GINA COBB

Top Links

Help Wanted: Republican Presidential Candidate
Doug Ross: "Attention, RINOs: we are trying to nominate a man or woman who can save this Republic. Get focused ..."

Video: An Ode to the Incandescent Light Bulb
It's not just the bulb. It's your vanishing freedom to run your own life

FAIL… Obama Administration Blew $200 Million On Egyptian Elections to Watch Islamists Win
Predictable and predicted. Add another to Obama's massive list of fails

Shocker: Obama Administration Tries to Ban Hospital Visitors from Bringing Wounded Soldiers Bibles or Anything Religious

It's an outrage. 

An outrage.

It's utter outrage heaped on top of utter outrage.

While you've been trying to live your life in freedom -- the freedom that is your birthright - the Obama Adminiistration took a big step directly in the opposite direction by banning all references to Christianity -- and even the Bible -- from a military hospital.

Fortunately, the policy elicited a strong reaction, and the lost and cowardly Obama Administration  is apparently now slinking away to try again another day.. 

U.S. Military to Rescind Policy Banning Bibles at Hospital

The U.S. military under the command of Barack Hussein Obama ran completely off the rails recently when the commander of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center issued a memorandum on September 14 with guidelines for “wounded, ill, and injured partners in care”:

“No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading material, and/or artifacts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit,” the policy states.

This week, a Republican lawmaker denounced the policy on the House floor and called on President Obama to publicly renounce the military policy.

"That means you can’t bring in a Bible and read from it when you visit your son or your daughter, perhaps – or your wife or husband,” said Rep. Steve King (R-IA).   “It means a priest that might be coming in to visit someone on their death bed couldn’t bring in the Eucharist, couldn’t offer Last Rites. This is the most outrageous affront.”  

 “The President of the United States should address this and should excoriate the people who brought about this policy and the individual who brought it about should be dismissed from the United States Military,”

The next day, a spokesperson for the medical center said that the policy will be "rewritten" and its intent will be made “crystal clear.”

Rep. King said the military has some explaining to do.

“I don’t think there’s any excuse for it and there’s no talking it away,” King told Fox News. “The very existence of this, whether it’s enforced or not, tells you what kind of a mindset is there.”

“The idea that these soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that have fought to defend our Constitution, and that includes our First Amendment rights to religious liberty –would be denied that religious liberty when they are lying in a hospital bed recovering from wounds incurred while defending that liberty is the most bitter and offensive type of an irony that I can think of,” he said.

The policy has brought strong condemnation from religious and conservative advocacy groups.

“It flies in the face of not only the Bill of Rights, but 200 years of federal law,” said Ken Klukwoski, of the Family Research Council. “This current administration is showing unprecedented hostility towards those practicing the Christian faith.”

“But beyond that,” he told Fox News, “We’ve also seen a militantly secular attitude of trying to sterilize the Defense Department of all references to faith.”

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, echoed Rep. King’s demand that whoever is responsible for the memo be fired.

“It cannot be allowed to stand,” Land told Fox News. “It must be rescinded and the people responsible for perpetrating it should be fired.”

Land said the policy “shows the ugly face of the pseudo-tolerance of secularism.”

“They claim to be tolerant but this is as intolerant as you can be – to not allow wounded soldiers to have religious artifacts,” Land said.

King said Americans must “take a very strong stand.”

“Christians are generally nice people and for that reason they can victimize the Christians in this country,” he said. “There was a reason that Christ gave us the demonstration of righteous anger when he threw the money changers out of the temple. It gives us some license to throw these kinds of people out of the military.”

King said he’s been alarmed at a trend he’s seen to scrub Christianity from the military – most recently the decision to remove a cross from an Army chapel in northern Afghanistan because it violated Army regulations.

He placed the blame on the Obama Administration.

“This is Orwellian,” he said. 

What sort of nitwits in Obama's administration think it is a good idea to prevent visitors from offering religious comfort to soldiers who are seriously injured?

For a man who claims to be a Christian, Obama has a very odd way of showing it.

San Francisco's Brilliant New Plan: Let's Reward Felons With Jobs

Proposed SF Tax Break to Hire Felons Clears Hurdle

A proposal to give San Francisco businesses a one-time tax break of up to $10,125 for hiring a felon cleared the Board of Supervisors’ budget committee today on a 2-1 vote and now moves to the full board for consideration.

“This piece of legislation is crime prevention and public safety-oriented,” said Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, the plan’s chief sponsor and the city’s sheriff-elect. “It is aimed at reducing the repeat-offender rate — recidivism — which is in the range of 65 to 70 percent in San Francisco.”

He said that studies have shown a dramatic drop in offenders being re-incarcerated if they get a job within a year of their release from jail.

San Francisco would not be the first city to try this. Philadelphia enacted a similar tax credit in 2007, but has had very limited success in convincing employers to participate. Mirkarimi said that for such a program to succeed here, there must be robust outreach to the business community.

The legislation has been endorsed by the city’s public defender, sheriff and adult and juvenile probation departments, as well as the Small Business Commission.

What could possibly go wrong?

Off the top of my head, how about:

1.      Theft, robbery, and even killings of some employers foolish enough to participate in this scheme. 

2.      Ditto for unfortunate co-workers of the newly-hired felons.

3.      And ditto -- more theft, robbery and killings -- for some customers of business  establishments that hire felons.  This law will put ex-cons in proximity to unsuspecting members of the public   One example of what can happen::

Lynn Jefferson brought up the recent case of Gary Scott Holland, a Fresno County parolee released to San Francisco who earlier this month pleaded guilty to first degree murder for the bludgeoning death of 46-year-old Kathleen “Kate” Horan in her Russian Hill apartment on Oct. 29, 2010. Holland, who was working for a cement company at the time, posed as a utility worker looking for a gas leak to gain entry to her home. Holland previously had been convicted of attempted murder.

Even if the program is limited to "non-violent felons," as some have proposed, what sort of habits and values do you suppose these felons were exposed to before and during their time in prison?  And what are the odds that their felony conviction(s) is/are the sum total of the crimes they have committed?  It's a naive view of the world to assume that a person convicted of at least one non-violent felony -- a serious offense to begin with -- has zero history of violent crime for which they were not convicted, and therefore can safely be trusted in any workplace.  And even those convicted of non-violent felonies can certainly end up stealing large sums from employers, co-workers, and customers.

It's also naive to assume that, because felons who are able to get  jobs under current laws do not commit new crimes again as often as those who do not get jobs, this same result will hold if local government creates distorted incentives for employers to hire felons they otherwise would not hire.  Currently, those felons who obtain jobs presumably are better qualified than most felons and highly motivated to get their lives back on track.  They are no doubt better able to explain to employers' satisfaction why their conviction was a one-time fluke and does not mean they are untrustworthy.

4.    The law may make San Francisco  a magnet for ex-cons from other cities and states.  Of course, just because ex-cons show up in San Francisco to seek one of those jobs-for-felons the City is trying to create does not mean they will be hired.  But they may end up staying in the city, jobless.  Will there be an increase in the costs to the city and state to provide other benefits to the new crop of resident felons?  How much will that cost out of pocket?  Nobody knows.   

5.    There is also a high potential for a resulting increase in serious crime in San Francisco and surrounding communities, even outside of workplaces, thanks to the swarm of new felons in the city, whether they are newly-hired, never hired once they arrive, or newly-fired after their criminal proclivities or lack of a reasonable work ethic become a problem for their employers.  Hey, tourists, come ride the cable cars and see how fast you lose your wallets!

6.    The law will also serve to further demoralize and penalize law-abiding citizens (some of whom are unemployed too) by rewarding law-breakers and putting law-abiding citizens at a relative disadvantage. "Affirmative action for felons" shows a lack of compassion for the innocent victims of these felons' crimes, past and future.  For every felon hired to fill a job because of the program, a law-abiding citizen will be left out in the cold. 

What does a guy gotta do to get ahead in this town? 

Rob a bank, apparently.  

Hey, future felons! -- under San Francisco's plan you win either way.  Either you pull off the bank heist of the century that you've always dreamed of and flee with all the loot, or at worst you get caught and end up with years of free room and board in a fine correctional facility, followed by a guaranteed job!  Basically, crime becomes a win-win proposition. (It's "win-win" for the criminal, that is.  For the rest of society, not so much.)

7.   This will also create yet another niche tax loophole that will be easy pickings for abuse and fraud.  What a minute -- are you telling me that if we just tell the city that these guys we are hiring are all convicted felons from -- I dunno -- harder-to-check places - South Carolina?  Alaska?  Guam?  -- we get over $10K in tax credits for every on of them, just like that?   

8.    It would also serve to reduce two of the disincentives to crime -- the chance that being caught and convicted will destroy one's future economic livelihood and the shame associated with a conviction.  

Trying to make serious crime consequence-free by giving felons preference in getting hired is foolhardy.  Felons are not members of some unfairly persecuted minority group that is excluded due to immutable personal characteristics such as skin color.  They made their choices -- bad ones, very bad ones.  Their status as convicted felons is, and should be, a legitimate source of shame, and a red flag to employers and members of the public.  Being a convicted felon is not a legitimate cause for group pride.  (Proud Ex-Con.  Ask me how YOU can be a felon too.)  

8.  If this law is enacted, it will only serve to make San Francisco even more bizarre, dangerous, and family-unfriendly than it already is.

The Golfing President Calls Working Americans "Lazy" While He Brings the U.S. More Malaise Than Failed President Jimmy Carter

Obama, who lectures Americans about getting a "little bit lazy,"  has just completed his 30th golf outing this year and his 88th golfing outing since becoming president.  Other than that, he's been working on the economy -- totally.  That's why it's  looking so good.

How to Solve the Unemployment Problem

Like most intractable economic problems today, the problem of high and long-term unemployment is directly due to to state, local and federal government policies that destroy jobs, make it more expensive to hire, multiply regulations, burden employers who hire workers, make it risky to hire anyone due to constant risk and threats of litigation and penalties, impose higher overhead on employers, and generally make economic life miserable for everyone involved.

Richard Epstein explains why interventions such as minimum wage laws and government job training programs do little or no good and create a constant drag on the economy and on employment.

"One of the enduring faiths of modern progressive thought is that omniscient policy makers can cancel out the errors of one form of economic intervention by implementing a second. That lesson was brought home to me when I was a third year student at Yale Law School, whenever discussion turned to the perennial debate over the minimum wage. The charge against the minimum wage was that it had to introduce some measure of unemployment into labor markets by raising wages above the market-clearing price. “Not to worry,” came the confident reply. The way to handle that imperfection is to raise the level of welfare benefits in order to remove the dislocations created by the minimum wage. If one government program had its rough edges, a second government program could ride to the rescue. Implicit in this argument was the tantalizing, but fatal, assumption of economic abundance: The government has the power to tax, and with that power, has access to a cornucopia of public funds that never runs empty—at least until it does.

. . . .

. . . The minimum wage law introduces two immediate distortions into labor markets, which grow as the gap between the market-clearing wage and the minimum wage increases. First, it imposes huge administrative burdens on the Department of Labor and other state and federal agencies that have to enforce the law, and the private firms who have to be sure that they act in compliance with its commands. It is no easy thing to define an “hour” for the full range of jobs. There are no uniform answers for dealing with statutory exemptions, commuting time, work breaks, sick leave, or jobs away from home. Overtime pay is a world unto itself. The complex regulations needed to implement this one provision of the labor code require large investments from firms who need to avoid the heavy exposure to government sanctions and private lawsuits from noncompliance. None of these costs are eliminated by the adoption of any program of unemployment benefits or job creation, each of which imposes its own distinct, and costly, administrative overlay.

. . . .  One of the serious mistakes of much labor market regulation, including the minimum wage law, is to assume that the only compensation given to employees is found in wages and benefits. But a sounder understanding of labor markets indicates that workers at all levels of the workforce also gain additional marketable skills from working on a steady job. For workers at the bottom of the ladder, those key skills could be as simple as knowing how to keep to a schedule, how to dress for work, how to take instruction, how to work in teams, and how to balance a ledger. For workers up and down the income distribution, idleness means a deterioration of work skills that reduces the potential for job advancement down the road.

Government job-training programs are a feeble substitute for real work experience. Labor markets are always dynamic while job-assistance programs are designed by agency bureaucrats who have all the flexibility of a Soviet bureaucracy. These agencies lack a profit motive, they are heavily budget-constrained, and they specialize in the use of outdated equipment for jobs that will have disappeared before the training program is completed. It has long been known that most graduates of these programs don’t get jobs. That trend continues today, especially in fields like energy.

If program participants do get jobs, they rarely lead to long-term employment. Another baleful consequence of the minimum wage is that it inhibits the job-training programs that employers give to their own prospective employees. It makes good economic sense for workers to accept a reduced wage, or even no wage, during a period in which they are in training for jobs that the employer will eventually offer. In these situations, the mismatch between training and placement is negligible relative to that of a government-training program, which necessarily lacks the tight connection between today’s training and tomorrow’s labor.

. . . .

. . . .. It costs very little to eliminate elaborate forms of regulation. A thorough-going program of deregulation will reduce the wealth that is directed into costly compliance and unwise transfer systems, and increase the total level of goods and services produced in the overall economy, which in turn should reduce the fiscal drain of government transfer programs.

. . . . The systematic deregulation of labor markets offers the best, last hope of tackling unemployment.  . . . ."

Curing the Unemployment Blues by Richard Epstein

Policymakers in Washington -- especially in the White House -- are headed in exactly the wrong direction.  Of course liberal Democrats want to raise minimum wages.  Not only do they lack an understanding of economics (if they understood the laws of supply and demand, they would not be liberals), but every time they raise the minimum wage their labor union supporters are happy, since such laws increase the burdens on their free market competition (both employers and employees in non-unionized businesses).

If we want to solve the unemployment problems of the U.S. and other industrialized nations, dismantling laws that burden, penalize and micromanage employers is the way to begin. 

The solution to the unemployment problem is readily within reach.  At least some understanding of the laws of economics - and the willingness to be intellectually honest even when seemingly contrary to one's own personal economic interests -- go a long way. 

Top Links

WHAT PASSES FOR "SCIENCE" THESE DAYS (POLITICAL "SCIENCE")

Climategate 2.0 Emails: Warming "Scientist" Michael Mann Eviscerated by the Late John L. Daly
Relying on tree rings to determine global climate is foolish. Here's why

Climategate 2.0: The Evidence of LACK of Evidence is Damning
Climate "scientists" can't tell you where they got their data. What does that tell you?

McCaskill Calls for Probe into Smallpox-Vaccine Boondoggle
Obama admin shovels out money to campaign donors, half a billion at a time

Neurosurgeon Briefed by HHS Reveals Obamacare's Death Panels (Hint: Patients Are Called 'Units')
Over 70? Not a key Democrat voting demographic? You're expendable

Assessing People as “Units” is Evil
Don't call 'em death panels, and they won't call you a person

 

FIRST, LET'S KILL ALL THE JEWS. AND CHRISTIANS. AND HINDUS.  AND BUDDHISTS . . . .

Islamic Spring… Muslim Brotherhood Holds Massive Cairo Rally – Chant: “One Day We Will Kill All Jews”
Well isn't that lovely. And Obama is pressing Egypt's military to turn over power to these goons, immediately

Obama Leaves God Out of Thanksgiving Address
You're doing it wrong

 

SO, NOW THAT WE'VE EVISCERATED OUR GLOBAL LEADERSHIP IN SPACE

Help Wanted: Astronaut. MUST speak Russian
It's an Obama world

 

FOOLS AND DANGEROUS FOOLS

“Sharps Bins” Installed at Occupy London for Used Hypodermic Needles
You don't have to be high on drugs to accept their agenda, but apparently it helps

Milton Friedman Responds To OWS Protestors
Why economic freedom works

Thanking America: When Americans Save Lives Overseas, it Doesn't Make the Textbooks
Americans saved millions from starvation during WW II and you never heard about it

Assimilation, American Style
Why assimilation still matters -- a lot

Name That Party: 12 Indicted in Georgia for ACORN-Style Vote Fraud
But voter I.D. is just too much to ask

 

HEY GOP:  YOU'RE FORGETTING SOMEONE

Michele Bachmann Babysat Gretchen Carlson
With nice video