China has strenuously denied reports that it’s routinely canning human flesh and selling it as food to African nations.
A top official has dismissed reports in Zambia which queried the provenance of some ‘meat products’ being shipped from China to the African continent.
In the media reports, an unnamed Zambian woman living in China reportedly issued warnings to Africans not to eat corned beef.
She claimed that dead human bodies were being collected and marinated before being canned and labelled as corned beef for human consumption .
But the statement, issued by the Chinese Ambassador to Zambia, Yang Youming, blames people spreading “malicious” rumours. (Read more from “China Denies Shipping Marinated Human Flesh in Cans to Be Sold as FOOD in Africa” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/tin-cans-622683_960_720.jpg720960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-20 21:26:292016-05-21 01:31:43China Denies Shipping Marinated Human Flesh in Cans to Be Sold as FOOD in Africa
On Thursday, the House of Representatives voted to reject the Maloney Amendment. The Maloney Amendment would have ratified President Barack Obama’s executive order barring federal contractors from what it describes as “discrimination” on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in their private employment policies.
And, of course, “discrimination” on the basis of gender identity can be something as simple as having a bathroom policy based on biological sex, not gender identity, as we learned last week from Obama’s transgender directives. And “discrimination” on the basis of sexual orientation can be something as reasonable as an adoption agency preferring married moms and dads for orphans than other arrangements.
Employers should respect the intrinsic dignity of all of their employees, but as I explained in greater detail at The Daily Signal two years ago, Obama’s executive order undermines our nation’s commitment to pluralism and religious liberty. So a vote for the Maloney Amendment is a vote to support Obama’s radical agenda.
Obama’s executive order, like the Maloney Amendment, does not contain any religious liberty protections—though it does leave in place an older federal regulation that permits religious organizations that favor employment of co-religionists to continue such practices. But there is no protection for organizations that hire based on mission—not on affiliation—to continue to do so. This in effect excludes taxpayers who hold conscientious beliefs about sexuality that run counter to Obama’s from being eligible for federal contracts funded with their own tax dollars.
The Obama executive order, and attempts to codify it through the Maloney Amendment, are problematic for four reasons, but there is at least one thing that can be done in response.
1. Obama’s order and the Maloney Amendment undermines our nation’s commitment to reasonable pluralism and reasonable diversity, as it disregards the consciences and liberties of people of goodwill who happen not to share the government’s opinions about issues of sexuality. All Americans should be free to contract with the government without penalty because of their reasonable beliefs about morally contentious issues. The federal government should not use the tax code and government contracting to reshape civil society about controversial moral issues that have nothing to do with the federal contract at stake.
2. Obama’s order and the Maloney Amendment treat conscientious judgments about behavior as if they were invidious acts of discrimination akin to racism or sexism. But sexual orientation and gender identity are not like race. Indeed, sexual orientation and gender identity are unclear, ambiguous terms. They can refer to voluntary behaviors as well as thoughts and inclinations, and it is reasonable for employers to make distinctions based on actions. By contrast, “race” and “sex” clearly refer to traits, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, these traits (unlike voluntary behaviors) do not affect fitness for any job.
3. Obama’s executive order and the Maloney Amendment also do not contain any Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) exemption. BFOQs allow employers to make employment decisions so long as those decisions are honestly related to job qualifications. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act contains a BFOQ that allows employers to take sex into account: permitting hiring only female camp counselors at an all-girls sleep-away summer camp, which might otherwise seem to be “sex discrimination.”
4. Obama’s executive order and the Maloney Amendment are unnecessary. Voluntary market forces are already eliminating true discrimination, as making employment decisions based on non-relevant factors hurts one’s ability to compete. But the federal government should not penalize those contractors that do conscientiously judge sexual orientation or gender identity to be relevant to their mission and purpose.
In response to this executive order, Congress has an opportunity to protect religious liberty and the rights of conscience. Policy should prohibit the government from discriminating against any individual or group, whether nonprofit or for-profit, based on their beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman or that sexual relations are reserved for marriage. The government should be prohibited from discriminating against such groups or individuals in tax policy, employment, licensing, accreditation, or contracting. This is the policy approach proposed in both the Russell Amendment and the First Amendment Defense Act.
Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience fosters a more diverse civil sphere. Indeed, tolerance is essential to promoting peaceful coexistence even amid disagreement. (For more from the author of “House Rejects Amendment That Would Have Curtailed Religious Freedom” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/maxresdefault-56.jpg8001600Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-20 19:21:262016-05-21 03:42:31House Rejects Amendment That Would Have Curtailed Religious Freedom
A number of conservative newswebsites – including Restoring Liberty – contend that Facebook is censoring their stories. While difficult to prove, there have been several recent studies suggesting that Facebook is indeed biased through either its algorithm controlling users’ news feeds or through deliberate action. This is particularly disturbing as increasing numbers of Americans – and people across the world – now use Facebook as their primary news source.
In an astonishing smoking-gun-story earlier this month, Gizmodo uncovered reports that Facebook used journalists to help shape the “trending” section of their website to specifically prevent conservative stories from making it to that prominent location. Not only did Facebook prevent trending conservative stories from making the prominent list, but it also added non-trending leftist stories to the list!
Facebook misleadingly suggests that its trending section is based only on personal interest and what is currently popular on Facebook. What’s conveniently omitted is the subjective human influence on what ultimately makes the list. While Facebook contends it has strict policies in place to prevent bias, there’s little question that it has failed in avoiding human interference. It also raises the question whether other sections of Facebook have been shaped with “help” from human touch to prevent conservative stories from getting fair coverage.
Outside of the trending news section, there are many other examples of Facebook censoring information. In one recent example, Facebook was caught deleting and preventing posts about another social media website (tsu.co) which it alleged was spam. Facebook obviously saw a competitive threat from tsu.co, a platform that gives an astonishing 90% of ad profits back to users. In another example, Facebook blocked conservative Professor Carol Swain’s Facebook account for “abusive content” only to reinstate it once the censoring was made known by breitbart.com.
Another troubling example of Facebook’s political bias is the case of Syrians who had pages removed by Facebook from their account, causing them to lose many pictures and other documentation of war crimes. But sometimes the bias is more explicit. At a recent UN event, German Chancellor Merkel was overheard asking CEO Zuckerberg how Facebook was doing on suppressing “racist” posts against the recent influx of refugees.
Some victims of Facebook censoring are fighting back. For instance, an Israeli group (NGO Shurat HaDin, also known as the Israeli Law Center) created an experiment to test the theory that Facebook is prejudiced against Israel. The ingenious, simple experiment was done by creating two Facebook pages similar in so-called “hate content,” with one against Israel and the other against Palestine. Users then reported both pages to Facebook as violating the social media giant’s hate speech standards. Within one day of reporting the page against Palestine, it was removed from Facebook. However, the other page against Israel received a reply back that it was not in violation of Facebook’s standards. Only after the Israeli NGO had made a video exposing Facebook’s double standard was the page against Israel removed.
Perhaps even more troubling is the suppression of news articles based on Facebook’s algorithm for individual users. This algorithm relies on a number of factors including “silent lurking” on Facebook pages, other websites the user visits, and – disturbingly – text that a user types into Facebook but doesn’t actually post. Recently, Facebook also included 5 new reaction emojis to their like button for U.S. users. As expected, this change will supply even more data to Facebook for its news feed algorithm. Facebook claims it’s using these numerous data points to tailor posts to what individual users want to read. Unfortunately, such a tailored news feeds mean users may not be given the option to read stories that might challenge their belief system, like conservative articles that tend to conflict with the main stream media.
Ironically, one of Facebook’s internal studies, looking at the types of news an ideologically defined user viewed, reflected this. What was discovered was that Facebook’s algorithm suppressed fewer liberal news stories a conservative would see than conservative news stories a liberal would see. Moreover, Facebook’s analysis reflected that conservative users would click on a liberal news story in their news feed almost a third more often than liberals would click on conservative stories in their feeds.
Additionally, Facebook’s study found that liberal users were generally connected to fewer friends who shared conservative stories than conservatives were connected to liberal friends sharing liberal stories. This factor, uninfluenced by Facebook’s biased algorithm, is apparently caused by the fact that liberals block, unfriend, or hide users with posts they disagree with far more frequently than conservatives. Contrary to conventional wisdom, conservatives tend to be more open-minded than liberals – at least on Facebook.
Because liberal Facebook users are more close-minded than conservatives, they report conservative posts as offensive at a more frequent rate, thus suppressing those posts on Facebook. This is yet another factor creating an anti-conservative bias on Facebook.
So what’s the answer Facebook bias? The good news is that YOU have control. NEVER use your Facebook feed as your exclusive news source. Instead, either go directly to the Facebook page you are following, or visit the websites of conservative publishers themselves. Yes, this involves an extra step. But it’s imperative that we stay at least a step ahead of the leftists who are attempting to transform our nation and world.
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/14697904421_d353582ae4_b.jpg7681024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-20 02:36:292016-05-20 02:36:29Facebook, Your Friends, or You? Who Actually Is in Control of What You See on Facebook?
Gen. Boykin will not be returning to the classroom this fall. That’s because he tells me he’s been fired.
The man who was one of the original members of Delta Force and once commanded all of the U.S. Army’s Green Berets – the man who served his nation with honor and distinction for more than 36 years – was ousted because of political correctness.
In March, Gen. Boykin delivered a speech to conservatives and he referenced the national uproar over transgendered people using the ladies room.
He cracked a joke: “The first man who goes into the restroom with my daughter will not have to worry about surgery” . . .
Boykin, who also serves as an executive vice president of the Family Research Council, tells me as many as 150 activists signed a letter written to the college [Hampden-Sydney College] demanding that he be fired. (Read more from “College Boots Ex-Delta Force Hero After Complaint From LGBT Activists” HERE)
______________________________
UPDATE: College Reverses Decision
[T]he college [has] reversed its decision and offered the retired general a one-year contract.
“Hampden-Sydney College is a fine school with a proud history of young men who have led our country, and I am honored to be a part of shaping the next generation of leaders,” Boykin told me. “I would like to thank the leadership of Hampden-Sydney College for the courage they have demonstrated in reversing their decision and allowing me to remain a part of the Hampden-Sydney community.”
The LGBT activists had wanted Hampden-Sydney to fire Boykin over a joke he made to a gathering of conservatives. They accused him of advocating for violence against gays and transgender people. (Read more from this story HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/1280px-GayFest_Bucharest_2006_activist.jpg9601280Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-20 01:53:572016-05-20 13:27:01UPDATE: College Boots Ex-Delta Force Hero After Complaint From LGBT Activists
By Leo Hohmann. The fate of EgyptAir Flight MS-804 has once again thrown the media spotlight on Paris, France, where the plane took off for Cairo before going down over the Mediterranean Sea.
The airliner, only 13 years old, was cruising at high altitude in good weather conditions when it suddenly went down. There was no call of distress.
While much of the media has focused on Paris as the location where a terrorist could have loaded a bomb onto the plane, an expert of Egyptian politics and the Muslim Brotherhood says look again at Cairo . . .
It only sat on the ground in Paris for an hour, said Dr. Mark Christian, founder and president of the Global Faith Institute, an Omaha-Nebraska-based think tank that focuses on Islamic terrorism.
Christian, who grew up in Egypt the son of a Muslim Brotherhood member and became a child imam by the age of 14, says the Brotherhood has the most to gain from a terror attack on EgyptAir and has been active in a string of terror attacks recently in the country. (Read more from “EgyptAir Crash Has Markings of Muslim Brotherhood Operation” HERE)
__________________________________________
EgyptAir Flight 804: Airline Official Says Debris Not From Plane
By Michael Pearson, Faith Karimi, Ian Lee and Steve Almasy. The search for EgyptAir Flight 804 is continuing after reports that the plane’s wreckage had been found turned out to be false.
When searchers got close to debris found in the Mediterranean Sea they realized it didn’t come from the missing airliner, EgyptAir’s Vice Chairman Ahmed Adel told CNN.
The Airbus A320, which had 66 people on board, disappeared early Thursday as it flew from Paris to Cairo. Earlier, Adel told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that the plane’s wreckage had been found.
“We stand corrected on finding the wreckage because what we identified is not a part of our plane. So the search and rescue is still going on,” Adel told CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper.” (Read more from “EgyptAir Flight 804: Airline Official Says Debris Not From Plane” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Egyptair.jpg11312205Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-20 01:44:592016-05-20 01:44:59EgyptAir Crash Has Markings of Muslim Brotherhood Operation
As insurance companies begin submitting their rates for health care coverage next year, consumers are seeing changes in the number of insurers selling plans on Obamacare’s exchanges.
And in some places, fewer choices on the exchanges can mean higher premiums.
So far, three states—Alabama, Alaska, and Wyoming—have just one insurer selling coverage on their Obamacare exchanges. And in Kansas, Insurance Commissioner Ken Selzer has been talking with carriers to convince them to sell coverage in his state. If Selzer isn’t successful in bringing other insurers on to the exchange in his state, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas will be the only option for consumers there.
Since Obamacare took effect in 2013, a number of studies have documented a decline in the number of insurers selling coverage on the exchanges.
A March report from The Heritage Foundation found that from 2015 to 2016, the number of insurers participating in Obamacare’s exchanges fell from 307 to 287. Additionally, prior to the Affordable Care Act’s rollout in 2013, 395 insurers sold individual-market coverage. In 2014, the number of insurance companies selling coverage on the exchanges fell to 253.
When comparing the number of insurers selling plans on the exchanges from 2015 to 2016, 22 states and the District of Columbia saw a decline in the number of carriers selling exchange coverage from 2015 to 2016, according to the report.
Just 10 states, meanwhile, have more insurers on the exchanges.
Additionally, a study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that more than 650 counties nationwide will have one insurance company on the exchanges next year. In states using the federal exchange, HealthCare.gov, 40 percent of counties will see just one or two insurers.
A Provider Monopoly
Insurer companies are in the midst of deciding whether to continue offering coverage on Obamacare’s exchanges, and some big players like Humana and UnitedHealthcare have already announced decisions to pull out of some exchanges.
These changes now have health policy experts warning that such a decline in insurer participation on Obamacare’s exchanges could impact how much consumers pay and how much providers charge.
“The focus has been on rural areas where you already have less insurer competition and are getting down to one or two [carriers],” Ed Haislmaier, a senior fellow in health policy at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “I think the effect, paradoxically, is somewhat less. The real issue isn’t the number of insurers. It’s the number of providers.”
In rural areas where there may be only one provider such as a hospital and two or three insurers, the provider could charge what it wants, causing insurers to post similar rates, he said.
“The competition issue in rural areas is more driven by provider monopolies than it is by insurers,” Haislmaier said.
Caroline Pearson, senior vice president of policy at Avalere Health, agreed that in rural areas, specifically, higher premiums from insurers can be tied to increased rates from providers.
“The two are sort of linked,” she told The Daily Signal. “The way that insurers have brought premiums down in some markets is by designing narrower networks where they’re including only a subset of providers with better negotiated rates.”
“In rural areas, there’s a dearth of providers,” she continued. “Plans are beholden to the physicians there, and they don’t have the leverage to drive rates down. I think the monopoly of providers is limiting plans’ ability to keep premiums low.”
Pearson said that though competition has “been effective” at lowering the cost of premiums, consumers can expect to see across-the-board rate increases for a variety of reasons and not just in areas where there is little to no choice of insurer on the exchange.
“People in the exchanges are sicker than insurers were expecting them to be, so it’s costing more to cover them,” she said. “Additionally, the fact that two of the risk mitigation programs [risk corridor and reinsurance] go away in 2017 will also increase rates. Those are the two primary drivers.”
A ‘Guiding Principle’
In a study from the American Journal of Health Economics released last year, Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber and the study’s authors warned that a decline in competition among insurers leads to an increase in premium prices.
Using UnitedHealthcare’s decision not to sell insurance on Obamacare’s exchanges in 2014 as an indicator of how premium prices changed, the study’s authors found that had UnitedHealth decided to enter all markets, the cost for the second-lowest silver premium would’ve decreased by 5.4 percent.
The government calculates subsidies based on the cost of the second-lowest silver plan.
Additionally, had insurers sold coverage in all areas on the state’s exchange, the cost of premiums would’ve declined by 11.1 percent.
Gruber and the study’s authors further found that areas where Obamacare’s co-ops, or consumer operated and oriented plans, sold coverage had lower premiums than those that did not.
The co-ops launched in 26 states with $2.4 billion in startup and solvency loans from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and were intended to boost competition and choice in areas where few existed.
However, since their roll out in 2013, 12 of the 23 co-ops have since closed their doors.
In a speech before a joint session of Congress in September 2009, President Barack Obama warned about how decreased competition among insurers can impact consumers.
“My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. That’s how the market works,” Obama told lawmakers. “Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company. And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down.”
While consumes in Alabama, Alaska and Wyoming will have just one insurer to select coverage from during next year’s open enrollment period, states have yet to encounter a situation where no insurer will sell on the exchange.
In 2013, before Obamacare’s launch, 34 counties in Mississippi were almost left with no carrier selling on its exchange, according to Vox. However, Humana decided to offer coverage to consumers in those 34 counties—albeit at a price, as premiums in the state were among the highest in the country.
“With only one plan, [insurers] certainly have pricing flexibility to make it work for them financially,” John McDonough, a professor of public health at Harvard University told Vox.
Having no insurers selling on an exchange doesn’t mean a consumer will go without coverage, Haislmaier said. Instead, carriers can and do sell plans off of the exchange.
In Mississippi and South Dakota, for example, Blue Cross and Blue Shield carriers are the largest insurers in those states. Neither, though, sell coverage on the exchanges.
“The key thing here is whether there’s an insurer willing to sell on the exchange,” Haislmaier said. “That’s important because that doesn’t necessarily mean there may not be coverage available off the exchange. But those with subsidies will be affected because they then have to pay full price.” (For more from the author of “Why Obamacare Customers in Some States Might See Higher Rates in 2017” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Barack_Obama_reacts_to_the_passing_of_Healthcare_bill.jpg27314096Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-20 01:22:252016-05-20 01:29:57Why Obamacare Customers in Some States Might See Higher Rates in 2017
If original reports from an insider campaign source are accurate, Gary Johnson, presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party, could be getting a major boost to his campaign.
According to Daily Caller, a source in Johnson’s campaign reports billionaire David Koch is willing to pledge “tens of millions of dollars” to Johnson’s campaign, if he receives the Libertarian Party nomination.
The nomination will be made later in May at the Libertarian National Convention to be held in Orlando.
Should Johnson be selected, it will be his second consecutive presidential nomination.
A source closely connected with Koch reportedly did not deny the pledge existed.
In an update to the original article, TheDC reports a Koch spokesperson denied the claim.
“Reports that David Koch has pledged his support to Gary Johnson- or any candidate running for president for that matter- are untrue,” the spokesperson said.
However, an individual within the leadership of the Libertarian Party spoke to Daily Caller Thursday and said the support is still on track.
This source said, “In the event that a Johnson/[Bill]Weld ticket emerges from the convention, a pathway is in place for significant funding from Koch, [Steve]Wynn and other large donors.”
A representative for Koch held to the statement that Koch is not “supporting any third party presidential candidate.”
When Ron Neilson, campaign manager for Johnson was contacted by phone on Tuesday morning, he told Daily Caller that donor commitments would not be confirmed publicly prior to the convention. He went on to ask TheDC for their source.
Chairman of the Nevada Libertarian Party Brett H. Pojunis said, “People are upset and are looking for an alternative to the broken two party system.”
He added, “If the Libertarian candidate is successful raising money, the media will have a hard time ignoring that candidate. Especially with a public hungry for an alternative to to of the most polarizing figures in American political history.” (For more from the author of “Businessman David Koch Reportedly Earmarks Millions for November Election” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/20599734300_6e54e31582_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-20 00:41:122016-05-20 00:41:12Businessman David Koch Reportedly Earmarks Millions for November Election
Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson had never planned to support presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, but now he will do whatever it takes to help Trump defeat likely Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.
“I was forced onto the Trump train, but I am happily volunteering my services for Mr. Trump, mainly because the Republican Party has spoken,” said Robertson, who supported Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in the Republican primaries. “The people have said we want Mr. Trump. So Mr. Cruz goes down — I love him — but now I’m on the Trump train and I’ll do everything I can to help him.”
During his appearance Wednesday on Fox & Friends, Robertson had a very clear idea of how he could assist Trump.
Robertson has said that he will remain loyal to the Republican Party.
“I’ll go with the platform that I discovered when I was 28. I looked at the Democrats and the Republicans, and at least the Republicans aren’t for killing their children or for perversion, so I’m a Republican. So I’ll back old Donald,” he told The Hollywood Reporter recently.
As for Clinton, “Her record is long, and she’s already proven herself,” he said then.
“I know which way we’ll go with her, but I’m not sure with Donald. And remember, I’m a hunter. We shoot squirrels and ducks and eat ’em, and she says she’ll take our guns. All we’re doing is shooting targets, and alligators and cottonmouth snakes, and she wants to take that away from us,” he said.
Robertson consistently calls for political leaders to turn to God.
“Why don’t we vet our thinking through the word of God, love God and love each other?” he said on Fox & Friends Wednesday. “Why don’t we try that for a while? That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.”
He explained to the Hollywood Reporter why following God’s teaching is important to America.
“When you remove the God of the Bible and suppress the truth and allow men and women to determine right and wrong, historically speaking, it always ends in carnage and murder — Hitler, the Caesars of Rome, the French Revolution, ISIS. Man, there has been a slaughterhouse on planet Earth, and the common denominator is the removal of God,” he said. (For more from the author of “Duck Dynasty Star Offers to Take Important Role to Help Trump” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/14837761109_c752b0a6b0_b.jpg6811024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-19 23:28:422016-05-19 23:28:42Duck Dynasty Star Offers to Take Important Role to Help Trump
Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico, and current leading Libertarian candidate for president is set to name William (Bill) Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts, as his running mate today. While Weld certainly has some fiscal conservative bona fides from his time as governor, he also has a statist streak, which should give libertarians, especially those who are delegates to the Libertarian convention, pause.
James Antle summed up whether or not Weld is a libertarian best, in a 2005 profile at the American Spectator. Antle wrote “does the strange combination of thorough economic conservatism and social liberalism make Weld a libertarian? Not unless libertarians also support expansive environmental regulations, gun control, and affirmative action.”
Here are five statist positions of Bill Weld that should give libertarians pause.
Gun Control
Weld is a gun grabber. He gave his support to gun control measures in Massachusetts. As the New York Times reported at the time:
With voters growing increasingly fearful of gunfire on the streets, Gov. William F. Weld of Massachusetts reversed course this week and proposed some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country.
Mr. Weld, a Republican who will run for re-election next year, called for a statewide ban on assault weapons — a proposal he opposed during his 1990 campaign — as well as a waiting period for buying handguns and a prohibition on handgun ownership by anyone under 21. His proposed legislation would also limit the number of handguns an individual could buy and would impose tough penalties for illegal gun sales and gun-related crimes.
“The purpose of this common sense legislation is to remove deadly guns from our streets and to take weapons out of the hands of many teens who themselves are becoming deadly killers,” the Governor said.
Eminent Domain
Like Donald Trump, Bill Weld believes in the power of the state to take land for private developers. When running for governor of New York, the patrician Weld explained when he would use the power of eminent domain to seize private property for the good of a select few. The New York Sun reported:
At a Crain’s Business Breakfast in Midtown, Mr. Weld said he would support the use of eminent domain for the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, as well as in cases of building affordable housing in certain neighborhoods, depending on “the character of the neighborhood you were razing.”
The benefit to the public created by such private projects would justify the use of eminent domain, he said.
During a Manhattan Institute breakfast on March 1, Mr. Weld said a recent Supreme Court decision that permitted eminent domain to spur economic development “has put alleged collective needs ahead of individual liberty and property rights, and increased tax revenue ahead of the pursuit of individual happiness. It’s a decision I would expect in Communist China.”
The proposed Atlantic Yards project, which would include affordable housing and a new basketball stadium for the Nets, “is clearly okay,” he said yesterday, because “that whole project is imbued with public interest… A major public asset is involved there and it’s not simply an effort to increase the tax base.”
Affirmative Action
When debates swirled around ending many federal affirmative action programs during the 1990s, then Governor Weld stood firmly with the statists who wanted to keep them. The Washington Post reported:
Further complicating the affirmative action issue is that some of the nation’s most prominent moderate Republicans have spoken out against efforts to eliminate it. Retired Gen. Colin L. Powell, New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, Ohio Gov. George V. Voinovich, Massachusetts Gov. William F. Weld and Gov. John Engler of Michigan are among those who support many affirmative action programs.
Environmental Regulations
Weld was a supporter of stricter environmental regulations being promulgated by the EPA. In 1997 he joined Governor Whitman of New Jersey in pushing the EPA to establish “stricter limits on smog.”
In 1994 Weld led his administration in pushing for the EPA to require an electric car mandate. The New York Times reported:
In Massachusetts, the Environmental Affairs Secretary, Trudy Coxe, said that the state Legislature adopted the California plan and that the measure was signed by then — Gov. Michael S. Dukakis. Gov. William F. Weld, a Republican, supports the program, she said.
Among the stipulations that New York and Massachusetts agreed to is a requirement that 2 percent of the cars offered for sale in the 1998 model year be electric.
Full Throated Endorsement of Barack Obama
Only a statist would have ever endorsed Barack Obama over John McCain, who was hardly an orthodox conservative in 2008. Obama was already known to be a radical leftist in 2008, when Weld endorsed him. There is nothing remotely libertarian about Barack Obama.
Here’s Weld’s full-throated 2008 endorsement.
Long story short. Bill Weld is not a libertarian; he’s a liberal Republican from the Northeast. There is a big difference. (For more from the author of “5 Statist Positions That Should Make Libertarians Run From Bill Weld” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/4456052320_e693acc9d5_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-19 22:30:282016-05-19 22:30:285 Statist Positions That Should Make Libertarians Run From Bill Weld
Fear of low wages seems to be a driving force behind many a government intervention in the market these days. All three major presidential candidates want to isolate the United States from international trade to allegedly protect American jobs and high wages. President Obama is extending overtime pay eligibility to millions of workers. The Left’s support for coercing workers into joining labor unions is supposedly about maintaining high wages. Minimum wage hikes are popping up all over the country. And the mythical gender wage gap remains a hot topic for misguided faux-feminists everywhere.
But if these Democratic politicians and pundits are really so concerned about wages, why do they do everything in their power to stifle the one factor that we know is tied directly to higher wages? Productivity.
When you get paid a wage, it’s because you’re able to produce something that others value. The more other people value it, or the more quickly you are able to produce it, the higher your wage can be. Professional actors don’t earn millions of dollars because what they do is particularly difficult or labor intensive, it’s because they are providing a service to a large number of viewers simultaneously, and those viewers are willing to pay to see them. Film actors make more than stage actors, simply because their audience is bigger. Their labor is more productive, meaning it provides more value to a greater number of people.
Because business owners don’t like to lose money, no one is going to voluntarily pay you more than the value of what you can produce. Otherwise, they could simply save money by firing you, and that’s what they would do.
This simple truth seems to have eluded many on the political Left who believe you can mandate wages irrespective of productivity. Instead of passing new laws and regulations on employers, anyone truly interested in promoting higher wages should be focused on making people more productive, so that they can earn more for doing the same amount of work.
How can we do that? There are a couple of ways. First, we can allow people to become more productive by increasing their skills and education. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has crushed the life out of primary and secondary education through policies like Common Core and an opposition to meaningful school choice.
And while the president would no doubt tout his support of “higher education for all” as a step towards increasing productivity, what he has in fact done is steered students away from technical and vocational schools, despite a widespread demand for jobs like welders, plumbers, and electricians. Due to the increasing scarcity of these skills, it is possible to make six figures with a two-year degree, but you’d never know it from listening to the elites trying to funnel more and more students into liberal arts colleges, where they will have to take out expensive student loans to earn a degree few employers value all that much.
Another way to improve productivity is to embrace technological advances. Yet, like Luddites terrified of change and advancement, we have seen progressives systematically try to destroy not only the opportunities for innovation, but even the new technologies that already exist. From the Internet sales tax, to the FDA dragging its feet on approving new medical devices, to increased regulations on Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, and other disruptive technologies, the government does everything it can to prevent improvements in the way of doing business.
This is bad for productivity. These innovations allow workers to produce more value with less effort, in less time, which in turn will allow them to earn more money. Instead of cracking down on these new technologies, we should get government out of the way and allow human invention to flourish.
So the next time a progressive tells you they’re concerned about low wages, don’t believe them. What they’re really concerned about is protecting the interests of certain groups — labor unions, green energy companies, well-connected incumbents — at the expense of everyone else. (For more from the author of “Here’s Why Progressives’ Wage Pandering Is a Load of B.S.” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/New_McDonalds_restaurant_in_Mount_Pleasant_Iowa-1.jpg7441024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-19 22:12:392016-05-19 22:12:39Here’s Why Progressives’ Wage Pandering Is a Load of B.S.