Could American Troops Be Deployed To Sinai

We  ask you to read this article with care.  It is the only posting that we  have seen. Many other blogs and news sources have picked it up but we have not seen any confirmation of the actions suggested in the article by any other source. If true, it would be the result of a news blackout.  We have seen confirmation that US troops are already in the Sinai as part of a multi-national force enforcing the Egyptian-Israel peace agreement. Are these the troops to which Obama was referring?

 President Obama has agreed to deploy troops to the Sinai as part of the Gaza Cease Fire.  This is indeed an interesting development.  Why?  Read the attached story and let us know your view.

Obama’s pledge of US troops to Sinai next week won Israel’s nod for ceasefire

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report November 23, 2012, 3:11 PM (GMT+02:00)

Tags:  Barack Obama   Binyamin Netanyahu   Sinai   smuggling   US special forces   Gaza 

Obama on the phone to Netanyahu with key pledge

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu agreed to a ceasefire for halting the eight-day Israeli Gaza operation Wednesday night, Nov. 21, after President Barack Obama personally pledged to start deploying US troops in Egyptian Sinai next week, DEBKAfile reports. The conversation, which finally tipped the scales for a ceasefire, took place on a secure line Wednesday morning, just hours before it was announced in Cairo. The US and Israeli leaders spoke at around the time that a terrorist was blowing up a Tel Aviv bus, injuring 27 people.
Obama’s pledge addressed Israel’s most pressing demand in every negotiating forum on Gaza: Operation Pillar of Cloud’s main goal was a total stoppage of the flow of Iranian arms and missiles to the Gaza Strip. They were smuggled in from Sudan and Libya through southern Egypt and Sinai. Hostilities would continue, said the prime minister, until this object was achieved.
Earlier, US officials tried unsuccessfully to persuade Israel to accept Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi’s personal guarantee to start launching effective operations against the smugglers before the end of the month. The trio running Israel’s Gaza campaign, Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, were willing to take Morsi at his word, except that Israeli security and intelligence chiefs assured them that Egypt has nothing near the security and intelligence capabilities necessary for conducting such operations.
When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Jerusalem from Bangkok Tuesday, she tried assuring Netanyahu that President Obama had decided to accelerate the construction of an elaborate US system of electronic security fences along the Suez Canal and northern Sinai. It would also cork up the Philadelphi route through which arms are smuggled into the Gaza Strip. (The US Sinai fence project was first disclosed exclusively by DEBKA-Net-Weekly 564on Nov. 9).
US security and civilian units will need to be deployed in Egyptian Sinai to man the fence system and operate it as an active counter-measure for obstructing the smuggling of Iranian weapons supplies.
The prime minister said he welcomed the president’s proposal to expedite the fence project, but it would take months to obtain Egyptian clearance. Meanwhile, the Palestinians would have plenty of time to replenish their weapons stocks after Israel’s Gaza campaign. It was therefore too soon to stop the campaign at this point or hold back a ground incursion.
Clinton was sympathetic to this argument. Soon after, President Obama was on the phone to Netanyahu with an assurance that US troops would be in place in Sinai next week, after he had obtained President Morsi’s consent for them to go into immediate action against Iranian smuggling networks.
Netanyahu responded by agreeing to a ceasefire being announced in Cairo that night by Clinton and the Egyptian foreign minister, and to holding back the thousands of Israeli reservists on standby on the Gaza border.
DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the first air transports carrying US special forces are due to land at Sharm el Sheikh military airfield in southern Sinai in the next 48 hours and go into action against the arms smugglers without delay.
This development is strategically significant for three reasons:
1.  Once the missile and arms consignments depart Iranian ports or Libyan arms bazaars, Tehran has no direct control of their transit from point to point through Egypt until they reach Sinai and their Gaza destination. All the same, a US special forces operation against the Sinai segment of the Iranian smuggling route would count as the first overt American military strike against an Iranian military interest.
Netanyahu, Barak and Lieberman are impressed by the change the Obama administration has undergone since the president’s reelection. Until then, he refused to hear of any military action against Iran and insisted that Tehran could only be confronted on the diplomatic plane.
2.  President Morsi, by opening the Sinai door to an American troop deployment for Israel’s defense, recognizes that the US force also insures Israel against Cairo revoking or failing to honor the peace treaty Egypt signed with Israel in 1979.
3.  In the face of this US-Israel-Egyptian understanding, Hamas cannot credibly claim to have won its latest passage of arms with Israel or that it obtained guarantees to force Israel to end the Gaza blockade.
Indeed, Gaza’s Hamas rulers will be forced to watch as US troops in Sinai, just across its border, break up the smuggling rings filling their arsenals and most likely laying hands on the reserve stocks they maintain under the smugglers’ guard in northern Sinai, out of reach of the Israel army. This means that the blockade on Gaza has been extended and the focus of combat has switched from Gaza to the Sinai Peninsula. 

Community Reinvestment Act Exposed

One of our faithful readers has continually commented on the housing crisis and he blames the banks, however,  we have argued that it was the responsibility of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).  This legislation was passed in 1977 under the Carter Administration in an effort to prevent "red-lining" a practice where a bank would put a red line around an area into which it would not sell mortgages. 

As with all well intended legislation this one's original intent was modified when the regulators of the banks used CRA as an "incentive" to obtain certain bank behavior.  

In the following post, John Carney, tells the story of how the Act ended up causing  the 2008 Housing "Bubble."  By the way, he did not believe the CRA was the cause until he did his research.  It is interesting reading as it confirms what we have been saying for years.

Conservative Tom

Here is the link:

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-06-27/wall_street/30009234_1_mortgage-standards-lending-standards-mortgage-rates

Government Intentions Good, Outcome Bad

Government always get things wrong. Yes, always.It might not occur right away,but in the long run, it is always wrong.  It's intentions might have been  honorable, however, man is not smart enough to visualize all the effects of legislation.  Whether it was the Community Reinvestment Act which went on to cause the mortgage meltdown of 2008 or the requirement that ethanol must be used for gasoline which ends up driving up food prices. The latter story is covered by the Wall Street Journal in the link below.

Today many Americans believe that government is the solution to all our our problems.  We think that is folly.  The USSR tried to manage the economy and ended up starving millions. Those in charge of the US economy are not smarter than the Russians or any other bureaucrat who ever tried to plan the future.

There are only two jobs where the practitioner  can be wrong every time and keep their job. Those jobs are meteorologists and economists! How many times have we seen  economists make different forecasts, all of which turn out wrong.  We cannot predict the future and trying to do so is folly. There are just too many variables and nature has a way of making us look very silly.

We  believe in less government, less regulation and a return to caveat emptor.

Conservative Tom

Here is the link to the Wall Street Journal on ethanol and the unintended consequences of government regulation.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323713104578133571463805826.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Social Security and Medicare On the Chopping Block

For those senior citizens who voted for Obama, here is what you can look forward to. It is not pretty but hey, you lived your life, raised your kids, paid into Social Security and Medicare for all of your working life and now powers to be want to drastically cut the program! What about all those young people who thought that their parents could retire on Social Security? Mom and Dad are coming to live with you. We all are suckers if that happens!  Read more in the attached article.

Conservative Tom

Did Social Security and Medicare Crash the Economy?

By Yahoo! Finance | The Exchange – 14 hours ago

• Email
• Print

By Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research

The talk in Washington these days might lead people to think that the main cause of the economic downturn is the Social Security and Medicare benefits being paid to retirees. After all, we have people from both parties giving us assurances that cuts to these programs are an essential part of any budget deal. This is the sort of topsy-turvy thinking that passes as conventional wisdom in Washington.

In case it's necessary to remind people, our economy plunged due to the collapse of a Wall Street fueled housing bubble. The loss of demand from the collapse of the housing bubble both led to a jump in the unemployment rate from which we have still not fully recovered and also the large deficits of the last five years.

Prior to collapse of the bubble, the budget deficits were quite modest. In 2007 the deficit was just 1.7 percent of GDP, a level that can be sustained indefinitely. Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the deficits would remain small for the near future, with the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2011 projected to push the budget into surplus.

The Deficit and the Downturn

The reason that we suddenly got large deficits was the economic downturn which caused tax revenue to plummet and increased spending on programs like unemployment insurance. We also had temporary measures that included tax cuts like the payroll tax holiday and various spending programs that further raised the deficit.

However these stimulus measures were temporary and were quite explicitly designed to boost the economy. Had it not been for the downturn, they would not have occurred. There is very little by way of permanent changes from the pre-recession tax and spending policy that would raise the budget deficits from the low levels that had been projected in 2008. This means that the story of current deficits is the story of the collapsed housing bubble.

We Need a Speculation Tax

In a sane world we might be looking to square the deck with the folks who brought us the bubble. One obvious way would be a modest financial speculation tax like the one that the UK has had in effect on stock transfers for centuries. A modest tax on trades of stock, options, credit default swaps and other derivative instruments could raise enormous amounts of money while barely affecting normal investors.

The Joint Tax Committee estimated that a 0.03 percent speculation tax proposed by Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Peter Defazio would raise almost $40 billion a year. This bill would imply a tax of just $3 on $10,000 of trades. Since computerization has caused trading costs to plummet, this tax would just raise transaction costs back to where they were 10-15 years ago.

The big hit would be on the high speed traders and other fast turnover types who are flipping stock and other assets by the hour or even by the second. This trading is a drain on the economy and cutting it back would free up resources for productive activity.

But It Won't Happen

But in Washington policy circles, taxing Wall Street is off the agenda, cutting Social Security and Medicare is on the agenda. And, best of all, many of the people at the center of the housing crash are playing leading roles in this drive to cut retirees benefits.

Last week, many people might have seen Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, talking aboutthe need to cut Social Security benefits and raise the retirement age. The last time that Mr. Blankfein was very visible in policy debates he was desperately seeking a bailout for Goldman Sachs which was facing a bank run that pushed the company to the edge of bankruptcy.

It was granted special protection from the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. This protection, coupled with tens of billions of dollars in loans at below market interest rates allowed Goldman Sachs to regain its health. Now its CEO wants to cut our Social Security.

An even more amazing apparition in this story is former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan. More than anyone in the whole country, Greenspan deserves blame for the economic downturn. As the bubble was growing to ever more dangerous levels, Greenspan was cheering it on, insisting that there was no bubble, and that even if there was a housing bubble its collapse would pose no special problem for the economy.

In a sane world, Greenspan would be hiding away somewhere enjoying his high six-figure pension. But this isn't a sane world, this is Washington. Therefore we could find Greenspan telling us that another recession would be a price worth paying, if it led to cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

So welcome to the Washington policy world. Cuts to Social Security and Medicare are on the agenda and Wall Street speculation taxes are off the agenda. Don't we have much to be thankful for?

Dean Baker is an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He has written extensively on a wide range of topics, including the housing bubble. His most recent book is The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive (free download available here).

Obama's Goal--More Urbanization?

The following post is very interesting. If true, the urbanization of America will be its downfall. 
Tell us what you think.

Conservative Tom

The Real Republican Adversary? Population Density

November 19th, 2012 | design, economics, geography, politics, trends, visualization

The 2012 election demonstrated what many people could have guessed: rural states voted for Romney while densely populated states voted for Obama.

Many have offered explanations — everything from the presence of top universities in cities, to the prevalence of immigrant and African American populations. Perhaps the Republicans should consider running a Hispanic or African American candidate in 2016; but will that really help? Is identity the issue, or is it more about values?

Or is something more basic at work? Studying election results county by county, a stunning pattern emerges.

Population Density: the Key to Voting Behavior?

Curious about the correlation between population density and voting behavior, I began with analyzing the election results from the least and most dense counties and county equivalents. 98% of the 50 most dense counties voted Obama. 98% of the 50 least dense counties voted for Romney.

This could not be a coincidence. Furthermore, if the most dense places voted overwhelmingly for Obama, and the least dense places voted overwhelmingly for Romney, then there must be a crossover point: a population density above which Americans would switch from voting Republican to voting Democratic.

So I normalized and graphed the data, and there is a clear crossover point.

At about 800 people per square mile, people switch from voting primarily Republican to voting primarily Democratic. Put another way, below 800 people per square mile, there is a 66% chance that you voted Republican. Above 800 people per square mile, there is a 66% chance that you voted Democrat. A 66% preference is a clear, dominant majority.

So are progressive political attitudes a function of population density? And does the trend hold true in both red and blue states?

Red States and Blue States

Separating the results from red states and blue states, we can see that while each has a slight preference for their ultimate candidate of choice, on a local level voting behavior is still directly correlated to population density.

Studying this graph, two important facts are revealed. First, there are very few cities in red states. Second, the few dense cities that do exist in red states voted overwhelmingly democratic.

Atlanta, New Orleans, St. Louis, Dallas, and Indianapolis are all in red states — and they all voted blue. And there are no true “cities” in red states that voted red. The only cities in red states that didn’t vote blue were Salt Lake City and Oklahoma City. And by global standards, they are not really cities — each has population density (about 1,000/sq. mi.) less than suburban Maryland (about 1,500/sq. mi.).

Historically, one can argue that red states have disproportionately affected election results by delivering a material number of electoral votes.

Red states simply run out of population at about 2,000 people per square mile. St. Louis is the only city that exceeds that density in a red state. It voted overwhelmingly Democratic (82.7%). In contrast, blue states contain all of the country’s biggest and densest cities: Washington DC, New York City, San Francisco, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Boston, etc.

Red States Are Just Underdeveloped Blue States

As cities continue to grow in red states, those cities will become more blue, and ultimately, those states will become more purple, and then blue. The Republican party says it’s about growth and prosperity; the best way to achieve that in red states is through the growth of cities.

If you follow the red state trend lines, you can clearly see that any dense, fast-growing cities that might emerge in red states will be very likely to vote blue. The few that do already exist already vote blue. How would these new cities be different and cause them to vote red?

Red state voters generally prefer low-density housing, prefer to drive cars, and are sensitive to gas prices. Once population density gets to a certain level, behaviors switch: high-density housing is the norm, public transit becomes more common, and gas use (and price sensitivity) drops.

Red state values are simply incompatible with density.

Cities Are the Future

Globally, cities are growing rapidly as people move from rural to urban areas in search of opportunity. By 2030 it’s estimated that cities will grow by 590,000 square miles and add an additional 1.47 billion people.

Only subsidized suburban housing and fuel prices are insulating the United States from this global trend, and even with these artificial bulwarks, there is no good reason to think that America’s future lies in low-density development.

Density is efficient. Density produces maximum economic output. An America that is not built fundamentally on density and efficiency is not competitive or sustainable. And a Republican party that requires America to grow inefficiently will become extinct.

While the Republican party is retooling in the desert, it should carefully consider whether its primary issue is identity politics or whether its platform is simply not compatible with the global urban future. If that’s the case, an Hispanic candidate running on the same old Republican platform will simply not resonate. The Republican party must develop a city-friendly platform to survive.

Cities are the future and we need candidates from both parties that understand that reality.

---

The next question: why does population density produce these voting behaviors? Is the relationship causal or correlated? Probably both. I’ll explore this in my next post.

Data Source: US Census 2010 (population density by counties); Politico.com election 2012 results by County.

Palestinian Goals--Not Good For Israel

Want to know what the Palestinians want from their recognition by the UN? Read their newspapers.  Here is a summary of what the leaders of Hamas, PLO, Fatah and others have said.  Anyone who believes in the right of Israel to exist as safe and independent state has to be scared by the words that have been spoken. 

Additionally, with the majority of the General Assembly of the UN backing these moves, how long will it take for Israel to be named a pariah state by this august body? What will the US do then?  Will Obama show his true colors and cut off all military and foreign aid? Will he prevent Americans from sending money to Israel?  We believe all these are possibilities.

Conservative Tom

Two Palestinian goals at UN: Have all disputed land declared 'occupied' and have terrorists declared legitimate freedom fighters

Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik - PMW,  November 29th, 2012

 The Palestinian Authority wishes to achieve a number of political gains by having the UN vote today, recognizing “Palestine” as a non-member observer state. First, all lands that are disputed and whose future must be negotiated according to the Oslo Accords, the PA wants declared Palestinian “occupied territory.” Second, they claim that UN recognition would change the status of Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons to legitimate freedom fighters and prisoners of war.

1- Changing the status of land under Israeli administration since 1967 to “occupied territory”

PA Foreign Minister Riad Al-Maliki:
“If Palestine receives status of a non-member state in the General Assembly, there will be positive effects on all levels in the future… Israel will no longer be able to define the occupied territories as disputed lands. They will become lands of a separate, occupied state.”
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, July 24, 2012]

PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas:
“During a speech at a meeting of the Arab League Ministerial Council, President Abbas said: … 'We will hand in the application and request that it be voted on this November 29… We want to establish that the Palestinian territories that were [taken] in 1967 including Jerusalem [are occupied], since Israel has a different approach. It says that the territories occupied in 1967 are disputed territories. In other words, up for negotiations'”
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Nov. 13, 2012]

2- Changing the status of Palestinian terrorists who have targeted civilians into legitimate fighters and prisoners of war

“Minister of Prisoners, Issa Karake said that the [PA] leadership's application to the UN to wrest [from it] international recognition of a Palestinian state, which is not a member of the UN, will raise the legal status of the prisoners and will offer international protection of their rights and their honor… He said that the prisoners will become captives of a state (i.e., Palestine), hostages and detainees in another state (i.e., Israel). The state's (Palestine's) legal status will turn them into prisoners of war who are detained illegally in the prisons inside Israel.”
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Nov. 13, 2012]

Already last year, PA Minister of Prisoners Karake said that UN recognition would indicate that the international community retroactively legitimizes Palestinian violence:

“[PA Minister of Prisoners' Affairs, Issa] Karake… explained that the international recognition of the Palestinian State changes all the imprisoned Palestinians into prisoners of a state, prisoners of war held hostage in another state… He noted that the recognition of the state means recognition of the legitimacy of the Palestinian struggle that the Palestinian nation fought, in the search for freedom and independence. In addition, it [recognition of a state] indicates that the struggles (Arabic- Nidalat) of the prisoners are legitimized and legal according to UN Resolutions, international laws and the third and fourth Geneva Conventions.”
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sept. 8, 2011]

Note: The Palestinian Authority uses the word nidal – literally 'struggle' – as a general term that includes all acts against Israel – including terror against civilians.
 
Earlier this year, Palestinian Media Watch released a bulletin explaining the Palestinian Authority strategy. Last year, the PA went to the UN requesting full statehood recognition. In the days following last year's request for statehood, official PA TV celebrated the request by playing clips that show maps of the future Palestinian state. As opposed to Abbas' declaration at the UN recognizing Israel, the maps on PA TV showed a Palestinian state replacing Israel.

The following are longer excerpts of the article on Karake's statements:

Headline: “Karake: Our application to the UN [to achieve] recognition of the State of Palestine will raise the legal status of the prisoners”
“Minister of Prisoners, Issa Karake said that the [PA] leadership's application to the UN to wrest [from it] international recognition of a Palestinian state which is not a member of the UN will raise the legal status of the prisoners and will offer international protection of their rights and their honor… He said that the prisoners will become captives of a state (i.e., Palestine), hostages and detainees in another state (i.e., Israel). The state's (Palestine's) legal status will turn them into prisoners of war who are detained illegally in the prisons inside Israel. He added: 'If the State of Palestine is recognized, it will be easy for us to call on the parties to the Geneva Conventions to assemble in order to apply the Geneva Conventions to the territories of the occupied state. This includes [applying the Conventions to] the prisoners and in addition, we will be able to prosecute the Israelis and hold them accountable for actions and crimes that have been committed and continue to be committed against the prisoners in prison.'”
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Nov. 13, 2012]

Obama's Plans???

Want to know what the left is thinking--read their magazines!  In the link posted below, you  will read an article from the New Republic about eight ways that Obama can jam through his agenda WITHOUT Congressional approval. Doesn't that warm the cockles of your heart? Isn't that what a Constitutional Republic is all about? 

Yup, the Dictator has arrived and his name is Barack Hussein Obama. Better get used to it as the eight "suggestions" are only the tip of the iceberg! Far more draconian actions are coming our way. We will see Congress become completely impotent in the next four years with 98% of the power resting in the White House. The House and Senate will merely be bystanders conducting only ceremonial events and "passing" on the mandated Obama legislation.

Some of you will be thinking that we have lost our bloody minds and have gone around the bend. You are welcome to that opinion. We only ask you to keep printed copies (or electronic stored copies) of this blog (we probably will be shut down within the next four years so a digital version will not be available) and remember 'ole Conservative Tom who predicted these events.  We will not be wrong.

Bad times are a comin', better be prepared.

Conservative Tom




http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/110227/eight-ways-obama-can-jam-through-his-agenda-without-congress

Tax Happy Republicans

Yup, that is what the title says--tax happy republicans! The Republicans have decided that they must play ball with the President, otherwise they will look like impediments to the Dictator's wishes.  Isn't that what an opposition party is supposed to do? Is it not the responsibility of those out of power to rein in the other party? Obviously some, in the soon to be defunct Republican party, don't believe so.  

It is time for those of us who are fiscally conservative, morally conservative and proud Americans to take a stand and create a new party. We must take this country back or we will be living in the third world country that Obama wants the US to be.  Are you with me?

Conservative Tom

P.S.  Read today's Wayne Allyns Root's which follows, he really nails the Repubs to the barn door.

Can The GOP Really Be This Stupid?

November 29, 2012 by Wayne Allyn Root 

Hello, I’m Wayne Allyn Root for PersonalLiberty.com. Can the GOP really be this stupid? It appears many GOP Congressmen are suddenly willing to raise taxes. What utter fools. As Forest Gump’s mother (played by Sally Field) said: “Stupid is as stupid does.” And this is world-class stupid.

If GOP politicians can’t figure out any good arguments to oppose tax increases, I’ll give them a few.

First of all, Barack Obama and the Democrats argue that the wealthy don’t pay their “fair share.” Really? The top 1 percent pay 40 percent of all the taxes. That’s not “fair?” They also account, according to The New York Times, for 33 percent of consumer spending and 30 percent of all charitable giving.

So if everyone agrees that allowing a tax increase on the middle class, in the middle of an economic crisis, is bad for business, why would it be OK to raise taxes on the group that makes 33 percent of all purchases in the economy? You mean high-income taxpayers won’t cut down on spending, buying homes, starting businesses and creating jobs? Wow, if that’s true, monkeys can fly, hell is freezing over and Democrats can defy the forces of gravity.

Only those totally ignorant about the economy — those who have never actually created a job — believe the fairy tale that taking money away from the top spenders, investors and job creators isn’t going to further damage the economy.

Secondly, Obama claims that it’s “fair” to go back to “Clinton-era tax rates.” Well, that’s just not true. Under Clinton, there was no Obamacare. The new healthcare law raises taxes dramatically on the highest income earners. So by combining income tax increases with Obamacare taxes, the highest earners will pay substantially more than under Clinton. So Obama’s claim is a lie.

More importantly, Obama is comparing apples to oranges. Economic growth is about more than taxes. It’s about regulations, mandates, entitlements and spending. So the next time Obama suggests it’s “fair” to go back to Clinton-era tax rates, the GOP should say it’s only “fair” to go back to Clinton-era spending, regulations and welfare reform. Let’s agree to roll back all spending, entitlement increases, government programs and regulations enacted since Clinton. That’s the only compromise the GOP should agree to.

Obama and the Democrats also love to point to Ronald Reagan as a man willing to raise taxes. Reagan was actually the greatest tax cutter in American history. He cut income tax rates from 70 percent to 28 percent. This massive tax cut saved the U.S. economy, directly created more than 20 million jobs and motivated record-setting economic growth.

But after all that massive tax-cutting created the greatest economic expansion in history, only then did Reagan agree to compromise and raise a few taxes in return for serious spending reduction. Compromising after the economy has turned around and a magnificent expansion is under way is far different than raising taxes in the middle of an economic crisis. To compare the two is fraud.

Democrats have used Reagan’s “compromise” as an excuse to paint Republicans who refuse to raise taxes as “extreme.” Republicans should turn the tables. Whenever a Democrat like Obama wants to raise taxes, Republicans should point to Democratic hero John F. Kennedy as the ultimate tax cutter and call Democrats “extreme” for ignoring the success of JFK’s tax cuts.

I’m also sick of hearing Democrats call today’s tax rates “historically low.” That is once again a lie. There are many factors that determine your tax bill — like deductions and tax credits. Overall, we are all paying among the highest taxes ever. That is why “Tax Freedom Day” is now set at April 3. That means the average taxpayer has to give the government all his money until April 3 just to pay his tax burden.

Yet in 1900, “Tax Freedom Day” was January 22. Facts don’t lie, folks. If taxes are low, as Obama keeps claiming, then why does it take until April to pay our taxes versus mid-January in 1900? Because Obama is lying. Our tax burden is today just about the highest in history.

Perhaps stupidest of all is the idea of raising “revenue” instead of taxes. GOP politicians spout this nonsense all day long. You can’t claim to be against tax increases but then vote to “raise revenues” by eliminating deductions. How is that different? If my taxes go up, what difference does it make how it gets there. If I used to owe $10,000 to the IRS but now I owe $15,000, didn’t I just lose $5,000? Does it matter if tax rates went up or my deductions were eliminated? You can disguise your words, but you can’t hide the truth.

Here’s some common sense for the economically ignorant in Congress. This entire Great Depression II was created by the collapse in residential real estate values. Reduce or eliminate the mortgage deduction for upper-income taxpayers, and you will automatically wipe out about one-third of the value of every high-end home in America. Entire upscale suburban neighborhoods will be decimated overnight. Foreclosures will skyrocket. Residential real estate will take a final dive, causing a new bank crisis. Wealthy consumers will slow their spending. We are looking at a total collapse of the U.S. economy caused by ignorant politicians. Unfortunately, some of those ignorant politicians are Republicans.

Lastly, Republicans need to point to the EU as an example of high taxes damaging or destroying an economy. If higher taxes help an economy, why is the EU insolvent and on the verge of a Great Depression? Why aren’t Greece, Italy and Spain models of economic success?

Just this week in the U.K. it was proven that tax hikes on the rich are a massive failure. England passed a new tax rate just for millionaires. The result? Either two-thirds of all millionaires left England in the past year or they all stopped working so they could lower their incomes below the threshold. Tax revenues plummeted. The economy is collapsing. The exact opposite of what the brilliant politicians expected, proving that Obama is dead wrong before we even put a higher tax rate for the wealthy in place. The results will be catastrophic, as our friends in the U.K. just proved.

The GOP’s role is not to assist Obama in crippling business owners and job creators, in destroying even more jobs, in damaging the U.S. economy even further. Let him pass everything he wants and do it alone. That way, he’ll commit economic suicide alone, and he’ll have to accept all the blame — alone.

But to go along with Obama would not just hurt the U.S. economy, it would be brand suicide for the Republican Party. Either you stand for lower taxes and more economic freedom or you don’t. Let’s all hold the GOP’s feet to the fire!

I’m Wayne Allyn Root for PersonalLiberty. See you next week. Same time, same place. God BlessRe

The Real US Debt

For those who think that the current proposals to "solve" the debt crisis will do so, read the following article. If you cannot sleep tonight, don't blame us, blame those who put us in this position--all previous Representatives, Senators and Presidents.  They ALL are to blame!  

Our suggestion that since we know who caused the problem, they should be forced to give us all the benefits they gave themselves starting with retirement pay,  health insurance, special parking perks, Secret Service protection etc. etc.

Agree? Disagree? Let us know.

Conservative Tom

Why $16 Trillion Only Hints at the True U.S. Debt

By Chris Cox and Bill Archer | The Wall Street Journal – 12 hours ago

• Email
• 12
• Print

A decade and a half ago, both of us served on President Clinton's Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform, the forerunner to President Obama's recent National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. In 1994 we predicted that, unless something was done to control runaway entitlement spending, Medicare and Social Security would eventually go bankrupt or confront severe benefit cuts.

Eighteen years later, nothing has been done. Why? The usual reason is that entitlement reform is the third rail of American politics. That explanation presupposes voter demand for entitlements at any cost, even if it means bankrupting the nation.

A better explanation is that the full extent of the problem has remained hidden from policy makers and the public because of less than transparent government financial statements. How else could responsible officials claim that Medicare and Social Security have the resources they need to fulfill their commitments for years to come?

As Washington wrestles with the roughly $600 billion "fiscal cliff" and the 2013 budget, the far greater fiscal challenge of the U.S. government's unfunded pension and health-care liabilitBuies remains offstage. The truly important figures would appear on the federal balance sheet—if the government prepared an accurate one.

But it hasn't. For years, the government has gotten by without having to produce the kind of financial statements that are required of most significant for-profit and nonprofit enterprises. The U.S. Treasury "balance sheet" does list liabilities such as Treasury debt issued to the public, federal employee pensions, and post-retirement health benefits. But it does not include the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Social Security and other outsized and very real obligations.

As a result, fiscal policy discussions generally focus on current-year budget deficits, the accumulated national debt, and the relationships between these two items and gross domestic product. We most often hear about the alarming $15.96 trillion national debt (more than 100% of GDP), and the 2012 budget deficit of $1.1 trillion (6.97% of GDP). As dangerous as those numbers are, they do not begin to tell the story of the federal government's true liabilities.

The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.

Why haven't Americans heard about the titanic $86.8 trillion liability from these programs? One reason: The actual figures do not appear in black and white on any balance sheet. But it is possible to discover them. Included in the annual Medicare Trustees' report are separate actuarial estimates of the unfunded liability for Medicare Part A (the hospital portion), Part B (medical insurance) and Part D (prescription drug coverage).

As of the most recent Trustees' report in April, the net present value of the unfunded liability of Medicare was $42.8 trillion. The comparable balance sheet liability for Social Security is $20.5 trillion.

Were American policy makers to have the benefit of transparent financial statements prepared the way public companies must report their pension liabilities, they would see clearly the magnitude of the future borrowing that these liabilities imply. Borrowing on this scale could eclipse the capacity of global capital markets—and bankrupt not only the programs themselves but the entire federal government.

These real-world impacts will be felt when currently unfunded liabilities need to be paid. In theory, the Medicare and Social Security trust funds have at least some money to pay a portion of the bills that are coming due. In actuality, the cupboard is bare: 100% of the payroll taxes for these programs were spent in the same year they were collected.

In exchange for the payroll taxes that aren't paid out in benefits to current retirees in any given year, the trust funds got nonmarketable Treasury debt. Now, as the baby boomers' promised benefits swamp the payroll-tax collections from today's workers, the government has to swap the trust funds' nonmarketable securities for marketable Treasury debt. The Treasury will then have to sell not only this debt, but far more, in order to pay the benefits as they come due.

When combined with funding the general cash deficits, these multitrillion-dollar Treasury operations will dominate the capital markets in the years ahead, particularly given China's de-emphasis of new investment in U.S. Treasurys in favor of increasing foreign direct investment, and Japan's and Europe's own sovereign-debt challenges.

When the accrued expenses of the government's entitlement programs are counted, it becomes clear that to collect enough tax revenue just to avoid going deeper into debt would require over $8 trillion in tax collections annually. That is the total of the average annual accrued liabilities of just the two largest entitlement programs, plus the annual cash deficit.

Nothing like that $8 trillion amount is available for the IRS to target. According to the most recent tax data, all individuals filing tax returns in America and earning more than $66,193 per year have a total adjusted gross income of $5.1 trillion. In 2006, when corporate taxable income peaked before the recession, all corporations in the U.S. had total income for tax purposes of $1.6 trillion. That comes to $6.7 trillion available to tax from these individuals and corporations under existing tax laws.

In short, if the government confiscated the entire adjusted gross income of these American taxpayers, plus all of the corporate taxable income in the year before the recession, it wouldn't be nearly enough to fund the over $8 trillion per year in the growth of U.S. liabilities. Some public officials and pundits claim we can dig our way out through tax increases on upper-income earners, or even all taxpayers. In reality, that would amount to bailing out the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon. Only by addressing these unsustainable spending commitments can the nation's debt and deficit problems be solved.

Neither the public nor policy makers will be able to fully understand and deal with these issues unless the government publishes financial statements that present the government's largest financial liabilities in accordance with well-established norms in the private sector. When the new Congress convenes in January, making the numbers clear—and establishing policies that finally address them before it is too late—should be a top order of business.

Mr. Cox, a former chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee and the Securities and Exchange Commission, is president of Bingham Consulting LLC. Mr. Archer, a former chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, is a senior policy adviser at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

What To Expect From Obama

Dinesh D'Souza nails Obama, not only in his movie but in the following post.  Well worth the time you take to read it.

Conservative Tom

Who is Barack Obama? – Part II – A Terrifying Analysis After the Election

Share This Post

 73

From the Brilliant Dinesh D’Souza – Obama’s Next Four Years
Can Obama change?
By Dinesh D’Souza
Published November 13, 2012

Listening to President Obama speak on election night, I thought of the moment in “The Lion King” when Scar took over Pride Rock. (You have to see the movie to just appreciate D’Souza’s right-on analogy) My sentiment for America was perfectly captured by the accompanying song, “Be Prepared.”
Be prepared, America, for another $5 trillion dollars in debt. That means America would be over $20 trillion in debt, one half of it added by one man, Barack Obama.
Be prepared for higher taxes on those who are pulling the wagon, and more benefits for those who are sitting in the wagon.
Be prepared for further restrictions on hydraulic fracturing and oil drilling in America, even as President Obama promotes and subsidizes oil drilling in developing nations.
Be prepared for transfers of wealth away from America and to the rest of the world.
This is what we as a country have voted for.
Be prepared, also, for the further diminution of American power and influence in the world. This involves our allies falling, one by one, in the Middle East, while the radical Muslims consolidate their power in Iran, Egypt and elsewhere.
Ultimately just as Reagan was largely responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union, President Obama may be credited by history for helping to restore Islam as a global power, which it has not been for three centuries. By 2016 America could cease to be the world’s sole superpower, and have become rather a weak giant, a kind of second Canada. This, too, we have risked by giving President Obama a second term.
These predictions are not conjecture but rather projections out from what President Obama has been doing in his first term. As he suggested to Russia’s then-president Medvedev, Mr. Obama now has more flexibility to make the concessions and pursue the objectives that he really wants. He is, at least in foreign policy, untethered to public opinion, and answerable only to his own conscience. (a concept completely alien to narcissists) jsk
For me, this is a scary prospect. I can see America in 2016 as a poorer, weaker nation, and this would make Americans frustrated and angry.
But why should President Obama care?
He would, as he cleared out his desk, feel the profound satisfaction of a man who had single-handedly rearranged the political and economic map of the world. He would have helped redistribute wealth and power globally, and thus restored the world as it was before colonialism. His reward would be that still, small voice inside his head telling him, “Well done thou true and faithful servant.”
Consequently you can imagine the amusement with which I watched pundits, including Democratic pundits like Lanny Davis, counsel President Obama to be like President Clinton in his second term. Sure, Mr. Clinton pivoted to the center, recognizing that he was governing a closely divided country. Clinton, however, was committed to American prosperity and American greatness; Obama isn’t. Clinton also wanted to be liked by his people, the American people. For Obama, to borrow a quotation from his mother, “These are not my people.” Obama’s commitments are global.
So I don’t expect Obama to change. I have argued in my book “Obama’s America,” and implied in my film “2016,” that he cannot change. He is like the toy soldier who walks into the wall and keeps going. That is the only Obama we can realistically expect for the next four years.
And yet …
I watched Obama closely on election night, recognizing the familiar hubris and bravado, I thought to myself: how brilliant he is, how he strides across America like a colossus, how he may have assembled a new and enduring majority, how this is his America now, how this man whose story is possible only in America has now twice been entrusted by America with the highest office in the land.
Isn’t that enough to make a man want to defend and advance the interest of his country? Isn’t it sufficient to make Obama seek to protect the economic welfare of his fellow citizens over that of the citizens of other countries? Ideology may not compel Obama to move in these directions, but his own self-image might. Obama has been raised on high by the American people, who are looking to him to lead them not down the hill but onward and upward, to greater and higher things.
How incredible it would be if Obama responded to this great trust by proving himself worthy of it. That would truly make him one of America’s great presidents. He would even, in this way, be helping the world, because a strong, thriving America is good for the security and prosperity of the world. Maybe this very smart man can rise above his past and figure that out.

Dinesh D’Souza has had a 25-year career as a writer, scholar, and public intellectual. A former policy analyst in the Reagan White House, D’Souza also served as John M. Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He served as the president of The King’s College in New York City from 2010 to 2012. Dinesh D’Souza, narrator and co-director of the film “2016: Obama’s America,” is the author of the bestselling new book “Obama’s America: Unmaking the American Dream.”

The Super Duper Teflon President

As soon as someone starts lying, it is not long before they cannot keep their lies straight.  So goes it for Benghazi and finally a few news organizations are starting to pay attention. In the following post by John Nolte we see that CBS is paying attention. Will that be enough to get to the bottom of the catastrophe?  We would hope so, however, there is a lot of hesitation by the US media to ruffle up the President for any reason. Seems he is not a Teflon president but rather a Super Duper Teflon president. All charges seem to bounce off him. 

 Does that mean that Obama could get impeached and convicted? Never. He could be impeached by the House but the Senate would never vote for conviction. So any dreams of getting rid of the "dictator" are slim. 

In other words, Obama can do most anything he wants and he will never be held to pay for his deeds. Knowing this, we expect the President to take actions that in the past would not have been contemplated due to the fact that the balance between the branches of the government has been seriously eroded. At present, the Presidency has the most power and the other branches seem impotent in reversing the trend.

We do not expect to  know definitively what occurred in Benghazi. The Administration will continue to back Rice and her talking points, the Republicans will press for answers and the American public will wonder "who will win Dancing With The Stars."  The nation is lost. We just do not know the date the new residents will move in.

Conservative Tom

BENGHAZI-GATE ENTERS NEW PHASE: THE COVER UP OF THE COVER UP

Read More About: References to al-Qaeda were removed by Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper an Obama appointee

Share This Post

 4

By JOHN NOLTE 23 Nov 2012
http://israel-commentary.org/?p=5209
It now looks as though the White House’s excuse for the pre-election Libya cover-up is itself a cover up. Last week we were told by the Administration (and the compliant media) that during her now-infamous round robin of five Sunday news shows, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was only telling us what she was told by the intelligence community. We were also told that references to al-Qaeda were edited out of the talking points in order to avoid tipping off the attackers that we were on to them.According to a number of CBS News’ sources, this simply isn’t true.
As recently as yesterday, though, Rice doubled down on this defense: “I relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community. I made clear that the information was preliminary and that our investigations would give us the definitive answers.”
At first glance, Rice’s comments might not appear to move the ball, but they do tell us that the Administration has found its defense and intends to stick to it — that defense being that Rice was only parroting the false information she was given. But now, thanks to some good reporting from CBS News, we know things weren’t that simple.
Let’s back up just a little bit…
Last week, former CIA Chief Davis Petraeus testified that within a day he knew the assault on our consulate in Benghazi was a premeditated terrorist attack committed by a Libyan militia with ties to al-Qaeda. As a result, Petraeus authorized the release of this information to the public in talking points to be given to the White House and to lawmakers. CBS News reports that references to al-Qaeda were later removed by Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) — an agency run by James Clapper, an Obama appointee. The FBI also made substantial edits.
But here’s where the plot thickens.
DNI spokesman Shawn Turner told CBS News, “The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” He added that this classified information was shared with the White House. CBS News then quite correctly concludes that, as a member of Obama’s cabinet, Susan Rice would have known this. All cabinet members are given classified briefings.
The bottom line, then, is that during her Sunday show appearances, Rice knew the information she was spreading was false.
In reference to the edited talking points, another source told CBS News that…
“The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack,” the official tells CBS News, adding that there were “legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly.”
“Most people understand that saying ‘extremists’ were involved in a direct assault on the mission isn’t shying away from the idea of terrorist involvement,” added the official. “Because of the various elements involved in the attack, the term extremist was meant to capture the range of participants.”
This is important because if the talking points were not edited “to minimize the role of extremists,” that, then, was a decision Susan Rice made all on her own (with likely prompting from the White House ). The same goes for White House spokesman Jay Carney and the President himself, both of whom would spend nearly two weeks spinning this same false narrative.
This false White House narrative, which only sharpened over time, was all about a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video that turned into a deadly riot. But if the edited talking points were not meant to “diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack,” that was a decision the White House made, and one that conflicts entirely with the excuse that they were simply telling us what they were told by the intelligence community.
And it wasn’t just the fact that the White House chose to focus on the YouTube video. Time and again, for nearly two weeks, Rice and Carney would go the extra mile in this deception by telling the media that there was absolutely no evidence the assault on our consulate was premeditated.
Finally, the primary defense for the editing of al-Qaeda out of the talking points is this ridiculous notion that we didn’t want the group responsible for the attack to know we were after them. That never came close to passing the smell test, and now the intelligence community is pushing back against that nonsense:
[A]n intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too “tenuous” to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence.
In other words, the removing of the al-Qaeda references wasn’t about tipping anyone off; it was about making sure it was this particular al-Qaeda affiliated militia. There was never any doubt the attack was a premeditated terror attack, but amongst all the extremists in Libya, we just weren’t sure which one was responsible.
So, if what CBS is reporting is true, this is what we know now:
1. At the time, Susan Rice knew the information she repeated five times on five Sunday shows wasn’t true.
2. The edited talking points were never meant to deceive and conceal the fact that what happened in Libya was a terror attack. And yet, that’s exactly what Rice and the White House did for nearly two weeks.
3. Contrary to what the White House and media told us, the talking points were not edited to keep the group responsible for the attack from knowing we were on to them. Therefore…
4. We were lied to for reasons that had nothing to do with national security.
5. The media’s going to allow the Obama Administration to get away with this. (Why else would CBS play down its own story the way they did this one?)
Everything goes back to the motive for this cover up, which, apparently, was to run out the clock to Election Day with a Narrative meant to hide the fact that on Obama’s watch there was a successful terror attack that resulted in the murder of an American ambassador and three other Americans. And let’s also not forget that, just a few days before the attack, at his nominating convention, Obama bragged before the whole world that “al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat.”
The American people understand that deception is sometimes necessary in the name of national security. But no one believes that’s the case here.
This cover up, which the media has happily become a co-conspirator to, was only about winning Obama a second term.
And now the cover up of the cover up is in full swing.