Which Buffet Rule?
Apr 11, 2012 Political
Barack Obama is on the warpath about the rich and taxing them. He trots out the so called Buffet Rule, named for the tax cheat who claims the rich need to pay more because he pays less in taxes than his secretary does. This sleight of hand is an issue involving the kind of income on which taxes are levied. His secretary has earned income and Buffet has investment (passive) income. These items are taxed at different rates and are not comparable.
Buffet could change his income to earned income and pay more. More importantly, he could pay the taxes he owes. Yes, Mr. the rich need to pay more owes a lot of money to the government. Ellen Sauerbrey put it nicely:
Obama is campaigning for “the Buffett rule” Which one does he mean? That the rich should pay more taxes? – or – that the rich should fight the IRS to pay less as Buffett is doing and has been doing for the last decade? His Berkshire Hathaway company owes the IRS one billion dollars IN BACK TAXES. He doesn’t seem TOO gung-ho to pay what HE OWES!. Is that spelled HYPOCRITE ? [From her Facebook Wall]
This is a very timely question and brings into the sunlight the dirty little secret. The people who are always screaming for higher taxes find many ways to avoid paying their own taxes. John Kerry and his yacht come to mind.
The neglected item in all this is the fact that the so called Buffet rule will do little to help the current fiscal mess our government is in. It will amount to a few billion dollars a year. The amount of money collected is rapidly spent by the government.
What is this all about then? It is nothing more than an effort to make things “fair”. It is about leveling the playing field and redistributing wealth. Barack Obama is on the campaign trail screaming that he is not a Socialist and that he is not out to redistribute wealth but his words do not square with his actions (or his past words).
Obama told Joe the Plumber that things were better when you spread the wealth around. He has stated that the Buffet rule was about making things fair.
As if it is fair to steal one person’s money and give it to another.
This is all about Obama’s Socialist policies of redistributing wealth. He claims that it is not but he is lying. Yes, to quote Congressman Joe Wilson, YOU LIE!
I have no problem calling Obama a liar because he is one and Wilson had it right. You can tell Obama is lying because his lips will be moving.
This is all about redistributive policies where government robs those who have been successful and give to those who have not. The wealthy already pay most of the taxes in this country (when they pay them Mr. Buffet and all you Democrat tax evaders) and they do more than their fair share.
Nearly half of wage earners pay no federal taxes. They do not pay their fair share or as Joe Biden would say, they are not being patriotic.
No, Barack Obama is not interested in getting deficits under control. He is not interested in policies that will actually get the economy moving.
Barack Obama is ONLY interested in pushing Socialist policies that will redistribute wealth.
Because yes, he is a Socialist.
Period.
And we need to make the Won, a One term wonder.
It is November or never…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: buffet, lies, Obama, redistribution of wealth, rich, tax evasion
The New Black Pansies; The Real Racists
Apr 10, 2012 Political
There is uproar over the shooting of Trayvon Martin. The facts in the case are not out yet but George Zimmerman has been presumed guilty in the court of racist public opinion. Trayvon is the rallying cry for the race hustlers who are looking for a race war. Each and every day a lot of black people are murdered, mostly by other black people, and those murders go unmentioned by the race hustlers. They really don’t care that blacks are being murdered by other blacks. They especially do not care when whites are murdered by blacks.
George Zimmerman was portrayed as a white and then a white Hispanic by the MSM in order to ramp up racial tension over a case that would get little attention if Zimmerman were black. The race hustlers have flocked to Florida and they want Zimmerman arrested. They have not presumed him innocent as is our custom. They believe he is guilty and should be arrested, end of story, facts and investigations be damned.
Members of Congress, those charged with upholding our Constitution, have declared Zimmerman a murderer and guilty and have demanded he be arrested. These demands are coming from the racist Congressional Black Caucus.
The race baiters want racial tensions going onto the November elections. They want to stoke divisiveness. How many of these people who demand justice have gotten involved in the crime in Baltimore where a white man was beaten, molested and robbed by a group of blacks?
None, because it does not fit the narrative.
The New Black Pansies are out in full force and they have called the shooting of Martin a racist act against the poor black man. While they are decrying this alleged racism they are busy calling white people crackers and honkies. In addition, the pansies (yes I call them that on purpose) say it is time to suit up and boot up and to riot and kill crackers and honkies. This is the video of their racist rants.
The movement was supposed to be 9 April so that never happened. Sounds like a lot of hot air because they understand if they suit up they will get a boot up their asses.
Perhaps if they stayed in school and learned something then basic math would not escape them. The entire black population accounts for about 14% of the total. The entire non black is all the rest and the white (or honky cracker) population is greater than 50% so just by simple math these morons are outnumbered. When one considers that most black folks are not racists and want nothing to do with this stupidity the numbers are even worse.
Hell, all the white hunters in the southern states would be far too many folks for the Pansies to take on.
I am not calling for violence and I do not want to see violence. I figured I had to put that out there because some liberal will read this, ignore the Pansy’s call for violence and say I am inciting violence. This is how liberal’s minds work (or don’t) so I figured I would let them know. There will still be one who accuses me of inciting violence.
The facts are clear. The New Black Pansy Party is gearing up for a race war. They want to riot and they want to kill crackers. That is what they said and I always believe you take people making such claims at their word.
Eric Holder refuses to arrest these folks for their terroristic activities and Big Sis over at DHS refuses to take them on. We all know that if some white supremacist group was out setting bounties on a black guy, calling them racist names and threatening to riot and kill blacks the DHS and the DOJ would be out in full force. Big Sis would label them terrorists and they would be in jail.
But the racists in the Pansy Party are allowed to make threats and to put a bounty out on an American citizen.
What will happen if a black guy murders a white guy and a bounty is placed on his head?
Do I need to answer that for you?
Nah, you already know.
Remember Obama’s racist pastor? He is on the news again for his racist rants. He misinterprets the Bible and makes false claims and he blames whitey for all the troubles in the world. Obama listened to this guy for twenty years and this guy is a racist. You know what they say about the company you keep…
Hold on folks because the ride is going to get bumpy. If the Black Pansies start trouble in Florida there will be lots of folks with firearms ready to stand their ground.
It will not end well for the Pansies.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: florida, george zimmerman, holder, new black panthers, Obama, pansies, racists, riots, trayvon martin, wright
Likely vs. Registered Voters
Apr 5, 2012 Political
We are overwhelmed with polls about everything and right now in time the polls all deal with the 2012 election. Many polls show Barack Obama beating Mitt Romney (the presumptive nominee) by a few points and this is causing despair among those who want Obama defeated.
Dick Morris reviews the substance of these polls in his latest video.
Morris points out that the polls showing Obama winning are polls of registered voters which Morris says are cheaper to conduct.
He claims the real polls that matter are among likely voters and those polls show Romney and Obama neck in neck.
But Morris goes further to point out that he has analyzed polls going back to 1964 and the results show that the challenger (facing an incumbent president) gets the undecided voters.
His claim is that about 80% of the undecided go for the challenger and this means Romney is actually up by about four points. Morris points out that if people are undecided about you after you have had most of a term in office it does not bode well.
He likens it to asking your spouse “will you be married to the same person next year” and getting the answer, I’m undecided. He says that would not be good.
In any event, the polls are not necessarily what they appear to be at first glance.
The reality though, is that the only poll that matters is the one on Election Day so make sure to get out and vote.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: election day, likely voter, Obama, polls, registered voter, romney
Obama: So Transparent Anyone Can Donate
Apr 4, 2012 Political
Barack Obama claimed his regime would be the most transparent in history. Why, we would be able to see through it all because he would hide nothing from us.
Then, of course, he set about hiding things. He is not transparent and he does the very things that he scolded George Bush for.
Hell, he even threw in the individual mandate after chiding Hillary Clinton about how it was wrong during the Democrat Primary in 2008.
But I might have to change my mind about Obama’s transparency. Barack Obama is so transparent that anyone can donate to his campaign.
Barack Obama’s donation page is not set up with the usual security that helps to prevent people from illegally donating money to his campaign. He did the same thing in 2008 and it is believed (and documented by some web sites such as Atlas Shrugs) that illegal donations flowed freely into his campaign.
The same thing is happening now.
As reported here, the campaign takes illegal donations and people are demonstrating how easy it is. How much more of a flag does one need than the name Illegal Contributor? How much more of a flag does one need than having an address as the State Penitentiary? If the website used the credit card verification code (like the Republican’s sites do) then this donation would have been flagged as potentially illegal. The code would not have matched the address.
But Obama does not want illegal donations stopped. If they do not flow into his campaign he will not be able to get huge sums of money from illegal donors both here and overseas.
Practically all of us know how the Democrat media would be playing this if a Republican were getting illegal donations and did not have security in place. The cries would be heard around the world.
Obama, who was an alleged Constitutional Law professor, excoriated the Supreme Court during one of his State of the Union Addresses. It involved their decision on campaign contributions and Obama was not happy with it.
Isn’t it amazing that the same Democrats who scream about unlimited donations have no problem with allowing unlimited illegal donations to flow into the Obama campaign?
Let me decipher. What Obama was saying when he railed against that decision was; hey, we don’t like the idea that you allowed everyone to receive as much money as we do. How dare you level the playing field?
The case Obama did not like was Citizens United.
In November the citizens are going to unite to send Mr. Transparency packing.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: citizens united, election fraud, fec, illegal donations., lies, Obama, supreme court
The Constitution Trumps ALL Other Reasons
Apr 3, 2012 Political
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case against Obamacare and the initial impressions from most thinking people are that it will not stand. The impression is that the individual mandate will not pass Constitutional muster and that the entire law might be struck down. The left realizes this and has begun its attacks. They have been chastising Justices for being unwilling to read a 2700 page law to determine which parts can be saved.
This anger comes from the same people who did not read it before they voted to pass it.
There is speculation that Obama already knows how things will shake out and I think that if he does it is because Justice Kagan leaked the results of the vote to him.
He made his first public statements on the issue yesterday and he discussed how it would be unprecedented for this law to be ruled unconstitutional. He discussed how justices are unelected and he said that the bill was passed by a “strong majority” in Congress.
This is all bluster and to me indicates he knows how the vote went and he is positioning himself to run against the Republicans who challenged this and the “activist” court that threw it out.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, period. In that document the Supreme Court is charged with making sure the actions of the Executive and Legislative branches are within the confines of it. The Court is not activist if it rules that the Constitution was violated. An activist court is one that makes its own rules or laws. One that follows the Constitution is not activist no matter how much Obama claims it is. It would be an activist Court if it went through the legislation and decided piece by piece which parts are OK. That is for Congress to do. The Court only needs to decide Constitutionality of the mandate and then decide to scrap the entire law or not. Congress should handle the aftermath.
It also matters not one bit how many members of Congress voted to pass a bill. If every single member voted to pass a bill establishing the Catholic Church as the official church of the United States it would be unconstitutional. You can bet that Obama and every other person screaming about the majority in Congress who passed Obamacare would be lining up to oppose such a ruling because it violates the First Amendment to the Constitution. Obama would not say the Court should not overturn it because it was passed by a strong majority, he would be screaming about violating the Constitution.
We have a Supreme Court to ensure that majorities of any kind do not violate the Constitution and pass laws that affect people in violation of our law. That is their function and they are tasked with that duty.
One thing is certain; the number of members of Congress who voted on something is not a criterion the Court uses to determine if an item is Constitutional.
James Clyburn (D-SC) has suggested that Obama run against the Supreme Court. As Obama pointed out, they are unelected but his public statements leave the impression he is doing just that.
Perhaps, but it will do him no good. If Obama is concerned with majorities, a large majority of Americans (larger than the majority that passed Obamacare) oppose Obamacare and those folks will not be swayed by some argument that runs contrary to the idea that the Supremes upheld the Constitution.
Liberals will generally support Obama but are fed up with high unemployment and gas prices so they might stay home on Election Day.
Blacks, of course, will support him in overwhelming numbers no matter what he does.
The important take away is that the Constitution trumps all other items and that the Supremes are tasked with ensuring that document is upheld by the other two branches of government. This is why Obama does not like the Constitution and why he feels it is an outdated document.
It is also why he ignores it.
The true activists on the Court are the liberal justices whose work involves social engineering. They do not follow the Constitution and they work to uphold liberal ideas with little regard for the Constitution.
These justices Obama does not refer to as activists.
Obama says rejection would be unprecedented but he is wrong (hyperbole anyone). I would like to say it is unprecedented that something that is so obviously unconstitutional would go down to a 5-4 ruling.
Sadly, a 5-4 ruling is the norm as liberals ignore the Constitution in favor of social engineering.
Obama is proud of them even if he does not understand the Constitution.
Maggie’s Notebook has an interesting article.
The Daily Caller has an article about Obama’s hollow threat to the Supremes…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: Democrats, kagan, laws, lies, Obama, obamacare, supreme court
Loading ...
Loading...
