Archive for the ‘Liberals’ Category

What did Presidents Hoover, Truman and Eisenhower have in common?  This is something that should be passed around.

Back during the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover ordered the Deportation of ALL illegal aliens in order to make jobs available to American citizens that desperately needed work.

Harry Truman deported over two million illegal aliens afeter WWII to create jobs for returning veterans.

In 1954 Dwight Eisenhower deported 13 million Mexicans. The Program was called Operation Wetback. It was one so WWII and  Korean veterans would have a better chance at jobs.It took two years, but they deported them all!

Now, if they could deport the illegal aliens back then,  they could sure do it today. If you have doubts about the veracity of of this information, enter Operation Wetback into your favorite search engine and confirm it for yourself.

Why you might ask can’t do this today? Actually the  answer is quite simple. Hoover, Truman and Eisenhower were men of honor, not untrustworthy politicians just out looking for votes.

I hope you all have paid your income taxes – 12-20 million illegal aliens are depending on you!


Read Full Post »

Here’s a surprise: According to Rasmussen, only 49% of voters admit having noticed that the media is trying to install Barack Obama in the White House. It must be summertime; no one is paying attention to the news. But this percentage is sure to go up in light of the MSM’s flagship newspaper, the New York Times, refusing to publish a McCain rebuttal to an editorial supposedly written by Obama.

Another surprise: 24% are so out of touch, they believe that most reporters will attempt to offer unbiased coverage. This is the same percentage that has a favorable opinion of the New York Times. Apparently a quarter of the population has already been assimilated.

At the furthest reaches of the lunatic fringe, 14% think the media will help McCain. That’s probably half the number who think Dick Cheney blew up the World Trade Center.

Read Full Post »

The economy lost 17,000 jobs in January, the Labor Department reported on Friday, the first monthly decline in four years and the most striking evidence yet that the United States may be slipping into a recession.Until now, the labor market had been growing at a steady if softening pace. Many economists pointed to expanding payrolls as the final holdout in a sluggish economy weighed down by trouble on Wall Street, the collapse of the housing bubble, and a cascade of credit problems linked to soured subprime mortgages.

But the January employment report cast the job market in a startlingly darker light. Jobs disappeared across a broad spectrum of professions, with the steepest losses coming in the manufacturing, construction and goods-producing industries.

Adding to the gloom, the government said that the level of employment was sharply lower in December than it had originally estimated. The new figure was based on an annual review of every job covered by unemployment insurance.

“This is the clearest signal yet that the job market is either in or teetering on a recession,” said Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute in Washington.

The decline, the first since August 2003, caught economists by surprise. Forecasters had predicted a substantial gain in January payrolls, and early signs pointed to a relatively strong report.

President Bush, speaking to reporters in Kansas City, Mo., used the report to urge Congress to quickly pass a proposed fiscal stimulus package.

“There are certainly some troubling signs, serious signs that the economy is weakening, and we’ve got to do something about it,” he said.

Mr. Bush said he was confident of the economy’s fundamental strength but that the employment report showed reasons for concern. “I think government can take decisive action to help us deal with this period of uncertainty,” he said.

And with voters in the early primary states expressing concerns about the economy, the presidential candidates were quick to weigh in.

In a statement, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said the economy was “sliding into a second Bush recession.” And Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who advises Senator John McCain on economic matters, called the report sobering. “We are growing too slowly,” he said. “Americans know it, and certainly Senator McCain knows it.”

Employment data can be quite volatile from month to month. The government last reported a monthly decline in August 2007, when its initial estimate that payrolls shrank by 11,000 jobs sent stock markets into a tailspin. But that figure was later revised up to a 74,000 gain.

Just last month, the December report showed an anemic 18,000 rise in payrolls, prompting a significant downturn in the stock market that led to one of Wall Street’s worst January performances ever. On Friday, the Labor Department raised that estimate to a gain of 82,000 jobs.

“It’s only one month,” said Ethan Harris, chief United States economist at Lehman Brothers. “The first thing you learn as an economist is one month doesn’t make a trend.”

Mr. Harris noted that a 17,000 job loss was “an incredibly tiny number” in the context of the overall labor market, which consists of about 130 million jobs. “It could be just a simple statistical quirk,” he said.

Other economic data released on Friday pointed to a more optimistic outlook. Consumer confidence grew in January, according to a survey by the University of Michigan and Reuters. And manufacturers appeared to recover from a sudden drop in business in December, as a closely watched indicator — a survey by the Institute for Supply Management — ticked up on a surge in foreign and domestic demand.

The unemployment rate in January fell back slightly, to 4.9 percent, after jumping to 5 percent in December.

But that was one of few strong spots in the report. Payrolls at private companies increased by a mere 1,000 jobs. Businesses are reducing the number of hours that their employees work.

And workers’ salaries have effectively fallen in the last 12 months. The average hourly wage for rank-and-file workers — about 80 percent of the total work force — rose 3.7 percent since last January, below the pace of inflation.

Average hourly earnings ticked up 0.2 percent last month, slowing from a 0.4 percent rise in December.

Some economists said the poor report meant the Federal Reserve made the right move in aggressively cutting interest rates over the last two weeks, and was likely to ease again at its next meeting in March.

“If you’re someone who spent the last six months saying this is Wall Street making a big deal out of nothing, you’ve got egg on your face this morning,” said Robert Barbera, chief economist at ITG.

Mr. Barbera said that with the economy slowing to a stall, businesses that had tried to avoid cutting jobs may no longer be able to hold out.

“Capitulation is going on,” he said. “Corporations have decided it’s been disappointing enough for long enough to start paring back.”

Stories with headlines like this just make me insane. Why bother? Do you realize this equates to 0.00005% of the population – assuming we have 350 million residents in America? Some say it’s only 300 million – which would boost that figure up to 0.000056. Whoopie! So with 0.00005% loss of jobs, we’re heading into a recession? Are these so called ‘economists’ nuts? Rhetorical question. This article states that there are only 130 million jobs-does that mean we have between 170-220 million who don’t work.  Can there be that many people who are not able to join the work force due to age, illness, retired?  Jared Bernstein (who?) from the liberal Economic Policy Institute in Washington. Now I see. Why do the bury the good news at the bottom? What a bunch of neer’ do wells. And how can reports be this skewed – “Employment data can be quite volatile from month to month. The government last reported a monthly decline in August 2007, when its initial estimate that payrolls shrank by 11,000 jobs sent stock markets into a tailspin. But that figure was later revised up to a 74,000 gain.” Could it be that liberals are trying to sink the ship?

Read Full Post »

To start off this new blog, I bring you an article from one of my favorite authors, Peggy Noonan. If you haven’t read her column or any of her books, you’re missing out. This article was printed in the WSJ – under the title, ‘Hear, hear’ – but, obviously, I want you to ‘Read, read’.

I, too, grew up in the time that Ms. Noonan describes, a son of a career military father, who had the values of God, Country, flag, right and wrong, black and white, etc. instilled in him as he instilled those same things in me. I still hold on to some of those beliefs and, yes, have added others while dropping a few.

So without further ado, enjoy.

You don’t want to judge Christ by Christians, someone once said. He is perfect, they are not.

In a similar way you don’t want to judge capitalism by capitalists, or the legitimacy of democracy by the Democrats, or the vitality of our republic by the Republicans. You have to take the thing pure and in itself, while allowing for the flaws and waywardness of its practitioners.

I say this because here in America we have reached a funny pass. People are doing and saying odd things as if they don’t know the meaning of the thing they say they stand for. In particular I mean we used to be proud of whom we allowed to speak, and now are leaning toward defining ourselves by whom we don’t speak to and will not allow to speak. This is not progress.

Conservatives on campus are shouted down. A crusader against illegal immigration is rushed off the stage at Columbia University. Great newspapers give ad breaks to groups with which they feel an ideological affinity, but turn away ads from those they do not, such as antiabortion groups. And they call this a business.

So much silencing. It seems so weak, so out of keeping with who we are. We love the tradition of free speech in America, but you don’t want to judge its health by what we’ve done with it lately, or to it.

In 1960 the premier of the Soviet Union came and spoke in the United States. Nikita Khrushchev was our sworn enemy, and a vulgarian–sweaty faced, ill educated, dressed in a suit just off the racks from the Gulag Kresge’s. I was a child, but I remember the impression he made. He took off his shoe and banged it, literally, on the soft beige wood of a desk at the U.N., as he fulminated. His nation had nuclear weapons. They were aimed at us. The new Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro, was there too. He was young and bearded and dressed in camouflage; he too, soon, would have missiles pointed at us. He not only went to the U.N. and spoke to the world, he refused to stay at the Waldorf and sweetly chose instead a hotel in Harlem to show his solidarity with America’s oppressed. The Americans there seemed to get the joke, and welcomed him with laughter. They knew he was playing them. But then they’d been played before.

Khrushchev’s trip and Castro’s were all about propaganda, all about sticking it to Uncle Sam. And here’s what happened: Nothing. Their presence hurt our country exactly zero percent. In fact it raised us high, reminding the world we are the confident nation that lets its foes speak uncensored. As an adult nation would.

You know where I’m going. Is it necessary to say when one speaks of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that you disapprove of him, disagree with him, believe him a wicked fellow and are not amused that he means to have missiles aimed at us and our friends? If it is, I am happy to say it. Who, really, isn’t? But this has been our history: to let all speak and to fear no one. That’s a good history to continue. The Council on Foreign Relations was right to invite him to speak last year–that is the council’s job, to hear, listen and parse–and Columbia University was well within its rights to let him speak this year. Though, in what is now apparently Columbia tradition, the stage was once again stormed, but this time verbally, and by a university president whose aggression seemed sharpened by fear.

There were two revealing moments in Ahmadinejad’s appearance. The first is that in his litany of complaint against the United States he seemed not to remember the taking and abuse of American diplomatic hostages in 1979. An odd thing to forget since he is said to have been part of that operation. The second was the moment when he seemed to assert that his nation does not have homosexuals. This won derisive laughter, and might have been a learning moment for him; dictators don’t face derisive from crowds back home.

It was like the moment in 1960 when Khrushchev’s motorcade stalled on Third Avenue and a commuter walked by and gave him the finger. Actually I don’t know there was such a moment, but knowing Americans I’m sure there was. Talking and listening to the wicked is the way we always operated in the long freak show that was 20th-century world leadership. And I’m sure before.

If Jefferson had dined only with those who’d been a force for good in the world, Jefferson would often have dined alone. If we insist only good and moral leaders talk to us, we’ll wind up surrounded by silence. In fact, if we insist we talk only to those whose good deeds have matched their high aspirations, we won’t always be on speaking terms with ourselves.

Domestically, the Democratic presidential candidates appear only before supportive groups. They don’t speak to antitax groups and talk about their own assumptions regarding tax policy. They don’t go to traditional values groups. It’s all very controlled. And it’s unworthy of a great nation. When people say the campaign feels artificial, that’s what they mean. It’s not John Edwards’s hairspray or Hillary Clinton’s makeup. It’s that they give every sign of being afraid to speak and listen to those who haven’t been patted down by thought-cops for unacceptable views.

The Republicans are the same. An invitation to debate on Univision, the Spanish-language network? They have scheduling conflicts. What about the Log Cabin Republicans? No time right now.

How unserious.

If you, candidate A, have clear and serious reasons for desiring the wave of millions a year illegally over the border to stop, you should be able to talk to Hispanic groups and audiences about it. You go straight to them and appeal to their patriotism, fairness and common sense. Why? Because they’re patriotic and fair and have common sense. It is a compliment to show you know this.

Will some of them boo? Yes, of course. So what? Too bad. That’s the price you pay for being truthful at a tough time. And in America it’s always a tough time.

The staffs, gurus and handlers of all the candidates are always afraid their guy will get booed. But do they realize how tired we are of hearing the tepid applause that follows the predictable pander?

I know they’re all always eager to laud Ronald Reagan. But Reagan began his fall 1980 campaign in the South Bronx, and argued his case with people on the street. After he was elected, he pleaded for peace in letters to Leonid Brezhnev. Too bad he wasn’t tough enough. Oh wait.

I think the problem is not coming from normal Americans but from our leadership class, our academics and political leaders. The new fearfulness has resulted in new foreign policy: “Let’s not speak to Buffy.” Great. How’s that working for ya?

Read Full Post »