American Thinker:
Along with their ever-present accusation that anyone who criticizes or disagrees with America's first black president is a racist, class envy is the centerpiece of Obama's re-election campaign.
It is extremely disheartening that the president of the United States believes he can win the votes of a majority of Americans by exploiting the sin of covetousness and hatred for the rich. In every speech, Obama claims that the rich are not paying their fair share. Please excuse my frankness, but Obama is lying.
Here are the facts.
Half the country -- yes, I said half -- do not pay taxes at all. Zero! The majority of federal income taxes (70%) are paid by the top 10 percent of income-earners. As for Obama's claim that we can solve America's financial problems by forcing the rich to pay more, it is despicable, manipulative, and hate-inspiring nonsense. There are only 8,000 Americans who earn over 10 million dollars per year. If Obama confiscated all their money, it would finance our government for only 24 days. Then what?
What group of Americans will Obama attack next by trashing and demonizing them to gain public approval to confiscate everything for which they have worked hard, suffered, sacrificed and risked all for "government" redistribution?
Our national debt has tripled since Obama has been in office. Now, I know that that does not mean a lot to most Americans. Well, allow me to put it in perspective. Every minute, we spend 3 million dollars that we do not have, borrowing most of it from China. Every minute! Our debt is bankrupting the future and enslaving our great-great-great-grandkids.
So, you can understand why I find Obama's rants about the rich not paying enough and how people will die unless Republicans raise the debt ceiling so disingenuous and unsupportable.
But there is a much greater issue at hand. Who does this man (Obama) think, we, the American people, are? The Obama administration and his media minions are trying to convince us that the entitlement-minded OWS lowlifes represent "mainstream Americans." They are lying.
I represent mainstream Americans. I began working when I was about ten years old. I had a paper route and worked pulling copper out of old motors for my neighbor across the street, Mr. Buddy-Roy, in his backyard. At 15, my dad got me a work permit, and I acquired my first real job during the summer at Park Sign Co. in Baltimore. There I learned how to silk-screen signs.
Interesting sidebar: experience prompted Berry, the owner of Park Sign, to always get his money upfront for political signs, because if the candidate did not win the race, Berry would not get paid.
Back to my point. Like me, most Americans do not believe they are entitled to the fruits of a fellow American's labor. And yet, this is who Obama thinks we are and desires us to be.
We all remember our classmates who smoked dope, cut classes, and dropped out versus the kids who studied, worked hard, and became doctors. According to Obama, in his "community organizer" way of thinking, the Democratic party, and the Occupiers, the kid who became a doctor is a selfish, greedy rich person who achieved his success on the backs of the poor dope-smoking dropouts.
Please do not think I am saying everyone who is poor smokes dope. Reasonable people get my point.
Obama and company have launched a war on achievement, portraying the highly successful as selfish villains and everyone else as lowly peasant-saints who are suffering because the rich are hogging it all. Clearly, Obama is exploiting man's susceptibility to the sin of covetousness. And to all you Christians who buy into Obama's "fairness" garbage, shame on you. Jesus was not a socialist.
When Judas scolded Mary for pouring her expensive ointment on Jesus' feet rather than selling it and giving the money to the poor, Jesus scolded Judas, saying, "The poor you will have with you always." In essence, Jesus was saying there will always be those who smoke dope, cut classes, and drop out of school. Liberals' relentless efforts to legislate equal outcomes never work. For one thing, humans are diverse in their desires.
The Obama and company vision for America is incompatible with what has made us great. Do we really want to become a nation where government dictates and caps wealth, which they redistribute equally? Heck no!
Freedom to be all one can be is the magic ingredient which has made us the most extraordinarily successful nation on the planet. America is a guy laboring in his basement to build a better mousetrap in an effort to improve the fortunes of his family and himself. Great wealth is his reward for providing rodent relief to millions. If the Obama administration confiscates huge chunks of the successful mousetrap-maker's profits, what incentive is there for him to invest more time, funds, blood, sweat, and tears to improve his product?
It is extremely depressing and sad to think of our great country becoming as Obama sees us -- a nation of entitlement-minded losers, all dependent and helpless without government. As I stated, that is not who we are as a people. We are Americans!
Incredibly, we have a leftist president who simply does not get it. We must vote Obama out in November 2012.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Homeland Security Lexicon: You're All `Militia Extremists' Now
PJMedia:
Love the Constitution? Hate government regulations? New DHS "lexicon" brands you a "militia extremist."
A recently published “lexicon” distributed to thousands of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) targets citizens concerned about their Second Amendment rights and the steady encroachment of the federal government, categorizing such as “militia extremists.”
The “lexicon,” marked Unclassified/For Official Use Only (FOUO), is dated November 10, 2011, and was sent out by email to law enforcement and homeland security agencies on November 14 by LaJuan E. Washington of the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis.
We have exclusively posted the DHS “lexicon” here.
Its definition of “militia extremists” states:
(U//FOUO) Groups or individuals who facilitate or engage in acts of violence directed at federal, state, or local government officials or infrastructure in response to their belief that the government deliberately is stripping Americans of their freedoms and is attempting to establish a totalitarian regime. These individuals consequently oppose many federal and state authorities’ laws and regulations, (particularly those related to firearms ownership), and often belong to armed paramilitary groups. They often conduct paramilitary training designed to violently resist perceived government oppression or to violently overthrow the US Government. (Page 2 of 3, emphasis added)
So what drives militia extremism according to DHS now is “belief that the government deliberately is stripping Americans of their freedoms.” It is demonstrated by opposing “many federal and state authorities’ laws and regulations, (particularly those related to firearms ownership).” Would writing about those topics (as I am now) fall under “facilitation”? On its face, it’s hard to see how it could be excluded under DHS’s broad definition.
Another indicator, according to DHS, is that militia extremists “often belong to paramilitary groups,” which would mean that there are “militia extremists” who aren’t part of a militia. So if you oppose federal regulations and support the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and though you don’t actually belong to a militia, you can still be branded a “militia extremist” by your own government, and presumably be targeted by law enforcement agencies. The “Reporting Notice” found on Page 3 of 3 of the “lexicon” encourages recipients to do exactly that:
DHS and FBI encourage recipients of this document to report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to the nearest State and Major Urban Area Fusion Center and to the local FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force.
And for those who would scoff that my reading is over the top and claim that DHS would never target anyone who wasn’t knowingly and willingly involved in “facilitating and engaging in acts of violence,” the DHS lexicon adds another category, “unwitting co-optees”:
(U//FOUO) Groups or individuals who provide support to terrorism without knowing that their actions are contributing to terrorism. Such individuals may suspect that they are being used. Not all unwitting co-optees are engaging in criminal behavior.
Amazingly, the “lexicon” appears to directly violate standards published by DHS just weeks before the document was sent out.
In October 2011, DHS published its “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Training Guidance and Best Practices,” which was produced by the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and posted on the agency’s website.
Section 2 of that document, titled “Training should be sensitive to constitutional values,” directs:
a) Review the training program to ensure that it uses examples to demonstrate that terrorists and violent extremists vary in ethnicity, race, gender, and religion.
b) Training should focus on behavior, not appearance or membership in particular ethnic or religious communities.
c) Training should support the protection of civil rights and civil liberties as part of national security. Don’t use training that equates religious expression, protests, or other constitutionally protected activity with criminal activity. (emphasis added)
But not only does the “lexicon” target constitutionally protected activity, it specifically targets groups based on race, namely “black supremacist extremists” and “white supremacist extremists.” I have absolutely no problem targeting groups promoting violence based on racial supremacist ideology, but if DHS is going to proscribe the use of such terms and promptly turn around and use such — while in the same breath targeting private citizens for exercising their constitutional rights and freedom of speech in violation of DHS’s own standards — needless to say, that’s a serious problem.
It bears mentioning that an earlier incarnation of the DHS lexicon was the subject of criticism from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress for its targeting of “alternative media” and its shockingly broad definition of the “patriot movement.” A DHS spokesman later claimed that the “lexicon” was sent out prematurely.
Which raises the question of why these various “lexicons” published by the federal government exist in the first place.
Going back to the Bush administration, these “lexicons” have seemingly had a singular purpose: purging the use of “Islam,” “jihad,” and “Muslim” from any official discussion of terrorism. No one should be surprised that none of those terms can be found in the current DHS “lexicon,” despite the fact that even by the most generous estimates, more than 40 percent of domestic terrorism has come from within the Muslim community, which accounts for less than one percent of the population. In its place, federal bureaucrats have invented and promoted a patently meaningless and undefinable category, “violent extremism.”
The roots of this go back to the end of the Bush administration and a March 2008 “lexicon” published by the National Counterterrorism Center. Titled “Words that Work and Words that Don’t: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication,” it began the effort to purge the usage of the terms “Islam,” “Muslim,” and “jihad” from the vocabulary of government officials.
The Obama administration has taken those efforts even further, removing those terms from the 2009 National Intelligence Strategy, the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, the Quadrennial Defense Review, the FBI Counterterrorism Analytical Lexicon, and the DOD Fort Hood report.
And as seen with the criticism of the previous version of the “lexicon,” this is hardly the first time that the DHS Office for Intelligence and Analysis has come under fire for targeting citizens with no connection whatsoever to terrorism.
In 2009, DHS came under fire for a 10-page report, “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” which classified returning war veterans as potential threats. When government watchdogs submitted FOIAs for the sources used in preparing the report, they found that conspiracy websites and far-left outfits had been used, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, which branded the American Legion veterans organization as a “hate group.” Information also surfaced that the report had been rushed out over the objections of civil liberties officials. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano was forced to apologize to veterans groups and withdraw the report.
Nor is this the first time that homeland security agencies have pushed the boundaries on defining “militia extremists.”
Just a few weeks prior to DHS coming under fire for that “right-wing” report, the Missouri Information Analysis Center, funded by DHS grants, issued a report titled “The Modern Militia Movement,” which branded pro-life groups and those opposed to illegal immigration as potential domestic terrorists. Indicators identified in the report included support for third-party candidates. Political signs and bumper stickers were also suspect, with the Revolutionary War-era “Gadsden flag” specifically called out as a “militia symbol.” The Missouri fusion center later announced it would stop publishing reports altogether.
In light of the recent publication of the DHS “lexicon” that violates their own guidelines, it seems clear that under Secretary Napolitano, DHS officials are intent on continuing to target innocent citizens merely exercising their constitutional rights.
Meanwhile, groups and individuals that federal prosecutors and even federal judges have identified as supporting foreign terrorist groups are actively courted and legitimized by the Obama administration. Leaders from these terror-tied organizations are even being used to help write the DHS department guidelines on “countering violent extremism.”
Is it any wonder then that just last week it was revealed that a DHS-funded study likened terrorism to “ordinary crime” while omitting any reference to the radicalizing effects of Islamic extremist ideology?
Until Congress pushes back on this malfeasance by DHS and holds Secretary Napolitano accountable, it is likely to continue.
Love the Constitution? Hate government regulations? New DHS "lexicon" brands you a "militia extremist."
A recently published “lexicon” distributed to thousands of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) targets citizens concerned about their Second Amendment rights and the steady encroachment of the federal government, categorizing such as “militia extremists.”
The “lexicon,” marked Unclassified/For Official Use Only (FOUO), is dated November 10, 2011, and was sent out by email to law enforcement and homeland security agencies on November 14 by LaJuan E. Washington of the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis.
We have exclusively posted the DHS “lexicon” here.
Its definition of “militia extremists” states:
(U//FOUO) Groups or individuals who facilitate or engage in acts of violence directed at federal, state, or local government officials or infrastructure in response to their belief that the government deliberately is stripping Americans of their freedoms and is attempting to establish a totalitarian regime. These individuals consequently oppose many federal and state authorities’ laws and regulations, (particularly those related to firearms ownership), and often belong to armed paramilitary groups. They often conduct paramilitary training designed to violently resist perceived government oppression or to violently overthrow the US Government. (Page 2 of 3, emphasis added)
So what drives militia extremism according to DHS now is “belief that the government deliberately is stripping Americans of their freedoms.” It is demonstrated by opposing “many federal and state authorities’ laws and regulations, (particularly those related to firearms ownership).” Would writing about those topics (as I am now) fall under “facilitation”? On its face, it’s hard to see how it could be excluded under DHS’s broad definition.
Another indicator, according to DHS, is that militia extremists “often belong to paramilitary groups,” which would mean that there are “militia extremists” who aren’t part of a militia. So if you oppose federal regulations and support the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and though you don’t actually belong to a militia, you can still be branded a “militia extremist” by your own government, and presumably be targeted by law enforcement agencies. The “Reporting Notice” found on Page 3 of 3 of the “lexicon” encourages recipients to do exactly that:
DHS and FBI encourage recipients of this document to report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to the nearest State and Major Urban Area Fusion Center and to the local FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force.
And for those who would scoff that my reading is over the top and claim that DHS would never target anyone who wasn’t knowingly and willingly involved in “facilitating and engaging in acts of violence,” the DHS lexicon adds another category, “unwitting co-optees”:
(U//FOUO) Groups or individuals who provide support to terrorism without knowing that their actions are contributing to terrorism. Such individuals may suspect that they are being used. Not all unwitting co-optees are engaging in criminal behavior.
Amazingly, the “lexicon” appears to directly violate standards published by DHS just weeks before the document was sent out.
In October 2011, DHS published its “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Training Guidance and Best Practices,” which was produced by the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and posted on the agency’s website.
Section 2 of that document, titled “Training should be sensitive to constitutional values,” directs:
a) Review the training program to ensure that it uses examples to demonstrate that terrorists and violent extremists vary in ethnicity, race, gender, and religion.
b) Training should focus on behavior, not appearance or membership in particular ethnic or religious communities.
c) Training should support the protection of civil rights and civil liberties as part of national security. Don’t use training that equates religious expression, protests, or other constitutionally protected activity with criminal activity. (emphasis added)
But not only does the “lexicon” target constitutionally protected activity, it specifically targets groups based on race, namely “black supremacist extremists” and “white supremacist extremists.” I have absolutely no problem targeting groups promoting violence based on racial supremacist ideology, but if DHS is going to proscribe the use of such terms and promptly turn around and use such — while in the same breath targeting private citizens for exercising their constitutional rights and freedom of speech in violation of DHS’s own standards — needless to say, that’s a serious problem.
It bears mentioning that an earlier incarnation of the DHS lexicon was the subject of criticism from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress for its targeting of “alternative media” and its shockingly broad definition of the “patriot movement.” A DHS spokesman later claimed that the “lexicon” was sent out prematurely.
Which raises the question of why these various “lexicons” published by the federal government exist in the first place.
Going back to the Bush administration, these “lexicons” have seemingly had a singular purpose: purging the use of “Islam,” “jihad,” and “Muslim” from any official discussion of terrorism. No one should be surprised that none of those terms can be found in the current DHS “lexicon,” despite the fact that even by the most generous estimates, more than 40 percent of domestic terrorism has come from within the Muslim community, which accounts for less than one percent of the population. In its place, federal bureaucrats have invented and promoted a patently meaningless and undefinable category, “violent extremism.”
The roots of this go back to the end of the Bush administration and a March 2008 “lexicon” published by the National Counterterrorism Center. Titled “Words that Work and Words that Don’t: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication,” it began the effort to purge the usage of the terms “Islam,” “Muslim,” and “jihad” from the vocabulary of government officials.
The Obama administration has taken those efforts even further, removing those terms from the 2009 National Intelligence Strategy, the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, the Quadrennial Defense Review, the FBI Counterterrorism Analytical Lexicon, and the DOD Fort Hood report.
And as seen with the criticism of the previous version of the “lexicon,” this is hardly the first time that the DHS Office for Intelligence and Analysis has come under fire for targeting citizens with no connection whatsoever to terrorism.
In 2009, DHS came under fire for a 10-page report, “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” which classified returning war veterans as potential threats. When government watchdogs submitted FOIAs for the sources used in preparing the report, they found that conspiracy websites and far-left outfits had been used, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, which branded the American Legion veterans organization as a “hate group.” Information also surfaced that the report had been rushed out over the objections of civil liberties officials. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano was forced to apologize to veterans groups and withdraw the report.
Nor is this the first time that homeland security agencies have pushed the boundaries on defining “militia extremists.”
Just a few weeks prior to DHS coming under fire for that “right-wing” report, the Missouri Information Analysis Center, funded by DHS grants, issued a report titled “The Modern Militia Movement,” which branded pro-life groups and those opposed to illegal immigration as potential domestic terrorists. Indicators identified in the report included support for third-party candidates. Political signs and bumper stickers were also suspect, with the Revolutionary War-era “Gadsden flag” specifically called out as a “militia symbol.” The Missouri fusion center later announced it would stop publishing reports altogether.
In light of the recent publication of the DHS “lexicon” that violates their own guidelines, it seems clear that under Secretary Napolitano, DHS officials are intent on continuing to target innocent citizens merely exercising their constitutional rights.
Meanwhile, groups and individuals that federal prosecutors and even federal judges have identified as supporting foreign terrorist groups are actively courted and legitimized by the Obama administration. Leaders from these terror-tied organizations are even being used to help write the DHS department guidelines on “countering violent extremism.”
Is it any wonder then that just last week it was revealed that a DHS-funded study likened terrorism to “ordinary crime” while omitting any reference to the radicalizing effects of Islamic extremist ideology?
Until Congress pushes back on this malfeasance by DHS and holds Secretary Napolitano accountable, it is likely to continue.
We aren’t the voters we were hoping for
CDN:
As a political commentator this year’s race has begun to wear on me too.
Newt hates Mitt, Mitt hates Newt. Ron hates all of them and everyone but a small group of highly energized voters won’t vote for Ron. Somehow Santorum is polling better than Obama.. but how is that news?
Gingrich married too many times, Mitt made too much money. Santorum doesn’t like gay marriage and Paul thinks Iran having nukes is OK.
Everyone’s candidate is better than the next and the case is made that if you choose yours over theirs that you will be the reason that Obama is re-elected – oh, how small we are.
The rest of us that aren’t engaging in the “hate everyone but my candidate” try to weigh silly argument over silly argument, this sound bite over that and this out-of-context reference over another – it’s getting old.
While the political elite spur on the fight, they forget that the electorate is nothing like them – nothing. I don’t pretend to know what they are like, mainly because there is no “they”. I know they aren’t like me.. much.
They don’t watch six news channels per day. They don’t read 20-30 blog posts per day and more-than-likely do not search for news sites like ours.. or news sites at all.
They may not listen to talk radio – in fact, probably don’t.
Most voters get up in the morning, read the daily paper (printed or on a smart device) and head to work. Morning radio is more-than-likely an escape – chuckling pair talking about crap that doesn’t matter and is interrupted occasionally by traffic and weather on the 3′s, 6′s or every 10.. or whatever.
They work 8-10 hours, and head home. The radio is not likely tuned to Hannity, Rush or even AM talk radio – it’s probably a less-cute version of the morning dolts. They will still be interrupted by weather, traffic, the latest fashions out of L.A. or whatever.
Getting home means a break from the tyrants at work. Have dinner, play with the kids, talk with the wife and catch some Sports Center on ESPN (yeah, we wish they were a sponsor).
That’s life. Dealing with rich politicians fighting over semantics is not interesting to them – it’s predictable and silly.
It gets a bit old only hearing what we shouldn’t do – what we mustn’t do. It is impossible to be energized by a slew of pundits telling us that every choice is the wrong one – a phrase that any independent considering the Democrat candidate won’t hear from that side of the fence.
This is the problem with a drawn out primary season – voters get beaten over the head with mostly irrelevant sound bites and write-ups for an extended period of time – none of them positive. Sure, it gives more states some time to weigh in, but does it change the outcome?
As a political commentator this year’s race has begun to wear on me too.
Newt hates Mitt, Mitt hates Newt. Ron hates all of them and everyone but a small group of highly energized voters won’t vote for Ron. Somehow Santorum is polling better than Obama.. but how is that news?
Gingrich married too many times, Mitt made too much money. Santorum doesn’t like gay marriage and Paul thinks Iran having nukes is OK.
Everyone’s candidate is better than the next and the case is made that if you choose yours over theirs that you will be the reason that Obama is re-elected – oh, how small we are.
The rest of us that aren’t engaging in the “hate everyone but my candidate” try to weigh silly argument over silly argument, this sound bite over that and this out-of-context reference over another – it’s getting old.
While the political elite spur on the fight, they forget that the electorate is nothing like them – nothing. I don’t pretend to know what they are like, mainly because there is no “they”. I know they aren’t like me.. much.
They don’t watch six news channels per day. They don’t read 20-30 blog posts per day and more-than-likely do not search for news sites like ours.. or news sites at all.
They may not listen to talk radio – in fact, probably don’t.
Most voters get up in the morning, read the daily paper (printed or on a smart device) and head to work. Morning radio is more-than-likely an escape – chuckling pair talking about crap that doesn’t matter and is interrupted occasionally by traffic and weather on the 3′s, 6′s or every 10.. or whatever.
They work 8-10 hours, and head home. The radio is not likely tuned to Hannity, Rush or even AM talk radio – it’s probably a less-cute version of the morning dolts. They will still be interrupted by weather, traffic, the latest fashions out of L.A. or whatever.
Getting home means a break from the tyrants at work. Have dinner, play with the kids, talk with the wife and catch some Sports Center on ESPN (yeah, we wish they were a sponsor).
That’s life. Dealing with rich politicians fighting over semantics is not interesting to them – it’s predictable and silly.
It gets a bit old only hearing what we shouldn’t do – what we mustn’t do. It is impossible to be energized by a slew of pundits telling us that every choice is the wrong one – a phrase that any independent considering the Democrat candidate won’t hear from that side of the fence.
This is the problem with a drawn out primary season – voters get beaten over the head with mostly irrelevant sound bites and write-ups for an extended period of time – none of them positive. Sure, it gives more states some time to weigh in, but does it change the outcome?
Good News for Rick Santorum!
WeeklyStandard.com:
Rick Santorum had a pretty good week. He finished a distant fourth in the Nevada caucuses, but the turnout was so low--down nearly 25 percent from 2008--that the event became yet another indictment of the front-runner. A Rasmussen poll showed Santorum as the only Republican in the field beating Obama in a head-to-head matchup. And--as if to confirm that Santorum might be seeing some movement--the Romney campaign took time out of its still-continuing assault on Newt (they're still going after him every day, hard)) to take a shot at Santorum.
In a Sunday press release slugged "RICK SANTORUM: PROUD DEFENDER OF EARMARKS AND PORK-BARREL SPENDING," the Romney oppo shop dumped a list of 18 news items (dating back to 2003) trying to paint Santorum as a free spendin', Big Government-lovin', flip-flopper.
As always, irony is tucked away on a high shelf at the Romney campaign.
The good news for Santorum is that if Romney is going negative, he must see you as a threat.
ZoNation eviscerates Juan Williams over ‘code words’
The Right Scoop:
This is Zo at his absolute best. He tears apart Juan Williams for alleging that Republicans are using ‘code words’ like ‘food stamp president’ to promote racism, and points the finger right back at Juan Williams and his own insecurities about being black.
MUST WATCH:
This is Zo at his absolute best. He tears apart Juan Williams for alleging that Republicans are using ‘code words’ like ‘food stamp president’ to promote racism, and points the finger right back at Juan Williams and his own insecurities about being black.
MUST WATCH:
House Passes Bill to End Automatic Spending Increases
The New American:
For nearly four decades Congress has ensured that federal spending rises inexorably by guaranteeing that every budget item increases automatically each year. And woe to anyone who seeks merely to reduce these automatic increases, for he shall be labeled a heartless, slash-and-burn budget cutter!
Finally the House of Representatives is doing something about this fiscally irresponsible practice. On Friday that chamber passed, on a practically party-line vote, the Baseline Reform Act of 2012, which would do away with the automatic spending hikes and force federal agencies to justify any increases they seek.
“Only in Washington — with a $15 trillion national debt — would an automatic increase in spending be assumed each and every year,” House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said in a statement following the bill’s passage. “This is not what hardworking families and small businesses deserve from their government, and this reform will level the playing field for those who want to control Washington spending by removing the pro-spending bias in our budget process.”
CNSNews.com explains how the current budget process works and how the Baseline Reform Act would modify it:
Under current federal budget law, the amount of money a federal agency will automatically get for the next year is based on the current year’s amount, plus inflation, which is the “baseline” for the next budget year.
So the “baseline” establishes an assumption that discretionary spending will at least be as much as the previous year, with an inflation increase. Thus, in some cases, spending the same dollar amount on an agency or even increasing the agency’s funding has been called a cut in the budget. This budgeting method was adopted by Congress in 1974.
The legislation would eliminate the automatic increase. Budgeting would still be based on the current year’s budget, but it would not provide an automatic inflationary increase, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Ga.), who sponsored the legislation, stated in a press release: “Americans balance their budgets based on how much money they actually have, not using ‘automatic future increases.’ It is time for Congress to do the same. The Baseline Reform Act ensures that all future ‘cuts’ to spending will be true ‘cuts’ — not merely reductions in rates of increase.”
Although Woodall was the sponsor of the bill, the prime mover behind it was Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), who said he has been trying to get the bill brought up for a vote since he arrived in Congress in 2005. “But,” he said in a statement, “even when we had the majority in 2005-2006, I could not get them to bring it up for a vote,” perhaps because the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency and saw no reason to mend the government’s profligate ways at that time. Now, with Democrats in charge of the Senate and Barack Obama in the White House, Republicans are a bit keener to be viewed as deficit hawks, and so Gohmert’s dream is closer to becoming reality.
Prior to the vote on the bill Gohmert declared that passing it “could be the most responsible financial thing this Congress has done, this House has done in the whole last year.” He even suggested that it could accomplish the work that the budget “supercommittee” failed to complete last fall: “It could be $1.4 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years and all we’re doing is just stopping the automatic increase.”
Of course, the House vote on the bill will be purely symbolic if the Senate fails to pass it also, which seems likely to be the case. All but four Democrats opposed it in the House, and the Senate leadership may very well refuse even to bring the bill up for a vote.
Still, the symbolism is unmistakable. On the one side are those committed to a budget that increases on autopilot with no concern for taxes and deficits, and on the other are those who care enough to demand that Congress carefully consider whether or not each budget item should go up (or down) on a case-by-case basis. Enacting the Baseline Reform Act won’t guarantee that the flow of red ink will be stanched, especially since the bill doesn’t lay a finger on entitlements; but it will ensure that individual Congressmen and Senators can more easily be held accountable for every drop of it.
For nearly four decades Congress has ensured that federal spending rises inexorably by guaranteeing that every budget item increases automatically each year. And woe to anyone who seeks merely to reduce these automatic increases, for he shall be labeled a heartless, slash-and-burn budget cutter!
Finally the House of Representatives is doing something about this fiscally irresponsible practice. On Friday that chamber passed, on a practically party-line vote, the Baseline Reform Act of 2012, which would do away with the automatic spending hikes and force federal agencies to justify any increases they seek.
“Only in Washington — with a $15 trillion national debt — would an automatic increase in spending be assumed each and every year,” House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said in a statement following the bill’s passage. “This is not what hardworking families and small businesses deserve from their government, and this reform will level the playing field for those who want to control Washington spending by removing the pro-spending bias in our budget process.”
CNSNews.com explains how the current budget process works and how the Baseline Reform Act would modify it:
Under current federal budget law, the amount of money a federal agency will automatically get for the next year is based on the current year’s amount, plus inflation, which is the “baseline” for the next budget year.
So the “baseline” establishes an assumption that discretionary spending will at least be as much as the previous year, with an inflation increase. Thus, in some cases, spending the same dollar amount on an agency or even increasing the agency’s funding has been called a cut in the budget. This budgeting method was adopted by Congress in 1974.
The legislation would eliminate the automatic increase. Budgeting would still be based on the current year’s budget, but it would not provide an automatic inflationary increase, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Ga.), who sponsored the legislation, stated in a press release: “Americans balance their budgets based on how much money they actually have, not using ‘automatic future increases.’ It is time for Congress to do the same. The Baseline Reform Act ensures that all future ‘cuts’ to spending will be true ‘cuts’ — not merely reductions in rates of increase.”
Although Woodall was the sponsor of the bill, the prime mover behind it was Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), who said he has been trying to get the bill brought up for a vote since he arrived in Congress in 2005. “But,” he said in a statement, “even when we had the majority in 2005-2006, I could not get them to bring it up for a vote,” perhaps because the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency and saw no reason to mend the government’s profligate ways at that time. Now, with Democrats in charge of the Senate and Barack Obama in the White House, Republicans are a bit keener to be viewed as deficit hawks, and so Gohmert’s dream is closer to becoming reality.
Prior to the vote on the bill Gohmert declared that passing it “could be the most responsible financial thing this Congress has done, this House has done in the whole last year.” He even suggested that it could accomplish the work that the budget “supercommittee” failed to complete last fall: “It could be $1.4 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years and all we’re doing is just stopping the automatic increase.”
Of course, the House vote on the bill will be purely symbolic if the Senate fails to pass it also, which seems likely to be the case. All but four Democrats opposed it in the House, and the Senate leadership may very well refuse even to bring the bill up for a vote.
Still, the symbolism is unmistakable. On the one side are those committed to a budget that increases on autopilot with no concern for taxes and deficits, and on the other are those who care enough to demand that Congress carefully consider whether or not each budget item should go up (or down) on a case-by-case basis. Enacting the Baseline Reform Act won’t guarantee that the flow of red ink will be stanched, especially since the bill doesn’t lay a finger on entitlements; but it will ensure that individual Congressmen and Senators can more easily be held accountable for every drop of it.
Our First Post-Post-Racial President
DOUG ROSS: Oh, this just takes the cake.
I remember well the "Crackers for McCain" web page.
Someday soon, I hope, we will have a president that doesn't divide Americans by race, color, religion, income, or other arbitrary segments in order to pander to them.
A president who takes to heart the words of Martin Luther King, Jr.:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
In other words, a president who believes in the unique value of each and every individual, in each and every American.
Hat tip: JTT.
I remember well the "Crackers for McCain" web page.
Someday soon, I hope, we will have a president that doesn't divide Americans by race, color, religion, income, or other arbitrary segments in order to pander to them.
A president who takes to heart the words of Martin Luther King, Jr.:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
In other words, a president who believes in the unique value of each and every individual, in each and every American.
Hat tip: JTT.
Election Resources: Defeat Obama – Info You Need
Maggie's Notebook:
There is an abundance of revealing information on Conservative blogs about Barack Obama’s Oval Office tenure – the information you and I need to be reminded of, and to use to educate our Lefty friends (assuming you have some – surely you have Lefties in your family) and to nudge those acquaintances who may sit-out the voting process at the primaries or the general election in November 2012. Here is a first attempt to provide links to the last three years under Barack Obama. Find a handy link to this article in the left-hand sidebar. Ongoing updates – and, I know, there’s plenty yet to update.
Informative Links: HERE
There is an abundance of revealing information on Conservative blogs about Barack Obama’s Oval Office tenure – the information you and I need to be reminded of, and to use to educate our Lefty friends (assuming you have some – surely you have Lefties in your family) and to nudge those acquaintances who may sit-out the voting process at the primaries or the general election in November 2012. Here is a first attempt to provide links to the last three years under Barack Obama. Find a handy link to this article in the left-hand sidebar. Ongoing updates – and, I know, there’s plenty yet to update.
