"You, sir, are a bump in the road."

[Barbella]

Please resign, Mr. President
Special to WorldTribune.com

Billy and Karen Vaughn

After finally choosing to view the barbaric, on-camera beheading by ISIS of freelance war correspondent James Foley, I have been left with a level of rage known only to those of us who have sacrificed unspeakable offerings on the altar of world peace.

My offering was my only son — Aaron Carson Vaughn. Aaron was a member of SEAL Team VI. He was killed in action when a CH47D Chinook, carrying thirty Americans and eight Afghans was shot down in the Tangi River Valley of Afghanistan on Aug. 6, 2011.

Many times over the past three years, I have been asked what drove my son to choose his particular career. What made him want to be a Navy SEAL? My answer is simple.

Aaron Vaughn was a man who possessed the courage to acknowledge evil. And evil, once truly acknowledged, demands response. Perhaps this is why so few are willing to look it in the eye. It is much simpler — much safer — to look the other way.

That is, unless you are the leader of the Free World.

As Commander-in-Chief, your actions — or lack thereof — Mr. President, cost lives. As you bumble about in your golf cart, slapping on a happy face and fist-pounding your buddies, your cowardly lack of leadership has left a gaping hole — not only in America’s security — but the security of the entire globe. Your message has come across loud and clear, sir: You are not up to this job. You know it. We know it. The world knows it.

Please vacate the people’s house and allow a man or woman of courage and substance to seize the reigns of this out-of-control thug-fest and regain the balance we, America, have provided throughout our great history.

Thanks to your “leadership” from whatever multi-million dollar vacation you happen to be on at any given moment, the world is in chaos. What’s been gained, you’ve lost. What’s been lost, you’ve decimated. You’ve demolished our ability to hold the trust of allies. You’ve made a mockery of the title “President.” And you’ve betrayed the nation for which my son and over 1.3 million others have sacrificed their very lives.

But this should come as no surprise, since your wife uttered a vile statement on Feb. 18, 2008, during the primary campaign — one that speaks volumes of your true convictions. “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country,” she said.

I am sure my deceased son thanks you for that, Mrs. Obama. Oh, and you’re welcome.

Never in my lifetime have I witnessed such despair and such growing fear that the world’s last best hope, America, has finally been dismantled. Perhaps the better word is transformed — fundamentally transformed. Come to think of it, it’s become difficult — if not impossible — to believe things haven’t gone exactly as you planned, Mr. President.

Amazingly, in five short years, your administration has lurched from one disaster to another. You spearheaded the ambitious rush to end the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan — with no plan on how to do so effectively. Also, the release of “the Taliban five” in exchange for one American — without consulting Congress — is also on your shoulders.

You have been at the helm during unprecedented national security leaks — including, but not limited to the outing of SEAL Team VI on the Bin laden raid, the outing of the Pakistani doctor who provided the intelligence for that raid, the outing of Afghanistan’s CIA station chief, and the outing of your personal “kill list” to make you look tough. In addition, 75 percent of American deaths in Afghanistan and 83 percent of Americans-wounded-in-action have occurred on your watch, according to icasualties.org.

And now, we have this recent, heinous event: the beheading of an American citizen by a barbaric organization you foolishly referred to as “the JV team” in your statements to the New Yorker magazine in January.

You, sir, are the JV team. It’s time for you to step down and allow a true leader to restore our honor and protect our sons and daughters.

America has always been exceptional. And she will be again. You, Mr. President, are a bump in our road.

http://www.worldtribune.com/2014/08/27/letter-parents-aaron-carson-vaughn-seal-team-vi-please-resign-mr-president/

 

[as seen on tv]

does anyone actually want to see "president biden" inaugurated?

when has HE been right about anything?

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

Obama is truly the worst President, ever. Of all time.

 

[Colorforms]

does anyone actually want to see "president biden" inaugurated?

when has HE been right about anything?

Biden can be clean and articulate too when he puts his mind to it.

 

[Arkady]

http://www.worldtribune.com/2014/08/27/letter-parents-aaron-carson-vaughn-seal-team-vi-please-resign-mr-president/

Overall, US citizen deaths abroad are down on Obama's watch, and the world is a safer place. Yes, problems remain, as they always do. But we've moved in the right direction, on Obama's watch.

 

[Arkady]

Obama is truly the worst President, ever. Of all time.

He isn't even the worst president in the last two. Name just about any measurable indicator of national well-being -- the unemployment rate, the deficit, stock values, the murder rate, the violent crime rate, the rate of our soldiers being killed or maimed in action, our approval ratings, the growth of real GDP per capita, and on and on. What you'll find, for the vast majority of those, is that the trend on Obama's watch compares favorably to the trend on Bush's watch.

