http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.91afc63abb93d5e6768f1eb67b4c5022.a91&show_article=1
"Govt hikes top income tax rate to 50%" in England that is. We already know that European Socialist regimes have high taxes, one needs it when half the population works to support the other half. But I digress. Originally, Chancellor Alistair Darling stated "In November [2008], I announced a new rate of income tax of 45 percent on incomes above 150,000 pounds -- the top one percent of taxpayers" however "In order to help pay for additional support for people now, I have decided that the new rate will be 50 percent and will come in from next April -- a year earlier."
This is hilarious. Not only did he originally propose raising the tax burden by 12.5%, he changed his mind and decided to raise the tax burden by 25% from 40% to 50%. The lesson one can learn is that when Politicians promise a tax increase, be prepared once you've accepted the original rationale, for justification for an even bigger raise. I know Obambi proposed raising our Federal Income Tax burden, but perhaps him and Alistair Darling, two Socialists, think alike? One might recall the greatest threat to Obambi's Candidacy for President was a guy named Joe the Plumber who questioned Obambi's Tax Policy. I think I see a correlation.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Losing our Moral Bearings over...
"harsh methods—waterboarding, face slapping, sleep deprivation and other techniques." My goodness, how immoral of us, simulating drowning, face slapping, sleep deprivation, all in the name of National Security and we're losing our moral bearings because of it. Why, we need to smile more, self-flagellate and tell others how we're sorry for having rescued them from tyranny like we did for Europe during WW1, WW2 and the Cold War. Obama said, "In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." How much more ignorance and naivete can we tolerate? We need change we can believe in; we need a man for a President, not a pussy.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Don't assimilate, Legislate
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/04/english-only.html
"The state Senate acted today to prohibit businesses in California from discriminating against customers, including refusing them service, based on the language they use."
Another example of a loss of Liberty. Anyone who has traveled to a country that doesn't speak their language, makes do. I wonder how long before a business is sued under this new new law for a violation of a non-Civil Right? We need to change our mentality about laws. I cannot think of the last time Politicians increased our Liberties, rather I see constant usurpation.
"The state Senate acted today to prohibit businesses in California from discriminating against customers, including refusing them service, based on the language they use."
Another example of a loss of Liberty. Anyone who has traveled to a country that doesn't speak their language, makes do. I wonder how long before a business is sued under this new new law for a violation of a non-Civil Right? We need to change our mentality about laws. I cannot think of the last time Politicians increased our Liberties, rather I see constant usurpation.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Nuclear Disarmament part 2
In this New York Post article by Rich Lowry, he states, "The meme in the press was how the test launch made Obama's disarmament speech all the more "urgent." It really makes it all the more childish and dangerous. In setting the goal of "Global Zero", Obama hitched himself to a project as utopian as President George W. Bush's ambition to end tyranny in the world." He goes on to state, "In fact, they're essentially the same goal. The bipartisan congressional Strategic Posture Review concluded in an interim report that to achieve Global Zero would require a "fundamental transformation of the world political order." All significant geopolitical conflicts would have to end, and all untrustworthy governments disappear. The verification regime would have to be so all-encompassing as to constitute a kind of world government."
This is exactly what I was getting at in my entry from yesterday. Obama's entire plan is predicated on the notion you can force various regimes to comply, and that "immediate consequences" would facilitate the desired aim, nuclear disarmament. It's Obama's naivete that allows him to believe such a plan could be successful. Yes, the United States could disarm itself, however the consequence would be that any Nation with a nuclear weapon would be in a position to blackmail other countries, including the United States. It does beg the question however, when a "fundamental transformation of the world political order" is needed to achieve nuclear disarmament, if that perhaps is not Obama's goal. "The verification regime would have to be so all-encompassing as to constitute a kind of world government." Is this the white horse leading up to the red horse or what comes after all four horses of the Apocalypse? I haven't figured it out yet.
This is exactly what I was getting at in my entry from yesterday. Obama's entire plan is predicated on the notion you can force various regimes to comply, and that "immediate consequences" would facilitate the desired aim, nuclear disarmament. It's Obama's naivete that allows him to believe such a plan could be successful. Yes, the United States could disarm itself, however the consequence would be that any Nation with a nuclear weapon would be in a position to blackmail other countries, including the United States. It does beg the question however, when a "fundamental transformation of the world political order" is needed to achieve nuclear disarmament, if that perhaps is not Obama's goal. "The verification regime would have to be so all-encompassing as to constitute a kind of world government." Is this the white horse leading up to the red horse or what comes after all four horses of the Apocalypse? I haven't figured it out yet.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Nuclear Disarmament
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/20903.html
Pres. Obama's naivete is at it again. He now wants a nuclear weapon free world. Who doesn't. However, he said in his speech in Prague the United States is going to implement "concrete steps" towards nuclear arms reduction. That's great and all if ALL other countries go along with reduction treaties and disarmament, however this dork stated "we'll seek an agreement by the end of this year that's legally binding." Binding by who? How do you enforce that? We could not even enforce U.N. Resolutions, six of them, when going after Iraq for possession of chemical and biological weapon programs and the their refusal to allow weapons inspectors to have unfettered access to weapon sites. Does this idiot honestly believe he could force Russia or China to acquiesce their sovereignty to a "legally binding" "agreement"?! This is naive.
He goes on to state that "the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in State nuclear weapons." My God, is that not what Iran is currently doing and what Pres. Bush failed to stop and what Pres. Obama is currently failing to stop? What happens if they build the bomb by the time this treaty is signed? This is reminiscent of the same failure of foresight that occurred in the not too distant past when Pres. Clinton gave North Korea materials that were later used to make a nuclear weapon. History is repeating itself and this megalomaniac thinks he has the power to make the same mistakes and expect a different result. Not only is this naive, he arrogantly believes he'll know what their intention is for the fissile material. Isn't Iran making the argument that enriched uranium is needed for their nuclear power plants? Isn't enriched uranium also a source for nuclear weapons when enriched to a higher grade? What naivete.
His second step is to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by preventing non-nuclear armed Nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, and current nuclear armed nations will "move towards disarmament." "We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections." Again, six UN resolutions did not force Iraq to grant unfettered access to weapon sites. How does he plan on inspecting China and Russia? More importantly, will he grant international inspectors unfettered access to American weapon production sites? It's simply naive. "We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules." Oh, countries like North Korea which recently tested an ICBM. What type of consequence will prevent the insane from insane decisions? Nothing has prevented Iran from further development of its nuclear weapons program. Obama never specifies any consequence, knowing that any consequence will be inconsequential to a country determined to not play by the rules. This is mere international campaign rhetoric. The Demagogue in Chief is at it again and his sheeple are loving it. This man is a jackass.
Pres. Obama's naivete is at it again. He now wants a nuclear weapon free world. Who doesn't. However, he said in his speech in Prague the United States is going to implement "concrete steps" towards nuclear arms reduction. That's great and all if ALL other countries go along with reduction treaties and disarmament, however this dork stated "we'll seek an agreement by the end of this year that's legally binding." Binding by who? How do you enforce that? We could not even enforce U.N. Resolutions, six of them, when going after Iraq for possession of chemical and biological weapon programs and the their refusal to allow weapons inspectors to have unfettered access to weapon sites. Does this idiot honestly believe he could force Russia or China to acquiesce their sovereignty to a "legally binding" "agreement"?! This is naive.
He goes on to state that "the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in State nuclear weapons." My God, is that not what Iran is currently doing and what Pres. Bush failed to stop and what Pres. Obama is currently failing to stop? What happens if they build the bomb by the time this treaty is signed? This is reminiscent of the same failure of foresight that occurred in the not too distant past when Pres. Clinton gave North Korea materials that were later used to make a nuclear weapon. History is repeating itself and this megalomaniac thinks he has the power to make the same mistakes and expect a different result. Not only is this naive, he arrogantly believes he'll know what their intention is for the fissile material. Isn't Iran making the argument that enriched uranium is needed for their nuclear power plants? Isn't enriched uranium also a source for nuclear weapons when enriched to a higher grade? What naivete.
His second step is to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by preventing non-nuclear armed Nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, and current nuclear armed nations will "move towards disarmament." "We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections." Again, six UN resolutions did not force Iraq to grant unfettered access to weapon sites. How does he plan on inspecting China and Russia? More importantly, will he grant international inspectors unfettered access to American weapon production sites? It's simply naive. "We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules." Oh, countries like North Korea which recently tested an ICBM. What type of consequence will prevent the insane from insane decisions? Nothing has prevented Iran from further development of its nuclear weapons program. Obama never specifies any consequence, knowing that any consequence will be inconsequential to a country determined to not play by the rules. This is mere international campaign rhetoric. The Demagogue in Chief is at it again and his sheeple are loving it. This man is a jackass.
TARP money Part 2
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html
In follow up to last week's blog entry, more information has come to light regarding Pres. Obama's refusal to accept repayment of TARP loans. In the above article by Stuart Varney, he posits that "If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree." He further states, "Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists."
We've already seen this will effected on GM's former CEO Rick Wagoner, AIG's former CEO Martin Sullivan, and because of the precedent set, there's no reason to doubt otherwise we'll see this occur again. Not only that, but we've heard from members of Congress and the President himself that financiers should not make more than $500,000. Don't believe me, the language is contained in "Pay for Performance Act" passed by the House of Representatives. What we're witnessing is the destruction of our financial institutions. Competition is what makes America great. We do NOT believe in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" How else could one classify the actions of the Obama Administration and his rubber stamp Congress. Number five of the Communist Manifesto states: "Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly." Our National Bank is called the Federal Reserve. By nationalizing our privately held banks, by gaining vested interest in them through purchasing preferred stock options, the centralization of credit in the hands of the Federal Government is under a current ongoing process. Take into account the Obama Administration's actions, and threat of consequences to those banks which want out, it's obvious Obama doesn't want the Government to lose its vested interest. It makes it difficult to conclude otherwise that this Administration wants to control credit lending institutions, in other words to "centralize credit in the hands of the state [government]."
Wake up America. Our God given Liberties are being usurped by a megalomaniac.
In follow up to last week's blog entry, more information has come to light regarding Pres. Obama's refusal to accept repayment of TARP loans. In the above article by Stuart Varney, he posits that "If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree." He further states, "Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists."
We've already seen this will effected on GM's former CEO Rick Wagoner, AIG's former CEO Martin Sullivan, and because of the precedent set, there's no reason to doubt otherwise we'll see this occur again. Not only that, but we've heard from members of Congress and the President himself that financiers should not make more than $500,000. Don't believe me, the language is contained in "Pay for Performance Act" passed by the House of Representatives. What we're witnessing is the destruction of our financial institutions. Competition is what makes America great. We do NOT believe in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" How else could one classify the actions of the Obama Administration and his rubber stamp Congress. Number five of the Communist Manifesto states: "Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly." Our National Bank is called the Federal Reserve. By nationalizing our privately held banks, by gaining vested interest in them through purchasing preferred stock options, the centralization of credit in the hands of the Federal Government is under a current ongoing process. Take into account the Obama Administration's actions, and threat of consequences to those banks which want out, it's obvious Obama doesn't want the Government to lose its vested interest. It makes it difficult to conclude otherwise that this Administration wants to control credit lending institutions, in other words to "centralize credit in the hands of the state [government]."
Wake up America. Our God given Liberties are being usurped by a megalomaniac.
Friday, April 3, 2009
TARP money
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/20871.html
In this politico article, the second page reveals that some Bank CEO's want to give back their TARP money however the President of the United States, an ignoramus who never had a real job, prescribes the TARP money for the banks like this; "This is like a patient who’s on antibiotics. Maybe the patient starts feeling better after a couple of days, but you don’t stop taking the medicine until you’ve finished the bottle." I didn't know Obama was a banking expert, much like how a Doctor is a health expert. Where does this ignorant arrogance come from? Having a J.D. from Harvard doesn't make one an expert on bank financing. If the actual experts, the CEO's that run these companies, don't want the TARP money anymore, then that's the end of the discussion. When are we going to start the impeachment of this Joke?
In this politico article, the second page reveals that some Bank CEO's want to give back their TARP money however the President of the United States, an ignoramus who never had a real job, prescribes the TARP money for the banks like this; "This is like a patient who’s on antibiotics. Maybe the patient starts feeling better after a couple of days, but you don’t stop taking the medicine until you’ve finished the bottle." I didn't know Obama was a banking expert, much like how a Doctor is a health expert. Where does this ignorant arrogance come from? Having a J.D. from Harvard doesn't make one an expert on bank financing. If the actual experts, the CEO's that run these companies, don't want the TARP money anymore, then that's the end of the discussion. When are we going to start the impeachment of this Joke?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)