GALLUP PREDICT HUGE OBAMA LOSS
EDITORIAL: Obama’s bogus jobs data
The Washington Times Feb. 3, 2012
The White House hyped the news Friday that January payrolls had risen by 243,000. The hitch is the Bureau of Labor Statistics (also dropped 1.2 million from the calculated workforce. Somehow this net loss of a million workers in a single month was transformed into an improvement in the unemployment rate. As the old saying goes, figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.
“Job growth was widespread,” the BLS reported, but most Americans sense that something isn’t quite right with the numbers. The most important change was the deep decline in the workforce. While the overall population jumped an 1.6 million in January, the workforce declined a record-setting 1.2 million. This figure represents those who out of sheer frustration or for other reasons have dropped out of what the government defines as the active labor pool. They are worse than simply unemployed; they are both jobless and hopeless.
The good news for Obama administration statisticians is that these unfortunates don’t factor into the official unemployment rate, which only counts those thought to be looking for work. So while five people drop out of the system in despair for every new job created, the official unemployment rate declines and the White House enjoys a good news day.
“The recovery is speeding up,” President Obama declared. However, the broader measures tell a different story. The employment-to-population ratio, the most comprehensive jobs number, remained flatlined at 58.5 percent, around where is has been for at least a year. The number lacking jobs has likewise remained steady at 41.5 percent. The overall participation rate, the percentage making up the workforce in the population, accelerated an already steep decline to a 30-year low of 63.7 percent. In short, the recovery is not speeding up - people are simply giving up.
The participation rate is a subjective measure and highly subject to manipulation. The lower it goes and the more people are dropped from the unemployment equation, the better the numbers will look for the White House. This figure has been dropping sharply since Mr. Obama took office.
Last month, an analysis at the Zero Hedge financial website noted that by extending the logic of reporting progressively fewer labor-force participants, “America will officially have no unemployed when the Labor Force Participation rate hits 58.5 percent, which should be just before the presidential election.” Maybe that’s the plan.
A year ago, there were 99 million people either officially unemployed or otherwise not working, and the official unemployment rate was 9.1 percent. Now, unemployment reported by the government is down to 8.3 percent, but the number without jobs has topped 100 million.
The disconnect between increasing joblessness in America and the rosy White House official statistics should be the subject of a congressional investigation. Something does not add up.
Latest Congressional Budget Outlook For 2012-2022 Released, Says Real Unemployment Rate Is 10% 01/31/2012
GALLUP PREDICT HUGE OBAMA LOSS
Publicado: 02-04-2012 01:51 PM
THE AXIS OBAMA/PLANNED PARENTHOOD
The Pivot of Civilization (Margaret Sanger) ^ | 1922 | WPtG
Publicado: 02-04-2012 03:00 PM
IBD ^ | 02/04/2012
Obama Is 'President Zero - Zero Economic Expansion, Zero Jobs, Zero Ideas'
Of course it's good news that 243,000 new jobs were created in January, shaving the unemployment rate to 8.3%. But thanks to massive policy errors by the White House, we're still way below where we should be.
President Obama, speaking in Arlington, Va., immediately took credit for the bullish report, crowing that "altogether, we've added 3.7 million new jobs over the last 23 months."
According to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the economy is just 0.7% above its previous high. Usually at this point in an expansion, it's 13.5% above the last peak. In other words, thanks to Obama's policies, we're missing about $1.8 trillion in GDP — or roughly $5,760 for every man, woman and child.
Far worse for most Americans is the jobs depression that has accompanied Obamanomics. As the chart shows, we've suffered a jobs implosion greater than any since World War II.
The president went on to say: "We can't go back to the policies that led to the recession. And we can't let Washington stand in the way of our recovery."
"Our" recovery? And "We can't go back to the policies that led to the recession"? The cause of the recession was, in fact, housing policies put in place by President Clinton and aggressively supported by Democrats in Congress, including former Sen. Barack Obama.
How soon we forget. These were the policies that led to the housing meltdown, the financial crisis and, ultimately, the deep recession we're still climbing out of.
