On Today's Jobs Report

I hate being skeptical.  It generally causes people to look at you like you're weird and maybe even a little crazy.  As a conservative in politics, it makes people think that you just hate the president or are just pessimistic.  And yet I heard today's jobs report and it confuses the heck out of me.

On the one hand, the U3 unemployment rate dropped from 8.1% to 7.8%.  Sounds like good news, right?  The economy is rebounding, good times are ahead!  Then I found out the economy added a grand total of 114,000 jobs.

In previous months, such a number was unlikely to budge the number by .1%, let alone .3%.  Indeed, most of the time the number shifts at all is due to people leaving the workforce and therefore not being counted in the U3 number that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases.  I was even further confused when the U6 unemployment rate, which includes people who are underemployed (part-time) and discouraged (dropped out of the work force entirely) remained steady at 14.7%.

So the question is, why has there been a significant drop in the U3 number if the amount of jobs added, by all accounts, is just as paltry as in previous months?

 From what I understand, it is due to a sharp increase in part-time employment, or people settling for jobs beneath their capabilities or needs.  For years, the primary economic indicator used by the BLS is that U3 number I've been referring to.  And as I'm sure some of you caught, that does not include people who have stopped looking for work and those who want full employment, but can't find it.  The fact of the matter is, the economy has only marginally improved since President Obama took office.  Unemployment is really a full seven points greater than what we're being told.  Even if the underemployed are discounted, the unemployment rate is still 10.7%.

And if you still don't believe me, ask yourself: have things gotten significantly better in the past three months?  Can an actual improvement in the economy explain this jump?  Gas is still high.  The fiscal cliff is still looming.  Obamacare/Affordable Care Act is still threatening businesses' bottom lines.

While I don't believe, like former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, that the numbers were rigged, I do believe they are being presented in a way to benefit the president.  I'm not a believer in coincidences; the more timely the "coincidence," the more I believe it planned or fraudulent. 

At best, this report is a statistical aberration that will get revised later.  The drop in the U3 percentage neither fits the pattern of the past few months or the number of jobs created.  At worst, it is indeed a lie, timed to boost the president a month out from the election, after anemic and pathetic growth numbers the past few years.  I favor the former.

For some more (and likely superior) analysis of today's numbers, check out this analysis from the American Enterprise Institute.

On the Denver Debate

Last night was an interesting.  Surprisingly, I got through it without muting it or swearing at the television.

(For the record, you could see my live reaction to the debate on Twitter last night.  If you were not, shame on you. *shamelessly hawks the Twitter account*)

While it most certainly worked to Mitt Romney's advantage, at the same time, I found President Obama's performance not only lackluster, but disappointing.  The entire time, he seemed disinterested and bored.  He rarely made eye contact with Mitt Romney and constantly put on a smug smirk when Mitt Romney spoke.  A few times, he pleaded with his eyes for Jim Lehrer to move on and even verbally asked him once.  He was pensive and petulant, constantly rambling instead of being concise and on point. 

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, came across as strong and forceful.  He was prepared for almost any eventuality.  When the president rambled off topic about things like jet owners, oil companies and Medicaid (in an unrelated question), Romney was ready to counter each point.  He was concise and he was fluid, moving from point to point and explaining his plans and ideas effectively, considering the time limitations. 

Opinions are mixed on Jim Lehrer's moderation, but I approve of it greatly.  As I wrote on Twitter last night, I was far more keen on just letting the men talk uninterrupted than trying to focus on the debate "segments."  I'm a little on the fence regarding Romney stopping Lehrer from changing subjects, but as Obama's primary focus was on Romney and Lehrer frequently tried to change the subject right after Obama attacked Romney's plans, Romney had every right to demand a rebuttal.

I've heard some argue that because he hasn't been challenged in four years, like most presidents, Obama was off his game like his predecessors.  I don't agree with this assessment simply because he was only ever challenged in a serious manner by Hillary Clinton, which was akin to a blip on the radar in '08.  He otherwise seems to express a disheartening disinterest in his job.  Others say that Obama is luring Romney into a sense of complacency, something I don't discount, but easily countered by Romney staying on his toes.  Even if Obama is sharper in future debates, if Mitt Romney is as sharp as he was last night, he'll merely match Obama instead of outclassing him.

So in the end, the debate did wonders for Romney, giving him a massive boost and showing Obama in an extremely poor light.  There are two more debates between the candidates and I'll be interested to see how they go.  However, for now, the point is clearly and decisively Romney's.

