Americans - not just the rich ones - used to be able to afford to eat steak every now and then. America is becoming a place where most people can't afford to buy a hamburger - or a burrito - at a fast food chain. That's how it was in the movie Demolition Man.

Now, it's how it is - in reality.

It's not so much because the cost of beef has gone up  - or that the buying power of money has gone down - although that hasn't helped. What's made it so expensive to buy beef at a fast-food burger joint in states like California is the cost of paying people to make them.

Gavin Newsom - the Leftist (there are no "Democrats" anymore) governor of California - recently signed into law a mandatory minimum wage of $20-per-hour for flipping burgers, making tacos, or ringing up customers at fast-food restaurants such as McDonald's and Chipotle.

The result is that regular people increasingly can't afford to eat at McDonald's, Chipotle, or Taco Bell anymore.

Interestingly, Newsom, who is rich enough to eat prime rib for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day, exempted restaurants that make and sell their own bread. This just coincidentally includes Panera restaurants, which Newsom has an interest in protecting from the business-killing policy he signed into law.

According to the Orange County Register, "Panera has 24 locations in California, all owned by Gregg Flynn, Newsom's friend and billionaire campaign donor. Newsom denies carving out the exception to help his friend, despite a Bloomberg article reporting that he and Flynn have a long business relationship, with Flynn apparently bragging to colleagues that he is on a texting basis with the governor."

So Newsom is aware there's a problem when the cost of labor exceeds its value.

Leftists get upset when such evaluations are pointed out. But the market is indifferent to how Leftists feel about how much a fast-food worker's labor is worth. They insist that fast-food workers - who used to be generally teenagers working part-time after school and on weekends - be paid as if these entry-level/first-time jobs were careers rather than learning experiences. Fast-food jobs used to be precisely that. A first-time job you accepted in order to learn how to show up on time, meet someone else's expectations, take pride in your efforts, and hopefully, the value of the money earned. Few, if any, saw a job at McDonald's as a career - unless they wanted to move up to being an assistant manager, then a manager, and (one day) owning their own franchise.

In which case, the minimum wage was a temporary/entry-level wage.

Now that it costs so much to hire entry-level workers, it's no longer worth it to the restaurants to hire them. Despite the initial costs, automation is a far more cost-effective alternative. (McDonald's isn't the only fast-food chain working on automating entry-level/first-time jobs.) Because a Quick Service restaurant doesn't have to pay a computer an hourly wage to take your order or a machine to prepare your burger, they can reduce their overhead costs (which does affect the product's pricing). Automating more is the only way to keep fast-food burgers - and burritos - available at fast-food (rather than steak) prices.

And to keep fast-food restaurants from being pushed out of business.

But there is another cost: the human cost. This is the lost jobs of the people who do them (or did them). It's a hidden cost to those not directly affected by it but no less expensive to those who are. High school kids and other young people no longer get the opportunity to earn money after school and on weekends or to learn how to show up on time, deal with customers, and be good workers. Many of them remain dependent on their parents for money—and remain as children well into adulthood.

Because they never learned how to grow up.

The California Business and Industrial Alliance (CABIA) says "10,000 jobs have been cut across fast food restaurants" since Newsom signed the $20 mandatory minimum wage bill into law last year. Southern California Pizza Co., which owns multiple Pizza Hut stores, announced layoffs of around 841 delivery drivers across the state. Another restaurant chain - Rubio's Coast Grill - recently announced it would be closing 48 of its restaurants across the state.  

More such layoffs are all but certain because a $20 hourly wage is not sustainable - to use a word beloved by the Left. To understand why it isn't, ask why not raise the minimum wage to $100 per hour. That would be a "living wage" - another favorite term of the Left. The problem, of course, is that few businesses could afford to pay it - so it might as well be no wage at all. 

The same applies to the $20 mandatory minimum. It's only paid if the business can afford to pay it and is making—rather than losing—money. 

Leftists like Newsome can afford to be seen as "caring" for the people they drive out of work, who can't afford to eat a beef burrito, taco, or burger at a fast food joint that can't afford to pay staff to make and serve them. 

CABIA president and founder Tom Manzo is right on the money when he says, "Governments, unlike private businesses, have options when they run out of money." By this, he means that governments can take as much money as they like out of taxpayers' pockets.

Leaving those taxpayers with even less money for fast-food burgers or burritos.

All the more reason to buy beef - at affordable prices - by not buying it at the drive-thru. It's not going to do much for the people who've lost their jobs to the $20 minimum wage. But it's a way to avoid paying $20 for a beef burrito, taco, or burger. 

   We often discuss government efforts to control the behavior of the governed. We talk about censorship of the media (including social media and platforms like Amazon) to control the information available. We speak about lawfare weaponizing the judicial system against those who believe differently than the political agenda of the regime in charge. But we often overlook what is perhaps the most insidious form of crowd control, "the Nudge."

   I first started talking about the psychological attempt to control people's behavior back in August of 2013 when the Obama White House accidentally publicly admitted to forming a "Nudge Squad" when Maya Shankar, a White House senior adviser on social and behavioral sciences at the time, sent out recruitment e-mails to fill positions on their "Behavioral Insights Team." The goal of the group being to subtly influence people's behavior and "experiment" with various techniques to "tweak" behavior so the general public will do the things that the powers-that-be determine to be acceptable. (And just as an FYI, the group was modeled on a similar nudge group in the U.K. that was already in operation. Most developed nations now have publicly acknowledged Behavioral Insights Teams.)

   The World Economic Forum is an organization that is no stranger to controversy. The WEF has a political slant toward globalism with zero concern for individual liberty. This is why so many conservatives take issue with many of their "recommendations," and so many so-called progressives stand ready to champion their policy agendas. Many on the left, including legacy media, are ever-prepared to defend the WEF by calling anyone who points out the explicit threats to freedom that the WEF pushes... (wait for it) a conspiracy theorist. The WEF started an initiative named The Great Reset; Klaus Schwab writes books titled The Fourth Industrial Revolution, COVID-19: The Great Reset, The Great Narrative (The Great Reset), and Stakeholder Capitalism: A Global Economy that Works for Progress, People and Planet, each pushing the ideas of changing (using technological advancements and any excuses that present themselves) all of the economic systems that allow for class mobility and recognize individual human rights; and it is the people who point out the stated goals of the global elites (in the own words) who are "spreading disinformation" and engaging in trafficking of conspiracy theories. 

   The WEF has for some time been promoting the "man-caused" climate change narrative and, as an off-chute of that narrative, made claims that how we eat in the world's developed nations "must" change. One of the "recommended" changes is how we consume protein. They say that cattle ranching is especially hazardous to our environment due to the land and water requirements and the expelling of methane gas from the cattle. But don't worry, they have the solution to your protein needs after they put an end (that is one of their stated goals) to farmers raising animals for meat... bugs. 

   The WEF, along with other globalist organizations, has talked about substituting insects for more traditional meat sources for some time now, but they really caught the attention of a lot of people in July of 2021 when they published an article titled Why we need to give insects the role they deserve in our food systems, on their own website. They estimated worldwide population growth by 2050 and insisted that insect farming as a food source for people and animals is "environmentally friendly." Since the time "the nudge" has been on.

   The effort has been a two-pronged approach, with energy being spent trying to convince the consumer and various forms of pressure (often in the form of ESG scoring and "cancel campaigns") on food suppliers and manufacturers. Recently, the effort to change the manufacturing practices of food companies to include insects as ingredients has been stepped up via media like magazines and newsletters (both physical and digital) directed at the chief officers of food companies and quality and safety control officers. The idea being that if the companies start using insects, the end consumer only has two choices; eat the product or don't. And if enough food companies use insects, the choice for many becomes to eat or starve. By successfully nudging those who bring food to market, they no longer need to nudge the public; you are rich enough to go around the typical supply chain channels or settle for what's available.

   Much of the focus is on trying to convince manufacturers that the public will see insects as "normal food" soon, so the current customer's reluctance to consume insect protein will be overcome by introducing more products featuring those proteins. Food companies are also being told that other organizations (Universities, behavioral scientists, NGOs, and governmental "Behavioral Insights Teams" in Europe and North America) are working on nudging the consumers' attitudes toward insects as a food source. The overall message is to start making small changes now that most consumers won't notice, and before long, insect proteins will be more widely accepted than plant-based proteins. On that day, food companies can go full "bug burgers," save tons of money, and they will have helped the WEF save the world. (At least, that's what the WEF wants everyone to believe.)

   Look, insects are a significant part of the diets of large numbers of people around the world. But that is primarily due to a lack of options. If you want to eat bugs and worms, enjoy them as long as you follow safety standards. If you are a food company that wants to accommodate that niche market, then figure out how to make a profit and go for it. Just don't let the WEF, or anyone else, "nudge" you into it. As for me, a scorpion will never replace a nice thick steak. But you do you.

   The real issue here isn't what you eat or climate change; it's control. The WEF has told us that we will own nothing and that we will like it. (What they meant is "like it or not.") They are the elites, and we are just using up their resources. We must stand for individual liberty and against the "Tyranny of the Minority" (HT to Ed Brodow for using his phrasing but not the way he used it.) that the global elites represent.

   P.S. If you were to read Gregory Wrightstone's (Executive Director of the CO2 Coalition) books Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn't Want You to Know and A Very Convenient Warming: How modest warming and more CO2 are benefiting humanity, you might not be as easily nudged when they try to scare you with climate change.

  In 2009, then-President Barack Obama chose to ignore the pleas for support from the Iranian people as they were protesting in the streets against the Human-Rights violating, theocratic, despotic Iranian regime. Obama's excuse for not offering even some level of verbal support to people who were quickly "dealt with" by order of the Ayatollah was his concern that American intervention of any kind would serve as a rallying cause for the regime. This was, of course, accepted by left-leaning geopolitical "experts" as reasonable and heavily criticized by more conservative voices operating in the realm of foreign affairs policy. 

   The decision by the Obama administration not to speak up on behalf of the Iranian people who wished to see a return of freedom to their nation led to a swift ending of the protests. The regime did not need any other motivation to squash the movement than the visible challenge to their authority. At the time, many deemed this to be an error on the part of the administration or an inherent "softness" on the international stage. However, later actions brought that assessment into question.

   While not supporting "democracy" for Iran, Obama was personally very verbally supportive of the Arab Spring throughout 2010 and 2011 and, especially, the Muslim Brotherhood's short-term take-over of Eygpt in 2012 (as well as expressing disappointment at the quick ousting of the Muslim Brotherhood shortly after that). At that point, Obama was not concerned about the perception of American intervention in the region. Nor was he concerned about the will of Arabs or Persians and their "right to self-determination." It looked very much like he wished to promote the "right kind" of Muslim, not Islam in general, but a specific Islamic ideology. Still, many refused to make that connection, and the stage was set for the so-called Iran Nuclear Deal.

   The Iran Nuclear Deal was touted as a significant diplomatic victory for the Obama administration. It was officially announced on July 15th, 2015, and was sold as a way to stop Iran's nuclear weapon ambitions. It allowed Iran to continue to work on their "nuclear energy" program, plus sent a minimum of $400 million in cash (and a release of frozen assets estimated on the low end to be worth $150 billion) to Tehran along with the promise of relief of sanctions leveled against the regime, individuals in the government, and high ranking members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. Many conservatives pointed out at the time that Iran's nuclear energy program was little more than a front for their weapons program, so even if you could trust the Iranian government's promises (given their open ambitions, not a wise thing to do), all that had been accomplished was slowing down the development of weapons. It was also pointed out at the time that money is fungible. Sending millions of dollars to the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism certainly did not seem to be in America's best interest or, the interest of our allies, or even just stability in the region.

   Those on the political left would have you believe that it is merely a coincidence that after the arrival of the "pallets of cash" from the Bank of Obama, the sophistication of weaponry in the hands of Hezbollah and the Houthis (who first rose to prominence in Yemen during the aforementioned Arab Spring) improved exponentially from what they had before; and that the Hamas terror tunnels morphed into a marvel of modern engineering. But the rest of us were saying a collective, unhappy, "We told you so." It was an easily predictable outcome.

   During the Trump administration, Iran continued to foster influence in the region by fighting a proxy war against Saudi Arabia through the Houthis, who currently control North Yemen, by supporting Hezbollah in their frequent attacks on Israel's northern towns and financing the development and planning of what culminated in the October 7th attack of Hamas on Israel. Iran also continued to hold sway in Syria as well, but Russia had a much more significant direct role in Syria going back into the late Obama administration, so it is rarely mentioned by commentators these days. Iran went about their business as low-key as possible during Trump's presidency. They still had to project power in the region, but other than a bit of saber-rattling after Iranian General Qasem Soleimani was killed in Iraq during a meeting with local militants that were targeting Americans, Iran went about the spreading of terrorism through their proxies. Iran was not as overt, out of respect, fear, or just the perceived unpredictability of Donald Trump.

   The Trump administration withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal, worked on re-establishing U.S. and international sanctions against the Mullahs, and in a move that would have won a Nobel Peace Prize for anyone else on the planet, they worked behind the scenes to join Arab nations and Israel together in what is known as the Abraham Accords. (The timing of the Hamas attack on Israel is widely believed to have been an effort to prevent Saudi Arabia from joining the Abraham Accords.)

   All of this is the past. A pattern of American acquiescence to the will of the Ayatollah emerged during the Obama years, including a "kissing of the ring" when two United States Navy riverine command boats were seized by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard. The projection of American strength returned under Trump, and the normalization of relations between Israel and Arab nations like the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco, Egypt, and Jordan brought the first realistic chance of peace in the Middle East. Now is the present, and we have the Biden Administration, a.k.a. Obama's third term.

   Since January 20th, 2021, Joe Biden has been on a mission to undo everything Donald Trump did. That includes getting Iran to enter an agreement similar to Obama's deal with them. Tehran, however, sensing Biden's politically motivated desperation, refused to even meet with representatives of the U.S. directly. After two meetings on the topic, where other nations negotiated on behalf of the Biden administration, it became clear that Iran had no intention of ever giving Biden anything. (Biden did manage to give Iran $6 billion to secure the release of 5 Americans who were being held by the Islamic theocracy during this timeframe. A move that had even some Democrats angered as it sent the message that this government is willing to pay if citizens are taken prisoner.)    

   On September 16th, 2022, a 22-year-old woman, Mahsa Amini, died in the detention of Iran's Morality Police. They had beaten and detained for an alleged transgression of the women's dress codes before her death (failure to wear her hijab correctly). This event set off widespread pro-women's rights and pro-democracy protests within Iran. These protests, in many cases, were also calling for the end of Iran's theocratic regime. Things are different this time; the Islamic Revolutionary Guard has engaged in their customary brutal tactics but, to this point, has been unable to end the protests. The harder they push, the stronger the resolve of the Iranian people has become. The Biden administration has barely commented on the situation, and the mainstream legacy media has stopped reporting on it. The newsroom editors act as if this is not a worthy story to share. Still, it seems far more likely that if the American people were to know the full extent to which the Ayatollah has gone to crush his people, they would be outraged at the continued Barbery and would, at the very least, demand the Biden administration do something in support of the oppressed people of Iran.     

   On October 7th, 2023, the most brutal attack on the Jewish people since the holocaust was carried out by Hamas. Israel had withdrawn from Gaza back in 2005. The people of Gaza elected Hamas to be their elected government in 2006. A ceasefire between the people of Gaza and Israel had been in effect since that 2005 withdrawal, with some skirmishes along the border fence that Hamas had orchestrated. After the inhuman actions of the Hamas terrorists on October 7th, Israel declared war on Hamas. At first, Biden said all the right things. Unquestioned support for our alley Israel, which looked suspiciously like Biden thought it would be a great excuse to divert more tax dollars to Ukraine while we were sending aid to Israel, but Biden's support quickly started to wane after both the Republicans refused to sign a blank check for Biden's pet projects tied to aid for Israel and the far-left activists started chanting, "from the river to the sea" in American cities, on college campuses and even in front of the White House.

   Naturally, no one was surprised when multiple members of "The Squad" came out in support of Hamas. Rashida Tlaib calls herself a Palestinian American; Ilhan Omar has, on numerous occasions, made antisemitic comments publicly; and don't get me started on the things that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is willing to say. (This matters in the context of my question because Hamas is a proxy for Iran against Israel. Support of these terrorists is support of Iran in the region.) But others in the Democratic party have been protective of Iran and their proxies in ways that work against American interests and often against the platforms that the Democratic party claims to represent.

   Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. Cardin has recently made it clear that his committee will not be moving forward with the MAHSA Act, named after the aforementioned victim of Iranian violence against women, Mahsa Amini. The MAHSA Act was passed in the House overwhelmingly back in September 2023. It would impose sanctions on the Supreme Leader of Iran and the President of Iran and their respective offices for human rights abuses and support for terrorism. It calls out the actions of the Iranian security forces during their violent crackdown. Actions named specifically include mass arrests, well-documented beating of protestors, throttling of the internet and telecommunications services, and shooting protestors with live ammunition. Iranian security forces have reportedly killed hundreds of protestors and other civilians, including women and children. Why kill the bill?

   This may seem like a lot of different, barely - if at all - related events. But when seen together, it shows a long-running pattern by members of America's political left elevating Iran's status in the Middle East at the expense of the U.S. and our allies. I have heard some on the left suggest that this is an effort to get the U.S. out of politics in the region altogether. The idea being that a stronger Iran would serve as a counterbalance to Saudi Arabia and Israel, negating the need for U.S. influence in that part of the world. If true, that plan completely ignores the intentions of the Iranian regime and the hopes of Russia and China to further extend their influence in the natural resource-rich region. It is, at best, an incredibly naive and short-sighted idea. However, suppose the "counterbalance" idea is not the motivation. In that case, we really need to get to the bottom of why so many Democrats, since Obama was first in the White House, are working harder for the Ayatollah than for the American people.

   This question becomes even more critical now, with three recent events. Iran has moved a warship into the Red Sea, seemingly as a response to the U.S. military destroying three boats belonging to the Iran-backed Houthis. An Iranian with jihad terrorist ties was caught after he had illegally entered the U.S. near Niagara Falls, New York. And a pair of explosions killed nearly 100 people at a ceremony in Iran to commemorate the fourth anniversary of the death of General Qassem Soleimani, where the Iranian government has called it terrorism, blamed both Israel and the U.S. and promised "swift justice" for the perpetrators. If not handled properly, America and its allies may find themselves in a situation that never had to be. So, I'll ask again. Is there more to Democrat support of Iranian Theocracy than bad policy?