Wednesday, May 23, 2007
The Paleo Blog has a post that must be read
Please link to http://paleo.vox.com/ for this great piece on how capitalism can be screwed up with just a little thought and preparation.
One of my favorite parts in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism by Robert Murphy is the section on price controls, or more specifically rent controls. Dr. Murphy hits the subject out of the ballpark. To give you all a taste (and a reason to buy the book!), in this entry to The Paleo Blog, I provide a summary, with my own version and comments or observations, of what he says in it. I also include a few empirical examples taken from Basic Economics: A Citizen’s Guide to Understanding the Economy by Thomas Sowell.
One of my favorite parts in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism by Robert Murphy is the section on price controls, or more specifically rent controls. Dr. Murphy hits the subject out of the ballpark. To give you all a taste (and a reason to buy the book!), in this entry to The Paleo Blog, I provide a summary, with my own version and comments or observations, of what he says in it. I also include a few empirical examples taken from Basic Economics: A Citizen’s Guide to Understanding the Economy by Thomas Sowell.
Typical of all backroom deals the new "Immigration Law" has many "compromises " that do more harm to our personal freedoms. The following is but one "compromise" that will reduce our constitutional right to keep and bear arms....
Courtesy of Gun Owners of America - www.gunowners.org
First, there was the McCarthy-Dingell bill. The folks on Capitol Hill have been telling you we need HR 297, a bill to greatly expand the Brady Law. They say it will stop future Virginia Tech shootings. And, oh yes, there's one more thing: they want you to believe the McCarthy-Dingell gun control bill isn't really gun control.
Now, they want to bring you an anti-gun immigration amnesty bill. Already you're hearing it's not really an amnesty bill. (Yeah, right.) So don't be surprised if they tell you it's not an anti-gun bill either.
Forget, for a moment, the fact that the immigration package negotiated in the Senate could grant amnesty to up to a hundred million illegal aliens who have flaunted our laws.
Forget, for a moment, that it would pull the rug out from under the growing number of states that have vetoed the anti-gun National ID bill passed by Congress in 2005.
Forget, for a moment, that the bill will strengthen existing laws by requiring all legal Americans (like you) to own a National ID card before you can get a job.
In addition to all these things, the bill could, in the hands of an anti-gun administration, result in the closing of every major gun store in America.
GUN CONTROL IN THE IMMIGRATION BILL
Senator Ted Kennedy and the anti-gun zealots who wrote the bill just couldn't resist the temptation to get their hands on our guns. They have included language that GOA has been able to defeat in the past.
When Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced these anti-gun provisions in 1998, the GOA grassroots were able to convince seven senator cosponsors to pull their names from Hatch's bill.
At the time, The Hill newspaper credited GOA with having "generated a significant number of postcards" into Senate offices. "The defecting [seven] senators, echoing the concerns of the GOA, are apprehensive about the violation of Second Amendment rights," reported The Hill.
The current language in the amnesty bill is only slightly different from Hatch's original language almost 10 years ago, but it would essentially do the same thing -- threaten every gun store in America.
In Section 205, for example, all it takes for the employees of a gun shop (of five or more persons) to become a "criminal gang" is:
* For them to commit two or more violations of ANY federal felony gun offense -- which includes virtually all gun offenses, including paperwork violations; and
* For the anti-gunners to find that violating gun laws was a "primary purpose" of the group.
So let's say your local gun store sells two or three firearms to Mayor Bloomberg's thuggish agents under New York City's extraterritorial "sting" operations. Your gun shop is now a "criminal gang."
This provision could even be used against a family of five who drives by two schools on the way to a movie with a gun in the glove compartment. Certainly under a Hillary administration, it would not be surprising to see them treat this infraction as a "felony" under the weird language of Gun Free School Zones Act. Thus, you and your family would become a "criminal gang."
OTHER PROBLEMS IN THE IMMIGRATION BILL
There is still no official immigration bill -- that is, the working draft does not have an official senate number. The draft was concocted by senators who put it together behind closed doors, all the while bypassing the normal committee process.
While this unofficial draft has been "the buzz" around the country this past week, several things have been overlooked. One thing, to be sure, is the threat to gun owners' rights mentioned above. But also ignored is the fact that the negotiating draft imposes draconian penalties for those who live in states that have the audacity to veto the National ID card (which passed as part of the REAL ID Act of 2005).
If you live in a state such as Montana, Maine, Idaho, etc. which has passed legislation opposing the government's efforts to turn your driver's license into a National ID card, YOU COULD BE DENIED EMPLOYMENT OF ANY SORT.
Gun Owners was already concerned about this law -- which has yet to be implemented -- because of the threat it poses to gun owners' privacy. But now the immigration bill will go even further by requiring all present and future private sector employees to be screened by the Electronic Employee Verification System (EEVS).
And in Section 1(a)(4)(i) of the draft legislation, the bill allows for EEVS approval of your continued employment only if your private employer meets "strict standards for identification documents that must be presented in the hiring process, including the use of secure documentation that contains a photograph, biometrics and/or complies with the requirements [of the] REAL ID Act...."
Hence, no National ID card... no job.
Courtesy of Gun Owners of America - www.gunowners.org
First, there was the McCarthy-Dingell bill. The folks on Capitol Hill have been telling you we need HR 297, a bill to greatly expand the Brady Law. They say it will stop future Virginia Tech shootings. And, oh yes, there's one more thing: they want you to believe the McCarthy-Dingell gun control bill isn't really gun control.
Now, they want to bring you an anti-gun immigration amnesty bill. Already you're hearing it's not really an amnesty bill. (Yeah, right.) So don't be surprised if they tell you it's not an anti-gun bill either.
Forget, for a moment, the fact that the immigration package negotiated in the Senate could grant amnesty to up to a hundred million illegal aliens who have flaunted our laws.
Forget, for a moment, that it would pull the rug out from under the growing number of states that have vetoed the anti-gun National ID bill passed by Congress in 2005.
Forget, for a moment, that the bill will strengthen existing laws by requiring all legal Americans (like you) to own a National ID card before you can get a job.
In addition to all these things, the bill could, in the hands of an anti-gun administration, result in the closing of every major gun store in America.
GUN CONTROL IN THE IMMIGRATION BILL
Senator Ted Kennedy and the anti-gun zealots who wrote the bill just couldn't resist the temptation to get their hands on our guns. They have included language that GOA has been able to defeat in the past.
When Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced these anti-gun provisions in 1998, the GOA grassroots were able to convince seven senator cosponsors to pull their names from Hatch's bill.
At the time, The Hill newspaper credited GOA with having "generated a significant number of postcards" into Senate offices. "The defecting [seven] senators, echoing the concerns of the GOA, are apprehensive about the violation of Second Amendment rights," reported The Hill.
The current language in the amnesty bill is only slightly different from Hatch's original language almost 10 years ago, but it would essentially do the same thing -- threaten every gun store in America.
In Section 205, for example, all it takes for the employees of a gun shop (of five or more persons) to become a "criminal gang" is:
* For them to commit two or more violations of ANY federal felony gun offense -- which includes virtually all gun offenses, including paperwork violations; and
* For the anti-gunners to find that violating gun laws was a "primary purpose" of the group.
So let's say your local gun store sells two or three firearms to Mayor Bloomberg's thuggish agents under New York City's extraterritorial "sting" operations. Your gun shop is now a "criminal gang."
This provision could even be used against a family of five who drives by two schools on the way to a movie with a gun in the glove compartment. Certainly under a Hillary administration, it would not be surprising to see them treat this infraction as a "felony" under the weird language of Gun Free School Zones Act. Thus, you and your family would become a "criminal gang."
OTHER PROBLEMS IN THE IMMIGRATION BILL
There is still no official immigration bill -- that is, the working draft does not have an official senate number. The draft was concocted by senators who put it together behind closed doors, all the while bypassing the normal committee process.
