First-Time Jobless Claims Rise Unexpectedly Posted by MichaelBarry

Posted 02/04/10

First-time jobless claims rise unexpectedly

New jobless claims rise unexpectedly to 480,000 as layoffs continue, jobs remain scarce

 By Christopher S. Rugaber, AP Economics Writer , On Thursday February 4, 2010, 9:41 am EST

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of newly laid-off workers filing initial claims for jobless benefits rose unexpectedly last week, evidence that layoffs are continuing and jobs remain scarce.

The rise is the fourth in the past five weeks. Most economists hoped that claims would resume a downward trend that was evident in the fall and early winter.

The Labor Department said Thursday that new claims for unemployment insurance rose by 8,000 to a seasonally adjusted 480,000. Wall Street economists had expected a drop to 460,000, according to Thomson Reuters.

The four-week average, which smooths fluctuations, rose for the third straight week to 468,750.

The figure is the highest in the past two months. Initial claims dropped sharply in late December, raising hopes among economists that layoffs were nearing an end and the economy would soon start generating net gains in jobs.

The figures come a day before the Labor Department is scheduled to report the January employment figures, which are expected to show a tiny gain in jobs. The unemployment rate is forecast to rise to 10.1 percent.

The number of people continuing to claim benefits was unchanged at 4.6 million. That data lags initial claims by a week.

But the so-called continuing claims do not include millions of people who have used up the regular 26 weeks of benefits typically provided by states, and are receiving extended benefits for up to 73 additional weeks, paid for by the federal government.

More than 5.8 million people were receiving extended benefits in the week ended Jan. 16, the latest data available, up from about 5.6 million the previous week. The extended benefit data isn't seasonally adjusted and is volatile from week to week.

Still, the increasing number of people claiming extended unemployment insurance indicates hiring hasn't picked up. That leaves people out of work for longer and longer periods of time.

Some employers are continuing to cut jobs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said Wednesday that it will eliminate 300 administrative jobs at its headquarters. The company has cut almost 14,000 jobs in the past 13 months, including 11,200 positions at its Sam's Club stores.

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., a unit of Japan's Sony Corp., said Tuesday it is laying off 450 people and eliminating 100 open positions.

Among the states, Oregon reported the largest increase in claims, with 4,336. Puerto Rico and Hawaii also reported increases. The state data lags initial claims by one week.

California reported the largest drop in claims, a decline of 22,674. Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia and Missouri also reported decreases.

Ron Paul On The Tea Party Phenomenon-Interview and Video Posted by bobbyw24

Posted 02/03/10

By Siddhartha Mahanta

In 2008, independents frustrated with establishment politics found a hero in Texas Republican Ron Paul. Warning voters about the dangers of an overstretched and overcommitted government, Paul provided today's Tea Partiers with a blueprint for grassroots success.
Republicans like Reps. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Mike Pence of Indiana, and Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul -- Ron's son -- have embraced the Tea Party movement. NationalJournal.com talked to Ron Paul last week about the energy of today's grassroots movements and the Republican Party's evolving relationship with the Tea Partiers.

NJ: Judging from how the Tea Party movement has grown, has the Ron Paul revolution been a success?

Paul: I'm not sure they're absolutely related. A lot of people would say the Ron Paul revolution has been very successful, but in the very early stages, because we have a long way to go to reverse the trends of this country. But as far as getting the attention of a large number of people, I think that's been done.
The Tea Party movement has expanded, it includes more people, and it's not precisely a Ron Paul party movement. So they're not directly related, but I would say that both have gotten the attention of the American people. Whether it's the people who go to Tea Parties or the people who go to our rallies, all of us are pretty upset with what we see in Washington.

Rest of interview and VIDEO

http://insiderinterviews.nationaljournal.com/2010/02/ron-paul-on-the-tea-party.php

My Veterans Day Tea Party Speech Posted by MichaelBarry

Posted 02/01/10

This item was originally published on 10/30/09.  I have been asked to do a repost.  Here it is.

VETERANS DAY RECOGNITION  14 NOV 2009

    Today is November 14th. Veterans Day was November 11th.  Today is our local Tea Party celebration of Veterans Day.  It is an important day made so by all of those who have ever served in the Armed Forces.  It is appropriate for us today to reflect upon the purpose of the federal government, its constitutional powers, the nature and conduct of war, and the honor and respect earned by veterans.

    When we survey the whole earth and every society and culture which exists we find a startling fact of which few will frankly speak.  Poverty, suffering, squalor, and penury are found throughout the world.  There are everywhere masses of humanity burdened by suffering.  The cause of all this misery is government.  The producers of all of this pain in the human condition are found to reside in the most local to the highest offices of every land.

    Let me give a local example.  None of us would spend eight million dollars on a soft ball field or fifteen million dollars  on a sheriffs office building, or presume to know how to operate an asphalt plant.   But, there are those in government who believe that which  none of us would do individually we can be compelled to do corporately. The vision of these phony public servants is Utopian and their desires are insatiable. And so government become insensitive to human pain, to your pain, and far from becoming a benevolent shepherd becomes instead merely a well of ignominy.  From time to time politicians have told you that they feel your pain, but that is only a convenient lie. They don't feel your pain, they cause it. 

    Today we have a federal administration which does not really like the Constitution. They want to change it. They want to change it to a document which enumerates the rights of the central state.They want to change the Constitution without using the amendment process.

    They believe equally in English common law and shariah law and attach to them moral equivalence. They believe your cats,dogs, and other pets should have rights to legal representation. They want your children to chant and sing songs to the Supreme Leader in public schools. They think you spend too much money on health care. Rather than seeking treatment you should just accept the inevitable, take a pain pill and die. They want to tax and regulate away your guns and ammunition. They want you to buy your mandated public option health insurance at the Department of Motor Vehicles. They want to harvest human organs against the will of terminally ill patients. They want to tax and regulate the internet. They want to bring about a localism version of the fairness doctrine and limit free speech. They want to send a member of Acorn to your house to make sure that you are using the right kind of light bulbs. They want to increase your cost of energy by two or three hundred percent. They laud and admire the most bloodthirsty tyrants of history and celebrate the use of violence to silence dissent. From my perspective, worst of all, it's been reported that they want to end sport fishing in America.  Their vision is strange, inexplicable, and Utopian. In the end they will exhaust the resources which can be stolen from you: the peasants. They are tutelary fascists and they are going to teach you how to live and make you like it, whether you like it or not.

      All of this is quite foreign to the vision of the framers of the Constitution.

      There are only two dominant world views. The Marxist, fascist, socialist, tutelary fascist, Islamo-fascist, the big government Republican, the big government Democrat, or statist of any kind, all embrace an ideology of punishment. It is the statist of any variety who believes in some form of theocracy. It is the statist who sees the state as acting in loco Deus, in place of God, however they define God. Their highest value and what they see as the fundamental existential truth of the universe is the punishment of man into submission. Anyone who has raised children or even trained a dog knows this observational truth: that reward works and punishment fails. This is why the people of every statist society languish while the people of every free society prosper.These fascists see you as a ride to the free meal ticket. The statist's view is that you serve no other purpose than to be ridden hard and put up wet.

    The fundamental existential truth of the universe is not the punishment of man into submission. Ladies and gentlemen, the fundamental existential truth of the universe, the big truth of the universe, is the grace of God triumphant in the affairs of men. The ideology of punishment leads to servitude and finally slavery, and the ideology of the grace of God triumphant in the affairs of men leads to broad sunlit uplands of liberty. The corollary of this idea is that if anyone would insist upon freedom of action for himself, he cannot begin by denying the same freedom of action to others.  Consider, for a moment, the vicious hypocrisy of your elected representatives who are busy deciding on a health plan for you from which they have specifically exempted themselves.

    At its beginning the purpose of the federal government was to secure the liberties, rights, and independence of those who consented to its governance. The Declaration of Independence acknowledged the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God as the source of the rights of man. Yet, the purpose of the federal government was not to be God's partner or God's helper. The purpose of the federal government was not to enforce moral rectitude or punish moral turpitude. The purpose of the federal government was not to create a framework for peace in the Middle East. It was not to promote a New World Order of interdependence. It was not to protect European or Asian nations from the forces of invasion. It was not to go forth and make the world safe for democracy. The framers did not envision the President of the United States as the President of the World. 

    The purpose of the federal government was to secure the independence and the liberties of the people of the United States of America, and it was to protect our borders from the forces of invasion. Indeed the only legitimate function of any government is to secure the independence and individual human rights of all those who consent to its governance.

    Warfare in defense of the nation has always been considered appropriate only as a last resort, when all other measures had been tried and failed. When we consider the many conflicts in recent years, they were not pursued as a last resort. Something else might have been done first. Something might have been done before the events of 9/11.  The borders might have been secured. Yet, they were not. The attackers of 9/11 did not take off from Riyadh, Damascus, Cairo, Bagdad, or Islamabad. They took off from Boston. Indeed how shameful it is that almost a full decade after those attacks the borders have not yet been secured and no administration of either major party has any interest in doing so. They have not merely neglected their constitutional duty, they have resolutely refused to obey it. They have violated their oaths of office. For these reasons, September 11 should be recognized and remembered in perpetuity as "Open Borders Day."

     American policy of huge legal immigration and unrestrained illegal immigration has led to a bad result, because it takes international problems and disputes and transforms them into domestic problems and disputes. This is observational truth. It was true yesterday. It is true today, and  it will be true tomorrow. Whenever anyone dares make this observation they must brace for an onslaught of invective. They must be prepared to be called a racist or at least a nativist. Today every major city of western nations and most of their institutions have been infiltrated by Islamo-fascists. We may now examine the results of the policy. Hardly a week goes by without the report of domestic honor killings, or the exposing of domestic terror plots. Ladies and gentlemen, the results of the policy are in.

     Sun Tzu in his great classic work, The Art of War, written almost two and one half millennia ago suggested that the highest form of generalship is to thwart the enemy's plans. The most skilled general defeats the strategies and plans of the enemy. He denies the enemy his strategic objective.Today the enemies of western civilization are busy conspiring to infiltrate our nation and other nations of the west, commit acts of terror, and destroy us and our culture from within, and establish an international caliphate. This strategic objective has been abetted by the connivance of western nations. Ladies and gentlemen, the highest form of generalship today would be to secure the borders.

   The next best thing according to Sun Tzu is to prevent the junction of the enemies forces in the field. This means to deny the enemy the resources to form up in the field.  Defund the enemy.  Islamo-fascists of our day have four sources of revenue:  petrodollars, drug money, income from piracy and other forms of extortion, and income from phoney charitable organizations headquartered in western nations. Serious modifications in domestic policy of the United States would substantially defund the Islamo-fascists of our day, and largely prevent the junction of their forces in the field. But again, the junction of the enemies forces in the field has been abetted by the connivance of western nations.

    According to Sun Tzu, the next policy is to attack the enemies forces in the field. And the worst policy of all is to besiege a walled city. So it is the perspective of Sun Tzu that if you thwart the enemy's strategic objective, and if you prevent the junction of his forces in the field, you may not have to fight at all because the victory has already been won.  Sun Tzu says, "Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory."  When we consider the conflicts of recent decades: Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans, Vietnam, Korea and so forth, we find that they meet Sun Tzu's definition of defeat because we fought first and only afterwards looked for a path to victory.

    When a conflict is engaged today all the wise men and talking heads gather together and pretending to be smart ask, "what is the exit strategy?" when they should be asking, " how do we intend to achieve victory?" Ladies and gentlemen, the way to defeat the Islamo-fascists of our day is first to defeat their ideology on the battlefield of ideas, and then to secure our borders, and then by defunding him, and then only if necessary obliterating the concentrations of his forces on the battlefield, and utterly destroying the nations which he calls home.

   From the beginning the blunt tools available to achieve the end of the security of the United States were the armed forces.  Over the centuries the forces of the United States have become increasingly sophisticated. They have the capacity to achieve their constitutionally appointed role. When the nation is attacked it was the armed forces which were envisioned as imposing defeat upon our enemies and preventing them from ever attacking us again.  When the nation was attacked Congress was supposed to declare war and the President as Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces was supposed to use the force at his disposal to lay waste the nations of our enemies. No consideration was ever given to the dubious idea of declaring war against a tactic, a human behavior, or a human condition. No thought was ever given to declaring war against terrorism, drugs, poverty, cancer, or drunk driving. War was envisioned as declared against nations.

   The armed forces were not intended by the framers to engage in overseas contingency operations, police actions, or nation building. They were to be used to impose defeat upon our enemies after borders had been secured, and after the junction of the enemy's forces in the field had been substantially prevented, and after all other negotiations and measures had failed.

    The framers were highly educated men. They had read the classics of antiquity. They had read Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero.  They understood that the worst thing anybody could do was wage war. Far better to settle differences at a negotiating table than on any battlefield. In the end the armed forces were there as a blunt instrument. They would assure with finality the liberties and independence of the people whenever the nation was attacked. There comes a time in the life of any nation that it cannot avoid armed conflict. It must either surrender its sovereignty, its liberties and independence or fight to maintain them.

    When one goes forth to defeat enemies of the nation one must have a clear idea of the limits of military power and how to achieve final victory. When war comes as it inevitably does, one does not achieve victory by standing around on street corners waiting to see who will shoot you in the back next week. One does not achieve victory by going onto foreign soil to sort good apples from bad apples. One does not achieve victory with political thumb twiddling and temporizing. The way that one achieves final victory is by laying waste the land of the enemy, destroying everything of value which he has, de-constructing  his capacity to wage war, and killing enemy combatants in large numbers.

   It is not moral to target the enemies innocent civilians purposefully, but in order to achieve victory one must place a higher value on the lives one's own combatants than on the lives of the enemy's innocent civilians. According to the law of war, it is each combatant force that is finally responsible for the lives of their innocent civilians. Final victory comes at the end when the enemy's land is decimated and the devastation and ruin is so complete that the culture of the few remaining survivors is changed. Far from being theoretical, this is what actually happened in Germany and Japan after the Second World War.

   The job of imposing this defeat on the enemy belongs to the armed forces. It requires a special kind of person: one who is not merely willing to sacrifice and perhaps die for the nation but one who is willing to kill also.  These special persons, who we call veterans, began by raising their right hands and swearing an oath, not an oath of loyalty to the temporary occupant of the White House, but to the Constitution, to protect and defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. It is an oath which requires obedience of every lawful order and challenge of every unlawful order. The framers made it so, because they wanted a nation governed by law not by men. Unlike the functionaries and holders of public office today, the veterans kept their oath.

   It is the oath which separates us from all of the nations and tyrants throughout the vast march of time. It is the oath which envisions the highest aspirations of our history and culture, and transcends the tawdry realities, ignorance and incompetence of the federal government. Those who took the oath, agreed that if necessary they would rush forward and stand in the breach. Some were fortunate and were never ordered over the top. Some were never deployed.

   Winston Churchill once said, "there is nothing more exhilarating than being shot at without effect." I have never regretted having missed the opportunity of being shot at. There were the families as well. They also serve who only stand and wait. High honor belongs to those who, when the order came, stood and said, "follow me" and went forward into the fog and teeth of battle. None ever knew what would happen, if they would return in one piece or if they would return at all.

    The nation must not waste this resource. It must not view the lives of those who have taken the oath as expendable for proximate ends. The way to honor the service and sacrifice of the veteran is by never committing these extraordinary persons to battle in the absence of an objective of total victory. As Douglas MacArthur is reputed to have once observed, "I have never in my fifty years of service learned how to bomb half a bridge."

     Ladies and gentlemen, if the political will to achieve victory as I have defined it cannot be mustered first, the battle should not be joined. We owe this to everyone who has taken the oath and who has been willing to lay down their lives and even kill for our liberties and independence. We must honor the service and sacrifice with an objective of victory from the outset so that no one will ever say that they served, sacrificed, suffered, or died in vain. But rather that each one mattered. Each one made a difference. Each one heard an authentic call greater than himself or any other man and answered, "Here am I, send me."

   So when you meet a veteran and thank him for his service to this nation and to its Constitution, apologize on behalf of your federal government for having committed him to battle in the absence of an objective of victory.

Thank you so much for coming today, and have a great Tea Party!

SEIU Plans For The U.S. and Campaign For Liberty Posted by romacox

Posted 02/01/10 Last updated 02/01/10

Obama's curiously close labor friendship
SEIU chief Andy Stern enjoys unusual access to the White House, but some in the fractious labor movement question its value.
June 28, 2009|Peter Nicholas

WASHINGTON - They led the most powerful forces in healthcare -- the trade groups representing doctors, insurance companies, hospitals and drug makers. Any one of them could stall, if not derail, President Obama's hopes of overhauling the U.S. healthcare system.

Instead, they stood with Obama before TV cameras at the White House and pledged their cooperation. For Obama, the show of unity gave momentum to perhaps his most ambitious domestic goal.
Read more here: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun...ion/na-stern28

The SEIU is a big contributor to  "The American Public Policy Committee"which has their hands into everything from health care, food, aviation, destroy the TeaParty movement, and more:
http://www.google.com/search?q=tell+me+about+the+american+public+policy+ committee&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&cli
ent=firefox-a

Also apparently attacking Campaign For Liberty movement: http://video.google.com/videosearch?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US"http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/smilies/redface.gif" border="0" alt="" />fficial
&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=seiu+again
st+campaign+for+liberty&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=fuxmS8iNAoO0tgfptPW3Bg&sa=X&
amp;oi=video_result_g roup&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CBkQqwQwAw#