Yes folks, the immigration give away passed cloture and will proceed.   The pivotal test-vote was 64-35 to revive the divisive legislation. It still faces formidable obstacles in the Senate, including bitter opposition by GOP conservatives and attempts by some waverers in both parties to revise its key elements.  Link 

More will be coming forth later, and a list of the republicans who voted in favor of the bill continuing on rather than dumping it.

More just in.  "24 Republicans joined 39 Democrats and independent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, to back moving ahead with the bill.   Tuesday's outcome was far from conclusive, however. The measure still must overcome another make-or-break vote as early as Thursday that will also require the backing of 60 senators. And there is no guarantee that it will ultimately attract even the simple majority it needs to pass."   More.

Roll call just in: 

Republicans Yes

Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Burr, N.C.; Coleman, Minn.; Collins, Maine; Craig, Idaho; Domenici, N.M.; Ensign, Nev.; Graham, S.C.; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, Neb.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; Martinez, Fla.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.

Democrats No

Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Byrd, W.Va.; Dorgan, N.D.; Landrieu, La.; McCaskill, Mo.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Stabenow, Mich.; Tester, Mont.

Instead of the normal 4000 crossing the border daily, the number may have increased to around 25,000. 

This is always one of the best indicators that a nerve has been hit, that they are scarred, that it's time to bring out the ole attack machine and find some dirt somewhere, and if dirt cannot be found, make up some, spin some, and invent the wording to make it more believable.  And if you rewrite history, who out there will notice anyway, and the mainstream media are not sharp enough to catch the discrepancies.

Now the Democrats are attacking Fred Thompson.

This was put out in a DNC fund raising e-mail.

"Remember the Republican culture of corruption?" the letter asks. "The revolving door of Republican politicians moving in and out of top political offices and Washington, D.C., lobbying firms? That's Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson. For years, acting wasn't the 'Law & Order' star's profession -- it was a hobby. In the real world, Thompson has made a fortune in a decades-long career as a Washington lobbyist. And just this month, as part of his role as the ultimate Washington insider, Thompson offered to host yet another fundraising event for Scooter Libby's legal defense fund. Thompson has been vocal in his support of Libby, saying that he would 'absolutely' pardon him. As he runs for president, he'll try his hardest to hide the truth from the American people. And we need to stop him. Support our efforts to get the truth out about Fred Thompson."  The Politico.

Fred, you are doing it right.  You got their attention.  They are scarred. 

A small independent college in south central Michigan with only 1200 students does not take any federal dollars in anyway whatsoever, not even students on the GI Bill.   Hillsdale College was founded in 1844, and has been independent ever since.  Not even the NEA can enter the door.  Not even the Department of Health, Education and Welfare can enter it's door.   Standing on principle works.  It does not count it's students by race or gender or by any other federally mandated means.  It is independent.  And it works.  No federal funds, no restrictions on what to teach or how to teach, who to hire, who to admit as students, and all of that other crap that is mandated by the feds when one takes even a little bit of their cash.

"The thousands of young men and young women who have studied here have been taught some fundamental truths; among these is that the freedom guaranteed them as citizens of this great country is the freedom to dream and aspire without limit and the freedom to fulfill their dreams and aspirations without interference; that our country’s greatness is the result not of government benevolence but rather of individual initiative and enterprise; and that responsibility is the counterpart of independence."  From the monthly publication of Imprimis.

Can you give that a great big AMEN.

Hillsdale went through a battle with the Department of Education in 1979 about some of the students who had taken federal loan money, and the Department of education said that was sufficient grounds to impose federal regulations on Hillsdale.  Hillsdale fought and won, by granting those students a charitable grant enabling them to finish school and then declared that students could no longer use a federal loan program.  They restated their policy in 2003.

"The entanglement of the federal government in the financing of colleges and universities, and the consequent regulation of these institutions by federal agencies, violate the idea of limited government embodied in the Constitution.

Such violations are inherently corrupt, as seen in attempts by the Department of Education to force Hillsdale College to count its students by race, in direct violation of the noblest principles of the College and of America.

Hillsdale College will continue zealously to defend and uphold, against all threats and inducements, its independence from federal government regulation; and the Administration of Hillsdale College, with the support of the Board of Trustees, will continue to provide not only the finest liberal arts education, but also national leadership in promoting the principles of liberty across the land, and it will pursue these aims in strict avoidance of all subsidy from the federal taxpayer."

