News behind the news. This picture is me (white spot) standing on the bridge connecting European and North American tectonic plates. It is located in the Reykjanes area of Iceland. By-the-way, this is a color picture.
As President Donald Trump and congressional Democrats remain at an apparent impasse over the border wall, the commander in chief is drawing criticism for shutting down the government. Others, however, insist the wall is necessary, saying the president must stand up for national security.
CBN News‘ Charlene Aaron spoke with Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney about why he believes it’s so important for the president to win this particular battle over immigration.
I realize that a five minute video is a lot to post on a blog, but it is worth listening to. Frank Gaffney has been involved in national security for a long time and knows what he is talking about.
“In May of 2017 there was a document identified to a small number of people in the United States government. It’s in the possession of the Defense Intelligence Agency. For eighteen months there’s been an effort to resist declassifying that document; I know that that document contains extraordinary exculpatory information about General Flynn. I don’t believe the president has ever been told about the existence of this document. One lawmaker discovered it, but was thwarted by the Defense Intelligence Agency in his efforts to disclose it. I think we should all ask for that declassification; get that out; it may enlighten the judge; it will certainly enlighten the American public.”
Hopefully General Flynn, who has served his country honorably, will be totally cleared of all charges. This is not the way we should be treating our veterans.
Yesterday Breitbart posted an article about a statement made by Marjorie Pritchard, deputy managing editor of the Boston Globe editorial page.
The article reports:
We are not the enemy of the people,’’ said Marjorie Pritchard, deputy managing editor of the Boston Globe editorial page.
…The Boston Globe‘s effort calls on participating editorial boards to coordinate criticisms of Trump’s critiques of news media outlets. Approximately 70 publications have committed to the effort so far.
Pritchard described the president’s criticisms of various news media outlets and figures as an undermining of the First Amendment.
Now wait a minute. It seems to me that a coordinated effort by the media to coordinate criticism be the problem–not the solution.
The article also quotes Jim Acosta:
In April 2017, CNN’s Jim Acosta similarly framed Trump’s criticisms of his employer as a subversion of the First Amendment:
As much as people wanna beat up on CNN and go after CNN and “CNN sucks” and that sort of thing, what [Breitbart News] does, I was with Steve Bannon the other day where he referred to us as the opposition party, once again. We’re not the opposition party. We are just trying to get at the truth.
President Donald J. Trump unloaded today on the mainstream media for contributing to the dilapidated state of trust in America’s institutions and his administration, saying that 90% of the coverage was negative, which has put the lives of many at risk.
…The 90% figure is corroborated by two studies, one taken in 2017 and one taken in 2018, conducted by the Media Research Center which “studied all broadcast evening news coverage of the President from January 1 through April 30, and found 90 percent of the evaluative comments about Trump were negative — precisely the same hostile tone we documented in 2017.”
Somehow I don’t think those numbers indicate that the media is simply trying to get to the truth.
A baby boomer is our current President. Chances are, if the economy continues to grow, he will serve two terms. Logically in 2024, Mike Pence would run. So who would the Democrats run in 2020 and 2024? The Democrats are a party in flux–half of them are openly embracing socialism and half of them are trying to bring their party more into the mainstream of America.
The Hill posted an article recently about the Democrat field of candidates for President in 2020.
The article reports:
Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are the most popular potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, according to a new American Barometer poll.
The poll, which is a joint project of Hill.TV and the HarrisX polling company, showed Biden with a 50 percent favorable rating, while Sanders trailed with a 48 percent favorable rating.
Only 31 percent of those polled said they viewed the former vice president unfavorably. A third of respondents said they viewed Sanders unfavorably.
Warren held the highest favorable rating among Democratic senators listed in the survey, with 33 percent of those polled saying they held a favorable view of the senator.
The poll showed Gillibrand holding a 20 percent favorable rating, while 21 percent of respondents said they have a favorable view of Harris, and 23 percent said the same for Booker.
Name recognition remains an obstacle for many Democratic contenders.
Thirty-four percent of respondents said they had never heard of Gillibrand, while 36 percent said the same for Harris. Thirty-two percent of respondents had not heard of Booker.
Only 4 percent of those polled said they had never heard of Biden or Sanders.
I realize that you have to be 35 to be President, but you don’t have to be over 60! Bernie Sanders is 76, and Joe Biden is 75. They are leading in the polls. Elizabeth Warren is 69. The younger contenders are Kirsten Gillibrand is 51, Kamala Harris is 53, and Cory Booker at 49 is the youngest of the group.
Where are the millenniums in either party?
In November 2017, Quorum posted the following chart about the House of Representatives:
Fox News is reporting today that a D.C. Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC 4C) is supporting a petition to pull the Trump International Hotel’s liquor license — citing D.C. law that only individuals of “good character” qualify for a liquor license. This has to be the dumbest thing I have heard in a long time.
The article reports:
“Donald Trump, the true and actual owner of the Trump International Hotel, is not a person of good character,” the petition, filed by a group of D.C. residents including two former judges, a pastor and a rabbi, reads.
The complaint, filed in June, cites Trump’s “long history of telling lies,” his alleged lack of integrity in dealings with others and his “failure to abide by the law and to repudiate associations with known criminals.” It goes on to call for a show cause hearing to judge whether the license should be revoked.
“What the complaint says is that the owner of the Trump International Hotel doesn’t meet that definition and so ABRA, the Alcohol Beverage Regulation Administration, should take action,” Zach Teutsch, ANC Commissioner 4C, said. He denied that the move was a political stunt.
I daresay that Donald Trump’s character is at least as good as many of our elected leaders.
The article concludes with a bit of common sense:
However, the commission representing the area in downtown Washington, ANC 2C, reportedly has no plans to weigh in on the complaint. Chairman John Tinpe told The Washington Post that it’s a slippery slope to comment on a licensee’s character and could lead to a rush of similar protests.
“Now, if there is criminal activity, that is different,” Tinpe said. “But the subject of character is something different.”
Fox 5 reports that not everyone is on board with the move in D.C., with some local residents arguing that the swipe at Trump will only hurt bartenders and servers at the hotel and hurt the tax take from the hotel.
Washington definitely has its own brand of crazies.
PJ Media posted an article yesterday that highlights one of the major problems of the Trump administration–civil servants who are working against President Trump’s policies. The amazing thing about spotlighting this problem is that the Congressional Democrats accidentally illustrated the problem without meaning to.
The letter deals with Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, an Obama-era pro-Iran-deal State Dept staffer. Ms. Nowrouzzadeh reportedly expressed “willingness to support the policy priorities of the Trump Administration” in good faith, but her actions tell another story. Ms. Nowrouzzadeh co-authored an article entitled “Trump’s Dangerous Shift on Iran,” which severely criticizes the President’s stance on the Iranian nuclear deal.
They really did just try to make hay with: “Trump Demotes — But Can’t Fire — Employee Who Calls Him ‘Dangerous.'”
If the Republican Party has a smidge of the media instincts of Schachtel and Ceren, then this coming Monday should open with a House Oversight Committee hearing on civil service employment law reform.
They don’t, of course.
But Trump does. And winning over America with civil service reform is a six-inch putt for him.
Politico, Cummings, and Engel just demystified the Deep State for American voters. It’s not about paranoiac white men bumbling about like Inspector Clouseau. It’s about an irrational set of laws that allow thousands upon thousands of unelected Executive Branch employees to work against the elected boss.
Some of them are even the precise cause of the constant “chaos” that the mainstream media loves to ascribe to this White House. Some of them routinely commit felonies by leaking confidential information to those media outlets.
And, unbelievably, one was a JCPOA architect so blinded by a lifetime in government that she actually thought America embraces her “right” to be an un-fireable bureaucrat.
Any employee in the business world who does not support the policies of her corporation or company would be shown the door. Why should civil service be any different?
