Need a job? How about a job that pays the bills? These questions no longer apply to isolated parts of the country that have faced natural disasters or workers displaced by ENRON-type white collar criminal activity. In America, finding substantive work and keeping it has now become a national question of importance to everyone. For a growing number of people, the answer from the business world to the question of employment has been, “We are
not hiring at this time.”
As reported by Chris Stirewalt on Fox News, the argument for saying America is not in a recession because we have stopped having three sequential quarters of negative growth becomes moot when every quarter’s growth is so small that it cannot improve the economy. The truth is that America’s economy, and its subsequent lack of job growth, is like a heavy anchor dragging the bottom of the deepest ocean. Now imagine the American worker strapped to that anchor, and the mental image is complete.
As Shaila Dewan writes in The New York Times, we see that the most recent reports show the unemployment rate at 9.1 percent. These numbers are scary enough, but they fail to show just how bad unemployment really is. Given America’s current economic dilemma, the percentages of the unemployed whom people read about in newspapers
and hear discussed on the television should be more accurately described as “nice scenario” numbers, because “true unemployment” numbers are much, much higher. In reality, unemployment figures for Americans are at least double of those reported: more and more people continue to run out of Obama’s extended unemployment benefits and no longer qualify to stay on the rolls; others are tired of looking for jobs that don’t exist and simply abandon the job hunt and go home to stare at their sofa cushions. People who have fallen off the official
count of the unemployed are not the only means by which the current employment numbers in America are being obscured; there are also the Obama “fantasy employment numbers.” read more »
As Republican presidential candidates file in and out of contention and Americans wait to see the final line-up of GOP contenders for 2012, Barack Obama stands in the left’s corner alone. The question is: just how alone is the Democratic Party’s golden politician from 2008, the man Oprah Winfrey called “The One.”
Traditional wisdom in the politics game is that anything can happen and that a year’s worth of happenings can transpire in a week in the wacky world of Washington. While this is true, there is also a time-tested wisdom that some losers are just so obvious that even their loving mothers quietly bet on the other side. Barack Obama will be such a loser; in fact, Obama’s defeat will be so widely one-sided as to make John McCain’s loss in 2008 seem like a squeaker.
The typical mindset in the political game is to maximize voter output by projecting to the public that all races will be close ones, that every vote is required to win, and that the opposition is just as close to victory as those on the side of the angels. There are strategic reasons for this method of thinking that I would not obstruct, but I would also say that there are even more practical reasons to say that Barack Obama and his reign over America do not fall within the normal parameters of American history.
In short, the president has created an environment in which his removal from office is now a requirement for the survival of the country. The destructive deeds of Obama’s presidency have become almost mythical and without some chronicling there is little way to see the bigger picture of the president’s own personal political destruction. read more »
If you have ever watched a “super hero” movie you will hear at some point the cautionary warning that, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Those are wise words indeed but what if an individual doesn’t know that he or she has a unique power worthy of being considered “super,” let alone the responsibility that goes along with it? Thus enter the people of the state of Kansas.
The conservative majority in what I call the beautiful flatlands of Kansas continually do what is right in the face of liberal opposition. Day in and day out there are examples of regular people stepping forward and not just fighting for the values of God, family and country, but also winning the day; yes, winning the day and returning to the regular work of daily life with little fanfare or celebration. This appears to be the routine of the unsung hero and after observing Kansas heroism for my entire lifetime, I don’t believe most Kansans require nor look for a pat on the back for doing what is right. However, because of our state’s significant influence on the national stage as a whole, and the monumental challenges facing all Americans today, it is time to give an account of some of the instances when Kansans have stepped forward against liberal opposition and were heroes.