Informative Links: HERE
Exclusive: Breitbart Has Dinner With Bill Ayers
BREITBART TV:
Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn auctioned off an evening for dinner in their home in Chicago and Tucker Carlson of "The Daily Caller" took advantage of the opportunity. For $2,500 Tucker and a few of his friends secured an evening with the radical couple. Tucker invited along Andrew Breitbart who called into Stephen K. Bannon's "The Victory Sessions" and gave a play-by-play of the meal. Breitbart said that they had "no game plan" going in to the evening, and that strategy produced an unforgettable event that the Ayers won't soon forget.
Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn auctioned off an evening for dinner in their home in Chicago and Tucker Carlson of "The Daily Caller" took advantage of the opportunity. For $2,500 Tucker and a few of his friends secured an evening with the radical couple. Tucker invited along Andrew Breitbart who called into Stephen K. Bannon's "The Victory Sessions" and gave a play-by-play of the meal. Breitbart said that they had "no game plan" going in to the evening, and that strategy produced an unforgettable event that the Ayers won't soon forget.
Iranian Parliament's Website: Attack Israel this Year
INN:
Majlis says area between Lod and Jerusalem, Tel Nof Air Base should be targeted. Iranian blog: 9 minutes are enough to finish Israel.
The Iranian parliament's official website has published an article calling on the government to attack Israel before the end of the year.
According to Israeli TV Channel 2's veteran Middle East expert, Ehud Yaari, the article cites three reasons for the call.
First – a religious fatwa allowing such a strike. Second – threats from Israel regarding a planned strike on Iran. And third – Iran's alleged military capability to carry out such an attack.
The article specifies that the area between Lod and Jerusalem should be targeted, as well as Tel Nof Air Force Base.
The article seems to be part of a recent trend in Iran to step up the rhetoric regarding a possible attack on Israel. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Friday that Israel is a “cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut.”
“We have intervened in anti-Israel matters, and it brought victory in the 33-day war by Hizbullah against Israel in 2006, and in the 22-day war” between Hamas and Israel in Gaza, Khamenei was quoted as saying.
He added, “From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this.”
On Saturday, press outlets in Iran also widely quoted a blog post by Alireza Forghani, a computer engineer, who called upon Tehran to "wipe out Israel" by 2014.
Forghani called on his leaders to target Israeli sites using land-to-land missiles. Ballistic Sijil missiles should be launched at Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa, he suggested, as well as power stations and other vital infrastructure. Then, Shahab 3 and Ghader missiles should target the rest of Israel's population centers. Nine minutes would suffice for "total annihilation," he predicted.
Majlis says area between Lod and Jerusalem, Tel Nof Air Base should be targeted. Iranian blog: 9 minutes are enough to finish Israel.
The Iranian parliament's official website has published an article calling on the government to attack Israel before the end of the year.
According to Israeli TV Channel 2's veteran Middle East expert, Ehud Yaari, the article cites three reasons for the call.
First – a religious fatwa allowing such a strike. Second – threats from Israel regarding a planned strike on Iran. And third – Iran's alleged military capability to carry out such an attack.
The article specifies that the area between Lod and Jerusalem should be targeted, as well as Tel Nof Air Force Base.
The article seems to be part of a recent trend in Iran to step up the rhetoric regarding a possible attack on Israel. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Friday that Israel is a “cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut.”
“We have intervened in anti-Israel matters, and it brought victory in the 33-day war by Hizbullah against Israel in 2006, and in the 22-day war” between Hamas and Israel in Gaza, Khamenei was quoted as saying.
He added, “From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this.”
On Saturday, press outlets in Iran also widely quoted a blog post by Alireza Forghani, a computer engineer, who called upon Tehran to "wipe out Israel" by 2014.
Forghani called on his leaders to target Israeli sites using land-to-land missiles. Ballistic Sijil missiles should be launched at Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa, he suggested, as well as power stations and other vital infrastructure. Then, Shahab 3 and Ghader missiles should target the rest of Israel's population centers. Nine minutes would suffice for "total annihilation," he predicted.
Obama Lies About His Relationship With Israel On Iran
YID WITH LID:
In an interview with NBC today, Barack Obama tried to deny the US/Israel split over Iran. But his own words showed it was nothing but spin, notice that he keep saying I think...that's because he doesn't know:
Asked in an NBC interview whether Israel was set to attack Iran, Obama said: "I don't think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do. I think they, like us, believe that Iran has to stand down on its nuclear weapons program," adding Israel and the United States would work "in lockstep" on Iran.
The truth is there is a wide divide between the United States and Israel on Iran, part of the reason is that Israel just doesn't trust Obama and his administration.
Israel refuses to promise Obama that it will seek US approval before making a preemptive strike against Iranian Nukes, or to even tell Obama about it before a strike starts, an indication of Israeli mistrust of the Obama administration.
Once all but a handful of trusted staff had left the room, Mr Panetta conveyed an urgent message from Barack Obama. The president, Mr Panetta said, wanted an unshakable guarantee that Israel would not carry out a unilateral military strike against Iran's nuclear installations without first seeking Washington's clearance.
The two Israelis were notably evasive in their response, according to sources both in Israel and the United States.
"They did not suggest that military action was being planned or was imminent, but neither did they give any assurances that Israel would first seek Washington's permission, or even inform the White House in advance that a mission was underway," one said.
And as far as all options on the table and the Obama administration being in lock step with Israel about Iran, why then is the Obama administration warning Israel not to defend herself against Iran.
President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top officials have delivered a string of private messages to Israeli leaders warning about the dire consequences of a strike. The U.S. wants Israel to give more time for the effects of sanctions and other measures intended to force Iran to abandon its perceived efforts to build nuclear weapons.
Why is sometimes Administration adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski who works for a Soros foreign policy think tank talking about the Jews bribing Congress, or the Obama media propaganda group Media Matters for America complaining that the Jews are trying to push America into a war with Iran.
Its easy to see why Barack Obama favors the terrorists in their war against the Jewish State, their methods are so similar. Just like Palestinian President Abbas, President Obama says one thing to the media, then uses his surrogates to say the complete opposite.
The nicest thing I can say about Obama's comments about Iran and his relationship with Israel on the issue, is that he is lying.
Carl has the video of the Obama interview at Israel Matzav
In an interview with NBC today, Barack Obama tried to deny the US/Israel split over Iran. But his own words showed it was nothing but spin, notice that he keep saying I think...that's because he doesn't know:
Asked in an NBC interview whether Israel was set to attack Iran, Obama said: "I don't think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do. I think they, like us, believe that Iran has to stand down on its nuclear weapons program," adding Israel and the United States would work "in lockstep" on Iran.
The truth is there is a wide divide between the United States and Israel on Iran, part of the reason is that Israel just doesn't trust Obama and his administration.
Israel refuses to promise Obama that it will seek US approval before making a preemptive strike against Iranian Nukes, or to even tell Obama about it before a strike starts, an indication of Israeli mistrust of the Obama administration.
Once all but a handful of trusted staff had left the room, Mr Panetta conveyed an urgent message from Barack Obama. The president, Mr Panetta said, wanted an unshakable guarantee that Israel would not carry out a unilateral military strike against Iran's nuclear installations without first seeking Washington's clearance.
The two Israelis were notably evasive in their response, according to sources both in Israel and the United States.
"They did not suggest that military action was being planned or was imminent, but neither did they give any assurances that Israel would first seek Washington's permission, or even inform the White House in advance that a mission was underway," one said.
And as far as all options on the table and the Obama administration being in lock step with Israel about Iran, why then is the Obama administration warning Israel not to defend herself against Iran.
President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top officials have delivered a string of private messages to Israeli leaders warning about the dire consequences of a strike. The U.S. wants Israel to give more time for the effects of sanctions and other measures intended to force Iran to abandon its perceived efforts to build nuclear weapons.
Why is sometimes Administration adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski who works for a Soros foreign policy think tank talking about the Jews bribing Congress, or the Obama media propaganda group Media Matters for America complaining that the Jews are trying to push America into a war with Iran.
Its easy to see why Barack Obama favors the terrorists in their war against the Jewish State, their methods are so similar. Just like Palestinian President Abbas, President Obama says one thing to the media, then uses his surrogates to say the complete opposite.
The nicest thing I can say about Obama's comments about Iran and his relationship with Israel on the issue, is that he is lying.
Carl has the video of the Obama interview at Israel Matzav
A naive and unarmed populace
CDN:
This will be short, sweet and to the point.. most Americans don’t understand why citizens own guns, should own guns or even why the constitution protects the right to do so.
Don’t yell at me – I have an armory and believe that every good American citizen should, but the excerpt I am about to share with you is about understanding how a large swath of naive Americans feel about gun ownership.
According to an article in Newsweek there are 215 million guns in America — and a terrible analysis says that that means more than half the households across the country own one. The post about the article goes on to try to discover why Americans own guns:
This statistic triggered photographer and author of “Armed America” Kyle Cassidy to travel 15,000 miles across the country to ask people who own guns “why do [you] own a gun?”, and take portraits of them in their homes.
Some of the reasons were just beyond my comprehension:
“My shotgun will take care of any intruder, and I know how to use it.”
“I own a shotgun for the same reason I own a fire extinguisher.”
“Gun ownership is a right and privilege, everyone should exercise it. I think everyone should have one, on the range, on the playing field, in the world.”
“It’s not the guns that kill, it’s the people.”
“I have nothing against guns, I think they are cool and I love that we have them in the house. My friends are very impressed by the collection we have.”
“It’s up to us as citizens to protect ourselves, our family and property. Our constitution provides us with the right and method by which to achieve that objective, and I simply choose to exercise that right.”
“I think the ownership of arms is not only a right, but the duty of a free people to themselves and future generation.”
Somehow this idiot believes that guns kill people all by themselves. Great, the next time someone is murdered by a shooter, indict the gun and let the shooter go free..
Forgetting that the whole premise for objection to gun ownership is wrong.. let’s start with the usual tactic of anti-gun activists.. incorrect statistics.
While there may be that many registered guns in the U.S., most gun owners do not only own one gun. Enthusiasts like me have 2-3 for target shooting, a few for deer, a few for upland birds and 1-2 for waterfowl. Add in home protection and having more than one gun in the house is not that uncommon. That means that the author’s assumption that more than 50% of Americans have a gun is just absolutely and flatly WRONG. Gun ownership is on the decline and is currently around 25%. It was closer to 39% in 2001, 30% in 2005 and now 25%. Slow degradation of the second amendment is the favored tactic of the left since an outright ban has been impossible for them to achieve.
Second amendment activists not only wish the 50% statistic were true, we would like to see 100% of households owning guns. Instead, 10% of the population owns 77% of the firearms. That 10% are the base that would see gun rights as a wedge issue in an election. If we do not broaden that base, we risk losing the right all together.
I own guns to hunt, for competition, for enjoyment, for home protection and to make sure that “the people’s teeth” aren’t dulled by those less-informed. People like the poor, naive sap that admits gun ownership is beyond his comprehension understand nothing more than “guns are one more thing I cannot control.. yet”.
This will be short, sweet and to the point.. most Americans don’t understand why citizens own guns, should own guns or even why the constitution protects the right to do so.
Don’t yell at me – I have an armory and believe that every good American citizen should, but the excerpt I am about to share with you is about understanding how a large swath of naive Americans feel about gun ownership.
According to an article in Newsweek there are 215 million guns in America — and a terrible analysis says that that means more than half the households across the country own one. The post about the article goes on to try to discover why Americans own guns:
This statistic triggered photographer and author of “Armed America” Kyle Cassidy to travel 15,000 miles across the country to ask people who own guns “why do [you] own a gun?”, and take portraits of them in their homes.
Some of the reasons were just beyond my comprehension:
“My shotgun will take care of any intruder, and I know how to use it.”
“I own a shotgun for the same reason I own a fire extinguisher.”
“Gun ownership is a right and privilege, everyone should exercise it. I think everyone should have one, on the range, on the playing field, in the world.”
“It’s not the guns that kill, it’s the people.”
“I have nothing against guns, I think they are cool and I love that we have them in the house. My friends are very impressed by the collection we have.”
“It’s up to us as citizens to protect ourselves, our family and property. Our constitution provides us with the right and method by which to achieve that objective, and I simply choose to exercise that right.”
“I think the ownership of arms is not only a right, but the duty of a free people to themselves and future generation.”
Somehow this idiot believes that guns kill people all by themselves. Great, the next time someone is murdered by a shooter, indict the gun and let the shooter go free..
Forgetting that the whole premise for objection to gun ownership is wrong.. let’s start with the usual tactic of anti-gun activists.. incorrect statistics.
While there may be that many registered guns in the U.S., most gun owners do not only own one gun. Enthusiasts like me have 2-3 for target shooting, a few for deer, a few for upland birds and 1-2 for waterfowl. Add in home protection and having more than one gun in the house is not that uncommon. That means that the author’s assumption that more than 50% of Americans have a gun is just absolutely and flatly WRONG. Gun ownership is on the decline and is currently around 25%. It was closer to 39% in 2001, 30% in 2005 and now 25%. Slow degradation of the second amendment is the favored tactic of the left since an outright ban has been impossible for them to achieve.
Second amendment activists not only wish the 50% statistic were true, we would like to see 100% of households owning guns. Instead, 10% of the population owns 77% of the firearms. That 10% are the base that would see gun rights as a wedge issue in an election. If we do not broaden that base, we risk losing the right all together.
I own guns to hunt, for competition, for enjoyment, for home protection and to make sure that “the people’s teeth” aren’t dulled by those less-informed. People like the poor, naive sap that admits gun ownership is beyond his comprehension understand nothing more than “guns are one more thing I cannot control.. yet”.
Retiring Blue Dog Democrats Say Pelosi Reason They're Leaving Congress
"PURGE"
Via Politico:
In 2010, Nancy Pelosi starred in $75 million worth of negative ads that helped Republicans win control of the House and wrest the speaker’s gavel from her.
Now, the relative handful of moderate Democrats left say the fear of a rerun helps explain why so many of their breed are headed for the exits and why others ignored the pleas of party leaders to make comeback bids in 2012.
Three of the four leaders of the moderate Democratic Blue Dog Coalition have announced that they will retire at the end of this year. The latest to leave is Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), who got a country butt-kicking when he ran against Pelosi for House Democratic leader after the last election.
The argument, made by several sources who called POLITICO without solicitation, goes like this: Even if a moderate can withstand a bad lot in redistricting, raise millions of dollars and overcome ads warning of a second Pelosi speakership, his voice will be ignored in the next Congress.
“What I think is really lost here is a lot of the retirements were preordained the minute Nancy Pelosi decided to run again for speaker,” one retiring centrist said in an interview last week.
Keep reading…
Via Politico:
In 2010, Nancy Pelosi starred in $75 million worth of negative ads that helped Republicans win control of the House and wrest the speaker’s gavel from her.
Now, the relative handful of moderate Democrats left say the fear of a rerun helps explain why so many of their breed are headed for the exits and why others ignored the pleas of party leaders to make comeback bids in 2012.
Three of the four leaders of the moderate Democratic Blue Dog Coalition have announced that they will retire at the end of this year. The latest to leave is Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), who got a country butt-kicking when he ran against Pelosi for House Democratic leader after the last election.
The argument, made by several sources who called POLITICO without solicitation, goes like this: Even if a moderate can withstand a bad lot in redistricting, raise millions of dollars and overcome ads warning of a second Pelosi speakership, his voice will be ignored in the next Congress.
“What I think is really lost here is a lot of the retirements were preordained the minute Nancy Pelosi decided to run again for speaker,” one retiring centrist said in an interview last week.
Keep reading…
If the economy is improving...
...then perhaps you could explain:
If the economy is getting better, then why did new home sales in the United States hit a brand new all-time record low during 2011?
If the economy is getting better, then why are there 6 million less jobs in America today than there were before the recession started?
If the economy is getting better, then why is the average duration of unemployment in this country close to an all-time record high?
If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of homeless female veterans more than doubled?
If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of Americans on food stamps increased by 3 million since this time last year and by more than 14 million since Barack Obama entered the White House?
If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of children living in poverty in America risen for four years in a row?
If the economy is getting better, then why is the percentage of Americans living in "extreme poverty" at an all-time high?
If the economy is getting better, then why is the Federal Housing Administration on the verge of a financial collapse?
If the economy is getting better, then why do only 23 percent of American companies plan to hire more employees in 2012?
If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of self-employed Americans fallen by more than 2 million since 2006?
If the economy is getting better, then why did an all-time record low percentage of U.S. teens have a job last summer?
If the economy is getting better, then why does median household income keep declining? Overall, median household income in the United States has declined by a total of 6.8% since December 2007 once you account for inflation.
If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of Americans living below the poverty line increased by 10 million since 2006?
If the economy is getting better, then why is the average age of a vehicle in America now sitting at an all-time high?
If the economy is getting better, then why are 18 percent of all homes in the state of Florida currently sitting vacant?
If the economy is getting better, then why are 19 percent of all American men between the ages of 25 and 34 living with their parents?
If the economy is getting better, then why does the number of "long-term unemployed workers" stay so high? When Barack Obama first took office, the number of "long-term unemployed workers" in the United States was approximately 2.6 million. Today, that number is sitting at 5.6 million.
But there is some good news.
When Barack Obama first took office, an ounce of gold was going for about $850. Today, the price of an ounce of gold is over $1700.
The era of great prosperity that America has enjoyed for so long is coming to an end.
In fact, our long-term economic decline is about to accelerate.
So enjoy this "bubble of hope" while you can, because it won't last long.
As I have written about previously, many are warning that Europe is on the verge of a nightmarish financial crisis that could potentially plunge us into a global recession even worse than 2008.
So let us hope for the best, but let us also prepare for the worst.
Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that the economy isn't recovering in any meaningful way. Which excludes drones and legacy media.
If the economy is getting better, then why did new home sales in the United States hit a brand new all-time record low during 2011?
If the economy is getting better, then why are there 6 million less jobs in America today than there were before the recession started?
If the economy is getting better, then why is the average duration of unemployment in this country close to an all-time record high?
If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of homeless female veterans more than doubled?
If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of Americans on food stamps increased by 3 million since this time last year and by more than 14 million since Barack Obama entered the White House?
If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of children living in poverty in America risen for four years in a row?
If the economy is getting better, then why is the percentage of Americans living in "extreme poverty" at an all-time high?
If the economy is getting better, then why is the Federal Housing Administration on the verge of a financial collapse?
If the economy is getting better, then why do only 23 percent of American companies plan to hire more employees in 2012?
If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of self-employed Americans fallen by more than 2 million since 2006?
If the economy is getting better, then why did an all-time record low percentage of U.S. teens have a job last summer?
If the economy is getting better, then why does median household income keep declining? Overall, median household income in the United States has declined by a total of 6.8% since December 2007 once you account for inflation.
If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of Americans living below the poverty line increased by 10 million since 2006?
If the economy is getting better, then why is the average age of a vehicle in America now sitting at an all-time high?
If the economy is getting better, then why are 18 percent of all homes in the state of Florida currently sitting vacant?
If the economy is getting better, then why are 19 percent of all American men between the ages of 25 and 34 living with their parents?
If the economy is getting better, then why does the number of "long-term unemployed workers" stay so high? When Barack Obama first took office, the number of "long-term unemployed workers" in the United States was approximately 2.6 million. Today, that number is sitting at 5.6 million.
But there is some good news.
When Barack Obama first took office, an ounce of gold was going for about $850. Today, the price of an ounce of gold is over $1700.
The era of great prosperity that America has enjoyed for so long is coming to an end.
In fact, our long-term economic decline is about to accelerate.
So enjoy this "bubble of hope" while you can, because it won't last long.
As I have written about previously, many are warning that Europe is on the verge of a nightmarish financial crisis that could potentially plunge us into a global recession even worse than 2008.
So let us hope for the best, but let us also prepare for the worst.
Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that the economy isn't recovering in any meaningful way. Which excludes drones and legacy media.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
For Now, Government Still Lets You Pick Your Own Roommate
Heritage Blog:
The people of the United States ordained a Constitution of limited government. As time passes, the people have more of the “government” and less of the “limited.” Americans must work at maintaining their freedoms. Defense of the constitutional freedom of association involved in choosing roommates to share housing illustrates the effort required. Government has attempted to regulate our ability to choose a roommate, but efforts to resist that intrusion pay off in preserved liberty.
Tricia Rowe, a 31-year-old single woman who owned a three bedroom, single-family house, wanted a roommate. She posted on a church bulletin board a notice that said, “I am looking for a female Christian roommate. Rent is $375/mo, which includes utilities.”
On Thursday, July 15, 2010, an overcast day in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Elizabeth Vezino of an organization calling itself the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan filed a complaint stating under oath that she believed that Ms. Rowe’s roommate-wanted notice expressed “an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths.” The Michigan Department of Civil Rights and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) went into high gear.
Luckily for Ms. Rowe, the Alliance Defense Fund took up her cause and provided legal representation. Ms. Rowe invoked her freedom of association under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as a defense against the claim that her statement preferring “a female Christian roommate” illegally discriminated. Ultimately, HUD ruled sensibly that “in light of the facts provided and after assessing the unique context of the advertisement and the roommate relationship involved in this particular situation potentially involving the sharing of personal religious beliefs, the Department defers to Constitutional considerations in reaching its conclusion” that “there is No Reasonable Cause to believe that the Act was violated in this matter.”
In a separate case, Roommates.com provided a well-known roommate locator service over the Internet. The service asked customers to create a profile identifying among other things their gender, sexual orientation, and whether children would live with them, and provided a space for “Additional Comments.” Individuals could search the Roommates.com database for potentially compatible roommates.
In California, organizations called the Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley and the Fair Housing Council of San Diego filed lawsuits against Roommates.com, alleging that questions seeking disclosure of gender, sexual orientation and familial status discriminate in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act.
Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the Housing Council claims that Roommates.com had discriminated in violation of the Act in helping people find roommates to share housing. The Court characterized the issue as follows:
There’s no place like home. In the privacy of your own home, you can take off your coat, kick off your shoes, let your guard down and be completely yourself. While we usually share our homes only with friends and family, sometimes we need to take in a stranger to help pay the rent. When that happens, can the government limit whom we choose? Specifically, do the anti-discrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) extend to the selection of roommates?
The Court indicated that a roommate’s unfettered access to one’s home implicated considerations of safety, privacy, property protection, and the constitutional freedom of association. Noting that it sought to avoid constitutional difficulties that would arise from government regulation of roommate selection, the Court construed the key term “dwelling” in the FHA to mean an independent housing unit and a not shared living unit.
The Court held that “[b]ecause we find that the FHA doesn’t apply to the sharing of living units, it follows that it’s not unlawful to discriminate in selecting a roommate” and therefore “Roommate’s facilitation of discriminatory roommate searches does not violate the FHA.”
Maintaining limited government and individual freedom requires Americans to stand up for their rights, fight to preserve them within our legal system, and to elect individuals committed to support and defend the Constitution. The country needs more people like Tricia Rowe and more businesses like Roommates.com who exercise and defend their constitutional freedoms. Their work to retain their freedom helps retain freedom for us all.
The people of the United States ordained a Constitution of limited government. As time passes, the people have more of the “government” and less of the “limited.” Americans must work at maintaining their freedoms. Defense of the constitutional freedom of association involved in choosing roommates to share housing illustrates the effort required. Government has attempted to regulate our ability to choose a roommate, but efforts to resist that intrusion pay off in preserved liberty.
Tricia Rowe, a 31-year-old single woman who owned a three bedroom, single-family house, wanted a roommate. She posted on a church bulletin board a notice that said, “I am looking for a female Christian roommate. Rent is $375/mo, which includes utilities.”
On Thursday, July 15, 2010, an overcast day in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Elizabeth Vezino of an organization calling itself the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan filed a complaint stating under oath that she believed that Ms. Rowe’s roommate-wanted notice expressed “an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths.” The Michigan Department of Civil Rights and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) went into high gear.
Luckily for Ms. Rowe, the Alliance Defense Fund took up her cause and provided legal representation. Ms. Rowe invoked her freedom of association under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as a defense against the claim that her statement preferring “a female Christian roommate” illegally discriminated. Ultimately, HUD ruled sensibly that “in light of the facts provided and after assessing the unique context of the advertisement and the roommate relationship involved in this particular situation potentially involving the sharing of personal religious beliefs, the Department defers to Constitutional considerations in reaching its conclusion” that “there is No Reasonable Cause to believe that the Act was violated in this matter.”
In a separate case, Roommates.com provided a well-known roommate locator service over the Internet. The service asked customers to create a profile identifying among other things their gender, sexual orientation, and whether children would live with them, and provided a space for “Additional Comments.” Individuals could search the Roommates.com database for potentially compatible roommates.
In California, organizations called the Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley and the Fair Housing Council of San Diego filed lawsuits against Roommates.com, alleging that questions seeking disclosure of gender, sexual orientation and familial status discriminate in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act.
Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the Housing Council claims that Roommates.com had discriminated in violation of the Act in helping people find roommates to share housing. The Court characterized the issue as follows:
There’s no place like home. In the privacy of your own home, you can take off your coat, kick off your shoes, let your guard down and be completely yourself. While we usually share our homes only with friends and family, sometimes we need to take in a stranger to help pay the rent. When that happens, can the government limit whom we choose? Specifically, do the anti-discrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) extend to the selection of roommates?
The Court indicated that a roommate’s unfettered access to one’s home implicated considerations of safety, privacy, property protection, and the constitutional freedom of association. Noting that it sought to avoid constitutional difficulties that would arise from government regulation of roommate selection, the Court construed the key term “dwelling” in the FHA to mean an independent housing unit and a not shared living unit.
The Court held that “[b]ecause we find that the FHA doesn’t apply to the sharing of living units, it follows that it’s not unlawful to discriminate in selecting a roommate” and therefore “Roommate’s facilitation of discriminatory roommate searches does not violate the FHA.”
Maintaining limited government and individual freedom requires Americans to stand up for their rights, fight to preserve them within our legal system, and to elect individuals committed to support and defend the Constitution. The country needs more people like Tricia Rowe and more businesses like Roommates.com who exercise and defend their constitutional freedoms. Their work to retain their freedom helps retain freedom for us all.
What Witnesses Testified To At Obama’s Georgia Citizenship Hearing
WesternJournalism.com:
“I’ve never seen anything like this,” Private Investigator Susan Daniels told Judge Michael Malihi under oath, as she reviewed her research into Barack Obama’s social security numbers investigation!
Her analysis centered on a Connecticut resident “born in 1890″ whose official registration somehow is mixed in with the Obama social security investigation. Testimony at the court hearing of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be placed on the Georgia ballot for reelection in 2012 revealed stunning sworn facts that clearly places into question the sitting president’s authenticity.
In an interview after the administrative hearing, Daniels said, “I discovered immediately. . .( that social security number) was fraudulent. . .was.. no way it was accurate.” The live internet video stream suddenly went black when she said, “He’s using a . . . “ While I was able to glean some startling testimony, other witness responses to Attorney Orly Taitz’s questioning seemed garbled and had certain interruptions at key moments of the proceedings.
A remarkable source determined to bring the truth to the American people, namely htt://art2superpac.com, should allow you to view the hearing if it somehow can still stay up.
Attorney Taitz’s first witness keyed in on the non-natural born citizen status of Barack Obama senior, a fact clearly stated by his son’s own words admitting his father was born in Kenya, a protectorate of Great Britain at the time of our sitting President’s birth. Another forensic witness stated under oath that “1-the serial number is out of sequence 2-the (Nordyke) twins born after (Obama). . .their serial numbers are lower. . (you) would expect them to be higher. . .a certifying paragraph is different. . .the name of the registrar is different. . .(you) would expect the same (name) since they (twins and Obama) were born within 24 hours” of one another! The forensic expert said, “There is credible evidence to warrant further investigation!” Another computer scanner expert went through lengthy analysis of a soft wear creation of the birth certificate released last April as compared to a document simply scanned from the original.
African American Pastor James David Manning is calling out officialdom for keeping the American people in the dark about this never before hearing of a sitting U.S. president’s eligibility challenge. “This is a big story,” he says on his web video. Pastor Manning says our media outlets, our Republican candidates, the Supreme Court, all members of Congress are involved in a “Conspiracy” (his words) to hide from us what is really going on.
Dr. Jerome R. Corsi, author of several Barack Obama books, says Judge Malihi’s witnesses show “Barack Obama is slam-dunk-disqualified” to appear on the Georgia official 2012 ballot. For him and his attorneys to not attend this official hearing was stunning.
Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp warned them if “you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.” One commenter said, “I demand to know if my president is legal or not, no fooling around.” Perhaps the biggest news story of our country’s recent history is under blackout in an omerta or code of silence unprecedented in journalism.
“I’ve never seen anything like this,” Private Investigator Susan Daniels told Judge Michael Malihi under oath, as she reviewed her research into Barack Obama’s social security numbers investigation!
Her analysis centered on a Connecticut resident “born in 1890″ whose official registration somehow is mixed in with the Obama social security investigation. Testimony at the court hearing of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be placed on the Georgia ballot for reelection in 2012 revealed stunning sworn facts that clearly places into question the sitting president’s authenticity.
In an interview after the administrative hearing, Daniels said, “I discovered immediately. . .( that social security number) was fraudulent. . .was.. no way it was accurate.” The live internet video stream suddenly went black when she said, “He’s using a . . . “ While I was able to glean some startling testimony, other witness responses to Attorney Orly Taitz’s questioning seemed garbled and had certain interruptions at key moments of the proceedings.
A remarkable source determined to bring the truth to the American people, namely htt://art2superpac.com, should allow you to view the hearing if it somehow can still stay up.
Attorney Taitz’s first witness keyed in on the non-natural born citizen status of Barack Obama senior, a fact clearly stated by his son’s own words admitting his father was born in Kenya, a protectorate of Great Britain at the time of our sitting President’s birth. Another forensic witness stated under oath that “1-the serial number is out of sequence 2-the (Nordyke) twins born after (Obama). . .their serial numbers are lower. . (you) would expect them to be higher. . .a certifying paragraph is different. . .the name of the registrar is different. . .(you) would expect the same (name) since they (twins and Obama) were born within 24 hours” of one another! The forensic expert said, “There is credible evidence to warrant further investigation!” Another computer scanner expert went through lengthy analysis of a soft wear creation of the birth certificate released last April as compared to a document simply scanned from the original.
African American Pastor James David Manning is calling out officialdom for keeping the American people in the dark about this never before hearing of a sitting U.S. president’s eligibility challenge. “This is a big story,” he says on his web video. Pastor Manning says our media outlets, our Republican candidates, the Supreme Court, all members of Congress are involved in a “Conspiracy” (his words) to hide from us what is really going on.
Dr. Jerome R. Corsi, author of several Barack Obama books, says Judge Malihi’s witnesses show “Barack Obama is slam-dunk-disqualified” to appear on the Georgia official 2012 ballot. For him and his attorneys to not attend this official hearing was stunning.
Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp warned them if “you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.” One commenter said, “I demand to know if my president is legal or not, no fooling around.” Perhaps the biggest news story of our country’s recent history is under blackout in an omerta or code of silence unprecedented in journalism.
Teen mistress addresses relationship, pol's Cold War fears in memoir
She always called him “Mr. President” — not Jack. He refused to kiss her on the lips when they made love. But Mimi Alford, a White House intern from New Jersey, was smitten nonetheless.
She was in the midst of an 18-month affair with the most powerful man in the world, sharing not only John F. Kennedy’s bed but also some of his darkest and most intimate moments.
In her explosive new tell-all, “Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath,” Alford, now a 69-year-old grandmother and retired New York City church administrator, sets the record straight in searingly candid detail. The book, out Wednesday was bought by The Post at a Manhattan bookstore.
In the summer of 1962, Alford was a slender, golden-haired 19-year-old debutante whose finishing-school polish and blueblood connections had landed her a job in the White House press office.
Four days into her internship, she was invited by an aide to go for a midday swim in the White House pool, where the handsome, 45-year-old president swam daily to ease chronic back pain. JFK slid into the pool and floated up to her.
“It’s Mimi, isn’t it?” he asked.
“Yes, sir,” she said.
“And you’re in the press office this summer, right?”
“Yes, sir, I am,” she replied.
Lightning had struck. Later that day, Mimi was invited by Dave Powers, the president’s “first friend” and later the longtime curator of the Kennedy Library in Boston, to an after-work party. When she arrived at the White House residence, Powers and two other young female staffers were waiting. Powers poured, and frequently refilled, her glass with daiquiris until the commander-in-chief arrived.
The president invited her for a personal tour. She got up, expecting the rest of the group to follow. They didn’t. He took her to “Mrs. Kennedy’s room.”
“I noticed he was moving closer and closer. I could feel his breath on my neck. He put his hand on my shoulder,” she recounts.
The next thing she knew, he was standing above her, looking directly into her eyes and guiding her to the edge of the bed.
“Slowly, he unbuttoned the top of my shirtdress and touched my breasts.
“Then he reached up between my legs and started to pull off my underwear.
“I finished unbuttoning my shirtdress and let it fall off my shoulders.”
Kennedy pulled down his pants but, with his shirt still on, hovered above her on the bed.
He smelled of his cologne, 4711. He paused when he noticed her resisting.
“Haven’t you done this before?” he asked.
“No,” she said.
“Are you OK?” he asked.
GO TO PAGE TWO
She was in the midst of an 18-month affair with the most powerful man in the world, sharing not only John F. Kennedy’s bed but also some of his darkest and most intimate moments.
In her explosive new tell-all, “Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath,” Alford, now a 69-year-old grandmother and retired New York City church administrator, sets the record straight in searingly candid detail. The book, out Wednesday was bought by The Post at a Manhattan bookstore.
In the summer of 1962, Alford was a slender, golden-haired 19-year-old debutante whose finishing-school polish and blueblood connections had landed her a job in the White House press office.
Four days into her internship, she was invited by an aide to go for a midday swim in the White House pool, where the handsome, 45-year-old president swam daily to ease chronic back pain. JFK slid into the pool and floated up to her.
“It’s Mimi, isn’t it?” he asked.
“Yes, sir,” she said.
“And you’re in the press office this summer, right?”
“Yes, sir, I am,” she replied.
Lightning had struck. Later that day, Mimi was invited by Dave Powers, the president’s “first friend” and later the longtime curator of the Kennedy Library in Boston, to an after-work party. When she arrived at the White House residence, Powers and two other young female staffers were waiting. Powers poured, and frequently refilled, her glass with daiquiris until the commander-in-chief arrived.
The president invited her for a personal tour. She got up, expecting the rest of the group to follow. They didn’t. He took her to “Mrs. Kennedy’s room.”
“I noticed he was moving closer and closer. I could feel his breath on my neck. He put his hand on my shoulder,” she recounts.
The next thing she knew, he was standing above her, looking directly into her eyes and guiding her to the edge of the bed.
“Slowly, he unbuttoned the top of my shirtdress and touched my breasts.
“Then he reached up between my legs and started to pull off my underwear.
“I finished unbuttoning my shirtdress and let it fall off my shoulders.”
Kennedy pulled down his pants but, with his shirt still on, hovered above her on the bed.
He smelled of his cologne, 4711. He paused when he noticed her resisting.
“Haven’t you done this before?” he asked.
“No,” she said.
“Are you OK?” he asked.
GO TO PAGE TWO
Chart of the Week: Obama’s Abuse of FEMA Declarations
Heritage.org:
President Obama has used his executive power in many ways to expand the role of government. But there’s one area that stands out: Obama’s frequent and repeated use of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to issue emergency and disaster declarations.
Heritage’s Matt Mayer reports that Obama “eviscerated the record books by issuing 243 declarations in 2011,” continuing an alarming pattern that begin under President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush. Mayer says FEMA has become a “political pork-barrel spending agency.”
The trend is illustrated in this week’s chart, which portrays the use of major disaster declarations, emergency declarations, and fire management assistance declarations. The data dates back to the Eisenhower administration in 1953.
Obama is averaging 153 declarations per year. Bush comes in second with an eight-year average of 129.6.
Mayer says it’s time to end the federalization of disasters. He wants Congress to clarify which disasters meet federal requirements, reduce the cost-sharing provision for all FEMA declarations, and overhaul existing FEMA processes and procedures.
President Obama has used his executive power in many ways to expand the role of government. But there’s one area that stands out: Obama’s frequent and repeated use of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to issue emergency and disaster declarations.
Heritage’s Matt Mayer reports that Obama “eviscerated the record books by issuing 243 declarations in 2011,” continuing an alarming pattern that begin under President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush. Mayer says FEMA has become a “political pork-barrel spending agency.”
The trend is illustrated in this week’s chart, which portrays the use of major disaster declarations, emergency declarations, and fire management assistance declarations. The data dates back to the Eisenhower administration in 1953.
Obama is averaging 153 declarations per year. Bush comes in second with an eight-year average of 129.6.
Mayer says it’s time to end the federalization of disasters. He wants Congress to clarify which disasters meet federal requirements, reduce the cost-sharing provision for all FEMA declarations, and overhaul existing FEMA processes and procedures.
Strong chance that Santorum will be...main threat to Romney after Tuesday
PPP:
Romney up in Colorado, close race in Minnesota
Last night's results in Nevada were bad news for Newt Gingrich and PPP's first day of polling in Colorado and Minnesota indicates things may only get worse for him in the coming days.
In Colorado Mitt Romney looks primed for another big Western win to match his one in Nevada. He leads with 40% there to 26% for Rick Santorum, 18% for Gingrich, and 12% for Ron Paul.
Minnesota looks like a toss up with any of the four candidates having some shot at winning. Santorum holds a small edge there with 29% to 27% for Romney, 22% for Gingrich, and 19% for Paul.
What both states have in common is that Gingrich has fallen precipitously since our last polls in them. In Colorado Gingrich was in first place with a 19 point lead in early December. His support has declined 19 points since then and his net favorability has dropped 33 points from +41 (64/23) to only +8 (49/41). Gingrich has had a similarly large decline in Minnesota, but there it's much more abrupt. We polled the state only two weeks ago but in that time he's dropped 14 points from 36% to 22%, and his favorability has 26 points from +34 (59/25) to +8 (47/39). That after glow from South Carolina has worn off real fast.
Tuesday has the potential to be a big day for Rick Santorum. In addition to these two polls, a Missouri survey we conducted last weekend found him with 45% to 34% for Romney and 13% for Paul. Given how quickly things have moved in this race I wouldn't assume Santorum still has that lead, especially given the momentum Romney has after big wins in Florida and Nevada. But nevertheless it looks like Santorum has a decent chance at wins in Minnesota and Missouri, and a second place finish in Colorado. 72 hours from now he may have supplanted Gingrich as the top alternative to Romney.
Santorum's personal likability- perhaps driven by the fact that no one has felt the need to attack him- has a lot to do with why he's doing so well in these states. In Colorado 68% of voters see him favorably to 21% with a negative opinion. That +47 spread is far better than that of the second most popular candidate, Romney, who's at +29 (60/31). It's a similar story in Minnesota. Santorum's favorability is even better there at +54 (72/18), with Romney next best at +11 (50/39).
There were 3 key groups of voters that fueled Gingrich's victory in South Carolina and that continued to be strong for him in Florida, but in both Colorado and Minnesota they have shifted toward Santorum. Santorum is winning Tea Party voters (35-34 over Romney in Colorado, 38-29 over Gingrich in Minnesota), Evangelicals (37-30 over Romney in Colorado, 36-27 over Gingrich in Minnesota), and those describing themselves as 'very conservative' (38-29 over Romney in Colorado, 41-25 over Gingrich in Minnesota). Win those groups and you're always going to have a decent chance in a Republican contest.
Minnesota provides Paul's best chance at a victory since Iowa. Independents are allowed to vote there, which should boost his numbers, and in contrast to most states he has a positive favorability rating at 48-41. A big key for him will be the age of the electorate- he's leading the way with voters under 45, but in last place with voters over 45. He'll need to pick that up to have a chance at the upset.
The state of the race is extremely volatile in both states. 33% of voters in Colorado and 37% in Minnesota say they could change their minds between now and Tuesday, a much higher rate than we've seen willing to shift this late in other states. One big advantage Romney has is that his voters are more committed than those of the other candidates. In Colorado among voters whose minds are completely made up he's at 45% to 25% for Santorum, 18% for Gingrich, and 13% for Paul. And in Minnesota although he's in 2nd place overall, he's first with folks whose votes are locked in at 29% to 25% for Santorum, 24% for Gingrich, and 22% for Paul. People who know definitively how they're going to vote seem more likely to show up so that bodes quite well for Romney.
Romney looks headed for another easy win in Colorado and could pull one out in Minnesota as well. He has a few key things going for him. He remains extremely formidable with seniors, leading Santorum 43-23 with them in Colorado and 42-28 with them in Minnesota. And although he continues to struggle with the furthest right segment of Republican voters he's now firmly established himself as the candidate of choice for those describing themselves as 'somewhat conservative.' He leads Santorum 51-19 with those folks in Colorado and Gingrich 34-23 with then in Minnesota.
Tuesday has the potential to be a huge day for both Romney and Santorum. A sweep for Romney would do much to enhance the feeling that he's unstoppable. Wins for Santorum in Minnesota and Missouri would make it clear he's a more viable alternative to Romney than Gingrich and give him a lot of momentum for the road ahead. And it looks like it will be another dark day for Gingrich, whose campaign it appears peaked two weeks ago in South Carolina.
Full results here
Romney up in Colorado, close race in Minnesota
Last night's results in Nevada were bad news for Newt Gingrich and PPP's first day of polling in Colorado and Minnesota indicates things may only get worse for him in the coming days.
In Colorado Mitt Romney looks primed for another big Western win to match his one in Nevada. He leads with 40% there to 26% for Rick Santorum, 18% for Gingrich, and 12% for Ron Paul.
Minnesota looks like a toss up with any of the four candidates having some shot at winning. Santorum holds a small edge there with 29% to 27% for Romney, 22% for Gingrich, and 19% for Paul.
What both states have in common is that Gingrich has fallen precipitously since our last polls in them. In Colorado Gingrich was in first place with a 19 point lead in early December. His support has declined 19 points since then and his net favorability has dropped 33 points from +41 (64/23) to only +8 (49/41). Gingrich has had a similarly large decline in Minnesota, but there it's much more abrupt. We polled the state only two weeks ago but in that time he's dropped 14 points from 36% to 22%, and his favorability has 26 points from +34 (59/25) to +8 (47/39). That after glow from South Carolina has worn off real fast.
Tuesday has the potential to be a big day for Rick Santorum. In addition to these two polls, a Missouri survey we conducted last weekend found him with 45% to 34% for Romney and 13% for Paul. Given how quickly things have moved in this race I wouldn't assume Santorum still has that lead, especially given the momentum Romney has after big wins in Florida and Nevada. But nevertheless it looks like Santorum has a decent chance at wins in Minnesota and Missouri, and a second place finish in Colorado. 72 hours from now he may have supplanted Gingrich as the top alternative to Romney.
Santorum's personal likability- perhaps driven by the fact that no one has felt the need to attack him- has a lot to do with why he's doing so well in these states. In Colorado 68% of voters see him favorably to 21% with a negative opinion. That +47 spread is far better than that of the second most popular candidate, Romney, who's at +29 (60/31). It's a similar story in Minnesota. Santorum's favorability is even better there at +54 (72/18), with Romney next best at +11 (50/39).
There were 3 key groups of voters that fueled Gingrich's victory in South Carolina and that continued to be strong for him in Florida, but in both Colorado and Minnesota they have shifted toward Santorum. Santorum is winning Tea Party voters (35-34 over Romney in Colorado, 38-29 over Gingrich in Minnesota), Evangelicals (37-30 over Romney in Colorado, 36-27 over Gingrich in Minnesota), and those describing themselves as 'very conservative' (38-29 over Romney in Colorado, 41-25 over Gingrich in Minnesota). Win those groups and you're always going to have a decent chance in a Republican contest.
Minnesota provides Paul's best chance at a victory since Iowa. Independents are allowed to vote there, which should boost his numbers, and in contrast to most states he has a positive favorability rating at 48-41. A big key for him will be the age of the electorate- he's leading the way with voters under 45, but in last place with voters over 45. He'll need to pick that up to have a chance at the upset.
The state of the race is extremely volatile in both states. 33% of voters in Colorado and 37% in Minnesota say they could change their minds between now and Tuesday, a much higher rate than we've seen willing to shift this late in other states. One big advantage Romney has is that his voters are more committed than those of the other candidates. In Colorado among voters whose minds are completely made up he's at 45% to 25% for Santorum, 18% for Gingrich, and 13% for Paul. And in Minnesota although he's in 2nd place overall, he's first with folks whose votes are locked in at 29% to 25% for Santorum, 24% for Gingrich, and 22% for Paul. People who know definitively how they're going to vote seem more likely to show up so that bodes quite well for Romney.
Romney looks headed for another easy win in Colorado and could pull one out in Minnesota as well. He has a few key things going for him. He remains extremely formidable with seniors, leading Santorum 43-23 with them in Colorado and 42-28 with them in Minnesota. And although he continues to struggle with the furthest right segment of Republican voters he's now firmly established himself as the candidate of choice for those describing themselves as 'somewhat conservative.' He leads Santorum 51-19 with those folks in Colorado and Gingrich 34-23 with then in Minnesota.
Tuesday has the potential to be a huge day for both Romney and Santorum. A sweep for Romney would do much to enhance the feeling that he's unstoppable. Wins for Santorum in Minnesota and Missouri would make it clear he's a more viable alternative to Romney than Gingrich and give him a lot of momentum for the road ahead. And it looks like it will be another dark day for Gingrich, whose campaign it appears peaked two weeks ago in South Carolina.
Full results here
State GOP Establishments Attack Their Base
BIZZY BLOG:
Across America, state Republican parties and legislators are pursuing the opponents they most despise with renewed vigor.
You would think that the targets of these efforts are President Barack Obama and Democratic Party officeholders who are hell-bent on turning America into a financially broken, post-constitutional, Washington-controlled playground safe only for crony capitalists and regulators gone wild. You would be wrong.
In Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Utah, to name just four, state GOP establishments are laboring mightily to marginalize the millions of constitutional conservatives whose activist energy (but not their outlook) dates back to the beginnings of the Tea Party movement three years ago. By their behavior, it’s clear that those who run many state parties and quite a few incumbent moderate Republican lawmakers are more threatened than pleased at the results of the 2010 elections, when the GOP took back the U.S. House and significantly improved its representation in statehouses and state legislatures. Oh, they’re happy with the majorities they have, and want to pick up control of the U.S. Senate this time around. They just don’t like many of the people who won the races which gave them those majorities, would rather not see any more interlopers come in and try to upset the status quo, and are targeting several newbies for political extinction.
Six-term Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, intent on preventing another coup like the one which ousted incumbent Bob Bennett two years ago at the party’s primary convention, has been Tea Party posing ever since. “Out of the blue,” Hatch, who has been notoriously unreliable on fiscal issues (lifetime Club For Growth score: 74%, which suddenly went to 97% during calendar 2010), has taken an interest in public pension reform. Though he has two conservative challengers, Michelle Malkin noted several months ago that “vendors, pollsters, and campaign literature printers in Utah have all been scared off doing any work” for anyone not named Orrin Hatch.
In Florida, Congressman Allen West, a Tea Party favorite, has seen his name floated as a potential vice presidential nominee. That clearly hasn’t impressed the state’s legislature, which has redrawn West’s district “to include substantially more Democrats within it … many more than other Republican incumbents.” The “inspiration” for this move is state representative Will Weatherford, who just so happens to be Mitt Romney’s Sunshine State spokesperson. Why am I not surprised? In response, West announced that he will run for “reelection” in a different district.
In heavily Catholic Pennsylvania, Democrat Senator Bob Casey is extremely vulnerable, both for generally hewing to the Obama agenda and for his support of ObamaCare, which among other things has led to regulations effective next year which would force all hospitals to provide contraceptive services with no conscience exceptions. Sadly, the Keystone State’s GOP, which stuck with Democrat-turned Republican-turned Democrat Arlen Specter for decades while treating conservative stalwart Pat Toomey like a leper, is on track to blow it. Under intense pressure from Governor Tom Corbett, who seems to have forgotten that he owes his job to Tea Party supporters who latched onto his promise not to raise taxes, the party has endorsed Steve Welch over three other far more acceptable contestants. Welch voted for Obama in 2008 and supported Toomey’s far-left U.S. Senate opponent Joe Sestak (4% lifetime Club For Growth rating) in 2010. From all appearances, based on after-the-fact complaints I have read and an advance warning that it would happen from Christopher Friend, the party which opposes “card check” in union organizing failed to hold a secret endorsement ballot.
I hope that Welch’s challengers and their supporters appreciate what they’re up against. They should seriously consider uniting on one candidate, because the state’s party apparatus has surely taken notes on how to fend off status quo disrupters from Kevin DeWine and Ohio’s establishment Republicans. Having more than one candidate besides Welch will virtually guarantee the others’ defeat. Readers will see why shortly.
In 2010, DeWine, chairman of the Buckeye State’s Republican Party (or, as I prefer to call it, ORPINO, the Ohio Republican Party In Name Only), successfully fended off Tea Party-supported primary insurgents in two statewide races. At the same time, he orchestrated a campaign to protect State Central Committee supporters from Tea Party challengers which was so dishonest that it might make even Team Obama blush. It included largely false claims in flyers and ads that ORPINO’s favored candidates had “Tea Party Values,” and dispatching poll watchers throughout the state on Election Day to hand out slate cards supporting the establishment’s statewide ticket and individual Central Committee members.
Because of ORPINO’s extraordinary related primary spending spree, Kevin’s coffers were apparently so low that according to House Majority Leader Bill Batchelder, DeWine asked potential donors to steer their money to the party instead of to individual candidates. On top of that:
A source close to (now-governor John) Kasich said that DeWine, a month before the 2010 elections, asked donors not to give to Kasich, and instead to give to the candidacies of Republicans Jon Husted and Dave Yost, who were running for secretary of state and auditor, respectively.
Everyone knew that Kasich was in a tightening race against incumbent Governor Ted Strickland. Kasich won by only 2% of the vote.
This sordid saga has led me and many others in Ohio to believe that DeWine wouldn’t mind if the generally Tea Party-sympathetic Kasich becomes so damaged that he decides not to run for reelection in 2014, clearing the way for ORPINO golden boy Husted. That Husted lived illegally outside of his district when he was a state rep and state senator (my opinion, and sadly not that of the courts) and did a complete about-face on the need to require voter identification at the polls once he was safely elected (now he thinks that voter-ID is a really bad idea) seem not to matter. Husted is currently attempting to visit all 88 Ohio counties because he claims it will help him perform better in his current position. Sure, John.
Some people I have spoken to believe that it was naive of Kasich to expect that DeWine would become constructive after giving in to a purge of most of his staff after the 2010 elections. Really? When was the last time Democratic National Committee Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz openly and bitterly criticized the Obama administration? Unfortunately, DeWine hasn’t mellowed a bit, and the two are openly feuding. Kasich is attempting to run an opposition Central Committee slate in this year’s primary which I fear is destined to suffer the same fate as the attempt two years ago. Just in case my prediction is wrong, DeWine is trying to rewrite the Central Committee qualification rules at the last minute to prevent insurgent winners who haven’t voted in the last three statewide primaries from being seated.
A state party chairman who is at serious loggerheads with his governor should recognize the need to step aside in favor of someone who will cooperate. Kevin DeWine won’t do that. Unless something changes, and quickly, the center-right atmosphere in this most important of swing states in next month’s primary and the fall general election will be quite acrid.
This leads to potentially the biggest problem of them all, which is that the GOP establishment and its pundit class constitute the sorest of sore losers. They have expected genuine conservatives to swallow their pride for decades and vote for moderate squishes who were in some ways barely better than their Democratic brethren (e.g., John McCain, Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford nationally, as well as more state and local candidates than one can hope to count). But as was the case in 1980 with Ronald Reagan, it appears that there is no establishment desire to reciprocate and provide meaningful resources to the winners if their people lose, starting with Mitt Romney and his acolytes at the national level and moving on down from there — even if it leads to Barack Obama’s reelection.
Please, people. Say it isn’t so.
Across America, state Republican parties and legislators are pursuing the opponents they most despise with renewed vigor.
You would think that the targets of these efforts are President Barack Obama and Democratic Party officeholders who are hell-bent on turning America into a financially broken, post-constitutional, Washington-controlled playground safe only for crony capitalists and regulators gone wild. You would be wrong.
In Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Utah, to name just four, state GOP establishments are laboring mightily to marginalize the millions of constitutional conservatives whose activist energy (but not their outlook) dates back to the beginnings of the Tea Party movement three years ago. By their behavior, it’s clear that those who run many state parties and quite a few incumbent moderate Republican lawmakers are more threatened than pleased at the results of the 2010 elections, when the GOP took back the U.S. House and significantly improved its representation in statehouses and state legislatures. Oh, they’re happy with the majorities they have, and want to pick up control of the U.S. Senate this time around. They just don’t like many of the people who won the races which gave them those majorities, would rather not see any more interlopers come in and try to upset the status quo, and are targeting several newbies for political extinction.
Six-term Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, intent on preventing another coup like the one which ousted incumbent Bob Bennett two years ago at the party’s primary convention, has been Tea Party posing ever since. “Out of the blue,” Hatch, who has been notoriously unreliable on fiscal issues (lifetime Club For Growth score: 74%, which suddenly went to 97% during calendar 2010), has taken an interest in public pension reform. Though he has two conservative challengers, Michelle Malkin noted several months ago that “vendors, pollsters, and campaign literature printers in Utah have all been scared off doing any work” for anyone not named Orrin Hatch.
In Florida, Congressman Allen West, a Tea Party favorite, has seen his name floated as a potential vice presidential nominee. That clearly hasn’t impressed the state’s legislature, which has redrawn West’s district “to include substantially more Democrats within it … many more than other Republican incumbents.” The “inspiration” for this move is state representative Will Weatherford, who just so happens to be Mitt Romney’s Sunshine State spokesperson. Why am I not surprised? In response, West announced that he will run for “reelection” in a different district.
In heavily Catholic Pennsylvania, Democrat Senator Bob Casey is extremely vulnerable, both for generally hewing to the Obama agenda and for his support of ObamaCare, which among other things has led to regulations effective next year which would force all hospitals to provide contraceptive services with no conscience exceptions. Sadly, the Keystone State’s GOP, which stuck with Democrat-turned Republican-turned Democrat Arlen Specter for decades while treating conservative stalwart Pat Toomey like a leper, is on track to blow it. Under intense pressure from Governor Tom Corbett, who seems to have forgotten that he owes his job to Tea Party supporters who latched onto his promise not to raise taxes, the party has endorsed Steve Welch over three other far more acceptable contestants. Welch voted for Obama in 2008 and supported Toomey’s far-left U.S. Senate opponent Joe Sestak (4% lifetime Club For Growth rating) in 2010. From all appearances, based on after-the-fact complaints I have read and an advance warning that it would happen from Christopher Friend, the party which opposes “card check” in union organizing failed to hold a secret endorsement ballot.
I hope that Welch’s challengers and their supporters appreciate what they’re up against. They should seriously consider uniting on one candidate, because the state’s party apparatus has surely taken notes on how to fend off status quo disrupters from Kevin DeWine and Ohio’s establishment Republicans. Having more than one candidate besides Welch will virtually guarantee the others’ defeat. Readers will see why shortly.
In 2010, DeWine, chairman of the Buckeye State’s Republican Party (or, as I prefer to call it, ORPINO, the Ohio Republican Party In Name Only), successfully fended off Tea Party-supported primary insurgents in two statewide races. At the same time, he orchestrated a campaign to protect State Central Committee supporters from Tea Party challengers which was so dishonest that it might make even Team Obama blush. It included largely false claims in flyers and ads that ORPINO’s favored candidates had “Tea Party Values,” and dispatching poll watchers throughout the state on Election Day to hand out slate cards supporting the establishment’s statewide ticket and individual Central Committee members.
Because of ORPINO’s extraordinary related primary spending spree, Kevin’s coffers were apparently so low that according to House Majority Leader Bill Batchelder, DeWine asked potential donors to steer their money to the party instead of to individual candidates. On top of that:
A source close to (now-governor John) Kasich said that DeWine, a month before the 2010 elections, asked donors not to give to Kasich, and instead to give to the candidacies of Republicans Jon Husted and Dave Yost, who were running for secretary of state and auditor, respectively.
Everyone knew that Kasich was in a tightening race against incumbent Governor Ted Strickland. Kasich won by only 2% of the vote.
This sordid saga has led me and many others in Ohio to believe that DeWine wouldn’t mind if the generally Tea Party-sympathetic Kasich becomes so damaged that he decides not to run for reelection in 2014, clearing the way for ORPINO golden boy Husted. That Husted lived illegally outside of his district when he was a state rep and state senator (my opinion, and sadly not that of the courts) and did a complete about-face on the need to require voter identification at the polls once he was safely elected (now he thinks that voter-ID is a really bad idea) seem not to matter. Husted is currently attempting to visit all 88 Ohio counties because he claims it will help him perform better in his current position. Sure, John.
Some people I have spoken to believe that it was naive of Kasich to expect that DeWine would become constructive after giving in to a purge of most of his staff after the 2010 elections. Really? When was the last time Democratic National Committee Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz openly and bitterly criticized the Obama administration? Unfortunately, DeWine hasn’t mellowed a bit, and the two are openly feuding. Kasich is attempting to run an opposition Central Committee slate in this year’s primary which I fear is destined to suffer the same fate as the attempt two years ago. Just in case my prediction is wrong, DeWine is trying to rewrite the Central Committee qualification rules at the last minute to prevent insurgent winners who haven’t voted in the last three statewide primaries from being seated.
A state party chairman who is at serious loggerheads with his governor should recognize the need to step aside in favor of someone who will cooperate. Kevin DeWine won’t do that. Unless something changes, and quickly, the center-right atmosphere in this most important of swing states in next month’s primary and the fall general election will be quite acrid.
This leads to potentially the biggest problem of them all, which is that the GOP establishment and its pundit class constitute the sorest of sore losers. They have expected genuine conservatives to swallow their pride for decades and vote for moderate squishes who were in some ways barely better than their Democratic brethren (e.g., John McCain, Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford nationally, as well as more state and local candidates than one can hope to count). But as was the case in 1980 with Ronald Reagan, it appears that there is no establishment desire to reciprocate and provide meaningful resources to the winners if their people lose, starting with Mitt Romney and his acolytes at the national level and moving on down from there — even if it leads to Barack Obama’s reelection.
Please, people. Say it isn’t so.
Government Nutrition Mandates
LRC BLOG:
A short while ago, I wrote about the government's decision to categorize pizza as a "vegetable" so that it could stay on track to enable the profits of the Industrial Food Machine. Now comes this article from the Wall Street Journal: "Schools Told to Lighten Up Lunches: New Rules for Federally Subsidized Meals Set Limits on Calories, Saturated Fat; Pizza, Fries Survive." A quote from the article:
...And for the first time, the Department of Agriculture is setting calorie limits on school-cafeteria meals.
A lunch for students in kindergarten through fifth grade must contain no more than 650 calories on average. The limit goes up to 700 calories for grades six through eight, and 850 calories for grades nine through 12. That requirement begins next school year.
Federal officials had initially sought to reduce the amount pizza counts toward students' vegetable allotment and to put limits on french fries and other forms of white potatoes. But those changes were abandoned after drawing criticism from lawmakers and the food industry.
Government rules also prohibit schools from serving whole milk; instead, non-fat milk must be served. This is in spite of the fact that the dangers of drinking the government's politically correct milk are well known. The USDA rules do not allow subsidized lunches to contain more than 10% of calories saturated fat. The same old low-fat paradigm that has been a failure for four decades is being reinstated as the "new" paradigm, and all for the purpose of propping up the corporate-socialist Industrial Food Machine that reaps huge margins on its highly processed foods.
Here is another great "follow the money" quote from the article:
One source of saturated fat the agency wasn't able to cut down on is the french fry. The agency initially proposed to sharply limit starchy vegetables like potatoes on school menus, but lawmakers and farm lobbyists killed the effort last year. Do most folks ever stop to consider the insanity of government bureaucrat rats centrally planning the lunches of millions of American children?
Consequently, this is a frightening - but hardly surprising - statistic from the article that answers the question of why the industrial food machine spends so much time and money buying politicians votes in Washington D.C : "About 32 million children are served every school day in the federal school lunch or breakfast programs, according to the Agriculture Department."
Meanwhile, Food Czar Michele Obama continues her campaign to centrally plan American eating habits, one plate at a time. In this recent article in the Washington Post, Mrs. Obama again made the claim, "That’s how we solve this problem," meaning government and its centrally planning mechanisms. She states, “We’re not just making this generation healthy. We’re making the next, and the next and the next.” In fact, that's the same thing the Food Czars said back in 1977 when they established the dietary goals for the United States, and thirty-five years later, Americans are fatter and sicker and more dependent upon their masters than any generation before them.
Jews shifting toward GOP under Obama
Washington Examiner:
Though still overwhelmingly Democratic, significantly more Jewish voters now identify as Republicans than did so before President Obama took office, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center.
Though still overwhelmingly Democratic, significantly more Jewish voters now identify as Republicans than did so before President Obama took office, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center.
Union membership dwindles in Wisconsin, U.S.
MADISON — If labor unions’ strength lies in numbers, a new report indicates unions’ most powerful days may be behind them.
Membership in organized labor unions dropped last year in Wisconsin by 16,000, according to the latest data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
CONTINUE READING
Membership in organized labor unions dropped last year in Wisconsin by 16,000, according to the latest data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
CONTINUE READING
Want to See The World’s Biggest Caliber (.905!) Rifle in Action?
The Blaze:
Shooting a .700 caliber packs a punch. Step it up to an almost unheard of .905 caliber, and you have a ballistic beast in your hands.
The Blaze brings you the SSK industries .950 JDJ. It’s the biggest centerfire rifle ever made.
With a 2400 grain bullet, propelled by 240 grains of powder, the JDJ is comparable to a World War I-era tank round or a 20mm cannon in terms of kinetic energy.
Estimates are that one of these rounds would easily pass through several human targets– even if each were equipped with full body armor.
LINK FOR STORY & VIDEO
Shooting a .700 caliber packs a punch. Step it up to an almost unheard of .905 caliber, and you have a ballistic beast in your hands.
With a 2400 grain bullet, propelled by 240 grains of powder, the JDJ is comparable to a World War I-era tank round or a 20mm cannon in terms of kinetic energy.
Estimates are that one of these rounds would easily pass through several human targets– even if each were equipped with full body armor.
LINK FOR STORY & VIDEO
‘Rape Tag’ Shocks Parents at Minn. Elementary School
Via TheBlaze.com:
Parents at a Minnesota elementary school were alarmed to learn about a disturbing new playground game that was apparently all the rage at recess: Rape tag.
Principal Bill Sprung of Washington Elementary School in New Ulm, Minn. sent a letter home to parents Monday alerting them to the game, described as “similar to freeze tag except that a person had to be humped to be unfrozen.”
According to the letter, the game was played mainly by fifth grade students in two specific classrooms. Teachers were instructed to speak to their classes about not playing the game, and recess supervisors were told to watch for any incidents of it.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES)
Parents at a Minnesota elementary school were alarmed to learn about a disturbing new playground game that was apparently all the rage at recess: Rape tag.
Principal Bill Sprung of Washington Elementary School in New Ulm, Minn. sent a letter home to parents Monday alerting them to the game, described as “similar to freeze tag except that a person had to be humped to be unfrozen.”
According to the letter, the game was played mainly by fifth grade students in two specific classrooms. Teachers were instructed to speak to their classes about not playing the game, and recess supervisors were told to watch for any incidents of it.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES)
The 15 Most Dominant Retailers In The World
Business Insider:
Global retail sales are expected to slow this year as China and the rest of the BRICs face tightening monetary policy and weaker demand abroad.
That's the takeaway from Deloitte's annual ranking of the top 250 retail chains by sales. While 2011 figures saw modest gains — U.S. sales grew 7.7 % — Deloitte sees the world economy decelerating in 2012.
Retailers targeting upscale consumers could see a more favorable environment. But the average consumer remains on uncertain financial footing and will seek out lower costs, the report states.
The leaders are a diverse mix of superstores, grocers, drug stores and wholesale providers. U.S. firms prevail, but German groups make a strong showing.
And sales at the No. 1 firm in the world were 3.5 times greater than at No. 2.
Click here to see the top 15 >
Global retail sales are expected to slow this year as China and the rest of the BRICs face tightening monetary policy and weaker demand abroad.
That's the takeaway from Deloitte's annual ranking of the top 250 retail chains by sales. While 2011 figures saw modest gains — U.S. sales grew 7.7 % — Deloitte sees the world economy decelerating in 2012.
Retailers targeting upscale consumers could see a more favorable environment. But the average consumer remains on uncertain financial footing and will seek out lower costs, the report states.
The leaders are a diverse mix of superstores, grocers, drug stores and wholesale providers. U.S. firms prevail, but German groups make a strong showing.
And sales at the No. 1 firm in the world were 3.5 times greater than at No. 2.
Click here to see the top 15 >
Obama Administration Plans to Shut Down Fannie and Freddie
TheBlaze:
The Obama administration is working to attract more private funding for mortgage markets while winding down government-backed housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told reporters that administration officials are exploring legislative options for overhauling the nation’s housing finance system with lawmakers on Capitol Hill, as well as with academics and other non-government agencies and advocacy groups.
In a white paper last February, the administration outlined three options for a long-term overhaul of the U.S. housing market. Each of those options proposed the elimination of Fannie and Freddie, though they differed on how or whether to replace the two agencies.
Congressional Republicans have also advocated shutting down the taxpayer-backed mortgage agencies, but on a faster timetable.
“We’re in a much earlier stage on housing reform” than with some other financial regulatory changes, said Geithner, though he add that, “What we’re going to try to do is lay the foundation for consensus.”
Geithner doesn’t expect a consensus any time soon. “It’s going to be a complicated process,” he said. “We don’t expect to legislate this year.”
The administration’s priority “is to repair the damage to homeowners, the housing market, and neighborhoods caused by the crisis,” Geithner said, referencing new measures posed by the president this week that would make it easier for struggling homeowners to refinance at record-low interest rates, thus reducing the size of their monthly mortgage payments.
[Editor’s note: the above is a cross post that originally appeared on Wall St. Cheat Sheet.]
The Obama administration is working to attract more private funding for mortgage markets while winding down government-backed housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told reporters that administration officials are exploring legislative options for overhauling the nation’s housing finance system with lawmakers on Capitol Hill, as well as with academics and other non-government agencies and advocacy groups.
In a white paper last February, the administration outlined three options for a long-term overhaul of the U.S. housing market. Each of those options proposed the elimination of Fannie and Freddie, though they differed on how or whether to replace the two agencies.
Congressional Republicans have also advocated shutting down the taxpayer-backed mortgage agencies, but on a faster timetable.
“We’re in a much earlier stage on housing reform” than with some other financial regulatory changes, said Geithner, though he add that, “What we’re going to try to do is lay the foundation for consensus.”
Geithner doesn’t expect a consensus any time soon. “It’s going to be a complicated process,” he said. “We don’t expect to legislate this year.”
The administration’s priority “is to repair the damage to homeowners, the housing market, and neighborhoods caused by the crisis,” Geithner said, referencing new measures posed by the president this week that would make it easier for struggling homeowners to refinance at record-low interest rates, thus reducing the size of their monthly mortgage payments.
[Editor’s note: the above is a cross post that originally appeared on Wall St. Cheat Sheet.]
Have You Seen the Creepy Planned Parenthood Cartoon They Would Like to Forget?
TheBlaze.com
In a week filled with discussions about the funding of Planned Parenthood, it seems appropriate to share a 2007 video from the organization.
FULL STORY
In a week filled with discussions about the funding of Planned Parenthood, it seems appropriate to share a 2007 video from the organization.
FULL STORY
14 Illegals in 24 Seconds (Caught on Video Crossing Arizona)
StandWithArizona.com
PARDON THE INTERRUPTION: While America is focused on the Super Bowl, or a meaningless state primary – the constant, steady, MASSIVE stream of illegal aliens continues across our border….unabated, undefended, as the video below video – posted this very morning – demonstrates.
With the Administration reducing National Guard troops on the border by 75% by May 1st…with nearly zero progress on the border fence since 2006…with the Border Patrol ordered away from “wilderness” areas to “protect endangered wildlife”… They keep on coming. 14 illegals captured in just 24 seconds in the video below – 30 miles North of the border near Tucson.
While TSA body scans your toddler, or strip searches your grandma…invaders FROM ANYWHERE stream across our border unmolested.
Who are those illegal in the video below? Dishwashers, grape pickers? Or perhaps rapists? MS-13?
What are they carrying? Pot, meth, heroin? Or perhaps C4? Anthrax? Plutonium?
Do we have any idea? Does anyone care at all?
Sorry for the interruption. Enjoy the Super Bowl.
PARDON THE INTERRUPTION: While America is focused on the Super Bowl, or a meaningless state primary – the constant, steady, MASSIVE stream of illegal aliens continues across our border….unabated, undefended, as the video below video – posted this very morning – demonstrates.
With the Administration reducing National Guard troops on the border by 75% by May 1st…with nearly zero progress on the border fence since 2006…with the Border Patrol ordered away from “wilderness” areas to “protect endangered wildlife”… They keep on coming. 14 illegals captured in just 24 seconds in the video below – 30 miles North of the border near Tucson.
While TSA body scans your toddler, or strip searches your grandma…invaders FROM ANYWHERE stream across our border unmolested.
Who are those illegal in the video below? Dishwashers, grape pickers? Or perhaps rapists? MS-13?
What are they carrying? Pot, meth, heroin? Or perhaps C4? Anthrax? Plutonium?
Do we have any idea? Does anyone care at all?
Sorry for the interruption. Enjoy the Super Bowl.
At 102%, His Tax Rate Takes the Cake
CNBC.COM
Meet Mr. 102%.
James Ross, 58, is a founder and managing member of Rossrock, a Manhattan-based private investment firm that focuses on commercial real estate and distressed commercial mortgages.
“I realize I am very fortunate, and in fact I am a member of the 1 percent,” Mr. Ross wrote in an email. His résumé is studded with elite institutions: Yale, Columbia Law School and stints at the law firms Cravath, Swaine & Moore in New York, and Holland & Hart in Denver. Since his company fits the category of private equity, he even has carried interest, the kind of incentive compensation that enabled Mitt Romney to pay such a low tax rate.
Yet Mr. Ross told me that he paid 102 percent of his taxable income in federal, state, and local taxes for 2010.
“My entire taxable income, plus some, went to the payment of taxes,” Mr. Ross said. “This does not include real estate taxes, sales taxes, and other taxes I paid for 2010.” When he told friends and family, they were “astounded,” he said.
In the midst of a national debate over tax rates and policy, I lifted the veil last week on my income tax rates for 2010, a year in which I paid 37 percent of my adjusted gross income (total income minus things like retirement contributions) in federal, state, and city income taxes and 74 percent of my taxable income (after deductions like state and local taxes).
I was dismayed by the comparison to Mr. Romney — who paid 13.9 percent of his adjusted gross income of $21.7 million and 17.5 percent of his taxable income of $17.1 million — as well as by the possibility that I paid a higher tax rate than just about anyone. So I invited readers to send me emails disclosing their tax rates and circumstances.
I was deluged with submissions, including many people who pay a higher rate than I do. But at 102 percent, Mr. Ross was in a category of his own.
That doesn’t mean Mr. Ross pays more in taxes than he earns. His total tax as a percentage of his adjusted gross income was 20 percent, which is much lower than mine.
That’s because Mr. Ross has so many itemized deductions. Since taxable income is what’s left after itemized deductions like mortgage interest, charitable contributions, and state and local taxes are subtracted, it will nearly always be smaller than adjusted gross income and demonstrates how someone can pay more than 100 percent of taxable income in tax. Mr. Ross must hope that his interest expense will pay off down the road and generate some capital gains.
Still, all of Mr. Ross’s itemized deductions are money out of his pocket, which is why he’s had to draw on his savings to pay his taxes. Robert Willens, a tax expert and New York attorney, made the argument that taxable income, therefore, may be a better basis for measuring the tax burden.
In any event, by either measure Mr. Ross pays a higher rate than Mr. Romney.
“I had no idea I was paying such a high rate,” he told me when we spoke this week. “I had trouble believing this was possible. I called my accountant, and I said, ‘Do you realize I’m paying every penny I have in taxable income? I’m dipping into savings to pay my income tax.’ He said, ‘It’s unfortunate, but at your income level’ ” — with high earned income and large itemized deductions that Mr. Ross can’t take advantage of — “ ‘that’s just the way it is.’ ”
Mr. Ross’s plight illustrates something that came through in nearly every response and cuts across nearly all income levels: The disparities of the tax code don’t just pit rich against poor or middle class. It taxes people within the same income brackets at grossly unequal rates.
“I cannot help but reflect on the unfairness of the current tax regime,” Mr. Ross wrote. “Why should I pay 102 percent of my taxable income in taxes when others, with far greater wealth than mine, pay a fraction of that?”
I asked Mr. Willens if such a thing were possible, and he said it was. “It’s entirely within the realm of possibility,” he said. “I can’t recall any clients quite that high, but I’ve had people come close.”
How could Mr. Ross pay so much? I thought I was the victim of a perfect storm of punitive tax policies, but Mr. Ross’s situation is worse.
Like me, he lives and works in New York City, which all but guarantees a high tax rate. Nearly all of his income is earned income and thus fully taxable at top rates. (He said that’s not always the case, but given the recent dire condition of real estate, in 2010 he had few capital gains and his carried interest didn’t yield any income.) Unlike me, he can’t make any itemized deductions, which means his adjusted gross income exceeds $1 million, the level at which New York State eliminates all itemized deductions, except for 50 percent of the value of charitable contributions. Mr. Ross said he gave 11 percent of his adjusted gross income to charity.
That means Mr. Ross can’t deduct any interest expense on the money he borrows to finance his real estate investments, which is substantial, nor can he deduct any other expenses or other itemized deductions except for part of his charitable contributions. This means he pays an enormous amount in state and local taxes. Since those are among the deductions that are disallowed when computing the federal alternative minimum tax, Mr. Ross is in turn especially hard hit by the alternative minimum tax.
PAGE TWO: HERE
Meet Mr. 102%.
James Ross, 58, is a founder and managing member of Rossrock, a Manhattan-based private investment firm that focuses on commercial real estate and distressed commercial mortgages.
“I realize I am very fortunate, and in fact I am a member of the 1 percent,” Mr. Ross wrote in an email. His résumé is studded with elite institutions: Yale, Columbia Law School and stints at the law firms Cravath, Swaine & Moore in New York, and Holland & Hart in Denver. Since his company fits the category of private equity, he even has carried interest, the kind of incentive compensation that enabled Mitt Romney to pay such a low tax rate.
Yet Mr. Ross told me that he paid 102 percent of his taxable income in federal, state, and local taxes for 2010.
“My entire taxable income, plus some, went to the payment of taxes,” Mr. Ross said. “This does not include real estate taxes, sales taxes, and other taxes I paid for 2010.” When he told friends and family, they were “astounded,” he said.
In the midst of a national debate over tax rates and policy, I lifted the veil last week on my income tax rates for 2010, a year in which I paid 37 percent of my adjusted gross income (total income minus things like retirement contributions) in federal, state, and city income taxes and 74 percent of my taxable income (after deductions like state and local taxes).
I was dismayed by the comparison to Mr. Romney — who paid 13.9 percent of his adjusted gross income of $21.7 million and 17.5 percent of his taxable income of $17.1 million — as well as by the possibility that I paid a higher tax rate than just about anyone. So I invited readers to send me emails disclosing their tax rates and circumstances.
I was deluged with submissions, including many people who pay a higher rate than I do. But at 102 percent, Mr. Ross was in a category of his own.
That doesn’t mean Mr. Ross pays more in taxes than he earns. His total tax as a percentage of his adjusted gross income was 20 percent, which is much lower than mine.
That’s because Mr. Ross has so many itemized deductions. Since taxable income is what’s left after itemized deductions like mortgage interest, charitable contributions, and state and local taxes are subtracted, it will nearly always be smaller than adjusted gross income and demonstrates how someone can pay more than 100 percent of taxable income in tax. Mr. Ross must hope that his interest expense will pay off down the road and generate some capital gains.
Still, all of Mr. Ross’s itemized deductions are money out of his pocket, which is why he’s had to draw on his savings to pay his taxes. Robert Willens, a tax expert and New York attorney, made the argument that taxable income, therefore, may be a better basis for measuring the tax burden.
In any event, by either measure Mr. Ross pays a higher rate than Mr. Romney.
“I had no idea I was paying such a high rate,” he told me when we spoke this week. “I had trouble believing this was possible. I called my accountant, and I said, ‘Do you realize I’m paying every penny I have in taxable income? I’m dipping into savings to pay my income tax.’ He said, ‘It’s unfortunate, but at your income level’ ” — with high earned income and large itemized deductions that Mr. Ross can’t take advantage of — “ ‘that’s just the way it is.’ ”
Mr. Ross’s plight illustrates something that came through in nearly every response and cuts across nearly all income levels: The disparities of the tax code don’t just pit rich against poor or middle class. It taxes people within the same income brackets at grossly unequal rates.
“I cannot help but reflect on the unfairness of the current tax regime,” Mr. Ross wrote. “Why should I pay 102 percent of my taxable income in taxes when others, with far greater wealth than mine, pay a fraction of that?”
I asked Mr. Willens if such a thing were possible, and he said it was. “It’s entirely within the realm of possibility,” he said. “I can’t recall any clients quite that high, but I’ve had people come close.”
How could Mr. Ross pay so much? I thought I was the victim of a perfect storm of punitive tax policies, but Mr. Ross’s situation is worse.
Like me, he lives and works in New York City, which all but guarantees a high tax rate. Nearly all of his income is earned income and thus fully taxable at top rates. (He said that’s not always the case, but given the recent dire condition of real estate, in 2010 he had few capital gains and his carried interest didn’t yield any income.) Unlike me, he can’t make any itemized deductions, which means his adjusted gross income exceeds $1 million, the level at which New York State eliminates all itemized deductions, except for 50 percent of the value of charitable contributions. Mr. Ross said he gave 11 percent of his adjusted gross income to charity.
That means Mr. Ross can’t deduct any interest expense on the money he borrows to finance his real estate investments, which is substantial, nor can he deduct any other expenses or other itemized deductions except for part of his charitable contributions. This means he pays an enormous amount in state and local taxes. Since those are among the deductions that are disallowed when computing the federal alternative minimum tax, Mr. Ross is in turn especially hard hit by the alternative minimum tax.
PAGE TWO: HERE
Tebow doesn't rule out possible future in politics
NFL.com:
Accustomed to being questioned by the media? Check.
Knows how to handle himself in front of a crowd? Check.
Has the ability to galvanize (and divide) the American people? Check.
Is on the front lines of one of the country's hot-button political issues? Check.
Yup, Tim Tebow definitely could have a career in politics once his playing days are over. The Broncos' quarterback didn't rule it out, either, when the subject was broached in an interview on the Golf Channel's "Feherty Live."
"It could be something in my future," Tebow said. "It's something I'll have to think about and if I pray about, you know, I have no idea right now. But possibly."
MORE HERE
Accustomed to being questioned by the media? Check.
Knows how to handle himself in front of a crowd? Check.
Has the ability to galvanize (and divide) the American people? Check.
Is on the front lines of one of the country's hot-button political issues? Check.
Yup, Tim Tebow definitely could have a career in politics once his playing days are over. The Broncos' quarterback didn't rule it out, either, when the subject was broached in an interview on the Golf Channel's "Feherty Live."
"It could be something in my future," Tebow said. "It's something I'll have to think about and if I pray about, you know, I have no idea right now. But possibly."
MORE HERE
Man Adopts His Girlfriend As His Daughter
Fail Daily:
A wealthy Florida man has adopted his 42-year-old girlfriend as a daughter in a move critics say will protect the man's assets during an upcoming lawsuit surrounding a deadly car accident.
Polo Club Palm Beach founder John Goodman, 48, adopted his longtime partner Heather Laruso Hutchins in October, The Palm Beach Post reports.
The strategy could shore up Goodman's wealth as he confronts a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the parents of Scott Patrick Wilson, The Associated Press says. Wilson was killed in 2010 when Goodman allegedly ran a stop sign. The trial begins March 27.
Goodman had previously set up a trust for his two minor children. If Wilson's parents win their civil suit, they cannot receive any compensation from the trust, The Post reports.
Hutchins, as Goodman's third legal child, is now entitled to a third of the money in the trust. However, another court could later rule that Hutchins isn't entitled to a share of the trust, Fox News reports.
A lawyer for the Wilson family claims it's a ploy for Goodman to keep money for himself. But Dan Bachi, Goodman's lawyer, told The Palm Beach Post, the adoption is to guarantee his children's future and denied that it was spurred by the lawsuit.
Florida attorney Charlotte Danciu said in an interview with TV station WPEC that Goodman is abusing the state's adoption law, which is designed to create parent-child relationships.
Circuit Court Judge Glenn Kelley, who granted attorneys for Liz and William Wilson the right to information to about the adoption, described Goodman's gambit as "border[ing] on the surreal," and said it put the court in a "legal twilight zone."
Sobriety tests revealed that Goodman was driving with a blood-alcohol level two times above the legal limit on the night Wilson died. Besides the civil case, he faces a March trial for vehicular homicide, DUI manslaughter, and leaving the scene of a crime. Those charges carry a sentence of up to 30 years in prison. He has pleaded not guilty.
A wealthy Florida man has adopted his 42-year-old girlfriend as a daughter in a move critics say will protect the man's assets during an upcoming lawsuit surrounding a deadly car accident.
Polo Club Palm Beach founder John Goodman, 48, adopted his longtime partner Heather Laruso Hutchins in October, The Palm Beach Post reports.
The strategy could shore up Goodman's wealth as he confronts a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the parents of Scott Patrick Wilson, The Associated Press says. Wilson was killed in 2010 when Goodman allegedly ran a stop sign. The trial begins March 27.
Goodman had previously set up a trust for his two minor children. If Wilson's parents win their civil suit, they cannot receive any compensation from the trust, The Post reports.
Hutchins, as Goodman's third legal child, is now entitled to a third of the money in the trust. However, another court could later rule that Hutchins isn't entitled to a share of the trust, Fox News reports.
A lawyer for the Wilson family claims it's a ploy for Goodman to keep money for himself. But Dan Bachi, Goodman's lawyer, told The Palm Beach Post, the adoption is to guarantee his children's future and denied that it was spurred by the lawsuit.
Florida attorney Charlotte Danciu said in an interview with TV station WPEC that Goodman is abusing the state's adoption law, which is designed to create parent-child relationships.
Circuit Court Judge Glenn Kelley, who granted attorneys for Liz and William Wilson the right to information to about the adoption, described Goodman's gambit as "border[ing] on the surreal," and said it put the court in a "legal twilight zone."
Sobriety tests revealed that Goodman was driving with a blood-alcohol level two times above the legal limit on the night Wilson died. Besides the civil case, he faces a March trial for vehicular homicide, DUI manslaughter, and leaving the scene of a crime. Those charges carry a sentence of up to 30 years in prison. He has pleaded not guilty.
Explaining Yesterday's Seasonally Adjusted Nonfarm Payroll "Beat"
Since there still is confusion regarding yesterday's whopping "surge" in non-farm payrolls, which represented a 243K jump in the Establishment survey (of which 490K was temp jobs, same as in the Household Survey where temp jobs soared by a record 699K), yet only to arrive at an employment number last seen ten years ago, when the US population was about 30 million lower (think about that: 30 million increase in population and no change in the total employed), here is the final explanation of what happened yesterday.
As everyone knows by now, January is when the BLS imposes its annual seasonal adjustment revision (more on that in a second) for the previous January-December period. What this manifests itself most directly in, is the divergence between the Nonadjusted January number of the establishment survey of any given year and the Unadjusted number. And while the January adjustment is always substantial, it is the fact that the so-called beat was entirely based on assumptions that makes yesterday's NFP number so meaningless, and hardly the basis to assume that the US economy has taken off.
The chart below shows the adjusted and unadjusted employment survey data for total Nonfarm Employees. The annual January overadjustment is more than evident. Just as evident are the subsequent under-adjustments as seasonal data is lowered to account for volatility in the NSA data. What is very notable is that in January, absent BLS smoothing calculation, which are nowhere in the labor force, but solely in the mind of a few BLS employees, the real economy lost 2,689,000 jobs, while net of the adjustment, it actually gained 243,000 jobs: a delta of 2,932,000 jobs based solely on statistical assumptions in an excel spreadsheet! LINK
As everyone knows by now, January is when the BLS imposes its annual seasonal adjustment revision (more on that in a second) for the previous January-December period. What this manifests itself most directly in, is the divergence between the Nonadjusted January number of the establishment survey of any given year and the Unadjusted number. And while the January adjustment is always substantial, it is the fact that the so-called beat was entirely based on assumptions that makes yesterday's NFP number so meaningless, and hardly the basis to assume that the US economy has taken off.
The chart below shows the adjusted and unadjusted employment survey data for total Nonfarm Employees. The annual January overadjustment is more than evident. Just as evident are the subsequent under-adjustments as seasonal data is lowered to account for volatility in the NSA data. What is very notable is that in January, absent BLS smoothing calculation, which are nowhere in the labor force, but solely in the mind of a few BLS employees, the real economy lost 2,689,000 jobs, while net of the adjustment, it actually gained 243,000 jobs: a delta of 2,932,000 jobs based solely on statistical assumptions in an excel spreadsheet! LINK
China cuts off Internet in area of Tibetan unrest
Internet connections and mobile phone signals were cut for 30 miles around scene of clashes in Sichuan, state media reports
Record 1.2M Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month
ZeroHedge:
A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that's not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation. As for the quality of jobs, as withholding taxes roll over Year over year, it can only mean that the US is replacing high paying FIRE jobs with low paying construction and manufacturing. So much for the improvement.
CHART HERE
A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that's not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation. As for the quality of jobs, as withholding taxes roll over Year over year, it can only mean that the US is replacing high paying FIRE jobs with low paying construction and manufacturing. So much for the improvement.
CHART HERE
UN World Tax To 'Help Poor'
INFOWARS:
Global levy needed to aid “needy people” get free housing, education and healthcare.
The United Nations wants a world tax imposed on all financial transactions to fund a global model of social services that will provide “needy people” with a basic income, free healthcare, education and housing.
The drive is part of the UN’s mission to create a “social protection floor” under the auspices of the Commission on Social Development, which began this week in New York. The SPF will become the UN’s primary focus from 2015 onwards when the Millennium Development Goals project concludes.
“The money to fund these services may come from a new world tax,” reports the Deseret News, quoting Jens Wandel, Deputy Director of the United Nations Development Program, who said that a long term funding plan for the project would center around “a minimal financial transaction tax (of .005 percent). This will create $40 billion in revenue.”
“No one should live below a certain income level,” stated Milos Koterec, President of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. “Everyone should be able to access at least basic health services, primary education, housing, water, sanitation and other essential services.”
According to the report, the new global tax is designed to be a progressive scale, with higher earners paying more to help provide “all needy people with a basic income, healthcare, education and housing.”
This represents the UN’s latest attempt to fleece western taxpayers under the utopian rhetoric of global socialism.
While invoking the plight of the world’s poor as a justification to create a slush fund under its control, the UN is also invoking the discredited pseudo-science of man-made global warming in an effort to shake down the developed world through the imposition of carbon taxes.
A new UN report entitled “Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing,” calls for punishing economies deemed not “sustainable” by establishing, “natural resource and externality pricing instruments, including carbon pricing, through mechanisms such as taxation, regulation or emissions trading systems, by 2020.”
A 2010 UN blueprint for putting the organization back at the forefront of global governance alarmingly revealed the agenda to re-brand global warming as “overpopulation” as a means of dismantling the middle classes while using “global redistribution of wealth” and increased immigration to reinvigorate the pursuit of a one world government.
The United Nations also called for using the pretext of environmental threats to concentrate power and wealth into its hands during the recent UN Climate Summit in Durban, a plan under which the west would be mandated to respect “the rights of Mother Earth” by paying a “climate debt” which would act as a slush fund for bankrolling an all-powerful world government.
Even if one entertains the viability of countries being forced by the UN to send even more money overseas, trusting the United Nations to oversee such a massive transfer of wealth would be somewhat naive given the fact that the organization is inherently corrupt, as the oil for food scandal illustrated.
The UN also has a habit of using money designated for relief projects to enrich its own coffers, including the $732.4 million budget for earthquake-shattered Haiti, two thirds of which was spent on “the salary, perks and upkeep of its own personnel, not residents of the devastated island.”
Global levy needed to aid “needy people” get free housing, education and healthcare.
The United Nations wants a world tax imposed on all financial transactions to fund a global model of social services that will provide “needy people” with a basic income, free healthcare, education and housing.
The drive is part of the UN’s mission to create a “social protection floor” under the auspices of the Commission on Social Development, which began this week in New York. The SPF will become the UN’s primary focus from 2015 onwards when the Millennium Development Goals project concludes.
“The money to fund these services may come from a new world tax,” reports the Deseret News, quoting Jens Wandel, Deputy Director of the United Nations Development Program, who said that a long term funding plan for the project would center around “a minimal financial transaction tax (of .005 percent). This will create $40 billion in revenue.”
“No one should live below a certain income level,” stated Milos Koterec, President of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. “Everyone should be able to access at least basic health services, primary education, housing, water, sanitation and other essential services.”
According to the report, the new global tax is designed to be a progressive scale, with higher earners paying more to help provide “all needy people with a basic income, healthcare, education and housing.”
This represents the UN’s latest attempt to fleece western taxpayers under the utopian rhetoric of global socialism.
While invoking the plight of the world’s poor as a justification to create a slush fund under its control, the UN is also invoking the discredited pseudo-science of man-made global warming in an effort to shake down the developed world through the imposition of carbon taxes.
A new UN report entitled “Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing,” calls for punishing economies deemed not “sustainable” by establishing, “natural resource and externality pricing instruments, including carbon pricing, through mechanisms such as taxation, regulation or emissions trading systems, by 2020.”
A 2010 UN blueprint for putting the organization back at the forefront of global governance alarmingly revealed the agenda to re-brand global warming as “overpopulation” as a means of dismantling the middle classes while using “global redistribution of wealth” and increased immigration to reinvigorate the pursuit of a one world government.
The United Nations also called for using the pretext of environmental threats to concentrate power and wealth into its hands during the recent UN Climate Summit in Durban, a plan under which the west would be mandated to respect “the rights of Mother Earth” by paying a “climate debt” which would act as a slush fund for bankrolling an all-powerful world government.
Even if one entertains the viability of countries being forced by the UN to send even more money overseas, trusting the United Nations to oversee such a massive transfer of wealth would be somewhat naive given the fact that the organization is inherently corrupt, as the oil for food scandal illustrated.
The UN also has a habit of using money designated for relief projects to enrich its own coffers, including the $732.4 million budget for earthquake-shattered Haiti, two thirds of which was spent on “the salary, perks and upkeep of its own personnel, not residents of the devastated island.”
POLL: Forget Romney or Obama, voters want Tebow
(Reuters) - He won't be in this Sunday's Super Bowl and his Denver Broncos are already 50-to-1 longshots for next year's National Football League title, but if Tim Tebow swapped the pigskin for politics, he just might be a shoo-in for the White House.
Congress Calls for Accelerated Use of Drones in USA
A House-Senate conference report this week called on the Administration to accelerate the use of civilian unmanned aerial systems (UAS), or “drones,” in U.S. airspace.
FULL STORY
FULL STORY
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Good news: Feds warn that using basic Internet privacy tools may be a sign that you're a terrorist
Doug Ross:
Odd that we don't hear much about that "evil, imperialistic Bush presidency" much these days.
A flyer designed by the FBI and the Department of Justice to promote suspicious activity reporting in internet cafes lists basic tools used for online privacy as potential signs of terrorist activity. The document, part of a program called “Communities Against Terrorism”, lists the use of “anonymizers, portals, or other means to shield IP address” as a sign that a person could be engaged in or supporting terrorist activity. The use of encryption is also listed as a suspicious activity along with steganography, the practice of using “software to hide encrypted data in digital photos” or other media. In fact, the flyer recommends that anyone “overly concerned about privacy” or attempting to “shield the screen from view of others” should be considered suspicious and potentially engaged in terrorist activities.
...Logging into an account associated with a residential internet service provider (such as Comcast or AOL), an activity that could simply indicate that you are on a trip, is also considered a suspicious activity. Viewing any content related to “military tactics” including manuals or “revolutionary literature” is also considered a potential indicator of terrorist activity. This would mean that viewing a number of websites, including the one you are on right now, could be construed by a hapless employee as an highly suspicious activity potentially linking you to terrorism.
Well, all of these warnings seem justified. After all, the DHS was eerily prescient when it warned of imminent attacks by right-wing extremists in 2009.
Odd that we don't hear much about that "evil, imperialistic Bush presidency" much these days.
A flyer designed by the FBI and the Department of Justice to promote suspicious activity reporting in internet cafes lists basic tools used for online privacy as potential signs of terrorist activity. The document, part of a program called “Communities Against Terrorism”, lists the use of “anonymizers, portals, or other means to shield IP address” as a sign that a person could be engaged in or supporting terrorist activity. The use of encryption is also listed as a suspicious activity along with steganography, the practice of using “software to hide encrypted data in digital photos” or other media. In fact, the flyer recommends that anyone “overly concerned about privacy” or attempting to “shield the screen from view of others” should be considered suspicious and potentially engaged in terrorist activities.
...Logging into an account associated with a residential internet service provider (such as Comcast or AOL), an activity that could simply indicate that you are on a trip, is also considered a suspicious activity. Viewing any content related to “military tactics” including manuals or “revolutionary literature” is also considered a potential indicator of terrorist activity. This would mean that viewing a number of websites, including the one you are on right now, could be construed by a hapless employee as an highly suspicious activity potentially linking you to terrorism.
Well, all of these warnings seem justified. After all, the DHS was eerily prescient when it warned of imminent attacks by right-wing extremists in 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)