Thomas Jefferson on Obamacare: “I Told Ya’ So”

Yesterday’s SCOTUS decision was not magically undone overnight by benevolent fairies, so it looks like it’s up to us. Yes, this decision stinks on ice. And Yes, it means we have only one choice going forward: REPEAL IT.

Actions like this were anticipated over 200 years ago. It’s not as if the founding fathers didn’t have a little experience dealing with an oppressive government.

Not being a Constitutional scholar, I can’t quote chapter-and-verse from Franklin, Adams and the rest off the top of my head.  However, I wasn’t sleeping through classes (not most of them, anyway), and I do recall some of their writings. Of all of our country’s elite thinkers at our nation’s beginning, the one person who wrote most eloquently, to me, was probably Thomas Jefferson although he had some beliefs with which I do not hold. There was a reason the man wrote the Declaration, after all.

I’d ask you to recall some of those writings today, and see if they don’t apply directly to what we are currently experiencing.

• “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
• “Most bad government has grown out of too much government.”
• “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”   (***There is some disagreement on this one, regarding whether or not this can be directly attributed to Jefferson. Regardless, it is perfectly applicable, so I’m including it).
• “A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
• “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. 
• “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?” 
• “I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.” 
• “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
• “The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.”
• “Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” 
• “Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.”

These quotes (and there are numerous others) sum up what we’ve just seen: a government declaring absolute control over the will, lives and bodies of its people, all in the name of “compassion” and “fairness”. It happens with the EPA, the TSA and the rest of the government alphabet soup. Obamacare is just the coup de grâce.

It was intimated in the ruling yesterday that the “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” was enacted as the result of our duly elected leaders legislating on our behalf. Sorry, but that simply doesn’t wash. Our elected officials didn’t get elected based on a promise of the takeover of healthcare. Worse, those representatives in favor of it subsequently lied about their rationale once they introduced the topic.

Furthermore, even after 2+ years since Obamacare’s passage, most voters still would like to see the law repealed. So, how can this be the will of the people?

It can’t, because it isn’t.

This isn’t a simple policy difference which occurs in normal, day-to-day politics. This is an essential departure of our country’s founding, and it cannot be tolerated. We are being told that if we do not live in a way in which the Federal Government approves, we will be punished, and that punishment is up to them. Anyone that thinks this won’t lead to even more egregious losses of liberty is either stupid or naïve.

If we simply roll over, shrug our shoulders and say “oh, well; win some and lose some“, we won’t have lost some; we’ll have lost everything.

No

The word just came down from the Supreme Court regarding Obamacare: even though Obama himself insisted, repeatedly, that this was not a tax, it was ruled constitutional on the grounds that…it’s a tax.

One of the saddest days of our lifetimes.

—-

This is a complete takeover of our lives. Everything, …everything….can be said to pertain to health. As I sit here, there is literally no aspect of daily life that I can’t imagine this impacting. If allowed to stand, this is a death knell to both our secular and religious freedom.

We really have only one choice now: ignore them.

Ignore the ruling; ignore the mandate; call/write/email your representatives, and tell them what you think of this. Tell them to tell Washington to take their Obamacare and its mandated “tax” and to place them both where sunlight won’t find ‘em, IYKWIMAITYD.

You can sit on the sidelines, wringing your hands and cursing the sky, or you can act. Peacefully, of course, yet act.

—-

An unjust law is not a law, and this is one of the most unjust laws of our country’s history.

Municipal Bankruptcy in California (aka “Scott Walker looking better every day”)

Courtesy of the Washington Post:

STOCKTON, CA, said it will file for bankruptcy after talks with bondholders and labor unions failed, making the agricultural center the biggest U.S. city to seek court protection from creditors.

“The city is fiscally insolvent and must seek chapter 9 bankruptcy protection,” Stockton said in a statement released yesterday after its council voted 6-1 to adopt a spending plan for operating under bankruptcy protection. “In addition to the bankruptcy petition, the city will file a motion with the courts to share information from the confidential mediation.”

The budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1 calls for defaulting on $10.2 million in debt payments and cutting $11.2 million in employee pay and benefits under union contracts that could be voided by the bankruptcy court. The city of 292,000 may file its petition as soon as today.

“It’s a sad day in the city of Stockton,” Mayor Ann Johnston said before the budget vote. “I see no other solution to this.”

Hey, you know what would have been an option prior to this? I’m thinkin’….maybe to not spend so much money?? I know….that’s just silly; heck, it’s crazy talk.

And yet.

If the municipalities and/or school districts were given a real option between what the public sector unions say they HAVE to do, and what makes the most SENSE, those municipalities and school districts might actually take….the option that makes the most sense.

For instance, JUST for a comparison, let’s take a peek at what happened up in Wisconsin, which was well on its way towards a similar fate as Stockton, until Scott Walker showed up. From Townhall.com, last month:

“Once it was enacted, the bill President Obama once described as “an assault on unions,” became a pathway to independence. Wisconsin schools and local governments were given the freedom to live within their means when they were granted the ability to hire, fire and compensate based upon performance. The nonpartisan group, Wisconsin Taxpayer’s Alliance, reported that the savings from employee benefits “allowed districts to reduce costs” allowing districts like the Kaukauna school district to control their own destiny and convert a $400,000 deficit into a $1.5 million surplus.”

—–

So, if I’m reading between the lines on this properly, it appears that today’s lesson is:

• Make the common-sense fiscal decisions, and then don’t yield to the Public Sector Unions = SUCCESS!!
• Punt on all the tough decisions, keep raising taxes, and/or cave to the Public Sector Unions = BANKRUPTCY.

Yeah, I think I can remember that.

Red Skelton's Pledge of Allegiance

Reblogged from Phoebe's Detention Room:

The 4th of July is only a week from today, so I thought it would be appropriate to start contemplating what all the hubbub will be about. This old video, courtesy of our good friend 'Phoebe's Detention Room', highlights a classic interpretation of our Nation's Pledge. Please watch all 4 minutes, since it is almost eerily prophetic at the very end.

Better Interpretation of new SCOTUS ruling: ‘Sanctuary Cities illegal, too’

It appears that Obama and his minions are completely willing to see the divide on illegal immigration devolve into chaos, since his Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has already indicated that they won’t be taking any calls from Arizona going forward.

It takes a small, petty man to make such a small, self-interested decision. President Populist is just such a man.

From the Examiner:

On Monday, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency suspended the federal program known as 287(g) for Arizona, which allows local law enforcement to investigate a suspect’s immigration status after an arrest had been made for any offense. The program has been highly effective in identifying criminal aliens at the local level.

The decision came only hours after the U.S. Supreme Court announced their decision to let stand the portion of Arizona’s immigration law which requires local law enforcement during routine stops to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is here illegally.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, 287 (g) agreements are “not useful” in states that have enacted SB1070-type laws. So, even if local law enforcement arrests an illegal alien, their requests to ICE are likely to fall upon deaf ears and the suspect will simply be released.

This has been discussed quite a bit in the last 24 hours, and by folks several orders of magnitude smarter than me. BUT: there is a factor missing. I want to highlight it, because I made this exact point months ago with a couple of my buddies. And it’s something that I haven’t heard from anyone else other than Levin last night.

Hey, if I have to agree with someone, I’m happy to have the “Great One” on my side.

From the Daily Caller:

On his Monday show, conservative radio host Mark Levin explained why  yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on SB 1070, the controversial Arizona  immigration law, could pave the way for legal action against “sanctuary” areas  that welcome undocumented immigrants.

Levin, the author of “Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America,” first  expressed his disappointment in Chief Justice John Roberts for signing on with  the decision, which dismantled much of the Arizona law while upholding a section  that allows law enforcement to force suspected immigrants to show documentation  that proves their legal residency.

“I must tell you that the decision is bizarre,” he said. “It’s not  incomprehensible, but it is largely incoherent. I’m extremely disappointed in  the chief justice for signing on with this. There is no deal, no reason for him  to jump on that side. It was 8-0 on the issue of stopping and checking for  documentation in the course of an investigation for possible criminal  activity.”

However, Levin said, if states can no longer set policies dealing with  someone’s immigration status, then sanctuary cities or states may find  themselves in hot water.

“If this case stands for the point that only the federal government has power  in the area of immigration, then let me suggest that sanctuary cities and  sanctuary states are unconstitutional because they exist to defy federal  immigration law,” Levin said. “That’s number one. So folks out there that have  standing, sue your cities, sue your states if they have declared themselves to  be sanctuary cities or states because they do not have the constitutional  authority to declare butkus. So turn this law against them.”

Now obviously I’m no lawyer, but this point seemed rather obvious even to little ol’ me. That’s why I was surprised that no one else seemed to be making it. It’s also why I didn’t dwell on it for awfully long: I just figured there must be more to it which my non-lawyerly brain didn’t properly comprehend. That may still be the case, but it doesn’t change the fact that Levin’s law firm, Landmark Legal Foundation, also reached the same conclusion in a brief published earlier this year,  noting a decision similar to the one yesterday would create “chaos and  confusion”.

If the federal government’s politically motivated challenge of SB 1070 is  successful, rather than bring consistency and certainty to immigration on a  national level, it will create even more chaos and confusion. The federal  Executive Branch’s selective and inconsistent application of field preemption in  immigration law must not be given this Court’s imprimatur. Otherwise, lawless  state and local governments that have adopted sanctuary policies that directly  violate federal immigration law and have not been challenged by the Executive  Branch will continue to be lawless. Conversely, law-abiding governments that  help enforce federal immigration law will be without direction.

The illegal immigration issue (and it’s important to remember to include the word ‘illegal’ here) is only going to grow more rancorous and divisive, as a direct result of Obama’s actions. However, Arizona didn’t pick this battle: they just decided to fight back. I have sided with them from the start, and my reason is simple: the Arizona law is a direct outgrowth of that state’s frustration over our own Federal Government’s failure to secure the border. This law would be superfluous if that were to happen. ALL other methods they choose to rationally deal with this issue need to be viewed through the prism of being told, point-blank, by Uncle Sam, “No, the US gov’t won’t protect you, and you can’t protect yourself, either”.

Well, they are protecting themselves, and God Bless ‘em for having the spine to do so.

I’m not from Arizona, but I can certainly understand their plight. In the face of an increasingly hostile Federal Government, I am completely on the side of the State, any state, which is merely trying to fulfill their obligation to protect their legal citizens.

Watching You

From TheWeek.com:

When you think of the surveillance state, you usually think of snoopy alphabet-soup government agencies like the FBI, IRS, DEA, NSA, or TSA, or cyber-snoops at Facebook or Google, says Natasha Singer in The New York Times. But there’s a company you’ve probably never heard of that “peers deeper into American life,” and probably knows more about you than any of those groups: Little Rock–based Acxiom Corp. Jeffrey Chester at the Center for Digital Democracy has dubbed Acxiom “Big Brother in Arkansas,” while Gizmodo‘s Jamie Condliffe calls it the “faceless organization that knows everything about you.”

So basically this is a data-mining corporation, or database marketer. In business since 1969, they have progressed from usage of the telephone book to legal plundering of the internet, amassing a portfolio which includes over 190 million people and 126 million households in the U.S. alone.

“So what?”, you say. For one thing, they might know much more about you than you may realize. Of course, perhaps you don’t mind that in addition to the normal info like age, race, sex, marital status, and education level, they also have your:

• weight,
• height,
• politics,
• buying habits,
• household health worries,
• vacation dreams,

— and on and on.

Armed with all this and more, they go to work.

(Acxiom) uses it to pigeonhole people into one of 70 very specific socioeconomic clusters in an attempt to predict how they’ll act, what they’ll buy, and how companies can persuade them to buy their products. It gathers its data trove from public records, surveys you’ve filled out, your online behavior, and other “disparate sources of information”, then sells it to banks, retailers, and other buyers.

And don’t forget about Uncle Sam. Seriously, what are the odds that they DON’T want more info on all of us? Which ultimately means that the list of people who don’t have all of my personal information is getting smaller than the list of those who do.

—–

A little while after being freaked out by that article, I had just about untangled myself from the fetal position when I happened upon this piece from the Daily Mail:

Over recent years a range of miniature drones, or micro air vehicles (MAVs), based on the same physics used by flying insects, have been presented to the public. The fear kicked off in 2007 when reports of bizarre flying objects hovering above anti-war protests sparked accusations that the U.S. government was accused of secretly developing robotic insect spies.

….the US Air Force unveiled insect-sized spies ‘as tiny as bumblebees’ that could not be detected and would be able to fly into buildings to ‘photograph, record, and even attack insurgents and terrorists.’ Around the same time the Air Force also unveiled what it called ‘lethal mini-drones’ based on Leonardo da Vinci’s blueprints for his Ornithopter flying machine, and claimed they would be ready for roll out by 2015.

Ya’ know, living off the grid in a cabin in Montana keeps looking better and better to me.

—–

In the last few weeks we’ve covered other similar stories, which made me just as uneasy. As a result, I really shouldn’t be surprised that there is a faceless company out there aggregating a huge dossier on me in order to accurately predict my behavior, any more than I should be shocked that the wasp or hornet buzzing near my patio may actually be a lethal electronic drone spy.

I just have one question that makes my scalp start to itch:

What if these two companies start working together?

Furious about 'Fast and Furious'

Reblogged from The Constitution Club:

• 
• 

The Right is all abuzz and rightfully outraged about what should be considered President Obama's Watergate moment. Obama's attempt at a complicated gun control gimmick and propaganda effort blew up in his face and has unleashed a myriad of unforeseen consequences.

The recent claim by the administration of 'Executive Privilege' to stonewall congressional inquiries into this momentous disaster that unfolded under the supervision of his own Attorney General.

Read more… 305 more words

(Courtesy of the Constitution Club blog)...... ***This issue has been roundly ignored by the press for over a year. On the rare occasions when it IS addressed, it's largely ridiculed by the Left & the Media (sorry for repeating myself there). We've written about this here several times, so consider this a 'refresher course' on F&F. Be sure to read it and then watch the excellent, ..and terrifying, ...video from Bill Whittle. A must see.

Food Stamp fraud & abuse: “Business as Usual”

You can be forgiven if the Senate vote on S.3240 didn’t actually register on your consciousness. It made a splash in the news like a pebble does in the Atlantic: none.

For those of you unfamiliar with what the bill covers, we discussed it here a short time ago. And from the sounds of it, Senator Ron Johnson read our post.

Johnson came out with an extremely blunt assessment of the Senate vote last week, which sums it up perfectly:

“The 2012 Food Stamp bill – more commonly known as the ‘2012 Farm Bill’ – will spend about $995 billion over the next ten years.  Of that nearly $1 trillion, 78% ($772 billion) will be spent on Food Stamps.

“During debate on the Senate floor, I made a Motion to Recommit the bill back to committee with the simple instruction to split it into two separate pieces of legislation – a Food Stamp Bill and a Farm Bill. That motion was defeated by a vote of 40-59. Why are these measures combined? The answer is simple – to keep much of the legislation out of the light of day and to make spending $1 trillion far easier.

“This is business as usual here in our nation’s capital, and it is bankrupting America.”

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is the fancy new name for the Food Stamp program, has doubled in under four years. Yet no one in government wants to really fix it, and risk looking like the bad guy. “Why do you want to starve poor people?” their critics will say.  But when we look at the ways in which it is being abused, we really don’t have much choice.

The first thing to do is highlight the black market which has been created with the lax/non-existent oversight of the Food Stamp cards themselves. Just look at this quote from the official Government website on the replacement of “lost” cards:

FNS (Food and Nutrition Service) proposes to amend regulations in order to provide States with options when clients request an excessive number of EBT card replacements. States would be able to withhold a replacement card until the client makes contact by phone or in-person with the State agency and provides an explanation for the excessive EBT card requests.

The State agency would need to determine what it considers to be excessive, but the threshold may not be less than four card replacements requested within 12 months prior to the request; unless the State agency has sufficient, additional evidence indicating potential misuse that warrants noticing the client sooner than the fourth card request. These might be individuals about whom the State agency has gathered other evidence of suspected fraudulent activity. In these circumstances, the State agency may require the client to provide an explanation by phone or in person before the fifth card request……..

Whoa, whoa, ….those sure are some Draconian rules! Wow, you mean that I can “lose” my card 4 times in a year, but then I may have to “explain” before I get my 5th card? You may as well put up a billboard for the crooks: ‘Please, take the cards and sell ‘em for cash, drugs or booze. We don’t mind. Really.’

—–

You can also see the focus of the Food Stamp bureaucrats when you look at who they are looking to hire. Are they hiring more fraud investigators? Bean-counters to lower the amount of money spent, maybe? Nope, just the opposite.

Here’s a post directly from the fns.usda.gov/snap/outreach website (emphasis mine):

The purpose of outreach grants is to implement and learn more about effective strategies to inform and educate potentially eligible low-income people, who are not currently participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), about the nutrition benefits of the program, eligibility rules, and how to apply.

State and local food stamp offices and for-profit organizations are not eligible for these grants. Applicants receive up to $75,000 per grant for outreach activities lasting for 1 to 2 years, depending on the project.

Yes, you read that right: $75,000 to come up with ways to bring even more people onto the government dole, and to get them hooked on just a little bit of “help” from Big Daddy.

Because he cares, doncha’ know.

—–

Senator Johnson’s suggestion of splitting the bills makes perfect sense, but an even better way to deal with this would be to get it out of the hands of Federal Government altogether. Not coincidently, Johnson’s fellow Wisconsin native Paul Ryan has been suggesting that food stamps be handled by block grants to the STATES. It has been proven time after time: the closer you get the government to the governed, the better and more efficient it is for everyone. Such a loss of power & control is something the Federal Government, and this administration in particular, is not anxious to lose…..which is a sure indicator that it’s probably a great idea.

—–

The bill goes to the House this week. If this topic bothers you even a little bit, you may consider dropping an email to your Representative. And if this somehow doesn’t bother you, I’ll leave you with this little graphic, showing just how much Food Stamp spending has gone up, vs. other sections of the Federal Budget.

Like Johnson said: “This is business as usual here in our nation’s capital, and it is bankrupting America“.

The Sanctity of Life: Truth or ‘Preference’?

From the 180 Movie Facebook page, this sobering statistic:

Annually Abortions KILL more Children than the entire population of Texas, New York, and Colorado COMBINED.

Almost as disturbing, to me, was this statement:

According to Wikipedia, in the USA an estimated 95% – 98% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted when the condition is detected from a screening.   

Hitler also killed Down Syndrome children.

Right after I read that Facebook post, I picked up Eric Metaxas‘ Socrates in the City (and if you don’t know who he is–check out his website, AND the Socrates in the City website; it’s a treasure trove of thought-provoking material).  This book is a set of transcripts of talks by some of the most important and influential guests to appear at these events held in Manhattan over the past 12 years or so. I’d been reading it, slowly–there is a lot to digest here.  (Try skimming a lecture by Sir John Polkinghorne or Richard John Neuhaus.)  I started the transcript of a talk by Jean Bethke Elshtain, entitled “Who Are We?  C.S. Lewis and the Question of Man,” which she gave in September 2005.  I had no idea who Elshtain is, but I’m a huge C.S. Lewis fan, so I figured it was worth tackling.  Turns out, Dr. Elshtain is a professor of political and social ethics at the University of Chicago.  Her resume is rather impressive (you can click on the link later…your head will spin).

Almost the first thing she said was to reference an issue of New York Times Magazine from June of that year, which printed an article entitled “Euthanasia for babies: is this humane or barbaric?”   Naturally, she had my attention.  On the next page I read the following paragraph, which eerily echoed that Facebook post I mentioned earlier:

For example, so overwhelming is our current animus against the less than perfect that nearly 90 percent of pregnancies that test (positive) for Down Syndrome are aborted in the United States today.

She went on to reference C.S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man, which appeared in 1944.  Its premise is that there is a “doctrine of objective value–the belief that certain attitudes are really true and others are really false to the kind of things the universe is and the kinds of things we are.” This understanding of universal values is found, says Lewis, in Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, Christian, and some Eastern religions.

By contrast, Lewis saw a logical positivism at work in his generation which classified all values as sentiment or emotion, and therefore irrelevant.  This “ghastly simplicity” (as he put it) has reappeared in this generation in the social sciences.  Elshtain tells us that it is called rational choice theory, and that it

trivializes all statements of values.  They have no truth warrant or claim…within this world, everything, in principle, can be commodified.  Everything, in principle, has a price rather than a value.  Any restrictions societies draw on where human preference might take us are really arbitrary–there are no intrinsic goods or evils. Nothing is valued for its own sake.

We’ve come a long, long way from the group of men who could all sign their names to a document which asserted that certain truths are “self-evident”, notably…

…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In a world where everything is a commodity, including life, and is evaluated based on its utility and on personal preference, rather than objective truth claims…then infanticide, mandatory sterilization, selective abortion for any reason, and euthanasia of the elderly are all possible.

No, not possible.  Let’s not mince words.  All these barbarisms are probable.

Please watch this movie, if you haven’t already. In fact, even if you’ve already seen it, watch it again. It’s Sunday.

“Can a mother forget the baby at her breast
and have no compassion on the child she has borne?
Though she may forget,
I will not forget you!” says the Lord.  (Isaiah 49:15 NIV)

Obama’s latest: How to hijack a wedding

Obama wedding registry is one turkey of an idea…

Retailers need to entice, lure, romance their customers, as JTR noted about retail giant IKEA, and their maze-like, trance-inducing stores, where people buy what they never intended to before they wandered in.

But when you’re the president, apparently you feel you’ve earned the right to just ask anyone for money, any time.  Alice Roosevelt once  famously said that her presidential father, Teddy Roosevelt, wanted to be “the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.”   But she was talking about his need for attention.  Obama, on the other hand, just wants all your presents.   Thanks to a Facebook friend for directing me to this article at Breitbart.com.  I’ll confess I still didn’t believe it until I actually visited Obama/Biden’s campaign website.   This is the actual text.  I am not making this up:

Got a birthday, anniversary, or wedding coming up?

Let your friends know how important this election is to you—register with Obama 2012, and ask for a donation in lieu of a gift. It’s a great way to support the President on your big day. Plus, it’s a gift that we can all appreciate—and goes a lot further than a gravy bowl.

Yup.  Who needs a toaster anyway, when one could have the satisfaction of donating to the Obamaniac re-election fund?  I wonder if those marriages will last as long as his presidency?

Before you go shopping today…

….you may wish to check out Kathryn Blaze Carlson’s excellent article in the National Post from earlier this month. It touches on something that we all know in our hearts, but we usually feel we’re smart enough to avoid: Marketing.

The marketers are everywhere: Google, the supermarket, where we buy gas…….we can’t escape ‘em. To deal with being constantly saturated by marketing, we simply believe we’re so savvy that we can see through all of the marketer’s ploys.

Yeah, right. Guess again.

From Canada’s National Post:

Robb Engen weaves back and forth through the maze, following his wife in what he calls “zombie mode.” He submits to her and the labyrinthine Calgary retail outlet, wandering along as she adds this and that to their shopping cart. By the time they finally reach the exit, the Alberta couple has almost always bought more than they had planned.

“We go there with a list and with the intention to leave with what we planned on buying, but something about that store makes it so you can’t help but leave with a few extra things,” Mr. Engen said.

The 32-year-old father and personal finance blogger is, of course, describing a typical visit to IKEA, the iconic Swedish retailer that attracts 734 million shoppers annually and which has just announced plans for its largest North American store in Montreal. At 464,694 square feet, the store will knock the Berlin IKEA from its ranking as the fifth-largest in the world.

By the time customers wind through 54 “inspirational room settings,” three full home settings, the so-called market hall, and a restaurant that seats 600, they will have shopped for 1.5 kilometres. Most will have spent an entire Saturday afternoon zig-zagging back and forth and up and down, all for the privilege of passing a gazillion items they had no intention of buying but suddenly realize they must have.

—–

So shoppers might think they buy a particular item because they decided on their own that they want it, but they also buy because stores use tactics that make it almost impossible for them not to: From the oversized shopping carts proven to make us spend more, to the escalators that take us deeper into a store only to force us across the entire retail floor to go back up or down, to the pie crusts in the grocery store fruit section that inspire us to bake on a whim, to the placement of staple foods toward the back of a supermarket so we have to pass everything else on the way.

—–

But IKEA, with its maze that winds shoppers first through a series of inspirational room settings and then through the market hall, is the retailer that stands out in its almost backward and yet highly successful approach. When Mr. Engen said there is “something about that store,” he was right.

(**Click the map below to ENLARGE**)

According to one expert, the flow of the store disorients customers, it coaxes them past every household item imaginable [unless they access the shortcuts], it tempts them to put items in their cart “just in case I want it” for fear of having to try to find it again later, and it gives them license to impulse-buy.

“By the time you get [to the market hall] you’ve already gone backwards and forwards on yourself through the showrooms, past every [inspirational] setting, and you’ve probably spent half-an-hour,” said Alan Penn, a University College London professor who, together with a former graduate student, used the school’s virtual reality centre to study how shoppers navigate and buy at IKEA. “Only then are you allowed to start buying, and I think you feel licensed to sort of treat yourself.”

Carlson’s article is more in-depth than just the sampling included here, and covers other retailers Abercrombie & Fitch (and why you either love or hate it), and Costco. She also discusses how music and scents are connected to your moods and your purchasing habits.

Very well written, and certainly worth a few minutes.

AND: It just might save you $$$$ this weekend when, armed with this new knowledge, you manage to NOT buy that new duvet, some framed prints of fruit, or a ceramic monkey, despite thinking how nice they would look in your house.

Hey, you laugh now, but when you’re in the store later today, …you’ll be thanking me.

Internet freedom vs. the U.N.

The United Nations is one of those topics that causes one of three reactions: (1) strident defense from the Left, (2) snarling disdain from the Right, …and (3) bored, yawning shrugs, which come from pretty much everyone else.

I understand the reason for all three, of course. The Right sees the U.N. as thieves and backers of every tin-pot dictator in the world, and I happen to agree. The Left adores the U.N., since its primary aim appears to be stealing from those mean old Western nations, (whom they resent) and giving to the poor, third-world dictatorships, socialist regimes and tyrants (whom they love). And everyone else sees it as some ethereal-yet-benign body, which doesn’t have anything to do with their daily lives.

If the U.N. gets their way, that last description will change, and in a hurry.

From cnet.com:

The United Nations is considering a new Internet tax targeting the largest Web content providers, including Google, Facebook, Apple, and Netflix, that could cripple their ability to reach users in developing nations.

The European proposal, offered for debate at a December meeting of a U.N. agency called the International Telecommunication Union, would amend an existing telecommunications treaty by imposing heavy costs on popular Web sites and their network providers for the privilege of serving non-U.S. users, according to newly leaked documents.

The article goes on to explain the costs associated with this and how it could cripple the internet forever. But this time there is a more insidious goal than simply money.

From wsj.com:

It’s easy to understand why countries like Russia, China and Iran would want to rewire the Internet, cutting off access to their citizens and undermining the idea of a World Wide Web. What’s more surprising is that U.S. diplomats are letting authoritarian regimes hijack an obscure U.N. agency to undermine how the Internet works, including for Americans.

—–

The U.N. process is mind-numbing, but as Vincent Cerf, one of the founders of the Web, recently told Congress, this U.N. involvement means “the open Internet has never been at a higher risk than it is now.”

—–

The broadest proposal in the draft materials is an initiative by China to give countries authority over “the information and communication infrastructure within their state” and require that online companies “operating in their territory” use the Internet “in a rational way”—in short, to legitimize full government control. The Internet Society, which represents the engineers around the world who keep the Internet functioning, says this proposal “would require member states to take on a very active and inappropriate role in patrolling” the Internet.

This is indefensible, but par for the course with this bunch. I could list other such U.N. meddling for days without once repeating myself:

• proposed global levies,
• International Gun Control,
• the Law Of the Sea Treaty,
• the U.N. council on Climate Change,
• Israel,
• the Orwellian ‘Human Rights Council’,

…and the list goes on, and on, and on.

Boy-oh-boy, do I miss John Bolton.

The fact that the United States of America is the largest financial supporter of the U.N. since that organization’s founding in 1945 (providing roughly a quarter of their annual budget) gives us the right to question this international assemblage of thugs, which consistently manages to undermine freedom at every turn. We need to get a handle on what is being misspent by them, how, and why…and then stand up for freedom as we used to do….or we must seriously consider getting out altogether.

Because if we don’t choose one of those options, and quickly, we will be funding our own demise.