Stop it with the 800,000 a month job losses already

Real close to the top of my list of pet-peeves is half-truths. People repeat half-truths time and time again to make a point, and most of the time that point is fiction. I understand why they do it – to bend the truth to make it fit their narrative, but they are none-the-less half-truths. I guess they think if thee say it enough times, it will magically become the truth, making half-truths dangerous.

One I’m sick of hearing, which I heard Bernie Sanders use in the last Democratic debate, is the half-truth about job losses in 2009.

How many times have you heard the phrase ‘we were losing 800,000 jobs a month when Obama took over?’ I’ve heard it far too many times over the last 7 years.

The Progressives love to use that line. It seems Socialists, like Bernie Sanders, love to use it too.  Generally they use it to expound another myth, how Obama saved us from another depression and it was all Bush’s fault. Well the myth of ‘how Obama saved us from another depression,’ is for another time. Let’s just stick with the first lie.

The trick is in how you say it: if you say “we were losing 800,000 jobs a month,” and leave it there, it sounds really bad – which it what it was intended to do. It makes you believe we were losing 800,000 jobs a month, every month, for a long period of time, doesn’t it? The truth is, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there was only one month where the job loses reached the 800k mark during 2009. That was March of 2009.

One month!

Loosing 800,000 jobs in one month doesn’t sound as bad as 800,000 a month, does it?

Let’s say it this way using the same 800k figure: “we lost 800,000 jobs in March of 2009,” which was the low point of the recession. Just doesn’t carry the same drama saying it like that.

The housing bubble burst and the recession took its toll in late 2008 and early 2009. There were job losses in every month of that year, but not 800k every month. The Progressive leadership doesn’t like to confess their efforts to ‘fix’ the economy was a blend of charging $Trillions to the National Debt, removing millions from the counted unemployed workforce, and everyone else taking a pay cut. All they want you to believe is ‘things were awful but we fixed them.’ Does your financial situation feel like the Progressives ‘fixed’ anything?

Politicians are very good at manipulating facts, bending the truth, all to support their narrative, but it’s time we force those same politicians to expound the truth, the whole truth, not just what supports their ideology or worse, their campaign.

Half-truths are dangerous, because they are lies. Half-truths are half-lies, and half lies can never be truth. It is sometimes difficult to separate the two, and it is exactly what politicians are hoping you won’t take the time to do. They would rather have you accept the truth as they define it.

Con men for generations have made living espousing half-truths. They wouldn’t be able to deceive people by telling the truth about their intentions, nor would they be able to con them if everything they said was an obvious lie. They skillfully blend the truth with lies until it is difficult to tell the difference. Then they keep telling you the same half-truth until you think it’s all true. By then, it’s too late for the mark.

So Bernie Sanders and everyone else who likes to parrot the line; stop it with the “we were losing 800,000 jobs a month when Obama took office” nonsense. It’s old, it’s a lie, and it’s tiring. Here’s a thought – tell the whole truth for a change.

Donald Trump Rolls The Dice and Dumps The Fox Debate

If you think Donald Trump has blown off the Fox debate tonight out fear you would be mistaken. Donald Trump is a lot of things, but fearful isn’t one of them. I have enjoyed the widespread commentary implying Trump is forgoing tonight’s debate because he is afraid of what Megyn Kelly might ask him. It’s laughable. Megyn-Kelly-6

There can be no argument Megyn Kelly attacked Donald Trump at the first Fox debate, and Trump is not willing to let that slide. CZnMFORW0AA-n97

Trump is rolling the dice – he is counting on his followers taking his side in this – standing up to the mighty media, and while I’m not a Trump supporter at this point, I admire his courage. Trump is going to prove tonight that Fox needs Trump more than Trump needs Fox. And he is going to win.

His victory will be expensive for Fox in lost revenue and viewership. Like it or not Trump has been, and is the main attraction in these primary debates, and everyone knows it. Fox will pay for their defense of Megan Kelly.

This is a big deal. While the Republican debates have garnered huge ratings, the Democratic debates have all been snoozers. They have all been aired at times when the viewership couldn’t possibly be lower, which I suspect has been on purpose, since the candidates the Democrats have offered are either whack-jobs or criminals.

As for me I’m not taking sides, but enjoying the game.

However, I’m tired of the media lying, influencing, and manipulating people and elections for ratings. And I am not alone. Internet viewership is exploding while national media viewership is imploding.  They no longer report the news; it’s become all commentary, opinion, and commercials. How about you just go back to reporting and let me decide what to think about the information provided. Wouldn’t that be novel?

Along comes Trump – and upsets their little apple cart. The media is realizing they are losing their long established sway over the public and they are fighting back. So far its Trump 1 Media 0.

Now that Trump has rolled the dice, people are still placing bets on who will win – the media or Trump. My money is on Trump!trump

National Public Radio or National Progressive Tadio

Being the open minded Conservative that I am, I listen to NPR daily. I am fully aware NPR is a left leaning radio enterprise, and have no illusions of them being anything but liberal. However I’m convinced it never hurts to get a different perspective on things; in fact it’s healthy to hear views that differ from your own. It keeps you from being close-minded.

I enjoy the music, the shows, and some of the stories they broadcast, I can easily cope with their global warming dribble, but I cannot help but notice NPR has become more left-leaning than in times past. Their stories even border on free advertising for candidates and causes of their choice.

Just a couple of stories to prove my point; on 7/29 there was as story about the coming battle for the Senate seat in Georgia .

Instead of focusing equally on both candidates, the story was a glowing endorsement for Michelle Nunn, the daughter of the well-known Sam Nunn former Senator from the state of Ga. This is Nunn’s first run at public office, and other than being the daughter of a former Senator, what qualifications does Ms. Nunn possess that would make her a good representative of the people of Georgia?

Qualifications (or lack there of) mattered little to NPR, Nunn is a liberal democrat, NPR is a left leaning organization, so maybe NPR felt ‘obligated’ give Ms. Nunn some free advertisement – a glowing story – on national radio. What better way to skirt the limits one can contribute to a political campaign than free publicity?

Exactly how much does advertising on the radio on a national scale cost? According to Cabrillo.edu  “National Radio cost is $5,000-10,000 per 60 seconds.” So if a particular candidate is in NPR’s good graces (shares the same political views), and NPR does a 5 minute story on their campaign, that turns out to be a $50,000 campaign donation the candidate doesn’t have to list on the contribution ledger. If NPR decides to do several stories on the same person, the value of the publicity becomes obvious.

The real story in this particular Senate race is the Tea-Party candidate David Perdue. NPR blew past this fact in their story, only mentioning David Perdue as surviving a ‘bruising’ primary race. It was a ‘bruising’ primary between the Republican establishment and a Tea Party candidate. Tea Party candidates are gaining ground on the right side of the isle, even though Harry Reid said “the Tea Party is dead.

The format is always the same with NPR; the reporter begins the story, or interview, bashing the right – then goes into the rest of the story justifying the liberal position for some 10 minutes or so. “That crazy Tea Party guy going up against the morally superior Ms. Nunn who stands for social justice and the right way to do things” seems to be the theme here.

People are tired of politics as usual, on both sides of the Isle, and the Tea Party is offering new-comers, who seem to be interested in fixing things, not just offering lip service. That is the real story of this Senate race in Georgia. David Perdue, an experienced businessman fought through the bruising primary, while Michelle Nunn road her father’s name to a cozy post in a non-profit organization – in short a high class community organizer.

Nunn, an unknown liberal, and unsoiled by the last 6 years of Obama, going against a Tea Party candidate, is the real story here. But NPR focuses on Nunn more than the contest. It’s already been established how much money this much advertising would have cost the Nunn campaign if they had to purchase the time. NPR gave it to the Nunn campaign for free. That’s the reason I don’t donate to NPR. They operate in the interest of the Progressive Movement not the ‘public.’

One would think NPR (National Public Radio) would give both sides, both parties equal time, equal grace, and a neutral opinion, but such is not the case. One would think National Public Radio would represent equally the opinions of the ‘public.’ But alas National Progressive Radio seems to be a more accurate definition of NPR than does National Public Radio.

My second example is the story on Hillary Clinton’s book tour  by Mara Liasson. You’ve probably seen Ms. Liasson on Fox News, appearing to be middle of the road (fair and balanced) but a liberal to the core. As was her puff-piece on the Clinton book tour.
Puff-piece is a fair description of Ms. Clinton’s failed book tour. Hillary’s book sales were around 85,000 in the first week of release (#1 on the NYT best seller list), then nose-dived to 48,000 the 2nd week. That sounds like crash and burn to me. Hell, I saw the book on sale at Sam’s Wholesale club two weeks ago (a month after the initial release). This book’s appeal sank faster than the Titanic.

Does anyone but the staff at NPR think Hillary’s book was the huge success it was being portrayed as in this story? No. But again National Progressive Radio gave Ms. Clinton a glowing review, even highlighting the books title “Hard Choices,” as indicative of what a great President, albeit a poor candidate, she would make.

I began laughing out loud at this point in the story, wondering if any of those ‘hard choices’ had anything to do with choosing the YouTube video to blame Benghazi on.

Maybe it was supporting the $70,000 apology campaign video put together by the Obama Administration. Maybe one of those ‘hard choices’ was the failure to address any questions about her claim of being broke, yet her and Bill collecting millions of dollars in speaking engagement fees.

The Clinton book tour is a flop. You can paint it any color you want, but a flop is a flop, no matter what color. I bet the publisher is currently worried if they will even make enough from book sales to cover the advance they paid Ms. Clinton.

Back to the point; NPR is all too ready to do puff pieces on Liberal candidates, thereby giving them tens of thousands of dollars of free national advertising, while the stories done on Conservatives are short and full of snide implications. If the Tea Party is mentioned at all it is done in a derogatory fashion.

There are links to the stories sited in the article, listen for yourself. Then decide for yourself. I could site several stories weekly, but you get the point.

Take your pick – National Progressive Radio or National Public Radio. Enjoy yourself while listening, just be aware their programming (except for the music) is liberal through and through.