Thursday, October 20, 2016


by -

One thing that Obama loves to bring up while on the campaign trail for Hillary is how well the economy is doing.

He says that they brought the economy back from the brink and saved us from the housing bubble that popped in 2008.

The truth is, the economy is not doing well and Obama has helped inflate a new bubble that will crash soon, despite how well the economy is doing in Obama’s eyes.

Here are top 10 reasons why the economy isn’t as good as Obama and Hillary keep saying it is.


by -

During the RNC, people tuned in to hear speeches that painted out economy a lot different than the Democrats did this week. Who is right?

Donald Trump focused on the almost $20 trillion in debt that America has right now. A number that has almost doubled since president Obama took office.

President Obama and Hillary mentioned that the stock market is at an all time high and the economy is better under the Democrats.

A common phrase during the convention was, “don’t you remember the mess that Republicans got us into before Obama took over?”

Who is right? Is the economy doing well? The simple answer is no, the economy is not doing well, but the stock market is at an all time high.

The democrats don’t want to admit that the economy is experiencing almost no growth and major indicators for a recession are starting to alarm professionals.

Just this week we got a lot of numbers and it isn’t good. Durable goods orders, manufacturing data, business spending, and restaurant revenue are all seeing steep declines.

The trade gap has increased dramatically and homeownership in America is the lowest it has been since 1965. What is going on?

The Federal Reserve head, Janet Yellen spoke on Wednesday and the FED decided that the economy was so bad that it couldn’t raise rates, not even a quarter. The FED has not raised rates since back in December and then the stock market had the worst January in history.

If you watched the DNC you would think that none of these numbers are correct, but they are. There are steep declines and problems in several industries, this isn’t just a hiccup in the economy, and it looks like a recession.

The last thing that Hillary needs right now, other than an indictment, is for the economy to take a major turn for the worse. If we see a selloff like we did last August or a worse one, the tides could really change in this election.

Trump will be able to hit Hillary hard and paint her as a third term Obama. If the economy does start to dip into recession and the American public starts to get nervous, then we could major selloffs and that would almost solidify a Trump presidency. No wonder the democrats are telling us everything is great.

How do you feel that the economy is doing? Let us know in the comments below.

by -

With economic uncertainty growing worldwide, Texas is making a move to secure its own finances. The state owns some 5,600 gold bars currently held at an HSBC bank facility in New York City. In June, the Texas legislator passed and governor Greg Abbot signed a bill that mandates the construction of a secure facility in-state to house the bullion, and bring it all back.

When former governor Rick Perry started pushing for the move publicly, speculation started up about the motivation behind it. The Washington Post was among the first out of the gates to speculate that Texas is contemplating secession, and compared the initiative to Germany’s recent request for removal of their state-owned gold from New York.

Other outlets speculated that the move is simply a hedge against coming inflation, designed to keep the state solvent even if other states and businesses collapse under the weight of a sinking dollar.

In truth, the state’s goal may be even more ambitious than that – Texas may be angling to create a currency that competes directly with the dollar.

The author of the bill, state Representative Giovanni Capriglione, spoke frankly about part of his plan. “I would like to see this all come together so we become a commodities hub for the continent,” he said. “I think we’re just perfectly situated.”

Governor Abbot pointed out the unique position Texas was placing itself in when he signed the bill. “With the passage of this bill, the Texas Bullion Depository will become the first state-level facility of its kind in the nation, increasing the security and stability of our gold reserves and keeping taxpayers funds from leaving Texas to pay for fees to store gold in facilities outside our state,” said Abbot.

The other part of the plan is to allow depositors of precious metals and other commodities write checks against the value of their deposits. Texas has always been uncomfortable with Fiat money, as the state’s repeated election of End The Fed author Ron Paul to congress demonstrate. In that light, the creation of a hard, commoditized currency in Texas makes perfect sense.

In a strong signal that the state does in fact intend to compete with the Federal Reserve’s currency, the bill included strong language to protect the depositors’ interests. It states that no “governmental or quasi-governmental authority other than an authority of [Texas]” can take, regulate, move, or confiscate the commodities.

There are still logistical hurdles to overcome. The state has to determine a spot for the depository, and find a company to run it. In order to boost investor confidence, Texas also intends to have its facility certified by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, COMEX. State officials also expressed hope that one of the larger existing banks will sign on to help facilitate the system.

If everything goes as planned, Texas will offer greatly expanded liquidity to people with large amounts of precious metals, and the state’s “don’t mess with Texas” image will attract investors away from other options for their commodity storage.

That should be good news for the state’s economy.

by -

There’s the run-of-the-mill Democrat politician who doesn’t understand the free market. And then there’s Bernie Sanders, the self-proclaimed “socialist” who represents Vermont in the U.S. Senate.

Sanders, 73, is technically an independent but caucuses with the Democratic minority in the Senate. He’s also running against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President—so far, her only announced major challenger.

