Open Letter to Indiana Republicans

Indiana Republicans: We have gotten a great deal of policy heavy lifting done in recent years; Right To Work, School Choice, government union reform, budget reform, the South Bend to Indianapolis highway etc.

While some issues and tweaks need to still be made you must keep in mind that you are NOT the sovereign people’s nanny. Smoking bans and other nonsense that regulate every day life are what will get you tossed out of office over time as people get sick of that kind of legislating because that is not what Republican voters send you there to do.

Do not engage in what George Orwell called “the pansy left” by focusing in on “problems” that are really non-problems just so you can say that you did “something to protect the children”. Fred Upton’s light bulb ban (which he later opposed) is a good example.

Workman’s comp is a mess in this state, as is care for the mentally ill. There are small things that can be done to improve these and other problems.

Regulating where we can smoke, or how we use our cell phone and the list goes on is a prescription for government that harasses our citizens and eats out their sustenance. If people want a nanny state there is a party for that, it is called Democrats.

Capital Bomber Doesn’t Fit the Justice Department “Profile”

According to the Justice Department, Homeland Security and other parts of the Obama Administration the dangerous wild card is supposed to be a conservative, white, male, military vet who believes in the Constitution, supports conservative candidates and believes in the Bible.

But time and time again what do we see with the Fort Hood shootings, underwear bombers. the guy who tried to shoot up LA Airport, Islamic students who try to mow down Christians and Jews with their SUV, leave a bomb at Times Square, and the list goes on and on they all seem to have one thing in common; they are Muslim males.

But why is Obama’s Justice Department and Homeland Security putting out a new warning every few months claiming that one flavor of traditionalist or conservative is the latest “boogie man”?

Washington Post:

Federal authorities on Friday arrested a 29-year-old Moroccan man in an alleged plot to carry out a suicide bombing at the U.S. Capitol, the latest in a series of terrorism-related arrests resulting from undercover sting operations.

For more than a year, Amine El Khalifi, of Alexandria, considered attacking targets including a synagogue, an Alexandria building with military offices and a Washington restaurant frequented by military officials, authorities said. When arrested a few blocks from the Capitol around lunchtime on Friday, he was carrying what he believed to be a loaded automatic weapon and a suicide vest ready for detonation.

The gun and vest were provided not by al-Qaeda, as Khalifi had been told, but by undercover FBI agents who rendered them inoperable, authorities said.

They said Khalifi had been the subject of a lengthy investigation and never posed a threat to the public. On Friday afternoon, he made an initial court appearance in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, where he was charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction against federal property. He faces life in prison if convicted.

Khalifi “allegedly believed he was working with al-Qaeda,” said Neil H. MacBride, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Khalifi “devised the plot, the targets and the methods on his own.”

The Rick Santorum Interview the Elite Media Doesn’t Want You To See

After a public television appearance Rick Santorum let a group of reporters have at him for an extended interview. Some of them tried to ask one “gotcha” question after another. Rick knocks each one out of the park. This is most educational.

The elite media always asks Santorum questions about gays or sex because they want you to believe that this is all he talks about. The facts are that Rick Santorum has a range of conservative policy initiatives he is proposing.

The free for all:

Below is the TV show on air interview:

Vote Fraud in Maine Caucus

Have GOP officials in the state of Maine have stolen the Maine caucuses for Romney?

This is disturbing.

Via Political Arena contributor Warren Roche:

In Waldo County, Maine vote totals from 17 of the county’s 18 towns were reported by Maine state GOP officials as zero votes cast which is clearly not true. The one Waldo County town where results have been reported is the town of Belfast, Maine. The only reason why Belfast’s votes were counted was because someone from Belfast (see this video) checked on the state GOP’s website to see results and saw that ALL 18 towns in Waldo County, including Belfast, showed zero votes cast for anyone! The Belfast caucus counted their votes publicly and everyone in Belfast KNEW that Ron Paul had won Belfast with Romney coming in 3rd. When Belfast GOP officials checked with the state GOP they were told the report of zero votes was in error and would be corrected. When the person from the Belfast GOP asked what results the state GOP had for Belfast the state GOP representative read back vote totals which reported the opposite of the actual vote, showing Romney winning Belfast with Ron Paul coming in 3rd!

