Greatest Hits- Taxes: A Historical Perspective

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Taxes: A Historical Perspective:  It turns out that taxes kill jobs and cause a loss on revenue?  Who would have thunk it?

With taxes on tanning salons and medical devises in the ObamaCare law, and the states proposing taxes on all sorts of services and products, I think it might be a good time to take a look at just how successful other taxes have been.  In 1990, a luxury tax was passed to go after the “rich people” by taxing things that they buy, luxury yachts, private aircraft, specialty cars, and the like.  They were dead set on making these evil rich people pay more.  The results?  Predictably, the results were completely forgotten by the left.

Note that all of these articles are take from different times during the existence of this tax, which was later repealed, but the damage was already done.

According to a survey of the largest boat dealers in Connecticut, conducted by the Marine Retailers Association of America (MRAA), sales of boats costing $100,000 or more have fallen 93 percent, from $7.879 million in 1990 to $ 545,000 for the same period this year. Nationwide, more than 19,000 people have been put out of work at boat making plants.

Source

The 1990 budget deal also slapped a hefty luxury tax on boats… to draw more money from wealthy yacht owners. What actually happened? People bought fewer boats. So who really paid the price? The many nonwealthy boat builders who were put out of work by the tax… The [Washington] Post article reported estimates that 25,000 to 30,000 jobs were lost. These effects were so obvious that even the tax raisers in Congress now plan to repeal the yacht tax.

Source

According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off by $38.6 million.

Source

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

So, just from this small sample, we see that the tax did significant damage to several industries.  And once a business closes, it isn’t likely to return.  The job losses become permanent.  Also, the government made no money on the tax, instead, they lost money on it.

This has continued to happen in other circumstances.  NY’s cigarette taxes created a great new business opportunity for the mafia.  Maryland’s “millionaire tax” caused millionaires to move away.  In each situation, the government in question ended up either not making as much money as projected, or lost money.  When you tax an activity, it either decreases, goes away, or goes underground.  It’s happened all through history, and in the end, it’s the wage earner that takes the hit.  He or she is the one who pays higher costs, or no longer has a job, but the elites can sit in the unreality bubble, secure in their belief that they’ve stuck it to the rich.

Here is some more info on new, (and completely insane) taxes from Dr. Bill Smith at ARRA News Service.

It is definitely odd to be quoting from the liberal NY Times. The below article reveals that the States are in trouble and looking for other sources of more money. Much of the States’ problems are caused by the pending impact of Federal programs like national healthcare. More after the article.
————–
The New York Times: [T]o generate more revenue, states are considering new taxes on virtually everything: garbage pickup, dating services, bowling night, haircuts, even clowns. . . . Opponents of imposing taxes on services like funerals, legal advice, helicopter rides and dry cleaning argue that this push comes as businesses are barely clinging to life and can ill afford to see customers further put off by new taxes. . . .

“This is born out of necessity,” said Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, a Democrat. His proposed budget, being debated in Harrisburg, would tax services including accounting, advertising and data processing. . . .Most states tax at least some services, particularly items like utilities.

Nevertheless, few states have gone where political leaders in Michigan and Pennsylvania are now suggesting: adding scores of services to their states’ sales tax requirement and lowering the tax rate under a widened tax base. But from coast to coast, desperate governments are looking to tap into new revenue streams.
In Nebraska, a lawmaker has introduced a bill to tax armored car services, farm equipment repairs, shoe shines, taxidermy, reflexology and scooter repairs. In Kentucky,Jim Wayne, a state representative, and some fellow Democrats are proposing taxing high-end services: golf greens fees, limousine and hot-air-balloon rides, and private landscaping.

In June, voters in Maine will decide whether to accept a state overhaul of its tax system that would newly tax services like tailor alterations, blimp rides, and entertainment provided by clowns, comedians and jugglers. . .; [Full Article]

My first reaction to this, aside from knowing that these taxes will only punish wage earners and small entrepreneurs, is that they are going to tax CLOWNS?  How much money are they expecting to get from that?

So, how many of these businesses will shed jobs, cut benefits, hire less people, or simply close due to these new taxes?  It remains to be seen, but rest assured, we’ll be talking about it.

Tens of thousands of jobs lost, paying out more in unemployment than was collected in taxes- this is our future if the regressives tax as they please.  Of course, the results will be blamed on someone else.  And yes, they actually suggested taxing CLOWNS!

Share

Greatest Hits: I’m a democrat; You Owe Me

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

I’m a Democrat; You Owe Me:  Snarky Basterd took a shot at democrats, and did not miss.

I’m a democrat. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I have my own pile of money, but I want yours, too, including the four pennies you have rattling around in the bottom of that peanut butter jar you frugal idiots like to use as a change holder. Give it up! You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I just say I like the public school system. My kids go to private schools so that your kids can go to public schools and learn how to be good little democrats like me. When my kids grow up and become better members of a collectivist society, and your kids grow up confused, my kids will get government jobs and take more money and freedom from your kids. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I have a job with health insurance, but I think it’s everyone else’s fault when I get sick and have to cut back on my lifestyle so I can pay for health care that should be free, along with cars and houses and big screen TVs. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. There is no god. You can go ahead and get down on your knees and pray to the ceiling for forgiveness and strength and peace, but I’ll be standing right behind you with a tire iron, bashing your skull and stealing your wallet. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I hate people. I would rather sleep with my dog or a cucumber or a tree than with another person…unless I can just dump them on the curb after we’re through. You just have sex to make more people so you can continue to earn more money while you rape the planet. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I love taxes. It’s patriotic…for you…to pay them. I don’t pay any, anyway. And if I have to, I’ve figured out loop holes or have offshore accounts to shelter my money, so the government never really gets too much from me anyway. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. It’s not only my right but also my duty to take freedom and representative republicanism from you, little by little, and replace it with government bureaucracy. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. I’m needy. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I have a $20 million vacation playground on Martha’s Vineyard and a guarded compound in South Chicago and belong to the richest majority in Washington’s history. But I hate rich people who aren’t democrats and want your property too so I can save endangered swamp rats and build turtle tunnels and fix toilets. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. There are more of you than there are of me. You breathe too much. I’ve told the world outlandish lies that you’re causing global warming, using faulty correlations to get everyone so worried they’re about to let me tax thin air. And you’ll breathe a lot less. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I’m an elitist. I’m perfect. I’m not like all of you stupid wingnuts out there working your greedy little fingers to the bone trying to make a little money and feed your family and have something to call successful when you retire. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I live in the city so I can get stupid drunk and piss on the streets when I want and kick your parked car when it gets in my way. It’s too bad that you have all those guns in your humble suburban and country homes. If you didn’t, I’d come and toss you out on your naked ass and make you live in the fetid cities that my government policies screwed up. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I think you hate homosexuals. I have no idea that you just want to be left alone and live your life the way you see fit and not have your children taught with government money that they should seek alternative lifestyles for the fun of it. I just want you to do what I think you should do with your life. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I’m so tolerant I can’t tolerate anyone who doesn’t think the way I do. In fact, I hate white people. I hate all people. I hate myself. I hate myself so much that I hate you even more when you are happy. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I don’t know how to do anything for myself. I need to be told what to do. I don’t think human beings are capable of taking care of themselves. That’s what government is for. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I don’t think any people should have rights. I think fish and frogs and grass should, however, and I want to represent them in court…and you to pay for it. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I’m a child. I act like a child and I think like a child and I live like a child and I throw up my hands and have little fits when I don’t get my way. There should be no consequences for anything I do. But there should be consequences for you, even if you’re blameless in what I accuse you of. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I’m racist but I get others to think that you are racist just because I call you one. It’s a riot to watch you squirm because I know you have a conscience. I do not. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I was born poor or middle class or rich, but it doesn’t matter. I was born black or white or Asian or Latina, but it still doesn’t matter. In fact, it’s Bush’s fault that I was even allowed to be born at all. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I want health care at your expense, while I’m young and virulent and child-like. But then I want you to kill me when I start to get old and weak and feeble, so that all of my young and virulent and child-like democrat friends can have health care at your expense.

Then I want to come back to life as a rock, so lots of birds can shit on me. They owe me, too, for being a loony moonbat.

Previously posted at Feed Your ADHD.

Share

Greatest Hits: How to Disarm an Armed Attacker

Share

How to Disarm an Armed Attacker:  I know there are fellow Conservatives that will ask, Why are you ever unarmed,” but let’s face it, you can’t carry everywhere…

I saw this video recently via a friend on Facebook, and thought I might share it here.  It is always possible that you might be attacked by an armed criminal, especially in a democratically controlled anti-gun area.  So, here is the video.

Of course, there are no guarantees, but this is better than having sudden onset inter-cranial lead poisoning.

Share

Democrats Get A Taste Of Obama’s Arrogance

Share

arrogant obama 003

 

Hat/Tip to Jonah Goldberg at Right Wing News.

Even the slow to realize Liberals are finally beginning to get the idea that our President is a monumental asshole…to everyone.


 

These are not good times for the Republic (and if you laughed or scratched your head at me calling America a republic, I rest my case). – Jonah Goldberg

But they are amusing times, at least for those of us capable of extracting some measure of mirth and schadenfreude from the president’s predicament.

With the sand running out on the Obama presidency, it’s finally dawning on the president’s friends and fans that he can be a real jerk.

Consider the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank. For the last six years, he’s spent much of his time rolling his eyes and sneering at Republicans. His subspecialty is heaping ridicule on conservative complaints about, well, everything and anything. If it bothers conservatives, it must be irrational, partisan, churchy, fake, hypocritical — or all of the above. Meanwhile, poor Barack Obama, while not always without fault in Milbank’s eyes, is the grown-up, the good guy trying to do good things amidst a mob of malcontents and ideologues.

That is, until this month. President Obama wants to get a trade deal passed. He needs Democrats to do it. But, Milbank laments, Obama’s blowing it.

“Let’s suppose you are trying to bring a friend around to your point of view,” Milbank writes. “Would you tell her she’s emotional, illogical, outdated and not very smart? Would you complain that he’s being dishonest, fabricating falsehoods and denying reality with his knee-jerk response?”

“Such a method of a persuasion is likelier to get you a black eye than a convert,” Milbank notes. “Yet this is how President Obama treats his fellow Democrats on trade…”

Yes, well, true enough. But lost on Milbank is the fact that this is precisely how Obama treats everyone who disagrees with him. When Obama — who ran for office touting his ability to work with Republicans and vowing to cure the partisan dysfunction in Washington — treated Republicans in a far ruder and shabbier way, Milbank celebrated.

Of course, he was hardly alone. The president has spent his entire presidency insisting that his political opponents are, to borrow a phrase from Milbank, “emotional, illogical, outdated and not very smart.” Republicans, in Obama’s view, are always dishonest, fabricating falsehoods and denying reality with their knee-jerk responses.

To pick just one of countless examples, there was a White House summit on health care in 2010. The president invited members of Congress to discuss the issue in good faith. He then proceeded to treat every concern, objection and argument from Republicans as dumb, dishonest or emotional. They were, according to a column by Milbank, “stepping into Prof. Obama’s classroom.” Milbank marveled at how the “teacher” treated them all “like his undisciplined pupils.” Whenever someone said anything politically inconvenient, the president replied that those were just partisan “talking points.”

When Sen. John McCain, his opponent in the previous election, noted that Obama had broken numerous promises and that the 2,400-page bill was a feeding trough for special interests, Obama eye-rolled. “Let me just make this point, John,” Obama said. “We’re not campaigning anymore. The election’s over.”

He responded to Sen. Lamar Alexander — he called him “Lamar” — “this is an example of where we’ve got to get our facts straight.” When it was Rep. John Boehner’s turn to speak, Obama reprimanded “John” for trotting out “the standard talking points” and, in the words of a palpably impressed Milbank, forced Boehner to “wear the dunce cap.”

Again, this was all quintessential Obama then, and it’s quintessential Obama now. All that has changed is that he’s doing the exact same thing to Democrats, and it’s making them sad. Specifically, he’s accused Sen. Elizabeth Warren of not having her facts straight. He says she’s just a politician following her partisan self-interest.

But here’s the hilarious part: Liberals can’t take it. The president of NOW, Terry O’Neill, accused Obama of being sexist. O’Neill sniped that Obama’s “clear subtext is that the little lady just doesn’t know what she’s talking about.” She added, “I think it was disrespectful.” Both O’Neill and Sen. Sherrod Brown also sniff sexism in the fact that Obama referred to Warren as “Elizabeth.”

“I think referring to her as first name, when he might not have done that for a male senator, perhaps?” Brown mused with his typical syntactical ineptness.

Of course, in that White House health care summit and in nearly every other public meeting with Republican senators and congressmen, he referred to them all by their first names.

The great irony is that when Republicans complain about Obama’s haughtiness and arrogance, liberals accuse them of being racist. I hope I don’t miss that phase of this spat while I’m off making the popcorn.

.

.

.

Share

Hey New Jersey, US Senator Cory Booker Says Hard Work Is “Not Right”

Share

We know Democrats believe in voting for a living. But I never expected one to actually come out and say it so succinctly.

 

  O.M.G. Hard work is what exactly? Overrated? Too hard? Not worth it? Only somebody who’s never held a Real Job in his life could believe such nonsense.

 

When I started out, I worked a helluva lot more than 40 hours per week.

As a matter of fact, I still do.

No wonder I’m not a Democrat.

Take it away James Franco!

All I know is that when I needed McDonald’s, McDonald’s was there for me. When no one else was.

In 1996, I moved to Los Angeles from Palo Alto at age 18 to study English at UCLA. I soon realized that half the city was working in the movie industry and the other half was trying to get into it, and because I hadn’t applied to the theater department as an incoming freshman, I would have to wait two years to even apply.

Someone asked me if I was too good to work at McDonald’s. Because I was following my acting dream despite all the pressure not to, I was definitely not too good to work at McDonald’s. I went to the nearest Mickey D’s and was hired the same day.

I was given the late shift drive-thru position. I wore a purple visor and purple polo shirt and took orders over a headset.

After a month, they allowed me to work the front counter during the day.

After three months of working at McDonald’s, I booked a Super Bowl commercial for Pizza Hut. Because it was for the Super Bowl, it was very elaborate: a computer-generated Elvis singing and serving the new Deep Dish pizza. From that point on, I could support myself through acting.

I was treated fairly well at McDonald’s. If anything, they cut me slack. And, just like their food, the job was more available there than anywhere else.

And the rest, as they say, is history. From humble beginnings, great things can be accomplished.

“Nothing ever comes to me, that is worth having, except as a result of hard work.”
Booker T. Washington

I doubt Cory Booker has ever set foot in a McDonald’s, let alone worked the late shift at the drive-thru. What the hell does he know about “not right?”

“Not right” is counting on McDonald’s as a career. Not that it isn’t honest work, and if you can live off the salary, great. But entry-level jobs are just that, entry-level and the goal isn’t to spend the rest of your life flipping burgers.

Hard work is the stepping stone to success.

Unless, of course, you’re an affirmative action hire at a guilty white liberal law firm. Then you’re just an out-of-touch putz pretending to stand up for The Little Guy. Except he’s probably working his butt off right now and he isn’t actually interested in what senators playing pundit on Twitter have to say.

Oh, who am I kidding? That preening senator and his cronies are going to promise their gullible suckersvoters a quick path to Easy Street. No work required. Just vote Democrat, and sit back while the wealth redistribution rolls in.

It’s unsustainable in the long run of course. But they don’t care. By the time “the long run” hits they’ll be rich and retired. All the suckers who bought their bullshit? Not so much.

.

.

