Declining joblessness figures, sprouting lately from the current administration like so many spring crocuses, have left even the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, puzzled over numbers that are "out of sync" with the overall economy.
"The combination of relatively modest GDP growth with the more substantial improvement in the labor market over the past year is something of a puzzle," Bernanke admitted to the National Association for Business Economics earlier this week.
Bernanke then proceeded to explain why unemployment figures from the administration seem so out of step with the reality most folks are experiencing. He started with a basic, but often overlooked, part of the jobless equation. "The monthly increase in payroll employment, which commands so much public attention, is a net change," he said. "It equals the number of hires during the month less the number of separations (including layoffs, quits, and other separations)[.]"
Then Bernanke concluded, "the increase in employment since the end of 2009 has been due to a significant decline in layoffs but only a moderate improvement in hiring."
So, despite the Obamedia's attempt to paint a sunny picture heading into the November electionnote their relative inattention to Bernanke's speechvery few new jobs are actually being created during Obama's watch. In fact, the most recent numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, cited by Bernanke, show that the number of people being hired has declined in 2012even as Obama officials reported that unemployment figures came down.
Early in his administration Barack Obama said that job creation was goal Number One. He promised to create 3 million new jobs during his first two years in office, a pledge which would seem laughable if his failure didn't adversely affect so many people. Even with recent improvements in jobless numberscaused mainly by a slowing of layoffsas Benanke noted, "private payroll employment remains more than 5 million jobs below its previous peak; the jobs shortfall is even larger, of course, when increases in the size of the labor force are taken into account."
The Obama administration was claiming jobless improvement in a job market that, according to non-Obama sources, was still grim. "American employers put the brakes on new jobs in January," according to Forbes, citing employment firm ADP. And Gallup reported in February that their surveys show new hirings dropped and that "the February score matches those recorded from October through December 2011."
As to the unemployment numbers emanating from Obama's regime, Bernanke noted, "the better jobs numbers seem somewhat out of sync with the overall pace of economic expansion," before concluding, "the job market remains quite weak relative to historical norms."
This article points out the corrupt methodology this administration has used on the American people since day one. Opening the Obama toolbox, one would suffix lie after lie, distortion after distortion, monkey wrench after monkey wrench. Our puerile president is NOT inept. He is defiantly on point, with concerted efforts to deconstruct American history, its industry, its libertyits very way of life. He doesn't seem to care to whom he hands off a weakened Americacould be the Soviets-in-training, the Chinese, or the Islamic Caliphate he works so diligently to reward at the expense of his own supposed homeland.
CAPITALISM IS NO LONGER the doting parentage we in the West grew up with in the 40s-60s.The one that gave rise to the middle class standards of living which became defined as the American Dream.
The super rich want to combine Capitalism and Socialism to create an American Plutocracy, an oligarchy run by the wealthiest segements who pass legislation beneficial only to them and their corporation that all the rest of us must endure and live meager lives to support.
Instead, one may say that America is becoming a Capitalistic Socialist nation. The combining of pure authoritarian communism and the power and capital of capitalism. This was the famous writer Jack London's fear back in the early 1930s just before he perished of alcoholism. When has a corporation ever been run like a democracy? Never! The CEO is the dictator authoritarian in charge, the upper management is the stalag, and the share holders are the Soviet Politburo. The workers (the masses) are the peasant class exploited for their cheap labor, skills, capital and anything of value.
Big Government is only as big as the corporate elite make it. The United States government is the best government big money can buy! Forget about Left vs. Right, Government is owned, run and paid for by corporate America thank to electioneering contributions.
Why do you think Democratic or Republican administrations put ex-corporate CEOs and Fortune 700 business giants into postions of authority for all of its beaurocratic Departments. Government is created by the corporate masters to do its dirty work, passing well-disguised legislation to benefit the rich at the little man's expense, and to also give us—the American people—the illusion of a party vs. party system of democracy. A dog and pony show the puppeteer puts on while controlling both Left and Right with its dueling Big Government ideologies. A man and his politics isn't much different than a dog and her groom. Both relationships require trust and obedience.
Despite all the boastful chatter about the job creators, it seems worthy to note of this ponzi math problem that with each generation the uber wealthy cartel are the real threat to human decency, freedom, liberty and democracies everywhere. The super rich want to combine Capitalism and Socialism to create an American Plutocracy, an oligarchy run by the wealthiest segements who pass legislation beneficial only to them and their corporation that all the rest of us must endure and live meager lives to support. And why should they not? Given that self-interest is the less than pliant mantra of all that is big capitalism? Unchecked power accumulation (and its objective wealth) has always been the salient flaw in Ayn Rand's capitalistic Objectivist philosophy.
Rarely in the best interest of the struggling masses, despite Rand's insistance that the worker has a level playing field in dealing with the bosses. The honest Objectivist is as much a myth as the Barry Bonds home run record. Both require an asterisk. In fact, Raw Objectivism, Big Capitalism, Communist Fascism bare little resemblance to freedom or democracy for those remaining taskless in the outskirts of civil decency with nothing of their own but earnest desires to fend and toil for themselves on an empty field. That's the very definition of irresponsible winning.
Yet, scanning a Democracy, a Republic or a pure Autocratic Totalitarian state, one thing can be counted on as certain. The men with the money are always wrapped in a flag and deemed democratically free, and are without restraint to continue their plundering and amassing.
All of the above can be said and BE TRUE without giving up on Tea Party values.
This realization makes a patriotic American very sad. I say let's annoint Newt Ginginch, Allen West, John Bolten, Marco Rubio, Sarah Palin and others to the awful task of rebuilding our nation, a reproof to what the generations of corrupt self-indulgent politicians have wrought upon us...
THE BUSIEST OF BAD NEWS HUSTLERS here at Project Scenewash are laughing our dirty socks off and while we had no contribution in making this video, we approve this message, if only because it upsets so many democrats who should know better than to deny their own hidden messages to the world, especially these days when they are so blatant in hiding them.
Sweet, chubby, lovable, blonde and bubbly, conservative, married, and moxy comedienne, Victoria Jackson, of Saturday Night Live fame, starts out slow in this number, but there's no debate that she brings it all home, her way, eventually.
Yeah, okay, so I had a severe crush on her for a couple of seasons when she first surfaced at SNL. With that voice, and those...
MUCH DISCUSSION LONG AND WEARY, STRONG AND SCHOLARLY, sane and savage, still cloaking the profound audacity in this cover-up of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate has traded this nation's proud heritage for a handful of sand. The same simple burdens of proof that candidates great and small before him have had to answer still clutter the sandy beachhead along which this man walks three years after stepping into the light for a run at this nation's world's most revered office.
Let's review, shall we? Why has this son of a Kenyan and his minions spent millions of dollars stonewalling the cases piling up in courts around the country? Why has every document produced, and provided as proof of his birth place ended up being an easily detected fraud that no one in authority yet questions it, when basically what invalidates his presidency is much simpler and already admittedhe is NOT a natural-born citizen as understood by those that wrote that phrase into the Constitution regardless of where he was born.
The verified requirement for President of the United States as outlined in the Constitution and ratified by the States is the following:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of the President… ”
The Constitution does not explain the meaning of "natural born". On June 18, 1787, Alexander Hamilton submitted to the Convention a sketch of a plan of government. Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton's plan provided:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born
Now there are those who choose to obfuscate what the Constitution and its authors has, since its adoption in 1788, defined what the term “natural born Citizen” means, preferring to assume it means born within the physical United States boundaries. Big mistake, and an intentional one.
It is absolutely amazing how a "typical Obama supporter" will swiftly shift his outward demeanor when confronted with this eligibility issue, from winsome cordiality to a vicious attack spirit. I've witnessed it, and have had it directed at me personally, face to face, from a senior State Department anti-terror specialist, a self-professed Scoop Jackson Democrat, and let me assure you, it ain't pretty. It's as if they have suspected all along but cannot admit the truth has not been properly vetted, and have no other choice but to deal with the issue with violent outbursts designed to immediately cease the conversation.
Throughout the Constitution, the writers used the term citizen numerous times but only here did they offer a specific classification of citizen, differentiated even from the naturalized citizen identified elsewhere. The founders would not have inserted into the all-important governing document a quite specific designation, or type of citizen, except to insist upon a specific designation and purpose for its usage.
Admittedly, one of the few shortcomings of our founding document, highlighted by this controversy, is the lack of referential definitions for certain terms. As some terms were thought to be of common knowledge by educated men, it was thought unnecessary to include them. One such definition that has garnered much controversy was the well-regulated Militia; likewise is the term “natural born citizen.”
This document, however, has provided us a methodology and a roadmap to solving certain mysteries. Congress is the bi-cameral body charged with the handling of legislation. Within the Constitution the founders placed guides that may assist us in determining where we may find certain information.
Article 1, Section 8 defines the enumerated powers of Congress and within that we find: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.”
Ah, yes. Those were the days. Not only where these great men of early America familiar with the “Law of Nations” but they consulted it frequently.
It should not be surprising that within Emerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations the term “natural-born Citizen” was defined as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Notice the plural use for parentage.
Based upon the idea of a singularity of allegiance, the contrary position when a citizen whose father was born outside the US and the son inside the US arises due to a position of dual allegiance between his own birth country and the country of his father. Vattel stated it this way: “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The implication that should circumstances place the nation at odds with the nation of a president’s father, the president may not be able to bring himself to wage war, if necessary, against that nation which he may empathize on his father's account.
Which brings us to the controversy we seek to resolvehow do we interpret the constitutional meaning of “natural-born citizen?” Given that the Constitution is the basis of our law, and IS LAW, in and of itself, we should look at the Constitution through statutory construction.
First; a review of the “plain meaning” of the text has probably been the greatest cause of concern in determining the meaning, since the term is not used in general language today outside of this context, and obviously being overlooked by those in political power, it appears to be of little use.
This case clearly justifies the implication for singularity of allegiance and the striking language that relates directly back to the definition found in Vattel’s “Law of Nations” requiring even the parents of a an American President both be citizens.
Second; should the “plain meaning” of a term not prevail then one must determine the original intentions of the person or people that wrote it. This is not always an easy task; as time progresses the nuances of language and even meanings of words change. A prime example is the word “welfare,” when used today most everyone thinks of grants from the government in the form of money, food stamps, housing assistance, etc. But back in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s welfare meant simply “Happiness; Success; Prosperity.” (Now read the section in the Constitution that directs government to “promote the general welfare.” Takes on a whole new meaning doesn’t it?)
But having documentation from those who framed the Constitution telling us rather emphatically that they consulted a resource “frequently” and one of the few, if only, use was that of Vattel giving the meaning as that of a singularity of citizenship of the parents, and especially the father, we must (unless we are habitual Leftists) give weight to this meaning.
Third; should the prior two methods not be productive then one must look outside of that to the historical, and contemporary writings of the time to see if anything supports a particular point of view. And though there are very few writings dealing with the term “natural-born citizen” we do have a number of writings dealing with the concept of “dual allegiance” that aligns with Vattel’s definition of “natural-born.”
In 1794 President Washington in a letter to John Adams stated: “the policy…of its [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean settling them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws: in a word soon become one people.”
Here we see a distinct ideal of ensuring a nation that was not plagued with divided or dual allegiances that people coming to America should “in a word soon become one people.” This is the exact sentiment that Vattel was driving with the “natural-born citizen,” a single allegiance to the United States. And we know today, with transcontinental transportation and massive illegal immigration that this presumption of assimilation is no longer true.
Finally we must turn to any legal precedence that may aid us in our determination. In the case of Minor v. Happersett (1874) we find the following:
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."
This case clearly justifies the implication for singularity of allegiance and the striking language that relates directly back to the definition found in Vattel’s “Law of Nations” requiring even the parents of a an American President both be citizens.
If we contrast this with the total lack of evidence to the contrary then this evidence becomes overwhelming that Vattel’s definition must clearly be the defining voice.
So where is the deception you ask? The deception lies in that thousands of politicians and countless government and academic lawyers insist there is no way to determine the meaning of a phrase used by our founders in the Constitution of the United States, the basis of the Law of our Nation, and operative for over two hundred years.
Yet, scores of ordinary citizens, and dare we saynatural born citizensall around the nation have been screaming this simple truth and no one listens. In truth I totally believe they know exactly what is going on, but it does not serve their pernicious agenda and using Alinsky Rules, the end justifies their means.
Politicians astride the government purse do not fear what pockets of citizenry know because they have come to understand that unless an organized rebellion results they can simply dismiss each outcry as a the paucity of conspiracy theorists as in "Who are you going to believe, some kook or your own government?"
Or they simply vilify good people who believe in and wish to return to the United States Constitution, or voice displeasure with abortion, or advocate for gun rights, or belong to a Constitutional militia, or post Ron Paul bumper stickers, or become “natural-born citizen” adherents by depicting all these good American citizens as potential terrorists… oh waitthey’ve already done that!
So don't fret when you attract the typical ad hominem response from the left. Remember they don't examine the facts; they attack the messenger instead. That is how and why the left invented the name "birther" in the first place.
UPDATE: Here's the kicker. People on the left claim to embrace science. They claim to be better educated than their knuckle-dragging conservative opposites. So why not embrace the concept of scientific inquiry? Question everything, even your assumption that there is no way an announcement could be placed in a Hawaiian newspaper unless the event happened in Hawaii. Has anyone ever forged a birth certificate? Are all the birth certificates produced by the state of Hawaii 100% genuine? Has there ever been a state worker in Vital Records who has been willing to do a favor?
We have probable cause here. Obama's bio from 1991 claimed he was born in Kenya (and that bio was only "corrected" in 2007). The birth certificate coaxed out by Donald Trump last fall to be posted at the White House web site has numerous indications that it isn't genuine. This rather unmysterious fact (any first year Photoshop user knows which way the coverup blows) has been much circulated, so there's no reason the Left (and other obtuse career-savvy folks like Bill O'Reilly) should not know of these details. Why will they not put on their "objective" glasses and expose themselves to a little scientific inquiry, and see where that takes them?
MORE FROM TODAY'S Project archives...
HOLD ON TO YOUR HAT HARRY. I don't think I can let you off the hook that easilyI think we can agree that the problem with the most liberal of the liberalsthose who want to engage in political talk at the dinner table, and then woe to you if you disagree, is at heart spiritual. They remind me of those people referred to in the old Hebrew testament who built that tower in Babel so they could be like God.
Wasn't there also a reference to them by Dostoyevsky, the fussy Russian writer? The liberal mind set seems to be: stay up in heaven God. We've got this. We're on the job. We can handle it. And if you're not proud of us, we'll take the credit anyway. And so they continue to make a mess of things, by any means necessary. Thus their disdain for people like humble but decisive George W. Bush, or more recently, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann who exhibit something I would call a humble arrogance. The political hoi polloi and even their leadership however seem to best operate from a position arrogant humility often seen in money-grubbing televangelists.
But like a good watch, Sarah Palin takes a lickin' but she keeps on tickin' and you can read that any damn way you please.
On July 3, 2009, Palin announced that she would not run for re-election in the 2010 Alaska gubernatorial election and would resign before the end of the month. In her announcement, Palin stated that since August 2008, both she and the state had been expending an "insane" amount of time and money ($2.5 million) responding to "opposition research", 150 FOIA requests and 15 "frivolous" legal ethics complaints filed by "political operatives" against her. She also dovetailed to a decision to not seek re-election and to resign from office in an effort to would being a lame duck politician who is ineffective or is "milking" the taxpayers by drawing a paycheck and funding useless travels. Adding, "I'm not putting Alaska through that...
Palin and her husband Todd had personally incurred more than $500,000 in legal fees defending against ethics charges brought against her as governor even though all the complaints were dismissed. Lt. Governor Sean Parnell, said it “really had to do with the weight on her, the concern she had for the cost of all the ethics investigations and the likethe way that that weighed on her with respect to her inability to just move forward Alaska’s agenda on behalf of Alaskans in the current context of the environment.” The Alaska Governor transfer of power to Sean Parnell occurred in Fairbanks on July 26, 2009.
In December 2010, new rules governing Alaska executive branch ethics, stemming from Sarah Palin's tenure as governor, took effect. "These include allowing for the state to pay legal costs for officials cleared of ethics violations; (and) allowing for a family member of the governor or lieutenant governor to travel at state cost in certain circumstances..."
The concept of Left verus Right has existed since the French Revolution. The "Left" self-identified with the goats of the Bible, and anti-Catholic MPs claimed the seats on the left side of the chamber. From the beginning, the Left excoriated the "Right" as sheep entralled to the Shepherd of Rome.
O UR DULY ESTEEMED ESSAYIST Clarice Feldman writing a piece n today's cluster of new American Thinker articles, describes the Left as people delighted...
"...in the absolute certainty of the righteousness and soundness of their views, and their right to have them automatically accepted as the approved model for all right thinking people."
Progressives hold about a dozen core beliefs plus variations. Half of their beliefs contradict the other half. With a little study, skewering them can be reduced to just a few chess moves. The corrective screeching that results is music.
The concept of Left verus Right has existed since the French Revolution. The "Left" self-identified with the goats of the Bible, and anti-Catholic MPs claimed the seats on the left side of the chamber. From the beginning, the Left excoriated the "Right" as sheep entralled to the Shepherd of Rome. This hatred of religion took on many forms over the centuries and is the hallmark of leftist ideology. In the 20th Century alone, Leftists sought, and very nearly succeeded, in destroying religious faith. In Lenin's Russia, Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia. The Left hates religion, but not all religions are equal. Judaism and its offshoot, Christianity, seem to be the main targets of the Left.
At their core, leftists despise God as well as anyone "dumb" enough to follow God's commandments against lying, stealing, murderor promiscuously coveting someone or something. Leftists are not opposed to any of these especially if done to advance the cause.
There is more validity to Saul Alinsky's dedication to Luciferthe first revolutionarythan probably anyone can imagine. Leftists proudly follow their father who was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. This is primarily the reason the Left attempts to control the lives and beliefs of every person on earth. They offer "freedom" to break God's commandments, but in exchange, they offer only slavery. Remember, impresario magnifique, Bob Dylan sings with no strings attached, "You gotta serve somebody."
Ronald Reagan was partially correct when he declared the Soviet Union to be the focus of evil in the modern world. His resolute belief in "We win, they lose" brought about the demise of the Left's Promised Land. But the Left is not vanquished yet. They have almost succeeded in having all expression of religious faith banned from the West. But they will fight to the last drop of your blood to make certain that Islam's belief in Allah flourishes. Hypocritical until one remembers the Left adheres to the dictum, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
The Left is the enemy of God, believers, and liberty. They despise the United States and everything we stand for. For the Left, we are the focus of evil in the modern world, and we must be destroyed.
Raging against the dying of the light? More like raging against the light dawning in this nation and in other western nations. We, the People of the United States, will be free or we will die fighting against tyranny. The Left has held sway over our institutions for many decades. Yet, they are losing the war on freedom and faith. They have reason to rage. Let it be their last act of desperation and impotence. After all, this life is all they have.
HEY BRIGHT PATRIOTS. IT'S TIME WE TAKE ANOTHER hospitable blow to the cheek from the always spot-on Ranger Joe, in a comment of his we discovered over at the stalwart American Thinker. The RJ comment really requires no other introductory context than a quick memory flash to the "permanent record" the current administration denies we have witnessed play out so far. Thanks to the snippy corporate media, a rather portentous and lawless organism which lives and dies by the snappy snippet, there is still ten percent of the population who haven't caught a clue.
Let's whittle, however, that context down to a glance at His BO Majesties debt ceiling theatreplayed to an audience suffering in type after Ben Franklin's own Paradise Lost, patients, few of which seem very happy over this deal of a republic gone fiscally, and thus existentially mad, except those knaves who were spinning us for all we've got in our pockets, constitutions, and nerve:
Why can't people get it through their thick skulls that The Great Obama Decline is deliberate social engineering. Wake up and smell the coffee. We are supposed to be insecure and worried about the future. It's the manipulation of a street con artist to extort protection money from a nervous fruit cart vendor...aka...community organizing. The Leninist left are masters of mass psychology. They've studied us like lab rats. Ivy League social scientists are engineering this whole debacle. All the angry conservative pundits on FBN can't shame these fools because they love the media exposure. From private individuals to the government we are in irretrievable debt up to our eyeballs. As prices slowly go up and income stays the same...people break out in a cold panic sweat. The collapse of the free market is the ancient goal of the Marxist Cult. An economic depression will cause Greek-style unrest and the imposition of Martial Law will follow. It was Hitler's successful modus operandi to found the 1000 Year Reich with his 1923 Munich riots (BTW...today's the anniversary of his 1933 landslide election victory). They are all diabolical sadists. We are being punished and plundered as a bourgeois criminal class. Chairman Barry gloats and chuckles when he sees his prospects...
Shall we whisper it? Should we instead SHOUT IT from every room top in the cities, barn rafters in the rural heartland, parking lots of all the anemic businesses from sea to shining sea?
Yes, Virginia. President Barack Whateverhisnameis and Uncle Joe Biden MUST be sent to teh showers in 2012...