Video Roundup : March 15, 2016

---

Trump

"The Assassination of Trump" by Paul Joseph Watson.

"What Pisses Me Off About Donald Trump Protests" by Stefan Molyneux.

"Media GUILTY of shameful double standard on violent Trump protests" by Rebel Media.

---

Abortion, Journalism, and Triggering

There are all sorts of wussy insanity in this video from Rebel Media.

---

Socialism

Socialism needs to keep selling itself to the people. Canada has socialized medicine; here a hospital uses its tax dollars to produce a magazine to tell people how great they are. No need to put the money into health care! Courtesy of Rebel Media.

Liberty Pen spotlights John Stossel and Gloria Alvarez talking about socialism in Latin America.

---

Censorship

Facebook censoring posts about court cases on fracking from Rebel Media.

Protesters shut down talk on political correctness and how it stifles free speech from Rebel Media.

---

Hillary

"5 Hillary Clinton Flip-Flops" by The Amazing Atheist.

---

Terrorism

Another individual Islamic terrorist attack in Canada from Rebel Media.

---

Global Warming

"Can Humans Cause Global Warming with CO2-Emissions From the Burning of Fossil Fuels?" by The Heartland Institute.

---

Some Levity

Mark Dice tries to sell a 100 oz. silver bar for $100 or less.

Super Delegates...To the Rescue (of Hillary Clinton)! by ReasonTV.

NewsBusted!

---

• The Amazing Atheist
• The Heartland Institute
• Liberty Pen
• Mark Dice
• NewsBusted
• Paul Joseph Watson
• ReasonTV
• Rebel Media 1 2 3 4 5 6
• Stefan Molyneux

Secretary of Labor's Rose Colored Glasses

Well, the Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez, has put out a blog post calling on workers to form unions.

Tom cheers that we are in a great economic recovery but laments that wages are not up. He cites that union workers make about $200 more a week and so more people should form unions.

Of course there is no way that the ACA (Obamacare) has nothing to do with wages. Forcing employers to spend more money on employees or cut back on their hours to avoid this has absolutely nothing to do with wages. No. Not being in a union is to blame for low wages.

And yet, later in his blog post he writes:

At the same time, employers are recognizing the benefits of empowering their employees to build successful, profitable businesses founded on middle-class jobs. Across the country, we’ve seen company after company raise their minimum wage, offer sick and parental leave, and commit to fairer scheduling practices.

What is it Mr. Secretary? Do we need unions or are companies getting competitive by offering their employees more?

Let us not forget how well the unions have worked out for Chrysler and GM. Plus how unions have bankrupted cities.

But no. With all the bankruptcy that unions cause let us go ahead and promote them. There is plenty of bailout money. Maybe that extra $200 a week people will make can be used in bailouts to keep the businesses open so that they can pay an extra $200 a week.

Perez has a small distorted vision on wages and does not take into account of what the government has thrust upon businesses through regulations and laws, nor has he examined how unions have hurt businesses.

There is no economic growth unless you make the environment friendly to make a profit. The smaller a company's profits get, the smaller the salaries, hours, and size of the work force.

MoveOn.org tries to bailout Greece

This is just amusing and silly. MoveOn.org on their front page has a link to make donations to bail out Greece.

Does a non-profit organization think they have the support size to bail out a country? Are they so in the bag for socialism that they believe having a sound economic policy is a threat to their ideals?

This is just plain silliness.

1 2

A Brain On Socialized Medicine

In the U.K. Caffé Nero paid £0 in taxes. This peeved one of the caffé's patrons. He was a "loyal" customer and turned in his "loyalty" customer card over this. He explains why blathering it on twitter all proud and smug.

If you agree with him hang on and read on because you are wrong. If you disagree with him and don't know why, I think I can tell you why.

Steve Pottinger (he advertised himself and made his persons a public object on twitter) is a valued loyalty customer of Caffé Nero. However, he is throwing his loyalty card back into the fire. His dad was in the hospital and his fate is unknown per the rant. All we know is Steve thought his dad could get more care if Caffé Nero paid taxes. The doctors and nurses could have received pay if Caffé Nero paid taxes. And well, all sorts of other people could have gotten money.

Steve, really!?

You are blaming Caffé Nero for following the rules the government setup. You are blaming Caffé Nero for how the government distributes money. You are blaming Caffé Nero for giving you the most cost effective/quality product that you so thoroughly enjoyed over and over you yourself became a valued loyal customer to them.

So in no way do we see Steve taking the government to task for their tax code or distribution of wealth. He does no chastise the government on what doctors or nurses get paid. He does not blame the government at all. He blames a company for not giving enough money as a reason to problems.

Steve turned in his card and will get his java elsewhere. Will he get the same quality for the same price?

Whether or not he does is only subjective to his palette.

However, let us tear into his final thoughts.

We're all in this together, and without a vibrant and cohesive society - which tax revenues help maintain - you've nowhere to sell your goods.

This sentence is very true but insanely stated by Steve. The cohesive society maintained by taxes is the protection of property, not the usurpation! Steve wants you to think that the taxes are meant to give to the people, not protect what people have earned and own.

Somehow Steve also thinks that the caffé expects customers to show loyalty. Really, the caffé uses gimmicks to get repeat customers to come back, not expecting loyalty. Any business knows they are as good as their last customer served.

