Thursday, July 8, 2010

Obama's Social Agenda




The politics of the end justifies the means.
From Neil Boortz:

Are you believing this? First we have the absolute refusal of the Obama Administration – and the Bush Administration before it – to protect our Southern border from the Mexican invasion and to enforce our immigration laws. Then we have the State of Arizona, besieged with crime, drugs and the costs that come with being the preferred crossing point for illegals. Finally Arizona has had enough and it passes it’s own immigration law. Actually, it’s a bit of a stretch to call this law “Arizona’s” since it does nothing but take already existing federal law and codify it at the local level. So … Obama’s reaction? Does he apologize for his inattention to the invasion? Hardly. He instructs his dog washers in the Department of Justice to file a lawsuit against Arizona. The lawsuit says that Arizona is “usurping federal authority.”

Let’s cogitate on this for a moment.

Federal law makes it illegal to cross the border into the United States without legal authorization. The Feds refuse to enforce the law.

Mexicans invade America across the Arizona border. Crime soars in Arizona. A rancher is killed. Phoenix becomes the kidnapping center of the U.S. Drugs flood across the border with the illegals.v The Feds do virtually nothing.

Finally Arizona passes a law making what is already a crime under federal law a crime under State law.

The Arizona law gives Arizona law enforcement the authority to do what federal law enforcement officers can already do … but aren’t.

Democrats see Hispanic votes slipping away if the law is enforced.

Obama instructs a lawsuit to be filed citing “usurping federal authority.”

Question: Robbing a federally insured bank is a federal crime. It’s also a crime under the statutes of the State of Arizona. Should the Justice Department file a lawsuit against Arizona demanding that Arizona law enforcement officials cease enforcing Arizona’s law against robbing banks because it usurps federal authority? Just wondering.

And what about this particular U.S. Justice Department? Is this the same Justice Department that dismissed charges against that white-hating member of the New Black Panther Party who has warned black males that if they ever want to be free they’re going to have to kill some white people and some white babies! The New Black Panther Party member who stood in front of a polling place in Philly during the last election waving a steel baton and making threatening remarks to white voters? THAT Justice Department? The same Justice Department that is headed by a man who pardoned terrorists who shot up the U.S. Capitol? Yup! That’s the same Justice Department alright.

So .. here’s the picture. The federal government is NOT going to secure our border with Mexico; at least not until amnesty for the criminal aliens who have already crossed is arranged. Votes for Democrats, you know. So while the Federal government sits on its hands Hispandering … Arizona acts, then gets taken to court.

Welcome to ObamaWorld.



Scary Words

“We are, without question, in a period of decline, particularly in the business world. The real problem we have…are some of the worst economic policies in place today that, in my judgment, go directly against the long-term interests of this country.” - Mort Zuckerman







Sunday, July 4, 2010

Other Than That, He's a Great Guy...

I don't know anything about Howard Davidowitz other then he is Chairman and the single shareholder of Davidowitz & Associates, who bill themselves as "one of the most successful firms in its niche providing consulting and investment banking services to the retail industry since 1981".

His comments on President Obama:

"“He is Mr. Mass Destruction. I mean he is a human destroyer. This guy has spent his way into oblivion and we don’t have a budget. He is surrounded by a bunch of complete incompetents, led by himself, and he’s spending like crazy, and we keep digging the hole bigger.”

...and then he goes negative.




Saturday, July 3, 2010

I Bought a Handgun




I bought a handgun. A Beretta XP4 Subcompact to be exact. In 9mm flavor. Some people may think I bought a handgun because I'm a raging right-wing, Ted Nugent head-banging Conservative. And while all of that is true, that wasn't the reason I bought it.

I believe that most people buy a handgun for self defense. Although I doubt many are used for that purpose outside of military and law enforcement. I personally believe that a handgun is just a fair solution in most self defense situations. Although I doubt many are used for that purpose outside of military and law enforcement. I know people would love to argue that point. But the first requirement in being safe is being aware of your surroundings, bright lights, and good locks. While I don't expect any drug crazed illegal terrorist immigrant to try breaking my door down., and I don't think there will be a nuclear accident that will create zombies roaming around the local Kroger supermarket in my lifetime. Most self defense situations involve some type of home invasion. I've got a 30 year old shotgun under my bed that makes a better weapon. Even with a few rust spots on the barrel, there aren't many people who wouldn't recognize the sound of a pump shotgun being racked and realize they aren't welcome in my house. I suspect that sound alone would be cause enough for the invader(s) to beat a hasty, but prudent, retreat.

Technically, it's not my first handgun. About 25 years ago I bought a Ruger .22 Mark II target pistol. But I moved to Texas a couple of years ago, and the people here don't consider that a "handgun". Here, a .22 is barely robust enough to shoot dragonflies off the back deck, let alone shooting the random wandering armadillo Calling a .22 a weapon would have William Travis and the boys from the Alamo spinning in their graves.

Upon mentioning to the guys I work with that I had taken my son to a shooting range, the subject of hardware came up. When I said I shoot a .22 Ruger they laughed like I said I enter a Toyota Prius in a monster truck contest. And while I have a few friends here that would say that even a 9mm isn't a serous handgun caliber, and that a 14 round clip of 9mm isn't big enough to do anything but annoy a zombie, at least now I can take my son to the shooting range without violating any serious Texas man laws.

My son and I will enjoy some quality time at the shooting range. I'm not expecting to see any terrorist or zombies strolling around my neighborhood, I doubt they could afford the homeowner's association dues. But there are quite a few Democrats here...




Giving America Away, One Baby at a Time

From www.chinadaily.com


Chinese women are traveling to America to give birth

Beijing - Wang Rong, who is six-months pregnant, is about to leave Beijing for California so she can give birth to her baby in the United States and give the child its first gift - US citizenship.

The special delivery will cost Wang and her husband, both white-collar workers in the capital, 100,000 yuan ($15,000), but they say it is money well spent.

The expenditure will cover all costs, including services before departure, medical care in the US and a three-month stay there, thanks to the help of a Shanghai-based agency that specializes in taking mainland moms to North America.

"Given the quality of educational resources and employment prospects in China, where there is a huge population and harsh competition, I want my baby to win at the starting line by obtaining US citizenship," she said.

...

Usually, parents use tourist visas to travel to the US when the pregnancy is in the sixth or seventh month. Typically, they stay for between three and six months, then return with their new arrivals.

Jiang said the agency trains couples to obtain visas and tells them how to handle themselves during US customs interviews.

"I got my visa, as they instructed, and insisted that I wanted to go to the US to travel when I faced the US customs officer," said Wang.

In rare cases, the customs officers might only grant a short stay, such as for one month, according to Jiang.

"But don't worry. The agency is actually experienced in handling that," he said, adding that it has contracted local lawyers who can help people apply for an extended period of stay. He said the waiting period such legal action buys, which is about four or five months, gives mothers enough time to have their babies.

...

Lockwood Young, a veteran doctor in Hawaii, said he has delivered babies to mothers from South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan and the Chinese mainland.

"I like my foreign customers very much because they are usually very nice and, more importantly, they always pay cash so I don't have to deal with the insurance company," he told China Daily.

Jiang said he expects things to continue as they are for the foreseeable future.

"The fact that the US might end citizenship by birth is not my top concern because it would take years to amend the law in such a democratic country which highly respects legal procedures and doesn't allow for a change overnight," he said.


Can you say "Anchor Babies"? As they say in the Navy, Anchors Away!




Obama's Green Jobs Continue to Put US in the Red



I don't understand Obama fascination with "green" jobs. With unemployment sitting at just under 10% (staying in single digits in large part to the 300,000 census workers our government has hired), let's work on just getting people back to work in a job. Any job. With our federal debit deficit setting new records nearly every day, we need to ensure that every dollar we spend in trying to ramp up our economy is invested in such a way that it is returned several times over in wages and the accompanying taxes. While stories surfaced that each stimulus job cost in excess of $500,000, more reliable reports put the cost of each stimulus job ranging around $246,436 to $267,000.

In pushing their dramatic expansion of social and health care programs, the Democrats have been forced to find offsetting revenue through tax increases. These taxes are being aimed squarely at the companies that have driven our economy. Small business will be forced to pay for increased employee health care insurance costs, all companies will face increases in corporate tax rates, increases in regulations for financial services companies will add costs and force them to drop some products and markets, medical device companies will pay a surtax on their products. The only jobs Obama appears to be concerned about saving are government service workers, most of whom are members of SEIU and other unions that were key in sweeping Obama into office and will be needed to keep him there.

In his speech this week, Obama announced:

"...we’re accelerating the transition to a clean energy economy and doubling our use of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power – steps that have the potential to create whole new industries and hundreds of thousands of new jobs in America.

In fact, today, I’m announcing that the Department of Energy is awarding nearly $2 billion in conditional commitments to two solar companies.

The first is Abengoa Solar, a company that has agreed to build one of the largest solar plants in the world right here in the United States. After years of watching companies build things and create jobs overseas, it’s good news that we’ve attracted a company to our shores to build a plant and create jobs right here in America. In the short term, construction will create approximately 1,600 jobs in Arizona. What’s more, over 70 percent of the components and products used in construction will be manufactured in the USA, boosting jobs and communities in states up and down the supply chain. Once completed, this plant will be the first large-scale solar plant in the U.S. to actually store the energy it generates for later use – even at night. And it will generate enough clean, renewable energy to power 70,000 homes.

The second company is Abound Solar Manufacturing, which will manufacture advanced solar panels at two new plants, creating more than 2,000 construction jobs and 1,500 permanent jobs."

If you read between the lines here, most of these jobs are temporary. Only 1,500 are permanent. That puts the cost of each of these permanent jobs at $1.3 million dollars. Those had better be some pretty super high-tech, bad-ass solar panels.



What does it take to create REAL jobs? Lawrence Kudlow over at www.realclearpolitics.com has some thoughts:

"In a watershed study, former Treasury economists Gary and Aldona Robbins argued a few years ago that tax cuts aimed at capital and business produced the biggest economic benefits. For example, for every tax-cut dollar on capital gains, $10.61 of new GDP is created. For every dollar of accelerated business-investment tax write-offs, $9 of new GDP is created. And for every dollar of corporate tax cuts, $2.76 of new GDP is created.

This bang-for-the-buck analysis contrasts sharply with estimates for increased government spending. According to the White House, every dollar of new government spending creates about $1.50 of new GDP -- much weaker than the effects of business tax cuts. And the White House analysis looks like a stretch. The International Monetary Fund has a model that says every additional dollar of government spending creates only $0.70 of new GDP. So you have to borrow a buck to get 70 cents back. Not a good trade.

Clearly, neither of these spending multipliers holds a candle to the benefits of lower business tax rates. Incidentally, for deficit worriers, corporate tax cuts pay for themselves, as do lower tax rates on capital gains.

Fred Smith, the CEO of FedEx, does not have a Nobel Prize in economics. But he founded from scratch a gigantic global transportation and delivery company that has employed tens and tens of thousands of workers, something the Nobelists have never done. And Smith argues that the best job-creating measure would be a significant reduction in the corporate tax rate and a move to full expensing for business-investment tax write-offs. He's exactly right.

Japan intends to cut its corporate tax rate. So does Great Britain. But the U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent, or 40 percent when states are included, is not even remotely competitive anymore. So why aren't people talking about the economic benefits of unleashing business power? The rapidly growing Asian economies treat capital and business better than they're treated in the United States. Same for Europe. What are we waiting for?

During the Ronald Reagan 1980s, when a deep recession led to a 10.8 percent unemployment rate, the Gipper cut domestic discretionary spending, lowered tax rates across-the-board (including corporate tax rates) and sped up tax write-offs for business investment. The first two years of that recovery generated nearly 8 percent growth, with hundreds of thousands of new jobs created monthly.

Right now, we are facing one of the largest tax hikes in U.S. history, scheduled for 2011. Taxes on investor capital and business will go up significantly. So will individual income-tax rates. This is exactly the wrong medicine.

When will Washington come to its senses, and unleash the power of capital and business to end all this pessimism and move us toward real prosperity?"


Friday, July 2, 2010

They Passed the Bill, Now We're Learning...

Just like Princess Pelosi said:


And now we are finding out that it doesn't do what the Democrats said it would do, and it will cost more then they said it would. There's not enough money to cover all those high-risk people who's pre-existing condition(s) will exclude them from other policies and programs.

And this recent report from AP highlights issues that we brought up by the many critics of the bill prior to it's being passed (including me!).