The Real Questions

Kurt Schlichter: CNN’s Republican debate on September 16th will be conducted with dignity and gravitas by questioners like Hugh Hewitt and Jake Tapper, who will treat the candidates with a level of respect and courtesy that many of them just don’t deserve. They have to. I don’t.

On behalf of all infuriated conservatives, I demand the right to interrogate the candidates myself. I get to ask a question and a follow-up, and here are the rules. First, answer the damn question. It insults me when you think I’ll somehow forget what I asked, so bewitching is your oratory. Second, answer, then stop talking. If you use more words than the Gettysburg Address (272) you are so, so very wrong. Third, no clichés. If you use the phrase “for the children,” I get to slap you.

Here goes:

Jeb! Bush:

You support amnesty and Common Core, you won’t undo the Iran sellout of Israel on your first day in office and – as we always expected – you’ve come out in support of more gun control. Since you have adopted Hillary’s platform, why are you running as a Republican?

HILARIOUS! 🙂

Why are you so damn special that despite there being 320 million other Americans, we can’t do any better than a third Bush?

Yeah, baby, why do we have to have another Bush?

Dr. Ben Carson:

You’re proud of not being a politician, but what makes you think D.C.’s establishment won’t chew you up and spit you out?

You’re a guy with tremendous accomplishments, morals, and character. Why do you even want to go to Washington?

The place that operates on none of those to begin with.

Jim Gilmore:

Can you name one person you aren’t related to who wants you to be president?

In fact, are you even supposed to be here on stage tonight?

Where’s Bobbi Jindal? 🙂 Who the fuck are you anways?

Chris Christie:

Let’s deal with the elephant in the room – what the hell were you thinking snuggling up to Obama?

🙂 I like these questions.

Other than talking incessantly about killing terrorists – which is cool – in what way are you even remotely a conservative?

Hehehehehehehehehe…..

Carly Fiorina:

You’re the only female running in the GOP primaries. Would you even be on this stage if you were a dude?

You were a senior officer in a huge corporation that did a lot of government work. Why should we conservatives believe you won’t be just another crony capitalist shafting us and stealing our money for the benefit of your corporate pals?

🙂  “The First Female President” PC crap applies to you to, dear.

Lindsey Graham:

Conservatives detest you, and the feeling is mutual. Are you in this as some sort of establishment stalking horse to make sure a real conservative doesn’t derail Jeb! by snagging South Carolina’s delegates?

Yes,why do we need a  RINO in The White House too?.

Anything else interesting that you’d like to tell us tonight?

Doubt it.

John Kasich:

You decided to go along with Obamacare in Ohio. Why, as a conservative would I ever support you in the primary over someone committed to the destruction of that socialist atrocity?

Not that the present RINOs didn’t in fact run on destroying it and then kissed its ass after the election. What make us think you wouldn’t do the same thing?

Nothing.

Like many, even most, conservatives, I think you’re a smug, sanctimonious jerk who hides his self-righteousness behind a vague, unfocused aura of pseudo-Christian progressivism. Why should I allow you to spend four to eight years in my face telling me how I don’t measure up to your allegedly Jesus-inspired standards?

Good one.

George Pataki:

Since I really have no idea why you’re running, let me just ask you this: Who’s more badass, Captain Kirk or Picard?

Star Wars or Doctor Who?

Marco Rubio:

My family is half Cuban, and we loved you and your life story until you lied to us about amnesty – no, that’s not an invitation for you to try to convince us how your past embrace of amnesty was not really an embrace of amnesty. You lied to me once – why should I ever believe anything you ever say again?

I agree completely.

Here’s your chance to be clear – do you agree with me and most conservatives that America has zero moral obligation to illegal aliens, that they should receive no government benefits, and that they should leave our country?

Now, careful, you might just be a “racist”. 🙂

Ted Cruz:

I think you are a genius lawyer and a true conservative, but you are off-putting to people who aren’t movement conservatives and I fear your candidacy would be Goldwater II: The Revenge. Do the math for me – how can you possibly win 270 electoral votes?

Wouldn’t you better serve conservatism as Chief Justice Ted Cruz?

Can a Cruz missile hit the right target or just explode in our faces when running against Bernie Sanders or Hillary?

Rand Paul:

Like your father, I can listen to you for a couple minutes, find myself nodding in agreement, and then BAM! you say something nutty, usually about foreign policy. How can I be sure you will do the most important thing a president must do – relentlessly and ruthlessly kill America’s enemies?

Chemtrails. Are they a thing?

Just how stable are you?

Scott Walker:

The idea behind your campaign seemed to be that you’re a normal guy who would return us to normalcy, but we conservatives don’t want normalcy anymore. We want vengeance. Will you commit to ruthlessly annihilating liberalism wherever you find it?

More specifically, will you commit to destroying all federal government employee unions?

We need some Wisconsin union missile strikes, not just a guy from Wisconsin.

Mike Huckabee:

You combine a love of big government with a kind of religious paternalism that evokes an unholy love child of LBJ and Elmer Gantry. Can you sketch me out a scenario where you win the general election that doesn’t involve someone releasing tapes of Hillary gleefully vivisecting corgi puppies?

You play bass. Really, is that a president’s instrument?

Bill Clinton played Sax, look what that got us.

Bobby Jindal:

As an Asian-American, can the GOP win over that growing minority group by addressing the systemic racism they face because of Democrat-dominated universities’ admissions policies?

I think you’d be a good president, but I don’t think you can win. Shouldn’t you agree to come on board with someone up here on stage who might win and agree to be his/her HHS secretary?

Be useful.

Rick Santorum:

You lost your Senate seat in Pennsylvania back in 2006, meaning you have failed in every election campaign since 2000. Why is this time different?

It won’t be.

My country is falling apart and, like most conservatives, that’s my No. 1 priority. Why should I vote for you and re-fight the gay marriage battle that we’ve already decisively lost instead of saving our Constitution from these leftist creeps?

And are you the man to do it?

Donald Trump:

Yeah, it’s been a lot of fun watching you make the GOP establishment wince by raising subjects like illegal alien thugs that the elite wants hushed up. We’ve had some laughs. But if you are elected president, you will be the commander-in-chief. This is a no gotcha question – I led soldiers for 27 years, so this is personal to me and to millions of conservatives whose sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers serve. Can you give me one good reason why you are worthy of our trust to lead and to safeguard the lives of the incredible men and women of our armed forces?

I don’t have a follow-up to that question, because at the end of the day, no other question really matters.

This isn’t “Celebrity Apprentice”. You don’t get to vote someone off every week, you have to deal with these assholes for 4 years at least. Can you handle that without saying “You’re Fired” and throwing childish insults at them every week?

These are the questions no one will ask.

The there’s the Iran Deal. Where you give the #1 state sponsor of Terrorism in the World $150 Billion dollars as a bonus gift to develop Nuclear Weapons that they won’t use for …TERRORISM!  <<dramatic music sting>>

So what do think about that?

negotiate with terrorists

nukes

socialism

Soylent Green Snake

Hillary Clinton has a new economic plan. In essence, government should get actively involved to make everyone’s wages higher.

Government control of the means of production…hmmm…I’ve heard that somewhere before… 🙂

Paul Krugman, writing in The New York Times, endorses the idea. There was a time when Krugman dismissed rhetoric like Clinton’s as economic quackery. These days he’s trying to sell the same snake oil as the politicians.

The Agenda is The Agenda. And Class Warfare is one of the great succors or The Left. They can’t conceive of life without it.

Here is what economists know and it’s backed by mountains of research. Employees tend to get paid their marginal product – the value they add to final output.

In a competitive market this is almost a truism. Wages are not a gift. They are not at one level, but could have been substantially higher or lower. They are what they are because of the employees’ skills and the market value of what they produce.

Now suppose that were not the case. Suppose there was a firm that paid employees more than their marginal product. That would mean the firm is collecting less from customers at the margin than it is paying out in wages. The firm can try to raise prices to cover the deficit, but then it would lose sales to rivals whose costs are lower and it would eventually go out of business. Or it could cover the deficit with lower profits. But then the investors would fire the manager and hire someone who gets the wages right and provides a market rate of return.

Suppose that there was a firm that paid employees less than their marginal product. In that case, rival firms would hire the employees away – since they are worth more than what they are being paid.

To summarize: A firm that pays workers more than they are worth cannot survive because it cannot match the prices and the rate of return to investors of its rivals. A firm that pays workers less than what they are worth, cannot survive because it will not be able to retain its employees. Competition in the marketplace tends to determine wages; there is a definite logic to what people are paid; and it has nothing to do with miserliness or generosity.

Therefore, Liberals want to eliminate competition thus everyone is equal and their are no winner and no losers. Just like the liberal version of youth sports where no one actually loses.

Competition is evil. So it must be destroyed. Competition is “unfair” and full of nothing but “inequality”.

Also, economists know there is no free lunch.

Unless, they are Liberal adherents to The Agenda, then they are all about the perception of “the free lunch” or the “greedy” capitalist who is a Scrooge and miserly old white privilege asshole.

If one person has a gain – in the absence of any increased production — someone else must endure a loss.

And since that is “unfair” Liberals demand everyone to be equal which holy unrealistic, but then again so are Liberals.

And we know a lot about those losses. For example, when government forces employers to pay higher wages, employers react by reducing other types of spending on their employees – less training and fewer fringe benefits, such as health insurance.

Close down and move to Mexico…Offer less hours of work at that higher pay, say 29. 🙂

On balance it appears that employees are left worse off. After a survey of the literature, economist Richard McKenzie wrote:

[I]f the minimum wage were raised to $10.10 an hour, for example, the estimated 16.5 million workers earning between $7.25 and $10.10 could lose non-monetary compensation more valuable than the $31 billion in additional wages they are expected to receive.

But Liberal work on perception, not reality. So that shiny new toy in the window look good from the outside, but once you own it and start playing with it, you find out just how cheaply made it was and it begins to fall about.

But don’t worry, The Liberal has that covered to! It’s called “victimization” where you are the victim of the evil, greedy capitalists! It’s not your fault you fell for their dog crap hook-line-and-sinker, it’s their fault!

How amazing is that. You took a bite of the apple of socialism and it the snake bit you, but it’s still the snake’s fault! And all you need is for the Liberal to come in and tell you that it was the snake fault and that if you take another bite it will STILL be the snake’s fault so why not go ahead…

In defense of Hillary, Krugman writes:

[E]mployers always face a trade-off between low-wage and higher-wage strategies — between, say, the traditional Walmart model of paying as little as possible and accepting high turnover and low morale, and the Costco model of higher pay and benefits leading to a more stable work force. And there’s every reason to believe that public policy can, in a variety of ways — including making it easier for workers to organize — encourage more firms to choose the good-wage strategy.

Liberalism a snake charmer, not a snake oil salesman, says the snake oil salesman.

But here’s the thing. What works for Costco workers may not work for Walmart workers. And in any event does any rational person think that government should make decisions about these tradeoffs rather than competitors in the marketplace?

Yes, Liberals. 🙂

The other day The New York Times had two contrasting editorials on its op ed page. One, by Paul Krugman, called for a higher minimum wage and other labor market interventions. The other, by the chairman of Starbucks and his wife, Howard and Sheri Schultz, noted that:

[There are] 5.6 million people ages 16 to 24 in America who are not employed or in school. While some have lost hope in this population … we believe these young people represent a significant untapped resource of productivity and talent. With the right support and training, they can benefit our businesses and our communities.

The Schultz’s have formed a foundation and with the aid of other foundations and high profile companies their goal is to “provide jobs, internships and apprenticeships to 100,000 young people over the next three years.”

Although they don’t say so, their editorial clearly implies that the wage that is paid to these youths doesn’t really matter. What matters is they learn the life skills of showing up for work on time, following orders, conducting themselves in appropriate ways, etc. If they learn those skills, their wages will rise through time without any help from government.

Krugman, Clinton and others on the left say there is no economic harm in raising the minimum wage and in adopting other polices that close off job opportunities for those at the bottom of the income ladder. In making this statement they are ignoring the social costs. The Schultz’s write:

[T]he cost of youth disconnection — including health care, public assistance and incarceration — was $26.8 billion in 2013 alone. Quite literally, we can’t afford to do nothing.

And then there are the personal costs, which do not easily lend themselves to calculation in terms of dollars and cents.

I suspect these costs are not of much interest to either Krugman or Clinton. (John C Goodman)

Snake Oil is how much a barrel?

Let’s not forget that those who have their wage increased suddenly find themselves no longer “qualified” to receive governmental benefits and pay higher taxes out of that higher wage.

We’ve already seen that where the “newly waged” want fewer hours so that they don’t lose their benefits.

Which probably explains why they don’t understand the reasoning behind how a wage gets set.

Secondarily, many unions tie their wages to the minimum wage level by some multiplier or other offset. Which means that costs will be going up in those businesses as well.

Krugman and others are dishonest for continuing to promote wage pandering.
But Liberals are never about the truth, but about what gains them power. And keeping people ignorant and jealous plays right into that.
(Townhall)

Keep them stupid, mad, and needy, that’s the Liberal plan. It keeps the Liberals pundits, advocates, and Politicians on their own gravy train.

Liberal version of Soylent Green, just grind them up and feed them back to themselves and make them happy for you and made at everyone else.

Special Needs Education

A new Rasmussen poll shows most Americans favor a wall on our southern border to stop uncontrolled immigration and that 80% want illegal alien felons deported. What about this do our elites not understand?

They understand their Agenda. It’s you who don’t understand that THEIR Agenda and their narcissism is far more important to them than grubby little old smelly you.

The 51% majority in favor of a wall broke down to 70% of Republicans, 57% of independents and a 30% plurality of Democrats. On illegal immigrant felons, 92% of Republicans, 69% of Democrats and 82% of independents want them sent home.

So what? That’s not on The Agenda, so it doesn’t matter.

These percentages represent sizable upticks in public support for the rule of law on immigration. Americans are tired of the law being ignored and city, state and federal officials collaborating in the law-breaking.

But the one’s in power are not. They want them for Votes and cheap labor. That way it’s self-perpetuating power for them.

With such poll numbers, getting behind the majority would seem a no-brainer for elected representatives. But the politicians, along with bureaucrats and nongovernment organizations, resist at every turn.

Because that’s not on THEIR Agenda.

Maybe that’s why sentiment has crystallized behind solutions such as walls and deportation. And why some eloquent cries for justice and democratic representation have been heard in unlikely places.

All the way from the 710 freeway corridor in Los Angeles, a gritty industrial area with many black and Latino residents, a Compton man showed up in Arizona last month to tell thousands at a Donald Trump rally about his talented football-star son who was murdered by illegals in cold blood.

Shortly afterward, citizens of nearby Huntington Park rose up against the nomination by one cynical councilman to city boards of two illegals who couldn’t even qualify for the DREAM Act. The mayor approved the appointments on the grounds there was no difference in the value of citizenship or immigrating illegally.

The outrage in Huntington Park evoked last year’s revolt in middle-class Murrieta, Calif., where federal officials tried to sneak busloads of illegals into the community and dump them at local bus stops. The opposition there was also led by black, Latino and Middle Eastern residents, many of them legal immigrants.

In both cases, residents were protesting against public officials who failed to respect the will of the people.

But it’s the will of the Politicians and their own personal power that matters, right? 🙂

All this started in California in 1998, when a federal judge overturned Proposition 187 denying public services, including education, for illegals. Voters strongly opposed the court’s ruling, but Democrats let it stand after they took power in Sacramento.

A floodgate of benefits has been open ever since. Along with education came “free” health care, college scholarships and special “centers” to attend to illegals’ special needs.

Because some “citizens” are more equal than others. 🙂

In 2003, Gov. Gray Davis was thrown out of office by voters in a recall referendum for attempting to issue driver’s licenses to illegals. Today, despite continued public opposition, illegals get licenses for the asking, and the DMV has hired an extra thousand employees just to process all the askers.

As for rule of law, forget it. This summer, two California women were murdered by illegals — one in broad daylight on San Francisco’s Fisherman’s Wharf and the other in a horrific home invasion in Santa Maria. Both suspects had the special protection of sanctuary cities where they needn’t worry about being deported.

Evidence is now mounting that illegals are casting ballots in California elections, with highly suspicious voting drives noted in areas in which they dominate. In a little-covered move earlier this month, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill allowing noncitizen “immigrants” to work at polling precincts to help process all the non-English speakers. (IBD)

The Democrats want to welcome the new class of Welfare Democrat voters. They don’t care if there are murderers,rapists, or terrorists in with them. That’s justice the price to be paid by you for their power. It’s no big deal to them. It’s not like you matter.

You’re sheep, and you’ll do as you are told. And if that doesn’t work then we’ll just remind you how heartless, mean, and racist you are for opposing us. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Dana Summers
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Sowell Thoughts & More

Random thoughts on the passing scene:

Stupid people can cause problems, but it usually takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe.

The stupid people are usually following the really brilliant one.

President Obama’s “agreement” with Iran looks very much like “the emperor’s new clothes.” We are supposed to pretend that there is something there, when there is nothing there that will stop, or even slow down, Iran’s development of a nuclear bomb.

But it accomplishes the Agenda and makes HIM and the stupid sheep that groupthink his talking points feel better.

The endlessly repeated argument that most Americans are the descendants of immigrants ignores the fact that most Americans are NOT the descendants of ILLEGAL immigrants. Millions of immigrants from Europe had to stop at Ellis Island, and had to meet medical and other criteria before being allowed to go any further.

And so what if violent crime is up because of them, at least they vote for Democrats…

Governor Bobby Jindal: “I realize that the best way to make news is to mention Donald Trump. … So, I’ve decided to randomly put his name into my remarks at various points, thereby ensuring that the news media will cover what I have to say.” Governor Jindal’s outstanding record in Louisiana should have gotten him far more attention from the media than Trump’s bombast.

Because the “unbiased” “journalist” in the media only want to cover the dark side of anyone who isn’t on the leftist agenda.

Since July 14–when the first video from the Center for Medical Progress’ (CMP) undercover investigation was released–the networks had 243 hours and 30 minutes of morning and evening broadcasts.

Total: 14,610 Minutes. so 23 minutes = .00157% of the news air time. So how much has been spent hyping and sniping at Donald Trump? 🙂

Of that number, only 1 minute and 13 seconds was devoted to the Planned Parenthood videos with the accompanying audio. Concerning any kind of coverage the CMP videos received from the Big Three, a total of 23 minutes and 32 seconds were devoted to the story from all three networks. CBS proved to be the network that gave the most time to the story, with 14 minutes and 59 seconds worth of general coverage. They only gave the audio/video a minute worth of airtime. Katie Yoder of the Media Research Center  crunched the numbers:

MRC Culture searched Nexis and watched news shows to count the time spent on Planned Parenthood. We included stories that the media connected to Planned Parenthood videos (for example, the Senate’s vote on Planned Parenthood). We did not include teasers.NBC total coverage of CMP videos: 6 minutes, 52 seconds

13 seconds playing actual CMP footage with audio

ABC total coverage of CMP videos: 1 minute, 41 seconds

0 seconds playing actual CMP footage with audio

CBS total coverage of CMP videos: 14 minutes, 59 seconds

1 minute playing actually CMP footage with audio

GRAND TOTAL of network coverage of CMP videos: 23 minutes, 32 seconds

GRAND TOTAL of CMP video content played with audio: 1 minute, 13 seconds

Yoder also mentioned that in September of 2012, the Big Three devoted 88 minutes over the course of three days after Mitt Romney made his infamous “47 percent” remarks. Donald Sterling, former owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, and his secretly recorded remarks garnered 146 minutes worth of airtime from the networks.

I guess the editorial boardrooms of ABC, NBC, and CBS still believe that possibly felonious human body parts sales are just the edited vignettes* of a rabid anti-abortion activist’s imagination. Or maybe they still think, like White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, that Planned Parenthood has a “high ethical standard,” so this must be a hack job.  Earnest admitted that he didn’t really watch the videos. Hillary Clinton’s campaign said the former first lady hasn’t watched either.

So, is this the same ole’ liberal media? Yeah, that’s probably the reason.  It also explains why so many Americans haven’t heard about the CMP investigation.  (Townhall)

In her latest book, “Adios, America!” Ann Coulter says, “if Romney had won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2012, instead of 27 percent, he still would have lost. On the other hand, had he won just 4 percent more of the white vote, he would have won.”

But white people are politically incorrect so you can’t target a campaign at them. You have to target it at people who have been conditioned over a lifetime to hate you instead!

Despite an old saying that taxes are the price we pay for civilization, an absolute majority of the record-breaking tax money collected by the federal government today is simply transferred by politicians from people who are not likely to vote for them to people who are more likely to vote for them.

And the government is STILL spending more than it takes in, and they are proud of it!

They’ve “reduced” the deficit. Aka, they overspend less than they were. That’s because WE are paying more than we ever have!!

Do the people who are always demanding that there be more “training” for police ever say that the hoodlums that the police have to deal with should have had more training by their parents, instead of being allowed to grow wild, like weeds?

Discipline? Are nuts!! That’s cruel. Parents don’t want to have anything to do with it, and teaching people to be responsible for their actions, forget about it.

Narcissism Rules!

Europe is belatedly discovering how unbelievably stupid it was to import millions of people from cultures that despise Western values and which often promote hatred toward the people who have let them in.

But at least ours vote for Democrats, right? 🙂

There are so many conservative Republican candidates for the party’s presidential nomination that they may once again split the conservative vote so many ways as to guarantee that the nomination will go to some mushy moderate.

Or the Elites in the party will grant it to us.

Barack Obama wrote a book titled “The Audacity of Hope.” His own career, however, might more accurately be titled “The Mendacity of Hype.”

With all its staggering horrors and insanities, World War II may yet turn out to have been just a dress rehearsal for the ultimate catastrophe of a nuclear-armed terrorist nation like Iran. We seem oblivious to the possibility that we may be leaving our children and grandchildren at the mercy of people who have demonstrated repeatedly that they have no mercy.

But at least they won’t have nuclear weapons… 🙂

No matter how many federal felony laws Hillary Clinton may have violated by using her own personal email account to do her work as Secretary of State, she is unlikely to face any legal consequences. President Obama can pardon her, as he can pardon Lois Lerner or the head of the Internal Revenue Service or others who may have violated federal laws during his administration.

It’s not like she’s General Patreaus, or even Richard Nixon!! 🙂

When Jeb Bush allowed hecklers shouting “Black lives matter” to drive him off the stage in Las Vegas, he may have given us a clue as to what kind of president he would be. We ignored too many clues about Barack Obama before putting him in the White House. There is no excuse for ignoring clues about another candidate now. Can you imagine Ronald Reagan letting hecklers drive him off the stage?

Nope. But Jeb Bush is the perfect squishy Elite RHINO for the job. Just enough nothing-there to make the Elites happy.

Donald Trump has credited his political donations with getting Hillary Clinton to come to his wedding. What kind of man would want Hillary Clinton at his wedding, much less boast of having her there?

A salute to Bill O’Reilly for being one of the very few people in the media to talk plain common sense about the disintegration of the black family, and the resulting social problems that followed.

Ronald Reagan won two landslide victories with the help of “Reagan Democrats.” These were voters who usually voted for Democrats but were now voting for Reagan. He got these voters by winning them over to his policy agenda — not by adjusting his policy agenda to them, as the Republican establishment today seems to think is the way to expand their constituency.

Appeasement doesn’t work. Period. Even on Democrats.

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Kids Count

Ever since President Obama took office, the poverty rate among children has soared to 22 percent, with three million more children living in poor conditions, according to an authoritative new report released Tuesday.

A higher percentage of children live in poverty now than did during the Great Recession, according to a new report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation released Tuesday.

The 2015 “KIDS COUNT” report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation said that the percentage of children living in poverty jumped from 18 percent in 2008, the year Obama was elected, to 22 percent in 2013. It added that the rate dropped from 2012 to 2013, in line with the improving economy.

About 22% of children in the U.S. lived below the poverty line in 2013, compared with 18% in 2008, the foundation’s 2015 Kids Count Data Book reported. In 2013, the U.S. Department of Human and Health Service’s official poverty line was $23,624 for a family with two adults and two children.

“The fact that it’s happening is disturbing on lots of levels,” said Laura Speer, the associate director for policy reform and advocacy at the Casey Foundation, a non-profit based in Baltimore. “Those kids often don’t have the access to the things they need to thrive.” The foundation says its mission is to help low-income children in the U.S. by providing grants and advocating for policies that promote economic opportunity.

More “White Privilege”? 🙂

Evil, greedy “rich” people?

This has to be “racist” at some point, doesn’t it? 🙂

Among minority children and in some states, especially the South, however, the situation is dire. The report said, for example:

• The rate of child poverty for 2013 ranged from a low of 10 percent in New Hampshire, to a high of 34 percent in Mississippi.

• The child poverty rate among African Americans (39 percent) was more than double the rate for non-Hispanic whites (14 percent) in 2013.

The report also explained that a lack of jobs or good income above the poverty rate of $23,624 was the reason more children have grown up in poor families.

• In 2013, three in 10 children (22.8 million) lived in families where no parent had full-time, year-round employment. Since 2008, the number of such children climbed by nearly 2.7 million.

• Roughly half of all American Indian children (50 percent) and African-American children (48 percent) had no parent with full-time, year-round employment in 2013, compared with 37 percent of Latino children, 24 percent of non-Hispanic white children and 23 percent of Asian and Pacific Islander children.”

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2170063/aecf-2015kidscountdatabook-2015.pdf

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Liberty’s 800th Anniversary

Today is the 800th Anniversary of The Magna Carta.

I did my own blog about this a month ago after returning from England and seeing the exhibit itself.

https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2015/05/19/magna-carta-2015/

Mark Steyn: The most important anniversary this year falls on Monday June 15th, marking the day, eight centuries ago, when a king found himself in a muddy field on the River Thames near Windsor Castle with the great foundational document of modern liberty under his nose and awaiting his seal. Here’s what I had to say about it earlier this year:

The world has come a long way since Magna Carta, and not always for the best. A couple of years back, testifying to the House of Commons in Ottawa about Canada’s (now repealed) censorship law, I said the following:

Section 13 is at odds with this country’s entire legal inheritance, stretching back to Magna Carta. Back then, if you recall–in 1215–human rights meant that the King could be restrained by his subjects. Eight hundred years later, Canada’s pseudo-human rights apparatchiks of the commission have entirely inverted that proposition, and human rights now means that the subjects get restrained by the Crown in the cause of so-called collective rights that can be regulated only by the state.

I liked it better the old way. Real rights are like Magna Carta: restraints on state power. Too many people today understand the word “rights” to mean baubles and trinkets a gracious sovereign bestows on his subjects – “free” health care, “free” community college, “safe spaces” from anyone saying anything beastly – all of which require a massive, coercive state regulatory regime to enforce.

But, to give it its full name, Magna Carta Libertatum (my italics – I don’t think they had ’em back then) gets it the right way round. It was in some respects a happy accident. In 1215, a bunch of chippy barons were getting fed up with King John. In those days, in such circumstances, the malcontents would usually replace the sovereign with a pliable prince who’d be more attentive to their grievances. But, having no such prince to hand, the barons were forced to be more inventive, and so they wound up replacing the King with an idea, and the most important idea of all – that even the King is subject to the law.

On this 800th anniversary, that’s a lesson worth re-learning. Restraints on state power are increasingly unfashionable among the heirs to Magna Carta: in America, King Barack decides when he wakes up of a morning what clauses of ObamaCare or US immigration law he’s willing to observe or waive according to royal whim; his heir, Queen Hillary, operates on the principle that laws are for the other 300 million Americans, not her. In the birthplace of Magna Carta, a few miles from that meadow at Runnymede, David Cameron’s constabulary leans on newsagents to cough up the names and addresses of troublesome citizens who’ve committed the crime of purchasing Charlie Hebdo.

The symbolism was almost too perfect when Mr Cameron went on TV with David Letterman, and was obliged to admit that he had no idea what the words “Magna Carta” meant. Magna Carta Libertatum: The Great Charter of Liberties. I’m happy to say Mr Cameron’s Commonwealth cousins across the Atlantic in Ottawa are more on top of things: One of the modestly heartening innovations of Stephen Harper’s ministry is that, when immigrants to Canada take the oath of citizenship, they’re now given among other things a copy of Magna Carta.

Why? Because everything flows therefrom – from England’s Glorious Revolution to the US Constitution and beyond. It’s part of the reason why the English-speaking world, in contrast to Continental Europe, has managed to sustain its freedoms across the generations – at least until now. As John Robson, my old colleague from Conrad Black’s Hollinger group, puts it:

All the rights we cherish, from due process of law to elected representatives, trace back to it. It has been assailed time and again and always defended. It’s why we have rights today. But that story needs to be told again and again or it will be lost and with it our freedom.

Security of the person, property rights, religious freedom, due process… The core animating principles of modern free societies began in that muddy field in Runnymede eight centuries ago. That’s why it’s the most important anniversary of the year: when the pampered, solipsistic beneficiaries of an 800-year inheritance start to lose the habits of liberty, only darkness lies ahead. Better to re-learn the old lessons while we still can.

“Foul as it is, hell itself is made fouler by the presence of King John,” wrote Matthew Paris in the 1230s.

Someone should tell King Obama that one.

Whoops!

More unintended consequences from Liberal “help”.

SEATTLE, Wash. —

A Seattle-area nonprofit observed some workers recently asking for reduced hours, as they feared that their higher wages now put them at risk of losing housing subsidies.

Nora Gibson is the executive director of Full Life Care, a nonprofit that serves elderly people in various homes and nursing facilities. She is also on the board of the Seattle Housing Authority.

Gibson told KIRO 7 she saw a sudden reaction from workers when Seattle’s phased minimum-wage ordinance took effect in April, bringing minimum wage to $11 an hour. She said anecdotally, some people feared they would lose their subsidized units but still not be able to afford market-rate rents.

For example, she said last week, five employees at one of her organization’s 24-hour care facilities for Alzheimer’s patients asked to reduce their hours in order to remain eligible for subsidies. They now earn at least $13 an hour, after they increased wages at all levels in April, Gibson said.

“This has nothing to do with people’s willingness to work, or how hard people work. It has to do with being caught in a very complex situation where they have to balance everything they can pull together to pull together a stable, successful life,” Gibson said.
Gibson said she fully supports a minimum wage increase but was not surprised when her employees asked for fewer hours.

“The jump from subsidized housing to market rate in Seattle is huge,” she said.

Seattle Housing Authority told KIRO 7: “It’s important that the continuum of affordable housing options in our city and region allows for progression as people’s incomes increase. That needs to be addressed across the housing market so that people don’t feel they are in jeopardy of stable housing as they are able to earn enough to pay more of their housing costs.”

The amount of public assistance one receives depends on the income and size of the family. The scale is determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the qualifications are based on area median income.

Justine Decker, who is a full-time student at Seattle Central College, said she works part-time so she can still get subsidies for rent and child care.

“A one-bedroom can cost upward of $1,200. And so imagine paying that, and paying child care which can be $900 something dollars,” Decker said.

She said she doesn’t want to work full time, or she wouldn’t be able to afford market-rate rents. Decker said she’s in school to become a teacher and hopes to eventually become a principal, to make well over minimum wage levels to be able to pay for everything on her own.

Mohamed Muktar drives an Uber and also receives public assistance for housing. He said he would love to work more hours.

“If you can get more hours, I think you need to work more hours, so you can take care of your bills,” Muktar said.

Seattle Councilmember Nick Licata said he hadn’t heard of purposeful reduction of hours before.

“We need more information, for one thing. This is anecdotal,” Licata said.

Still, he said people need more options, especially after breaking the threshold that pushes them out of public housing.

“We do not want this to be an improvement on one side of the scale, and then decrease in living conditions on another,” Licata said. “We should not be using this as an excuse not to address the overall problem.” (KIRO)