Republican dogs once again spit out the Romney pill

I have always found Democrat strategist and former Clinton crony James Carville to be a repugnant human being. I do have to give him kudos for the best description yet uttered about how conservative Republicans feel about perennial presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Carville had to this to say after Romney barely won (and has since lost) the Iowa Caucuses while receiving fewer votes in 2012 than in 2008:

I think there’s one screaming huge story here tonight, and that is these Republicans just don’t want to vote for Mitt Romney. I mean, it’s like you’re trying to give a dog a pill that keeps spitting it out.

After Romney won the primaries in New Hampshire, Florida, and Nevada (and for awhile looked like he won in Iowa), so many Rockefeller Republican cheerleaders were ready to hand Romney the nomination already (or fellate him; it's hard to tell).

The primary and caucus elections last night in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado, where Rick Santorum swept those elections, have certainly shown that Romney is not the lock that his sycophants in the GOP and in the media want you to think.

To that, I say Thank God!

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum ended up winning in Iowa over Romney, and has now added Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado to his swagger stick. Do I support Santorum for the nomination? No. Would I choose him over Romney? In a heartbeat. Would I vote for Santorum over Obama in the general election? Yes. Would I vote for Romney over Obama in the general election? No. Would I vote for Obama instead? Hell no.

Confused yet?

I know I am but one lowly blogger, but I am also a voter. Here is my official endorsement:

Of the Republican candidates still in the hunt, my preferences from first to worst are as follows:

Ron Paul

Rick Santorum

Newt Gingrich

Mitt Romney

The line I hear from many of my Republican friends is that they agree with Ron Paul on economic issues but they disagree with him on foreign policy. At issue is the question of what exactly our foreign policy is supposed to be. Our country's current foreign policy has strayed from our traditional foreign policy so far and for so long, that many have forgotten, or don't know, that the policy has been anything but what we have now and have had since the 1890s (with a slight timeout from 1920 to 1940). Ron Paul's belief is that we can no longer afford the expense and ill-will that we often cause from sending our troops all over the world to fight. As such, he is often accused of blaming the United States when we are attacked, such as on September 11, 2001.

What I have never heard addressed is that if our foreign interventions elsewhere had nothing to do with 9/11 and we would have been attacked that day regardless, then why not dispense with our foreign interventions and still deal with attacks like 9/11 when they happen, rather than wasting blood and treasure on foreign interventions that do not concern the security of the United States? That is Ron Paul's position. The more dishonest types out there have tried to paint Representative Paul as some pacifist peacenik who would never fight any war at all. That simply is not true. Paul simply adheres to the constitutional requirements of our foreign policy such as a declaration of war from Congress before our military is sent out to fight. When was our last officially declared war? World War II. How many U.S. troops have we lost in undeclared wars since the end of World War II? About 120,000. Paul believes in the constitutional role of our military, which is to defend our country from invasion, and protect American interests abroad, such as when Thomas Jefferson asked Congress for permission to send the U.S. Navy to the Mediterranean to protect American shipping from the Barbary Pirates. Notice though that when our Navy was sent to the Med, it was to protect the interests of the United States. When Clinton sent U.S. troops to the former Yugoslavia (I served 6 months with the United Nations in Macedonia) what exactly was our interest there? And why exactly are we still in Afghanistan, and have been since 2001? We removed the Taliban from power and defeated al-Qaeda in the caves of Tora Bora in early 2002. Why have we been there ever since? What exactly did we accomplish in Iraq? We got rid of Saddam? There are murderous strongmen all over the world. Why are they still in power?

Just like government programs never go away, even after they have outlived their usefulness, our wars seem to follow the same pattern. After all, we still have troops stationed in Germany and South Korea, and probably would still have them on the border of South Vietnam had we not folded up our tent and let the North Vietnamese take it over.

Do I agree with every one of Ron Paul's views? No. I think he underestimates the resolve of hardcore Islamists in the middle east with their desire to spread Sharia law throughout the world, but he does not underestimate the responsibility of the President to protect our shores from that kind of encroachment. And to tell you the truth, I am more worried about the loss of my liberties from my own government in its response to possible Islamic terrorism, than from Islamic terrorism itself. As talk of expanding TSA authority to our roads and railroads marches on, and my inability to carry a concealed or unconcealed weapon continues in my beloved state, I have a lot more immediate concerns here at home.

