ScaifeNet because we can't let Soros have all the fun...

Globe and Mail
Soros Makes The Kochs Look Like Political Skinflints
Forbes (blog)
This year, Soros and his children have given some $150000 to political candidates, according to the Federal Election Commission. ...
Obama vs. The KochtopusNational Post (registration) (blog)
Robert Fulford: Disappointed in Obama? Blame the KochsNational Post

all 13 news articles »

Like all good socialists Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez believes private property is theft, so he wants to steal it back in the people’s name.  Chavez remains on an expropriation roll, having gobbled up huge sections of the Venezuelan economy, reportedly $22 billion in transactions in the past four years. For the powerful and prominent he has offered compensation, drawing on Venezuela’s oil wealth, but for many promises and litigation lead only to misery and despair.

Franklin Brito was a 49-year agronomist and modest property owner with a grievance against the Venezuelan government who wanted is day in court but became a victim of Kafkaesque frustration and denial of justice.

In December 2009, the hunger-striking Brito was taken into custody and placed in the care of the State.  He died August 30th in a Caracas military hospital.  The family intends to make the details of his “incarceration” and medical mistreatment known via the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, which has already issued a comprehensive report on the aggressive destruction of individual rights occurring in Venezuela.

The Chavez regime denies Brito had a valid land claim.  It argues he was mentally unstable and had become a tool of the Venezuelan opposition.  The official communiqué states: “we are obliged to reject the pharisaism of the media machine, the opposition with only electoral ends, and the authorities of the Church, which encouraged Brito’s extreme decisions in order to cause a death serving their dirty flags.”  Case closed!

The machinery of “the Bolivarian Revolution” and “Socialism of the 21st Century” continues to grind on, running roughshod over property rights and rule of law, ignoring the legitimate complaints of citizens, and quick to label anyone who opposes the increasingly brazen concentration of power in the hands of an authoritarian regime as either crazy, a class enemy, or a tool of U.S. imperialism.

Brito paid a high price for the injustices committed by a State that is increasingly without rule of law.  In Venezuela he has become an instant symbol of the growing opposition to Chavista misrule.  Brito’s sad fate and the forced march to Cuban-style communism will influence voters’ decisions when Venezuelans go to the polls on September 26 to select a new national legislative body and seek to regain a real voice in shaping Venezuela’s future.

A new study is showing that more young people ages 18-29 are not calling themselves democrats. That is what happens when you pay a ton of money for a degree and then can't get a job due to liberal policies and...

The Minnesota Public Radio/Humphrey Institute “Poligraph”feature did provide some thorough fact checking on Dayton’s income tax proposals and found they came up short on revenue. The report called Dayton’s plan to raise $4 billion from raising taxes “wishful thinking”; the plan doesn’t account for the fact that people with money will likely change their behavior to [...]

The GOP is preparing to dispatch NJ Gov. Chris Christie on a nationwide campaign tour, stumping for fellow Republicans and helping with fundraising efforts.Hot Air's Allahpundit flagged Christie's endorsement of...

Absolutely aaaaamazing! Here we have the AFL-CIO Secretary Treasurer, Elizabeth Shuler, sharing her knowledge with us as she promotes the union's "Get Out The Vote" effort. I still think Richard Trumka, the AFL-CIO...

How can the government grow the nation’s welfare roles and undermine efforts to support marriage, in a single effort? It must simply follow the plan outlined in President Obama’s budget: pay states to grow their welfare roles and eliminate programs that encourage healthy marriage in low-income communities. Despite the fact that low work hours and single motherhood are two of the greatest contributors to poverty in the United States, the newly released budget undoes welfare provisions that encourage work and discourage out-of-wedlock childbearing.

Prior to the reforms of 1996, the federal government’s welfare policy was to dish out more money to states as the states increased their welfare roles. Not surprisingly, this provided no incentive to transition welfare recipients into the workforce. Welfare reform did away with this negative incentive and created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, leading to dramatic caseload declines and a decrease in the child poverty rate.

Unfortunately, these successful reforms were undercut in a variety of policy moves and all but wiped out by last year’s stimulus bill that created the $5 billion TANF Emergency Fund. This fund pays states 80 cents on the dollar for every new case they receive beyond their caseload amount for 2007 or 2008, once again providing incentive for states to grow their welfare roles.

Now, the President is proposing $2.5 billion to expand and extend this supposedly temporary emergency fund. Although the President links the need for this emergency money to the current recession, the truth is that the 1996 welfare reform already created a $2 billion nest egg for tough economic times such as this. Moreover, the funding the President has proposed would not even be dispensed to states based on their unemployment rates, but would merely be doled out based on caseload numbers. Basically, whether or not jobs are available makes no difference as to how many people can receive federal assistance.

Unfortunately, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) has jumped on the bandwagon with the President, but has proposed even greater expansions to the welfare system. His legislation would allow states to collect as much federal money as they need to support their caseload (provided that the state does not receive more than 50 percent of its annual TANF dollars). Both Obama and McDermott have a clear message for states: increase the dole and the government will increase your pay.

Not only does the President plan to expand welfare, but he has also eliminated the program that aims to eliminate single motherhood, one of the greatest contributors to poverty in the United States. In 2005, Bush implemented the healthy marriage program to help those from low-income communities learn skills for building strong marriages. To replace this program, President Obama has introduced his “Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund.” While this sounds similar in name, it is in fact just another jobs program, and focuses very little on fatherhood, marriage, or families.

The welfare reforms of 1996 encouraged individual liberty, promoting work and freedom from government dependence. Now, the current administration is moving backwards and pulling its most vulnerable citizens with it. True welfare should help everyone: the taxpayer, who is allowed to keep more of his or her paycheck, and the welfare recipient, who is lifted to personal independence.

The latest jobs report showed the unemployment rate ticking up to 9.6 percent, putting the final nail in the coffin of recovery summer. The Obama Administration announced “Recovery Summer” last June to highlight the expected gains in jobs and economic strength resulting from Obama’s stimulus. Not. The economy is literally sliding into the fall.

President Obama, who has already tried a massive and massively ineffectual stimulus bill followed by a series of policy gimmicks (cash for clunkers, tax credits for first-time homebuyers) has announced that, once again, he is focusing intently on the economy. The following from The Washington Post is telling:

His advisers described his attentiveness—noting, for example, that he discussed the economy with New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I) for 15 minutes before golfing—but got little traction.

It is comforting to know the President has time to discuss the economy with the mayor of New York City—and to learn that he could spend 15 minutes doing so. Fifteen whole minutes he could slip into his busy schedule between golf rounds.

There is in fact a good explanation for the President’s inability to spend more time on creating the millions of jobs he promised. As is now evident, he just does not know what else to try. The policies that would work—tax relief, spending cuts, free trade, reducing regulations—are anathema to him and his ideology. So, he can either change course or play golf.

Sometimes we feel like we're in an amusement park funhouse as we participate in the present conservative movement's battle to confront our culture: The mirrors are distorted; the corners are dark; and a new shock is...

The rebound in the labor market that was so promising in the spring wilted under the summer heat.

Because the EPA's got it covered! This just in from Reuters: The EPA also has moved to regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources such as power plants and factories. Starting next year the EPA will require large...

The new Jennifer Aniston movie THE SWITCH flopped miserably in its opening weekend, finishing eighth at the box office despite its popular star and huge promotional budget.This is the third example this year of sharp...

Belying the image of the “liberated” working mother, a recent National Review Online commentary cites research by Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, showing that, for the vast majority married moms, the workplace is not the top choice of where they want to spend their days.

In reviewing data from the 2000 National Survey of Marriage and Family Life, Wilcox found that only 18 percent of married women with children said they would prefer to work full-time, in contrast to 46 percent who would prefer to work part-time and 36 percent who said that they would prefer to stay at home. In addition, among married moms who were working full-time, nearly 75 percent said they would rather work fewer hours or not at all.

A bevy of sociological studies show that the mother’s intuition regarding what is best for her children is on the mark. Research throughout the last two decades reveals that children who attend day care centers are more likely to exhibit problem behavior and poor social skills than those being cared for by their parents. Furthermore, the children’s problem behavior is more pronounced the younger they are when they enter day care and the more hours they spend in center care each week.

The association between hours in day care and behavioral problems is prevalent regardless of socioeconomic status. And, sadly, the effects of time spent in day care centers can be long-term, with problem behavior extending even to middle-school years.

Research also indicates that the link between day care center attendance and problem behavior might be traced to an insecure mother–child attachment associated with extended hours in non-maternal care.

In addition to these socio-emotional difficulties are the health risks and propensity to infections and illness that numerous studies have found to be associated with day care center attendance.

In sum, years of research underscore the importance of mothers’ instinctive desire to be with their children: Mother’s intuition trumps the feminist icon. Taxpayers and policymakers should work to promote policies that would enable moms to make the choice to stay at home and care for their children.

In celebration of the holiday, here is a Labor Day trivia quiz, questions courtesy of the holiday zone.

