Did Britain Have Its Own Version of the Boston Tea Party?

When the American colonies broke from British rule, it was all about "taxation without representation".  Angry over the tax on imported tea from Britain, several colonists known as the Sons of Liberty staged the now famous Boston Tea Party by dumping chests of the tea into Boston's harbor.

Interestingly, the recent vote by the British to exit the European Union has some very interesting parallels to our own break with British rule.

While our rallying cry was "taxation without representation", the Brits complained of being ruled by "unelected bureaucrats" in Brussels.  A somewhat similar complaint.  But, there's one more thing.  Interestingly, the EU was on the verge of banning the Brits beloved electric tea kettles.  As a result, this became the symbol of the Brexit vote.  Once again, tea was at the heart of the objection to excessive rule.

Maybe the British should have remembered the American Revolution before they originally agreed to join the European Union.  A lesson that apparently went unlearned.


References:

Boston Tea party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

Brexit may be the start of something big. 'Unelected bureaucrats in Brussels controlling individual countries clearly is not working': http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/brexit-may-be-the-start-of-something-big/

How a Ban on Tea Kettles Could Drive Britain to a Brexit: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/06/15/How-Ban-Tea-Kettles-Could-Drive-Britain-Brexit

EU bureaucrats want your tea and toast. Arm yourself with a Dyson:  https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2016/jun/21/eu-refrendum-british-traditions-under-threat-brexit-leave-remain

Really? Obama Speaks at the Global Entrepreneurship Summit

At last Friday's opening of the Global Entrepreneurship Summit in Palo Alto, President Obama said that "entrepreneurship is the engine of growth".  Well, that's interesting, because during his presidency, entrepreneurship has been woefully slow.  To that point, I present the following chart from the Kauffman Foundation, that has been tracking the growth of entrepreneurship in this country for nearly two decades.

As this chart shows, business startups peaked in 2009; despite the recession.  But, since then, have fallen to below the norm for the last 5 years.   While 2015 saw an improvement, we are still creating fewer businesses than we should be.  Just as was the case when, in 2003, business startups dipped below the zero line as a result of the post 9/11 recession.  However, this recent dip in 2014 -- 5 years past the end of the recession -- has been twice as bad as that of 2003. Its not that "ideas" for new businesses don't exist. I merely think that the economy is unable to provide the funding for those ideas to be turned in reality. 

This is just another reason why Barack Obama will go down in history as the fourth worst President when it comes to the economy.  I personally believe that Dodd-Frank's heavy hand on mortgage lending is the reason for the lack of business startups, because often, people were able to borrow against their homes in order to start a new business.  Now those lending requirements are very tight.

References:

Obama, Zuckerberg promote entrepreneurship at global summit at Stanford University: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/06/25/Obama-Zuckerberg-promote-entrepreneurship-at-global-summit-at-Stanford-University/5731466873146/

Startup Activity Report, Charts & Graphs: http://www.kauffman.org/microsites/kauffman-index/media/charts-and-graphs/startup-activity

Barack Obama's Sad Record on Economic Growth: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2016/02/01/barack_obamas_sad_record_on_economic_growth_101987.html

What is the Dodd-Frank Act? How does it affect me? | Investopedia: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/13/dodd-frank-act-affect-me.asp

Why the "No-Fly No-Buy" Proposal is So Wrong

Last December, Barack Obama said it was "insane" that people on the No-Fly List could buy guns.  Of course, to the average person, this sounds perfectly logical.

Following the Orlando massacre, the Democrats in Congress, and I might add, Donald Trump are pushing for a bill that would automatically deny you the ability to buy a gun if you appear on the No-Fly List,the Terrorist Watch List or, the Selective Screening List.

However, the most glaring problem is the lack of "due process" before you are placed on any one of these lists, and the similar lack of "due process" when trying to get off if you were erroneously added. 

In fact, various federal agencies, such as the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or the TSA, can just put you on a list without your knowing.  And, God help you if you have a name similar to someone already on a list, or you appear because of some  clerical error. Most people only find out when attempting to board a plane.

In fact, in 2004, the senior Democrat in the Senate, Ted Kennedy, found himself on the "No-Fly" list.  Also, back in December, Democratic Congressman Stephen Lynch disclosed that an investigation found that 72 personnel from the Department of Homeland Security were on the Terrorist Watch List.  Even Nelson Mandela appeared on it in 2008.  Also, Fox News contributor Stephen Hayes found himself on the watch list because he had a one-way ticket to Turkey in order to join a Mediterranean Cruise that ended in Greece. It took 7 months of wading through bureaucracies to get himself cleared.  Then, there's Congressman John Lewis, who participated in last week's sit in to vote on the "No-Fly No-Buy" legislation.  He of all people should know the system is flawed since he found himself on that list for a year.  Of course, these are notable cases.  How many less affluent people are effected and have far less capability to correct the error. Yet, the Democrats believe this is a sure way to get killers off our streets.

