* All Photos are linked, copyright by respective sources.

 

UPDATE10/28 : Moodys Agrees that Obama's Uncertainty is why we have no jobs.

ORIGINAL BLOG:
This week an AFL-CIO executive said 'Hey, Jesus Christ couldn't do anything more than President Obama has on the agenda we supported two years ago..."

Well that is of course just more Democrat sillyness. We didn't need Jesus to start the recovery again, we just needed one smart German chancellor named Angela Merkel.

If you read the news stories from 2009, you will find that Merkel worked with her coalition and attacked the recession with spending (yes it can work) but, she followed with a program of tax cuts and planned spending cuts.

Some of the left, like Paul Krugman have pointed out that Germany did some spending just like the US. He has also pointed out that much of the Germany austerity program has not been triggered. They are correct on both counts.  Germany jump started the economy with some quick spending and made it clear the spending was temporary and it would come with tax cuts.  They created an environment where business could bet that things would get better.  This optimism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The United States jump started the economy with some quick spending. As much as many Teaparty supporters may hate to hear this, done right it could have worked. However the alliance of Obama, Reid and Pelosi promised more government spending by passing a stimulus with much of its spending out in the future.  They then created enormous uncertainty by forcing through a giant 2200 page bill that not even the creators have read. The "health care" bill made so many changes to our health insurance system, including costs that not even the bill's creators know what is in it.  To add to the chaos they have promised to pass "Cap & Trade" that would charge working industry for CO2 emissions and make many associated with a new Chicago based "CO2 Exchange" very rich.

Finally, congressional democrats chose not to create a budget for 2011, they also chose not even vote on which tax rates would stay the same leaving almost every US tax payer and business due for a giant tax increase in Jan 2011.

Germany did spend, but tied it to a plan that would allow business to trust in the recovery.  The US spent, then planed for more spending, and used their control of Congress and the White House to plan for pushing years of failed agenda they have wanted for years.  Democrats have created years of uncertainty for businesses that are now happy to do what they can with the workforce they have.

This is why President Obama owns this jobless recovery

The Numbers

Lets look at some key charts from: Tradingeconomics.com  Chart Problems have been Figured out and fixed.. had to take image grabs from site as links changed as people played with new charts.


This is the chart of GDP growth Quarter over Quarter.   We see US and German spending spiked GDP, but as soon as core spending trailed off, Germany is seeing real business growth pick up the slack.  In the US we are heading back down again and may be one or two quarters away from a double-dip recession.

Good News:  Since I write this initial Q2 numbers added show GDP fall ("double dip fall") may be leveling off, I hope.

Recovering from Unemployment
Now more importantly to the claim that Obama just needs more time to start getting jobs back.  The US unemployment rate has not moved even as government payrolls have increased.  Why? Because every smart business in the US is streamlining for the coming increased costs of health insurance and the automatic tax increases coming on Jan 1, 2011.




Not Jesus - Just Willing to Accept Advice

We didn't need Obama to be Jesus, we just needed him to work with the GOP and take advice he has ignored from leaders in Europe about creating a plan business can trust.   The irony is if Obama had not gone it alone and taken a 100% progressive economic path, we might see jobs coming back. This of course could have meant he might not be loosing some or all of the congress and he would have created enough political capital to try his agenda in coming years, without trashing our economy to do it.

Hubris and impatience created a bad stimulus, a bad health insurance bill and a jobless recovery balanced on the edge a second recession.

Déjà vu
Finally, it is interesting to note that the New York Times and other media criticized Germany for planning to cut taxes and increasing the deficit.  Now, Germany is already seeing an increase in tax revenue from its smart business friendly policies.

Will They Never Learn?!

Links to Read:
Merkel 2009 Tax Cuts criticized by NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/business/global/14gcon.html
2009 Germany Media also assumes tax rate cuts will increase deficit:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5035680,00.html


Germany 2010 in growth ready for more tax cuts to keep it going while tax revenue is up:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20101023/tpl-uk-germany-taxes-20b2d2f.html

 
Being a conservative-libertarian leaning person who sees excessive government as a real problem I am going to disagree with Mr. Juan Williams more often than not.

Any person who has watched Juan in verbal battle on Fox News Sunday and other Fox News programming knows he has a unique style.  He is passionate while charming, he is steadfast while respectful.  Juan Williams is something I will never attain someone who has reached the nearly perfect balance of political passion with civility and class.

I was watching last Monday when Juan made his statement about feeling discomfort when those who choose to dress in Muslim attire share the plane with him.  I thought, “Wow that was honest.”  Juan Williams admitted that his gut reacts before his better-self kicks in.  But that is Juan, honest and willing to speak his mind.

Without a well crafted façade of political correctness, Juan is someone you have to listen to with respect even when you are sure he is totally wrong.  Why? because Juan isn’t faking it, he isn’t spinning for some other group to curry favor he is telling you how he sees it.

Juan Williams is at times very intimate with his audiences. There may be marriages that don’t share the level of sincere honesty that Juan chooses to share with his colleagues and viewers.

Today, Juan Williams was liberated from the prison of NPR liberal PC dogma. Today NPR showed it has a double standard.  That its OK for Nina Totenberg to wish AIDS on someone’s grandchildren, it is ok for her to lament that there are moderates in the Democrat party.  All this as she pretends to be a news correspondent for NPR.  Yet Williams as an analyst can not share a personal secret in an attempt to expand the dialog on what creates prejudice.

Ironically, Obama was willing to share this secret about his grandmother. Jessie Jackson once shared that even he at times felt uncomfortable when encountering black youth on the street.  What does this mean?  It means Obama’s grandma, Jessie Jackson and Juan Williams are human.  They they have a survival instinct that happens faster than the mind can insert reason.

Of course most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorism in the last two decades has been carried out in the name of Islam and that creates a pattern that few can ignore.  Juan is self-aware enough to know he has a reaction, he is honest enough to share that awareness. Outside of NPR anyone who has listened to Juan speak, knows he personally empowered enough to choose to treat people he meets as individuals and to fight for their right not to labeled with the horrific actions of others.

Many in the left will be cruel to Juan and CAIR has again outed itself as an enemy of the kind of discussion that can help us understand the true diversity of Muslim attitudes in America.  And again, Fox News wins as it is there to offer Juan a greater roll in expressing a view that goes counter to its editorial slant.

At NPR the kool-aid will be flowing strong. At Fox News Juan will now be free to share himself and work to bridge the ideological gap without worrying that one of his employers will be upset.  Juan is someone who can help us understand that liberals and conservatives all can share a love for America and have different views about how to fulfill its dream.  Today he is liberated from the “head in the sand” liberals at NPR and can now show us Liberalism in its best and most honorable form.

My only fear is that this truly nice man might actually win some people over to his views because of his respectful charm.  Its easy to dislike and dismiss the shrill cat calls of most left-wing commentators. It is never easy to dismiss Juan. Even when he is wrong, he will always have my respect.

Juan Williams, congratulations on your new found freedom to speak your truth where we can listen.

The liberty of America has created a place for some terrible hate groups to emerge.  From the KKK to the Weather Underground hate goes hand in hand with a faced of arrogance.  In truth haters feel so pathetic they can only "raise" how they see themselves by knocking down others.

In some cases involving the KKK the Constitution has protected hate speech made in a public venue.  In these cases it has been ruled that the community must tolerate the hate speech in the form of parades and protests.  Protecting the rights of even the vile in our communities is one of the things that makes America great.  Just north of us in Canada, people are arrested just for saying things that others consider hateful.  Free speech is under full attack above the 49th parallel.

But down here we need to be diligent in protecting the rights of free expression above the rights of the community to squelch it for comfort.

Too many people including, Glenn Beck, have mistaken what the monsters of the Westboro Hate Cult as a public protest.  If this was about the community preventing these hateful monsters from expressing their revolting views the Constitution wins the the community must tolerate this.  To do otherwise is to put the First Amendment in jeopardy.

However, these protests are not located to protest a public institution or public entity.  They are not even located to optimize visibility to the public as a parade or protest down "main street" would.  What this hate cult does is designed with the intent of targeting for maximum emotional damage.

These people pick an emotional event where they can inflict maximum pain and create a contrived feeling of power.  This is the key, their message is not about about changing public policy directed at those with the power to change it.  If you search for their website, look at the URL they have chosen.  This message is a personal attack of hate.  When they show up at funeral their hate becomes an attack on vulnerable people meant only to create a perverted power structure where the mourning families are meant to feel powerless. They are parasites feeding on the pain of others to create a feeling of personal empowerment what they are too weak and stupid to do for themselves.