Share

SMOKING GUN: New Documents Tie Obama And Senate Democrats Directly To The IRS Scandal

Share

judicial watch papers

 

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

Why can’t the leadership in the GOP be more like Judicial Watch/

Thanks once again to Judicial Watch (and no thanks once again to the feckless boobs in the Republican leadership), conservative pundit Wayne Root just connected the dots that link Senate Democrats and the White House directly to the IRS scandal.

The entire article is worth reading, but the short version is as follows: Root was targeted for audit in 2011, disputed the findings in Tax Court, and won in 2012. Only five days later, Root was again targeted for a separate audit, an unprecedented step.

Judicial Watch took Root’s case and after the traditional, illegal withholding of evidence for over a year, finally secured documentation of the audit. Stunningly, a “random audit of small businessman” was marked “SENSITIVE CASE” with no other explanation.

Written in the margin of Root’s case files were IRS documentation of the taxpayer’s political views; the agent “wrote on my file that he spent many hours on the Internet researching the political views of Wayne Root.”

In a free and fair society IRS agents don’t spend hours researching a taxpayer’s political views. Not unless they are looking to destroy the taxpayer based on orders from above.

…Wait. It gets better.

My IRS files state that a United States senator from Oregon was involved in my tax audit. At the time both senators from Oregon were Democrats. So now we can prove it was a political witch-hunt directed or coordinated by high-level Democrat politicians.

Why would any U.S. senator be involved in a random taxpayer’s IRS audit? Why would an Oregon U.S. senator be involved in the audit of a Nevada small businessman? Could it have been Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden? After all he was at the time Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee with oversight over…the IRS…

Senator-Involve-Wayne-Allyn-Root[1]

 

This email indicates that a senator from Oregon was somehow connected to Wayne Root’s audit. Screenshot courtesy of Judicial Watch

Senator-Involve-2-Wayne-Allyn-Root-620x475[1]

 

…This email indicates that a congressional office was requesting information about Wayne Root’s tax audit. Screenshot courtesy of Judicial Watch…

…Why would any senator from either party be involved in a “random IRS audit” of an individual taxpayer? Isn’t that illegal? Doesn’t it violate my civil rights? It’s certainly beyond the scope of the duties of a U.S. senator.

Unless the Obama White House asked him to get involved.

But wait. We’re not done yet.

The date my case was closed is perhaps the most damning piece of evidence. The IRS auditor told my attorney that a top IRS official called to demand my tax audit be closed immediately. That was May 2013. Does that date sound familiar?

My case was closed – on short notice – the very week that IRS official Lois Lerner testified about the IRS scandal in front of Congress (and plead the fifth so as to not incriminate herself).

…Who asked the IRS to target Wayne Root? Who gave the IRS agent permission to call Wayne Root when the top IRS investigator claims that never happens? Who asked the Oregon senator to get involved in my audit? Why was a top IRS official interceding in my case? Why was it marked “SENSITIVE”?

This conspiracy goes directly to the Obama White House. I’m not just any conservative media personality. I’m President Obama’s Columbia College classmate (Class of ’83) [and] one of Obama’s loudest critics. It appears my criticisms hit close to home. I got under Obama’s skin. And someone in Obama’s White House either called that U.S. senator to try to destroy me; or perhaps directly ordered my attacks at the hands of the IRS and then called the Oregon senator to coordinate and oversee the attack.

One thing is now clear: I was the victim of a widespread politically-motivated criminal attack by the IRS.

My files have been turned over to U.S. Senate investigators. I stand ready to testify in front of the US Senate.

On a scale of one to 10, mathematicians have yet to define a number high enough to represent the criminality of the Democrat Party.

.

.

.

Share

Disaster Area — Any Place Governed By A Democrat

Share

disastrous-dems

 

 

“I think we as a country have to do some soul-searching.” — Barack Obama

“Barack Obama is right – America does indeed have some soul-searching to do, namely regarding the terrible mistake in allowing Mr. Obama to be its president.” — D.W. Ulsterman

But bad as is the current pretender to the throne, it’s not only the man; it’s his Party.  From Vietnam to the Iran hostage crisis to the rise of ISIS; from Watts to Ferguson to Baltimore; from “what the meaning of is, is…” to “you didn’t build that,”  the tax-and-spend, cut-and-run resumes  of Democrats from Lyndon Johnson to Barack Obama chronicle incompetence, malfeasance, and unmitigated disaster enough to make any reasonably sane observer wonder why anyone would continue to vote for such incorrigible jackasses.

jackasses
obama-responds

.

.

.

Share

NO, NOT SUSPICIOUS: At least 180 Clinton Foundation Donors Also Lobbied Hillary State Department For Favors

Share

Hillary caricatureHat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal and Guy Benson at TownHall.com.

Hillary raises “Quid Pro Quo” to an entirely new level…

Perhaps we can check Hillary’s emails to determine whether there were criminal wrongdoings. Oh, wait.

The size and scope of the symbiotic relationship between the Clintons and their donors is striking. At least 181 companies, individuals, and foreign governments that have given to the Clinton Foundation also lobbied the State Department when Hillary Clinton ran the place, according to a Vox analysis of foundation records and federal lobbying disclosures…This list of donors to the Clinton foundation who lobbied State matters because it gives a sense of just how common it was for influence-seekers to give to the Clinton Foundation, and exactly which ones did.

Bear in mind that this analysis only includes the disclosed donors.  The recently-revealed Russia/uranium deal involved undisclosed donations (part of a pattern, it turns out), in violation of a transparency agreement Hillary signed upon joining the State Department.  Team Clinton’s excuse for failing to disclose the information has unraveled under cursory scrutiny. Clinton’s defenders insist that nobody has offered concrete proof that this multi-million-dollar “slush fund” favor bank ever resulted in direct action by the State Department; at some point, though, enough smoke convinces people there’s a fire.  And the smoke is billowing:

Former President Bill Clinton accepted more than $2.5 million in speaking fees from 13 major corporations and trade associations that lobbied the U.S. State Department while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, an International Business Times investigation has found. The fees were paid directly to the former president, and not directed to his philanthropic foundation. Many of the companies that paid Bill Clinton for these speeches … engaged him within the same three-month period in which they were also lobbying the State Department in pursuit of their policy aims, federal disclosure documents show. Several companies received millions of dollars in State Department contracts while Hillary Clinton led the institution. The disclosure that President Clinton received personal payments for speeches from the same corporate interests that were actively seeking to secure favorable policies from a federal department overseen by his wife underscores the vexing issue now confronting her presidential aspirations…

Part of the reason so many people feel compelled to defend the indefensible is that Hillary is essentially the only game in town for Democrats, a choice that the party has made for itself.  And America’s “gliding queen” isn’t in any rush to address any of these serious allegations — or anything else for that matter:  Since announcing her presidential campaign 17 days ago, she has answered a total of seven questions from the media.  And most of her “answers” were either facile deflections or substance-free cliches.  Why subject yourself to real questions when you can stage phony “listening sessions” with hand-selected supporters stripped of their cellphones, and pander on Twitter…

.

.

.

Share

Obama’s Iranian Negotiating Partners Attack And Seize Cargo Ship Headed For US Marshal Islands

Share
MV Maeresk Tigris, a ship traveling in international waters, owned by a company with significant ties to the U.S. government and flagged to the U.S.-protected Marshall Islands, was diverted under fire by Iranian naval forces to the port of Bandar Abbas.
MV Maeresk Tigris, a ship traveling in international waters, owned by a company with significant ties to the U.S. government and flagged to the U.S.-protected Marshall Islands, was diverted under fire by Iranian naval forces to the port of Bandar Abbas.

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal and the Tower.

See? Obama kept telling us how peaceful the Iranian’s intentions were?

The Hill reported more:

The Pentagon says the ship at the center of the dispute is the MV Maersk Tigris, and is flagged from the Marshall Islands, according to Reuters.

Separately, Iran’s official news agency said the ship was “stopped and seized” by Iranian warships.

The Times of Israel reported:

Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, said the cargo ship’s master had initially refused an Iranian order to move further into Iranian waters, but after the warning shots were fired the MV Maersk Tigris complied.

Warren said the cargo ship has been boarded by Iranians, but no one has been injured and no Americans are involved.

Warren said the cargo ship issued a distress call and the US Naval Forces Central Command, based in the area, sent a US destroyer and an aircraft to the area of the incident to monitor the situation.

While the Marshall Islands is a sovereign country, the U.S. “has full authority and responsibility for security and defense of the Marshall Islands,” according to the U.S. State Department. Maersk, the shipping line whose vessel was commandeered, is one of the largest employers of U.S. merchant mariners, and “operate[s], manage[s] and maintain[s] ships for the U.S. government ships in preposition and surge sealift capacities,” according to its website.

Patrick Megahan, a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, noted that Maersk Tigris was in international waters when it was seized.

 

 

Last week at a State Department briefing, Acting Spokesperson Marie Harf emphasized that the move of U.S. naval vessels to Yemen was not to intercept Iranian ships but “only to ensure the shipping lanes remain open and safe.”

 

[Photo: Glen / Flickr ]

Read the full story here. Doug Ross’ closing thought:


.

.

.

Share

Clinton Uranium Deal Looks Dirtier Than Michael Moore At An All-You-Can-Eat Fudge Bar

Share

Putin and Obama in 2012

 

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

She sells seashells by the seashore…

Hillary sells her country down the river…

In other words:

Putin Paid, Then UraniumOne Got Made

The American Thinker’s Thomas Lifson highlights an interesting article by Michael R. Caputo, who once ran public relations for Renaissance Capital. He confirms that the Clinton-uranium “coincidence” in Russia stinks to high heaven.

Even when I worked there, Renaissance Capital had close ties to the Kremlin – the relationship made Renaissance executives into oligarchs. By 2010, the firm had become a practical arm of Vladimir Putin. Nobody of sound mind would think otherwise.

Bill Clinton took that half million dollar payment as his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, served as a key member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). This inter-agency panel must approve foreign purchase of private American companies the government deems vital to our national interest.

Shortly after Bill Clinton delivered the highest paid speech of his life, CFIUS was to consider and approve the key Russian purchase…

… [But in] 2010-2011, I ran acquisition communications for Safran Group, the French government-controlled defense contractor which bought the US biometrics company L-1. It took us almost two years to gain CFIUS approval for France, an historic ally, to purchase a biometrics firm, not even remotely a strategic asset. We were stymied at every turn by an endless stream of questions.

In contrast, the Rusatom acquisition of UraniumOne got CFIUS approval in four months – for control of 20 percent of America’s strategic uranium.

These two CFIUS approvals were happening at precisely the same time. Safran couldn’t buy a break and was questioned at ever turn. Somehow, Kremlin-controlled Rusatom’s purchase sailed through on a cool breeze.

Any insider will tell you that, considering the vital nature of the CFIUS-UraniumOne proceedings, it is certain that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was directly involved. And Bill took $500,000 indirectly from the Kremlin at the same time.

In other words, we have an actual experiment that proves the Clintons are dirty. A control acquisition, with no national security implications whatsoever, was blocked at every turn. A deal for America’s precious uranium resources — a key to nuclear weapons construction — was approved faster than fecal matter through a goose.

In a separate article, Lifson also notes that Hillary’s serial scandals are beginning to affect fundraising.

Donors, observing that donations to Team Clinton are now under scrutiny as possible bribes, are thinking twice about investing in a candidacy that used to be seen as inevitable. Usually, such doubts are left unspoken in public. But now, a top fundraiser [New York businessman Jon Cooper] is obliquely expressing his fears and his plans to suspend fundraising…

…Mr. Cooper is not stating any worries about being tarred with the brush of corruption for merely raising money for Hillary. But that is the clear background of his worries. Now that donations are linked to corruption, anyone with any worries about being fairly or unfairly construed as corrupt (which includes anyone with sufficient money as a donor to be notable) must think carefully about donating to Team Hillary…

…[The once extant] logic [now] reverses itself. She may not be so inevitable, and a donation may lead to negative attention, perhaps leading to negative outcomes, the very reverse of what a donation might have been seen as buying. The more these doubts rise (and the revelations are continuing), the less inevitable she seems. The more doubt there is about her success, the less the payoff, and the greater the risk of critical scrutiny cast on her donors, especially if a Republican attorney general takes office in 2017 with a vow to clean up the mess in Washington.

Lifson asserts that subpoena time is coming.

Knowing the feckless, complicit boobs who comprise the current Republican leadership, I’m not holding my breath.

.

.

.

Share

Ted Cruz Sets His Own ‘Red Line In The Sand’: Congress Must Approve Any Iran Deal

Share
Senator Ted Cruz R-TX
Cruz Lays Down The Gauntlet To President Obama: Congress MUST Okay Any Iran Nuke Deal

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

Once again, Ted Cruz displays the type of leadership that is sorely lacking in the Oval Office right now.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, have filed an amendment (#1152) to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, which would require affirmative Congressional approval of any Iranian nuclear deal before sanctions relief can occur.

“The Constitution makes clear that Congress must approve international agreements like the one President Obama is negotiating with Iran,” said Sen. Cruz. “A nuclear Iran is the single greatest threat to our national security and also poses an unacceptably high risk to Israel. Reviewing this deal and deciding whether or not to consent to it may well be the most important function of this Congress. It is not something that should be rushed, and it is imperative that, at the very least, the President obtain majority support for his deal from both Houses of Congress before moving forward.”

As currently written, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 would first require Congress to pass a resolution of disapproval and then require Congress to muster votes from two-thirds of each chamber to override a Presidential veto. What’s more, if Congress failed to act within a set timeframe, the deal would go into effect by default. This process gets the Constitution’s allocation of authority precisely backwards.

The Cruz-Toomey amendment would remove these options and restore a more proper process for Congress to exercise its Constitutional power. It would require President Obama to persuade a majority of Senators and Representatives to approve his deal before it goes into effect.

Share

Second Amendment? Ted Cruz Smacks Down A Reporter – Hard

Share

poster 002Hat/Tip to Mike Miller at Doug Ross @ Journal.

On the 2nd Amendment Ted Cruz Mops The Floor With Reporter’s Attempt At A “Gotcha Question.”

You’ve gotta love how he so Reaganesguely deconstructs, and thus takes the power away from the typical far left ‘gotcha’ question.

 

At a recent event, GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz was asked the following question:

“In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, a statistic surfaced putting support for background checks at 90%. Did you go against the want of the nation with your vote against Manchin-Toomey (a bill that would have required background checks on all commercial sales of guns)?”

After patiently listening to the questioner read the prepared question, Cruz responded:

“You know there’s an old line: there are lies, damn lies and statistics. You’re right, that was a poll that was bandied around a lot, but you can find a lot of results in a poll depending on how you frame the question. As you and I both know, we have a system of background checks in place right now.

What Manchin-Toomey was trying to do was extend that to every private sale between two individuals … two guys in a duck blind selling their shotgun, one to the other. The federal government doesn’t have any business there.

When you asked about the role of public opinion polls, when it comes to Constitutional rights, what matters is what the Bill of Rights says. It doesn’t matter what happens to be popular at the moment.

The entire reason for the Second Amendment is not for hunting, it’s not for target shooting … it’s there so that you and I can protect our homes and our families and our lives. And it’s also there as fundamental check on government tyranny.”

Classic Cruz.

.

.

.

Share

The Grandpappy Of ObamaCare Circles The Drain: UK’s NHS In Trouble

Share

nhs and obamacare circling the drain

 

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

You mean the only problem with socialism is that you REALLY DO run out of other people’s money to spend??

African AIDS Tourists Overwhelming England’s NHS

Writing at The Commentator, Vincent Cooper shines a spotlight on the fiscal tsunami engulfing the United Kingdom.

…the NHS is so short of resources that patients in some areas had to be treated in a hospital car park. But if that is true, was not Nigel Farage right to condemn the health service for putting the treatment of foreigners above the needs of those who have paid for that health service and now find themselves being treated in a car park?

