Fridges could be switched off without owner’s consent to reduce strain on power stations
Fridges, washing machines and other electrical goods could be switched off automatically in British homes without the owners’ consent under EU proposals to help power stations meet demand for electricity.
White goods such as electric ovens would be affected by the proposals to fit all new appliances with sensors that could shut them down when the UK’s generators struggle to meet demand for power.
The measures proposed by the UK’s National Grid, along with its counterparts in 34 European countries, to install the controversial devices are backed by one of the European Union’s most influential energy bodies.
They are pushing for the move because green energy sources such as wind farms are less predictable than traditional power stations, increasing the risk of blackouts
The EU has set a target that 20 per cent of all electricity will be generated from green sources by 2012, but these are unreliable, making the task more difficult.
This would be a huge step backwards. The existence of electric refrigerators is one of the things that separates a first world country from a third world country. Nuclear power works even when the wind isn’t blowing, and is my personal preference for electricity generation. Giving the government the ability to turn people’s refrigerators off at will would be giving the government too much intrusion into people’s lives. It could also lead to spoilage and food poisoning.
Here are 167 examples of Barack Obama’s lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, government waste, and other misdeeds.
In the 2008 United States election, I wrote in Ron Paul for President. In the 2012 election, I voted for Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson. Those who are of a more leftist persuasion than myself might want to consider voting for the Green Party in future elections. (more…)
Some of the unions that backed passage of Obamacare three years ago are now saying they are worried about the negative effects that it will have on them.
Labor unions enthusiastically backed the Obama administration’s health-care overhaul when it was up for debate. Now that the law is rolling out, some are turning sour.
Union leaders say many of the law’s requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive. Among other things, the law eliminates the caps on medical benefits and prescription drugs used as cost-containment measures in many health-care plans. It also allows children to stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 26.
Some 20 million Americans are covered by the health-care plans at issue
Top officers at the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the AFL-CIO and other large labor groups plan to keep pressing the Obama administration to expand the federal subsidies to these jointly run plans, warning that unionized employers may otherwise drop coverage. A handful of unions say they already have examined whether it makes sense to shift workers off their current plans
“We are going back to the administration to say that this is not acceptable,” said Ken Hall, general secretary-treasurer for the Teamsters, which has 1.6 million members and dependents in health-care plans. Other unions involved in the push include the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and Unite Here
Sheet Metal Workers Local 85 in Atlanta, which has about 1,900 members. Next year it must lift the $250,000 annual cap on the amount it will pay for medical claims. The law’s requirements will add between 50 cents to $1 an hour to the cost of members’ compensation package
These are the “low information” voters who backed Obamacare without knowing what was in it – and who chose to ignore the critics who pointed out these problems before the law was passed – the very same problems that the unions are now complaining about. The critics pointed out that these problems were timed so as to not take effect until after the 2012 election.
This reminds me of the Simpsons episode “Last Exit to Springfield” from season 4 where the union at the nuclear power plant agreed to give up their dental coverage in exchange for a keg of beer.
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed a civil rights lawsuit against a Chicago public school district on behalf of a second-grade teacher who was suspended after he displayed garden-variety tools such as wrenches, pliers and screwdrivers in his classroom as part of a “tool discussion” in his class.
Despite the fact that all potentially hazardous items were kept out of the students’ reach, school officials at Washington Irving Elementary School informed Doug Bartlett, a 17-year veteran in the classroom, that his use of the tools as visual aids endangered his students. Bartlett was subsequently penalized with a four-day suspension without pay – charged with possessing, carrying, storing or using a weapon.
“This school district’s gross overreaction to a simple teaching demonstration on basic tools such as wrenches and pliers underscores exactly what is wrong with our nation’s schools,” said Rutherford Institute Pres. John Whitehead.
None of the tools were made accessible to the students. When not in use, the tools were secured in a toolbox on a high shelf out of reach of the students. They were used to demonstrate the proper use of tools
We need more teachers like this. It’s too bad the idiot bureaucrats suspended him for teaching his students skills that are actually useful in the real world.
Here are 163 examples of Barack Obama’s lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, government waste, and other misdeeds
In the 2008 United States election, I wrote in Ron Paul for President. In the 2012 election, I voted for Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson. Those who are of a more leftist persuasion than myself might want to consider voting for the Green Party in future elections. (more…)
Checking both google and google news, I did not see this reported on by any of the mainstream media, other than Time magazine. No New York Times, Washington Post, or Associated Press articles. No CBS, NBC, or CNN coverage.
No wonder why some on the political left hate Fox News, which did report it.
TIME: Your mother — she was your protector. She often carried a gun, she seemed to be very fond of guns. Did you inherit your mother’s fondness for guns?
MAYA ANGELOU: Well, I do like to have guns around, I don’t like to carry them. But I like — if somebody is going to come into my house and I have not put out the welcome mat, I want to stop them.
TIME: Have you ever fired a weapon?
ANGELOU: Of course!
TIME: At a person?
ANGELOU: I’ve fired it period, not at a person I hope!
I was in my house in North Carolina. It was fall. I heard someone walking on the leaves. And somebody actually turned the knob. So I said, “Stand four feet back because I’m going to shoot now!” Boom! Boom! The police came by and said, “Ms. Angelou, the shots came from inside the house.” I said, “Well, I don’t know how that happened.”
When Barack Obama was a state senator in Illinois, he voted against allowing people in their own homes to use guns to protect themselves and their families from murderers and rapists.
Barack Obama thinks that Maya Angelou should be in jail because she used a gun to protect herself, in her own home, from an intruder who could have been planning to rape and murder her.
In 2009 the Obama administration gave $535 million to Solyndra, claiming that it would create 4,000 new jobs. However, instead of creating those 4,000 new jobs, the company went bankrupt. It was later revealed that the company’s shareholders and executives had made substantial donations to Obama’s campaign, that the company had spent a large sum of money on lobbying, and that Solyndra executives had had many meetings with White House officials.
It was also revealed that the Obama administration had already been aware of Solyndra’s financial troubles. For example, according to the company’s security filings in 2009, the company had been selling its product for less than the cost of production. In 2010, Obama visited the Solyndra factory and cited it as a role model for his stimulus program, saying “It’s here that companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” The Washington Post wrote of this, “Administration officials and outside advisers warned that President Obama should consider dropping plans to visit a solar startup company in 2010 because its mounting financial problems might ultimately embarrass the White House.” Solyndra was a private company, but had been planning to use its government loans as a means of going public – so when Obama knowingly overstated the company’s condition in order to help his friends at Solyndra, he broke the same law that Martha Stewart had been sent to prison for breaking.
In September 2011, federal agents visited the homes of Brian Harrison, the company’s CEO, and Chris Gronet, the company’s founder, to examine computer files and documents. Also in September 2011, the U.S. Treasury Department launched an investigation.
On September 13, 2011, the Washington Post reported on emails which showed that the Obama administration had tried to rush federal reviewers to approve the loan so Vice President Joe Biden could announce it at a September 2009 groundbreaking for the company’s factory. The company was a hallmark of President Obama’s plan to support clean energy technologies.
The New York Times reported that government auditors and industry analysts had faulted the Obama administration for failing to properly evaluate the company’s business proposals, as well as for failing to take note of troubling signs which were already evident. In addition, Frank Rusco, a program director at the Government Accountability Office, had found that the preliminary loan approval had been granted before officials had completed the legally mandated evaluations of the company.
The New York Times quoted Shyam Mehta, a senior analyst at GTM Research, as saying “There was just too much misplaced zeal at the Department of Energy for this company.” Among 143 companies that had expressed an interest in getting a loan guarantee, Solyndra was the first one to get approval. During the period when Solyndra’s loan guarantee was under review, the company had spent nearly $1.8 million on lobbying. Tim Harris, the CEO of Solopower, a different solar panel company which had obtained a $197 million loan guarantee, told the New York Times that his company had never considered spending any money on lobbying, and that “It was made clear to us early in the process that that was clearly verboten… We were told that it was not only not helpful but it was not acceptable.”