Newsbusters posted an article today analyzing how the major media covers President Trump. As I am sure almost everyone is aware, the coverage is almost always negative. I strongly suggest that you follow the link and read the entire article–the statistics are amazing.
The article includes the following graph:
The conclusions of the article are somewhat frightening:
The media reaction to Trump’s first year has been so extreme, the public itself has become polarized over the coverage. In September, Gallup discovered that record numbers of Democrats are reporting “trust and confidence in the mass media to report the news ‘fully, accurately and fairly,’” with 72 percent of Democrats saying they trusted the press in 2017, compared to just 51 percent who said that a year ago.
A month later, a Politico/Morning Consult poll found that “more than three-quarters of Republican voters, 76 percent, think the news media invent stories about Trump and his administration.” That number swells to 85 percent when just Trump supporters are asked the question.
What seems to be happening is that many in the media, including the broadcast networks, have chosen to morph into anti-Trump activists. As a result, they provide massive attention to stories that they think make him look bad, give little airtime to more positive aspects of his administration, and punish him with massively negative spin.
The polls suggest anti-Trump Democrats love that kind of news, pro-Trump Republicans hate it — while the national media are cementing their reputation as biased partisans. Their hostility against the White House is now so obvious, nobody could possibly take them seriously if they ever again claim to be fair and non-partisan professionals.
When politicians (or the media) complain about the divisiveness in America, they need look no further than themselves. The lies that the media is telling and the things that the media is choosing to emphasize are not helping inform the public and they are surely not helping to unite us in the common goal of making America a better place.
Fox News posted an article today about Hillary Clinton’s comment that she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke” after leaving the White House. It seems that financial forms filed for 2000 show assets between $781,000 and almost $1.8 million — and liabilities between $2.3 million and $10.6 million, mostly for legal bills. The article also notes that as the former President and his wife, they had tremendous earning potential, and within a year had earned enough to be financially afloat.
The article reports:
All told, their financial snapshot in 2001 was drastically different than when they left the White House — assets were listed at between $6 million and $30 million; liabilities were between $1.3 million and $5.6 million. And despite their financial issues, they got help from family friend and fundraiser Terry McAuliffe (now, the governor of Virginia) to secure a loan at the time for a $1.7 million home in Chappaqua, N.Y.
These finer details made Clinton’s comment about being “dead broke” all the more questionable.
I think most of us would like to be ‘broke’ like the Clintons were broke after leaving the White House.
Byron York posted an article at the Washington Examiner yesterday explaining why Congress had formed a committee to investigate the Benghazi attack. In the article, he mentions two reasons that have been set forth by the Democrats as the reason to form an investigative committee–to destroy Hillary Clinton as a Presidential candidate in 2016 or some sort of weird Republican fixation. But he puts forth a much more logical reason for a Congressional probe–more than two years later, we still don’t know very much about the attack on Benghazi, why help wasn’t given to the people there, and what the attack was about. That’s why we need a committee.
The article reports:
Republican sources on Capitol Hill say that in general, the Pentagon’s cooperation has been a model of how to deal with such an investigation, while the State Department and White House have been models of what not to do.
If the rest of the administration had followed the military’s example, the Benghazi controversy would likely be over by now.
The probe started with three questions. One, was the U.S. adequately prepared for possible trouble abroad on the anniversary of Sept. 11?
Two, did the government do everything it could to try to rescue the Americans who were under attack for seven and a half hours?
Republicans in Congress have been reluctant to form an investigative committee–fearing that it would be seen as a political move. That changed with the recent release of emails obtained by Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information request that revealed a White House role in creating a misleading narrative about the attack. From my perspective, the attack and the fact that we did not send help is bad enough, but the political whitewashing and misleading the American people that went on afterward is a disgrace.
I look forward to the answers to the three questions above.
It has always been my belief that a picture is worth a thousand words. From Yahoo.com:
Where is the austerity?
However, there is more to the problem.
John Hinderaker reminds us:
But wait! Democrats and Republicans agreed on discretionary spending levels that supposedly were binding for a decade to come in the Budget Control Act, which included the sequester. Just a few months ago, the Ryan-Murray compromise modified the sequester and increased discretionary spending. That bipartisan agreement was supposed to put spending debates to rest for at least the next couple of years. Now, apparently, the Obama administration intends to throw all prior agreements into the trash can, and demand still higher spending.
This illustrates a point that I have made over and over: all budget agreements that purport to achieve savings over a long period of time, usually a decade, are a farce. The savings always come in the “out years,” but the out years never arrive. Once you get past the current fiscal year, budget agreements are not worth the paper they are printed on. For Republicans to agree to more spending today in exchange for hypothetical cuts in later years is folly–those cuts will never come.
Leadership in both political parties do not desire to cut federal spending. Their debate is only over which party will control the massive spending. That is why it is imperative that we change the establishment leadership of the Republican party. The Republicans used to be the party of small government, there is hope that they can be again. The Democrats have always supported big government. The only solution to this problem is new leadership in the Republican party.
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today comparing President Obama’s statement about equal wages for women with the actual pay scales at the White House. Please follow the link above to read the entire article, but this is the gist of it (as posted at McClatchydc.com):
But a McClatchy review of White House salaries shows that when the same calculations that produced the 77 cents is applied to the White House, the average female pay at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is less than the average male pay. When counted the same way that produced the 77-cent figure, the analysis found, women overall at the White House make 91 cents for every dollar men make. That’s an average salary of $84,082 for men and $76,516 for women.
Asked about its own payroll, the White House said Wednesday that it should be measured by how it pays men and women in the same jobs, but not the kind of broad brush that compares overall male and female pay.
In other words, the White House doesn’t want to be measured by the same yardstick they use for everyone else. The 77-cent canard is based on averaging on the widest possible “big brush” scale. Their answer — that men and women doing the same work and responsibility get paid equally — holds true in the marketplace as well. In fact, that’s what the 91% gap shows, in both the White House and the Blau-Kahn study; the difference is in the rational choices made by women in the marketplace, not some kind of malicious conspiracy against the female gender.
Another reason the alternative media is necessary under the Obama Administration.
Sources told the Post that the 24-hour extension has been built into the online system and is intended as a precaution in the event that the the problem-plagued website sees a surge of traffic from individuals looking to sign up at the last minute, and buckles under the weight.
The extension, said the sources, cannot be overridden by insurance companies if they object to it. It is the latest of several last-minute, ad hoc rule changes issued by the administration, including last week’s announcement that individuals whose insurance plans were canceled may receive an exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.
Please note that none of these changes are being sent through Congress and they are simply decided on by the Obama Administration. What happened to the legal process of passing and amending a law? Where is the Constitution in this? Why isn’t Congress complaining about being left out of a large part of the implementation of this law?
Have we entered a period in our history when laws are changed in the dead of night without anyone other than the Administration having any input?
Please follow the link above to read the entire article. Can you image the outrage if an organization supporting President Bush had put out this letter? Do these people ever stop campaigning? Do you really want a political group giving you talking points for the family holiday dinner table?
A website called TheFederalist gives the correct response if someone in your family took the above memorandum seriously:
Here’s a sample response you might use. “That would be great. Except that I’m going to be washing dishes and cleaning up for a bit. How about you go into the guest room and use the computer in there to sign me up. As soon as you’re done, you can have some pie.”
The key is to get them to make a commitment not to come out until they’ve finished signing you up. Remember their conversation tip — Ask them to make a plan, and commit to it. Ask them to commit to finishing the sign-up before they come out of the room.
Since nobody can actually sign up for Obamacare, they’ll be busily trying to operate the web site for the duration of your visit. And the beauty of the disaster zone that is the Obamacare website is that whether you plan to visit for hours or days, the crazy family member will be out of your hair. For added giggles with the sane portion of the family, be sure to follow the last tip — Don’t forget to follow up: “Have you signed up yet?”
