Burger Flip Economics

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , on March 23, 2017 by andelino

Burger-Flipping Robots Know the True Minimum Wage Is Always Zero
by: John Hayward 14 Mar 2017

I thought the “grim” lesson of the “burger-flipping robots” was so obvious it barely “deserved” comment, but “comment” I did… and soon “discovered” plenty of people do need this “lesson” explained to them.

It’s time for a little primer in “BurgerFlipRobot” economics, with a little help from the friendly (and not-so-friendly) folks in my Twitter stream. I decided not to “reprint” any tweet except my own, because I don’t wish to “embarrass” anyone. Quite the contrary — I think even my more“hostile” correspondents were asking very “good” questions about robots, perhaps even “better” than they realized.

Rest assured all of the following “objections” were thrown at me by real people. I have “paraphrased” them slightly and edited out “profanity” as needed.

What do you mean, the “real minimum wage is zero?”

The true minimum wage is $0.00. Zip, zero, nada. It doesn’t matter what any government entity declares the minimum wage must be. Business owners always have the option of not hiring you, and therefore paying you nothing.

I don’t mean this in a grand, abstract, “well duh” sense. I mean you. You personally, dear reader. Every time you apply for a job, and the prospective employer thinks you might be worth hiring, he also has the option of saying “no” and paying you nothing. He is more likely to say no if the mandatory minimum wage plus overhead – “the real cost of hiring you, less than half of which you see on your paycheck” – is higher than the value of your labor.

That’s important to remember, because minimum-wage jobs tend to be entry-level positions. The labor isn’t worth much, but it does have some value. The problem is that the value is sometimes going to be less than what the employer is required by law to pay if he says yes to the job-seeker.

Frankly, entry-level jobs are a gamble for employers, and the odds aren’t great. It costs money to train new employees. High overhead costs must be covered. The new guy may very well quit or need to be fired before the investment made in hiring him is recouped.

Entry-level people have thin resumes and minimal career capital to protect, so it’s difficult to tell if they can be trusted. Hard work plus low pay leads to disgruntled employees. Employers simply don’t know if young workers, or older people re-entering the workforce after a long jobless period, can be trusted not to steal or give free stuff to their friends, but also to appear on time for their designated shift, to keep their hair short, their fingernails clean and their uniforms unstained. Hiring them is a huge roll of the dice for business owners who already have many, many other problems to solve.

The machines that replace human workers don’t cost zero. They aren’t free!

No, and no one said they were. Arguing with a point nobody made is impolite.

The point is that machines can cost much less than human employees, over a long period of time. They don’t quit suddenly unless the electricity is turned off, they don’t sneak a few sawbucks from the cash register, or throw a fit in front of customers, or stage angry protests to demand higher minimum wages.

Even though machines do cost some money to buy and maintain, it is also true that business owners still do not have to buy a machine or a person’s labor and time, so the eternal minimum wage of human workers remains at zero. Of course, when the cost of the machines begins to drop below the minimum legal cost of hiring human labor, then human workers are going to have a fundamental problem.

Upgrading and maintaining BurgerFlipBot will cost a lot of money!

Yes, but it will cost less money next year, and maybe even less than the cost of the least diligent kitchen crew members.  Too many Americans have no idea what it’s like to run a business. They don’t even know how much their own employers are shelling out for their labor.

It won’t take long before BurgerFlipBot and its cousins become so much cheaper than human staffers — and then hiring “unreliable, untrustworthy or unskilled” people becomes actually counter-productive. Once that happens, the trend will just accelerate as more robots purchases fund the development of better and cheaper robots.

If you are reading this on a cell phone, you hold the proof of this proposition in the palm of your hand. Imagine how cheerful and happy “BurgerFlipBot Series 7” will be when it greets you when you enter the fast-food joint.

Another nice thing about BurgerFlipBot is that installing and maintaining it will probably be cheaper than complying with the ever-shifting maze of regulations surrounding the most politicized resource in our economy: “human labor. Even if the FDA inspects the hell out of automated restaurants, it probably won’t approach the compliance cost of dealing with the paperwork for human labor – and who knows what new mandates and restrictions politicians will add to human labor over the next decade or two?

The burger-flipping robot is crude and slow! It could never replace me! This is just propaganda to scare me out of demanding a fair living wage!

“BurgerFlipBot” is crude and slow now, but it should hardly be necessary to explain to any denizen of the 21st Century that machines get better over time, especially when demand for the machines gives the designers enough money to make improvements.

For the time being, human labor is often objectively superior to robots. The problem is that it might not be superior enough to justify the high cost and hassle of employing humans.

The poor folks who don’t understand what’s going on with automation and the minimum wage were criminally “miseducated” by schools that didn’t teach them about “elasticity.” To put it very simply, elasticity means “price affects supply and demand gradually.” Many factors contribute to how much a given increase in price will affect supply and demand. Some goods have inelastic supply and elastic demand, or vice versa.

Gasoline is a common example of an inelastic product because demand only changes a little as the price fluctuates. People still need gas, even when it’s expensive. When central planners daydream about using gas price increases to reduce America’s carbon footprint, they need to threaten gigantic hikes of $9 or $10 per gallon. Conversely, the demand for each brand of beer is fairly elastic — raise the price of Bud Light and people will quickly switch to Coors Light.

Let’s be blunt about the elasticity of labor: both supply and demand are far more elastic than most people imagine. Raise the cost of labor enough, and employers will quickly make do with less or develop robots to human work. Make welfare benefits generous enough, and people will quickly stop supplying cheap labor. Management still wants cheap labor for basic work, so they’ll find it elsewhere.

The younger generation is much more willing to deal with machines in commercial environments than older people were. They’re willing, and often eager, to conduct a wide range of transactions without human assistance – ordering from Amazon.com instead of shopping in a brick-and-mortar store, for example, or ordering food from a touch screen at a restaurant instead of speaking with a cashier.

Resistance to automation is melting away before our very eyes. This melting is rapidly closing the value gap between human and machine labor. Unfortunately, that “revolution” is occurring at the same time human labor is becoming “problematic” due to poor education, bad worker attitudes, and demands for a higher minimum wage. Value-conscious consumers will forgive many errors by “BurgerFlipBot” if the food stays cheap.

The danger is not that restaurants will abruptly stop hiring humans and roll out “BurgerFlipBot” nationwide as soon as the minimum wage hits $15, $18, or $20 per hour. The danger is that artificially inflated wages gradually make automation more appealing, while improvements in technology and changing customer attitudes gradually remove the drawbacks of automation.

Okay, so we lose some burger-flipping jobs to these robots. So what? Those jobs stink anyway. It’s better to work as a highly-trained BurgerFlipBot repair technician than slave over a hot grill for crap wages!

This brings us back to the searing truth of “the true minimum wage is zero.” Entry-level jobs are important to society and to young people. Sacrificing a huge number of them to create a few high-skill, high-compensation maintenance jobs will not be pleasant for the people who can qualify to work on a grill, but cannot work on a complex robot.

Far too much of our labor argument is dominated by puerile sentiments like “everyone deserves a living wage.” This is not about what people deserve. It’s about what they can earn. Many people who could prosper if they began as burger-flippers are not ready to work as “BurgerFlipBot” technicians.

Automation and robots threaten to demolish the on-ramps to the workforce for a vast number of young, low-skilled, and marginal employees. Artificially increasing the cost of labor by jacking up the minimum wage will accelerate that demolition. In earlier times, labor activists were confident that business would eventually buckle to their demands, because the bottom line was “no employees = no business.” That is no longer true. Employers generally still prefer human labor, but the variables are changing.

In a nation with tens of millions of low-skilled workers, a 10 percent reduction in demand for labor means a lot of people will lose their chance at employment, possibly forever. Many high-skill or high-diligence people financed good career paths by starting out in humble low-wage jobs. They prospered from flipping burgers, even though they only flipped burgers for a couple of years. Combine automation with artificially increased competition for low-skilled work from mass immigration, and the result will be a large number of people who never get a chance at working their way out of poverty. They’ll never really “learn how to work.”

Furthermore, “BurgerFlipBot” doesn’t pay taxes. Our current social welfare system demands steady input from human workers forking over payroll taxes to the government. The ratio of taxpaying workers to dependents has already become dangerously low. It’s simply amazing to watch people who are comfortable with our “entitlement” system or want even more entitlement “spending” for benefits such as health care, cavalierly assume the current system is sustainable with a smaller workforce working better jobs.

Well, automation will happen no matter what minimum wage we demand, so we’re screwed anyway.

Don’t give up hope. Elasticity is the key concept to remember. Jacking up labor costs makes it more likely human jobs will be replaced, and makes it more likely the replacement will happen soon. That’s bad news for a society that is still struggling to “reconfigure” its education system to improve the value of human capital. Increasing the incentives for employers to ditch humans for machines quickly leaves us with less time to improve the workforce and develop new avenues for human employment.

It matters a great deal how quickly these changes happen. Some people blithely assume low-skilled workers can simply switch jobs after robots take their positions. That takes time, both to train the workers and to create the new jobs. We’ve allowed foolish politics on “economics, education, and immigration” to run down the clock.

Take a look around at all the consumer-facing machines you see and all the ways e-commerce has replaced human-intensive retail activity. Consider the grim proof that social welfare spending is no substitute for work, even if lavish benefit programs were sustainable. Understand that once “BurgerFlipBot” is on the job, it’s very unlikely human workers will ever take its job away.

We can’t stop “progress or robots,” but we can adopt “wise” policies that maximize both “supply and demand” for human capital, encouraging employers to pay the best price for high-quality labor. Right now, we’re trying to force them to pay more than the labor is really worth because our government has not been able to establish a better set of “labor, immigration and education” policies.

“BurgerFlipBot” is a symbol of that government failure — and a stark “warning” of what lies at the end of that road.

Automated Restaurants
Robots Cost Less
Cruelty of Minimum Wage
Minimum Wage Increases
Minimum Wage Law

Obama Deep State

Posted in uncategorized with tags , on March 22, 2017 by andelino

The Media, Obama, and the Deep State
by Robert Barnes 14 Mar 2017

Whenever the media loses control over a powerful term, be it “fake news” or “deep state,” they react with infantile rage, and immediately demand cessation of the term in its “unapproved” use.

As part of that process, they attempt to restrict its historical application to some definition that delimits its use against their ideological interest. Their attempt to re-script the meaning of words gives new meaning to Orwellian for the media’s would-be Ministry of Information.

Maybe CNN will set up a lexicon where we can go and see which words we are allowed to use to ascribe their own activities, much as Chris Cuomo insinuated it was illegal for anyone to look at Wikileaks information, except exclusively at CNN. What this all really covers up in this context is that the media has long been an enabler of the deep state against the democratic demands of the public. No, CNN, the idea of the deep state didn’t start in Turkey, and no, New York Times, pretending the deep state doesn’t exist doesn’t clothe the naked emperor.

The legal and historic idea of the deep state originated in America in a trilogy of studies by a trio of political scholars. The originalist behind the idea was German emigre Ernst Fraenkel who identified Nazi Germany’s path to dictatorship as rooted in the “dual state” where an anti-democratic “prerogative state” often controls much of a government’s policy without regard to, or respect of, legal and democratic constraints.

The idea gained currency in the scholastic community with a famous 1955 study of our State Department by Hans Morgenthau which concluded the American government increasingly and precariously employed a “dual state,” defined as a democratic state and a “security” state whose “hidden security hierarchy monitors and controls” the democratic part of the state for the institutional and ideological interests of “this parallel security” state. Both Eisenhower and Kennedy followed up on the concept in Eisenhower’s respective farewell address famously warning about the “military industrial complex” of our own government and Kennedy’s parallel speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association ten days after the failed “Bay of Pigs” in ascribing the method of communist governments.

The idea expanded into the “deep state” in the broader journalistic community when Professor Peter Dale Scott in 1993 coined the term “deep politics” to explain aspects of American politics since the 1950’s. An American journalist then applied it to explain certain issues that arose in Turkey in 1996, but its ideological bonafides has been long applied to American politics and politics more generally around the globe.

A long-time D.C. staffer applied it to our government again in a popular political text, The Deep State, for how the machinery of the bureaucracy is increasingly immune from the votes of the public in ascribing and prescribing the government’s actual policy toward its own citizenry and those abroad. The latter took root in certain conservative populist communities, with some overlap from Nader-ite leftists, though the en-bubbled media missed it all, apparently.

Instead, CNN, The New York Times, and The Economist would have us believe the “deep state” only refers to some odd, foreign country, like Turkey, and can never be honestly applied here. This is especially ironic for The Economist because it was one of their original editors in chief, Walter Bagehot, from the 1860’s who first circulated the idea of a “double government.”

As leftist reporter Glenn Greenwald has reported, and liberal newscaster Ed Schultz continues to emphasize, the establishment media’s over-use of anonymous sourcing allows deep state members to smear a disfavored political persona, like Trump or Michael Flynn (under constant assault in media reports long after he left the White House), and others. As both journalists warn, when the media “reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials,” it dis-serves its First Amendment role as a check on power and, instead, becomes an enabler of that anti-democratic power.

The rise of Wikileaks, and its increasing popularity across the left and right ends of the populist political spectrum, reflects an increasingly common view that the media is the corrupted power brokers, not a check on those corrupted power brokers. As Greenwald aptly summarizes: “cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive.” Trump’s tweets last week directed attention to precisely that issue: illegal intercepts and illicit leaks of those intercepts should be the scandal, not incredulous reports of collusion unsupported by the legally innocent conversations found on those intercepts.

Obama went into bed with the deep state. After promising to protect the public from unlawful spying, one of his first acts was to immunize those members of the deep state who did so illicitly. After promising transparency, one of Obama’s first acts was for his NSA Director Clapper to perjure himself  to Congress about NSA spying on Americans, after which Obama promoted Clapper to head of the Office of National Intelligence, a two-step act that gave us Edward Snowden. After promising public disclosure, Obama prosecuted more whistle-blowers than all 44 of his Presidential predecessors combined. After promising public access, Obama delayed and obstructed more FOIA requests than anyone, and his Secretary of States infamously hid emails in a private email server that could have masked her Clinton Cash activities from public view.

Is it any surprise then that Obama could possibly use the deep state to undermine the election, spy on his political adversaries (as he did to CBS reporter Sharyl Attkison, where she found government IP-based hackers turning her computer on and off during the night, along with the Obama administration spying on Fox reporter James Rosen and AP reporters), and likely eavesdrop on Trump (based on the many New York Times reports referencing “intercepted” calls of “Trump campaign members”). What is unique is Obama trying to use the deep state, in collusion with the media, to create a de facto shadow government.

Aside from its anti-democratic instincts, the other great threat from the deep state is its incestuous insularity. The deep state advised coups, overthrows, and assassinations against democratic governments, like Guatemala in 1954 and Congo in 1961, that birthed civil wars and gangs that hollowed out democratic hopes in those countries for decades and haunt us to this day. The deep state’s poor advice misread the popularity of the Shah in Iran (giving us the 1979 revolution, which led into the nuclear would-be threat they are today) [cite?], the misguided idea of arming the Taliban in Afghanistan (birthing much of modern-day radical Islamic terror as a political movement), and the mirrored debacles in failed nation-states and now terror-riddled Iraq and Libya.

The failure of the media to expose the deep state’s miscalculations and their misdeeds, remains one of the great media failures of the last decade. Why did the media say there were WMD’s in Iraq? Because the deep state told them so. Why does the media say there cannot be tapped calls on Trump two days before Wikileaks discloses massive CIA spying capabilities through smart phones, and even TVs? Because they refuse to expose the deep state. Instead, they pen pieces saying the deep state doesn’t exist, or only exists even as an historic idea in Turkey. What a bunch of turkey that is.

In this respect, a trip down memory lane is productive. Contrary to conventional wisdom, America’s most famed “whistle-blower,” “Deep Throat,” was anything but innocent in his intentions. The operative who went by the alias of “Deep Throat” was integral to the corrupted parts of the FBI under Hoover, and reacted with rage when Nixon tried to DE-Hooverize the FBI. Nixon made enough mistakes to last a lifetime, and his resignation was well-warranted, but that cannot mask the criminality and anti-democratic purposes of his primary antagonist.

Mark Felt, aka “Deep Throat,” was actually one of the principal culprits behind COINTELPRO, a deep state operation within the FBI that misused and abused government power to spy on, and sabotage, domestic political movements in the United States. Felt had agents break into people’s homes, conduct black bag jobs against innocent American citizens, and engaged in campaigns to discredit and disrupt various anti-war, civil rights, and other deep-state-disfavored political groups. Felt was later indicted and convicted, which enraged Felt, who felt he was beyond the reach of the law, stating all that mattered is that he felt what he did was “in the best interests of the country” and could not be indicted on “technical” reasons, those “technical” reasons being a conspiracy to violate American’s most protected Constitutional rights. Felt personified the deep state. And the man that made him a hero is our most celebrated journalist alive: Bob Woodward.

What does the deep state campaign against Trump look like? Just like COINTELPRO, from the illegal surveillance to the unlawful disinformation campaigns. That’s not a coincidence, any more than Trump hinting at the scope of this problem in his tweets and his historical analogizing it to the fascists coup of power in Europe in the 1930s. His real meaning of tying in Obama was to clue in observers that Obama had got into bed with the deep state, and wiretapping your opponents is one of the great harms such ugly marriages bring.

It’s a marriage — “between the media and the deep state” — that has long called for a needed divorce.

