Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Friday, September 27, 2019

Self Destruction?

Rational Thought On An Irrational Subject


Climate Kids Need   


I have a fourteen-year-old high school freshman at home.  I have a thirteen-year-old eighth-grader and an eleven-year-old fifth grader, too.  They attend some great public schools.  My wife and I are active participants in their lives and educations.  We’re proud of our kids.
Having said that, if I ever saw my kids participating in disgraceful displays like the nationwide climate change school walkout we witnessed?  I’d surrender as a parent.  I certainly wouldn’t be proud of them and I’d have to wonder where I went wrong.
The young climate cultists’ screaming, stomping, ranting, and in some cases tears of fear conjured in me not what these young protesters were aiming to achieve.  They didn’t inspire or animate me.  They made me feel deep sadness and pity.  Not for the atmosphere or the Earth, but for them.
I don’t hold my own kids up as particularly unique.  Nor is my parenting.  To be very clear, my kids aren’t perfect and I’m a flawed parent.  I often ponder my behaviors and words and how they might impact the course of their history or frame of mind as they grow.
Constantly I’m self-auditing, hoping to set a good example but also to catch and correct the bad examples I set.  Of which there have been too many to count.   Despite what I do for a living both on-air and here in writing, I don’t lecture my kids on my political beliefs over dinner or in the car. 
If my kids learn a left-leaning concept from a relative or teacher and we overhear it or they ask us about it, my wife and I never attack the messenger.  We diplomatically and respectfully walk our kids through questions to challenge the point of view they’ve been fed. 
Critical thinking is what it’s called.  Not a new concept to you if you’re reading this, I’m certain.  It’s not teaching people what to think, but to challenge them how to think.  It’s simply reasoning, deduction, and the humility to know what we don’t know.
My friend, meteorologist Joe Bastardi, has become a lightning rod for daring to simply question the orthodoxy of climate change alarmists.  The true believers of man made climate change viciously attack him simply because he questions.  Rather than even debate the merits of the argument, Bastardi once said something that really hit home for me.
“I’m willing to admit I could be wrong.  I’m willing to admit there are things we don’t know.  Why aren’t they willing?”  Those are questions rooted in humility.  You must possess humility to even entertain the possibility you’re wrong or don’t have all the answers.  But humility isn’t natural.  It’s taught.  It’s learned.  So what’s the source of humility?
It’s the thing my wife and I work harder at than anything else when raising our children.  It’s THE thing central in our lives and we hope it will be for them throughout their lives as well.
Our family’s humility is found in the worship of our Lord.
Please don’t read this as a suggestion there’s a right way or a wrong way to be a good person or to be humble.  If you’re someone who finds your source of humility in other ways, that’s great. If you don’t believe in God or something greater than human kind, I have no beef with you.
As for our home, we always operate from the assumption He’s bigger than us and is fully in control at all times.  He formed us and the place we call home and while we believe in being good stewards, not polluting, etc. – we certainly are not ready to surrender our quality of life because of the false religion that our cars, hamburgers, and light bulbs make hurricanes stronger or cause fires in the Amazon.
I want my kids to have a sense of something bigger and respect for things vastly out of their control.  Those kids weeping and screaming about the climate need something more in their lives.  They need adults to explain the majesty of nature and the billions of years of violent climate change on this planet before we ever arrived.  
That we even exist in this perfect balance is nothing short of a miracle.  We can no more destroy this perfect balance than we could’ve created it.  
Our time on this planet is less than a grain of sand in an hourglass, and we are but a speck while we’re here.  But to the culture of political and social media mobs, the entire world seems as if it’s at their fingertips and in their total control with a click of a send button.
Can you imagine being a pre-teen or early teen and thinking there’s no point in dreaming about your future?  It’s one thing if it’s natural depression, which is very real struggle.  But it’s quite another if that depression is learned and adopted because of fatalistic, political indoctrination from adults.
Hyper-partisan, political adults are misleading, abusing, and scaring our children leaving them feeling hopeless and desperate.  The alarming rate of suicide and depression among America’s youth is skyrocketing.  When you’re a kid and told you have ten years to live and the adults don’t care to save you, it’s not hard to understand.   
American kids shouldn’t be filled with despair over secular, fake news when they should instead be filled with hope and joyful expectancy of the Good News. 

Democrats Ignore Investigations That Don't Fit Their Agenda

Justice Department Inspector Gen. Michael Horowitz details gross FBI misconduct

US Israel news and articles
Former FBI Director James Comey and former acting Director Andrew McCaben finally under intense Justice Dept. investigation
By Kimberley A. Strassel  
Wall Street Journal
Sept. 19, 2019
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz details gross misconduct by officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who first spun the long debunked “collusion” and “obstruction” narrative that liberal and media partisans refuse to quit.
www.israel-commentary.org
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler held another spectacle hearing Tuesday as part of his impeachment dramaturgy. Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski testified to a thronged hearing room and was grilled on Russia interactions and Oval Office discussions. The day produced no new information, yet cable stations broadcast it live and newspapers ran breathless coverage.
A House Oversight subcommittee held its own hearing Wednesday. The room was almost empty; all but a few Democratic members didn’t even bother showing up. Apart from Fox News and a few conservative publications, news organizations ignored it. The featured—and substantive—witness: Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz.
This is today’s Washington: theater upstaging truth. The headlines go to a long debunked “collusion” and “obstruction” narrative that liberal and media partisans refuse to quit. A press blackout is meanwhile imposed on those investigators—including Mr. Horowitz—who have rooted out gross misconduct by the officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who first spun that narrative.
In contrast to the Lewandowski moment, Mr. Horowitz’s testimony was informative and significant. And in contrast to former special counsel Robert Mueller’s vague testimony, the inspector general demonstrated a whip-sharp command of facts. He was officially there to talk about a standards-and-training panel, the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, of which he is chairman. 
The real merit of the hearing was to bring home the magnitude of the leaking and lying offenses by former FBI Director James Comey (as detailed in an August 2019 inspector-general report) and former acting Director Andrew McCabe (as detailed in a February 2018 inspector-general report). It was momentous to hear Mr. Horowitz acknowledge that his office found enough wrongdoing to require criminal referrals to the Justice Department for two successive heads of the FBI.
“Our concern,” Mr. Horowitz said, “was empowering the FBI director, or frankly any FBI employee or other law-enforcement official, with the authority to decide that they’re not going to follow established norms and procedures because in their view they’ve made a judgment that the individuals they are dealing with can’t be trusted.”
Ohio’s Rep. Jim Jordan asked: So this “wasn’t just information going one way; they were trying to get information from the president as well—is that right?” Mr. Horowitz: “That’s what we’ve reported.
You might think an inspector-general report that excoriates the former head of a powerful agency might be worthy of bipartisan attention. Think again. Democrats avoided Comey questions Wednesday, and Mr. Horowitz told Mr. Jordan that neither the Oversight nor the Judiciary committee has asked him to testify on the August report. Mr. Horowitz was also unaware of any request for testimony on his upcoming report on FBI surveillance.
Democrats talk a lot about their dedication to “oversight” and “truth.” And the media keep promising not to let democracy die in darkness. This week’s tale of two hearings proves otherwise.

Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Check Out These Income Tax Brackets!

Federal Income Tax TableFederal Income Tax Brackets (Tax Year 1914)
ARCHIVES

Tax Year 1914 / Filed April 1915

Federal - 1915 Single Tax Brackets
Tax BracketTax Rate
$0.00+1%
$20,000.00+2%
$50,000.00+3%
$75,000.00+4%
$100,000.00+5%
$250,000.00+6%
$500,000.00+7%
Federal - 1915 Married Filing Separately Tax Brackets
Tax BracketTax Rate
$0.00+1%
$20,000.00+2%
$50,000.00+3%
$75,000.00+4%
$100,000.00+5%
$250,000.00+6%
$500,000.00+7%
Federal - 1915 Married Filing Jointly Tax Brackets
Tax BracketTax Rate
$0.00+1%
$20,000.00+2%
$50,000.00+3%
$75,000.00+4%
$100,000.00+5%
$250,000.00+6%
$500,000.00+7%
Federal - 1915 Head of Household Tax Brackets
Tax BracketTax Rate
$0.00+1%
$20,000.00+2%
$50,000.00+3%
$75,000.00+4%
$100,000.00+5%
$250,000.00+6%
$500,000.00+7%
This page shows Tax-Brackets.org's archived Federal tax brackets for tax year 1915. This means that these brackets applied to all income earned in 1914, and the tax return that uses these tax rates was due in April 1915.
Both Federal tax brackets and the associated tax rates have not been changed since at least 1913.

Sounds Like A Repeat Argument For The Original Income Tax--How Long Before Everyone Is Paying This Tax Also?

Bernie Sanders unveils 'Tax on Extreme Wealth' plan

Adriana Belmonte
Associate Editor
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has been a loud critic of the ultra wealthy. Under his newest plan, he is ensuring those in the highest income bracket pay what he sees as their fair share in taxes.
On Tuesday, Sanders released his “Tax on Extreme Wealth” proposal. The plan would place a 1% tax on the top 0.1% of American households. That translates to those who have a net worth above $32 million, who would pay a wealth tax of $5,000.
“At a time when millions of people are working 2 or 3 jobs to feed their families, the three wealthiest people in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of the American people,” Sanders said. “Enough is enough. We are going to take on the billionaire class, substantially reduce wealth inequality in America, and stop our democracy from turning into a corrupt oligarchy.”
Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is proposing a tax on extreme wealth. (Photo: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
The tax rate would increase depending on net worth — there would be a 2% tax on those worth between $50-250 million, 3% tax on those worth between $250-500 million, 4% for those between $500 million to $1 billion, 5% from $1-2.5 billion, 6% from $2.5-5 billion, 7% from $5 to $10 billion, and 8% tax on wealth over $10 billion. According to the plan, “these brackets are halved for singles.”
Sanders claims that “the wealth of billionaires would be cut in half over 15 years which would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of this small privileged class.”
The revenue generated from this tax on the wealthy would go towards other plans of Sanders, including Medicare for All, universal child care, and affordable housing.
There is growing support for taxing the wealthy. A poll from Politico/Morning Consult found that 76% of registered voters think wealthy Americans should pay more taxes. And, a Fox News survey found that 70% of Americans, including 54% of Americans, are in support of raising taxes on those who earn more than $10 million.
Tax rate in the U.S. over the last 100 years. (Graphic: Yahoo Finance/David Foster)
University of California, Berkeley economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez, who have written extensively about the effects of wealth taxes, analyzed the Sanders proposal and estimates that this would raise $4.35 trillion over the next decade.
Zucman and Saez’s $4.35 trillion estimate is higher than the two projected for Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax plan released earlier this year. Under her tax proposal, there would be a 2% wealth tax on individuals with a net worth over $50 million and 3% tax on those over $1 billion.
“A progressive wealth tax is the most direct policy tool to curb the growing concentration of wealth in the United States,” the two said in a joint letter. “It can also restore tax progressivity at the very top of the wealth distribution and raise sorely needed tax revenue to fund the public good. Senator Sanders’ very progressive wealth tax on the top 0.1% wealthiest Americans is a crucial step in this direction.”
Adriana is an associate editor for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Twitter @adrianambells.

Is This The Reason Beto Is So Anti-Gun?

Post image

Monday, September 23, 2019

The War On Anything Seems To Fail Over And Over

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

The Next Kavanaugh Issue

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Is This The New Words On The Statue Of Liberty?

The Democratic Dumpster

Does This Really Surprise Anyone?