Monday, March 31, 2014

Suspended for Confederate Flag on His Truck, NJ Student Defends Rights

Friday, 28 Mar 2014 12:23 PM
By Alexandra Ward

A New Jersey high school student suspended for displaying a Confederate flag on his pickup truck in the school parking lot isn't backing down and has sparked a sympathetic rebellion among fellow students.

And now the American Civil Liberties Union has waded into the controversy.

Gregory Vied, a 17-year-old student at Steinert High School in Hamilton, N.J., told News 12 New Jersey that he was suspended Tuesday after repeatedly refusing to remove the flag from his pickup truck.

"Them trying to make me take it down is unconstitutional," he told the news channel. 

Vied claims the Confederate flag is simply a representation of his southern pride but school administrators insist they've received complaints from people who see it as a symbol of hate. He was slapped with a three-day suspension Tuesday.

Now, the ACLU has intervened and sent a letter to the principal of Steinert High School.

"As the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear, students' rights don't end at the school house gates," ACLU Legal Director Ed Barocas told News 12. "It also doesn't end in the school parking lot."

In response, the school cut Vied's suspension to one day, but the controversy is far from over – many of Vied's classmates and friends are now displaying Confederate flags in a showing of solidarity, though no other suspensions have been handed out. 

"I just want [the principal] not to do this to anybody else," Vied said. "Because you can't just trample on somebody's First Amendment rights, or any of their rights."


If we had more of our people were like this 17-year-old kid, our race wouldn't be heading towards extinction.  All too often I hear these words from White people who supposedly care about their Folk, "Well, what can I do about it?" or "There's nothing I can do about it."  My personal favourite is, "I don't have the time.  I work.  BTW, what time is the game on?"

People there is A LOT we can do - IF we care enough to go to the trouble.  But as Mr. Shakespeare said, "But aye, there's the rub."  It takes EFFORT.  To many people, effort means work, and work is a dirty word.

In three weeks I wonder how many so-called National Socialists will be sitting around their living rooms with beers in hand "toasting" the Fuhrer on his birthday?  First let me remind you that the Fuhrer didn't drink, and although he never outlawed alcohol, he strongly disapproved of it.  Secondly, I think he would rather see us out fighting for the cause rather than sitting around getting drunk on his birthday.

Yes, I know that the Third Reich made Hitler's birthday the biggest holiday of the year, but that was AFTER they won the struggle in Germany.  After all that work which ended in victory they deserved it.  That time is a long way off in this country.

Honour the Fuhrer by redoubling your efforts rather than drinking a few doubles.  Okay, after giving out 100 or more pieces of literature I see no harm in having a beer in honour of the Fuhrer's birthday - as long as you don't get drunk.  Getting drunk on the Fuhrer's birthday would be an insult to his memory.  Non-drinker, remember?  So have a beer if you like, but AFTER your party work is done for the day.

Also, remember that the ANP has designated April as White History Month.  That starts tomorrow.  Happy White History Month to all of us.

Dan 88!

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Our Competant News Media

The following are real headlines from real newspapers.  I thought I'd share them with you as you all have the same high opinion (sarcasm intended) of the media as I do.  Some are just too funny!

Dan 88!

Saturday, March 29, 2014

Black Children Have Less Impulse Control Than White Children

By Heather Mac Donald
March 23, 2014 5:28 PM

The U.S. Education Department released yet another study Friday documenting the fact that black students are suspended and expelled at higher rates than white students. The Obama administration and civil-rights advocates routinely trot out this disparity to justify a strong federal hammer against allegedly racist school districts.

This latest Civil Rights Data Collection Snapshot includes preschool suspension rates for the first time, and they, too, are racially skewed: Black preschoolers are 42 percent of the students suspended once, and 48 percent of the students suspended more than once though they are only 18 percent of preschool enrollment. Pre-K suspensions are exceedingly rare, however: Fewer than 5,000 students out of over 1 million preschoolers were suspended once in the 2011 school year, 2,500 students more than once. 

The media and the civil-rights complex responded on cue with the usual handwringing about racial “inequity.”

“To see that young African-American students — or babies, as I call them — are being suspended from pre-K programs at such horrendous rates is deeply troubling,” Leticia Smith-Evans, interim director of education practice at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, told the New York Times. (Ms. Smith-Evans ignored the fact that “such horrendous rates” only affect a little over a thousand black “babies” nationwide.) “It’s incredible to think about or fathom what pre-K students could be doing to get suspended from schools.” 

Actually, what Ms. Smith-Evans should be trying to fathom is the black crime rate, which explains the school-suspension rate. Black males between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at ten times the rate of white and Hispanic males of the same age combined. Given such high crime rates, what do the civil-rights advocates and the Obama administration think is going on in the classroom — docile obedience and strict self-discipline? In fact, the same weak impulse control that leads to such high crime rates among young black males inevitably means more disruptive behavior in school. 

Also on Friday, the New York media reported that a 14-year-old boy riding a bus in Brooklyn the previous night had opened fire on the bus and fatally shot an innocent 39-year-old passenger in the head. Did anyone doubt the race of the killer, even though the media did not disclose it? Blacks commit nearly 80 percent of all shootings in New York City, even though they are only 23 percent of the population; whites commit less than 2 percent of all shootings in New York City, though they are 35 percent of the population. The chance that that young bus killer was a model pupil, quietly paying attention in class and not disturbing his fellow students and teacher, is close to zero. (Follow-up stories revealed that the shooter was a member of Bedford Stuyvesant’s Stack Money Goons crew, and had been moved to open fire when three members of the rival Twan Family boarded the bus.)

If the civil-rights industry refuses to acknowledge the behavior that leads to disparate discipline rates, it is even more resistant to confronting the root of both the black school discipline and crime problems. In many urban areas, the black illegitimacy rate is well over 80 percent. Boys growing up without fathers are overwhelmingly more likely to lack self-discipline and the ability to control their anger than boys growing up with married parents. And those behavioral problems show up early. School administrators have been reporting rising violence among ever younger students for years. “We see aggressive behavior from kindergarten up,” Lawrence Jointer, the director of hearings for the Alexandria, Va., school district told the Washington Post in 2012.  Student behavior has been worsening over the last four decades, he said. [No, duh! - Dan.]

None of the federal studies mention or control for single-parent households, of course. Instead, we are supposed to believe that well-meaning teachers, who have spent their entire time in ed school steeped in the doctrine of “white privilege” and who are among the most liberal segments of the workforce, suddenly become bigots once in the classroom and begin arbitrarily suspending pacific black children out of racial bias. Oddly, the civil-rights industry never accuses schools of being biased against boys, even though males are as over-represented among disciplined students as blacks. In this case, there would actually be a colorable basis for making such a bias charge, since teachers are indoctrinated in anti-male ideology throughout ed school. Nevertheless, everyone accepts gender disparities in discipline, and not only because no one gives a damn about males these days.  It is simply common sense that boys are more likely to be aggressive and impulsive than girls. Given the black–white crime disparities, it is equally common sense that black students are more likely to be disruptive in class as well.  [Again, no duh! - Dan.]

The refusal to take student behavior and family breakdown into account in interpreting student discipline rates means that more millions of taxpayer dollars will be wasted suing hapless school districts for phantom racism and sending teachers and administrators back to anti-racism training. The advocacy and anti-bias training complex cleans up, while the root cause of student misbehavior still goes unaddressed. 


Liberals constantly cite the fact that Blacks are suspended more than Whites because of racism and because they come from underprivileged  backgrounds.  As to racism, then racism is rampant in EVERY school in the country because every school in the country reports similar figures.  That racism is rampant in every school in the country I find hard to believe.

As to being underprivileged, that's horse manure too.  Being underprivileged is NEVER an excuse for bad behaviour.  These kids know what the rules are.  Being poor or from a dysfunctional family is NOT an excuse.  They know what the rules are yet they still won't get with the program.

And not understanding the reason for a rule is also not an excuse.  As my father told me when I was a kid, "You're a kid.  You don't need to know why.  Just follow the rules."

When I was a kid when an adult told us to jump we said, "How high?"  In other words we did what we were told or it was five across the eyes.

Black kids also love to play the race card.  I remember once when I was teaching eight grade, I was having a lot of trouble one day with a particular Black girl of about 14.  After I had come down on her several times, she said, "You're only on my case because I'm Black.  You ain't yelling at any of the White kids in this class."

I replied, "I got news for you.  Take a look around.  I'm not coming down on any White kids because there AREN'T any White kids in this class!"

All of a sudden she got this "Oops, I'm busted" look on her face and looked around the room and realized I was right.  She then shut her mouth and sat down.  Now that was a satisfying day of teaching for me!

I think the figures speak for themselves.  If Blacks do have less impulse control than Whites they should stop looking at us and take a good look at themselves.  The trouble is, people don't want to hear the truth when the truth is that they are at fault.  It's always easier to blame someone else and nowadays that's us.  We have become the whipping boy for all non-Whites who have failed at something. 

Dan 88!

Friday, March 28, 2014

Exclusive: Wal-Mart manager speaks out about his store’s ugly reality

From no time off, to working multiple roles at once, here's what's really going on at the mega-chain

President Obama sparked a new round of big business ire this month, directing the Labor Department to reform rules that exclude salaried managers making over $23,660 a year from overtime protections.
That was welcome news for a Wal-Mart assistant manager – granted anonymity due to concerns over retaliation – who told Salon the retail giant exploits managers’ lack of overtime protection by making managers do rank-and-file employees’ work in order to cut costs. (Wal-Mart did not respond to a request for comment last week.) A condensed version of our conversation – on chronic understaffing, firings of strikers, and why he sympathizes with the union-backed non-union workers group OUR Walmart – follows.
The regulatory change that’s been proposed by the president on overtime — how would that change things for you, if that went into law?
That would force Wal-Mart to, one, start to count how much managers are working … The more time I spend at work, the less time I spend with my family … Without compensation for it, it makes no sense to me … My time with my family is worth a lot more.
How many hours a week do you think you’re working now?
Right now, it’s consistently about 48 hours a week. However, when we get toward the holiday season …you’re regularly working 60 hours a week.
How much do you bring home … from doing that?
My yearly salary is $44,000.
What would change in your life if you were covered by overtime protections?
I think I would get more time with my family — and if I didn’t have more time with my family I would definitely have money … to compensate me for time spent away.
Right now, do you think there’s work that Wal-Mart has managers do rather than rank-and-file employees because they don’t have to pay you for overtime?
Absolutely … What the average customer sees in the store is forcing the manager to step out of that manager role, and into that hourly associate role. So you’ll have managers that are cashiering, stocking shelves … We’re trying to take care of our managerial duties too …
[Managers are] not getting proper lunches or getting breaks. There’s no way for Wal-Mart to ensure that we’re getting breaks, because we don’t punch a clock, of course – we don’t track our time.

It’s been suggested by business groups that this kind of regulation would kill jobs … If this kind of regulation went into effect, do you think your store would be hiring more people or fewer people?

You know, I think Wal-Mart’s way is Wal-Mart’s going to hire fewer and fewer people regardless of what decisions are being made …
With the recent Sam’s [Club] restructuring, Wal-Mart, you know, might pull something like that within their actual [management at] Wal-Mart positions …
[Already] there’s a lot of work to be done that’s not being done right now with the amount of people we have.
In management, in the rank-and-file positions, or both?
In both …
As a salaried manager, if I’m [moving] freight all night long, I’m not able to give my associates in the building the attention that they need, or you know, the developmental process … [to] grow within their role within Wal-Mart. You know, it makes the job very hard to do.
How does that affect Wal-Mart customers?
If you have a manager that’s running a cash register, you know that manager is not on the sales floor ensuring that product is on the shelves. You know that manager is not able to respond to customer calls as quickly …
So I think customer service definitely does lack.
Your job as an assistant manager – what do you think is different about it from what people imagine?
When I came into the role, I thought it was going to be that I’m going to handle paperwork, be there for the associates, and help them with issues that may arise with them; I’m going to be the guy that they can come to for answers, I’m going to develop leaders …
There’s not enough time in the day to do it … They don’t have enough people to get the job done. And it shows. It shows on the shelves, in terms of the stock. You know, it shows with the morale of the associates. That definitely has issues …
If you look at companies like Wegman’s or Costco, you know, that staff their stores, and they have high payroll percentages, but they’re still [showing] profits, because they’re getting the product on the shelves …
If you have empty shelves, your baskets aren’t as good. What really matters is: How much does that customer buy going through the register? You know, if the customer comes in with a shopping list of 35 items, and you only have 20, you lost a good portion of that sale … to your competitor …
The company made $17 billion in profit last year. They paid the CEO $18 million … There’s no reason why they can’t pay overtime, they can’t give hours back to associates.
The group OUR Wal-Mart … What have you heard from Wal-Mart corporate or Wal-Mart management about it?
Corporate has been very quiet recently about … OUR Wal-Mart. What they have told everybody is “most of these aren’t Wal-Mart associates” and … “the union sees Wal-Mart is a big paycheck.”
And you know, I can understand Wal-Mart’s stance on unions, and why they don’t want it. However, I can say I see a lot of validation in these associates’ claims that are part of the organization.
And you know, I think that they’re trying to bring the issues up the best way they can … Sometimes managers don’t hear it, and it’s not because we don’t want to hear it. It’s because we have 65 things going on at one time …
The individual attention is just not there in the stores right now, because … they’re understaffing.
Have you been tasked personally with doing anything to talk to people about OUR Wal-Mart or discourage people from getting involved in OUR Wal-Mart?
No … I’m on the fence.
I’m not going to say that a union is the answer for Wal-Mart; I’m not going to say that it’s not. However …associates should speak up … Those concerns should be able to be handled by people that have the time to handle them …
It’s not fair to the associates to bring a concern to a member of management in their store who doesn’t necessarily have the time to take care of it … If I don’t get my compliance done, that could cost me my job …
The firing of more than 20 people who had gone on strike with OUR Wal-Mart – what’s your view of what motivated that?
My view on that would probably be: They don’t want it to spread. Wal-Mart’s going to say, you know: “Hey, it’s an attendance policy” [being enforced] … The real reason … is that you don’t want that apple spoiling the bunch, as they would say. The last thing you would want to see is associates … speaking out and … organizing and not facing retaliation, so other associates feel more comfortable with it.
When the president or members of the Obama administration do events appearing with Wal-Mart executives or promoting Wal-Mart, do you think that’s a good move or a bad move?
I think that it would be a good move if Wal-Mart had good intentions …
We can donate a ton of money to everybody out there … That’s something that Wal-Mart should be proud of. But Wal-Mart should take its pride back in taking care of its associates and taking care of its customers …
It’s kind of sad that, you know, you have associates that are struggling right now — especially struggle this time of year — to get 24 hours a week … They didn’t ask to be part-time. A lot of them would love to be full-time …
I think that the associates that are out there voicing their concerns — especially through their organization — I think that they should continue to do so … I think the only way that things are going to change is for the public to start understanding what we’re going through …
I think it’s important for the associates to know that not all managers are monsters. There are some people that are certainly bad managers out there … There are a lot of managers – and I’m, you know, personally speaking to managers at my store and managers at other stores — that are unhappy with the direction that the company’s going. It’s a lot different when you’re working at a store than when you’re sitting behind a desk in Arkansas.
Great interview.  However none of what was said surprises me at all.  We all know what kind of scum balls run Wal-Mart.  They care only about profit.  The workers are nothing but assets - expendable assets - to be used up and thrown away when they are no longer of value.
The only way to defeat the Judeo-Capitalists and to stand up for our rights is to organize.  If you choose the ANP, then great.  But at least get organized.  Nothing will change if you meekly go along or just grumble and complain.  In fact grumbling and complaining could get you fired.  Bosses don't want to listen to you gripe.
The concept of the Lone Wolf is a fallacy.  One man cannot make a difference.  It takes unity.  It takes an honest union.  Hitler spoke about unions extensively in "Mein Kampf".  He was in favour of unions as long as they were not controlled by the Communists.  He believed in National Socialist unions.  Unions that not only stood up for the workers but did so the National Socialist way.
The first step is to support the ANP.  If you are not already an Official Supporter then become one now. Why wait?  The longer you wait before taking action the longer it will take to win.  It's your choice.  But I say either put up or shut up.
Dan 88!

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Saudis Bar Jewish Reporter From Covering Obama's Trip There

Tuesday, 25 Mar 2014 08:51 PM
By Sharon Churcher

The Saudi government is refusing to allow the Jerusalem Post’s Washington bureau chief to cover President Barack Obama's trip to the Arab kingdom. 

In a move that the White House Correspondents Association called "outrageous," Michael Wilner is purportedly the only member of the Washington press corps who has been denied a visa for the trip.

The Post reported that the Saudis ignored "firmly worded requests" to grant the application, which were made by U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice and presidential assistant Tony Blinken to Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir.

The newspaper added: “Rice and Blinken separately expressed extreme displeasure at the delay and the prospect of a denial.’’

The White House said it has complained about the denial.

"We are deeply disappointed that this credible journalist was denied a visa,” said Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council. “We will continue to register our serious concerns about this unfortunate decision."

Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters traveling with Obama en route to Belgium on Tuesday, however, that the Saudi Arabian trip would not be reconsidered.

"No," he said. "Look, we have disagreements with Saudi Arabia on a number of issues. We obviously have had disagreements in the past as it relates to some issues associated with Israel, some issues associated with human rights. 

"But we also share a significant set of interests with Saudi Arabia. They’re a very important partner of ours in the Gulf, and we believe it's better to have the type of relationship where we can cooperate but also be clear and honest with one another where we have differences," Rhodes said.

The correspondents association said: 

"It is outrageous that the Saudi government has refused to allow a White House reporter entry to the country to cover this week’s visit of President Barack Obama.

"The denial is an affront not only to this journalist but to the entire White House press corps and to the principle of freedom of the press that we hold so dear.’’ 

In an editorial, the Jewish Press accused the Saudis of  "plain old anti-Semitism."

"Wilner, a Jewish American, works for the Israeli English-language newspaper but does not hold Israeli citizenship and has never lived in the Jewish state. Saudi Arabia has no official relationship with the government of Israel,’’ the editorial said.


Gee, the Jews accuse an Arab country of being anti-Semitic?  The next thing you know they'll be accusing National Socialists of being anti-Semitic too!  Duh!

I'm going to make this commentary short (no I really mean it this time).  The Saudis have allowed many Jewish reporters into their country.  They have never allowed an Israeli reporter in.  Mr. Wilner may be an American, but the Jerusalem Post is an Israeli newspaper.  If he worked for the NY or LA Times, or the Washington Post, this would not have happened.

The Saudis are making it clear that they do not recognize Israel and want nothing to do with them - even indirectly.  It's their country and they have the right to set their policies as they see fit as long as no one is being hurt or killed.

I sincerely hope that this will not be blown all out of proportion.  If the Saudis - or any other country for that matter - want nothing to do with Israel, then that's their right.  It's time the United States - and everyone else - started respecting the rights of those who take a different path than Western nations.  We have no right to judge.  But we will, of course.  That's how Westerners are.  We are civilized and everyone else is a Medieval savage.  Some are savages, and some are just different. Let's leave them alone and let them be different as long as it is in their own country and no one gets hurt.

Dan 88!

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Georgia Senate Blocks Bill Allowing DACA Recipients Continued Access to Public Benefits

Wednesday, March 19, 2014, 11:27 AM EDT

The Georgia State Senate defeated legislation that would have removed verification requirements in existing state law for non-citizens, including illegal aliens, when renewing certain state benefits illegals began to access after the Obama Administration created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Under Georgia law, non-citizens must demonstrate eligibility for public benefits by presenting various documents at renewal. HB 1051 would have allowed DACA recipients, who obtain a driver's license or state ID card, to use the numbers from those documents to renew access to an array of state benefits.

The DACA program is a result of a memo issued by former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano in 2012 that allows certain illegal aliens to receive deferred action and a work permit. DACA recipients currently have access to limited-use driver's licenses and official ID cards under a loophole in state law that otherwise bans all illegal aliens from accessing public benefits. Earlier this year, the Georgia state legislature failed to pass a measure that would have banned DACA recipients from getting those driver's licenses, which are considered public benefits.

Then the House took up HB 1051, which allows illegal aliens with DACA status to use their "Limited Term" driver's license to apply for an array of taxpayer-funded public benefits paid for by Georgia taxpayers, including professional licenses and more. The measure passed the House by a 167-3 margin.

But the Senate voted down HB 1051 by a 34-to-19 margin despite that fact that Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, the leader of the Senate, supported the measure.


Some call this vote a surprise.  It would indeed be a surprise if it happened in states like California or Massachusetts, but not in the deep South.  Southerners seem to have a little more common sense about these things than the rest of us - especially Californians.  If Martians ever landed there, California would probably give them welfare, free medical care, and free college.

We need to do this - and much more - on a nation-wide basis.  If just a few states deny illegals benefits, then they'll just migrate to states where they can get them like right here in California, the illegal alien sancutary of the country.

In a National Socialist state there are three legal classifications:  Full citizens who have full civil rights under the law, non-citizen legal residents who have some civil rights, visitors (like tourists and foreigners visiting family) who have no civil rights.  And for immigrants, full citizenship must be earned, and not given just because you've been here a certain number of years or because you marry a citizen, or because you were born here to non-citizen parents.  You must PROVE yourselves worthy of citizenship through hard work, service to the community, and military service by those who are fit and able.  Birthright citizenship should only be the right of children born here to parents who are already FULL citizens.  

The United States is the only major western industrial country that still has birthright citizenship.  I should also point out that birthright citizenship was created to benefit the children of freed slaves and American Indians who wanted to leave their reservations and become citizens. Once they were granted their citizenship, their children (as long as they were born here) were automatically granted citizenship.  It was never meant to be used as an anchor system for immigrants so they could stay in the country.  It's a blatant abuse of a law that was meant to help a totally different group of people.

Until we do things the National Socialist way, America will continue its inexorable descent towards poverty and inevitable collapse.

Dan 88!

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

The Burger Chain That Pays $10 An Hour With Benefits


A Shake Shack order

Shake Shack, a burger chain with locations in Florida, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C. as well as international locations in the Middle East, Russia, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, pays starting workers $9.50 an hour outside of New York City and $10 an hour for New Yorkers, CEO Randy Garutti told ThinkProgress. It also offers full-time employees health, dental, vision, retirement, and disability benefits plus paid time off.

But on average, workers get $10.70 an hour thanks to a program it calls Shack Bucks. Every month, it gives employees a percentage of the company’s top-line sales. “It’s sort of immediate revenue sharing, not a long-term program,” he noted.

The company pays about 70 percent of employees’ health care premiums and also matches contributions to their 401(k)s. He added that he is “more excited” than all of these perks about how many employees move up into manager roles. “There are a lot of people who started making $9 an hour and are now general managers in our restaurants making very good money,” he said. The owners started in fine dining and brought the compensation practices from those restaurants into its original burger and hot dog stand.

When asked if these practices have come with concrete benefits for the company itself, he responded, “Absolutely,” adding, “Our turnover is lower, we can hire the best, they stay longer, and we can grow them into management.” And it pays off for customers. “If the team feels taken care of, then they’ll go out and take care of the guests.”

And he thinks other business owners in the fast food industry can take this approach and see similar results. “I know they can,” he said. “Because I just know that it works.”

And Shake Shack isn’t the only eatery taking this approach to its workforce. Michigan’s Moo Cluck Moo pays entry-level workers $15 an hour, a move its owners say leads to less turnover, better customer service, and more skilled employees. In-N-Out, a West Coast burger chain, pays $10.50 an hour for entry-level employees. Outside of the burger world, Boston-based burrito chain Boloco pays starting workers anywhere from $9 to $11 an hour, which the owner says increases loyalty and productivity and, in turn, profitability.

In light of the conversation to raise the minimum wage, others have decided to join in. Two pizza companies in St. Louis will soon pay at least $10.10 an hour. It has also spread outside of the food industry: clothing retailer The Gap recently announced it will also raise its lowest wage to $10.

But the fast food industry is notorious for low pay, where workers make so little that they consume $243 billion in public benefits each year just to get by. And while some executives argue that these jobs are just a starting place for teens earning extra cash, the reality is that the majority of workers are well out of their teenage years. Meanwhile, the average low-wage worker brings in half his or her family’s income, while more than a third of fast food workers are supporting children.


Another victory for the working class.  But it couldn't have happened WITHOUT management.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler often talks about how destructive class warefare is.  He discusses how when management treats workers fairly there is less discontent, more loyalty, and higher production. Fair treatment of the workers benefits workers, management, and society in general.

Shake Shack, In-N-Out Burger (I've eaten there.  Pretty good for fast food.) are not behaving totally like Judeo-Capitalists.  But as I've said before, there are more kinds of capitalism than Judeo-Capitalism.  These places understand that by treating the workers fairly, both sides benefit.  Plus an article like the above is great free advertising. It's a win-win situation.

In a National Socialist state ALL businesses would operate like this or else face being shut down or nationalized.

In NS Germany, any business that didn't meet the standards imposed by the government was confiscated and either shut down or the president/CEO was removed and replaced by a Treuhänder (trustee) who answered to the Reich wirtschaftliche Office (Reich Economic Office).

Folks, this is what real National Socialism is about. Not the hate mongers portrayed by Hollyweird Nutzi theatre performers. What's it going to be? Do you want an America with businesses like Shake Shack and In-N-Out Burger, or an America like McDonald's, Wal-Mart and all the rest where as many jobs as possible are outsourced and what few remain pay low wages and they abuse their employees?

Remember, we all get the America we deserve.

Dan 88!

Monday, March 24, 2014

Feds Collect Record Revenue Still Run a Deficit

The federal government collected $1,104 billion in the first five months of fiscal 2014, an all-time record for the period of October through February yet still managed to run a deficit of $379 billion.
Total revenue was up $94 billion from fiscal 2013 and broke the previous record of $1,076 billion set in 2007, before the recession began and took its toll on the American economy.
Individual income taxes rose by $15 billion or 3 percent during the first five months of fiscal 2014, and social insurance (payroll) taxes rose $54 billion or 15.7 percent, according to a Congressional Budget Office report based on Treasury Department statements.
The increases were due in part to the expiration of the 2 percentage-point payroll tax cut and increases in tax rates for income above certain thresholds. A tax bill signed by President Obama in early 2013 also boosted the capital gains tax rate from 15 percent to 20 percent for higher-income taxpayers.
Corporate income taxes rose $12 billion to $83 billion, a 16.7 percent increase compared to fiscal 2013, while "Other Receipts," including receipts from the Federal Reserve, rose $13 billion to $106 billion, a rise of 13.6 percent.
Federal outlays over the five months decreased by $21 billion to $1,483 billion, the CBO reported.
Total spending for military activities of the Department of Defense dropped $15 billion to $246 billion, and Department of Agriculture spending decreased by about $10 billion largely due to reduced spending for crop insurance and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program food stamps. And interest on the public debt fell $3 billion to $97 billion.
But outlays for Social Security increased $16 billion to $345 billion, Medicare rose $17 billion to $221 billion, and Medicaid went up $8 billion to $116 billion.
Despite the decrease in outlays and rise in tax revenue, the government still ran a deficit estimated at $379 billion over the five-month period. That was down from $494 billion in fiscal 2013.
In February alone, outlays increased $12 billion compared to February 2013, adding $195 billion to the deficit.
The figures listed here are nothing less than staggering, yet we are still sinking further and further into debt.  Why?  Simple.  The government refuses to live within its means (just like many American families).  They spend and they spend and they spend.  Why they run out of money the borrow and borrow and borrow.  This is absolute insanity.  The system cannot possibly sustain itself like this.
When the limit is reached - which is not too far off - it will all come crashing down.  And what do our politicians say about this?  The good old, "We'll think of something before its too late.  And if we ask, "What would that be?"  If they even bother to answer it would be something like, "We don't know what that will be yet, but don't worry.  We'll think of something."
All they are doing is slicing the baloney and most of us are eating it right up.
In 1943 the national debt was a mere $100 billion.  To day it is over $17 trillion and rising by the billions every month.
In 1943 the German national debt was $50 billion.  That's half of what ours was. Germany was in the middle of the war zone while we were not.  It's true that Germany had far fewer people to care for, but by the same token they had far fewer people paying taxes - and you can rest assured that everybody paid their fair share - unlike in the United States.
Even in peace time our debt grows.  We spend and spend and spend like the well will never run dry.  Well the well will run dry.  We're getting close to the bottom now.  If we don't go National Socialist now, the well will run dry and We The People will be stuck at the bottom.
Dan 88!