“Remember, as much as McConnell, Alexander, Boehner, Cantor, etc. did for you, you are more important to them than they are to you. But for you, they would still be in the minority.”
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/10/31/an-open-letter-to-the-freshman-republican-victors/#comments
Sunday, October 31, 2010
ALERT..Ellison Video Busted Lying and Leaves Stage
On Thursday, October 28, Election Integrity Watch filed a federal lawsuit against an illegal and unconstitutional policy instituted by Hennepin and Ramsey Counties, blocking people from voting if they are wearing “Tea Party” apparel or “Election Integrity Watch / Please ID Me” buttons.
http://randysright.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/alert-ellison-video-busted-lying-and-leaves-stage/
http://randysright.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/alert-ellison-video-busted-lying-and-leaves-stage/
PoliFrog Blog: GK Butterfield -- Not Your Parent's Democrat.
GK Butterfield – Diving beyond Debt and Morality
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The Disclose Act (H.R. 5175) failed in the Senate. The failure of this bill is a win for free speech. Before it failed in the Senate, though, it passed in the house with GK Butterfield's support.
That is correct; GK Butterfield sided with limiting free political speech. Oh, he would argue that my free speech is fine and that your free speech is OK as well, but if the two of us were to incorporate and engage in political speech GK Butterfield would prefer us silenced and voted to that effect.
Polifrog asks Rep GK Butterfield, how many people engaged in political speech does it take before you think we should be silenced?
Neither Franklin D Roosevelt nor John F Kennedy would have drifted so far from the definition of American as to be asked such question.
GK Butterfield. Not your parent's democrat.
Update:
Another bill supported by GK Butterfield -- Stifling information coming and going. SEC Says New Financial Regulation Law Exempts it From Public Disclosure
So much for transparency.
Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.
GK Butterfield -- Not Your Parent's Democrat.
http://polifrogblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/rep-gk-butterfield-nc-1-on-political.html
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The Disclose Act (H.R. 5175) failed in the Senate. The failure of this bill is a win for free speech. Before it failed in the Senate, though, it passed in the house with GK Butterfield's support.
That is correct; GK Butterfield sided with limiting free political speech. Oh, he would argue that my free speech is fine and that your free speech is OK as well, but if the two of us were to incorporate and engage in political speech GK Butterfield would prefer us silenced and voted to that effect.
Polifrog asks Rep GK Butterfield, how many people engaged in political speech does it take before you think we should be silenced?
Neither Franklin D Roosevelt nor John F Kennedy would have drifted so far from the definition of American as to be asked such question.
GK Butterfield. Not your parent's democrat.
Update:
Another bill supported by GK Butterfield -- Stifling information coming and going. SEC Says New Financial Regulation Law Exempts it From Public Disclosure
So much for transparency.
Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.
GK Butterfield -- Not Your Parent's Democrat.
http://polifrogblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/rep-gk-butterfield-nc-1-on-political.html
Randy's Right
N.C. Judge Rules For Republicans In Voting Machine Foul-Ups
http://randysright.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/n-c-judge-rules-for-republicans-in-voting-machine-foul-ups/
http://randysright.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/n-c-judge-rules-for-republicans-in-voting-machine-foul-ups/
Coalition of Concerned Christians
Coalition of Concerned Christians--
NC House Candidate Endorsements NC House
http://www.coalitionofconcernedchristians.com/state-house-recommendations/
NC House Candidate Endorsements NC House
http://www.coalitionofconcernedchristians.com/state-house-recommendations/
Federal Judge Rules in Favor of NC GOP in Touch-Screen Vote Flipping Complaint
Orders 'voter alert' posted at polls, programming materials, records retained...
North Carolina counties which use touch-screen voting systems will now have to post a "Voter Alert" at precincts warning voters about potential problems with the machines following a complaint [PDF] filed in federal court by the state's Republican Party on Friday. The lawsuit, heard today on an expedited basis, was filed after voters in several counties had reported to party officials that their attempts to vote for straight-ticket Republican ballots were flipping on the screen to straight-ticket Democratic ballots.
Those reports of vote-flipping led to the NC GOP issuing a threat late this week to sue the State Board of Elections (BoE) if their demands were not met to order certain precautions be taken at polling places which used the 100% unverifiable Direct Recording Electronic (DRE, usually touch-screen) voting systems. After the Executive Director for the BoE sent a letter in response to the GOP's demands, downplaying the reported incidents as "isolated" and "no different than ones that must be addressed in every election," the Republican complaint was filed in federal court on Friday afternoon. (The sharp letters back and forth between the state GOP and BoE can be read in our previous report on the NC situation.)
Judge Malcolm Howard tonight also ordered that pollworkers must tell voters to read the printed alert, and that memory cards and other programming materials, records and audit logs from the oft-failed ES&S iVotronic touch-screen DREs must be preserved for examination after the election. Late today, the BoE Executive Director Gary O. Bartlett sent a notice [PDF] to the County Boards of Elections detailing the changes ordered by the federal judge.
The "Voter Alert" to be posted in all precincts using the touch-screen voting systems must read as follows...
SEE ALERT: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8162
The remedies sought, and gained, by the Republicans, however, fail to address the fact that no matter how "carefully" a voter reviews their on-screen ballot to ensure their "vote is accurately cast", there is still no way to know that the voting system will record those votes as intended. Moreover, there is no way to know after the election whether the results actually reflect the will of the electorate, as we recently discussed in this article at Slate detailing some of the closest and most-watched races in the nation which will likely be determined on identical or similar 100% unverifiable DRE systems next Tuesday.
Removing systems from service once they are reported to be failing would be the safest way to deal with such problems, but long time North Carolina Election Integrity advocate Joyce McCloy, Director of NC Coalition for Verified Voting and editor of Voting News, explained to The BRAD BLOG tonight that many of the state's counties wouldn't have enough machines or back-up paper ballots to handle the election if failing machines were removed from service.
In past elections, most notably in both 2006 and 2008, it has been largely Democratic voters who have complained that their attempted touch-screen votes were seen flipping to Republican (or other party's) candidates. Little action was taken on their behalf by either elections officials or the Democratic Party. Many of those who complained were tarred as being being "conspiracy theorists" or "sore losers" by Republicans, and both elections officials and voting machine company representatives generally marginalized the complaints as either non-existent or "human error" on the part of the voter.
According to the NC GOP's attorney Tom Farr, similar arguments were made by the BoE in this morning's proceedings. "What I heard in the argument today was, the problem with the touchscreen voting machines are the fault of the voters, not the State Board and we have to preserve the integrity of the State Board and its reputation. And that's more important than making sure that voters had their ballots counted accurately, and that's what I thought was outrageous," Farr told the media after the court hearing.
Another report of votes flipping from Republican to the Green Party on a straight-ticket ballot, as caught on cellphone video, occurred last week in Texas (along with a report of another voter who saw his vote flip from Democratic to Republican in a different TX county.) In Nevada a Republican voter claimed her touch-screen vote was pre-selected on screen for Sen. Harry Reid in his tight race against Republican Sharron Angle. In both instances, local election officials downplayed the incidents by blaming the voters.
Such occurrences have marred virtually every election since the proliferation of unverifiable touch-screen voting was enabled by the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. While many jurisdictions have decertified the systems in favor of paper ballot-based optical-scan systems, some 20 to 30% of the nation's voters still use DREs at the polling place.
McCloy told The BRAD BLOG this evening that the state had been set to ban DRE systems all together some time ago, until the legislation was scotched after apparent lobbying by election officials in counties who use, and very much like, the systems. Afterwords, the legislation was reportedly modified to allow the touch-screen systems to stay in place.
ES&S voting systems have a storied history of failure. In 2006, the iVotronics were found to have inexplicably failed to record some 18,000 votes in a special election for the U.S. House in Florida (in which the Republican candidate was declared the "winner" by just 369 votes). That incident led to the state getting rid of virtually all of their touch-screen systems. ES&S iVotronics were also used at the polling place for South Carolina's primary where Alvin Greene, the unemployed South Carolina veteran who failed to campaign or even have a campaign web site, inexplicably defeated four-term state Senator and former Circuit Court Judge Vic Rawl for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination.
In Monroe County, Arkansas, in the days following their May 18th U.S. Senate primary this year, thousands of votes said to have been tallied on the night of the election promptly disappeared from the ES&S system in the days following it. Neither state nor local officials have been able to explain what happened or why.
In addition to North Carolina, ES&S iVotronic touch-screens are still used by voters in Arkansas, Washington D.C., Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and West Virginia.
* * *
• The BRAD BLOG's recently related coverage concerning NC vote-flipping:
10/23/10: Touch-Screens in Two NC Counties Flip Straight-Party Votes Repeatedly from GOP to Dem
10/28/10: NC GOP Files Suit Over 'Widespread' Touch-screen Failures, Votes Flipping to Dems
• Other BRAD BLOG reports of votes flipping away from Republicans this year:
10/22/10: Video Shows Touch-Screen Voting Machine Purportedly Flipping Vote From Republican Perry to Green Party Candidates in Dallas County, TX
10/26/10: E-Vote Trouble in NV
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8162
North Carolina counties which use touch-screen voting systems will now have to post a "Voter Alert" at precincts warning voters about potential problems with the machines following a complaint [PDF] filed in federal court by the state's Republican Party on Friday. The lawsuit, heard today on an expedited basis, was filed after voters in several counties had reported to party officials that their attempts to vote for straight-ticket Republican ballots were flipping on the screen to straight-ticket Democratic ballots.
Those reports of vote-flipping led to the NC GOP issuing a threat late this week to sue the State Board of Elections (BoE) if their demands were not met to order certain precautions be taken at polling places which used the 100% unverifiable Direct Recording Electronic (DRE, usually touch-screen) voting systems. After the Executive Director for the BoE sent a letter in response to the GOP's demands, downplaying the reported incidents as "isolated" and "no different than ones that must be addressed in every election," the Republican complaint was filed in federal court on Friday afternoon. (The sharp letters back and forth between the state GOP and BoE can be read in our previous report on the NC situation.)
Judge Malcolm Howard tonight also ordered that pollworkers must tell voters to read the printed alert, and that memory cards and other programming materials, records and audit logs from the oft-failed ES&S iVotronic touch-screen DREs must be preserved for examination after the election. Late today, the BoE Executive Director Gary O. Bartlett sent a notice [PDF] to the County Boards of Elections detailing the changes ordered by the federal judge.
The "Voter Alert" to be posted in all precincts using the touch-screen voting systems must read as follows...
SEE ALERT: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8162
The remedies sought, and gained, by the Republicans, however, fail to address the fact that no matter how "carefully" a voter reviews their on-screen ballot to ensure their "vote is accurately cast", there is still no way to know that the voting system will record those votes as intended. Moreover, there is no way to know after the election whether the results actually reflect the will of the electorate, as we recently discussed in this article at Slate detailing some of the closest and most-watched races in the nation which will likely be determined on identical or similar 100% unverifiable DRE systems next Tuesday.
Removing systems from service once they are reported to be failing would be the safest way to deal with such problems, but long time North Carolina Election Integrity advocate Joyce McCloy, Director of NC Coalition for Verified Voting and editor of Voting News, explained to The BRAD BLOG tonight that many of the state's counties wouldn't have enough machines or back-up paper ballots to handle the election if failing machines were removed from service.
In past elections, most notably in both 2006 and 2008, it has been largely Democratic voters who have complained that their attempted touch-screen votes were seen flipping to Republican (or other party's) candidates. Little action was taken on their behalf by either elections officials or the Democratic Party. Many of those who complained were tarred as being being "conspiracy theorists" or "sore losers" by Republicans, and both elections officials and voting machine company representatives generally marginalized the complaints as either non-existent or "human error" on the part of the voter.
According to the NC GOP's attorney Tom Farr, similar arguments were made by the BoE in this morning's proceedings. "What I heard in the argument today was, the problem with the touchscreen voting machines are the fault of the voters, not the State Board and we have to preserve the integrity of the State Board and its reputation. And that's more important than making sure that voters had their ballots counted accurately, and that's what I thought was outrageous," Farr told the media after the court hearing.
Another report of votes flipping from Republican to the Green Party on a straight-ticket ballot, as caught on cellphone video, occurred last week in Texas (along with a report of another voter who saw his vote flip from Democratic to Republican in a different TX county.) In Nevada a Republican voter claimed her touch-screen vote was pre-selected on screen for Sen. Harry Reid in his tight race against Republican Sharron Angle. In both instances, local election officials downplayed the incidents by blaming the voters.
Such occurrences have marred virtually every election since the proliferation of unverifiable touch-screen voting was enabled by the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. While many jurisdictions have decertified the systems in favor of paper ballot-based optical-scan systems, some 20 to 30% of the nation's voters still use DREs at the polling place.
McCloy told The BRAD BLOG this evening that the state had been set to ban DRE systems all together some time ago, until the legislation was scotched after apparent lobbying by election officials in counties who use, and very much like, the systems. Afterwords, the legislation was reportedly modified to allow the touch-screen systems to stay in place.
ES&S voting systems have a storied history of failure. In 2006, the iVotronics were found to have inexplicably failed to record some 18,000 votes in a special election for the U.S. House in Florida (in which the Republican candidate was declared the "winner" by just 369 votes). That incident led to the state getting rid of virtually all of their touch-screen systems. ES&S iVotronics were also used at the polling place for South Carolina's primary where Alvin Greene, the unemployed South Carolina veteran who failed to campaign or even have a campaign web site, inexplicably defeated four-term state Senator and former Circuit Court Judge Vic Rawl for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination.
In Monroe County, Arkansas, in the days following their May 18th U.S. Senate primary this year, thousands of votes said to have been tallied on the night of the election promptly disappeared from the ES&S system in the days following it. Neither state nor local officials have been able to explain what happened or why.
In addition to North Carolina, ES&S iVotronic touch-screens are still used by voters in Arkansas, Washington D.C., Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and West Virginia.
* * *
• The BRAD BLOG's recently related coverage concerning NC vote-flipping:
10/23/10: Touch-Screens in Two NC Counties Flip Straight-Party Votes Repeatedly from GOP to Dem
10/28/10: NC GOP Files Suit Over 'Widespread' Touch-screen Failures, Votes Flipping to Dems
• Other BRAD BLOG reports of votes flipping away from Republicans this year:
10/22/10: Video Shows Touch-Screen Voting Machine Purportedly Flipping Vote From Republican Perry to Green Party Candidates in Dallas County, TX
10/26/10: E-Vote Trouble in NV
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8162
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Sun Journal Letter to the Editor
BEWARE the Lame Duck
Perhaps the most dangerous time ahead for our Nation will occur when Congress reconvenes after November 2nd.
Democrats in the Senate, in early October, held a recess hearing covering a taxpayer bailout of union pensions and a plan to seize private 401(k) plans to more "fairly" distribute taxpayer-funded pensions to everyone.
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee heard from hand-picked witnesses advocating the infamous "Guaranteed Retirement Account" (GRA).
In a nutshell, under the GRA system government would seize private 401(k) accounts, setting up an additional 5% mandatory payroll tax to dole out a "fair" pension to everyone using that confiscated money coupled with the mandated contributions. This would, of course, be a sister government ponzi scheme working in tandem with Social Security, the primary purpose being to give big government politicians additional taxpayer funds to raid to pay for their out-of-control spending.
We can also expect a renewal of the Dream (Amnesty) Act (S-729) which was defeated when it was attached to the Defense Authorization Bill.
The DREAM Act has two major components:
(1) it grants amnesty to illegal aliens who entered the country as children and have met minimal educational requirements; and
(2) it reverses current law to allow states to provide taxpayer subsidized in-state tuition to illegal aliens.
When S-729 first failed, Senators Reid and Durbin took to the Senate floor to angrily denounce the Senators who voted no. They accused their colleagues of not having the courage to bring the DREAM Act to a vote and vowed that this would not end the fight to pass this amnesty legislation. Amnesty is a big part of the progressive agenda; it is also a recruitment tool for the Socialists in the Democratic Party.
If any of this doesn’t sound like a government you grew up with, it’s not. It is the new order of things for Americans and it is Americans who can stop this a few weeks from now. First we must vote out the progressive liberals who are flirting with Socialism. After their removal we must unite under a common cause; the destruction of Socialism on our shores.
When Democrats, Republicans, Independents and Conservatives come together, there is nothing they cannot achieve. Isn’t it time we stand together?
Louis Call, River Bend, NC
Perhaps the most dangerous time ahead for our Nation will occur when Congress reconvenes after November 2nd.
Democrats in the Senate, in early October, held a recess hearing covering a taxpayer bailout of union pensions and a plan to seize private 401(k) plans to more "fairly" distribute taxpayer-funded pensions to everyone.
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee heard from hand-picked witnesses advocating the infamous "Guaranteed Retirement Account" (GRA).
In a nutshell, under the GRA system government would seize private 401(k) accounts, setting up an additional 5% mandatory payroll tax to dole out a "fair" pension to everyone using that confiscated money coupled with the mandated contributions. This would, of course, be a sister government ponzi scheme working in tandem with Social Security, the primary purpose being to give big government politicians additional taxpayer funds to raid to pay for their out-of-control spending.
We can also expect a renewal of the Dream (Amnesty) Act (S-729) which was defeated when it was attached to the Defense Authorization Bill.
The DREAM Act has two major components:
(1) it grants amnesty to illegal aliens who entered the country as children and have met minimal educational requirements; and
(2) it reverses current law to allow states to provide taxpayer subsidized in-state tuition to illegal aliens.
When S-729 first failed, Senators Reid and Durbin took to the Senate floor to angrily denounce the Senators who voted no. They accused their colleagues of not having the courage to bring the DREAM Act to a vote and vowed that this would not end the fight to pass this amnesty legislation. Amnesty is a big part of the progressive agenda; it is also a recruitment tool for the Socialists in the Democratic Party.
If any of this doesn’t sound like a government you grew up with, it’s not. It is the new order of things for Americans and it is Americans who can stop this a few weeks from now. First we must vote out the progressive liberals who are flirting with Socialism. After their removal we must unite under a common cause; the destruction of Socialism on our shores.
When Democrats, Republicans, Independents and Conservatives come together, there is nothing they cannot achieve. Isn’t it time we stand together?
Louis Call, River Bend, NC
Friday, October 29, 2010
UPDATE ON VOTING MACHINE PROBLEMS IN NC
Voting Irregularities
The North Carolina Republican Party has been diligently investigating problems associated with voting machines, in particular iVotronic touch-screen voting machines in our state. These types of machines are in use in 35 of North Carolina’s 100 counties.
Reports began to surface last week of voter’s intentions not being properly registered by these machines. The specific incidents that first came to our attention were those who were attempting to cast a straight-ticket Republican vote but the machine was verifying that a straight-ticket Democratic vote had been registered. Fortunately, these initial voters were diligent in the verification process and after repeated attempts, called the problem to the attention of poll workers who assisted in making sure that the voter’s intentions were properly tallied.
Reports of similar problems began to come in from other parts of the state and at the time of this correspondence, (5pm October 28) we now have complaints from the counties New Hanover, Craven, Cumberland, Rutherford, Lenoir and Mecklenburg. I want to stress that there may indeed be similar issues in other counties using these same machines. To date, all documented voter issues involve attempts to cast votes for Republicans and at least one voter was a registered Democrat who was attempting to vote a straight-ticket Republican ballot.
Attorneys working on behalf of the NCGOP have been in contact with the State Board of Elections as early as last week in hopes of rectifying this issue and clarifying the causes of these problems. To date, it is our opinion that sufficient effort or progress has not been made by the State Board of Elections to ensure the integrity of the voting process.
For example, on Wednesday, October 27 the State Board of Elections conducted a informational session to instill voter confidence in Craven County, one of the first to report these problems. Concerned citizens came to hear information on the documented reports of machines engaging in what is known as “vote flipping”, registering for the opposite party or candidate than the voters intention. Instead they were given a remedial demonstration as to the operation of the touch-screen machine.
When one citizen expressed frustration about the lack of answers to the obvious concerns of the majority in the room, he was told by the State Board of Elections official that she was only there to demonstrate the machine and if he didn’t like that, he could leave.
Just today in Craven County, two republican poll workers were fired for talking to the media about the voting irregularities and what they claim was elections officials failure to properly address the issue.
Additional skepticism surrounds this situation due to the fact that the company responsible for the sale, distribution and maintenance of these machines has made headlines recently for questionable dealings in obtaining state contracts. Knowing that the ownership of the company in question, Printelect, has strong ties to the North Carolina Democratic Party and that the company itself holds a virtual monopoly on ballot printing and equipment maintenance for the state has only fueled suspicions.
This morning, NCGOP attorneys delivered a letter to the State Board of Elections demanding corrective action be taken immediately.
Appearing that the State Board of Elections has no intentions of taking corrective action, the NCGOP is contemplating proceeding to Federal Court on Friday to seek appropriate action to ensure the validity of the voting process in North Carolina. A total of 65 counties in our state use paper ballots tabulated by optical scanners; universally considered to be highly accurate and efficient. It is not equitable that those voters leave the polling place with a higher level of confidence that the votes have been accurately recorded than those using touch-screen machines.
Make no mistake; the NCGOP will not stand idly by and watch one of the most important rights we hold as Americans become subject to at best, a random game of electronic chance and at worst, an effort to subvert the political process.
Paid for by the North Carolina Republican Executive Committee.
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
http://www.ncgop.org/
The North Carolina Republican Party has been diligently investigating problems associated with voting machines, in particular iVotronic touch-screen voting machines in our state. These types of machines are in use in 35 of North Carolina’s 100 counties.
Reports began to surface last week of voter’s intentions not being properly registered by these machines. The specific incidents that first came to our attention were those who were attempting to cast a straight-ticket Republican vote but the machine was verifying that a straight-ticket Democratic vote had been registered. Fortunately, these initial voters were diligent in the verification process and after repeated attempts, called the problem to the attention of poll workers who assisted in making sure that the voter’s intentions were properly tallied.
Reports of similar problems began to come in from other parts of the state and at the time of this correspondence, (5pm October 28) we now have complaints from the counties New Hanover, Craven, Cumberland, Rutherford, Lenoir and Mecklenburg. I want to stress that there may indeed be similar issues in other counties using these same machines. To date, all documented voter issues involve attempts to cast votes for Republicans and at least one voter was a registered Democrat who was attempting to vote a straight-ticket Republican ballot.
Attorneys working on behalf of the NCGOP have been in contact with the State Board of Elections as early as last week in hopes of rectifying this issue and clarifying the causes of these problems. To date, it is our opinion that sufficient effort or progress has not been made by the State Board of Elections to ensure the integrity of the voting process.
For example, on Wednesday, October 27 the State Board of Elections conducted a informational session to instill voter confidence in Craven County, one of the first to report these problems. Concerned citizens came to hear information on the documented reports of machines engaging in what is known as “vote flipping”, registering for the opposite party or candidate than the voters intention. Instead they were given a remedial demonstration as to the operation of the touch-screen machine.
When one citizen expressed frustration about the lack of answers to the obvious concerns of the majority in the room, he was told by the State Board of Elections official that she was only there to demonstrate the machine and if he didn’t like that, he could leave.
Just today in Craven County, two republican poll workers were fired for talking to the media about the voting irregularities and what they claim was elections officials failure to properly address the issue.
Additional skepticism surrounds this situation due to the fact that the company responsible for the sale, distribution and maintenance of these machines has made headlines recently for questionable dealings in obtaining state contracts. Knowing that the ownership of the company in question, Printelect, has strong ties to the North Carolina Democratic Party and that the company itself holds a virtual monopoly on ballot printing and equipment maintenance for the state has only fueled suspicions.
This morning, NCGOP attorneys delivered a letter to the State Board of Elections demanding corrective action be taken immediately.
Appearing that the State Board of Elections has no intentions of taking corrective action, the NCGOP is contemplating proceeding to Federal Court on Friday to seek appropriate action to ensure the validity of the voting process in North Carolina. A total of 65 counties in our state use paper ballots tabulated by optical scanners; universally considered to be highly accurate and efficient. It is not equitable that those voters leave the polling place with a higher level of confidence that the votes have been accurately recorded than those using touch-screen machines.
Make no mistake; the NCGOP will not stand idly by and watch one of the most important rights we hold as Americans become subject to at best, a random game of electronic chance and at worst, an effort to subvert the political process.
Paid for by the North Carolina Republican Executive Committee.
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
http://www.ncgop.org/
Thursday, October 28, 2010
NC VOTER FRAUD
NC GOP head threatens suit over touch-screen votes
By The Associated Press
Published: October 28, 2010
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - The North Carolina Republican Party is threatening to sue the State Board of Elections over problems with touch-screen machines.
Elections board deputy director Johnnie McLean said Thursday officials have only heard of a handful of problems in New Hanover and Craven Counties. Those were corrected on the first couple of days of early voting and inconvenienced about a dozen voters.
But Republican Party officials claim in a letter to the elections board that they have heard of problems in other counties, including Mecklenburg, Cumberland and Forsyth counties. The party is demanding that elections officials provide notice to all voters about problems, to preserve all data and to track all complaints.
The GOP believes the machines have a default setting that benefits Democrats. McLean said that is not true.
(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
http://www2.wnct.com/news/2010/oct/28/nc-gop-head-threatens-suit-over-touch-screen-votes-ar-491651/
By The Associated Press
Published: October 28, 2010
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - The North Carolina Republican Party is threatening to sue the State Board of Elections over problems with touch-screen machines.
Elections board deputy director Johnnie McLean said Thursday officials have only heard of a handful of problems in New Hanover and Craven Counties. Those were corrected on the first couple of days of early voting and inconvenienced about a dozen voters.
But Republican Party officials claim in a letter to the elections board that they have heard of problems in other counties, including Mecklenburg, Cumberland and Forsyth counties. The party is demanding that elections officials provide notice to all voters about problems, to preserve all data and to track all complaints.
The GOP believes the machines have a default setting that benefits Democrats. McLean said that is not true.
(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
http://www2.wnct.com/news/2010/oct/28/nc-gop-head-threatens-suit-over-touch-screen-votes-ar-491651/
New Video Reveals MoveOn Activist’s Aggressive Provocation
The big question: what started the scuffle?
The so-called head-stomping incident outside Monday evening’s Kentucky Senate debate has received an enormous amount of media attention, but questions still remain. The big question: what started the scuffle?
The infamous video footage caught supporters of Rand Paul wrestling a MoveOn.org protestor to the ground. Meanwhile, the liberal activist, Lauren Valle, appeared on MSNBC Tuesday evening and speculated the Paul supporters had “attacked” and “dragged her to the ground” because of her work with MoveOn.
But new video evidence anonymously submitted to RedState captures the moments leading up to the altercation and seemingly shows instigating aggression on the MoveOn activists‘ part as a protest sign was forced into Rand Paul’s face through an open car window as his vehicle approached the debate venue:
RedState reports:
[The video] shows what Valle was doing when the Paul supporters grabbed her. No one chased her around the car. She was never in front of the car. As you can see in the video, Valle reached in the candidate’s window with her “RepubliCorp” sign and shoved it in his face. Several supporters in Paul shirts have her surrounded at that point, and a man in a suit is the first person to actually intervene physically. It’s hard to tell from the video, but it could be that the man in the suit was with Paul’s security staff.
Toward the end of the video, you see several Paul supporters asking a police officer to come intervene. It was Paul supporters who told Profitt to back off. It was Paul supporters who brought the police. Contrary to the growing narrative on the left, this video clearly shows that Valle was not the victim of a conspiracy to “take her out.”
While the video seems to negate the “tea party thug” narrative liberals like MSNBC’s Ed Schultz are claiming, it suggests the Paul supporters’ actions were re-actionary, not blunt unprovoked violence. Nothing justifies the ensuing behavior which threatened to harm Valle, but Valle‘s innocent victim claim doesn’t seem so innocent anymore.
SEE VIDEO:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-video-reveals-moveon-activists-aggressive-provocation/
The so-called head-stomping incident outside Monday evening’s Kentucky Senate debate has received an enormous amount of media attention, but questions still remain. The big question: what started the scuffle?
The infamous video footage caught supporters of Rand Paul wrestling a MoveOn.org protestor to the ground. Meanwhile, the liberal activist, Lauren Valle, appeared on MSNBC Tuesday evening and speculated the Paul supporters had “attacked” and “dragged her to the ground” because of her work with MoveOn.
But new video evidence anonymously submitted to RedState captures the moments leading up to the altercation and seemingly shows instigating aggression on the MoveOn activists‘ part as a protest sign was forced into Rand Paul’s face through an open car window as his vehicle approached the debate venue:
RedState reports:
[The video] shows what Valle was doing when the Paul supporters grabbed her. No one chased her around the car. She was never in front of the car. As you can see in the video, Valle reached in the candidate’s window with her “RepubliCorp” sign and shoved it in his face. Several supporters in Paul shirts have her surrounded at that point, and a man in a suit is the first person to actually intervene physically. It’s hard to tell from the video, but it could be that the man in the suit was with Paul’s security staff.
Toward the end of the video, you see several Paul supporters asking a police officer to come intervene. It was Paul supporters who told Profitt to back off. It was Paul supporters who brought the police. Contrary to the growing narrative on the left, this video clearly shows that Valle was not the victim of a conspiracy to “take her out.”
While the video seems to negate the “tea party thug” narrative liberals like MSNBC’s Ed Schultz are claiming, it suggests the Paul supporters’ actions were re-actionary, not blunt unprovoked violence. Nothing justifies the ensuing behavior which threatened to harm Valle, but Valle‘s innocent victim claim doesn’t seem so innocent anymore.
SEE VIDEO:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-video-reveals-moveon-activists-aggressive-provocation/
Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and US President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During 'State Of The Union ' Address
Some interesting Obama facts - you be the judge.
Note: went to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Comm website and verified that the Obama's do NOT possess a license to practice law in the state of Illinois. I can't speak to the veracity of the rest of this document.
You can check the facts as easily as I can.....
My question is this: Why would someone spend years getting a degree and license to practice and suddenly turn in their license moments before an investigation?
One learns something new everyday!
THE LAWYER OBAMA, WHAT A JOKE
[Ed. note on the Ed. note: this is from a former Chicago lawyer now practicing law in Tyler , TX ]
[Ed. note: This is legit. I checked it out myself at https://www.iardc.org Stands for Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee. It's the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois ; and they are very strict and mean as hell. (Talk about irony!) ]
Big surprise !!!
Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and US President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During 'State Of The Union ' Address. Consider this:
1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you 'voluntarily surrender" your license five seconds before the state suspends you.
2. Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993.
3. So, we have the first black President and First Lady - who don't actually have licenses to practice law. Facts. Source: http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack-obama-editor-of-the-Harvard-law-review-has-no-law-license/ ;
4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago .
5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school-but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.
6. "He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law. Source: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html ; ;
7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the US Constitution during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence . not the Constitution.
8. The B-Cast posted the video: http://www.breitbart.tv/did-obama-confuse-the-constitution-with-the-declaration-of-independence/;
9. Free Republic: In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal..
10. Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there Champ, I mean Mr. President. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech??? When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight. The only ones that haven't seen through this clown and the band of idiots that surrounds him are those that are fleecing this Country for all it's worth. I hope and pray that common sense will prevail in the next election or this great Nation is finished!
This is amazing! I checked the Illinois Bar site and this is absolutely true. Both voluntarily gave up their licenses. How in the HADES did the media not report on this?
Gus A. Fritchie III IRWIN FRITCHIE URQUHART& MOORE LLC Suite 2700, 400 Poydras New Orleans, LA 70130
Note: went to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Comm website and verified that the Obama's do NOT possess a license to practice law in the state of Illinois. I can't speak to the veracity of the rest of this document.
You can check the facts as easily as I can.....
My question is this: Why would someone spend years getting a degree and license to practice and suddenly turn in their license moments before an investigation?
One learns something new everyday!
THE LAWYER OBAMA, WHAT A JOKE
[Ed. note on the Ed. note: this is from a former Chicago lawyer now practicing law in Tyler , TX ]
[Ed. note: This is legit. I checked it out myself at https://www.iardc.org Stands for Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee. It's the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois ; and they are very strict and mean as hell. (Talk about irony!) ]
Big surprise !!!
Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and US President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During 'State Of The Union ' Address. Consider this:
1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you 'voluntarily surrender" your license five seconds before the state suspends you.
2. Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993.
3. So, we have the first black President and First Lady - who don't actually have licenses to practice law. Facts. Source: http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack-obama-editor-of-the-Harvard-law-review-has-no-law-license/ ;
4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago .
5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school-but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.
6. "He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law. Source: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html ; ;
7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the US Constitution during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence . not the Constitution.
8. The B-Cast posted the video: http://www.breitbart.tv/did-obama-confuse-the-constitution-with-the-declaration-of-independence/;
9. Free Republic: In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal..
10. Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there Champ, I mean Mr. President. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech??? When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight. The only ones that haven't seen through this clown and the band of idiots that surrounds him are those that are fleecing this Country for all it's worth. I hope and pray that common sense will prevail in the next election or this great Nation is finished!
This is amazing! I checked the Illinois Bar site and this is absolutely true. Both voluntarily gave up their licenses. How in the HADES did the media not report on this?
Gus A. Fritchie III IRWIN FRITCHIE URQUHART& MOORE LLC Suite 2700, 400 Poydras New Orleans, LA 70130
Thomas Sowell
Brass Oldies: Part III
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/10/28/brass_oldies_part_iii#
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/10/28/brass_oldies_part_iii#
Thomas Sowell: Forgetting the Constitution
The assurance that “separation of church and state” is in the Constitution shows our elites’ ignorance.
Politics is not the only place where some pretty brassy statements have been made and repeated so often that some people have accepted these brassy statements as being as good as gold.
One of the brassiest of the brass oldies is the notion that the Constitution creates a “wall of separation” between church and state. This false notion has been so widely accepted that people who tell the truth get laughed at and mocked.
A recent New York Times piece said that it was “a flub of the first order” when Christine O’Donnell, Republican candidate for senator in Delaware, asked a law school audience, “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” According to the New York Times, “The question draw gasps and laughter” from this audience of professors and law students who are elites-in-waiting.
The New York Times writer joined in the mocking response to Ms. O’Donnell’s question, though admitting in passing that “in the strictest sense” the “actual words ‘separation of church and state’ do not appear in the text of the Constitution.” Either the separation of church and state is there or it is not there. It is not a question of some “strictest” technicality.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States begins, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about a “wall of separation” between church and state, either directly or indirectly.
That phrase was used in a letter by Thomas Jefferson, who was not even in the country when the Constitution was written. It was a phrase seized upon many years later, by people who wanted to restrict religious symbols, and it has been cited by judges who share that wish.
There was no mystery about what “an establishment of religion” meant when that phrase was put into the Constitution. It was not an open-ended invitation to judges to decide what role religion should play in American society or in American government.
The Church of England was an “established church.” That is, it was not only financed by the government, its members had privileges denied to members of other religions.
The people who wrote the Constitution of the United States had been British subjects most of their lives, and knew exactly what an “established church” meant. They wanted no such thing in the United States of America. End of story — or so it should have been.
For more than a century, no one thought that the First Amendment meant that religious symbols were forbidden on government property. Prayers were offered in Congress and in the Supreme Court. Chaplains served in the military and presidents took their oath of office on the Bible.
But, in our own times, judges have latched onto Jefferson’s phrase and run with it. It has been repeated so often in their decisions that it has become one of the brassiest of the brass oldies that get confused with golden oldies.
As fundamentally important as the First Amendment is, what is even more important is the question whether judges are to take it upon themselves to “interpret” the law to mean whatever they want it to mean, rather than what it plainly says.
This is part of a larger question, as to whether this country is to be a self-governing nation, controlled by “we the people,” as the Constitution put it, or whether arrogant elites shall take it upon themselves to find ways to impose what they want on the rest of us, by circumventing the Constitution.
Congress is already doing that by passing laws before anyone has time to read them and the White House is likewise circumventing the Constitution by appointing “czars” who have as much power as cabinet members, without having to go through the confirmation process prescribed for cabinet members by the Constitution.
Judges circumvent the Constitution by reading their own meaning into its words, regardless of how plain and unequivocal its words are.
The Constitution cannot protect us and our freedoms as a self-governing people unless we protect the Constitution. That means zero tolerance at election time for people who circumvent the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Freedom is too precious to give it up in exchange for brassy words from arrogant elites.
— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2010 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/251250/forgetting-constitution-thomas-sowell
Rep GK Butterfield (NC-1) -- Voted on ObamaCare
Rep GK Butterfield (NC-1) -- Voted on ObamaCare without Full Info. Because Obama Hid the Info.
Yea, common sense leads to the same conclusion that ObamaCare helps to bankrupt a nation rather than fill its coffers, but here we have the paperwork done for us.
http://polifrogblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/rep-gk-butterfield-nc-1-voted-on.html
Yea, common sense leads to the same conclusion that ObamaCare helps to bankrupt a nation rather than fill its coffers, but here we have the paperwork done for us.
http://polifrogblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/rep-gk-butterfield-nc-1-voted-on.html
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Political Connections: House District 1
News 14 Carolina's Tim Boyum talks with candidates for the 1st House District: Democrat G.K. Butterfield and Republican Ashley Woolard.
http://coastal.news14.com//Default.aspx?ArID=631908
http://coastal.news14.com//Default.aspx?ArID=631908
OBAMA NEEDS TO DO A HISTORY CHECK…A Review of History: the Republican and Conservative Record
Democratic attacks on Republican and conservative candidates in local and federal campaigns imply unconscionable motives for elected representatives. Since most challengers to incumbent politicians are Republican, this short “instant replay” will focus on actions of the Democratic Party, especially in the South, and legislation of Democratic Congresses. The references and citations should set the record straight on several issues.
Civil Rights Issues
The Republican Party was formed by anti-slavery activists to combat the pro-slavery Democrats.
The Republican Party freed the slaves and acted to enforce the spirit of their newly won liberties.
1870: Federal grand jury declares the KKK a terrorist organization. The Force Act was passed banned the use of terror, force or bribery to prevent people from voting because of their race.
1871: The Klu Klux Klan Act passed to protect southern blacks from the Ku Klux Klan by providing a civil remedy for abuses then being committed in the South.
1875: A strong racist rally in the South got the Force Act overturned in a Supreme Court case, saying that the federal government could not enforce any rules against private groups, but only against state governments.
The 1924 Democrat National Convention in New York was host to one of the largest Klan gatherings in American history. Dubbed the “Klanbake convention”, a minority of delegates attempted to condemn the presence of the Klan but was rebuked by the Klan supporting Democrat Majority.
The Ku Klux Klan was formed by radical Democrats who opposed equality for blacks.
In 1935 Democrats defeated an Anti-Lynching Bill supported and put forward by Republicans.
1880-1960: The Solid South Democrats voted against civil rights and protected racist policies. It was dismantled by the time of the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan.
On April 20, 1871 the Republican Congress enacted the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-Affiliated terrorist groups.
After The Civil Rights Act was passed, Democrat President Lyndon Johnson praised Republicans for their overwhelming support.
Ronald Reagan, a Republican, made history on November 2, 1983 by signing into law Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as a National Holiday. This is the first and only Federal Holiday that recognizes a Black American.
Women’s Rights
The Republican majority passed the Suffrage Act, allowing women to vote.
Fiscal Responsibility & the Banking Crisis
The following summary is a log of legislation from 1968 to 2008 which preceded the housing and stock market crash of 2008. Market forces could not have been stemmed, but changes in laws and regulations paved the way and created the landscape for them.
Democrats dominate Congress from 1955 to 1995.
1968 Democrats pass Fair Housing Act, establishing HUD, a necessary step to correcting housing discrimination.
Congress privatized FNMA (Fannie Mae, Federal National Mortgage Association) and created Ginnie Mae (GNMA, Government National Mortgage Association) under HUD, both guaranteeing FHA and VA approved loans.
1970 Democratic Congress created FLHMC (Freddie Mac, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) to serve and facilitate a secondary market for conventional mortgages on behalf of the savings and loan industry at a time when Fannie Mae largely served the mortgage banking industry because it was legally limited to buying only FHA-insured or VA-guaranteed mortgages. The FHLMC soon also developed pass-through securities for conventional mortgage loans.
1977 Democrats pass Community Reinvestment Act CRA-mandated oversight of lending in low- and moderate-income communities and CRA linked engagement with fair lending monitoring and enforcement activities.
1980 Democratic Congress passes the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) to allowed thrifts to make consumer loans up to 20 percent of their assets, issue credit cards, accept negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts from individuals and nonprofit organizations, and invest up to 20 percent of their assets in commercial real estate loans.
1981 Democratic Congress passes the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) in August 1981 and initiating the regulatory changes by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board allowing S&L’s to sell their mortgage loans and use the cash generated to seek better returns soon after enactment; The buyers—major Wall Street firms—were quick to take advantage of the S&L’s’ lack of expertise, buying at 60%-90% of value and then transforming the loans by bundling them as, effectively, government-backed bonds (by virtue of Ginnie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Fannie Mae guarantees).
A large number of S&L customers’ defaults and bankruptcies ensued, and the S&L’s that had overextended themselves were forced into insolvency proceedings themselves. The federal government agency FSLIC, which at the time insured S&L accounts in the same way the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insures commercial bank accounts, then had to repay all the depositors whose money was lost. From 1986 to 1989, FSLIC closed or otherwise resolved 296 institutions with total assets of $125 billion. An even more traumatic period followed, with the creation of the Resolution Trust Corporation in 1989 and that agency’s resolution by mid-1995 of an additional 747 thrifts. There also were state-chartered S&L’s that failed. Some state insurance funds failed, requiring state taxpayer bailouts.
The federal government ultimately appropriated 105 billion dollars to resolve the crisis. After banks repaid loans through various procedures, there was a net loss to taxpayers of approximately $124 billion dollars by the end of 1999.
1980 to 1994, 1617 banks failed, or 9.14 % of all banks, while 8.98 % of total bank assets were placed at risk by the S&L crisis.
1990’s Adjustable rate mortgages, ARM’s, were introduced in the 1970’s by S&L’s. They were used by banks to shorten risk associated with long-term mortgages. ARM’s built into the loan package teaser rates with options to increase interest after the bubble payment (remaining loan principle) was due a few years after the loan originated.
As well, Interest Only Loans became a popular instrument of banks.
Down payment requirements disappeared, leaving owners of loan paper exposed.
Real estate agents, mortgage agents, real estate and mortgage brokers, and commercial banks conspired to create instruments of “bundled” low risk and high risk mortgages to resell on the commercial market. As foreclosures, late payments, bankruptcies threatened the market, these instruments moved more quickly among traders and were repackaged.
Essentially, the packages were derivatives of a once solid industry, reduced to speculative shares of a failing market.
Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 (CEBA), Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA) were enacted to cover present and future damage by the S&L crisis.
1994 Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act enacted by Democratic Congress with Clinton support, allowing concentration of banking activity to occur unmonitored in federal regulation as it had been.
The growing risks of the FHA’s mortgages can also be seen in its sharply increasing default rates, which exceeded the default rate on subprime loans between 2003 and 2006 before subprime defaults surged ahead in 2007 to 18.82 percent, compared to 14.11 percent for FHA mortgages. With the Administration’s Hope Now plan extending FHA mortgage refinancing opportunities to existing subprime borrowers under certain conditions, FHA default rates will likely rise over the next several years.
1999 Republican Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the “Financial Services Modernization Act“. This law repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act that had prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services since its enactment in 1933.
2004 Republican Congress – Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) provides information on loans to individuals and on locations where loans are made, supporting the enforcement of both the fair lending laws and the CRA.
2006 Republican Congress – FNMA to join FHLMC in the conventional market, and their pass-through securities quickly dominated the securitized secondary market at the expense of the GNMA, still limited to the FHA/VA mortgages.
2005-7 Republican Congress – Regulatory changes in these years opposed oversight and fiscal management while further exposing banks to higher risk investments.
2008-2010 Democratic Congress
President Bush and cabinet members warned against these measures. Congressman Frank stood behind them, saying the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were sound and had plenty of equity as did the banking system.
Congress passes laws, not presidents.
Notice the difference between Budget Office and White House estimates, off only a few hundred billion, or the total deficit in 2007. In 2020, hang on to your shekels.
http://randysright.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/obama-needs-to-do-a-history-check-a-review-of-history-the-republican-and-conservative-record/
Civil Rights Issues
The Republican Party was formed by anti-slavery activists to combat the pro-slavery Democrats.
The Republican Party freed the slaves and acted to enforce the spirit of their newly won liberties.
1870: Federal grand jury declares the KKK a terrorist organization. The Force Act was passed banned the use of terror, force or bribery to prevent people from voting because of their race.
1871: The Klu Klux Klan Act passed to protect southern blacks from the Ku Klux Klan by providing a civil remedy for abuses then being committed in the South.
1875: A strong racist rally in the South got the Force Act overturned in a Supreme Court case, saying that the federal government could not enforce any rules against private groups, but only against state governments.
The 1924 Democrat National Convention in New York was host to one of the largest Klan gatherings in American history. Dubbed the “Klanbake convention”, a minority of delegates attempted to condemn the presence of the Klan but was rebuked by the Klan supporting Democrat Majority.
The Ku Klux Klan was formed by radical Democrats who opposed equality for blacks.
In 1935 Democrats defeated an Anti-Lynching Bill supported and put forward by Republicans.
1880-1960: The Solid South Democrats voted against civil rights and protected racist policies. It was dismantled by the time of the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan.
On April 20, 1871 the Republican Congress enacted the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-Affiliated terrorist groups.
After The Civil Rights Act was passed, Democrat President Lyndon Johnson praised Republicans for their overwhelming support.
Ronald Reagan, a Republican, made history on November 2, 1983 by signing into law Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as a National Holiday. This is the first and only Federal Holiday that recognizes a Black American.
Women’s Rights
The Republican majority passed the Suffrage Act, allowing women to vote.
Fiscal Responsibility & the Banking Crisis
The following summary is a log of legislation from 1968 to 2008 which preceded the housing and stock market crash of 2008. Market forces could not have been stemmed, but changes in laws and regulations paved the way and created the landscape for them.
Democrats dominate Congress from 1955 to 1995.
1968 Democrats pass Fair Housing Act, establishing HUD, a necessary step to correcting housing discrimination.
Congress privatized FNMA (Fannie Mae, Federal National Mortgage Association) and created Ginnie Mae (GNMA, Government National Mortgage Association) under HUD, both guaranteeing FHA and VA approved loans.
1970 Democratic Congress created FLHMC (Freddie Mac, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) to serve and facilitate a secondary market for conventional mortgages on behalf of the savings and loan industry at a time when Fannie Mae largely served the mortgage banking industry because it was legally limited to buying only FHA-insured or VA-guaranteed mortgages. The FHLMC soon also developed pass-through securities for conventional mortgage loans.
1977 Democrats pass Community Reinvestment Act CRA-mandated oversight of lending in low- and moderate-income communities and CRA linked engagement with fair lending monitoring and enforcement activities.
1980 Democratic Congress passes the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) to allowed thrifts to make consumer loans up to 20 percent of their assets, issue credit cards, accept negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts from individuals and nonprofit organizations, and invest up to 20 percent of their assets in commercial real estate loans.
1981 Democratic Congress passes the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) in August 1981 and initiating the regulatory changes by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board allowing S&L’s to sell their mortgage loans and use the cash generated to seek better returns soon after enactment; The buyers—major Wall Street firms—were quick to take advantage of the S&L’s’ lack of expertise, buying at 60%-90% of value and then transforming the loans by bundling them as, effectively, government-backed bonds (by virtue of Ginnie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Fannie Mae guarantees).
