Shinzo Abe’s “I’m With Stupid” T-Shirt: Those Crazy Keynesians and Yet Another Japanese Recession

The new definition of trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome is not insanity.  It’s Keynesian economics.  We have already debunked Keynesian myth here in the Truth Emporium.

Major ally and trading partner Japan is back in an economic recession once again, and I’d love for the Keynesians to explain how.  You can read the whole story here.

We have spoken before of Keynesians and the woes of Japan’s economy here in the Truth Emporium.  Back in December of 2012, I wrote:

As we discussed and debated here in the Truth Emporium last month, Japan is headed for another recession despite engaging in Keynesian stimulus spending such that the country now has a 229% debt to GDP ratio.  We basically debunked this notion that gushing red ink all over the economy spurs growth and staves off recession.  If that economic strategy did work, then Japan would never have had a Lost Decade, and wouldn’t now be staring down the spectre of yet another recession.

So what did Japan do this week?  They elected a retread politician with the same old discredited Keynesian economic theories.  Japan is trotting out tired, discredited, trite, failed economic policies and hoping for a different outcome.  It really is the definition of insanity.

The Keynesians believe that what is ailing the global and American economies is the lack of stimulus spending, as you will remember.  What Keynesians want to do is borrow even more money and have government spend it to generate economic growth.  Economists like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich are leading proponents of Keynesian thought today.

Japan just had a recession a couple of years ago, despite all sorts of economic stimulus and red ink.  How much red ink did Japanese economic planners ejaculate into their economy?  A massive $116 BILLION.  That’s about 2.3% of Japan’s annual GDP – all in red ink, borrowed, funny money.  To put that figure into context, it would be like if the United States enacted a $400 BILLION stimulus program.

Check out the chart above.  It clearly illustrates what Japan got for in return for saddling their future generations of dwindling citizens with even more debt,  thanks to their 2013 stimulus spending spree.  And what did they get?  One quarter of economic growth, followed by two consecutive quarters of shrinkage, and a recession.  Game, set, and match, Keynesians.

The villain here may not be solely Keynesian economics.  For months, government officials repeatedly offered assurances that the recovery was on track. But an increase in the sales tax in April—to 8% from 5%—hit consumers hard and contributed to the economy contracting in the second and third quarters.

What kind of imbecile floods the economy with stimulus dollars in one year, only to jack up a national sales tax one year later?  I’ve seen better economic planning by kids drawing up a scheme in crayon on the back of a Red Lobster placemat.

Putting the absurd sales tax hike aside, Japan has had a long history of Keynesian economics.  Tokyo has long relied upon red ink to save itself.  It has never worked.  It’s not working now.  It never will work.  If Keynesian theory did work, Japan wouldn’t be in recession now, and wouldn’t have suffered through so many in recent decades.

Published in: on November 21, 2014 at 12:09 am  Leave a Comment  

The Ohio Indian War

Uncle Andy:

St.Clair’s Defeat took place upon this day in 1791…

Originally posted on Uncle Andy's Truth Emporium:

This paper will argue that President Washington’s Indian Wars opened eastern and southern Ohio to wider settlement through eliminating the threat posed by British-backed Indian tribes, and also helped to make the United States a credible nation in the eyes of other world powers.  The United States was yet an infant nation when it first devised plans for a coordinated effort to oversee settlement of the rich and fertile lands north and west of the Ohio River.  Americans of this era had a vision of a nation that extended well beyond a thin strip of states wedged between the Atlantic Ocean and the Appalachian Mountains.  Expansion of settlements into the interior of the Continent had been on the minds of many Americans dating all the way back to the end of the French and Indian War.  The Land Ordnance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordnance of 1787 would both serve as…

View original 7,355 more words

Published in: on November 4, 2014 at 3:54 pm  Leave a Comment  

An Uncle Andy I Told Ya So: Treehuggers Are Causing Your Energy Bills to Go Up

We have already discussed here in the Truth Emporium how the closure of coal-fired power plants in Ohio and elsewhere would inevitably drive up energy prices.  I predicted the goosesteppers and extremists at the Environmental Protection Agency would jack up your energy bills.  I said at the time:

It is a matter of basic economics, as to why your energy bills will be higher.  The demand for energy going forward in northern Ohio, we will have to presume shall remain the same.  The supply of energy has been slashed because of these power plant closures.  So what happens when demand for something remains static, and its supply is reduced?  Prices go up.

It turns out that Uncle Andy had it pegged yet again.  According to this article by Bloomberg News, EPA regulations that have caused coal-fired power plants to close will indeed drive up energy prices this Winter.  Remember who caused your financial pain this February when Jack Frost is nipping at your wallet, as well as your nose.

You can check out the whole article here.  Standard & Poor’s estimates that 40 to 75 gigawatts (75,000 megawatts) of coal units may be shut by 2020, compared with announced permanent shutdowns of 27 gigawatts. About 18 percent of the closures expected through the end of next year will be replaced by natural gas, BNP Paribas SA forecast.

The loss of the cheaper coal units will boost power prices by as much as 25 percent on grids that serve about a third of the nation’s population, according to the Brattle Group, a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based consulting company. The biggest impact may be in the Midwest and Northeast, where demand for gas for heating jumps during the cold-weather months.

Who do these price spikes for energy this Winter hurt most?  They won’t me.  I’m a middle class professional in the suburbs.  I’ll be annoyed when I fork our more money for electricity this January, to be certain.  But it won’t cause me to alter my lifestyle or even throttle down the thermostat.  Nor will these price spikes for heating caused by the extremists at the EPA hurt wealthy people.

No, the people injured most by extremist liberal policies are the people always harmed most by the Demokratic Party: working class people, poor people, the elderly, and racial minorities of the inner city.

At-risk groups such as the elderly and working poor – a disproportionate number of whom are Demokratic voters – will be the ones to face the bitter choice this Winter of going cold or going hungry.  Thanks to Obama’s policies on everything from the environment to the economy, working class people who supported our awful President and his party cannot afford higher energy prices.  Working families with small children who believed in Hope and Change in 2008 will be forced to pile on the blankets or forgo other budget items this Winter to pay for heat.

Shame on Barack Obama.  Shame on the big government Statists at the EPA.  Shame on the state-media complex for perpetuating the Big Lie of manmade global warming.  Shame, shame, shame.

And yet, I’ll be damned this Election Day if low income and minority voters don’t still go to the polls thinking that conservatives hate them.  It’s propaganda which makes them believe such lies.  Rightwingers such as myself want the poor urban residents of the Rustbelt and Northeast to have cheap electricity this Winter.  It’s Barack Obama and the Demokrats who want them paying an arm and a leg for it…as well as putting coal miners into the bread lines alongside the staff at these now shuttered coal-fired power plants.

You can follow the Truth Emporium on Facebook and Twitter

Published in: on November 3, 2014 at 11:00 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

Who Are You Going to Believe on Ebola: Big Brother or That Bloody Stool and Vomit?

Like a cheating spouse caught with his hand in the babysitter’s proverbial cookie jar, when it comes to Ebola, government is asking plaintively “who are you going to believe?  Me, or your eyes?”

These Teutonic blue eyes can see through the veil of lies being promulgated by Western governments when it comes to Ebola.  The facade is slowly unraveling in the eyes of anyone who is actually paying attention.

It’s obvious the fascist government is LYING to us about Ebola and how easily it can be spread. The Big Lie we’re being told is that Ebola only spreads by direct contact with the bodily fluids of an afflicted person.That doesn’t pass the eyeball test with what we’re seeing in the news.

In Dallas, the a sheriff’s deputy who was in the apartment of deceased Ebola victim, Thomas Eric Duncan, has fallen ill.  He is being tested for Ebola now.  You can read more about the story here.

In all probability, this deputy in Dallas was not directly handling bodily fluids belonging to the now deceased Ebola victim.  So how did this deputy get sick? Because Ebola spreads much faster and more easily than we’ve been told. That’s how. We have been lied to.

That begs the question: how did Mr. Duncan get sick with Ebola to start with?  He wasn’t a worker in the medical field.  He wasn’t providing direct care to a friend or family member stricken with Ebola.  So how and why would he have been handling the bodily fluids of a stricken Ebola patient?

Answer: in all probability, Mr. Duncan was not handling bodily fluids from a person sickened with Ebola.  He got the disease another way.

The government’s softsoap lip service about Ebola is rapidly being seen through.  But one cannot much blame the government for lying to us.  If the government were being honest about what’s going to happen, there would be riots, unrest, and chaos.  You can’t handle the truth, literally.

And even if Ebola doesn’t turn into a Bubonic Plague-like event, get ready for upheaval all the same.  We are rapidly approaching cold and flu season.  The flu and Ebola’s early symptoms are essentially the same.  So get ready for a panic this Winter as people flood hospitals claiming they have Ebola, when it’s really the flu. 

Hospitals, out of an abundance of caution, will have to treat these sickened flu patients as if they have Ebola, until proven otherwise.  Word will spread, and so will the anxiety and disruption.  Mark my words. 

Riots.  Panic.  Scapegoats.  Looting.  General ugliness.  Get ready for martial law when this whole thing spins out of control.

Then what happens?  Government in the United States doesn’t have a good track record with forfeiting seized emergency powers.

My only advice is to be prepared.  Have a week of food and water and medicine on hand.  Two weeks, if you can amass such a stockpile.  Stock up on bottled, clean water.  Have propane tanks for cooking  on the grill.  Have a kerosene heater, and firewood.  And have a weapon readily available to defend your home.

Goodnight and good luck.

Published in: on October 9, 2014 at 4:33 pm  Leave a Comment  

Beavercreek, Ohio Police Murder Unarmed Man and Get Away With it (They Told a Few Lies Too)

I don’t say it lightly when I claim quite simply that Beavercreek, Ohio police officers Sean Williams and Sergeant David Darkow murdered citizen Michael Crawford III at a Wal-Mart store in August.  The police also lied about a few aspects of the incident.

For those who live outside the Cincinnati-Dayton area, you may not have heard about this incident yet.  It was probably overshadowed by the events in Ferguson, Missouri.  That is unfortunate.  In my mind, the police shooting in Ferguson was closer to justified than the murder of Michael Crawford.  Beavercreek, Ohio is where the national focus should have been.


On the night of August 5th, 8:21 p.m. Beavercreek Police Dispatch Center received a 911 call advising of a subject in the Wal-Mart Store 3360 Pentagon Boulevard who was waving a rifle type weapon at customers including children.

Officer Sean Williams was dispatched to the store along with Sgt. David Darkow after receiving information from a 911 caller that Crawford was armed with a rifle, reportedly pointing it at people and loading it.
You can hear the 911 call here…this is very important because it sets the stage for the fatal shooting of Mr. Crawford:
Beavercreek police said the officers ordered Crawford to drop the weapon, and when he didn’t comply, police fired twice, killing him. Crawford was carrying an unboxed BB/pellet rifle he picked up in the store.

Angela D. Williams, 37, of Fairborn, was running from the situation and collapsed. She was taken to Soin Medical Center, where she was pronounced dead at 9:14 p.m.

You can check out a full timeline of the shooting here.

Here is a video of the shooting:

Several things about this case disturb me, and should make you squirm too.  First of all, listen to the 911 call made by Ronald Ritchie.  Then watch the entire video.

Mr. Ritchie is probably more to blame for this entire incident than either Mr. Crawford or the police put together.  If you listen to the 911 call made by Ritchie, it’s clear he is LYING.  He was claiming on the 911 call that Crawford was waving the gun, pointing the weapon, and even loading and re-loading it.  Ritchie claimed that the weapon was being pointed at other Wal-Mart patrons, and that a general panic was setting in.  Anyone who watched the video can easily see that there was no panic, even as Mr. Crawford strolled by other shoppers who took zero notice of him.

Ronald Ritchie sounds like a scoundrel to me.  He has changed his story about what he saw that fateful night several times since the incident, according to this report from the Guardian newspaper.  I would contend that had Ritchie never dialed 911, and never made wrongful claims about Crawford pointing the BB gun and inducing panic, the police would have not responded to Wal-Mart at all, or at least would not have been in a heightened state of readiness upon arrival.

Check out some of the Guardian article:

“He’s, like, pointing it at people,” Ritchie told the dispatcher. Later that evening, after John Crawford III had been shot dead by one of the police officers who hurried to the scene in Beavercreek, Ritchie repeated to reporters: “He was pointing at people. Children walking by.”

One month later, Ritchie puts it differently. “At no point did he shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody,” the 24-year-old said, in an interview with the Guardian. He maintained that Crawford was “waving it around”, which attorneys for Crawford’s family deny.

Crawford, 22, turned out to be holding an unloaded BB air rifle that he had picked up from a store shelf. After Ritchie said Crawford appeared to be “trying to load” the gun, the 911 dispatcher relayed to an officer that it was believed the gunman “just put some bullets inside”.

It was the irresponsible lies of Ronald Ritchie that allowed all of the tragedy to unfold that night.  Who knows what motivated this little worm to dial 911 and speak of muzzle flashes and an AR-15.  I think Ritchie ought to be charged with something and sued civilly for his actions.  The blood of Michael Crawford and Angela Williams are on his hands.

Ronald Ritchie…looks like a putz, doesn’t he?

Ronald Ritchie isn’t the only villain in this tragedy.  There are plenty of scoundrels in this comic opera.

Why was the Wal-Mart surveillance camera footage concealed from the public for almost two whole months?  What were the cops and authorities hiding?  It is amusing that law enforcement and their sheeple, Statist apologists are constantly lecturing us citizens that “if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear.”  Well, what were the Beavercreek Police hiding?

Why did Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine wade into the fray?  And why did he also help to conceal the surveillance tapes?  Why weren’t federal investigators called in earlier?

Officer Sean Williams remains on desk duty.  This is the second time within a few years that Officer Williams has shot and killed a citizen.  Today, the officer narratives from the incident were released.  Williams wrote that Sgt. Darkow “repeatedly yelled, ‘Drop the weapon!’” but Crawford “turned towards us in an aggressive manner with the rifle in hand.”

Sean Williams is a LIAR, plain and simple.  The video says so.  The 911 audio tape – in which shots were clearly audible – says so.  After we were finally able to view the video of Michael Crawford’s murder, it is obvious from the numerous other patrons he passed that the victim was toting a toy gun that caused nobody else any alarm.

It is also obvious from the video that despite their dishonest claims, the liars from Beavercreek PD indeed did NOT order Mr. Crawford to drop the toy gun. On the video, police simply jumped out from behind cover and shot down Mr. Crawford in cold blood. Nor were these verbal commands alleged to have come from officers audible on the 911 tape.

The video is obvious; no warning or command to drop the toy gun was given because Mr. Crawford did not turn towards the officers or even acknowledge their presence…which is what would have happened if indeed the police were barking orders at him.  Nor did Mr. Crawford turn aggressively towards the officers as they claimed because the autopsy report revealed bullet wounds in the back of his arm.  How does someone who faces towards police in an allegedly aggressive manner end up with bullet entry wounds in the back his arm?  It’s impossible.

I can already hear what a lot of you are saying.  You’re saying “just do what the police say!”  Or perhaps you’re saying “he deserved it!”  If you say that, you’re probably some kind of bigot or a serf.  Crawford had no chance to put down the BB gun or surrender.  He wasn’t even committing a crime, by the way.  One can open carry long arms in Ohio…especially if that long arm is a plastic BB gun!  Wake up!

I always smirk at so-called Liberty lovers and small government Republicans who decry the state for so much as pouring a sidewalk.  Yet these same people who are suspicious of everything government does, never question anything done by someone in a police uniform. How can it be?

You people understand that police officers are hired, armed enforcers of the state, right?  Their actions should be viewed critically, in the same way so-called enemies of big government view the IRS, EPA, and other agencies of the state.

The goosestepping media is playing you for a fool by ginning up the race issue. The issue here isn’t race, but the media will sure push that angle to distract you from the real issue:

Militarized, overzealous, out of control law enforcement officers in this country.

That’s the issue. But media will push the race narrative because they know it divides and conquers us serfs. The media knows at the end of the day that most whites are prejudiced towards blacks in one way or another, and will ipso facto side with the cops no matter what. The state media complex also knows that most blacks are resentful of whites to one degree or another.

The result: we have racial angst that polarizes us. The fact is, police in this country mistreat white citizens too. Whites get blasted, arrested, tased, and beaten by police for no good reason too. To be sure, black Americans probably have it worse in this regard. Increasingly however, police are a subculture of militarized automatons who will deprive any and all citizens of their Liberty, regardless of race. That’s the issue.

Why do local police need MRAPS?  Why do they need tanks?  Grenade launchers?  Snipers?  Full-auto machine guns?

That’s the issue.  So don’t get sidetracked with this race card business.  Yes, Al Sharptongue is a clown.  Jesse Hijackson is a bastard-making race hu$tla.  The NAACP are a bunch of agitator toolbags.  No doubt about it.

But what does that have to do whether law enforcement is applying force properly?  Nothing.  The fact many so-called leaders in the Civil Rights movement are discredited fools has no bearing on the unwarranted use of force and disregard for the natural rights and Constitutional protections of citizens.

The most egregious example of a hamhanded response by law enforcement has been recently seen in the murder of Michael Crawford III in Beavercreek, Ohio.  There is no denying the fact that the police reaction was totally unjustified.

For more reading, the kook Leftists at Daily Kos have a great article on this subject…gotta love liberals; who welcome government at every turn, unless it’s wearing a uniform and looking crosseyed at a racial minority.  Just who does the looney tune Left think is going to enforce their Marx-Orwellian vision for the world, but hired agents of the state toting guns and badges?

You can follow the Truth Emporium on Facebook and Twitter

Published in: on September 26, 2014 at 10:27 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

Federal Judge Smears the Rainbow Hand in Gay Wedding Cake, But Unfortunately, Got it Wrong

A federal court judge snapped a win streak of twenty cases for fans of same-sex marriage when he not only upheld Louisiana’s ban on gay nuptuals, but also declared that sovereign State had no duty to recognize same sex marriage licenses issued by another of the sovereign States.  As much as it pains me to say, he got it all wrong.

I’ve already addressed the issue of same sex marriage here on the Truth Emporium.  We’ve talked about it twice, in fact.  I’m not here to do so again.  My position stands:

What I propose is simply this: same sex couples should be offered civil unions nationwide, in every State.  These unions would be accompanied by all the same legal and tax code recognitions granted to traditional married couples.  The decision on whether to dole out actual marriage certificates should be left up to the States themselves. 

In upholding Louisiana’s ban on same sex marriage, US District Judge Martin Feldman criticized what he said was a “volley of nationally orchestrated court rulings” by judges who “appear to have assumed the mantle of a legislative body.”

“Many states have democratically chosen to recognize same-sex marriage. But until recent years, it had no place at all in this nation’s history and tradition,” he wrote. “Public attitude might be becoming more diverse, but any right to same-sex marriage is not yet so entrenched as to be fundamental.”

He added: “There is simply no fundamental right, historically or traditionally, to same-sex marriage.  You can read more on the ruling here, courtesy of Yahoo News.

Judge Feldman was correct in almost everything he said.  There is no right fundamentally to marry a person of the same sex.  Nothing in our traditions of Western culture would support that.  Nor does most law.  Almost all the advanced of same sex marriage have come through activist court rulings seek to pen social policy. 

Judge Feldman was right about all that.  He is also correct in his assertion that the sovereign State of Louisiana can define marriage as an institution between one man and one woman.

Where Judge Feldman got lost, was his assertion that a sovereign State like Louisiana has no duty to observe marriages performed in other of the sovereign States where unions between two citizens of the same sex are indeed legal.  Unfortunately for us all, yes, marriages performed in places like Hawaii are legally binding in sovereign States like Louisiana. 

A State like Louisiana does not have to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, but it must recognize those performed elsewhere, just as it would have to observe any other legally binding contract from another State.  Marriage, at the end of the day, is simply a contract between two people.

Why does Louisiana have to honour same sex marriages performed elsewhere, you ask?  That’s easy.  I will turn your attention to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution.

Article IV, Section 1:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

So, there you have it.  States must observe records and public acts performed by the other States.  This is in the Constitution – an agreement entered into by the central government, Feds, and sovereign States. 

There really isn’t a whole lot left to say about the issue.  Our Constitution is the rule maker for our country.  I wish States didn’t have to honour same sex marriages performed elsewhere. 

But that isn’t what the Constitution says.  And if you’re going to invoke the Constitution to protect your own right to free speech, keep and bear arms, or to be free of accosting at the hands of police, then you have to abide by that same document even when it makes you squirm.

Published in: on September 4, 2014 at 9:47 pm  Leave a Comment  

Racism falsehoods: The myth of “white privilege”

Uncle Andy:

The only white privilege is that of paying taxes for freeloaders!

Originally posted on Overmanwarrior's Wisdom:

Bill O’Reilly and Megan Kelly from Fox News had an interesting debate about the perceived disparity of the black population and the so-called white privilege that is so much talked about regarding minorities.  Kelly rattled off a series of statistics which showed that blacks are clearly falling behind in virtually every category of social measurement and she leaned in favor of the argument supporting “white privilege.”  O’Reilly proposed a number of opposition arguments which provided clarity refuting the designation favoring whites.  That discussion can be seen below and is worth noting.

I have had more personal friends who were black than white over the years and understand the issue very well.  Megan is only talking about the result of statistics, but not the cause—whereas Bill O’Reilly began to touch on the real issues.  There is no white privilege in America.  The suppression of the whites against the blacks is a…

View original 1,123 more words

Published in: on August 29, 2014 at 3:31 pm  Leave a Comment  

Nazi Federal Court Ignores Constitution and SCOTUS On Obamacare and the Origination Clause

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together has known for sometime now that the federal courts are as oppressive to our natural rights and Constitutional protections as the Axis Powers in 1941.  It’s true.  The bad guys in World War II had as much respect for the US Constitution as do our federal courts of today.

The latest proof of this maxim revealed itself late last month in a D.C. Court of Appeals.  An appeals court decided to utterly ignore the US Constitution and the Supreme Court of the United States by stating that Obamacare was not itself a tax.  This is significant because the appeals court ruling was decided in reference to a lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation on the grounds that since that since Obamacare was declared a tax by the Supreme Court in 2012, the healthcare law is unconstitutional because it did not originate in the House of Representatives.  You can read more on the ruling here.

More importantly, read the Origination Clause in Article I of the US Constitution:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

It doesn’t get much clearer than that, right?  All bills for raising government revenue – ie taxes – must originate in the House of Representatives.  Not even Sesame Street could explain that in a more basic fashion.  The words of the Constitution are as plain as day.

James Madison explains in Federalist 58 why it was so important for the power to levy taxes to rest with the House of Representatives:

The house of representatives can not only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government. They in a word hold the purse; that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people, gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse, may in fact be regarded as the most compleat and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.

In other words, the People’s House was to be trusted with originating government revenue.  The Framers wanted to the People – not judges, elitist Senators, or even the President – to decide when and where it was appropriate for the central government to raise money.

Now, fast forward to the 2009 Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare; I sometimes refer to it as FuehrerCare.  Barack Obama and his flunkies, as the videos show, claimed repeatedly that Obamacare was NOT a tax.  Check it out.

Despite the many public assertions of Barack Obama and Demokrats across the country, the United States Supreme Court ended up declaring that Obamacare was a tax all the same.  We discussed how tyrannical this was at the time.  What good are laws if the federal government gets to do whatever it likes, under any and all circumstances? 

Something untoward is going on when the elected government of this republic declares a piece of legislation not to be a tax, only for nine unelected poohbahs in a court to declare that it is actually a tax.  Check out John Roberts’ ruling that declared Obamacare a tax, despite it’s own authors and champions saying all along that it wasn’t.  It’s tyranny.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution as it was written and intended, and to indeed strike down acts of Congress which violate it.  The federal courts are the referee.  They are in place to make sure everyone – and I mean everyone – Congress, the executive branch, the States, and even you and I as the popular majority, play by the rules.

That is why we have checks and balances in our system.  The checks are in place to make sure that no party in our great republic uses the simple tyranny of the majority to run roughshod over other people.  Your natural rights are inalienable.  They cannot be taken away, even if 51% of the people say so, or if 535 Congressman and the president say so.  Your rights would be very flimsy indeed if they were left solely to the taciturn majority.  The Founding Fathers hated pure democracy, and with good reason.  The ignorant whims and passions of the mob cannot be trusted to do justice by other people.

Nor does it appear, can the Supreme Court be trusted to protect your natural and constitutional rights.  If John Roberts thought that his legal sleight of hand trickery was going to protect the reputation of the Supreme Court, he was wrong.  In its Obamacare ruling, the Supreme Court utterly failed to do its job.  In fact, it engaged in the worst possible thing the federal judiciary can: activism.

The individual mandate is NOT A TAX.  President Obama himself said over and over again that it was not a tax when his healthcare law was being debated.  he still says today, even though the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of Obamacare, that it is not a tax.  Democrats in Congress who penned and passed the legislation, said it was not a tax.  No one on planet earth, save John Roberts, believes Obamacare to be a tax.  The Supreme Court engaged in the very worst of judicial activism by essentially re-writing Obamacare to be a tax, when everyone involved with the legislation said it was nothing of the sort.

Obamacare is not a tax.   It never was a tax.   It is an application of government force being used as a tool to compel you into doing something.  That something, in this case, is to make you purchase health insurance.  And if Congress can use as a penalty its taxing powers against you for not purchasing health insurance, then it can do the same if you choose not to engage in other sorts of commerce.

For John Roberts to use the Supreme Court to allow Congress to make you purchase things is a travesty.  He has damaged the reputation of the court far more than it would have been had Obamacare been struck down.  The federal court system is in place precisely to strike down acts of Congress that violate your Constitutional protections.  Obamacare does this very thing by compelling you to engage in commercial activity under threat of force.

The Supreme Court, and specifically Chief Justice John Roberts, purposefully neglected to do their duty.  It is an accessory to tyranny.  That is fairly infamous and does sully the reputation of the Supreme Court, in case John Roberts didn’t know that.

Even more infamous than the Supreme Court inventing out of whole cloth the notion that Obamacare is a tax, is this ruling by a Washington appeals court that Obamacare is actually not a tax.  Well, which is it?  Obamacare is a tax, or it isn’t.  It cannot be both.

That didn’t stop three Demokratically-appointed federal judges from defying logic and gravity by declaring that while Obamacare raises tax revenue for the government, it is not actually a tax. The appeal court said that rather than being a revenue-raising device, it is beyond dispute that the paramount aim of Obamacare is to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care.

“The Supreme Court has held from the early days of this nation that revenue bills are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for other purposes which may incidentally create revenue,” the appeals court decision said.

Did you read between the lines?  It’s the same old liberal justification for everything: the ends justify the means. 

It’s OK to violate the Constitution for a supposedly good reason…like allegedly making healthcare more affordable.  You and I know Obamacare has increased costs and deprived us of Liberty though.

George Orwell couldn’t even dream this stuff up.  It’s Doublespeak on steroids.  I’m sure Joseph Goebbels thought of it, but was even too ashamed to utter such lies in public.

This case will likely head to the Supreme Court.  But don’t count on anything to happen.  Obamacare is out of the bottle, and that genie will never go back in.  Our economy and healthcare system are so co-opted by Corporatism and crony capitalism that I’m not sure they can be ungrafted at this juncture. 

Published in: on August 19, 2014 at 10:31 pm  Leave a Comment  

America is a Land of Immigrants – Legal Immigrants Who Weren’t Toting Measles, Whooping Cough, TB et al

With Congress set to adjourn until Labour Day and Fuehrer HUSSEIN Obama (a man of the common People) due to take a zillion dollar vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, the question of what to do with tens of thousands of illegal immigrants flooding our country will remain unresolved for now.  Rather than govern, the oligarchs in Washington, DC would rather play golf and live high on our dimes.  With no answer from government on whether to secure our borders or not, we will instead be treated to weeks and months more debate about the immigration question.  Oh goody, goody.

As with most any topic a liberal chooses to insert his ugly face into, the immigration debate has been injected with all sorts of lofty Lefty rhetoric and emotion, and hardly any useful facts.

The slogan liberals are most fond of throwing about in our current debate is “America is a nation of immigrants.”  This is absolutely true.  There were four great epochs of immigration in American history: pre- American Revolution, the 19th century, pre-1965, and post-1965.  Whether you’re ancestors were Pilgrims, slaves, Irish and Germans, Poles and Italians, or Latino, your people got to this country somehow, some way, at some time.

Liberals want you to believe that the illegal immigrants coming into our country currently, from places like Mexico and various nations of Central America, are no different than the Irish/Germans who came to America in 1840′s, or the Eastern and Southern Europeans that immigrated in the late 19th and early 20th century.  It isn’t true.  Not a word of it.

The United States has had a long tradition of rules, regulations, and legislation that govern and control the immigration process.  America has never been a country of open borders, where all are welcomed.  History and the facts say America was never a land of lawless open borders and amnesty for all illegal immigrants.

Even at Ellis Island, there were rules and regulations that sent 2% of immigrants back to their homelands.  There was never a free for all in this country for immigrants to simply walk in, unchecked.  According to a New York Times article, there were standards that immigrants on Ellis Island had to meet before gaining entry to our country.  Asylum seekers had to be in good health and have $10, or the equivalent of $216 in today’s dollars, to show that one would not become a public burden.

Hear that, La Raza?  Hear that, LULAC?  Immigrants had to be in good health and have at least $200 in startup cash.  How many illegal immigrants streaming in from Squatemala fit that description?  Not many.

Prior to even the opening of Ellis Island, the United States sought to control and regulate immigration to our country.  Ever heard of the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790?  Of course you haven’t.  LULAC, La Raza, and the jokers passing for history teachers under Common Korps don’t want to talk about that law too much.

What the Naturalization Law of 1790 did, quite simply, was provide the first set of rules for citizenship in the United States.  In order to address one’s good character, the law required two years of residence in the United States and one year in the state of residence, prior to applying for citizenship. When those requirements were met, an immigrant could file a Petition for Naturalization with “any common law court of record” having jurisdiction over his residence. Once convinced of the applicant’s good moral character, the court would administer an oath of allegiance to support the US Constitution.

The clerk of the court was to make a record of these proceedings, and “thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States.”  The Act also establishes the United States citizenship of children of citizens, born abroad, without the need for naturalization: “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.”

The Act of 1790 was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which extended the residence requirement to five years, and by the Naturalization Act of 1798, which extended it to 14 years. The 1798 act was repealed by the Naturalization Law of 1802.

The act of 1802 was the last major piece of naturalization legislation during the 19th century. A number of minor revisions were introduced, but these merely altered or clarified details of evidence and certification without changing the basic nature of the admission procedure. The most important of these revisions occurred in 1855, when citizenship was automatically granted to alien wives of U.S. citizens (10 Stat. 604), and in 1870, when the naturalization process was opened to persons of African descent (16 Stat. 256).

Immigration law remained unchanged until 1868, when the 14th Amendment stated:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In other words, all persons born on American soil, regardless of whether their parents were aliens or slaves, were themselves now citizens of the United States.  At the time, the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was mostly aimed at settling once and for all, the question of whether black Americans, formerly slave or freedmen, were American citizens.  Owing to the Dred Scott case, and the fact many ex-Confederate southern States were denying citizenship and voting rights to persons whose grandfathers were themselves not citizens, the 14th Amendment ensured citizenship for black Americans.

At the time, the impact of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause for immigrants was an afterthought.  To the men who wrote the 14th Amendment, it was not immediately clear that a child born to foreign aliens on American soil was automatically a US citizen.  That question was not formally hashed out until 1898, by the Supreme Court, which held in United States v. Wong Kim Ark  that practically everyone born in the United States is a citizen.

Despite the fact America has instituted a policy of citizenship at birth, that did not stop our country from highly regulating immigration in the 19th century and into the next century.  The Page Act of 1875 is an example of a harsh immigration law designed to keep “undesirable” aliens from coming to America.  This law was mostly aimed at Chinese immigrants, and was legislation brought about by the fear that many women coming to the US from China were prostitutes.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 followed shortly thereafter.  This act halted all legal immigration of Chinese laborers.  Later on that very same year, the Immigration Act of 1882 became law.

There were two main components of the Immigration Act of 1882. The first was to create a “head tax” that would be imposed upon certain immigrants entering the country. The Act states that “There shall be levied, collected and paid a duty of fifty cents for each and every passenger not a citizen of the United States who shall come by steam or sail vessel from a foreign port to any port within the United States.” This money would be paid into the United States Treasury and “shall constitute a fund called the immigration fund.” These funds would be used to “defray the expense of regulating immigration under this act.” Scholar Roger Daniels commented that the head tax eventually “would rise, in stages, to eight dollars by 1917. In most years the government collected more in head taxes than it spent on administration.”

The creation of such administration, and the need to collect and disperse the head taxes throughout the bureaucratic chain, lead to the creation of “the first immigration bureaucracy.”  It was a significant turning point of immigration policy in terms of relying on federal level legislation and administration. While this was not the first federal immigration law, as others were mentioned previously, states and local levels of immigration ports were mainly in control of immigration policy. The Immigration Act of 1882 was the beginning of the “contours of federal oversight” in immigration policy administration.   In addition to the head tax, the Act also stipulated the responsibility of government agents to inspect ports and vessels bringing immigrants into the country.

This then lead to the second historically significant component of the Act. Upon inquiry of the vessels transporting immigrants, immigration officials were given the authority to expel certain immigrants based on criteria laid out within the Act. The legislation dictated that “If on such examination there shall be found among such passengers any convict, lunatic, idiot, or any person unable to take care of him or herself without becoming a public charge, they shall report the same in writing to the collector of such port, and such person shall not be permitted to land.” Furthermore, if a criminal was found to be on board, it was the fiscal responsibility of the ship that brought the immigrant there to take them back out of the United States. The criminal provision of the act did not include immigrants who were “convicted of political offenses, reflecting the traditional American belief that the United States is a haven for those persecuted by foreign tyrants.”

At the onset of the 20th century, at the insistence of President Theodore Roosevelt, the Naturalization Act of 1906 was passed.  Among other provisions, this law required that immigrants learn the English language before becoming naturalized citizens.

A few years later, the Immigration Act of 1917 went even further in restricting who would enter the United States.  It was passed over a presidential veto by Woodrow Wilson.  This legislation added to the list of “undesirable” aliens not allowed to enter the country, as specified in previous immigration laws.  Included for exclusion in this act were anarchists, alcoholics, homosexuals, polygamists, and others.

America further limited immigration following the Great War with the Emergency Quota Act in 1921.  The Emergency Quota Act restricted the number of immigrants admitted from any country annually to 3% of the number of residents from that same country living in the United States as of the 1910 Census.   Based on that formula, the number of new immigrants admitted fell from 805,228 in 1920 to 309,556 in 1921-22.  The act meant that only people of Northern Europe who had similar cultures to that of America were likely to get in.

The Immigration Act of 1924 took harsh immigration restrictions to even another level.  The Act provided that beginning July 1, 1927, the formula would no longer use a percentage. As of that date, total immigration would be limited to 150,000, with the proportion of the total admitted from any country based on that country’s representation in the U.S. population according to the 1920 Census. The change from 2% to 150,000 planned for 1927 was later postponed to July 1, 1929.

In addition to further slashing the number of immigrants who could enter the United States, certain racial and ethnic minorities were banned altogether from entering the country.  Senator David Reed and other proponents of the Act sought to establish a distinct American identity by favoring native-born Americans over Jews, Southern Europeans, and Eastern Europeans in order to “maintain the racial preponderance of the basic strain on our people and thereby to stabilize the ethnic composition of the population.”  Reed told the Senate that earlier legislation “disregards entirely those of us who are interested in keeping American stock up to the highest standard – that is, the people who were born here.”

Asians were banned outright from immigrating to the United States.  Some 86% of the 155,000 permitted to enter under the Act were from Northern European countries, like Britain and Ireland.  The new quotas for immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe were so restrictive that in 1924 there were more Italians, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Poles, Portuguese, Romanians, Spaniards, Jews, Chinese, and Japanese that left America than those who arrived as immigrants.

It was not until 1943 and the Magnuson Act did immigration laws in the United States slowly start to loosen in the slightest way.  This legislation allowed for Chinese immigration to the United States for the first time since 1882 and the Chinese Exclusion Act.  Even though Chinese immigrants were finally permitted to come to the US again, the quotas capping the numbers newcomers were very low.

Immigration laws would very slowly continue to soften after World War II, but it was not until very recently did the United States take a soft line on illegal immigrants.  Whereas we today discuss amnesty and are content to have open borders, in 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower enacted Operation Wetback, which cracked down on illegal aliens and deported them back to Mexico.  Hundreds of thousands of illegals were apprehended through his presidency and into the Kennedy years.

America is a land of immigrants.  We welcome immigrants who come to our shores legally.  Those immigrants are welcomed happily into the American family.

What we should not tolerate – and never tolerated until the past 30 years – was an influx of illegal immigrants who broke our laws.  As our history proves from the Naturalization Law of 1790, to the Chinese Exclusion Act, to the Emergency Quota Act, as well as many other laws, the United States was NEVER, EVER a country with open borders that welcomed all immigrants under all circumstances.  Only a fool or an ignoramus could argue otherwise.  History proves it.

The United States has the right to protect and secure it’s borders.  A nation with no defined borders is not a nation.  America has the right to limit the number and sort of immigrant who wants to enter our country.  We’re a republic, not an empire.  We’re a country with a defined language, culture, traditions, and values.  We’re not a polyglot where anything goes!

Published in: on August 8, 2014 at 10:25 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

More Witless Minimum Wage Prattle and Zero Solutions From Demokrats

Liberals sure can talk a good game, can’t they?  Be it shrill accusations about racism, classism, sexism, or rascalism, liberals can run their mealy-mouths with the best of them.  However, the Left is long on rhetoric, and short on facts, and even shorter on solutions!  The Left uses an old strategy of divide and conquer.  Liberals seek to divide us all along lines of race, class, age, and other factors which distinct us from each other.

Nowhere is liberal rhetoric and mudslinging absurdity more apparent than in the debate over the minimum wage.  Recently, several liberals have started a laughable “solidarity” campaign with the working poor, and will try to live off what a minimum wage worker would bring home…for a whole week!  Yes, a whole, big seven days!

I always laugh when super wealthy Lefty elites act like they have something in common with the working poor.  That’s real brave of Ohio liberals, like former Governor Ted SCHMUCKland, and Congressmen Tim Ryan, to pretend to be poor for a week.  Bundestag member Ryan even stocked up food and diapers ahead of his week to live on $77.  That would be called cheating.  But what else do you expect from liberals?

We have discussed the minimum wage and it’s pernicious impact upon the working poor.  The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says that a minimum wage hike to $10.10 an hour would cost 500,000 jobs.  Studies by academics have shown that the minimum wage has a negative impact upon poor peopleOhio’s minimum wage, which increases annually, has been particularly harmful to the working poor.

“But Uncle Andy!  At least they’re doing something!”

No, liberals like Ted Schmuckland are doing absolutely nothing to help poor people by simply pretending to be poor for seven days.  That doesn’t help anyone.  Nobody will get a better meal, a better car, or a better life because Ted Schmuckland will be living on Sloppy Joes and Aldi’s generic version of Captain Crunch for seven days.

What these liberals are doing by living on $77 this week – allegedly because I want to see the proof – is a publicity stunt.  Plain and simple.  It’s a shameful attempt to exploit poverty for political gain by playing the age old liberal game of class warfare.  Nobody is falling for this trick.

While I have sympathy for anyone trying to raise a family by working full-time for minimum, the numbers of such persons are very low.  Check out the FACTS from the Bureau of Labour Statistics here.

  • Some minimum wage facts:
  • Only 5% of the entire American workforce is paid minimum wage
  • Of this 5% who work for minimum wage, over half of them are under age 25
  • Thusly, only 2.5% of the workforce above age 25 works for minimum wage
  • The number of people working for minimum wage continues to fall.  The proportion of hourly-paid workers earning the prevailing Federal minimum wage or less declined from 6.0 percent in 2010 to 5.2 percent in 2011. This remains well below the figure of 13.4 percent in 1979, when data were first collected on a regular basis.

In other words, it’s not a major problem facing our economy, the issue of minimum wage workers.  I’m sorry, but the majority of people working for minimum wage are not doing so full-time and supporting a family.  Your average minimum wage worker is a young person starting out in life, with no kids, and is employed part-time.

The great liberal interest in talking on and on so incessantly about the minimum wage is not because they are really concerned about the working poor.  If liberals really cared about the working poor, they would quit seeking to flood our entire nation with a tidalwave of unskilled illegal immigrant labour.  Unskilled illegal immigrants work for slave labour and take jobs from and depress wages for the working poor which the Demokrats claim to be the great champions of.  The presence of illegal immigrant labour is particularly harmful to reliably Demokratic voters in the African-American community.

Liberals love talking about the minimum wage because they know it will score them political points.  Informed people know that a higher minimum wage hurts poor people.  But it sure sounds good, right?  I wish we could all make more money.  And by talking about the minimum wage, liberals get Republicans to sound mean-spirited and uncaring about poor people.  The minimum wage is simply a political hatchet liberals like to use against Republicans.

People like Ted Schmuckland and other liberals have zero interest in actually helping poor people.  Liberals love keeping Americans in a state of dependency and poverty because such persons will inevitably vote Demokrat.

The story, courtesy of the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – To mark the fifth year since the federal minimum wage was increased to $7.25 an hour, a group of Democratic politicians who want to raise it to $10.10 plan to live on a minimum-wage type budget this week to experience privations those workers face.

Ohio politicians including Niles-area Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan and former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland on Monday announced their participation in the “Live the Wage Challenge” spearheaded by Americans United for Change, a liberal organization funded by labor unions.

Strickland said that many people in Washington “live in a bubble” and don”t know what it’s like for Americans who struggle to pay their bills on a minimum wage salary. He added that that some low-wage workers “work harder than Mitch McConnell, John Boehner or any of the rest of us.”

“This is a matter of common decency and fairness,” continued Strickland, who currently heads the Center for American Progress Action Fund. “Those of us engaged in this effort will be able to experience at some level what it must be like for those who live week after week, month after month, working really hard and struggling to keep their nose above the water line.”

Instead of moving into smaller houses for the week or experiencing a cut in their  $174,000 yearly congressional salary, Ryan and the other politicians will try to pay for food and all other expenses out of the $77 weekly that Americans United for Change says minimum wage workers take home after paying their taxes and housing expenses.

Advocates of raising the minimum wage to $10.10, such as Ryan, say the extra money will enable a better living standard for low-wage workers, and will improve the economy by giving them more spending money.

Ryan, his schoolteacher wife, and their children will actually live off  the $154 he and his wife would take home if they were both minimum wage workers. The pair have stocked up on diapers for their newborn baby before beginning the challenge and also won’t have babysitting expenses because his wife has summers off.

“We will still be a long way from living the reality that many of these families face,” Ryan admitted during a press call to announce his participation in the program.

He said he’s participating to “bring awareness to a major social justice issue.”

“This is an opportunity to put our money where our mouth is,” Ryan continued.

Ryan ended up cheating a bit when he took a similar “Food Stamp Challenge” in 2007 that required him to eat only food paid for with the $21 in benefits that people on food stamps typically receive. He ended up eating a pork chop at a hotel restaurant before delivering a commencement speech because he feared he’d be too weak to continue. The Transportation Safety Administration also confiscated jars of peanut butter and jelly that Ryan tried to take on an airplane.

“When I went through the food stamp challenge as a single man, I made some poor decisions while trying to shop,” said Ryan. “I think now, with the help of my wife, we will try to do a bit better job as far as allocating resources.”


You can follow the Truth Emporium on Facebook and Twitter

Published in: on July 25, 2014 at 10:25 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 447 other followers