Lunch Politics

First off, I am for healthy foods. Pre-packaged foods are bad for you and you should have more fruits and vegetables. But I’m just not for the Government mandating it. What’s next, the Adults? 🙂

New school lunch standards implemented as a result of First Lady Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign have led to more than 1 million children leaving the lunch line, according to a new report.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a wide-ranging audit of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act nutrition standards last week, finding 48 out of 50 states faced challenges complying with Mrs. Obama’s Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act.

The new standards led to kids throwing out their fruits and vegetables, student boycotts, higher lunch costs, and odd food pairings such as “cheese stick with shrimp” in order for schools to comply with the complicated rules.

The National School Lunch Program saw a sharp decline in participation once the healthy standards went into effect during the 2012-2013 school year. A total of 1,086,000 students stopped buying school lunch, after participation had increased steadily for nearly a decade.

The report found that 321 districts left the National School Lunch Program altogether, many of which cited the new standards as a factor.

The decline was “influenced by changes made to comply with the new lunch content and nutrition standards,” state and local officials said.

Though the USDA has claimed the standards were “proving popular,” the GAO report cited numerous cases where kids are unhappy with their new menus.

In Georgia, kids resisted the loss of their beloved fried chicken. In New Mexico, whole-wheat tortillas went straight to the trash can. And in Tennessee, after schools replaced familiar flaky white biscuits with a whole-grain variety, one official reported a “severe amount of rejection.”

What began as an effort led by first lady Michelle Obama to serve more-healthful food to American schoolchildren has turned into a clash of cultures across the country — and, now, a high-profile Washington lobbying battle.

So it’s gone Political. YOU will comply with MAMMA Government!! 🙂

Some school officials, particularly in rural communities, have complained about the White House seeking to impose costly food standards on districts that don’t want them. Several of these critics, speaking with reporters this week, complained about cafeteria garbage cans swelling with fruits, veggies and other healthful foods rejected by students.

“We can’t force students to eat something they don’t want,” said Lyman Graham, food service director for consolidated schools near Roswell, N.M. “Many families in the Southwest will not accept whole-grain tortillas.

“Schools can’t change cultural preferences,” Graham added. “And with sky-high produce costs, we simply cannot afford to feed our trash cans.”

BUT WE ARE FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND WE ARE SANCTIMONIOUS CRONY LIBERALS WE KNOW BEST!! So just shut up and eat your government prepared food and like it or else!

So what if your food costs go sky high why the hell would we care? Look what we’re doing to your Gasoline and Electric Bills!

It’s for your Own Good! Government knows Best!  Momma Obama knows best!

And you don’t want to make Momma mad now do you?! 🙂

The standards forced some schools to stop serving peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and led middle school and high school students to opt for vending machines or buying food off campus to avoid the lunch line.

Jonathan Dickl, school nutrition director in Knox County, Tenn., described anger over the demise of traditional biscuits, a food he called a “mainstay” in the South.

The GAO conducted a nationwide survey of nutrition directors and visited 17 schools in eight school districts for the audit. In each district, “students expressed dislike for certain foods that were served to comply with the new requirements, such as whole grain-rich products and vegetables in the beans and peas (legumes) and red-orange sub-groups, and this may have affected participation.”

The standards brought “negative student reactions.” In one case, middle school and high school students organized a three-week boycott after their school changed their sandwiches to comply with the rules.

All eight School Food Authorities (SFAs) the GAO visited “modified or eliminated” popular food items. One district had to cut cheeseburgers because “adding cheese to the district’s burger patties would have made it difficult to stay within the weekly meat maximums.”

The new standards are exhaustive, including calorie ranges for each age group, sodium limits, zero tolerance for trans fats, and specific ounce amounts for meats and grains. White bread will be mostly phased out beginning in 2014 because only “whole grain rich” items will be allowed.

Portion requirements and calorie limits are also in conflict, leading some SFAs to add unhealthy food such as pudding or potato chips to the menu, and serve odd food combinations in order to meet the rules.

“For example, one SFA served saltine crackers and croutons with certain salads to meet the minimum daily grain requirement and a cheese stick with shrimp to meet the minimum daily meat requirement,” the GAO said.

Unappetizing food led to the biggest problem school officials faced: food waste.

“Students may take the food components they are required to as part of the school lunch but then choose not to eat them,” the GAO said. As a result, 48 out of 50 states cited waste as a challenge.

“In our lunch period observations in 7 of 17 schools, we saw many students throw away some or all of their fruits and vegetables,” the GAO said.

The “morale” for cafeteria workers has also suffered under the new standards.

“Staff in one SFA noted that the increased amount of time and effort to prepare fruits and vegetables also led to morale issues when staff saw students throw the fruits and vegetables in the trash,” the GAO said.

Lunchroom costs are also going up due to the need for “new spoons and ladles to match the new portion size requirements.” Thirty-one percent of SFAs nationwide said they needed additional kitchen equipment to comply with the new lunch requirements last school year.

The law mandated that schools increase the price of school lunches, causing students to stop buying “because they felt they were being asked to pay more for less food.” Kids who pay full price for meals declined by 10 percent last school year, the lowest rate in over a decade.

Challenges with the school lunch program, which cost $11.6 billion in 2012, are expected to continue, as further regulations go into effect. The “first of three” sodium limits starts in 2014-2015, though “many of the foods available from manufacturers do not yet comply with these limits.”

School officials noted, “it will be very difficult” to serve food that is “palatable to students” under the sodium standards.

As for the other requirements, the GAO said students would get used to it.

“Although school lunch participation has declined, it is likely that participation will improve over time as students adjust to the lunch changes,” they said.

Because they will have no choice. Eat Momma Government’s porridge or Starve!

The Adults are next!

<<maniacal Laugh>>


Check Your Privilege

Liberals have a new word for what normal people call “success.” They call it “privilege,” as if a happy, prosperous life is the result of some magic process related to where your great-great-great-grandfather came from.

It’s the latest leftist argument tactic, which means it is a tactic designed to prevent any argument and to beat you into rhetorical submission. Conservatives, don’t play their game.

It’s easy to see that this notion that accomplishment comes not from hard work but from some mysterious force, operating out there in the ether, is essential to liberal thought. To excuse the dole-devouring layabouts who form so much of the Democrat voting base, it is critical that they undermine the achievements of those who support themselves. We can’t have the American people thinking that hard work leads to success; people might start asking why liberal constituencies don’t just work harder instead of demanding more money from those who actually produce something.

This “Check your privilege” meme is the newest trump card du jour on college campuses and in other domains of progressive tyranny. It morphed into existence from the “You racist!” wolf-cry that is now so discredited that it produces little but snickers even among liberal fellow travelers. After all, if everyone is racist – and to the progressives, everyone is except themselves – then no one is really racist. And it’s kind of hard to take seriously being called “racist” by adherents of a political party that made a KKK kleagle its Senate majority leader.

So how do we deal with this idiocy?

The proper response to the privilege gambit is laughter. The super-serious zealots of progressivism hate being laughed at, but there’s really no other appropriate response outside of a stream of obscenities. The privilege game is designed to circumvent arguments based on reason and facts and evidence, so the way to win it is to defeat it on its own terms.

Call: “Check your privilege!”

Response: “What you call ‘privilege’ is just me being better than you.”

They won’t like it. It will make them angry. Good. Because tactics like “Check your privilege” are designed to make us angry, to put us off-balance, to baffle us and suck us down into a rabbit hole of leftist jargon and progressive stupidity.

Don’t follow them. Mock them. Accuse them of adhering to a transphobic cisnormative paradigm and start shrieking “Hate crime!”

Don’t worry about not making sense. They’re college students. They are used to not understanding what people smarter than they are tell them.

Respectful argument should be reserved for those who respect the concept of argument. The sulky sophomores who babble about privilege do not. They only understand power. And we give them power when we give their nonsense the respect we would give a coherent argument.

They deserve only laughter. And to laugh at them, we simply need to refuse to be intimidated.

The plain fact is that what they understand to be “privilege” is really just what regular people understand is a “consequence.” It is a consequence of hard work, of delaying gratification and of sacrifice. No one came and bestowed this country upon us. We built it. Some of us died doing so. If we have privilege, it was earned at Bunker Hill, Gettysburg and Normandy. It’s not a function of skin tone or the number of vowels in your name; it’s a function of character.

Unlike them, many of us have lived overseas, and often in rather bullet-rich environs. Our life experience consists of more than reading Herbert Marcuse and showing solidarity with oppressed Guatemalan banana pickers by boycotting Chiquita. What we have today in this country is not anything to be ashamed of or to apologize for, but to be proud of.

Their poisonous notion of privilege is really just another way for liberals to pick winners and losers based not upon who has won or lost in the real world, but upon who is useful and not useful to the progressive project at any given moment.

This is why you see young people descended from Holocaust survivors tagged as bearers of “privilege” when their tattooed, emaciated grand-parents landed here with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Others who grew up in luxury get to bear the label of “unprivileged” because ten generations ago some relative came from a particular continent.

It’s idiocy. It’s immoral. We need to say so. For too long we’ve put up with this silliness.

What’s particularly amusing when you push back on these clowns is that they are so surprised to experience resistance to their petty fascism. Many of them, being the special snowflakes that they are, have never had anyone express to them the notion that they might be wrong. University administrators are too terrified of these whiny pipsqueaks to correct them. Certainly their helicopter parents never did – Gaia forbid that their little psyches be harmed by confronting them with their foolishness.

For too long we conservatives have played nicely, being good sports about being slandered and returning respect when offered contempt. It didn’t work. It’s time to try something new. And that something new is not taking guff from some 20 year-old gender studies major with a stupid tribal tatt, a sense of entitlement and a big mouth.


What they say is privilege is what we say is a reward for doing more with our lives than waiting for Uncle Sucker to refill our EBT cards. “Privilege” is a result of not being a human sloth, of not doing drugs, of not having kids we can’t afford them, and of not living our lives as a practical exercise in chaos theory.

Check my privilege? I just did, and it’s doing great. If you want some privilege too, maybe you ought to get your sorry behind a job. (Kurt Schlichter)

And that would not be the $15/hr burger flipper you think you deserve.

My first job was for 4.15/hr and I “detailed” cars (washed) in 115 degrees in the summer. I was very “privileged” to have that job. 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

White Common Core

“The reason why I helped write the [Common Core] standards and the reason why I am here today is that, as a white male in society, I am given a lot of privilege that I didn’t earn,” said Dr. David Pook at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics.

The irony here is that this self-professed “privileged white male” teaches at an expensive school for the white privileged and that the Common Core standards he helped design are not good enough for his students.

Consider these recent news stories on the controversial curriculum:

Unsurprisingly, the Derryfield School where Pook teaches considers the Common Core standards “inferior” and doesn’t use them.

Pook has said: “As a white male in society, I’m given a lot of privilege I didn’t earn.  And, as a result, I think it’s really important that all the kids get an equal opportunity to learn how to read.” (CNS)

Just don’t think politically incorrect thoughts.

No indoctrination here…Move along… 🙂

In case you missed it over the long holiday weekend, in an attempt to prove “white privilege” is a thing, notorious race-baiter, former boarding school student, privileged first-class flyer and MSNBC host Toure said surviving the holocaust is a result of “the power of whiteness.”

He gets pummeled and blames it on 140 character limit on Twitter. I doubt the longer dissertation on this would have improved it any.

Imagine if a Conservative said this?

Nope, no hypocrisy here. 🙂

More on this, this weekend.

148987 600 Show of Force cartoons


148535 600 Govt Health Care cartoons

Fatal Conceit

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel prize in economics in part because of his prescient warning about what he called “the fatal conceit,” of intellectuals, who tend to believe that they are capable of centrally planning life for everyone.

The keyword is “conceit” or arrogance. The feeling of superiority of will and calrity of “vision”. The “conceit” of I must be right because I am doing “good” and my intentions are “good”.

I can make everyone “happy” and everything “fair”.

The bankruptcy of that model was evident with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the move toward capitalism in China, and the tragic deprivation in places like Cuba and North Korea. So why does Washington keep thinking that it can micromanage entire industries?

This fatal conceit is at or near the epicenter of nearly every crisis of recent times in America. Start with the housing bubble. A vast over allocation of resources by the federal government seduced Americans into buying a home, whether they could afford it or not.

On the eve of the financial meltdown in 2008, nearly the entire mortgage industry was subsidized By Uncle Sam. This over allocation of resources into homes caused housing prices to explode and it also rewarded massive speculation and fraud.

Who was hurt most? The very people it was designed to help: those at the bottom. They had to borrow more money to buy a home at what then seemed to be ever increasing prices.

Then the housing market collapsed and the poor lost their homes and their credit ratings. The massive intrusion of government into housing produced a worldwide financial catastrophe that brought the economies of the Western World, in particular, to a screeching halt.

Then came ObamaCare, which was designed to improve the delivery of medical goods and services, which constitute about 17% of the economy. The most successful economy in the history of man was going to be fixed with a law 974 pages long.

Put that into perspective. The Federal Reserve Act was about 50 pages. Now only partially in place, some 15,000 pages of ObamaCare regulation — a pile 7 feet tall — will have to be read, deciphered, and in many cases litigated.

Ask yourself, is that an environment that encourages entrepreneurs, innovators? Or is that an environment that encourages crony capitalism? This is a critical distinction?

Then there is the energy revolution in America. Only a few years ago, not one expert, and not one government policy, entertained even the remotest possibility that the U.S. could ever be energy independent, that North America could have the largest reservoir of hydrocarbons in the world.

The central planners, the intellectuals, told us we needed to invest billions of taxpayer money in alternative energy. Our president told us, as recently as three years ago, we were running out of oil and gas.

Wrong again. Today we are rapidly becoming energy independent. We now know North America has the largest reservoir of hydrocarbons in the world. This world changing event happened not because of top-down planning, but in spite of it. The “Shale Revolution” was created by what the late Julian Simon called “the ultimate resource” — the ingenuity of human beings.

This resource is not only the ultimate resource, it is a resource widely dispersed across the globe without limits. It does not need to be either mined or drilled, its fertilized—with freedom, with personal liberty.

All that has to happen for life-changing innovations to happen as a normal course of events is for government planners to stay out of the way. This was the central message of Hayek and he stated it so elegantly in his lecture “The Pretense of Knowledge,” delivered in Stockholm 40 years ago, when he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Here’s Hayek in 1974: “If man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order (that’s ObamaCare), he will have to learn that in this, as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organized kind prevails, he cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible.

“He will therefore have to use what knowledge he can achieve, not to shape the results as the craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather to cultivate a growth by providing the appropriate environment, in the manner in which the gardener does this for his plants.

“There is danger in the exuberant feeling of ever growing power which the advance of the physical sciences has engendered and which tempts man to try, ‘dizzy with success’… to subject not only our natural but also our human environment to the control of a human will (that’s ObamaCare).

“The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson, of humility, which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society (that’s ObamaCare) — a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization, which no brain has designed, but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.”

The tragedy is that 40 years later, Washington still can’t get this right.

• Thomas A. Smith is president of Prescott Investors and was this year’s recipient of the Alexander Hamilton Award given out by the Manhattan Institute. This is a condensation of his remarks. (IBD)

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

148961 600 VA Red Tape cartoons


Common Core

Cass Sunsteen “Regulatory Czar” for Obama is the author of this, Be Afraid:

Suppose that an authoritarian government decides to embark on a program of curricular reform, with the explicit goal of indoctrinating the nation’s high school students. Suppose that it wants to change the curriculum to teach students that their government is good and trustworthy, that their system is democratic and committed to the rule of law, and that free markets are a big problem.

You don’t have to, it’s called “Common Core” and it was authored by the very Progressive Liberals Mr Sunsteen is a party to.

Will such a government succeed? Or will high school students simply roll their eyes?

Questions of this kind have long been debated, but without the benefit of reliable evidence. New research, from Davide Cantoni of the University of Munich and several co-authors, shows that recent curricular reforms in China, explicitly designed to transform students’ political views, have mostly worked. The findings offer remarkable evidence about the potential influence of the high school curriculum on what students end up thinking — and they give us some important insights into contemporary China as well.


Here’s the background. Starting in 2001, China decided to engage in a nationwide reform of its curriculum, including significant changes in the textbooks used by students in grades 10, 11 and 12. In that year, China’s Ministry of Education stated that education should “form in students a correct worldview, a correct view on life, and a correct value system.”

The reforms, implemented a few years later, had six major goals:

1. Students should learn about, and value, Chinese “democracy” and political participation.

2. Students should learn about the importance of the rule of law for legitimizing the Chinese government.

3. Students should study the “Three Represents” ideology set out by Jiang Zemin, who served as China’s president from 1993 to 2003. The idea of the “Three Represents” is to extend political influence to people who were traditionally excluded from power under communism, but who are important to the nation’s socioeconomic success (such as managers and employees working for private business).

4. Students should understand the limits of free markets, and should form a positive view about China’s distinctive approach to the economy.

5. Students should be conscious of environmental issues.

6. Students should develop an appreciation for the diversity of ethnic heritages in China, and the Han majority should not have discriminatory views about minorities.

Sound Familiar?? 🙂

Because different provinces adopted the new curriculum at different times, Cantoni and his co-authors were able to isolate its effects on students’ views. They surveyed almost 2,000 Chinese university students, many of whom studied under the new curriculum, but many of whom did not.

The crucial finding from the study is that the new curriculum greatly affected students’ thinking. They became more likely to count the Chinese political system as democratic. They displayed a higher level of trust in public officials. They were more skeptical of free markets, and more likely to reject the view that a market economy is preferable to any other economic system. They were more likely to want to extend political influence to groups outside of the Chinese Communist Party.

On two questions, however, the curricular reforms failed. Students didn’t become more favorably disposed toward environmental protection. They were not more likely to give the environment priority over economic growth, and they were not more willing to give up some of their income to protect the environment. Nor was there a significant change in the attitudes of Han Chinese students (the majority) toward minorities.

Give them time. It’s taken Liberals in this country several generations…

These findings raise a host of questions. Why were the last two reforms unsuccessful? It is reasonable to speculate that in recent years, Chinese students have been concerned above all about economic growth and therefore were less willing to want to focus their attention on environmental protection. With respect to minorities, the students’ beliefs appear to be deeply engrained, and essentially impervious to curricular influences.

Notwithstanding the two failures, it is striking, and somewhat ominous, that government planners were able to succeed in altering students’ views on fundamental questions about their nation. As Cantoni and his co-authors summarize their various findings, “the state can effectively indoctrinate students.” To be sure, families and friends matter, as do economic incentives, but if an authoritarian government is determined to move students in major ways, it may well be able to do so.


Is this conclusion limited to authoritarian nations? In a democratic country with a flourishing civil society, a high degree of pluralism, and ample room for disagreement and dissent — like the U.S. — it may well be harder to use the curriculum to change the political views of young people. But even in such societies, high schools probably have a significant ability to move students toward what they consider “a correct worldview, a correct view on life, and a correct value system.” That’s an opportunity, to be sure, but it is also a warning.

Wise parents should think twice about enrolling their children in government schools. And if they do, they should keep close tabs on what they’re being taught.

Reading, writing and arithmetic are not as important anymore in many classrooms.

Learning the evils of private ownership and “white privilege” are the main lessons they want children to learn.

