Poor Richard's News: 4th grader embarrasses New York City's DOE with hidden camera documentary about their dishonest lunch program
I love this kid. He has the smarts to become a great investigative journalist.
Zachary Maxwell is his name, and he’s a whiz. He decided to document the dishonesty of New York City’s Department of Education about their school lunch program. His findings are both disgusting and hilarious.
Here’s a clip from his film:
from Zachary’s website:
Zachary is a fourth grader at a large New York City public elementary school. Each day he reads the Department of Education lunch menu online to see what is being served. The menu describes delicious and nutritious cuisine that reads as if it came from the finest restaurants. However, when Zachary gets to school, he finds a very different reality. Armed with a concealed video camera and a healthy dose of rebellious courage, Zachary embarks on a six month covert mission to collect video footage of his lunch and expose the truth about the City’s school food service program.
This short documentary provides a fun and spirited insider’s perspective on the elementary school lunch room.
Zachary, I hope that you read this. What you’ve documented here is big government corruption, and it won’t be the last time you see it in your lifetime. See, government always promises to make things better, and sometimes they even use famous celebrities to sell their ideas to the public. It always sounds nice… Yummy gourmet school lunches! Free healthcare for everybody! Shovel ready jobs!
In the end, the results are always the same: greater cost to the taxpayer and results that are just as bad as (if not worse than) what things were before.
Please take this lesson about government to heart, Zachary. Think about it: if your parents didn’t have to pay higher taxes for you to get these “delicious, nutritious school lunches,” they could afford to pack an incredible lunch for you to take to school every day. Sadly, as things are right now, if you bring your own lunch, you’re actually paying twice! And that’s how big government always works. Always.
News to Me: Big Brother, Big Government, Big Data
April 23, 2013
Ken Jorgustin
The next big threat to your privacy is… the new mammoth NSA spy center in Bluffdale Utah, 25 miles south of Salt Lake City. And it’s almost complete…
The spy center is nearly complete, and the NSA says the center will have a major focus on cyber security, while critics say that they will be storing data on Americans.It has been reported that the center will be able to hold 5 Zettabytes of data, an unimaginable capacity. 5 Zettabytes is the equivalent of recording 180 million years of HD-TV video. If an 11 ounce coffee on your desk equals one Gigabyte, just one Zettabyte would have the same volume as the Great Wall of China.
What will the NSA be doing with all this data storage? The NSA says that they need it to help keep the country safe.
Here’s a thought… maybe they will be recording every single thing about every single American (and others) from cradle to grave. And that’s probably just a drop in the bucket of their storage capacity.
Perhaps they’re looking to achieve perfect security in the U.S.
The thing is… the only way you can have perfect security is to have a perfect surveillance state. That’s George Orwell. That’s 1984. That’s what that would look like.
Concerns from critics about the new NSA spy center include the possibility that this data could be abused. Quoted from one critic during an investigation by Catherine Herridge (video below),
“That’s the real danger, because it’s really a ‘turn-key’ situation where it could be turned quickly and become a totalitarian state pretty quickly. The capacity to do that is being set up;” “It’s a lot of trust to put in one institution.”
FOX News report, “Cyber Surveillance”
Milton Friedman: History of the Modern Welfare State (by Common Sense Capitalism)
Michael Moore: Americans Wouldn’t Need Guns if We Had More Welfare (by SchiffReport)
Political Cartoon
By Alex Hoffman
Libertas Institute - 1/31/13
Another Pro-Government Statement from Rand Paul
All to become President? Right?
This evening, the U.S. Senate voted on a series of amendments to H.R.152, the Sandy Supplemental Appropriations Bill, to fund disaster relief for victims of Hurricane Sandy. The bill passed, with a vote of 62-36.
Following the vote, Sen. Paul issued the following statement.When Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern coast of the U.S., I agreed that we needed to assist those in the affected areas. However, this bill lacked any fiscal restraint or responsibility. The bill was completely unpaid for, adding billions to the debt with money being used for programs known to fund cultural festivals and public art exhibits. In addition, of the $60 billion in total disaster funding provided, only a small fraction will be spent this year; more than half will be spent after 2015. Furthermore, while the cost of this bill will never be offset, the government will still just have spent every dollar of this year’s tax hike. We can help those in need, but we should do so providing them with only the resources they need today and prioritizing this funding by reducing spending elsewhere.Note the tone of this statement. There is nothing here for a libertarian or true conservative to applaud. Rand does not question at all whether government should have a role in disaster relief, rather he is just questioning the budgetary structure and size of such payments.
A libertarian, or true conservative, would question government’s role in disaster relief, itself. Isn’t government disaster relief just creating moral hazard, encouraging people to build houses in harm’s way, knowing that should disaster strike the government will be there to bailout those exposing themselves to the risk? And as far as those truly caught in unexpected disaster, why shouldn’t the private sector handle it? It is an insult to the American people when government officials like President Obama and Senator Paul call for government disaster relief, which implies that Americans are not charitable enough to give on their own and must be forced to do so with a tax-taking gun pointed at them.
The Institutionalization Of Tyranny
Paul Craig Roberts
Jan 19, 2013
Republicans and conservative Americans are still fighting Big Government in its welfare state form. Apparently, they have never heard of the militarized police state form of Big Government, or, if they have, they are comfortable with it and have no objection.
Republicans, including those in the House and Senate, are content for big government to initiate wars without a declaration of war or even Congress’ assent, and to murder with drones citizens of countries with which Washington is not at war. Republicans do not mind that federal “security” agencies spy on American citizens without warrants and record every email, Internet site visited, Facebook posting, cell phone call, and credit card purchase. Republicans in Congress even voted to fund the massive structure in Utah in which this information is stored.
But heaven forbid that big government should do anything for a poor person.
Republicans have been fighting Social Security ever since President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed it into law in the 1930s, and they have been fighting Medicare ever since President Lyndon Johnson signed it into law in 1965 as part of the Great Society initiatives.
Conservatives accuse liberals of the “institutionalization of compassion.” Writing in the February, 2013, issue of Chronicles, John C. Seiler, Jr., damns Johnson’s Great Society as “a major force in turning a country that still enjoyed a modicum of republican liberty into the centralized, bureaucratized, degenerate, and bankrupt state we endure today.”
It doesn’t occur to conservatives that in Europe democracy, liberty, welfare, rich people, and national health services all coexist, but that somehow American liberty is so fragile that it is overturned by a limited health program only available to the elderly.
Neither does it occur to conservative Republicans that it is far better to institutionalize compassion than to institutionalize tyranny.
The institutionalization of tyranny is the achievement of the Bush/Obama regimes of the 21st century. This, and not the Great Society, is the decisive break from the American tradition. The Bush Republicans demolished almost all of the constitutional protections of liberty erected by the Founding Fathers. The Obama Democrats codified Bush’s dismantling of the Constitution and removed the protection afforded to citizens from being murdered by the government without due process. One decade was time enough for two presidents to make Americans the least free people of any developed country, indeed, perhaps of any country. In what other country or countries does the chief executive officer have the right to murder citizens without due process?
It turns one’s stomach to listen to conservatives bemoan the destruction of liberty by compassion while they institutionalize torture, indefinite detention in violation of habeas corpus, murder of citizens on suspicion and unproven accusation alone, complete and total violation of privacy, interference with the right to travel by unaccountable “no-fly” lists and highway check points, the brutalization of citizens and those exercising their right to protest by police, frame-ups of critics, and narrow the bounds of free speech.
In Amerika today only the executive branch of the federal government has any privacy. The privacy is institutional, not personal–witness the fate of CIA director Petraeus. While the executive branch destroys the privacy of every one else, it insists on its own privilege of privacy. National security is invoked to shield the executive branch from its criminal actions. Federal prosecutors actually conduct trials in which the evidence against defendants is classified and withheld from defendants’ attorneys. Attorneys such as Lynne Stewart have been imprisoned for not following orders from federal prosecutors to violate the attorney-client privilege.
Conservatives accept the monstrous police state that has been erected, because they think it makes them safe from “Muslim terrorism.” They haven’t the wits to see that they are now open to terrorism by the government.
Consider, for example, the case of Bradley Manning. He is accused of leaking confidential information that reveals US government war crimes despite the fact that it is the responsibility of every soldier to reveal war crimes. Virtually every one of Manning’s constitutional rights has been violated by the US government. He has been tortured. In an effort to coerce Manning into admitting trumped-up charges and implicating WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange, Manning had his right to a speedy trial violated by nearly three years of pre-trial custody and repeated trial delays by government prosecutors. And now the judge, Col. Denise Lind, who comes across as a member of the prosecution rather than an impartial judge, has ruled that Manning cannot use as evidence the government’s own reports that the leaked information did not harm national security. Lind has also thrown out the legal principle of mens reaby ruling that Manning’s motive for leaking information about US war crimes cannot be presented as evidence in his trial. http://www.armytimes.com/news/2013/01/ap-judge-limits-motive-evidence-wikileaks-case-bradely-manning-011613/
Mens rea says that a crime requires criminal intent. By discarding this legal principle, Lind has prevented Manning from showing that his motive was to do his duty under the military code and reveal evidence of war crimes. This allows prosecutors to turn a dutiful act into the crime of aiding the enemy by revealing classified information.Of course, nothing that Manning allegedly revealed helped the enemy in any way as the enemy, having suffered the war crimes, was already aware of them.
Obama Democrats are no more disturbed than conservative Republicans that a dutiful American soldier is being prosecuted because he has a moral conscience. In Manning’s trial, the government’s definition of victory has nothing whatsoever to do with justice prevailing. For Washington, victory means stamping out moral conscience and protecting a corrupt government from public exposure of its war crimes.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He is a columnist and was previously the editor of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds,” details why America is disintegrating.
Is That A Tear Streaming Down James Madison’s Face?
Chris Rossini
James Madison“The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature.
In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the executive magistrate. Constant apprehension of war, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force with an overgrown executive will not long be safe companions to liberty…”
Why are people so willing to let government in their lives to fix their problems?
libertarian-dharma-initiative:
When have you ever known the government to run efficiently?
When have you ever known the government to be reasonable?
Why would you sacrifice your autonomy to some bureaucrat in Washington that has never seen or heard of your existence?
Seems to me like you’re just asking for your problems to continue and/or expand.
Americans Move to Impeach Obama
Piers Morgan Chickens Out Of Second Debate With Alex Jones
CNN host fails to respond to challenge
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 14, 2013CNN host Piers Morgan has seemingly chickened out of a second clash with Alex Jones on gun control, refusing to respond to a challenge by Jones that would have seen the two square off in a moderated debate.
On Wednesday, Jones challenged Morgan to another face-off that would follow classic debate rules, be overseen by an independent moderator and allow an equal amount of time for each speaker.
Despite the fact that Morgan has addressed Jones directly in a number of tweets since the challenge was issued, he has failed to respond to the challenge itself five days after it was made.
Whether or not Morgan is being prevented form having Jones back on the show by his CNN bosses remains to be seen, but Jones stipulated that the debate could also take place on his syndicated radio show or at a neutral venue.
During the 2013 Golden Globes last night, Morgan again chided Jones by joking, “the British really ARE coming again,” in reference to a large number of the award winners being British. During his volatile appearance on Morgan’s show, Jones made the point that the second amendment was primarily added to the Constitution by the founders as a safeguard against government tyranny in the aftermath of the revolutionary war against the British.
The CNN host has made similar haughty sideswipes in the past, previously bragging that he was, “Born (With Natural British) Supremacy.”
Over the weekend, immigration group ALIPAC called for Morgan to be fired by CNN for making on-air death threats against Alex Jones as he joked with guests on the Tuesday edition of Piers Morgan Tonight.
While debating Morgan’s contentious interview with Alex Jones, author Buzz Bissinger remarked, “But what do you need a semi-automatic weapon for? The only reason I think you’d need it is, Piers, challenge Alex Jones to a boxing match, show up with a semi-automatic that you got legally and pop him.”
“I’d love to see that,” responded Huffington Post’s Abby Huntsman, adding, “In uniform.”
“I’ll borrow my brother’s uniform,” Morgan responded.
Morgan’s supporters followed up by expressing their desire to see Alex Jones shot dead because of his pro-gun rights stance.
Despite Morgan’s repeated claims that his gun control views are shared by a clear majority of Americans, a rally in support of the CNN host held at CNN center in Washington DC last week was attended by just four people.







