Unemployment Figures Half The Story

The labor department announced an October unemployment figure of 10.2%. However, I would like to point out AGAIN that THAT number doesn't tell the whole story. When the labor department reports the unemployment figures, that is the number of people who filed unemployment claims in that month. The Labor department also keeps track of those who are seeking full-time employment but can only find part-time jobs. That's called the U-6, and it stands at 17.5% for October.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/doctor_note_required_to_read_this_xUd1QgPrRNwN7MXlX9BkKP

I've already explained many times that an alternative measure of unemployment, called U-6 by the Labor Department, has been running much higher than the jobless rate you see in the headlines -- the one that spiked to 10.2 percent last month.

U-6 was 17.5 percent in October, a big jump from 17 percent in September and a major leap from the 10.6 percent in September 2008.

The U-6 calculation represents those who are unemployed plus people who want full-time jobs but can only find part-time work.

As for those who used to be on unemployment but whose benefits have lapsed and STILL can't find a job, including them could propel the figure as high as 22%.

My friend John Williams of Shadow Government Stats thinks the true unemployment rate would be 22.1 percent if everyone -- all discouraged former workers, encouraged, involuntary part-timers and the like -- were included.

And amazingly enough, the labor department admits that they estimated some numbers and may have been overly optimistic in the estimations.

The government's household survey (the one from which the unemployment rate of 10.2 percent comes) showed a "decline in employment" of 589,000 in October, which followed a 785,000 employment drop in September.

That number also includes people who say they retired and others who were fortunate enough to have died during the past month and no longer require a job.

More numbers: Last Friday's 190,000 loss of jobs (from the survey of companies) would have been worse if 86,000 imaginary jobs weren't included to the tally.

The government thinks those 86,000 jobs are coming from newly formed small businesses that it can't survey, but last month the Labor Department admitted that this might be overly optimistic.

In other words, as bad as the government's figures were for October, the truth is bleaker still. Kind of puts PresBo's "We Saved Jobs!" claims into perspective, doesn't it?

Read the rest...

Upcoming Recess & ObamaCare

The House passed an ObamaCare bill that is widely viewed as extremely liberal. Now they get to come home and face their constituents during a recess that may well be a flashback to the tumultuous summer recess that saw millions of Americans urging their Congressmen to oppose the ObamaCare bills.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29342.html

The last time Congress returned home for an extended break in August, health care reform proponents lost ground that took weeks to regain — but not again, Democrats insist as they head into the Veterans Day recess.

The landscape is a bit different this time. House Democrats passed a sweeping bill Saturday night, giving lawmakers something to tout back home but also providing Republicans with more concrete opportunities to criticize.

The Senate is closer to a health care floor debate, albeit moving at a much slower pace.

The rhetorical and tactical battle lines, however, are similar to the tumultuous summer recess. Senate Republican leaders are encouraging their members to hold health care town halls. And House Republicans have armed their troops with a 16-page memo detailing talking points on what they call the Pelosi Health Care Bill.

People, you got out there over the summer and made sure Congress heard what we had to say. Now it’s time to do it again. Make SURE they realize that no, we don’t view them more favorably because they voted “yes” on ObamaCare. And be sure to thank those Congressmen who voted against it… as the entire Alabama delegation did.


This time around, a new issue has been added to the debate, one that poses the danger of derailing the liberal bill. That issue is abortion. As you no doubt know by now, several moderate Democrats were induced to vote in favor of the bill after language was added restricting public funding for abortions. As of now, liberal Democrats are vowing to remove that language before it comes up for a final vote… something that might well cause those moderates to jump ship and vote “no.” And make no mistake, the Democrats NEED those moderates to pass the bill… assuming it comes back from the Senate looking anything like what it does now.
http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aZVknY_riTJU

Democrats are hardening their stances on both sides of the abortion issue in a battle that may threaten plans to overhaul the U.S. health-care system.

More than 40 party lawmakers vowed to vote against a final bill if it contains language the House agreed to on Nov. 7 adding restrictions on the procedure as part of broader health legislation. The issue may also disrupt work in the Senate, which has yet to unveil a bill.

Abortion “is going to be a major issue,” Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, told reporters yesterday. “I hope we can find a way around it.”

There’s little margin for error. Democrats control 60 votes in the Senate, just enough to pass legislation if they stick together. House Democrats have 258 votes and need 218 for passage. The amendment restricting abortion got 64 Democratic votes and the support of the lone Republican who voted for the overall bill, Louisiana Representative Ahn “Joseph” Cao.

But all of the action so far has taken place in the House, and the Senate is going to be a much tougher sell. Why? Because Democrats had a 40 vote buffer in the House, and could afford to have that many vote against it and still have it pass. Democrats in the Senate, however, have EXACTLY the number of votes they need to pass it and cannot afford a single dissenting vote… such as Leiberman, who has already said he will vote against any bill containing a “public option.” This makes passing anything (without resorting to inappropriate reconciliation sleight-of-hand) a very difficult proposition.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29356.html

But the House vote does nothing to change the thus-far intractable public option math in the Senate: There are, at best, 57 to 58 votes for any form of the public option. Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman’s announcement that he will join Republicans in blocking a floor vote on any bill containing a public option means, on its surface, that Democrats will have to secure the vote of Maine Republican Olympia Snowe to get to 60.

And Snowe has categorically rejected all public-option proposals — except the trigger, which is the one that is most objectionable to progressives.

It’s going to be tough sailing to get it through the Senate, especially since they have to listen to us during their upcoming recess. Let them know that we don’t WANT a massive government takeover of our health care system. Changes can be made to the system without giving government control of our lives. Yes, ObamaCare is change, but it isn’t change for the better. Tell them that, and tell them that REPEATEDLY.

Read the rest...

Partisan Incongruity

Has anybody else noticed the way the political discourse has moved in this country just recently? After the 2008 election loss, "conventional wisdom" was that the GOP had to move to the center to survive. And, despite the wishes of their rank-and-file members, they're been trying to do this.

Republicans are standing strong against a liberal agenda being enacted by the Democrats, and how are they portrayed? The news media and liberal politicians portray them as catering to the "far-right-wing" of their party... something most are careful to paint as being bad and something that will "doom" the party.

Whenever a Republican breaks ranks and votes with the liberals, the GOP considers punishing them for the action... and the Democrats (and the news media) immediately portray them as intolerant.


But look at the Democrats. They're pursuing an agenda that is so extremely liberal that they can't even get their own party to agree to it! They've been fighting for months to get the votes to pass it... and when the House succeeds, it is only by a very narrow margin. And when those moderate members refuse to go along, there's usually a Democrat or two telling them the bad things that would happen to them.

In fact, that was part of Pelosi's strategy to get recalcitrant Democrats to vote yes... remind them that all good things (committee assignments, support for reeleection, and so forth) flow from the Party, and those who vote against the agenda will be punished.

So why is it viewed as insular and detrimental for the GOP to punish defections and try to satisfy their fiscally conservative base, but viewed as good that the Democrats to do precisely the same thing?

The only explanation I can think of is that most of the media agrees with the liberal philosophy and disagrees with conservatives. That's not my guess... the majority of the news media SELF-IDENTIFIES as liberal.

People... it is NOT a bad thing to pull together to fight an unpopular and harmful agenda. Denigrating those who do so will eventually bite you on the ankle, because the Democrats won't be in the majority forever. And once they're a minority, are we to believe that they'll agree with the majority party and help them enact THEIR agenda?

Please.

If you believe that, I have some solar-front property on Mars that I'd like to sell you...

Read the rest...

Ft. Hood Shooter Tried To Contact Al Qaeda

The more we hear about the Ft. Hood shooter, the more it looks like he was acting as an Islamic terrorist, and that his motivations were religious in nature. Officials haven't announced a determination, but then they're still investigating. So why do I think "the worst" of him? Because of what we're hearing from "off-the-record" reports.

For example, did you know Hasan had tried to contact Al Qaeda terrorists?
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-shooter-contact-al-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873

U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.

It is not known whether the intelligence agencies informed the Army that one of its officers was seeking to connect with suspected al Qaeda figures, the officials said.

Or that he attended a mosque with two of the 9/11 hijackers?
http://news.aol.com/article/alleged-fort-hood-shooter-nidal-malik/758172?icid=mainmaindl1link3http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Falleged-fort-hood-shooter-nidal-malik%2F758172


Or that Hasan's former Mosque was run by a radical muslim Imam with ties to terrorism?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115465

Or that Hasan apparently thought that non-Muslim's should be killed?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6526030/Fort-Hood-gunman-had-told-US-military-colleagues-that-infidels-should-have-their-throats-cut.html

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America's Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.

He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.

Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe.

It was the latest in a series of "red flags" about his state of mind that have emerged since the massacre at Fort Hood, America's largest military installation, on Thursday.

If all this information is accurate, then I am troubled. With all of this, and more, why wasn't somebody in the military concerned enough to take steps? If political correctness demands that we ignore genuine security threats in order to maintain a touchy-feely (but imaginary) sense of harmony, then political correctness be hanged.

And I must confess to lingering doubts... with all this information out there, SOMEBODY had to have known. So, is all this information we're getting accurate? Maybe, maybe not... remember what I said about information reported soon after an event like this one. We'll have to continue to wait and see, but right now the available evidence is all pointing one way...

Read the rest...

Pray For Recovery Of Ft. Hood Shooter?

It's been a few days since the Ft. Hood shooting and we still don't have any definitive statements regarding motive. However, many Americans think it was motivated by Islamic terrorists. And you know what? Some who support Islamic terrorism think so, too.

Apparently a Facebook user named Khadeeja posted a Facebook entry entitled "Praying for the recovery of Dr. Nidal Malik Hasan". The prayer?
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=170468609770&ref=search&sid=734539908.3089112088..1

Together we pray for the recovery of Dr. Nidal Malik Hasan, MD. May Allah see fit to return this loyal son of Islam back to perfect health. Sallalahu Alayhi Wa Sallam.

Once again, this isn't definitive evidence of what his motives actually WERE, but they are being perceived as those of an Islamic terrorist... by some of those who support such things.

Read the rest...

Breaking: House Passes ObamaCare

The House passed an ObamaCare bill tonight on a vote of 220-215. In all, one Republican supported the bill and 39 Democrats voted against it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29282.html

The House of Representatives passed legislation for the first time Saturday night that would provide health coverage to almost every American after nearly a century of false starts and un-kept campaign promises.

The final vote was 220-215. In all, 219 Democrats voted to approve the measure in a largely party-line vote, with 39 Democrats voting no. One Republican supported the bill, Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.).

And this makes twice now that PresBo and Pelosi have almost forced members to toe the line... and there are a lot of unhappy Democrats tonight. The road ahead is a bit rocky...

The bill includes fundamental changes to the American health care system – creating a public health insurance option to compete with private insurers and for the first time, requiring employers to offer health insurance.

The path ahead remains shaky – for the bill and for many of the Democrats who voted to approve it. Party leaders need to mend the bruised feelings that will linger from this debate before they can address whatever legislation the Senate can produce.

And in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid has made clear he might not meet the White House’s Christmas deadline to pass a bill and is still struggling to find 60 votes for Senate legislation.

Fights over abortion, immigration and the size of the federal government exposed long-standing cultural and regional divides within the disparate Democratic caucus. A last-minute abortion fight left a particularly bitter taste in the mouth of Democratic women who spent the early part of their careers fighting for reproductive rights.

“People are furious,” said Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette.

The fact that they had to work so hard and be so dictatorial toward their own party members in order to squeeze out a simple majority when they hold FAR more than that majority ought to tell them something. I'm sure the Senate won't ignore the fact that the bill passed so narrowly. What they'll do about it is another story entirely, but you can be sure they noticed it.

Read the rest...

Pelosi Says Democrats Have 218 Votes For ObamaCare

This whole “can the Democrats get 218 votes” drama is drawing to a close as the House prepares to vote on their bill… and Pelosi says they have 218 votes.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29263.html

Hours before an expected vote on a sweeping health care bill, House Democrats believe they've secured the 218 votes they need to approve the bill, several party insiders said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took to the House floor about 6:30 p.m. to say, “Today we will pass the Affordable Health Care for America Act… We will make history. We will also make progress for America's working families."

In response to a question about whether the bill would pass when she brought it up, Pelosi told reporters Saturday night, "That is our expectation."

The interesting thing is that the Democrats have MORE than enough seats to pass the measure easily, assuming all members of the party hold together. In fact, she can afford it if 40 Democrats vote against it and still have it pass… though barely. So what’s all the hubbub? Maybe it's the fact that 33 Democrats have said they’re voting against the bill.

Thirty-three Democrats have publicly declared their opposition to the bill, giving party leaders the narrowest possible margin to push the bill across the finish line. But numerous sources said Democrats believe they do have the votes after a day of intense lobbying of wavering Democrats.

You see, the ObamaCare bill being voted on will receive only partisan support. What IS bipartisan is OPPOSITION to the bill, as all the Republicans and 33 or more Democrats are expected to vote against it.

And how are they planning on getting the votes? Simple: the carrot and the stick. Promises for support and punishment for failing to support.

Votes have a tendency to shift in the final hours before a controversial vote, but party leaders were expressing more genuine confidence as the sun set over the Capitol than they had exhibited all week. Word started spreading around 5 p.m. that leaders had the votes they needed to pass the $1.2 trillion bill.

Pelosi had all but predicted passage of a House health reform bill earlier Saturday, following an emotional appeal from President Barack Obama to fellow Democrats urging them to “answer the call of history” and vote yes.

But she and her top lieutenants earlier stopped short of saying they had the 218 votes for passage – signaling a day of vote-wrangling and arm-twisting that has stretched into Saturday night.

As with all legislation, it’s not over until it’s over. We can only hope that Congress will do what is right for this country and vote against this expensive and damaging legislation. The fact that support is liberal-only but opposition is bipartisan should be a signal to the White House that maybe this isn't the best idea in the world.

UPDATE: Moderate Democrats are being told to toe the party line or face the consequences.
http://newsok.com/health-care-vote-ominous-for-moderate-democrats/article/3414913

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is ready to force moderate Democrats to walk the plank again. Earlier this year it was a tough vote on climate change. Now health care. Pelosi has ordered all hands on deck for a possible vote Saturday.

Like Admiral Farragut at Mobile Bay during the Civil War, Madame Speaker took in Tuesday’s Republican landslides in Virginia and New Jersey, lashed herself to the rigging and ordered, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!” on health care.

Moderate Blue Dog Democrats, without the safety of Pelosi’s liberal San Francisco district, deserve sympathy for seeing explosive risk everywhere in her health care vote — a trillion-dollar price tag, a government-run insurance option, mandates on businesses and new taxes, all with no prospect for actually doing something to slow soaring health care costs.

UPDATE: Who are the 34 Democrats who have so far pledged to vote agains the House ObamaCare bill? Read their names here... and my congratulations go to Artur Davis, Parker Griffith, and Bobby Bright for making the list.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29272.html

Read the rest...

ObamaCare Bill Establishes Waiting Lists For Care

One of the criticisms being leveled against ObamaCare is that the government would ration care in order to cut costs. This is a claim that Democrats have categorically denied. But if you read the ObamaCare bill that Pelosi is pushing in the House, you'll find that it specifically allows for "waiting lists" to be established as a cost-cutting measure in certain circumstances.
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/11/05/top_stories/doc4af33c4ab7d5d380155753.txt

Called the “Affordable Health Care for America Act,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D., Ca., unveiled it with great fanfare last week. The bill is sponsored by Rep. John Dingel, D., Mich., and is co-sponsored by Democratic representatives Charles Rangel, of New York, Henry Waxman, Fortney “Pete” Stark, Ca., and George Miller of California as well as representatives Frank Pallone and Robert Andrews of New Jersey. It is more than 1,900 pages long. But one need only turn to page 26 to find the provision for waiting lists. There, listed in Title I "Immediate Reforms," Sec. 101 "National High Risk Pool Program," paragraph (3)(g) "Covered Benefits Cost Sharing Premiums and Consumer Protection" is paragraph (7) (h)(2) with the heading "Insufficient Funds." This states, “If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists."

The High Risk Pool Program is designed exactly for those uninsured individuals who health insurance reform proponents say are the neediest. Estimates are such people comprise one to two percent of the population. Jane Orient, M.D., Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), believes that if the government is willing to deny benefits to those who they purportedly consider the most deserving, then eventually waiting lists will be applied to everyone enrolled in the government’s plan. The Democrats’ promise to increase the amount insured, decrease costs and increase benefits is a chimera according to her.


Government-imposed waiting lists for necessary medical care is NOT what I consider "Change I can believe in."

How about you?

Read the rest...

Dems Have Vote In House... Or Do They?

The Democrats' Congressional leadership and the White House have been very careful every since the Tuesday elections to make sure we know that they are confident that ObamaCare will pass. Pelosi even scheduled a vote for Saturday and has been proclaiming that they have the votes they need.

But DO they have the votes needed to pass the bill? Not yet, no.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29214.html

The fate of the bill itself rests on the shoulders of a new generation of Democrats whose young careers will be defined, in part, by the votes they cast Saturday — votes sure to be used against many of them in 2010.

But Pelosi, ever mindful of the political stakes, seems to have convinced them that there is more danger in not passing a bill after all this time, than in passing one. It just had to be the right bill, one that tried to take into account the whims of her caucus — with a provision here, and language there and compromise over there, that built a majority vote by vote.

Even as recently as this morning she was proclaiming they'd have the votes for Saturday... but this afternoon there are claims that the vote may be delayed because Pelosi doesn't have the votes after all.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/06/pelosi-breaks-transparency-pledge-final-house-health/

A vote on House health care legislation may face a delay as Democratic leaders admitted Friday they don't have the support of 218 Caucus members, but any changes in the legislation to appease wavering members could force Speaker Nancy Pelosi to break a pledge to post the final bill online for 72 hours before lawmakers vote.

The House was expected to vote on the bill as early as Saturday, but Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said Friday morning that the vote could slip to Sunday or early next week because Democratic leaders haven't secured the 218 votes needed for passage. Republicans are unanimously opposed to the sweeping legislation.

It seems Pelosi is deal-making just as quickly as she can, trying to see what she has to offer people to support the House bill. And it looks like she is intent on passing this bill as quickly as possible, even if it means breaking her own word and turning herself into a liar.

If they do, it will mean the legislation is unlikely to be available for 72 hours ahead of the vote.

Without the new language accessible online, Pelosi will have upended her pledge to the Weekly Standard in September that she was "absolutely" committed to posting the final House bill online.

"Without question," she said at the time.

What is it about this bill that must be shoved through with as little public notice as possible? Is it that they know the American Public doesn't like the bill, so she's determined to ignore us and shove it through anyway? Is it that, to her, we don't matter?

And what is it about the word of leading Democrats in office that is so easy for them to ignore. Pelosi pledged to "without question" to post the text of the final bill for 72 hours before a vote, but now? Not so much.

Wonderful people we have in office up there...

Read the rest...

Unemployment Hits 10.2% In October

Economists had expected unemployment in October to hit 9.9%, but instead it hit 10.2%, rising above 10% for the first time in 26 years.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29229.html

Democrats – headed into an historic health care vote this weekend — got smacked in the face with a 10.2 percent unemployment rate in October, the government reported Friday.

The jobless rate is well above the 9.9 percent that economists expected and breaks the psychological barrier of 10 percent, topping double digits for the first time in 26 years. It's the last headline the Obama administration wanted to see going into the House healthcare vote, and White House officials were already heading to the airwaves Friday morning to talk up the economy.

In all, employers shed 190,000 non-farm jobs last month.

And the White House is starting to feel some pressure. This report is NOT what he needed the day before the House votes on the ObamaCare bill.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29225.html

Caught between Tuesday’s election results and Friday’s unemployment numbers, the White House faces increased pressure to slow spending next year but also to produce more Main Street jobs to match Wall Street’s recovery.

Going into the 2011 budget cycle, the administration now appears on course to impose close to a freeze on new discretionary appropriations after the double-barrel increases in 2009 and 2010. The costs of the Afghanistan war are a wild card, but even before the polls closed Tuesday, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag was talking up deficit reduction in New York, and his earlier guidance to agencies calls for alternatives that assume a freeze at 2010 funding levels, or a 5 percent reduction.

Republicans warn that President Barack Obama can’t ignore what they see as Tuesday’s backlash against the “overspending” and “overgovernment” in his first year in office. “The Obama administration would do well not to underestimate the intensity of voter opinion on these issues — or the impact they have on independent voters,” Republican pollster Neil Newhouse told POLITICO.

Matched against this sentiment is the increased frustration among Democrats over the jobs outlook — and a continued stalemate with the White House over funding for highway construction.

And would you believe, with all this they somehow STILL believe that they can enact “painless” taxes that won’t make our economy worse.

“There are some painless ways to fund the highway bill,” Clyburn said. “Transaction taxes, that’s a painless way; that’s a painless way.”

“Where are the shared contributions to all this? If you’re sitting there on Wall Street, if you’re Goldman Sachs, if you’re making all this money, if you got all this federal money [in a] bailout, and you are paying all these big bonuses to your folks, where is your contribution to this recovery? That’s why it’s painless.”

Are they really that stupid? They point to the Stock Market as a sign that the economy is recovering, then try to levy taxes that will hurt it. For one thing, adding a tax on each transaction will greatly damage, if not destroy, the entire day-trading industry. And that will affect the markets… approximately 10% of trades on the NASDAQ are made by day-traders… isn’t it logical to assume that losing a significant portion of those trades would have an affect?

WHY is this administration dead set on making our economic troubles WORSE?

Read the rest...

Troubling Info On Ft. Hood Shooter

I would like to preface this by saying the information reported below is still hearsay and unconfirmed. That said, it appears as if the shooter, Major Hasan, may be a lifelong Muslim who was upset at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and defended suicide bombings.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6706316.html

At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades.

They had not determined for certain whether Hasan is the author of the posting, and a formal investigation had not been opened before the shooting, said law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the case.

One of the officials said late Thursday that federal search warrants were being drawn up to authorize the seizure of Hasan's computer.

Retired Army Col. Terry Lee, who said he worked with Hasan, told Fox News that Hasan had hoped President Barack Obama would pull troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Lee said Hasan got into frequent arguments with others in the military who supported the wars, and had tried hard to prevent his pending deployment.

Hasan attended prayers regularly when he lived outside Washington, often in his Army uniform, said Faizul Khan, a former imam at a mosque Hasan attended in Silver Spring, Md. He said Hasan was a lifelong Muslim.

Another victim apparently died in the hospital, bringing the death toll to 13. And eye-witnesses to the shooting say that Hasan shouted “Alahu Akbar!” before opening fire.
http://www.newser.com/article/d9bq28f00/soldiers-say-suspect-shouted-allahu-akbar-before-shooting-rampage-that-left-13-people-dead.html

Soldiers who witnessed the shooting rampage at Fort Hood that left 13 people dead reported that the gunman shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before opening fire, the base commander said Friday.

Lt. Gen. Robert Cone said officials had not yet confirmed that the suspected shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, made the comment, which is Arabic for "God is great!" before the rampage Thursday, which left 30 people wounded, including the gunman.

An imam from a mosque Hasan regularly attended said Hasan, a lifelong Muslim, was a committed soldier, gave no sign of extremist beliefs and regularly wore his uniform at prayers.

Cone said Hasan was hospitalized in stable condition and that investigators hope to interrogate him as soon as possible. In the early chaos after the shootings, authorities believed they had killed him, only to discover later that he had survived.

It’s looking more and more like this may be an Islamic-inspired terrorism incident… though information is still far from complete. The final picture we emerge with may end up wildly different from what we’re seeing now, but this is the best information to date.

UPDATE: Authorities haven't ruled out the shooter's ties to radical groups, but they aren't admitting it, either.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/06/national/main5548236.shtml

Read the rest...

Breaking: 12 Dead In Fort Hood Shooting Spree

I normally focus on political issues, and either quote news stories or provide opinion on current events. At this time I will be providing links to stories on a terrible tragedy.

Apparently, an Army Major named Nadal Malik Hasan, a psychologist or psychiatrist at Fort Hood army base in Texas, went on a shooting spree in the militaty complex that left 12 dead and 31 injured. Major Hasan was killed at the scene, and two suspects were apprehended.

Here are some news stories you can read for further details.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6705518.html

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/soldiers-killed-fort-hood-shooting/story?id=9007938

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572305,00.html

George Stratton's son George Stratton III was five feet away from the shooter at the Soldier Readiness Center and suffered a gunshot wound to his left shoulder.

"He said he was there doing medical stuff and all of a sudden someone came through the door, walked behind the desk and just started shooting," Stratton told FoxNews.com.

He said about 15 rounds went off and people started dropping to the floor.

"He peaked up over the desk and that's when he was shot in the shoulder, and he just went down again. He said he saw one of his NCOs get badly shot," Stratton told FoxNews.com after talking to his son in the hospital. "After he got shot he told me, 'Dad, I got up, held my arm and took off running.'"

Stratton said his son was expected to be deployed to Afghanistan in January after going to basic training exactly a year ago.

"It's pretty hard to believe something like this happened," Stratton told FoxNews.com. "I think he's probably had his fill of war already."

I would like to caution people about wild speculation. We're already hearing rumors that the shooter was a muslim, based solely upon his name, and this raises the spectre of terrorism. But the shooter's name hasn't even been confirmed by the military yet.

In most situations like this, many early rumors are advanced that later turn out to be false. I urge everyone to wait for the all of facts to emerge before jumping to conclusions.

And I also ask that you join me in praying for the victims and their families at this tragic time in their lives.

UPDATE: As I said above, early reports are likely to contain incorrect information. NOW we are hearing that the shooter was captured alive... though he was shot four times. And his identity has now been confirmed as Hasan.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33678801/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001

And this article contains more information about Hasan.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33695256/ns/us_news-military/

Read the rest...

Interesting Details From ObamaCare Bills

Today brings news of some interesting aspects of the ObamaCare bills currently being considered in Congress.

Fines Necessary To Fiscal Balance
As you know, the cornerstone of the House bill is the individual mandate, where everybody would be forced to purchase health insurance or be fined. As you also know, they have vowed to balance every expenditure with a cut or additional revenue. But what you probably did NOT know was that the fiscal success of the plan RELIES on revenue from people paying those fines. If the vast majority of people comply with the law and purchase healthcare, then the government loses $167 billion in revenue… and that means the deficit grows by the same amount. It’s odd that they CLAIM to want everybody insured but write the plan to DEPEND on many people refusing to buy insurance.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/04/health-care-reform-funded-billions-penalties-uninsured/

Ernest Istook, a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma who is now a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, calculated that anywhere between 8 million and 14 million people would end up paying the fines.

This raises a few problems, he said. First, if those millions somehow get covered and don't pay the fine, then the health program is faced with a budget hole.

Second, he said, it speaks to a flaw with the insurance packages that are being offered. "If you say people would rather pay $167 billion in penalties rather than buy insurance under your new plan, what's wrong with your new plan?" he asked.

The answer, Istook said: "It's expensive."

Uninsured Wait Six Months For Aid
One of the things the Democrats have touted is a high-risk pool for the medically uninsurable. Basically, if you can’t get insurance then the government will cover you… at least until the mandate kicks in a few years down the road and insurance companies can’t refuse coverage. But if you read the fine print, you find that those who are uninsurable will have to wait six months to qualify for coverage in the pool.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/05/democrats-plan-help-uninsurables-questioned/

Now, concerns are being raised about the design of the high-risk pools. In addition to the six-month wait, there's a more fundamental issue -- whether $5 billion set aside for the three-year program is enough. The money would be used to help people in poor health pay premiums.

Obama credits his Republican presidential rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, for the risk-pools idea. But when the GOP candidate proposed it in 2008, the estimated cost was $7 billion to $10 billion a year.

The six-month wait is in the health care bill the Senate Finance Committee approved last month. To qualify for the pool, patients must be turned down for coverage because of a pre-existing condition and uninsured for at least six months.

"If you are somebody with cancer or a heart condition who needs immediate coverage and immediate treatment, that's not very helpful," said Karen Pollitz, a Georgetown University health policy professor.

Senate Finance staffers say the restriction is meant to prevent people switching from more expensive coverage to take advantage of government assistance.

Snack Machines Get Regulated By Federal Government
Not content with requiring restaurants to post nutrition information on their menus, the House Bill requires that all vending machines display nutrition information for every item sold. This would cost vending machine manufacturers and operators millions of dollars in expenses just to comply with the new mandates.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56572

The bill, which is posted online, would require that vending machine operators either create new machines that allow the customer to view nutrition facts or post nutritional information for each product near “each article of food or the selection button.” The regulation could wind up costing vendors millions of dollars to make the changes, according to industry estimates.

There you go... I thought you might be interested in reading a bit more about what is actually in the bills. Hope you enjoyed the read.

Read the rest...

Opinions On Election Impact Differ

Ask what Tuesday’s elections mean to the Democrat agenda in Congress and you get as many answers as you have opinionators. Pelosi says the elections are a victory for ObamaCare and nothing to worry about. The White House agrees, saying things are going fine. But what do Congressional Democrats from red states think?

They think Tuesday’s elections were bad news for Democrats, and they’re worried about keeping their jobs in 2010.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29167.html

Election Day losses in Virginia and New Jersey have congressional Democrats focused like never before on jobs — their own.

While the White House and party leaders are urging calm, Democratic incumbents from red states and Republican-leaning districts are anything but; Tuesday's statehouse defeats have left them acutely aware that their votes on health care reform and other major Obama initiatives could be career-enders in 2010 or beyond.

“I should be nervous,” said Rep. Parker Griffith, a freshman Democrat from Huntsville, Ala.

Griffith said the Democratic rank and file is “very, very sensitive” to the fact that issues being pushed by party leaders “have the potential to cost some of our front-line members their seats.”

And in the words of one Congressional Democrat, “We got walloped.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29168.html

Particularly in Virginia — which in recent years has emerged as an emblematic swing state — most Democratic politicians Tuesday night and Wednesday were frank in seeing worrisome trends and eager to see Democrats, starting with Obama, do more to emphasize fiscal responsibility.

In contrast to the Obama’s team sanguine analysis, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) told POLITICO, “We got walloped.”

Many Democratic politicians and operatives publicly and privately say Obama’s “big bang” strategy — trying to move several major policy initiatives in his first year — has also caused independent voters to question whether he is sufficiently focused on their primary concern, reviving the stagnant economy.

“Every Dem who is up in either 2010 or 2012 knows that last night was big — if the right wing hadn’t meddled in New York’s 23rd, that would have gone GOP, too,” said former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, adding that he fears Democrats may be heading for a repeat of some 1990s history. “The electorate appears restless and angry. If they begin to ‘vote the bums out’ as they did in 1994, Democrats know that the next election is going to be extremely difficult.”

While I disagree with his assessment of the New York race, he is correct that this has the potential to become an anti-incumbent election cycle of epic proportions. And since Democrats hold the majority, they’ll get hit the worst.

The White House believes that if they push through ObamaCare, despite the fact that the majority of Americans don’t like the plans currently being considered, they can keep their majorities in Congress during the next elections. I believe they’re wrong, because voters will react to that kind of out-of-touch arrogance with an understandable rejection.

We don’t want rulers and kings imposing hardships on us in the name of progress… Congress can only lead where we are willing to follow. If they pass ObamaCare against the wishes of the people, there will be a backlash… as well as strong pressure to repeal the law once the new Congress elected in 2010 convenes.

UPDATE: And who are the top 10 Democrats who are should be worrying about their jobs? One of them is from Alabama...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29170.html

Read the rest...

Stimulus “Jobs Saved” Follies

Remember how early estimates of “jobs saved or created” were disputed by an AP report showing that many of the jobs did not exist or were counted multiple times?
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2009/10/stimulus-jobs-created-overstated.html

So the administration blasted the AP report and came out with a revised estimate that had been “scrubbed” so hard the guy in charge had “dishpan hands.” In this report, they claimed well over 600,000 jobs “saved or created” from money spent where reporting was required, and extrapolated that to claim one-million jobs “saved or created.”
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2009/10/white-house-claims-1-million-jobs.html

I said let’s wait and see how “clean” these numbers are… and it looks like there are still MASSIVE problems with them. One prevailing problem is “saving or creating” more jobs in an area than actually exist in that area. For example:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/chi-education-stimulus-04-nov04,0,2066518,full.story

More than $4.7 million in federal stimulus aid so far has been funneled to schools in North Chicago, and state and federal officials say that money has saved the jobs of 473 teachers.

Problem is, the district employs only 290 teachers.

"That other number, I don't know where that came from," said Lauri Hakanen, superintendent of North Chicago Community Unit Schools District 187.

In the official report, Wilmette Public Schools District 39 was credited with 166 jobs saved by stimulus aid. Superintendent Raymond Lechner said the number should be zero.

At Dolton-Riverdale School District 148, stimulus funds were said to have saved the equivalent of 382 full-time teaching jobs -- 142 more than the district actually has.

A similar discrepancy was found in data for Kankakee School District 111, where the stimulus report logged the equivalent of 665 full-time jobs saved. "That's impossible," a top Kankakee school official said, adding that the entire payroll -- full and part time -- is 600 workers.

Or as another example:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMNoef6xDenBbHWO0Im6rIjDmAgAD9BOJH300

President Barack Obama's economic recovery program saved 935 jobs at the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, an impressive success story for the stimulus plan. Trouble is, only 508 people work there.

The Georgia nonprofit's inflated job count is among persisting errors in the government's latest effort to measure the effect of the $787 billion stimulus plan despite White House promises last week that the new data would undergo an "extensive review" to root out errors discovered in an earlier report.

About two-thirds of the 14,506 jobs claimed to be saved under one federal office, the Administration for Children and Families at Health and Human Services, actually weren't saved at all, according to a review of the latest data by The Associated Press. Instead, that figure includes more than 9,300 existing employees in hundreds of local agencies who received pay raises and benefits and whose jobs weren't saved.

So it appears as if giving a raise to somebody is counted as “saving” a job. Yeah, right.

Of course, selling nine pairs of boots apparently also counted as saving the jobs of those nine people who were going to use them.
http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2009/11/04/stimulus-math/

So, when the Army Corps of Engineers used $889.60 of stimulus money to buy nine pairs of work boots from Moore, he was required to fill out a report for Recovery.gov:

“The paperwork was unreal,” said Moore, who added that he tried to figure out how to file the forms online, then gave up and asked his daughter to help.

Paula Moore-Kirby, 42 years old, had less trouble with the Web site, but couldn’t work out how to answer the question about how many jobs her father had created or saved. She couldn’t leave it blank, either, she said. After several calls to a helpline for recipients she came away with the impression that she would hear back if there was a problem with her response, and have a chance to correct it. So with 15 minutes to go before the reporting deadline, she sent in her answer: nine jobs, because her father helped nine members of the Corps to work.

You can accept the 1 million number “extrapolated” by the White House or the raw figure of 640,329 jobs if you really want to, but they’re not accurate. It is clear once again that inflated numbers are being used to tout the nonexistent benefits of a failed program.

Read the rest...

I Was Polled By Rasmussen

Have you ever read poll results and wondered just who were the mysterious "they" who answered all these questions? Most people say they haven't been polled and don't know anybody who has. I was polled once during the last Presidential election, and tonight, it just happened to me again.

I received a phone call tonight, and it turned out to be Rasmussen with their recurring telephone poll. I decided to take this poll and answered a series of questions that most of you are probably familiar with.

Is our country on the right or wrong track? Is Obama doing a good job or poor job on the economy, fiscal issues, and foreign policy? Should one party control the White House and congress or should control be split between parties?


I wanted a few more options on some of the questions. For example, one question was "Are you very conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, somewhat liberal, or very liberal." But I'm none of the above, I'm libertarian... fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The phrasing of the question is designed to split people into three categories... liberal, conservative, or the incredibly fuzzy "moderate"... and that's too simplistic, I think.

And several other questions were like that, not giving me the chance to choose other options that exist in reality. By omitting those options, the questions force people into categories where they don't really belong... and thus skews the results so they don't represent true reality.

However, I didn't phrase the questions, I just answered them.

So when you read the results of the latest Rasmussen telephone poll, remember that you know somebody who answered those questions. (grin) Me.

Read the rest...

Election Recap

As I reported last night, Republican Chris Christie was elected Governor in New Jersey (49%-45%) and Republican Bob McDonnell was elected Governor in Virginia (59%-41%). These are two big wins, and the Virgnia results should give liberal Democrats pause. The state voted solidly for Obama in 2008, but one year later they are disaffected enough to elect Republicans. Wake up, Democrats... but more on that later today.

The other important election was New York's congressional race, which Democrat candidate Bill Owens narrowly won (48%-46%) over the Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20091103/NEWS09/911039947

So Democrats lost two out of three important elections... I wonder if they'll care, or if they'll make excuses? My vote is for excuses, but we'll have to wait and see.

I am disappointed that Hoffman didn't win in New York, but he made a strong showing in a very liberal state, so overall I think he did well. The race was very close, and that indicates strong support for fiscal conservatism, even in liberal New York.


Read the rest...