Reminding the public that it’s the corporations who provide the jobs is a formidable argument, one not easily refuted, given the fact that virtually everyone of us needs to work. So why would we continue to molest the very people who provide those jobs? Holster it, Kemo Sabe. Corporations are our friends.

Two things: First, people don’t go into business in order to provide jobs. They go into business in order to make money. The fact that they have to pay employees a salary in order to make that money is viewed by management as a “necessary evil,” which is why they are so fanatically committed to headcount reduction.

And second, today’s corporations are more dedicated to “creating tasks” than “creating jobs.” There’s a subtle, yet profound, difference between the two. A “task” is something that needs to be completed in order for the company to make a profit. By contrast, a “job” is what someone does for a living.

People who boast about not having to join the rat-race — who don’t have the hassle of commuting to their jobs because they are lucky enough to “work out of their house” — need to be reminded that “working out of the house” is a double-edged sword. As cool as it is to be able to stay in your pajamas all day and work out of digs in, say, Santa Monica, California, don’t forget that there’s a highly motivated dude in New Delhi, India, just waiting to steal your job.

My, how times have changed. Today, nearly all of us expect to be showered with presents on Christmas morning, and then almost immediately people begin posting photos of their “Christmas loot” on social media websites such as Facebook. The “Rich Kids of Instagram” have taken boasting about wealth to an extreme that nobody has ever seen before.

Our society has become deeply, deeply materialistic, and whatever “meaning” Christmas once may have had has become almost completely lost at this point. The truth is that this is what our society glorifies, and most of our young adults would act like this if they had enough money to do so.

As it is, the average American will spend 830 dollars on Christmas this year. Most people pile up lots of debt on their credit cards buying lots of useless stuff, and much of it will just end up sitting on a shelf somewhere taking up space. But most Americans do this year after year because society tells them that this is what they need to do in order to be happy.

Of course the truth is that most people do not find happiness during the Christmas season. In fact, the rate of suicide spikes to the highest level of the entire year during “the holidays”, and one survey found that 45 percent of all Americans say that they dread the Christmas season.

Ah, tax money at work. Writes the New York Times: “Suspicious neighbors and landlords pry into their private lives. Blackmailers hunt for victims on the social media sites they use to meet others of the same sex. Police officers routinely stop them to search for incriminating images and chats on their cellphones.

Since an anti-gay law went into effect last year, many gay Nigerians say they have been subjected to new levels of harassment, even violence. They blame the law, the authorities and broad social intolerance for their troubles. But they also blame an unwavering supporter whose commitment to their cause has been unquestioned and conspicuous across Africa: the United States government.”

“The US support is making matters worse,” said Mike, 24, a university student studying biology in Minna, a town in central Nigeria, who asked that his full name not be used for his safety. “There’s more resistance now. It’s triggered people’s defense mechanism.”

The pro-life care centers sued, arguing the Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency Act was a blatant violation of the constitutional principle that government cannot force individuals to convey government-mandated speech. White determined, nevertheless, that “the public interest would be served by denying the stay pending appeal and allow the development of government policies generated through legislation or regulations developed through presumptively reasoned democratic processes.”

Focusing on its aim of recognizing “human life from the moment of conception and to minister in the name of Jesus Christ to women and men facing unplanned pregnancies,” the care centers said the mandated state notice “is inconsistent with their religious commitments as they believe that ‘abortion is wrong and have never referred, nor would they refer, a client to have an abortion.’”

WND reported similar legislation was thrown out by the courts when it was attempted in New York. It also has failed in several other federal court jurisdictions. Nevertheless, California advanced the idea, and now a number of cases have been brought both by the Pacific Justice Institute and the American Center for Law and Justice. “It is imperative that we stop the government from forcing people of conscience to advocate messages to which they are morally and religiously opposed. If the government can do this, none of our First Amendment freedoms are secure,” said PJI President Brad Dacus.

“Going under the innocuous name of ‘Sesame Credit,’ China has created a score for how good a citizen you are,” explains Extra Credits’ video about the program. “The owners of China’s largest social networks have partnered with the government to create something akin to the US credit score — but, instead of measuring how regularly you pay your bills, it measures how obediently you follow the party line.”

In the works for years, China’s ‘social credit system’ aims to create a docile, compliant citizenry who are fiscally and morally responsible by employing a game-like format to create self-imposed, group social control. In other words, China gamified peer pressure to control its citizenry; and, though the scheme hasn’t been fully implemented yet, it’s already working — insidiously well.

The aim of this tactic is to intentionally cause escalations of high-tension interactions between local police and pro-gun patriots, knowing that local law enforcement will respond to terror watch list hits with an escalated engagement posture involving firearms being drawn and pointed at the suspects.

The DHS, [Department of Homeland Security] obviously at the command of an anti-American Obama regime that absolutely despises both patriots and police officers - is hoping that either the patriot suspect opens fire on police or that overreacting police open fire on the patriot. Either way, this serves the agenda of the Obama regime and creates a powerful narrative that mainstream media can use to call for nationwide gun confiscation.

How do we know all this? Because Pete Santilli, the host of Off the Hook on TalkNetwork.com, was pulled over by a police officer in Cincinnatti just two days ago. His license plate was flagged by the federal "terror watch list," causing this police officer to respond with a very aggressive, high alert stance with his primary firearm drawn and pointed at Pete and his passenger (the terrorism "suspects").

This response by the police officer was entirely appropriate based on the intel he received from DHS. After all, thanks to open borders and insane refugee resettlement programs, the Obama regime is actively transplanting ISIS terrorists across the United States, readying them for being activated in a nationwide terror wave (see "Obama is a Sleeper Cell" to learn more). But what this police officer did not know is that he was being manipulated by DHS as part of a scheme that deliberately places police officers in harm's way by causing them to collide with "patriots" who are fraudulently placed on the government's terror watch list.

The answer is simple: DHS is intentionally placing patriots on the terror watch list to get them pulled over and hopefully shot to death by cops. Those who survive the interaction are then "cleared" by DHS, which deems to whole thing an "unfortunate mistake." If someone happens to get shot during all this, so much the better for the Obama regime and the anti-gun political regime, all of whom absolutely LOVE to see more acts of gun violence so that they can exploit them to call for abolition of the Second Amendment.