While this unofficial draft has been "the buzz" around the country this past week, several things have been overlooked. One thing, to be sure, is the threat to gun owners' rights mentioned above. But also ignored is the fact that the negotiating draft imposes draconian penalties for those who live in states that have the audacity to veto the National ID card (which passed as part of the REAL ID Act of 2005).
If you live in a state such as Montana, Maine, Idaho, etc. which has passed legislation opposing the government's efforts to turn your driver's license into a National ID card, YOU COULD BE DENIED EMPLOYMENT OF ANY SORT.
Gun Owners was already concerned about this law -- which has yet to be implemented -- because of the threat it poses to gun owners' privacy. But now the immigration bill will go even further by requiring all present and future private sector employees to be screened by the Electronic Employee Verification System (EEVS).
And in Section 1(a)(4)(i) of the draft legislation, the bill allows for EEVS approval of your continued employment only if your private employer meets "strict standards for identification documents that must be presented in the hiring process, including the use of secure documentation that contains a photograph, biometrics and/or complies with the requirements [of the] REAL ID Act...."
Hence, no National ID card... no job.
Monday, May 21, 2007
McCain for Prez? - Let's hope not!
This is yet another example of how this wanna-be-republican loves to pitch a fit whenever he can't get his way. Not only is he blowing his lid over a topic hes wrong on - he obviously feels no one has the right to question his positions.
Good ridence John McCain. May you come in last in the republican primaries.....
McCain Goes Nuts Near Senate Floor
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, launched into a shouting match during a Thursday Capitol Hill meeting, where reportedly the presidential candidate dropped the "F” word and more.
According to reports in the Washington Post and the New York Post, Cornyn apparently got the former POW’s attention when he raised the issue about the number of judicial appeals that illegal immigrants could receive.
In a meeting room just off the Senate floor, McCain opined that Cornyn was purposely raising petty objections to a compromise plan then being hammered out between Senate Republicans and Democrats and the White House.
"This is chickens--- stuff," McCain fired at Cornyn, according to the news reports. "You've always been against this bill, and you're just trying to derail it."
Not to be outdone, Cornyn accused McCain of being too occupied campaigning for president to take part in the negotiations.
"Wait a second here," Cornyn said to McCain. "I've been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You're out of line."
"F--- you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room," McCain reportedly rejoined.
McCain, who has missed 42 votes this year, hasn't been intimately involved in the comprehensive immigration reform debate for months.
Reportedly, the shouting match was played out in front of a bipartisan group of senators and aides who had gathered in the meeting room. Pundits suggest that the temper flare may reopen the can-of-worms that is McCain's "anger-management problem."
Brian Jones, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, acknowledged that a "spirited exchange" did take place.
"Negotiating such a large and important piece of legislation can be intense, and a spirited exchange did occur," Jones said. "[McCain] is somebody who feels very passionate about his work and about solving the problems facing the country."
Good ridence John McCain. May you come in last in the republican primaries.....
McCain Goes Nuts Near Senate Floor
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, launched into a shouting match during a Thursday Capitol Hill meeting, where reportedly the presidential candidate dropped the "F” word and more.
According to reports in the Washington Post and the New York Post, Cornyn apparently got the former POW’s attention when he raised the issue about the number of judicial appeals that illegal immigrants could receive.
In a meeting room just off the Senate floor, McCain opined that Cornyn was purposely raising petty objections to a compromise plan then being hammered out between Senate Republicans and Democrats and the White House.
"This is chickens--- stuff," McCain fired at Cornyn, according to the news reports. "You've always been against this bill, and you're just trying to derail it."
Not to be outdone, Cornyn accused McCain of being too occupied campaigning for president to take part in the negotiations.
"Wait a second here," Cornyn said to McCain. "I've been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You're out of line."
"F--- you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room," McCain reportedly rejoined.
McCain, who has missed 42 votes this year, hasn't been intimately involved in the comprehensive immigration reform debate for months.
Reportedly, the shouting match was played out in front of a bipartisan group of senators and aides who had gathered in the meeting room. Pundits suggest that the temper flare may reopen the can-of-worms that is McCain's "anger-management problem."
Brian Jones, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, acknowledged that a "spirited exchange" did take place.
"Negotiating such a large and important piece of legislation can be intense, and a spirited exchange did occur," Jones said. "[McCain] is somebody who feels very passionate about his work and about solving the problems facing the country."
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Should Sharpton receive the same fate as Imus? YES
Romney calls Sharpton comments 'bigoted'
By UPI StaffUnited Press InternationalMay 10, 2007
FORT DODGE, Iowa (UPI) -- U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says the Rev. Al Sharpton's comments about Mormonism and the 2008 election were "bigoted."
Sharpton, in a debate Monday with atheist author Christopher Hitchens, said "As for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don't worry about that."
Romney told reporters in Iowa Wednesday that Sharpton's comments were "a very unfortunate choice of words on his part."
"I think it was a bigoted statement," he said.
Sharpton said he was not implying Mormons did not believe in God, The New York Times said.
"I predicted that believers (not atheists) would vote against the candidate, in this case, Mr. Romney, for political, not religious reasons," Sharpton said in a statement. "In no way did I attack Mormons or the Mormon Church, when I responded that other believers, not atheists, would vote against Mr. Romney for purely political reasons."
Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
* When will "leader of minority groups" who have a long history of openly racists comments be held to the same standards as everyone else? For too long the likes of Sharpton and Jackson have peddled their form of hate & racism in the guise of civil rights. It is time they meet the same fate as everyone else who exercises their constitutional rights. They get barbecued by the liberal media.
By UPI StaffUnited Press InternationalMay 10, 2007
FORT DODGE, Iowa (UPI) -- U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says the Rev. Al Sharpton's comments about Mormonism and the 2008 election were "bigoted."
Sharpton, in a debate Monday with atheist author Christopher Hitchens, said "As for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don't worry about that."
Romney told reporters in Iowa Wednesday that Sharpton's comments were "a very unfortunate choice of words on his part."
"I think it was a bigoted statement," he said.
Sharpton said he was not implying Mormons did not believe in God, The New York Times said.
"I predicted that believers (not atheists) would vote against the candidate, in this case, Mr. Romney, for political, not religious reasons," Sharpton said in a statement. "In no way did I attack Mormons or the Mormon Church, when I responded that other believers, not atheists, would vote against Mr. Romney for purely political reasons."
Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
* When will "leader of minority groups" who have a long history of openly racists comments be held to the same standards as everyone else? For too long the likes of Sharpton and Jackson have peddled their form of hate & racism in the guise of civil rights. It is time they meet the same fate as everyone else who exercises their constitutional rights. They get barbecued by the liberal media.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Perry Allows overuling of his HPV virus plan...
Gov. Rick Perry, after one of the best speeches we've heard him make, said he won't veto the Legislature's ban on government-ordered vaccines against human papillomavirus, or HPV.
Right up to the end of his statement, Perry looked like a governor ready to do battle with legislators. He had a signing folder with a couple of pens ready on the ceremonial desk in the governor's ornate reception room at the Capitol. He was joined by several women who have battled cervical cancer. And he made an emotionally compelling argument in favor of the vaccinations, decrying the politics that he said changed the focus of the debate away from public health and toward the relative powers of the governor and the Lege. TEXAS WEEKLY (subsciption needed)
Right up to the end of his statement, Perry looked like a governor ready to do battle with legislators. He had a signing folder with a couple of pens ready on the ceremonial desk in the governor's ornate reception room at the Capitol. He was joined by several women who have battled cervical cancer. And he made an emotionally compelling argument in favor of the vaccinations, decrying the politics that he said changed the focus of the debate away from public health and toward the relative powers of the governor and the Lege. TEXAS WEEKLY (subsciption needed)
Moving Primary Dates Proving to be Wrong
Urge to be gripping puts Texas in wrong hands
EDITORIAL BOARD -
Austin American-Statesman, 05/08/07
While a bill to move up Texas primaries to Feb. 5 reposes in a Senate committee, the Florida Legislature has approved moving its party primaries up to Jan. 29, escalating the race of states to move their primary election dates back. There is even talk in New Hampshire of a December primary.
The race to be first has taken on absurd proportions, and the Texas Legislature would be wise not to get caught up in the rush. Senators should recognize that an even earlier primary benefits just about everybody in politics except the voter. In short, the Texas version of the early primary bill serves voters best just where it is — bottled up in committee.
The argument for moving the primary dates back is that states with large populations yearn to be relevant in the presidential nomination derby. There may be something to that, but whatever merit that argument holds is overwhelmed by the reality that early primaries won't work to enhance voter education on the issues. What early primaries enhance are the fortunes of the front-runners whose status is determined by a relatively small stable of donors, pundits, pollsters and party insiders.
Early primaries will magnify the influence of big donors as well because the earlier the primaries, the more expensive the air time. A February primary means a December filing deadline. Candidates not only will have to compete for attention, they will find the competition expensive because of holiday advertising rates.
The real beneficiaries of an early primary are not voters but incumbents — they have established name recognition — other political insiders and the people who give to them.
The March primary date is soon enough — too soon really — but it sure beats moving the date back to strengthen the grip of incumbents and big political donors.
EDITORIAL BOARD -
Austin American-Statesman, 05/08/07
While a bill to move up Texas primaries to Feb. 5 reposes in a Senate committee, the Florida Legislature has approved moving its party primaries up to Jan. 29, escalating the race of states to move their primary election dates back. There is even talk in New Hampshire of a December primary.
The race to be first has taken on absurd proportions, and the Texas Legislature would be wise not to get caught up in the rush. Senators should recognize that an even earlier primary benefits just about everybody in politics except the voter. In short, the Texas version of the early primary bill serves voters best just where it is — bottled up in committee.
The argument for moving the primary dates back is that states with large populations yearn to be relevant in the presidential nomination derby. There may be something to that, but whatever merit that argument holds is overwhelmed by the reality that early primaries won't work to enhance voter education on the issues. What early primaries enhance are the fortunes of the front-runners whose status is determined by a relatively small stable of donors, pundits, pollsters and party insiders.
Early primaries will magnify the influence of big donors as well because the earlier the primaries, the more expensive the air time. A February primary means a December filing deadline. Candidates not only will have to compete for attention, they will find the competition expensive because of holiday advertising rates.
The real beneficiaries of an early primary are not voters but incumbents — they have established name recognition — other political insiders and the people who give to them.
The March primary date is soon enough — too soon really — but it sure beats moving the date back to strengthen the grip of incumbents and big political donors.
Monday, May 7, 2007
TEXAS - Support Strong In Texas For Fred Thompson
The Draft Fred Thompson 2008 Committee announced that 54 of 81 Texas State House Republicans and several Republican Texas State senators "have joined the growing effort to encourage former United States Senator Fred Thompson to seek the presidency." Texas Land Commissioner and Draft Committee leadership team member Jerry Patterson said he has spoken with each Legislator and "found an increasingly strong desire to see Thompson become a candidate."Officials said a new independent poll conducted by Baselice & Associates in Texas shows Thompson tied for second place statewide with 19 percent of the vote. Sen. John McCain also showed 19 percent and New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani led with 24 percent. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney held eight percent. “These poll numbers reflect the enthusiasm I’m seeing in the Legislature and around the state. In Texas, the momentum in the race for president is clearly with Fred Thompson. If he enters this campaign, we can put him in the lead within 30 days,” said Patterson State Representative Robert Talton who serves from Harris County, Texas said, “People recognize Thompson’s leadership, his integrity and his remarkable ability to touch Americans from all walks of life. We need him in this race and we need him in the White House.” The Draft Fred Thompson 2008 Committee’s leadership team includes Texas Rail Road Commissioner Victor Carrillo and Republican National Committeewoman Denise McNamara from Texas.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
