This kind of thing makes me sick - politicians will kills us all in the end - what's worse, many conservatives, or should I say Republicans, have joined in to end America's security for a few votes - where will this insanity end?
Read this - if this doesn't make you want to puke, nothing will - that is, if you have any moral fiber at all and a true love for this country - if you hate America, you will love this -
By MICHELLE MALKIN
December 19, 2007 --
DO you know the story of the Incredible Disappearing Border Fence? It's an object lesson in gesture politics and homeland insecurity. It's a tale of hollow rhetoric, meaningless legislation and bipartisan betrayal.
And - in the runup to the Iowa caucuses - it's a helpful learning tool as you assess the promises of immigration-enforcement converts now running for president. Last fall, Democrats and Republicans in Washington responded to continued public outrage over border chaos by passing the "Secure Fence Act. "Did you question the timing? You should have. It's no coincidence they finally got off their duffs to respond just before the 2006 midterm elections.
Lawmakers vowed grandiosely to keep America safe. The law specifically called for "at least two layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras and sensors" at five specific stretches of border totaling approximately 700 miles.
GOP leaders patted themselves on the back for their toughness. President Bush made a huge to-do in signing the bill into law. Never mind the lack of funding for the fence and the failure to address many other immediate reforms that could have been adopted immediately to strengthen immigration enforcement, close deportation loopholes and provide systemic relief at the border without the need for a single brick or bulldozer.
On the very day the bill was signed, open-borders politicians were already moving to water it down. Texas Republican Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn pushed for "flexibility to choose other options instead of fencing, if needed."Six months after passage of the Secure Fence Act - now interpreted by Washington as the Flexible Non-Fence Act or, as I call it, the FINO (Fence in Name Only) Act - 700 miles shrunk to "somewhere in the ballpark" of 370 miles. A 14-mile fence-building project in San Diego was stalled for years by environmental legal challenges and budget shortfalls.
The first deadline - a May 30, 2007, requirement for installation of an "interlocking surveillance camera system" along the border in California and Arizona - passed unmet.Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), one of the few Republican presidential candidates to walk the talk on border security, blasted the Bush administration for suffering from "a case of 'the slows' on border enforcement."Now the citizen watchdog group Grassfire reports that just five miles of double-layer fencing has been built in the first 12 months of implementation of the act. Five lousy miles. The Government Accountability Office claims 70 miles were erected - but most of that fencing failed to meet the specifications of the law.
Is Congress up in arms? Will there be accountability? Don't make me snort. Instead of demanding that the law be enforced, the pols are sabotaging the law. As part of the omnibus spending package passed this week, House Democrats incorporated Senate Republicans' provisions to remove the two-layer fencing requirements and the specific target list of fencing locations.
GOP Rep. Peter T. King, who sponsored the Secure Fence Act, told The Washington Times: "This is either a blatant oversight or a deliberate attempt to disregard the border security of our country. As it's currently written, the omnibus language guts the Secure Fence Act almost entirely. Quite simply, it is unacceptable."But so totally, totally predictable.
GOP Majority Leader John Boehner tried to blame the House Democrat majority: "The fact that this was buried in a bloated, 3,500-page omnibus speaks volumes about the Democrats' unserious approach on border security and illegal immigration," he said. "Gutting the Secure Fence Act will make our borders less secure, but it's consistent with the pattern of behavior we've seen all year from this majority."But it's border-state /Republicans/ who've been gunning to undermine the law while the ink was still fresh.To add insult to injury (and homeland insecurity upon homeland insecurity), Congress failed to adopt a ban on federal aid to "sanctuary cities" (which prevent government employees and law-enforcement officers from asking about immigration status).
It also voted to stall implementation of stricter ID standards at border crossings, and miraculously found enough money to provide $10 million in "emergency" funding for attorneys of illegal aliens. (my hilite)
Next time you hear a leading presidential candidate try to woo you with his nine-point immigration-enforcement plan or his secure ID plan or his Secure Borders platform, point to the Incredible Disappearing Border Fence. Poof! That is what happens to election-season homeland-security promises. Why would theirs be any different? /malkinblog@gmail.com/
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
A Christmas Greeting Even for Liberals
I believe, if the truth be known, this is how the liberal believes this holiday should be treated - I know for a fact there are liberals that actually believe Christmas is about the baby Jesus - really, they do.
