Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Too Weak to Surrender Obama promises terrorists he'll try hard to meet their demands.

Wallstreet Journal ^ | 050113 | JAMES TARANTO

The World's Greatest Orator appeared before the press yesterday, and here are some highlights of his remarks: "This is hard stuff. . . . Maybe I should just pack up and go home. Golly. I think it's a little--as Mark Twain said, rumors of my demise may be a little exaggerated at this point. . . . Right now things are pretty dysfunctional up on Capitol Hill. . . . You seem to suggest that somehow these folks over there [in Congress] have no responsibilities and that my job is to somehow get them to behave. That's their job. . . . I cannot force Republicans to embrace those common-sense solutions. . . . We're going to try to do everything we can to create a permission structure for them to be able to do what's going to be best for the country."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

Shock poll: Wealthy, not middle class, support Obama!

Washington Examiner ^ | May 1, 2013

President Obama's approval numbers are starting to mimic Mitt Romney's.
According to a new YouGov poll, it's the rich -- not the poor or middle class -- who back Obama more despite his 2012 campaign attacking the rich.
The poll for the Economist found that fewer than half of those with incomes less than $100,000 per year approve of Obama's performance, while he enjoys a 54 percent approval rating among those with incomes higher than that.
Those earning less than $40,000 a year disapprove of the president's performance, 51 percent to 45 percent. Those earning $40,000 to $100,000 disapprove by a rate of 50 percent to 48 percent.
"A largely jobless recovery coupled with a Quantitative-Easing-fueled stock market rally seems to earn more smiles from the upscale among us, fewer from the working class," said the pollsters.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...

Fighting For?



Muslims In America: Sue Me If I Wrote This Wrong

ClashDaily.com ^ | 5/1/13 | Donald Joy

This morning, a Muslim guy started an argument with me because he was upset after seeing the new bumper sticker I just put on my car a couple of days ago. The sticker says: ”You Can’t ‘COEXIST’ With People Who Want To Kill You.”

I’m sure most readers are already familiar with those ‘COEXIST’ bumper stickers, which spell out the word using the symbols of the world’s major religions as letters. Liberals drive around with them on their cars. One of them got carjacked and almost killed by the murdering Muslim Borat bombers near Boston recently, barely escaping with his life.
Why did I order that bumper sticker from CafePress.com and put it on my car?
After a full week that saw the Chechen welfare-parasites executing and gravely wounding various American civilians and cops in hot jihad and cold blood, and causing an entire major metropolitan area to be placed under a locked-down, frantic, shelter-in-place siege of martial law and fear, I attended my regular Sunday evening meeting at a local church. Just before the meeting got started, I was physically nauseated when the group’s chairperson walked over to me where I sat, to put out his hand and greeted me; his chest was about at my eye-level, and on the front of his T-shirt was a naive hippie “COEXIST” graphic.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, halfway through the meeting in walked a Muslim man with whom I’d had, incidentally, a rather intense (but cordial) discussion about religions, cults, and politics the previous Sunday night – the night before the Boston marathon. The night before the day of the bombings.
After stewing for about a minute in the dissonance and distress at the situation I found myself in, the prospect of trying to fellowship with such people in those
(Excerpt) Read more at clashdaily.com ...

Poll: Obamacare Support Nosedives To Tie Record Low

cnsnews.com ^ | April 30, 2013 | Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.

Support for Obamacare has hit the lowest level since the bill was passed, the latest Kaiser Health Tracking Poll shows.
Overall, just 35 percent have a favorable view of Obamacare while 40 percent have an unfavorable view, which ties an October 2011 poll for the lowest level ever.
Twenty-four percent have no opinion on the law which, according to Kaiser, continues a recent trend of Americans offering no opinion.
The Kaiser poll finds that, in the month of April, Americans are more divided than ever on their evaluations of the health law. Opinion remains deeply divided along partisan lines with 57 percent of Democrats favoring the law and 67 percent of Republicans opposing.
Half of the public (49 percent) say they do not have enough information to fully understand how Obamacare will impact their own family.
Sixty-five percent of Hispanics say they do not have enough information to understand the law compared with 48 percent of blacks and 45 percent of whites.
More than half of Americans (53 percent) support efforts to change or block the law, while only a third (33 percent) believe opponents should accept Obamacare as the law of the land, down from 40 percent since the beginning of the year.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...

Terrorists on the Dole

Patriot Post ^ | May 1, 2013 | Staff

"The Boston Marathon bombers hated America, but they loved the American dole. The suspects in the scheme to murder and maim innocent men, women and children were living off the generosity of the American taxpayers they hated. The Boston Herald reports that the 'brains' of the operation, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was on the Massachusetts dole with his wife, Katherine, and their 3-year-old daughter, Zahara. The parents of the Tsarnaev brothers received welfare and the accused brother, Dzhokhar, received benefits when he was a child. Taxpayer generosity to the Tsarnaev family did not end there. The city of Cambridge awarded Dzhokhar a $2,500 scholarship toward his education at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. ... Taxpayers are even paying for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's lawyer. Congress turns now to immigration reform, and the Tsarnaev case raises important issues about the high price of certain public policies under consideration. ... [Republican Sen. Jeff] Sessions observes that the Department of Homeland Security has been ignoring a 100-year-old law that requires that the government consider, before admitting an immigrant, the likelihood that he will become a 'public charge,' who will eventually be permanently dependent on public welfare. Less than 1 percent of visa applications were denied on these grounds in 2011, despite a growing number of undocumented residents who live on food stamps and other welfare
(Excerpt) Read more at patriotpost.us ...

When Clarence Thomas Wrote To George Jones






George Jones in 2000.
John Atashian/Corbis

George Jones in 2000.


John Atashian/Corbis
The news today that the great country singer George Jones had died at age 81 left me flooded with memories of my visit with him in 2010.

I went to his sprawling estate in Franklin, Tenn., to interview Jones for our "50 Great Voices" series. After our interview, he took me on a tour of his basement "museum." "I enjoy coming down here," he told me. "I walk through and reminisce a little."
The rooms were lined with his hit records. Country singles charts with his songs perched at the top. Photos of George Jones with just about everybody. Stuffed opossums, in honor of his nickname, "The Possum."
There on the wall, I spotted a fascinating oddity: a framed letter to George Jones from none other than Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
It's printed on Supreme Court letterhead, dated Sept. 10, 1993. Justice Thomas begins by thanking Jones for having sent him two letters, several cassette tapes and a CD.

Brendan Banaszak/NPR


Brendan Banaszak/NPR
It turns out, Justice Thomas is a big Possum fan. "I can't begin to tell how good it made me feel to receive your letters," he writes. "I have listened to your music for over a decade. The lyrics so often captured just how I felt. As you can imagine, I have had occasion to feel the blues. But, I have also been blessed with so much more happiness and good fortune."
Then, the famously reticent Justice Thomas reveals an intriguing personal anecdote:
"You may be interested to know that I used one of your songs to allay the concerns of my bride's mother. Prior to our wedding, she expressed some concern about this being my second marriage. "
A framed letter, written from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to country superstar George Jones in 1993.(Note: Justice Thomas is referring to his 1987 wedding to his wife, Virginia.)
He continues, "At that time, I had been listening repeatedly to one of your albums which unfortunately is packed away. I believe it was entitled 'Wine Colored Roses.' I apologize in advance if that is wrong."
(His memory was correct.)
Justice Thomas goes on, "One of the songs contained the lyrics: 'I put a golden band on the right left hand this time; and the right left hand put a golden band on mine.' As I said before, your music has captured so much of my own feelings."
"Right Left Hand" is all about finding love after lots of false starts ("I cried a million tears, down through the years / Searching for that special one / And the vows I took before, were all for ever more / But no matter how I tried they came undone.")

YouTube
Now Justice Thomas doesn't specify just how he used this song to allay his future mother-in-law's concerns: Did he play it for her? Quote her the lyrics? We just don't know. My guess is he didn't want her to focus on the verse where Jones sings about a life of enduring passion: ("I'll never have to plead for the love that my heart needs / She'll be close enough to touch / And when the nights are long and cold, she'll be there to hold / All dressed up for one more night of love.")
So next time someone asks you, "What do Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Keith Richards and Elvis Costello have in common?" you know the answer: All of them are big fans of George Jones.

The Coming Welfare Wave

National Review ^ | 05/01/2013 | Andrew Stiles

The Gang of Eight’s immigration bill could make illegal immigrants eligible for state and local welfare benefits almost immediately after it is passed, according to Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), one of the proposal’s leading critics. Further, he contends, some particular categories of amnestied immigrants and their relatives would be eligible for federal benefits long before the 13-year waiting period usually cited by the bill’s advocates, such as Senator Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.), who challenged Sessions’s argument in a press release on Tuesday. These are just a couple of reasons why Sessions and others are calling on the Gang of Eight to allow amendments to the legislation.
Under the proposed law, millions of illegal immigrants would become eligible to apply for provisional legal status within six months, or once the secretary of homeland security has submitted a plan to increase border enforcement. Immigrants who are granted such status “shall be considered lawfully present” in the United States, per the text of the bill, at which point they would also be eligible to receive a variety of state and local welfare benefits. This is far sooner than the 13-year timeframe that proponents of the bill often cite as the time before beneficiaries of the bill could receive government benefits.
According to a March 2012 survey by the Department of Health and Human Services, “lawfully present” immigrants can qualify for cash-assistance programs in 22 states, health-coverage programs in 15 states, and food-assistance programs in 7 states. Sessions and other critics of the Gang’s bill are concerned about the strain on state and local budgets that a dramatic increase in the number of lawfully present immigrants might mean.
“Eligibility for state and local benefits could be immediate in the dozens of states that offer cash, medical, and food assistance through state-only programs to ‘lawfully present’ aliens,” Sessions said in a statement Tuesday. He also explained that legally present immigrants would begin building eligibility for federal retirement benefits: “The long-term costs, particularly for Social Security and Medicare, would be enormous, with millions of lower-income illegal immigrants receiving more in net benefits then they contribute.” A notable loophole in the Gang’s legislation explicitly prohibits DHS from considering the likelihood that an applicant for provisional legal status will become a “public charge” — defined as any individual who is “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance, or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” Critics fear that if a significant number of immigrants meeting that definition are given legal status, state and local government could face an immediate financial burden, and one that could worsen over time.
Moreover, under the bill, millions of immigrants who are currently in the country illegally could also become eligible for federal benefits sooner than advertised. The law would also give “DREAM” deferred-action beneficiaries and agricultural workers a fast-track path to citizenship (five years), at which point they would be eligible for nearly all forms of federal assistance.
Agriculture workers in particular would be more likely to seek and qualify for such benefits, critics charge, due to their relatively low levels of income and education. DREAM beneficiaries are presumably slightly better off, since they are ostensibly required to have attended college for at least two years or served in the military for at least four years. However, the DHS secretary may waive the education or military requirement if she determines that an immigrant applicant has shown “compelling circumstances” for his or her failure to satisfy them. Further, the law does not contain an employment or income requirement for such applicants to be granted citizenship.
After the five years it would take those agriculture workers and DREAM beneficiaries to become citizens, their immediate family members would then be eligible to enter the country and apply for provisional legal status. Again, the “public charge” consideration would not apply to these relatives, and the DHS secretary would have broad discretion to ease the migration of family members in order to avoid “hardship” — a term that appears repeatedly throughout the legislation but is never defined. Critics of the bill worry that this could result in a “second wave” of immigrants who would be eligible for all federal benefits.
Senator Jeff Flake recently dismissed these concerns by arguing that illegal immigrants are already eligible for welfare benefits under current law. But that’s part of the problem, critics contend, and just another reason why immigration reform deserves needs a more thorough examination than it’s been given.
“These are only some of the many flaws in the legislation,” Sessions explained. And, to him, that’s “why the rush to pass it before people know what’s in it is so dangerous.”
— Andrew Stiles is a political reporter for National Review Online.

Allen West “The Obama administration is indeed aiding, enabling, and abetting our enemy!

Allen West Republic ^ | 5-1-2013 | Allen West

“What kind of country have we become when we allow Islamic organizations with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood to ruin the career of an Army officer with 6 combat deployments, decorated for Valor? The fact that these groups went to now CIA Director John Brennan with their complaint when he was our counter-terrorism adviser warrants investigation. We are giving domestic Islamic jihadists welfare. We cease interrogations of domestic Islamic jihadists to read them Miranda rights. We are calling treasonous domestic Islamic jihadists perpetrators of “workplace violence.” The Attorney General is lecturing Americans about reprisals. Enough! I believe this Obama administration is indeed aiding, enabling, and abetting our enemy, radical Islamic jihadists. The evidence is certainly mounting and I am sick of the progressive socialists who just want to excuse this away and try to silence us as “Islamophobes.” You progressives are all complicit in this as well! I want Lt. Col. Dooley back on the list for consideration of Battalion Command, anyone not agreeing is in the camp of the enemy. Read and share this article. Call and write the Secretary of the Army, Chief of Staff of the Army, Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and President Obama…ask them whose doggone side are they on?”
(Excerpt) Read more at networkedblogs.com ...

Bottoms Up, Lame Duck

NYT ^ | 30 April 2013 | Maureen Dowd

During the 2012 campaign, the president and his top advisers liked to make the argument that if he was re-elected, the “fever” would break. Washington would no longer be the graveyard of progress, the crypt of consensus. Once dystopian Republicans accepted that Obama was not running again, they would start cooperating with him.
....
Actually, it is his job to get them to behave. The job of the former community organizer and self-styled uniter is to somehow get this dunderheaded Congress, which is mind-bendingly awful, to do the stuff he wants them to do. It’s called leadership.
He still thinks he’ll do his thing from the balcony and everyone else will follow along below. That’s not how it works.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...

Immigration Bill Contains Slush Funds for Pro-Amnesty Groups

Center for Immigration Studies ^ | (May 1, 2013) | Center for Immigration Studies

The pro-amnesty lobbyists who helped craft the Schumer-Rubio immigration bill included within the bill two "slush funds" amounting to $150 million that may be supplemented with additional taxpayer dollars for years to come. Slush fund grantees are "public or private, non-profit organizations" described in the bill as including "a community, faith-based, or other immigrant-serving organization whose staff has demonstrated qualifications, experience, and expertise in providing quality services to immigrants, refugees, persons granted asylum, or persons applying for such statuses." In other words, the grantees would include many of the groups involved in writing and promoting the amnesty. [IRS]
Section 2537 of the Schumer-Rubio bill provides "Initial Entry, Adjustment, and Citizenship Assistance" grants to public and private, non-profit organizations that promise to help illegal immigrants apply for the amnesty (p. 384). For example, this includes help with "completing applications", "gathering proof of identification", and "applying for any waivers". But the recipients of these funds are given a lot of discretion, as the funds can also be used for "any other assistance" that the grantee "considers useful" to aliens applying for amnesty. The bill appropriates $100 million in grant funding for a five-year period ending in 2018, plus any additional "sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2019 and subsequent fiscal years". (p. 392). There are no limits to the amount of money that may be given out to pro-amnesty groups.
Section 2106 of the Schumer-Rubio bill creates the "Grant Program to Assist Eligible Applicants" and the funds also go to public and private non-profit organizations (p. 131). The grants are to be used for promoting the amnesty through public information campaigns and helping illegal immigrants with the application process.
(Excerpt) Read more at cis.org ...

* Memo To Senate: Mandate The Border Fence Be Built Or Kill The Bill

Townhall ^ | April 30, 2013 | Hugh Hewitt

The effort to secure the borders and reform immigration law is about to enter a crucial month at the end of which the fate of the bill will almost certainly be known.
The bill as it emerged from the Gang of 8 can probably not pass the Senate and certainly wouldn’t pass the House, nor should it.
But the Gang of 8 draft was only, as Senator Marco Rubio has said repeatedly said, “a starting point.”
A policy and political disaster awaits if a bill emerges from the Senate that cannot generate enough momentum to get even an amended version through the House and into a conference committee. The House will not be able to salvage a badly disfigured bill coming out of the Senate, so key amendments must be made in the Senate or Republicans in the Senate should say no to the effort and do so quickly.
The three key areas for amendment are (1) the border fence; (2) E-Verify; and (3) provisions to study and implement biometric screening and recording of people entering or leaving the United States.
The first fix is the easiest. As Charles Krauthammer told me on my radio show Friday (transcript here), we need “a fence from left to right, from east to west, except obviously the mountainous areas.”
Almost everyone from the center-right knows the truth of what Krauthammer says, and given that he is probably the single most influential commentator on the center-right, it is pure stubbornness for the Senate GOP to refuse to listen to him and scores of others saying the same thing: Build the fence.
Don’t “study” where it should go. Mandate where it should be built, and how it should be built, and when it should be built if any temporary residence permits are to be issued.
If the Senate’s bill does not mandate the construction of a thousand miles or more of double-fencing with an access road –with specified construction design and schedule, with appropriated money and with “notwithstanding any other law” authority to override the various laws like the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, NEPA etc.—it isn’t serious.
There is no “study” needed here, just resolve to secure the border. If the law mandates that the 1,000 miles of additional fence, built to specification, begins where the current double-sided fencing ends in California and continues east except for breaks where mountainous or ravine-ridden terrain intervenes, the bill will be specific enough with regards to length. Design can also be locked into legislative language. It will need citizen enforcement provisions and, crucially, a provision that ties the issuance of the temporary residence permits to the construction schedule. Thus citizens would be able to oblige the halt of the temporary permits if and when the fence building lagged.
Naysayers who assert this cannot be done need to look at a map of the interstate highway system. Far more difficult tasks than double-sided fencing with access roads have been accomplished again and again in this country. Through mountains and over ravines as well, though such coverage is not necessary here.
These fencing provisions alone would guarantee enormous support in the community from national security conservatives and amendments making E-Verify robust and immediately applicable to all hires would bring along many of the other current critics of the bill.
Senator Jeff Sessions noted on my radio show (transcript here) that biometric screening is the solution to watch lists that are not watched and a visa program that is deeply dangerous to the United States. This is where the technology gap may exist, or the cost of deployment and the impact on economic growth so staggering as to require phasing. Unlike the fence, which is low tech and actually relatively easy to engineer, biometric screening on a vast scale may or may not be immediately available. Here is where a six-month study of options makes sense, but not by the Department of Homeland Security.
Very few people trust the Department of Homeland Security and with four very good reasons, whose names are Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Faisal Shahzad and Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. These are terrorists who began their journeys towards American targets abroad and got to their targets. DHS did not stop them or track them, and DHS should not be the body charged with deciding what is broken in its system and whether biometric testing could fix it.
There will be other amendments offered, and some will no doubt pass, such as explicit guarantees that so-called “chain migration” is under control. There will be plenty of dumb ideas as well, such as the one floated yesterday about obliging every immigrant in the country illegally to appear in federal court to plead guilty in some sort of scheme to avoid the term “amnesty.” The years of law-abiding residence required to apply for a green card and thus for entry onto the path of eventual citizenship might also be extended.
But the Senate is very close if the Democrats are truly interested in securing the border and discouraging employers from hiring post-regularization workers. Having consulted far and wide for a few weeks, Senator Rubio is the natural leader for the push for a series of key amendments, and the GOP members of the Gang of 8 his natural allies in that cause. With a strong dose of common sense and real border security, comprehensive immigration reform can be on its way to the House by the start of summer. Without such amendments, it needs to go back into hibernation until after the 2014 elections.
The Senate GOP cannot send the House a bill that cannot be salvaged. That is policy and political suicide of the sort that wrecks not just careers --though it would surely do that-- but elections as well. May is the month for a decision on whether or not the country will finally secure its border and fix its immigration system or decide to wait again.

"Hello," the president lied!

National Review Morning Jolt ^ | 5/1/13 | Geraghty

Three quick points on Obama’s press conference from Tuesday . . .
First, Obama demonstrates that the term “game change” is now the most useless buzzword since “value-added”:
THE PRESIDENT: If I can establish in a way that not only the United States but also the international community feel confident is the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, then that is a game-changer because what that portends is potentially even more devastating attacks on civilians, and it raises the strong possibility that those chemical weapons can fall into the wrong hands and get disseminated in ways that would threaten U.S. security or the security of our allies.
Q By game-changer you mean U.S. military action?
THE PRESIDENT: By game-changer I mean that we would have to rethink the range of options that are available to us.
Watch your rear, Assad, or we might have to rethink the range of options.
In Syria and all of the world’s trouble spots, the American people are going to resist intervening internationally until they’re confronted with something more horrible than the loss of blood and treasure spent in the war in Iraq. Right now, Americans aren’t convinced that anything can happen overseas that is so bad, so consequential and horrific, they’ll wish they had sent their sons and daughters and neighbors to go fight and die for something. For now, they’re right; they will probably be wrong someday.
Secondly, examine Obama’s reaction to Jessica Yellin’s question:
YELLIN: Lindsey Graham, who is a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, has said that Benghazi and Boston are both examples of the U.S. going backwards on national security. Is he right? And did our intelligence miss something?
The President: No, Mr. Graham is not right on this issue, although I'm sure generated some headlines.
I think that what we saw in Boston was state, local, federal officials, every agency rallying around a city that had been attacked -- identifying the perpetrators just hours after the scene had been examined. We now have one individual deceased, one in custody. Charges have been brought.
I think that all our law enforcement officials performed in an exemplary fashion after the bombing had taken place. And we should be very proud of their work, as obviously we're proud of the people of Boston and all the first responders and the medical personnel that helped save lives.
Notice the sneer that Graham merely wants to “generate headlines” with his statement, as if it’s outlandish to argue that a terrorist murdering our ambassador or a terrorist bombing on the streets of Boston constitute “going backwards on national security.”
Then notice that Yellin asks about the intelligence before the bombing, and Obama responds by citing the work of law enforcement after the bombing.
Thirdly, Obama declared about his signature health-care reform, “A huge chunk of it has already been implemented. And for the 85 to 90 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, they’re already experiencing most of the benefits of the Affordable Care Act even if they don’t know it. Their insurance is more secure.”
Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times responded, “Obama’s claim that folks who have insurance now have already gone through the ACA implementation is just not right. Lots of issues left.”
The tax penalty for not having insurance isn’t in effect yet. Businesses may still decide to drop coverage and pay the fines (for some companies, it may actually be cheaper to pay the fines). We’re seeing companies try to shift as many employees as possible to less than 30 hours a week. As Inc. put it:
The law's new mandates -- such as requiring insurers to cover preventive care at 100 percent -- could drive rates higher. And small employers that buy insurance through the newly created Small Business Health Options Programs, or SHOP exchanges, may find higher costs once they are lumped in with a general-population risk pool.
And as for that claim that your health insurance is “stronger,” perhaps the president meant, “more expensive”: “Premiums could increase by an average of 30 percent for higher-income people in California who are now insured and do not qualify for federal insurance subsidies, the study said.”
One Big Reason America Is Ready to Ignore the Muslim World for a Long While
Yes, the world has many wonderful Muslims in it. But it’s time for all of us to stop pretending that the basic teachings of the faith don’t frequently bring its practitioners into direct, often violent conflict with some of the basic concepts of Western liberty. For example, let this chart from The Economist depress the heck out of you:
The freedom to choose your faith, and leave one you no longer find to be true or speaking to your soul, is a fundamental one -- and more than 70 percent of Muslims in Pakistan, Jordan, Afghanistan, and Egypt believe it should be legal to kill you for leaving Islam.
That might be one more reason that Americans are ready to wash their hands of the Muslim world and let those countries’ inhabitants tear themselves apart.

Sequester Jacking

To Texas

Question for Liberals

Math

Shrinking Labor Pool

Can't Miss It!

The last LIBERAL

Obama's Sequester

That's Fairness

American Compassion

Smart Phone

Sinking Train Wreck!

BIGOT

Opinions

Witch

Best Drugs

Muslim Excuse Machine

Blame Game

So What?

Real Pros!

Only in America

Slavery Today

Angry Yet?

Job Creation?