Search This Blog

Loading...

Monday, January 31, 2011

Will Pigford Bring Down The Whole Bunch?

Watch this one in the coming weeks and months. It is going to be huge, and it involves the current POTUS. Breitbart is claiming in these videos he has documentation that President Obama helped propagate this huge fraud to secure votes during the 2008 primary in the Southern States. That he continued the fraud after his election as President to repay people who helped him get elected with Billions in Tax Payer money.

That the Department of Agriculture did wrong in the Pigford case is not in question. The evidence shows that they wronged all small farmers though and not just the minority farmers. At the time of Pigford, there were 18,000 Black farmers in the south. As of today, there are over 90,000 recipients of individual settlements. that means, that for every Black owned farm in the affected area, There have been 5 recipients of settlement funds. Here is the best part, of the 90,000 plus recipients, very few were in the original 18,000 possibly affected farms. This makes Acorn and even, dare I say Watergate, pale in comparison. The videos are about 20 minutes in total to watch, so make some popcorn and meet me back here to watch the videos.






I hope you caught who one of the principal players in this mega-scandal is. None other than Shirley Sherrod. Remember when Sherrod was fired by the Agriculture Department over a video that was anonymously sent to Breitbart was shown. The video showed part of a speech given by Sherrod out of context at a seminar on racial sensitivity. Well, guess what. It looks like the whole thing was a set up to deflect attention away from Sherrod's involvement in Pigford. And what of the President's involvement? Well, months after the obvious fraud started to come to light, and indeed began to grow in scope, President Obama tripled down on taxpayer funds, and pledged his commitment to pay reparations to those who were not wronged. He said, "funding the Pigford settlement is a top priority for my administration."


this stink ain't going away by November of 2012. How is that whole hopety change thing going anyhow? Does it feel like the culture of corruption has been cleaned up yet? One more exit question: Will I hear the same old excuse given by my liberal friends when one of theirs gets caught in a scandal, "well, they're all crooked anyhow?"

30 Minutes With Thomas Sowell.

One of my favorite economists to read. He has a very simple way to explain complex issues so that even I am able to understand them. Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Sowell at one time was extremely liberal in his views, but as he matured and continued to learn, he became perhaps the most conservative voice in economics since Milton Friedman. Sowell points out that trouble in the economy led to the financial collapse, and not the other way around. He is able to put into perspective China's economic boom, and what it actually means to us versus what we are being told. He even does some discrediting of tariffs, and discusses why monetizing the debt is so destructive. He also discusses many other worthwhile subjects. All in all, this is well worth the 30 minutes to watch, if you can spare them. It will be on the front page probably for about a week, and then it will be part of the archives.

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Sunday Palate Cleanser! Glenn Beck Eviscerates Chris Matthews.

For quite some time, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and Keith Olberman have been openly feeding us angry snark when covering anything or anyone conservative. They have been especially rough on Female conservatives. In his latest, Matthews picks on Michelle Bachman, and manages to berate her for something which he has horribly wrong, and she actually got right. Beck nails him for it. Beck's piece gets a little tedious in the end, but it was well overdue.

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Dissection of a Dishonest News Piece.

When I was in my high school years, I traveled to Washington D.C. with some group.  I am not even at this point in my life able to remember who.  It may have been with a class, or a 4 H group, or with my BBYO group.  I seem to vaguely remember trips to Washington with all of the above.  On one such trip, we visited the capitol building.  One of the chambers was in session, so we were allowed to watch the Congress Critters go at it from the balcony.  Jimmy Carter was President.  The debate on the floor was aid to Egypt.  We were going to fork over 5 of some iteration of illions of dollars every year to help a nation that was, and still is dripping in oil, and who had attacked Israel several times recently.  this seemed to me at the time to be some kind of a sick joke.  Years later I learned it was Jimmy Carter's bright idea to bribe the Egyptians into a truce with Israel.  (It is still my contention to this day that Israel got screwed by that deal.  It left Israel with a huge problem in the Gaza Strip, as Egypt refused to allow the inhabitants to leave, though at the time all of them not only had Egyptian Citizenship, but also were mostly born in Egypt and had extended families there.)  As with all Arab leaders who sign treaties with Israel, Anwar Sadat was killed by his own people. 

I have heard much over the years about supposed aid to Israel.  The hard core leftists bleat on about how our policies towards Israel are the cause of terrorist acts against the United States.  I have heard from this crowd how Israel could not survive without our intervention and our money.  I have listened to the asinine argument that the standard of living of the only democracy in the region comes not from the free enterprise system they have set up for themselves, but they are living on the backs of American taxpayers.  I have heard the complete baloney argument stated repeatedly that we need to take care of our own problems here at home, rather than supporting the Jews in the Middle East, and that the only reason we do it is because of the powerful Zionist Lobby.  Of course, in all of this nonsense, Israel is singled out.  Now, on to eviscerating this idiocy.

We need to distinguish between trade and aid.  In trade, both sides of the exchange benefit.  Wealth is created for both trade partners.  Israel buys a lot of fighter jets from the United States.  Israel benefits because she is forever surrounded by lunatics who believe that their God of darkness, wishes them to kill all nonbelievers on the planet.  They also are not able to stomach a group of nonbelievers living in the middle of their caliphate.  They believe that one day even the rocks will begin to talk and tell them that Jews are hiding behind us, so that they may kill all the Jews.  The weapons help them avoid that fate.  We benefit in the U.S. because the people who manufacture the jets employ people and pay them a very good wage.  We also get paid a lot of money for these planes.  Israel sells us technology.  Cell phones were developed based on Israeli technology, as was Google, NCR, several medications including the Polio vaccination, and literally thousands of other every day products we use, and do not think about.  What is dishonest about the hardcore leftist argument is that they are claiming that trade with Israel constitutes aid.  In their minds of course, this is only true for Israel.  Trade with China is considered trade.  When we pump a ton of money into the bat shit crazy Wahhabi controlled Saudi Arabia, it is considered trade, for Oil.  What we give to Egypt every year, that is pure foreign Welfare, we get nothing for it, but a dishonest ceasefire.  (The Egyptians have been fighting a proxy war with Israel for years via the tunnels into the Gaza Strip and the Egyptian inhabitants there.)  Egypt is not the only recipient of the Federal Largess.  For our purposes here though, they are the most related to Israel.  I have seen several official looking charts, tables, and graphs, which show aid to Israel, and all of them are propaganda and baloney.  If you dig behind the numbers, you find that in every instance the Israeli part of the exchange is purposefully ignored.  Yes, we buy Israeli debt, much the same way China buys ours.  This is also part of financial trade.  Israel has been a very credit worthy investment, as they have never missed a payment. 

