jews and Christians, and 4) create the framework for a one-world government that will allow the Antichrist (possessed by Satan himself) to step into the role of world leader.

That's a big agenda, even with 120 years to accomplish it. That's only 2 or 3 generations from now (depending on how you calculate it). And that's why I think that Satan is ratcheting-up his actions. He's on a tight schedule towards world domination, and the only thing stopping him is us.

The Health Care Equation

2010-05-23T12:52:00.006-04:00

I tried to reduce the new health care situation into a basic equation. There may be some redundancy here (ie, new taxes will pay for new govt. agencies), but I think you get the point...

You can think about the new health care situation as a mathematical equation, where...

Future costs = $F
Existing costs = $E
New patient costs (base) = $NPb
New patient costs (illegals) = $NPi
Pre-existing conditions = $PE
159 New Govt agencies = $USG
Fines & Penalties = $FP
New Taxes = $NT
Lost Tax Deductions = $LTD
Lost Jobs = $LJ
More Medicaid = $MM
Fewer Doctors = $MD
Increased waiting times = $WT
Interest on the debt = $ID
Regulatory Cost Caps = $RCC
Care Rationing = $CR

$F = $E + $NPb + $NPi + $PE + $USG + $FP + $NT + $LTD + $LJ + $MM + $MD + $WT + $ID - $RCC - $CR

In other words, Future costs = Existing costs + the cost of new patients who go onto the health care rolls + the costs of illegals who become new patients when ObamAmensty is passed + the cost to insurance companies for having to accept pre-existing conditions + the cost of 159 new government agencies + the cost of fines and penalties on individuals and organizations that do not comply with the law + the cost of new taxes on individuals (making more than $250,000) and businesses (passed on to the consumers) + the cost of lost tax deductions to businesses + the cost of jobs lost through disincentives + the increased costs of Medicaid + the cost to the economy of fewer doctors going into the system and more doctors quitting (because they can't make ends meet) + the cost of longer waiting times due to more patients and fewer doctors (time is money) + the cost of interest on the debt (when deficit spending and reality kick in) - the cost of insurance premiums (that would have been higher in a free market) due to cost caps imposed by new health regulatory agencies - the costs saved by the rationing of health care.

I seem to note a lot more "+"s than "-"s. And the implication of the "-"s is not very heartening.

Stop the FCC

2010-05-12T13:44:00.001-04:00

Stimulus Spending And Job Growth: Update 11

2010-05-09T12:46:00.003-04:00

Well, here we go again. Time to update Obama's stimulus-driven job creation results. Let's look at the latest picture. In April, the economy created 290,000 jobs, and the March figures were revised upwards from 162,000 to 230,000 new jobs. Sounds good, right? Well, the bad news is that 800,000 "discouraged" workers decided to come back into the labor force looking for work, so despite these job gains the unemployment rate actually went up from 9.7% to 9.9%.

Barack Obama said his stimulus package would create approximately 4 million "new" jobs over two years. In order to create 4 million jobs in 24 months, the Obama administration would have had to create approximately 166,667 jobs per month to reach his target, assuming linear job growth. That scenario is shown as violet in the following graph.

I developed a curve showing what I thought might be a more "Likely" scenario -- plotted as light blue in the following graph. As you can see from the graph, the actual trend of job losses was somewhat worse than I had predicted -- plotted as yellow and red. The jobless rate continues to generally follow the trajectory I had originally envisioned, despite the recent uptick in job growth.

I have revised the February and March job figures according to the latest data from the US Dept of Labor. It appears that job growth at this point is somewhat stronger than I had anticipated, and if the trend continues job growth may accelerate faster than my slow, steady projection. Only time will tell.

Yet, instead of having to create 166,667 new jobs per month to reach his original target of 4 million new jobs, President Obama now needs to create 615,800 jobs per month -- in order to make up for the more than 2 million jobs that were lost since the stimulus bill was signed. He still has a long way to go to reach his target.

I am sorry to once again report that I was not one of the fortunate 290,000 who found work in April. I should also point out that, in my opinion, the recent turnaround from job losses to job gains has little or nothing to do with Obama's Stimulus Package. Rather, it is the result of natural economic recovery, which would have occurred anyway. In fact, this recovery cycle has been longer than most in history. In other words, we were overdue for a turnaround.

Hide The Decline

2010-05-09T10:59:00.001-04:00

Here are the facts...

Hide The Decline II

2010-05-09T10:52:00.003-04:00

Here is the spoof...

New Arizona Law Nets Undocumented Aliens

2010-04-28T11:25:00.001-04:00

Click to enlarge

The VAT Is Coming

2010-04-26T13:20:00.007-04:00

Get ready folks, the VAT (or Value Added Tax) is coming. Of all taxes, this one is perhaps the most obnoxious. If Obama and the Democrats have anything to say, it will most certainly be coming to a location near you... your wallet or purse that is.

The VAT
What is a Value Added Tax? In short, it is nothing more than a National Sales Tax. You probably now pay a State Sales Tax, and perhaps even a Municipal Sales Tax whenever you buy something. Get ready to start paying more for everything, perhaps as much as 5% more.

Here in New Jersey, the State Sales Tax is 7%, so another 5% would mean a total sales tax burden of 12% on every purchase. You can calculate for yourself what the new tax burden would be where you live. But it gets worse than that.

A VAT is designed to tax EVERY sale. It taxes every step of the production process from beginning to end; in other words, wherever value is added. Therefore, the more steps there are in a production process, the more expensive the final product becomes.

Allow me to illustrate with a simple example. If you buy stone directly from a quarry, you will only have to pay the VAT once to cover that single purchase. However, if there is an intermediary such as a home improvement store, you will have to pay the VAT twice. The store will pay a VAT on the purchase from the quarry, pass on that cost to you, and then you will have to pay another VAT on your purchase from the store.

Of course, nothing is quite as simple as that. Stores buy in volume and get reduced costs from their suppliers, so my simple example might not be the best. But I think you get the idea. Costs start to add up, especially in manufacturing processes with long supply chains. The VAT can be an insidious price inflator. Think about this example...

An auto manufacturer buys seat belts from Supplier A, batteries from Supplier B, and tires from Supplier C. The auto manufacturer has to pay a VAT on each of those purchases.

In order to make the seat belts, Supplier A has to purchase nylon fibers, metal components for the buckles, labeling materials, springs for the retraction mechanism, packaging and so on. Each one of those purchases requires another VAT payment.

In order to make the batteries, Supplier B has to purchase plastic for the casing, metal posts for the electrodes, metallic plates that go in the cells, acid solution that goes into the cells, packaging and so on. Each one of those purchases requires another VAT payment.

In order to make the tires, Supplier C has to purchase the rubber, the belting material that strengthens the tire, various rubber additives, inks or dyes for labeling, packaging and so on. Again, each purchase comes with a VAT payment.

And on it goes. Suppliers have suppliers, and those suppliers have suppliers. Each supplier pays a VAT and naturally, passes on their costs to the customer. The net result is that an automobile will cost substantially more. The consumer will pay a VAT on the finished product as well as the accumulated VATs of all the vendors in the supply chain.

Clue #1
So, why do I think the VAT is coming? Simple really. There are two major clues. Clue #1 is that the media is starting to talk about this subject in a really serious way. I'll get back to Clue #2 in a minute.

The fact that the media is starting to talk about this issue suggests that the administration has been leaking information to the media and is using them to prepare us for the bad news. The media is just doing their job and following up on the leaks, but the administration is manipulating them. They are implementing a game plan that will end up with the VAT going into effect.

Here's how it works. The administration will orchestrate the media in 3 stages. Stage 1 is "Denial". That's where we are right now. When asked about whether or not the White House is considering a VAT, the answer is "NO". Robert Gibbs says a VAT is not "currently" under consideration. President Obama says a VAT is not "currently" under consideration. But guess what, if the media keeps asking about it, then maybe it should come under consideration. The media conveniently becomes the source for the idea rather than the White House itself.

Stage 2 will be "Protracted Debate" about the relative advantages and disadvantages of a VAT. Some pundits will argue that a VAT will hurt the little guy. Others will say it's a good solution to our deficit problem. Still others will say it's "fair" because everyone participates. Some will argue that it will raise prices and hurt the economy. Others will say, if you don't want to pay the VAT, then don't buy anything (as if that were possible).

Then the debate will shift from whether or not a VAT "SHOULD" be imposed, to how a VAT "COULD" be imposed. There will be editorials and TV segments telling us that "IF" we impose a VAT, then we will need to exempt certain necessities like food and clothing, or exempt certain individuals who make less than so much per year. Others will argue that fine dining in restaurants, and luxury clothing like mink stoles or designer dresses can't be exempted because they aren't "necessities".

This kind of debate will provide the impetus for lawmakers to start carving out territory as to where they stand on the issue. "I'm for THIS!" or "I'm against THAT!" is what we'll hear. Blah, blah, blah. Same old, same old.

Stage 3 will be the "Declaration of Crisis", but that will not come until after the mid-term elections in November. Serious talk about a VAT before the elections would make the situation for Democrats even more catastrophic than it already is.

But after the elections are over, then the administration will declare that there is a CRISIS. "We have huge deficits", they will say, even though this administration did everything in its power to exacerbate those deficits. "The Chinese don't want to buy our T-Bills", is what we'll hear. "We have to do SOMETHING, and we have to do it NOW!"

Clue #2
The timing of Stage 3 will conveniently coincide with a report that comes out from the "Deficit Reduction Commission" created by President Obama under an Executive Order. The official title of the Commission is the "National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform" or NCFRR. Obama's creation of that commission is actually Clue #2 that a VAT is on the way.

Think about it. Of what use is a "Deficit Reduction Commission"? Everyone knows how to reduce the deficit. There are only three options: 1) cut spending, 2) raise taxes, or 3) some combination thereof. Therefore, Obama must have some ulterior motive for creating such a commission.