P.s From The Politically Correct BBC:

They edited the word “girl” out as viewers might take offensive from a program re-broadcast.

Critics, however, attacked the move. Tory MP Philip Davies, who sits on the Commons culture, media and sport committee, said: ‘They are finding offence where none is taken or intended.

A BBC spokesman said: ‘Mark didn’t mean to cause offense. But the word “girl” was taken out just in case it did.’

‘We are going to end up in a situation where nobody is going to dare say anything lest some politically correct zealot deems it offensive.’

Already there, you “racist”, “homophobe”  “extremist” “teabagger” of “white privilege”. 🙂

And the state teaches you from The Ministry of Truth’s  approved “common” State Handbook.

Ah, 1984, it seems like only yesterday…


Dining Out

The fight over the minimum wage, which President Obama and Democrats hope to make a centerpiece of this year’s midterm elections, comes down to two simple arguments. Obama says low-income working Americans deserve a raise, while Republicans say raising the minimum wage would cost jobs.

It was a mostly theoretical argument until Feb. 12, when Obama signed an executive order raising the minimum wage for employees of federal contractors to $10.10 an hour from $7.25.

“This will make a difference for folks,” Obama said at a White House signing ceremony. “Right now, there’s a dishwasher at Randolph Air Force Base in Texas making $7.76 an hour — $7.76 an hour. There’s a fast-food worker at Andrews, right down the street, making $8.91 an hour. There’s a laundry worker at Camp Dodge in Iowa making $9.03 an hour. Once I sign this order, starting next year, as their contracts come up, each of them and many of their fellow coworkers are going to get a raise.”

Obama’s order does not take effect until January 1, 2015. But there are signs it is already having an effect — and it is not what the president and his party said it would be.

In late March, the publication Military Times reported that three McDonald’s fast-food restaurants, plus one other lesser-known food outlet, will soon close at Navy bases, while other national-name chains have “asked to be released from their Army and Air Force Exchange Service contracts to operate fast-food restaurants at two other installations.”

Military Times quoted sources saying the closures are related to the coming mandatory wage increases, with one source saying they are “the tip of the iceberg.”

The closures, real and contemplated, are a serious concern to 40 Republican members of the House Armed Services and Education and Workforce committees, who this month wrote Labor Secretary Thomas Perez asking that the mandatory increase not apply to some businesses on military bases.

“Should these policy changes be fully implemented, we are concerned they will eliminate jobs, negatively impact recreational services on military bases, and limit the dining options for servicemen and women on military installations,” the lawmakers wrote.

The administration is making it very expensive to do business on military bases, and not just because of the minimum wage. Under federal contracting law, some businesses operating on military installations must also pay their workers something called a health and welfare payment, which last year was $2.56 an hour but which the administration has now raised to $3.81 an hour.

In the past, fast-food employers did not have to pay the health and welfare payment, but last fall the Obama Labor Department ruled that they must. So add $3.81 per hour, per employee to the employers’ cost. And then add Obama’s $2.85 an hour increase in the minimum wage. Together, employers are looking at paying $6.66 more per hour, per employee. That’s a back-breaking burden. (Just for good measure, the administration also demanded such employers provide paid holidays and vacation time.)

And one more thing. Military contracting laws do not allow businesses to raise their prices above the level prevailing in the local community. The fast-food operators can’t charge more to make up their losses.

One group perhaps most concerned about the administration’s increases is the military itself. Earlier this month, Russell Beland, who is deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for military manpower and personnel, wrote a letter to the Labor Department asking for relief for fast-food contractors.

“Given the business model typical in the fast-food industry, this increase in the cost of labor dramatically disrupts the profitability and viability of food service operators” on military bases, Beland wrote. “The increased labor burden resulting from the new (wage structure) eliminates any profit the operator might otherwise realize and puts him in an impossible business dilemma.”

Beland wrote that Navy exchange officials estimate that 390 fast-food concessions in the U.S. and territories will close because of the increased costs. “Closure of these facilities would result in loss of work for nearly 5,750 contracted concession employees who are currently gainfully employed,” Beland wrote.

And that’s just for the Navy and Marines. The Army exchange system is much bigger, and including the Air Force, could affect as many as 10,000 more jobs.

The Obama administration knows it is placing a massive burden on businesses that operate on military bases. A few days ago, the Labor Department temporarily rescinded some of the new costs while it “re-evaluates” its actions. But President Obama’s executive order is still there, waiting to go into effect.

Under any conceivable scenario, Obama’s edict, combined with his administration’s policies, will place unbearable new burdens on businesses at military bases and, yes, result in fewer jobs. It looks like the president’s critics were right. (Bryon York)

The LEFT’s response:

But labor activist George Faraday told The Fiscal Times the argument against the new wage rules is bunk:

“The specter of mass layoffs being raised is an illusion. If they care about the welfare of military spouses they should care about whether military spouses [working at fast food outlets] are making a living wage.”

The Daily Kos:

If companies can afford to pay their CEO between $3125 and $4206 an hour, they can afford to pay their front line employees $10.10 to $15.00 an hour. The argument that they would need to raise the price of food to subsidize this pay raise is also faulty. Instead of raising food prices and closing restaurants to pay for an across the board pay increase for their lowest paid front line employees, maybe they should cut bloated executive pay. It would take someone earning the average wage at McDonald’s 523 years to make what the CEO makes in a year.

Does Class Warfare/Class Envy/Hatred get any clearer than that?? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel


The Greatest Orwellian Speaker in American History has struck again.

A government mandate that is backed up by law by IRS jackboots is now “encouragement”. 🙂

President Barack Obama told a fundraising crowd in his hometown of Chicago that Obamacare, known mostly for the individual mandate, is simply a free-market tool “to encourage people to buy insurance.”

Obama says individual mandate is simply meant to encourage people to buy insurance

“Encourage” is an interesting characterization of what both Republicans and Democrats consistently called a “mandate” during the debate over the Affordable Care Act, and during the legal fight that went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in 2012 that the mandate was constitutional as a tax. The law also contains subsidies for lower income Americans to purchase health insurance, which would be a carrot for some to buy insurance, and a stick for all who didn’t.

Although the health law relies on penalties to get people to buy private insurance plans, the Merriam-Webster definition of “encourage” is “to make (someone) more determined, hopeful, or confident,” “to make (something) more appealing or more likely to happen,” or “to make (someone) more likely to do something : to tell or advise (someone) to do something.”

In 2014, the penalty for an adult without insurance is $95, and $47.50 per child – or 1 percent of a household income, whichever is greater. That penalty increases to $325 per adult and $162.50 per child, or 2 percent of a household income – whichever is greater. In 2016 the penalty rises to $695 per adult, $347.50 per child, or 2.5 percent of a household’s income. After 2017, the fine increases with the rate of inflation.

The financial penalties perhaps would meet the third definition of encourage: “to make (someone) more likely to do something : to tell or advise (someone) to do something.” Meanwhile, the Medicaid expansion would also likely fall under the traditional definition of encourage, at least for those who qualify.

Nevertheless, the Obamacare law is most known for the mandate that individuals buy insurance either through their job, through subsidies if they qualify or through the marketplace exchanges on and in the states. The law further mandates that all employers with more than 50 workers provide government-approved health insurance plans.

Obama spoke Thursday night at a private home in Chicago at a fundraising event for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee where he was critical of Republicans.

“They operate on a single theory — which is, if government is dismantled and folks at the top can do more and more without restraint, that everybody else is going to benefit from it,” Obama said. “I don’t know if they actually believe it, but that’s what they say and this is not a situation of equivalence where the Democrats are this far-left crazy group and we’re not willing to meet in the middle.”

“If you need a better example than that, take a look at a health care law that uses the private sector to encourage people to buy insurance and has brought health care inflation down to its lowest rate in 50 years,” Obama continued. “And you would think that I had dismantled the entire free-market system — despite the fact that we now have somewhere between 13 and 15 million people who have insurance now that didn’t have it before. So I need a new Congress. But at a minimum, I’ve got to have a Democratic Senate.”

You can Keep Your Doctor…

You can Keep Your Plan…

Your Premiums will Decrease by $2500…

Yeah, that’s the ticket!

Nothing to see here… 🙂

  • Next year, the CBO expects the average price for a benchmark plan to increase by $100, but rates will vary by state and the geographic regions within them. In Arizona, Indiana, Virginia and Washington state, insurers have already submitted rate proposals, with most seeking premium hikes.Some larger carriers in Washington state and Indiana have asked for rate hikes of 8 to 10 percent, while others are seeking double-digit increases, said Gary Claxton, a vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health-policy research group. (McClatchy)
  • SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV): “I’ll be able to dig up some emails that make part of the Affordable Care Act that doesn’t look good-especially from people who made up their mind that they don’t want it to work because they don’t like the president. Maybe he’s of the wrong color, something of that sort. I’ve seen a lot of that and I know a lot of that to be true. It’s not something you’re meant to talk about in public but it’s something I’m talking about in public because that is very true.”
  • And on that bombshell…Good night! 🙂
  • Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
  • Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez


Vision Problems

Liberals are always going on about how they are more “sensitive” to the concerns of “the poor”…yet…

May 20 marks the 1,245th straight day that the national average for a gallon of regular gasoline costs more than $3 a gallon, according to AAA data. That’s nearly three-and-a-half years above $3 a gallon.

That can’t help the poor. But it does help the Liberal Agenda.

So does ObamaCare, their nearly 100 year old wet dream of Government control of everyone through Health Care.

Mind you, the VA scandal is just an annoying blip they have to find a a way to sweep under the rug…Nothing about Government Health Care to see here…

In the meantime… they are “angry” about it. So “angry” in fact…

As the Veterans Affairs (VA) fiasco rages on, the House passed a piece of legislation that would make it easier to fire VA employees and make the department more accountable.  It was passed with bipartisan support, with the vote being 390 in favor to 33 against.

There was only one problem.  The bill (VA Management Accountability Act, H.R.4031) failed to pass the U.S. Senate.  Senate Democrats decided mark this Memorial Day by blocking this bill.

I’m, sure it was “too partisan” or some such BS. They are proud to wear their Union diapers. So the Democrats will want to pass their own bill, which undoubtedly will be all style and no substance and full of cronyism and super regulations that are ridculous and just look like a band aid, but if you’re against this one you obviously hate veterans! 🙂

And when the Republicans reject THEIR bill (not the bi-partisan one they rejected) they’ll bash them repeatedly in the media right before the election. The “other” bill will not even register in their consciousness.

After all, they “care”. 🙂

They care about “jobs”

The unemployment rate has been higher than ever before ever since The Liberals took over. But it’s around 3% in North Dakota because of the oil boom.

But Liberals hate Oil. They refuse to pass the Keystone Pipeline. They have the EPA Nazis going out and harassing business people and destroying jobs that aren’t politically correct.

They want a $15/hr minimum wage, that will ruin businesses and put EVEN MORE people out of work.

But opposing them is just “greedy” and “insensitive” to the poor. So they send out their shock troops to make an irrational fear-based circus out it.

Because they “care”.

There is the lowest labor participation rate in 35 years.

BUT their narrative feeds their Agenda.  And they “care”. 🙂

So back off.

They talk incessantly about the “War on Women” over abortion and birth Control but are absolutely silent as the grave about Sharia Law and the treatment of women under their hand picked Politically Correct Religion, Islam.

You “misogynist”!

Liberals loudly proclaim they are Pro-Choice.

As long as that choice fits THEIR Agenda that is.

pro-choice butAre you starting to see a pattern?

Oh, and if you happen to protest them expect the IRS to harass you, and then they’ll deny they were ever doing it.

The Holier than thou Liberal media will call you a “racist”, “a Homophobe”,”a radical”,”a Misogynist”,”a partisan”, “A domestic Terrorist” or even the hail mary of them all you “racist!”, or any other schoolyard nasty name in an attempt to shut you the hell up.

But they like the First Amendment, they say. As long as you say something they don’t disagree with that is.

Oh, and they absolutely hate the 2nd Amendment. The idea of you carrying a gun around to defend yourself is utterly mad-hatter time to them. That’s the Government’s job.

After all, the NSA is only “protecting” you. And we wouldn’t want you to go off like a loose cannon when they Stormtroopers come with their drones and take over, now would we?

It’s for for your own good.

The Government is here to Protect & Serve. How can we Help you, today? 🙂

You can keep your Doctor. Your Health Care. And it will cost less.

Trust Us.

We’ll Protect you from yourself.

Feel Better Now? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Well, Mama ain’t happy.

Look out, everyone: The nation’s school lunch lady, Michelle Obama, is mad. With her federal nutrition program under fire across the country and now on Capitol Hill, Mrs. Obama put out a “forceful” call to arms this week to “health activists,” according to The Washington Post.

Read: radical Leftists!

She’s cracking the whip. Her orders are clear: There must be no escape. The East Wing and its sycophants zealously oppose any effort to alter, delay or waive top-down school meal rules. Big Lunch must be guarded at all costs.

We “care” so much that we will not be denied. You will comply! Resistance is Futile. You will be assimilated!

Progressives blame kid-hating Republicans and greedy businesses for the revolt against Mrs. Obama’s failed policies. But the truth is right around the corner in your students’ cafeterias. Districts are losing money. Discarded food is piling high. Kids are going off-campus to fill their tummies or just going hungry.

According to the School Nutrition Association, almost half of school meal programs reported declines in revenue in the 2012-13 school year, and 90 percent said food costs were up. Local nutrition directors are demanding more flexibility and freedom. Look no further than school districts in Los Angeles and Chicago.

As I noted in 2011, the L.A. Unified School District pronounced the first lady’s federally subsidized initiative a “flop” and a “disaster.” Principals reported “massive waste, with unopened milk cartons and uneaten entrees being thrown away.” The problem has only worsened. The Los Angeles Times reported last month that the city’s students throw out “at least $100,000 worth of food a day — and probably far more,” which “amounts to $18 million a year.”

Draconian federal rules dictate calorie counts, whole-grain requirements, the number of items that children must put on their trays, and even the color of the fruits and vegetables they must choose. Asked for a solution, LAUSD Food Service Director David Binkle told the Times bluntly: “We can stop forcing children to take food they don’t like and throw in the garbage.”

Or you can do what Arlington Heights District 214 in Michelle Obama’s home state of Illinois just did: Vote yourselves out of the unsavory one-size-fits-all mandate. Last week, the state’s second largest school district decided to quit the national school lunch program altogether. Officials pointed out that absurd federal guidelines prevented them from offering hard-boiled eggs, hummus, pretzels, some brands of yogurt, and nonfat milk in containers larger than 12 ounces.

The district will deliberately forgo $900,000 in federal aid and instead rely on its own nutritionist to devise healthy choices that students actually want. One local parent summed it up well: “(T)he government can’t control everything.”

As more schools look to withdraw, you can bet on the White House to ramp up the Republican-bashing rhetoric. Mrs. Obama’s advocates have already taken to social media to complain about Big Business special interests.

But let’s remember: Mrs. Obama has been working the food circuit since 2005, when the wife of newly elected Sen. Barack Obama was named to the corporate board of directors of Wal-Mart processed foods supplier TreeHouse Foods Inc. — collecting $45,000 in 2005, $51,200 in 2006, and 7,500 TreeHouse stock options worth more than $72,000 for each year.

Fact: The first lady has been the most insatiable crony at the center of the Fed Foods racket. Her nonprofit Partnership for a Healthier America has reported assets of $4.5 million from secret donors. It’s not just mean conservatives pointing out her Big Business ties. The left-wing documentary “Fed Up” made the same point before being edited under pressure. Hello, Chicago Way.

Mrs. Obama’s allies also have accused opponents of wanting to repeal “science-based” standards. But the first lady herself was caught spreading false claims that her program was responsible for reducing childhood obesity, when the decline began a decade ago.

And as I’ve reported previously, deep-pocketed Big Labor’s push to expand public union payrolls with thousands more food service workers is also driving Mrs. Obama’s agenda.

Waste, failure, lies and special interest ties. If federal food policy were really about the children, the East Wing would be embracing change. But this is not about protecting the kids. It’s about protecting Michelle Obama. Her thin-skinned response to criticism is telling:

Hell hath no fury like a Nanny State control freak scorned. (CNS)

And it’s all YOUR FAULT for resisting the “caring” and “compassion” smothering of the LEFT.

They just care about you too much. And it’s your fault for resisting their superior vision for your life.

Kinda like the mother on “The Goldbergs” don’t you think?… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

But as long as you do as Momma and Pappa Government say and don’t back talk everything will be happy and  perfect.

Kumbuya! Praise the Government!

Your Lord and Master demands it.



Political Cartoons by Chip Bok




Payback is a Bitch

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Obamacare offers subsidies to help pay for health insurance – if you are buying insurance through the federal exchange and your income qualifies. But now the word is out that at least 1 million people are probably getting the wrong subsidy amounts.

The Washington Post has inside sources providing all sorts of juicy details on this problem – but it didn’t take an investigative reporter to predict this was going to happen.

Heritage expert Alyene Senger warned that Obamacare’s subsidies are tied to income – and if your income changes at any point during the year, your subsidy is supposed to change, too. She explained in January:

if a person’s income fluctuates, which happens more frequently than many realize, the subsidy amount will change from month to month. Thus, when it comes time to file taxes in April, the amount of subsidy received over the past year must be reconciled with the final calculation of the total subsidy for which the individual was eligible—based on actual income for the entire tax year.

So if you qualify for more subsidy help than you receive during the year, you’ll get a tax refund. But if you were given more subsidy than your income qualifies you for, you will be required to repay the excess subsidy.

So don’t make too much (or pursue the American Dream of a better life too hard) of else Mama (Government) will become upset with you and have to get out the IRS yardstick and punish you for you sins you greedy little thing. 🙂

Settle for what Mama gives you, and just shut up and be a good little serf.

Now, the Post reports that the government is attempting to keep up with this – except that the part of Obamacare’s computer system that is supposed to match proof of income with people’s Obamacare applications is, well, not built yet.

Since taxpayers are funding the subsidies, it’s important to make sure the correct amounts are going to the correct people, right? Well, that does make the Obama administration “sensitive” these days, the Post says:

Beyond their concerns regarding overpayments, members of the Obama administration are sensitive because they promised congressional Republicans during budget negotiations last year that a thorough income-verification system would be in place.

This setup is a disaster. And it will ensnare a lot of people. Senger pointed to one analysis estimating that nearly 38 percent of families eligible for subsidies also experience “large income increases” at some point during the year – meaning they would have to pay back some or all of their subsidies.

“The issue is symptomatic of many problems that will plague the law in coming years,” Senger said.

Is it any wonder that 60 percent of voters in a recent poll said the debate about Obamacare is not over? And 89 percent said Obamacare will affect their voting decisions this fall.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is right – Obamacare is still not the answer for America’s health care needs. It’s time for Congress to look at patient-centered alternatives that would restore choice to American health care – and stop the unending tales of Obamacare disaster. (Heritage)

But it’s been the Liberal Socialist wet dream for nearly 100 years, they won’t stop until the lat drop of your blood is spilled in hubris to their God.

Hate the VA scandal, welcome to ObamaCare, the VA for the masses. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

So True…It’s like a perpetual PBS Pledge Break….

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler



New Threats

The White House will be “picking up the pace on executive actions,” as Congress focuses its efforts on the newly formed select committee investigating Benghazi, senior Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer declared Tuesday.

In an op-ed for The Huffington Post, Pfeiffer argued that congressional Republicans are not interested in engaging on the economy, instead spending time “obsessively trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act” and “ginning up politically motivated investigations.”

“Given this dynamic, President Obama has only one option — use every ounce of his authority to unilaterally improve economic security,” Pfeiffer said.

“Next week, as congressional Republicans spend their energy on yet another partisan investigation, we’ll be picking up the pace on the executive actions to help the economy,” Pfeiffer added. (The Hill)

After all, he’s done a great job so far!

The total number of disability beneficiaries in the United States rose from 10,981,423 in March to 10,996,447 in April, setting a new all-time record, according to newly released data from the Social Security Administration.

The labor force participation rate, however, which measures the share of Americans older than 16 who are actively looking for work or who have a job, declined to 62.8 percent, the worst in 36 years!

For the so-called Millennials that have to step in for the retiring Baby Boomers:

The labor force participation rate in April 2014 for Americans ages 25 to 29 hit the lowest level recorded since 1982, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) started tracking such data.

The labor force participation rate, which is the percentage of the civilian non-institutional population who participated in the labor force by either having a job during the month or actively seeking one, hit a record low in April 2014 of 79.8%.

And over a Million are newly graduated. I wonder if Burger King has $15/hr yet? 🙂

The number of Americans receiving disability benefits continues to exceed the populations of Greece, Tunisia and Portugal, and is approaching the population of Cuba, which according to the CIA World Factbook is 11,047,251.

The 10,996,447 total disability beneficiaries includes 8,942,232 disabled workers, 153,475 spouses of disabled workers, and 1,900,740 children of disabled workers.

None of those individual categories of beneficiaries set a record in April, but the combination of all three was the highest it has ever been in the history of the disability program.

The number of disabled workers peaked at 8,942,584 in December—with 352 more workers receiving disability than in April. (CNS)

So obviously, we need more imperious “executive” actions because they are working SO well so far! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie


Wrong Carrot, Wrong Stick

Under the Affordable Care Act’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (, hospitals that readmit “excessive” numbers of Medicare patients within 30 days of discharge now face significant penalties. The maximum penalty is 1% of a hospital’s Medicare reimbursement, but that will increase to 3% in 2015.

That may not sound like a lot, but for hospitals already struggling financially—especially those serving the poor—losing 1%-3% of their Medicare reimbursements could put them out of business. While the Affordable Care Act addresses important gaps in health care and insurance, this regulation is one of its major failings.

The wrong carrot and the wrong stick, typically Liberal bungling…

“Among patients with heart failure, hospitals that have higher readmission rates actually have lower mortality rates,” said Sunil Kripalani, MD, a professor with Vanderbilt University Medical Center who studies hospital readmissions. “So, which would we rather have — a hospital readmission or a death?” (Fox)

Apparently Death, but then again this is “government” health care. Look at the VA…. 😦

Giving hospitals an incentive to improve the quality of care and reduce the rehospitalization of patients, thereby lowering Medicare costs, is a worthy goal. But the current approach flies in the face of the best medical science and jeopardizes the health of patients and the bottom line of hospitals in three important ways:

Research shows that most readmissions can’t be prevented.

Readmissions are often unavoidable consequence of life-threatening complications that can appear after discharge from the hospital. In 2011, research at the University of Toronto revealed that only about 25% of all readmissions are preventable.

Moreover, according to a review of 72 medical studies—the review was conducted last year at the University of Texas—patients that are elderly, minority, poorly educated, poor, smokers and the noncompliant (among others) have higher readmission rates. These social factors are not controllable by hospitals and are not taken into consideration in penalty calculations.

Readmission penalties will have unintended consequences that harm patients.

Hospitals were initially penalized with reduced Medicare reimbursements if they had higher rates of readmission for patients with heart disease and pneumonia. Last week, the list was expanded to include serious lung conditions and hip and knee replacements. Hospitals will seek to keep such patients in emergency rooms rather than admit them. Why? The simplest way to avoid readmission is not to admit a patient in the first place. But substituting ER services for hospital stays will only increase the chance that patients will deteriorate and return with more complications.

The policy discriminates against poorer hospitals.

Small and financially struggling hospitals lack the resources to effectively manage their discharged patients at home. Attempting to reduce readmissions could create greater financial difficulties for them. The regulations will be particularly hazardous for hospitals in poor neighborhoods. A December 2012 Commonwealth Fund study of 2,200 hospitals found that “safety-net” hospitals that treat a higher number of lower-income patients are “30 percent more likely to have 30-day hospital readmission rates above the national average.”

Rather than penalizing hospitals for readmissions that they can’t prevent, why not fund proven and efficient strategies? A large number of randomized controlled trials—the gold standard of evidence—carried out at Yale and other prestigious institutions now prove that trained physician and nurse-practitioner teams can help homebound elderly and heart-failure patients avoid readmissions, sometimes reducing rehospitalizations by nearly 50%. The programs help patients use medical equipment, comply with medication schedules and diets, educate families, and follow up with patients at home, sometimes via the Internet or mobile devices.

Readmission penalties aren’t the only penalties in the Affordable Care Act. Policy makers too often assume economic penalties and incentives are magic bullets for improving patient safety. The evidence suggests otherwise.

Our recent nationwide study at Harvard Medical School found that Medicare penalties for hospital infections deemed “preventable” failed to reduce infections. Instead, the penalties contributed to misleading coding to give the appearance of fewer infections. What’s more, numerous studies have shown that paying doctors extra money for individual quality metrics (like treating high blood pressure) rarely, if ever, works.

The Obama administration promised to use science to inform policy. Given outsize health-care costs and the moral imperative of patient safety, Americans should especially demand proof of efficacy in this area. The federal readmission penalties are both dangerous and inefficient. It is time to amend these regulations to improve the quality of care through training and mentorship—not blame and punishment.

Science to inform policy? really? Hint: Global Warming…:)

Dr. Soumerai is a professor at Harvard Medical School and the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute. Dr. Koppel, a professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, conducts health-care research at Penn and Harvard.

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

The Rise of The Left


Medical Costs: President Obama used to talk about “bending the cost curve” as a justification for his health overhaul. But it looks increasingly like ObamaCare is sparking a major health care inflation spiral.

This week three big insurance companies in Massachusetts announced they lost money in the first quarter, thanks to ObamaCare’s new taxes and fees.

Just wait until Burger King and other have to play $15/hr as a minimum wage, the job loss and the companies loss will mount.

But at least the Left will be happy in their “superiority” and their “vision” of a “better” America…

And it will be someone elses fault when it all comes crashing down because they had “good intentions” so it can’t possibly be their fault.

After all, these companies make millions of dollars, they can afford to make a little less to help out “the people” The Leftists would say.

The fact that they don’t fundamentally care about how business works is the scariest part.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts reported a $59.3 million loss after it had to pay $73 million toward financing ObamaCare. Pilgrim Health paid $22.9 million in ObamaCare taxes, leading to a loss of $17.3 million. And the Tufts Health Plan would have broken even if not for ObamaCare.

The main cost imposed on these insurers is ObamaCare’s “health insurance tax,” which is based on a company’s market share. This year, the tax will cost the industry a total of $8 billion, and the burden will go up from there.

“We think of it as a sales tax on health care,” Lora Pellegrini, president of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, told the Boston Globe. “This is going to be passed on in higher premiums.”

And guess what, that will raise your Auto Insurance and your Home Insurance costs too. After all, Liability BODILY INJURY and uninsured BODILY INJURY…

Got that? Higher premiums. And that’s in Massachusetts, which had already imposed ObamaCare-like changes years before and has among the highest premiums in the nation.

And is dumping that exchange because it went bust!

But suggest anything else to a Liberal and they’ll howl about how you want to push grandma over a cliff and kill children.

The fact that THEY are pushing them over doesn’t even occur to them, because they are “doing the right thing” because “they care”.

Meanwhile, a new industry survey suggests that overall employer health costs will climb by 9% this year, and other surveys find small-business premium hikes in the double if not triple digits.

Keep in mind that premium growth was decelerating before ObamaCare — they climbed less than 6% in all but one of the past eight years, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

In addition, ObamaCare’s massive insurance subsidies are fueling demand, pushing first-quarter health spending up at a rate not seen since 1980.

The administration is aware of this problem. This week it decided to let insurance companies cap the amount they’ll pay toward expensive procedures (while requiring them to pay 100% of low-cost “preventive” treatments). It’s meant to keep premiums down, but turns the concept of insurance completely upside down.

Good luck with that Cancer treatment! But hey, you’ll get free birth control pills! 🙂

In the wake of this, Kaiser CEO Drew Altman predicted that “the conversation will soon shift back to health care costs because they are rising more sharply again.”

No kidding. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics knows you can’t turbocharge demand, pile on mandates and taxes, and expect prices to go down.


After all, it’s the “right” thing to do. 🙂

Anything else would be “greedy”, “racist” and “discriminatory”!! 🙂

Godzilla, King Of The GW Monsters

Let’s get things going this year by suggesting that Godzilla, which looks like it will open to a big box office debut, is actually a message to humanity to chill out about global warming, everything’s going to be okay.This film image released by Warner Bros. Pictures shows a scene from "Godzilla." (AP Photo/Warner Bros. Pictures)

The film opens at a huge quarry, where humanity’s insatiable thirst for fossil fuels (or diamonds or platinum or something) has uncovered a terrifying secret: a pair of radioactive MUTOs (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organisms). The point here, nominally, is that man brings about his own destruction by despoiling the planet. However, it’s worth noting that the one of the MUTOs immediately attacks a nuclear power plant, while the other, later, attacks a repository of nuclear waste. In this, the MUTOs feel like close cousins of the worst of the greens, those folks who demand action on climate change yet mindlessly attack nuclear power—the sole technology that could allow us to maintain our standard of living while reducing carbon emissions.

As the film progresses, the intellectual center of the picture is revealed to be Dr. Ichiro Serizawa (Ken Watanabe), who takes an almost zen-like approach to the MUTOs. He believes that Godzilla, who he has been searching for his entire adult life, is not a threat to humanity but a part of Earth’s natural biosphere. The giant lizard exists to “restore balance.” Serizawa also laments the “arrogance of man” for thinking he can control nature; the good doctor believes that the only way to stop the rampaging MUTOs is to let Godzilla fight them and kill them, to let nature run its course. The leaders of men disagree, opting to try and gather all three of the giant creatures into the same area off America’s west coast, where they will be destroyed by a thermonuclear warhead. This plan backfires, leading to a nuke threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands of San Franciscans.

There’s a lot going on here, but think about it this way: Serizawa, the only man who seems to grasp the true nature of the issue facing humanity, believes that the ecosphere will heal itself, will restore its own balance. He denounces mankind’s belief that we are able to drastically impact the environment in such a way that would make it uninhabitable. In other words, the Earth is a massively complex system, one that we can’t really damage by pumping a little excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We can, however, make things radically worse for mankind by arrogantly believing in our own ability to ruin, then fix, the world. The nuclear bomb that threatens to wipe out San Fran represents mankind’s fumbling attempts to fix a problem it has no ability to impact—it is a rather explicit denunciation of the urge to “do something!” even though we have no idea what to do. We can make things much worse for ourselves, but we can’t really stop nature from running its course. And nature will be just fine regardless of what we sentient apes believe—or do. (By Sonny Bunch — The Washington Free Beacon)

Godzilla is there to restore the balance of nature that man disturbs in his arrogance.

Liberals constantly tinkering with forces they don’t understand because they are too arrogant about how superior they are…

Hmmm…. 🙂

148583 600 Graduation cartoons

All in the Name of Science!

Unless it contradicts the politically and ideologically correct view of the Left that is…

global warming infidels

The scientific community is all about asking rigorous questions and letting the facts speak for themselves — except, it seems, when it comes to climate change.

A study casting doubt on global warming fears was rejected by a prestigious journal on the grounds that it would be, as one reviewer wrote, “less than helpful” to the cause of climate change.

Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of the report’s five authors, told the Times of London his work was thrown out for political, not scientific, reasons.

In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”.

Mike Hulme, professor of climate and culture at King’s College London, condemned fellow scientists for “harassing” Lennart Bengtsson, and gave warning that climate science had become too political.

Ministers who question the majority view among scientists about climate change should “shut up” and instead repeat the Government line on the issue, according to MPs.

The BBC should also give less airtime to climate sceptics and its editors should seek special clearance to interview them, according to the Commons Science and Technology Committee. Andrew Miller, the committee’s Labour chairman, said that appearances on radio and television by climate sceptics such as Lord Lawson of Blaby, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, should be accompanied by “health warnings”.

Mr Miller likened climate sceptics to The Monster Raving Loony Party.

The astonishing maturity and clarity of thought of the Left…. 🙂

“The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,” Bengtsson said.

The study challenged the prevailing consensus about the atmosphere’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases, meaning carbon dioxide and other pollutants might not cause global temperatures to rise as rapidly as organizations like the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have argued.

Bengtsson and his colleagues submitted their study to the journal Environmental Research Letters, but were told it had been rejected during the peer-review process.

His study suggested carbon dioxide may be less damaging to the planet than feared – effectively challenging the political consensus and the urgency of the taxpayer-funded drive towards green energy.

“(The study) is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics media side,” wrote one reviewer.

The reviewer also warned it would generate bad  publicity and have a ‘high’ but ‘strongly negative’ impact on the field of climate change science.

Bengtsson condemned the move as politically motivated.

“It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views,” Bengtsson said. “The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the (computer) models.”

He also noted the danger of implementing restrictive emissions regimes, like the Kyoto Protocol, on the basis on questionable science.

“If people are proposing to do major changes to the world’s economic system,” Bengtsson said, “we must have much more solid information.”

Benny Peiser, of the GWPF (Global Warming Policy Foundation- a sceptics think-tank), said the professor’s case was just one example of a ‘poisonous atmosphere’ pervading climate change research.

He said many scientists with dissenting views were having their research rejected by the editors of scientific journals, and young scientists were censoring their work out of fear for their careers.
‘It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views’
 Prof Bengtsson

Dr Peiser said: ‘Over the last few years, the editors of many of the world’s leading science journals have publicly advocated drastic policies to curb carbon dioxide emissions. At the same time, many have publicly attacked scientists sceptical of the climate alarm.

‘Instead of serving as open-minded broker of the contested fields of climate science and climate science, most science editors have opted to take a dogmatic stance that no longer allows for open research.’

David Gee, an emeritus professor at Uppsala University in Sweden, said the pressure on Prof Bengtsson ‘simply confirms the worst aspects of politicised science’.

So you better think the right thoughts or else! 🙂

The Guardian (a leftist newspaper)- Their Headline:

Murdoch-owned media hypes lone metereologist’s climate junk science
Absurd anti-science faux journalism flares up again – as usual, it’s Big Oil that’s set to benefit, not the public.


That’ll put all those Global Warming Haters in their Place and shut them up! 🙂


🙂 🙂 🙂


Stuck on Stupid

One thing I’m fond of saying on the radio is “Stupid spreads like a cold on a plane.” Mostly because it does. And mostly because that “stupid” is generally some progressive idea of governance, some plan or proposal to “fix” whatever the issue du jour happens to be. Generally, it’s a problem government action helped create in the first place. There’s always something, isn’t there?

Have you heard of the VMT? It stands for vehicle miles traveled, and it is progressives’ latest attempt to plug ever-growing state budget gaps caused by, alas, progressive policies.

VMT is being tested in Washington and Oregon as a “voluntary” alternative to state gas taxes. California is considering following suit. In exchange for a rebate of the gas taxes you paid—more than 50 cents per gallon in California—drivers agree to pay a per-mile tax.

There are some catches, as there always are.

First, you have to pay the gas tax when you buy your gas and wait for a rebate, which is akin to giving the government an interest-free loan till your rebate arrives. Also, at least I’d imagine, you have to have a stockpile of receipts. Lose some or all of them and you’re out of luck. Governments aren’t known for accepting the honor system when it comes to you getting your money back.

But, most importantly, you have to allow the government to track your odometer or install a GPS tracking device in your car so they can record every mile you drive, and every place. Right now it’s an option, but wearing seatbelts used to be an option too. Now, seatbelts are a primary offense—you can be pulled over if police see you not wearing one. In other words, things can change.

So why the VMT over the gas tax? Well, it seems the government, which set up the gas tax to pay for road maintenance, isn’t collecting enough money to meet those needs. Governments need you to buy gas, and lots of it, to cover their costs. And since the federal government is mandating ever-higher CAFE standards, this means cars go farther on less gas, which means less money to the states. Add to that state and federal incentivizing of electric and hybrid cars and you being to see the problem—less revenue but the same amount of wear and tear on the roads.

Although the VMT would raise more money for states (you didn’t really expect them to be doing this if it didn’t, did you?), it would, quite humorously, hit the very people who have been incentivized to buy electric and hybrids in the first place.

The current gas tax in Oregon is 30 cents per gallon, and the VMT is 1.5 cents per mile. That means if your car gets 30 miles per gallon, you pay 30 cents in taxes for those 30 miles. But, under the VMT, that same driver would pay 45 cents for those 30 miles, a full 50 percent increase in the gas tax. Some people like this idea because, even though they’re paying more, the refund aspect perverts the real impact. It feels like you’re getting a deal because you’re getting money back, even though you’re ultimately paying more. As the president is fond of saying, “It’s math.”

Electric and hybrid cars use less gas, which means those drivers with “Coexist,” “Obama/Biden” and “Love Mother Earth” bumper stickers will be hardest hit. They paid a premium for those cars—albeit one for which they got a tax break—not only so they could be “green” but so they wouldn’t get hammered at the pump.

Meanwhile, drivers of “dirty” cars—SUVs, Hummers, etc.—would get massive tax breaks.

I imagine that’s the opposite of the good karma the “Greenies” were looking for when they bought into the over-priced “save the planet” racket. It’s enough to make you laugh…almost.

But this is how government works. It creates a problem, then offers a solution. Meanwhile, that solution creates more problems, for which the government offers even more solutions. The ever-growing snake eats its own tail.

There’s a problem here, though. The normal solution when Democrats find themselves in this position is to blame Republicans. It’s usually pretty easy considering how horrible at messaging Republicans are. But these are states controlled by Democrats. They have no one to blame but themselves.

The normal solution for this situation would be for Democrats to simply raise the gas tax. It’s not like Democrats have an aversion to raising taxes. But Democrats have painted themselves into a corner on this issue.

Democrats are stuck with choices they don’t want to make: 1.) Raise the gas tax, which is wildly unpopular and regressive, so it will hurt the poor and hit the hated SUV drivers, but will appease their “green” supporters who overpaid for their cars to “save the planet.” 2.) Institute a VMT and run the risk of alienating “green” supporters who overpaid for their cars by giving a tax break to the very drivers they most hate, and hurt the poor because they tend to have to drive to other neighborhoods for work. 3.) Let roads continue to fall apart and annoy everyone; or 4.) Cut spending and/or replenish/stop raiding transportation trust funds so maintenance can happen.

None of these options are within the natural comfort zone of Democrats, so they’re scrambling. It will be fun to watch, especially if you don’t live in one of these states. But these states are not unique, they’re just first. This stupidity will spread to your state soon enough, just like bans on electronic cigarettes, trans fats and plastic bags. Just like that cold on a plane, there is no cure for the common stupid. (Derek Hunter)

Stupid is as Stupid does, Life is like a box of government snakes…One is eventually going to bite you in asp! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Fearmonger in Chief

Climate: Not since Jimmy Carter falsely spooked Americans about overpopulation, the world running out of food, water and energy, and worsening pollution, has a president been so filled with doom and gloom as this one.

Last week’s White House report on climate change was a primal scream to alarm Americans into action to save the earth from a literal meltdown. Maybe we should call President Obama the Fearmonger in Chief.

While scientists can argue until the cows come home about what will happen in the future with the planet’s climate, we do have scientific records on what’s already happened. Obama moans that the devastation from climate change is already here as more severe weather events threaten to imperil our very survival.

But, according to the government’s own records — which presumably the White House can get — severe weather events are no more likely now than they were 50 or 100 years ago and the losses of lives and property are much less devastating.

Here is what government data reports and top scientists tell us about extreme climate conditions:

• Hurricanes: The century-long trend in Hurricanes is slightly down, not up. According to the National Hurricane Center, in 2013, “There were no major hurricanes in the North Atlantic Basin for the first time since 1994. And the number of hurricanes this year was the lowest since 1982.”

According to Dr. Ryan Maue at Weather Bell Analytics, “We are currently in the longest period since the Civil War Era without a major hurricane strike in the U.S. (i.e., category 3, 4 or 5)”

Tornadoes: Don’t worry, Kansas. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says there has been no change in severe tornado activity. “There has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.”

Extreme heat and cold temperatures: NOAA’s U.S. Climate Extremes Index of unusually hot or cold temperatures finds that over the last 10 years, five years have been below the historical mean and five above the mean.

Severe drought/extreme moisture: While higher than average portions of the country were subjected to extreme drought/moisture in the last few years, the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s were more extreme in this regard. In fact, over the last 10 years, four years have been below the average and six above the average.

Cyclones: Maue reports: “the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low.”

Floods: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., past chairman of the American Meteorological Society Committee on Weather Forecasting and Analysis, reports, “floods have not increased in the U.S. in frequency or intensity since at least 1950. Flood losses as a percentage of U.S. GDP have dropped by about 75% since 1940.”

Warming: Even NOAA admits a “lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade” and a pause “in global warming observed since 2000.” Specifically, NOAA last year stated, “since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero.”

Pielke sums up: “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change. … It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate time scales either in the U.S. or globally.”

One big change between today and 100 years ago is that humans are much more capable of dealing with hurricanes and earthquakes and other acts of God.

Homes and buildings are better built to withstand severe storms and alert systems are much more accurate to warn people of the coming storms. As a result, globally, weather-related losses have actually decreased by about 25% as a proportion of GDP since 1990.

The liberal hubris is that government can do anything to change the earth’s climate or prevent the next big hurricane, earthquake or monsoon. These are the people in Washington who can’t run a website, can’t deliver the mail and can’t balance a budget. But they are going to prevent droughts and forest fires.

The President’s doomsday claims last week served mostly to undermine the alarmists’ case for radical action on climate change. Truth always seems to be the first casualty in this debate.

This is the tactic of tyrants. Americans are wise to be wary about giving up our basic freedoms and lowering our standard of living to combat an exaggerated crisis. (IBD)

But I doubt Joe Average American with the uniformed “American Idol” mind is smart enough to debunk this P.T. Barnum farce.

After all, you don’t want to be politically incorrect, now do you… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Everyone in The Pool

Remember that “$2500 a year” you were going to save “keeping” your own Doctor?? 🙂

ObamaCare premium proposals for 2015 from two states Monday revealed a potentially troubling trend: Big exchange operators are seeking the biggest hikes.

Some news outlets say that the early data implied that premium hikes would be modest.

Molina Healthcare (MOH), with 2,000 enrollees in Washington, aims to cut premiums by 6.8%. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan seeks just a 0.6% rise. But those carriers account for just 3% of state’s combined enrollment.

 View Enlarged Image

Meanwhile, Group Health Cooperative filed for an 11.2% rate increase for its nearly 24,000 exchange enrollees, about 16% of Washington’s total.

Weighting proposed rates by the size of the exchange operator suggests an average 8.8% hike.

Early evidence from Virginia shows a similar trend. WellPoint (WLP) wants an 8.5% hike for its Anthem HealthKeepers plan, while CareFirst Blue Choice has proposed a 14.9% increase. By comparison, Kaiser Foundation is seeking just a 3.3% rate bump.

Virginia Trend Similar

While good data aren’t available for Virginia on how many exchange enrollees each plan has, Kaiser operates in just four of the 95 counties. Including non-exchange plans, Anthem covers 110,000 Virginians vs. 32,000 for CareFirst and 10,000 for Kaiser.

It’s too early to draw broad conclusions based on two states’ incomplete data, but Washington’s in particular do offer some insight. Washington reports only the enrollment of those who have made an initial payment.

A check of exchange pricing shows that in King County,which includes Seattle, Group Health offers a silver plan 10% cheaper than Molina’s. Further, Molina doesn’t appear to offer a bronze plan.

For 2015, both carriers are making big adjustments. Molina seems to be getting serious about competing for customers, while Group Health has apparently found its pool of insured to be riskier than expected.

That shows the potential upside of a competitive exchange. While the rate changes reflect a state average that will differ from county to county, it’s possible that Molina may match, if not underprice, Group Health if they stick to their proposals.

Meanwhile, four more insurers have submitted proposals to sell plans on Washington’s exchange. They would bring 2015’s total to 12.

Competition Limited

Yet exchange competition may still be limited in much of the U.S. Today, more than 1,000 counties have only one or two insurers on the exchange.

Virginia and Washington also had a relatively high share of young adult sign-ups. Other states with riskier demographics may see bigger rate hikes.

Individuals and families who qualify for ObamaCare subsidies based on income will be shielded significantly from large premium increases. But the Congressional Budget Office projects that unsubsidized enrollees will jump from about 1 million this year to 3 million in 2015.

Big rate hikes could jeopardize that projection, though the uninsured will have to weigh higher premiums against a higher individual-mandate tax penalty. The penalty will jump to 2% of adjusted income above the tax threshold, from 1% in 2014.

Higher premiums could also push more young adults to opt for catastrophic plans. That would hurt ObamaCare’s main risk pool because they are effectively placed in a different pool. (IBD)

And that solves NOTHING and makes everyone pay more. Now that’s a great solution, don’t you think?. 🙂

When Obamacare operatives aren’t busy trashing the private health insurance market and squandering billions on useless technology, they’re busy … being idle. File the latest example of government health care profligacy under “Caution: Your tax dollars not at work.”

According to at least one Obamacare paper-pusher, employees at an application-processing center in Wentzville, Mo., are getting paid to sit around and do nothing. Investigative reporter Chris Nagus of the St. Louis television station KMOV News 4 spoke to the whistleblower. “They want to hire more people even though we still don’t have work to keep the people that we have busy,” the worker revealed. “There are some weeks that a data entry person would not process an application.”

The worker — or rather, shirker — also spilled the beans on how his colleagues are “told to sit at their computers and hit the refresh button every 10 minutes.” Another former worker at the processing facility added that the company “is a JOKE! There is nothing to do — NO WORK.”

You will not be surprised to learn that the company in charge of these Obamacare layabouts is embroiled in scandal — around the world, no less.

Multinational tech management company Serco won a $1.2 billion contract with the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid last summer to “support” the beleaguered Obamacare health care exchanges. (According to the latest estimates, nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer subsidies have now been squandered on inoperable or defunct health care exchanges in Massachusetts, Oregon, Nevada and Maryland.) In addition to the office in Missouri, Serco oversees Obamacare processing centers in Rogers, Ark., Lawton, Okla., and London, Ken., which are projected to “employ” up to 10,000 people.

Not long after Serco snagged its billion-dollar Cash for Obamacare Shirkers contract, news broke in Britain of a massive probe of fraud involving Serco’s parent company. The firm allegedly overbilled the government by “tens of millions of pounds” on a public contract to electronically monitor parolees. Investigators found that Serco had billed British taxpayers for tracking criminals who were dead or still in prison.

Just this week, British watchdogs called on the U.K. government to ban Serco from any further government work.

The company is also in hot water for manipulating a prison van escorting contract in London. And in Australia, Serco has been investigated and fined $15 million for mismanaging asylum detention centers across the country, where more than a dozen detainees have escaped and riots and chaos reigned.

Will someone on Capitol Hill follow the lead of KMOV-TV and find out what exactly Serco’s shirkers are doing (and not doing) with our money?

The see-no-incompetence Obama administration, for its part, has no worries, as usual. “Serco is a highly skilled company that has a proven track record in providing cost-effective services to numerous other federal agencies,” Medicare spokesman Brian Cook said in response to questions last year about Serco’s integrity. Serco’s American subsidiary is one of the largest federal prime contractors in the U.S., with oversight of our patent application and visa application processing systems, as well. Egad.

Serco is just the latest in a parade of shady federal health care contractors — from fraud-riddled Seedco to feckless CGI Federal — who are ripping off American taxpayers. While the White House amuses itself with selfies and hashtags, the Obamacare clunker keeps burning up our billions to pay do-nothings and destroyers. It’s the slush fund from hell. (Michelle Malkin)

But that’s government for you….So cost-effective and efficient, that’s why Liberals love them so much… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Just Give Up

I passionately disagree with Bill Maher’s Left wing politics. But on the following he nailed it.

BILL MAHER: Now that Americans are getting wise to the dangers of being spied on by the government, they have to start getting more alarmed about spying on each other. Because at the Donald Sterling mess proved anything it’s that there’s a force out there just as powerful as Big Brother — Big Girlfriend.

