The Expansion of the Clean Waters Act: A Backdoor Way To Shut Down Fracking And Coal

Earlier this year, President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a draft rule to arbitrarily expand the Clean Waters Act beyond its current applicability to navigable waters and, once again, without any Congressional approval.  Under the proposed rule, the EPA would now control access to both intermittent and permanent sources of water; even if that water exists on private property.  So, if there's a pond out there that only forms after a rainfall, but is mostly dry the rest of the time, it will now be regulated by the EPA.

The justification being used by the Obama Administration for expanding the Clean Waters Act is that we need to insure access to clean drinking water and available and uncontaminated water sources for farming.  However, I believe there is an alternative motive behind this ruling and why the President doesn't want Congress involved, and that is so they can effectively shutdown oil drilling, and especially, hydraulic fracturing; or, what is commonly called fracking.

We all know the old story that oil and water don't mix.  But, when it comes to drilling for oil, a lot of water, mixed with clay and lubricants, is needed to cool and lubricate the rotary drilling heads and vacate the hole of any debris as the drill head bores its way through thousands of feet of soil and rock.  Now, usually, when the drilling is completed, and oil is found, this "mud" (the water, clay, lubricants, and cleared debris) is no longer needed.  But, not in the case of fracking.  Once the the drilling reaches the desired depth and sideways location, water is again, mixed with things like sand and chemicals, and is then pumped into the drilled earth at very high pressures.  In doing so, the shale rock is fractured and the oil or natural gas, contained within that shale, is released.  And the fracking continues until there is no more oil to be extracted.

So, I think it is highly likely that Obama will use the expansion of the Clean Waters Act to minimize any access to water for the purpose of fracking, or even, simply drilling for oil.  Unfortunately, oil and gas  aren't the only operations that require water.  Coal, too, requires water to cool and lubricate its drilling bits. So, I wouldn't doubt that the denial of access to water for all three of these fossil fuel operations is one of the first things that the EPA will do with their new found powers.  I also would expect that, when the EPA is taken to court over the expansion of the Clean Waters Act, Obama will, once again, find himself on the losing end of trying to legislate without Congress.

References:

Clean Water Act proposal would protect more water sources in West: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-epa-waters-20140326-story.html

Drowning our property rights: EPA's misuse of the Clean Water Act: http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/218663-drowning-our-property-rights-epas-misuse-of-the-clean-water-act

Explained: Oil and Gas Development Using High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing: http://www.watershedcouncil.org/learn/hydraulic-fracturing/

Explained: Oil Drilling: http://www.scienceclarified.com/Mu-Oi/Oil-Drilling.html

The Damage That Obama Has Done To The Democrat Party

In 2009, President Obama was swept into office with widespread expectations that America would become a better place.  Aiding him in this endeavor was the fact that he had majority control in the House of Representatives and a two-thirds unstoppable majority in the Senate.

But, as the lies and deceptions surrounding his promise of "hope and change" started to slowly creep out of the woodwork, things went dramatically south for both him and his party.  His approvals fell from nearly 70% on Gallup to today's low 40's.  In 2010, in response to ObamaCare and the changes that Americans just weren't liking, there was a sea-change election with Democrats losing the House and their powerful majority in the Senate.  Additionally, state legislature, once Democrat controlled, started to fall.

While Obama got reelected in 2012, the Democrats in both the House and Senate continued to lose seats but, not enough to lose majority control in the Senate.  The trend toward Republican control of state legislatures continued.

Then in 2014, the Democrats lost even more seats in the House while the Senate's majority flipped to a 55-seat takeover by the GOP; resulting in the highest Congressional control by a single party since the Great Depression. The Republicans also became even stronger in the state legislatures.  With 69% as the most powerful Republican control since 1900.   All that the President could say about this is that if two-thirds of the people hadn't stayed home this last election, things would have been a lot better for his party.  As if all those people would have voted for Democrats.

The clear and simple fact is that, since President Obama took office, his party has become a bunch of historic 3-time losers;  losing both statewide and nationally in 2010, 2012, and now again, in 2014.  As a result, the President's party is at its weakest position in at least 85 years; 114 years if you just look at state legislatures.  Obviously, the nation is rejecting Democrat ideas and principals and I believe that the party's top salesman, Barack Obama, is responsible.  I also believe that if he continues in an even more heavy-handed and ideologically-driven manner over the next two years, the losses by the in 2016 will be even greater; including a possible landslide loss of the White House.

Obviously, the Republicans, who are supposed to be in total disarray and with very little approval in the polls, are doing something right.  Or, perhaps, it is Obama and Democrats who are doing everything wrong.  

References:

Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval: http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

Republicans just won the election. President Obama doesn’t much care: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/05/republicans-just-won-the-election-president-obama-doesnt-much-care/

In the states, the GOP is in its best position since the Great Depression: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/09/in-the-states-the-gop-is-in-its-best-position-since-the-great-depression/

What's Really Behind The December 23rd Protests In New York City

The graphic you see above was posted on a website of the organizers of the December 23rd protest march down New York City's 5th Avenue.  The organizers in this case were a group of individuals that call themselves the A.N.S.W.E.R Coalition.  The acronym A.N.S.W.E.R stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. 

Now, while ending wars and stopping racism sounds like truly noble endeavors, the real reason this group exists is to try and divide Americans over issues such as race and war; and, in doing so, attempt to destroy the country as we know it.  The people who founded this group did so right after 9/11 and before we had even talked of invading Afghanistan.  Their motives were less about us going to war over 9/11 and more about the fact that we deserved what we got; and, as such, the people responsible for the horror of that day should not be punished with war.  The "coalition" they represent is pretty much pro-socialism and anti-capitalism;  pro-Palestinian/Muslim/Arab and anti-Israel; and, they all support the destruction of this capitalist society.  That is exactly why they chose 5th Avenue to march in protest.  5th Avenue is arguably the most pricey and prestigious street in the United States with some of the most expensive store fronts and shops in the world.  It symbolizes everything these people think is wrong with our country.  Specifically, wealth and capitalism.

So, whether or not the people marching in that protest knew it or not, they were participating in an event that was designed to fracture and weaken this country.  An attempt to pit Americans against the police.  To divide blacks against whites and the police.  And, for those who participated in that protest not knowing what A.N.S.W.E.R is all about, there's one name for them: Useful Idiots.

One last thing.  For those who think capitalism is bad and socialism good, ask yourself why there are only 4 remaining socialist countries in the world: Vietnam, Laos, North Korean, and Cuba.  Even China, which at one time was a hardcore communist nation, has evolved into a more and more capitalistic society by the day.   Gone are all the former union of Soviet satellites that were once socialist/communist because the way of socialism is oppressive and it literally breaks the human spirit of free will.

References:

ANSWER Coalition: Tuesday, Dec. 23 March Proceeding As planned: http://www.answercoalition.org/

A.N.S.W.E.R.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.N.S.W.E.R.

A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism): Profile By Stand4Fact.org: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/answerprofilestand.html

Fifth Avenue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Avenue

Useful idiot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

List of socialist states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

Really? The Fastest Growth In GDP Since 2003?

In the latest iteration of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), we were told that the economy grew at 5% in the third quarter of this year.  This coupled with a 4.6% growth in the second quarter apparently gives us the fastest economic growth since 2003.

But, let me ask you this.  Do you feel like, financially, you are living in the best of times in the last 11 years?  Probably, not. 

