A Preview of Eurabia
Posted on May 19, 2009
Filed Under Political Rantings, Religious Rantings | Leave a Comment
Wonder what a Islamic Europe will look like? Take a look. Sandro Magister at www.chiesa has a report on the likely capital of this up and coming caliphate. A look at Rotterdam:
Many of the neighborhoods in Rotterdam are captive to the darkest, most violent form of Islamism. Pim Fortuyn’s house stands out like a pearl in a sea of chador and niqab. It is at number 11 Burgerplein, behind the train station. Every now and then someone comes to put flowers in front of the home of the professor who was murdered in Amsterdam on May 6, 2002. Someone else leaves a card: “In Holland everything is tolerated, except for the truth.” A millionaire named Chris Tummesen bought Pim Fortuyn’s house so that it would remain intact. The evening before his murder Pim was nervous, and had said on television that a climate of demonization had been created against him and his ideas. And his fears came true, when he was shot in the head five times by Volkert van der Graaf, a militant of the animal rights left, scrawny, head shaved, eyes dark, dressed like an environmental purist in a handmade shirt, sandals, and goat’s wool socks, a strict vegetarian, “a guy impatient to change the world,” his friends say.
Not long ago in downtown Rotterdam, funerary photos of Geert Wilders were placed under a tree, with a candle to commemorate his upcoming death. Today Wilders is the most popular politician in the city. He is the heir of Fortuyn, the homosexual, Catholic, ex-Markist professor who had formed his own party to save the country from Islamization. At his funeral, only the absence of Queen Beatrice kept the farewell to the “divine Pim” from becoming a funeral fit for a king. Before his death they made a monster of him (one Dutch minister called him an “untermensch,” an inferior man in Nazi parlance), afterward they idolized him. The prostitutes of Amsterdam left a wreath of flowers in his honor beneath the National Monument in Dam Square, a memorial to the victims of World War II.
Three months ago, “The Economist,” a weekly publication far from Wilders’ anti-Islamic ideas, spoke of Rotterdam as a “Eurabian nightmare.” For most of the Dutch who live there, Islamism is now a threat greater than the Delta Plan, the complicated system of dikes that prevents flooding from the sea, like the flood in 1953 that killed two thousand people. The picturesque town of Schiedam, part of the greater Rotterdam area, has always been a jewel in the Dutch imagination. Then the fairy tale glow faded, when in the newspapers three years ago it became the city of Farid A., the Islamist who made death threats against Wilders and Somali dissident Ayaan Hirsi Ali. For six years, Wilders has lived under 24-hour police protection.
Muslim lawyers in Rotterdam also want to change the rules of the courtroom, asking to be allowed to remain seated when the judge enters. They recognize Allah alone. The lawyer Mohammed Enait recently refused to stand when the magistrates enter the courtroom, saying that “Islam teaches that all men are equal.” The court of Rotterdam has recognized Enait’s right to remain seated: “There is no legal obligation requiring Muslim lawyers to stand in front of the court, insofar as this action is in contrast with the dictates of the Islamic faith.” Enait, the head of the legal office Jairam Advocaten, has explained that “he considers all men equal, and does not acknowledge any form of deference toward anyone.” All men, but not all women. Enait is well known for his refusal to shake hands with women, and has repeatedly said he would prefer them to wear the burqa. And there are many burqas on the streets of Rotterdam.
Secularism and tolerance are such wonderful liberal attributes, don’t you agree?
Another Obama Lie
Posted on May 7, 2009
Filed Under Political Rantings | Leave a Comment
I read the report and thought that I was miss-reading the article. Nonsensical. That was my initial impression. Here’s part of the piece:
The Obama administration today unveiled program details of a $3.4 trillion federal budget for the fiscal year beginning in October, a proposal that includes substantial increases for a number of domestic priorities as well as a plan to trim or eliminate 121 programs for a savings of $17 billion.
In a statement delivered at the White House after the budget details were released, President Obama defended the cuts from critics on both sides — those he said would fight to preserve the targeted programs and others who consider the reductions insignificant.
"We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits don’t matter and waste is not our problem," he said. "We can no longer afford to leave the hard choices for the next budget, the next administration — or the next generation."
Spend 3.4 trillion. Cut the budget by 17 billion. Do the math. Less that 1/2 of 1%. How is spending into trillions of dollars in debt consistent with the president’s words? Maybe he thought that we wouldn’t notice that he was spending trillions?
And to add insult to the lie, guess where the budget "cuts" are being made?
About half of the trims would come from curbing defense programs that have been identified by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates as expendable. They include ending production of the F-22 fighter plane — thus saving $2.9 billion next year — and canceling a new $13 billion presidential helicopter fleet, which would save about $750 million in fiscal 2010.
In a letter to Congress accompanying the new budget documents, Obama said his proposals make "long-overdue investments and reforms" in education, health care and renewable sources of energy while "beginning to rein in unsustainable deficits and debt." He said the proposed program cuts "are just the next phase of a larger and longer effort needed to change how Washington does business and put our fiscal house in order."
Obama promised to "transform" America. Those were dangerous words and we are now seeing the "hopeless change" so integral to Obama’s election.
"Outrage!" I Guess They Didn’t See It Coming
Posted on March 21, 2009
Filed Under Political Rantings | 1 Comment
"OUTRAGE" That is the operative word in the great smear against AIG executives who actually accepted the bonuses that they were under contract to receive. We’ve heard it from Obama and most of the Dems and they want their (or as they say "taxpayers’ " as if they really give a damn about taxpayers) money 
back. Forget that the Democratic congress approved the bonuses and Obama signed the "Stimulus" bill. They are "outraged" none the less. And their "outrage" is leading to more government control of private business practices.
And from the New York Times:
The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.
The outlines of the plan are expected to be unveiled this week in preparation for President Obama’s first foreign summit meeting in early April.
Increasing oversight of executive pay has been under consideration for some time, but the decision was made in recent days as public fury over bonuses has spilled into the regulatory effort.
From the Financial Times (London):
Bankers on Wall Street and in Europe have struck back against moves by US lawmakers to slap punitive taxes on bonuses paid to high earners at bailed-out institutions.
Senior executives on both sides of the Atlantic on Friday warned of an exodus of talent from some of the biggest names in US finance, saying the “anti-American” measures smacked of “a McCarthy witch-hunt” that would send the country “back to the stone age”.
There were fears that the backlash triggered by AIG’s payment of $165m in bonuses to executives responsible for losses that forced a $170bn taxpayer-funded rescue would have devastating consequences for the largest banks.
“Finance is one of America’s great industries, and they’re destroying it,” said one banker at a firm that has accepted public money. “This happened out of haste and anger over AIG, but we’re not like AIG.”
I must say, however, that in some regards, Wall St. is paying for their "outrage" over Bush and Republicans with their support of Obama and the Democrats in the last election cycle. According to opensecrets.com, Wall St. went for Obama in a big way. Securities and Investment firms gave 57% of their PAC and individual campaign contributions to Democrats.
Wall Street types are supposed to be smart. What were they thinking the radicals would do once in power? Did they think that the demagoguery about "Big Business" was just talk?
Just One Example of Bailout Fiasco
Posted on March 17, 2009
Filed Under Current Events, Political Rantings | Leave a Comment
The Democrats spend trillions of dollars in the first weeks of the Obama administration to bail out desperate companies and to try to "stimulate" the economy. When their policies and spending outrage the public, the fain shock and indignation. Take for example the latest regarding the AIG bonus payouts. The Dems are all outraged that this company would dare to pay millions in contractual bonuses to executives after receiving billions in federal tax dollars. Chris Dodd ( who has received, with Obama, hundreds of thousands in campaign contributions from AIG) was livid:
"We want and expect a full briefing," said Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn. "And we also want answers regarding where the Fed has been on conditions for these types of bonuses since the rescue effort first began.
Just one problem with his supposed outrage. He is responsible for the bonuses being paid. It is his mistake and the Dems own this scandal.
While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. The provision, now called “the Dodd Amendment” by the Obama Administration provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” — which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax.
Dodd’s original amendment did not include that exemption, and the Connecticut Senator denied inserting the provision.
“I can’t point a finger at someone who was responsible for putting those dates in,” Dodd told FOX. “I can tell you this much, when my language left the senate, it did not include it. When it came back, it did.”
“Because of negotiations with the Treasury Department and the bill Conferees, several modifications were made,” Dodd Spokesperson Kate Szostak in a response to FOX Business.
The provision excluding those bonus payments made it into the final version of the bill, and is law.
Separately, Sen. Dodd was AIG’s largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100, according to opensecrets.org. Also, one of AIG Financial Products’ largest offices is based in Connecticut.
So let’s get this strait: Dodd takes big campaign money from AIG, writes into the stimulus package an agreement that contractual bonuses could be paid, didn’t read or notice that something in the bill got changed (yea, right) and is now outraged that those bonuses were in fact paid. He now seeks to recover the bonuses through unfair and punitive taxation of the bonuses.
Think that he’ll return the campaign money as a gesture of good faith? Don’t hold your breath.
Michelle Malkin has more.
Obama Lifts Restrictions on Stem Cell Research, "Science" Will Guide
Posted on March 9, 2009
Filed Under Political Rantings, Religious Rantings, Science Rantings | 1 Comment
As expected, President Obama continued to advance the culture of death by removing restrictions of government funding of stem cell research. Despite the fact that there has not been any meaningful advance in this area and given that there is an alternative.
WASHINGTON (AP) - From tiny embryonic cells to the large-scale physics of global warming, President Barrack Obama urged researchers on Monday to follow science and not ideology as he abolished contentious Bush-era restraints on stem-cell research. "Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Obama declared as he signed documents changing U.S. science policy and removing what some researchers have said were shackles on their work.
"It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology," Obama said.
You can be sure that the only political agendas that will not be served by the "scientific data" will be conservative, religious or moral. Besides, if Obama really means it, where would this leave AlGore?
Depression Era Cooking With Clara
Posted on March 7, 2009
Filed Under Misc. Rantings | 1 Comment
I happened upon this video of a 91 year old lady making a "poor man’s meal" from depression days. I thought that it was insightful and interesting. She makes that statement that potatoes were "..a dollar a sack. That was a lot of money."
What do you think?
Cap and Trade is Crap and Raid (your wallet)
Posted on March 5, 2009
Filed Under Current Events, Political Rantings | Leave a Comment
Think that Cap and Trade will be good for the middle class? Think that only dirty coal companies will have to foot the bill for all this? Think again. You will pay and pay and pay. A study from the Marshall Institute spells things out rather well:
Cap-and-trade will impact the prices households pay for electricity. Table 7 shows estimated changes in the electricity prices from the baseline year. Electricity prices are predicted to increase much more than gasoline prices. Lieberman-Warner’s cap-andtrade system is estimated to increase the price of electricity by anywhere from 5% to 15% in 2015 and anywhere from 14% in the EPA core scenario to 128% in the ACCF/NAM’s high cost scenario in 2030. The CATF model predicts a 7% increase from the 2005 price in 2030. The EIA, MIT, and ACCF/NAM studies predict a 10%, 37%, and 124% increase in electricity prices from their baseline scenarios to 2030, respectively. By 2050, electricity prices will have leveled off somewhat, returning to near 2015 levels according to the MIT and EPA estimates.
…the estimated increase in the price of natural gas from the baseline price. Under lower cost assumptions, the models predict that the price of natural gas will be from 12% to 17% higher in 2015 than the baseline cases. In cases with less generous assumptions, natural gas prices could experience increases of 20% to 49% higher than the baseline estimate in 2015. One thing is certain: any cap-and-trade system will increase the use of natural gas. Natural gas is the best alternative now available to non- CCS coal, so if we reduce coal-powered energy generation, we will probably rely heavily on natural gas as a substitute. By 2030, the increased reliance on natural gas will cause the estimated prices to rise 20% to 107% higher than baseline prices in lowcost scenarios and 87% to 145% in the high cost/limited alternatives cases.
Cap-and-trade will burden households with higher gasoline prices. Table 8 shows the percent difference between the baseline gasoline price and the cap-and-trade adjusted price. All models and scenarios demonstrate that Lieberman-Warner will increase the price of gasoline above the reference scenario price but with large amounts of variation. The CRA predicts that gas prices rise 145% above the reference scenario in 2015. Yet, prices are only 30% higher than the reference scenario in 2030 because the higher CAFE standards are included in the 2030 baseline. The lowest estimates are CATF’s and EPA’s core scenarios, predicting increases of 11.6% and 16.7% by 2030, respectively. Alternative scenarios using higher-cost assumptions show increases from 41.2% to 145% by 2030.
And there is unemployment estimates and on and on and on.
Obama Lied; The Economy Died
Posted on March 4, 2009
Filed Under Political Rantings | Leave a Comment
Great oped piece in the Washington Times regarding intentional and seemingly relentless lies that the Obama administration keeps telling. (H/T Darke Blog)
…George W. Bush didn’t lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He was merely mistaken. Whereas President Obama told a whopper last week when he claimed he was not for bigger government. As he said Tuesday night: "As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President’s Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government - I don’t."
This he asserted though the budget he proposed the next day asks for federal spending as 28 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), higher by at least 6 percent than any time since World War II. Moreover, after 10 years, Mr. Obama’s proposed spending as a percentage of GDP would still be 22.6 percent, nearly 2 percentage points higher than any year during the Bush administration, despite the full costs of the terrorist attacks of Sept, 11, 2001, the Iraq and Afghan wars and the rebuilding of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
Consider also his assertion in his not-quite-State of the Union address that:
"My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time. But we’re starting with the biggest lines. We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade."
But, lamentably, a few days later, The Washington Post reported: "A senior administration official acknowledged yesterday that the budget does not contain $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. Instead, the figure represents Obama’s total efforts at deficit reduction, including tax hikes [of more than $1 trillion] on families making over $250,000 a year. It also includes hundreds of billions of dollars ’saved’ by not continuing to spend $170 billion a year in Iraq."
Don’t expect the MSM to call him on this anytime soon. Hope and Change. And don’t forget the "new tone" he promised to bring to Washington.
Recovery.gov
Posted on March 4, 2009
Filed Under Political Rantings | Leave a Comment
You’ve got to love the propaganda campaign Obama and friends are conducting to convince us that they are spending trillions of tax dollars wisely. Most people spend more time researching and shopping for a refrigerator than this bunch spent formulating the porkulus spending bills. Michelle Malkin has a Photoshop contest mocking the official logo. This should be fun.
Making Taxes "Fairer"
Posted on March 4, 2009
Filed Under Political Rantings | 8 Comments
Liberals and Socialists need to pervert the language in order to promote their agenda. Note that "global warming" has been replaced with "global climate change" so that any contingency of the weather is covered and in need of a socialist agenda.
Now look at the current rhetoric regarding the massive tax hike that Obama and Congress are planning. It’s, in their view, about making the taxing of Americans "fairer." Here’s the latest from tax cheat Geithner and his friends of Capital Hill:
Geithner said Obama’s plan would cut income taxes for 95 percent of families and 97 percent of small businesses. Raising taxes on couples that make more than $250,000 would make the tax system more equitable, restoring the balance that existed before a series of tax cuts were enacted under former President George W. Bush, he said.
"This budget targets tax relief to families that have lost ground the past eight years," Geithner said.
Geithner and White House Budget Director Peter Orszag testified at separate congressional hearings Tuesday, giving lawmakers their first opportunity to publicly question administration officials about Obama’s spending plan.
Questioning was pretty much along party lines. Democrats for the most part praised Obama’s proposal.
"It is making the tax code more fair," Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., told Geithner.
Note that for tax year 2006
|
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
|
AGI Threshold on Percentiles |
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid |
|
Top 1%
|
$388,806 |
39.89 |
|
Top 5%
|
$153,542 |
60.14 |
|
Top 10%
|
$108,904 |
70.79 |
|
Top 25%
|
$64,702 |
86.27 |
|
Top 50%
|
$31,987 |
97.01 |
|
Bottom 50%
|
<$31,987 |
2.99 |
|
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income |
|
|
This means that the top 10% of income earners (making about $110,000/year and more) paid about 71% of federal income taxes.
The bottom 50% paid about 3%. Is this fair? And Obama wants to "cut taxes" for 95% of "families." Note they do not say taxpayers since only about 50% of "families" pay any tax at all!
This is why liberals cannot be trusted with your money or with the language.
keep looking »-
Timeless Wisdom
"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." - ILN, 4/19/30
-
-
Chicklets
Daily Gospel Reading- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