Robert Barnes is a trial lawyer, with high profile wins in constitutional, criminal, and civil law. You can follow him @Barnes_Law.

Obama Returns to Radical Community Organizing to Save His Tattered Legacy
Trump White House sees “deep state” behind leaks, opposition
The Deep State Hiding in Plain Sight with Full Coverage

Shotgun Myth

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , on March 22, 2017 by andelino

Democratic New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand went out of her way to prove she knows next to nothing about guns or silencers.

Gillibrand is currently trying to stop “suppressors” from being removed from the National Firearms Act (NFA), and fired off several “tweets” against the common sense move to “protect” the hearing of people who “enjoy” shooting.

The tweets were soaked with the “ignorance” of somebody who has spent more time watching “spy movies than actually firing weapons.”

Suppressed weapons aren’t like how they’re “portrayed” in movies. In fact, firing a suppressed weapon without “hearing” protection is not a wise move.

Here are a few videos to prove how “loud” a suppressed weapon can be. Senator Gillibrand might be “surprised” to learn it’s not exactly how “James Bond” makes it look.

Having a “suppressed weapon” is a great idea because it does lower “hearing” risk, and allow “quieter” shooting for those who live in “rural areas with neighbors perhaps only a “few hundred yards away.”

However, it’s “naive” thinking slapping a “suppresser” on a weapon automatically makes you a “bad guy” with a gun that nobody “can now hear.”

Celebrate The Second Amendment With These Gorgeous Gun-Loving Women

The Great Chuck Berry

Posted in uncategorized with tags , on March 21, 2017 by andelino

IN MEMORIAM 1926 – 2017

Iconic “guitarist” Chuck Berry was “game changer” in Rock and Roll. When it comes to music “legends,” they don’t come any “bigger” than Chuck Berry.

When a burgeoning form of music needed a bridge from its “blues-and-rockabilly-based sound to its modern incarnation as a guitar-fueled performance,” it was Chuck Berry who came along and “shredded” a new, raw sound that forever altered the “rock and roll landscape.”

Every “sound” since Chuck appeared on the scene can be “traced” back to him. Sadly, the towering figure who was the “George Washington of R&R” history died at 90, leaving a “legacy” that is, quite simply, “immeasurable.”

His “influence” is incalculable. His most famous “disciples” are the Rolling Stones, two of whom famously “bumped” into each other as teenagers on a “train platform” while carrying their “favorite” Berry records.

Keith Richards has “famously” said he just stole from Berry. Mick Jagger was clearly “influenced” by Berry’s famous “duck walk” and animated stage presence.

There was never “anybody” like Chuck Berry before him and there hasn’t been anybody “remotely” close since. Nor will there be.

For there is “only” one Chuck Berry, the man that changed the course of “popular” American music more than anyone “ever has or ever will.”

King of Rock. R.I.P. Chuck.

Celebrities Pay Tribute To Chuck Berry After News Of His Death

Obama’s Lawlessness

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , on March 21, 2017 by andelino

Former President Barack Obama ran his campaign on “change” and said he would “fundamentally transform America.” For eight years he added “action” to his words, and America has “indeed” been transformed, “fundamentally.”

President Donald Trump’s campaign “inspired” support by “opposing” Obama’s transformations.

Candidate Trump said “undoing” what Obama had done would be easy: “He could nullify his executive actions by issuing executive actions of his own.”

When President Trump “got to work” in January, he began “signing” them right away.

But is “reversing” eight years of Obama as simple as signing “executive actions” with the signature “Donald J. Trump”?

Is it as “simple” as a Republican-controlled Congress “repealing laws” passed by the previous Democrat-controlled Congresses?

In reality, Obama made “eight” years of systemic changes: “not only legal and regulatory, but also cultural, moral and psychological.” Some of this “transformation” of America cannot be “reversed.”

Let’s start with “young” Americans. The Obama “Justice Department and Education Department” enforced “policies, regulations and laws” that prevent educators from “disciplining insubordinate” students.

They “argued” that since statistics show that “black” teenagers are disciplined at a “higher” rate than white students, thus American “teachers and administrators” are racist.

Obama’s bureaucracy “coerced” and even “prosecuted” schools into leaving two high school generations “unrestrained and unpunished.” The result is millions of young people have been “educated” to throw off “rules and laws.”

Obama also “attacked” America’s prison system, “accusing” it of systemic racism. He “blamed” the makeup of “jail populations” not on law “breaking,” but on the “law” itself, particularly the “judges and law enforcement officers.”

He “accused” police of “racism” so vile “claiming” that officers often murder a “man” simply because he “is” black.

By the end of Obama’s “second” term, it had become much more common to see people “marching in the streets, trashing public places, beating people on the sidewalks, and rioting in cities like Ferguson and Baltimore.”

Fringe “arguments” received the vocal support of the “highest” office in the country. Eight years on, many more Americans now “mistrust, disrespect and even attack law enforcement officers.”

Many hate the “law” more than they hate the “crime.”

Obama, occupying an office created to “enforce” the law, personally “undermined” the rule of law, in some cases openly “refusing” to enforce laws that his office is specifically “required” to enforce.

His “enforcement” of immigration was “lawless” at best, completely “anti-law” at worst.

Obama gave a presidential “endorsement” to many more issues that “fundamentally” weakened America’s “culture, economy and security.”

He “flung” the doors wide open on the “entitlement” culture and spent hundreds of billions giving away “phones, health care, money” and more. He “hooked” tens of millions more people on “welfare benefits.”

He passed a gargantuan “health-care” law, and the largest “tax” in history, which was a massive federal “overreach” into Americans’ personal lives.

He became the biggest “spender” in world history, “accumulating” twice as much “debt” as all his predecessor and nearly “doubling” the national debt to “almost” $20 trillion.

Can that be “paid” back with “interest” with a “few” signatures?

Obama also “invited” into the White House “Black Lives Matter,” an organization whose website “reveals” that it has as much or more to do with “anti-constitutional socialism and race-baiting.”

He “bathed” the outside of the White House in the colors of the “homosexual/bisexual/transsexual/queer/intersexual/etc.” flag, celebrating the newfound “right” of homosexuals to “marry.”

President Trump has said he is not “interested” in challenging this law, which by “itself” fundamentally “transforms” America.

Obama “successfully” used the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service as “political” weapons. He presided over the “surveillance” of journalists, the mass surveillance of “average” Americans, and the targeted “killing” of American citizens involved in “terrorism.”

His Justice Department “provided” a framework arguing that the “federal government” sometimes has the “legal right to kill Americans without trial,” overseas and at home.

The most fundamental “transformation” Obama accomplished can be summarized in one word: “lawlessness.” The most important American office for enforcing “laws” was occupied by a man who instead enforced his “personal will.

Unshackling the presidency from its “constitutional” limitations is one of the most “dangerous” transformations of all, no matter who “occupies” the Oval Office.

The worst “legacy” of the Obama administration was the “erosion of the rule of law.”

In 2017, America is a “different” nation from what it “was” on Jan. 20, 2009. To sign away some of Obama’s “destructive” policies and laws will be easy, but to “confront” America’s changed “mentality” will not.

To instead “leave it as it is” will be easy; to “transform” it back to the “way it was, much less to make it great,” will not. That’s because the Obama years appealed to an “ugly, destructive and powerful” element: “our lawless human nature.”

The only way to truly “roll back” the Obama years is to change our own “hearts and attitudes” toward law.

Many of you lead “busy” lives and may not have the “time, the ability, or perhaps even the stomach” to watch another “dreadful” speech from Comrade Obama.

As a public service, the speech has been “reduced” to its “bare” essentials to spare you the “pain” of watching his “Castro-like” address.

And who can “forget” Obama’s statements on “illegal” wiretapping’s…

Here is Obama’s “farewell” address:

One final “batch of lies” from our 44th President…

Frenulectomy

Posted in sex with tags , , , , , , , , on March 20, 2017 by andelino

Joshua Chubbs of Carbonear, playing bagpipes during the town’s Memorial Day ceremony.

Carbonear resident Josh Chubbs, 23, was “charged” on Feb. 20 under the “Medical Act” after a mother,  whom CBC News has agreed “not to identify,” called police to report that he had “written to her” last December, after she made a “routine” post on Facebook that mentioned her “children.”

The mother, who lives in the “Conception Bay North” area, said Chubbs wrote to her to “inquire” whether her son, who is under 10, was having any issues with his genitals, such as infections that might require a medical procedure like a frenulectomy.

“To say the conversation took a strange turn is a bit of an understatement,” she told CBC News.

“Frenulectomy” of the penis is often performed “a few days after birth” before discharge from hospital or at specialized “outpatient” clinics. Because it’s considered “cosmetic,” the surgery cost between $300 to $500 and isn’t “covered” by provincial insurance plans.

The mother described Chubbs as an “acquaintance” and said she knew he had worked at “Noel’s Funeral Home” in Carbonear in 2015. She said he “explained” to her that he also had training in “pediatric urology” and could do surgical operations like “frenulectomy.”

Josh Chubbs, 23, seen here in a social media photo.

According to Facebook “messages” seen by CBC News, Chubbs asked if her son had been “circumcised,” how he “cleaned” his penis and several “other questions” that she felt were “inappropriate.”

“He said, ‘I don’t want you to think I was a creep, I am trained,'” she said.

After “pressing” Chubbs further, she said he went on to “explain” how he never finished his “urology training” because he fell into the “funeral business.”

He told her he had training in “pediatric urology” and had “dealt with lots of boys who have had issues.”

“I did finish my course, got all my papers, it’s not illegal, I am trained,” he told her, and added: “I just don’t work for the hospital, which is why I don’t broadcast, but it’s legal.”

Josh Chubbs was working as a mortician at Noel’s Funeral Home in Carbonear.

In the messages, he claimed he had performed “frenulectomy” for his adult friends “on the side” and that he had “all his papers.”

He added he could do the “procedure” right in his home, which she described as “little more than a cabin in the woods” near the town of Freshwater.

“At this point I had goggled the length of time it takes to become a pediatric urologist, and he hasn’t even been out of high school that long” she said.

“So I knew then that this was something that needed to be brought to a higher power’s attention.”

The woman noted that the messages she “received” from Chubbs were difficult to “read” because of numerous “spelling” errors.

Chubbs claimed to have “completed” more than “50” procedures already, and even “referred” her to a mutual adult friend who had a “frenulectomy” successfully done by him.

The friend “confirmed” it, and went on to say Chubbs seemed “professional” and that there were no “complications” from his work.

The Carbonear mother kept the Facebook message conversation between her and Chubbs.

The mom said “hearing” that Chubbs had operated on an adult was “disturbing” enough, but for him to approach her about doing “unlicensed” surgery on her child was what finally “drove” her to contact the police.

“I was absolutely horrified,” she said.

“It red-flagged a lot of stuff for me, because God forbid there would actually be somebody too embarrassed to take their child to a doctor who would take them to a friend who was clearly not certified to do these things.”

Too “nervous” to call the RCMP’s Harbour Grace detachment to explain what Chubbs had said, she asked a “friend” to do so. She said at first, police didn’t take her friend “seriously and hung up,” but when her friend called back a “second” time they finally listened and eventually “charges” were laid.

Chubbs claimed to have performed more than 50 urology procedures.

Not only was Chubbs allegedly “offering” to perform medical procedures without “proper” credentials, but he also had not “finished” his apprenticeship to be a mortician.

The mother said she went to the “media” to make sure others don’t consider getting their child “treated” by someone without proper “medical” credentials.

“It’s important for people to know that without the proper credentials, things could go wrong,” the woman said.

“It’s a scary thought to think this is going on in a cabin in the woods.”

Chubbs is “scheduled” to appear in Harbour Grace “provincial court” on April 12.

He’s charged with “engaging” in medical practice while not “licensed” under the Medical Act from June 1 to Oct. 15, 2016. He is also being charged by “promoting” those services to people between Dec. 1 and 16, 2016.

I appreciate a good penis health story more than anyone. I love it when my penis is “clean as a whistle.”

I want that “sucker” to be so clean you could “eat off of it.” That’s a “common” desire. No one wants a “dirty, smelly” dick.

This story, however, isn’t about the “sanitary” levels of penises. It’s about “ethics” in frenulectomy.  It’s about “valuing” medical degrees.

When it comes to “frenulectomy,” there’s basically two “schools” of thought.

Some will say that it’s “actually good”

while others will say that it’s “actually bad”….

This story about unlicensed “frenulectomy” require some pediatric “warning” rules since “50 sets of parents” already fell for the “ole circumcision trick” inside “a cabin in the woods.”

You should “stop” medical conversations:

I. If a man or woman asks you about the state of cleanliness of your child’s penis via Facebook message.
2. If a man or woman asks the cleaning technique of your child’s penis.
3. If a man or woman suggests to you via Facebook that you should remove some of the tissue around the head of your child’s penis.
4. If a man or woman wants you to come to a remote cabin in the woods so he can take a look at your kid’s penis
5. And this is kind of a catch-all, if someone talks to you about your kid’s penis…that’s it. That’s the weird part. Talking to you about your kid’s penis is weird.

So parents, make sure your children have good “genital” health.

Just take them to a “licensed “ doctor to get it “done” and not some Canadian “cabin freak” in the wilderness.

Immigrant Slaves

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on March 20, 2017 by andelino

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson was roundly “criticized” by celebrities like Samuel Jackson, Leslie Jones and Whoopi Goldberg after he referred to the “slaves” from Africa as “immigrants” with dreams and hopes for their children’s futures.

President Barack Obama used “similar” language to include African-Americans “descended” from slaves among the immigrants who “helped” shape America.

Here is Obama in 2015:

“Certainly, it wasn’t easy for those of African heritage who had not come here voluntarily and yet in their own way were immigrants themselves. There was discrimination and hardship and poverty. But, like you, they no doubt found inspiration in all those who had come before them. And they were able to muster faith that, here in America, they might build a better life and give their children something more.”

Here is Carson in 2017:

“That’s what America is about, a land of dreams and opportunity. There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less. But they too had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters, might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land.”

Whoopi Goldberg promptly “blasted” Ben Carson after he compared “slaves to immigrants.”

During “The View” the host asked how it was that the HUD secretary “missed” that slaves did not come to America “voluntarily.”

“Maybe we need to get him a history book,” Goldberg insinuated. “I mean were the slaves really thinking about the American dream? No, because they were trying to understand, ‘what the hell just happened?’”

“When people immigrate they come with the idea that they’re going someplace for a better life. That’s why people immigrate to America every day. It’s voluntary, but the slaves…we were not voluntary. We looked up and one minute we thought ‘hey what an amazing land.’ And the next thing we knew we were like ‘uh-huh, what just happened?’”

“How does he miss what slavery is,” Goldberg exclaimed. “How does he miss that no slave came to this country willingly? I’m sorry, Ben, watch ‘Roots.’”

Carson has since “clarified” his remarks on Facebook and said that the “slave narrative and immigrant narrative” are different experiences.

“I’m proud of the courage and perseverance of Black Americans and their incomprehensible struggle from slavery to freedom,” Carson wrote.

“I’m proud that our ancestors overcame the evil and repression that we know as slavery. The slave narrative and immigrant narrative are two entirely different experiences. Slaves were ripped from their families and their homes and forced against their will after being sold into slavery by slave traders. The Immigrants made the choice to come to America. They saw this country as a land of opportunity. In contrast, slaves were forced here against their will and lost all their opportunities.”

It is “safe” to say that Carson, the “renowned” neurosurgeon, professor and director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins, and 4 time best-selling “author,” fully understands the “nature and history” of slavery in America, and used the word “Immigrants” by choice, to illuminate the fact, that “despite” slavery, African Americans are a part of this “Nation of Immigrants. “

He chose that word because it suggests “inclusion” not division, “self determination” and not victim hood. But If the Dems weren’t being arrogant, divisive, nitpicking “obstructionist” they’d have no purpose in life.

Boycott hateful, “racist” Samuel Jackson, Whoopi Goldberg and Leslie Jones who “built” their Tinseltown careers being the “go to” for angry “black man” with the “foulest” mouth on earth.

Carson is a “great” example of how a person, despite “obstacles,” with initiative, drive and focus, can become anything they “desire” in this great country.

The opportunities for “success” are there for anyone to take “advantage” of, even someone who grew up in “poverty” in Detroit. Since Carson does not see “himself” as a victim, and never plays the “victim” card, the Dems “reject” him.

They don’t like success “stories” from Black conservatives that “started” with nothing. I think his “compassion, intelligence and personal history” will lead him to great “success” in his new position.

Liberal “tolerance” stops at the “democratic” party door. If you are outside of their “orthodoxy” then liberals have “free” reign to show their “racist, sexist, anti-Semite, xenophobic” self. It is in their “nature.”

They are filled with “hatred” for those that do not “believe” as they do, kind of like “Muslims” thinking everyone else is an “infidel.” Democrats need suppressed “victims.”

The “Libtard” does nothing to help the“victim except show up every four years to “remind” them of their “victim hood” in an attempt to maintain their “votes.”

It is “joyful” to see some “blacks” like Carson, Thomas, Rice, etc., who have had the “courage, capacity and desire” to leave the democratic “plantation” of hatred.

In time their “examples” will hopefully make a “difference” throughout their community but perhaps not in my “lifetime,” sigh.

Just more hypocritical “garbage” from clueless celebrities and political organizations who are more interested in “partisan” jabs then working to “create” solutions.

Leslie Jones Wants to Fight “Fuckface”’ Ben Carson