Mr Miliband’s solution to hospital car park treatment in the NHS is to promise £2?5 billion in extra funding. But such a promise shows the Labour Party to be in total denial about the nature of the economic problems facing the NHS.

Consider this fact. Public Health England estimates that of the almost 108,000 people who are HIV positive, almost 60,000 are from Africa. The cost to the NHS of anti-retroviral drug treatment for these African health tourists is well over £1 billion annually and rising, as more and more Africans and others hear about what’s on offer from the tax payer.

And it’s not only HIV tourists. There is the same costly problem with Hepatitis B, another big crowd-puller from all over the world to the NHS, and a disease which can be even more costly than HIV to treat.

But the costs of health tourism to the tax payer are not confined to medical treatment alone. Many of those HIV tourists would be in receipt of housing and other welfare allowances, quite possibly for the rest of their lives.

…The British Labour Party, once a genuine British workers’ party, has now morphed into a fanatically pro-immigration welfarist party that uses the NHS for its own political ends. It turns all debate on the NHS into a party political competition about who will pour the most money into a voracious NHS bottomless pit.

Unless we eradicate the scourge of Obamacare, that’s the future of health care here in the U.S.

Please consider: “The Marxist-Democrat Left is using illegal immigration to destroy America“.

Hat tip: BadBlue Real-Time News.

.

.

.

Share

As American As … Apple Pie??

Share

flashback

 

Setting aside the legal criteria required to hold the office of the President, it doesn’t much matter whether a man was born in Oahu or Lower Slobbovia.  The essence of being American means subscribing to a set of principles on governorship as codified in the U.S. Constitution.  By that measure — which is the only one that really counts — Barack Obama (and by extension, the modern Democratic Party)  is as anti-American as it gets.

.

.

Share

Netanyahu Beats Obama ~or~ It’s Morning In Israel Again

Share

 

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal. It’s morning in Israel, again. Benjamin Netanyahu defeated the left in his country AND ours. Netanyahu faced an insurgent left-wing party, likely because of his hard line against both Iran and President Obama’s horribly failed foreign policy. This is the first time the Israeli left came so close to coming back to full power in this post 9/11 world.   …Netanyahu’s Likud Party isn’t in such a strong position that it can control the whole government and seeing as how Israel is a Parliamentary system Netanyahu and Likud will now have to arrange a governing agreement with some of the lesser, left-wing parties. But the fact that Bibi pulled this out at the last second is also telling. Israel is not ready to hand leftists full power.

And let’s not forget that we reported how Obama not only was funneling taxpayer dollars overseas to Netanyahu’s opponents, but that Obama, himself was beginning to panic.

President Barack Obama despises Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with such immense passion that he has been covertly scheming to prevent the PM from being reelected in this upcoming Tuesday’s legislative election. He has been doing so by secretly funding those non-profit organizations in Israel that are actively attempting to dissuade the Israeli people from voting for Netanyahu. This unauthorized funding casts an extraordinarily pernicious light on Obama, especially given that we as a nation ought not to interfere with an ally nation’s election… This is why the president has ordered the non-profits to scrub anything from their websites that leads a trail back to him… The Senate believes [OneVoice, a group affiliated with Obama associates tried to influence the Israeli elections, and has launched] an investigation into whether or not Obama “aided OneVoice’s efforts to defeat Netanyahu via grants from the State Department.” We know for a fact that Obama’s State Department gave OneVoice a grant for $350,000. What we do not know, but that we suspect to be true, is whether the grant was issued specifically to help the non-profit thwart Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s reelection efforts… We also know that back in 2010, Obama’s State Department issued a $999,715 grant to the Abraham Fund, which too is actively plotting to negatively affect Bibi’s chances of winning. ..

 

Hat tip: BadBlue Real-Time News.

.

.

.

Share

Outspoken Critic Of Obama’s Iran Policy To Face Federal Corruption Charges

Share
bob menendez
Senator Bob Menendez will be indicted by the Department of Justice on federal corruption charges.

Bob Menendez, an outspoken critic of Obama’s Iran policy, will face federal corruption charges

I’m sure the timing of this announcement is purely coincidental.

According to an exclusive report published first by CNN, Democrat Senator Bob Menendez will be indicted by the Department of Justice on federal corruption charges.

The Justice Department is preparing to bring criminal corruption charges against New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, alleging he used his Senate office to push the business interests of a Democratic donor and friend in exchange for gifts.

People briefed on the case say Attorney General Eric Holder has signed off on prosecutors’ request to proceed with charges, CNN has learned exclusively. An announcement could come within weeks. Prosecutors are under pressure in part because of the statute of limitation on some of the allegations.

The government’s case centers on Menendez’s relationship with Salomon Melgen, a Florida ophthalmologist who the senator has called a friend and political supporter. Melgen and his family have been generous donors to the senator and various committees the senator is associated with.

I am no fan of Bob Menendez. But this thing stinks. He’s been vocal and persuasive in his opposition to Dear Leader’s policies on Cuba and Iran. And this “investigation” has been percolating for six years.

So why now?

“Will no one rid me of this turbulent senator?”, cried President Valerie Jarrett. And lo, Eric Holder unleashed the hounds.

I got a buck that says if Bob pipes down and acts like a good boy the whole thing will go away. That’s how the Obama White House operates. They punish their enemies, and they reward their friends.

Bob Menendez didn’t get with their program. So now he’s gonna get an orange jumpsuit.

.

.

 

Share

Why Hillary Will Abandon Her Run For The White House

Share

hillz upset

 

Hat/Tip Alan Caruba at Doug Ross @ Journal.

With scandals mounting, it is plain to see that Hillary Clinton’s plan to be the 45th President of the United States is floundering and she hasn’t even officially announced yet.

The revelations, reported initially in the most left-wing newspaper in the nation, The New York Times, that Hillary Clinton used her own private emails to conduct public business, suggests that there are forces within the Democratic Party that do not want her to be its candidate for President in 2016.

It’s not like Hillary did not know she was supposed to use the State Department’s email system for reasons of national security; her private emails could have been hacked by forces unfriendly to the U.S. All government employees are routinely briefed on the laws that require this.

For the record, I am no fan of Hillary Clinton. On September 18 of last year, I wrote a commentary titled “Go Away, Hillary” in which I asked “Other than earning her law degree, name one thing that Hillary Clinton has accomplished on her own. Her accomplishments—slim as they are—have been achieved on the coattails of either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.”

Beyond Hillary, what I object to is the necessity to raise millions with which to secure either Party’s nomination and a billion to run for the presidency. We are electing someone who has literally bought the election courtesy of donors who have made the selection for the rest of us. There is something fundamentally undemocratic about that.

That said, I don’t think Hillary Clinton will run in 2016.

That may surprise you, but it surprises me as well. And, yes, I could be wrong, but the revelations about her patently illegal email use while Secretary of State suggests that there are forces within her Party that want to end her candidacy now rather than later. They are sending her an ominous message.

Ron Fournier is the Senior Political Columnist and Editorial Director of National Journal. Prior to that, he worked at the Associated Press for 20 years, most recently as its Washington Bureau Chief. On March 3rd, he wrote an opinion piece titled “Maybe she doesn’t want to run in 2016, top Democrats wonder. Maybe she shouldn’t.”

“Two weeks ago,” wrote Fournier, “we learned that the Clinton Foundation accepted contributions from foreign countries. Assurances from the Obama administration and Clinton aides that no donations were made during her tenure as Secretary of State were proven false.”

“Now The New York Times is reporting that Clinton used a personal email account to conduct government business as Secretary of State, an apparent violation of federal requirements that her records be retained.” He quoted one unnamed “senior Democrat” as saying “This story has legs as long as the election”, noting that many senior Democrats “are angry.”

“My concern,” wrote Fournier, “is that Clinton does not see this controversy as a personal failing. Rather, she sees it as a political problem that can be fixed with more polls, more money, and more attacks.” He described her problem as “a lack of shame about money, personal accountability, and transparency.”

If there is one thing to which the Democratic Party is totally dedicated, it is winning the White House and control of the Congress. Ever since President Obama has been in office, it has taken a beating as voters have relentlessly transferred power to the Republican Party in Congress and in many States. It is an unmistakable trend and one that must keep Democrat strategists up at night.

In January 2014, a Pew Research poll found that 69% of women who identified themselves as Democrats hoped to see a female President in their lifetime, compared to only 20% of Republican women. In April 2014, a Rasmussen poll found that “51% of likely U.S. voters have at least a somewhat favorable opinion of Clinton, while 44% view her unfavorably.”

The Huffington Post analysis of the Pew poll concluded that “not wanting Clinton in office is the only one explanation for Republican woman’s relative lack of enthusiasm about electing a candidate of their own gender”, adding that “It may be that (the) gender of a candidate has simply become a less compelling factor for voters…”

Six years of having a President who was elected primarily because he is black have taught voters that race and gender are insufficient factors on which to base one’s vote.

Six years of a sluggish economy, massive unemployment, declining wealth among the Middle Class, and a disaster called foreign policy will influence 2016 votes along with, of course, whoever the candidates may be.

So I will return to my conjecture that Hillary, no matter her desire to be the first woman U.S. President, will also have to address the practical realities of politics. Opposition from within the Democratic Party will likely be a deciding factor. She has put off announcing her intentions until April. If she puts it off again that would suggest some deep misgivings.

If you had the choice between a life of great wealth and fame as opposed to the daily inquisition and criticism that comes with the presidency, which would you choose?

.

.

.

Share

King Obama Has Been Given The Power To Unilaterally Raise Taxes By…King Obama

Share

Hat/Tip to Warren Todd Huston at Doug Ross @ Journal.

King Obama & his two court jesters
King Obama & his two court jesters

Is there no limit to his power? Can no one stop him?

President Obama really does think he is a king or an emperor of some type. Now he claims that he is going to use executive orders to raise taxes on us all.

This arrogant prince thinks he can do anything he wants just by his say-so. No act of Congress needed.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed Monday that President Obama is “very interested” in the idea of raising taxes through unilateral executive action.

“The president certainly has not indicated any reticence in using his executive authority to try and advance an agenda that benefits middle class Americans,” Earnest said in response to a question about Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) calling on Obama to raise more than $100 billion in taxes through IRS executive action.

“Now I don’t want to leave you with the impression that there is some imminent announcement, there is not, at least that I know of,” Earnest continued. “But the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals. So I am not in a position to talk in any detail at this point, but the president is very interested in this avenue generally,” Earnest finished.

The unlawfulness and arrogance of this man is incredible.

Who needs the Constitution, eh?

.

.

.

Share