Sunday, January 8, 2012

President Obama's 8.5% Unemployment New Year's Hoax

If President Obama weren't a black Democrat you would've heard the truth about the recent unemployment numbers. If you think the recent drop to an 8.5% unemployment rate is a blessing from above think again. Since when do we praise a number that indicates we're still in a recession? And who's to say the number is real?

Let's take a trip down Macro Economic lane and define a few basic terms that US voters need to be familiar with. First, the term Labor Force is crucial because it is an estimate of the number of people employed plus the number of people out of work but looking for a job, aka the unemployed. Secondly, the term Labor Force Participation Rate is the ratio of the labor force to the population 16 years or older. Third, lets look at a term that's extremely relevant during a recession, depression, or economic downturn, that term is Discouraged-Worker effect, which is the decline in the measured unemployment rate that occurs when people who want to work but cannot find jobs become discouraged and stop looking, thereby dropping out of the unemployed and labor force. Fourthly, the term not in the labor force which seems so obvious isn't, because it doesn't mean work isn't necessarily available, but it does mean that a person isn't even looking for work because he or she does not want a job or has given up looking. Can you say there's no need to work because I'm chilin' on two years of unemployment checks syndrome? All of these terms combine to form what is the actual or real unemployment rate.

These are the distinctions that are not made in mainstream (liberal) media, and unfortunately with the exception of some conservative talk show host, conservative media barely glances over this stuff. What the media and the Obama administration are neglecting to tell you is that the real unemployment rate is significantly higher than 8.5%. In fact, the work force has shrunk by more than 2 million people in the last three years of Obama's presidency. Therefore our labor force isn't as large as it was pre-Obama. By the way this is not George W. Bush's fault. If you recall, the economy began to improve in the spring of 2009 until the president chose to take the nation even further into debt with his approximate 800 billion stimulus (ha!) plan. Thus if those two million people were counted in the new unemployment numbers we'd be closer to 11% percent unemployment rather than 8.5%.

According to the the U6 rate (includes part-timers that would rather have full-time jobs) that should be used, rather than the U3 rate that is being used unemployment is approximately 15%. Even President Obama's former Chief Economist Betsey Stevenson (who in my opinion left his administration early to reserve some credibility) agrees the numbers are not necessarily all inclusive. In fact, I'm doubtful that the numbers will remain so optimistic simply due to seasonal hiring during the Thanksgiving and Christmas season. However, Obama is well aware that no president has ever been reelected with an unemployment rate higher than 8%, therefore he and his media allies will lie as much as possible to paint a rosy picture of our economy and job market. It's up to you to do your homework.

For more detailed information on this subject check out James Pethokoukis' (American Enterprise Institute) article What the Plunging Unemployment Rate really means for Obama's Reelection at  

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Ron Paul is No Conservative

Ron Paul supporter's may be shocked he placed third in the Iowa Caucus, but frankly, I'm saddened he came so close. We can all agree that Congressman Paul knows his stuff when it comes to the Federal Reserve and economics, however that's where his conservatism ends.

Monday, December 26, 2011

Not so Common Thread: Why Occupy Wall Street and the TEA Party are Nothing Alike

The Bible tells us that if we don't work we don't eat, Occupy Wall Street (OWS) tells us you shouldn't have to work to eat. Who do you believe? OWS is rallying against "corporate greed" by demanding on no uncertain terms the fruits (at least a piece) of another man's labor. You don't fight greed with envy! This is why politics without Godly principles is futile. Liberals like to put a monetary value on greed, but the amount of money a person makes doesn't determine whether or not they're greedy, motives do. Oddly enough I believe you'd find a greater concentration of greed and corruption amongst the protestors of Wall Street rather than vice-versa.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is doomed for failure. It'll have no lasting impact on the political landscape other than temporarily exciting the liberal base of the democrat party, and the historians that will lie when they rewrite history claiming otherwise. There will be no new converts other than protestors who don't understand American exceptionalism and the blessings of capitalism when used effectively and honestly. On a spiritual note the very ideology of modern liberalism (embraced by OWS) is antithetical to god, freedom, and fairness. Liberals attempt to play god, conservatives attempt to obey god, but we all fall short. 

It's important to understand that Christ is the final arbitor of morality. Liberals throw the word "greed" around like it's going out of style because they're moral relativist who project what they are (greedy) onto others to feel righteous. Just look at the protestors, they're trying to stake claim on the pocket books of stranger's, and yet have the ordasity to call others greedy! I'm sure some of you are asking "but Carl what about the corrupt businessmen (corporate greed)?" To which I'd reply, if you support OWS who demand to take from others that which they did not earn, you've got some nerve to talk! God is the standard bearer not you! Besides, most of us can only name CEO's that our government chose to bailout. That doesn't make them greedy that makes many of the politicians we voted for stupid! Capitalism is a profit and loss system (as I was reminded by a clip of Milton Friedman played on the Mark Levin radio show). Had it been allowed to work these companies would have rightfully collapsed or filed for bankruptcy. What we the American people have seen during Bush's last year in office and Obama's three years in office is not capitaliism it's chronyism!
The TEA (taxed enough already) party has asked the government to stop spending money we don't have so that the country remains solvent. OWS on the other hand wants the government to take and redistribute more money from our nations hardest workers and job creators so their pockets get fat in the name of "fair share." That however is a oximoron because the more of our money the government has to spend the less money the private sector (you and I) has to invest, spend, help others, provide jobs, and build small businesses. They shout out nonsensical claims like "we are the 99%," as if America has returned to a class system pre-Revolutionary War. Although 47% of our lower income population pay no federal income taxes whatsoever they obtain more benefits from our federal government than those that do. That's crazy! This is what happens however when we humans ignore God's just laws and try to redefine the word "fairness" according to our likng. The problem I have with both OWS and the TEA Party is that the two often fail to recognize man's sinful nature as they etch out their goals- read my blog NO 3RD PARTY JUST JESUS at Holyslant.
Fortunately for us, everything Americans need to know about capitalism can be found in the Parable of the Talents. In Matthew 25:14-28 a man goes on a journey and entrust his property to three of his servants. The first servant was given five talents (money), the second two talents, and the last servant was given one talent (notice God's sovereignty in the uneven distribution of wealth). The first two servants worked hard to double their master's investment, while the third servant played it safe and hid the money in the ground, neither losing money or working hard to improve his condition or maximize his master's investment. Upon his return the master rewarded the first two servants with even greater monetary responsibility, but he took the little that he had given to the third man and gave it to the first servant with the ten talents. The property owner then called the third servant wicked and lazy for sitting on his money.

The bottom line is God expects a return on his investments (us), and that includes whatever gifts and finances he's blessed us with. Although America is best classified as a mixed economy (capitalism with sprinkles of socialism), capitalism and semi-free markets are what sustain us. OWS is much like the third servant that expects rewards and praise for work he never did but should have done. Socialisms proponents (what OWS really wants) attempt to capitalize on other people's gifts and finances, while neglecting their own responsibilities. In God's economy that just wont fly!

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

The "CHUnited States of America"

 I can't blame China for their desire to emerge as the world's number one super-power. It's only natural that people, let alone nations, would want to excel. Someone will lead the world if America continues to neglect its role-for such a time as this. In a nation where liberal fairytales have our President subservient to the whims of dictators, American dominance and freedom are not just likely to end, but inevitable.

Chinese President Hu Jintao shakes
hands with U.S. President Barack
Obama (Xinhua/Ju Peng)

There's no doubt that some of you that have just read the last paragraph are responding, "Good, America doesn't deserve or need to be number one." However, you speak that at your own peril-our peril!. Remember power by nations-whether it's being attained or lost always comes at a price. What was the consequence for the world when America rose to the top? The answer is faith in Christ, freedom for individuals, and prosperity through free market capitalism. Think about it! If a communist nation becomes the world's super-power, it's not a stretch to say other nations will follow their lead to compete, just as many nations (including China) adapted some parts of the American free-market system to thrive. 

Make no mistake about it, when President Obama greeted Premier Hu Jintao with an elaborate state dinner earlier this month there was no doubt that the Chinese leader had done his country proud. In one visit China's leader established a new partnership with America, made President Obama recognize them as equal to America (though they're not), and the Premier even managed to establish China as a peaceful nation with the help of America's gullible media. All the while in Hu Jintao's home country women are forced to abort their children, child labor laws are non-existent, citizens are killed and starved in rice-fields, and there military and stealth weaponry capabilities are advancing, while ours are stagnant at best. China is seizing their opportunity to become exceptional, and our leaders seem poised to let them take the mantle. 

One of the biggest mistakes that liberals make is arbitrarily projecting their worldview onto other nation-states. The assumption is that as long as we're nice to bullies (in this case, dictators and communists) they'll be nice to us, and in effect the whole world will live in peace. Communists aren't hippies, their motives are different! Liberals must be reminded that America is exceptional unlike any other nation on this planet, because we value more than just our currency, trade, and our power. We value God, people, and individual liberty.

Countries like China value power at the expense of individual freedom, but Americans value freedom because it empowers the individual, and there lies the difference. The day that we forget this fact is the day that America will cease to be "the land of the free." Our indebtedness to China is crippling. If we don't hold our President and Congress accountable for our nation's spending, we better be ready for a new national language...Chinese! God is sovereign! I don't know why He blessed America with such riches and opportunity, but I don't question it. I do know however, if we take our freedoms for granted we'll lose them. Maybe some of you liberals would prefer slaving in rice-fields, but I'd rather live in a country where I can help provide the resources to get the laborers out of those fields.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

It's NOT Just The Economy Stupid!

Thank God for conservatives like Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, and Michael Medved who are willing to confront the obvious...fiscal conservatism without social conservatism is really no conservatism at all. I've believed this for years! This is why I could never be apart of the libertarian party, or the new and ridiculous No Labels movement! Conviction is not a part-time job, but a core belief system. 

I'm still amazed when I hear so-called conservatives who call in to some of these radio shows and argue against pushing any social issues. The rant that's often repeated is "it's the economy stupid!" Don't get me wrong, I understand the idea of sticking to this mantra during a campaign to avoid distractions. However, we must understand the reason Republican or conservative candidates have to stick to the economy is because we've been inept at explaining the necessity for both fiscal and social conservatism. They work hand in hand. Many Republicans avoid topics like abortion, marriage and faith-based religion like the black plague, but they shouldn't. Their silence has not drawn allies, but enemies. Haven't you noticed that whenever conservatives compromise on their principles, not only does their voting base become indignant, but even Independent voters begin saying stuff like "Democrats and Republicans are all the same?" It's a no win situation. People like to know what you stand for and see you stick to it, whether they agree or not. Social conservatism when explained adequately, allows the constituent to see the stark differences between the candidates. I love political parties because they provide the best stage for showcasing and defining who's right and who's wrong. The problem with the Republican party is that we don't have enough talented and courageous individuals who will step up to the mike, and rise to the occasion. 

Liberals constantly claim that conservatives lack compassion, diversity sensitivity, and brains. Quite frankly, the total opposite is true, but I can't blame liberals for saying it. Unfortunately we've bowed at the altar of political correctness for too long. Followers need to be lead, first in word and then by action. Take the issue of Social Security for example: how many people do you know are aware that when the program was established under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) there were 40 payees per recipient, and it was meant to be a temporary plan? Today however, there are less than two payees per recipient. Before you open your mouth to say "so what," think about both the ramifications of that statistic, and how it came to be. Now, whether you agree with our social security program or not (I don't), think about the social issues I mentioned in the previous paragraph, and you'll soon realize that fiscal conservatism and social conservatism are not mutually exclusive, but intrical companions in order to sustain an economy and society alike.

Consider the effects that abortion has had on Social Security alone. We are all required to pay in to this system, despite the fact it's operating in the red (deficit). Most of us will never see a return on that investment. There's no money! Why? The answer is two fold, we've allowed our politicians to spend too much of our own money to buy us off (the epitome of selfishness), and we don't have enough people being born to keep the program sustainable. In other words, there aren't enough workers to pay for retirees. If you consider the black race alone, it's estimated that nearly half of our projected population has been killed off since Roe v. Wade. That's tens of millions of people who could've been working to help carry the load. By the way, this same argument can be applied to Medicaid and Medicare.

Now let's take a quick look at marriage. There is at least one reason why traditional marriage will always be superior to homosexual relationships even if you're not Christian, and this is not a gay-bashing statement, but just fact. Gays cannot reproduce other people! For those of you currently in an uproar, yes I'll concede, homosexuals can adopt in some states. Notice however, they must adopt babies produced by heterosexuals. I know it seems silly to say this, but you'd be surprised at how many times I've heard this argument, and this doesn't come up. Marriage is crucial to reproduction, as well as beneficial to teaching men and women to appreciate each other's differences, as they are meant to compliment one another in order to build stable communities. Families (married couples with children) who follow God's plan grow in the healthiest and safest system for children to learn about life, discover who God created them to be, as well as develop a work ethic that leads to self-reliance. This will in turn produce financially stable citizens that carry their own weight in society, thereby decreasing the welfare strain on the economy, and contributing to the country in a more productive- rather than just social security funding. Let me be transparent, as a former sinner who had a child out of wedlock, I can tell you with confidence and conviction that marriage is also far superior to shackin' up! Marriage gives you a sense of commitment, loyalty, fidelity, and security that simply does not exist in other relationships.

Lastly, everyone has faith in something, but not all believe in God. As a Christian I believe that life is a gift ordained by God. There are no accidents, even if your parents were idiotic enough to believe otherwise. In order for any society or country to continue existing, they must produce nearly two children per couple. If the birthrate is not maintained, it's only a matter of time before it collapses, because it will not be able to sustain it's own economy. One need not look any further than the former Soviet Union to see this. Their abortion rates are astronomical, largely due to the fact that they're anti-God. Life has no real value; so immorality, murder, and poverty run rampant. If we fail to recognize the existence of God in a society, why should any man care enough to support his fellow man (i.e. charitable giving or Social Security). Some might argue, "because it's the right thing to do." My response however is how do you know what's right if there is no God!? All thought is mere opinion and relativism without a higher authority! If life is important to God it must become important to us, and one of the bi-products of life is a productive, fiscally strong labor force. So, please don't tell me that social conservatism isn't essential! It's just as essential as fiscal conservatism!