Is it important for everyone to bear the burden of government and if they neither pay income taxes nor contribute through payroll taxes should this be of concern?
I also believe everyone should, in some fashion, defend the nation.
When a human does the same thing and it does not work and then repeats it thinking they will get different results one might conclude this person is irrational at best and/or insane at worst.
Obama is not insane. He knows exactly what he is doing. Less than half now pay income taxes and are beholden to government largess. By seeking more funds to transfer to and expand this segment of our population Obama hopes to finance his campaign for re-election and retain a loyal voter base. Furthermore, through his class warfare rhetoric and playing the race card he can continue his policy of fright and thus, hopefully divide and conquer.
These are not the acts of an insane person, just those of your garden variety and basest of demagogues.
You decide. (See 1,1a,1b,1c and 1d below.)
This is an LTE which was not published and I repeat it now because I believe it is more relevant today.
"There are those who assert Obama is the most intelligent president in modern history. If one cedes the point then the destructive changes this 'brilliant' president has wrought and intends can only be deemed purposeful.
If one were out to wreck America's economy by piling on crushing debt in pursuit of goals antithetical to our Constitution then Obama's policies are purposeful.
If one were to pit American against American in the sick hope class warfare would divide our nation at a critical juncture in its history in order to gain political leverage then Obama's policies are purposeful.
If an American president was to pacify those whose long term objective is our nation's destruction then Obama's appeasement of Iran, Syria and acceptance of The Muslim Brotherhood must be questioned as being in our nation's best interest.
As the first American president to distance himself from our nation's exceptional history and rooted Western orientation then the radical change Obama seeks can only be deemed purposeful.
America's withdrawal from space, Obama's continued obeisance to education unions which have left our children ignorant of our nation's history and unable to compete in science etc., can only viewed through the prism of one willing to perpetuate America's inability to compete long term simply to buy votes.
If the first American president to propose Israel should defend shrunken boarders at the risk of its survival is based on intelligent reasoning then I urge deluded Jewish voters to question Obama's motives.
LTE space limitations cause me to stop but the list of purposefuls is endless.
My own purposeful message is simple and brief - re-elect Obama at our peril."
See PJTC.Com; "PJTV Special: Leading America: A Conservative Plan for Job Creation
Journalist Deroy Murdock joins Joe Hicks to talk about the government policies that create jobs, and the government policies that create unemployment. From tax policy to regulation, there is plenty that Obama can do to jump start the economy. So why won't he do it? Find out."
I warned about this in a memo some weeks ago: "PJTV.Com -PJTV Special: The Iranian Time Bomb: Hezbollah in Havana; Iran Expands Its Influence in Cuba
Corriere della Sera' ran an explosive story about Hezbollah establishing a stronghold in Cuba, further expanding its global reach. On this week's Iranian Time Bomb, Dr. Ledeen sits down with Center for a Free Cuba's Frank Calzon to discuss the connection between Fidel Castro, Hezbollah and Iran."
Kennedy was challenged by Kruschev and our next president could well have to invade and free Cuba if our nation's southern flank is to be secure. Rest assured, Obama and his State Department will do nothing when Castro dies and should the 'young turks,' who grew up under Castro's regime, take over and possibly execute Raoul in the process.
Markets are declining much in line with my previously stated views that we are headed into a double dip recession, the Obama Administration is totally inept, the Fed is bereft of confidence building tools and consumer attitudes continue negative.
Years ago clients used to chide me for being pre-occupied with what was going on in D.C. and I would tell them if you wanted to know what was going to happen in Wall Street you would have to first visit D.C. and that this view would become more visible and prevalent over time. Thus it has come to be. Why? Because politicians love power. Give them more money and they have more power.
Politicians use your money to fund their ideas and to build constituent bases for their re-election. It is a vicious cycle, made more vicious because of the negative impact on what had once been a vibrant nation.
Until this model is altered the prospects for our country remain bleak.
Obama has not altered the above trend. He has simply increased the speed at which we are becoming state wards and the economy hostage to a bloated federal government which, itself, has become a failed institution.
Virtually whatever government touches it eventually ruins.
Have a great weekend.
1)alarming tax numbers (Dennis Gartman newsletter)
AND IT’S NOW ABOUT TO GO PARABOLIC:
We have written many, many times over the course of the past several years of the changes in the tax policies here in the US that have allowed a greater and greater number of Americans to have zero… or even negative… tax liabilities; that is, a steadily rising number of Americans do not pay income taxes into Washington, or are receivers of government programs that render them as non-payers of income taxes.
This, we’ve said, is a very dangerous trend, for when more than half of the nation’s wage earners pay no income taxes their propensity to elect those who will continue the same tax policies and/or make them even more seriously “progressive” rises apace and shall eventually lead to the destruction of the republic.
We knew the trend toward fewer and fewer net “givers” of tax money to Washington was “from the lower left to the upper right on the charts,” but not until we’d seen the chart included here this morning, courtesy of our friend Dr. Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute, had we become truly frightened.
Note that all during the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s the percentage of those with no
tax liability hovered at or near 20%. It was not until the middle ’90s that this
number began to ratchet higher so that by 1995 it was up to 25%. Then by just
after the turn of the century it was 30%. By 2005 it was up to 33% and presently it is 47% and is rising!
This number is going parabolic, and soon shall be well above 50%, at which point our concerns for America shall rise dramatically.
Who then is not paying their fair share of the country’s taxes? It is not the “rich,” but is instead the lower half of the income earners who are now paying nothing… zero…nada… zilch into Washington’s coffers, all the while their supporters on the Left would have us believe that these people are put-upon and the “rich’ are avoiding paying their shares of the nation’s taxes. This chart does not lie, and instead it tells a horrid, disconcerting truth.
1a)DOJ in bed with Islamic supremacist groups
By Pam Geller
While doing research for my new book, "Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance," I discovered some startling information about the full extent of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in the Department of Justice and its brazen pro-Muslim activities. And when I inquired for documentation related to these activities, the DOJ's response to me indicated that the agency's ties with Islamic supremacist groups in the U.S. are far more extensive than anyone has realized.
I was especially interested in DOJ actions extending certain civil-rights laws to Muslims in voting, particularly insofar as they involved the DOJ's Lema Bashir. Essentially, they wanted to convert a religious class into a racial one, to create majority-Muslim legislative districts. Lema Bashir was at the center of Virginia's failing to mail military ballots in time in 2008. The same mistakes were repeated in 2010, and United States military voters were heavily disenfranchised because of calculated inaction by Bashir and the DOJ throughout 2010. Disenfranchising the military vote is policy. You could make a case that bad mistakes were made in 2008, but when those same mistakes were made and made worse in 2010 by a devout Muslim who calls Israel "northern Palestine," I submit that it is no accident, but deliberate policy.
There seemed to be no way they could withhold the documents whose existence I discovered, so on Feb. 28, 2011, I made a Freedom of Information Act request. I wrote to Nelson Hermilla, the chief of the FOIA branch of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division.
I asked him for "all communications between any employee of the Civil Rights Division and the Islamic Society of North America [ISNA], the Council on American-Islamic Relations [CAIR], the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee [ADC], the Muslim Students Association [MSA] or any affiliated student group. In particular, but not limited to, the request includes all communications related to appearances at or sponsorships of conventions or meetings of this organizations by the Department of Justice including conferences in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010."
ISNA and CAIR, of course, were named unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation jihad terror funding case. The MSA is a Muslim Brotherhood organization. They're the last groups the DOJ should be working with.
I also asked Hermilla to provide "transcripts of speeches delivered by Civil Rights Division political appointees or section managers at any meeting of the Islamic Society of North America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Muslim Students Association or any affiliated student group. If transcripts of such appearances do not exist, please provide a list of such appearances instead." And for "resumes of all attorney and intern hires in the Civil Rights Division in which the resumes list prior employment at the Islamic Society of North America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, or the Muslim Students Association." In addition, I requested "all travel authorization forms, expense submissions and records of payment for any Department employee to attend any convention, conference or meeting with or at the Islamic Society of North America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee," and "any memorandum, document, email, telephone conference record or proposal discussing the use of civil rights laws in the Housing Section, Voting Section, and Education Section to use laws enforced by these sections to bring cases or potential cases on behalf of a protected class defined as Arab or Muslim or Islamic." I asked him to "include any documents which discuss the applicability of civil rights laws to these classes from these three sections."
Specifically, I asked for "records relating to the meeting of the 'Monthly Outreach Meeting' (or a regular occurring meeting organized by the Civil Rights Division with substantially the same purpose even if it is referred to with a different name inside the Department) with Muslim and Arab groups at the Civil Rights Division. Specifically, include lists of attendees at each monthly meeting, the agenda of each meeting and any minutes or summary prepared subsequent to each meeting. Please also specifically note the meetings at which the Attorney General of the United States attended."
I asked for all such records dating back to 2006.
I knew these documents existed, indicating broad collaboration between the Justice Department and Muslim Brotherhood groups, and this was confirmed on April 29, 2011, when the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division finally responded to my request. Nelson Hermilla wrote me that "clearly your request encompasses thousands of records. The total located on a preliminary search totals 14,100 documents. Each document likely contains numerous pages." Hermilla also complained that "it is not clear in what manner the collection of all five-year's records might contribute to the general public understanding." He explained that these documents would only be made available to me if I paid $1,400.
This is astounding. I made a fairly narrow request, narrowed down to specific groups and carefully defined activity that the Civil Rights Division doesn't even have direct jurisdiction over – "Muslim Outreach" – and they come up with 14,100 matching documents. A knowledgeable Justice Department insider told me: "You couldn't generate 14,000 pages of documents if you asked for communications with lenders or apartment or hotels as part of the Housing Section enforcement activities. There are very few things in Civil Rights that would generate 14,000 pages of anything. It has got to be a treasure trove of information."
Indeed. It is also remarkable that the Justice Department would deny that these records would advance "the general public understanding." Given the increasing number of cases in which Shariah is used in American courts and the Obama Justice Department's assistance of stealth jihad, Islamic supremacist legal initiatives, this claim is extremely flimsy.
I intend to pursue this matter until the shameful records of this infiltration are made available to the American people.
Pamela Geller lays out the realities of Muslim encroachment in her brand new book, "Stop The Islamization Of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance"
1b)Obama's Crony Capitalism
By Ed Lasky
Barack Obama has his own stable of Enrons, companies benefiting from close ties to the president, seemingly able to leverage campaign donations, receiving taxpayer dollars to boost their prospects. They may be unviable on their own (as Solyndra was) or just get an added boost from us to help them against competitors whose investors and executives do not play the game.
The Washington Post have been superb in their coverage of Solyndra; a few months ago they tipped readers to yet another company apparently benefiting from donations to Obama's campaign. The company is publicly-held Polypore. They own another company called Celgrad that makes a key component of batteries used in the electric cars that Obama touts and spends our taxpayer dollars on developing and producing (for example, grants made to Fisker Automotive, a company that has Al Gore as a major investor).
The Washington Post's reporters Carol Leonnig, Joe Stephens, and Alice Crites reported back in June that Celagrd has benefited in unusual ways from government largesse:
Charlotte-based Celgard, for example, already was considered a global industry leader in manufacturing a battery component used in consumer electronics, including electric vehicles. It applied for stimulus funding to help build a new factory, and in August 2009, the Energy Department awarded it a $49 million stimulus grant. The company was one of 48 winners from among an estimated 240 applicants in the electric vehicle and battery sector.
Various government officials came to the plant and lauded its prospects. These included the head of the Department of Energy, the Labor secretary (to throw in the green jobs angle; in reality, green jobs are a euphemism for crony capitalism), and Barack Obama. President Obama lauded an unnamed company that fit Celgard to a tee in a State of the Union address.
Competitors were understandably not happy. The granting of government money to a profitable company was offensive. But what also set them off was that Polypore, Celgard's parent company, was being pursued by federal regulators. The Federal Trade Commission had charged Polypore with trying to monopolize several battery markets and control prices. Obama's visit came after an administrative judge had decided that Polypore was an illegal monopoly (the decision is being appealed).
Competitors complained that all this money and attention were giving Polypore massive advantage over rivals. The company did not need the money: its stock has risen more than tenfold since Obama took office and started promoting electronic vehicles. They could have tapped cheap equity capital or borrowed the money as other companies have done. Of course, if they issued stock to raise funds to build the factory, that would dilute existing shareholders by lowering the value of the stock they owned in Polypore.
So why did Obama's team give this company taxpayer money? Why help a monopolist? Aren't monopolies supposed to be evil?
Why not help create a level playing field and help rivals? Isn't fair competition the heart of capitalism, a dynamic that brings great products at a great price to consumers? Why not boost rivals against a monopolist?
Maybe those rivals were misallocating their money. Instead of investing their money in jobs and products, they should have invested in a certain Cook County politician.
The Washington Post again:
Private-equity firm Warburg Pincus has seen its original $300 million investment more than triple in value and recently has been locking in gains with stock sales. (More than $253,000 was raised for Obama in 2008 from Warburg employees and their families, campaign finance records show.)
The chairman of Polypore's board, Warburg Pincus director Michael Graff, and his wife donated $14,600 toward Obama's 2008 presidential bid, including $10,000 given shortly before the election to an Obama committee geared to get out the vote in battleground states. Graff, a registered Republican, made no donations to Republicans in the 2008 cycle, records show.
Doesn't Obama excoriate Wall Street on a somewhat regular basis -- especially when bad economic numbers are released and he needs a villain and punching bag to rile up Americans and distract attention from him and his policies? Why is he chumming up and helping Wall Street titans with taxpayer money?
Barack Obama learned a great deal about pay-to-play politics by spending his adult years in Cook County, where pay-to-play is the modus operandi of politicians. He seems to have learned his lesson well. He now has a history of running interference for donors and giving taxpayer dollars to donors. Undoubtedly, dogged investigators are on the trail of other Green Schemes and the people behind them. Will they reach the one guy who seems to the key player who parts with our money with delightful abandon?
Obama and his allies make a great deal about the potential of sunlight. To me, Justice Louis Brandeis had more sensible things to say about sunlight than our president. Brandeis said that "sunlight is the best disinfectant." We need a lot of sunlight in Washington.
The nation needs to see that Barack Obama is the King of Crony Capitalism.
1c)Republicans Should Make Intellect the Issue
By Peter Heck
Despite the left's self-assured predictions that Obama's reelection was inevitable as Osama bin Laden's body slipped beneath the brine, just about every reputable polling agency now shows the president up against history in his bid for a second term.
The internals of the polls are even more alarming for the White House. It seems that Republicans could actually dress up a mannequin from Sears to lead their ticket, and the soulless, inanimate, plastic creature would outperform Obama in the realms of jobs, economic growth, foreign affairs, health care, and national defense amongst virtually every demographic.
So to make this election a little more interesting for those of us who watch and observe politics, let me make a strategic suggestion to the eventual Republican nominee, whoever he or she may be: don't play Prevent defense in this campaign. Don't play not to lose, but rather imitate Obama in 2008: attack your opponent where he thinks he is strongest.
Granted, the president's narcissism may make it initially difficult to pinpoint which area he believes himself to be most gifted; but that vain conceit actually provides the answer. Make this election about intelligence...and not the kind that is measured by letter grades (that would be impossible anyway, given that for some reason our scholar president won't release his grade transcripts). No, I'm talking about working intelligence -- the kind of street smarts that history tells us is far more useful in a chief executive than a high verbal SAT.
Now, this suggestion may seem counterintuitive, given that George Clooney has recently declared Barack Obama to be "smarter than anybody you know." But I think the 2012 election is a perfect time for Republicans to remind the American people of the wisdom of Forrest Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does." And as Bret Stephens accurately confirmed to readers in the Wall Street Journal not long ago, "[t]he presidency of Barack Obama is a case study in stupid does."
Current Republican frontrunner Governor Rick Perry of Texas seems up to this challenge. After being the recipient of the left's typical playground taunts that he's too dumb to be president, Perry responded, "What's dumb is ... to put fiscal policies in place that were a disaster back in the '30s and try them again in the 2000s. That's what I consider to be the definition of dumb." In other words, if Obama's economic record is the epitome of "brilliance," and the Perry years in Texas have been the result of a "dumb" executive, those two words officially have no meaning.
But Perry isn't the only Republican who should be willing to take on the supposed intellectualism of this administration. Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, also taking the brunt of the left's condescending jabs, has every right to engage the brain debate. After all, how intellectual is it to demand, as our current president does, that upper wage-earners pay "their fair share" of taxes when the top 50% of wage-earners -- which includes primarily middle-class taxpayers -- already shoulder 97% of the income tax burden? While that absurd definition of fairness may score high on the class warfare scale, it is far more intellectual to observe, as Bachmann has, that it is fundamentally unfair when more people are riding in the wagon than pulling it.
And should the sycophantic Obama media continue obsessing about how Bachmann's mistaking Elvis's birthday with his date of death, or confusing which Iowa town was John Wayne's home, are proof of her ignorance, Michele could always invite them to one of the 57 states President Obama claimed to have visited, and offer them an alcoholic breathalyzer like the kind Obama prescribed for asthmatic kids.
And this strategy will work for every other Republican presidential contender. Let voters compare the wisdom of Obama's war on business with Mitt Romney's understanding that those evil corporations the president is trying to destroy employ a lot of people.
Let them gauge the intellect of a president who demands that Israel continue to make concessions to foster peace versus Newt Gingrich's recognition that peace will never be achieved so long as one of the two sides is represented by a terror group, Hamas, that has as its sole reason for existence the annihilation of Israel.
Let the voters who are losing the health care plan they prefer, facing fewer options in their coverage, all while seeing their premiums increase to offset the massive costs of ObamaCare, choose between the intelligence of a man like Ron Paul (who predicted each of these consequences the night of the health care vote) and the president who told them to shut up and take their medicine.
And the list keeps going and going, from Rick Santorum to Herman Cain to Sarah Palin (should she run) to yes, even Jon Huntsman.
Surveying the uninhabited wasteland that just a few short years of Obamanomics has made of the American job market, and considering the monumental task that faces them in piecing together the shattered fragments of our once-envied economic engine, there are many things to intimidate the Republican field. Having to face off against the intellect of the author of this malaise, however, should not be one of them.
Peter is a public high school government teacher and radio talk show host in central Indiana.
1d)How Much White Guilt Can We Afford?
By Bob Weir
We often hear that the presidential campaign of 2012 will be the most important in a generation (or more). The same has been said of many other campaigns, and such references can be embraced by both sides of the political spectrum. When Barack Obama ran in the 2008 primaries against Hillary Clinton, polls indicated that even most black voters didn't have the audacity to hope that the country was ready to elect the first African-American as their chief executive. That's probably because they didn't feel that white voters would be magnanimous enough to vote without racial bias.
However, once that major hurdle had been achieved and Obama was the nominee, blacks began to believe, for the first time in our history, that America had risen above its racist past and was about to put that past in the rearview mirror forever. In order for that to happen, a large percentage of white voters in the general election would have to pull the lever for Senator Obama. When they did, and he was elected by a decisive margin, blacks and many whites rejoiced together. Even some who had voted for McCain felt comforted by the thought that a milestone had been achieved in race relations.
Three years later, it seems more like a millstone. Without getting into the political battles of either party or the usual vitriolic competition that accompanies all these campaigns, it's increasingly more evident that the issue of race will loom menacingly over the contest next year. With black demagogues like Congresswoman Maxine Waters telling Tea Party members to go to Hell, and her colleague, Andre Carson, saying the Tea Party would like to see blacks hanging from trees, it's obvious how desperate the Democratic Party is to win next year.
This is what happens when a significant barrier is broken. Blacks are fearful that the first of their race to reach the Oval Office will be ignominiously rejected after one term, leaving behind a reputation as an incompetent. Since every other president has been a white male, there was never a question about their skin color being culpable for their failings. But, how would it look if the first black to lead the nation gets pummeled at the polls and is replaced by another white male? Would people conclude that blacks are not smart enough, hardworking enough, patriotic enough, etc. to be entrusted with such a grave responsibility in the future? They shouldn't. In 1980, when Jimmy Carter was booted out by Ronald Reagan, many blamed Carter's incompetence, but no one could say it was because of his color.
I don't doubt that white guilt (a foolish concept kept alive by liberal ideologues) played a role in securing Obama's first term in that swanky residence on Pennsylvania Avenue. Nevertheless, it's time for whites to take the position that they've been there and done that, so why not get serious this time and disregard skin pigment?
I find it interesting that many white Republicans have been rooting for Herman Cain this time around. I'll admit that he has business experience and is not a Washington insider, but I don't think that's what's motivating his fans to rally around him. Instead, I think it's their way of once again trying to prove that they're not bigots. Some are saying, "I'd like to hear what the Democrats would say if Cain went up against Obama," adding, "They wouldn't have the excuse that it's about race." On the contrary, if Cain were to be the GOP nominee, it would be a total capitulation to the "white guilt" theory. Cain is very likeable, but so is Obama! Cain's most laudable traits seem to be that he's not a professional politician and he's a successful corporate executive. Well, I didn't think Obama was experienced enough to be president with only 2 years as a U.S. senator, so I must confess that I don't think Cain has the experience to lead the greatest nation on earth by virtue of the fact that he resurrected a chain of pizza restaurants.
Neither Lee Iacocca (former Ford president and CEO of Chrysler Corp.) nor Jack Welch (former CEO of General Electric) were serious contenders for the Oval Office, and their successes are numerous and legendary. The best Cain can expect is a nod for the number-2 spot on the ticket.
Meanwhile, it's time to get serious about who will lead us after next year. The weeding out process is underway. Pay attention and make your choice wisely. Given that the current administration is methodically wrapping its tentacles around large segments of the free-market system, it may be the last time you get one.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Whatever Government Touches Does It Eventually Ruin?
Is it important for everyone to bear the burden of government and if they neither pay income taxes nor contribute through payroll taxes should this be of concern?