Taking it day by day as there is no other way.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Groan... HARR!!!
Far Out!
Earmarks Are Not the Problem, Spending Is the Problem
Bob Barr
May 12, 2021
To point out the elephant sitting next to the 500-pound gorilla in the room, the federal government spends too much money. In spite of the regular verbal abuses levelled at so-called “earmarks,” they are not to blame for this massive problem. In a sense, earmarks, can be considered part of the solution. Why? Because they are transparent.
One of the primary catalysts for profligate spending is the near-complete lack of transparency in the annual congressional appropriations process. Rather than budgets with neatly organized line-items detailing where and how taxpayer dollars are spent, most federal spending results from huge pots of money allocated by very general categories for the thousands of federal offices, agencies, and departments authorized to spend those dollars. Attempting to track specifically where monies eventually are spent is nearly impossible, even for those familiar with the arcane process.
This purposeful lack of transparency is made worse due to decades of funding government through short-term (usually “emergency”) bills, where bloat and the sheer speed at which the bills are passed helps to ensure opacity.
One of the most popular Beltway novelties is Sen. Rand Paul’s annual “Festivus Report” that confirms what we have long known, which is that government is wasteful. The truly bothersome take-away from Rand’s study is the degree to which it makes clear the absurd ways in which taxpayer dollars actually are being wasted.
While Rand’s yearly opus sheds a broad light on wasteful spending, it is by definition, after-the-fact. Earmarks, on the other hand, provide a more current way for taxpayers to see how some of those federal dollars are to be spent, as they are specific line-items in proposed appropriations bills. This process allows at least a small amount of sunshine to be cast on an otherwise deliberately dark process.
Often, the stigma directed at earmarks is not with the process itself, but with the specific programs or activities to which the earmarks are directed. This is understandable. However, contrast earmark spending, which constitutes a mere one percent of the budget, with the vast office budgets for federal agencies that lack anywhere near the same level of transparency as earmark spending. We might know that a particular agency receives so many billion dollars in funding, but that is about it.
When considered objectively, earmark spending represents how government spending should be handled. In order to get an earmark, a member of Congress who has a specific need in his or her district must convince fellow members on committees to consider and approve funding for this need. If they are successful in convincing other members of the merits of their proposal, it becomes a public line-item in the budget to then be voted on, and with a “paper trail” for the world to see.
Imagine if all federal funding had to go through a similar process, rather than money just being tucked away in a “general fund” where billions in taxpayer dollars are allocated without ever seeing the light of day. Earmarks hold members of Congress accountable for spending habits far better than the overall appropriations process, notwithstanding they always make easy targets for “fiscal hawks” to prove they are “fiscal hawks.”
Not surprising, it rarely is noted by earmark critics that such proposed spending measures do not actually constitute new spending, but instead are specifically directed expenses from the amounts appropriated for the federal agencies that are to perform the earmarked projects.
In other words, whether earmarked or not, the money is being spent regardless, so the more honest conversation is not about earmarks themselves, but why Congress feels compelled to spend so much overall year after year. That, however, makes for a far more uncomfortable conversation, and one that many self-described “fiscally conservative” Republicans would rather avoid, especially when a president of their Party is the one on a spending spree.
Banning earmarks in the past did not curb federal spending, nor will doing so in the future. Unless and until Democrats and Republicans alike stop using the latest and greatest “disaster” to camouflage and justify ever more wildly excessive government spending, taxpayers actually stand to benefit from earmark spending, which affords them at least one tool with which to sift through the bureaucratic fog that otherwise hides the trillions of dollars Uncle Sam blithely spends.
https://townhall.com/columnists/bobbarr/2021/05/12/earmarks-are-not-the-problem-spending-is-the-problem-n2589280?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=05/12/2021&bcid=5a55cb012aa3d6fcb993420d497e27df&recip=6083620
Note: There are active links contained within the original article at the website posted above.
Earmarks Are Not the Problem, Spending Is the Problem
Bob Barr
May 12, 2021
To point out the elephant sitting next to the 500-pound gorilla in the room, the federal government spends too much money. In spite of the regular verbal abuses levelled at so-called “earmarks,” they are not to blame for this massive problem. In a sense, earmarks, can be considered part of the solution. Why? Because they are transparent.
One of the primary catalysts for profligate spending is the near-complete lack of transparency in the annual congressional appropriations process. Rather than budgets with neatly organized line-items detailing where and how taxpayer dollars are spent, most federal spending results from huge pots of money allocated by very general categories for the thousands of federal offices, agencies, and departments authorized to spend those dollars. Attempting to track specifically where monies eventually are spent is nearly impossible, even for those familiar with the arcane process.
This purposeful lack of transparency is made worse due to decades of funding government through short-term (usually “emergency”) bills, where bloat and the sheer speed at which the bills are passed helps to ensure opacity.
One of the most popular Beltway novelties is Sen. Rand Paul’s annual “Festivus Report” that confirms what we have long known, which is that government is wasteful. The truly bothersome take-away from Rand’s study is the degree to which it makes clear the absurd ways in which taxpayer dollars actually are being wasted.
While Rand’s yearly opus sheds a broad light on wasteful spending, it is by definition, after-the-fact. Earmarks, on the other hand, provide a more current way for taxpayers to see how some of those federal dollars are to be spent, as they are specific line-items in proposed appropriations bills. This process allows at least a small amount of sunshine to be cast on an otherwise deliberately dark process.
Often, the stigma directed at earmarks is not with the process itself, but with the specific programs or activities to which the earmarks are directed. This is understandable. However, contrast earmark spending, which constitutes a mere one percent of the budget, with the vast office budgets for federal agencies that lack anywhere near the same level of transparency as earmark spending. We might know that a particular agency receives so many billion dollars in funding, but that is about it.
When considered objectively, earmark spending represents how government spending should be handled. In order to get an earmark, a member of Congress who has a specific need in his or her district must convince fellow members on committees to consider and approve funding for this need. If they are successful in convincing other members of the merits of their proposal, it becomes a public line-item in the budget to then be voted on, and with a “paper trail” for the world to see.
Imagine if all federal funding had to go through a similar process, rather than money just being tucked away in a “general fund” where billions in taxpayer dollars are allocated without ever seeing the light of day. Earmarks hold members of Congress accountable for spending habits far better than the overall appropriations process, notwithstanding they always make easy targets for “fiscal hawks” to prove they are “fiscal hawks.”
Not surprising, it rarely is noted by earmark critics that such proposed spending measures do not actually constitute new spending, but instead are specifically directed expenses from the amounts appropriated for the federal agencies that are to perform the earmarked projects.
In other words, whether earmarked or not, the money is being spent regardless, so the more honest conversation is not about earmarks themselves, but why Congress feels compelled to spend so much overall year after year. That, however, makes for a far more uncomfortable conversation, and one that many self-described “fiscally conservative” Republicans would rather avoid, especially when a president of their Party is the one on a spending spree.
Banning earmarks in the past did not curb federal spending, nor will doing so in the future. Unless and until Democrats and Republicans alike stop using the latest and greatest “disaster” to camouflage and justify ever more wildly excessive government spending, taxpayers actually stand to benefit from earmark spending, which affords them at least one tool with which to sift through the bureaucratic fog that otherwise hides the trillions of dollars Uncle Sam blithely spends.
https://townhall.com/columnists/bobbarr/2021/05/12/earmarks-are-not-the-problem-spending-is-the-problem-n2589280?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=05/12/2021&bcid=5a55cb012aa3d6fcb993420d497e27df&recip=6083620
Note: There are active links contained within the original article at the website posted above.
Remove a peoples history, God and therefore faith and and hope you can conquer them.
Spot on.
HARR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
While nobody is watching they can do a lot of harm.
BTW, Love That Siggy!!!
We try not to talk about them here, as they reply over here, and Lord knows we do not want that. LOL!!!
Same here, I gave some things to watch for, especially anything with the eyes.
Nobody but the stupid believed to begin with.
And I ask, just who bought this book? This is one of the scams the left and the elite use to hide money.
Thanks BD.
Wow... this is not only a worthless mayor, but a a openly racist bee-atch!
Democrats Control Mainstream Media Content
Fact: Democrats Control Mainstream Media Content
Posted on August 7, 2019
by Dan Newman
If you questioned our claims that the Mainstream Media are the communications arm of the Democrat Party and nothing more, STOP! It was made abundantly clear that Democrats DO control on the most part Mainstream Media. How so?
Here is the Tuesday, August 5, New York Times front page first edition: “TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM:”
Please note: this was the ORIGINAL headline that The Times published early Tuesday, August 5th. But it did NOT last long: a number of Democrats — several of which are 2020 presidential candidates — did not like the headline and lashed out at the paper on Twitter:
Democrat presidential candidate and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, “Hey, @nytimes — what happened to “The Truth Is Worth It?” Not the truth. Not worth it.”
Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker (NJ) wrote, “Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT. Please do.”
Democrat presidential candidate and former El Paso Congressman Robert “Beto” O’Rourke commented, “Unbelievable.”
New York City Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), leader of The Squad, commented, “Let this front page serve as a reminder of how white supremacy is aided by – and often relies upon – the cowardice of mainstream institutions.”
