Business Hostile, Race Relations Edition

Picture this (and I am speaking out of personal experience). You have a team of co-workers. The racial makeup (which is not at all relevant to the performance of the individuals) is 1 black, 1 Hispanic and 5 white. Now of those 7 people the top positions are held by the black and Hispanic who have oversight over the entire branch (not just the team). One of those two people performs in an above-and-beyond manner consistently. The other one shows new standards for sub-standard performance and results on a consistent basis. The union protects the sub-performer and has for over a decade. While this would be another example of why unions suck that is not the concern of this post.

Now imagine what the performance reviews would look like for years upon years. What would the disparity in the merit raises be? What kind of a gap in pay would there be after 5 years? 10 years?

Thanks to the shortsightedness of 1/2 of the country this year Obama will now get the chance to create another business hostile policy.

President Obama intends to close "persistent gaps" between whites and minorities in everything from credit scores and homeownership to test scores and graduation rates.

His remedy — short of new affirmative-action legislation — is to sue financial companies, schools and employers based on "disparate impact" complaints — a stealthy way to achieve racial preferences, opposed 2 to 1 by Americans.

Under this broad interpretation of civil-rights law, virtually any organization can be held liable for race bias if it maintains a policy that negatively impacts one racial group more than another — even if it has no racist motive and applies the policy evenly across all groups.

This means that even race-neutral rules for mortgage underwriting and consumer credit scoring potentially can be deemed racist if prosecutors can produce statistics showing they tend to result in adverse outcomes for blacks or Latinos.

What this means is that in the above real life example when the chronically under-performing employee complains about the salaries between her and the other person in a top position there could now be a case for the Obama Administration to pursue it.

Disparate outcomes are a part of a free society. In fact, to try to get rid of disparate outcomes (when opportunities are equal) is the absolute antithesis of a free society.

Let's extend the example now. Because of either threat of lawsuits or fear of lawsuits the employer decides to match the salaries. What is the motivation of the super performer to not only continue to super perform but to even meet minimum standards when sub-standard is going to get the same pay?

The take away from this story (and the example) is two-fold.

First, Obama's administration and his supporters are hostile to business. This was known by a few before the 2008 election but it was en vogue to vote based on race (and fear of being called racist by dishonest intolerant people likely effected quite a few people as well). This was known very well by 2012 and yet people still supported him. The rational conclusion is that the business hostility was a trait that Obama 2012 supporters wanted (and why they accepted the idea that their votes were "Revenge" as Obama stated).

Second, Obama's leanings are not capitalist but more towards a Chinese or Soviet communist/Marxist beliefs. Everyone must be equal and if everyone is not then beat down the ones who are performing too well. Fits very nicely into the union mentality as well.

Obama Issues 68 Regulations Per Day

As a metric for those who think that "Obama" and "regulation" are not synonymous here is a story for you.

It seems that President Obama is rushing towards a super hero identity of Captain Regulation.

...[S]o far today, the Obama administration has posted 165 new regulations and notifications on its reguations.gov website. In the past 90 days, it has posted 6,125 regulations and notices – an average of 68 a day.

How little freedom and individual choice can be left at the end of 96 more months at this rate? I mean, that is over 120,000 new regulations by the end of Obama's term. There is no way that can resemble a free society by the end of that.

Hypocrisy Of Energy Nazis

There has been a mad rush into "green energies" including the subsidizing of companies that were insoluble just because they said they were going to produce "green energy". There has been no measured approach and no amount of reason in the matter.

As energy prices soar over the coming few years keep in mind how quickly Obama moves against so-called "dirty" sources of energy.

The hypocrisy comes from the surrogates who hail a slow and measured approach.

"The proposed plan supports the Administration’s all-of-the-above approach to explore the full potential our nation’s domestic energy resources and to develop innovative technology and techniques that will lead to safe and responsible production of resources, including oil shale and tar sands, which industry recognizes are years from being commercially viable, but require RD&D today," Interior spokesman Blake Androff said. (Emphasis added)

Electric cars are years upon years away from being commercially viable, too. That is why the Church of Global Warming members had to get the Feds to heavily subsidize and in some places create extra incentives like qualifying for the HOV lanes.

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) praised the plan, saying the administration exercised the right amount of caution on oil shale development, which has not yet been brought to commercial scale and brings concerns about the amount of water used in the practice.

Caution...except when it comes to CoGW approved things. Then make it law, subsidize it and rush into it. The hypocrisy from the Church is appalling.

And yet not surprising.

Was There Any Doubt That He Knew

We knew it was just a matter of time before some evidence of come out. Every since the attacks on the Embassy in Benghazi and the nearly two weeks of denying the fact that it was a coordinated terrorist attack most of us the paid attention to this kind of thing knew that Obama new about the attacks at some point. Make that at some point very early on.

Eating some of that suspicion, and I admit that this is probably not as fair as it should be, is the fact that I do not trust Obama any further than I can throw him upwind. To be fair, there are not many politicians at the national level that I trust any further than I can throw up wind.

Now we have the inevitable leak of the emails that show Obama and the White House actually did know that it was a terrorist attack and that a group linked to al Qaeda was claiming responsibility.

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time - or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began - carried the subject line "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack" and the notation "SBU", meaning "Sensitive But Unclassified."

The text said the State Department's regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was "under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well."

The message continued: "Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four ... personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support."

A second email, headed "Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi" and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that "the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared." It said a "response team" was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."

Okay, so the emails show that there was a coordinated attack, but they don't show that the White House knew or that they were even recipient on those emails. Ah, but wait. There's more.

The records obtained by Reuters consist of three emails dispatched by the State Department's Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11. [Emphasis added]

I am not sure what I believe is the worst part of this. There is the fact that the President has been lying about what he knew and that's bad. There is the fact that there are the lemmings across the nation who will believe that the President is innocent in all of this. That is just scary. And I mean scary in the sense that people are so stupid to believe that there is nothing wrong with what is going on. There is the fact that we have a "leader" who doesn't respect the people on the ground enough to try to protect them, or who doesn't respect enough the military who would do the protecting enough to help with their lives being in danger. Instead he acts like it is just politics as usual.

That is just pathetic.

Can't Blame It On The Speculators or CEOs Now

Listening to an interview this morning (6/2/09) with a Vice President of General Motors made it more clear why investors, businesspeople, capitalists and Americans should all be scared to death of the Obama administration (as well as all who are complicit in Obama's takeover of private business).

As we should all be aware by now General Motors has filed bankruptcy. We have also heard about the closing of many dealerships and the sell off of many of GM holdings such as Saturn. What we may know already is that the union was able to have the government (aka Obama & gang) strongarm GM into trading token legacy cost cuts for ownership to the United Auto Workers Union. The UAW will own approximately 17+% of GM (now needing to be renamed UAW GM). So the next contract negotiations between GM and UAW will present an immediate conflict of interest which will (a) give UAW an incredible and unfair negotiating advantage and (b) be unaddressed or uncorrected on a permanent basis.

Through the facade of "bailout" the government will own approximately 72+% of GM (now needing to be renamed Obama UAW GM...and eventually just US UAW GM). While the rhetoric from both the Obama administration and GM claims control of "day to day operations" will not involve the government the fact is the government is already dictating longer term strategies for GM. Product lines are being "suggested" and modifications to current product lines are being "suggested".

In fact, one set of questions to the VP that was being interviewed was about the Corvette. Will it still be a fast performance car or will it become a fluffy V-6 engine. The answer was that GM is being "allowed" to continue with certain "niche" lines which includes the Corvette...but there was no response to the questions about the questioner's implication that the V-8 engines are finished at GM. Sometimes silence speaks volumes.

If you are doing the math at home you will notice that there is still around 10% ownership remaining. Will that be for the stockholders? Remember, when you buy stock you are buying actual equity ownership! Or will it be for the secured creditors who have loaned money to GM with collateral as a promise for repayment of some sort?

Nope. The remaining ownership will go to neither stockholders or secured creditors.

The outstanding stock (exact words from the VP coming) "will be wiped out". If you own stock in GM you have worthless paper now. You paid for ownership (either for an investment or to have ownership) and you are getting ZERO. GM will be de-listed from the NYSE...no longer will it be a public company.

Instead the remaining ownership of GM will go to unsecured creditors. Repeat: ownership will go to UNSECURED creditors.

Yet one more nail in the coffin of capitalism and free markets being forged and hammered by the Obama administration.

But what I really want to know is why are we not hearing cries of corruption because of investors who are losing everything. I mean, there had to be investigations because investors got burned by their own bad investment decision (like staying in Enron stocks for far too long) and pillorying of "speculators" when oil prices were skyrocketing. Where are the tar & feather crews now that GM stockholders are having their investments robbed at a rate of 100%?

Obama will provide for us all

In case you have not heard the expectations of the Obama supporters check this out.

"I never thought this day would ever happen. I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know. If I help him, he’s gonna help me."

THAT is either the Welfare state (who will pay for that?) or that is Socialism (we all pay for that with our freedom).

Yes, Obama won. How could he not when he promised everything to everyone! This list of promises is so long that people were viewing him as a savior (if not THE Savior).

The expectations of handouts and free rides are so high that by October 31 Obama's camp was trying to figure out how to lower expectations after their victory.

"Barack Obama’s senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week’s election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harbouring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve."

How can his supporters NOT harbor unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve when in just one speech on October 30 he gave this laundry list of things he will do:
* "give a tax break to 95 percent of Americans who work every day and get taxes taken out of their paycheck every week";
* "eliminate income taxes on Social Security for seniors making under $50,000";
* "give homeowners and working parents additional tax breaks";
* not increase taxes on anyone if they "make under $250,000; you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime –- not your income taxes, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax";
* "end those breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas";
* "give tax breaks to companies that invest right here in the United States";
* "eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-up companies that are the engine of job creation in this country";
* "create two million new jobs by rebuilding our crumbling roads, and bridges, and schools -- by laying broadband lines to reach every corner of the country";
* "invest $15 billion a year in renewable sources of energy to create five million new energy jobs over the next decade";
* "reopen old factories, old plants, to build solar panels, and wind turbines";
* build "a new electricity grid";
* "build the fuel efficient cars of tomorrow";
* "eliminate the oil we import from the Middle East in 10 years";
* "lower premiums" for those who already have health insurance;
* "if you don't have health insurance, you'll be able to get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress give themselves";
* "end discrimination by insurance companies to the sick and those who need care the most";
* "invest in early childhood education";
* "recruit an army of new teachers";
* "pay our teachers higher salaries, give them more support. But ... also demand higher standards and more accountability";
* "make a deal with every young person who's here and every young person in America: If you are willing to commit yourself to national service, whether it's serving in our military or in the Peace Corps, working in a veterans home or a homeless shelter, then we will guarantee that you can afford to go to college no ifs ands or buts";
* "stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq whole the Iraqis have a huge surplus";
* "end this war in Iraq";
* "finish the fight and snuff out al Qaeda and bin Laden";
* "increase our ground troops and our investments in the finest fighting force in the world";
* "invest in 21st century technologies so that our men and women have the best training and equipment when they deploy into combat and the care and benefits they have earned when they come home";
* "No more homeless veterans"; and
* "no more fighting for disability payments."

President Domestic Travel

Pete here again...

I bring this up because of the recient reporting by Pat Kessler at WCCO. Looking outside of WCCO, President Bill Clinton’s Travel is called excessive from CNN here.

USA Today is quick to nock Bush for his traveling, like WCCO:

USA today says:

An Associated Press tally of Bush's travels shows he has made at least 114 trips
in the 17 months since January 2003.
Clinton flew Air Force One on 123
domestic trips between January 1995 and mid-October 1996, a period of 22 months.
It was a record for re-election-related travel aboard the presidential aircraft,
according to the Center for Public Integrity.

Lets examine this statement:
1. They knew exactly how many trips President Clinton took, but for President Bush its "At least"????
2. President Clinton: "123 domestic trips" and President Bush: "114 trips.” Where is the word domestic when referring to President Bush’s trips?

Now let me rearrange some words in that USA Today Article:
"Are" "all of" "Bush" "trips" "domestic" "at least"?

They actually answer that: "Virtually all of Bush's trips on Air Force One have been within the continental United States."

So, what is the definition of "virtually all"? Does Seventy-Five percent or more count as “Virtually all”? Does this count President Bush's travels for Hurricane Katrina? Those are domestic, after all.
I would love to see a list of where each president has gone on the time they claim and for what. Because, I bet you a dollar, our ol' "man of integrity" of a president has President Bush beat by quite a bit when it comes to "domestic campaigning travel."

Distortion on stem cell bill...and a little help needed

The news is that President Bush probably will veto the stem cell legislation coming to his desk.

President Bush readied the first veto of his presidency to stop legislation to ease limits on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. The veto is expected as soon as the measure reaches his desk. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that was expected to happen about midday Wednesday, and that Bush would veto the measure as promised.

While both the GOP-run House and Senate defied Bush in passing the measure to expand federally funded embryonic stem research, supporters do not appear to have the two-thirds vote margin needed to override such a veto.

Now the way I have heard it being discussed is basically "Bush continues ban on stem cell research". This is grossly misstating the issue. And rarely do I hear the misstatement corrected.

Stem cell research is not banned. Stem cell research will not be banned with this veto.

ONLY federal funding of stem cell research is restricted. That is all.

Private companies are still allowed to do the research themselves on their own dime.

Now, what do YOU think of stem cell research and why? I'm not certain. Granted, I have heard that no embroynic stem cell research has yeilded anything. But there must be some hope if people are given the option of saving their newbornd cord blood after birth.

Socially, what is the REAL danger in allowing embroyonic stem cell research? I have never understood the logic behind the objection.

The way I see it, stem-cell research should be allowed no matter what, so long as abortion is allowed. To me the logic of banning the research while abortion is legal makes as much sense as outlawing the use of cadavers if the person died of anything beyond natural causes.

But Bush is exactly right...I do not want federal money going to any of it. Even if I agree with that it should be legal I do not want it federally funded.

And THAT is what the bill is REALLY about.