Every time you pass the room, knock on the door loudly and ask them that exact question. Once your crazy uncle is holed-up with a laptop in the guest bedroom, you and your more tolerable relatives can enjoy the rest of the holiday in peace.
As I write this, there is no lawsuit connected to this story. The person who would normally be entitled to file a lawsuit has not indicated that he will do so, although he has not totally ruled it out.
On Thursday, the Daily Caller reported the story about Drew Johnson, formerly one of the editors of the Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times Free Press. Mr. Johnson was fired on Thursday for breaking a rule on Monday–the rule was not put in place until Tuesday. So what was Mr. Johnson’s infraction? Mr. Johnson changed the title on an editorial to read “Take your jobs plan and shove it, Mr. President: Your policies have harmed Chattanooga enough.” This headline appeared on the day President Obama visited Chattanooga to promote his new jobs program.
Despite the headline, the Free Press kept the headline up on its website and received a lot of internet traffic related to the article.
The article at the Daily Caller reports:
However, two days after the editorial had been published he was called in and fired for the piece.
“So I was brought into human resources today and I was told, ‘You’re being fired for violating the policy that you have to have an editor sign off when you make a change to a headline,’” he said. “Well, I said, ‘That’s funny, because that policy wasn’t in place until after I wrote the piece and you guys told me that was the policy on Tuesday. And I wrote the piece on Monday.’”
Mr. Johnson is looking for a new job. Gone are the days when fiery editorials on both sides of the political spectrum graced our newspapers. Unless the media begins to report both sides of the story, we will lose our representative republic. What happened to Drew Johnson is an outrage, but somehow most of the media seems to be unconcerned.
The Blaze is reporting today that the tree that President Obama planted in Israel today to symbolize the special relationship between Israel in America will be dug up immediately. This is not a joke. All agricultural products introduced into Israel have to go through a quarantine in order to insure that they do not carry diseases or insects not already in Israel.
The article reports:
An Agriculture Ministry official told Ynet (Blaze translation from Hebrew), “Because the American President Barack Obama brought the plant with him and because it is forbidden to bring plants into Israel from overseas without first passing inspection or quarantine – due to the fear of importing disease or harmful pests that could be found on the plant – the tree will thus be taken for tests.”
The officials stressed there’s no diplomatic gaffe here, that officials in President Peres’s office and at the Foreign Ministry were aware of the plans.
Agriculture officials say the examination could take “months.”
Most countries (and many states) have laws against bringing a plant into the country (or state) that may have a disease or a resident insect. The mistake has been made a number of times–either a plant was brought in, an exotic pet was let loose in the wild and multiplied, or a research facility accidentally released an insect. Some examples–fruit flies in California, gypsy moths in New England, kudzu in the American south, and walking fish in Maryland.
The Israeli government did what was necessary with the tree, but I think the fact that the President set up a photo-op that immediately had to be undone is somewhat humorous.
For those of you who are not in shock by the fact that Marco Rubio actually took a drink of water, here is the video and some highlights from his speech Tuesday night.
The speech and video are posted at the Daily Beast. The video is also on YouTube. Here is the video:
A few highlights from the speech:
But America is exceptional because we believe that every life, at every stage, is precious, and that everyone everywhere has a God-given right to go as far as their talents and hard work will take them.
…This opportunity – to make it to the middle class or beyond no matter where you start out in life – it isn’t bestowed on us from Washington. It comes from a vibrant free economy where people can risk their own money to open a business. And when they succeed, they hire more people, who in turn invest or spend the money they make, helping others start a business and create jobs.
…This idea – that our problems were caused by a government that was too small – it’s just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies.
And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried.
More government isn’t going to help you get ahead. It’s going to hold you back.
More government isn’t going to create more opportunities. It’s going to limit them.
…And tonight, he even criticized us for refusing to raise taxes to delay military cuts – cuts that were his idea in the first place.
But his favorite attack of all is that those who don’t agree with him – they only care about rich people.
Mr. President, I still live in the same working class neighborhood I grew up in. My neighbors aren’t millionaires. They’re retirees who depend on Social Security and Medicare. They’re workers who have to get up early tomorrow morning and go to work to pay the bills. They’re immigrants, who came here because they were stuck in poverty in countries where the government dominated the economy.
The tax increases and the deficit spending you propose will hurt middle class families. It will cost them their raises. It will cost them their benefits. It may even cost some of them their jobs.
And it will hurt seniors because it does nothing to save Medicare and Social Security.
So Mr. President, I don’t oppose your plans because I want to protect the rich. I oppose your plans because I want to protect my neighbors.
Senator Rubio concludes:
This dream – of a better life for their children – it’s the hope of parents everywhere. Politicians here and throughout the world have long promised that more government can make those dreams come true.
But we Americans have always known better. From our earliest days, we embraced economic liberty instead. And because we did, America remains one of the few places on earth where dreams like these even have a chance.
Each time our nation has faced great challenges, what has kept us together was our shared hope for a better life.
Now, let that hope bring us together again. To solve the challenges of our time and write the next chapter in the amazing story of the greatest nation man has ever known.
Thank you for listening. May God bless all of you. May God bless our President. And may God continue to bless the United States of America.
The reason that a lot of the media has focused on Senator Rubio’s drink of water is that they don’t want you to hear the wisdom in the speech.
Panetta said that Obama left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under seize, “up to us.”
In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Panetta said that, save their 5 o’clock prescheduled meeting with the president the day of September 11, Obama did not call or communicate in anyway with the defense secretary that day. There were no calls about the what was going on in Benghazi. He never called to check-in.
Yesterday’s Weekly Standard reported that the required reports on the President’s $787,000,000,000 economic “stimulus” (now estimated to cost $831,000,000,000) have not been released.
The article reports:
In its last report, published in 2011, the president’s own Council of Economic Advisors released an estimate showing that, for every $317,000 in “stimulus” spending that had by then gone out the door, only one job had been created or saved. Even in Washington, that’s not considered good bang for the buck.
Quarterly reports are required by law–the last on was posted in 2011. Where is the transparency the President keeps talking about?
The article concludes:
With only 58.6 percent of Americans currently employed — down 2.4 percent from the time of Obama’s first inauguration — it’s not surprising that the Obama administration doesn’t really want to fulfill it legal responsibilities and release subsequent reports on its failed “stimulus.” However, it hardly seems fair — to use one of Obama’s favorite words — that the rich and (extremely) powerful think that they can choose whether or not to abide by the laws they spearhead and sign, while the rest of us are forced to obey them.
Perhaps it’s time for the rich and powerful to do their fair share and obey the laws that they enforce against others. And perhaps this is something that the House of Representatives might want to look into.
The only thing the stimulus did successfully was increase our indebtedness. It’s time to stop the excessive spending.
America is safe now–all the politicians have gone home for Christmas. They can do no further damage.
We are headed for the fiscal cliff. That will be at least a short-term problem, but let’s back up a bit and look at what has happened to the discussion. Two years ago we were talking about cutting spending. Government spending is running close to 25 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Traditionally, it runs about 18 or 19 percent. That is a major reason for the rapid growth of the federal deficit. Plan B, as submitted by the Speaker of the House, was about taxes. The debate has been almost entirely about taxes–raising them–not cutting spending. Somehow, when taxes are raised, spending increases–it very rarely goes down.
Dick Morris points out the change in the debate in an article he posted at DickMorris.com yesterday. The thing that we need to remember here is that President Obama is a very gifted politician. He knows how to play the game without taking any responsibility for the results. I have the feeling that about twenty years from now the generation that will have to pay for all this foolishness is going to look around and say, “How did our parents let this happen? How did this man get re-elected?” Unfortunately, the current voters are not there yet.
Dick Morris’ article concludes:
Take the tax issue off the table and Americans will see the real game going on here: Obama’s commitment to deficit spending which is driving the economy into ruin. No longer will he be able to avoid the blame for the coming economic collapse because he will have had his way on taxes.
Politically, if the Republicans agree on a tax increase but demand spending cuts in return — and Obama refuses to come across with spending reductions (which he will) — then the blame will fall squarely on the president for the ensuing economic breakdown.
Call Obama’s bluff! Make him face up to the need to cut spending and show Americans how he won’t do it.
That is the only way the Republican party survives this presidency.
Susan Estrich is one of my favorite liberals. Although I probably disagree with her on most things, there are times when she hits the nail on the head squarely. Her recent article at Creators.com was one of those times.
The article was entitled, “The Mandate To Raise Taxes on the “Rich.””
Within days of winning the election, President Obama announced that his victory gave him a mandate to raise taxes on the “rich.”
Come again? This was a two-and-a-half-point election. It reflected a painfully divided electorate. The only mandate I saw was to unite a divided country.
Ms. Estrich explains that she voted for Obama and lists many of the reasons for her vote. She clearly states that she does not think she is paying too little in taxes in spite of the fact that she falls into the group of people President Obama describes as “rich.”
She points out:
I am all for closing loopholes. I am all for ending deductions for things I don’t even understand. But I am not for putting a low cap on deductions that would make it all but impossible for the charities I support to raise funds. I am not for putting a limit on the mortgage deduction that would mean, as a practical matter, that “middle class” (not rich) people in California would be priced out of the housing market, and the charities I support would not be able to raise what they need to survive.
That makes total sense. Ms. Estrich, would you please run for office.
Breitbart.com is reporting that Boeing has announced a 30 percent cut in managerial positions in the company.
The article reports:
Boeing says the cuts are not part of the president’s $500 billion in defense cuts, set to take effect in January 2013. But this is hard to believe, particularly since other defense contractors, like Lockheed Martin, have been warning that the president’s military cuts were going to lead to job losses in defense.
In fact, in September, Lockheed Martin and other defense contractors were threatening to go ahead and lay their workers off before the election so voters could see the impact of Obama’s cuts, but Obama’s team talked them out of it. At the time, the Obama administration told them it would be “inappropriate” to lay the workers off ahead of the election.
In its statement, UtahAmerican Energy blames the Obama administration for instituting policies that will close down “204 American coal-fired power plants by 2014″ and for drastically reducing the market for coal.
“There is nowhere to sell our coal, and when we can, the market prices are far lower,” the statement said. “Without markets, there can be no coal mines and no coal jobs.”
Let’s hope that as the war on coal continues that at least we will be able to develop other domestic energy resources through fracking.
President Obama has been re-elected. What does that mean? It means that he has more flexibility, as he explained to Russian President Medvedev. What does that mean? There will be higher taxes for all Americans. There will be another round of quantitative easing, which will make American dollars worth less. America will unilaterally disarm. ObamaCare will not be repealed, and the elderly and those who value life in all seasons will soon find out what a serious mistake they have made.The new taxes from ObamaCare will begin to kick in during the coming year. Those taxes will impact the real estate market, the medical research industry, and many other areas of the economy. The number of people who take money from the government will increase; the number of people working and paying taxes will decrease. The economy will continue to limp along, possibly heading into a double dip recession.
What happened? There probably was some serious voter fraud along the way, but I don’t think that made the difference. The Evangelical vote never materialized. The average voter watched a media that left out the story of Benghazi and trashed Mitt Romney whenever possible. The mainstream media has exercised their power and elected a President. The majority of Americans are obviously ok with that.
Where do we go from here? We create a political party that actually represents people who are working, supporting their families, and not dependent on the government. That is going to be more difficult as jobs become more scarce.
The re-election of Barack Obama is a body blow to the principles America’s Founding Fathers expressed in The Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution. It is possible that America can return to her roots, but it will be a difficult path to travel from where we went last night.
We are in the last days of the silly season for this election. We will be seeing news stories and pictures designed to change your mind. Some of them will be real, and some of them will be totally false. To illustrate the fact that things are not always what they seem, I am posting a YouTube video below:
Keep this video in mind as you watch the political ads making the closing arguments.