Why Liberals Think What They Do

"Did California’s redistributive elite really believe that they could all but shut down new gas and oil production, strangle the timber industry, idle irrigated farmland, divert water to the delta smelt, have 37 million people use a highway system designed for 15 million, allow millions of illegal aliens to enter the state without audit, extend free medical programs to 8 million of the most recent 11 million added to the population, up taxes to among the highest in the nation, and host one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients — and not have the present chaos?"

 By Victor Davis Hanson

Here's the full column...

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/why-liberals-think-what-they-do/

Reader Suggests Tolerance of Muslims

From a British perspective: This was a reader's 'letter to the editor ' published in the "SUN on Sunday"...

Tolerance .. I am truly perplexed that so many of my friends are against another mosque being built in London on the Thames? I think it should be the goal of every Englishman to be tolerant. Thus the Mosque should be allowed, in an effort to promote tolerance.

That is why I also propose that two nightclubs be opened next door to the mosque, thereby promoting tolerance from within the mosque. We could call one of the clubs, which would be gay, "The Turban Cowboy", and the other a topless bar called "You Mecca Me Hot."

Next door should be a butcher shop that specializes in pork, and adjacent to that an open-pit barbeque pork restaurant, called " Iraq o' Ribs."

Across the street there could be a lingerie store called "Victoria Keeps Nothing Secret ", with sexy mannequins in the window modeling the goods.

Next door to the lingerie shop there would be room for an adult sex toy shop, "Koranal Knowledge ", its name in flashing neon lights, and on the other side a liquor store called "Morehammered."

All of this would encourage the Muslims to demonstrate the tolerance they demand of us, so the mosque problem would be solved. If you agree with promoting tolerance, and you think this is a good plan, please publish my letter.

An Inconvenient Cooling

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) 

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

By David Rose
UPDATED: 00:38 EST, 29 January 2012

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
 

A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age.

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.
We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

More...

• Hotter summers 'may kill 5,900 every year', warns first national risk assessment of climate change
• Winter bites back: Britain braced for first cold snap of year as ice and snow transform countryside in scenes of breathtaking beauty
• What are the mysterious blue balls that fell from the sky over Bournemouth?

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a  92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid. 

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest  a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’
He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming. 

CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998. 

So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.

‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the  Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand. 

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’. 

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years . 

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997. 

The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.
‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’

Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific. 

‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’

Free Stuff

The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

And, the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.

And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

Now... the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the  free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason?

The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 236years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. We have one chance to change that in 2012. 

Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.

Salaries: A Window into the Liberal Mindset

(Click Image to Enlarge)

The salary increases the Obama administration gave to their White House staff demonstrates the open disdain they have for your tax dollars, especially in such troubled economic times.

The message: To hell with the taxpayer, we believe so much in government that we are going to take care of our own at your expense.

The Closure Of The U.S. Oil Refinery Industry

In The Past 2 Years In 2010, there were 149 operable U.S. refineries with a combined capacity of 17.6 million barrels (2,800,000 m3) per day. Something odd started happening in late 2010-early 2011. The US oil refinery industry quietly announced the closure of numerous US oil refineries.Many are completely unaware the US ships oil overseas to be processed. We do so, as we do not have enough refineries to process the vast amounts here, and, we are barred from building anymore refineries. All refineries perform three basic steps: separation, conversion, and treatment. Pretty simple.

Several reasons include technical and economic factors as to why we ship it overseas to be processed.

1. The crude petroleum is sold to the highest bidder, NOT the nearest bidder

2. There are different kinds of crude oil, such as sweet/light and dark/heavy. They have different applications and uses.

3. Different kinds of refining processes are needed to make different products from the crude oil. Petroleum is processed to make lots of products other than gasoline, like plastics and asphalt.

4. Politics, unions and the "environmentalists"

How many of you are aware Sunoco, ConocoPhillips and The HESS Corp are all closing US oil refineries? Not many, as the media refuses to give this HUGE story coverage. My guess is that if Americans understood the complete truth to how we are being sold out, and enslaved there just might be the much needed revolution to turn this country around.

Last September, both Sunoco & COP announced plant closing, effecting thousands of workers. Sunoco announced they are completely getting out of the oil industry. Closing up shop. They are done with the US oil industry.

Sunoco is closing it's 2 oil refineries in July 2012 in Philadelphia and Marcus Hook, Pa. Those 2 facilities alone process over 500,000 barrels a day.   http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=8343372

Also last year, ConocoPhillips announced 2 plant closings for sure in Trainer, PA and Bayway, NJ., the other 3 plants are undecided as of today.  http://stillwaterassociates.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=139:us-east-coast-refinery-for-sale-whos-buying&catid=40:white-papers&Itemid=155

Conoco also announced they were closing their Alaskan refining facility:http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2011/09/28/news/doc4e828f2ba723a246763254.txt

Just a week ago, the US 3rd largest oil refinery owned and operated by The HESS Corp just announced it's permanent closure. Costing over 2,000 jobs, and affecting 950 contractors:  http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/16543753/major-oil-refinery-to-close-in-us-virgin-islands
 
Refineries on the East Coast of the US supply 40% of the gasoline sales and 60% of the diesel and other fuel oils.
 
Of that, HALF that comes from the Sunoco & ConocoPhillips plant closures. When ConocoPhillips announced that it was closing the Trainer refinery, Willie Chiang, then ConocoPhillips' Senior Vice President of Refining, Marketing, Transportation and Commercial, noted that their decision to sell, like Sunoco's, was based on unfavorable economics caused by a competitive and difficult market environment characterized by "...product imports, weakness in motor fuel demand, and costly regulatory requirements."
 
They are ALL closing up shop due to gov regulations, union demands and excessive operating costs brought on by the Gov regulations.
 
Then you have the unions, led by Barry's buddy, Leo Gerard, saying they will close ALL US oil refineries starting from the east coast to west coast today.   http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/23/usa-oil-refinery-labor-idUSS1E78M0T620110923
 
The unions are shutting down ports, rail and air across the pond right now......the SAME EXACT thing they plan on doing here. When the ships stop importing, the rails & air stop delivering....how much is everything you consume going to cost? Remember...we are a CONSUMING country, no longer a producing one.  http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/News.aspx?ElementId=37873cee-2b75-4aa0-86ac-5336e56a4c04
 
The excessive and costly gov regulations on the US oil refinery market has forced companies to re-evaluate the cost of doing business in the US.
 
Why have operations in the US where you bleed money via regulations & demands, when you can have refineries built in Columbia, Mexico or Brazil for pennies on the dollar, and less regulations?
It's all business America ...nothing personal.

Besides.....your gov is giving BILLIONS to Columbia and Brazil to build refineries to process all that oil the US is losing.

We are building up every country on earth, while destroying our own....all in the name of redistribution of wealth.

I covered some of these "deals" Barry inked in my previous note:
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003192895784&sk=notes#%21/note.php?note_id=145148522268243 You do the math. When the US oil refineries finally close up shop, who will process all that oil....and how much do YOU think that oil will cost when it's ALL processed over seas?

Think gas and energy costs are high right now? Wait 6 months. You haven't seen anything yet.

For You Undecided Voters

The U.S. Military Still Uses Bayonets, Mr. Obama

The Numbers Don't Lie

 

1. $15 Trillion spent on welfare programs since Great Society launched
2. 80 current federal social welfare programs
3. $2.3 dollars spent on welfare for every dollar spent on defense
4. Welfare spending has jumped 23% since 2008
5. Poverty rate was 15% at the launch of Great Society
6. Poverty rate today is still 15%
7. Net benefit of federal welfare spending: Zero

Media Double Standard

by Warner Todd Huston 19 Oct 2012, 3:01 AM PDT
 
Us Magazine had a little tidbit of gossip when it discovered who made Ann Romney's and Michelle Obama's hot pink dresses worn to the recent presidential debate. In its headline Us blares that Ann Romney's dress cost "$1,690." But Michelle Obama's ensemble was priced at $3,290 despite the silence of the headline. 

Us gives the world the following headline: "0."In the body of the piece Us reports this description of Ann Romney's couture.Romney, 63, selected a short-sleeved crimped cotton silk dress by Oscar de la Renta. The Spring 2013 design is not yet available in stores, but retails for $1,690.I expect we are supposed to find it shocking, downright shocking, that a millionaire could afford to fork out nearly $1,700 for a frock.

And yet, "public servant" Michelle Obama's outfit was almost twice as costly as Romney's.Obama, 48, styled a shift dress and cropped jacket from Michael Kors' 2013 resort collection. The dress retails for $1,795 and the jacket is $1,495.Notice that Mrs. Obama’s getup rings in at a hefty $3,290 while Ann Romney’s is just over half that. So, why wasn't the headline about Michelle? Her cost was more shocking than Ann's. 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/18/Us-Touts-Expense-of-Ann-Romney-s-Dress-Buries-Higher-Cost-of-Michelle-Obama-s

The Fruits of a Govt Run Business are...Nothing

Volt No Jolt: LG Chem Employees Idle

Factory has yet to ship out a single battery

Updated: Friday, 19 Oct 2012, 5:14 PM EDT
Published : Thursday, 18 Oct 2012, 4:58 PM EDT 

By Ken Kolker

HOLLAND, Mich. (WOOD) - Workers at LG Chem, a $300 million lithium-ion battery plant heavily funded by taxpayers, tell Target 8 that they have so little work to do that they spend hours playing cards and board games, reading magazines or watching movies.

They say it's been going on for months.

"There would be up to 40 of us that would just sit in there during the day," said former LG Chem employee Nicole Merryman, who said she quit in May.

"We were given assignments to go outside and clean; if we weren't cleaning outside, we were cleaning inside. If there was nothing for us to do, we would study in the cafeteria, or we would sit and play cards, sit and read magazines," said Merryman. "It's really sad that all these people are sitting there and doing nothing, and it's basically on taxpayer money."

Two current employees told Target 8 that the game-playing continues because, as much as they want to work, they still have nothing to do.

"There's a whole bunch of people, a whole bunch," filling their time with card games and board games," one of those current employees said.

That employee says some workers are doing odd jobs around the building, including cleaning and maintenance, while others hang out in the cafeteria playing video games, Texas hold-'em and Monopoly or doing Sudoku or crossword puzzles -- all on company time. The employee said some watch movies.

"There's no work, no work at all. Zero work," another current employee said. "It is what it is. What do you do when there's no work?"

They told Target 8 they didn't want to talk on camera or be identified because workers signed a confidentiality agreement.
Randy Boileau, a Holland-based public relations specialist who was spokesman for LG Chem , says he no longer represents the company.

Target 8 left a message at the plant's security station and left a message with the company's receptionist. The receptionist would not transfer the call to a company manager.
The Target 8 investigation has led the Washington, D.C.-based Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board -- an oversight agency for the federal stimulus program -- to take action.

"We are sending this to the Inspector General, Department of Energy, for his review," said Ed Pound, spokesman for the board. The Inspector General's Office would decide whether to open an investigation. Pound refused further comment.

Some workers at the Holland plant have quit or are looking for jobs. Others have started helping local non-profits on company time.

"I thought it might be a decent place to start a career, lots of places to move up," said one former employee, who left the job this summer.

"You can only do nothing for so long. There were days, sitting around all day doing nothing. ... I didn't play a whole lot of cards," said the worker, who added, "I bailed out of a sinking ship."

Those left behind are on furlough -- one week off without pay every four weeks.

The plant all started with such great hope, and a presidential groundbreaking in July 2010.

"This is a symbol of where Michigan is going, this is a symbol of where Holland is going, and this is a symbol of where America's going," President Barack Obama told a crowd at the groundbreaking.

Nicole Merryman was among the first in line for a job.

"It was something exciting, and I thought it would be better for the family, more overtime, more money," said Merryman, who said she worked on a line that folded the battery cells.

The company's goal: 300 employees pumping out 15 million battery cells a year. Its biggest customer: The Chevrolet Volt.

The U.S. Department of Energy provided a $151 million grant, part of Obama's Recovery Act.
The Korea-based company recently said it has 200 employees, and the company's most recent federal filing shows 100 of them are funded through the Recovery Act grant.
The company has spent $133 million so far, most for construction and equipment, records show. About 40% has gone to foreign companies -- mostly to Korea, a Target 8 analysis shows.

