Tag Archives: United State

About That Fairness Thing

Posted on by

Thomas Sowell posted an article at Townhall.com dealing with the subject of fairness in tax policy.

Mr. Sowell describes the supposed justification for higher taxes on the rich, and then asks a questions we should all be asking:

He pointed out that a child born to a poor woman in the Bronx enters the world with far worse prospects than a child born to an affluent couple in Connecticut.

No one can deny that. The relevant question, however, is: How does allowing politicians to take more money in taxes from successful people, to squander in ways that will improve their own reelection prospects, make anything more “fair” for others?

How much has the billions of dollars spent of the War on Poverty actually helped alleviate poverty in America?

Mr. Sowell points out that giving money to single mothers has not helped alleviate their poverty problems–instead, it has increased the number of single mothers. Since children raised by a single parent do not do as well as children who grow up with their two original parents, increasing the number of single parents is not ‘fair’ to anyone.

Mr. Sowell concludes:

High tax rates in the upper income brackets allow politicians to win votes with class warfare rhetoric, painting their opponents as defenders of the rich. Meanwhile, the same politicians can win donations from the rich by creating tax loopholes that can keep the rich from actually paying those higher tax rates — or perhaps any taxes at all.

What is worse than class warfare is phony class warfare. Slippery talk about “fairness” is at the heart of this fraud by politicians seeking to squander more of the nation’s resources.

We have reached the point where half of Americans pay no income taxes. If we don’t level out the tax burden to the point where everyone pays something, we will find ourselves with a very small number of people trying to support those who are not paying taxes and have no interest in what the tax rate is. We are almost there already.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Is Just Getting More Complicated

Posted on by

As I have previously stated, I have no idea what to make of this. There seem to be some valid questions about President Obama’s eligibility to be President. On Monday wnd.com reported that in addition to the court case in George about putting the President on the ballot (see rightwinggranny.com), there are other states taking a closer look at how they qualify candidates for elections.

The article reports:

Whatever the outcome in Georgia, the issue is gaining traction in other states, too, including Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, New Hampshire, and even Illinois, Obama’s home political base.

There, in a complaint recently filed by Stephen F. Boulton of McCarthy Duffy LLP and Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, their client is asking for a change in state law to allow the vetting of political candidates.

Whatever happens in Georgia, Americans have the right to be fully confident that a candidate on the ballot has been checked to make sure he meets the qualifications for the office he is seeking.

The article points out:

The newest round of court actions do not try to have a judge determine Obama is not qualified for the Oval Office and remove him from it, they simply challenge his eligibility for the 2012 election.

Many of the cases cite Minor v. Happersett, a U.S. Supreme Court opinion from 1875 that said a “natural born citizen” would be a person whose parents both were citizens.

“This complaint does not request any injunction against any state or federal government official. Instead this complaint asserts that the private entity, Defendant Democratic Party, intends to act negligently or fraudulently in a manner that will cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, to the states, and to the citizens of the United States,” said one of the filings.

It continued, “Because Mr. Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, any reasonable person with knowledge of these facts would doubt Mr. Obama’s constitutional qualifications. Therefore, any representation by the Democratic Party certifying said qualifications would be negligent, absent further evidence verifying Mr. Obama’s natural-born status.

“Plaintiffs further request an injunction prohibiting the Democratic Party from making any representation to any state official asserting, implying, or assuming that Mr. Obama is qualified to hold the office of president, absent a showing by the party sufficient to prove that said representation is not negligent.”

Van Irion, lead counsel for Liberty Legal Foundation, also is working on several of the issues, and has brought the question in court in Arizona.

The question is out there. It will be interesting to see what happens next. Meanwhile, have you read about this in the mainstream media?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Who Gets Rich In The Obama Economy

Posted on by

Today’s Daily Caller posted an article about President Obama’s speech in Las Vegas calling for a plan to boost the American use of natural gas. I’m sure it is only a coincidence that George Soros will benefit greatly if the plan is put into action.

The Daily Caller reports:

Westport Innovations, a recent purchase by Soros, would benefit from the windfall of policies that pursue the use of natural gas for transportation. The company, whose shares have been projected to explode if Congress were to approve the Natural Gas Act, makes natural gas engines for heavy-duty trucks.

“Soros’s investment funds have pumped about $122 million into WPST, and he’s added to his control as recently as December and March, when he picked up over a million shares, bringing his total to 5.5 million shares,” reported BigGovernment.

“If Westport reaps the predicted windfall, one of the chief beneficiaries will be George Soros, a major Obama donor and supporter. Soros’s hedge fund holds.

There have been a lot of investments in ‘green energy’ by political leaders who felt that they could put policies in place that would reward them rather than be in the best interests of America. We need to remember that specific legislation was passed before Solyndra declared bankruptcy that put the American taxpayer on the hook for the loss rather than the investors in the company. We also need to remember that in the bankruptcy of Chrysler, the interests of the unions were protected over the interests of the Preferred Stockholders, which is against bankruptcy law.

Crony capitalism seems to be one of the strongest traits of the Obama Administration. When November comes, we need to end both crony capitalism and the Obama Administration.

 

 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Another Foreign Policy Blunder

Posted on by

Hot Air posted an article today about the status of the oil exploration that the Obama Administration loaned Brazil’s oil company Petrobras $2 billion to support.

President Obama stated at the time the money was given to Brazil:

“We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and, when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.”

At the same time the President was giving the $2 billion for Brazilian oil exploration, he was drastically slowing down leasing and permitting in the US and whining about “subsides” to US oil corporations. It was okay to subsidize Brazilian companies doing oil exploration, but for some reason it was not okay to subsidize American oil companies.

The article points out:

The country’s state-controlled oil company, Petrobras, expects to pump 4.9 million barrels a day from the country’s oil fields by 2020, with 40 percent of that coming from the seabed. One and a half million barrels will be bound for export markets.

The United States wants it, but China is getting it.

Less than a month after President Obama visited Brazil in March to make a pitch for oil, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff was off to Beijing to sign oil contracts with two huge state-owned Chinese companies.

This is not good news. When America has a weak President, bad things happen.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Exactly Who Should Be In Charge Of “Sustainable Development” ?

Posted on by

Fox News reported yesterday that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking to expand its powers greatly to help America achieve “sustainable development.”  “Sustainable development,” is the centerpiece of a global United Nations conference slated for Rio de Janeiro next June.

Sustainable development is a concept that has been with us for a number of years. A 1987 UN report, Our Common Future, released by the Brundtland Commission, defines sustainable development as:

…development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

That sounds really good until you look further. Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s 1992 Earth Summit stated:

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class–involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing–are not sustainable.

The idea here is simple–rather than aspire to obtain a higher standard of living in countries without infrastructure, reliable electricity, and sanitation facilities, we will simply lower the standards of the western world. This is not about ecology–this is about redistribution of wealth.

The article at Fox News reports:

According to the study itself, the adoption of the new “sustainability framework” will make the EPA more “anticipatory” in its approach to environmental issues, broaden its focus to include both social and economic as well as environmental “pillars,” and “strengthen EPA as an organization and a leader in the nation’s progress toward a sustainable future.”

Whatever EPA does with its suggestions, the study emphasizes, will be “discretionary.” But the study urges EPA to “create a new culture among all EPA employees,” and hire an array of new experts in order to bring the sustainability focus to every corner of the agency and its operations. Changes will move faster “as EPA’s intentions and goals in sustainability become clear to employees,” the study says.

The National Academies and the EPA held a meeting last week in Washington to begin public discussion of the study.

One of the things we might want to remember here is that the EPA is not an elected body. They cannot easily be held accountable. They cannot be voted out of office. Regardless of how you feel about the environmental issues here, there is definitely a constitutional issue here.

“Sustainable development” is a UN program–it is not an American program. Americans have never had a chance to vote on it or any group implementing it. Giving the EPA any more power than they already have would be a drastic error in judgement. Please google “Agenda 21” for more information on what is behind the move toward sustainable development.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why We Need To Be Energy Independent

Posted on by

 

British map showing the Strait of Hormuz

Image via Wikipedia

Yahoo News posted a Reuters story yesterday about a recent statement by Parviz Sarvari, a member of the Iranian parliament’s National Security Committee. Mr. Sarvari stated that the military was preparing for a military training exercise to practice closing the Straits of Hormuz. At least 40 percent of the oil traded in the world leaves the Gulf States through the Straits of Hormuz. United States warships patrol the area in order to protect shipping in that area. To close those Straits would create chaos in the world’s oil markets. 

The article reports:

Tension over the program has increased since the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported on November 8 that Tehran appears to have worked on designing a nuclear bomb and may still be pursuing research to that end. Iran strongly denies this and says it is developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Iran has warned it will respond to any attack by hitting Israel and U.S. interests in the Gulf and analysts say one way to retaliate would be to close the Strait of Hormuz.

When America has a weak president, the world is less safe. The current actions of Iran are further proof of that.

Enhanced by Zemanta

There Seems To Be A Slight Difference Of Opinion On This

Posted on by

The Washington Times reported yesterday that the Senate voted Tuesday to give the U.S. military first crack at holding al Qaeda operatives, even if they are captured in the U.S. and are American citizens, and also reaffirmed the policy of indefinite detention.

A website called Democracy.now reports:

A provision in the National Defense Authorization Act would authorize the military to jail anyone it considers a terrorism suspect — anywhere in the world — without charge or trial. The measure would effectively extend the definition of what is considered the military’s “battlefield” to anywhere in the world, even within the United States.

This is the link to the actual text of the bill at Thomas.gov. What the bill does, contrary to the panic expressed in Democracy.now, is allow the military to deal with terrorists in military courts rather than civilian courts. Terrorists have no right to be tried in American criminal courts with all the benefits of American citizens, regardless of where they are captured–they are not criminals, they are terrorists.

