Monday, September 2, 2013

Happy Labor Day to all my blog followers...and let's remember those who work harder than all of us combined...our troops.

The unemployment rate has been going down over the last few months - slowly, yes, but surely - and the economy has appeared more resilient then predicted in the wake of sequestration going into effect. This may mask underlying problems in our economy that has made it appear better than it is.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics keeps statistics on the labor force participation rate, the ratio of the total workforce to total employment-age Americans. Since the economic crisis, the participation rate has dropped from 66.4% to 63.4%.

As Emily Hulsey at the IJ Review writes:
The New York Times reported that the shift could, more specifically, be due to “the rise in the number of workers on disability.” Today, a record 8.7 million Americans receive disability benefits – that more than the population of New York City. However, the most disturbing aspect, as well as the most volatile variable, of this is the unprecedented number of young adults who are giving up on work and signing up for government assistance.

Surprisingly, this news is not due to the lack of jobs; rather, both Baby Boomers and Millennials are experiencing a skills gap. That is, the skills that employers demand do not match the skills that today’s unemployed possess. For example, in their job searches, many college graduates are encountering entry-level jobs that require only a high school diploma. A large number of Baby Boomers cannot find jobs in their respective fields, and employers consider them too close to retirement to invest in much training and education.
The drop in the labor force is being driven by more than demographic shifts. There are deeper problems at work in the economy. It's more than just a structural skills mismatch, though.

A record number of Americans have claimed federal disability payments. It's not necessarily because of fraud - a study found that fraudulence isn't particularly correlated with the business cycle - but that a struggling economy causes some people who might be otherwise employable to file for disability.

There are two troubling aspects here: the federal disability program is expensive, and once a worker goes on disability, they're unlikely to re-enter the workforce. The Wall Street Journal explains:
Federal disability rules allow workers to get benefits only if they have an “impairment” that prevents them from working. But Mr. Rothstein notes that the ability to work isn’t necessarily independent of the labor market.
A construction worker who hurts his back, for example, might be able to get a desk job during good economic times; when unemployment is high, however, making such a career switch could be much harder. Moreover, companies are much more likely to make accommodations for existing workers who become disabled than to hire a disabled worker — so a person with a disability who loses a job might well struggle to find a new one.
Mr. Rothstein says his findings suggest that “really what’s going on is that there are people who are disabled who may in good markets be able to get jobs but in difficult market can’t.”
Just because people aren’t cheating the system doesn’t mean the rise in the disability rolls isn’t a concern. Economic research has found that the disability system is mostly a one-way street: Once people start receiving benefits, they rarely go back to work.
So while the economy has looked resilient this summer, it's not the case that there's nothing to worry about or that a skyrocketing recovery is right around the corner. There are long-term factors at play here - some of them structural - that mean we are a very long way away from full employment.

Terrorists Won the War on Terror; 74% of Pakistanis View US as Enemy, 60% Have No Confidence in Obama 
Mike Shedlock / Townhall Columnist
Eric Tillberg, writer on Policy Mic says The War On Terror is Over, and the Terrorists Won.
After the first two shots of the War on Terror on September 11, 2001, the first major battle of the war occurred, and was lost, on October 26, 2001. This was the day the PATRIOT Act was signed into law by President Bush.

Terrorists, by killing 3,000 people in a spectacular fashion, goaded the United States into compromising its values and betraying its citizens.

As a followup, the terrorists won another victory with the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security on November 25, 2002. This department gives a much more menacing facade to the federal government and proved to be the moment when American citizens got the idea that they were viewed as the enemy by their own government.

Defeats continued with the establishment of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), representing an increase in funding for an already bloated (and misnamed) Department of Defense. By this point, the American idea was on life support with little hope of reversal. The final blow that rang the bell of defeat for our nation was PRISM. Although PRISM began in 2007, we have only recently learned of its existence thanks to Edward Snowden.

The defeat of America in the War on Terror provides an excellent explanation for the resurgence of libertarian politics at home. It is a natural reaction, when one no longer trusts the government, to demand the right to keep and use arms and to demand that the government extract itself from most if not all aspects of our lives.

We don't only have to look internally to see that the terrorists have won. Al-Qaeda has not gone away and has not been obliterated. In this grand game of whack-a-mole, the moles see our weakening resolve to preserve ourselves and are encouraged by it. The passage of these laws must be seen as propagandistic victories to the terrorists and undoubtedly help in their recruitment. We must rediscover the American idea and begin living by it once again. This would be the best way to turn the tide on the War on Terror.
Pakistan and US Drone Policy

Shortly after 911, the US had support of the vast majority of Pakistani citizens. Polls now show only 55% unfavorable attitude towards Al Qaeda even as support dwindles elsewhere.

74% of Pakistanis View US as an Enemy

A PEW Research survey on Global Attitudes shows 74% of Pakistanis Call America an Enemy.
Roughly three-in-four Pakistanis (74%) consider the U.S. an enemy, up from 69% last year and 64% three years ago. And President Obama is held in exceedingly low regard. Indeed, among the 15 nations surveyed in both 2008 and 2012 by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, Pakistan is the only country where ratings for Obama are no better than the ratings President George W. Bush received during his final year in office.

Moreover, roughly four-in-ten believe that American economic and military aid is actually having a negative impact on their country, while only about one-in-ten think the impact is positive.

Only 17% back American drone strikes against leaders of extremist groups, even if they are conducted in conjunction with the Pakistani government.
Pakistani Views of US, Obama

Unwinnable War

Terror is a method. It is not possible to win a war on a method.

And because US drone policy kills many innocent people as did senseless invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, more people resent US aggression now, than before 911.

Place yourself in the shoes of the average Pakistani who has lost a friend or family member in drone attacks. Would you think the US was an enemy? Of course you would.

Would you view those drone attacks as an act of terror? Of course you would. The US is making enemies hand over fist with its drone policy (which itself is an act of terror killing innocent civilians along the way).

How can you when a war on method, especially when you use the method yourself?

A provocative article by a Jewish Rabbi from Teaneck, N.J. 

It is far and away the most succinct and thoughtful explanation of how our nation is changing. The article appeared in The Israel National News, and is directed to Jewish readership. 70% of American Jews vote as Democrats. The Rabbi has some interesting comments in that regard.

"The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo - for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility. And fewer people voted.

But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.

Romney lost because he didn't get enough votes to win.

That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues - the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness - no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.

The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.

Every businessman knows this; that is why the "loss leader" or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama's America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who - courtesy of Obama - receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.

The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which "47% of the people" start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money - "free stuff" - from the government.

Almost half of the population has no skin in the game - they don't care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese.

They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else's expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.

It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.

That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters - the clear majority – are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich.

During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Stevenson called back: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"
Truer words were never spoken.

Obama could get away with saying that "Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules" - without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the "rich should pay their fair share" - without ever defining what a "fair share" is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to "fend for themselves" - without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending.

Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions - in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone.

Obama also knows that the electorate has changed - that whites will soon be a minority in America (they're already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America . Obama is part of that different America , knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.

Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his "negative ads" were simple facts, never personal abuse - facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil's bargain of making unsustainable promises.

It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan - people of substance, depth and ideas - to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy – of class warfare - never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups. If an Obama could not be defeated - with his record and his vision of America , in which free stuff seduces voters - it is hard to envision any change in the future.

The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy - those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe - is paved.

For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a
president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel . They voted to secure Obama's future at America 's expense and at Israel 's expense - in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin.

A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon - and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality.

But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline.  Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations.. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come.

The "Occupy" riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead - years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.

If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back."

The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.

Governments Kill People!

by / Personal Liberty Digest

Governments Kill People!
Governments always strive for population control, sometimes overtly and some covertly.

When we think of governments killing people, we think of Adolf Hitler’s Germany and Nazism or Muslimism and fascism. But all big government kills!

Democracies kill covertly and benevolently. They carry out mass murder in many ways. For example, democracy creates war under the pretense of patriotism. Millions of people die and never rebel. It’s repeated over and over. Yet the people never catch on, and they never rebel. It’s amazing.

For the purpose of this discussion, we look at how the medical establishment in American democracy kills millions of people.

The American government makes constant war on the people covertly. It is so covert that only a handful of people in government are even aware. Indeed, it may be fewer than a handful of people who are aware of the government crime of mass murder population control.