Can you give that a great big AMEN.


Now, if only the GOP would learn that it pays to stand up to your principles, and not beholden to every lobbyist that comes knocking on the door.  Now if only conservatively elected republicans would learn to stand on their conservative principles and not bend to public opinion polls put out by the liberal press or to any other special interest groups.  Conservative principles of individualism, personal responsibility and accountability, limited government, low taxation, free market economics, religious freedom and personal freedom to follow ones own heart and dream to achieve success without undue interference by the government.


Click on over to learn more of this one and only college.  Sing up for the monthly publication of Imprimis.   No charge.   Ever.

In Tulsa, Oklahoma, early this morning at a bit after midnight, a van was stopped that had a headlight out.  Low and behold, the van was full of 17 illegal aliens on their way to Chicago from Las Vegas. 

"With help from the OHP and Tulsa police, federal authorities transported 13 males and four females to the Tulsa Conuty jail to await deportation, the report states. An inventory of the van turned up $728 in the center console. Police think the money was proceeds from trafficking immigrants."   NewsOK

Just passing through.  ICE has been called. 

According to the supreme rule of the Muftis, an Al Qaeda group in Iraq, carrying a tomato and a cucumber in the same bag is “obscene sexual suggestiveness”.   Smoking a cigarette will get those two fingers cut off.

Such is the wonderful world of radical Islam.

“Most Iraqis smoke and this particular prohibition appeared to have earned the ire of many locals. After an American unit cleared an apartment complex on the 23rd, LTC Smiley, the battalion commander, reported that residents didn’t ask for food and water, but cigarettes. In other parts of Baqubah, people have been celebrating the routing of AQI by lighting up and smoking cigarettes.   Link to story.



Whenever you want the whole unabridged version of what is happening in Iraq, go on over to Michael Yon Online.

If president Bush, Kennedy, McCain, Lott, Feinstein and the others are so adamant about the comprehensive immigration bill as being the fix for a bad system that was not enforced, and that the border enforcement part of the bill must be completed before any of the other provisions, then they should not mind splitting the bill into two parts.

First part is the border enforcement with the 700 miles of a double fence with all the bells and whistles, additional border guards being allowed to do their jobs, and mandatory employer tools to use to identify who is legal and who is not, with heavy fines for hiring illegal aliens.  The Basic Pilot program has too many flaws as a useful employee identification verification system, so scrap that thing and, Like Newt suggested out source the database to private industry and let them design the thing.  It's just a number associated with a name, address, sex, date of birth, eye color etc.  And, as required by already existing laws of the IRS, each and every business already has an employer identification number. 

When that is finished and the reports are made public, then they can consider the second part creating some kind of temporary worker program.

While the 700 miles of fences are being installed along with the technology, and as the border guards are hired, trained and working, create a way to keep the public up to date with the progress being made.  We have a right to see the results of their efforts and the expenditures of our tax dollars being used according to plans.  The public should also know of each and every employer that is and has been caught not obeying the laws.  This may take a number of years to accomplish, but we would begin seeing the results of employer enforcement locally as we witness a change on the job sites as to who we see working.  More of those jobs would naturally go to Americans. 

When the jobs are not available for any illegal aliens, it just makes sense that they will stop coming.  The fence is not the end all, but a combination of making it much harder to cross illegally along with drying up the availability of work should drastically reduce the illegal population.  Then the "amnesty" part of the bill will also be more manageable.

So, if they are so adamant about the worthiness of the border protection part of the bill along with the employer enforcement part, and that none of the additional parts would go into effect until the first part is completed, then why the heck should it be objectionable to them to split the dag gone bill into two parts, passing only the first part now, and waiting to even introduce the second part until all of those "triggers" are completed.

Why is that so objectionable?  Pray tell, why?

And while I'm on this subject, change the laws that makes any person born within our borders automatically a citizen.  That should be part of the first part, along with making English the official language of America, and stop requiring  states and federal agencies to translate everything into any language requested.

 

The thinking of the liberal democrats is that if congress would set an example by reducing the carbon emissions of the capital building, then the American people would more likely welcome the strange and all encompassing legislation banning all kinds of things that contribute to the global climate change (warming) theory.

"The Capitol will not only be a shining example of democracy, but of our commitment to the future. Our work today is to green the Capitol on behalf of the future. Nancy Pelosi told a press conference. "We believed that we had to get our own house in order before we launched a sweeping global warming and energy independence agenda for the rest of the nation,"

So, this is their plan to start the ball rolling. Spend taxpayers money to change the power consumption of the House of Representatives by 50% in the next ten years. Gee, now I could have had some hope there for a second when she said “we had to get our own house in order’.

I almost thought she meant that she would be the first to reduce her personal green house gas emissions at home, and that she would drastically cut the flying back and forth to California, and would use commercial flights instead of that big private jumbo jet she now uses. Or she would take the scenic route by Amtrak. And she would also reduce the energy consumption in her own home by moving into one of those retirement condos, converting all of her lighting to cfl’s, keeping the inside temperature warmer in the summer and cooler in the winter, and by driving a hybrid vehicle, and by buying a large amount of carbon offsets.   All of the things that the legislature is considering imposing on average Americans. 

As speaker of the House, she could also put the pressure on the rest of the democrats and republicans who support the global warming hogwash to follow her lead and reduce their own carbon emissions in their personal lives. 

Nancy, this is a good time to set the example.

The sad thing is that the gullible press and the gullible public will buy into her “example setting” scheme as a genuine sacrifice on the part of Nancy and company. There would be no sacrifice at all, except to Americans as additional taxes spent foolishly.

Barrack Obama, while speaking to an audience from the United Church of Christ, attacked the Christian Right, those nasty radical right-wing Christian activists who, he says, are politicizing the beliefs of the church. 

Read more.... 

Well, he was arrested and charged with the murder of Jessie Davis.

"A massive search ended in sadness Saturday when authorities announced they found a body believed to be a pregnant woman who vanished from her home a week earlier. A police officer believed to be the father of the unborn child was arrested on two counts of murder. Jessie Davis, 26, who was due to deliver a baby girl on July 3, was reported missing after her mother found Davis' 2-year-old son home alone, bedroom furniture toppled and bleach spilled on the floor."   Fox News coverage.

And by looking at the picture of the boy friend, Bobby Cutts Jr., he is of color.   I kind of hate to say it and/or imply it,   but in will walk Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton.    But I wish it would not be so.  If the guy did it, then he should fry? 

Hopefully this will not turn into another OJ Simpson telethon.  This is something the media loves to love, so we can expect coverage 24/7, and we just might get a break in the 24/7 coverage of the nasty things happening in Iraq.

God bless the families involved

The good folks at Human Events are whopping mad at the planned attempt to rush throught the Senate. for the second attempt. the same so-called comprehenive immigration reform bill that was defeated just a week ago.  And dirty tricks Reid and company, along with turn coat republicans McCain, Lot, and McConnel, Kyl, Martinez and Graham, will use to get it to the floor for a vote without going through committee, without admendments, except for the one that explodes into pieces when activated. 

What is going on, you ask?

It's really very simple:

Pro-Amnesty politicians in Washington, D.C. believe that if they can move quickly... if they can push a vote on this Amnesty bill before you have the opportunity to apply the pressure... they can strong-arm their colleagues into voting for it.

But we're not going to let that happen!

The pundits and talking-heads are once again saying that the Senate Amnesty bill is a done deal... but you've beat back amnesty several times before...

...And you can do it again.

But only if you act now!

We may have as many as 27 votes AGAINST Amnesty in the United States Senate. We need 40 to STOP cloture and STOP Amnesty. That means at least 13 more Senators must vote your way.

Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized 23 Blast Fax Messages to the 23 Members of the United States Senate who can be influenced or are sitting on the fence... it only takes 40!

Tell our elected leaders that the American people have spoken: We want our borders sealed. Demand that Congress table these idiotic amnesty plans once and for all. No pathway to citizenship for lawbreakers -- NO AMNESTY!

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/amnestyxxxivhe.html

AOL Members Use This Hyperlink

If the above hyperlink does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.

 The thrill of it all. To get to go to Glastonbury, England to hear the music stars of today, to mix with thousands of like-minded people in a beautiful setting out in the country. It’s exciting. It’s something that the young thoroughly enjoy. It’s a time to let the hair down, let go, forgot about the hassles of the daily grind called work and responsibilities and just go out and have fun, and dive into the mud. 

But the rains came and came and came and turned the grassy knolls into muddy swamps. And this has the environmentalists concerned. “Glastonbury organisers have billed this year's festival as the most ecofriendly ever but the Environment Agency has warned that ammonia in the water could kill fish. An emergency team of "green police" were ordered to cordon off the river to prevent any more damage being done.”

And for the thousands of party goers, there never seems to be enough of those porta johns, so the kids are taking things into their own hands wherever it may be, and the environmentalist don't like it.  Hey, it's just a once a year musicl festival.  Get more porta johns.  When you gotta go you gotta go.  It's a party, man.  It's cool.  It's where everyone who is anybody is to see somebody who is someone.  Hey, I'll bet your grandfather and grandmother went to Woodstock.

Yes, you got to admit that each generation since has had it's own style of open air musical festival.

"The urine that goes into the water flow is contaminated by alcohol and drugs, which also affects the frog and toad population." More than 4,000 fish died after the 2003 festival because of toxicity in the water.

But in 1969, there was not yet an Environmental Protection Agency, and the same things are happening now as happened 38 years ago, it just that now, it's a really big deal.  Now how would you find your tent among all those thousands, or does it matter which tent you end up in?

There are some amazing pictures of the festival right here and some more of the environmental impact right here.

 Since the report came out Wednesday about talk radio being 91% in the favor of a conservative point of view, the buzz from both sides have been busy as a bee.   The conservatives are saying that it’s all market driven. The liberals have been saying the government needs to step in and regulate the fairness. So what is ‘fair’ anyway?   Fair is a condition that is equitable for every one, it’s free of bias and one-sidedness. Right? Right.

And what makes talk radio not fair to everybody?  A radio station is licensed to broadcast at a certain frequency. The owner of the station has the right to broadcast whatever legal content they so desire, and of course they must adhere to certain public decency rules. The owner has invested his capital to build a station, install the equipment, hire the tech people, the office staff and the on air staff, and the sales staff to solicit the advertising to pay for all of this stuff and then hopes he has some left over for himself and his investment. The owner could lose all of his investment, or he could be successful if he makes the best choices, which he is then rewarded by a profit.   But is that fair to have to take that that risk?

And suppose station A invested more money in more powerful transmitters than station B and C and he can broadcast 100 miles while station B and C can only broadcast 25 miles. Is that fair?  Should stations B and C be required to invest more?   Or should station A reduce his power to make the field equal. It’s just not fair.

Now where does that profit come from? Advertisers paying the owner for a certain amount of air time to sell their wares vocally. The higher cost ads will get the time that most listeners are known to be listening to that particular station. If you want a 30 second spot at 3 am it will be pretty cheap compared to the same spot at say 7 am, or 5 pm during drive time. Is that fair?   It’s the same amount of broadcast time. 30 seconds is 30 seconds. A station that has hit the jackpot by somehow acquiring the best talent and the best format and thus will get the most listeners can charge the higher price for commercials. But is that fair to the other stations? Is that fair to the smaller businesses who can’t afford the higher costs for a 30 second prime time spot? Is that fair to the listeners at 3 am to have their program interrupted by a poorly done commercial for an isolated small used car dealership? Shouldn’t the 3 am listeners hear the quality commercials that the drive time listeners hear. It’s just not fair. It’s just not fair to the smaller business to have their commercial inserted at 3 am instead of at the prime time spot? It’s just not fair.

In any fairly large city, there could be dozens of radio stations all broadcasting on different frequencies all vying for the most number of listeners to tell their advertisers about. Some of us want music, be it country, hip hop, rap, classical or a mix. Some of us want a variety, some news, some music. Some of us want just entertaining talk, it could be just news, just commentary, or opinion with call ins. That’s a mix of the fickleness of the market, which is as diverse as the city. The station that makes the best choices and mix will get the most listeners. Is it fair that one station gets more listeners than another? Is that fair to leave it up to the whims of the people? It’s just not fair. Perhaps the auto manufactures could install radios that only pick up one station in the market, and each car they sell would be tuned into a different station. But then, that would not be fair either, as perhaps I did not like the station assigned to me by the dealer. Those listeners are fickle minded and that’s not fair.

Considering the talk radio fairness debate. It takes a gifted articulate personality to talk into the microphone for 40 minutes. But they all have their tricks, from reading prepared scripts to complete ad hoc conversation and a mix of both, some of the hosts using call in questions and comments, and some favoring just their own personal dialogue. And so far, there are a limited number of the talented proven talk show hosts. But then the other stations do not have the opportunity to air the same talented talk host and thus lose out on that lucrative market. Is that fair for the other stations when one station gets the highly talented talk hosts and the others can’t use his talent? It’s just not fair.

There are only so many talented gifted talk show hosts, and there are many people out there, who would love to have that opportunity to tell the listeners their views. Is that fair that only the proven talented hosts get the prime time slots and these others are relegated to perhaps the 3 am time slot when barely a few get to hear their views. It’s just not fair. Perhaps the stations could rotate from the talented proven talent to the wannabe proven on a 12 minute rotation. But what if there were 5 or 10 wannabes? Who would choose who, as there really is a limited amount of time? Would that be fair? I mean you just got to make this fair to everybody. Equal time for all.

Then there are the different formats radio stations can use to attract listeners. But if it don’t capture my attention, subject wise and delivery, I’m going to press the scan button and find something that keeps me from drifting into a stupor. Hey, just navigating these rude drivers safely is enough to keep one alert, but that’s another subject. Is it fair to a radio station that I can tune into a different one? They got to make a buck you know. But if the auto dealer chose the station for me, then each station would have the same number of listeners.

But what if I’m a music lover and just want to enjoy the drive time listening to my favorite country stars, but this city don’t have a country music station, only hip hop, traditional, classical and modern. It’s not fair then that I would have to listen to modern. These stations could be made to broadcast all of the music venues throughout the day given equal time to each. But advertisers know that certain music draws a certain mix of listeners, so would it be fair to the advertisers to have their ad targeting the hip hop crowd broadcast while the station is playing country? Oh yea, the advertiser could choose his audience mix for a higher premium price, but what of the smaller business without those deep-pocket resources? It’s just not fair.

But what if you live in one of those millions of smaller communities with only one station, and this station plays only country music because, well, it’s in the country. It’s not fair then if I like classical to have to listen to country. And then this station is affiliated with ABC and you never get to hear the news from CNN, or Fox. Is that fair? Other investors could be forced to open stations in this town to bring the people a balanced mix of music and news from a different source. Would that be fair? But there are only so many advertisers in this smaller town and not really enough to go around to all the stations. These stations could not stay in business without the advertisers, so that’s not fair to require investors to invest where they would lose money. That’s not fair.

So far there is unfairness to an investor called risk, he can lose it all or gain an increase in his capital investment.
There is unfairness to advertisers on the time of day the commercial is broadcast and the amount of listeners hearing the commercial and the price he has to pay for the same amount of commercial time.
There is an unfairness to the station because listeners can choose to listen to another station..
There is an unfairness to the never before heard of talk show host, the new kid on the block.
There is the unfairness to listeners at certain times of days that the popular talk show hosts are not broadcast and listeners have to listen to perhaps the new kid on the block.

There is unfairness all around.

It all needs regulating to eliminate all of this unfairness.

There is bias all around. The radio stations are biased against the newer unproven wannabe radio talk show hosts. The listeners show bias by tuning into station A instead of station B or C. The advertisers show bias by being able to pick station B over station A or C. The radio stations are biased when they choose county music over hip hop or classical. All of this bias needs to be regulated.

It’s just so unfair.

 You just got to love the thinking of the Mexican government. They can’t handle their own drug problem. They can’t handle their own economic problems. They can’t handle their own lack of opportunity for their own citizens, so ask the big daddy neighborly neighbor up north to help.

“Mexico has asked the United States for 1 billion dollars in equipment and training to fight drug traffic", the Mexican daily El Universal reported.  The report stated that the US is considering the proposal. Sure enough. You taking any bets that our folks in Washington just might comply, because they would argue, it would be in our own best interest to fight the drug trafficking within Mexico so that the drugs would not come here, since the drug use in the US is the biggest market for the Mexican produced contraband. The reasoning only makes sense, right? There are enough liberals around to buy into the scam.

Well how about a counter offer. Ask Mexico for a hundred billion to help pay for the medical expenses when the Mexican citizens illegally here in the US need medical care while they are illegally here in the US. I had to emphasize the “illegally here in the US” part, because I know that the many favoring an open border policy, do not consider it a criminal offense to break our laws, it’s just humans wanting to have a better life. Anyway, we good-hearted Americans provide the medical care to those millions of illegals, free of charge, and then, even though the authorities know they are illegal, they still don’t send them back to Mexico. A win win situation for Mexicans. America loses out again. America exercising it’s right to be stupid again.

“A study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated that in 2004 the annual uncompensated cost of medical care for illegal immigrants in California was $1.4 billion. Total uncompensated educational, health care and incarceration costs were estimated to be 10.5 billion.”   That’s just in California alone and the report was made in 2004. Include 48 more states and add three years and it could be up around 100 billion.

A wall like that China thing would do quite nice.   It's amazing that thousands of years ago, something like the great wall of China could be built, and today with all of our super duper heavy equipment and modern technology, we cannot build a simple fence that meets all of the codes and things like environmental studies, and property rights concerns.   Truly amazing how far we have come. 

You gotta be kidding.  Nope. NBC to pay Paris Hilton for post imprisonment interview., a sweet deal of $1,000,000 from the coffers of NBC to the filthy rich Paris.   There's another example of the double standards of NBC and the celebrity watch mentality of the public in America.   NBC sees this as a money making opportunity as millions of celebrity worshiping and watching American folks will be turning in to see just what Paris thought and experienced while she was incarcerated in one of our prisons.  Special accommodations by the way.  OH, and they'll also want to know what she learned from the experience.  Blaa blaa blaaaaaaa. 

"Hilton has received "almost 5,000 pieces" of mail during her three weeks in the slammer, according to The Post, which added authorities said she's been writing back to "her admirers."        And NBC calls it  "The Simple Life".      What has been so simple about her life?   Simply Rich.

 Just goes to show folks, that there are enough Americans out there who have nothing better to do. 

OJ simpson may be able to release his book too, and Americans will pick it up by the thousands. 


NBC   Nonsense Broadcasting Clutter.   No Brain Chitchat. 

 They call it the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007.

The first thing that ought to get your cockles stirring is the phrase “Consumer Protection”. Whenever a government official mentions consumer protection or protecting consumers or protecting the rights and freedoms of consumers, be on the watch, get your glasses out and examine the fine print.

The next is the use of the word “efficiency”.   How many government programs do you know of that are efficient?   How many mandates upon private industry and upon the individual states operate efficiency? The federal government does not operate efficiency, and never will.

S. 1419 has 707 sections and includes a list of ten studies to be made, a section on price gouging, talks about fuel economy standards, carbon capture, public buildings cost reductions, setting energy efficiency goals, promoting high efficiency vehicles, advanced lighting technologies, and things like setting renewable fuels standards.  And guess who is the author and lone sponsor of this bill.  None other that Harry Reid.  The people of Nevada should be proud.

Now remember, this is all for our protection and efficiency of our use of energy.

Well, the Heritage Foundation has a few choice words for this efficiency part of the bill.  How efficient is it for you to pay over $6.00 for a gallon of gas?   How does that protect you?   Are you wiling to let Harry and company impose more and more governmental controls over your choices? 

“A review of S. 1419, including the just-completed section on tax changes, reveals that the bill could increase the price of regular unleaded gasoline from $3.14 per gallon (the early May national average) to $6.40 in 2016--a 104 percent increase.”

“Many times over the past 100 years, well-meaning efforts to cap prices in order to protect U.S. consumers resulted in unintended reductions in supply and higher prices. A simple economic truth is that high prices spur producers to increase supply, which ultimately lowers prices for consumers. When policymakers set price caps to combat "price gouging," the result is the opposite of the one intended. Consumers increase their demand as a result of the capped price, but producers do not face any incentive to meet that demand. Supply fails to keep pace with demand, resulting in rationing or supply "brown outs."

Hey, you can read it all yourself, but the bottom line is that this bill must not go any further than the nearest shredder.