Author Archives: Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor)

What Part Of “Shall Not Be Infringed” Does Obama Not Understand?

ban rifles
The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The amendment is very unambiguous: “… shall not be infringed.” The definition of the word “infringe” is also unambiguous: “to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress”.

But “Dear Leader” President (for life?) Barack Hussein Obama announced today (January 14, 2013) that he intends to “infringe” upon the 2nd Amendment through legislation and Executive Order. Obama said:

My understanding is the vice president is going to provide a range of steps that we can do to prevent gun violence. Some of them will require legislation. Some of them I can accomplish through executive action.”  [emphasis mine]

The key phrase here is “prevent gun violence.” I don’t think anyone, even us 2nd Amendment zealots, would have objections to any legislation or executive actions that quell (or even reduce) gun violence. But (and there’s always a “but” with Obama), Obama’s track record and pronouncements are against him. For example, on May 25, 2011, Obama told Sarah Brady, “I just want you to know that we are working on it [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” And, today, Obama said, “… ban on assault weapons and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines are all on the table.”

What he says and what he does tend to be two different things. His statements and actions tend to, as Richard Larsen so eloquently pointed out, “exceed his authority.” The legislation he sponsors or asks for, and his executive actions, tend to exceed his authority, to “infringe” upon our right to keep and bear arms. But we can expect any actions taken by Obama to be cast in a “reasonable” light by his lap-dog MSM.

As Richard Larsen, in his excellent article, says:

“The limits of presidential declarations, like the EO [Executive Order], were clarified judicially by the landmark 1952 Supreme Court ruling of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. By executive order 10340, President Harry Truman declared that all steel mills in the country were to be placed under federal government control. The Supreme Court ruled, however, that the EO was invalid since Truman was essentially creating, or making law, as opposed to clarifying the executive branch enforcement of an existing law.”  [emphasis mine]

So, is Obama going to “create” law? Is the law he “creates” going to infringe upon our constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. History is NOT on Obama’s side.

Or does Obama understand the phrase, “… shall not be infringed,” and just wants his way?

But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Obama Flagrantly Commits Treason

taliban
If this isn’t treason, then I don’t know what is. The US Constitution defines treason in Article 3, section 3 thusly: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

The Taliban harbored al Qaeda in Afghanistan in the lead up to the 9/11 attacks on America in September 2001. Obama even recognized the Taliban as a terrorist organization when he said, “We went into Afghanistan, because 3,000 Americans were viciously murdered by a terrorist organization that was operating openly and at the invitation of those who were then ruling Afghanistan.”

Now that same Taliban is to have an office in Kabul, Afghanistan. That same Taliban will engage in direct talks with the democratic government in Afghanistan. I somehow don’t expect the Taliban to talk in good faith.

“Dear Leader” President Barack Hussein Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai made the announcement on Friday, January 11. Here is some of what Obama said:

“Ultimately security gains must be matched by political progress, so we’ve recommitted our nations to a reconciliation process between the Afghan government and the Taliban. President Karzai updated me on the Afghan government’s road map to peace, and today we agreed that this process should be advanced by the opening of a Taliban office to facilitate talks.”

So, according to Obama, “security gains must be matched by political progress …[.]” The Taliban has certainly made political progress, as witnessed by the opening of its office. Did I somehow miss our security gains? Has Homeland Security and the TSA been disbanded?

Just so you know, 72 percent of the Afghan war casualties have occurred during Obama’s watch. And, now, Obama is spitting on the graves and wounds of brave, honorable Americans.

IMHO, Obama’s only “out” is that the war in Afghanistan has not formally been declared by Congress. Obama is (again) hiding behind a technicality. But, regardless of whether the war is declared or not, the Taliban is fighting, soldiers are dying, and treason is treason!

But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Obama’s “Green Energy” Stimulus Strikes – Twice

a123 sale
A123 Systems received, in 2009, a $249.1 million federal grant from “Dear Leader” Barack Hussein Obama’s wildly successful (NOT) stimulus program. A123 also received over $100 million in grants and tax credits from Massachusetts. A123 was, however, deeply in debt, and in October 2012, filed for bankruptcy. A123 sold $125 million of its auto assets to Johnson Controls, which will provide financing to A123 in bankruptcy. The remainder of A123 was then purchased in December 2012 by the Chinese company Wanxiang Group, through an auction run by Latham and Watkins, a law firm that contributed more than $200,000 to Obama’s re-election bid. Cozy, huh?

A123 has drawn just over half of its grant money, $129 million, to build a factory in Michigan. Speaking of A123’s factory, here is what Obama had to say in 2009:

“This is about the birth of an entire new industry in America – an industry that’s going to be central to the next generation of cars. When folks lift up their hoods on the cars of the future, I want them to see engines and batteries that are stamped: Made in America.”

