Sunday, November 30, 2014

The Phony Science Behind Obama's EPA Ozone Regulation

According to the President's head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Gina McCarthy, we need to lower the current allowable ozone rates from 75 parts-per-billion (ppb) to at least 65-70 ppb, and eventually to 60 ppb.  Her primary argument for doing this is improved health; especially in children with asthma.  In a commentary that McCarthy wrote, that was published by CNN, she said this:
For our children, that means avoiding up to 1 million missed school days, thousands of cases of acute bronchitis, and nearly a million asthma attacks. Adults could avoid hundreds of emergency room visits for cardiovascular reasons, up to 180,000 missed work days, and 4 million days where people have to deal with pollution-related symptoms.
To further justify the EPA requirement, she added this:
Thousands of scientific studies (from renowned institutions like Harvard University, the University of North Carolina Medical School, and many others) tell us that cutting air pollution to meet ozone standards lowers the risk of asthma, permanent lung damage, cardiovascular harm, and premature death.
Now, there is no way that I or anyone else can factually prove that reducing ozone lowers the risk of permanent lung damage, cardiovascular disease, or premature deaths.  All of these health issues are the result of a number of other variables such as smoking, work environment, family histories, etc.  But, I can tell you one thing: Every year, Americans are living longer.

As to the theory that lowering ozone levels reduces the risk of asthma, especially in children, let me say this. From an emotional standpoint, it is always difficult to argue against any regulation that would help children, but please consider the following:

Instead of using anecdotal evidence from some government-sponsored Harvard study, I would prefer to use actual evidence from the Center for Disease Control (CDC); which, apparently, Gina McCarthy never heard of.  You see, the CDC collects physical data on all kinds of diseases.  In the period from 2006-2008, they found that 9% of children had prevalent asthma.  Then, in 2008, the EPA mandate of ozone levels of 75 ppb went into effect. Therefore, one would think that the risk of children getting asthma would have lessened.  However, 4 years later, in 2012, the CDC determined that the percentage of children with asthma actually went up to 9.3%.  Also, in 1996, the percent of children with asthma was only 6%. So, why is the rate of children with asthma so much higher?  This, despite a near 75% drop in ozone as this chart from the EPA shows:
Image link remove by EPA. I wonder why?

So, tell me. Where is the correlation between asthma and ozone? Are we once again being lied to by the Obama Administration and using junk science to establish more major impediments to business merely to make the liberal base of environmentalists happy? 

The proposed new regulation(s) on ozone is expected to cost our economy $3.4 trillion in economic output by 2040.  With, at the same time, a loss of 2.9 million jobs in the process.   Of course, the EPA claims that for every dollar spent in compliance, $3 in health benefits will be returned.  Obviously, then, we should see $10.2 trillion in health benefits by 2040.  To put that number into perspective, Americans spend about $2.8 trillion on health care each year.  So, we are now expected to believe that we will save nearly 4 years worth of all the current health care spending by 2040?  I doubt anyone who knows numbers would seriously think that is even possible.


CNN: Gina McCarthy:  U.S. EPA: We need tougher ozone standards:

Americans Can Now Expect to Live Longer Than Ever | TIME:

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS):

‘The most expensive regulation ever’  Obama rolls out a major EPA rule:

Current Asthma Prevalence --- United States, 2006--2008:

CDC: Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Children: National Health Interview Survey, 2012:

June 2000: Childhood Asthma: In 1996, 4.4 million children, or 6 percent of the U.S. population under 18 years of age, had asthma:

EPA: Ozone Season NOx Reductions:


Saturday, November 29, 2014

Jobless Claims Spiking...Should We Worry?

Back in September, I wrote a blog titled: Beware of Jobless Claims Below 300,000. In it, I showed that, historically, when claims fall below 300,000, a recession is almost sure to follow.

Well, interestingly enough, we just had a big spike in jobless claims which are now back above 300,000.  So, the question is: Is this jump signalling the possible start of a recession.  The reason I say this, is because it is rare to see such a big jump in layoffs before a big holiday like Thanksgiving.  Normally, employers do everything possible to avoid giving people notices at those time.  It can be a heartless thing to do.

With that in mind, please look at this chart from the people at Zero Hedge:

Now, look at the historical Jobless Claims from St. Louis Federal Reserve:
Click on chart to zoom in
Note, the similarity in the spike in claims just before the start of each recession.

This doesn't mean that a recession is necessarily imminent. Usually it takes a few weeks to develop, but if jobless claims continue to develop an upward trend, it may be that this latest number is the canary in the coal mine.

One last thing.  Normally, the claims number that follows a holiday will be low because (1) claims offices are only open a few days in that reporting period and (2) because less people are available during holidays to file claims.  Therefore, next week's jobless number should fall dramatically.  But, if not, we could be seeing the start of a new recession.


Initial Jobless Claims Spikes Above 300k To 3-Month Highs, Biggest Miss In 11 Months:

FRED: 4-Week Moving Average of Initial Claims:,

Friday, November 28, 2014

Don't Believe The Hype Over The 3.9% Growth In GDP

Apparently, the economy -- as measured by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) -- grew by an unexpected 3.9% in the third quarter.  Coupled with 4.6% in the second quarter, this is the best growth in back-to-back quarters in 10 years.  But, there is a serious problem with both of these numbers. The fact is, that the consumer spending is a lot weaker than those numbers would imply.

You see, about 70% of any GDP calculation comes from what you and I spend.  While this last quarter looks rather hot with a 3.9% growth rate, the consumer spending only grew by 2.2%.  In an even hotter second quarter at 4.6%, consumer spending only rose by 2.5%. Simply, consumer activity is tepid and that's not good.  It shows that lagging incomes, high rates of poverty, and higher prices for food and energy are taking a toll.

There is also another number that makes up the GDP and that indicates a lack of consumer spending: Imports.  We are a nation who is heavily dependent on imported goods.  Yet, last quarter they fell seven tenths of a percent.  Proving the demand for imported goods has also slowed.

This begs the question, if 70% of GDP is household spending and that was weak, where did all the growth come from.  Well, you can thank our war with ISIS.  Military spending jumped 16%;  and overall, federal spending jumped 9.9%.  Business spending, too, had a hefty impact; growing by 7.1%, but it is always heavier in the third quarter as manufacturers rev up production of goods prior to the holiday season. 

Personally, I think that all the business spending may be for naught.  Especially, if the consumer continues to lag behind.  It may just be the case that the consumer is the Grinch that stole this Christmas.


U.S. Third-Quarter GDP Revised Up to 3.9% Growth:

U.S. GDP Grew 4.6% In Second Quarter 2014, Up From Earlier Estimates:

What Are the Components of GDP?:

New data shows Americans' incomes still stagnant after recession:

If There’s No Inflation, Why Are Prices Up So Much?:

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

The Irresponsible Media, Black Leadership, And Even The White House Own The Ferguson Riots

When the Michael Brown shooting was first made public, we were told that an unarmed Black teen was shot in the back by a White police officer while holding his hands in the air in surrender.  The supposed reason that we were given for the shooting was that Michael Brown refused to move out of the middle of the street.  All of this was wrong and, if you think about it, made zero sense.  However, because of this irresponsible reporting, nights of rioting ensued. Blacks and sympathetic whites, all over the country, protested the shooting by holding their hands up in the air and shouting "Don't shoot". 

Also, the implied racism claim was further inflamed when Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the Black Panthers, and the NAACP all descended on Ferguson, whipping up even more rage over the Brown shooting.  Beyond this, Obama's own Attorney General, Eric Holder, injected himself into the situation by launching a racial investigation of the Ferguson Police Department. That fact alone, solidified the belief in the minds of many Blacks that the shooting was racially motivated.  This too was irresponsible.

Lastly, President Obama, instead of reassuring the nation that the Grand Jury decision was correct, simply called for calm, while in split screen, rioting and flames were seen.

The President further fanned the flames by saying the anger was "understandable" for people who believe "the law is being applied in a discriminatory fashion".  Implying, of course, that the Grand Jury decision was indeed unfair.

So, all along, the stage was set for rioting; as if it would be somehow purposeful, but, long after the violence stops; and the media attention is gone; and people like the Obama, Eric Holder, and Al Sharpton have moved on, Ferguson will be left to fall into decay like so many other cities that fell victim to racial rioting in the past.  Blacks that remain in Ferguson are destined to live in a community that is poorer, and more crime ridden than it is today. Ironically, it will be the Black residents themselves, who will suffer the most for Michael Brown's death.


Obama begs for calm as rioters set fires and attack police cars in Ferguson after grand jury refuses to indict police officer in Michael Brown case:

Holder's Justice Department to Investigate Ferguson, Missouri, Police:

Sharpton Calls Ferguson Decision 'An Absolute Blow' to Justice:

Al Sharpton Announces Ferguson Protest Plans In 25 Cities:

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

M.I.T.'s Jonathan Gruber: A One-Man Wrecking Crew

Touted by Nancy Pelosi and paid handsomely by the White House to consult on the crafting of ObamaCare, it was obvious that Jonathan Gruber was the go-to-guy and the how-to-guy for the creation of the Democratic takeover of 1/6th of the economy: Health Care.  After all, he was the primary architect of Massachusetts' healthcare reform law.  So, he had already been there and done that.

Recently, Gruber has become a big problem for the Democrats because in six videos, (and, still counting), this M.I.T. professor has blown the lid off of how the ObamaCare law was assembled. According to Gruber,  it was crafted in such a way as to dupe the stupid American voters and, at the same time, dupe the Congressional Budget Office; who's responsibility it was to verify the impact on the federal deficit.

As a result, in addition to all the lies that were used to sell ObamaCare, we are now getting to hear the lies being told to discredit Gruber's assertions.  Even though those assertions are logically backed up by some key elements of the health care law.  Even so, the now apparently senile Pelosi, can't seem to remember Gruber nor believes he had anything to do with ObamaCare.  This despite a 2009 video in which she praised him. There is also the fact that his name, comments, and work are all over her official website.  Then, like a scene from Mission Impossible where Mr. Phelps is told that, if you are caught, we will disavow any knowledge of you, the White House and President Obama are also denying knowledge of Gruber.  This, even though there are the more than a half-dozen logged visits by him to the White House. There is also the pesky fact that the Obama Administration has paid him $400,000 in consultation fees for just that purpose.

The truth is, that despite current assertions, Gruber has always been known as a key architect of the law.  Here's that fact as noted in Wikipedia:
Gruber has been heavily involved in crafting public health policy. He was a key architect of both the 2006 Massachusetts health care reform, sometimes referred to as "Romneycare", and the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, sometimes referred to as "Obamacare".[1]
But, because of his mouth and the videos of him using it, he may have just changed from being the architect of ObamaCare, to the man who took a wrecking ball to it and any trust Americans may have still felt towards the Obama Administration.   He has single-handedly exposed the President and the Democrats for using deceit to craft and sell the law to the public.  At the same time, he may have also sunk any chance that the Supreme Court will side with the President in the forthcoming case of King vs. Burwell over ObamaCare subsidies being handed out to 34 states that elected not to build there own exchanges.  Thus, leaving millions of low income enrollees to pay their insurance premiums on their own.  Then there is the argument that the law never intended to exclude non-state exchanges. This is undermined by Gruber's statement that the withholding of subsidies was done intentionally and politically to punish states for not setting up their own exchanges.  Famously, in 2012, Gruber said exactly that, in his own words, and as documented in Wikipedia:
Gruber: January 18, 2012: "What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits."
Of course, Gruber now says he misspoke back then.  But, it sure sounds correct when you read the law and when it clearly says that subsidies will only be given to those who enroll in "Exchanges established by the State'.   A fact that the IRS overruled by extending subsidies to all enrollees in direct contradiction to the President's own namesake law.

So you see, the Democrats are now paying heavily for their relationship with Gruber.  Truly, he is the slayer who increased the lack of any confidence that still remained in Obama or the Democrats, and he may have easily sunk ObamaCare's chances of surviving an upcoming Supreme Court decision.

What he has said only confirms why the new healthcare law had to be crafted in secret, behind closed doors, and without any Republican attendance or input.


Jonathan Gruber (economist):

Washington Post: Nancy Pelosi Lied About Not Knowing Jonathan Gruber:

White House: Jonathan Gruber Had Nothing to do With Obamacare, We Swear:

SMOKING GUN VIDEO: Jonathan Gruber Admitted Obama Was In the Room When Cadillac Tax Lie Was Created. UPDATE: WHITE HOUSE LOGS CONFIRM!:

Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber has billed federal and state governments at least $5.9 million for advice, as more videos surface showing him undercutting the landmark law:

Obamacare architect in 6th video: 'Mislabeling' helped us get rid of tax breaks:

King v. Burwell:

The Washington Post: Fox Poll: 81 percent of Americans believe that Obama lies to them at least “now and then” on “important matters: Obama's 'blizzard of lies':

 Obamacare behind closed doors:


Monday, November 24, 2014

Why Few Of Those 4.5 Million Immigrants Will Get Amnesty

OK. President Obama has proclaimed that 4.5 million illegal immigrants will get amnesty.

So, what now?

Well, probably very little will happen before a new President is elected in 2016 with the potential of nullifying Obama's action with his/her own executive order.  This is because our immigrant processing  is already behind by at least 2 years.

In fact, back in July, 40,000 immigrants filed a federal lawsuit because they had been waiting for up to 2 years simply to get interviewed so that the processing of their asylum requests could even begin. If our immigration service doesn't have enough staff to start processing 40,000 requests, how can they handle 100 times that amount and, fulfill the daunting task of verifying their dates of entry along with verifying that their children are U.S. born?  In addition, this must be done with people who, in most cases, speak little or no English.  A fact that only slows things down even further because an interpreter or bilingual agent will be needed to facilitate the process.

Essentially, Obama's amnesty proclamation is in name only and impractical to implement without any substantial increases in both budget and staffing.

But, the President doesn't really care that these people won't get processed.

All that he cares about is the pro-Hispanic and pro-Latino politics of his action.  Politics which are intended to enhance the Democrats standing among this minority group, and the politics of trying to show Republicans as obstructionists because of any attempts they may make to reverse the order.  It is also quite possible that the timing of this has to do with the fact that January is likely to kickoff two years of announced campaigning for the presidency, and President Obama is most likely hoping that the Republican candidates will all denounce his amnesty order and therefore, inflame Latinos against them and any others in their party.  However, this action may have done the opposite. A recent poll shows that 37% of Latinos, and nearly half of all Americans disapprove of his order on immigration.


Asylum-seeking immigrants file class-action suit against federal government over interview backlog:

A new NBC poll shows Latinos do not overwhelmingly support President Obama's decision to thwart Congress on amnesty through executive action:

Sunday, November 23, 2014

Obama's Call For Net Neutrality: A Backdoor To Regulating The Internet

Do you remember who said those infamous words: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."  Well, that same person is indirectly saying something similar about the Internet: "If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet."  That's why, like the takeover of healthcare, Obama now wants the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate the Internet.  His guise for doing so is something called "Network Neutrality" or, simply, "Net Neutrality".

So, what is Net Neutrality?  Well, the supporters of it, would tell you that it is needed to insure that the internet remains free (as in freedom of speech) and open (as in nothing gets blocked).

But, isn't it already free and open and, won't the free market place and competition keep it free and open in the future?  Why does a regulatory agency like the FCC need to take control of it?  Couldn't free speech and openness be guaranteed by the simple passage of a federal law that makes it a crime to control speech or content on the Internet?

There is a lot more to this than simply keeping the internet free and open.  Already, the President wants his appointed Federal Election Commission (FEC) to put a stop to political speech on sites like Drudge.  So, why not a two-pronged attack to do the same by having tThe FCC control speech on the internet in the same way it is controlled on the public airways for television and radio?  Probably arguing that political speech on the Internet should be balanced by applying something like the Fairness Doctrine.

As many have said, Net Neutrality is a solution looking for a problem.  Those saying that, don't understand that everything Obama does is politically motivated.  In his mind, Net Neutrality is an attempt to minimize as much conservative speech on the Internet as possible.


President Obama calls on FCC to keep Internet 'free and open':

FCC coordinated net neutrality with outside [liberal] group:

Federal Communications Commission:

Fairness Doctrine:

Limbaugh is Right, Net Neutrality Is An Attack On Free Speech -- So Why Is Comcast For It?:

FEC Democrat pushes for controls on Internet political speech:

Saturday, November 22, 2014

The Political Stupidity Of Hillary Clinton On Immigration

All indications are that Hillary Clinton will announce her intention to run for President within a few weeks.

So, why would any potential candidate be so stupid as to tweet her approval of Obama's executive action on immigration?  Apparently, she doesn't seem to understand how toxic this action really is.  In poll after poll, a majority of Americans and many Latinos disapprove of what Obama just did.

Lastly, it appears that Hillary, if President, seems to agree with Obama's tactic of going it with executive orders.   Do we really need another President that wants to bypass the Congress and the will of the people with executive actions?


Terry McAuliffe: 60 Days Until Hillary Decision:

Hillary Clinton Breaks Her Silence on Immigration Reform: "I support the President's decision to begin fixing our broken immigration system..":

Poll: 63% oppose Obama’s executive order on amnesty:

NBC poll: Executive amnesty is… pretty unpopular with just about everybody:

Poll: Many Latinos Disapprove of Obama's Executive Amnesty:


.By Executive Order, Obama Further Damaged Our Already Broken Immigration System

All that President Obama did with his executive order on immigration is erect a massive billboard for all the world to see, that says "Come on in.  Have a baby and stay.  No immigration documents necessary".  Of course his rationale for doing this is all about fairness.  Fairness to all the U.S. born children who live in fear that their illegal parents may be deported.  However, this ignores the fact that, every day, U.S. born parents are separated from their children by our legal system and, by the actions of our statewide Departments of Child and Family Services.  Are we now to assume that, if a criminal has kids, they should be given amnesty because we don't want to separate them from their parents.?

Also, there is the issue of the questionable fairness of putting those who illegally got here ahead of all those who struggled to get in line to come to this country legally?  What does that say to the world?

Nothing that was supposed to be fixed by immigration reform was fixed by the executive order.  It doesn't address a guest worker program.  It does nothing to secure the border. It won't stop unaccompanied children from flooding in. Nor, does it punish anyone for violating our laws by entering illegally. Instead, it will only accelerate illegal immigration.

Lastly, we have been told that the legalization of immigrants will not give them access to any federal benefits or a pathway to citizenship.  I guarantee you, that is just bull.  I am quite sure that there are dozens of immigration lawyers across America, who are chomping at the bit to sue for access to benefits and the right to citizenship on behalf of any newly legalized immigrants.  Their argument will be based on the fact that, if these people are paying taxes (including FICA) in support of federal benefits.  How then, can they be denied access to those benefits?  Also, if these legal taxpayers have been living here for years and paying taxes, how can they be denied citizenship?

In poll after poll, the American people have spoken. They do not want amnesty for illegals.  Yet, Obama felt entitled to act against Congress and the will of the people and go it alone. This has taken presidential executive action well beyond what the framers of the constitution intended. 


Poll: 63% oppose Obama’s executive order on amnesty:

NBC poll: Executive amnesty is… pretty unpopular with just about everybody:

Poll: Many Latinos Disapprove of Obama's Executive Amnesty:

Any steps the White House may soon take won't address the real immigration problem:

Friday, November 21, 2014

As President, Obama Does Have The Constitutional Right To Grant Amnesty To Illegal Immigrants

Many Republicans, including Rush Limbaugh, are claiming that the President has no constitutional authority to grant amnesty to 4.5 million illegal immigrants with U.S. born children.