Which brings us to Friday.  On Friday, Senator Rand Paul proposed cutting off all foreign aid.  I will repeat that, he proposed cutting off all foreign aid.  What was reported in the news however, was that he proposed cutting off all aid to Israel.  Why the media would report it this way is far more heinous than any supposed anti-semitism of the Paul family.  (Rand is also not his father.)  Why would the media tell this blatant lie, and do so in such a way as to indict a U.S. Senator, just starting his national political career.  Before we get into that, watch the interview with Wolf Blitzer, the one which sparked the nontroversy:




Did you notice that Wolf cherry picked Israel from the statement and when asked, Paul repeated that he would cut off everybody.  As an asside, Israel would not be affected in the slightest here.  Why, you may ask.  Simply put, Israel does not receive aid, they participate in trade.  Israel pays back every penny loaned.  They invest in our debt.  Israel sells us their goods, and she buys ours.  This is also not an argument about whether Paul is correct in his thinking, (you would have to have the argument about libertarians, and that is another animal entirely.) This essay is about the dishonest reporting of the media. The goal is twofold here. First, there is the attempt to display and enforce the notion that Israel is benefitting from the public teat. By stating that Israel receives public assistance as a matter of framing the debate, it establishes as fact something which is patently false. CNN gets to look like the good guy by pretending to defend Israel against charges which CNN can pretend are true, and anyhow not their fault for bringing it up, as they can merely state they were just reporting it. An honest reporter would have looked into the situation with Israel and every nation which in fact receives foreign aid. I am particularly angry with Wolf Blitzer here, as he is in fact Jewish. I realize he is merely the live version of Ron Burgandy, mindlessly reading the teleprompter with nary a thought to what he is doing, but the word Israel should have stirred some semblance of a thought in his head. Sadly, it did not. The other goal was to take a newly elected Republican politician, (Paul is an easy target as his dad has a lot of issues on this score,) and paint him as a bigoted anti-semite. Imagine if the headline had read, Paul proposes cutting of all aid to Bolivia. This would not have any where near the same impact, but would have the virtue of being true, maintain the same context, and actually be correct.  Bolivia actually receives aid in the context of what we think of when foreign aid is mentioned.

For whatever reason, the media has given up on objectivity long ago. This is a wedge issue created to make conservatives dislike one another. Introducing charges of Racism and Anti-Semitism is nothing new. They can not defeat our ideas in the national debate, so they resort to what is nothing more than an adhominem attack. I am not going to state whether I agree with Paul's budget cutting ideas. Some of them are spot on, some of them are not. Remember that both Pauls are libertarians who run as Republicans because they know that libertarians do not win elections. I also know that this hit piece was designed to attack Paul personally while not in any way attempting to attack his position. We will see a lot more of this dishonest reporting in the future. I can guarantee you that most of it will come from the left.

To my liberal friends, fight us in the arena of ideas. Leave the strawmen and adhominem attacks at home.

Saturday Palate Cleanser! Dennis Miller



Hat tip Dennis

Friday, January 28, 2011

Finding Out What's In It! Part VI.



The number of Obamacare waivers now total 729.  This represents a total of 3,000,000 Americans who are exempted from the taxation increases the remainder of us will be forced to pay this year.  Their waivers are good until 2014, coincidentally the last year of taxation increase, and where the free government largess begins.  There are several problems with this, which we should all have.  First, who decides who gets to opt out, and who doesn't?  How is that determination made?  My fear, is that picking who gets to opt out is totally dependant on who supported this monstrosity to begin with.  Looking over the list of approved waivers, found within this link, I get the distinct impression that you will find zero companies or organizations who publicly opposed this monstrosity.  You will find however 7 SEIU union locals.  You will find GE.  You will find the Teamsters.  These were all the main cheerleaders telling the rest of us how good this was going to be.  They now are exempt from the burdensome extra expense the rest of us have to pay in order to conduct business.  The process for picking those worthy of waiver of course is located in the Law.  It is one of the many sections which says, "at the discretion of the Secretary,"  In essence, the Secretary of HHS, Kathleen Sibelius gets to make up the rules for most of the new Law as she goes along.  Any company or organization which the Administration likes, does not have to pay, and any they don't, well hard cheese for them.  The really insidious thing about it is, it is all perfectly legal according to the Law, (remember the constitution was thrown out in the passage of this nightmare.)

One of the things we were all told was this, "we must all purchase these policies, because if we don't all pay into the pool, that will make the model unsustainable for everyone who does pay.  So here we are a year later, and some lucky few of us have been exempted from the pool.  This is crony capitalism.  this is not the free market system which made our country great.  This is the, "Party'" picking and choosing who works, and who benefits.  The CEO, Jeffrey Immelt,  of GE, one of the exempted companies, was just tapped by the Administration to head up the new Green Jobs Program at the White House.  Coincidentally, GE's new focus for its company is green technology and green infrastructure.  So, when we are assured by our fellow citizens that we should trust completely the government, that these altruistic servants of the people are beyond reproach, and would never allow their own personal ambitions for power affect their decision making process, it makes me laugh.  They are so brazen about their intentions to destroy our personal freedoms and free market system that it makes me wonder truly how anyone could possibly miss it.  Bear in mind, the latest argument I heard on MSNBC posited by Chris Matthews was not that we conservatives interpreted the constitution wrong, but that the constitution should no longer apply at all to our nation.  The constitution should just be considered null and void, because it has outlived its usefulness.

During the State of The Union Address on Tuesday, President Obama cited Ronald Reagan as a political figure he would like to emulate.  I'll assume for a moment that Obama really does admire Reagan, and that he was not merely invoking Reagan's name because of Reagan's popularity.  In that case, we're in luck, because we can hear for ourselves what Reagan had to say about what Obama inflicted upon us.  Here it is:



***COLDWARRIOR UPDATE: I was going to do a post on this article, but i'll just add it here:

Patient care at risk under NHS reforms, experts warn

Patients could be denied hip, knee and hernia operations under unprecedented reforms to the NHS, the Royal College of Surgeons has warned ahead of a crucial Commons debate.

The people that wrote the health care bill admitted they are emulating the British system.

I wasn't joking when i typed that treatment for a broken hip under Obamacare is going to be a wheel chair and some opiates...and your loved ones will have to bring back the wheelchair when your done with it. An unmended broken hip in a senior is a death sentence, you will die from pneumonia and have lovely bed sores; both from immobility. Just what the bean counters want; less seniors that they have to pay for. I am in this field, dont think I am kidding, baby boomers.

Hat tip to Coldwarrior, from the blogmocracy.

UPDATE II:  Here is the take from Investor's Business Daily. 

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

President Obama, On the Verge of Being Dubiously Elite.

Obama's 3AM Phone Call : Dry Bones cartoon.




As a conservative person of the Jewish faith, I find myself quite often in the minority opinion amongst friends.  Discussions are purposefully steered away from all things political, quite honestly because neither side can understand the other's inability to see clearly what each knows to be true.  The truce has kept a tentative peace for several years now, but just like any border dispute, sometimes the tensions are palpable.  During the last 3 election cycles, those tensions have become more visible, and have bubbled closer to the surface.  With each news day, I see something which makes me say, this event  is the event which will make them see.  I am certain that the other side notices some other news item which they feel should make me see. 

Examples, I once received an e-mail from friends which claimed that President Bush did not have any people of the Jewish faith working in his Administration, (obviously Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Joel Kaplan, Scooter Libby, Elliot Abrams, Josh Bolton, Michael Chertoff, Ari Fleisher, or Douglas Feith did not come to the author's mind, and all were high ranking members of the Administration at the time.  This list is not all inclusive, it merely serves to highlight the larger point of perception not matching reality.)  I forwarded an editorial on Jimmy Carter's slanderous book, "Peace, Not Apartheid."  It was pointed out to me that Prescott Bush's leanings were somewhat anti-Semitic, and we don't even need to mention Pat Buchanan.  Yassar Arafat was the most oft visitor to the White House during the Clinton Presidency.  This literally could go on for quite a while, but is this the end of the debate? 

What is more important, personal feelings held, or the results and actions taken?  Richard Nixon was perhaps the single most bigoted and anti-Semitic President to ever grace the White House.  Everyone who worked with Nixon has confirmed this.  His close personal friends have confirmed this.  Yet, when it really counted, Nixon was the first President to formally declare Israel an ally.  Nixon was the first President to declare our unwavering support for Israel, and to offer U.S. weapons in trade.  (Prior to Nixon, Israel bought all of her weapons from France, my how times have changed.)  My point here, is that sometimes, people do the right thing, despite the charges of bigotry and racism we attribute to them.  Don't forget, Nixon followed Kennedy and Johnson into that office.  Both of those men were considered to be more tolerant  and enlightened souls who loved the Jewish people.  (Johnson actually ordered/or may not have ordered a U.S. Naval Ship under the command of the NSA to take up a position with the invading Arab Naval Force during the 6 Day War.  The Liberty Incident has been the subject of no less than 11 Congressional and Defense Department Investigations since.  Captain McGonagle was awarded a Congressional Medal of Honor, but he finished his career from behind a desk in the Pentagon shortly afterwards.)  The point being, neither Kennedy nor Johnson saw fit to consider Israel a friend, and Nixon did.

What does that have to do with today?  Glad you asked.  Sometime in the very near future, President Barak Obama will have a huge decision to make.  It seems that the U.N., one of the most vile and evil institutions on Earth, will be attempting to pass a resolution through the Security Council, which will be designed to stop Israel from building apartments in Jerusalem.  The apartments are in a Jewish neighborhood, which has been a Jewish neighborhood for the last 4000 years.  As with any city, stopping construction, building permits and growth, is the same thing as destroying the economy, and the well being of the entire city.  Think of your own town, construction going on is a good sign, it means that employment is growing, business is booming, things are good.  Turn the big machines off, and the entire economy stagnates, and those Saturday coffee meetings with friends are a lot less fun to be around.  This resolution is designed to dispirit the Jewish people, and to stagnate the economy.  The question we are all waiting to see, is will President Obama Veto the resolution. 

If Barak Obama fails to veto the resolution, he would be the first American President to fail to protect Israel against the Arab controlled U.N.  That would put our President in elite company indeed.  He would be in a fraternity of 1.  It is actually a little scary to think that this would even be a question.  This should be a no-brainer.  I would expect our President to not only say, Israel enjoys the full support of the American People, but that he would actually back it up with action.  Push is coming to shove, and it is doing so on Barak Obama's watch.  Will he do the right thing?  For my liberal friends, I want you to watch this one closely.  This is the one event I was talking about in the beginning of this post. 

As a side note, Security Council Resolutions come with teeth.  These are the ones which approve usually some sort of punitive or military action.

Hat tip Eliana

UPDATE:  Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post seems to think President Obama will do the right thing.  I hope her analysis is correct.  We need him to get this one right.

The State of Confusion Address.

Last night, Barak Obama proved once again, do not underestimate his ability to be disingenuous.  Never before have we had a President with such arrogance combined with such little actual accomplishment and such little ability.  The A.P. ran a post speech fact check.  Needless to say, it wasn't very flattering to President Obama.  It seems that the President failed in his basic math on every single major initiative presented during his speech.  Contrast that with President Bush.  He was accused of a single gaffe during his SOTU of 2003, and that one gaffe was brought up as a campaign issue during both the 2004 and 2008 elections. (For my liberal friends, watch your alphabet media newscasts tonight, and see if this gets more than a passing mention.)  For my part though, it is the new found frugality of Barak Obama which has me feeling like Charlie Brown eyeballing Lucy Obama holding the football for another attempt to kick that ball to the moon.  Perhaps because, he lost said frugality while still making the same speech, a new world record.  President Obama highlighted his promise to cut the budget deficit by $500 Billion over the next 10 years by proposing more spending on the same old unnecessary stuff which failed to stimulate the economy 2 years ago.  That's right, he plans to cut the deficit by spending more.  I was taught how to balance a check book as a part of my 6th grade math class.  (Mr. Steckley would be so proud of me today!)  Apparently, in the state of Hawaii, that skill is considered to be for the little people. 

Don't misunderstand me, Paul Ryan's plan to cut $100 Billion this year is not nearly enough, but it at least has the virtue of being a step in the right direction.  We will not, as a nation cut our deficit by starting out spending more of what we don't have.  Ryan's plan would also have a deficit decrease over the next 10 years of $1.5 Trillion, roughly 3 times the savings offered up by the Obama Plan, if that were Obama's intention.  Perhaps a look at some of the problems with Obama's math might be in order.  Some examples from the link above:

OBAMA: Tackling the deficit "means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit."
THE FACTS: The idea that Obama's health care law saves money for the government is based on some arguable assumptions.
To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office's analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare.
In recent years, for example, Congress has repeatedly overridden a law that would save the treasury billions by cutting deeply into Medicare pay for doctors. Just last month, the government once again put off the scheduled cuts for another year, at a cost of $19 billion. That money is being taken out of the health care overhaul. Congress has shown itself sensitive to pressure from seniors and their doctors, and there's little reason to think that will change.
OBAMA: "The bipartisan Fiscal Commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I don't agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it — in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes."
THE FACTS: Obama's fiscal commission did not simply recommend cutting excessive spending; it proposed that the deficit could only be tamed by cutting $3 for every $1 of new revenue raised — in other words, a painful mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Instead, Obama proposed an overhaul of the corporate tax system that would eliminate loopholes and tax breaks but also reduce tax rates. The net effect would be neutral; it would not reduce or raise any revenue. Obama has yet to sign on to any of the ideas, even though he promised when creating the panel that it would not be "one of those Washington gimmicks."
OBAMA: "To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations."
THE FACTS: With that comment, Obama missed another chance to embrace the tough medicine proposed by the commission for bringing down the deficit. For example, he ruled out slashing benefits or partially privatizing the program, and made no reference to raising the retirement age. That left listeners to guess how he plans to do anything to salvage the popular retirement program whose trust funds are expected to run out of money in 2037 without changes.

To prove that the Democrats remain nothing more than partisan hacks, we have this tidbit I found at Weazelzippers.  The Democrat Leadership wasted no time in tearing apart Ryan's aforementioned proposals.  I have no problem with their disagreement, that is what vigorous political debate is about.  But in this instance, it turns out, they didn't bother to read the proposal prior to not liking it.  Now, it was bad enough that they voted for the destruction of our health care system without bothering with trite little things like reading the bill before voting on it, but I would have thought that they learned their lesson on that one.  America, we have bigger things to worry about than politics.  Apparently our national leaders are among the laziest people on Earth.  I used to say that the two laziest professions were journalist and professional psychic.  I am being forced to amend that to being the three laziest professions and including Congressman in the mix. 

In the end, I was right, the SOTU these days is nothing more than a pep-rally.  Last night it was a campaign kickoff from the man admonishing all Republicans in Washington to avoid campaigning prior to his arbitrarily approved date.  It was a waste of my time, an hour and a half I'll never get back.

UPDATE:  Walter Williams has written a brilliant column today appearing in Investor's Business Daily.

UPDATE II: Rep. Eric Cantor (R) Virginia gets it.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

The President's Re-election Kickoff Speech, Formerly Known as The State of The Union.

Tonight, President Obama is going to kickoff his 2012 re-election bid during the State of The Union Address. He has already tried some very thuggish tactics to prevent any Republicans from campaigning too early. But, like all rules edicted by the liberals in charge, rules are for others, and not for them. (It should be noted that the memorialpep rally in Tuscon was actually the campaign kickoff, but it remains unofficial as tonight will probably have a much larger audience.) I have heard rumors and read rumors of what the President plans to address tonight. Among those, something literally made me laugh for quite a while. The President it seems wishes to address some of the onerous regulations the Executive Branch has imposed on the Private Sector. When you stop laughing, read on.

President Obama never seems to disappoint when it comes to his ability to be disingenuous. Besides the fact that Candidate Obama pledged once to regulate the entire coal industry into bankruptcy, has imposed a record number of czars, all of whom are free from any congressional oversight, most of whom are from the most bizarre leftist radical organizations our country has ever spawned, and all of whom have questionable expertise in the areas they have been tapped to take lordship over. The oil exploration industry is at a standstill, despite a ruling by a Federal Judge that the standstill and ban on exploration was unconstitutional. The newly passed Health care law socializes a full 18% of the formerly private sector economy, and is so vaguely written, we still do not fully comprehend the impactdamage it will do to our nation. What we do know is that the phrase, "at the discretion of the Secretary," is the most often written group of words in the Law. We have even made Thomas Edison's most important invention, the incandescent light bulb, illegal by executive fiat. This last point is so much more poignant, since Edison is cited by the President as the type of genius Federal Overreach is unnecessarily stifling. Soak that in for just a moment.

My fellow conservatives have been lamenting the fact that Obama has been able to strike a more centrist tone lately, and been able to appear as though he is no longer the loony leftist he has been shown to be during the last 2 years. Indeed, the poll numbers would indicate a bounce in favorability back above the 50% mark. But, right now, this is all appearance. Reality will soon set in, if Obama's promise of deregulation is just an empty promise. His dalliances in the Oil Industry have given us $100 a barrel oil. The Health Care Law has given us 4 consecutive years of gradually increasing tax rates and penalties. The stealth Cap and Trade imposed by the out of control EPA will have us paying more for electricity, as well as causing us to shed jobs in all sectors of the economy in the very near future. The Financial Industry is now completely constipated due to the onerous financial regulatory law, which coincidentally ignores completely the root cause of financial collapse, Fannie and Freddie. What jobs are being created are governmental jobs, or being produced by companies who are benefiting from tax dollars which are being funnelled against the express will of the American People. We have seen the Broken Window Fallacy before, it will not work for long term economic growth.

In short my fellow conservatives, do not be any more fooled by the man behind the curtain this time than we were the last. The wizard is still just the dolt from Thugcago. Eventually, all Americans will be forced to recognize this, and $4 per gallon gasoline will do it. Senator Inhofe does a decent job of explaining it all.







My bet is that we'll hear all about out of control spending as well.  Let's not forget about the newly found frugality.  Earmarks and pork are apparently back on the menu as well.  Get your popcorn.

UPDATE: To illustrate the point of Marxist Czars appointed by President Obama, I give you Van Jones.



Hat tip Lobo91.

Monday, January 24, 2011

For Those Who Believe Islamic Terrorism Is In Response To Our Support of Israel.

It appears that the Religion of Peace has struck again.  This morning, I awoke to a report of a mass homicidal attack via Islamic suicide occurred at a Russian airport.  The toll in terms of human life was heavy.  What stands out though, is that Russia can hardly be called a supporter of Israel.  In fairness, Russia can't even be called friendly towards Israel.  The favorite meme of the left for years has been that we are creating a recruitment bonanza for Islamic terror groups because of our support for the Zionist State.  I will concede that it is not the entire left which has been spouting this.  My fellow members of the Jewish faith have been voting mostly with the liberals for many years.  Historically, it has been about 80/20, however that has become more even in recent election cycles.  I am referring to the ISM, ANSWER Coalition, Code Pink, hard core crowd.  Unmistakably though, a majority of those on the left have a very anti-Israel, anti-Semitic bent to them.  So, where does that leave us today?  What this attack, along with dozens of others which occur on a constant basis, is that support for Israel has nothing to do with Islamic Terrorism.  What does spur on Islamic Terrorism is people not bowing down to Islamic demands and perceived insults against their vision of a worldwide caliphate. 

When we notice these things going on daily, we are told that we suffer from Islamiphobia.  A new disease which makes us irrationally afraid helping some peaceful man wearing a bomb for a sweater vest reach his life's ambition of living with Mohamed and enjoying his 72 virgins.  (Quick question here: How do they know that the virgins are indeed human and/or female?)  That only if we sought psychiatric help, we would somehow be safe and indeed shielded from the effects of their chosen fashion statement.  (Isn't Semtex lovely in the spring?)  Not a believer that the Religion of Peace is not about peace?  Well, then, click the link and take a look at what they've been up to.  Out of the 16000 plus instances of documented attacks since September of 2001, how many were perpetrated against the tiny nation of Israel? 

We have been told by Islamist apologists for years that jihad means an inner struggle for a more spiritual existence.  We have been told by adherents to that religion that jihad means fighting a holy war intended to kill or subjugate all non believers until Islam reigns supreme in the entire world.  To be sure, there are some, "moderate Muslims," who tell us that the former definition of jihad is the correct one.  To me though, that group reminds me of a movie we all saw:



I will concede that not all Muslims are terrorists, nor even fit into the category of apologists for Muslim terror. I do however believe that the, "small percentage," factoid is just as ridiculous. The laughingly deceptive propaganda documentary published by Gallup puts that number at 50%, which is in itself scary considering that Gallup, as of 2002 is owned by Saudi Arabia. It is also important to note that the 50% number is broken into separate constituencies. It includes terrorists, those who support terror as an acceptable means to an end, those who feel that terror is justified, those who feel it is no different than western methods of diplomacy etc. Once again, this requires our good friend moral equivalency to rear its ugly head. That is one of the places I must part with the left.  My point though does not depend on what percentage of Muslims agree with the second definition of jihad, but merely on whether support for Israel is the actual cause for tension, or just a handy excuse.  If you believe it is the former, why the attacks in Russia, Philippines, Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sudan, Rhodesia, England, Ireland, Scottland, France, Spain, and probably dozens of other non-Israel supporting nations?

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Sunday Palate Cleanser! I Give You One Last Olby Watch!

If you have been living under a rock, here's the skinny. MSNBC's new owner, Comcast, apparently is less than thrilled with the shrill opinions of Keith, Bathtub Boy, Olberman. He has been abruptly canned. I am sure he will find work on CNN, and Rachel Maddow will soon be joining him there. So, for now, enjoy a Redeye slam of Olberman one last time.



I already miss Keith.

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Saturday Palate Cleanser!

