Thursday, September 22, 2011
During his third presidential debate, Obama had suggested that his “friend and supporter Warren Buffett” and all others who earn more than $250,000 could afford to pay more taxes so that he then hand out tax cuts for those earning less than the above amount. This reply was in response to a heated back and forth with McCain in defense of his infamous “spreading the wealth” comment which he had made to Joe the Plumber on the campaign trail.
Last month, Warren Buffett wrote an op-ed in The NY Times in which he lamented the false fact that he pays less tax percentage-wise than his secretaries. Buffett whined about being “coddled”, “spared”, and excluded from those who are forced to “share sacrifice” and ended with a plea for taxes to be increased on anyone earning more than a million dollars a year.
How considerate of Buffett to throw together those earning one million dollars a year, with individuals like him who earn close to one million a week! Many of these “millionaires” whom Buffett stamped as rolling in extra dough are actually struggling owners of small businesses for whom it’s beneficial to file their taxes as individuals. Adding an additional tax on their already overburdened backs is akin to a death blow for many. But who cares? Obama and his cronies certainly don’t.
Our intelligent president pounced upon the brilliant suggestion of his good friend after frantically seeking a reliable-sounding basis upon which he can announce another tax increase. Obama was desperate for the federal government to increase their income and thus pay off some of their debt in the hope that it will lead to a free pass to spend some more. In the ultimate act of thankfulness, Obama named his new money-grab the “Buffett Rule” with the explanation that “Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett.” The rule basically stated that “People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay.”
As Doug had already mentioned, AP had fact checked and found Obama’s statement, which was an almost verbatim repeat of Buffett’s claim, to be untrue.
Despite it being a blatant lie, Obama hasn’t backed off from his proposed plans. Nor has it dawned on him that if a specific group is overtaxed one should simply lower their tax rate rather than raising everyone else’s taxes so that everyone should be equally overtaxed. Although Buffett’s secretary may be overtaxed, so are most individuals in all brackets. Nevertheless, a low-income earner is forced to part with a smaller percentage of their income than those earning more than her.
Obama’s talk of removing loopholes is pure talk for it would affect many of his friends who’ve funded his past campaign and he’s relying on for 2012. Most of them are millionaires and billionaires who pay little or no taxes either because of loopholes and exemptions, or are flat out tax cheats. As Governor Palin had pointed out on Hannity last night, Berkshire Hathaway which is owned by Obama’s “friend” Buffett, currently owes the federal government over one billion dollars in back taxes which are almost a decade overdue. Buffett should thus send in the check plus whatever additional figure his heart desires instead of whining all day that he’s under taxed. Additionally, Obama’s buddies at GE got away scot free from paying any taxes “legally” via loopholes and exemptions despite the over fourteen billion dollars they took in. Actually, not only don’t haven’t they paid any taxes, they received over three billion dollars’ worth of tax credits courtesy of hard-working small business owners who haven’t gotten any connections with those in power.
So yes, there is a small group which comprise less than one percent of those who earned over a million dollars that have paid zero or close to zero in taxes. If you want to take them on, then by all means go ahead! Start with some of your buddies including GE, Buffett, GM, etc. and leave everyone else alone.
The Buffett Rule and any new tax hike are thus unnecessary, because the only ones that would actually pay the higher rate are those who are already way too overtaxed. Obama’s buddies will wiggle their way out while Buffett and others will leave it for the IRS to challenge in ten years from now. On the other hand, the Joe the Plumbers and other struggling shop owners will be forced to spit up the change.
It would be far more accurate and proper for those who oppose this new taxation to refer to it as “The Joe the Plumber Tax” because that is the class that will be hit the hardest. Raising taxes on all “millionaires” will be the equivalent of a death blow for many of the small guys while just an annoying splinter for the big guys like Buffett; that is if they’ll even bother to pay their share. Essentially, it will benefit those in the position like Buffett for it would ensure that none of the little guys will be able to threaten the security or standing of their companies.
This will further the creation of a socialist state where the rich remain rich while the rest of the nation is trapped in their current economical bracket. Entitlements have already ensured that the poor will remain poor. Stifling businesses and the middle class will ensure that they shall never rise to the top but remain stagnant or sink.
This article has been cross-posted from Conservatives4Palin.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Dennis Prager explains in regard to evils such as Nazism, that evil stems from a place unrelated to right, left, or center. It is therefore wrong of either side to call one another Hitler for seemingly acting in a manner which may be similar to that of an evil ruthless mass murderer. So too, is it incorrect to say that evil dictators such as Hitler are people who belong to either the right or the left, since while some of his actions have resembled liberal policies and others appear identical to conservative ideology, the evil atrocities he’s committed stem from neither of the two.
How and why is all this relevant?
There are many biased reporters on both sides of the aisle. Although being biased is incorrect and non-journalistic, acting upon personal blinding hatred results in far worse.
Janet Maslin, of The New York Times is a biased journalist whose work is often tinged with her personal support of liberalism. However, although she disagrees with conservatism and may have even chosen to disregard certain facts at times when it wasn’t in sync with her goals, she is aware of the line which one shall not cross. Same for Colbert I. King of The Washington Post. He’s no Palin-lover, yet understands that when a trash book loaded with lies and discrepancies is released, it is unrelated to liberalism or conservatism. Claiming that a mother of a child isn’t its mother and that a supposed bigot and racist had an affair with a black individual amongst other ridiculous fabrications, is an act of hatred spiraled out-of-control. Anyone who reported and repeated it as though it is factual and newsworthy is guilty of giving credibility to this outright liar who, by the way, was only capable of compiling these falsehoods several yards away from his prey while snooping and staring through their windows.
Unfortunately, conservatives such as Alex Pappas and Steven Nelson of The Daily Caller treated the author as though he’s a regular and “fair” journalist, and not the fabricator and hater he truly is. Alex then argued on twitter that the author might not have written all that hateful lies if Palin hadn’t posted a Facebook post against highlighting his rude behavior. Yeah. Such thinking surely explains his unfitting behavior even before her Facebook post, such as staring down her every move as she mowed the lawn. With this senseless claim, Pappas revealed his own underlying hatred towards Palin. Who else, but another hater, would gobble up the trash McGinniss has dumped on the streets?
The Daily Caller’s despicable actions of posting three articles which gave credibility to utter falsehoods can be understood after glancing at the matter from a seemingly unrelated angle.
Tucker Carlson, owner of the Daily Caller, had caused a storm of reactions last December while filling in for Sean Hannity, when he expressed his desire for Michael Vick to have been executed because of his cruelty towards dogs. Although he later retracted his comments saying he got “too emotional,” he “over spoke,” and is “uncomfortable with the death penalty under any circumstances”, his true view on the topic was clearly stated the first time around. When a person gets excited, one’s hidden emotions usually surface to the top and slips out.
Many eyebrows had shot up over his original comment. Although conservatives support the death penalty in certain scenarios such as when hard evidence is available against a serial killer etc., Carlson’s comments were considered by many as over the top. Despite having a strong and deep bond with their pets, they are nonetheless aware of the differences between a human and a non-human.
This also explains why countless conservatives who own and love pets disagree with PETA on many issues, since they understand that human life comes first while PETA often sides with animals at times when it’s detrimental for humans. Conservatives have protested the protection of a 3-inch long fish named delta-smelt, an endangered species, which has come at the expense and destruction of the livelihood for thousands of farmers in California because the water has been redirected away from their farms.
As a Jew, I’ve read and researched extensively about the Holocaust and have discovered this related piece of info. While the Nazis cruelly and gleefully slaughtered millions of humans, they were extremely overprotective and respectful of all pets and animals. When one’s respect for animals overrides the respect for humans, it can lead to the treating of humans as mere cockroaches. Of course there are many other aspects which caused the Nazis to commit their vile deeds, and by no means am I comparing Carlson or anyone else to Nazis.
However, consider the following. What is the harshest form of punishment in places the liberals haven’t yet outlawed it that can be meted out against a criminal? The death penalty. Vick’s cruelty deserved punishment. No one disagreed. But should a human life be snuffed out because of his cruelty towards animals? Or should the death penalty be reserved for heinous crimes against humanity? Carlson’ comments came from someone who officially opposes the death penalty at all accounts. Yet, he wished to see an animal killer executed because his love for his dogs had blinded him to think rationally, as he later admitted having been swept up with his emotions. Understanding Carlson’s tendencies to be blinded by his emotions which then results in illogical and irrational thought and behavior, explains somewhat the shameful and surprising behavior of him and his website the past week.
When a book chock full of lies is released, most people including many who don’t support Palin for the presidency and dislike her ideology and policies have been capable of remaining factual, logical, rational, and human. Carlson, however, allowed his blind hatred towards Palin to overtake his emotions and threw his support and belief behind a definite liar. Not satisfied, they then went on a hunt for a trash bag and found it in the form of a former rapist and criminal whose vile language is utterly inappropriate for any news site. They honored him with direct quotes of his dirty language having headlined the website for over twenty four hours.
When Dan Riehl called him out on his horrible behavior, several Daily Caller members threatened Riehl with a lawsuit. Only after a complete day passed, and Greta Van Susteren and others having joined Riehl in calling out the Daily Caller for their shamefulness, did they respond somewhat. No, the offensive material was not removed. Instead, an editor’s note was posted warning of vulgar and coarse language while continuing to defend the post as newsworthy. How despicable.
Carlson’s actions have at last clarified Prager’s words of wisdom; that hatred and evil is unrelated to party affiliation and includes people of both sides of the aisle. Until now I’ve thought of personal hatred such as against Palin and other conservatives to be owned by liberals. I couldn’t understand how a conservative can fall into the same category. The conservatives I listen to such as Limbaugh and Levin disliked liberalism with a passion yet never stooped to slandering them or their families personally. The same is true for many on the left such as Janet Maslin of the New York Times who haven’t crossed the line between disagreeing in philosophy and hating someone personally. Why, even Keith Olbermann whose hatred for Palin is old news and will never be mistaken for having the slightest bit of respect for her, had declared the book to have crossed the line and admitting he was on Sarah’s side this one time.
Tucker Carlson has illustrated the stark contrast between personal hatred and disagreement of philosophy. It doesn’t matter that Tucker Carlson is a conservative and not a liberal. As Greta had point out, there are times one must call out one’s friends. Quite a few conservative sites have remained silent in face of the Carlson’s wrongdoings and they too are thus guilty of crediting these shameful smears. Credit must be given to the handful of sites which have called out Tucker, though I won’t list them for fear of omitting someone, so here’s a general thank you to all who have refused to stoop as low as Carlson, and that includes many of the left.
This article has been cross-posted at Conservatives4Palin
Thursday, September 15, 2011
The Conservative Media is silent when a Conservative is attacked while the leftist NYT takes the deranged Hater to task
When a liberal loon goes on attack spree against Sarah Palin, even if one doesn’t support her for the presidency, were is the outrage? This is an embarrassment for the conservative movement.
Rob Port, an Alaskan Blogger, posted his email exchange with the narcissistic Joe McGinniss who attempted to twist events to fit his theme.
Here’s an excerpt of the article written by Janet Maslin of The New York Times who highlights some of the many discrepancies and contradictions throughout his book:
Mr. McGinniss explains that he was shocked, just shocked, at the angry response his presence in Wasilla provoked. But “The Rogue” makes the Palins’ widely publicized anger understandable, even to readers who might have defended his right to set up shop in their neighborhood and soak up the local color. Although most of “The Rogue” is dated, petty and easily available to anyone with Internet access, Mr. McGinniss used his time in Alaska to chase caustic, unsubstantiated gossip about the Palins, often from unnamed sources like “one resident” and “a friend.”
And these stories need not be consistent. “The Rogue” suggests that Todd Palin and the young Sarah Heath took drugs. It also says that she lacked boyfriends and was a racist. And it includes this: “A friend says, ‘Sarah and her sisters had a fetish for black guys for a while.’ ” Mr. McGinniss did in 2011 make a phone call to the former N.B.A. basketball player Glen Rice, who is black, and prompted him to acknowledge having fond memories of Sarah Heath. While Mr. Rice avoids specifics and uses the words “respectful” and “a sweetheart,” Mr. McGinniss eggs him on with the kind of flagrantly leading question he seems to have habitually asked. In Mr. Rice’s case: “So you never had the feeling she felt bad about having s-- with a black guy?”
He even finds a species of Alaska yenta willing to remark on the condition of the Palins’ toilet, and he too (many of these gossips are men) has a place in “The Rogue.” A journalist as seasoned as Mr. McGinniss surely knows what these details will do to his credibility regarding the book’s more serious claims.
You can read the entire article over here.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Two governors, two records, two polar opposite treatments.
One has been characterized by the media and the establishment as a great conservative and successful Governor who has been credited for everything positive that occurred in his state, from new jobs to low tax rates, with nary a mention of any of his failures or flaws. Many conservative websites also chose to ignore the left-leaning actions the individual has taken and crowned him as “the conservative candidate who can win” without a care to his past record.
The other governor was constantly falsely depicted by both parties plus the media as lacking positive policy, while ignoring her impressive gubernatorial record and her state’s economic boom during her governorship because of impressive steps she’s taken.
Although the distortions of these two Governors may appear for many as the straight facts, that’s because of the loads of misinformation that have been spread about them have washed over the facts. It is known however, that one can’t fool the people all of the time. Indeed, the time of falsehood has begun to fade away while the truth has started to emerge.
At the debate this past Monday, Rick Perry was challenged over his leftist-leaning positions including the Texas DREAM Act which he supported and signed, his executive order for the Gardasil vaccinations, and his relationship with Merck which is the maker of Gardasil.
Although some conservative sites continued to ignore or twist the topics in defense of Perry’s actions, the facts have now become available to millions of conservatives and Americans who’ve either watched the debate or saw it the next day on any of the major news sites.
Perry supporters have defended Perry’s support of the Texas DREAM act which gave illegals subsidies for education by comparing Perry’s actions to Reagan who had provided amnesty to millions of illegals yet is still considered a conservative by all.
Isn’t there a consensus amongst conservatives that Reagan’s act of amnesty was a trial which has failed since the borders have remained open despite promises of the left that it will be sealed shut? Once it has already become clear and obvious to all conservatives the flaws of amnesty why would Perry want to try it once again especially in light of the fact that Perry opposes a wall along the border?
Perry has also been crowned as a successful job creator and economy builder although the deficit has doubled under his watch and jobs only increased with 1% while having increased 4% under Bush’s leadership.
During the debate, Perry boasted of his state’s economic success didn’t go unanswered. He was taken to task by a fellow Texan, Ron Paul who reminded him of the increased taxes Texans currently face while the Texas deficit has doubled. Perry’s attempt to employ the overused excuse, that the large volume of people moving into Texas is proof of his greatness, no longer did the trick. The others were quick to point out that his response was off mark since although Texas is a great state it’s despite that Rick Perry is its governor, not because of it.
The conservative state legislature overturned his Gardasil executive order despite his hysterical protests and name callings. Which other state legislature would stop their governor from mandating his will onto the people? Not too many.
Perry and his supporters defend his failed attempt to force upon the people via executive order Gardasil by holding an apology flag in one hand, while playing the compassionate card in the other.
His false statement of having received only five grand from Merck was disproven within 24 hours with the correct sum which amounts to $29,500. Not quite the same, Mr. Crony Capitalist.
Additionally, the facts that he chose to mandate the vaccine instead of leaving it as an open option for parents (as in Alaska) and that he took the route of executive order rather than a vote in the legislature should be extremely troubling to conservatives.
Mandates and executive orders, although totally legal, signal a desire for power. I’ve actually pointed this out in the past regarding Romney and his defense of health care mandates which he defended as constitutional because of the tenth amendment. If a Governor seeks to strip citizens of their freedom of choice with the only defense for their decision being the tenth amendment, it spells trouble. It is an admittance that the politician is power hungry, and is only limited because of the law of the land and/or state. Which conservative wants such an individual to take control of the country? Are we looking to further stretch the limits of government or minimize the presence of government in our daily lives?
As the Perry lies begin to crumble, so do the lies surrounding Governor Palin, though the emerging light is of a completely different nature. Despite the distortions the media has hurdled about Palin, the truth has begun to emerge with more and more individuals discovering the unbelievable achievements of Palin.
The media has replayed for the last three years the newspaper sound bite out of a six hour Couric interview of which only half an hour’s worth of bits and pieces were made public so that the average individual should walk away with a negative impression of Palin. With the same goal in mind, they pretended that Palin had said she could see Russia from her home despite the fact that not Palin, but Tina Fey, had said that foolish statement. Palin’s quitting the governorship has likewise been overused against her while totally ignoring not only the sensible explanations which forced her to take the step, but the incredible lengthy list of accomplishments she had achieved when still in office.
No mention has been made of the sound economic policies she’d enforced despite opposition from both parties, including the slashing of earmarks, the establishment of a rainy day fund, and the reduction of future debt. The mainstream media and establishment have been chewing the unelectable meme for months while ignoring her previous victories when she won against all odds against a popular incumbent Governor and a popular former governor without the backing of her own Party, unlike Perry who initially ran in an open primary and needed the endorsement of Palin in 2010 in order to keep his seat. (As for the cries of many who question how Palin could have endorsed Perry if he’s such a crony capitalist who’s involved in shady dealings, when one has to choose between a complete RINO such as Kay Bailey Hutchison and a semi-RINO Rick Perry, then Perry is obviously the better choice of the two. If the presidential primary would be a choice between those two, the Palin would’ve endorsed Perry for president. However, that is not the case!)
With the spread of The Undefeated, Governor Palin’s Facebook notes, her books and recent speeches, many individuals have been stunned at the transformation of the Palin they’ve been told about and the truth about her knowledge, record, experience, and ideology.
Despite the media lies and attacks, the truth will prevail with even some in the media having as of late occasionally made the shocking discovery of the truth surrounding Palin. The liberal New York Times ran an article recently which raved Governor Palin for here anti-cronyism, anti-establishment anti-big corporations record. He expressed open surprise at her success in working with members of both parties which were ready to take on the corruption as well as her appeal to many independent voters. CNN‘s Don Lemon and James Delingpole of The Daily Telegraph have also joined the ranks that’ve become aware of Palin’s outstanding record and her articulate and common-sense directive for the future.
Although the media and beltway crowd have written Governor Palin off as irrelevant for the last three and a half years, a CNN poll released prior to the fourth debate found that not-yet-candidate Palin came in third, almost tied with Romney. Rick Perry, who’s got the backing of the conservative media and the establishment, got a grand total of 30% of the party’s support, while Palin who hasn’t announced a presidential campaign and has been slammed by the media, the left, and the establishment, received 15% of the party’s support. Imagine what that figure will be like after her campaign is launched and millions more are exposed to the true record of Governor Palin.
The media will largely continue to spread their lies in order to promote their agenda, but the truth has begun and will continue to overcome in regard to both Palin and Perry. While Perry’s and his supporters’ bluff are being blown away with the truth about him splashed across many sites, the lies surrounding Palin are disintegrating into dust the truth shining out for all to see.
Cross posted from Conservatives4Palin .
Here's the news via the NY Post:
Republican Bob Turner’s victory in the closely watched special election to replace disgraced Rep. Anthony Weiner delivered an unmistakable message to President Obama: Be afraid, be very afraid, of what’s coming down the pike in 2012.
That a Brooklyn-Queens district where Democrats outnumber Republicans 3 to 1 could swing to a GOP candidate who was outspent and outmanned -- and where unions poured in enormous resources in the final hours -- doesn’t bode well for a president facing re-election in a queasy economy.
Public Policy Polling minced no words when it reported Sunday that Assemblyman David Weprin, handpicked by Democratic leaders as their so-called sure-shot candidate, was undone by a president whose approval rating in the district came in at a dismal 31 percent.
“If Obama’s approval in the district was even 40 percent, Weprin would almost definitely be headed to Congress. He’s getting dragged down by something bigger than himself,” the polling group declared in projecting a Turner victory.
Down-ticket Democratic candidates next year won’t want to suffer similar fates. They could follow Weprin’s example and disassociate themselves from their party’s standard bearer -- just what a president in a difficult re-election campaign doesn’t need.
Certainly, there were other contributing causes to Weprin’s downfall.
His vote for gay marriage turned off Orthodox Jews.
Being an incumbent doesn’t help when the mood of the electorate is strongly anti-incumbent.
But there would have been no perfect storm for Turner without Obama in the mix.
The president also has to worry that the outcome will embolden former Mayor Ed Koch, who defied his advisers to turn what would have been a sleepy and predictable contest into a nationally monitored referendum on Obama and his position on Israel.
“Look what Koch did to [former President] Carter,” said one Koch pal. “When he thought Carter had people around him who were anti-Israel, he welcomed Ronald Reagan to Gracie Mansion. He didn’t endorse Reagan. But that made Reagan kosher in New York.”
New York is as solidly blue as it gets, so Koch’s hectoring from the sidelines won’t matter much here in 2012.
But there’s nothing to stop the ex-mayor from visiting a swing state such as Florida to pummel Obama in areas with heavy concentrations of Jewish voters.
Such a prospect is so frightening to the White House that it is already making entreaties to Koch.
Weprin’s loss is also a devastating blow to Queens Democratic leader Joe Crowley, who not only picked the wrong guy to represent his party but who now also has to ponder what to do with the 9th Congressional District, which he intended to dissolve in next year’s redistricting to create a safer seat for himself.
With the state slated to lose two House seats, there was a wink-wink deal for Weprin to step aside for the Democrats, while the GOP took out one of their own upstate.
Now Crowley has to find another sacrificial lamb.
Turner also looms as a threat who could challenge nearby Democratic Rep. Gary Ackerman should the 9th be traded away in the redistricting scramble.
Democratic congressional campaign leader Steve Israel can’t be happy to have squandered more than $500,000 on a losing effort to prop up Weprin when the money could have gone to other needy Democratic contenders.
It’s a real mess for a county leader who failed to measure the political pulse of his own county.