The Washington Post reported that Solyndra had used some of the loan money to purchase new equipment which it never used, and then sold that new equipment, still in its plastic wrap, for pennies on the dollar. Former Solyndra engineer Lindsey Eastburn told the Washington Post, “After we got the loan guarantee, they were just spending money left and right… Because we were doing well, nobody cared. Because of that infusion of money, it made people sloppy.”
On September 29, 2011, the Washington Post reported that the Obama administration had continued to allow Solyndra to receive taxpayer money even after it had defaulted on its $535 million loan.
On October 7, 2011, The Washington Post reported that newly revealed emails showed that Energy Department officials had been warned that their plan to help Solyndra by restructuring the loan might be illegal, and should be cleared with the Justice Department first. However, Energy Department officials moved ahead with the restructuring anyway, with a new deal that would repay company investors before taxpayers if the company were to default. The emails showed concerns within the Obama administration about the legality of the Energy Department’s actions. In addition, an Energy Department stimulus adviser, Steve Spinner, had pushed for the loan, despite having recused himself because his wife’s law firm had done work for the company.
In January 2012, CBS News reported that Solyndra had thrown millions of dollars worth of brand new glass tubes into garbage dumpsters, where they ended up being shattered. Solyndra told CBS that it had conducted an exhaustive search for buyers of the glass tubes, and that no one had wanted them. However, CBS discovered that Solyndra had not offered the glass tubes for sale at either one of its two asset auctions that took place in 2011. In addition, David Lucky, a buyer and seller of such equipment, told CBS that he would have bought the tubes if he had had a chance to do so. Greg Smestad, a solar scientist who had consulted for the Department of Energy, also agreed that the tubes had value, and had asked Solyndra to donate any unwanted tubes to Santa Clara University. Smestad stated, “That really makes me sad… Those tubes represent intellectual investment. These could have had a better value to do public good. I think they owed the U.S. taxpayer that.”
In April 2012, CBS News reported that Solyndra had left a substantial amount of toxic waste at its abandoned facility in Milpitas, California.
Solyndra was not the only “green energy” company involved in this type of fraud. After Obama gave Raser Technologies $33 million to build a power plant, the company declared bankruptcy, and owed $1.5 million in back taxes. After Obama gave Abound Solar, Inc. a $400 million loan guarantee to build photovoltaic panel factories, the company halted production and laid off 180 employees. After Obama gave Beacon Power a $43 million loan guarantee to build green energy storage, the company filed for bankruptcy. After Obama approved $2.1 billion in loan guarantees for Solar Trust of America so it could build solar power plants, the company filed for bankruptcy.
Although Obama stated that all of the “green energy” companies that received taxpayer money were chosen “based solely on their merits,” the truth is that 71% of these grants and loans went to Obama donors and fundraisers, who raised $457,834 for his campaign, and were later approved for grants and loans totaling more than $11 billion. By November 2011, the Energy Department’s inspector general had begun more than 100 criminal investigations related to Obama’s stimulus. Although an “independent” review said that Obama had not done anything wrong, it was later reported that Herbert M. Allison Jr., the person who had conducted this “independent” review, donated $52,500 to Obama’s campaign.
First of all, I understand that Consumer Reports is big on protecting its copyrighted material. However, fair use does permit me to quote small excerpts for the purpose of commentary and criticism. I will keep these quotes down to the bare minimum that is necessary.
On page 15 of their March 2013 issue, a reader expresses concern about
“CEOs claiming that Obamacare will force them to reduce employees’ hours due to the cost of insuring them”
“even if that happens, those low-paid employees will, for the first time in 2014, have access to good insurance they can afford”
Before I get to my main point of criticizing Consumer Reports on their response to the reader, I’d first like to address their statement of “even if that happens.”
Therefore, Consumer Reports comment of “even if that happens” is an attempt at denying that Obamacare is definitely and has already caused some workers to be switched from full time to part time.
Given that the alleged mission of Consumer Reports is to help people, this denial on their part is disgusting and shocking.
Now, on to my main criticism.
Although Consumer Reports doesn’t specifically say that a part time job with Obamacare is better than a full time job without it, they do imply such a thing, based on their complete and total refusal to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, some workers might be worse off as a result of this policy.
In the real world, this reduction in hours may cause some workers to be unable to pay their rent – but Consumer Reports implies that such a thing is OK, because at least they’ll have health insurance.
In the real world, if someone thought that having health insurance was a bigger priority than being able to pay the rent, they are perfectly capable of acting accordingly on their own, without the government making this decision for them. What Consumer Reports is saying in its response, then, is that people are too stupid to prioritize how they spend their own money, and that the government must make this decision for them.
Shame on Consumer Reports for glossing over and dismissing the readers’ concern for and the real world evidence that Obamacare is causing workers to switch from full time to part time.
And more importantly, shame on Consumer Reports for implying that people are too incompetent to prioritize how they spend their own money.
Barack Obama is such a hypocrite. On January 10, 2013, he signed a bill that provides armed guards to himself and his wife for the rest of the lives. However, in 2004, when Obama was an Illinois state Senator, he voted against allowing people in their own homes to use guns to protect themselves and their families from rapists and murderers.
In February 2013, the following happened in Illinois, as reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
HIGHLAND – Debi Keeney says she last fired her gun 15 years ago, when she took shooting lessons.
The gun was a gift from a friend but it mostly stayed in a side-table drawer, she said, gathering dust. Then, early Sunday morning, Keeney pulled the trigger again — this time, she said, to save her sister’s life.
“I’m very grateful that it fired this morning,” she said Sunday afternoon.
Keeney, 55, said a man forced his way into her apartment in Highland, threw her to the floor and then put her sister, Donna Carlyle, 47, in a choke hold. He demanded money as Carlyle gasped for air.
“All I could see was Donna’s face going blue, like her life was being choked out of her,” said Keeney.
The alleged intruder, 33, was being treated at a hospital Sunday for two gunshot wounds and was listed in critical condition, police said. They have not released his name.
Illinois’ self-defense law allows a homeowner to use deadly force if an intruder breaks in violently, or if the homeowner believes deadly force is the only way to prevent the intruder from committing a felony.
Fortunately for Donna Carlyle, enough other Illinois state Senators disagreed with Obama during that 2004 vote.
If Obama had his way, Donna Carlyle would have been choked to death by that burglar.
The U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from killing U.S. citizens without due process. This means that they must first be arrested, charged, tried, and convicted before being executed.
Obama violated this when he used the U.S. military to kill a teenage U.S. citizen who was born in Denver. Obama also killed two other U.S. citizens without due process.
If Bush had done this, the “anti-war” protestors would have been livid. But since they were actually “anti-Bush” protestors and not “anti-war” protestors, they don’t seem to care that Obama did this.
Of the scores of people dubbed terrorists and taken out by American military drone strikes, three men — all killed in the fall of 2011 — were U.S. citizens.
But the most controversial drone strike took place on Oct. 14, 2011, when 16-year-old Abdulrahman was killed by U.S. forces.
Family of the Denver-born teenager say he had no ties to terrorist organizations and was unjustly targeted because of his father.
Prices are not just random numbers that get picked out of thin air. Instead, prices communicate information about supply and demand. So when the supply and/or demand situation changes, it makes perfect sense that the price would change accordingly.
Economic theory predicts that when the government sets the price of something lower than the supply/demand equilibrium, the demand will exceed the supply, which is the definition of a shortage. More than 4,000 years of various examples of price controls from all over the world show this to be the case.
Argentina pegs supermarket price rises for two months
February 4, 2013
The Argentine government has put a temporary price freeze on all products sold in the country’s main supermarket chains to try to fight inflation.
Argentina’s commerce ministry has asked consumers to monitor prices in the chains.
It wants them to keep receipts and has set up a hotline for shoppers to call if they spot any price rises.
The inflation that’s referred to in that article is caused by the government increasing the supply of money with nothing of real value to back it up. This makes the money worth less, and causes prices to rise. But that’s not a real price increase. So, as inflation devalues the currency, the government’s price freeze will actually force food sellers to lower their (real) prices.
If it really is a “temporary” measure for only two months, it’s possible that inflation might not be severe enough for the price controls to result in a substantial drop in (real) food prices.
But I am skeptical about these price controls being “temporary.” My guess is that the price controls will last a lot longer than two months, and as time goes on, inflation will devalue the real value of the currency enough so that the (real) prices will fall significantly, which will cause shortages. And then the government will wrongly blame the shortages on the supermarkets and farmers, and instead of getting rid of the price controls, the government will take action against the supermarkets and farmers, which will cause the situation to get even worse.
Of course, I could be wrong about all of this.
Anyway, let’s see what happens in Argentina as a result of these price controls.
For the record, here’s what happened after Venezuela set price caps on food a decade ago:
Since 2003, Hugo Chavez has been setting strict price controls on food, and these price controls have been causing shortages and hoarding.
In January 2008, Chavez ordered the military to seize 750 tons of food that sellers were illegally trying to smuggle across the border to sell for higher prices than what was legal in Venezuela.
In February 2009, Chavez ordered the military to temporarily seize control of all the rice processing plants in the country and force them to produce at full capacity, which they had been avoiding in response to the price caps.
In May 2010, Chavez ordered the military to seize 120 tons of food from Empresas Polar.
In March 2009, Chavez set minimum production quotas for 12 basic foods that were subject to price controls, including white rice, cooking oil, coffee, sugar, powdered milk, cheese, and tomato sauce. Business leaders and food producers claimed that the government was forcing them to produce this food at a loss.
Chavez has nationalized many large farms. Chavez said of the farmland, “The land is not private. It is the property of the state.” Some of the farmland that had been productive while under private ownership is now idle under government ownership, and some of the farm equipment sits gathering dust. As a result, food production has fallen substantially. One farmer, referring to the government officials overseeing the land redistribution, stated, “These people know nothing about agriculture.”
Chavez has seized many supermarkets from their owners. Under government ownership, the shelves in these supermarkets are often empty.
In 2010, after the government nationalized the port at Puerto Cabello, more than 120,000 tons of food sat rotting at the port.
In May 2010, after price controls caused shortages of beef, at least 40 butchers were arrested, and some of them were held at a military base and later strip searched by police.
One interesting thing about Obamacare is that even though it became law in March 2010, its main provisions were written so as not to take effect until after the 2012 Presidential election. This was no accident. (more…)
Here is video of Dianne Feinstein from “60 Minutes” in 1995, saying she wants guns confiscated. She stated:
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them – Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in - I would have done it. I could not do that – the votes weren’t here.”
In 2004, when Barack Obama was an Illinois state Senator, he voted against allowing people in their own homes to use guns to protect themselves and their families from rapists and murderers.
In the 1920s and 1930s, Germany was considered to be one of the most civilized and most advanced countries in the world. At the time, no one thought that a genocide could have been possible in Germany. But then in 1938, Adolf Hitler confiscated all the guns from the Jews. He explained his actions with the following:
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”
Next we have the “Genocide Chart” from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. The chart doesn’t mean that banning guns always leads to genocide. However, it does suggest that allowing guns is a very effective way to prevent genocide. Click here and scroll down to see a larger version of the chart.
I’m against the cozy relationship between Wall St. and the government, which is one of the reasons why I voted for Ron Paul for President in 2008, and Libertarian Gary Johnson in 2012.
A very small percentage of Occupy Wall St. protestors voted for Green Party candidate Jill Stein or Libertarian Gary Johnson in 2012, so the question posed by me in the title of this blog post is not directed at them.
Instead, my question is directed at those who claim to be against the close ties between Wall St. and the government, but who simultaneously helped to reelect President Obama, Wall St.’s #1 favorite politician of all time. Why did you do that?
As of October 2011, Obama had raised more money from Wall St. than any other candidate during the past 20 years.
In early 2012, Obama held a fundraiser where Wall St. investment bankers and hedge fund managers each paid $35,800 to attend.
In October 2011, Obama hired Broderick Johnson, a longtime Wall Street lobbyist, to be his new senior campaign adviser. Johnson had worked as a lobbyist for JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, Comcast, Microsoft, and the oil industry.
While Senator, Obama voted for the $700 billion TARP Wall St. bailout bill. The bailout rewarded irresponsible and illegal behavior. It redirected resources from more productive uses to less productive uses. It punished the hard working taxpayers who had played by the rules and obeyed the law. It created horrible incentives, and sent the wrong message. The bailout was evil because it rewarded the bad people and punished the good people. No society that does this can expect to remain free or prosperous. Instead of bailing out these corrupt Wall St. corporations, we should have let them cease to exist, like we did with Enron.
Obama signed a bill that spent money on bonuses for AIG executives. Prior to signing this bill, Obama had said, “when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” However, after reading “line by line” and signing the bill that protected the AIG bonuses, Obama pretended to be shocked and outraged at the bonuses, and said, “Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at A.I.G. warranted any bonuses at all, much less $165 million in extra pay… How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?” and also said that he would “pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses.” Apparently, Obama does not think that “every single legal avenue” includes his Presidential veto power.
Obama went his entire first term without prosecuting any of the top Wall St. criminals. PBS has a brand new 54 minute documentary on Obama’s refusal to prosecute the top Wall St. criminals, which you can watch at this link.
So, again, my question is not directed at the small percentage of Occupy Wall St. protestors who voted for third party candidates. Instead, my question is directed at the Occupiers who helped to reelect President Obama, Wall St.’s #1 favorite politician of all time. Why did you do it?
Here are 138 examples of Barack Obama’s lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, government waste, and other misdeeds.
In the 2008 United States election, I wrote in Ron Paul for President. In the 2012 election, I voted for Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson. Those who are of a more leftist persuasion than myself might want to consider voting for the Green Party in future elections. (more…)
Mandy Moore’s Amanda Leigh is an absolutely wonderful, beautiful, and most importantly, musical album full of fantastic songs. Country, folk, rock, and pop are all blended together to create one of the few truly great albums of the 21st century that I have heard so far. When I emphasized the word “musical,” it is because this is completely different from Moore’s first few albums. People who know my tastes in music would never believe that I liked a Mandy Moore album, were it not for the fact that this particular Moore album sounds like it’s from a completely different artist. Laugh at me for saying that if you want, but that just means that you haven’t actually heard the album. Amanda Leigh (Moore’s real life name) is a genuinely heartfelt, enjoyable, emotionally satisfying work of art. (more…)
On January 10, 2013, President Obama signed a bill that provides armed guards to himself and his wife for the rest of the lives. He did this because he understands that armed guards make people safer. I think that what he did was a good thing. I agree with what he did on this.
Obama chooses to send his own children to the private Sidwell Friends school, which employs 11 armed guards. These aren’t Secret Service agents. Instead, these armed guards have been employed by the school since long before Obama was elected President. Obama chose this particular school for his children because he knows that these armed guards will make his children safer. And again, I think that what he did was a good thing, and I agree with him. (Update: the Washington Post has reported that Sidwell Friends does NOT employ any armed guards.)
What I don’t like about Obama when it comes to the gun issue is his hypocrisy.
In 2004, when Obama was an Illinois state Senator, he voted against allowing people in their own homes to use guns to protect themselves and their families from rapists and murderers.
So, there you have it. Barack Obama favors guns to protect himself and his family, but opposes them for everyone else.
According to the White House Office of Management and Budget, federal spending was not cut by $1 trillion in 2011. In fact, in fiscal 2010, federal spending was $3,456,213,000,000. In fiscal 2011, federal spending was $3,603,213,000,000. That was an increase of $147 billion.
I’m not sure which is worse – the fact that Obama would tell such a huge and easily provable lie – or the fact that a “journalist” on national television chose not to point out that Obama was way, way, way wrong.
A complete transcript of the “interview” can be read here.
This seven minute video from the New York Times shows the story of Chris Williams in Montana. This makes me really glad that I wrote in Ron Paul for President in 2008, and voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson in 2012. I also applaud Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s position on this issue. (more…)