The company also spent more than $533,000 of that federal grant for the groundbreaking, records show.
A Target 8 analysis of federal records shows taxpayers spent $7 million to train workers and have paid more than $700,000 for workers' health and dental insurance.

There's millions of dollars more at stake for LG Chem if it doesn't keep hiring, or if its job numbers fall. The state approved a $25.2 million job-creation state tax credit over 15 years, and a battery cell state tax credit worth $100 million over 4 years. Both are tied to job creation.

LG Chem has yet to file claims for that money, state officials said.

We Built It. You Broke It. We'll Fix It.

President Obama’s Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures

Ashe Schow

October 18, 2012 at 8:25 am

The Foundry 
 

It is no secret that President Obama’s and green-energy supporters’ (from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.

The truth is that the problem is widespread. The government’s picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a success. It simply means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies that would’ve found the financial support in the private market.

So far, 36 companies that have received federal support from taxpayers have either gone bankrupt or are laying off workers and are heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.
The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

1. Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*
2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
4. Beacon Power ($69 million)*
5. AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)
6. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
7. SunPower ($1.5 billion)
8. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
9. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
10. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
11. Amonix ($5.9 million)
12. National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)
13. Fisker Automotive ($528 million)
14. Abound Solar ($374 million)*
15. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
16. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)
17. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
18. Schneider Electric ($86 million)
19. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
20. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
21. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
22. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
23. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
24. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
25. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
26. Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*
27. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
28. LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*
29. UniSolar ($100 million)*
30. Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*
31. GreenVolts ($500,000)
32. Vestas ($50 million)
33. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million)
34. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
35. Navistar ($10 million)
36. Satcon ($3 million)*

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.
The problem begins with the issue of government picking winners and losers in the first place. Venture capitalist firms exist for this very reason, and they choose what to invest in by looking at companies’ business models and deciding if they are worthy. When the government plays venture capitalist, it tends to reward companies that are connected to the policymakers themselves or because it sounds nice to “invest” in green energy.

The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain.

Posted in Energy and Environment, Featured

Definition of Irony

Socialism

From the Grapevine

At approximately 2:30 pm, September 6, 2012, I entered the Publix store on Main St. in Gainesville, FL to pick up a few items.  I gathered my items and went to the 14 and under register to check-out.  The person in front of me (a white female, approximate age 35-43, fake nails, big braided hairdo, clean clothes, carrying a purse and a plastic drinking cup) put her purchase on the check out surface ONE GRAPE. 

Yes, that is correct ONE GRAPE. The cashier asked if that was all, she replied yes.  The cashier then weighted the GRAPE and told the women the cost was $.02 (TWO CENTS), the women then pulled out her Food Stamp EBT card and swiped it through the credit card machine, requesting $24.00 in cash back.  The cashier asked if she wanted the GRAPE, the woman replied no and the GRAPE was put in the garbage can.  The register recorded the sale as .02, cash back $24.00.  The cashier gave the woman $24.00 and she folded it up, put it in her pocket, and left the store.

As the next person in line I asked the cashier as a tax payer what in the hell just happened here she said she was on the clock and could not comment. I then asked if I had actually seen this person purchase and discard a GRAPE, then get cash back on her Food Stamp EBT card. The cashier responded that it happens all day every day in their store. She also said that if the person buying the GRAPE has it ring up over .02 they get mad and make her reweigh it.

My next comment was to ask the cashier if she planned to vote in November and she said she could hardly wait for 11/6/12 to get here as one tax payer to another.  

How many more of these insane programs can we taxpayers take? Personally, I've had it with ANY politician who doesn't have the intelligence to solve social problems EXCEPT by throwing our tax $$$ at losers and leeches who have zero interest in trying to help themselves.  Arghhhh!!!!  If we don't start fixing things with our votes in November, we can kiss our country goodbye!!  

Vice Presidential Debate II

The Vice Presidential Debate I

Top U.S. Earners Pay Larger Share of Taxes

Liberals should be required to read this TWICE and digest the concept that LOWER TAX RATES result in HIGHER TAX REVENUES to the government and they result in MORE TAXES PAID BY THE RICH. Until they understand this fundamental economic principle they will always rail against conservatives and the rich as evil and selfish...

New book shows U.S. top earners pay larger share of taxes than any other industrialized nation

The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore has just come out with a new book titled Who's the Fairest of Them All?: The Truth about Opportunity, Taxes, and Wealth in America and he reveals some interesting information about how much the top ten percent of income earners in the United States pay in federal income taxes as opposed to any other industrialized nation in the world.

According to Moore, these earners pay almost half (45 percent) of the country's total taxes. This conclusion flies in the face of the liberal concept that top earners in the U.S. are not paying their "fair share" in taxes. Moore explains:

"The United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay taxes than even many of the more socialized economies of Europe. According to the Tax Foundation, the United States gets 45 percent of its total taxes from the top 10 percent of tax filers, whereas the international average in industrialized nations is 32 percent. America’s rich carry a larger share of the tax burden than do the rich in Belgium (25 percent), Germany (31 percent), France (28 percent), and even Sweden (27 percent)."

Moore also delves into what the "47 percent" of America actually pays and receives from the federal government and that the perception that the middle class is shrinking is a myth. In fact, the actual trend has been an upward mobility and a better standard of living for the middle class and lower income earners in the last 25 years. 

The Heritage Foundation has been arguing these facts for years. Consider what happened each time the U.S. reduced the tax rate significantly: 

1920s: The top tax rate fell from 73 percent to 25 percent, yet the rich (in those days, those earning $50,000 and up) went from paying 44.2 percent of the tax burden in 1921 to paying more than 78 percent in 1928. 

1960s: President John F. Kennedy slashed the top tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. In the ensuing three years, those making more than $50,000 annually saw their tax payments rise by 57 percent, and their share of the tax burden climbed from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.  

1980s: The Reagan years saw the top rate fall from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1988. What happened to the rich? The top 1 percent went from shouldering 17.6 percent of the income tax burden in 1981 to paying 27.5 percent of the total in 1988. The top 10 percent saw their share of the burden climb from 48 percent in 1981 to over 57 percent in 1988.

Additionally, more tax revenue went back to the federal government each time the taxes were lowered. So does it really make it sense to strip the upper income earners of their keep? Liberals have yet to answer how that ever improves the lives of the middle class or lower income earners in the long run.

 http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/oct/9/picket-new-book-shows-us-top-earners-pay-larger-sh/print/ 

The Dam Letter

SUBJECT: DEQ ... File No.97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec 20; Lycoming County

Dear Mr. DeVries:

It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity:

Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond.

A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department's files shows that no permits have been issued Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated.

The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at downstream locations.. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 2010.

Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action..

We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

David L. Price
District Representative and Water Management Division. 

Re: DEQ File
No.. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Lycoming County

Dear Mr. Price,

Your certified letter dated 11/17/09 has been handed to me. I am the legal landowner but not the Contractor at 2088 Dagget Lane, Trout Run, Pennsylvania ..

A couple of beavers are in the process of constructing and maintaining two wood 'debris' dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond.  While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use of natures building materials 'debris.'

I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time and/or any place you choose.  I believe I can safely state there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic. 

These are the beavers/contractors you are seeking.  As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they must first fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity.

My first dam question to you is:
(1) Are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers, or
(2) Do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request?

If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through the Freedom of Information Act, I request completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued.  (Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated.)

I have several dam concerns.  My first dam concern is, aren't the beavers entitled to legal representation?  The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said representation -- so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer.

The Department's dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event, causing flooding, is proof that this is a natural occurrence, which the Department is required to protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling them dam names.

If you want the damed stream 'restored' to a dam free-flow condition please contact the beavers -- but if you are going to arrest them, they obviously did not pay any attention to your dam letter, they being unable to read English.

In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream.  They have more dam rights than I do to live and enjoy Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection lives up to its name, it should protect the natural resources (Beavers) and the environment (Beavers' Dams).

So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more elevated enforcement action right now.  Why wait until 1/31/2010?  The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice by then and there will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them.

In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention to a real environmental quality, health, problem in the area.  It is the bears!  Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone.  If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your dam step! The bears are not careful where they dump!

Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.

THANK YOU,

RYAN DEVRIES & THE DAM BEAVERS

TRACING THE VAST UNTRACEABLE DONATIONS OF OBAMA’S DONORGATE

Written by Dagny D'Anconia

Wednesday, 10 October 2012

Even CBS News is now calling it Foreign-Donor-Gate . As Obama's coffers approach the 1 billion dollar mark, the Government Accountability Institute released a report that finally alarmed the mainstream media. Hundreds of millions donated to the Obama campaign may be illegal - but Obama's people are shrugging their shoulders, laughing all the way to the bank.  They consider the foreign donor funds to be untraceable and unknowable. However, what if we knew how to make these suspicious transactions traceable?   Imagine the power of knowing the country, the bank and the details of how the numbers were generated.  The stakes could not be higher. Back in 2008, two-thirds of Obama's fundraising haul during the final phases of his campaign were untraceable .  This election cycle it is much worse:  70% of the donations through Obama.com are from foreign sources , and only 2% have records kept on them.  The vast majority are less than $50 and, as such, no records are required by law to be kept. Not only is Obama's campaign failing to use the 3 digit security code for donations, the Obama donation website, obama.com , has also been set up to allow the internet address of the donator to be spoofed :     "An anonymous tipster mentioned that checking out the source code of the Obama donation website... would reveal some interesting logic. Specifically that IP addresses of the donors can be easily spoofed through a hidden field in the form. The tipster's guess was that the Obama campaign is recording the spoofable IP address... not the real IP address as delivered by the web server.     Put simply, there's no reason to include a hidden form field for IP address. It is there for one reason alone: IP forgery -- forging the computer addresses of donations to disguise their true sources." Furthermore, Obama.com is owned not by the Obama campaign but by Robert Roche , a resident of Shanghai China.  Roche has visited the Obama White House 11 times in the last 4 years and boasts of his special favors from and connections to the Chinese government. Donations this time around are largely under the $50 limit, evading the requirement to save the data on their origin. The sheer quantity of these low-value donations, from untraceable sources, strongly suggests an operation to accumulate campaign cash from illicit sources. Given the false IP addresses, and the use of the lower limit, how can we trace these millions? Fortunately, I have access to a patriotic gentleman who for the last decade has been running credit card companies.  He knows this field inside and out.  According to him:   "Prepaid cards in many countries are as easy to get as cash but that is not what Obama is experiencing.  What they did in my opinion with the raising of $200 million in September 2008 from debit cards was find a friendly offshore bank to issue a prebuilt file of prepaid credit cards to fake names in random amounts under the $200 reporting limit.  No actual cards ever existed just computer files that were merged into a Point of Sale software program and presented for acquisition of the money.  There are plenty of sources out there where $200 million is chicken feed like China, Soros, Russia etc.  The trick is a ‘paper trail' of where the funds originated.  If the allegation is that somehow a million people went out and purchased a million prepaid debit cards and then got on the Obama online system and poured these through to the Obama Campaign coffers - that is pure bull feathers. The key is, the bank or banks that are cooperating in this fraud can easily be traced by the transaction data.  Just a piece of data that shows how much time, seconds or milliseconds spacing you have between the entry of those transactions will tell you if these are legitimate transactions or the product of having run a prebuilt file with many thousands of cards imbedded.  Every transaction inbound and outbound is time stamped.  There is an authorization number associated with that as well. There is no doubt in my mind Obama did this in the 2008 election.  I don't think it should be hard to make a circumstantial case that Obama's support in 2008 was not from his supposed constituents in the USA and in fact it was single donors with massive donations outside the United States electronically generated into files of supposed debit cards.  They are probably sequential or as close as debit cards get.  If you can get any of the full 16 digit numbers we have people who can tell you what country, what bank and what BIN was used to transact the fraud." Thus, if any law enforcement or other security or watchdog entity can get those numbers, we can see where it came from.  China?  Russia?  The Sinaloa drug cartel in Mexico?  We can even identify the bank that performed the fraud.  Imagine the impact this would have on the election if people knew that most of his money was coming from such sources! The 16 digit transaction ID on each transaction can show us where it came from, and using the transaction time stamps, we can determine whether donations were made by real people or an automated system. In 2008, people were concerned about Obama's use of these methods to skirt donation limit laws.  However, after 4 years of watching Obama, we can now see that skirting donation laws was probably the least harmful aspect of his donation fraud.   When we look at the way America has been systematically been weakened militarily, economically, and our allies betrayed, we have to consider this credit card fraud in context. This is a strategy to overwhelm the system to ensure donation laws can not be reasonably enforced. It is a tactic prescribed by Saul Alinsky. Like the Occupy movement or massive voter fraud by ACORN, the goal is to create a tidal wave effect crippling the ability and willingness of authorities to handle criminal misbehavior. We have the crime against America and the culprit.  We know the motive: to "fundamentally transform" the United States, destroying the American system and replacing it with something else. Destruction of the American System is a goal echoed by Socialist groups across the nation for decades. We are only missing the money trail behind the donation fraud that put Obama into power to achieve that clearly stated goal.  Any foreign or domestic enemy could be behind it - or it could be a collaborative effort.  Consider the following cast of suspects: *The Sinaloa drug cartel has received favors from the Obama administration, specifically in the form of the Fast and Furious gunwalker scandal, as well as sabotage of border enforcement. *Many banks have been surviving at the mercy and whim of the Obama administration.  Stimulus money, special interest rates, leaked economic intentions, and the threat of prosecution for perceived crimes or racism all compromise the banks, both here and overseas.  There are also the foreign banks who received American Taxpayer funded bailouts during the first round of stimulus spending.  They too have the means and motive to supply "untraceable" donations. Do you think any bank would complain to the government if there were any problems with deposits to the Obama account?  Furthermore, who is going to prosecute the crooks if Obama wins the next election?  There is no incentive for a bank to blow the whistle on money coming in from fraudulent sources when the business can come under attack by the heavy hand of a vengeful Administration. *SEIU employees of restaurants etc. have access to credit card numbers.  These could be used by their union. Similarly, organizations like ACORN's subsidiary "Project Vote" have been intimately associated with the Obama machine and could be involved with supplying credit card and debit card files .            *Islamists and their affiliated terrorist organizations can donate through this unsecured system.  This could help explain the Obama administration's war on the Catholic Church and Christianity in general.  It may also explain his support for the Muslim Brotherhood and the numerous prominently placed Obama Administration officials with close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. *Wealthy Middle Eastern backers could easily donate to Obama.  Could this help explain Obama's insane war on domestic energy sources, including the vetoing of the Keystone Pipeline?  Does this also explain Obama's bowing to Middle Eastern potentates and groveling speeches of apology in the Middle East? *Adversary nations, such as Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China all have the incentive to keep Obama in charge.  Not only has Obama weakened the American economy, he has also damaged our military in countless ways including its openly gay policy, cutting funding, putting American soldiers in unwinnable situations, and withdrawing from secured territory.  These adversary nations have clear incentives and could easily arrange for donations to Obama.  Any military adversary would want Obama in charge. Adversary nations also harbor the criminal hackers who are part of a very mature and multi-billion dollar industry that reaches around the world.  Chinese hackers?  Russian mafia or FSB?   Rouge nation military such as Iran or North Korea?  All the above would gladly take part in a chance to help Obama get elected and reelected.  There is an active market in stolen credit card numbers, many without the 3 digit security code, the address, or the name of the owner.  They too could be put to use through a donation to Obama. See how this makes more sense in context of the Obama credit card fraud?  He needed them to get elected and now he needs them to get re-elected. Our patriotic expert in credit card systems adds:   "No question about it being fraud in my opinion with Roche and a bank in China involved.  The whole scheme could take place in one room and never involve a real card.  A stolen card used to make a donation would never be repaid because of the jurisdiction.  The cardholder or the American Bank would simply lose that money. If they are allowed to accept credit or debit cards, the acquiring account should be here in the United States only so we have control over the process and are able to investigate any suspected wrongdoing.  Outside the United States and especially in China investigation would be impossible.  The Chinese are buying themselves a President but then they probably already own what shares are not taken by the Moslem Brotherhood." Will we demand the data that can show where the money came from?  Or will we go on allowing our country to be purchased at the ballot box once again?  We know where that road leads. Dagny