While the aforementioned examples are some of the most glaring errors, there may be hundreds or even thousands of Americans who may find themselves wrongly deprived of their rights because of this.  We don't know how many because in most cases the lists, themselves, are secret except to the agencies who use and own them.  This is why the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has condemned the proposal to link the "No-Fly" list to the background check system for buying a firearm. Even the FBI doesn't want this used to block gun purchases.  Their rationale is that it would signal an ongoing investigation should a would-be terrorist decide to buy a gun.

The bottom line is that "No-Fly No-Buy" is another bad idea for gun control.  Another attempt by Democrats trying to do something, anything, to keep guns out of the hands of  Americans; even if their rights are being violated.  Lastly, neither the Orlando massacre nor the San Bernadino shootings would have been prevented by the "No-Fly No-Buy" proposal. None of those people were on the No-Fly List since the FBI had already closed any investigations of them.

References:

Obama: It's 'insane' that people on the 'no-fly' list can buy guns: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/05/politics/barack-obama-guns-congress/

Sen. Kennedy Flagged by No-Fly List: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html

72 DHS Employees on Terrorist Watch List: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/72-dhs-employees-on-terrorist-watch-list/

How A Journalist [Stephen Hayes] Ended Up On A Terror Watch List : NPR:  http://www.npr.org/2014/09/28/352290026/how-a-journalist-ended-up-on-a-terror-watch-list

8 Ways You Could (Easily) End Up On The No-Fly List: https://foramerica.org/2016/06/8-ways-end-no-fly-list/

No-fly nightmares: The program's most embarrassing mistakes: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/no-fly-mistakes-cat-stevens-ted-kennedy-john-lewis/

Why Nelson Mandela was on a terrorism watch list in 2008: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/12/07/why-nelson-mandela-was-on-a-terrorism-watch-list-in-2008/

ACLU: Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms

The ACLU rightly rejects the No Fly List for gun control: http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/06/the_aclu_rightly_rejects_the_n.html

DOJ overrules FBI on gun sales debate, says no-fly list can be used for ban: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/16/doj-overrules-fbi-gun-sales-debate/

Democrats end House sit-in protest over gun control: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/22/politics/john-lewis-sit-in-gun-violence/
 

Why Guns Make Us Safer In Our Homes -- Even if You Don't Own One!

Our government is awash with statistics on almost any topic.  When it comes to guns, the FBI and CDC can tell us how many people are killed by firearms each year.  The FBI even breaks the homicide data down by type of gun.  But, one thing that we don't know is how many times guns are used defensively and how they are a deterrent to crime.  While there may be some independent studies, they're usually, at best, only estimates.

One way we can get a taste of how guns are a deterrent, is to compare burglaries in this country---where there are more guns than there are people -- to those in England, where there are strict gun controls.  To do this we will compare "hot" burglary rates.  A "hot" burglary takes place when someone is at home at the time of the burglary.  In this country  "hot burglaries" are typically known as "home invasions".

In the United States, just 10% of burglaries are "hot".  In England, 50% of all burglaries are "hot" and on the rise.  Also, the biggest problem in England is that 59% of "hot" burglaries result in violence or the threat of violence.  On the other hand, in the U.S., only 26%  result in violence. 

The simple reality is that burglars are less likely to enter a house with someone at home if there is the possibility that person may be armed.  This fact was born out in a study titled Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms that was published in 1986.  It found that 40% of felons avoided committing a crime when they thought the victim might be armed.  Another study said that 74% of felons said they avoided burglaries for fear of being shot.  Also, it is safe to assume that the lower rates of violence (26%) are probably a result of the person at home confronting a burglar with a firearm.

Just some food for thought for Democrats who are so eager to control guns in this country.  This is not to say that high-capacity weapons -- 10+ rounds or greater -- shouldn't be controlled in some fashion but, let's leave defensive weapons alone.  In this way, we all benefit from guns, especially when burglars don't know if you have one or not.

References:

An Englishman's home is his dungeon: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3613417/An-Englishmans-home-is-his-dungeon.html

Burglary victims attacked in their own home once every 30 minutes: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245417/Burglary-victims-attacked-home-30-minutes.html

Victimization During Household Burglary: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

Crime and Guns: http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/#note-93-7

On Protecting Dodd-Frank, Hillary Should Keep an Eye On Obama

From Hillary Clinton's own "Issues" page, regarding Wall Street, she says this:

Hillary will:

• Veto Republican efforts to repeal or weaken Dodd-Frank.
• Tackle dangerous risks in the big banks and elsewhere in the financial system.
• Hold both individuals and corporations accountable when they break the law.

Well, maybe Hillary should have a talk with her old boss, Barack Obama, about how he's pushing "risks" again in the housing market.  The same risks that caused the housing crisis in the first place.

By going around Dodd-Frank, The President has directed the FHA to force banks to give mortgages to people with substantially less credit worthiness, because Dodd-Frank makes no stipulation about credit scores or minimum down payments.  So, here we are again with the kind of low down payments of just 3% that caused the housing collapse because, once again, a Democrat wants increased home ownership for low income families.  Just like when Bill Clinton was President.  A fact that Hillary Clinton never seems to mention.

I think she should stop worrying about the Republicans weakening Dodd-Frank and worry more about liberals skirting the rules of that law.  In fact, my guess is that she would just follow Obama down that same risky housing lending path should she became President.  Obama and Hillary love to blame Republicans for the housing crisis, but it has always been the Democrats whose hands are bloodied on this one.

References:

Hillary Issues: Wall Street: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/wall-street/

Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html

Subprime Mortgages On March Again, As Obama Pressures Easier Lending: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2015/12/05/subprime_mortgages_on_march_again_as_obama_pressures_easier_lending_.html

Wells Fargo launches 3% down payment mortgage: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/26/wells-fargo-launches-3-down-payment-mortgage.html

pb

Men's Incredible Loss of Earnings

For months now, Hillary Clinton has been complaining that women only make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men.  Of course, in typical Hillary fashion, the number is a distortion. It is only true if considering all of women's earnings; including part time pay.  When part time pay is excluded, for both men and women, the actual number is 83 cent on the dollar per the latest 2014 reporting.

What Clinton should be more worried about is the decline in men's wages since 1979.

Click on Image to Enlarge or Click link below

Based on the above graph from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women have done substantially better than men.  Actually, women only saw negative wage growth for those  with less than a high school degree.  Even so, their decline was 3 times less that of men. On the other hand, except for those with college degrees, men have seen their wages decline since 1979.

Click on Image to Enlarge

The fact is, that men made the most in weekly earnings in 1979 at $405.  As of the end of 2015, their earnings were only $380.  The lowest wage paid since 1979 occurred at the end of Bill Clinton's second year in office at only $348.


Reference:

Source of first chart: Page 5 of Highlights of women’s earnings i n 2014: http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-earnings/archive/highlights-of-womens-earnings-in-2014.pdf

Source of second chart: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LES1252881900Q
 

California Is Proving That The 1994 Crime Bill Worked

In 1993, America's violent crime and homicides hit all time records.  In response, the then-President Bill Clinton signed into law the massive "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994".  Known simply today as the Crime Bill of 1994.

While the bill had many provisions, those that provided mandatory minimum sentences and the 3-strikes rule have come under fire in recent years.  The reason is that these provisions have been blamed for the overcrowding of our prisons.  This problem, known politically as "mass incarcerations," has been a key issue for the likes of Hillary Clinton who wants to, according to her website: "End the era of mass incarceration, reform mandatory minimum sentences, and end private prisons". Even her husband, who signed the Crime Bill, has publicly stated his regrets for that law.  Both bowing to the pressures being exerted by activists in this election year.

Of course, leave it to Californians to take matters into their own hands and reduce their "mass incarceration" problem with the passage of the ballot initiative known as "Proposition 47" and the passage of Assembly Bill "AB109".  The result of which made certain that some crimes would be downgraded to misdemeanor status with only limited jail time rather than  prison; and that other prisoners would see early releases.

While California may have seen their prison overcrowding problems reduced, in Nevada -- especially in Clark County where Las Vegas is situated -- crime is going through the roof, The murder rate in Clark County is double what it was last year. California's leniency in sentencing, is at least partly to blame.   That's because many of the newly arrested were from California, and were also beneficiaries of Proposition 47 and AB109.  Also, Los Angeles, too, has seen its crime rate spike.  But, supporters of Proposition 47 point out that spiking crime rates exist in many major cities such as Chicago, and therefore, "47" shouldn't be singled out as the reason.

Here's the simple fact.  The study by the Bureau of Justice statistics found that 56% of those arrested for violent crimes had prior arrest records.  Thus, if you "early out" criminals, there is definitely going to be a higher incidence of crime; and especially murder.  I think California is definitely proving that the 1994 Crime Bill was the right thing to do.   Especially when you consider that gun-related murders in this country, have fallen from 18,253 in 1993 to 8,124 in in 2014.  A 75% reduction.

Do we really want to go back to the good old days of 1993 by putting criminals back on the streets?

References:

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act

Bill Clinton renounces his 1994 crime bill: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/241247-bill-clinton-renounces-his-1994-crime-bill

Hillary Clinton on the Issues: Criminal Justice Reform: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/criminal-justice-reform/

California Proposition 47: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_47_(2014)

Overview of AB109: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/realignment/docs/realignment-fact-sheet.pdf

Las Vegas Blames California For Spike In Crimes: http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/05/19/las-vegas-blames-california-for-spike-in-crimes/

Homicides increase 100 percent in Clark County between 2015 and 2016: http://news3lv.com/news/local/homicides-increase-100-percent-in-clark-county-between-2015-and-2016

Here's Where L.A.'s Biggest Crime Increases Are Happening: http://www.laweekly.com/news/heres-where-las-biggest-crime-increases-are-happening-6549370

Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt

Gun related murders 1993: https://www.google.com/search?q=gun+related+murders+1993&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

FBI: Murder Victims By Weapon Type: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls