WANT TO BLOG ON THIS SITE?
YOU CAN RANT AGAINST THE LIBERALS, OR USE CBC TO PROMOTE THE LATEST POSTINGS FROM YOUR OWN PERSONAL BLOG!!
It's easy.
Just click the JOININGup top...
BACK TO ADDING BLOGS - IF YOU WANT YOUR BLOG ADDED TO THE LISTING, CLICK THE SAME TAB.
We saw the same old recycled rhetoric from Obama in his speech today about Illegal immigration. The regular Democrats (how few there are in Congress) along with the progressives are playing the sympathy card on Americans. That Illegals come here for a better life, a new start and the American dream that has happened to many immigrants of the past. The Democrats convinced most Americans of color that Republicans are racist, don't care about them and wish they would go away. Obama is doing this same tactic about the illegals, that anyone opposed to them being here against federal law hates them for their skin tone.
We have seen this before from them about other minorities and the tactic has worked for Black Americans vote 85% or up Democrat. This isn't about race, the left spins it that way because it suits what they want and that is the votes.
Then why does everyone who is opposed to illegal immigration have no problem with legal immigrants going through the system to become Americans. We have changed immigration policy in this country over the years as most country's do as times change. Once this country was wide open with space to fill, Once this country had immigrants rely on themselves not the government. They received help from communities, churches and local groups that helped them begin the new life here in America. The problem is things have changed and our laws have changed to protect America from becoming overburdened by those who wish to come here. I know people on the left get bent out of shape when you bring up economic issues about illegals but my question is why are American taxpayers forced to pay for them.
They aren't American citizen's, yet we give them health care for free, they get assistance from the federal and state governments. I know of a local DES(Department of Economic and Security) person here in AZ that had over 490 illegal mothers about to give birth. We are paying about $15,000 per person for people who aren't Americans, nobody else does this and most places around the world you must be economically viable to immigrant legally to their country. My question is Why we should pay? Has it become Americas problem that the rest of the world doesn't know how to run their country. Why don't they all immigrate to some South American country or some European country or even Africa. The simple truth is we have made it easy to break our laws and they know that the federal government here isn't interested in fixing the problem.
We are a nation of immigrants and nobody denies this but we simply can't afford to take on every ones citizen's. If we don't control what is going our local, state and federal system will collapse, There is tough decisions that Americans must make sometimes. The left may not like this but Economics has brought many nations to collapse over the history of man. To ignore this part of are illegal immigration problem is to our detriment.
We need change in Washington that is clear, I mean on both sides of the aisle for they have forgotten that this is supposed to be about service. Representing the people of their towns, cities, counties, and states not serving their own self interest
One of (the many) shortfalls of leftist doctrine is its reliance on social and moral relativism. Just as Friedrich Nietzsche predicted a future society Beyond Good and Evil, his writings prophesied the modern world and the ideology of liberalism.
Allan Bloom, in his seminal book The Closing of the American Mind points out how moral relativism has invaded the educational system and has closed the minds of students to the benefits and higher ideals of earlier days. I've included a few quotes from his book as a general condemnation of modern liberal ideology:
[The education of openness] pays no attention to natural rights or the historical origins of our regime, which are now thought to have been essentially flawed and regressive. it is progressive and forward-looking....It is open to all kinds of men, all kinds of life-styles, all ideologies. There is no enemy other than the man who is not open to everything. But when there are no shared goals or vision of the public good, is the social contract any longer possible? (27)
Indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is discrimination. This folly means that men are not permitted to seek for the natural good and admire it when found, for such discovery is coeval with the discovery of the bad and contempt for it. Instinct and intellect must be suppressed by education. The natural soul is to be replaced with an artificial one. (30)
Openness used to be the virtue that permitted us to seek the good by using reason. It now means accepting everything and denying reason's power. The unrestrained and thoughtless pursuit of openness, without recognizing the inherent political, social, or cultural problems of openness as the goal of nature, has rendered openness meaningless.