Last week, when President Obama was asked about the Sterling episode, he said, ‘When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, just let them talk.’ But Sterling didn’t advertise, he was bugged. And while he may not be worth defending, the Fourth Amendment is. That’s the one that says we have the right to be secure in our person, in our homes, in our property. Well, not if bitching to your girlfriend in your home loses you your property. Well, not if bitching to your girlfriend in your home loses you your property.

In an op-ed in The Washington Post, Kathleen Parker offered one way with dealing the modern world’s ubiquitous invasions of privacy: give up. She wrote: ‘If you don’t want your words broadcast in the public square, don’t say them.’ Really? Even at home? We have to talk like a White House press spokesman?

That’s Orwell’s Thought Police, Newspeak, and Crimethink.
She then looked on the bright side by saying, ‘Such potential exposure forces us to more carefully select our words and edit our thoughts.’ Always editing? I rather be a Mormon. And that’s what we all would be — Mitt Romney. I would listen to a hundred horrific Cliven Bundy rants if that was the price of living in a world where I could also hear interesting and funny people talk without a filter.

Welcome to 1984, for real. Where 249th pick of the NFL Draft is a star because he’s gay and Tim Tebow, a First Round Pick is a “distraction” because he’s a Christian!

Christopher Hitchens said “Islamophobic is a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.

Perhaps most chilling of all, Parker said, ‘Speaking one’s mind isn’t really all it’s cracked up to be.’ Which is quite a statement, since her job is speaking her mind. It’s like mailman telling you that letters are stupid.

You can speak your mind, as long as the Thought Police approve of what you’re saying. If not…well…. 🙂

So let me get this straight. We should concede that there is no such thing anymore as a private conversation, so therefore remember to lawyer everything you say before you say it, and, hey, speaking your mind is overrated anyway, so you won’t miss it. Well, I’ll miss it, I’ll miss it a lot. And for the record, speaking my mind is absolutely everything it is cracked up to be.


So many things have let me down in life: the iPod Nano, the Spiderman musical, Al Gore for president, M. Night Shyamalan movies, the entire 80s, Lance Armstrong, my scout leader. But speaking my mind? Priceless. Does anyone really want there to be no place where we can let our hair down and not worry if the bad angel in our head occasionally grabs the mic?

Yes, Politically Correct Liberals.

After all, one of there Queens Rachel Maddow points out that while some red state governors are suffering harsh budgetary consequences for reckless tax-cut policies, President Obama is showing continued success at reducing the deficit faster than at any time since World War Two.

But the debt has gone up $7 1/2 TRILLION Dollars in 5 1/2 years. But don’t mind me I’m just a “hater” and I need to be “re-educated” or at the very least have my thoughts corrected so I don’t cause a fuss with bad information.

I have impure thoughts and I should just edit myself before I say them or type them.

He’s Overspending Less every year so we should celebrate his greatness you “racist” hater you!!  🙂

What about the bathroom? Not a public bathroom, of course I expect to be taped and photographed in there. But my bathroom at home. Would it be okay if that was kind of a cone of silence where I can invite friends in to speak freely? Who wants to live in a world where the only privacy you have is inside your head? That’s what life in East Germany was like, that’s why we fought the Cold War, remember? So we never have to live in some awful limbo, where you never knew who, even among your friends, was an informer. And now we are doing it to ourselves. Well don’t. Don’t be a part of the problem.

That’s 1984 for you. You don’t know who’s working for the Ministry so you have to guard your thoughts, thus control your thoughts 24/7/365 for your entire life. Doesn’t that sound like freedom? 🙂

If this was a campaign ad, I’d say, ‘Call Kathleen Parker and tell her you’re not ready to edit what you say in private.’ And just to fuck with her head, tell her you have an audio of a book party she gave at home with 5 close female friends, all of whom had way too much wine. Because I’m sure there has been that night, and she wouldn’t want that tape to come out. Who would? Because we’re humans, we’re not that good.

But sanctimonious Liberals want to exploit it.

We’re not ready to live in a world where everything has to come out perfectly in the first take. There’s a reason houses have doors on them and windows have shades. And if I want to sit in the privacy of my living room and say I think The Little Mermaid is hot and I want to bang her, or I don’t like watching two men kiss, or I think tattoos look terrible on black people, I should be able to, even if you think it makes me an asshole. Now, do I really believe those things? I’m not telling you because you’re not in my living room!

“Your beliefs become your thoughts, your thoughts become your words, your words become your actions, your actions become your habits, your habits become your values, your values become your destiny.”-Gandhi

And Liberals believe they are superior to you, so they condescend to you, then they want to control you for your own good, and they habitually think nothing of you and they value on their continued superiority and their authoritarian destiny where they rule all that they survey and everyone bows down to them and no impure thoughts escape.

Welcome, Citizen to the Liberal Utopia. 🙂


But if you read the article it’s not quite so drastic and somewhat passive aggressive Liberalism, funny that. 🙂

You decide, in your own head. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

 Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

5 Reasons


“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” — Ronald Reagan


Relying on big government to help you out would be like relying on the Girl Scouts to spearhead an invasion of Iran. It’s the wrong people, in the wrong place, doing the wrong job. Whether Democrats or Republicans are in charge, our government is barely functional. That’s certainly not a shocker. Anyone who has had dealings with the federal government can tell you that it’s slow, stupid, expensive, belligerent and incompetent. But, here’s the $64,000 question: WHY is the federal government so slow, stupid, expensive, belligerent and incompetent? It’s not a mystery.

1) It’s not the government’s money: One of the biggest reasons a “kid in a candy store” acts like a “kid in a candy store” is because he didn’t have to earn the money he’s about to spend. It’s no different for the government. Government employees are not the ones working double shifts when they’re exhausted to collect enough money to pay their taxes. They just collect the sweat of someone else’s brow and spend it the way they see fit. If you’re irresponsible with your money, you may lose your house. If a company is irresponsible with its money, it may go out of business. Yet if a government employee is irresponsible with YOUR MONEY, he’s not on the hook for it personally. If he borrows billions and it gets frittered away, it doesn’t come out of his wallet. To them, it’s all monopoly money and no matter what happens, they’re going to get more to play with next year.

2) The government is doing things it shouldn’t be doing: How do you think Burger King would do at selling perfume? How would you feel about eating Purina brand hamburger? How about discount shoes sold by Rolex? If the government were simply building roads, throwing up a few street signs, securing the borders and making sure rotten horse meat isn’t being sold as steak in the local supermarket, it would probably be relatively good at its jobs. But, when we have the government declaring your yard a wetland because it rains, micro managing what kind of light bulbs you’re allowed to buy, bailing out big corporations and forcibly taking over our health care, of course the government does it badly. Just as you couldn’t be a talented brain surgeon, race car driver AND Navy SEAL all at the same time, the federal government simply cannot be all things to all people.

3) It can’t go out of business: Theoretically, the government could go out of business. Just ask Saddam Hussein….well, if he were around to ask. However, it’s highly unlikely that’s going to happen to our government. Yet, that fear is one of the biggest drivers of efficiency in the free market. A company can make a series of small mistakes, be too slow to adapt to change or even make one big mistake, one time and it’s game over. That’s why businesses tend to be so ruthlessly efficient. It’s either be ruthlessly efficient or go belly up. On the other hand, our government makes mistakes that would bankrupt 98% of the businesses on the planet year in and year out. For example, what value did we get out of the trillion dollar stimulus? How is Obama’s decision to help radical Islamists take over Libya working out? Are those Obamacare promises panning out just like the Obama Administration said? When the federal government is involved, it’s all “New Coke,” all the time, forever, no matter how much the public hates the product it’s putting out.

4) It doesn’t effectively measure success and failure: Government does measure things in a very broad sense. It measures the debt, although it uses an accounting method that hides future liabilities, something CEOs would be jailed for doing. The government can tell you the “jobless rate,” although it’s essentially meaningless since it doesn’t include large segments of the population who have given up on looking for work. The government uses the Congressional Budget Office to project the expense of future programs, but it has rules in place that insure that the CBO dramatically undercounts the costs.

On the other hand, as a small business owner, I can tell you how many Facebook “Likes” I bought last month, how much revenue each Facebook “Like” I buy is likely to produce per month and how long it will take to make my money back. Our government doesn’t do that kind of measurement because it’s not its money, bureaucrats don’t care about “making it back” and because a program is judged a “success” or “failure” based on how it plays out politically, not based on whether it works. One of the truest quotes you’re ever going to hear is, “What gets measured, gets managed.” Since almost nothing is effectively measured by the government, almost nothing gets effectively managed.

5) There’s a lack of responsibility: The late, great Milton Friedman once said,


“When everybody owns something, nobody owns it, and nobody has a direct interest in maintaining or improving its condition. That is why buildings in the Soviet Union — like public housing in the United States — look decrepit within a year or two of their construction…”


Similarly, when no one is held personally responsible for the failure of a government program, nobody has a direct interest in maintaining or improving its condition. Who’s responsible for Benghazi? The IRS targeting of the Tea Party? Fast and Furious? The trillion dollars we wasted on the stimulus program? The National Debt? Obamacare — oh wait, there are still people pretending Obamacare isn’t a failure.

But, that’s just it. Between the multitudes of politicians and bureaucrats tied into every decision, a biased media and raw partisanship, there’s a fog bank around every program, decision and calamity created by the government. That’s why ultimately, you’d be much more likely to be fired from a government job for saying something racist or making a nasty crack about gay marriage than wasting a billion dollars or getting people killed with your incompetence. (john hawkins)

Did you know during the Sequester (liberal translation: Hell on Earth-The End of The World) exactly 1 person lost there job. ONE. And 81% of the government was still working during the “shutdown”.

How many got fired over Fast & Furious? Benghazi? The IRS? The NSA?? etc etc etc…

Now you see the problem.