Saturday, September 6, 2014

Another devastating blow to the economy...inflicted by the most anti-business administration since that of FDR.

Note: One of the biggest problems with reporting news like the following, it is never known (or almost never) by the  people responsible for the bad law. And that would be the voter! The low-information voters of today are responsible for the bad law makers such as Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. They are also responsible for the recent legislative disasters and the very big disaster yet to economic collapse! But that's OK, they'll just blame it on the other guy...
Cross-posted from: The Doug Ross Journal
National Labor Relations Board Ruling to Destroy Franchised Businesses... For the Children
Forbes contributor Mark Hendrickson sounds the alarm on another devastating blow to the economy, one inflicted by the most anti-business administration since that of FDR.
The NLRB has issued a ruling that McDonald's Corporation may be considered a joint employer of McDonald’s franchisees’ workers. If allowed to stand, this ruling will redefine the relationship between franchisors and franchisees by declaring both to be joint employers. This is bad law, bad for business, and bad for employment.

It’s bad law because it would unilaterally abrogate long-accepted contractual arrangements between thousands of franchisors and franchisees. It’s also bad law because it is an insult–no, a repudiation–of representative government. A major change in law that affects so many individuals and businesses is properly the province of Congress. By usurping the legislative prerogative, three unelected political appointees (a majority of the five-person NLRB) are presuming to make a decision that rightly should be made by [Congress].

The NLRB ruling will be immensely disruptive to all the franchisors and franchisees in the country. Indeed, it would destroy the harmony between a franchisor and its franchisees.
Currently, franchisors exert no control over hiring, firing, assigning workers to different shifts, determining the length of those shifts, deciding which worker performs which functions, etc. and if franchisors are now to be deemed joint employers of those who work in each local franchise, they would need to hire additional workers to be on site. You can’t manage a workforce in Peoria or Mesa or Tupelo from Chicago (or, in the case of McDonald’s, Oak Park). How would a franchisor cover these additional costs? They would have to receive a larger percentage of the franchisees’ income. They also might find it expedient to enter into a nationwide bargaining agreement with a union that would represent the workers in all the franchises, figuring that it would be more manageable for them to deal with one collective bargaining agent than having to micromanage labor issues in a large number of franchises.
...Clearly, the new NLRB ruling threatens to destroy jobs at a time when the overall job market remains less than robust. As is so often the case, government intervention in the name of helping America’s workers will end up imposing a severe toll on many of those workers.
Why would the NLRB promote a ruling certain to negatively impact small businesses and workers? Because it "is designed to help labor unions, a key element of President Obama’s powerbase."

Little wonder, as Hendrickson notes, that American companies are fleeing overseas.

Friday, September 5, 2014

How To Distort A Headline

Headline at the Washington Times:
Fed: Under Obama, only the richest 10 percent saw incomes rise

The headline should read:
Fed: Under the Democrats, only the richest 10 percent saw incomes rise
The point is made in paragraph 6 with a suggested solution in paragraph 7.

1.       Under President Obama, the richest 10 percent were the only income group of Americans to see their median incomes rise, according to a survey released this week by the Federal Reserve.
2.       The Fed data covered the years 2010-2013, during which period Mr. Obama constantly campaigned against income inequality and won re-election by painting his Republican rival as a tool of Wall Street plutocrats.
3.       “Data from the 2013 [Survey of Consumer Finances] confirm that the shares of income and wealth held by affluent families are at modern historically high levels,” the report said in noting that the median income fell for every 10-percent grouping except the most affluent 10 percent.
4.       “The 2013 SCF reveals substantial disparities in the evolution of income and net worth since the previous time the survey was conducted, in 2010,” the report stated. The SCF is conducted by the Federal Reserve triennially and compiles information about family incomes, credit use, net worth and finances.
5.        The 2010-2013 SCF found that even though real gross domestic product grew by 2.1 percent and civilian unemployment fell from 9.9 percent to 7.5 percent, only families at “the very top of the income distribution saw widespread income gains,” though mean median income levels still lagged behind 2007 numbers.
6.     The report comes just a week after AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said the union group would not endorse any more Democrats that following President Obama’s economic policy.
7.      We will call in and question all of the candidates,” he said. “One of our biggest concerns is who is the candidate’s economic team, because if the present economic team doesn’t change, you are going get the same results.”
8.       The survey also found that families in the middle income bracket (40th to 90th percentiles) saw “very little” change in average real incomes and still have not recovered losses from 2010 and 2007. Families at the bottom of the income distribution continued to see “substantial declines” in average real incomes, a continuing trend from the previous two surveys.
Note:  This story tends to prove one thing:
The More Democrats In Office, The Less Money In Your Pocket

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Why Obama Doesn't Feel The Need To Attend The PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing)

Report: Obama Briefed on ISIS Threat for More Than a Year
Source: Guy Benson @
Fox News national security correspondent Catherine Herridge probes her sources and reports that President Obama received "specific intelligence" about the rise of ISIS in his daily briefings for "at least a year:"
A former Pentagon official confirms to Fox News that detailed and specific intelligence about the rise of ISIS was included in the PDB, or the President’s Daily Brief, for at least a year before the group took large swaths of territory beginning in June. The official, who asked not to be identified because the PDB is considered the most authoritative, classified intelligence community product providing the President with analysis of sensitive international events, said the data was strong, and “granular” in detail, adding a policy maker “…could not come away with any other impression: This is getting bad.”The official who has close knowledge of the process said the President, who reads the PDB unlike his predecessors who traditionally had the document briefed to them, was not known to come back to the intelligence community with further questions or “taskings.” Asked to describe the frequency, the former Pentagon official said “not generally.”After suggestions that the administration may have been blindsided by the rise of ISIS, and that poor intelligence was to blame, the former Pentagon official said some of the intelligence was so good it was described as “exquisite” ... On whether the administration delayed acting on the Foley rescue, as first reported by the Sunday Times of London to be 30 days, the former Pentagon official confirmed there was significant delay, describing a White House that was racked with “hesitancy” and continually asking for “the intelligence to build up more.”
These allegations should be objectively shocking, but is anyone genuinely surprised by any of this? Obama's hesitancy and vacillation on the Foley rescue mission have been widely reported, so that's old news. But Herridge's reporting includes a number of details that flesh out a portrait of a disengaged president. First of all, just because the "granular" ISIS warnings were included in Obama's so-called PDB doesn't mean that he ever digested that intel. Obama routinely skips his in-person briefings, including -- infamously -- on the day immediately following the terrorist attacks in Benghazi. His aides insist that the president prefers to read his daily briefing book, but this Pentagon source says Obama rarely responds to the intelligence updates with follow-up questions and directives. If he's scouring these documents on a daily basis, he's not letting on that he's actively responsive to the intelligence they contain. This, remember, is a man supporters hail as one of the most intellectually curious human beings on earth. Fox isn't the only outlet citing sources and evidence spelling out the revelation that Obama has been fielding incoming information about the advancement of ISIS for some time. McClatchy confirmed in July that US officials had been tracking the terror group's progress since 2012:
A review of the record shows, however, that the Obama administration wasn’t surprised at all. In congressional testimony as far back as November, U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials made clear that the United States had been closely tracking the al Qaida spinoff since 2012, when it enlarged its operations from Iraq to civil war-torn Syria, seized an oil-rich province there and signed up thousands of foreign fighters who’d infiltrated Syria through NATO ally Turkey. The testimony, which received little news media attention at the time, also showed that Obama administration officials were well aware of the group’s declared intention to turn its Syrian sanctuary into a springboard from which it would send men and materiel back into Iraq and unleash waves of suicide bombings there. And they knew that the Iraqi security forces couldn’t handle it.
The current crisis didn't drop from the sky unannounced; it's been building for years -- a fact that puts the lie to some of the excuses we highlighted yesterday. Our government has been watching developments closely throughout this cascading nightmare, and alarming intelligence has been laid before the president since at least 2013. That's what makes Obama's dismissive comparison of ISIS to a "jayvee" basketball team in January so galling. He knew, or should have known, better. And it's what renders his "no strategy" admission last week flat-out indefensible. The media -- including Townhall -- began reporting in earnest on the hellish scenes playing out across Iraq in early June. That was three months ago. It would be egregious enough if the Commander-in-Chief still hadn't actively and urgently crafted a strategy to deal with ISIS over those weeks alone. In fact, his inaction on this front dates back more than a year. ISIS only became a quasi-priority when it started generating politically-problematic headlines, and even then, the president's priorities often seem to lie elsewhere. If you ask Obama, none of this is his fault. He's disclaimed the decision to pull all troops out of Iraq, even though it's well established that his administration didn't aggressively pursue an important status of forces agreement, and therefore did not secure one. I'll leave you with former White House spokesman Robert Gibbs calling the president's "no strategy" gaffe a wince-inducing comment:

Incidentally, the Brits say they're fully behind anti-ISIS US airstrikes in Iraq (though they're reticent to join in) and are sending lethal aid to the Kurds, as are the Germans.

When's the last time you held your elected official accountable for this? (I'll estimate that 99% of the voters never heard of it.)

Previously posted here: The farmer in the dell, The farmer in the dell, Hi-ho, the derry-o, Your Country's going to hell
Anti-Deficiency Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA) is legislation enacted by the United States Congress to prevent the incurring of obligations or the making of expenditures (outlays) in excess of amounts available in appropriations or funds. It is now codified at 31 U.S.C. § 1341[1]. The ADA prohibits the Federal government from entering into a contract that is not "fully funded" because doing so would obligate the government in the absence of an appropriation adequate to the needs of the contract.
This Act of Congress is sometimes known as Section 3679 of the Revised Statutes, as amended.
To some extent, but not entirely, it implements the provisions of Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the "power of the purse") of the Constitution of the United States which precludes the expenditure of funds by any branch of the Federal government unless those funds have been appropriated by Congress. In part, the Act is actually inconsistent with the Constitution because it recites that expenditures without appropriations can be made where expressly permitted by Congress: the Constitution permits no such exception[citation needed].
Although the ADA and its predecessors are over 120 years old, no one has ever been convicted or even indicted for its violation.[2]. (Emphasis mine...may Obama be the first to be convicted. ~ Storm'n Norm'n)
An important corollary of the constitutional provision is that departments and agencies of the government may not "augment" appropriations either by raising money instead of seeking and getting an appropriation or by retaining funds collected and using them instead of receiving an appropriation. This bar to augmentation of appropriations is regularly violated by the executive branch and often with the consent of Congress. Practices in the nature of revolving funds (funds that are kept liquid by the use of "income" realized by agencies) clearly violate the augmentation limitation.
A more subtle but important violation of the Constitutional provision occurred when Congress passed TARP. Congress never appropriated ANY funds to TARP and instead simply recited that the necessary funds would be "deemed appropriated" at the time they were expended. This "deeming" provision violated not only the cited provision of the constitution but a host of other provisions as well.

Monday, September 1, 2014

The, tomorrow, and five to seven years from now (plan ahead)

Dateline 2009 (uploaded to YouTube)

Dateline 2014

a Typical Al Gore response...↓
If you're interested in a daily picture of both the polar and antartica ice caps click on the link below:

There will be an all-out civil war. No question about it.

“if they attempt to do that, it will be an all-out civil war. No question about it.”

(TPNN) – Early last year, as Americans feared that the federal government would enact unconstitutional anti-gun measures via executive edict, support for the Constitution came from some unlikely places. Even in Oregon, a Democrat stronghold in elections, Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller flat-out declared that he and his office would refuse to enforce any such unconstitutional federal laws or regulations. Mueller wrote, “We are Americans. We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws.”
Mueller later stated, “We’re restricted and prohibited from enforcing all types of federal laws, including immigration laws. It would be unreasonable for anyone to think that I would enforce a federal firearms law.”Since then, anti-gun crusaders have slowed down amidst fierce push-back from patriots. Still, patriotic law enforcers are willing to speak out. Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis, a sheriff in the state of Maryland, recently reminded the citizens of his county that he will not violate the Constitution and warned the federal government that any attempt to disarm Americans will result in an all-out Civil War. I made a vow and a commitment,” Lewis said. “As long as I am sheriff of this county, I will not allow the federal government to come in here and strip my citizens of the right to bear arms.”Sheriff Lewis is mindful of keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous felons, but also explained, “We do not need to strip law abiding citizens of their Second Amendment right to bear arms. That I get upset over. I really do.”Sheriff Lewis also added a stern warning to the federal government about what will happen if they try to disarm the law-abiding populace:“I can tell you this,” Lewis said, “if they attempt to do that, it will be an all-out civil war. No question about it.”It’s encouraging to see that even as federal lawmakers and supposed federal law enforcers forget their duty to preserve liberty on behalf of the American people. Rampant tyranny is bound to be checked by local authorities and the will of a fierce American population that is armed and unwilling to acquiesce to tyrants.

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Tolman vs Healey - Massachusetts Attorney General Race ~ Here's two losers

For an update on Maura Healey please click here

Message to Massachusetts ↓ see video ↓

Tolman vs Healey (both are losers...they're not looking out for you)
In Mass. AG Race, Candidates Square Off Over Gun Control, Experience
by Mike Deehan
NEEDHAM, Mass. — With time running out before the primary, the two Democratic candidates seeking to become Massachusetts attorney general are becoming a bit more personal in their face-to-face meetings.
There aren’t many policy areas where candidates Warren Tolman and Maura Healey disagree, but their difference in style was on display at a debate recorded at the Needham studios of WCVB-TV. The station wouldn’t allow the media to broadcast audio of the debate. Both candidates spoke about why they want to be the state’s top attorney after the event.
Tolman is trying to make the case that his policy experience as a former state senator gives him an edge over Healey, who’s spent her career as a civil rights lawyer and an assistant to current Attorney General Martha Coakley.
“Inevitably, there will be issues where the attorney general will be on the wrong side of quote unquote public opinion. And you have to stand tall and you have to be a leader,” Tolman said.
But Healey insists her career has provided more relevant experience for the position and is casting her lack of political experience as a positive.
“I was a division and bureau chief in the attorney general’s office,” she said. “And that experience is very different than the experience of a Beacon Hill politician. And that’s how I come to this. I am not an insider, I am not a part of the Beacon Hill establishment. I am a person who has been fighting for people here in this state.”
One issue where there’s at least a slight disagreement between the candidates is new safe-gun technology. Tolman says he would require finger-print safety technology on all new handguns sold in the state and that he believes he could do that under his own authority as attorney general.
“There is an existing case in 1999 that’s pretty clear about the attorney general’s authority,” Tolman said. “Remember, we’re regulating an unsafe product; the most unsafe product sold today is guns.”
Healey also endorses the smart-gun technology, but says the AG must also work to stop gun trafficking and combat violence.
“His single-minded focus on a technology that I support but doesn’t deal with the problem today just isn’t my kind of leadership or what I want out of the attorney general’s office,” she said.
Both candidates say the attorney general has a role to play in the struggle over the past month for control of the family-owned Market Basket supermarket chain.
Healey says the top priority for the attorney general should be to protect the rights of workers. Tolman said he would have used the office to push for a resolution behind the scenes to end the conflict.
During the debate, Healey challenged Tolman about his former investment in a gambling company she says tries to get young people to gamble. Tolman calls the allegation that young people were involved false. He says he would make sure any gambling company operating in Massachusetts follows the law.
The winner of the Sept. 9 Democratic primary goes on to face Republican nominee John Miller in November.
The debate airs Sunday morning on WCVB-TV.
Ref:“Remember, we’re regulating an unsafe product; the most unsafe product sold today is guns.”

Warren Tolman
Supporting the bad guy since day one.
No, the MOST UNSAFE product sold today is a politician trying to sell us a bill of goods ...guns are the safest products in the world, they do no harm to anyone...never have, never will. Now people on the other hand have been at each other's throats since time immortal. You got the meanies and good guys with the meanies always bullying the good guys...just like politicians, the meanest people ever to come down the pike...and that includes the Mass. Pike! (pun intended). It never ceases to amaze me that all the politicians who want to place some measure of gun control upon the citizens also swear an oath to uphold the Constitution...apparently they don't know the meaning of the the word "infringe". Further, no politician, judge, police officer, or ordinary citizen should try to interpret the United States Constitution...THE CONSTITUTION MUST BE APPLIED AND NOT INTERPRETED else why swear an oath to uphold something you plan on destroying. While Tolman makes his position clear and should not be elected based on his hypocritical stance, Healy has not made her position clear and on that basis we need send her away from anything that may be unduly regulated...

By the way, if you believe that the item (in this case guns) kills people then the most unsafe product sold today is cars! But then again, cars don't kill people, people kill people but politicians have such pea-sized brains they haven't figured it out yet. Have you ever known a politician that can pass a logic test?

Comment via email from Texas:
----- Original Message -----
From: link removed
To: link removed
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: Mass. AG race Tolman vs Healey (both are losers...they're not looking out for you)
Norm. Good comments. Candidates like these can appropriately be called turds.
Also being read today...
1.  a Muslim doctrine that permits deceit to empower Islam
2.  Obama's Grade...don't tell the children!

The Big Lie, The Bigger Lie, The Truth...and the Propaganda

The Big Lie
"This is the most transparent administration in history, and I can document how that is the case -- everything from every visitor who comes into the White House is now part of the public record. That is something we changed. Every law that we pass, every rule that we implement we put online for everyone to see." ~ Barack Hussein Obama - February 14, 2013

The Bigger Lie
"I am not somebody who believes that the president has the authority to do whatever he wants.”  ~ Barack Hussein Obama - February 14, 2013

The Truth…although blatantly anti-American and also illegal!
“When I can act on my own without Congress, I’m going to do so…  And today I’m going to act.” ~ Barack Hussein Obama - January 15, 2014

The following from: TPNN
Secret White House Memo is Key to Obama’s Propaganda
By Ernest Istook

A secret memo ordered the entire federal government to give the White House control over who gets what information.
A few weeks after President Obama took office his attorney sent a memo that reversed all the claims about being an open and transparent administration.
Agencies were ordered to go through White House lawyers on every information request involving a so-called “White House equity” which was code for any and every issue they care about.  Court subpoenas, official requests from Congress, news media requests, and public asks under the Freedom of Information Act—nothing was to be released without going through the filter of political lawyers in the White House, no matter what the law said about honoring requests promptly.
And the names of requesters were put on a list—just like an enemies’ list.
What’s called the “control freak” President insists on controlling what you get to know or not. That is what we call propaganda.