If you are out of work, have not been able to find a job, have given up on looking or have just run out of unemployment benefits, you aren’t counted as being unemployed.

It’s like you have simply disappeared from planet Earth, or moved to North Korea, which is pretty much the same thing.


The Obama Administration has deleted you from it’s memory. You do not exist.

From the Daily Caller:

White House officials are trying to downplay the growing political damage caused by a shrinking federal statistic: the percentage of working-age Americans who actually have jobs.
The increasingly visible statistic shows that roughly 11 million working-age Americans are being excluded from the nation’s formal tally of 13.75 million unemployed Americans.

Democrats are touting downward ticks of the formal unemployment rate to 8.3 percent, but Republicans are making an increased effort to highlight the painfully low employment participation rate.

If there are 24.75 million Americans out of work, and the administration is only counting 13.75 million of them, and they claim an unemployment rate of 8.3%; they are about 4 percentage points short on their estimate.

Their 8.3% unemployment rate is 100% BS.

While the recession may be officially and technically over, for those who have not been able to find work it has become a depression. 

And that’s about 25 million depressed Americans…

Read more at The Daily Caller…

So why do Democrats, so enthusiastic about Keynsian economics, skip the parts that actually work?

President Obama has used Big Government to its fullest extent to turn the economy around.  Economic and job recovery was promised if we passed the “Stimulus” bill, Obamacare and support such policies as funding Solyndra.  Despite a lack luster economy and record long 8+% unemployment, the President and his supporters continue to tout a government led economy in their modern version of Keynsian economics.

But is that really what Keynes believed?  In a word: No.

It is true that Keynes believed that government intervention in the economy could be beneficial.  Government spending was part of several tools he thought the government could use to ensure economic growth and stability.  In that sense, Keynes believed that government could prime the economic pump.  The President and leading Democrats, however, believe that government should be the economic pump.

An impressive list of accomplishments!

·         First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student then denies he was a foreigner.
·         First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
·         First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.
·         First President to violate the War Powers Act.
·         First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
·         First President to defy a Federal Judge’s court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.
·         First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
·         First President to spend a trillion dollars on ‘shovel-ready’ jobs when there was no such thing as ‘shovel-ready’ jobs.
·         First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
·         First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
·         First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.
·         First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
·         First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.
·         First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
·         First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
·         First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.
·         First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which State they are allowed to locate a factory.
·         First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
·         First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
·         First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
·         First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
·         First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 90 to date.
·         First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
·         First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
·         First President to go on multiple global ‘apology tours’.
·         First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends; paid for by the taxpayer.
·         First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
·         First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
·         First President to repeat the Holy Qurán and tells us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

H/T @nytech..

If you’ve ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a Conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a Liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a Conservative doesn’t like what he/she hears in a auditorium, he/she walks out.
If a Liberal doesn’t like what he/she hears in a auditorium, he/she will shout the speaker down so nobody can hear.

If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
If a Liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a Conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a Conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A Liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

If a Conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A Liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a Conservative reads this, he’ll forward it because it tells the truth.
A Liberal will delete it because he’s “offended”.

President Barack Obama’s jobs council called on Tuesday for a corporate tax overhaul, expanded domestic drilling and new regulatory reforms, a set of proposals unlikely to provide a quick fix for high unemployment or gain much traction in an election year.

…

 Republicans, who accuse Obama of pursuing “job-killing” policies, were quick to praise the panel’s work, pointing out that their “job-creating” proposals echoed longtime Republican themes on taxes, energy and government regulations.

In stating that the Church ‘cannot impose their religious views’ on employees, Rep. Nadler has reversed reality. 

The Church (and it’s many sponsored affiliates and institutions) does not force anybody to come to work for them. People come to Catholic institutions seeking employment. Catholic institutions do not hire people based on their religious preferences (if any), and they do not require them to be Catholic. 

Let’s say you are interviewing someone for a job, and that person states that they will only take the job if you allow them to date your spouse. What would you think? You, hopefully, would end the interview immediately and go on to the next person in line.

Why? Because, you believe, for a prospective employe to make such a demand is immoral, and for them to expect you to capitulate to an immoral demand is unreasonable. 

What if the government sites ‘scientific’ studies that show that sexual activity between employes and their employers’ spouses is healthy and, that being the case, you have to allow that person to date your spouse or face fines? Who is imposing their views on whom? Who is using coercion? Who is making threats? 

You or the government?

You may say “That’s ridiculous! That will never happen!” 

Hopefully not, but the point is that the government is attempting to coerce you into doing something that you consider immoral. 

And immoral is immoral. Whether it’s forcing someone to provide – directly or indirectly – access to abortifacients, sterilizations, contraceptives, abortions; or forcing them to allow your employe have an adulterous relationship with your spouse. 

Aside from all that, because they were free to seek employment with a Catholic institution, they are also free to leave and seek employment elsewhere. There is no coercion on the part of the institution to keep them from leaving. Nobody is stopping them.

Rep Lowey says that 99% of Catholic women use contraception. Probably not, but let’s give her the benefit of the doubt – in fact, let’s bump it up for her. Let’s say it’s 102%.  Let’s say that more Catholic women than exist use artificial contraception.

What’s her point? You cannot judge a Church by the people who do not adhere to it’s teachings. AND you cannot force a church to change or disregard it’s teachings because a large number of it’s ‘professed’ followers don’t practice what they profess to follow. 

The Catholic Church is not a democracy. It’s teachings are not based on popular culture, politics, personal feelings or somebody’s whim. It’s teachings are based on the ‘be-ing’ (Who He is) of Jesus Christ, and they haven’t changed in over 2000 years of practice. 

Even if you don’t believe that, the Church believes that, and that’s not going to change. And anyone who thinks differently does not understand the Catholic Church.

There are some things that Reps Nadler and Lowey don’t seem to know.

1. The Church is full of sinners – sinners are the only reason for the Church to exist. Jesus didn’t just drop in to say “hi”. He came to reconcile sinners to God. And he left the Church behind to carry on that mission. If that wasn’t true, we wouldn’t have churches at all.
2. Lots of those sinners repent and are reconciled. They have changed whatever it was they needed to change and are attempting to follow the teaching of the Church. Even if they fail on occasion they pick themselves back up and continue on with their struggle. In the cases of abortion, sterilization, contraception, etc., many (perhaps millions) have had a change of heart and have abandoned these practices. 
3. The Catholic Church does not change doctrine. 
4. The Catholic Church does not change doctrine.
5. The Catholic Church does not change doctrine.

I could go on and on, but that would be getting beyond the scope of this article.

Here is the real issue here:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The very first words in the First Amendment were put there to prevent the state (government) from creating a state religion, influencing the doctrines of religions or interfering in any way the “free exercise thereof”. Early Americans had had enough of that in the old country. That’s why they came here. 

By attempting to force institutions or INDIVIDUALS to act against their moral beliefs, the government is injecting it’s demands into the practice of one’s faith – effectively creating a state religion. 

And if they can do it to one religion, they can do it to any or all religions. 

And if they can do it with contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilizations, what’s to prevent them from throwing in abortions, euthanasia, eugenics (we’ve had that before, you know) and a host of other things that you might (or might not) consider undesirable.

And if they can do it to churches and other religious institutions, what is to stop them from doing it to individual company owners (or even large companies/institutions that self insure) who’s beliefs prevent them from supporting – directly or indirectly – things that go against their consciences? 

And if they can do it to the “religion” part of the First Amendment, what’s to stop them from doing it to the rest of the First Amendment?  What’s to stop them from restricting speech (that’s already begun – Political Correctness or Hate Speech, anyone?) or a free press or the right of assembly or the right to complain to a public official?

Answer: NOTHING.

It doesn’t matter what your political leanings are, if you believe in your right to free speech at any level, what’s happening with the HHS mandate should scare the hell out of you. 

Maybe even literally.

See the video here…

Apparently, this was NOT an acceptable answer.

“Europe sees you in the rearview mirror,” European Parliament member Daniel Hannan in his address to CPAC today warning that America is headed down the same disastrous road as the European Union.However, Hannan said, “there is still time to turn aside.”

Hannan spoke of the unique and special nature of America’s constitutional order and the prosperity it has created, and that American principles are what makes America exceptional.  If America was to adopt European style policies we would become less prosperous and less free.”

Video here…