Sunday, December 9, 2012

FLASHBACK: 7/20/12 Syria's Chemical Weapons Came From Saddam's Iraq!

IBD EDITORIALS ^ | July 20, 2012

War On Terror: As the regime of Bashar Assad disintegrates, the security of his chemical arsenal is in jeopardy. The No. 2 general in Saddam Hussein's air force says they were the WMDs we didn't find in Iraq.
King Abdullah of neighboring Jordan warned that a disintegrating Syria on the verge of civil war puts Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons at risk of falling into the hands of al-Qaida.
"One of the worst-case scenarios as we are obviously trying to look for a political solution would be if some of those chemical stockpiles were to fall into unfriendly hands," he said.
The irony here is that the chemical weapons stockpile of Syrian thug Assad may in large part be the legacy of weapons moved from Hussein's Iraq into Syria before Operation Iraqi Freedom.
If so, this may be the reason not much was found in the way of WMD by victorious U.S. forces in 2003.
In 2006, former Iraqi general Georges Sada, second in command of the Iraqi Air Force who served under Saddam Hussein before he defected, wrote a comprehensive book, "Saddam's Secrets."
It details how the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria in advance of the U.S.-led action to eliminate Hussein's WMD threat.
As Sada told the New York Sun, two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, and special Republican Guard units loaded the planes with chemical weapons materials.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...

Deal or no deal, ObamaCare taxes poised to hit next month

Fox News ^ | December 8, 2012

Even if lawmakers somehow stop the Bush-era tax rates from expiring, taxes are still expected to rise on Jan. 1 -- thanks to a trio of new fees tied to the federal health care overhaul.
The IRS this past week published rules for some of the first major taxes meant to help pay for President Obama’s massive insurance coverage expansion. Together, they will raise investment and income taxes on top earners and impose a separate -- and controversial -- tax on medical devices.
The bundle of fees has been largely overlooked as lawmakers and the White House bicker over the Bush tax rates, with Republicans demanding they be extended for everyone and Obama insisting rates rise for top earners. But that same group of earners is already in the crosshairs under the ObamaCare tax rules published this week.
Starting Jan. 1, investment income for individuals earning over $200,000 and households earning over $250,000 will be subject to a new 3.8 percent tax. Further, regular income above those thresholds will be hit with a .9 percent Medicare surtax. Should the Bush tax rates expire for those workers, those increases will be compounded...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

PETA Crashes Biker Gathering… Not to be missed…



The Steady Drip – by RightBill

Try to read this without laughing out loud… H/T Mike Hoy
What a wonderful coming together of two diverse groups! We need more gatherings where the idiot activists are given warm, moist, aromatic welcomes like this one. This is why PETA usually protests women wearing fur rather than bikers wearing leather. Sounds to me like the old saying, “you mess with the bull, and you get the horns”. Gee, I guess these characters thought that Bikers where going to be politically correct like the rest of the wimpy world.

HERE’S HOW POLICE FOUND ONE OF THEM.

Johnstown, PA (GlossyNews) – Local and state police scoured the hills outside rural Johnstown, Pennsylvania, after reports of three animal rights activists going missing after attempting to protest the wearing of leather at a large motorcycle gang rally this weekend. Two others, previously reported missing, were discovered by fast food workers “duct taped inside fast food restaurant dumpsters,” according to police officials.
“Something just went wrong,” said a still visibly shaken organizer of the protest. “Something just went horribly, horribly, wrong.”
The organizer said a group of concerned animal rights activists, “growing tired of throwing fake blood and shouting profanities at older women wearing leather or fur coats,” decided to protest the annual motorcycle club event “in a hope to show them our outrage at their wanton use of leather in their clothing and motor bike seats.”
“In fact,” said the organizer, “motorcycle gangs are one of the biggest abusers of wearing leather, and we decided it was high time that we let them know that we disagree with them using it, ergo, they should stop.”
According to witnesses, protesters arrived at the event in a vintage 1960′s era Volkswagen van and began to pelt the gang members with balloons filled with red colored water, simulating blood, and shouting “you’re murderers” to passersby. This, evidently, is when the brouhaha began.
“They peed on me!!!” charged one activist. “They grabbed me, said I looked like I was French, started calling me ‘La Trene’ and duct taped me to a tree so they could pee on me all day!”
Still others claimed they were forced to eat hamburgers and hot dogs under duress. Those who resisted were allegedly held down while several bikers “farted on their heads.”
Police officials declined comments on any leads or arrests due to the ongoing nature of the investigation; however, organizers for the motorcycle club rally expressed “surprise” at the allegations.
“That’s preposterous,”said one high-ranking member of the biker organizing committee. “We were having a party, and these people showed up and were very rude to us. They threw things at us, called us names, and tried to ruin the entire event. So, what did we do? We invited them to the party!
What could be more friendly than that? You know, just because we are all members of motorcycle clubs does not mean we do not care about inclusiveness. Personally, I think it shows a lack of character for them to be saying such nasty things about us after we bent over backwards to make them feel welcome.”
When confronted with the allegations of force-feeding the activist’s meat, using them as ad hoc latrines, leaving them incapacitated in fast food restaurant dumpsters, and ‘farting on their heads,’ the organizer declined to comment in detail. “That’s just our secret hand shake,” assured the organizer.
“Something just went wrong,” said a still visibly shaken organizer of the
protest. “Something just went horribly, horribly, wrong.” Yes, it did. What went wrong is that, at some point in your life, you became horribly, horribly stupid.

