Rosy employment picture ... don't hold your breath

The real story in the WSJ article, “In October Jobs Report, U.S. Hiring Picks Up Strongly – Three-Month Average Tops 200,000 Jobs Added” (WSJ November 8, 2013), is in the last paragraph:

 

"Still, the latest data show 11.3 million Americans who wanted a job and were looking couldn't find employment in October. In addition, many workers could only obtain part-time jobs. A broader measure of unemployment that includes discouraged workers and those working part-time, but who want full-time employment, rose to 13.8% from 13.6% in September."

 

Maybe it's time for Waylon Jennings to come out with a re-make, "looking for jobs in all the wrong places."

When the economy went in the toilet in 2008 - 2009, I did some research and came up with  my own back of the envelope calculation about hiring and the projected recovery (http://uva72.blogspot.com/2010/01/unemployment-you-do-math.html).  Written in January 2010, it stated that recovery would take between 58 and 91 months, depending upon one's assumptions and how one chose to place the blame: on Bush or BO.

 

Looks like I may be an idiot savant, which probably qualifies me for a government job.

Lie, Deny, Apologize

·       Now that Obamacare is failing to deliver on its promises, let's see if the Grand Old Party can take advantage of the broken promises of a corrupt administration and successfully articulate the threats of a large, centralized, out of control federal government led by a national socialist.

Now that the conservatives' concerns about ObamaCare's cost and efficacy are coming to pass, maybe the clueless GenXers and Millennials will wake up after they find out nationalized healthcare will be paid for by them, while at the same time canceling or reducing the scope of their coverage. They are about to get the education they should have received in college and did not. Except, if they thought their progressive college education was expensive, wait until they see what progressive healthcare costs them over their most-likely shortened life spans

Like cancer, socialism requires a healthy organism to exist and thrive. Barack Obama has found it. He should be impeached.

Now that the grand experiment is failing, the WSJ reports:

"Mr. Obama said he had intended to make good on his pledge but the administration wasn't as clear as it should have been in describing the changes the new health law would bring. Now, facing a chorus of complaints as many people receive notice that their plans have been canceled, Mr. Obama signaled he was open to some kind of relief, although he didn't give specifics."

He never gives specifics. Only empty promises..

 In the midst of Obama's grand experiment's failure, the Wall Street Journal reports:

 "Mr. Obama said he had intended to make good on his pledge but the administration wasn't as clear as it should have been in describing the changes the new health law would bring. Now, facing a chorus of complaints as many people receive notice that their plans have been canceled, Mr. Obama signaled he was open to some kind of relief, although he didn't give specifics."

He never gives specifics. Only empty promises.  Like cancer, socialism requires a healthy organism to exist and thrive.  Barack Obama has found one in the United States of America.  He should be impeached.

Virginia at a Crossroads

The race for cash has turned into a rout in the final days of the contest for Virginia governor, with front-runner Terry McAuliffe exponentially outraising Ken Cuccinelli II — particularly from companies that have legislative interests in Richmond. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/mcauliffe-trounces-cuccinelli-in-late-donations-in-virginia-governors-race/2013/10/31/f0749b7a-423a-11e3-a751-f032898f2dbc_story.html ). Why is so much money required?  For paid advertising of course.   And McAuliffe needs a lot of advertising to cover up the scandals that plague his career.  But it is not as though he has not been helped by the Main Stream Media, who refuses to give equal coverage to both sides of the contest.

 

In case you have not had the time to evaluate the mainstream media coverage given to the two gubernatorial candidates, the following summarizes the coverage and identifies some concerns which have received little or no coverage.  Please read and then share with your friends, as appropriate.

 

According to Media Research Center from June 12 through August 31^st: 

 

“Although all the local newspapers have written negative ads about both candidates for governor.  Ninety-one (91) news stories and 61 editorials and columns mentioned or discussed Cuccinelli ethics, most prominently questions surrounding belated disclosure from Jonnie Williams.  In contrast, 48 news stories and 27 opinion pieces talked about McAuliffe’s ethical problems, most about Green Tech, which is currently under federal investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Overall, readers saw 152 stories about Cuccinelli’s ethics vs. 75 about McAuliffe, a greater than two-to-one disparity… the Virginian-Pilot and Roanoke Times papers dogged Cuccinelli on his ethics and seemed less interested in digging through McAuliffe’s dirty laundry.”

 

The Richmond Times Dispatch decided to wash its hands of the gubernatorial race and not endorse either candidate.   Newspapers have continually printed more negative information about Cuccinelli then McAuliffe even though McAuliffe’s scandal-ridden and questionable unethical past far exceeds Ken Cuccinelli’s.  Furthermore, McAuliffe’s background should have received much more scrutiny and investigative reporting so that voters could make an informed decision --- but that has not been done!

