Quickie News Briefs     

--  Fri July 17, 2015  US Stupidly Sends Klingons a Road Map Back to Planet Earth  More...

--  Wed July 16, 2015  Pull up the barn floor, pour yourselves another hot cup of Rocket Java, and listen up, girl friends.  President Hussein Obama, our Islamic Trojan Horse in the Oval Office, just inked a deal with his girl friend's (Valerie Jarrett's) home country, Iran, to give them the capability to build nuclear bombs so they can initiate a Middle East nuclear arms race, wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, and then come after the Great Satan America.  Wow, ain't he clever?  And what a shrewd negotiator Obama is.  Iran doesn't need nuclear power plants for energy.  They're sitting on billions of tons of cheap oil.  So why are they building facilities to create nuclear fission?  Duh, lemme think a minute here.  Hmm, they want to create nuclear fission so they can clean their camels' teeth?  Nooo.  They want to create nuclear fission because it is such clean energy, especially in the hands of Islamic terrorists?  Nooo.  I guess President Hussein Obama has no idea what the Mullahs of Iran want to do with fissionable uranium.  Right.  So Obama has stupidly hammered together the most ridiculous deal possible with Islamic terrorists who took a break during the Iranian nuke negotiations in Austria to fly back to Teheran, Iran, and dance in the streets whilst burning the Israeli and American flags and shouting, "Death to Israel and death to America!"  With no hint of pretentiousness, the Iranian government just spit in the face of Sec of State John Kerry and President Hussein Obama and they both just sat there licking it up.  Now it's all up to the US Congress to pass a resolution that says, "Sorry Akmed, no deal."  All the Republicans will probably vote "NO" on the Iranian Nuke Deal but we don't know how stupid the Democrats might be.  I mean, we're talking about can the Democrats figure out that IRAN IS OUT TO BLOW US OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH!  If the left Liberals do not vote against the Nuke Bad Deal, then it is WW III in the very near future and all of Europe and America will be fighting in the streets just to survive against the coming ISIS Caliphate.  This deal just signed by President Hussein Obama and Dumb Dumb Kerry is Fifty Shades of Hitler, with Obama playing the WW II precursor role of Britain's Neville chamberlain as he caved to the Third Reich's Adolph Hitler by signing the Munich Agreement promising not to take Prague a coupla months before Hitler's Panzer Divisions rolled into Poland and took over.  And then Austria.  And then France.  And then everywhere Hitler felt like it.  Winston Churchill saved the day after Britain woke up and booted Chamberlain out on his ass.  And that's exactly what needs to happen to our fake President Hussein Obama, not just for signing the Iran Nuke Deal, but also for all the other National Socialist crap that he, his phony DOJ, and RINOs in Congress have been foisting down our thoats.  Obama is obviously suffering from delusions of Communist Grandeur with himself playing the role of Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, and every state collectivist throughout history who just knew he had the answer to save the world.  The real tragedy is this:  who are all the people in America who felt so guilty that they thought they should elect a black President just because he was black and without paying attention to what he was telling them?  After all, Obama's political teachings came from Frank Marshall, card carrying communist.  His moral philosophy came from Rev Wright's Holy Roller "God Damn America" Church.  And his brains?  What brains?  Nobody in their right mind would commit suicide by signing a nuclear deal with Islamic terrorists who are openly telling everybody -- especially the idiot American negotiators at the table -- that they intend to kill them, to kill their families, to kill all Jews, all Americans, and even each other if they don't fall down on their hands and knees and pretend to pray to an invisible anthropomorphized green weenie floating around in the sky.  And stupid Obama bought off on it because he thinks the Mullahs won't touch him or his family in the future.  He's the first one the Islamos are going to go after.  Obama just negotiated away planet Earth and doesn't have the brains enough to know it.  What a sucker.  Hopefully Congress isn't a bigger sucker.  And if they are, hopefully the GOP will win the Presidency, the House and the Senate in 2016.  Otherwise it will be America's first woman president to lead us down America's first black president's Road to Nuclear Hell.

--  Mon July 13, 2015  Since when has it become the function of the President of the United States to micro manage every citizen's life?  Or even to macro manage it?  The function of the President of the United States is to sit on his butt in the Oval Office, keep his big mouth shut, and make sure the laws passed by Congress are faithfully carried out.  Plus, the President, unfortunately, gets to play Commander-in-Chief of the military when Congress declares war.  But it is not up to the President to implement and monitor how far up your butt your doctor sticks his finger, or how much in taxes you should pay, or whether 30 million illegal immigrants should be paid to sneak across our borders, or establish Carbon Dioxide Fake Monetary Credits for his buddies, or any of the other infinite number of economic government interventions into the economy.  It is also not the President's job to empower foreign nations to develop nuclear bombs, or use the IRS to monitor competing political parties, or to allow the Federal Reserve central bankers to dump hard money and print America into total bankruptcy, or lie to us about his personal history, birth certificate, university attendance, etc.  Mr. Obama -- because he does not deserve the title of "President" -- will go down in history as the worst US president ever, both for what he did do and what he didn't do.  The list is long.  Everything that he did do was to hurt America on purpose.  Everything that he didn't do was also to hurt America on purpose.  Those who have yet to figure this out with either never figure it out or will understand it too late.  Mr. Obama and his socialist cronies intentions are quite obvious now that he has ruled America badly for the last six years:  it is to completely destroy the underlying principles of the Age of Enlightenment -- the philosophy that moved the world from the concept of the Divine Right of Kings to Inherent Individual Rights -- and drag America and the world back into the Dark Ages of Dog Eat Dog, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and a Totalitarian Dictatorship with people like him, Mr. Obama, trying to micro manage the economy of the world.  What a giant farce he has pulled on America -- especially the very idiots who voted him in in the first place, relying not on intelligence or logic but simply because they felt guilty because he is a black man.  Americans voted in a President in 2008 for the worst possible reason:  because of somebody's ethnicity.  How stupid can you get?  Probably more stupid since they did it not once, but twice.  That means they didn't learn anything from the first time around.  And if they people elect Hilarious Clinton for President in 2016, it means they voted her in because of gender bias, and that will be the third time that the people just didn't learn.  Good luck, people.  You're gonna need it if you stupidly elect Queen Clinton.

--  Mon July 13, 2015  There are some 276 "sanctuary cities" in the United States.  Why do they exist?  Because left Liberal politicians want to protect all the illegal immigrants they ushered in from Mexico in order to obtain more Democratic votes.  But that's not the excuse the Liberals tell everybody.  They say that they want "sanctuary cities" so illegal immigrants who report a crime will not be deported.  But that's bogus.  On FOX News, Judge Janine reported that there is already a law on the books that prevents illegal immigrants from being deported if they report a crime.  It's called a "U-Visa."  If an illegal immigrant sees a murder or robbery happening next door or down the street, all they have to do is go to the cops, fill out a "U-Visa" form, report the murder, and said illegals are protected from being deported.  Hesto presto, easy peasy lemon squeazy.  Therefore, "sanctuary cities" are just a bogus method by which President Obama and his socialist cronies have been protecting their future investment of millions of new Democratic voters.  "Sanctuary cities" are how many Americans are being murdered, robbed, and raped every day in the US because political police forces refuse to turn felonious immigrants over to the federal government for detention and/or deportation.  Dontcha just love how this administration hides the truth from everybody and lies through their teeth?  All in the name of "fundamentally changing" the United States and destroying the American Middle Class.  Why?  Because Obama wants to pretend he was a slave who had to pick cotton on a plantation in Mississippi until he was, oh, about 16 1/2 years old or so.  Uh huh.  You betchum.  Obama and Karl Marx... 

--  Fri July 10, 2015  If anybody still doubts whether the moral philosophy of altruistic state collectivism can destroy a nation, they need look no further than the current moral philosophy of the academic leaders and presidential administration in America today.  Two days ago, a young lady of 32 years of age was walking with her father on Pier 14 in San Francisco when an illegal Mexican immigrant with 7 felony convictions and 5 deportations from the US to Mexico found a gun, pulled the trigger, and killed the young lady walking on the pier.  What does this have to do with the moral philosophy of altruistic state collectivism?  Everything.  Sanchez, the illegal immigrant perp, was turned loose from the San Francisco Sheriff's Dept because the Top Cop said he didn't have to turn the criminal over to ICE -- the federal immigration authorities -- who had asked the San Francisco Sheriff to turn the perp over to ICE.  The San Fran Top Cop said that since San Francisco had declared itself a "sanctuary city," the federal laws did not apply.  The Sheriff was operating under the altruistic moral philosophy of being kind to the illegal immigrant killer.  Yes, the poor killer, who the San Francisco Mayor and City Council felt sorry for.  Plus, they felt sorry for the other illegal immigrants in the community who -- the Sanctuary Idiots claimed -- would be afraid to report criminals because they, the stoolies, might get deported for being an illegal immigrant themselves.  So now we are making laws -- such as misplaced "sanctuary laws" for one group of criminals to not get in trouble for reporting on other groups of criminals?  It's not the illegal immigrants that need protecting.  It's the public in general.  And it is the responsibility of government to protect all individual rights, not just the Democrats' latest Taco Benders who they are allowing into the country to garner more left Liberal votes.  What type of moral philosophy feels sorry for criminals?  Altruistic state collectivism.  What political philosophy were they implementing?  the tyranny of the majority, state collectivism that infringes upon the inherent natural rights of the individual.  Government officials in a limited republic, especially the police, are supposed to protect citizens, not re-write the US Constitution to implement altruistic laws to protect the crooks, the illegal immigrant felons, who are in the country illegally and have already committed multiple crimes of robbery, murder, rape, and drug dealing.  Is it just San Francisco city and county officials who have defaulted on the rights of individuals in favor of altruistic state collectivism for the criminals?  Not hardly.  Look higher, like all the way up to the presidency of the United States:  President Barack Obama and his entire administration.  It is President Obama who stated 22 times that he did not have the constitutional authority to change immigration law and then went ahead to do exactly that by issuing illegal Executive Orders that brought about the senseless murder of a young lady walking on Pier 14 in San Francisco.  Under what type of moral philosophy did Obama issue these EO's?  You guessed it:  altruistic state collectivism.  Obama feels sorry for the poor illegal immigrants -- mainly, he and the Democrats want to give Xmas presents to 20 million illegal immigrant Mexicans to buy votes for the Democratic party.  And what moral philosophy does the Democratic party hold?  That's right, state collectivism, hence we get atrocious interventions into the free market for  Obamacare, his signature national socialist health care fiasco.  In fact, President Obama's stated goal is to "fundamentally change" America, which means he wants to turn the US into a socialist hell hole because he thinks white Americans are to blame for all the past evil empires in the world and he's going to set everything straight, according to his revisionist view of world history.  Namely, he wants to destroy the entire Middle Class through the classic 1960s and 70s Bill Ayers Weatherman guerrilla warfare against America.  He signs illegal EOs to allow tens of millions of illegal immigrants, many of them criminals, into America and redistributes them into the suburbs to make everybody "equal."  He calls it "social justice."  He issues the "race card" against all of America's police departments in order to have the federal government show up and take over those local police departments under the guise of rehabilitating them.  In short, President Obama's moral philosophy of socialism, based upon altruistic state collectivism, and San Francisco City's moral philosophy of the same, is to blame for not only the latest murder of a young lady walking on Pier 14 in San Francisco, but for all the other felonies created by the huge influx of illegal Mexican immigrants within which those criminals hide as they stroll across our southern borders not once, but multiple times to commit multiple crimes.  And the drive-by news media pretends if anybody cries foul about illegal immigration, it is just a giant right wing propaganda conspiracy by the Republicans because they supposedly hate foreigners.  The United States has now become a "sanctuary country," but not for those who are escaping Communism or war torn countries, fleeing for their lives.  The US is now a "sanctuary country" for convicted felons who the current administration is PURPOSELY unleashing upon the American citizens that Obama absolutely loathes.  Every social political and economic action that Obama and his administration has enacted to date has one goal and one goal only:  to "fundamentally transform" -- i.e. to fundamentally destroy -- America's founding moral philosophy of inherent individual rights and free market capitalism.  That's why Obama is the Manchurian Candidate, the Trojan Horse, raising the ISIS Caliphate flag inside the White House.  He is busy attacking American from within and without.  There is no moral philosophical difference between the ideology of Islamic Sharia Law and Obama's National Socialism.

--  Tue June 30, 2015  Notice how the stupid Liberals continually paint themselves into philosophical corners by claiming every entitlement as a "rights" issue.  But entitlements are not "rights."  They are economic commodities or services, services that must be produced by somebody somewhere somehow in order to exchange them -- or erroneously claim them as "rights" -- in the free market.  "Rights" are not commodities or services; "rights" are conditional relationships such as the INDIVIDUAL's right to freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement or travel, freedom of religion, and freedom to pursue your own life and happiness.  Conditional "rights" mean that under the condition of non-infringements upon those same "rights" of other individuals (not groups, individuals), you obtain your "rights" inherently from Nature, not from the government.  Thus, we call it Natural Rights Philosophy and you obtain your "rights" at birth, or perhaps before, but -- once again -- you do not receive "rights" from any government.  Governments exist only to prohibit infringement of your inherent rights by others, and by the government itself.  Depending on the level of governmental interference into its citizens' lives, citizens in most nations are receiving economic entitlements  which should be called robbery since the government must take from somebody to give to somebody else.  In the US, politicians have gotten clever and call their robbery the War on Poverty, the War on Health Care, the War on Education, the War on Hunger, the War on Homelessness, and a War on every other wealth redistributionist scheme that government robbers can dream up to rob Peter to pay Paul.  So, while the US Government is busy redistributing all sorts of commodities and services in America and calling it "rights to receive," let's not forget all the John Galts out there who are the producers of that which is being looted and then distributed:  namely, time and labor saving services and commodities.  Governments are actually destroying the free market method of wealth and capital production that is necessary to bring about a high quality of life.  President Obama can jump up and down like Bozo the Clown on the steps of the White House, Light up the White House like a Giant Vertical Rainbow, but please tell me one thing:  what are the left Liberals going to do when the producers, the thinkers, the discoverers, the inventors, the risk takers, those who produce time and labor saving commodities and services in what used to be a free market all of a sudden decide to go on strike and stop producing?  What is going to happen when Atlas shrugs?  The Liberals have no answer.  They simply close their eyes and hope there will be somebody left to rob so they can stay in power.  The Liberals' so-called entitlement "rights" -- which are actually somebody else's production -- will turn to dust, turn to zero, and when the government completely makes it impossible for free men and women to exercise their inherent Natural Rights, the quality of life, our culture of private property rights, and all other rights will, poof, disappear and the economy will collapse back down from today's Western Civilization to nothing but the jungle of dog eat dog dictatorships.  We are halfway there already, as President Obama and his social political economic village idiots drag America down from the rule of law to the rule of men.  See how the Executive Branch and the Supreme Court and Congress divide up everybody's production and erroneously refer to the stolen booty as "entitlements" or "rights to receive" based upon the recipients' -- usually non-producers' -- real or imagined "needs?"  From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a true recipe for massive poverty and social political economic collapse.  Thank you, Karl Marx, and your student, President Obama, for your brilliant insight into the mathematical value called zero.

--  Mon June 29, 2015  The US Supreme Court, after having just rewritten it's own version of Obama's nationalized health care system from ObamaCare to SCOTUScare, has just rewritten another national law:  to wit, every state in the Union must now recognize Gay Marriage in the same manner as heterosexual marriage.  Let's zero in on the relevant logic about Gay Marriage.  First, let's define gay.  Gay means homosexual.  Marriage means either (1) pro-creational marriage or (2) non-procreational civil unions.  The term "gay marriage" is a biological contradiction since humans cannot produce children via homosexual activity.  Adopt, yes, procreate, no.  The only logical term left is homosexual civil union.  And that is why the US Supreme Court's recent ruling for Gay Marriage is an illogical decision and much ado about nothing.  There is no such thing as "Gay Marriage."  There are only Gay Civil Unions.  Homosexuals are not creating civil unions to produce children and a family.  They are creating civil unions in order to pretend they are the same as a procreational married couple with children so they can obtain standard medical care insurance from employers and visit sick partners at hospitals.  Employers should not be involved in health care insurance in the first place and it only came about because of previous governmental interference in the economy as President Nixon and others froze all prices and wages for some God awful ridiculous reason in the past, therefore bringing about coporations offering benefits such as health care coverage because they couldn't offer increased wages for employees.  Then it became incorporated into law.  See how absurd socialism works?  And now everybody assumes that the cost of health care for employees must automatically fall upon companies.  It's insane.  You might as well claim that companies must provide home mortgage insurance or car insurance for their employees.  All of it to be regulated by the IRS, just like today's nationalized health care, ObamaCare, or lately SCOTUScare.  So Gays want to pretend that if they call their civil unions "Gay Marriage," it legally entitles them to the same benefits -- not rights, benefits -- as Heterosexual Families vis a vis employer benefits, etc.  In essence, there was no need for the Supereme Court to even get involved in the left Liberal made up debate about "Gay Marriage" because gays already had legal contractual rights as civil unions.  But now the Supreme Court has really opened another can of worms.  Does Gay Marriage mean that gays can claim discrimination if a Wedding Cake shop refuses to bake and cater gay-themed wedding cakes?  Or does the Wedding Cake owner get to claim it is against his religious beliefs to create homosexual wedding cakes and thus refuse to bake and cater to Gay Marriages?  Do gay "rights" trump religious "rights?"  Or vice versa?  Or is there really a contradiction?  Logically, nobody should be able to force another person or business to produce a service or commodity that the producer does not want to create.  Period.  No reason needs to be given.  If I don't want to produce a service to anybody, for any reason whatsoever, that is my right.  In many cases, it may not be economically smart or prudent to refuse such service, but it is not illegal to make bad economic choices that others may call "prejudicial."  In many cases, the term prejudice or discrimination may turn out to be logically correct, both economically or in other ways.  The proper judgment by the Court should be to uphold individual rights, not pander to "politically correct" and ill-defined New Speak from left Liberals.  Gays must face the social political economic fact that they can't be simultaneously the same as, but different than, heterosexuals.  If you want to have a gay marriage, create a civil union.  If you want to procreate with an individual of the opposite sex and have a normal biological family, get married.  It ain't that complicated, folks.  And we don't need 9 Bozos wearing black robes in Washington DC to tell us what marriage is.  We need the government to get out of the business of interfering in business.  Period. End of story.  Footnote:  Mark my words:  this latest ruling on gay marriage will soon bump up against the Bill of Rights and everybody will be wringing their little hannies about what to do about it.  Like we don't have enough to worry about with 8 billion overpopulated people on Earth, 16 billion in fifteen years, 32 billion in 15 more years, 64 billion in 15 years thereafter but human beings don't affect pollution, weather, food or anything else on planet Earth, right?  Right. Uh huh, you bet.  Hint:  California doesn't have a shortage of water; it has overpopulation.  Welcome to India and other Third World countries who procreate like rabbits.  Wake up or your children's children will starve to death, folks.  It's straight mathematics.

-- Thur June 25, 2015  "Hallelujah," cried President Obama and his socialist cronies in the White House as they cheered today's 6-3 decision by the US Supreme Court that ObamaCare subsidies are OK for those thirty-some-odd states that chose NOT to implement ObamaCare in their states.  Chief Justices John Roberts and Kennedy voted "yes" after essentially re-writing the ObamaCare legislation passed by Congress.  As Justice Scalia said, "The so-called Affordable Care Act should be renamed 'the SCOTUScare Act,'" since it has essentially been re-written by the Justices of the US Supreme Court.  President Obama immediately jumped onto national TV after the Supreme Court's ruling and declared that this means that ObamaCare is "here to stay."  And that's true, except for errrh, screech, halt, well... for at least the next 18 months of Obama's last term in office.  Then, one of two things will happen:  (1) Hilarious Clinton could win the 2016 presidency and thus ObamaCare would remain until it drives the American economy bankrupt, or (2) the GOP could win the 2016 presidency, retain the US House and Senate and then REPEAL ObamaCare altogether.  Easy peasey lemon squeezie.  Just like the repeal of alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century.  Remember Congress writes laws and can repeal laws.  So, the Big Question: was today's decision the plan by Chief Justice John Roberts all along, to throw the decision back onto Congress and a new president in 2016, or do the Democrats have dirty pictures of Justice Roberts, or do they have a gun to Roberts' head?  We will probably never know.  One thing is for certain:  today's US Supreme Court ruling giving the green light for Obama's bankrupt national socialist health care system makes it almost mandatory that the GOP must win the 2016 presidential elections and retain both houses of Congress if we are to bring sanity back to the US economy.  This issue is not about health care.  This issue is a moral philosophical war of ideas:  individual rights and the free market vs. state collectivism and government dictatorship.  So far, President Obama has succeeded in bringing about a racist socialist dictatorship.  It all falls upon the intelligence -- rather the lack of intelligence -- of the American public.  And this lack of intelligence is a direct result of America's nationalized public education system.  Good luck on changing that.

--  Sat June 13, 2015  Here's a funny political conundrum:  the Spokane, Oregon branch of the NAACP -- the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People -- is apparently being run by a honky, according to her honky white parents whose ancestry, they claim, is Czech, Swedish, and German with a trace of American Indian.  Everybody do a rain dance, yahoo.  It seems that Ms. Rachel Dolezal, Head Honcho of the Spokane NAACP also teaches African studies to college kids.  Good luck, kids.   We at FM Duck don't really give a crap about Ms. Dolezal's government-defined DNA gene pool, but we do have a couple of questions and observations.  First, what the hell is this NAACP group all about?  I mean, the "national association for the advancement of colored people?"  Really?  What color are we talking about here?  Pink, purple, brown, black, red, green with yellow poka dots?  C'mon.  Haven't most Americans become color blind by now?  After all, it is the year 2015.  And what "advancement" for "colored people" are we talking about?  Is the NAACP a racially-oriented political organization that wants to use the government to intervene on its behalf to obtain free cookies and lollipops for whatever color of people they represent -- which, by now, is not exactly clear since the Prez/Director/Head Honcho is Caucasian, says Mom and Dad, while the majority of its members are 50 shades of black.  Ironically, the conundrum of a Reverse Oreo running the Spokane NAACP may have all started after Mom and Dad adopted four black African siblings when Rachel was a teeny bopper.  Rachel married and divorced a black dude and claims something along the lines of, "Well, shoot, man, everybody on the planet evolved from the continent of Africa, therefore I qualify for leading the Spokane Branch of the NAACP, right?"  Yeah, right.  Like who cares about your supposed 20 million year old gene pool and extrapolation of cultural anthropology, Rachel?  But what's this "advancement" thing?  Are you raking in federal money or in any way obtaining government cookies and Xmas presents by pretending to be Michael Jackson in disguise?  (There's a multiple metaphor for you.)  If not, then more Black Power to you, Brown Sugar, and have fun in your ethnic glee club.  Let's face it:  if you join a club based solely on race, does that make you a racist?  Who knows?  How about creating a National Association for the Advancement of Inherent Individual Rights, regardless of ethnicity?  Now there's a minority: the individual.  Or how about creating a group regardless of gender, all you peaceful moderate Islamic Bozos who are busy stoning women in the Middle East and the rest of the world using Muslim Sharia Law as your frail testosterone excuse?  Oh, sorry, but we already have such a club for inherent individual rights.  It's called the US Constitution with a Bill of Rights.  Wake up, people.  The NAACP is out of date and totally irrelevant.

-- Sat June 13, 2015  Hoo boy!  The brilliant city council and mayor of Los Angeles just voted in a minimum wage of $15.00 an hour by 2020 for businesses that have 25 employees or more.  The current minimum wage mandated by our interventionist government is $7.25.  Businesses with less employees have one extra year to implement the $15.00 mandatory minimum wage.  Let's analyze this stupid economic step by the City of Idiot Angels.  First, all economists -- from free marketeers to socialists -- already know that minimum wages lead to either unemployment or the shutting down of marginal businesses.  A wage is just another business expense that is passed on to the consumer in the price of the commodity being sold.  If wages double, employers must fire enough employees (or use robots) to save on expenses just to stay in business.  Somebody's going to lose their job while somebody else uses the government to double their salary.  That's if the business can even stay in business after employee expenses double.  Marginal businesses, by definition, are already barely hanging on.  They most likely will go bankrupt because they cannot cover an increase in expenses.  So, everybody loses:  the employees who get a pink slip, the employer is is now bankrupt, and the consumer who cannot buy the product any longer.  The idea that government can force businesses to hire employees at any cost is a joke and the joke, unfortunately, is on the very people who think they will be working at MacDonald's or a car wash for $15.00 in a current market where the existing free market wage for entry level jobs is around $7.25 an hour.  Entry level jobs for teenagers were never meant to be career level jobs for life.  Nobody expects to raise a family of four by working their entire life at some fast food joint or a car wash.  Besides the questionable interference of government into the exchange ratios (costs, prices, and wages) in a free market, it is pure economic insanity to think that a carte blanche increase in all businesses' expenses will, on net, make life better for America's workers.  Look for Los Angeles to not only not prosper by establishing a minimum wage of $15.00 per hour by 2020 or 2021, look for unemployment to jump radically before 2020 as businesses anticipate this added cost.  Businesses will simply pick up and move to more free market-oriented states where economic village idiots are not forcing unemployment with ridiculous governmental intervention into the free market.  California will soon become a hell hole of an economy for both employees and for all Californians who will soon discover that they can't even find a burger shop much less afford $50 for French Fries.  All the economic village idiots cheering for a $15.00 per hour minimum wage in Los Angeles will soon discover that they just voted in the loss of their own jobs.  What dummies.  Hint:  in a true free market economy, all prices trend toward zero, which is exactly what one wants because it means that more capital has accumulated due to time and labor-saving devices.  In a socialist economy, or in a mixed economy of government intervention, all prices trend toward infinity until there are no commodities left on the shelf to buy because they are artificially priced out of the market.  The reason socialist nations eventually go bankrupt is because they destroy the free market pricing mechanism that is required for businessmen to perform profit and loss calculations to see if supply and demand are feasible.  Destroy this mechanism and nobody, not the government, not businessmen, not nobody nohow can perform meaningful economic calcs and thus the interventionist economy must go bust.  Los Angeles just committed economic suicide by signing up for the doubling of their city's minimum wage.  Run for your damn lives Angelenos; the socialists just gained the sanction of their victims -- hey, that's you, LA -- and they're cheering in the streets as the economic idiots run over their economic cliffs like lemmings running into the sea.  One more thing:  the left Liberal Democrats in California may have obtained 20 million more votes from the influx of Illegal Mexican Immigrants to perpetuate their government welfare programs -- such as minimum wages -- but picture this:  at their current rate, California in about 10 years or less will soon resemble the abject poverty of socialist Mexico because that's exactly who they imported into California to make it just like what the Illegals thought they escaped from.  That is a joke.  A very cruel joke.  I have a wild idea:  how about laissez-faire free market capitalism?  That way, everybody gets a job and prices trend toward zero as capital accumulates.  Duh...

--  Thur June 11, 2015  Hey, girl friends, pour yourselves another hot cup of Rocket Java, shut up, and listen up.  New fad going around America today.  It's called:  dum-da-dum, the "one word" debate, created by left Liberals who can't think, argue, or debate.  So, they have decided that the mere utterance of a single word is all they have to say in order to carry on a logical discussion of anything.  What are some of these "one words" that Liberals are using today in their "one word" arguments, pretending they have just uttered the last word in philosophical logic?  How about, "Ooh, that's racist."  Or, "that'ssexist."  Or, "that's soooo Islamophobic," or "Anything-phobic."  "Ooh, ooh, that's profiling."  In this clever manner -- or so they think -- Liberals claim to have slaughtered their opponents in any discussion at university, at the dinner table, in a bar, or on the street.  Yeah, all you gotta do if you're a Liberal during a heated discussion, argument or debate is scream, "That's sexist," and then snicker as if you've just discovered E=mc2 to close off your argument.  In this crafty manner, Liberals don't ever have to think logically and after blabbering their "one word" argument they can then wander off to their next disconnected thought glob.  University professors are quite adept at this type of argumentation, while simultaneously encouraging their retarded students to laugh at other students who might be trying to elevate the discussion to step-by-step rational logic.  What should you do if a Liberal professor tries to pull the "one word" debate against you?  Just call him a "lesbo tranny Ni**** with a bitching retarded turban" and then walk away as you flip him off with your own "one word" argument:  the middle finger.  Then change classes because you're going to get an F-minus in this class.

--  Thur June 11, 2015  Let's say you wanted to destroy an entire nation... from within.  What would you do?  First, you buy a flute and start playing it, dancing around the youth at universities and in the nation's ghettoes.  Your goal is to destroy the ability of the youth of your target nation to think.  Control the nation's public education system at the college level, and induce the intellectuals to push their anti-rational thinking down to the K-12 public education level.  Destroy freedom of speech with New Speak, politically-correct speech.  Ban certain words.  Re-define words.  Re-write history.  Pick a scapegoat and blame every evil in the world on whomever you choose as the scapegoat.  Perpetuate the myth that you are in a minority class and that you have been discriminated against personally.  Second, ignore the constitutional laws of the target nation and implement in any way possible new "laws."  These new "laws" should contain thousands of pages of gobble-dee-gook nonsensical disconnected thought globs that nobody can understand.  The new "laws" should guarantee free everything:  health care, food, clothing, transportation, houses, and everything you can think of.  Destroy the economy by letting central bankers and the national government to print up trillions of non-backed currency to spend like drunken sailors on shore leave.  Create racist and economic class warfare.  Blame the rich.  Blame the language.  Blame everything you can think for everybody's real or imagined economic inequality.  Pretend that the nation is a land of Haves and Have-Nots.  Third, destroy the police and judicial system.  Start race riots in the inner city ghettoes and blame the police.  Ignore all constitutional laws and pass new Executive Orders and Judicial Reviews to accomplish whatever you want.  Fourth, put a ball and chain around the target nation's military forces and don't allow them to protect the nation.  Create your own political police force and use existing bureaucracies -- such as taxing agencies -- to stifle, bankrupt, and destroy any political opponents who may pop up to try and defend themselves.  Show up on national TV and repeat your lies over and over and over until a good portion of the population believes your lies.  That's how you destroy a nation from within:  play your Pied Piper's flute and lead the target nations' youth and specific minority groups down the Yellow Brick Road to the Land of OZ where you continue to blow smoke up their asses.  Finally, just send all the Dorothy's and Toto's who refuse to conform to your new "rules" to re-education camps where "Work Makes One Free."  No, we're not talking about the Obama Administration and America, we're talking about Adolph Hitler and how he convinced the German people to voluntarily implement The Third Reich, National Socialism and The Holocaust.  What makes you think we were talking about President Obama and his "good intentions" for America?  No connection there; nothing to see here; move right along.

Quack Off Points to Ponder

"The political philosophy of our Founding Fathers is so thoroughly buried under decades of statist misrepresentations on one side and empty lip-service on the other, that it has to be re-discovered not ritualistically repeated." -- Ayn Rand 

Holy moley, look how fast America is going bankrupt: (click on the puddy)

run_catWaving Money 1 trash

      National News      

Media Hide Facts, Call Everyone Else a Liar

by Ann Coulter

July 04, 2015

Washington, DC -- When Donald Trump said something not exuberantly enthusiastic about Mexican immigrants, the media’s response was to boycott him. One thing they didn’t do was produce any facts showing he was wrong.

Trump said: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

The first thing a news fact-checker would have noticed is: THE GOVERNMENT WON’T TELL US HOW MANY IMMIGRANTS ARE COMMITTING CRIMES IN AMERICA.

Wouldn’t that make any person of average intelligence suspicious? Not our media. They’re in on the cover-up.

A curious media might also wonder why any immigrants are committing crimes in America. A nation’s immigration policy, like any other government policy, ought to be used to help the people already here — including the immigrants, incidentally.

It’s bad enough that immigrants, both legal and illegal, are accessing government benefits at far above the native rate, but why would any country be taking...  More...

Knowing What We Know Now, Would You Say that Jeb Bush is Retarded?

by Ann Coulter

May 22, 2015

Washington, DC -- Was Jeb Bush too busy watching tele-novelas during his brother's presidency to remember the Iraq War?

We went to war at such breakneck speed after 9/11, that, before the invasion, I was able to write approximately 30 columns about it, give five dozen speeches on it, discuss it on TV a hundred times and read 1,089 New York Times editorials denouncing the "rush to war."

So I remember the arguments.

Contrary to the fairy tale the left has told itself since Obama truculently gave away America's victory in Iraq, our argument wasn't that we had to invade Iraq because of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. And the left's argument certainly was not: "He doesn't have any WMDs!"

Our argument was: There were lots of reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and none to keep him.

Indeed, after Bush's State of the Union address laying out the case for war with Iraq, The New York Times complained that he had given too many reasons: "Even the rationale for war seems to change from day to day. Mr. Bush ticked off a litany of accusations against Iraq in his State of the Union address ..." (New York Times, Feb. 2, 2003)

Among the reasons we invaded Iraq were:

(1) Saddam had given shelter to terrorists who killed Americans. After 9/11, it was time for him to pay the price:

-- The mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking, Abu Abbas, who murdered a wheelchair-bound American citizen, Leon Klinghoffer, then forced the passengers to throw his body overboard, was living happily in Iraq. (Captured by U.S. forces in Baghdad less than a month after our invasion.)

-- The terrorist who orchestrated the murder of American diplomat Laurence Foley in October 2002, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, also took refuge in Saddam's Iraq. (Killed by U.S. forces in Iraq on June 7, 2006.)

-- The one terrorist behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing who got away, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to Iraq, where he was given money and lived without fear of being extradited to the United States. (Whereabouts unknown. Possibly being groomed for a prime-time show on MSNBC.)

-- Czech intelligence reported that Mohammed Atta, 9/11 mastermind, More...

Obama Staged Fake Zero Dark Thirty Raid to Knock Off bin Laden?

May 11, 2015

Washington, DC -- Legendary journalist Seymour Hersh has recently claimed that President Obama's alleged take down of terrorist master mind Osama bin Laden in a zero dark thirty helicopter raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan in 2011 contained many inaccuracies.

   According to Hersh's American and Pakistani intelligence sources, Osama bin Laden had already been captured by Pakistan and was being held prisoner in the Abbottabad compound since 2006.  Whether the Americans knew about this in 2006 when Bush was president, Hersh didn't say,... yet.

   If President Obama found out after he came into office in 2009, it appears that the Obama Administration saved this knowledge so that it could make use of it in a future take down of bin Laden for political marketing reasons.  Like running for a second US Presidential term.  Also, there was no Navy Seal fire fight.  Instead, Pakistani intelligence insiders allegedly rigged it so that US choppers could fly across Pakistan borders without setting off alarms, landed at the Abbottabad compound, Navy Seals hopped out, ran upstairs and one US trooper simply shot bin Laden dead.

   Then, according to Hersh's sources, the US Seals loaded bin Laden into a body bag and dumped him out of a plane or chopper over some rugged mountainous terrain while claiming that they carried his body to a US aircraft carrier and gave bin Laden a "proper Islamic" burial at sea.

   But here's the thing.  If all of this -- and more -- is true, then that would mean that President Obama and various high level administrative officials were holding Osama bin Laden as marketing fodder (for many years) so President Obama could make an announcement of bin Laden's capture so Americans would cheer and vote for him for a second presidential term:  Hey, looky, looky, stupid American public.  I (President Obama) found bin Laden all of a sudden and have ordered a top secret raid to take out this evil terrorist to save America, yahoo, etc.!

   Note that this scenario is not far off from...  More...

Bergdahl to be Charged with Desertion

Jan 27 2015


reporters at WND

Seven months after the military began an investigation into the disappearance of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl and his capture by the Taliban, which held him for five years, a new report indicates Army officials have determined Bergdahl — for whom the administration traded five top Gitmo-held terrorists — will be charged as a deserter.

Retired Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research, made the startling claim during an appearance on “The O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News.

Bergdahl’s attorney has received the charges, according to Shaffer, who claims the Obama administration is withholding the report.

O’Reilly said the White House has had this information for a while but has been delaying it under the auspices of Ben Rhodes, assistant national security adviser.

“This is shaping up to be a Titanic struggle behind the scenes,” Shaffer said. “Believe me, the Army here wants to do the right thing. Factually, there’s no way they can not do the right thing regarding Bergdahl. And the White President Obama cozying up to the parents and because he, President Obama, releasing the five Taliban. … The narrative is what the White House does not want to have come out.”

Bergdahl was recovered in Afghanistan by U.S. troops in a controversial swap for five Taliban officials on May 31. He had disappeared from his small patrol base on June 30, 2009, under a cloud of suspicion and fear as it became clear he been captured by militants.

The Army in June launched a new investigation into Bergdahl’s disappearance and capture, amid a raft of accusations from his fellow soldiers that he walked away from his unit on the battlefield and questions about whether the Obama administration handled the prisoner swap legally.

On Jan. 11, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, said he anticipated a decision “fairly soon” on whether the Army would court martial Bergdahl for deserting his post.

“In White House terms, not charging Bergdahl means that he was indeed worth the trade for the Taliban Five. But charging him on any level means that releasing the five Taliban was an error of monstrous proportions, one the administration will...  More...

      International News      

Generals Conclude Obama Backed Al-Qaida

Jan 21 2015


Jerome R. Corsi at WND

“In early 2011, before Gadhafi was deposed, Christopher Stevens came to Benghazi in a cargo ship, and his title at the time was envoy to the Libyan rebels,’ which basically means Christopher Stevens was America’s very first envoy to al-Qaida,” explained Clare Lopez, a member of the commission who served as a career operations officer with the CIA and currently is vice president for research at the Washington-based Center for Security Policy.

Kevin Shipp, a former CIA counterintelligence expert who worked on the seventh floor at Langley as protective staff to then-CIA Director William Casey, again speaking for himself in his interview with WND, agreed with Lopez that the gun-running operation Stevens managed is a secret the Obama White House and Clinton State Department have sought to suppress from the public.

“The shocking part, maybe even a violation of international law that the Obama administration has been terrified to have fully revealed, is that Stevens as part of his duties as a State Department employee was assisting in the shipment of arms first into Libya for the al-Qaida-affiliated militia, with the weapons shipped subsequently out of Libya into Syria for use by the al-Qaida-affiliated rebels fighting Assad,” Shipp told WND.

“Very possibly, these gun-running activities could be looked at even as treasonable offenses,” he said.

Time for impeachment? -- FM Ducks......more