If you disagree with me on my views on Ron Paul, that is fine. However a debate we cannot have if Mitt Romney is preordained as the Republican nominee even before the state primaries have gotten into full swing.

Ultimately, if Mitt Romney ends up as the Republican nominee, I will vote for neither him nor Obama. I will vote for Ron Paul. If Santorum continues to surge and ends up with the nomination, I will think it over. Not that it matters anyway; the chances of Obama losing California's popular vote and 55 electoral votes are slim to none, no matter which Republican's name I mark. If you actually read up on Romney's positions, you will ultimately not see much of a difference between his and Obama's anyway. Whether we are talking health care, minimum wage, or taxes, do you honestly think we would see much of a change? Ask yourself: Do you think a President Romney would roll back the mess that Obama has created? He might stop (or more likely merely slow) the forward progress, but roll it back? Sheee-yeah, right. The same goes for Gingrich and Santorum. They will merely slow down the inevitable. Only Ron Paul talks about truly cutting the size of government, and abiding by the original intent of the Constitution. Based on his 40-year voting record, you know that he means it.

I endorse that.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Fun with Guns

My son and I spent today with a friend and his son at my friend's 2000+ acre family ranch located in the Sierra foothills between Sacramento and Stockton. We caught lots of bass at one of the many ponds located on the ranch, ate lunch, then shot guns; lots of guns. I don't often get the chance to find a place to really stretch the legs on my SKS, but today was one of those opportunities. Watch:



By the way, my aimed shots were fired at some huge floating grapefruit that we tossed in the water, and for the record, that pond is not the same one in which we fished!

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Just another day at the asylum...

I thought you all would find enlightenment from this email I sent to the administration. All names have been changed or deleted to protect the innocent and not-so-innocent. Be warned that bad language follows... none of it uttered by me:

Good Afternoon,

During the passing period before the start of 8th period, I heard a commotion right outside my classroom that sounded like a fight brewing.

I got out in the hallway just in time to see the potential fight beginning to subside, but the two girls who were having words were still facing off at each other. I identified one student as *****, who I have as a student during 3rd period. I did not know the other female student with whom ***** was facing off. As soon as I got between the two students, ***** turned around and walked away without a word, but the other student continued to taunt *****, saying over and over again something to the effect of, “That’s right, Bitch,” or “You better walk away, Bitch.”

Due to her profanity and her efforts to make a fight still happen, I walked up to this student, showed her my ID tag, and told her to come with me. The student refused and began walking away from me. I followed her down the hallway and again identified myself as a staff member at this school and then asked her to identify herself, as I didn’t know who she was. The student refused to give me her name. I repeatedly instructed the student to not walk away from me and to tell me her name. The student repeatedly refused. In all, I asked the student at least 15 times to tell me her name, and she refused. The only things she said in response to my request was, “Get away from me,” and “I ain’t tellin’ you my fuckin’ name.” By this time, the student was walking down the outside stairwell on west end of the building. I couldn’t follow her, as my classroom door was open and my 8th period students had already begun to enter. As the student continued to walk down the stairs away from me, I informed her that her refusal to identify herself to a staff member at this school could get her suspended, and her response was to tell me, “I don’t care; fuckin’ suspend me then!”

As I entered back into the west side of the third floor, I met up with Mr. *****. I asked him if he knew this student, but he said he hadn’t caught a glimpse of her. At that point, he ran down the west end stairwell in an attempt to catch up with her. On my way back to my classroom, one of my students told me that the student with whom I had been dealing was named “*****nique.”

This was later confirmed by many other of my 8th period students, and then Mr. ***** himself, who confirmed that the student’s full name is *****nique ********.

*****nique’s repeated refusal to identify herself to me (in spite of the fact that I repeatedly identified myself as a staff member at this school), and her use of profanity directed toward me and the other student with whom she almost fought is absolutely unacceptable, and per CA Education Code Section 48900(k), I request an appropriate punishment be administered to *****nique *******; namely an out-of-school suspension.