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/12/peta-crashes-biker-gathering-not-to-be.html

Nearly one third of CO2 emissions occured since 1998, and it hasn’t warmed !

Watts Up With That? ^ | December 6, 2012 | Guest post by Tom Fuller

The physics behind the theory of global warming are solid. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we’re emitting industrial levels of it, with China now in the lead for emissions. A significant portion remains in the atmosphere for a fairly long time, though the residence time is widely disputed. This residence of CO2 retards the cooling of the Earth and temperatures warm as a result.

One of the few non-controversial datasets in climate change is the Keeling curve, the graph of the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere reproduced here:
Keeling
Figure1 The Keeling curve Image: Scripps Institute
We see concentrations rising steadily from 315 parts per million in 1960 to 395 ppm last year. It’s close to 400 ppm now.
Human emissions of CO2 caused by burning of fossil fuels and production of cement have risen similarly:
Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type
Figure 2 global emissions Image: Wikipedia
Emissions have climbed at an even higher rate than concentrations.
And the third data source to look at (for simplicity’s sake–we could actually look at dozens of data sources) is temperature changes. This chart shows the global average temperature change from a ‘normal’ 30-year range from 1950-1980. It comes from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, led by scientist James Hansen.
GISS global temperature anomalies
Figure 3 GISS global temperature anomalies Image: NASA GISS
This shows a fairly constant rise in temperatures since 1978.
Once again, you don’t have to be a climate scientist to think that there seems to be a connection. The physical theory published first by Svante Arrhenius over 100 years ago and elaborated on by a century’s worth of scientists has observational evidence that tends to confirm it. I certainly believe in it.
In fact, I believe that global temperatures will probably rise by about 2 degrees Celsius over the course of this century. The difference in estimated temperature rises from different sources almost always comes from the differences in estimated atmospheric sensitivity to concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. Having extra CO2 in the atmosphere warms the atmosphere, which is presumed to produce more water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas and would contribute more warming than the CO2 by itself. How much extra warming would ensue is pretty much the heart and soul of the debate over global warming.
Those who think that there isn’t much of an additional effect (that sensitivity of the atmosphere is low) have been chuckling very publicly because temperatures haven’t risen very much (if at all) since the big El Nino year of 1998. This is not hugely surprising, as the shape of the data is uneven, a sawtooth with ups and downs that can last a decade or longer. But it is happening at an inconvenient time politically for those who are worried that sensitivity is high. They are trying to get the world to prepare for warming of 4.5C or higher, without much success.
Here’s what temperatures look like more recently.
hadcrut-3-global-mean-1998-to-2012
Figure 4 Hadcrut3 global mean temperature 1998 to 2012 Image: Woodfortrees.org
By itself, this chart doesn’t explain very much. As I said, it is not uncommon or unexpected for the temperature record to have flat or declining periods that last a decade or more.
However, I have a problem. The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) has estimates of how much CO2 humans have emitted since 1750. (Confusingly, they convert the CO2 to tons of carbon with a fixed formula.) That chart is the first one way up there at the top of the post. It rises dramatically
But looking at the data global.1751_2009 (3), one thing jumps out at me. CDIAC writes “Since 1751 approximately 356 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production.” And they helpfully provide an Excel spreadsheet showing their estimates by year.
And almost one-third of that number, 110 billion metric tonnes, have occurred since that time in 1998 when temperatures reached their temporary plateau.
19986644
19996611
20006766
20016929
20026998
20037421
20047812
20058106
20068372
20078572
20088769
20098738

Above: Table1, CO2 emissions by years, million metric tonnes – data CDIAC
Because heat moves somewhat sluggishly through the earth’s oceans, and because there is a lag factor in other earth systems, we do not expect a hair-trigger reaction to increases in CO2 emissions and concentrations.
But one-third of all human emissions of CO2 have occurred since 1998. And temperatures haven’t budged as a result.
This does not ‘disprove’ global warming–at all. I still believe that temperatures will climb this century, mostly as a result of the brute force effect of the 3,000 quads of energy we will burn every year starting in 2075–the reason I started this weblog.
However it makes it exceedingly difficult to use the past 15 years as evidence of a very high sensitivity of the atmosphere to CO2 concentrations. And it makes me feel more comfortable about my ‘lukewarm’ estimate of 2C temperature rises as opposed to the more alarming 4.5C rises put forward by some of those who are most active in the movement to reduce emissions drastically.
And it makes me wonder about why people don’t include relevant data when they discuss these issues. Is it really that politically incorrect to show real data, even if that data doesn’t advance your case?
Tom Fuller blogs at: 3000Quads and is co-author with Steve Mosher of the CRUTape Letters.

The Great "HOW TO WIN ELECTIONS" Wars (tea party vs. insiders)

The Tea Party Tribune ^ | December 4, 2012 | Jonathon Moseley

Almost every challenge facing the Republican Party boils down to one issue: How is it possible for Republicans to win elections? The GOP establishment fights, undermines, lies to, and betrays conservative Americans because GOP insiders do not believe it is possible to win elections on a tea party agenda.

We’re looking at everything all wrong. We want Republican leaders to champion our tea party issues. But they can’t. They don’t know how.
Conservatives believe that a properly-run campaign based on conservative values will win. More than that, we know it is the only way that a Republican candidate can win.
GOP insiders are convinced that the only way a Republican nominee can win is to become a bad photocopy of the Democrat. But that’s because moderates don’t remotely understand how to actually win an election. While conservatives can articulate detailed specifics about their strategy, Republican moderates, elites, and insiders offer only platitudes.
The establishment has a religious faith in the idea that to win, the Republican Party has to surrender everything it stands for and believes. GOP moderates believe it is just “obvious” that their strategy is right. But what is obvious is that moderates haven’t really thought any of it through.
The establishment tells us that the answer is nominating “better” candidates. First, this is a meaningless, superficial platitude, not a plan. Naturally, better is better than worse. Worse is worse than better. This sounds like a child’s nursery rhyme, not a strategy for winning elections.
Conservatives take action, while moderates simply throw rotten tomatoes from the peanut gallery. A “Future Candidates School” has been taught by the Leadership Institute, run by conservative godfather Morton Blackwell, for a couple of decades. Newt Gingrich’s GOPAC was created in the 1980’s in part to prepare conservatives to run for office or for higher office. Conservatives have been doing it for decades.
Second, of course, the most experienced Republican officials are all very experienced in wrecking the country. So if we look for candidates who are “better” in terms of their goals for saving the nation from – well, to be frank – the other Republicans who helped wreck it, we are necessarily going to have to look outside the ranks of self-congratulating, self-important, self-appointed leaders.
When Republican insiders call for “better” candidates they mean “me” (the insider). Unacceptable candidates are “anyone other than me.”
Third, however, by “better” the elites mean “Someone the news media won’t criticize.” However, that is a fantasy… a delusion. The news media will always criticize any Republican to further the liberal, big-government agenda. The liberal media will only praise, protect, or leave alone a Republican to the extent that it harms a different Republican or pushes a liberal theme. Then the same media will turn around and savage that same Republican later when it advances the liberal agenda. John McCain is a prime example. The darling of the media of years past suddenly became evil when the media wanted to elect Barack Obama.
And the reasons given today for the media to attack Republican candidates will change tomorrow. So if the media is attacking the GOP on issue X, and the GOP caves on X, the media will simply attack Republicans on Y later. These factors are obvious to conservatives, yet establishment Republicans remain totally blind to these realities.
But when it comes to running campaigns, conservatives and Republican moderates exist in entirely different universes. The Republican establishment has no idea what you are talking about when you criticize their atrocious election campaigns.
You argue “Let’s run a candidate who stands for something.” You are speaking a foreign language. They have no idea what that means.
Ronald Reagan showed the way. So the tea party and other conservatives believe it is overwhelmingly obvious: Do what Reagan did.
But this blueprint that seems so clear, simple, direct, and obvious to us, the Republican establishment has never understood. Those are the people who during the Reagan Administration kept trying to stop Reagan from everything he was doing. They didn’t ‘get’ Reagan then and they have no idea what we are talking about today.
Republican moderates and insiders differ radically from conservatives in many ways — not just on the issues. (1) on the entire reason for being involved in politics, (2) on how election campaigns work and should be run, (3) on whether and how to persuade voters instead of pandering to them, (4) on personal courage in taking a stand, (5) how to deal with the news media, and (6) how to respond to criticism and negative information in campaigns.
For us, there is no reason to win an election except to change things. We would rather spend our time with our families, our churches, our hobbies, and private lives.
Quite simply, Republican insiders stink at running election campaigns. Conservative campaigns, by contrast, stink only some of the time.
Nothing can change for the better until all Republicans of all types master the techniques of winning elections. Too many people think that it’s a do-it-yourself project of “Doin’ a-what comes naturally.”
The only way to haul the Republican insiders out of their pit of despair is to show them what is really possible. We can’t just talk about it. We have to demonstrate how successful campaigns can be run.

The Military Knows It Has a Morality Problem

National Journal ^ | December 6, 2012 | James Kitfield

It has not been a good year for America’s armed forces. David Petraeus’s extramarital affair dominated headlines; 25 instructors are under investigation for systematic sexual abuse of cadets at Lackland Air Force Base; and a rash of senior officers—at the rank of colonel or higher—have been reprimanded for serious misconduct. Last month, Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote to all four-star generals and flag officers asking for institutional soul-searching. Has the military’s behavior, he seemed to be asking, threatened the “sacred trust” among top officers, the men and women they lead, and the American people? “I know you share my concern when events occur that call that trust into question,” Dempsey wrote in the memo obtained by National Journal. “We must be alert to even the perception that our Nation’s most senior officers have lost their way.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...

    This writer blames the military for the current state of moral decay within our armed forces, but let me remind you that the moral state of our country’s military is only a manifestation of the American society from whence it’s derived. If there’s moral decay within our country’s military, it’s only because the American people are now, in comparison with previous generations, morally corrupt. If our military has in fact been damaged by a moral injury as this writer believes, it occurred long before these service men/women entered the military.
Our enemies are laughing, and preparing.

Cockiness

Weekly Standard ^

NYTimes Reporter: 'They Are So Much Cockier Now at the White House' Daniel Halper December 9, 2012 10:49 AM

New York Times reporter Helene Cooper explained on Meet the Press that the White House is now "cockier":

"I think when you talk about the feeling at the White House, there's a palpable difference now compared to 2011, the summer of 2011," said Cooper. "They are so much cockier right now at the White House than they were a year and a half ago when they were doing this. They really believe they have set out--you come to us, we're not going to negotiate against ourselves. We're not going to like put -- keep putting out more proposals. I mean, remember the summer of 2011, when President Obama was perceived, and they believed at the White House, that he kept making concession after concession and didn't get anywhere? They are definitely not doing that now."

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Superbia it ante lapsum.

California reveals the future Democrats plan for us when they gain full control of our lives!

Coach is Right ^ | 12/9/2012 | Emma Karlin

Now that the Democrats have gained total control of California we are beginning to see what they want to do to all of us should they ever get total control of America.

In San Francisco mentally malformed adults stand naked in the streets next to children while they claim a right to be naked in public. The State of California plans to tax the “wealthy” at a 52% rate and the bizarre character in the Statehouse Jerry Brown signs anti America anti -family and anti -Christian bills as fast as he can.

Here are some of the assaults on Christianity and Americanism made recently by California’s Democrats.

A bill passed by the Democrat run...

(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

Mary Matalin To Paul Krugman: "Are You An Economist Or A Polemicist?"

RealClearPolitics ^ | December 9, 2012 | RealClearPolitics

KRUGMAN: That kills charitable deductions. It hits the middle class hard. If you do it -- if you do it right -- we've done this, right...
MATALIN: Are you an economist or a polemicist?
(CROSSTALK)
KRUGMAN: There's only -- there's only $450 billion that you can get by doing that.
MATALIN: Do you want to talk about economy or do you want to talk about polemics?
KRUGMAN: No, this is not true.
MATALIN: We have two different ways of going forward. We will not have Medicare, we will not have Social Security. You have senior Democrat Dick Durbin saying Social Security is not costing us a penny. You have those congressmen, those Democrats saying that they're -- that Medicare, Medicare and Social Security are not the driver of this debt. Even the president disagrees with this.
What these guys should do -- Coburn is right -- this is meaningless. They should either give him 98 percent, let him eat that tax, or they should do what President Clinton proposed, which is -- like just extend it for three months and let the new Congress -- we have a new Congress. How is it fair that the outgoing Congress that lost is making this...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...

Our country is not lost –YET!


Arizona Project Tea Party ^ | Nov 27, 2012 | Joseph Hobbs


Four or five brave American Governors can save our LIBERTY! 


Have our brilliant founding fathers provided us with a means to save our American Republic???

The electors of each state will meet on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December
(Dec.17, 2012). A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President and Vice President. Four or five Governors of battleground states can save our American Republic. (Rick Scott, John Kasich, Tom Corbett, Bob McConnell and Scott Walker for example.) The total number of Electoral College votes in blue states with a Republican Governor is a combined 141 Electoral College votes.

If we target only five of these states (Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin) and
have the local individual state activist groups submit resolutions in their states to withhold
their Electoral College votes (BECAUSE OF MASSIVE FRAUD, etc…) there will be no winner in the Electoral College. We extend our chance to save our country and our LIBERTY.

We are pleading for four or five patriotic state activist groups to take action to HALTVoterFraud NOW, organize efforts in their individual states and petition their Governors with a formal, widely supported resolution to recognize the massive voter fraud and the suppression of the military vote - and refuse to issue their state’s Certificates of Ascertainment in mid-December.
Patriotsthis is the LAST CHANCE. It will be over December 17, 2012 unless we intervene. The time is NOW. Organize yourselves now. Let us know how we may help you in your state efforts.
This will be in the history books forever and YOU can be part of American history!!! This is actually a very realistic objective – the five Governors acting individually – combining their group results with the cause for Liberty - withholding their Certificates of Ascertainment and their Electoral College votes – there will be no winner in the Electoral College process. Therefore, it will cause the election to be determined in the U. S. House of Representatives according to Article II of the U. S. Constitution and the 12th and 22nd Amendments.
Time is short. Please do what you can in your state and reach out to help other patriots in their states.

God Bless America.

www.truethevote.org/resources/stories/interviews

www.westernjournalism.com/what-happened-to-our-votes/

Boulder County Canvass Board Votes Not To Certify November Election

www.haltvoterfraud.com [Best for Internet Explorer to set "View" with "Zoom" at 80%]


Contact: Joseph Hobbs - jh@optical-ip-networks.com
Ron Ludders - lemonsplash1@gmail.com
Ray Sweeney - raysweeney44@yahoo.com





We Do Need "The Rich's" Money

Illinois Review ^ | December 8, 2012 A.D. | John F. Di Leo

Democrats like to shout that “the Richest Americans” must share in the sacrifice. It’s recently become the principal mantra of Barack Obama: that all this is going to hurt, a lot, and “the richest Americans” can best afford it, so they must share in the suffering.

Some rich Americans, every so often, even admit that it’s true. From Rob Lowe in 1988 famously shouting back to George H.W. Bush “I don’t NEED your help!” to Warren Buffet today, rich people occasionally say that, yes, they can afford to suffer a larger tax bite more easily than can the rest of us.
This should horrify the conscious American like no tornado, earthquake or hurricane ever could. The concept is wrong on so many levels – not just misguided, but downright evil.

Why should ANYONE have to suffer?

Have you ever noticed how much the Left talks about suffering? “We have to help those who are suffering.” “We have to share the suffering.” “Let’s start with those who can best afford to suffer.”
America isn’t about suffering; never has been. This country was built by sturdy people who put up with suffering, yes, but they didn’t dwell on it. They put up with it and moved on.
Centuries ago, you suffered in the wilderness because you were clearing brush to build a farm. You suffered in a tent because you were trapping furs, to sell in the big city where you could live well. You suffered in the mountains because you were crossing them to reach California for the gold.
As the country developed, the level of “suffering” changed. You suffered long hours at the factory so you could become a supervisor, then a manager, then an owner yourself. You suffered the work of two jobs to pay for night school so you could be better paid as a college-educated professional.
You suffered cold nights in a tenement so you could save up for your own home at the edge of town or in the suburbs. You suffered the heat of a restaurant kitchen, or the danger of a mine, or the risks of a lathe, because you wanted to get out of your circumstances, and move up from poverty to lower middle class, then from lower middle class to upper middle class. You suffered the 80-hour weeks of a business startup so that you could become wealthy enough to retire comfortably, or perhaps even, to retire young.
That’s called capitalism, in a nation that believes in economic freedom. It’s good for everybody, not just the rich, but everybody who’s willing to apply themselves. It’s not easy, but it’s a proven process, a method that rewards hard work by propelling the deserving toward their desired destination.
Notice a difference today? The Left doesn’t have a destination in mind. They expect you to suffer without improvement. If anything, they want Americans to get worse. They wreck the economy so that unemployment leads to foreclosure; they wreck the market so that investments turn to bankruptcy, and savings turn to poverty. They wreck the government so that annual deficits lead to crippling, inescapable debt; they wreck the healthcare system so that sickness leads to death.
There is no good reason to focus on suffering today. Yes, we’re a nation in debt. But that doesn’t mean we need to suffer; it means we need to get to work! We have between ten and thirty percent unemployment, depending on how you count it; just put those people to work in a reinvigorated private sector, and the ensuing growth will reverse that deficit and start taking care of the debt.
But we have to make that change, and fast. From suffering and sluggishness, to hard work and growth. A growth economy reduces the burden on government, and enables the natural revenue inflow that our nation so desperately needs.
We do need the money of the rich.
Now back to the mantra. The president and his shills in his party, in the media, in the education system, all say that we need the money of the rich, and this is true, but not in the way they think.
Let’s spend a moment considering how the rich spend the money that’s on the table at present. Let’s say, it’s those several percent of their income that the Left says that the government needs… and that the rich can easily do without. Perhaps, for a few of them, that several percent is a hundred thousand dollars (this is somebody really rich, isn’t it…). Let’s explore what one of these millionaires does with this money now… so that we can envision all the things that won’t happen if it’s taken away from him:
Shopping: Maybe he shops with it. With this much money, he probably shops a lot. If he spends this money on Michigan Avenue or on a shopping trip to Rodeo Drive or Manhattan, that money goes into the cash registers at a variety of stores. It may buy domestic goods, in which case it has also enriched American manufacturers… or it may buy imported goods, in which case it has employed some Italian clothing makers or French winemakers or Chinese electronics makers or Japanese artisans. Those goods had to travel to reach these stores, so that money helped truckers and freight forwarders and distribution companies and buyers and other middlemen too, all in addition to the shopkeepers and their clerks.
Take the spending money away from the rich guy, and you’re just making him live without some fancy wine or electronics or clothing or art… He may not even notice. But you’re also robbing all these others of their livelihood when he, and thousands like him, are not there to spend that money on them.
Dining and Entertainment: Maybe he goes out with it. Maybe this is the extra money in his fun budget, so he can fly his family to New York and see five Broadway plays and stay at the Waldorf Astoria or the Conrad Hilton or the Plaza, and dine at the best restaurants for a week. This spending employs actors and playwrights and musicians and theater ushers and restauranteurs and waiters and cooks and airlines and stewardesses and airline stock owners and theatrical investors and hotel maids and hotel front desk clerks…
Take the travel money away from the rich guy, and you’re just making him skip that one cool week vacation. He’ll live. He may not even mind, if the Left has convinced him that giving it up is his patriotic duty.
But you’re also robbing all these others of their livelihood when he, and thousands like him, are not there to spend money on them.
Investing: Maybe he invests it. Maybe this is just more money for him to invest, so he’s a part of the day’s influx of money into the stock market and the bond market. Maybe he invests this money in blue chip companies, or in brand new start-ups, or in municipal bonds for a road project or school or bridge. So this investment money gives companies a chance to get off the ground, or to continue to grow and hire staff, or it gives a city or county or school district the ability to build the infrastructure that employs concrete mixers and engineers and construction crews and carpenters and painters.
Take this investment money away from the rich guy, and you’re just robbing him of a drop in the bucket that he might not really notice in his huge investment portfolio… that nobody might really notice.
But you’re also robbing all these startups of investors to give them a chance; you’re robbing the market of the constant inflow of cash that keeps our market stable and protects our 401Ks and pensions and other personal and government investments. We’re all in the market now, but don’t kid yourself; we depend on the rich investors to keep it growing. If we want a stable retirement fund for those of us in the working poor and middle class, we can’t rip the rich folks out of it and expect to survive by ourselves.
Savings: Maybe he just saves it. Maybe he has a limit to how much he spends and invests, and he wants to keep some cash in the bank. So he takes advantage of the FDIC’s insured coverage limits, to keep that hundred thousand dollars in a local bank account, despite the lousy interest rate. The bank then uses these dollars to invest in mortgages and business loans, and to extend home equity lines for people who are strapped at the moment, or to give credit cards to people so they can shop and dine out without the danger of carrying cash or the bother of writing checks.
Take this bank money away from the rich guy, and you’re just robbing him of a fragment of his wealth, which he truly may not really notice.
But the economy will notice it. The banks depend on their wealthy clients’ savings accounts for the cash reserves that allow them to grant business loans and home mortgages. The feds are cracking down on banks, tightening the screws on the ability of a bank to loan out money with too little in reserves. If we take this money out of the banking system, we’re ensuring that there will be more foreclosures, more bankruptcies, more bank failures, and fewer home sales, fewer investments in small business.
In fact, of course, “the rich” who are being used as the communal donor here don’t spend or invest all their money the same way. They do a mix of the above choices. They all invest, shop, dine out, buy theater tickets, buy and decorate homes, and travel. When we reduce the money that they have, we are reducing how much of all of that they will do.
Raising taxes on “the rich” may not noticeably affect their lives. When Rob Lowe or Warren Buffet or other such liberal rich folks say this, they may be telling the truth. We non-rich certainly feel a 5% tax increase a heck of a lot more than they do.
But the reason not to raise taxes on the rich isn’t just for their benefit (though it is true, for ethical reasons, we shouldn’t rob them any more than we should rob anyone). The reason is for the rest of us.
“The rich” may not feel a slight tax increase, but the rest of us will feel it when they have less money to spend and invest. The rest of us will feel it because there will be more restaurant closures, more store closures, fewer business startups and expansions… and continually higher unemployment as these waiters and shop clerks and buyers and salesmen and actors and chefs – and their supervisors and managers and accountants and landlords – find themselves unemployed.
If we take this money from “the rich”, they may not particularly notice it. But the rest of us will.
We do need the rich’s money. But we don’t need it in Washington, or Springfield or Sacramento or Lansing or Madison or Albany.
We need it where it is now: in the pockets and purses of the rich, so that they will do what they always do with their money – spread it around throughout our economy. The invisible hand of a free market will enable that money to do far more for all of us than it could ever do if it went to Washington to be poured down that endless financial drainpipe of theirs.
In the classic Broadway hit musical, “Hello, Dolly”, the title character colorfully offers the essence of economics in a single famous line: “Money, pardon the expression, is like manure. It's not worth a thing unless it's spread around, encouraging young things to grow.”
It’s true. When the government takes more money out of our economy, there will be less growth. It’s as simple as that.
And when tax revenues are down, and unemployment is up, all because of a stagnant, miserably flat economy, what we need is growth.
We need the rich to have the ability to help us all by helping themselves, to grow the economy by doing what they do anyway. As long as an avaricious government doesn’t stop them from helping, by robbing them of their ability to contribute.
Copyright 2012 John F. Di Leo
John F. Di Leo is a Chicago-based Customs broker and international trade lecturer. Fortunate to have been a teenager in the days when William F. Buckley’s “Firing Line” was on television, he was able to learn his economics from the weekly appearances of economic geniuses like Milton Friedman, Arthur Laffer, and Walter Williams. It helped him resist the rampant Keynesian economics that ivy league professors shoveled at him in college!
Permission is hereby granted to forward freely, provided it is uncut and the IR URL and byline are included. Follow John F. Di Leo on Facebook or LinkedIn, and on Twitter at @johnfdileo.

