Talking About More Taxes … Again

Never mind that is something he consistently talks about when he gets a round tuit and he has a round tuit in his pocket at all times.

There is no figuring out this man who seemingly rode in from nowhere, doesn’t know sic ’em from whoa, and changes his mind like most people change socks.  It won’t take you long to read the story below … just long enough to know you don’t , er still don’t, like his so-called solutions.

The following comes from The Weekly Standard

The Blog

Obama: Top Tax Rate Should Be 28% for Corporations, 40% for Small Business

2:37 PM, Jul 30, 2013 • By JOHN MCCORMACK
Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

The New York Times reports that President Obama is reviving an old proposal to lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent (and 25 percent for manufacturers). Obama’s push to lower the corporate tax rate to 28 percent comes less than a year after he raised the top individual income tax rate, paid by many small businesses, to 39.6 percent.

Official portrait of Barack Obama

In a speech delivered Tuesday afternoon, Obama did not explain why he thinks it’s a sound economic idea to raise the top marginal tax rate on small businesses but lower it for corporations.

“Right now, our tax code is so riddled with wasteful loopholes that many companies doing the right thing and investing in America pay 35%, while the corporations with the best accountants stash their money abroad and pay little or nothing at all,” Obama said, according to a the text of his prepared remarks. “I’m willing to simplify our tax code in a way that closes those loopholes, ends incentives to ship jobs overseas, and lowers rates for businesses that create jobs right here in America.”

Neither Obama’s Tuesday speech nor his February 2012 corporate tax reform plan explained in detail which loopholes would be closed. During the 2012 presidential campaign, the Obama campaign hammered Mitt Romney for not saying which loopholes he would close to pay for a proposed reduction in individual income tax rates.

Getting To Know Our Governor Martinez

The following story by Rob Nikolewski  is taken by permission from New Mexico Watchdog.   Some of the story first appeared  in People magazine.  We believe it is a great human interest story which demonstrates the strong love and character of our governor.  We know there are thousands, perhaps millions of people across the world performing the same way because of their love for the ones they care for and nothing posted here takes away from their dedication.

We hope you enjoy the story.

Susana and her sister featured in People magazine

By Rob Nikolewski on July 29, 2013
Print This Post Print This Post

SISTERHOOD: Gov. Susana Martinez and her sister Lettie are profiled in People magazine.

SISTERHOOD: Gov. Susana Martinez and her sister Lettie are profiled in People magazine.

It’s well-known that in addition to her duties as New Mexico’s governor, Susana Martinez spends a good deal of her time tending to her sister, Lettie, who is developmentally disabled.

This week’s edition of People magazine offers a glimpse into their lives together, including pictures of the 54-year-old governor and the 56-year-old Lettie, who lives in Las Cruces.

The two-page article followed Susana and Lettie Martinez as they celebrated Lettie’s birthday last month:

On this June day, (Gov. Martinez) is in charge of making her sister’s birthday special. The two go shopping, to lunch and to a spa. Susana remembers Lettie’s being uncomfortable in public when they were kids. “Back then people stared a lot, and she used to hate it: ‘Why are they staring at me?’ Now people are a lot more informed.” Most people are interested in Lettie’s sister, who stops frequently to talk with constituents. When she does, Lettie steps away to pet a shelter kitten or eat ice cream while showing off her newly painted toenails. “I love red!” she says.  

Click here to read the entire article.

Update: Enrique Knell, spokesman for the governor, said that People magazine approached the governor’s office about doing the story earlier this year.

“One reason the governor decided to do the story was to shine a light on the thousands of people in New Mexico and the millions of people around the country who care for their loved ones with disabilities,” Knell said.

– See more at: http://newmexico.watchdog.org/19081/susana-and-her-sister-featured-in-people-magazine/#sthash.cvOchuZP.dpuf

19 Cities Worse Than Detroit

By now we have all heard of Motor City’s tumble into bankruptcy.  It hasn’t been a quick downhill slide, but we can generally point to corrupted unions, corrupt city government and shoddily operated industry.  We can, contrary to progressive groups mantra, stack the beginning at the feet of liberal fools.

Here’s some comparisons pointing to 19 American cities that are in worse shape than Detroit when it comes to population to city employee numbers.

 Detroit declared bankruptcy due in no small part to $3 billion in unfunded public employee pensions owed a sprawling city workforce that kept growing even as the city’s population shriveled, but a Washington Examiner analysis found that 19 major American cities have even bigger ratios of such workers to residents.

The Examiner used the Census Bureau’s 2011 Annual Survey of Public Employment and Payroll to rank every U.S. city with a population of 200,000 or more.

Some of those cities managed to get along fine with comparatively few municipal employees, such as San Diego, which has 9,501 employees for 1.3 million residents, or one for every 137 residents.

But others like San Francisco had a bureaucracy seven times as large, with one of every 28 of the city’s 800,000 residents on the city payroll.

Remarkably, the Census Bureau excluded from these figures all teachers and education professionals, which make up the largest group of local government employees.

Detroit Skyline from the Cultural Center [A630...

Detroit Skyline from the Cultural Center [A630-2194] (Photo credit: Juan N Only)

Here is a link to the story and an interactive map showing citizen to employee ratios

Abortion In The Fourth Trimester

Picked Up From:

Some students attending George Mason University will do almost anything to protect a woman’s “right to choose.”  That would include after delivery “abortion.”

Confused?  Well you probably won’t be after viewing the video below and reading the article posted with it.

Video: George Mason University

Here’s the link to the story:

4th Tri-Mester Abortion

Psst.  Do you have a family member attending George Mason University … You’ll need to debrief them the next time you see them.

 

MainScream Media Racists Called Out

This story points to the “holier than thou,” bunch posted throughout the United States that have mangled the truth about George Zimmerman and others.  It also calls them out as racists and bigots and asks why they get a pass on their outlandish behavior.

Let’s not forget the fools in the entertainment fields that have demonstrated their bigotry and their racist attitudes.

 Ten Mainstream Media Stars More Bigoted Than George Zimmerman

 596
 2
 595

Print ArticleSend a Tip

My headline is a little deceiving because it makes it sound as though there is something in George Zimmerman’s past, or in the events that led to the tragic shooting of Trayvon Martin, that indicates that he is in any way bigoted. On the contrary, from what we have learned about the 29 year-old Hispanic man, he exemplifies the American ideal of color blindness.

A thorough FBI investigation not only found that race had nothing to do with the shooting, but that there was no history of racism in Zimmerman’s past. Moreover, contrary to the media’s lies and evidence fabrication, Zimmerman has dated black women, has black relatives, tutored black children, stood up for a black homeless man against the police, and voted for Barack Obama.

Unfortunately, the same “no evidence of bigotry” statement cannot be said for a number of America’s top mainstream media stars. And so, in no particular order, here are the top media stars provably more bigoted than the man they have shamelessly and falsely attempted to destroy and defame as racist.

Please note that these are individuals who remain respected, and in some cases revered, among their media colleagues…

Click on the link below to see the guilty:

The Guilty By Example

Main

Marita Noon: Why Is Obama Lying On Global Warming

Here’s Marita!  From TownhallFinance.com

Marita Noon

The fact that President Obama has been spreading lies about climate change to support his actions directing the Environmental Protection Agency to impose costly new restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions was exposed last week at a Senate hearing. The lie? Spoken with his trademark don’t-you-dare-question-me confidence during a November 2012, press conference, Obama said: “What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing—faster than was predicted even ten years ago.” Then at a Chicago fundraiser on May 29: “We also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago.” He’s likely said the same thing several times in the intervening months.

The hearing: “Climate Change: It’s Happening Now” was held on Thursday, July 18, by the Environment and Public Works Committee—chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Because Democrats control the Senate, they get more witnesses at a hearing than Republicans. Thursday’s hearing had two panels. Each had three experts (invited by the Democrats) who supported the “alarmist’ position on global warming held by most Democrats and two (invited by the Republicans) who could be called “skeptics.”

During the Q & A time with the first panel—which included the Democrat’s star: Heidi Cullen of Weather Channel fame, Ranking Member Senator David Vitter (R-LA) asked: “Can any witnesses say they agree with Obama’s statement that warming has accelerated during the past 10 years?” After an awkward (to say the least) silence, Cullen tried to change the subject by saying that we need to be looking at longer time periods then ten years and then, ultimately, acknowledged that the warming has slowed, not accelerated. A few minutes later, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) made sure no one missed the point. He repeated Obama’s claim and then asked: “Do any of you support that quote?” Again, silence.

Even the witnesses brought in by the Democrats couldn’t support Obama’s false data. But, there were other interesting aspects of the nearly four-hour-long hearing.

Chairman Boxer, in her opening statement, proclaimed: “Predictions of climate change are coming true right before our eyes.” She added, “We can look out the window and see the evidence of climate change mounting around us.”

I find it interesting that Boxer started off with “predictions.” In preparation for the hearing, the Minority—led by Vitter—produced an important report: “Critical Thinking on Climate Change: Questions to Consider Before Taking Regulatory Action and Implementing Economic Policies.” The 21-page report’s introduction states: “Over nearly four decades, numerous predictions have had adequate time to come to fruition, providing an opportunity to analyze and compare them to today’s statistics. … This report posits that as the developing world has greatly expanded its use of fossil energy and CO2 emissions have increased, then the predictions and claims regarding human influence on climate patterns should be apparent and easily proven.” The remaining 19 pages are filled with predictions and claims—including Obama’s—that are false or foolish, such as Former Vice President Al Gore’s on December 13, 2008: “The entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years.” And a 1989 statement from the Associated Press: “Using computer models, researchers conclude that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide by two degrees by 2010.” Each set of predictions and claims is countered by “The Latest Science.” Reading the report, you’ll find that the claims often contradict the data.

Back to Boxer. She starts with dramatic predictions about heat waves, tropical storms and hurricanes—which will be more frequent and intense.

The first witness was Cullen, Chief Climatologist at Climate Central—who continued with the “extreme weather events” theme: “The impacts of human-caused climate change are being observed right here and right now in our own backyards and neighborhoods.” She said that warming is happening very, very quickly and that it is expected to accelerate. She talked about extremes seen every day:

  • More heavy downpours, (a non-meteorological term)
  • More heat extremes,
  • Increase in hurricane activity,
  • Increase in flood magnitude, and
  • Southwest increase in droughts and wildfires.

While Boxer and Cullen set the stage, as witnesses number 9 and 10, Roger Pielke, Jr., and Roy Spencer provided the final act in Thursday’s theater.

Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado and the author of Climate Fix, started with seven “take-home points” that totally eviscerated Boxer and Cullen’s “extreme weather” claims. Showing a series of charts and graphs that can be found in his written testimony, Pielke convincingly proved: “It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally. It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.” The fact of the matter is (From Pielke’s testimony):

  • Globally, weather-related losses have not increased since 1990 as a proportion of GDP (they have actually decreased by about 25%).
  • Insured catastrophe losses have not increased as a proportion of GDP since 1960.
  • Hurricanes have not increased in the US in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900.
  • There are no significant trends (up or down) in global tropical cyclone landfalls since 1970 (when data allows for a comprehensive perspective), or the overall number of cyclones.
  • Floods have not increased in the US in frequency or intensity since at least 1950.
  • Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950, and there is some evidence to suggest that they have actually declined.
  • Drought has, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and has been covering a smaller portion of the US over the past century.

Pielke’s comments are all the more noteworthy when you realize that he generally believes that humans are influencing the climate system “in profound ways.”

Last, but surely not least, was Roy Spencer who holds a Ph.D. in Meteorology and has spent his entire career in research—specifically satellite information retrieval techniques and global temperature monitoring. Spencer has served NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies. He agrees with Pielke—and every other panelist that at least some of the recent warming is human-caused: “We probably are having some influence, but it is impossible to know with any level of certainty how much influence.”

Spencer tore apart the oft-quoted figure that 97% of scientists support the global warming consensus. He explained that it’s actually 97% of the published papers that acknowledge some human influence—which is “therefore rather innocuous, since it probably includes all of the global warming ‘skeptics’ I know of who are actively working in the field. Skeptics generally are skeptical of the view that recent warming is all human-caused, and/or that it is of a sufficient magnitude to warrant immediate action given the cost of energy policies to the poor. They do not claim humans have no impact on climate whatsoever.”

Why is Spencer “skeptical?” For many reasons, but one involves data he showed covering the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period and the Modern Warm Period. He said: “While today’s hearing is entitled “Climate Change; It’s Happening Now,” it couldhave been entitled “Climate Change: It’s Happened Before.” He explained: “The last 2000 years of proxy reconstructed temperature variations for the Northern Hemisphere shows that the Modern Warm Period (today) is not significantly different from the Medieval Warm Period of ~1000 years ago, or the Roman Warm Period of ~2000 years ago.

Spencer also demonstrated the failure of the computer model predictions upon which the IPCC based their projections of global warming. He offered a chart demonstrating the 73 models used and their predictions vs. the actual temperature measurement from two satellite datasets and four weather balloon datasets. “The level of disagreement between models and observations is quite striking.” Spencer pointed out: “The magnitude of global-average atmospheric warming between 1997 and 2012 is only about 50% that predicted by the climate models. …The level of warming in the most recent 15-year period is not significantly different from zero, despite this being the period of greatest greenhouse gas concentration. This is in stark contrast to claims that warming is ‘accelerating.’” He concludes: “It is time for scientists to entertain the possibility that there is something wrong with the assumptions built into their climate models. …and so far their error rate should preclude their use for predicting future climate change.”

Spencer’s testimony mentioned the “cost of energy policies to the poor”—which brings up another interesting contrast presented at Thursday’s hearing: the economics. As each of the Senators gave his or her opening statements, the Democrats—who claim to be the champions of the poor—never mentioned the cost, and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) exclaimed: “To save the planet will be expensive!” He proposed: “serious legislation to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions” and called for “bold action,” saying: “the US must lead the world.” He’s introduced legislation for a tax on carbon. (Realize that the same week the hearing was held, Australia’s new Prime Minister announced that he “will ‘terminate’ the country’s carbon tax early ‘to help cost of living pressures for families and to reduce costs for small business.”)

Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) addressed “the President’s intent to pursue a costly regulatory roll out” which he said: “demands proof of sound science as well as transparency.”

The economists on the panel where those invited by the Republicans. Diana Furchtgott-Roth was one of them. She’s been chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, chief of staff at the Council of Economic Advisers, Deputy Executive Secretary of the Domestic Policy Council under President George H.W. Bush, and an economist on the staff of President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers.

I talked to Furchtgott-Roth after the hearing. She told me: “They don’t seem to be interested in whether or not climate change is really occurring. They are not interested in facts. They want a carbon tax because it will give them unlimited power and unlimited power means unlimited campaign contributions.” Furchtgott-Roth pointed out how a carbon tax would hurt the economy and how the expensive proposed solutions would disproportionately affect low-income Americans. A chart she presented shows, based on Department of Labor data, that “those in the lowest fifth of the income distribution spend an average of 24 percent of income on energy, compared to 10 percent of the income for those in the middle fifth, and 4 percent of income for those in the top fifth.” She presented several less costly options for climate change mitigation—if greenhouse gasses are really the problem—but felt they fell on deaf ears.

A lot of data was presented at the Senate hearing—much of which was obviously unsettling to the “alarmists.” During the Q & A, the “skeptics” were less attacked on the content of their testimony than they were on personal issues.

Boxer called out the two economists: Furchtgott-Roth and Dr. Robert P. Murphy, Senior Economist, Institute for Energy Research, because their organizations receive some funding from the oil and gas industry. Furchtgott-Roth pointed out that she’s been writing on these issues since long before becoming a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) attempted to portray Spencer as a knuckle-dragging Bible thumper for his views on evolutionary theory. Spencer laughed, asked where that was coming from, and then told Whitehouse he’d be happy to show the stronger science arguments for design at another time. Clearly, Whitehouse’s comments were inappropriate, considering the topic at hand.

In his opening comments, Sanders smugly called the hearing an “Alice in Wonderland hearing” because the people within the room were “living in two separate worlds.” Clearly, they are. But those two worlds accurately represent the American population—though in differing percentages. At the “Alice in Wonderland hearing” the Majority supports the “alarmist” view, which encourages a carbon tax and other “expensive” solutions. In the real world, the majority doesn’t see climate change as a pressing problem—hence the shift to dramatic “extreme weather events.” Americans prioritize economic growth over protecting the environment—a recent survey puts climate change at number 21 in a list of top concerns. In her written testimony, Furchtgott-Roth stated: “Americans know that no reduction in global warming will occur if America reduces greenhouse gases without similar action by China and India, and these countries have not agreed to comparable steps.”

The hearing’s “take-home points:” Obama lied. Boxer and Cullen’s predictions are false. The models are inaccurate. So, for this we are going to ruin the economy and disproportionately hurt the poor?

Watermelon Tea — More To Tell

Al Sharpton

Al Sharpton (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

There’s more to the story than we have been told.  But, didn’t we have to know there is/was given the race-baiting players such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, many members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the New Black Panthers, Potus, AG Eric Holder and a cast of many thousands across the breadth of this country.  Of course we had to know, because the stench of the hidden aspects of this American tragedy were, as usual,  covered-up by the mainscream media and the DOJ..

 

We now know more because other media consisting of online sources such as blogs and similar sources have revealed many facts heretofore purposely shielded from the ordinary citizen’s view.  Most of the American media should hang their printing presses over an acid bath since the media will not use them for truth … might as well dissolve them.

 

Pajamas TV (PJTV) just one of the many concerns called the new media did not let the lies and omissions go untold.  Bill Whittle has put it altogether and you can access his story at the link just below:

 

http://www.pjtv.com/s/GEZDSMRS

 

Here are some narrative excerpts from the video:

 

Trayvon did not buy iced tea. He bought Arizona Watermelon fruit juice cocktail.  That is 100% clear from the  Crime Scene Photographs released to the press and published by the Orlando Sentinel.  Use the link I’ve just provided, scroll to photograph #50, and see for yourself.

Why would this make a difference?  What possible reason would there be to care about whether Trayvon Martin’s soft drink flavor was iced tea or watermelon?

The answer, straight from the urban dictionary, and cannabis.com, is that those are two ingredients used to make a concoction called “lean”, which appears to be a popular high for Black kids.

First, what, specifically, is “lean”?  According these exerpts from urbandictionary.com:

Purple Drank is a intoxicating beverage also known by the names leansizzurp, and liquid codeine. It is commonly abused by southern rappers and wannabe suburban teenagers. It is a mixture of Promethazine/Codeine cough syrup and sprite, with a few jolly ranchers and/or skittles thrown in.

Next, go to the cannibis.com site I’ve linked above.  If you can get through the heavy dose of profanity used by its fans, you will find that watermelon flavored soft drinks have become a popular alternative to Sprite when making “lean.”

 

 

 

Video: Why You Should Be Pro-Life

This young woman has a lot to say on many issues of the day … just about any day the sun rises.  The video below captures most Pro-Life adherents feelings on the subject of abortion. There may be other aspects of education and life in the video that we and others do not wholly concur, but concur or not, the video is well presented and informative.

Thank you for watching:

Why You Should Be Pro Life

Julie Borowski Julie Borowski·83 videos
33,639

25,169

Like     Dislike 381

Published on Jul 15, 2013

Today’s topic is abortion. Libertarians are divided on the issue. With Wendy Davis’ filibuster and Texas abortion bill in the news, I decided to weigh in on the debate. Especially since all the video requests. My opinion may surprise you.

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/JulieBorowski

Like me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/JulieBorowski

Sources:

1.2 million abortions every year: http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_A…

Minorities and abortions: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/21/wh…

Abortion survivor stories:

Gianna Jessen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1F…

Claire Culwell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk0cW…

Melissa Ohden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzTS5…

This topic is my personal opinion. It does not represent the opinions of any organization or any philosophy. My channel is just my own thoughts.