Remember that unemployment shocker from last month - a drop of .3% to 6.7% ? Well, Gallup begs to differ and tells the world the truth: its closer to . . . . .
Its the bottom line on the chart that is the most important for the sake of this post.
Updated: Townhall.com rates the top 25 most influential conservatives and Gov Palin, after all this time, a "commoner" among professionals, still out ranks all except Rush and the owner of the #1 news portal in America, Matt Drudge.
1) Rush Limbaugh: He's the biggest right wing talk radio host in America, a generation of conservatives grew up listening to him, and he's capable of making news, killing legislation, and selling tens of thousands of books any time he opens his mouth.
2) Matt Drudge:The Drudge Report isn't just an important news site; it's an agenda-setter. If Drudge decides it's a big story, it shows up EVERYWHERE.
3) Sarah Palin: The former VP candidate has a fanatical following, regularly makes news for her attacks on the Obama Administration, and did more to get women elected in 2010 than any one human being ever has before in a single election cycle. Palin has enormous juice, but the key question is always, “What is she going to do with it? Run for office? Get other Republicans elected? Become the conservative Oprah?” Time will tell.
4) Karl Rove: He's not the most popular guy with the grassroots right now after the grassroots concluded that he intends to try to strangle Tea Party candidates in the crib to clear the way for establishment politicians in primaries, but no one can deny how much power he wields. Rove may have made his bones as a strategist and a commentator, but the massive fundraising done by American Crossroads makes him a huge player when election time rolls around.
5) John Boehner: You may like Boehner or you may not, but as the leader of the only branch of government that the Republican Party controls, he has his hand on the faucet of government and can practically turn it on or off at will.
6) Sean Hannity: At this point, we still don't know what's going to happen with Sean Hannity's highly rated show on Fox that's being booted in favor of Megyn Kelly, but given that it has excellent ratings, Hannity is highly likely to land on his feet. Beyond that, he still has the 2nd largest conservative radio audience out there with 13 million listeners.
7) John Roberts: Many conservatives have justifiably soured on John Roberts after he twisted the Constitution into a pretzel to find a way to make Obamacare legal, but as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he wields enormous influence and has generally used it to help guide the court to the Right. Editor's note: Roberts has taken a lot of heat for his decision on ObamaCare, many forgetting that it was his decision to exclude the Medicare state mandated exchanges that has been primarily responsible for all the logistic issues of ObamaCare. 34 states opted out of these mandatory exchanges because of the Roberts decision, and the rest is history.
8) The Koch Brothers: In a movement where all the grassroots activists seem to be starved for cash, big donors like the Koch Brothers wield an enormous amount of influence. The level of hatred directed at them by the Left is a reflection of how much power they have, mostly behind the scenes, on the Right.
9) Ted Cruz: Cruz has been perfectly in tune with the grassroots, has worked relentlessly to move Republicans in the Senate to the Right, and has done a brilliant job of getting his name out there. So far, he's probably done the best job of carrying on Jim DeMint's legacy in the Senate.
10) Glenn Beck: Anyone who thought Beck was finished after he left Fox underestimated the size of his vision. He has 7.5 million listeners to his radio show, his website The Blaze is the 4th largest conservative news site, and The Blaze TV is incredibly ambitious. Beck might not have the biggest audience, but he has some of the most passionate fans out there.
___________________
After notes:
Note: all comments are Townhall's except for my editorial notes.
The full list can be found here, at townhall.com
___________________
After notes:
Note: all comments are Townhall's except for my editorial notes.
The full list can be found here, at townhall.com
Sarah Palin has every reason to criticize Peggy Noonan for being late, coming to the party.
Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin issued a
backhanded compliment to Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan on Friday,
commending her most recent column while at the same time faulting her for
taking so long to come around.
 |
| Peggy Noonan - she does like to hear the sound of her own voice. |
"Great article, Peggy, but where the heck were you when
I and other commonsense conservatives were sounding the warning bell in
'08?" Palin wrote. "You joined the 'cool kids' in mocking and
condescendingly criticizing -- ultimately demanding that we 'sit down and shut
up.' Better late than never, though, Peggy and your ilk, because, meanwhile
back in America..."
