Give Me Comfort or Give me…

Matt Walsh had a piece yesterday that was truly brilliant.

It was aimed right at the hearts and minds of the $15/hr whiner crowd.

I want to address this to my generation and younger. The dreaded Youth of America. My fellow Young People. I think I’m still a member of this club, at least for a little while longer. These days childhood seems to extend for many people into their late 30s, so I guess if you use the Extended Adolescence scale, I’m only about 12 or so.

Thirty is the new 13, as they say.

Just trying having a rational discussion with a Liberal, you’ll be lucky if they act like a 3 year old.

In any case, I’m not sure what exactly prompted it – might be a couple of Tweets I sent out about minimum wage this week, or maybe this person stumbled upon an old article of mine — but I received a dire and depressing message yesterday. I’ll show you, just because it makes for an excellent learning opportunity:

Dear Matt, you are uninformed about the minimum wage. I’m NOT saying anyone should just HAND me a six figure income but I DO have the right to live a decent, comfortable life and not go hungry. I am 19 and supporting myself on a minimum wage job and it is not easy. 15 dollar minimum wage would be enough at least that I could be comfortable. I wish you didn’t see life through your privileged lense, then you might understand…

-Jon

Wow. Jon’s email consists of only five sentences, yet still he managed to cram in the word “comfort” twice (and “privilege” once, for good measure). He wants comfort, he says. He has a right to it. And those of us who oppose an increased minimum wage, thus standing in the way of his comfort, are privileged. This is the cartoon world he’s been indoctrinated into; this weird, mystical realm where comfort is owed to him, but evil privileged folks prowl about looking to steal it away. That’s essentially the social theory they teach in college, I’m told.

You have no shot. The privileged have taken everything so you got nothing. So vote for a Democrat to have government take it for you! 🙂

The price: Your soul. Your Pride.  And sense of self-motivation or worth.

It’s terrible to see a young guy already so bored, distracted, and unambitious that obtaining “a comfortable life” has become his objective. And not even an objective he’ll pursue on his own, but one he wants the government to deliver effortlessly to him, like a candy gram left on his doorstep by a secret admirer. It’s a heart wrenching spectacle to behold, but not remarkable. It’s certainly nothing I haven’t heard or read a thousand times before. Still, it made me reflect, not on the effects of a federal $15 minimum wage — we don’t have to speculate about that anymore, we’ve already seen how it destroys businesses in real life — but on the tragedy of so many millennials, millions in my generation, wasting their early life overcome with a fatal obsession over, and desire for, this elusive comfort.

“Everyone deserves a comfortable life”? Is that really going to be our generation’s rallying cry? Is this our revolution? “Give me comfort!” Our ancestors demanded liberty or death, but we’ve slightly modified the slogan, it seems.

A Pew survey found that half of minimum wage workers are between 16 and 24 years old, and another 22 percent are 25 to 34. Then there are the workers near minimum wage (which means they’d also see a massive bump in pay if the federal minimum were increased to $15), and half of them are under 30. This is why I weep over the “fight for 15″ movement. Most of these people are young — their whole lives in front of them, a billion potential paths they could walk, an infinite number of opportunities — yet this is their fight? Fifteen bucks an hour wrapping burritos at Chipotle? That’s all they’re after? Don’t misunderstand me: I’m not saying they want too much. I’m saying precisely that they don’t want enough.

Indeed, an increased minimum wage will certainly make many of them comfortable — especially in the parts of the country where 1$5 an hour really translates to $19 or $20 – and that’s exactly the problem. My great fear is not that an enormously inflated minimum wage will unravel the economy, although it surely will, but that it might actually succeed in its goal of making a bunch of 20-something fry cooks “comfortable” in their jobs. This would be a profound catastrophe because these jobs are not supposed to make people comfortable; nobody is supposed to do them for years and years on end. You’re supposed to get in and get out. Move in and move one. You’re meant to use it as a platform on your way to something better, but the platform is not meant to be a comfortable place to set up camp and hang out for a few decades.

Comfort: a state of ease and satisfaction of bodily wants, with freedom from pain and anxiety.

As the young generation, we are simply not at the point in our lives where we should be striving for “ease and satisfaction.” Least of all should we be looking to derive ease and satisfaction from wearing name tags and microwaving Big Macs all day. These kinds of jobs are tiring and tedious and demeaning and they pay like crap, and that’s the point. They’re not comfortable, and they shouldn’t be.

Besides, a “comfortable life” is by no means a human right, nor is it a need. Comfort, for one thing, is subjective. I’m sure wide swaths of humanity would consider every American, even our poor ones, comfortable. A roof over their head and safe food to eat are comforts to billions. Add in air conditioning, Internet, cell phone, TV, car, and running water, and by their standards you’ve reached the pinnacle of human luxury.

When we say we have a right to a comfortable life, whose idea of comfort are we working with? The Ethiopian version or the lazy, pampered, materialistic American consumer version? And where is the comfort equilibrium? Once we all have apartments, cable, NetFlix, Wi-Fi, stocked refrigerators, and consoles with at least four video games? Is that when comfort will be achieved? But what happens when everyone realizes that standard of comfort? What if my greedy neighbor then goes out and gets another video game, and a faster Wi-Fi connection, and better food? Now, compared to him, I’m less comfortable. Should he be forced to give me some of his stuff to compensate? But what if that makes me more comfortable than him? Do I give it back? Do we just keep up this tug of war until we all fall dead in our comfortable houses and are buried in our comfortable coffins under six feet of comfortable dirt?

REDISTRIBUTION WEALTH IS AN IMPERATIVE! 🙂

“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” goes the old Chinese proverb.

And for Liberals it feels good to give the poor a fish, or even better the “rich” person’s fish. Or a “free” or “cheaper” fish that looks like the “rich” person’s fish.

Problem is, then they don’t know how to fish. And if they never learned how to fish to begin with, then you have a person dependent on you for their fish.

Which, for Democrats, works for them. That’s what they like. They can control you, you are their slave if you can’t or won’t fish and they give it to you.

And you demand more! More Comfort! They are wealthy, they can afford it! 🙂

Have we thought this through? Of course not, but you can’t totally blame us. We live, after all, in the era of birth control mandates, Obama phones, free-speech zones, trigger warnings, and anti-discrimination ordinances. We are told every day that we have the right to feel comfortable, or at least to not be exposed to any ideas or circumstances that would make us uncomfortable. We’re just following the cultural cues, and listening to the voices that tell us our aim in life should be the avoidance of physical and emotional discomfort, at whatever cost. But the voices are wrong, and they’re leading us far, far astray.

Comfort is not a right or a need or even an appropriate desire at this stage. Sure, we can think about comfort when we’re shopping for jeans or sweaters or beds, but comfort shouldn’t be our entire goal in life right now. A comfortable lifestyle is for the old and the retired, not the young and the hungry.

“Give me $15 an hour so I can be comfortable!” What a weak and timid and disappointing banner to march under. We’ve got a world to conquer, for God’s sake. We’re not patients in hospice care. Now is the time to be uncomfortable.

Let’s look again at Jon’s case, for example. He’s supporting himself, he says, which is great. But he used the word “job,” singular, which tells me he only has one. Why? Why not get a second or a third? Instead of waiting for the government to force his employer to pay him about double what he’s making, he could go out and do it himself. Two jobs equals double the income. I worked three at one point, just as many people have. I worked from 4 p.m. to 10 a.m. some days; that’s 16 hours from afternoon to late morning. It was painful and uncomfortable and exhausting. It was awesome.

A while ago, the last time I wrote about the minimum wage, I heard from a guy who told me he’s 22, single, living alone, and he works four jobs. Two full time, one part time, and one that’s more of a freelance gig he does in his spare time (whenever that is). How is it that some people complain they can’t survive on minimum wage, they can’t find a better job, they can’t find a second job, meanwhile that dude is out there with four of them? And, no, I assume he doesn’t want to live like that forever, but he’s living like that now so he won’t have to do it forever. He’s not worried about being comfortable.

So, a minimum wage hike? You’re setting your sights too low, my friends. Here you are, complaining that the government won’t force your employer to give you $15  an hour, when you could be putting a plan in place to make 10 times that amount in the next five years. Better yet, you could be figuring out what your passions are and devising a way to make a career out of them, regardless of the money.

I think you should be chasing something bigger. We all should. Truth, beauty, fulfillment, love, success. Not comfort. And while you hunt for this larger game, what’s the worst that could happen? You eat one meal a day? You go to bed hungry sometimes? You have to cut off the AC to save money? You end up pawning half your possessions to pay the bills? I’ve been there. It’s not that bad. It’s good, actually. It motivates you. It drives you. It teaches you to scrap by and survive and do what it takes.

Why worry about getting a raise at your crappy minimum wage job? You aren’t planning on being there forever, are you? You don’t think of minimum wage employment as a 30-year career option, do you? Right, I hope not. Forget, then, about asking the government to tell your employer to make you comfortable. Comfort is just about the worst thing that could happen to you right now, or to any of us.

Here’s what I can assure you: Minimum wage won’t kill you. You’re not going to die. I mean, you will die eventually, maybe soon for all I know, maybe tomorrow or an hour from now, but it won’t be from lack of income. The coroner report isn’t going to list “minimum wage” as cause of death, I promise you.

So drop this “comfortable” thing, OK? Remove the word from your vocabulary completely. In fact, take out a paper bag, shout “I have the right to live a comfortable life!” into it, tie it shut so the words are trapped in there, then douse it in gasoline and throw it into a volcano. Murder that awful, hideous sentence with terrific violence. Ask for more out of life, and listen to the answer.

Life might not offer you comfort, especially while you’re still working the late shift at Taco Bell, but there’s the potential for something so much better, as long as you’re willing to go out and get it.

I wish I had been that smart in my early years.
But I have little sympathy for the “comfort police”.
I got into big debt because of my own issues and trusting other people.
I didn’t cry to the government or blame “privilege”.
I had 2 jobs. I got up at 4am. I had a nap in the afternoon for an hour. I went to bed at 1:30am! Monday-Friday for  28 months straight.
Now’s that’s not comfortable.
But it it had to be done. No whining. No no crying. Just do it.
Just hard work.
Now, 10 years later I had a house. A good paying job and I still work hard just not that hard.
So suck it up. Turn off your internet. Turn of the Cable with HBO Turn off your cell phone. How many 100’s of dollars is that a month?
Do what has to be done.
It won’t be easy.
But 10 years from now, you’ll thank us all.

That is, unless 10 years from now you’re still flipping burgers and complaining that $15/hr are “slave wages” and that no one can live “comfortably” on that!! 🙂

McMinimum

Let’s get one thing straight. We live in America. A country built on free enterprise and capitalism. If you have a good idea and the the drive to see it through to completion.

Just because you make minimum wage doesn’t mean you HAVE to make minimum wage.

America wasn’t built on the backs of men and women who whined about not having enough until they got it.

It was built by men and women who demanded this life give them more than what it had originally allotted them, and they didn’t give up until they got it.

What this mass protest does show is that if enough people get together and yell and complain, they probably will have their demands met by a country that continues to cater to those who complain when they don’t get their way instead of actually finding something better.

What ever happened to making the most of yourself and working hard for something more than a job flipping burgers? I personally thank McDonald’s for replacing these people. Maybe now they will strive to do more with their life.

I read an article on TheBlaze a few weeks ago with the title, “Fast Food Workers: You Don’t Deserve $15 an Hour to Flip Burgers, and That’s OK”. this writer is 100% right.

Here’s an important quote from the writer…

“You think the jobs I had when I was 16 should have provided me with the comfortable living I just established in my late 20s? Frankly, I think you’re delusional.

To understand how delusional, consider that a $15 an hour full-time salary would put you in the same ballpark as biologists, auto mechanics, biochemists, teachers, geologists, roofers and bank tellers.”

This kind of wage hike for an entry level food job just adds fuel to the entitlement mentality that is increasingly rising in our nation.

But all they wanted was $15 per hour?

Until 5-10 years from now when $15/hr will be “slave wages” that is…

Hillary Clinton Declines To Support A National $15 Minimum Wage

Clinton says she supports raising the national minimum wage, but adds that “what you can do in L.A. or in New York may not work in other places.”

How hilarious is that? Mrs. “One of you” Populist (who said basically the opposite once already).

If raising the minimum wage were cost-free, why stop at $10 or $15 an hour? Why not go straight to $25 an hour, the average hourly wage? That might be considered fair, because no one would have to earn less than today’s average.

The answer, of course, is because some people are displaced at any minimum wage. It is obvious to the general public that increasing the minimum wage to $25 an hour would displace workers. It is less obvious when amounts are smaller. But when the minimum wage is raised, employers hire higher-skilled people, or switch to different forms of technology such as placing orders through touch screens.

Forbes:

As we keep trying to point out to people there really isn’t anything even remotely resembling a free lunch when it comes to the discussion of wages and labor. Meaning that just because well meaning liberals wave their magic wand and decree that wages will rise there will indeed be countervailing effects. And in San Francisco, where the minimum wage was recently raised we did indeed see that comic book shop insisting that it just couldn’t survive. And now we’ve another tale, this time from Chipotle. Beef prices have been rising around the country so they’ve raised the prices, around the country, of their beef products. Wages in San Francisco have been rising strongly so they’ve raised the prices of all their products in San Francisco strongly. There really is no free lunch. A rise in wages will come out of either less labor being employed, lower profit margins (and fast food doesn’t have those wide enough to take the strain) or price increases to consumers.

And it’s that last which is happening as Mark Perry points out:

• In our weekly survey of ten of Chipotle’s markets, we found the company implemented price increases in half of the surveyed markets this week—San Francisco, Denver, Minneapolis, Chicago, and Orlando. In most markets, the price increases have been limited to beef and average about 4% on barbacoa and steak, toward the lower end of management’s expectation for a 4% to 6% price increase on beef.

• San Francisco, however, saw across-the-board price increases averaging over 10%, including 10% increases on chicken, carnitas (pork), sofritas (tofu), and vegetarian entrees along with a 14% increase on steak and barbacoa. We believe the outsized San Francisco price hike was likely because of increased minimum wages (which rose by 14% from $10.74 per hour to $12.25 on May 1) as well as scheduled minimum wage increases in future years (to $13 next year, $14 in 2017, and $15 in 2018).

A rough guide to the finances of the fast food industry is as follows. 30% goes on wages, 30% of revenues goes on ingredients and the other 40% is everything else. Rents, advertising, capital costs and, of course, profits. Those profits are pretty low. 5% of revenues isn’t an out of order estimation of the net profit margins in the business (and, of course, that’s an average, as some locations and some whole chains lose money).

So, if we by legislative fiat raise the price of one of those inputs then something, somewhere, has to give. Those profit margins are already pretty thin and so they’re not going to be where that extra cost comes from. More than that if we reduce the returns to capital in a particular line of business then less capital will be invested in that line of business in the future. This means fewer jobs in that line of business: This is one of the ways that a rise in the minimum wage destroys jobs. Fewer will be created in the future than would have been in the absence of the rise in the minimum wage.

It’s possible that employers will be encouraged to deploy their labor in a more productive manner as a result of the price increase. This is the same statement as fewer jobs will be created. For if I go and raise labor productivity then by definition I need less labor for any given level of output. Or of course employers could just automate the process a little more and that also means fewer jobs.

So, if employers either economize on labor or profits, there will be job losses: the minimum wage rise does reduce employment.

Or there is this final method: raise prices. Which also causes job losses: for the more money that consumers are spending on reasonably priced Mexican food (although now less reasonably priced Mexican food than it used to be) the less they have available to spend on other things. We might think that there could be an interesting overlap between those who consume reasonably priced Mexican food and those who frequent comic book shops for example. If the food now costs more then there might well be less being spent in the comic book shop: again, we see reductions in the number of jobs.

And just to head off at the pass one of the more insane points that people try to make. That if the workers at Chipotle are now making more money then they’ll spend more at Chipotle, and the company’s profits will rise! This doesn’t even pass the basic math test, let alone any economic one. For note above the split in revenues. About 30% of revenue is spent upon labor. The other 70% is spent upon other things, including that 30% or so on food ingredients. So, if Chipotle raises wages by $100 (just as an example) and all of those wages are then spent in the same store, it is impossible for profits to rise. Think about it for a moment: the wage bill has just gone up by $100. Revenues have just gone up by $100. But the food bill has also gone up by $30. So, the increase in costs is $130 (even in the very best, best, case) while revenues have gone up by $100. This is known to the cognoscenti as a loss, not an increase in profit.

There really is no such thing as a free lunch. Only lunches of variable cost. And if we increase the cost of one of the major inputs into such lunches then something else will give. Here, as a result of the rise in the minimum wage Chipotle has raised prices in that specific location where the minimum wage rise occurred.

This doesn’t help minimum wage earners: some unknown but knowable reduction in sales of reasonably priced Mexican food will take place as a result of this price rise. Demand curves really do slope downwards. Thus some unknown but knowable number of people will not be employed to produce said food.

As we’ve been saying all along: a rise in the minimum wage really does destroy jobs.

Finding the effects of raising the minimum wage is challenging, because 97 percent of American workers now make above the minimum wage—not because it is the law, but because employers have to pay higher compensation packages to retain workers. That is one reason that some academic studies do not find major negative effects of minimum-wage increases.

Those who would be harmed by increasing the minimum wage are young people. Half of minimum-wage workers are under 25, and 24 percent are teens. This group’s unemployment rate is already higher than the 5.3 percent overall rate. The teen unemployment rate is 18 percent, and the African-American teen unemployment rate is 32 percent. The youth unemployment rate is 10 percent. (Federalist)

But the Left will continue with their class warfare because that suits THEIR Agenda, so what if you get hurt in the process, like that matters. The end justifies the means, remember. 🙂

I’ll give you $15/hr

For all those narcissistic fast food workers who think emotionally and not logically and have bought the class warfare BS hook, line, and SUCKER…I present YOUR FUTURE…

A company called Momentum Machines has built a robot that could radically change the fast-food industry and have some line cooks looking for new jobs.

The company’s robot can “slice toppings like tomatoes and pickles immediately before it places the slice onto your burger, giving you the freshest burger possible.” The robot is “more consistent, more sanitary, and can produce ~360 hamburgers per hour.” That’s one burger every 10 seconds.

The next generation of the device will offer “custom meat grinds for every single customer. Want a patty with 1/3 pork and 2/3 bison ground to order? No problem.” 

Momentum Machines cofounder Alexandros Vardakostas told Xconomy his “device isn’t meant to make employees more efficient. It’s meant to completely obviate them.” Indeed, marketing copy on the company’s site reads that their automaton “does everything employees can do, except better.”

This directly raises a question that a lot of smart people have contemplated: Will robots steal our jobs? Opinion is divided of course. Here’s what Momentum Machines has to say on the topic:

The issue of machines and job displacement has been around for centuries and economists generally accept that technology like ours actually causes an increase in employment. The three factors that contribute to this are 1. the company that makes the robots must hire new employees, 2. the restaurant that uses our robots can expand their frontiers of production which requires hiring more people, and 3. the general public saves money on the reduced cost of our burgers. This saved money can then be spent on the rest of the economy.

If we are to undertake the lofty ambition of changing the nature of work by way of robots, the fast-food industry seems like a good place to start, considering its inherently repetitive tasks and minimal skill requirements. Any roboticist worth his or her salt jumps at tasks described as repetitive and easy — perfect undertakings for a robot.

Here’s a schematic of what the burger-bot looks like and how it works. It occupies 24 square feet, so it’s much smaller than most assembly-line fast-food operations. It boasts “gourmet cooking methods never before used in a fast food restaurant” and will even deposit your completed burger into a bag. It’s a veritable Gutenberg printing press for hamburgers.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/momentum-machines-burger-robot-2014-8#ixzz3CRJCs6U7

If you think your Liberal “mad” cry baby skills are up to it that is…. 🙂

 

McJob

McDonald’s Replacing Cashiers With Machines?

“Would you like fries with that?” may soon be a long forgotten relic of American pop culture.

McDonald’s employees who picketed for a better living wage (whatever that means) may come to regret that decision. According to a Redditor, a McDonald’s in Illinois replaced their cashiers with machines.  The machines appear to be the cousins of the ones found in grocery stores, big box stores, and CVS that allow customers to complete transactions.

How cost effective is replacing an organic employee with a mechanized one? According to an economic blog, and unsurprisingly, the machines likely come out on top in terms of pricing:

• For a location open 24 hours: The cost of human cashiers, not counting benefits, $15/hour * 24 hours * 365 days/year = $131,400

• For a location open 6AM to Midnight:  $15/hour * 18 hours * 365 = $98,550.

• For the machine to be cost effective, all it needs to do is cost less than $100,000 a year to buy and maintain.

Who could’ve possibly seen this coming? Forbes. They predicted this exact scenario last July.

A recent article at the Huffington Post makes the claim that if McDonald’s MCD +0.26% doubled its employees salaries it would only cause the price of a Big Mac to go up by 68 cents. The implication here is that 68 cents isn’t much money, so they should do it. There’s a few things missing from this.

One is that the article itself alleges that doubling wages would lead to a 17% increase in costs. And I guess this is obviously supposed to seem like a small amount? It doesn’t look that way to me. What do people expect will happen when prices go up 17%? If McDonald’s could raise its prices by that much without lowering demand they would. No, what would happen is people would shop at those stores less, there would be less profit and less McDonald’s stores to hire workers.

Doubling of labor costs will simply increase a fast food restaurant’s incentives to adopt technology like this. And if fast food wages doubled everywhere it would spur the development of these technologies even faster.

This is all basic economics, really. As costs of labor increase the added cost must be offset. In order to satisfy operating costs, produce a product consumers want to purchase, and still turn a profit, it’s perfectly reasonable for a company like McDonald’s to look for cost-cutting alternatives. As Forbes pointed out, the added pressure to increase wages only serves to expedite technological solutions.

McDonald’s has already installed kiosks to replace human cashiers in about 7,000 of its stores in higher-minimum-wage Europe. So it seems inevitable that technology will make its way into the kitchen as well.

But cooks are safe from the machination of American fast food, right?

Not if companies like Momentum Machines has anything to do with it. “Our technology will democratize access to high quality food making it available to the masses,” their site claims. They also claim their burger making machines can, “do everything employees do except better” and that the machines reap such large labor savings, restaurants will be able to afford twice as fancy ingredients. Tempting little proposition they have there.

“Would you like fries with that?” may soon be a long forgotten relic of American pop culture. And all because it makes good economic sense.

Naturally, the Left will interpret this as “class warfare” and a “war on the poor” rather than see the obvious.

Update (WAJ): Prof. Reynolds notes that Robot makers must be loving the recent NLRB ruling, as well, which held McDonald’s parent corporation liable for franchisee employment practices. Can a kiosk file an employment grievance? (LI)

ATLANTA – Outrage is growing against federal restrictions on school bake sales and fundraisers.

“We don’t have enough teachers in our classrooms and now we are expected to hire some type of food police to monitor whether we are having bake sales or not. That is just asinine,” John Barge, Georgia state school superintendent tells WSB-TV.

We are from the Government and we are hear to help you. We are from a Union, we are here to Help you… 🙂

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-12/meet-smart-restaurant-minimum-wage-crushing-burger-flipping-robot

The Madness

By: Thomas Sowell

Political crusades for raising the minimum wage are back again. Advocates of minimum wage laws often give themselves credit for being more “compassionate” towards “the poor.” But they seldom bother to check what are the actual consequences of such laws.

Because they don’t care. They are self-righteous, ego maniacal and have enough narcissism to rival the Gods themselves and anyone who would dare to challenge them must be a very evil Devil.

And since they have the all the “compassion” and it “feels so good” that anything else must be bad.

Like the Truth.

One of the simplest and most fundamental economic principles is that people tend to buy more when the price is lower and less when the price is higher. Yet advocates of minimum wage laws seem to think that the government can raise the price of labor without reducing the amount of labor that will be hired.

Or race the price of labor and not expect the price of the goods to go up because after all that just “Corporate Greed” and “profiteering”. 🙂

When you turn from economic principles to hard facts, the case against minimum wage laws is even stronger. Countries with minimum wage laws almost invariably have higher rates of unemployment than countries without minimum wage laws.

Norway has a 3% unemployment and no minimum wage, by the way.

Most nations today have minimum wage laws, but they have not always had them. Unemployment rates have been very much lower in places and times when there were no minimum wage laws.

Switzerland is one of the few modern nations without a minimum wage law. In 2003, “The Economist” magazine reported: “Switzerland’s unemployment neared a five-year high of 3.9 percent in February.” In February of this year, Switzerland’s unemployment rate was 3.1 percent. A recent issue of “The Economist” showed Switzerland’s unemployment rate as 2.1 percent.

Most Americans today have never seen unemployment rates that low. However, there was a time when there was no federal minimum wage law in the United States.

For a good portion of it there was no welfare either.

The last time was during the Coolidge administration, when the annual unemployment rate got as low as 1.8 percent. When Hong Kong was a British colony, it had no minimum wage law. In 1991 its unemployment rate was under 2 percent.

As for being “compassionate” toward “the poor,” this assumes that there is some enduring class of Americans who are poor in some meaningful sense, and that there is something compassionate about reducing their chances of getting a job.

Well, Liberal doe need dependents and the fearfully ignorant to vote for them. “Vote for Me, the other guys Rich” doesn’t quite work otherwise.

Most Americans living below the government-set poverty line have a washer and/or a dryer, as well as a computer. More than 80 percent have air conditioning. More than 80 percent also have both a landline and a cell phone. Nearly all have television and a refrigerator. Most Americans living below the official poverty line also own a motor vehicle and have more living space than the average European — not Europeans in poverty, the average European.

In a worldwide sense Americans are 1%ers. How evil are we. 🙂

Why then are they called “poor”? Because government bureaucrats create the official definition of poverty, and they do so in ways that provide a political rationale for the welfare state — and, not incidentally, for the bureaucrats’ own jobs.

Most people in the lower income brackets are not an enduring class. Most working people in the bottom 20 percent in income at a given time do not stay there over time. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain behind in the bottom 20 percent.

There is nothing mysterious about the fact that most people start off in entry level jobs that pay much less than they will earn after they get some work experience. But, when minimum wage levels are set without regard to their initial productivity, young people are disproportionately unemployed — priced out of jobs.

$15/hr flipping burgers at McDonalds will only make less jobs. And would make that “Value Meal” $5 instead of 1 or 2. 🙂

In European welfare states where minimum wages, and mandated job benefits to be paid for by employers, are more generous than in the United States, unemployment rates for younger workers are often 20 percent or higher, even when there is no recession.

Unemployed young people lose not only the pay they could have earned but, at least equally important, the work experience that would enable them to earn higher rates of pay later on.

Minorities, like young people, can also be priced out of jobs. In the United States, the last year in which the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate — 1930 — was also the last year when there was no federal minimum wage law. Inflation in the 1940s raised the pay of even unskilled workers above the minimum wage set in 1938. Economically, it was the same as if there were no minimum wage law by the late 1940s.

Relative to inflation the minimum wage in 1963 is the same as it is now.

In 1948 the unemployment rate of black 16-year-old and 17-year-old males was 9.4 percent. This was a fraction of what it would become in even the most prosperous years from 1958 on, as the minimum wage was raised repeatedly to keep up with inflation.

Some “compassion” for “the poor”!

A survey of American economists found that 90 percent of them regarded minimum wage laws as increasing the rate of unemployment among low-skilled workers. Inexperience is often the problem. Only about 2 percent of Americans over the age of 24 earned the minimum wage.

Advocates of minimum wage laws usually base their support of such laws on their estimate of how much a worker “needs” in order to have “a living wage” — or on some other criterion that pays little or no attention to the worker’s skill level, experience or general productivity. So it is hardly surprising that minimum wage laws set wages that price many a young worker out of a job.

Because it’s all about “feelings” and not reality. Emotion, not logic. And a base of sticking it to “corporate greed” and the liberal genetic necessity, Class Warfare.

What is surprising is that, despite an accumulation of evidence over the years of the devastating effects of minimum wage laws on black teenage unemployment rates, members of the Congressional Black Caucus continue to vote for such laws.

Because it’s about THEM, not the people they are “advocating for” and they stay where they are by “advocating”.

Once, years ago, during a confidential discussion with a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, I asked how they could possibly vote for minimum wage laws.

The answer I got was that members of the Black Caucus were part of a political coalition and, as such, they were expected to vote for things that other members of that coalition wanted, such as minimum wage laws, in order that other members of the coalition would vote for things that the Black Caucus wanted.

Quid Pro Quo! 🙂

You grease my skids I’ll grease yours!

When I asked what could the black members of Congress possibly get in return for supporting minimum wage laws that would be worth sacrificing whole generations of young blacks to huge rates of unemployment, the discussion quickly ended. I may have been vehement when I asked that question.

They got POWER.

The same question could be asked of black public officials in general, including Barack Obama, who have taken the side of the teachers’ unions, who oppose vouchers or charter schools that allow black parents (among others) to take their children out of failing public schools.

Minimum wage laws can even affect the level of racial discrimination. In an earlier era, when racial discrimination was both legally and socially accepted, minimum wage laws were often used openly to price minorities out of the job market.

In 1925, a minimum wage law was passed in the Canadian province of British Columbia, with the intent and effect of pricing Japanese immigrants out of jobs in the lumbering industry.

A well regarded Harvard professor of that era referred approvingly to Australia’s minimum wage law as a means to “protect the white Australian’s standard of living from the invidious competition of the colored races, particularly of the Chinese” who were willing to work for less.

In South Africa during the era of apartheid, white labor unions urged that a minimum wage law be applied to all races, to keep black workers from taking jobs away from white unionized workers by working for less than the union pay scale.

Some supporters of the first federal minimum wage law in the United States — the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 — used exactly the same rationale, citing the fact that Southern construction companies, using non-union black workers, were able to come north and under-bid construction companies using unionized white labor.

These supporters of minimum wage laws understood long ago something that today’s supporters of such laws seem not to have bothered to think through. People whose wages are raised by law do not necessarily benefit, because they are often less likely to be hired at the imposed minimum wage rate.

Labor unions have been supporters of minimum wage laws in countries around the world, since these laws price non-union workers out of jobs, leaving more jobs for union members.

People who are content to advocate policies that sound good, whether for political reasons or just to feel good about themselves, often do not bother to think through the consequences beforehand or to check the results afterwards.

Why would they, it either feels good and gives them a sense of moral superiority or it gives them power. Why bother with worrying about consequences. That’s someone’s fault.

If they thought things through, how could they have imagined that having large numbers of idle teenage boys hanging out on the streets together would be good for any community — especially in places where most of these youngsters were raised by single mothers, another unintended consequence, in this case, of well-meaning welfare policies?

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

Because of Narcissism.

Minimum Reality

“You can’t have the same number of job opportunities in the restaurant industry and have a $15 minimum wage. These things can’t co-exist,” said Employment Policies Institute worforce scholar Michael Saltsman, whose think tank ran a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal depicting a robot making pancakes with the title, “Why Robots Could Soon Replace Fast Food Workers Demanding a Higher Minimum Wage.” (DC)

Neil Boortz: Mr. Activist guy had the idea that if McDonalds would just pay these workers $15.00 an hour plus health insurance and all of the other benefits then the world would be a better place and the workers would not have to rely on the government for all of these welfare services and everyone would be better off. Nobody asked him how much a Big Meal would cost if the people preparing that culinary delight were paid $15.00 an hour plus benefits. Right now you can get a Big Meal for about $7.25 The person preparing that meal is probably making minimum wage. Boost the wage by about $6.00 per hour and what is the new cost for a Big Meal? $8.50? $10.00? More? Can all of the McDonald’s customers afford this price increase? Or do they go to other, cheaper fast food restaurants? Can McDonalds maintain their profit margin and employment level with lost sales? If not, how many $15 an hour workers do they lay off? Perhaps they would just close some stores in low-income areas altogether.

How about this question for the organizer: “Hey, sport. Tell me something. What obligation does McDonalds have to pay a worker more than that worker is worth? Are you telling me that an employer should hire someone just to pay them more than the wealth they can produce for the company out of some sense of social obligation? How long do you stay in business doing that?” Organizer dude probably would have come across with some statement about “social responsibility.” Well, guess what? If employers start to determine wages on what the employee wants instead of what that employee produces we will see a lot of boarded businesses and many more unemployed government-educated functionally illiterate Democrat voters. Wait! …… What?

Where DO mindless people like this come from? Oh yeah. Government schools. Almost forgot.

And SEIU, Obama Union thugs, masquerading as “employees” picketing McDonalds and the like in New York. Buig surprise there.

You made a point of saying that McDonalds should pay you enough to support your family. Fine. Then answer MY question. What about YOUR responsibilities? Did you not understand that you lacked the skills, job history and education necessary to make more than a minimum wage and that; therefore, you might not be in a position to shoulder the cost of an additional member of your household? Or is it your belief that all you have to do is download a child and it automatically becomes someone else’s responsibility to cover the costs? I think a valid case can be made for the proposition that one of the greatest social wrongs a person can commit is to have a baby they simply cannot afford to raise.

Personal accountability and responsibility is dying. Long live the Democrat welfare state.

NY Times: A half-century ago, the marchers called on Congress to increase the minimum wage from $1.15 an hour to $2 “so that men may live in dignity,” in the words of Bayard Rustin, one of the chief organizers of the march. Today, the fast-food workers also seek a raise, from the $9 an hour that most of them make to $15.00 an hour. That’s not much different from what the marchers wanted in 1963; adjusted for inflation, $2 then is $13.39 an hour today.

But what they aren’t saying is, that the minimum wage in 1963 was almost exactly what it is today, based on inflation because in 1963 it was $1.25, and now at $7-$8 with inflation is about the same amount and level. No real change. It’s still MINIMUM for a reason. So by using $2 they are being dishonest. Gee, what a shocker that is!

The skill set hasn’t improved, so the job’s wages haven’t either.

Forbes:

The strikers are targeting their employers — profitable companies like McDonald’s, Yum Brands (which includes Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC) and Wendy’s.

Almost none of the fast food workers are employees of those companies. For the way the industry works is that the main company contracts with franchisees who run the actual stores. The employees are then the employees of those franchises.  THE SMALL BUSINESS MAN! There is no employment contract at all between the worker and those large companies: and those companies cannot determine the wages the workers get either. To get that sort of thing wrong in an editorial in the NYT is near unforgiveable. What’s worse though is that they’ve entirely failed to understand the economic points being made in this debate.

Media Matters can help us out here though through their own refusal to understand what is actually being said:

Contrary to industry officials’ claims, economic studies have concluded that raising the minimum wage has no effect on employment.

No, that’s not what economic studies have concluded. Rather, they have concluded this:

In a Center for Economy and Policy Research report titled “Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?” senior economist John Schmitt determined that there is “little or no employment response to modest increases in the minimum wage.”

“Minimum wages have no effect on employment” and “modest increases have little effect” are just not the same statement. And do note that the current demand is for a more than doubling of the minimum wage: something that we cannot describe as modest.

Syracuse.com commentor: Here is the point of view of any successful businessman. If you artificially force me to pay more for a worker than his job is worth, I will either shut down the business, figure out how to do the job with fewer workers, outsource it to lower my costs (for benefits, like health care), or figure out how to automate it. Fast food work is vulnerable to any or all of these solutions. What good is a mandatory higher wage for a job if the job no longer exists?

But reality doesn’t play into the Class warfare rhetoric and hype of the Left.

One liberal even called the Minimum Wage, “slave labor” so rational thought is not present on the Left.

We witnessed it between 2007 and 2009, when the federal minimum wage rose 41 percent and had a disastrous effect on youth employment. The joblessness rate for 16-19 year olds increased by 10 percentage points from 16 percent in 2007, to more than 26 percent in 2009. While some politicians claim that workers benefitted from the minimum wage hike, if you were to ask the 8.8 million workers who lost their jobs during the economic recession, I bet you’d get a different answer. It’s no secret that when you raise the cost of doing business, or in this case hiring workers, business owners have to find a way to trim their expenses and meet their bottom line. (Steve Cruz)

But the Let’s Agenda is deaf to reality. After all, if at first you fail, fail, fail again, because it  is obviously someone else’s fault for your failure! 🙂

Labor Day

Economic Illiteracy: With last week’s one-day strike, fast-food workers sent a clear message: They want the minimum wage raised from $7.25 an hour to $15. But they should be careful what they wish for; they just might get it.

It isn’t hard to see what a doubling of the minimum wage would do in an industry that pays out an estimated 70% of revenue to workers: Hundreds of thousands would lose their jobs overnight.

They don’t see that. They are blind to it. All they see are people, specifically CEOs who make “millions” and bosses who get “rich” so they want their “fair” share of it. They have no understanding of economics. They understand things on child’s level- They want that toy and they want it now! And if they don’t get it they will cry and bawl until someone gives in.

And when the McDonald hamburger now cost $10.00 because of the labor cost increases and the restaurant they are working at goes down in flames, they will still blame “the CEOs” for being too greedy.

It’s what I have called “Unenlightened Narcissism” and the real problem is that THEY DON’T WANT TO BE ENLIGHTENED!

They will resist any attempt to enlighten them as trying to corrupt or trick them.

So I say just fire their asses and move on. You can’t save everyone from themselves.

The average fast-food employee makes $8.94 an hour, according to the National Employment Law Project. Unions and workers want to boost that to $15 an hour. Fine, except most who now earn $9 an hour are young with little education and few skills. To be blunt, they’re not worth the extra money. They’ll be fired.

So who will do their jobs, you ask. A more apt question is what will do their jobs. Because they may go to robots. Or computers. Don’t laugh. When labor costs rise, technological substitutions suddenly make economic sense.

It’s already happening in Europe, where it costs a lot to hire a worker, McDonald’s has installed 7,000 new ATM-style machines that take orders and payments. No muss, no fuss, no arguments, no misunderstandings — and no minimum wage at all. Just a one-time cost for the machine, plus maintenance.

To the point:

With a beep, a buzz and a whir — and maybe even a little sizzle — the world’s first fully-automatic hamburger machine can prepare, cook and serve a perfect custom-made burger without a single human hand being involved.

A San Francisco startup is taking the Silicon Valley attitude into the fast food market and hoping to revolutionize what they call “the most labour intensive industry in the country.”

Featuring glass tubes filled with lettuce and tomatoes, a meat-grinder, bun slicer, oven and bagger, the alpha machine is part Rube Goldberg, part Jetsons and promises to be the first step in burger evolution since McDonald’s proliferated around the world.

It can produce a custom-made, freshly ground burger, baked to order at a rate of 400 per hour. The machine will add the requested toppings, slicing tomatoes directly onto the burger, and pop out a neatly-wrapped sandwich ready for human consumption.

The makers, Momentum Machines, claim that their invention “does everything employees can do except better.”

The oven employs “gourmet cooking techniques never before used in a fast-food restaurant, giving the patty the perfect char but keeping in all the juices,” according their website.

“It’s more consistent, more sanitary,” and the company claims, “the labour savings allow a restaurant to spend approximately twice as much on high quality ingredients.”

Momentum is planning on demonstrating their invention in a soon to be opened restaurant in San Francisco before franchising it out to any restaurant, convenience store, food truck — or potentially even vending machine — that wants it.

As for all those grill tenders and line cooks made obsolete by the contraption, Momentum offers discounted technical training and says that the money saved on labour will be recycled into restaurant expansion and new job creation.

Plus, according to the website, “the general public saves money on the reduced cost of our burgers. This saved money can then be spent on the rest of the economy.”

It’s a delicious win-win. (The Star)

As ObamaCare raises the cost of labor for fast-food chains, and with talk of a doubling of wages, look for the same equipment to be used here too. And it won’t just be ATMs.

Momentum Machines, a San Francisco-based high-tech company, has created the Alpha, a robot that can make up to 360 hamburgers in an hour — and pays for itself in a year.

(see above) 🙂

Left-wing talking heads in the media counter that McDonald’s or Burger King or Taco Bell or whoever could simply take money “out of profits.” But this defies all understanding of economics.

But it fits with the narcissism of the Left and it also is perfect bait for the unenlightened.

First, 80% of McDonald’s outlets are franchises, owned by a person who pays royalties for the right to run a burger restaurant. These people do not have massive profit margins. If costs rise, they’ll fire people.

But the Left doesn’t care about that. It’s relevant to the Agenda.

Besides, they’ll view mass layoffs as a a sign of “corporate greed”. At least that’s what they will tell the unenlightened en masse.

Even if you did shrink profits, who would that hurt? The middle class, that’s who. Their 401(k)s and IRAs are loaded to the gunwales with fast-food shares. And when they go out to eat, they’ll pay higher prices.

But that will be corporations fault, according to the Left. 🙂

Workers need to get real: If you’re not worth $15 an hour, a robot may take your place. And it won’t strike. (IBD)

But reality is the last thing the Left can contemplate. Fear, Hatred, anxiety, stress, these are the things that make most Liberal “leaders” happy.

A stressed out, economically tapped out, hate-filled constituency will Vote for them and demand more control, time and again,  and they will fill their kids with the same hatred and fear!

What could be better! 🙂

 

No They Can’t! And More

http://www.scribd.com/doc/85637905/No-They-Can-t-by-John-Stossel

Politicians say “Yes, we can!” and claim they solve our problems.

When the mortgage market crashed, the President said their new law, Dodd-Frank, would create a “new financial system” so such things would never happen again.

After 9/11, Senator Tom Daschle declared “you can’t professionalize if you don’t federalize!” The Senate voted 100-0 to create the TSA to run airport security.

Politicians’ promises are endless. They say they’ll: create jobs, “make college affordable for all,” protect the disabled, give disadvantaged kids a head start, and invest in “cutting edge innovation.”

But they can’t achieve what they promise.

•Billionaire Mark Cuban and other job-creators explain why government’s rules now prevent the job creation that was once America’s hallmark.

•Dodd-Frank, instead of stopping fraud, added layers to already incomprehensible banking laws. Stossel shows how simple rules in the Cayman Islands not only stop fraud, but they also create prosperity.

•While the TSA creates long lines, misses actual terrorists, and angers passengers, screeners working for a private company at one big airport work faster, more cheerfully, and find more contraband. We show how the private company does it.

Namely, San Francisco’s Airport (the mecca of Liberalism) has Private Security and it works vastly better than the TSA.

I know the most scrutiny I got from my last Trip to Wales was actually from my stop over in Amsterdam.

•Did you know that the U of Missouri is proud to have a “leisure resort” on campus? Naomi Riley, author of The Faculty Lounges: And Other Reasons Why You Won’t Get the College Education You Pay For, explains how government aid led to massive tuition hikes.

•Since the Americans with Disabilities Act took effect, fewer disabled people have been able to work.

•Lisa Snell from the Reason Foundation explains how the government’s own research found that Head Start did not help poor kids. Government’s response? Spend even more.

Government grows, despite its repeated failure.

Politicians are wrong when they say “Yes, we can”, but the fact that government can’t doesn’t mean that we can’t. Free people accomplish wonderful things. While government wastes billions on boondoggles like Solyndra, X-prize founder Peter Diamandis explains how private investors have created cars that get 100mpg, space ships, and much faster ways to clean up oil spills, all without charging taxpayers a penny.

Without big government, life can be great.

AN EXAMPLE

Everyone loves the Head Start program. Politicians across the ideological spectrum-from former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to President George W. Bush-have praised the program and called it a success.

They should read the government’s own research.

The ‘Head Start Impact Study‘ was a report conducted by the federal government. It followed and compared underprivileged kids who went to Head Start, and underprivileged kids who didn’t. The study found no difference between the two groups.

Zero.

The kids who went to Head Start did better while they were in Head Start, but one year later the benefits were all gone. Not by 5th grade. Not by 3rd grade. By 1st grade, the benefits were “largely absent”.

Since President Obama has pledged over and over to “eliminate programs that don’t work”, it seems like Head Start would be a natural to get cut.

Nope.

That’s not how big government works. Even after the report came out, the Obama administration has continued to massively increase spending on Head Start by more than a billion dollars.

In my Fox News special “No They Can’t”, I talk to Congressman Keith Ellison, co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, who in spite of the evidence insists Head Start works. When I confront him on the data, he falls back on a familiar argument: we need to spend more.

Give me a break. We’ve spent 180 billion dollars already, with nothing to show for it.

The government just can’t do it.

EXAMPLE 2

That’s how much you’ll need to buy the Energy Department’s prize-winning light bulb. (You know because Thomas Edison’s Incandescent Light Bulb was deemed politically correct by the Whacko Environmentalist Left).

Last year the government announced a $10 million prize “designed to spur lighting manufacturers to develop high-quality, high-efficiency solid-state lighting products to replace the common light bulb.” The winner? A light bulb that costs $50 each.

Only in the government would they think it was “progress” worth celebrating to replace something you can buy on Amazon.com for a little more than $1 with something that costs $50.

“I don’t want to say it’s exorbitant, but if a customer is only looking at the price, they could come to that conclusion,”Home Depot worker Brad Paulsen told the Washington Post. (Fox Business)

EXAMPLE 3 FOOD POLICE:

Public health: The toxic truth about sugar

This was headline in a Nature Magazine article that basically said sugar was bad a tobacco and alcohol and need to be sold behind the counter . Anti-obesity Meme Roth says yes, to protect the interests of kids.

Ah, it’s “for the children” so you can’t possibly object now can you?

Coke is the New Cocaine. Wait, in the 19th Century it was made with cocaine…)

🙂

And It’s Government to the Rescue!!!

WANT MORE

Kids who open lemonade stands are now shutdown by police. I tried to open a lemonade stand legally in NYC. That was quite an adventure. It takes 65 days to get permission from the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

With government adding 80,000 pages of rules and regulations every year, it’s no surprise that regular people break laws without even trying.

A family in Idaho can’t build a home on their land because the EPA says it’s a wetland-but it only resembles a wetland because a government drain malfunctioned and flooded it.

Ever hear of a real wetland in Idaho??

Want to start a taxi business? Too bad – it’s illegal. Illegal, that is, unless you buy a government-issued “taxi medallion” that can cost as much as a million dollars. One city has a free market for cabs – Washington, DC – but lobbyists there are pushing to regulate.

Sen. Dick Durbin reacts to the tornadoes in Dallas, Texas earlier this week. Durbin calls for more laws regulating carbon output while he sends a dire warning that we must convert to hybrid cars or lose our life. Durbin says we must spend money now to fix the problem.

“It’s your money or your life,” he said a press conference. “We are either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet and accept the initial investment necessary or we’re going to pay a heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs associated with it.” (RCP)

NEVER LET A TRAGEDY GO BY WITHOUT PUSHING THE GLOBAL WARMING AGENDA!

Now that’s “compassion” at it’s finest.

But some good news: A San Francisco judge has dismissed a proposed class-action lawsuit that sought to stop McDonald’s Corp. from using toys to market its meals to children in the Golden State. The suit had been filed in late 2010 by Monet Parham, a California mother of two, and The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.

After all, McDonald’s was and is just a Capitalist Predator out to ensnare your children in crack-addicted life of junk food and obesity!!!

<<Maniacal Laugh>>

And Finally, the ever reliable whacko, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:

“You know, what Mitt Romney and the Republicans have been doing to themselves every single day is showing women in this country day after day that they are callously indifferent to women’s health, to the priorities of women,” DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz told MSNBC on Thursday night. Really as evidenced by their obsession with cultural issues, their obsession with making sure that women can’t have affordable access to birth control, the dismissive way that the Chairman of the Republican National Committee today chalked up women being concerned about making sure that we could have affordable access to preventive screenings like mammograms as fictional as a war on caterpillars. You know, if they’re still wondering why there’s an 18-point gender gap and President Obama is ahead of Mitt Romney by that many points, then they really — they really must believe these things that they’re saying.

“Shocking,” Wasserman Schultz added.

Wasserman Schultz also says Mitt Romney is trying to “out-right-wing” his fellow Republicans. Here’s what she had to say at

“I think Mitt Romney has been so focused on trying to out-right-wing and embrace extremism that he is really beholden and has tied himself to his support for personhood amendments, his belief that Roe versus Wade was one of the worst decisions handed down by the Supreme Court, his support for the Blunt-Rubio amendment which says that bosses get to decide for their female employees what kind of access to health care they can have. And so every day there’s another example of how out of touch the Republicans are,” Wasserman Schultz said later in the interview conducted by MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell.  (Who also ripped Romney for being…<dramatic shock sting> A MORMON! Lord have Mercy we can’t elect a nutcase from a fringe religion now would you!!!) Except an Alinsky cultist called Barack Hussein Obama that is.

“Mitt Romney wants to be President of the United States, yet he fails to recognize what’s important to women. We just want to make sure that the guy in the White House is focused on creating jobs, getting the economy turned around, and making sure that as members of the middle class and working families that we have an opportunity to be successful to not just focusing on people who already are,” she said.

So when is Obama going to do that? He’s been there since 2009… 🙂

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden.” –President Ronald Reagan.

And God know these Liberals Never Let A Crisis Go to Waste! 🙂

 

Scary: Occupiers

MSNBC: On Martin Bashir’s television program this afternoon, Democratic strategist and MSNBC analyst Karen Finney said that Republicans are supporting Herman Cain because of his race:”One of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy,” Finney said. “I think he giving that base a free pass. And I think they like him because they think he’s a black man who knows his place. I know that’s harsh, but that’s how it sure seems to me.”

“Thank you for spelling that out,” Bashir responded. 

This isn’t the first time liberals have made this kind of charge about Cain and his supporters. During an online production of NBC’s Meet the Press this week, Democratic congressman Elijah Cummings of Maryland said white voters support Cain to show they aren’t racist. “I think when [members of the Tea Party] can vote for a Herman Cain and hear him say the things that he says they feel like, ‘Well, you know, I can, I support this guy and…so it shows that I’m not racist and I’m supportive,'” Cummings told host David Gregory.

Liberal comedienne Janeane Garafalo told Current TV host Keith Olbermann earlier this month that Cain is popular with Republicans because it “hides the racist element” of the party.

So you’re a racist if you don’t vote for Obama. But you’re a racist in hiding if you want to vote for Herman Cain!

Liberals are so race obsessed.

🙂

More Comedy: Pelosi Defends Obamacare Waivers To 1,800 Firms:

“They’re small. I couldn’t speak to all 1,800 of them, but some of the lists that I have seen have been very, very small companies. They will not have a big impact on the economy of our country,” Nancy Pelosi said in an interview with CNBC.

One of the very first ones was to McDonalds!!! They are a “small business” and the evil purveyors of fat and salt to kids (like drug dealers some liberals have eluded to).

So yet again, Orwell was right. 🙂

A Bit of fun: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/29/occupy-dc-to-secede-from-the-united-states/

“Obama will not take money from registered lobbyists like me, but that doesn’t mean that he won’t take money from people who are lobbying…”

– An unnamed Democratic lobbyist talking to the New York Times about President Obama’s reliance on unregistered Washington influence peddlers to fund his campaign. (DC)

It depends on what the definition of “is” is… 🙂

Now onto the Main Attraction. This one is more Local. Occupy Phoenix.

Welcome to Occupy Phoenix, the latest violent embarrassment to American society. This group of occupiers is asking, “When should you shoot a cop?” Pamphlets asking this question and laying out justifications for doing so were left at the Occupy Wall Street location in Phoenix, Arizona and found by a Maricopa County Sheriff Deputy.

When Should You Shoot A Cop?

That question, even without an answer, makes most “law-abiding taxpayers” go into knee-jerk conniptions. The indoctrinated masses all race to see who can be first, and loudest to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to forcibly resist “law enforcement.” In doing so, they also inadvertently demonstrate why so much of human history has been plagued by tyranny and oppression.
In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified. In the real world, however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed IN THE NAME of “law enforcement,” than has been committed in spite of it. To get a little perspective, try watching a documentary or two about some of the atrocities committed by the regimes of Stalin, or Lenin, or Chaiman Mao, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or any number of other tyrants in history. Pause the film when the jackboots are about to herd innocent people into cattle cars, or gun them down as they stand on the edge of a ditch, and THEN ask yourself the question, “When should you shoot a cop?” Keep in mind, the evils of those regimes were committed in the name of “law enforcement.” And as much as the statement may make people cringe, the history of the human race would have been a lot LESS gruesome if there had been a lot MORE “cop-killers” around to deal with the state mercenaries of those regimes.
People don’t mind when you point out the tyranny that has happened in other countries, but most have a hard time viewing their OWN “country”, their OWN “government”, and their OWN “law enforcers”, in any sort of objective way. Having been trained to feel a blind loyalty to the ruling class of the particular piece of dirt they live on (a.k.a. “patriotism”), and having been trained to believe that obedience is a virtue, the idea of forcibly resisting “law enforcement” is simply unthinkable to many. Literally, they can’t even THINK about it. And humanity has suffered horribly because of it. It is a testament to the effectiveness of authoritarian indoctrination that literally billions of people throughout history have begged and screamed and cried in the face of authoritarian injustice and oppression, but only a tiny fraction have ever lifted a finger to actually try to STOP it.
Even when people can recognize tyranny and oppression, they still usually talk about “working within the system”-the same system that is responsible for the tyranny and oppression. People want to believe that “the system” will, sooner or later, provide justice. The last thing they want to consider is that they should “illegally” resist-that if they want to achieve justice, they must become “criminals” and “terrorists,” which is what anyone who resists “legal” justice is automatically labeled. But history shows all too well that those who fight for freedom and justice almost always do so “illegally” – i.e., without the permission of the ruling class.
If politician think that they have the right to impose any “law” they want, and cops have the attitude that, as long as it’s called “law”, they will enforce it, what is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the consciences of the “law-makers” or their hired thugs, obviously.    And not any election or petition to the politicians.    When tyrants define what counts as “law”, then by definition it is up to the “law-breakers” to combat tyranny.
Pick any example of abuse of power, whether it is the fascist “war on drugs,” the police thuggery that has become so common, the random stops and searches now routinely carried out in the name of “security” (e.g., at airports, “border checkpoints” that aren’t even at the border, “sobriety checkpoints,” and so on), or anything else. Now ask yourself the uncomfortable question: If it’s wrong for cops to do these things, doesn’t that imply that the people have a right to RESIST such actions? Of course, state mercenaries don’t take kindly to being resisted, even non-violently. If you question their right to detain you, interrogate you, search you, invade your home, and so on, you are very likely to be tasered, physically assaulted, kidnapped, put in a cage, or shot. If a cop decides to treat you like livestock, whether he does it “legally” or not, you will usually have only two options: submit, or kill the cop. You can’t resist a cop “just a little” and get away with it. He will always call in more of his fellow gang members, until you are subdued or dead.

Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET “law enforcers” have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.) Consider the recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling, which declared that if a cop tries to ILLEGALLY enter your home, it’s against the law for you to do anything to stop him. Aside from the patent absurdity of it, since it amounts to giving thugs with badges PERMISSION to “break the law,” and makes it a CRIME for you to defend yourself against a CRIMINAL (if he has a badge), consider the logical ramifications of that attitude.

That’s right folks, according to the OWS crowd, changing society “almost always requires” killing law enforcement officers.  Law enforcement officers in the Grand Canyon state have been placed on high alert and the Arizona Counter-Terrorism Information Center has published a safety memo in response to the threats of unapologetic cop killing. 

Copies of an “informational” letter were left on a table for protestors to pick up and read during the “Occupy Phoenix” event at Cesar Chavez Park. The presence of the letter was reported to the ACTIC by a Maricopa County Sheriff’s Deputy who had responded to an unrelated call and was alerted to it by another deputy working the event. This letter is blatantly anti-government and anti-law enforcement in nature. It not only condones but even encourages citizens to kill any “government agent” (i.e. law enforcement agent officer), who in their perception violates their rights.

Now, why would the Arizona Counter-Terrorism Information Center be concerned about Occupy Phoenix? Perhaps because the tactics layed out in the informational cop killing letter can be classified as acts of domestic terrorism. Let’s not forget about the “riot gear” box full of rocks and bricks that was found at Occupy Minneapolis, either.

Considering radical domestic terrorist Bill Ayers recently gave a speech to Occupy Chicago full of tips about “revolution” (remember, revolution to Ayers is bombing the Pentagon, police headquarters, etc.), terrorist factions within OWS aren’t surprising. Also, considering Ayers launched Barack Obama’s political career, Obama’s sympathy for the OWS movement is also not surprising.

”I don’t regret setting bombs,” Bill Ayers said. ”I feel we didn’t do enough.” Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970’s as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago.

FLASHBACK: Remember when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano warned about “domestic right-wing terrorism” right around the same time the Tea Party Movement started? Implying tea party activists were engaged in terrorist activity for demanding fiscal responsibility?  With evidence showing some at Occupy Phoenix support and encourage cop killing, where is she now?

She dodging questions about “Fast and Furious” fast and furiously. She’s looking for dangerous Terrorists in Tennesee and installing wi-fi street cams to watch over you.

A Girl has to have her priorities.

The Fast and The Furious

Two months after the Department of Labor launched a special program to assist and protect illegal immigrants in the U.S. the Obama cabinet official who heads the agency is personally encouraging undocumented workers to report employers that don’t pay them fairly.

In a Spanish-language public service announcement, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis assures that “every worker in America has a right to be paid fairly, whether documented or not.” Illegal aliens who are not getting fair wages are encouraged to call a new hotline set up by the agency on a new “Podemos Ayudar” (We Can Help) web page designed to administer worker protection laws and ensure that employees are properly paid “regardless of immigration status.”

In the short video, also posted in English, Solis tells illegal immigrants that it’s a “serious problem” when workers in this country are not paid fairly and that all workers have the right to receive their salary regardless of immigration status. She encourages those who are not to call the new hotline and assures it’s free and confidential. “Podemos ayudar,” (we can help), Solis guarantees at the end of the brief segment.

The Labor Secretary’s new message is part of a campaign launched a few months ago to help illegal immigrant workers in the U.S., who she refers to as “vulnerable” and “underpaid.” At least 1,000 new field investigators have been deployed to reach out to Latino laborers in areas with large numbers of illegal alien employees and the agency will focus on enforcing labor and wage laws in industries that typically hire lots of illegal aliens without reporting anyone to federal immigration authorities.

For a government agency to protect law breakers in this fashion may seem unbelievable but not if you consider the source. A Former California congresswoman, Solis has close ties to the influential La Raza movement that advocates open borders and rights for illegal immigrants. She made the protection of undocumented workers a major priority upon being named Labor Secretary, assuring illegal aliens that “if you work in this country, you are protected by our laws.” (JW)

Graduation of Debt

 The median starting salary for students graduating from four-year colleges in 2009 and 2010 was $27,000, down from $30,000 for those who entered the work force in 2006 to 2008, according to a study released on Wednesday by the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University. That is a decline of 10 percent, even before taking inflation into account.

Of course, these are the lucky ones — the graduates who found a job. Among the members of the class of 2010, just 56 percent had held at least one job by this spring, when the survey was conducted. That compares with 90 percent of graduates from the classes of 2006 and 2007. (Some have gone for further education or opted out of the labor force, while many are still pounding the pavement.)

So 4 in 10 graduates had no job at all – not even one that didn’t use their putative skills for which they spent the money.

But let’s assume you do have a job. The median income was $27,000. What if you have $60,000 in student loans?

On a 10 year amortization schedule and a 5% blended interest rate the payment is $633.75. Every month. Your gross income is $2,250/month. More than 25% of your gross income, before taxes, is consumed by student loan payments.

But don’t worry, the Liberals will be right there to tell them it’s the Rich People’s fault! And Class Warfare is the only answer! (that is just re-enforcing it after 16 years of liberal socialism in schools to begin with). So, the answer is to vote for Democrats so they can redistribute the wealth to you!

The new American Work Ethic! 😦

Your imputed income (that is, the effective purchasing power of your “degree” when you subtract out the debt service) is $19,395, again before taxes. But you’re in a higher tax bracket than the person who simply earns $19,395 – which, I will remind you, is $9.70/hour.

Worse, your debt cannot be discharged in a bankruptcy. A high school graduate who takes on debt like this and gets in trouble can file a Chapter 7 (being well under the median household income) and shed it. You, as a graduate, cannot. You’re stuck with it, and if you lose your job you’re instantly hosed, as that $60,000 will have penalties and interest immediately added to it. (KFYI)

Isn’t Obamanomics fun!! The Labor Department is more worried about illegal aliens than the legal ones! And even if you get a college degree you’ll be in so much you’ll likely drown. Just like the US Budget Deficit! 🙂

But fear not, it’s Rich people and Corporate America’s Fault!!  (according to the Democrats).

But hey, at least ObamaCare guarantees that you can suck off your parents’ health insurance until your 26! And as reported earlier 1/2 the jobs created in a recent month were from McDonalds. So have it Obama’s Way. 🙂

Sanctuary

Last month San Francisco’s Michael Hennessey, California’s longest-serving sheriff, announced that he would ignore federal detainer orders on illegal immigrants arrested for low-level crimes such as shoplifting, disorderly conduct or public drunkenness. Under Secure Communities, arrestees identified as undocumented are held by local jails until Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials transfer them.

But the arrangement violates San Francisco’s longtime sanctuary law, which forbids public employees and police from asking anyone about their immigration status. The famously liberal city by the bay also offers illegal aliens official government identification cards and all sorts of taxpayer-financed public benefits.

Hennessy, who is an elected official, claims that all residents are equal and stresses that San Francisco is proud of its diversity and values the contributions of immigrants. “San Francisco has always been a city of immigrants,” Hennessey said, adding that all civic leaders work hard to serve all residents regardless of immigration status.

Notably absent in the rhetoric were cases in which violent criminals were protected by the sanctuary policies. For instance a few years ago a Salvadoran gang member with two felony convictions murdered a father and his two sons because he never got turned over to federal authorities for removal.

Judicial Watch obtained California public records that revealed San Francisco authorities knew the triple murderer (Edwin Ramos) was an illegal immigrant and active member of a deadly street gang known as MS-13. The records also show that Ramos had been previously arrested on gang-related and weapons charges yet was released under the county’s sanctuary policies.

The Fast & Furious

Oh, and then there’s “Fast and Furious” a brilliant strategy by Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

Let’s force gun dealers in Arizona to sell thousands of semi-automatic firearms to straw purchasers (those who buy guns for someone who can’t do so legally) — and then just watched as the guns went across the border, into the hands of Mexican drug cartels members so we can trace the guns in Mexico to the “bigger fish”.

Only, they couldn’t actually trace them! Or as it turned out, find them!

PHOENIX – ATF Field Agents in Phoenix were told that they were the first Southwest Border Group to be pursuing operation Fast and Furious and that it was the “pinnacle of U.S. law enforcement techniques.”

A day after a fiery Capitol Hill hearing on the controversial program that allegedly let guns “walk” across the border, it is becoming more apparent that the strategy was ineffective and dangerous. So much so that when Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and more than a dozen others were shot in Tucson, panic spread within the entire Phoenix Field Division of  ATF.

“There was concern from the chain of command that the gun was hopefully not a fast and furious gun,” Special Agent Peter Forcelli testified at a House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.

“Everytime there’s a shooting whether it was Mrs. Giffords or anybody, anytime there was a shooting in the general Phoenix area or even Arizona, we’re fearful that it might be one of these firearms,” said Special Agent Olindo Casa.

The ATF was tracking a straw buyer who purchased a truckload of assault weapons in January 2010 but did not stop him.

In December two of those guns were recovered at the murder scene of Border Agent Brian Terry in Rio Rico, Arizona.

Terry’s mother, Josephine Terry, testified at Wednesday’s hearing but is now back home in Michigan.

Reached by phone she told 3TV she was pleased with how the hearing progressed. “I felt like everyone was on Brian’s side 100 percent,” said Terry.

Members of Congress vow to continue to probe the ATF operation and find out who at the highest level sanctioned the program. (KTVK-Phx)

ATF agents–turned–whistleblowers John Dodson and Olindo James Casa testified that they begged to seize the firearms, which included .50-caliber sniper rifles, once the straw purchasers handed them off. “My supervisors directed me and my colleagues not to make any stop or arrest, but rather to keep the straw purchaser under surveillance while allowing the guns to walk,” he said.

Casa also said that “on several occasions, I personally requested to interdict or seize firearms, but I was always ordered to stand down and not to seize the firearms.”

So the guns were just allowed to slip across the border. All the ATF has is the firearms’ serial numbers. They weren’t even working with Mexican authorities. As a result, Agent Dodson said, “We knew the next time we’d see the guns would be at crime scenes. And not [the scene of] the first crime these guns were used in, but at the last.”

When asked how he thought sending guns into Mexico could lead to busts of drug cartels, Agent Dodson said, “I have never heard an explanation from anyone involved in Operation Fast and Furious that I believe would justify what we did.”

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R., Iowa) testified that “the president said he didn’t authorize it and that the attorney general didn’t authorize [Fast and Furious]. They have both admitted that a ‘serious mistake’ may have been made. There are a lot of questions, and a lot of investigating to do. But one thing has become clear already: This was no mistake. It was a conscious decision by senior officials. It was written down. It was briefed up to Washington, D.C.” (NRO)

And if it leader to, say Eric Holder or Big Sis or Obama himself will they be held responsible for this stupidity.

Hell NO!

Late in the hearing, Josephine Terry — the mother of Brian Terry — was asked if there is anything she would like to say to whoever approved Operation Fast and Furious. After taking a moment to regain her composure, she said, “I don’t know what I would say to them, but I would like to know what they would say to me.”

Hope and Change?

Do you want fries with that?

Win The Future! 🙂

P.s. “Chocolate milk is soda in drag,” said Ann Cooper, director of nutrition services for the Boulder Valley School District in Louisville, Colo., which has banned flavored milk. “It works as a treat in homes, but it doesn’t belong in schools.” (NBC)

Oh then there’s this gem:

A “Labor Studies Curriculum for Elementary Schools,” entitled “The Yummy Pizza Company,” takes up to 20 classroom hours over a two-week period. Important concepts in the 10 lessons, such as the value of work and money management, are critical components, but are quickly overshadowed by the fact that 40% of the curriculum is about forming Pizza Makers Union Local 18. That’s right – the program is focused on teaching kids to unionize.

I don’t suppose this creative curriculum has anything do to with current issues, like collective bargaining privileges for public employees. Teachers wouldn’t be so blatant as to involve young children in their political issues, would they? (townhall.com)

P.p.s. Georgia lawmakers passed an immigration bill similar to Arizona’s SB 1070. The legislation allows local law enforcement to inquire about immigration status after an individual commits a crime. The law was passed in order to deal with the mounting illegal immigration problem costing the state billions of dollars each year. Now, Mexico, along with Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru, are joining civil liberties groups in their efforts to sue the American state.

Mexico and 10 other countries have filed amicus briefs in a lawsuit that asks a judge to declare Georgia’s new immigration law unconstitutional and to block it from being enforced.

Yep, foreign countries are now lecturing Americans about what is and is not Constitutional with the backing of groups like the ACLU and the SEIU. (Townhall.com)

America What a Country! 🙂

The Future So Bright I have to Spin Dry

The Obama administration is 0-for-3 in meeting economic expectations. In 2009, President Obama and his advisers believed the bountiful stimulus package would give the economy a strong jolt. It didn’t, and still hasn’t. In 2010, Obama declared Recovery Summer and predicted a surge in employment. The economy lost 283,000 jobs over the summer. This year, Obama expected a significant ratcheting up of jobs and growth. There’s been a ratcheting down. Presidenting for Dummies Gary Locke The White House always has an excuse. Obama’s economic policies are never at fault. The problem in 2009, according to Obama? The economy was in worse shape than he’d feared when he took office. In 2010, economic adviser Christina Romer said the dip in jobs was unexpected. No doubt it was, but that’s a lame explanation. And Obama stubbornly refused to express regret for having proclaimed Recovery Summer in the first place. Now, two years after the recession officially ended, the excuses for economic stagnation and puny job growth are stale and implausible. Obama didn’t offer any in an economic speech in Toledo a few hours after bad job numbers for May were released last week. Romer’s replacement, Austan Goolsbee, dismissed the 9.1 percent jobless rate as a bump “along the road to recovery.” House Democratic whip Steny Hoyer blamed the Bush administration—really, he did. Yet Obama labors on as if his policies are working, only a bit more slowly than he’d anticipated. In two and a half years in the White House, he appears to have learned nothing about what stirs the economy and produces jobs and growth. Evidence of failure, like 1.8 percent growth in the first quarter of 2011, matters little. Rather than a midterm course correction, Obama wants more of the same, lots more. (Fred Barnes)

According to the unemployment data released this morning, the economy added only 54,000 jobs, pushing the unemployment rate up to 9.1 percent. However, this report from MarketWatch suggests the data is much worse than that:

McDonald’s ran a big hiring day on April 19 — after the Labor Department’s April survey for the payrolls report was conducted — in which 62,000 jobs were added. That’s not a net number, of course, and seasonal adjustment will reduce the Hamburglar impact on payrolls. (In simpler terms — restaurants always staff up for the summer; the Labor Department makes allowance for this effect.) Morgan Stanley estimates McDonald’s hiring will boost the overall number by 25,000 to 30,000. The Labor Department won’t detail an exact McDonald’s figure — they won’t identify any company they survey — but there will be data in the report to give a rough estimate.

If Morgan Stanley is correct, about half of last month’s job growth came from the venerable fast-food chain. That is hardly the sign of a healthy economy. (Weekly Standard).

And McDonalds was the first of over 1,300+ companies and organization (and even states) to get ObamaCare waivers. Coincidence?? 🙂

But you won’t hear it from the Mainstream Ministry of Truth Press or even our Dear Leader.

President Barack Obama says the U.S. economy is still facing challenges and it is going to take more time to mend the wounds inflicted by the recession.

So you need to re-elect him in 2012 so he can finish the job. <<wink wink>>

“Every time we look at those numbers we don’t get too excited by what those numbers say, or we don’t get too disappointed by what those numbers say. What we’re looking at is the overall trend,” spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters traveling with the president on Air Force One. “If you look at where we’ve come from, the turnaround is pretty dramatic.”

He’s serious, folks. Really, he’s serious…

Distancing himself from new economic sputters, President Barack Obama on Saturday declared that recent “headwinds” were the result of high gasoline prices, Japan’s disastrous earthquake and jitters over a European fiscal crisis. He cited the U.S. auto industry’s resurgence as an inspiration for a broader recovery.

“We’re a people who don’t give up, who do big things, who shape our own destiny,” the president said in his weekly radio and Internet address.

<<Barf bag on Standby>>

Sen Lamar Alexander (R-TN) cited a perfect Obama example of the ‘right kind’ of job our Dear Leader wants and if he can’t get it, f*ck it!

He cited the case of Boeing, which was accused last month by the National Labor Relations Board of retaliating against union workers in Washington state who went on strike in 2008 by locating a new assembly line for its 787 aircraft in South Carolina, a state with right-to-work laws. The NLRB is seeking a court order that would force Boeing to return all 787 assembly work to Washington.

Obama promoted “investments” in education and technology, and touted his management of the auto industry, which he said saved millions of jobs.

The Bush and Obama administrations pumped $80 billion in taxpayer money into Chrysler and GM, with Obama guiding the companies into bankruptcy. The companies are now reporting profits, Chrysler has paid back all but $1.3 billion of its federal infusion, and the White House declared this week that the overall loss to taxpayers will be $14 billion, far less than initially expected.

And that’s the Good News!? 😦

The president also called for spending cuts and hinted at tax increases. “We’ve got to live within our means, everybody’s got to do their part,” he said. ”Middle-class workers like you, though, shouldn’t be bearing all the burden.  You work too hard for someone to ask you to pay more so that somebody who’s making millions or billions of dollars can pay less.”

Obama evoked national pride: “[W]e are people who will forge a better future because that is what we do… when we come together, no-one can stop us” – then reprised his ‘Win the Future’ slogan and declared that “we can live out the American dream again… that’s what drives me every day I step into the Oval office.”

<<excuse me>>  RALPH!….

“We’re still feeling the sting of the recession… even though the economy is growing, even though it has created more than 2 million jobs in the last 15 months,” 

<<RALPH>>

Consider the evidence: We already know that (a) the president appointed a debt commission, then ignored its recommendations on ideological grounds; (b) the White House has already released its 2012 budget, which was so disastrous that it received zero votes in the Democrat-controlled Senate; (c) President Obama offered a grand new “vision” for entitlement reform in April, which conspicuously lacked any actual solutions; and (d) Democrats everywhere are deliberately avoiding committing to any plan of their own, opting instead to focus their attention on demagoguing and lying about Paul Ryan’s responsible alternative.  Against that backdrop, ta da! (Nice catch by ABC Newsman Jake Tapper, based on his exchange with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney):

    TAPPER:  In the meeting yesterday with House Republicans, a number of the House Republicans said to the president that they wanted him to introduce a budget that was score-able — that CBO could actually assess — instead of what he introduced, the broad outlines and the April speech at GW, and the president seemed to indicate he was not going to do that.  You — I think you said from the podium that he wanted something score-able that was part of a compromise, not his own separate budget proposal.  Why not?  If the Republicans in the House are saying it would help the negotiating process to have a score-able —

    CARNEY:  Well, we heard two things — we heard two things from the Republicans yesterday:  one from the speaker that we need to get these negotiations wrapped up and finished in the next few weeks, and that the president should put forward a new plan, a new proposal, that should make its way through Congress and be scored.  I don’t think those are compatible.

    Everyone knows what the president’s position is, what his plan is, the parameters of his plan.  It’s quite clear.  The Democrats are aware of it.  Republicans are aware of it.  The president’s spoken about it at length.

    And that is what the vice president brought to the table for these negotiations.  We are at a point now where we don’t need new plans.  We need to find common ground around the shared goal of significant deficit reduction and come together, hold hands, and agree that we’re going to get this done and find as much common ground as we can in what the president believes needs to be a balanced approach towards deficit reduction — because as I said earlier, it is not a goal unto itself.

Translation: Uh, we have a plan!  (They don’t).  It’s very clear! (By definition, it isn’t)  So, we don’t need any, you know, score-able blueprints.  We need bipartisan consensus!  (Just like Simpson/Bowles?)  Another gutless runaround from Democrats on entitlements — color me shocked.  Hey, no worries — it’s not as if Medicare is cataclysmically speeding toward insolvency, or anything. (Guy Benson).

So what if the National Debt is over $14 Trillion. The Democrats haven’t passed a budget is April 2009. There’s a Double Dip recession on the horizon. Your house is worthless…But Obama is still in Large and In Charge!

Re-Elect him! He’s wonderful!

Be Happy!

Hope and Change II is on the way…

The Next Disney Fantasy…

Tough

Couldn’t have said it better.

Jedidiah Bila: I spend quite a bit of time calling out some on the left. I detest big-government policies that simultaneously snatch our liberty and rob us blind. I find class warfare to be profoundly un-American. I have no patience for leftists who demand civility while spewing hateful rhetoric, or those who insist that feminism, diversity, and compassion are enemies of conservatism. And I don’t like left-wing liars who utilize scare tactics to distort everything from Paul Ryan’s Medicare proposal to Jan Brewer’s effort to enforce an immigration law that the federal government should be enforcing already.

I’ve also had tough words for some in the GOP. I have rejected weak deals that do nothing in the way of seriously addressing this country’s deficit and debt. And I have repeatedly stood firm against business-as-usual Republicans who compromise even when it’s not in the best interest of the country.

I now see two trends developing on the right with respect to 2012 that I’d like to address.

First off, I’ve received many emails from Republicans who feel that GOP contenders shouldn’t boldly criticize each other and that conservatives shouldn’t strongly critique 2012 candidates. I beg to differ.

When it comes to a 2012 primary season, it is imperative that candidates hold each other accountable for their records, for any disparity between their actions and words, for promises made and not kept, and for any and all inconsistencies. I want grassroots conservative bloggers, columnists, television commentators, and talk radio hosts calling it like they see it, putting those records front and center, and having a zero-tolerance policy for phonies and do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do nonsense. That is the only way to try to ensure that the strongest, most capable, most genuinely conservative candidate rises to the top. I want candidates challenging the heck out of each other. And I want us challenging them, too.

Secondly, I’ve had about enough of folks on the right trying to discourage candidates from running by insisting right off the bat that they could never win. Candidates are labeled unelectable, unpresidential, too polarizing, not polished enough, too unconventional, or some other absurd description. And so I ask — what are you folks so afraid of? Why are you so terrified of Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, and others entering the race and showing voters what they’ve got? Whether or not they are able to adeptly articulate their message and/or possess a proven commitment to conservatism will be heard by voters. The American people will make their decision. And I have to question the motives of anyone who wants to silence a candidate before the battle has even begun.

Conservatives, 2012 isn’t a fight we can afford to lose. And it’s not just about defeating Barack Obama. It’s about supporting someone who can be trusted to get this country back on track. You and I both know that plenty of politicians with GOP labels stamped on their foreheads are in no way committed to principled conservatism, and can in no way be counted on to exhibit strong leadership when it comes to fiscal responsibility, entitlement reform, and reawakening the values that built this country. By challenging candidates — and by them challenging each other — American voters will begin to separate the men from the boys, the women from the girls.

And to those who love telling potential GOP candidates to sit down and shut up before they’ve even stepped up to the plate, I remind you that this is America. That’s not what we’re about. I, for one, am ready to hear from everyone gutsy enough to play.

AMEN!

The Left and the Leftist Media are going to hate you no matter what you do or what you say. Period.

You could farther left than Barack Obama (if that’s possible) and they’d still hate you. And so would anyone who would have voted for you.

So have some balls. Stir straight into the Hurricane of Hate.

Case in Point: McDonalds.

Under assault for year by the Food Police.

They attack them, they change their ways. They attack them for something else. They change. They attack them again and again and again.

It’s much like Israel to Hamas and The Palestinians, their very existence pisses them off!

Now that Osama bin Laden is dead, we can turn our attention to another remorseless enemy who for years has sown death and destruction among blameless innocents. I refer, of course, to Ronald McDonald.

The McDonald’s mascot may qualify as one of the more annoying characters on the planet. But to his credit, he doesn’t compound his unappealing personality by bossing you around. In that respect, he is far less objectionable than the people who make a fetish of finding him objectionable.

Last week, they took out ads in several newspapers blaming the clown for childhood obesity and demanding that McDonald’s “stop marketing junk food to kids.” The signers range from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an anti-meat group that the American Medical Association has accused of “perverting medical science,” to alternative-healing huckster Andrew Weil.

The general rule of critics is that McDonald’s can do nothing right. Some years ago, they insisted that the company get rid of the beef tallow in which it cooked French fries. It did so, in favor of a supposedly healthier oil containing trans fats. A few years later, the activists demanded that it abandon trans fats, which it soon did.

How much credit did it get for those changes? Not much. The class of people who detested McDonald’s went right on detesting it.

These ads are part of a larger campaign against everything McDonald’s represents. Were the company to retire Ronald McDonald, its enemies would step up their calls for an end to Happy Meals. Get rid of Happy Meals, and they would demand that McDonald’s thoroughly revamp its menu to incorporate their superior notions of nutrition.

Ultimately, the only way to please the critics is to become something unrecognizable. Or, better yet, disappear from the planet. New York Times food columnist Mark Bittman, who is to sanctimony what Saudi Arabia is to oil, believes “anything that discourages people from eating at McDonald’s could be seen as wonderful.”

Wonderful, that is, to enlightened souls who avoid it at all costs. But it’s clear that McDonald’s comes much closer to what paying consumers actually want than what its detractors prefer. It has 32,000 restaurants, serving 64 million people a day. Last year, it had revenues of $24 billion, more than the gross domestic product of some countries.

The food moralists imagine that McDonald’s marketing magic renders its targets helpless to resist. Ronald McDonald might as well be rounding up kids at gunpoint and forcing them to choke down

But children young enough to be seduced by Ronald McDonald or Happy Meals rarely visit restaurants without parents. These adults are free agents experienced at saying “no” to protect the interests of their sometimes ungrateful offspring.

Parents who dislike McDonald’s sales tactics have a wealth of dining alternatives. And anyone who wants a low-fat, low-calorie meal can easily find it underneath the Golden Arches: Health magazine ranks McDonald’s among the 10 healthiest fast-food restaurants.

It may be argued that many parents are too weak or ignorant to make sound decisions about the food their kids eat. If so, McDonald’s and its unstoppable brainwashing machine could vanish tomorrow without making the slightest difference in obesity or other diet-related ailments.

People don’t like cheap, tasty, high-calorie fare because McDonald’s offers it. McDonald’s offers it because people like it. In McDonald’s absence, patrons would seek it out at other fast-food places, sit-down establishments or grocery stores.

We live in an age of inexpensive, abundant food carefully designed to please the mass palate. Most of us, recalling the scarcity, dietary monotony and starvation that afflicted our ancestors for hundreds of millennia, count that as progress. But those determined to save human beings from their own alleged folly see it as catastrophic.

What is apparent is that the militant enemies of fast food would like it treated as a public health menace along the lines of tobacco. They want broad measures to restrict, discourage and punish the companies that sell it.

Ronald McDonald is merely a convenient symbol. Their true target is a capitalist economy that gives companies far too much latitude in appealing to customers and allows government far too little control over our food choices.

The idea of using government power to dictate what we eat will strike many Americans as a gross intrusion on personal freedom. But McDonald’s enemies? They’re lovin’ it. (Steve Chapman-Chicago Tribune)

Add in Liberal obsession with Oil Companies and you see where this is headed.

Liberals just want to control everything and everybody. They just consider themselves why smarter than you so you must be herded like cattle to do and to think what they want you to think.

So to have GOP Presidential Candidates cow-towing to the Media and the Left, trying to be “reasonable” and “accommodating” and “compromising” just drives me bat-crazy.

Stand Up. Be a Man (or woman) and Say what you believe and don’t Equivocate just to placate the Leftists. They won’t be.

Pure and Simple.

Now Just Do it!

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! 🙂

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?… 🙂

Hope & No Change

Here are just some of the sobering facts:

Nearly one in four of the April jobs, however, may have come at one company — McDonald’s, which hired 62,000 workers from a million applicants. We’re not knocking Big Mac — it’s a great business — but economic growth can’t be sustained with burger flippers.

— There are 8.5 million people receiving unemployment insurance and over 40 million receiving food stamps.

— At the current pace of job creation, the economy won’t return to full employment until 2018.

— Middle-income jobs are disappearing from the economy. The share of middle-income jobs in the United States has fallen from 52% in 1980 to 42% in 2010.

— Middle-income jobs have been replaced by low-income jobs, which now make up 41% of total employment.

— 17 million Americans with college degrees are doing jobs that require less than the skill levels associated with a bachelor’s degree.

— Over the past year, nominal wages grew only 1.7% while all consumer prices, including food and energy, increased by 2.7%.

— Wages and salaries have fallen from 60% of personal income in 1980 to 51% in 2010. Government transfers have risen from 11.7% of personal income in 1980 to 18.4% in 2010, a post-war high.

Tempering this morning’s stronger-than-expected jobs report is a new CNN survey showing more-than 80% of Americans believe the economy is in poor shape.

Not surprisingly, 38% of respondents cited unemployment as the most important economic issue, followed by the deficit (28%), rising gas prices (21%), housing (6%) and taxes (4%).

On the surface, the survey bodes ill for President Obama and other incumbents seeking reelection in 2012. With gas prices surging, the President’s approval numbers had been sinking in the weeks prior to the death of Obama bin Laden last Sunday.

But inside the survey, which was conducted prior to bin Laden’s death and Friday’s jobs data, is a hopeful sign for President Obama and his party: 55% of Americans say former President George W. Bush and the Republicans are more responsible for the poor economy while just 33% point the finger at the man currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

So the Ministry of truth is doing it’s job well then.

It’s déjà vu all over again. Democrats in congress have re-introduced a small business –jobs bill that has no hope of helping small business. Pandering to labor union interests, filled with Democrats’ flawed understanding of what creates private sector jobs, and crammed full of recycled regulations from the failed Waxman-Markey Energy bill, H.R. 870 is dangerous legislation that uses buzz words rather than sound business principles to encourage small business growth and job creation.

The legislation, thinly disguised as a jobs creation bill, panders to the tired, failed policies of Democrats’ left-wing, extremist base. The bill focuses on “green jobs”, construction of “wind turbines and solar panels”, enforces ineffective but restrictive penalties on China trade and determines which industries will be rewarded by handouts from the government by identifying which industries Democrats believe provide jobs that are “actually needed”.

Important memo to Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer: Wake up! When a country is trying to grow the economy and “grow” jobs—all jobs are “actually needed.”

The bill is filled with bits and pieces of entitlement benefits and government handouts from other pieces of failed Democrat legislation. For example, there is funding for state Head Start programs and funding for emergency food stamp subsidy programs (p. 5).The, bill reeks of socialism in the form of “Employment Opportunity Grants”, (p.3) thinly disguised as federal government handouts to reward businesses that support left-wing ideological efforts.

Even more dangerous is the vague legislation which allows “grant” recipients to create ACORN-like entities: “a recipient of a grant may use the remaining amount of the grant to assist public entities, nonprofit community-based organizations “(Sec.4.c.2).

Of course, in order to get the grants, business will have to “consult with community leaders, including labor organizations” (p.7) and conform to develop the jobs in the areas where the Secretary of labor thinks growth is most likely. (p.12). As if that’s not enough, slipped in at the very end of the bill is an amendment to the IRS tax code implementing a new tax on Securities Transactions (Sec. 7).

This plan, as identified by Democrat leaders, will supposedly “create an environment and policies that encourage and realize that we make ‘it’ — products, agricultural products as well — that we make goods in America.” Fine words, but Democrat deeds have ensured that their policies discourage entrepreneurship, risk taking and the growth of capitalism.

Alas, the Democrats’ assault on Americans most responsible for creating wealth and new jobs goes on. Thanks to Obamacare, Stimulus funding, FinReg small businesses have already been shouldered with new burdens and reporting requirements, which have restricted access to capital, increased taxes and eroded business profitability.

For example, healthcare insurance providers have announced that the rate hikes due to Obamacare may result in businesses facing a 9% increase in the cost of healthcare premiums. For many small businesses, 9% oftentimes represents the business’ entire profit that year, so the Obamacare mandate could wipe out the fruits of an entire year’s effort, or even worse, put a small business in the red.

Americans see small businesses frequently being used as a prop by Democrat leaders. When the Administration needs to show diversity, it trots out a small business. When the President needed to break bad news, such as the rising unemployment numbers–he staged a press conference at the offices of a small business owner. To show he’s in touch with the younger generation and distract attention from policies which will, in essence, enslave them and their children — Obama showed up at a start-up bootstrapping facility.

Small businesses create 3 out of every 4 jobs and deserve to be more than just convenient props for the Democrats’ failed policies.

Over the past 28 months, Americans have been inundated with Democrats’ latest jobs-creation attempts, none of which actually have reversed the tide of unemployment (currently at 9%) or created the kinds of jobs that create long-term economic growth. Yet, full of hubris and delusions of innovation, Democrats continue to trot out their retreads–tired legislation that almost certainly guarantees long-term, systemic, economic failure.

If the definition of insanity is, as Albert Einstein said, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, then it would seem that the country has even bigger problems than the crushing attacks on small business and increasing unemployment—a political party that controls the White House and the Senate, that hasn’t figured out that they are not just wrong, but very, very wrong. And, that is very, very bad news for this country.

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a
human face – forever.”– George Orwell

But at least it will George W. Bush’s Fault! Be Happy!

Government Gold

Typical Campaign Obama Vs. President Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZHep3gE87A&feature=player_embedded

It’s Your Ice Maker’s Fault:

In its latest effort to save the planet from global warming, the U.S. government is on the verge of regulating ice makers commonly found in many refrigerators because they increase energy consumption by a good 12 to 20%.

This could be detrimental to the environment since there are more than 100 million refrigerators across the nation and they devour a substantial chunk of the electricity used by all households. Energy consumed by refrigerators as a whole has long been documented but not what the ice makers inside their freezers use individually.

Americans can finally sleep soundly through the night because government scientists have completed the ice maker study and the findings have been beautifully laid out in a 79-page report titled Energy Consumption of Automatic Ice Makers Installed in Domestic Refrigerators
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=907664. The information is being used to make a case for regulating the popular little machines that are contributing to the planet’s destruction.

In a nutshell, the culprit is the tiny motor inside the freezing system that’s used to release ice from the mold and into a tray. Because the motor is specially built to function in a cold setting, it requires an internal heater to keep it from freezing up. Here’s where it gets serious; heating elements require a lot of power and that’s where the extra energy consumption kicks in.

The study was conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a federal agency with a billion-dollar annual budget that claims to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards and technology in ways that enhance economic security and quality of life. That description is straight out of the agency’s website- http://www.nist.gov/index.html for those who care to sort through it.

The bottom line is that the NIST’s research is often used by regulatory agencies as ammo to control private enterprise. In this case the Department of Energy, which incidentally financed the ice maker investigation, will set new standards for refrigerators that come equipped with the devices. The DOE will add 84 kilowatt hours to the efficiency rating of every fridge that comes with an ice maker. That means consumers will pay more money.

Big Brother wants to see your Phone

Coming soon to a police department near you…

The Michigan State Police have a high-tech mobile forensics device that can be used to extract information from cell phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan last Wednesday demanded that state officials stop stonewalling freedom of information requests for information on the program.

ACLU learned that the police had acquired the cell phone scanning devices and in August 2008 filed an official request for records on the program, including logs of how the devices were used. The state police responded by saying they would provide the information only in return for a payment of $544,680.

A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections.

“Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags,” a CelleBrite brochure explains regarding the device’s capabilities.

Border Security

For the third time in a few months a federal report exposes how the U.S. government prioritizes environmental preservation over national security by keeping Border Patrol agents out of wildlife refuges that are heavily transited by Mexican drug and human smugglers.

Among them is a popular smugglers’ corridor, the 2,300-acre San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, used by an illegal immigrant who murdered an Arizona rancher last spring. For years, Border Patrol agents have been prohibited by the Interior Department and the U.S. Forest Service from actively patrolling such areas because it threatens natural resources.

Motorized vehicles, road construction and the installation of surveillance structures required to adequately secure the vast areas are forbidden because it could endanger the environment and its wildlife. In the meantime, Mexican drug cartels and human smugglers regularly use the sprawling, unmanned and federally protected land to enter the U.S. The areas have become the path of choice for illicit operations that endanger American lives and, ironically, cause severe environmental damage.

Adding insult to injury, Interior officials charge the Department of Homeland Security millions of dollars for conducting preapproved Border Patrol operations on its land. Since 2007, Homeland Security has paid the Interior Department more than $9 million to mitigate the “environmental damage” of protecting the border.

A group of lawmakers have introduced legislation  to prohibit any federal agency—especially the Department of the Interior—from using environmental regulations to hinder the Border Patrol from securing the area. The measure would essentially ensure that Border Patrol, not federal land managers, have operational control of the nation’s borders.

Imagine that!! 😦

More Study on Gas User Fees

GOLDEN VALLEY, Minn. — The Minnesota Department of Transportation is looking for 500 people to test technology that could someday be used to collect a mileage-based user fee.

Mn/DOT anticipates a fee on road usage might someday be necessary as more fuel efficient and hybrid cars are on the road, decreasing revenue from the gas tax.

“This research will provide important feedback from motorists about the effectiveness of using technology in a car or truck to gather mileage information,” said Cory Johnson, project manager.

“We are researching alternative financing methods today that could be used 10 or 20 years from now when the number of fuel efficient and hybrid cars increase and no longer produce enough revenue from a gas tax to build and repair roads.” (KARE-TV)

The McJob are Golden Arches

When a fast-food “National Hiring Day” resembles the Depression’s unruly food lines, it doesn’t back up President Obama’s rosy picture of economic recovery. Want some fries with that “hope and change”?

If it were a Republican president in office at a time when high unemployment is so persistent that McDonald’s holds a nationwide help-wanted day, the establishment media would be sinking their teeth into him like a Quarter Pounder with Cheese.

The legendary hamburger chain has promised to expand its company workforce by 7% by hiring 50,000 new employees in a single day, thus scoring a publicity boon by having Ronald McDonald personally give the jobs market a shot in the arm.

But the event comes after Obama and the Congress have spent trillions on a stimulus strategy that hasn’t stimulated.

Companies sit on potential investments that could generate many millions of jobs — because they see no hope of this ever-increasingly regulated economy rewarding them for their risk.

Yet the president gets a pass from the liberal-dominated press for his McJobs economy — and for claiming to have “saved millions of jobs” and promising to “keep making the investments that create jobs.”

Government spending is not “investment.” Investment is what investors do with their own money.

When the government spends at unprecedented levels, as it is doing today, it leaves investors with neither enough of their own money to invest, nor feasible destinations for their investments.

Nearly two years ago Obama’s Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, brandished the president’s hit-the-ground-running policy “to enact the largest economic recovery plan since World War II.”

Geithner promised that “by the time the plan has been fully implemented by the end of next year, we will have injected nearly $800 billion into the U.S. economy, saved or created 3.5 million jobs and raised our real gross domestic product over where it would otherwise have been by more than 3%.”

Since we remain in the economic doldrums, the president and his minions have been forced to make the absurd contention that his administration saved America from another Great Depression.

But it’s what we saw at all those McDonalds this week — massive throngs unhappily settling for work burger-flipping, and nearly rioting in Cleveland, where three were hit by a car because of a fight — that is reminiscent of the 1930s slump.

Ronald Reagan was falsely accused by Democrats of presiding over a recovery that produced miserable “McJobs.” In Obama’s case, unexpectedly large crowds around the country are vying to get hired for actual jobs working at McDonald’s. (IBD)

McDonald’s didn’t have a complete count on how many applicants showed up Tuesday, but so many arrived on some local McDonald’s doorsteps that restaurant owners were nearly overwhelmed.

“At one point, we had 120 people outside the door, but we were able to get all 120 interviewed,” said Courtney Ristuben at her Citrus Heights location on Sunrise Boulevard and Old Auburn Road.

Halfway through her four-hour afternoon hiring session, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m., Ristuben and her team had seen 300 job seekers. She anticipated another 300 by dinner time.

“We’ve seen 15- and 16-year-olds looking for their first job to people 50, 55 and over, first-time high schoolers to 20 years’ experience looking for anything we have to offer,” Ristuben said.

It’s a sobering sign of the times in Sacramento and across the country.

McDonald’s and other fast-food chains, once a first job for teenagers, appear to be turning into an employer of more adults: The average age of a fast-food worker is 29.5, up from 22 in 2000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

For many older job seekers, a job with health benefits is as important as the paycheck. Medical insurance, prescription drug coverage, 401(k) retirement and educational assistance are offered at some McDonald’s locations. (SacBee)

And just remember it was McDonald’s ObamaCare waiver that touched off the 1200 other ones we’ve had since. <<wink wink>>

Imagine what it would be like if they didn’t have the waiver? 🙂

In fact, what we really need is a rollback of big government, high taxes and hyper-regulation — the kinds of things that are inimical to job creation. And that begins with a repeal of the ObamaCare government health care takeover.

Nothing against McDonald’s, mind you. It’s a fine corporation. But it’s time to give anxious-to-work Americans the break they deserve, and get up and get away from Obamanomics. (IBD)

And then there always $5 a Gallon Gas.

It just appeared in Washington D.C.

Gee, how prophetic…

Do you want Fries with your McBribe?

I doubt the Ministry of Truth will be too happy to report this story.

Remember during the Health Care Debate this was ll about the poor, low wage person who had no health insurance and that the evil company they worked for had to be forced by the employer mandate to be “fair”??

“It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don’t. And it will lower the cost of health care for our families, our businesses, and our government”-President Barack Obama

Remember the threats from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius to insurers to not blame ObamaCare for Rate increases?

Sept 30th, Wall Street Journal: McDonald’s Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.

Last week, a senior McDonald’s official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain’s insurer won’t meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80% to 85% of its premium revenue on medical care.

McDonald’s and trade groups say the percentage, called a medical loss ratio, is unrealistic for mini-med plans because of high administrative costs owing to frequent worker turnover, combined with relatively low spending on claims.

Democrats who drafted the health law wanted the requirement to prevent insurers from spending too much on executive salaries, marketing and other costs that they said don’t directly help patients. (Feel good economics :))

McDonald’s move is the latest indication of possible unintended consequences from the health overhaul. Dozens of companies have taken charges against earnings—totaling more than $1 billion—over a tax change in prescription-drug benefits for retirees.

So the evil corporate exploiter of low income people had insurance for it’s workers but said they were thinking of dropping it because ObamaCare was going to be too expensive.

The Obama Administration immediately jumped on it : The White House pushed back hard with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman Jessica Santillo claiming: “This story is wrong. The new law provides significant flexibility to maintain coverage for workers.”

Then was a rumor of a back room deal. The Obama Administration denied it.

Well, guess what…

The federal government has granted 30 companies and organizations one-year waivers to exempt them from one of the newly-implemented health care reforms.

Guess who’s one of them?  McDonalds. Gee, that only took a week!! 🙂

And it’s a one Year waiver, guess what next year is– Obama’s Re-Election campaign.

Anyone see more waivers and extension coming?? 🙂

I guess that was “fair”. Some workers are now more “fair” than others. 🙂

And after all, it was such a great plan to begin with. 🙂

Waiver list: http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/patient/appapps.html

The biggest single waiver, for 351,000 people, was for the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a New York union providing coverage for city teachers.

Gee, I thought they were Obama’s Apparatchiks. I guess they didn’t get their bailout money (or maybe they did but turned it around and feed the Democrats Re-election campaigns instead) :).

So Obama is kissing up to his Union apparatchiks AGAIN!

At least one was a Health Insurance Company: CIGNA.

The irony I’m sure is lost on the Ministry of Truth.

So how many more waivers are to come? Leaving guess who, to hold the bag?

YOU!!

Rejoice. That’s your Hope & Change for you. Aren’t you happy? 🙂

But what’s funnier is all that nashing of teeth and all that rhethoric for nearly two years about non-one losing coverages…

Without the waivers, companies would have had to provide a minimum of $750,000 in coverage next year, increasing to $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013, and unlimited coverage in 2014.

“The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they’ve got,” Robert Laszewski, chief executive officer of consulting company Health Policy and Strategy Associates, said by telephone. “Here we are a month before the election, and these companies represent 1 million people who would lose the coverage they’ve got.”(Bloomberg)

And the Spin:

“The waivers are about insuring people and protecting the coverage they have until there are better options available to them in 2014,” White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs said today.

Meaning, we’ll cover we’ll exempt you from ObamaCare until 2014 when you’ll drop them anyhow and then the taxpayers will have to pay for them anyhow through the government run health care. Isn’t that peachy! 🙂

The bulk of the new health care reforms will go into effect in 2014. At that point, some large employers that drop coverage for their workers will be subject to a fee. Consumers will also have the option of using new state-based health care exchanges to access the individual health care market.

By 2014, insurers will be completely barred from limiting annual benefits. The new regulations are being phased in until then: companies without waivers will have to provide a minimum of $750,000 in coverage next year, $1.25 million in coverage in 2012, and $2 million in 2013.

“HHS is to committed strengthening employer-based coverage for employees and retirees, while building a bridge to a new competitive marketplace in 2014,” HHS spokesperson Jessica Santillo said.

The waiver granted to the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund will have the biggest impact in terms of numbers, applying to 351,000 enrollees of the Fund’s supplemental insurance plan. McDonald’s insurance carrier, BCS Insurance, received a waiver to cover 115,000 enrollees.

Gibbs said today that the White House does not perceive the need to grant the waivers as a flaw of the new health care reforms.

“This is about implementing a bill correctly,” he said, to ensure that “as reform ramps up, we protect consumers and don’t put them at the mercy of health insurance companies.”

Gee, I thought that was what ObamaCare was supposed to do right out of the gate, not in 2014. 🙂

Oh, that’s right, you don’t want the young, poor, future socialist voters to get mad at you right now. Not to mention your Union apparatchiks.

So what if it’s a bribe. So what if it’s no longer “universal” and for “everyone”.

So now that  the “fair” playing field and “everyone” is covered is out the window.

You will be stuck with the check.

Doesn’t that just make you want to vote for the Democrats! 🙂

Sleep Tight. Don’t let the IRS bite. 🙂

Recipe for Control

I took up cooking, one, because I found I really enjoy it, but also because it’s better for me to control my own food rather than trust it to a heart attack in a box (have you read the fat & sodium contents on some of those pre-prepared meals!).

But the difference between my approach and the First Lady’s Food Police cudgel approach is I’m not preaching and I’m not trying to control other people.

She is. Just like her husband.

I often wonder who’s the more elitist, her or her husband.

“Even if we give parents all the information they need and improve school meals and build brand new supermarkets on every corner, none of that matters if when families step into a restaurant, they can’t make a healthy choice,” Mrs. Obama told them.

So we have to control you at every turn so you won’t be tempted! 😦

So, instead of speaking to parents about moderation, the first lady wants to micromanage menus, making french fries a special order item at fast-food outlets and apples the default side order of choice for kids. Butter and cream must be cut, and whole wheat pasta must replace white.

Harmless advocacy? Perhaps. But Mrs. Obama’s speeches at political rallies and conventions suggests it’s probably more. The gears of government seem to be turning to her cause.

The Department of Health and Human Services on Tuesday announced a $31 million program to combat obesity (and smoking) in eight states. It comes with a plan to go coercive: “Use price to discourage consumption of tobacco and to benefit consumption of healthy food/drinks,” the press release reads. As in price controls?

The coincidences pile up as community organizers tied quite closely to the Obama campaign, including the National Council of La Raza and the NAACP, joined the cause. To aid the effort, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation chipped in a $2 million grant.

Fascinating associates don’t you think? La Raza, a racist hispanic group and the NAACP who calls Tea Partiers racists. Fascinating…

Then there’s the anti-McDonald’s TV ad campaign just launched by the Physicians Committee for Responsibility, another pressure group with a vegetarian and animal-rights agenda. In true Alinsky style, they’ve picked a target, personalized it and laid all the problems of obesity on one fast-food operator.

The advert shows a woman weeping over the body of a man in a morgue, with the man still holding a half-eaten hamburger. Toward the end of the advert, the McDonald’s logo appears along with the tag-line “I was lovin’ it”. The commercial then urges watchers to ““High cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart attacks. Tonight, make it vegetarian”.

Then you get Michael Moore who hadn’t been getting any attention lately spouting off that McDonald’s has killed more people than terrorists have.

What’s galling about all this is that Mrs. Obama’s anti-obesity campaign — like the policies pushed by her husband — presumes government has all the answers. In reality, it doesn’t.

Bu they think it does, as long as they are in control of it, that is. The Insufferably Superior Left strikes again!

Diets are a personal choice with different impacts on different people. Some children stay fit eating all the fast food they like; others can’t handle a donut. Some effective low-carbohydrate diets don’t restrict cream and butter at all, but minimize fruit. Go figure.

Micromanaging restaurant menus will only drive consumers to the junk food section at the grocery to get the goodies they crave. It won’t end childhood obesity, the causes of which are far more complex and numerous than trips to the Golden Arches.

But then you just drive the junk food purveyors out of business then and TA DA!   Instant Health! And you have Big Brother and Big Mommy to thank for it! 🙂

Like any solution imposed by big government, Mrs. Obama’s will harm business, limit choice and politicize the personal — a recipe for failure. (IBD)

You have to assume the Insufferably Superior Left actually cares. I know I don’t.

After all, her husband is frequent photographed (to look less like the elite he is) eating very unhealthy foods and he admits to being…a SMOKER!

Don’t do as I do, do as I say!

But Michelle can’t clean up her husband, oh no, she has to crusade against evil fat and salt to save you all from yourselves!

The Empress has no clothes.

She said it’s also important to change these national eating habits because they end up costing billions in additional healthcare costs.

And they want to take over your Health Care from birth to death. Hmmmm…Fascinating… 🙂

“I’m not asking any of you to make drastic changes to every single one of your recipes or to totally change the way you do business,” she said.

Not Yet, at least. 🙂

After all, when Liberals start preaching about it “being for the children” watch out!! (since they consider anyone who disagrees with them as “children” anyhow).

So how long before we “recommend” to a private business what they can serve and just force them to serve what we think is best for you?

After all, restaurants that serve crap, close. That’s business. But what if that’s all they are allowed to serve??

While suggestions that eateries serve a side of apples instead of French fries as the default side dish likely won’t go anywhere, there is another way to serve kids fewer calories. Just make the portions smaller.

Smaller portions mean less cost for the restaurant, and can help kids slim down. Charge the same, serve less food. Talk about a win-win! (Entrepeneur.com)

Exactly. The portion sizes today are about 1/3 larger than say 50 years ago.

If you can teach people to eat less, not just control what they eat, then you can lose weight!

After all, you have to burn more calories than you take in to do it.

And I fail but not as often as I used to and I have cleaned up my diet. So a lot of it is   also because of lack of proper regular exercise to on this middle-aged frame. But that’s another story…

But I don’t want to control you.

I trust with proper education and not liberal hysterics and Alinsky scare tactics that you are capable of make reasonable decisions and understand and accept the consequences of your actions.

But I also know that that part is nearly impossible in today’s liberal entitlement and evade responsibility for everything environment.

That’s what has to change. Not the menu.

“The delusion is that we all make free choices,”- Anti-soda crusader Harold Goldstein

* Obesity lawsuit instigator John “Sue the Bastards” Banzhaf lashes out: “All these platitudes about, ‘people should eat less,’ ‘responsibility,’ all this crap!”

* Marion Nestle, queen of the food scolds, thinks that “balance, moderation and exercise” have no practical importance. “I don’t support that,” she says.

* Discussing “The Politics of Food,” Skip Spitzer of the radical Pesticide Action Network maintains that “the idea of personal responsibility is a cultural construct.”

* PETA medical “expert” Neal Barnard tells tales of food addiction, arguing that “it’s high time we stopped blaming ourselves for over-eating.”

* Kelly “Big Brother” Brownell advocates “a more militant attitude about the toxic food environment, like we have about tobacco… [smoking] became so serious that society overlooked the intrusion on individual rights for the greater social good.” He also suggests that human beings have no more control over their food choices than animals in a cage.

* Margo Wootan, one of the top killjoys at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), implores: “We have got to move beyond personal responsibility.” And when the World Health Organization added a single, understated sentence referencing the “exercise of individual responsibility” to its anti-obesity strategy, CSPI raged: “Obesity is not merely a matter of individual responsibility. Such suggestions are naive and simplistic.”

Here’s how noted food critic Robert Shoffner describes their philosophy: “People are children and have to be protected by Big Brother or Big Nanny from the awful free-market predators … That’s what drives these people — a desire for control of other people’s lives.” (consumerfreedom.com)

So they aren’t the Insufferably Superior are they? 🙂

You are just children who must be led to do what is best for you.

Just like the fact that the fabulously beautiful planet Bethselamin is now so worried about the cumulative erosion by ten billion visiting tourists a year that any net imbalance between the amount you eat and the amount you excrete whilst on the planet is surgically removed from your bodyweight when you leave: so every time you go to the lavatory it is vitally important to get a receipt. (Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy) 🙂

John Stossel: For what it’s worth, here is some of the research we dug up to prepare my Michelle Obama discussion:

In his article “Egg on their Faces,” Steve Malanga points out that “Government dietary advice often proves disastrous.”

Starting in the 1970s… the American Heart Association advised people to reduce drastically their consumption of eggs as part of a goal to limit total cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams a day (a single egg can have 250 milligrams). The recommendation, seconded by government and other public-health groups, prompted a sharp drop in the consumption of eggs, a food that nutritionists praise as low in calories and high in nutrients. In 2000, the AHA revised its restrictions on eggs to one a day (from a onetime low of three a week)… To what purpose? A 2004 article in The Journal of Nutrition that looked at worldwide studies of egg consumption noted that the current restrictions on eating eggs are “unwarranted for the majority of people and are not supported by scientific data.”

Furthermore:

As a recent review of the latest research in Scientific American pointed out, ever since the first set of federal guidelines appeared in 1980, Americans heard that they had to reduce their intake of saturated fat by cutting back on meat and dairy products and replacing them with carbohydrates. Americans dutifully complied. Since then, obesity has increased sharply, and the progress that the country has made against heart disease has largely come from medical breakthroughs like statin drugs, which lower cholesterol, and more effective medications to control blood pressure.

Malanga also notes that new FDA guidelines recommend a maximum of 1500 milligrams of salt daily (down from 2300).  One hypertension expert observed  that the government’s salt war is a giant uncontrolled experiment with the public’s health.

Here are a few more reasons why government shouldn’t tell us what to eat:

We’re living longer than ever! 80 yrs today vs. 57 yrs  80 yrs ago

A CDC study found that more people die every year from being underweight than overweight!  And that moderately overweight people live longer than those at normal weight.

Government was once excited about BMI index. (body-mass index) Gov Mike Huckabee had all Arkansas kids tested!  But BMI is a lousy measure of health.  According to BMI: Tom Cruise and Arnold Schwarzenegger are obese; GWBush and George Clooney are “overweight”

Calorie counts on menu boards don’t work: people STILL don’t take in fewer calories! A study at McDonald’s , Burger King, Wendy’s, and Kentucky Fried Chicken found that people ordered MORE calories after the labeling law went into effect.

What’s junk food?  Chicago’s new candy tax defines sweets that contain flour as “food” – w/o flour as “candy.”  (Hershey bar? Candy. But Kit Kats, Twix, Twizzlers –are “food”) O.j. and apple juice? More calories than Coke! (97 v 120/cup)

“Protect the children?”  Children are the responsibility of their parents. When the state assumes the role of parent, it makes children of all of us.

It’s a good sign that America has food nannies – means were so rich that these are the things we’re worried about!

The food police haven’t jailed anyone yet, but who knows 20 years down the road?  MeMe Roth suggests annual obesity screenings at school; serving soft drinks to only those over 18; child abuse laws for parents with obese kids; taxes on soda and sweetened drinks.

If the government is allowed to dictate our diet, what’s next? Do they start deciding who we’ll marry, where we’ll work?

Thomas Jefferson said “A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.”

The Politics of Food

As an amateur home cook and a junkie for The Food Network and other Food Shows I take food seriously.

But not like our President and his Food Nazis.

And no, I don’t mean “Seinfeld”.

This is not a comedy.

This is your usual socialist tragedy.

Busy bodies with a moral superiority complex.

You may laugh about the White House assistant chef being appointed “Senior Policy Adviser.” You’ll stop laughing when you realize that those in power really do want to tell you what to eat.

You just can’t cook these things up. The 29-year-old Chicago chef that the Obama family for years paid to be their private cook, Sam Kass, was quietly promoted last month from his job as assistant chef at the White House residence and “food initiative coordinator” to the position of “senior policy adviser for healthy food initiatives.”

The long-suffering American people don’t get to know if an increase in salary is involved, because Kass is on the residence staff rather than the West Wing’s.

But we should know how much the taxpayers are paying this “bald, intense young man” who, according to the New York Times, is “part chef and part policy wonk” and is “reinventing the role of official gastronome in the Executive Mansion.”

He plays golf with the president at Martha’s Vineyard, attends the administration’s child-health briefings, and quizzes senior White House staff about policy.

“Do we have a toxicologist who specializes in colony collapse disorder?” Kass once asked in an e-mail to the Agriculture Department, according to the New York Times story.

Add the fact that Kass isn’t even a formally trained chef and you really start to wonder what’s going on here.

The law lets the president appoint anyone he wants as “senior policy adviser.” But if he wants to be the first president to employ a cook/food czar, he should make that plain to the public — and publish the man’s taxpayer-funded salary, as is the case with other White House policy advisers.

Of course, it all begs the question: Why on earth do the American people need a government-paid “food initiative coordinator”? This administration has been attempting to elevate nutrition to the level of a civil rights issue.

How much harassment is enough in regard to food? New York City has opened the door for every local government to ban trans fats. Then there are the ubiquitous nutrition labels on every food item in supermarkets and fast-food restaurants.

The food nannies are everywhere. Now in the White House, too.

If President Obama really wants to appoint a butcher, baker or candlestick maker to a top White House policy job, we humbly propose a better suggestion: Joe the Plumber. (IBD)

Because it’s such a dire situation, she has convinced her husband’s administration to spend $400 million a year to bring “healthy foods” to low-income neighborhoods and $10 billion to revise a decades-old federal measure that already feeds tens of millions of poor children at school for free.

This culinary revolution no doubt requires a trusted senior policy adviser—like Kass—who is an expert in healthy cuisine. The First Lady refers to her cook as a “partner in crime” and says it’s “just pretty powerful” to see what started out as talk in her South Side Chicago kitchen turn into a major initiative that “hopefully will change the way we think as a country.”

Makes you wonder what Kass, who also doubles as a White House chef, has been putting in the Obama’s food all these years. Incidentally, the “most transparent administration” in history doesn’t want Americans to know how much the famous family cook earns. Although he’s an important administration wonk, Kass’s salary is excluded in the Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff because he’s considered “residence staff” and those salaries don’t need to be disclosed. (Judicial Watch)

Even the private chef of the President is a political hack, for god’s sake!

Yet more “czars” from the “I’m not a socialist!” President. 🙂

In a statement released on June 22, the liberal Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) announced it was filing a lawsuit against McDonald’s for marketing toys with their signature Happy Meals. The statement’s creepy hyperbole nearly implied that Ronald McDonald should be featured on an episode of “To Catch a Predator:”

“’McDonald’s is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children,” said CSPI litigation director Stephen Gardner.

And the Liberal Media just easts it up.

“But would children still be happy with their meal without the joy of a new toy? That’ll be up to kids, and possibly a judge,” chided NBC’s Erika Edwards.

“It’s entirely appropriate and not at all intrusive for city government to take steps to discourage the sale of sugary sodas on city property.”–San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom after he “regulated” the sale of non-diet drinks in city vending machines.

“On its own, popcorn is a low-fat, low-cal, whole grain food,” said Good Morning America’s consumer correspondent Elizabeth Leamy, “but the Center (for Science in The Public Interest) says that the way some movie theaters prepare it, it’s more like eating a rack of ribs with a scoop of ice cream on top.”

UK Daily Mail: Teachers have used ‘Big Brother’ tactics to spy on children’s lunchboxes, it has been revealed. They secretly photographed pupils’ packed lunches over six months and analysed the contents.

Staff awarded marks to the food and then showed their findings to outraged parents, offering them advice on how to improve nutrition.

Education bosses have now put a stop to the scheme in Gloucestershire after discovering the extent of the surveillance.

Nineteen primary schools have been using the ‘packed lunch toolkit’, which was devised by Gloucestershire county council and NHS Gloucestershire.

Contents were taken out of a random sample of lunchboxes and then photographs taken.

Staff rated the contents against set nutritional standards. They looked for high fat, salt and sugary foods as well as fruit and vegetables.

NHS= National Health Service. HHS= Health and Human Services.

Brothers from a different mother? 🙂

But Yvette Gayle, whose nine-year-old daughter Renee Dougan attends the school, said she didn’t mind.

‘It might encourage parents to pack a healthier lunch for their kids anyway,’ she said.

Cheryl Ridler, an education co-ordinator at the school, said the scheme has led to ‘a definite improvement in the quality of food’ brought in.

‘All the parents were very positive about it and we did it in a very nice and careful way, and in no way demanding and intrusive,’ she added.

Big Brother smiles upon you Citizen. Rejoice. 🙂

Maybe we could have a reality show, showing a Nutritional Intervention or maybe an actual Food Police show, showcasing the worst slovenly, offensive offenders against the public good. 🙂

Unfortunately, it is their business, because too many of us have insisted on treating healthcare services as an entitlement rather than a commodity. As a result, we’ve implicitly given government the permission to interfere with anything having to do with “public health,” including our food choices. And for the most part, many people support these dumb food bans because they imagine it’s doing some kind of good. I find it hard to believe that could be true. As the failed war on drugs has taught us, government regulation is no match for the forces of supply and demand.(411mania.com)

And where have we heard of Health Care as an entitlement?

The Left

Who are the Food Police?

The Left.

Funny how that worked out. 😦

And with Comedy comes Tragedy.

And her it is folks.

The reason why the Food Police are coming to get you.

You’re too Fat!!!, and that’s a negative impact on ObamaCare.

So we can’t have that.

If the government gets to decide who lives and who dies, they get to decide what you eat as well.

It’s for your own good, after all.

Rejoice. 🙂

Obesity Rating for Every American Must Be Included in Stimulus-Mandated Electronic Health Records, Says HHS

(CNSNews.com) – New federal regulations issued this week stipulate that the electronic health records–that all Americans are supposed to have by 2014 under the terms of the stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed last year–must record not only the traditional measures of height and weight, but also the Body Mass Index: a measure of obesity.

The obesity-rating regulation states that every American’s electronic health record must: “Calculate body mass index. Automatically calculate and display body mass index (BMI) based on a patient’s height and weight.”

The law also requires that these electronic health records be available–with appropriate security measures–on a national exchange.

The new regulations are one of the first steps towards the government’s goal of universal adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) by 2014, as outlined in the 2009 economic stimulus law.  Specifically, the regulations issued on Tuesday by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Dr. David Blumenthal, the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, define the “meaningful use” of electronic records. Under the stimulus law, health care providers–including doctors and hospitals–must establish “meaningful use” of EHRs by 2014 in order to qualify for federal subsidies. After that, they will be subjected to penalties in the form of diminished Medicare and Medicaid payments for not establishing “meaningful use” of EHRs.

Section 3001 of the stimulus law says: “The National Coordinator shall, in consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies (including the National Institute of Standards and Technology), update the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan (developed as of June 3, 2008) to include specific objectives, milestones, and metrics with respect to the following: (i) The electronic exchange and use of health information and the enterprise integration of such information.‘‘(ii) The utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014.”

Under this mandate in the stimulus law, Secretary Sebelius issued a regulation–developed by Dr. Blumenthal–that requires that all EHRs keep track of a person’s Body Mass Index (BMI) score. Body Mass Index is a ratio between a person’s weight and height, and is used to determine whether or not someone is overweight or obese. It is the preferred method of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for measuring obesity.

Michelle Obama has made dealing with the problem of childhood obesity the main theme of her term as First Lady.

According to the CDC,  “BMI provides a reliable indicator of body fatness for most people and is used to screen for weight categories that may lead to health problems.”

A person’s BMI score is used as a tool to screen for obesity or excessive body fat that could lead to other health problems. While it does not actually measure body fat directly, according to CDC, the BMI scores generally correlate with a person’s body fat percentage.

The new regulations also stipulate that the new electronic records be capable of sending public health data to state and federal health agencies such as HHS and CDC. The CDC, which calls American society “obesogenic” – meaning that American society itself promotes obesity – collects BMI scores from state health agencies every year to monitor obesity nationwide.

“Electronically record, retrieve, and transmit syndrome based public health surveillance information to public health agencies,” the regulations read.

With the spread of electronic health records, the CDC apparently will be able to collect such data more efficiently and with greater accuracy because the electronic record keeping systems can send the data automatically, eliminating the need for government – both state and federal – to keep, send, and process physical records.

So how long until the BMI Tax or mandatory “health education”??

So you want that Big Mac, well, there’s a 20%  surcharge Tax and we have to record how many of them you have and when you have reached your limit you will not be allowed to eat it anymore until such time as the National Coordinator’s guidelines for your better health says so.

How far off is that?

Not far enough for my tastes.

But that’s why I was so vehemently against the whole thing to begin with.

But what do I know, I’m just a “racist” “teabagger” “idiot” who wants what’s bad for you, at least according to the Left and it’s Media pit bulls.

Have that Big Mac now, because in a few years it will be banned or so heavily regulated and taxed it will cost you $20 for just one and it will have to be registered with the HHS.

And if your BMI says you can’t have it, well, the Food Police will coming knocking on your door to “educate” you Citizen.

Just you wait and see.

Big Momma Michelle is watching you…

Is it the Water?

The liberal loon capital of  San Francisco is at it again.

Sell a guinea pig, go to jail.

That’s the law under consideration by San Francisco’s Commission of Animal Control and Welfare. If the commission approves the ordinance at its meeting tonight, San Francisco could soon have what is believed to be the country’s first ban on the sale of all pets except fish.

That includes dogs, cats, hamsters, mice, rats, chinchillas, guinea pigs, birds, snakes, lizards and nearly every other critter, or, as the commission calls them, companion animals.

“People buy small animals all the time as an impulse buy, don’t know what they’re getting into, and the animals end up at the shelter and often are euthanized,” said commission Chairwoman Sally Stephens. “That’s what we’d like to stop.”

San Francisco residents who want a pet would have to go to another city, adopt one from a shelter or rescue group, or find one through the classifieds.

The Board of Supervisors would have final say on the matter. But not before pet store owners unleash a cacophony of howling, squeaking and squawking.

“It’s terrible. A pet store that can’t sell pets? It’s ridiculous,” said John Chan, manager of Pet Central on Broadway, which has been in business 30 years. “We’d have to close.”

This from the same people (liberals) who think that happy meals are a tool to make people fat.

And salt is evil and should be banned because it’s “bad for you”.

‘Terrible for our business’

Joe Taylor, bird manager of Animal Connection on Judah Street, called the proposal “ludicrous.”

“What difference does it make if you get a parrot at the SPCA or a pet store? If it doesn’t work out, in either case, you just bring it back,” Taylor said. “This would be terrible for our business.”

The idea originated about two years ago, when the commission began looking into a ban on dog and cat sales as a way to discourage puppy and kitten mills. But the city’s animal control staff said that excess puppies and kittens are not the problem at the city shelter, thanks to the plethora of rescue groups. In any case, only one or two pet stores in San Francisco sell dogs and cats. The rest stick to small animals.

The hamster problem

The real problem, staff said, is hamsters.

People buy the high-strung, nocturnal rodents because they’re under the temporary impression that hamsters are cute and cuddly. But the new owners quickly learn that hamsters are, in fact, prone to biting, gnawing through expensive wiring and maniacally racing on their exercise wheels at 2 a.m.

So the animals end up at the shelter. Just about every species has its own rescue group in San Francisco, but no one seems to want hamsters. Hamsters are the No. 1 animal euthanized at the city’s shelter, said San Francisco Animal Care and Control director Rebecca Katz.

“It’s definitely a concern,” she said. “They’re an impulse buy, and we do sometimes get tons of them, especially babies.”

Committed owners

On Wednesday, the shelter, which is on 15th Street in the Mission District, had six hamsters, nine rabbits, nine mice, nine rats, two guinea pigs, a bowl of goldfish, two birds, a leopard gecko, a bearded dragon and a hermit crab named Charlie.

But those shelter hamsters almost certainly did not originate at a pet store, said Michael Maddox, general counsel for the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council in Washington, D.C.

Studies by UC Davis and the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy have shown that only a small fraction of shelter animals were purchased at pet stores, he said. People who buy animals at pet stores are just as committed, emotionally and financially, to caring for their pets as people who procure pets elsewhere, he said.

“This is an anti-pet proposal from people who oppose the keeping of pets,” he said. “If their goal is to ban the ownership of pets entirely, then this is a good first step.”

The commission plans to listen to testimony from pet store owners, among others, before voting. Among the items it will consider is the impact on small businesses, whether to allow the sale of feeder rodents for snakes and other reptiles, the sale of fish, owner education, penalties and rescue groups that host adoptions at pet stores.

“We’re still in the information-gathering phase,” said Commissioner Philip Gerrie, who is sponsoring the proposal. “We’re trying to get at the problem of people buying these creatures with the best intentions, but then the reality turns out quite different.”

So let’s just ban it!!

*******

Center for Science in the Public Interest sent a letter to McDonald’s threatening to sue if the company didn’t stop using toys to market Happy Meals to young children.

“By advertising that Happy Meals include toys, McDonald’s unfairly and deceptively markets directly to children,” the letter stated.

In June, the Center for Science in the Public Interest threatened to sue McDonald’s if it didn’t stop using toys “to lure small children” to Happy Meals.

Outside a Chicago McDonald’s, Romonda Mays, of Pine Bluff, Ark., said the toys are “children catchers.”

Oh, no! More predatory Capitalists  🙂 wanting to destroy you.

They want your children!  <<maniacal laugh>>

So We have to step in and save you from yourself because you’re not strong enough, wise enough, or smart enough to do it yourself!

But times have changed, Marion Nestle, author of “What to Eat” and a New York University nutrition professor said, and the chain’s tactics represent a deliberate attempt “to undermine parental responsibility. … If Happy Meals didn’t contain toys, kids wouldn’t nag their parents for them, and McDonald’s wouldn’t sell as many.”

Center for Science in the Public Interest’s litigation director, Stephen Gardner, said he hoped McDonald’s would negotiate an end to the practice of using toys to market unhealthful foods to children.

“If it doesn’t, that will all but guarantee that we will have to resort to litigation,” he said.

Bow to our superiority or else we’ll break let loose the Hounds of Hell, Liberal Advocacy Agenda Lawyers!

*****************

And then I ran across this little ditty:

When it comes to misinformed signage, bad news travels fast. A news producer in Chicago sent this booth sign to a New Orleans friend writing, “Sorry to say, I snapped this picture at the Taste of Chicago yesterday afternoon.” It was then forwarded to New Orleans food writer Lorin Gaudin who posted it on Twitter. That’s three degrees of separation, since Gaudin is originally from Chicago.

“I was at the very first Taste of Chicago when Jane Byrne was Mayor. I am sick, just sick about that photo. Disgraceful,” she says of the “Our Lobster & Shrimp Are Not From the Gulf Coast” sign.

Top Chef Judge Tom Colicchio talked about the perception problem at a Friends of the Fishermen event in Grand Isle last month. He told me he’s heard stories from fellow restauranteurs about customers saying, “I can’t believe you still serve seafood.” As if every fish in the ocean is tainted by the BP oil spill. To push back on some urban legends, seafood vendors do not generally order lobster from the Gulf Coast; there is no Gulf Coast walrus crossing; and Gulf Coast seafood is now being tested for safety more than any other source in the country.

But don’t let liberals stop paving that road to hell with their “good intentions”  and their desire to save you from yourself because you’re too stupid to do it for yourself.

Personal Responsibility is their job, not yours.