Modern liberalism is adrift in the sea of moral relativism, with neither rudder to steer it, nor anchor to keep it from drifting into dangerous waters. Several problems arise from this ideology:
1) With no solid foundations, the good and the evil become whatever liberals say they are. Deficit spending and national debt are too high? Bush's debt was evil. Obama's debt is good. Bush's handling of the war in the Mideast was evil. Obama's handling of the war in the Mideast is good.
2) Moral relativism leads to an absolutist view of the world. This is dangerous when such views gain political power and attempt to disenfranchise others. This is especially dangerous when absolutist views baldly ignore the US Constitution. Americans don't like abortion? Use the courts to invent new rights not found in the Constitution. A liberal gets offended by religion? Use the courts to limit the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause. A liberal doesn't like California's constitutional amendment protecting marriage? Use the courts to declare the California constitution unconstitutional.
3) Modern liberalism preys on others through blatant emotionalism. The government spent too much money? Threaten to cut off school or police spending in order to raise taxes. The government is in a black hole of debt? Blame rich people for being greedy. Arizona passes a law to keep its border from being overrun while illegal immigration threatens to destroy its economy? Call everyone in Arizona racist, boycott the state, and threaten a federal law suit.
Notice the duplicity of thought that must accompany such an ideology. With no guidelines, anything goes - and expects the rest of the country to sit back and pretend nothing's wrong with the liberal ideology.
The Swiss Parliament recently ratified a tax treaty ending bank secrecy in the land of William Tell. Anticipating this eventual course of action last summer, the Swiss bank Wegelin & Co. wrote a long "Dear John" letter accusing the United States of tax arrogance. The reason? The U.S. is one of the only countries to assess a "Death Tax" on anyone in the world who dies owning U.S. securities.
While the 2010 death tax rate is zero, the rate will jump to 55% unless Congress acts first. If this rate is allowed to take effect, it means that foreigners who inherit U.S. securities will now have to pay an extra layer of taxes on the value of the securities they inherit.
It also imposes a duty on foreign banks to identify and report back to the Internal Revenue Service on who owns our securities (as though the IRS were reading the foreign obituary columns daily, looking for more revenue).
Avoiding U.S. Stocks
For their part, Wegelin & Co. refused. Rather than expose any of their clients to this risk or the IRS, it simply pulled out of investing in U.S. securities altogether. It viewed them as tainted.
Adding insult to injury, the U.S. subsequently made it more difficult for American citizens to open foreign bank accounts. Legislation passed in March and taking effect in 2013 allows the government to begin imposing withholding requirements on certain foreign withdrawals by U.S. citizens.
In practical effect, these new requirements, coupled with the end of bank secrecy policies (which originally protected consumers from having their personal and account information shared with authorities) hinder capital from leaving the U.S. In the past, while this U.S. tax was on the books, it was difficult to tie specific securities to specific clients, dead or undead. Now that's all changed.
But two can play at the new games. If the Europeans perceive that we discourage U.S. citizens from buying their securities, but that they have to pay an estate tax to the U.S. and support the dollar by buying U.S. securities, it's only a matter of time before others throughout Europe follow in Wegelin & Co.'s footsteps. Many foreigners will choose to give their heirs their money instead of the U.S., and do so by systematically avoiding U.S. securities.
More Revenue
While that may seem unlikely because the euro has been falling, the competitiveness of European goods will rise, and their economy will eventually recover, perhaps quite vigorously. When this happens, which is more of a possibility than many believe right now, the U.S. may need their capital even more to fuel our own still shaky economic recovery. And the Asians are already supporting our debt.
Alternatively, the Europeans (or other foreign countries) may decide to retaliate by imposing or increasing a death tax on Americans holding, say, German bunds or Swiss bonds. If there is retaliation that slows capital flows, it could wind up being like the trade wars that made the Great Depression so devastating.
With a high estate-tax rate, new withholding requirements on certain foreign withdrawals and the end of bank secrecy policies, we are alienating ourselves from potential international security buyers in exchange for very little potential revenue, but lots of wealth destruction.
Alicia Munnell, a member of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, found that estate tax compliance costs are so great they actually approach the total death tax proceeds. Furthermore, a study by former Treasury official Stephen Entin for the American Family Business Foundation found that the U.S. government would actually generate substantially more revenue without the death tax than with it.
A generous estimate would suggest that a few billion dollars is likely the best we can expect from foreigners' death taxes. But at the margin, if we lose some natural U.S. Treasury buyers because they don't want to pay the death tax, it will add to the interest we pay on our $13 trillion and growing national debt.
Wegelin & Co. estimates it could raise the cost of our debt to be refinanced by as much as 50 basis points. If we cut that in half, and assume that each year from now through 2019 we have to raise $1 trillion, for a total of $9 trillion more dollars, the ongoing cost would be an incremental $25 billion per year, for a total of $200 billion per year extra by 2019.
In addition, with higher rates, all holders of Treasuries would have lower prices for their bonds. That's a high price to pay to collect no more than a few billion dollars in taxes a year.
If the U.S. wants to avoid this scenario and keep other banks from following in Wegelin & Co.'s footsteps while also avoiding giving cause for retaliation, then Congress ought to kill the death tax once and for all. It would be the best policy both at home and abroad.
JohnBoehner Appearing on Fox News' On The Record w/ Greta Van Susteren, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said President Obama should spend less time attacking Republicans and focus on stopping his job-killing spending spree that is hurting our economy.
Greetings! Consti here in the Bunker Law library taking a refresher course in illegal behavior. I’ve come to the conclusion that NO AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD OBEY THE LAW. That’s right. I said it. Break the law who cares? Apparently the Federal Government and the people who write the laws don’t give a rat’s kiester about obeying the laws of the land so why should we? So go out and steal cars, rob little old ladies, beat up whomever you like, fire off your gun into the air in a crowded city, run over pedestrians (and award yourself points for it!), sell anything you want even if it’s not yours to sell, walk into someone’s home and take their positions, their wife, walk into any business and just take what you want. Who cares? “Anarchy burger! Hold the Government!” as the song goes.
[ED NOTE: If you think I am REALLY condoning lawlessness then you are humorless and don’t know what sarcasm is do you? So before you comment below about “how can you condone it?” Or go off on some silly rant thinking you caught me on something I don’t want to hear it. We should all follow the law!]
Now why am I saying this? Well I’ve always been told since I was a little kid to “lead by example.” I was also told to obey the rules. These are fundamental, intelligent words to live by. However the actions of this administration clearly show that they are either not able or willing to follow the laws of this country. Specifically; U.S. Code Title 8 Chapter 12 Subchapter II Part VIII Section 1324 Here are a few of the sections of the code below that I would like to highlight.
iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(c) Authority to arrest No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.
Now that’s the important part kids. Make sure you have it in your notes because it will be on the final exam.
“…and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.”
Now I am no attorney. I don’t make claims to be. But it would sound to me like the Arizona law is no different. And in actuality it’s more granular in its definition of Authority to arrest to assure that racial profiling does not take place. So with that in mind did the Labor Secretary BREAK THE LAW? What REALLY is their constitutional complaint with SB1070?
Is she not aiding and abetting illegal behavior in relation to her assertion that ever worker here legally or illegally has a RIGHT to a fare wage? Is that not condoning lawlessness? Doesn’t that sound like the SEIU which she has ties to? “We fight for every worker worldwide!” How about her quote to a Latino voter rally a few years ago; "We are all Americans, whether you are legalized or not."
Still need more examples? How about alleged behind closed door talks in the administration to use Homeland Security to unilaterally grant legal status on a mass basis to illegal immigrants? Using a procedure known as deferred action or parole which would give illegal immigrants the ability to seek a work permit and temporary legal status which is usually done on a case-by-case basis. Thus circumventing the congress that has the legal authority to write immigration law! You know like they floated reconciliation for the Obamacare horse pill. (Personally I hope he does it since its political suicide in a mid-term currently.)
Still not seeing it? Ok. How about the Sestak and Romanoff job offers? (Typical Chicago wheeling and dealing politics in the WH.) The WH says everything was above board, but refuses to release ANY documentation to prove it. You know that’s how Obama rolls on transparency! “The Resolution of Inquiry failed on a party-line vote in the House Judiciary Committee, 15-12.” And of course this is a little story in the Denver Post! Where are the other news organizations on this? Answer = they are complicit in the stonewalling.
How about the current comment from Supreme Court nominee Kagan’s statement; “It’s fine if the law bans books because government won’t really enforce it.” That includes political pamphlets that are considered “outside the mainstream.” Correct me if I am wrong but didn’t the Nazi’s BURN books to keep the populace ignorant?
Europe never recovered from the last one, so it seems. It’s a sad combination of the dregs of medieval barbarity and the ingrained subservience of the ‘peasant’ class. The emergence throughout Europe of a new and virulent anti-semitism is evidence of a further disintegration of European morality and an ugly window to the not-too-distant past.
There are whole libraries on Hebraic history, and any number of highly educated and friendly scholars who will give of their time and knowledge to those who honestly seek the truth. The Judean diaspora is said to have had its advent with the conquering of Israel in 722 BC by the Assyrians, the Jewish peoples having been scattered throughout the middle east. Still, with typical Jewish stubbornness and determination, groups of Jews here and there maintained their religious and cultural identity despite being widely separated.
After the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 73 AD, following the Jewish revolt against Roman rule in 70 AD, the Romans harried the Jews from Palestine, scattering the remnants of the population across Asia, Africa, and Europe. Widely-scattered Jewish communities, stubbornly clinging to their religion and culture, were seldom welcomed in their adopted homelands, and being different were easy targets for both incidental and institutionalized discrimination and violence.
The word ‘pogrom’ means a violent attack, sometimes government or military sponsored, against a specific group of people. Pogroms were common throughout Europe and the Russia of the Tsars. Much of the hatred against European Jewry arose from the very success of these ‘interlopers’, as they were looked upon. Largely well-educated and prosperous through hard work and determination, they became easy targets in their isolated and powerless communities.That they were able to survive, much less prosper, under such conditions is no small testament to their adaptability.
Anti-semitism is a word coined by a German socialist, William Marr, in 1879. He founded the League for Anti-Semitism. The late philosopher Zvi Diesendruck stated that, “There has never been a standing term for this merely negative attitude, to any other people in history”. “Only anti-semitism; only against Jews”. The undercurrents of this pernicious practice can be seen right up to, and into, modern Europe. The culmination coming with the murders of millions of European Jews, and others, at the hands of the Nazis in Europe’s death camps.
After the war there was a diaspora in reverse, as hundreds of thousands of displaced and homeless Jews made their way to the infant state of Israel. Anti-semitism, at least for the years after the war, was a shameful thing scorned by most good citizens of Europe. That it still existed and was just under the surface cannot be denied. Discriminatory practices in the old Soviet Union states were endemic against Jews.
Now, with in increase in Islamo-fascist populations through Europe, we see a new impetus towards violence and hatred toward European Jewry. The Jewish population who were fortunate enough to have left Europe before World War Two, and those who could not and were slaughtered, constituted an educated-class brain-drain that much of Europe has yet to recover from. Had Hitler had a few more Einsteins and a few less chicken farmers named Himmler, we might be in a whole different world today.
Europe, in its hide-bound arrogance, has nothing to recommend itself to anyone who loves freedom… freedom from oppression, freedom from fear. There may be another out-migration of Europe’s Jewry. In this day and age, unlike the travel-restricted Europe of yore, there is nothing to prevent Europe’s Jews from voting with their feet.
It will be Europe’s loss and the world’s gain.
It is time to come together - I will not post another derogatory thread about a conservative. I am to the point where I don't care who wins, as long as they beat Obama. That includes Ron Paul. Vote your heart!
Posts