And, of course, The Times complied. After the above Twitter assault, the NEW headline in the second edition said: “ASSAILING HATE BUT NOT GUNS.”
“Where’s the Beef?” That’s a great question. The “beef” is the “meat of the matter,” which is that Democrats control the Mainstream Media. TruthNewsNet began making that point at least two years ago. Many laughed at what was then just our “allegation.” But this snafu and immediate correction by The Times proves that the premiere Leftist media outlet in the U.S. — The New York Times — is afraid of the Democrat Party. That could only happen if there was some type of at least benign control or coordination of the New York paper by someone at the DNC.
This confirms the suspicions of many. But, more importantly, it reveals why so much of what Americans have seen and read in The New York Times, The Washington Post and many other print and internet sources for so long have seemed to not be news, but in many cases actual contrived and prepared talking points. Suspicions of Conservatives grew as they daily watched the Democrat Party mantra play out verbatim beginning on the East Coast in New York across the nation each day through newspapers in large and small cities throughout the U.S.
It has been orchestrated! And it certainly has been at least guided by someone or some group that has power — power over Mainstream Media print news outlets.
Not Just Newspapers
Ever wonder why the big three network news divisions plus CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC seem to parrot the New York Times and Washington Post assault on conservative politicians, conservative causes, and even everyday conservative voters? Their doing so actually confirms the tie between the Democrat Party and Mainstream Media.
We could play video clip after video clip, audio soundbyte after soundbyte, that prove this is NOT a conspiracy theory. For once, this one IS true. We won’t play a bunch, but how about the “parrot” (or coordinated) use of the words “Concerned” and “Propaganda” by “in your face” Democrat news hacks?
Story continues with videos at link:
https://truthnewsnet.org/fact-democrats-control-mainstream-media-content/
Democrats Control Mainstream Media Content
Fact: Democrats Control Mainstream Media Content
Posted on August 7, 2019
by Dan Newman
If you questioned our claims that the Mainstream Media are the communications arm of the Democrat Party and nothing more, STOP! It was made abundantly clear that Democrats DO control on the most part Mainstream Media. How so?
Here is the Tuesday, August 5, New York Times front page first edition: “TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM:”
Please note: this was the ORIGINAL headline that The Times published early Tuesday, August 5th. But it did NOT last long: a number of Democrats — several of which are 2020 presidential candidates — did not like the headline and lashed out at the paper on Twitter:
Democrat presidential candidate and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, “Hey, @nytimes — what happened to “The Truth Is Worth It?” Not the truth. Not worth it.”
Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker (NJ) wrote, “Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT. Please do.”
Democrat presidential candidate and former El Paso Congressman Robert “Beto” O’Rourke commented, “Unbelievable.”
New York City Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), leader of The Squad, commented, “Let this front page serve as a reminder of how white supremacy is aided by – and often relies upon – the cowardice of mainstream institutions.”
And, of course, The Times complied. After the above Twitter assault, the NEW headline in the second edition said: “ASSAILING HATE BUT NOT GUNS.”
“Where’s the Beef?” That’s a great question. The “beef” is the “meat of the matter,” which is that Democrats control the Mainstream Media. TruthNewsNet began making that point at least two years ago. Many laughed at what was then just our “allegation.” But this snafu and immediate correction by The Times proves that the premiere Leftist media outlet in the U.S. — The New York Times — is afraid of the Democrat Party. That could only happen if there was some type of at least benign control or coordination of the New York paper by someone at the DNC.
This confirms the suspicions of many. But, more importantly, it reveals why so much of what Americans have seen and read in The New York Times, The Washington Post and many other print and internet sources for so long have seemed to not be news, but in many cases actual contrived and prepared talking points. Suspicions of Conservatives grew as they daily watched the Democrat Party mantra play out verbatim beginning on the East Coast in New York across the nation each day through newspapers in large and small cities throughout the U.S.
It has been orchestrated! And it certainly has been at least guided by someone or some group that has power — power over Mainstream Media print news outlets.
Not Just Newspapers
Ever wonder why the big three network news divisions plus CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC seem to parrot the New York Times and Washington Post assault on conservative politicians, conservative causes, and even everyday conservative voters? Their doing so actually confirms the tie between the Democrat Party and Mainstream Media.
We could play video clip after video clip, audio soundbyte after soundbyte, that prove this is NOT a conspiracy theory. For once, this one IS true. We won’t play a bunch, but how about the “parrot” (or coordinated) use of the words “Concerned” and “Propaganda” by “in your face” Democrat news hacks?
Story continues with videos at link:
https://truthnewsnet.org/fact-democrats-control-mainstream-media-content/
It's worse than that. Their are marriages and family all throughout the MSM.
Soros is behind much of the attempted undoing in the US and the world.
We need more like this.
Oh how I hate both Chucky & Suckerberg.
ERRR!!!!... Get a rope!
That should put a kink in everybody must crowd. My niece took the shot Tuesday afternoon. She got so sick within minutes they sent home from the clinic she works at. While the clinic is just 15-blocks from her home she didn't think she would make it home. She got home, suffered a rash, a bad fever, headache, eye pain and said it felt like a the worse hangover she had ever had. The fever was really ugly, her boyfriend keep her cool by wiping her down and lots of cold towels. BTW, this is first headache my niece has ever had, and she is 30-years old. Luckily she started feeling better yesterday evening and she is back to work today.
Professor Admits COVID-19 Was Biological War Against U.S.
Thanks for the heads up by BD.
CCP-linked professor admits COVID-19 was biological war against U.S.
Posted by Carley Shaffer
May 21, 2021
OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 10:02 AM PT – Friday, May 21, 2021
A top Chinese scholar has reportedly admitted that the coronavirus outbreak was an act of biological warfare against the U.S. In a recent video, Professor Ping Chen of China’s Fudan University, said in 2020 Beijing won in both a trade war and a biological war against the U.S.
This comes after bioweapons expert Lawrence Sellin discovered China released COVID-19 intentionally to gain economic advantage of the U.S. and remove President Donald Trump from office. Professor Ping’s video further confirmed China’s biological warfare program served a political purpose of derailing President Trump’s America First agenda.
This as a new House Intelligence report found overwhelming circumstantial evidence that COVID-19 came from a lab in Wuhan. The report cites evidence obtained by U.S. intel agencies over the past year, saying that the coronavirus outbreak was likely a result of an accidental leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It adds there is no credible evidence that the virus jumped from animals to humans by itself, without any outside influence.
Meanwhile, Australian Intelligence suspects China may have released the virus intentionally in order to take advantage of the global economy. The House Intel report concluded by urging the U.S. government to release all evidence of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIH cooperation with the Wuhan lab on the research.
This comes as Mainland China is caught spreading COVID-19 misinformation yet again, most of which is channeled by its state propaganda media. According to a new report by the International Federation of Journalists, Beijing was exaggerating COVID fears and drumming up its response to it.
As a result, 56 percent of IFJ members said media coverage in their country became more positive of China amid the initial outbreak. The IFJ is based in Brussels and its’ members include 54 journalist unions in more than 50 countries. Amongst them, there has been a collective agreement that China has successfully manipulated COVID narratives to increase its political influence worldwide.
https://clarion.causeaction.com/2021/05/21/ccp-linked-professor-admits-covid-19-was-biological-war-against-u-s/
Professor Admits COVID-19 Was Biological War Against U.S.
Thanks for the heads up by BD.
CCP-linked professor admits COVID-19 was biological war against U.S.
Posted by Carley Shaffer
May 21, 2021
OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 10:02 AM PT – Friday, May 21, 2021
A top Chinese scholar has reportedly admitted that the coronavirus outbreak was an act of biological warfare against the U.S. In a recent video, Professor Ping Chen of China’s Fudan University, said in 2020 Beijing won in both a trade war and a biological war against the U.S.
This comes after bioweapons expert Lawrence Sellin discovered China released COVID-19 intentionally to gain economic advantage of the U.S. and remove President Donald Trump from office. Professor Ping’s video further confirmed China’s biological warfare program served a political purpose of derailing President Trump’s America First agenda.
This as a new House Intelligence report found overwhelming circumstantial evidence that COVID-19 came from a lab in Wuhan. The report cites evidence obtained by U.S. intel agencies over the past year, saying that the coronavirus outbreak was likely a result of an accidental leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It adds there is no credible evidence that the virus jumped from animals to humans by itself, without any outside influence.
Meanwhile, Australian Intelligence suspects China may have released the virus intentionally in order to take advantage of the global economy. The House Intel report concluded by urging the U.S. government to release all evidence of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIH cooperation with the Wuhan lab on the research.
This comes as Mainland China is caught spreading COVID-19 misinformation yet again, most of which is channeled by its state propaganda media. According to a new report by the International Federation of Journalists, Beijing was exaggerating COVID fears and drumming up its response to it.
As a result, 56 percent of IFJ members said media coverage in their country became more positive of China amid the initial outbreak. The IFJ is based in Brussels and its’ members include 54 journalist unions in more than 50 countries. Amongst them, there has been a collective agreement that China has successfully manipulated COVID narratives to increase its political influence worldwide.
https://clarion.causeaction.com/2021/05/21/ccp-linked-professor-admits-covid-19-was-biological-war-against-u-s/
Nice! Finally we are seeing the truth come out.
Two good ones.
He's such a loser.
Way cool!
I am sure their are others as well. I believe many in government are exempt as well.
And never in commie Oregon. Mot of the state is freedom loviong and conservative, but the Portland metro area controls this state and it is commie.
They lie so much that it is the norm for them.
Yep, this republic is under attack and We are watching it destroy US.
Same here! Sick of it and pissed off beyond belief.
Biden Sets His Sights on Destroying the Gun Industry
Gabriella Hoffman
May 07, 2021
President Joe Biden has the firearms industry in his crosshairs.
During his Rose Garden address last month, Biden reaffirmed his support for repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCCA) of 2005.
“This is the only outfit that is exempt from being sued. If I get one thing on my list — (if) the Lord came down and said, 'Joe, you get one of these' — give me that one," Biden said. "Most people don’t realize, the only industry in America, billion-dollar industry, that can’t be sued, exempt from being sued, are gun manufacturers.”
Biden’s hostility to this industry, however, isn’t new.
As a U.S. Senator, he voted against the PLCAA. Biden’s campaign listed repeal of the law as a top priority, stating, “This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection.”
If Biden’s administration succeeds in doing away with PLCAA, it’ll incur massive problems for lawful commerce of firearms and undermine Second Amendment rights.
What is the PLCAA?
The bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act became law on October 26, 2005. It passed the U.S. Senate 65-34 with four abstentions. In the House of Representatives, it passed 283-144 with six abstentions.
The law prohibits “civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.”
Supporters argue repeal would undermine Second Amendment rights in this nation.
The CATO Institute explained exorbitant costs resulting from frivolous lawsuits pre-PLCAA ran “gun makers and sellers out of business” through “litigation-induced bankruptcy practices”—aimed directly at restricting constitutionally-protected gun rights.
In contrast, the bill’s opponents support full repeal—claiming manufacturers intentionally make products that endanger lives.
Gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety believes the law “blocks legal responsibility for gun manufacturers that have failed to innovate and make guns safer.” Another gun rights foe, Giffords, claims it “shields the gun industry from nearly all civil liability for the dangers their products pose.”
Do Gun Manufacturers Enjoy Blanket Immunity Protections? Fake News
President Biden insists the firearms industry enjoys blanket protections against lawsuits. Legal experts disagree.
“Do gun manufacturers really have blanket immunity from lawsuits? No, not even close,” wrote Williams Mullens, a Richmond, Virginia-based law firm.
“Under the act, firearm manufacturers and sellers are subject to liability for any product defects, such as when a firearm backfires or explodes in a user’s hand, and certain other violations of law, such as making illegal sales,” wrote Victor Schwartz, chairman of the Public Policy Group at Shook, Hardy & Bacon. “The act essentially treats firearm manufacturers and sellers like other makers and sellers by codifying bedrock principles of liability law.”
Schwartz expanded:
The notion that only the firearms industry enjoys such protection is also incorrect. Several other industries that have been threatened with potentially crushing civil liability are protected by qualified civil immunity laws. For example, the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 bars lawsuits involving general aviation aircraft and products that are more than 18 years old, the Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 1998 bars lawsuits against suppliers of chemical components and raw materials used in medical devices, and the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act of 2005 protects vaccine manufacturers from liability exposure in the event of a declared public health emergency.
Legal scholar Jonathan Turley similarly argued undoing the law would open the door to frivolous lawsuits.
“The bill saved the industry some litigation costs, but the industry would have prevailed in such actions anyway if they were tried,” wrote Turley. “Product liability and tort actions against manufacturers have uniformly and correctly been rejected by the courts. Guns are lawful products, and holding companies liable for later misuse of such products is absurd. You might as well sue an axe manufacturer for the Lizzy Borden murders.”
The Industry Responds
Firearms manufacturers and related trade associations are definitely on alert.
BPI Outdoors CEO Nate Treadaway is very concerned about possible repeal of PLCAA, as it would undermine companies like his who engage in lawful commerce. BPI oversees CVA (a popular muzzleloader brand) and Bergara Rifles.
“We've been actually watching it very carefully and talking through it,” Treadaway told Townhall.com in a phone interview. “If that law were to be revoked and we had that liability opened back up to us, I do think it would put a hamper on some of the innovation that we're seeing.”
“I also think that it would cause prices to go up because people are going to be prepared to pay higher liability on frivolous cases,” he added. “It's one more tool of the opposition party to try to keep us from doing what we're lawfully allowed to do.”
National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the leading firearms industry trade association, agrees.
“PLCAA does nothing more than codify tort law,” said Mark Oliva, NSSF’s director of public affairs. “The law simply prevents lawsuits against manufacturers for the criminal misuse by third party. It’s just like saying you can’t sue Ford for the deaths caused by drunk drivers.”
Oliva also warned, “Should PLCAA be repealed, it would have dramatic reverberations outside of the firearm industry.”
Conclusion
According to recent data, the firearms industry employs over 342,000 Americans and has a $63.5 billion economic impact.
How would killing off this industry do our country any good? It wouldn’t.
Firearms industry workers are people too, Mr. President. Shame on you for defaming this economic sector and its hardworking, law-abiding employees.
https://townhall.com/columnists/gabriellahoffman/2021/05/07/biden-sets-his-sights-on-destroying-the-gun-industry-n2589090?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=05/07/2021&bcid=5a55cb012aa3d6fcb993420d497e27df&recip=6083620
Note: There are active links contained within the original article at the website posted above.
Biden Sets His Sights on Destroying the Gun Industry
Gabriella Hoffman
May 07, 2021
President Joe Biden has the firearms industry in his crosshairs.
During his Rose Garden address last month, Biden reaffirmed his support for repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCCA) of 2005.
“This is the only outfit that is exempt from being sued. If I get one thing on my list — (if) the Lord came down and said, 'Joe, you get one of these' — give me that one," Biden said. "Most people don’t realize, the only industry in America, billion-dollar industry, that can’t be sued, exempt from being sued, are gun manufacturers.”
Biden’s hostility to this industry, however, isn’t new.
As a U.S. Senator, he voted against the PLCAA. Biden’s campaign listed repeal of the law as a top priority, stating, “This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection.”
If Biden’s administration succeeds in doing away with PLCAA, it’ll incur massive problems for lawful commerce of firearms and undermine Second Amendment rights.
What is the PLCAA?
The bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act became law on October 26, 2005. It passed the U.S. Senate 65-34 with four abstentions. In the House of Representatives, it passed 283-144 with six abstentions.
The law prohibits “civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.”
Supporters argue repeal would undermine Second Amendment rights in this nation.
The CATO Institute explained exorbitant costs resulting from frivolous lawsuits pre-PLCAA ran “gun makers and sellers out of business” through “litigation-induced bankruptcy practices”—aimed directly at restricting constitutionally-protected gun rights.
In contrast, the bill’s opponents support full repeal—claiming manufacturers intentionally make products that endanger lives.
Gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety believes the law “blocks legal responsibility for gun manufacturers that have failed to innovate and make guns safer.” Another gun rights foe, Giffords, claims it “shields the gun industry from nearly all civil liability for the dangers their products pose.”
Do Gun Manufacturers Enjoy Blanket Immunity Protections? Fake News
President Biden insists the firearms industry enjoys blanket protections against lawsuits. Legal experts disagree.
“Do gun manufacturers really have blanket immunity from lawsuits? No, not even close,” wrote Williams Mullens, a Richmond, Virginia-based law firm.
“Under the act, firearm manufacturers and sellers are subject to liability for any product defects, such as when a firearm backfires or explodes in a user’s hand, and certain other violations of law, such as making illegal sales,” wrote Victor Schwartz, chairman of the Public Policy Group at Shook, Hardy & Bacon. “The act essentially treats firearm manufacturers and sellers like other makers and sellers by codifying bedrock principles of liability law.”
Schwartz expanded:
The notion that only the firearms industry enjoys such protection is also incorrect. Several other industries that have been threatened with potentially crushing civil liability are protected by qualified civil immunity laws. For example, the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 bars lawsuits involving general aviation aircraft and products that are more than 18 years old, the Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 1998 bars lawsuits against suppliers of chemical components and raw materials used in medical devices, and the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act of 2005 protects vaccine manufacturers from liability exposure in the event of a declared public health emergency.
Legal scholar Jonathan Turley similarly argued undoing the law would open the door to frivolous lawsuits.
“The bill saved the industry some litigation costs, but the industry would have prevailed in such actions anyway if they were tried,” wrote Turley. “Product liability and tort actions against manufacturers have uniformly and correctly been rejected by the courts. Guns are lawful products, and holding companies liable for later misuse of such products is absurd. You might as well sue an axe manufacturer for the Lizzy Borden murders.”
The Industry Responds
Firearms manufacturers and related trade associations are definitely on alert.
BPI Outdoors CEO Nate Treadaway is very concerned about possible repeal of PLCAA, as it would undermine companies like his who engage in lawful commerce. BPI oversees CVA (a popular muzzleloader brand) and Bergara Rifles.
“We've been actually watching it very carefully and talking through it,” Treadaway told Townhall.com in a phone interview. “If that law were to be revoked and we had that liability opened back up to us, I do think it would put a hamper on some of the innovation that we're seeing.”
“I also think that it would cause prices to go up because people are going to be prepared to pay higher liability on frivolous cases,” he added. “It's one more tool of the opposition party to try to keep us from doing what we're lawfully allowed to do.”
National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the leading firearms industry trade association, agrees.
“PLCAA does nothing more than codify tort law,” said Mark Oliva, NSSF’s director of public affairs. “The law simply prevents lawsuits against manufacturers for the criminal misuse by third party. It’s just like saying you can’t sue Ford for the deaths caused by drunk drivers.”
Oliva also warned, “Should PLCAA be repealed, it would have dramatic reverberations outside of the firearm industry.”
Conclusion
According to recent data, the firearms industry employs over 342,000 Americans and has a $63.5 billion economic impact.
How would killing off this industry do our country any good? It wouldn’t.
Firearms industry workers are people too, Mr. President. Shame on you for defaming this economic sector and its hardworking, law-abiding employees.
https://townhall.com/columnists/gabriellahoffman/2021/05/07/biden-sets-his-sights-on-destroying-the-gun-industry-n2589090?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=05/07/2021&bcid=5a55cb012aa3d6fcb993420d497e27df&recip=6083620
Note: There are active links contained within the original article at the website posted above.
Biden Sets His Sights on Destroying the Gun Industry
Gabriella Hoffman
May 07, 2021
President Joe Biden has the firearms industry in his crosshairs.
During his Rose Garden address last month, Biden reaffirmed his support for repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCCA) of 2005.
“This is the only outfit that is exempt from being sued. If I get one thing on my list — (if) the Lord came down and said, 'Joe, you get one of these' — give me that one," Biden said. "Most people don’t realize, the only industry in America, billion-dollar industry, that can’t be sued, exempt from being sued, are gun manufacturers.”
Biden’s hostility to this industry, however, isn’t new.
As a U.S. Senator, he voted against the PLCAA. Biden’s campaign listed repeal of the law as a top priority, stating, “This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection.”
If Biden’s administration succeeds in doing away with PLCAA, it’ll incur massive problems for lawful commerce of firearms and undermine Second Amendment rights.
What is the PLCAA?
The bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act became law on October 26, 2005. It passed the U.S. Senate 65-34 with four abstentions. In the House of Representatives, it passed 283-144 with six abstentions.
The law prohibits “civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.”
Supporters argue repeal would undermine Second Amendment rights in this nation.
The CATO Institute explained exorbitant costs resulting from frivolous lawsuits pre-PLCAA ran “gun makers and sellers out of business” through “litigation-induced bankruptcy practices”—aimed directly at restricting constitutionally-protected gun rights.
In contrast, the bill’s opponents support full repeal—claiming manufacturers intentionally make products that endanger lives.
Gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety believes the law “blocks legal responsibility for gun manufacturers that have failed to innovate and make guns safer.” Another gun rights foe, Giffords, claims it “shields the gun industry from nearly all civil liability for the dangers their products pose.”
Do Gun Manufacturers Enjoy Blanket Immunity Protections? Fake News
President Biden insists the firearms industry enjoys blanket protections against lawsuits. Legal experts disagree.
“Do gun manufacturers really have blanket immunity from lawsuits? No, not even close,” wrote Williams Mullens, a Richmond, Virginia-based law firm.
“Under the act, firearm manufacturers and sellers are subject to liability for any product defects, such as when a firearm backfires or explodes in a user’s hand, and certain other violations of law, such as making illegal sales,” wrote Victor Schwartz, chairman of the Public Policy Group at Shook, Hardy & Bacon. “The act essentially treats firearm manufacturers and sellers like other makers and sellers by codifying bedrock principles of liability law.”
Schwartz expanded:
The notion that only the firearms industry enjoys such protection is also incorrect. Several other industries that have been threatened with potentially crushing civil liability are protected by qualified civil immunity laws. For example, the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 bars lawsuits involving general aviation aircraft and products that are more than 18 years old, the Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 1998 bars lawsuits against suppliers of chemical components and raw materials used in medical devices, and the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act of 2005 protects vaccine manufacturers from liability exposure in the event of a declared public health emergency.
Legal scholar Jonathan Turley similarly argued undoing the law would open the door to frivolous lawsuits.
“The bill saved the industry some litigation costs, but the industry would have prevailed in such actions anyway if they were tried,” wrote Turley. “Product liability and tort actions against manufacturers have uniformly and correctly been rejected by the courts. Guns are lawful products, and holding companies liable for later misuse of such products is absurd. You might as well sue an axe manufacturer for the Lizzy Borden murders.”
The Industry Responds
Firearms manufacturers and related trade associations are definitely on alert.
BPI Outdoors CEO Nate Treadaway is very concerned about possible repeal of PLCAA, as it would undermine companies like his who engage in lawful commerce. BPI oversees CVA (a popular muzzleloader brand) and Bergara Rifles.
“We've been actually watching it very carefully and talking through it,” Treadaway told Townhall.com in a phone interview. “If that law were to be revoked and we had that liability opened back up to us, I do think it would put a hamper on some of the innovation that we're seeing.”
“I also think that it would cause prices to go up because people are going to be prepared to pay higher liability on frivolous cases,” he added. “It's one more tool of the opposition party to try to keep us from doing what we're lawfully allowed to do.”
National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the leading firearms industry trade association, agrees.
“PLCAA does nothing more than codify tort law,” said Mark Oliva, NSSF’s director of public affairs. “The law simply prevents lawsuits against manufacturers for the criminal misuse by third party. It’s just like saying you can’t sue Ford for the deaths caused by drunk drivers.”
Oliva also warned, “Should PLCAA be repealed, it would have dramatic reverberations outside of the firearm industry.”
Conclusion
According to recent data, the firearms industry employs over 342,000 Americans and has a $63.5 billion economic impact.
How would killing off this industry do our country any good? It wouldn’t.
Firearms industry workers are people too, Mr. President. Shame on you for defaming this economic sector and its hardworking, law-abiding employees.
https://townhall.com/columnists/gabriellahoffman/2021/05/07/biden-sets-his-sights-on-destroying-the-gun-industry-n2589090?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=05/07/2021&bcid=5a55cb012aa3d6fcb993420d497e27df&recip=6083620
Note: There are active links contained within the original article at the website posted above.
Biden Steals Line, Insults Coast Guard For Not Clapping
Joe Biden Calls Coast Guard Class ‘Dull’ for Not Clapping at Line He Stole from Dick Cheney . . .
By J.D. Rucker
May. 19, 2021
There have only been two U.S. Presidents in modern history who did not respect the United States military. Even Bill Clinton had enough respect for them to honor them publicly from time to time. But Barack Obama often lambasted his own troops as Commander-in-Chief and now Joe Biden is doing the same, only worse. He doesn’t just insult them. He disrespects them, which is arguably much worse.
The latest example may come across as a minor thing, but considering the circumstances it’s clear that he wanted this to be about him, not them. It was their special day as the latest graduated class for the Coast Guard were honored to have the President of the United States speaking to them. Biden had to make it weird.
[twitter link at website]
He was busy butchering a quote from the teleprompter, saying how the Coast Guard is “the hard nucleus around the Navy form in times of war.” That’s not quite the line, but they understood what he was trying to say. Still, they didn’t clap, and Biden took offense.
“You are a really dull class,” he said. “I mean, come on man, is the sun getting to you? I would think you’d have an opportunity when I say that about the Navy to clap.”
Conservatives on social media were not impressed.
Story continues at link:
https://thelibertydaily.com/joe-biden-calls-coast-guard-class-dull-for-not-clapping-at-line-he-stole-from-dick-cheney/
Biden Steals Line, Insults Coast Guard For Not Clapping
Joe Biden Calls Coast Guard Class ‘Dull’ for Not Clapping at Line He Stole from Dick Cheney . . .
By J.D. Rucker
May. 19, 2021
There have only been two U.S. Presidents in modern history who did not respect the United States military. Even Bill Clinton had enough respect for them to honor them publicly from time to time. But Barack Obama often lambasted his own troops as Commander-in-Chief and now Joe Biden is doing the same, only worse. He doesn’t just insult them. He disrespects them, which is arguably much worse.
The latest example may come across as a minor thing, but considering the circumstances it’s clear that he wanted this to be about him, not them. It was their special day as the latest graduated class for the Coast Guard were honored to have the President of the United States speaking to them. Biden had to make it weird.
[twitter link at website]
He was busy butchering a quote from the teleprompter, saying how the Coast Guard is “the hard nucleus around the Navy form in times of war.” That’s not quite the line, but they understood what he was trying to say. Still, they didn’t clap, and Biden took offense.
“You are a really dull class,” he said. “I mean, come on man, is the sun getting to you? I would think you’d have an opportunity when I say that about the Navy to clap.”
Conservatives on social media were not impressed.
Story continues at link:
https://thelibertydaily.com/joe-biden-calls-coast-guard-class-dull-for-not-clapping-at-line-he-stole-from-dick-cheney/