It’s Just Business

 

Have you seen the new Jurassic Park movie, “Jurassic World?”

It had the biggest opening of any movie in history. The movie tells how a reckless biotech company releases dinosaurs that kill its customers. Its tale of heroes vs. villains made me think about how America has changed since our independence, the anniversary of which we celebrate this weekend.

We call the men who fought the British “heroes.” But we no longer consider the British “villains.” We don’t even seem to hate monarchs anymore. Disney princesses and royal babies are all the rage.

Hollywood needs heroes and villains, and over time those roles changed. It was once cowboys vs. Indians, then Americans soldiers vs. Nazis and “Japs,” then Russians, then Arabs, then …

Well, now Hollywood is more careful about whom it calls a villain. But one group is always eligible — businessmen. In movies and on TV, evil corporations routinely dispatch heartless goons to rough up whistleblowers, political activists and average citizens. The new anarchist drama series “Mr. Robot” on USA Network even features a company called “Evil Corp.”

Don’t Hollywood writers realize that abusing customers would be a bad business model? No. They refuse to see that it rarely happens, and when it does it’s unsustainable.

In the real world, instead of killing customers or scheming to keep them poor, companies profit by trying really hard to give us what we want, and they prefer that we stay healthy, if only so that we keep buying their stuff and to limit their insurance liability.

I say, entrepreneurs and scientists are the world’s real heroes. They save and extend lives.

The website ScienceHeroes.com estimates how many lives scientists save. Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch, whose synthetic fertilizers made food easier to grow, are credited with saving 2.7 billion lives. Blood researchers Karl Landsteiner and Richard Lewisohn saved more than a billion by making blood transfusions possible.

Others in the site’s top 10 include the creators of water chlorination and vaccines, as well as Norman Borlaug, credited with saving at least a quarter-billion lives for creating more abundant wheat strains and sparking the so-called “Green Revolution.”

Then there are the creators of CPR, AIDS drugs, bypass surgery, pacemakers, dialysis and more, each with millions of lives to their credit.

Weirdly, few monuments honor these life-saving scientists. Instead, politicians celebrate politicians. We get the William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building, George Bush High School and Florida’s President Barack Obama Parkway.

But how many lives did those politicians save? Any? Mostly, they presided over a bureaucracy that imposed taxes and regulations that make it harder to innovate and save lives. What’s heroic about that?

In the movies, anti-business activists like Erin Brockovich are depicted as lifesavers. Brockovich, a hustler for personal injury lawyers, used her ample charm and cleavage to recruit clients who sued Pacific Gas and Electric, claiming the power company gave them cancer.

That was highly unlikely, given that the accused chemical, hexavalent chromium, causes cancer only at much higher doses. PG&E workers, despite being exposed to much more of it, live longer than average.

But Brockovich still got PG&E to pay out over $300 million, of which she got $2 million. That makes her a hero?

Part of the problem is the way our brains have evolved to spot friends and foes. A big, faceless corporation isn’t warm and friendly, but activists have smiling faces and say they want to help us.

Who has time to calculate the number of lives they’ve each saved? Our hearts embrace the ones who sound like they have good intentions but are wary of those who are out for profit.

I wish more people thought like statistician Bjorn Lomborg. Unlike many of his fellow environmentalists, he takes the time to rank the lives saved and the money spent on various projects, and he finds that the ones that inspire the most passion, like slowing global warming, aren’t the ones where lives are most at stake.

Many more lives would be saved if we poured resources into cleaning drinking water or preventing malaria, but those crusades don’t celebrate Hollywood’s heroes or punish the “villains” in business. (John Stossel)

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok
Political Cartoons by Chip Bok
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Food For the Sowell XI: The Narcissis

sowell- liberal care

The fundamental problem of the political left seems to be that the real world does not fit its preconceptions. Therefore it sees the real world as what is wrong, and what needs to be changed, since apparently its preconceptions cannot be wrong.

A never-ending source of grievances for the left is the fact that some groups are “over-represented” in desirable occupations, institutions and income brackets, while other groups are “under-represented.”

From all the indignation and outrage about this expressed on the left, you might think that it was impossible that different groups are simply better at different things.

Yet runners from Kenya continue to win a disproportionate share of marathons in the United States, and children whose parents or grandparents came from India have won most of the American spelling bees in the past 15 years.

And has anyone failed to notice that the leading professional basketball players have for years been black, in a country where most of the population is white?

Most of the leading photographic lenses in the world have — for generations — been designed by people who were either Japanese or German. Most of the leading diamond-cutters in the world have been either India’s Jains or Jews from Israel or elsewhere.

Not only people but things have been grossly unequal. More than two-thirds of all the tornadoes in the entire world occur in the middle of the United States. Asia has more than 70 mountain peaks that are higher than 20,000 feet and Africa has none.

And is it news that a disproportionate share of all the oil in the world is in the Middle East?

Whole books could be filled with the unequal behavior or performances of people, or the unequal geographic settings in which whole races, nations and civilizations have developed. Yet the preconceptions of the political left march on undaunted, loudly proclaiming sinister reasons why outcomes are not equal within nations or between nations.

All this moral melodrama has served as a background for the political agenda of the left, which has claimed to be able to lift the poor out of poverty and in general make the world a better place. This claim has been made for centuries, and in countries around the world. And it has failed for centuries in countries around the world.

Some of the most sweeping and spectacular rhetoric of the left occurred in 18th century France, where the very concept of the left originated in the fact that people with certain views sat on the left side of the National Assembly.

The French Revolution was their chance to show what they could do when they got the power they sought. In contrast to what they promised — “liberty, equality, fraternity” — what they actually produced were food shortages, mob violence and dictatorial powers that included arbitrary executions, extending even to their own leaders, such as Robespierre, who died under the guillotine.

In the 20th century, the most sweeping vision of the left — communism — spread over vast regions of the world and encompassed well over a billion human beings. Of these, millions died of starvation in the Soviet Union under Stalin and tens of millions in China under Mao.

Milder versions of socialism, with central planning of national economies, took root in India and in various European democracies.

If the preconceptions of the left were correct, central planning by educated elites with vast amounts of statistical data at their fingertips, expertise readily available, and backed by the power of government, should have been more successful than market economies where millions of individuals pursued their own individual interests willy-nilly.

But, by the end of the 20th century, even socialist and communist governments began abandoning central planning and allowing more market competition.

Yet this quiet capitulation to inescapable realities did not end the noisy claims of the left.

In the United States, those claims and policies reached new heights, epitomized by government takeovers of whole sectors of the economy and unprecedented intrusions into the lives of Americans, of which ObamaCare has been only the most obvious example.

The political left has long claimed the role of protector of “the poor.” It is one of their central moral claims to political power. But how valid is this claim?

Leaders of the left in many countries have promoted policies that enable the poor to be more comfortable in their poverty.But that raises a fundamental question:

Just who are “the poor”?

If you use a bureaucratic definition of poverty as including all individuals or families below some arbitrary income level set by the government, then it is easy to get the kinds of statistics about “the poor” that are thrown around in the media and in politics. But do those statistics have much relationship to reality?

“Poverty” once had some concrete meaning — not enough food to eat or not enough clothing or shelter to protect you from the elements, for example.

Today it means whatever the government bureaucrats, who set up the statistical criteria, choose to make it mean.

And they have every incentive to define poverty in a way that includes enough people to justify welfare-state spending.

Most Americans with incomes below the official poverty level have air-conditioning, television, own a motor vehicle and, far from being hungry, are more likely than other Americans to be overweight. But an arbitrary definition of words and numbers gives them access to the taxpayers’ money.

This kind of “poverty” can easily become a way of life, not only for today’s “poor,” but for their children and grandchildren.

Keep Them Down

Even when they have the potential to become productive members of society, the loss of welfare state benefits if they try to do so is an implicit “tax” on what they would earn that often exceeds the explicit tax on a millionaire.

If increasing your income by $10,000 would cause you to lose $15,000 in government benefits, would you do it?

In short, the political left’s welfare state makes poverty more comfortable, while penalizing attempts to rise out of poverty. Unless we believe that some people are predestined to be poor, the left’s agenda is a disservice to them, as well as to society. The vast amounts of money wasted are by no means the worst of it.

If our goal is for people to get out of poverty, there are plenty of heartening examples of individuals and groups who have done that, in countries around the world.

Millions of “overseas Chinese” emigrated from China destitute and often illiterate in centuries past. Whether they settled in Southeast Asian countries or in the United States, they began at the bottom, taking hard, dirty and sometimes dangerous jobs.Four-Letter Word

Even though the overseas Chinese were usually paid little, they saved out of that little, and many eventually opened tiny businesses. By working long hours and living frugally, they were able to turn tiny businesses into larger and more prosperous businesses. Then they saw to it that their children got the education that they themselves often lacked.

By 1994, the 57 million overseas Chinese created as much wealth as the one billion people living in China.

Variations on this social pattern can be found in the histories of Jewish, Armenian, Lebanese and other emigrants who settled in many countries around the world — initially poor, but rising over the generations to prosperity. Seldom did they rely on government, and they usually avoided politics on their way up.

Such groups concentrated on developing what economists call “human capital” — their skills, talents, knowledge and self-discipline. Their success has usually been based on that one four-letter word that the left seldom uses in polite society: “work.”

There are individuals in virtually every group who follow similar patterns to rise from poverty to prosperity.

But how many such individuals there are in different groups makes a big difference for the prosperity or poverty of the groups as a whole.

The agenda of the left — promoting envy and a sense of grievance, while making loud demands for “rights” to what other people have produced — is a pattern that has been widespread in countries around the world.

This agenda has seldom lifted the poor out of poverty. But it has lifted the left to positions of power and self-aggrandizement, while they promote policies with socially counterproductive results.


When teenage thugs are called “troubled youth” by people on the political left, that tells us more about the mindset of the left than about these young hoodlums.

Seldom is there a speck of evidence that the thugs are troubled, and often there is ample evidence that they are in fact enjoying themselves, as they create trouble and dangers for others.

Why then the built-in excuse, when juvenile hoodlums are called “troubled youth” and mass murderers are just assumed to be “insane”?

At least as far back as the 18th century, the left has struggled to avoid facing the plain fact of evil — that some people simply choose to do things that they know to be wrong when they do them. Every kind of excuse, from poverty to an unhappy childhood, is used by the left to explain and excuse evil.

All the people who have come out of poverty or unhappy childhoods, or both, and become decent and productive human beings, are ignored. So are the evils committed by people raised in wealth and privilege, including kings, conquerors and slave owners.

Why has evil been such a hard concept for many on the left to accept? The basic agenda of the left is to change external conditions. But what if the problem is internal? What if the real problem is the cussedness of human beings?

Rousseau denied this in the 18th century and the left has been denying it ever since. Why? Self preservation.