Founding father Dr. Benjamin Rush argued before the American Continental Congress:
Unless we put Medical Freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship… to restrict the art of healing to one class of men, and deny equal privilege to others, will be to constitute the Bastille of Medical Science. All such laws are un-American and despotic, and have no place in a Republic… The Constitution of this Republic should make special privilege for Medical Freedom as well as Religious Freedom.
Unfortunately, the right to medical freedom was not added to the Bill of Rights in the Constitution; and now we have the government, medical and pharmaceutical groups working together to limit our health choices. In short, we have a monstrous medical monopoly enforced by the increasingly compromised and corrupt Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which routinely censors truthful health claims.

Additionally, the U.S. Government promotes and protects the organized crime of the FDA by protecting their pals at Big Pharma with the new pre-emption policy that bans private lawsuits against drug companies in State courts once a drug and its label have been approved by the FDA. This looks like a protection racket for their financiers at big Pharma. This is simply outrageous!

For an understanding of medical organized crime, read the book The Medical Mafia by Ghislaine Lanctôt.

It seems that the protected criminality goes on and on. But the reality is that even criminal organizations always self-destruct. Their satanic greed consumes them. The medical mafia is now in a state of collapse. It is so evil that it cannot sustain life support. Obamacare is the great finality.

The medical mafia commits many overt crimes with the complicity and blind obedience of doctors. A big example is mass vaccination and immunizations. These billions of poison toxins certainly are big factors in population control.

The evils of vaccinations and immunizations have delayed manifestations, except for some immediate deaths and disabilities. The point is that the years between vaccinations and immunizations blurs cause and effect so that the public never sees the deadly harm of these medical mafia inoculations. It is a crime evolving imperceptibly and subclinically.

“Heart disease” is the big, big crime of the medical mafia that not one in 10 million people suspects. If there has ever been worldwide murder incorporated, this is it.

There is such a labyrinth of lies spun around the mystique of heart disease that it has been bound up for ages in “the No. 1 cause of death.”

The phenomenon of heart disease is concealed under sub rosa and subclinical. This means that modern medical science cannot detach cause and effect of heart disease.

The medical mafia has built a huge financial empire out of and on fictions like cholesterol and open heart surgery. The only success they have achieved is in the favor of a multibillion-dollar medical monopoly.

The cause of heart disease goes back to the milling industry and their milling of refined, bleached white flour that was devoid of nutrition.

Harvey Wiley, the first U.S. head of the FDA, outlawed the bleaching of flour. He knew that bleached flour was devoid of nutrition. This was challenged all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that flour could not be bleached or adulterated in any way. But this was never enforced.

Wiley fought Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson and President Theodore Roosevelt over food policy and regulation. Wiley believed that adulterated foods posed a greater harm to Americans than adulterated or misbranded drugs. When Wiley finally quit the FDA out of frustration in 1912, he was replaced by Dr. Elmer Nelson, who claimed: “It is wholly unscientific to state that a well-fed body is more able to resist disease than a poorly fed body. My overall opinion is that there hasn’t been enough experimentation to prove that dietary deficiencies make one susceptible to disease.”

The proliferation of FDA-approved processed and genetically modified foods indicates this philosophy lives on at the FDA. That’s why the United States is suffering from full-belly starvation and an obesity epidemic and an epidemic of disease. It is the covert method of population control.
Going to war with less than noble intentions
By: Diane Sori

OK guys …let’s cut to the chase…do NOT…I repeat do NOT fall for Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s abrupt policy change of now trying to ‘appear noble’ by saying he will wait until Congress returns to session to get the votes needed to attack Syria. You all know as well as I do that this is NOTHING but saber-rattling of the worst kind…saber rattling to ‘save face’ and make himself appear a hero, and also to use this delay as his way out of a NO win situation of his own doing…as in 'red lines' that exist only in his mind.

And NO image speaks louder than that of Obama and Biden appearing together on Saturday in a Rose Garden news conference…something Obama only does when he needs to look presidential and feign concern by using the all important (to him) photo-op. Showing weakness and the demeanor of a man who’s playing a dangerous game with world leaders whose league he is way out of, Obama now claims that while the US should and will still take military action against Syrian President al-Assad for his (supposed) use of chemical weapons on civilians, he has now suddenly had a light bulb moment and decided to wait until Congress returns to session on September 9th to seek approval to do so.

What Obama does NOT say is that he did NOT make that decision to go the Congressional route…our allies who will NOT support him or his actions made the decision for him. Even America’s staunchest ally, Great Britain, wants NO part in attacking Syria as witnessed when the House of Commons refused to support any military action…NO matter how limited…against Syria.

And don’t let him try to fool you otherwise.

And while still bloviating that US national security interests are at stake…which we all know they are NOT for our contact with Syria and theirs with us has been fleeting at best for many years now…Obama knows that if the US acts unilaterally and goes it alone that he just might ignite an all out Middle East war with Israel at the epicenter…but that could very well have been his game plan all along, and been so since he first started bloviating about 'red lines' in the sand...maybe even using the same two words Netanyahu used when speaking about Iran just to throw it back in his face.  I would NOT but it passed Obama to do just that.

But to make him appear noble…to feign loyalty to the Constitution…back to Congress he suddenly decides to go.

“President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander in chief and undermining the authority of future presidents,” Congressman Peter King (R-NY), a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “The president doesn’t need 535 members of Congress to enforce his own red line.”

And that’s because all Obama’s rhetoric of ‘red lines’ and crossing them were and still are NOTHING but empty talk…empty talk that other world leaders NEVER took seriously to begin with. Obama’s words…words strung together just to pander to and appease his base…are just another reminder that he has set America’s foreign policy back God knows how many years, and is setting up what will likely be nothing but a bitterly fought partisan debate on whether to attack Syria or NOT and will be done just to waste time so Obama can say, ‘I followed the Constitution in regards to the War Powers clause and still Congress fought me and denied me what I want’.

And so like a little child stamping his feet and determined to get his own way, Obama will just issue another Executive Order or whatever it is he does when he’s NOT on the golf course or taking another vacation, and will send America back to war and for what…for more American blood to be spilled…for more American lives to be lost…because rest assured Obama will NOT be content with just shooting off a few missiles. After all he has to rebuild his reputation as ‘the man who sent al-Qaeda running’ (said sarcastically with a deep sigh).

And least anyone forget that claims of Assad gassing his own people have been made before and were ignored, but now suddenly this time is different…this time pictures of dead children lined up in a row are being used as justification that his ‘red line’ has been crossed…pictures to tug at the heartstrings of those whose votes he needs…pictures as phony as he is.

So with these pictures fresh in everybody's minds, this past weekend he sent over to House Speaker John Boehner his ‘proposed resolution’ to reign Cruise missiles down on the wrong side in this battle (remember it’s NOT Assad who fired off the chemical weapons). Obama’s proposed resolution gives him the authorization to use force if he deems it necessary to prevent the further use of weapons of mass destruction and protect the US and our allies from the threats posed by such weapons. But please pray tell how the use of such weapons in Syria…and in a highly limited use at that…poses a threat to us here in America, and if they were ever used on let’s say our ally Israel, I can safely say Obama wouldn’t do a damn thing about it.

This resolution is just lip-service and a sham used in a desperate attempt by Obama to try and show the world that America stands behind him…guess what…we don’t for ‘We the People’ have grown weary of war…especially wars with people that are NOT America’s friend and with people that this president cares more about than he does about the American troops who might be sent there to fight against them.

But if his resolution is approved that would allow Obama to ‘save face’ for this vote would then honor the Constitution and its words that only Congress can declare war…as in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, what most call the ‘War Powers Clause’. But if his resolution is voted down and Obama then decides to go it alone and attack Syria without Congressional approval, he actually would NOT be the first president to make that decision as the last war Congress declared outright was WWII. Every war since then…Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya...has been fought with something less than a fully supported declaration of war by Congress. Our country has been on the proverbial 'slippery slope' for decades, gradually shifting the power to declare and wage war away from Congress and towards the President, and that needs to be stopped and returned solely to its Constitutionally given rightful deciders …Congress and Congress alone.

So as of today we stand at a crossroads as Obama is lobbying hard to get his wish, for both the House and Senate must pass the exact same bill to give him that authorization to take our country to in actuality put our country into the middle of Syria's civil war.

And hopefully with many Democrats against this Obama will NOT get his wish…that is if RINOS extraordinaire John McCain and Lindsay Graham stay the hell out of this and keep their big mouths shut.