Responder
¡Bienvenido! Para que puedas participar, intercambiar mensajes privados, subir fotos, dar kudos y ser parte de las conversaciones necesitas estar ingresado en los Foros. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Zafiro
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Socialist Obama Envisions A Socialist America.

Socialist  Obama Envisions A Socialist America

Right Side News ^ | 4/9/2012 | J. D. Longstreet

 

Socialism IS Slavery -- To The  State!



so·cial·ism NOUN: 1. Any of various theories or systems of  social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is  owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls  the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between  capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the  dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.  (SOURCE)

The definition above clearly  describes Obama's agenda for America. Socialism.

Every time those of us who clearly see America's  President for what he is and dare to speak out publicly about the dangers to  American freedom and liberty Mr. Obama's agenda presents -- we are attacked as  ignorant boobs. The attacks themselves are a key part of the way socialism works -- silence those who would warn of the danger socialism  presents.

As Mr. Obama is campaigning for another chance to bring  America to her knees, there are those on the socialist plantation in America  preparing to flock to the polls and vote to draw the chains of socialism even  tighter around themselves and all Americans. They are the people the  fathers of Marxism and communism referred to as: “useful  idi..ots.”

Future historians will write of  the ignorance of the American electorate in the early 21st century and wonder at  their lack of reasoning. I sincerely doubt those future historians writing about  us will be Americans, however. By that time, the “American iron curtain” will  have fallen and we will be engulfed in the darkness of  communism.

My maternal grandmother had the ability to see short distances  into the future and make accurate predictions. Nothing was made of it. In our  family, it was something that was, well, just there. I grew up in an atmosphere  in which groping into the future, mostly with little success, was not uncommon  in our family. But, I sometimes think, a bit of my grandmother’s ability may  have been attached to my DNA. Frankly, I rather hope it has not.

If I remark that I have a bad feeling about something, my  family takes notice and plans accordingly. Me? I worry.

On one occasion, my family and I were going on a road trip. I  felt awful about it. Something was telling me, literally shouting in my mind “don’t go.” My wife was driving that day. A few blocks from home, I demanded  that she stop the car. She pulled over and I got out.

We had this protracted discussion at curbside as to why, I  didn’t want to go, and I could not give a reasonable answer -- except that  something was very wrong.

Finally, after a great deal of persuasion from both my wife  and my daughter, I got back in the car and we continued our road trip. About ten  miles down the hiway we had a head-on collision with a drunk driver attempting  to make a U-turn in front of us.

We were all belted but my passenger seat broke away from its  mount and my head crashed into the windshield smashing it (the windshield) and  giving me one heck of a headache.

The car was totaled.

The local hospital cleared us all with bruises, contusions,  and possibly a light concussion for yours truly.

That is just one example from many such, uh, “premonitions.” I  hasten to add that I believe all human beings have the ability to sense danger.  But it does seem to be more pronounced in some, for whatever reason.

 





True premonitions are rarely wrong. Science tells us that  premonitions are based on human emotions. That alone should cause us to question  them. But here’s the thing. Just being wrong once or twice causes one to wonder  WHEN is the feeling right—and -- WHEN is the feeling wrong. See the dilemma? It  will, most certainly, make a worrier of any person endowed (or cursed) with  them. It is, in my opinion, truly a curse.

No, I am not about to make a prediction! But I am  deeply worried/concerned about the coming Presidential Election -- and -- I am  about to issue a warning.

I am just as concerned about the coming Presidential Election  as I was over the auto wreck, I noted above. Those of us who live along  America’s southeastern coast know when the Coast Guard runs up the hurricane  warning flags, it is time to pay close attention and prepare for the coming  storm.

I fear for America. A storm is coming. Here’s why I  say that:

America is dangerously split. Our Congress is a very good  example of where the American people are at this moment in history – split,  divided. As a result, the election in November could just as easily swing one  way as it could the other. Many will disagree with me. I expect that, I respect  that, and I understand that.

The GOP has never gone up  against a candidate as devious, unscrupulous, and self-assured as Obama. Obama  is what I would call “neo-evil.” I do not think the Republicans are anywhere  near ready for that with which they are about to be  inundated.

Look. A man who will attack the Supreme Court in a  State of the Union Address – with the court sitting right in front of him, and  then issue thinly veiled threats at them, again, over the fifty-fifty chance  that his signature achievement – Obamacare – might be ruled unconstitutional -- is capable of doing whatever he feels is necessary to **noallow** a second term  as President.

Obama’s machine, and it is as  huge and powerful a political machine as this nation as ever seen (far exceeding  anything Romney and the Republicans can muster) has been at work since his first  election. They are dug-in in all 50 states just awaiting the word to begin  shredding the Republican nominee.

Obama has no problem comparing himself to Abraham  Lincoln, even Ronald Reagan when, in fact, he resembles Hugo Chavez in Venezuela  more than ANY past US President. Obama’s efforts within  his administration all seem to indicate that he is attempting to recreate a  Chavez regime here, in America.

