by: the Common Constitutionalist
We’ve heard the arguments by both Republican and Democrat alike regarding immigration. We must have comprehensive reform, nothing less will suffice.
There was even a new national survey conducted recently to tell us so. The survey was conducted by the Winston group, and commissioned by “Americans for Tax Reform (ATR)”.Ahhh… ATR… The Grover Norquist group. Grover Norquist; friend of the Muslim brotherhood. Love that guy!
The survey found that 85% of Republicans either “strongly support” or “somewhat support” the requirement that “illegal immigrants in the U.S. register for legal status, pay fines, learn English, pay taxes and wait in the back of the line to apply for citizenship, until every person who is currently in line to legally enter the U.S. gets in.”
Well, if that’s true, we have more low information citizens than I thought.
The main problem with these polls is they don’t give people enough time to think about what they are being asked and they lump too much information into one question.
I’ve always supported the back of the line bit and learning English. However, most of the illegals aren’t sneaking in with a job waiting for them. So how would they pay the fine? Almost none of the illegals would make enough to even pay taxes, so if they file a return they would end up getting money back due to earned income, child credits, etc. So it would be another net loss for our country.
Yet many Republican lawmakers still support “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”.
As an aside, whenever you see or hear the word comprehensive, it’s code for – we’re hiding a bunch of crap in here we don’t want you to find.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R – Iowa) said on April 19: “given the events of this week, it’s important for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system.” Gaps and loopholes? If we actually followed current immigration law, there would be no gaps or loopholes. The gaps and loopholes are created by not following the law.
Our old buddy Sen. John McCain said a new computer that tracks visa and passport information would actually keep better care of who is entering and leaving our country. Surprisingly, I agree with Johnny, but it has nothing to do with sealing the border and legalizing the gazillion illegals. And a new computer and fancy technology is only as good as the as those operating it. Garbage in – garbage out.
Then there’s Lindsey Graham (Gramnesty) who chimed in with his usual pearls of wisdom: “You’ll never convince me leaving them in the shadows, some who may be here for terrorist purposes, is smart national security” Graham said: “We can’t shut America off… I think what we are doing is going to make situations like Boston less likely to happen.”
He went on to explain that having 11 million people hiding in the shadows in America is less safe than bringing them out and registering them as registered aliens and eventual citizens.
And there is the new buzz phrase, “hiding in the shadows”. No doubt it was focus group tested.
They are not hiding in the shadows. They’re right out in the open. They even have rallies in American cities. There aren’t enough shadows to hide 22 million illegals. What… 22 million? I thought Sen. Graham said it was 11 million.
Well, as with anything the government is involved in, feel comfortable in at least doubling whatever figure they toss out and you’ll be in the ballpark.
So the “Gang of Eight” trotted out its 844-page monstrosity entitled “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (S. 744).
I have a better idea. Courtesy of Mark Levin; here is the official true conservative illegal immigration bill:
“Close the Border and Get Back to Us”
Eight words and it’s done.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
As with most companies that employ outside salesman, mine is no different. We have territories that each man (or woman) confines himself to.
For the longest time there was one territory the consistently lagged behind the others. Salesman after salesman failed, all saying the same thing: “You just can’t make a living in this territory.” There were not enough customers, too much competition, etc. We literally went through eight salesmen in a row, telling us the same thing. Yet we knew there was great-untapped potential there.
Along came a relatively unassuming and introverted man. He was the opposite of the stereotypical salesman. You know, type A, extrovert, a little loud, a little arrogant. All indicators pointed to his failure, but we took a shot anyway.
Well, this quiet man (who looked exactly like the singer James Taylor) became our number one salesman, month in, month out, year in, year out.
How did he do it? Well, simple. He was real. He was the embodiment of every successful cliché on the books. He said what he meant and meant what he said. He talked the talk and walked the walk, and all the rest of those sayings.
The bottom line is people, his customers, liked and trusted him. He was humble, but not a doormat. He stood up for himself and didn’t compromise just to make a sale. In other words, he didn’t prostitute himself.
He prided himself on knowing his product better than anyone but was not afraid to tell a customer he didn’t know the answer. He would find the answer and inform the customer… every time.
Upon his retirement, after just eight years, something unusual occurred. I’ve never seen or heard anything like it before, or since.
He was so loved and respected that when his customers found out of his impending retirement, huge orders just started appearing. Customers were calling in purchases for a full year or more on one order, just so he would receive the commission. It was their way of thanking him for years of unwavering service. It was truly epic.
Nice story you say, but what the heck does it have to do with anything?
Well, because politics is just sales. It’s as simple as that. Instead of a product, you are simply selling yourself, your ideas and your values.
Now, most of us have not dealt directly with politicians, but have with salesman, and it’s always the same, isn’t it.
Unfortunately, politics and sales attract some of the same types. Smarmy glad handers that flash a fake smile and make hollow promises.
People, more often than not, buy from whom they like and whom they feel they can trust. There will be some ill-informed customers that believe any line of crap handed to them, as long as it is what they wish to hear. Thankfully, they are in the minority. They vote the same way. But that only works when there is a dearth of competent competition.
The salesman I spoke of could be compared to Ronald Reagan and those before him, a bunch of Bob Doles, John McCains or Mitt Romneys.
People trusted Reagan. He was the real deal. He, like our outstanding salesman, set himself apart. He wasn’t just one of many. He didn’t just say, like so many politicians and salesman: “Yeah, I can do that too.” For an informed customer or voter that isn’t a reason to switch salesmen or candidates.
Now more than ever, we need those who have the courage to care more about their country than the next election. They must be honest, bold but humble and not compromising of their core beliefs under any circumstances. They must know their topics and sell their vision.
Whether in sales or public service, those who speak the truth and are knowledgeable need no Teleprompter.
When Will Republicans Understand Free Market Healthcare?
Healthcare is one of the most complex policy issues. The lack of free market healthcare, engendered by endless government interventions (and secondary interventions to fix the original interventions), has made policy solutions even more cumbersome. But the overarching principle of any reform must begin with the understanding that federal intervention in the healthcare industry has inexorably driven up the cost of healthcare and health insurance. As such, no healthcare policy panacea can begin with growing government and further distorting the already grossly-altered healthcare market.
Instead of proposing more free market solutions, Republicans are offering pale-pastel versions of Democrat government intervention as solutions. Here are two examples.
Last week, Congressman Larry Bucshon (R-IN) introduced the Orwellian-named “Truth in Healthcare Marketing Act of 2013” (HR 1427) – a bill that forces optometrists to disclose all their licensing and qualifications in all advertising. It grants wide latitude to the Federal Trade Commission to regulate and penalize offenders. The bill is heavily backed by special interest hustlers like the AMA and American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO). The ophthalmologist lobby doesn’t want competition from cheaper healthcare providers (optometrists), and they want to use the boot of the federal government to ensnare them in red tape.
It is this sort of anti-free market special interest legislating that has crowded out choice and competition from the marketplace. The reality is that there are already strict laws in most states to punish those optometrists who step outside of their scope of service beyond their qualifications. There is no reason, beyond special interest politicking, for the federal government to get involved. The bill was introduced on April 9, a day before the AAOs national meetings in DC commenced.
Can you believe these are actually apartments? The stunning images of Hong Kong ‘living cubicles’ that look just like Borg cubes
These mind-boggling images capture the scale of soaring apartment blocks in one of the world’s most densely populated areas; Hong Kong.
As home to a population of more than seven million crammed into an area measuring just 424 square miles, space in Hong Kong is at a premium.
It means that, when it comes to providing accommodation for Hong Kong’s huge population, the only way to go is up.
The result is the soaring high-rise buildings captured to incredible effect by German photographer Michael Wolf in his project Architecture of Density.
The images reveal the densely packed apartments crammed into towering skyscrapers, with laundry spilling from barred windows and hanging over cramped balconies.
Earlier this year the Hong Kong-based Society for Community Organisation (SoCO) highlighted the plight of the city’s most under-privileged people, increasing numbers of whom are being forced to live in almost inconceivably small spaces.
In districts including Sham Shui Po, Yau Tsim Mong, and Kowloon City, families, elderly people and the unemployed are crammed into living quarters that are barely bigger than a toilet cubicle in some cases.
The combination of Hong Kong’s huge population and sky-high rents – around HKD$90 ($12) per square foot a month – has led to a housing shortage that is affecting hundreds of thousands of the city’s poorest people, SoCo said.
Attribution: Kerry Mcdermott, Mail Online
Obamacare: Intentionally Designed to Fail
Since shortly after Obamacare came out, I’ve been expressing the opinion that it was intentionally designed to fail. Here’s the latest evidence –
By health insurance definition, a pre-existing health condition is one that existed a set period of time before the applicant applied for the policy, regardless of whether it was being actively treated or not. Often times these conditions are not the fault of the person applying for coverage, and I’ve always strongly felt that there needs to be viable options for these people. But very often, the health conditions that people have are DIRECTLY their own fault because of the bad habits they know they have yet keep on doing. And under Obamacare, these people will be charged the same premiums as those of us who are health conscious and rarely need medical treatment. Sorry – but I have a huge problem with that. People who get struck with conditions they didn’t actually strive to get, I empathize with them. But to those who knowingly, stubbornly went out of their way to get sick, shut up and pay for what you did to yourself. I shouldn’t have to help pay for your intentional indiscretions.
“Greedy Lying Bastards” follows “An Inconvenient Truth” in the climate change alarmism documentary film genre. The difference is this film lacked Al Gore’s name to give it momentum, although it has gotten some help from CNN.
The film is the creation of former eco-terrorist Craig Rosebraugh and actress Daryl Hannah of “Splash,” “Kill Bill” and “Bladerunner” among others. The film made a mere $45,000 its March 8 opening weekend, according to Box Office Mojo, which rated it the 400th movie of the past 365 days, and the 46th movie its March 8 opening weekend.
The documentary says it “investigates the reason behind stalled efforts to tackle climate change despite consensus in the scientific community that it is not only a reality but also a growing problem that is placing us on the bring of disaster,” according to the official website. The trailer, website and reviews for the film all make it out to be a collage of tried and true lefty climate change claims, complete with storm footage and villainization of the Koch brothers and the oil industry.
The Los Angeles Times said that “longtime followers of this hyper-partisan topic may not find much terribly new or revealing here.” After an initial limited showing, the film was released in more theatres on March 29.
Rosebraugh, the film’s director, has been an outspoken activist for both the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front, both of which are classified as domestic terror groups by the FBI. In a press release on both groups, the FBI stated that “eco-terrorists and animal rights extremists are one of the most serious domestic terrorism threats in the U.S. today.”
One of the movie’s main targets is U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. Inhofe told The Tulsa World that he was not surprised that the film targeted him, and he was proud of it on March 28. Inhofe was formerly the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. An outspoken conservative, Inhofe was also a winner of the Family Research Council’s “True Blue” award for a consistent conservative voting record.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
In a recent interview at Yahoo! News, Amity Shlaes discussed her new book entitled “Coolidge”. The interview began with Yahoo news announcer Lauren Lyster, explaining that one of the big issues of Obama’s second term was tax reform and what could be learned from Calvin Coolidge.
Shlaes explained that: “The cutters; Reagan, Kennedy and going back to Coolidge all ended up with more money on the books due to extra business activity.”
These are irrefutable facts. Most every conservative and I have used the same argument for years. Cutting tax rates spur economic activity and growth, which leads to more jobs, more taxpayers and more revenue for the government. So let’s cut tax rates. It’s a proven winner. If you are a conservative, you know you’ve also use this argument.
Even Lindsey (woolsey) Graham, hardly a conservative, stated recently that flattening the tax code amongst other things could generate an additional $600 billion for the government coffers.
And there you have it. Graham has properly summed up the whole flawed tax cut argument in one sentence.
Well, I’m here to confess that I’ve been wrong. All these years of hammering tax rate reductions. I am man enough to admit it.
Now all you liberals reading this; don’t get too excited. To my conservative friends, buck up. I have not gone over to the dark side.
What I have had is an epiphany of sorts. It dawned on me that us freedom lovers have actually been arguing all these years for bigger government.
Think about just we’ve been advocating for; cutting taxes to get more tax revenue. Well, what will that additional revenue be used for? To grow government of course. So we are at least partially to blame for the growth of government.
In fact, we may be more to blame. Liberals and progressives are voted into office, raise taxes and ruin the economy. Then, what happens?
They are thrown out, conservatives are voted in, cut taxes, decrease regulations and voilà, increased revenue to the government. It doesn’t seem fair, does it?
In my humble opinion, the only way to save this country is not through tax rate reductions; capital gains rate cuts and the like. We know what will occur with their proper implementation; additional food for the beast.
We need to begin to advocate for smaller government. Decreasing the size of government is the only way of reining in spending at this point.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for keeping as much money as I can, but I think we are beyond that point.
By shrinking government’s size, the rest may take care of itself. It’s been too often proven that we can’t starve it. Government will always find more money somewhere.