Team Obama Regulates Goat Herders' Workplaces… Morons?

What is the term, stupid is as stupid gets, or is it… No matter, stupid is stupid and that is U.S. government.

Nanny State government at its worst.

I can't believe ANYONE would be stupid enough to create this kind of mess!

Team Obama Regulates Goat Herders' Workplaces

by Audrey Hudson - 08/24/2011

The Obama administration is setting new workplace regulations to assist foreign workers who fill goat herding positions in the U.S. including employee-paid cell phones and comfy beds.

These new special procedures issued by the Labor Department must be followed by employers who want to hire temporary agricultural foreign workers to perform sheep herding or goat herding activities. It describes strict rules for sleeping quarters, lighting, food storage, bathing, laundry, cooking and new rules for the counters where food is prepared.

“A separate sleeping unit shall be provided for each person, except in a family arrangement,” says the rules signed by Jane Oates, assistant secretary for employment and training administration at the Labor Department.

“Such a unit shall include a comfortable bed, cot or bunk, with a clean mattress,” the rules state.

Diane Katz, a research fellow in regulatory policy at The Heritage Foundation, unearthed the policy in the "Federal Register​," the massive daily journal of proposed regulations that Washington bureaucrats publish every day.

Under the Obama Administration, the nanny state has imposed 75 new major regulations with annual costs of $38 billion.
“This captures what is wrong with government,” Katz said. “I could not have made this up.”

With unemployment holding steady at 9% and government regulations adding more burden to small businesses, such as those run by ranching families, Katz said, bureaucrats aren’t helping.

“Instead of remedying the problem, the regulations make it that much harder,” Katz insisted. “We may need a whole set of regulations just to define what a comfortable bed is. I imagine it’s not straw."

The new lighting standards say that in areas where it is not feasible to provide electrical service such as tents or mobile trailers, lanterns must be provided. “Kerosene wick lights meet the definition of lantern,” the regulations say.

“When workers or their families are permitted or required to cook in their individual unit, a space shall be provided with adequate lighting and ventilation.”

“Wall surfaces next to all food preparation and cooking areas shall be of nonabsorbent, easy-to-clean material. Wall surfaces next to cooking areas shall be of fire-resistant material,” the regulations say.

“It makes you wonder,” Katz said, “how they ever did this before the government got involved?”

“Who knew we needed all of this federal help for herding goats?” Katz quipped.

---

Audrey Hudson, an award-winning investigative journalist, is a Congressional Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS. A native of Kentucky, Mrs. Hudson has worked inside the Beltway for nearly two decades -- on Capitol Hill as a Senate and House spokeswoman, and most recently at The Washington Times covering Congress, Homeland Security, and the Supreme Court.

But Wait… Could this be related?:

Well over a year ago I sent Neil Cavuto at Fox News/Fox Business an e-mail asking him and his staff to do a background check on all our United States Representatives and Senators to see how many had a background or at least an education in economics/business. A couple of minutes ago I saw the following report on the Fox News website. As I highly suspected, very few would even know how to operate a curb side lemonade stand. This report was late in coming but maybe Neil remembered my e-mail.

Study: 80 Percent of Lawmakers Lack Academic Background in Business, Economics

Published August 25, 2011

AP The Capitol Dome is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington July 28.

Congress might want to find some consultants as it tries anew to tackle the country's deep deficits. A report from the Employment Policies Institute finds that only one in five members of Congress has an academic background in business or economics.

The organization looked at lawmakers' college degrees and found that most of them -- 55.5 percent -- majored in either a government-related field or "humanities." Just over 8 percent majored in economics, while almost 14 percent studied business or accounting.

The numbers raise questions about their ability to tackle tough economic challenges when they return from break early next month. The Obama administration, as well as lawmakers touring their districts, are clamoring for a new approach to the jobs crisis. Meanwhile, a congressional "supercommittee" is set to get to work finding $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade.

But that supercommittee may have the same education deficit as the rest of Congress. Just four of the 12 members on that committee have an academic background in economics or finance -- Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas; Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich.; Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif.; and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.

Others earned professional experience in the field. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., was an investment banker. Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, was a lawyer who ran his own practice before being appointed U.S. trade representative and later becoming head of the White House budget office under the George W. Bush administration.

Aside from Portman, six others were attorneys in their private lives -- Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.; Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. (although his real occupation is marrying rich liberal progressive women whose money he can use); Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.; Baucus; Becerra; and Camp.

Two other committee members, Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., were educators. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., was a congressional aide.

EPI's Defeat the Debt project released the study on lawmakers' academic background.

"This research suggests that our elected representatives may want to dust off their Econ 101 textbook (if they have one) before trying to tackle the weighty questions about the impact of taxes, spending and debt on our economy and the labor market," the group wrote.

So we have a bunch of ignorant uneducated imbeciles who have been on the public dole all their lives and who probably can’t even balance their own check books or control their family finances while doing a horrible job running our country. And we have an imbecile in chief who also doesn’t have a clue about running our country. Absolutely Pathetic!!! No wonder we are where we are now. IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE and I’m not talking about what Obama envisions. WB

STUDY: Congress Filled with Morons

Posted on Tuesday, July 26th, 2011 - By Frank Lake

CAMBRIDGE, MA – A groundbreaking study has determined that 83% of the members of Congress are certified morons!

The Kennedy School of Government did a longitudinal study over the last 30 years that looked at the average IQ of members of Congress – the Senate & House of Representatives.

The study found that, despite the many advanced degrees from prestigious universities, and despite the fact that many in Congress are millionaires, the average IQ of U.S. Representatives is 71. The average IQ of U.S. Senators, is surprisingly, even lower at 68. (The fact that they are millionaires or children of millionaires and elites, to be more accurate, has given them access to Ivy League schools and degrees that really didn’t deserve or earn and the fact that they know the right people and can be manipulated makes them the perfects candidates for people who want to control and change America… the world!)

“We spent one hour a month with each member of Congress over the last thirty years. We gave them a number of IQ tests – including math problems, verbal problems and analytic reasoning problems. The results were consistent year-in-year out. Members of Congress are morons,” said Professor Thomas Turley of Harvard.

So what is a moron? A moron is a person whose IQ is less than 70 on a consistent basis.

The lowest IQs typically were the leaders of the two-parties.

In response to the study, Senator Harry Reid said, “Is that bacon?”

John Boehner said, “We will not back down and we will not give an inch and we will kill the cows when they come home. Hand me a tissue.”

Nancy Pelosi said that she would have to read the study before she could make a comment on it. But, before reading it, she said that she thought it was “stupid.” People who do studies at Harvard are stupid. It’s just stupid to do studies about morons. Who funded this?”

Nancy Pelosi approved the funding of The Moron Study back in 2009.

83% is a large number of morons, but is it the same percentage in the general population?

“Only 7% of normal citizens are certified morons,” said John Murtaugh, the leader of the Harvard Study. “Except in Hollywood. The rate there is close to 49%, but that’s still nowhere near the level we find in Congress.”

So, why do Americans keep electing morons? And why do we keep following them?

“Morons have one common strength: the ability to dupe intelligent people.”

Many are suggesting that potential candidates be given an IQ test BEFORE they are allowed to run for Congress… or any other elected office!!

But that idea was shot down by Congress.

Morons! - Any questions??

Meet your Science Czar! – A Must Read

VOICE: The Glenn Beck program presents Spotlight on Science.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We will restore science to its rightful place.

VOICE: A series dedicated to President Obama's passion for everything science.

GLENN: Yeah, we're going to put science back where she belongs and what a better place to start, what a better way to show the American people that we're serious about science than appointing a science czar. Now, some people are just a little troubled by the whole czar title but don't worry about that. It's just, really just a figure of speech. The administration would never appoint a czar, you know, somebody who doesn't have to answer to anyone who has crazy, way out of the mainstream viewpoints. John Holdren is Obama's new science czar. He's quite an accomplished guy. He's done an awful lot of stuff. For instance, he was the Teresa and John Heinz professor at environmental policy at the Kennedy school of government at Harvard University. I mean, what could go wrong there? The Teresa and John Heinz professor of environmental policy at the Kennedy school of government at Harvard. At some point shouldn't all of that cancel each other out? He also coauthored a book in 1977 on population control called Eco science. He wrote it with Ann and Paul Ehrlich. Paul Ehrlich, I was trying to think this morning, where have I heard that name before. And then I remembered: An Inconvenient Book. We did this, what, is this two years old now? These are the quotes that I found from the inconvenient book this morning. Quote: It would take I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000. He said that in 1969. In 1970 he said, ten years, in ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of the coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. Do you remember that in 1980? That was crazy. In 1978 he said, giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun. He wrote these, he wrote this last thing. He said this last thing a year after he coauthored a book with our new science czar. Now, what has our new science czar done? Well, of course, the big scientific consensus during the Seventies was that overpopulation was going to destroy the Earth. So what was Holdren really thinking? What was he thinking back then? What was he saying? Quote, this is our new science czar, quote: Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods. I want you to know that I am in fact, let me pull up my notebook here. I'm looking up something and I'm going to give it to you here in the next few days. I'm working on, I'm working on some I'm bothered by some things lately that just, that bother me. One is Epicyte. Stu, do you have that story about Epicyte? I'm going to give you a story in the next half hour about Epicyte. It's a biotech company that was putting sterilization into food. They were putting it in. They were making genetically modified corn here in America that if you ate it or you crushed it up into pill form, it would be, you know, it would be corn that would attack a man's sperm cell. And so it would be birth control through food. I looked this up and it's leading me some other places. But I looked for the story and what I found in the news story, there's a reason you haven't heard about this and there's no conspiracy to it. But when I give you the story, you'll say, oh, my gosh. This is huge because what Holdren has said, adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that horrifies people than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. There's somebody who's been working on it, a big company, Epicyte, which no longer exists but follow the trail. He says, seems to horrify in that statement as if it's surprising that some people would be opposed to this idea. Seems to horrify people. He says, quote: Indeed this would pose some very difficult political, legal and social questions to say nothing of the technical problems. Does anybody notice that the one problem that he leaves out is the ethical problems? He says it would be politically tough, it would be legally tough. It would lead to some social questions and it's technically tough, but there's no discussion. Our new science czar of political I mean ethical problems. He says, quote: No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. Oh, that's too bad. Unfortunately he's wrong. He says, quote: To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements. It must be uniformly effective. In other words, you can't kill one race of people and not another. Despite widely varying doses received by individuals and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals, it also must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects and it must not affect members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. So God forbid we put it in the drinking water and cows go sterile.

So the ridiculous idea of our new science czar is not dismissed. It's just not ready to go yet. I mean, it might hurt the livestock or the pets. Since that idea is just ridiculous, here's another one he had. Quote: Of course, a government might require only implantation of a contraceptive capsule. So in other words, the government can require the implantation of some sort of a capsule in you that sterilizes you or is a contraceptive, leaving the removal to the individual's discretion but requiring reimplantation after childbirth. So in other words, they are going to they can require you to have something put in you so you cannot have children. You then, if you want, God knows under universal healthcare how you are going to be able to afford to have that taken out or what the procedure would be like. But you can do it on your own time. You can dig it out of you but then the government will require that that is put back in after childbirth. Since having a child would require positive action, removal of the capsule, many more births would be prevented than in the reverse situation. Oh, the good old opt in, opt out game. That's great. Nothing that would connect with a president who's, you know, must read book in his administration is Animal Spirits that specifically talks about devices like opt in and opt out as effective ways to make the population do exactly what you want them to do. But it gets worse. Quote from our new science czar: Responsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate child bearing should be strongly discouraged. One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption, especially those born to minors who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. It would be even it would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have an abortion perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption depending on the society.

So what do we have from our new science czar? Something that is so far out of the mainstream, it's hair raising. Forced adoptions. Sterilant in the drinking water or crops. Contraceptive capsules that are required to be implanted. You can then take out and then they would require you after one child to reimplant. Gosh, I hope all this is available in universal healthcare.

When will this country wake up and see where we are headed? We have accepted how many people around this guy and said, "Well, he didn't know. Well, he's not a radical." The people how many communists do we have? I mean, avowed communists? How many people do we have that are internationalists, transnationalists that believe in a global government that are now in our government. How many radicals do we have that are way out of the mainstream?

This is a scary man!!

Related Resources:

• American Progressivism
• Liberal Fascism
• Saving Freedom
• Catastrophe
• Glenn Beck's Common Sense