So, why does the GDP growth look so good?  The answer is simple. Nearly a half trillion dollars in extra growth is being added to the GDP numbers each quarter that wasn't being counted in 2003.  That's because, beginning with the 2nd quarter of last year, the folks who calculate the GDP each quarter, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, started adding in the value of intellectual property -- the costs of research and development of new products, and the costs of buying copyrighted material such a movie scripts, books, songs, etc.  Previously, those costs were merely counted as intermediate business expenses that were ultimately rolled up into the final cost of the product and not counted as part of the GDP.

To understand that this is a significant change, let me use the example of a fictional publishing company who spends $100,000 to buy the rights to print an author's book.  In the past, that $100,000 was just written off as a business expense and the real value of it was enumerated in the GDP when the book was sold.  Today, under the new and creative accounting for intellectual property, that $100,000 cost is added to the GDP up front.  Then, subsequently, the book's sales are also added to the GDP when they occur.  This sure seems like some kind of double counting. Doesn't it?

Many believe this trickery adds a full one percent to the GDP growth each quarter.  So, last quarter's growth was probably only 4% -- not 5% -- when the old method of accounting was used.  Similarly, the 4.6% growth in the second quarter would have been 3.6%.  However, this new method of calculating the GDP certainly gives President Obama bragging rights regarding the growth of the economy being the fastest since 2003.

Lastly, in my opinion,  the best measure of the health of the economy is what you and I are spending.  And, last quarter, Americans only spent at an increased rate of 2.5%; well behind a supposed overall growth of  5%.  What's worse is that the  consumer is taking on record amounts of credit debt while increasing their spending.  Not a good thing.  What really drove the growth in GDP was a 9.9% growth in government spending and 8.9% increase in business investment (which includes intellectual property).

References:

The U.S. economy grew at its quickest pace in 11 years in the third quarter, the strongest sign yet that growth has decisively shifted into higher gear: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102291457

GDP: Does Lady Gaga Count?: http://www.econlife.com/gdp-does-lady-gaga-count/

GDP Revisions Make Recovery Look Better, Recession Not as Bad: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/07/31/gdp-revisions-make-recovery-look-better-recession-not-as-bad/

U.S. consumer credit up a record amount in July: http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/09/08/u-s-consumer-credit-up-a-record-amount-in-july/

With GDP growing strongly, Republicans' economic dilemma gets more complicated: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/12/23/with-gdp-growing-strongly-republicans-economic-dilemma-gets-more-complicated/

pb

With 2 Cops Killed, America Just Got Less Safe

Right now, the police know that they are operating under higher risk since two New York City officers have been assassinated over the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner.  Police across the country are on alert and encouraged to utilize higher vigilance.  They are being told to always wear their bullet-proof vests; even when off duty but still uniformed,  to avoid individuals that may be looking for confrontation, always respond to a radio call with a minimum of two squad cars, never patrol alone, and to always be aware of their surroundings. 

All of these things mean we will see less policing and, certainly, not better policing.  Never patrolling alone and multiple cars acting on radio calls mean less broad-based police coverage on the streets. As a result, crime is sure to rise. President Obama seems to think we need a task force on policing in order to appease those who believe all cops are racists. His words -- and the words of the likes of New York Mayor Bill De Blasio, and race activist Al Sharpton -- have created a situation that can't be erased by any recommendations that his task force would potentially make.  His creation of a task force, in itself, is an acknowledgement that he believes that police are acting with racial bias, thus feeding into the beliefs of the protesters and those who want to hurt or kill cops.

It will take decades to undo what has been done in just two months in this country with the protests and especially its support from major leaders.  People like Obama and Sharpton don't seem to understand that even peaceful protests can incite violence by some people who think they must act on their own to exact revenge.  You don't whip up mobs of protesters, condone what they are doing, and expect that the worst can't or won't happen.  

The President was a community organizer and as Wikipedia notes: "...community organizers generally assume that social change necessarily involves conflict and social struggle in order to generate collective power for the powerless."  It is time Obama stops acting like a community organizer and racial activist, and becomes the President of all the people (including cops). From his handling of the protests to his constant use of executive orders to circumvent Congress, it is always about conflict with this President.

References:

Gunman executes 2 NYPD cops in Garner 'revenge': http://nypost.com/2014/12/20/2-nypd-cops-shot-execution-style-in-brooklyn/

NY police told not to make arrests unless absolutely necessary and 'avoid people looking for confrontation': Cops across U.S. are put on high alert after NYPD murders: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2883245/Police-departments-alert-cop-killings.html

President Obama Creates the Task Force on 21st Century: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/12/18/president-obama-creates-task-force-21st-century-policing

Community Organizing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_organizing

In Chicago, Obama worked at various times as a community organizer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama

 For Mayor de Blasio and New York Police, a Rift Is Ripped Open: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/nyregion/a-widening-rift-between-de-blasio-and-the-police-is-savagely-ripped-open.html

Obama, de Blasio blasted over NYPD cop slayings - Yahoo: http://news.yahoo.com/ray-kelly-blasts-de-blasio-brooklyn-cop-killings-175602893.html

Al Sharpton Leads March in DC as NYC Protesters Chant: ‘What Do We Want? Dead Cops!’: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/12/13/al-sharpton-leads-thousands-in-saturday-march-on-washington-dc/

Americans Don't Share Feinstein's (and Obama's) Outrage Over CIA Torture

Democrats are still trying to understand why they lost so big in November's elections.   I think the answer is simple:  Americans don't share the extreme liberal viewpoints of the Democrat party.

A perfect example, was the partisan Torture Report that Senator Dianne Feinstein  released a week ago.  In three new polls, Americans say that what the CIA did was necessary when put in the context of 9/11. 

In a PEW poll, 51% say torture was justified and only 43% thought the report should have been released.

A Washington Post/ABC poll showed an even more dramatic difference with 59% in support of the CIA interrogations; while only 31% agreed with Feinstein.  Then, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that just 28% believed that the interrogations "went too far and were wrong."  On the other hand, 51% supported what was done.

Lastly, the NJ.com (New Jersey.com) website has been conducting an online poll. While the voting is a small sample and multiple votes are possible, it does show that those being polled don't think that it was appropriate for Feinstein to have released the report:

Americans get it.  Given what happened on 9/11, our government should have done everything possible, within reason, to protect us, and in the minds of most Americans, enhanced interrogations were within reason.

References:

PEW Research: About Half See CIA Interrogation Methods as Justified: http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/15/about-half-see-cia-interrogation-methods-as-justified/

Washington Post/ABC Poll: New poll finds majority of Americans believe torture justified after 9/11 attacks: http://www.daily-journal.com/news/local/new-poll-finds-majority-of-americans-believe-torture-justified-after/article_69fb9c64-6aff-52cc-a292-805bf61537d6.html

Americans don't share outrage on CIA techniques: Poll: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102273140

NJ.com: Poll: Should the Senate have released its report on CIA torture?: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2014/12/poll_should_the_senate_have_released_its_report_on_cia_torture_during_the_bush_administration.html

The $15 Minimum Wage and Maribel versus McDonald's

Recently, I ran across a story in the DailyMail about a Mexican immigrant by the name of Maribel who organized a strike against a McDonald's in her Los Angeles neighborhood.  Her grievance was that she and her two toddlers couldn't live on the $9.35/hour that McDonald's was paying her.  Which, by the way, is 35 cents higher than California's minimum wage of $9/hour, which is set to be $10/hour as of 1/1/16.

Because of her situation, she says she needs $15/hour.  Not $10.  Not $12. But, exactly $15.  Which is what apparently the magic number that everyone in the U.S., who is earning a minimum wage, thinks they should be making in order to live. This despite the fact that the cost of living varies widely in this country; from state to state and, from urban areas to rural America.

My biggest problem with the $15 minimum wage is that it is higher than the average annual income of everyone living in the County of Los Angeles.  In that county of 10 million people, the average per capita income was $27,749 in 2013.  When broken down to an hourly wage, it is equal to $13.34. As such, are we then supposed to believe that as many as 5 million Angelenos,  making less than $15/hour, are unable to live?

My other problem is with Maribel's story itself.  While it was never stated, it is obvious that she is living in this country illegally because her mother brought her here from Mexico when she was just 7 months old.  That's a problem for a lot of people like Maribel.  Because, if she was a naturalized citizen and given the fact that she had two children and is only making $9.35/hour -- even if she worked a full 40 hour week -- she would be eligible for all kinds of state and federal welfare programs.  Programs that have an aggregate worth in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Also, because she is in poverty, she will not have to pay any federal taxes.  Something that wouldn't be the case if she made $15/hour.  She is also eligible to get money back from the IRS by filing a tax return and by claiming Earned Income Tax Credits for herself and her children. An amount that could be as high as $3300; something she would lose when making $15/hour.

Once again, the $15 minimum wage proponents don't seem to see what many single parents, assuming they are citizens, will be giving up by going to this level of a minimum wage.  As is often said:   Be  careful of what you wish for.


References:

Maribel vs McDonald's: Single mother of two goes on strike against fast-food giant demanding $15 minimum wage and a union for employee: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2878565/Maribel-vs-McDonald-s-Single-mother-two-goes-strike-against-fast-food-giant-demanding-15-minimum-wage-union-employees.html

2014 Poverty Guidelines:  http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm

Welfare In California: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_in_California

Cost of Living Calculator - CNN Money: http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/

"Poverty" pays better than middle-class employment: http://humanevents.com/2012/11/28/poverty-pays-better-than-middle-class-employment/

Policy Basics: The Earned Income Tax Credit: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=2505

Think Twice About Any Real Trade With Cuba

Shortly after President Obama announced a normalization of trade relations with Cuba, U.S. businesses began salivating over the fact that they now have a new market for their products. However, this assumes that we will be able to trade with Cuba as if it were a normal partner.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

First and most importantly, Cubans are poor as a result of Communism.

Because Cuba is a communist country, the government sets the wages; and because of this, the per capita income is less than $7,000 a year.  After buying necessities, there's probably not a lot of room left to spend on expensive imported goods from the U.S.  I really can't see the average Cuban buying even the cheapest GM car, the Spark, which sells for almost twice what the average Cuban gets paid in two years.  Also, understand that China is a major trading partner with Cuba and, as such, the prices of U.S. products will have to be lower than theirs in order to compete. 

Additionally, the Cuban government decides what will be sold to its citizens, and access to any approved goods is rationed. If the government says you can only buy 2 pencils a year, that's all you get. The government also sets the prices of any goods sold there.

For these reasons, Cubans will probably see very few imports from the U.S.  At best, the airlines, with flights to and from the island, stand to benefit the most.

On the other side of the coin, Cuba will most likely benefit the most from this deal.  They could experience increased exporting of products such as rum and cigars.  Although, I'm guessing they already export as much product as they now produce to their existing trading partners like China, Russia, Venezuela and other central and south American countries.  For sure, Americans visiting the island should help the tourism business; assuming that the current ban on tourism is lifted and accepted by Raul Castro.  Whether or not those visitors will be able to buy anything but a handful of Cuban products while visiting there is questionable since, again, all products are rationed.

Lastly, I don't think American companies will be able to set up businesses in Cuba.  Again, because of communism, most business are government owned; with some cooperatives and some self-employment allowed.  Not hardly a business model that would be compatible with any form of U.S. business.


References:

U.S. Companies Consider the Possibilities of Cuban Trade: http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-companies-consider-the-possibilities-of-cuban-trade-1418856872

UN Data: Cuba: https://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=CUBA

Economy of Cuba: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba

Taxpayers Still Paying For The Failings Of Obama's Energy Secretary Chu

Basically, Steven Chu was picked by Barack Obama to be his Energy Secretary because he was a climate change zealot who wanted to eliminate all fossil fuels.  So, like any zealot, he never saw a green business or green technology that he didn't like.  Even if that business or technology made no operational or economic sense.  As a result, the list of failed companies that he recommended while in office continues to grow.  So too, do the billions of taxpayer dollars lost to his bad judgement.

Recently we learned of the biggest of the Chu losers: The Ivanpath Thermal Solar Power Plant.  Built at a cost of $2.2 billion, Obama and Chu -- actually the taxpayers -- footed $1.6 billion dollars of that cost as a loan, but the plant is only producing a quarter of the energy output promised and that means that it is losing money big time.  As result, that loan is looking a lot like another $1.6 billion taxpayer loss.

On top of the loss of money, thermal solar technology is literally incinerating any birds that gets near it.

That fact that this plant is 75% short of its power output just proves that Chu, and the people who reported to him, didn't do an adequate scientific or engineering review of the project.  It is simply more proof that ideology is being put ahead of all else in Obama's failed presidency.  What the new Congress needs to do in 2015 is to cut off funding to the President's Energy Department so this kind of abuse of funds is put to an end.

References:

At Ivanpah Solar Power Plant, Energy Production Falling Well Short of Expectations: http://breakingenergy.com/2014/10/29/at-ivanpah-solar-power-plant-energy-production-falling-well-short-of-expectations/

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility

Steven Chu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Chu

List of Failed Obama Green Energy & Solar Companies in the Billions: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2930442/posts

Green Energy Failures: https://www.gop.com/topic/government-accountability-green-energy-failures/canonical/

The Cuba Deal: Another One of Obama's One-Sided Negotiations

In March 2009, shortly after taking office, President Obama told Iran:

"if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fists, they will find an extended hand from us"

Despite the fact that Iran has never unclenched its fist by continuing its nuclear weapons program; and, by continuing the development of long range missiles; and by continuing to undermine infant democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan by arming anti-government rebels; we stupidly, and one-sidedly, extended our hand by removing sanctions against them.  Even though the removal of such sanctions has produced  zero slowdown in their nuclear weapon ambitions. 

Then there was our "reset" with Russia in 2009 and our one-sided gifts to Putin such as agreeing not to put missile defense systems in Europe.  Where did that get us?  Relations with Russia are now almost as cold as they were throughout the Cold War.

Also, Obama announced a climate change deal with China in 2014.  This, too, was another one-sided effort where we specifically set targets, while China, somewhat, agreed to goals.  Goals with holes wide enough to drive a train through.  In fact, the Chinese have declared that their carbon emission reduction programs under this agreement will not be subject to any measurable scrutiny.  In other words, just believe us when we say we are meeting goals.

So, now, we learn about another one-sided deal.  This time with Cuba.

In exchange for one American held in Cuba for 5 years, we gave up 3 highly-valued, convicted Cuban spies.  We agreed to open an Embassy in Cuba.  We will review dropping the U.S. label of Cuba as a  state sponsor of terrorism, and there will be an easing of economic sanctions and a removal of a 54-year embargo on Cuban products such as cigars.

So, what did we get in exchange?

Nothing. No promises of better treatment of the Cuban people. No promise for democracy. No freedom of press or expression. No lifting of travel restrictions on Cubans wanting to visit the U.S. and, no agreement to stop international sponsorship of terrorism. Nothing!

Once again, Present Obama has proven to be a failed negotiator.  He can't negotiate with Congress and certainly can't negotiate with our international enemies.  Instead, he's more like a game show host who won't just give you what's behind door number three, he'll throw in 1 and 2 as well.

What's really interesting about Cuba is that they have maintained a cozy relationship with both Russia and Iran.  The two other countries that Obama showered with gifts and got nothing in return.

One last thing. Obama claims that we need to normalize relations with Cuba because 54 years of isolation hasn't worked.  Really?  What about nearly 70 years of isolation with North Korea?  Are we now expected to normalize relations with them just because the clock ran out? By the way. Cuba is also a close trading partner with North Korea.  It is surprising that a President who uses sanctions against Russia now admits sanctions haven't worked against Cuba.  They obviously haven't worked against North Korea either.  Then, why ever use them?

References:

Obama offers Iran 'new beginning': http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7954211.stm

United States Has Been Secretly Lifting Iranian Sanctions: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/08/very-bad-deal-israeli-pm-netanyahu-lashes-out-over-wests-possible-nuke-deal-with-iran/

Obama Lifts Sanctions, Iranians Win, Regime Loses: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamal-abdi/obama-iran-sanctions_b_3358930.html

Iran nuclear talks extended to 2015 after failure at Vienna: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/24/iran-nuclear-talks-likely-extended-vienna

Obama Administration Caves to Putin on Missile Shield:   http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-missile-shield-russia/2013/03/17/id/495084/

Obama's One-Sided "Reset" With Russia | RealClearPolitics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/14/obamas_one-sided_reset_with_russia_118387.html

Obama's Epic Climate Change Deal With China Falls Apart: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/120814-729590-obama-taken-by-chinas-president-xi-jinping-in-signing-phony-climate-deal.htm

Obama hails 'new chapter' in US-Cuba ties: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30516740

Obama: Isolating Cuba hasn't worked: http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/17/politics/obama-cuba-castro-relations/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Cuba–Iran relations - Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba%E2%80%93Iran_relations

Cuba-Russia relations - Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba%E2%80%93Russia_relations

Cuban relations with North Korea - The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/12/cuban-relations-north-korea 

China–Cuba relations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Cuba_relations

The False Narrative That The "Hands up...Don't Shoot" Protesters Are Perpetuating

Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, once said: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."  I believe that is what is happening as a result of irresponsible black leadership and the "Hands up...Don't Shoot" protests.

In a recent CBS poll, 74% of blacks and 28% of whites believe the police in this country are "too quick to use deadly force".  The problem with that belief is that the statistics don't support it.

Last year there were exactly 320 officer involved killings.  This out of an estimated 13+ million arrests (data estimated because the latest FBI arrest statistics are for 2010).  That's one shooting death for every 40,600 arrests.  Not nearly solid proof that cops are "too quick to use deadly force." At the same time, 105 police officers were killed in 2013.  So, in essence, for every 3 civilian shooting deaths, one officer is killed each year. 

The protests, mostly organized by Al Sharpton, are irresponsible and based on a huge exaggeration of a statistically rare occurrence.  It is even more irresponsible for members of Congress on the House floor, and for their staffers to stand on the Congressional steps with their hands in the air in order to perpetuate the lie.  Worst of all is having America's top cop Eric Holder, and his boss Barack Obama, and the Mayor of America's Largest city Bill DeBlasio, and strengthening and supporting the fantasy.

I don't know what these protestors expect to accomplish, but one thing is sure, they are damaging the character and reputation of our police forces.  Police, who day after day, risk their lives to protect us all.

References:

Joseph Goebbels On the "Big Lie" | Jewish Virtual Library: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/goebbelslie.html

Police Too Quick To Use Deadly Force: http://www.pollingreport.com/images/CBS141214.GIF

 List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2013: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_2013

FBI Statistics: Crime in the United States: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/persons-arrested

Honoring Officers Killed in 2013: http://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2013

Four Members of Congress Put Their Hands Up in Solidarity With Ferguson Protesters, None Voted to Limit Police Militarization: http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/02/four-members-of-congress-put-their-hands

U.S. Capitol Staffers Raise Hand For Ferguson: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/226862-congressional-staff-walk-out-over-brown-garner-decisions 

Because Obama Is Black?

Recently, a number of polls have been taken to see if race relations have improved since President Obama took office.  Polling that was mostly driven as a result of two Grand Jury decisions following the shooting of two unarmed black men.  A recent Bloomberg poll showed that 53% of Americans sampled believe that race relations have deteriorated since Obama was sworn in.  In a CBS poll, 46% of blacks and a total of 36% among all races thought race relations have worsened.

But, don't think that race relation have just recently turned downward because of the Grand Jury decisions. In 2013, an NBC/Street Journal poll found that, among whites, the belief that race relations had gotten "very bad" in this country has gone from 4% in January 2009 to 13% in July 2013.  In that same poll, the opinion among whites that race relations had become "fairly bad" went from 13% to 32% in the same relevant time frame.  Among blacks, the "very bad" answer went from 12% to 33% and, for the "fairly bad" question, the percentages rose from 18% to 25%.

So, why have race relations gotten so bad in just 6 years?  Obama was supposedly our first "post racial" President; thus implying that racism had to be pretty much nonexistent in America.

Well, I firmly believe that you can blame four words, "because Obama is black", for the deteriorating situation between the races.  Ever since Obama took office, his supporters, and he himself, have attempted to nullify any opposition to his policies by saying those four words.  If you don't believe it, just Google "because Obama is black" (link below) and you will finds hundreds, if not thousands, of links to stories where any number of Democrats, black leaders, celebrities, or the President himself, claim that any difference of opinion regarding everything from ObamaCare to Immigrant Amnesty is based on Obama's skin color.

Ultimately, this makes everyone angry. Blacks are angry because they believe the first black president is being unfairly treated because of his race, and whites are angry because they are being unfairly labelled as racists if they oppose Obama on anything.  

So, simply, the people who claim to want to improve race relations in this country are the ones hell-bent on destroying them by scapegoating the President's skin color, and are just using it as a political tool in the battle of left versus right in everyday Washington, D.C. politics.

References:

Bloomberg: Most Americans See Race Relations Worsening Since Obama's Election: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-07/bloomberg-politics-poll-finds-most-americans-see-race-relations-worsening-since-obamas-election

CBS: POLL: Race Relations in U.S. at Low Not Seen Since 1990s: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/12/10/poll-race-relations-in-u-s-at-low-not-seen-since-1990s/

IBD/TIPP poll: Obama Poisoned Race Relations In America: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/110314-724708-new-ibd-poll-shows-obama-poisoned-race-relations-in-america.htm

July 2013: NBC/Wall Street Journal poll: Page 14: Question: In general, do you think race relations in the United States are (ROTATE) very good, fairly good, f airly bad, or very bad?: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/130724-July-NBC-WSJ-poll.pdf

Post-racial America - Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-racial_America

Google search: because Obama is Black: https://www.google.com/search?q=because+obama+is+black&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=because+obama+is+black&safe=off&start=30

Court: Obama Loses Flat-Roofed Housing Discrimination Claim

Back in June, I wrote a blog  entitled: 'Obama Is Losing In The Courts Like Never Before'.  In it, I pointed out that, in previous Administrations, the average win rate in the courts was about 70%.  Nearly the opposite has happened under President Obama, with his Administration losing two-thirds of the cases that go to court.

The reason for this is simple.  Obama and his ideologically driven people seem to think they can take existing laws and interpret them in ways that were never intended by Congress.  In other words, create new legislation through reinterpretation; thus, bypassing Congress completely.

Obama's latest loss had to do with his Housing and Urban Development's reinterpretation of the federal Fair Housing Act.  They argued that Allstate Insurance, by refusing to insure flat-roofed houses, was practicing discrimination because they were disproportionately not insuring minorities since a higher percentage of those homes were owned by minorities.

First of all, the intent of the the Fair Housing Act was to prevent intentional and widespread discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or religion when someone was either buying  or trying to finance a home.  But, Allstate's supposed discrimination was not intentional.  It was a business decision based on the fact that flat-roofed homes carry an inherently high insurance risk.  Flat roofs leak more frequently than other types.  As a result, they have higher incidents of water damage, mildew and mold.  Often, the damage is inside walls resulting in the entire wall being replaced.  They may also sag and, as a consequence, have a high rate of collapse after extremely heavy rain and snow fall.  Surprisingly, they also have a higher burglary risk. As a result, they have low market values because most people don't want to deal with all the problems, and the high cost of insuring and/or  maintaining a flat roof.

So, the unreasonableness of this racial bias claim was why a U.S. District Judge had no other choice to side with Allstate against Obama.  This is, as noted before, very typical. For example, the Obama Administration is now trying to expand the scope of the Clean Water Act in order to control wells, ponds and marshes; even on private lands.  But, the intention of the Clean Water Act was to only have federal environmental say over navigable waters.  Waters that provide a channel for commerce and transportation of people and goods.  So, I am quite sure that this, too, will wind up in our courts with another smack down by Obama's out-of-control regulations.

References:

Obama Is Losing In The Courts Like Never Before: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2014/06/obama-is-losing-in-courts-like-never.html

Court rejects Obama housing bias rule as 'wishful thinking': http://news.yahoo.com/u-court-rejects-obama-housing-bias-rule-wishful-215306404.html

If your house has a flat roof, or even if some of its roof is flat, it can complicate insurance arrangements: http://www.gocompare.com/home-insurance/flat-roof-home-insurance/

Clean Water Act Expansion Draws Ire From GOP As White House Prepares To Regulate Waterways: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/04/clean-water-act-expansion_n_5088723.html

Drone Strikes Are More Detrimental To America's Reputation Than Torture

Amid all the flap over Democrat Senator Feinstein's release of the so-called "Torture Report", many have questioned why she, President Obama, and other Democrats seem to think that there is no "moral equivalency" between Obama's use of drones and George Bush's use of enhanced interrogation techniques. 

But, understand this.  Unlike Bush's so-called torture techniques -- which only affected a few dozen highly-valued captive terrorists -- two separate studies have shown that Obama's use of drones has resulted in thousands of civilian causalities.  Casualties not limited to men but, also, women and children.  While the lucky ones (I guess) are the civilians that were killed, many others have been  maimed or disfigured for life.  Other survivors are known to have suffered severe psychological trauma equivalent to PTSD. If that, in itself, isn't torture, I don't know what is.

Yet, even so, the White House claims that the drone strikes are precision/surgical strikes and that all care is given to protect civilians.  But, the world thinks differently as this chart from a 2014 Pew Research report shows:

So, if Senator Feinstein and President Obama think that releasing the torture report shows that we are taking the high ground by "admitting our mistakes" then, why aren't we also taking the high ground by admitting that drone strikes kill innocent civilians?   After all, the "torture" (enhanced interrogation) was known to the world almost a decade ago, and right now, drone strikes continue and are even being ramped up because of our fight with ISIS in Syria and Iraq.  As such, the number of civilian deaths and injuries just keep piling up.  Perhaps, it will take another president, following Obama's exit from office, to admit that drone strikes were moral mistakes in a similar attempt at regaining s lost trust in this country around the world.

References:

Video: Henry to Earnest: How Can You [Obama] Claim 'Moral Authority' On Drone Strikes:  http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/12/10/henry-earnest-how-can-you-claim-moral-authority-while-killing-innocents-drones

2012 Study: Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/

2013 Study: US drone strikes more likely to kill civilians than US jet fire: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/study-us-drone-strikes-more-likely-kill-civilians-us-jet-v19254842

Death toll of Obama’s Drone Campaign 5 Years Later: 2,400: http://www.juancole.com/2014/01/obamas-campaign-later.html

Pew Poll: Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones: http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-image/

Obama on CIA torture report: "When we make mistakes, we admit them":  http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-on-cia-torture-report-when-we-make-mistakes-we-admit-them/

US airstrikes in Syria, Iraq could lead to high civilian casualties: http://rt.com/news/192220-isis-airstrikes-civilians-us/

The Sad Truth About Black Murder In America

The only time that President Obama, Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson ever show any concern about a black person being murdered in this country is when a white cop is involved.

Yet, of the approximate 12,500 victims of murder each year, 50% are black.  This despite the fact that blacks only makeup 13% of the population. And, of those deaths,  93% of them are at the hands of other blacks.

By ignoring these statistics and only focusing on killings involving cops, black leaders are cheapening the deaths of all too many blacks.

According to the FBI, in 2011 there were only 393 officer-involved deaths.  So, cops killing Americans of any color is a small fraction of the murders in this country.  Certainly, nowhere near the 6,329 blacks who were slain in 2011; primarily by other blacks.  In my opinion, this tells us that we don't have a policing problem.  However, one would think so, based on all the commentary and protests over the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Grant.

I think its time for black leaders -- including our President -- to focus in on the real problem of black murders in this country instead of sidestepping the issue by only blaming cops. While there are no statistics to prove it, I'm quite sure that the total number of black murders would actually be a lot higher without the police doing their jobs and maintaining order in highly black populated neighborhoods.  Every time a police officer (black, white, or whatever) is able to remove an illegal gun from someone following a traffic stop or in some other interaction, the chances are pretty good that a life may have been saved as a result.  In Chicago, alone, 7,000 illegal guns were taken off the streets in 2012.  If even 1% of those guns would have ultimately been used in a murder, that's 70 lives saved;  probably 35 of which would be statistically black. 

As a country, we need to appreciate the roll of our police and not denigrate them.

References:

FBI: Expanded Homicide Data: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data

A look at statistics on black-on-black murders: http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2013/jul/17/tweets/look-statistic-blacks-and-murder/

Why does Chicago have so many illegal guns?: http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2014/10/22/why-does-chicagohavesomanyillegalguns.html

The Minimum Wage Protestors Are Too Naive To See What Is Already Happening To Their Jobs

Just last Saturday, CNBC posted a story entitled: "Hiring R2D2 to protect your mall or campus—all for $6.25 per hour".   In that article, it showed a robot that was capable of making security rounds at an hourly depreciated and operational cost that is a full dollar below the minimum wage.

Additionally, these robots won't need vacation time or a matching pay in to Social Security and Medicare; and, for sure, won't cost the company a single cent in providing mandated healthcare under ObamaCare or the fine that would be imposed for not providing it.

Then, just before Thanksgiving, Amazon announced the deployment of 15,000 robots of its own to streamline its picking, packing and shipping in their warehouse operations.

Saving approximately 20% in labor costs, the little orange robot is designed to bring a storage rack of goods to a human so they can pick the product off the rack and then package it for shipping.  No longer would real people have to roam a large warehouse in search of product that needed to be shipped; and, then, return to a shipping point to pack it and complete the process.

Earlier this year, in a joint effort between Adept Technologies and SwissLog, a labor saving hospital robot was announced that could shuttle specimens and, I would think, medications throughout a hospital autonomously.

Of course, one has to ask, why couldn't a robot like this also deliver food to a restaurant table in the not too distant future.

The simple fact is, that already, robotic workers are cheaper than paying the current minimum wage at $7.25 an hour plus benefits for a human worker doing the same job.  And, don't think that ObamaCare and the employer mandates won't also be at the heart of this trend of replacing humans. So, what do you think will happen if Obama and the Democrats get their way and the minimum wage is set 40% higher at $10.10, or if the short-sighted $15 minimum wage protesters got their wish?

The high cost of union labor has driven much of American manufacturing jobs overseas in the last 5 decades. Now, labor's wish for a higher minimum wage is sure to banish the existence of most of those  jobs through robotics.  It's a matter of simple economics, and right now, there are at least 50 companies (link below) chomping at the bit to have their robot technologies added to our everyday lives.

References:

Hiring R2D2 to protect your mall or campus—all for $6.25 per hour: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102240810

Amazon's new robot army is ready to ship: http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article4216163.html

Florida Hospital Orlando to automate laboratory transport with Swisslog autonomous mobile robot: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/4/prweb8336301.htm

Robotic Business News: 50 Robot Producing Companies: http://www.roboticsbusinessreview.com/companies/category/top_50/list

Why America's Oil Boom Just Might Go Bust

Thanks to the oil boom, and as a result of the fracking of oil shale, America is now on track to be the largest oil producer in the world within the next year. 

However, our overzealous production may possibly cause that "largest" title to quickly slip through our fingers.  Right now there is simply too much oil in the world and the price for Brent oil (the world benchmark traded worldwide) has fallen from over $110 a a barrel to well below $70 in just a few months; with some experts predicting $40 within the next year.   It is this glut of oil that may cause many of our oil shale fracking operations to be shutdown because it will be too expensive -- relative to the going price for Brent oil -- for those operations to continue.  And, for some of our oil shale operations, the current price may already be too low to continue as shown in this breakeven chart of our major oil shale fields:

But, what this chart also shows is that, if oil does hit $40/barrel, it would make all but two fields unprofitable.  Additionally, oil below $70 is probably killing off any possible new fracking operations in this country. Further, these low prices may also make many of our deep-water off-shore drilling operations unprofitable.

The simple fact is that much of the growth in the economy and the increase in jobs has resulted from the oil boom.  If it comes to an end, our economy could contract (slip into recession) and unemployment would necessarily rise.  Fears of this came yesterday when the stock market fell 268 points as oil hit 5-year lows on a 3% drop.

References:

U.S. to Be Top Oil Producer by 2015 on Shale: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-12/u-s-nears-energy-independence-by-2035-on-shale-boom-iea-says.html

Brent Crude - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Crude

Economist Jeff Rubin: Oil Might Fall to $40 a Barrel: http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Rubin-oil-40-supply/2014/09/25/id/596895/

Here Are The Breakeven Oil Prices For Every Drilling Project In The World: http://www.businessinsider.com/citi-breakeven-oil-production-prices-2014-11

Oil & Gas Boom 2014: Jobs, Economic Growth And Security: http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2014/02/20/oil-gas-boom-2014-jobs-economic-growth-and-security/

Bad Timing? Chevron Christens New $8B Deepwater Oil Platform: http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/12/02/bad-timing-chevron-christens-new-8b-deepwater-oil-platform/

Five Regions Where Big Oil Is Foolishly Chasing Profits: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Five-Regions-Where-Big-Oil-Is-Foolishly-Chasing-Profits.html

Dow drops 268 points after oil finds 5-year low: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102256233

Torture Under Clinton Was Far Worse Than Under Bush

Senator Dianne Feinstein has released her Democrat-staff-written report on CIA torture during the George W. Bush years following 9/11.  In that report, we will find that the CIA used various forms of "psychological" interrogation techniques -- which Feinstein calls torture -- such as water boarding; which makes the person feel that they are drowning, when in fact, they are not, or, we see that we used various forms of sleep deprivation.

But, nowhere in that report will you find extreme forms of physical torture used like those seen in other countries where people are left bloodied by constant blows, have their bones broken, have certain parts of their bodies electrocuted, or have fingers and toes cut off.

As a country, we don't torture people in those ways. We've signed both the Geneva and UN Conventions that ban tortured interrogations on any prisoners or prisoners of war.

However, other countries are well versed in those physical torture techniques and, there is nothing in either the Geneva or UN Conventions that prevent us from using those countries to obtain information by those means that we, ourselves, are prevented from using.

That is why President Bill Clinton authorized the CIA to use something called "extraordinary rendition" to transfer abducted enemies-of-the-U.S. to countries who practiced true physical torture.  In this way, America could (theoretically) keep its hands clean in the process.  When Bush took office, that practice was stopped and the CIA used "enhanced interrogation" techniques at American facilities.  Techniques that were well restrained in comparison to what Bill Clinton authorized and which the Bush Administration felt were acceptable under previously signed Conventions.

Another thing that Feinstein doesn't seem remember is the fact Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, used sleep deprivation against the Branch Dividians in Waco, Texas.  Yes, that's right Texas.  For days, loud music and high intensity spotlights were used to deprive the Dividians of sleep.

It is interesting that Dianne Feinstein solely focused on the Bush years, and never once, thought of  including the Clinton years in her report, when the torture process was totally unrestrained. 

Lastly, Senator Feinstein claims the interrogation techniques used were ineffective because they yielded false information that was purely being given to the CIA interrogators in order to stop what she calls torture.  Really?  Does anyone really think our CIA was so stupid to think that people wouldn't attempt to lie to them during an interrogation?  Everything that was learned had to be verifiable.  This was especially true when enhanced interrogation techniques lead to the disclosure of Bin Laden's personal courier's name.  It was the courier's house that Bin Laden was staying in when he was killed by our Special Forces team.  Also, if enhanced interrogation was so ineffective, why did the CIA continue to use it for six years after 9/11?

References:

CIA torture report brands post-9/11 program as brutal and ineffective: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-released

Extraordinary rendition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

January 2009: Panetta faces rendition queries: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/15/panetta-faces-rendition-queries/?page=all

The deaths of Special Agents Todd McKeehan, Conway LeBleu, Robert Williams and Steve Willis resulted in a prolonged stand-off involving psychological operations tactics from the mission to capture Manuel Noriega in 1989. These included the playing of loud music, recordings of planes and chanting in addition to the use of spotlights to deprive the Branch Davidians of sleep: https://www.hsdl.org/blog/view/s_4524


United Nations Convention against Torture - Wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Torture

Enhanced interrogation techniques: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques

Did Harsh Interrogation Tactics Lead To Bin Laden?: http://www.npr.org/2011/05/05/136005405/did-harsh-interrogation-tactics-lead-to-bin-laden

Why You Shouldn't Trust The November Jobs Creation Number

Following the release of the November employment report last Friday, the headlines loudly trumpeted the fact that 321,000 new jobs had been created.  Yet, despite this, and very oddly, the unemployment rate remained the same as October's report; even though September and October were, at the same time, revised upwards to include another 44,000 new jobs.  So, all in all, there was a net increase of 365,000 jobs but no drop in the unemployment rate.  By contrast, October saw more than a third less jobs being created and the unemployment rate fell one-tenth of a percent.

But, the fact that the unemployment rate didn't go down is quite bothersome and definitely needed a closer look.

Logically, if there was true job creation, the number of unemployed should have fallen by 321,000 and, the number of employed should have risen by an equal amount; resulting in a lowering of the unemployment rate by two-tenths of a percent to 5.6%  But, when you look at the actual data, none of those things happened.

Excerpted Chart: Full Chart Linked Below

In actuality, the number of unemployed went up by 115,000.  Not down and the number of employed only rose by 4,000.  Not by the expected 321,000.  So, it's no wonder that the unemployment rate held steady.  In reality, these two facts, when taken together, actually prove that no jobs were created in the month of November.  Instead, there was a net loss of 111,000 jobs in November.

To me, this only makes sense unless, of course, there is some adjusting going on as a result of previously fudging the numbers ahead of last month's election, in much the same way that numbers were fudged ahead of the 2012 election.  We'll have to wait and see if some large media outlet reports on the very same numbers I'm seeing.

References:

Washington Post: This is what a real recovery looks like: The economy added 321000 jobs:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/05/this-is-what-a-real-recovery-looks-like-the-economy-added-321000-jobs-in-november/

U.S. Adds 321,000 Jobs In November; Unemployment Rate Remains At 5.8%: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/05/november-jobs-report-unemployment-rate_n_6271366.html

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

Economy Adds 214,000 Jobs in October, Unemployment Rate Falls to 5.8%: http://time.com/3572116/new-jobs-report/

Census 'faked' 2012 election jobs report | New York Post: http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/

'Fake' Unemployment Report Shocker - Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2013/11/19/fake-unemployment-report-shocker/

The Financial Consequences of Amnesty For 4.5 Million Illegals

Just recently, the White House admitted that President Obama's executive action giving illegal immigrants permanent residency, would also give them Social Security and Medicare benefits. In defense of this, they are claiming that this will actually benefit programs like Social Security because these people will now be paying payroll taxes in support of those programs. This in turn, will help balance out our aging population

Well, on the surface that all sounds great.  However, a majority of those who would benefit from Obama's executive order can't speak English; have few, if any, high level skills and little education. Many are functionally illiterate in their own language, and as a result, are incapable of learning English. Over their entire lifetimes they will only be able to work in low level jobs. Taking all this into consideration, you have to understand that the President will be  creating a large and permanent underclass.  In this country, those kinds of people will always take more from the government than they put in.

Take, for example, paying taxes. Only 53% of all Americans pay any federal income tax.  However, most of those who make up the remaining 47% -- especially those who have low incomes --  actually get money back from the government for having children and by qualifying for Earned Income Tax credit.  So, if most of these people are low income workers, what benefit are they going to be to our tax system when they don't pay income taxes?

Then, there's Medicare and Social Security.  The White House claims that these programs will only be strengthened by having them pay into the Federal Insurance Compensation Act (FICA) fund (the payroll tax that collects the funds needed to support Medicare and Social Security).  Of course that would be true only if they weren't so far skewed to the low income side of the equation.

You see, the FICA tax is a fixed percentage tax on your gross wages.  The amount paid diminishes with low income individuals; meaning that he middle class and the upper middle class will foot the bill for most of the future payouts.  Thus, when a low income worker goes on Medicare, he/she receives the same benefit as everyone else; while having paid relatively little into the system. The same is also true with Social Security.  Therefore instead of strengthening these two benefit programs, these newly minted beneficiaries are only going to help speed them toward insolvency.  If you don't think this isn't already a problem, just look at this chart on Social Security:

Of course, this projected insolvency was calculated before Obama's action on immigration. There might be a short term increase in funding from these younger workers paying into the system, and thus, delaying insolvency.  But, when they do start retiring, the impact on will be significant and rapid because too few dollars were added to the fund to pay for their benefits.

In my opinion, the long-term survivability of the benefits to our nation's seniors is being put at risk so this President can garner future Hispanic votes for Democrats.  Similarly, this nation's debt will only increase as we payout an increasing number of tax dollars in Earned Income Tax Credit refunds.  This is why there should have been a fully explored and debated reform of immigration through Congressional means.  Instead, we have another go-it-alone action that will have far reaching consequences; long after Obama is out of office. Then some other President or Congress will be saddled with the cleanup.


References:

Under Executive Action, Immigrants Are Entitled To Social Security Benefits: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/12/03/368216062/under-executive-action-immigrants-are-entitled-to-social-security-benefits

Illegal immigrants could receive Social Security, Medicare: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/illegal-immigrants-could-receive-social-security-medicare-under-obama-action/2014/11/25/571caefe-74d4-11e4-bd1b-03009bd3e984_story.html

Commonsense Immigration Reform Will Strengthen Social Security: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/07/01/commonsense-immigration-reform-will-strengthen-social-security

TPC Tax Topics | Who Doesn't Pay Federal Taxes?: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/federal-taxes-households.cfm

Policy Basics: The Earned Income Tax Credit: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=2505

What is FICA? - CNN Money: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/money101/lesson18/index4.htm

 Social Security to Become Insolvent Far Earlier Than Expected: http://www.mrctv.org/blog/chart-social-security-s-end-date-fast-approaching-far-earlier-expected

Chart: Medicare insolvency projection: https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/7305-08-exhibit-6.png

November Jobs Report: Long On Quantity...Short On Quality.

President Obama and his adoring media could barely catch their breaths when reporting that 321,000 jobs were created in November. The liberal MSNBC host Rachael Maddow opened by saying:

Any Republicans asking “where are the jobs?” today should probably have their heads examined.

The only problem with the 321,000 jobs is the quality of that number. With further examination, you would see that the full-time workforce fell by 150,000 jobs and, the part-time workforce rose by 77,000.  In other words, once again, good full-time jobs are suffering at the hands of more and more part time employment; as this chart clearly shows:

Since 2010 and the passage of ObamaCare, the percentage of part-time employment in the workforce has soared.

This is a problem that we have seen all along as companies struggle to avoid paying the employer mandate of ObamaCare by converting full time employees to those working less than 30 hours a week. This is also why, in so many polls, Americans still think that the economy -- especially jobs -- is the number one priority facing this country.

References:

U.S. job growth soars, tops 300k | MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/us-job-growth-soars-tops-300k

Obama hails strong jobs report: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/economy/226132-obama-hails-strong-jobs-report

Hold on: Jobs report wasn't so great after all: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102243878

75 Percent Of Jobs Created This Year Were Part-Time Due to Weak Economy and ObamaCare: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/part-time-job-creation_n_3788365.html

Half Of All Jobs Created In The Past 3 Years Were Low-Paying: Study: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/low-paying-jobs_n_3266737.html

PollingReport.com: Priorities and Problems: http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

Obama's Executive Order On Amnesty Is M.I.A.

Supposedly, just after the election, President Obama issued an executive order to give 4.5 million illegal immigrants amnesty.   Then, there was this headline on the Drudge Report: "Obama DID NOT SIGN any executive orders implementing amnesty?"  When you click on that link it takes you to a World Net Daily (WND) story titled: "Amnesty shocker! The secret behind Obama's 'order'."

What that story indicates is that Obama never issued an executive order on amnesty.  Instead (and, even more lawless), His Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, issued a memorandum that authorized the unconstitutional misappropriation of funds in order to fund the hiring of agents to process illegals and add them to the work visas or green card rolls.

Proof of this is supported by the President's own White House Briefing log on executive orders, where the last order authorized by him was on October 17; three weeks "before" the election.

With this revelation, it appears that Obama's move on immigration can easily be brought down in Federal Court because the appropriation of funds is the sole responsibility of Congress.  Further, any misappropriation of Federal funds is a crime under Federal law.  So, is it possible that Jeh Johnson, a lawyer, will wind up in cuffs over this?

The real question is: Why is Obama playing this game with immigration by claiming executive action?

References:

Amnesty shocker! The secret behind Obama's 'order': http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/amnesty-shocker-the-secret-behind-obamas-order/

Presidential Briefing Room: Executive Orders: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders

Misappropriation:  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/misappropriation

The Liberal Myths Being Told About Wal-Mart

On Black Friday, liberals and unions were out in force protesting Wal-Mart's pay practices; arguing that this mega-retailing giant should pay at least $15 an hour. Of course, most of the protestors were union personnel who don't work at Wal-Mart, and who want them to unionize so their dues collection will increase and then they can help Democrats get elected.

One spokesperson for the protestors claimed that Wal-Mart can afford to pay better wages because the Walton's are billionaires; claiming they collectively are worth $150 billion.  Of course, while he was speaking, you could see a number of bobble-heads in the background nodding in agreement.

Yes, the Walton family is worth billions, but that extraordinary net worth has more to do with the fact that they own stock (51%) in the company and less to do with company profits. In other words, their wealth is separate from Wal-Mart's profits.  This in the same way Bill Gates -- who no longer works for Microsoft -- is worth $81 billion.  Giving workers a raise to $15/hour, will not diminish the Walton Family's wealth one iota.  All it would do is raise prices for the over 100 million people who shop at this retail giant each year.  They are the ones, many with low incomes, that will be hurt the most by this supposed minimum wage hike.

Then there's this;  Wal-Mart, as a company, only makes a modest profit of a little over 3%.  Compare that to every liberal's darling, Apple, who returns profits in excess of 20%.  So, when you buy that iPhone or iPad for, hypothetically, $400, you wind up paying Apple $80 for the privilege of owning their products.  If Apple was Wal-Mart, that same product would only cost you $330; based on a 3% profit margin or a profit of $10 on a product that costs $320 to make.*  Of course, no liberals seems to want to protest at Apple about the fact that about 170,000 underpaid and overworked Chinese are used to help them achieve that very hefty 20% profit margin.

The savings that Wal-Mart offers is what that company is all about.

In this country, we have 48 million people in poverty.  What Wal-Mart gives them is the ability to buy many things that they could not otherwise afford.  At the same time, the average salary at Wal-Mart is $12.94 per hour, which is substantially higher than the President's proposed $10.10 minimum wage.  And, that $12.94 is equivalent to nearly $27,000  on an annualized basis.  A salary that is significantly higher than the $20,600 which the average Mississippian makes in a year; and not far from the $28,000 that the average American makes.

The simple fact is that union personnel want to lower the savings that more than 100 million shoppers receive by shopping at Wal-Mart.  Savings that allows them to buy other products and services from other retail outlets.  In doing so, jobs are being created elsewhere in our economy, but liberals (especially like Senator Elizabeth Warren) would rather that this economic benefit be stopped. Mostly hurting the lower class and the poor; yes, the people they always talk about helping.

*Disclaimer: The profit example is a hypothetical that assumes that both Apple and Wal-Mart are both the manufacturer and the direct sellers of an identical product; and, that, in manufacturing their own products their costs would be the same.  It also assumes that for every product they produce, the profit margins are equal; which is never the case.

References:

Walmart hit with protests on Black Friday: http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/28/news/companies/walmart-black-friday-protests/

America's Richest Families: http://www.forbes.com/families/

Bill Gates Net Worth: https://www.google.com/search?q=net+worth+billl+gates&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

Wal-Mart Stores Profit Margin (Quarterly): 3.12% for Oct. 31, 2014: http://ycharts.com/companies/WMT/profit_margin

Apple Profit Margin (Quarterly): 20.10% for Sept. 30, 2014: http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/profit_margin


Quick Facts: Mississippi Versus U.S. Averages: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/28000.html

Apple's Chinese Employee Problems: http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2013/12/12/apples-labor-practices-in-china-scrutinized-after-foxconn-pegatron-reviewed/

Warren puts pressure on Wal-Mart | TheHill: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/224535-warren-puts-pressure-on-walmart

Why The Ferguson Police Force Is Too White

All too often, since the Michael Brown shooting, I've heard the media and activist blacks question the racial makeup of the Ferguson Police Department.  The City of Ferguson is more than two-thirds black.  Yet, despite this, the police force is made up of 50 whites and only 3 blacks.  Of course, this would imply that the Michael Brown shooting would never have occurred if only African Americans patrolled those primarily black neighborhoods.

However, the racial disparity in Ferguson is indicative of all too many minority cities and neighborhoods through the country.  As a New York Times study reported, white police dominate black police an average 30 percentage points higher in nearly all predominately black communities.

But, no one seems to want to analyze why there aren't more black police officers; especially when a city has a black mayor and a black police chief.  For example, Dellwood, Missouri is 84% black and the police force is 94% white.  They have both a black Mayor, Reggie Jones, and a black Police Chief,  Lt. Norman Campbell.  Yet, no one is talking about the disparity between the racial makeup of the police force and the community. This is because it would expose the reasons why these neighborhoods, in general, have low black police participation rates and, why blacks, have high rates of unemployment and low pay.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, one of the main requirements for becoming a police trainee is having a high school diploma.

In light of that, blacks fall well short.  First of all, only 68% of blacks graduate from high school; the lowest rate among any other ethnic group.  As a result,  one-third can't even apply to take the police academy exam.  But, having a high school diploma means nothing if the person holding it is functionally illiterate.  That is a big problem. Studies have shown that by the ninth grade, less than 44% of black children are literate relative to that education level.  This is down from a 50% literacy rate for those tested in the 4th grade.  So, essentially, blacks tend to fail police academy tests because all too many are illiterate.  After all, one of the major duties of any policeman is to write up a police report to be used as a legal document in a criminal court.  If you can't effectively write, you can't be a police officer.  But, instead of recognizing this deficiency and addressing it on an educational basis, Eric Holder's Justice Department is trying to increase the number of blacks in heavily minority neighborhoods by dumbing down the written Police Academy entrance exams.  All that means is that there will be less quality policing these communities.  In my opinion, this is what Holder will do with the Ferguson Police Department when he completes his Department of Justice investigation.

Another problem standing in the way of potential black candidates entering the force is the high rate of those having criminal records.  Nearly one in three African American males, aged 20 to 29,  are under some form of court supervision.  Meaning that, again, another third of blacks are automatically disqualified from entering any police academy.

Lastly, I think that the supposed distrust of police is another reason that some blacks don't want to become police officers.  Why would anyone who distrusts an organization want to become a part of it?  Of course, the opposing argument there, is that a more racially balanced police force in minority communities would ultimately aid in dispelling that distrust.

To me, black leaders -- including Barack Obama and Eric Holder -- need to stop focusing in on what is wrong with white America and start focusing in on what is wrong with black America in terms of education, literacy, and criminal behavior.  Only then will minority policing by blacks increase. In a city like Ferguson, that same leadership needs to understand that the police are doing their jobs to primarily protect blacks.  While, at the same time, never knowing if their life could end at any moment while on duty. They are not there to just protect the one-third that is white.  To this last point, please view the Milwaukee Sheriff's video commentary in the link below.

References:

Ferguson, Mo., has 50 white police officers, three black: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/17/andrea-mitchell/ferguson-police-department-has-50-white-officers-t/

New York Times:  The Race Gap in America’s Police Departments: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/03/us/the-race-gap-in-americas-police-departments.html?_r=0

Dellwood, Missouri:  A Message from the Mayor: http://www.cityofdellwoodmo.com/908/A-Message-from-the-Mayor

Real median household income by race: http://migrationfiles.ucdavis.edu/uploads/rmn/2013/10/16/real-median-income.png

Requirements to becoming a Police Officer: http://education-portal.com/articles/Police_Officer_Educational_Requirements_for_Police_Officers.html

Study: Record High School Graduation Rate On Track for 2020 But low-income and minority students still lag behind, the study finds: http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2014/04/28/high-school-graduation-rates-reach-record

What’s up with African American literacy rates?: http://ourweekly.com/news/2013/oct/03/whats-african-american-literacy-rates/

Dumbing down police recruitment exams - World Magazine: http://www.worldmag.com/2011/03/dumbing_down_police_recruitment_exams

Statistics of incarcerated African-American males:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_of_incarcerated_African-American_males
 
Crime rate in Ferguson, Missouri (MO): murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, arson, law enforcement employees, police officers, crime map: http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Ferguson-Missouri.html

 David Clarke, black Milwaukee sheriff: Eric Holder has ‘disgusted’ me: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/3/david-clarke-black-milwaukee-sheriff-eric-holder/