A123 Systems, co-founded in 2001 by Yet-Ming Chiang, a materials scientist at MIT who had developed a new technology for fast-charging lithium-ion batteries, had, in 2009, what appeared to be a great idea. But that “great idea” didn’t pan out. The batteries A123 supplied to Fisker for its electric car caused fires, forcing Fisker, in 2011, to recall 239 Karmas for battery replacement, costing A123 $50 million.

The fact that A123 went bankrupt after receiving taxpayer money is bad enough. What’s worse, IMHO, is that Obama placed bets on future technology with taxpayer money. The entire situation would have been fine had Obama placed bets with venture capitalists’ money. Venture capitalists could have examined A123’s prospectus, its technology forecasts, and production plans, then decided whether or not to invest. But the evaluation task was assigned to the totally unbiased “experts” at Obama’s Department of Energy (DOE), under the Obama crony Dr. Steven Chu. We taxpayers, who footed the investment bill, were never consulted.

What’s even worse is that now the A123 Systems technology that we paid for is going to the Chinese. What does all of this mean (or potentially mean)? Dean Popp, former acting United States assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics, and technology, and co-chair of Strategic Materials Advisory Council (therefore, not some ignorant blowhard) said:

“We are not taking a critical look at what China is doing in terms of assembling a portfolio of things that allow her to control our supply chain and control our national security concerns. These batteries are used in satellites; these batteries are used in combat vehicles; these batteries are used in precision munitions – you know, wherever there’s sensitive stuff. It is the technology not only of the hour, but of the decade.”

Popp also expressed concern that the U.S. is losing its manufacturing, industrial and technological strength, and becoming more vulnerable to China.

So, I guess Obama’s reelection and paybacks for cronys (I mean, “campaign contributors”) is more important to him than national security.

But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Gerald Nadler’s Gun Violence “Opinion”

nadler

Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), on December 21, 2012, said:

“Now, the fact of the matter is that Germany has 150 or so people killed a year with guns; Canada, 170; the United States 9,000 to 10,000 a year. We have a murder rate with guns that are 15 to 20 times higher than any other industrialized country. There’s only one explanation and that’s the availability, the easy availability of assault weapons and of high-capacity clips.”   [emphasis mine]

Nadler also said:

“One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence. And the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence.” Nadler offered no explanation of what “legitimate violence” is.

Well, those statements may be Rep. Nadler’s OPINIONS. He offered no study to support his opinions. He certainly has the right to express his opinion, but there is just one glaring reason why Nadler’s opinions cannot/should not go unchallenged: the MSM reported what he said as a fait accompli, something that everyone believes.

So, if we use Nadler’s opinions as representation of his “logic,” then there can be only one explanation for this country’s violence. Never mind liberal, bleeding-heart judges who somehow seem to never see actual violence.

On CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, Nadler said

What are we most angry about? It’s that every poll shows that by massive majorities, Americans agree with what you just said. Yet we have a lobby, the leadership of the NRA, who function as enablers of mass murder. And that’s what they are. They’re enablers of mass murder, because they terrify the class of political people. And even though polling shows that most NRA members would support reasonable gun controls, every time someone proposes it, they come in. They lie. They say they will take your guns away. And they stop any kind of legislation to prevent that.

Again, Nadler spouted his opinion, offering no support for anything he said. Piers Morgan did not, in any way, challenge Nadler or his opinion.

There is a stark difference between opinions and facts, something Nadler doesn’t understand and/or chooses to ignore. As Bernard M. Baruch said, “Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.” James R. Schlesinger said, “Each of us is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” As the “Big Apple Corner” website says, “The sayings mean that opinions can differ, but that those opinions must be based on factual truths.” Neither Nadler nor the MSM ever cite or offer any factual truths to support their opinions. Yet, opinions are what form the basis for much of today’s legislation. Pity.

And, in what has to be the silliest piece of legislation ever proposed, a bill that would ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition was introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Diana DeGette (D-CO). The bill was advocated by Nadler, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and other Democrats. I guess that McCarthy, DeGette, Nadler, Pelosi, et al, think that the first 10 rounds will never be effective, will never kill anyone, and all the police/first responders have to do is wait until a pause in the firing occurs as another magazine is inserted.

But that’s just my opinion.

The Selective Hypocrisy of Dick’s Sporting Goods

DicksWe are all by now familiar with the tragedy that occurred on December 14 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. CDN readers & contributors have provided several excellent articles and analyses of what happened.

Kevin Fobbs provided an analysis what happened and why Connecticut laws failed to keep a gun out of the hands of Adam Lanza. Fobbs offers another article about what could have prevented Lanza’s attack. Fobbs says, “What if there had been a ‘Three Strike Rule’ in place for Adam Lanza, which allowed automatic involuntary commitment by mental health authorities?” He then offers what is (to me) obvious to us Second Amendment supporters and should be obvious to gun-control advocates: “This disturbed gunman may have used guns as weapons to kill, but it was his mental illness that was the true deadly assault weapon!” Well said, Kevin, well said.

An article by Kyle Becker places (intentional) “Firearm Homicide” in perspective with other perfectly legal activities. The chart Kyle offers has this at the bottom: “WHY is there No outcry to RESTRICT baseball bat ownership?” That statement brings me to the point of my article.

Dick’s Sporting Goods has over 500 locations in 44 states. Dick’s Sporting Goods has decided to stop the sale of some semi-automatic rifles from its stores nationwide and remove all guns previously sold in the stores nearest Newtown, CT. The move came in response to authorities’ attempt to determine whether gunman Adam Lanza attempted to purchase a gun from Dick’s in Danbury, CT, just 12 miles from Newtown, CT.

That’s well and good. Dick’s is free (for now) to pull any merchandise it chooses. But, at the same time I did not hear about Dick’s pulling baseball bats or golf clubs or archery sets. Or did I simply miss that announcement? Selective hypocrisy from Dick’s? If Dick’s is going to stop sales of semi-automatic rifles, can we expect Dick’s to be consistent and pull all sporting goods merchandise that can be used as a weapon as well?

Speaking specifically about baseball bats, I am reminded of the scene in The Untouchables movie where Al Capone (played by Robert De Niro) beat one of his subordinates to death with a (wait for it…) baseball bat. While I’m sure that the beating in the scene was not real (I hope not), it graphically illustrates what can be accomplished when a baseball bat is used as a weapon. I am certain that (at least some of the) Dick’s executives saw that movie and scene. The person being beaten was just as dead as if he had been shot. So, Dick’s, are baseball bats going to be pulled next?

And that sentiment goes for medical doctors as well. Most of us are born with two hands and two feet. When we reach puberty, or 14 or so years old, we can use our hands as weapons to strangle people, and our feet as weapons to kick people to death. ANYTHING can be used as a weapon. The human brain is the ultimate weapon. Where does the reductio ad absurdum of gun control (or any weapon control) ever stop? Is Dick’s going to try to pull brains off the shelves as well?

But that’s just my opinion.

There’s Insanity, And There’s Insanity

empl guaranteeFirst, it was France. The country’s response to its high and growing unemployment problem was to make laying off employees so painful economically that companies will avoid it. Labor Minister Michel Sapin said, “The main idea is to make layoffs so expensive for companies that it’s not worth it.” Sapin, a good friend of France’s socialist president François Hollande, also said that said the government could not stand by idly as some companies cut workers just to improve profitability and boost their dividends to shareholders. Regarding the unemployment problem, here is a factor that Sapin should consider: if companies cannot fire workers they will be extremely reluctant to hire them in the first place.

Now, the entire European Union (EU) has offered its response to youth (people younger than 25 years of age) unemployment problem. The EU has proposed, and I am being serious here, that ALL youth be guaranteed a job. The youth unemployment rate for the entire EU for the summer of 2012 was 22.7 percent (it was 16.8 percent in the US), with Greece, Italy, and Spain having much higher rates. From Frankfurter Allgemeine:

“The Member States of the European Union should guarantee all people aged less than 25 years in the future, within four months some form of employment. These governments should issue a so-called youth guarantee….”

There are, of course, two “minor” problems with the EU scheme. First, an EU commission headed by László Andor did not specify how this goal (youth employment guarantee) was to be achieved. It’s easy to offer a solution to a problem (talk is cheap), but quite another thing to explain specifically how the problem will be solved. Second, the EU should consider this fact: work rules, pension rules, and other rules are so harsh that companies simply do not want to hire workers regardless of age.

For some perspective, there have been more than 40,000 people killed in Syria, with the death toll rising daily, but the EU is not particularly concerned about that. North Korea has launched a three-stage rocket, moving closer to their goal of developing a nuclear-tipped ICBM. They are sharing nuclear weapons technology with Iran, the world’s leading sponsors of terrorism. But the EU does not seem to be worried about that either. That is the same EU that, earlier this year, won the Nobel Peace Prize. It is also the same EU that is “concerned” about Israel building on a 4.6 square piece of land in order to protect itself. It appears that the EU’s lack of consistency is showing. Perhaps it should get its own house in order before sticking its nose in others’ business.

And, I think it was Albert Einstein who said, “Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results, is a sign of insanity.” So, that means that Obama is soon to try to emulate what France and the EU are currently doing.

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Vote In Lockstep – Or Else Get Removed

We are all familiar with the “Don’t waste your vote on a third party. It only helps elect the candidate you don’t want.” mantra. That sentiment comes from the leadership of the two major political parties. While the sentiment may be true (witness the 1992 presidential election), what is a person to do when a major party turns its back on you?

Permit me to be specific. Two recent actions by Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) started this row.

Yesterday, December 4, 2012, Boehner (and others in the Republican “leadership”) actually proposed to President Obama and Democrats a tax increase of some $800 billion, a cut of spending by $1.4 trillion, but NO substantive reforms to the entitlement programs. In a letter to Obama, Boehner said, “… we [Republican leadership] recognize it would be counterproductive to publicly or privately propose entitlement reforms that you and the leaders of your party appear unwilling to support in the near-term.”

Personal observation: I guess that means that we conservatives will continue to pay for ever-increasing entitlements that cause ever-increasing government dependence.

  • In a bold (for him) move, weak leader Boehner removed three members of the “Tea Party” class of 2010: Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ), Justin Amash (R-MI), and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). Schweikert was told that his removalwas because his “votes were not in lockstep with leadership.”It’s interesting to note what Tad DeHaven, of the Cato Institute, said:   (DeHaven’s article is also a very good read)

    “On seven particularly telling votes, Schweikert and Amash voted in favor of limited government every time. Out of 87 freshmen, only Schweikert, Amash, and five others had a perfect record. Huelskamp was six for seven. He also was one of only four Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee to vote against the bloated farm bill that passed out of the committee in July.”

The “problem,” of course, is that if we conservatives form a third party (or wholeheartedly support the Tea Party), thus ending support (with money and vote) for the Republicans (the more conservative of the two major parties), then we make the situation more favorable for the Democrats. We conservatives are in a “Catch 22” situation, one that begs for someone like CDN’s Rich Mitchell to address.

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Once Again, Obama Shows He Has No Class




Once again, President Barack Hussein Obama has shown that he has a complete lack of class. Obama and first lady Michelle Obama, on Sunday, December 2, 2012, recognized at a White House reception the 2012 Kennedy Center Honors award recipients, including comedian (I use the term loosely) David Letterman.

Yes, that is the same David Letterman who, in 2009, said that Sarah Palin looked like a slutty flight attendant during his “Top Ten” list routine. Letterman also said, “During the seventh inning [of a Yankees baseball game], her daughter [14 year old Willow Palin] was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.”

That is the kind of “humor” Obama chooses to honor. Obama, himself, is free to honor anyone he choose. A problem, however, arises when the prestige of the US is soiled by his actions. And Obama used taxpayer money to do it.

I guess it’s just too much for the president of the USA to exhibit some class. For Obama, politics always trumps class.

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Obama The King




WOW! Talk about “Do as I say, not as I do.” The use of foodstamps by Americans this past Thanksgiving was at an all-time high. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that almost two-thirds of the increase (almost $72 billion) in spending on foodstamps between 2007 and 2011 was caused by an increase in the number of participants. And the number of Americans receiving foodstamps (15 percent of the US population) also reached a record level in June 2012, with no relief in sight. The record number of Americans on food stamps is indicative of Democrats who that want to keep lower-income Americans dependent on foodstamps, and to have a constituency dependent on government services. The use of foodstamps has increased under Obama by about 20 million Americans (and non-Americans). By the way, the foodstamps program is now named the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

But did that fact cause President (King?) Barack Hussein Obama and his family to alter their Thanksgiving dinner plans? To quote (the late) John Belushi from SNL, “Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo.” In fact, the Obama family ate “high on the hog.”

The Obama family had turkey, ham, cornbread stuffing, oyster stuffing, greens, macaroni and cheese, sweet potatoes, mashed potatoes, green bean casserole, and dinner rolls. For desert, they had a choice of banana cream pie, pumpkin pie, apple pie, sweet potato pie, huckleberry pie, or cherry pie. And guess who paid for all that food! That’s right: us taxpayers. Perhaps if taxes to pay for foodstamps weren’t so high, we lowly taxpayers could afford half of what the Obamas had, or even two kinds of pie.

To paraphrase Shakespeare, whether its called foodstamps or SNAP, its the same thing, and it still costs – period. What matters is not what the program is called, but what it actually costs. But does Obama care about what he is doing/has done to the country? Judging from his recent actions, the answer is “No.” He is truly the “Hypocrite-in-Chief.”

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Foreign Policy, Obama Style

Democrats/liberals/progressives (DLP) bought enough votes on November 6 to get Barack Hussein Obama reelected. All is well, right? Well, perhaps not. While there are a myriad of problems at home, let’s see what is currently going on in the foreign policy department. Obama entered office in 2009 with absolutely no foreign policy experience. This article is a good read that outlines all of Obama’s foreign policy escapades. I would say failures, but to Obama and all his Kool-Aid drinkers, I mean supporters, they are successes.

So, in the world of foreign policy, what has gone on, what is going on now, and what can we expect in the future?

  • Benghazi fiasco and cover-up attempt: That pesky Benghazi non-action and attempt cover-up just won’t go away.
  • Iran’s nuclear “talks”: It seems that Iranian president Ahmadinejad is open to talks and inspections. Where have we heard that before? Oh, yeah, here, and here, and here, and here in 2011, and here in 2010, and herein 2009. How many times must Iran renege before Obama and his State Department catches on? But, I guess “hope springs eternal” in the Obama administration. This one belongs in the past and present, as well as into the foreseeable future.This article outlines Iran’s “talks” history and what the US and the rest of the world should expect from Iran.
  • Arab Spring: On June 4, 2009, Obama gave a speech at Cairo University. The Muslim Brotherhood, outlaws at the time, were invited guests. The Muslim Brotherhood is closely associated with Hamas. At that speech, Obama said he sought a “new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.”In October 2010, the MSM declaredan “Arab Spring,” saying that democracy was breaking out throughout the Arab world. At the same time, the Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide, Mohamed Badie, called for jihad against the US.In April 2012, Obama, in his infinite wisdom, released $1.5 billion of foreign aid (money we don’t have) to Egypt, now controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.

    What has the Muslim Brotherhood been up to lately? Mohammed Morsi, Egypt’s president, said he quit the Muslim Brotherhood after his election in June 2012. But is Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood reliable? Their own actions say “No.” The Muslim Brotherhood had pledged not to seek the presidency, but the Brotherhood reversed its decision as the election approached, and elected Morsi president.

    Mohammed Morsi has now issued constitutional amendments that placed him above judicial oversight, as well as decreeing immunity for the Islamist-dominated panel drafting a new constitution from any possible court decisions to dissolve it. These actions “… effectively remove any oversight on Morsi.” As DaTechGuy says, “Hmmmm: sounds like we’ve replaced a Pro-American dictator, with a pro-Islamist dictator.”

    Morsi did all this after receiving “lavish praise from President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for mediating an end to eight days of fighting between Israel and Gaza’s Hamas rulers.” By the way, how is that cease-fire agreement doing? An Israeli spy satellites spotted an Iranian ship being loaded with Fajr-5 rockets and Shahab-3 ballistic missiles that analysts say may be headed for the Gaza Strip. The shipment was reportedly prepared last week, at the same time as Israel and Hamas agreed to a cease-fire. The word “may” takes on added significance when one considers that “Hamas leaders say the group won’t stop arming itself.”

    Now it seems that Morsi wants to “talk” about his “temporary” decrees. Can we expect the same kind of talks that we have seen from Iran? But why should he talk with Obama in his corner? “Obama praised Morsi, saying he was impressed with Morsi who moved with an ‘engineer’s precision’ and little ideology.” Former UN Ambassador John Bolton said, “this shows Obama’s blindness to what motivates Morsi and is a ‘bad, bad sign for the US and Middle East in the weeks and months ahead’.”

And, if the cease-fire brokered by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Morsi is so great (as the MSM has proclaimed), why is Hamas saying that the cease-fire agreement does not prevent them from continuing to import (smuggle) arms into the Gaza Strip from Egypt? It must be in response to all those Israel initiated attacks. Or could this have anything to do with this situation? Ziad Nakhalah, deputy head of Islamic Jihad, said that the cease-fire agreement was “temporary and partial.”

And we all know where Obama’s sympathies lie. In his book, Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” Obama decided in April to borrow $1.5 billion from China so he could give it to the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that views the US as an enemy to be destroyed. With a “leader” like Obama, who needs enemies?

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Liberals: Time To Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is




The additional cost of providing ObamaCare has gone political, particularly for Papa John’s Pizza. Erin Haust and Matt Vespa and Chris Vaca have written very good CDN articles explaining why the Papa John’s dust up is important to America’s freedom. In another article, Chris Vaca says, “I bring this up because once again they show themselves for what they truly are, hypocrites.”   [emphasis mine]    While Chris’ article was primarily about information, his observations fit so well that I just had to use it.

Where are the liberals when it comes time to actually PAY for ObamaCare? This Salon article says that ObamaCare costs will add 10¢ to 14¢ to the cost of each pizza, or from 0.4 percent to 0.7 percent. Forbes’ Caleb Melby points out “that [John] Schnatter’s underlying logic doesn’t make sense when you look at the numbers.” There’s plenty of cost increase analysis, but no offers to pay for the, according to Melby’s analysis, inexpensive ObamaCare costs.

What is most ironic is that the Salon article concludes, “… the right legislative reforms could potentially reduce that trend line [referring to increasing healthcare costs that ObamaCare is supposed to stop] by more than $3,000 per employee, to $25,435.” Just the opposite has occurred. I can only conclude that ObamaCare was not “the right legislative reforms.”

This MSN article criticizes Papa John’s, saying the pizzas given away cost much more than ObamaCare. I guess the concept of advertising never occurred to MSN writers. But, again, no offer by MSN to pay for ObamaCare costs, only criticism.

Salon.com has failed to be profitable, but it is quick to criticize a profitable business. MSN, part of Microsoft, was, in 2007, not profitable. Microsoft, itself, is very profitable, making a gross profit of “only” $56.19 billion last year, but could not/would not underwrite Papa John’s increased costs. Please let me know if any liberal company/organization/website steps forward and actually pays for or offers to pay for ObamaCare.

Ultimately, as Jim Clayton says, “This ObamaCare isn’t about “really” caring for the people, it is about power.   [emphasis mine]   Nowhere in the Salon or MSN articles could I find any business effect analysis, only criticism of Papa John’s for cutbacks and not providing ObamaCare.

But the truly sad thing is that there many, many other businesses in America forced to provide ObamaCare. And who will ultimately pick up the tab? Us consumers. And there are many, many other liberal sites and businesses that could provide ObamaCare, but that would eat into their profits. Chris Vaca is correct: liberals are, indeed, hypocrites. They are quick to criticize, but never “put their money where their mouth is.”

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

The “Equal Protection Under the Law” Myth

The fourteenth amendment (ratified in 1868) to the US Constitution, has within it what is known as the “Equal Protection” clause. Part of the fourteenth amendment states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”   [emphasis mine]   We are ALL supposed to receive “Equal Protection,” to be treated equally.

That is well and good, but the quoted phrase begins, “No State.” So, to have the “Equal Protection” clause apply to the federal government, as well as individuals within it, we must turn to the fifth amendment (ratified in 1791). The “Equal Protection” clause has been interpreted (by no less than the Supreme Court) to apply to the federal government under the fifth amendment, specifically under the “Due Process” clause. The fifth amendment says (in part) “… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”   [emphasis mine]

But UNequal protection is what is happening as you read this. One of the provisions of ObamaCare (about which the MSM has given little coverage) is the exemption from its provisions/mandates/requirements that Obama and his minions can grant. As we are witnessing today, meeting ObamaCare requirements can cost literally millions of dollars. And guess what – the cost increase will be passed on to consumers, resulting in higher prices. That simple concept forms the crux of “Equal Protection” argument.

For illustrative purposes, suppose there are two equally efficient businesses that offer (virtually) identical products. The only difference between the two businesses is that one has received an ObamaCare exemption and one has not. The business that has received the exemption can offer its product at a lower price. The business that did not receive the exemption must either absorb the increased costs caused by ObamaCare in order to remain competitive (thus reducing profit that can be paid as dividends to stockholders), or increase prices (which will reduce sales and have the same effect on profit).

The business that does not receive the exemption is “between a rock and a hard place.” The ObamaCare exemption can, therefore, become quite a political weapon. And just who/what businesses have received exemptions? Unions, businesses in Nancy Pelosi’s district, and (as Gomer Pyle used to say, “Surprise, surprise, surprise”) healthcare insurance companies.

As John Boehner (R-OH) said, “Obamacare is the law of the land.” If Boehner feels that way, is it too much to ask him to be sure that ObamaCare be applied equally, that we ALL receive equal treatment under the law?

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Translating the 2nd Amendment for an Anti-Gun Administration

Mahatma Gandhi said, “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”   [emphasis mine]

Second Amendment to the US Constitution – Right to Bear Arms: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.   [emphasis mine]

What part of the phrase “shall not be infringed” is so difficult for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to understand? Perhaps it is the word “infringed.” Or perhaps it’s the notion that the US Constitution’s second amendment infringes upon their personal beliefs and their plans for America.

Obama, campaigning in New Orleans, in July, said, “I – like most Americans – believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.” If you think Obama will stop with a ban on only assault weapons, I have the deed to a NYC bridge in which you may be interested.

Only hours after being re-elected, Obama backed a UN’s call on Wednesday, November 7, 2012, to renew debate over a draft international treaty (the so-called Arms Trade Treaty [ATT]) to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade. This is the same treaty that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been expressing full support of on behalf of the US for years. After Obama’s re-election, the UN. General Assembly’s disarmament committee moved quickly to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. The resolution passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions.

For perspective, beginning in 1968, Canada (not presently on the UN disarmament committee) spent $2.7 billion on creating and operating a registry for long guns that proved to be very ineffective. Canada’s registry was never credited with solving a single murder. Instead, it became an enormous waste of police officers’ time, diverting their efforts from traditional policing activities. I guess Obama, Clinton, gun control advocates, and the UN cannot see what happened in Canada and learn from it. Gun control advocates will say that Canada’s registry addressed only long guns. But registration is registration, regardless of gun type.

The primary reason that ATT talks are taking place is that the US reversed policy after Obama was first elected and decided in 2009 to support a treaty. Isn’t it ironic that Obama’s view changed from July to November, just after his re-election?

I am personally amazed that Snopes and FactCheck will say and do ANYTHING to try to defend Obama and Clinton. For example, FactCheck.org says that “Does the Obama administration intend to ‘force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for U.S. citizens’ through a United Nations treaty?” is false. FactCheck.org says, “…Obama wouldn’t be able to ‘bypass’ Congress,….” (A treaty must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate to become binding.) Where have we heard that one before? This article documents one of the many times Obama has bypassed Congress. And this article expresses his wish to “impose his will” on Congress.

As Katie Pavlich at TownHall.com says, “Barack Obama is no doubt the most anti-gun president in the history of the United States and his pandering to the corrupt UN should be alarming to anyone who wants to keep their Second Amendment freedoms.” And, now that he has been re-elected and has nothing politically to fear, he can really espouse his gun control ideology.

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

(Un)Employment In Perspective

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that October’s “official” U-3 unemployment rate fell below 8 percent, but just barely at 7.9 percent. As Rick Moran wrote, “… the economy added a middling 171,000 jobs.” (By the way, U-3 unemployment rate among blacks is 14.3 percent, yet Obama’s job approval rating among blacks is 91 percent.)

But the U-6 unemployment rate, which is 14.6 percent, includes people who are working part-time but are available for full-time work, as well as those who said the want to work but can’t find a job (marginally attached), as well as the long-term unemployed (discouraged workers).

The BLS publishes monthly U-1 through U-6 unemployment rates. So, with (at least) two unemployment rates from which to choose, and the fact that the unemployment rates don’t begin to tell the complete economic story, some further perspective (information) is warranted.

Let’s first examine long-term unemployment. The BLS categorizes anyone unemployed for more than six months (27 weeks) as long-term unemployed. The long-term unemployed presently comprise (seasonally adjusted) 40.6 percent of those unemployed, or 5,002,000 people. The percentage was 40.1 percent, or 4,844,000 people last month. The percentage has been above 40 since December 2009. Long-term unemployment has remained above 5 million people (except September 2012) since August 2009. These figures suggest that the US economy is not creating enough jobs to hire the long-term unemployed, that weak jobs growth is only enough to keep up with population growth.

The long-term unemployed use the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) disability
program
as a safety net when their unemployment insurance runs out. The number receiving SSDI benefits has risen by 24 percent, or 1.7 million people, since the recession began in 2007. Daniel Hamermesh, an economist at the University of Texas, said, “There are fewer of us experiencing unemployment, but those who are out are out a lot longer.” And, the number of people unemployed for over 99 weeks, the point where unemployment benefits run out, has grown from 467,000 in January 2009, to the present number of 1.8 million, a 385 percent increase.

Another problem with long-term unemployment is that it can become structural unemployment, meaning that the long-term unemployed no longer meet employers’ needs and/or are no longer considered employable.

It is interesting to note that, under Obama’s economy, long-term unemployment has almost doubled, from 2.6 million in January 2009, to 5 million today. And his policies, such as ObamaCare, higher taxes, higher energy costs, and compulsory unionism, make that number very hard to reduce.

Note also that the long-term unemployed are not part of the U-3 unemployment rate.

Now let’s examine Obama’s jobs record versus what he has done with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, the new name for foodstamps). According to Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, the rate of foodstamps growth has been 75 times that of job growth. Said
Sessions:

“Simply put, the President’s policies have not produced jobs. During his time in office, 14.7 million people were added to the food stamp rolls. Over that same time, only 194,000 jobs were created – thus 76 people went on foodstamps for every one that found a job. This is a product of low growth. Post-recession economic growth in 2010 was 2.4%, and dropped in 2011 to 1.8%. This year it has dropped again to 1.77%. Few, if any, net jobs will be created with growth of less than 2%.”

According to this chart, a net of 194,000 jobs have been created, while at the same time 14.7 million people have been added to the foodstamps rolls. Expressed as a percentage, foodstamp rolls have increased by 46 percent, while job growth has increased by 0.15 percent. The chart is based upon the most recent figures available. There were, in January 2009, about 133.56 million Americans with jobs, and about 133.76 million Americans with jobs in October 2012. That represents a 200,000 jobs growth, or about 0.15 percent. In January 2009, 32 million people were on foodstamps, while in July 2012, 46.7 million people were on foodstamps. That’s an increase of 14.7 million people, an increase of almost 46 percent.  (Yes, some rounding is going on here!)

This chart illustrates, foodstamp expenditure growth pre-dates Obama, but Obama certainly perfected its growth. In fact, Obama has spent more in four years ($290 billion, 2009-2012) than Bush did in eight years ($237 billion, 2001-2008).

Sessions’ comments about foodstamps and jobs give new perspective to the October 2012, employment and unemployment rates, don’t they?

Just so you know, the federal government spent over $1 trillion in 2011 on welfare (of which SNAP is a part) – that’s over $59,500 per impoverished household. The median income for working Americans was about $50,000. Judicial Watch said:

“The Obama Administration has been promoting food stamps like there’s no tomorrow, even offering states that sign up the most recipients cash bonuses. For example, Wisconsin got a $5 million performance bonus for its efficiency in adding food-stamp recipients to already bulging rolls.”

It’s no wonder that Obama won the election. Obama (and the MSM) emphasized the U-3 unemployment rate, while ignoring the long-term unemployed problem, and by buying votes by increasing government dependency as fast as he could.

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

GDP Growth Manipulation

I have a friend, Tom, who is a 48-state big rig driver. He saw an increase in road construction just before the election, especially in “swing states” such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia, as well as country-wide. He knows about what he is talking. He thinks that the highway construction jobs had two purposes: “shovel-ready” jobs from The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (the stimulus) spending, and to boost the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Both purposes were ultimately for the buying of votes. So, with Tom’s premise as a starting point, let’s examine what is currently going on with the GDP, as well as how the stimulus has been used in the past to have an effect upon the GDP.

The US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) announced on Friday, October 26, 2012, that the GDP grew at an annual rate of 2 percent in the third quarter of this year, due to increases in consumer and government spending. Consumer spending, about 70 percent of US GDP, grew at a 2 percent quarterly rate, while government spending grew at a whopping 9.6 percent quarterly rate.

The BEA also emphasized that the 2 percent growth rate is an “advance” estimate. For comparison, the BEA also said that the GDP grew at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the second quarter of this year, down from the BEA advance estimate of 1.7 percent.

“The Bureau emphasized that the third-quarter advance estimate released today is based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency. The ‘second’ estimate for the third quarter, based on more complete data, will be released on November 29, 2012.”

The MSM announced the growth rate, but I could not find where the MSM said the BEA announcement that the growth rate was an advance estimate, nor could I find that the MSM announced the two subsequent estimates the BEA schedules: the Second GDP announcement on November 26 (well after the election), and the Third GDP announcement on December 20. But the MSM did say how this announcement will help Obama. The White House was quick to latch onto the BEA report, saying that the economy is recovering from its 2008 collapse.

But nowhere could I find the MSM or the White House offer this bit of information:

“Economists often say U.S. GDP needs to grow around 3% a year to bring unemployment down significantly.”

To support Tom’s premise, look at what happened in 2010. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said that the stimulus added 3.3 million jobs and increased the GDP by up to 4.5 percent in the second quarter of 2010. “Vice President Joe Biden issued a statement on May 26, 2010, saying the CBO report ‘is important validation that the action we took to rescue the economy last year has not only pulled us back from the brink, but put us on a firm path toward economic recovery’.” The CBO also, in May 2010, said that the effect of the stimulus will continue to increase through 2010. The ABC News site did say that all of the figures it announced were CBO “guesstimates,” but nowhere did it offer whether the CBO used advance, second, or third figures.

And, to further support Tom’s premise, government spending increased by 9.6 percent in the third quarter of 2012. Government spending was down by 0.2 percent in the second quarter of 2012, and it dropped in the seven previous quarters as well. Coincidence? Your call.

Did Obama and his minions pull the same stunt that they pulled just before the 2010 elections?

By the way, look at this map to see which two states have received the most stimulus money: California and New York, the two states with the most electoral college votes. Coincidence? Again, your call.

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.