If you think this is a new thing, please review the case of the Nazi saboteurs who came ashore on Long Island in 1942 (at fbi.gov). Like it or not, we are at war. We have been at war since 1979, when Iran and its radical Muslim leaders declared war on us. We ignore the fact that we are at war at our own peril.

Please note that the vote of this bill was bipartisan. The article at the Washington Times reports: 

Tuesday’s 61-37 vote to buck Mr. Obama and grant the military dibs exposed a deep rift within the Democratic Party. Sixteen Democrats and one independent who caucuses with them defied the veto threat and joined 44 Republicans.

This bill protects the safety of Americans. If you doubt that, please follow the link to Thomas.gov and read the bill or the summary.

Enhanced by Zemanta

It Had To Happen–The Associated Press Is Blaming President Bush For The Failure Of The Super Committee

Posted on by
Official photograph portrait of former U.S. Pr...

Image via Wikipedia

The article was posted today at ABC News. I really have nothing to say. I think the whole thing is ridiculous. If you care to read the original article, you have my blessings, but I’m not quoting it! Keep in mind that the super committee was designed to fail and become a campaign issue. That’s what this article is about. Watch for class warfare and how unfair it is that some Americans are actually successful!

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Isn’t New, But It’s Important

Posted on by

Today Investors.com posted a story stating that:

President Obama says the Occupy Wall Street protests show a “broad-based frustration” among Americans with the financial sector, which continues to kick against regulatory reforms three years after the financial crisis.

“You’re seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on the abusive practices that got us into this in the first place,” he complained earlier this month.

The article asks, “But what if government encouraged, even invented, those “abusive practices”?

Well, they did. In December of 2008, I (rightwinggranny.com) posted an article linking to a youtube video entitled “Burning Down The House.” The story told in that video may be finally getting out. I strongly suggest you follow the link and watch the video.

Investors.com is reporting on a document from 1994 that sought to make sure that there was no discrimination in the lending industry. A great idea, but it overlooked the fact that banks needed to discriminate against those people seeking loans that they were unable to pay back.

The article reports:

At President Clinton’s direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.

The threat was codified in a 20-page “Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending” and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.

The edict — completely overlooked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the mainstream media — was signed by then-HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with the heads of six other financial regulatory agencies.

“The agencies will not tolerate lending discrimination in any form,” the document warned financial institutions.

This is the root of the housing crisis. Someone much wiser than I once said, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” This is an example of that statement.

We haven’t learned our lesson yet. The article reports:

Tom Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, recently testified that his division “continues to participate in the federal Interagency Fair Lending Task Force.” And he and the task force are working with the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to “enhance fair-lending enforcement.”

The fair-lending task force’s original policy paper undercuts the notion the financial crisis was all about banker “greed,” though it certainly played a role after the fact. Rather, it offers compelling evidence that the crisis evolved chiefly from government mandates and threats to increase lending to applicants who could not afford them.

This is the story about our current financial woes that needs to be told.

 

Closing Your Eyes To Danger Does Not Make It Go Away

Posted on by

Yesterday at rightwinggranny.com I posted excerpts from the American Enterprise Institute report on the increased activities of Hezbollah terrorists in Latin America. Last Sunday I reported at rightwinggranny.com on a speech given by Brigitte Gabriel in Massachusetts that night. Ms. Gabriel spoke of the Muslim Brotherhood’s infiltration into the American government.

Today the Daily Caller reported:

Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive.

The article further reports:

In a Wednesday Los Angeles Times op-ed, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) president Salam al-Marayati threatened the FBI with a total cutoff of cooperation between American Muslims and law enforcement if the agency failed to revise its law enforcement training materials.

…Specifically, al-Marayati called for a new “interagency task force” to review the training materials — a task force including representatives of the Islamist organizations the FBI is tasked with monitoring.

We are in serious peril if this sort of thinking continues. I just hope we can hold on until 2012 and elect people who will at least recognize the fact that the number one threat to America at this time is Islamic terrorism. Hezbollah is financed and backed by Iran–they are not Baptists. We need to wake up and pay attention.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Rocket Launcher A Grenade Launcher And Explosives Were Found By Border Patrol Agents Near The Rio Grande

Posted on by

A Texas newspaper called The Monitor is reporting that a rocket launcher, a grenade launcher, and what appeared to be C-4 explosives were found near the Rio Grande River on Tuesday.

Katie Pavlich at Townhall.com points out:

There are four main ways Mexican cartels can get their hands on rocket and grenade launchers:

-If the U.S. State Department were to sell those weapons to the Mexican government, then dissenters of the Mexican military (who make up the majority of cartel members) take the weapons with them when they leave

-Mexican cartels buy them on the black market

-Mexican cartels get them from a guy, who after admitting he was providing grenades to cartels, was released back to Mexico by ATF a la Grenadegate

-Mexican cartels work with groups like Hezbollah to obtain those weapons, cartels in Mexico grant easy access into the United States to Hezbollah in return, Hezbollah supplies them with weapons.

On September 3rd, I reported that Hezbollah has set up a center of operations in Cuba (rightwinggranny.com). We may be seeing the results of that action.

Enhanced by Zemanta