Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Thursday, October 27, 2016

This Week In Crazy: Meet The Donald Sterling Truthers, And The Rest Of The Worst Of The Right

This Week In Crazy: Meet The Donald Sterling Truthers, And The Rest Of The Worst Of The Right

Welcome to “This Week In Crazy,” The National Memo’s weekly update on the wildest attacks, conspiracy theories, and other loony behavior from the increasingly unhinged right wing. Starting with number five:

5. Mike Vanderboegh

Most of the Republican Party and the media moved on from erstwhile right-wing hero Cliven Bundy after he revealed himself to be a racist whackjob, but plenty of “citizen soldiers” like Mike Vanderboegh are still keeping vigil at his Nevada ranch.

Let’s see how that’s going:

“All over this country, we are still staring civil war in its bloody face,” Vanderboegh rages in the above video, which was obtained by Right Wing Watch. “To believe otherwise is to whistle past the graveyard of our own history.”

The main target of Vanderboegh’s anger is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who infamously referred to Bundy and his militia supporters as “domestic terrorists.” Towards the end of the video, Vanderboegh pulls out a human skull, and offers it to the senator as the “2014 Award for Incitement to Civil War.”

“Don’t poke the wolverine with a sharp stick, Harry,” Vanderboegh warned. “Unless you want your balls ripped off.”

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 The National Memo
  • disqus_ivSI3ByGmh

    1. Mike Vanderboegh – every time this guy opens his mouth, the FBI looks deeper and deeper into his background.
    2. Louie Gohmert – does any network other than Fox still give him any coverage?
    Skipping Farah and Beck as both don’t really need any more commentary.
    3. Yes, the clown car arrived and Allen West got out. Maybe if this guy wasn’t a disgraced former military member more people would take take him and his ranting seriously.

    • TZToronto

      Don’t insult clowns that way. . . . Calling Sterling a Democrat when he’s actually a Republican is indicative of the reactionary, shallow thinking, low-information people (Republicans, mostly) West is talking about. If Sterling’s political affiliation isn’t simply a lie, then it’s the result of right-wing laziness. If you don’t have the energy to look into party affiliation, then make something up that seems to support your point. The problem is that he probably won’t be called on this (except here). If those on the left ignore the stupidity, that’s not good. The people who listen to these wackos believe everything they say.

      • Dominick Vila

        The latest excuse is that Sterling has prostate cancer. By that measure I should have been taking people to the pyre for years.

        • jointerjohn

          They could make the argument that the prostate cancer affected his judgement due to its proximity to his brain.

        • idamag

          I had a brother-in-;law and a friend who died with prostate cancer. (Medicine is better now.) Neither of them lost their mind with it. I suppose it might depend on where one’s mind is.

          • Sand_Cat

            And whether one has a mind to begin with…

          • idamag

            Key point.

        • plc97477

          Are they trying to say that the idea that men think with something other than their brains is correct and the (not so) sterling is having trouble thinking correctly?

      • Dominick Vila

        BTW, a search of The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s website using Sterling’s name, date of birth, and address revealed a Republican registration.
        Unfortunately, what the media is highlighting is the pre-emptive claim made by the GOP about his alleged party affiliation, rather than what his official voter registration says. So much for liberal media.

        • Grannysmovin

          I believe our Republican friends are claiming he is a Democrat because of the following: ” during the
          1990 election cycle, Sterling made two separate $1,000 donations to then-Democratic Senator Bill Bradley (who was a former NBA player). In 1991 he
          donated $1,000 to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). In 1992 he donated $1,000 to Democrat Gray Davis during Davis’s campaign against the immortal Dianne
          Feinstein for a special election for a California senate seat that, of course, Feinsten still holds today.”

          • Dominick Vila

            What our Republican “friends” either don’t understand, or ignore, is that most entrepreneurs and most corporations make donations to both parties to gain leverage regardless of who wins. The fact that Sterling, a very wealthy man, only made $1,000 donations to the campaigns of some Democrats says it all. I suspect that, in his twisted little brain, Gray Davis was preferable to Diane Feinstein…

          • Grannysmovin

            I know the donations were of such a small amount for a man of his wealth. I presume it was done more because of business rather than politics.

          • plc97477

            Looks like they think dems are less expensive that repugs, although I have seen no historical evidence of that.

          • idamag

            It is possible that he is not only a racist, but also a sexist.

        • TZToronto

          Even here in Canada the radio talk shows are right-oriented. Why, I don’t know, but I think it’s because many people see liberals as tax-and-spend. Of course, liberal governments tend to produce surpluses while conservative governments tend to produce deficits (just as in the USA). Rob Ford (now in a conservative re-hab in Chicago, supposedly) ran his original mayoral campaign on getting rid of the “gravy train” (read as unnecessary spending by the previous left-leaning mayor). Deloitte Touche was hired by the city to find the “gravy,” but there was none. We know that addicts tend to lie, and Rob Ford claims that he’s saved the city $1 billion–but if that’s the case, why have property taxes gone up?

          • Dominick Vila

            When the record of a political party, or politician, is so dismal that their chances of success are slim to none, their only recourse is to distort the record of their opponent. The record of the GOP, from 9/11 to the near collapse of the U.S. economy in 2008, is enough to destroy the chances of any political party. Our right wing friends are well aware of that and, not surprisingly, are desperately trying to deflect attention from their failures that excusing or ignoring 9/11 and focusing our attention on Benghazi. They want us to ignore the DOW index when they were in charge, ENRON, AIG, Bernie Maddof, and the near collapse of the U.S. economy and focus instead on an alleged weak economy. They want us to forget what happened when the only healthcare system was one controlled by the insurance industry, pharmaceuticals, and the medical industry, and keep telling us how awful ACA is without ever offering an alternative. Theirs is a strategy of desperation, one they cannot afford to change, and they will go to whatever extent they have, including supporting people like Sterling and Bundy, to get support from a small but very motivated segment of our population. They are fighting for their livelihood, and the preservation of their way of life, and they are not about to give up.

          • TZToronto

            And the funny thing is that they’re playing to their ever-dwindling base. The old white guys are dying off daily, and their replacements aren’t old white guys. So why are they trying to satisfy people who won’t be available to them in the not-too-distant future? Are they that dumb? I think I’ve answered the question already.

          • FredAppell

            Caution, it isn’t only the old white guys buying into the rhetoric. There’s plenty of young white idiots only too willing to believe the b/s. America has plenty of right-wing militias made up of younger men ready to enact their warped vision at the point of a gun.

          • JSquercia

            Sad but TRUE look at the patriots supporting Bundy . These A**holes are setting up check points

          • FredAppell

            Bingo! They’re exactly the people I was referring to. Now it seems that they’ve decided to steak out a little territory for themselves. How quaint! I wonder what they’ll call their new country, Bundy?

          • plc97477

            They will need to work on a flag because I think we will object to them using ours.

          • FredAppell

            No doubt their new flag will have a gun on it.

          • FredAppell

            I guess if we hear any more to this story, we’ll most likely be told that it is private property so therefore the checkpoints are legal no doubt. I’m not sure what the law is in a case like that.

          • plc97477

            Don’t you wish all questions were that easy?

          • plc97477

            I think it is because the gotp have the most money and everyone hopes some of it will rub off on them.

      • FredAppell

        Some of the Republicans are missing the point again. No one that I’m aware of from the Democratic party is coming to Sterling’s rescue. The right-wing always seem to forget that there is a wealth of information at our fingertips that enables us to counter their obscured claims. I guess that’s a part of the great liberal conspiracy too (sarcasm)….

  • Dominick Vila

    Let’s not get distracted by the well orchestrated charades we hear from the GOP, and focus instead on offense. Defending reality from overt lies is not going to get us anywhere, and will only benefit the GOP, which in addition to distracting us is trying to energize an important segment of its base.
    What we should be doing is remind people of who opposed investment in infrastructure, which in addition to helping us compete on the world stage, would have created tens of thousands of jobs. We should remind people of who opposed the Veterans Jobs Act…while wrapping themselves with the flag. We should remind people of who opposed raising the minimum wage, who criticizes saving GM and Chrysler, who opposes women rights, who opposes immigration reform, and who wants to take us back to the pre-Civil Rights era.

    • TZToronto

      We desperately need an attack dog!

    • sigrid28

      We’re up against a rhetorical problem in messaging. In order to refute a lie, you have to repeat it. Even refutation gives a lie more publicity, in this context, and makes us look defensive. The same goes for blame. Democrats have to lead with a more attractive truth or proposal, what we like to call in the arena of parenting kids with obsessive defiant disorder, a redirect. Once your little one is going in a better direction, you can slip in the lesson:

      “OK, everybody time for dessert!”

      While driving home after exhausting family affair, “You know nobody likes it when you call them names.”

      So I agree with your whole post, above, but suggest that the step you advocate so articulately and rightly, come second. First, Democrats have to redirect, take control of the conversation, which takes a lot of discipline and probably big bucks in the media markets nationwide. This leaves the initial moves up to elite Democrats and donors among the 98% who can afford to give a little. Other Democrats can reinforce the redirect through grassroots activism. Call-and-response with respect to Republican lies is just a waste of time and money.

      • Dominick Vila

        Your elegant approach to a very effective disinformation campaign may work among those with the intellect and willingness to respect the opinions of others, and make an effort to find the truth instead of relying on what charlatans tell them. Unfortunately, those attributes are sorely lacking from most Tea Party supporters, who are more likely to react to a picture that, allegedly, depicts a Benghazi victim, than take the time to analyze the root causes of our problems in the Islamic world and the magnitude of the anti-Western feelings in that part of the world. The same goes for socio-economic matters.
        We must find a way to get control of the political discourse which, incredibly, the GOP seized and has controlled since President Obama was inaugurated. Instead of talking about the gains we have made, the topics of discussion are limited to Benghazi, the IRS “scandal”, and a botched sting operation.
        I think we need more than money, we need people who know how to fight and get through to mainstream Americans. We must emphasize the progress we have made, the disasters we have averted, and highlight our vision of the future and its contrast with the negativism that dominates Republican discourse.
        The truth is that the GOP has controlled, and it is likely to continue to control, the agenda, and that spells disaster for Democrats.

        • sigrid28

          Is it possible that we are both asking for the same thing in a different way? Many of the “people who know how to fight and get through to mainstream Americans” are elite Democrats who share our values. They may reside in Hollywood and seem exclusively to be the creatures of a celebrity culture, but they have the money and expertise needed to communicate with those outside the right-wing bubble (those inside no one can reach), whose votes Democrats need to oust deadbeat Republicans and get something done. On the academic side, I hear professors of communication arts who assume the people on the inside in the artistic side of media are completely superficial. Maybe, but the kind of messaging you call for and I envision manipulates the superficial, massages the everyday, and brings forth ideas appealing to the average person that stick inside the brains of Democrats, Independents, and moderate Republicans. For example, I would suggest the films “Argo” or “Wag the Dog,” which demonstrate how Hollywood producers can manipulate the truth in the service of political ends. I have never seen a better justification for avoiding war at all costs, which is at the same time a tacit tribute to the riches of our country, than Stephen Speilberg’s “Empire of the Sun.”

          I don’t know why the Democratic party has been so dopey about using more effective consultants, because they are out there. There was probably one of them sitting beside such a political operative at the White Correspondents’ Dinner last night. If Democrats do not wise up and reach out to artistic geniuses of communication to drive progressive campaigns in 2014 and 2016–and do so in relative secret–they are as hopeless as you suppose them to be.

          • Dominick Vila

            I agree, We are both talking about the same thing. My point was simply that people that go as far as posting a made-up picture of a naked man (face conveniently covered), with what appear to be burns, being manhandled with someone cattle prodding him, are not going to be dissuaded by subtleties. These people are willing to go to extremes to achieve their personal goals, which I suspect include a heavy infusion of intolerance and hatred, in addition to ideological extremism.
            I saw the influence that films can exert on people first hand when I lived overseas. They did more to portray a positive image of the American people, our way of life, and our values than anything our government and/or corporations ever did. In fact, sometimes they served as a counter balance to our greedy corporate policies and our arrogant or insensitive actions. I doubt they will change the minds of any of the “patriots” who support those who break the law, wave confederate flags, state that African Americans would have been better off if they had continued picking cotton, and who seem consumed by a fear of cultural changes that alter their vision of a free America.

  • Grannysmovin

    Mike Vanderboegh: Such a shame the only way this mental midget can get a pair is by ripping off someone else’s and stealing them. Must be a new surgical procedure.

    Louie Gohmert: I think Boehner should appoint a special committee to get to the bottom of where your brains are and how an incompetent like Gohmert got elected.

    Joseph Farah: Just look in the mirror.

    Glen Beck: Really Glenn, you are suppose to discuss your your sexual fantasies with your therapist.

    Allen West: What can one say except – “what is the cover up on Benghazi suppose to be”?

    • TZToronto

      The cover-up, apparently, is that President Obama orchestrated to attack on the consulate and personally ordered the ambassador to go to the consulate so that his Muslim pals could kill him. Of course, he didn’t personally order him to go–he told Hillary to pass on the order. That’s it. Anyone should be able to figure that out, right?

  • charleo1

    Rush is usually better than that. Obama is going after multi millionaires that
    didn’t donate enough to his campaign. How long would that list be, anyway? So many millionaires, so little Presidency left. I do hope Rush is not back on the Oxy. A more plausible defense of the contention that we are a post-racial Nation, came from Fox pundit, Bill O’Really? As in seriously Bill? He pointed out that Sterling was just one man, and so what? And Bill is correct. Sterling is just one man. In the same way, Cliven Bundy, Phil Robertson, Hank Williams Jr. Paula Dean, George Zimmerman, and David Duke, are all just one person. Allen West is a bitter man. Insulting low information, reactionary voters, just because there wasn’t enough of them to send him back to Washington. Biting the hand that feeds you, is never a good idea. And then, to proceed to heap further thoughtless insult on his adoring constituency. He accuses the only people in the Country that still care about Benghazi, of not caring about Benghazi.

    • mikem42

      You forgot two or my favorites, Sarah P. and Michelle B. But then, there are so many to choose from.

      • Independent1

        How about including McCain and Sessions. They’ve really created a furor in Germany. McCain often makes other types of ‘crazy statements”:

        Berlin (AFP) – German lawmakers fumed Friday over “vicious” criticism by senior US senators of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s stance on Ukraine ahead of talks she will hold with US President Barack Obama.

        John McCain, a former Republican candidate for the White House, on Thursday accused Merkel of standing in the way of firmer measures against Russia over its actions in Ukraine due to Berlin’s lucrative business ties with Moscow.

        “I would tell her that I am not surprised but embarrassed at their failure of leadership. They’re the leaders, they’re being governed by the industrial complex from Germany,” McCain said.

        Republican Senator Jeff Sessions echoed the rebuke, saying there needed to be “a clearer, more focused, more unified position, and Germany is right there in the middle of it.”

        The remarks sparked outrage in Berlin, with top-selling newspaper Bild saying McCain had “attacked” Merkel with “crass” comments.

        A leading MP from Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union, Karl-Georg Wellmann, told news website Spiegel Online that McCain’s accusation that industry called the shots for the German government was “vicious nonsense”.

        Forgot to post the link:

        • mikem42

          You are right, they do belong on the list, a veritable wall of shame. McCain is doddering, is not coherent about anything, and is no military expert. Sessions makes me want to throw things at the telly when he’s on. They don’t mind embarrassing the country, as long as it hurts our president. They should be ashamed.

          • Independent1

            I agree completely! And McCain probably came up with his accusation that Germany was handling it’s foreign policy in a way that best suits its industrial complex, because that’s what he would have done had he been elected president?? I mean come on, when has the GOP ever made foreign policy judgments based on anything but supporting America’s Corporations?? Even if that means starting wars where American soldiers may die just to feed money to America’s defense industry. Had Romney been elected in 2012 America would now be the world’s first Corporate Run government (Romney’s campaign was pretty much corporate run – even to the point of several CEOS writing letters to their employees suggesting they may lose their jobs if Obama won.)

          • FredAppell

            Whatever happened to McCain the maverick? Could it be there simply wasn’t enough money in being an independent thinker? Not that he needs anymore….

          • Independent1

            I think he may he getting senile in his old age. He seems to have become more of a GOP sheeple/instigator than a maverick.

          • FredAppell


          • plc97477

            Independent thinkers are not very popular in the gotp and he apparently needed the job.

          • FredAppell

            Independent thinkers don’t seem to be welcome in either party anymore. I vote Democrat for their cultural platforms but that’s where I draw the line. I find the DNC to be just as complicit in protecting the status quo as the RNC is. McCain is no more than a bi-product of that system.

      • plc97477

        I would like to mention ted nugent also.

        • mikem42

          A good one. Wasn’t he supposed to leave the country if Mr. Obama won the election?

