The Progressive Race to the Bottom

 Victor Davis Hanson

The old Democratic party championed the working classes, wanted secure borders to protect middle-class union wage earners, and focused generous federal entitlement help on the citizen poor. Civil rights were defined as equality of opportunity for all. That party is long dead. An updated Hubert Humphrey or even Bill Clinton would not recognize any of the present “Democrats.” Even the old wing of elite liberals is mostly long gone, with its talk of legal immigration only, opposition to censorship, pro-Israel foreign policy, let-it-hang-out Sixties indulgence, and free speech. It was superseded by grim progressives who are not so much interested in a square, new, or fair deal for the middle classes, as an entirely different deal that redefines everything from the Bill of Rights and the very way we elect presidents and senators to an embrace of identity politics as its first principle. Indeed, we are currently witnessing a quite strange series of North Korean–like reeducation confessionals, from repenting erstwhile liberals and now presidential hopefuls such as Joe Biden, Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, and Kirsten Gillibrand. They and other would-be candidates parade before show cameras to apologize for their prior incorrect heresies, including their erstwhile support for drug laws, tough sentencing, and border enforcement. The subtext of these charades is that 28-year-old socialist Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (who won her Democratic primary with 15,897 votes and with that victory an assured congressional seat in a gerrymandered Democratic district) is the new Robespierre — warning that the earth as we know it will end in twelve years, ICE must be disbanded, all student debt abolished, wealth taxes levied, and Medicare provided for all. And her political guillotine awaits any progressive with lingering stains of the Ancien Régime. Presidential elections are now to be seen by the Left not as the end of a four-year political cycle. Instead, they are the beginning of an any-means-necessary, existential effort to reverse the proverbial will of the people and to remove or delegitimize the president. From now on, if the Left loses, then everything is in theory on the table: seeking removal of the victor by warping the Electoral College vote; or suing under the Logan Act, the emoluments clause, or the 25th Amendment; or cherry-picking federal judges to block presidential orders; or using the Congress to impeach the president; or unleashing a special counsel for years of investigation. In other words, we are in a revolutionary cycle in which the old idea of Democrat or liberal is being superseded by progressivism — and then going well beyond even that. The new generation of Democrats no longer resents “socialist” as a right-wing slur...MORE

We have two political parties in America, each worse than the other

This is an excerpt from P.J. O'Rourke's column in the November issue of American Consequences.

One party thinks it's in favor of business and economic growth. It's not thinking very hard. The GOP has done nothing about the nation's burgeoning debt and deficit. If Republicans were financial advisers, they'd take a look at your huge credit-card bills, delinquent car loan, and outsized mortgage debt and tell you to quit making loan payments and go on a spending spree.
You'd say, "But I'll lose the house!" And Republicans would say, "Heck, we lost the House. So what?"
The other party is convinced that everything is free. Health care is free. College tuition is free. Parental leave is free. Not that parents need it, since daycare is also free. Democrats should go into a butcher shop and announce that beef is free... and get clocked on the head by a butcher wielding a frozen rib roast. (Except Democrats will ban meat because animals are free, too.)
Meanwhile, Republicans claim that free trade isn't free and costs too much and this means war. Because... the way to deal with the giant Walmart that is China is to burn it down and get swell bargains afterward at the fire sale.
Which makes Democrats scared that real war will break out and, when the world is destroyed by nuclear holocaust, women and minorities will be hardest hit.
But, Republicans say, what we really should panic about is thousands of jobless Hondurans and Guatemalans invading our southern border. Never mind that with the current unemployment rate, I can't find anybody to mow my lawn, not even for $18 an hour. So, privately, I'm thinking of the Hondurans and Guatemalans as "The March for Yard Care."
And what's worst of all about these two political parties is that on Tuesday, November 6 both of them won.
Now we've got a Saphead Senate and a House of Fools.
One chamber of Congress will be carting tax cuts to hell while the other is letting expenditures ascend into heaven. The House will squat like a toad on deregulation while the Senate confirms lizards and snakes to head regulatory agencies. Progressives will subpoena everyone in America who wears a necktie. Conservatives will console each of them with a large defense contract. One side will hobble businesses. The other will hamstring consumers. Liberals will kiss the ass of our enemies. Reactionaries will piss off our allies. The left will imagine new grievances for minorities. The right will fantasize about old majority prejudices. Democrats will lead the bull into the china shop. Republicans will pack the dog with the cat.
Refereeing this hard-fought, down-to-the-wire, tied 1-1 in extra innings contest between asshats is... President Trump.
Let us not get ourselves all a-twitter – so to speak – about what we think of President Trump. Whether you approve, or grudgingly approve, or disapprove, or abhor him with bells on... whatever you think of President Trump, he's not exactly the person you'd pick as an umpire.
If the 116th Congress were the World Series and Trump was the umpire, he'd send both teams to the showers so that he could be the pitcher and the batter and throw every strike and hit every home run... And he'd also want to be the only hot dog vendor in the stadium.
This game is not going to end well.
Which is why – history of post-midterm market upticks notwithstanding – I was surprised when the Dow went up 545 points.
On the other hand... "Crazy" is not the same as "wrong." Perhaps markets were trying – in their own crazy way – to tell politics something on November 7.
This is what I'd like to think the markets were attempting to say in their delirious ravings:

We're the economy! We're the grown-ups here! We pay the bills! We're the parents and you political parties are the quarreling teenage kids. We're sick of you two fighting all the time. You're making a mess! You're in the way! We've got jobs, we've got work to do, we've got businesses to run! If you're going to fight, take your stupid fight somewhere else, someplace nobody cares about, a place that's already wrecked – like Washington! And not only are we kicking you out, you're grounded until 2020!

DOI Secretary signs historic agreement with Oklahoma tribe

As part of President Obama’s commitment to self-determination of tribal nations, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell and Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Kevin K. Washburn today joined Citizen Potawatomi Nation Chairman John Barrett to formally approve tribal leasing regulations that will help spur investment and commercial development on the nation’s trust lands in central Oklahoma. The Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act (HEARTH Act), signed by President Obama in July 2012, restores the authority of federally recognized tribes to develop and implement their own laws governing the long-term leasing of Indian lands for residential, business and other purposes. Upon one-time approval of these tribal regulations by the Department of the Interior, tribes have the authority to process land leases without Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approval, greatly expediting the approval of leases for homes and small businesses in Indian Country...more 

In the article we have these quotes:

“The Citizen Potawatomi Nation now has the authority to decide how it wants to do business on its lands, making it easier for families to do things like buy and build houses or open businesses in the communities where they have lived for generations,” said Secretary Jewell, who also serves as chair of the White House Council on Native American Affairs.  “Today’s action encourages economic development on Indian lands, generating investment, new jobs and revenues."

Do you think we'll ever see an article with quotes like these?

"The American Rancher now has the authority to decide how it wants to do business on federal lands, making it easier for families to construct range improvements, adjust numbers and timing of grazing, type of livestock to be grazed and other management practices on ranches where they have lived for generations," said Secretary Jewell, who also serves as a member of the White House Council on Rural American Affairs.  "Today's action encourages development of ranches on federal lands generating investment, new jobs and revenues."

Well do you?

Subcontractor working on Obamacare site under FBI investigation

One of the subcontractors working on the Obamacare website is currently under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Client Network Services Incorporated (CNSI) became a sub-contractor on the Obamacare website in 2012, working hand in hand with QSSI, according to its website. QSSI was one of several contractors hauled before Congress to address the sites troubled rollout in October. According to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “war room” notes released in October, CNSI was responsible for assisting with electronic data interchange (EDI) — defined as a system to transfer data between computer systems without human interaction.  Among the plethora of problems with the website rollout, insurance companies have complained that data received on their computers has often been inaccurate, suggesting a problem with the EDI. CNSI is currently under investigation by the FBI, which has alleged that then-Louisiana Health and Hospitals Secretary Bruce Greenstein, a former CNSI employee, exerted undue influence in steering the Medicaid contract to Louisiana. According to a story in the New Orleans Times Picayne, the FBI also acccused CNSI of witness tampering in another case. “According to the FBI report in this Court’s possession, one of CNSI’s owners, in front of the other three owners, said if the employee ‘ever disclosed the misconduct at the company they would have him killed.’”...more

Remember, Remember the Fifth of November

Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine -- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression.
And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease.
There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives.
So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot. -- V for Vendetta

The year is 2020 and the world is plagued by environmental plight. Great Britain is ruled by a totalitarian corporate state where concentration camps have been established to house political prisoners and others deemed to be enemies of the state. Executions of various undesirables are common, while other enemies of the state are made to "disappear." And, of course, the television networks are controlled by the government with the purpose of perpetuating the regime. Most of the population is hooked into an entertainment mode and are clueless.

V is a bold, charismatic freedom fighter who seeks revenge against the government officials who tortured him and disfigured his face. He urges the British people to rise up and resist the government. V tells them to meet him in one year outside the Houses of Parliament, which he promises to destroy. And as November 5 approaches, V's various resistance schemes cause chaos and the people begin waking up to the tyranny around them.

V organizes the distribution of thousands of Guy Fawkes masks, resulting in multitudes, all wearing the masks, marching on Parliament to watch the destruction of Big Ben and Parliament. Unfortunately, V does not make it to the finale. He is killed and dies in the arms of Evey, a young girl he befriended and whose eyes he opens to the reality of the world around her. Accompanied by the "1812 Overture," Parliament and Big Ben explode as thousands watch, including Evey. When asked to reveal the identity of V, Evey replies, "He was all of us."

With the film V for Vendetta, whose imagery borrows heavily from Nazi Germany's Third Reich and George Orwell's 1984, we come full circle. The corporate state in V conducts mass surveillance on its citizens, helped along by closed-circuit televisions. Also, London is under yellow-coded curfew alerts, similar to the American government's color-coded Homeland Security Advisory System.

In speaking of the graphic novel upon which the film was based, the director James McTeighe said, "It really showed what can happen when society is ruled by government, rather than the government being run as a voice of the people. I don't think it's such a big leap to say things like that can happen when leaders stop listening to the people."

Clearly, as I show in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, we have reached a point where our leaders have stopped listening to the American people. However, what will it take for the government to start listening to the people again?

We are -- and have been for some time -- the unwitting victims of a system so corrupt that those who stand up for the rule of law and aspire to transparency in government are in the minority. This corruption is so vast it spans all branches of government -- from the power-hungry agencies under the executive branch and the corporate puppets within the legislative branch to a judiciary that is, more often than not, elitist and biased towards government entities and corporations.

We are ruled by an elite class of individuals who are completely out of touch with the travails of the average American. We are relatively expendable in the eyes of government -- faceless numbers of individuals who serve one purpose, which is to keep the government machine running through our labor and our tax dollars. Those in power aren't losing any sleep over the indignities we are being made to suffer or the possible risks to our health. All they seem to care about are power and control.

READ ENTIRE COLUMN

For more information and background, see Gunpowder Plot and Guy Fawkes Night, with the usual caution of using Wikipedia.

The 10 Commandments of Government

I Generally speaking, government always grows -- it never shrinks -- whether times are good or bad.

II In each area it purports to "assist", government attempts to replace individual decision-making with central planning.

III In order to implement its grand central plans and solidify its power, government must take from one citizen to give to another; this is, in effect, lawful theft.

IV No matter how many times central planning fails, the self-appointed masterminds in government assert that "this time is different" and that with only a few tweaks and more money, their delusional plans will succeed.

V Because it uses funds confiscated from taxpayers, self-restraint is no obstacle to government's ambitions.

VI Its fundamental misunderstanding of human nature notwithstanding, government must claim to grant "rights", which require it steal the labors of one citizen to give to another (such as food, shelter, employment, and health care). 

VII No matter how widespread the harm it causes, government will never provide an honest and historical accounting -- a report card -- of its failures.

VIII As more individuals and families are harmed by the failures of central planning, government must find suitable scapegoats, must lie to do so, and therefore must also repress dissent.

IX In order to build its network of redistribution and grow a culture of dependency on its services, government must inevitably undermine the family unit, religion, and the notion of God-given rights in order to cow, bribe, or intimidate its citizens.

X As government grows ever more powerful, it must also become increasingly oppressive through compulsion and force. To do otherwise would mean government must shrink, and this it cannot do.

Source

A revolution in the works?

by Glenn Harlan Reynolds

Americans are out of sorts, and increasingly they're unhappy with the government. According to a Pew poll released last week, more than half of Americans view government as a threat to their freedom.

And it's not just Republicans unhappy with Obama, or gun owners afraid that the government will take their guns: 38% of Democrats, and 45% of non-gun owners, see the government as a threat.

Add this to another recent poll in which only 22% of likely voters feel America's government has the "consent of the governed," and you've got a pretty depressing picture -- and a recipe for potential trouble. Governments operate, to a degree, by force, but ultimately they depend on legitimacy. A government that a majority views as a threat, and that only a small minority sees as enjoying the consent of the governed, is a government with legitimacy problems.

I suspect that these issues also have something to do with the increasing bitterness and polarization of today's politics, but not the way you might think. As science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle wrote in 2008, "We have always known that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. It's worse now, because capture of government is so much more important than it once was. There was a time when there was enough freedom that it hardly mattered which brand of crooks ran government. That has not been true for a long time -- not during most of your lifetimes, and for much of mine -- and it will probably never be true again."

That captures an important point. The more powerful the government becomes, the more people are willing to do in order to seize the prize, and the more afraid they become when someone else has control. So it was after the 2004 election when liberals talked revolution, and so again after 2012, when secession petitions flooded the White House.

There are two possible ways to address this problem. One is to elect people that everyone trusts. The problem with that is that there aren't any politicians that everyone trusts -- and, alas, if there were, the odds are good that such trust would turn out to be misplaced.

The other option is to place less power within the political sphere. The less power the government has, the less incentive for corruption, and the less that can go wrong when the government misbehaves. The problem with this approach is that the political class likes a powerful government -- it's one of the reasons that the Washington, DC, area, where much of the political class lives, is beginning to resemble the Capital City in The Hunger Games, prospering while the rest of the country suffers.

The political class usually gets its way, because it thinks about politics -- and its own position -- every waking moment, while the rest of America thinks about these things only in fits and starts, in between living everyday life. But if there's an upside to the increasing unhappiness that most Americans feel toward the political class, it's that maybe it means people are paying closer attention.

What's next? In my constitutional law class the other day, most of my students took the position that they would be unlikely to see a Constitutional Convention in their lifetimes. I'm not so sure. Last year I spoke at a Harvard Law School conference on holding a new Constitutional Convention, one which had participants from all sorts of ideological positions ranging from the Tea Party to the Occupy Wall Street movement. (People got along surprisingly well.)

In the American system, a Constitutional Convention -- which has never been held since the Constitution was adopted -- is the last stop before revolution. It was intended as a way for the people to end-run the political establishment; if enough states request a convention, Congress has no choice but to call it, and the resulting proposals go straight to the states for ratification, bypassing Congress. It's a way to make drastic changes when the political class has blocked smaller ones.

Are we there yet? I don't think so. But we're getting closer all the time. Political class, take note.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee. He blogs at InstaPundit.com.
In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors.

Actually, the American revolution was not a revolution, it was a secession.  Jonathan Wilde wrote:   
Revolution and Secession are very different things.  Revolution is an attempt by a relatively small group of people to gain control over the machinery that rules a relatively larger group of people.  Secession is a relatively small group of people breaking off from the larger machinery. 

 

How Cruz, Lee and Paul shut down Obama’s agenda

by Christopher Bedford

After Republicans drifted for years without a pilot, Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have taken the helm of the GOP, steering their party and its grassroots into a much-needed, head-on battle with the Democrats.

On the campaign trail on the way to his win in November 2012, President Barack Obama promised to finish the work he’d gone to Washington to do: “fundamentally transforming the United States.” Things look tough for the right in Washington today, but the reality is these three conservative Republicans, aided by friends in the Senate and the House, have dragged the president’s ambitious agenda to a complete halt, throwing both him and Democrat Sen. Harry Reid on their heels and adding policy paralysis to the president’s long list of post-election woes.

While Republican leadership in the House was loud when scandals from Benghazi to the IRS unfolded, over the last year conventional wisdom in Washington has held that sequester would never happen; amnesty for illegal immigrants was a done deal; no sane Republican would stand against an assault-weapons ban after Sandy Hook; the GOP would bless a charge into Syria; and, well, fill in the blank: student loans? Climate change? The tea party was over and Washington, D.C. was Obama’s oyster.

But then a strange thing happened. As one by one, impossible victories were won, observers saw the policy agenda of the president — a man who won a resounding victory just months ago — stagnate and stall: He hasn’t won a single victory since his re-election.

It’s almost surreal. Sequester is tentatively in place; amnesty is derailed; gun control is on the run; American forces are not involved in Syria’s civil war.

Senior Republicans are taking their cues from a couple of freshman conservatives.

After years of void, Republicans have leadership in D.C.

And after decades of void, conservatives do, too.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

House Intel panel working on bill to save NSA spying

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) hinted on Tuesday that his National Security Agency reform legislation would preserve the bulk of the agency's surveillance powers. He said he and ranking member Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) have held a series of meeting with their Senate counterparts, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), to discuss the legislation. "We went over some of these confidence-builders to rebuild trust in these programs and at the end of the day still allow us to do it [conduct surveillance]," Rogers said during a panel discussion hosted by Politico. Privacy advocates are urging Congress to rein in the NSA's power in the wake of leaks by Edward Snowden, but Rogers argued that the surveillance programs are critical for thwarting terrorist attacks. He said his legislation would rebuild trust in the NSA by requiring "as much transparency as we can possibly get" and "showing the level of oversight."...more

So there you have it, the Republicans in the House are leading a bipartisan effort to allow NSA to keep sweeping up your phone calls, emails, texts, website visits and social media comments without a warrant. 

Where is this bipartisanship on funding ObamaCare?  Reach across the aisle on that one Mr. Rogers. 

I predict the Republican NSA bill will only poke around the edges of the issue, in a PR attempt to satisfy (fool?) the public.  This will pass the House. 

I also predict ObamaCare will be funded.  There may be a delay in implementation, but eventually the Republicans in the House will pass a budget that funds the beast. 

 In both instances liberty is lessened and we will all suffer the consequences.

More Bad News for Rural America

 by Jim Beers

With all of the winds currently buffeting rural America from government wolves and state governments becoming federal contractors for federal intrusions to federal land and water controls; a new wrinkle has been added.  When federal politicians talk about “redistributing wealth”, who knew one of the “redistribution” vehicles for rural wealth would be federal health legislation?  Not me.

Minnesota is a state that apparently seldom questions government growth of any sort, so it is not surprising that we formed one of the first state health care exchanges called MNsure as the federal Obamacare legislation rolls forward.  A recent newspaper article explains the expected differences in cost for Minnesotans divided into 9 “regions”.

Under the MNsure rules and charges, the Twin Cities to St. Cloud corridor (our most urban and most populous region) will be charged a monthly premium of $634 for a family of four. All other (rural Minnesota) regions will be charged $668, $704, $742, $816, $854, and $1,200 respectively.  These very significant differences are mysteriously credited to nonsense like “people might be sicker in some regions”, “doctors in some regions might opt for treatments that are more or less expensive” and “differences in the prices that different health care providers get paid for performing the same service”.

Dismissing all the associated smoke and mirrors; rural Minnesotans, and most likely all rural Americans as Obamacare becomes the only game in town, are embarking on a massive transfer of wealth to urban precincts in their state.  This is yet another result of this Red/Blue – Rural/Urban voting shift in our country.  Federal schemes from wolves to healthcare are at base thinly veiled political pandering for votes in concentrated urban precincts.  Giving them more and more government services and the granting of their imaginary environmental dreams in rural precincts (despite the harms to farmers, ranchers, hunters, dog owners, parents, and rural economies) are what keep federal politicians and their parties in power.

Recognizing what is happening and why it is happening is the first step.  The second step is seeing what must be done.  The third step is doing it despite the names they call you and the accusations they hurl at you.  Freedom is never cheap and rights must always be protected.  Rural Americans have been in the crosshairs long enough.  Transferring wealth for health is right up there with destroying a village to save it. 

 Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, and Refuge Manager and is available to speak or for consulting jimbeers7@comcast.net

The Unintended – But Expected – Consequences of Obamacare

by Edmond S. Bradley  

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – aka Obamacare – was expected by economists to cause economic changes.  (Here is the act in a handy 906-page .pdf file.)  Some predicted lower employment, either from employers’ reducing employees’ hours to keep them from being deemed full-time, or simply by firing employees whose marginal productivity isn’t more than the $300+ additional cost, per month, of complying with some of the employer mandates.
    Put simply, mandating increased per-employee costs will cause employers to react, and the employees most at risk of losing hours or jobs will be the ones with the lowest productivity:  the minimum-wagers the government says it’s trying to protect.  Any time the government takes control of (more of) an industry, the result inevitably will be unintended consequences. People seek to do what produces the best outcomes for themselves; we are not the static, obedient walking statistics government pretends we are.  We actively seek ways to avoid burdens, because we need to feed our families...
    Those of you who told Trader Joe’s you won’t shop there any longer because they’re not covering health care for their part-timers should first read Trader Joe’s explanation (Trader Joe’s will give the employees cash and let them shop for themselves; that way, the employees get a tax break, and at any rate Trader Joe’s can’t offer the giveaway deal the government is forcing on everyone); and second, should be prepared not to shop in very many places any more:  Forbes writes of Walgreen and 17 other large retailers doing the same thing. Worse, 301 employers (that we know of so far) are cutting employee hours and firing people.  The most perverse part of that:  62 of the employers are private-sector, and 239 are government employers, including school districts.  In one survey of small businesses, 41% have delayed hiring, 20% have reduced hours, and 20% have reduced payroll, all because Obamacare would be too burdensome otherwise.
    Another unintended consequence of creating government tax-and-spend “giveaways” that (as we saw above) threaten to harm the poor more than the rich:  Fraud.  Obamacare-related scams were and are being predicted—by federal officials, no less.  Thieves are expected to prey on the poor, the old, and the ignorant.  The fear is strong enough that the White House and the Justice Department have felt the need to reassure the public, with DOJ having to build a special initiative around the issue.  Here’s a list of the scams that have already been reported to law enforcement.
    Some unintended consequences were not predicted by many, if at all.  Labor unions, the darling of the political left, are stung because they somehow could not foresee that employers would cut hours; and the Obama administration remarkably has refused to add special subsidies for them...
Obamacare subsidizes the health care of people who stay below certain income maxima.  The obvious and foreseeable unintended consequence of that, of course, is that some people at the margins will face incentives to earn less.  A dollar of additional income, for some, will mean losing a $5,000 subsidy.  It would be foolish for anyone facing that choice to work an additional hour and lose almost $5,000.

READ ENTIRE COLUMN

Mort Zuckerman: Because of ObamaCare '88% of Jobs Created This Year Are Part-Time'

Media mogul Mort Zuckerman had some harsh words for the President's signature piece of legislation Friday. Appearing on PBS's McLaughlin Group, Zuckerman said, "88 percent of the jobs that have been created this year are part-time jobs. A large part of the reason for that number of part-time jobs which is unprecedented in American history is because people are apprehensive about the impact of ObamaCare on and the costs of ObamaCare on full-time jobs."...more

Here's the video of Zuckerman's comments:

Big Bird Loses Healthcare Under Obamacare Rules

Millions of Americans are losing their work-provided healthcare insurance plans all across the country as the costs, fees, and fines of Obamacare become clear. Now, even Big Bird of Sesame Street fame has lost his healthcare insurance thanks to the President's take over of the healthcare system. Some may recall that during the 2012 presidential election, the progressive media accused GOP nominee Mitt Romney of wanting to "kill Big Bird" when he came out in opposition to funding public broadcasting services like PBS and NPR. Now, only months after the election, Obamacare is about to "kill Big Bird" in Pennsylvania. One of The Keystone State's biggest tourist attractions is Sesame Place, a Sesame Street-themed amusement park just northeast of Philadelphia. First opened in 1980, Sesame Place employs about 1,650 people both full and part-time and brings in upwards to $75 million in economic activity to Pennsylvania's Bucks County. However, Sesame Place parent company SeaWorld has announced that it will cut hours for part-time employees, likely to keep them under the 30-hour threshold set down in Obama’s healthcare law. SeaWorld will also cease offering company-based healthcare plans for part-time workers. "This law is hurting real people in my district and around the country," Representative Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) wrote in a letter to the Obama administration. Philly Inquirer writer Julie Zauzmer reports that SeaWorld has confirmed that it has cut part-time worker's hours from 32 hours a week to 28. This will keep employees under the new Obamacare limit of what makes a "full-time worker."...more

Now there's commie hornets - Giant hornets are killing dozens in China and eating bees across Europe.

A plague of hornets, each the size of a human thumb, have descended on Shaanxi province this summer—at least 28 have been stung to death (link in Chinese), while another 419 have been injured, according to a local news report from China Radio Network (CRN), via the New York Times’ Chris Buckley. The death toll from hornet attacks in Ankang city is more than twice the annual average between 2002 and 2005, say the Ankang police, as the Guardian reports. A local doctor said hospitalizations due to hornet attacks have risen steadily over the years (link in Chinese). Why the uptick? The population of Asian giant hornets (vespa mandarinia), as they’re known, has surged largely because of climate change, says the Shaanxi Provincial Forestry Department (link in Chinese). The average winter temperature in Ankang rose 1.10 ℃ in the span of a few years alone, allowing more hornets to survive the winter. And it’s not just China; rising temperatures are behind the spread of another deadly Chinese hornets species, vespa velutina, in South Korea and Europe.The chief prey of the Chinese hornet? Honeybees. As global warming makes more of the world hospitable to Chinese hornets, more honeybees are dying in the beepocalypse. Areas in Europe where they’re likeliest to invade “hold among the highest densities of bee-hives in Europe,” according to recent research. 

Those poor French honeybees.  They are so dumb they are letting these commie hornets get the best of them.  Not the Japanese honeybees.  They circle the wagons and burn those commie hornets to death.  Kind of a Jap back burn, if you get my drift.  If you don't, here's a more scientific explanation:

Japanese honey bees have figured out how to fight back, by cooking hornets. After surrounding a hornet in a spherical formation, Japanese honey bees engage their flight muscles, raising their collective temperature beyond what hornets can withstand. European honey bees lack this skill. That’s why bee populations in France, where Chinese hornets arrived via a Chinese pottery shipment in 2005, have already taken a hit. Since then, Chinese hornets have spread at a pace of up to 100 km (62 miles) a year. Within the last three years, they’ve invaded Spain, Portugal and Belgium; soon they’ll arrive in Italy and the UK, says the European Environment Agency. 

European honey bees lack this skill

What skill?  They can't make a "spherical formation"?  They can't "engage their flight muscles"?  They can't do both at the same time?  No, the lesson learned hear is socialist honeybees are dumber than capitalist honeybees, and they end up being consumed by commie hornets.

Socialism: Venezuela seizes toilet paper factory to avoid shortage

The Venezuelan government has taken over a toilet paper factory to avoid any scarcity of the product. The National Guard has taken control of the plant, and officers will monitor production and distribution. Earlier this year officials ordered millions of toilet rolls to be imported to counter a chronic shortage. Last week President Nicolas Maduro created a special committee to tackle the problem, which the government blames on unscrupulous traders. The government ordered the temporary occupation of the Manpa plant in the northern state of Aragua, state-run Radio AVN reported. In a tweet on Thursday, Venezuela's Vice President, Jorge Arreaza, said authorities would "not permit hoarding of essential commodities, or any faults in the production and distribution process." The Minister of Trade, Alexander Fleming, said the factory occupation complied with Venezuelan law. BBC

Back in May there was this: Venezuela aims to end toilet paper shortage. 

So you had "panic buying" of toilet paper and now the socialist government has taken over a plant. They don't seem to think their price and currency controls are the problem, its hoarding by the ricos. 

With the National Guard controlling production and distribution of toilet paper, The Westerner predicts there will soon be price controls on corn cobs. 

This whole thing provides a nice preview of Obamacare. Uh oh, its already happening: Doctor shortage expected to worsen with Obamacare

 

How House can defund Obamacare

By: Dan Holler
9/16/2013 11:07 AM

In just two weeks, millions of Americans will become eligible to sign up for the Obamacare exchanges. It will mark the first time millions of voters will have the opportunity to opt into Obamacare, and they will do so with the expectation of receiving benefits in a few short months. Opponents of President Obama’s health care regime can argue about the quality and cost of that care, but entitlement programs are notoriously difficult to unravel once the money starts flowing.

To date, there is just one legislative strategy on the table that is geared toward stopping Obamacare before the exchanges open on October 1st — defund Obamacare on the year-end spending bill. The strategy is supported by Senators like Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT), Congressmen like Justin Amash (R-MI) and Mark Meadows (R-NC), and conservative voters all across the country.

First, it is important to understand what conservatives mean by “defunding Obamacare.”

Defunding Obamacare means attaching a legislative rider (think of the Hyde Amendment) to the year-end spending bill, which will be considered by September 30, the day before the Obamacare exchanges open for enrollment. The rider would prohibit any funds from being spent on any activities to implement or enforce Obamacare, rescind unspent balances that have already been appropriated and turn off the exchange subsidy and new Medicaid spending, the so-called mandatory spending. Fortunately, the language described already exists in the form of the Defund Obamacare Act of 2013 introduced by Cruz and Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA).
Second, it is important to understand defunding Obamacare is not a new idea.

In 2011, after Republicans took control of the House thanks to the tea party wave, they included a defunding provision on their  continuing resolution when it first passed the House. Obviously the provision was jettisoned in  subsequent negotiations, but they were not afraid to pursue defunding.

Third, it is important to understand what this is not.

It is not an effort, as some have suggested, to defund Obamacare by shutting down the government.  Most folks understand that shutting down the government would not defund Obamacare (though it is unclear how much slush fund money the administration has on hand). Conservatives who are pushing to defund Obamacare are the same ones pushing to fund the government.

Fourth, it is important to understand how the defund effort can succeed, even with Barack Obama occupying the Oval Office.

In 2010, no one would have predicted the Obama administration would unilaterally delay the employer mandate months before it was scheduled to go into effect. Similarly, the administration has delayed electronic notices for Medicaid, scaled back oversight of income eligibility and eliminated insurance verification. In short, Obamacare is not sacrosanct.

Given the alignment of Obamacare enrollment and the need to pass a government funding bill, it is  entirely appropriate for conservatives in Congress to wage a real fight to defund a law that is destroying jobs, increasing costs and coming between patients and their doctors. If the Republican House wages this fight — as opposed to a fight against conservatives — they can win the national argument.

READ  ENTIRE COLUMN

Charlie Daniels Column: A Citizen's Take on Syria

By Charlie Daniels

In my soon to be 77 years as a citizen of the United States of America, having lived through Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the dark days of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Watergate, 9/11 and all the other serious and profound events our beloved nation has been involved in over the last three quarters of a century, I have to say with all sincerity that I have never seen a president as confused, befuddled, impotent, insincere and as out of his depth as Barack Obama has become in dealing with the Syrian issue.

When you're the leader of the free world, you don't make statements you can't back up and you don't draw lines in the sand, watch your enemies cross them with impunity and go off and play a round of golf.

Obama painted himself and the nation into a corner with his “red line” statement and I truly believe he thought he would have unilateral international and domestic support only to find himself standing alone in the spotlight with egg on his face and a ticking political time bomb in his hand.

I don't believe he ever had any intention of going through Congress and only decided to do so when he was left without the support of traditional allies and the disdain of a war weary American public who have begun to feel that America cannot be the international police force who has to bear the brunt of every catastrophe.
I think Obama is taking the vote for military authorization to Congress to bail himself out, to buy some time, somebody to share the blame if all goes wrong. Obama had already positioned war ships. All that was left to do was give the order to fire the missiles and at the 11th hour, after being rejected by the British parliament and put off by the French, he started having second thoughts and reached for the life preserver.

I, for one, am glad that Obama - for whatever reason - political expediency notwithstanding, did not facilitate the missile attack as it would have been largely symbolic and cosmetic and as he had given Assad enough warning to move the weapons out of harms way would have done little if anything to rid the world of chemical weapons.

It's not that I think nothing should be done about weapons of mass destruction no matter where they're used in the world, but I believe it's not just the responsibility of the United States to enforce international law. If the civilized nations of the world shirk this duty, why should they think America should take on the job by itself?
America has done enough "sending signals", symbolic gestures, getting involved in situations that don't threaten our national interests or that of our allies.

America's leaders should guard their tongues well and not issue spur of the moment reactions and empty threats. Our bite should be a lot worse than our bark and a presidential warning should be a dire and solemn caution, issued only once and followed up with swift and decisive action, not some half-baked puff of bravado that nobody really takes seriously.

What little bit of credibility America had in the Middle East just went out the window Friday afternoon, as a president who let his ego overload his common sense backed down from a tin horned dictator of a third world country, or at least that's how it's viewed in that part of the world.

The mettle of a president and the people he surrounds himself with is not proven until push comes to shove. This nation has entered a new phase in the war on terror and our relativity in the rest of the world and the road is going to be long, rocky and dangerous.

It remains to be seen how this embarrassing situation will play out. Will the president seek the council of the more experienced advice available to him in Congress? Or, will he remain defiant and continue to go it alone.

You've cost America a great deal this past week, Mr. President.

How much more can we take?

What do you think?

Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem.

God Bless America.

Are These Senators Regretting Their Export-Import Bank Votes?

by Ryan Olson

For some lawmakers, corporate welfare is okay, unless it hurts someone in their district.
Four lawmakers from Minnesota and Michigan are up in arms over a proposed $650 million financing deal for Roy Hill, an Australian mining company. The deal, backed by the Export-Import Bank, the U.S. government’s export credit agency, is for the purchase of Caterpillar mining equipment manufactured in the U.S.
    But Senators Amy Klobuchar (D–MN), Al Franken (D–MN), Carl Levin (D–MI), and Debbie Stabenow (D–MI) don’t like this deal because Roy Hill competes with American iron ore producers, the majority of which operate in the Senators’ home states of Minnesota and Michigan. In a letter to the Export-Import Bank, the Senators claim that they are

concerned the proposed Ex-Im Bank financing and the large amount of iron capacity that it would subsidize will…substantially injure American iron ore and steel producers and their employees that are competing in the same global marketplace.

    The Senators are essentially arguing that the Export-Import Bank shouldn’t be subsidizing the purchase of U.S. mining equipment because it might hurt miners in the U.S. How ironic, considering all four of them voted for the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank just over three months ago.
    In reality, the Export-Import Bank is just bad policy, embodying corporate welfare and encouraging cronyism. The bank essentially subsidizes large business and U.S. exporters using taxpayer loans and loan guarantees to finance the purchase of U.S. exports.
    The U.S. government should get out of the export financing market altogether. Doing so would save everyone a lot of time and money. Not only would taxpayers save the money going to these huge corporations, but Members of Congress could get back to solving some of the country’s serious issues, such as the debt. But until then, these lawmakers will continue to be for corporate welfare before they were against it.

Posted in Enterprise and Free Markets [slideshow_deploy] 

$650 million either loaned or guaranteed  by the U.S...and they're worried about paying for U.S. firefighting budget...this would pay for about 2/3s of it, but is going to Australia instead...DC Deep Thinkers at their best. 

When Heroes Become Bureaucrats

Why cops and firefighters stood by as a man drowned in San Francisco Bay

by Steven Greenhut

On Memorial Day, a suicidal man waded into San Francisco Bay outside the city of Alameda and stood there for about an hour, neck-deep in chilly water, as about 75 bystanders watched. Local police and firefighters were called to the scene, but they refused to help. After the man drowned, the assembled “first responders” also refused to wade into the water to retrieve his body; they left that job for a bystander.

The incident sparked widespread outrage in northern California, and the response by the fire department and police only intensified the anger. The firefighters blamed local budget cuts for denying them the training and equipment necessary for cold-water rescues. The police said that they didn’t know if the man was dangerous and therefore couldn’t risk the safety of their officers. After a local TV news crew asked him whether he would save a drowning child in the bay, Alameda fire chief Ricci Zombeck gave an answer that made him the butt of local talk-show mockery: “Well, if I was off duty, I would know what I would do, but I think you’re asking me my on-duty response, and I would have to stay within our policies and procedures, because that’s what’s required by our department to do.”

If you stand a better chance of being rescued by the official rescuers when they are off duty, it naturally leads people to question the purpose of these departments, which consume the lion’s share of city budgets and whose employees—in California, anyway—receive exceedingly handsome salaries. In Orange County, where I worked for a newspaper for 11 years, the average pay and benefits package for a firefighter is $175,000 a year. Virtually every Orange County deputy sheriff earns, in pay and overtime, over $100,000 a year, with a significant percentage earning more than $150,000. In many cities, police and fire budgets eat up more than three-quarters of the city budget, and that doesn’t count the unfunded liabilities for generous pension packages, which can top 90 percent of a worker’s final year’s pay. It’s hard to argue that these departments are so starved for funds that they’re entitled to stop saving lives.

After I wrote a newspaper column deploring the Alameda incident, I received many e-mails from self-identified police officers and firefighters. Though a few were appalled by the new public-safety culture they saw on display, most defended it; some even defended Zombeck’s words. Many made reference to a fire in San Francisco that week that had claimed the life of at least one firefighter. The message was clear: Don’t criticize firefighters, because they put their lives on the line protecting you. There’s no doubt that firefighters and police have tough and sometimes dangerous jobs, but that doesn’t mean that the public has no business criticizing them—especially as they become infected with the bureaucratic mind-set spread by public-sector union activism. The unions defend their members’ every action; to the extent that they admit a problem, they always blame tight budgets.

The unions that represent first responders also have a legislative agenda to reduce oversight and accountability. I recall when a state assembly member closely aligned with public-safety unions contacted me about a union-backed bill that was too egregious even for his taste. Sponsored by a firefighters’ union after a district attorney prosecuted an on-duty firefighter for alleged misbehavior that led to a death, the bill in its original form would have offered immunity to firefighters even for gross negligence on the job. The legislation failed after the media started paying attention and ignited a contentious public debate. Perhaps the outrage at the Alameda incident will likewise cause a far-reaching discussion—one that helps restore the principle that the real constituency for public safety is the public, not bureaucrats and government workers.

Steven Greenhut is the director of the Pacific Research Institute’s Journalism Center, editor-in-chief of CalWatchdog.com, and a columnist for the Orange County Register.

Originally posted at City Journal.

Lemonade tyranny

Neighborhood lemonade stands have for generations served as a training ground for budding young capitalists. Boys and girls eager for their first taste of success have recently watched their dreams dissolve as rulebook-toting authoritarians demand little Timmy and Sally show their permits and papers or face the wrath of the state. Americans are fed up with this nonsense. It’s time for a little lemonade liberation. On Aug. 20, over a hundred people have so far pledged to gather on the Capitol’s west lawn to protest the petty bureaucracy that thinks threatening children with fines is a proper use of taxpayer resources. The organizers promise that they are ready to go to jail for the ultimate act of civil disobedience: offering a refreshing cup of lemonade on a sultry afternoon on the nation’s front lawn for 10 cents. Close to 2,000 have signed up on Facebook for nationwide pro-lemonade events after a father of two set up a page advertising “Lemonade Liberation Day.” Organizer Robert Fernandes expected just a few of his friends would be interested, but in just a week his lemonadefreedom.com website has attracted far more attention than he expected. “I basically just put it out there and it took off,” the father of two told The Washington Times. “To me, something as simple as a lemonade stand is an important thing for a young child. It teaches them a really big lesson in life - setting goals and seeing a project through.” Mr. Fernandes has charted incidents where police and code inspectors were dispatched to stop kids from selling lemonade, cookies and similar treats in California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Maryland, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Texas and Wisconsin. “I think that’s the wrong message to send kids,” he said. “It’s telling them just go in the back and play video games. Don’t be a productive member of society. We don’t need you.”...more

In the most recent case they shut down the lemonade stand of a four year old girl in Iowa for "health reasons".

For a detailed map of where this is happening across the U.S. go to The Government War On Kid-Run Concession Stands and Facebook users can sign up at Lemonade Freedom Day.

One fight for freedom started over tea. Will the next revolution be over lemonade?  I wouldn't doubt the Lemonade Liberty Brigade is already meeting in some tavern.

Below is a video from Reasontv and a video news report from Georgia