If the things that the left wants to control — institutions and government policy — are not the most important factors in the world’s problems, then what role is there for the left?

What if it is things like the family, the culture and the traditions that make a more positive difference than the bright new government “solutions” that the left is constantly coming up with? What if seeking “the root causes of crime” is not nearly as effective as locking up criminals?

The hard facts show that the murder rate was going down for decades under the old traditional practices so disdained by the left intelligentsia, before the bright new ideas of the left went into effect in the 1960s — after which crime and violence skyrocketed .

What happened when old-fashioned ideas about sex were replaced in the 1960s by the bright new ideas of the left that were introduced into the schools as “sex education” that was supposed to reduce teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases?

Both teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases had been going down for years. But that trend suddenly reversed in the 1960s and hit new highs.

One of the oldest and most dogmatic of the crusades of the left has been disarmament, both of individuals and of nations. Again, the focus of the left has been on the externals — the weapons in this case.

If weapons were the problem, then gun control laws at home and international disarmament agreements abroad might be the answer.

But if evil people who care no more for laws or treaties than they do for other people’s lives are the problem, then disarmament means making decent, law-abiding people more vulnerable to evil people.

Since belief in disarmament has been a major feature of the left since the 18th century, in countries around the world, you might think that by now there would be lots of evidence to substantiate their beliefs.

But evidence on whether gun control laws actually reduce crime rates in general, or murder rates in particular, is seldom mentioned by gun-control advocates. It is just assumed in passing that of course tighter gun-control laws will reduce murders.

But the hard facts do not back up that assumption. That is why it is the critics of gun control who rely heavily on empirical evidence, as in books like “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott and “Guns and Violence” by Joyce Lee Malcolm.

National disarmament has an even worse record. Both Britain and America neglected their military forces between the two World Wars, while Germany and Japan armed to the teeth. Many British and American soldiers paid with their lives for their countries’ initially inadequate military equipment in World War II.

But what are mere facts compared to the heady vision of the left?

After all, they can’t possible be wrong. There’s is the superior intelligence. The superior compassion. And just plain old superior to everyone and everything.
There’s a word for that: Narcissism.

At the heart of the left’s vision of the world is the implicit assumption that high-minded third parties like themselves can make better decisions for other people than those people can make for themselves.

That arbitrary and unsubstantiated assumption underlies a wide spectrum of laws and policies over the years, ranging from urban renewal to ObamaCare.

One of the many international crusades by busybodies on the left is the drive to limit the hours of work by people in other countries — especially poorer countries — in businesses operated by multinational corporations. One international monitoring group has taken on the task of making sure that people in China do not work more than the legally prescribed 49 hours per week.

Why international monitoring groups, led by affluent Americans or Europeans, would imagine that they know what is best for people who are far poorer than they are, and with far fewer options, is one of the many mysteries of the busybody elite.

As someone who left home at the age of 17, with no high school diploma, no job experience and no skills, I spent several years learning the hard way what poverty is like. One of the happier times during those years was a brief period when I worked 60 hours a week — 40 hours delivering telegrams during the day and 20 hours working part-time in a machine shop at night.

Why was I happy? Because, before finding these jobs, I had spent weeks desperately looking for any job, while my meager savings dwindled down to literally my last dollar, before finally finding the part-time job at night in a machine shop.

I had to walk several miles from the rooming house where I lived in Harlem to the machine shop located just below the Brooklyn Bridge, in order to save that last dollar to buy bread until I got a payday.

When I then found a full-time job delivering telegrams during the day, the money from the two jobs combined was more than I had ever made before. I could pay the back rent I owed on my room and both eat and ride the subways back and forth to work.

I could even put aside some money for a rainy day. It was the closest thing to nirvana for me.

Thank heaven there were no busybodies to prevent me from working more hours than they thought I should.

There was a minimum wage law, but this was 1949 and the wages set by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 had been rendered meaningless by years of inflation. In the absence of an effective minimum wage law, unemployment among black teenagers in the recession year of 1949 was a fraction of what it would be in even the most prosperous years of the 1960s and beyond.

As the morally anointed busybodies raised the minimum wage rate, beginning in the 1950s, black teenage unemployment skyrocketed. We have now become so used to tragically high rates of unemployment among this group that many people have no idea that things were not always like that, much less that policies of the busybody left had such catastrophic consequences.

I don’t know what I would have done if such busybody policies had been in effect back in 1949, and prevented me from finding a job before my last dollar ran out.

My personal experience is just one small example of what it is like when your options are very limited. The prosperous busybodies of the left are constantly promoting policies which reduce the existing options of poor people even more.

It would never occur to the busybodies that multinational corporations are expanding the options of the poor in third world countries, while busybody policies are contracting their options.

Wages paid by multinational corporations in poor countries are typically much higher than wages paid by local employers. Moreover, the experience that employees get working in modern companies make them more valuable workers and have led in China, for example, to wages rising by double-digit percentages annually.

Nothing is easier for people with degrees to imagine that they know better than the poor and uneducated. But, as someone once said, “A fool can put on his coat better than a wise man can put it on for him.”

But feels they can not only make the coat superior but they can wear it to. And that’s all down to their own sense of their own vast Superiority.

Homo Superior Liberalis. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

 Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson


A Sign of the Times

Obama is desperate. He wants to be re-elected. He doesn’t care how.

He’s becoming so desperate that he is even considering tax cuts for evil corporations.

He’s even going around to them and schmoozing them for cash.

Since previous methods to gin up the economy are off the table, such as more stimulus spending and another round of monetary easing by the Federal Reserve Bank, the administration has nowhere else to go but cutting taxes.

After axing his top economic advisor last week, word from the White House is that Obama is considering a method of stimulus that would have been an anathema two years ago, but has been long favored by conservatives: cutting corporate payroll taxes.

The advantage in cutting employer-side corporate payroll taxes is that it stops penalizing employers for adding workers, while freeing up money that already resides in the payroll line item on a company’s P&L.

In fact conservatives made a strong case for a payroll tax holiday for both employers and employees in 2009 in lieu of stimulus spending controlled by the government.

“I’d have a payroll tax holiday for a year or two that would put taxes in the hands of everybody who has a job, whether they pay income taxes or not,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told Fox News in January of 2009 . “And, of course, businesses pay the payroll tax too, so it would be both a business tax cut and individual tax cut immediately.”

But Obama’s political allies on the left quickly shot down the notion:

“A payroll tax holiday does not score well on this front — too little of the benefit goes to lower-income households struggling to make ends meet,” wrote the left-wing Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, playing the rich versus poor game, “and too much goes to higher-income taxpayers, who are likely to save a significant fraction of any new resources they receive.”

Instead, Congress voted for an $800 billion targeted stimulus plan that went into the kind of government programs that put our economy in the hotseat to begin with.

A deal between Obama and congressional Republicans in December included a reduction in taxes that workers have taken out of their paychecks in 2011, but corporations did not get the same break.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, declined to give details about other ideas the administration is considering.

The struggling U.S. economy is the biggest challenge that threatens Obama’s hopes of being re-elected president in 2012.

The president, at a news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel earlier this week, said his administration was looking at ways to extend elements of the December deal.

“Some of the steps that we took during the lame duck session — the payroll tax, the extension of unemployment insurance, … the tax breaks for business investment in plants and equipment — all those things have helped,” he said.

“And one of the things that I’m going to be interested in exploring with the members of both parties in Congress is how do we continue some of these policies to make sure that we get this recovery up and running in a robust way.”

The GOP should take the opportunity to press Obama to dismantle the economic agenda that he crafted in the first two years.

But I bet they won’t. No guts, no glory. And they haven’t shown any guts so far.

Mr. Obama, who enraged many financial industry executives a year and a half ago by labeling them “fat cats” and criticizing their bonuses, followed up the meeting with phone calls to those who could not attend.

The event, organized by the Democratic National Committee, kicked off an aggressive push by Mr. Obama to win back the allegiance of one of his most vital sources of campaign cash — in part by trying to convince Wall Street that his policies, far from undercutting the investor class, have helped bring banks and financial markets back to health.

Last month, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, traveled to New York for back-to-back meetings with Wall Street donors, ending at the home of Marc Lasry, a prominent hedge fund manager, to court donors close to Mr. Obama’s onetime rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton. And Mr. Obama will return to New York this month to dine with bankers, hedge fund executives and private equity investors at the Upper East Side restaurant Daniel.

“The first goal was to get recognition that the administration has led the economy from an unimaginably difficult place to where we are today,” said Blair W. Effron, an investment banker closely involved in Mr. Obama’s fund-raising efforts. “Now the second goal is to turn that into support.” (NYT)

Gotta raise that $1 Billion dollars so he can buy his re-election.

But another sign of the times, the rats deserting the ship but the Captain says all is well.

Don’t look now, but many on Obama’s economic team is abandoning ship and heading for the exits. Austan Goolsbee’s, who recently resigned from his post as the White House economic advisor after less than a year, is just the most visible defection. Obama’s economic team is headed for the doors and following the lead of the more senior economic advisors. Christine Roemer, Larry Summers and Peter Orszag were the first to abandon Obama’s economic team as it became painfully obvious that their policies on job creation had failed. These are the same advisors that assured Americans that a huge expansion of entitlements, an historic increase in the size of government, almost doubling of the national debt by $5 trillion, while hobbling small businesses with a new thicket of regulations, would actually result in economic expansion and job growth across the nation.

Not only were these presidential advisors wrong, but disastrously so. Rarely has a group failed so spectacularly. Thus, Americans should not be surprised that many of the lower levels of Obama’s National Economic Council team (Sarah Cannon, Eric Lesser, Bryan Jung, Kyle Watkins, Pascal Noel) are also abandoning the sinking Obama ship. This mass exodus of Team Obama’s economic advisors is a stunning vote of no confidence in the President’s economic policies. Obama needs to consider this: When all of your staff give up, they are telling you that there is something flawed in the current approach that doesn’t work. Personnel is policy.

Mr. Obama’s supporters certainly understand that when key staffers depart en masse, they are essentially fleeing a losing endeavor and are hoping to get out before recriminations for failure have a chance to permanently tarnish personal reputations. No one wants to be part of a losing team, and, before the stench of defeat has a chance to permanently cling, they leave.

Curiously, this is the same argument that Obama’s supporters are using to characterize the recent defections from Newt Gingrich. Yet, when it comes to finding a rationale for why the entire Obama economic team has bolted for the doors, the Administration is essentially telling us that “there is nothing to see here…just move along”.

So we hit the iceberg and we’re slowing sinking. The Captain comes over the speaker, “Anyone for another round of golf on the fore deck!”

Then sits down for a dinner with the “fat cats” and tries to get them to support him.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities
And these are the times that try men’s souls… 🙂

Thrown Under the Bus

Are feeling like you have tire treads  running up your body??

You’re not alone.

You must have Obama Bus Syndrome.

Where you are naively or purposely thrown under the bus to serve his ego and his mission to destroy all freedom everywhere.

After all, he is a Nobel Peace Prize Winner! 🙂

The latest victim, Israel. The long time ally of the United States.

Oh, and Christians and Jews, but who cares about them, they are just right wing religious nuts anyhow. 🙂

Obama, in a policy speech on Thursday on the “Arab spring” uprisings across the Middle East, laid down his clearest markers yet on the compromises Israel and the Palestinians must make for resolving their decades-old conflict.

His position essentially embraces the Palestinian view that the state they seek in the West Bank and Gaza should largely be drawn along the lines that existed before the 1967 war in which Israel captured those territories and East Jerusalem.

On the eve of Netanyahu’s visit, it was seen as a message that Obama expects Israel to eventually make big concessions.

“The viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel’s existence,” Netanyahu said in a statement before flying to the United States for his talks with Obama.

Mind you some of the holiest sights in all of Christiandom and Judism would be turned over to Palestinians. Nothing too major since religion is hardly a concern of this administration except for that whole Muslim thing that he keeps reaffirming by doing Pro-Muslim things like this.

So what if Hamas, which is the government of the Palestinians, has in their charter, “KILL ALL THE JEWS” they can be reasonable and Israel has to stop being mean to them if they want peace. 😦

So what if a central tenant of these groups is the non-existence of Israel. Let’s be fair! They are the oppressed.

And Hezbollah, which is in Lebanon, and South America (I might add).

No biggie.

Syria, Iran. No biggie. if you’re just nice to them and you’re “fair” everything will come out kumbuya!

You have to do the 60’s hippie peacenik routine and everything will be a Summer of ’69 Lovefest.

Which I don’t know if he’s naive or deliberate. But the headline in the leftist LA Times might give us a Clue:

Obama: U.S. has chance to pursue the ‘world as it should be’

After decades of ‘accepting the world as it is’ in the Middle East, President Obama in his Middle East speech says the U.S. has a chance to ‘speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people.’

<<BARF BAG ON STANDBY>>

This is liberalism at it’s core, the way the world should be, according to them, not the way it is. So deal from a position of unreality and try and force it into reality because it makes you feel “good” and…<<drum roll>>…It’s FAIR! 🙂

God Help Us All!

He wants to expand Oil production because his re-election depends on it, BUT NOT HERE. he wants to expand in Brazil where a Major Democratic $$ Donor has ownership in…<<drum roll>> and OIL company!

He wants businesses to create jobs, but he wants to choke them do death with regulations , Obamacare, and bad mouthing them.

He wants the government to take over health care because it will save money, only it doesn’t. But it doesn’t give them control over life and death and that can’t be all bad. 🙂

He go all pro-“democracy” in Egypt calling for that rulers head. Now the Muslim Brotherhood (read: radical islam) are leading to taking over there.

Oh, and then there’s the “war” he started in Libya that both he, the media, and the Democrats are trying desperately to ignore. And you’re 60 days (War Powers Act) are up Mr.  Nobel Peace Prize.

Then there’s 9% unemployment for basically the last 2 years. Has anything positive been done on that at all? I say thee neigh.

He is pandering to the hispanic vote to get them to vote for him promising them the sky and the moon and whatever he has to knowing full well it will never pass in Congress.

So border security is just PR, pat down and legal sexually molestations.

He doesn’t care. He’ll just throw legal immigrants and legal Americans under the Bus.

It’s, after all, ALL ABOUT HIM. All about his greatness. His superior vision.

His superiority, period.

And it’s your turn.

“You can’t do $2 trillion just in cuts,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in an interview in his Capitol office. “There has to be a mix of spending cuts, including defense. There has to be a more fair apportionment of tax policy in this country.”

Read more taxes! Targeted to evil rich people mind you, but it never works out that way.

Especially with the proposals for a VAT TAX or a Vehicle Mileage Tax.

Because when a Liberal talks about “fairness” grab your wallet you’re under attack and about to be hit by that bus!

“That certainly would be a big, big number,” Reid said Thursday. “But you know these are numbers that are not impossible — if you do savings with the Pentagon, in addition to domestic discretionary [accounts] and rearrange the tax stuff. That’s all doable.

Aka, slash the military, crush businesses, raise taxes massively on “the rich”.

Throw them all under the bus. They are evil anyhow.

But it will create jobs and grow the economy! 🙂

Oh, and then there’s the new Food Devil on the block, McDonald’s. They are the Devil Incarnate. Evil Corporate devils preying on your innocent children for their evil profits! Bwah hahahahahahahahaha! <<organ sting>> <<Thunder and Lightning!!>> <<maniacal laughter>>

The national debate on corporate responsibility played out in a microcosm at McDonald’s annual meeting Thursday, when votes on shareholder proposals became a referendum on the pursuit of profit versus the question of what constitutes the public good.

Critics hammered McDonald’s executives not only for offering unhealthful menu items but also for marketing fast food to kids with its Ronald McDonald character and Happy Meal toys — all while boasting eight straight years of sales growth despite a deep economic recession.

McDonald’s response was powerful too, tapping into the fundamental notion of American freedom.

“This is all really about choice,” McDonald’s Corp. CEO Jim Skinner said at the meeting, held at company headquarters in Oak Brook, Ill. He said that while shareholders have the right to communicate concerns, the company should also have the right to advertise its menu offerings. “It’s about protecting people’s rights in this democratic society that we live in.”

As for Ronald McDonald?

“Ronald McDonald is an ambassador to McDonald’s, and he is an ambassador for good,” Skinner said. “Ronald McDonald isn’t going anywhere.”

Critics’ main beef with McDonald’s is its marketing to America’s children, thus side-stepping the thorny retort “If you don’t like McDonald’s, don’t eat there.”
Children are susceptible to the advertising that McDonald’s spends hundreds of millions of dollars on each year, said Juliana Shulman, national compaign organizer for Corporate Accountability International.

“For adults that’s one thing, but children aren’t just little adults. Their brains are just forming,” Shulman said. “McDonald’s marketing is really designed to get around parents and get to kids directly. For nearly 50 years, McDonald’s has been working to hook kids on unhealthy foods…. Parents are exercising parental responsibility. That alone won’t stop the problem.” (LA Times)

So if you’re feeling tired it’s probably because you have a bus parked on you by Obama and his Leftist apparatchiks.

And let’s not evil talk about how evil you are if your not in a union and your <<shudder>> a white person!!  EVIL!!!:)

Pure Evil! You must be destroyed.

Or at least repeatedly run over by my bus!

Oh, and do vote for me in 2012 because I have a (D) after my name and I represent all that is sweetness and light and good in the world. 🙂

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil: For thou art with me;
Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies;
Thou annointest my head with oil; My cup runneth over.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the House of the Lord forever. (Psalms 23)

You just have to find a place to park that bus on top of you! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

P.s.A D.C. Circuit decision this week in Oberwetter v. Hilliard <a href="” target=”_blank”><http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/748BE2DE8AF2A2A485257893004E07FC/$file/10-5078-1308285.pdf&gt;, concluding that (1) the Jefferson Memorial is a “nonpublic forum” in which reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions are permissible, and that (2) the government could therefore bar from people from engaging, inside the Memorial, in picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services and all other like forms of conduct which involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers.

Isn’t freedom just fun under the Obama Bus…

P.P.s.

There is a report that the TSA faked its safety data on its X-ray airport scanners in order to deceive the public about the safety of such devices.

As evidenced by recent events in Washington, we now live in an age where the federal government simply fakes whatever documents, news or evidence it wants people to believe, then releases that information as if it were fact. This is the modus operandi of the Department of Homeland Security, which must fabricate false terror alerts to keep itself in business — and now the TSA <http://www.naturalnews.com/the_TSA.html> division has taken the fabrication of false evidence <http://www.naturalnews.com/evidence.html> to a whole new level with its naked body scanners.

The evidence of the TSA’s fakery is now obvious thanks to the revelations of a letter signed by five professors from the University of California, San Francisco and Arizona <http://www.naturalnews.com/Arizona.html> State University. You can view the full text of the letter at: http://www.propublica.org/documents… <http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/april-2011-letter-to-john-holdren>

The letter reveals:

• To this day, there has been no credible scientific testing of the TSA’s naked body <http://www.naturalnews.com/body.html> scanners. The claimed “safety” of the technology <http://www.naturalnews.com/technology.html> by the TSA is based on rigged tests <http://www.naturalnews.com/tests.html>.

• The testing that did take place was done on a custom combination of spare parts rigged by the manufacturer of the machines (Rapidscan) and didn’t even use the actual machines installed in airports. In other words, the testing was rigged.

• The names of the researchers who conducted the radiation <http://www.naturalnews.com/radiation.html> tests at Rapidscan have been kept secret! This means the researchers are not available for scientific questioning of any kind, and there has been no opportunity to even ask whether they are qualified to conduct such tests. (Are they even scientists <http://www.naturalnews.com/scientists.html>?) (KFYI)

So are you feeling securing under that bus?… 🙂

The Real Star Wars

sith-lord-obama-64047_600

This is a tale of a young Senator who set out to change the world. To grab power. To reshape everything.

To fundamentally violate one of the truth of existence and to fight against it.

That truth, LIFE ISN’T FAIR.

I believe (to borrow another movie) it to be the Inception idea that started modern Liberalism.

If Life isn’t fair, then let’s make it equal. So that it is no more or less fair for anyone.

But that way leads to The Dark Side.

The Sith await you.

Think about it, you have a (in this case young) Senator who rises in a time of stress and War and Crisis. He promises hope & change. Though the hope and change he wants is to control everyone and everything. That way, Social Justice is “Fair”. And Life if “fair”.

In the time of crisis he is granted powers and takes steps no leader has ever dared take before. He takes over the Banks, insurance companies, the auto industry.

He consolidates more power to central authority that ever before. he is playing both sides against each other in the name of “fairness” to consolidate power. Because, after all, they only way life can be “fair” is if you control it from birth to death.

You have no freedom. But it’s Fair! 😦

“So this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause”–Sen. Padme Amidala

But life is not fair.

And this frustrates him. He has such a grand vision. But he can’t get it done.

It’s not fair!

He’s so much smarter than everyone else. He’s so much better. More enlightened.

And all he wants is for everyone to be equal. Now that’s “fair”.

And before the November 2nd elections (9/10/10): “If it was just a referendum on whether we’ve made the kind of progress that we need to, then people around the country would say ‘We’re not there yet,'” Obama said.

“If the election is about the policies that are going to move us forward, versus the policies that will get us back into a mess, then I think Democrats will do very well.”