Yet Obama's "blame Bush" theme will be the Democrats' strategy for the 2012 campaign. So get used to it.
Truth is, by now we should have created millions more jobs than we have.
Publicado: 02-04-2012 03:39 PM
coachisright.com ^ | MARCH 5, 2012 | Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer
The Obama Administration is looking to give Russia seven oil rich Alaskan Islands that were discovered and claimed for America by American explorers according to Alaska Republican 2010 Senatorial candidate Joe Miller. “I think the bigger concern here is what natural resources are being lost to Russia,” says one commenter who deplores the secrecy involved with Obama and his SOS Hilary Clinton gifting Putin with United States land.
Miller blew the whistle on this island give away of billions of off shore oil deposits and rich sea beds in an interview with World Net Daily that literately has cyberspace dripping in anger at this present administration.
But when I called the office of GOP AK long time Senator Lisa Murkowski, her aides told me it’s George Bush the father’s fault, and Obama’s people are just cleaning up long standing agreements. I was given this direct email address which came back failed three times: email@example.com when I tried to get them to go on the record.
Miller and blog researchers state that “the purported Agreement for the island give away WAS NOT and IS NOT a ratified treaty according to public record. . .and this Agreement was negotiated COMPLETELY IN SECRET!”
Famed naturalist John Muir was a member of the U.S. landing party of the U.S. Revenue Marine Ship fleet Thomas Corwin along with other American explorers who were awarded Gold Medals by Congress for their valiant discoveries and exploration of the following Islands which already have been given Russian names: Bennett Island, now Ostrov Bennetta; Wrangel Island, now Ostrov Vrangelya; Hennrietta Island, now Ostrov Genriyetty. Remaining land give away gems are Herald and Copper Islands and Sea Lion Rock and Sea Otter Rocks.
“It breaks my heart. I feel so helpless. infuriated me,” ….
Publicado: 03-05-2012 01:58 PM
The Debunker: Obama really is the non-energy president
BAJO BUSH EN LOS PRIMEROS 26 MESES EN EL PODER LA GASOLINA SUBIO UN 7%, EN EL MISMO TIEMPO CON OBAMA SUBIO 67%
These claims are part of an orchestrated strategy to “try to head off the political impact of rising gasoline prices.” (If only the President were as concerned about the economic impact of rising gas prices!) But they are nothing but spin.
While it’s true that U.S. oil and natural gas production are up, this is not thanks to, but in spite of Obama. All the increased production has come from state and private lands, where the President has little power. On federal lands controlled by Obama, production has actually fallen.
According to an Institute for Energy Research analysis of data from the Interior Department’s Office of Natural Resources Revenue, production of oil increased 14 percent and natural gas 12 percent on private and state lands in Fiscal Year 2011, while on federal lands, production of oil declined 11 percent and natural gas 6 percent.
So, what “significant action” has Obama taken to “expand American gas and oil production”? Let’s review his achievements:
As Secretary of Energy, Obama appointed Stephen Chu, who in September 2008 told the Wall Street Journal, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” (So far, so good.)
Publicado: 03-08-2012 05:44 PM
|Private & state lands||+14%||+12%|
Source: IER Analysis: Oil and Gas Production Declines on Federal Lands in FY2011, Feb. 23, 2012
As Secretary of the Interior (in charge of oil leases on federal lands) Obama appointed Ken Salazar -- who, as a Democratic senator from Colorado, on July 31, 2008, had stubbornly refused to assent to any drilling on America’s outer continental shelf -- even if gas reached $10 a gallon.
Immediately upon taking office, Salazar rescinded 77 leases in Utah, charging that the Bush White House had pressured Bureau of Land Management officials into making the sales. (Upon investigation, the Inspector General found “no evidence to support the allegation.”)
Following the Gulf oil spill, Obama asked an expert panel for recommendations; although that panel strongly opposed a drilling moratorium , the White House misrepresented the panel’s views to justify a six-month moratorium. After a U.S. District Court overturned the moratorium as “arbitrary and capricious” (a ruling upheld on appeal), Obama defied the court, issuing a second moratorium -- which he then expanded to five years (for which the administration was found in contempt).