At the moment, Congress has no backbone or appetite for cutting spending, raising taxes, or any combination thereof. They only want to borrow and spend. Thus, when Barack Obama asked Congress to legislate a deficit reduction commission into existence, they refused. That's when Obama decided to create the NCFRR via Executive Order.

Why is Obama so keen on having such a commission? Because he needs it to create cover for himself when he imposes the new VAT tax (or any other taxes he might have in mind). Throughout his 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama made a "firm pledge" not to raise "any form" of taxes on families making less than $250,000 per year. The imposition of a new VAT tax would be an obvious violation of that pledge. Therefore, he needs someone to blame it on. The NCFRR will be his scapegoat.

The NCFRR will come out with a "bi-partisan" report that will say: 1) cut spending, 2) raise taxes, or 3) some combination thereof. No surprise there, but the report will no doubt state that spending cuts are difficult to accomplish. It will state the obvious, that 60% or more of the federal budget is made up of entitlement programs. It will tell us that a big chunk of discretionary spending is dedicated to the military, and we are fighting two wars, so it is difficult to cut military spending.

The report will no doubt go on to say that even if all the non-military discretionary spending were cut, unless we made "painful" cuts to the entitlement programs it would still not be enough to close the budget deficit. Therefore, the report will say that "an important component of deficit reduction" is to raise taxes, and the VAT will be one of the taxes they offer for consideration.

The report will cite all the advantages of a VAT that have been discussed on TV and in the press ad nauseum. The report will downplay the negatives of a VAT. The report will recommend certain exclusions and/or exemptions "if" a VAT is put into place.

President Obama will then declare that "SOMETHING must be done, and done NOW!" He will say, "Look, I didn't want to raise taxes, but hey, I didn't come here to do the easy job. I came here to do the tough job. So... it's tough, but I've got to raise taxes. It wasn't my idea. It was a bi-partisan commission that came up with that one." And then the Democrats will shove it down our throats just like health care.

Conclusion
This is all hypothetical of course, and there is no guarantee that it will happen exactly this way. Just when you think you can see the future, your eyes start playing tricks on you. But it is certainly one of the possible alternate realities we face.

I believe that there is little hope of preventing the implementation of a new VAT tax unless a few things happen. First, the Republicans would have to take back both houses of Congress in November, and that's a long shot. If the Democrats remain in power, they will figure out some way, some trick, some scheme to shove a VAT down our throats.

Second, if the Republicans do take back control of Congress, they will have to avoid falling into the same trap of "taking the easy way out" and going for a VAT tax themselves. If past history is any indication, then Republicans can be guaranteed to lose sight of their conservative values at some point after taking control. Hopefully it will be later rather than sooner.

Third, the Tea Party movement and conservative organizations will need to continue their struggle to make themselves heard over the opposition. They need to find a way to be heard by the masses that only listen to the silence or the lunatic rantings of the paleo-stream media.

Fourth, we will need to pray. We need to ask God to forgive the sins of our country, for the slaughter of the unborn, for the sex and the violence, and for our failures as an individual and a nation. We need to ask God to "deliver us from evil" and to protect us from those who would enslave us -- either wittingly or unwittingly. We need to pray that our leaders will have the wisdom to see clearly and the courage to act decisively for the good of the nation, and not their own re-election chances. We need to ask God to help us find our way back to the intentions of the Founding Fathers -- a country that glorifies Him and liberates the individual.

That's my story, and I'm sticking with it.

No One Is Raising Taxes Right Now

2010-04-16T11:36:00.003-04:00

Hat-tip to Hankmeister for this one...

Obama's Bizarro World

2010-04-12T11:18:00.003-04:00

Hat-tip to Hankmeister for inspiration...

For those of us who were kids in the 1960's and liked to read comic books, the "Bizarro World" of Superman lore is unforgettable. It is a strange cube-shaped world where everything is supposed to be the opposite of life on earth. People on Bizarro World live according to the Bizarro Code...

Bizarro World is also known as the planet "Htrae", or "Earth" spelled backwards. On Bizarro World, the tires on their cars are square rather than round. Buying Bizarro bonds are "Guaranteed to lose money for you". Being called "stupid" is considered a great compliment. People make it a practice to use the worst grammar possible. And they enter through exits, and exit through entrances...

Well, having Barack Obama as President is kind of like having an inhabitant from Bizarro World in the White House. Consider the following...

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, taking an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" really means doing everything in your power to circumvent that Constitution because you think it is "fundamentally flawed".

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, saying that you are "not a socialist" really means "it's good to spread the wealth around" and have a voting record to left of avowed socialist Bernie Sanders.

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, saying that you are "not an idealogue" really means that you will fight against all obstacles to get your legislation passed, no matter the cost to your poll numbers or your party's future, and despite a majority of Americans rejecting it.

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, saying that you will not raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year really means that you are about to impose a new cigarette tax on the average smoker who earns $40,000 a year.

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, saying that you will not raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year really means that you will tax various companies who will then pass on those costs to the taxpayer.

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, saying that you do not want to run an auto company really means that you have just seized control of GM, fired the CEO, told them what kind of cars to build, and you now maintain a 60% controlling interest.

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, "energy independence" means not using energy sources we own, making electricity rates "skyrocket", bankrupting coal-fired power plants, replacing reliable energy sources with weather-dependent sources, inflating your car tires, and expanding oil and gas exploration (but not permitting any drilling).

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, saying that we have the worst economy since the Great Depression really means that it's time to push a legislative agenda that creates uncertainty for industry, increases the cost of doing business, and raises taxes on everyone.

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, saying that unemployment will not rise above 8% really means that unemployment will hit 10%.

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, saying that you will create almost 4 million new jobs really means that you will lose nearly 3 million jobs.

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, saying that you want to "stimulate the economy" really means that you want to spend billions of dollars on government agencies "overwhelmingly" in Democratic districts.

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, saying that we need "earmark reform" really means that you are about to sign a spending bill that has over 8,000 earmarks in it.

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, saying that we must address deficit spending really means that you are about to propose a budget of $3.6 trillion which is half a trillion more than last year's budget and of which fully one third is deficit spending.

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, saying that we must address deficit spending really means that it's time to launch a new entitlement program.

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, saying that health care reform is "deficit neutral" really means that 10 years of taxes should cover 6 years of benefits.

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, "saving Medicare" means arbitrarily cutting $500 billion out of its budget.

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, "saving money" means cutting Medicare and spending that money somewhere else.

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, "budget cuts" really mean "tax increases".

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, working in a "bipartisan manner" means passing all of your legislation with few or no Republican votes.

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, "transparency" means hiding your birth certificate, your college records and all of your writings.

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, "openness" means conducting negotiations behind closed doors.

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, announcing the closure of Gitmo within one year really means that you will begin thinking about ways to do that, and maybe not doing it after all.

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, saying that you will not prosecute CIA personnel really means that within 24 hours you will order Attorney General Holder to consider prosecuting CIA personnel.

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, saying that you will issue a "strong response" to North Korea for firing ballistic missiles aimed at Hawaii really means that you are about to cut the budget for missile defense systems.

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, saying you want to improve education really means that you want to kill the school voucher program that allows poor kids to get a better education.

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, you announce a troop increase in Afghanistan at the same time you announce a planned withdrawal date.

I could go on and on (trust me), but I think you get the point. Allow me to leave you with one final example which sums things up...

In the Bizarro world of Barack Obama, wealth is a crime and should be punished; poverty is noble and should be rewarded; government is good and should be expanded; government officials are power brokers and not public servants; the Constitution is flawed and should be circumvented; unions are a source of power that should be harnessed; We The People are dangerous and must be contained.

So where's Superman when you need him?

Stimulus Spending And Job Growth: Update 10

2010-04-10T10:33:00.003-04:00

Well, here we are again. Time to update of Obama's stimulus-driven job creation results. Let's look at the picture for March. Barack Obama said his stimulus package would create approximately 4 million "new jobs" over two years. In order to create 4 million jobs in 24 months, the Obama administration would have had to create approximately 166,667 jobs per month to reach this target, assuming linear job growth. That scenario is shown as violet in the following graph.

I developed a curve showing what I thought might be a more "Likely" scenario -- plotted as light blue in the following graph. As you can see from the graph, the actual trend of job losses is somewhat worse than I had predicted -- plotted as yellow and red. The jobless rate continues to generally follow the trajectory I had originally envisioned.

I have revised the January and February job figures according to the latest data from the US Dept of Labor. In January, 14,000 jobs were gained. In February, an equal amount or 14,000 jobs were lost. In March, a higher than expected 162,000 jobs were gained.

Instead of having to create 166,667 new jobs per month to reach his original target of 4 million new jobs, President Obama now needs to create 597,181 jobs per month -- in order to make up for the nearly 2.6 million jobs that have been lost since the stimulus bill was signed.

I was not one of the fortunate 162,000 but continue to remain unemployed.

Five Years Old

2010-04-10T10:06:00.003-04:00

It's hard to believe, but "View From Above" is 5 years old today. Whew, what a ride! It's been a strange journey to say the least. In my mind, this blog has gone through a number of phases. Briefly...

Following in the footsteps of my hero -- Scott Ott -- it started out mostly as satire. I soon realized however, that satire is REALLY hard, and frankly, I'm not that good at it. It went through an advocacy phase, where I pushed causes and petitions. And following the success of my "Top Ten Looney Liberal Idiots" article, it went through the "Looney Liberal of the Week" phase.

It went through a Photoshop phase, where I played with pics a lot. It went through a 'weighty' phase, where I tried to write more intellectual pieces (but I'm not too good at that either). After writing an article called "The Fallacy of 'Climate Change'", it went through the "Global Warming News" phase. Lately, I've been into the video-making phase.

The blog has seen its ups and downs in readership. It's been fairly steady for the last year as seen in the following chart...