To My Conservative Friends:
Best Wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Healthy New Year!
To My Liberal Friends:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2008, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great.
Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.
To My Conservative Friends:
Best Wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Healthy New Year!
To My Liberal Friends:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2008, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great.
Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Something Good for Today and Bad
I like this quote -
"Half the world's problems are caused by poor communications - the other half are caused by good communications."
Of course, either one of these problems ever occurs in our congress - it seems like a fools play ground.
Oh by the way, did you hear Harry Reid yesterday? He told another whooper about Rush Limbaugh and the 'phony solders' thing - heh - He bold faced lied on the air and he doesn't care. The press doesn't care either. He gets away with it, almost. Twenty million people know now - -
Really, does it matter to anyone what Reid does or says? I think I may have to put him in the same category with Jimmy Carter - now that's the absolute worst place to be.
"Half the world's problems are caused by poor communications - the other half are caused by good communications."
Of course, either one of these problems ever occurs in our congress - it seems like a fools play ground.
Oh by the way, did you hear Harry Reid yesterday? He told another whooper about Rush Limbaugh and the 'phony solders' thing - heh - He bold faced lied on the air and he doesn't care. The press doesn't care either. He gets away with it, almost. Twenty million people know now - -
Really, does it matter to anyone what Reid does or says? I think I may have to put him in the same category with Jimmy Carter - now that's the absolute worst place to be.
Monday, December 17, 2007
The Religion of Global Warming
Now you have to admit the global warming crowd is mentally challenged - as I have mentioned in a past post, there are well over 600 stupid causes of global warming, some are good ones like the sun, but others are manufactured by the insane religious fanatics. Cow farts? heh
One of the elite of the crowd is a nut job from Stanford university, Prof. Ken Calderia. His proposal is that we need to reduce carbon emissions by taxing the United States citizens to the tune of 800 Billion a year. That's about half of the entire budget for the entire country.
This idiot, Calderia, is with the Carnegie Institute of Department of Global Ecology. These morons had a round table discussion for high ranking Us news executives during an annual conference of the Society of Environmental Journalists. WOW why would anyone believe anything they have to say - a better name for this conference would be a circle jerk.
Here is the kicker to Calderia's madness, we, The United States could not trade with any nation that doesn't impose a carbon tax on them selves. ha ha ha ha - go figure - that's China and India and a host of other third world nations that don't have to tax themselves, according to the United Nations. Billions more lost. Result? The United States collapses. Her economy in total ruin. And who gets the hundreds of Billions of dollars? Why the UN of course. That pillar of truth and integrity. Out standing members in their countries made up of mass killers and tyrants. Who are these people?
Give me a break - how do these idiots even get out of bed by themselves.
But hey, keep the faith - the battle is joined.
One of the elite of the crowd is a nut job from Stanford university, Prof. Ken Calderia. His proposal is that we need to reduce carbon emissions by taxing the United States citizens to the tune of 800 Billion a year. That's about half of the entire budget for the entire country.
This idiot, Calderia, is with the Carnegie Institute of Department of Global Ecology. These morons had a round table discussion for high ranking Us news executives during an annual conference of the Society of Environmental Journalists. WOW why would anyone believe anything they have to say - a better name for this conference would be a circle jerk.
Here is the kicker to Calderia's madness, we, The United States could not trade with any nation that doesn't impose a carbon tax on them selves. ha ha ha ha - go figure - that's China and India and a host of other third world nations that don't have to tax themselves, according to the United Nations. Billions more lost. Result? The United States collapses. Her economy in total ruin. And who gets the hundreds of Billions of dollars? Why the UN of course. That pillar of truth and integrity. Out standing members in their countries made up of mass killers and tyrants. Who are these people?
Give me a break - how do these idiots even get out of bed by themselves.
But hey, keep the faith - the battle is joined.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Liberal Democrats want Gun Confiscation
Liberal Democrats have for years tried to confiscate all hand guns and semi-automatic rifles in this country and limit every one's ability to even own a shot gun - socialists cannot control a population that is armed.
I keep harping on this issue that if you vote for a Democrat you vote to give up your freedom of choice - think about it - listen to what Hillary says - listen to what Obama says about big government and how they know what is best for you!
Keep the faith - the battle is joined.
DISARMED = VICTIM
Here's more proof that 'disarmed' and 'victim' are synonymous When violence looms and every second counts, recall that the police are only minutes away.M.D. Harmon December 14, 2007
Has anyone ever wondered why people with guns who have kissed sanity good-bye never take out their uncontrollable rage on the nearest police station?Nor do they drive off to the nearest Army base, shooting ranger hunting club to vent their murderous frustration.It should only take a moment's thought to understand why: Those places have people who have relatively easy access to weapons themselves.
It's one thing to be homicidal and suicidal, but it's quite another to consider that one's murderous intent could be brought to an untimely halt through the immediate application of superior firepower. However, there are places that draw these people like magnets,and they, too, are easy to locate: They are the places where the possession of firearms is forbidden, and that fact is widely advertised. Some of these places even go so far as to publicly display their vulnerability to mass murder through the posting of signs that say "No Guns Permitted" or "Gun-Free Zone.
"Virginia Tech was proud of its "gun-free" status, and boasted about how safe a place it was once it posted signs forbidding firearms on campus. Thirty-two people died there last April as the cost of that exercise in hubris and futility. Other places where firearms are typically banned are stores, including shopping malls, government buildings, including schools, and places of worship. We saw in the Columbine shootings how effective gun bans are for schools. And in Omaha last week, eight people died in a shopping mall before the shooter, cornered by police, killed himself.
In Ogden, Utah, last February, a man killed five people in a mall before an armed off-duty police officer pinned him down until help could arrive. And just this past weekend, a disturbed youth who had posted violent diatribes against Christians on an Internet site killed two students at a Colorado missionary center. He later showed up at a church that had an association with the missionary group carrying multiple weapons and 1,000 rounds of ammunition. But because of the earlier shootings, the church had activated its voluntary security force, composed of members who had licenses to carry concealed weapons and the training to use them.
The gunman killed two teenage girls in the church parking lot and wounded their father before he entered the church. But once he got inside, he was confronted by one of the church's volunteer guards, Jeanne Assam, a former police officer armed with a pistol. As witnesses described it, she advanced on the shooter yelling "Surrender," and when he raised his weapon, fired several shots,bringing him to the ground. Police reported that the badly wounded gunman then shot himself to death.Assam, dubbed "Dirty Harriet" by one writer, was credited by the church's pastor with having saved 50 to 100 lives.
It's almost enough to make a fair-minded, thoughtful person conclude that armed, law-abiding citizens might have saved countless more lives at places like those listed above. But not in the view of the confiscation crowd. They point at the weapons the gunmen used and say that banning them would halt such shootings. Problem is, there's precious little evidence to support that view, and much to disprove it.
Different parts of this country display disparities in rates of serious crimes. But that crime rate has been falling steadily for almost 20 years. While many factors undoubtedly contribute to that trend, including tougher sentencing laws, the ability of people to defend themselves also counts.
The 40 states (including Maine) where concealed-carry permits are readily available to law-abiding people report on average a 22 percent lower violent crime rate, a 30 percent lower murder rate, a 46 percent lower robbery rate and a 12 percent lower aggravated assault rate than the 10 states where the possession of firearms by honest citizens is greatly restricted.
As University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds (who blogs as "Instapundit") noted after the VT murders last spring,"People don't stop killers. People with guns do." He wrote, "Though press accounts downplayed it, the 2002 shooting at Appalachian Law School was stopped when a student retrieved a gun from his car and confronted the shooter. Likewise, Pearl, Miss., school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school's vice principal took a .45 from his truck and ran to the scene."Police, he notes, can't be everywhere, and when they do arrive, it's usually too late for at least some victims.
However, "one group of people is, by definition, always on the scene: the victims. (But) if they're armed, they may wind up not being victims at all."As the U.S. Supreme Court ponders whether the Second Amendment protects our right of self-defense with firearms, the actual case is being proved by people like Jeanne
Assam.M.D. Harmon is an editorial writer. He can be contacted at:mharmon@pressherald.comCopyright © 2007 Blethen Maine Newspapers
I keep harping on this issue that if you vote for a Democrat you vote to give up your freedom of choice - think about it - listen to what Hillary says - listen to what Obama says about big government and how they know what is best for you!
Keep the faith - the battle is joined.
DISARMED = VICTIM
Here's more proof that 'disarmed' and 'victim' are synonymous When violence looms and every second counts, recall that the police are only minutes away.M.D. Harmon December 14, 2007
Has anyone ever wondered why people with guns who have kissed sanity good-bye never take out their uncontrollable rage on the nearest police station?Nor do they drive off to the nearest Army base, shooting ranger hunting club to vent their murderous frustration.It should only take a moment's thought to understand why: Those places have people who have relatively easy access to weapons themselves.
It's one thing to be homicidal and suicidal, but it's quite another to consider that one's murderous intent could be brought to an untimely halt through the immediate application of superior firepower. However, there are places that draw these people like magnets,and they, too, are easy to locate: They are the places where the possession of firearms is forbidden, and that fact is widely advertised. Some of these places even go so far as to publicly display their vulnerability to mass murder through the posting of signs that say "No Guns Permitted" or "Gun-Free Zone.
"Virginia Tech was proud of its "gun-free" status, and boasted about how safe a place it was once it posted signs forbidding firearms on campus. Thirty-two people died there last April as the cost of that exercise in hubris and futility. Other places where firearms are typically banned are stores, including shopping malls, government buildings, including schools, and places of worship. We saw in the Columbine shootings how effective gun bans are for schools. And in Omaha last week, eight people died in a shopping mall before the shooter, cornered by police, killed himself.
In Ogden, Utah, last February, a man killed five people in a mall before an armed off-duty police officer pinned him down until help could arrive. And just this past weekend, a disturbed youth who had posted violent diatribes against Christians on an Internet site killed two students at a Colorado missionary center. He later showed up at a church that had an association with the missionary group carrying multiple weapons and 1,000 rounds of ammunition. But because of the earlier shootings, the church had activated its voluntary security force, composed of members who had licenses to carry concealed weapons and the training to use them.
The gunman killed two teenage girls in the church parking lot and wounded their father before he entered the church. But once he got inside, he was confronted by one of the church's volunteer guards, Jeanne Assam, a former police officer armed with a pistol. As witnesses described it, she advanced on the shooter yelling "Surrender," and when he raised his weapon, fired several shots,bringing him to the ground. Police reported that the badly wounded gunman then shot himself to death.Assam, dubbed "Dirty Harriet" by one writer, was credited by the church's pastor with having saved 50 to 100 lives.
It's almost enough to make a fair-minded, thoughtful person conclude that armed, law-abiding citizens might have saved countless more lives at places like those listed above. But not in the view of the confiscation crowd. They point at the weapons the gunmen used and say that banning them would halt such shootings. Problem is, there's precious little evidence to support that view, and much to disprove it.
Different parts of this country display disparities in rates of serious crimes. But that crime rate has been falling steadily for almost 20 years. While many factors undoubtedly contribute to that trend, including tougher sentencing laws, the ability of people to defend themselves also counts.
The 40 states (including Maine) where concealed-carry permits are readily available to law-abiding people report on average a 22 percent lower violent crime rate, a 30 percent lower murder rate, a 46 percent lower robbery rate and a 12 percent lower aggravated assault rate than the 10 states where the possession of firearms by honest citizens is greatly restricted.
As University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds (who blogs as "Instapundit") noted after the VT murders last spring,"People don't stop killers. People with guns do." He wrote, "Though press accounts downplayed it, the 2002 shooting at Appalachian Law School was stopped when a student retrieved a gun from his car and confronted the shooter. Likewise, Pearl, Miss., school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school's vice principal took a .45 from his truck and ran to the scene."Police, he notes, can't be everywhere, and when they do arrive, it's usually too late for at least some victims.
However, "one group of people is, by definition, always on the scene: the victims. (But) if they're armed, they may wind up not being victims at all."As the U.S. Supreme Court ponders whether the Second Amendment protects our right of self-defense with firearms, the actual case is being proved by people like Jeanne
Assam.M.D. Harmon is an editorial writer. He can be contacted at:mharmon@pressherald.comCopyright © 2007 Blethen Maine Newspapers
Friday, December 14, 2007
Global Warming is the Fantasy of Idiots
So far their are over 600 reasons why the planet is warming up - there is a web site that tracks this stuff - I can't remember what it is but I do know it' British - it's a blast to read them all - heh
Check this short article out - just a few things the converted don't want to think about -
- - "Once more for the record, I've stated that I don't pretend to be certain of whether or not man-caused CO2 and other so-called 'greenhouse gases' are actually responsible for the modern up-trend in global temperatures. I'm not a climate scientist. Further, I make no attempt to minimize the fact that overwhelming evidence does indeed suggest that a slight increase in temperatures is happening on a global scale or that coincidentally, levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have increased measurably since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
However, within the framework of these actualities, I am certain of four things:
1) Planet Earth has experienced a huge number of climatic change periods in its history, both warming and cooling - all except the current one having occurred long before humans could ever have influenced the environment with their evil internal combustion engines or coal-fired power plants.
2) The 'scientific community' (a term which has grown to include a lot of people whose credentials as climate specialists are questionable) is far from united in agreement that man-generated GHGs are the cause of the modern global warming trend. As an example, one of today's most credible climate scientists, Carleton University paleo-climatologist and Professor of Geology Tim Patterson, testified in 2005 before Canada’s Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development that:
"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
3) Lots of people - few, if any, of them scientists - are making lots of money and garnering lots of power and attention from the promotion of global warming hysteria. Conversely, those who challenge this mania (again, there are hundreds of credible examples of these) are mercilessly painted by the media and other global warming profiteers as ,flat-Earthers. They increasingly stand to gain nothing for their courage except ridicule, the ruination of their reputations, swift marginalization in polite circles and quite possibly a pink slip. To me, this gives their words a far greater weight than those on the other side of the argument.
4) The major media is not reporting on ANY of these three aspects to any significant degree — despite the somewhat inconvenient truth that credible backup for all of these facts can be found with just a few minutes of online research. (I did, and you can, too.)
Again, these are the only four truths of which I'm certain with regard to the entire climate change debate — except for one more thing: That even to a barely literate, synaptically challenged rube like me, it should be perfectly clear that the Earth’s climate should NOT stay static, but periodically change, sometimes radically.
Why does this come as a surprise to anyone? The simple fact that there are ocean-like deposits of oil — which is nothing more than the remains of eons worth of ancient plant matter subjected to huge amounts of pressure and time —under what's now desert sand and arctic tundra should tell anyone with more than two brain cells that climatic change is the ONLY constant on planet Earth.
Check this short article out - just a few things the converted don't want to think about -
- - "Once more for the record, I've stated that I don't pretend to be certain of whether or not man-caused CO2 and other so-called 'greenhouse gases' are actually responsible for the modern up-trend in global temperatures. I'm not a climate scientist. Further, I make no attempt to minimize the fact that overwhelming evidence does indeed suggest that a slight increase in temperatures is happening on a global scale or that coincidentally, levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have increased measurably since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
However, within the framework of these actualities, I am certain of four things:
1) Planet Earth has experienced a huge number of climatic change periods in its history, both warming and cooling - all except the current one having occurred long before humans could ever have influenced the environment with their evil internal combustion engines or coal-fired power plants.
2) The 'scientific community' (a term which has grown to include a lot of people whose credentials as climate specialists are questionable) is far from united in agreement that man-generated GHGs are the cause of the modern global warming trend. As an example, one of today's most credible climate scientists, Carleton University paleo-climatologist and Professor of Geology Tim Patterson, testified in 2005 before Canada’s Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development that:
"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
3) Lots of people - few, if any, of them scientists - are making lots of money and garnering lots of power and attention from the promotion of global warming hysteria. Conversely, those who challenge this mania (again, there are hundreds of credible examples of these) are mercilessly painted by the media and other global warming profiteers as ,flat-Earthers. They increasingly stand to gain nothing for their courage except ridicule, the ruination of their reputations, swift marginalization in polite circles and quite possibly a pink slip. To me, this gives their words a far greater weight than those on the other side of the argument.
4) The major media is not reporting on ANY of these three aspects to any significant degree — despite the somewhat inconvenient truth that credible backup for all of these facts can be found with just a few minutes of online research. (I did, and you can, too.)
Again, these are the only four truths of which I'm certain with regard to the entire climate change debate — except for one more thing: That even to a barely literate, synaptically challenged rube like me, it should be perfectly clear that the Earth’s climate should NOT stay static, but periodically change, sometimes radically.
Why does this come as a surprise to anyone? The simple fact that there are ocean-like deposits of oil — which is nothing more than the remains of eons worth of ancient plant matter subjected to huge amounts of pressure and time —under what's now desert sand and arctic tundra should tell anyone with more than two brain cells that climatic change is the ONLY constant on planet Earth.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Open Markets for Competition Globally
Government regulation will kill competitiveness in the world wide market - the United States will be the loser - Whaz up?
Good article from the Wall Street Journal detailing the problems -
*The Other Market Crisis*
December 10, 2007;
Page A18 WSJ
The subprime mess is grabbing all the headlines these days, but allow us to focus on another problem for American financial markets: their growing lack of global competitiveness. In the past year, that problem has only grown worse.
That's the judgment of the latest report of the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, which started a debate last year with its initial study on how and why American public stock markets are losing global market share. Last week the committee -- a volunteer group of academics, investors and business leaders led by Harvard's Hal Scott -- published its first follow-up report, which highlights two troubling new trends.
First, the delisting of foreign companies from U.S. markets leapt this year -- to 56 so far, up from 30 in 2006 and 12 a decade ago. Those 56 represented 12.4% of all listed foreign companies. In part, the jump is the result of an SEC rule change that lowered the bar for delisting. But don't take comfort in that. "Pent-up demand" to delist is still demand. Companies that maintain their listings only because they can't escape the SEC hardly signal confidence in U.S. markets.
A second trend is the increasing number of U.S. companies going public outside the U.S. Between 1996 and 2001, a mere three American companies went public by listing only on a foreign exchange. In the first three quarters of this year, 15 firms made the same choice. That's 9.2% of all U.S. initial public offerings in that period. Given the natural affinities to listing in one's home market, this exodus is remarkable. It's also alarming to the extent it reflects more serious underlying problems. And as the report notes, regulatory burdens -- especially post-Sarbanes-Oxley -- and litigation costs are driving companies out of our publicly traded markets.
This matters because the strength of financial markets is an important source of national prosperity. It gives American firms, and others that list here, access to the deepest and most liquid pools of capital anywhere. It also lets average Americans share in the ownership of the country's great businesses.
To cite another example from the new report, since 2002 four out of five foreign companies that chose to raise capital in the U.S. through an IPO did so outside publicly traded exchanges. Instead they used what's known as the far more restricted Rule 144a offering. Ten years ago, more than half of these "Global IPOs" that came to the U.S. for part of their offering listed on a public exchange. But companies that go the Rule 144a route can only sell their shares to "qualified" investors, and thus those companies are not subject to Sarbox, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or to strict liability in shareholder suits.
To put it another way, 80% of the foreign companies that do raise capital in the U.S. do so outside of the reach of most of the laws that are supposed to protect investors. These companies must think the costs of complying with regulation and avoiding litigation are no longer worth the benefits of a ticker symbol on the New York Stock Exchange.
This isn't a partisan issue, or at least it shouldn't be. Democrats ought to appreciate that hollowing out our publicly traded markets in favor of foreign markets, or private markets open only to the rich, does not serve the small investor. Yet after last year's general alarm over these trends, this story has disappeared from our politics and media. Perhaps this is because our politicians and media elites know that they have helped to promote the lawsuits and regulation that are doing such harm. Meanwhile, the British, Chinese and Arabs are only too happy to steal our financial business.
Good article from the Wall Street Journal detailing the problems -
*The Other Market Crisis*
December 10, 2007;
Page A18 WSJ
The subprime mess is grabbing all the headlines these days, but allow us to focus on another problem for American financial markets: their growing lack of global competitiveness. In the past year, that problem has only grown worse.
That's the judgment of the latest report of the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, which started a debate last year with its initial study on how and why American public stock markets are losing global market share. Last week the committee -- a volunteer group of academics, investors and business leaders led by Harvard's Hal Scott -- published its first follow-up report, which highlights two troubling new trends.
First, the delisting of foreign companies from U.S. markets leapt this year -- to 56 so far, up from 30 in 2006 and 12 a decade ago. Those 56 represented 12.4% of all listed foreign companies. In part, the jump is the result of an SEC rule change that lowered the bar for delisting. But don't take comfort in that. "Pent-up demand" to delist is still demand. Companies that maintain their listings only because they can't escape the SEC hardly signal confidence in U.S. markets.
A second trend is the increasing number of U.S. companies going public outside the U.S. Between 1996 and 2001, a mere three American companies went public by listing only on a foreign exchange. In the first three quarters of this year, 15 firms made the same choice. That's 9.2% of all U.S. initial public offerings in that period. Given the natural affinities to listing in one's home market, this exodus is remarkable. It's also alarming to the extent it reflects more serious underlying problems. And as the report notes, regulatory burdens -- especially post-Sarbanes-Oxley -- and litigation costs are driving companies out of our publicly traded markets.
This matters because the strength of financial markets is an important source of national prosperity. It gives American firms, and others that list here, access to the deepest and most liquid pools of capital anywhere. It also lets average Americans share in the ownership of the country's great businesses.
To cite another example from the new report, since 2002 four out of five foreign companies that chose to raise capital in the U.S. through an IPO did so outside publicly traded exchanges. Instead they used what's known as the far more restricted Rule 144a offering. Ten years ago, more than half of these "Global IPOs" that came to the U.S. for part of their offering listed on a public exchange. But companies that go the Rule 144a route can only sell their shares to "qualified" investors, and thus those companies are not subject to Sarbox, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or to strict liability in shareholder suits.
To put it another way, 80% of the foreign companies that do raise capital in the U.S. do so outside of the reach of most of the laws that are supposed to protect investors. These companies must think the costs of complying with regulation and avoiding litigation are no longer worth the benefits of a ticker symbol on the New York Stock Exchange.
This isn't a partisan issue, or at least it shouldn't be. Democrats ought to appreciate that hollowing out our publicly traded markets in favor of foreign markets, or private markets open only to the rich, does not serve the small investor. Yet after last year's general alarm over these trends, this story has disappeared from our politics and media. Perhaps this is because our politicians and media elites know that they have helped to promote the lawsuits and regulation that are doing such harm. Meanwhile, the British, Chinese and Arabs are only too happy to steal our financial business.
Muslims Want Us Dead - Period
It seems the left and it allies, terrorists and mass killers of all sorts, have the constitutional right to condemn anything they wish that they don't like or goes against their agenda of total world domination. As the article states, it's okay to kill, rape and behead those that they don't like.
The Democrats are in full agreement with these people because they think they can take control of the country after the terrorists attack America and kill thousands - the population will be stampeded into a socialist state that will enslave them for generations. The liberal Democrat wants to destroy our country as we know it - you will lose everything, your freedom!!
I love my country and I morn all those that have given their lives for us to be free that are being betrayed by the Democrats.
But hang on, keep the faith - the battle is joined - read on - - -
Subject: Michigan State & Muslims
(Hooray for Michigan State!!)The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indrek Wichman. Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association.
The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. The group had complained the cartoons were "hate speech."Enter Professor Wichman. In his e-mail, he said the following:
Dear Moslem Association:
As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey ), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called "whores" in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.
This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues.I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile "protests."
If you do not like the values of the West - see the 1st Amendment - you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option. Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.
Cordially,
I. S. Wichman Professor of Mechanical Engineering
As you can imagine, the Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well. They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded and the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty and mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen.
Now the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe that the good professor had the right to express his opinion.
For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman, saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks.
This political correctness crap is getting old and killing us.
The Democrats are in full agreement with these people because they think they can take control of the country after the terrorists attack America and kill thousands - the population will be stampeded into a socialist state that will enslave them for generations. The liberal Democrat wants to destroy our country as we know it - you will lose everything, your freedom!!
I love my country and I morn all those that have given their lives for us to be free that are being betrayed by the Democrats.
But hang on, keep the faith - the battle is joined - read on - - -
Subject: Michigan State & Muslims
(Hooray for Michigan State!!)The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indrek Wichman. Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association.
The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. The group had complained the cartoons were "hate speech."Enter Professor Wichman. In his e-mail, he said the following:
Dear Moslem Association:
As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey ), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called "whores" in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.
This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues.I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile "protests."
If you do not like the values of the West - see the 1st Amendment - you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option. Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.
Cordially,
I. S. Wichman Professor of Mechanical Engineering
As you can imagine, the Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well. They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded and the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty and mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen.
Now the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe that the good professor had the right to express his opinion.
For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman, saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks.
This political correctness crap is getting old and killing us.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
NBC: In from the Cold? Thanking Troops?
This looks like a fragrant act of journalism - NBC actually thanking the troops for defending our freedom - my goodness where will it end - or maybe they have some other agenda in mind -I wonder what it might be - - ?
Read on -
Last week, Freedom's Watch launched a series of non-political ads to thank our troops this holiday season, but initially NBC and its affiliate networks refused to air this message of support - it was deemed it too political. There is nothing political about thanking those who serve our nation, and we were relieved when NBC relented and began running the ads yesterday.
From the Associated Press:
WASHINGTON (AP)--NBC reversed course Saturday and decided to run a conservative group's television ad thanking U.S. troops.The ad, by the group Freedom's Watch, asks viewers to remember the troops during the holiday season.
NBC had refused to air the ad because it guides viewers to the Freedom's Watch Web site, which NBC said was too political.But in a statement issued Saturday evening, NBC said:"We have reviewed and changed our ad standards guidelines and made the decision that our policy will apply to content only and not to a referenced Web site. Based on these amended standards the Freedom's Watch ad will begin to run as early as Sunday."
For the full text of this article, please click here.
This reversal by NBC didn't happen by accident. The network chose to review its policies only after thousands of supporters just like you visited freedomswatch.org to sign the petition and call NBC to ask the network to stop their descriminatory actions and support our troops. Now we're asking you to use the power of that collective voice to say thank you.
Please visit our Web site to find out how YOU can support the troops this holiday season, and sign the card to wish them a happy holidays.
Sincerely,
Bradley A. Blakeman
President and C.E.O
Freedom's Watch
Read on -
Last week, Freedom's Watch launched a series of non-political ads to thank our troops this holiday season, but initially NBC and its affiliate networks refused to air this message of support - it was deemed it too political. There is nothing political about thanking those who serve our nation, and we were relieved when NBC relented and began running the ads yesterday.
From the Associated Press:
WASHINGTON (AP)--NBC reversed course Saturday and decided to run a conservative group's television ad thanking U.S. troops.The ad, by the group Freedom's Watch, asks viewers to remember the troops during the holiday season.
NBC had refused to air the ad because it guides viewers to the Freedom's Watch Web site, which NBC said was too political.But in a statement issued Saturday evening, NBC said:"We have reviewed and changed our ad standards guidelines and made the decision that our policy will apply to content only and not to a referenced Web site. Based on these amended standards the Freedom's Watch ad will begin to run as early as Sunday."
For the full text of this article, please click here.
This reversal by NBC didn't happen by accident. The network chose to review its policies only after thousands of supporters just like you visited freedomswatch.org to sign the petition and call NBC to ask the network to stop their descriminatory actions and support our troops. Now we're asking you to use the power of that collective voice to say thank you.
Please visit our Web site to find out how YOU can support the troops this holiday season, and sign the card to wish them a happy holidays.
Sincerely,
Bradley A. Blakeman
President and C.E.O
Freedom's Watch
Merry Christmas to Democrats - I guess
Can this be true? Have the Democrats gone so far over the edge that they do not remember where they came from? Maybe they aren't from around here - hmmmm
From what I've seen, they sure don't know where they are headed - history is not their strong suit - only the here and now.
TO ALL MY DEMOCRAT FRIENDS:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2008, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in theWestern Hemisphere. Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.
Have a Happy Non-Denomination Winter Holiday
TO ALL MY REPUBLICAN FRIENDS:
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
From what I've seen, they sure don't know where they are headed - history is not their strong suit - only the here and now.
TO ALL MY DEMOCRAT FRIENDS:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2008, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in theWestern Hemisphere. Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.
Have a Happy Non-Denomination Winter Holiday
TO ALL MY REPUBLICAN FRIENDS:
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