A large number of S&L customers’ defaults and bankruptcies ensued, and the S&L’s that had overextended themselves were forced into insolvency proceedings themselves. The federal government agency FSLIC, which at the time insured S&L accounts in the same way the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insures commercial bank accounts, then had to repay all the depositors whose money was lost. From 1986 to 1989, FSLIC closed or otherwise resolved 296 institutions with total assets of $125 billion. An even more traumatic period followed, with the creation of the Resolution Trust Corporation in 1989 and that agency’s resolution by mid-1995 of an additional 747 thrifts. There also were state-chartered S&L’s that failed. Some state insurance funds failed, requiring state taxpayer bailouts.
The federal government ultimately appropriated 105 billion dollars to resolve the crisis. After banks repaid loans through various procedures, there was a net loss to taxpayers of approximately $124 billion dollars by the end of 1999.
1980 to 1994, 1617 banks failed, or 9.14 % of all banks, while 8.98 % of total bank assets were placed at risk by the S&L crisis.
1990’s Adjustable rate mortgages, ARM’s, were introduced in the 1970’s by S&L’s. They were used by banks to shorten risk associated with long-term mortgages. ARM’s built into the loan package teaser rates with options to increase interest after the bubble payment (remaining loan principle) was due a few years after the loan originated.
As well, Interest Only Loans became a popular instrument of banks.
Down payment requirements disappeared, leaving owners of loan paper exposed.
Real estate agents, mortgage agents, real estate and mortgage brokers, and commercial banks conspired to create instruments of “bundled” low risk and high risk mortgages to resell on the commercial market. As foreclosures, late payments, bankruptcies threatened the market, these instruments moved more quickly among traders and were repackaged.
Essentially, the packages were derivatives of a once solid industry, reduced to speculative shares of a failing market.
Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 (CEBA), Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA) were enacted to cover present and future damage by the S&L crisis.
1994 Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act enacted by Democratic Congress with Clinton support, allowing concentration of banking activity to occur unmonitored in federal regulation as it had been.
The growing risks of the FHA’s mortgages can also be seen in its sharply increasing default rates, which exceeded the default rate on subprime loans between 2003 and 2006 before subprime defaults surged ahead in 2007 to 18.82 percent, compared to 14.11 percent for FHA mortgages. With the Administration’s Hope Now plan extending FHA mortgage refinancing opportunities to existing subprime borrowers under certain conditions, FHA default rates will likely rise over the next several years.
1999 Republican Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the “Financial Services Modernization Act“. This law repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act that had prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services since its enactment in 1933.
2004 Republican Congress – Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) provides information on loans to individuals and on locations where loans are made, supporting the enforcement of both the fair lending laws and the CRA.
2006 Republican Congress – FNMA to join FHLMC in the conventional market, and their pass-through securities quickly dominated the securitized secondary market at the expense of the GNMA, still limited to the FHA/VA mortgages.
2005-7 Republican Congress – Regulatory changes in these years opposed oversight and fiscal management while further exposing banks to higher risk investments.
2008-2010 Democratic Congress
President Bush and cabinet members warned against these measures. Congressman Frank stood behind them, saying the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were sound and had plenty of equity as did the banking system.
Congress passes laws, not presidents.
Notice the difference between Budget Office and White House estimates, off only a few hundred billion, or the total deficit in 2007. In 2020, hang on to your shekels.
http://randysright.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/obama-needs-to-do-a-history-check-a-review-of-history-the-republican-and-conservative-record/
This campaign is not about me. It's about WE.
A MESSAGE FROM NORMAN SANDERSON, CANDIDATE FOR NC HOUSE DISTRICT 3:
Vote as if your life depends upon it! It's true. I firmly believe that the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that we have all enjoyed is at stake. As I have been out visiting with your friends and neighbors, we all agree on one thing: Our government on both a state and national level is OFF TRACK. We need a change in direction!
This campaign is not about me. It's about WE. It's about ensuring our personal freedoms, keeping more of our hard-earned money in our pockets, and holding government accountable in its spending practices. We need to keep first things first: economic recovery, improved education, properly funded military/fire/rescue/police departments. We need to allow the principles our great nation was founded upon to work without government take-over.
I have been personally attacked by my opposition who will stoop to any level to maintain political power. I hope you see through the political tactics and false promises and recognize that THERE IS A BETTER WAY.
If you have read something about me that concerns you, please feel free to call me directly at (252) 671-9610, and we will discuss your concerns.
You can still vote early through this Saturday at 1pm. If you are not registered to vote, you may do so at your early voting site and then vote - right on the spot. Please take your friends and family, and GO VOTE!
Your support is greatly appreciated!
Norman Sanderson
Norman is honored to have received the following endorsements:
National Federation of Independent Business - North Carolina
North Carolina Right to Life
National Rifle Association
North Carolina Chamber PAC
NC Retail Merchants Association
Vote as if your life depends upon it! It's true. I firmly believe that the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that we have all enjoyed is at stake. As I have been out visiting with your friends and neighbors, we all agree on one thing: Our government on both a state and national level is OFF TRACK. We need a change in direction!
This campaign is not about me. It's about WE. It's about ensuring our personal freedoms, keeping more of our hard-earned money in our pockets, and holding government accountable in its spending practices. We need to keep first things first: economic recovery, improved education, properly funded military/fire/rescue/police departments. We need to allow the principles our great nation was founded upon to work without government take-over.
I have been personally attacked by my opposition who will stoop to any level to maintain political power. I hope you see through the political tactics and false promises and recognize that THERE IS A BETTER WAY.
If you have read something about me that concerns you, please feel free to call me directly at (252) 671-9610, and we will discuss your concerns.
You can still vote early through this Saturday at 1pm. If you are not registered to vote, you may do so at your early voting site and then vote - right on the spot. Please take your friends and family, and GO VOTE!
Your support is greatly appreciated!
Norman Sanderson
Norman is honored to have received the following endorsements:
National Federation of Independent Business - North Carolina
North Carolina Right to Life
National Rifle Association
North Carolina Chamber PAC
NC Retail Merchants Association
Please Read Before You Vote!
October 27, 2010
Letter to the Editor
Here is a very important question we should all ask ourselves. Why am I voting for a particular candidate? Perhaps a candidate supports programs that may benefit you and your family financially. Some folks vote strictly on party lines due to strong beliefs that one party is superior to another. Perhaps you are supporting candidates not because you necessarily like them, but because you don't like what the incumbents are doing. There are a multitude of reasons why people choose one candidate over another. I would argue, however, that there is a better way.
The Holy Bible tells us the answer plainly in Matthew 6:33, "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Psalms 111:10 says, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all they that do His commandments." We should all consider supporting candidates strictly on where they stand on moral issues. God will take care of the rest.
Here are two very good examples. Where does a candidate stand on abortion? How dare any person in government support such an abominable practice as abortion. Should we allow people to kill innocent babies in the name of convenience? Absolutely NOT. God has a plan for every life, according to His word. Calling it "a woman's right to choose" is baloney! How do the candidates you are voting for feel about abortion? Another issue is the gay rights agenda. God calls the practice of homosexuality an "abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). I know that is not a popular stance today, but God has not changed. Are you considering voting for a candidate that supports the so-called gay rights agenda?
God cannot lie. He tells us to seek first His kingdom and His righteousness. Consider voting solely on the basis of how candidates stand on moral issues. God's agenda is vastly more important than man's agenda in the long run. If we turn our backs on God, we won't even have a country. Please exercise your right to vote on November 2nd.
Keith W. Nixon, Edenton NC
Letter to the Editor
Here is a very important question we should all ask ourselves. Why am I voting for a particular candidate? Perhaps a candidate supports programs that may benefit you and your family financially. Some folks vote strictly on party lines due to strong beliefs that one party is superior to another. Perhaps you are supporting candidates not because you necessarily like them, but because you don't like what the incumbents are doing. There are a multitude of reasons why people choose one candidate over another. I would argue, however, that there is a better way.
The Holy Bible tells us the answer plainly in Matthew 6:33, "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Psalms 111:10 says, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all they that do His commandments." We should all consider supporting candidates strictly on where they stand on moral issues. God will take care of the rest.
Here are two very good examples. Where does a candidate stand on abortion? How dare any person in government support such an abominable practice as abortion. Should we allow people to kill innocent babies in the name of convenience? Absolutely NOT. God has a plan for every life, according to His word. Calling it "a woman's right to choose" is baloney! How do the candidates you are voting for feel about abortion? Another issue is the gay rights agenda. God calls the practice of homosexuality an "abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). I know that is not a popular stance today, but God has not changed. Are you considering voting for a candidate that supports the so-called gay rights agenda?
God cannot lie. He tells us to seek first His kingdom and His righteousness. Consider voting solely on the basis of how candidates stand on moral issues. God's agenda is vastly more important than man's agenda in the long run. If we turn our backs on God, we won't even have a country. Please exercise your right to vote on November 2nd.
Keith W. Nixon, Edenton NC
Registering Voters Long after the Deadline
G.K. Butterfield held an "Appreciation Rally" for himself on October 16, 2010 in Wilson, NC.
The deadline to register to vote was October 8, 2010. Why would his staff be registering people to vote on October 16th? I confirmed with Johnnie McClain at NC State Board of Elections that the ONLY WAY TO REGISTER TO VOTE after the deadline would be at a "One Stop Early Voting Location".
What do you suppose Butterfield's staff is going to do with those invalid registrations????
See the video:
http://www.wilsonncteaparty.com/video/g-k-butterfield-appeciation?xg_source=activity
The deadline to register to vote was October 8, 2010. Why would his staff be registering people to vote on October 16th? I confirmed with Johnnie McClain at NC State Board of Elections that the ONLY WAY TO REGISTER TO VOTE after the deadline would be at a "One Stop Early Voting Location".
What do you suppose Butterfield's staff is going to do with those invalid registrations????
See the video:
http://www.wilsonncteaparty.com/video/g-k-butterfield-appeciation?xg_source=activity
The giant power struggle between the ruling elite and productive Americans.
Healthcare Reform and the Election: Money, Power, and Death
Posted on October 24, 2010 by admin
By : Jane M. Orient, M.D.
Many of the issues swirling around before this election are mere distractions. At its center is the giant power struggle between the ruling elite and productive Americans.
The appealing message from our rulers is “empowerment.” But this does not mean empowerment of the uninsured, the unemployed, food stamp recipients, illegal aliens, and other needy persons. It means consolidation of power at the top, and the disempowerment of any potential rivals: successful industries, prosperous professionals, even small businesses that are still solvent and independent. Like small doctors’ practices
Giving people a handout instead of a hand up never makes them stronger. It makes them more dependent, and turns them into an army of pawns who can be counted on to do the will of those who feed them. They reliably vote for their supposed benefactors. And some of them also register illegals to vote, disrupt town halls or tea parties, key cars displaying signs for challengers, steal campaign signs, disseminate slander, and try to intimidate people. If things get really bad, they could become an army of rioters, looters, and worse.
The productive Americans who work every day, mind their own business, take care of their families, obey the law, and make the country function are being bled through redistributive taxes, which primarily benefit those who will soon be strong enough to trample their liberties and reduce them to poverty. The tax donors will have to cooperate with the rulers, and censor their own protests—or else.
NPR sent a message through Juan Williams. If they can do it to someone with an audience as large as his, nobody is safe from the thought police.
Nowhere is the threat to professionals and those whom they serve more apparent than in ObamaCare—if you read the actual law and not the glossy flyers sent by Medicare at taxpayer expense.
The requirements of the law are so costly and onerous that most physicians, if they continue to practice at all, will be forced into “accountable care organizations.” Accountable to whom? To the System, that is to the elite “decisionmakers.” Accountable for what? For reducing “costs” (that means spending on medical care), and for implementing “best practices.”
The first target is the “elderly” (those over the age of 65), and others who might be near the “end of life,” since that is where most of the medical money goes. Not incidentally, judging by the crowd at tea parties, older Americans can also be a problem just because they know something of American history and have lived most of their lives in a free society.
We have heard that ObamaCare is funded partly by redistributing Medicare “savings” of some $500 billion over 10 years. This is less than half a truth. If the 10-year period starts with full implementation in 2014 rather than in 2010, the amount is $800 billion, states Peter Ferrara in his book The Obamacare Disaster. And over the first 20 years of implementation, the amount rises to nearly $3 trillion.
ObamaCare advocates claim they can do this by cutting out the 30 percent of services that are “unnecessary,” as determined by them. A knee replacement, for example, probably doesn’t save your life—it is not “necessary” to be able to walk or to be pain free. And it will also cut out “fraud”—which increasingly is defined to include “unnecessary” services, as well as those coded incorrectly or not meeting the established “standard of care.”
There are no death panels. And no euthanasia. In fact, the law takes care to specify that physicians and institutions are protected against discrimination or retaliation for refusing to participate in physician-assisted suicide.
However, this protection explicitly does not extend to refusal to participate in overmedication or withdrawal of treatment or food and water. More ominously, we already see state laws proposed to immunize physicians from criminal or civil liability, or discipline for carrying out the terms of a POLST form (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment), though they may be disciplined for failure to do so.
Keep in mind that these days “life-sustaining treatment” includes food and water, especially if “artificially” administered, say because the patient is too heavily medicated to be able to swallow. Such “palliative sedation” is a new subject for discussion in the medical journals that have been advocating Obama-style “reform” for decades. No, the sedative doesn’t kill the patient—it just keeps her more comfortable while she is dehydrating, and also keeps her from taking deep breaths or moving around.
So within two weeks she is dead—if not from the underlying disease, then from dehydration, or the pneumonia or blood clots resulting from immobility.
It’s not a very long stretch to envision doctors being prosecuted for failing to carry out patients’ alleged wishes for early death through sedated dehydration.
Before it comes to that, doctors will just be co-opted into the System, or marginalized as being “greedy,” “disruptive,” or “paranoid” if they insist on following the Oath of Hippocrates.
In the days just before the election, incumbents are desperate. They will do anything to prevent reasoned debate on the central issue of where America is headed—toward the consolidation of central government power. They may even admit to minor errors and promise to “tweak” fundamentally flawed laws like ObamaCare. Look for a blitz of attack ads, false accusations, and outright election fraud.
“Reformers” talk a lot about “fragmentation”—of things like medical care. Their real fear is fragmentation of their power. That’s what a thorough housecleaning this election would mean. It would give Americans who believe in our founding principles a chance to take back our country.
Failure to seize this opportunity probably spells the death of freedom–and literal death, for the most vulnerable first.
Jane M. Orient, M.D., Executive Director of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, has been in solo practice of general internal medicine since 1981 and is a clinical lecturer in medicine at the University of Arizona College of Medicine. She received her undergraduate degrees in chemistry and mathematics from the University of Arizona, and her M.D. from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. She is the author of Sapira’s Art and Science of Bedside Diagnosis; the fourth edition has just been published by Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins. She also authored YOUR Doctor Is Not In: Healthy Skepticism about National Health Care, published by Crown. She is the executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a voice for patients’ and physicians’ independence since 1943. Complete curriculum vitae posted at www.drjaneorient.com.
http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/001367
Posted on October 24, 2010 by admin
By : Jane M. Orient, M.D.
Many of the issues swirling around before this election are mere distractions. At its center is the giant power struggle between the ruling elite and productive Americans.
The appealing message from our rulers is “empowerment.” But this does not mean empowerment of the uninsured, the unemployed, food stamp recipients, illegal aliens, and other needy persons. It means consolidation of power at the top, and the disempowerment of any potential rivals: successful industries, prosperous professionals, even small businesses that are still solvent and independent. Like small doctors’ practices
Giving people a handout instead of a hand up never makes them stronger. It makes them more dependent, and turns them into an army of pawns who can be counted on to do the will of those who feed them. They reliably vote for their supposed benefactors. And some of them also register illegals to vote, disrupt town halls or tea parties, key cars displaying signs for challengers, steal campaign signs, disseminate slander, and try to intimidate people. If things get really bad, they could become an army of rioters, looters, and worse.
The productive Americans who work every day, mind their own business, take care of their families, obey the law, and make the country function are being bled through redistributive taxes, which primarily benefit those who will soon be strong enough to trample their liberties and reduce them to poverty. The tax donors will have to cooperate with the rulers, and censor their own protests—or else.
NPR sent a message through Juan Williams. If they can do it to someone with an audience as large as his, nobody is safe from the thought police.
Nowhere is the threat to professionals and those whom they serve more apparent than in ObamaCare—if you read the actual law and not the glossy flyers sent by Medicare at taxpayer expense.
The requirements of the law are so costly and onerous that most physicians, if they continue to practice at all, will be forced into “accountable care organizations.” Accountable to whom? To the System, that is to the elite “decisionmakers.” Accountable for what? For reducing “costs” (that means spending on medical care), and for implementing “best practices.”
The first target is the “elderly” (those over the age of 65), and others who might be near the “end of life,” since that is where most of the medical money goes. Not incidentally, judging by the crowd at tea parties, older Americans can also be a problem just because they know something of American history and have lived most of their lives in a free society.
We have heard that ObamaCare is funded partly by redistributing Medicare “savings” of some $500 billion over 10 years. This is less than half a truth. If the 10-year period starts with full implementation in 2014 rather than in 2010, the amount is $800 billion, states Peter Ferrara in his book The Obamacare Disaster. And over the first 20 years of implementation, the amount rises to nearly $3 trillion.
ObamaCare advocates claim they can do this by cutting out the 30 percent of services that are “unnecessary,” as determined by them. A knee replacement, for example, probably doesn’t save your life—it is not “necessary” to be able to walk or to be pain free. And it will also cut out “fraud”—which increasingly is defined to include “unnecessary” services, as well as those coded incorrectly or not meeting the established “standard of care.”
There are no death panels. And no euthanasia. In fact, the law takes care to specify that physicians and institutions are protected against discrimination or retaliation for refusing to participate in physician-assisted suicide.
However, this protection explicitly does not extend to refusal to participate in overmedication or withdrawal of treatment or food and water. More ominously, we already see state laws proposed to immunize physicians from criminal or civil liability, or discipline for carrying out the terms of a POLST form (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment), though they may be disciplined for failure to do so.
Keep in mind that these days “life-sustaining treatment” includes food and water, especially if “artificially” administered, say because the patient is too heavily medicated to be able to swallow. Such “palliative sedation” is a new subject for discussion in the medical journals that have been advocating Obama-style “reform” for decades. No, the sedative doesn’t kill the patient—it just keeps her more comfortable while she is dehydrating, and also keeps her from taking deep breaths or moving around.
So within two weeks she is dead—if not from the underlying disease, then from dehydration, or the pneumonia or blood clots resulting from immobility.
It’s not a very long stretch to envision doctors being prosecuted for failing to carry out patients’ alleged wishes for early death through sedated dehydration.
Before it comes to that, doctors will just be co-opted into the System, or marginalized as being “greedy,” “disruptive,” or “paranoid” if they insist on following the Oath of Hippocrates.
In the days just before the election, incumbents are desperate. They will do anything to prevent reasoned debate on the central issue of where America is headed—toward the consolidation of central government power. They may even admit to minor errors and promise to “tweak” fundamentally flawed laws like ObamaCare. Look for a blitz of attack ads, false accusations, and outright election fraud.
“Reformers” talk a lot about “fragmentation”—of things like medical care. Their real fear is fragmentation of their power. That’s what a thorough housecleaning this election would mean. It would give Americans who believe in our founding principles a chance to take back our country.
Failure to seize this opportunity probably spells the death of freedom–and literal death, for the most vulnerable first.