A socialist is a person who has decided that  capitalism doesn’t work and is striving toward communism. Socialism is only the  middle phase between capitalism and communism. That middle phase is where Obama  is today and he is striving toward the latter -- and he intends to drag America  into the cesspool with him.

I am not going to predict that Obama will win in November. I  don’t think I need do that. I think just watching the campaign the next few  months will be all that is necessary to convince you that I am not just  whistling Dixie. Of course, by that time, it will be too late.

J. D. Longstreet is a conservative  Southern American (A native sandlapper and an adopted Tar Heel) with a deep  passion for the history, heritage, and culture of the southern states of  America. At the same time he is a deeply loyal American believing strongly in  "America First".· He is a thirty-year veteran of the broadcastingbusiness, as an  "in the field" and "on-air" news reporter (contributing to radio, TV, and  newspapers) and a conservative broadcast commentator.

Longstreet is a veteran of the US  Army and US Army Reserve. He is a member of the American Legion and the Sons of  Confederate Veterans.· A lifelong Christian, Longstreet subscribes to "old  Lutheranism" to express and exercise his faith.

Articles by J.D. Longstreet are  posted at: "INSIGHT on Freedom",· "Hurricane Alley... by Longstreet",· "The  Carolina Post" and numerous other conservative websites around the  web.·

Zafiro
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: Sir john pierdes el tiempo

[ Editado ]

Zimmerman family challenges Holder on New Black Panthers, says no arrests ‘based solely on your race’

By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller 04/09/2012

 

RACISTS


In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, a family member of George Zimmerman asked the nation’s top law enforcement officer why he has chosen to not arrest members of the New Black Panther Party for their rhetoric — some of which may fit the federal government’s definition of a hate crime — throughout the Trayvon Martin case.

The family member believes the reason Holder hasn’t made those arrests is because he, like the members of the New Black Panther Party, is black.

“I am writing you to ask you why, when the law of the land is crystal clear, is your office not arresting the New Black Panthers for hate crimes?” the family member wrote to Holder.

“The Zimmerman family is in hiding because of the threats that have been made against us, yet the DOJ has maintained an eerie silence on this matter. These threats are very public. If you haven’t been paying attention just do a Google search and you will find plenty. Since when can a group of people in the United States put a bounty on someone’s head, circulate Wanted posters publicly, and still be walking the streets?”

 

 

 

 

 

The New Black Panthers have issued ultimatums to the Sanford authorities, saying they want Zimmerman arrested “dead or alive.” They have placed a bounty on Zimmerman’s head, and have called for the building of an army of vigilantes to track him down and effect a citizen’s arrest.

Most recently, the New Black Panther Party has called for violence.

In a conference call recorded over the weekend, the militant group said it planned to “suit up and boot up” and prepare for the next stages of the “race war.”

So far, however, no members of the New Black Panther Party have faced legal consequences.

After citing the U.S. Department of Justice’s published definition of a “hate crime,” the Zimmerman family member wrote that there is “no other explanation” for Holder’s failure to authorize arrests of New Black Panther Party members, other than the fact that Holder himself is black.

“I would surmise that, based on your own definition of a hate crime, you have chosen not to arrest these individuals based solely on your race,” the family member wrote to Holder, insisting too that the was “NO racial component” to the “tragedy” that occurred on the late February night when Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin.

The Daily Caller has confirmed the identity of the Zimmerman family member but is withholding that person’s identity out of concern for the family’s safety.

The family member also criticized members of Congress who have forcefully criticized police for failing to arrest Georgfe Zimmerman, as well as “the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Spike Lee, [and] President Barack Obama,” adding that “many” who have commented on the case without having a complete understanding of the facts “no doubt understand the laws of our great nation.”

Noting President Obama’s White House event last week celebrating the 1960 novel “To Kill a Mockingbird,” Zimmerman’s family member drew a novel comparison to the American literary classic.

“Strangely enough this case has a lot of parallels to those of Harper Lee’s ‘To Kill a Mockingbird,’” the letter to Attorney General Holder read. “George Zimmerman has been treated much like Tom Robinson was, chastised for not being the right (or wrong) color and found guilty based on race factors.

“You have the opportunity to act as Atticus [Finch] and do the right thing. Your boss would refer to this as a ‘teachable moment.’”

DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler has not responded to The Daily Caller’s request for comment on why Holder hasn’t authorized the arrest of any New Black Panther Party members, nor has she answered whether that decision is related to Holder’s race.

Zafiro
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

How Obama Destroys His Enemies

How Obama Destroys His Enemies

By Ben Shapiro On April 9, 2012  In Daily   Mailer,FrontPage





President Obama has always disliked free speech as a  general  matter, particularly for those who oppose him. He frequently  suggests that those  who disagree with him simply lack the power of reason;  he constantly attacks  those who do not bow to his opinions. In the last  month alone he has directly  castigated the Supreme Court (it would be “unprecedented,” he said, for them to  strike down Obamacare); Rush  Limbaugh (he called up Sandra Fluke to tell her how  out of line Limbaugh  was); and Congress (if they don’t act on whatever it is he  wants, he will  go it alone).

But he has one problem: the First Amendment does  not  allow him, as president, to use the power of government to fight his  enemies.  Obama’s solution to this dilemma lies in 501(c)3 charitable  organizations  working in close tandem with the federal  government.

Here’s how it works.  First,  President Obama forges deep and abiding connections with  like-minded charitable  organizations. These are theoretically supposed to  be non-partisan, but they are  typically not – they have a direct line to  the White House. So, for example,  Media Matters for America coordinates  routinely with the White House on  important issues of the day. And they  are experts at initiating so-called  secondary  boycotts.

 



 

Their expertise was honed in the Don Imus affair, as the  Daily  Caller reported. When Imus made offensive comments about the Rutgers  women’s  basketball team, Media Matters sprang into action, coordinating  with other  allies and pushing for a boycott of advertisers on Imus’ show.  Soon, Imus was  gone.

They quickly moved on to Lou Dobbs. They attempted  to  force his advertisers to stop buying time on his radio show; in  particular, they  looked to put pressure on Ford. And they were successful.  By November 2009,  Dobbs had moved on from CNN, to Media Matters’ delight.

All this time, Media Matters  was  working with the Obama Administration. Anita Dunn, the White  House  communications director, met regularly with Media Matters to plot  strategy.  Media Matters had weekly calls with the White  House.

The stage was set. The actors were in   place.

Their first joint target  was  Glenn Beck. While the White House claimed that Fox News wasn’t a “real” news  channel, Media Matters worked the back channels, coordinating  with Color of  Change to “expose Glenn Beck’s racist rhetoric in an effort  to educate  advertisers about the practices on his  show.”

Once again, it had impact: Beck’s advertisers began  dropping  out. Fox stuck with him anyway, and Beck, being a terrific  businessman, came up  with alternative revenue strategies. But that didn’t  stop the Obama  Administration.

Next, they moved into a joint attack on Rush  Limbaugh.  The Sandra Fluke affair was entirely coordinated from the first.  While Rush’s  comments on Fluke weren’t expected, they also weren’t  particularly controversial – leftists have routinely called conservative women  sluts. And Rush quickly  apologized for the comment. Nonetheless, the  President and his allies in the  501(c)3 world went into full attack mode,  with Media Matters leading the charge,  working covertly with third party  groups to lead astroturfed boycotts on Rush’s  advertising  base.

Now Obama is moving his  strategy  to the next level: he’s targeting major corporations for working  with political  groups of any stripe. This week, Democratic legislators  began calling for a  boycott of Coca-Cola over their funding of the  American Legislative Exchange  Council, which pushes for voter ID laws. The  Democratic Party, which courts  voter fraud, despises voter ID laws. Thus,  Coke entered the crosshairs. Lo and  behold, within five hours of the  boycott announcement, Coke  caved.

This is all fine and dandy under the First  Amendment,  of course. Private 501(c)3’s can lead boycotts. Government  officials can speak  on issues of public importance. But the Obama  Administration’s secret dealings  with such 501(c)3’s to impose  non-governmental sanctions on companies that  sponsor those with whom they  disagree doesn’t pass the smell or sight test. The  odor is rancid and the  transparency nonexistent.

Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: How Obama Destroys AMERICA

OBAMA'S MAFIA GET RICH WITH THE GREENBAKC ENERGY  PROGRAM

THE NEW CLASS OF OBAMA'S PROTECTED  BILLIONARES

Some  get rich off taxpayers in Obama's greenback energy  program

Under the Obama Energy Department, a lot of people are winning  big by losing the taxpayers’ money. In the government-sponsored green energy  industry, working Americans have effectively handed millions in salaries and  bonuses to executives of companies on the road to bankruptcy. At the most famous failed solar company, Solyndra—to which the Obama  administration gave a $530 million loan guarantee—several executives were making  nearly half a million dollars a year, including large bonuses taken in the  months before the company filed for bankruptcy. For them, the failed endeavor  was extremely lucrative. Solyndra was hardly the only  taxpayer-backed firm that paid big bonuses while stumbling to bankruptcy,  however. As ABC News and the Center for Public Integrity recently uncovered in a report, Beacon Power, which received a $43  million loan guarantee, paid bonuses of about $260,000 to three individuals  before going bankrupt last year. Another company, Ener1, the recipient of a grant worth $118 million, paid its CEO a $450,000 bonus. In January,  it, too, filed for bankruptcy. Supposedly, the  Department of Energy approved these loans to foster an industry which the market  didn’t come close to supporting. Certainly most Americans, if they knew about  the program at all, did not imagine leaders at these startups paying themselves  millions in taxpayer dollars.

 



 

In 2009, after bailing  out many of the country’s   financial institutions, President Obama made executive  compensation  a  major political issue, proposing rules to limit it for firms that   had  received the taxpayer money. He observed that “what gets people upset — and  rightfully so — are executives being rewarded for failure.  Especially  when those  rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.” He  said these words  just weeks before  his administration made its  half-billion dollar  commitment to  Solyndra. Later that same year,  President Obama  demanded executives  at AIG return their bonuses, asking “How do they justify this  outrage  to  the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?”I   have a couple questions of my own. Why isn’t the   President just as concerned about the looting  of failed energy startups at   taxpayer expense? Why isn’t he demanding that   executives at Solyndra and the  other bankrupt green energy firms return their bonuses, since we were  keeping those firms afloat with  gigantic  and unjustified  loans? In truth, the real  scandal goes  far  beyond bonuses and salaries. Many of these companies were  dependent on  an  enormous amount of government support all along—far more  than  just a little  boost to get them going. Two   numbers give you a sense  of the scale of the bad energy bets the  Obama  administration is making. Several  weeks ago, in my newsletter  on the  transition to liquefied natural gas as a less  expensive  source of fuel, I  reported that Chesapeake Energy had invested more   than $150 million to  build a national network of LNG truck stops—an  investment  by a private  company to be supported by genuine  demand. President  Obama, on the other hand, is  putting taxpayer money into  dozens of risky  ventures. Last week yet  another green energy firm, Solar Trust  of America, declared bankruptcy after having  received  a  $2.1 billion loan guarantee from the Department  of   Energy. That loan guarantee is more than  the value of Regal Entertainment, the nation’s largest  chain of  movie  theaters, and about the value of HSN, the Home Shopping Network.  It’s one heck of a loan for a startup. And it put taxpayers on the   hook  for 14 times the amount Chesapeake invested in its far more  viable  project to  build a nationwide natural gas highway.Of course,  there could be a lot more where all this came  from.  The Energy Department’s  current loan program has approved  nearly $35  billion in total—more than $110  from every American  citizen. Feel like  you’re getting your money’s   worth?

Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

OBAMA'S WAR ON MOTHERHOOD,.

OBAMA'S WAR ON MOTHERHOOD,  DESPICABLE  ATTACK ON MRS. ROMMEY

Obama Advisor Attacks Cancer  Survivor,  Mother, Grandmother Ann Romney

By Katie Pavlich 4/12/2012

Photobucket

 

There's a war on women going on alright. Last week, I predicted the Left's next  attack  would land on Mitt Romney's wife, Ann Romney. Turns out I was  right. Appearing  on Anderson Cooper 360 last night, DNC and Obama advisor  Hilary Rosen claimed  Ann Romney had never "worked a day in her life,"  dismissing her work to raise  five healthy children. In case you're  wondering, stay at home moms are worth at  least $500,000 per year.

 

 

 

The attack was predictible because Ann Romney is capable  of  connecting to women on a very personal level. She's a breast cancer  survivor,  lives with multiple sclerosis, raised five children, has 16  grandchildren and  has been happily and faithfully married to a successful  businessman for 42  years. No wonder the Left sees her as a a threat,  especially the feminist Left,  who have been pushing women away from and  demonizing motherhood for decades. Not  to mention, Ann Romney is a  fighter. She created a Twitter account last night to  respond to Rosen's  attacks. Romney's son also jumped to defend his mom. Twitchy has more reaction.

 

Rosen implies Ann Romney isn't a qualified expert on women  and  the economy, but somehow "inside the Beltway looking out" Rosen is  qualified?  Please. Conservatives respect a woman's decision to choose a  career, motherhood  or both. Liberal feminists on the other hand see  choosing motherhood over a  career as a sin. Not to mention, maybe if  liberals weren't always demonizing and  punishing success, raising children  and having a career wouldn't be as hard as  they like to complain about. It  is hard, but would be easier without liberal  policies holding women and  families back.

Also, First Lady Michelle Obama has made   herself an "expert" by trying to reach out to military families when neither  she  nor her husband Barack Obama ever served in the military. Where is  Rosen on  that?

Photobucket

Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Obama Abuses Words as Clinton Abused Women.

Obama Abuses Words as Clinton Abused  Women

By John Ransom

4/13/2012

 

The most dangerous trend for the country over the last several  years isn’t the GDP trendline or the unemployment rate.

No.

It’s rather how liberals- especially Obama- have devalued and  degraded words into having different meanings than their original  intent.

In fact, they have perverted some of our best and most  innocent words in a way not unlike someone who seeks to corrupt a  virgin.

Words like “justice,” “fairness,” “racism,” “reform” and “equality” no longer can be used to support liberty and tear down barriers to  success. Instead they are erected like armed forts in the midst of an occupied  population. 

Liberals have destroyed what is best and most innocent about  these words: their ideals.

In doing so, they have carefully corrupted some of the  country’s best ideals into political whores with only one purpose: to satisfy a  political desire in return for money.

It doesn’t matter to progressives. They’ll take cash, tax  credit or tax increase. You pick.    


 


Today, for example, the word “justice” no longer has a moral  or **noallow** value.

Instead, “justice” demands that we convict someone of a crime  before an investigation is even complete, as we see with George Zimmerman. It  demands the lynching- either in fact or in effigy- of “white” people as  atonement for the sins of the past in a kind of political Passion  play.

“Justice” demands that race and gender become a determining  factor in the outcome of everything- court proceedings, elections, tax reform  and the debate about entitlements.

It means that the Associated Press can write that whites’ negative feelings about blacks could cost Obama the election while completely  ignoring the statistical fact that for blacks the single most important  attribute driving black votes is skin color. 95 percent of blacks voted for Obama, while 4  percent voted for McCain.     

So, the word “racist” now means any person who stands against  destructive, progressive ideas, like confiscating wealth.

The word “racist” can only apply to white males- or female  turncoats who support conservative causes. The word “racist” can be applied  selectively by progressive bigots who want to shame “race traitors” by labeling  them “monkeys in the window.” But despite the progressive bigots’ overt “all-racism-all-the-time” they can’t be called  racists.  

“Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must  ultimately have political and economic causes,” wrote George Orwell in Politics and the  English Language. “It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are  foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have  foolish thoughts.”

It also makes it easier for us to have corrupted ideals. Obama  is using language carefully to corrupt our ideals, as Orwell  demonstrated would happen in an undefined progressive future in both Animal  Farm and 1984.

The word “profit,” too, has been corrupted by  Obama.

Obama has reverted “profit” to the discredited Marxist  definition that all profit is just excess value produced by workers and then  raked off by capitalists; capitalists who now need to pay their “fair share.” Even as Karl Marx acknowledged that his theory of profits had gone wrong, it  hasn’t stopped Obama from ripping free market capitalism’s “greed.”

"It was tried in the decades before the Great Depression. It  didn't work then. It was tried in the last decade. It didn't work," Obama said  about free markets and income growth.

He says this despite objective evidence that the “free  markets” that we have had under each administration prior to Obama’s have been  responsible for the steadiest increase in average income in the history of the  world.

We have had a century of prosperity. And Obama calls it “greed.” Obama says it doesn’t work.   Sure income growth may have  leveled off a bit. But it’s still growing, as is our standard of living if you  discount the Obama years.

src="http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-conte​nt/uploads/2006/08/avg_income.gif"  border="0" width="1024" height="663" />

“Greed” is now synonymous with the dirty word “profit” as long  as it’s associated with capitalists. Greed by union workers in the form of  rising taxes, unaffordable entitlements and state spending, however, is  pur-fect-ly fine for progressives.

A tax credit going for the purchase of a government-approved  automobile into the pockets of a family making more than $200,000 isn’t “greed” at all- it’s noble even.

It’s all part of the general “reform” package of  progressives.

They are “reforming” healthcare, which is already a huge,  ungovernable bureaucracy, by making it even more unwieldy, bureaucratic and  ungovernable.

When we have to pass a “reform” bill and see it in operation  before even knowing what the effect will be, that’s the definition of  ungovernable. And of course anyone who opposes the melding of the meaning  of the word “ungovernable” with the word “reform” is “racist.”

We’ve had energy policy “reform” as well.

That variety of “reform” has led to higher gas prices at the  pump and less availability of our most abundant domestic energy sources, coal  and oil.

And the billions in subsidies given out to Obama’s cronies to  support our anti-energy energy policy has just been the chump change of “reform.”

In no way should we confuse the green energy “greed” with the “greed” showed by the bankers who tried to get everyone to buy a home- as  directed by the federal government in the name of “equality.”

For Obama progressives, words have stopped being noble things,  valuable things, despite the high-sounding rhetoric in which words are always  carefully corrupted by them.

Words for liberals have instead become a deconstructed and  debased metal that is meant to glitter in the eye, even as it corrodes from the  inside.

“As man sows, so shall he reap,” said Charles Chestnutt, who wrote about  racism in post-Civil War America. “In works of fiction, such men are sometimes  converted. More often, in real life, they do not change their natures until they  are converted into dust.”

While Chestnutt has a point, progressives pondering his  meaning would likely choose to change the meaning of the word “dust” rather than  change their own nature.

There’s an election coming up after  all.      


"Like" me on Facebook and you'll get sneak  peaks of columns and, as an added bonus, I will never raise your taxes. Send me  email and I just might mention you on Sunday.  

 

John Ransom is the  Finance Editor for Townhall Finance. You can follow him on twitter @bamransom and on Facebook:  bamransom.

 

Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

OBAMA Y LA VENTA DE ARMAS A LOS NARCOS

Darrell Issa: Fast and Furious Far From Over

By Katie Pavlich 4/14/2012



 

ST. LOUIS- Entering the Edward Jones arena to  an applauding audience at the NRA Annual Convention in downtown St. Louis  Friday, Congressman Darrell Issa made it clear his congressional investigation  into the Operation Fast and Furious scandal isn’t  going away until the Obama Justice Department comes clean. “The  investigation of Operation Fast and Furious will not end until the full truth is exposed to every American,” Issa said, adding senior officials at the Department of Justice will be held accountable for the lethal program, including Attorney General Eric Holder. “Eric Holder’s contempt for Congress and his failure to comply will not go unanswered, and you can count on me,” Issa said as a woman yelled, “Thank you!” It is  not news that the Obama Justice Department has, and continues to, stonewall  Issa’s House Oversight Committee in their constitutional quest for DOJ documents  and information.



“They have been disingenuous in their answers, they have in  fact ignored exactly what this president promised not to ignore,” Issa said. “He  promised we would have the most open and transparent government everywhere.” Many on the Left have tried to brush the scandal off as unimportant, not significant and a waste of time to discuss.  Members in Congress have called Issa’s motives “politicized,” but the facts tell  a different story. During a conference call with bloggers last September, Issa said he planned to wrap up his investigation by the end of 2011, but because of continued stonewalling and hostile behavior from the Obama Administration, we  still don’t have answers and the investigation is ongoing.  Issa attempted  to end the investigation months ago, before the political season  started. “Many will say this is a witch hunt, I will  tell you, Brian Terry’s family has told me just the opposite,” Issa said. “They  cannot believe a family dedicated to law enforcement cannot get answers from its  own country.” Issa also touched on the motivations  behind Operation Fast and Furious and how liberal Democrats in Congress have reacted to revelations in the scandal.  “Fast and  Furious can be seen as nothing else but a needless attack on our right to keep  and bear arms,“ Issa said. “When the facts began to come out about Fast and  Furious, no surprise, Democrats in Washington, immediately seized on the  opportunity to talk  about the need for additional gun control  laws.” For months, I have been stressing the importance of understanding Operation Fast and Furious was not a “botched” program or an  accident. Instead, DOJ officials made calculated decisions to allow some of the  most ruthless criminals in the world to help themselves to American guns, while  throwing law abiding gun dealers under the bus. “Understand that federally licensed gun dealers warned ATF about wrong  doers, expressed their concerns and were forced to sell anyway," Issa said. “Emails made it clear that Fast and Furious was an organized program from the start to walk guns into the hands of drug cartels in Mexico." Issa promised to get to the bottom of Fast and Furious in the coming  few weeks, but made it clear setting a timeline wasn’t going to stop him from  getting the truth. “I will not quit until both  families [Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata] get the answers they  deserve.”

Zafiro
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

“Greenbacks” energy boondoggles versus real energy.

“Greenbacks” energy boondoggles versus real energy

Government tax and subsidy schemes waste billions. We need real energy and jobs.

 

- Paul Driessen April 14, 2012

Having had it with $4-per-gallon gasoline and the Obama Administration’s squandering billions of taxpayer dollars on phony “green” energy schemes, angry voters have told their senators “Enough!”

Their calls provided sufficient spinal implants in enough senators to defeat three proposals to extend the wind energy “production tax credit” (PTC). The credit gives wind project developers taxpayer greenbacks whenever they generate high-priced electricity, even if there is no market for the power at the time it’s generated. Worse, the PTC is paid on top of other subsidies, fast-tracking of wind projects through environmental review processes, and exemptions from endangered species, migratory bird and other laws.

Confronted by the gale of public outrage, Senate Democrats tried a new tack.

They offered an amendment that would eliminate various tax deductions for five major oil companies, turn the supposed new revenue stream into more subsidies for wind turbine, solar panel and electric car makers – and use any leftover crumbs to “pay down” the skyrocketing budget deficit they helped engineer.

The ploy needed 60 votes – but got only 51, despite President Obama’s vocal support. “Members of Congress,” the president said, “can stand with big oil companies, or with the American people.”

Not exactly. The American people are no longer buying the partisan rhetoric. They increasingly understand that new taxes and restrictions on oil companies are not in their best interest. In fact, a recent Harris Interactive poll found that over 80% of US voters support increased domestic oil and gas production to create and preserve jobs, lower pump prices and increase government revenues.

They realize that only 12% of what they pay for gasoline goes to oil companies for refining, marketing and distribution. Another 12% is state and federal taxes. Fully 76% is determined by world crude oil prices – and thus by global supply and demand, and confidence or fear about world events.

They know that eliminating tax deductions for expenses incurred in producing and refining oil is the same as imposing new taxes. Those taxes would result in curtailed drilling and production, reduced royalty revenues, worker layoffs, still higher gasoline prices, and increased costs for everything we grow, make, transport and do with petroleum. Blue collar, poor and minority families would be hurt worst.

Every US business claims deductions for new equipment, facility depreciation, utilities, payroll, research and other expenses. This ensures that businesses, like individuals, recover their costs and get taxed only on their net incomes. Five oil companies should not be punished as the sole exception to this rule.

Legitimate expense deductions are very different from subsidies. Subsidies involve government taxing individuals and profitable companies, and transferring their money to politically favored companies and products that could not survive without perpetual support.

The system is even more insidious when subsidized entities return substantial portions of their taxpayer largesse as campaign contributions to President Obama and other politicians who arrange the wealth transfers. It’s still worse when hard-earned taxpayer money is used to reduce risks for wealthy investors who buy into boondoggles arranged by bureaucrats who are much better at choosing losers than winners.

As voters are learning, the Solyndra, Evergreen, Fisker, A123 and dozens of other “green energy future” scandals and insolvencies are only a small part of the subsidy cesspool.

Subsidies, punitive taxation schemes and “alternative,” non-hydrocarbon energy are often justified by claims that we face imminent man-made catastrophic global warming. In reality, virtually no empirical evidence supports hypotheses, assertions or computer model projections about melting polar icecaps, average global temperatures, storm frequency and intensity, sea levels and other natural phenomena.

Wind, solar and biofuel energy are also justified by claims that we are running out of oil and gas. In fact, America is blessed with vast proven petroleum reserves and even greater undeveloped prospects that government has made off limits. The natural gas and hydraulic fracturing revolution is merely a hint of the energy, jobs and revenues Americans could produce, if certain politicians would end their obstinacy.

“Renewable” energy is further justified by claims that petroleum “keeps us trapped in the past.” In truth, we need to worry about the present, especially our unemployment and debt crises. Oil and gas provide 60% of America’s energy. By contrast, despite untold billions in subsidies, wind and solar combined still provide barely 0.60% – and are unlikely to do much better for decades to come.

The $2-billion Shepherds Flat wind project in Oregon’s Columbia River Gorge area involved $500 million in outright subsidies, plus a subsidized loan guarantee of $1.1 billion for General Electric, plus production tax credits. At the whim of the winds, its 338 gigantic turbines will generate electricity for California, in wild swings between zero and their combined rated capacity of 845 MW – chopping up eagles, falcons, herons, bats and other protected species as they spin.

In 2010, GE generated over $5 billion in US profits – but paid no US income taxes, and no fines for the thousands of protected birds and bats that its Cuisinart wind turbines slaughtered.

By contrast, White House villain ExxonMobil (one of the companies targeted by the failed tax bill) earned $30.5 billion in profits that year, on revenues of $383 billion, paid $1.6 billion in US income taxes, and made combined lease bonus, rent, royalty, tax and other federal payments of almost $10 billion. When a few birds are killed on oil company property, companies pay substantial fines.

President Obama promised that he would “fundamentally transform” America and ensure that electricity prices “will necessarily skyrocket.” His Energy Secretary has said Americans should pay $8-10 per gallon for gasoline. His Environmental Protection Agency and Interior and Agriculture Departments have systematically foreclosed access to our nation’s oil, gas, coal and uranium resources.

Meanwhile, Mr. Chu’s Department of Energy recently awarded $10 million of taxpayer money to Philips Lighting for making an “affordable” light bulb – that costs $50 per bulb!

And it is working overtime to promote, subsidize and install thousands of onshore and offshore wind turbines that generate too much ultra expensive electricity when it’s not needed and too little when it’s most needed, require too much land and too many raw materials, kill too many birds, cost too much money, and require perpetual subsidies and exemptions from environmental laws that apply to all traditional forms of energy.

This “green” energy “future” is unsustainable.

Oil companies do make a lot of money because they produce, refine and sell enormous quantities of fuel and other petroleum products. But they pay billions in taxes and royalties – and produce real energy.

Wind, solar, algae and switchgrass companies take billions in Other People’s Money. They pay virtually no taxes, and provide virtually no usable energy, except in the minds and press releases of their promoters.

Expecting that higher taxes on oil companies will produce more oil at lower prices is like saying we will get cheaper bread, and more of it, by eliminating tax deductions for bakeries’ electricity and equipment.

American voters and consumers understand this. It’s time our elected officials and unelected bureaucrats did likewise.


 

Zafiro
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: Sir john pierdes el tiempo

Good Economists
By Walter E. Williams
4/18/2012
 

It's difficult to be a good economist and simultaneously be perceived as compassionate. To be a good economist, one has to deal with reality. To appear compassionate, often one has to avoid unpleasant questions, use "caring" terminology and view reality as optional.

 

Affordable housing and health care costs are terms with considerable emotional appeal that politicians exploit but have absolutely no useful meaning or analytical worth. For example, can anyone tell me in actual dollars and cents the price of an affordable car, house or myomectomy? It's probably more pleasant to pretend that there is universal agreement about what is or is not affordable.

If you think my criticism of affordability is unpleasant, you'll hate my vision of harm. A good economist recognizes that harm is not a one-way street; it's reciprocal. For example, if I own a lot and erect a house in front of your house and block your view of a beautiful scene, I've harmed you; however, if I am prevented from building my house in front of yours, I'm harmed. Whose harm is more important? You say, "Williams, you can't tell." You can stop me from harming you by persuading some government thugs to stop me from building. It's the same thing with smoking. If I smoke a cigarette, you're harmed -- or at least bothered. If I'm prevented from smoking a cigarette, I'm harmed by reduced pleasure. Whose harm is more important? Again, you can't tell. But as in the building example, the person who is harmed can use government thugs to have things his way.

How many times have we heard that "if it will save just one human life, it's worth it" or that "human life is priceless"? Both are nonsense statements. If either statement were true, we'd see lower speed limits, bans on auto racing and fewer airplanes in the sky. We can always be safer than we are. For example, cars could be produced such that occupants could survive unscathed in a 50-mph head-on collision, but how many of us could buy such a car? Don't get me wrong; I might think my life is priceless, but I don't view yours in the same light. I admire Greta Garbo's objectivity about her life. She said, "I'm a completely worthless woman, and no man should risk his life for me."

Speaking of worthlessness, I'd be worthless as an adviser to either the White House or Congress because if they asked me what they should do to get the economy going, I'd answer, "Do nothing!" Let's look at it. Between 1787 and 1930, our nation suffered both mild and severe economic downturns. There was no intervention to stimulate the economy, but the economy always recovered.

During the 1930s, there were massive interventions, starting with President Herbert Hoover and later with President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Their actions turned what would have been a sharp three- or four-year economic downturn into a 10-year affair. In 1930, when Hoover began to "fix" the economy, unemployment was 6 percent. FDR did even more to "fix" the economy. As a result, unemployment remained in double digits throughout the decade and reached 20 percent in 1939. President Roosevelt blamed the high unemployment on his predecessor. Presidential blaming of predecessors is a practice that continues to this day.

You say, "Williams, the White House and Congress should do something." The track record of doing nothing is pretty good compared with doing something. None of our economic downturns in the century and a half prior to 1930 lasted as long as the Great Depression.

It would be political suicide for a politician to follow my counsel -- and for good reason. Americans have been miseducated into thinking that Roosevelt's New Deal saved our economy. That miseducation extends to most academics, including economists, at our universities, who are arrogant enough to believe that it's possible for a few people in Washington to have the information and knowledge necessary to manage the economic lives of 313 million people. Good economists recognize our limitations, making us not nice people to be around.

Walter E. WilliamsDr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of 'Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination?' and 'Up from the Projects: An Autobiography.'
Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

OBAMA/CORZINE Y EL DESFALCO DE $1,800 MILLONES

Unbelievable: Jon Corzine still bundling mega-bucks for  Obama’s campaign

Hotair ^ | 04/20/2012 | AllahPundit

 

The information's hiding in plain sight but it’s still a nifty  catch by the Standard’s Daniel Halper. You know why? Because the idea  that Jon Corzine is still raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for The One  is so insane and implausible, virtually no one would have thought to check. Of coursethat's not happening. Of course.

And yet.

He's in the $500,000+ club for the first quarter of this year,  the most elite group there is among O's cash cows. You know what else happened  during that quarter? News broke that more than a billion dollars in MF Global  client funds had apparently been “vaporized” in the firm’s collapse, with investigators  clueless as to where the money might have gone. As recently as last month, new  evidence emerged pointing to Corzine’s direct involvement in using clients’ cash to cover  the firm’s debts. And yet, presumably, he was squeezing his rich friends for  dough for Obama the whole time. Ace asks a good question: “Why is a man under  investigation by a government agency permitted to raise money for the man who  controls that agency?” Wouldn’t be the first time Corzine’s used his political leverageto personal advantage.

If you missed it a few days ago, read Ed’s post on Patrick  Kennedy claiming that the White House rewards its rich donors with certain quid pro quos. Can’t wait to see what Jon Corzine gets in return for his extreme  diligence on behalf of the “Not a Republican” reelection effort. Exit question: Does  Team O understand that transparency is supposed to act as a deterrent to  impropriety or the appearance of impropriety? They love to pat themselves on the  back for voluntarily disclosing the names of their bundlers, but the point of  disclosure is that it dissuades you, at least in theory, from dealing with  cretins lest you be scrutinized for it. Where’s the dissuasion, guys?

 

LA MADRE DE TODOS LOS DEFALCOS,  CORZINE DONA MILLONES A OBAMA MIENTRAS DEFRAUDA ¡$1,800 MILLONES A SUS  CLIENTES!!!

 



 

 

OBAMA/ CORZINE, UNA MANO LAVA LA  OTRA...

LA MAFIA DEMOCRATA EN PLENA  ACCION

 

 

QUID PRO QUO...  LA MAFIA  DEMOCRATA