Here was Bernie Sanders’s ridiculous comment on CNBC about how deodorant is causing American children to go hungry:

“If 99 percent of all the new income goes to the top 1 percent, you could triple it, it wouldn’t matter much to the average middle class person. The whole size of the economy and the GDP doesn’t matter if people continue to work longer hours for low wages and you have 45 million people living in poverty. You can’t just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country.”

Sanders—as a U.S. Senator, one of the most powerful people in the nation—seems to think that, because some corporation is making money off of deodorant, that’s somehow a net negative for the entire economy.

Newsflash: if there was only one type of deodorant, the only impact it would have on children would be to increase starvation—because the jobs that a business creates while trying to build a competitive product would be gone. And most people would smell substantially worse because, without any competition, the sole remaining deodorant company would be able to charge virtually anything they want for a stick.

Sanders—who, arguably, is the most liberal elected official in America—shows the logical flaws in the Democrats’ complete misunderstanding of economics that’s not always immediately evident, because he takes it to such a leftist extreme. The economy is not a finite pie: when the rich do better, they’re not taking that money directly from the poor. There’s not an exact amount of money that everyone’s fighting for.

In fact, when the rich get richer, everyone gets richer. The rich don’t stuff money in their mattress: their millions and billions get reinvested through the economy, which creates jobs and makes everyone richer.

Unfortunately for “socialists” like Bernie Sanders, if he’s President, we’ll all be worse off economically—rich and poor alike. And we’ll all smell a lot worse, too.

by -

In an extreme effort by the Global Warming / Greenhouse Gas / Fossil Fuel crowd to discredit yet another source of clean, safe energy to run American industry, run cars and heat homes, one member of the “envirodoom” movement says the fracking industry will employ women in record numbers – as hotel maids and prostitutes.

This is the informed view of University of Pittsburgh biologist Sandra Steingraber – a member of “New Yorkers Against Fracking” – who describes the fight over fracking as a feminist issue.

According to Steingraber, who supports a statewide ban in New York on hydraulic fracturing to access previously unrecoverable oil and gas deposits, says:

“Fracking as an industry serves men. Ninety-five percent of the people employed in the gas fields are men. When we talk about jobs, we’re talking about jobs for men, and we need to say that…”

“The jobs for women are ‘hotel maid’ and ‘prostitute…” “So when fracking comes into a community, what we see is that women take a big hit, especially single women who have children who depend on rental housing.”

Fracking industry supporters may have given Steingraber’s opinion too much respect when they pointed to a 2014 report from the American Petroleum Institute that found women filled 226,000 oil, gas and petrochemical industry jobs – or 19 percent of the jobs created.

The report says:

“[W]omen are employed across all job categories, including professional and managerial, office and support, and blue-collar…”

Undeterred, Ms. Steingraber’s speech entitled “Fracking is a Feminist Issue: Women Confronting Fossil Fuels and Petrochemicals in an Age of Climate Emergency” comes after Texas anti-drilling activist Sharon Wilson compared fracking to rape in a March 30 post on Twitter and her blog.

“Fracking victims I have worked with describe it as a rape. It is a violation of justice and it is despoiling the land,” Ms. Wilson said in her blog, TXSharon’s BlueDaze. “Victims usually suffer PTSD.”

Industry supporters say that opponents a trying to cast fracking as a “man-only” industry because the drilling process itself is physically demanding. In North Dakota, the industry built communities nicknamed “man camps” for workers unable to find housing in the sparsely populated state.

Steingraber was also criticized by the fracking industry for her role in a “peer reviewed” research paper supporting New York’s fracking ban while advocating said ban on the fracking process.

In an interview with Fox News, Steingraber said she had been “absolutely objective” in her review of the paper, whose authors included scientists openly affiliated with anti-fracking groups including Global Community Monitor and the Center for Environmental Health.

Writing in The Washington Times, Valerie Richardson said acting New York Health Commissioner Howard Zucker cited the paper during a December 2014 state cabinet meeting where he recommended a statewide fracking ban despite calls for the state to lift its moratorium on fracking to help economically depressed areas in upstate New York.

Predictably, Gov. Andrew Cuomo agreed to the statewide ban that garnered instant praise from Ms. Steingraber in a January 22 article for EcoWatch called “How We Banned Fracking in New York.”

It is not known whether Commissioner Zucker or Governor Cuomo took the loss of jobs in the prostitution and maid industries into account before making their decision to ban fracking in the Empire State.

by -

Barbra Streisand should really stick to singing–because her latest op-ed for The Huffington Post is straight out of Crazy World.

Her editorial, called “Have You Heard the Good News?” is a puff piece touting all the jobs that Barack Obama “created” over the last five and a half years.

Unfortunately, she gets just about every single fact wrong.

Streisand writes: “In the wake of the financial crisis, President Obama took the helm of a sinking economic ship and help to right it. The unemployment rate is now once again at pre-recession levels — the lowest in seven years (5.5%).”

Streisand, of course, leaves out some critical facts.

Like, for example, that there is the largest percentage of Americans not working in history. Just 62.7% of Americans have jobs–a truly shocking number for a nation that prides itself on hard work and entrepreneurship. The unemployment rate is 5.5% not because more people are back to work–but because so many people have given up hope and stopped looking for jobs, and aren’t even considered “unemployed” anymore.

She continues with her “good news”:

“President Obama’s Administration, with only opposition from the Republicans, has steadily helped put more than 11 million Americans back to work in the private sector.”

Except 11 million jobs simply isn’t enough–and, historically, that’s not nearly as good of a number as Barbra wants you to believe.

Ronald Reagan–who also inherited a broken economy–created 18 million jobs by this point in his presidency. Including, famously, 1.1 million jobs in just one month in 1983. And keep in mind that the population of the United States was substantially smaller back then.

Compare that to the anemic 127,000 jobs Barack Obama created last month–which isn’t even enough to keep pace with population growth, let alone grow the economy.

Barbra Streisand has a long history as a partisan mouthpiece for the Left, but this piece takes the cake. Americans certainly aren’t better off in the age of Obama–and Barbra’s either lying or living in a bubble. Or maybe both.

Babs, if you’re listening: stick to singing. Journalism just isn’t for you.

by -

The U.S. economy created 295,000 jobs in February, dropping the unemployment rate to 5.5%–the lowest its been since 2008, before the economic collapse.

But despite these numbers looking rosy on the surface, the fundamentals of our economy remain weak–largely because no one wants to work anymore.

And worse, as of February, our workforce participation has dropped even further–continuing its streak of hovering near historic lows. Based on the last few months of data, the workforce participation rate shows no sign of improving any time soon either.

As of now, workforce participation stands at a pathetic 62.8%.

That means, of the 250,000,000 Americans that could conceivably be in the workforce (Americans over the age of 16), only 147,000,000 are. More than 93,000,000 Americans of working age don’t have a job, and aren’t even bothering to look for one. They’re unemployed, but they’re not counted in the unemployment rate.

A 62.8% workforce participation rate isn’t just a bad number. It’s a historically bad number, just 0.1% off of the all-time low, a record which was set in 1978 at the height of Jimmy Carter’s “malaise” era of economic dysfunction.

As troubling as the low workforce participation rate is, it’s important to realize the economic repercussions. A 5.5% unemployment rate looks good on paper–but that low number is partially due to more Americans leaving the job force in February.

When 37.2% of Americans have given up looking for a job, or simply don’t want to work, even a 5.5% unemployment rate doesn’t signal a booming economy. Workers continue to be discouraged and demoralized by the Obama Recovery.

While the February employment numbers signal a cautiously optimistic direction overall, it’s important to remember that we’re not out of the woods: the economy has not bounced back yet.

by -
Unions Longshoremen

The Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) said that it may need to suspend loading and unloading operations in response to persistent work slowdowns by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union.

In the midst of contract negotiations, the slowdowns have cut freight movement by as much as 50% at some of the 29 West Coast ports covered by union contracts – ports that handle up to 40% of import/export businesses in the United States.

The “work slowdown” is a common tactic used by unions to increase pressure on employers in the lead up to or during contract negotiations. PMA member companies said that a productivity cut of 50% would not support the average wage of $1,200 per day cost to pay International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) members.

In a statement released on February 5, ILWU International President Robert McEllrath condemned “the Pacific Maritime Association for threatening to shut down West Coast ports, bargaining in the media, and distorting the facts”… and that “intensifying the rhetoric at this stage of bargaining, when we are just a few issues from reaching an agreement, is totally unnecessary and counterproductive.”

The PMA employer group said that they could no longer continue to pay workers the premium pay for lackluster productivity. Predictably, the ILWU said a lack of work accounted for loss of productivity saying shippers were leaving cargo at sea offering undated pictures of empty docks as evidence.

The PMA countered with an observation that the ILWU was withholding needed crane operators and engaging in slow crane movements that PMA member companies and customers said were costing them an estimated $1 billion a day. A complete shut-down would raise the impact on the U.S. economy $2 billion a day.

PMA CEO James McKenna said the “union’s strategy is jeopardizing American jobs and threatening the long-term viability of businesses large and small. It’s like “they’re getting paid to grind us into the ground.” McKenna added that the PMA has been dealing with work slowdowns at West Coast ports since contract negotiations began nine months ago.

Jonathan Gold, speaking for the National Retail Federation (NRF) said “our message to the ILWU and PMA: Stop holding the supply chain community hostage.” The NRF represents more than 1.6 million U.S. retail businesses employing in excess of 24 million Americans and total sales of $6.4 trillion last year.

In short, a work stoppage of any length would jeopardize retail sales, jobs and the struggling economy nationwide.



When Comey, the director of the FBI decided not to charge Hillary Clinton, it looks like it had more to do with money than...