Entrepreneurs under attack ~ By John Stossel

Note to readers of this column: This has been going on for a very long time. This isn't anything that just started recently, or with the Obama administration. Local and state governments have been regulating the heck out of businesses for a long, long time. However, when a government regulation has gone too far, thankfully, some cases can be resolved in court, as John Stossel explains in this column.

However, there is more to worry about than just local and state governments and their regulations that is a threat to the small business enterprises. On the federal level, it gets even worse. Everything from what Stossel has called crony capitalism, to unions, horrible legislation and tax laws, a bad economy, the coming ObamaCare, environmental regulators, OSHA, export regulations...  All of these are further attacks on business, especially to the small business entrepreneurs. Again, these are not things that have happened suddenly under Obama, but have been incrementally put in place over many decades. But yes, it could start getting MUCH worse under Obama. See the video below:

Halt the Assault on Small Business

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

You would think that with the economy being so bad, that more would be done to stimulate small business, the backbone of the country's economy. However, it seems that all Obama wants to do is grow the size of the federal government and help out the unions; not exactly what will get a lot of people back to work. Just sayin'...

UPDATE September 10, 2010: 
John Stossel was on Fox & Friends on Thursday a.m. and I just happened to get it uploaded to youtube:

John Stossel on Fox and Friends - Entrepreneurs under attack

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

It's great that IJ [Institute for Justice] and some determined entrepreneurs win a few victories for free enterprise. But in a country with a real free market, such lawsuits would be unnecessary.

Entrepreneurs under attack

By John Stossel

Posted: September 08, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

© 2010



Every day, federal, state and local governments stifle small businesses to privilege well-connected incumbent companies. It's a system of protectionism for influential insiders who don't want competition. Every locality has its share of business moguls who are cozy with politicians. Together, they use the power of government to keep competition down and prices high.

The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public-interest law firm, works to free entrepreneurs from such opportunity-killing regulations. Here are four cases from IJ's files:

Case No. 1.

The monks at St. Joseph Abbey had to take the state of Louisiana to federal court to defend their right to make money selling handmade caskets. That's right: empty wooden boxes.

As soon as the monks started selling them, they were shocked to receive a cease-and-desist order from something called the Louisiana State Board of Funeral Directors. The funeral directors had managed to get their state to pass a law decreeing that only "licensed funeral directors" may sell "funeral merchandise" like caskets. To sell caskets legally, the monks would have to obtain a funeral director's license. That required a year-long apprenticeship, passing a funeral industry test and converting their monastery into a "funeral establishment" by installing embalming equipment, among other things.

The state board and the Louisiana Funeral Directors Association – the profession's lobbyist – say the law is designed to protect consumers. But that's what established businesses always say about absurd regulations they demand.

An unusually candid funeral director told The Wall Street Journal, "They're cutting into our profit."

Well, yes, free competition does do that. That's the point.

Another funeral director said that the law must remain unchanged because casket-making is a complicated business: "A quarter of America is oversized. I don't even know if the monks know how to make an oversized casket."

Does that even deserve a comment?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Is sustainable development global governance? ~ By Henry Lamb

Of course, I'm crazy, Glenn Beck is crazy, and even Henry Lamb is crazy, for even thinking such a thing: Global governance is already here!

What? You mean you didn't know? If not, perhaps you haven't been watching or listening to Glenn Beck or reading Henry's columns.

Following is a great documentary video of about 4 minutes in length by Henry Lamb that describes sustainable development:

June 1, 2010 - Sustainable Development or Sustainable Freedom?

Video provided by henryzeke

So are you still ready to send me and my cohorts, Glenn and Henry, to intervention? Well, if so, then I guess you better watch this next video. Because if you still think Glenn, Henry and I are completely insane, then we haven't yet united to see where "social justice" is taking this country and hopefully stop the "Transformation" of America. I hope maybe this next video will keep you thinking about that. Just sayin'...

06-01-10 - Glenn Beck - Part 3

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

American governments have lost faith in freedom and in free markets. American governments are hell-bent on controlling the use of land by private citizens, controlling the education of private citizens, controlling the health care of private citizens and, ultimately, controlling every other facet of human life.

This is sustainable development. This is the essence of global governance.

Americans must decide whether to live free, or to live under the politically correct sustainable-development regime defined by global governance.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: June 05, 2010 ~ 41:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Betty Perry was not concerned about sustainable development or global governance; she simply wanted to save money when she decided not to water her lawn. It was, nonetheless, a decision that landed her in jail. Orem, Utah, like most other American communities, has been caught up in the sustainable-development craze.

The sustainable-development process is this:

• Government provides grants for planning bureaucrats and/or non-government organizations to conduct a "visioning" procedure in a city, county or other defined geographical area.

• The visioning facilitator selects the "stakeholder" participants who will create the vision.

• The vision, when adopted by consensus, identifies goals that almost always reflect the recommendations set forth in Agenda 21.

• The vision document becomes the basis for a comprehensive plan to achieve the goals.

All of this is done by a small group of agency bureaucrats and NGO staff, with just enough "stakeholder" participation to allow the group to claim that it is a "bottom-up" vision. When the plan is complete to the satisfaction of the bureaucrats, it is presented for approval to the elected governing officials.

These plans often embrace a series of extremely detailed "International Codes," which can require that people water their lawns as frequently as government thinks the lawns should be watered.

Sustainable development is government's implementation of the U.N.'s Agenda 21, and Agenda 21 is 40 chapters of policy recommendations that affect virtually every facet of human life. Therefore, sustainable development is government's management of human life according to the recommendations set forth in Agenda 21.

The first goal of sustainable development is government control of land use. The 1976 United Nations Conference on Human Settlements declared that "Public control of land use is … indispensable." The conference then developed 65 pages of very specific recommendations for governments to use to achieve the control of land use.

Many of those recommendations found their way into Agenda 21, which recommended that each nation create a national mechanism for implementing sustainable development. President Clinton obliged in 1993 by issuing an executive order that created the President's Council on Sustainable Development. It is through this mechanism that Envisioning Utah and literally thousands of similar "visioning" operations spread across the nation.

In its wake are countless communities with comprehensive plans that allow government to manage the affairs of its citizens, even to the point of prescribing when a private homeowner must water her lawn.

If global governance is "… the framework of rules, institutions, and practices that set limits on behavior of individuals, organizations, and companies" (U.N. Development Report, 1999, p. 34), then sustainable development certainly qualifies as a significant part of global governance.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

The gap between the rich and the poor ~ By Robert Ringer

Robert Ringer is quickly becoming one of my favorite commentators. I am sure part of the reason for that is that I am now aware that he is a huge fan of Glenn Beck. That certainly helps! But, it is really more than that. He is easy to read, and he has a lot of common sense about things. This column reflects that fact.

I had to laugh while reading the part you will come across here where he has the confrontation with the progressive at a social gathering, and the hostess came along and told them that talking about politics was forbidden in her house (and probably preventing a homicide!). I've been there and have done that (no, not the homicide part), and I rarely go to social functions because when I hear progressives saying stupid things, or if they sound like Al Gore, I have a difficult time staying off my soapbox. I can't help it; Marxists drive me nuts! But then, rarely can you even come close to altering their mind-numbing thought process of envy and jealousy anyway, so why bother? Well, hopefully it so that the innocent bystanders may learn something from the conservative/libertarian/free-market point of view.

And then, there was another thought I had while reading Robert's column. Free-market Capitalism is the best system, and it works. However, there is Crony Capitalism that may be the reason why so many people get the wrong idea about what true capitalism is. Crony capitalism is where government entities somehow tilt the playing field for the benefit of some people and the detriment of others. Oh, wait, that could take a whole book to discuss thoroughly, so I'll leave it at that for now so that you can get reading Robert's excellent column! Just sayin'...

The progressive is, of course, free to think whatever suits him. But he steps over a moral line when he tries to force others to give up their freedom to accommodate his twisted notion regarding one of the most abstract ideas known to man: fairness – which is right up there with "social justice."

Right now, it is that twisted notion that has the United States about a furlong away from joining Greece as a third-world country on the verge of collapse. The only social justice that makes any sense is for everyone to keep what he earns in a free market.

By Robert Ringer

Posted: June 04, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

The main reason I'm against giving handouts to countries like Greece is that it sends the wrong message. We should not lie to Europe's socialist misfits about capitalism. The greatest gift we can offer is to help them understand that freedom is not about security or equality; it's about insecurity and inequality.

We should also teach them that those who think otherwise are responsible for our $12 trillion national debt and a federal budget deficit that is projected to be in the area of $2 trillion as far as the eye can see. Economic security is not a right, but it sure is a formula for disaster.

Unfortunately, progressives right here in our own country do not seem to understand this. This is especially true of so-called limousine liberals. I was reminded of this a couple of weeks ago when a casual acquaintance invited me to a social gathering at his home. After being assured that no members of the Weather Underground, the Communist Party USA, or the White House would be in attendance, I agreed to drop by.

I tend to be a target at limousine-liberal gatherings, and, sure enough, a middle-aged gentleman of means came up to me and, from out of the blue, blurted, "Capitalism is the most evil system ever invented."

Displaying my finest George Will deadpan expression, I asked how an intelligent, successful gentleman like him had managed to arrive at such a fascinating conclusion. To which he groused, "Under capitalism, the poor are exploited by the rich." Yikes – it was the ghost of Vladimir Lenin!

Masochist that I am, I asked him to define the terms "rich" and "poor" for me, but he simply waived aside my question as though it were frivolous. My acquaintance's wife then intervened and admonished us that political discussions were forbidden in her house, thus preventing a Sunday afternoon homicide.

Darn. I didn't even get a chance to see the expression on his face had I been able to lay this one on him: The gap between the rich and the poor is supposed to increase under capitalism! It's built into the system.

But also built into the system is the fact that almost everyone is better off under capitalism. Why? Because trickle-down economics really does work.

The U.S. government's own Census Bureau's statistics confirm this truth. Average-income figures clearly show that during the Reagan years, almost everyone's income rose significantly, while during the Carter years, most people got poorer. Does anyone seriously believe that voters kicked Carter out of office and gave Reagan two landslide victories because they were better off under Carter and worse off under Reagan?

In the Reagan years, what was in play was the so-called invisible hand of the marketplace. When people realize they can reap financial rewards by providing better goods and services to others, they work harder and longer hours to do so. As a result, the economy prospers and everyone is better off.

On the other hand, the more government interferes with this natural process, the worse off everyone is. How far mankind has advanced is not a reflection of his true potential; it is his true potential minus government interference. Those who believe that a strong central government is needed to manage a nation's economy simply do not understand the awesome power of the invisible hand of the marketplace.

Which takes me back to the growing disparity between the rich and the poor (setting aside, for now, the important question of who has the omniscience and moral authority to decide who should be slotted into these two categories in the first place).

In a mythical, totally free society, if everyone were to start with nothing, some people would become "rich" while others would become "poor." Now, stop and think about that fact for a moment. Wouldn't natural forces assure that the most successful people would become even more successful over time and thus increase the gap between themselves and those who have not been as successful? After all, they would be using the same talents, efforts and self-discipline that made them more successful in the first place.

Please, let's set aside childish notions. Of course the gap between the rich and the poor will always increase under capitalism. But that, of and by itself, does not harm anyone. The only problem is the one caused by envious progressive thinkers who have unilaterally decided that such a gap isn't "fair." Which, of course, is merely their subjective opinion.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Artistic parasites ~ By Patrice Lewis

A question for Nancy Pelosi: Do bloggers qualify as artists? Gee, I'd love to leave my work, focus on blogging, my talents and skills, and.... Oh, wait, I can do that at work... Never mind. 

I think I will go along with Patrice on this one. Seems to actually make sense to do it on my own, doesn't it? I LOVE the FREE MARKET of the blogging world. And yes, if I could eventually make it on my own in that world, I would feel much better about myself, and I wouldn't be spending YOUR hard-earned tax dollars, and it will only make what I do all the better by developing my talents and skills - on my own dime in my own time. The government should not be diminishing quality through subsidizing ANYTHING. Just sayin'...

But on an individual level, the artists I most admire are those whose art is honed in the crucible of the free market, not artificially propped up by your tax dollars. When Nancy encourages would-be artists to "leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care," she is virtually guaranteeing the output will be inferior to those who aren't subsidized. The art world as a whole is dragged down.

But hey, maybe that's her intention. After all, she's dragging everything else down, too.

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: May 29, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Recently, while attending a crafts show, I had the pleasure of meeting a regional artist named Andy Sewell. I've admired his work for years, so I broke down and bought a small print and hung it in my office. One of the reasons I admire this particular artist – besides the fact that his paintings are outstanding – is because I see him everywhere. Any time there is a craft fair or sidewalk gallery or any other excuse for artists and crafters to show their work, he'll set up his booth and display his pieces. He works hard to market himself and make a living. Isn't that nice?

This artist honed his talents and created his niche while supporting his family working in the corporate world. Only when he felt he could make an honest living did he launch himself full-time into art.

Since my husband and I are entrepreneurs ourselves, we admire others who pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make it on their own through talent, grit and business smarts.

Now contrast this with a statement by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said that "thanks to the new health-care reform law, musicians and other creative types could quit their jobs and focus on developing their talents because taxpayers would fund their health-care coverage."

(see video below)

"We see it as an entrepreneurial bill," Pelosi said, "a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care."

"Creative types" in this case merely signify those members of society who produce pointless things at government expense.

This means all of us – you and me and Cousin Mabel down the street – are forced to support artists. But wait, there's more. What happens if an artist doesn't produce art you like? What if he douses a crucifix in urine and calls it art? It doesn't matter. You're forced to support him regardless. Isn't that nice?

So on one hand we have hardworking, talented folks like Mr. Sewell whose livelihood is solely determined by how well people like his artwork and are therefore willing to pay for it. On the other hand we have, let's face it, artistic parasites who are mooching off the rest of us because they can't make a living with their dingbat ideas.

As Joseph Farah pointed out, "In [Pelosi's] dream world, artists and photographers and writers have a right to lead some privileged existence free of the burdens of ordinary working people to support themselves and their families."

And from this kind of subsidization, we get artists who do not have to depend on anyone actually liking their art. This is how urine-soaked crucifixes come about.

Subsidizing artists, I suspect, has its roots back in Victorian Europe when artists found rich patrons to sponsor them while they produced their oeuvre. Let me emphasize those were private rich patrons. If the Duke of Earl wanted to keep an artist in residence, more power to him. It's his money.

But in a weird modern twist, today many artists depend on government money. That means you and me. We're all pitching in to make sure those urine-soaked crucifixes get made.

It's not just the U.S. that is afflicted with the artsy-fartsy crowd. Consider this English sculptor who came up with the brilliant idea of throwing a million handmade clay pebbles into the sea. Clever, isn't it? The aim, he said, was "to create a handmade monument to the people by the people for the people." How lofty.

He spent 16 years making these things and estimates "it has so far cost tens of thousands of pounds, with funding from the Arts Council, local authorities and sponsors." But with no more money coming in, the artist will "trudge down to the beach tomorrow and throw the last few buckets of his pebbles into the sea."

Ah shucks. My heart bleeds. (Sniff.)

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

He wasn't just whistling Dixie ~ By Henry Lamb

In this column, Henry tells us more about what Barack Obama meant by fundamentally transforming the United States of America. And folks, it isn't good. As you will read, and see (be sure to refer to the videos at the bottom of this page!), you will find out that despite what BHO says in scripted speeches about being for "free markets," when he's not at his teleprompter, he has a tendency to say what he really believes.

By Novemember 2, 2010, it is our hope that all citizens that don't believe in Socialism or Marxism will vote all of those people out of office. If you know somebody that doesn't understand that Socialism and Marxism results in the loss of their freedom, please make sure that they know before the election in November. And if they don't want to believe that Obama and his minions are Marxists, show them columns like this. It is up to us to make sure people are educated.

Henry Lamb doesn't write these columns just for the money. He is doing his best to give us the tools to educate those that may otherwise be ignorant of what is going on. It is then up to us to make sure we share the information (like what I am doing at this very moment). Just sayin'...

The fundamental change Obama promised is this: a change from America's historic constitutional republic form of government to a new, modernized Marxism delivered in little bites with nifty new sound-good names: health-care reform; card check; smart growth; cap-and-trade; comprehensive planning; and a laundry list of additional schemes, plans, and programs, all designed to tighten the government noose around the neck of every citizen.

Obama meant what he said, and he is doing exactly what he said he would do. He is fundamentally transforming the United States of America. He will undoubtedly continue this transformation until the voters transform the Marxist majority that now dominates Washington. Nov. 2 is fumigation day.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: May 15, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

He said he would "fundamentally transform the United States of America." He wasn't just whistling Dixie. He meant what he said, and he set out to do it the minute he took office.

People close to him knew exactly what he meant and what he intended to do, and were ecstatic at the opportunity to vote for him. The vast majority of the black community who voted for him had no idea what he meant, but voted for him anyway because he was black. Southern Democrats had no idea what he meant, but voted for him anyway because he was not a Republican. Independents thought he meant that he would "change" the process in Washington and offer some "hope" for political integrity.

What he meant is now painfully clear: Obama is on a mission to transform the government of the United States of America into a government based on Marxist principles, acting to achieve Marxist objectives, using the Marxist tactic: whatever it takes.

Obama is quick to ridicule (See Video 1 below) those who point out his socialist leanings. But in unguarded, unscripted moments – without the benefit of his teleprompter – he reveals what he really believes (See Video 2 below) about "spreading the wealth" and limiting personal income.

He went even further in a recent speech, explaining that we have to rebuild the economy on a stronger foundation. There is no stronger foundation, of course, than a market in which people are free to become willing buyers of products and services from willing sellers at prices mutually agreed upon. It is precisely when government begins to "improve" upon this concept that the market begins to weaken and becomes less than free.

Obama says he believes in markets that are "free and open" to all who are willing to work. Then he explains how he believes that government should intervene (See Video 3 below) in those markets to make them stronger. He says, for example, that government should provide loans to students to pay for tuition. Why?

There is no authority within the Constitution for the federal government to lend money to individuals. Moreover, in a free market, if there is a demand for tuition loans, the market will provide those loans. Government has neither authority nor need to be in the student-loan business. Nonetheless, Obama has put the private student lenders out of business and put the federal government in business where it has no business being.

Why? Obama's Marxist philosophy dictates that the more government controls, the better life is for all. If government controls student loans, then students will study in the fields government wants to exploit and will not study in those areas government wants society to avoid.

Obama believes that government should fund "basic research" and provide "incentives" for development in energy. This is not belief in a free market as he says; this is market manipulation, which is the essence of Marxism.

A free market cannot tolerate tax levies placed on certain products to discourage their use, while providing subsidies for other products to encourage their use. Nevertheless, government maintains enormous bureaucracies to intervene in the market with extensive taxes and subsidies in an effort to control the market.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

RELATED VIDEOS:

Video 1 - Ridicule

Video provided by PresidentObama3

Video 2 - He reveals what he really believes about "spreading the wealth" and limiting personal income.

Video provided by henryzeke

Video 3 - How he believes that government should intervene

Video provided by henryzeke

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Obama's hope to control the Net ~ By Phil Elmore

It is important for you to read this commentary, as Phil explains the problems with net "neutrality." It isn't a good thing, as you will see.

Obama's FCC wants to protect you from yourself and from the onerous freedom of choice. Obama's appointed staff of Marxist czars wants to stop ISPs from managing their own property on the assumption that the equipment owned by these service providers belongs to everyone. This is collectivism. This is Marxism. This is your government grinding your civil liberties underfoot in the name of freedom. This is your president urging that you be controlled in the name of setting you free. This is those in power further deepening that power in the name of protecting the powerless.

This is countless lesser tyrannies, and this is wrong.

By Phil Elmore

Posted: April 08, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Advocates of smaller government received some rare good news this week concerning government regulation of the Internet. Where your government is concerned, however, there is no shortage of alternate paths to the same regulated, restricted and controlled future. Almost before the news had broken, statist supporters of government Internet control were already scheming to circumvent a legal ruling that has erected the smallest of roadblocks in their collective path.

Tuesday, the Federal Appeals Court in Washington, D.C., ruled that, as written by CNET's Declan McCullagh, the "Federal Communications Commission does not have the legal authority to slap Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers." McCullagh went on to point out that "Tuesday's decision could doom one of the signature initiatives of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat. Last October, Genachowski announced plans to begin drafting a formal set of net neutrality rules – even though Congress has not given the agency permission to do so. ... Net neutrality proponents responded ... by saying the FCC should slap landline-style regulations on Internet providers, which could involve price regulation, service quality controls, and technological mandates."

Price regulation. Service controls. Mandates. Do these terms disturb you? Do they disturb you further because they come on the heels of an autocratic federal agency being told it does not have the authority to control what it is attempting to control? Reporters covering the "net neutrality" ruling have blithely speculated as to whether the government might reclassify broadband Internet services as telecommunications services, giving the FCC the authority to enact price controls. This would be the first step in destroying the free market Internet Service Providers (ISPs) serve.

Price controls destroy the normal, natural, practical exchange of value for value among consumers and providers, invariably inviting further government intervention. This is socialism. This is collectivism. Barack Hussein Obama's supporters hate it when the president's critics point this out, but this is why his administration is bad for our country, for our economy and for our liberties.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Beer or wine? How government brings conflict ~ By Walter E. Williams

The good Professor Williams explains how government creates conflicts and division. His examples are easy to understand, and perfectly illustrates his point.

As our nation forsakes our founders' wisdom of constitutional limitations placed on Washington, we raise the potential for conflict.

By Walter E. Williams

Posted: March 31, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Different Americans have different and often intense preferences for all kinds of goods and services. Some of us have strong preferences for beer and distaste for wine while others have the opposite preference -- strong preferences for wine and distaste for beer. Some of us hate three-piece suits and love blue jeans while others love three-piece suits and hate blue jeans. When's the last time you heard of beer drinkers in conflict with wine drinkers, or three-piece suit lovers in conflict with lovers of blue jeans? It seldom if ever happens because beer and blue jean lovers get what they want. Wine and three-piece suit lovers get what they want and they all can live in peace with one another.

It would be easy to create conflict among these people. Instead of free choice and private decision-making, clothing and beverage decisions could be made in the political arena. In other words, have a democratic majority-rule process to decide what drinks and clothing would be allowed. Then we would see wine lovers organized against beer lovers, and blue jean lovers organized against three-piece suit lovers. Conflict would emerge solely because the decision was made in the political arena. Why? The prime feature of political decision-making is that it's a zero-sum game. One person's gain is of necessity another person's loss. That is if wine lovers won, beer lovers lose. As such, political decision-making and allocation of resources is conflict enhancing, while market decision-making and allocation is conflict reducing. The greater the number of decisions made in the political arena, the greater the potential for conflict.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Competition, not licensing ~ By John Stossel

Free enterprise should be about a person that has a desire to use their trade skills and wants to work hard enough to start their own business. Having the government deciding whether somebody is allowed to start a business or work in a particular trade is not free enterprise, and limits competition.

UPDATE: 03/12/10 at 12:35 a.m.:

March 11, 2010 - John Stossel - Licensing or Competition?

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

It's an old story. Established businesses have always used government to handcuff competition. Years ago, small grocers tried to ban supermarkets. A & P was going to "destroy Main Street," the grocers cried. Minnesota legislators responded to their lobbying by passing a law that forbade supermarkets to hold sales. Consumers were hurt.

By John Stossel

Posted: March 10, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

The people of Louisiana must sleep soundly knowing that their state protects them from ... unlicensed florists.

That's right. In Louisiana, you can't sell flower arrangements unless you have permission from the government. How do you get permission? You must pass a test that is graded by a board of florists who already have licenses. To prepare for the test, you might have to spend $2,000 on a special course.

The test requires knowledge of techniques that florists rarely use anymore. One question asks the name of the state's agriculture commissioner – as though you can't be a good florist without knowing that piece of vital information.

The licensing board defends its test, claiming it protects consumers from florists who might sell them unhealthy flowers. I understand the established florists' wish to protect their profession's reputation, but in practice such licensing laws mainly serve to limit competition. Making it harder for newcomers to open florist shops lets established florists hog the business.

Other states are considering adopting Louisiana's licensing law, but before any do, I hope that the law will be stricken. The Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm, has challenged the licensing in court, saying it violates liberty and equal protection, and so is unconstitutional.

"One of the most fundamental tenets of the American dream is the right to earn an honest living without arbitrary government interference. What could be more arbitrary than saying who can and who cannot sell flowers?" IJ President Chip Mellor asks.

Others states have their own sets of ridiculous licensing rules. In Virginia, you need a license to be a yoga instructor. Florida threatened an interior designer with a $25,000 fine if she didn't do a six-year apprenticeship and pass a test, at a cost of several thousand dollars. Fortunately, the Institute for Justice got that law overturned.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Sarah..Sensational!

From Con-Men4Palin (Conservative Men Who Support Sarah Palin and her Conservative Views)

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Sarah Palin"s keynote speech at the first annual Tea party convention in Nashville Saturday night was a home run with two outs, and a tie game in the bottom of the ninth. She was absolutely right on with her criticism of the Obama administration, as well as her enunciation of what the Tea party and the common sense conservatism movement is all about. Her best line of the night was when talking about national defense she said,"We need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at a lectern." Another great line was, "foreign policy can't be managed through the power of personality." A slap at Obama who has put forth the idea that because he is who he is, our enemies would be more receptive to America, and less antagonistic.

She was Reaganesque in her enunciation of the conservative principles of free market capitalism, and small government, with reduced taxes, and less regulation. Watching the liberal spin after the speech, the left wing media seemed to criticize her for not being specific, and speaking in generalities. But, that was exactly how Ronald Reagan galvanized the country and won two landslide victories in the eighties. She was interrupted multiple times by an energized audience that at one point during the question and answer session began chanting, "run Sarah run."

READ FULL STORY >

Haiti's avoidable death toll ~ By Walter E. Williams

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Walter E. Williams Posted: January 20, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 Some expect Haiti's 7.0 earthquake death toll to reach over 200,000 lives. Why the high death toll? Northern California's 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake was more violent, measuring 7.1 on the Richter scale, resulting in 63 deaths and 3,757 injuries. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake measured 7.8 on the Richter scale, about eight times more violent than Haiti's, and cost 3,000 lives. As tragic as the Haitian calamity is, it is merely symptomatic of a far deeper tragedy that's completely ignored, namely self-inflicted poverty. The reason why natural disasters take fewer lives in our country is because we have greater wealth. It's our wealth that permits us to build stronger homes and office buildings. When a natural disaster hits us, our wealth provides the emergency personnel, heavy machinery and medical services to reduce the death toll and suffering. Haitians cannot afford the life-saving tools that we Americans take for granted. President Barack Obama called the quake "especially cruel and incomprehensible." He would be closer to the truth if he had said that the Haitian political and economic climate that make Haitians helpless in the face of natural disasters are "especially cruel and incomprehensible." The biggest reason for Haiti being one of the world's poorest countries is its restrictions on economic liberty. Let's look at some of it. According to the 2009 Index of Economic Freedom, authorization is required for some foreign investments, such as in electricity, water, public health and telecommunications. Authorization requires bribing public officials and, as a result, Haiti's monopolistic telephone services can at best be labeled primitive. That might explain the difficulty Haitian-Americans have in finding out about their loved ones. READ FULL STORY >

Let's take the 'crony' out of 'crony capitalism' ~ By John Stossel

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By John Stossel Posted: January 13, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 When Judge Richard Posner, the prolific conservative intellectual, released his book "A Failure of Capitalism: The Crisis of '08 and the Descent Into Depression" last year, you might have thought the final verdict was in: Capitalism caused the economic downturn and high unemployment. That this verdict was pronounced by someone like Posner, who is associated with the University of Chicago and the free-market law and economics movement, gave moral support to all the politicians who were intent on exploiting the recession (as they exploit all crises) to increase government control of the economy. But what exactly is this "capitalism" that is blamed? The word "capitalism" is used in two contradictory ways. Sometimes it's used to mean the free market, or laissez faire. Other times it's used to mean today's government-guided economy. Logically, "capitalism" can't be both things. Either markets are free or government controls them. We can't have it both ways. The truth is that we don't have a free market – government regulation and management are pervasive – so it's misleading to say that "capitalism" caused today's problems. The free market is innocent. But it's fair to say that crony capitalism created the economic mess. READ FULL STORY >

My first show on Fox Business ~ By John Stossel

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By John Stossel Posted: December 09, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 People keep forwarding me e-mails and blog posts saying ABC fired me. Internet forums claim I was fired because I aired a story about the downside of government-controlled health care. This is silly. It's not even logical. No one can broadcast anything on "20/20" without ABC's approval. The truth is that my departure from ABC was by mutual consent. I left to go to the Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network because I want more time to report on free markets and economic liberty, the kind of reporting I do in this column. With two 24-hour news channels, Fox has more room for that. Tomorrow, finally, my new Fox Business show begins! It will air every Thursday at 8 p.m. (and will repeat Fridays at 10 p.m. – opposite "20/20" – heh, heh, heh). My first show will be on the "climate crisis." Or it might be on Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged." I've prepared both shows because I can't decide which I should do. What do you think? I'm partial to an "Atlas" show because I reread the novel recently and was stunned. It was as if Rand had seen the future. Writing half a century ago, she predicted today's explosion of big government in shockingly accurate detail. The "Preservation of Livelihood Law." The "Equalization of Opportunity Law." The "Steel Unification Plan." Don't these sound like laws passed by the current Congress? All were creations of Rand's villain, Wesley Mouch, the evil bureaucrat who regulates business and eventually drives the productive people out of business. Who is today's Wesley Mouch? Barney Frank? Chris Dodd? Tim Geithner? I'll ask my TV audience to vote. "Atlas" is still a big best-seller today. This year, it reached as high as No. 15 on Amazon's best-seller list. Pretty amazing. Clearly there's some magic in "Atlas Shrugged." The Library of Congress once asked readers which books made the biggest difference in their lives. "Atlas" came in second, after the Bible. READ FULL STORY >

2 ways to spur a Republican renaissance ~ By Star Parker

From WorldNetDaily

By Star Parker Posted: November 07, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 RNC Chairman Michael Steele and the New York Yankees can look back on a good week. Maybe Steele deserves extra credit. No one was writing obituaries a year ago for the Yankees as was the case for the Republican Party. Now we have a different picture. Borrowing from the words of Mark Twain, reports of the death of the Republican Party were greatly exaggerated. The operative question today for Mr. Steele and his party, in the wake of winning governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, both Obama states in 2008, is "Now what?" Will voter discontent that led to these Republican victories be parlayed into a genuine Republican renaissance? As independent voters move away from Democrats and lean back toward Republicans, which is what happened in Virginia and New Jersey, and what polling over the year has shown to be happening nationwide, will Republicans build a solid new tent? Will they rebuild their party with values critical for restoring a sick nation to health? In order to genuinely rebuild, Republicans must successfully take on two big challenges – one internal and one external. First, a notion that has divided the party – that free-market economics and the social "values" agenda are separate cards to be played – must be purged. The more libertarian stream – Republicans whose principal concerns are limited government, low taxes and free markets – have viewed Christian social conservatism as dead weight in the party. This is a mistake. Christian conservatives, on the other hand, with legitimate concerns about the moral framework of the nation, concerns about the integrity of the American family and about the ongoing abortion holocaust, have given shorter shrift to the importance of constitutionally limited government and free markets. These two streams within the Republican Party that have been flowing in parallel must be channeled into one powerful river. It is not either-or. Both are essential. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

The truth about journalists' bias ~ By John Stossel

From WorldNetDaily

By John Stossel Posted: November 04, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 I made the New York Times last week. It even ran my picture. My mother would be proud. Unfortunately, the story was critical. It said, "Critics have leaped on Mr. Stossel's speaking engagements as the latest evidence of conservative bias on the part of Fox." Which "critics" had "leaped"? The reporter mentioned Rachel Maddow. I wouldn't think her criticism newsworthy, but Times reporters may use MSNBC as their guide to life. He also quoted an "associate professor of journalism" who said my speeches were "'pretty shameful' by traditional journalistic standards." All this because I spoke at an event for Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a "conservative advocacy group." It is odd that this is a news story. In August, AFP hired me to do the very same thing. I give the money to charity. The Times didn't call that "shameful." But in August, I worked for ABC News. Now, I work for Fox. Hmmm. It reminds me of something that happened earlier in my career. I was one of America's first TV consumer reporters. I approached the job with an attitude. If companies ripped people off, I would embarrass them on TV – and demand that government do something. (I now regret the latter – the former was a good thing.) I clearly had a point of view: I was a crusader out to punish corporate bullies. My colleagues liked it. I got job offers. I won 19 Emmys. I was invited to speak at journalism conferences. Then, gradually, I figured out that business, for the most part, treats consumers pretty well. The way to get rich in business is to create something good, sell it for a reasonable price, acquire a reputation for honesty, and keep pleasing customers so they come back for more. As a local TV reporter, I could find plenty of crooks. But once I got to the national stage – "20/20" and "Good Morning America" – it was hard to find comparable national scams. There were some: Enron, Bernie Madoff, etc. But they are rare. In a $14 trillion economy, you'd think there'd be more. But there aren't. I figured out why: Market forces, even when hampered by government, keep scammers in check. Reputation matters. Word gets out. Good companies thrive, and bad ones atrophy. Regulation rarely deters the cheaters, but competition does. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

None dare call it Marxism ~ By David Limbaugh

By David Limbaugh Posted: July 03, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 All right already. I won't call Obama a Marxist in this column. Instead, I'll point to some signs that indicate that Barack and Karl might well be soul mates. At least, they have similar attitudes about capital, labor and profits, er, surplus value. Liberals, even those of the Marxist variety, take umbrage when you point out their ideological kinship with Marxism. I suppose this dates back to the days when being a communist was tantamount to being an enemy of the United States, in that there was a global communist movement intent on – and coming darn close to – world domination. Though global communism has been defeated, there remains a strong contingent among us, whose nerve center is the Democratic Party leadership under President Obama, committed to obliterating America's free market. Without getting into the intricacies of Marxist theory, suffice it to say that at the core of this political and economic philosophy is a belief in the historical class struggle. The capitalist (bourgeois) exploits the industrial worker (proletarian) by underpaying him and adding on unnecessary charges to the prices of goods and services, driving up costs to the consumer, and pocketing the profits. In "Basic Economics," Thomas Sowell puts it this way: "Profits may be the most misconceived subject in economics. Socialists have long regarded profits as simply 'overcharge,' as Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw called it, or a 'surplus value' as Karl Marx called it." The theory is that under socialism or Marxism, these surplus charges would be eliminated and goods and services would become more affordable. But in reality, socialism doesn't make goods and services more affordable, but less so. As Dr. Sowell explains: "The hope for profits and the threat of losses is what forces a business owner in a capitalist economy to produce at the lowest cost and sell what the customers are most willing to pay for. ... Under socialism (there is) far less incentive to be as efficient ... much less to keep up with changing conditions and respond to them quickly." With less incentive for efficiencies and cost control, the prices of goods might well be higher. Profits are not arbitrary charges added on to the costs of producing goods and services; nor are they attributable to artificially high prices charged by those motivated by greed. Indeed, writes Sowell, most of the great fortunes in American history were amassed when entrepreneurs were able to reduce costs and charge lower prices and to increase their volume sales to mass markets. You get the point. Capitalists don't view profits as evil or the product of greed. Their opponents – call them Marxists, fascists, socialists, radical liberals or whatever – do. Which brings us back to Barack Obama. Both his father, Barack Obama Sr., and his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, were communists. His church of choice was one of black liberation theology, whose Marxist roots are inarguable. He associated with far leftists on the "organizing" streets of Chicago, including Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Mentorship and associations are one thing, but what have Obama's words and actions revealed about his attitudes toward labor, capital, profits and government control of business and industry? [CONTINUE READING]

When will Atlas shrug?

By John Andrews What is the breaking point? Where will the resistance form? Heavy questions, but unavoidable in the current political climate. The productive members of society can only be pushed so far, some say. What they envision is not defiance of law or a reversal of the election. It is people's growing disengagement from a new economic order that punishes effort and rewards envy — the creepy future that Bill Ritter and Barack Obama intend for us. Columnist Michelle Malkin calls that withdrawal "going Galt." Malkin was the first speaker last weekend when several hundred Coloradans gathered for a free-market leadership conference in Colorado Springs. Her reference was to John Galt, the individualist hero of Ayn Rand's novel, "Atlas Shrugged." She told of seeing a placard at the protest rally for Obama's stimulus bill signing that warned: "Atlas will shrug." So what, you ask. In human behavior, incentives matter. People are choosers, not automatons. Mess them over enough and they're out of here. All history proves it. "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us." That bitter joke among Soviet factory drones sums up collectivism's ultimate failure wherever tried. [Continue reading]

digg story ~ Submitted by my good friend Janinco

Dear Congress: Leave us alone! - By Craig R. Smith

Free markets are screaming at the top of their lungs, "Leave us alone. Take your legislation and go home!" We know politicians are not the smartest people in the world - most of them could screw up a one-piece jigsaw puzzle - yet they think they can assist a market as complicated as the American economy? Markets know better. Signed, The Free Market

read more | digg story