But, sadly, the Constitution does give him that right in Article II, Section 2 with the following words regarding presidential powers:
...shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment".
Further, as Wikipedia notes:
The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites, and amnesties.
So, what he is basically doing is pardoning millions of immigrants of the crime against the United States for entering the country illegally. As a Constitutional law professor, Obama had to have known this all along.  Yet for nearly 6 years, he claimed he didn't have to the constitutional right to stop deportations because he didn't have the power to override immigration laws that were already on the books.  This is true, but he only said that to delay using his executive pardon power until such time as it would no longer affect his reelection, or the election/reelection of any Democratic members of Congress.  For that reason, Latinos should really be upset with the President.

Lastly.  Because the President has this right, his action will never be challenged in the courts.  As a result, the amnesty will never be reversed; even by future Republican presidents.  Pardons are forever. That, then, brings us to this question...are people who are legally free to reside here now eligible for citizenship? Personally, I just don't know.



22 Times President Obama Said He Couldn’t Ignore or Create His Own Immigration Law:

Video: Obama In March 2011: Can't Stop Deportations Through Executive Order:

Thursday, November 20, 2014

To Mr. Gruber...Only Democrats Were Too Stupid To See Through You

According to one of the key architects of ObamaCare, Jonathan Gruber, Americans were too stupid to see through what he (and other Democrats) actually did to get the healthcare law passed; arguing that the lack of transparency was politically powerful.

One big problem with his "stupid" statement is that the American public have never been stupid enough to give ObamaCare majority approval.  According to Gallup, the highest approval in their polling since December of 2012 was 48%.  Today, it sits at a freshly-printed record low of 37%.

Polls conducted by Business Insider, going all the way back to 2009, showed that no-higher that 40% have ever thought ObamaCare was good for the country.

Additionally, when you look at the Gallup poll's approval rates broken down by party affiliation, you get this chart:
You see Mr. Gruber, only Democrats (now down to 74% from 80%) were, and still are, too stupid to see what you and the other Democrats were doing.  Independents and Republicans pretty much got it right away. However, their current 74% approval number means that even 26% of Democrats aren't too stupid to see through all the politically-motivated shenanigans that were used to get the law passed.


Obamacare Architect: Americans 'Too Stupid to Understand':

Gallup: Approval of ObamaCare At New Low:

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Three Space Disasters, NASA, and the Continued Legacy Of Obama: Incompetence

Even before President Obama came into office, his space exploration transition team, headed by an inexperienced person by the name of Lori Garver, told NASA that there were going to be deep cuts to that Agency in the coming year and that the shuttle replacement program would be scrapped.  Further, Obama's transition team told NASA to explore using old technologies to shuttle us to the Space Station.  So, today, we have no shuttles because they were all decommissioned in 2010.  We have no replacement program because Obama scrapped it.  Instead, we now depend on two private entities, Orbital Sciences and Space-X, and the Russians to get us or any supplies to the International Space Station.

Now, because of the President's use of sanctions placed on Russia over the Ukraine, Russia has announced that we can no longer use them for access to the space station starting in 2020.  So, that brings into question the wisdom of being dependent on an on-again-off-again adversary such as Russia for a space shuttle replacement.

Last August, a Space-X launch vehicle was intentionally blown up because of a detected malfunction; setting back that company's program. On top of that, after the recent explosion of the Orbital Sciences' rocket that uses a 40-year old rocket engine purchased from Russia, and then the explosion of Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic space plane, one has to seriously question Obama's decision to scrap the space shuttle in lieu of small, private, start-up space companies like Orbital Sciences and Space-X.  So, right now, we have Russia at odds with us.  At the same time, both of the space programs of our only two private contractors are unavailable as each of them sorts out what went wrong with their vehicles.  Orbital Science, didn't just lose their rocket, their entire launch pad was lost at the very same time.

This is another example of incompetence by this President and another reason that he has such a low approval rating.  From a stimulus that didn't stimulate; to an ObamaCare law that was supposed to lower costs and allow you to  keep your insurance and your doctor; to the mishandling of Syria, ISIS, and our pulling out of Iraq; to the missteps on Ebola and the unaccompanied youths from Central America; Obama has proven that he is not up to the job and absolutely cannot pick the right people to appropriately keep him advised.


December 2008: Obama Planning to Scrap Shuttle Replacement, Says NASA:

Russia to ban US from using Space Station over Ukraine:

August 22, 2014: SpaceX rocket explosion caught on video:

October 14,2014: 40-Year-Old Russian Engine at Heart of Rocket Investigation:

October 31, 2014: Virgin Galactic Crash: Enough With the Amateurs:

Obama's Choice For Illegals: Unemployment In Exchange For Amnesty?

By all accounts, President Obama's executive order will give at least 4.5 million illegals with U.S. born children permanent and legal residency through the existing green card system.  As a result they  will no longer have to work in the shadows; constantly in fear of deportation.

What the executive action ignores is the fact that many employers, not all, hire illegal workers because they will accept low wages, work hard, work long hours and, more importantly, won't complain about either their pay or their working conditions.  In return, there is also an implied agreement that the employer won't turn them in to immigration authorities, unless of course, they give them a reason to do so.

So, what happens when the fear of deportation is taken away by executive action?

First of all, you need to understand that many of these people can't speak or read English.  Some are unable to read in their native language as well, being illiterate and having limited job skills.  So, if it weren't for the fact that employers can get away with paying low wages, these people would normally be unemployable.  And, that's exactly what Obama's executive action may do.

After becoming legal residents with their green cards in hand, those once-illegals must be lawfully paid at least the minimum wage or the prevailing wage for the kind of work being done.  Thus, the low pay advantage goes away.  Also, their newly found status means that they no longer have to fear exposure and possible deportation; so, they are free to complain about salary, working conditions, and long hours.  In essence, they will become no different than any other U.S. born worker.

Ultimately, employers will begin to hire better educated, English speaking, literate Americans over the former illegals.  What we will then wind up with is some number (possibly in the millions) of unemployable workers who will, because of their legal status, be wards of the state; living off of welfare and other poverty benefits.

Thank you, Mr. Obama!


Green Cards and Permanent Residency:

US Ordering 34 Million Green Cards for Illegal Plan:

Obama Plan May Allow Millions of Immigrants to Stay and Work in U.S.:


Monday, November 17, 2014

Obama's Feckless and One-Sided Emissions Agreement With China

One of the so called "big" accomplishments of  President Obama's China trip is his agreement to cooperate with the Chinese on reducing carbon emissions.  Obama's people and the liberal media call it historic.  But, it is better described as : Historically Stupid!

The first paragraph from a White House press release gives an overview of the China agreement:
Building on strong progress during the first six years of the Administration, today President Obama announced a new target to cut net greenhouse gas emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. At the same time, President Xi Jinping of China announced targets to peak CO2 emissions around 2030, with the intention to try to peak early, and to increase the non-fossil fuel share of all energy to around 20 percent by 2030. 
So, let me get this straight.

Until 2030, China can continue -- completely unfettered -- its already massive growth in carbon emissions as noted by this chart from the liberal website New Republic:

Then, "around" 2030, China agrees to cap its emissions at that year's levels.  God only knows what "around" means. In addition, China will "try" to stem emission growth early and increase non-fossil fuels to 20% by 2030.

As a reward and in advance of their anticipated good behavior after 2030, Obama agrees that by 2025 (at least 5 years earlier than China's "around" 2030 commitment), we will reduce our carbon emission by 26 to 28 percent from the levels that we were producing 10 years ago.

So, China maybe.  Us definitely.

Of course, there is no penalty to either party for failing to meet the "targets" of this agreement.  All of this rests on a handshake between our President and the President of China with no treaty or   approval from Congress.

Of course this is "all show" An agreement that is intended to portray Obama as a leader and a feeble attempt at rehabilitating his image after the shellacking he received in the recent elections.  Whether China will meet its commitments under this agreement is really questionable. But, one thing is certain, the President will use this to seriously hurt this country's economy by enforcing massive and expensive changes to our energy production.  The increased costs won't hurt the rich.  They will definitely hurt the middle class and, predominately, the poor.  So much for closing the income inequality gap.


US and China reach historic climate change agreement:

'Major Milestone': US, China Announce Climate Breakthrough:

'Historic' Climate Deal Between US and China -

White House Press Release: FACT SHEET: U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change and Clean Energy Cooperation:

New U.S.-China climate deal is a game changer | Grist:

New Republic: Conservatives Are Missing the Point of Obama's Climate Change Plan:

Sen. Inhofe: 'A non-binding charade': 


Friday, November 14, 2014

Amnesty for 4.5 Million Illegals? Why the Rush?

According to documents obtained by Fox News, Obama will issue an executive order that will effectively give amnesty to the 4.5 million illegals who have children that were born in the United States.

As a result of this action, illegals will be given valid social security numbers and permanent residency green cards; thus bypassing all the normal procedures that most "legal" immigrants would have to go through to achieve a similar status.

At the same time, the issuance of green cards gives them the right to become a citizen after 5 years of residency; only 3 years if the spouse is already a citizen. That's the law, but Obama and the Democrats aren't going to tell us that.  They're just hoping that those 4.5 million will ultimately become voting Democrats in just 5 years.  Of course, there's a real question as to whether or not the President even has the right to override the existing laws by allowing permanent residency and the pathway to citizenship to those who have previously violated our immigration laws and who are fraudulently using fake Social Security cards and other I.D.'s.  After all, the violation of our laws, criminal activity, and fraud are the primary reasons green cards can be revoked.  Yet, in this case, Obama seems to think these are all reasons to issue them.

So, we're also supposed to believe that this Administration -- the one that took 3 years to build a website and enroll 8 million people in health insurance -- is even capable of accurately verifying and issuing green cards to 4.5 million people.  My guess is that they won't even be verifying status under the executive action and, as such, the number of people legalized will be a lot higher; meaning that the 4.5 million may be just another lie. Why else would his Administration recently bid on a contract to supply 34 million new blank green cards in the next five years; with an initial order of 9 million next year.  A surprising number when less than 400,000 are normally issued each year.

The other thing we won't be told about is that immigrants holding green cards become immediately eligible for public assistance benefits from the States and the Federal government.  For sure, the issued Social Security cards will make them eligible for that benefit and, perhaps, Medicare also.  Both which they may or may not have paid into while they held an illegal status. And, since many of those living here illegally are below the poverty level, expect taxpayer funded benefits to rise significantly. Of course this reality will also not be shared with us, and when asked about it, I suspect that Obama and Democrats will either skirt the issue or simply, once again, lie.

Much of what I've written above is the "why" Obama can't wait on immigration.  He knows that, if he waits for the reform to come out of the new Republican Congress, there will be all kinds of restrictions and, more importantly, there won't be any 3-year or 5-year path to citizenship that his green card plot assures.  As a result, Democrats won't be able to count on the millions of newly minted voters that they expect his order to create.  Instead, the Republican Congress is expected to pass a bill that would require illegals to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of line for citizenship. 

The pure fact that the President is rushing to act on this is a sure tip off that there's a lot he doesn't want us to know about it  Similar to most of what he has already done in the past 6 years.


Fox News has obtained new documents from a government agency which contain detailed proposals for presidential action that could lead to legalization for undocumented immigrants:

Green Cards: Permanent residence (United States):

US Ordering 34 Million Green Cards for Illegal Plan:

Numbers of Green Cards Issued by Category by Year (2006-2010):

Green Cards: Membership Has Its Privileges:


Thursday, November 13, 2014

The Selling Of ObamaCare: Exposing The Lies and Deception

Last year, ObamaCare and it's individual mandate were rolled out. As a result, (the President's lies that you could keep your doctor, and your insurance, and the average family would save $2500 a year) were clearly exposed.

In June 2010, the Obama Administration also made a quiet entry into the Federal Register, saying that it was projected that 93 million Americans would have their current insurance policies cancelled as a result of ObamaCare.  Yet, past that date, the President continued to claim you could keep your present doctor.

Then, this year, one of the architects, Ezekiel Emanuel, wrote a book titled: "Reinventing American Health Care: How the Affordable Care Act Will Improve Our Terribly Complex, Blatantly Unjust, Outrageously Expensive, Grossly Inefficient, Error Prone System".  In it, he clearly states that the ObamaCare law will cause two-thirds of the current employer-offered insurance policies to just go away.  Apparently, from his words, this was intentional.  Thus, adding to the deception that "if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance".

But, more than anything, the words of another ObamaCare architect, Jonathan Gruber, tell of the deceit  used to get ObamaCare passed into law:
"This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK? So it's written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money — it would not have passed. OK? Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass. Look, I wish ... we could make it all transparent, but I'd rather have this law than not."
Essentially, he is saying they intentionally deceived the CBO.  Further, he bragged about how they used the lack of transparency to fool the stupid American voters.

But, Gruber also said this about two years ago:
"What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this."
The reason that these words are important is because in court case after court case, the Justice Department has argued the it was never the intent not to provide subsidies to states who didn't set up their own exchanges.  Well, Gruber clearly shows that to be a lie.  Now, the Supreme Court will hear the "subsidies" argument and one has to wonder how much of their decision will be based on Gruber's comments.

When Nancy Pelosi said "we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what's in it", she clearly was admitting that the truth was being hidden from the American public.  After all, it was crafted behind closed doors with the exclusion of any Republicans.  Then, the near 3,000 page document was put to a vote before anyone could read it, let alone debate it.

If a corporation had lied this much to its customers, it would have been sued out of existence.  But, the Democrats lied to the American people and only a few have been punished by losing their seats in Congress.  As of  January 2014, there will still be 44 Democrats in the Senate and 184 in the House of Representatives who will not have been punished for the deception and lies of their party and their President leading up to the passage of the Affordable Care Act.


Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare:

Most Employers Will Drop Health Coverage:

Jonathan Gruber recently said Obamacare only passed due to the "stupidity" of the American voter and a lack of "transparency," and video footage of his remarks was deleted from the internet:
Watch Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Admit in 2012 That Subsidies Were Limited to State-Run Exchanges (Updated With Another Admission):

Video: Pelosi: we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what's in it:


Wednesday, November 12, 2014

The Supreme Court To Review 4 Words That Could Kill ObamaCare

Once before, the Supreme Court reviewed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) and found the tax imposed on those not buying healthcare to be constitutional because, under the Constitution, Congress has been explicitly given the right impose taxes.

Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to be the arbiter in whether or not subsidies can be given to low income enrollees who have purchased their insurance through anything but State-run Exchanges. This tune it will all come down to the wording that appears in Title 26 › Subtitle A › Chapter 1 › Subchapter A › Part IV › Subpart C › § 36B of ObamaCare which covers premium assistance (subsidies).  And the words that matter -- those which define who may receive subsidies -- are as follows:
"and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State..."
More importantly, the Court decision will all come down to the last four words of the above line: "established by the State...".  What "established by the State" seems to imply is that any low income enrollee, in any of the 36 States who didn't establish their own Exchanges, aren't eligible for subsidies.  Thus, forcing millions to fully pay their own premiums.

Now, Obama's attorneys are going to argue that it was never the intent of ObamaCare to not give low income insureds a subsidy and, those people shouldn't be punished for a wording error (typo) in the law; arguing that it possibly should have said "for the State" and not "by the State".   This too is a ridiculous argument.  The universality of the subsidies could have been maintained by simply saying "and which were enrolled in through an Exchange" period.  There is no need to add the words "established by the State".

But the wording is very explicit, and those on the other side of this case are going to argue that it was intentional; further arguing that the intent was to punish Republican States for not setting up their own exchanges.  Thus forcing Republican Governors and Legislatures to face the voters over not having provided subsidies for their poorest of people.  Otherwise, the restrictive language of "by the State" would not even be needed.  But, punishment was the intent, and, in 2012, one of the chief architects of the law, MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber made this quite clear when he said this about crafting that part of the law:
"What's important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits-but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you're essentially saying [to] your citizens you're going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this."
Clearly, the intent was to use this portion of the law politically. This in much the same way that Democrats tried to defeat those Republican Governors who didn't expand Medicaid under ObamaCare.  However, not one Republican Governor who refused to expand Medicaid lost their governorship in the last election.

My guess is that the high court will side against Obama's Justice Department and rule that the subsidies outside of State exchanges are invalid.  But, in doing so, they may specify that enrollees who are currently receiving those subsidies can continue to receive them -- assuming they are still eligible -- on the basis that they entered into a "good faith" contract with the federal government for their health insurance.  Though, beyond this, ObamaCare will not be able to provide additional subsidies.  Thus, it will be up to the President and the new Republican Congress to fix it.  We'll see how that goes.

Of course, if subsidies are ruled out for non-State Exchanges and the wording of law isn't changed through legislative action, much of the intent of the law -- that to insure most of those who can't afford insurance -- is lost.  As a result, millions won't be able to sign up for ObamaCare because of cost (mostly younger people) and then, those forced to sign up because of need (usually older and/or sicker) will only see their premiums get more expensive.  

Ultimately, ObamaCare will only be seen as a bigger failure than it already is.


Supreme Court to hear Obamacare subsidies case:

26 U.S. Code § 36B - Refundable credit for coverage under a qualified health plan:

Liberal Paul Krugman: Death by Typo The Latest Frivolous Attack on Obamacare:

An ACA Subsidy Smoking Gun? | RealClearPolicy:

Liberal Website: The New Republic: The Supreme Court Is Now a Death Panel:

Americans Vote Against Greater Medicaid Reach:

Good Faith:

Obamacare's Success Depends on Young Buyers:

The Public Disapproval Of ObamaCare Continues:

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

The Disturbing Trend Towards Ballot Initiatives

In Nevada, the voters spoke and resoundingly rejected what was called 'The Education Initiative'.  The reason it was defeated was because most understood that it would tax 2% of the gross revenues of any business making more than a million dollars; regardless if that company had profits or not. The funds being applied to education was also questionable since the revenues from this tax would be mixed in with all other tax revenues that the state took in. 

But, by simply calling it an Education Initiative, the supporters knew that many people wouldn't do the homework needed to understand the full impact of the bill and would simply vote yes on the basis of its title.  Also, they probably knew that some voters would vote yes because taxing million dollar businesses a small 2% tax would seem reasonable in order to improve education in Nevada. Of course, this was probably how the initiative was sold when collecting enough signatures to put it on the November 4th ballot.

Then, in California, Proposition 47 -- the Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act -- was approved by the voters. Now, who wouldn't vote for something that would provide safer neighborhoods and schools?  But, what Prop 47 actually does is reduce the prison population because the "Act" would, both retroactively and going forward, lower many felony sentences to misdemeanors.  Then, the savings from the lower cost prison system would be used to create and continue to fund The Safe Neighborhoods And Schools Fund.

Now, call me crazy, but how does the early release of felons onto the streets make neighborhoods and schools safer?  Also, I really don't think there will be a true savings because repeat offenders are going to wind up being rearrested, tried, and imprisoned.  There's a cost for that; both in terms of expense but, also, in terms of the demand it places on the police and California court system.  Then, too, criminal activity may actually increase because the punishment for getting caught is now much lighter.

The purpose of bringing up these two examples is to point out how dangerous these ballot initiatives can be.  In Nevada, if it weren't for aggressive advertising done by the business community, "The Education Initiative"  would have been law and, the survivability of many businesses would have been in jeopardy.  In California, it is very hard to see the upside of Prop 47. There are dozens of proposals like these that were put before the voters this year; and they will likely increase in future years.

The biggest problem with ballot initiatives is that they are a means by which special interest groups are able to bypass the legislature without any educated debate on the proposals themselves.  Many voters aren't qualified to pass judgement on them because they don't fully understand the possible repercussions and may simply vote on the basis of name only.  Rarely are the voters informed of the financial consequences (state and municipal costs) that would result from voting "yes".

In my opinion, there needs to be greater review of these initiatives.  Our lawmakers should be able to vote them up or down, after a vigorous debate, before being placed on the ballot.  After that, the voters must be clearly made aware of the pros and cons by mail and the Internet, and certainly, the names of the proposals should be objective, factual and non-deceptive.


The Nevada Education Initiative Overview:,_Question_3_%282014%29

California: Prop 47 Overview:,_Reduced_Penalties_for_Some_Crimes_Initiative_%282014%29

Judicial Review of Ballot Initiatives: The Changing Role of State and Federal Courts:

Monday, November 10, 2014

Republicans, Compromise Is Impossible With The Intractable Obama

One thing is sure, Obama has the negotiation style of no compromise.

The day following the embarrassing defeat of the Democrats in the midterm elections,  the President announced that he would act alone on immigration by year's end; arguing that it can't wait because there is a cost to waiting. Therefore, instead of seeing if he could get something done with the new Republican Congress, he is figuratively flipping them the bird.  If this isn't a sign that he is unwilling to  work together for the common good, nothing is.

As to his claim that there is a cost to waiting?  He had an opportunity to act on immigration for nearly six years;  especially in the first two of those years when Democrats completely controlled both houses. Then, earlier this year he announced he would issue an executive order on the issue at the end of the summer.  Of course, when he realized the immigration order would jeopardize the Democrat's chances, he announced he would wait until after the election.  This despite the supposed cost of waiting.

On immigration, Obama sounds like a nut case.  In reality, he's only willing to do something now because he is no longer able to run for office and, presumably, because Democrats can't be damaged any more than they already have been.

At some point, in the same speech, the President sounded as if he may be willing to work with the new Congress.  That is until he said this: "You send me a bill that I can sign and those executive actions go away."  In other words, you send me what I want and I'll sign it and stop those executive actions.  Or, more clearly: "it's my way or the highway."  Nothing in that statement says anything about working together to get something done. It is always you versus me. "We" is never part of any equation.

Once again, President Obama is not taking the November defeat seriously.  It is obvious that it will be business as usual.  No compromise.  Because of this, he is seriously jeopardizing any Democrat's chances in 2016.


Obama Pledges Immigration Executive Order By End Of Year:

Does Obama Even Know How to Negotiate?:

Friday, November 7, 2014

History Is Against A Democrat President Being Elected In 2016

In terms of U.S. presidential politics, one thing is quite sure: Very rarely is an eight year reign of one political party occupying the White House, followed by another of the same party.

The fact is, that since the end of World War II, only one President, Ronald Reagan, was able to hand the reigns of  his eight-year Presidency to another of the same political party: George H.W. Bush.  I believe the only reason this happened was because Reagan was considered the best President since World War II and Americans wanted to give Republican leadership another chance.

But, other than George H.W. Bush's win, this is how the Presidency has cycled between Democrats and Republicans:

Harry S. Truman, a Democrat who served 8 years, was replaced by Republican Dwight Eisenhower.  After Eisenhower's 8 years, John Kennedy (assassinated) and Lyndon Johnson -- both Democrats -- served 8 years and, were followed by Richard Nixon, a Republican.  After 8 years of Nixon (resigning in shame) and Gerald Ford, Democrat Jimmy Carter then occupied the White House.  Four years later the 12 years of Republicans Ronald Regan and George H. W. Bush were followed by Democrat Bill Clinton. Then, Clinton, after 8 years, was replaced by Republican George W. Bush; replaced 8 years later by Democrat President Barack Obama. 

In total, since the end of World War II, 6 Republican and 6 Democrats have been presidents of this country.  It appears that Americans can't take much more of one party or the other after 8 years.  Not  a glowing testament to one being better than the other.

So, for Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat hoping to be elected President in 2016, history is not on your side. Especially with Barack Obama having such low approval ratings and now being considered this country's worst President.


Wikipedia: List of Presidents Of The United States:

Obama worst president since WWII, new poll shows. Reagan the Best:

Thursday, November 6, 2014

No, Mr. President, You Were On The Ballot And, Probably Will Be Again, In 2016

Just recently, Barack Obama said that he wasn't on any ballot, but his policies were.  As if one could separate them. Well, resoundingly, America has spoken and they have rejected those policies.  As such, the election and all the Democrat's losses were seen by many as a referendum on the President.

Democrats knew this.  That is why so few candidates wanted him to appear with them on the campaign trail. Where he did campaign, they generally lost.  If America had really wanted his policies, they would have strengthened his hand by giving the Democrats more control of Congress; not less.  As it was, they lost at least 7 seats in the Senate and another 14 in the House. Historically, as the Washington Post predicted, not since 1929 (85 years) have the Republicans had this much dominance in Congress.  So, the Democrat brand is broken and they can only blame Barack Obama and their own marching in lock-step with him for it.  This was especially true for ObamaCare.

Simply, the President's policies are out of step with most American's priorities.  They care less about the minimum wage, immigration, climate change, and, oh yes, the war on women.  Their focus is on jobs and the economy and a fix for ObamaCare.  They are also tired of all the empty speeches on these issues when they know, for a fact, that their personal situation and those of their family and friends don't match up with the rhetoric.

So, the challenge for this strongly ideological President is whether or not he can change his spots and start to work and compromise with a fully Republican Congress to achieve those things that Americans truly want.  Because, if Obama continues to go it alone with vetoes and executive orders, the losses in 2016 will only be greater. 

Similarly, the Republicans must also appear to be willing to work with Obama. Or, they, too, could feel the voters wrath two years from now.


Obama: My Policies Are on the Ballot - Roll Call:

How Obama and Clinton candidates fared on Election Day:

This could be the most dominant Republican Congress since 1929:

 Americans Rate Economy as Top Priority for Government:

January 22, 2014 - Economy/Jobs And Healthcare Are Top Voter Priorities, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Obama Gets Low Grades On Top Priorities:

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

UN Wants Zero Carbon Emissions By 2100

According to the latest report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the planet is doomed if we don't get down to zero carbon emissions by 2100.  Only, then, can the world begin to reverse the build up of atmospheric CO2 which they claim is causing global warming and climate change.

So, what would 2100 look like if the emissions did go to zero?

Well, I guess the world would be vegan.  All those CO2 exhaling and flatulence producing domestic cows, sheep, goats, chickens, pigs, turkeys that humans have a taste for will have to go.  Pets, too, would have be banned for the very same reason.

Somehow airplanes will need to fly without producing CO2.  Maybe using hydrogen as fuel.  You know, the gas that the Hindenburg was filled with when it exploded.

Of course, all of us will be driving electric cars.  Long haul truckers will have to park every few miles to recharge their batteries, and your packages and goods might take considerably longer to get to market or delivered to you home.  But, that's a small sacrifice to save the planet.

We'll also have to give up our fireplaces and gas stoves and, no more charcoal or gas barbecues.  For sure, no wood burning will be allowed in order to cook or keep warm.  Campers, you've been warned!

But, then, too, the world's beautiful and natural landscapes will become havens for solar panels and wind turbines as far as the eye can see.  Both of these green technologies will continue to kill off the world's birds and bats, but that will be a good thing since birds and bats also exhale CO2. 

However, there's one carbon producer that I can't predict the future for.  The world's population of humans.  They too, exhale CO2 and there will be an estimated 11 billion people pumping out 900 grams or roughly 2 pounds of CO2 per day per person by 2100.  That amounts to 724 lbs of carbon dioxide per person per year.  Short of killing off the world's population, I don't know how the "problem" of human respiration can be resolved.  But, maybe that will have to be done to save the human race from global warming and climate change. Right?

The point here is that the IPCC report is off-the-wall ridiculous and mentally unhinged.  Its this kind of silliness that is turning people off to climate change issues.  We've had 18 years of stagnant global temperatures and the link between rising CO2 levels (rising about 2% per year) is broken. Yet, the UN and most liberal politicians alike, keep getting even more dire in their predictions and more drastic in their CO2 reduction goals. 


Carbon Emissions Need to Be Zero by 2100, UN Panel Warns:

US Wind Turbines Kill 1.4 Million Birds and Bats Every Year:

New Solar Power Plants are Incinerating Birds:

World population to hit 11bn in 2100:

Math! How much CO2 is emitted by human on earth annually?:

It's official: no global warming for 18 years 1 month:

52 Reasons Why CO2 Is Not Responsible For Global Warming:

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Liberal Professor Writes: Cancel The Midterms

Just a day before the midterm elections, a liberal associate professor from Duke University, David Schanzer, wrote a piece in the New York Times titled 'Cancel The Midterms'.   He sums up his argument with the following words:
"The main impact of the midterm election in the modern era has been to weaken the president, the only government official (other than the powerless vice president) elected by the entire nation. Since the end of World War II, the president’s party has on average lost 25 seats in the House and about 4 in the Senate as a result of the midterms. This is a bipartisan phenomenon — Democratic presidents have lost an average of 31 House seats and between 4 to 5 Senate seats in midterms; Republican presidents have lost 20 and 3 seats, respectively."
So, apparently, Schanzer does like the fact that a President's power is weakened as a result of midterm elections.  However, what Schanzer fails to tell his readers is that, even though the President's party loses seats in Congress in almost all midterms, more often than not, it doesn't necessarily change control to the opposing political party. This, is noted in this graph from Wikipedia:

Click on Image to zoom

Over the years since World War II, more Republican Presidents have had to contend with the Democrat's control of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate (in blue). From 1957 to 1977, the Democrats held control of the House for 40 years.  Similarly, from 1957 to 1981, 26 years straight, Democrats controlled the Senate.  Only now, with Obama possibly being weakened further, does Schanzer seem concerned about an opposing Congress.

But,  I would argue that if we didn't have midterm elections in 2010, when the House majority went to the Republicans and the Democrats lost their super majority in the Senate, Obama would have had two additional years to ram through his radical, liberal agenda.  And, just like 2010, this year's midterms may further weaken a low-rated President's power by shifting the Senate to the Republicans. Only then, maybe, Obama might start compromising with Congress on the legislation that really matters to the people of this country.

Simply, having midterms is an insurance policy that extremism doesn't prevail in governing.

Lastly, Schanzer is being disingenuous by not disclosing his Democrat past.  Thus, readers unjustly think he's writing from a professorial viewpoint and not a political one.


David Schanzer: New York Times:

"Prior to his academic appointments, Schanzer was the Democratic staff director for the House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security from 2003 to 2005. He previously served as the legislative director for [Democrat] Sen. Jean Carnahan (2001-2002), counsel to [Democrat] Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (1996-1998)...":

Monday, November 3, 2014

The New Minimum Wage For Government Contracts Will Kill Jobs

On October 1, when there was just a little more than a month to go before the November 4th elections, the Department of Labor finalized the requirement that any company bidding on a Federal contract after January 1, 2015 must already be paying a minimum wage of $10.10 per hour or higher.  Thus, this fulfills Obama's February '14 executive order on this issue.

Unfortunately, this action is going to cost jobs at many companies who provide goods and services to both the Federal government as well as other non-Federal enterprises such as individuals, businesses, corporations, and state and local governments.

For example.  Let's assume that you own a shirt manufacturing operation and 25% of your business goes to the Federal government.  Under Obama's new mandate, if you want that Federal business relationship to continue, the signing of any new contracts will stipulate paying all your employees $10.10 and hour or higher.  But, your competitor, who has no Federal contracts, will keep their labor costs the same, and will only become more competitive if you do raise salaries to the new pay standard.  So, my guess is that this fictional shirt manufacture will no longer bid on any new work with the Federal government.  Thus, as their existing Federal contracts expire, they will have no other choice but to layoff that share of workers who had previously worked on those contracts.

Just another unforeseen consequence of big government action being taken without a lot of forethought but simply for political reasons in an election year.  To enact such a rule by executive order, you should be able to think like a business owner and, better yet, have the experience of being one.  The President is devoid of both.  Of course, the loss of jobs that will result from this action won't happen until long after the year's elections are over.


Department of Labor News Release: Wage and Hour Division: US Labor Secretary Thomas E. Perez announces final rule raising the minimum wage for federal contract workers:

Saturday, November 1, 2014

Why Americans Are Slamming Obama On The Economy

Recently, only 33% of those surveyed by CNBC approved of Obama's handling of the economy. The reason for that horrible rating might just be explained in, one chart:

Clearly, Americans are losing ground when it comes to food prices and, for many people, food is their 3rd biggest expense behind housing and transportation costs:

However, with the current rate of inflation, it is quite possible that food can easily overtake the cost of transportation in the next two years.  Also note, for many seniors, food is their biggest expense because housing is generally paid for, and because their costs for transportation are lower because they no longer work.  Food inflation rates tend to hit the poor the hardest.  Today, we have a record high of more than 48 million Americans who are living in poverty. Most likely, that's another reason the President gets such low marks on the economy.

So, who is to be blamed for this high rate of inflation for food.

Weather for some of it.  But, the bulk can be blamed on government policies under Obama.  Beef and other meats and dairy depend on feed stocks that come from, primarily, corn.  Corn prices have been soaring because of the EPA's push toward renewable ethanol from corn.  Other price increases resulted from the 2007-2009 40% minimum wage increase.  The administration's policies on clean energy have also affected food prices by causing energy costs to rise above other inflation rates.

Simply, President Obama does deserve the blame for his handling of the economy.


Confidence in Obama on economy hits new low:

That's rich: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record:

Corn Prices by Bushel:

EPA faces '14 accusations on ethanol:

Food Prices Are Soaring And Washington Doesn’t Care:

48 million Americans live in poverty, Census Bureau says: