Tag Archive: government


Student sues school district after her forced ‘confession’
By Michael F. Haverluck, OneNewsNow.com December 11, 2014 12:22 pm
courtroomNot long after a student from Loomis Basin Charter School (LBCS) invited her two friends to a Creation seminar held off campus, school officials became livid, summonsing her to the principal’s office four times in the same day in order to force her into writing a “confession” of what she had done.

Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) is now representing the student against Loomis Union School District (LUSD), located in Loomis, California, approximately 30 miles northeast of Sacramento. The legal non-profit organization alleges in the complaint that the school district violated the student’s constitutional rights by prohibiting her from expressing her beliefs.

After ordering the student — who PJI dubbed “Esther” for anonymity’s sake — to confess, school officials in the principal’s office vowed that they would censor any future invitations that she planned to give to friends.

In September, Esther had invited a couple of her friends to a free, off-campus, non-school seminar in response to the teaching of Darwinian evolution in her class, which has its curriculum based in the school-issued textbook Early Civilizations.

“Currently, the class is discussing plate tectonics and the Big Bang theory,” PJI’s complaint on behalf of Esther reads. “[Esther] sought out more information to be able to express her beliefs and understanding on the issue to participate in the ongoing conversation.”

Because evolutionary theory was routinely taught as fact in her class, and as many students in her class began comparing the creationist account of Genesis with Darwin’s biological evolutionary theory, Esther wanted her peers to join her in getting a more comprehensive understanding of human origins — as well as the origins of the earth and the known universe — by attending a Creationist seminar.

During the semester, Esther learned about the three-session Creationist seminar and became intrigued about the issue. She then invited one of her friends from science class — who also expressed a keen interest in the debate — to the second session. The two then invited a third friend to session three.

The seminar presented by the nonprofit Christian organization Genesis Apologetics, based in Folsom, California, has a stated mission of “equipping youth, pastors, parents and students with biblical answers for evolutionary teaching in public schools.”

Esther presented the Genesis Apologetics invitations to her friends during lunch breaks at school in the format of flyers so that their parents would have information to gauge whether or not they wanted them to attend.

It is believed that one of the parents of a student who received an invitation was the one who complained to school officials that her child was given the opportunity to attend an off campus, non-school event.

Not in my school

Esther’s complaint claims that LBCS director Erica Sloane, one of the defendants in the lawsuit, lashed out in anger at Esther when confronting her about the invitation. Sloan allegedly ordered her to submit a written confession and warned her that similar invitations in the future must be accompanied with an official stamp of approval from school officials.

“[Sloane] proceeded to scold [Esther] for bringing the … flyer to school because the content is religious and because it had not been approved by the school district,” the complaint reads. “Sloane told [Esther] that she was not permitted to distribute the flyer to students … and [that] her actions were unacceptable.”

The complaint also indicates that the school director was hostile toward Esther because of her Christian beliefs, which Sloane allegedly attempted to suppress, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

“[Sloane] expressed her anger, through an intimidating tone and expressions, at [Esther] over the situation … and further directed [Esther] to not talk about religion at school, even during lunch,” the complaint continues.

According to the lawsuit, the second of four summons Esther received to go to the principal’s office within 24 hours resulted in the student being compelled to fill out an incident report documenting her confession of what she had done on school grounds. Within 15 minutes, Sloane declared the confession “inadequate,” spurring Esther’s third summons of the day. After this attempt did not meet Sloane’s approval, Esther was summoned to the principal’s office for the fourth and final time that day.

Inconsistent with the treatment Esther experienced in the principal’s office that day, LBCS has a mission statement that encourages students to “think independently and connect content to real life” while pursuing the quest for knowledge.

“[Loomis Basin Charter School’s aim] is to develop inquiring, knowledgeable, patriotic, honorable, responsible and caring young people who have the background, skills, knowledge and qualities necessary to participate successfully and actively in a changing and increasingly interrelated world,” the complaint reads, quoting the school’s educational goals.

But when Esther interacted with the school’s administration, she witnessed no trace of anything highlighted in the mission statement.

“[Esther] has been disturbed by these events and felt harassed, traumatized and unsafe to the point that she did not want to return to school in the days that followed because of the scolding and harsh interactions,” the lawsuit declares.

After Esther communicated her four office visits to her mother, the concerned parent sought an explanation from school officials, who told her that Esther was prohibited from disseminating any kind of flyer to any students on campus at any time — inside or outside of class, before or after school.

According to the lawsuit, an attached written consent must be attached to any literature Ester wishes to hand to any peer on campus.

“[Esther] cannot personally give printed material to another pupil without first obtaining a district disclaimer affixed to the literature,” the complaint states, expressing the school’s stance on the matter.

Students don’t abandon their rights at the schoolhouse gate

PJI argues that LBCS’s attempt to suppress Esther’s expression on campus violates her free-speech rights under the State of California’s Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.

“[Esther] has a speech right to possess on her person and distribute a flyer expressing a religious viewpoint,” PJI attorneys express in the lawsuit.

They contend that Sloan and other school officials pressured Esther to give up her constitutionally protected rights every time she entered the schoolhouse gate.

“The scolding and intimidation by Sloane as against [Esther] to cease and desist from distributing said flyer, cease and desist from keeping a similar flyer on her person or in her backpack, and to just say no to anyone who may provide her with a flyer to share with her fellow classmates, or face additional administrative action are a form of censorship which is inconsistent with the rights guaranteed to [Esther] as a citizen,” the student’s complaint explains.

The lawsuit, which was filed in early November, also lists LUSD superintendent Gordon Medd and LBCS acting director Katie Messerli, along with other school officials, as defendants in the suit, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California by PJI attorneys on behalf of Esther. Media outlets were unable to attain a response from school officials about their alleged violations of Esther’s constitutional rights.

Obama administration claims a right to hide evidence before Supreme Court
| DECEMBER 10, 2014 | 5:00 AM
The United States v. June case boils down to this: Can the federal government actively conceal material evidence in order to escape liability?
The United States v. June case boils down to this: Can the federal government actively conceal…
Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in United States v. June, a case that has received little attention, but will have far-reaching implications. The case boils down to this: Can the federal government actively conceal material evidence in order to escape liability? Common sense says no. The Obama administration says yes.

June involves the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) and a doctrine called “equitable tolling.” Prior to 1946, the doctrine of sovereign immunity prohibited citizens from filing suit against the government. That all changed in 1946, when a military plane crashed into the Empire State Building, killing and injuring many civilians. Congress responded by enacting the FTCA, which waives sovereign immunity and allows citizens to sue the government in instances.

However, claimants must file a claim within two years of injury. Equitable tolling freezes those two years under certain considerations, like government officials hiding pertinent facts. Courts across the country have consistently applied the doctrine of equitable tolling to FTCA claims.

In the June case, a minor child was killed in a car crash when a median barrier failed. The barrier had failed safety crash testing; the government knew but installed it anyway. When the plaintiff investigated, the government would not make federal employees — who knew the truth — available for deposition until after the two year deadline to file. The government now argues that equitable tolling should not apply to claims brought under the FTCA. It maintains that it can avoid liability by hiding evidence and waiting for the clock to run out.

The June case raises serious issues for every government agency, especially the Veterans Administration, given the recent scandal where VA employees engaged in fraud and falsified records. If no whistleblower had come forward, VA employees could have waited out the clock. The VA has already demonstrated a propensity toward dishonesty and covering up. It needs no further incentives.

Importantly, some injuries are latent and may not appear for even years after the fact. Take, for instance, the example of veterans exposed to HIV and hepatitis by the VA during routine colonoscopies and dental work. Older vets, having no reason to be regularly tested, may not find out about their exposure until years later when HIV blossoms into full blown AIDS or when their livers malfunction. Moreover, in 2011 a Pittsburgh VA hospital’s water supply tested positive for Legionnaires disease but the hospital did not notify patients for over a year. Only after six patient deaths and 22 infections did the VA facility warn patients and distribute bottled water.

If government has its way in June, the VA and other government agencies would get off scot-free in similar situations. Say goodbye to transparency and the FTCA as we know it. A wrongdoer should not benefit by secrecy calculated to hide the truth and deprive harmed persons of their constitutional right to due process. Sunshine is the best disinfectant and the Supreme Court must rein in government abuse in June. After all, our laws do not allow private citizens to benefit from dishonesty and the same standard should be applied to government, too.

Ms. Miller Rotunda is Professor of Military and International Law at Chapman University and a former Major in the US Army JAG Corps; Admiral Carey is the President of the National Defense Committee; Mr. Carey is Executive Director of the National Defense Committee and a Captain in the Naval Reserves; Mr. Flynn-Brown is an attorney that specializes in military and veteran law. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions for editorials, available at this link.

Obama’s Endless Lies and His Media Accomplices
By Cliff Kincaid December 10, 2014 12:25 pm

Like the use of the word “chokehold” in connection with the death of Eric Garner, the term “torture” has been applied repeatedly by the media to the CIA’s treatment of suspected terrorists. These are examples of how left-wing forces in the Obama administration, the Democratic Party and the media try to control and manipulate the public debate in ways that demonize those defending our nation.
The purpose is to make the American people lose faith in the police and the intelligence community. But it is those using the loaded terms and language that deserve the scrutiny.

A notable exception in the “chokehold” coverage is Margaret Harding of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, who quoted Thomas Aveni, a retired officer and executive director of the Police Policy Studies Council, as saying about the video of Garner’s takedown, “The reason all these people are upset is because they don’t understand what they saw. People don’t understand what they’re looking at.”

She reported that Aveni, a police trainer in deadly and non-deadly force for more than 30 years, said that New York City Police Officer Daniel Pantaleo did not use a chokehold on Garner, but rather a “lateral vascular neck restraint” or LVNR. The difference? “People can’t talk when they are being choked,” Aveni said.

The alleged use of “torture” against suspected terrorists is another example of how the media adopt a term that doesn’t apply to what is actually being described.

Jose Rodriguez, the author of Hard Measures: How Aggressive CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved American Lives, says the term “torture” is inaccurate and that the CIA received guidance from the Department of Justice as to what procedures could be used to avoid “lasting pain or harm” to the detainees. Rodriguez, the former head of the CIA’s Clandestine Service, defends the “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

Rodriguez writes in his book about how Obama’s CIA director Leon Panetta had declared to the Senate that the program had used “torture,” though he had not even been briefed on it.

The media campaigns against the police “chokehold” and the CIA’s “torture” techniques remind me of the communist “Ban the Neutron Bomb” campaign of the early 1970s. The “neutron bomb” was an enhanced radiation weapon designed to counter a Soviet tank build-up in Europe.

Despite the name, the “neutron bomb” was more humane than conventional arms. Appearing at an Accuracy in Media conference at the time, Sam T. Cohen, the inventor of the weapon, noted that it killed people painlessly through radiation rather than a blast with catastrophic consequences. But the Soviets thought it gave the U.S. an unfair advantage and successfully waged an “active measures” campaign, using the U.S. media, against it. Distorted coverage of the weapon led President Jimmy Carter to ban it from the U.S. arsenal.

In the same way, banning a “chokehold,” when it is actually something else, puts American police forces at a disadvantage with the criminal element. Outlawing “torture,” when the techniques were not torture, deprives our intelligence community of procedures that can actually save lives.

When we examined Panetta’s fitness for public office, we found that he was an opponent of the “neutron bomb” when he was a liberal Congressman from California. Perhaps this explains why he was picked for the important posts of CIA director and then Secretary of Defense. He was susceptible to disinformation then and was judged as somebody who could “go with the program” of Obama to ban interrogation techniques that gave the U.S. an edge in the war on terror.

The “torture” controversy also proves to be a diversion from discussing Obama’s alternative—the use of drones to shoot air-to-surface Hellfire missiles and literally obliterate suspected terrorists.

When terrorists die in drone strikes, they yield no intelligence data because they do not end up alive in U.S. custody. Plus, women and children die alongside them.

This is supposed to be more “humane” than alleged “torture” of the individual terrorists, who survive the “torture” and then get fat at Gitmo.

Obama gets away with this because the media, once again, are feeding out of his hands, eager to take his line on foreign affairs when it is nonsensical and counter to U.S. interests.

In his 2013 remarks to the National Defense University, Obama acknowledged that “…it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in every war. And for the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, those deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred throughout conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Obama declared, “…America’s actions are legal.” Case closed. That’s good enough for the media.

At the same time, he said, “I believe we compromised our basic values—by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.”

Obama’s flimsy justification for drone strikes is a self-serving memo generated by his own administration. It purports to explain why killing Americans does not violate the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution for U.S. citizens accused of crimes. The memo refers to U.S. drone aircraft as “contemplated lethal operations.”

Apparently, however, wiping out terrorists and their families, friends, and relatives, is not something that compromises our basic values.

The fact that Obama gets away with this deception says something about the gullibility of the American media.

It was appropriate that the Democratic Senate report on “torture” was released on the same day that Jonathan Gruber was testifying about lying to the American people regarding the benefits of Obamacare. The Senate report was another form of deception, designed to confuse and mislead about what Obama has used in place of interrogation techniques of terrorists. Obama doesn’t interrogate terrorists, he kills them.

Yet, we are led to believe Obama believes in American values and practices them.

The American people would see through the lies if only they could depend on a media that would lead them out of all the deliberate obfuscation.

the Foundation

The Patriot Post · http://patriotpost.us/digests/31553
Daily Digest
Dec. 8, 2014

THE FOUNDATION
“There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. ‘Tis an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.” –George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS
Down Goes Another Democrat1
The GOP picked up another Senate seat Saturday. The Associated Press reports, “Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy defeated Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu on Saturday, denying her a fourth term and extending the GOP’s domination of the 2014 midterm elections that put Republicans in charge of Capitol Hill for the final two years of President Barack Obama’s tenure. With Cassidy’s victory, Republicans will hold 54 seats when the Senate convenes in January, nine more than they have now.” Landrieu failed in her bid to stave off the GOP tide, even though she pushed the Keystone XL pipeline. Louisiana voters saw through the charade, however, and opted to aid a higher purpose – stopping Barack Obama. Her loss also means that 30 of the 60 Senate Democrats who voted for ObamaCare are no longer in Congress. Talk about an albatross. More…2

Nearly 12 Million Have Left the Workforce Under Obama3
November’s jobs report4 no doubt contained good news. Payrolls jumped by 321,000, which was far above the 230,000 jobs forecast by economists5. September and October also saw positive revisions. The most recent year with superior job growth was 1999. Add it all up, and the economy has clearly turned a corner after subsequent years in deep shambles. However (how many times have we had to say that?), the economy continues to lag significantly in potential; you can thank the Obama recovery for that. The one particularly troubling statistic pertains to the labor participation rate that remained unchanged last month at 62.8% – meaning 92,447,000 Americans aren’t seeking a job. The cumulative effect of a stubbornly low participation rate is alarming to say the least, as nearly 12 million workers have called it quits during Obama’s presidency. CNSNews.com reports, “When President Obama took office in January 2009, there were 80,529,000 Americans who were not participating in the office, which means that since then, 11,918,000 Americans have left the workforce.” That’s far more than the number of jobs Obama claims to have “created.” So while the headline employment numbers have improved, there are still underlying problems that remain unresolved. That is why speculators remain pessimistic despite the media’s rosy narrative. More…6

Jihadist Relieves Himself, Thwarts U.S. Hostage Rescue7
The Navy SEALs’ attempted rescue of American journalist Luke Somers, who was captured by al-Qaida in Yemen, did not play out like the heroic 1976 Israeli hostage rescue, Operation Entebbe. The jihadists released a video telling the U.S. to comply with their demands (which they didn’t state in the video) or else Somers would die within 72 hours. In a statement, Barack Obama said, “Other information also indicated Luke’s life was in imminent danger. Based on this assessment, and as soon as there was reliable intelligence and an operational plan, I authorized a rescue attempt.” However, as the 40-man special operations team was establishing a perimeter, a jihadist stepped outside – probably to go to the bathroom – and saw the rescue force. U.S. officials say Somers was executed. However, the Wall Street Journal commends8 the Obama administration for taking a hard line against jihadist kidnappers. Terrorists now know if they kidnap Americans, they might wake up to the knock of a U.S. commando team in the middle of the night. More…9

White House Mulls Destroying Relationship With Israel10
The White House and the State Department deflected questions from Washington reporters about an Israeli newspaper story alleging the Obama administration is considering slapping sanctions on Israel. Both White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest11 and State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf refused to talk about the sanctions with reporters because it’s “internal deliberations.” According to Haaretz12, the U.S. may impose sanctions on its ally because it continues to build settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. According to Yeshiva World News13, the U.S. is also considering withdrawing its political protection of Israel at the UN, allowing anti-Israel motions to move through the international body. The Washington Free Beacon14 quotes an anonymous senior congressional aide: “If these reports are true, this would mark a new era of unprecedented hostility from the White House against our strongest ally in the Middle East. It’s impossible not to notice the irony of the administration mulling sanctions on Israel while threatening to veto new sanctions against Iran.”

Deportation Policies Let Almost Anyone Stay15
While an Immigration and Customs Enforcement report shows deportations in general dropped16 during the 2014 fiscal year, the report goes on to say that immigration enforcement officials are lax with illegal immigrants who have committed crimes. According to the Removal Operation Report17 for fiscal year 2014, 30,862 foreign criminals were released into the United States. Of the 315,943 people deported from the United States, the majority were caught at the border and 86,923 were caught committing a crime. The drop in deportations comes as the Obama administration has set high low standards on who it will and will not deport. In a statement, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) told the Los Angeles Times, “We essentially tell citizens of other countries, ‘If you come here, you can stay – don’t worry, we won’t deport you.’ The reality on the ground is that unless you commit multiple crimes, the chances of your being removed from this country are close to zero.” More…18

For more, visit Right Hooks19.

RIGHT ANALYSIS
From the Department of Corrections20
The Leftmedia have a story to tell, and they’re generally not going to let facts get in the way. This truth came in to stark relief with Friday’s massive correction21 Rolling Stone issued to its November report on a gang rape at the University of Virginia.

The correction was so big, it may be easier to recount what the original report got right than what it got wrong. A quick recap:

A UVA student given the name “Jackie” recounted21 how a man Rolling Stone calls “Drew” and his fellow fraternity brothers raped her at a party. But among numerous other errors, it turns out Drew belongs to a different fraternity than the one in question, and there was no party the night Jackie says she was raped. Much trouble would have been avoided had reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely not acceded to Jackie’s request not to interview the accused because she feared retribution. Bad decision.

The story was evidently too good to check because it fit the narrative of a widespread “rape culture” supposedly evidenced by the epidemic of sexual assault on campuses around the country. In fact, Erdely went around looking for just the right story to support that narrative. We’ve already questioned the breadth of the epidemic22 itself, and Rolling Stone’s shoddy and reckless journalism hardly does anything to correct the record, much less help true victims of rape.

Jackie may have been raped, and just because some of the facts were wrong doesn’t mean all of them were. And it should go without saying that this doesn’t invalidate other rape accusations. But truth cannot be a casualty of narrative.

Other media outlets swallowed Rolling Stone’s original story hook, line and sinker, leading to a cascading effect turning a lie into a legend. Media often blindly take up a cause célèbre in pursuit of ratings and the almighty advertising dollar. (We note that this is one reason The Patriot Post doesn’t accept advertising, instead relying on the support of our readers23 for our sustenance.)

It’s noteworthy that, just like the Jonathan Gruber videos24, the UVA story began to fall apart because of the efforts of an independent blogger25.

Worked into a tizzy by Rolling Stone’s story, feminists hammered “rape apologists” who dared ask questions. To them, men accused of rape are guilty until proven innocent. And to many of them, they’d even rather cling to a false story than admit men are innocent.

That recalls the response to rape accusations against Duke University’s lacrosse team several years ago. Those likewise proved to be false, though only after the reputations of those young men were destroyed.

Nevertheless, UVA students protested, while university president Teresa Sullivan responded to the allegations by shutting down activities at all fraternities and sororities. When Rolling Stone essentially retracted the story, Sullivan didn’t apologize for overreacting – she doubled down. “Over the past two weeks,” she said in a statement, “our community has been more focused than ever on one of the most difficult and critical issues facing higher education today: sexual violence on college campuses. Today’s news must not alter this focus.”

Reason Contributing Editor Cathy Young concludes26: “Commentators across the political spectrum have expressed concern that Rolling Stone’s sloppy journalism will damage what Bloomberg View columnist Megan McArdle calls ‘the righteous fight for rape victims.’ But despite its righteous goals, the crusade against rape has leaned too far toward promoting the dangerous idea that accusation equals guilt and that to doubt an accuser’s word is heresy. Finding the balance between supporting victims and preserving the presumption of innocence is a difficult line to walk. Perhaps the lessons of the UVA story will help steer the way toward such a balance.”