As a result of Obama’s moratorium, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, crude oil production on federal lands in the Gulf of Mexico fell 15 percent in 2011.
All in all, a predictable performance for a President who, as a candidate, told the San Francisco Chronicle on January 17, 2008, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
|Mark LaRochelle was editor at the National Journalism Center and contributing editor at Consumers' Research.|
Publicado: 03-08-2012 05:45 PM
War on Jobs: Obama "Personally Lobbied" Senate Democrats to Kill Keystone
By Guy Benson 3/10/2012
...To Kill Keystone Again, that headline should read, as we all recall President Stimulus unilaterally axing the plan a few months back. This time around, with Republicans rightly pressing the issue in Congress, The One had to dial up his Senate allies to ensure they would drive a dagger through the heart of the project:
President Barack Obama, seeking to head off an election-year showdown over energy policy, has been calling wavering Senate Democrats to lobby against a Republican measure that would force approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada, according to a Democratic aide. Ahead of a vote expected as soon as today, the president has made personal appeals to Democrats from Midwestern states, where many of the jobs would be created by building TransCanada Corp.'s pipeline from Canada's oil sands to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, according to the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private conversations.
Just as a refresher: The Keystone pipeline would have exploited increased oil production from a friendly nation and created 20,000 US jobs. Good thing high gas plrices and chronic unemployment aren't plaguing the countre these days, or else this double kowtow to hardcore greenies might have rankled a lot of Americans. The most galling element of Obama's extremist stand is his White House's insistence that he really wants to approve the pipeline -- honest! -- it's just that these darned Republicans keep "rushing" the process and ruining everything. Never mind the fact that Keystone has already been subjected to three years' worth of studies, and was given the green light for production. (If only this White House had been this cautious about Solyndra, which involved piles of taxpayer money, unlike this pipeline). Ultimately, Senate Democrats were forced to filibuster a bill in the chamber they control because their own members were splintering off to side with the GOP. Eleven Dems stood with a united Republican caucus to break the filibuster, but fell four votes short. One brave, brave Democrat -- "moderate" Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia -- said he supported the pipeline, but voted against it because of the Republicans.
Sen Mark Warner (D-VA) on Senate floor says supports Keystone XL Pipeline but will oppose GOP amendment pushing its construction.
There's an Obamaesque profile in courage, if ever there was one. In light of the political storylines of the last few weeks, I simply must ask: Why must these Democrats continue to wage this War On Jobs?(For two excellent responses to Democrats' insidious "war on women" nonsense, read Michelle Malkin and Jonah Goldberg).
Publicado: 03-10-2012 12:28 PM
UPDATE - I've been traveling the last few days, so I figured I'd use a quick update to play catch-up on a few major stories:
(1) We already know that Obamacare is enduringly unpopular and that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius hasn't a clue as to whether the law is already breaking its chief promoter's promises left and right (spoiler: it is). Now we also know exactly how dearly a vote in favor of the president's signature "accomplishment" ended up costing members of his party at the ballot box in 2010:
Consistent with the earlier research, we found that those House Democrats who voted in favor of ACA ran around six points behind those Democrats who voted against it in the 2010 midterms. We conducted thousands of simulations and found that, in the majority of simulations, Democrats retained at least 25 additional seats if they had all voted against ACA. That's enough for them to have held the majority.
Gosh, I wonder why a majority of Americans consider this presidency a failure? Panic pander time.
(2) As this president continues to scratch his tax "fairness" itch by pushing the so-called Buffett Rule, a major Buffett enterprise continues to battle the Treasury Department over unpaid taxes. Why won't they happily pony up their "fair share"? IRS DEMAND PLAYMENT FOR $320 MILLION IN BACK TAXES
US Budget Deficit Hits All Time High In February
For a global economy that is "improving" we sure are getting a whole lot of records in the won't direction in the last two days. Yesterday it was Japan which printed a record current account deficit (yes, the most indebted country in the world was once upon a time supposed to export its way out of debt). In February the US will report its largest budget deficit in history, as the Keynesian floodgates open full bore, and as Zero Hedge has noted repeatedly, tax revenues just refuse to come in at anything close to the pace of accelerated spending, forcing the US to borrow 54 cents for every dollar it spends (not the often cited 42 cent number which does not take into account tax refunds). We would comment more on this, but frankly the chart speaks for itself. And now that the US has to fund an additional $100 billion due to the taxcut extension this means that things are only going to get worse, fast.
Publicado: 03-10-2012 12:29 PM
Obama Approval Continuing to Decline
By Katie Pavlich 3/12/2012
OBAMA'S REAL REAL UNEMPLOYMENT 19.1% AND GOING UP, UP, UP!!!!
Margaret Thatcher: "El socialismo dura hasta que se les acaba el dinero de otros"
Winston Churchill: "El socialismo es la filosofía del fracaso, el credo de los ignorantes, el evangelio de la envidia y su virtud es el reparto igualitario de la miseria."
Obama’s approval rating on the deficit hit an all-time low, with a slender 32 percent giving him positive marks. Among independents, 70 percent disapprove here, also a new high. Even on foreign policy — a onetime strong point — Obama’s ratings look worse. For the first time in nearly a year, as many Americans disapprove as approve of his handling of the war in Afghanistan. On Iran, a slim majority now disapproves of how he is dealing with the possibility of the country obtaining nuclear weapons.
High gas prices are finally taking their toll, despite old media doing everything they can to downplay the situation:
On energy issues generally, almost half the country gives Obama negative marks. Fifty percent of Americans see the Obama administration as having the power to do something about the cost of a gallon of gasoline.
Considering the President personally lobbied to kill the Keystone Pipeline project and as we watch solar company after solar company propped up by taxpayer loans go bankrupt, I doubt his approval numbers on energy will be going up anytime soon.
OBAMA IS FULFILLING HIS PROMISE TO RISE THE GAS IN U.S. TO THE LEVELS OF EUROPE.
Publicado: 03-12-2012 12:58 PM
Abortion's Slippery Slope: When People aren't "Persons"
By Rebecca Hagelin
Culture Challenge of the Week: The Temptation to Say Nothing
Decades ago, when Roe v. Wade was decided, conservatives and many religious folks predicted that the country had begun an inevitable slide towards a murderous future: a time when certain people-in addition to unprotected pre-born children-- would be declared less valuable than others, their killing justified.
Back then, liberal voices jeered at warnings of the slippery slope ahead. But those fears have become real. Medically sanctioned starvation and death-inducing dehydration are passed off as a "peaceful death" for the terminally ill or elderly. Our own President could not bring himself to vote, as an Illinois State Senator, to protect infants born alive after an abortion (they were simply left to die-which was what their mothers wanted, after all).
And now, the advocates of death have stepped up the tempo. A new generation of ethicists has begun making the case in favor of so-called "after birth abortion." Like Princeton's Peter Singer, they believe that infants are not "persons" entitled to the right to life. Why? Because infants, while human, are not "self-aware." And these ethicists assert that human beings who lack self-awareness are not "persons" and, if they are not persons, then they have no independent moral status, no automatic right to life, and no claim to the protections of law.
The question of whether a newborn child would be allowed to live or die, the "ethicists" argue, would depend solely on the wishes of their parents. The same reasons that might 'justify' an abortion at three months gestation would justify an "after-birth abortion"---i.e., the parents can kill a child who is inconvenient, disabled, the "wrong" gender, or simply unwanted.
This new thinking shreds the quality-of-life façade that's often used to justify the abortion of a handicapped child: the only "quality of life" that matters here is that of the parents. If a child's life portends financial burden or stress for the parents---or cost to the state-that would be reason enough for parents to snuff the life out of their own offspring.
Publicado: 03-15-2012 11:10 AM