Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Sarah Palin did not announce whether she would enter the 2012 presidential contest in a fiery and substantive speech in Iowa on Saturday, but she did make three more significant announcements that, in the long run, will potentially be more important than a potential future announcement date. First, as part of a five point plan to revive America's economy, Palin called for the elimination of the federal corporate income tax as a way to "break the back of crony capitalism." Her reasons for eliminating the federal corporate income tax, though, were more important than the actual proposal because it was a way in which she drew a line to differentiate herself from not only President Barack Obama, but nearly every other GOP presidential candidate, most notably Texas Gov. Rick Perry.  Second, on the three year anniversary of her vice presidential acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in 2008 when Palin, a reform minded governor who had record approval ratings, invigorated the flailing McCain campaign, Palin cast herself squarely as the anti-McCain. Palin said that she could not understand why some people referred to Tea Partiers as "hobbits," a clear reference to McCain's remarks that denigrated a political movement his critics claim he shamelessly, like a typical politician, used to get re-elected only to turn his back on it once he got back to his familiar Washington trappings. Palin has written on her Facebook page that America needs a "do-over" in 2012, and her speech gave more fuel to the thought that Palin believes America should get a 2008 rematch against President Obama with her name on top of the Republican ticket.  Third, her speech was significant because, should she choose to enter the presidential race, it put forth a skillfully crafted blueprint that would allow her to seamlessly run a primary and general election campaign at the same time, much like what then candidate Obama did against Hillary Clinton and George W. Bus

Interview with Seth Lipsky, former Wall street Asia - NY Sun editor, and journalist.  Seth explains the constitutional requirements that Congress control and protect a hard currency.  He also explains his support for Ron Paul, the Paul-Perry-Cain "flat tax" proposals, and the Federal Reserve Bankster Cartel.  Hard to believe Seth worked for the Wall Street Journal, otherwise known as the globalist bankster voice.  IMHO, no one has done more to confuse the public with free market - capitalism posturing while promoting outrageous banksterism, crony capitalism and a militaristic global corporatism that threatens the sovereignty of the USA than the WSJ.  Seth however is great. excerpt: The founding fathers named the U.S. currency after a coin called a Spanish-milled dollar, which represented 371.25 grains of pure silver, and put protecting its value in the hands of Congress. "They meant the dollar to be a measure of value and in fact they gave Congress the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof in the same sentence of the Constitution in which they gave Congress the power to fix the standards of weights and measures," Lipsky told Newsmax.TV. _________________________________________________________ Editor's note: To get 'It Shines for All' at a great price - Click Here Now. _________________________________________________________  "What the reform movement that we have been covering in The Sun wants Congress to do is to step up to that Constitutional responsibility to establish a proper value to the dollar, and then we wouldn't have to worry about inflation and rising prices," he said. "We would have to conduct the government's budgetary operations in a way that didn't result in a collapse in the value of our currency," said Lipsky. Under President Obama, the White House has enacted stimulus measures to incentivize job creation while the Federal Reserve has flooded the economy with money and swollen its balance sheet in an effort to spur

Excellent article on the importance of gun ownership in America.  The author is a defense attorney practicing law in Arizona.  He's also a war veteran and well versed libertarian.   Excerpts: "I am an American. As such, none of my rights depend on a showing of need. I am a free man who has the right to define and pursue my happiness in any peaceful way I see fit. The government does not grant me rights. I was born free. The legitimate role of government is to act as my agent to protect my rights; which exist independent of government. Americans do not beg the government for rights nor are they required to demonstrate a "need" for rights." "Government never has a more tempting opportunity to increase its size, power and scope, and to curtail the liberties of free people, than during or immediately after a crisis. Indeed, crisis is so tempting an opportunity for government that governments invent crisis whenever possible. This is why "emergency acts" and "wars" on anyone and anything are so popular for governments. Nothing entices people to stop thinking, act impulsively, and to relinquish liberties so easily as a "crisis" or a "tragedy" or an "emergency." We need to be smarter if liberty is to survive." "Although President Obama appears excited about the notion of banning guns, I have not heard him order a ban on the very guns used to protect him. Apparently, when it comes to his protection, President Obama prefers to be protected by people armed with guns. "

Excellent article other than the fact that the author erred in referring to the AR-15 as an "assault rifle." It is not. It is an "assault weapon," a semi-automatic rifle with only a cosmetic resemblance to the M-16 fully automatic "assault rifle." "Assault rifles" have been outlawed in the U.S. for decades. The U.S. had a complete ban on "assault weapon" rifles from 1994 to 2004. It did not affect gun violence rates at all, because semi-automatic rifles that lacked the cosmetic resemblance to "assault rifles" remained on the market. The distinction between the two terms is critical to understanding the current gun debate. Those who propose a ban on "assault weapons" are offering only a cosmetic sop to the anti-gun crowd, banning a sub-set of semi-automatic rifles whilst leaving equally capable semi-autos on the market. The correct question to ask is "why bother?" One might as well ban toy guns that bear a resemblance to assault weapons; other toy guns remain unaffected. For a more in depth discussion of "assault weapon" vs. "assault rifle" with references see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Here's hoping that the Jirga or Afghan Parliament will nix the deal as Iraq did, by refusing to grant U.S. troops and contractors immunity from Afghan criminal law. I read the leaked U.S. markup version of the deal two days ago. It would extend the U.S. Afghan War until 2024 or beyond. Kerry and Obama might be upset; both announced that Kerry had signed the deal this morning. According to Kerry, U.S. involvement will gradually wind down to about 15K troops plus who-knows-how-many contractors and subcontractors. Number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan when Obama took office: 26,607. Number of U.S. troops there as of October, 2013: roughly 51,000. Our Nobel Peace Prize Prez who jokes to his staff about how many people he kills. Ha, ha. Funny. Not.  Let's remember that as recently as June, Obama said that the U.S. could have all troops out before the present deal expires in 2014 if there's no new agreement. I can hope.

Mike Whitney paints a picture of the Obama Administration's desperation to saeve its jihadi mercenaries in Syria from complete destruction. 

The WaPo statistics on the number of people surrounded in East Aleppo are way off. Most of the city is government controlled, but WaPo uses the city's entire population as the number of surrounded people. Best estimates for the number surrounded in the cauldron are in the neighborhood of 10,000 fighters and 20,000 of their camp followers. Let's hope that Obama has a sane moment and doesn't buckle to the chickenhawk pressure.

The article adds more detail than quoted. The picture that emerges is that John Kerry and French foreign minister Laurent Fabius carried water for the Israelis and Saudis to blow up the negotiation at the last moment, after all sides had preliminarily agreed to a text, by substituting a new and very substantially different text without consulting the other P-5+1 members or Iran. That is a down and dirty negotiation tactic; no wonder the negotiation failed. It should be kept in mind that the Israeli and Saudi governments' real goal is not halting Iran's development of a nuclear industry but is instead to persuade or trick the U.S. into bombing Iran back into the Stone Age, as the U.S. did to Iraq in the early 1990s under Emperor Bush 1 with a repeat performance by Emperor Bush II a decade later.  As to Kerry's preposterous claim that no nation has a right to enrich uranium, in reality every nation has that right jus cogens, with the only limitations being on nations that are members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which nations still retain the right to enrich up to 20 percent as Iran has been doing. Claims to the contrary are either misinformed or mere false propaganda. See http://armscontrollaw.com/2013/11/07/scope-meaning-and-juridical-implication-of-the-npt-article-iv1-inalienable-right/

Peace groups support a no-vote on the ISIL AUMF and repeal of the 2002 and 2003 AUMFs. If adopted anyway, they support the following limitations: *A one-year sunset clause  *Geographic limitations *Definitively no combat troops on the ground *Repealing the open-ended war on terror authorization *Robust reporting requirements including civilian deaths

"Newsmax asked vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan to provide his prescription for fixing the American economy and a defense of his proposed agenda, in light of the Obama's administration's refusal to address out-of-control entitlements. Here is his exclusive Newsmax Op-Ed. When President Barack Obama took office in 2009, he assumed a degree of command over the federal government that few U.S. presidents have enjoyed. His party had just enlarged its already-large majority in the House of Representatives, and gained a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The president enjoyed tremendous popularity following his historic victory. During his campaign, then-Sen. Obama argued that what had stopped us from meeting our nation's greatest challenges had been "the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics - the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems." To solve this problem, he pledged to help us "rediscover our bonds to each other and get out of this constant, petty bickering that's come to characterize our politics." Urgent: See Newsmax's Special Report on Paul Ryan - Includes Exclusive Interview The last three and a half years of divisive politics and broken promises have been disappointing. "

A few random thoughts on the budgetary gridlock in Congress: -- The elephant in the room that both parties are ignoring is bankster control of the money supply. Any budgetary reform is doomed unless the power of banksters to print as many dollars as they want is eliminated. In terms of purchasing power, the incredible dilution of the dollar's value that commenced when we abandoned the gold standard has put massive upward pressure on prices and budgets, both governmental and private. The Constitution explicitly forbids anything other than gold or silver to be used for payment of debts. -- Both parties and Obama have been guilty of drawing lines in the sand as preconditions to negotiation. E.g., no entitlement cuts, increased taxes on the wealthy, no defense cuts, no new taxes, etc. These are terms of surrender, not terms of negotiation, akin to an advertising campaign based on the fine print of the sales agreement rather than on why the customer should buy the product. As any successful negotiator knows, the keys to a successful negotiation are: [i] agreeing at the outset that there s no deal until all terms have been agreed to; and [ii] focusing on what you are willing to offer the other side as incentives to agree to a deal, not on areas of disagreement. A successful negotiation results in a deal where both sides feel that the deal puts them ahead of where they began. -- Arguing over pre-conditions is not negotiation; it is no more than a lame excuse for not negotiating. But that is what the White House and both parties have been doing. -- By functioning as an echo chamber for preconditions to negotiation, constituents, wittingly or not, aid in prevention of serious negotiation. Serious negotiation has no substantive preconditions; everything is on the table. And the focus is on what each side is willing to give the other if the entire deal is agreed to, not on what each side is unwilling to offer. -- The major players in the White House and Congress alre

Glenn Greenwald offers his take on Obama's NSA "reform" speech.

When radical leaders over the last 2,500 years have sought to enforce equality of results, their prescriptions were usually predictable: redistribution of property; cancellation of debts; incentives to bring out the vote and increase political participation among the poor; stigmatizing of the wealthy, whether through the extreme measure of ostracism or the more mundane forced liturgies; use of the court system to even the playing field by targeting the more prominent citizens; radical growth in government and government employment; the use of state employees as defenders of the egalitarian faith; bread-and-circus entitlements; inflation of the currency and greater national debt to lessen the power of accumulated capital; and radical sloganeering about reactionary enemies of the new state. The modern versions of much of the above already seem to be guiding the Obama administration - evident each time we hear of another proposal to make it easier to renounce personal debt; federal action to curtail property or water rights; efforts to make voter registration and vote casting easier; radically higher taxes on the top 5 percent; takeover of private business; expansion of the federal government and an increase in government employees; or massive inflationary borrowing. The current class-warfare "them/us" rhetoric was predictable. Usually such ideologies do not take hold in America, given its tradition of liberty, frontier self-reliance, and emphasis on personal freedom rather than mandated fraternity and egalitarianism. At times, however, the stars line up, when a national catastrophe, like war or depression, coincides with the appearance of an unusually gifted, highly polished, and eloquent populist. But the anointed one must be savvy enough to run first as a centrist in order later to govern as a statist.

The Obama Administration and NSA supporters in the House of Representatives resort to a successful last-minute ambush attack to eviscerate the modest reforms proposed in the USA Freedom Act. 

The U.S. agreeing to go after al-Nusrah is a 180-degree turn. To date, the U.S. has pushed to exempt al-Nusrah from air strikes, despite a U.N. Security Council resolution that the U.S. voted in favor that instructs all nations to go after that organization. The Syrian War appears to be moving toward an end. E.g., Turkey has just announced that it wants to negotiate an end to that war with Syria, another about-face. Let's see how Saudi Arabia reacts after the notorious 26 pages are released later today in a massively orchestrated mainstream media event. Look for it just before office closing time in D.C. on this Friday afternoon.

In sum, Mr. Obama is proposing to use the tax code to substantially redistribute income -- raising tax rates on a minority of taxpayers to finance tax credits and direct income supplements to millions of others. How much revenue his higher rates would raise depends on how much less those high-earners would work, or how much they would change their practices to shelter their income from those higher rates. By contrast, Mr. McCain is proposing some kind of tax reduction for most Americans who pay taxes. He says he would finance those cuts by reducing the rate of growth in federal spending.

So according to this article, the U.S. will be conducting  combat operations in the Sinai Peninsula sometime this weekend. 

Now to rein in Obama and get the U.S. out of the Mideast ...