Mr. Bailey is an icon for the American success story. And McDonalds is an icon for American business success.

My neighborhood has a mix of poor and middle-class. It is has significant populations of Hispanics African-Americans and Whites, plenty of teen-agers and plenty of retirees, apartments condominiums and homes. There is no shortage of available labor for a business like the McDonald’s in my neighborhood.

I’ve noticed something odd about the McDonald’s in my neighborhood however. And in thinking about it, something insidious comes to mind.

In my experience (I’ve been paying attention for several years now), 100% of the non-customer conversation is in Spanish and 100% of the employees are Latino. The moment the employee stops speaking directly to the customer, they begin speaking Spanish. That is not exactly a huge problem for me, but it is improper language etiquette.

The bigger problem is that it totally eliminates the possibility for success of any non-Spanish-speaking employee. I have noticed once or twice a non-Spanish-speaking African-American or elderly employee there, but they never last long. In an environment where employees are directed and supervised in Spanish, how can a non-Spanish-speaking employee be successful? Why would anyone hire someone they knew, in advance, would not be successful? Why would anyone even apply for a job in an environment which conducts business in a language an employee didn’t understand?

The rhetorical answers to the above questions, of course, are they wouldn’t and they couldn’t.

What that means to me is that the Spanish-speaking workplace environment of my neighborhood McDonald’s precludes employment by non-Spanish-speakers.  And, since most Spanish-speakers are Hispanic, a workplace environment which precludes employment by non-Spanish-speakers is effectively, if not factually, discriminating if favor of Latinos and against non-Latinos.  The practice of Spanish-speaking in the workplace  creates a self-perpetuating environment of employment discrimination.

Where does the FED derive it’s authority to set salaries?

If the authority derives from agreements (made at the time the FED loaned money to them) with the corporations, then yes they have the authority. If the corporations don’t like that, then they shouldn’t have agreed to it and faced the consequences of not getting a loan from the FED. Someone who loans you money has the right to set conditions upon the loan. If you don’t like the conditions, either don’t agree to the conditions or borrow the money elsewhere. Once you agree, you have no standing to complain about what you agreed to.

If the FED has invented its authority that’s another story. They should not.

If Congress has passed legislation giving the FED the authority, that’s wrong too.

But, to me, none of those things are the issue here.

There’s a lot of talk right now about how offended the public is over the outrageous salaries and bonuses of management in some companies.

Publically held corporations are funded by shareholders, bonds and loans. Ultimately the control of the corporations rests in the hands of the shareholders. Any members of the public who are not shareholders should mind their own business and businesses in which they don’t hold shares are not their “business”. If non-shareholders are offended by the way a business is run they can express their dissatisfaction by not buying products from those businesses. if you don’t like the way a business is run, don’t invest in it or don’t buy their products, or don’t do business with them. On the other hand, if you are a shareholder, it is certainly your right to be concerned about the way your company is being run. Speak up. Form, or join, some sort of group whose collective share of the company is significant enough to effect the outcome of elections of Boards of Directors and vote in Directors who will direct the officers of the company in a way which meets your needs. Alternatively, sell your shares and invest your money in a company which operates the way you think it should – or put your money under your mattress.

The problem I have noticed over the 15-20 years is that Directors are hand-picked by CEOs in order to authorize what the CEO wants to do. So shareholders have two major problems, the CEO and the Board. Shareholders can vote out the Board and the Board can control the CEO. But shareholders go along with the company by signing proxies for their votes and then complain when they don’t like the way the company is run or the compensation of its employeees. Quit whining shareholders. You have a say/vote and if you don’t like something don’t give your vote away to management. On one hand you’re telling management to vote for you and on the other hand you’re compaining about what they do with your vote.

All that is to say that if you (shareholders) hadn’t enabled these companies to function immorally, pay themselves obscene salaries/bonuses, fly around the world in private jets, have board meeting in exotic locations and generally live the high life on your money we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Yet, I see and hear both conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans every day demanding that government step on other peoples individual rights.

A current example of the point I’m attempting to make is the move towards the legalization of marijuana. Christians, conservatives and Republicans have their panties in a wad over this issue. Why? Because they don’t like it, that’s why. The fact is the use of marijuana should be an individual decision and interference in an individuals use of it by government is as much a nanny-state tactic as obamacare.

Before you get all wound up, let me go on the record as stating unequivocally that I am not a user of marijuana. I tried it once about ten years ago and it was not for me. However, I have had a few friends over the years who did use it. In some cases, I was in their presence while they were smoking it. I can’t say that I’ve ever seen any effect on them except a “mellowing out.” That is not so say they couldn’t have been dangerous to themselves or others if they were driving or something – I just don’t know. Further to that point, I do use (and have mis-used) alcohol on occasion and have been in the presence of others who have mis-used alcohol on many occasions. They are almost always a danger to themselves and others. Look at the number of deaths associated with drunk driving. How many deaths are you aware of due to pot-smoking. Personally, I am aware of none. In fact I can’t even recall ever hearing about one. I am using the marijuana issue to illustrate the point I’m trying to make.

Back to my point now.

Even MADD doesn’t advocate a ban on alcohol. They advocate for safe driving. I think if they advocated for a ban they would be out of business so to speak. If someone wants to smoke pot and “mellow out” why should it matter to government? If someone wants to sell pot and not pay the taxes on it that’s another story. Do you see the difference? One person sells something which is supposed to be taxed (a proper use of government authority) and should be dealt with accordingly for his violation of the law and another person wants to mellow out and in the process violate no law other than an inappropriate law which violates his personal freedom.

Those same Christians, conservatives and Republicans (including myself) are all wound up about President Obama trying to jam his demented obamacare plan down our throats because, for one thing, it impinges on our right not to have health care by fining those who don’t choose to buy health insurance. There are other considerations, of course, but this one serves for my analogy.

The issue is not obamacare or legalization of marijuana – it is allowing our rights as individuals and citizens of the United States to be diminished. The issue of maintaining our rights as individuals and doing what we choose to do as long as it doesn’t harm others is what is important. We should ALL be able to agree on that.

In fact, lets compare Barack Obama to Robert Mugabe.

From Wikipedia: Mugabe’s government supported the Southern African Development Community’s intervention in the Second Congo War; expropriated thousands of white-owned farms; printed hundreds of trillions of Zimbabwean dollars, causing hyperinflation; and harassed and intimidated such political opponents as the Movement for Democratic Change.
Mugabe has described his critics as “born again colonialists”, and both he and his supporters claim Zimbabwe’s problems are the legacy of imperialism, aggravated by Western economic meddling.

Obama’s government supports ACORN’s intervention in the Mortgage Banking industry, the Internal Revenue Service and HUD. Obama has expropriated major financial, insurance and manufacturing businesses; prints trillions of dollars, which will soon cause hyperinflation; and harasses and intimidates such political opponents as FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.

Obama regularly denounces his critics, sometimes engages in name-calling, and both he and his supporters claim America’s problems are the legacy of racial prejudice, aggravated by personal and corporate greed.

That is not to say that the melding which occurred over the years of different cultures incorporated in American society has not had a beneficial effect because it has. We would not be what and who we are today without immigrants and the diversity in culture they brought with them. We could not have risen to the heights we have without the contributions and labor of those who came here hoping to live the American Dream or without the labor and culture brought by slaves and indentured servants.

However, thinking about it objectively, “the American Dream” is one developed primarily as a result of English-speaking, Christian, Western Europeans. They made it possible for all those immigrants to emigrate. They made it possible for all those immigrants to function freely, to vote and to achieve. Colonialism changed the world in a positive way. Yes, there are many instances where the indigenous population and culture were trampled along the way. But even with that, colonized countries grew, their economies prospered, their people gained a better standard of living than what they had when the colonists arrived, their children were educated, their lives grew longer, more of their babies lived, they were mostly able to speak and travel freely.

And then colonialists became “bad people”.

The children starving in Zimbabwe today are the children of those who voted for “change” expecting the government to take care of all their needs. The unemployed in Zimbabwe today are the children of those who voted for change. Those rioting in the streets today are the children of those who were dancing in the streets in anticipation of change. The owners of dusty unproductive farms piled high with broken, rusty once-high-tech farm equipment today are the children of those who once worked on productive farms which gave Zimbabwe the title of “breadbasket of Africa”. What wealth still exists there has been “re-distributed” to thieving politicians and their families – not the people who voted for change.

We are moving from a nation of self-reliant, self-starting, ambitious achievers to a nation of mooching “change-wanters” who don’t learn from history that big government never enriches anyone but the politicians and their henchmen. Be careful what you wish for….

No, the problem is we are showing weakness and those who would take our place as “king of the jungle” don’t merely sense it.  They see it, smell it, taste it and recognize that the opportunity they have waited so long for is palpable in it’s closeness. Now is their time. The opportunity is irresistible.  President Obama has been pushed aside from the position of leader of the free world due to  his rank appeasement of Russia, China, Iran and others.

Putin kicked sand in Obamas face and Obama backed down from the European missile defense system while doublecrossing Poland and Czechoslavakia. For fear of hurting the feelings of the Red Chinese he put off his meeting with the Dalai Lama. To keep up the pretense that we have global influence he allows Iran to get closer every day to acquiring a nuclear bomb. North Korea threatens our allies in the region with nuclear weapons and missile overflights while we give them “stern warnings”. He  convenes meetings with bureaucrats to question the wisdom and experience of his own General in Afghanistan while our servicemen and women are blown to bits.

It’s clear to the world from our Presidents false starts and failures to think about the consequences of his actions that we are adrift and rudderless. And those who are ambitious are acting to ascend to their “destinies” as world leaders because that is the nature of ambition. Couple that with whatever it is in human nature which produces schadenfreude and you can easily see why others are snickering over Obamas fumbled “Hail Mary pass” of an Olympics pitch.

President Obama has behaved like a megalomaniac from his first day in office. That was easy to do riding the wave of popularity which swept him into office. But none of his grandiose plans have come to fruition. He is encountering resistance on all fronts. Yet he carries on pompously declaring this or that and delivering on nothing.

Acting like a hero is not the same as actually being a hero. Heroism requires courage and action.  Those who stand on the sidelines are spectators and wannabes.

They have no case.

But aside from filing a case which doesn’t have “a leg to stand on” ACORN ,in an astounding demonstration of stupidity, has thrown open the books of the entire  ”organization” through deposition and discovery.  Deposition and discovery which will be on the public record as sworn testimony.  Such discovery and testimony could prove very, very interesting as it relates to the organized crime that takes place on a daily basis there.

Jeez.  What were they thinking?  That’s a rhetorical question.  Community organizers don’t think, they just whine about racism and rouse the rabble hoping to achieve anything they can take credit for.  I would have thought President Obama would have trained them better than that, but apparently his community-organizer skill needed a little more honing.

I wonder how they chose the brilliant legal mind to prosecute this stupid suit?

I understand and agree with Jeff’s frustration with the way things are in our government.

However, I disagree that blowoutcongress.com is the answer.  I disagree because it is essentially the strategy which President Obama used to get elected and subsequently get us onto the superhighway to disaster.  It plays on the emotions of people who are dissatisfied with government by evoking the “anything is better than this” attitude.  Since the election of Barack Obama, Americans (including many Obama voters) have come to realize that “anything” is not necessarily better than “this.”  Certainly change was/is needed, but not just change for the sake of change.  Change for the better was and is still needed.

This strategy preys on the emotions of those who don’t really know what they want – they just want “different.”  That’s child-like and I think many people are now realizing that they should have looked more carefully before they leapt on the Obama bandwagon.  Jeff Bolton however is promoting the very same strategy and in so doing, preying on the same emotions as the people who voted the wrong way in the last election.  My own emotions want to agree – anyone would be better than Obama.  But following my emotions in this case would be stupid.  What would be more intelligent is to help to find someone truly better, more in line with the real desires of most Americans, to run for President in 2012.  The same things applies to my congresspeople.  Rather than just fire them and replace them with anyone who wants to run, I should communicate my wishes to them and to anyone who will listen to me in order to get the very best person to represent me.

Frankly, I’m pretty happy with my congressman.  I don’t want to replace him just to start anew.  That would be the Obama plan.  I didn’t like the idea of electing someone with absolutely no experience other than rabble-rousing.  Someone with dubious ties to dubious characters.  Someone whose mantra was hope and change.  Jeff’s plan demands change and hopes for the best.  That’s what got us Obama.

There are a couple other troubling things going on too.  Jeff has mentioned once or twice that he has been approached to run for congress.  And KLIF is heavily promoting an adjunct to Jeff’s morning show where he will have a panel of blacks on his show which he will moderate.  The premise is “what is it like to be black in Dallas.”  Separately, blowoutcongress.com, the black panel and the possible run for congress are not bothersome – together though they begin to look a bit like a self-serving campaign for political office.

If, in fact, the convergence of these initiatives is actually nothing more than the beginning of a run for political office, it’s bothersome in it’s sneakiness.

In case you’re wondering why I don’t just express my opinions directly to Jeff Bolton?  I have attempted to do so several times without success.  I’m not interested in being on hold for 20 minutes only to find he is “up against a commercial break” whereupon my call is ended.  And I have tried emailing several times and gotten nothing but an auto-generated reply for my trouble.

Reuters examines one example of the problem with believing campaign promises

By Jeremy Pelofsky

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration on Friday urged a U.S. court to dismiss a lawsuit by gay married couples from Massachusetts who say they were unlawfully denied federal marriage benefits.

Well, that sounds like a broken promise to me.  And to members of the gay community.  But the reality is he had no choice.

But the gay community has been angered by the Obama administration’s defense of the law in court proceedings. Justice Department officials say they are obligated to defend federal statutes when they are challenged.

“In making this filing, the department is bound by the only precedent that exists, which is that no court has found such a right to federal benefits based upon marital status to be constitutionally required,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler.

The Government is required to defend Federal Statutes.  Was President Obama lying when he made the promise?  We don’t have any way to know that.  We do know one thing though.  President Obama should have known his administration would have to defend Federal Statutes.  He is, after all, a constitutional expert.

Most politicians promise whatever they think they need to in order to get elected.  The lesson to be learned here is that the politician not promising what you demand might be the most honest politician.   And maybe voting on a single-issue basis isn’t the best idea.  A better idea might be to elect honest, learned, wise representatives who faithfully represent the best interests of their constituency even if they don’t seem to agree with you on your favorite issue.  At least then you have some hope of persuading someone like that to consider your point of view instead of believing the promises of someone who will say anything to get elected.

There are many, many videos on the net of President Obama telling ACORN leaders that they will have a “seat at the table”.  Couple that with the fact that he actually worked with them and you have a real “game-changer” as Obama would say.  My guess is the the White House staff is working full-time, to the exclusion of EVERYTHING else to find a way to spin what Obama has said and to distance him from this bunch of lying, cheating miscreants.

He, through his solid connections to ACORN, is now tainted with tax evasion, slavery, prostitution, gaming the system, fraud, voter fraud(they’re currently being investigated in about 14 states), and who knows what else.  How is he going to get out of this one?  Claim he didn’t know?  Too late, he’s already used that “get out of jail free” care with Jeremiah Wright.  No one believed him then, and trying to pull that again will only certify him as a liar.  His only real choice is to throw them under the bus like he did with Van Jones and Wright.  However, they don’t seem like the types to go quietly.  And, there you have the Obama conundrum.

What to do?  What to do?  Well obviously he has to distance himself from them somehow.  And then, I predict, the whole thing will become yet another “distraction” from obamacare formulated by the Republicans (code for whites).  This is going to turn into a huge oboner.