1. When is Labor Day observed in the United States and Canada?

A. September 1
B. the first Monday in September
C. the second Monday in September
D. May 1

2. Which of these countries celebrates Labor Day on May 1st?
A. China
B. Canada
C. New Zealand
D. Japan

3. Who is widely believed to be the father of Labor Day in America?
A. Henry Ward Beecher
B. Peter McGuire
C. Abraham Lincoln
D. Samuel Gompers

4. Which President signed the bill making Labor Day a National Holiday?
A. William McKinley
B. Benjamin Harrison
C. Chester Arthur
D. Grover Cleveland

5. Which city in the United States was the first to celebrate Labor Day?
A. Atlanta, Georgia
B. Chicago, Illinois
C. San Francisco, California
D. New York City, New York

6. What nickname was assigned to 19th century labor activist Peter McGuire?
A. Disturber of the Public Peace
B. The People's Spokesperson
C. The Voice of the Multitudes
D. Rabblerouser

7. When is the first labor strike in U. S. history believed to have occurred?
A. 1636
B. 1872
C. 1886
D. 1829

8. When was the first Labor Day parade held in America?
A. 1776
B. 1872
C. 1882
D. 1902

You can either follow the link to the source of this labor day trivia quiz for the answers, or read them at the end of the day on Monday here on Penigma.  Enjoy!

Mark Dayton demanded that GOP trackers start wearing uniforms. That’s not the kind of challenge you put in front of Derek “Chief” Brigham from Freedom Dogs. He’s got 12 potential designs.  My favorite: Check ‘em all out here.  Details of the challenge here. It’s actually a contest put on by the MNGOP.  Contenders will be unveiled Labor Day morning at [...]

Mission Accomplished?Ya know, maybe it's our faults for assuming he meant this summer.

I know, it's really mean to do this, but I thought we ought to share this little bit of information:

Two-thirds of New York City residents want a planned Muslim community center and mosque to be relocated to a less controversial site farther away from ground zero in Lower Manhattan, including many who describe themselves as supporters of the project, according to a New York Times poll.Oh, snap. There's more:

Nearly nine years after the Sept. 11 attacks ignited a wave of anxiety about Muslims, many in the country’s biggest and arguably most cosmopolitan city still have an uneasy relationship with Islam. One-fifth of New Yorkers acknowledged animosity toward Muslims. Thirty-three percent said that compared with other American citizens, Muslims were more sympathetic to terrorists. And nearly 60 percent said people they know had negative feelings toward Muslims because of 9/11.And there's this:

“Freedom of religion is one of the guarantees we give in this country, so they are free to worship where they chose,” Mr. Merton said. “I just think it’s very bad manners on their part to be so insensitive as to put a mosque in that area.”To be fair, there's also this:

While a majority said politicians in New York should take a stand on the issue, most disapprove of those outside the city weighing in: Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, among others, have tried to rally opposition to the center.So what does all this tell us? Just a guess -- the New Yorkers who oppose construction of the mosque in its proposed location aren't really being "Islamaphobic," which would imply that they are reacting in an irrational manner. They are thinking through all the implications involved.

Dayton has changed the rhetoric on his tax plan and now claims the $130,000 for individuals and $150,000 for couples was adjusted income, not gross income. I’m being charitable when I say “change”, by the way – on this blog, I busted Dayton a few weeks back, contradicting his own website, in a piece aptly entitled [...]

The White House hailed last year’s “cash for clunkers” program as a successful government initiative that stimulated the economy, particularly the ailing auto industry. It provided $3,500–$4,500 rebates to consumers who purchase more fuel efficient cars and trade in their old vehicles, which dealerships then destroyed.

President Obama’s economic team said cash for clunkers lured consumers who would have bought a new car two to three years in the future into the immediate market. However, a new study from economists Amir Sufi of the University of Chicago and Atif Mian of University of California-Berkeley suggests otherwise. According to NPR:

The government’s “cash for clunkers” program boosted auto sales by 360,000 during the two months it was in place, according to a new study. But in the seven months that followed, sales were down by 360,000 compared to what they would have been without the program, the study found.

The implication: The program didn’t bring new buyers into the market. But it encouraged people who would have bought a car anyway to make their purchase a few months sooner.

Although it’s impossible to know what the economy would have done absent cash-for-clunkers, the authors of the study attempted to do so by analyzing “parts of the U.S. where, for one reason or another, there were almost no clunkers on the road when the program took effect. By comparing sales in those areas to sales in more clunker-rich parts of the country, they were able to estimate the program’s effects.”

New auto sales reports show that August 2010 sales are down 21 percent from August 2009, which included the cash-for-clunkers program. For those who couldn’t afford to take advantage of the taxpayer-funded subsidy for the purchase of a new vehicle, the news is also grim. The reduction in the supply of used cars—partly from destruction of traded-in vehicles and partly because new car sales are down—has driven up used car prices. The prices of some models have risen as much as 30 percent, and even the smaller models are up 10 percent. So by what measure can this program be called a success?

…you can count on in Minnesota politics, it’s that the Twin Cities media will keep an eagle eye on… …Republican candidates’ kids. Did Mark Dayton fall off the wagon in the past two years?  How severe are his alcoholism and depression?  How far down will Dayton have to push his definition of “the Rich” to close the [...]