Two Maine counties, Washington and Hancock, postponed their caucuses due to weather. Those caucuses will be held this Saturday, February 18. Yet, according to the Maine GOP, Romney has already won Maine, albeit by only 194 votes.

Video via WXIX TV in Maine: 

Meanwhile, Waldo County Republicans have called for the censure of Maine State GOP Party Chairman Charlie Webster for his part in this fraud.

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/15/politics/elections/waldo-county-republicans-call-for-censure-of-state-gop-chairman-after-caucus-controversy/

Taxpayer dollars flow to firms with top Obama donors

Welcome to Chicago, but in DC it is so much more of the same and YOU are paying the bill.

Washington Post:

Sanjay Wagle was a venture capitalist and Barack Obama fundraiser in 2008, rallying support through a group he headed known as Clean Tech for Obama.

Shortly after Obama’s election, he left his California firm to join the Energy Department, just as the administration embarked on a massive program to stimulate the economy with federal investments in clean-technology firms.

Following an enduring Washington tradition, Wagle shifted from the private sector, where his firm hoped to profit from federal investments, to an insider’s seat in the administration’s $80 billion clean-energy investment program.

He was one of several players in venture capital, which was providing financial backing to start-up clean-tech companies, who moved into the Energy Department at a time when the agency was seeking outside expertise in the field. At the same time, their industry had a huge stake in decisions about which companies would receive government loans, grants and support.

During the next three years, the department provided $2.4 billion in public funding to clean-energy companies in which Wagle’s former firm, Vantage Point Venture Partners, had invested, a Washington Post analysis found. Overall, the Post found that $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers.

Obama’s program to invest federal funds in start-up companies — and the failure of some of those companies — is becoming a rallying cry for opponents in the presidential race. Mitt Romney has promised to focus on Obama’s “record” as a “venture capitalist.” And in ads and speeches, conservative groups and the Republican candidates are zeroing in on the administration’s decision to extend $535 million to the now-shuttered solar firm Solyndra and billions of dollars more to clean-tech start-ups backed by the president’s political allies.

White House officials stress that staffers and advisers with venture capital ties did not make funding decisions related to these companies. But e-mails released in a congressional probe of Obama’s clean-tech program show that staff and advisers with links to venture firms informally advocated for some of those companies.

David Gold, a venture capitalist and critic of Obama’s investments in clean tech, said that even if staffers had been removed from the final decision-making, they had the kind of inside access to exert subtle influence.

“To believe those quiet conversations don’t happen in the hallways — about a project being in a certain congressman’s district or being associated with a significant presidential donor, is naive,” said Gold, who once worked at the Office of Management and Budget. “When you’re putting this kind of pressure on an organization to make decisions on very big dollars, there’s increased likelihood that political connections will influence things.”

Read more HERE.

Analysis: Obama proposes $800 million in aid for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Had enough of this presidency yet?

Why would Obama want to fund the umbrella organization that oversees Hamas, the PLO, parts of Hezbollah and other terror organizations? The Muslim Brotherhood is who Obama helped to take over Egypt and Libya and they have been using armored military vehicles to mow down Christians and people who protest actions by the new government that Obama helped put in place. The Muslim Brotherhood has promised Sharia Law, persecution of women and swears to have war with Israel.

Obama has been arming the middle-east with weapons sales (including 125 M1 Tanks to Egypt) and now wants to hand them $800 million of your money while Americans are losing their homes. Be sure to look at the “related” section below.

Here is perhaps the world’s greatest living historian Prof. Niall Ferguson predicting what a disaster this would likely blow up into back in late February 2009 and time has proved Prof. Ferguson to be spot on:

Reuters:

The White House announced plans on Monday to help “Arab Spring” countries swept by revolutions with more than $800 million in economic aid, while maintaining U.S. military aid to Egypt.

In his annual budget message to Congress, President Barack Obama asked that military aid to Egypt be kept at the level of recent years — $1.3 billion — despite a crisis triggered by an Egyptian probe targeting American democracy activists.

The proposals are part of Obama’s budget request for fiscal year 2013, which begins October 1. His requests need the approval of Congress, where some lawmakers want to cut overseas spending to address U.S. budget shortfalls and are particularly angry at Egypt.

Related:

Islamic militants receive two-thirds vote in Egypt – LINK

AP: Egyptian Women March Against Abuse by Military – LINK

It’s official, Egypt is a disaster – LINK

Marxist Left allies with Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Middle East – LINK

Carter Vouches for Muslim Brotherhood – LINK

Prof. Niall Ferguson Blasts Obama and MSNBC on Egypt – LINK

My Concerns About the Operation in Libya & Egypt – LINK

Former head of CIA “bin Laden Unit”: Libyan rebels are like the Taliban – LINK

Libya’s transitional leader says Islamic Sharia law will be the “basic source” of all law – LINK

John Kerry in Egypt meeting with Muslim Brotherhood – LINK


RomneyCare and ObamaCare architect: ObamaCare will cause insurance rates to rise dramatically – UPDATED

Well well well, who didn’t see this coming? The readers of my former college blog knew all about it as we explained how ObamaCare is designed to increase costs and insurance to such a point that the only “solution” would be a total government take over. Even Nancy Pelosi said that the bill was designed to make them “cry out for a public option”.

[I have nine pages of posts and links devoted to this subject on my old college blog starting HERE. To verify that we got it right and called it early just start on this link and proceed forward. Figuring out that ObamaCare was designed to do exactly this, and recognizing that the behavior incentivized by the program creates an economic death spiral – technically called an adverse selection spiral – which is designed to burden the system with such costs and regulation that it will collapse, was not difficult. It did not take an MIT Economist to see what so was obvious in the structure of ObamaCare and quite frankly this editor rejects the idea that Prof. Gruber just figured this out in some grand revelation recently. Anyone with some decent economics training could see this coming a mile away; yes it has always been that obvious – Editor.]

Via our friends at The Daily Caller:

Medical insurance premiums in the United States are on the rise, the chief architect of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul has told The Daily Caller.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber, who also devised former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s statewide health care reforms, is backtracking on an analysis he provided the White House in support of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, informing officials in three states that the price of insurance premiums will dramatically increase under the reforms.

In an email to The Daily Caller, Gruber framed this new reality in terms of the same human self-interest that some conservatives had warned in 2010 would ultimately rule the marketplace.

“The market was so discriminatory,” Gruber told TheDC, “that only the healthy bought non-group insurance and the sick just stayed [uninsured].”

“It is true that even after tax credits some individuals are ‘losers,’” he conceded, “in that they pay more than before [Obama’s] reform.”

Gruber, whom the Obama administration hired to provide an independent analysis of reforms, was widely criticized for failing to disclose the conflict of interest created by $392,600 in no-bid contracts the Department of Health and Human Services awarded him while he was advising the president’s policy advisers.

 

UPDATE – CNBC’s Jim Cramer: CEO’s scared to hire because of ObamaCare. Moving more operations overseas

How “Media Matters” targets reporters, coordinates with the White House, orchestrates smear campaigns, and gets its smears in the elite media often verbatim.

This series by The Daily Caller is amazing and is a must read (excerpts):

Founded by Brock in 2004 as a liberal counterweight to “conservative misinformation” in the press, Media Matters has in less than a decade become a powerful player in Democratic politics. The group operates in regular coordination with the highest levels of the Obama White House, as well as with members of Congress and progressive groups around the country. Brock, who collected over $250,000 in salary from Media Matters in 2010, has himself become a major fundraiser on the left. According to an internal memo obtained by TheDC, Media Matters intends to spend nearly $20 million in 2012 to influence news coverage.

Donors have every reason to expect success, as the group’s effect on many news organizations has already been profound. “We were pretty much writing their prime time,” a former Media Matters employee said of the cable channel MSNBC. “But then virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff.”

The group scored its first significant public coup in 2007 with the firing of host Don Imus from MSNBC. Just before Easter that year, a Media Matters employee recorded Imus’s now-famous attack on the Rutgers women’s basketball team, and immediately recognized its inflammatory potential. The organization swung into action, notifying organizations like the NAACP, the National Association of Black Journalists, and Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, all of which joined the fight.

Over the course of a week, Media Matters mobilized more than 50 people to work full-time adding fuel to the Imus story. Researchers searched the massive Media Matters database for controversial statements Imus had made over the years. The group issued press release after press release. Brock personally called the heads of various liberal activist groups to coordinate a message. By the end of the week, Imus was fired.

Rachel Maddow (NBC), Keith Olberman (Former NBC), David Brock (Media Matters CEO), Anita Dunn (White House Communications Director), Dan Pfieffer (White House Communications Director).
Rachel Maddow (NBC), Keith Olberman (Former NBC), David Brock (Media Matters CEO), Anita Dunn (Former Obama White House Communications Director), Dan Pfieffer (White House Communications Director).
More:

“As part of the Drop Dobbs campaign,” explains one internal memo prepared for fundraising, “Media Matters produced and was prepared to run an advertisement against Ford Motor Company on Spanish Language stations in Houston, San Antonio, and other cities targeting its top selling product, pick-up trucks, in its top truck buying markets.”

Ford pulled its advertising from Dobbs’s program before the television ad aired, but Media Matters kept up its efforts, working primarily with Alex Nogales of the National Hispanic Media Coalition, and with the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and other self-described civil rights groups.

In November of 2009, Dobbs left CNN. “We got him fired,” says one staffer flatly.

More:

“The HuffPo guys were good, Sam Stein and Nico [Pitney],” remembered one former staffer. “The people at Huffington Post were always eager to cooperate, which is no surprise given David’s long history with Arianna [Huffington].”

“Jim Rainey at the LA Times took a lot of our stuff,” the staffer continued. “So did Joe Garofoli at the San Francisco Chronicle. We’ve pushed stories to Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne [at the Washington Post]. Brian Stelter at the New York Times was helpful.”

“Ben Smith [formerly of Politico, now at BuzzFeed.com] will take stories and write what you want him to write,” explained the former employee, whose account was confirmed by other sources. Staffers at Media Matters “knew they could dump stuff to Ben Smith, they knew they could dump it at Plum Line [Greg Sargent’s Washington Post blog], so that’s where they sent it.”

More:

Reporters who weren’t cooperative might feel the sting of a Media Matters campaign against them. “If you hit a reporter, say a beat reporter at a regional newspaper,” a Media Matters source said, “all of a sudden they’d get a thousand hostile emails. Sometimes they’d melt down. It had a real effect on reporters who weren’t used to that kind of scrutiny.”

A group with the ability to shape news coverage is of incalculable value to the politicians it supports, so it’s no surprise that Media Matters has been in regular contact with political operatives in the Obama administration. According to visitor logs, on June 16, 2010, Brock and then-Media Matters president Eric Burns traveled to the White House for a meeting with Valerie Jarrett, arguably the president’s closest adviser. Recently departed Obama communications director Anita Dunn returned to the White House for the meeting as well.

It’s not clear what the four spoke about — no one in the meeting returned repeated calls for comment — but the apparent coordination continued. “Anita Dunn became a regular presence at the office,” says someone who worked there. Then-president of Media Matters, Eric Burns, “lunched with her, met with her and chatted with her frequently on any number of matters.”

Chinese Official Defects. Obama Gives Him to Chinese Security…..

This man is doomed. His name is Wang Lijun.

Wang Lijun
Wang Lijun

Bill Gertz: Obama Administration “Duplicitous”. Shows a pattern of behavior against our allies.

Bill Gertz:

The Obama administration rebuffed a senior Chinese police official in southern China who sought to defect, turning him away after his presence became known to Chinese security forces.

An administration official familiar with China affairs said the botched defection of Wang Lijun, a vice mayor and chief crime investigator in Chongquing, was mishandled not only by local American officials in China but also by White House and State Department officials in Washington unwilling to upset China by granting Wang refuge in the consulate.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.) chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on oversight and investigations, said in an interview last night that the administration’s handling of the Wang case is something the subcommittee will investigate.

“There seems to be repetitive examples of people trying to help the United States who end up suffering,” Rohrabacher said, noting Pakistan’s prosecution of a Pakistani doctor who helped U.S. intelligence locate and kill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Ladin.

In the case of Wang, it appears “the State Department is either clueless or duplicitious regarding the very nature of the gangster regime in Beijing.”

The official said Wang’s defection would have provided a windfall for U.S. intelligence agencies that currently lack insight into the secretive world of Chinese leadership politics.

The attempted defection of Wang played out amid international intrigue involving what officials say is a major power struggle within the senior ranks of the outwardly placid Chinese Communist Party.

The struggle pits a hardline nationalist faction headed by Wang’s boss, regional Party Secretary Bo Xilai, and central authorities in Beijing, led by current President Hu Jintao.

Two U.S. officials said Wang supplied the consulate with information related to corruption within the highest ranks of the Party, including information about Bo.

Bo is the son of a founding communist revolutionary who is a hardline anti-American, neo-Maoist leader and is seeking a seat on the nine-member collective dictatorship that rules China. The officials cautioned that details of the attempted defection and power struggle are murky.

Imagine what the Chinese government will do to this man. Read more HERE.

Gas Prices Under President Obama

Via our friends at Heritage:

Fact: President Barack Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu wants to “figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” At the time he made the statement, gas cost $7 – $8 a gallon in Europe.

Fact: Since taking office, President Obama’s entire energy agenda has made a gallon of gas more expensive:

All of these policies raise gas prices at the pump by either: 1) decreasing the availability of domestic energy supplies, or 2) increasing regulatory costs on gasoline production.

Chuck Norris: Why I chose Newt over Santorum

Chuck Norris gives the opposition research short list on Rick Santorum. Some of these shots are not totally fair and some of them do apply to Newt as well, but still it is a comprehensive short list.

The shot against Medicare Part D is just wrong headed. Medicare Part D is a great success as it is a well run voucher like system that came in 40% under budget. If all of Medicare was ran like Part D it would solve most of the Medicare problem.

Chuck Norris (excerpt):

  • Santorum was a serial earmarker, requesting billions of dollars during his time in the Senate, and not reversing his position on earmarks until he was out of Congress in 2010. As recently as 2009, Rick said, “I’m not saying necessarily earmarks are bad. I have had a lot of earmarks. In fact, I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills. I’ll defend earmarks.”
  • Santorum voted to raise the national debt ceiling five times
  • Santorum voted for the 2005 highway bill that included thousands and thousands of wasteful earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere. In fact, according to Club for Growth, “in a separate vote, Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.”
  • Santorum voted for Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (though he now says he will repeal it), which imposes job-killing federal regulations on businesses.
  • Santorum voted against the National Right to Work Act of 1995, which would have repealed provisions of federal law that “require employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment.”
  • Santorum voted for HR 3448 – Minimum Wage Increase bill, which allows punitive damages for injury or illness to be taxed, allows damages for emotional distress to be taxed and repeals the diesel fuel tax rebate to purchasers of diesel-powered automobiles and light trucks.
  • Santorum voted for Medicare prescription drug benefit known as Medicare Part D, though critical of it now. It is the largest expansion of entitlement spending since President Lyndon Johnson, which now costs taxpayers more than $60 billion a year and has almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities, according to Club for Growth.
  • Santorum voted in 1997 to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, “which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouse’s wrist,” according to a press release from Dudley Brown, executive director of the National Association for Gun Rights.
  • Santorum voted in 1999 for a bill “disguised as an attempt to increase penalties on drug traffickers with guns … but it also included a provision to require federal background checks at gun shows,” again according to Dudley Brown’s release.
  • Santorum “came to anti-gun Arlen Specter’s defense in 2004 when he was down in the polls against pro-gun Republican Pat Toomey. Specter won and continued to push for gun control during his years in the Senate,” per Brown.
  • Santorum voted for an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934 that requires television broadcast providers to give their lowest rates to political candidates.
  • Santorum actively supports the Global Fund, which was created by the United Nations to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, but also “channels a large portion of its funds through Planned Parenthood’s affiliates around the world and through a British group Marie Stopes International (the largest chain of abortion mills in the UK, with 66,000 abortions a year.)… to operate in Cambodia, Fiji, Bangladesh, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Burma, Kenya, Tanzania, and other countries,” according to the pro-life Gerard Health Foundation that provides millions of dollars to pro-life groups.
  • Santorum boasted of teaming up with Joe Lieberman, Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton in his 2006 political ad for re-election to the U.S. Senate, which he lost to Democrat Bob Casey Jr. by the largest margin of victory ever for a Democratic Senate nominee in Pennsylvania and the largest margin of victory for a Senate challenger in the 2006 elections.
  • Santorum opposed the tea party and its reforms in the Republican Party and conservative movement just a couple years ago saying, “I have some real concerns about this movement within the Republican party … to sort of refashion conservatism. And I will vocally and publicly oppose it.”

Read more HERE.

CNN Fires Entire Jewish Staff Of Israel Bureau….

Reuters got caught using Palestinian stringers who were using the same children over and over in staged photo’s used to blame Jews for killing children. This is not uncommon. CNN is also the same network that made a deal with Saddam Hussien to tell his “good news” and propaganda. (Hat tip Pam Geller)

CNN Fires Entire Jewish Staff Of Israel Bureau – And Retains Only Arab Reporters (via Dreuz.info)

Moshe Cohen, editor, fired on January 30, 10 years with CNN.
Izi Landberg, Producer, about 25 years with CNN, fired on January 30.
Avi Kaner cameraman fired on January 30, 10 years with CNN.
Michal Zippori desk producer, situation still unclear.

The media scandal that you are about to read was revealed to us by a totally reliable source.

It is likely to provoke a wave of shock and indignation within the North American media industry, and it certainly will not calm down the controversy over the pro-palestinian CNN treatment of the conflict.

We learned today that the Israeli branch of CNN, located in Jerusalem, is downsizing to cope with reduced income from less advertising.

What goes beyond good management is that CNN has fired four Israeli Jewish journalists (out of a crew of 8), and has retained only Arab journalists. Where, until now, CNN always sent a Jewish and an Arab journalist to cover information, now there will be only an Arab journalist. The local chief editor of the News Chanel is now Arabic.

This is a conflict where information is central to public opinion, and it weighs a lot on diplomatic decisions. Furthermore, it is no secret that Arab journalists cannot freely publish what they want without risking for their own lives when traveling to Gaza, East Jerusalem, and Judea Samaria. Thus, CNN decision to fire all Jewish journalists from its Jerusalem office is of particular concern, because the general public is unaware that they will be receiving biased information from CNN.

1.2 million people driven out of the workforce in a single month! 1.5 million jobs vaporized …..

Human Events:

It’s the headline that a President facing re-election with a dismal economic record didn’t want to see:

1.2 million people driven out of the workforce in a single month!

A frantic White House exploded into damage-control mode, as a deeply shaken President Obama retreated into his chambers.  Nervous spokesmen fanned across the airwaves to stammer apologies, search for silver linings among the storm clouds, offer campaign boilerplate about “hope and change,” and desperately search for some way to blame George Bush for an absolute unemployment disaster that occurred over three years after he left office…

What’s that, you say?  You didn’t see that headline?  Well, of course not, silly.  All you’re seeing in the headlines is good news, because the official, heavily-massaged U-3 unemployment rate fell to 8.3 percent.  Fewer people in the workforce means the percentage of unemployed people in the workforce drops.

ZeroHedge is incredulous:

A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million.

No, that’s not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation.

As for the quality of jobs, as withholding taxes roll over Year over year, it can only mean that the US is replacing high paying FIRE jobs with low paying construction and manufacturing. So much for the improvement.

Now, I suspect that while a lot of people dropped out of the workforce last month, part of what we’re seeing here is some numerical mutation that caused an abnormally large chunk of the labor-force reduction from the past year to be piled into a single month.  There was some decent overall job creation in January, with about 243,000 jobs added to non-farm payrolls, and a nice 50,000 job bump in the manufacturing sector.  That total is good enough to modestly outpace current population growth.  With the usual backwards adjustment to previous months, it looks like the final quarter of 2011 pretty much kept pace with population growth.

However, the fact remains that even as we get back to the (dismal) 8.3 percent U-3 unemployment we last saw in February 2009, the work force is about half a million people smaller in absolute numbers, and that doesn’t include the increase in the working-age population over the past two years.  Throw them in, and you’re looking at roughly 1.5 million jobs completely vaporized, to the point where they don’t even count in the official, widely-reported unemployment statistics.

 

Famed economist Dr. John Lott comments:

A 1.2 million drop out of the labor force is the record for any one month. And 500,000 a month dropping out of the workforce because they are just giving up because there jobs just aren’t out there. This is something we have not seen before.  People just start giving up.

Senator Marco Rubio CPAC 2012: Republicans argue over who is the most like Ronald Reagan. Democrats never argue over who is the most like Jimmy Carter…

This is a great speech on what is conservatism and what is the difference between Conservatives and (leftist) Liberals.

“Regulations have to make sense, not just make jobs for government bureaucrats. We need to have clean air and water for sure, but the regulations need to have some sanity.”

Paul Ryan: Obama’s Attack on Catholic Hospitals A “Teachable Moment” In Progressive Philosophy

This is awesome and a must see.

Paul Ryan to Laura Ingraham:

“This is what President Obama would call a “teachable moment”. The teachable moment here is when we elect a president who brings this progressive philosophy to bear to government, they decide how our rights are to be granted and given and organized. And if they clash with our first amendment right of religious freedom or something else then we know who wins in that exchange. This is much much bigger than about contraception or something like that, this is about religious freedom, first amendment rights, and how this progressive philosophy of fungible rights or a living, breathing constitution really clashes and collides with these core rights that we built our society and country around,”.

New Jersey Teachers Union on Kids in Failing Union Schools: Life’s Not Fair

In some failing unionized schools in New Jersey the kids have only a 17% proficiency rate in literature and math.

Via Real Clear Politics:

“An outrageous statement. I cannot express how disgusted I am by that statement by the head of the largest teachers union in our state. But I also have to tell you I’m not the least bit surprised, because I think it so succinctly captures what their real position is,” Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) said about a union boss who makes 500K a year telling the poor “life’s not fair.”

“It’s an immoral position, and it continues to prop up abject failure in districts across our state,” Christie also said.

Wall St. Made More Money In 2.5 Years Of Obama Than 8 Years Of Bush

Mika Brzezinski, MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”: “New government data shows profits for America’s largest financial firms are once again reaching record highs not seen sense before the financial crisis of 2008. In fact, Wall Street firms have earned more in the first two and a half years of the Obama presidency than all 8 years of the Bush presidency. Over 85 billion dollars in profits compared to 77 billion.”

Joe Scarborough: “Wait — you mean in the first two years they made more than in eight years than in the Bush administration?”

Brzezinski: “That’s correct.”

The facts are that while Obama claims to be against Wall Street and is a champion of the poor against the rich, he is in Wall Street’s back pocket. The Dodd-Frank bill and these other regulations passed in the name of defending the poor, actually tilt the playing field to his donors, expend the power of the federal government to pick winners and losers and Lord help you if you are a part of the smaller competition. I explored this subject for years in great detail on my old college blog.

Related:

Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 – Hint: Most goes to Democrats – LINK.

Top 20 Industry Money Recipients This Election Cycle – Who is in the back pocket of Wall Street? – LINK.

Corruption You Can Believe In: Failed Sub Primes and Mortgage Fraud Lenders Funneled Money to Dodd & Obama the Most. Fannie & Freddie Gave $200 Million to Partisans-Most Went to Democrats! Dodd, Obama Among Top Recipients. Republicans Attempted to Pass Reforms-Blocked by Democrat Leadership! – LINK.

Hypocrite! Elizabeth Warren Takes Wall Street Cash! – LINK.

Corruption: Most Stimulus Funds Spent in Democrat Districts – LINK.

The taxes Democrats propose to “soak the rich” always seem to miss those who they demagogue for not paying their fair share. They have been “soaking the rich” for decades and keep missing the target. Why? – LINK.

Study: Network Morning Shows Are Trashing Republicans and Trumpeting Barack Obama in Campaign 2012

 

Via the Media Research Center:

Four years ago, the ABC, CBS and NBC morning shows celebrated the “rock star” Democrats running to replace George W. Bush, and no candidate set journalists’ pulses racing faster than Barack Obama. Now, after three years of high unemployment, trillion dollar deficits and an onerous new health care law, how are those newscasts covering Obama’s re-election campaign and the candidates vying to replace him?

To find out, Media Research Center analysts examined all 723 campaign segments which aired on the three broadcast network weekday morning programs from January 1 to October 31, 2011, using the same methodology we employed to study campaign coverage on those same programs for the same time period in 2007.

Four years ago, the network coverage promoted the Democratic candidates and cast their strong liberal views as mainstream. This year, our study finds the networks are disparaging the Republican candidates and casting them as ideological extremists:

Labeling:

– This year, network reporters have employed 49 “conservative” labels to describe the Republican candidates, compared with only one “liberal” label for President Obama.

– Four years ago, when Obama was a relatively unknown candidate, the morning shows also provided just a single “liberal” label to describe his ideology, and never once labeled Hillary Clinton, John Edwards or the other Democrats as “liberal.”

Agenda:

– By a 4-to-1 margin, ABC, CBS and NBC morning show hosts have employed an adversarial liberal agenda when questioning this year’s Republican candidates. But those same hosts’ questions for President Obama leaned in his direction, with mostly liberal-themed questions.

– Four years ago, questions for the Democratic candidates tilted by more than two-to-one to the left, a friendly agenda.

 

Tone:

– In 2007, Democratic candidates were regularly tossed softball questions. This year’s interviews with Republicans have been much more caustic, with few chances for the candidates to project a warm and fuzzy image.

– Despite the poor economy and low approval ratings, the morning shows continue to treat Barack Obama as more of a celebrity than a politician, airing positive feature stories about the President and his family — a gift not bestowed on the conservative Republican candidates.

During the 2008 campaign, the network morning shows acted as cheerleaders for the Democratic field. This time around, they are providing far more hostile coverage of the various Republicans who are running, while treating Obama’s re-election campaign to the same personality-driven coverage that was so helpful to the then-Illinois Senator four years ago.

If the real decisions in our democracy are to be in the hands of voters, then the news media owe viewers a fair and unbiased look at the candidates in both parties. That means asking the candidates questions that reflect the concerns of both sides — liberals and conservatives alike. And the syrupy coverage awarded year after year to the Democrats’ celebrity candidates in no way matches the pretense of journalists holding both sides equally accountable, without fear or favor.

 

Full Report Table of Contents

Introduction | Covering the Candidates: No Swooning Over Republicans | “Conservative” Republicans vs. Non-Ideological Obama? | Interviews: Helping Obama, Badgering the GOP

Formatted PDF Version (19 pages)