          • plc97477

            That wasn’t the only reason I voted for Obama but it was high on the list. Just think with one vote I could rid the world of ted nugent.

  • idamag

    This week in crazy has taught me not to say, “They can’t get any crazier.”

  • idamag

    Vanderboegh, a half century ago, you would have been charged with treason and rightly so. Advocating civil war against the government is treasonous as well as all those militia groups formed to fight the government. If you didn’t live in the wonderful democracy, that you do, you wouldn’t be spouting off your crazy hate. There are many decent people, who do not agree with you and if you had your way – you would get them all, wouldn’t you?

  • idamag

    Louis Gomert, I don’t know what cracker jack college you graduated from, but you need to go back to an accredited college, with a good reputation, and learn critical thinking. I doubt that you can learn. Every time you radicals find something, in your magnifying glass that you think you can make a scandal out of – it looks like what it is. You have no business in government. You don’t even do anything that can be classed as governing. Those, who sent you to Washington, owe the rest of us an apology and need to make sure you don’t stay in office long enough to warrant more apologies.

  • idamag

    Allen West, you have proven, to me, that crazy transcends all races. Do you think they really like you? You are just a token.

    • Samuel P Speed Sr

      Worst than that, He’s an Uncle Thomas ,lol Like the supreme court Judge.

    • Daniel Jones

      By now I believe he’s forgotten he’s black.

      This isn’t some “ghetto” exclusivity talking–I just can’t think he considers himself black after the sheer amount of White Bigoted Bullshit he’s gushed out over the years.

  • James Kederis

    It appeared that you are trying to make light of Benghazi, but we who vote will not forget about that, or the fact, that this President is a known liar, and because he and the Demcratic Senators who voted the ACA into law, has caused hardship and financial pain to so many, even those who voted for him, and will vote many of them out of office.

    • Samuel P Speed Sr

      Go take your Meds Man, It must be time again ,lol.

    • Sand_Cat

      Yes, so why should there be an investigation of Benghazi? You clowns obviously “know” what happened already. I’m glad you won’t forget; it’s nice to think at least your memory works better than your reasoning.

    • idamag

      “Violent Storms Hit the Southeast.” “What about Benghazi?” “Delegates Say Women’s Rights Are a Threat.” “What about Benghazi?” “Two Killed in Missouri Mining Accident.” What about Benghazi?””Murder Suspect Denied Bond.” “What about Benghazi.” You never even knew where Benghazi was until the attack. You paid no attention to the many attacks that happened on every Administration’s watch.You joined a lot of ideologues with magnifying glasses to look for something to say “What about?” There were 19 attacks during Reagan’s time, but we were Americans then and we came together in outrage. If you have some inside proof that there is some real wrong doing about Benghazi, let Darrell Issa know. He would love that proof. If you don’t shut the ____up.

    • Independent1

      Really? causing hardship and financial pain?? What utter crap!! Obamacare is saving people so much money that they don’t have to shell out for healthcare that the money they’re spending is actually spurring the economy. See this even from the National Memo:

      The Affordable Care Act was the primary catalyst behind GDP growth this quarter, singlehandedly contributing 1.1 percent of overall growth. This would suggest that without the law, the economy would have actually slowed by at least one percentage point.

      And if you’re so upset because of 1 deadly attack on a consulate over the past 6 years where 4 consulate staff died, were you also really upset about 10 deadly attacks in 8 years during Bush 2 where more than 70 consulate staff died?? And especially when 3 attacks took place in ONE CONSULATE over a 3 year period where 18 staff died including a diplomat??

      And how about the 12 deadly attacks when Bush Sr was president, did you whine about the 60 staff that died then?? Or about the almost 300 Americans who died in 9 attacks during Reagan’s 8 years in office – 300 that included 241 Marines who died while they slept in their barracks most likely because Reagan insisted the guards at the gate of their compound in Lebanon couldn’t keep live bullets in their weapons??? Were you upset about that too?? Huh??? WELL WE ARE AND WE WON’T FORGET THE MORE THAN 3,500 AMERICANS WHO DIED NOT ONLY OVERSEAS BUT ALSO HERE ON THE HOMELAND DURING THE LAST 20 ABSOLUTELY DISASTROUS YEARS OF GOP PRESIDENCIES!!!!!!!

  • Don Belanger

    Last night on MSNBC Rachel Maddow ran a segment on how these militia guys” er..I mean “Patriots” are stopping people driving along I-15 in the area that Bundy’s ranch is in—asking to provide proof of residency to the area…Really? What was more laughable is when a couple of these patriots got into a tussle with each other and the guns came out (two different militias are feuding”…..When the guns came out, a few of them got scared about guns being pointed at them by other militia guys. This couldn’t be lovelier for this liberal progressive…..Let’s let them start shooting at each other and when the smoke clears the rest of us can get on with our lives…..Love to have a stadium seat to see this action.

    • FredAppell

      Truth? If it is than you can bet that the GOP will kill that story immediately. I only feel bad for the innocent people that will get caught up in the turmoil….

      • idamag

        Want to know who I feel bad for? The children of these nuts.

        • FredAppell

          Absolutely idamag! These kids will grow up mimicking their parent’s behavior. My god, is it really coming to this?

          • idamag

            It has.

          • FredAppell


  • Dwight Mart

    The government is using the old tactic of divide and conquer. Attack his character so Bundy loses support, but the issue still remains.

    • Sand_Cat


    • idamag

      You aren’t well informed. The divide and conquer is not the government. Which party doesn’t even like each other and has such rigid rules that no member can vote his conscience if Adelson doesn’t like it? Which party labels other party members RINOs? And which people joins in to divide and conquer?

      • Dwight Mart

        They are trying to divide supporter of Bundy! They threw out race, which has nothing to do with the gov. vs. Bundy. They want to cause division in Bundy’s supporters to reduce his supporters. You aren’t well informed. and don’t understand the term.

        • idamag

          I am an American. The government is my government. It it needs fixing, we fix it. Bundy is against me, as an American. He is the enemy. As for well informed. well here are some excerpts from an op ed piece in our newspaper this morning: Writer, Julene Haworth. Qualifications, Bundy’s neighbor. She says that Bundy has always been a loud mouth bully who constantly says what he would do if the BLM ever showed up. His family never owned the land that Bundy was on. In regular meetings, he shouts everyone down with nasty innuendos and hateful words.His neighbors do not like him or the militants. Sounds like someone else that says I am not well informed, doesn’t it? I question the loyalties of those who want to destroy the government and take over our country. I also question the honesty of those who champion thugs.

          • Dwight Mart

            The thugs showed up two hundred strong, well armed with helicopters to steal cattle from 1 man. The thugs took land claiming it was a sanctuary for the tortoise, then the thugs were secretly dealing with China to use it to produce solar energy which would kill the tortoises. Not one time have you mentioned the issue of how the government lied to obtain this land, which is the issue. The issue is not Bundy, I also am an American. The government is my government and It needs fixing, we are trying to fix it. One police car could have came and arrested him, and dealt with this in court, why send a small army? The government to me was flexing their muscles by sending this small army which in turn backfired and in turn exposed the secret dealings with the real purpose of taking the land. I am not standing for republicans or democrats in this case I am standing for what is right and against wrong, the wrong being the government claiming the land to save animals but true motives shows that not to be the case. Bundy’s characteristics, his racism, or his standings with his neighbors has nothing to do with how the government used lies to gain control of this land. The smoke screen being used to divert the issues here is not blinding everyone.

  • exdemo55

    WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — Despite the unemployment rate plummeting, more than 92 million Americans remain out of the labor force.

    The unemployment rate dropped to 6.3 percent in April from 6.7 percent in March, the lowest it has been since September 2008 when it was 6.1 percent. The sharp drop, though, occurred because the number of people working or seeking work fell. The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not count people not looking for a job as unemployed.

    The bureau noted that the civilian labor force dropped by 806,000 last month, following an increase of 503,000 in March.

    The amount (not seasonally adjusted) of Americans not in the labor force in April rose to 92,594,000, almost 1 million more than the previous month. In March, 91,630,000 Americans were not in the labor force, which includes an aging population that is continuing to head into retirement.

    Read: Police To ‘Live Tweet’ Prostitution Sting

    “The labor force participation rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 62.8 percent in April. The participation rate has shown no clear trend in recent months and currently is the same as it was this past October. The employment-population ratio showed no change over the month (58.9 percent) and has changed little over the year,” the bureau said in a statement.

    The number of unemployed Americans decreased by 733,000 to 9.8 million last month.

    “The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) declined by 287,000 in April to 3.5 million; these individuals accounted for 35.3 percent of the unemployed. Over the past 12 months, the number of long-term unemployed has decreased by 908,000,” the press release stated.

    Employers have now added an average of 238,000 jobs the past three months, up from 167,000 in the previous three.

    “Not only is job growth continuing, but it is accelerating,” said Patrick O’Keefe, director of economic research at the accounting and consulting firm CohnReznick.

    Sal Guatieri, an economist at BMO Capital Markets, said the surge in hiring “signals that American companies are optimistic the economy will snap back smartly after the largely weather-related slump in the first quarter.”

    Read: 82% Of Virginians In Obamacare Get Financial Help To Pay Premiums

    The fall in the unemployment rate was due mainly to the exodus of people who stopped looking for work. O’Keefe said he was surprised by the 806,000 drop in the number of Americans either with a job or seeking one. But he noted that that figure is volatile from month and month and that during the first three months of 2014, nearly 1.3 million people had poured into the labor force.

    The White House posted on its blog that businesses have added more than 9.2 million jobs over the past 50 months.

    “The employment data can fluctuate from month-to-month, and while this month’s report happens to be above expectations, it is still broadly consistent with the recent trends we have been seeing in the labor market,” Jason Furman, chairman of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, wrote on the White House blog. “The President continues to emphasize that more can and should be done to support the recovery, including acting on his own executive authority to expand economic opportunity, as well as pushing Congress for additional investments in infrastructure, education and research, an increase in the minimum wage, and a reinstatement of extended unemployment insurance benefits.”

    House Speaker John Boehner called the jobs report “troubling.”

    “[W]hile it’s welcome news that more of our friends and neighbors found work in the past month, this report also indicates more than 800,000 Americans left the workforce last month, which is troubling,” Boehner said in a statement. “We need more robust economic growth if we’re going to help the millions who remain unemployed get back on their feet.”

    • Sand_Cat

      What, do you think you can post so much that none of us will notice the palpable stupidity and criminal dishonesty of those who lead your cause in the article itself?

    • Independent1

      With every post you make yourself look like more of a MORON!! If it’s possible for total MORON to look more MORONIC!!!! Your stupidity knows no bounds does it???????

      • exdemo55

        The truth hurts, doesn’t it.

        • Independent1

          Sometimes it does, but what you’re posting are for the most parts distortions of the truth!! Which is exactly what the GOP is all about – distorting reality!!! Taking the truth and distorting it’s meaning by trying to make reality look bad by distorting the actual context.

          Just like your current BS about the number of people not working. Ignoring completely the fact that job creation during the 12 years that 2 Republicans were in office (the two Bushes) were the worst job creation since the Big Depression, and with equally as many of our population NOT WORKING, as they are now if you take into account the growth in our population.

          Also, totally ignoring that if you just use the number of people in the workforce that at the end of Bush 2’s disastrous 8 years in office, there were 30,000 fewer people working than when he took office in 2001.

          And you’re ignoring the fact that Reagan and the 2 Bushes during their disastrous 20 years in office created an abysmal 20 million jobs, whereas Carter, Clinton and Obama in their 16 plus years in office created more than 37 million jobs.

          So by trying to point out something which is a PROBLEM BUSH 2 CREATED and trying to make it look like its something Obama hasn’t been able to correct, WHEN YOU KNOW FULL WELL, that the GOP has sat on 2 of Obama’s jobs bills that would have created millions of jobs, YOU’RE being totally disingenuous and nothing more than the typical GOP LIAR and DISTORTER OF THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!


          • idamag

            You are wasting your breathe. I don’t know why ignorance has become a virtue is some people. I wonder if it might come from the chemicals in the food chain.

          • Independent1

            Yeah! It usually feels like you’re talking to a stone. But having been retired for over 15 years, I sometimes seem to have time on my hands and sometimes what these idiots post does give me a challenge to find the facts that will show clearly that they’re either wrong, or using facts in a devious manner – by usually ignoring to post the fact that their record on whatever they’re whining about is far worse than what’s happening today. And then there’s always the possibility that correcting their lies will keep someone not really up on what’s happening today who gets on the NM won’t be mislead by their lies not being rebutted.

          • exdemo55

            Then Obama shoud approve the Keystone Pipeline like most of Congree wants. The GOP mostly wants private sector jobs not private.

    • Independent1

      And if you were really as upset about the millions who are not working as your post tries to imply, you would be as livid at the GOP as virtually every sane poster on the NM is KNOWING FULL WELL that it’s THE GOP’S FAULT that millions of people aren’t working today that could be BECAUSE THEY’VE BEEN TWIDDLING THEIR THUMBS FOR FOR MORE THAN 3 YEARS DOING NOTHING ABOUT JOB CREATION!!!!!!




      • exdemo55

        The fact is that the roots of this economic crisis go back to the Clinton and Carter Administrations , the radical group ACORN, and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT).

        Here are the facts:

        Under President Jimmy Carter, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed. It required federal financial institutions to encourage banks to give home loans to persons with little credit and low income. Economist Russell Roberts said that the CRA played a major role in creating the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the U.S.

        Under Bill Clinton, the CRA was expanded and Clinton set targets for low-income home ownership at the Department of Housing and Urban Development and
        at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Banks were forced by the federal government to provide bad loans to unqualified people.

        Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) is Chairman of the Financial Services Committee in the House of Representatives. In 2003, he said of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: “These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” In the late 1980s and early 90s, Frank was engaged in a sexual relationship with Herb
        Moses, who was Fannie Mae’s assistant director of product initiatives! Bill O’Reilly exposed Frank’s involvement in the mortgage crisis: YouTube – O
        ‘Reilly – Barney Frank Had Affair with Fannie Mae Exec. Frank looked the other way, while our economy was being destroyed by federal policies created in Clinton and Carter Administrations. (Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae help fund the homosexual agenda.

        In 2008, Freddie gave $20,000 to a Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) event; Fannie Mae gave nearly $19,000 to the same event. Freddie has donated $125,000 and Fannie donated $80,000 to homosexual groups since 2005.)

        Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) is head of the powerful banking committee in the Senate. He and Barney Frank consistently resisted attempts by the Bush Administration to closely regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Dodd also got preferential treatment from Countrywide on two mortgages. Countrywide was one of the biggest
        subprime providers.

        Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd received thousands of dollars in contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the years. Dodd has received $133,900 since 1989; Frank received $40,100. (While in the Senate, Barack Obama received $105,849).

        As long ago as 2003, President Bush was trying to get the House and Senate to carefully monitor the actions of
        Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. His efforts were rejected by Democrats.

        Obama associates headed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the years that the crisis was getting out of control. Obama friend Franklin Raines ran Fannie Mae and collected $50 million from it. Obama friend Jamie Gorelick
        worked for Fannie Mae and earned $26 million; Jim Johnson, formerly Obama’s vice president search committee chairman, hauled in millions from his work with
        Fannie Mae as CEO.

        ACORN, the socialist group that routinely engages in voter fraud, was involved in pushing for risky loans to people with bad credit histories or
        little money for down payments. ACORN intimidated banks in Chicago and elsewhere to give risky
        loans! Obama actually trained ACORN workers when he was a community organizer in
        Chicago! ACORN used provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act to delay or
        halt efforts of banks to merge or expand until they had lowered their credit

        The financial mess we face now was created by Democrats and
        friends of Barack Obama over the past two decades. Yet, President Obama now
        pretends that his economic stimulus package will solve our crisis. What
        we’re now facing is four years of Obamunism – socialism with an Obama

        The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of his
        stimulus package says that his nearly trillion dollar spending bill will do
        little or nothing to create or maintain jobs for the American worker! It will,
        however, enrich groups like ACORN and serve as a piggy bank for state and local
        communities to use for whatever projects they want. The
        money isn’t going for jobs creation but for government projects – including
        paying for sod for the Washington Mall.

        • Independent1

          Wow!! You can really stack up the horse manure. Every word you just wrote is a BLATANT BS!!!

          The destroyer of America is none other than Ronald Reagan, America’s worst president ever. And in case you haven’t checked lately, Ronnie Boy is not that adored by Americans except stupid ones such as yourself!!! His overall approval rating was only 53%!!! And as I pointed out to you earlier – the American Electorate is pretty stupid!!!!!!

          Reagan’s destroyed everything America stood for with his busting of unions and putting two union haters in the NLRB.

          His cutting tax rates so sharply that in his 2nd term job creation was abysmal and carried through until Clinton took office. Even though Reagan governed when the personal computer was just taking off, and he stymied with his nonsense tax cuts that kept businesses from investing in the economy.

          Reagan and the 2 Bushs job creation over 20 yeas was abysmal – 20 million jobs in 20 years.
          Carter, Clinton and Obama created more than 37 million jobs in just 16 years.

          Reagan spent like a drunken sailor which gave the two Bushes the wrong example so it’s their wild spending and keeping spending out of their budgets that’s why were 17 trillion in debt.

          And it’s Reagan that acted supported Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons during his 8 year war with Iran which probably gave Bush and Cheney the notion that torture was acceptable. Why if killing people with chemical weapons is okay, why not torture???

          It was Reagan’s busting of the Air Traffic Controllers Union that destroyed the bond workers and employers always had, YOU WORK HARD FOR ME AND I’LL TAKE CARE OF YOU..

          That went down the drain when Reagan suckered the ATU into talks and then summarily fired everyone of them. Every CEO and entreprenuer in America said, hey, if the president doesn’t have to deal in good faith with a union why are we doing it?? And that feeling eventually extended to every worker. That’s why few companies today offer retirement plans and why they started laying off workers when they came close to retirement and replaced them with younger, cheaper help. That’s what Reagan started!!

          Along with his trickle-down fantasy that’s been the cause of the great income and wealth inequality in America – you can lay that on Reagan too. Cut tax rates from 70% down to 28% so he and his rich buddies could keep more money in their pockets just started the sharp buildup in wealth for the already wealthy.

          Countless articles will tell you that Americas great demize started 30+ years ago with good old Ronnie Baby!! Americas WORST PRESIDENT EVERY!!!!!!!!!!!

          • exdemo55

            Reagan From the People’s Perspective: A Gallup Poll Review

            Reagan’s image improved
            substantially in the years after he left office

            NEWS SERVICE

            NJ — Ronald Reagan, the nation’s 40th president, became one of the nation’s most revered public figures in recent years, a distinct turnabout from
            the more routinely average ratings he received while he served in office between 1981 and 1989. Reagan’s job approval ratings in his first years in
            office were hurt by the bad economy, and the last years of his administration were marred by the negative fallout from what came to be known as the Iran-Contra affair. Nevertheless, Americans have more recently upgraded their retrospective approval of the job he did as president, and now routinely think of Reagan as one of the nation’s more outstanding presidents. Reagan has
            appeared in the Top 10 of Gallup’s annual Most Admired Man list more than 30 times, more often than any other person except evangelist Billy Graham.

            Ratings While He Was in Office

            Reagan’s ratings were higher than the averages of his three immediate predecessors — Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon, supporting the arguments of those who contend that one of Reagan’s major contributions was to
            restore confidence in the presidency after the battering it took in the 1970s. But the two presidents who followed Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, each had higher average ratings than Reagan, as did three earlier presidents —
            Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Dwight Eisenhower.

            That’s not to say Reagan didn’t have periods of time during his administration in which he received solidly impressive ratings. He did. But Reagan was bedeviled at the beginning of his administration by Americans’ major concerns about the economy, and at the end of his administration by public concerns about the
            Iran-Contra affair.

            In the most general sense, Americans’ approval of the job being done by Reagan as president during his eight years in office can be described as a bell-shaped curve of sorts, with Reagan’s ratings starting low, rising in late 1983 and in 1984 (just in time for his successful 1984 re-election bid), and then falling in the last years of his administration.

            Reagan came into office on a fairly high note, with initial job approval ratings as high as 60% by mid-March 1981. Then, on March 30, Reagan was shot on the streets of Washington by John Hinckley Jr., and the resulting concern and
            sympathy helped lift his ratings to 68% by May. But even as Reagan personally recovered from his wounds, the public’s concerns about the bad economy did not, and the president’s ratings began to fall as each month went by.

            By the end of 1981, Reagan’s job approval rating had drifted down to 49%.

            Things got worse for Reagan in 1982. The public’s view of the economy remained sour,
            and the president’s ratings during 1982 stayed concomitantly low, in the 40% range, ending the year at 41%. The 1982 midterm elections were not good ones for Reagan and for the GOP. The Republicans lost about 25 seats in the House.

            A clear cause for all of this was the economy. Still, Gallup analysts at the time presciently noted that there was some cause for optimism for Reagan:

            Throughout the year [1982] a solid majority of Gallup’s respondents have taken the position that Reaganomics will worsen, rather than improve, their own financial situation. Yet, Gallup consistently has found somewhat more public faith that Reaganomics will help the nation as a whole and even more faith in the president’s program when the question is posed with regard to the long run. Surveys also indicate that the public has more confidence in Reagan than
            approval ratings of his performance would suggest. While only one third approve
            of the way he is handling the economy, close to half express some degree of confidence that he will do the right thing with regard to the economy.

            Indeed, although 1983 began for Reagan with a 35% job approval rating — the worst of his administration — things started to look better.

            His ratings moved back above 50% by November 1983 — not only because the economy was picking up, but also in part as a result of rally effects associated with the U.S. invasion of Grenada and the terrorist explosion that killed 241
            American Marines in Beirut, Lebanon.

            By 1984, Reagan’s job approval ratings were consistently above the 50% line that is a symbolic standard for an incumbent president seeking re-election. In Gallup’s last October poll before the November 1984 election, Reagan received a
            58% job approval rating, and he went on to soundly defeat Democratic nominee Walter Mondale by a 59% to 41% popular vote margin, receiving 525 electoral votes to Mondale’s 13.

            Reagan continued to soar in 1985, routinely receiving ratings in the 60% range. In May1986, Reagan received a 68% job approval rating, tied for the highest of his administration.

            Then, in November 1986, the Iran-Contra affair broke into the news. That same month, Reagan was on television denying that there had been any trading of arms for hostages, but the damage was done. His ratings plummeted from 63% in late October to 47% in early December, and stayed relatively low throughout 1987. Reagan’s ratings underwent a slight rebound in the late summer and early fall of 1988 as his vice president, George H.W. Bush, campaigned for the presidency against Michael Dukakis.

            Reagan’s last two Gallup job approval ratings before he left office were 57% in mid-November and 63% in December 1988.

            The highest job approval rating of the Reagan administration was 68% — reached twice, in May 1981 and as previously indicated, in May 1986. As noted, the low point was 35% in January 1983.

            Favorable Ratings of Reagan

            Both in and out of office, Reagan was always well-liked by the American public –based on ratings measuring the public’s personal opinion rather than its assessment of his job performance. Between 1984 and 1988, Gallup consistently
            found more than 6 in 10 Americans holding a favorable view of Reagan, including a substantial 81% in October 1986. Even during the 1982 recession, when only about 4 in 10 Americans approved of the job Reagan was doing as president, 6 in 10 Americans rated him on the positive end of a 10-point rating scale. In Gallup’s most recent measure of favorability about Reagan, taken in January 2001, 74% of Americans had a favorable opinion of him, and only 23% were unfavorable.

            Reagan in Historical Perspective

            Americans’ perceptions of Reagan’s presidency have risen considerably in recent years. His
            average approval rating for 1988, his last full year as president, was 53% –identical to the average for the entire eight years of his presidency. Yet,
            when Americans were asked in 2002 to state whether they approved or disapproved of the way Reagan handled his presidency, retrospectively, 73% approved.

            This increase in retrospective approval didn’t occur at once. Three Gallup ratings in 1990, 1992, and 1993 showed Reagan’s job approval rating in the 50% to 54% range — little different from the average while he was in office. Reagan
            publicly announced that he was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease in 1994, and it’s possible that the sympathy and concern his condition has elicited over the last decade are in part responsible for the elevated retrospective job approval ratings he has received since.

            Only Kennedy’s retrospective approval rating exceeded Reagan’s in 2002, with an approval score of 83%. The elder George Bush trailed Reagan with 69%. Further behind were Carter and Ford with 60% each, and Clinton with 51%. Nixon’s ratings were the worst in this poll, with only 34% approving and 54% disapproving. Johnson’s rating of 39% was also low, but this was partly due to the high percentage expressing no opinion.

            A 1999 poll asked Americans how five recent presidents (Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton) would go down in history. Reagan was rated most positively, with 12% of Americans saying Reagan would be judged in history as an
            “outstanding president,” and with an additional 42% saying “above average.” Reagan typically scored well on this measure in the eight times it The only president to score better on this measure than Reagan in eight measures taken between 1985 and 1999 was Franklin D. Roosevelt (though Kennedy was not included in these polls). In April 1997, Roosevelt was viewed
            as outstanding by 31% of the public, and as above average by an additional 36%. (Coincidentally, Gallup was updating this measure in a poll being conducted this past weekend, when news of Reagan’s death became public on Saturday. The preliminary data — collected before Reagan’s death — showed Reagan ranking
            third behind Roosevelt and Kennedy.)