So go on Steve. Go find that socially conscious caffé. That extra dollar you pay, it's you paying for what Nero didn't. Your new caffé just passed the cost onto you.

Happy EBT Day

Happy Labor Day! if you're working.

With the sad state and direction of our economy, how long till EBT card holders outnumber the employed? Will "Labor Day" become "EBT day?"

If we counted government workers with the unemployed, would that outnumber private sector workers?

I hope not!

Farcism of Affordable Education

Your mouth and hands are not a poop hole. So why spew such matter from them?

But so the Department of Education has done in parallel with Obama. You should read the fudge sausage before going through my commentary. It will enhance the "preaching to the choir" attitude if you are outraged.

So let's go...

I’m thrilled today that President Obama is moving forward with an ambitious new plan to make college more affordable for every American.

Government price control is wrong and always fails.

We know that higher education is more important than ever, but we also know it’s never been more expensive.

Actually we are failing to value tradesman, err, or, tradesmen. Blue collar "hands on skill" does not require college but apprenticeships.

As far as the cost of college, if the government didn't get involved the costs would be more reasonable.

We want college to be a secure investment for every student from every background who is willing to work hard, an investment that prepares our nation’s students for a good job and a bright future.

***sigh*** There is no such thing as secure. Secure is a goal, but not a true absolute.

We believe the cost of college is a shared responsibility among the federal government, states, colleges and universities, and our students and families.

Oh good Lawrd! Believe!?

The cost of college is the burden of the individual that wants to retrieve the education through a desired receptacle. I don't feel any shared responsibility of sending anyone to college!

because we know that too many students are struggling to repay their debt today – President Obama is committed to ensuring that students who need it can have access to the ‘Pay As You Earn’ plan that caps federal student loan payments at 10 percent of discretionary income, so students can better manage their debt

"Pay as you earn" has horrifying debt forgiveness. That means you pay for so-in-so's education.

We need more colleges and universities to keep college affordable while delivering a high quality education, not only for students who are first in line, but for all, especially students who are first in their families to enter college, students from disadvantaged circumstances, students with disabilities and veterans who chose service before completing their education.

Because the government is involved in student loans, the value gets distorted. By the way, "veterans who chose service before completing their education" have a guaranteed resource. So they are not a valid part of your argument.

We need states to increase higher education funding, with proven strategies for student access and success.

No. The states should not increase funding. Let the market bear the value of the product.

---

By the way, I have no degree, but have taught in the private sector and military. I am a teacher without a degree.

Consider all options. The "standard" is not the rule.

Live well.

There is no Social Contract

Yaron from the Ayn Rand Institute is awesome. He always cuts through the B.S. and states things the way they are.

It's About The Happiness Stupid!

No Detroit?

If not even Detroit is in the list of the ten worst cities to live in, maybe we still are doing fine.

Awesome Anti-Obama-Policy Commercial

I've never heard anyone explain to me how taking money away from rich people helps the poor. People just think it is more fair. Bwah?

Government Money Handling Insanity

Here's a young man, 40 years old. He discovers he's got AIDS. He's got ten more years to live. Then the government comes along and say "we have to take fifteen percent of your income to provide for your old age after 65."

- Milton Friedman

That was Milton Friedman commenting about social security and how you are not paying for your retirement but other people's retirement. The following is a wonderful interview with this man.

History Repeats Its Self

Whose Phone Is It? #ObamaPhone debunked?

People are real fired up about this #ObamaPhone meme!

Conservatives are having a field day with the comments a woman made because she got an "Obama phone." She is going to vote for Obama and predicts Obama will do more. It illustrates for the conservatives the portion of the population that feed off the government largess at the taxpayers expense, and she shouts it loud and proud.

The liberal blogs are getting upset over the conservatives having a field day with the meme because there is no such thing as an Obama phone. They think the conservatives are stupid for perpetuation the meme.

There is no "Obama phone?" Technically it looks like there is not. The "Obama phone" has quite a history:

1. Communications Act of 1934. President Franklin Roosevelt^[tAW]
2. The Lifeline program started in 1984. President Reagan^[tAW]
3. The Lifeline program expanded in 1996. President Clinton^[tAW]
4. SafeLink started in 2008. President George W. Bush^[E][TP][FC]

The blogs debunking the Obama phone are calling the conservatives racist or stupid. Some are even claiming this is the "Bush Phone" according to the history cited above. They are trying to take a woman gloating about her government swag that will vote for Obama because of it and trying to turn it on the conservatives. Even twitter is trying to squash the meme by posting the Think Progress post about the meme at the top of the hash search for #ObamaPhone.

The conservatives' point is not that there is an "Obama Phone" but that this woman illustrates the awful 47% that can be bought off for her vote on government swag.

In the end, the liberals trying to make fun of conservatives over the Obama phone concept are really making fun of the Obama supporter whom thinks she has an Obama phone. And the conservatives are making fun of her for being proud of her government hand out.

However, do not worry about your tax dollars going to this program. It is funded by a charge on your phone bill called a "Federal Universal Service Charge." This charge is, of course, mandated by the government. So if you do not want to pay for these free phones you simply have to stop owning and paying for your own phone. As long as you pay for your phone, you are paying for hers.

Just to confuse matters a little more, the blog Jammie Wearing Fools points out that there is an Obama Phone website.