I want to thank all of my constant "Viewers", and especially those who leave comments. I know there are more "Viewers" than "Commenters", and that's OK. It takes a little extra time and effort to go through the process of composing a comment, and there is so much to see on the Internet... and so little time.

Special thanks to my extended ScrappleFamily, whom I regularly pester with e-mails about articles and videos. Thanks for putting up with me.

--Mr. Eye, Proprietor

Obama's Top Ten Jokes

2010-04-10T09:05:00.002-04:00

Here's my latest video creation...

Or, you can watch a larger version at YouTube here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNe-ygmz6Mg

He Died For You

2010-04-03T08:42:00.001-04:00

I'm re-posting this for Easter...

You might like the YouTube version better. Go HERE.

Socialist Trek II: The Wrath of Obama

2010-04-01T17:49:00.002-04:00

My latest video creation. This is a parody that I'm sure all Tea Party people who are also Star Trek fans (Trekkies) will appreciate...

Or, you can watch a larger version at YouTube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9Z_mDVTNNs

Obama Health Care Lies

2010-03-20T11:31:00.001-04:00

Inspired by an e-mail from Hankmeister...

The fact that President Obama can lie about this health care bill with a straight face shows just how devious, deceptive and dangerous this man really is...

--"You can keep your doctor" (unless your doctor is one of the 33-50% who threaten to leave medicine if this bill passes)

--"You can keep your insurance if you like it" (unless your health insurance company goes bankrupt or your employer dumps your plan)

--"premiums will fall by 14 to 20 percent", or "premiums will fall by 3,000 percent" [take your pick]

--"this plan will reduce the deficit by $138 billion over 10 years" (if you use 'fuzzy math')

--"taxes won't go up on ANYONE making less than $250,000" (but taxes will go up on health insurance companies, medical device makers, etc. and they will pass their costs on to you the consumer)

--"We're going to save Medicare by cutting $500 billion out of the program" (and get rid of the Medicare Advantage program that seniors like)

--"We're going to cut waste, fraud, abuse and inefficiency out of Medicare" (don't hold your breath)

--"Health care won't be rationed" (yeah, right... trust me)

--"Quality of service won't deteriorate" (while we provide coverage for 30 million more people, lose 33-50% of doctors, and government bureaucrats tell us what services we can or can't have... OK, if you say so)

--"We're not going to kill Granny" (we're just going to stand by and watch her die)

--"Doctors perform too many tests", yet... "Tort reform isn't important"

--"It's just like car insurance" (except that you don't need to buy car insurance as a condition of being a U.S. citizen)

--"Illegal aliens won't benefit from this" (except that health insurance companies won't have any capability to prove an applicant is illegal)

--"Health care costs won't go up" (are you on drugs man!)

I'm beginning to think Obama is a pathological liar.

Think Paine

2010-03-17T13:49:00.002-04:00

I have heretofore likewise mentioned the necessity of a large and equal representation; and there is no political matter which more deserves our attention. A small number of electors, or a small number of representatives, are equally dangerous. But if the number of the representatives be not only small, but unequal, the danger is increased. --Thomas Paine, COMMON SENSE

Thomas Paine penned these words before the Declaration of Independence was even framed, but they are no less valid today. He suggested the need for a balance in government, where the "electors" (ie, the populace) are represented in Congress by a large number of delegates. In fact, he thought that a House of Representatives should be composed of at least (390) delegates, no less than (30) for each of the (13) colonies. If Paine's ideas had been instituted, that would mean that today's (50) United States would be represented by no less than (1500) House members versus the paltry (435) we have today.

Paine likewise envisioned that every law that was passed would require a 3/5th majority. In today's Congress, that would mean (60) out of (100) Senators, and (261) out of (435) House members would need to vote in favor of every piece of legislation. NO law could be passed with a simple majority.

The rationale for Paine's thinking is obvious. A "large representation" reflects greater accuracy of sentiment among the electorate. A 3/5th majority vote reflects greater consensus on any proposed legislation. Paine, and many others of his day, were concerned with the possible concentration of power in the hands of a few. They were likewise concerned that laws might be enacted without "the consent of the governed".

When the First Congress was inaugurated in 1789, there were Thirteen Colonies, (26) Senators, and (65) House members. The first U.S. census of 1790 recorded 4 million Americans. Today, America's population is over 308 million represented by only (100) Senators and (435) House members. In other words, while the country's population has increased by a factor of 77, the number of Senators has increased by a factor of less than 4, and the number of House members has increased by a factor of less than 7.

I am sure that Thomas Paine would have argued that the First Congress was already inadequate to represent the electorate. Conditions have not improved since then. The situation which Paine and others feared, has come to pass. That is, that power is being concentrated into the hands of a few. The number of representatives per number of electorate is smaller than ever, and therefore "the danger is increased".

Paine goes on to describe an event in the colony of Pennsylvania where, "A set of instructions for their delegates were put together, which in point of sense and business would have dishonoured a school-boy, and after being approved by a few, a very few, ...were carried into the house, and there passed IN BEHALF OF THE WHOLE COLONY" (emphasis in original). That a few people in the legislature should use tactics that would "dishonor a school-boy" in order to effect their views over those of the majority was repulsive and offensive to Thomas Paine, as it should be to us.

The Democrats in Congress today are not only a small group of people who represent a large electorate, but they have become "unequal" as well. They control not only the House and the Senate, but the Presidency. While this may be legitimate under U.S. law, it is nonetheless "dangerous" as Thomas Paine would attest. An even smaller group of liberals within the ranks of those Democratic legislators appear poised to impose their views on the entire nation. Hence, "If the number of the representatives be not only small, but unequal, the danger is increased."

If Thomas Paine were alive today, he would no doubt decry the situation in which we find ourselves. He would argue that the people are not adequately represented. He would argue that power has been concentrated in the hands of a few. He would argue that this situation is "dangerous". He would argue the need for a 3/5th majority vote on each and every law. He would denounce the tactics being employed in the Congress. He would denounce "reconciliation" whereby a major piece of legislation affecting 1/6th of the U.S. economy can be passed with only a simple majority. And he would vehemently denounce the "Slaughter Solution", whereby the House can "deem" a bill to be passed without even voting on it.

What has America come to? Have we no COMMON SENSE? "There is no political matter which more deserves our attention."

Stimulus Spending And Job Growth: Update 9

2010-03-06T15:51:00.003-05:00

Well, as promised, I was more timely this month in my update of Obama's stimulus-driven job creation results. With that, let's look at the picture for February. Barack Obama said his stimulus package would create approximately 4 million "new jobs" over two years. In order to create 4 million jobs in 24 months, the Obama administration would have had to create approximately 166,667 jobs per month to reach this target, assuming linear job growth. That scenario is shown as violet in the following graph.

I developed a curve showing what I thought might be a more "Likely" scenario -- plotted as light blue in the following graph. As you can see from the graph, the actual trend of job losses is somewhat worse than I had predicted -- plotted as yellow and red. While the jobless rate continues to generally follow the trajectory I had originally envisioned, it now seems to be diverging at a greater pace. The gradual uptick in job growth I anticipated has not occurred.

I have revised the December and January job figures according to the latest data from the US Dept of Labor. In December, 109,000 jobs were lost. In January, 26,000 jobs were lost. And in February, 36,000 jobs were lost.

Instead of having to create 166,667 new jobs per month to reach his original target of 4 million new jobs, President Obama now needs to create 566,083 jobs per month -- in order to make up for the nearly 2.9 million jobs that have been lost since the stimulus bill was signed.

Don't hold your breath.

Obama: A Man of Class

2010-03-04T12:29:00.002-05:00

I couldn't help but notice a recurring pattern in the words and actions of Barack Obama which led me to the following thoughts...

In the world of Barack Obama, nearly everything seems to be a "class struggle". It's the poor against the rich, the haves against the have-nots, the exploited against the exploiters. It's labor versus management, consumers versus the capitalists, and sometimes even blacks against whites. You can see it in nearly every speech or statement he makes. It's the little guy on Main Street versus the Fat-Cats on Wall Street. It's the innocent patient versus the devious, tonsil-removing, limb-amputating doctors. It's the sick and dying versus the greedy, inhuman, health insurance providers. It's the educated black college professor against the brutish white Cambridge Police thugs. It's the affluent, West-Coast, politically correct, urban elite versus the average, Mid-Western, gun-toting, Bible-clinging small-town xenophobes. It's the dedicated national teacher's union versus the destructive school voucher advocates.

In the world of Obama, there are very few individuals if any. For him, there are only classes of individuals. When Obama refers to an individual by name, it is generally to define what class of people he wants to talk about. For example, he might say: "Mr. So-and-so wrote to me to tell me how he was getting screwed over by the such-and-such evil bastards." Or, he might say: "I was talking to Jane Doe the other day, and she told me how upset she was because some other evil bastards were screwing her over." By describing the individual's situation, Obama establishes a class distinction, puts a warm fuzzy face on it, and then pits that class against the "bad guys".

I would even dare to say that Barack Obama may perhaps categorize Sasha and Malia in the "children" class and Michelle Obama in the "wife" class. I believe that in Obama's world, there is really only one individual, and that individual is Obama himself. He is "the one" that America has been waiting for. He is "the one" that the world has been waiting for. He was destined to "remake America". He was the one who would "fundamentally transform America". (As if America needed "remaking" or "transforming".)

Of course, the concept of "class struggle" is a Marxist proposition, and it should come as no surprise that Barack Obama embraces it. He was raised in part, by a mother who was at the very least a Progressive Secular Humanist (but more likely a Communist sympathizer). He was also raised in part by his maternal grandparents who were themselves Communist sympathizers. He was mentored throughout his youth by a self-avowed Communist and labor activist. In college he admits to choosing his friends "carefully", which included "Marxist professors". He admits to attending "socialist conferences" and becoming despondent over the rifts he encountered among varying Marxist factions.

But a basic question we have to ask ourselves is: how much of this class struggle nonsense does Obama sincerely believe in, and how much of it has he made up along the way. I would posit that he genuinely accepted everything he learned from those around him during his childhood and youth. That formed the basis of his "class struggle" beliefs, and he is indeed a socialist at his core. But when he became a community organizer in Chicago, then everything changed. He read "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky and was trained in Alinsky's methods. One of his trainers, Mike Kruglik, said that Obama "was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation".

At the heart of the Alinsky method is the concept of "agitation" - making someone angry enough about the rotten state of his life that he agrees to take action to change it; or, as Alinsky himself described the job, to "rub raw the sores of discontent."
--Ryan Lizza, The Agitator, 19 March 2007

At this point in his life, he was no longer talking about the old Marxist "class struggle", but he was now creating new class distinctions on the fly in order to rile up specific individuals against specific institutions regarding specific situations. He employed these tactics to further the agenda of the organizations he then supported. Later, as a politician, he would employ those same tactics to further his own political agenda.

It was these tactics of agitation that Obama would use to rile up the nation in 2008 against George W. Bush and the Republicans to get himself elected President. On becoming President, he did not stop using those tactics. He started out blaming others for the situation our country was in, and continues to blame others to this day, even for his own mistakes. He continually pits one group against another in order to score political points.

It is the same in regards to religion. For Obama, it is the "Muslim" class versus the "Christian" and "Jewish" classes. He issued an unwarranted apology to Muslims for America's past behaviors. He praised Islam's culture and achievements during a speech in Egypt. He bowed before the Saudi king. He honored Muslim tradition by taking off his shoes when entering a Turkish mosque. Conversely, he felt no qualms about insulting America's 80%+ Christian population by stating that America is "not a Christian nation". He also had no qualms about demanding that all Christian symbols be covered before he made a speech at Georgetown University. Likewise, he demanded that Israelis unilaterally halt all construction activity in East Jerusalem in order to placate the Palestinians.

Foreign affairs is no different. For Obama, it is the "Authoritarian Enemies" class versus the "Democratic Allies" class. His foreign policy has consisted primarily of reaching out to our enemies who are ruled by authoritarians, while snubbing our allies which are democratic. He has reached out to Putin, Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro and Zelaya, while snubbing Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel, Nicholas Sarkozy, and Benjamin Netanyahou.

The original Marxist "class struggle" was primarily vertical in nature: rich capitalists in charge at the top, and poor working stiffs at the bottom. Similarly, the American racial "class struggle" was likewise vertical: whites in charge at the top, and people of color reaching up for equality. But Barack Obama has created new class struggles that are diagonal: rich, white Republicans (upper right) against poor, Democrats of color (lower left); and rich, urban liberals (upper left) against poor, small-town conservatives (lower right). He has even created some that are horizontal: middle class labor union workers (left) against middle class tea party conservatives (right). And a few that defy easy identification: Doctors against patients, small businesses against bankers that won't give them credit, and the religious and foreign policy types mentioned above.

This process of continually creating new class struggles has resulted in some unfortunate dilemmas for President Obama. For example, he had to reach out to those mean, tonsil-removing, limb-slashing doctors so he could use them as props to help sell his healthcare reform legislation. And, after authorizing big bonuses for executives of banks and financial institutions, public backlash caused him to label them as greedy, Wall Street Fat-Cats in need of greater regulation. And, after labeling small-town, Mid-Western people as xenophobes, he used them as props to get his stimulus package approved because they were a good example of the "unemployed" class.

Continually fabricating new class struggles has also resulted in the unintended consequence of forcing Barack Obama to lie more often. Yesterday's "greedy doctors" are today's "respected medical professionals". The ACORN people that yesterday Obama stood shoulder-to-shoulder with and "worked along side of", he can no longer remember having much involvement with. Yesterday's military who were "air-raiding villages and killing civilians" are today's "honored heroes". The war in Iraq which was a disaster under George Bush will now be one of Obama's great success stories.

Since taking office, Barack Obama has flip-flopped on any number of issues, and at least once within mere hours. He has broken an untold number of campaign promises, and he has reversed himself on statements that he made long before he started to run for President. His actions have managed to offend almost everyone and have pleased almost no one.

This is the world of Barack Obama, and frankly... it's not a very classy place.

Stimulus Spending And Job Growth: Update 8

2010-02-27T09:14:00.004-05:00

Well, here we are again. Sorry this update is a bit late. I will try to be more timely next month. Let's look at the jobless numbers for January, and update my predictions.

In June I wrote an article called "Stimulus Spending And Job Growth". In the article, I pointed out that Barack Obama said his stimulus package would create approximately 4 million "new jobs" over two years. He also said the unemployment rate would not exceed 8%. In order to create 4 million jobs in 24 months, the Obama administration would have had to create approximately 166,667 jobs per month to reach this target, assuming linear job growth. That scenario is shown as violet in the following graph.

As of June, when I wrote the article, the trend in job growth was actually negative. So I developed a curve showing what I thought might be a more "Likely" scenario -- plotted as light blue in the following graph. As you can see from the graph, the actual trend of job losses is somewhat worse than I had predicted -- plotted as yellow and red. The unemployment rate has dropped to 9.7%, but only because more people dropped out of the job market in January. The jobless rate continues to generally follow the trajectory I had envisioned in June...

I have revised the November and December job figures according to the latest data from the US Dept of Labor. In November 64,000 jobs were created versus the 4,000 previously reported. In December 85,000 jobs were lost. And in January, another 20,000 jobs were lost.

President Obama has already blown his promise to keep unemployment under 8%. And his ability to create 4 million new jobs in 24 months is fast fleeting. Instead of having to create 166,667 new jobs per month, which he originally needed to reach his target, he now needs to create 517,461 jobs per month -- in order to make up for the nearly 2.8 million jobs that have been lost since the stimulus bill was signed.

Good luck Mr. President. We're all rooting for you... NOT!

Dossier 3

2010-02-27T08:00:00.002-05:00

Or, you can see a larger version at YouTube HERE.

Dossier 3 (with comments)

2010-02-27T07:57:00.001-05:00

Or you can see a larger version at YouTube HERE.

Dossier Links

2010-02-23T16:04:00.006-05:00

Inheritance

2010-02-16T08:55:00.004-05:00

My latest video creation...

Or, you can watch it at YouTube here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpaduKwSgHw

Thanks for "Viewing"...

Success for Obama Dossier

2010-02-12T20:59:00.008-05:00

I was pleasantly surprised to learn that as of a few minutes ago, my video "Dossier" has been viewed 10,245 times. I uploaded the video to YouTube less than a month ago, and as you might expect, viewership was slow at first. Then it took off pretty dramatically in the last couple of days.

Click to enlarge
According to YouTube's statistics, it has received 37 ratings with an average rating of 4.86 out of 5. The video has been embedded on Facebook, CitizenWells.Wordpress.Org, and Radaractive.blogspot.com (thanks Radar!). It has been linked to by CommieBlaster.com, BigGovernment.com, and TheFoxNation.com. It has received referrals from various e-mail services including AOL and Yahoo. And to me, one of the most interesting statistics is that at least 79 people first viewed the video from a mobile device. The video is most popular with males between the ages of 55-64, followed oddly enough, by males between the ages of 13-17.

According to the following map, the video is most popular by far in the US, but has been viewed in a number of other countries (denoted by light green) including: Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Australia, South Africa, India, Iraq, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Spain, France, Italy, Austria, Norway, Sweden, and the UK. There may be others, but the scale of the map is too small to see clearly.

Viewing Locations
I'd like to thank all of you who shared this video with your friends. I wouldn't exactly say it's gone "viral" yet, but it's a pretty big deal for me nonetheless. (:D) Thanks for "Viewing".

UPDATE 1: As of Tuesday, February 16th, the number of views was over 104,000.

UPDATE 2: As of Thursday, February 18th, the number of views was over 534,000.

UPDATE 3: As of Sunday, February 21st, the number of views was over 1,074,000. However, I received a message on Facebook from Martin Lindhe the artist known as Bassic whose background music I was using. He asked me to remove the video on the basis of copyright infringements. I have complied with his request.

White House Toon

2010-01-28T09:48:00.002-05:00

Here's a quick Toon I created...

Click to enlarge.

No Rules for Radicals

2010-01-25T19:54:00.001-05:00

Hat-tip to my friend Mitch...

Letter of the Day

2010-01-25T16:12:00.005-05:00

This comes from Evan Coyne Maloney at Brain-Terminal.com...

The New York Times is on the receiving end of a very good point:

To the Editor:

In “The Court’s Blow to Democracy” (editorial, Jan. 22), you strenuously disagree with the proposition that “corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights.”

Every day, The New York Times Company exercises its First Amendment right to engage in political speech. Today, it expresses its desire to deny that right to most other corporations.

The Constitution does not permit the government to criminalize speech based on the identity of the speaker. If any corporation has First Amendment rights, all corporations must have First Amendment rights.

Adam J. Kwiatkowski
Baltimore, Jan. 22, 2010

The writer is a lawyer in private practice.

NOTE FROM MR. EYE®: In my humble opinion, the Left is simply outraged over the Supreme Court's decision, because it upsets the "delicate" power balance that has been in place for the last 100 years. Since the Tillman Act was passed in 1907, corporations have been barred from contributing to political campaigns. The Act was later extended to cover labor unions, but somehow (as you well know) the unions have managed to get around those provisions.

So here is the "delicate" power balance that I was referring to:

On the Left -- a near-monopoly of Liberal media outlets controlling the news, in lockstep with a near-monopoly of unions funneling cash to Liberal candidates.

versus...

On the Right -- muzzled corporations and individuals.

No wonder the Liberals are frantic. With the Supreme Court's latest ruling, the balance of power might almost be getting near to "fair and balanced". God forbid!

/sarcasm mode = "off"