Saturday, October 6, 2012

Obama Found 800K Work @ Home Independent Contractors-Doesn't Need FUNemployment Anymore!

Michelle Obama's Mirror ^ | 10-6-2012 | MOTUS

Good news for Big Guy: Based on the newest household survey, unemployment dropped below 8% for the first time in 44 months!!!

calvin dad poll5
The answer of course lies with “mathamagicals.” Mathamagicals let you take a bad news day and suddenly make it all seem worthwhile:

Who can turn the world on with her smile?
Who can take a nothing day, and suddenly make it all seem worthwhile?

obama smile

Well it's you girl, and you should know it
With each glance and every little movement you show it
(snip)This month for example, we focused on encouraging people who have been out of work for 12 months or more to re-classify themselves as “independent contractors.” That sounds a lot better than “loser out of work for 12 months or more” don’t you think? So did many of the chronically unemployed so they chose option 3, “self-employed.” It’s good for your self-esteem and we all know how important that is.

As many bloggers know, being Self-employed is better than unemployed:
GiantTipJar Will blog for tips

(snip)Love is all around, no need to waste it
You can have a town, why don't you take it
You're gonna make it after all...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Maher on Debate: 'It Looks Like Obama Took My Million and Spent it All on Weed'! ^ | October 6, 2012 | Noel Sheppard

Just how awful was President Obama during Wednesday's debate with Mitt Romney?
One of his financial supporters, HBO's Bill Maher, said Friday, "It looks like he took my million and spent it all on weed" (video follows with transcript and commentary, vulgarity warning):
Maher on Debate: 'It Looks Like Obama Took My Million and Spent It All on Weed'

BILL MAHER: I'm sorry, but if you missed it, I don't know if you heard what happened this week, but his wedding anniversary was Wednesday, and that was the same day as the debate. He apparently had the sex first and was completely spent, had nothing left, and it wound up Romney looked like the big winner and he looked like the Big Lebowski. What the f--k happened there? No, I was fascinated to watch these two men, I mean the contrast in their demeanor. Now we know what Romney looks like when he's all charged up, and now we know what Michael Jackson looked like when he was on the diprivan. [Laughter, applause, boos] 

You f--king liberals, let me tell you something, you got to get on the reality page! I'm sorry. He sucked. He looked tired. He had trouble getting his answers out. It looks like he took my million and spent it all on weed. No, really. I have not seen a black man look that disinterested and annoyed since I dragged Chris Rock to that Beach Boys concert. I’m telling you, at one point Obama looked so dead Romney tried to baptize him. Well. Oh, I kid Mitt Romney. Hey, it’s Mormon in America.

You know what they say?
When you lose Bill Maher...

If all you need is a part time job to survive, vote Obama 2012!

Legal Insurrection ^ | October 6, 2012 | Bryan Jacoutot

The consensus from the far left following this morning’s release of September jobs numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics can be described as nothing short of elation.
According to the BLS, unemployment sharply dropped from 8.1% to 7.8%. This marks the first time unemployment rate has been below 8% since the day Barack Obama was sworn into office. In fact, it is currently at exactly the same level it was in January of 2009.
A closer look at the statistics reveals an America developing under President Obama that isn’t exactly “built to last.”
First we start with the easy one, unemployment under the U-3 index: 7.8%. This is the number you’ll hear on all the major news networks and leftist publications. But this isn’t the whole story of the state of jobs in America, not by a long shot.
Hot Air has done a nice job explaining the internals of the numbers used by the BLS:

The U-6 number, which captures unemployment and underemployment as well as the marginally attached, stayed the same as in August at 14.7%. The civilian population participation rate rose a tenth of a point to 63.6%, exactly where it was in the 1982 midterm election, and only missing the 31-year low set last month. The number of unemployed dropped 456,000 last month, while only 114,000 jobs got added. That either means that 342,000 people left the US, or they left the work force in one way or another. In the household survey, though, the number of people with jobs rose by 873,000 — a very strange outcome that makes it appear that more than one tweak has been done to previous data. (The +873K is in the seasonally adjusted number, by the way.
So how did the unemployment rate (as measured by the U3 index) drop so sharply given that only 114,000 jobs were added last month, a number that was less than that added the previous month?
Involuntary part time work. Also referred to as the “underemployed.”
James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute explains (h/t Hans Bader from Open Market) [emphasis mine]:

1. Yes, the U-3 unemployment rate fell to 7.8%, the first time it has been below 8% since January 2009. But that’s only due to a flood of 582,000 part-time jobs. As the Labor Department noted: “The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose from 8.0 million in August to 8.6 million in September. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.“
Despite the fairy tale that many on the left are embracing as proof that we may finally be seeing the Obama recovery, the reality is quite the opposite. What we’re actually seeing is an economic stagnation far worse than anyone expected. An America where the involuntary part-time worker is now touted by our leadership as a beacon of success.
If this is now what we consider a recovery, we would have been better off just doing nothing. But don’t take my word for it, just ask the President how his recovery should be graded:

I heard a very relevant quote the other day, the source of which is disputed.
There are three types of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.
Ain’t that the truth.