For example (just to take the first item from my list), on Bush's watch, the unemployment rate rose 3.4 points. On Obama's watch, it has fallen 1.1 points. On Bush's watch, the murder rate fell 0.1 points. On Obama's watch, it has already fallen seven times that much! On one indicator after another, you'll find that things have gone better for the nation since Obama took office.

Now, if what you look for from a president is across-the-board worsening (say, for example, you're someone who just really hates America), I'll admit that Obama can't even begin to compete with Bush, and there's a case to be made that Obama is the worst president ever. However, if, like me, you're a patriot, who wants good things for America, and values the leaders who have success in bringing such things about, Obama's having a decent run.

 

[Colorforms]

He isn't even the worst president in the last two. Name just about any measurable indicator of national well-being -- the unemployment rate, the deficit, stock values, the murder rate, the violent crime rate, the rate of our soldiers being killed or maimed in action, our approval ratings, the growth of real GDP per capita, and on and on. What you'll find, for the vast majority of those, is that the trend on Obama's watch compares favorably to the trend on Bush's watch.

For example (just to take the first item from my list), on Bush's watch, the unemployment rate rose 3.4 points. On Obama's watch, it has fallen 1.1 points. On Bush's watch, the murder rate fell 0.1 points. On Obama's watch, it has already fallen seven times that much! On one indicator after another, you'll find that things have gone better for the nation since Obama took office.

Now, if what you look for from a president is across-the-board worsening (say, for example, you're someone who just really hates America), I'll admit that Obama can't even begin to compete with Bush, and there's a case to be made that Obama is the worst president ever. However, if, like me, you're a patriot, who wants good things for America, and values the leaders who have success in bringing such things about, Obama's having a decent run.

Well, sure. If you take everything at face value, and per the press narrative, then yes, things are better under Barry. However, if you actually look at what is happening, things are much worse under Barry. Barry has added more structural insecurity in the system than virtually any other president, which is what is causing the economic malaise that we are undergoing right now. Barry has heaped billions of dollars of regulations upon business, which is hindering small business start-ups, as well as suppressing employment. The decrease in the "unemployment" numbers is only as a result of people falling off of the unemployment rolls, not as a result of people finding work.

In nearly every objective measure, Barry is performing worse than any other president. Labor participation rates, small business start-ups, tax intake into the treasury, civil liberties, terrorism, poverty rates, all have gotten worse under Barry.

 

[Arkady]

Well, sure. If you take everything at face value, and per the press narrative, then yes, things are better under Barry. However, if you actually look at what is happening, things are much worse under Barry. Barry has added more structural insecurity in the system than virtually any other president, which is what is causing the economic malaise that we are undergoing right now. Barry has heaped billions of dollars of regulations upon business, which is hindering small business start-ups, as well as suppressing employment. The decrease in the "unemployment" numbers is only as a result of people falling off of the unemployment rolls, not as a result of people finding work.

In nearly every objective measure, Barry is performing worse than any other president. Labor participation rates, small business start-ups, tax intake into the treasury, civil liberties, terrorism, poverty rates, all have gotten worse under Barry.

Here's how I read what you just wrote: Sure, the real numbers support the idea that Obama has been a much better president than Bush, and that things have been improving dramatically since he took office, but if you instead look into my soul, where I have a bottomless hatred of "Barry," for reasons unrelated to anything that can be quantified with real-world evidence, he's been terrible.

You at least make ATTEMPTS to fumble in the direction of fact-based arguments, with your reference to unemployment numbers. However, you do so with a demonstrably false claim. Yes, people are leaving the workforce, partly based on Baby Boomer retirements, and this has helped to bring down the unemployment rate. But there's also been a huge amount of job creation. There are millions more Americans working today than there were when Bush left office. Depending on which of the two official surveys you use( establishment or household), there are either 4.2 million or 5.028 million more jobs today than in January 2009.

You also say that Obama (whom your childlike mind insists on calling "Barry") performs worse than any other president in "nearly every objective measure." Then you mention labor participation rates. Yet, out here in the real world, only four presidents in all of American history have had higher average labor participation rates than we've had on Obama's watch.

I appreciate that there's still some instinct there to argue based on facts, rather than just on naked prejudice. But to argue based on facts, you first have to learn some facts.

 

[Colorforms]

Here's how I read what you just wrote: Sure, the real numbers support the idea that Obama has been a much better president than Bush, and that things have been improving dramatically since he took office, but if you instead look into my soul, where I have a bottomless hatred of "Barry," for reasons unrelated to anything that can be quantified with real-world evidence, he's been terrible.

You at least make ATTEMPTS to fumble in the direction of fact-based arguments, with your reference to unemployment numbers. However, you do so with a demonstrably false claim. Yes, people are leaving the workforce, partly based on Baby Boomer retirements, and this has helped to bring down the unemployment rate. But there's also been a huge amount of job creation. There are millions more Americans working today than there were when Bush left office. Depending on which of the two official surveys you use( establishment or household), there are either 4.2 million or 5.028 million more jobs today than in January 2009.

You also say that Obama (whom your childlike mind insists on calling "Barry") performs worse than any other president in "nearly every objective measure." Then you mention labor participation rates. Yet, out here in the real world, only four presidents in all of American history have had higher average labor participation rates than we've had on Obama's watch.

I appreciate that there's still some instinct there to argue based on facts, rather than just on naked prejudice. But to argue based on facts, you first have to learn some facts.

Actually, your claim is the one that's false. Workforce participation numbers only deal with working age adults. Add to that, in order for real unemployment to improve, hiring has to exceed layoffs by at least 300,000 nationwide. We have yet to see that number. Real unemployment and real poverty are increasing at a drastic rate, and the press seems to have an interest in keeping these numbers tapped down. Small businesses constitute 80% of employment in the United States. Small business start-ups are at a record low. There is no indicator other than the unemployment rate that is positive, but all you have to do is scratch the surface to see that it's just a thin veneer for a very bleak employment picture.

 

[Jen]

does anyone actually want to see "president biden" inaugurated?

when has HE been right about anything?

At this point how could Biden be any worse than Obama?

 

[Colorforms]

At this point how could Biden be any worse than Obama?

I have a cat that could sit around on the Resolute Desk and lick himself all day and it would still make better policy than we are seeing from emperor Barry.

 

[Addy]

The mother has my sympathy, her loss is a hard one. Writing the letter must have been therapeutic in some ways for her.
Lashing out and blaming someone (the president)as she did in her letter could be viewed as part of her grieving process. imo
Entering the line of service her son engaged in was not the president's doing. No doubt the dangers were made known beforehand.

 

[Barbella]

Actually, your claim is the one that's false. Workforce participation numbers only deal with working age adults. Add to that, in order for real unemployment to improve, hiring has to exceed layoffs by at least 300,000 nationwide. We have yet to see that number. Real unemployment and real poverty are increasing at a drastic rate, and the press seems to have an interest in keeping these numbers tapped down. Small businesses constitute 80% of employment in the United States. Small business start-ups are at a record low. There is no indicator other than the unemployment rate that is positive, but all you have to do is scratch the surface to see that it's just a thin veneer for a very bleak employment picture.

Reality bites, and some people would rather live in fantasy world, color. Arky is apparently one of them...

 

[Colorforms]

Reality bites, and some people would rather live in fantasy world, color. Arky is apparently one of them...

What bothers me is that Arkady and I have had this conversation before. I have even posted for her the criteria by which unemployment number and the WPR are calculated, and she still insists on holding onto the lie that unemployment is a result of people retiring.

Sure, it makes for a good excuse if you're one of the many millions who don't pay attention to anything that's going on. But if you actually care about your nation, it's truly disturbing.

 

[Barbella]

What bothers me is that Arkady and I have had this conversation before. I have even posted for her the criteria by which unemployment number and the WPR are calculated, and she still insists on holding onto the lie that unemployment is a result of people retiring.

Sure, it makes for a good excuse if you're one of the many millions who don't pay attention to anything that's going on. But if you actually care about your nation, it's truly disturbing.

Arkady isn't exactly stupid... which makes it not only disturbing, but downright weird....

 

[Colorforms]

Arkady isn't exactly stupid... which makes it not only disturbing, but downright weird....

Arkady is literate, but her arguments are simplistic and easily dissembled. I just get tired of engaging her whenever she repeats them.

 

[Barbella]

Arkady is literate, but her arguments are simplistic and easily dissembled. I just get tired of engaging her whenever she repeats them.

Sometimes I wonder if she's some kind of paid pro-Obamabot, posting all of this "he's so wonderful, and life is so much better now that Obama is leading the country".....

because I find it very difficult to believe anyone could be as naive and silly as she is.

 

[Addy]

Here's how I read what you just wrote: Sure, the real numbers support the idea that Obama has been a much better president than Bush, and that things have been improving dramatically since he took office, but if you instead look into my soul, where I have a bottomless hatred of "Barry," for reasons unrelated to anything that can be quantified with real-world evidence, he's been terrible.

You at least make ATTEMPTS to fumble in the direction of fact-based arguments, with your reference to unemployment numbers. However, you do so with a demonstrably false claim. Yes, people are leaving the workforce, partly based on Baby Boomer retirements, and this has helped to bring down the unemployment rate. But there's also been a huge amount of job creation. There are millions more Americans working today than there were when Bush left office. Depending on which of the two official surveys you use( establishment or household), there are either 4.2 million or 5.028 million more jobs today than in January 2009.

You also say that Obama (whom your childlike mind insists on calling "Barry") performs worse than any other president in "nearly every objective measure." Then you mention labor participation rates. Yet, out here in the real world, only four presidents in all of American history have had higher average labor participation rates than we've had on Obama's watch.

I appreciate that there's still some instinct there to argue based on facts, rather than just on naked prejudice. But to argue based on facts, you first have to learn some facts.

Neat post, Arkady! The truth marches on regardless of ODS..

 

[Colorforms]

Sometimes I wonder if she's some kind of paid pro-Obamabot, posting all of this "he's so wonderful, and life is so much better now that Obama is leading the country".....

because I find it very difficult to believe anyone could be as naive and silly as she is.

It just shows the power of the virulent propaganda coming from the Obama administration. Zoar, Spam, Bugs, and the kneejerk crowd I can get. They hear something from the DNC and they're on their way to defend their emperor. But Arkady has to go out of her way to ignore all information to the contrary and collect the data she requires in order to bolster her position, and then claim ignorance that such opposing data even exists.

I admit that I know there is data opposing my position. I have to go by what I have seen, and where the cracks in the propaganda exists, i.e. new job numbers, the length of time it takes to find a job, etc...

Arkady, on the other hand, reads it, and if it bolsters her position, it's now incontrovertible fact.

 

[Arkady]

Actually, your claim is the one that's false.

My claim is correct and easily verifiable at the BLS site. If you believe it's incorrect, you need to explain how, exactly, rather than just asserting it's incorrect.

Unfortunately, since the BLS has an applet for pulling data, I can't link directly to a relevant table. But I can provide you simple, step-by-step instructions for pulling the data yourself.

(1) Click here: http://www.bls.gov/data/
(2) In the "unemployment" section, click "one-screen data search."
(3) In the window that comes up, keep all the settings the same, except in box 7 click on "civilian labor force" and in box 9 click "monthly".
(4) Click "get data"

You'll see, in the seasonally adjusted series (LNS11000000), the civilian labor force age 16 and over rose from 154,210,000 in Bush's last month to 156,023,000 in Obama's last month. If you change the output options to roll back the "from" date to the start of the data series (1947) and click on "include graphs" you can easily see a graph confirming current labor force levels are the highest in history. In fact, there's only a single month when they were higher than last month: March 2014.

Add to that, in order for real unemployment to improve, hiring has to exceed layoffs by at least 300,000 nationwide.

What makes you think that? Unemployment rates have demonstrably declined on Obama's watch, despite net job creation falling short of 300,000 average. The math simply doesn't require over 300,000 jobs to be created per month for unemployment rates to fall. It all comes down to the growth of the labor force. In order for the unemployment rate to fall, the jobs created have to exceed a portion of the growth of the labor force equal to the employment rate of the prior month.

So, for example, to use simple numbers, picture a labor force of 100,000 people, 94,000 of whom are employed (unemployment rate of 6%.) Now, picture that the labor force grows by 100 in a month, and the economy adds 99 new jobs. Now you have a 100,100 people in the labor force, with 94,099 jobs. Now you have an employment rate of 94.004995%, or an unemployment rate of 5.995005% -- a slight decrease in the unemployment rate, despite job creation lagging the growth of the labor force slightly.

On Obama's watch, job creation has greatly exceeded the growth of the labor force. That's why unemployment has decline so very much. If you want to invent some new concept of "real unemployment," which differs from this official unemployment rate, then explain how that works. How does one calculate the "real unemployment" rate, exactly?

Perhaps you're thinking about the "employment-population" ratio. The civilian non-institutional population age 16 and over grows around 200,000 people per month. So, in order to have enough jobs to employ all those new potential workers, you'd need to create about 200,000 jobs per month. However, even in the best of times, the employment-population ratio is way below 100%, because of all the students, retirees, stay-at-home parents, and disabled people. Right now it's about 59.0% -- much higher than the historical average. So, you'd need to create somewhere around 118,000 jobs per month to keep the employment/population ratio steady (59% of the 200,000 new potential workers). We've been beating that, on average, since the start of 2011, and have beaten it by a wide margin since October of last year.

There's this right-wing tendency just to invent numbers out of thin air and then praise Republicans and damn Democrats for how they stack up against that tailor-made number. But the 300,000 job-per-month threshold you came up with is nonsense, with no backing in real-world economics. That would be significantly more than the population growth for an average month, and vastly more than needed to lower the unemployment rate or raise the employment-population ratio.