It is coming and when it does Shariah Law will take all the fun out of life.
Ask any Muslim female.
---
I used to raise my hand like that when I was in grade school to get permission to pee!---
BREAKING NEWS!!
To save the economy, on September 28, 2011, Obama will announce that he is ordering the immigration department to start deporting old people (instead of illegals) in order to lower Social Security and Medicare costs.Old people are easier to catch, and will not remember how to get back home!
---
This was sent to me by a friend, fellow memo reader and former Shell executive. (See 1 below.)
---
This was sent to me by a friend and fellow memo reader.
I responded: " it sounds like Hillary's philosophy that:'it takes a village to raise a child.' "
In this instance Warren's village is a 'benign and friendly' government.
It goes without saying, we all owe something to someone or some event etc. but Warren personifies the radical thinking that emanates from the ivoried halls of Harvard.
Frankly if it takes a village to raise a child then that must be how the term village idiot was coined.
As for Warren's view regarding class warfare, once again more fuzzy thinking and innocuous verbiage. Voters in Massachusetts would be wise to keep her out of the Senate so she does not infect the rest of the nation with her blatherings.
For those who may want to hear what Warren had to say go to: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/elizabeth-warren-on-class-warfare-there-is-nobody-in-this-country-who-got-rich-on-his-own/.
Warren is an example of the kind of appointees Obama has been shoving down our throats and who have about as much identity with our nation as a flea. They have no practical experience are raving social radicals and their thinking is so far to the left of mainstream as to be bizarre.(See 2 below.)
Here's another slant on those who graduate from Harvard and go to Wall Street: " Speaking of people who think they're much smarter than they really are, the Harvard MBA indicator is flashing a sell signal again…
Ray Soifer, a former bank analyst with Brown Brothers Harriman, has been compiling the Harvard MBA Indicator for more than 20 years. The idea is simple. The greater the number of Harvard MBAs heading to Wall Street, the more likely stocks are to fall. The indicator has a decent track record…
Soifer's indicator correctly predicted falling stock markets in 1987 and 2000. It flashed a long-term sell from 2005-2008.
Right now, it looks like 37% or so of the class of 2011 has accepted so-called "market-sensitive" jobs, up from around 31% last year. The record was 41% in 2008, a great year to sell short stocks."
Meanwhile, "On Star" seeks to track you down and know what you are all about. (See 2a below.)
---
Counter-terrorist expert, Ellen Cannon, warned long ago America's soft underbelly was our schools. She said that is where radical Islamists would focus and seek to gain influence. They will do so, she predicted, by running for school boards, getting involved in the media and worm their way into government positions etc.
Obviously their first effort will be to penetrate Playboy Magazine - see above .(Also see 3 below.)
---
Anyone who cavorts with Howard Stern deserves what they get.
Entertainers should entertain and stay away from expressing their political views in a broad forum if they want to retain their audience and the public's affection. Ask the Dixie Chicks who
proved to be dumb clucks!
---
Anyone who cavorts with Howard Stern deserves what they get.
Entertainers should entertain and stay away from expressing their political views in a broad forum if they want to retain their audience and the public's affection. Ask the Dixie Chicks who
proved to be dumb clucks!
The only three successful entertainers I know who made the grade and transition were: Clint Eastwood, George Raft and Ronald Reagan.
Look what happened to Arnold! Even he could not handle the weightiness of public office.
(See 4 below.)
---
More commentary on the Troy Davis case and the death penalty. From a friend,. fellow memo reader and very bright mind.
This was e mailed to me in response to my own comments about this case.(See 5 below.)
---
Daniel Henninger discusses Obama's tax morass. (See 6 below.)
---
Another Obama "Class Act" which has turned into a classic failure. More fuzzy socialist thinking from the nation's premier do gooder-failure! (See 7 below.)
---
The New York Times has become so Left Wing it no longer tries to hide its blatant bias and anti-Semetic overtures. (See 8 below.)
Meanwhile, Krauthammer is busy re-discovering Obama. (See 8a below.)
---
Look what happened to Arnold! Even he could not handle the weightiness of public office.
(See 4 below.)
---
More commentary on the Troy Davis case and the death penalty. From a friend,. fellow memo reader and very bright mind.
This was e mailed to me in response to my own comments about this case.(See 5 below.)
---
Daniel Henninger discusses Obama's tax morass. (See 6 below.)
---
Another Obama "Class Act" which has turned into a classic failure. More fuzzy socialist thinking from the nation's premier do gooder-failure! (See 7 below.)
---
The New York Times has become so Left Wing it no longer tries to hide its blatant bias and anti-Semetic overtures. (See 8 below.)
Meanwhile, Krauthammer is busy re-discovering Obama. (See 8a below.)
---
Once again we want to thank all of our friends who remain in touch regarding Lynn's post operative condition. Because she is in overall good health due to working out in the gym and eating well her recovery has been amazing. She remains in good spirits but obviously would like a resolution of what her oncologist will prescribe. T he extra path test he wanted performed is now at the lab but results take a week so sometime after the end of September she should know whether she will undergo chemo in addition to radiation and anti-hormonal treatment.
Thanks again for your concern and we wish all our friends - Jewish and non-Jewish, a happy healthy New Year and may it be one of peace.
--
--
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)This e-mail is being sent to all Shell NW Alumni Club members and is a summary of John Hofmeister's talk to our club as taken by Events Chairman, Steve Jones.
"I wanted to thank you for making to today's luncheon and hearing a thrilling and insightful talk by John Hofmeister. If you had a chance at the luncheon to buy his book or get it at a library or buy it online I urge you to do so. It is fascinating and expands on today's talk.
I was at the back of the room trying feverishly to capture as many facts and thoughts as I could from John.
Here below I will offer what it was that I was able to grasp.
Regardless, John certainly made us think and I guess if we just shared this with a few people we know some of John's points can start to make a difference. It is at least something each of us could chose to do on our own to contribute towards solutions.
Bullets from John Hofmeister Talk:
•Coal Plants produce about 47% of the electricity in the US
•There are approximately 600 coal plants in the US
•The average age of the coal plants is 40 years old
•The designed life of these coal plants is 50 years
•There are plans for 100 new coal plants on the shelves only because the companies chose not to fight the permitting battles to bring them on stream
Nuclear Plants produce 20% of the electricity in the US
•There are approximately 104 nuclear plants in the US no new plants in last 30 years
•The Average age of the nuclear plants is 30 + years
•The permitted life of those nuclear plants is 40 years
•In the next decade the coal & nuclear plants will be past their design life
•
•Hydro Electric Power plants produce 5% of the electricity in the US
•No new meaningful Hydro Electrical Power Plants built in the past decade
•Natural Gas produces 22% of the electricity in the US
•US has no new Natural Gas Plants
•Oil produces 1% of the electricity in the US
•Wind & Solar produce 2% of the electricity in the US
•So, Coal + Nuclear + Hydro + Gas + Wind & Solar produce 97% of the electricity in the US.
•These are all very old systems and they can not keep running past their design timeframe and put out sufficient electricity to run the country.
•Remember the San Diego California blackout last week where 6 MM people were without electricity over night?
•Current government says double wind and solar every two/three years over the new decade and even if true you get another just above 12% as the losses from the primary forms of electrical production coal and nuclear dwindle much more than that gain
•US used to produce 10 MMBLS/day of crude oil
•US now produces 7 MMBLS/day of crude oil
•re Gulf Coast Offshore Oil moratorium was lifted in July 2008 when President GW Bush only when the price of crude reached 147/BBL
• US demand for crude oil is 20 MMBLS/day
•Might be easier to understand that 20 MMBLS/day is 10,000 gallons per second
•Another way to understand it is US produces 3300 gallons per second, we need 7700 gallons per second
•With no permitting in the Gulf 9 of the 33 rigs who were there are gone now not producing or searching for oil
•There is 3 trillion BBLS of Oil in this Hemisphere
•Canada Tar Sands 1 trillion, Venezuela 1 trillion, and US Oil Shale 1 trillion
What is going on in China?
•China has 1.3 billion people
•China has an economic development plan from now through 2020 it contains
•5 million Kilometers of new highways
•You fill up the highways with cars, buses, trucks with people inside them
•You need liquid fuel to run the cars, buses, trucks where does that come from?
•China will build 40 billion sq meters of new enclosed space which will need to be heated in winter, rolled in summer and lights
•China will build 174 new mass transits systems by 2020
•150 MM tourists visit China (most will fly into China to visit, & fly out)
•65 MM Chinese citizens will go outside China as tourists most fly out
•China will build 34 more new Nuclear plants by 2020
•China will build 1 new coal plant each week, right now China buying coal from Australia to feed the plants
•The world uses 86 MMBLS/day of crude and will need 9 MMBLS/day more by 2015 or 95 MMBLS/day
•Where will the crude come from???????
China is you guessed it worried about this NOW
•So, China has loaned over 120 Billion Dollars to National Oil Companies to get first dibs on the crude as it expands it needs
•So if that is the case China gets it crude as it expands so guess who is in trouble …correct the US is in trouble
•There may not be the 13 MMBBLS/day on the open market that the US needs to import to meet our current demand
•So guess what happens if US can not meet it energy demands…brown outs and black outs through out the country
We the people are the ones who have the vote to start to take this problem seriously as local, state and federal have not
What is the Problem why is nothing working to solve this??????
1) Political partisan is questioned whose ideas, is it in keeping with the political party they are with - constant bickering
2) Government folks think in two year cycles re elections. (Political Time versus Energy Time) NO one has the time for a 20, 50 year
Energy Plan to self sufficiency when there are only two years to re election
3) The US government's size and complexity are totally out of control too many committees to review the same information that no
one gets anything done (We have more Federal Judges 450 than we do congressman and they decide Energy policy locally too)
•What are the Solutions ?
•Get Informed ..more folks that know then say to their elected officials the better our chances simply say we need to insure our demand does not exceed our supply that simply.
•We need to change our governance re Energy in this country from the Congress and the Presidents and the Courts to and Independent Commission (like what was done with the Federal Reserve Money System) While in the Federal Reserve System not perfect art least Congress and the President and the Courts cannot interfere.
If you read John's Book "Why we Hate the Oil Companies" you will read so much more.
What a great gathering we had today.........thanks for attending."
Don
Don Caivano
Secretary
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2)Elizabeth Warren On Class Warfare: ‘There Is Nobody in This Country Who Got Rich On His Own’
Former White House financial reform adviser Elizabeth Warren, who is now seeking to challenge Republican Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts, is definitely not shy in voicing her views on class warfare — or, according to Warren, the lack thereof.
In a recent appearance captured on video, Warren, who is perhaps best known for helping to launch the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, stated boldly that there is no such thing as class warfare and that there is “nobody in this country who got rich on his own.”
“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.
“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.
“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
These statements certainly seem to keep in line with President Barack Obama’s reasons for proposing tax increases on America’s high income earners — especially given his recent assertion that he wears the charge of engaging in class warfare as a “badge of courage.”
2a)Does this sound like Big Brother?
OnStar began e-mailing customers Monday about its update to the privacy policy, which grants OnStar the right to sell that GPS-derived data in an anonymized format.
Adam Denison, a spokesman for the General Motors subsidiary, said OnStar does not currently sell customer data, but it reserves that right. He said both the new and old privacy policies allow OnStar to chronicle a vehicle’s every movement and its speed, though it’s not clear where that’s stated in the old policy.
“What’s changed [is that if] you want to cancel your OnStar service, we are going to maintain a two-way connection to your vehicle unless the customer says otherwise,” Denison said in a telephone interview.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3) Public schools: Key site for 'soft jihad'
Dr. Karen Gushta
The followers of Mohammed have a long tradition of taking the children of Christians and indoctrinating them to become fanatical soldiers. Called "Janissaries" (new soldiers), these children -- as Dr. D. James Kennedy explained in his sermon "Training Your Children" -- "had been taken as young children and had been taught the doctrines of Mohammedanism, and when they grew older, they were taught the arts of warfare." In 1453, when Constantinople was sacked, 20,000 of these children of Christians, turned into rapacious warriors, led the charge.
When Dr. Kennedy preached his sermon in 1993, he used the example of the Jannisaries to show how humanist teaching was carrying away the children of Christians. In 2011, we are beginning to see the earlier history of the Jannisaries being repeated as children in public schools are now being "taught the doctrines of Mohammedanism," while their own Christian religion is defamed.
In some instances students have been required to participate in learning activities in which they pretend they're Muslims, wear Islamic garb, memorize verses from the Quran, pray to Allah, and even play "jihad games."
Cinnamon Stillwell wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle:
Islamists have taken what's come to be known as the "soft jihad" into America's classrooms and children in K-12 are the first casualties. Whether it is textbooks, curriculum, classroom exercises, film screenings, speakers or teacher training, public education in America is under assault.
Whether the term is "soft jihad" or "cognitive warfare" -- as I wrote about in a previous column -- it is a form of indoctrination directed against our children, who are not equipped to dispute it or to disagree with it.
In his book Stealth Jihad, Robert Spencer credits the "credo of multiculturalism" for materials that "present a view of Islam that whitewashes its violent history and intolerant religious imperatives." While Islamic academies in America use teaching materials that "instill unequivocal hatred toward non-Muslims and a deep suspicion of Western culture," U.S.-based Islamic groups provide materials for Islamic instruction in public schools, says Spencer, that present "a picture of Islam that is so pristine and peaceful that it sometimes crosses the boundary from mere pro-Muslim bias into outright Islamic proselytizing."
Spencer cites the study released in 2008 by the American Textbook Council that reviewed ten of the most commonly used middle school and high school social studies textbooks. According to the Council, "while seventh-grade textbooks describe Islam in glowing language, they portray Christianity in harsh light. Students encounter a startling contrast. Islam is featured as a model of interfaith tolerance; Christians wage wars of aggression and kill Jews. Islam provides models of harmony and civilization. Anti-Semitism, the Inquisition, and wars of religion bespot the Christian record." The effect, according to Spencer, is to "transform many public school textbooks into proselytizing tracts."
In these textbooks, the term "jihad" is also sanitized of any associations with violence or bloodshed. They define it as a struggle "to do one's best to resist temptation and overcome evil" or as "effort in God's service" or even "the human struggle to overcome difficulties and do things that are pleasing to God."
But as Brigitte Gabriel writes in her book, They Must Be Stopped, "the Koran informs its followers that there is always a holy war being fought, and instructs its followers to participate ... and when you examine the history of Islam and the commandments of the Koran that endorse jihad as a military tool, it becomes clear that the term 'jihad' refers mostly to war against non-believers."
Gabriel points out that the objective of military jihad "is not only to convert people to Islam, but also to gain political control and exercise Islamic authority over a population so that society lives and abides by the principles of Islam."
If children are not taught the true meaning of "jihad" they will not be equipped to oppose it, and in fact may even become unwitting proponents of the ideology of political domination that is rooted within the religion itself.
According to Gabriel, over the course of 1,400 years of Islamic rule and jihad, Mohammedans killed 270 million people across the globe: 120 million Africans, 60 million Christians, 80 million Hindus, and 10 million Buddhists. These numbers support the claim of Samuel Huntington, author of The Clash of Civilizations, that "Islam has bloody borders."
Here in America, the blood of Americans has already been shed by Mohammedans whose goal is to gain political control and exercise Islamic authority over us. Where they cannot achieve that goal by killing us, they are using "civilization jihad" or "stealth jihad" in an effort to destroy "the Western civilization from within" as is stated in an "Explanatory Memorandum" to members of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. The memorandum proclaimed that Muslim brothers in North America "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house [the House of War] by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
The seriousness of their intent cannot be minimized. So what can parents and grandparents do? The first step is to find out what's happening in your child or grandchild's school. Take a look at the textbooks for history, geography, and/or social studies. Are they presenting a "politically correct" view of Islam, while denigrating Christianity and the Judeo-Christian heritage? The Gateways to Better Education website has a helpful guide to assist you: How to Evaluate Your Child's Textbooks.
If you find this kind of material in your child's or grandchild's textbooks, bring it to the attention of their teacher and the school principal and refer them to some of the resources included in this article.
If we don't act now, we'll have no one but ourselves to blame if the next Jannisaries turn out to be our own children or grandchildren.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4)Tony Bennett blames Americans for 9/11 attacks
'They flew the plane in, but we caused it,' crooner tells Howard Stern
While promoting his latest album, "Duets II," Tony Bennett appeared on Howard Stern’s Sirius XM radio show on Monday, Sept. 19. While the interview has landed Bennett’s name in the headlines, it may have also earned him some controversial publicity.
According to ABC News, the World War II vet (who described himself as “anti-war”) expressed disdain for the U.S.-Iraq war, calling it “a tremendous, tremendous mistake.” When challenged as to how America should deal with terrorists, specifically those involved with the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks, Bennett gave an unexpected answer.
“But who are the terrorists? Are we the terrorists or are they the terrorists? Two wrongs don’t make a right,” he said.
“They flew the plane in, but we caused it,” he continued. “Because we were bombing them and they told us to stop.” After a few moments of contemplative silence, Stern agreed that his guest had made “some good points.”
Bennett also noted that during a meeting with President George W. Bush in 2005, the head of state disclosed his opinion on the polarizing war. “He told me personally that night, he said, ‘I think I made a mistake,’” Bennett recalled, adding that President Bush “had a special liking to me.”
Bennett’s "Duets II" released on Sept. 20 via Columbia Records. The album features the last compete recording by Amy Winehouse prior to her death, as well as collaborations with Lady Gaga, John Mayer, Aretha Franklin et al.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) What hasn’t been said about the GA Death Penalty case.
There are many arguments for and against the death penalty. The proper forum for such arguments is in the state legislatures, not the courts. When a defendant is convicted and sentenced to the death, it is the duty of the courts to interpret and apply the law, not change it.
In the Davis case, there were nine eye witnesses. With all the external pressures of the anti-death penalty movement, seven of them recanted some years after their original court testimony. In an extraordinary hearing, the Judge determined that only one of those recantations was legitimate. As in any capital case, the Davis conviction experienced decades of multiple appeals in both the state and federal courts. Unlike those of us who get our facts from the media, the judges in each of these appeals saw all of the evidence and, when testimony was presented, observed the witnesses. If any judge in any of the multiple hearings or appeals had found there to be a reasonable doubt about the guilt of Troy Anthony Davis, the conviction would have been set aside.
If it were possible for convicted felons to have their sentences overturned by subsequent witness remorse years after the conviction, we would have no criminal justice system at all. The judges and prosecutor of Chatham County – the very county where the Davis conviction was entered – have publicly lamented how extremely difficult it is today to get witnesses to testify against criminals for fear of retaliation. Under the Constitution, a defendant has the right to confront witnesses. No witness can have his or her identity withheld from the defendant. If the supporters of any convicted felon were able to intimidate witnesses enough to cause them to change their testimony long after the conviction, no conviction would be final and no witness would be safe. Without the finality of criminal convictions, no citizen would be safe. Without safety, citizens would resort to armed encampments, as we see in Third World countries.
Justice has been done. The crowds who oppose the death penalty should apply their energies to teaching young boys to respect the law and spend their time productively, not take pride in having a nickname like “Rough as Hell” so none of them would murder innocent police officers and be subject to the death penalty. The best possible memorial to both Troy Davis and the officer he killed would be for the entire community to support the numerous organizations mentoring young people to make them participating and productive members of society. The coddling of punks has to end.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Obama's Tax Morass Barack Obama and his perpetually angry Democratic "base" are the outliers on comprehensive tax reform.
By DANIEL HENNINGER
Barack Obama has a remarkable habit of dumping the responsibility for solving massive fiscal and political problems on someone else. After Congress shoveled its way through his original stimulus proposal in 2009, it spent a year erecting a Rube Goldberg apparatus around health care. What emerged from these great off-loadings of work was an even grander mess.
The $825 billion stimulus did little for unemployment but jacked up the deficit. ObamaCare is now rumbling toward a terrified health-care industry like Godzilla bouncing off buildings on Main Street. Even Mr. Obama's jobs speech to a joint session of Congress triggered a stock-market rout.
This week, the president proposed a $1.5 trillion, 10-year tax increase and called it a path to reform. As night follows day: The Obama tax proposals, if passed, would ruin tax reform for years. More's the pity, because on taxes bipartisan support exists for reform to a degree absent on nearly any other major issue. If this president wanted to run for re-election with a pro-growth tax reform in the works, it would be his for the asking. He isn't asking.
Last year saw the release of two major bipartisan tax-reform proposals—the Bowles-Simpson commission, Mr. Obama's own creation; and the Domenici-Rivlin report from the Bipartisan Policy Center. GOP House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp is intent on comprehensive reform, with the support of Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, a Democrat.
The "Tax Reform" section of the 67-page Office of Management and Budget document detailing Mr. Obama's growth and deficit proposals reads as if written by competing factions in the White House. The case for real reform says all the right things: broaden the base, reduce rates, etc. No one would disagree. But the details are a complete disconnect.
There are no permanent tax cuts for anyone. That's off in the undefined future. The rhetoric and substance of the actual tax proposals are presented in the same angry anti-wealth rhetoric Mr. Obama has been using since his first economic message.
This is tax reform from Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. If passed, it would kill any chance of achieving the reform of the current tax system that is regarded by everyone else as a worthy goal.
Comprehensive tax reform is always political trench warfare against the status quo, requiring support from the White House and both parties in Congress. In any such effort, the current system's array of tax expenditures and loopholes—the things Mr. Obama wants to end—are the reformers' bargaining chips. The idea that Congress should end all these breaks "now" only to reduce deficits they created, get no tax reduction or simplification in return, and then do real reform later is ludicrous. What Mr. Obama is proposing would blow up tax reform.
Bowles-Simpson illustrates the trade-offs: To achieve their top marginal rate of 23% (which would turbocharge economic growth) means eliminating all tax expenditures; but if politics required keeping or revising current breaks, such as the mortgage deduction, the top rate rises to 28%. That's how tax reform works. This was the grand bargain that enabled the tax reform of 1986—cutting the top individual rate to 28% from 50%—which was led in Congress by GOP Sen. Bob Packwood and Democratic House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski.
When John Kennedy became president, the top marginal individual rate was 91%. But the tax code was littered with loopholes—for a reason. With such high rates, tax breaks were the only way the economy could function. Kennedy got rid of loopholes and dropped the top rate to 70%. Barack Obama wants to get rid of loopholes and raise rates.
The president's "pass-this-now" list targets tax preferences for the oil, gas, coal and insurance industries, plus an array of cats-and-dogs accounting rules and international tax practices. All these should be bargaining chips in a larger, more economically productive tax reform.
The Obama proposal would leave the current anti-growth tax morass intact, other than the higher taxes and the Buffett Rule. What he wants are wealth taxes, period. If he got that, does anyone believe he'd revisit reform in a second term?
If Mr. Obama is pushing these proposals merely to raise revenue or to create a campaign issue, so be it. If he truly thinks he is going to make the super-rich "pay their fair share," it is hopelessly naive. Over time the Beltway's tax artisans would carve out escape tunnels in the Obama tax prison. It will still be a mess.
Conventional media spin, encouraged by the Obama campaign, holds that "anti-tax" Republicans make compromise impossible. It is true, remarkably so, that an unprecedented degree of agreement has emerged among the Republican presidential candidates on lowering taxes. Less remarked is how close the GOP is now to the tax-policy ideas of the Democratic center. House Speaker John Boehner last week called for revising the tax code very much along the lines of Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin.
Barack Obama and his perpetually angry Democratic "base" are the outliers on comprehensive tax reform. And on much else.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)The Latest Obamacare Implosion
Inefficient programs that don't solve problems and are passed against the will of the American people seem to be the Obama Administration's forte. Now their high-minded aspirations of a health care revolution are quickly unraveling as fatal glitches in Obamacare become apparent.
Next up for implosion? The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, otherwise known as the "CLASS Act," which creates a government-run long term care insurance program too costly to sustain. At a time when entitlement programs in America have spun out of control, liberal proponents of Obamacare were pushing a new one that had no hope of staying afloat. Now, they are trying hide the fact that they were wrong as another bungling layer of Obamacare is exposed.
From its creation, the CLASS Act was completely unsustainable as written into law. The problem? Due to the effects of adverse selection, the program would charge high premiums that would deter less risky individuals from participating. Indeed, participating in the CLASS program would only appeal to those in poor health expecting to need long-term care in the future, further escalating premiums.
Due to its design, it was clear to Medicare actuaries and even liberal Members of Congress that CLASS would fail before it began. Like so many other aspects of the struggling Obamacare law, this one's flaws are abundantly clear. Brian Blase explains why the CLASS Act is broken and how its ill-conceived design would lead to its inevitable collapse or bailout:
The main problem is that the program's design will result in a badly skewed pool of participants ... This means healthy individuals are less likely to participate because they do not receive credit in the form of a lower premium, like they would if they purchased [long-term-care] insurance in the private market. Instead, CLASS participants are likely to be disabled individuals who are able to work part-time and individuals who anticipate future [long-term-care] needs.
Moreover, the adverse selection problem is exacerbated because individuals earning below the poverty line are subjected to only a $5 monthly premium, and less healthy people are much more likely to be below the poverty line. The artificially low premium for them means that premiums will have to be much higher for others, which will diminish overall enrollment in the program and worsen its long-run solvency. The poor design of CLASS almost guarantees that the program will collapse or need a bailout.
Last week, Heritage reported on internal emails sent prior to Obamacare's passage warning the Obama Administration of CLASS's impending disaster. While former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and friends were frantically shoving the 3,000 page health care bill through Congress, they were ignoring vital information about a program that was actuarially unsound and completely unworkable. In fact, as Heritage's Lachlan Markay reported, federal health experts told them via email that CLASS would result in an "insurance death spiral." Congress passed it anyway.
Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius has since stated that CLASS is "totally sustainable" and "financially unsound." The Department claimed it could solve these problems using its administrative authority, but the only way CLASS could possibly survive would be via a taxpayer bailout, varying premiums according health status, or by mandating worker participation--none of which are acceptable options. It's time to admit they are fighting a losing battle.
Bob Yee, chief actuary for the Health and Human Services office that administers the CLASS Act, recently left the office after being told his services weren't needed. He told The Wall Street Journal that other office staffers were being reassigned.
HHS is subsequently denying that they are killing the CLASS Act despite no longer having any employees working in its office. It's likely that the Administration has finally come to the realization that CLASS is beyond help.
A bicameral group of Republican Members of Congress are demanding answers in an oversight letter sent to HHS requesting information on their latest moves and what they knew about CLASS before Obamacare became law. Given CLASS' financial instability, James Capretta and Brian Riedl explain that Congress' best move is to repeal the law instead of piling debt upon debt with yet another unsustainable entitlement:
CLASS is destined to run short of funds, creating pressure for another massive taxpayer bailout. The biggest threat to the long-term prosperity of the country is the massive unfunded liabilities for the nation’s major entitlement program. The last thing Congress should be doing is adding to the burden of future taxpayers, which is why CLASS Act repeal is the most fiscally responsible—and ethical—course to follow.
So while HHS tries to cover their tracks by claiming CLASS is still being analyzed, it's clear that the only responsible thing for them to do is admit they were wrong in the first place and end this awful program before it's too late. And more importantly, Congress should repeal Obamacare before the biggest implosion of all hits the American people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8) NY Times senses something sinister in GOP support of Israel
By Leo Rennert
The New York Times finds it very worrisome that congressional Republicans and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu are getting along just fine. In fact, the Times smells something downright sinister in the growing amity between the GOP and the Israeli leader. And the Times doesn't like this one bit.
Also, it's not shy about letting readers know that the strong bonds between Bibi and the Republican Party on Capitol Hill don't bode well for the Times' own agenda of appeasing the Palestinians.
There, on the front page above the fold, pops up a lengthy article in the Sept. 21 edition, headlined: "House G.O.P. Finds A Growing Bond With Netanyahu -- Impact on Diplomacy -- Issue in Effort by U.S. to Avoid Confrontation at U.N. Session."
The article, by Jennifer Steinhauer and Steven Lee Myers, starts off with a recent grant of $50 million in U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority that was running into trouble in the House. So the Obama administration turned to Netanyahu for some assistance, he in turn informed lawmakers that Israel supported continued funding of the PA because it had more important fish to fry like blocking Palestinian statehood at the UN and it wants the world to see that it's the PA -- not Israel -- that's gumming up the peace process. And the PA got the money.
Nothing sinister in that, you might think. But not in the dark recesses of the NY Times. Its article, in the lead paragraph, immediately tags Netanyahu pejoratively as a "singularly influential lobbyist." And we all know that's not meant as a compliment.
To the Times, the $50 million grant doesn't count as a positive manifestation of Israel and the U.S. proceeding on the same page. Instead, it underscores "an extraordinary intersection of American diplomacy and domestic politics, the result of an ever-tightening relationship between the Israeli government and the Republican Party that now controls the House." Yikes!
But with the Times, it gets even worse. The Bibi-GOP bond, it asserts, "significantly complicates" the Obama administration's effort to derail Palestinian statehood at the UN. And why is that? Because it "limits President Obama's ability to exert pressure on Mr. Netanyahu to make concessions that could restart negotiations with the Palestinians."
And there you have it: The Times' first and last priority is to muscle Israel to make more and more concessions -- and Bibi's close ties with Republicans in the House stand in the way. How awful!
Now, we get to the funny part. The article's authors eventually get around to the fact that "unbending support for Israel has long been a bipartisan fact of American politics." So why all the commotion about Republicans and Democrats in Congress, Israel and the White House, all just moving on the same path? Ah, but here's the fly in the ointment -- "Mr. Netanyahu's popularity in Congress now runs deeper than ever." That' the real rub and it's just terrible as far as the Times is concerned.
Never mind that, as the article eventually admits, threats to cut off U.S. aid to the PA have come from both GOP and Democratic leaders. As an example of such bipartisanship, Steinhauer and Myers point to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer joining in an op-ed article supporting Israel.
Except that they don't identify Cantor as the majority leader in the Republican House. Times readers instead are told that Cantor is the "most powerful Jewish member of Congress."
And that I find particularly disgusting because it smells of the age-old anti-Semitic conspiracies that have led to countless pogroms and worse. If Cantor's religion is relevant, why isn't Hoyer's mentioned? With the Times, just being Jewish arouses suspicion.
8a)Return of the real Obama
By Charles Krauthammer
In a 2008 debate, Charlie Gibson asked Barack Obama about his support for raising capital gains taxes, given the historical record of government losing net revenue as a result. Obama persevered: “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”
A most revealing window into our president’s political core: To impose a tax that actually impoverishes our communal bank account (the U.S. Treasury) is ridiculous. It is nothing but punitive. It benefits no one — not the rich, not the poor, not the government. For Obama, however, it brings fairness, which is priceless.
Now that he’s president, Obama has actually gone and done it. He’s just proposed a $1.5 trillion tsunami of tax hikes featuring a “Buffett rule” that, although as yet deliberately still fuzzy, clearly includes raising capital gains taxes.
He also insists again upon raising marginal rates on “millionaire” couples making $250,000 or more. But roughly half the income of small businesses (i.e., those filing individual returns) would be hit by this tax increase. Therefore, if we are to believe Obama’s own logic that his proposed business tax credits would increase hiring, then surely this tax hike will reduce small-business hiring.
But what are jobs when fairness is at stake? Fairness trumps growth. Fairness trumps revenue. Fairness trumps economic logic.
Obama himself has said that “you don’t raise taxes in a recession.” Why then would he risk economic damage when facing reelection? Because these proposals have no chance of being enacted, many of them having been rejected by the Democratic-controlled Congress of Obama’s first two years in office.
Moreover, this is not an economic, or jobs, or debt-reduction plan in the first place. This is a campaign manifesto. This is anti-millionaire populism as premise for his reelection. And as such, it is already working.
Obama’s Democratic base is electrified. On the left, the new message is playing to rave reviews. It has rekindled the enthusiasm of his core constituency — the MoveOn, Hollywood liberal, Upper West Side precincts best described years ago by John Updike: “Like most of the neighborhood, she was a fighting liberal, fighting to have her money taken from her.”
Added Updike: “For all her exertions, it never was.” But now with Obama — it will be! Turns out, Obama really was the one they had been waiting for.
That is: the new Obama, today’s soak-the-rich, veto-threatening, self-proclaimed class warrior. Except that the new Obama is really the old Obama — the one who, upon entering office in the middle of a deep economic crisis, and determined not to allow “a serious crisis to go to waste” (to quote his then-chief of staff), exploited the (presumed) malleability of a demoralized and therefore passive citizenry to enact the largest Keynesian stimulus in recorded history, followed by the quasi-nationalization of one-sixth of the economy that is health care.
Considering the political cost — a massive electoral rebuke by an infuriated 2010 electorate — these are the works of a conviction politician, one deeply committed to his own social-democratic vision.
That politician now returns. Obama’s new populism surely is a calculation that his halfhearted feints to the center after the midterm “shellacking” were not only unconvincing but would do him no good anyway with a stagnant economy, 9 percent unemployment and a staggering $4 trillion of new debt.
But this is more than a political calculation. It is more than just a pander to his base. It is a pander to himself: Obama is a member of his base. He believes this stuff. It is an easy and comfortable political shift for him, because it’s a shift from a phony centrism back to his social-democratic core, from positioning to authenticity.
The authentic Obama is a leveler, a committed social democrat, a staunch believer in the redistributionist state, a tribune, above all, of “fairness” — understood as government-imposed and government-enforced equality.
That’s why “soak the rich” is not just a campaign slogan to rally the base. It’s a mission, a vocation. It’s why, for all its gratuitous cynicism and demagoguery, Obama’s populist Rose Garden lecture on Monday was delivered with such obvious — and unusual — conviction.
He’s returned to the authenticity of his radical April 2009 “New Foundation” address (at Georgetown University) that openly proclaimed his intent to fundamentally transform America.
Good. There’s something to be said for authenticity. A choice, not an echo, said Barry Goldwater. The country will soon choose, although not soon enough.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)This e-mail is being sent to all Shell NW Alumni Club members and is a summary of John Hofmeister's talk to our club as taken by Events Chairman, Steve Jones.
"I wanted to thank you for making to today's luncheon and hearing a thrilling and insightful talk by John Hofmeister. If you had a chance at the luncheon to buy his book or get it at a library or buy it online I urge you to do so. It is fascinating and expands on today's talk.
I was at the back of the room trying feverishly to capture as many facts and thoughts as I could from John.
Here below I will offer what it was that I was able to grasp.
Regardless, John certainly made us think and I guess if we just shared this with a few people we know some of John's points can start to make a difference. It is at least something each of us could chose to do on our own to contribute towards solutions.
Bullets from John Hofmeister Talk:
•Coal Plants produce about 47% of the electricity in the US
•There are approximately 600 coal plants in the US
•The average age of the coal plants is 40 years old
•The designed life of these coal plants is 50 years
•There are plans for 100 new coal plants on the shelves only because the companies chose not to fight the permitting battles to bring them on stream
Nuclear Plants produce 20% of the electricity in the US
•There are approximately 104 nuclear plants in the US no new plants in last 30 years
•The Average age of the nuclear plants is 30 + years
•The permitted life of those nuclear plants is 40 years
•In the next decade the coal & nuclear plants will be past their design life
•
•Hydro Electric Power plants produce 5% of the electricity in the US
•No new meaningful Hydro Electrical Power Plants built in the past decade
•Natural Gas produces 22% of the electricity in the US
•US has no new Natural Gas Plants
•Oil produces 1% of the electricity in the US
•Wind & Solar produce 2% of the electricity in the US
•So, Coal + Nuclear + Hydro + Gas + Wind & Solar produce 97% of the electricity in the US.
•These are all very old systems and they can not keep running past their design timeframe and put out sufficient electricity to run the country.
•Remember the San Diego California blackout last week where 6 MM people were without electricity over night?
•Current government says double wind and solar every two/three years over the new decade and even if true you get another just above 12% as the losses from the primary forms of electrical production coal and nuclear dwindle much more than that gain
•US used to produce 10 MMBLS/day of crude oil
•US now produces 7 MMBLS/day of crude oil
•re Gulf Coast Offshore Oil moratorium was lifted in July 2008 when President GW Bush only when the price of crude reached 147/BBL
• US demand for crude oil is 20 MMBLS/day
•Might be easier to understand that 20 MMBLS/day is 10,000 gallons per second
•Another way to understand it is US produces 3300 gallons per second, we need 7700 gallons per second
•With no permitting in the Gulf 9 of the 33 rigs who were there are gone now not producing or searching for oil
•There is 3 trillion BBLS of Oil in this Hemisphere
•Canada Tar Sands 1 trillion, Venezuela 1 trillion, and US Oil Shale 1 trillion
What is going on in China?
•China has 1.3 billion people
•China has an economic development plan from now through 2020 it contains
•5 million Kilometers of new highways
•You fill up the highways with cars, buses, trucks with people inside them
•You need liquid fuel to run the cars, buses, trucks where does that come from?
•China will build 40 billion sq meters of new enclosed space which will need to be heated in winter, rolled in summer and lights
•China will build 174 new mass transits systems by 2020
•150 MM tourists visit China (most will fly into China to visit, & fly out)
•65 MM Chinese citizens will go outside China as tourists most fly out
•China will build 34 more new Nuclear plants by 2020
•China will build 1 new coal plant each week, right now China buying coal from Australia to feed the plants
•The world uses 86 MMBLS/day of crude and will need 9 MMBLS/day more by 2015 or 95 MMBLS/day
•Where will the crude come from???????
China is you guessed it worried about this NOW
•So, China has loaned over 120 Billion Dollars to National Oil Companies to get first dibs on the crude as it expands it needs
•So if that is the case China gets it crude as it expands so guess who is in trouble …correct the US is in trouble
•There may not be the 13 MMBBLS/day on the open market that the US needs to import to meet our current demand
•So guess what happens if US can not meet it energy demands…brown outs and black outs through out the country
We the people are the ones who have the vote to start to take this problem seriously as local, state and federal have not
What is the Problem why is nothing working to solve this??????
1) Political partisan is questioned whose ideas, is it in keeping with the political party they are with - constant bickering
2) Government folks think in two year cycles re elections. (Political Time versus Energy Time) NO one has the time for a 20, 50 year
Energy Plan to self sufficiency when there are only two years to re election
3) The US government's size and complexity are totally out of control too many committees to review the same information that no
one gets anything done (We have more Federal Judges 450 than we do congressman and they decide Energy policy locally too)
•What are the Solutions ?
•Get Informed ..more folks that know then say to their elected officials the better our chances simply say we need to insure our demand does not exceed our supply that simply.
•We need to change our governance re Energy in this country from the Congress and the Presidents and the Courts to and Independent Commission (like what was done with the Federal Reserve Money System) While in the Federal Reserve System not perfect art least Congress and the President and the Courts cannot interfere.
If you read John's Book "Why we Hate the Oil Companies" you will read so much more.
What a great gathering we had today.........thanks for attending."
Don
Don Caivano
Secretary
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2)Elizabeth Warren On Class Warfare: ‘There Is Nobody in This Country Who Got Rich On His Own’
Former White House financial reform adviser Elizabeth Warren, who is now seeking to challenge Republican Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts, is definitely not shy in voicing her views on class warfare — or, according to Warren, the lack thereof.
In a recent appearance captured on video, Warren, who is perhaps best known for helping to launch the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, stated boldly that there is no such thing as class warfare and that there is “nobody in this country who got rich on his own.”
“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.
“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.
“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
These statements certainly seem to keep in line with President Barack Obama’s reasons for proposing tax increases on America’s high income earners — especially given his recent assertion that he wears the charge of engaging in class warfare as a “badge of courage.”
2a)Does this sound like Big Brother?
OnStar began e-mailing customers Monday about its update to the privacy policy, which grants OnStar the right to sell that GPS-derived data in an anonymized format.
Adam Denison, a spokesman for the General Motors subsidiary, said OnStar does not currently sell customer data, but it reserves that right. He said both the new and old privacy policies allow OnStar to chronicle a vehicle’s every movement and its speed, though it’s not clear where that’s stated in the old policy.
“What’s changed [is that if] you want to cancel your OnStar service, we are going to maintain a two-way connection to your vehicle unless the customer says otherwise,” Denison said in a telephone interview.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3) Public schools: Key site for 'soft jihad'
Dr. Karen Gushta
The followers of Mohammed have a long tradition of taking the children of Christians and indoctrinating them to become fanatical soldiers. Called "Janissaries" (new soldiers), these children -- as Dr. D. James Kennedy explained in his sermon "Training Your Children" -- "had been taken as young children and had been taught the doctrines of Mohammedanism, and when they grew older, they were taught the arts of warfare." In 1453, when Constantinople was sacked, 20,000 of these children of Christians, turned into rapacious warriors, led the charge.
When Dr. Kennedy preached his sermon in 1993, he used the example of the Jannisaries to show how humanist teaching was carrying away the children of Christians. In 2011, we are beginning to see the earlier history of the Jannisaries being repeated as children in public schools are now being "taught the doctrines of Mohammedanism," while their own Christian religion is defamed.
In some instances students have been required to participate in learning activities in which they pretend they're Muslims, wear Islamic garb, memorize verses from the Quran, pray to Allah, and even play "jihad games."
Cinnamon Stillwell wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle:
Islamists have taken what's come to be known as the "soft jihad" into America's classrooms and children in K-12 are the first casualties. Whether it is textbooks, curriculum, classroom exercises, film screenings, speakers or teacher training, public education in America is under assault.
Whether the term is "soft jihad" or "cognitive warfare" -- as I wrote about in a previous column -- it is a form of indoctrination directed against our children, who are not equipped to dispute it or to disagree with it.
In his book Stealth Jihad, Robert Spencer credits the "credo of multiculturalism" for materials that "present a view of Islam that whitewashes its violent history and intolerant religious imperatives." While Islamic academies in America use teaching materials that "instill unequivocal hatred toward non-Muslims and a deep suspicion of Western culture," U.S.-based Islamic groups provide materials for Islamic instruction in public schools, says Spencer, that present "a picture of Islam that is so pristine and peaceful that it sometimes crosses the boundary from mere pro-Muslim bias into outright Islamic proselytizing."
Spencer cites the study released in 2008 by the American Textbook Council that reviewed ten of the most commonly used middle school and high school social studies textbooks. According to the Council, "while seventh-grade textbooks describe Islam in glowing language, they portray Christianity in harsh light. Students encounter a startling contrast. Islam is featured as a model of interfaith tolerance; Christians wage wars of aggression and kill Jews. Islam provides models of harmony and civilization. Anti-Semitism, the Inquisition, and wars of religion bespot the Christian record." The effect, according to Spencer, is to "transform many public school textbooks into proselytizing tracts."
In these textbooks, the term "jihad" is also sanitized of any associations with violence or bloodshed. They define it as a struggle "to do one's best to resist temptation and overcome evil" or as "effort in God's service" or even "the human struggle to overcome difficulties and do things that are pleasing to God."
But as Brigitte Gabriel writes in her book, They Must Be Stopped, "the Koran informs its followers that there is always a holy war being fought, and instructs its followers to participate ... and when you examine the history of Islam and the commandments of the Koran that endorse jihad as a military tool, it becomes clear that the term 'jihad' refers mostly to war against non-believers."
Gabriel points out that the objective of military jihad "is not only to convert people to Islam, but also to gain political control and exercise Islamic authority over a population so that society lives and abides by the principles of Islam."
If children are not taught the true meaning of "jihad" they will not be equipped to oppose it, and in fact may even become unwitting proponents of the ideology of political domination that is rooted within the religion itself.
According to Gabriel, over the course of 1,400 years of Islamic rule and jihad, Mohammedans killed 270 million people across the globe: 120 million Africans, 60 million Christians, 80 million Hindus, and 10 million Buddhists. These numbers support the claim of Samuel Huntington, author of The Clash of Civilizations, that "Islam has bloody borders."
Here in America, the blood of Americans has already been shed by Mohammedans whose goal is to gain political control and exercise Islamic authority over us. Where they cannot achieve that goal by killing us, they are using "civilization jihad" or "stealth jihad" in an effort to destroy "the Western civilization from within" as is stated in an "Explanatory Memorandum" to members of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. The memorandum proclaimed that Muslim brothers in North America "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house [the House of War] by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
The seriousness of their intent cannot be minimized. So what can parents and grandparents do? The first step is to find out what's happening in your child or grandchild's school. Take a look at the textbooks for history, geography, and/or social studies. Are they presenting a "politically correct" view of Islam, while denigrating Christianity and the Judeo-Christian heritage? The Gateways to Better Education website has a helpful guide to assist you: How to Evaluate Your Child's Textbooks.
If you find this kind of material in your child's or grandchild's textbooks, bring it to the attention of their teacher and the school principal and refer them to some of the resources included in this article.
If we don't act now, we'll have no one but ourselves to blame if the next Jannisaries turn out to be our own children or grandchildren.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4)Tony Bennett blames Americans for 9/11 attacks
'They flew the plane in, but we caused it,' crooner tells Howard Stern
While promoting his latest album, "Duets II," Tony Bennett appeared on Howard Stern’s Sirius XM radio show on Monday, Sept. 19. While the interview has landed Bennett’s name in the headlines, it may have also earned him some controversial publicity.
According to ABC News, the World War II vet (who described himself as “anti-war”) expressed disdain for the U.S.-Iraq war, calling it “a tremendous, tremendous mistake.” When challenged as to how America should deal with terrorists, specifically those involved with the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks, Bennett gave an unexpected answer.
“But who are the terrorists? Are we the terrorists or are they the terrorists? Two wrongs don’t make a right,” he said.
“They flew the plane in, but we caused it,” he continued. “Because we were bombing them and they told us to stop.” After a few moments of contemplative silence, Stern agreed that his guest had made “some good points.”
Bennett also noted that during a meeting with President George W. Bush in 2005, the head of state disclosed his opinion on the polarizing war. “He told me personally that night, he said, ‘I think I made a mistake,’” Bennett recalled, adding that President Bush “had a special liking to me.”
Bennett’s "Duets II" released on Sept. 20 via Columbia Records. The album features the last compete recording by Amy Winehouse prior to her death, as well as collaborations with Lady Gaga, John Mayer, Aretha Franklin et al.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) What hasn’t been said about the GA Death Penalty case.
There are many arguments for and against the death penalty. The proper forum for such arguments is in the state legislatures, not the courts. When a defendant is convicted and sentenced to the death, it is the duty of the courts to interpret and apply the law, not change it.
In the Davis case, there were nine eye witnesses. With all the external pressures of the anti-death penalty movement, seven of them recanted some years after their original court testimony. In an extraordinary hearing, the Judge determined that only one of those recantations was legitimate. As in any capital case, the Davis conviction experienced decades of multiple appeals in both the state and federal courts. Unlike those of us who get our facts from the media, the judges in each of these appeals saw all of the evidence and, when testimony was presented, observed the witnesses. If any judge in any of the multiple hearings or appeals had found there to be a reasonable doubt about the guilt of Troy Anthony Davis, the conviction would have been set aside.
If it were possible for convicted felons to have their sentences overturned by subsequent witness remorse years after the conviction, we would have no criminal justice system at all. The judges and prosecutor of Chatham County – the very county where the Davis conviction was entered – have publicly lamented how extremely difficult it is today to get witnesses to testify against criminals for fear of retaliation. Under the Constitution, a defendant has the right to confront witnesses. No witness can have his or her identity withheld from the defendant. If the supporters of any convicted felon were able to intimidate witnesses enough to cause them to change their testimony long after the conviction, no conviction would be final and no witness would be safe. Without the finality of criminal convictions, no citizen would be safe. Without safety, citizens would resort to armed encampments, as we see in Third World countries.
Justice has been done. The crowds who oppose the death penalty should apply their energies to teaching young boys to respect the law and spend their time productively, not take pride in having a nickname like “Rough as Hell” so none of them would murder innocent police officers and be subject to the death penalty. The best possible memorial to both Troy Davis and the officer he killed would be for the entire community to support the numerous organizations mentoring young people to make them participating and productive members of society. The coddling of punks has to end.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Obama's Tax Morass Barack Obama and his perpetually angry Democratic "base" are the outliers on comprehensive tax reform.
By DANIEL HENNINGER
Barack Obama has a remarkable habit of dumping the responsibility for solving massive fiscal and political problems on someone else. After Congress shoveled its way through his original stimulus proposal in 2009, it spent a year erecting a Rube Goldberg apparatus around health care. What emerged from these great off-loadings of work was an even grander mess.
The $825 billion stimulus did little for unemployment but jacked up the deficit. ObamaCare is now rumbling toward a terrified health-care industry like Godzilla bouncing off buildings on Main Street. Even Mr. Obama's jobs speech to a joint session of Congress triggered a stock-market rout.
This week, the president proposed a $1.5 trillion, 10-year tax increase and called it a path to reform. As night follows day: The Obama tax proposals, if passed, would ruin tax reform for years. More's the pity, because on taxes bipartisan support exists for reform to a degree absent on nearly any other major issue. If this president wanted to run for re-election with a pro-growth tax reform in the works, it would be his for the asking. He isn't asking.
Last year saw the release of two major bipartisan tax-reform proposals—the Bowles-Simpson commission, Mr. Obama's own creation; and the Domenici-Rivlin report from the Bipartisan Policy Center. GOP House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp is intent on comprehensive reform, with the support of Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, a Democrat.
The "Tax Reform" section of the 67-page Office of Management and Budget document detailing Mr. Obama's growth and deficit proposals reads as if written by competing factions in the White House. The case for real reform says all the right things: broaden the base, reduce rates, etc. No one would disagree. But the details are a complete disconnect.
There are no permanent tax cuts for anyone. That's off in the undefined future. The rhetoric and substance of the actual tax proposals are presented in the same angry anti-wealth rhetoric Mr. Obama has been using since his first economic message.
This is tax reform from Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. If passed, it would kill any chance of achieving the reform of the current tax system that is regarded by everyone else as a worthy goal.
Comprehensive tax reform is always political trench warfare against the status quo, requiring support from the White House and both parties in Congress. In any such effort, the current system's array of tax expenditures and loopholes—the things Mr. Obama wants to end—are the reformers' bargaining chips. The idea that Congress should end all these breaks "now" only to reduce deficits they created, get no tax reduction or simplification in return, and then do real reform later is ludicrous. What Mr. Obama is proposing would blow up tax reform.
Bowles-Simpson illustrates the trade-offs: To achieve their top marginal rate of 23% (which would turbocharge economic growth) means eliminating all tax expenditures; but if politics required keeping or revising current breaks, such as the mortgage deduction, the top rate rises to 28%. That's how tax reform works. This was the grand bargain that enabled the tax reform of 1986—cutting the top individual rate to 28% from 50%—which was led in Congress by GOP Sen. Bob Packwood and Democratic House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski.
When John Kennedy became president, the top marginal individual rate was 91%. But the tax code was littered with loopholes—for a reason. With such high rates, tax breaks were the only way the economy could function. Kennedy got rid of loopholes and dropped the top rate to 70%. Barack Obama wants to get rid of loopholes and raise rates.
The president's "pass-this-now" list targets tax preferences for the oil, gas, coal and insurance industries, plus an array of cats-and-dogs accounting rules and international tax practices. All these should be bargaining chips in a larger, more economically productive tax reform.
The Obama proposal would leave the current anti-growth tax morass intact, other than the higher taxes and the Buffett Rule. What he wants are wealth taxes, period. If he got that, does anyone believe he'd revisit reform in a second term?
If Mr. Obama is pushing these proposals merely to raise revenue or to create a campaign issue, so be it. If he truly thinks he is going to make the super-rich "pay their fair share," it is hopelessly naive. Over time the Beltway's tax artisans would carve out escape tunnels in the Obama tax prison. It will still be a mess.
Conventional media spin, encouraged by the Obama campaign, holds that "anti-tax" Republicans make compromise impossible. It is true, remarkably so, that an unprecedented degree of agreement has emerged among the Republican presidential candidates on lowering taxes. Less remarked is how close the GOP is now to the tax-policy ideas of the Democratic center. House Speaker John Boehner last week called for revising the tax code very much along the lines of Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin.
Barack Obama and his perpetually angry Democratic "base" are the outliers on comprehensive tax reform. And on much else.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)The Latest Obamacare Implosion
Inefficient programs that don't solve problems and are passed against the will of the American people seem to be the Obama Administration's forte. Now their high-minded aspirations of a health care revolution are quickly unraveling as fatal glitches in Obamacare become apparent.
Next up for implosion? The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, otherwise known as the "CLASS Act," which creates a government-run long term care insurance program too costly to sustain. At a time when entitlement programs in America have spun out of control, liberal proponents of Obamacare were pushing a new one that had no hope of staying afloat. Now, they are trying hide the fact that they were wrong as another bungling layer of Obamacare is exposed.
From its creation, the CLASS Act was completely unsustainable as written into law. The problem? Due to the effects of adverse selection, the program would charge high premiums that would deter less risky individuals from participating. Indeed, participating in the CLASS program would only appeal to those in poor health expecting to need long-term care in the future, further escalating premiums.
Due to its design, it was clear to Medicare actuaries and even liberal Members of Congress that CLASS would fail before it began. Like so many other aspects of the struggling Obamacare law, this one's flaws are abundantly clear. Brian Blase explains why the CLASS Act is broken and how its ill-conceived design would lead to its inevitable collapse or bailout:
The main problem is that the program's design will result in a badly skewed pool of participants ... This means healthy individuals are less likely to participate because they do not receive credit in the form of a lower premium, like they would if they purchased [long-term-care] insurance in the private market. Instead, CLASS participants are likely to be disabled individuals who are able to work part-time and individuals who anticipate future [long-term-care] needs.
Moreover, the adverse selection problem is exacerbated because individuals earning below the poverty line are subjected to only a $5 monthly premium, and less healthy people are much more likely to be below the poverty line. The artificially low premium for them means that premiums will have to be much higher for others, which will diminish overall enrollment in the program and worsen its long-run solvency. The poor design of CLASS almost guarantees that the program will collapse or need a bailout.
Last week, Heritage reported on internal emails sent prior to Obamacare's passage warning the Obama Administration of CLASS's impending disaster. While former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and friends were frantically shoving the 3,000 page health care bill through Congress, they were ignoring vital information about a program that was actuarially unsound and completely unworkable. In fact, as Heritage's Lachlan Markay reported, federal health experts told them via email that CLASS would result in an "insurance death spiral." Congress passed it anyway.
Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius has since stated that CLASS is "totally sustainable" and "financially unsound." The Department claimed it could solve these problems using its administrative authority, but the only way CLASS could possibly survive would be via a taxpayer bailout, varying premiums according health status, or by mandating worker participation--none of which are acceptable options. It's time to admit they are fighting a losing battle.
Bob Yee, chief actuary for the Health and Human Services office that administers the CLASS Act, recently left the office after being told his services weren't needed. He told The Wall Street Journal that other office staffers were being reassigned.
HHS is subsequently denying that they are killing the CLASS Act despite no longer having any employees working in its office. It's likely that the Administration has finally come to the realization that CLASS is beyond help.
A bicameral group of Republican Members of Congress are demanding answers in an oversight letter sent to HHS requesting information on their latest moves and what they knew about CLASS before Obamacare became law. Given CLASS' financial instability, James Capretta and Brian Riedl explain that Congress' best move is to repeal the law instead of piling debt upon debt with yet another unsustainable entitlement:
CLASS is destined to run short of funds, creating pressure for another massive taxpayer bailout. The biggest threat to the long-term prosperity of the country is the massive unfunded liabilities for the nation’s major entitlement program. The last thing Congress should be doing is adding to the burden of future taxpayers, which is why CLASS Act repeal is the most fiscally responsible—and ethical—course to follow.
So while HHS tries to cover their tracks by claiming CLASS is still being analyzed, it's clear that the only responsible thing for them to do is admit they were wrong in the first place and end this awful program before it's too late. And more importantly, Congress should repeal Obamacare before the biggest implosion of all hits the American people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8) NY Times senses something sinister in GOP support of Israel
By Leo Rennert
The New York Times finds it very worrisome that congressional Republicans and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu are getting along just fine. In fact, the Times smells something downright sinister in the growing amity between the GOP and the Israeli leader. And the Times doesn't like this one bit.
Also, it's not shy about letting readers know that the strong bonds between Bibi and the Republican Party on Capitol Hill don't bode well for the Times' own agenda of appeasing the Palestinians.
There, on the front page above the fold, pops up a lengthy article in the Sept. 21 edition, headlined: "House G.O.P. Finds A Growing Bond With Netanyahu -- Impact on Diplomacy -- Issue in Effort by U.S. to Avoid Confrontation at U.N. Session."
The article, by Jennifer Steinhauer and Steven Lee Myers, starts off with a recent grant of $50 million in U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority that was running into trouble in the House. So the Obama administration turned to Netanyahu for some assistance, he in turn informed lawmakers that Israel supported continued funding of the PA because it had more important fish to fry like blocking Palestinian statehood at the UN and it wants the world to see that it's the PA -- not Israel -- that's gumming up the peace process. And the PA got the money.
Nothing sinister in that, you might think. But not in the dark recesses of the NY Times. Its article, in the lead paragraph, immediately tags Netanyahu pejoratively as a "singularly influential lobbyist." And we all know that's not meant as a compliment.
To the Times, the $50 million grant doesn't count as a positive manifestation of Israel and the U.S. proceeding on the same page. Instead, it underscores "an extraordinary intersection of American diplomacy and domestic politics, the result of an ever-tightening relationship between the Israeli government and the Republican Party that now controls the House." Yikes!
But with the Times, it gets even worse. The Bibi-GOP bond, it asserts, "significantly complicates" the Obama administration's effort to derail Palestinian statehood at the UN. And why is that? Because it "limits President Obama's ability to exert pressure on Mr. Netanyahu to make concessions that could restart negotiations with the Palestinians."
And there you have it: The Times' first and last priority is to muscle Israel to make more and more concessions -- and Bibi's close ties with Republicans in the House stand in the way. How awful!
Now, we get to the funny part. The article's authors eventually get around to the fact that "unbending support for Israel has long been a bipartisan fact of American politics." So why all the commotion about Republicans and Democrats in Congress, Israel and the White House, all just moving on the same path? Ah, but here's the fly in the ointment -- "Mr. Netanyahu's popularity in Congress now runs deeper than ever." That' the real rub and it's just terrible as far as the Times is concerned.
Never mind that, as the article eventually admits, threats to cut off U.S. aid to the PA have come from both GOP and Democratic leaders. As an example of such bipartisanship, Steinhauer and Myers point to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer joining in an op-ed article supporting Israel.
Except that they don't identify Cantor as the majority leader in the Republican House. Times readers instead are told that Cantor is the "most powerful Jewish member of Congress."
And that I find particularly disgusting because it smells of the age-old anti-Semitic conspiracies that have led to countless pogroms and worse. If Cantor's religion is relevant, why isn't Hoyer's mentioned? With the Times, just being Jewish arouses suspicion.
8a)Return of the real Obama
By Charles Krauthammer
In a 2008 debate, Charlie Gibson asked Barack Obama about his support for raising capital gains taxes, given the historical record of government losing net revenue as a result. Obama persevered: “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”
A most revealing window into our president’s political core: To impose a tax that actually impoverishes our communal bank account (the U.S. Treasury) is ridiculous. It is nothing but punitive. It benefits no one — not the rich, not the poor, not the government. For Obama, however, it brings fairness, which is priceless.
Now that he’s president, Obama has actually gone and done it. He’s just proposed a $1.5 trillion tsunami of tax hikes featuring a “Buffett rule” that, although as yet deliberately still fuzzy, clearly includes raising capital gains taxes.
He also insists again upon raising marginal rates on “millionaire” couples making $250,000 or more. But roughly half the income of small businesses (i.e., those filing individual returns) would be hit by this tax increase. Therefore, if we are to believe Obama’s own logic that his proposed business tax credits would increase hiring, then surely this tax hike will reduce small-business hiring.
But what are jobs when fairness is at stake? Fairness trumps growth. Fairness trumps revenue. Fairness trumps economic logic.
Obama himself has said that “you don’t raise taxes in a recession.” Why then would he risk economic damage when facing reelection? Because these proposals have no chance of being enacted, many of them having been rejected by the Democratic-controlled Congress of Obama’s first two years in office.
Moreover, this is not an economic, or jobs, or debt-reduction plan in the first place. This is a campaign manifesto. This is anti-millionaire populism as premise for his reelection. And as such, it is already working.
Obama’s Democratic base is electrified. On the left, the new message is playing to rave reviews. It has rekindled the enthusiasm of his core constituency — the MoveOn, Hollywood liberal, Upper West Side precincts best described years ago by John Updike: “Like most of the neighborhood, she was a fighting liberal, fighting to have her money taken from her.”
Added Updike: “For all her exertions, it never was.” But now with Obama — it will be! Turns out, Obama really was the one they had been waiting for.
That is: the new Obama, today’s soak-the-rich, veto-threatening, self-proclaimed class warrior. Except that the new Obama is really the old Obama — the one who, upon entering office in the middle of a deep economic crisis, and determined not to allow “a serious crisis to go to waste” (to quote his then-chief of staff), exploited the (presumed) malleability of a demoralized and therefore passive citizenry to enact the largest Keynesian stimulus in recorded history, followed by the quasi-nationalization of one-sixth of the economy that is health care.
Considering the political cost — a massive electoral rebuke by an infuriated 2010 electorate — these are the works of a conviction politician, one deeply committed to his own social-democratic vision.
That politician now returns. Obama’s new populism surely is a calculation that his halfhearted feints to the center after the midterm “shellacking” were not only unconvincing but would do him no good anyway with a stagnant economy, 9 percent unemployment and a staggering $4 trillion of new debt.
But this is more than a political calculation. It is more than just a pander to his base. It is a pander to himself: Obama is a member of his base. He believes this stuff. It is an easy and comfortable political shift for him, because it’s a shift from a phony centrism back to his social-democratic core, from positioning to authenticity.
The authentic Obama is a leveler, a committed social democrat, a staunch believer in the redistributionist state, a tribune, above all, of “fairness” — understood as government-imposed and government-enforced equality.
That’s why “soak the rich” is not just a campaign slogan to rally the base. It’s a mission, a vocation. It’s why, for all its gratuitous cynicism and demagoguery, Obama’s populist Rose Garden lecture on Monday was delivered with such obvious — and unusual — conviction.
He’s returned to the authenticity of his radical April 2009 “New Foundation” address (at Georgetown University) that openly proclaimed his intent to fundamentally transform America.
Good. There’s something to be said for authenticity. A choice, not an echo, said Barry Goldwater. The country will soon choose, although not soon enough.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment