Many think so, but I'm no good at Bible prophesy so I don't have an opinion on it. America... She'll do anything!
I do believe America is a fabulous whore to a huge number of people around the world. We are the greatest economic and military powerhouse the world has ever seen. We have world-class universities, natural resources, a stunning diversity of beauty, freedoms and opportunities much of the world can only dream of, uber-wealthy financial corporations, a legal system spilling over with tricky ratfinks that rewards the rich and powerful, media empires, and an economic and business climate ripe for exploitation if not outright rape and plunder.
That, my friends, is why the global elites leave the Urugays and Findlands of the world largely alone. They don't have enough power to be useful.
America: Biggest Tool on the Planet
We Tricked Uncle Satan!
The United States of America is the only lever big enough to move the world, and it lays there unguarded, waiting for the richest, trickiest, or most influential to pick it up and leverage a Saddam Hussein off the globe, expose millions of Christians and other religious minorities to Islamonazi persecution, empower Iranian fascists, move world opinion through a Hollywood movie, despoil the environments of whole nations, financially ruin a despised country, make billions, control the world.
That's it. That's my theory of why the global elites control and manipulate the United States of America, to the degree they can. I realize I didn't come up with this theory; I'm just jumping on the bandwagon.
Crapulence of Power
I'm an Occam's Razor kinda guy, and I can come up with no simpler explanation. Add in human nature, greed, lust, envy, thirst for power, ability to rationalize damn near anything, and you can understand how people in this country who consider themselves good Americans facilitate it all.
What do you think?
What specific goals are the global elites trying to attain?
Do you agree with the notion captured in this picture?
Do Elections Matter?
Many sensible people have come to believe that elections no longer matter in the US. Senators and congresspeople of both parties end up going with the flow, and despite President Obama's strenuous efforts to "fundamentally transform" our nation, he has carried on many of President Bush's policies. Do Global Elites Select the US President?
But go a level deeper, and there are people who believe US presidents are chosen by global elite, Davos Men, Bilderberger types. Was Barack Obama chosen and groomed from an early age? Was Skull and Bones fratboy George W. Bush destined, even back then, to be president by sinister manipulators of the New World Order?
I think there may be some truth to such beliefs, but not it the way the conspiracy theorists imagine it. No dimly-lit star chamber, where George Soros, the Koch Brothers, Alan Greenspan, Rupert Murdoch, Harvey Weinstein, David Geffen, Bill Gates, Middle-Eastern Sheiks, Asian billionaires, and European Rosicrucians sit around a polished oaken table the size of a football field and waft cigar smoke as an oblation to their gods Moloch and Mammon.
No, that's not how it happens. I think its more of a consensus thing arrived at slowly and unofficially over the course of time. Global elites meet with one another in various forums around the globe, from Davos to Aspen, for business and for pleasure, and they talk.
Control the Information, Control the World
These are fabulously rich people who enjoy easy access to incredible power via private enterprise, academia and government. They can steer events, make things happen, and they are largely above the law. Most importantly, rich moguls control what is perhaps the most valuable asset of all: Information, via popular culture and the media.
That is how I believe they choose our president. Not through direct action, but through indirect influence. Whoever frames the debate has already won it.
Let's Test the Theory...
George H.W. Bush had to be their choice in 1988. He was seasoned, worldly and not prone to mistakes or wild-haired ideas. Yet, Yet! Bill Clinton took him out in 1992. How did that serve the goals of the shadowy lurkers?
In 2012, why did they make Mitt Romney take the fall for Barack Obama? Romney is one of them! (I can understand McCain garnering their thumbs down.)
Why is stone-cold Hillary Rodham Clinton still politically-viable? Why does she continue on, like an old battleship taking on water, her hull riddled with enemy fire but miraculously still afloat? Because people love her? Really? For what? Her flat-metallic voice? The Charles Manson stare? Her stultifying, stentorian lectures? She's not a crafty liar like her husband, and she's not even a particularly savvy politician, yet she endures. The Davos men must love her.
So, it is an interesting theory that global elites pick our presidents, but it has plenty of holes.
My question to you is, do you believe our presidents are chosen by global elites?
If so, to what extent?*
* - If your answer is yes, please expound upon your theory, but save your proffered reasons for why they would do this. That will be tomorrow's topic.
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."
I always thought that quote came from Winston Churchill, but its origins are unknown.
Question of the day: Is president Obama wrecking everything he gets his hands on out of malice, a hatred for the slave-owning, colonial west? Or is it simply that he and his JV Team are incompetent?
As an old Air Force guy I have to start off with Major Glen Miller, founder of the Air Force Band... well, Army Air Forces band actually.
Artie Shaw is recognized of one of the leaders of a genre known as third stream, a fusion of jazz and classical.
And of course the King of Swing, Benny Goodman. The story is Benny started the Swing craze, booked at the Palomar Ballroom in 1935 the band was playing a stock arrangement to an indifferent audience. Gene Krupa, the drummer supposedly remarked to Benny "If we're gonna die, let's die playing our own thing" and the audience loved it.
Ronald Reagan once remarked about the great sense of humor Russians had about their Soviet government.
While looking at some of these great asides, I realized that you could plug Obama for Stalin in some of them, and the joke still worked!
Here's a collection of classic remixed Soviet Union jokes. Commit them to memory; it will ease your time in the future gulag! * * * Q: How does every Obama joke start? A: By looking over your shoulder! * * * Q: Why do ex-NSA officers make the best taxi drivers? A: Because you only need to tell them your name and they’ll already know where you live! * * * Knock, knock. Who’s there? Ronald Reagan! Reagan, who? That, comrade, is the right answer. * * * Q: Is it true Rush Limbaugh got 20 years in Leavenworth for libel on calling Obama a liar and an idiot? A: No. The sentence for libel was six months. The 19 years, 6 months were for leaking out classified information. * * * A
mummy was found in Egypt. The archaeologists could not determine its
origin. Then an American FBI adviser offered his help. The mummy was
delivered to the American embassy. In two hours, the FBI adviser
appeared and said: “His name was Amenhotep the 2nd.” “How did you find out?” “He confessed,” the adviser said. * * * What is the difference between a traditional American and a Soviet-American fairy tale? An American fairy tale begins “Once upon a time...” A Soviet-American fairy tale begins “CNN today reported...” * * * A man walks into a gun store with a notebook. "Do you have any AR-15's?" "No." He makes a note. "Street-sweepers?" "No." He makes another note. "DHS could have shot you for making notes like that!," says a woman waiting in line. "No bullets either," he writes. * * * "Comrade Obama, is it true that you collect political jokes?" "Yes" "And how many have you collected so far?" "Three and a half Federal Prisons full." * * * Q: Is it true that Obama's America is the most progressive country in the world? A: Of course! Life was already better yesterday than it's going to be tomorrow! * * * Two
guys were walking down the street in Washington D.C., one turns to the
other, says “Do you think we’ve finally achieved perfect socialism?” His friend says, “No Bob, it will get much worse”. * * * An
old lady asked the President whether Obamacare was philosophy or
science. Obama thought for a moment and answered, “A philosophy”. “I thought so,” exclaimed the lady, “Scientists would have tried it on animals first!” * * * Obama
decides to go out one day and see what it's really like for the
American people, so he puts on a disguise and sneaks out of the White
House. After a while he wanders into a cinema. When the film has
finished, the Anthem plays and a huge picture of Obama appears on the
screen. Everyone stands up and begins cheering, except Obama, who smugly
remains seated. A minute later a man behind him leans forwards
and whispers in his ear: "Listen Comrade, we all feel exactly the same
way you do, but trust me, it's a lot safer if you just stand up." * * * A man left his bedroom window open one night, and his pet parrot escaped. He went to DHS to report the missing parrot. "Why are you bothering us with this? Couldn't you have reported it to the local police?" they asked. "I just wanted you to know I don't agree with a damn thing he says about Obama!" * * * It's so difficult to make a joke about Obama - he kills satire wherever he goes.
Add to this the confusing mish-mash of wanting Assad (an ally of Iran and Russia) gone, while also wanting to defeat the Islamists arrayed against him; wanting Iraq to succeed, even as it falls into the arms of Iranian Shia terror-masters. Kurds, Turkey, Muslim Brotherhood, Shia, Sunnis, etc...
Toward a More Rational Middle East Policy
Into the fray steps Greg R. Lawson. As Mr Burns would say to Mr.
Smithers in a Simpson's episode, "I don't know who this Lawson fellow is, but I like
the cut of his jib."
Lawson believes our Middle East strategery, such as it is, is all wrong and must be overhauled, with copious cribbing from the very Machiavellian Cardinal Richelieu of France. All quotes are from his essay, Divide and Conquer: Richelieu's Playbook for the Middle East.
His nuance-over-brute-force approach should appeal to libs and cons alike:
"Richelieu understood this in the geopolitical context of his day and thus he is understood to have defended his nation’s national interests effectively. Ultimately, this is what a statesman does rather than pander to transient, emotional, and often misguided, public opinion. It is well past time for the United States to reconsider its entire approach to the Middle East. It is time to look at our core national interests and take actions in accordance with them, rather engage in dangerous illusions that the present tragedy in the Middle East can some how be avoided if only we show leadership."