This is not what the First Amendment was designed to protect.  It was meant to protect expression from censorship by government and by extension the community.  It never was intended to protect intentional infliction of harm on another.  This is where we have long had exceptions.  Slander and liable are not protected forms of speech, because they are designed to do harm.  They are sometimes protected when the target has by choice become a public figure.  These families are not mourning by choice. And it is this emotion of mourning that is targeted.

What this hate cult does has the same intent as a cross burning.  The Supreme Court has already ruled just seven years ago in Virginia v. Black that laws meant to prevent intimidation are constitutional.  In this case it is not a law, but the outcome of a civil suit.  The result of the suit was overturned on the assumption that this hate speech is protected. However the intent is the same, to intimidate and feed perverted needs by seeking out the most emotionally vulnerable in our communities, those mourning the loss of a loved one.

If this cult of hate wants to express their vile opinions within the bounds of the constitution, they should be required do it where those in mourning are not forced to see it.  That means away from the ceremonies and away from any routes required to arrive at and leave the cerimonies.  As long as the family can mourn and return home by at least one route without being the victim of these vile attacks, the rights of the vile to be vile in public should then be protected.

In this case the family was not protected they won a case, but a disconnected appeals court failed to understand the nature of this hate and reversed the will of a jury.  It is my hope that Supreme Court will realize this is not about protecting the speech of the Westboro haters who have nearly unlimited options to express their views, it is about protecting the vulnerable in a time of mourning.

 
In this week's debate, Jerry Brown said Meg Whitman should "just admit she made a mistake."

Here are the Facts:

• The Whitmans used an employment agency seeking a legal worker.
• Nicki Diaz had forged papers and has admitted to lying on multiple legal forms that proved she was legal.
• The Whitmans paid all her taxes and paid her $23 hour, not any hint of them trying to save money or avoid taxes like many politicians have been caught doing.
• The Social Security paper said there may be an issue and asked for more info and it specifically said that taking any legal action based on the inquiry could get the Whitmans in trouble.  They asked their long-time employee who provided all the legal documents to check into it.  She did not do that.
• When they found she was illegal, they followed what the law REQUIRED and terminated her employment. They did not opt to turn her into immigration.

So what is the mistake Jerry Brown sees?

A) Was it hiring a Hispanic and trusting her without doing a full background check?  If this is the mistake, then it would appear that Jerry Brown thinks it is common sense to racially profile Hispanics and do extra checks on them based on race. That means he thinks Whitman should have done MORE than the Arizona law calls for
.
B) Was it a mistake not to get her deported right away?  Given that Jerry Brown supporter Gloria Alred is doing all she can do to get Nick Diaz deported by putting her in the media, maybe Jerry Brown is a strong advocate of deporting illegals to deal with immigration issues. Again that would put him more inline with the Arizona approach than Meg Whitman who in a moment of compasion did not report her former employee.

Or maybe...
C) Jerry Brown is not in support of Arizona like policies, knows Whitman did nothing wrong and is willing to let his long time supporter Gloria Alred use Nick Diaz so he can get elected.

So my question for the voters of California is who will you be voting for:

• Jerry Brown the pro racial profiling and background checks on Hispanics candidate?
• Jerry Brown the it's a mistake not to deport illegals right away candidate?
• Jerry Brown I will say anything to get elected candidate?
• Meg Whitman the woman who trusted her employee, paid her very well and chose not to report her out of compassion?

Who best represents the heart of California?
 

UPDATE: See Gloria Alred Destroyed by superior legal mind Greta Van Susteren (Video Below)

Democrat Jerry Brown's attack dog, Gloria Alred, in an attempt to help her retread friend return to his glory days, has launched a campaign to make life harder for hard working Hispanics in California including the millions that are citizens and legal immigrants.  How do we know this? Would Democrats be running this smear attack if Meg Whitman's former housekeeper was Scandinavian?

Democrats Attack Whitman for Trusting a Hispanic
They are attacking Meg Whitman for hiring a Hispanic woman, paying her $23 an hour for nine years and accepting her employment papers as genuine.  She didn't pay her a low rate. She didn't forget to pay her taxes. She didn't pay her under the table.  Democrats are attacking Meg Whitman for treating her Hispanic house keeper like an American!


Democrats Explain How Employers Can Avoid Legal Action When Employing Hispanics
What is the real message employers are hearing from the Democrats in California?   Employers are hearing anytime you hire a Hispanic you should do a deep background check or you are placing yourself at risk of being sued.  Democrats are saying that it is wrong to trust a Hispanic when they say they are here legally and sign thier name legally to attest to that fact. Democrats are saying the first time you get any paper asking for information about a Hispanic worker, you should assume they are illegal and fire them right away.

Whitman Failed By Not Assuming Dias was Illegal
If Meg Whitman had racially profiled Nicki Diaz and made a deeper check of her identity she would not be under attack.  If they would have racially profiled and assumed clerical letters from Social Security which are "just paper work" for most Americans must be a red flag for Hispanics, they would not be under attack now.

If you are Hispanic in California, you had better have all your papers correct and make sure there are no mistakes on your computer records, because you can be sure employers, especially employers of domestic workers are getting the message Democrats are sending.  The message is being sent to money seeking attorneys statewide.  Every copycat low class attorney will be using Gloria Alred as template for new lawsuits against people who hire Hispanics.

The fear of copycat legal actions may lead many good people to require extra documentation from Hispanics just to get and keep a job.

Meg Whitman Treated Nicki Diaz Like An American
It was the Republican that paid Nick Diaz $23 an hour and paid all the proper taxes.  It was the Republican that allowed Nicki Diaz to bring her sick child to work. It was the Republican that did the minimum under the law when she learned Nicki Diaz was not here legally and did not report her long-time employee to immigration.


Democrats Treat Nick Diaz Like a Pawn
It is the Democrat that is saying employers who don't distrust the word and signature of Hispanics are now open to legal attacks. It is the Democrat that thinks it makes sense to do more background checks on Hispanics than one would expect for other American workers.  It is the Democrat that has now publicly identified Nick Diaz as here illegally. They have told the world that Nicki Diaz committed fraud to get her job.  It is the Democrats that may get her deported.


Jerry Brown is willing to teach Californians to distrust Hispanics, so he can win an election for a job he walked away from years ago to seek greater power.

New Video Added to Original Blog
Go Greta!!

Two Men Unprepared to Discuss Religion
This week Bill Maher knowing Bill O'Reilly would be terribly under educated and prepped to debate religion showed up with the boilerplate arguments Dawkins probably gave him over an imported beer. His counters to Bill were lazy and dripping with the confident ignorance only world class arrogance can bring.  His demeanor is that of someone who has grown so sociopathically sure of his superiority, that he can no longer connect with most of humanity enough to pretend civility. 

His goto tool for this interview was the straw man argument that has become a key tool of liberals recently.  I half expect to see Obama or Maher skipping down the yellow brick road looking for a tin man to dance with their troop of straw men.   (Ok that is pretty tortured imagery but if I keep it I promise to avoid any other OZ references, for now)

When you see the straw man you know the person is fully aware they would lose a debate over the real issues.  Or they assumed it is too much work to even learn the other side of the discussion, since they are always right. Rather than have a real discussion they carry around a ready made fake opposing positions they use in place of the real arguments and ideas they oppose. They can knock these down with cool skill that comes from practicing it in the mirror over and over.

Bill O'Reilly did Ok with the standard strawmen.  But he had problems with the typical misquotes and biblical references. We should all be ready to deal with them before walking into a discussion with Bill Maher style atheists.

Bill Maher's angry Atheist Straw Man Number One:
"All Jews and Christians have to believe all that is in their Holy Book and if they don't, my work is done and you are all hypocrites."  At this point the ignorant atheist before you has defined themselves unprepared for a serious discussion of religion.  You might land a glancing blow and offer a way out at this point.

Your response at this point is simple:  
"If that were true, there would not be the diverse denominations that create the rich tapestry of the Judeo–Christian community worldwide.  We can discuss what I believe or compromise on a discussion of how much faith it takes to remain a Seattle Mariners Fan."    [Make sure to use the word "diverse" it subtly points out their straw man is a bigoted stereotype. Those of you in Chicago should make the appropriate team substitution]

The key here is that there is no denomination that has not accepted that free will allows them to apply the Bible to the current century.  Bill Maher should thank God for this, because if even a few of his straw men Christians existed, they would have stoned him years ago.


Bill Maher's Angry Atheist Straw Man Number Two:
"The Bible IS written by YOUR God and no real god would have written such things. So I win"  If you get both of these you know your "worthy" opponent got his understanding of religion from Michael Moore, who learned what he knows about religion off a cereal box.  (I do claim bonus conservative points for gratuitous use of Micheal Moore at this point.)


Your response to this would be:
"The Bible was written by men gifted with the same free we all have, who added the flawed nature of man and the context of the time to any inspiration God gave them for the book. Like a tapestry if you look too close you can find those flaws and become obsessed with them and miss the artistry of the message and story that is meant to be seen in its entirety from the fall of Adam and Eve to atonement for all sin purchased for us by Christ's acceptance of the Crucifixion." 
I have no idea how your atheist will react here.  Concepts like self-sacrifice without tax-deductability and eternity tend to create a sputtering noise followed by a retort that will revive memories of elementary school.


Bill Maher's Angry Atheist Silly Argument #1
"You can't believe all that is in the Bible, its just so much fantasy and is just silly, Faith is about abandoning logical thought.  I believe in science and logic"   The basic idea here is that if you understand how the V-8 engine and five-speed transmission works, that is proof there is no Ford Motors.   Keep in mind if you suggest that it might make sense to look for a maker's mark on the engine, you are a heretic in their tiny world.

Your response would be: 
Odds are your Bill Maher type has no clue about Quantum Mechanics, Black Holes (except at feeding time) and M-theory if they did they would realize science is fluid and full of contradictions . "The science you believe it has postulated in the last few years that time can be stopped, the spontaneous creation of matter from nothing happens all the time and that is possible for something to exist in more than one place at the exact same point of time.  Which until about 50 years ago would have been the stuff of fantasy.  Science can not disprove a creator it can only improve our understanding of creation.  Atheism is a faith based religion, with people like your-self doing missionary work."


It is impossible to prove there is no God, so Atheism is the adoption of the belief with no proof.  An atheist without faith is called an agnostic"  Agnostics see no proof either way so they don't know.  It takes faith to come to any conclusion about God.

Alternate Current-Affairs Response for Silly argument #1 is:
"You support the Obama health-care bill right?  Have you read it? The blind faith needed to accept the miracle of creating savings from covering 30 million more people with  the same sized medical community and no rationing dwarfs the faith it takes to believe a man walked on water. I only pray I can someday bring that level of faith to my love of God." 

I took the time to cover some of the basic carbon copy straw man atheist arguments.  The moment someone declares them-self an Atheist, you have found common ground, faith.  No matter how well you understand the the universe understanding can not disprove the existence of a consciousness that existed outside of it and created it.  Science can never disprove God, it can only expand the on the elegance and mastery God would need to create what we have come to understand.

Atheist are people of strong faith and even if you come prepared with logic and facts about religion  and your faith they will ignore it because their doctrine requires them to simply religion to something they can criticize rather than deal with it as an key part of history and culture that is as diverse the cultures of the Earth.

Stealing Jefferson
Here it is FINALLY Definitive Proof Bill Maher is Ignorant. Not only is he unable to make his points without repeatedly making incorrect biblical references.  He like many atheist evangelicals loves to misquote Thomas Jefferson.   Watch here if you dare:  Unedited Interview

In the interview segment Bill O'Reilly aired on 9/30/2010.  Maher suggested he had a quote that proved Jefferson would "ridicule" the idea of a God.

The full quote is as follows:

Atheists love to take Jefferson out of context.  It is clear that Jefferson was comfortable questioning and even adjusting his faith in God. There is no indication that his version of being a Christian included a belief in the divinity of Jesus and yes he had disdain for doctrines like the immaculate conception and centuries of church created dogma.  (I would tend to agree with Jefferson on much of what has come since the Bible)  This makes for some juicy quotes that used out of context can be used in opposition of his actual beliefs.

Jefferson had a clear faith in God the "God of Jesus", one he shared with Adams. He believed in a God that actively created the world and one that he hoped would approve of his life's work.  He was not talking about a Gia like "Nature's god" as some atheist claim.  In many ways Jefferson is the modern doubting Thomas.  For him God was real, but he had no proof of Jesus divine nature so he questioned it. 


Any Atheist who quotes Jefferson to support an atheist faith, is proclaiming a deep ignorance of Jefferson and American history.  Congrats to Bill Maher for confirming what we have all known for a long time, he is just a grumpy dunderhead!  A man who lost relevance years ago.