Finally! FDA cracks down on Cheerios

The FDA has finally stepped forward to address the "elephant in the room" problem plaguing our nation's streets. I know you've seen them. Derelicts in the street, roaming alleyways, clogging intersections. Young and old, black or white, these poor refugees all have one thing in common. They are all searching for that next hit, their next high. Their drug of choice? Cheerios. It is about time this scourge was challenged, and the FDA is up to the task.

In a blistering letter sent by the FDA to General Mills, (Known as "Big Daddy G Money" on the street) they blast Big Daddy by first removing the farce that Cheerios are a cereal or something. "Based on claims made on your product's label, we have determined that your Cheerios® Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal is promoted for conditions that cause it to be a drug". Take that, General Mills!

The promotion in question? G Money draws in junkies by claiming that Cheerios "can Lower Your Cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks" and the nefarious dealer references clinical studies while doing it. What a completely true claim dastardly lie!

From The Raw Story: "General Mills defended the claims on Cheerios packaging, saying in a statement that Cheerios' soluble fiber heart health claim has been FDA-approved for 12 years, and that its 'lower your cholesterol four percent in six weeks' message has been featured on the box for more than two years."

The problem, according to the FDA, is not that this claim is untrue. It's that...Well...They...You...Ummm....It's that according to regulation Alpha Omega 2000 XY, all your base are belong to us. (We want more power, and you're looking mighty tasty).

The FDA has warned that if these scoundrels don't mend their ways, "boxes of Cheerios could disappear from supermarket and wholesaler shelves around the United States and the company could face legal action." Completely unrelated but interesting fact: Cheerios account for 1 in 8 (12.5%) of cereals sold in the US according to General Mills. That'll do wonders for grocery stores I'm sure.

(Thanks to Robin for the tip on this story)

How do you attract business? Higher taxes!

That's the plan, at least, that Obama set out on May 4th. Touting the collection of measures as loophole closing, it basically makes it more difficult for US based companies to "hide" money overseas, by producing products in areas that are cheaper to run in and then selling them here. Moneys made overseas by US based businesses are not taxed at the American rate, so the Feds "lose" that tax money and the companies have an incentive to produce things overseas.

The American Thinker has an excellent article that explains it quite well. An excerpt:

"America's 35% corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world. Emerging markets have much lower rates. Ireland's corporate tax rate, for example, is only 12.5%. If an American corporation produces in Ireland, it only pays 12.5% tax on its income, while if it produces in America it pays 35%.

President Obama is correct that current tax policy creates inefficient incentives for outsourcing. Suppose that the US-based Widget Corporation is trying to decide whether to build a factory in the US or in Ireland. Based on the cost of production, distribution, and shipping, producing widgets in the US will earn a profit of $10 per widget. Producing in Ireland will earn a profit of only $8 per widget. The economically efficient thing to do is to produce widgets in the US. Except for the tax consequences! Ireland has lower corporate tax rates. Consequently, the after-tax profits in Ireland are $7 while the after-tax profits in the US are $6.50. "

By enacting this plan of his, he will effectively make the tax rate of, say, Ireland, the same as the US tax rate by taxing the companies the difference. That will mean it will become cheaper to produce in the US again, so the Widget corporation will move all the jobs back here. Hooray! Problem solved! Let's get some ice cream.

Wait, sorry. Got trapped in an alternate reality where that plan might work. As we travel back to Earth, let's review a basic principle: Every company exists to turn a profit, and will act in the manner that allows it turn the greatest amount of profit possible while expending the least amount of resources possible. Think of this kind of like the "Path of Least Resistance" principle (PLR). Any company that does not follow this principle will not remain a company very long.

Keeping that in mind, we understand that the US can only tax the earnings of a company who is based in the US. Tthis plan makes it uncomfortable for a company to be partially exported (produce elsewhere, based here), making sure that is no longer the PLR. However, it does not make being domestic (Produce and based in the US) any better, because all the plan does is raise taxes. What the plan, which American Thinker aptly labels the "The Outsource Corporate Headquarters Act of 2009", is make the cheapest and easiest option (The PLR) to leave America entirely. Then, they get to live it up with Ireland's cheap tax rate and all they have to pay here in the US are fees associated with exporting, which will end up not costing nearly as much as our outrageous tax rate.

If we alternatively sought to make it cheap and cost effective to run businesses in the US by completely removing the corporate tax rate (or at the very least slashing it to less than 10%), it would solve the problem of US companies exporting jobs and it would attract foreign companies to move to America.

We could also achieve the same thing by moving to a flat tax system, or a VAT (Value added tax) system. Either way, it would make it cheaper to run businesses.

But who am I kidding? I'm sure Super CEO Obama knows what he's doing.

Montana to Federal Government: Go *&*$ yourself.

In an amazing act of defiance, the State of Montana has passed the House Bill 246, a.k.a. the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act". The link goes to the full text of the bill, which is actually readable. The basic talking points:

• The 2nd amendment guarantees citizens the right to keep and bear arms.
• The 9th and 10th amendments guarantees any rights not specifically given to the Federal Government are reserved to the States, or the People.
• The "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution is what the Feds use as their authority to regulate guns, since they can cross state lines.
• HB 246 says that if the gun and ammo is made exclusively in Montana, marked as such (with a "Made in Montana" stamp), and will not cross state lines then it is intra-State commerce (commerce within the State). Therefore, such an item would be outside the Federal government's authority, and Federal laws do not apply.

According to the AP article, similar measures have been passed in Texas and Alaska. Montana plans to find a "squeaky clean" person to send a note to the ATF informing them that they plan to build and sell 20 .22 caliber rifles as prescribed in HB 246, all without Federal permits. Then they basically dare the Feds to stop them. If they try, Montana can sue, which then allows the issue to go to the court system, eventually the Supreme Court.

Bill sponsor Rep. Joel Boniek made very clear that he believed the "the issue here is not about firearms. It's about state rights." He could not be more correct. I'm no lawyer, but I am a thinker. If the item does not leave the state (if it did do that, HB 246 no longer applies and both Montana and the Feds hold it as illegal), then what right has the Federal gov't to interfere? If they do choose to step in, and the Courts uphold it, it will be yet another (perhaps the last) nail in the coffin for the 9th and 10th amendments, and by extension, the entire Constitution.

Handy Haversack of news

My "to be blogged" folder is now taking other folders hostage and is making demands. Since I don't negotiate with terrorists, I decided to clear out the folder a bit. Let's dig into our Haversack, shall we?

• Obama cuts $17 billion off of the budget. The bright side is this is quite a bit better than the $100 million he started with. The downside is this is less than half of one percent of the $3.4 Trillion budget he pushed through. On the balance, it is good to cut spending...Still not enough to impress me. Also, since most of these cuts are likely to be nixed by Congress, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
• Sarah Palin to get the coolest M4 EVER! The NRA has custom designed a M-4 just for the Governor. From the all white paint job, to the .50 cal round it uses, to a neat little nameplate, this weapon is really cool.
• Oklahoma tells Federal Gov't to back off. The OK State Congress passed a bill, similar to Texas, that "would tell [the Federal] Congress to 'get back into their proper constitutional role.' The resolution states the federal government should 'cease and desist' mandates that are beyond the scope of its powers." This may just be political posturing, but I still like the tone.
• Pedophiles must be protected...Veterans, not so much. During a House Judiciary Meeting where they were discussing a hate crimes bill, an amendment was proposed to exclude pedophiles from being a protected status. Every Democrat voted it down. During the same session, an amendment was proposed to protect veterans under the bill. As Red State reports, "Not only did the Democrats vote it down, but Cogresswoman Debbie Waasserman Schultz attacked the Republicans for even thinking veterans might need protection under hate crimes legislation." I think hate crimes legislation is silly to begin with (and unconstitutional), and ought to be gotten rid of. But if you have to have it, do it right.
• Ann Coulter delivers the smackdown. Here's the exchange, and it is priceless. To paraphrase: Joy Behr: "You are a supporter of waterboarding, but you don't want to be waterboarded yourself." Ann Coulter: "You are pro-choice, but you don't want to be aborted." Whammy.
• Environmentalist sailors rescued at sea by...wait for it...an Oil Tanker. The irony is delicious. A group of greenies start on a 5k mile emission-free sailing trip to Greenland. After winds capsized them, solar panels were destroyed, and their wind generator kicked the bucket, they had to be saved by the Oveseas Yellowstone. Yes, Big Oil to the rescue again.
• Hey Unions: The Secret Ballot works. A group of nurses in a hospital in Louisville are getting a lesson in the ballot process. Twice, when a petition to vote on unionizing was passed around, a "clear majority" of nurses signed the petition for the union. Yet, when the results from the subsequent secret ballot were tabulated, a majority of nurses voted against a union. The NY Times spins this as showing why the Card Check rule needs to be adopted. Secret ballots obviously don't work! Actually, this shows exactly the opposite. When the vote is public, people can be intimidated, threatened, etc. When the vote is secret, there is no way to harm someone for voting one way or another. That's what secrete means. Therefore, since the secret ballot is more accurate, and it overwhelmingly goes against the union, that implies that the public ballot (or "card check") method is not accurate. There I go, using logic again. Silly me. Facts don't belong in political discussions.

Obama Rating: 5%

Here it is, the weekly report on our Beloved Leader. Can he hold on to his double digit approval rating?

#1:No bailout of newspapers: This might seem a little small. After all, it seems we're bailing out just about everybody these days. Auto makers, banks, lemonade stands...Apparently, though, newspapers don't make the grade. While the White House expressed "concern" and "sadness" over the newspapers going the way of the dino, they refuse to push for any act to stop it. Good on them, I say, for a few reasons.

• To have the government step in, and treat the papers like they've treated the auto industry, would be an egregious violation of the first amendment (government controlled media, anybody?)
• Newspapers are still a business, and deserve to rise and fall on their own merits without interference.
• Most importantly, news isn't going away. It's just the paper version of it. Times change.

One must wonder if the Communist News Network (CNN) or the New Barack Channel (NBC) were to go bankrupt, would his attitude be the same? I can hope so. He goes up 1% for not trying to fight the inevitable.

#2: Air Force One looks SO cool near the Statue of Liberty. I can just imagine how this went down. He's thinking to himself about how Air Force One needs some new pics to show off just how cool it is. Then it hits him. What is the only thing cooler than having the Statue of Liberty in the background? Having the Statue of Liberty and the terrified populace of New York running for their lives! That's the ticket.

In case you couldn't hear the screams and didn't know what was going on Air Force one did a very low fly over of downtown New York. What the people on the ground saw, though, was a 747 being "chased" by fighter jets. I know what your thinking: "Who could have predicted that having a jet fly really low over New York could make people nervous? I mean, it's not like jets have hit buildings there before killing thousands of Americans or something!"

Well, actually, it appears the FAA could, and did, predict just such a reaction. They released a memo prior to the flight. "[The] Federal Aviation Administration's James Johnston said the agency was aware of "the possibility of public concern regarding DOD (Department of Defense) aircraft flying at low altitudes" in an around New York City. But they demanded total secrecy from the NYPD, the Secret Service, the FBI and even the mayor's office and threatened federal sanctions if the secret got out."

According to the US News, "The photo shoot staged by a jet from the Air Force One fleet and an F16 fighter plane flying low near the Statue of Liberty cost taxpayers $328,835, according to a Pentagon estimate, and frightened witnesses into thinking they were watching another 9/11 attack.

The White House Military Office wanted the picture of the President's plane for promotional purposes. The director of that office, Louis Caldera, has taken responsibility for the incident and apologized."

So, Louis Caldera takes the hit for the team. Personally, I don't buy it. It is Air Force One. There are only two of them. They are his personal jets. He doesn't know where they are? No one tells him? Louis just calls up, all by himself, and takes one of the President's personal jets and no one tells Obama? Barack has to know this is happening, because if it is, he can't use it that day. The scheduling alone would be a nightmare. For scaring the bajeezas out of NYC on the taxpayer dime, he drops 3%. Plus another 1% for throwing poor Louis under the bus.

#3: Super CEO Obama "stress tests" the banking system. Who knows more about banking than banking CEOs? Why, Barack Obama of course! Fresh from displaying his wealth of knowledge about the auto-industry by firing GM's CEO, it appears a few more heads might go on the chopping block, this time from banks who didn't pass the so called "stress test" (I'm looking at you, Bank of America and Citigroup). Though the story has been leaked since early this week, the report just came out last night. Banks now have 30 days to announce a plan. What should that plan include? If you read this press release from the Fed & gang:

"...firms will need to review their existing management and Board in order to assure that the leadership of the firm has sufficient expertise and ability to manage the risks presented by the current economic environment".

Allow me to translate: Hope you got that golden parachute ready, boys, because you're going to need it. Once upon a time, the hirings and firings of private enterprise would have been of no concern to the Federal government. It seems that those times are come and gone. Of course, this isn't statism or socialism, no no no! This is just the President directly interfering with the employment and compensation agreements between private citizens and private companies, that's all. He loses 3% for readying the noose.

Tally up the scores, and you'll find a net 6 point loss, bringing el Presidente down to 5%. Can we stay above zero? YES WE CAN!

Dear Attorney General Holder: Go &*$# yourself

The Obama administration is holding a "round table" discussion on their policy of prosecuting jihadists in our court system, rather than treating them as prisoners of war. It would seem to me that Obama's mind is pretty well made up on the subject. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Andrew McCarthy, who helped prosecute the terrorists behind the first WTC bombings, was invited to participate in this discussion. He declined, sending the Attorney General an open letter. You can find the entire text of the letter here. It's a bit long but worth reading. Here's some highlights:

"This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.

The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop." (emphasis added)

Note the ridiculous title now given to those who take up arms against our nation. Enemy combatants no longer. It seems the more words you throw at something, the more harmless it becomes. He also tears away the illusion of cooperation, and calls their game boldly, but respectfully.

"Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government."

Wait, hold on. Deciding to prosecute people for making good faith judgements on policy, after we decide we don't like their policy, might make other people in similar positions less likely to cooperate? Poppycock!

"[I am] powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness. But I can decline to participate in the charade."

He pulls no punches, calling this act out for what it is: a worthless lie. Somehow they think that if you bring people to a meeting, then ignore everything they say, you have somehow been bipartisan. This is not so.

Don't get me wrong. If I were in charge, and my political opponents were powerless to stop me, you better believe I would use the opportunity to enact measures I believed to be in the best interest of our nation. Demolishing spending, cutting taxes (especially on the rich), strengthening the military, reducing government...I'd do what I could to usher in the Conservative golden age. I would respectfully listen to my opponents, but in the end, I would do what I thought was best. What I wouldn't do, and where the left is messing up in my eyes, is try to pretend like I'm not the one making these decisions. I (and all my capitalist friends) would get all the credit for how things went, good or bad.

Look at it this way. The liberals now have complete control of two out of three branches of government, and the third isn't exactly arrayed against them. They ought to be able to do all the things they've wanted to for the last 8 years and longer without any real interference from the conservatives (this is aided by the fact that many Republicans are not conservatives at all). If they were really sure that their policies would work and make a more prosperous nation, if they really believed what they say, they wouldn't want our help. That way, when everything goes rainbows and lollipops, they get all the glory and their opponents are marginalized. They win, America prospers, and they remain in power for a very long time.

Why don't they do this? Because if they do that, when things don't go rainbows and lollipops, they can't blame conservatives for it. So they play this game of bipartisanship, where they pretend they give a rat's behind what the other side thinks by including them in meaningless meetings where they are instantly ignored. That way, should the country take a nose dive, they can cry out that "They weren't the only ones!"

Major kudos to Mr. McCarthy for calling the facade what it is, and giving AG Holder the one fingered salute, in the most kind and respectful way possible.

Obama Approval Rating, Special 102 Day Edition!

Our President has now reached the landmark 102nd day in office. Don't be fooled by the "First 100 days" crowd, the 102nd day is where it's at. I can virtually guarantee you will not get this kind of in depth analysis of the 102nd day anywhere but at Just Another Capitalist.

What has our President done in his first few months? Let's run it down:

#1: Your money is going out of style...: Or at least that's how it's being spent. Check out the summary page of the Obama budget, straight from the Whitehouse website. Spending for 2010: $3.552 Trillion. Deficit: 1.171 Trillion. To give you some reference, take it as a percentage of GDP: 24.1% & 8% respectively. Now look at possibly the worst number of all, the national debt: $9.509 Trillion, or 64.6% of the GDP. Just in case that wasn't enough to floor you, consider this: The budget doesn't include many of the most recent stimulus and bailout packages. Still on your feet? Check out the National Debt Clock: $11.16 Trillion as of 1 May 09.

#2: The best foreign diplomat EVER: The world loves us now, haven't you heard? Showing his countless minutes of foreign relations experience, he has managed to:

• Snub the leader of one of our closest allies, the Brits.
• Bow to the Saudi King, showing we aren't as powerful as you might think.
• Hug/grope the Venezuelan dictator Chavez, who pays him back by strengthening ties with our buddies, the Iranians.
• Explain to the world how we are "arrogant" and "dismissive".
• Much, much more!

What's not to love?

#3: Throw private enterprise under the bus...: Or at least under the Hummer. It all started with bailouts for the auto industry, who we are told are too big to fail. Then he fired GM's CEO. Fired a private employee of a private business. Then he decided the government would take a "key role" in naming the new Board of Directors. Next it was rejecting business plans. The plans of a private enterprise. He also told the bankers who wanted to repay the government loans that they needed to "take their medicine" (in other words, no).

#4: Tell private citizens he doesn't like your AK-47: Sure, he's not seeking a ban on assault rifles. Too bad the only reason he's not seeking it is because he knows that such a move would fail. Meaning: He would love to take those weapons away from the citizenry, and would do it if he thought he could. It is only a matter of time. Then again, at least he's consistent. He wants the government to disarm, too, and cut our nuclear arsenal. A world without nuclear weapons! Presumably said world would be populated exclusively by unicorns and puppies, and trees would grow lollipops and rainbow sherbet.

#5: Put those no good veterans right where they belong...: Alongside neo-Nazis and racists! They are in good company with a host of malcontents, including:

• 2nd amendment activists
• Gun-owners
• Those who fear the rise of unfriendly nations
• Those against illegal immigration
• Pro-lifers

What a crowd of ne'er do wells! Those rotten veterans will fit right in. Remember: Just because you fought on a foreign battlefield for the security of your nation does not mean you care one bit about it once you get back. (Read the report here)

Phew! What a busy time it has been. Tallying up the points, I'd say our President gets an A+ for effort, and a F for execution. But hey, look on the bright side. He's got a whole 1,461 more days to get it right!