Decisions have Consequences

I don't really see what the rage is about. Six ships attempted to break a naval blockade, five were successfully boarded however the sixth ship protested by attacking the raiding soldiers with metal pipes, knives and reportedly shot at the soldiers. In any other case, the generic description given would warrant the question, why did the people attack the soldiers. However in this case, the soldiers are Israeli and those attempting to break the blockade are Pro-Hashemite-Palestinian protestors. Obviously in the world's anti-Semitic slant, the Jews are guilty, no questions asked.

When a civilian fights an armed soldier, the civilian is going to lose. Most would call the civilian deluded and probably stupid. However, this isn't case, the Jew soldier is guilty and the moron civilian activist is a saint worthy of honor. Now we can read all about the world's "outrage" over the Jew soldiers actions. It obviously merits an attempt at storming the Israeli embassy in Paris (no surprise, the French are well known anti-Semites). It merits the Turkish ambassador to Israel being recalled, unfortunate for Israel, Turkey is one of two staunch allies, Egypt being the other. It merits 8,000 strong crowd of protestors in Cairo, lead by the Muslim Brotherhood. Except that, the Muslim Brotherhood is really the precursor to Al Qaeda, being that the No. 2 guy in Al Qaeda was at some point a leading figure in the Muslim Brotherhood. So really no surprise here either. Benjamin Netanyahu also cut short his trip to Canada and US to return home to Israel to deal with this matter.

I take solace that at least Obama said all the facts should be sorted regarding this issue. I suppose he'll then issue a statement of his true feelings. Perhaps he learned about opening his mouth and giving an opinion after his disaster white cop is guilty for harassing a black professor incident. I suppose though that after Obama's shameful treatment of Netanyahu on his previous trip that there won't be very many kind words for Israel's actions at preserving her blockade of the Gaza strip. I hope that Netanyahu sticks by his Defense Forces and continues to publicly support their decision while privately finding out whether anyone merits discipline. The world should now know that Israel will protect its sovereignty, even if that means eliminating a few moronic activists that somehow don't believe decisions have consequences.

Hillary Clinton is an Ignoramus

Politico is reporting that Hillary Clinton believes, "The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [America currently does] — whether it's individual, corporate or whatever [form of] taxation forms," and went on to state, "Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere and guess what — they're growing like crazy, And the rich are getting richer, but they're pulling people out of poverty."

Perhaps a brief history lesson is in store for Madam Secretary. Harding and Coolidge cut taxes from 60% to 25% beginning with the Revenue Act of 1921, which incidentally spurred growth in Federal Government revenues. Check out this link from Cato Institute for a more in depth explanation. Not only that, but the tax burden for those in the highest bracket went from paying 29.9% of taxes in 1920 to 61.3% of taxes in 1928, something Progressives should be able to take comfort in.

Here's another example for Madam Secretary to ponder. Reagan also cut taxes across the board, reducing the top margin from 70% to 50%. Here's a link from the Joint Economic Committee expounding on the benefits. Federal Revenue nearly doubled from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989. Again, the tax burden for those in the highest bracket went from 48.0% to 57.2%. Those making between 50th percentile and 95th percentile income saw their tax burden drop 8.8%. Those in the bottom 50th percentile saw their burden drop from 7.5% to 5.7%.

Lastly, in this country we learned this past year that 47% of Americans would pay $0 in Federal Income taxes, thus one could easily state that the bottom 50th percentile that once paid 5.7% of income taxes, now pays 0%. My question to Hillary is as follows: What exactly constitutes "fair share"? This really begs the question, will Progressives ever be satisfied with the amount of taxes the "rich" pay? I say no, and this stems from my belief that Progressives despise wealthy individuals, they truly believe that somehow their gains are ill gotten and therefore no matter what percent of the taxes they pay, it will always be insufficient.