1 Comment

H/T Old NFO@Nobody Asked Me.

With Abbott and Costello…


COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America .
ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It’s 5.6%.
COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No, that’s 23%.
COSTELLO: You just said 5.6%.
ABBOTT: 5.6% Unemployed.
COSTELLO: Right 5.6% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that’s 23%.
COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 23% unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, that’s 5.6%.
COSTELLOWAIT A MINUTE. Is it 5.6% or 23%? 

ABBOTT: 5.6% are unemployed. 23% are out of work.
COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.
ABBOTTNo, Obama said you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.
COSTELLO: What point?
BOTTSomeone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?
ABBOTT: The unemployed.
COSTELLO: But ALL of them are out of work.
ABBOTT:No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. 
Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles that would count as less unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
COSTELLOThe unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?
Absolutely it goes down. That’s how it gets to 5.6%. Otherwise it would be 23%.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bringdown the unemployment number?
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct.
COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
ABBOTT: Bingo.
COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have people stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like a Democrat. 
COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said! 
ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like Hillary

Whomever did this is absolutely brilliant!!!


Myth of Racist Cops: False Narrative of Fact-Averse Liberals

Leave a comment

This is from Patriot UpDate.

For as long as I can remember the media has been  painting the police as racist killers.

The bad apples in uniform help make it seem all police officers are the same.

I have several friends and some family members that are in law enforcement so I know the racist narrative is a lie.


Police officers have been getting a bum rap lately.

During the Ferguson fiasco liberals created a false narrative about racist cops, a myth they have perpetuated since.

Jason Riley, senior editorial page writer for the Wall Street Journal, wrote about this false narrative in the January 2015 issue of Imprimis.

Author of the new book, Please Stop Helping Us, the distinguished journalist who happens to be black wrote: “The shooting death of a young black man by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri touched off a national discussion about everything except the aberrant behavior of so many young black men that results in such frequent encounters with police.

We talked about racial prejudice, poverty, unemployment, profiling, the tensions between law enforcement and poor black communities, and so forth. Rarely did we hear any discussions of black crimes rates.”

In his article for Imprimis, Riley put his finger squarely on why I think cops are getting a bum rap. But before getting more deeply into the issue of the false narrative being promulgated by liberals with an agenda, a few caveats are in order.

First, I acknowledge that there are racist cops, although it must be said that not all racist cops are white. Bad cops come in all races. However, I believe that racist cops—regardless of their race—represent a small minority of the nation’s overall police force. Second, I am an advocate of community policing.

However, although this strategy can help relieve tension between police officers and black citizens, it will not solve the problem of black crime in America. In fact, the issue of black crime in America will never be effectively dealt with until we can have an honest dialogue about it. And therein is the rub.

As things now stand, the myth of racist cops is being controlled by people who benefit from perpetuating the false narrative that currently prevails—people such as Al Sharpton and his supporters in the mainstream media.

Any honest dialogue concerning the racist cop myth must begin with some hard facts about black crime in America that liberals demand be ignored. In fact, just bringing up the issue of black crime in America is sure to get one labeled a racist in today’s politically-correct social environment, regardless of the race of the individual who raises the issue.

Ironically, although Jason Riley is black and one of the most distinguished journalists in America, he is just as likely to be labeled a racist for straying from liberal orthodoxy on black crime as are people of other races. In fact, the issue of black crime and other problems in the black community taken together comprise a political mine field for people who—unlike paternalistic liberals—would really like to see life improved for black Americans.

But Riley cares enough to present the hard facts that all Americans—liberals of all races—must understand and accept if we are ever going to make progress on racial issues in this country.

Riley walks courageously into the political minefield of crime, drugs, entitlement, fatherless families, and other destructive issues in the black community—most of them self-inflicted—in his book Please Stop Helping Us and in his article for Imprimis.

As a white journalist, my thoughts on these issues will simply be dismissed by liberals as the racially biased rants of a member of the “great right-wing conspiracy.”

Although they are likely to label Jason Riley in the same way, in truth it is harder for liberals to simply dismiss the thoughts of such a distinguished journalist who happens to be black. Consequently, the facts about black crime contained in this column come from Riley’s article. Using a distinguished journalist who is black and who obviously cares about the plight of black Americans as my source is not likely to change the minds of fact-averse liberals, but it might influence others who have open minds on these issues and would like to see black Americans improve the quality of their lives. Here are some of the hard facts from Riley’s article in Imprimis:

  • The leading cause of death for young black men in America is homicide and 90 percent of these deaths are black-on-black crime. Clearly it is not police officers who are killing young black men. Further, police officers are six times more likely to be killed by a black person than they are to kill one. This is why police officers—including black officers—tend to view young black men with suspicion. They would be unwise not to. Granted this can lead to inconvenient encounters between police and young black men who are not criminals, but the blame for this unfortunate circumstance lies with those who create the perception of young black men as criminals, not with those who develop this perception on the basis of experience.
  • Blacks commit a disproportionate number of the crimes in America. Blacks comprise approximately 13 percent of the U.S. population but account for almost 50 percent of the murders. Further, the arrest rate for blacks for such crimes as aggravated assault, robbery, and property damage is more than two times their representation in the population. Once again, this tendency to commit a disproportionate number of crimes is why police officers often approach young black men with suspicion and even trepidation. Experience is the most effective teacher known to man, and police officers should not be criticized for learning from experience.
  • Liberals want to blame the disproportionate involvement of blacks in crime on poverty and racial bias. But even a cursory glance at the facts belies this assertion. If crime was caused by poverty, all poor people of all races would be criminals. Since this is hardly the case in the population in general or within the black community, the high crime rate among blacks cannot be blamed on poverty. But what about racial bias? This assertion fails to explain the data either. In the 1940s and 50s when the racial bias and discrimination of Jim Crow were at their peak, the crime rate among blacks was much lower than it is now. Further, black poverty was much more prevalent in the bad old days of Jim Crow, yet black crime was significantly lower than it is now in the age of Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action, integration, and voting rights for all. In fact, the highest crime rates in America occur in cities governed by black public officials, including black mayors and police chiefs.

In his article for Imprimis, Jason Riley quotes the late Harvard professor, William Stuntz, on the issue of black crime in America. Stuntz said: “High rates of black violence in the 20th century are a matter of historical fact, not bigoted imagination. The trends reached their peak not in the land of Jim Crow but in the more civilized North, and not in the age of segregation but in the decades that saw the rise of civil rights for African Americans—and of African American control of city governments.”

I will give Jason Riley the last word on this subject: “Liberal elites would have us deny what black ghetto residents know to be the truth. These communities aren’t dangerous because of racist cops or judges or sentencing guidelines. They’re dangerous mainly due to black criminals preying on black victims. But pointing this out has become almost taboo. How can we even begin to address problems if we won’t discuss them honestly?”

Colorado Democrats Driving Businesses Out of State

1 Comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

DemocRats do not care about people losing their jobs.

They have their jobs that is all that matters.

I say Bravo to all companies that leave these states that,

want to deny their citizens their  Second Amendment rights.



Evidently, Colorado Democrats aren’t concerned about their 7.6% unemployment rate with their newly proposed legislation.

On Friday, the Colorado State House of Representatives which is controlled by Democrats, used a voice vote to give an early approval House Bill 1224 that would drive out some of the state’s businesses.  The bill is designed to limit all ammunition magazines to 15 rounds or fewer.


If the bill is passed and become law in a state known for hunting and gun ownership, at least two companies said that they would relocate to states that are more gun friendly.

Magpul, who employs around 600 people, manufactures 30 round clips and other equipment for assault rifles.  Most of the high capacity clips are sold to military customers.  Although the bill provides an exemption for magazine manufacturing companies and their employees, Doug Smith, COO for Magpul said the company will leave Colorado if the bill is passed and made law:

“If we’re able to stay in Colorado and manufacture a product, but law-abiding citizens of the state were unable to purchase the product, customers around the state and the nation would boycott us for remaining here.  Staying here would hurt our business.”

Alfred Manufacturing is a Denver based third generation company that employs around 120 people.  Their services include metal stamping, injection molding, precision machining, assembly and supply chain, and work vehicle solutions.  In an effort to stop the bill from being passed, Greg Alfred, the companies Chief Executive, sent a letter to the House which was read by the Republican leadership.  The letter reads in part:

“We are a third-generation Colorado company that has been committed to this state since my grandfather founded the company in 1948.  However, if House Bill 1224 passes, we will plain and simply have no choice but to relocate part or all of our operations to another state.”

The combine move of both companies would put hundreds of Coloradans out of work and the economy of the state would lose $100 million is sales or more ($85 million just from Magpul).  Two House Democrats were concerned over the news of Magpul’s decision to move if the bill passed.  State Rep. Daniel Kagan said:

“It needs to be clear that manufacturers will be able to still sell and transfer these high-capacity magazines to individuals in other states, the U.S. military and law enforcement.  We want them (Magpul) to stay here in Colorado. It would be sad to see them leave.”

State Rep. Joe Salazar echoed Kagan’s statement, but neither Democrat were prepared to vote against the bill in order to keep Magpul and Alfred Manufacturing from leaving the state.  Magpul’s Smith said that if the bill passes, they will leave the state.

Of the 65 seats in the Colorado House of Representatives, Democrats hold a majority with 37 seats.  They also hold 20 of the 35 seats in the state Senate.  To top it off, the governor of Colorado, John Hickenlooper is also a Democrat.  Reportedly, he was meeting with Magpul on Thursday, but it does not appear that he has convinced the company to stay if the bill passes.

What makes this issue so ridiculous is that it is a proven fact that trying to outlaw high-capacity magazines will do absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence or mass shooting.  Everyone forgets the facts of Sandy Hook, where the only assault-style weapon at the scene was in the trunk of the shooter’s car and was not used in the school.  But, hey, truth and facts don’t matter to an administration that has a track record of lying and law breaking that puts Al Capone or organized crime to shame.

In the end, Colorado Democrats will pass this bill and the only result will be the loss of at least 2 businesses, hundreds of jobs and sales pushing $100 million, just to deprive law abiding citizens of some of the Second Amendment rights.

Read more:



The Fiscal Cliff Is a Good Thing


This is from American Thinker.

Except for the damage to the military the fiscal cliff is not bad.

I seriously think we need to go over the cliff.

The entire discussion of the “fiscal cliff” has things a bit backward.  People talk of “going off” the fiscal cliff — and the natural image is of the disaster that awaits one who tumbles from the edge of a precipice.  Instead, perhaps we should say “running into” the fiscal cliff — the cliff being a force that stops a tumble.

The term “fiscal cliff” refers to the combination of two major policy changes due to go into effect in January 2013:

  1. The sequester. Because the (not-so-)Super Committee succumbed to partisan paralysis and couldn’t come up with anything better, the sequester will begin making automatic spending cuts across domestic discretionary (50 billion per year) and defense (50 billion per year) programs.
  2. The Bush and Obama tax cuts expire. The Bush tax cuts increased the deduction for children, cut marginal tax rates, and cut dividend and capital gains tax rates.  The Obama tax cut reduced the amount workers pay for Social Security without reducing benefits.  In addition, a Medicare “doc fix,” which increased reimbursements for hospitals, is due to expire.

Running into a cliff isn’t fun.  It would raise nearly everyone’s taxes.  It would cut spending on most of the programs everyone uses.  It would temporarily raise unemployment rates.  But the fiscal cliff would back us away from a true disaster scenario, and it would slow the growth of the government debt.

Moreover, the fiscal cliff is an enormous opportunity for House Republicans.  If they simply allow it to occur, they win big politically in the negotiations.  They will get credit for fiscal responsibility, while the Obama administration will get the blame for the tax increases and will lose the leeway to offer new giveaways to its constituencies

Unemployment Rate and the Fiscal Cliff

The news media are currently trumpeting the first paragraph of a November 8 report (Economic Effects of Policies Contributing to Fiscal Tightening in 2013) from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) which claims that the fiscal cliff will raise the unemployment rate to 9.1% in the fourth quarter of 2013.  That paragraph states:

According to the Congressional Budget Office’s projections, if all of that fiscal tightening occurs, real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) will drop by 0.5 percent in 2013 (as measured by the change from the fourth quarter of 2012 to the fourth quarter of 2013)-reflecting a decline in the first half of the year and renewed growth at a modest pace later in the year. That contraction of the economy will cause employment to decline and the unemployment rate to rise to 9.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2013.

However, our own economic analysis suggests that the CBO is exaggerating the unemployment danger.  When we did a statistical analysis of unemployment rates over recent years in all of the economies with GDPs of $100 billion or larger, we found that budget deficits don’t much affect unemployment rates in trade-deficit countries.  That’s because when budget deficits go up, the stimulus leaks out as higher trade deficits, and when budget deficits go down, they are accompanied by reduced trade deficits.

The CBO was unable to predict the unemployment rate that resulted from President Obama’s $800-billion February 2009 recovery act.  In March 2009, it predicted that the Recovery Act would produce an unemployment rate of between 6.0% and 6.3% by the fourth quarter of 2012.  But the actual rate in October 2012 was 7.9%.  The CBO’s models appear to overestimate the effect of budget surpluses and deficits upon unemployment rates.  It is using an inappropriate model of the economy.

The Precipice and the Fiscal Cliff

U.S. national debt is already reaching levels associated with slower growth, and current levels of borrowing pose a threat to long-term prosperity.  The media has been relatively quiet about the second paragraph of the CBO report — that without fiscal responsibility, the U.S. economy faces imminent disaster.  The CBO wrote:

If the fiscal tightening was removed and the policies that are currently in effect were kept in place indefinitely, a continued surge in federal debt during the rest of this decade and beyond would raise the risk of a fiscal crisis (in which the government would lose the ability to borrow money at affordable interest rates) and would eventually reduce the nation’s output and income below what would occur if the fiscal tightening was allowed to take place as currently set by law.

The actual scenario is even worse than the CBO makes out.  If the U.S. national debt continues to explode, then, eventually, when the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to prevent inflation, the rising interest rates will greatly increase the interest component of the federal budget.

From then on, either alternative would be a disaster: (1) the federal government could default, or (2) the Federal Reserve could take the brakes off inflation.  In either case, the dollar would collapse in the currency exchange markets, interest rates and import prices would go sky-high, and the U.S. standard of living would hit the bottom with a splat.

Don’t Kick the Can Down the Road Again!

The federal election results are in, and the status quo won.  Republicans retained their House majority, Democrats the Senate and the presidency.  Markets quickly recognized that this status quo win is unfortunate, as evidenced by the large drops in worldwide stock markets immediately after the election.  This is the cast of characters that kicked the can down the road last time they negotiated, which has already produced one downgrade of the U.S. credit rating.

The election settled some things, including some of the ways the U.S. might have dealt with the fiscal cliff.  Clearly, there are not going to be Romney-Ryan-type spending cuts without tax increases.  That solution would be the best option, but it is no longer on the table.  Three categories of options remain.

  1. Run into the fiscal cliff.  Allow all of the tax cuts to expire.  Allow all of the spending cuts to go into effect.
  2. Balanced deal.  Republicans and Democrats hammer out a compromise which insures that total U.S. government debt would be no worse in 10 years than it would be if the country ran into the cliff.
  3. Kick the can down the road.  Bypass the sequester and renew the expiring tax cuts in the hope that the budget deficits will go away if ignored.

The best outcome is clearly a balanced deal, especially one that improves the tax system in a way that helps to balance trade.  Balancing the huge U.S. trade deficit would provide a stimulus that would give and keep giving.  There are at least three alternatives that would raise revenue and move trade toward balance at the same time:

  1. Scaled Tariff.  Our invention, the WTO-legal scaled tariff (a single-country variable tariff whose rate rises as the trade deficit increases and falls as trade becomes balanced), would increase U.S. exports and stimulate U.S. business investment.  It would also raise about $280 billion of revenue (half of the U.S. trade deficit).
  2. Tax Interest Earned by Private Foreigners.  In 1984, Congress eliminated the 30% withholding tax on interest earned by non-resident private foreigners.  Doing so caused the U.S. trade deficit to take off.  In our 2008 book, we estimated that restoring that tax would raise about $60 billion in revenue.
  3. Tax Interest and Dividends Earned by Foreign Governments.  When foreign governments buy American stocks and bonds as a byproduct of their currency manipulations, they are exempted from paying U.S. tax on interest and dividends earned.  In our 2008 book, we estimated that a 30% withholding tax would generate about $45 billion in tax revenue.

If the House Republicans kick the can down the road in order to avoid the fiscal cliff, they will be helping Obama keep his voters off the income tax rolls.  They will be continuing the era of spending without taxing.  They will be moving the U.S. economy toward financial difficulty and even disaster.  Moreover, they will prove, yet again, that they have no intention of practicing the fiscal responsibility that they allege they are seeking.

Read more:

Top 10 bad economic signs for Obama

1 Comment


This is from Human Events.

With all of these things is it that Obama has any positive ratings?

It thing some of it is due to his race and how the black community votes.

I pray that Americans wake up to the radical Obama agenda.

We have a choice in November keeping America or getting Ameritopia.


Here are the top 10 economic indicators that Obama doesn’t want you to pay attention to:

1. Unemployment rate

Despite his promise that the nearly $1 trillion 2009 economic stimulus would get America working again, the unemployment rate has been above 8 percent for 43 straight months. The current 8.1 percent jobless rate woefully understates the reality of problem. When taking into account people working part-time who want a full-time job and those who have given up looking for work, the rate is over 15 percent. Add in recent college graduates working at McDonald’s at the rate tops 18 percent.

2. Job creation

At the Democratic convention, Obama was quick to praise himself for having presided over the creation of 4.5 million jobs “over the last three and a half years.” The only problem is that he doesn’t include the jobs lost in the recession earlier in his term. A true reading of job creation under Obama shows a net gain of only several hundred thousand and he has the worst record on growing employment of any president since World War II.

3. Economic growth

Remember the “recovery summer” that Joe Biden promised in 2010? Or how Obama’s stimulus package was going to get the economy moving with all those “shovel-ready” jobs? The latest GDP report showed anemic 1.7 percent growth in the second quarter as any short-term benefit from Obama’s fiscal shot-in-the-arm has faded and now the nation is facing the possibility of a double-dip recession.

4. Food stamps

The one area of growth that Obama has presided over is the explosive increase in food stamp participation. When he took office in January 2009, fewer than 31 million Americans received food stamps. After an aggressive effort by the Obama administration to expand the program, now one-out-of-seven Americans, over 46 million, are receiving federal food assistance, an increase of 44 percent during his administration.

5. Household income

Considering that consumer spending constitutes the bulk of the nation’s gross domestic product, the loss in household income bodes ill for future economic growth. In addition to being squeezed by higher prices, families have seen their average income drop from $54,916 to $50,969 during Obama’s presidency. Add in the housing crisis which damaged the net worth of many families, and there is little hope for a consumer-driven recovery.

6. Gas prices

In 2009, when Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the price of gasoline was $1.81 per gallon. Since then it has more than doubled, nearing $4 per gallon, and that was before the recent Middle East turmoil threatened to drive prices up. While such events are beyond the control of any president, Obama’s reluctance to fully develop domestic oil resources and the delay of the Keystone pipeline contribute to the supply and demand problem.

7. Work-force participation

The August unemployment report contained a somber statistic: some 581,000 Americans have dropped out of the work-force and stopped looking for a job. The same report showed only 91,000 jobs were created in the month. With the number of Americans in the workforce—either having a job or looking for one—falling to 63.5 percent, the lowest in over 30 years, that kind of job creation doesn’t come close to keep up with the nation’s population growth.

8. Manufacturing jobs

At the Democratic convention in Charlotte, Obama made the ridiculous pledge that he would create one million manufacturing jobs in a second term and double the nation’s exports. Of course, he didn’t say how he was going to do that or, if it was so easy, why he didn’t create some in his first term. On the contrary, the September jobs report from the Labor Department showed the nation losing 15,000 manufacturing jobs last month, continuing a streak of monthly losses.

9. Inflation

Don’t look now, but inflation is gearing up to come roaring back. The consumer price index rose 0.6 percent in August and with severe drought in many parts of the United States, food prices are likely to take a price hike. And with the Federal Reserve starting to pump many billions of dollars into the money supply through its QE3 plan, the value of the dollar will surely erode.

10. Poverty

One area of growth during the Obama Era is in the number of Americans who have fallen into poverty. Since Obama took office, the number of people officially living in poverty—defined as an annual income of $23,021 for a family of four—topped 15 percent and increased from 39.8 million to 46.6 million. Those numbers will likely grow in a second term since his policies are more aimed at giving handouts than creating a positive climate for job creation.


%d bloggers like this: