Regime Runs Food Stamp Ads in Spanish-Language Soap Operas
RUSH: From The Daily Caller today, the government, your government, the federal government, "has been targeting Spanish speakers with radio 'novelas' promoting food stamp usage as part of a stated mission to increase participation in the [food stamp program]." Essentially what's happening here is that the US Department of Agriculture is using Spanish-language soap operas to push food stamps among both noncitizens and citizens.
"Each novela, comprising a 10-part series called 'PARQUE ALEGRIA,' or 'HOPE PARK,' presents a semi-dramatic scenario involving characters convincing others to get on food stamps, or explaining how much healthier it is to be on food stamps. The majority of the episodes end with the announcer encouraging the listener to tune in again to see if the skeptic applies for benefits or learns to understand the importance of food stamps to their health." This is why Obama doesn't go to the NAACP. What's there to celebrate? "I'm gonna have more people on food stamps. Yeah, I'll tell you how I'm gonna do it. I got the government now using Spanish-language soap operas to push food stamps, citizens and noncitizens."
Barack Obama doesn't want to change what's going on. He doesn't want to improve the circumstances of this economy. It's altogether true. Barack Obama wants a bigger government, him in charge of it. He wants more people depending on it. It really isn't any more complicated than that.
Obama Shrinks to Historic Low with Blue-Collar Men
RUSH: According to Ronald Brownstein writing in the National Journal, President Barack Obama has shrunk to historic lows in support among blue-collar men. In other words, Obama's support among white men with a college education is the lowest it has been since 1980 and the candidacy of Ronaldus Magnus. The National Journal found this after a study of exit polls from past elections, a recent Quinnipiac/Washington Post/ABC News -- by the way, that Washington Post/ABC News poll is devastating for Obama. They're reporting that it's Obama-Romney 47-47, but that poll is devastating for Obama and independents. Romney is up by 14 in independents in that poll. That same poll -- and coupled with this Quinnipiac poll -- shows that Obama's support among blue-collar men, white men without a college education, is what that means, is at an all-time low.
And yet somehow he's still viable and, in their minds, could likely win this thing.
Now, in the Quinnipiac poll, Obama got a 29% support level from non-college white men; 28% in the Washington Post poll. "Since 1980, the worst performance for any Democratic nominee among these working-class white men was the 31 percent Walter Mondale managed against Ronald Reagan in 1984; the meager 39 percent Obama drew in 2008 was actually the party's best showing over that period." So it isn't racism. But now he's 10% down. I hearken back to that Thomas Edsall piece last November -- and he was Huffing and Puffington Post editor, former Washington Post, and he had ties to the Obama campaign, made it clear, pointed out, purpose of the column, Obama has written off white working-class families.
Now, you would think that these blue-collar guys are also union workers. The way it's delineated it's not actually the same group of people. Now, the article says "these non-college white men represent Obama's largest source of decline in the white electorate since 2008." Now, why would this be? Could it be that these are the kind of people that want jobs, blue-collar workers want jobs? They don't want a celebrity famous for his vacations and his fundraisers with Hollywood types. They don't want some guy slow-jamming the news on Comedy Central or wherever. What they know is that Barack Obama has orchestrated nearly $6 trillion now added to the national debt, worst recovery after a recession. In fact, we're probably in another one.
Forty-one consecutive months of over 8% unemployment. Is it any wonder Obama would be overwhelmingly unpopular with people that want to work? It's not hard to understand that at all. If you want a job, if you really want to work, if work means something to, if it's how you define yourself, if work is from where you derive your identity, and you want to work, Obama is a disaster for you. And now you move to Wisconsin, and you see that Obama, he didn't go. He turned his back on blue-collar union workers. Well, they might be white-collar given that they're teachers and state employees. But nevertheless, they're union people. Obama turned his back on 'em. He didn't show up in Wisconsin. He tweeted.
He tweeted less than 140 characters his support for the Democrat candidate opposing Scott Walker. And what these guys all know is that Obama's got his back, not theirs. Obama's looking out for himself, not them. So the regime lets it be known some time ago that they were not even interested in this voting bloc, white, blue-collar vote, and the white blue-collar's vote's figured it out, "Okay, you don't care about us, then (raspberry), we're outta here." Historic lows.
Now, folks, you can't have piling up of news like this, down 14 points in independents, historic lows among blue-collar men, I'm sorry. I'm not lacking in confidence today. I'm just telling you that this idea that the route to victory in this country is putting together a coalition of people spending their day in the welfare hammock, it's not a safety net, it's a hammock, there aren't enough of 'em. I know you're living great fear that there are. I know that many of you think we've lost the country and that there's enough of 'em, and now with the regime, if you missed this, the regime is advertising for additional food stamp recipients in Spanish-language soap operas. They are creating little novellas, Spanish-language soap operas on Spanish TV networks telling people that it's cool to be on food stamps and how to get on food stamps and then how great life is after you're on food stamps, and then how to tell other people how to do it. Citizens and noncitizens.
So it's clear what Obama's doing. Obama wants to be elected president by the takers. Obama wants to be the president of the nonproducers. I'm here to tell you that our country has not gotten to the point where there are a majority of them. Now, when it comes to turnout, that's a whole different thing.
AP Misreports Jobless Claims
RUSH: Unemployment news. This is Thursday. Now, normally we would lead on Thursday with the unemployment news. It's not by design that here we are in the last half hour of the program and I'm getting to the unemployment news. Now, you probably, if you're a liberal Democrat, you think that I'm waiting toward the end of the show because it's such great news. The way it's being reported is a crime. Here's the AP headline from Christopher Rugaber, who is the media stenographer at AP to report the White House version of this kind of news. "US Jobless Claims Plunge to Lowest in 4 Years." Oh, goody.
"The number of people seeking unemployment benefits plunged last week to the lowest level in four years, a hopeful sign for the struggling job market. But the decline was partly due to temporary factors." Temporary factors? Ladies and gentlemen, would you be interested in knowing -- this is ZeroHedge.com: "The Use Of Temps Is Outpacing Outright New Hirings By A 10-To-1 Ratio" Temporary agencies, temporary workers are being hired at a ten-to-one greater ratio than outright new full-time hires. And that's because of uncertainty. The people doing the hiring don't know what's ahead of them the next six months and more, given who wins and who does what. So they don't think they can commit to full-time hires, so they're going the temporary route, ten-to-one ratio.
But back to this AP story. Sadly and purposefully I should say, this is a little complicated, but it is a lesson. This is a great lesson in how the weekly jobless numbers are manipulated. The Department of Labor is claiming that the number of people seeking new jobless benefits, unemployment benefits, plunged by 26,000. And the new number for last week was 350,000. We're told that that is the lowest level in four years. But, the real number of new jobless claims actually went up. "What is that you say, Rush?" That's exactly what I said. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Department of Labor, is claiming the number of people seeking new unemployment benefits plunged by 26,000.
The Department of Labor in their press release says, and I quote: "The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 439,743 ... an increase of 69,971 from the previous week." So the number of real new claims for unemployment is up by nearly 70,000. It is not down by 26,000. The total number of new claims is really 440,000, not a new low of 350,000, as is reported by AP. Now, the news media never report the actual new claims. I'm not saying that they're doing something they've never done before. They always report the seasonally adjusted estimate, which they've done here. In this case, the seasonally adjusted estimate ignores this nearly 70,000 new claims. It's actually 90,000. It's the difference between the unadjusted number, 439,000, and the seasonally adjusted number 350,000.
So the real number is 89,000 new claims, but then they did the seasonal adjustment, and in the seasonal adjustment they converted nearly 90,000 new claims. That's 90,000 real people signed up for unemployment. The seasonal adjustment is -- and they do this every week so it's nothing new here. It's just never this dramatic, the seasonal adjustment is never this dramatic. So real new claims on unemployment, unadjusted, near 90,000, after adjustment becomes a 26,000 plunge in new claims. Now, why is the Department of Labor, why are they cutting their estimate of jobless claims by nearly 90,000? The AP actually explains why in the story. Because this year some automakers aren't laying off some of their workers this summer. So the Department of Labor has seasonally adjusted the real-life new claims number by ignoring 90,000 real-life claims.
It's crazy, to put it mildly, but these are the games they play every week with the seasonal adjustments. So the fact that the automobile makers are not laying people off as they usually do, we're gonna call that plunges. These people normally would go apply for unemployment, but since they're not, then we're gonna calculate it as a drop. But the real number is reported in the story, 90,000 new claims.
RUSH: From the Harvard Business Review Blog Network: "Less Confident People Are More Successful -- There is no bigger cliche in business psychology than the idea that high self-confidence is key to career success. It is time to debunk this myth. In fact, low self-confidence is more likely to make you successful. After many years of researching and consulting on talent..." This is by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, "... I've come to the conclusion that self-confidence is only helpful when it's low. Sure, extremely low confidence is not helpful: it inhibits performance by inducing fear, worry, and stress, which may drive people to give up sooner or later. But just-low-enough confidence can help you recalibrate your goals so they are (a) more realistic and (b) attainable.
"Lower self-confidence makes you pay attention to negative feedback and be self-critical. ... Lower self-confidence can motivate you to work harder and prepare more. ... Lower self-confidence reduces the chances of coming across as arrogant or being deluded." I think I understand what the guy's getting at. If you're arrogant, self-confident, braggadocios, you think you know it all. There's nothing you can learn, nothing anybody can show you, nothing anybody can teach you, you've got it all figured out. I don't think he's talking about massive insecurity here. That's a different thing. But I'll tell you what. So much for the liberal movement to instill self-confidence in the public schools or self-esteem. I get what the guy's talking about. You got something to prove if you're self-confidence is... It might be something to look further into.