J Christian Adams of PJ Media has written on the new book that is out on Operation Fast and Furious. It is written by Katie Pavlich and entitled, "Fast and Furious- Barack Obama's deadliest scandal and its shameless cover-up". Adams knows what he is talking about. He was a prosecutor in the Justice Department-including under Eric Holder.
http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2012/04/05/book-review-fast-and-furious/
I hope you will buy it. Fast and Furious isn't getting the media coverage it deserves (for obvious reasons). It is, however, a major scandal. In my opinion, it is worse than Watergate. If any skeptical readers would like to challenge me on that statement, I will be happy to engage in a debate.
Another book recommendation is Injustice by J. Christian Adams. He was a five year veteran in the DOJ and a key attorney in pursuing the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. (I think he quit in protest after Holder ordered the case dropped.) He goes into the racial agenda at the DOJ under Holder from hiring practices within the DOJ Civil Rights Division to voting laws and practices which they cause to favor the liberals to fixation on racial grievances that threaten the integrity of the 2012 election.
ReplyDeleteFor example, they put no effort into determining the validity of voter rolls, thereby allowing dead people to vote, make objections to voter identification efforts, and all the while setting up voter registration offices besides or within welfare offices to make it easier for one class of voters to vote... always Democratic.
That's putting your thumb on the scale.
.
Can't wait to read this book. I hope it gets widely read to expose this fraud of a President.
ReplyDeleteSquid
From somewhere in the South Pacific
If I were going to read a book by the perennial malcontent, J. Christian Adams, someone would have to pay me $15 an hour and provide me with a free copy.
ReplyDeleteIt is indeed obvious why this isn't getting much play in the media. The readers aren't much interested in this contrived exercise in desperate political propaganda.
Dang Siarlys, you work awful cheap.
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of fact elwood, I have seldom worked for more than $15 an hour, and often for less. Fortunately, I have no dependents. I have no idea how my fellow workers who have children, even wives some of them, can manage. I infer that you are well up there in wealth and rolling in luxury?
ReplyDeleteWell, not hardly. "Fairly comfortable" might be more like it. I suspect that I am a little older than you and therefore have had more time to be able to get debt-free and to learn some fiscal restraint. I am fully-retired on fixed income, and have not been "gainfully employed", and therefore a drag on society, for several years now.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you that I don't know how some families make it. Unfortunately, neither do I know what all the answers are.
Is is easy to recommend increasing salary/wages to whatever level. Seems to me that will essentially ultimately and necessarily only raise the price of goods and services such that little if any gain in conditions will be achieved.
And if we regulate/control the profit which those evil companies can earn as they have to pay workers more, than I believe we can expect that many more of them will go out of business. The extreme of that is to have everyone working for government??
The various safety nets are valuable to a lot of people, and I generally support them, except for the career unemployed/welfare beneficiaries who milk the system dry.
I would note that I believe, for example, that unemployment benefits in Washington State are the equivalent of about $12.00-12.50 per hour, in the vicinity of $25K annually. If a couple can each draw these benefits (and I admittedly do not know the answer to that), then their annual income would be close to, or at, the national average for doing nothing. If other aid is available, which is likely, they may even be well above the average.
Point is, how can we expect them to go to work for less than they are receiving in benefits, until they absolutely have to??
Just a couple of thoughts. BTW, nothing derogatory intended by my statement. Sincerely, hang in there, OK??
It is easy to recommend increasing salary/wages to whatever level. Seems to me that will essentially ultimately and necessarily only raise the price of goods and services such that little if any gain in conditions will be achieved.
ReplyDeleteYou're a little older than me. In eight years I qualify for Medicaid. I'll try to work another five years after that before collecting social security. I'd rather have the larger monthly payout when I really need it, and it's true, we can't work fewer years, live longer, and expect what we pay in to cover what we draw out. If the Republicans don't sabotage the health care reform, in 2014 I'll have medical coverage for the first time since July 2009.
I believe the Earned Income Credit was Gerald Ford's sole and truly beneficial positive contribution to America. One reason turning chronic welfare recipients into the job market worked is that EIC added thousands of dollars to a truly meager annual income, often enough to buy a good used car, and be able to drive to the better paying jobs beyond the bus lines.
But in a very real sense, providing "the working poor" with food stamps, medicaid, EIC, is a taxpayer subsidy of the working moms' and dads' EMPLOYERS, who should be paying them enough to live on, not relying on the public trough to make up the difference.
Walter Reuther had a solution to the wage-price spiral. After all, the point of unions was for a larger PORTION of the REVENUE to go to the line workers, rather than to managers, CEO's and stockholders. But the managers did tend to just raise prices and keep their own share as big, or bigger. Reuther proposed a contract that would have frozen the price of the cars. As you can imagine, management fought that one tooth and nail.
This IS complicated, because there are many smaller employers with truly small margins, who cannot afford to simply absorb the higher wage levels instantly. It would have to be part of a massive and complex economic shift, in which their customers have more money, so they can raise prices, while the big boys are restrained from doing so, etc.
However, when the Peoples Republic of Santa Monica proposed to raise the minimum wage on all businesses within the city, a restaurant owner appeared in a live interview for a TV news program complaining "That would eat up twenty percent of my profits." Cry me a river. If you can raise everyone's pay with twenty percent of your profits, you darn well should, especially if their families are currently being subsidized with taxpayer funded food stamps (which is not uncommon). Now if it would eat up 150 percent of his profits (which in some businesses it would), that's another matter entirely.
One thought I had was to add a provision to the minimum wage law, that the annual compensation for the lowest paid employee shall be no less than 1% the annual compensation of the highest paid executive. I was going to say 10%, seems fair enough, but it would be too great a shock to the system: janitors would be making $700,000 a year (if the CEO makes $7 million). I'll settle for $70,000. Kind of makes you think about how big the disparity really is, doesn't it?