You know what unemployed Americans need most?

More expensive electric bills.

From HotAir:

With gun-control momentarily off the table and amnesty headed for choppy waters in the House, it’s time to seize the day and get rolling on another top liberal priority that falls way, way down the list for everyone else in America of stuff the government should be worried about right now. Go take a look at Pew’s poll from January, flagged by Douthat himself, of America’s wishlist for policy action. What’s in the bottom five? What’s the absolute rock bottom?

That would be dealing with global warming sorry, global climate changethe title was altered when people stopped buying Al Gore’s “the planet’s got a fever and the only prescription is more Nanny state!” schtick a few years ago.  So, as the left is so apt to do, they changed the language to an all-encompassing, nebulous phrase that covers not only rising temperatures but cooling temperatures as well.  That way, whether the thermometer goes up or down, the left can yell “Climate change” and attempt to force more regulations on us.

Obama himself said in 2008 that his policies will make energy prices “skyrocket.”  And, with skyrocketing energy prices your utility bill will go up but other things will happen, too:

  • Energy production will be limited.  This will lead not only to expensive rates (see the laws of supply and demand), but to brown outs and the rationing of energy.  Especially during extreme cold and extreme hot weather.  Expect those brownouts in California to become the norm everywhere.  That’ll be fun in northern Wisconsin in the middle of January or Arizona about the end of July.
  • The prices of everything will also skyrocket.  It costs businesses money to run their stores, ship their products, manufacture their goods.  Increased energy prices means all of that gets more expensive and that cost will get passed along to the consumer.  On top of it, businesses that are teetering on the edge of financial ruin will either collapse or have to lay off many employees.
  • Consumer spending will stall.  See the point above.  When consumers have to spend more on the basic necessities — food, utilities — they will cut back in other areas.  When consumers lose their job because their employer can’t afford to pay them a salary and keep the lights on, they’ll lose not only their discretionary spending but the ability to pay  for the necessities as well.
  • The already struggling economy will stall and we will see another recession, if not an outright depression.  You can only do so much to screw up an economy before the shit hits the fan, so to speak, and Obama’s cap-and-trade plan just might be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

And, of course, the cap-and-trade program will bring along something else that will assist in crippling the economy: another massive entitlement program.  Why, you ask?  Because Obama, and the left, know that skyrocketing energy costs mean there are a lot of people — both lower and middle income — who won’t be able to afford a 100% (or more) increase in their energy bills.

Like Obamacare and immigration, we’ll get politicians speaking passionately about how we have to help the poor make ends meet, how it isn’t fair that people have to choose between paying for groceries and keeping the lights on, how senior citizens and small children and cute puppies are freezing to death because of those greedy energy companies, etc.  The solution will, of course, be some sort of credit or program or subsidy that will help offset the cost of the expensive programs Democrats themselves forced on the people (something they won’t mention while they opine about helping the impoverished citizens).  This means more taxes, more regulation, more spending as the government hires staff to sign people up for the energy subsidies.  It’s a progressive statist’s dream, which is why Obama’s so eager to get it done now.

Girl Scouts face declining membership, financial woes

But the article doesn’t mention the problem until about two-thirds of the way down and, even then, only skirts the issue.

The Girl Scouts have, like the Boy Scouts are doing now, shunned the traditional roots and values on which they were founded in favor of whatever politically correct cause-du-jour the left happens to be harping about on any given day.  The Girl Scouts have embraced abortion, and have a decidedly feminist bent that I don’t remember from my days wearing the sash (at an event, speaker Marlo Thomas said she opposed marriage because she couldn’t “mate in captivity”).

Just like the Boy Scouts recent decision to allow openly gay scouts (but not openly gay leaders) has caused many to reconsider their membership, the same thing happened to the Girl Scouts to their fiscal detriment.  At the end of the day and despite Obama’s 2012 victory, we are still a center-right nation.

The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts — places where kids should be able to learn skills that come with camping and the social interaction of being with a diverse sampling of their peers — have been politicized.  This is because the left never, ever passes up an opportunity to indoctrinate people (especially young people) to their political ideologies.

But, the good news (at least for parents and kids) is that membership to the Boy and Girl Scouts is voluntary.  And when you wave the proverbial middle finger at parents who don’t want their kids politicized or exposed to abortion or gay issues, you can’t pretend to be surprised when those parents take their kids (and their money) elsewhere.

There is a fortune to be made for the enterprising person(s) who start organizations free of this political nonsense.  But — more than that — there is an opportunity to fight back against the liberal takeover of organizations.  They specifically take positions in organizations like the Scouts or political groups or even community groups and volunteer organizations with the purpose of passing and enforcing their agenda.

If they have no one they can force to comply with said agenda, and no one to pass it along to, they will lose their footholds.

The question no one will ask Jim Carrey

Or, more accurately, the question Jim Carrey won’t answer.

Will he return all the money he made from films with violence, including his salary from ‘Kick-Ass 2’?

I don’t believe movie violence causes mass shootings any more than I believe cooking shows make people over-eaters or “Antiques Roadshow” makes people hoarders.  Violence in movies is, unless a documentary, fictional and if we’ve lost our ability as a culture to discern between real violence and fictional violence, then our problems are much, much deeper than Jim Carrey’s latest flick.

But, of course, blaming real-life violence on fictional movies reflects rather sadly on our culture’s shunning of personal responsibility and the blaming of “the other” for the bad choices one makes in one’s life.

Carrey is a staunch gun-control advocate, and a rather insulting one.  After the Sandy Hook School shooting in December, he tweeted many nasty things (that made no logical sense) about Second Amendment supporters (of which I’m one).  He’s got a right to be against guns but — especially without a consistent ethic — we have a right to challenge his views (which are in the minority, I believe) and to question his motives.

Paula Deen and politically incorrect ‘sin’

If you’ve paid attention to the news, especially entertainment/pop culture, you’ll know Paula Deen was unceremoniously dumped from the Food Network after she admitted to using the “n-word” in a deposition related to a pending lawsuit.

Kevin DuJan at Hillbuzz has a list of 10 things you should know about this case and, as always, offers an interesting perspective.  Hillbuzz is one of the few places where you’ll get information about the story that you won’t likely hear elsewhere (like, for example, the fact Deen admitted to saying the “n-word” back in the 1980s after being robbed while working as a bank teller).  DuJan believes this is an orchestrated attack by progressives/liberals meant to draw attention to issues of racism on the eve of the George Zimmermann trial and points out that Paula Deen is a Democrat who voted for Obama both in 2008 and 2012.

While the Deen case is more complex than that brief summary (read Hillbuzz for the information), this is the lesson we should take from this (and something DuJan talks about):

Liberals will seize any opportunity to advance their cause, even if it means going after someone who supports them, like Paula Deen.  Additionally, liberals are merciless and unforgiving when it comes to a person (or persons) who they believe have violated their definition of morality (which is usually political correctness and, therefore, subject to change without notice).  They will also either punish you directly or, if that’s not possible, seek to punish you either by public shaming or putting pressure on your family and friends, employer(s) or groups with which you’re affiliated.

While Paula Deen is extremely financially well-off, it’s important to note they got her fired from the Food NetworkThis means any product lines she put her name on that come through the Food Network, in addition to her television show, are now done and those revenue sources cut off.  While my snarky side says, “Good!” (after all, her beloved Obama has himself said there comes a point when you’ve made enough money), this should send up alarm bells for anyone — liberal or conservative — who is less wealthy than Paula Deen.

She uttered a word with a long, offensive history (but one that’s regularly tossed around in rap music and Spike Lee movies)…30 years agoWhile I was just a baby then, if you’re in your 40s, 50s…think back to the 1980s.  Odds are you were in your teens or early twenties and did (and said) stupid things.  You are lucky that, in the 1980s, smart phones and the Internet were just a gleam in some tech geek’s eye.  Nowadays, everyone has a smart phone and nearly everyone with access to the Internet is on Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, Instagram, YouTube.  You could say or do something — in a moment of poor judgment, or fueled by alcohol, or just out of idiocy — that ends up on the Internet.  Once something is on the Internet, it never goes away. It is archived, cached, screen capped.  It is out there forever.

Now imagine that someone with a vendetta against you — be it personal or political — decides to pull up that image or audio of you when you were 17 or 23 and use that against you.  It is completely rational and realistic to believe that if liberals can get Paula Deen fired from her high-profile gig at the Food Network (and you know there are hundreds of thousands of her fans who are upset about this) they can get you fired from your job.  They can punish you for politically incorrect thought — no matter how long ago it occurred — especially if they deem you an enemy today for whatever reason.  This is politically incorrect ‘sin’ and the left will make sure you pay dearly for it.  It is an effective way to bully people into behavior the left deems acceptable, a form of social engineering.

Does the Food Network have the right to set terms of employment?  Yes.  They do have an image they’re presenting — one that’s making lots of money for lots of people.  Several years ago, they fired Robert Irvine (“Dinner Impossible”) after it was revealed he lied on his resume.  Irvine, however, is back on the Food Network (in part due to fan outcry).  Has the Food Network made sure its other stars are devoid of any politically incorrect utterances in the past?  It’s a question DuJan asks and one that the Food Network should answer.