The reason for the rise in unemployment despite the relatively good news?  A rise in the workforce participation rate!  So while the biggest driver this year in all month except September in lowering the US jobless rate has been driving people off of work and onto welfare  Canada has been going in the opposite direction since the summer.

So while the US unemployment rate declines mostly because of people dropping out of the workforce Canada is experiencing the opposite with heartened working age citizens trying to get back to work.  What does Canada have that the US doesn’t?  A strong right of center business friendly government not afraid to develop energy resources for starters.

If you look at headlines saying unemployment in Canada is rising and falling in the US you would think we are doing better than they are so bravo President Obama.  However Canada is in the low 7% range and been there all year while we just fell below 8% for the first time in 4 years.  Look at the numbers more with Canada adding a higher proportion of full time work, more high skilled jobs in IT, and a spike in self employment I’d take their employment prospects compared to the US.

So look at the numbers!  All the numbers!

First consider the narrative of the Obama administration as one that disregards the law at every inconvenient turn.  From putting unsecured Union creditors ahead of secured creditors at GM, not enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act, and allowing the illegal sale of guns to Mexican drug lords. Second consider Obama’s criticism over the Bush administration era signing statements and his u turn on their use.

It is well documented that this is a u turn on the constitutionality this compared to what was said just in the last year.  Given the law has not changed the only conclusion one can draw is Obama is doing anything he can to win another 4 year term law and constitutional process be damned.

The consequences of this brazen act have not been well thought through.  Neil Munro’s interruption at the Friday speech regarding foreign workers being favored over Americans was inappropriate at the time but hit on a serious issue.  Why would law abiding citizens be put into a position where they are being put behind illegal aliens in a blanket executive decision?

Given the age group  (under 30) the issue not thought out would not be jobs (there are not many) as much as it would be access to higher education.  Toss in affirmative action access policies along with this amnesty decision and you do create a situation where illegal aliens would be given preference over citizens in college admissions.  So if you are a college aged adult seeking admission your may find it harder to enter the school of your choice unless you have no problem digging up shaky evidence to define yourself as a minority.

Michael Barone recently wrote an excellent article on why the Scots-Irish in the so called Jackson belt are already inclined not to like Obama’s policies.  This new move will make it tougher for him in the Midwest as well where working class voters turned on Democrats in 2010 and seem to be ready to do so again this November.

Above all else the biggest problem with governing absent constitutional process like this is over time people you intend to help begin to see your methods before your intent.  This happens most clearly at times when you help someone else and run roughshod over another to do so.  Throw in his credibility is at question given he criticized the previous administration for doing as he is and you have lots of room to be skeptical of how this President governs.  Decent law abiding Americans of all political stripes eventually feel the shaft of as Barone put it so eloquently “Gangster Government.”

Even fewer people in the US will know the name Hugo Sanchez.  For 2 tumultuous years Sanchez was Bradley’s counterpart in Mexico leading “El Tri” and enjoying much more recognition than Bradley likely ever will.  Sanchez is a legend in Mexico having spent many successful years plying his trade as a prolific goal scorer in Spain for giant club Real Madrid.  As far as success goes a comparison with Dan Marino would not be far off. 

Sanchez openly campaigned for the Mexico manager’s position after 2006 World Cup.  After the 2002 and 2006 World Cups he savaged the team’s managers for picking naturalized citizens instead of native born players.  In 2002 a single Argentine born player who legally became a Mexican citizen caused a huge amount of controversy.  A high profile sports legend like Sanchez is also not the only one to critisize the practice.  Mexico player and captain Rafael Marquez has also been on record against allowing naturalized players on the national team and also for a rule to limit the number of foreigners on Mexican league teams to approximately 2-3 (15%) of the roster.

Polls done in Mexico show citizens constantly oppose the inclusion of non native born citizens on the national team which is the pride, joy, and anguish of the Mexican nation. 

Now Hugo Sanchez was fired in 2008 after a mixed record as manager but the killer being a poor record against their hated (and I mean hated) rivals USA. 

Now why is this important to the immigration issue?   There is no more visible and unifying entity in the Mexican nation than their national soccer team.  People live and breathe soccer.  Xenophobia on the soccer field means it exists in the society as a whole.  The hypocrisy permeates not just in their treatment of those at the bottom of the citizenship totem pole as Michelle Malkin noted earlier in the week but also at the top.

Now back to Bob Bradley.  He has picked players for those successful teams that have been born in Argentina, Ghana, Jamaica, and Scotland not to mention dual citizens of Mexico and the USA.  You probably have never heard that unless you are like me one of the few dedicated US Soccer fans. 

How the USA treat people in this country is second to none and the hyperbole being used to slander people who want the existing laws enforced is a travesty.  Next time you run into a supporter of blanket amnesty or an opponent of the Arizona law, remember the many many ways that the US is superior in how it treats people from other parts of the world who come here.  Hopefully this gives you yet another example that if not useful is interesting to know coming up on the World Cup in June.

Back to Bob Bradley.

In a recent Radio 4 interview, Brown attempts to distract the public during an election of the fact that the current economic crisis is owned 100% lock, stock, and barrel by his Labour government.  First, he backs away from claims that the era of “boom and bust” is over by claiming he meant it was over only for downturns caused by inflation.  Brown as Tony Blair’s Chancellor of the Exchequer (US equivalent of the US Treasury Secretary) famously claimed to be the “Domestic Prime Minister” for 10 years prior to 2007.  Funny how he never qualified this statement of boom and bust being over during good times only if it were an inflation caused downturn.  A downturn due to say 9/11 as happened in 2002 must have slipped the Prime Minister’s mind.

The next thing he attempted was to place blame on the cause of the current recession as being outside of the borders of the UK.  At one point he says the following:

“What happened was that a global banking crisis meant that something that happened in Mississippi transferred itself right across America then right across through Europe and we had to deal with that crisis and I think we took the action that was necessary to deal with that crisis quickly, restructured our banks, took public control of many of them, made sure that they could actually start lending agan, we’re trying to get them to lend more, and I think the action that we took on these days in October prevented the banking system from collapsing working with other countries.”

This remark about where the recession started is not just factually incorrect but also an insult to the people of Mississippi.  This is a state that suffered greatly leading up to the recession with rebuilding huge swaths of destroyed area including over 25 miles of coastline destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.  Last time I checked Mississippi was not a hotbed of activity for risky mortgages or mortgage backed securities and even if it were would a state of less than 3 million people really bring down the entire global economy?  Gordon Brown’s command of macroeconomics must really be overrated. 

To check your own facts here is a link to the podcast: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/today/today_20100408-1048a.mp3

Click ahead to 5:50 mark to start listening.
Brown’s flippant remark is an insult to hardworking people of Mississippi who have by and large pulled themselves out of the Katrina disaster by their own bootstraps.  Haley Barbour should be receiving an apology for a careless remark and the MSM should be demanding it despite the fact Mississippi is west of the Hudson and Potomac rivers.

Imagine had Brown said this was due to something that happened in New York?  Would the Mainstream Media have picked up on the reference and defended New York?  Imagine if Brown said it was due to something that happened in another place impacted by Hurrican Katrina like New Orleans?

Big media snobbery and a slight of hand on economic policy on display all to save one’s political skin.  I usally do not root for a UK party to win as they all are to the left of my instincts by a long shot since Margaret Thatcher left the stage but I truly hope now David Cameron and the Conservative party give Gordon Brown’s tired Labour government the boot next month.  The people of Mississippi will take some solace in it when this dour Scot can go back up to whatever peat burning village he came from.