Hillary at the DNC Winter Meetings
Nevermind that the oil industry has one of the lowest profit margins going-like Wal-Mart, they make their money on volume, not profit margin. The issue here is Saint Hillary's socialist core bubbling to the surface. Again.
"The Democrats know what needs to be done. Again, we're working to try to push this agenda forward. The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits..."
Hillary in SF, 2004
At least Bernie Sanders, the new junior Senator from Vermont, freely admits he's a Socialist. Even capitalizes it.
"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Much thanks to Geekwitha.45 for doing the work to find that 2004 quote so I didn't have to.
And since Gwa45 said what I wanted to say, but better, I'll plunder the rest of his post, too.
Gwa45 demonize Hillary, but I'm going to go ahead and mock her. Anyone with Photoshop skillz want to help make some campaign posters for Hillary? I figure her mug would fit quite well into any of these old posters:
I could fisk the particulars of where both of those statements are off base as regard to the facts and their context, but they reveal something even deeper and more insidious.
In case you're too propaganda addled to figure out what's wrong with this meta picture for yourself, I'll fill you in:
In both of these cases, Hillary, in front of her supporters, and to great applause asserts:
A) That she knows better than you what to do with your property and
B) That she feels no compunction at all whatsoever about taking your property for your own good.
She. Doesn't. Even. Question. The. Propriety. Of. This.
This is not consistent with American values of property rights, self determination, or even free markets.
It is tempting, so tempting to just go ahead and do the obvious thing, and demonize Hillary over this sort of nonsense. It really is, until you realize that she and her ilk aren't necessarilly the cause. They are the champions, and if she didn't exist, someone else would have filled the role.
America's collectivoLeftist figureheads aren't nearly as disturbing to me as the percentage of our own population who are so alienated from our baseline values of freedom and self determination that they don't even recognize the disconnect.
As I become the 'nets greatest resource for pictures of Chairman Mao. Go wild, folks!
F*CK!! F*CK!! F*CK!!
I was all clear to go to the committee hearing on the 8th...and then Brigade dropped this f*cking leader development seminar from 1330-1530 on us.
WA State PSA -"Gun Show Loophole" Hearing 8 Feb 1530
NOTE: This post will remain on top until 8 Feb. New posts below.
GOAL Alert 2-2007 31 January 2007
PUBLIC HEARING ON SB 5197
THE “GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE” BILL
The Senate Labor, Commerce, Research & Development Committee will conduct a public hearing on SB 5197 on Thursday, 8 February, at 3:30 p.m. The Senate Labor & Commerce Committee meets in Senate Hearing Room 4 in the John A. Cherberg Senate Office Building
The John A. Cherberg building is located on the south side of the Legislative (capitol) building, just east of the “sundial” open area. A public cafeteria is located in the Joel A. Pritchard building,. Just south of the “sundial.”
A copy of SB 5197 can be downloaded at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...5197&year=2007 Scroll down to “Original bill” and click.
Two years ago more than 300 gun owners showed up at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on several gun control bills, versus only a couple of dozen on the other side. That turnout had a major impact on the legislature and resulted in stopping all of the proposed anti-gun bills.
Washington Ceasefire learned that lesson. They have told their members they will run a bus or busses from Seattle to Olympia on February 8^th to stuff the hearing room with gun control advocates. Lets ensure a warm greeting for them when they arrive with hundreds of courteous and friendly gun owners.
While business suits are the “uniform of the day” for lobbyists, citizens attending public hearings are not held to a specific dress code. Clean, neat, casual attire is entirely acceptable, especially in winter weather. NRA or gun club baseball caps, gun club badges and the like all send a positive signal about gun ownership. On the other hand, “I’ll give up my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers” detracts from our message more than helping it. Ditto camouflage attire. There’s a time and a place for camo; Olympia is not it.
The “other side” would like nothing more than to portray us as a bunch of rednecks. Don’t give them the opportunity. The responsible, law-abiding gun-owning community will be on display here. Public hearings are a family event. Well-behaved children may find this an excellent learning opportunity (not to mention a justifiable afternoon off from school)!
Parking in the immediate vicinity of the campus is limited, and the City of Olympia balances its budget every legislative session through active enforcement of the one-hour and two-hour residential parking zones south of the campus.
Parking lots are located several blocks east of the campus, and limited paid parking is available in the diagonal streets running just east of the Legislative Building and Temple of Justice. Bring quarters!
More information on parking is available at:
A sign-up sheet for each bill being heard will be posted on a table just inside the hearing room. The sheet asks for your name, address, telephone and e-mail address, your position on the bill in question (“pro” or “con” – “con” is the correct answer on SB 5197!), and whether or not you wish to testify. Even if you don’t want to testify on the bill, you should sign in to make your position (and your presence) known. Given the limited time for the hearing, very little oral testimony will be taken. If you have written testimony or a written statement with you, it can be delivered to the committee staff.
Should you elect to write testimony or a statement, be sure to include your name, address & telephone number, and if you know it, your legislative district. If you represent an organization, such as a gun club, state that in the introduction (be sure you have authority to speak for that organization; club elected officials are preferred).
If you prepare written testimony, you should bring four copies with you. A copy should be left with the Labor & Commerce Committee staff. The other three copies should be given to the legislative aide for your state Senator and two Representatives.
Additional information about testifying at public hearings may be found at http://www.leg.wa.gov/WorkingwithLeg/testify.htm
VISIT YOUR LEGISLATORS
This is a golden opportunity to visit with your state Senator and two Representatives. Constituents are the most important (an defective) lobbyists we have. Do not miss this opportunity to meet them, shake their hand, and give them your input on the gun show bill and other gun bills before the legislature (see the “Bill Status” section of the GOAL Post). I’ll be in the vicinity of the cafeteria from noon on to assist in locating legislators.
TALKING POINTS ON SB 5197
There is no such thing as the gun show loophole. All laws that apply elsewhere in the state apply at gun shows. Licensed dealers must comply with all state and federal laws governing their businesses. Private citizens are prohibited from selling firearms to anyone they have reason to believe is prohibited from possessing one.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, gun shows are the LEAST LIKELY source of felons’ guns. Only 0.7% of felons surveyed acquired their guns at gun shows. Nearly 80% of criminals get their guns from family or friends (“strawman purchases” – already a felony) or “off the street” from illegal black-market gun sales.
None of the high visibility shooting incidents that occurred in the greater Seattle area over the past year involved a gun from a gun show.
The only gun show promoter in the greater Seattle area, the Washington Arms Collectors, limits firearm transfers to members. And WAC requires a background check before becoming a member.
Forcing private sales of firearms at gun shows to go through a federally-licensed dealer would add $25-35 processing fee to the cost of the firearm due to dealer paperwork charges.
The deeper impact of the “gun show loophole” bill is twofold: it would stifle all activity at gun shows, to include limiting their role in grassroots political activism (the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled gun shows a protected form of expression under the First Amendment). By requiring all transfers to be processed by a federally-licensed dealer, it would create a de facto registration system through the federal record-keeping requirements (an din the case of handguns, state record-keeping as well).
The term “unlicensed dealer” is an oxymoron. “Dealer” is clearly defined in both federal and state law. Occasional sales of firearms between private individuals does NOT constitute “dealing.”
There are other points that could be made. I’ll leave the rest up to you.
Expect to see editorials published in your local newspapers supporting SB 5197 and HB 1026. These are knee-jerk reactions by mainstream media who know nothing about gun shows and (generally) don’t care to learn.
The best way to respond to this is with short, concise, letters to the editor, shooting holes in the myth of the alleged “gun show loophole.” The best chance of getting a letter to the editor published is to limit it to 100-150 words and make one or two points about the issue. The idea is to get the word out to the public about the gun show issue.
One or two of the talking points above, whittled down to 100 words, would be fine. Don’t cut-and-paste – use your own words.
Additional information about the hearing will be published as it becomes available. I’ll cover it briefly in the GOAL Post to be distributed on Friday as well.
Interesting side note: this was first posted on THR by a member who subscribes to WA Ceasefire's mailing list (Know Thy Enemy). The email went out before the hearing was publicly announced. The Ceasefire email also announced that they've chartered a bus to take GFWs from Seattle to the hearing, which makes me wonder exactly how far in advance they knew.
Actually Doing Their Job
ATF investigating straw buys by Bloomberg's PIs.
You can't just go breaking the law like that, Mikey. Hope you like Marion.
Another Income Tax Proposal for Washington State
State Senate President Pro Tem Rosa Franklin (D-Tacoma) posted an op-ed in last Thursday's News Tribune pimping her bill, SB 5150 which would introduce a
Marxist progressive income tax to Washington state.
Now, I'm not going to argue that Washington state has the optimally configured tax system-it doesn't-but Sen. Franklin's bill wouldn't improve it. And her arguments are mostly class-warfare garbage. Let's take a look.
With our tax structure so heavily dependent on the sales tax, we have a double-edged sword. When times are flush, as they are now, we grow a reserve. When times turn lean – and make no mistake, they will someday – we face daunting budget choices.
Now, Senator, this problem is 100% caused by you and your collegues in the state legislature. If ya'll could show a little self control in the good times, we'd have a reserve that could be used in the lean times. But the legislature, when presented with higher than expected revenues, has about as much self control as a bunch of frat boys given a free keg of beer. The same goes for the current governor-just look at her proposed budget. So every time revenes dip, there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth over which bloated programs to cut.
Look, too, at what this means for families. Remember that the sales tax rate is the same for you and me and for everyone else in Washington, with very slight variations for local jurisdictions. Right now, those who earn less than $20,000 a year pay nearly 16 percent of their income in state and local taxes. On the other hand, those making more than $150,000 pay roughly 4 percent.
It’s unfair that those who are least able to afford to pay are paying at a higher rate than those who can. It was unfair 20 years ago, and it will still be unfair 20 years from now. I’m not the first one to point this out, but I’d sure like to be the last. Fairness aside, doesn’t it make logical sense to tax according to income and not consumption?
Of course, if you factor in federal taxes, where a family whose income is $20,000 will pay virtually nothing at all, while those in the top 10% income wise pay 69% of the taxes, it all evens out.
And talking about taxing income vs consumption ignores one critical piece of information: what people do with the income they're not spending. What they do is simple: they invest it-in their own business, or instocks, bonds, and just plain old savings accounts. In any case, they're doing something with the money that helps create more jobs and more wealth. When you tax consumption, it reduces the incentive to consume (by increasing the cost) and makes investmentmore attractive. Taxing income reduces the incentive to invest.
In a nutshell, this year’s measure, Senate Bill 5150, would lower the state sales tax to 3.5 percent. It would eliminate the state’s share of the property tax. And it would impose a graduated income tax on personal income of individuals, estates and trusts.
Lower the sales tax? Cool. Eliminate the state portion of the property tax? Also cool. Graduated income tax, estate (death) tax, and trust tax? Marxist class warfare, not cool.
Taxes are necessary to fund required government activities. The problems come when those in power try to use the tax structure to further their vision of an ideal society-i.e., they practive social engineering through the tax code. Ideally, the tax structure should provide revenue to the state as efficiently as possible, while minimizing artificial distortions of the economy. A flat tax on income would do this; graduated taxes do not. Likewise, taxes on estates and trust also produce distortions, by penalizing to saving and investment. (And weren't Democrats just screeching about a recent report showing low savings rates as proof that the economy is going to hell in a handbasket?)
To build soundness and preserve equity in the new tax structure, the constitutional amendment would require that any tax changes, including exemptions, credits, preferential rates and exclusions, receive a 60 percent majority vote of the Legislature. It would take effect on Jan. 1, 2009.
Once again, introducing artificial distortions in the name of social engineering. How about a standard deduction for all, and no "exemptions, credits, preferential rates and exclusions?" Once you introduce those kinds of things into the tax code, the code becomes a playground for lobbyists and special interests (witness the current grotesquely bloated federal code.) And those same groups pour ever increasing amounts of money into election campaigns, in order to protect their interests and gain favors. Wasn't it your party that's been decrying the influence of 'special interest money' in state campaigns? So how about putting into the constutitional amendment a provision barring "exemptions, credits, preferential rates and exclusions?"
If you're serious about tax reform-and producing a tax structure which maximizes revenues while minimizing distortions of the economy-I'm all for it. But this bill sure isn't it.
'Democrat' vs 'Democratic'
Just one comment on the whole kerfluffle:
True democracy means that whoever gets 50% + 1 vote, wins. Gets to do what they want.
So if the Democrat Party were truly 'democratic,' then they wouldn't have been busily obstructing the other party's agenda in Congress for 2005-2006, since President Bush got the most votes for President, and the GOP got the most seats in Congress. The most votes wins, right?
Or is that only when the correct party gets the most votes?