In 2005, in the heat of the Defense of Marriage Act debate, liberals within Kansas and across the nation attempted to push conservatives within the state into bypassing an initiative to vote on whether or not marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Liberal politicians in Topeka appeared ready to stand firm on refusing an amendment vote, while hundreds of conservatives across the state went to the state capital and discussed, lobbied, and prayed that our government would let the people vote on the issue. During this period, liberals attempted the very same demonization that is now heaped upon the Tea Parties of this state, by saying that Kansans who believed in traditional values were “hate mongers, intolerant, prejudiced,” and the list goes on. After a lengthy battle, the people of Kansas were allowed to vote on the issue and 70 percent of state voters stated their desire for marriage to be only between a man and a woman. Following this hard-fought victory in Kansas, states such as Wisconsin, Virginia, Tennessee, South Dakota, South Carolina, Idaho, Colorado, Arizona, Florida and even California would vote for traditional marriage. What one state can do, so can another. read more »
As reported by Johanna Kaiser in the Associated Press, the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, has decided to pull $33,000 in city funds to pay stipends to city employees who are currently in a homosexual marriage. The rationale behind the redistribution of funds is said to be a defrayment for federal taxes that married homosexual couples employed by the city must pay on the value of their health benefits.
Unlike traditional married couples, homosexual city employees who have been designated as “married” in the gay-marriage-friendly state of Massachusetts, do not qualify for standard spousal tax deferrals. The city of Cambridge will be the first community to advance gay marriage from simple legal recognition to financial reward.
Who will pay for this liberal social experiment? Mostly the funds will come from heterosexuals. That’s the truth. Homosexuals are but a fraction of the population even in the most liberal wacky blue states and cities in the country. The city of Cambridge will divert money to give tax breaks to 22 homosexual public employees. So there will be 22 happy gay workers for the city and the people of Cambridge will inevitably absorb the $33,000 loss by paying a little more for city services. Of course that will have to be paid every year.
Also, since this is such a great deal for homosexual couples, more will surely join this grand little experiment.Here is a chance to create even more happy gay city employees, but that also means more costs will be handed down to the heterosexual majority of Cambridge citizens.
Hmm, I wonder if there will be any downsides to continually raising costs of city services to offset tax stipends to promote gay marriage. The other option is to simply reduce services. That means fewer potholes get filled and high-demand services such as police overtime are less available. read more »
Bumper stickers—we see them every day in almost every form. Sit for a few minutes at a stoplight and you literally see almost every form of human expression slapped across the chrome, and more often plastic bumpers of the vehicles of this nation.
The political season is without a doubt a bumper sticker bonanza for the dealers of these sticky examples of free speech. There is almost an endless variety of quips, jabs and simply political low blows that can be affixed conveniently to the backside of your conveyance for other drivers to view in the wake of daily travels.
With such awesome sticker possibilities, the question is whether or not we should reflect on the responsibility that comes with politicizing our street-bound chariots. Like the division between the tattooed and the non-tattooed, car owners have customarily broken up into separate camps of those that believe that their car’s body should remain wholly “clean” and those that have the inclination towards “illustration.”
Common aversions to bumper stickers range from concerns over loss of paint during removal to the notion that stickers simply take away from the vehicle’s original beauty. Despite these arguments, many of the most loyal non-bumper-sticker advocates will break their own non-bumper-sticker pledges during this political season and add support for their personal candidate by way of the rump of their righteous ride. I would speak to all those across this spectrum with a few political protocol suggestions for the 2012 presidential race in the name of bumper sticker sanity. read more »
The push continues in the political arena to minimize what have commonly been designated social issues and replace them with what are advertised as the more pressing issues of the day. The economy has grown to be the number one factor of importance in the American people’s mind and if we are not careful, the American people may vote for the first presidential candidate that promises better future economic times. The economy is truly a critical issue but what is more critical is how we will judge the criteria for selecting those who will govern this country and just who we believe will ultimately take care of our nation’s current economic dilemma.
The first misconception is that there is a divide between social, economic and national security issues. There never has been and there never will be more than one single designation of where these issues stand. While we might not agree on all aspects of politics, I think Joseph Farah of World Net Daily is absolutely accurate when he says that all issues are social issues. Though the nation faces challenges that cover almost every aspect of life in the United States, the answers to our country’s most perplexing problems are found by answering a single question: What is the American people’s relationship with God? The separation of national concerns in to areas of national security, economy and the myriad of other subcategories has done less to pinpoint strategies for solving problems and has done more to delude the national consciousness about where the answers to all of our problems can be found. read more »
Society tends to espouse the value of children in almost every facet of life. We talk about how our children will be the defenders of the nation in the future and our need to protect them until they take up that mantle of important responsibility. Many Americans express true concern that their children will be handed a huge government debt, and our responsibility today to minimize the economic burdens we lay at their feet. These large-scale social and economic confrontations are battles worth fighting, but they are not the only important conflicts of consequence when it comes to our children. Currently there is a battle of significant importance being waged over simply allowing boys to be boys and girls to be girls.
Today’s gender war is not a biological conflict, but a battle between conflicting psychological and ideological forces. Many modern liberals wish to destroy the structure of the traditional family, and to do so the pillars of the biblical patriarchal family unit are being ruthlessly attacked. Of the many tragedies that arise due to those that wish to reverse the intrinsic nature of gender formation, the worst is that innocent children are being offered up daily as test subjects in liberals’ labs of lowdown lunacy. Here is a modern-day example:
As reported by Joshua Miller of Fox News, a family in Toronto, Canada, has decided to raise a genderless child. How will they do this? The parents have decided to withhold the gender of their four-month-old child, whom they have named Storm, from school officials and everyone else. The parents conducting this modern-day gender-stripping experiment state that their child will be free of societal norms regarding gender. Within this sort of parental mentality both stupidity and craziness are fighting desperately for supremacy. I would say it’s a tie. The sad part here is that the child, not the parents, will suffer most. In reality, little Storm will not be free of societal norms but will instead be penalized by peers for violating normal gender practices in the classroom and on the playground. Liberals know this to be true and thus enters the push for institutionalized gender blending. read more »
Do you enjoy B-rated horror movies that are high on amusement but low on plot and believability? Maybe you’re into science fiction thrillers with their wild, futuristic villains and out-of-this-world heroes. Well, turn on the TV because you’re in luck, you have reached the highest point of media creativity where the biggest and most fantastic stories are spun for the viewing public. Yes, the presidential race has officially begun.
If you’re a liberal this is likely to be the best part of the political season. That is, the speculation period where the Democrat Party, sure of its candidate for the general election, can for all intents and purposes sit back and watch the opposition struggle through the process of developing a lineup of presidential candidates. For the liberal media that will be working overtime to support Barack Obama’s re-election, their candidate will never be as politically strong as he is now while he faces no clear opposition. The media is making the most of this moment.
Like a B-rated horror movie that splashes blood against the camera lens every five minutes, presidential campaign coverage is not about quality, it is about quantity. For the media, getting the public to buy into a political campaign is not done through compelling facts or undeniable logic but through repetition of presentation. Repeat something as fact over and over and in time, even the most ridiculous things appear to be true. This presidential cycle has an abundance of rather low budget but highly effective media-driven stories taking place. Let us observe a few. read more »
It is said that a picture says a thousand words. When it comes to today’s politically correct world, presenting some pictures may say even more. President Barack Obama’s refusal to submit the death photo of the number one terrorist behind 9/11, Osama bin Laden, is a fundamentally flawed decision full of negative consequences. The President’s decision appears to be based on a concern that terrorists around the world will be inflamed to a higher level if bin Laden’s death becomes public through pictures. This argument is weak and without supporting evidence. Certainly the idea of withholding potentially inflammatory photos for fear of angering terrorists around the world went out the door years ago with the overwhelming photo coverage of human rights violations at Abu Ghraib. If documenting this portion of American history through photos was deemed reasonable, how can withholding Osama bin Laden’s death photo from the American people and history be justified?
The President also seems to believe that releasing bin Laden’s death photo is in itself an act of selfish aggression beneath the dignity of the American people, which he has termed “spiking the ball.” Someone should walk the president through American history, which is in complete opposition to this line of thinking. Historically, America has consistently used photos to chronicle the history of the deaths of those that have brought terror to this country. This has been a fundamental byproduct of our free speech that is recognized through our Constitution. This freedom to document history through published photos may not be pretty, but it was never feared nor denied to the American people. read more »