As it has been presented, the Obama Administration has indicated that he is ready for serious gun reform. He has pledged to put his “full weight” behind a legislative package for containing gun violence offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein. The bill aims to “stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high capacity ammunition feeding devises.” It will ban 120 specifically named weapons, including handguns and shotguns, and strengthen the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004.

Now I am against violence of any form, but I don’t see why an assault rifle should be the focus of his political venom- guns do not kill people, people do. To focus on the tool misses the problem.

I have owned several SKS since 1990. If you don’t know what an SKS, see the image in this post of me on the book cover of my last book. No it is not a prop is real and one of several. I like it because it fires the 7.62 x 39 (AK47/SKS) slug. Now for most this is an assault rifle, for me it’s just a rifle.

Some ask why I want or need an assault rifle like an SKS? My answer is based on two things: the second amendment and prospects of Tyranny. The second amendment says “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (keyword being regulated not maintained). There was no standing militia in the colonies. In fact they did not get together until 1774 (the Coercive Acts) when the British implemented gun control measures via an import ban on firearms and gunpowder;” the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. History is complete with examples of gun control and the results. Whether in Turkey where in 1911 when 1 .5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated between 1915 and 1917, or even in modern times when in 1964,Guatemala established gun control allowing the government to kill 100,000 Mayan Indians between – From 1964 to 1981. I won’t even mention Nazi Germany, who killed 13 million weaponless Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals after established gun control in 1938.

The aforementioned represents Tyranny which refers to the arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power and/or the despotic abuse of authority or oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler. Fact is, according to the FBI homicide data, hammers, clubs and knives are responsible for more homicides than rifles In fact; the FBI concluded that rifles of all types are the least-used guns when crimes are committed. Not to mention that most firearm murders (about 11,400), are gang related, how many would you guess had legally purchased or registered weapons?

Now many would suggest that tyranny on behalf of the US government with it’s first black President is outrageous: maybe or maybe not but looking at the facts suggest that anything is possible. Take the National Weather Service, who like the Department of Homeland Security in securing large quantities of ammo. Back in March, Homeland Security purchased 450 million rounds of .40-caliber hollow point bullets that are designed to expand upon entry and cause maximum organ damage. The NWS ordered 46,000 rounds of hollow point bullets and I don’t think they are for predicting tornadoes. Then there was the solicitation posted by the Social Security Administration for contractors to supply 174,000 rounds of “.357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow point pistol ammunition.”

The point is technology, if there is tyranny, then what good is a handgun against weaponized drones, Tanks and body armor? None. But I can rest assured that the 7.62 of the SKS can go through all and that makes me comfortable for I have 99 problems – owning an assault rifle isn’t one of them. For the fact of the matter is, when only the military and police have guns, it is called a police state.

Editor’s Note: This post was written by Dr. Torrance Stephens, and was originally published on his blog Raw Dawg Buffalo. A notable scientist and published author, and scholar you can follow Dr. Stephens on twitter: @rawdawgbyffalo.

The post Got 99 Problems – Owning an Assault Rifle Isn’t One appeared first on Madness & Reality.

President Obama and the American people scored a major victory with the recent Fiscal Cliff deal. At least, this is what we’re supposed to believe. That is, if you listen to “certain people” in the media of course. I don’t really feel like naming names, but let’s just say that there’s a lot that they’re not telling you. Surely they’re telling you that this is a major victory because taxes were raised on the super wealthy in America. The truth, however, is that the Fiscal Cliff deal favors the wealthy, but don’t tell anybody. Let them tell it, Obama has fulfilled yet another campaign promise. Yes, thanks to the Fiscal Cliff deal, the wealthy in America are finally paying their fair share in taxes. Yes, score this as a win because with the simple stroke of the pen, everything’s equal in America.

Or so we’re supposed to think, right?

Meanwhile, checkout the clip below to see how well the wealthy made out:

So let’s recap, shall we? Taxes were only increased on 0.016% of the top earners in the country; and, of course as Think Progress points out, the deal makes it easier for corporations to pay less taxes than before. And of course this is bad because it’s not like they’ve been paying anyway:

US banks and other large cross-border companies will retain a key tax break covering billions of dollars in foreign income under this week’s fiscal cliff deal.

Extending the so-called “subpart F exception for active financing income” will allow multinationals to defer paying US taxes on certain financial transactions undertaken outside the US. The companies are taxed by the US on that income only when it is brought back to the country. [...]

Companies including Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, Citigroup, General Electric and JPMorgan Chase have banded together to form the Active Financing Working Group, to lobby for renewing the exemption in recent years.

The group has paid $1.03m to lobbying firm Elmendorf Ryan since 2009 to campaign for the tax break to be extended, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Extending the exemption will cost the US Treasury some $9.4bn in lost revenue in 2013, according to estimates from the Senate Joint Tax Committee.

Yep, who needs to create jobs here in the US when you can invest overseas, and not pay a dime on your returns, right? Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t this one of the reasons we refused to vote for Mitt Romney last November? OK, don’t answer that. But isn’t it nice to know that while banks are able to borrow from the Fed at 0% and sit on $1.4 trillion in cash, that 2 million unemployed people are able to get an unemployment check for at least one more year? Never mind the fact that jobs aren’t being created while interest rates will remain at 0% until the unemployment rate hits 6.5% as Ben Bernanke said recently — it’s estimated that the US will not see 6.5% unemployment until 2016. Yep, let’s just keep feeding the wealthy at the expense of the poor. So again I ask: How’s that inequality thing working out for you again? OK, don’t answer that one: I’d hate to force you to think.

The post Fiscal Cliff Deal Favors the Wealthy, But Don’t Tell Anybody appeared first on Madness & Reality.

Remember that iconic photo of Malcolm X peeking out the window while holding gun with what’s known on the streets as a banana clip? as I think of this week’s ongoing gun control debate, I’ve come to rest on that very picture probably being the biggest reason why I’m opposed o an assault weapon ban. I can provide numbers to support the argument that an assault weapon ban will do very little as a solution to America’s gun violence problem. But being a black man, that very photo says it all. Not that I’m paranoid or afraid of “the man” coming after me like they did Malcolm — nope, never that. You see, I’m reminded of the fact that at one point in this country’s history, it was against the law for anyone black to own a gun. And in so many ways, the existence of that law further enabled “certain people” when it came to terrorizing the lives of black folks in America.

Here’s a stupid conversation on gun control:

Any gun control we enact will have a limited effect. But this should not be cause for despair. Much of the recent hysteria over gun deaths is misplaced.

A lot of people have been citing a recent report, “American Gun Deaths to Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 2015.” The article shows that gun deaths in America are slowly rising, and now stand at 32,000 per year — a staggering toll. Now, 32,000 deaths per year is a lot of death, and I’d never minimize that. But what the article’s authors fail to mention is that gun murders comprise less than a third of that total — about 9,000 per year in recent years. With accidental gun deaths steady at around 500-600 per year, the bulk of those 32,000 “gun deaths” are suicides.

In fact, murder by gun has been falling steadily since the early 1990s. Some of that is due to improvements in emergency medicine, but most is a result of the overall decline in violent crime that America has enjoyed over the last two decades. The fact that overall gun deaths has risen since 2000, despite the fall in murders, suggests that increased gun suicide has accounted for more than 100% of the increase in gun deaths. Obviously, suicide is a tragedy, and I don’t want to minimize it. But people aren’t panicking over suicide, they’re panicking over murder, and gun-related murder is on the way down.

Of course, 9,000 gun deaths a year is still a lot. Still more than other rich countries, still a disgrace, still far too many! But people who have been watching the round-the-clock coverage of the Newtown massacre need to understand that “mass killings” of the Newtown type account for a very small percent of that 9,000. Most of those 9,000 gun murders are of the more mundane, but no less deadly variety — drive-by shootings, gang wars, personal quarrels, and other easily comprehensible crimes.

And if we really care about those 9,000 souls who are shot to death each year, there is an extremely effective policy that we could enact right now that would probably save many of them.

I’m talking about ending the drug war.

Now I can think of many reasons to end Americas 40-year-long failed War on Drugs; and, I’m sure we can have a debate on just that. However, since we’re all up in arms about guns since last month’s tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. Given the many ill-formed opinions and positions posited by more than the NRA’s Wayne La Pierre. Again, in the interest of public safety, isn’t it time we treat drug use, abuse, as well as gun violence like a public health crisis much like we did with HIV/AIDS in America and abroad? No seriously, think about that for a second. Yes, think about how a necessary paradigm shift — that is, decriminalizing illicit drugs — as far as policy can produce the desired results for the greater good.

Reliable statistics on the number of drug-related murders in the United States are hard to come by. A 1994 Department of Justice report suggested that between a third and a half of U.S. homicides were drug-related, while a recent Center for Disease Control study found that the rate varied between 5% and 25% (a 2002 Bureau of Justice report splits the difference). Part of this variance is that “drug-related” murders are hard to define. There are murders committed by people on drugs, murders committed by addicts to get money for drugs, turf-war murders by drug suppliers, and murders committed by gangs whose principal source of income is drug sales.

But very few would argue that the illegal drug trade is a significant cause of murders. This is a straightforward result of America’s three-decade-long “drug war.” Legal bans on drug sales lead to a vacuum in legal regulation; instead of going to court, drug suppliers settle their disputes by shooting each other. Meanwhile, interdiction efforts raise the price of drugs by curbing supply, making local drug supply monopolies (i.e., gang turf) a rich prize to be fought over. And stuffing our overcrowded prisons full of harmless, hapless drug addicts forces us to give accelerated parole to hardened killers.

Ending the drug war would involve reducing all of these incentives to murder. Treating addicts in hospitals and rehab centers, instead of sticking them in prisons, would reduce demand for drugs, lowering the price and starving gangs of income while reducing their incentive to wage turf wars. Decriminalization would relieve pressure on our prison system, allowing us to focus on keeping violent people off the streets instead of pointlessly punishing drug users for destroying their own health. And full legalization of recreational marijuana — which is already proceeding quickly among the states, but is still foolishly opposed by the Obama administration — is an obvious first step.

In other words, yes, gun control is good. BUT don’t expect it to be a panacea for America’s gun violence problem. If we really want to save some of those 9,000 people, we need to end the self-destructive, failed drug policies that have turned us into a prison state and turned many of our cities into war zones. (source)

Now, does this sound crazy, or what? Of course to some of you it does; however, alcohol is considered a drug, yet I don’t see Mexican drug cartels murdering people by the thousands each year to be able to control the market for alcohol. Nope, you don’t hear about headless bodies being found in deserts along the southern border because of alcohol. Which is really funny because more people die annually because of alcohol than they do because of guns. So if we’re really serious about doing something about gun violence in America, why not start with drug legalization? After all, if that were to happen, what’s the worse that can happen other than a reduction in gun crimes in cities in Chicago? A city that had 506 homicides in 2012, with 80% of them being gun-related; with only 4% of the guns used being assault weapons. This makes sense in my head, but what about you?

After all, like “Nino Brown” said, “Ain’t no Uzis made up in Harlem,” which they might not be. But, it’s undeniable that more money is made by the presence of guns and drugs in our neighborhoods by the folks responsible for the task of keeping them out, than the ones engaged in the trade.

Although the overall U.S. prison population declined slightly in 2011, the federal prison population continued to rise, with rates of drug and immigration offenders that eclipse those held for violent crimes. While only 8 percent of federal prisoners were sentenced for violent crimes in 2011, almost half of federal inmates – 48 percent – were in prison for drug crimes, according to Department of Justice statistics. Another 11 percent were held for immigration offenses – one of the largest-growing segments of the prison population.

These numbers reflect the impact of the aggressive U.S. “War on Drugs,” a major contributor to the United States’ standing as the number one jailer in the world. Overall declines in U.S. prisons of 0.9 percent are attributable to state prisons, as some states have been moved by budget crises to adopt innovative reforms, and some jurisdictions have moved toward decriminalizing minor drug offenses.

But federal drug law remains draconian, with harsh mandatory minimum sentences for sometimes minor nonviolent roles in drug deals. What’s more, one of the major causes of the state prison population decrease was the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that California state prisons are cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment. A drastic decrease in California’s prison population has resulted from what is known as realignment, in which prisoners are moved from state prisons to county jails, where local sheriffs have greater discretion over how to deal with offenders – for better or for worse — and may send them to mental health treatment, home surveillance, or community service rather than hold them behind bars. The California shift accounts for more than half of the decrease in the U.S. prison population, and overall state spending on prisons continues to be the fastest-growing budgetary item after Medicaid. (source)

Now watch the following video and ask yourself: What would change if drugs were made legal in America?

The post Why Ending the Drug War is Good Gun Control Policy appeared first on Madness & Reality.

So I’m wondering: Would we be mad at the NRA if Adam Lanza was shot by the police? Seriously, think about that one for a second before answering. Anyway, I just found out that the 12-year-old daughter of one of my wife’s former co-workers committed suicide yesterday — she hung herself. Yes, she was twelve years old; and, she was black.

Not that race matters when it comes to the frailty of the mind. But, I had to put that out there just in case someone reading this may have assumed that she was white. Why? Because, many within the black community are ignorant enough to believe that suicide is just one of those things that black folks don’t do. Yes, sadly some of us are misguided.

Bu,t see? Not everyone with mental health issues are quick to grab guns and murder innocent children — actually,only a small percentage of mental health patients are violent. That aside, I know, some of you are of the opinion that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting has more to do with gun control and assault weapons than anything else. Yeah, never mind that the AR-15 used by Adam Lanza to murder twenty-six people was perfectly legal in a state that has an assault weapons ban. Uh-huh, also, let’s just conveniently forget that while we mourn the loss of lives in Newtown, CT. that innocent children are also being killed by U.S. military drones overseas.

Ain’t that right, Mr. President?

The post Would we be Mad at the NRA if Adam Lanza was Shot by the Newtown, CT. Police? appeared first on Madness & Reality.

Way back in the day, well before we were known as Niggers, Negroes, and subsequently African-Americans, we were known as Spearchuckers. It was meant as a derogatory term as did most other terms used to describe Blacks of African descent in America. But you know what? I do not think Spearchucker is a bad term. Actually, I wish we were Spearchuckers today, or rightfully called that in a literal sorta way.

Ok, bear with me as I explain. You see, way back when, when Africans lived on that other planet called Africa, we carried spears as a weapon, right? I was not there, but I suspect, that back in the day in Africa, a Black man without a spear was as worthless as a Black man without a job and unable to pay his child support today. Yup, possessing a spear was important, without it, there was no food, or means of defending the homies in your crew from some other crew that claimed to either be a Crips or Bloods, or whatever. Plus, I seriously doubt the chicks took a Black man without a spear seriously. I mean, why would she if he cannot even bring home a rhino or elephant periodically, right?

Some where along the line, some White guy decided to show up in his space ship on planet Africa. Being from another world, and not knowing what he would run into, he carried with him what was known as a gun. And you know what happened? The White guy being forever the forward thinker, decided to trade his guns for a few Africans (who were sitting in the county jail) to give them their freedom to come help said White guys tend to his flower garden. Was not that so nice of the White guy who landed on planet Africa? Of course the ever so curious African do-gooders accepted the guns as bail money. Yup, and the rest is history as they say.

This is why I always say that the gun, is worst invention known to man. Yup, Africans got guns in exchange for other Africans. Then, they put down their spears, (which made it even easier to be kidnapped) and now White people are using spears in an Olympic sport called the Javelin. Ain’t that a bitch? And now here we are centuries later, Black people here in America are killing one another in record numbers every year by using a guns.

If we Black people of African descent here in America had spears, there would more than likely be less murders or Black on Black crime. I mean lets face it, the Bloods & Crips in Africa never really ran around doing throw bye’s, and killing innocent bystanders like they used to do out in L.A. back in the 90′s did they? Seewhumsayin? I mean, just keeping it real, a spear is kinda hard to hide and tuck into the small of your back under a jacket.

Seriously, I think it would be quite uncomfortable to carry a concealed spear. Yeah, you just cannot expect to sneak a spear up in the club, and shit just like that. Are you crazy? And what would that mean for the Black community? Less Black on Black crime, or in particular murders. Not just that, but less cops harassing Blacks like they do looking for guns. Yup, no more racial profiling and all of that racial shit, and we would all be able to live in peace and harmony. Yes, life in America would be different for us folks of African descent if they had just left their guns at home. Now all we have to do is figure out how all these guns get onto our streets everyday.

Can you take a guess how they do?

The post Gun Control: If Only We Could Be Spearchuckers Again appeared first on Madness & Reality.

So I would really  like to understand a few things, namely why a person who publicly outlined their “plan” to avoid serving this country during a time of war that included wearing crap filled pants for several days to establish mental incapacity, and who’s only claim to fame is an obscure and extremely brief music career gets a public forum to put forward ideas that are embraced by a major political party in this country and that would disenfranchise anyone who is receiving welfare by taking away their vote.

The Artful Dodger – or How NOT to get Drafted as told by Ted Nugent

 Let’s also stop the insanity by suspending the right to vote of any American who is on welfare. Once they get off welfare and are self-sustaining, they get their right to vote restored. No American on welfare should have the right to vote for tax increases on those Americans who are working and paying taxes to support them. That’s insane. (Read More)

While you are marinating on this, also know that the sentiment to eradicate Social Security and Medicare is real and not just some tin foil hat wearing topic on an obscure message board out in the internet. Paul Ryan, who was Mitt Romney’s  Vice Presidential running mate has as one of his major claims to fame a budget that guts both programs and this budget has broad support in the Republican party and with some so-called democrats who’s humanity is in question.

What Paul Ryan’s Budget Actually Cuts – and by How much -Washington Post

The Ryan budget, amongst other things, proposes changing  Medicare to a voucher program where people will get issued a voucher that they then can take and shop around to try and FIND medical coverage and care.

Det. Thorn: It’s people. Soylent Green is made out of people. They’re making our food out of people. Next thing they’ll be breeding us like cattle for food. You’ve gotta tell them. You’ve gotta tell them!

What I would like to know and what no one  who throws up these concepts has been able to explain is what happens to those people who are currently receiving aid to dependent children, food stamps, social security, or medicare when you gut these programs and there is nothing to help them.

What do people who have been on assistance for 10, 20 years or more who have no job skills, might be illiterate and have never had to balance a checkbook do if these programs are “gutted” or shut down completely. What happens to these people who suddenly have the rug pulled from underneath them with no means at all to find a job that will pay enough money to pay rent,  buy food  and transportation.

As one of the millions of Americans searching for a job with over 20 years of work experience, and unable to find employment right now, I would really like to know what people who  have no work experience who are suddenly forced to go “get a job” are supposed to do when they can’t and there is no help for them in the meantime to exist?

None of the rabid purveyors of shutting all the entitlement programs in this country down has ever come forth with a clear concise answer to this question.  Enormous amounts of vitriol are reserved for the ” lazy, moochers who will not take responsibility” – see Mitt Romney 47% speech to donors

I would like to say to Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Ted Nugent, Donald Trump and all the other  willfully ignorant and oblivious people who claim to be Americans – and that feel like an individual without a job CHOOSES to be that way; that a person  who isn’t working is LAZY; or even better that those  47% who don’t pay taxes should have their rights to vote and participate in the process of government that has a say in THEIR lives – if the direction this country is going in is not amenable to you and you are at your wits end  trying to figure out how to “FIX” the direction of this country – don’t stress yourself. Follow in the footsteps of those founding fathers you seem to invoke incorrectly at the most convenient moments. Since lack of funds are not an issue for you, I suggest you pool your resources and build a ship and provision it for a long journey. Then carry your asses away from this country and go discover another country where there are people living there already. Like you did with this one.  Better yet take Gingrich’s advice and take a rocket to the moon. Plenty of space up there for you, your bigoted beliefs, your intolerance and your lack of humanity for your fellow man.  Kindly take your inhumanity, greed avarice and ignorance and LEAVE.

The post Understanding the Hatred of the Poor in America appeared first on Madness & Reality.

So, Paul Ryan says that they didn’t lose the presidential race because of the issues. According to him, the Romney-Ryan ticket only lost to President Barack Obama because of the “urban vote.” Now of course when I read that this morning, my racism meter started red lining — maybe if I were “color-blind” like some of my un-melanin friends this wouldn’t happen.

But of course to many of you reading this, what Ryan said is no big deal. After all, it’s not like he accused “Blah people,” or maybe even our brown-skinned cousins of being uninformed on the issues. Nope, he made no such claim; however, I imagine many of those right-wing dogs will be howling upon hearing this whistle. Besides, everyone knows that urban dwellers voted for Obama because we love free stuff.

Oh, and speaking of not not-so-obvious racism. By chance, did you hear about what Denise Helms said on Facebook on election night after the urban-friendly Obama won? Oh, you didn’t hear about it? Well, don’t worry; it’s not like she is anyone important to everyday people like us. However, to the Secret Service she’s important enough to warrant an anal probe. Yep, like the long list of idiots, bigots, and xenophobes on social media, Ms. Helms doesn’t have a problem expressing her views about an African-American being the president of the United States.

This from FOX40:

The United States Secret Service is investigating a Turlock woman over a post she made, using the N-word, about President Obama on Facebook.

“Another 4 years of this (N-word),” Denise Helms wrote. “Maybe he will get assassinated this term.”

The post, which has since been taken down, went up right after the president won his second term Tuesday night.

“I didn’t think it would be that big of a deal,” Helms told FOX40.

Even though Helms removed the post from her profile, she’s not going to apologize.

Denise Helms: “Another 4 years of this nigger. Maybe he will get assassinated this term.”

“The assassination part is kind of harsh,” Helms said. “I’m not saying I’d go do that or anything like that, by any means, but if it was to happen I don’t think I’d care one bit.”

[...] “I don’t understand what I did wrong. I didn’t say, ‘Hey, someone go do this,’” Helms told FOX40.

Helms also said that, despite using a racial slur, she doesn’t consider herself racist.

Legally, Helms probably won’t get in trouble for her comments. If the Secret Service perceives her as a credible threat, she faces a Class D felony charge.

Yeah, what’s the big deal if someone assassinates the president of the United States, right? I mean, it’s no big deal because it’s not like he’s a white man. Hell, who would waste tears if a black guy… oops, a “nigger,” gets killed even if he’s the leader of the free world, right?

Quite naturally none of this is even shocking anymore. Racism chasers like myself and fellow anti-racism fighters have come to expect this sort of rhetoric from the anti-Obama crowd. If it isn’t the loons like Ms. Helms who use the typical, “I’m not racist because I have friends of all colors,” defense like she did in the video below. It’s the political elites like Paul Ryan, and right-wing talking heads stoking the fires of racial animus that kindle in the souls of cowards. But that’s fine, because that’s one of the many reasons Obama was elected; not everyone is stupid and America is waking up.

Watch the video:

The post Secret Service Investigates Woman’s Racist anti-Obama Facebook Post appeared first on Madness & Reality.

A couple of days ago I wrote about the Las Vegas small business owner who said he had to fire 22 employees because President Barack Obama was re-elected. As evidenced by the many threats levied by various business owners prior to the election, many business owners are using Obama’s re-election as an excuse to sever ties with employees.

Many of them are citing an increased cost of business as a result of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise commonly known as ‘Obamacare‘. While they may be slight increases in cost as a result of the policy which requires the provision of health insurance coverage to employees. The fact that small businesses are given tax breaks as incentive to participate (and in some ways offset cost) in providing coverage is being largely ignored by business owners. Add to that, the fact that ‘Obamacare‘ doesn’t go into full effect until 2012. But don’t tell that to Papa John’s Pizza CEO John Schnatter, who now says that he will have to reduce the hours of his employees as a result.

This from The Huffington Post:

Papa John’s CEO John Schnatter said he plans on passing the costs of health care reform to his business onto his workers. Schnatter said he will likely reduce workers’ hours, as a result of President Obama’s reelection, the Naples News reports. Schnatter made headlines over the summer when he told shareholders that the cost of a Papa John’s pizza will increase by between 11 and 14 cents due to Obamacare.

“I got in a bunch of trouble for this,” he said, referring to the comments he made in August, according to Naples News. “That’s what you do, is you pass on costs. Unfortunately, I don’t think people know what they’re going to pay for this.”

Schnatter went on to say he’s neither in support of, nor against the Affordable Care Act, even admitting that “the good news is 100 percent of the population is going to have health insurance.” But he’s not the only one in the chain restaurant industry to admit that workers hours may be reduced, since Obamacare mandates that only employees that work more than 30 hours per week are covered under their employers health insurance plan. For example, Darden restaurants, the parent company of Olive Garden and Red Lobster, has already experimented with reducing workers hours in anticipation of the legislation.

Others have responded to the added costs of Obamacare more harshly, includingApplebee’s which has said it won’t hire new workers because of the law. Just this week, a Georgia business owner also claimed he cut employees due to Obamacareand in fact had specifically laid off those who he thought had voted for President Obama.

So lemme get this straight: Papa John’s Pizza cannot afford an eleven to fourteen cents increase in cost per pizza because of ‘Obamacare’. But, they can afford to give away 2 million free pizzas with the help of NFL superstar Peyton Manning, now that he has returned to the league?

Meh, I don’t know about you, but I think Papa is full of shit, as are the other businesses attempting to fool us all. But hey, don’t say I didn’t tell you when they cut out delivery, and start selling pies for $30 a pop because of Obama. At any rate, it’s good to know that you can still run out and buy a hot and ready pizza for $5 thanks to Little Caesars. Uh-huh, surely their employees would appreciate you doing that.

Yep, “Pizza Pizza,” muthafuckas — Papa John’s is full of shit!

You probably thought you’d never read the sentence: Thanks to marijuana, Peyton Manning’s timing is flawless.

Colorado voters passed Amendment 64 last Tuesday, a law that legalizes marijuana in the state for recreational use. The timing couldn’t be better for Denver Broncos quarterback Peyton Manning, though not because he’s like a pot head or anything. Just two weeks ago, Manning purchased 21 Papa John’s franchises in Colorado.

Not seeing the connection? It’s the munchies. Stoners love to eat pizza. It’s one of their favorites, due to pace of delivery, range of variety, ease of ingestion and just general deliciousness. So odds are in a state where recreational use of marijuana is legal, there will probably be way more people eating Papa John’s.

It’s not just the added dollars spent on the pizza munchies that is likely to bring the state of Colorado some extra dough from weed legalization. Amendment 64 is estimated to bring the state $60 million in combined savings and added tax revenue.

Even before Colorado voters passed the law, Manning was confident that buying the pizza franchises was a savvy move.

“It’s a smart investment now and will be long after I’m done playing football,” saidManning was quoted by NBC News after sealing the deal on October 26.

Better ingredients, better pizza my ass, Papa.

The post Papa John’s Pizza Set to Reduce Workers Hours Because of Obama Win appeared first on Madness & Reality.

So, over $1 billion dollars was spent this election cycle to put President Barack Obama — a black man — out of a job. Still think there’s no need for Affirmative Action? Yep, think about that one for a while, folks. Speaking of which, CBS Las Vegas is reporting what I think to be a very disturbing story. A Vegas small business owner who identified himself as “David,” told Kevin Wall on 100.5 KXNT that he had to fire 22 of his 114 employees because of Obama’s re-election.

He also noted that the majority of his employees were Latino, and that “elections have consequences” and that “at the end of the day, I need to survive.” No word on whether the employees fired were overwhelmingly Latino. However, citing an increase in the cost of doing business as a result of regulations brought on by Obamacare, he said his employees were forewarned. Below is a bit from the interview as well as audio of the exchange.

“I’ve done my share of educating my employees. I never tell them which way to vote. I believe in the free system we have, I believe in the right to choose who they want to be president, but I did explain as a business owner that I have always put my employees first. I always made sure that when I went without a paycheck that [I] made sure they were paid. And I explained that I always put them first and unfortunately I’m at a point where I’m being forced to have to worry about me and my family now and a business that I built from just me to 114 employees.

[...] I explained to them a month ago that if Obama gets in office that the regulations for Obamacare are gonna hurt our business, and I’m gonna have to make provisions to make sure I have enough money to cover the payroll taxes, the additional health care I’m gonna have to do, and I explained that to them and I said you do what you feel like in your heart you need to do, but I’m just letting you know as a warning this is things I have to think of as a business owner.”

Check out the audio below:

Stay tuned!

The post Las Vegas Employer: “Obama Won, So I Fired 22 Employees” appeared first on Madness & Reality.

So I noticed that the racism is rich today. It’s like there are a lot of news stories featuring racism and racist outbursts from random white Americans. Seriously, what’s that all about? It’s like as if a black guy became president of the United States or something. Funny, right? I mean, something like that would never happen here in America. Besides, if ever a black guy could be so lucky to become president, I’m sure he’ll be embraced. Don’t believe me? Just ask Karl Rove and his friends at FOX. Surely if anybody knows, they will.

O’Reilly went on to predict that Romney would lose the election if he lost Ohio.

“How do you think we got to that point?” host Megyn Kelly wondered.

“Because it’s a changing country,” O’Reilly insisted. “The demographics are changing. It’s not a traditional America anymore and there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff, they want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama.”

“The white establishment is now the minority,” he added. “And the voters — many of them — feel that this economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You’re going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama, overwhelming black vote for President Obama and women will probably break President Obama’s way.”

“People feel that they are entitled to things. And which candidate between the two is going to give them things?”

Yeah, it’s hard to believe that something like that could happen…

The post Obama Wins Re-election, Karl Rove Goes Off On FOX News appeared first on Madness & Reality.