DOL's Solis Misleads CNBC Viewers on Job Revisions, Admin's Willingness to Work With Congress! ^ | October 6, 2012 | Tom Blumer

In a Friday interview where the primary purpose was to give her an opportunity to defend her Bureau of Labor Statistics, Obama administration Department of Labor head Hilda Solis gave CNBC viewers the false impression that prior-month upward revisions to reported job additions were in the private sector (they were all government jobs), and falsely claimed, despite her boss's refusal to do anything until after Election Day, that "Congress needs to work with us."
The video can be found at CNBC, where Solis tells the network's reporter that "I am insulted" that people would believe that BLS's books are cooked. Here is her specific quote on job growth (Solis's comments below are not in the text of the post; HT Breitbart's Big Government; bolds are mine):

You have to look at what happened across the board, not just in one month. But look what happened in the last two months. We also saw revisions there, upwards of 86,000 additional jobs added. But this brings us now to 5.2 million private sector jobs across the board. We saw 104 (thousand) private sector jobs created (in September).
We still need to do more. We know there is still that willingness for all of us to see that more people are put back to work. But in this particular report, I am happy to see that we've seen continued growth in professions and business, and also in local government, education, but more importantly in health care. And those are areas that I know something about. I've been traveling around the country. We're seeing more investments in manufacturing, in high-skilled labor areas. That's where we need to place the focus. And we need Congress to cooperate with us so we can make sure that ... (cross-talk) ...
Solis would probably argue that she wasn't really referring to the private sector when she discussed the combined 86,000-job upward revisions to July and August. But I believe it came off that way to most CNBC viewers and reads that way to most viewing this post. CNBC's interviewer should have detected the lack of clarity in Solis's statement and cleaned it up for the benefit of the network's viewers.
The fact are these:
  • Before the revisions, as seen in a post at my home blog yesterday, the BLS's data showed that 265,000 private-sector jobs were added during the previous two months (162,000 in July and 103,000 in August).
  • After the revisions, the combined number came down to 260,000.
  • The combined 86,000-job write-up in July in August consisted of a reduction of 5,000 private-sector jobs an additions of 91,000 jobs in federal, state, and local government.
  • The private sector has added an average of only 121,000 jobs per month during the past three months, and of only 105,000 during the past six. This pace is far slower than the 164,000-job pace seen in the first 25 months, which itself isn't acceptable in the circumstances.
As to the Solis's tired "Congress needs to work with us" talking point, Politico, as carried at, reported the following on September 10:
"We have tried and we have talked to Democrats and I know many members have different [ways of solving the problems]," House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said. "Unfortunately, the president says he won't deal with this until after the election. ..."
It's particularly offensive, but sadly typical, to see an administration apparatchik brazenly deceive the nation in claiming that it's Congress which is the hold-up when it's really her administration, particularly her boss, who "won't deal with this." Meanwhile, Taxmageddon continues to adversely affect the economy now.

Supreme Court shocks life into Obamacare challenge!

Exclusive: Matt Barber

Just two days prior, the U.S. Supreme Court revived hope – long thought dead – that Obamacare, the president’s signature achievement, might yet be ruled unconstitutional. The High Court shocked the legal community by opening its new term with an order giving the Obama Justice Department just 30 days to respond to Liberty Counsel’s petition for rehearing. Liberty Counsel filed the petition on behalf of Liberty University and two private individuals.

An appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled that the Anti-Injunction Act, or AIA, barred the court from addressing the merits in Liberty Univ., Inc. v. Geithner, which challenged the individual mandate (Section 1501) and the employer insurance mandate (Section 1513) of Obamacare.

In addition to the constitutional arguments that Congress lacked authority to pass the law, the suit also raised the Free Exercise of religion claim because of the forced taxpayer funding of abortion.
You may recall that the first day of oral argument was dedicated to the AIA, the issue that Liberty University’s case placed before the High Court. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that the AIA does not apply to Obamacare. Therefore, Liberty Counsel asked the Court to grant the petition (because Liberty University prevailed on the AIA claim), vacate the Court of Appeals ruling and remand (send back) the case to the Court of Appeals to consider the Free Exercise claim and the employer mandate, neither of which were decided by the High Court.
Long story short: If the Supreme Court ultimately hears the case on appeal – which is highly possible as the claims are unique – and rules that the employer mandate and Free Exercise claims are legit, Obamacare dies on the vine. It’s effectively overturned. It’s like a shiny new Chevy Volt without the exploding battery. It goes nowhere fast and is towed to the junkyard of really, really stupid ideas.
This means, among other things, that people who value human life won’t be made complicit in abortion homicide on the taxpayer dime.
“Obamacare is the biggest funding of abortion in American history,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law. “Under the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate, Obamacare will, for the first time, require employers and individuals to directly fund abortion.
“This abortion mandate collides with religious freedom and the rights of conscience. I am very pleased with the Court’s decision today,” concluded Staver.
During the debate, Mitt Romney took Obama to task over Obamacare: “I just don’t know how the president could have come into office, facing 23 million people out of work, rising unemployment, an economic crisis at the – at the kitchen table and spent his energy and passion for two years fighting for Obamacare instead of fighting for jobs for the American people. It has killed jobs.”
Obama was left stuttering and stammering – sheepishly defending his grossly unaffordable, wholly unsustainable and wildly unpopular Obamacare monstrosity.
I was left encouraged.
Whether by legislative repeal, or through Liberty Counsel’s ongoing case, freedom-loving America should be confident. This freakish Frankenstein monster will, God willing, be soon laid to rest beneath the cold, clammy earth from which Democrats dug it up.
Obama’s shovel-ready debate performance was the groundbreaking.

Dems Scramble to Explain Obama Debate Defeat

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 5 Oct 2012 | John Semmens

Going into this week's first presidential debate Democrats were confident that the most brilliant man to ever hold the office would easily trounce his challenger. However, 67% of voters who saw the debate judged Romney to have won. Only 25% saw Obama as the winner.
Obama campaign strategist, David Axelrod blamed debate moderator Jim Lehrer for allowing Romney “too much leeway. Time after time the President was left to fend for himself against repeated attacks on his policies. Lehrer failed to come to the President's aid despite numerous opportunities to do so.”
Axelrod expressed the hope that “our other friends in the media will put forth a greater effort outside the context of the stilted debate format to do the job we expect them to do. Our message that Governor Romney is a greedy, lying, cheating bastard that has been working so well in our ads needs the supporting confirmation of these widely respected arbiters of truth.”
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Chair Democratic National Committee, concurred with Axelrod's take, saying that “review of the debate transcript clearly shows an inappropriate handling of the event by the moderator. First, the actual amount of time each was allowed to speak was unacceptably allocated. Romney got almost as much time as the President did even though the President is a much more important figure in our government than a former one-term governor of a single state.”
“Second, Romney was allowed to repeatedly contradict the President,” she observed. “This disrespect went unchallenged by the moderator. Even worse, Lehrer's interruption of the President's closing statement on the pretext that he exceeded the allotted time limit was a shamefully arrogant affront to our nation's ruler.”
Stephanie Cutter, deputy campaign manager for Obama complained that “the whole debate thing unfairly exploits the President's weaknesses. The President has said numerous times that prepping for these kinds of events is boring. Having to bone up of the issues and confront a disagreeable adversary is just not his thing.”
Cutter maintained that debates aren't a good measure of a person's abilities to perform in office. “Look, a president doesn't need to be able to think on his feet. He can hire advisers to handle the technical details and speechwriters to craft the words he uses to communicate with the American people,” she pointed out. “An inability to rebut an argument against his policies in a public forum is not a crucial skill.”
MSNBC's Chris Matthews faulted Lehrer for “not being aggressive enough. There were opportunities for him to intervene on behalf of the President that he missed.” Matthews speculated that “Lehrer may have put too much emphasis on maintaining the appearance of neutrality,” and wondered whether “a man of his advanced age should be entrusted with such a weighty task in the future when abler men like myself are available.”
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news posts you can find them at...

New Unemployment Rate A Political Fraud

Steven Birn Speaks ^ | 10/05/12 | Steven Birn

The media will no doubt trumpet the new 7.8% unemployment rate as evidence that Obama’s policies are working. Unfortunately the new 7.8% figure is a political fraud. The numbers don’t add up. The government claims 114,000 jobs were added last month, which isn’t all that great of a number. This resulted in a 0.3% drop in unemployment? That isn’t believable in the least. The ranks of the unemployed decreased by 456,000 last month. Well wait a minute, how does that figure decrease by so much when only 114,000 new jobs were created? The government is tossing 340,000+ people out of the job market in order to boast unemployment is down. It took me all of 30 seconds to figure out what they’re doing. Unfortunately the press will only report the 7.8% number.

CNBC claims the numbers are tame and they’re confused by all of the contradictory figures. This report is overtly political. It’s meant to secure Obama’s re-election. Just wait, the November surprise we’ll get when the October jobs report is released on November 2nd will be even worse. Magically unemployment will be below 7.5%. That the government threw half a million more people out of the job market will be ignored. Just in the last two months the government has claimed that over 500,000 people are no longer in the job market. Where are they? Did they leave the country? Surely they aren’t all women who have decided to stay at home with their kids.
In fact, the numbers are even worse than this. We need 150,000 new jobs every month just to keep pace with population growth. Each month new kids graduate college or high school, jobs need to be available for them. When 114,000 jobs are created that means we aren’t even keeping pace with population growth. Sure, some people are retiring and that offsets the number. But a lot of people are foregoing retiring in this economy. Romney was right during the debate 50% of college graduates can’t find a job out of college right away. These people are either going directly to the ranks of the unemployed or the government simply isn’t counting them.
The real telling figure from the government is the U-6 report which indicates that real unemployment remained at 14.7% last month. U-6 includes people who have given up (like the 340,000+ the government doesn’t count in the official unemployment rate) and people who are underemployed. In other words, the economy isn’t really getting better. Instead the government is manipulating the numbers to favor an incumbent President.
Mitt Romney needs to issue an ad today attacking the new unemployment rate. He needs to focus on the 340,000+ that the government simply removed from the job force. The ad should make it clear 114,000 isn’t good enough. If we had a real recovery we would be creating jobs at the rate of 500,000 a month like we did during the Reagan recovery. What we have now isn’t a real recovery, it’s a stagnation. Romney has to make these points loud and clear over the next couple of days otherwise any bump he would have received from his debate victory will be lost.
This sort of nonsense job reports shouldn’t surprise any of us. It was entirely predictable. It’s a good example of why government really shouldn’t be in the business of labor statistics in the first place. These statistics are easily manipulated to favor those already in power, no matter the party. In fact, the government has changed the formula so that the U-6 rate, which used to be the official unemployment rate, is no longer used officially. Why? Because it hurts the incumbent as it is always higher than the current version of the unemployment rate. The question now is whether the public will pay attention to the September number or whether they’ll wonder how it dropped so much when only 114,000 jobs were created. My guess is that they’ll pay attention to the number alone.

UPDATE: It appears that several Bureau of Labor Statistics economists are donors to Obama’s re-election campaign. Is anyone at all surprised?

The Emperor is naked [the worst is yet to come for Obama]

QMI Agency ^ | Friday, October 05, 2012 | Michael Coren

Oh Lord, Oh Lord!

What a sheer bloody joy it was to see Barack Obama, peace be upon him, exposed as the mediocre, media-inflated, self-important regional politician he so obviously is.

The emperor was revealed as having no clothes at all, as being totally naked. In spite of the massive amounts of media spin and Hollywood slander, in spite of the pompous, smug, verbose and tendentious moderator, in spite of Obama’s blatant dishonesty, Mitt Romney looked the adult to the president’s child. A mature and responsible adult at that, to a petulant and angry child.
Perhaps the most startling moment of the debate was when Romney told Obama: “Listen, I’ve been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you’re talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant. The idea that you get a break for taking jobs overseas is simply not the case.”
Obama was suddenly the community organizer playing with the big boys. He lowered his head, looked scared and tired, was clearly in enormous trouble.
Beyond Romney’s electoral gains after the debate, remember foreign policy is still to come, and that should leave the president drowning in a sea of accusations.
Why did he joke and laugh with donors hours after a U.S. ambassador had been murdered?
Why did he tell us a movie had caused that murder when he knew it was a planned terror attack?
Why has he insisted on apologizing to an Islamic world that sees compromise as weakness?
Why has he not supported foreign liberation movements in Iran that look to Washington for help, but aided revolutionaries in the Middle East who despise the United States? Does he realize that his policies have increased the chances of war between Iran and Israel? Does he know that Russia feels more enabled under him than it did under President Bush? Why do allies in Europe and Asia feel betrayed?
There are only so many ways and so many times you can tell people, “Yes we can,” when four years have shown, beyond doubt, that no, you can’t.
Whatever Bill Clinton’s moral failures, he was a well-travelled and informed politician when he came to the White House, and can boast some remarkable achievements in domestic and foreign policy while inside it. In comparison, Obama is a flickering shadow.
This may have been the worst defeat of an incumbent in the history of presidential debates. Challengers have been ripped apart in the past — nobody got the better of Ronald Reagan — but never has a sitting president done so badly. You know you’re in trouble when even your buddies in media and entertainment can’t joke and lie you out of defeat.
I almost forgot. A former substitute drama teacher announced he wanted to lead the Liberal party and become prime minister, because he loves his country and everybody else has got politics wrong. The theatrics of the banal; or, to put it another way, a downmarket Obama, but with even less gravitas and the speaking skills of an annoying 15-year-old agitator.
Mind you, my 14-year-old daughter’s school is putting on Romeo and Juliet and they do need an assistant stage manager.
Only part-time though.