Yesterday we were greeted with what would appear to be great news, the US Unemployment rate dropped to 8.3%. Having experienced months of 10% and 9.5% unemployment rates, this would look like a recovery is taking place finally.

I use the words "appear" and "would look" because as Paul Harvey would say "now, for the rest of the story": The rest of the story comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and as we all know, one can make statistics say whatever they wish by factoring their base numbers on faulty impressions. In this case, if the US continues to drop the unemployed from the labor force rolls, the statistics of the unemployed in the labor force changes. And so for the last year, US unemployment numbers have been dropping.

1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation

The misnomer is to believe that because the US unemployment rate is dropping, the economy is growing more healthy and more and more US citizens are gainfully employed. It's a misnomer because only 63.7% of able bodied adults are being counted - the lowest percentage in US history. And still while counting on 63.7% of the potential labor force, we have 8.3% unemployed. In other words just over 1/2 of the true US labor force is actually working. The remainder have become discouraged or run out of unemployment benefits due to the longevity of their unemployment.

So while the Occupy Movement wants to trash federal and state parks and land while attempting to get everyone to concentrate on the 1% versus the 99%, I suggest it's more enlightening to concentrate on the 55% employed supporting the 45% unemployed.

For the last several years we've seen an outright campaign to rid America of public references to Christian beliefs, from changing "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays", stripping Court Houses of nativity scenes and the 10 commandments and even refusing Christmas trees in public airports.

President Obama has deleted references to "One nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and forgot "endowed by our Creator" when quoting the preamble to the Constitution.

Yet suddenly yesterday President Obama, who has been all about separation of church and state to the point of ignoring Christian holidays and reference, was proud to tell Americans that he prays and has spiritual quiet time every morning, selectively quotes Jesus and assures the public that Jesus would approve of his plans to implement a gouging tax on the rich.

"To those whom much is given, much is expected" is NOT a reference to or a proffered plan for a government tax system. Jesus was not just equating financial riches to wealth, nor was He offer Obama a new way to take from the financially wealthy to redistributed to malcontents that want to profit from others' labors.

It's just uncanny how a President who has been reluctant to mention God or Jesus for over 3 years, suddenly put Jesus and God into his campaign.

In July 2008 Obama told the American people that the US accumulated debt under 8 years of George W. Bush at $4 trillion was unpatriotic and a sign of bad leadership.

"The problem is that the way Bush has done it in the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion from the first 42 presidents. No. 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome. So we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back. $30,000 for every man woman and child. That's irresponsible, that's unpatriotic"

So to show his patriotism, Barack Hussein Obama has done GWB one better by raising the US debt limit a mere $5 trillion in 3 years!

Barack Hussein Obama attempts over and over to get Americans to focus on "fairness". Though Obama never really defines fairness, his political speak focuses on his definition of fairness. Obama wants Americans to believe that our great country was built on "fairness". The Declaration of Independence which declares everyone should have equal rights might leave a non-thinking person who just sups sound bites to believe that's what America is about. It's not.

The Declaration of Independence and the resulting US Constitution provide that all people are equal in that all persons are given inalienable - rights by their Creator. Those rights are: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, no where is US law or the premise for US government is there a guarantee of happiness - only the right to pursue it.

Notice that we are not created equal in talent, in the parents we are given, in the financial resources provided to raise us, in intellect or even in equal in the amount of love and adoration we receive.

So where do people suddenly get the idea that America is built on financial fairness - those who earn more, pay more to support those who either work hard and earn less or those who don't wish to work?

Barack Obama and the Occupy protestors believe that evil corporations and wealth people should pay for the slackness of those who produce nothing. The non-producers live off the government that has taken it upon itself to provide them subsistence; and yet, they are still not happy. The non-producers do not contribute to government, either state or federal; yet they, like the producers use government including police, fire, courts, roads, sidewalks, representation, government services such as social services, welfare, food stamps, SSI, medical, etc. How is this fair - some pay for the use of government and some pay nothing?

How is it financially fair to take from one group to support another? Income Tax was created to pay for government, not to redistribute wealth. Since every American uses government, why shouldn't they all pay for government? Why should wealthy people pay more for government?

If the Occupy group and Obama believers think that large corporations and wealthy people legally avoid paying their "fair share", why not attack the laws that allow them to do so versus attacking those who take advantage of those laws? But while they scrutinize those laws, why not take a gander at laws that allow use of government without any contribution?

The US tax laws should not be implemented to either punish the wealth or redistribute their wealth. Rather US tax laws should ensure that everyone contributes to government in an equal way. How can it be fair to allow those wishing for a distribution from government to vote to take more from the wealth to give to them? What a conflict of interest! How can people who contribute nothing for a desired bridge vote to build a bridge with other people's money?

Since over 40% of Americans pay no income tax, the deck is stacked against those who do pay taxes. How easy is it to spend money for your wants and wishes when the money comes from someone else's pocket. This is NOT what America was built upon. America was built from people who wanted self-determination. They wanted an equal opportunity not equal finances. They recognized that some wanted to work very hard and accumulate while others might value less work and less accumulation. We all are allowed to determine what is valuable and to obtain that; but with that determination comes the basics of economics - the opportunity cost is the opportunity lost. Working hard may prevent family and vacation time. Working less provides more on the intrinsic part of life and less of the tangible.

Suddenly people want us to believe we can have it all - simply by taking what we didn't earn to fill in the gaps for the opportunity lost.

Fact Checking the SOTU - Corporate Taxes

The Most Important Paycheck in the World

No Need to Panic About Global Warming

Another "Green" Bankruptcy on the Taxpayers' Dime

We often discuss how Barack Hussein Obama doesn't seem to like to do the actual job behind being President. Apparently his speech writers are ripping a page from his playbook. Obama's State of the Union speech was mostly a redux from of previous speeches.

Due to Barack Hussein Obama's halt on deportations of illegals to Haiti, a Haitian illegal (and twice convicted felon) in the USA was released from prison and two months later killed 3 US citizens.

The episode is a black eye for U.S. authorities, who by law could not detain Dufrene indefinitely after the Obama administration ordered a temporary halt of deportations to the island nation. The deportations were halted because of the carnage wrought by Haiti's January 2010 earthquake.

"Because of the moratorium on removals to Haiti in effect when Dufrene came into ICE custody, his removal to Haiti was not likely in the reasonably foreseeable future," an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman said in a statement Friday.

ICE is prevented from indefinitely holding any illegal if their removal is not in the foreseeable future. So even with a laced history of crimes, Dufrene was released. Dufrene had a history of nine arrests starting with beating a teacher at age 14. Dufrene committed the 3 murders and later killed himself.

So let's describe the change we've seen under Obama:
Only change left over from the paycheck; the rest is redistributed to those who didn't earn it.
Change is the unemployment numbers from 7% to over 10%;
Change is the spiraling upward debt - almost $16 trillion;
Change is ignoring the US Constitution;
Changes is forcing people to purchase a product;
Change is bowing to foreign dignitaries;
Change is a disregard for the US Military;
Change is ObamaCare;
Change is unlimited unemployment insurance;
Change is lots of vacation, golf and luxury fund raising;
Change is committing taxpayers money to failed energy policies and companies;
Change is bald face lying;
Change is shutting down Disney World to promote tourism;
Change is separate air transportation for the presidential couple;
Change is an uninvolved president;
Change is more czars;
Change is more job killing regulations;
Change is more cronyism in the White House;
Change is a pervert as Secretary of Education;
Change is arrogance and narcissism;
Change is ticking off our allies;
Change is cozying up with Venezuela and Iran;
Change is redistribution of wealth;

And so we could go on and on. But most of all "change is" a different President in 2012.

Now just why are US taxpayers paying for Solyndra employees to crush new glass tubes that cost over $2 million? The bankruptcy judge agreed to the tube destruction after being told it would cost more than they were worth to store the tubes.

However, the bankruptcy trustee never listed the tubes on the asset list therefore no one was able to provide a bid to purchase them at auction.

Oh well, it was just taxpayers' money.