Do visit this site:
In his remarks at the White House yesterday President Obama Called for extending Bush tax breaks for another year — at least for certain taxpayers, those earning less than $250,000 per year. Apart from the continued exacerbation of class warfare in pitting “the middle class” against “the wealthy,” a more deadly nuance lurked in his words.
Twice in his brief speech he pointed out that we need to enact this cutoff because “we cannot afford to spend on tax breaks for the wealthy.” Those words should frighten and arouse anyone who has an income. They are not ill-chosen words; they are a look into the very political and economic heart of the current president and his regime. Allowing income earners to keep a portion of their money is considered by them to be spending by the government. In other words, all of your money is theirs to spend. They spend it on their special programs, their cronies, their allies and their adoring lapdogs. They spend some of it on the producers in order to keep the well flowing. [emphasis mine]
Government has no money to spend except what it confiscates from those whose labor and intelligence produce wealth. A tax reduction is not government spending except in the convoluted sense of socialist elitists who believe they own everything and they alone know what and in what quantity is best for the masses.
Government is necessary and valuable. Its primary functions are to restrain evil, maintain internal peace and order, and keep its citizens secure. It needs to encourage individual liberty and personal responsibility. The details of how these are accomplished are matters of legitimate debate. One thing not subject debate is what government owns. It owns nothing.
More AT here.
Video: 1,500 Socialists Chant “Free Palestine,” “Free Abortion” And “Disarm The Police” At Chicago Conference…
CHICAGO – Fifteen hundred socialists recently convened in suburban Chicago at the International Socialist Organization’s annual conference. Like previous years, attendees consumed Marxist propaganda on government education, government health care and how to best end capitalism.
Sessions during the conference included, “The battle for the soul of teacher unionism,” “After Wisconsin: The battle for public sector unions,” “Education and revolution,” “Education and capitalism,” as well as “Prison reform or prison abolition?”
At one of the plenary sessions, an Occupy-type crowd chant broke out. Like any good collective, the mob clapped and chanted about various leftist goals.
In cell phone video obtained by EAGnews.org, the socialists began by chanting about Greece and “disarm the police.”
Then the turn to the Middle East.
Free, free Palestine
Long live Palestine
Long live the intifada
Once that gets a bit worn out, they shift to:
Free abortion on demand
Can we do it? Yes we can!
Controversial: California’s high-speed rail plan
Linked: DNA at an Occupy Wall Street protest, to a 2004 unsolved murder
At War: Old Spice and Taco Bell, over “fire sauce”
Evelyn Garcia (L) with Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Evelyn Garcia, a Democratic National Committee (DNC) member and candidate for the Florida House of Representatives who accused Israel of “crimes against humanity” and of running “mass concentration camps” in a series of vitriolic emails, has apologized and resigned from the DNC.
Garcia, a Haitian-American elected to the DNC in 2008, sent the emails in 2011, but they were first released by BizPacReview.com after being passed on to South Florida Democrats last week. The emails evince a vicious contempt for Israel and echo the propaganda and trite canards that usually mark those on the radical anti-Israel left.
In an email dated May 24, 2011 Garcia wrote: “Slavery was ended, apartheid was ended and so this occupation must end.”
Two months later, on July 26, Garcia wrote that “by supporting Israeli occupation with US foreign aid, we are all complicit and guilty of their crimes against humanity.
“Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust,” she continued, “and it’s about time this guilt trip was taken off their backs.”
“I deeply resent U.S. taxpayer funds being used to continue Israeli aggression, (yes, confiscating other peoples’ land and building illegal settlements is aggression), not to mention ‘incursions’ that kill PEOPLE, destroy civilian homes and infrastructure all over, mass concentration prison camps, etc, etc, etc.”
Amazingly, she seemed to shift the blame for her comments, saying that her “private emails” had been released “by someone I believed was my friend.”
Palm Beach County Democratic Chairman Mark Alan Siegel called the emails “grossly inappropriate.” Oddly, Siegel said that he “was shocked by her choice of words,” seeming to imply that it was not Garcia’s views that bothered him, but rather the language she used to convey her views.
From Michelle Malkin at NRO:
The Left’s gay-marriage “No H8” campaign turns out to be nothing but.
Hollywood and the American Left love diversity, except when it offends their “progressive” value system.
Witness the reaction to actor Brad Pitt’s mother, Jane, who publicly opposed President Obama’s reelection. Mrs. Pitt’s pro-life, anti-gay-marriage statement to her local paper last week enflamed the Tolerance Mob. And her mere expression of dissident political views exposed the glittering hypocrisy of the left-wing “No H8” campaign.
In a letter to the editor for Missouri’s Springfield News-Leader, Mrs. Pitt responded to another reader who argued that Christians should not support Mitt Romney because of his Mormon faith. Arguing for interfaith tolerance, she praised Romney’s “high morals” and “business experience.” The celebrity’s mom urged “prayerful consideration” from fellow Christians before voting for Obama — “a man,” she pointed out, “who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for years, did not hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer, and is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage.”
Self-appointed Tinseltown anti-bigotry cops blew their tops. The Hollywood Reporterlabeled Mrs. Pitt’s letter “anti-gay.” Gossip website Global Grind, founded by rap mogul Russell Simmons, called her “homophobic.” Perez Hilton, an L.A.-based gossip-website operator and hanger-on to the stars who fronts the “No H8” gay-marriage movement in California, pounced on Mrs. Pitt as “mommy dearest.”
Hilton angrily scrawled across a photo of Mrs. Pitt with her son: “A vote for Romney is a vote for God.” After taking obligatory potshots at Christians, Hilton, who calls himself the “queen of all media,” fumed: “Ugh! How can one woman birth such a beautiful boy, but have such unattractive views???”
You want ugly? Hilton knows ugly. He’s the same trash-mouth blogger and former beauty-pageant judge who attacked Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean with misogynistic profanities in 2009 because she said she opposed legalizing gay marriage at the federal level and favored the states’ rights to put the question up for a vote. “She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage,” Hilton railed. “She lost because she’s a dumb b*tch!”
You want ugly? When word of Mrs. Pitt’s letter spread on social media late last week, Twitter lit up with a stream of death threats, smears, and slurs. My Twitter curation site, Twitchy.com, compiled just some of the vile bile aimed at Mrs. Pitt for supporting traditional values and standing up for the unborn [redactions added]:
“BRAD PITT’S MOM WROTE AN ANTI-GAY PRO-ROMNEY EDITORIAL. KILL THE B***H.”
“Brad Pitt’s mom, die”
“F*** you, Brad Pitt’s mom. The gay community made your kid a star, you whacko.”
“Brad Pitt’s mother . . . what a brainless old b***h . . . ”
“Brad Pitt’s Mom Slams Obama, Gays. That stand makes her a deluded, dumba** Fascist Repuke”
“I hope Brad Pitt has been supporting his mother and decides to cut her off. What a b***h.”
“Brad Pitt’s mom can choke on a *****.”
The usual civility police were in their usual place when the “No H8” bullies mauled Mrs. Pitt: nowhere to be found. Brad Pitt also has been silent so far. His brother, Doug, did try, if a bit too meekly, to defend his mom on Monday in an interview with NBC’sToday show:
“You know, I think moms and dads and kids agree to disagree all over the world. So why would our family be any different?” he said. “There can be healthy discussion when people disagree with you. The bad thing is when it turns to venom and negativity, and we don’t have that in our family. It’s open discussion. We can learn from each other, and if anything, it solidifies your point. Or maybe you learn something.”
Learn something from us “deluded, dumba** Fascist Repukes”? Heaven forfend. The overwhelming majority of Hollywood libs live in a fantasyland bubble where every Obama critic is a racist, every pro-life activist is a terrorist, and every defender of traditional marriage is a Neanderthal.
From Thomas Sowell at the Patriot Post:
Anyone who wants to study the tricks of propaganda rhetoric has a rich source of examples in the statements of President Barack Obama. On Monday, July 9th, for example, he said that Republicans “believe that prosperity comes from the top down, so that if we spend trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, that that will somehow unleash jobs and economic growth.”
Let us begin with the word “spend.” Is the government “spending” money on people whenever it does not tax them as much as it can? Such convoluted reasoning would never pass muster if the mainstream media were not so determined to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil when it comes to Barack Obama.
Ironically, actual spending by the Obama administration for the benefit of its political allies, such as the teachers’ unions, is not called spending but “investment.” You can say anything if you have your own private language.
But let’s go back to the notion of “spending” money on “the wealthiest Americans.” The people he is talking about are not the wealthiest Americans. Income is not wealth — and the whole tax controversy is about income taxes. Wealth is what you have accumulated, and wealth is not taxed, except when you die and the government collects an inheritance tax from your heirs.
People over 65 years of age have far more wealth than people in their thirties and forties — but lower incomes. If Obama wants to talk about raising income taxes, let him talk about it, but claiming that he wants to tax “the wealthiest Americans” is a lie and an emotional distraction for propaganda purposes.
The really big lie — and one that no amount of hard evidence or logic seems to make a dent in — is that those who oppose raising taxes on higher incomes simply want people with higher incomes to have more money, in hopes that some of their prosperity will “trickle down” to the rest of the people.
Some years ago, a challenge was issued in this column to name any economist, outside of an insane asylum, who had ever said any such thing. Not one example has yet been received, whether among economists or anyone else. Someone is always claiming that somebody else said it, but no one has ever been able to name and quote that somebody else.
Once we have put aside the lies and the convoluted use of words, what are we left with? Not much.
Obama is claiming that the government can get more tax revenue by raising the tax rate on people with higher incomes. It sounds plausible, and that may be enough for some people, but the hard facts make it a very iffy proposition.
This issue has been fought out in the United States in several administrations — both Democratic and Republican. It has also been fought out in other countries.
What is the real argument of those who want to prevent taxes from rising above a certain percentage, even for people with high incomes? It has nothing to do with making them more prosperous so that their prosperity will “trickle down.”
A Democratic president — John F. Kennedy — stated the issue plainly. Under the existing tax rates, he explained, investors’ “efforts to avoid tax liabilities” made them put their money in tax shelters, because existing tax laws made “certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings” for the country.
Ironically, the Obama campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney for putting his money in the Cayman Islands substantiate the point that President Kennedy and others have made, that higher tax rates can drive money into tax shelters, whether tax-exempt municipal bonds or investments in other countries.
In other words, raising tax rates does not automatically raise tax revenues for the government.
$3.59 – When Barack Obama entered the White House, the average price of a gallon of gasoline was $1.85. Today, it is$3.59.
22 – It is hard to believe, but today the poverty rate for children living in the United States is a whopping 22 percent.
23 – According to U.S. Representative Betty Sutton, an average of 23 manufacturing facilities permanently shut down in the United States every single day during 2010.
30 – Back in 2007, about 10 percent of all unemployed Americans had been out of work for 52 weeks or longer. Today, that number is above 30 percent.
32 – The amount of money that the federal government gives directly to Americans has increased by 32 percent since Barack Obama entered the White House.
35 – U.S. housing prices are now down a total of 35 percent from the peak of the housing bubble.
40 – The official U.S. unemployment rate has been above 8 percent for 40 months in a row.
42 – According to one survey, 42 percent of all American workers are currently living paycheck to paycheck.
48 – Shockingly, at this point 48 percent of all Americans are either considered to be “low income” or are living in poverty.
49 – Today, an astounding 49.1 percent of all Americans live in a home where at least one person receives benefits from the government.
From DrJohn at Flopping Aces:
I told you this was coming.
democrats have set a new low for behavior. When someone from the Obama suck-up Politico likens it to “stalking” you know it has to be bad.
But Democrats are testing the outer limits of that understanding with a practice that raises questions about when campaign tracking becomes something more like stalking.
While most serious campaigns on both sides use campaign trackers — staffers whose job is to record on video every public appearance and statement by an opponent — House Democrats are taking it to another level. They’re now recording video of the homes of GOP congressmen and candidates and posting the raw footage on the Internet for all to see.
And not just displaying their homes but also posting their addresses
Republicans whose homes have been videotaped say they understand that politics is a contact sport and that every public utterance they make is fair game. But, they argue, filming a home — and posting actual addresses — ought to be off-limits, if only out of respect for their families and neighbors.
“I think your family or your personal life should be off-limits unless it enters the campaign,” said Ohio Rep. Jim Renacci, who said a neighbor informed him that a tracker had been crouching in the bushes taking footage of the first-term congressman’s home. “It’s hard for my neighbors or my family to get comfortable when someone is in the bushes.”
democrats claim Republicans do it too but maybe they don’t
And on Tuesday, aides to Democratic Rep. Tim Bishop said they found a tracker working for his Republican opponent, Randy Altschuler, sitting outside the congressman’s Long Island, N.Y., home with a camera.
But Bishop’s campaign said it did not believe any footage of the home had been made public.
Their excuses for this behavior are lame
“House Republicans have spent this entire Congress trying to hide that they’re protecting benefits for millionaires and perks for themselves instead of protecting the middle class, but we won’t let them keep it secret any longer,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Jesse Ferguson wrote in an email.
One GOP Congressman made it clear he won’t tolerate abuse of his family:
“It’s one of those things. We know we’re in this position, and it’s part of the job. I wish it wasn’t,” he said, noting that a mechanic on one of his farms chased away a tracker filming the scene. “We have alarms on the house. My wife knows how to use weapons. As far as safety goes, we do our best to be cautious and to keep track of our kids.”
The blame for this horrid behavior belongs entirely to Barack Obama. He has called for violence repeatedly:
** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
Barack Obama has led the way for democrats in smearing the opposition- specifically Romney donors- and their children.
From Bryan Preston at PJ Media:
Mitt Romney addressed the NAACP convention in Houston today. Romney’s speech was mostly well-received, sparking applause here and there along with one sustained boo (and a couple of odd organ riffs) when he promised to repeal ObamaCare. Refusing to pander, Romney not only did not back down from calling it “ObamaCare,” he also noted that according to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey, about 75% of business leaders see the president’s signature law as an impediment to job growth. Romney had bracketed his discussion of ObamaCare with talk about unemployment and how he as president would encourage economic growth. With black unemployment close to double overall unemployment, his message was delivered to an audience that was bound to listen to part, if not all.
Romney also promised to allow school choice and to promote policies that would strengthen the family. He earned one of his stronger applause responses when he vowed to defend traditional marriage.
Most striking about Romney’s speech was its similarity to his stump speech. He inserted a fine quote from Frederick Douglass — “It is easier to build strong children than repair broken men” — but overall he delivered the same policy speech today that he delivers wherever he campaigns. There is a message in that: that President Obama’s constant pandering and divisive acts are the wrong approach, and that an American president must be a president for all, not just for some.
Romney drew real distinctions between himself and President Obama, on policy and not the personal: “I am running for president because I know that my policies and vision will help hundreds of millions of middle class Americans of all races, will lift people from poverty, and will help prevent people from becoming poor. My campaign is about helping the people who need help. The course the president has set has not done that – and will not do that. My course will.”
Romney also drew a line between the hope of equal rights and the broken promise of poor urban schools: “If equal opportunity in America were an accomplished fact, black families could send their sons and daughters to public schools that truly offer the hope of a better life. Instead, for generations, the African-American community has been waiting and waiting for that promise to be kept. Today, black children are 17 percent of students nationwide – but they are 42 percent of the students in our worst-performing schools.” President Obama, by opposing school choice, stands in the way of allowing students in those awful schools to choose better schools.
For Mitt Romney to address the NAACP convention and refuse to pander was courageous. He had to know that his promise to repeal ObamaCare, which plays well in the suburbs and with friendly Republican audiences, would not play well with the NAACP. But he delivered it anyway. He took the negative response, and offered a classy counter.
Obama Deputy Propagandist David Plouffe (pronounced Fluff) can’t be too pleased with the timing of his latest fabrications:
“You’ve got a few very wealthy people lining up trying to purchase the White House for Mr. Romney,” said Plouffe on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “We’re going to have to have everybody out there who wants the president to continue to a second term to step up and help the campaign.”
The timing was especially poor because within a few hours of Fluff’s statement, The Wall Street Journal published a shocking report on the true state of campaign contributions.
The executive summary: political spending by labor unions blows away private contributions by the rich, the poor, and everyone in between:
Organized labor spends about four times as much on politics and lobbying as generally thought…
…The new figures come from a little-known set of annual reports to the Labor Department in which local unions, their national parents and labor federations have been required to detail their spending on politics and lobbying since 2005…
From Victor Davis Hanson at NRO:
Joe Biden is at it again, accusing the president’s opponents of hoping for bad news and the Republicans in particular of rooting for dismal economic reports, by virtue of opposing legislation of the sort they supposedly earlier would have supported. I am sure, as in every campaign, there are such hyper-partisans. But like most Americans, conservatives have lots of friends and family members out of work, and, in the more important and larger sense, can see first-hand how 41 months of more than 8 percent unemployment (or even higher in dysfunctional states like California) have wrecked their communities. Wishing for a different approach is far more compassionate and disinterested than doubling down on the Greek model because of blinkered ideological orthodoxy. I don’t know anyone who does not want the economy to rebound fast, especially given the toll it is taking on the larger society; I would have been delighted at news of a 5 percent unemployment rate, and 3.5 percent GDP growth — whatever the political ramifications.
But this charge of unpatriotic partisanship for political advantage is vintage Biden hypocrisy: Remember in 2007, at the moment in the spring and summer when the surge was being implementing and just starting to work, and thousands of American lives were at stake in implementing it? Biden and Harry Reid were assuring the world that the surge was already a failure; and in Biden’s case, he kept at it all year long, especially before and during the September 2007 Petraeus hearings, when he kept insisting that trisecting Iraq was our only hope. In fact, as in the case of candidate Barack Obama, he would only cease his blanket dismissals of the surge in 2008, when conditions on the ground had so improved that the surge vanished as a campaign talking point and earlier denunciations were largely scrubbed from campaign websites.
Remember, Biden in August 2002 had been a vehement supporter of regime change in Iraq (“I think Saddam either has to be separated from his weapons or taken out of power.”), and voted to authorize Saddam’s removal in October of that year. Would Vice President Joe Biden say that in 2007–2008 presidential candidate Joe Biden was not behind the national effort to secure Iraq through a surge (e.g., “In continuing the surge of forces for another six months, is that likely to change that reality? The conclusion I’ve reached is no.”)? And would he suggest further that candidate Joe Biden had assumed that bad news, and partisan commentary on supposedly bad news, would only enhance his own political fortunes? And would he say that such opportunism explained his abject reversal in damning something that he had earlier so wholeheartedly endorsed—and yet mysteriously would come full circle again to praise as perhaps his administration’s “greatest achievement”?
But, of course, to suggest all that, in Biden fashion, would be demagoguery of the worst sort.
Quite simply, sometime after January 2009 the commandments on the barn wall abruptly were altered.
From Soeren Kern at the Gatestone Institute:
Nine Muslim men were found guilty of raping dozens of British children. The three month trial revealed that police and social workers had repeatedly refused to investigate; they were afraid of being called racist.
A three-month trial that recently ended in Liverpool, where nine Muslim men were found guilty of raping dozens of British children, revealed that police and social workers in northern England repeatedly refuse to investigate Muslim paedophile gangs: they said they are afraid of being called racist.
The disturbing details that emerged during the trial have opened yet another chapter in a long-running debate about multiculturalism in Britain, where many say that political correctness has gone too far.
Less than a month after the trial in Liverpool ended on May 9, it emerged that social workers in the City of Rotherham, also in northern England, had known for six years that a teenage mother (identified as Child S) who was murdered for bringing shame on the families of two Pakistani men who had used her for sex, was at clear risk from predatory Muslim gangs.
On May 29, Rotherham Council’s Safeguarding Children Board published a so-called Serious Case Review, but key politically incorrect passages which reveal that they had known she was at particular risk from “Asian men” (Muslim men) were blocked out with black lines.
The council went to court in an attempt to suppress the hidden information after an uncensored copy of the report was leaked to a British newspaper, but the legal action was eventually abandoned. The uncensored report confirmed that Child S had pursued dealings with 15 different agencies, and identified “numerous missed opportunities” to protect her; observers believe the agencies failed to do so because they did not want to be branded as racist.
Other cases of political correctness abound in Britain, where the enforcement of multiculturalism is endangering the exercise of free speech, threatening public order and undermining British culture.
In Leicester, a gang of Somali Muslim women, who assaulted and nearly killed a non-Muslim passer-by in the city center, walked free after a politically correct judge decided that as Muslims, the women were “not used to being drunk.”
In London, two Muslims, who laughed as they repeatedly raped a 24-year-old woman, had their sentences slashed after politically correct judges at an appeals court ruled that the men were not “dangerous.”
In Wiltshire, police pulled over an 18-year-old driver for a routine spot check. The driver was stunned when a police officer ordered him to remove the Flag of England from his car; apparently they said the flag could be deemed racist and offensive to Muslim immigrants. The driver thought the officer was joking until he was threatened with a £30 fine if he refused to remove it from view. Tory MP Philip Davies, who campaigns against political correctness, said: “How on earth can it be racist to fly your own flag in your own country?”
In Southampton, a racism row broke out after taxi passengers complained that foreign drivers could not understand English. A group of drivers responded by placing stickers in their taxis with the Flag of England, reading “English Speaking Driver” (photo here). The signs, however, were branded as “racist and offensive” by Town Hall officials, who threatened to strip the drivers of their operating license — and their livelihood — if they refused to remove them.
In Manchester, a 14-year-old girl was arrested by police for racism after refusing to sit with a group of five Asian students who did not speak English. The incident happened after the girl asked her teacher if she could switch groups because the Asian students were talking in Urdu, a language she did not understand. The teacher apparently responded by shouting at her, “It’s racist, you’re going to get done by the police.” After being fingerprinted and photographed, the girl was forced to spend three-and-a-half hours in a police cell on suspicion of committing a “section five racial public order offense.”
The million-pound mutt: Red Tibetan Mastiff becomes world’s most expensive dog
A red Tibetan mastiff has become the priciest dog in the world after being sold for 10 million Chinese yuan, or £945,000. Big Splash, or Hong Dong in Chinese, was bought by a coal baron from the north of China. The high price paid for the dog is a sign that the red Tibetan mastiff has become a status symbol in China, replacing jewellery and cars as a way for the super-rich to show off their wealth.Not only is red considered a lucky colour, but Tibetan mastiffs are thought to be holy animals, blessing their owners’ health and security. Tibetans believe the dogs have the souls of monks and nuns who were not good enough to be reincarnated as humans or into Shambhala, the heavenly realm. Owners of the breed have included Queen Victoria, King George IV and Genghis Khan – who supposedly took 30,000 of the dogs with his army in his bid to conquer Western Europe.