I Can’t Believe it’s not Butter

by: the Common Constitutionalist

The great Norwegian butter shortage! Yes, it’s true. Norway has a shortage of butter.

Stores in Norway are seeing long lines of people waiting to buy butter; a sight that Europe hasn’t seen since the fall of Communism.

The shortfall is estimated at between 500 to 1000 tons. That’s a lot of Butter.

Prices of a pack of butter, weighing around a half a kilo (500 grams), a little more than a pound, are being driven out of sight. Some online sellers are asking up to 350 Euros (about $465.00) for 1 pack.

Sheeesh! Can you say Weimar Republic revisited?

But why the shortage?

Some have blamed it on the unusually wet summer that drove yields down. Some others have said it is the new Norway. It’s citizens are opting for lower carb, higher fat diets, which has increased demand recently. They both sound like reasonable explanations on the surface, but we’re not about the surface.

Let’s take a closer look.

Norway is a socialist country. You know, like we aspire to be.

Currently, in America, there are too many butter producers to name. In Norway, there is effectively, ONE. That wouldn’t pose a problem, would it?

Tine Company is the producer of over 90% of all butter in Norway. The Norwegian government granted that monopoly to it. Remember, monopolies are bad unless the government says they’re not.

Evidently, Tine has done a pretty fair job of butter production until now. Maybe it’s that wet summer thing. Nope, that’s not it. Right next door is Sweden. They have butter out the wazoo and their summer was wetter than Norway’s.

Well, if Sweden has all that butter, perhaps Norway could just import it until they catch up? Unfortunately, tariffs are so high, that it makes imports virtually impossible. BUY NORWEGIAN! Look for the Norwegian label. Everybody sing!

This is how socialism works. First, the government takes control of production. Next, they pick a winner, say Tine. Then they tax the heck out of any foreign company trying to import to them. All the government has to do after that, is dictate how much the producer can make & what price it is to be sold.

Then they all just sit back & watch the experiment fail, as it always does.

With any luck, the people eventually figure out the great experiment isn’t working & they demand change. Well, they’re going to get it. Unfortunately it will only be temporary.

The government has decided to take drastic measures and has cut import tariffs by more than 80 percent until the end of March. It has also lifted milk quotas for domestic farmers that were in place to avoid overproduction in the market. Overproduction does not appear to be their problem. After that, everything goes back to the way it was, where centralized planners cannot react to fluctuations in the marketplace. By the way, Importers are not allowed to sell their products for less than the government dictates.

So that’s a lesson in socialism. Sounds great, eh?

It’s Newt, What’s not to like?

When asked during an interview whether he was a progressive, Newt Gringrich answered, “I don’t know. It depends on what standard you’re using”. What standard? There is only one standard for progressivism. Are you for Big Government solutions for everything or will you allow the people to rule themselves.

Glenn Beck asked why so many Tea Partiers support, or at the very least, would accept Gingrich as their candidate?

I admit, I liked Gingrich at first. He is terrific in the debates. He gives all the right answers.

Something kept eating at me though. I couldn’t get that commercial out of my head. You know the one. Him and Bella Pelosi [I vant (want) to suck your vallet (wallet)] on the couch together, telling us about the scourge of Global Warming. He has stated on many occasions, “That was the single dumbest thing I’ve done in decades”. That’s no answer. Why would any true conservative, who has done any research, do such a thing?

The answer has recently become quite obvious. Newt is not a conservative. He is a Big Government Progressive. One doesn’t need to be of the left to be a progressive.

His favorite President of this era is not Ronald Reagan. It is FDR! What? It’s true.

Just the other day, he also described himself as Wilsonian.

So, let’s see. The three presidents he admires
are Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson & Franklin Roosevelt. Wholly Crap!! The three most radical progressives in American history. Everything that is wrong with America, they started.

Has the Republican Party gone collectively insane? We have two very good, solid conservatives in Bachmann & Santorum & neither can get any traction. It seems our choice will come down to the ruination of our country, slowly (on a train with the progressive right) or rapidly (on the Concorde with the radical progressive left).

The following is a quote from the sixties. The author of this quote was an advisor to several presidents. His name was Professor Carroll Quigley.

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideas and policies is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.”

There ya go. The progressive mantra. Right or left. It’s all the same.

Back to Newt.

Gingrich stands for an individual mandate to force us to buy health insurance. He said so. Don’t let him fool you.

He favors ethanol subsidies. Heck, even John McCain is starting to wise up on that one.

He supported the Fairness Doctrine.

He supported both TARP & the bailouts.

He supported Federal oversight of education.

He strongly opposed the budget proposal of Paul Ryan. I didn’t think it went far enough but you have start somewhere.

He is a friend to illegal aliens, supporting a path to “Legal Status”. Another term would be “Amnesty”.

He voted for the Department of Education.

None of these sound the slightest bit like conservative ideals.

We need someone, anyone, with core conservative values to run against the leftist radical. One who has an unwavoring value system. Not just a progressive from the other party. A proud conservative who says what they mean & mean what they say. Anyone like this could easily beat Obama.

If we elect another progressive, it will be the beginning of the end. If we reelect Obama, it is the end.

I hope we wake up in time.

Attribution: GBTV

The Real Cost of Energy

Is everyone used to paying $3.50 a gallon for gas yet? Yes? I thought so. How about the same for home heating oil or electricity? Funny how we don’t hear about the cost of energy much now that it has become the “New Normal”.

I have seen the damaging effects on the New England economy first hand. Not only does it effect my own wallet but also the budgets of many businesses in the Northeast & all over the country. Manufacturing, office buildings, school systems, etc. Both the private & public sectors have been negatively affected by the cost of energy.

My company sells products to a full spectrum of businesses from food processors to pharmaceutical companies, local, state & federal facilities and a multitude of manufacturers. Our core clientele is the heating industry & the manufacture & distribution of steam for heat & processing. We’ve seen first hand, the budgetary damage of high fuel costs. Purchases being postponed and maintenance delayed because of it.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We have more sources of energy in North America than anywhere in the world.

On Tuesday, December 6, 2011, the Institute for Energy Research released a groundbreaking report about North America’s vast energy resources.

The amount of oil that is technically recoverable in the United States is more than 1.4 trillion barrels, with the largest deposits located offshore, in portions of Alaska, and in shale in the Rocky Mountain West. When combined with resources from Canada and Mexico, total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels.

That is more oil than the world has used since the first well was drilled over 150 years ago in Titusville, Pennsylvania. To put this in context, Saudi Arabia has about 260

Click to Expand

billion barrels of oil in proved reserves. For comparative purposes, the technically recoverable oil in North America could fuel the present needs in the United states of seven billion barrels per year for around 250 years. That’s just oil.

Thanks to our Nanny Government & the Enviroloons, restrictions in the form of federal bans and leasing combined with declining offerings of lease acreage mean only about 2.2

This is 2004. It's a lot More Now.


percent of America’s offshore acreage is currently leased for production.

Proven reserves of natural gas in the United States and throughout North America are enormous, and the total amount of recoverable natural gas is even more impressive.

Click to Expand

The EIA (Energy Institute of America) estimates that the United States has 272.5 trillion cubic feet of proved reserves of natural gas. The total amount of natural gas that is recoverable in North America is approximately 4.2 quadrillion (4,244 trillion) cubic feet.

Given that U.S. consumption is currently about 24 trillion cubic feet per, there is enough natural gas in North America to last the United States for over 175 years at current rates of consumption.

The most staggering figure is North America’s coal reserves. The United States, Canada,

Click to Expand

and Mexico have over 497 billion short tons of recoverable coal, or nearly three times as much as Russia, which has the world’s second largest reserves.

North American recoverable coal could provide enough electricity for the United States for about 500 years at current levels of consumption.

Does this make you as angry as it does me? Not just that the cost of enegy is so high & will go higher. It’s the fact that it is purposeful.

Attribution: Energy for America

You Could Retire in Less than a Year!

That sounds great! How do I do it you say? It’s easy. Just get elected to Congress.

From Newsmax:

(My editorial comments represented by [EC].)

As Congress weighs a measure that would ban insider trading among lawmakers and federal workers, the conservative author whose book touched off a national maelstrom on the topic insists that the practice rises to the level of corruption. [EC: Congress regulating itself? Today’s Congress is the epidemy of a nation (unto itself) of men & not laws. The exact opposite of our founder’s vision.]

“There’s no question about it. We are supposed to be a country governed by laws, not by men,” conservative author Peter Schweizer said during an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV.

A research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, Schweizer chronicles alleged abuses by members of both the House and the Senate in his new book, “Throw Them All Out,” which was heavily featured on “60 Minutes” with reporter Steve Kroft going after leaders of the two parties in the House on camera.

Both Speaker John Boehner and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi denied they had done anything wrong. But officials have been considering various measures to stop the practice, including the STOCK Act, which has attracted wide support. [EC: This is just like John McCain. We can’t help ourselves. It’s not our fault we’re so corrupt. Sounds like McCain-Feingold revisited.]

“There are no laws that are broken. They’re free to take these sweetheart, so-called friends and family IPO stock,” explains Schweizer. “One of the reforms I propose is that we need to ban them because they are doled out to friends in terms of people looking for favors.”

Schweizer says there should be a “zero tolerance policy” for any lawmaker who benefits financially from knowledge acquired through their House or Senate jobs, similar to trading rules that have existed for years with respect to corporate executives.

“In the book, what I argue is that we have in Washington a permanent political class that often times they come into office relatively modest and leave wealthy,” he explains. “So I think we need to throw those out that are engaged in self-enrichment and there are people on both sides of the aisle that do it. And I just think we need to have a zero-tolerance policy.”

In the past, he says, lawmakers have been able to hide behind a loose definition of insider trading.

“It excludes the kind of government information that they get access to but the fact of the matter is that the information that members of Congress view all the time is market-moving information,” he says. “They may have oversight of the Food and Drug Administration and find out from somebody in a phone conversation that a particular drug is going to be approved.” It’s akin to athletes betting on sporting events. [EC: It’s much worse. In sports, they still have to play the game. It’s a virtual slam-dunk in the stock market. I follow the market & I’ll tell you, it’s almost a lock that if the FDA approves a drug, that stock will jump very quickly. It’s stealing, plain & simple.]

“Now we wouldn’t let a professional athlete do that,” he says. “But they (lawmakers) do this all of the time, literally introducing a piece of information and then trading in the stock in that same sector, picking the winners and selling the losers.”

For example, Pelosi and her husband doubled their stock investment on a highly sought after Visa IPO in a matter of only weeks, according to Schweizer.

“She and her husband were given access to low price, pre-IPO shares of stock — 5,000 shares that they were able to buy for $44 apiece and then they were able to see that value go up by 50 percent in one day, and then more than double in value within a couple of weeks,” he says, adding that the deal took place during Pelosi’s reign as Speaker. [EC: Name another profession one could make a quarter of a million dollars in a week?]

“They were given access to this stock that really hardly any other individual investors were,” he explains. “I would argue the timing was significant because they were given access to the shares at the precise time that Visa was very concerned about two pieces of legislation that would affect its bottom line. And — oh by the way — those pieces of legislation were never even brought by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to the full house for a vote.” [EC: Unlike the evil Dick Cheney, who voluntarily divested himself of all Halliburton interest before becoming V.P., as to not give even a hint of impropriety. He was pilloried anyway.]

He says there were at least eight other instances where Pelosi got access to IPO deals.

“There’s simply no reason that a Speaker of the House or any member of Congress should be getting preferred IPO shares of stock at a low price and making this amount of money,” says Schweizer. “It’s designed totally to curry favor.
I think that if Nancy Pelosi instead of receiving these IPO shares from Visa had received a shoebox of cash, she would be facing criminal charges right now. And in my mind, it’s really a distinction without a difference.”

He points to one study that reveals a correlation between how lawmakers voted with respect to the TARP bailout in 2008 and their own investment portfolios.

“What they found was the number one determining factor in whether you vote for or against, was not whether you were conservative or liberal, not whether you were Republican or Democrat, but whether you owned stocks in the bank sector,” according to Schweizer. “If you did, you voted in favor of the bailout. If you didn’t, you tended to vote against.”

Similarly, another study by the Journal of Quantitative Economics examined 6,000 stock trades.

“They found that corporate insiders — that is corporate executives trading their own company stock — beat the stock market average by 5 percent a year,” while professional Hedge Funds traders were successful 8 percent of the time and U.S. senators topped them all with a 12 percent success rate. [EC: Senators, being smarter than the rest of us, are also better investors, that’s all.]

EC: Being that most of them are also lawyers, I trust they have indeed, as they say, done nothing illegal. As we all know, just because it’s legal, doesn’t make it right.

New Nationalism, Rough Riding over America

Why does everyone love Teddy Roosevelt? He began the national progressive movement that has plagued us now for over 100 years.

Republicans & Democrats alike, revere this guy. His faced is carved into a mountain in South Dakota. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln & him?

Our current politicians claim their reverence for him. John McCain said he was his idol. Hillary Clinton likens herself to a turn of the last century progressive. That would be Teddy (maybe Wilson). Newt told Glenn Beck he liked what Roosevelt did.

Roosevelt was a big government, anti-business progressive. He believed in social justice, the establishment of the progressive income tax, death tax, farm aid, minimum wage, the Federal Reserve & social security. In short, the government control of our lives.

On taxes, Roosevelt said, “I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective, a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.”

Shortly after taking office he tried to take control of many large corporations via 40 anti-trust lawsuits. He trusted that only the government could control the “Free Market”. (GM, anyone?)

Now Obama has delivered his version of Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism” speech. I’m sure he is counting on no one knowing the original “New Nationalism” speech given by Old Teddy Bear in 1910. A pretty good bet considering the woeful ignorance of Americans regarding our own history. Real American history isn’t taught in our schools. The fact that progressives write the history books may have something to do with that.

With all this Newer, New Nationalism being thrown about, maybe we should examine the original speech given by Theodore Roosevelt.

From what I can derive, the progressives of yesteryear differed from todays in one way. They didn’t appear to loathe the military. Other than that, they had the same hatred of the wealthy & business. They are identical in their want of total government control & regulation.

The following are excerpts from Old Teddy’s famous speech in Kansas, August 31, 1910.
(Once again, editorial comments will be prefaced with an ‘EC’)

“…control necessaries of life, such as meat, oil, and coal, or which deal in them on an important scale. I have no doubt that the ordinary man who has control of them is much like ourselves. I have no doubt he would like to do well, but I want to have enough supervision to help him realize the desire to do well.” EC: Just enough government there to guard against any possible shortcoming of mankind. We wouldn’t want him to screw up and become wealthy or anything.

“It is necessary that laws be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws be thoroughly enforced.” EC: In other words, corporations should have no voice in being governed. Shut up & take it. Sounds fair. Business = Bad, Government = Good.

“The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they themselves have called into being.” EC: Does this sound like the recent rant of the present day socialist, Elizabeth Warren, currently running for senate in Massachusetts? No one or no company has made it on it’s own? They must be regulated & must give back to all of us.

“We grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows.” EC: You can make money, only if we deem it is for the betterment of all.

“No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned –not gambling in stocks, but service rendered.” EC: Anyone who has made money in the market, has an IRA or 401K, give it all back. You stole it.

“Now, the great special business interests too often control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit. We must drive the special interests out of politics.” Does this sound at all familiar? John McCain could have written it, my friends!

There is a lot more, but I think we all get the gist. Progressives of today, like their predecessors, hate the rich (despite most of the government overlords being rich), hate business, love government & love the collective,

Resistance is Futile!

as long as they are in control of the collective. Sounds like the Borg. A little Star Trek lingo there.

Yahoo for the RNC!

The following article is from Mondays Yahoo News titled:

On private call, Republicans say attacking Obama personally is too dangerous: Yahoo News exclusive By: Rachel Rose Hartman

(My editorial comments are represented by ‘EC’)

Republicans on a private Republican National Committee conference call with allies warned Tuesday that party surrogates should refrain from personal attacks against President Barack Obama, because such a strategy is too hazardous for the GOP.

EC: Here we go again. It’s the McCain campaign round 2.

“We’re hesitant to jump on board with heavy attacks” personally against President Obama, Nicholas Thompson, the vice president of polling firm the Tarrance Group, said on the call. “There’s a lot of people who feel sorry for him.”

EC: Who is talking about attacking the President personally? I don’t care about him as a man. I care about how his policies are killing America, on purpose. It doesn’t matter what is said. If it casts Obama at all in a negative light, the major media will consider it a personal attack.

Recent polling data indicates that while the president suffers from significantly low job approval ratings, voters still give “high approval” to Obama personally, Thompson said.

Voters “don’t think he’s an evil man who’s out to change the United States” for the worse–even though many of the same survey respondents agree that his policies have harmed the country, Thompson said. The upshot, Thompson stressed, is that Republicans should “exercise some caution” when talking about the president personally.

EC: That’s what losers always do, “Exercise caution”. This is exactly the problem with the Republican Party. It is still run by inside the beltway, elitist Republicans, not conservatives.

On the call–which Yahoo News was invited to attend because of a mistake by someone on the staff of the Republican National Committee–Ari Fleischer, the former press secretary for George W. Bush, encouraged Republicans to turn around Democratic attacks lobbed at the GOP presidential candidates (Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, for starters) for “flip-flopping.”

“I don’t like playing defense,” Fleischer said. He suggested the listeners to Tuesday’s call label the president as a flip-flopper on the following issues: opposing tax increases for those making under $250,000, opposing the Bush tax cuts, opposing raising the debt limit, and opposing a health care mandate.

“When it comes to flip flopping, Barack Obama is the king of flip flopping,” Fleischer said. “You can offer that to anybody,” he suggested.

EC: Fleischer is correct about that. Obama is a major flip-flopper, but then so are Romney & Gingrich. I wouldn’t fully trust Fleischer knowing he was attached to the Bush Administration.

Thompson noted that Obama may be boxed in by similarly strong personal approval numbers for Republican lawmakers as he ponders attacking the GOP House majority during the 2012 campaign.

“Obama running against Congress is not going to work,” Thompson said.
EC: Really, Mr. Thompson? The drive bys will print & air anything Obama wants put out.

In a poll conducted in early November by the Tarrance Group and the Democratic group Lake Research for Politico and George Washington University, voters gave their personal member of Congress a 46 percent approval rating–even higher than the 44 percent personal approval numbers for Obama in the survey, Thompson said. (The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent.)

Fifty-eight percent of the voters surveyed disapproved of how Obama is handling relations with Congress, according to Tarrance’s November poll.

“It’s a tough road for him when you look at those numbers,” Thompson said of the president.

Thompson said that his group’s research suggests that voters are giving Obama higher approval on foreign policy than on the issue of jobs and the economy.

Voters aren’t simply looking at the president as the symbol for a “broken Washington,” Thompson said.

Update 3:40 p.m.: Republican National Committee communications director Sean Spicer followed up with Yahoo News to say the story “misses the point” and that Tuesday’s call wasn’t about ways to avoid attacking the president, it was about sharing the best strategies for attacks. “It makes more sense to focus on his failed policies than on personal attacks,” Spicer told Yahoo News of their data regarding the president.

Ari Fleischer also emailed Yahoo News to share his complete list of Obama flip-flops, which, in addition to the points above, includes: promising to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term; vowing to lower unemployment below 8 percent following the stimulus; falling short on shovel-ready jobs; contradicting himself on constitutional rights– condemning Bush but then supporting “warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detentions, secret renditions and kept [Guantanamo] open; giving lobbyists waivers to work at the White House after saying they wouldn’t work there; and refusing public financing in 2008 after vowing to accept it.
End of Article

EC: The bottom line is, in recent history, moderates always lose national elections. Real conservatives always win. Those who pretend to be conservative (Bush 43) also win. I was fooled by Bush the first time & held my nose the second. Evidently, the smarter than us crowd, don’t get that. Or maybe they do, but because they are moderates or liberals also, they cannot subscribe to that fact. I suspect it is the latter.

Look at the results of the 2010 elections. The true conservatives won, even being out spent exponentially. Their own party bushwhacked those who didn’t prevail. Thanks Karl Rove, et al.

This election is the most important in recent history, maybe going back 60 to 70 years. Enough with the dopey polls. All the polls do is sway public opinion & make the pollsters wealthy.

The public must be educated. Most people don’t have the first clue how or why America was set up the way it was. Most have never read the Constitution or know the difference between a democracy & a republic or which one we are.

We need to be positive & demonstrate why conservatives have the recipe for success. No one wants to hear their president is a bad guy, even if he is.

This is why Newt has taken off. He is a smart confident guy & a great speaker. He is positive & gives historical context to his statements. Like Trump & Christie, he also doesn’t take any crap & gives it right back when someone tries. He is educating the public. Unfortunately, he is not a conservative. He just sounds like one.

RNC Fundraising Letter

I am disappointed, although not at all surprised; the RNC would think this way. This is the same strategy they employed 3 years ago. They have been spineless worms for as long as I can recall.

Speaking of recall, that’s what should happen to everyone at the RNC. They should all be recalled & replaced with real conservatives.

Black Friday Boon, for Guns

USA Today reports that “Gun dealers flooded the FBI with background check requests for prospective buyers last Friday, smashing the single-day, all-time high by 32%, according to bureau records. Deputy Assistant FBI Director Jerry Pender said the checks, required by federal law, surged to 129,166 during the day, far surpassing the previous high of 97,848 on Black Friday of 2008.”

NICS Firearm Background Checks — Friday, November 25, 2011:

Total NICS Checks—129,166 (highest day ever) 32.01 percent over Friday, November 28, 2008

Federal Checks—81,609 (highest day ever) 26.69 percent over Friday, November 28, 2008

POC State Checks—47,557 (4th highest day)

Other Records:
NICS Contracted Call Centers—69,497 (highest day ever) 16.30 percent over Friday, November 28, 2008

NICS E-Check—11,953 (highest day ever) 119.76 percent over Friday, February 11, 2011

Some people have “attributed the unusual surge to a convergence of factors, including an increasing number of first-time buyers seeking firearms for protection and women who are being drawn to sport shooting and hunting.”

Yes, that’s it. It’s not due to the world on the brink of a meltdown or ever-increasing violence countrywide.

Wisconsin’s concealed carry law isn’t even a month old, but thousands already have permission to pack heat and they’re buying up the hardware to do it.

Yes, of course. Concealed carry permits for hunting & sport shooting. I know, when I’m out hunting, I want to conceal my firearm. That way, my prey can’t figure out what my intentions are until it’s too late. I walk up to the deer. “Hey how’s it going? I’m just here to talk.” Then, when he least expects it, I draw my concealed 45 & Blamo!

Reports confirm gun sales have increased across Wisconsin and the state Justice Department has been deluged with so many permit requests it’s already scrambling to keep up.

The Justice Department’s handgun hotline, a number gun sellers can call to initiate background checks on would-be gun buyers, had received 7,355 calls in the first weeks of November.

Roger Wendling, owner of Monsoor’s Sport Shop in La Crosse, estimates he’s seen a 25 percent to 30 percent increase in handgun sales this month. About 70 percent of the concealed carry clientele have been women, he said.

The nerve of some women, wanting to protect themselves.

In fact, it is not just the Black Friday phenomena that is the cause for the increase.

According to the FBI’s NICS records, from 2000 through most of 2006 the number of firearms purchases remained remarkably stable, averaging around 8.5 million transactions per year. But toward the close of 2006, gun sales began to rise dramatically, ending the year at over 10 million. The following year, 2007, sales again rose to over 11 million.

Why the increase after 2006? What happened that could effect such change?

The (what’s a second amendment?) Democrats took control of Congress and we all know how gun-friendly they are. Sheer coincidence, I assume.

It was the election of Barack Obama that really ignited the current sales frenzy. With Obama’s election, over 3 million guns were purchased in the last two months of 2008 alone, ending the year at 12.7 million. Then, in 2009, the very first year of the Obama administration, Americans bought a record, 14 million guns, a whopping 40% increase over the first year of George Bush’s presidency. Another coincidence.

If this business boon were happening in any other industry, the media talking heads would be all over it. But alas, they can’t, for it is counterintuitive to their worldview & is anathema to their gun control mantra.

John Caile states, “It is often said that what people actually do, especially with their money, is a far better indicator of what they are thinking than what they say. If that is true, then the growing number of Americans who are buying guns for the first time are showing quite clearly that they are increasingly distrustful of their government’s ability to protect them.” I couldn’t agree more.

Attribution: Godfather Politics, Postcrescent.com, Redstate.com

It’s Not the Jobs Silly, It’s the Number


We’re back. It’s done and they got the headline: “Unemployment, 8.6%!”

He did it. As promised, Obama is pulling us back from the brink. His policies are finally taking hold.

Well, as usual, nothing is as it seems.

The Labor Department says that employers added about 120,000 jobs this past month compared to the 80,000 added the previous month when we saw only a 0.1% drop in the unemployment rate. So an additional 40k equals 0.3%? I’m no mathematician, but…

I’m confused. In June of this year (a mere 5 months ago) the New York Times reported it would take 150,000 jobs added per month just to keep up with population growth & to keep the unemployment number from rising. Yet it went down. Huh?

There must be a reasonable explanation. I don’t know about reasonable, but here it is.

What was underreported was the number of people who have quit looking for work in the last month. It is 315,000, dwarfing the amount of hires.

So, just like magic, they’re no longer counted. Therefore, the universe of jobs available in the country is down by 315,000. That is the labor force participation rate. The labor force (workforce) participation rate is a meager 64%. It fell to 64% from 64.2%. So the 0.2% drop equals 315,000 people leaving the workforce.

I’ve written of the Workforce Participation Rate. It’s a measure of the active portion of an economy’s labor force. The participation rate refers to the number of people who are either employed or are actively looking for work. The number of people who are no longer actively searching for work are not included in the participation rate. In a poor economy, such as this, many people get discouraged and stop looking for employment and as a result, the participation rate decreases.

That small number of jobs created can lower unemployment rate 0.4%, almost one half of a percent? Creating 120,000 new jobs can do that? Yep. Isn’t fuzzy math fun?

That alone tells us how small the labor force participation rate is.

It also tells us how small the universe of available jobs in the country is, when creating 120,000 can have that seemingly large effect, and we still had over 400,000 applications for unemployment compensation reported yesterday. So just 120,000 new jobs can lower the unemployment rate almost a half a point.

Also, as always happens, that 120,000 number will be quietly revised down at a later date. Don’t look for it to be reported.

I’d bet, if one were to look at that 120k, they would find most of those jobs are seasonal hires. That means they won’t exist in January.

It will be interesting to see, after the Holidays, what kind of wacky accounting tricks the Administration uses to keep that already bogus number under 9%.

Maybe they can hope that many more people just give up?
That would work.

Attribution: Calculated Risk, Godfather Politics, Drudge