Current Events - February 1, 2013

U.S. Unemployment Ticks Up To 7.9 Percent, White House Blames Congress

The unemployment rate rose to 7.9 percent from 7.8 percent in December, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

January nonfarm payrolls came in at approximately 157,000, missing expectations of a print of 165,000, pushing unemployment to 7.9 percent.“In January, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was about unchanged at 4.7 million and accounted for 38.1 percent of the unemployed,” the report reads.“The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons, at 8.0 million, changed little in January. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job,” the report adds.

For its part, the White House blames Congress. “Today’s report is a reminder of the importance of the need for Congress to act to avoid self-inflicted wounds to the economy,” Alan B. Krueger, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said in a statement

“The Administration continues to urge Congress to move toward a sustainable Federal budget in a responsible way that balances revenue and spending, and replaces the sequester, while making critical investments in the economy that promote growth and job creation and protect our most vulnerable citizens,” the statement adds.

And, of course, as always, the White House cautions that we shouldn’t read too much into the report.

“[M]onthly employment and unemployment figures can be volatile, and payroll employment estimates can be subject to substantial revision,” Krueger writes. “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available,” he adds.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/01/u-s-unemployment-ticks-up-to-7-9-percent/

At this pace, the U.S. won’t get back to full employment until 2022

 But it’s also relatively sluggish, given the deep, deep hole the economy is still in. If the United States keeps adding 181,000 jobs per month, then it will take nine years and three months to get back to full employment, according to the Hamilton Project’s jobs calculator.

Where does that number come from? Right now, there are 12.3 million unemployed Americans. When the economy was running at full blast at the end of 2007, there were just 7.7 million unemployed — in transition or switching between jobs, say. But on top of that, the population also keeps growing, currently adding about 88,000 new people to the labor force each month.

Put all that together, and it will take about 9 years to close the “jobs gap” — to get back to the ratio of payrolls to working-age population that prevailed back in December 2007.

With faster jobs growth, the country could get back to full employment even quicker. The Hamilton Project calculates that we could close the jobs gap entirely by the 2016 election if the economy added 321,000 jobs per month. The problem? That was the average rate for the best single year of job creation during the 1990s dot-com boom. Hard to envision now.

It’s also possible to quibble with Hamilton’s assumptions. Their analysis is very sensitive to how quickly the U.S. labor force will expand in the years ahead. If older Americans retire at a faster rate than expected or the population grows more slowly, then it might take even less time to get back to full employment at the current pace.

The length of time also depends on what happens to all of the country’s discouraged Americans who have currently stopped looking for work altogether. If those workers start scanning ads once again and sending out résumés, that will mean the U.S. labor force will expand more rapidly. That would mean it would take even longer to close the jobs gap, since there are even more people looking for work. But it would also, paradoxically enough, be a sign of a healthier economy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/01/the-u-s-wont-get-back-to-full-employment-until-2022/ 

Media Spins Unemployment Increase as Good News

After the American economy delivered more bad news today in the form of an increase in the unemployment rate and job growth that barely kept up with the increase in population, it took exactly 4.3476 seconds for the Washington Post's Ezra Klein and some flak for NBC News to jump before the "Morning Joe" cameras to assure Americans this was good news.

Apparently, the increase in the unemployment rate means the economy is so good, more people are joining the labor force ... except 169,000 people dropped out of the labor force, and the economy isn't good; it collapsed over three points in the last quarter and shrunk 0.1.

The AP called today's news "upbeat, " you know, even though consumer confidence hit a two-year low. But still, people are optimistic and looking for work … in an economy where chronic unemployment hasn't been this bad since World War II.

But according to Ezra Klein, that's because a government that increased spending during the last quarter of last year, actually decreased spending.

And George Orwell sings: doo da do da do da do…

The Media's Top Five Rules:

1. No matter which way the unemployment rate goes, Obama is The Sun King.

2. No matter which way the GDP goes, Obama is The Sun King.

3. Obama can do nothing wrong, Republicans can do nothing right.

4. Squirrels are always bigger news than bad news for Obama.

5. Shut up, racist.

Poverty's up, middle class incomes are down, one-in-five are on food stamps, the GAO says the deficit is "unsustainable," and the only reason the unemployment rate isn't closer to 11% is because the labor force has shrunk to thirty-year lows since Obama took office.

According to the media, though, if you look around, all you'll see is the clover we are all sitting in.

UPDATE: NBC's Chief White House Correspondent, Chuck Todd, just told America we're at war with Eurasia today that, yeah-okay, the unemployment rate increased, but look at the squirrel these revisions. Todd's also pretty sure the collapse in the GDP is due to a federal government not spending us into bankruptcy at a fast enough rate. 

He then blamed the collapse in consumer confidence on DC gridlock.

Translation: Republicans are awful.

Fact: The media and The State are now one.

 http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/02/01/Media-Spins-Unemployment-Increase-As-Good-Thing

Obama Administration Issues Bogus "Compromise" on Birth Control Mandate

The Obama administration is offering a bogus compromise on its ObamaCare contraception mandate as it tries to get out from underneath a mountain of lawsuits citing religious freedom.

The so-called compromise announced by Health and Human Services Friday shows that "religious" employers such as hospitals and charities can get out of the mandate while religious businesses such as Hobby Lobby are still stuck with providing for coverage and free birth control for employees.

The pro-life Susan B. Anthony list is blasting the move, pointing out that the government is now choosing what does and doesn't count as religious beliefs. Not to mention, the mandate still forces employers ethically opposed to the mandate to provide contraception coverage with zero co-pay.

“Once again, President Obama’s so-called ‘compromise’ is unacceptable – religious and moral freedom is not up for negotiation,” SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement.  “There must be no religious ‘test’ by the government as to who, and what type of entities, are entitled to a conscience.  We demand respect for non-religious entities such as the Susan B. Anthony List that recognize the taking of human life is the antithesis of health care.  Government policy under our constitution, history and statutory law has recognized the right of citizens to be free from government compulsion of conscience on such fundamental matters. The only acceptable outcome is the complete repeal of the HHS mandate and the restoration of a thriving marketplace where Americans can choose health care coverage consistent with their beliefs.”

Expect this issue to keep moving through the court system and eventually, to reach the Supreme Court. At this point, 44 different lawsuits with 130 plaintiffs have been filed against the mandate.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/02/01/obama-administration-compromises-on-birth-control-mandate-for-certain-religious-entitities-n1503143

What's the Constitution? Don't bother asking 70% of Americans: Alarming number of U.S. citizens don't know basic facts about their own country

Now it has emerged that 70 per cent of Americans do not know what the Constitution is, and six per cent don't even know when Independence Day falls.

Newsweek recently gave 1,000 Americans the U.S. Citizenship test and found that their knowledge of the history and running of their own country was seriously lacking.

Although the majority passed, more than a third - 38 per cent - failed, and some of the basic questions surrounding citizenship were answered incorrectly.

The U.S. citizenship test is administered to all immigrants applying for citizenship. It is comprised of 100 questions across five categories - American government, systems of government, rights and responsibilities, American history and integrated civics.

Newsweek found that there were huge discrepancies in the kinds of civic knowledge Americans collectively possess.

A mark of 60 per cent was needed to pass.

The questions that Americans could not answer went from the more challenging - how many justices are in the Supreme Court? (63 per cent did not know) To the most basic - who is the Vice President of America? (29 per cent did not know)

SAMPLE QUESTIONS

Q. What happened at the Constitutional Convention?
A. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.
Q. Who did the United States fight in World War II?
A. Japan, Germany and Italy.
Q. What did Martin Luther King Jnr do?
A. Fought for civil rights and equality for all Americans.
Q. Circle Independence Day on the calendar.
A. July 4.

An alarming number of Americans did not know basic information about the Constitution, namely that it was the supreme law of the land, that it was set up at the Constitutional Convention and that the first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights.

Newsweek reported that civil ignorance is nothing new. Americans have been misunderstanding checks and balances and misidentifying their senators for as long as they have existed.
And their ignorance is only highlighted by the knowledge of their European peers.

In March 2009, the European Journal of Communication asked citizens of Britain, Denmark, Finland and the U.S. to answer questions on international affairs.

Europe came out on top. Around three quarters of British, Finnish and Danish people could, for example, identify the Taliban but just over a half of Americans could, despite the fact they led the charge in Afghanistan.

Many blame it on the complexity of the U.S. political system.

Michael Schudson, author of The Good Citizen, said: 'Nobody is competent to understand it all, which you realize every time you vote. You know you’re going to come up short, and that discourages you from learning more.'

Others blame it on economic inequality in the U.S. as the top 400 households have more money than the bottom 60 per cent combined.

NYU sociologist Dalton Conley told Newsweek: 'It’s like comparing apples and oranges. Unlike Denmark, we have a lot of very poor people without access to good education, and a huge immigrant population that doesn’t even speak English.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368482/How-ignorant-Americans-An-alarming-number-U-S-citizens-dont-know-basic-facts-country.html

PK'S NOTE: I'll bet you won't find any stories about this in the mainstream media because it doesn't help their agenda:

Armed Guard Stops School Shooter After He Opened Fire at Atlanta Middle School

A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.

Multiple shots were fired in the courtyard of Price Middle School just south of downtown about 1:50 p.m. and the one boy was hit, Atlanta Police Chief George Turner said. In the aftermath, a teacher received minor cuts, he said.The wounded boy was taken “alert, conscious and breathing” to Grady Memorial Hospital, said police spokesman Carlos Campos. Grady Heath System Spokeswoman Denise Simpson said the teen had been discharged from the hospital Thursday night. Campos said charges against the shooter were pending.

Police swarmed the school of about 400 students after reports of the shooting while a crowd of anxious parents gathered in the streets, awaiting word on their children. Students were kept at the locked-down school for more than two hours before being dismissed.

Investigators believe the shooting was not random and that something occurred between the two students that may have led to it. Schools Superintendent Erroll Davis said the school does have metal detectors. “The obvious question is how did this get past a metal detector?” Davis asked about the gun. “That’s something we do not know yet.”

The armed resource officer who took the gun away was off-duty and at the school, but police didn’t release details on him or whether he is regularly at Price. Since 20 children and six adults were shot to death at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut in December, calls for armed officers in every school have resonated across the country.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/31/armed-guard-stops-school-shooter-after-he-opened-fire-at-atlanta-middle-school/

Armed guard disarms shooter at Georgia middle school

Needless to say, the guard did his job and despite lax security that allowed a gun on to school grounds, performed heroically.


Atlanta's mayor, Kasim Reed, didn't mention the heroics of the guard:

"Gun violence in and around our schools is simply unconscionable and must end," Reed said. "Too many young people are being harmed, and too many families are suffering from unimaginable and unnecessary grief."

The guard will be disappeared from the story because his actions don't fit the narrative. It will be forgotten how many lives he may have saved, and how his presence proved the efficacy of hiring armed security for our schools.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/armed_guard_disarms_shooter_at_georgia_middle_school.html

Senate kills Rand Paul’s bill to prohibit sales of F-16s to Egypt

The vote on Paul’s bill wasn’t close: 79-19, with more Republicans voting against it (26) than for it (19). Why? For the same reason McCain looked the other way at Morsi’s Jew-baiting and backed continued aid to Egypt. Namely, leverage:

[T]he pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) actually opposed Paul’s amendment. An AIPAC official explained to The Daily Caller News Foundation that the committee feared that the measure, if passed, would diminish U.S. influence in Egypt.

A few extra F-16s aren’t going to change the balance of air power between the IAF and Egypt’s air force but they do help — in theory — keep relations warm-ish between the U.S. and Egypt’s military. Jim Inhofe, who wanted the F-16 sales suspended but not canceled, as Paul’s amendment would have done, explained to the Daily Caller why he voted no on Paul’s bill:

“We need to continue to support the Egyptian military, which [Egyptian President Mohammed] Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood have currently distanced themselves from,” Inhofe said. “Egypt’s military is our friend — Morsi is our enemy.”

The country’s new defense minister, a Morsi appointee but one who was trained in the U.S., warned last week that if the Brotherhood and the opposition didn’t reconcile soon, Egypt would face collapse. Is that a hint of a coup? Inhofe wants to make sure we have the military’s goodwill in case it is, or of course in case Morsi orders the military to do something nutty like attack Israel. (Whether the new defense minister, Abdel Fattah al-Sissi, is himself a Brotherhood stooge or more interested in preserving the military’s prerogatives is an open question.)

There may be other reasons for wanting Egypt to continue using American equipment. I got this e-mail from a reader last week, after an earlier post about the F-16 sales. I’m not qualified to judge how accurate it is but it’s interesting enough that I thought I’d post it for reader feedback:

It is in our interest to continue supplying F-16s and tanks to Egypt, despite the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood, enemies of the US, run the government.
I am a former USAF navigator/weapon systems officer in F-4E Phantom fighters and former employee at the old General Dynamics F-16 factory in Fort Worth, TX.
Fighter jets need continual parts and technical support from the factory to fly. As long as Egypt uses US-made fighter jets, we have a leash on their use. If Egypt turns hostile, we can cut off support and their fighter fleet will be largely unflyable within a year.
When Khomeini took over Iran, they were flying US-made F-4s and F-14s. Through black market parts and cannibalization of other jets, they were able to keep only a few of them flying. So, the bottom line is that using advanced US military technology enforces a dependence upon us which we may withdraw at any time. If they convert their fleet to MiGs, we lose our leash on Egypt’s air force.
As long as we supply Egypt with hardware, we also maintain a liaison with their military, which is the true power center of the country. Many have noted that Egypt’s revolution did not turn bloody because the Egyptian military refused to violently intervene, which was credited to the decades of training that Egyptian field grade officers received in the US. That is where Egyptian officers were exposed to how the military of a democratic country acts. It paid off.
While governments come and go, the military of even volatile countries usually stays in place. It is in our interest to maintain a relationship with the Egyptian military, even though it seems counterintuitive to supply weapons to a hostile Islamist regime. We have to think beyond the Morsi government to prepare to influence a secular successor.
The downside of supplying weapons to the Egyptians is that they will probably pass examples of them along to the Russians and Chinese. However, we give them second class avionics, not the best stuff which gives our air force the advantage. And the F-16 is no longer cutting edge technology. We’re retiring them by the hundreds to the boneyard in the Arizona desert for storage.

Fair points all. I’m skeptical that it’d be terribly difficult for Egypt to replace most parts for the F-16 on the black market, but I’m speaking from ignorance here. Correct me if I’m wrong, please.

One other note about the Senate vote: Take a close look at who voted with Paul to oppose tabling his bill. Any names jump out? The most conspicuous hawks in the Senate — McCain, Graham, and new third amigo Kelly Ayotte — all voted to kill Paul’s bill, but one notable hawkish up-and-comer voted to keep it alive. Hmmmmm.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/01/senate-kills-rand-pauls-bill-to-prohibit-sales-of-f-16s-to-egypt/

Media Bias in the Age of Obama

The soft and at times obsequious interview Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” did with Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton) has received a lot of justifiable criticism. (Conor Friedersdorf demolishes Kroft in this piece.) Mr. Kroft didn’t help himself when he told CNN’s Piers Morgan that one of the reasons the president turns to Kroft so often is that he doesn’t use “gotcha questions” on Mr. Obama–the kind that “60 Minutes” routinely used against President Bush and other Republicans like Representative Eric Cantor.

But Mr. Kroft, as embarrassing as his interview was, is merely symptomatic of a larger phenomenon: the unprecedented swooning and cheerleading by the press for Barack Obama.

To say that the elite media has a liberal bias is similar to declaring that the sun rises in the east. But it’s never been this transparent, the infatuation never this deep, the advocacy this passionate. We are now seeing shows like “60 Minutes”–once a fearless giant in journalism–give interviews that you would expect to see on Entertainment Tonight or state-run television. We’re at the point when we have to count on tough interviews coming from news outlets like Univision. There are of course exceptions to this–journalists who are both tough-minded and fair-minded. But among the most significant political developments of our time is how many members of the press have become partisans in ways we’ve never before seen.

What explains this?

A combination of factors, I think. One is the rise of Fox News. For decades progressives had a monopoly on news, which meant they were content to slant the news but not routinely cross the line into advocacy. But now that Fox News has offered not only a different perspective, but a popular one, journalists may feel they must, in order to compensate for their loss of influence, increase their liberal advocacy.

A second factor is Barack Obama. He is liberal, Ivy League, and a person of color. That is simply too powerful of a combination for the elite media to resist. (If Obama were conservative, Ivy League, and a person of color, he would be a marked man, as Clarence Thomas has been.) Mr. Obama touches the media’s erogenous zone in ways that no other president, even JFK, ever has. One gets to sense that journalists not only like Mr. Obama; they are in awe of him. They want to impress him and please him and are afraid of being rebuked by him. (It is very much how my 3rd grade son views his teacher.) Being a bright fellow, Mr. Obama understands this, which is why from time to time he transitions from being president to being media critic. He issues marching orders to the elite media–and a stunningly high number of journalists salute and do as they are told.

A third factor is that more and more “objective” journalists seem to feel that liberalism is synonymous with social justice and they want to be in the midst of the fight to advance it. Hence we see people like Bob Schieffer and Tom Brokaw–who once upon a time would have actually tried to keep their biases reasonably in check–frame the issue over gun control as if we’re in Selma in 1965. It’s all rather silly–efforts to manufacture melodrama usually are–but I suppose there’s something emotionally satisfying about trying to recapture, over and over again, the moral moment that was the civil rights era.

All of this helps explain why Americans’ distrust in the media hit a new high in 2012, with 60 percent saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly.

There is some rough justice, I suppose, in members of the press being the architects in their own profession’s destruction. It will be interesting to see how much worse things will get, and what will finally emerge from the wreckage.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/01/30/media-bias-in-the-age-of-obama/ 

Scandal-Plagued Steve Capus Out as NBC News President

For months now, Breitbart News has made Steve Capus the poster boy for the ongoing scandals and instances of editorial fraud that occurred under his watch as NBC News president. During his tenure, no fewer than the equivalent of five RatherGates happened; and after two, three and four of these incidents, it became glaringly apparent that Capus was the problem. Today, action was finally taken. Capus is no longer with NBC News.

Whether Capus resigned or was forced out because someone on the NBC board finally decided his moral illiteracy needed to come to an end doesn’t matter. What matters is that a management style that either encouraged this fraud or was helpless to stop it is out.

It is worth noting, though, that just six-months ago, Capus signed a long-term deal with NBC News to remain as its president.

But the only real question is, why did it take this long?

The rap sheet against Capus isn’t troubling, surprising, or even disturbing -- it is breathtaking:

1. During last year's presidential election, Andrea Mitchell was caught manufacturing a Romney gaffe where none existed.

2. During last year's GOP primary, Ed Schultz edited video of Texas Governor Rick Perry to make him look racist.

3. In April of last year, the "Today Show" was caught editing audio of a 9-1-1 call to make George Zimmerman look racist.

4. In August of 2009, Contessa Brewer sliced and diced a photograph so it wouldn't look like a black man attended a Tea Party carrying a firearm.  

5. Just this week, NBC News maliciously edited video of a town council meeting to make it look as though Second Amendment civil rights activists heckled a parent who lost his son in Newtown.

This isn’t bias; this is committing outright fraud in pursuit of a political agenda. And it is no coincidence that every single one of these incidents aided and abetted Obama directly or whatever his agenda was at the time.

In April we wrote: "Three Strikes and NBC's Steve Capus Should Be Out"

In June we asked: "How Many Deceptive NBC Edits Before Steve Capus Is Fired?"

A few days ago we had to ask that question yet again.

Today, we finally got the answer as to how many deceptive edits before Capus is out -- too many.

If the history of the media, and specifically NBC News, is any indicator, the new boss is going to look an awful lot like the old boss. But let's not be completely cynical. While NBC's irresponsible and unrelenting left-wing bias will never end, we can at least have some hope that its irresponsible and unforgiving fraud will. 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/02/01/Scandal-Plagued-Steve-Capus-Out-as-NBC-News-President

Obama and the Communists: How They Censored Their Own Website to Protect the President

The Communist Party USA is very protective of its long time friend and ally Barack Obama.
There is no doubt that Obama’s relationship with the Party is long and deep. In fact it goes back before Obama was even born.

As a boy, Obama was mentored for many years by Hawaiian based communist Frank Marshall Davis. When he was active with the Chicago Communist Party in the 1940s, Frank Marshall Davis had worked closely with Vernon Jarrett, late father-in-law to Valerie Jarrett – now Obama’s closest friend and most trusted White House adviser.

Davis also worked with Chicago communist David S. Canter, who later went on to mentor David Axelrod – Obama’s close friend and long time campaign adviser.

The late Marxist academic and activist Manning Marable, wrote in the December 2008 issue of British Trotskyist journal Socialist Review, that Obama worked in Chicago with socialists with backgrounds in the Communist Party.

What makes Obama different is that he has also been a community organiser. He has read left literature, including my works, and he understands what socialism is. A lot of the people working with him are, indeed, socialists with backgrounds in the Communist Party or as independent Marxists. There are a lot of people like that in Chicago who have worked with him for years…

The Communist Party knows they are on to a good thing with Obama. His policies are, in most areas, in lockstep with their own.

However, they don’t want to embarrass their “friend” by making the relationship too public.

Sensitive to criticisms of Obama’s Marxist past and socialist policies, the communists have even gone to the length of censoring their own website to protect the President.

Below is a screen shot of an article entitled “Special District Meeting on African American Equality,” taken as it appeared on the Communist Party USA website as of December 30, 2007. Note the reference to Communist Party support for Obama in the 2004 U.S. Senate primaries.



Next is a screen shot of the same article taken on Nov. 10, 2010, retrieved through wayback. Note that the statement, “Our Party actively supported Obama during the primary election,” has been edited out.



Just like Comrade Stalin, the Communist Party USA is quite willing to airbrush history, to serve the “cause.”

Truth is whatever best serves the revolution.

http://www.trevorloudon.com/2013/01/obama-and-the-communists-they-censored-their-own-website-to-protect-the-president/

Also Reads:

Officer, Arrest That President!

"Obama used his weekly radio address of January 26 to introduce Mary Jo White as his new chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In that context, he repeatedly described the focus of his and the SEC's attention as "irresponsible behavior" in the economic realm.  Back when America was dreamily described as "a government of laws, and not of men," one might have sounded an alarm at a president presuming to criminalize anything so vague as "irresponsible behavior." 
These days, when only a fool would imagine such quaint niceties are relevant any longer, we may dispense with the formality of questioning the president's authority to criminalize "irresponsibility," and head straight for the real heart of the matter: what kind of "behavior" is he hoping to demonize this week, in the name of justifying sweeping new federal powers?"