Thursday, February 14, 2013

Current Events - February 14, 2013

Obama to Vacation in West Palm Beach

Six weeks into 2013, off on Vacation No. 2...

Taxpayers will be sending President Obama on his second vacation of the year when he departs Friday aboard Air Force One for a Presidents’ Day Weekend excursion to West Palm Beach, Florida.

Without apparent irony, Obama has decided to jet to a well-trod stomping ground of the rich just days after presenting himself to the nation in his State of the Union speech as the guardian of the middle class.

Obama presumably will head directly to some fabulous golf course, having not been able to play in recent weeks because of the cold weather in Washington.

While Obama may pay some hotel and other miscellaneous costs related to his vacation travel, taxpayers are on the hook for much of the expense, shelling out for the president’s travel aboard Air Force One, a cargo plane that carries supplies, and the cost of the president’s substantial staff and security retinue.

While unemployment stands at nearly eight percent, Obama is taking his second vacation of 2013. The year is only six weeks old.

Obama initially traveled to Hawaii in late December. He returned after a several days to work on a fiscal cliff deal, and then went back for several more days in early January after signing a bill. So this will also be the third time in less than two months that taxpayers have footed the bill for a round-trip Obama vacation.

It’s not clear if Michelle is going with him – the White House announcement of Obama’s plans doesn’t mention her. She usually goes skiing in the Rockies around this point in the year.

 http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/02/13/obama-vacation-west-palm-beach/

PK'S NOTE: The hypocrisy. She, like anyone alive today in the US,  has NO IDEA what it is like to be a slave. She has been in Congress since 1995. Her net worth is reportedly $456,014 to $1,364,997. From her House of Representatives biography: "Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee earned a B.A. in Political Science from Yale University with honors, followed by a J.D. from the University of Virginia Law School."

Dem Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Uses 'Slave' Card To Urge Sequester Vote

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) urged her colleagues to reach a compromise to prevent spending cuts through sequestration, arguing that government programs are already as lean as they can be.

"We're at the bone almost, and sequester, that is across-the-board cuts, will literally destroy us and put us in a recession," she said on the House floor Wednesday.

She called on Republicans to meet Democrats at the negotiating table and rejected the idea that President Obama delivered a partisan State of the Union address Tuesday night.

"May I ask them to take some cotton out of their ears, because in actuality, the president extended his hands of friendship," she said. "I don't want to hear the fact that the president is divisive. The president is leading, and he's led well."

Jackson Lee suggested lawmakers should take inspiration from President Lincoln’s leadership during the Civil War.

"I stand here as a freed slave because this Congress came together. Are we going to be able to do it today to free America?
 

http://nation.foxnews.com/rep-sheila-jackson-lee/2013/02/13/rep-sheila-jackson-lee-plays-slave-card?intcmp=fly#ixzz2KtFy7VRz

John Kerry Fail – Russian Foreign Minister Refused To Return His Call


Our new Secretary of State John Kerry’s not off to a very good start in his new role. He called Russia’s foreign minister to discuss North Korea’s latest nuclear test but didn’t receive a return call. Maybe he should have said he was calling to offer a new “reset” button.
Secretary of State John Kerry called all the foreign ministers of countries that deal with North Korea following Monday’s nuclear test and all but one of them picked up the phone — Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
Well, I guess Obama picked the right person to oversee the decline of our influence in the world.
http://lonelyconservative.com/2013/02/john-kerry-fail-russian-foreign-minister-refused-to-return-his-call/comment-page-1/

Destroying Jobs to Save Them

Few poor workers will benefit from minimum wage hikes, economists say

 President Barack Obama called on Congress to raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour during his State of the Union despite concerns from some economists that the increase would hamper an already weak economic recovery. The hike would represent a 24 percent jump from the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

“We know our economy is stronger when we reward an honest day’s work with honest wages,” Obama said. “That’s why, since the last time this Congress raised the minimum wage, 19 states have chosen to bump theirs even higher.”

However, those 19 states boast some of the highest unemployment rates in the nation, especially among the teenagers who make up the majority of minimum wage earners.

Only two states with minimum wages above the federal level have youth unemployment rates that rank among the best-performing 10 states in the nation. Of the 10 states with the highest teen unemployment rates, six have higher minimum wages than the federal standard. About 30 percent of teenagers are out of work in Washington state, the only state with a minimum wage above $9 an hour.

Michael Saltsman, research director at the Employment Policies Institute, says minimum wage increases often lead employers to cut hours or lay off workers as they try to cope with rising labor costs.

“States that do this place barriers to employment that hurt workers,” he said. “Just because their hourly wages went up doesn’t mean they’re getting annual increases. Some workers benefit, but many lose out.”

Political insiders were surprised Obama included a higher minimum wage in the laundry list of goals he laid out during the speech. The announcement pleased many in his base. For example, labor groups praised Obama for the proposal, saying it would lead to “rising wages and good jobs.”

“We applaud the president for expressing support for raising the minimum wage and tying it to the cost of living,” said AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka.

Dr. Mark Perry, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said raising the minimum wage would not alleviate the long-time stagnation of wages because it could lead to increased unemployment.

“We’re struggling in a jobless recovery; this would price unskilled workers out of the labor market,” he said. “Wages go up when there are labor shortages and higher competition for workers—we have such a high unemployment rate right now that can’t happen.”

Obama said during his speech, “A full-time worker making the minimum wage earns $14,500 a year. Even with the tax relief we’ve put in place, a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line.”

“Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour,” Obama said. “This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families.”

Obama may be exaggerating the benefits of his policy, however.

“There were almost 45 million workers nationwide who were paid hourly wages and working full-time (40 hours or more) in 2011. Of those full-time hourly workers, 98.3 percent were earning more than the minimum wage, and only 743,000 (and 1.7 percent) were earning the minimum wage or less,” Perry wrote in a blog post.

The majority of minimum wage earners are young and unmarried not the breadwinner described by Obama, according to a 2011 the Bureau of Labor Statistics report, the most recent year available.

“Minimum wage workers tend to be young,” the report states. “Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly-paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 23 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over.”

Those workers have enough trouble finding a job as they lack the experience and education levels of older workers, according to Saltsman. Minimum wage work for many is a stepping stone for their careers: Missing that step because of fewer job openings can have a long-term impact on their careers, he said.

“Teenagers are missing out on the skills and experience of entry level employment,” he said. “Today’s CEOs didn’t start out running companies; they started waiting tables and tossing newspapers. We have a generation that will not learn valuable skills.”

Employers are quick to recognize those skills. The BLS found that the majority of workers paid by the hour earn more than $7.25 an hour, a sign that workers are only at the minimum wage for a short time period, according to Perry.

“Raising the minimum wage sounds wonderful, but if it was so good for the economy, why not raise it to $19 or $29? They wouldn’t do that because it would displace people who need those skills and those jobs,” he said. “You hurt the most vulnerable people in the workforce when you do that.”

http://freebeacon.com/destroying-jobs-to-save-them/

The Minimum Wage is Bad for Employers, Workers, and the Economy

The minimum wage is about freedom. Think about it. The government is forcing employers to pay people a certain amount of money. It’s no wonder that a majority of voters have no problem with the government taking ever higher amounts of money from workers in the form of taxes. 

When the minimum wage goes up, union wages and benefits also go up. That’s why unions are always behind an increase in the minimum wage. Union workers do not make minimum wage. Unions can hold companies hostage to force up wages. They’re the fourth branch of government. When the minimum wage goes up, the wages of union employees have to go up as well, so they want new contracts to reflect a “proper” wage distance from the meager minimum wage earner.

Higher wages also mean higher prices. Not only will employers have to pay $9 per hour if Obama gets his way on an increase for the minimum wage, but Social Security and Medicare costs also go up for the employer on the increase.

Employers who hire minimum wage workers are usually working on small profit margins. If they get hit with something like a 25 percent increase in the minimum wage, it’s possible that to make up for the additional labor cost, an employer may have to lay off a fourth of his work force and distribute the work to the remaining employees. Unlike our government, businesses can’t print money.

Inexperienced young people are the first to suffer when the minimum wage goes up.

It used to be that when two people competed for the same job, a person who could undercut the amount an employer was willing to pay often would get the job.

An employer could take a risk on someone who lacked experience because he didn’t have to pay him what an experienced worker might demand. Many of the jobs available to teens were low skilled anyway.

By making it illegal to pay someone less than a government-mandated minimum wage, those with less experience are at a disadvantage. Employing teenagers is now a classic Catch-22 dilemma.

“Do you have experience?,” the shop owner asks.
The teenager is honest and shows initiative by answering, “No, but I’m willing to work at a lower wage to gain experience.”
“Sorry,” the shop owner says. “I would be breaking the law if I hired you for any amount less than the minimum wage. I can hire someone with experience at the same wage I’d have to pay you.”
“But I can’t get experience if you won’t hire me.”
“Tough luck. Complain to President Obama.”

Brian Levine, co-owner of Tropical Smoothie Café knows knows the law and the logic of the market place:

“A lot of it comes down to what we can afford, versus the hours they’re available to work. We are more or less, the minimum wage type of place. I would obviously prefer to pay minimum wage, but I’d also go for an adult and pay them an extra dollar an hour. They’re available, have more experience and are quicker to train.”

Renee Ward, founder of job posting site Teens4Hire.org, offers a similar story. “If you have two candidates for a job, and one has experience and will take $10 an hour, and the other is a teen with no experience, who do you think would get the job? When jobs aren’t there for anyone, it’s that much harder.”

Once again, government is the problem not the solution to job growth.

You might respond, “Sure, you can say this because you make a lot of money.” I don’t know what a lot of money is, but I sure make more than I did at my first job — $50 a week to wash pots and pans at a country club. Do the math. It’s a little more than a dollar an hour.

I worked a New Year’s Eve party at a restaurant when I was 16 with no hourly wage. The only money I got was in tips. The no-wage guarantee made me work very hard to get good tips. I made $20 for three hours of work. That was in 1966. That was big bucks back then.

I worked in the produce department at Kroger after school and weekends. This experience enabled me to get a job in Florida. I ended up working 60 hours a week. There was no union. My hard work was noticed, and I was offered the assistant manager’s job at a new store the company was opening.

It was these no to low hourly wages and disgusting working conditions that incentivized me to do better. I gained work experience and references. I worked through high school, had two jobs in college, and worked my way through graduate school as a custodian and bookstore assistant manager.

Get the government out of the wage business, and you’ll see the economy grow, prices fall, and wages that will keep up with expenses. The best workers will get the best jobs at the best prices.
 

DHS Nullifies Fourth Amendment Rights of Millions of Americans

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution reads:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The Department of Homeland Security doesn’t believe in the Fourth Amendment and has recently issued statements to that affect.  They are claiming that if you live within 100 miles of the international border that they have the right to search all electronic devices, including cell phones and laptop and tablet computers without probable cause or first securing a warrant.  The 100 mile distance is being referred to as the border security search zones.

This would include cities such as San Diego, Escondido, El Centro, Yuma, Tucson, Las Cruces, Carlsbad, El Paso, Brownsville, Seattle, Grand Forks, Toledo, Cleveland, Erie, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Montpelier to name just a few.

But wait, it gets even better!  If you live anywhere in Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey or Rhode Island, DHS says the search zones encompass the entire state.  Let’s not leave New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia out of the fun, because large areas of these states are also being designated as search zones.

If you live anywhere in any of the designated search zones, the feds claim to have the right to invade your privacy and conduct an unconstitutional search of your private possessions without any probable cause or warrant.  If you ask me, this sounds a lot like the Gestapo under Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, which is what I compared the Department of Homeland Security to in an earlier article.  This just helps to reinforce my claims.

EPA caught sabotaging fracking

Once again, government misbehavior is coming to light, this time involving the Environmental Protection Agency, and we can thank the inspector general program -- which President Obama would like to gut.

I have written numerous columns regarding President Obama's War against Inspectors General. These are the taxpayer advocates within various government agencies who seek to ensure that fraud, waste and abuse of power is prevented. Hence, Obama determined opposition to them that has gone to such lengths as character assassination, attempts to form a new $30 billion-dollar agency without an Inspector General, failing to replace Inspectors General when they depart.

Now comes news that again illustrates the reasons Obama has tried to gut the Inspector General program: one is investigating possible abused or power at the EPA as part of its crusade against energy producers.
Lachan Markay at the Washington Free Beacon  reports: 
A federal watchdog is investigating Environmental Protection Agency enforcement actions against a Texas natural gas company that the agency claimed contaminated drinking water through its drilling activities in the state.
The investigation, initiated in July 2012 but announced publicly for the first time on Tuesday, could substantiate allegations that the agency ignored information in its investigation that might have cast doubt on its findings.
According to a letter from the EPA's inspector general, the investigation will seek to determine whether aggressive legal action taken by EPA's Region 6 office against Range Resources "conformed to agency guidelines, regulations, and policy."
The investigation will focus on the EPA's actions against Range Resources, one of the pioneers in fracking. EPA administrator Al Armendariz (whose comments regarding crucifying oil and gas companies led to his later ouster when they came to light via a video) had issued an emergency order against Range, claiming the company had contaminated two natural gas wells with methane released from drilling activities.

The problem?

The EPA's internal emails show that even the agency's own experts doubted the science behind the allegations.

One EPA employee in a court-ordered deposition has admitted the EPA war aware that groundwater in the area contained methane prior to Range's drilling but chose to hit the delete button when it released its official records used to justify actions against the company.

The EPA has been an adamant foe of domestic energy development in America for the last four years (and beyond). Their actions in Texas and elsewhere have revealed that they will step outside the bounds of the rules and regulations -- and the law -- that governs their agency when it suits them.

This is par for the course in the Age of Obama -- and that is why he also has done everything he can to eviscerate the Inspector General program. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote that "sunlight is the best disinfectant". Inspectors General shine this spotlight on government activities. That is the problem for Obama. He does not want any light shone on his actions-or those taken by his people. The promises of transparency by Barack Obama do not apply when it comes to his own presidency. 

He wants citizens to be kept in the dark. Why?

Have Obama's policies led to an Iranian nuclear bomb?

The Washington Post reports that Iran has ordered banned magnets from a Chinese company that would result in its nuclear program expanding by five-fold and sharply compress Israel's timeline for dealing with Iran:

Iran recently sought to acquire tens of thousands of highly specialized magnets used in centrifuge machines, according to experts and diplomats, a sign that the country may be planning a major expansion of its nuclear program that could shorten the path to an atomic weapons capability.
Purchase orders obtained by nuclear researchers show an attempt by Iranian agents to buy 100,000 of the ring-shaped magnets - which are banned from export to Iran under U.N. resolutions - from China about a year ago, those familiar with the effort said. It is unclear whether the attempt succeeded.
Although Iran has frequently sought to buy banned items from foreign vendors, this case is considered unusual because of the order's specificity and sheer size - enough magnets in theory to outfit 50,000 new centrifuges, or nearly five times the number that Iran currently operates.
The revelation of the new orders for nuclear-sensitive parts coincides with Iran's announcement that it plans to add thousands of more-advanced, second-generation centrifuges that would allow it to ramp up its production of enriched uranium even further, analysts said.

China, of course, has been receiving waivers from Iran Sanctions legislation willy-nilly from Barack Obama who has determined that nation has been cooperating with laws meant to restrict Iran's nuclear program. Meanwhile, China has sharply boosted its import of Iranian oil and gas.


I wrote back in November 2012, that when it comes to our Iran Policy that the problem was Obama (see Iran Policy: The Problem is Obama).


What I wrote then is true now-but with greater evidence.


Lest we forget, in his Cairo speech, he also declared that "no single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons." So take that Israel - a veiled threat that Israel should refrain from attacking Iran or face the prospect of dealing with international blowback without America having its back.


The same declaration is all but handcuffing America, as well, since Obama seems to indicate he would have to go through the UN Security Council to seek permission (or as Secretary of State John Kerry might phrase it -seek a passing grade from an "international test") to strike Iran. The Security Council will oppose such a step.


What message is being heard by the mullahs in Iran over the last year as they rapidly accelerate their efforts to get the bomb?


The Hill reported early last year that White House spokesman Jay Carney had relayed that the White House was in no rush to deal with Iran despite Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stating that Iran could develop a nuclear weapon within a year.


Barack Obama late last year dismissed Israeli concerns over the Iranian nuclear program as just so much "noise."


Just a few days ago (when surely the administration was aware of the latest attempt by Iran to massively accelerate its nuclear program) the New York Times (the adjunct of the Obama administration) reported that Obama's advisers were content with "stalemate" with Iran.


The administration has issued so many national security waivers to Iran's major trading partners (exempting them from penalties) that the sanctions regime set up by Congress has been seriously compromised.


The enforcement of sanctions by the Obama team has been so flaccid that bipartisan majorities of both houses of Congress have repeatedly issued letters to President Obama calling him to actually enforce the pre-existing sanctions legislation targeting Iran's nuclear program.


Repeatedly, team Obama has warned Israel not to attack Iran.


A stalemate leads to an Iranian nuclear weapon. Voting present, leading from behind, allowing the window for diplomacy to be open for years (while continually warning it will be closed) while issuing waivers galore to nations importing Iranian oil, dereliction regarding enforcement of current sanctions laws, bluffs being called - all will lead to a nuclear Iran.


And in the latest signal to Iran, a known foe of sanctions and military action on Iran, Chuck Hagel, has been nominated by Obama (and will probably become) our next Secretary of Defense thanks to Democratic Senators' obeisance to Obama. Hagel seems to think that an Israeli bomb is more of a threat than an Islamic bomb.


You don't need to know Farsi to see the handwriting the wall.


Barack Obama's policies will, in all likelihood, lead to an Iranian nuclear bomb.
Also Reads:

There was a time when I was a liberal

"The pseudo Liberals want to stop crime without eliminating the criminals. They want world peace without challenging those who are committed to hegemony, caliphates, and domination. They want prosperity without encouraging each and every citizen to contribute to that prosperity."

No comments: