Monthly Archives: July 2012

Running The Economy When You Don’t Understand Business Principles

Posted on by

The Wall Street Journal posted an article online today entitled, “You Don’t Owe That.”

The article reports:

We’ll have to wait until Friday to see how slowly the U.S. economy expanded in the second quarter. But today Team Obama will tell Congress about its latest proposals to spread the wealth around—specifically from private lenders to the people who owe them money on student loans. The goal is to create new ways for borrowers to avoid repayment.

The government is focusing of ways to allow students to default on their loans. There are about $1 trillion in student loans outstanding; close to $900 billion are federal loans. About 90 percent of recent student loans are held by the government.

The article states:

The new report (by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) says that Congress should consider letting borrowers discharge their private student loans through bankruptcy. This would reverse a hard lesson learned during the 1970s. After a surge in former students declaring bankruptcy to avoid repaying their loans, Congress acted to protect lenders beginning in 1977. First it limited the ability of borrowers with government loans to use bankruptcy as a bailout ramp, and later the ban was applied to all student loans (with some exceptions for hardship cases).This reform also protected future borrowers.

Credit miraculously becomes more available when lenders believe they might be repaid.

You would think that the government might want to teach future leaders of American that when you sign a paper saying you will pay something back, you are supposed to mean it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Candid Camera In Egypt

Posted on by

Hot Air posted a video yesterday of a candid-camera-type show in Egypt. The video has been taken down supposedly due to copyright infringements. The ‘joke’ of the program was that the people who were being interviewed were told halfway through the interview that they were being interviewed by an Israeli television station. In the three instances shown, the interviewees then  physically attacked either the person interviewing them or a member of the stage crew. The interviewees only calmed down after being assured that no one of the set was Jewish. What does this tell you about the chances for peace in the Middle East?

The article at Hot Air quotes an article by Jonathan Tobin via MEMRI TV:

Viewing the invective about Jews and Israel being spewed on the show by three apparently prominent members of the Egyptian arts community is damning by itself. It says a lot that the show’s producers thought one of the most outrageous things they could do to Egyptians was to trick them into sitting down with Jews. Nor is it surprising that the response generated hate speech about the character of the Jewish people and the authenticity of the Holocaust.

But the punch lines of each segment in which the subjects are informed they are on a candid camera show, which was required in two cases to avert more violence if not bloodshed, is also illustrative. There were no reproaches from the hosts for the violent behavior that followed when the guests were told they were on Israeli TV. It was only when they were pretending to be Israelis that they tried to push back against the slanders. Once they were back in their own identities, all was forgiven. The host only had praise for her dupes — even the one who slugged her — for demonstrating what she described as “patriotism” by their anger about being set up to talk with Jews.

Racism and bigotry are not the path to peace.

This Really Won’t Help Me Sleep Nights

Posted on by

I have posted articles by Reza Kahlili before.

The Daily Caller describes him as follows:

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and the author of the award winning book, A Time to Betray. He is a senior Fellow with EMPact America, a member of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and teaches at the U.S. Department of Defense’s Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy (JCITA).

His latest article at the Daily Caller should wake up all Americans (including Congress) to the dangers around us: 

A source who served in the Revolutionary Guards’ intelligence unit and has now defected to a European country warned in April that the Islamic regime’s terror cells were on high alert, which includes for attacks in the U.S.

According to that source, and another located in the U.S., the regime’s assets have long infiltrated America and are coordinating operations out of mosques and Islamic centers, such as Imam Ali Mosques and the Iman Islamic Center.

Please read the entire article at the Daily Caller. I also recommend reading an article posted by Andrew McCarthy at PJ Media today talking about the willful blindness of our Congress in regard to the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in America. He tells his story regarding his research into the Muslim Brotherhood and its influence on American politics beginning with his prosecution of Omar Abdel-Rahman (the Blind Sheik) in 1996.

Mr. McCarthy is questioning whether it is time for conservatives who care about national security to abandon the Republican party.

He concludes:

At a time not long ago, before the hard Left took over the Democratic Party, there was a style of strong national-security Democrat (in the mold of Scoop Jackson or even Jack Kennedy) who would have seen the position to which the Obama administration and the Republican establishment adhere as dangerously delusional. Unfortunately, there are no longer enough of those Democrats in government to appeal to.

On the other hand, there remain many national security conservatives in the Republican Party. They are alarmed and extremely worried about the threat the ascendancy of Islamic supremacism poses to our liberty and security. They also see this threat magnified, to an intolerable degree, by the inroads the Muslim Brotherhood has made in the Republican establishment and in our government. As to the latter, we are not just talking about the State Department — not by a long shot. So profound is the influence of the Obama/Republican-establishment philosophy over the Defense Department, for example, that the Pentagon could not bring itself to refer to any aspect of Islamic supremacist ideology in a lengthy report on the attack at Fort Hood — a jihadist atrocity that killed 13 Americans, twice as many as were killed in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

If the Republican Party has decided to take its cues from establishment proponents of this reckless philosophy, if GOP leaders can no longer tell the difference between hostile anti-American operatives and benign political actors, then the Republican Party has become an obstacle to liberty and security, not a vehicle for their preservation. As is the case with crushing government debt and out-of-control government spending, it appears that the GOP is choosing to be part of the problem, rather than the solution, when it comes to the threat of Islamic supremacism. Certainly, that is a choice party leaders are entitled to make. But if it is the one they have made, why should conservatives concerned about liberty and security bother with the Republican Party?

This is a time to be aware of the connections of our government officials. Michele Bachmann has asked for an investigation into some of those officials. This is not a witch hunt–this is a necessary endeavor.

 

America’s Continued Lack Of Support For Israel

Posted on by

The Obama administration seems to be blind to the dangers that face Israel as Iran goes nuclear and as Iran arms Israel’s neighbors. The New York Post posted an article today about the Obama administration’s latest blindness in dealing with Iran and terrorism.

The article reports:

Team Obama rightly blamed Iran after its proxy Hezbollah apparently blew up a bus in a terrorist operation that killed five Israelis. Then it went off the rails.

“This was tit for tat,” a State Department official told The New York Times, implying that the bombing was retaliation for Israeli assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.

So it’s okay to kill innocent Israeli civilians because Israel is trying to protect the world from your nuclear program by killing some of the scientists involved?

The article concludes:

Make no mistake: Israel is fully justified in targeting the Iranian nuclear program. The world — and particularly the Arabs of the Middle East — owe it a great debt for doing so most aggressively.

But nothing excuses or explains Iran’s murder of innocents, and the Obama administration should stop doing what amounts to PR work for the ayatollahs.

That’s unacceptable.

I think I would like to ask the State Department to explain their position.U

The Amazing Wisdom Of The Internal Revenue Service

Posted on by

Commentary Magazine posted an article yesterday about the children of New York art dealer Ileana Sonnabend. Mrs. Sonnabend died in 2007.  The children inherited a fabulous collection of modern art valued at $1 billion.

The article reports:

Her children have already paid $471 million in estate taxes on the collection, being forced to sell off most of it to meet the bill.

The story continues:

But there is one item in the collection, a work by Robert Rauschenberg that cannot be sold. It contains a stuffed bald eagle and under the terms of the 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the 1918 Migratory Bird Act, it is a felony to “possess, sell, purchase, barter, transport, import or export any bald eagle — alive or dead.” The estate, advised by three experts, including one from Christie’s, therefore, valued the work at zero. The IRS decided it was worth $65 million, and is demanding $29.2 million in taxes and $11 million in penalties because the heirs “inaccurately” stated its value.

The question here is very simple–if they cannot legally sell the article, what is its value? The article points out that the value of anything is only what someone is willing to pay for it. In this case, the article cannot be legally sold, so it has no value. However, that didn’t stop the IRS!

The article concludes:

The IRS has an “Art Advisory Panel,” that provides expert advice on the value of art works involved in estates. It was the panel that decided it was worth $65 million. Stephanie Barron, a member of the panel and an art curator at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, said that, “It’s a stunning work of art and we all just cringed at the idea of saying that this had zero value. It just didn’t make any sense.”

It makes perfect sense and Ms. Barron’s statement is a classic example of the fallacy of the just price, that things have inherent value independent of the marketplace. They may have artistic value, emotional value, religious value, etc. But if they cannot be sold then they have no monetary value because they cannot be converted into money.

The IRS Art Advisory Board, I assume, is made up of art experts. It should add an economist to give the other board members a lesson in economics 101 when necessary. And the IRS should have someone empowered to tell the Bureau, “Are you crazy? This will make us look like idiots, and vindictive idiots at that.”

Keep in mind that the IRS is the main government agency involved in implementing Obamacare.

The Dangers of “Going Green”

Posted on by

Today’s Daily Caller posted a story about the dangers Compact Fluorescent Bulbs (CFL’s) pose to skin cells. A study done by Stony Brook University and New York State Stem Cell Science concluded that CFL light bulbs can be harmful to healthy skin cells.

The article quotes the scientists:

“Our study revealed that the response of healthy skin cells to UV emitted from CFL bulbs is consistent with damage from ultraviolet radiation,” said lead researcher Miriam Rafailovich, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at Stony Brook University, in New York, in a statement. “Skin cell damage was further enhanced when low dosages of TiO2 nanoparticles were introduced to the skin cells prior to exposure.”

According to Rafailovich, with or without TiO2 (a chemical found in sunblock), incandescent bulbs of the same light intensity had zero effects on healthy skin.

The scientists found that cracks in the CFL bulbs phosphor coatings yielded significant levels of UVC and UVA in all of the bulbs — purchased in different locations across two counties — they examined.

Can’t we just admit that Thomas Edison’s invention is simply better?

Using The Government For Political Purposes

Posted on by

Obviously, money is an important part of current American politics. Each Presidential campaign this year will raise billions of dollars from donors and spend that money to fund their campaign. It’s not a great system, but the money spent helps certain sectors of the economy, provides jobs, and causes all of us to reach for the mute button on the television more frequently (exercise?). Theoretically, it’s a system where people can spend money to support their political views without fear of retribution. Well, at least it’s supposed to be.

On Thursday the Wall Street Journal posted an article about some of the consequences a major Republican political donor has faced for his financial support of Mitt Romney.

The article reports:

An Obama campaign website in April sent a message to those who’d donate to the president’s opponent. It called out Mr. VanderSloot and seven other private donors by name and occupation and slurred them as having “less-than-reputable” records.

But wait–there’s more:

Just 12 days after the attack, the Idahoan found an investigator digging to unearth his divorce records. This bloodhound—a recent employee of Senate Democrats—worked for a for-hire opposition research firm.

Now Mr. VanderSloot has been targeted by the federal government. In a letter dated June 21, he was informed that his tax records had been “selected for examination” by the Internal Revenue Service. The audit also encompasses Mr. VanderSloot’s wife, and not one, but two years of past filings (2008 and 2009).

Mr. VanderSloot, who is 63 and has been working since his teens, says neither he nor his accountants recall his being subject to a federal tax audit before. He was once required to send documents on a line item inquiry into his charitable donations, which resulted in no changes to his taxes. But nothing more—that is until now, shortly after he wrote a big check to a Romney-supporting Super PAC.

Remember, this is not doing opposition research on an opposing candidate–this is doing opposition research on a private citizen who made a campaign donation! That is called intimidation.

It gets worse:

Two weeks after receiving the IRS letter, Mr. VanderSloot received another—this one from the Department of Labor. He was informed it would be doing an audit of workers he employs on his Idaho-based cattle ranch under the federal visa program for temporary agriculture workers.

…This letter requests an array of documents to ascertain whether Mr. VanderSloot’s “foreign workers are provided the full scope of protections” under the visa program: information on the hours they’ve worked each day and their rate of pay, an explanation of their deductions, copies of contracts. And on and on.

I don’t know how involved President Obama is in this sort of campaign activity. If he is not involved he needs to denouce these activities and fire the people behind them. If he is directly involved, he needs to be held accountable. Is this the country you want to live in?

Redefining The Concept Of Fairness

Posted on by

This is a chart from an Investors.com article posted Friday:

The chart shows the percentage of Americans who pay NO federal income tax. That number has nearly doubled in the past ten years.

The article points out:

As CNBC reporter Robert Frank put it, the top 1% that Obama complains about “paid an average effective tax rate of 28.9% on their income — far more than any other group, and more than twice the average effective rate of the middle class, who paid 11% on average.”

Beyond that, however, is the fact that more Americans who are nowhere near to being rich are paying no taxes at all on the money they take in — which means they have no interest in getting our ever-expanding government leviathan under control.

Obviously, people who pay no taxes have no interest in shrinking government or decreasing the tax burden on those of us who do pay taxes. Unfortunately, many of our Congressmen on both sides of the aisle realize that shrinking government will shrink their power, and thus have no interest in decreasing the tax burden or shrinking the size of government. That fact is the reason the Tea Party exists. You may not agree with what the Tea Party stands for (government in line with the principles of the US Constitution, smaller government, lower taxes, etc.), but Tea Party Congressmen have not supported the status quo of big government that both political parties seem to espouse. It is obvious that most Democrats are in opposition to Tea Party principles, but it is less apparent that many Republicans are also working against the Tea Party. I believe that if the Republican party does not begin to support Tea Party principles, it will mean the end of the Republican Party–not the end of the Tea Party.

The article at Investors.com points out who is not paying taxes:

A new study from the Tax Foundation found the number of those filing tax returns who pay no income taxes now numbers over 58 million, amounting to a staggering 41% of all tax returns. Compare that with 1990, when only about 21% of tax returns were found to have no tax liability.

What’s more, the median income of these nonpayers has increased by 40% in just nine years. “The threshold at which a typical married couple with two children will likely be a nonpayer is now $47,000,” the Tax Foundation found.

This is fairness??!!

At Least He Is Consistent

Posted on by

The Associated Press reported yesterday that during the month of June, President Obama’s campaign spent more than it collected. President Obama has been running the federal budget that way since he took office. Unfortunately he didn’t start with a surplus, so we are deeply in debt as a nation due to his spending.

The article reports:

June was the second consecutive month in which Romney brought in more money than Obama, finance reports filed Friday show. Romney’s money advantage prompted Obama’s campaign advisers to warn earlier this month that the president could lose the election if the financial disparity continued.

There is a little confusion in the above statement about the concept of cause and effect. If President Obama loses the election, it will not be because of the financial disparity–the financial disparity will instead be the result of waning support among the people who voted for the President in 2008.

According to the article, President Obama still has more money in the campaign bank than Governor Romney. The concern is that if the fund raising disparity continues, that money will soon be exhausted.

The Associated Press article leaves out a few facts. Many of President Obama’s donors give less than $200. Their donations do not have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission. Because the software on the President’s campaign website to prevent fraudulent and illegal contributions has been disabled, foreign donations are accepted. This was also the case in the 2008 election.

Power Line reported in April:

Urgent Agenda reader Adrian Murray wondered if the Obama campaign has become any more compliant this time around than it was last time. He conducted the necessary experiment and wrote Urgent Agenda proprietor Bill Katz.

Adrian Murray then attempted the following donation to the Obama campaign:

Name – Adolph Hitler
Address – 123 Nuremburg Way, Berlin, Germany
Occupation – Dictator
Employer – Nazi Party

After submitting, I received an email that began, “Dear Adolph, thank you for your generous donation….”

I then went to the Romney and Santorum websites and tried the same thing. Both rejected the donations with a message that the address could not be verified as belonging to the card holder.

Next time you hear the Obama campaign brag that their donations are mostly in small amounts, remember this!

 

 

What Is Happening In Some Of Our Colleges ?

Posted on by

This is a story from a month ago that I didn’t see at the time. It is important, so I am reporting on it now. On June 14, the Corner at National Review posted a story about a UCLA professor who was fired for being a whistle-blower.

Dr. James E. Enstrom challenged some of the ‘junk science’ used to justify overly strict emissions regulations in California. He also pointed out that key members of the state’s “scientific review panel” have overstayed term limits by decades. He was fired for his efforts.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has filed suit against UCLA for the University’s actions.

The ACLJ website reports:

Dr. Enstrom, a research professor in UCLA’s Department of Environmental Health Sciences, published important peer-reviewed research demonstrating that fine particulate matter does not kill Californians.  Also, Dr. Enstrom assembled detailed evidence that contends powerful UC professors and others have systematically exaggerated the adverse health effects of diesel particulate matter in California, knowing full well that these exaggerations would be used by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to justify draconian diesel vehicle regulations in California.  In addition, the complaint argues that he exposed the fact that the lead author of the key CARB Report used to justify the diesel regulations did not have the UC Davis Ph.D. degree that he claimed.  Instead, according to the suit, this “scientist” bought a fake Ph.D. for $1,000 from a fictional “Thornhill University.”

Dr. Enstrom was fired, the ‘scientist’ with the fake degree kept his job.

The ACLJ website explains:

Finally, Dr. Enstrom discovered that several activist members of the CARB Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants have exceeded the legislatively mandated three-year term limits by decades. The suit contends that shortly after Dr. Enstrom revealed this systematic wrongdoing, UCLA not only issued a notice of termination, it denied him any compensation for his work by systematically and wrongfully looting his research fund accounts.  Dr. Enstrom worked for more than a year without pay as he in good faith appealed his wrongful termination using UCLA procedures.  Ironically enough, the fake “scientist” was only suspended for his misconduct while Dr. Enstrom was terminated for telling the truth.

If we want future leaders of America to get the education they need to lead the country effectively, we need to take a look at some of the things that are going on in our universities.

Some Real Perspective On What Happened In Colorado

Posted on by

This is the only article I am planning to write about the shooting in Colorado. Plans can change, but as of now, this is the only one.

Here is a link to an article in a blog called A Miniature Clay Pot. The article is a first person account of the incident by someone who was in the theatre. The title of the article is “So you STILL think God is a merciful God?!”

Please follow the link and read the entire article. It says what I, for one, needed to hear this morning.

Fudging The Numbers

Posted on by

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article listing some of the facts in the bailout of General Motors that seem to have been overlooked in the President’s claim to have saved the company.

The article reports:

Car dealerships’ lots are filling up with unsold trucks and SUVs because GM built more vehicles than it can sell in order to inflate sales claims and artificially boost its profits, The Daily Caller has learned.

The Detroit automotive giant records sales for vehicles in dealers’ inventories before car buyers make their purchases, said Mark Modica, a National Legal and Policy Center associate fellow.

Obviously the fake sales numbers will be revealed at some point in the future when the cars are still sitting on the dealers’ lots. The truth will conveniently not be revealed until after the November election.

The article further reports:

Third quarter results won’t be made public until after the November election, allowing Obama to tout the company’s short-term success while masking troubles that are not yet apparent to voters.

Here we have another reason voters need to pay attention.

The article concludes:

“The question is if [GM] is viable enough to ever repay taxpayers,” Dalmia said. “It’s pretty clear that taxpayers aren’t ever going to be repaid.”

Rep. Kelly, the Pennsylvania car dealer, predicted an economic resurgence that would impact the auto sector if Mitt Romney becomes president.

“If Governor Romney is elected,” he said, “you’ll see reinvestment, you’ll see people come back to this economy.”

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. The comments are also very interesting. One commenter reminds us that in the process of taking over General Motors the government took away 20,000 pensions from non-union Delphi workers. One of the basic aspects of the General Motors and Chrysler arrangements worked out by the government was the transfer of large amounts of money to the unions. That needs to be mentioned when the President claims he saved the auto industry (which he will) during any debate that takes place.

 

 

The Cost Of Political Correctness

Posted on by

Fox News posted a story today about a report investigating the Fort Hood shooting in 2009. The report was conducted over the course of two years by former FBI Director William Webster.

The report deals with how information on Major Nidal Hasan was handled by the FBI.

The article reports:

Five months after the San Diego Field Office for the Joint Terrorism Task Force sent a lead to the Washington D.C. office with concerns about Hasan, the report said, headquarters conducted their review, only to determine Hasan was not “involved in terrorist activities.” 

After the San Diego office complained, neither office took any additional action. 

The article later reports:

The report also quoted a San Diego official who claimed he suggested to headquarters in June 2009 that it would be appropriate to interview Hasan. 

The Washington officer told him, according to a paraphrase in the report, that: “This is not (San Diego), it’s D.C. and (the Washington office) doesn’t go out and interview every Muslim guy who visits extremist websites.” 

The San Diego official also said he was told the subject was “politically sensitive.” 

Thirteen American soldiers who were on their own base in America are dead and thirty-two were wounded–all because a subject was politcally sensitive??!! This cannot be allowed to continue.

There are some people in Congress who understood instantly what led to the Fort Hood shootings:

Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, the chairman and ranking Republican on the Senate homeland security committee, said the report “reinforces” conclusions they had already reached about the “inadequacy” of the FBI probe. 

But they added: “We are concerned that the report fails to address the specific cause for the Fort Hood attack, which is violent Islamist extremism. And we are skeptical that FBI analysts are now well-integrated into the FBI’s operations, as the report states.” 

On December 8, 2011, the Daily Caller posted the following:

Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation’s Armed Forces at home.

Fort Hood was not workplace violence. People engaged in simple workplace violence do not stand up and yell, “Allahu Akbar” before they attack. We need to admit that there are people within our government preventing us from clearly seeing and dealing with the problem of Islamic extremism. Most Muslims in America are peace-loving, freedom-loving, non-violent people who are glad to be here. But we need to remember that there are some Muslims who have come to America to aid in the establishment of the world-wide caliphate. Until our government is willing to recognize the problem is Islamist extremism, they will not be able to successfully deal with it. 
 

 

What Happens When The Government Gets Out Of The Way Of The Economy

Posted on by

Yesterday Investors.com posted an editorial reporting that Canada has surpassed the United States in household wealth.

The article reports:

According to a study by Environics Analytics Wealthscapes published by The Globe & Mail, average Canadian household net worth in 2011 was $363,202, surpassing by $40,000 the $319,970 U.S. average.

What has been going on in Canada lately that has caused this growth in individual wealth? Free enterprise spurred on by lower taxes, less government spending, and less government regulation.

The article reports:

For one thing, Canada has embraced fiscal discipline. Its federal debt is around 35% of GDP compared to the U.S. at 100%. The deficit is 2% of GDP, not 10% as here. At June’s G-20 meeting in Mexico, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told heads of state that economic growth and fiscal discipline “go hand in hand.”

There are lessons here we need to learn:

In January, its slashed its corporate income tax rate to 15%, lowest in the G-7. The U.S. rate is 39.2%, the world’s second-highest. That’s helped Canadian companies create jobs and cut unemployment to 7.2% as the U.S. remains at 8.2%. Foreign direct investment has also surged, hitting a record $26 billion in 2011, fueling even more jobs and wealth.

The article concludes:

The cumulative reality is that these policies translate into wealth for an entire country. Canadians are richer, bolder and face a brighter future because they have quietly abandoned socialism and embraced free markets and free enterprise. We obviously need to relearn the lesson our neighbors are teaching: When free markets are embraced, we all do well.

It matters how you vote in November.

Sometimes Saying What You Really Think Is Not A Good Idea

Posted on by

Every time President Obama gets off the teleprompter, he gets into trouble. The most recent example of this is the statement, “If you got a business, you didn’t build that; somebody else made that happen.” That is an affront to every American who has worked 60-hour weeks to build a business to support his (or her) family.

Here are some figures from the U. S. Small Business Administration website:

Small firms:
•    Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
•    Employ half of all private sector employees.
•    Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
•    Generated 65 percent of net new jobs over the past 17 years.
•    Create more than half of the nonfarm private GDP.
•    Hire 43 percent of high tech workers ( scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and others).
•    Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
•    Made up 97.5 percent of all identified exporters and produced 31 percent of export value in FY 2008.
•    Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.

These are also the businesses that will be hit the hardest if the “Bush tax cuts for the rich” are allowed to expire. Just for the record, most small business owners are not rich.

An article at Power LIne compares President Obama’s recent gaffe about small business to President Ford’s comments about Poland during the 1976 debates. The article concludes:

Okay—let’s have that debate, and ask what business needs from government today.  Not high-speed rail in California (or anywhere else), investments in “green energy,” massive regulatory uncertainty from the EPA and Dodd-Frank, a health care law expanding by the day as the regulators figure it out, massive financial uncertainty from taxes set to explode in January, and a permit-process-from-hell to build anything bigger than an outhouse.  That’s just for starters.  I note that Obama hasn’t even met with his highly touted Jobs Council for more than six months now, which shows how unserious he is about all of this.  Bring it on.

I agree.

Ignoring The Law For The Sake Of Politics

Posted on by

Hot Air reported yesterday that Congressional Democrats are in the process of putting together a law requiring all presidential candidates be required to release ten years of tax returns.

The article reports:

In the House, Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) is proposing legislation that would require presidential candidates to release 10 years worth of tax returns and disclose any overseas investments.

And in the Senate, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich) are proposing beefing up financial disclosure forms for all candidates for federal office to require disclosure of overseas investments, including Swiss bank accounts.

The House bill would also require new disclosure of off-shore investments but specifically targeted the tax return issue. Rep. Sander Levin said Romney should “set the example” for future candidates and release his returns. But then he said the law must be changed so release of tax information is not at the discretion of candidates.

“I don’t think there’s any question now in terms of the responsibility of the candidate,” he said. “I think the law ought to now reflect that responsibility.”

This is garbage. According to Askville by Amazon:

Tax Returns and Backup Documentation: Whether personal or business, the general rule is seven years. This may seem like a long time to hold onto these papers, but think of it as an annual cleaning out as new returns are filed. One in … one out and the old adage of “better safe than sorry” will apply. The IRS has 3 years to audit you from the date you file your taxes; however, there are exceptions — these include:

False Return – Tax may be assessed at any time, without limitation.
Willful attempt to avoid tax – Tax may be assessed at any time, without limitation.
No return – Tax may be assessed at any time, without limitation.
Extension by Agreement – Assessment period defined by agreement between IRS and taxpayer.
Tax resulting from changes in certain income or estate tax credits – No timeframe defined.
Tax resulting form distributions or terminations from a life insurance company – 3 years
Termination of private foundation status – Tax may be assessed at any time, without limitation.
Substantial omission of items (generally defined as over/under reporting of income by 25% – 6 years.
These Limitations of Assessment and Collection are defined in federal law. Please see 26 USC 6501.

Please note–unless there is suspicion of a crime or a serious problem, the IRS only requires people to even keep three years of tax returns. The maximum requirement of the IRS is 6 years. This law is aimed at one person and one person only. That fact alone is a threat to the American legal and political systems. It is law that targets Mitt Romney during a political campaign. This is disgusting.

Remember, these are the same people who haven’t been able to find the time to pass a federal budget during the past three years. I truly think they have their priorities a little backwards.

 

 

 

 

America No Longer Supports Religious Freedom Around The World

Posted on by

Yesterday Investors.com posted an article stating that the United States State Department is no longer including religious freedom in its annual Human Rights Report. The stated reason for this change is that they want to avoid duplicating another document, the annual Report on International Religious Freedom.

The article points out:

The Pew Research Center has produced two studies showing that 70% of the world’s population lives in countries where religious freedom is severely restricted, either by governments or by hostile groups allowed to run amok by indifferent or hostile leaders.

Religious liberty was considered so important by our Founders that it was written into the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in a country populated by those fleeing the religious oppression of governments.

We considered religious liberty a bedrock of freedom and democracy and, as stated in our Declaration of Independence, we believed we were endowed with Unalienable rights by our Creator, not by men or governments.

