First time apps for unemployment benefits rose to 404,000. Is this by design???

Understand that "404,000" new claims is for a single week. On a four week month, this translate to 1.6 million lost jobs for the month. In fact, if you include the past four weeks, the average weekly loss of jobs is 408,000. It has been this way 159 weeks out of 165. I think it is not out of line to consider the possibility that there may more of a plan in this than one might first think.

In an interview with Hannity on August 14 of this year, Sarah Palin had this to say: ". . . . . all President Obama needs is for more people to not be working and not paying into the system . . . . . . and he can get reelected."

With that, an interesting scenario comes into the conversation. On one hand, joblessness figures into Obama's re-election strategy. On the other hand, we are looking at "crisis" as something (in a generic sense) needed by Obama to advance his socialist, one world, agenda. Included in "crisis" is an unforgiving sense of "immediacy" as to suggested solutions. With Obama, the terms "crisis" and "immediacy" are tied together at the hip.

When we speak of the financial collapse as being a "crisis," we include the notion of an immediate socialist solution.

Palin is suggesting two things, I think. Obama sees the growing unemployment problem as a campaign advantage for . . . . . . . . . . him!! Sounds a little nuts?! Oh, you betcha, but that is the way this clown thinks. He actually believes that he will be able to blame the continuing jobs crisis on the GOP. Secondly and related, is the notion that a "crisis" opens the door for an immediate and socialist solutions. "Time for talk is over, time for action is here" is one of Obama's continuing themes. This translate into "we have to act now, right now. We do not have time to compromise with the other side. We do not have time to read the bill. We do not have time to fully write the bill."

Disagree? Need I remind you that this is exactly what happened in the case of the 2009 Stimulus bill? Exactly. This was a trillion dollar political payback program written and passed into law less than 30 days after Obama took office !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Think about that ridiculous fact. He took office on January 20th and signed the Stimulus into law on February 17th. It obligated the Federal government to a trillion dollar expenditure (including interest and two additional mark-ups) and became "law" in 29 days. It was a monumental failure and all thinking people admit to this fact.

What about ObamaCare? Well, that took more than a year . . . . disproving my theory? Not at all. "But," you argue, "the bill took a year to pass through congress !!!!!"

Look, have you all forgotten Pelosi's idiotic statement, "We have to pass the bill to find out what is in the bill?" Is that not an admission that the bill had not be written as of the day of her statement? And when was that . . . . her ridiculous claim? March 9, 2010.

When was the bill "scored," approved, and signed into law? March 23, 2010, 14 days after the Pelosi statement, with a 60% dissaprovel, by the way.

Dodd/Frank - the regulatory Wall Street bill? Introduced on December 9, 2009; signed into law on July 21, 2010 - another rebuttal to my theory? Again, nope !! Do you know that the regulatory portion of the bill was not part of the legislation signed into law? That task will not be finalized for two years. A hurried legislative effort? Well, if there was not time to write the stinking bill, I would argue that the bill was rushed through the halls of congress.

Do not forget that ObamaCare, another bill rushed through congress, will not be fully written until 2014 ! Again, a bill that should have taken two or three years to write, took less than a year - with the hard work of finishing the bill left off to future efforts. Heck, ObamaCare will not be fully functioning until 2014 BY DESIGN. So why the rush? Why not take the time to fully write the bill? Because the passage of time is not a friend of the Obama Administration.

Moving on, Obama has added nearly a year to unemployment benefits, in three increments, all out of frightening statements including the word "crisis." In every case, in each unemployment bill, money was funneled to Democrat lobbies and union entities. "Crisis" and "immediacy" are the enemy of the people.

Sarah has keyed on the Obama strategy and she could not be more accurate. Increased dependency supposedly gives rise to an increased voter base; "crisis" gives rise to the passage of law without proper vetting.