Regards,

W.R. Chandler
Social Studies Teacher
Nameless Middle School

When I describe hostile encounters with students like this one, my standard rhetorical question is to ask what would have happened to this student in, say, 1959, if she had exhibited the same behavior that she did to me yesterday? It's called EXPULSION! No ifs, ands, or buts. In today's topsy-turvy, largely responsibility-free world, I will be astonished if this student actually gets even one day of the out-of-school suspension that I requested she receive.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Spotted...

In the past day, I have spotted on I-80 two bumper stickers featuring our current President while I was both going to, and coming home from, work. One made me laugh, and the other gave me an incredulous shake of the head.

The first was on a big Dodge HEMI-type pickup. The left-hand side of the sticker showed a photo of Obama with his chin sticking up in the air in one of his classic Mussolini poses. Next to the photo, the sticker said DOES THIS ASS MAKE MY TRUCK LOOK BIG?

I love it!

The next sticker I saw was on the back of a Toyota Highlander. This one also featured a photo of Obama, only the photo was as flattering as possible. Next to the photo, the sticker said GIVE HOPE A CHANCE.

Good Lord, talk about a hopeless true believer. I think we have given Caesar Obummus more than enough of chance already, don't you?

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Thank God no one will have to read that horrible prayer anymore

I found out tonight about the story of Jessica Ahlquist, a busybody high schooler in Rhode Island who decided to impose her atheist beliefs on her fellow students at Cranston High School West.

For years, Cranston High had a banner hanging in the school that featured a prayer that students were free to look at (or not). After I read what was written on that banner, I guess it's a good thing that Jessica decided to wage her personal jihad on this banner and save her fellow students from its evil and corrupting influence. Witness now the text of the prayer that offended young Jessica so much that she convinced a U.S. District Judge into ordering it removed. You might want to tell your kids to leave the room if you plan on reading it out loud:

Our Heavenly Father,

Grant us each day the desire to do our best. To grow mentally and morally, as well as physically. To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers. To be honest with ourselves, as well as with others. Help us to be good sports, and smile when we lose, as well as when we win. Teach us the value of true friendship. Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.

Amen

Whew! Thank God that Jessica came along when she did. Who knows what kind of violence and mayhem that prayer might have caused her fellow students to commit.

On second thought, don't thank God for anything - Jessica might get offended.

This whole sad situation reminds me of one of my favorite verses from the Bible (Isaiah 5:20), which more and more shows Isaiah for the prophet he was:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.

Woe unto you Jessica Ahlquist. You have declared this good and beautiful prayer to be evil, and even worse, you convinced a federal judge (Reagan appointee, unfortunately) into shoving your beliefs down everyone else's throats by having the prayer banner removed.

And our country continues to circle the drain.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

The Debates: What the hell is the Republican Party thinking?

In the days leading up to the New Hampshire Primary, I found out that a Republican debate would be moderated by ABC News talking head George Stephanopoulos. It is bad enough that a Republican debate would yet again be moderated by a news-critter who is on the other side of the political spectrum from the Republican candidates, but what made it that much worse was that George Stephanopoulos was no ordinary news-critter; he was President Bill Clinton's communications director and chief spinmeister. Not surprisingly, his political partisanship came through loud and clear during the debate. At one point, he was even booed by the audience.

Media Research Center's Brent Bozell has much more to say about the idiocy of the Republican Party, and its willingness to agree to have hostile leftists moderate their debates.

Bozell begins his piece with some rather poignant questions:

"Who in the GOP in his or her right mind invites a historically shameless Democratic spin controller like Stephanopoulos to "moderate" a primary debate like this — ever...?"

"Why must the Republicans keep handing over their debate stage in the primary season to the people who desperately want them all to bumble, stumble and fall on their faces on national TV?"

Read the rest here.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

How bad is our debt problem? Watch and laugh (and cry)

Imagine a household budget composed of the following numbers:

Total Household Debt: $140,000

Household Income: $21,700

Household Spending: $38,200

Annual Household Deficit: $16,500

Amount of Spending Cut: $380

Doesn't work, does it? But just add a whole crap-load of zeroes to these figures, and you have the budget numbers for the United States of America. Taking away all of those zeroes really makes it all seem so painfully clear, does it not? For further perspective that tragically illustrates the impossibility of this situation, watch this humorous video of a man with this household budget going to his local bank to see about raising his debt limit:



Don't you feel for the poor kid? Mine are in the same boat. Oh, and keep in mind that this video is already out of date. That household debt is now over $150,000! Oh, you didn't know that our national debt has now topped $15,000,000,000,000?

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Just like a movie... complete with techno-assassins and bumbling, wishy-washy U.S. bureaucrats

Imagine this scene being in a movie:

An Iranian university professor who is involved in Iran's nuclear program is driving down a Tehran street. All of a sudden, two men on a motorcycle pull up alongside the professor's car, attach a magnetic bomb to the door of the car, and then speed away. Seconds later, the bomb explodes, killing the professor. And talk about a personal hit: the bomb is just powerful enough, and is shaped in a way to only kill the intended target - the other two occupants in the professor's car are left with non-life-threatening injuries.

Forget movies; what I just described really happened earlier today. When I read the article, I could totally picture the whole scene in my mind as it would play out in a movie, but believe me when I say that I realize that this isn't a movie, and a man died for real. On the other hand, this man was apparently helping to realize the nuclear dreams that the mullahs of Iran have had for quite some time. Or for all we know, this poor sap was balking at helping the mullahs, and they had him killed as an example to the other Iranian nuclear scientists.

Either way, that doesn't change the limp response from a spokesman from the Obama administration about the incident:

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said the U.S. "had absolutely nothing to do" with Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan's death and the U.S. condemns "all acts of violence, including acts of violence like what is being reported today."

OK, denying U.S. involvement in, and condemning this particular assassination is one thing, but for the Obama spokesmouth to say that the U.S. "condemns all acts of violence" is a bit of a stretch, wouldn't you say?

Killing Osama bin Laden would be a considered an act of violence, would it not? A Navy SEAL sniper taking off the head of a Somali pirate is an act of violence, is it not? Our continued operations in Afghanistan, where we kill Taliban members all the time, is an act of violence, is it not? How about Obama's Justice Department allowing guns to be taken into Mexico to be used in the murders of over 300 Mexican citizens and 2 U.S. law enforcement agents? Does that qualify as an act of violence?

I swear, Obama and his minions never miss an opportunity to make asses of themselves. If only the lamestream news media would actually report it.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

And I went to high school because...?

I have never been a big fan of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). As usual, it was seemingly passed by Congress and signed by President George H.W. Bush with seemingly the best of intentions. But as laws like this often demonstrate, the unintended consequences of legislation is an afterthought, or is not considered at all.

Very quickly, the ADA was used by ambulance-chasing lawyers to extort and shake down businesses that had the slightest violations of the law - whether it be a bathroom sink that was a few inches too high, or a step that blocked wheelchair access to an insignificant section of the establishment. Not to mention the fact that while the ADA was meant to stop workplace discrimination against handicapped employees, all the law did was to unintentionally encourage employers to not hire handicapped workers to begin with.

Now we have a new reason to despise the ADA. Apparently, the law is being violated when an employer requires a high school diploma. I will give you a link to a newspaper article about the particulars, but you really need to read the wording of the actual policy letter posted on the website of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This is freedom and prosperity-snuffing bureaucracy at its finest:

Under the ADA, a qualification standard, test, or other selection criterion, such as a high school diploma requirement, that screens out an individual or a class of individuals on the basis of a disability must be job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity. A qualification standard is job related and consistent with business necessity if it accurately measures the ability to perform the job’s essential functions (i.e. its fundamental duties). Even where a challenged qualification standard, test, or other selection criterion is job related and consistent with business necessity, if it screens out an individual on the basis of disability, an employer must also demonstrate that the standard or criterion cannot be met, and the job cannot be performed, with a reasonable accommodation. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6); 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.10, 1630.15(b) and (c); 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app §§ 1630.10, 1630.15(b) and (c).