The cornerstone of Lawson's model is the Red Eminence's divide and conquer strategy that guided a weakened and outnumbered France through the 30 Years War:
"If the Middle East is actually involved in a generational conflict that is, at least somewhat analogously, like the Thirty Years' War, what role, if any, should the United States play?"
Three Stipulations
First, he concludes that there is no immediate hegemonic threat to the region. Yes, China is ascendent, Russia is an influential player, and Iran is a regional powerhouse with influence in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, but no nation or group is positioned to make an immediate move.
Second, he stipulates that oil is no longer the factor it once was. The US is not energy independent, but we are energy secure enough to no longer fear an oil embargo from the Middle East.
Finally, what about "fighting terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here?"
Fight Smarter, not Harder
"Cleavages exist and should be exploited. Further direct American intervention allows these competing factions to paper over their differences and temporarily align in order to fight off the “Crusaders.”
"The Middle East is burning literally and figuratively. It is difficult to envision how this situation would end without the scarring or outright destruction of a whole generation. Large scale, direct Western actions to ameliorate this inherently tragic situation are not likely to work. Rather, they place our interests at risk in the midst of another civilization’s civil war."
So how do we go after the bad guys?
"Make no mistake, a dovish or isolationist response is naïve. ...limited engagement, fighting in the shadows, and using naturally embedded conflicts between our enemies makes far more sense than headfirst assaults."
All I can add is, Amen. Can we elect this guy secretary of state, or force the next president to hire him?
Another day, another treasonous act from congress. This time it’s a letter to the president from the House of Representatives, warning him that congress has the final say-so on any Iran agreement his JV Team negotiates.
WARNING, Obama Fanboys and Fangirls!
This letter contains even more treasonously stern language than Senator Tom Cotton’s:
"Should an agreement with Iran be reached, permanent sanctions relief from congressionally-mandated sanctions would require new legislation. In reviewing such an agreement, Congress must be convinced that its terms foreclose any pathway to a bomb, and only then will Congress be able to consider permanent sanctions relief.”
The dangerous insurrectionists under the dome also scalded the president with sharp accusations:
“Even during the period of negotiations, Iran has illicitly procured nuclear technology, which your Administration quickly sanctioned.”
Stern Stuff!
The cool kids at Moonbats Snorting Nothing But Communism must be going hysterical over the almost certainty that this will blow up President Obama’s careful negotiations, give aid and comfort to Iran’s hard liners, spark World War III, cause fluffy kitties to perish in a circus tent fire, prevent the return of the unicorn, cause more global warming, etc…
But wait! There’s more!!!
From that same perfidious, criminal, stinky cheese, anti-American letter to the President...
“Iran’s record of clandestine activity and intransigence prevents any trust in Iran. Indeed, a top State Department negotiator has told Congress that, “deception is part of [Iran’s] DNA.”
And then they double-down, then triple-down on the insults to Obama’s Iranian friends!
“Given Iran’s decades of deception, negotiators must obtain maximum commitments to transparency by Iran.
[…] it is critical that we also consider Iran’s destabilizing role in the region. Iran is boosting Assad in Syria, supporting sectarian elements in Iraq that undercut hopes for a unified and stable country, and providing assistance to Hezbollah, which continues to threaten Israel. And last month, an Iranian-backed militia displaced the government in Yemen, a key counterterrorism partner. Iran’s Supreme Leader has also called for an expansion of his country’s ballistic missile program, yet another dimension of the potential threat posed by Iran.
[...]
Iran’s role in fomenting instability in the region—not to mention Iran’s horrendous repression at home—demonstrates the risks of negotiating with a partner we cannot trust.
So why aren’t nutball Obama voters and his gargoyles in the press who wanted Cotton prosecuted under the Logan act screaming themselves hysterical at congress and demanding the signers of this letter be arrested?
Washington (CNN) A veto-proof, bipartisan majority of House lawmakers have signed an open letter to President Barack Obama warning him that any nuclear deal with Iran will effectively require congressional approval for implementation.
[…]
The letter, which was signed by 367 members of the House and released Monday by the House Foreign Affairs Committee… (CNN)
Democrats signing the letter include liberal luminaries Chaka Fatah, Diana Degette, Jerrold Nadler and Sheila Jackson Lee. I wonder if Crazy Uncle Joe Bite-me will call them reckless and irresponsible?
Yesterday's post raised some interesting questions regarding secret ballots and mandatory voting, here's another:
We all know the circumstances under which conditional voting was imposed in the context of post civil war reconstruction, but it wasn't until the passage of the 24th amendment in 1964 that poll taxes in federal primaries and elections became unconstitutional. It wasn't until 1966that the Supreme Court reversed it's previous decision that poll taxes were constitutional in Breedlove v. Suttles (1937)with it's decision in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections that they weren't (under the 14th Amendment). Currently other conditions placed upon voting would technically be constitutional, although most would be illegal under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, e.g literacy tests deemed constitutional in Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections (1959).
So the question is, should everyone be allowed to vote?
The Constitutional requirement is that all persons be treated the same under the law yet 15 states and DC bar persons under guardianship or or adjudged mentally incompetent or incapacitated from voting. 20 states have laws that bar people from voting only if they have been adjudged specifically to lack the capacity to vote, three states bar those who have been deemed non compos mentis, nine states bar "idiots" and "the insane" from voting yet the laws are seldom enforced due to the ambiguity of the terminology, 11 states have no requirements at all.
Yes, in Colorado if you have the mental acuity of a house plant you still have the right to vote. If you're incompetent to stand trial in North Carolina... you still have the right to vote.
Legally, only a court can take away your right to vote yet a study of Philadelphia nursing homes determined that staff was deciding who was competent to vote and who was not... in Pennsylvania, which is one of the eleven states that do not have voting competency requirements.
In 2008 it was estimated that 2.5% of potential voters (5.3 million) could not vote due to felony disenfranchisement, in 2012 that number had climbed to 5.8 million. The Supreme Court held felony disenfranchisement constitutional inRichardson v. Ramirez (1974) under the 14th amendment "shall not be denied... "except for participation in rebellion, or other crime". It is left up to the individual states to decide. Maine and Vermont have no felony restrictions on voting, 13 states allow voting after release, four states allow voting after parole, 20 states allow voting after probation, eight states have circumstantial rules, and three states require the convict to petition for restoration.
I'll start the conversation with this Robert Heinlein quote:
“Both for practical reasons and for mathematically verifiable moral
reasons, authority and responsibility must be equal - else a balancing
takes place as surely as current flows between points of unequal
potential. To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold
a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with
blind idiocy. The unlimited democracies were unstable because their
citizens were not responsible for the fashion in which they exerted
their sovereign authority... other than through the tragic logic of
history... No attempt was made to determine whether a voter was socially
responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority. If he
voted the impossible, the disastrous possible happened instead - and
responsibility was then forced on him willy-nilly and destroyed both him
and his foundationless temple.”
Three Easy Pieces: Fundamental Progressive Transformation
#Automatic Voter Registration
#Mandatory Voting
#The End of the Secret Ballot
Automatic Voter Registration
Oregon broke new ground again. The Department of Migratory Voters (DMV) will pass on the names of all individuals getting drivers licenses to the Secretary of State's Office where government workers will register them to vote and send them ballots in the mail. Ballots by mail has already been shown to be ripe for fraud, and this makes it worse.
Here in Colorado, a 2012 voter rolls audit uncovered hundreds of non-citizens registered to vote. The Secretary of state sent letters to the non-citizens, and the ones who responded apologized, saying they did not know they had been registered by over-eager Democrat operatives who minted their drivers license.
Why not? A government that can compel you under penalty of law to purchase a service from an insurance company can surely make you vote. Justice Roberts could easily find a way to uphold the President's vision if some rightwing crazy happened to get through the concentric rings of judicial courts protecting the Supremes and charge into their august chamber waving a copy of the constitution.
Oh yeah. The Federal Government could totally do it. Their biggest challenge would be coercing compliance from the states. Harvard Law Review has an excellent summary of the issue, with Section III discussing the constitutionality of mandatory voting.
An added bonus? With everyone theoretically required to vote, but many shirking their newly-minted progressive duty, that leaves a lot of vacated ballots ripe for the filling in, and the math will all add up.
Secret Ballot: Not Guaranteed by the Constitution
Think the secret ballot is a constitutional guarantee? It's not, and there are people on the left who want to do away with it now that they feel the social debate tipping in their direction.
What follows flows from the red ink pen of Martin (yes, only one name), a "cute and perky" self-described "InterSexNonBinaryCisGyn who refuses to be gender-typed." She wrote a sprawling piece in Workers World that was subsequently picked up by such esteemed publications as The Nation, Vanity Fair and Democrat Underground. It's long and rambly, so I serve you up some snippets...
Fidel Grijalva of the Chicano rights organization La MeCHa and urban activist La'Quaysha Shabazz are on a quest: To kill the secret ballot.
[...] I met Grijalva and Shabazz in a south side eatery. Fidel takes my hand and escorts me to their booth. He hooked a thumb to the picture on the wall behind him and grinned mischievously. "I did that." It is a picture of George Washington from the one dollar bill, but the Father of our Country sports a tasteful soul patch below his lower lip, and the name "Washington" on the scrolly thingy below his name has been replaced with "Jorge Vato-Man." "Look," Grijalva insists, his smile and perfect, accented English both charming and convincing, "it's time we shame the people into doing the right thing. You want to vote for a slate of hateful, racist, greedy Republicans? Great! Wonderful! But it's going on record. Actions have consequences."
Shabazz jumps in, and she speaks with the deliberateness of a teacher tired of a student's crap, her eyes made angrier by the severe black frames of her designer glasses. "We are a community. But there are some who think they some kind of cowboy, or little house on the prairie family, all independent. Meanwhile, they drive on public roads, use public utilities, police protection, and they never stop to check their white privilege." Grijalva jumps in. "Yes. They benefit from corporate welfare, government subsidies to big oil and big pharma--" "Um Hm," Shabazz picks it up and lays it down. "So whose side are you on? We got whities talking a good game about equal rights, but Barack Obama only beat the Mormon cracker by 5 million votes. Five Million! People be talkin' outta both sides o' they mouth." Then she leaned back and allowed herself a satisfied smile. "You know," she shifted effortlessly from street slang to college professor English, "states don't even have to allow their people to vote for president. Did you know that? Certain people in this country love to talk about the constitution and quote the founders," she paused and laughed out loud, "but they don't realize that every time they cast a vote for president, their civic duty," she laughed again, "they are contradicting the founders' wishes!"
[...]
I went looking for someone to explain the constitutionality of all this, and Professor Channing Hemple, an imposing man in his 60's with his hippie's hair still long, but gray and thinning. He holds a doctorate in social ethics of justice and jurisprudence, and he was eager to help me out. I sat in a student's chair before his large oaken desk in his book-lined office overlooking Harvard's greenery and asked my opening question: "Doesn't the constitution guarantee us a secret ballot?" The professor lurched forward, almost climbing over his desk. "What? What?" he demanded, then a wry smile slipped across his face and he settled back in his chair, combed his hair back with his fingers, and assumed an air of almost condescension as he set me straight.
He cleared his throat and begins. "Denver U.S. District Judge Christine Arguello ruled in 2012 that there was no no "fundamental right" to a secret vote in the U.S. Constitution." He does the two-fingered quote thingy with both hands when he over-enunciates the words "fundamental right." "We didn't even have the secret ballot in this country until the 1880's! It was called the Australian ballot when it was first introduced in Kentucky. It's not a constitutional guarantee, man. It's a social contract. Go tell that to the tea-baggers and watch their tri-corn hats droop." He leaned back in his chair and laughed, and I had to laugh with him.
I ended up learning from Professor Hemple that all kinds of things we take for granted are
not in the constitution: Corporations have no rights to their greed,
contracts are not mentioned, public assistance, unemployment, food
stamps, right to immigration. A rightwing fascist GOP state could
really tear up our social fabric. Did you know there is nothing
stopping them from making a national police force? Before I left, he told me that the states and their "constitutions"--again with the finger quotes--were all that stood in the way of killing the tyranny of the secret ballot. But then he brushed away his own comment, saying all it would take was a strong president to lay down the law and threaten to withhold highway funds.
Liberals like to point out that Republican President Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex. Face it, the problem isn't the M.I.C, it's the M.E.C, the Medical Entitlement Complex.
Problems with International Affairs? Perhaps you can look to the narrow 1% slice of the budget we spend on it.
Slipping educational performance on the world stage? College graduates with Master's degrees that can parse a sentence? Look no further than the 2% we spend on education.
Being outstripped in technology by the Chinese? Hmm... 1% on Science.
The military is down to less than 1/5 of the budget, yes still an enormous sum yet we seem incapable of doing anything to stop ISIS, genocide, or Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.
60% of the US budget goes to the Medical Entitlement Complex, you tell me what the elephant in the room is.
More popular in Japan than America, Cheap Trick still managed to be voted 25thon VH1's 100 Greatest Artists of Hard Rock. They were one of the popular bands when I was in Junior High School... middle school for you young whippersnappers.
The greedy vampires from Wall Street, the US Chamber of Crony Commerce and the Silicon Valley Billionaire Boys Club are begging Uncle Sam for more imported cheap labor, and the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings this week to consider it. There is strong bipartisan support for cutting the legs out from under the working men and women of America and stabbing them in the back, but there are a few politicians want to limit the H1B Visa Program.
Here is what Senator Jeff Sessions had to say. Working people everywhere should adopt this verbatum as their manifesto:
“People aren’t commodities. We compare labor to commodities, but they’re not commodities. They’re human beings. They have families. They have hopes and dreams. They want stability in their life. They would like to have a good job at a company like the biggest utility in California—California Edison [where hundreds of Americans were laid off and replaced with guest workers]… We have no obligation to yield to the lust of big businesses… Mr. Zuckerberg is worth $27 billion, I guess he is 27 years old, I’m not sure. So he wants more foreign workers. I would like to think he might want to pay his employees more and maybe not have quite so many billions, if he’d like to be helpful, and maybe he could get more local workers.” (Breitbart - Sessions)
Democrats and Republicans in Congress are eager to help businesses undercut American workers, using the big lie of jobs Americans won't do or are not qualified for, but Jesse Jackson, God bless him, calls BS:
“We need to get rid of H1B workers,” Jackson said in a recent interview with Fortune Magazine. “There are Americans who can do that work, and H1B workers are cheaper and undercut wages.” (Breitbart - Corporate Greed)
Government favors to corporate America hurts real people
This is what congressional cupidity conspiring with corporate greed does to real people:
Several employees have come forward recently saying that SoCal Edison had used intimidation tactics such as telling them they would replace one worker with 4, 5, or 6 foreign workers on H1B visas, in an attempt to pressure them into taking a pay cut. Lavin, however, contends that these were lies and that the reality of what is happening is that SoCal Edison is replacing $95,000 annual wage earners with foreigners who will take $60,000 to $65,000 instead. (Breitbart - Corporate Greed)
Here is what the Congressional-Corporate Axis of Evil is doing to working people:
“We were told if we wanted our severance that we were required to
train our replacement,” a multiple-decades long-veteran employee of
SoCal Edison who spoke with Breitbart News on condition of anonymity
said in an interview. She was terminated this year from her IT position
and replaced with an H1B worker.
This employee invested years of her life working for SoCal Edison but
this year found herself jobless, like hundreds of her peers who were
ordered to train their foreign replacements in a process dubbed as
“knowledge transfer.” SoCal Edison stonewalled her and used her
severance package as collateral against her. “You’re going to train your
replacement if you want your severance,” she was told. (Breitbart - Corporate Greed)
"Pure Greed."
According to a recent consulting report commissioned by SCE, the typical SCE IT worker is earning $110,000 while government records show Tata pays its H-1B workers $66,000 and Infosys pays $71,000. The savings go beyond just wages. H-1B workers have very limited bargaining power since the employers control their work permit. It should come as no surprise that H-1B workers are easily exploited. Those significant cost savings far outweigh the one-time H-1B legal and administrative fees of about $5,000 per worker. (The Hill - Outsourcing in America)
See how they rig the game to screw American working men and women? Senators Chuck Grassley and Dick Durban do:
Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) have been working for a decade to fix the program. They propose: raising the H-1B wage floors to the average wage; ensuring that American workers have a first and legitimate shot at jobs; and, ensuring that American workers aren't being replaced by H-1Bs. This would mean the H-1B program is being used for truly skilled workers and not simply cheap labor." (The Hill - Outsourcing in America)
Do we have a shortage of STEM graduates? A smart nation would come up with some scholarship programs. We have way too many lawyers and political science majors, so swing the money away from them and use it to provide scholarships for STEM degrees.
Better yet, cut off this corporate welfare to the squatting globalists, the world-citizen corporatists, Mark Suckerturd and the rest of his Silicon Valley America haters who use our great nation like a cheap whore. Not enough servile, low-wage workers here? Then pack up your shit and get out. Go set up shop in South Stinkistan, and turn in your passport on the way out.
Coffee with a side of political activism and a social media response of little more than contempt, and that's putting it nicely. The first thing pointed out on social media was that the Starbucks ad campaign for "Race Together" is as lily white as it gets. The second thing pointed out is that the Starbucks corporate leadership team is almost entirely as lily white as there ads.
Entrepreneur made the astute observation that this is in a society where people sue or attack baristas over a mixed up order. Kareem Abdul Jabbar noted in Time magazine that:
Most of the customers at Starbucks probably don’t want to have their
political awareness challenged by the person foaming their coffee. Minds
are more likely to be changed by someone with some form of expertise in
the subject, which baristas generally don’t have.
Joe Berkowitz went to four Starbucks to talk about race with the baristas... it didn't work. Danielle Henderson thought that:
It’s the height of liberal American idealism and a staggering act of
hubris to think we can solve our systemic addiction to racism over a
Frappucino.
It may be beneficial to have an open discussion of race and racism in America, but is having it with a Starbuck's barista pressured to exceed forty transactions per half hour?
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of
openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public
trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and
collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote
efficiency and effectiveness in Government. whitehouse.gov
WASHINGTON — The White House is removing a federal regulation that
subjects its Office of Administration to the Freedom of Information Act. USAToday
Now the Obama administration didn't start this, it was started under the Bush administration after thirty years of White House compliance with the FOIA, but the Obama administration formalized it... somewhat odd behavior for an administration "committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness".
I liked Ron Paul for awhile, but like many, I ultimately decided he was a crackpot. I never liked the little dog whistles he threw out to the Stormfront types, 9/11 troofers and America haters, even if he did have a larger point about unbridled federal power and the consequences of meddling in other countries. Also, I love the Mises Institute. It is a treasure trove of libertarian thought, but I can't stand Lew Rockwell. I am more of a CATO/Reason/Kochtopus libertarian.
Anyway, like any good crackpot, Paul starts with some grains of truth and makes some valid observations before going over Sanity Falls in a barrel.
Yes, the federal government has become increasingly oppressive and its powers have grown way beyond constitutional boundaries. Meanwhile, political pundits and TV leg-crossers worry about constitutional crises and government paralysis. I say bring 'em. There will be no Revolution
Loose talk centering around the 2nd Amendment and taking the country back by armed insurrection pisses me off. Such talk is dangerous and irresponsible, but it does serve the purpose of revealing the tin-pot wannabes among us. Real revolutionaries don't stand around talking about it. I usually ask such nutballs who they will shoot first? A cop, who happens to be your neighbor? You gonna go after the National Guard Armory on the edge of town where your Uncle Joe goes for his monthly drill? Gonna blow up the grocery store? A courthouse full of your fellow citizens? Just how would your rebellion against the US government work, anyway? The answer is, it wouldn't, and we wouldn't want such loonies taking power anyway.
Liberty's Iron Triangle: Gridlock - States Rights - Lawsuits
Still, there is hope, and it lies in four institutions, all of which stem from the people: The States, and the three branches of the US Government.
Instead of wringing our hands at federal government gridlock, we should be encouraging it. Gridlock means no consensus, which means no law can be made according to our founding documents. The more the three branches check and oppose one another, the better off we are. I admit that my hope in checks and balances among the federal centers of power is a faint flicker. They're all too chummy now, co-conspirators divvying up the loot, and the 4th Estate is now an official branch of the power elite.
The states are our last best hope. Lawsuits against the Executive branch for not enforcing Obamacare and immigration law are the last battle lines against federal tyranny. We are dangerously close to becoming a federal state with an imperial Executive Branch.
Can a president choose which laws to enforce?
Obama has sent SWAT teams into a guitar factory because the owner didn't pay political tribute. Meanwhile, he has ordered federal, state and local law enforcement to look the other way as undocumented Democrat voters cross our borders and become de facto citizens comfortably ensconced in federally-encouraged safe havens. The President signed Obamacare, and then immediately ignored the inconvenient parts of the law. IRS agents break the law to punish Obama's political enemies, and his Justice Department does nothing. He and the nation's chief law officer stand by and watch states openly flout federal drug laws.
Do states rights matter? Do states have rights based upon enduring legal principles, or do they depend upon the whims of whoever sits upon the Imperial Executive Throne?
The courts will decide, but as I write this, I become more skeptical. Believe it or not, I set out to write a positive post, but I've convinced myself we are too far down the road. We have already become a Stare Decisis state: Whatever any governmental malefactor can get by with, from the President on down to the lowliest bureaucratic worm, becomes legal precedent, no matter how unconstitutional the act.
The revolution will not be televised, because there will be no revolution...
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. " Voltaire
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 1st Amendment
"...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws." XIV Amendment Section One "Every person may freely speak, write, or publish his sentiments
on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right;
and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of
speech or of the press...." Oklahoma Constitution II-22 Let me start this discussion by stating that the behavior of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity members at OSU, deplorable and reprehensible as I find it, and it undoubtedly was, is not the point of this post. As despicable as it is, far greater harm lies in allowing any agent of any state, in this case the Oklahoma State University, to inflict any consequence to the expression of that opinion. As Americans, they are entitled, whether we like it or not, to espouse any view whatsoever, regardless of merit. That OSU, bound as it is by the Constitution of the United States, and of it's own state, should presume to chastise them for it is a danger to us all. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, is sine qua non to any free
society. Like it or not, we are bound to
tolerate that with which we disagree. To do otherwise is to live in an echo chamber of our own devise.
“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.” Noam Chomsky
Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williamswere just ordered to pay $7.4 million to Marvin Gaye's children. So the question is it musical plagiarism? And even better, is a jury of 12 random people qualified to judge?
Tom Petty and Sam Smith came to an amicable arrangement without the use of the courts, Petty calling it a musical accident.
Although a judge ruled that it was subconscious plagiarism on George Harrison's part, it still wound up costing him $587,000
With Ghostbusters Roy Parker Jr. settled out of court with Huey Lewis for a confidential sum.
A couple, let’s call them Pat and Mel, are having a marital spat over buying a car. Pat really, really wants that car, no matter the cost, but Mel points out they don't need it. Pat heads down to Big Al's Used Car Lot anyway, and the salesmen see an eager buyer who hands them concessions before a deal is even close. They're licking their chops. Their car lot has fallen on hard times, but a few patsies like Pat, and they are back in business!
As Pat is being worked over in the showroom by the salesmen, Mel storms in, marriage license in hand and reminds everyone that the marriage, along with the bank account, is 50/50. Pat may really want that car, but Mel sees it as a bad deal and is prepared to do everything to kibosh it if the terms are no good.
Question:
Do Mel's actions help the dealership pocket the money for an overpriced lemon that will blow up once it leaves the lot? Or do Mel’s actions increase Pat’s bargaining power by putting the salesmen on notice that he won’t put up with any crap?
Obama's JV Team at the Persian Bazaar
Of course, we’re really talking about Senator Tom Cotton's open letter to the virulently anti-American Iranian dictatorship. His simple constitutional tutorial has thrown the Democrat establishment into paroxysms of sputtering outrage.
Obama's White House put an Orwellian "Up is down," "War is peace" spin on it, which the stenographers in the press swallowed whole:
The White House has characterized Cotton's primer on America's constitutional form of government as a "rush to war." (AP News)
Obama, noting that some in Iran also want no part of any deal, said "I
think it's somewhat ironic that some members of Congress want to make
common cause with the hardliners in Iran. It's an unusual coalition." (AP News)
That last quote is particularly galling, since it is President Obama and Secretary Kerry who are enabling the Iranian hardliners. Cotton is the one putting Iran’s hardliners on notice that if Obama and Kerry come back from the Persian bazaar with nothing more than a pocketful of magic beans, the deal is off.
Harry Reid added his howl to the chorus...
"Republicans don't know how to do anything other than juvenile political attacks against the president," the 75-year-old Reid said with the 37-year-old Cotton listening.
"Let's be very clear: Republicans are undermining our commander-in-chief while empowering the ayatollahs," Reid said. (AP News)
Nonsense. Obama handing the ayatollahs billions of dollars in exchange for the privilege of sitting down at the table and talking with them is what empowers them. Democrats are dangerous, moreso because the press and their voter base unquestioningly lap up all this Orwellian propaganda. What is it about leftists who rightly excoriate the stinking Saudi Wahhabists, but go all goo goo eyed over the Shia religious terrorists?
Iran's Fascist Regime Defends President Obama:
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif responded via state media, dismissing the letter as a "propaganda ploy" and noting that many international deals are "mere executive agreements." He suggested the senators were undermining not only the prospective deal with Iran but other international agreements as well. (CBS News)
I'm not going to waste valuable Western Hero real estate on fascist propaganda from blustering Iranian pantloads, but suffice it to say the Iranian dictators are ignorant of our constitutional form of government. The US Senate, whether controlled by Harry Reid and the Dems or Mitch McConnell and the Repubs, is not a "political pressure group." It is clear the Iranians are terrified the adults will step in before they can finish shaking down the naifs.
Senator Cotton's Open Letter to the Iranian Dictators
Here is the text of Senator Cotton’s "provocative" letter that has the leftwing propaganda machine bellowing black smoke as it kicks into full outrage mode:
An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:
It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution—the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices—which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.
First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.
Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.
What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.
We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.
Entry to NYC's elite schools are determined solely by test scores, 5,103 students out of >70,000 eight graders were offered positions at those schools, the racial breakdown of those admitted?
Black: 5% Hispanic: 7% White: 28% Asian: 52%
In the city as a whole the racial breakdown is:
White: 44% Black: 25.5% Asian: 15% Hispanic: 41%*
*Note that the Census numbers don't add up to 100 because Hispanic is not a race and overlaps other categories. In the NY City School System the student breakdown is: White: 16% Black: 28% Asian: 15% Hispanic: 41%
"The schools should more closely resemble the population of the city"~ Mayor Bill DeBlasio
"It's critical that our city's specialized high schools reflect the diversity of our city" ~ Chancellor Carmen Farina
WHY?
Should not our High Schools, Colleges, and Universities populations reflect those with the most aptitude? Should an Asian kid be discriminated against to allow a Black kid to attend?