In Young’s separate analysis of the Obama administration’s Department of Education push to have colleges and universities more vigorously prosecute sexual assault, she writes27, “The Department of Education has recommended that colleges use the lowest burden of proof – ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means a finding of guilt if one feels the evidence tips even slightly toward the complainant. Missing is virtually any recognition of the need for fairness to the accused.”

Bottom line: Sexual assault allegations should be investigated and prosecuted by qualified law enforcement agencies, not on the pages of Rolling Stone or other pop media outlets.

America’s Shrinking28
Days after headlines captured America’s slide from its status as the world’s number one economy to number two behind China29, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report30 spun off a few articles about America’s declining birthrate. Let’s just say if you’re an employed taxpayer, you’d best grab your wallet.

While many in the ranks of high-brow policy don’t want to engage in the discussion of what many deem as so-called cultural “wedge” issues such as abortion, fertility and population, it’s all about the math. And that math has implications in tax policy, foreign policy, health care policy – you name it. The reality remains that if there are fewer babies, there are fewer future workers and consumers.

Let’s look at the math as it relates to our standing economically.

If our population does not replace itself, the labor market – and with it the tax base – will shrink, all while government spending rages on.

What does that CDC report say?

“Childbearing is on the decline in the United States overall and among women under age 30 and women in each of the largest race and Hispanic origin groups.” In 2013, the birthrate his a near-low of 1.86 live births per female.

The big deal?

A birth rate of 2.1 children per childbearing female is necessary just to maintain stasis. The U.S. missed the mark for the first time in 1972, and it has hit “replacement” numbers only twice since then – in 2006 and 2007.

The good news is abortions are down, too. Consistent and intense educational efforts of the pro-life movement through ultrasounds during pregnancy in tandem with state policy efforts to defund “health care” clinics offering abortion on demand has reduced the number of abortions performed.

As for the overall birthrate, the contributing factors have been the economic pressures of the 2007 recession either delaying or cancelling family plans, a more educated population that delays the birth of children, and other things such as gender disorientation pathology31, access to long-acting birth control, and, candidly, selfishness that refuses to include others, such as children, in a myopic definition of success.

In light of this consistent, documented population decline, has our government spending seen appropriate adjustment? Has our need for military might changed? Are the IOU’s repaid in the “Social Security Lockbox” to fund the current retirees? No, no and no.

Still not convinced this is a big deal? Let’s look across the pond at Europe. The nations that currently make up the European Union (E-28) tracked their fertility rate at 1.45 live births per women in 2002 with only a slight increase to 1.58 births in 2012, as published in a May 2014 European Commission report. Clearly, that’s far below the demographically necessary rate of 2.1 for generational replacement.

The nations of the European Union continue to struggle with government spending that averages 49% of gross domestic product32, with its member nations hovering around a 10% unemployment rate.

The National Bureau of Economic Research says it plainly in its online report, “The Cost of Low Fertility in Europe33”: “In the long run, low rates of fertility are associated with diminished economic growth. … If fertility rates stay at current levels … Europe’s share of working-age people will fall from about 70 percent today to somewhere between 50 and 55 percent in the long run … a 25 percent drop in the number of workers per capita.”

Clearly, changes in population cause disruption in the demand for services, produced goods and the volume of money the populace spends in any given economy.

Here in America, this decline is seen most obviously in a single government program, which happens to be the largest federal expenditure after surpassing defense spending back in 1993 – Social Security.

When the first benefits were paid in the Social Security retirement program in 1940, there were 42 workers paying into the system for each retiree receiving benefits. As of April 2014, that number is 2.8 workers per beneficiary.

Furthermore, the U.S. Treasury has borrowed money from the Social Security Trust Fund and, according to the Trustee’s 2014 report, owes $2.8 trillion as of December 2013. According to the same report, due to declining birthrates and increased life expectancy, the trust fund will be exhausted in 2033, just 19 years from now. The Heritage Foundation, meanwhile, says it could be insolvent in just 10 years34.

If America continues pursuing policies that transfer wealth from workers to non-workers, allows mass immigration of a new underclass that will only increase the pressure on government entitlement services, and refuses to recognize there must absolutely be a reduction in spending, we will only remember the good old days when our economy once led the world.

OPINION IN BRIEF

The Gipper: “I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing. So, with all the creative energy at our command, let us begin an era of national renewal.”

Columnist Peggy Noonan: “[Obama’s] executive action on immigration, seen by many as daring and clever, may not prove clever. … In making that move he removed one of the Republican Party’s problems. They were split on immigration, their adversaries said the reason was racism. The whole issue roiled the Republican base. Now the president has taken it out of their hands. And he has united them in their condemnation of the manner in which he did it. At the same time the president took an issue that was a daily, agitating mobilizer of his base and removed it as a factor. He took the kettle off the heat – but that kettle had produced a lot of steam that provided energy to his party. Now the president has to implement his directive, and implementation has never been his strong suit. He has to tamp down grievance from those who came here legally or are waiting in line. He has to answer immigration activists who think they got too little. He has to face all the critics who will experience and witness the downside of his action on the border. He took an issue that was a problem for Republicans, and made it a problem for Democrats. That may well prove a political mistake of the first order.”

Columnist Jonah Goldberg: “[Sen. Chuck] Schumer’s speech at the National Press Club is a marvel to behold. … ‘Democrats must embrace government. It’s what we believe in; it’s what unites our party,’ Schumer explained. ‘If we run away from government, downplay it, or act as if we are embarrassed by its role, people won’t vote for our pale version of the Republican view.’ … The senator has no principled objection to a government takeover of health care; what he objects to now is the timing. Back in 2009-10, he was a vocal champion of the law [ObamaCare]. Last week, he said, ‘Unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem – health care reform.’ The senator said he still favors Obamacare’s goals, but ‘it wasn’t the change we were hired to make.’ Voters wanted Obama and his party to fix the economy. Indeed, in a remarkable moment of honest cynicism, Schumer went into great detail lamenting how the law was designed to help mostly poor people who for the most part don’t vote. Morally, this is a fascinating admission. In Schumer’s hierarchy of needs, winning elections for Democrats matters more than helping the truly needy. Call it uncompassionate liberalism.”

Comedian Jimmy Kimmel: “The birthrate in the United States is at an all-time low. Whereas our death rate is still holding strong at 100 percent.”

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform – Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen – standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.

Links

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31531

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/democratic-louisiana-sen-mary-landrieu-defeated-27419720

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31528

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31506

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102243063

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/labor-force-participation-remains-36-year-low-0

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31544

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-noble-rescue-attempt-1417991769

http://abcnews.go.com/International/american-hostage-luke-somers-killed-us-rescue-attempt/story?id=27397528

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31522

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/226161-white-house-mum-on-israel-sanctions

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.629876

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/274351/israel-facing-american-sanctions-over-ongoing-construction.html

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/reports-obama-mulling-sanctions-on-israel/

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31535

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31521

http://documents.latimes.com/immigration-and-customs-draft-report/

http://www.latimes.com/nation/immigration/la-na-deportations-decline-20141205-story.html#page=1

http://patriotpost.us/

http://patriotpost.us/articles/31552

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-20141119

http://patriotpost.us/articles/29893

https://patriotpost.us/donation/new

http://patriotpost.us/articles/30967

http://twitchy.com/2014/12/05/brit-hume-credits-the-power-of-new-media-for-uncovering-holes-in-rolling-stone-story/

http://time.com/3620504/its-women-who-suffer-when-we-dont-ask-questions/

http://time.com/88407/the-white-houses-report-on-campus-sexual-assault-relies-on-the-lowest-common-denominator/

http://patriotpost.us/articles/31536

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31481

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db175.htm

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/3932

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-08-19/european-austerity-is-a-myth

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14820

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31348

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/31505

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/31514

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/31430

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/31489

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/31534

http://patriotpost.us/opinion

SILLY PARENTS. YOU COULDN’T POSSIBLY KNOW WHAT’S GOOD FOR YOUR KIDS.
When I was a kid, my mom would pack our lunches before sending us off to school. Not every day, but a vast majority of the time. She wanted us to have the healthiest food possible when we weren’t at home, and she couldn’t always count on our schools to provide that for us.

I can just imagine how my parents would have reacted if I had come home with a note from school like the one that parents received recently from a Richmond, Virginia, school district. The note from the school board informed parents that from now on, if they wanted to have their kids eat lunches that were prepared at home instead of in the school cafeteria, they would have to provide a doctor’s note explaining why.

I wish I could say I was surprised by this latest attempt by our government to control us, but I wasn’t. Actually, I’m surprised they waited this long to stick their noses in this aspect of our lives. But assuming that it was coming doesn’t make it any easier to stomach. What they’re doing is telling parents that they have to pay for a doctor’s visit in order to give their kids nutritional food to eat for lunch at school rather than the GMO-laden, preservative-filled, deep-fried, fattening foods often served up by our public schools.

But you know what? Even if the schools served fresh fruits and vegetables to the kids every day and I wanted my kid to eat a sandwich and a cookie, I should have the right to do that without a doctor’s note. It should be my right as a parent to feed my kids whatever I want to feed them without governmental interference.

Of course, this isn’t really about food at all. It’s just more of the same garbage that the government continues to dish out and spoon-feed us almost every day. It’s all about controlling people. They want to control what you say and do, where and when you go somewhere, and who you communicate with. It’s all part of their never-ending attack on individual rights.

How would you respond if a school sent home a note such as that with your child or grandchild? I’d love to hear what you have to say about this.

Should Churches Be Subsidized For Preaching Politically Correct Propaganda?
Posted by Frederick Meekins on November 23, 2014 at 9:39amView Blog
In compliance with the state mandate to curb storm water run off, the Prince George’s County Department of the Environment is considering a proposal that would waive the unpopular impervious surface property tax assessment for their properties if churches agree to preach environmentally friendly sermons or engage in other forms of mental conditioning.

What’s the big deal, some will ask.

After all, does the Bible not teach us to be good stewards of God’s creation?

God’s word also instructs the believer to be on guard against wolves in sheep’s clothing.

If governments grant tax code favors to religious organizations for ideological compliance in regards to one issue, what is to prevent them from doing so in regards to more controversial matters?

In the name tolerance and diversity, what if governments granted tax and regulatory relief to congregations supporting gay marriage?

What if a government wanted to promote pluralism and inclusion by lavishing all manner of benefits upon a church that agreed not to lift the name of Jesus above all names but instead only reference a nondescript generic God or no God at all but rather just the Ultimate Concern as formulated by Paul Tillich?

How about putting the shoe on the other foot for a moment?

What if to bolster declining birthrates a government lavished tax favors upon churches promising to preach prolife messages?

It is said that the power to tax is the power to destroy.

Advocates insist that that the program is strictly voluntary.

However, government programs that start off voluntary can easily end up becoming mandatory.

Anybody remember the assurances of if you like your healthcare plan you can keep your healthcare plan?

From one perspective, the program is completely voluntary with no government shocktroops raiding churches failing to put in the environmental upgrades or enunciating church dogma in such a way to win the approval of the state (at least not yet anyway).

Yet from another perspective, aren’t churches that refuse to have their very thoughts policed in this manner punished by having to pay the tax?

Courts have forbidden graduation prayers for being less of a mental intrusion.

By Frederick Meekins

Uh oh: New York Times creates big trouble for tax-dodging Obama ally Al Sharpton
POSTED AT 7:21 PM ON NOVEMBER 18, 2014 BY NOAH ROTHMAN

On Tuesday, The New York Times took its readers inside the city’s exclusive Four Seasons Restaurant where Al Sharpton celebrated his 60th birthday party at what was dubbed his “party for a cause.”

“Mayor Bill de Blasio and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo hailed him as a civil rights icon,” the profile of New York City-based activist and MSNBC began. “President [Barack] Obama sent an aide to read a message commending Mr. Sharpton’s ‘dedication to the righteous cause of perfecting our union.’ Major corporations sponsored the lavish affair.”

It is a spectacular raise for an agitator who began his career inciting race riots outside of Freddy’s Fashion Mart, ruining the lives of the men who were falsely accused of raping Tawana Brawley, and serving as an FBI informant after affiliating with the mafia and expressing interest in securing a hefty amount of cocaine.

Sharpton has been described as Obama’s “go-to man on race” by the well-connected Politico reporter Glenn Thrush. He was contacted directly in August by Valerie Jarrett amid spiraling violence in Ferguson, Missouri, and was deployed to deescalate the situation. Well before Obama’s reelection, Sharpton emerged as one of the president’s most valued outreach figures. In 2010, The Wall Street Journal revealed that Sharpton was tasked to tamp down the “increasingly public criticism in the black community over his economic policy.”

The value Sharpton represented to the Obama White House perhaps made it easier to overlook the fact that, as The Times reported, the MSNBC host is a serial tax evader and violator of the public trust.

“Mr. Sharpton has regularly sidestepped the sorts of obligation most people see as inevitable,” The Times reported, “like taxes, rent, and other bills.”

Records reviewed by The New York Times show more than $4.5 million in current state and federal tax liens against him and his for-profit businesses. And though he said in recent interviews that he was paying both down, his balance with the state, at least, has actually grown in recent years. His National Action Network appears to have been sustained for years by not paying federal payroll taxes on its employees.
“With the tax liability outstanding, Mr. Sharpton traveled first class and collected a sizable salary, the kind of practice by nonprofit groups that the United States Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration recently characterized as ‘abusive,’ or ‘potentially criminal,’ if the failure to turn over or collect taxes is willful,” The Times report continued.

This is just the kind of economic treason that the president spent much of his reelection campaign railing against, only the public was lead to believe that Obama the populist crusader was railing against businessmen and women who exclusively voted Republican.

The Patriot Post
Immigration Executive Order — All Smoke and Mirrors
The Demos’ REAL “Immigration Reform” Strategy
By Mark Alexander

Nov. 19, 2014

“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.” –George Washington1 (1783)

So, the Imperial President2 claims that, because Republicans are not passing the immigration “reform” legislation that best suits the Democratic Party’s3 political agenda, he is going to bypass Congress and issue an executive order (EO).

Don’t believe it.

Oh, Barack Obama is going to center stage Thursday night to set up his EO play, and sign that diktat Friday in Las Vegas – a fitting venue for a gutless gamble by a “big hat, no cattle” dude rancher. But what is the Demos’ real strategy?

In leftist parlance, “immigration reform” means providing a jackpot to illegal aliens – giving them official status so they can work and receive all associated taxpayer-subsidized services like housing, schooling and medical care. Once integrated, the second step is to provide a fast-track to citizenship. In other words, for Democrats, immigration reform means, first and foremost, seeding a large constituency.

But is Obama really attempting to give millions of illegal immigrants worker status?

In 2008, then President-elect Obama declared, “I can guarantee that we will have, in the first year, an immigration bill that I strongly support.” In 2009 and 2010, Obama had the benefit of Democrat Party control of both the House and Senate, however, his congressional Demos never passed an amnesty bill and thus he did not sign one.

Why?

Because he and his fellow Democrats were just pandering to Latinos; they had no intention of passing legislation to provide worker permits for five to 10 million illegal immigrants.

Why?

Because another larger and more critical Democrat voter constituency is composed of low-income Americans4, whom the Left baits with class warfare rhetoric5 centered on issues like “living wages” and increasing the minimum wage.

As my daughter, a university student working toward a business degree, framed this issue, “Labor inflation results in wage deflation.” In other words, the Democrats really don’t want to dump millions of immigrant laborers, who are willing to take low wages, onto their dependable American low-income constituency, because that will, in effect, drive wages even lower.

This is a fundamental supply-and-demand equation.

Just before Democrats were shellacked during the midterm “Republican wave6,” Obama borrowed a line from The Gipper for a national campaign interview: “Ronald Reagan used to ask the question, ‘Are you better off than you were four years ago?’ In this case, are you better off than you were in six? And the answer is, the country is definitely better off than we were when I came into office.” But according to BO, the problem is the American people “don’t feel it,” and he insisted, “The reason they don’t feel it is because incomes and wages are not going up.”

Of course, the reason for wage stagnation is that Obama’s economic “recovery” policies7 have been a colossal failure. On top of that, the influx of cheap illegal immigrant labor effectively caps any increase in wages for unskilled workers.

Democrats argue raising the minimum wage will protect their low-wage constituents, but that is a fabrication. As the Congressional Budget Office made clear, artificially increasing wages will decrease employment8.

The issue of immigrant labor undermining the ability of low-income earners to achieve a “living wage” is nothing new. A primary reason Abraham Lincoln did not emancipate slaves at the onset of the War Between the States is that the influx of black labor into northern markets competing for jobs held by white laborers would have undermined Lincoln’s political support9 from the latter.

The great abolitionist Frederick Douglass was so angry with Lincoln for delaying the liberation of some slaves that he scarcely contacted him before 1863, noting that Lincoln was loyal only “to the welfare of the white race.” Apparently, more than a few Latino politicos are equally disenchanted with Obama’s failure to provide immigrant work permits.

So what of Obama’s EO?

The Demo strategy is to craft that EO in such a way that Republicans can successfully chip away at it, primarily by defunding and de-authorizing key components of its implementation, as well as by issuing legal challenges. Thus, Democrats will receive credit from both their legal and illegal Latino constituencies for, ostensibly, attempting to provide them with nine million10 Permanent Residency or Employment Authorization cards. Then they can blame those “obstructionist” Republicans for blocking them.

This week, Senate Democrats, in a letter to Obama supporting his EO plan, made clear their intent to share in the political fruits of this charade.

Obama, as we’ve often noted, is a master of the BIG Lie11, and, just like the litany of lies12 that he and his party used to deceive Americans into supporting ObamaCare13, they are also deceiving millions of Americans into believing Democrats support both “living wages” and “immigration reform.”

Apparently, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) got it right when he interrupted Obama’s 2009 introduction of ObamaCare to a joint session of Congress and the nation. “You lie! You lie!” Wilson memorably yelled.

Indeed, “lack of transparency” and “the stupidity of the American voter,” in the words of ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber14, are also applicable to Obama’s low-wage and Latino constituencies in regard to amnesty by EO. Of course, there is plenty of evidence that Obama constituents are too ignorant to know they’re being duped – after all, they elected him. Twice.

Not only do Democrats assume their constituents are too stupid to understand Obama’s amnesty EO subterfuge, but Obama is willing to, once again, turn constitutional Rule of Law15 on end to accomplish this deceit.

Last week, Obama declared his intent to issue the immigration EO: “I indicated to Speaker Boehner several months ago that if in fact Congress failed to act I would use all the lawful authority that I possess to try to make the system work better.”

Of course, “lawful authority” is whatever Obama defines it to be at a given time. He was against unlawful executive orders16 before he was for them.

On March 31, 2008, candidate Obama said, “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America.”

But having failed to pass immigration reform in his first two years in office when he owned the House and Senate, and then having lost control of the House in the 2010 midterm election, Obama repeatedly pleaded in Latino forums17 that he had no power to implement the changes he’d promised. Rebuffing calls that he legislate by executive order, Obama insisted, “I am not a dictator. I’m the president. … If in fact I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress then I would do so. … I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

Obama may not have implemented his immigration policies by EO, but he certainly suspended enforcement of immigration laws with an executive order.

But by 2014, with his singular centerpiece legislation – ObamaCare – falling apart, and Democrats putting as much distance between him and them as possible, Obama believed the only way his party could stave off a resounding defeat in the midterm election was if he delivered Latino votes.

He began the year promising, “Where Congress isn’t acting, I’ll act on my own. … I’ve got a pen … and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.” In other words, when Republicans don’t give Obama what he wants on immigration, he will pull an executive order end run.

Obama has broadly demonstrated his willingness to end-run our Constitution via EO, most notably his so-called “climate change18” policies and his repeated rewrites of ObamaCare13.

Asked about his revised position to implement amnesty by executive order, Obama regurgitated this spin: “Well, actually, my position hasn’t changed. When I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress. … There are certain limits to what falls within the realm of prosecutorial discretion in terms of how we apply existing immigration laws.”

Of course, that is just more constitutional obfuscation.

Despite his faux devotion to our Constitution, Obama has wantonly violated his oath to “to Support and Defend19” it.

Though Obama claims to be a “professor of constitutional law,” a genuine constitutional scholar, George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley, a self-acknowledged liberal Obama supporter, has issued severe criticism20 of Obama’s “über presidency,” his abuse of executive orders and regulations to bypass Congress.

According to Turley, “When the president went to Congress and said he would go it alone, it obviously raises a concern. There’s no license for going it alone in our system, and what he’s done, is very problematic. He’s told agencies not to enforce some laws [and] has effectively rewritten laws through active interpretation that I find very problematic.”

He continued: “What’s emerging is an imperial presidency, an über presidency. … When a president can govern alone, he can become a government unto himself, which is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in the establishment of our tripartite system of government. … Obama has repeatedly violated this [separation of powers] doctrine in the circumvention of Congress in areas ranging from health care to immigration law to environmental law. … What we are witnessing today is one of the greatest challenges to our constitutional system in the history of this country. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis with sweeping implications for our system of government. … We are now at the constitutional tipping point21 for our system. … No one in our system can ‘go it alone’ – not Congress, not the courts, and not the president.”

When asked by Fox News host Megyn Kelly how he would respond “to those who say many presidents have issued executive orders on immigration,” Turley responded, “This would be unprecedented, and I think it would be an unprecedented threat to the balance of powers. … I hope he does not get away with it.”

Over on Obama’s MSNBC network, even leftist commentator Lawrence O’Donnell finds the prospect of Obama’s executive amnesty diktat daunting. He asked Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) about Obama’s authority to issue an EO22 giving work permits to millions of illegal immigrants: “No one at the White House has been able to give me the legal justification for the following component of the president’s plan. … Has the White House told you – what is the legal justification for the president to create a new category of beneficiaries for work documents? How can that be done without legislation?”

Of course, Welch could not answer O’Donnell, because there is no such authority.

Before the midterm election, Obama declared, “Make no mistake, [my] policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them.” Make no mistake: The American people resoundingly rejected his policies on November 4.

That notwithstanding, Obama has dismissed the election results23. Perhaps he believes his immigration EO artifice will deliver enough Latino voters to Democrat candidates in 2016 to hold the presidency and regain the Senate, and somehow that will restore his “Dear Leader” status. After all, more than a million illegal immigrants24 were unlawfully registered to vote in the midterm election, particularly in states where Democrats have thwarted efforts to require voter IDs25.

The bottom line for Republicans is that they need to drive home four points.

First, the “immigration reform” pledges by Obama and his Democrats are disingenuous because they would undermine the Left’s entire “living wage” platform. But Democrats believe their low-income and Latino constituencies are too stupid to understand this ruse. Remember: “Labor inflation results in wage deflation.”

Second, as Dr. Turley noted, Obama is willing to trash the Constitution in order to advance his ruinous policies. Republicans need to use his abject abuse of power and the threat it poses to Liberty as a constitutional teachable moment.

Third, any debate about immigration26 is useless unless it begins with a commitment to securing our borders first27. As Ronald Reagan28 declared, “A nation without borders is not a nation.” Likewise, it must address the issue of so-called “birthright citizenship29,” which is a gross misinterpretation of our Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

And last, Republicans need to embrace the fact that Liberty is colorblind30. It’s not a “white thing.” Essential Liberty31 is timeless. And because it transcends all racial, ethnic, gender and class distinctions, it will appeal to all freedom-loving people when properly presented.

Time to see what the incoming House and Senate Republican majorities are made of!

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis

Links

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/12704

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/27481

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/9235

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/14816

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/22892

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/30689

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/19290

http://patriotpost.us/articles/28852

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/3181

http://patriotpost.us/articles/30185

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/22209

http://patriotpost.us/articles/30967

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/22065

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31072

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/7324

http://patriotpost.us/articles/30958

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31089

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/25733

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/3192

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31094

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/03/10/the-constitutional-tipping-point/

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31090

http://patriotpost.us/posts/30710

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/30609

http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/29/latest-reason-oppose-amnesty-voter-fraud-2/

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/13/10-point-immigration-plan-obama-follow/

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2762

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/8891

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/6932

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/23173

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/3467

SEATTLE’S MINIMUM WAGE CRASH: $15 to ZERO! Profits Tumble!
November 16, 2014 By Bill Chandler

Seattle, Washington, one of the strongest remaining bastions of liberal philosophy left in the country, passed a phased-in $15 minimum wage law earlier this year. The highest minimum wage in the country. The vote was unanimous and the throng outside cheered, but for many this is a loss from which they will never recover. It is a blow to the profitability of businesses that they just can’t take.

Even the left-leaning Seattle Times expressed concern wondering if Seattle had indeed “gone too far.”

According to the National Review Hotline, Kathrina Tugadi owner of Seattle’s El Norte Lounge, no longer hires musicians for her restaurant, she said she can’t justify expenses that don’t directly “add to the bottom line.” And, she says, hours will have to be cut: El Norte Lounge plans to stop serving lunch and only serve dinner.

“I am concerned about my business and others in the community, but it isn’t just about any one business. It’s about how the entire economic community,” she said. El Norte may be unable to remain open once the ordinance is fully in effect, she said. Even Pagliacci Pizza, a Seattle-area pizza chain, is moving its call center and some of its production facilities outside the city. That’s a lot of job loss, a lot of new people with a new wage of ZERO.

Socialist Council-member Kshama Sawant was the main proponent of the $15 ordinance. She and her supporters denied that the policy change would hurt businesses in the city. In one interview, Sawant said there need be “no unintended consequences.”

“No Unintended Consequences?” Who is she kidding? There are always consequences. In this case the consequences are the businesses that are downsizing, closing and failing, jobs that are lost, and most of all, people whose new hourly wage is ZERO. No unintended intended consequences? Are our politicians really that . . . stupid? Yes, I said it, Stupid. Do they really think taxes are irrelevant, businesses are omnipotent and that they can be drained in the name of politics without “any intended consequences?”

Do our politicians really not understand that our standard of living is the direct result
of one thing . . . the vitality of our businesses?

She went on to state that “any additional costs could come out of ‘extravagant profits’ rather than consumers pockets.” You have got to be kidding me . . . squared! Extravagant profits? Tell that to all the entrepreneurs out there who are trying desperately to make ends meet. Explain that to the mortgage companies they are trying to pay. And please pass that on to those on the street who’s job no longer exists. And, by the way:

where do you think every paycheck every employee has ever received came from?

Yes, Kshama, they came from business, all of them. And where do you think these businesses came from? They came from regular people like you and I who took a chance, rolled the dice, worked hard and were able to provide the people with something of value. All of them, that is where every single business you deplore came from.

You may think there are no intended consequences, but survey results tell a different story. Seattle Time contracted with a survey research firm to contact businesses in a broad range of industries likely to be impacted by the law. These are not businesses you’d describe as extravagant. Not surprisingly, nearly 70 percent of respondents in Seattle said that the $15 minimum wage is causing a “big increase” in their labor costs, and over 60 percent planned to pass on what they could to customers through higher prices.

But, according to Michael Saltsman, research director at the Employment Policies Institute, “price increases are not a silver bullet. After all, were businesses able to raise their prices at will without reducing sales, the minimum wage would be an afterthought. Customers have a choice: If prices increase, they could dine out less often or see one fewer movie a month. That’s why businesses are forced to adapt to a compulsory wage hike in other ways.”

In Seattle, 42 percent of surveyed employers were “very likely” to reduce the number of employees per shift or overall staffing levels as a direct consequence of the law. Similarly, 44 percent reported that they were “very likely” to scale back on employees’ hours to help offset the increased cost of the law. That’s particularly bad news for the Seattle metro area, where the unemployment rate for 16- to 19-year-olds is already more than 30 percent — due in part to Washington state’s already-high minimum wage.

Perhaps most concerning about the $15 proposal is that some businesses anticipated going beyond an increase in prices or a reduction in staffing levels. More than 43 percent of respondents said it was “very likely” they would limit future expansion in Seattle in response to the law. One in seven respondents is even “very likely” to close a current location in the city limits.

Yes, it it always sounds good to give people more free stuff, but once again, everything has a price. I asked a group of sixth graders what they would do. It only took them a few minutes to determine that their only choices were to; fire some employees, raise prices, or go out of business. They also concluded that people won’t come to your store if you charge too much. If sixth graders grasp this, what is wrong with our politicians?

Seattle is the first city in the country to pass a $15 minimum wage. Survey results suggested it will be the first city to find out why it was such a bad idea.

No matter how badly we would like it to be otherwise, there are always a consequences,
and 2+2 will always equal 4.

The U.S. Government Is Borrowing About 8 Trillion Dollars A Year
By Michael Snyder, on September 29th, 2014

National Debt – Public DomainI know that headline sounds completely outrageous. But it is actually true. The U.S. government is borrowing about 8 trillion dollars a year, and you are about to see the hard numbers that prove this. When discussing the national debt, most people tend to only focus on the amount that it increases each 12 months. And as I wrote about recently, the U.S. national debt has increased by more than a trillion dollars in fiscal year 2014. But that does not count the huge amounts of U.S. Treasury securities that the federal government must redeem each year. When these debt instruments hit their maturity date, the U.S. government must pay them off. This is done by borrowing more money to pay off the previous debts. In fiscal year 2013, redemptions of U.S. Treasury securities totaled $7,546,726,000,000 and new debt totaling $8,323,949,000,000 was issued. The final numbers for fiscal year 2014 are likely to be significantly higher than that.

So why does so much government debt come due each year?

Well, in recent years government officials figured out that they could save a lot of money on interest payments by borrowing over shorter time frames. For example, it costs the government far more to borrow money for 10 years than it does for 1 year. So a strategy was hatched to borrow money for very short periods of time and to keep “rolling it over” again and again and again.

This strategy has indeed saved the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars in interest payments, but it has also created a situation where the federal government must borrow about 8 trillion dollars a year just to keep up with the game.

So what happens when the rest of the world decides that it does not want to loan us 8 trillion dollars a year at ultra-low interest rates?

Well, the game will be over and we will be in a massive amount of trouble.

I am about to share with you some numbers that were originally reported by CNS News. As you can see, far more debt is being redeemed and issued today than back during the middle part of the last decade…

2013

Redeemed: $7,546,726,000,000

Issued: $8,323,949,000,000

Increase: $777,223,000,000

2012

Redeemed: $6,804,956,000,000

Issued: $7,924,651,000,000

Increase: $1,119,695,000,000

2011

Redeemed: $7,026,617,000,000

Issued: $8,078,266,000,000

Increase: $1,051,649,000,000

2010

Redeemed: $7,206,965,000,000

Issued: $8,649,171,000,000

Increase: $1,442,206,000,000

2009

Redeemed: $7,306,512,000,000

Issued: $9,027,399,000,000

Increase: $1,720,887,000,000

2008

Redeemed: $4,898,607,000,000

Issued: $5,580,644,000,000

Increase: $682,037,000,000

2007

Redeemed: $4,402,395,000,000

Issued: $4,532,698,000,000

Increase: $130,303,000,000

2006

Redeemed: $4,297,869,000,000

Issued: $4,459,341,000,000

Increase: $161,472,000,000

The only way that this game can continue is if the U.S. government can continue to borrow gigantic piles of money at ridiculously low interest rates.

And our current standard of living greatly depends on the continuation of this game.

If something comes along and rattles this Ponzi scheme, life in America could change radically almost overnight.

In the United States today, we have a heavily socialized system that hands out checks to nearly half the population. In fact, 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that gets direct monetary benefits from the federal government each month according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And it is hard to believe, but Americans received more than 2 trillion dollars in benefits from the federal government last year alone. At this point, the primary function of the federal government is taking money from some people and giving it to others. In fact, more than 70 percent of all federal spending goes to “dependence-creating programs”, and the government runs approximately 80 different “means-tested welfare programs” right now. But the big problem is that the government is giving out far more money than it is taking in, so it has to borrow the difference. As long as we can continue to borrow at super low interest rates, the status quo can continue.

But a Ponzi scheme like this can only last for so long.

It has been said that when the checks stop coming in, chaos will begin in the streets of America.

The looting that took place when a technical glitch caused the EBT system to go down for a short time in some areas last year and the rioting in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri this year were both small previews of what we will see in the future.

And there is no way that we will be able to “grow” our way out of this problem.

As the Baby Boomers continue to retire, the amount of money that the federal government is handing out each year is projected to absolutely skyrocket. Just consider the following numbers…

-Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid. Today, more than 70 million Americans are on Medicaid, and it is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.

-When Medicare was first established, we were told that it would cost about $12 billion a year by the time 1990 rolled around. Instead, the federal government ended up spending $110 billion on the program in 1990, and the federal government spent approximately $600 billion on the program in 2013.

-It is being projected that the number of Americans on Medicare will grow from 50.7 million in 2012 to 73.2 million in 2025.

-At this point, Medicare is facing unfunded liabilities of more than 38 trillion dollars over the next 75 years. That comes to approximately $328,404 for every single household in the United States.

-In 1945, there were 42 workers for every retiree receiving Social Security benefits. Today, that number has fallen to 2.5 workers, and if you eliminate all government workers, that leaves only 1.6 private sector workers for every retiree receiving Social Security benefits.

-Right now, there are approximately 63 million Americans collecting Social Security benefits. By 2035, that number is projected to soar to an astounding 91 million.

-Overall, the Social Security system is facing a 134 trillion dollar shortfall over the next 75 years.

-The U.S. government is facing a total of 222 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities during the years ahead. Social Security and Medicare make up the bulk of that.

Yes, things seem somewhat stable for the moment in America today.

But the same thing could have been said about 2007. The stock market was soaring, the economy seemed like it was rolling right along and people were generally optimistic about the future.

Then the financial crisis of 2008 erupted and it seemed like the world was going to end.

Well, the truth is that another great crisis is rapidly approaching, and we are in far worse shape financially than we were back in 2008.

Don’t get blindsided by what is ahead. Evidence of the coming catastrophe is all around you.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 203 other followers