Here is another brilliant leader of the Modern Democrat Party. I give you Hank Johnson (D) Mars, who actually asks an Admiral in the U.S. Navy, if stationing too large a contingent on the Island of Guam might cause it to tip over and fall into the sea.



Does the Democrat Party search the special ed classes far and wide to find their candidates? You can't make this stuff up.

Friday, January 21, 2011

How Do We Eradicate Malaria? By Ignoring Eco-Fascists.

I am often conflicted when I see some Hollywood star lending their gravitas to a cause or political campaign. They after all enjoy the same First Amendment rights as the rest of us. The problem for me however is that they are also very often ignorant about the subjects on which they pontificate. Lacking the knowledge, experience, or wisdom to understand a subject does not stop a lot of folks, but the stardom gives the Hollywood crowd a megaphone to spout some of the most insane nonsense known to mankind. I'll give some examples. Shakira, stated that she would rather her concerts were attended by pigs than Jews, because of how the Israelis treat the, "Palestinians." I guess she is O.K. with the 50,000 Katusha rockets per year which rain down on Israeli neighborhoods targeting schools and farms. Andy Griffith is all over T.V. telling us that we're going to love the improvements made to Medicare via the new Health Care Debacle. All these commercials are airing even as State Medicare funds are zeroing out due to a cut off of Federal Funding. Madonna, who I am convinced slept through or skipped every High School science class in her less than A caliber academic career, is lecturing the rest of us on Global Warming. The height of the stupidity though has to be DDT.

DDT is a pesticide.  We used this pesticide for approximately five years in this country prior to its being banned.  After those five years, we had successfully eradicated Malaria, and Bed Bugs.  How many lives were saved.  Even now, there are many Americans who do not know that at one time, Malaria was also rampant in the United States.  Enter the eco-fascist lobby.  DDT was demonized, for some very suspicious and unproven claims about its dangers to the, "fragile," eco-system.  Its use was prohibited around the globe.  So where does that leave us.  Well, it leaves us with today, and our good friend George Clooney.  Clooney it seems, has contracted Malaria for the second time.  Let me say, I like most of Clooney's movies.  That being said, he is down with every loony position on the left that there is.  He blames Israel for having the audacity to defend her very survival and not allowing themselves to be permanent targets for, "Palestinians," who want nothing but to murder her citizens.  He is so smug in his eco-fascism, Southpark devoted an entire episode to his smug behavior.  This time though, he is the victim of his own nonsense. 

I do not wish Malaria on anyone.  As a matter of fact, I say we should eradicate this disease from our planet entirely.  We have the ability to do this.  How many lives would have been saved had we put an end to Malaria in the late 1970's?  Those are all deaths which are on the hands of liberals.  One of the things which I dislike about the liberal movement world wide is that they never accept the responsibility for their actions or policy decisions.  This is a clear example, extreme as it is, of that.  Even as thousands contract this disease every year, we are told that saving the environment is more important than saving human lives.  Humans are part of the environment as well.  At the same time, my liberal friends are screaming that we need to do something about Malaria in Africa, the effects are horrible.  You know what?  I agree.  We need to do something.  We need to Use DDT for at least five years on a global scale, and put an end to Malaria and Bed Bugs once and for all.  George Clooney should never have to contract Malaria again.

Some of you may object to my usage of the word fascist when describing the green crowd.  Well, get a load of this little commercial that they made to promote the 10:10 initiative.



In their worldview, anyone who does not tow the green line, deserves to die. This is the very definition of fascism. It should also be noted, this is much more of an incitement to violence than anything Rush, Palin, Hannity, or even that old sick jerk Pat Buchanan has ever proffered.

Hat tip to Urban Infidel.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

A Good Second Step!

Maybe, this time they heard us.  We fiscal conservatives have had our hearts broken for years.  We have sent, by default Republicans to Washington, (mostly because their Democrat counterparts were insane,) and watched in disgust as they promptly began to approve spending an programs they promised us they would not.  We have watched the Democrats win majorities in both Houses of Congress by running candidates who sounded like Republicans, by claiming to be fiscal conservatives, and watched in disgust as they immediately fell in line to please their liberal masters.  I read something this morning which has given me hope.  We'll call this a positive second step down a hugely long and winding road.  Recognize though, a walk down any road needs to begin somewhere. 

A number of the House GOP’s leading conservative members on Thursday will announce legislation that would cut $2.5 trillion over 10 years, which will be by far the most ambitious and far-reaching proposal by the new majority to cut federal government spending.

Jordan’s “Spending Reduction Act” would eliminate such things as the U.S. Agency for International Development and its $1.39 billion annual budget, the $445 million annual subsidy for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the $1.5 billion annual subsidy for Amtrak, $2.5 billion in high speed rail grants, the $150 million subsidy for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and it would cut in half to $7.5 billion the federal travel budget.
But the program eliminations and reductions would account for only $330 billion of the $2.5 trillion in cuts. The bulk of the cuts would come from returning non-defense discretionary spending – which is currently $670 billion out of a $3.8 trillion budget for the 2011 fiscal year – to the 2006 level of $496.7 billion, through 2021.
It remains to be seen whether the House Leadership will get behind this proposal.  Jim DeMint has a similar bill he is introducing into the Senate.  Cuts this deep will require backbone and resolve, something many of us outside of Washington find lacking.  There are many people who feel that introducing a bill which would never be signed by the President to be a time waster.  (Jordan's proposals have been announced as DOA in the Senate, but remember, Reid has 19 members up for re-election in 2012 who won in conservative states by pretending to be fiscal conservatives.  There will be a real pressure over the next 2 years for them to prove their bonafides.  Reid will have increasing trouble in holding them to the liberal fold as election time draws near.)  My personal belief is that they should pass these cuts, and make the President and the liberal law makers defend their tax and spend positions.  Jordan calls for a reduction of the federal workforce of 15% and a 5 year freeze on all increases of federal pay.  In other words, make those living on the government teat participate in the recession as well.  We have reached a point in America where the Productive Sector of the economy is now on an even size as the Public Sector.  Greece is what happens when the Public Sector becomes bigger than the Productive Sector. 

There is one Caveat to this.  At some point in time, Entitlements must be confronted.  While I applaud Jordan for introducing cuts which exceed the cuts suggested in the Pledge to America, They will not bring us to a point where revenues equal expenditures.  The deficit will still continue to grow, but just at a slower rate.  At some point, our bond ratings will one day fall, which will make it more expensive to borrow money.  while this is a good second step, we must be planning to take a third, fourth, and fifth step, and then continue from there.  Defense, which is the only legitimate endeavor that our government takes, is the only thing the Democrats wish to cut ever.  Jordan has included huge cuts in Defense spending as well.  Even with all of his cuts, it will not be enough, unless we attack the gorilla in the room.  Entitlements and debt interest account for about 65% of our annual expenditures. 

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

When Did We Stop Teaching Civics In Our Schools?

Every once in a while, something is said on C-Span which makes me chuckle out loud.  The left's brightest representative, (ie. a true idiot,) Congress Woman Sheila Jackson Lee, a moonbat from Texas gave me such a moment yesterday.  In arguing against the House's measure to repeal Obamacare, Ms. Lee stated that repealing a Law, which a Federal Court ruled as being unconstitutional, was itself unconstitutional.  Her Claim was that it violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.  When you stop laughing, read on.

Where to start with this one.  First, I have included as a stand alone page on this blog, purely for fun, a civics quiz administered by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.  This quiz was failed by the American Public in general by an average score of 54%.  It was failed by our elected political leaders by an average score of 49%.  That means that Sheila Jackson Lee, Moonbat from Texas should not be lecturing anyone on the Constitution.  You're right, that's too easy an out, and it's not fair to assume that Sheila scored at or below the average of her fellow classmates.  Perhaps we should look at her arguments.
Here is the link to C-Span from yesterday.  Lee's comments start at 1:34:35, and it is possible to move the cursor straight to that point in time.  The Government's servers are top notch.

Here is a partial transcript of Lee's comments:

“The Fifth Amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty without due process,” she said in a speech on the House floor moments ago. “That is what H.R. 2 does and I rise in opposition to it. And I rise in opposition because it is important that we preserve lives and we recognize that 40 million-plus are uninsured.
She continued, “Can you tell me what’s more unconstitutional than taking away from the people of America their Fifth Amendment rights, their Fourteenth Amendment rights, and the right to equal protection under the law?”

Lee moves on from there to my favorite debate tactic of the left, anecdotal stories of woe and want.  Defeating each anecdotal argument is tedious, because all they have to do is come up with another story, which may or may not be true, but only needs to sound plausible.  This method of debate is specious at best and deserves nothing but contempt.  Every Democrat Presidential Candidate Since at least Carter has employed this tactic, and every Democrat congress critter uses it daily.  It relies strictly on emotion, which is fitting, as emotional appeals is the entirety of the Democrat Platform anyhow.  On to other parts of Sheila's argument.  For reference, here are the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments:



 
Amendment V.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of
a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of
War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for
the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment XIV.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress,
or elector of President and Vice President, or hold
any office, civil or military, under the United States, or
under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a
member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States,
or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive
or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution
of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or
rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the
enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds
of each House, remove such disability.
SECTION 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized
by law, including debts incurred for payment of
pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection
or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the
United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt
or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion
against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation
of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and
claims shall be held illegal and void.
SECTION 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate
legislation, the provisions of this article.
*Changed by Section 1 of the 26th Amendment.

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

(Note: Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution was modified by
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment.)

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SECTION 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several
States according to their respective numbers, counting the
whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians
not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for
the choice of electors for President and Vice President of
the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive
and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the
Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants
of such State, [being twenty-one years of age,]* and
citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except
for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of
representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion
which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the
whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in
such State.

SECTION 3.
Let me start by making a simple observation.  we do not live in a vacuum.  The authors of our Constitution wrote extensively to help us understand what their intentions were.  These writings are called the Federalist Papers, and are available in every public library in the country.  When we discuss Socialized Health Care, we have examples of countries who have tried it, and can witness the results for ourselves.  So, when we see that 57% of British Citizens have performed woodshed tooth extractions, we see the actual results of offering free dental care to every citizen in the country.  (A woodshed tooth extraction refers to pulling one's own tooth, without the aid of a dentist.)  In our context, the Federalist papers make it clear that the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are considered negative rights.  That is, they are things which the government, any government, could not inflict upon the citizenry.  They are not a list of entitlements, which the citizens should expect to be handed.  Lee's argument is that, the right to life, liberty, property, means that the citizens are entitled to receive any commodity from the government which would be deemed necessary by the courts to achieve such ends.  When the Constitution was written, the founders made it abundantly clear that each person was responsible for forging their own path.  The Fourteenth Amendment was put in her idiocy for a different reason.  The current argument concocted by the left, is that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments only applied to the Federal Government prior to the Fourteenth Amendment being passed.  The Fourteenth was passed solely as a post Civil War Reconstruction Amendment.  The entire purpose was to make it unconstitutional to deny citizenship to former slaves on the basis that they weren't citizens before the Civil War.  It also contained provisions to deny paying debt issued to the confederacy by foreign nations, and to prevent officers serving in the confederate army from attaining rank in the Union Army.  I disagree with this interpretation that the Bill of Rights would not be enforced at the State level should the Fourteenth be repealed.  Currently, the Fourteenth is the source for the anchor baby loophole in our immigration laws.  This is the real reason the left wants it kept.  If the Fourteenth Amendment produced Republican voting anchor babies, you could bet your bottom dollar that Sheila Jackson Lee and he cohorts would be screaming from the rooftops to repeal the sucker.

Exit question:  Is Sheila Jackson Lee respected by her fellow Democrats, or do they find her idiotic as well?




UPDATE: apparently, the Democrats are planting their flag in the Constitutional argument, even though a Federal Judge ruled it unconstitutional.



We now have Lee, Conyers, and Lewis making this asinine claim.

In listening to Rep. Lewis' comments, it gets even crazier. He quotes the Declaration of Independence, attributes it as the preamble to the Constitution, which is not the legally binding part of that document, but it would at least have the virtue of being the correct document to reference. At what point do we become really worried that these dolts are inflicting their nonsense on the rest of us and have no idea what they are doing?

UPDATE II: Well, it gets funnier. Sheila Jackson Lee (D) Mars went on the Neil Cavuto Show today to illustrate her lack of a point, and did it complete with visual anecdotal story. You have to watch it to believe it.



UPDATE III: Watch Paul Ryan destroy the CBO report and the chicanery used to get that score. Also note the difference a majority makes. When Nancy Pelosi ran the House, Ryan was not allowed to make this argument on the floor of the House, A Republican would have never been afforded 4 minutes of time during this debate. Ryan does use an anecdotal story here, but at least he backed it up with an actual argument.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

So Now President Obama Is Worried About Spending!?



First, a civics lesson. Congress has more control over spending than the President. Congress, meaning the House, passes a budget, and the President signs it, which makes it law. So, blaming Bush for the massive over spending which took place from January 2007 until now is intellectually dishonest. An easy point to make, since I am willing to bet that we would be hard pressed to find many people who hold politician's integrity in high regard, is that whoever screams about the budget at any particular point in time is more often than not a function of who holds power. The Republicans were evil money spenders from 2007 until the election of 2008, even though Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid had more to do with reckless spending than did President Bush. During the time period from 2009 through the midterm elections of 2010, the Republicans were called radical alarmists for noticing that a monstrous new entitlement program would cause ruinous increases in Federal Spending permanently. Even as San Fran Nan stood on her soap box and announced pay go to be the new law of the land, a brand new untouchable governmental spending mandate was her actual priority. Her, "gift," to the American People included bills we would not be able to pay the interest on, let alone have any positive movement on the principal. Budget graphs which show how budgets work during Presidential Administrations are incomplete. A more complete picture breaks down the budget both by President and by who controls congress. It is also important to note, that congress is also supposed to draw up the budget prior to the session ending for the year. So, for instance, the 2007 budget was passed by the lame duck session of 2006.

wapoobamabudget1

A few notes about the above graph.  President Bush never signed the budget for 2009.  One was never presented to him.  The House passed a series of temporary resolutions to keep government going until President Obama was sworn in, so that they could lay the $1.85 Trillion bomb on us.  This did not include TARP, which was part of the 2008 deficit.  It did include the, "stimulus,' spending, which was wildly successful, as the unemployment rate clearly shows.  The Republicans controlled the budget process in 2002,03.04,05,06,and for 07.  While it is true that these years appear to be an increase over Clinton's last years in office, there are some serious caveats which we will discuss later.  The deficits were also on a continual downward trend during that time.  The explosion which occurred once the Democrats took over the process is astounding.  What's more, during the last 2 years, the Republicans have not had the ability to even voice a counter argument.  The Democrats actually locked the Republicans out of the room for any discussions of consequence regarding anything.  I don't mean that in a figurative sense, but in a very real and physical sense.  So quite literally, the Democrats own this budget and debt crisis, all on their own.  It was comical to watch them during the last two months before the midterms practically begging for bi-partisan support for their idiotic and destructive policy initiatives solely so that blame could be shared.

Today, I read that President Obama is distressed over the budget that he inherited from President Bush.  I shot coffee through my nose.  So let me get this straight, Senator Obama voted for the budgets of 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.  He never once during that time voted for less government spending, signs his first budget in 2009, one he actually voted for, and then as President agreed to vastly increase that deficit.  (Notice the 2009 deficit is 4 times the previous years shortfall.)  Projections going forward both from his Administration and the vaunted CBO which show that nothing comes even close to being deficit neutral, especially compared with anything in the past.  Today, he is worried that we are spending too much.  Where I find humor though is in who he blames, and how he is able to get there.

I have often criticized President Bush.  His compassionate conservatism was nothing more than Rinoism on Steroids.  Strong on Social Conservative issues, (those issues held dear for some on the right which were always least important to me personally,) strong on national defense, and largely a Democrat on economic issues, (those issues which have always been more important to me than the socon issues.)  George Bush let Ted Kennedy write entirely the, "No Child Left Behind," law, passed a new Medicare entitlement authored by Al Gore called Plan D.  A lesson to other Republicans, George Bush was hated even more by the political left for passing their pieces of legislation than he was before he did it.  But for all his faults, I believe that George W. Bush did an admirable job as President during a very difficult time in our Nation's history.  I also believe that he spent money like a 90 year old grandmother when compared to the current keepers of the purse strings.  Perhaps the new direction of austerity for President Obama is a campaign issue he is trying to get ahead of for 2012.  He has yet to stop campaigning, and everything he does is Kabuki Theater anyhow.  Perhaps President Obama finally did his math homework from the 7th grade and learned how to balance a checkbook and realized that the American People are justified in their anger.  Perhaps President Obama has heard from his Chinese friends who are not happy in the least at the debt monetizing which is effectively robbing them of a veritable s---load of money.  ( The Chinese actually laughed in the face of Timothy Geitner during a negotiation to have them invest heavier in the U.S. during Obama's Administration.)  In the end analysis it does not really matter to me.  Obama's new found frugal roots are a mirage.  He will say no more deficit spending, and if he ever gets control of congress again, he will spend it silly.  This time for real, the American People can ill afford a Democrat President and a Democrat Congress at the same time.  It has proved disastrous beyond anything which could have been imagined.

About the budget surplus of Bill Clinton's Presidency.  I have heard this in every argument with a liberal, it is supposed to be the ultimate argument ender.  For the liberals among you, it isn't.  Here is the refutation.  First off, for most of Clinton's Presidency, he had a Republican Congress to contend with.  Next, Bill Clinton's Fed sold 20 and 30 year debt for the first time since the last Democrat President.  The new debt, was not included in the 10 year budget figures people discuss when talking about the budget deficit.  Also, the equity markets went on a huge run during the last 5 years of the millenium.  This produced a bonanza of capital gains, and therefore cap gains taxes during Clinton's last 5 years.  This was merely a matter of luck, and not anything Clinton did.  When Bush took over as President, the cap gains turned quickly into losses, and therefore lost revenue.  Since the CBO, and the Whitehouse had already included estimates for the cap gains to continue at the same pace for their budget estimates, this cost the Bush deficit double in impact.  In short, the Clinton Budget Surplus was always baloney.  Like everything else the Democrats say, it was inherently dishonest.

One more note of interest.  One piece of our history which is often overlooked is Alexander Hamilton's turn as Secretary of the Treasury.  His decision to continue to pay off British bond holders of American Debt during the war of 1812 made us the economic power we are today.  The rest of the world took note.  American debt was considered from that time to be the safest investment which could be made.  We continued to pay our enemy what we owed them even while we were at war with them.  We continued that practice through every war since.  This made our currency the standard for the entire globe.  Today, we are in danger of losing that status.  The foreign debt ratings services are considering lowering our credit ratings.  They apparently, are capable of basic mathematics.  Chris Christie, John Engler, Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal, Eric Cantor, and any of the other fiscal conservative are right.  We can no longer afford to keep the entitlements off of the table when discussing the budget.  We need to stop spending the money period.  We are out of time and choices.

Monday, January 17, 2011

Finding Out What's In It: Part V



Remember When Candidate Obama promised that under his Administration 95% of Americans would not experience an increase of one dime in the amount of taxes they paid? Having trouble remembering that? Well here it is, in his own words:



Well, as it turns out, that was a complete lie. As you might have guessed from Nancy Pelosi's arrogant remarks leading off this post, it has to do with Obamacare. You see, this sink hole of a new law is in fact also the single largest tax increase in American history. And, as you might expect, it is not just being levied on the, "rich." We all get to share in this joy.   Here is the list of tax hikes which resulted from Obamacare. 


Individual Mandate Excise Tax(Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following."

1 Adult2 Adults3+ Adults
20141% AGI/$951% AGI/$1901% AGI/$285
20152% AGI/$3252% AGI/$6502% AGI/$975
2016 +2.5% AGI/$6952.5% AGI/$13902.5% AGI/$2085


Employer Mandate Tax(Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. This provision applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).
Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years
Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): This increase involves the creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income

Capital GainsDividendsOther*
2010-201215%15%35%
2013+ (current law)23.8%43.4%43.4%
2013+ (Obama budget)23.8%23.8%43.4%

*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.
Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). For early retirees and high-risk professions exists a higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family). CPI +1 percentage point indexed.
Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:
First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee
All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee
Current Law1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
Obamacare Tax Hike1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed
Medicine Cabinet Tax($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)
HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka“Special Needs Kids Tax”($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap of $2500 (Indexed to inflation after 2013) on FSAs (now unlimited). . There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.
Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exemptions include items retailing for less than $100.
Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI; it is waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.
Tax on Indoor Tanning Services($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons
Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D($4.5 bil/Jan 2013)
Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services
Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals(Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS
Tax on Innovator Drug Companies($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.
Tax on Health Insurers($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. The stipulation phases in gradually until 2018, and is fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits.
$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives($0.6 bil/Jan 2013)
Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2(Min$/Jan 2011): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.
Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting($17.1 bil/Jan 2012): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers
“Black liquor” tax hike(Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel.
Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”(Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed


In a completely dishonest and by the way discredited effort to make this disaster, "budget neutral," raising money in the form of taxation became necessary.  Dishonest, in that we were promised and told repeatedly that there were no new taxes in it.  As a matter of fact, even as Obama's lawyers were in court claiming that the government has unbridled authority to tax the living snot out of us, he was on T.V. and radio telling us that there were no taxes in it for us non rich folk to be paying.  A Federal Judge threw this argument out last month.    Discredited, in that in every instance where we have raised the rates of taxation in this country, revenues to the federal coffers have declined.  I have argued with leftists on this point often, showed them the statistics, all to no avail.  It has to do with the multiplier effect, which is also included in the Keynesian theory they hold so dear. 

What this shows of course, is that Obamacare is less about health care, and those poor folks who can't afford medical treatment than it is about wealth redistribution and government control.  We have the best health care system in the world.  We are now in the process of wrecking it, or trying to save it, depending on which side of this you are on.  When foreigners get truly sick, they come to the U.S.A. in order to get better.  We are now putting ourselves into the third world on purpose with this new law.  Perhaps, our Representatives should have read it prior to passing it. 

Another discussion about budget neutrality.  This is a term our President bandies about and the media blindly follows suit with designed to make people believe that they won't have to foot the bill, (at least not in terms of paying more for something.)  All it means is that for every penny the government plans on spending, they plan on taxing us, in order to keep it a zero sum game.  So, when they pass a $1Trillion entitlement, in order to keep it budget neutral, they need to raise $1Trillion in new taxes.  Do you see the problem?  On the one hand, they told us that wrecking the best health care system in the world would save us money.  On the other hand, they had to use smoke and mirrors to make us believe we would not be paying more for it while they are preparing to bleed us dry for it. 

The real answer to our budget problems is not, as a former co-worker put it, Rocket Surgery.  It is simply a matter of not spending money.  The entitlement programs we already have are not sustainable.  We certainly can not afford new ones.  I would say that an irresponsible congress spends money like drunken sailors, but that is not fair to drunken sailors.  When they go on a bender, at least they are spending their own money.  Congress is spending ours.

UPDATE:  This article was also picked up by the blogmocracy, a great site and worth visiting by the way.  You can find the link on the blogroll located on the right side of the home page.  There was a comment added there that considers a new angle to the taxation that I had missed.  It is an interesting observation.

The interaction of these taxes is interesting. On the front end, four taxes starting Jan 2014 or earlier (excise tax on charitable hospitals, excise tax on medical device manufacturers, excise tax on drug companies, and excise tax on health insurers) all serve to directly increase the cost of medical care, and thus the size of premiums which must be charged. Then on the back end we have a delayed “cadillac plan” tax starting in 2018, after all the previously mentioned taxes have had time to poison the system. My bet is that the interaction of the excise taxes and the “cadillac tax”, including the delay in implementing the latter, was specifically designed to ensure that it would be very likely that all insurance plans would suffer the “cadillac tax”.
That being said, it is obvious from the order in which the taxes escalate, the true intent of the entire Law is to drive private insurers out of business.  The end result, if the Law survives will be a single payer system which has ruined the health care in several other nations, (Britain, Canada, Cuba.)


Sunday, January 16, 2011

Sunday Palate Cleanser!

I did not think that in my lifetime half of the country would be openly advocating for a Marxist economic system coupled with a socialist political system of governance.   Here is an argument against the former.


Saturday, January 15, 2011

Saturday Palate Cleanser.

Congressman Lt. Colonel Alan West: There is no other way to say it, this man just plain gets it.

Friday, January 14, 2011

Hezbollah Gearing Up For Another Round.

I found a very interesting article written my Michael Totten.  Hezbollah and really the rest of the Islamofaciasts have been employing a strategy for years on how to eventually destroy Israel.  They attack, lose, regroup, refortify, and attack again.  While they continue this cycle unbroken, they indoctrinate their children to hate all Jews through the most insidious form of child abuse known to any civilized society.  These children are so thoroughly unable to even think critically about a peaceful coexistence by the time they are young adults, it may very well be that it will take another two generations before the concept has any chance of working. 

Watch a couple of clips of Palestinian T.V., bear in mind that this is meant for children. 











I'll end it with a compilation clip with music added.




In the mean time, the hapless U.N. inspectors known as Unifil fail to notice that Hezbollah has quadrupled their missile capabilities since the end of the last war.  As a part of the end of the last war, and as a condition of Israeli withdrawal, The U.N. and the rest of the world promised Israel that Hezbollah would not be permitted to rearm itself.  Here we are though, a scant 4 years later, and they are firing across the border, and armed with 50,000 missiles once again.  Israel was blamed by the world's biased media last time around.  Will that be any different this time?  Especially now, that we see Hezbollah is clearly arming itself for another unprovoked attack.  Get ready for more fraudulent reporting like this. 

The hardest part of this to understand is that we've all seen this movie before.  The Islamists are masters at painting themselves as victims.  The Israelis, while they are much more representative of our values, morals, and peaceful in intention, are also lousy at the public relations game.  It is a shame too.  Israel, is our only true ally in the region.  They are the sole Democracy, and trading partner who is actually seeking to enrich us as a result of that trade rather than use the trade as a means to destroy our nation.  They share our values of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  They share our values of respect for life, and seeking to allow people to live freely in an open civilization.  The islamists, if Israel would ever be defeated, would seek to destroy us next. 

Here are some of the more interesting passages from the Totten article.

“Four years ago you could easily see Hezbollah positions and bunkers from here,” she said. “Now you can’t. Hezbollah pretends to respect United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, but that’s just their public face. Their posts are now hidden in houses and mosques.”

So, they are purposefully hiding weapons in schools with children and in Mosques. 

Hezbollah had 10,000 rockets before the war in 2006. Now it has between 40,000 and 50,000. Some are stored in warehouses. Others are hidden away a few at a time in private homes.

This is a clear contradiction of Resolution 1701.

“They’re storing huge amounts of C2 explosives next to clinics, schools, and mosques,” she said. “It’s terrible that Hezbollah is doing all this in civilian areas and sabotaging the new order in Lebanon. It’s sad, not just for Israel, but also for Lebanon.”

What will be the world reaction when in the course of defending herself, civilians are accidentally harmed.  History has shown that the Israelis will receive most of the blame.

Can you imagine Hamas or Hezbollah investigating their fighters and punishing them if they harmed Israeli civilians? The very idea is absurd. The whole point of firing missiles at cities and sending suicide bombers into restaurants and onto busses is to murder as many civilians as possible. These aren’t just acts of terrorism. They’re war crimes.
“If we get complaints about the intentional targeting of civilians, we have to investigate,” she said. “Our soldiers often take it personally and get angry. They resent being investigated after being ordered to go to war and risking their lives. I understand why they feel that way, but we have to do this. It’s not just important because of all the international pressure. It also matters for the health of our society.”

In the end, Hezbollah will target civilians specifically, and Israel will try to not harm any civilians.  The political left in this country will defend Hezbollah and demonize Israel.  The press will agree, as they have been shown to be irredeemably biased in so many other instances.  One more exit question, if you please.  How did a nation like Lebanon, which at one time was a majority christian, become about 65% Muslim today?  Do you believe that happened peacefully, or by other means?


UPDATE: Watch as Melanie Phillips gives a great explanation of how the Israelis lost and continues to lose the public relations debate.