Islam is very peaceful and tolerant

In this USA Today article, a University lecture in Sweden was interrupted by Islamists allegedly headbutting a Professor and shouting "Allah Akbar!" The professors two crimes, one depicting the alleged Prophet Muhammad as a dog and two, showing a video clip from an Iranian artist discussing homosexuality and Islam, specifically that engaged by the alleged Prophet Muhammad.

I note that a) if Islam is peaceful, why the head butting and b) if Islam is tolerant why the subsequent reaction and stifling of speech when Muslims disagree with another person's viewpoint/opinion/etc. For example, when the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) funded "art" showing the crucifix in a jar of urine, or the Virgin Mary smeared in feces, Christians didn't rise up and burn down the exhibition or slit the throat of the artists, or even manage to get funding to the NEA cut off. This however, doesn't fit with Progressive/Leftist/Liberal world view that Islam is the Religion of Peace and Christianity is the Religion of Intolerance and Violence (i.e. Crusades).

I guess in a way, this is why Helen Thomas can tell Jews to "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go back to Auschwitz". It's cool to be pro-Islam and anti-anti-Islamic-religions (think about that double negative for a second). If it's not cool, then it's at least hip to be passive towards Islam, which is just another means of being for it; like appeasing tyranny, you only get more of it when you refuse to confront it. When one views the current ongoing events re: Israel's legal blockade of Gaza, one can see why the world automatically sides with the Islamists-propagators and anti-Jews. Not even the U.S. is backing Israel's right to blockade Gaza, therefore the U.S. is enabling anti-Jews to continue their campaign at breaking the Gaza blockade.

Charles Krauthammer had a great article in the Wall Street Journal stating, "Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and active defense." "It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem." "The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense." Therefore one could summarize this campaign as essentially pro-Islamist and anti-Jew, with the U.S. taking the position of passivity. We can all take comfort however, based on the few examples I've listed, that we can expect the Islamist Palestinians to treat the non-Islamic Israelis with peace and tolerance.

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.

March on out of here while you're at it

Reuters is reporting that on May Day, a day for "unions, anarchists and socialist[Marxist/Communist] groups," that across 70 cities in the U.S., illegal immigrants and their patsies will march against the recently signed law in Arizona.

"The marches and demonstrations are going to be far more massive than they otherwise would have been," said Juan Jose Gutierrez, a Los Angeles rally organizer.

"With what's going on in Arizona we see renewed energy for folks to fight for immigration reform," said Marissa Graciosa, of the Fair Immigration Reform Movement.

"What Arizona has done is that it has galvanized, united, fortified, focused our immigration movement," Democratic Representative Luis Gutierrez declared at a news conference.

I find it rather amazing, or perhaps ironic, that the backers of illegal immigration and primary opponents of this law are Hispanic. Never mind that the majority of illegal immigrants do in fact come from south of border, but the representatives of the anti-immigration-enforcement movement call out attention to the fact this is primarily a Latino issue and therefore garners their attention precisely because those primarily affected are Latino. Americans should show grave concern for members of its society that care more about their ethnic brethren than they care about being an American. This is the problem with lack of assimilation, they have no loyalty to this country or our laws, their loyalty belongs to those of their Raza.

The solution to the estimated 12-20 million illegal immigrants is to take away their incentive to be here, jobs. After their May Day rally, Congress should immediately pass Legislation fining employers who hired illegal immigrants $100,000 per illegal immigrant for first time offenders. Second offense should be $250,000 per illegal immigrant and third offense should be confiscation of the personal property of all Corporate Executives and a minimum of five years in Federal prison for aiding and abetting criminal activity. The recently signed law, as we can read in this AP article, is already having the intended consequence of getting illegal immigrants to leave the state.

This notion that somehow people have a RIGHT to come/be here is asinine. Though one can sympathize with people wanting a better life for themselves and their children, the United States cannot alleviate world poverty simply by allowing unfettered immigration. I read a statistic that 40 million people per year are born into poverty. Even if the US allowed one million per year, after ten years we'd have 10 million more poor and the world would have 390 million more poor. The solution is clearly with the rest of the world and forcing free market expansion, weeding out corruption and preserving purchasing power. Our system and Economy are incapable of taking care of the world's poor, it's up to the world to rectify the situation, not one sole country.

Racist?! Pfft!

So illegal immigrants and their patsies on the Left think Arizona's new law, SB 1070, is somehow inherently racist because it requires suspected illegal immigrants to provide proof of being in the US legally. I suppose then that being required to show proof of having paid your fare to ride the train is racist. Being required to show a driver's license while operating a motor vehicle must also be racist. This is all of course the feeble attempt of mentally deficient individuals to conjure up arguments as to why certain individuals should be exempt from the laws everyone else is expected to follow. Hopefully the 20-30% of Americans who either don't have a stance on illegal immigration or are against measures to curb illegal immigration will see the entitlement mentality of said illegal immigrants. However I suspect that since they haven't up to this point, it's unlikely they will and thus any concerns they have should be promptly dismissed as lunacy.

47% Incentivized to not Work, Harder

Phyllis Schlafly wrote that in 2009, 47% of Americans "will pay no federal income taxes". Not only that, but the bottom 40% of earners "not only pay no income tax, but the government sends them cash or benefits". So doing some quick math, 53% of us subsidize 40% of Americans that receive either tax credits or some other form of government assistance.

In complementary fashion to this article, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Larry Summers, current White House Economic Adviser, wrote in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, ed. 1999,

"The second way government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment is by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work. Each unemployed person has a 'reservation wage'—the minimum wage he or she insists on getting before accepting a job. Unemployment insurance and other social assistance programs increase [the] reservation wage, causing an unemployed person to remain unemployed longer."

So in addition to redistributing wealth from 53% of taxed earners to the bottom 40%, the 53% of taxed earners subsequently pay the current 9.7% of the Nationally unemployed to remain out of a job because the incentive to find a job doesn't exist. Isn't this common sense? Why work when the "government" takes care of one through unemployment, COBRA, welfare assistance, etc.

"Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute has found that the average unemployment episode rose from 10 weeks before the recession to 19 weeks after Congress twice previously extended jobless benefits—to 79 from 26 weeks."

Even though unemployment beneficiaries take on average 19 weeks off from working, they can technically receive 79 weeks of unemployment. It's just ridiculous.

This Chicago Tribune article states, in "a 2009 report by the American Legislative Exchange Council: A decade's worth of hard data suggests that states with no individual income tax created 89 percent more jobs, and had 32 percent faster personal income growth, than did states with the highest income tax rates." So let's understand this, if a state has few tax burdens, i.e. one can infer they provide less State services, that State created 89% more jobs resulting in a personal income growth of 32%. So by whatever means the State does collect revenue, it collects more of it because the residents of said State are wealthier.

All this goes to show that the more burdensome government becomes, the less productive, less wealthy, more entitled, its Citizens become. Our country will cease to function at some point because the 53% of us paying taxes will have had enough. We'll never go back to WW2 personal income tax rates of 90+%. It's time to overthrow this crap.

Health Care "Reform"

This Bloomberg article talks about all the new taxes proposed under Pelosi-Reid-Obama's supposed Health Care Reform. Let's take a look:

1. $409.2 billion total in additional taxes by 2019 broken down by:

• $69 billion in penalties for individuals and businesses who don’t meet mandates to buy insurance. Individuals without insurance will be fined $325 in 2015, $695 in 2016 or 2.5% of income depending on which is greater [i.e. if you make more than $27,800 you'll pay 2.5% of your income in fines]. Employers with 50 or more workers would pay $2,000 per worker if they don’t offer health insurance.
• 3.8% Medicare tax on about 1 million individuals earning more than $200,000 and about 4 million couples filing jointly who make more than $250,000 [9 million people total].
• Obama’s budget allows the existing 15 percent tax rate on dividends and capital gains to rise to 20 percent in 2011 for the same high-earners for a total of a 23.8% tax.
• Increases Medicare tax currently imposed on salaries starting at $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples to 2.35 percent, from current 1.45 percent [62% increase].
• 40 percent excise tax on "Cadillac" health insurance plans is delayed until 2018, when it will apply to benefits over $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for couples.
• Starting in 2013, Americans under 65 won’t be able to deduct medical expenses until they exceed 10 percent of income, up from 7.5 percent.
• New $2,500 limit on what can be contributed to employer-sponsored flexible spending accounts [currently there is no limit].
• Consumers who frequent tanning salons would pay a 10% excise tax.
• Insurers would be denied deductions for executive pay over $500,000.

The entire bill of taxes is a joke. 10% excise tax for frequenting a tanning salon? Who's to say that the Vitamin D produced by one's body isn't worth a 10% tax credit? What does Botox Pelosi have against tanned individuals? Why not charge 10% income taxes on obese people? They're the driving factor for most maladies requiring health care [i.e. diabetes, high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, etc.]. If the President is concerned about the price of health care, why would he depress the wages of Executives that insure most Americans? Most insurance companies run on a 2% profit margin as is. Flex spending accounts allow people to pay for procedures using tax deferred dollars, now one could only afford braces much less any real health procedure. Of course a rallying cry for Democrats is that health care is the leading cause of bankruptcy. How sympathetic is it then to raise the threshold by 33% in order for one to deduct medical expenses from one's income? Why not allow all medical expenses to be deducted from one's income, including the cost of health insurance premiums? The biggest joke of all is the kickback to Unions like SEIU or UAW, delaying their "contribution" to health care reform until 2018 when their Cadillac health plans will be taxed at 40%. The entire bill is a sick, stupid joke.

All said, if Democrats believe that 2008 gave them a mandate to pass health care "reform" then the 2010 political revolution will give Republicans/Conservatives a mandate to repeal said "reform." This business of extracting wealth from the "rich" in order to distribute to the less rich, or "poor" has got to end. People need to re-educate themselves where our Rights come from. Not from Government, who can then take them away, but from our Creator. No one has a right to money, let alone health care, except that which they earn.