            Last November, Gallup asked the public — in an open-ended format — whom they regarded as the greatest U.S. president. Reagan placed third on the list, behind only Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln. Reagan has consistently placed in the
            top five since the question was first asked in 999, and actually topped the list in a 2001 poll conducted around the celebration of his 90th birthday.

            When the question has been limited to just the presidents since World War II, as one might expect, Reagan trails only Kennedy.

            Most Admired Man

            Given Reagan’s generally positive favorability ratings, it is not surprising that he frequently appeared on Gallup’s annual list of most admired men in the world. Reagan ranked as the most admired man eight times, from 1981-1988, the eight years of his presidency. Reagan has appeared in the top 10 most admired men 28
            times from 1974-2003. All told, Reagan has appeared on the list 31 times, second only to Graham (47 appearances). Reagan first appeared on the list in 1966, shortly after winning the California governorship.

    • Independent1

      And let’s clear up this 92 Million Americans not in the labor force nonsense.

      Suggesting that there are 92 million Americans WHO WOULD ACTUALLY WANT TO WORK and are not working – is a total fantasy!!!

      Let’s look at some numbers.

      1st of all the BLS’s estimate of the number of Americans who might want a job and don’t have one is 9.8 million (not 92 million). See this:

      In April, the unemployment rate fell from 6.7 percent to 6.3 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, at 9.8 million, decreased by 733,000.

      Now, let’s really take a look at logically how many Americans might realistically (and I stress realistically) want to work>

      Given that the American population is about 315 million projecting to grow to 317 million in 2014.

      So if we add up people who because of their age would be unlikely to be wanting a job because they 1) either have a job already, 2) are included in the 9.8 million looking for a job or 3) are too young or old to necessarily be wanting a job, we get the following:

      About 25% of the 315 are less than 20 which gives us 79 million.
      About 12.5% of the 315 are over 65 or which gives us 39 million.
      And 58.9% of the 315 are in the work force or about 185 million.

      If we add all these together that gives us 303 million; which if we subtract that from the 315 million Americans in the population gives us potentially 12 million Americans who are not in the work for who may LOGICALLY BE LOOKING FOR A JOB!!

      12 million is a FAR CRY from 92 million or 100 million as some idiotic websites are projecting.

      And what the 12 million kind of says is that there are about 2.2 million Americans who are of LOGICALLY WORKING AGE who are not concerned about finding a job, the other 9.8 million of those 12 million Americans who could work and aren’t – are actually looking.

      SEE!! Just like I told you, all this stuff you’re publishing is nothing more than smoke and mirrors based on either lies or distortions of the truth trying to create a misguided notion in the minds of anyone stupid enough to listen.

    • BillP

      How is it that the U3 rates used to report unemployment numbers are always attacked when they go down under President Obama but I hear nothing when the U3 rates go up. “The unemployment rate dropped to 6.3 percent in April from 6.7 percent in March, the lowest it has been since September 2008 when it was 6.1 percent. The sharp drop, though, occurred because the number of people working or seeking work fell. The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not count people not looking for a job as unemployed.”

      Well the U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts “marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons”. The U6 rate as of 1/2009 was 14.2% it went up to its highest at 17.1% in 4/2010 and has been going down most of the months since then through 4/2014 where it’s 12.3%.
      So looking at the U3 or U6 rates the unemployment numbers have “decreased” not increased. This is something good, isn’t it?
      As for Boehner’s quote, maybe if he got the House to do something other than try to repeal the ACA (not gonna happen). Try to get some legislation that would actual help create jobs instead of the oft disproved trickle down theory espoused in Ryan’s proposed budget.

      • exdemo55

        Like maybe the Keystone Pipeline?

        The US economy has delivered two minor shocks in a week, prompting concerns that bond tapering by the Federal Reserve may be doing more damage than expected.

        Non-Farm Payrolls data released on Friday shows that the workforce shed 806,000 jobs in April, a stunning drop that cannot plausibly be blamed on the weather. Wage growth and hours worked were both flat and the manufacturing hours per week fell.

        This follows news earlier in the week that the economy to a halt in the first quarter. Growth plummeted to 0.1pc and is now well below the Fed’s “stall speed” indicator. Analysts blamed this on the freezing polar vortex over the winter.

        Yet the jobs data confirm a disturbingly weak picture. The headline unemployment rate fell to 6.3pc but that was only because the labour “participation rate” plummeted back to a modern-era low of 62.8pc, last seen in 1978 when there were far fewer women in the workforce. The rate for males is the lowest ever recorded at 69.1pc.

        The jobs market is highly volatile – and is often revised later – but the data are a warning that the US recovery may be losing momentum. Lakshman Achuthan, from the Economic Cycle Research Institute, said the trend was already weakening long before the cold weather. “We see a failure to launch. We’re decelerating, not accelerating, and that is a big concern,” he said.

        Related Articles

        US payrolls rise at fastest rate since 2012 02 May 2014

        BP left exposed as Russia warns of sanctions 01 May 2014

        Britain should leave the EU if Europe’s judges trample on our basic protections 30 Apr 2014

        BP, Shell exposed as US eyes Russia warning shot 27 Apr 2014

        US hits Russia oil kingpin with first sanctions 28 Apr 2014

        Europe braces for gas showdown with Russia 22 Apr 2014

        Britain’s Healthiest Company: the wellness initiative no employer can ignore Pru Health

        The Fed has gradually been turning down the spigot of dollar liquidity, reducing its bond purchases by $10bn a month at each meeting, even though the bank’s measure of core PCE inflation has dropped to 1.1pc. The net stimulus has dropped from $85bn a month to $45bn.

        This is a form of monetary tightening. Interest rates have not risen – though they are rising in real terms – but the quantity of money mechanism may nevertheless be having a powerful effect. The broadest measure of the money supply – Divisia M4 – has dropped from a growth rate above 6pc a year ago to just 2.6pc in March.

        The Fed is unlikely to blink yet. Even the once dovish San Francisco Fed has warned that quantitative easing no longer serves a useful purpose and may be doing more harm that good at this stage, fuelling asset bubbles without much benefit for the real economy. Analysts say it would take several months of bad data to force the Fed to halt tapering and change course again.

        US policy-makers no longer pay much attention to the monetary data. Robert Hetzel, from the Richmond Fed, said this led to a grave error in mid-2008 when the Fed’s voting board began to talk up rate rises even though the money supply was already buckling. He argues that this played a key part in the Lehman crash several months later.

        Erica Groschen, from the Bureau of Labour Statistics, said the sudden drop in jobs last month was caused by fewer people joining the workforce, rather than people leaving. That is hardly reassuring, and conflicts with theories that the participation rate is falling because people are choosing to retire early.

        The weakness may be nothing worse than a pause for breath – or a mid-cycle correction – as the US gears up for a second leg of the post-Lehman expansion. The risk is that this instead proves to be the end of growth cycle that is already long in the teeth by historic standards.

        The possibility of a fresh downturn with the interest rates already at zero, the Fed’s balance sheet already at $4 trillion, and gross public debt above 100pc of GDP for the first time since the end of the Second World War is what keeps US economists awake night. There is little margin for policy error.

  • exdemo55

    Rob Schneider Tells Chris Stigall: We Are Sliding Very Fast Towards Fascism

    PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – Chris Stigall spoke with comedian Rob Schneider on Talk Radio 1210 WPHT about the struggle comedians face in today’s current political environment.

    Schneider struck on ominous tone when discussing the path he sees the country on.

    “Democracies don’t end well. We are sliding very fast towards fascism. It’s an ugly kind of thing. There’s this kind of mob mentality that we have to be careful of,” he said.

    He believes comedians are pressured toward one side of the political spectrum.

    “There’s a polarization that’s happening…I do think you look can look at government and go, ‘Wow, it is out of control now,’ and if you do criticize or tend to be not directly along a liberal stand, you can get murdered,” Schneider commented.

    Schneider was very critical of the President’s handling of the economy and he feels certain policies are impacting businesses.

    “There’s not one segment of business under the Obama administration that hasn’t been hurt…he attacks for-profit schools, which is totally an elitist thing from a guy that went to Harvard. I think for free, by the way,” Schneider said.

    He was also critical of the media for being overly influenced by the government and not standing up for the American people.

    “We don’t really have freedom of the press. It’s owned by about eight different companies, and it doesn’t really express or help the average American,” Schneider stated.

    • idamag

      Go away. You aren’t smart enough to discuss the subject.

    • BillP

      “PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – Chris Stigall spoke with comedian Rob Schneider on Talk Radio 1210 WPHT about the struggle comedians face in today’s current political environment.” I’m not sure of the relevance of Rob Schneider’s comments. He went on a right wing talk show and gee expressing his “opinions” on the president and claims we are heading towards fascism. Schneider makes a comment about not having freedom of the press but doesn’t offer any facts or proof just his “opinion” I’ll quote another SNL alumni Senator Al Franken. “You are entitled to your opinion but not your own made up facts”
      I’m really tired of hearing all of the bs about how this country is becoming like Nazi Germany or any other fascist government. The tem Nazi has been thrown out to many times by both side on this website. So hearing the star of Deuce Bigelow claim that the US is sliding towards fascism is just another example of free speech is this country, a ridiculous speech but he is still able to do it. I would have like to see Schneider (whose father is Jewish) try to do that in a really fascist country like Nazi Germany.

  • exdemo55

    The discovery, over a year after the September 11, 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, of an e-mail from a White House political operative that shows him suggesting that former United Nations ambassador Susan Rice underscore that the attack was a reaction to an Internet video is, according to Charles Krauthammer, like the discovery of the Nixon tapes that blew open the Watergate scandal in 1973.

    “It’s to me the equivalent of what was discovered with the Nixon tapes,” Krauthammer said Thursday. “The point is that Republicans have done a terrible job in building the case. Even today I have to say, the questioning was disjointed, it was not organized. If they had appointed a special committee [a] long time ago the way it was done in Watergate, you would have had answers on this and the country wouldn’ be tired.”

    • Sand_Cat

      Yes, we all know that Obama visited his birthplace in Kenya and stopped to say hello his comrades in Communist headquarters there before a quick prayer at the local mosque and a trip in a “black” UN plane to Benghazi to meet Hillary so the two of them could personally murder the ambassador.
      You know, you wrote about “hateful hypocrites” in your past posts. Somehow we missed your clarion calls for endless investigations of all the embassy attacks during Bush’s reign, or your call for his impeachment over the lies and war crimes in Iraq, his negligence in protecting the country from terrorism and from financial shenanigans of “deregulated” businesses, etc. So does it make me “hateful” to point out your staggering hypocrisy?
      Work just a little harder, and maybe you, too, can appear in this article itself rather than with the peons fighting in the dust.

    • idamag


      • exdemo55

        No, it is actually the truth!

        • idamag

          I shall repeat – liar. You subversive try to sell anything. Remember when Hitler was done with the brown shirts he sent them to the front line.

          • exdemo55

            And he also took away the German people’s guns.

    • Independent1

      What crap!! And Kauthammer is just another GOP loving LIAR. That email was sent by someone that was at the consulate earlier when there had been demonstrations by protesters of the video. And you’re still ignoring the fact that IT REALLY DOESN’T MATTER WHO DID THE ATTACK, THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS THAT 4 PEOPLE DIED. THE GOP IS MAKING A SCANDAL OUT OF NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • exdemo55

        It does matter when they knew the truth and made up a story to cover their asses and get through the election

    • Independent1

      Anyone who believes that an email about who attacked Benghazi in any way compares to the Nixon tapes has to be virtually an idiot!!

      I’m pretty tired of hearing about Benghazi. How about you giving us justification for making a scandal out of whether it was about those upset over a video or it was some terrorists. Come on!! I want to hear the justification for all this BS!!! I’m just fed up with this crap!!!

      Either put up and give us justification or SHUT UP ABOUT BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!

  • exdemo55

    President Obama started this year in precarious shape politically. Things have gotten worse, at least according to the Washington Post/ABC News poll released Sunday and The Wall Street Journal/NBC survey released Wednesday. They are setting off alarm bells for Democrats—and for good reasons.

    The Washington Post/ABC News poll—with an 11-point Democratic advantage in its sample—found President Obama’s job approval at a record low of 41%. In the Journal/NBC poll, 44% approved of the job Mr. Obama is doing, three points above his low last October.

    In isolation, these numbers are troubling for Democrats running in the lousy political environment the president’s actions and policies have helped create. But the numbers are even worse when put in context. Many key measures of the president’s and Democrats’ performance are lower than they were at this point in 2010—and worse than they were just before the 2010-midterm elections.

    For example, compared with the 41% in the Washington Post/ABC News poll who approve of Mr. Obama’s handling of his job as president, 54% approved in the organizations’ April 25, 2010, survey while 50% approved in their Oct. 28, 2010, survey.

    The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll had similar findings: Compared with the 44% who approve of Mr. Obama’s handling of his job as president in Wednesday’s poll, 50% approved in The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll of May 11, 2010, and 45% approved in their Oct. 30, 2010, survey.

    The Gallup organization found a similar pattern. On Wednesday, it had the president’s job approval at 43%; at the end of April 2010 it was 49% and in early November 2010, 44%.

    On major issues, the president’s ratings have also dropped. Consider the economy. In the Washington Post/ABC News poll, just 42% approve of Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy today. By comparison, 44% approved in the organizations’ Oct. 3, 2010, survey, the last time the question was asked before that year’s midterm election.

    These poor numbers have rubbed off on Democrats generally. When respondents were asked which party they trust more to do a better job handling the economy, 41% picked Democrats in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll. That’s lower than the 44% who picked Democrats in the organizations’ October 2010 survey. When asked which party they trust more to do a better job handling health care, 43% picked Democrats in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll; in the October 2010 survey, 46% picked Democrats.

    Forty-five percent of Americans in the Washington Post/ABC News poll say they intend to vote for Democratic candidates this fall, compared with 44% who say they’ll vote for Republicans. Again, context matters: Democrats led by five points on this question in the October 2010 Washington Post/ABC News poll, shortly before the Republicans’ smashing midterm victories.

    Here’s the most telling data point: The Washington Post/ABC News poll found in April that 53% of Americans believe it is more important to have Republicans in charge of Congress to check the president’s policies, while only 39% believe it is more important to have Democrats in charge to help support Mr. Obama’s policies. That 39% is the same low number seen before the 2010 midterm.

    Given that Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party are in the same or worse shape they were in before suffering the 2010 blowout, the question arises: Can the president recover significantly before the fall? History suggests that’s unlikely.

    Gallup’s records since World War II show that Dwight Eisenhower, in 1958, was the only president to see his job approval rise (outside the margin of error) between the spring and fall of his second midterm. Even then, Eisenhower’s fellow Republicans still lost 48 House seats and 13 Senate seats that election.

    Desperate to alter the terrible landscape, President Obama is increasingly focusing on issues meant to galvanize the Democratic base, including the minimum wage, equal pay and campus sexual assaults (all prominently featured on the White House website this week). He is trying to increase the intensity of interest from his party’s left wing, hoping to boost turnout in the fall.

    Republicans will help Mr. Obama if they react to his bad poll numbers by picking the safe path—that of keeping their fire focused on the president’s shortcomings, instead of also offering a popular governing agenda equal to the economic and other challenges faced by millions of Americans, especially those in the middle class. The Republican Party is the minority party, which means that this election is precisely the time for the GOP to move beyond obstructionism and show that it has the answers Americans want.

    • idamag

      And what does that have to do with “This week in crazy?” You are like a broken record.

      • exdemo55

        What? You don’t believe your own ABC news poll?

        • Independent1

          We believe it, but what does it have to do with anything?? All it does is prove even more just how clueless the majority of Americans are!!!!

          And why didn’t you also point out that at the same time in their presidencies that the approval rating of Bush 2 was at least 10 percentage points worse than Obama’s. Why didn’t you point that out????????

          And why didn’t you point out that even Reagan’s approval rating got as low or lower than Obama’s??

          Don’t like to hear the truth yourself???

          President Obama’s steep decline in popularity since taking office should be distressing for Democrats, but at least from a historical standpoint — and if past is precedent — he can be compared to one looming American political figure: Ronald Reagan.

          It is a comparison sure to send conservatives, many of whom idolize Reagan and abhor Obama’s policies, running for the hills. It will likewise unsettle a good number of Democrats still frustrated by Reagan’s policies.

          But placed together on a graph the two men’s approval ratings snake and jut downwards like a helix, from almost identical starting points, with approval in the high 60s, down to about 50 percent in the first year and a half. (Spoiler Alert: Reagan’s popularity continued down to a low of 42 percent and Republicans lost 26 seats in the House of Representatives after two years of the Reagan presidency.

          How about taking all your comments and stuffing them you know where – that’s all they’re good for!!!

          • exdemo55

            Do you think Obama will leave office being as loved and adored as Reagan was?

        • idamag

          I don’t watch television,, Rhodes Scholar, so how can the ABC poll be my poll?

          • exdemo55

            Because they’re also liberals

        • Independent1

          And the GOP presidents with every bit as low of approval ratings back in the past didn’t have to deal with, was a Democratic party that was hellbent on doing everything it could to destroy Americans confidence in the president by concocting every fabricated scandal they could think of 24/7 to downgrade the president!!

          And they didn’t have a traitor like Snowden that had outed the work the NSA was doing to protect our country which was set up by a Republican president!!!

          And they weren’t trying to get our country out of almost a depression (the greatest recession since the big depression) that once again was created by a Republican!!!

  • Sand_Cat

    Gohmert “got to the bottom” a long time ago.


    Great comment Dominick.You are right.I find myself getting caught up in these ignorant comments some of the right wing spits out.Fear and ignorance is the name of the game for the GOP.

  • DBH316

    Please don’t let conservative shenanigans distract us from the Ukraine. This is serious stuff to most who walk upright but Issa still thinks the real story is Benghazi. I hope Secretary of State Kerry uses his time before him to let him know what a low life, dirt-bag this UN-American nihilist, SOB he really is. Is that clear?

    • plc97477

      I wonder that issa isn’t on the week in crazy more often now that you mention it.

  • plc97477

    I am starting to think the NM should retire beck and declare him too crazy even for the week-in-crazy.

    • Independent1

      Yeah! Maybe the NM needs to create a “Crazy Hall of Fame” and induct those that achieve extended levels of CRAZY into it.

  • exdemo55

    The Republican Party is at its strongest point in two decades heading into midterm elections, according to a new Pew Research-USA Today poll, the latest daunting sign for Democrats ahead of campaign season.

    The GOP is at an even stronger point than in previous “wave” elections in 1994 and 2010 and looks poised to make major gains — and possibly take control of the U.S. Senate.

    According to the poll, out Monday, Republicans have a 47-43 lead on the generic congressional ballot. That’s a 10-point swing from October, when Democrats, boosted by GOP blame for the federal government shutdown, held a 6-point lead in the Pew poll.

    Overall, Democrats are plagued by the still-sluggish economy, the unpopularity of the Affordable Care Act, and the undesirable views of President Obama. More voters (26%) say their vote will be “against” the president. Only 16% say their vote will be “for” Obama. And by more than a 2-to-1 margin, voters say they want the next president to pursue policies different from the Obama administration’s priorities.

    As has been seen in other polls showing trouble for Democrats this year, the party is hampered by a lack of enthusiasm. For example, only 31% of Democratic voters say their vote is “for” Obama. In 2010, that number was 47%.

    Some of the other troubling signs for Democrats:

    Obama’s approval rating sits at 44%, compared with 50% who disapprove.

    Although last Friday’s jobs report showed the unemployment rate dropping to its lowest level since 2008, most people (65%) say jobs are still difficult to find. And while 25% of voters think the economy will get better next year, about an equal number think it’ll get worse.

    The percentage of voters who disapprove of the Affordable Care Act (55%) is still tied for the highest in the law’s history.

    Below is a good chart from Pew that sums up the state of play this election season. Overall, it looks as if Republicans are poised for a stronger campaign than their gains in 2010. But it does not appear that they will have gains on par with the Democratic Party in 2006, when Democrats gained six seats in the Senate and 31 in the House amid the peak of President George W. Bush’s unpopularity.

    Read more:

  • exdemo55

    Local business owners might be hoping the Affordable Care Act’s insurance mandates cover sticker shock.

    The law’s employer coverage mandate doesn’t take effect until 2015, but early plan renewals are starting to roll in. And for some businesses, the premium jumps are positively painful.

    Local insurance brokers are reporting spikes ranging from 35 percent to 120 percent on policies that renew from July to December. The increases are especially acute among employers with workforces made up of younger, healthier men. That’s because Obamacare prohibits offering lower rates to healthier groups. It also narrows the allowed premium gap between older and younger enrollees.

    “It’s like if there were no more safe-driver discounts with State Farm,” said local insurance broker Frank Nolimal of Assurance Ltd. “Everybody has the same rate, whether you have three DUIs, or you’re a (nondrinking) churchgoing Mormon.”

    The changes put as many as 90,000 policies across Nevada at risk of cancellation or nonrenewal this fall, said Las Vegas insurance broker William Wright, president of Chamber Insurance and Benefits. That’s more than three times the 25,000 enrollees affected in October, when Obamacare-compliant plans first hit the market.

    Some workers are at higher risk than others of losing company-sponsored coverage. Professional, white-collar companies such as law or engineering firms will bite the bullet and renew at higher prices because they need to compete for scarce skilled labor, Nolimal said.

    But moderately skilled or low-skilled people making $8 to $14 an hour working for landscaping businesses, fire-prevention firms or fencing companies could lose work-based coverage because the plans cost so much relative to salaries.

    Employees who keep their coverage might see leaner take-home pay, which could hurt the economy.

    Nolimal said one business client whose monthly premiums will rise from $160 to $340 in June plans to shift most of the increase onto his employees.

    “Just like when you see gasoline prices going up an extra dime a gallon, it takes money out of the economy for things like buying a new stereo or having dinner out on the town,” Nolimal said.

    The premium hikes could have political implications, as well. Nolimal estimated that as many as 85 percent of small-group plans will renew in November and December. Because new premiums go out 60 days before coverage takes effect, those price hikes will hit mailboxes in September and October — just before November’s elections.

    That may be why Wright said Nevada lawmakers seemed keenly interested in hearing what he and other brokers had to say during a recent visit to Washington.

    He said lawmakers were “very receptive” to the idea that Nevada officials should embrace a federally established transition period that would let businesses keep their existing plans for at least one more year to blunt the effect of today’s higher costs.

    Nevada Insurance Commissioner Scott Kipper said March 25 that he doesn’t have the discretion to allow noncompliant plans to stay in place, based on advice from Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. That decision mirrored a fall conclusion that it would be illegal to reinstate the first wave of canceled plans.

    But Wright said he has an opinion from a national law firm that says the small-group situation is different, because it involves policies not yet canceled. He said he and other brokers will work over the next few weeks to sway the commissioner.

    ■ Nevada Health Link exchange enrollee James Kurien wrote us after reading about locals getting billed by the system for coverage they didn’t have. We urged readers to consider sending in payments to ensure their plan stayed in place, with the idea that billing snafus would get worked out eventually.

    Kurien wasn’t so sure about that: “My experience to date is I can’t get an email or call returned. Thus I’m loath to send them $1,000 I don’t owe them on the basis that at some point they’ll acknowledge and refund the overpayment.”

    We forwarded Kurien’s email to local broker Tamar Burch, who has more than 20 clients with billing and effective-date issues. Kurien circled back to us to let us know Burch and the exchange still are working on his case, but he had fresh advice for others in his position.

    He decided to call his carrier, Nevada Health CO-OP, to ask a few questions. The customer-service rep he spoke to corrected “a lot of misinformation” Kurien said he had received before. And that allowed him to go see a doctor for the first time since he submitted his application in December.

    “My experience would suggest calling the carrier more than once with the same question to try to get a correct and consistent answer, rather than feel like the first (potentially misinformed) answer you get is final and that you’re stuck,” Kurien wrote.

    Kurien said he also might join a lawsuit filed April 1 on behalf of plaintiffs who paid for coverage they didn’t get.

    “I’m interested in some small way for that signal to reach Xerox and the folks who crafted the (Nevada Health Link) system in the hope it doesn’t become business as usual again,” he wrote.

  • Leftout

    It was an innocent, everyday comment. In the Northeast , known for its diversity of neighborhoods. It was common to hear” don’t bring that goyem
    To this house, can you not find a nice Jewish boy. ” or ” I do not want you hanging around with those gypsies, they are known to still chickens from us
    Pollocks, or. Yeah but he’s Italian, you know what that will mean???? On and on, some cultures are profiled to be incompatible with ones own and it can be an uncomfortable mix at times, But it was a łittle mischievous teasing. Pretty soon some will want to change the name of the Cleveland Indians. Dumb…all dumb