Palin was presumably referring to Noonan's remarks in a
series of interviews last fall, during which she accused tea party
conservatives of trying to "topple" the GOP and said they needed to
stop name-calling and work out their differences with establishment
Republicans.
In Friday's column,
titled "Meanwhile, Back in America...", Noonan called President
Obama's State of the Union address "a spectacle of delusion and
self-congratulation" that failed to address the true concerns of most
Americans. According to Noonan, those concerns include the fate of the school
voucher program, the IRS's targeting of conservatives and the plight of nuns
who "have, quite cruelly, been told they must comply with the ObamaCare
mandate that all insurance coverage include contraceptives, sterilization
procedures, morning-after pills."
Our first Imperial President, where "imperial" has to do with ruling a population beyond what is authorized by our Constitution.
Picking up with the closing remarks of his article, an economics prof from John Hopkins has this
to say as a word of warning to all that Obama is and hopes to accomplish in his
last three years:
. . . . . . . . Mr. Obama
is moving our government away from its traditional system of checks and
balances and toward the one-man-rule that dominates third world countries. He
has said that he wants a fair country—implying
that, as it stands, the United States is not a
fair country—an unprecedented calumny committed against a country by its own
leader.
What country
does he think is more fair than the United States? He has three long years left
in which to turn us into a fair country. Where does he intend to take us?
Mr. Obama got his conception of a fair country
from his teachers. A fair country is an unfree country
because it is regimented to prevent anyone from rising too high. Their ideal is
egalitarianism, the notion that no one should be any better, higher, or richer
than anyone else. Combined with a dollop of totalitarianism, egalitarianism has
replaced communism as the dominant ideal in our most prestigious universities.
Mr. Obama and his colleagues are the product of those universities, and they
have their marching orders.
The most
important point is that Mr. Obama does not consider himself bound by the
Constitution. He could not have made that more clear. He has drawn a line in
the concrete and we cannot ignore it.
Those who
currently hold political office, and who want to keep our system of government,
need to act now. Surely, rejection of the Constitution is grounds for
impeachment and charges should be filed. In addition, there are many other
actions that Congressmen can and should take—actions that will tell Mr. Obama
that we have seen where he is going and we will not let our country go without
a fight.
At the close
of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked what form
of government had been created. “A republic,” he replied, “if you can keep it.”
We are
losing it. If Mr. Obama’s reach for unprecedented power is not stopped, that
will be the end. Everyone who values his life and liberty should find some way
to say “No!” “Not now!” “Not yet!” “Not ever!”
M. Northrup Buechner is
Associate Professor of Economics at St. John’s University, New York.
Editor;s notes: I would only add this Michelle Obama description of her husbands intentions:
May of 2008, MICHELLE OBAMA, speaking Puerto Rico: "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."
Here is the House publication detailing the GOP's stance on immigration. It starts with a secure border and builds on that.
Editor's notes: When thoughtful conservatives read this statement, it is hoped they will see little with which to be concerned, from a conservative point of view. The highlighted (in read) comments should set the conservative mind at ease. (the highlights are mine - blog editor). With all this talk about "amnesty," read the highlighted comments over and over, and remember that border security remains critically important to House Leadership. What is being called "amnesty" by members of my side of the aisle, is actually "legal status" for those who have admitted their illegal presence in this country, and have complied with specific remedies. For Leadership, the "path to citizenship" includes the demand that these folks go to the back of the line, and wait their turn for citizenship. While they wait, they have legal status. This is not an "amnesty" that is equivalent to "citizenship." But that is, often, how this term is used by those who believe these illegals, and they are here illegally, must be rounded up in mass, and sent back to Mexico.
Update to the above: I must add this: what I do not understand about this debate, has to do with why politicians on both sides of the equation do not talk about the fact that we already have an immigration system. All of the House Principles detailed below, are compatible with stream-lining the current system, solving the border security problem and using using the new and improved, streamlined immigration system, as the answer to all of this noise about "comprehensive immigration."
Update to the above: I must add this: what I do not understand about this debate, has to do with why politicians on both sides of the equation do not talk about the fact that we already have an immigration system. All of the House Principles detailed below, are compatible with stream-lining the current system, solving the border security problem and using using the new and improved, streamlined immigration system, as the answer to all of this noise about "comprehensive immigration."
Standards
for Immigration Reform
Preamble
Our nation’s immigration system is broken and our laws are
not being enforced. Washington’s failure to fix them is hurting our economy and
jeopardizing our national security. The overriding purpose of our immigration
system is to promote and further America’s national interests and that is not
the case today. The serious problems in our immigration system must be solved,
and we are committed to working in a bipartisan manner to solve them. But they
cannot be solved with a single, massive piece of legislation that few have read
and even fewer understand, and therefore, we will not go to a conference with
the Senate’s immigration bill. The problems in our immigration system must be
solved through a step-by-step, common-sense approach that starts with securing
our country’s borders, enforcing our laws, and implementing robust enforcement
measures. These are the principals guiding us in that effort.
Border
Security and Interior Enforcement Must Come First
It is the fundamental duty of any government to secure its
borders, and the United States is failing in this mission. We must secure our
borders now and verify that they are secure. In addition, we must ensure now
that when immigration reform is enacted, there will be a zero tolerance policy
for those who cross the border illegally or overstay their visas in the future.
Faced with a consistent pattern of administrations of both parties only
selectively enforcing our nation’s immigration laws, we must enact reform that
ensures that a President cannot unilaterally stop immigration enforcement.
Implement
Entry-Exit Visa Tracking System
A fully functioning Entry-Exit system has been mandated by
eight separate statutes over the last 17 years. At least three of these laws
call for this system to be biometric, using technology to verify identity and
prevent fraud. We must implement this system so we can identify and track down
visitors who abuse our laws.
Employment
Verification and Workplace Enforcement
In the 21st century it is unacceptable that the
majority of employees have their work eligibility verified through a paper
based system wrought with fraud. It is past time for this country to fully
implement a workable electronic employment verification system.
Reforms
to the Legal Immigration System
For far too long, the United States has emphasized extended
family members and pure luck over employment-based immigration. This is
inconsistent with nearly every other developed country. Every year thousands of
foreign nationals pursue degrees at America’s colleges and universities,
particularly in high skilled fields. Many of them want to use their expertise
in U.S. industries that will spur economic growth and create jobs for
Americans. When visas aren’t available, we end up exporting this labor and
ingenuity to other countries. Visa and green card allocations need to reflect
the needs of employers and the desire for these exceptional individuals to help
grow our economy.
The goal of any temporary worker program should be to
address the economic needs of the country and to strengthen our national
security by allowing for realistic, enforceable, usable, legal paths for entry
into the United States. Of particular concern are the needs of the agricultural
industry, among others. It is imperative that these temporary workers are able
to meet the economic needs of the country and do not displace or disadvantage
American workers.
Youth
One of the great founding principles of our country was that
children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents. It is time to
provide an opportunity for legal residence and citizenship for those who were
brought to this country as children through no fault of their own, those who
know no other place as home. For those who meet certain eligibility standards,
and serve honorably in our military or attain a college degree, we will do just
that.
Individuals
Living Outside the Rule of Law
Our national and economic security depend on requiring
people who are living and working here illegally to come forward and get right
with the law. There will be no special path to citizenship for individuals who
broke our nation’s immigration laws – that would be unfair to those immigrants
who have played by the rules and harmful to promoting the rule of law. Rather,
these persons could live legally and without fear in the U.S., but only if they
were willing to admit their culpability, pass rigorous background checks, pay
significant fines and back taxes, develop proficiency in English and American
civics, and be able to support themselves and their families (without access to
public benefits). Criminal aliens, gang members, and sex offenders and those who
do not meet the above requirements will not be eligible for this program.