And on Nov 2, he and his minions were “shellacked”. But that didn’t stop them from have a very productive Lame Duck Session where they got 90% of what they wanted.

As a matter of fact, he’s now the “Comeback Kid”. The Emperor has New Clothes.

But still he fears that his life’s work will be undone, challenged or left unfulfilled. The dreams of 90 years of Progressive Liberalism rest upon his shoulders.

His vision.

So, like Palpatine, he will have to be craftier and take more control rather than letting his minions like Darth Vader do all the heavy lifting.

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”— Master Yoda

And who hates more liberals.

Only Radical Muslims and terrorists.

Class Warfare. Hate the rich (but not the Liberal Rich like George Soros or even Obama who made $5 million dollars last year).

Race Warfare. Pitting blacks and Hispanics against Whites because Whites are “not fair” and oppressive.

Despite the fact that liberal policies hurt blacks and hispanics.

It keeps them down.

The promise of “fairness” and “Justice” keep them in line. Even though in the 50 years they haven’t even come close to either.

Religious Warfare. The more Progressive (aka radical) they are the seemingly more anti-religious they are- especially Christianity.

How is that different from the Sith wanting to wipe out the Jedi??

The Jedi are spiritual. The Force is spiritual.

They must be crushed.

The State is your only salvation.

The Government is your protector. Your savior.

Not yourself.

But if Obama is Senator Palpatine, cum Emperor-wanna be, who is Darth Vader. The angry, power mad servant of the Dark Side?

Nancy Pelosi, who else. 🙂  (Not Dick Cheney as the Liberals tried to use in 2005 after Bush beat Kerry for re-election)

But it does point to the fact that when Liberals object to the dirty tricks way things are being done “unfairly” that usually means they have already done them and you’re not allowed to do what they are doing because they are so vastly superior and more “fair” than you.

But Darth Vader never got demoted to a Minority Position. This should just strengthen her backbone and her insanity.

She will hate even more at being thwarted and simultaneous be proud of her many accomplishments over the last 2 years.

Obstructing the rebel scum will be new mission. They cannot be allowed to retake what she has taken.

After all, it is my own opinion that Nancy Pelosi thought she was the Empress for the last 2 years and that Barack was the upstart who was getting in HER way.

Then there’s The Conspirator, aka Harry Reid. He who works behind the scenes to make it work through any means necessary.

You have the faceless “enemy”- The Rich. The Corporations. The Separatists.

You have the faceless, uniform soldiers of the cause, The Unions and the Bureaucracy. A hegemony of purpose and the foot soldiers of the cause.

And then you ad in an Orwellian touch, The Ministry of Truth. The Liberally-biased media that is a champion of the Empire’s needs and wants and will spread it’s message and lies far and wide across the land. Willingly so. And they all proclaims to be “fair” and “objective”.

Those who disagree with this view are the evil ones who are not fair and not objective: FOX,the Internet-Like Drudge,Daily Caller etc, and Talk Radio.

Which is why they must be controlled. So you send out the faceless bureaucratic clone minions of the FCC, the FTC, the FDA to stop them.

The SEIU are the people’s clone army. Foot soldiers for the cause.

Then there are the Liberal lawyers and judges who stop the resistance by ruling from ideology under the cover of law. To control the people ever further.

Then comes the Resistance, The Rebel Alliance.

A loose band of like-minded independent people who just want their freedoms back. To restore democracy and give all people a chance.

Meet THE TEA PARTY.

Hated, denigrated, and reviled by the Imperials.

But their allies in the Government haven’t proven they can be trusted yet. Not after the Lame Duck give aways they allowed.

So this chapter in the saga has yet to be written and it falls to all of us in the movement to keep the pressure on.

To quote yet another movie, “Never Give up! Never Surrender!”

Or as Master Yoda might say, ““Do or do not… there is no try.”

The Saga Continues.

Obamacare Update

obamacare.jpg

The number of companies granted waivers to avoid ObamaCare has grown to 111. That’s 78 more companies and UNIONS since the first waivers were handed out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96Uu_tI0hTw

Yep, I guess we did need to “pass the law to see what’s in it” and now the waivers are coming thick and fast. Gee, If it was so great why are we waiving it again?? 🙂

Here’s the actual List:  http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

What’s fun is the list is peppered with lots of  Unions, HealthCare companies, restaurant and fast food chains.

Oh look, it’s Obama’s apparatchiks! What a shocker! 😦

We are from the Government and we are here to save you! 🙂

On November 2nd, the American people’s voice was heard at the ballot box. Voters in Arizona, Oklahoma and Missouri overwhelmingly voted for ballot measures stopping the enforcement of the individual mandate — one of the key provisions in Obamacare. The mandate, which takes effect in 2014, will force Americans to buy government-approved health care insurance whether they want to or not. Somehow, the Obama administration thinks this new mandate will boost our ratings in the first ever review by the United Nations Human Rights Council.

The administration claims that the new health care law “makes great strides” towards improving human rights in America. However, Obamacare is a blatant violation of human rights. Many young and healthy Americans who may rationally choose not to purchase expensive government-sanctioned health insurance will be forced to pay steep fines or ultimately face jail time. In the end, Noble Peace Prize-winner Barack Obama appears willing to throw an innocent person in prison for not purchasing the right health insurance. How, again, does that advance human rights?

Such use of government force is the kind of human rights violation that we are more accustomed to seeing from UN Human Rights Council members like Saudi Arabia, China and Cuba. We cannot allow blatant human rights abuses to occur in America, the land of the free.

In our land of religious freedom, consider the Christian Scientist, whose faith precludes him from seeing doctors. Would it not be a human rights violation for the government to force him to pay for health insurance that he doesn’t want or need and will not use?

Listed in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the “right” to health care. This is a perversion of the idea of rights. As the Declaration of Independence states, Americans have the unalienable right to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Note that none of these things require anything of anybody else. As Leonard Peikoff once put it, “they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people.” In other words, Americans have the right to do as they please as long as they do not harm others, but do not have the right to a vacation with the president in Martha’s Vineyard.

Health care does require something from someone else. It either requires time from a doctor or nurse or money from someone to pay for such services. To say we have the right to someone else’s time or services takes us back down a dark path in American history that most would not want to travel.

Some believe the government can just pay for such services at no harm to anyone. But the government does not have any wealth of its own. Every penny that the government redistributes was first forcibly taken away from a taxpayer. It is practically universally agreed upon that stealing from others is an immoral action. While Obamacare was passed under the guise of compassion, there is absolutely no virtue in spending others people’s money without their consent, no matter what the intention.

I urge everyone, including the millionaires who make up the Senate, to reach into their own pockets to donate money to help poor people in need of health care. Voluntarily donating to charities is a commendable action that should be encouraged. On the other hand, compulsory government “charities” — because they are in fact just taxes — violate human rights by coercing people to either pay or face harsh prison time.

We must step back and decide what kind of society we wish to live in. One where the government uses its monopoly on the legal use of physical force to coerce Americans to pay for mandatory government-approved insurance and threatens to jail those who refuse to do so? Or one that respects human rights and promotes peace by allowing Americans to make their own decisions regarding where their hard-earned money goes?

Fortunately, unlike many of the worst offenders on the UNHRC that will be judging our human rights record, the United States is still a democracy. As shown in the recent fair and free election, voters overwhelmingly oppose the government takeover of the healthcare system. We would be wise to listen to the message of the American people instead of a governmental body that includes some of the world’s worst human rights abusers. Ultimately, the American people will prove to be the ultimate protector of our own human rights.

Matt Kibbe is president and CEO of FreedomWorks, a nationwide grassroots organization fighting for lower taxes, less government and freedom and the author of Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto.

And just a final note, from the liberal Left’s favourite source for how wonderful ObamaCare will be…someday…they believe…they hope…they have faith in their own righteousness.

The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America’s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-style financial crisis.

Political Cartoon by Nate Beeler

The Swamp Monsters Strike Again

Remember when Soon-To-Be Ex Speaker Pelosi promised to “drain the swamp” of corruption and I cynically said that all that meant was she wanted to fill it up again with Democrat corruption?

Well, here are the latest alligators to add to the swamp.

Alligator #1: General Electric, owner of NBC (for now), with a CEO who is on a Board of Economic Advisors (with the AFL-CIO Union Boss and others) to the President.

Alligator #2: Government Motors (GM), bailed out by taxpayers.  Given millions of the money to the Union and to develop “green” technology. The purveyors of the “green” wonder the Chevy Volt- The pseudo “all electric” car.

They are having a love child called Corruption. 🙂

It works like this: GE has promised to buy $500 Million dollars of  Chevy Volts from GM, thus raising the sales figures for this “hot new car”.

17% of GM is owned by the UAW now because the government that took them over said so, a union fused at the hip of the Democrat party since before I was born. So a little payback will undoubtedly leak back to Obama for his 2012 re-election campaign.

Just like there cousin the August bailout of Teacher’s Unions.

Then GE is granted a $2 BILLION contract while Obama is in India for airplane engines.

Plus GE is going to be at the forefront of the “green” light bulbs that will be mandatory in a few years because the incandescent light bulb will be banned.

So you buy $500 Million dollars of electric cars, get $2 Billion in airplane sales. And Obama gets a union kickback in the process.

Sweet.

But don’t worry, Liberals and Democrats are anti-Big Business. They hate Corporate America. The greedy, capitalistic pigs!

I have come to the conclusion that they hate just hate Corporate America that doesn’t kickback ,or cowtow to THEM, or they have a Union that votes and supports them.

Those are good Businesses.

After all, Obama did bailout  GM to save the UAW not to save GM.

The Stimulus was designed to save state workers’ pension funds or at least delay the inevitable. Those were the jobs worth saving and creating. 🙂

Unions are good.Government Unions are great.

“Green” Jobs are the best. (Both kinds of green, by the way) 🙂

So what if it’s corrupt. So what if it’s quid pro quo.

Kickbacks are good if you’re a Democrat.

As long as you’re the beneficiary. Otherwise, it’s just corrupt. 🙂

What to see it: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/follow-money/index.html#/v/4417259/coulter-on-government-corruption/?playlist_id=158277

At least they aren’t Republicans, because that would be bad. 🙂

So corruption is good as long as you benefit and you can control it.

Now that’s “draining the swamp”.

And “rich” people are good as long as they are liberals, Like George Soros.

And “big business” is ok as long as they kick it it back to the Democrats,like GE.

And Unions are always much better than non-unions because of their overwhelming support for Democrats.

And Government Unions are the best, because they are dependent on the government for their jobs so they are loyal to a fault and will vote for self-preservation no matter what.

So corruption is good for Liberals, as long as they control them.

Isn’t that special! 🙂

Meanwhile, your average joe schmo who works in the private sector and pays taxes is a “moron”, and “idiot”, a “domestic terrorist”, a “racist”, “stupid” if they object.

Fascinating…