On August 14, 2011, Warren Buffett penned an op-ed for the New York Times. It was named, subtly enough:
Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
Get the idea?
While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.
These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.
On and on he goes. His final resolution is to tax everyone making more than one million dollars a year. That’s a bunch of people.
There are two problems with this scenario most people figured out pretty quick.
- Obama wanted to tax everyone making more than $200,000 a year. Which is a lot more people than Buffett’s plan. He’s not really doing anyone any favors with his plan.
- His primary source of income, Berkshire-Hathaway, has short-changed ( or simply hasn’t paid ) the federal government to the tune of about two BILLION dollars since 2002.
So, one can assume that even IF Obama taxed every millionaire in the country at a higher rate, it would be somewhat moot if those people simply didn’t pay the taxes they did owe.
But, the bottom line is it is simply amazing how liberals consistently say one thing and do the exact opposite in plain view for everyone to see, expecting the rules they want to apply to everyone but themselves.
Just pay the taxes you do owe, Warren. I have always paid mine on time. Once we’re on the same playing field, THEN we’ll talk, OK?
The liberals had an excitable moment recently:
Lots and lots of comments were made about how she needed to brush up on her American history.
But,
From Wikipedia:
Revere was questioned by the British officers and told them of the army’s movement from Boston, and that British army troops might be in some danger if they approached Lexington, because of the large number of hostile militia gathered there.[21] He and other captives taken by the patrol were then escorted east toward Lexington, until the sound of musket fire from the town center alarmed the patrolmen. Revere explained to them that it was probably an arriving militia company that had fired a volley upon its arrival. The sound was followed not long after by the pealing of the town bell.[22] The British confiscated Revere’s horse, and rode off to warn the approaching army column. Revere was horseless and walked through a cemetery and pastures until he came to Rev. Clarke’s house where Hancock and Adams were staying. As the battle on Lexington Green continued, Revere helped John Hancock and his family escape from Lexington with their possessions, including a trunk of Hancock’s papers.[20]
4
Jan
Recently was sent this link:
That’s my image, here’s Townhall’s link. Since I was a young boy, I hated NPR. They’ve had a lifelong history of dumbing down content. If they were reporting a war, you heard incessant gun fire in the background. The noises alone drove me away. It just struck me that they thought the average listener was too stupid to know what war was, so they tossed in sound effects to help. The content never enticed me to stay. Once CNN, Fox, MSNBC, XM, Cable, radio, the internet, and a host of other outlets arose to fill their void, I forgot they even existed. They served no function in my life. And, from what I can gather, the same was true for most of the US.
Originally, President Johnson asserted the charter for CPB, that’s the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as:
Now, the problem you had in 1967 was a very limited media. Not so much politically, morally, or ethically, but physically. You had radio, and you had broadcast television. That was it. There were basically three channels on television, and depending on your radio, a whole bunch. Probably 20 or so. In 1980, things changed rather dramatically when CNN went on the air. No longer was it safe to assume that only a federally funded quasi-governmental agency would be the only one capable of delivering “good music”, “exciting plays”, or “reporting on the whole fascinating range of human activity”. They definitely got the “reporting on the whole fascinating range of human activity” part down real good. They’re a news company, that’s all they do.
At about the same time, satellite television was in its infancy. For those with S-band dishes, you remember those:
You could get programming from anywhere in the world. Literally. You weren’t tied to the big three any more. I had one of those buggers, I watched NASA real-time. That was cool. Suddenly I was watching R and X rated movies, my whole experience exploded. At that time it became evident to me that there really was no need for NPR, CPB. How did they justify their existence? Folks, that was around 1980 or so.
S-Band begat the Dishnets we know today. Now you’ve got hundreds of channels. Want Education, go to educationtv. Want classical music? Go to one of the several classical channels. Symphony? Broadway? Opera? It’s all there. Concerned what you’re government’s doing? Go to C-Span. The content absolutely overwhelms what CPB was chartered to do. The purpose for CPB obviously no longer exists.
So, given the obvious eliminated need for CPB, what would you expect happened to its funding?
Funny you should ask:
| Year | Allocation | Change |
| 1969 | $5,000,000.00 | |
| 1970 | $15,000,000.00 | 200% |
| 1971 | $23,000,000.00 | 53% |
| 1972 | $35,000,000.00 | 52% |
| 1973 | $35,000,000.00 | 0% |
| 1974 | $50,000,000.00 | 43% |
| 1975 | $62,000,000.00 | 24% |
| 1976 | $78,500,000.00 | 27% |
| 1977 | $103,000,000.00 | 31% |
| 1978 | $119,200,000.00 | 16% |
| 1979 | $120,200,000.00 | 1% |
| 1980 | $152,000,000.00 | 26% |
| 1981 | $162,000,000.00 | 7% |
| 1982 | $172,000,000.00 | 6% |
| 1983 | $137,000,000.00 | -20% |
| 1984 | $137,500,000.00 | 0% |
| 1985 | $150,500,000.00 | 9% |
| 1986 | $159,500,000.00 | 6% |
| 1987 | $200,000,000.00 | 25% |
| 1988 | $214,000,000.00 | 7% |
| 1989 | $228,000,000.00 | 7% |
| 1990 | $229,400,000.00 | 1% |
| 1991 | $298,900,000.00 | 30% |
| 1992 | $327,300,000.00 | 10% |
| 1993 | $318,600,000.00 | -3% |
| 1994 | $275,000,000.00 | -14% |
| 1995 | $285,600,000.00 | 4% |
| 1996 | $275,000,000.00 | -4% |
| 1997 | $260,000,000.00 | -5% |
| 1998 | $250,000,000.00 | -4% |
| 1999 | $250,000,000.00 | 0% |
| 2000 | $300,000,000.00 | 20% |
| 2001 | $340,000,000.00 | 13% |
| 2002 | $350,000,000.00 | 3% |
| 2003 | $362,800,000.00 | 4% |
| 2004 | $377,800,000.00 | 4% |
| 2005 | $386,800,000.00 | 2% |
| 2006 | $396,000,000.00 | 2% |
| 2007 | $400,000,000.00 | 1% |
| 2008 | $393,000,000.00 | -2% |
| 2009 | $400,000,000.00 | 2% |
| 2010 | $420,000,000.00 | 5% |
| 2011 | $430,000,000.00 | 2% |
| 2012 | $445,000,000.00 | 3% |
| $10,129,600,000.00 | 8800% |
Yup, it just keeps growing and growing. Then came the news that George Soros donated a LOT of money to NPR. They then promptly fired Juan Williams. He was the only remotely conservative spokesperson at NPR. They reason they fired Williams? For expressing an opinion. That used to be considered an exciting human activity. What it did now was assure the planet that CPB no longer cared about their charter. They only cared about appeasing their base. And, that base neither represents the public interest, nor even the US citizens’ interest. It only represents the internal philosophy of the people running NPR. That’s it. That makes it no different than MSNBC, CNN, or any of the other hard left propaganda tools George Soros employs. Someone tell me what the point of NPR existing at this point is. I really see absolutely none whatsoever. The history you’ll find on the History channel. The music’s all over Sirius/XM.
Then came the internet.
They really no longer need to exist.
They certainly do not need to be contributing to the national debt.
John Boehner wants ideas, listen to Darrell Issa. Defund NPR, no one will notice.
31
Aug
John Cusack has never been a particular favorite of mine. Right behind Keanu Reeves’ stoic one-expression acting is John Cusack’s ability to stare straight ahead through an entire career of movies, he ranks as the second worst actor in Hollyowood. He finally makes ONE movie I enjoy, mainly because he pulls off being a crackhead so well
“I AM FOR A SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER AT FOX NEWS HQ AND OUTSIDE THE OFFICES ORDICK ARMEYAND NEWT GINGRICH-and all the GOP WELFARE FREAKS,”
OK, I’m not really in the mood to debate Hollywood crackheads experiencing a meltdown, but I’ll give it my best shot:
John, step away from the crack, slowly.
OK, I’m done.
What exactly is one to debate? That made absolutely no sense at all. All it really does to me is reinforce my original assumption that he’s a talentless crackhead propped up by his family’s Hollywood connections. And, when feeling threatened, he does what all liberals do, resort to name calling and insults rather than making even the remotest attempt at logically discussing the topic.
The only thing better than Cusack becoming completely unhinged was this:
“His provocative tweets could easily incite a rabid fan to commit violent acts against Fox News Headquarters and others he names,” said Dr. Carole Lieberman, a Beverly Hills-based psychiatrist and author of “Coping with Terrorism: Dreams Interrupted
“
I know she means well, but I don’t really think Cusack has any rabid fans. Someone can prove me wrong if they want as that is purely a hunch on my part. But, I’m guessing Fox, Dick Armey, and Newt are as safe now as they were before Cusack’s call to action to form a satanic death cult.
12
Aug
It’s been a strange week. Not that any have been terribly normal since January 2009. First we had Howard Stern trashing Democrats:
To which Robert Gibbs suggested the “professional left” should be drug tested. Howard Stern on drugs? No way.
Also during this day of both Perseids AND a massive CME, Gibbs suggested those same “professional liberals” would only be happy with Dennis Kucinich. Am I supposed to think that’s merely a coincidence? I ain’t buying it.
And to top it all off, Charlie Rangel spent 37 minutes of Congress’s time belaboring everyone that he’s not a criminal, just stupid, and that some simple reprimand’s not a good enough charge, he wants expulsion. He then threw a party. This of course comes on the heels of Nancy Pelosi’s claiming that she had nothing to do with the ethics charges against Rangel or Waters. “Draining the swamp” only applies to conservatives obviously, duh.
Steven Slater then decided to pull the cord and use the chute.
H/T: K2
Wanna guess where this line is quoted from?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto?
Mao Tse Teng?
Hitler?
The Khmer Rouge?
Hannibal?
Caligula?
Keep guessing.
Apparently a lot of people don’t know.
I’d include in that list John Paul Stephens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and of course, Sonia Sotomayor.
It says “the people”. They contend “the people” actually means “the states”. Now, to me, this is the true definition of conservative. Writing for the majority:
“In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty,” Alito’s opinion states.
“The Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense,” Breyer wrote. “There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, ‘fundamental.’ No broader constitutional interest or principle supports legal treatment of that right as fundamental.”
In other words, “the people” are actually “the state”. And, so long as the state behaved in an acceptable manner, individuals had no right to form a militia.
Conservative – people=people.
Liberal – people=something else, depending on the personal interpretation of the word “people” by the person doing the interpreting. But, since the “person” doing the interpreting could apparently be the state, it would mean that the as long as the state felt it was behaving in a fair manner, it wouldn’t have to subject itself to pesky people with guns.
Now, my problem with this is it is very clear in its intent. The people, that would be you and me, have the right to defend ourselves from whatever we may feel is an aggressor. It could be the British Army, it could be the US government, it could be Communists during WWII. It could be Morgan’s Raiders. It didn’t matter. If someone were attacking you, you had the unabridgeable right to protect yourself.
Because the Founding Fathers did not seem to think their statement was debatable, they kept it simple. I don’t think they ever imagined a time when the “smartest” we had to offer could not understand the intent of the word “people”.
Now, what they are trying to do is to say a state can form a militia if necessary. But, that’s not how it was in 1776. In 1776 states did not keep standing armies. In case of a conflict, they sent out a message to all who would come to fight and they brought their arms with them. That is the primary difference between an army, and a militia. So, in order to accept the argument John Paul Stephens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor are making, you have to accept that “people” doesn’t mean people and that “militia” meant something totally different then than it does now. That’s all. Once you’ve done that, then what Stephens is saying makes some sense. In other words, you have to be very liberal in the translation of common words to get a totally different meaning than what is obviously written.
Right now Elena Kagan is testifying before the Senate on why they should confirm her as a Supreme Court judge. They will because she’s a Democrat. What I guarantee you you will not hear is her definition of “people” or “militia”.
Immediately after the Kentucky US Senate primary, Rand Paul made what a lot of people consider a gaffe that got all kinds of media exposure:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
The entire country went bonkers over the fact that Rand Paul would dare do the unthinkable and dick around with a coveted national document that freed millions of people from the tyranny of an oppressive ruling class. From the Rachel Maddow post, a comment:
Since Rand Paul is an ophthalmologist and I imagine he has his own clinic. Does practice what he preaches? Has he subtly denied minority patients?
Since Paul expressed his opinion that the federal government is over-reaching, through the Civil Rights Act and many others, that means of course he’s racist.
In this case, the speaker thinks the entire document is flawed.
Here’s my gripe. Liberals want their cake and want to eat it too. Some documents are flawed and need to be changed. Other documents of their choice are untouchable.
That’s just being hypocritical. If you’re going to open the doors and dick around with the very document that founded this country, then all documents from that point on are fair game. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 addressed a very specific issue that is not an issue in 2010. Anyone with the very least bit of curiosity about history knows that. Those that don’t shout the loudest.
Rand Paul is correct. He has been attacked totally unjustifiably. The federal government has been over-reaching more and more for the last fifty years and needs to be reined in. One of those tools that enables the federal government to do that is the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Now, having said that, I’m waiting for the inevitable racist accusations. However, until someone points to an actual case of unequal voter registration requirement based on race or a school system practicing racial segregation, I rest my case.
The reason Rand Paul is right at this time is because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did its job. It assured that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights applied to every US citizen equally through the eyes of the federal government. That’s all it could do. Subsequent laws enacted through the CRA went farther and compelled and coerced individuals and businesses to do things to pander to a specific race. That’s when it became over-reaching. That’s not what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ever intended.
Rand Paul is right on every account.
And, once again, those who bother to read the Civil Rights Act of 1964 know it. Those that won’t, will shout the loudest. And of course, hurl insults in lieu of being forced to admit it.
Rand Paul is preaching limited government. That is definitely the liberals’ worst nightmare.
16
Apr
President Obama is gearing up for a fight to get Goodwin Liu for the 9th Circuit. For those not in the know, that’s the one from San Francisco. It represents the liberal heart and soul. I don’t think you’re going to find a conservative judge in that part of the world, so that point is somewhat moot. But, he said something that to me represents the essence of “activist” or not judges. Per Goodwin:
“The question … is not how the Constitution would have been applied at the founding, but rather how it should be applied today … in light of changing needs, conditions and understandings of our society.”
In other words, it’s open to translation as Goodwin Liu sees fit.
That is the root for activism. Now, here’s why that’s a bad thing. The US Constitution does not address a lot of things. It does that intentionally. Anyone wanna guess why?
Think about it real hard. People who read my stuff regularly should already know.
Still thinking? It’s really not that difficult. In fact, the problem today is people have made an otherwise mindlessly simple document too complicated.
Give up?
OK, try this one for size.
They intentionally did not address stuff because they felt it was none of their business.
That is the message Goodwin Liu is completely missing. That is why Goodwin Liu is unfit to be a judge, period, much less a federal judge. An activist judge will make a decision on something that is not a federal issue. A conservative judge, regardless of current expectations, would say it’s not a federal issue and pass on the decision entirely. The problem we have now is there are very few truly conservative judges. Everyone feels they have to render an opinion. They don’t. The question is not whether the Contitution was to be interpreted at some random point in time, the question is always whether it applies to the situation or not. If it does not, pass it back to the state it came from and let them decide how they wish to deal with it. If another state chooses to deal with it differently, so be it. It’s not Goodwin Liu’s right to tell the states what they can do based on his personal interpretation of the Constitution.
That is the difference. Goodwin Liu is totally unfit to be a federal judge. Obama won’t care because he has the same disregard for the Constitution. The Democrats won’t care because Obama picked the guy and they’ll have to support him. The Republicans will fight him because they pretty much have to. But, so far I think they’re making the wrong arguments. I think they just need to make a poster of Goodwin Liu with the banner on it to the effect of “How would you like your Constitution today?”.
Now, where this gets really fun is applying my definition of “liberal” vs “conservative” judges, Barbara Crabb would have made a very conservative decision regarding the National Day of Prayer. She cited the fact that the Constitution is very specific in dealing with religion. She’s right. In this case by suggesting everyone pray, Congress is compelling those who don’t believe in prayer to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. That’s wrong. She’s right. However, states CAN have a day of prayer. That’s none of her business. That’s not Liu’s business either. The right decision in this case would be to pass it back to the state to decide. A true conservative judge would do that. A true liberal judge would not. That’s the difference. Then, a person who wants to live in an environment that does have a day of prayer, or does not have a day of prayer, can choose to do so. Under Liu’s random interpretation model, they could not and therefore people in Wyoming have to fight people in New Jersey for the right to do what they wish in Wyoming. That’s wrong folks.
18
Nov
My good friend, Paul Burton, who I consider the pre-eminent thinker of Eubank, called me with a thought that was so clear to me he didn’t even have to explain it.
Stop signs versus stop lights are the perfect symbols of the difference between conservatives and liberals.
Think about it for minute.
At a stop sign, everyone is responsible for what they, and those around them do. At a stop light, everyone who has a green light fully expects everyone else to stop for them. If there’s a wreck, it’s never the person who assumes the light was red’s fault. It’s that person who assumed they had the right to go through the light while everyone else waited for them.
At a stop sign, if a wreck occurs, it’s minimal and easily fixed. Assuming of course everyone had followed the rules and stopped. If there’s a wreck at a stop light, it can be very ugly, and expensive.
At a stop sign, if everyone follows the rules and does come to a complete stop, no one gets hurt. If someone ignores the rules, someone could get hurt as badly as if they had run a stop light. If someone stops at a green light, chances are they will get hurt a lot less than that person who ran through the stop sign.
At a stop sign, everyone has to acknowledge the other person is there and work out some order to get everyone through the stop. At a stop light, you have turn lights, stop lights, red lights, caution lights, and green lights. Your every move is dictated electronically. But, what you will never do is consult with anyone else over when to turn. Even if you have to sit there five solid minutes with no oncoming traffic.
At a stop sign, if no one is coming, you go. At a stop light, if no one is coming, you sit and wait for the light to tell you it’s OK to go now.
At a stop sign, if there’s an accident, it’s someone’s fault. There’s just no way out of it. At a stop light, everyone blames it on the light.
Lastly, nothing can go wrong with a stop sign. It’s either there, or not. If you rely completely on stop lights, and the power goes out……..
Scott Ott makes another one of his brilliant observations regarding the beating death of Derrion Albert:
I’m going to go out on a limb as well and agree totally with Scott.
The message already being sent via publication is “Don’t shoot”. Derrion wasn’t shot. He was beat to death with a large piece of wood. A REALLY large piece of wood. This piece of wood was so large, that if I saw someone I knew walking down the street with it, I would have asked them why they were carrying around a very large piece of wood. If they had told me they were going to beat someone to death, or at the very least use it in a fight, I would have probably used my cell phone to tip off police. We have a bad enough image here, it does me no good to see it get a lot worse.
Transpose to Chicago. A bunch of boys are walking down the street with a very large piece of wood. No one cares. They then use this very large piece of wood in a fight. Again, no one goes out of their way to stop it. They then beat a defenseless kid with it. No one stopped them. While that kid was down, they beat him and kicked him. No one stopped them.
Little girl in that pic, whether or not someone uses a gun or not is totally and completely irrelevant. I get the message to stop the violence from it. But, since it’s so obvious of late that people take messages totally without interpreting them, her message won’t help anything. It doesn’t matter if someone’s going to get shot or not. Ban guns, they’ll beat you to death with a very large piece of wood. The only difference is those innocents without guns won’t have a chance against kids using very large pieces of wood. The problem is most definitely not the instrument, it’s the morality and ethics of those who don’t mind beating a defenseless person who’s down to death. As long as people think that way, there will be problems. Period. If those kids had a respect for their fellow man and even the slightest bit of a conscience, they would never have hurt a defenseless person. In that case, a gun is moot. Their is no instrument.
However, personal responsibility is a concept radical liberals hate. The concept that this isn’t a problem created by an inanimate object, but rather by a human being, totally contrasts with the liberal agendas of the last 30 years. Eliminate the instrument and the problem just vanishes. Eliminate coal and people won’t burn anything. Eliminate our nukes and there will be no war. Eliminate cigarettes and people won’t smoke anything. Eliminate responsibility to provide housing, food, medical care, and everything else and your kids will understand the value of everything else. Eliminate guns and people won’t use large pieces of wood.
Think that’s nuts? They did ban guns in Chicago. So, they used a large piece of wood instead.
