GBTV - Where the Truth Lives

Election Season 2014

And it has brought us to this trainwreck called ObamaCare and we have bankrupted our kids and grandkids!

We are now headed into the 2014 Election Season and common sense and conservatism are on the rise. Please stand-up and be counted!

Reading Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election is a great place to start!

The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment

And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).

The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....

T'S A WONDERFUL LIFE

Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???

Bloggers' Rights at EFF

SIGN THE PETITION TODAY...

Showing posts with label Regulation Czar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Regulation Czar. Show all posts

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Obama Information Czar Cass Sunstein Confronted on Cognitive Infiltration of Conspiracy Groups

Video:  Obama Information (Regulatory) Czar Cass Sunstein Confronted on Cognitive Infiltration of Conspiracy Groups

In a rare public appearance, The Obama Administration's Information Czar Cass Sunstein gave a lecture at the NYU Law School in NYC yesterday, prompting Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange to attend. Watch as Luke confronts Sunstein multiple times on an academic paper he co-authored back in 2008 entitled "Conspiracy Theories" in which he called for cognitive infiltration of conspiracy groups by the government.

Brave kid to ask Sunstein straight out and repeatedly!!

Sunstein was like a frightened criminal - caught in the act.  He should just slither back to wherever he came from.

Friday, August 26, 2011

Team Obama Regulates Goat Herders' Workplaces… Morons?

What is the term, stupid is as stupid gets, or is it…   No matter, stupid is stupid and that is U.S. government.

Nanny State government at its worst.

I can't believe ANYONE would be stupid enough to create this kind of mess!

Audrey Hudson

 

Team Obama Regulates Goat Herders' Workplaces

by  Audrey Hudson  -  08/24/2011

The Obama administration is setting new workplace regulations to assist foreign workers who fill goat herding positions in the U.S.  including employee-paid cell phones and comfy beds.

These new special procedures issued by the Labor Department must be followed by employers who want to hire temporary agricultural foreign workers to perform sheep herding or goat herding activities.  It describes strict rules for sleeping quarters, lighting, food storage, bathing, laundry, cooking and new rules for the counters where food is prepared.

“A separate sleeping unit shall be provided for each person, except in a family arrangement,” says the rules signed by Jane Oates, assistant secretary for employment and training administration at the Labor Department.

“Such a unit shall include a comfortable bed, cot or bunk, with a clean mattress,” the rules state.

Diane Katz, a research fellow in regulatory policy at The Heritage Foundation, unearthed the policy in the "Federal Register​," the massive daily journal of proposed regulations that Washington bureaucrats publish every day.

Under the Obama Administration, the nanny state has imposed 75 new major regulations with annual costs of $38 billion.
“This captures what is wrong with government,” Katz said.  “I could not have made this up.”

With unemployment holding steady at 9% and government regulations adding more burden to small businesses, such as those run by ranching families, Katz said, bureaucrats aren’t helping.
“Instead of remedying the problem, the regulations make it that much harder,” Katz insisted.  “We may need a whole set of regulations just to define what a comfortable bed is.  I imagine it’s not straw."

The new lighting standards say that in areas where it is not feasible to provide electrical service such as tents or mobile trailers, lanterns must be provided.  “Kerosene wick lights meet the definition of lantern,” the regulations say.

“When workers or their families are permitted or required to cook in their individual unit, a space shall be provided with adequate lighting and ventilation.”

“Wall surfaces next to all food preparation and cooking areas shall be of nonabsorbent, easy-to-clean material.  Wall surfaces next to cooking areas shall be of fire-resistant material,” the regulations say.

“It makes you wonder,” Katz said, “how they ever did this before the government got involved?”

“Who knew we needed all of this federal help for herding goats?” Katz quipped.


Audrey Hudson, an award-winning investigative journalist, is a Congressional Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS. A native of Kentucky, Mrs. Hudson has worked inside the Beltway for nearly two decades -- on Capitol Hill as a Senate and House spokeswoman, and most recently at The Washington Times covering Congress, Homeland Security, and the Supreme Court.

But Wait… Could this be related?:

Well over a year ago I sent Neil Cavuto at Fox News/Fox Business an e-mail asking him and his staff to do a background check on all our United States Representatives and Senators to see how many had a background or at least an education in economics/business. A couple of minutes ago I saw the following report on the Fox News website. As I highly suspected, very few would even know how to operate a curb side lemonade stand. This report was late in coming but maybe Neil remembered my e-mail.

Study: 80 Percent of Lawmakers Lack Academic Background in Business, Economics

Published August 25, 2011

clip_image001

AP The Capitol Dome is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington July 28.

Congress might want to find some consultants as it tries anew to tackle the country's deep deficits. A report from the Employment Policies Institute finds that only one in five members of Congress has an academic background in business or economics.

The organization looked at lawmakers' college degrees and found that most of them -- 55.5 percent -- majored in either a government-related field or "humanities." Just over 8 percent majored in economics, while almost 14 percent studied business or accounting.

The numbers raise questions about their ability  to tackle tough economic challenges when they return from break early next month. The Obama administration, as well as lawmakers touring their districts, are clamoring for a new approach to the jobs crisis. Meanwhile, a congressional "supercommittee" is set to get to work finding $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade.

But that supercommittee may have the same education deficit as the rest of Congress. Just four of the 12 members on that committee have an academic background in economics or finance -- Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas; Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich.; Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif.; and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.

Others earned professional experience in the field. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., was an investment banker. Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, was a lawyer who ran his own practice before being appointed U.S. trade representative and later becoming head of the White House budget office under the George W. Bush administration.

Aside from Portman, six others were attorneys in their private lives -- Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.; Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. (although his real occupation is marrying rich liberal progressive women whose money he can use); Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.; Baucus; Becerra; and Camp.

Two other committee members, Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., were educators. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., was a congressional aide.

EPI's Defeat the Debt project released the study on lawmakers' academic background.

"This research suggests that our elected representatives may want to dust off their Econ 101 textbook (if they have one) before trying to tackle the weighty questions about the impact of taxes, spending and debt on our economy and the labor market," the group wrote.

So we have a bunch of ignorant uneducated imbeciles who have been on the public dole all their lives and who probably can’t even balance their own check books or control their family finances while doing a horrible job running our country. And we have an imbecile in chief who also doesn’t have a clue about running our country. Absolutely Pathetic!!! No wonder we are where we are now. IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE and I’m not talking about what Obama envisions. WB

STUDY: Congress Filled with Morons

Posted on Tuesday, July 26th, 2011  -  By Frank Lake

CAMBRIDGE, MA – A groundbreaking study has determined that 83% of the members of Congress are certified morons!

The Kennedy School of Government did a longitudinal study over the last 30 years that looked at the average IQ of members of Congress – the Senate & House of Representatives.

The study found that, despite the many advanced degrees from prestigious universities, and despite the fact that many in Congress are millionaires, the average IQ of U.S. Representatives is 71.   The average IQ of U.S. Senators, is surprisingly, even lower at 68.

“We spent one hour a month with each member of Congress over the last thirty years.  We gave them a number of IQ tests – including math problems, verbal problems and analytic reasoning problems.  The results were consistent year-in-year out.  Members of Congress are morons,” said Professor Thomas Turley of Harvard.

So what is a moron?  A moron is a person whose IQ is less than 70 on a consistent basis.

The lowest IQs typically were the leaders of the two-parties.

In response to the study, Senator Harry Reid said, “Is that bacon?”

John Boehner said, “We will not back down and we will not give an inch and we will kill the cows when they come home.  Hand me a tissue.”

Nancy Pelosi said that she would have to read the study before she could make a comment on it.  But, before reading it, she said that she thought it was “stupid.” People who do studies at Harvard are stupid.  It’s just stupid to do studies about morons. Who funded this?”

Nancy Pelosi approved the funding of The Moron Study back in 2009.

83% is a large number of morons, but is it the same percentage in the general population?

“Only 7% of normal citizens are certified morons,” said John Murtaugh, the leader of the Harvard Study.  “Except in Hollywood.  The rate there is close to 49%, but that’s still nowhere near the level we find in Congress.”

So, why do Americans keep electing morons?  And why do we keep following them?

“Morons have one common strength: the ability to dupe intelligent people.”

Many are suggesting that potential candidates be given an IQ test BEFORE they are allowed to run for Congress… or any other elected office!!

But that idea was shot down by Congress.

Morons!  -  Any questions??

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

“NO” on Cass Sunstein for Regulatory ‘Czar’ – Vote Will Be Tomorrow

One of the most dangerous most dangerous czars is Cass Sunstein -Sunstein Vertical - who isn't really a Czar; he actually has to pass Senate confirmation. And after Van Jones was forced to resign over the weekend because of public pressure after un-ending negatives that kept emerging the Senate decided to sneak the tabled confirmation vote onto the floor today. There was an attempt at Cloture but the roll call vote has been forced for tomorrow. (It would have been done today if it wasn’t for the President’s Hail Mary ObamaCare speech tonight.) So this gives us all a few more hours to stop the confirmation of Cass Sunstein

Checkout: Stop the Sunstein Confirmation!

Please flood the Congressional switchboards tomorrow morning (202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121) and tell Washington to say 'no' to Sunstein. And email, fax and call your senator’s office tonight and again in the morning. That is, unless, you want the 'regulatory Czar' to have beliefs such as humans hurting animals is the same as slavery or ‘mass extermination of human beings’ or ‘A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.’

The Regulatory Czar has the ability to nudge or tweak any Federal law on the books in the U.S.

Send a petition to your U.S. Senators TODAY/NOW. – “NO” on Cass Sunstein

Senators from your State.

Don’t know Cass Sunstein?? Related Resources to or about Cass Sunstein:

Monday, September 7, 2009

Obama Regulation Czar, Cass Sunstein, Advocated Removing People’s Organs Without Explicit Consent



Cass Sunstein speaking at Harvard Law School. (Photo: Matthew W. Hutchins, Harvard Law Record.)

(CNSNews.com) – Cass Sunstein, President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has advocated a policy under which the government would “presume” someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or her organs should not be taken.

Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done.

Outlined in the 2008 book “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” Sunstein and co-author Richard H. Thaler argued that the main reason that more people do not donate their organs is because they are required to choose donation.

Sunstein and Thaler pointed out that doctors often must ask the deceased’s family members whether or not their dead relative would have wanted to donate his organs. These family members usually err on the side of caution and refuse to donate their loved one’s organs.
“The major obstacle to increasing [organ] donations is the need to get the consent of surviving family members,” said Sunstein and Thaler.

This problem could be remedied if governments changed the laws for organ donation, they said. Currently, unless a patient has explicitly chosen to be an organ donor, either on his driver’s license or with a donor card, the doctors assume that the person did not want to donate and therefore do not harvest his organs. Thaler and Sunstein called this “explicit consent.”

They argued that this could be remedied if government turned the law around and assumed that, unless people explicitly choose not to, then they want to donate their organs – a doctrine they call “presumed consent.”

“Presumed consent preserves freedom of choice, but it is different from explicit consent because it shifts the default rule. Under this policy, all citizens would be presumed to be consenting donors, but they would have the opportunity to register their unwillingness to donate,” they explained.

The difference between explicit and presumed consent is that under presumed consent, many more people “choose” to be organ donors. Sunstein and Thaler noted that in a 2003 study only 42 percent of people actively chose to be organ donors, while only 18 percent actively opted out when their consent was presumed.

In cases where the deceased’s wishes are unclear, Sunstein and Thaler argued that a “presumed consent” system would make it easier for doctors to convince families to donate their loved one’s organs.

Citing a 2006 study, Thaler and Sunstein wrote: “The next of kin can be approached quite differently when the decedent’s silence is presumed to indicate a decision to donate rather than when it is presumed to indicate a decision not to donate. This shift may make it easier for the family to accept organ donation.”

The problem of the deceased’s family is only one issue, Sunstein and Thaler said, admitting that turning the idea of choice on its head will invariably run into major political problems, but these are problems they say the government can solve through a system of “mandated choice.”

“Another [problem] is that it is a hard sell politically,” wrote Sunstein and Thaler. “More than a few people object to the idea of ‘presuming’ anything when it comes to such a sensitive matter. For these reasons we think that the best choice architecture for organ donations is mandated choice.”

Mandated choice is a process where government forces you to make a decision – in this case, whether to opt out of being an organ donor to get something you need, such as a driver’s license.

“With mandated choice, renewal of your driver’s license would be accompanied by a requirement that you check a box stating your organ donation preferences,” the authors stated. “Your application would not be accepted unless you had checked one of the boxes.”
To ensure that people’s decisions align with the government policy of more organ donors, Sunstein and Thaler counseled that governments should follow the state of Illinois’ example and try to influence people by making organ donation seem popular.

“First, the state stresses the importance of the overall problem (97,000 people [in Illinois] on the waiting list and then brings the problem home, literally (4,700 in Illinois),” they wrote.

“Second, social norms are directly brought into play in a way that build on the power of social influences [peer pressure]: ‘87 percent of adults in Illinois feel that registering as an organ donor is the right thing to do’ and ’60 percent of adults in Illinois are registered,’” they added.

Sunstein and Thaler reminded policymakers that people will generally do what they think others are doing and what they believe others think is right. These presumptions, which almost everyone has, act as powerful factors as policymakers seek to design choices.
“Recall that people like to do what most people think is right to do; recall too that people like to do what most people actually do,” they wrote. “The state is enlisting existing norms in the direction of lifestyle choices.”

Thaler and Sunstein believed that this and other policies are necessary because people don’t really make the best decisions.
“The false assumption is that almost all people, almost all of the time, make choices that are in their best interest or at the very least are better than the choices that would be made [for them] by someone else,” they said.

This means that government “incentives and nudges” should replace “requirements and bans,” they argued.

Neither Sunstein nor Thaler currently are commenting on their book, a spokesman for the publisher, Penguin Group, told CNSNews.com.
In a question-and-answer section on the Amazon.com Web site, Thaler and Sunstein answered a few questions about their book.
When asked what the title “Nudge” means and why people need to be nudged, the authors stated: “By a nudge we mean anything that influences our choices. A school cafeteria might try to nudge kids toward good diets by putting the healthiest foods at front.

“We think that it's time for institutions, including government, to become much more user-friendly by enlisting the science of choice to make life easier for people and by gently nudging them in directions that will make their lives better,” they wrote.

“…The human brain is amazing, but it evolved for specific purposes, such as avoiding predators and finding food,” said Thaler and Sunstein. “Those purposes do not include choosing good credit card plans, reducing harmful pollution, avoiding fatty foods, and planning for a decade or so from now. Fortunately, a few nudges can help a lot. …”

By Matt Cover – CNSNews.com

Posted: Marion’s Place

Related Resources:

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power – Cross Posted: Daily Thought Pad