I intend on live tweeting at least the VP debate and the next presidential debate (we'll see if I get bored for the last one).  As such, I shall shamelessly hawk my Twitter feed again (despite doing it just at the beginning of this very article) and hope to have a few followers watching me next go around.

On This "New" Obama Video

Yesterday, The Daily Caller revealed a "new" tape of then-senator Barack Obama in 2007 doing everything from praising his former pastor Jeremiah Wright to claiming that the Hurricane Katrina response was driven by race to using a dialect that he normally doesn't use in public.

The question is, what do we make of this tape?  It is not what you think.


You see, the contents of the tape really are not important.  If you have been paying attention to Barack Obama and have been willing to accept things that may not necessarily be nice or pleasant, you already knew about this.  Not this specific video, but this general line of thinking that he displays in it.  If you are an Obama supporter or are just inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, you're not going to believe it, think it's not a big deal, make excuses for it, or just ignore it.

On the other hand, do not think I am saying this tape is not important.  If it has gotten just one less person to vote for the president, it has done its job.  What he says in this tape makes him out to be both a liar regarding Jeremiah Wright and a racist regarding his Katrina remarks.

However, what makes this tape truly important is that it reinforces what I wrote back on Monday on the subject of media bias.  This tape was uncovered back in 2007 as clips from it have been floating around for that long.  Clips, normally lacking in the inflammatory and despicable commentary, have been viewable and commented on for years. 

What was missing back then was a serious media response to it.  The "mainstream" media should have talked about this speech, the full speech, non-stop.  Barack Obama should have been disqualified by this video, which should have been seen over and over again on evening newscasts.  The man's words in this speech show every quality we do not want in a president.  Indeed, they are qualities he has shown continually as president, with his sneering contempt for those he dislikes and his attempts to divide Americans based on race and class. 

Yet again, we have an example of the mainstream media failing us, the American people, for failing to show us Barack Obama's true colors.  Again, we have been shown an example of a lack of curiosity and desire for the truth.  I call again for us to not give that media our business until they begin to do their jobs and tell us the truth.

If you wish to watch the full Obama speech, just click on this link here and go to the third page.  If you are viewing it to see what the fuss is about, I ask one thing: Approach it with an open mind.  Drop your preconceptions about Obama or conservatives and just listen to the words.  Then ask yourself if this is what you really want as president for another four years.

On Choosing Life, Pt. III

This is part three of a series on abortion.  You can read Part I here and Part II here.

Late-Term/Partial Birth Abortions

While this is fairly uncommon, there are people who defend abortion up until the moment of natural birth.  Thus, it is worth mentioning.  At this late stage in pregnancy, killing the child inside of the womb (whether by saline injection or chopping it into tiny pieces) is impractical.  As such, late-term abortions usually require slightly different methods.  Right now, I refer to the "intact dilation and extraction" method. After artificially inducing labor, the baby is partially delivered, but not fully so as not to "technically" qualify as childbirth (thus, avoiding charges of infanticide).  The brain is them suctioned out of the base of the baby's skull, causing it to collapse and you have a freshly dead infant.  There are of course, other methods, but this one seems the most heinous.

However, even more important than the method used is the child being killed.  As I explained in the previous piece, abortion is not justified because each child is a human being and thus has intrinsic worth.  Often, this worth strikes people at this late stage, when the child is also now also physically recognizable as a human being.

It's hard to justify any medical procedure that requires the dismemberment or lobotomizing of developed children all in the name of "choice," "health" or "freedom," all things violently robbed from the dead child.

Medical Necessity Abortions

One might wonder why I would consider abortions performed out of medical necessity in this piece.  After all, there's no way I could oppose this sort of thing without being some sort of horrible person.  You would be right.  However, I also do not consider these procedures abortions, even if they technically fall under the definition.

It all boils down to intentions.  For what I consider abortion, the primary intention is the ending of a pregnancy, whether because of personal or economic reasons.  Health can be a concern, but is not the chief concern.

Medical abortions on the other hand, have a primary thrust of health, such as the pregnancy threatening the health of either mother or child or both.  Considering the child is being kept long enough to determine this, it suggests that the child is wanted.  Often, the news that the pregnancy needs to be ended brings extremely difficult decision-making, but not because the child is unwanted.  It is for this reason that I do not believe that medical reasons qualify as abortions, as these would happen with or without legally allowing them.

Rape and Incest Exceptions

(I'm just going to refer to this as the "rape exception" from here on.  I'm not really quite sure why incest gets tacked on.  Barring consensual relationships, incestuous sex is usually rape.)

With this topic, this piece enters some tricky ground.  I hear liberals constantly browbeat conservatives, claiming we have no heart when we do not believe in exceptions for rape.  Suddenly, we are all woman-hating Todd Akins who want the woman to suffer more from her rape by bearing the child it has created.

In the past, I used to be very unsure of where to stand on these grounds.  On the one hand, I believed that abortion was murder and, on the other, I most certainly did not want to hurt women who were violated in the most heinous of crimes.  However, I recently read an article that really cleared things up for me, planting me firmly on the side against "rape exceptions."

If abortion is killing innocent life, then the child is dying for the rapist's actions.  The child neither committed the rape nor asked to be conceived by a rapist.  In many ways, that child is a victim too, as that stigma will be attached to it, whether the child ever finds out or not.  Someone will know the child was conceived through a gross violation of something most people hold sacred.  However, in killing the child that results from rape, it punishes the child for the rapist's actions.  The child, in essence, receives punishment for that which is earned by and should be meted out to the rapist.

And when that child is allowed to live, maybe, just maybe, he or she may grow up to become greater than the legacy that created him or her.  Perhaps that child may one day grow up, not as a reminder of the crime inflicted on the victim, but as an example that even the greatest injustices can give rise to even greater hope.  That, I believe, is why the child should be allowed to live.

I will (hopefully) wrap up this series later this week, addressing various topics and concerns that have come up as I thought up the past three articles.

On the Failing Media

Well...it's Monday.  And what am I talking about?  Not what I want to talk about, that's for sure (though I suppose it is rather morbid that I want to talk about abortion).  However, I feel that it is absolutely necessary that as many people as possible talk about what is happening in America and the world.  I have this eerie sense that not many people are aware of what has happened in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack.

You see, when the attack in Benghazi occurred back on September 11th, the president referred to it as "terror" in his remark the next day.  That would be the last time for a week, when the official narrative would try to eliminate any and all references to the attack being a pre-planned act of terrorism.  The following week, after Ambassador Susan Rice was trotted out on all of the Sunday political talk shows to repeat the claim, the White House abruptly changed its story.  Most notable was Press Secretary Jay Carney, who went from claiming that the White House didn't know enough to claiming that it was "self-evident" that the attack was terrorism (thereby implying that it was obvious).

Despite such a dramatic shift in messaging, the media ignored it.  Back then, amusingly, the administration could have plausibly denied having sufficient information to make a judgement call on Libya.  Granted, the claims of a "mob protest getting out of hand" were, at best, silly, since the act being terror was "self-evident."  It didn't help that it had been determined that there was no mob outside of the consulate.  The organization and armament of the attackers did not help much either.

Then last week, it came out, first from The Daily Beast and then confirmed by Fox News Channel, that intelligence agencies had determined the assault a pre-planned terrorist attack within twenty-four hours.  This, unfortunately, suggests one thing: the administration's original narrative was known to be a lie from the beginning and they intentionally attempted to deceive us, the American people, by blaming the video and abridging the freedom of speech of its maker.

How did the media react to the blatant lying and rights violation?

Why are so few people asking how this could happen?

Well, actually, it didn't.  Silence on the networks that weren't Fox News.  No big cover stories on major newspapers.  The only reporting last week on the new information regarding the Benghazi attack came from Jake Tapper of ABC.  The mainstream media deceived us.  It did not lie, per se, but it failed us by not informing us of truth of the administration's actions.  This is a betrayal of the highest order in a land where the media is free.  They are willingly self-censoring themselves with such omissions.

So, what do we do about it?

In the past, we believed that the media would filter information for us.  They wouldn't tell us stories unless they were true and factual.  That they would tell us the truth when there were people in high places that needed to be held accountable.  That they would keep us informed of the world around us.

Not anymore.  Now it is up to us to be our own filters.  It is up to us, as American citizens, to discern and learn the truth for ourselves.  If the mainstream media is complicit in its attempts to deceive its viewers, then they don't need us reading or listening to them.  We must learn the truth for ourselves from sources that may be unorthodox.  However, orthodoxy is not important in the struggle to be informed and learn the truth. For it is your responsibility to learn the truth and learn that which the media hides from us with its silence.

We live in a dangerous time when our sources of information willingly ignore and obfuscate the truth.  It threatens our freedom when we are not told the truth about the actions of those in power.

Yet, we must always remember that we have the freedom to not bow to the deception.  We must be vigilant and demand the truth, seeking it out ourselves when necessary.  To do any less would be to surrender our rights as American citizens to those "above" us.