KWBaker

BARACK BRO WRITES TELL-ALL...


(Second column, 4th story, link)

---

Related stories:

Obama refers to self 68 times at US-Africa Summit...

If there’s one thing the App Store is saturated with, it’s messengers: WhatsApp, of course, but also Facebook’s, and Snapchat, and Hangouts, and Line, and Kik, and all the rest. So why would Pinterest, a social network for exploring your interests, spend time building a messenger? The answer says a lot about where Pinterest is going — and the product itself is one of the best things we’ve seen from Pinterest to date.

Continue reading…

Immediately before President Barack Obama’s news conference at the U.S. State Department on Wednesday during “The Situation Room,” CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta previewed the conference and what he would be covering.

Among the things Acosta said Obama would be discussing was the assassination of Maj. Gen. Harold J. Greene, the first U.S. Army general to be assassinated in 141 years in a combat zone.

“The president has not yet talked about Major Gen. Harold Greene, who was killed in Afghanistan yesterday,” Acosta said. “We haven’t heard the president talk about that. Officials have been saying inside the administration that part of the reason for that is because the president doesn't want to give special attention to a general when so many soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan.”

Follow Breitbart.tv on Twitter @BreitbartVideo

Photographer Carey Wagner put a 2014 spin on historical photos of city summers past while on assignment for The Wall Street Journal.

The Los Angeles Times ran a story entitled, “Freelance Workers a Growing Segment of California Economy,” lamenting that millennials working part-time costs California $17 billion a year in tax revenue. 

Aside from the Times bizarre comment that young people are somehow shirking their responsibility to pay more taxes by working odd jobs to survive, the real issue is that higher tax rates, labor rules, anti-business regulations, and Obamacare mandates have made hiring millennials for full time work much more expensive. Businesses are increasingly adapting to higher government cost burdens by hiring the over 65-year-old seniors who are exempt from Obamacare.

The Obama Administration likes to crow that all the American jobs have been recovered since he took office. That is sort of true, but the potentially employable population of the United States has grown by 10 million since then. That means that there are at least six million more Americans that want to work but are unable to find employment.

To understand why millennials are losing ground, dshort.com website publishes a demographic break-down of U.S. Labor Force Participation Rate percentages for over 25-year-olds since the demobilization in 1948 after WWII. Dshort excludes 16-24 to avoid the rising number of people who now attend college. They focus on the 25-64 age grouping as the traditional period of “productive work force” before retirement. 

What the data reveals is that the labor force participation rose steadily from 62% of Americans age 25-64 in 1948 to 80% in 2008. During that time same period, male employment fell from 95% to 86% and female employment age 25-64 rose dramatically from 32% to 72%.

The growth of women in the workforce was the major national trend from 1948 to 2008. As Dshort points out, “the financial advantage of two-income households was boosted by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 helped to stabilize the decline in the 65-and-over participation rate.”

Another trend that developed during the 1948 to 2008 period was that the percentage of Americans over age 64 fell from 29% to 16%. Employment of male seniors fell from 49% to 21%, and employment of female seniors rose slightly from 9% to 13%. According to Dshort, “A vision of the good life in retirement, assisted by a burgeoning Social Security system, was a standard expectation for pre-Boomer generations. The advent of Medicare in 1965 and Social Security COLAs, cost-of-living adjustments, in 1975 added to their confidence in the Golden Years.”

But since the Obama Administration took office, labor force participation for Americans age 25-64 has steadily declined from 80% to 76% for the first time since 1948. Male employment continued its trend by falling from 86% to 83%, but after a half century of  consistent gains, the female employment percentage fell from 72% to 69%.

This trend of grandparents taking jobs from millennials looks like it will get even worse. In 2000, the civilian labor force was 2% over 64 and 10% from 55 to 64. But today those percentages have both risen to 5% over 64 and 16% from 55 to 64.  

As I wrote on July 30^th, the average annual premium increase for Obamacare individual health coverage in California was 55% this year, according to the California Insurance Commissioner. My personal cost for my wife and myself went from $9,360 in 2013 to $17,760 in 2014.

Before the increases to pay for Obamacare mandates, the Kaiser Family Foundation review of the annual cost in California of providing healthcare coverage to a full-time single enrollee was $4,425 for the employer and $997 for the employee. The cost of providing the same level of coverage to a family of four jumps to $11,705 for the employer and $4,193 for the employee.

There are now 10,000 baby boomers turning 65 each day, and they look increasingly attractive to employers versus hiring millennials. The grandparents have a proven work ethic, have the skills to perform the job, and come with between a $2,000 and almost $12,000-a-year advantage to employers by being exempt from Obamacare mandates.

It seems rather perplexing that the Los Angeles Times could try to creatively rename unemployed millennials trying to survive by working a bunch of “off-the-books jobs for cash to survive as 'freelancing'”. But the simple facts are that businesses have adapted to the Obama Administration’s taxes, regulations, and the “Affordable Care Act.” Add the burden of Governor Brown’s tax increase to the highest level in the nation, and California millennials are rewarded, according to the Times, with “16.2% of Californians — or about 6.2 million — were either jobless, too discouraged to seek work, working less than they'd like, or in off-the-books jobs.”

The author will respond to comments by readers.

President Obama's executive actions on immigration did not begin with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in mid-2012. It began in 2011 with his announcement of "prosecutorial discretion" on deportations. A few months later the border patrol noted the first uptick in unaccompanied children at the border.

There has been an ongoing argument in the public sphere over whether or not President Obama's executive action known as DACA is responsible for the current surge of unaccompanied children at the border. GOP members have claimed it is a contributing factor and some note that the June 15, 2012 announcement seems to coincide with the sharpest uptick in children arriving from Central America.

Progressives looking to dismiss this claim have pointed out that the first indications of a surge in the number of children took place in FY2012. Fiscal Year 2012 included the last part of 2011 as well as the first half of 2012, i.e. about eight months before DACA even existed. This, they claim, proves the problem could not have been caused by DACA. For example, this Vox explainer on whether the President's policies encouraged the trend currently reads:

while the Obama administration itself has stressed that it doesn't think DACA is a factor, officials including Vice President Joe Biden have also tried to tell Central American families that children shouldn't come because they won't be eligible for DACA — which reinforces the notion that the two are connected.

However, the influx of unaccompanied children started in the fall of 2011 — DACA wasn't announced until June of 2012.

The card's exculpatory statement about DACA is misleading. While it's true the surge of minors began before DACA, it's also true that DACA was not the first time the President used his executive authority on immigration.

A year earlier in June 2011, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released the so-called Morton memos. The Morton memos were internal ICE memos which spelled out an expansion of "prosecutorial discretion" for certain individuals who might otherwise be facing deportation. This was one of the solutions to bypass Congress which progressive groups had recommended earlier in 2011.

In August, the White House announced it would expand the use of prosecutorial discretion as outlined in the Morton Memos.  and review all current cases with an eye to separating high priority and low priority deportations. The White House announcement read in part:

Under the President’s direction, for the first time ever the Department of Homeland Security has prioritized the removal of people who have been convicted of crimes in the United States...Today, they announced that they are strengthening their ability to target criminals even further by making sure they are not focusing our resources on deporting people who are low priorities for deportation. This includes individuals such as young people who were brought to this country as small children, and who know no other home.

During the summer and fall of 2011 the promise of "prosecutorial discretion" made big waves in immigrant communities. In fact, almost immediately there was concern that disreputable people were spreading false information about what "prosecutorial discretion" would mean. On August 20, 2011, two days after the White House announcement, the American Immigration Lawyers Association issued a warning (in English and Spanish) titled "Consumer Advisory Do Not Be Misled." The advisory reads:

Do NOT believe anyone who tells you they can sign you up for a work permit (Employment Authorization Document or “EAD”) or get you legal status based on the Secretary Napolitano’s August 18, 2011 announcement! Anyone who says that is not to be trusted!

The American Immigration Lawyers Association was sufficiently concerned that they issued a second version of the memo four months later in December 2011.

It's clear from contemporaneous statements made by individual immigration attorneys that there was significant confusion about what the change meant. For instance, NY immigration attorney Allen Kaye said at the time, "there's a lot of misinformation about this and many people think there's a new immigration law, there's a new amnesty. No, it's just a policy."

In January 2012, California immigration attorney Shah Peerally published a video saying, "This is something that we have been seeing a lot on our radio show. There was a new memo that came out from DHS, Department of Homeland Security, which gives what we call a new prosecutorial discretion...however some people have taken advantage of that and are claiming now that this is an amnesty." He was relying in part on the AILA warning memo.

Word of the new DHS rules also spread to regular people concerned about their immigration status. Rep. Luis Gutiérrez held a townhall event in November 2011 to describe the importance of the new prosecutorial discretion. Speaking alternately in Spanish and English Gutiérrez described it as, "a new tool, it's a new instrument and we should learn how to use it." Gutiérrez offered an example of how he believed the new rules would be applied:

"There are 300,000 people in a process of deportation right now and they all have to get reviewed. And you have to review all of those cases using new criteria...What the federal government has said is that if you're a young--if you came here when you were 3, 2, 4, as a young child and you're an adult now and you're under a process of deportation, the federal government will cancel your deportation...Everybody always claps, all I have to do is mention two words, Dream Act. Right? Everybody claps. Well guess what. If you're Dream Act eligible under the new criteria they must cancel your deportation."

Gutiérrez went on to say that the new rules were not a new amnesty but he certainly left the impression that "prosecutorial discretion" was a significant change and that many people's deportations would be cancelled as a result.

Gutiérrez was also right that the 2011 shift represented a first step toward a kind of Dream Act accomplished without Congress. The White House's executive actions on immigration are best seen as a series of changes that built upon one another toward this goal. First the Morton memos in June 2011 introduced new prosecutorial discretion to close cases on non-violent immigrants. Then in August the White House used the memos to announce a review of all pending cases under the new guidelines. Finally in June 2012 the White House announced DACA, a more formal process to defer deportation and help people gain work permits.

The suggestion that the current border crisis can't possibly be connected to the President's policies because of the timeline is simply false. The President announced a new policy in August 2011 which led to confusion and significant concern that people would be taken advantage of by those promising them work permits or amnesty. The best evidence suggests the first uptick of children at the border began about two months later in October.

It's always possible to claim this is a case of correlation not causation, but there must be a reason our efforts to combat the crisis so far have focused on public awareness about DACA in Central America. As of last month, we are spending a million dollars on these media campaign abroad. Clearly, someone in the White House believes confusion over recent policy changes is a big factor in the current crisis.

Another poll has found that a majority of Americans want illegal immigrants to be "returned immediately" to their home countries.

A new Wall Street Journal-NBC poll found that 51% of respondents wanted illegal immigrant juveniles, nearly 90% of whom are teenagers, to be deported, while only 43% of Americans want them to stay if they meet certain conditions.

In the poll, which was conducted July 30-August 3, a majority believed that allowing illegal immigrants "to stay will be a signal that will encourage thousands more to try and come here, placing an even greater burden on limited public services such as hospitals and schools.” Meanwhile, 43% agreed that "these children need a process to determine whose life is in danger if they are sent back and those children should be allowed to stay here, while others should be sent back to their country.” Nearly 70% of Republicans wanted illegal immigrants sent back while 33% of Democrats did.

The Journal's editorial board, though, maligned conservatives who pushed the House to adopt a border bill that would prohibit President Barack Obama from using federal funds to enact more temporary amnesty as the "deportation caucus." The Journal, in a weekend editorial, claimed such conservatives – who agree with a majority of Americans and an overwhelming majority of their own party – would "raise doubts among swing voters about whether Republicans would be prepared to govern if they do win control of the entire Congress."

The modern method of roasting a turkey calls for roasting breast-down for the first hour, then turning the bird. “Turn the bird using tongs” the instructions say. (Yeah, right. Tongs. Sure, I’m going to try to pick up and flip a 20 lb piece of hot, moist meat using tongs. Not!)

Fortunately, I have Mastrad Orka oven mitts instead.

With these silicone mitts on, I can just pick up the turkey with my hands, and turn it over! Solo! No tongs. No worries about dropping it. And even though the oven was at 400 degrees I did not feel any heat on my hands, not when taking the roaster out of the oven nor when picking up the bird and turning it over.

With a quick swish with soap and hot water, toss them into the drying rack and they are clean and ready to be used again.

I did not buy these mitts, they were purchased by a former housemate. I would not have bought them, I thought traditional quilted style oven mitts did everything I needed. I had no idea I’d ever need these silicon mitts. But they are here in my kitchen this morning, and I’m ever so thankful on this Thanksgiving that I have them! I’m going to recommend them to everyone now.

-- JC Dill

Mastrad Pro Silicone Oven Mitt 11-Inch
$25

Available from Amazon

Manufactured by Mastrad

150-pound tortoise found strolling in LA suburb...


(Third column, 22nd story, link)

---

Related stories:

SHOCK: Chinese fisherman transports massive 16ft whale shark on back of truck...

Did you know that the federal government has an “Office of Population Affairs”?  I didn’t realize this either until someone sent me a link to their website.  The Office of Population Affairs operates under the umbrella of the Department of Health & Human Services, and it might as well be called “The Office of Population Control” because almost everything on the website is about controlling or reducing the size of the population.  On the site you can find information and resources about abortion, female sterilization, male sterilization and a vast array of contraceptive choices.  There is even a search engine where you can find a local “family planning clinic” where you can get rid of any “unintended pregnancy” that may be bothering you.  Frankly, it sickens me to think that my tax dollars are being used to fund all of this.

But the Office of Population Affairs is not just pro-abortion and pro-sterilization.  On the page describing their “purpose and mission”, they actually admit that “population research” and studying “population growth” are part of their core work.  The following is an excerpt from the official OPA website…

**********

Title X is the only federal program dedicated solely to the provision of family planning and related preventive services. The Office of Population Affairs (OPA) administers the Title X program and serves as the focal point to advise the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary for Health on a wide range of reproductive health topics, including family planning, adolescent pregnancy, sterilization and other population issues.

The Office of Population Affairs operates under the direction of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs.

Family Planning Mission
To assist individuals in determining the number and spacing of their children through the provision of voluntary, confidential and low-cost education, counseling, and related comprehensive medical services to eligible clients:

• To assist in making comprehensive, voluntary family planning services available to all persons desiring such services;
• To coordinate domestic population and family planning research with the present and future needs of family planning programs;
• To enable public and nonprofit private entities to plan and develop comprehensive programs of family planning services;
• To develop and make readily available information, including educational materials, on family planning and population growth to all persons desiring such information;
• To evaluate and improve the effectiveness of family planning service programs and population research; and
• To assist in training staff to effectively carry out family planning services

**********

And needless to say, the goal is never to increase the size of the population.

At least in the old days these population control advocates were more honest about what they were trying to do.  For example, Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger once made the following statement…

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

Sadly, this sick and twisted philosophy is not just limited to one specific department of the federal government.

The truth is that this worldview is represented at the highest levels in the White House itself.  Barack Obama repeatedly mentions how much he depends on the advice of his top science adviser John P. Holdren.  Well, as many of you probably already know, Holdren is an enthusiastic proponent of extreme population control measures.

The following is what one writer discovered when he investigated Holdren’s writings…

He offered that “a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources … The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits … The Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

Holdren, et al, believe this global body possesses “ample authority under which population growth could be regulated.” Hiding behind the passive voice, they wrote, “it has been concluded”—by whom?—”that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” (Emphasis added.) They added that if parents were guilty of “overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility.”

To further reduce the West’s population and carbon footprint, the “de-development of overdeveloped countries…should be given top priority.”

Holdren further, repeatedly, proposed the United States transfer $1.43 trillion to $2.86 trillion of U.S. GNP to Third-World countries every year for several decades.

Isn’t that disturbing?

This is the guy telling Obama what he should believe about scientific matters.

In a previous article, I included this gem from Holdren…

A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

But to be fair, this is not the first president that has had a nutjob like this as his top science adviser.  George W. Bush actually employed Paul Ehrlich, the author of “The Population Bomb”, as his top science official.  In many ways, Ehrlich is even more extreme than Holdren is.  Here are a couple of quotes from Ehrlich…

“To our minds, the fundamental cure, reducing the scale of the human enterprise (including the size of the population) to keep its aggregate consumption within the carrying capacity of Earth is obvious but too much neglected or denied”

**********

“Nobody, in my view, has the right to have 12 children or even three unless the second pregnancy is twins”

Remember, these are not just two nutty professors from the lunatic fringe.  These are highly respected members of the scientific community that are personally advising our presidents.

And the leading contender to become the next president is also surrounded by these types of people.

For example, a key adviser to Hillary Clinton named Nina Fedoroff once made the following statement…

“We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people.”

It is not politically expedient for our politicians to come right out and proclaim that they are for population control while they are on the campaign trail.

But if you look at their actions and at the people that they surround themselves with, the message is exceedingly clear.

So what do you think about all of this?  Please feel free to share your thoughts by posting a comment below…

Governor and potential presidential candidate Jerry Brown traveled to Mexico this week, while a team of economists for the popular Wallet Hub (WH) social media website employed a group of university economists to evaluate the 150 largest U.S. cities for 18 key factors. 

The main factor was economic health, “including employment and unemployment data, personal income changes, real estate values, poverty rates, personal bankruptcies, personal debt and crime." WH assists individuals in financial and career planning and found that the two bottom dweller communities are in California, and the two top communities are in Texas.

Wallet Hub surveys and publishes big data metrics regarding the economic environment, on a city versus city basis, for America’s 150 largest cities. They rated Stockton number 149 and San Bernardino number 150. Other than San Francisco -- ranked 20th -- California’s largest cities were given low scores. Los Angeles is 99th, San Diego is 103rd, and Sacramento 104th.

Unemployment in the United States has fallen to 6.3%, but there has been little recovery for Stockton, with an unemployment rate of 10.5%, and San Bernardino, with a rate of 8.4%. Both cities have filed for Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy in the last couple of years after essentially missing payroll. Police and fire services have been slashed, and crime has flourished.

This compares to Laredo, Texas being the top rated city, with 6.3% unemployment, and Irving, Texas close behind as the number two city with an unemployment rate of 5.4%

According to Wallet Hub (WH) analysis, “Whenever a city is left behind in a recovery, collateral effects are bound to afflict already struggling economies.” 

WH points out that a bad economic environment drives collateral problems such as crime rising, low educational achievement, and often the collapse of public administration and services. “In the private sector, property values decline and businesses shut down. If and when that happens, skilled workers are forced to seek better opportunities in more thriving communities. And a town that had little hope remaining is completely crippled," said the report.

The golden state used to mean gold for the residents in the form of great jobs and rising expectations. But as Governor Rick Perry of Texas said in an interview last year with the Washington Post:

Twenty years ago, California was considered to be the absolute economic center of America. You pointed to California and said, ‘Gee, wouldn’t you like to be like them?’ And I would suggest that’s not the case, and I will suggest to you that’s because of the burdensome tax environment, a regulatory climate that is very unpredictable and unstable, and public schools that are continuing on a downward trajectory.

Perry is considering a presidential run for 2016 based on the tax and regulatory structure of the Lone Star State as the engine that helped produce more new jobs in post-recession America than any other state. When he visits California to find companies interested in relocating, he says his motto is “Texas rising.”

If Governor Brown had a motto, it might be “California declining.” The Great Recession may have supposedly ended five-and-a- half-years ago for the rest of America, but it remains alive and well in California. The only top tier rankings that California “enjoys” today are: the fourth worst unemployment rate, highest income tax rates, highest welfare case load, and net emigration out of the state.  

The author welcomes feedback and will respond to reader comments. Chriss Street just returned from teaching “Entrepreneurship and Capitalist Business Strategy” at Ho Chi Minh University in Vietnam.

In her opening monologue on Saturday, “Justice w/Judge Jeanine” host Jeanine Pirro delivered yet another scathing rebuke of President Barack Obama and what declared to be his lack of interest in leadership.

Pirro pointed to the situations in the Israel-Hamas conflict, Ukraine and immigration as areas where Obama has been lacking.

“Let me put this in Jeanine-speak: The world is going to hell in a hand-basket and Barack Obama doesn't have the leadership, the instincts or even the interest to get America back on track,” Pirro said. “Why do I say this? Consider the following: Sixty percent of Americans disapprove of the president's handling of the Israel-Hamas conflict. Fifty-seven percent disapprove of his handling of Ukraine, Iraq and Afghanistan situations. And 68 percent of Americans disapprove of his handling of immigration and believe it to be an extremely serious problem.

Later in her monologue, she indicated where Obama has been ineffective in these areas and asked whose side he was on in these conflicts.

“At this point any rational person would have to ask, whose side are you really on? You’re so quick to tell Israel to stop shelling after hundreds are killed in Gaza. And while there's no question that everyone bemoans the killing of innocents, why did not you follow your own threat as over 100,000 were killed in Syria? And in Ukraine you really scared Putin. Investigators still haven't received complete access to the crash site. And as of today, as many as 80 bodies remain on the ground.”

“But hey, not to worry,” she continued. “Ebola patients are entering the United States for the first time in history. And on the economic front, the stock market almost crashed this week. Yes, it is a crying shame that Congress went on vacation in the midst of all this. But that you talk out of both sides of your mouth, Mr. President, my guess is that you'll object vacation in Martha’s Vineyard very soon. A little golf, a little pool, a few fundraisers. But while you're relaxing, how about you give some serious thought to reading some books on leadership since that’s what we’re paying you to do?”

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

Video footage of the Los Angeles Police Department's Hollywood parking lot filmed by a drone hobbyist, which was then posted to YouTube, prompted the LAPD on Friday to explore possible legal action prohibiting civilians from flying camera-wielding drones over their parking lots. 

The video was reportedly shot by Daniel Saulmon, 42, according to the Los Angeles Times. 

"What concerns us is that they are filming over private property and it's gated--you're looking at the layout of the police station, how we operate, personnel license plates," said police Lt. Michael Ling to the Times. 

He continued, "It's kind of like if it was your house, if they're flying over your backyard you'd start asking questions about it."

Saulmon didn't seem to agree. "They bring up the expectation of privacy, I"m not buying it. Suddenly they're talking about how I'm trespassing on a public sidewalk. They do not have an expectation of privacy... if you want privacy, build a roof," he told the Times.

Despite Federal Aviation Administration regulations surrounding the use of drones by private businesses and law enforcement, there aren't any clear-cut rules about their use by the casual hobbyist, notes the Times. 

The police claim that drone use is considered illegal if it interferes with aviation activity or if it is used to spy on neighbors, the Times writes.

Photo: File

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has angered Muslim staff by hosting a hog roast to celebrate the Commonwealth Games beneath the windows of its Arabic TV service.

The Sun on Sunday reports that a whole pig was spit-roasted in the courtyard of New Broadcasting House in London, with the smell of pork drifting up through the windows of the mainly Muslim office. Workers described their "horror" at spotting the pig on their lunch break.

Islam forbids its followers from eating pork as pigs are considered "unclean" animals. The hog roast also happened on Friday, just days after the end of the holy month of Ramadan.

One Iranian journalist who saw the roast shared a photo before writing: "Horror in my lunch break at BBC New Broadcasting House".

Although the BBC obsesses over "diversity" and issues all new employees with a survey that asks questions about their religion, sexuality, economic background and disabilities, it seems to have made an unfortunate slip in this instance.

One BBC insider told the Sun on Sunday: "Lots of people were furious about the hog roast as they felt it was disrespectful.

"The positioning so close to their offices made it seem that it was being flaunted in front of them."

A BBC spokesman insisted that no "official" complaints had been made.

I take this place for granted since I see it almost every time I visit my home in Fitzgerald, but it’s a real landmark. If you’re in the area, drive down the hill from Holt toward Ocilla on Georgia Highway 32 to Hutto’s Bar-B-Que (Tony Hutto owns this old store, as well) for some of the best barbeque in South Georgia.

NC BBQ Society has a limit of 2 places per city, not sure why they do that. I seem to recall that the guy behind the Society had some sort of squabble with Wayne Monk...that may be the reason behind the 2 per city rule, maybe.

With the spigot of propaganda wide open and Washington appearing increasingly bent on instigating the next war, we thought lessons from past "wars" might help the people when thinking about what is spoon-fed to them each and every day. "To Sell A War" is a documentary that first aired in December 1992 exposing the Citizens for a Free Kuwait campaign as public relations spin to gain public opinion support for the Gulf War. Among other things, it reveals that Nurse Nayirah was in fact Nijirah al-Sabah, the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the United States Saud Nasir Al-Sabah, coached by Hill & Knowlton to forge her infamous testimony about Iraqi soldiers removing babies from incubators, which was widely reported and repeated throughout the media.

 

ATLANTA | A device mounted on patrol cars that instantly scans every license plate it sees is the focus of a debate over personal rights and government data collection.

A recent decision by the Georgia Supreme Court only fueled the discussion rather than resolving it.

read more

Whether you're going abroad or visiting a neighboring state, you should take time to make sure your smartphone is ready to make your trip easier. These 17 travel apps are a good start.

...

Read More »

Portable battery packs for your smartphone or tablet are handy. You could buy one, but you can save money by making your own.

Read more...

Over the last 30 years, the US has built up record debts on a personal, state, and national level. Consumers thought they were financially stable so long as they could cover the interest payments on their credit cards, states created program after program few if any of which they could afford, and the Federal Government issued $30-50 trillion in debt and liabilities (counting Social Security and Medicare).

 

This all came to a screeching halt when the housing bubble (arguably the biggest debt bubble in history) imploded in 2007.  Since that time, stocks have staged one of their worst years on record (2008), one in five us mortgages has fallen underwater (meaning the mortgage loan is worth more than the home itself), and some trillions in US household wealth has evaporated.

 

These issues seem to be distinct, but in reality they all stem from a debt problem. And as you know, there is only one legitimate way to deal with a debt problem:

 

Pay it off.

 

However, instead of doing this, the Feds (the Federal Reserve, Treasury Dept, etc.) have been producing EVEN MORE DEBT. Here’s a brief recap of their moves thus far:

 

• The Federal Reserve cuts interest rates from 5.25-0.25% (Sept ’07-today)
• The Bear Stearns deal/ Fed buys $30 billion in junk mortgages (March ’08)
• The Fed opens various lending windows to investment banks (March ’08)
• The SEC proposes banning short-selling on financial stocks (July ’08)
• The Treasury buys Fannie/Freddie for $400 billion (Sept ’08)
• The Fed takes over AIG for $85 billion (Sept ’08)
• The Fed doles out $25 billion for the auto makers (Sept ’08)
• The Feds’ $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) (Oct ’08)
• The Fed buys commercial paper (non-bank debt) from non-financials (Oct ’08)
• The Fed offers $540 billion to backstop money market funds (Oct ’08)
• The Feds backstops up to $280 billion of Citigroup’s liabilities (Oct ’08).
• Another $40 billion to AIG (Nov ’08)
• The Fed backstops up $140 billion of Bank of America’s liabilities (Jan ’09)
• Obama’s $787 Billion Stimulus (Jan ’09)
• The Fed’s $300 billion Quantitative Easing Program (Mar ’09)
• The Fed buying $1.25 trillion in agency mortgage backed securities (Mar ’09-’10)
• The Fed buying $200 billion in agency debt (Mar ’09-’10)
• QE lite buys $200-300 billion of Treasuries and mortgage debt (Aug ’10)
• QE 2 buys $600 billion in Treasuries (Nov ’10)
• Operation Twist reshuffles $400 billion of the Fed’s portfolio (Oct ’11)
• QE 3 buys $40 billion of Mortgage Backed Securities monthly (Sept ‘12)
• QE 4 buys $45 billion worth of Treasuries monthly (Dec ’12

 

And that’s a BRIEF recap (I’m sure I left something out).

 

In a nutshell, The Feds have tried to combat a debt problem by ISSUING MORE DEBT. They’re pumping trillions of dollars into the financial system, trying to prop Wall Street and the stock market. They’ve managed to kick off a rally in stocks…

But they HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES PLAGUING THE FINANCIAL MARKET.

 

Stocks are headed for another Crash, possibly as bad as the one we saw in October-November 2008. As you know, that Crash wiped out $11 trillion in household wealth in a matter of weeks. There’s no telling the damage this Second Round will cause.

 

The Feds have thrown everything they’ve got (including the kitchen sink) at the financial crisis… and things are fundamentally no better than they were before: most major banks are insolvent, one in five US mortgages is underwater, and the stock market is being largely propped up by in-house trading from a few key players (Goldman Sachs, UBS, etc).

 

Regarding stock investing, it’s important to take a big picture of stocks as an asset class. The common consensus is that stocks return an average of 6% a year (at least going back to 1900).

 

However, a study by the London Business School recently revealed that when you remove dividends, stocks’ gains drop to a mere 1.7% a year (even lower than the return from long-term Treasury bonds over the same period).

 

Put another way, dividends account for 70% of the average US stock returns since 1900. When you remove dividends, stocks actually offer LESS reward and MORE risk than bonds. If you’d invested $1 in stocks in 1900, you’d have made $582 with reinvested dividends adjusted for inflation vs. a mere $6 from price appreciation.

 

So as much as the CNBC crowd would like to believe that the way to make money in stocks is buying low and selling high, the reality is that the vast majority of gains from stocks stem from dividends.

 

The remaining gains have come largely from inflation.

 

Bill King, Chief Market Strategist M. Ramsey King Securities recently published the following chart comparing REAL GDP (light blue), GDP when you account for inflation (dark blue), and the Dow Jones’ performance (black) over the last 30 years. What follows is a clear picture that since the mid-70s MOST of the perceived stock gains have come from inflation.

 

Which brings us to today. According to official data, the S&P 500 is currently trading at a CAPE ratio of 25 and yields 2.3%. In plain terms, stocks are expensive (historic average for CAPE is 15) and paying little.

 

In other words, there is little incentive, other than future inflation expectations, for owning stocks right now.

 

By most historic metrics, the market is showing signs of a significant top. Here are just a few key metrics:

 

1)   Investor sentiment is back to super bullish autumn 2007 levels.

2)   Insider selling to buying ratios are back to autumn 2007 levels (insiders are selling the farm).

3)   Money market fund assets are at 2007 levels (indicating that investors have gone “all in” with stocks).

4)   Mutual fund cash levels are at a historic low.

5)   Margin debt (money borrowed to buy stocks) is at a new record high.

 

This final point is key. Mutual funds are the “big boys” of the investment world. If they have become fully invested in the market, this means there are few buyers left to push stocks higher. This is evident in the fact that every time mutual fund cash levels dropped, stocks collapsed soon after.

 

In plain terms, the odds are high that a Top is forming in stocks. With that in mind,

if your portfolio is heavily invested in stocks, now is a time to be taking some profits. If you can, consider moving a sizable chunk into cash.

 

The market is extremely tired and the systemic risks underlying the Financial Crisis are in no way resolved. With investor complacency (as measured by the VIX) at record lows, the Fed withdrawing several of its more significant market props, and low participation coming from the larger institutions, this market is ripe for a serious correction.

 

Be prepared.

 

This concludes this article. If you’re looking for the means of protecting your portfolio from the coming collapse, you can pick up a FREE investment report titled Protect Your Portfolio at http://phoenixcapitalmarketing.com/special-reports.html.

 

This report outlines a number of strategies you can implement to prepare yourself and your loved ones from the coming market carnage.

 

Best Regards

Phoenix Capital Research

 

 

So much is in the news about pollinator declines,  peril to the food supply, pesticide poisoning of honeybees—could we not help this situation by keeping our own bees?  HoneyLove exists to foster this very practice, and all of us in the group were mentored and brought along our path to becoming beekeepers by others in the craft.  In fact, this model is the very essence of our  club—”each one teach one” or “pay it forward” to help others learn.

But, there are important things to consider when contemplating the serious commitment of beginning a life of bees and beekeeping.

Probably the most important part is to become educated by reading and speaking to knowledgeable beeks about the management techniques and time commitments involved in keeping bees in a urban environment.   Getting the bees and buying equipment  comes later, but a person should honestly assess whether there is the time in life to –

1) do hive inspections every two weeks in the Spring season when bee colonies are rapidly growing in population.   Bee colonies that become crowded from lack of space management can swarm and this attracts very unwelcome attention from non-beekeeping neighbors.

2)  keep up during the whole year to assess honey production, brood space (where the bees raise the young larva), queen vigor and other issues.   Later in the Summer, inspections can be spread further apart—about a month.

3)  be realistic about getting a honey crop.   The colony, when young, must be given time to grow in strength and resilience.   The first year of a young colony, there is NO honey crop.   The second year, you may get a bit.   By the third year, they hit their stride and you can have a fine honey crop!   (This is my experience, anyway)

4)  spend the time necessary to consistently learn the techniques and understanding of how “bee society” works.   We must always keep in mind that honeybees are stinging insects and the wider public often has a well developed fear of them.   How we manage our bees and speak to others about bees goes a long way towards changing perceptions and biases—or, if lax in management and monitoring, how we may reinforce prejudices.   It is up to us to present our best “face” of the beekeeping world.

5)  develop a mentor relationship with at least one other knowledgable beek.   This takes digging, because there are not enough of us, geographically speaking!   HoneyLove conducts meetings every month, has apiary visits to the bee sanctuary in Moorpark, and has lots of material on the website to guide newbees in gaining wisdom.

6)  coming to HoneyLove gatherings and workshops gives the new beek a chance to interact with folks all along the spectrum of knowledge and to ask questions and network for further connections.

If these considerations seem a little burdensome for right now, it may not be the right time to actually get your own colony of bees.   It is a time commitment and must be managed regularly.   Perhaps just fostering the local bees with planting of inviting flowers and shrubs is a better plan.

Joining the HoneyLove forum to explore these options with others is a great way to figure out if you are indeed ready to keep bees!

"Where does [The Fed's] confidence come from?" demanded Stanley Druckenmiller recently.

Grant Williams has an answer:

Their “confidence” comes from a series of academic models and a lifetime spent studying ntheoretical finance and then applying it to real-world situations, often with disastrous effect.

The day these people admit to themselves (let alone to the public) that what they have believed to be foolproof doesn’t actually work, is the day they render pointless their entire lives’ work.

The alternative to grappling with hard realities — in this case to continue waltzing down the path of Keynesian folly — is, sadly, far more palatable. Eventually, though, the markets have a habit of demonstrating, beyond any reasonable doubt, that natural forces are far more powerful than the whims of a few academics. And that is, I fear, what we are setting ourselves up for.

Elk Theories — observations which are not, actually, theories but rather simply minimal accounts — are commonplace amongst today’s breed of central bankers, and for the time being there are no obvious signs of their legitimacy being challenged.

But that could change in a heartbeat. Should all the Elk Theories currently being espoused (yes, Messrs. Carney & Kuroda, I left you out of this week’s edition, but I haven’t forgotten you) be simultaneously recognized for what they are, then we will see some fireworks.

If Yellen would stop clearing HER throat long enough, her own Elk theory would, I strongly suspect, sound like this:

This theory, which belongs to me, is as follows... (more throat clearing) This is how it goes... (clears throat) The next thing that I am going to say is my theory. (clears throat) Ready?

 

We are absolutely convinced beyond any doubt whatsoever that we can, through the manipulation of interest rates and the theft of savings, extricate the world from its growth-free, post-2008 malaise and at the same time extricate ourselves from our $3.5 trillion dollar balance-sheet expansion.

 

We are quite certain that we can manipulate headline inflation to exactly where we need it to be and that any aberration can be blamed on the weather without so much as a whimper from the investing public.

 

We believe that bubbles are impossible to see until they burst, and we believe that we have played no part in generating the bubbles which have periodically plagued the world over the last several decades.

 

We know beyond question that holding interest rates at artificially and ridiculously low levels for several years will have no ill effects on the economy whatsoever; and we can assure you, with the utmost conviction, that we will be able to complete the taper without any damage being done to the equity markets.

 

That is my theory and what it is too.

Like those of Draghi, Yellen’s theories are nothing more than minimal observations which hardly stand up to scrutiny but for the fact that she has stated something which IS true currently.

 

Full Grant Williams letter below...

TTMYGH_Jul_28_2014

Authored by Paul Singer, excerpted from Elliott Management's latest letter to investors,

As this letter is written, stock markets around the world are at or near all-time nominal highs, while global interest rates hover near record lows. A flood of newly-printed money has combined with zero percent interest rates to keep all the balls suspended in the air. Nonetheless, growth in the developed world (U.S., Europe and Japan) has been significantly subpar for the 5-1/2 years following the financial crisis. Businesses have been reluctant to invest and hire. The consumer is still “tapped out,” and there are significant suppressive forces from poor policy, including taxes and increased regulation. Governments (which are actually responsible for the feeble growth) are blaming the shortfall on “secular stagnation,” purportedly a long-term trend, which enables them to deny responsibility. As long as the politicians who encouraged and enabled consumers to take on too much debt before 2008 think they can ascribe the failure of bad government policies to the market system or exogenous factors, there will be an ample supply of such theories, which in all likelihood will lead to more bad government policies.

The orchestra conductors for this remarkable epoch are the central bankers in the U.S., U.K., Europe and Japan. The cost of debt of all maturities issued by every country, corporation and individual in the world (except outliers like Argentina) is in the process of converging at remarkably low rates. In Greece (for goodness sake), long-term government debt is trading with a yield just north of 5%. In France, 10-year bonds are trading at a yield of 1.67%.

Are these (and other) financial asset prices the result of the final and conclusive achievement of knowledge by world leaders about how to achieve strong, sustainable economic growth with uniformly low inflation and continued unshaken confidence in paper money into the long mists of the future? Wouldn’t that scenario be wonderful, and wouldn’t it be a perfectly justified extrapolation of the miraculous modern scientific wizardry that has given us tiny devices that fit in the palms of our hands and can tell us the history of the Spanish Civil War, make movie reservations and hail a cab while showing us on our little screen as it approaches?

Sadly, financial market conditions are not the result of the advancement of human knowledge in these matters. Rather, they are the result of policymakers engaging in groupthink and suffering from a mass delusion. By reducing interest rates to zero and having central banks purchase most of the debt issued by their respective governments, they think that inflation can be encouraged (but without any danger that it spins out of control) and that economic activity can thereby be supported and enhanced. We are 5-1/2 years into this global experiment, the kind that has never been tried in its current breadth and scope at any other time in history. Excuses by government leaders for the meager growth are easy to make (and some even contain nuggets of truth), but the bald fact is that the entire developed world is growing at a sluggish pace, if at all. But governments, media, academics politicians and central bankers refuse to state the obvious conclusion that their policies have failed and need to be revised. Instead, they all state, with the kind of confidence only present among the truly clueless, that in the absence of their current policies, things would be much worse.

This is ridiculous, but this is the state of affairs in this enlightened internet age when about a billion people around the planet are never more than ten seconds away from access to all the books ever written. The voices arrayed against the fetid mix of developed world policies are few, and they are drowned out by the loud roars of approval. After all, who does not like rising stock and bond prices and a recovery in real estate markets? And when the government tells you that this excess is all necessary and “working,” and central banks with their impenetrable and obscure verbiage lend an academic gloss to the tale, there is a hypnotic and tranquilizing effect that results from the seeming stability of it all. To be sure, the current comatose volatility in global markets all but whispers, “What are you worrying about?” to anyone who thinks something is deeply wrong with the combination of growth-suppressive policies, open-spigot money-printing and zero percent interest rates.

But it is worth worrying about the economy and the global financial system. The apparent stability of the world financial system is superficial – financial asset prices are not real, the equilibrium is temporary, the lack of volatility is a trap, and when the whole thing goes haywire, there will truly be hell to pay. Investors are “seeking yield” now in assets of lower and lower quality, with more and more leverage, and with less and less yield to compensate for risk. At the moment, investors engaging in this endeavor do not see any clouds on the horizon, and there is no major currency that has (yet) lost the confidence of investors, no major country which has (yet) lost the confidence of its people, and (despite the fact that some marginally-radical groups have gained a little bit of traction) nothing that would qualify as major social unrest in the developed world.

The policies that could generate much stronger growth are not unknown, nor are they complicated or arcane. Attractive tax regimes, understandable and efficient regulatory designs, the rule of law, solid infrastructure, low corruption and crime, a population of educated and willing workers, reasonable employment rules, low tort litigation risk, good educational systems, intelligent approaches to energy and the displacement caused by technological advancement, and policies that foster entrepreneurship, create attractive places to live, work and form or expand businesses. Progress in these areas creates virtuous cycles, attracting people who can reinforce and amplify the positive results.

None – we repeat, none – of the leaders of the developed world are pursuing the policies described in the preceding paragraph. The explanation for this failure involves plenty of blockheadedness and myopia, but there are two additional poisonous elements at work here: arrogance and ideology.

As for arrogance, the notion that their countries may be coasting on the glories of the past while heading for dim futures does not seem to occur to these policymakers. They point to the structures and forms built stone by stone in the construction phase of their civilizations as if those elements do not need protecting and refurbishing – and as if other people, countries and cultures were not breathing down their necks, wanting the same standard of living and competing in the same global markets for the growth that can generate those standards of living. All of the developed countries (either now or soon) need to compete in the global marketplace and not just rely upon cloistered internal markets for growth and prosperity. Furthermore, every country should provide the conditions for giving its citizenry the best chance possible of generating growth through the miracle of human creativity – the growth that comes from nothing more than a spark of invention or entrepreneurship.

The lack of sensible pro-growth policies would be bad enough for the developed world, but the more important reality is that things are a lot worse than we have illustrated above. For some time now, in a trend that has rapidly accelerated in the last few years, the developed world has granted (and keeps granting) a set of promises for payments in the future that cannot possibly be fulfilled regardless of future GDP growth or income tax rate hikes. Candidates for public office have had such success buying votes with these promises (in conjunction with short-term pledges to public-sector employees for pay, benefits and working conditions which are more generous than that of their private-sector counterparts) that these strategies generate value for such politicians ostensibly “gratis.” “Ostensibly” is the operative word here, of course, since there is nothing gratis about it. Indeed, the cost will be more than any citizen would voluntarily choose to pay, but it is hidden at the moment. In the near-to-medium term, the cost will take the form of higher inflation and lower growth than would be the case if good policies were pursued. Longer term, the impact will be far more insidious.

As for ideology, many of the current leaders of the developed world appear to be motivated by ideologies according to which wealth is not created by effort, entrepreneurism or creativity. Rather, they believe that wealth held by private individuals is either ill-gotten or should be redistributed, as a matter of “social justice,” to groups that do not have it.

Let us skip over the moral piece of this equation, in which effort and achievement exist on the same moral plane as dependency, and in which wealth is deemed undeserved whether it was stolen, acquired by birth or stolen. Instead, we will move right to the practical aspects of this governing philosophy, which prescribes a government fiat solution to the problem of inequality. This so-called solution always seems to leave government cronies swimming in wealth. Practically speaking, countries that welcome investors and workers with supportive policies (tax, quality of life, rule of law, labor, education, regulatory and others), will attract people who work, achieve and build. The corollary is that those governments that think their citizens have no choice other than to “stay and pay” are being really shortsighted as well as venal. As and when some of this latter group’s most productive citizens move themselves, their families and their capital offshore, those remaining will likely simply say “good riddance.” In fact, as the real standard of living suffers, the blame for the failure to grow and for the shortfall of good jobs will probably be ascribed to everything except the counterproductive policies that drove out those who created both jobs and demand for goods and services. By contrast, the places where capital and ambitious people are welcomed will be doing better and will be providing brighter prospects for their people.

Of course, all of these observations are relative, not absolute. There is no place that is purely “free” in the developed world. There are taxes and rules everywhere, and there is no “pure” modern developed society where all income is retained and where those who cannot (or do not want to) provide for themselves are left to fend for themselves. Nor should there be. The “relative” aspects of the “attractiveness” scale is why apartment and house prices in London, New York, Miami, Aspen and the Hamptons have leaped to the moon and beyond, despite their poor policy landscapes. Why do Latin American, Russian and Middle Eastern investors pay top dollar to buy properties in those places? Because they are afraid of the rule of law (or lack thereof) in their own countries. But American politicians do not draw sensible conclusions from this phenomenon. Instead, they act as if no amount of hostility toward capital will cause businesspeople and/or investors to take their capital elsewhere. The reality is that this current “safe haven” status for the U.S. (and U.K.) is not permanent, and politicians who think it is may be in for a rude awakening.

Groupthink in the current coalescence of views as to which places are safe and which are not is a complicating factor. An important corollary is that the conclusions of groupthink are unanimous, and when they shift, they shift abruptly and uniformly. In the era of modern communications, this phenomenon has broad implications for financial markets. If and when the prices of highend assets (stocks and bonds, homes in Aspen, “contemporary” art created by unknowns and costing millions) change direction, they will likely all change direction at the same time, like the Rockettes – except rather than pirouetting gracefully around the stage, they will be tumbling in unison into the orchestra pit.

*  *  *

We will now pull together the elements described above and hold them to the light to see what they may mean.

The leaders of the developed world have eschewed policies that would make their economies grow at acceptable/historical rates, resorting instead to encouraging their “independent” central banks to reduce interest rates to zero and print money. The money printed by the central banks is used to buy up bonds, public and private, and recently also to purchase stocks. At the same time, politicians in these countries, far from getting a grip on the unsustainable promises of benefit payments that have been made to their citizens, have allowed those promises to accelerate dangerously. Such promises are a powerful form of debt that is growing exponentially, adding to collective government balance sheets that are already severely overleveraged. Simultaneously, the ability of the developed world (particularly America, the Power Formerly Known As “Super”) to impose order on the global geopolitical and military matrix has meaningfully declined, and is in the process of diminishing further.

In America, people who own financial assets are spending stock market gains on high-end goods, while many middle- and lower-income people are either borrowing to maintain current spending or becoming/remaining dependent on the government. This pattern is unsustainable from both a moral and practical standpoint. And the country’s long-term entitlement obligations are utterly unpayable as currently structured.

Your guess is as good as ours as to how this fantastic mix of elements and policies comes undone, but it is not rational to think that the current apparent stability and low volatility will go on forever. Nobody can predict when things will unravel, how the unraveling will take place, or what the world will look like after the next crisis. But the numbers (debt, derivatives, and promises) are extraordinarily large, the dysfunction very powerful, and the leadership throughout the developed world very weak.

We state this case not to be provocative or colorful. We are trying to figure it out, because we think that what happens next has the potential to challenge the historical episodes of the most transformational vector changes in modern times. Investors need to try to understand how to survive the evolution of these factors into financial, economic or societal changes. After all, the reason that nobody has been able to compound money over the last 300 years or so at even a mere 3% return through generations and generations is quite simple: There is always some war, invasion, collapse, confiscation, tyranny, revolution or inflation to reshuffle the deck and require a “do-over.” We may be close to such a transformational period.

Freedom, technology, entrepreneurship and the human brain and spirit are forces that could bring human societies to more widespread and powerful growth and prosperity.

Good Lord!  What do you even do with news like this?  We’ve known for a long time that Joe Biden is a dirty old man, but for crying out loud!   from Washington Times: Vice President Joseph R. Biden has a secret love — skinny-dipping. A new...

Obama’s signature law is the hit with the American people Democrats thought it would be.  As more and more of the law’s provisions go into effect, few and fewer people are happy about it. from Kaiser Health: After remaining steady for...

A man charged in the December 2010 murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry has been extradited from Mexico to the U.S. and will be arraigned on August 1.

According to Tucson News Now, Ivan Soto-Barraza "was caught in Mexico in September 2013." 

The charges against him are "first degree murder, second degree murder, conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery, attempted interference with commerce by robbery, use and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence and assault on a federal officer."

The indictment against him alleges that he and four others "assaulted three Border Patrol agents in addition to Terry."

Two of the remaining suspects in the attack are still at large, and "two others are behind bars."

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

The Swedish government plans to remove the concept of race from all legislation, claiming that accepting that there are different races means one race is superior to another.

However, the National Afro-Swedish Association has criticised the proposal, arguing that the concept of race is important in order to highlight discrimination.

Swedish Integration Minister Erik Ullenhag told Sveriges Television (SVT) this week that: "We know that there aren’t really different human races. We also know that the fundamental grounds of racism are based on the belief that there are different races, and that belonging to a race makes people behave in a certain way, and that some races are superior to others."

He said the "concept of race" had a negative connotation and was likely to stir up prejudice. Therefore he will remove the word from Swedish legislation.

"Legislation should not include the word race, if we argue that there are not actually races. I have wanted to remove the concept of race for a long time," the minister said.

The concept of race is included in around 20 Swedish laws, including criminal code, student financial aid laws, and credit information laws, according to The Local.

On Thursday the Swedish government began an investigation into how to remove the concept from all legislation, as has been done in Austria and Finland.

However SVT reports that Zakaria Zouhir, a Left Party activist and President of the National Afro-Swedish Association (ASR), opposed the Government's decision on the concept of race: "It is an important tool to highlight the structural discrimination that exists in society. And that affects a significant portion of society's citizens, solely because of their skin colour."

Kitimbwa Sabuni, another spokesperson for the ASR, told The Local:

"This scientific racism that Ullenhag is focused on, when he says that racism is based on believing in different races, is not true. How many people in Sweden really think that way? Maybe 100. That's not the problem. Racism existed before the concept of race biology. Scientific racism is just one chapter in the story of race and racism.

"For us, this is just trying to take away the possibility to even talk about it. It's critical. How can you apply for a grant for fighting racism if the concept of race doesn't exist in legislation? Racism will disappear de facto from the agenda. The government is lost in a fantasy, a fantasy which counteracts effective work against racism."

But Ullenhag rejected the argument: “As long as we continue to use a racist term so we leave racists with the strongest tools of their argument,” he says.

On Wednesday, President Obama threatened to veto the House of Representatives’ proposed border bill. Obama particularly disliked provisions of the bill designed to amend the 2008 law that allows illegal immigrant minors from non-border countries to stick around for years awaiting deportation proceedings. 

His statement explained:

By setting arbitrary timelines for the processing of cases, this bill could create backlogs that could ultimately shift resources away from priority public safety goals, like deporting known criminals. This bill will undercut due process for vulnerable children which could result in their removal to life threatening situations in foreign countries.

In other words, Obama wants to keep newly arriving illegal immigrant children – not the ones who have already arrived, and are not covered by the House bill – stuck in legal limbo for two or more years.

Just weeks ago, Obama himself called for changes to the 2008 law. He sent a letter to Congress asking for authority to “exercise discretion in processing the return and removal of unaccompanied minor children from non-contiguous countries like Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained, “There are some challenges that are posed by the current law, this 2008 law.”

Now, however, Obama has flip-flopped on the issue – the better to polarize the debate around illegal immigration.

This isn’t the first time that Obama has flip-flopped on immigration. Here are four other instances of such wavering:

Border Security. Just a month ago, Obama proposed additional border security for the Rio Grande valley – and he wanted billions to fund it, supposedly. But in May 2011, Obama spoke in El Paso, stating, “You know, they said we needed to triple the Border Patrol. Or now they’re going to say we need to quadruple the Border Patrol. Or they’ll want a higher fence. Maybe they’ll need a moat. Maybe they want alligators in the moat. They’ll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That’s politics. But the truth is the measures we’ve put in place are getting results.”

Executive Orders. In March 2011, Obama stated, “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.”

As Politico noted, when Obama was confronted in November 2013 by a protester yelling that Obama had “power to stop deportation,” Obama said, “Actually I don’t.” Obama went on, “If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition. And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws.”

Today, of course, Obama has declared an endless stream of executive actions designed to loosen consequences for illegal immigration.

E-Verify. As the Washington Post has pointed out, in March 2004, Obama wrote on a questionnaire that he opposed the government “crack[ing] down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.” In 2008, he said, “we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation.” Now, of course, Obama just wants to hand out work permits like candy.

Deportation. Just last Friday, President Obama said that illegal immigrant minors would be sent home. “We have to deter a continuing influx of children putting themselves at great risk,” he said. That same day, the Los Angeles Times reported, “Roughly 5 million of the estimated 11 million people who entered the country without legal authorization or overstayed their visas could be protected under a leading option the White House is considering.”

President Obama’s failure to take a strong stand on illegal immigration is mere trolling at this point. He wants to tell his constituents that Republicans are out of their minds for worrying about the border, while simultaneously incentivizing millions to cross that border. He wants to suggest that he’s interested in solving the problem even as he exacerbates it. He’s hoping that the chaos he creates will somehow precipitate a handover of even more power to him. Instead, it’s just angering Americans, as well it should.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.