Thus, if an employer adopts a high school diploma requirement for a job, and that requirement “screens out” an individual who is unable to graduate because of a learning disability that meets the ADA’s definition of “disability,” the employer may not apply the standard unless it can demonstrate that the diploma requirement is job related and consistent with business necessity. The employer will not be able to make this showing, for example, if the functions in question can easily be performed by someone who does not have a diploma.

So, the high school diploma requirement is only a violation of the ADA if the requirement has nothing to do with the job duties. Right? Oh, wait, the letter goes on:

Even if the diploma requirement is job related and consistent with business necessity, the employer may still have to determine whether a particular applicant whose learning disability prevents him from meeting it can perform the essential functions of the job, with or without a reasonable accommodation. It may do so, for example, by considering relevant work history and/or by allowing the applicant to demonstrate an ability to do the job’s essential functions during the application process. If the individual can perform the job’s essential functions, with or without a reasonable accommodation, despite the inability to meet the standard, the employer may not use the high school diploma requirement to exclude the applicant. However, the employer is not required to prefer the applicant with a learning disability over other applicants who are better qualified. [Yeah, right!]

The EEOC lawyer takes his time with the legalese, but he finally gets around to essentially saying that if the job applicant had some sort of learning disability in high school, you can't require a diploma from him whether it is related to the job or not.

Oh, but worry not! The letter ends with this meaningless statement:

We hope this information is helpful. This letter is an informal discussion of the issues you raised and should not be considered an official opinion of the EEOC.

Sincerely,

/s/

Aaron Konopasky
Attorney Advisor
ADA/GINA Policy Division

It may not be an official opinion of the EEOC, but I think we are versed well enough with our Imperial Federal Government that when they "suggest" that you do something, you damned well better do it. For example, the government still insists that we pay our income taxes voluntarily. Hmmm... just watch what will happen to you if you volunteer not to pay them.

In the meantime, a proclamation like this from the EEOC is like chum for those sharks with law degrees who see a whole new lawsuit industry popping up that is just waiting to be exploited.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

A lesson on how to handle the lamestream media

I don't support Rick Perry for the Republican presidential nomination, but I must give kudos to his handling of leftist tool Mike Allen of Politico.com.

Politico is rather notorious for using unnamed sources to carry a spurious story forward (see Cain, Herman), but when Allen tried this tactic on Perry, the Texas governor wasn't having it. Watch and learn, kids:



Whenever a reporter uses the term, "some say," be very wary.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Now that the presents are opened...

I just wanted to take a minute to remind myself and everyone else why we spent today opening gifts and stuffing ourselves full of glorious food. Hit it Linus:



Merry Christmas, Everyone!

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Bill of Rights eviscerated on their anniversary

On December 15, 1791 - 220 years ago, today - the Bill of Rights were officially ratified and added to the Constitution.

How sad it is that on this day of all days, President Obama signed the 2012 version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which includes Section 1031. This section gives the President the option of ordering the military to indefinitely detain American citizens without charges, evidence, or trial if the citizen is suspected of terrorist activity. Of course, if you have ever read the PATRIOT Act, "terrorist activity" is pretty much whatever the government wants it to be.

There are plenty of people who continue to insist that people like me are confused, and that Section 1031 of the NDAA does not apply to American citizens. The Hill, for instance reports that,

In both cases, the bill does not create any new authority to detain U.S. citizens, ensuring their rights to a fair trial, and the military detention language does exempts U.S. citizens.

Of course, that assurance leaves me with little comfort when all one has to do is listen to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), insist that the power to detain American citizens does indeed exist because after all, it was President Obama who insisted that that power be included in the bill. Don't take my word for it. Watch this:



In addition to Senator Levin's candid assertions, there also exists a letter, signed by 40 members of Congress - many of whom I usually disagree on many other issues - that was sent to the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In the letter, the signatories express their concerns about the application of NDAA Section 1031, stating:

...[T]he Senate-passed version of the NDAA, S. 1867, contains Section 1031, which authorizes indefinite military detention of suspected terrorists without protecting U.S. Citizens' right to trial. We are deeply concerned that this provision could undermine the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendment rights of U.S. Citizens who might be subjects of detention or prosecution by the military.

