Archive for the ‘Small Business’ Category

VIDEO – DAVOS – CEO’S FROM WORLDWIDE COMPANIES TELL TRUMP THEY ARE INVESTING MORE IN THE U.S.

Friday, January 26th, 2018

 

Watch President Trump at a meeting with CEO’s from major companies from around the world as they explain how their companies are going to be investing in the U.S. economy.    Nancy

VIDEO – America First: European CEOs Go One By One To Tell Trump They Are Investing Billions Back In The US

www.weaselzippers.us/372532-america-first-european-ceos-go-one-by-one-to-tell-trump-they-are-investing-billions-back-in-the-us/

Share

5 ARTICLES ON THE REAL SITUATION IN PUERTO RICO AFTER THE HURRICANE

Sunday, October 1st, 2017

 

 

 

The pictures don’t lie.
Materials are on the dock ready to distribute.
Ships cannot unload more until there’s space on the docks.
Trucks and willing drivers are in short supply.
Mountains with narrow roads will make distribution difficult.
Apparently the mayor has a “history”.
Share

MY HOME TOWN IS GONE

Wednesday, June 14th, 2017

 

Thanks to Sandra Sauer-Bernard of Virginia  for sharing.  This is a real eye-opening account of how refugee resettlement is changing one small town in New York State.   Nancy

 

 

thermidormag.com/my-hometown-is-gone/

 

My Home Town Is Gone   by Loretta Brady

Hi! This is a blog post I threw together in response to the recent increase in refugee numbers by Trump’s State Department, in order to convey what it is like living in an Islamizing area. I gave a talk at a luncheon a few months ago that was basically relating my story of how my hometown has been Islamized by refugee resettlement. So it makes sense to do a blog post.

I’m from the Utica, NY area. Utica is the city nicknamed by the UN “the city that loves refugees!” Soon every American city will be a city that loves refugees! Get ready! So I would like to tell you what it is like living in an area where the major city is about 25% (or more) refugee, mainly Muslim

I was born in Utica, a “faded industrial town” along the Mohawk River/Erie Canal corridor, and lived there until I was 8-years-old when my family moved to a nearby small college town. I loved living in Utica because there were lots of families on my block, big Catholic families with lots of kids. You could yard-hop, checking out who was available for play. You could bike around the neighborhood. There were block parties in the summer. My grandmother lived up the street. Life was good.

My father and his father were born and lived in Utica, NY. My father was a judge in Utica, like his father before him. The Catholic school my father attended is now a community center for refugees. After I moved back to the Utica area as an adult I used to recite “Full fathom five” to the children as we drove by my father’s former Catholic school. (Nothing of him that doth fade,/But doth suffer a sea change/Into something rich and strange.)

When I had my first child I was living in New York City. Her father and I divorced when she was a baby, and when she was two-years-old, I beat a hasty retreat back home to Upstate NY. There I met my husband. We got married, we had babies (in that order, ahem), and we settled down outside of Utica.

When I moved back home one of the first things I noticed was that an old Methodist church was being converted into a bright shiny white new mosque. The local paper touted this as immense progress and featured a local woman who had attended the church as a child and was positively brimming with joy it was being turned into a mosque. If that is the general sentiment, then it’s odd that my county went for Trump, right? There are at least two mosques in the city now. They just built another.

Where do I start? Utica had always been “the city that loves refugees” but under Obama things accelerated. Muslim immigrants were suddenly in these local bureaucratic positions where they had power over you. This, in what is probably one of the most corrupt states in the union, where the power of the state is everything.

The social worker at my daughter’s school was a Muslim immigrant. I looked for her profile on the school website, I googled her, I could not find information on her background, resume, qualifications, or educational attainments.

(more…)

Share

EXITING THE MAD HATTER’S CLIMATE TEA PARTY

Monday, June 5th, 2017

 

Thanks to Charlie Hendrix of Pennsylvania for sharing this extremely informative article.   The U.S. has just dodged a bullet  thanks to President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord !      Nancy

Exiting the Mad Hatter’s climate tea party

Share

CORDRAY ‘YOU’RE FIRED”

Wednesday, April 19th, 2017

 

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was the brain child of Elizabeth Warren.   Nancy
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

You’re Fired,’ Trump Should Tell Richard Cordray

Under a dubious statute, the CFPB head can be dismissed only for cause—but there’s plenty of it.

April 13, 2017 6:56 p.m. ET

Messrs. Rivkin and Grossman practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington.

The greatest mystery in Washington involves not Russian spies or wiretaps but Richard Cordray’s continued employment as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In the face of President Trump’s mandate for change, Mr. Cordray continues the Obama administration’s regulatory crusade against lenders, blocking access to the credit that supports so many small businesses and so much consumer spending.

Why would a president who made a TV show out of firing underlings now suffer a subordinate who refuses to get with the pro-growth agenda he campaigned on? If reports from the West Wing are to be believed, Mr. Trump’s unusual timidity is the result of overcautious legal and political advice.

Mr. Cordray is insulated from presidential control by a New Deal-era innovation: a statutory clause that allows the president to fire an independent agency head only “for cause,” meaning “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In October a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down that restriction as an infringement of the president’s constitutional authority to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

(more…)

Share

TRUMP’S TEAM TARGETS FEDERAL REGULATIONS

Monday, January 2nd, 2017

 

thehill.com/regulation/administration/312229-trumps-team-draws-target-on-federal-regulations

thehill.com/regulation/administration/312229-trumps-team-draws-target-on-federal-regulations

Trump’s team draws target on federal regulations

Share

SIX INSANE THINGS HILLARY SAID IN LAST NIGHT’S DEBATE

Tuesday, September 27th, 2016

 

www.dailywire.com/news/9503/6-insane-things-hillary-said-last-nights-debate-ben-shapiro#modal

6 INSANE Things Hillary Said In Last Night’s Debate
AP Photo/John Locher


BY: BEN SHAPIRO    SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

Thanks to all of the pyrotechnics at the first presidential debate on Monday night – and thanks to Donald Trump’s Chernobyl-style meltdown over his IRS records, his business history, his Iraq war position, and the like – it was easy to overlook the insane proposals put forward by Hillary Clinton.

We shouldn’t.

Video: Fmr. Bush official Carlos Gutierrez endorses Clinton

Hillary openly advocated some of the most radical propositions in American history. Here are six of them.

1. “Profit-Sharing.” Clinton advocated making “the economy fairer.” In promoting that stupid notion – stupid, because mutually consensual exchange is by nature “fair” from any objective point of view – she pushed raising the national minimum wage (throwing thousands out of work) and “equal pay for women’s work” (read: unequal pay for the same work for men). But her truly insane line came next: “I also want to see more companies do profit-sharing. If you help create the profits, you should be able to share in them, not just the executives at the top.” Now, many companies already have so-called “profit sharing” – employees who own stock benefits. On a broad level, all companies have “profit sharing” – you have continued employment because your company earns a profit. You don’t have a share of every dollar of profit earned because you don’t get dinged for every loss. But Hillary seems to be advocating for a full-scale governmental intervention into every business in America – letting the feds decide how much employees should make in every industry. This is, as Dennis Prager pointed out today, economic fascism.
(more…)

Share

DONALD TRUMP’S FULL ECONOMIC SPEECH – AUGUST 8, 2016

Tuesday, August 9th, 2016

Share

WHY WE OPPOSE JUDGE GARLAND’S CONFIRMATION

Saturday, March 19th, 2016

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

We Oppose Judge Garland’s Confirmation

He is a friend of big labor and regulators, not small businesses.

By

Juanita Duggan  

Ms. Duggan is president and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business.

March 17, 2016

President Obama on Wednesday formally nominated Merrick Garland, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to the U.S. Supreme Court. After studying his extensive record, the National Federation of Independent Business believes that Judge Garland would be a strong ally of the regulatory bureaucracy, big labor and trial lawyers. On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of members we represent, the NFIB opposes Judge Garland’s confirmation.
In NAHB v. EPA, Judge Garland in 2011 refused to consider a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) claim by the National Association of Home Builders against the Environmental Protection Agency despite the law’s clear language. The RFA is one of the few federal statutes that explicitly require certain agencies to take into account the effect of their actions on small employers. Consider that the federal government itself estimates that the typical small business must spend $12,000 per worker annually just to be compliant with federal regulations. With Judge Garland on the Supreme Court, the EPA and other regulators would have a freer hand to impose even more costs on small businesses.
In another case, Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, in 2003, Judge Garland argued that the Commerce Clause, which regulates economic activity between the states, applies to an animal species found in only one state and which has no economic value. In doing so he foreshadowed the creative reasoning that the Obama administration used to defend the Affordable Care Act in NFIB v. Sebelius. We fear that as a pivotal justice on the Supreme Court, Judge Garland could apply his elastic view of the Commerce Clause to almost anything else.
In two other cases involving the National Labor Relations Board, Judge Garland didn’t just side with the government—he argued that business owners should be personally liable for labor violations. In other words, their personal assets, including their homes and their savings, would be exposed to government penalties. What worries us is that Judge Garland has been consistently wrong on labor law. In fact, in 16 major labor decisions of Judge Garland’s that we examined, he ruled 16-0 in favor of the NLRB.
With more than 320,000 members, our organization is the country’s largest advocate for small-business owners. When we asked members on Wednesday whether they wanted to fight the Garland confirmation, the response was overwhelming. More than 90% urged us to take action.
It is especially important that we get involved now because this year and in future sessions, the Supreme Court will hear cases in which NFIB is a plaintiff. We are challenging the Waters of the United States rule, an unprecedented expansion of the EPA’s power to regulate water. The Clean Power Plan, another massive expansion of federal power that we are challenging, threatens to drive up energy costs for consumers—and for small businesses.
Given Judge Garland’s record on the D.C. Circuit Court, is there any question about which side he would take in these cases? When it comes to big government versus small business, we know where he would stand.
This is the first time in the NFIB’s 73-year history that we will weigh in on a Supreme Court nominee. As the plaintiff in NFIB v. Sebelius, which upheld the Affordable Care Act, our members know the power that a single Supreme Court justice can wield. We cannot support his elevation to the Supreme Court.
Ms. Duggan is president and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business.

 

Share

HILLARY CLINTON FLUNKS ECONOMICS

Tuesday, October 27th, 2015

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Hillary Clinton Flunks Economics

She says we’re better off with Democrats in the White House. Is that so?

PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES/IKON IMAGES
There can be no doubt now: The U.S. economy is struggling, inequality is on the rise and too many Americans feel uncertain about their future.
On the campaign trail, I have met many of these men and women, who sit at the kitchen table each week, straining to stretch their dollars from shrinking paychecks. Families who can’t save for retirement with near-zero interest rates. Young parents who are being crushed by their student debt. Shop owners who can’t get a loan because their community bank went out of business.
We’ve had more than six years to watch the left’s prescriptions in action and the verdict is in: They don’t work. Under President Obama, the economy has been hobbled. The 73,000-page tax code is too complex to navigate without an army of accountants. The administration has added $7 trillion in new federal debt, and has doubled down on environmental regulations that crush business owners and farmers while raising energy prices.
And yet Hillary Clinton said on Oct. 13 in the first Democratic presidential debate, “The economy does better when you have a Democrat in the White House,” and she offers variations on that line when campaigning.
Whose economy is she talking about? The middle class has shrunk under the Obama administration. According to government figures and industry analyses, median-income households have lost nearly $1,300 after inflation, while the prices of food, health care and college tuition have risen almost twice as fast as inflation.
Those struggling to find work are increasingly out of luck: Labor-force participation for working-age Americans has fallen to 62.4%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), a level last seen in the Jimmy Carter-era recession. Millions have given up looking for work, and millions have fallen into poverty as a result.
Share
Search All Posts
Categories