Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Obama Throttles Oline Gun Ammo Information



President Barack Obama's latest gun-control measures are dodging Congress and secretly putting a silencer on firearm information that should be readily accessible to the public.

In the wake of Obama's Spring 2015 "Unified Agenda," which outlined extreme gun-control measures slated for passage via an executive fiat, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) and other state representatives have attempted to halt portions of the White House's executive gun-control push, Breitbart News reports.

A power grab on arms

The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) has confirmed the Obama administration is administering a stealth project to hinder the dissemination of information on firearms.

"Even as news reports have been highlighting the gun control provisions of the administration's 'Unified Agenda' of regulatory objectives, the Obama State Department has been quietly moving
In his ongoing assault on Americans' Second Amendment rights, which some say started soon after he took office, Obama is now attempting to restrict numerous forms of communication Americans have concerning guns and munitions.

"The administration is reworking the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)," Breitbart's AWR Hawkins informed. "One of the many things regulated by ITAR is 'technical data' tied to 'defense articles.' This includes, but is not limited to, 'detailed design, development, production or manufacturing information' about ammunition and firearms."
]
Obama's latest quest in his gun-control agenda is to wipe out as much information about guns as he can so that American civilians are as limited from obtaining the specifications they need when researching the handguns and rifles they desire.

"More specifically, this kind of 'technical data' would be 'blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation' related to ammunition and firearms," continued Hawkins, who suggests that the public submit comments about the proposed ITAR changes at regulations.gov by August 3 and mention that their issue is concerning the ''ITAR Amendment — Revisions to Definitions; Data Transmission and Storage."

The administration's new stranglehold on public information — that has traditionally been disseminated via freely accessible websites — is now being administered via ITAR.

"While ITAR and its regulations have not been a concern in the past, as far as constraining or limiting 'material posted on publicly available websites,' there are some within the current State Department arguing that 'anything published online in a generally accessible location has essentially been "exported,"' simply by virtue of being posted, and is therefore under the purview of ITAR," the Breitbart reporter points out.

Tying up guns with red tape

In its effort to severely limit what data is accessible to the public online, the State Department is moving to set up a mandate that all such information must be screened and OK'd by bureaucrats.
"Moreover, last week the State Department put forth a proposal 'clarifying' how to handle releases containing 'technical data' which are posted online or otherwise distributed into the 'public domain,'" Hawkins explains. "Ultimately, the proposal would require those releasing 'technical data' on ammunition or firearms to first seek government approval."

Besides hindering Americans' ability to access the information they need before purchasing and bearing arms — a right guaranteed under the Second Amendment — the NRA-ILA argues that the administration's latest power grab over the firearms industry is nothing less than an infringement of citizens' First Amendment rights.

"The proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech," the legal team for the NRA argues. "This is because all such releases would require the 'authorization' of the government before they occurred."

In other words, the added burden of miles of bureaucratic red tape that would need to be hurdled with the added regulations would preclude most from posting and accessing information that gun sellers, owners, buyers and connoisseurs need to freely live out their right to bear arms.

"The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible," the IRA-ILA concludes.


Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog
.

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

THE BATTLING BOYS OF BENGHAZI



THE BATTLING BOYS OF BENGHAZI
 
 
  We're the battling boys of Benghazi 
No fame, no glory, no paparazzi.
 
Just  a fiery death in a blazing hell 
Defending our country we loved so  well.
 
 
  It wasn't our job, but we answered the call,
fought to the Consulate and scaled the wall.
 
We pulled twenty Countrymen from the jaws of fate 
Led them to safety, and stood at the gate.
 
 
  Just the two of us, and foes by the score, 
But we  stood fast to bar the door.
 
Three calls for reinforcement, but  all were denied, 
So we fought, and we fought,  and we fought 'til we died.
 
 
  We gave our all for our Uncle Sam, 
But Barack Obama didn't give a damn.
 
Just two dead seals who carried the load
No thanks to  us. We were just "Bumps In The Road".
                         
This poem was written  by a MARINE CORPS Officer who wishes to remain anonymous.
 
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog
.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Famous Presidential Lies Contest


Written by, To The Point News


LBJ:
             We were attacked (in the Gulf of Tonkin)

 Nixon:
             I am not a crook

 
GHW Bush:

             Read my lips - No New Taxes

 
Clinton:
             I did not have sex with that woman... Miss Lewinski


GW Bush:
             Iraq has weapons of mass destruction

 
Obama:

             I will have the most transparent administration in history.
             The stimulus will fund shovel-ready jobs.
             I am focused like a laser on creating jobs.
             The IRS is not targeting anyone.

             It was a spontaneous riot about a movie.

             I will put an end to the type of politics that "breeds division, conflict and cynicism".
             You didn't build that!
             I will restore trust in Government.
             The Cambridge cops acted stupidly.
             The public will have 5 days to look at every bill that lands on my desk
             It's not my red line - it is the world's red line.
             Whistle blowers will be protected in my administration
             We got back every dime we used to rescue the banks and auto companies, with interest
             I am not spying on American citizens.
             Obama Care will be good for America.
             You can keep your family doctor.
             Premiums will be lowered by $2500.
             If you like it, you can keep your current healthcare plan.
             It's just like shopping at Amazon. \
             I knew nothing about "Fast and Furious" gunrunning to Mexican drug cartels.
             I knew nothing about IRS targeting conservative groups.
             I knew nothing about what happened in Benghazi.
             I have never known my uncle from Kenya who is in the country illegally and that was arrested and told to leave the country over 20 years ago.
             And, I have never lived with that uncle.  He finally admitted (12-05-2013) that he DID know his uncle and that he DID live with him.
             If elected I promise not to renew the Patriot Act.
             If elected I will end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan within the 1st 9 months of my term.

             I will close Guantanamo within the first 6 months of my term.
             I will bridge the gap between black and white and between America and other countries.

And the biggest one of all:

             "I, Barrack Hussein Obama, pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America."

I believe we have a winner!
 
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog
.

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

NRA, Others: Obama Not Done With Unilateral Moves On Gun Control

Reprint from WDN
The aggressiveness of the Obama administration in its war on guns already this year has surprised even the National Rifle Association.
Unloading his latest round of gun-control legislation, President Barack Obama's executive fiat is poised to stop Americans from buying and selling a traditional form of ammunition that has been one of the country's favorites for generations — the .223-caliber "green-tipped" bullet. It's commonly used in an array of rifles sold at local sporting goods store.

The "justification" behind the Obama administration's ban is based on the availability of a new kind of revolver that can use the same ammunition made for general-purpose rifles. Some gun-control advocates — including those staffed at the White House — flag this ammo as "armor-piercing," according to WND's Leo Hohmann.
News of the White House's move to try and further squelch the freedoms of gun-toting Americans — by keeping them from loading their favorite "green-tipped" rounds — had an immediate effect on Valentine's Day.

"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) announced on February 14 a proposed ban on the manufacture, sale or importation of a popular form of ammunition used by thousands of law-abiding gun owners," reports Hohmann. "Within hours of the announcement, the prices on the green-tipped .223-caliber rounds started skyrocketing."

Restricting munitions for rifle owners was not the intent behind the Gun Control Act of 1968 that Congress amended in 1986 to keep criminals with handguns from accessing the "cop killer" bullets from store shelves. It was already known and accepted that an AR-15 or any other high-powered hunting rifle firing the bullet could pierce a police officer's soft body armor.
"This is just another example of the Obama administration using executive authority to attack the rights of gun owners," Second Amendment Foundation founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb contended, reports WND. "Obama thinks he is 'dictator in chief' and can go around Congress to ban ammunition and punish legitimate gun owners. The Obama administration has doubled down on their war on gun owners."

Gottlieb isn't the only gun-rights advocate who is appalled at Obama's latest attempt to steamroll American's right to bear arms — with accessible bullets, that is.
Same route, different agenda

GeorgiaCarry.org executive director Jerry Henry insists that the president's appeal to executive action to force his latest highly contended campaign against gun owners is reminiscent of his dictatorial handling of the unilateral action he took to push amnesty through for illegal immigrants.
"This move is nothing less than this administration taking the law into their own hands, bypassing Congress and their constitutional duties of writing and passing legislation," Henry decried to WND. "This administration has failed to pass gun-control legislation through the constitutional process. They have failed at the polls to pass meaningful gun control, and they have failed to win in the courts,"
\enry attests this latest effort by the White House is merely the president's last-ditch attempt to advance his gun-control agenda at any cost.

"The only way left is through illegal processes and backdoor regulations," Henry continued. "The American people have spoken to the gun-control antics of this administration, but this administration refuses to listen."
Henry told WND that the current administration has reversed the "master and servant" relationship that American citizens were intended to have with government and its officials. He says the federal powers have now grabbed the reins and continue to straight-arm Americans, ordering them what to do — not only without their blessing, but against their will.

"If this is not stopped and stopped now, this administration will continue to push their agenda to disarm the American citizens with the goal of making them slaves to the U.S. government," Henry alerted WND. "Citizens have the right to be armed. Slaves to the U.S. government will have no such right."
Chipping away at citizen's rights

According to Henry, Obama is masterfully putting the process of incremental-ism into action, building upon Congress' Gun Control Act of the '60s and Reagan's "armor-piercing" ban of the '80s only to eradicate one of its major exceptions.
"If he gets by with this, I believe he will not stop in his efforts to disarm us via regulations," Henry stressed.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) states the M855 ball bullet has absolutely no business being classified as "armor-piercing" ammunition because it is "primarily intended for sporting purposes." Furthermore, it argues that because the bullet has a traditional lead core — not steel, bronze, brass, beryllium copper, depleted uranium or beryllium copper, as all armor-piercing bullets do — it cannot be legitimately classified as "armor-piercing."
The aggressiveness of the Obama administration this year in its war on guns has even surprised the NRA, which has been battling with the White House over its gun-control agenda since the president took office more than six years ago.

"It isn't even the third week of February, and the BATFE has already taken three major executive actions on gun control," the NRA announced. "First, it was a major change to what activities constitute regulated 'manufacturing' of firearms. Next, BATFE reversed a less-than-year-old position on firing a shouldered 'pistol.' Now, BATFE has released a 'Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles Are Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c),' which would eliminate M855's exemption to the armor-piercing ammunition prohibition and make future exemptions nearly impossible."
Pointing out that it's just a matter of time before Obama bypasses Congress again to assert his extreme gun-control agenda, Gottlieb is certain that round two is already in


Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog
.

Operation Choke Point

As reported by the Wall Street Journal, “Operation Choke Point” was secretly launched to cut certain industries off from banking services, under the pretense that they jeopardize the “reputation” of the banks.  Since no company can survive in today’s world without the ability to make banking transactions, Operation Choke Point’s clear objective is to destroy certain industries.  Which industries?  As reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, critics believe "it's a thinly veiled ideological attack on industries the Obama administration doesn't like,” such as gun sellers, precious metals companies, and coal producers.

 What’s more, Operation Choke Point is conducted without first having shown that the targeted companies are violating the law.  All of the targeted industries are perfectly legal, and the companies have not been charged with any crime.  So the government is shutting legal companies out of the financial industry – effectively shutting them down – without any shred of due process!  And this comes on the heels of numerous government programs to unconstitutionally confiscate citizen savings & retirement.  The U.S. government is officially out of control!
Why Gold?

There’s no need to explain why the federal government would want to shut down gun manufacturers & sellers.  A well regulated militia, although necessary to the security of a free state, is a direct threat to a tyrannical government.  The question is, why target gold?  The obvious answer:  gold is as great a threat to the nefarious interests of the state as guns are!

 Why?  Because the United States and governments across the globe are increasingly turning to private wealth confiscation in order to manage their massive debts and maintain their power structure.  Throughout America, police seize cash from innocent citizens without ever charging them with a crime. Bankers conspire with the IRS to seize the accounts of innocent citizens with no notification, no court order, and no charge of crimes.  The IMF proposes global wealth confiscation as a means of funding bankrupt governments.  And Congress passes controversial new laws to make your savings & retirement a prime target for confiscation.

 So with our desperate government gaining unprecedented access to your personal savings anywhere in the world, naturally the government’s interests are threatened by the one thing that takes your money out of the digital financial system and beyond government control:  And that’s gold & silver.  Gold & silver are the ONE asset class this sits outside the financial system and is completely secure from government confiscation and global economic collapse.  So when you keep some of your savings & retirement in physical gold & silver, you keep it out of government reach.

Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog
.

Friday, November 7, 2014

"Reform" Does Not Equal "Amnesty"

According to exit Polls, a majority of voters stated that they want ‘Immigration Reform’.

Obama and his thugs are making the claim that this is a call for a ‘Comprehensive Immigration Bill’.  As everyone knows ‘Comprehensive’ is LIBERAL SPEAK for amnesty.   Of course, the media blindly echoes whatever the administration feeds them.

The truth is that every poll taken over the past two years show that 70% to 85% of those polled oppose amnesty!

A similar number want the borders sealed as a first step!

Over 80% want existing laws enforced.

Several state and county governments have recently gone public with reports that the only ‘illegal immigrants’ that ICE will accept are those who are criminals.  The reason these agencies have gone public is that just days after turning these felons over to ICE, ICE has released them back onto the streets!

Just over a week ago, the administration issued a press release admitting that some of those aliens that they released were in fact criminals.  We know from several sources that ICE only accepts felons, so how is it that when they are released back on to our streets, that only some of them are “criminals”? 

It is clear that the American people do not want or support amnesty, they want the borders sealed, and they want, at a minimum, the criminal al

It would serve this President well if he were to heed another Exit Poll fact:

61% of those polled, stated that they voted “TO STOP OBAMA!”

It does not get much clearer than that!


 Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog

Thursday, October 23, 2014

4 Things Every American Should Know About Uber.Com, AirBnB.Com, et. al.

by Austin Hill
 Uber.Com. AirBnB.Com. TaskRabbit.Com. What are these websites about, and why are they so controversial?

Let's be clear: these websites, and others like them, are online hubs for what is best described as the emerging "freelance services industries."  The service providers you find through these websites are most certainly feelancers,  not established corporate business owners or employees of other peoples' companies.

Uber.Com, a San Francisco-based venture that matches people who need a ride from one end of a city to another with people who have cars and are willing to travel, is perhaps the most high profile of these entities.Visit the company's website, download the app, and search for people who are ready right now to shuttle you about. If you want to be a freelance service provider, Uber.Com has a screening process whereby you can register to deliver transportation services.

This very basic " seller-hooks-up-with-buyer" type of transaction is happening at an increasing rate in cities all across the country, all on a freelance non-professional basis and mostly all via online connections. Need someone in your area to run errands or perform household chores? TaskRabbit.Com might help you find a provider who's ready right now. Got an extra room to rent for people visiting your town? AirBnB.Com connects travelers with in-home accomodations. If Uber.Com doesn't have the ride you want, their main competitor Lyft.Com might be helpful.

Be careful to not form an opinion about the freelance services industry too quickly. And don't decide that it is irrelevant  and choose to ignore it. Consider these important facts:

1) Freelance service providers are business owners unto themselves, and not employees: The most egregious examples of people misunderstanding this generally happen in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and other large cities where President Barack Obama's economic entitlement policies are still popular. Indeed, protesters have demonstrated against Uber.Com in their home turf of San Francisco demanding that Uber drivers be given membership in a labor union.

But drivers for Uber.Com are independent contractors, not employees, and as such they are NOT "laborers" in the organized labor sense. If you don't like the going rates for Uber rides, then start your own freelance business without Uber.Com's assistance or get out of the industry altogether. But understand that when you're a business owner you can't just simply "protest" or "demonstrate" like the AFL-CIO suggests. Business owners have to be more responsible and mature than that.

2) The freelance services industry is a huge disruption to bigger, more powerful interests:  Guess who doesn't like  Uber.Com ride sharing services? The established taxi cab industry. And can you imagine who might not like AirBnB.Com providers renting a room in their home? The established hotel and motel industry. And mayors, governors, and elected officials nationwide are disposed to not liking any of this freelance enterprise because they don't know how to tax it and regulate it.

To be fair, many taxi service operators have a legitimate gripe with Uber.Com and Lyft.Com. In most cities across the U.S. (some far worse than others), owning and operating a taxi business requires thousands of dollars in training, licensing, permitting, bonding, insuring, and permitting, just to get government approval to launch the business. And then there are the recurring expenses of permit renewals and vehicle inspections - once again, all paid to the government - just to keep the business going. 

 This same type of expensive government taxation and regulation applies to just about every other type of service industry one can Envision. And if private individuals are undercutting, say,  a hotel owners' revenues by renting out rooms in their houses and apartments, even after the hotel owner has paid all his or her government fees, then yes, the hotel owner should be upset.

Politicians share in the outrage over successful freelancers. Less business at the hotel or the taxi company means, in most cases, less tax revenue for the politicians to spend.  If you're intending to become a freelance business operator, beware: there are lots of people who have an interest in your failure.

3) A successful freelance economy requires a society that respects individual rights: There may be few Americans who are willing to deny that they support "individual rights." But when confronted with what "individual rights" entails, many of us begin to hedge.

The rights of individuals to freely sell their services on the open market means competition for established industries -and these established industries often have powerful lobbying capacities than can pressure politicians to pass laws that squelch the freelancers. Do we really respect everybody's individual rights in the U.S., even if the exercise of one's rights means that my immediate financial wellbeing is challenged?

4) Resolving the disparities between established industries and freelance services providers will require less government regulation, not more:  In New York City - another region where President Obama's vision of politicians determining economic winners and losers remains quite popular - Mayor Bill DeBlasio has determined that individuals who rent-out a room in their house or apartment are violating city law, and has vowed to run AirBnB.Com out of the city.

On the other hand, in Spokane, Washington - a city where American free enterprise is still generally accepted - the city just crafted new transportation industry regulations that both the taxi cab industry and Uber.Com seem to like. Despite city council members' threats to run Uber.Com out of their city, the voices of freelancers managed to be heard and the result was a compromise that subjects Uber.Com and its service providers to some new, minimal levels of government regulations, while reducing the heavy-handed burdens the city has historically placed upon traditional taxi operators.

Will the USA move to respect and uphold the rights of freelance service providers? Or will we continue to embrace the Obama-styled protections and priviledges for large corporations and old-school traditional groups?  Americans have an important choice to make - and the economic wellbeing of individuals is weighing in the balance.
 
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog
.

Monday, August 18, 2014

Tell Them "NO:" Americans Must Stop State And Local Lawmakers From Damaging The Emergent Small Business Revival

by Austin Hill
Participation in the US labor force is at an all-time low, consumption of taxpayer funded welfare services is at an all-time high, and the greatest level of "job creation" is in the part-time category.

So what, naturally, would city, county and state lawmakers pursue in response to  a new, entrepreneurial small business startup movement? More taxes, regulations, restrictions and prohibitions, as a matter of course. In the era of Barack Obama such policies are "the American way." 

It has to do with what is often referred-to as "the sharing economy." Despite the socialistic sounding name, the essence of "the sharing economy" is actually very positive. The term is used to describe individuals and organizations providing, on a very basic and freelance basis, products and services to people who want to pay for them, and the seller and buyer are usually brought together through a website or online community. Such service providers are, indeed, small business owners, even if they don't have a storefront or office or  their own dedicated website.

Take for example Uber.Com, a San Francisco-based venture that matches people who need a ride from one end of a city to another with people who have cars and are willing to travel. Visit the company's website, download the app, and search for people who are ready right now to shuttle you about. If you want to be a provider, Uber.Com has a screening process whereby you can register to deliver transportation services.

This very basic " seller-hooks-up-with-buyer" type of transaction is happening at an increasing rate in cities all across the country, all on a freelance non-professional basis and mostly all via online connections. Need someone in your area to run errands or perform household chores? TaskRabbit.Com might help you find a provider who's ready right now. Got an extra room to rent for people visiting your town? AirBnB.Com connects travelers with in-home accommodations.

 One might think that Americans getting off their backsides and working, even if only on a freelance basis, would be a good thing. Yet city governments in Dallas, Seattle, Tampa, New York, Portland and Oklahoma City have all sought to impose strict regulations and, in some cases, prohibit these types of freelance services businesses, largely because the freelancers are not taxed and regulated like established handyman, hotel and taxicab companies. At the state level, Arizona, North Carolina and Virginia have all sought similar regulations and restrictions.

If you happen to be in the minority of the population that believes that government should encourage, rather than discourage entrprenuership of this sort, consider spending time figuring out who serves on your local city council and county board of supervisors, and who represents you in your state legislature. Then contact these people and politely ask them to stay out of the way of the emergent "sharing economy," so they don't kill it before it becomes fully grown.

Don't expect your local politican to agree with you, that the sharing economy can and should flourish without his or her special meddling. Be prepared for a barage of rhetoric, but also have a response.  Consider for example, the following accusations that are frequently made about the "sharing economy" freelancers, and the facts that underlay these claims:

A) Sharing economy services providers are"un-trained and un-licensed": Sometimes this is sort-of true, but not entirely. Consider the ridesharing services that Uber.Com or Lyft.Com distribute. Labor union bureaucrats and politicians lament that the drivers aren't trained and licesned as cab drivers, yet both websites require a service provider to be a licensed driver in their jurisdiction. If politicians want to impugn people for "selling" an occassional ride across town via a website, they best crackdown on people that provide rides to friends and family without compensation as well - there isn't much difference between the two. And if the goal is to "level the playing field" between freelance ride providers and professional cab drivers, then cab drivers should get some relief from the burden of government regulation, rather than freelance drivers being saddle with more of it.

B) "Sharing economy services aren't taxed and that's unfair to businesses that are taxed": Again, this is sort of a "kind of true kind of not true" proposition. Granted the person who rents a room in their home or provides a ride on occassion isn't subject to the taxes, regulations, licensure and authorization fees that an actual motel owner or cab operator has to put up with. But ride-share providers pay taxes on the fuel, tires and insurance that they consume when they're driving, and room hosts pay taxes on the energy and food consumed by each of their in-home visitors.

C) "Sharing economy providers need to be subject to the same regulations and taxes as more established business owners, just so its 'fair' " : No doubt there is at times a disparity between freelancer service providers and established shop owners. The question is, what will remedy the disparity, and make things more fair? Politicians quite naturally want more control over all businesses, not less, and the option they never want us to consider is reducing the burdens of taxes and regulations on existing businesses instead of increasing it for the freelancers.

Will Americans allow selfish politicians and business bosses wrap their chains around freelancers? Or will we demand that the path remain clear for the freelancers? Perhaps we'll begin to act like Americans once again, and tell the politicians to back-off.


Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog
.

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Immigration: Past And Present

Every time that an objection to blanket amnesty is raised, we hear a retort of “we are a nation of immigrants”

The statement, “we are a nation of immigrants” is the truth.  However, it is a lie to use that statement as a justification for amnesty!

Current science tells us that the ancestors of both the North American and South American Indians emigrated from Asia some 56,000 years ago.  European settlers started immigrating to North America in the 1500’s and in the late 1700’s; those immigrants formed the new nation, the United States of America.   Very soon thereafter, that nation took control over who entered, who stayed, and who would become citizens.  We controlled our borders!

This nation of immigrants was built by people that desired to assimilate in to the culture that was America.  They had no desire to remake America in to a little Italy or new Germany or wherever it was that they came from.  They did not come for a handout; they came because they wanted to be Americans.

It was my privilege, to grow up in small towns were Italian, Polish, Hungarian, German, and Slavic immigrants were our neighbors.  They all came here legally.  They all wanted to earn their citizenship.  And they all learned English.

At the bottom of the hill on which we once lived, a very nice Italian man operated a small grocery store.  He attended classes twice a week as he studied for his citizenship test.  I once saw him throw his brother-in-law out of his store for speaking Italian rather than English.

That was typical of the immigrants that I knew.

Today, the administration wants to grant amnesty to between 10 million and 50 million people that are in this country illegally.  Note: they are illegal; they are criminals.  Many of them have also committed murder, rape, armed robbery, and various other crimes.  Several are members of very dangerous gangs.

These do not want to assimilate in to American culture.  They come looking for handouts.  They march in the town square making demands.

They most certainly aren't interested in learning English.  A Hispanic group (2 adult males, one adult woman and a couple of children) lives on the next street.  One male speaks English; his brother, after 12 years living in America speaks very little English, and the woman who has lived here for 15 years speaks no English at all.

There is no doubt that many illegals are also voting.  Several studies have indicated that as many as 10 million voted in 2012 and those votes were the determining factor in several elections.

Granting amnesty to this group will guarantee that the socialist policies of the Democrat party will be the permanent rule of the nation.


Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

The "Sharing Economy": Will Americans Embrace The Entrepreneurial Revival?

by Austin Hill
Back in the first century a poet named Juvenal surmised that his fellow citizens of Rome would put up with just about anything from their government, as long as they had enough food and entertainment.  "Give them bread and circuses, and they'll never revolt" he wrote sarcastically.

In the 1920's Fascist Prime Minister Benito Musolini said much the same thing of his fellow citizens in Italy. The people that he governed would tolerate just about anything he wanted to do, Musoli suggested,  "as long as the trains run on time."

Today  Americans  seem as tolerant of bad abusive government as the ancient Romans and the 20th century Italians were back in the day. But statist politicans in America may just find that they've "jumped the shark," so to speak, if they continue to selfishly manipulate the  "the sharing economy."

Despite the socialistic sounding name, the essence of "the sharing economy" is actually very positive. The term is used to describe individuals and organizations providing, on a very basic and freelance basis, products and services to people who want to pay for them, and the seller and buyer are usually brought together through a website or online community.

Take for example Uber.Com, a San Francisco-based venture that matches people who need a ride from one end of a city to another with people who have cars and are willing to travel.  Visit the company's website, download the app, and search for people who are ready right now to shuttle you about.  If you want to be a provider, Uber.Com has a screening process whereby you can register to deliver transportation services.

This very basic " seller-hooks-up-with-buyer" type of transaction is happening at an increasing rate in cities all across the country, all on a freelance non-professional basis and mostly all via online connections.  Need someone in your area to run errands or perform household chores?  TaskRabbit.Com might help you find a provider who's ready right now.  Got an extra room to rent for people visiting your town?  AirBnB.Com connects travelers with in-home accommodations.

With people freely choosing to sell their services - and others freely choosing to buy them - it may seem confusing why anbody would object to this type of productivity. But established business owners - small business owners and large corporations alike - don't like the competition, labor unions hate it because the service providers aren't "organized," and politicians think they're "losing tax revenue" that otherwise rightfully belongs to them.

But before you throw your support to politicians and bureaucrats who promise to throw cold water on the embers of "the sharing economy," consider the things that they say, and the realities behind the rhetoric:

A) Sharing economy services providers are"un-trained and un-licensed":  Sometimes this is sort-of true, but not entirely. Consider the ridesharing services that Uber.Com or Lyft.Com distribute. Labor union bureaucrats and politicians lament that the drivers aren't  trained and licensed as cab drivers, yet both websites require a service provider to be a licensed driver in their jurisdiction.  If politicians want to impugn people for "selling" an occasional ride across town via a website, they best crackdown on people that provide rides to friends and family without compensation as well - there isn't much difference between the two.

B) "Sharing economy services aren't taxed and that's unfair to businesses that are taxed": Again, this is sort of a "kind of true kind of not true" proposition.  Granted the person who rents a room in their home  or provides a ride on occasion isn't subject to the taxes, regulations, licensure and authorization fees that an actual motel owner or cab operator has to put up with.  But rideshare providers pay taxes on the fuel, tires and insurance that they consume when they're driving, and room hosts pay taxes on the energy and food consumed by each of their in-home visitors.  

C) "Sharing economy providers need to be subject to the same regulations and taxes as more established business owners, just so its 'fair' " :  No doubt there is at times a disparity between freelancer service providers and established shop owners. The question is, what will remedy the disparity, and make things more fair?  Politicians quite naturally want more control over all businesses, not less, and the option thhey never want us to consider is reducing the burdens of taxes and regulations on existing businesses instead of increasing it for the freelancers. 

Will Americans allow selfish politicians and business bosses wrap their chains around freelancers? Or will we demand that the path remain clear for the freelancers?  Perhaps we'll begin to act like Americans once again, instead of Italians and ancient Romans.  


Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: watchdog
.