I know that many people will scoff at these events and say that we average American citizens have nothing to worry about; that this law is only meant to snag American citizens of middle-eastern background who are actively engaging in planned terrorist attacks against the United States on our own soil. The problem with this myopic view is that anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear and a brain to think knows that inevitably, the power of government grows over time, and what was once unthinkable in our society eventually becomes commonplace, especially if the government is given what appears at first to be some innocuous tool meant for a specific purpose that they eventually use as a broad brush.

Don't forget that just yesterday, Obama stated without ambiguity or secrecy that if Congress didn't do what he wants done, he is just going to bypass them and do it anyway, saying

"Well, what we're going to have to do is continue to make progress on the economy over the next several months. And where Congress is not willing to act, we're going to go ahead and do it ourselves. But it would be nice if we could get a little bit of help from Capitol Hill."

With that kind of unconstitutional attitude, do you really want to put into Obama's hands, the kind of power that Section 1031 of the NDAA affords? Really?

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Pearl Harbor: 70 years ago

Before there was the Islamic attacks of 9/11, there was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

That infamous attack happened on December 7, 1941 - 70 years ago today.

They are getting a little slower in their step, but there are still survivors of that day. The Today show interviewed one of them, who was an 18-year old swabbie at the time. Click here to read his account of that "Day of Infamy."

I was born in 1972, so I missed the 30th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, however, I distinctly remember being 9-years old and sitting at the dinner table on the evening of December 7, 1981 as I watched a lengthy nightly news story on the 40th anniversary of the Japanese attack. Time flies.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

President Luddite

Seriously, Barack?

Hey everyone, did you know that two of the reasons our economy is in the doldrums is because of ATMs and the Internet? After all, these two technological advancements took away the jobs of travel agents, phone operators, and bank tellers.

Honest to Pete, that is what is our "smartest guy in the room" president actually thinks. Click here to watch Obummer make a fool of himself... again.

I wonder how our country ever survived after the people who worked in buggy whip factories and telegraph offices lost their jobs?

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

The national unemployment rate: The devil is in the details

You gotta hand it to government; they have a language all their own.

My favorite example is the government definition of a spending cut. Seldom is the amount of spending on any particular government program actually cut, whereby the government spends less tax money on a program this year than last year. No, to the government, a spending cut is actually a reduction in the annual increase in spending on that program. More is spent than the previous year; just not as much as originally planned. And that is considered a spending cut. Nice, huh?

Then there is the unemployment rate. Our local newspaper, the Sacramento Bee, had splashed across the front page a headline that trumpeted a reduction in the national unemployment rate from 9.1% to 8.6%.

Look around you. Look at all the businesses that have closed their doors, that are shuttered, abandoned, and defunct. Look at all the housing developments sitting half-completed. You are not going to tell me that the unemployment rate is only 8.6%. Guess what? It's not.

Once upon a time, when the government reported the unemployment rate, they used to report the percentage of the workforce that was out of work, but was either actively looking for work, or wanted to work but had given up looking. In 1994, the Bureau of Labor Statistics under the Clinton administration began to only report the percentage of unemployed who were actively looking for work, and it has been done that way ever since. People who had been unemployed so long that the unemployment insurance had run out and they had stopped looking? Those people - according to the government - were no longer considered to be unemployed.

Buried deep within the website of the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a frequently-updated table that shows the percentages of different categories of unemployment. The U3 row shows the "official" unemployment rate, which again is currently 8.6%. What you want to look at is U6. This tallies the percentage of the work force that is either actively looking for work, has given up looking for work, or is only working reduced hours or reduced pay because that is the only work they could find. Factor all that in, and the unemployment rate is not an unrealistic 8.6%, but instead a very believable 15.6%! Percentages like that during the 1930s indicated that we were in an economic depression. What are we living in now?

See the BLS table for yourself. It is often updated, so the numbers may have changed from the ones I reported.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson