Follow by Email

Search This Blog

Pageviews past week

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Vol 08 No 03 Liberty ViewsLetter 01-014-2012

Vol 08 No 03 Liberty ViewsLetter 01-014-2012
Eighth Year, Issue 309
The announcement of a new Liberty ViewsLetter goes to 614 up 12 subscribers

We invite your comments and feedback. We invite your submissions; articles you have read. Send us a link. Or you can send us something you have written yourself.

Managing Editor Chuck McGlawn Chuckest@aol.com
Contributing Editors
Walter Clark/Paula Clark
Chuck McGlawn

To subscribe, unsubscribe, comment or to submit, go to > Liberty  ViewsLetter

PreViews
Congratulations, if you are reading this you have successfully responded to and navigated your way to the third issue of our new Liberty Views Website. The format will be much the same as before. Our major sections will be  LibertyViews Where we present an abbreviation or Quotes From Commentaries from reliable sources with links to the FULL ARTICLE. Starting with the lead article, that we call Your Must Read for the Week. The NewsViews where we will present an abbreviation or Quotes From Liberty significant news articles from very diverse sources with links to the FULL ARTICLE. We will also continue to include  ChallengeViews, WordViews, ReaderViews,  AnnounceViews and Audio/VideoViews. There is another element, least important but most demanding, that being called PersonalViews. Each element is separated by a joke, a quote or some interesting trivia. Please Read on…



LibertyViews

Your Must Read For The Week  Investment or Malinvestment?
Mises Daily: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 by Igor Karbinovskiy
Everyone makes decisions based on an ever-shifting scale of personal preferences — a kind of mental shopping list on which we list all options available to us that we're aware of, in order from most desirable to least desirable. Economists call this the "law of marginal utility." We choose that option we find most desirable — why would we ever pick an option that is less desirable than another (whatever "desirable" means to us)? I am not suggesting that every choice we make is made with our personal, selfish benefit in mind, at least not material benefit. I am simply pointing out that anything we do in the absence of coercion — even giving gifts — we do because we want to do it. So if we go into a store and choose one product over another, it is because we valued that product more than the other.
If we accept that some products are desirable and others aren't, then it follows logically that the real estate, equipment, labor, raw materials, and money involved in their creation are also either desirably employed or not. Anything invested in creation of goods that no one wants ("bads," really) is wasted — as was my time in writing the unwanted article — and should be reallocated toward creation of goods people actually want. On the other hand, assets invested in the creation of goods that everyone wants most urgently are clearly put to best possible use, and any effort to reallocate them toward any other use would result in a reduction in everyone's standard of living.
I invite, encourage, entice, influence, pressure, persuade, cajole, coax, plead, request can I demand? Or would a threat of bodily harm move you to read FULL ARTICLE at http://mises.org/daily/5864/Investment-or-Malinvestment This is NECESSARY INFORNATION, making it a MUST READ. GET THE FACTS CONTAINED IMPRINTED ON YOUR MIND. THEN YOU WILL UNDERSTAND AND BE READY TO PRESENT COGENT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS SUBJECT. READ THE FULL ARTICLE and then FORWARD IT TO EVERYONE ON YOUR E-MAILLIST.
PersonalViews  “Ron Paul Can’t Winby Chuck McGlawn 01/13/2012
“Ron Paul Cannot win the Republican nomination” DO NOT BELIEVE IT. The opposition  doesn’t believe it. Because if they did believe it they would ignore him like they did in 1986, in 2008, and for as long as they could in the 2012 election cycle. The “ignore him, and perhaps he will go away” tactic is not working this time. You saw it, even John Stewart of The Daily Show saw it. When the news reports the results of the #1 candidate, the #2 candidate then the #4 candidate, and Ron Paul was the #3 candidate it is so obvious that it becomes joke material.

With every Republican President from Nixon, Ford, skip Reagan, Bush one and Bush two being a huge disappoint to the Conservatives you would expect them to embrace the one candidate with the most consistent message. With the flaw of every former Republican President being his ignoring the Constitution, you would expect Conservatives to embrace the one candidate that has twenty year a pro-Constitution voting record.

Look at the Anti-Paul line-up. That is supposed to be on “our side” Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Larry Elder, Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt. The Champions of Conservativism become the champions of hypocrisy.  

Hypocrisy should be the “Kiss of Death” for Romney Gingrich and Santorum, but there they are growing in popularity, taking pot shots at the only truly Americanist in the race.  

The “Anybody but Obama” mantra has been oversold. We now have millions of Conservative voters that can be maneuvered into a vote for Romney for fear that Ron Paul will not beat Obama. Give me a “he can’t get anything passed a Republican Congress” Obama over a “he is not the perfect Republican but we must support” McCain every time. I stand by that. The liberties of the American people were more protected by the ineffectual Obama than a trusted McCain.

Let me end with this; Michael Medved routinely tries to dissuade Ron Paul supporters any time one Calls his show. Hugh Hewitt did three hours of Anti-Ron Paul on Friday 13. He was taking only calls from listeners in South Carolina and Florida. If a caller supported Romney, Gingrich or Santorum he would take the call and perhaps correct some misconception the caller ay harbor. But as for their choice of candidates was never called into question, that is unless they were leaning toward Ron Paul or they were outright supporters. If he got a leaner he would undermine their reasons for their choice. If he got a Paul supporter and he couldn’t shake their support he would say they are throwing their vote away.

Do not be taken in by the “Ron Paul can’t win” crowd.    Ron Paul for President 2012.
*********************************
A sandwich walks in to bar.
The barman says, "Sorry, we don't serve food in here."

A jumper cable walks into a bar.
The barman says "I'll serve you, but better not try to start anything."
**********************************
ChallengeViews  There is a eight letter word that means a collection of tunes. = Melodies. Make that word singular and you get a girls name. = Melody, Remove the last two letters of the girls name and you get (phonetically) a word that means calm. = Melo, Remove the last letter and you get a man’s name. = Mel, Remove the last letter and you get a personal pronoun. = me  Remove the last letter, and triple what is left and you get the sound you make when soup is good. = mmm. And  jscoby11 was the first with the correct answer.
This Week’s Challenge. What Letter Comes Next In This Series?  W L C N I T   ? Send your answer to Chuckest@aol.com . Answer posted next week.
**********************************
What's Irish and sits outside in the summertime?
Patty O'Furniture!

An Impotent Loser is a guy who can't even get his hopes up.

**********************************
ReaderViews This feature my go defunct with the built in “Comment” section.
Dear Editor, "A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth."  Albert Einstein

To Congressman Ron Paul, the only federal elected official who will stand up for America on the Congressional floor.   Book Dedication.
     
I found these interesting openings to books by Jesse Ventura.   I don't always agree with him, but at least he makes me think.  I believe that if two people agree on everything, then one of them is unnecessary.
Margie G.
**********************************
Two hydrogen atoms meet. One says "I've lost my electron."
The other says. "Are you sure?" The first replies, Yes, I'm positive."

Adam to Eve: I'll wear the plants in this family!
**********************************

Ron Paul, Foreign Policy, and the Republican Mainstream by Jacob G. Hornberger            One of the most fascinating aspects of the Ron Paul campaign is the standard reaction of his opponents to Paul’s foreign-policy positions. They say that Paul's libertarian foreign-policy views are outside the Republican mainstream. What is the Republican mainstream view on foreign policy? Here are its essential components:
1. Undeclared wars.
2. Wars of aggression — that is, wars in which the United States is the attacking nation.
3. Invasions and occupations.
4. Kidnapping.
5. Torture.
6. Rendition.
7. Indefinite military detention without trial.
8. Military tribunals.
9. Foreign aid, including to dictatorships.
10. An empire of 1,000 military bases in 130 nations around the world.
11. A national security state, consisting of a military-industrial complex, a standing army, and the CIA.
12. A conflation of government and country.
13. A “My government, never wrong” sense of patriotism.
Those are the things that characterize U.S. foreign policy within the mainstream of the Republican Party. Ironically, they also represent the views of President Obama and the mainstream of the Democratic Party. That’s what the mainstream in both political parties says America is all about and should be all about. Ron Paul and the libertarians stand against all those things. Read all at, http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2012-01-12.asp
**********************************
Take a closer look at Ron Paul
You’ll see he’s the best of them all
With big cuts in spending
Toward the deficit’s ending
He’ll prevent our economy’s fall
                                  By Chuck McGlawn
**********************************

Quotes from (All emphasis added)
Immigration and American Jobs By Madeline Zavodny Dec. 12, 2012
Professor of economics at Agnes Scott College. mzavodny@agnesscott.edu
To better understand the potential for immigration policy to help rejuvenate the US economy, policymakers need answers to basic questions such as  whether the foreign born take jobs from the native born or instead create more jobs, on balance, and what types of immigrants generate the most jobs for native-born workers.  

Immigrants with advanced degrees boost employment for US natives. This effect is most dramatic for immigrants with advanced degrees from US universities working in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

For every 100 H-1B workers added results in an additional 183 jobs among US natives. For every 100 H-2B workers added results in an additional 464 jobs among US natives. For every 100 H-2A lowest skilled workers added, the study found results were positive.

The analysis yields no evidence that foreign born workers hurt US employment. Even under the current immigration pattern do not indicate that immigration leads to fewer jobs for US natives.

Highly educated immigrants pay far more in taxes than they receive in benefits. In 2009, the average foreign-born adult with an advanced degree paid over $22,500 in federal, state, and Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA, or Social Security and Medicare) taxes, while their families received benefits one-tenth that size through government transfer programs like cash welfare, unemployment benefits, and Medicaid.

The findings here suggest that expanding the H-1B program for skilled temporary foreign workers would increase employment for US natives. Similarly, this study suggests that the H-2B program for seasonal, less-skilled workers leads to significant employment gains for US natives. But both these programs are severely limited under current law. Only 85,000 H-1B visas and 66,000 H-2B visas are available each fiscal year.

The debate on ways to increase employment has focused on government spending, tax cuts, and new training and education initiatives. One area that has received little attention for its job-generating possibilities is immigration policy. Too little has been done to identify incremental changes to existing immigration policy that could be made immediately and would boost employment and accelerate the country’s economic recovery.

Unskilled immigration has a small but positive effect on output, or gross domestic product (GDP). Immigration reduces the cost of labor-intensive goods and services. The foreign born boost invention and innovation, and they are more likely than US natives to start businesses.

Immigration appears to encourage US natives to upgrade their skills through additional education or training.
Studies indicate that immigration may have a small positive effect on Americans’ wages.

**********************************
Never be afraid to try something new. Remember,
Amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic.

Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled.
**********************************
Audio/VideoViews Ron Paul on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano
Ron Paul: Sen. Jim DeMint Is Helping Me Shift the Debate to the Issues
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ojvPxZIpCc&feature=player_embedded
**********************************
I don't do drugs anymore 'cause I find I get the same effect just standing up fast.  
 Money can't buy happiness, but it sure makes misery easier to live with.
**********************************
More LibertyViews: Just a headline, a grabber and a link.
The income inequality myth by Michael D. Tanner Cato Institute
Americans fail to account for non-cash social-welfare benefits such as food stamps, housing subsidies, and Medicaid www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=14003
Be careful what you wish for by Russ Roberts Cafe Hayek (01/10/12)
But this document will give you an idea of why Wall Street’s money flowed to this sector rather than elsewhere.” cafehayek.com/2012/01/be-careful-what-you-wish-for.html 
Opposing imperialism is not isolationism by Sheldon Richman ." (01/12/12)
Future of Freedom Foundation             "When pundits and rival politicians call Ron Paul an 'isolationist,' they mislead the American people, and they know it. Ron Paul is for unilateral, unconditional free trade. http://www.fff.org/comment/com1201h.asp
Give me a dozen examples by Bryan Caplan EconLog
"People often estimate probabilities based on how easy it is to think of examples. (01/12/12) http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/give_me_a_dozen.html


NewsViews

Report: Drug OD deaths rise fast Los Angeles Times
"The number of drug deaths in the U.S. continued to climb in 2010 .... The preliminary 2010 data do not show what types of drugs were involved in the deaths. But a Los Angeles Times examination last year of recent government data found that prescription drugs, especially painkillers and anti-anxiety drugs, accounted for more fatal overdoses than heroin and cocaine combined." [editor's note: How to bury the lead! it's well into the story when you first notice how Big Pharma- concocted poisons lead the list here - SAT] (01/11/12) http://tinyurl.com/8869zyz
**********************************
If life deals you lemons, make lemonade; if it deals you tomatoes, make Bloody Marys.
You gotta break some eggs to make a real mess on the neighbor's car!
**********************************
SOPA: Reddit Confirms Jan. 18 Blackout; Wikipedia, Others May Follow
By Graeme McMillan | @graemem | January 12, 2012
It’s on — at least partially: Reddit has announced that it will go dark for 12 hours to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has said that he hopes to coordinate with the site so that Wikipedia does the same. Will other sites join in? Should we prepare for the Great Internet Strike of 2012?

Writing that it’s “not taking this action lightly,” Reddit announced on Tuesday that it will black out its site on Jan. 18 for 12 hours, starting at 8 a.m. E.T. During that period, the site’s content will be replaced with “a simple message about how the PIPA/SOPA legislation would shut down sites like reddit, link to resources to learn more, and suggest ways to take action.” The company will also run a live video stream of that day’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on Internet security, intellectual property and economic growth.Read more: http://techland.time.com/2012/01/12/sopa-reddit-confirms-january-18-blackout-wikipedia-and-others-may-follow/#ixzz1jMBXI8H0
**********************************
If all the people who go to sleep in church were laid end to end they would be a lot more comfortable.
A knowledge of the path cannot be substituted for putting one foot in
front of the other.
**********************************
Court limits E-Verify in Louisiana to new hires Houma Today 01/07/2012
A law passed in the last legislative session would have required that all contractors bidding on public jobs verify the immigration status of all their employees . . . but a lawsuit filed in October by the Louisiana Associated General Contractors contends that the new requirement violates federal laws, which say the electronic system is to be used for new hires, not existing employees . . . read more  

**********************************
Women fake orgasm, because men fake foreplay.

Every ethnic joke starts with a look over your shoulder.
**********************************
More NewsViews Just a headline, a grabber and a link..

Study says every star has planets  BBC News [UK]   (01/11/12)
"Every star twinkling in the night sky may host at least one planet, 10 billion Earth-sized planets in our galaxy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16515944

SCOTUS says no to new rule on eyewitness testimony Christian Science Monitor
Court  declined to create a new constitutional rule that would have required judges to test the reliability of eyewitness testimony. (01/11/12) http://tinyurl.com/73pyqrb

Study: Pot doesn't harm lung function Arizona Republic
"Smoking a joint once a week or a bit more apparently doesn't harm the lungs, suggests a 20-year study. (01/11/12) http://tinyurl.com/75lnquk

Warren Buffett, to match GOP donations to pay down deficit The Raw Story 1/11/12
Tycoon has challenged Republicans in Congress to make personal contributions to cut the US deficit, vowing to match their donations dollar-for-dollar http://tinyurl.com/6mp276x

FBI agent admits deleting emails amid terror probe Houston Chronicle (01/12/12)
FBI agent deleted emails covering several months of investigation, that reveal agents skirted interrogation rules regarding Mohamed Ibrahim Ahmed. tinyurl.com/6nv5n39
*********************************
42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

I am a nobody, and nobody is perfect; therefore I am perfect.
**********************************
WordViews by Walt Clark
vitiate  VISH-ee-ayt  (transitive verb) : To make faulty or imperfect; to render defective; to   impair; as, "exaggeration vitiates a style of writing."  To corrupt morally; to debase.   
: To render ineffective; as, "fraud vitiates a contract."   
 
SYNONYMS:
demoralize reduces rather than cancels and has to do with an attitude (confidence, morale) rather than

 a state  
impair reduces like demoralize, but affects things of value other than confidence and morale.
void is a complete reduction like vitiate, but has to do with things that can be made to vanish rather be

 made just ineffective.
 
WORD WISE: Vitiate comes from Latin vitiare, from vitium, "fault." It is related to vice (a moral

 failing or fault),  which comes from vitium via French.   
 
QUOTE: "Their religious convictions and conduct were held to be vitiated by hideous error."   --David Vital, A People Apart   
This is not the end it is The Beginning     
Begin to share some of this information with others.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

No one is opposed to high degreed immigrants who come to America the LEGAL WAY and enter our workforce, Mr. McGlawn.

For some reason you can't differentiate between the terms LEGAL and ILLEGAL. Please spend some time learning the difference.

chuckest said...

A4 said, "No one is opposed to high degreed immigrants who come to America the LEGAL WAY and enter our workforce, Mr. McGlawn."

A4, I am trying to understand your thinking. What you are saying is that their is a god of legal and illegal. Therefore when the high degreed immigrants that are given a Green Card what they do under those conditions is somehow blessed by the immigrant god to be productive, and create jobs, pay taxes. But the day their Green Card expires, they become invaders, job stealers and social service cheats?

Is that what you are saying A4?

chuckest said...

A4 said, "For some reason you can't differentiate between the terms LEGAL and ILLEGAL."

Oh, I know the difference. It is ONLY TWO LETTERS, IL. Without the IL migrants are wonderful workers, great contributors to the success of our economy. But, when we put that IL onto their lable they become the scum of the earth invaders, job stealers and a drag on the US economy.

Let me ask you this A$, if they made stupid against the law, would you turn yourself in for prosecution?

Anonymous said...

"
A4, I am trying to understand your thinking. What you are saying is that their is a god of legal and illegal. Therefore when the high degreed immigrants that are given a Green Card what they do under those conditions is somehow blessed by the immigrant god to be productive, and create jobs, pay taxes. But the day their Green Card expires, they become invaders, job stealers and social service cheats?"

That's right. It is a PRIVILEGE for them to enter our country and obtain a job. A privilege that can ONLY BE ACQUIRED by LEGAL AUTHORIZATION. It is OUR country - NOT THEIR country. We are a nation of LAWS. That's why no one can enter your home and live inside of it without YOUR authorization. BECAUSE WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS!! That's what makes us CIVILIZED. All other nation operate the same way. And if someone enters their nations UNLAWFULLY they get thrown out. Not a difficult concept except for people like you, Mr. McGlawn!!!

Anonymous said...

"Oh, I know the difference. It is ONLY TWO LETTERS, IL. Without the IL migrants are wonderful workers, great contributors to the success of our economy. But, when we put that IL onto their lable they become the scum of the earth invaders, job stealers and a drag on the US economy"

So you are a selective anarchist, eh Mr. McGlawn???

If someone enters YOUR home WITHOUT YOUR authorization you will call the police to have them removed.

But if someone enters our country unlawfully and violates our US immigration laws - you want them to stay.

Why don't you invite one of these illegal families into your home and offer to give them free rent and to pay for their medical bills and education, Mr. McGlawn.

Oh wait. That's wouldn't be fair, would it????

Now how much of this will you censor??? :)

chuckest said...

Let me understand, you believe, that the day their Green Card expires, they become invaders, job stealers and social service cheats?"

That's right. It is a PRIVILEGE for them to enter our country and obtain a job. A privilege that can ONLY BE ACQUIRED by LEGAL AUTHORIZATION.

So if they passed a law that said something like, "We, your National Government are AUTHORIZING twelve US Soldiers to live in your home. They will arrive tomorrow" You would welcome them into your home without objection?

chuckest said...

Hello A4, Let me inform you what you are rubber stamping by using your definition of "The Rule of Law".

It means you are OK with the Patriot Act, that AUTHORIZES the FBI to enter your home when you are not there, then copy the contents of your computers, and not inform you of their action for ninety days?

To collect all of your e-mails and search them foe key phrases that could land you on a "No Fly" list or worse.

To empower the Federal Government to go to your bank and take all of your financial records. Telling the banker he is subject to ten years in jail and or a $10,000 fine if the banker notifies you.

It means you are OK with the National Defense Authorization Act, which empowers the Federal Government to literally kidnap you, incarcerate you for an unlimited time without notifying anyone, and deprive you of legal services.

The RULE of LAW as I understand it would prohibit all of those things. You need to Google Rule of Law and do some reading.

Which leads me to ask, what do you read? Who do you use for news. Do you have any favored websites, Talk Radio Host, news commentators?

In short, how do you arrive at the opinions you hold?

Anonymous said...

"It means you are OK with the Patriot Act, that AUTHORIZES the FBI to enter your home when you are not there, then copy the contents of your computers, and not inform you of their action for ninety days?"

The Patriot Act and NDAA are recent abberations to American law and our way of life. Immigration laws are applied and followed by ALL civilized nations. All civilized nations protect their borders from illegal invaders and punish illegal invaders once apprehended. Mexico protects it's borders. Nicaragua protects it's borders. Honduras protects it's borders. El Salvador protects it's borders. Even the stupid nations protect their borders, Mr. McGlawn. You can't name even one nation that does not protect it's borders. There is a reason they protect their borders, Mr. McGlawn. If you want open borders move to Mars!!!

chuckest said...

A4 So you are a selective anarchist, eh Mr. McGlawn???

Actually no, I am an advocate of the Rule of Law. But my understanding of the Rule of Law is very different from yours.

I believe that mankind has rights because of his humanity. These rights cannot be violated by statutes. That is the RULE OF LAW.

A4 said, "If someone enters YOUR home WITHOUT YOUR authorization you will call the police to have them removed."

Yes, I would, Or I would remove them myself. Within the RULE OF LAW is the right of the property owner, to own guns to protect his life and property. . No one can force their way onto or into my private property without my permission. If someone does, I the RULE OF LAW I have the right to defend my property.

But if someone enters our country...

It is not our Country, the Country belongs to the States. In fact, the States created the Country. Therefore when someone ENTERS they enter a State. That State has the power to establish Immigration Rules, call them laws if you like.

The States that created the National Government did not give any power over immigration to that national government. I believe the State has that power, but not the National government.

You see A4, If there were just four States, and State ONE has generous welfare programs and strict border control they would probably do OK.

If State two had a very limited welfare program and strict border control, I think they would do better than State One.

If State Three had a very generous welfare program and an open border policy they would be headed for financial collapse. The demand for social services by citizens and non citizens alike would put such a burden on the productive that they would be looking for a State that didn't tax the productive to support the non-productive.

If State four had a very limited social services and an open border policy would experience growth from low wages, lower prices, prosperity lower unemployment, leading to higher wages, lower taxes, and a higher standard of living.

If the US had just four States, the ones described above, I predict the following would happen.

The productive from State One that cannot keep as much of their earnings because of the taxes required to support the generous social services. Would relocate their businesses to State Four.

The Social Services users in State Three as the tax base dwindled from business failure would move to State one, accelerating its demise.

Then entrepreneurs from State Four would find fire sale prices on buildings and land, in State Three. and social services users on bare existence willing to work for low wages, rents would be low, prices would be low and importantly taxes would be low. Their open border policy would attract additional low wage workers and State Three would little by little become like State four.

State Two, Run by A4 would become a ghost State, and the last to be reclaimed by liberty because of the restrictive immigration policy.

The last thing that happens is A4 finally admits that Liberty, and a free market is the only way to prosperity.

chuckest said...

I have deleted the last two postings by A4. He said nothing new, he said nothing relevant, and he claims victory over a multitude of Studies conducted by Degreed economist that he contradicts with just his OPINIONS.

I have invited him to continue our debate outside the Blog platform. He had not responded. I have asked from where he gets his misinformation, so that I may point him to more reliable sources. He has not responded.

I am reluctant to say that A4 is the prototype for the guy who says, "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up."

I am reluctant to say that A$ is somehow bigoted, but he dismisses too much valid information from a verity of sources for me to conclude anything else.

I will apologize for that conclusion if A$ give me sound reasons for his conclusions.

Anonymous said...

You see, readers, all civilized nations enforce immigrations laws. None have open borders. There is a reason for that. I have invited Mr. McGlawn to name one civilized nation of means that promotes open borders. Mr. McGlawn CLAIMS he knows of three - yet has failed to name even ONE.

If Open Borders = Prosperity and Robust GDP ALL NATIONS WOULD OPEN THEIR BORDERS in these dire economic times. Yet not even one has done it! Mr. McGlawn somehow thinks he's smarter than all the other civilized nations across the globe! Talk about illusions of grandeur!!!

California is one of the most pro-illegal states in the Union. And California is one of the most bankrupted states in the Union. If Illegal Immigration = Prosperity California would be running a $100B surplus. Instead, we run annual $20B deficits.

You must use your common sense here, dear readers. Don't fall for the trickery. Use your logic. Use your common sense. Look how the REAL WORLD operates. Ignore the theorists. EMBRACE REALITY!!!

Anonymous said...

"The States that created the National Government did not give any power over immigration to that national government. I believe the State has that power, but not the National government"

All States have labor laws that makes it unlawful for a business to hire a worker who does not have authorization to work in the United States. In other words, illegal foreigners violate STATE laws when they take a job without proper authorization. So spin that, Mr. McGlawn. No doubt you have boilerplate answer ready to justify it tho. Just admit that you feel that the only laws that are just and fair are the ones you happen to agree with....the ones you benefit from.

All nations have immigration and labor laws that protect their citizens from illegal intruders who steal job and ransack industries, Mr. McGlawn. ALL DO. In fact, you cannot name one that doesn't. Those laws exist for a reason, Mr. McGlawn. Again, if OPEN BORDERS = PROSPERITY all nations would open their borders immediately. None do. Men with common sense who live is reality based world understand this.

chuckest said...

A4 said, “All States have labor laws that makes it unlawful for a business to hire a worker who does not have authorization to work in the United States. In other words, illegal foreigners violate STATE laws when they take a job without proper authorization.”

ALL STATES? ALL STATES? If it were true that, “All States have labor laws that makes it unlawful for a business to hire a worker who does not have authorization to work in the United States.”, then Arizona and Alabama would not have to try to pass additional laws. If the State Government thought illegal immigration was a problem, all they would have to do is start arresting business owners that violate existing State laws. After the news showed a few CEO’s being handcuffed and crammed into the back of police car, compliance to those State laws would quickly follow.

I am an advocate of “States Rights”. I support Arizona and Alabama’s right to pass ANY IMMIGRATION LAW that they think best serves the people in their respective States. I further oppose Courts inserting themselves into the process by altering the State Law in any way. If this were the dynamic, under which States function there would be a “Cause and Effect” lesson to be learned. Then McGlawn WOULD LEARN THAT IMMIGRATION IS IN FACT A DRAG ON THE STATE’s ECONOMY. OR, A4 and the people of Arizona and Alabama would learn that immigration stimulates the State’s economy.

A4 should join me in supporting a State’s right to pass immigration laws.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Mr. McGlawn. ALL STATES have labor laws or access to labor laws that forbid the hiring of illegal aliens. Certainly you've heard of E-VERIFY? MANY STATES have elected to adopt E-VERIFY MANDATES either for ALL employers in their respective states - or in some limited form, ie. firms that contract with state or local governments.

It's interesting that CALIFORNIA and ILLINOIS - the two most bankrupted states in the nation - are the only two states that do not require some form of E-VERIFY to be used by employers. Coincidence??? I think not!!!!

Here, look for yourself:

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/map-states-mandatory-e-verify-laws.html

But I certainly agree that states should be allowed to implement immigration laws that protect their citizens from the immense financial and personal damage that illegal invaders bring to their states. On that point we agree.

But you must admit that the States that are most friendly to illegal invaders are the states in the most financial distress, Mr. McGlawn.

AGAIN, that is not just an unrelated coincidence.

chuckest said...

A4 said, Yes, Mr. McGlawn. ALL STATES have labor laws that forbid the hiring of illegal aliens. Certainly you've heard of E-VERIFY?

I am sorry, A4 but E-Verify is not a State Law. It is a Federal Government Service.

The only time A4 opens his mouth is to change feet. A4 said, “It's interesting that CALIFORNIA and ILLINOIS - the two most bankrupted states in the nation - are the only two states that do not require some form of E-VERIFY to be used by employers. Coincidence??? I think not!!!!” A4 LOOK AT THE MAP AGAIN. As of Oct 2011 THIRTY NINE STATES DO NOT MANDATE THE USE OF E-Verify. An additional two States require it for Contractors only.

As of this writing ONLY THREE States require E-Verify for all State and Private Employers. And if we are going to talk about coincidence Look at (No E-Verify) FOR TEXAS. IT HOSTS 25% OF ALL ILLEGAL WORKERS in the US PRODUCED 25 % OF ALL THE NEW JOBS produced IN THE US IN 2011.

A4 SAID, “Here, look for yourself:”
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/map-states-mandatory-e-verify-laws.html

A4 SAID, “But you must admit that the States that are most friendly to illegal invaders are the states in the most financial distress.” A4, YOU COULDN’T BE MORE WRONG South Carolina (require E-Verify for all State and Private. Employers) has a 10.4% unemployment. North Dakota (no E-Verify requirement) 4.7% unemployment.

Gentle readers, do not be too harsh with A4 he has drank the Kool-Aid, nothing is going to change his mind. He will be back with more baseless arguments.

chuckest said...

WHO IS DENSE WHO IS NOT DENSE
THAT IS THE QUESTION

A4 On Jan. 17 10:54 am said, “ALL STATES HAVE LABOR LAWS that makes it unlawful for a business to hire a worker who does not have authorization to work in the United States. In other words, illegal foreigners VIOLATE STATE LAWS when they take a job without proper authorization.”

McGlawn: On Jan 18, 7:22 am QUESTIONED: ALL STATES? ALL STATES? If it were true that, “ALL STSTES HAVE LABOR LAWS that makes it unlawful for a business to hire a worker who does not have authorization to work in the United States.”, then Arizona and Alabama would not have to try to pass additional laws. If the State Government thought illegal immigration was a problem, all they would have to do is start arresting business owners that violate EXISTING STSTE LAWS. After the news showed a few CEO’s being handcuffed and crammed into the back of police car, compliance to THOSE STATE LAWS would quickly follow. [Immigration problem solved.]


Then on January 18, 2012 1:44:00 PM PST A4 replied:
Yes, Mr. McGlawn. ALL STATES have labor laws or access to labor laws that forbid the hiring of illegal aliens. Certainly you've heard of E-VERIFY?

On January 18, 2012 6:15:00 PM PST I replied with:
"I am sorry, A4 but E-Verify is not a State Law. It is a Federal Government Service"

TO THE READERS, please follow this A4 said all States had Laws that prevented the hiring of so called illegals. When I challenged that statement, A4 hinted at my ignorance by saying, “Certainly you've heard of E-VERIFY?” Then when I pointed out that E=Verify is not a State law, but a Federal Service. A4 resorted to personal insults. On January 18, 2012 7:10:00 PM PST (a posting I deleted) A4 said:
You're not that dense, are you Mr. McGlawn?

Being call dense by someone who is obviously not connected to reality is something for which Liberty Views does not provide blog space.

I would like for A4 to document his statement that, “ALL STATES have labor laws that forbid the hiring of illegal aliens.” Or say he was wrong about that.

Anonymous said...

"I would like for A4 to document his statement that, “ALL STATES have labor laws that forbid the hiring of illegal aliens.” Or say he was wrong about that"

Your ability to reason appears to be stunted, Mr. McGlawn.

All states require employers to pay pertinent state taxes for the employees they hire. Hopefully we can agree on that.

Since an illegal invader does not have authorization to work in the United States - unless he STEALS identification and works under a false social security number (which is a felony) - he does not work on the books and therefore cannot pay state labor taxes (which is a violation of STATE law in ALL states. He CANNOT be lawfully employed under STATE LABOR LAWS!!!

I agree with you that employers who hire illegals should be arrested and jailed. But we live under a corrupted government that refuses to enforce the laws. When those who enact the laws refuse to enforce them we have anarchy.

And yes, E-Verify is a Federal system but as the color-coded map clearly indicates INDIVIDUAL STATES have enacted STATE LAWS that either MANDATE or LIMIT the use of E-Verify. Why can't you digest that simple fact???