Obama's nightmare of a second term

There is a lot of talk these days about "same sex marriage," "gun control," "voter ID," et al. We are not hearing a lot about jobs, GDP growth or any of those complicated foreign policy problems that could just overwhelm President Obama's time in the next couple of years.

Call me cynical but I think that President Obama is engaging in a bit of distraction or keeping his base happy with a lot of the stuff that they want to hear.

Can you blame President Obama? Frankly, you can't. He does not have a lot of things going his way.

President Obama faces an incredible difficult list of problems such as Syria, Libya, North Africa and even Iraq could turn into a major headache. (Who would have believed Iraq after the hard work that President Bush & the troops did in 2007-08)

And I did not mention North Korea or Afghanistan.

And what about Iran? How is the left in the US going to react when we "preemptively" bomb Iran without much international support?

And I did not mention Venezuela, a country on the verge of a constitutional crisis.

Or Cuba, the island nation that could implode on the day that Caracas shuts off the oil subsidy.

And Russia and China are pushing their weight around.

And the Euro-zone is entering a recession.

Can you blame President Obama for preferring to talk about same sex couples having the right to marry?

Back home, how is that $870 billion stimulus "stimulating"? Remember the stimulus that was going to build bridges, roads and create all of those "shovel ready jobs"?

Well, it did not work out that way. We just learned that the US GDP "grew" at a 0.4% rate in the 4th quarter. Frankly, there is no growth anytime there is a "0" before the period!

This is pathetic. This is just another sign that the US economy is suffering from a bad case of regulations and a little too much "class warfare".

Why are more people on food stamps? Why are jobless claims up unexpectedly?

What about those deficits? Remember when Pres Bush was "unpatriotic" for running deficits? Or when voting for increasing the debt ceiling was a lack of leadership?

Furthermore, the Obama-Care implosion continues. We just learned today that premiums will go up. I guess that all of that stuff about keeping your own policy or lower health care costs was just plain wrong.

I think that President Obama will likely face the most difficult second term since President Truman.

It will painful to watch even if you did not vote for the guy.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/03/obamas_nightmare_of_a_second_term.html#ixzz2OwpiUUgZ

PK'S NOTE: Remember, it's always about control. I would maybe fight this in terms of contracts between individuals and private property grounds.

Local Towns are Fighting Government For Food Freedom

Voters here made their town the fifth in Hancock County to pass a local food sovereignty ordinance that thumbs its nose at state and federal regulations for direct-to-consumer sales of prepared foods and farm products.

In a referendum election on March 4, residents voted 112-64 to approve the “Local Food and Community Self-Governance Ordinance,” which states that producers or processors of local foods are “exempt from licensure and inspection,” so long as the food is sold directly by the producer to a consumer.

The ordinance also makes it “unlawful for any law or regulation adopted by the state or federal government to interfere with the rights organized by this ordinance.”

The state contends that such ordinances hold no legal weight, but that hasn’t stopped residents of Sedgwick, Penobscot, Blue Hill and Trenton from passing the same local rules. Food sovereignty ordinances also have been passed in Hope, Plymouth, Livermore and Appleton.

In an interview, Kaylene Waindle, special assistant to the attorney general, said the state has a legitimate and legal interest in overseeing the safety of food being sold to consumers, and that state laws about food safety, inspection and licensing pre-empt local ordinances.

Much like individual states passing marijuana laws that fly in the face of the federal government’s stance on cannabis, the dispute over who controls local food regulation seems destined for court.

At least until that happens, one Brooksville farmer said she’ll consider Brooksville’s new rule the law of the land.

“Until this ordinance is stricken in a court of proper authority, or the citizens decide to rescind the ordinance, this stands as the law in this town,” Deborah Evans, owner of Bagaduce Farm and one of the ordinance’s supporters, said on Monday.

Evans raises pigs and sells pork products directly to consumers through private sales and at farmers markets. She also sells lard, produced in her home kitchen without the supervision of a state inspector, which is required by state law for the sale of meat products. The state considers lard a meat product, but Evans disagrees.

All the state regulation in the world can’t guarantee food safety, Evans said. She said she’s been rendering lard and selling it to friends and family for quite some time, and that Brooksville’s ordinance will embolden her to “push the envelope” even more, she said.

“On my lard, I’m going to change the label to say, ‘I proudly make this lard in my home kitchen without federal or state guidelines or permissions,” she said. “If [a customer] asks why, I’ll say, ‘Because we have an ordinance in Brooksville.’ It’s a point of pride.”

State Rep. Ralph Chapman, D-Brooksville, has said there are several bills being crafted in Augusta that would seek to implement the local food sovereignty rules for direct-to-consumer sales at the state level. If that happened, there would no longer be a conflict between state and local rules.

If, before then, the state makes a legal move to invalidate Brooksville’s assertion of autonomy, the ordinance requires the town to hold public meetings to decide whether to fight the state in court or take other actions, including acquiescing to state control.

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/03/11/news/hancock/brooksville-becomes-ninth-maine-town-to-defy-state-on-sales-of-local-foods/

The Silence of the Shams

We have an entire industry in this country that is nothing more than a sham, pretending to be one thing while in fact, being something utterly different. That industry is, of course, the liberal media, who daily vow to bring you all the news while in fact sifting the worth of any story through a liberal sieve that has been perfected to block the passage of any story that might reflect well on the conservative view. A glaring example has come to be in the past week.

Remember a little more than a year ago when a tattooed black thug, whose claim to thuggery, well documented by his own words and photographic submissions to the social media websites, was shot dead by a neighborhood watch volunteer in a confrontation that drew and held the liberal media in thrall for weeks. Every outraged broadcast perpetuating the liberal myth that an innocent young black child had been murdered by a white racist was accompanied by a photo of the black thug when he was still a bright, smiling innocent of approximately twelve years of age. The "white Hispanic" who killed him fared worse: his photographic introduction to the world was a post-arrest mug shot.

Even though the web media quickly surfaced an accurate depiction of both, the liberal media refused to replace their images with those that more correctly depicted the two participants because it didn't fit their narrative of evil white man guns down innocent black youth. To hell with reality, this is the story we're pushing so we'll use the pics that carry our story line. Recall the outrage, the crusading black rabble-rousers who quickly flew to the scene so as to be seen. Recall the illegal offers of a bounty on the head of the defendant by a militant black organization.

OK, surely you have the picture by now. Let us then compare and contrast those events with last week's vicious shooting down in coastal Georgia of a white infant in its stroller by an angry, young, black thug who accosted the infant's mother in a failed robbery attempt. Frustrated that the baby's mother had no money on her person, this brute, frustrated that he'd been so stupid as to pick such an unlikely target, casually and vindictively shot her tiny baby in the face, snuffing out the fledgling existence of a totally, helpless innocent.
Here's your challenge: Google that incident using any number of search terms and see how many network news reports you turn up. Unlike the non-stop, hand-wringing anguish over the death of that poor innocent black child in Florida, the senselessly savage execution of a truly helpless innocent at the hands of a surly thug isn't newsworthy in the new politically-correct America. Here we have a horrific crime that, should the races be reversed, would be dominating the network airways. Yet most of America hasn't even heard of this abominable act.

That, folks, is because a bunch of liberal network producers in New York and Los Angeles don't want you to hear any news that does not support their liberal narrative. White on black homicide fits their views thus it's news. Black killing white gets no light. Think about that: in every single day that passes, these few liberal overlords decide what you shall hear. And if any news event does not support their leftist agenda, you are assured of not hearing about it. To call themselves news networks is the most laughable lie one can imagine.

'Agree to Disagree?' Not Any More

I work at an opinion polling company. Men and woman of all ages, races, creeds, and lifestyle choices come into our conference rooms to give their opinions on various products, services, and ideas. Do you prefer Bounty paper towels or Brawny paper towels? What's your favorite TV show and why does it appeal to you? Is gun control a good thing or a bad thing? These are the kinds of interviews we conduct for various clients who are interested in finding out how to improve their products or address public opinion. And even though people in these groups can have different opinions about the subject matter, they are allowed to voice their viewpoint and give their reasons. As I said, it's important for our clients to find out why people choose one product over another, or think one idea is more worthy than another.

And even though a client personally may not think and choose the way the person being interviewed thinks and chooses, by listening to their responses, the client finds out how to better improve their product or service. In other words, they have to keep an open mind, but also accept the thought-pattern of the respondent. They are not there to change their thinking, but to simply hear it and understand why they think the way they do.

In society today, however, when it comes to the big issues, that is not the case.

My boss and a fellow employee were discussing gay marriage and how wonderful it would be for the Supreme Court to legitimize it. Many in my office have been caught up in this wave of "making history" -- the excitement, the drama. And they believe one hundred percent that they are right and those who oppose them and their idea of "marriage" are wrong.

Now, I've known the opinions of my boss and many of my other fellow employees since I started this job several months back. I have never told them this, but I am one hundred percent opposed to their way of thinking. However, I understand why they feel the way they do and know that nothing I can say to them will get them to change their point of view. So, I don't discuss the topic at all.

Knowing this about them does not stop me from liking any of them or working enthusiastically with the team. Even though I know that their beliefs are wrong-headed, I feel that in a free country with free speech, they can certainly hold onto those beliefs. However, I also know that in America today, my opposing viewpoint will not be accepted in a "let's agree to disagree" manner. In fact, I know that there is a good chance that if they found out my view on gay "marriage" in particular, I would not only lose their friendship, but could quite easily lose my job (I work, after all, in fair, balanced, and open-minded New York City). I would not be granted the same respect and live-and-let-live attitude I afford them.

There was a book out in the late 60s called I'm Okay, You're Okay. A modern-day version of that book would be, I'm Okay, You're a Hater. No longer is a conservative's viewpoint "different" -- it's hateful.

Growing up in the suburbs, my parents used to host barbecues, with a backyard filled with their friends. Some were Democrats, some Republicans. Sometimes they would discuss the issues of the day, but even though they'd disagree, they'd still respect each other's opinions. At the end of the day, everyone would leave the party still friends.

By the time I graduated from college in the mid-1970s, I was thinking, "The number one thing that liberals hate is free speech." Liberals/Progressives know that in a "marketplace of ideas," people with common sense would never buy what they're peddling. So, their ideas need to be forced upon the masses.

Nowadays, we all know friends who have lost friends simply because they honestly shared their opinions on matters of current events and politics. Unless you're part of the popular viewpoint, the current wave of excitement or new wave of "making history," you're a hater and fit to be shunned.

So, where does that get us as a nation? There will be those who set the agenda with loud voices and intimidation tactics, and those who keep their mouths shut -- if they know what's good for them. There's almost a Germany-of-the-1930s feel in the air. It seems, America is spiraling downward and we all need to be concerned that there aren't enough Dietrich Bonhoeffers to stop the momentum.

St. James tells us that "the prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." If there are any righteous people left, well, it's high time to pray.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/03/agree_to_disagree_not_any_more.html#ixzz2Owu2yiEK

PK'S NOTE: I stupidly have massive student loans after buying into the hope of better work with Masters degrees. But I pay my freakin' loans (three different companies) each month though it hurts our living condition. You can just hear them: these young people shouldn't be saddled with such loans; it makes them a human target in the game of life. We'll forgive them. Yeah, I'd like my loans to be magically gone but at the expense of taxpayers who had nothing to do with them and my choices? No.

Student loan crisis getting worse

You didn't think it was possible, did you? This CNBC article details how the snowball keeps picking up steam as it rolls downhill, threatening to crush the entire student loan program:

Student-loan defaults surged in the first three months of 2013, while efforts to collect bad loans are faltering, according to credit analysts and government audits. It is the latest twist in a college debt crisis that is hanging over recent graduates and dragging on the broader economy.

Credit-rating firm Equifax said $3.5 billion in government and private student loans went

bad in the first three months of 2013, the most since the company began keeping track. The U.S. Department of Education said 6.8 million federal student loan borrowers are now in default, representing $85 billion in debt. And the department's systems for collecting the bad loans are struggling to keep up.

The Department's Office of Inspector General found in December that more than $1.1 billion in defaulted student loans were stuck in a sort of computer limbo.

"The Department is not pursuing collection remedies and borrowers are unable to take steps to remove their loans from default status," wrote Assistant Inspector General for Audit Patrick Howard in the December 13 report, which blames a system installed in 2011 by Xerox that is supposed to transfer defaulted loan accounts from servicing companies to private collection agencies. Those collection firms have considerable power, including the ability to garnish up to 15 percent of a borrower's wages. But none of that can happen until the accounts are transferred.

A Xerox spokesman declined to comment, referring inquiries to the Department of Education.

"While we regret this delay, we are taking active steps to work with the vendor to resolve the problem," Department of Education spokesman Chris Greene said in an e-mail. He denied that borrowers who have cleared up their defaults are not being removed from defaulted status, but acknowledged "a small percentage" of bad loans have been caught up in the problem.

He said some $600 million of the affected loans will be transferred "in the coming weeks."

Eventually, you and I are going to foot the bill to bailout these scofflaws and it won't be cheap. Do you think then that they'll reform the program or will they just throw good money after bad?

What posseses an 18 year old to saddle himself with $100,000 in debt in the first place? Do philosophy majors really think they're going to be able to pay that loan off?

Madness.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/03/student_loan_crisis_getting_worse.html#ixzz2OwIcVwKj

New Obama regs for gasoline will add up to 9 cents a gallon

Because it's for the kids, don't ya know?

The new regs would remove 90% of sulfur from gasoline and tighten emission standards on cars.
Associated Press:

An oil industry study says the proposed rule being unveiled Friday by the administration could increase gasoline prices by 6 cents to 9 cents a gallon. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates an increase of less than a penny and an additional $130 to the cost of a vehicle in 2025.

The EPA is quick to add that the change aimed at cleaning up gasoline and automobile emissions would yield billions of dollars in health benefits by 2030 by slashing smog- and soot-forming pollution. Still, the oil industry, Republicans and some Democrats have pressed the EPA to delay the rule, citing higher costs.

Environmentalists hailed the proposal as potentially the most significant in President Barack Obama's second term.

The so-called Tier 3 standards would reduce sulfur in gasoline by more than 60 percent and reduce nitrogen oxides by 80 percent, by expanding across the country a standard already in place in California. For states, the regulation would make it easier to comply with health-based standards for the main ingredient in smog and soot. For automakers, the regulation allows them to sell the same autos in all 50 states.

The Obama administration already has moved to clean up motor vehicles by adopting rules that will double fuel efficiency and putting in place the first standards to reduce the pollution from cars and trucks blamed for global warming.

"We know of no other air pollution control strategy that can achieve such substantial, cost-effective and immediate emission reductions," said Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. Becker said the rule would reduce pollution equal to taking 33 million cars off the road.

But the head of American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, Charles Drevna, said in an interview Thursday that the refiners' group was still unclear on the motives behind the agency's regulation, since refining companies already have spent $10 billion to reduce sulfur by 90 percent. The additional cuts, while smaller, will cost just as much, Drevna said, and the energy needed for the additional refining actually could increase carbon pollution by 1 percent to 2 percent.

"I haven't seen an EPA rule on fuels that has come out since 1995 that hasn't said it would cost only a penny or two more," Drevna said.

Is this a government operation or what? Sulfur has already been reduced by 90% and the government wants refiners to remove 90% of the last 10% - at great cost and with an increase in carbon pollution. And would't you love to see how they arrived at "billions of dollars" in health care savings over the next 20 years if we go through with this? They can get away with saying crap like that because nobody is going to go back and check in 2030 what they said.

Obama may not raise taxes on the Middle Class, but it's regulations like these that will sock it to those least able to afford an increase in fuel costs.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/03/new_obama_regs_for_gasoline_will_add_up_to_9_cents_a_gallon.html#ixzz2OwLcrJIk

Organizing for Millionaires

The price of access to Obama is too damn high

My friend Jim emailed me Wednesday.

“Friend,” he wrote, “I want to make one thing absolutely clear: We’re up against a whole lot more than just opposition in Congress.”

Jim—that’s “Mr. Messina” to you—ran President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign. Now he’s chairman of Organizing for Action, a nonprofit formed under section 501(c)4 of the tax code.

Organizing for Action is able to raise unlimited money, does not have to disclose where that money comes from, and engages in “issue advocacy” (“Tell Congressman Smith to grab guns”), but not “express advocacy” (“Vote against Congressman Smith because he likes freedom”).

“Organizing for Action is going to shift the balance of power in Washington back to real people,” Jim told me in his email. “People like you have shown over and over again that no amount of spending can stop millions of Americans calling for change.”

Jim’s right: The billion dollars President Obama and affiliated groups spent in 2012 did not stop millions of Americans calling for change.

But now Jim wants me to “donate $5 or more” to his new gig because “We have our first fundraising deadline this weekend.”

And I can’t do it. It’s not worth the investment. The price of access to Obama is too damn high.

Five dollars won’t even buy me lunch with Jim. A donation of $50,000 or more was the price of entry to Organizing for Action’s “Founders Summit” this month at the St. Regis hotel in Washington, D.C., where Messina mingled with guests and the president spoke at dinner. To join the “task force on policy,” I’d be expected to raise “at least $250,000 to finance advocacy work on specific issues.”

And I’d have to raise $500,000 to earn “the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House,” according to the New York Times. A spot on the board of directors of Organizing for Action requires a pledge to raise “$1 million for two consecutive years.”

Accumulating the capital to mingle with the likes of Jim Messina and President Obama is an arduous undertaking if you are not already a tech billionaire or Hollywood mogul or green energy venture capitalist or Vogue magazine editor or labor boss. (Organizing for Action says it won’t take money from lobbyists, corporations, or political action committees, but it’s happy to take money from unions.)

And it doesn’t stop with Organizing for Action. Obama and the progressive left have created a vast network of interlocking structures that mediate between financial interests and the executive branch. Shaping policy to benefit one’s company—or even to protect it from government interference—requires massive donations to all of them.

Take my friend Jim for example. In addition to Organizing for Action, he is setting up his own consultancy, which is, Bloomberg reports, “courting corporate clients.” He’s also been “giving paid speeches, domestically and internationally.”

Jim’s firm doesn’t have to disclose any of those clients. (Bloomberg says the Democratic National Committee is among them.) The influence brokers of the world will be sure to donate to Organizing for Action, hire Jim’s firm for consultation and media strategy, and book him for a lunch speech in Vegas.

The legal and ethical ground of Organizing for Action becomes muddier every day. Politico’s Ken Vogel wonders whether Jim Messina’s pro bono work for the group might count as an “in-kind contribution” to Organizing for Action, thus violating the group’s self-imposed pledge against corporate donations.

That pledge is more or less worthless anyway. Consider a CEO who contributes on an individual basis to Organizing for Action while his company joins Business Forward, the Democratic trade organization that, for a price, organizes meetings between its corporate members and White House officials, allowing said corporations to avoid lobbying rules.

Then he hires Messina’s firm. Then he works with the Common Purpose Project and Enroll America to avoid getting hit by the arc of history as it bends toward justice. Then he donates to Priorities USA Action, the Obama affiliated Super Political Action Committee that can raise unlimited funds, and the DNC, the party congressional committees, and individual candidates.

Whatever money is left will go to the constituent parts of the Democracy Initiative, the secret consortium of progressive groups advocating for loose voting requirements, filibuster reform, and suppressing the political speech of wealthy conservatives. Then the CEO will feel morally superior as he waits for the government to make it rain for his firm.

The more you examine this constellation of pressure groups, the more you suspect that its true purpose is to serve as a full-employment plan for Democratic hacks. These former campaign hands make a living from businesses scurrying to hedge against political and economic risk. Messina is just one among the tens of thousands of political professionals trying to dredge gold from the river of money flowing through Washington.

Which may account for Organizing for Action’s hyperactivity. Not a day goes by without this grassroots organization inserting itself into another policy dispute. First it was the debate over gun control. Then Organizing for Action said it would become involved in the immigration debate.

After that, the group banged the drum for legislation to reduce carbon emissions. And after that, Organizing for Action suddenly discovered a passionate interest in an obscure campaign finance battle in New York state that has nothing to do with the president’s agenda.

For such a young group to move in all of these directions at once is typically a sign of strategic indirection—especially when you consider that Organizing for Action’s influence in the gun debate so far has been nil.

From a fundraising perspective, though, casting a wide net makes sense. Involving itself in as many issues as possible creates donor possibilities for Organizing for Action. It enlarges the universe of factions that want to placate the progressive juggernaut before it strikes them down.

And of course, it opens doors to consulting contracts for my friend Jim.

http://freebeacon.com/organizing-for-millionaires/

On March 15, Bloomberg News reported that President Barack Obama plans to give the Environmental Protection Agency and its friends de facto veto power over virtually all economic growth and progress.

Of course, that’s not how the business news service’s Mark Drajem wrote it up.

But that’s the effect:

Obama is preparing to tell all federal agencies for the first time that they should consider the impact on global warming before approving major projects, from pipelines to highways.
…
The standards, which constitute guidance for agencies and not new regulations, are set to be issued in the coming weeks, according to lawyers briefed by administration officials.
…
He’d expand the scope of a Nixon-era law that was first intended to force agencies to assess the effect of projects on air, water and soil pollution.

The law involved is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Obama’s gambit to expand the law’s reach is the kind of move I expect will become officially published guidance at a convenient time when almost no one is paying attention. Good Friday evening would thus be a strong possibility.

As described, this is a vast expansion of the law which first gave rise to “environmental impact statements” decades ago. These already odious monuments to overwhelming paperwork and institutionalized busywork will apparently morph into far more burdensome “environmental and climate change impact statements.”

Carrying through with the logic, virtually any attempt at economic expansion or improvement could be affected, not just “major projects.” Such statements could, and I believe eventually would, be required for any government or private-sector construction project, and perhaps even for an ordinary business decision which has the subjectively determined potential to increase carbon emissions, meaning almost any project or business action, large or small.

If a current or future EPA somehow tries to avoid or minimize such micromanagement, environmental groups, which have had undeserved standing to file virtually any lawsuit at any time against any project they don’t like since the early 1970s, will step in to force compliance with Obama’s expanded impact statement requirement.

The president’s planned move follows up on a threat he made in his January State of the Union address:

If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct … (applause) I will direct my cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.

We now see that Obama’s promise, as seen in the plan identified by Drajem at Bloomberg, was that if Congress wouldn’t cave to his obviously unreasonable, statist, carbon-taxing agenda, he would figure out how to do everything he could to help his administration engage in economic tyranny (“arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority”) without them. He is now carrying out that promise.

At National Review, Stanley Kurtz believes that this regulatory expansion will enable Obama, if he so wishes, to have it both ways with the Keystone pipeline, and to accomplish what he instinctively wants — that is, to stop it:

The Bloomberg report makes it clear that Obama’s order opens the way for further litigation and substantial delays on Keystone, whether the federal government officially blocks construction or not.
…
Obama can publicly “approve” Keystone, while simultaneously handing the left the tool they need to put the project on semi-permanent hold. Environmentalists would take the political heat, while Obama would get off scot-free. Pretty clever.

Even though the State Department has concluded that Keystone will cause a barely noticeable increase and possibly a decrease in carbon emissions compared to using rail cars and barges to transport oil from Canada to refineries in the U.S., environmentalists will spend years arguing that the best alternative is for the U.S. to reduce its appetite for oil to the point where oil sands production in Canada no longer makes economic sense. The fact that Canada is already hedging its bets and planning to send its oil to China is lost on them — and besides, they’re also trying to stop the pipeline which would take the oil to Western Canadian ports.

The longer and more costly the delays, the greater the chances are that Keystone’s backers will throw in the towel. That problem will apply to just about anything that anyone will try to build.

Take Greater Cincinnati’s outdated, overcrowded, 1960s-era Brent Spence Bridge connecting Ohio and Kentucky. This is the structure Obama used as a phony political prop in September 2011 as he lobbied to have Congress approve infrastructure spending which was supposed to happen in the 2009 stimulus bill, but mostly never did.

In enviro-zealots’ minds, while reducing idling in traffic jams would be good, a Brent Spence replacement wide enough to accommodate future traffic growth would be bad, because more car and truck traffic means more emissions. Odds are they would try to argue that future traffic developments should be limited to trendy but publicly rejected ideas like light rail, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, and the like. And besides, they prefer it be as inconvenient as possible for those people who drive long distances to work everyday, and that these people be nudged to take jobs closer to home.

If you’re a fast-food franchisee who wishes to build another location in the outer suburbs, I don’t see how ambitious litigants couldn’t invoke the broad reach of NEPA to argue that your new location will cause people to make more carbon-emitting car trips and contribute to carbon-emitting urban sprawl. Besides, they’ll argue, we’d be much better off if potential customers bought their food at grocery stores.

You want to move your company’s headquarters? Better study your “before” and “after” carbon emissions, as well as those involved in the move itself. If you don’t, the greenies might make you do it, and you won’t like the result. The guess here is that if you want to pony up some buckaroos to environment organizations, they just might give you a pass and not object to your plans.

Many businesspeople, entrepreneurs, and investors looking at these constraints will throw up their hands and say: “Forget it.” Then the self-appointed geniuses on the left, as they see economic growth stagnate, evaporate, or go negative, will scratch their arrogant heads and wonder why it’s happening – except for the true believers, who will rub their hands in glee.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-epas-make-sure-nothing-gets-done-unless-we-like-it-mandate/?singlepage=true

System X = State Capitalism

For the past few weeks Glenn has shifted his focus to an issue he thinks is one of the most important he’s ever covered on his program — and he’s covered a lot of big issues over the years. The progressive infiltration of the U.S. education system could change the country as you know it, and that’s just one part of what Glenn has begun to uncover. Progressives are systematically removing and replacing the free enterprise system.

Last night on TheBlaze TV, Glenn explained how and why schools are data mining, and how the government is in bed with labor and big corporations using that data.

They’re creating a system of state capitalism or “System X”

In the 1940′s a book called, “The Road We’ve Traveled,” by Stuart Chase — the man who coined the term “The New Deal” — laid out where the country was headed…where we are now. This morning on radio Glenn explained how it’s virtually impossible to find an unaltered version of this book, and that people are literally ripping out the pages and replacing them with pages from other books. Why would they do this?

“They are erasing this history because this absolutely tells the entire story of where we are. This says, this book, the whole premise, The Road We’re Traveling, this is what we’ve designed; this is what it’s going to look like in the end,” Glenn explained.

The book, written right at the end of WWII, talks about a “Managerial Revolution” — basically, technocrats becoming more powerful that the leaders of the government.

“Who is running Europe right now?” Glenn asked. “Are they elected politicians?”
No — it’s the EU and the IMF.

“And who is the guy running Italy? A technocrat. He was not elected. And nobody’s saying anything. You have unelected technocrats running Europe and nobody’s saying anything,” Glenn said.

The writer, Stuart Chase, went on to explain:

“The “Managerial Revolution” is just the first part. “The first intelligent attempt to understand what is coming that I have seen,” he wrote. “Many more studies will be needed before the mystery is cleared up on what this exactly will look like and what we will call it. But we are going to lay out something called X, which is displacing the system of free enterprise all over the world. If we do not yet know what to call it, we can at least describe its major characteristics. And here is what is replacing free enterprise. And it says “free enterprise into X.”

A strong centralized government; an executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arms; in some countries power is consolidated into a dictator, issuing decrees. The control of banking, credit, and security exchanges by the government.”

Sound like what’s going on today?

Glenn continued reading:

“The underwriting of employment by the government — either through armaments or public works. The underwriting of Social Security by the government, old age pensions, mothers pensions, unemployment insurance and the like. The underwriting of food, housing and medical care by the government. The United States is already experimenting with providing these essentials. Other nations are far down this road. The use of deficit spending techniques to finance these under-writings. The annually balanced budget has lost its old‑timey feel. The abandonment of gold in favor of a managed currency. The control of foreign trade by the government with increasing emphasis on bilateral agreements. The control of natural resources and an increasing emphasis on self‑sufficiency. The control of energy sources such as hydroelectric power, coal, petroleum, and natural gas. The control of transportation, railway, highway, airway, waterway. The control of agricultural production. The control of labor organizations. The enlistment of young men and young women in youth corps, devoted to health, discipline, community service, and ideologies consistent with those of the authorities.”

The only thing on Stuart’s list thats really debatable as having been achieved is “The enlistment of young men and young women in youth corps.”

“Everything else is already done,” Pat stated.

Glenn quickly reminded Pat and the audience that there already are work corps for the youth. “It’s the AmeriCorps.”

Glenn continued:

“Heavy taxation with special emphasis on estates, meaning what you leave behind, your will, and incomes of the rich. Not much taking over of properties or industries in the old socialistic sense, but the formula of the future is control without ownership. It’s interesting to recall the same formula is used by the management of great corporations in depriving stockholders of power. And finally, the state control of communications and propaganda.”

Remember, this was written in the 1940′s — the end of WWII — but how much of this is mirroring where the country is today or, at the very least, where it’s headed?

“The strong central government, absolutely been done, and we’re now getting to the point to where the states have no rights,” Glenn explained.

But the danger of this system is how it’s tying everything together to control labor, media, education, and banking, all by linking together with big corporations. And it’s starting in the schools through data mining, which Glenn explained last night on TV.

Glenn’s theory is that big government and big corporations are linking together to achieve their mutual collective goals. Corporations need capital for investments, educated and trained workers, and global markets to be successful. The government needs power to control and plan. When the two join together, they control labor, medical, guns, DHS, banks, education, the media, and food, allowing them to control, limit, train, deceive you, all while building a global marketplace they have control over.

The end result comes close to China, where the state can take kids and train them for certain jobs, has control and oversight over the media, censors the internet, and heavily regulates every aspect of the lives of the people.

Sound crazy? Glenn went on to explain how involved GE and Microsoft are involved in Common Core, currently marching its way into schools across the country.

“I find it interesting that NBC, the arm of this government, is what network? MSNBC. MSNBC was owned by what energy corporation? GE. What does the “MS” in MSNBC stand for? Microsoft. Now, neither GE, nor Microsoft have anything to do with MSNBC anymore, but isn’t it fascinating that GE and Microsoft got together, that now they were the ones who started the propaganda machine. And they are the ones that are now behind Common Core,” Glenn said.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/03/28/system-x-state-capitalism/