Whoa…. and what else is out there ready to snag our liberty? Bet it gets added to the “Shell” bill being used for Obamacare along with the Government taking over Student Loans.
CNSNews.com) – A bill taken up by a Senate panel on Thursday would empower the federal government to collect the payroll information of private companies and analyze it in an effort to prevent gender-based pay discrimination, which has been illegal since 1963.
The law would compel the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to begin mandatory collection of payroll data from private employers, under penalty of law. These data must be broken down by job type, race, and, gender. The government would then analyze the data to determine if companies are violating equal pay laws, which prohibit pay discrimination based on gender.
Known as the Paycheck Fairness Act, the law was passed by the House of Representatives more than one year ago – Jan. 9, 2009 – but had languished in the Senate until Thursday, when it was taken up in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
Some New York City chefs and restaurant owners are taking aim at a bill introduced in the New York Legislature that, if passed, would ban the use of salt in restaurant cooking.
“No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises,” the bill, A. 10129 , states in part.
The legislation, which Assemblyman Felix Ortiz , D-Brooklyn, introduced on March 5, would fine restaurants $1,000 for each violation.
via myfoxny.com
I would up the ante and call this mildly tyrannical. Not “tyranny” in the violent dictatorial sense, but what Alexis de Tocqueville described as a paternalistic state, or a “soft despotism.” Did you ever imagine that in America – the State would have the power to choose for a restaurant owner whether or not they could add salt to their entrées?
If you love liberty, this type of thing should make you sick. If the problem is ‘too much salt‘ – what is needed is something which used to be considered a quality of a mature adult – Common Sense… Contrast that with this paternalistic legislative action which treats individual free people as so infantile in thought and action, that they are incapable of making reasoned judgements concerning their own health.
Here an an excerpt from Tocqueville’s Democracy In America (emphasis added):
===
It seems that if despotism came to be established in the democratic nations of our day, it would have other characteristics: it would be more extensive and milder, and it would degrade men without tormenting them. . . .
When I think of the small passions of men of our day, the softness of their mores, the extent of their enlightenment, the purity of their religion, the mildness of their morality, their laborious and steady habits, the restraint that almost all preserve in vice as in virtue, I do not fear that in their chiefs they will find tyrants, but rather schoolmasters. . . .
I want to imagine with what new features despotism could be produced in the world: I see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. . . .
Above these an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, regular, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes citizens to enjoy themselves provided that they think only of enjoying themselves. It willingly works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that; it provides for their security, foresees and secures their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances; can it not take away from them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living?
So it is that every day it renders the employment of free will less useful and more rare; it confines the action of the will in a smaller space and little by little steals the very use of it from each citizen. . . .
Thus, after taking each individual by turns in its powerful hands and kneading him as it likes, the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills but it softens them, bends them, and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which government is the shepherd
. . . .
Subjection in minor affairs breaks out every day and is felt by the whole community indiscriminately. It does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to surrender the exercise of their own will. Thus their spirit is gradually broken and their character enervated; whereas that obedience which is exacted on a few important but rare occasions only exhibits servitude at certain intervals and throws the burden of it upon a small number of men. It is in vain to summon a people who have been rendered so dependent on the central power to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their free choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity.
I add that they will soon become incapable of exercising the great and only privilege which remains to them. The democratic nations that have introduced freedom into their political constitution at the very time when they were augmenting the despotism of their administrative constitution have been led into strange paradoxes. To manage those minor affairs in which good sense is all that is wanted, the people are held to be unequal to the task; but when the government of the country is at stake, the people are invested with immense powers; they are alternately made the play things of their ruler, and his masters, more than kings and less than men. After having exhausted all the different modes of election without finding one to suit their purpose, they are still amazed and still bent on seeking further; as if the evil they notice did not originate in the constitution of the country far more than in that of the electoral body.
It is indeed difficult to conceive how men who have entirely given up the habit of self-government should succeed in making a proper choice of those by whom they are to be governed; and no one will ever believe that a liberal, wise, and energetic government can spring from the suffrages of a subservient people.
A constitution republican in its head and ultra-monarchical in all its other parts has always appeared to me to be a short-lived monster. The vices of rulers and the ineptitude of the people would speedily bring about its ruin; and the nation, weary of its representatives and of itself, would create freer institutions or soon return to stretch itself at the feet of a single master.
Merci is a wonderful department store opened last year in Paris which has as its Creative Director Marie-France Cohen who is the owner and founder of Bonpoint one of the best French children’s fashion labels.
For this month they have a joint swap shop with Liberty which opened on Tuesday morning featuring an exclusive limited edition collection of fashion and homeware designed by Marie-France Cohen using her favorite Liberty designs selling throughout March.
The Paris store was reportably swamped when it opened with the best items selling out so swift visits to Liberty would seem to be in order, profits will be going to benefit a children’s charity in Madagascar so its all in a good cause too. The fastest selling item is the floral mini suitcase, truly a wondrous item, apparently on the stores opening day on Monday Japanese visitors were buying up to 5 each in different fabrics.
Presidential Eligibility: Three Simple Requirements
WHAT IF “BIRTHERS” WERE “AGE-ERS”?
Article: The Post & Email
John Jay, who insisted on including the "natural born citizen" clause in the U.S. Constitution
Everyone knows, or should by now with all of the “birther” hullabaloo, Article II of the Constitution and its three requirements for the Commander-in-Chief: He must be a “natural born Citizen,” at least thirty-five years old, and have resided for at least fourteen years within the United States.
Most Americans, according to the media, accept Obama’s alleged place of birth as Hawaii and his US citizenship. Many, though, especially in “tea party” circles, express frustration with his seeming lack of “transparency,” want to see more than the short-form birth certificate posted on the internet, and ask questions like: “Where do we put the plaque?” Everyday Americans must show a birth certificate and other credentials to get jobs, drivers’ licenses, loans, passports, play on sports teams, etc., and they wish that Obama would just present his so we can get on with it. These viewpoints earn them the dreaded label of “birther.”
The majority of “birthers” consider themselves “Constitutionalists,” and whether or not they have questions about Obama’s Hawaiian birth, they do have reservations about the “natural born” part— because of his Kenyan father, who was not an immigrant and never a US citizen, resulting in Obama Jr. admittedly being a dual citizen at birth. Scholars and attorneys could debate the definition of “natural born” for hours. Combine that question with the current political correctness of birthright citizenship, dual citizenship/allegiance and immigration, and the arguments become even more heated.
But what if the eligibility issue was much simpler to grasp: What if it had to do with the simplest of the three Presidential criteria—Age?
Imagine this:
A man runs for President, and the mainstream media doesn’t investigate, amid rumors and questionable statements and evidence, whether or not he is in fact at least 35 years old. An online organization which calls itself a “fact-checker,” even though its employees have no actual credentials or legitimacy for doing so, posts a digital image purported to be his driver’s license showing he is 35 years old. The media never directly asks this candidate his age, and he never directly offers it.
The man “seals” and/or relies on federal and state privacy laws in keeping his birth, medical, school and college records and other documents hidden from the public, making it impossible to verify his eligibility. Friends, fellow students, and colleagues are strangely silent.
Concerned citizens, before the general election, before the electoral votes, before the inauguration and after, attempt to pursue every avenue of inquiry and protest. Some urge their national party headquarters to raise questions and ensure he is properly “vetted.” Others file complaints with their secretary of state or state attorney general to ascertain that they verified that he was constitutionally eligible to be on the ballot. Some petition their electors to ask questions. They ask their senators and congressmen to object at the meeting of the Electoral College.
But nothing was done. All inquiries are answered with a reference to the digital image posted on the internet on Factcheck or Snopes as proof.
And he wins the election.
Citizens file lawsuits asking the courts to intervene (some even before the election), and not one case is ever heard on its merits; rather, many are thrown out because of “lack of standing” or that the plaintiff’s injury was not “particular,” but rather, deemed to affect all members of the general public equally.
The courts dismiss cases because they said the man was definitely 35, not based on an examination of any actual evidence, but because the issue had been “raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry.”
A judge refers to the digital image posted on the internet without ensuring that it met electronic security standards for evidence.
Plaintiffs are offered the remedy of voting in the next election.
Other judiciaries throw out cases based on the “political question” doctrine—stating that whether or not he was 35 (or if it even mattered) was decided by 69 million voters, and therefore the courts should not intervene.
Many others argue that the Founding Fathers’ age requirement is old-fashioned and unnecessary for Americans today.
The mainstream media, instead of doing any in-depth questioning or investigating of their own, ridicule those who do, calling them tin-foil hat wearers, extremists, crazy, and “Age-ers.” His fans cry: “We won” and “Get over it.”
The “Age-ers” are called “racist” or accused of “hate” because it so happens the man is also an African-American.
And this President, in a speech calling for civility, implies that questions about his age are uncivil.
Now, substitute “natural born citizenship” for “age,” and “birthers” for “age-ers” in the above scenario. What a mess.
Unlike the nebulous “general welfare” or “interstate commerce” clauses, Article II eligibility is one of the most straightforward provisions in the Constitution. And for some reason, we can’t even get this right, according to recent polls and surveys, to the satisfaction of a large percentage of Americans.
Our Founding Fathers would be disappointed to find that the three branches of government, along with the media, have failed to uphold, refused to investigate, and ridiculed those who question—a very, very simple provision in the Constitution. Its laws can be amended, but they should never be simply ignored.
We can argue the constitutionality of the various legislation proposed and passed by this administration, but the very legitimacy of our Commander-in-Chief, who has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, is arguably the most important issue, as it is the most symbolic of all. The buck stops at the President’s desk. Either his power is granted, and thereby limited, under the Constitution—or he is placed, or places himself, over and above it and the law.
Mr. Obama: You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Now please act as though you took that oath seriously. Assure “We the People” that you are in fact eligible to hold your office in the first place. Welcome a judicial interpretation of the founders’ “natural born” requirement, even if it means you may not have the right to hold your office. Your personal ambition should not come before your patriotism. It is not “uncivil” to be asked questions about your citizenship; it is uncivil for you to refuse to answer and to allow your staff to belittle the very citizens you represent.
And to those who derisively label as “birthers” those who do take the Constitution and his oath seriously: You should also care, very much.
Because the only thing standing between you and the government that is supposed to represent you and protect your liberty and freedom is that now very fragile document.
“When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property. “—Thomas Jefferson
You Obamatrons should thank Fishleg and me. We (OKAY – the Post & Email did, but hey.) broke this down SO much that even the most DIE-HARD Obama knobslobbing moron could understand. It’s not about race. It’s not about BHussein. It’s about the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Do you fucking get it yet? Probably not. If you were dumb enough to mark BHussein on your ballot in the first place; there probably isn’t much hope for you. Enjoy life as a simpleton with a double-digit I.Q. I can’t speak from experience, but from what I hear; Ignorance is bliss.
House Democrats are suspicious of each other, none of them trust their Senate counterparts, and vice versa, and a Soviet mole has infiltrated the highest levels of British intelligence. Sorry, that last part is from a John le Carré thriller, though it might take a novelist to do justice to the ObamaCare-induced paranoia that now engulfs Congress—not to mention the double game that the White House may well be running.
Last week President Obama sanctioned “reconciliation,” a complex tactic that would jam ObamaCare into law on sheer power politics. But what if this gambit is really a false-flag operation, meant to lure House Democrats into voting for a bill that they would otherwise oppose? That’s the question many rank-and-file Members are now asking themselves, and they’re right to be worried.
The cleanest option for Democrats would be for the House to pass the Senate’s Christmas Eve bill word for word, thereby bypassing a Senate filibuster under the normal rules and forwarding ObamaCare directly to the Rose Garden signing ceremony. But Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said the votes simply don’t exist for the Senate bill as is.
Liberals don’t think the middle-class insurance subsidies are large enough. Big Labor hates the “Cadillac tax” on high-cost health coverage because extremely generous benefits typically come out of collective bargaining. The pro-life Democrats led by Michigan’s Bart Stupak can’t abide federal funding for abortion. Everyone detests the enveloping corruption, such as the Nebraska Medicaid bribe for Ben Nelson, which has become so politically toxic that the opponents now include Ben Nelson.
Thus the convoluted scheme the White House has mapped out. The House would first pass the Senate bill, and then pass a reconciliation bill that addresses these objections—in effect converting the process into a makeshift and unprecedented vehicle for amendments. Mrs. Pelosi can’t rope in the 216 votes she needs without an iron-clad promise of another round of Senate action.
Iron-clad promise—or double-cross? After all, the White House would much prefer the Senate bill, because by its lights the cost-control programs are tougher than what the House prefers. And from a political perspective, a bill that can be signed immediately and that the press will portray as an historic achievement is far better than the drawn-out and gory battle that would be reconciliation. Republican Senators will have many procedural knives at their disposal, and the process will force Democrats to cast further votes and spend more months debating a deeply unpopular bill.
In other words, perhaps Mr. Obama has embraced this reconciliation two-step only to renege as soon as the House gives him what he wants. While some House Democrats would be furious, they’d soon be defending the Senate bill by necessity against the GOP. The moderates who vote for it might be collateral damage, but the White House has already concluded that this is the price of building its cradle-to-grave entitlement citadel.
Mr. Obama’s closing arguments are lending credence to rank-and-file fears that they’re getting played. Democrats are telling reporters that Mr. Obama has been telling them in private meetings that his Presidency, and the party’s claim to any achievement, rests on passing a bill. With barely any mention of substance, the right bill is any bill, by any political means necessary.
The White House also announced that it now wants the House to pass the Senate bill by March 18, before Mr. Obama departs for a foreign tour in the Pacific. But this barely leaves any time for the Congressional Budget Office to score Mr. Obama’s reconciliation fixes. Then there’s House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s far-fetched suggestion to Mr. Stupak and the antiabortion bloc that Democrats can take care of their concerns in a third bill, which everyone knows will fail in the Senate if it even comes to the floor.
In this wilderness of political mirrors, anything is possible. Spooked Democrats shouldn’t be surprised if they wind up being double-crossed for the ostensibly greater good of Mr. Obama’s legacy. (WSJ)
Trust Mr “Hope and Change”?
Mr “No tax if you make less $250,000 per year”
Mr “they (Republicans) have no ideas”
Trust Me.
Why ever would you be worried?
Look at that face. And he speaks so well (and put on a Negro Dialect when he wants to- according his aides).
It’s Not all about Him.
<>
Then you read this, also in The Wall Street Journal:
Everyone knows Democrats are planning to use the budget reconciliation process to get ObamaCare through the Senate. Less well known is that Democrats are plotting add-ons to that bill to get other liberal priorities enacted—programs that could never attract 60 votes.
One of these controversial measures rewrites the Higher Education Act to ban private companies from offering federally guaranteed student loans as of this July. Congress has already passed laws in recent years discouraging private lenders from making loans without a federal guarantee. But most college financial-aid departments still want private companies to originate and service the guaranteed loans. That’s because the alternative—a public option run by the Department of Education—has been distinguished by its Soviet-style customer service.
The Democratic plan is to make this public option the only option mere days before colleges send out their financial aid packages to incoming students. The House and Senate budget committees issued instructions last year to look for savings in the student-lending program, so the Democrats have prepared in advance their excuse to jam these changes through the reconciliation process.
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan portrays the changes as eliminating subsidies to private companies, but no one should misinterpret these comments to mean that taxpayers will benefit. The plan that passed the House includes $67 billion in “savings,” according to a Friday estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. But the bill also has more than $77 billion in new spending.
The net loss to taxpayers isn’t limited to $10 billion. After inquiries from Senator Judd Gregg (R., N.H.) and Rep. John Kline (R., Minn.) last year, CBO explained that “savings” estimates are artificially high because of government accounting rules that undercount the risks of default when the government is originating the loans, while the new spending estimates are artificially low. This could be significant. Many colleges oppose the government plan specifically because the feds don’t make the same effort to prevent defaults that the private lenders do.
Taxpayers have even more reason than academics to fear the impact, in part because the public may not learn the details before this plan becomes law. Democrats aim to bring their education revolution to the floor without a committee vote or even a hearing in the Senate.
Democrats might seek to enact the bill passed by the House last summer, an even more ambitious plan sketched out in the President’s 2011 budget, or some mystery meat prepared by chef Tom Harkin, who chairs the Senate education committee. So far he won’t tell anyone what’s on the menu, and he may not have to. The limited 20 hours of reconciliation debate will no doubt be consumed by ObamaCare, but another new entitlement could be hustled into law under cover of bloviating lawmakers.
Both the House-passed bill and the President’s budget increase Pell Grants and also create automatic future increases, so individual grants will grow faster than inflation every year. Colleges will pocket the money by raising tuition, so we have yet another federal program ensuring that higher education costs continue to rise even faster than health-care spending.
Mr. Obama’s budget also calls for making Pell Grants a mandatory entitlement. At least now they are subject to annual appropriation and their growth can be slowed when tax revenues fall or other priorities rate higher. Mr. Obama would prefer spending that is quite literally out of control.
“Various changes that the President proposes to the Pell Grant program would add another $0.2 trillion to the deficit between 2011 and 2020,” CBO said Friday. That could turn out to be a very optimistic estimate if unemployment remains high and more people seize the educational opportunity to which they have just become entitled. Still another taxpayer trap will be sprung if the President’s proposal to forgive some debt incurred by “overburdened” borrowers is included in the bill.
The federal education takeover is another example of the Democrats’ willingness to use whatever tactics are necessary to advance their agenda to concentrate power in Washington—while they still can.
Then you have your answer.
Today was a relatively stress free day after mailing out shipments on Saturday and delivering Miche bags and shells today to all the great customers that have placed an order-they are greatly appreciated!
I am sad to announce that we might not see the release of the Madelyn shell until next week-I’m disappointed, as there has been great interest in the Madelyn shell. I will update as soon as this shell is released, and keep everyone updated on the April releases! I’m so pleased that we have new shells every month, it gives me such enjoyment to open the packages!
I spent the morning with my grandkids, and my daughter for coffee. Of course, I was required to bring her a new shell, the Laney. I’m glad she likes it! I wonder how long it will take for my grand daughter to start showing interest in the bags as well, but for now her Polly pockets and her play purses seem to be enough!
I will be submitting an order this evening, if you have something you want please contact me before midnight!
Yours,
Polly
michebagparties@aol.com
Follow my FANPAGE for updates, pictures, and retiring shell information.
P.S. PURPLE ELLIE, JADE, AND ORANGE SHEILA ARE RETIRED SHELLS–WE HAVE A LIMITED SUPPLY, GET THEM BEFORE THEY’RE GONE!
I already know you aren’t stupid. Stupid people can’t lie as well as you can. So that leaves only a deceitful spirit. If you have a deceitful spirit then you hate the truth. If you hate the truth, then you hate God. And if you hate God, then you hate me. That makes you my enemy.
If you treacherous, socialist leaning, lying bastards continue on this course and ignore the will of the majority of the tax paying citizens in this country then you qualify as traitors. There will be judgment.
I quote here from the Declaration of Independence: “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
Do you understand that? Do you get it? You are on real thin ice. If my life depends on the present course of events, then so does yours. You had better wake up and smell the coffee. We don’t want hope and change. We don’t want a new logo, we don’t want more taxes and we sure as hell don’t want more government intrusion into our lives.
Do you think we will not do this? If so, you qualify for insane. This is your last chance. You either get with the program or you’re gone. You will end up nothing but a bad memory.
The local news media today said that the reconciliation process is ‘clearly an attempt to railroad the Senate’. Here’s a history lesson for those of you who obviously do not understand the issue.
The reconciliation process was ‘invented’ in 1974 to streamline the budget process. It was designed to be used with tax and spend issues. It seems clear that it was never intended to be used to ramrod such comprehensive and complicated as issue as health care reform.
A number of democrats have already jumped ship announcing that they will not seek re-election. Arkansas’ own Rep. Berry, a fervent democrat, was quoted in today’s paper that even he will not support the legislation unless it has strong language prohibiting abortion. You can expect more democrats, in the coming weeks, to find ways to avoid losing their jobs in November.
Nancy, you and Harry and Joe had better come to your senses. Your retirement looms dead ahead. I would start doing some retirement and estate planning.
I can’t leave without offering one final admonishment. If this health care plan is so good, then why in the hell are you exempt from it? Did you ever hear the old adage, ‘what’s good for the goose is good for the gander’? I guess not, or maybe you don’t understand it.
Socialism is taking part of what’s mine and giving it to someone else to make us even. Sorry, that dog don’t hunt. Not in my lifetime. Not here. Not now. Not ever. Enjoy your retirement.
