Syrian Refugees

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Concerning Republicans concerns over accepting Syrian refugees, Obama says, “apparently, they’re scared of widows and orphans”. The president never ceases to amaze me. He is an expert at poking the opposition in the eye. How dare Americans question bringing thousands of Syrians to America? Sure we have watched Syrians burning American flags for the last 40 years. Sure Syria has been a terrorist sponsor for 40 years but how dare we question bringing in trainloads of their people. Mr. President, we are not just talking about widows and orphans.

The administration says the immigrants face many months of screening before being allowed settlement. According to Obama, “only after subjecting them to rigorous screening and security checks.”

I have zero faith in your “rigorous screening.”

“That process includes biographic and biometric security checks – i.e. checking records and doing fingerprinting.” Biographic security checks are interviews.

“Are you a terrorist?”

“Nope.”

“Ok, let’s move on.”

Fingerprinting is only useful if you have previously fingerprinted them. How many people in Syria do we have prints on? Not many.

“Law enforcement, the Pentagon and the intelligence community all vet information provided by and obtained about refugees to help make a determination about whether they will ultimately be allowed to come to the U.S.” A neighbor of mine needed security clearance to work at a local army base. An FBI agent came to my house and interviewed my wife about him. How in the world is the Pentagon going to “vet information provided” by the refugees? Are they going to travel to Syria and interview their neighbors?

What is law enforcement or the Pentagon going to do? Call Bashar al-Assad and ask for birth certificates? I think the administration wants you to believe that the NSA has a voice print of every American flag burner in Syria and that they will match their voice to recorded cell phone conversations with ISIS. Sorry Obama, I don’t buy it.

“The process usually takes between 18 to 24 months.” I believe that. You have a 30 minute interview. The paperwork sits someone’s desk for 18 months and then is accepted. Sitting on a desk for a year doesn’t make the process any more rigorous.

“Syrian refugees go through an enhanced review process on top of that with extra national security checks.” Enhanced! That means the form has a new font.

“All Syrian refugees considered for resettlement in the U.S. are interviewed in person by specially trained staff, mostly in Amman and Istanbul, but also in Cairo and elsewhere.” “Refugees must also undergo health screenings and a cultural orientation before they arrive in the U.S.”

What is there to say about this? If you believe this you are nuts.

“FBI Director James Comey famously admitted last month that the U.S. government has no real way to conduct background checks on refugees. “We can only query against that which we have collected. And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them,”

“Even Attorney General Loretta Lynch admitted there were “challenges” to vetting the refugees… without saying what those challenges were.  Like almost everyone else in the Administration, she offered vague assurances that the American government has a “significant and robust screening process in place,””

“The registration process includes in-depth refugee interviews, home country reference checks and biological screening such as iris scans. Military combatants are weeded out.” How are you checking anything from the home country? Iris scans? Iris scans? How useful is that? They are just trying to throw out fancy terms to fool dumb people. “Enhanced”, “Biometric”, “Iris scanning”, “Pentagon going to vet”. Ok, I feel much better about the whole thing.

“Among those who pass background checks, a small percentage (actually its 50%) are referred for overseas resettlement based on criteria designed to determine the most vulnerable cases. This group may include survivors of torture, victims of sexual violence, targets of political persecution, the medically needy, families with multiple children and a female head of household.” Despite their poor math skills, I am absolutely concerned about people in this situation. But 5,000,000 Syrian refugees are not in this category.

Here is a result from a poll of Syrian Refugees:

“In general, do you support or oppose the military airstrikes by the US-led international coalition against Islamic militant groups including ISIL and other groups in Iraq and Syria?” Result: 15% strongly opposed the airstrikes. Another 22% oppose. Source

Let’s get this straight. You are fleeing your country because of ISIS yet you strongly oppose airstrikes against them? Why would that be? It’s because 1/3 of the refugees hate Americans more than the people who tortured them, kicked them out of their house and raped their wives and daughters. Yeah, that’s the kind of people we want coming to America. How are we supposed to trust them?

Why can’t any of these people go to Brazil? They have a booming economy? Malaysia is a huge Muslim country. They’ve taken 5,000.

Russia has been a Syrian ally for decades. Russia made this mess. They are 100% responsible for the mess. They supported the al-Assad family. Russia also fought against US airstrikes on ISIS. To date Russia has taken about 1,000 refugees. Gee thanks!

Mexico is a huge country. They’ve taken about 30. That’s three zero. Way to go Mexico. The world salutes you.

My great grandparents were immigrants. I’m not opposed to immigration. But I’m pretty cynical about accepting people from Syria. I guess it’s a result of decade’s news stories showing Syrians hating America.

UPDATE – September 19, 2016

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. government has mistakenly granted citizenship to at least 858 immigrants who had pending deportation orders from countries of concern to national security

Liberal Bias

/0 Comments/in /by

Conservatives have long felt that the majority of media sources have a liberal bias. Over thirty years ago a study by Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman offered interesting data on the subject. I think it is unlikely that we will every see a study so revealing of political bias.

Media Elite (Source: The Media Elite by S. Robert Lichter, George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College.)

Showing the imbalance between the media and the electorate: In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.

Lichter and Rothman’s survey of journalists discovered that “Fifty-four percent placed themselves to the left of center, compared to only 19 percent who chose the right side of the spectrum.”

It is interesting that basically the same number that said they were right of center also said they voted Republican. Can we call those the honest reporters?

It is reasonable to expect that someone may vote opposite of their political leanings on occasion. Especially when a dynamic politician such as Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama are on the ticket. However none of the politicians in the presidential elections between 1964 and 1976 were that dynamic.

The fact that those surveyed consistently voted Democrat, indicates that the 27% who considered themselves centrists were really left of center. If you consistently vote Democrat for president you are likely a Democrat.

Fifty-six percent said the people they worked with were mostly on the left, and only 8 percent on the right — a margin of seven-to-one.

I doubt journalists would ever be so honest again, however, this trend certainly continued into the 21st century. Public records in 2008 showed that the Democratic Party received a total donation of $1,020,816, given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks (NBC, CBS, ABC), while the Republican Party received only $142,863 via 193 donations. That is an 83% lean towards Democrats.

Those in media would say they are impartial in their journalism. I believe that is delusional.

“If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.” –Obama

/0 Comments/in /by

I couldn’t disagree with him more. Just because I cross a bridge it doesn’t mean I owe anybody. I already pay gas taxes for that built and maintain that bridge. I would content that people who are not successful consume more government services and thus owe more to the system than the rich.

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” he said. “The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/15/obama-dashes-american-dream-suggests-nobody-achieves-success-alone/#ixzz20kscaNqj

Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013

/0 Comments/in , /by

Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013

While the individual mandate tax gets most of the attention, the ObamaCare law actually contains 20 new or higher taxes on the American people. These taxes are gradually phased in over the years 2010 (with its 10 percent “tanning tax”) to 2018 (when the tax on comprehensive health insurance plans kicks in.)

Six months from now, in January 2013, five major ObamaCare taxes will come into force:

1. The ObamaCare Medical Device Manufacturing Tax
This 2.3 percent tax on medical device makers will raise the price of (for example) every pacemaker, prosthetic limb, stent, and operating table. Can you remind us, Mr. President, how taxing medical devices will reduce the cost of health care? The tax is particularly destructive because it is levied on gross sales and even targets companies who haven’t turned a profit yet.
These are often small, scrappy companies with less than 20 employees who pioneer the next generation of life-prolonging devices. In addition to raising the cost of health care, this $20 billion tax over the next ten years will not help the country’s jobs outlook, as the industry employs nearly 400,000 Americans. Several companies have already responded to the looming tax by cutting research and development budgets and laying off workers.

2. The ObamaCare High Medical Bills Tax
This onerous tax provision will hit Americans facing the highest out-of-pocket medical bills. Currently, Americans are allowed to deduct medical expenses on their 1040 form to the extent the costs exceed 7.5 percent of one’s adjusted gross income.
The new ObamaCare provision will raise that threshold to 10 percent, subjecting patients to a higher tax bill. This tax will hit pre-retirement seniors the hardest. Over the next ten years, affected Americans will pony up a minimum total of $15 billion in taxes thanks to this provision.

3. The ObamaCare Flexible Spending Account Cap
The 24 million Americans who have Flexible Spending Accounts will face a new federally imposed $2,500 annual cap. These pre-tax accounts, which currently have no federal limit, are used to purchase everything from contact lenses to children’s braces. With the cost of braces being as high as $7,200, this tax provision will play an unwelcome role in everyday kitchen-table health care decisions.
The cap will also affect families with special-needs children, whose tuition can be covered using FSA funds. Special-needs tuition can cost up to $14,000 per child per year. This cruel tax provision will limit the options available to such families, all so that the federal government can squeeze an additional $13 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.
The targeting of FSAs by President Obama and congressional Democrats is no accident. The progressive left has never been fond of the consumer-driven accounts, which serve as a small roadblock in their long-term drive for a one-size-fits-all government health care bureaucracy.
For further proof, note the ObamaCare “medicine cabinet tax” which since 2011 has barred the 13.5 million Americans with Health Savings Accounts from purchasing over-the-counter medicines with pre-tax funds.

4. The ObamaCare Surtax on Investment Income
Under current law, the capital gains tax rate for all Americans rises from 15 to 20 percent in 2013, while the top dividend rate rises from 15 to 39.6 percent. The new ObamaCare surtax takes the top capital gains rate to 23.8 percent and top dividend rate to 43.4 percent. The tax will take a minimum of $123 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.
And, last but not least…

5. The ObamaCare Medicare Payroll Tax increase
This tax soaks employers to the tune of $86 billion over the next ten years.
As you can understand, there is a reason why the authors of ObamaCare wrote the law in such a way that the most brutal tax increases take effect conveniently after the 2012 election. It’s the same reason President Obama, congressional Democrats, and the mainstream media conveniently neglect to mention these taxes and prefer that you simply “move on” after the Supreme Court ruling.

John Kartch is director of communications at Americans for Tax Reform. Follow him on Twitter @JohnKartch.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/05/five-major-obamacare-taxes-that-will-hit-your-wallet-in-2013/#ixzz1zrC4Q1Pr

Are you kidding me?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

This blows my mind. Why on earth does the Pentagon need to get involved in gay pride? How is the relevant to national security?

Washington (CNN) — The Department of Defense announced Thursday that it will be commemorating lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender pride later this month. The event will be the first of its kind for the Pentagon.

“The Defense Department is planning an LGBT Pride Month event for later this month,” Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Laniez said in a statement issued Thursday.
Press Secretary George Little said senior Defense Department officials will take part in the event, but had no other details.

Just a year ago, a member of the military faced punishment or discharge if he or she admitted being homosexual, but last September the administration scrapped the policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/14/us/pentagon-gay-pride/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Obama Quote

/0 Comments/in , /by

“The private sector is doing fine,” the president said during a White House press conference. “Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. … If Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments. -Barack Obama”

June 8, 2012

Wow! Talk about doubling down. It’s one thing to think the economy is doing well with 23,000,000 out of work. But to think the answer is to grow state and local governments? Government doesn’t produce anything!

Amazing. There is nothing to work with here.

Frontline: Money, Power and Wall Street

/0 Comments/in , /by

This is an excellent Frontline. Well worth watching. It’s obviously an investment in time but you won’t regret it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/money-power-wall-street/

Michelle Obama Special

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Massachusetts To Ban Bake Sales?
May 7, 2012

Brownies, cupcakes and other sugar-laden contraband will be outlawed in Massachusetts public schools as health officials battle what they call crisis-level obesity in children.

All bake sales will be banned beginning Aug. 1, the Boston Herald reported. The ban would apply 30 minutes before the start of classes and thirty minutes after the school day ends. But health officials are trying to banish sweets from school banquets, after-hours events and even football games.

The Dept. of Public Health and Education insisted they were not attempting to regulate what people eat.

“We’re not trying to get into anyone’s lunch box,” DPH medical director Lauren Smith told the Boston Herald. “We know that schools need those clubs and resources. We want them to be sure and have them, but to do them a different way.”

Smith told The Boston Channel that they wanted to create an environment in schools where kids have an opportunity to make choices among healthy options.

We’re at a place in Massachusetts where one-third of our kids in schools are either overweight or obese,” she told the television station.

Jeff Katz, a talk radio host at Boston’s Talk 1200, told Fox News the ban is simply outrageous.

“Only in Massachusetts would the Attorney General say it’s not illegal to be an illegal alien, but it is illegal to sell a cupcake for the football team,” Katz said. “When they outlaw cupcakes only outlaws will have cupcakes.”

State Sen. Susan Fargo, a Democrat, said childhood obesity has reached “crisis” proportions.”

“If we didn’t have so many kids that were obese, we could have let things go,” Fargo told the newspaper.

But parents and local lawmakers are fuming over the ban on bake sales — many wondering how they will be able to pay for extracurricular activities.

“It helps the schools,” Lana Borstein, a PTO president, told The Boston Channel. “It helps buy books. It helps fund trips. It helps fund things that taxpayers aren’t paying for. That’s the purpose.”

“The goal is to raise money,” Maura Dawley told the Herald. “You’re going to be able to sell pizza. You’re not going to get that selling apples and bananas. It’s silly.”

“My concern is we’re regulating what people can eat, and I have a problem with that,” he told the newspaper. “I respect the state for what they’re trying to do, but I think they’ve gone off the deep end. I don’t want someone telling me how to do my job as a parent.”

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/massachusetts-to-ban-bake-sales.html

Mitt’s Money

/0 Comments/in , , /by

According to Pablo Torre of Sports Illustrated, “by the time they have been retired for two years, 78 percent of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or are under financial stress because of joblessness or divorce.” The problem isn’t just confined to professional football players. Torre’s article says that within five years of retirement, an estimated 60 percent of former NBA players are broke.

Why is it that the liberal media and Democrats don’t talk about these professional athletes blowing their money on wine, woman and song but they make Mitt Romney out to be the devil for his wealth? How much good comes to society from these guys flushing their money down the toilet? Mitt provides the government with a steady source of income. Every year they know they are going to get a check for $3,000,000. Perhaps it bothers them that he gives about the same amount to charity. Since they want the government to be the source of all things good; charities, especially religion, represent competition. It’s a sick thought but it may be true.

They need to realize that the rich are a flock of geese laying golden eggs. They provide a relatively predictable source of revenue.

“Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.” Barack Obama

 

Obama on the rich paying their fair share

/0 Comments/in , /by

April 16, 2008
Democratic presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama moderated by Charlie Gibson of ABC News.

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.