Finally, none of this can happen before specific enforcement triggers have been
implemented to fulfill our promise to the American people that from here on,
our immigration laws will indeed be enforced.
Dems can kiss off "taking back the House." We knew they were in trouble the moment Pelosi predicted they would do just that. She also predicted 400,000 jobs "almost immediately" after ObamaCare became law.
To date, 11 Democrat House Representatives have
decided to retire, rather than seek re-election in 2014. Two
of them, McIntyre from North Carolina and Matheson from Utah, are
in states won by Romney (in Utah by 40 points and in N Carolina by
19). The Dems are in the minority by 17 seats. With this
news, it appears that the party must now turn or “flip” 19 seats to
gain “majority” status. As I see it, the Baucus seat may
be in danger of turning red, as well.
Sen. Max Baucus (MT)
Sen. Tom Harkin (IA)
Sen. Carl Levin (MI)
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (WV)
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (NY)
Rep. George Miller (CA)
Rep. Jim Moran (VA)
Rep. Jim Matheson (UT)
Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC)
Rep. Bill Owens (NY)
Rep. Henry Waxman (CA)
According to Mother
Jones, a far Left service but not entirely unobjective, Democrat incumbent approval ratings have gone down 11 points (from a plus 8 to a minus 3), compared to a 4 point slide for Republican incumbents - a
set of numbers most see as "big trouble" for the New Progressive
Socialist Party.
From Ethics and Public Policy Center, the news gets worse:
A recent survey by
the Pew Research Center is filled with bleak news for Democrats and the cause
of liberalism. “By almost every conceivable measure Americans are less positive
and more critical of government these days,” according to an overview of the
Pew survey. It finds “a perfect storm of conditions associated with distrust of
government — a dismal economy, an unhappy public, bitter partisan-based
backlash, and epic discontent with Congress and elected officials.”
Its official: Democrats are running away from Obama. He is no longer the iconic fantasy of the Left and the Entitlement population.
From the lips of Julie Roginsky, a Democratic strategist and
former aide to New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg:
It is time for the GOP and its conservative wing, to partner with one of the largest traditionally religious populations in the nation.
<<<< Who says they are "automatic" Dems? Their religious and family values best align with conservatives and their work ethic really takes them away from the entitlement community. I say, "Let's bring them in" and send a shock wave through the godless and liberal community.
The House leadership released their "principles" for immigrants. It allows them to stay in the US, legally, but without citizenship or the specific benefits of citizenship. I have decided that this is a reasonable compromise. Will the Dems try to abuse this law? Of course, but I doubt this will ever get to a vote. Why? Because the first principle is one that demands the border first be secured.
We must all agree on this: THEY ARE ALREADY HERE AND HAVE BEEN HERE FOR DECADES. They are our neighbors, friends, and their children, are fellow citizens of this country.
At some point, we all have to try to do something about this ridiculous problem. Nothing is written in stone, and the "solution" we all come up with, can be changed. If we are afraid the Dems will grab their votes, well, why? If the GOP sets installs self help business programs, job training, and includes this population in our politic, why will they not vote with us, as we stand with them on traditional values. The Hispanic population is largely Catholic. Their religiosity is real, and in no wise compatible with the godless Marxist Left that is currently ruining this country.
I say, "Let's bring them in out of the shadows, and onto a path to citizenship."
I wasn't wrong about Christie, but this catches my complaint.
POLITICS
Why I Was Wrong About Chris Christie
He wasn't so smart or post-partisan, and may pay the price as a presidential hopeful.
She has her daughter lie for her; pretends to be a fiscally responsible babe and, in every way, campaigns as a typical, unprincipled lib. Is this the best Texas Democrats can do?
From Watchdog.org - Texas Bureau
HOUSTON – An ethics complaint filed against Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis this week argues that Davis has failed to disclose all of her sources of income and ties to lobbyists, as required by state law.
According to the complaint, Davis failed to disclose more than $25,000 in interest and dividends she earned from 2010 to 2012 on the personal financialstatements she filed those years. Davis also failed to disclose that she was paid by the employer of a lobbyist — namely, the law firm ofCantey Hanger, LLP.
Cantey Hanger lists Davis as “of counsel” to the firm. It also employed two lobbyists for 2012, according to its lobby registration list on file with the Texas Ethics Commission. These were Marcy Weldin Foster and Gov. Rick Perry‘s former chief of staff, Brian C. Newby, who also happens to be Davis’ partner in the firm of Newby Davis, PLLC. . . . .
Governor Palin comments on Obama's State of the Union speech.
If you skipped huddling around the TV last night for the
State of the Union address because you’ve heard it all before, plus you were
just busy with life, well… so did I. Putting the real world on hold to watch
the fantasy declaration of “utopia’s-on-its-way” just isn’t efficient.
My truck radio was tuned in though. And driving kids to and
from ball games with me negotiating control of the dial allowed me to hear what
I’d forebodingly anticipated. Later, reading the President’s remarks on my cell
phone made sitting on sticky steel bleachers (that exacerbate parents’ sore
backs) that much more uncomfortable. It was all confirmation that we HAVE heard
it all before – how more government is supposedly the answer. But the extreme
hubris and naïveté that emanated from that speech was something new and
alarming.
Ronald Reagan said the nine most frightening words in the
English language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Well, last
night’s promise to grow even more unaffordable, unsustainable bureaucracy
confirms we need rescuing from government like never before.
Consider all the “help” a bloated bankrupt federal
government has given us…
In an attempt to “fix” our health care system, government
has taken away our health insurance and forced us to buy worse plans we don’t
want and can’t afford.
To “stimulate” the economy, government blew a trillion
dollars on a failed stimulus scheme that sunk us deeper into such a pile of
debt that our great-great-great grandchildren won’t be able to pay it off. And
our government still wants to blow more money we don’t have on “investments”
that will incur more deficits year after year.
To “lead” us to energy independence, government throws
billions at bankrupt boondoggle green energy gimmicks that conveniently reward
campaign donors. Meanwhile, the President stymies development of conventional
resources that we actually use and he kills a pipeline that’s guaranteed to
provide jobs and reliable energy.
To “create” jobs, government has created more burdensome
regulations and requirements and sat back to watch as a record number of
Americans simply quit the workforce and gave up trying to find jobs that
government can never create.
Speaking of which, while claiming to be concerned with job
creation for American workers, our government is trying to ram through amnesty,
which will result in a flood of foreign workers competing with Americans for
the few jobs there are.
These examples prove that growing government isn’t the
answer; rather, it’s the problem. It’s tempting to tune out rhetoric like last
night’s naive promises that this time will be different, but we must not ignore
it! Between the hubris of an executive branch governing by fiat, to the
arrogance of believing it can spy on citizens’ communications and unleash the
IRS to harass people who happen to disagree with the President, it’s now more
important than ever for us to press in and pay attention.
Why? Because we’re obviously on a dangerous path, but “We
the People” don’t have to be “We the Sheeple” and just get shepherded towards a
fundamental transformation that’s against America’s will. There’s another way!
This nation can shine again with the elbow grease we as individuals can
provide! But we mustn’t let a statist-leaning government dull our dedicated
efforts. So pay attention. Get involved. Understand the way words are
manipulated by politicians who practice to deceive, so that we can DO something
about it. For instance, proving he’s immune to irony, the President used the
phrase “fairness and equality under the law” at the end of last night’s
address. This is the same President who has been arbitrarily amending his
signature legislation, Obamacare, practically every other day to give breaks to
his cronies and leave the rest of us without “connections” out in the cold. I
guess some of us are less fair and equal under Obama’s laws.
The last thing we need right now is more “help” from big
government. In this mid-term year, we need to send new leadership to D.C. to
get government back on our side and off our aching backs.
Thankfully, November is just around the corner.
- Sarah Palin
Palin has a "bad rap" only because of the national media. Not a surprise to this editor that Palin is still #1 among GOP primary voters. She is well spoken, a popular author and speaker, and right on all the issues AND she has an open invite to debate Obama "any time, any where."
The best liked person we tested on this poll with Republican primary voters is actually Sarah Palin who has a 70/20 favorability rating. She's followed by Huckabee at 64/18,
Ryan at 58/18, Paul at 58/21, Bush at 56/18, Cruz at 45/20, and Christie at 40/38. Most of those numbers are similar to what they were a month ago but Christie's seen a substantial drop from +18 at 47/29 a month ago to his new +2 net favorability.
Let's be clear about one political potentiality: Joe Biden has as much a chance of being our next president as does Louis Farrakhan . . . . . . period.
He has spent the past 5 years doing exactly what? And during that same period of time, he has supported the most extreme presidency in our history while betraying the fact that he has become little more than a national joke. "In my heart, I'm confident that I could make a good president." -@VPBiden tells @SavannahGuthrie
The Left leaning academics at the NY Times do what they can to influence society in favor of a World Without Boundaries and the notion that we all should be equally poor. Here is an example.
Capitalism vs. Democracy
— Thomas Piketty's new book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,”
described by one French newspaper as a “a political and theoretical bulldozer,”
defies left and right orthodoxy by arguing that worsening inequality is an
inevitable outcome of free market capitalism.
Editor's notes: in this rather sad display of the abuse of higher education, a French economist pits "democracy' against "capitalism" as if the two are somehow morally and systemically opposed to the other, while implying that democracy and Central Government are perfectly compatible.
The fact of the matter is this: capitalism and Marxism are more economic theories, while democracy, socialism, representative democracy, and dictatorships of various political persuasions, are social orders and domestic theories.
Understand that regardless of the weaknesses of capitalism, it is the single most "popular" social/economic dynamic in the world. China, for example, is successful financially to the degree that it has embraced and rewarded individual effort and ingenuity.
Financial equality has not be achieved when the time comes that we are all equally poor, but, that is the direction this country has taken, more during the past 5 years than at any other time in our history.
Thomas Piketty knows nothing about the practicalities of capitalism because he has never lived that life. He is only a theorist, as is Obama and his Harvard crowd of no-nothings. When folks like me make the point that "Obama has never so much as run a lemonade stand," we are saying that he is socialist theorist and nothing more. He has not lived the life, but, instead, has taken from society.
The fact that the Times ran this story is proof of the socialist/Marxist influence at that "news" source. Thomas Edsall, who posted this story, has done nothing in his life but write and report for Left leaning propaganda sources. Before the NY Times, he spent time at the Huffington Post and the New Republic, both of which screams of his One World, Marxist philosophy. He is a rank socialist liberal, not a traditional Democrat, and all that he says is in defense or supportive of his social theories.
Understand that regardless of the weaknesses of capitalism, it is the single most "popular" social/economic dynamic in the world. China, for example, is successful financially to the degree that it has embraced and rewarded individual effort and ingenuity.
Financial equality has not be achieved when the time comes that we are all equally poor, but, that is the direction this country has taken, more during the past 5 years than at any other time in our history.
Thomas Piketty knows nothing about the practicalities of capitalism because he has never lived that life. He is only a theorist, as is Obama and his Harvard crowd of no-nothings. When folks like me make the point that "Obama has never so much as run a lemonade stand," we are saying that he is socialist theorist and nothing more. He has not lived the life, but, instead, has taken from society.
The fact that the Times ran this story is proof of the socialist/Marxist influence at that "news" source. Thomas Edsall, who posted this story, has done nothing in his life but write and report for Left leaning propaganda sources. Before the NY Times, he spent time at the Huffington Post and the New Republic, both of which screams of his One World, Marxist philosophy. He is a rank socialist liberal, not a traditional Democrat, and all that he says is in defense or supportive of his social theories.
Men make more than women? Maybe not and the Left helps tell the truth.
Hanna
Rosin / Slate: You know that “women make 77 cents to every man's dollar” line
you've heard a hundred times? It's not true. — How many times have you
heard that “women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as
men”? Barack Obama said it during his last campaign.
Editor's notes: another Left leaning publication has broken ranks with Der Slickster and tells the truth about wage disparity between men and women. What gets over looked, in this discussion, is the fact that if we take out the union population, the remaining working male population does not earn as much as women.
Besides, I thought the Lilly Ledbetter law of 2009 solved all these problems. That is what the Dems were telling us at the time. Turns out, even THAT was a lie.
A whopping 69% of the American people DO NOT want Obama to circumvent congress.
Rasmussen has surveyed this conclusion. While most of the prominent Democrat leadership and all of the Marxist loving Congressional Black Congress support Obama's "imperialism," the fact of the matter is this: the American voter does not.
Conclusion: part of the 2014 and 2016 election year strategies needs to include tying Obama's imperialism to the Democrat Party, as a whole. This bunch of academic Marxists needs to sent packing.
Ratings for Obama's State of the Union: how does it compare to Clinton and Bush? Obama comes in dead last.
Nielsen’s totals, based on viewership for CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, Azteca, Fox Business, Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Al Jazeera America, Galavision and Mun2., had the Obama State of the Union for 2014 at 33.2 million viewers, the second lowest number since Bill Clinton's last State of the Union.
While we understand the "why" for the low number regarding Clinton's speech - it was his last "Union" speech as President, and, the full-on beginning of his "lame duck" season, the is Obama's first State of the Union in his second term.
What most reports will not tell you, is that Obama's 2012 State of the Union, was the third lowest in modern times, coming in at 33.4 million. These low numbers are for his 3rd and 4th "Union" speeches, and, is indicative of his lack relevancy. Turns out that Obama may be in his lame duck season, one that began with January of 2012 !!!
By contrast, GW Bush's speech numbers never dipped below 37 million and averaged more viewers per speech than Bill Clinton.
How many years have folks like me told their readers about the false prosperity of the stock market? Well, the "easy money" era is over. A draw down on free money has begun, and the market is in "free fall." I told you so !!! Here is what you need to know - from financial experts. You're welcome.
This defines "Quantitative Easing" -
Quantitative easing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quantitative easing (QE) is an unconventional monetary policy used by central banks to stimulate the economy when standard monetary policy has become ..
And
Now, read this:
You will not see much written on this subject for fear of making things worse. How far will the market fall? No one knows. But, it is certain that this has been the fear, all along, and it is certain that what is about to happen, has been predicted. The important question is this: "What should I do now that QE is ending?
What is the truth regarding the nation's unemployment picture? Brace yourselves. The answer is not good.
The U-6 unemployment rate includes all who are looking for work, whether receiving benefits or not. (When they no longer receive benefits and have given up looking for work, they are no longer counted). The "U-3" is the 7% - 6.7% unemployment number that makes the headlines, each week. Of course, the U-6 number is the real unemployment number, and that is charted, here, at 13% with 11 million folks not counted at all, and "not counted" because they have decided to retire, move back in with their parents, or are in the underground labor force. (I am 68 and can earn as much as I want, without penalty . . . . and I am still working).
You have to go back to the Clinton days (1994) before you see numbers at 11.8% on this U-6 chart. Keep in mind, however, that millions more were being counted, back then. During the Obama era, 5 million of the 11 million I mentioned above, are able bodied and able to work outside the "underground" labor force. In other words, this is the worst time for employment since the 1930's. and we have Obama to thank for this prolonged mess.
The truth about the state of our Union.
Why are unemployment benefits endless, under the Obama
administration? Why are there 20 million
more on food stamps, five years into an
Obama “Recovery?” Why is the workforce
at a 35 year low, in terms
participation. Why are we averaging less
than 2 points, as a Gross National
Product when that rate should be 4 points or higher, in a “recovery” that is as
old as this one? Why are there 3 million
fewer job positions than before Obama’s “recovery” began. Why are there 11 million more Americans no
longer looking for work than before the “recovery” began? Why are more blacks out of work than before
Obama?
The single “unifying factor” in all of the above is the fact
that all this is about the Democrats and Obama. Blaming Bush no longer works unless you are a
primate working at MSNBC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)