The U.S. in recent years has grown increasingly indifferent to the lack of religious tolerance around the world as it has taken an increasingly violent turn.

America used to be the lighthouse of the world. I am afraid that lighthouse has gone dark.

The article concludes:

Here at home we find a different kind of war on religious liberty, not violent but insidious, conducted by a government intent on imposing its beliefs regarding access to contraceptives and mandating that religious institutions violate their beliefs and consciences in the name of government health care edicts.

Here we see an unprecedented attempt by the Obama administration through ObamaCare to define what a church and religious institution is — the notion that you’re a church if the government, in Soviet-style fashion, says you’re a church.

Religious institutions see the universities, hospitals, charities and other social services they perform as part and extensions of their faith.

The government believes they are impediments to its growing power over every facet of our lives. As a result, these religious institutions and the freedom on which they are founded, are in serious jeopardy.

We need to keep the focus on religious persecution — both abroad and here at home.

Why We Need The Second Amendment

Posted on by

 This is a video taken from an article posted at Hot Air yesterday:

 

It is a security surveillance video of an incident in an Internet cafe in Florida. Two armed men entered the cafe with nefarious purposes–guns drawn. The video shows an elderly gentlemen with a gun (he has a concealed carry permit) causing them to have second thoughts about their intentions and causing them to rapidly exit the Internet cafe. The suspects survived the shots and were arrested.

Not everyone has to be armed, but there have to be enough armed civilians walking around to give criminals second thoughts about doing what these two men attempted. We don’t know how many lives were actually saved by the seventy-one year old man with the concealed carry permit!

The article at Hot Air reports:

“Based on what I have seen and what I know at this time, I don’t anticipate filing any charges,” said Bill Gladson of the State Attorney’s Office for 5th Judicial Circuit.

Gladson said he has reviewed the security surveillance video from the cafe. While he still awaits final reports from the Marion County Sheriff’s Office, he said the shooting appeared justified.

Samuel Williams, 71, who fired the shots, has a concealed weapons permit, according to the Sheriff’s Office. Under Florida law, a person is allowed to use deadly force if he or she fears death or serious injury to themselves or others. …

…At least one of his 30 fellow patrons at the cafe wants to thank him.

“I think he is wonderful. If he wouldn’t have been there, there could have been some innocent people shot,” said Mary Beach.

Where Did The Money Go ?

Posted on by

The Washington Free Beacon posted a story today about the connections between stimulus money given out and people who donated to the Obama presidential campaign in 2008. Solyndra is the poster child for this connection, but there is more to the Solyndra story.

The article reports:

Obama bundler George Kaiser was a major stakeholder in Solyndra through his Kaiser Family Foundation, and made several trips to the White House in March 2009 to meet with senior administration officials. In July 2009, Kaiser bragged about securing face time with “all the key players in the West Wing of the White House,” as well as his “almost unique advantage” when it came to steering taxpayer funds toward his pet causes.

“There’s never been more money shoved out of the government’s door in world history, and probably never will be again, than in the last few months and in the next 18 months,” Kaiser told members of the Tulsa Rotary Club. “And our selfish parochial goal is to get as much as it for Tulsa and Oklahoma as we possibly can.”

Although things did not pan out for Solyndra—the company filed for bankruptcy in September 2011—Kaiser can expect to see a better return on his investment than American taxpayers. As part of an agreement to restructure Solyndra’s loan agreement in 2010, Obama’s DOE granted priority status to private investors like Kaiser with respect to the first $75 million recovered in the event of the firm’s bankruptcy, a move that many suspect violated federal law.

Taxpayers, meanwhile, are unlikely to recover much of the money invested on their behalf.

Unfortunately, Solyndra was not the only total waste of stimulus money.

The article lists other examples of companies of campaign donors who received major cash investments or loan guarantees from the Obama Administration.

The article further reports:

The Securities and Exchange Commission is currently investigating whether DreamWorks made illegal payments to Chinese officials in order to secure exclusive film rights in the communist nation. The New York Times reported that Katzenberg, as well as Vice President Joe Biden, were intimately involved in negotiating an agreement under which China would up its annual quota of foreign-produced films from 20 to 34 and allow studios to keep a greater percentage of box-office revenue.

DreamWorks announced a $2 billion deal with the Chinese government in February to build a production studio in Shanghai just days after Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping held an extensive meeting with Barack Obama in Washington, D.C.

When Mitt Romney ran Bain capital, he helped companies succeed. It seems like our government has a definite ability to spend large amounts of taxpayer money helping companies fail.

When Facing An Enemy Should You Hand Them Your Gun ?

Posted on by

There have been a lot of accusations directed at Mitt Romney lately complaining that he has not released nine hundred and seventy-two years of tax records. Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts. Does anyone actually believe that if he had done something illegal as far as taxes are concerned it would have gone unnoticed? I absolutely agree that Governor Romney should release anything asked for as soon as President Obama releases his college transcripts. Governor Romney has released the required forms, anything else is not necessary. President Obama has hidden all records of his past, why is no one challenging him?

Yesterday PJMedia posted an article stating the obvious:

Mark Levin is defending Mitt Romney’s refusal to release his tax returns, and he’s right for a couple of reasons.  First, if Obama had been entirely transparent (read: college transcripts and Fast and Furious, to name two), then Romney should play by the same rules.  But Obama’s murky academic past remains murky, and his administration’s lack of transparency has been astounding.

Second, if Romney releases his tax records, they will be descended upon by a pack of hyenas disguised as CPAs and a mischief of rats disguised as political consultants.  The benign will be presented as malignant by liars.  The cost of enabling liars is higher than the cost of the status quo.

This is simply another attempt by the Obama campaign to turn the talk away from the current state of the economy.

Received In My E-Mail

Posted on by

The information below is from Christians and Jews United For Israel. Consider it when voting in November:

2012 Presidential Scorecard on Israel

                    KEY: Candidate’s statements and actions are
                    Y:  Consistently affirmative
                    N:  Consistently negative             
                    –:  Not known or articulated at this writing

Scorecard2 

Killing The American Economy Because Of Class Envy

Posted on by

For some reason Democrats (even rich Democrats) seem to have the idea that somehow we will all be happier if we punish people who have been successful in business in America. I totally do not understand how Kennedy’s, Pelosi’s, and Kerry’s and other wealthy Democrats want to raise taxes (unless of course you take into account that because of tax shelters, they may not be impacted very much by tax increases). The thing we need to remember is that raising taxes on the ‘rich’ really does not have a big impact on the budget deficit–somehow when taxes are raised on the ‘rich’ the middle class always gets hurt.

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal posted an article on the Democrat’s latest temper tantrum.

The article reports:

That was the chest-pounding message Monday from Patty Murray, the Washington Democrat who runs her party’s Senate campaign committee. In a speech at the Brookings Institution, she declared that if Republicans won’t raise taxes on income above $250,000 before November, Democrats will gladly let all of the Bush tax rates expire at the end of the year—even on the middle class, and no matter the economic consequences.

“If we can’t get a good deal—a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share—then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013 rather than lock in a long-term deal this year that throws middle-class families under the bus,” Mrs. Murray said, in what sounded like an ultimatum.

That bit about throwing middle-class taxpayers “under the bus” is political spin, because Republicans say they’re ready to vote to extend for another year the current tax rates on all taxpayers, including everyone who makes less than $250,000. The Murray Democrats are the ones holding the middle-class rates hostage to a GOP vote to raise taxes on the affluent.

If I hear ‘tax breaks for the rich’ one more time, I may scream. First of all, in many states (New York and California to name two), $250,000 a year is middle class. Second of all, many small business owners file their taxes in a way that the gross income of the company (before expenses) shows as their personal income. They would be severely impacted by raising taxes on those making $250,000 a year. These are the people who create jobs. Just for the record, my husband and I do not make more than $250,000 a year, nor are we in danger of doing so. I just think class warfare is wrong.

The article concludes:

Perhaps Senator Murray and her fellow Democrats really don’t think tax increases will hurt all that much, and it’s clear she’s clueless about the way expectations influence economic decisions. But at least voters now know that Democrats are willing to toy with recession to win an election.

The “Bush Tax Cuts” have been in effect for at least ten years. When are they going to stop being the “Bush Tax Cuts” and simply become the current tax rate?

What Happens When You Read The Small Print

Posted on by

To me, the article I am about to report on represents the grasping of straws, but it is an interesting thought.

Yesterday the Washington Post posted an article about a possible vulnerability in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

The article reports:

Case Western Reserve University’s Jonathan Adler and Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon argue in a new paper that any federally-established health insurance exchange does not have the authority to dole out health insurance subsidies. Those subsidies are important: They are the $800 billion in tax credits meant to subsidize coverage for low- and middle-income Americans.

If that is true — and it’s worth noting that the Obama administration, along with a number of legal scholars, argue that it is not — it would significantly curtail the Affordable Care Act’s ability to do what it’s supposed to do:  make health care affordable. And that puts Section 1401 at the center of a burgeoning debate over what Congress meant when it wrote the Affordable Care Act, and how that effects its ultimate implementation.

Whoops! I think the only viable answer to Obamacare is repeal and replace, but this is definitely an interesting twist in the saga of this legislation.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. I have no idea if this is a viable argument, but it does show how hurriedly and carelessly this law was written.