We’ve been hearing lots of talk of “economic recovery” and “reductions in unemployment” and “better days ahead” in the mainstream media. It’s now about eight months until the 2012 election, and the Obama campaign is in full-on panic mode over the bad economy, so they’re releasing all kinds of misinformation, which is gobbled up by the press, who simply regurgitate it without a moment’s pause to question or analyze the “facts” and “figures” being presented. And why should they? Obama is their guy, and they would be thrilled to see him re-elected, so they’re happy to let the falsehoods stand when they report what they’re fed, and they have a million excuses at the ready if they’re ever called on it. “This was a government report – we had reason to believe it”, or “those numbers were fluid – we just reported where they stood at that particular moment”.
The BS: In 2009, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. Our biggest banks and auto companies were on the brink of pulling down the whole economy. But we righted the ship. We did not tip into a Great Depression. And over the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs, the most since 2005 and more manufacturing jobs than since the 1990s. We still have a long way to go but we have restored hope and possibility to the economy.
This chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics utterly destroys that argument. The BLS measures the percentage of working-age adults currently employed in the population — and as can easily be seen, three years of Barack Obama has not made any dent in the trough created by the recession:
That is not recovery. It’s not even a start to a recovery. By cherry-picking 22 months, the best Greenberg can claim is job growth of 136,370 jobs per month, which would barely exceed the needed job growth per month to keep up with population growth.
Why cherry-picking? I explained the issue when Obama tried using this claim during his Google+ hangout at the beginning of the month:
But why 22 months? Obama began his term in January 2009, and the recession ended in June 2009. What’s so special about March 2010? Well, not so surprisingly, that’s almost the nadir of employment during Obama’s presidency, which actually took place in February 2010, two years ago this month. Even if he’d picked the right month, it would still only have been 2.654 million, not 3 million.
Calculating from the end of the recession, the net job creation from those 31 months is only 1.407 million, a wan 45,390 net jobs a month, far below the pace needed to keep up with population growth. Calculating for the entirety of his presidency, we’re actually in the hole 937,000 jobs. Obama tried to cherry-pick the worst month in order to claim the most credit he could possible for job growth, and managed to get both the month and the math wrong anyway.
Obama and his strategists can cherry-pick all they like. This chart tells the real story of Obamanomics and job creation during his term.
Good News: DHS Spending $11 Million Scouring Web for Criticism of Its Policies
I’d have loved to have heard the shrieks of indignation coming from The New York Times and the rest of the leftist infrastructure had John Ashcroft and other Bush administration officials engaged in this kind of egregious behavior.
No double standards here, folks.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been paying a defense contractor $11.4 million to monitor social media websites and other Internet communications to find criticisms of the department’s policies and actions.
A government watchdog organization, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), obtained hundreds of documents from DHS through the Freedom of Information Act and found details of the arrangement with General Dynamics. The company was contracted to monitor the Web for “reports that reflect adversely on DHS,” including sub-agencies like the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
In testimony submitted to the House Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, Ginger McCall, director of EPIC’s Open Government Project, stated that “the agency is monitoring constantly, under very broad search terms, and is not limiting that monitoring to events or activities related to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, or manmade disasters…. The DHS has no legal authority to engage in this monitoring.”
McCall added: “This has a profound effect on free speech online if you feel like a government law enforcement agency—particularly the Department of Homeland Security, which is supposed to look for terrorists—is monitoring your criticism, your dissent, of the government.”
Rest assured that our beloved, baritone DHS secretary — and her ostensible boss, Eric “Fast ‘n’ Furious” Holder — would never, ever use this kind of information to go after private citizens. They’re just doing research.
As far as you know.
Consider this reason number 43,263 to kick this administration’s ample rear out of office in November.
PENNSYLVANIA JUDGE THROWS OUT ASSAULT CASE
An atheist annoyed a Muslim by using a Halloween costume of “zombie Mohammed” and the Muslim to beat the shit out the guy.
The charge goes to try and the Judge throws it out calling the atheist a “doofus”.
From Jonathan Turley:
There is a surprising story out of Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania that seems the perfect storm of religious tensions. You begin with Ernie Perce, an atheist who marched as a zombie Mohammad in the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade. Then you add Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim who stepped off a curb and reportedly attacked Perce for insulting the Prophet. Then you have a judge (Judge Mark Martin) who threw out the criminal charges against Elbayomy and ridiculed the victim, Perce. The Judge identifies himself as a Muslim and says that Perce conduct is not what the First Amendment is supposed to protect. [UPDATE: The judge says he is not a Muslim despite what is heard by most listeners on the tape. That being the case, the criticism of the comments remains.] [UPDATE2: Perce has responded to our blog and denied many of the factual representations made by Judge Martin].
The judge not only points to the Koran in the courtroom but his time in Muslim countries as relevant to his deliberations. Putting aside the problem of ruling in a case where you admit you have strong personal feelings, the lecture given on the first amendment is perfectly grotesque from a civil liberties perspective.
The Judge: “Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in predominantly Muslim countries, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Quran here, and I would challenge you, Sir, to show me where it says in the Quran that Muhammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus. …
In many other Muslim-speaking countries, err, excuse me, many Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this is definitely against the law there, in their society. In fact, it could be punished by death, and frequently is, in their society.
Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures – which is what you did.
I don’t think you’re aware, Sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – I understand you’re an atheist – but see Islam is not just a religion. It’s their culture, their culture, their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day toward Mecca. To be a good Muslim before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, unless you’re otherwise told you cannot because you’re too ill, too elderly, whatever, but you must make the attempt. Their greeting is ‘Salam alaikum, wa-laikum as-Salam,’ uh, ‘May God be with you.’
Whenever it is very common, their language, when they’re speaking to each other, it’s very common for them to say, uh, Allah willing, this will happen. It’s, they’re so immersed in it. And what you’ve done is, you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim. I find it offensive. I find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive. But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights.
I’ve spent about seven years living in other countries. When we go to other countries, it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ‘ugly Americans.’ This is why we hear it referred to as ‘ugly Americans,’ because we’re so concerned about our own rights, we don’t care about other people’s rights. As long as we get our say, but we don’t care about the other people’s say.”
Burning the Flag anyone? Occupoopers pooping on the Flag anyone? Flag in a Jar of Urine anyone?
Hitler References, “racism” references by Liberals when you disagree with them.
No provocation there. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. –The Judge. 🙂
FREEDOM –DEMOCRAT STYLE
Democrat Kathy Hochul (via Guy Benson): I love the audible shock that ripples through the upstate New York crowd when their elected representative informs them that “the Congress” isn’t especially interested in what the Constitution has to say on certain “aspects” of its sundry decrees. She goes on to pay lip service to religious freedom, suggesting that HHS’ extremely narrow exemptions to the mandate are sufficient. Under this interpretation, the fact that “the decision has been made by this Congress than Americans are entitled to healthcare” renders conscience objections from religious institutions and individuals obsolete.
From Here Campaign Website: Democrat Kathy Hochul dismissed being portrayed as a tax-and-spend liberal as “politics” and said she’s a pragmatist who is open to good ideas no matter which side of the political aisle they come from.
“You can’t label me anything,” Hochul said during a stop at The Daily News Thursday.
Sure…. 😦 Whatever….
“Well, basically, we’re not looking to the Constitution on that aspect of it.”- Rep Hochul
THE IRS & TEA PARTY
In January and February of this year, the Internal Revenue Service began sending out letters to various local Tea Parties across the country. Mailed from the same Cincinnati, Ohio IRS office, these letters have reached Tea Parties in Virginia, Hawaii, Ohio, and Texas (we are hearing of more daily). There are several common threads to these letters: all are requesting more information from these independent Tea Parties in regard to their nonprofit 501(c)(4) applications (for this type of nonprofit, donations are not deductible). While some of the requests are reasonable, much of them are strikingly onerous and, dare I say, Orwellian in nature.
The other question is the timing of these IRS letters requesting reams of copies and hundreds of hours of work and potentially thousands of dollars in accounting/legal fees (all due in two weeks). Some of these Tea Party groups have not received anything concerning their nonprofit status since 2010 prior to these letters.
In the near future, the Affordable Healthcare Act mandate and all things related to healthcare are to be policed and enforced by the IRS. This means thousands more IRS agents will be added, but the actual number is yet unknown. Considering that healthcare accounts for 1/6th of the U.S. economy, it will probably be a significant number of additional agents. According to the tax administration inspector general, Russell George, “The new Affordable Care Act provisions represents the largest set of tax law changes in 20 years.” That’s an overwhelming thought considering there are over 70,000 pages of federal tax code. (KFYI)
But I guess I’m just Cherry Picking… 🙂