Nearly Three-Quarters of Jobs Created Since June Are in Government!

Townhall.com ^ | December 8, 2012 | Daniel Doherty

Just when you thought yesterday’s dismal jobs numbers couldn’t get any worse -- they did. According to CNSNews.com, nearly seventy-five percent of all civilian jobs created since the beginning of last summer are in the public sector:


Seventy-three percent of the new civilian jobs created in the United States over the last five months are in government, according to official data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In June, a total of 142,415,000 people were employed in the U.S, according to the BLS, including 19,938,000 who were employed by federal, state and local governments.

By November, according to data BLS released today, the total number of people employed had climbed to 143,262,000, an overall increase of 847,000 in the six months since June.

In the same five-month period since June, the number of people employed by government increased by 621,000 to 20,559,000. These 621,000 new government jobs created in the last five months equal 73.3 percent of the 847,000 new jobs created overall.

I’m not an economist but these breathtaking statistics seem to suggest that the private sector is evidently not -- in the words of the president --“doing fine.” And with his “signature” (i.e., job killing) legislative achievement slated to go into full effect during his second term -- it’s rather hard to imagine it'll be doing any better anytime soon.

Nelson Mandela “proven” to be a member of the Communist Party after decades of denial

Daily Telegraph (UK) ^ | 8:00PM GMT 08 Dec 2012 | Colin Freeman and Jane Flanagan

For decades, it was one of the enduring disputes of South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle. Was Nelson Mandela, the leader of the African National Congress, really a secret Communist, as the white-only government of the time alleged? Or, as he claimed during the infamous 1963 trial that saw him jailed for life, was it simply a smear to discredit him in a world riven by Cold War tensions? Now, nearly half a century after the court case that made him the world’s best-known prisoner of conscience, a new book claims that whatever the wider injustice perpetrated, the apartheid-era prosecutors were indeed right on one question: Mr. Mandela was a Communist party member after all.

The former South African president, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993, has always denied being a member of the South African branch of the movement, which mounted an armed campaign of guerrilla resistance along with the ANC.

But research by a British historian, Professor Stephen Ellis, has unearthed fresh evidence that Mbsenior rank in the South African Communist Party, or SACP. He says Mr. Mandela joined the SACP to enlist the help of the Communist superpowers for the ANC’s campaign of armed resistance to white rule. …

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...

Does Obama's arrogance have any limits?

GOP USA ^ | 12/8/2012 | Bobby Eberle



Being president of the United States must fill a person with a certain level of confidence. Winning reelection despite miserable economic conditions could only add to that level. But has there ever been a president in the history of this country as arrogant as Barack Obama? Not only does he never miss an opportunity to inject his image into historical events, but now he's even adding himself to historical descriptions of other presidents.
Back in August, I wrote on the passing of the first man to step foot on the moon, Neil Armstrong. As a "tribute" to Armstrong, Obama posted a picture of himself gazing up at the moon. When the focus should have been on Armstrong's family and friends and a nation who was appreciative of his accomplishments, Obama made it about himself.
Fast forward to last week, which marked the 57th anniversary of Rosa Parks' daring stand against discrimination when she refused to give up her seat on a bus. How does Barack Obama honor such an event? Again... with a picture of himself on the Rosa Parks bus. No one else is in the picture. What our president is saying, and what he's made clear from his actions too, is that it's all about him. Yes, he's the president, but give me a break!
But that's not all. On the White House web site there is a collection of presidential biographies, and those have now been altered to include comments about Barack Obama. As reported at examiner.com, "the White House administration is under fire for adding 'Did you know?' footnotes to the end of the official presidential biographies going all the way back to Calvin Coolidge in an effort to promote Obama's policies."
The additions were first noticed by Rory Cooper, Communications Director at The Heritage Foundation, while searching for information about Calvin Coolidge. He unexpectedly stumbled upon an unusual footnote comparing Coolidge's first public radio address to Obama's use of social media technology.
As Rory Cooper noted on Twitter, Obama's White House is taking nonpartisan pages and turning them into petty promotions. Here are just a few examples:
* Franklin D. Roosevelt -- On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Today the Obama Administration continues to protect seniors and ensure Social Security will be there for future generations.
* Richard M. Nixon -- In 1973, Richard Nixon created The President's Export Council, which was expanded and reconstituted under President Jimmy Carter in 1979. Today the PEC continues to work towards reaching President Obama's goal of doubling the nation's exports by 2014's end.
And yes, even Ronald Reagan's biography ends up with a pitch for Obama:
* Ronald Reagan -- President Reagan designated Martin Luther King Jr. Day a national holiday; today the Obama Administration honors this tradition, with the First and Second Families participating in service projects on this day. In a June 28, 1985 speech Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multi-millionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.
Of course, as Philip Klein notes in the Washington Examiner, the Reagan speech was taken completely out of context in order to support the left wing agenda of taxing the rich even more.
To start, Reagan was talking about simplifying the tax code, whereas Obama's Buffett Rule would add another layer of complexity. Reagan was arguing for allowing people to keep more of their own money and reduce the burden of government. By contrast, Obama is arguing for instituting the Buffett Rule so that more money is available to pay for government programs.
It's simply arrogance run amok. Obama is right, and everyone else is wrong. That's why when Obama talks about "putting politics aside" and "doing what's best for the country," what he really means is "it's my way or the highway."

Deal

Blame Game

Thank You!

You may have served in Combat or in non-combat.
You may have retired out or you may have served for a short time.
You may have been a draftee or a volunteer.
You may have served in the Corps, Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard or the Merchant Marines,

BUT YOU SERVED. YOU DID YOUR JOB HONORABLY and for that I am PROUD
to call you Brother.

You may have served during Korea, WWII,. Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iraq or Afghanistan, But you served, you did not run.
You have a DD 214 with those words "HONORABLY DISCHARGED" two of the most noble words in the world.
Again I am proud to know each and every one of you.

*
Today is Band of Brothers' Day* ; send this to all your brothers, fathers, sons and fellow veterans you know. Happy Brothers' Day!

To the cool men that have touched my life: Here's to you!!
I was never a hero, but I am thankful and proud to have served among them.

A real Brother walks with you
when the rest of the world walks on you.