 

Not only has there been a lopsided barrage of ethical issues, it is the way the newspapers labeled and put a spin on their reporting that borders on unethical, based on their code of professional responsibility to their subscribers.

 

According to Media Research Center, "there were 26 ‘conservative’ labels attached to Cuccinelli in news stories and editorials, but not any of the four newspapers could even muster a single ‘liberal’ label for McAuliffe even though McAuliffe is a Washington insider, a big spender, and a scam artist. The democrat’s strategy was to claim that McAuliffe was in the center and they were not going to use or employ the ‘liberal’ label and reporters obliged -- even using mainstream and McAuliffe in the same sentence.  In contrast Cuccinelli was wrapped in one label after another to deflect on McAuliffe's left-wing progressive and extreme ideology.”  

 

The Democrats strategy playbook is to deny, delay, and distract and the newspapers have worked together to mislead and manipulate the voter.

 

DECIDE FOR YOURSELF WHETHER OR NOT THE NEWSPAPERS HAVE MANIPULATED AND MISLEAD THE PUBLIC!

Scandals involving Ken Cuccinelli

 

1.) $18K in gifts from Johnny Williams – cleared of any wrong doing, but raised the money and donated it to charity. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-10/local/41926874_1_cuccinelli-star-scientific-williams-sr

 

Scandals involving Terry McAuliffe

 

1.) Prudential Insurance and a quasi-government agency leasing agreement investigation http://www.businessweek.com/stories/1997-12-21/the-heat-on-clintons-moneyman

2.) Illegal campaign contribution swap scheme between the Democratic National Committee and the Teamsters http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121953

3.) Investigation into an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Real Estate Deal http://www.laborers.org/BusinessWk_12-22-97.html

4.) Criminal investigation while McAuliffe was Chairman of the Federal City National Bank that was cited for “unsafe and unsound banking practices” http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/12/us/friendship-counts-clinton-s-top-fund-raiser-made-lots-for-himself-too.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

5.) Green Tech – McAuliffe received $5 Million taxpayer dollars and refuses to account for the money http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-24/local/41442795_1_mayorkas-gulf-coast-funds-management-wang

6.) Global Crossing/Telergy http://www.roanokefreepress.com/brian-moran-attacks-mcauliffe-on-telergy-connection-with-global-crossing/

7.) Refuses to return donations from Jeffrey Thompson who illegally supported Hillary Clinton’s campaign http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-12/local/41989004_1_terry-mcauliffe-campaign-cash-hillary-clinton

8.) Ullico http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/24/mcauliffe-silent-on-union-connected-loan/

9.) Annuity Deal Tied to Dying People http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/in-annuity-deal-tied-to-mcauliffe-2-investors-knew-they-bet-on-specific-dying-people/2013/10/26/11456c1c-3c4b-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story.html and http://www.cuccinelli.com/wash-times-mcauliffe-silent-on-union-connected-loan/ 

 

The following link is to Ken Cuccinelli’s web site where you will find numerous articles on the issues that Mr. Cuccinelli has tried to bring to the voters, but for the most part the newspapers have blocked his message.

 

http://www.cuccinelli.com/category/news/press-coverage

Shutdown or Shut-up?

Republicans have been accused by the President and Democrat party leaders of “shutting down the government.” I reject the Democrats’ deliberate and untruthful misrepresentation of the facts.

First, the Constitution establishes the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government as co-equals.  In this framework, the House has the sole right to grant or withhold money. All spending bills must originate in the House, which means that the House – in its sole discretion – proposes whether or not money should be spent on a particular government activity. If one wants further proof, read Federalist 58, written by James Madison, which states in part:

“The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government … This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

Second, the Republican-controlled House – elected by the people of the United States, just like the President, who continually reminds us elections have consequences –   voted for a bill that would fund all aspects of the government except for the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act.   This is a fact, documented in the Congressional Record, and is not a matter of opinion. 

Therefore, whether one favors or does not favor the healthcare law, the House of Representatives – by its constitutional authority – can determine what it wants to fund or not to fund.   It is the Senate’s prerogative to accept or reject the House’s proposal.  Differences are supposed to be worked out in conference, the bill amended and agreed by both bodies, and sent to the President for signature or veto.   This is a fact, not a matter of opinion.

The current unpleasantness arises because the Senate and the President – the Democratic party controlled branches of government – have refused to engage in their constitutionally mandated duty to bring the House’s bill to the Senate floor or negotiate a resolution. Instead, Harry Reid and President Obama decided that it was in their political advantage to do nothing. 

So, if you think talk is cheap, then apparently not talking is very expensive, and in this case, the cost can be laid at the feet of President Barack Obama and Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid.

EW Jackson for Lieutenant Governor, the Bible, and Progressive "Thought"

A text without a context is a pretext.  And so it is with recent ad hominem attacks by progressive democrats on Virginia’s conservative Republican gubernatorial ticket, especially those directed at EW Jackson, a Christian minister and candidate for Lieutenant Governor.    

The progressive left has chosen to attack Bishop Jackson on his personal Biblical beliefs not his political policy. Instead their approach is straight out of their “bible:” Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, a book dedicated to "the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom--Lucifer."  

Alinksy’s Rule 13 – and by extension the approach of those who subscribe to his principles – is to “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it” by eschewing any underlying facts, playing off public emotion at the moment, and leaving it open to the reader’s interpretation to draw a conclusion. Progressives are not interested in serious debate.  They are interested in only one thing: winning at any cost, whether the argument has any basis in truth or not. As Alinsky states in his book, “We live in a world where ‘good’ is a value dependent on whether we want it.” Apparently, “good” like “truth” has no absolute basis in the progressive world.

You see, the attack on EW Jackson – and by extension the conservative Republican ticket – is not about policy, it is about protecting Republican and Democrat progressivism and its collectivist moral relativism from the existential threat posed by the resurgence of a vocal, grass roots, moral majority who subscribe to principle.   The real debate is about the progressives’ “bible” versus the “Bible.”  It is about replacing God with government as the author of our individual rights.  In short, it is about what progressive Democrats wish to do in 2013 “C.E.” but could not do in their last presidential nominating convention held in 2012 A.D. – carve the God of the Bible out of the Democratic platform, and by extension, out of both American culture and its Constitution. 

Specifically, the progressive left has chosen to label EW Jackson's views on homosexuality as being “extremely anti-gay” and trying to use those views to drive a wedge between other members of the ticket and, in the larger sense, all conservative candidates. They quote Bishop Jackson as stating "the homosexual movement is a cancer attacking vital organs of faith, family and military," and "homosexuality is a horrible sin, it poisons culture, destroys families, it destroys societies; it brings the judgment of God unlike very few things that we can think of." Similarly, they quote Virginia's current attorney general and candidate for Governor, Ken Cuccinelli as saying "when you look at the homosexual agenda, I cannot support something that I believe brings nothing but self-destruction, not only physically but of their soul."

 Jackson’s quotes ignore the context in which they were made and the facts upon which they are based. Jackson’s perspective on “homosexual marriage” is best expressed in a National Press Club press conference following the 2012 Democratic national convention, at which the democrats adopted a plank in their platform supporting “homosexual marriage” and carved God out of their platform, only to reinstate Him for political reasons, upon a voice vote of the membership. In context, Jackson’s NPC press conference comments were directed to Bible believing democrats calling on them to make a decision to follow their professed Biblical beliefs, not their party’s platform.

So the question is not about Jackson’s opinion of homosexuality, but what does the Bible actually say about homosexuality.  Is Jackson’s characterization, as a minister, accurate?  For the sake of brevity, I offer two passages from the Bible, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament.  I encourage the reader to do his or her own study and place these quotes in the context of the cited passage as well as the overall Biblical context of sexual sin.

“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” [Leviticus 18:22,  NASB]

“For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened [Romans 1:21, NASB] … Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them.  For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.  Amen. [Romans 1:24-25, NASB] For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. [Romans 1:26-27, NASB]”

One is entitled to their own opinion about homosexuality and how we should address it in civil society; however, from a Biblical perspective, the facts are clear.  All sexual sin (both homosexual and heterosexual sin) is an affront to God and has serious consequences – consequences that are entirely consistent with Bishop Jackson’s remarks on this matter. If one believes in a just and righteous God, then these consequences extend to society as a whole.  Simply read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah [Genesis 18 & 19].  

My conclusion is that the stories reported in the media have little to do with Jackson’s actual statements.  The real question posed by the media has everything to do with who do you believe: God or government?  Words form ideas and ideas have consequences. Policy follows principle.  I think we know where EW Jackson stands, and it is on God’s side. 

It’s time to choose between Alinsky’s “bible” and God’s Bible, a book that was dedicated to all of us.

Dangling the Stick in Front of the Donkey and Beating Him with the Carrot

Gov. Bob McDonnell has resisted expanding Medicaid in Virginia, despite decisions by GOP governors in six states, including, most recently, Michigan and Ohio, to expand their programs. However, The Virginia Senate has cleared the way for the state to expand its Medic­aid program to hundreds of thousands of uninsured Virginians, but the House of Delegates stands firmly in the path.  On a voice vote, the Sen­ate approved a budget amendment that would al­low Virginia to expand Medicaid on Jan. 1 if the state is able to make signif­icant reforms in how it delivers and pays for health care under the pro­gram.

Virginians should oppose any legislation that will expand Medicaid coverage in the Commonwealth and support the Federal government’s expansion of medical healthcare exchanges.  Proponent’s arguments are the moral equivalent of “dangling a stick in front of a donkey, and beating him with a carrot” in order to encourage him to move.

The carrot is the federal government’s promise to provide $23B over nine years to expand Medicaid in Virginia.  The stick is Virginia must opt into the federal health care exchanges.  According to the Richmond Times Dispatch (http://bit.ly/XsLGLR), opting in will ostensibly expand Medicaid to hundreds of thousands of people, while providing politicians with a politically expedient path to balance the budget by “saving” $51 million next year and $114 million the following year.

Unfortunately, the facts are these.  The United States government borrows forty-six cents on every dollar it spends: it is broke.   There is no guarantee that $23B will be there over nine years.  Second, as humanitarian as expanding the program seems, it only provides access to health care: it does not create one new doctor.  Neither benefit will be realized, and the citizens of the Commonwealth will be left with hundreds of thousands of more dependent people, relying on a broken health care system, and no way to pay for it.

It's time to take our medicine and deal with these issues on a state level and not a federal level.

Exactly what problem are we trying to solve, Mr. President?

“Mr. Obama is likely to signal he wants to move beyond proposed Environmental Protection Agency rules on emissions from new power plants and tackle existing coal-fired plants, people familiar with the administration's plans said. 

The EPA has prepared rules for existing plants to minimize pollution from particulate matter, mercury and other toxins. But this would be the first time the agency regulates existing plants to curb emissions of the greenhouse gases scientists believe contribute to global warming.” - WSJ

So what problem are we trying to solve, Mr. President?  Is it to protect and defend the earth from man or is it simply the next step in your administration’s managed decline of America?  It cannot be the first, because engineering science does not support your prospective actions. So it must be the second.

The Engineering Science Says

Man-made carbon is not the driver of global warming (climate change).   The sun is.  

In the book Unstoppable Global Warming, by Dr. Fred Singer, the history of climate science is presented.  In it, Dr. Singer chronicles the discovery of a 1500 year warming-cooling cycle (plus or minus 500 years) for at least a million years.  Discovered by Willi Dansgaard of Denmark and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland, their analysis of oxygen isotopes in the ice cores extracted from Greenland was first published in 1984.  In 1996, they and Clyde Lorius were awarded the Tyler Prize (the “environmental Nobel") for their work.  They found a clear cycle occurring about every 2,550 years, which was later clarified to be 1,500 years.  The global heating and cooling cycle was correlated to other physical evidence: (a) ice cores in the Antartic’s Vostok Glacier, (b) advance and retreats of glaciers in the Arctic, Europe Asia, North America, Latin America, New Zealand, and the Antartic, (c) seabed sediment cores in the North Atlantic, Sargasso Sea, the South Atlantic, and the Arabian Sea; (d) cave stalagmites from Ireland, Germany, South Africa, New Zealand; (e) fossilized pollen; (f) tree rings, et cetera.  Statistical correlation of the warming-cooling cycle data to atmospheric CO2 content shows that CO2 rise follows a warming trend. In other words, the earth contains large amounts of CO2 in solution, much like carbonation in a soda can which is driven out of solution when a chilled can of soda can is opened and left on the counter.  Similarly, as the earth heats, CO2 is driven out of solution. Man’s contribution to these huge cyclical changes is minimal (it is estimated that man-made carbon represents 0.16% of all carbon). Last, these cycles have been occurring for a million years … long before coal fired generation.  So if man-made CO2 is the source of all our ills, what caused that?

The Political Science Says

If the engineering science suggests that man-made generation of carbon gases is an immaterial contribution to global warming and climate change, what does the political science say?

To misquote Al Gore, the “convenient truth” is that the public’s irrational fear over climate change gives our progressive government a reason to regulate energy production, the life blood of a free, productive people.  But why regulate it?  If it is not because of the engineering science, it is because of the political science.

Progressive ideology demands control.  Control requires large government.  Large government requires a lot of money and a dependent population.   Where do you get a lot of money?  You borrow it and secure the loan against assets: the country’s oil, gas, and uranium natural resources.  So you tell the American people the earth has a temperature. To secure the assets, you set aside “open space” to mitigate the nasty carbon based technologies. You shut down productive sources of energy for non- productive sources of energy. You acquire large expanses of natural resources by transferring private property rights through regulation and conservation easements and converting large expanses of wilderness to protected habitats. You do all this while telling the people that this property taking is necessary to mitigate the effect of phantom man-made climate change.  You continue to promise the American people things they cannot afford until the system can no longer support itself.

You see, this is not about climate change.  This is about whether we will remain a free and independent people or a dependent, socialist state.