Jane M. Orient, M.D., Executive Director of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, has been in solo practice of general internal medicine since 1981 and is a clinical lecturer in medicine at the University of Arizona College of Medicine. She received her undergraduate degrees in chemistry and mathematics from the University of Arizona, and her M.D. from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. She is the author of Sapira’s Art and Science of Bedside Diagnosis; the fourth edition has just been published by Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins. She also authored YOUR Doctor Is Not In: Healthy Skepticism about National Health Care, published by Crown. She is the executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a voice for patients’ and physicians’ independence since 1943. Complete curriculum vitae posted at www.drjaneorient.com.
http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/001367
Michelle Malkin - Townhall Conservative
The Left's Voter Fraud Whitewash"
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. It's the Democrats' coping mechanism for midterm election voter fraud. Faced with multiple reports of early voting irregularities and election shenanigans across the country, left-wing groups are playing dumb, deaf and blind. Voter fraud? What voter fraud?
More cunningly, these organizations are seeking to marginalize complaints about election integrity by casting citizen watchdog efforts as racist "scare tactics." Echoing President Obama's message to the Democratic faithful on the campaign trail, they are accusing political opponents of suppressing the votes of minorities and the poor. On Tuesday, The New York Times quoted a liberal voting rights advocate, Wendy R. Weiser, wringing her hands over individual Americans taking clean elections seriously:
"Private efforts to police the polls create a real risk of vote suppression, regardless of their intent," said Weiser, director of the Voting Rights and Elections Project at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. "People need to know that any form of discrimination, intimidation or challenge to voters without adequate basis is illegal or improper."
Weiser also turned up in a very similar story minimizing voter fraud and voter registration fraud that was published Tuesday by government-sponsored National Public Radio. The NPR report asserted that "most election experts" believe that fears of voter fraud are "overblown." No word on how many "experts" they surveyed (besides Weiser) to report such a conclusion, which flies in the face of dozens of felony voter fraud convictions across the country over the past two election cycles -- and that's just among ACORN-tied cases.
Overblown?
In North Carolina and Nevada, early voters have encountered ballot machine glitches that favor Democrats in hotly contested races.
In Troy, N.Y., and Daytona Beach, Fla., police investigations into suspected absentee ballot fraud by elected government officials are underway.
In Harris County, Texas, the voter registrar admitted that 20 percent of voter registration forms submitted by liberal activist Houston Votes had problems. Election whistleblowers there are now being investigated by the Obama Justice Department and have been slapped with an ethics complaint by the Texas Democratic Party and a left-wing billionaire George Soros-funded group called Texans for Public Justice.
In Yuma County, Ariz., election officials denied any fraud associated with thousands of requests for "permanent early voter list" status submitted en masse by open-borders group Mi Familia Vota (a social justice satellite group of the Service Employees International Union). But election officials admitted that some 6,000 out of 14,000 requests fielded by the Yuma County Recorder's Office "were reviewed and rejected, under Arizona law, either due to the fact the request was a duplicate or the requestor was not eligible to vote in this election or within the jurisdiction."
Liberals shrugged their shoulders at reports of illegal alien canvassers trolling for votes in Washington State. Never mind the radical goals spelled out by SEIU International Secretary-Treasurer and Mi Familia Vota founder Eliseo Medina, who views illegal alien amnesty as a powerful Democratic recruitment tool to capture millions of new progressive voters.
Funny. For the past two years, Democratic leaders have had nothing to say about the militant New Black Panther Party goons who took it upon themselves to police a Philadelphia voting booth in 2008 wielding billy clubs and shouting anti-white slurs to suppress votes. Now, they're treating citizen election monitors as if they are the jack-booted thugs. When I lauded efforts like the Minnesota Majority, which is training volunteers to watch polls and report on voter fraud, liberal critics accused me this week of "fascism."
Silence dissent. Criminalize watchdogs. Whitewash fraud. Discourage grassroots engagement. Deny, deny, deny. These are the signature tactics of the left in the age of Obama. On November 2, Americans get their chance to say: Enough.
Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2010).
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2010/10/27/the_lefts_voter_fraud_whitewash/page/full/
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. It's the Democrats' coping mechanism for midterm election voter fraud. Faced with multiple reports of early voting irregularities and election shenanigans across the country, left-wing groups are playing dumb, deaf and blind. Voter fraud? What voter fraud?
More cunningly, these organizations are seeking to marginalize complaints about election integrity by casting citizen watchdog efforts as racist "scare tactics." Echoing President Obama's message to the Democratic faithful on the campaign trail, they are accusing political opponents of suppressing the votes of minorities and the poor. On Tuesday, The New York Times quoted a liberal voting rights advocate, Wendy R. Weiser, wringing her hands over individual Americans taking clean elections seriously:
"Private efforts to police the polls create a real risk of vote suppression, regardless of their intent," said Weiser, director of the Voting Rights and Elections Project at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. "People need to know that any form of discrimination, intimidation or challenge to voters without adequate basis is illegal or improper."
Weiser also turned up in a very similar story minimizing voter fraud and voter registration fraud that was published Tuesday by government-sponsored National Public Radio. The NPR report asserted that "most election experts" believe that fears of voter fraud are "overblown." No word on how many "experts" they surveyed (besides Weiser) to report such a conclusion, which flies in the face of dozens of felony voter fraud convictions across the country over the past two election cycles -- and that's just among ACORN-tied cases.
Overblown?
In North Carolina and Nevada, early voters have encountered ballot machine glitches that favor Democrats in hotly contested races.
In Troy, N.Y., and Daytona Beach, Fla., police investigations into suspected absentee ballot fraud by elected government officials are underway.
In Harris County, Texas, the voter registrar admitted that 20 percent of voter registration forms submitted by liberal activist Houston Votes had problems. Election whistleblowers there are now being investigated by the Obama Justice Department and have been slapped with an ethics complaint by the Texas Democratic Party and a left-wing billionaire George Soros-funded group called Texans for Public Justice.
In Yuma County, Ariz., election officials denied any fraud associated with thousands of requests for "permanent early voter list" status submitted en masse by open-borders group Mi Familia Vota (a social justice satellite group of the Service Employees International Union). But election officials admitted that some 6,000 out of 14,000 requests fielded by the Yuma County Recorder's Office "were reviewed and rejected, under Arizona law, either due to the fact the request was a duplicate or the requestor was not eligible to vote in this election or within the jurisdiction."
Liberals shrugged their shoulders at reports of illegal alien canvassers trolling for votes in Washington State. Never mind the radical goals spelled out by SEIU International Secretary-Treasurer and Mi Familia Vota founder Eliseo Medina, who views illegal alien amnesty as a powerful Democratic recruitment tool to capture millions of new progressive voters.
Funny. For the past two years, Democratic leaders have had nothing to say about the militant New Black Panther Party goons who took it upon themselves to police a Philadelphia voting booth in 2008 wielding billy clubs and shouting anti-white slurs to suppress votes. Now, they're treating citizen election monitors as if they are the jack-booted thugs. When I lauded efforts like the Minnesota Majority, which is training volunteers to watch polls and report on voter fraud, liberal critics accused me this week of "fascism."
Silence dissent. Criminalize watchdogs. Whitewash fraud. Discourage grassroots engagement. Deny, deny, deny. These are the signature tactics of the left in the age of Obama. On November 2, Americans get their chance to say: Enough.
Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2010).
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2010/10/27/the_lefts_voter_fraud_whitewash/page/full/
SUN JOURNAL NEW BERN: LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Misleading mailers
October 26, 2010 10:16 PM
For a past few weeks I have received mailings about how great Alice Underhill is from Real Facts NC. The first one I got praised Underhill for balancing the budget. I am not one who sits around and watches “Survivor: Nicaragua” or “Dancing With the Stars.” I pay attention to what is being said and done in Raleigh as well as in Washington. I know the state Constitution requires a balanced budget. The governor is responsible for this so do you think Underhill wants Gov. Dumpling to look bad? What Real Facts NC did not tell in its propaganda was that there is still a $3 billion hole in the budget. It mentioned education and how Underhill had saved teacher jobs. It was actually the pork/stimulus money that saved jobs for this year. They failed to mention that the lottery funds that were promised to be used for schools and schools only were used to close a $2 billion budget hole.
A quick check of Real Fact NC finds they are funded by the N.C. Association of Educators. It has been long known that the NEA, its parent organization, has not been for children. It has its own agenda. It appears the NCAE is doing the same thing. Real Facts NC is very anti-business when they attack Real Jobs NC and Norm Sanderson. They say absolutely nothing about the lottery funds being robbed like the highway funds were to balance the budget. Don’t get me wrong, I am not against teachers but I am against the NCAE when they care more about politics than they do the children. All this money being dumped into Real Facts NC and the mailings could have gone to the schools.
As I said before teachers jobs were saved by pork/stimulus funds this year. All school systems across this state are looking at what to do in fiscal year 2011-2012. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools are going to close school as well as lay off teachers. Lincoln County is making plans to do some of the same. There is nothing coming from Craven County on what they will do. I’ve got to believe they are covering for Alice Underhill’s failures.
I hope that when all the votes are counted on Nov. 2, Norm Sanderson will be our representative in Raleigh. My other hope is that the NCAE will be flat broke from all the propaganda mailings it has sent out and its Real Facts NC. I sent all their mailings to the landfill after reading the first without reading anymore. Just too much stretching of the truth and outright lies about a fine man, Mr. Sanderson.
Rick Lail, Vanceboro
October 26, 2010 10:16 PM
For a past few weeks I have received mailings about how great Alice Underhill is from Real Facts NC. The first one I got praised Underhill for balancing the budget. I am not one who sits around and watches “Survivor: Nicaragua” or “Dancing With the Stars.” I pay attention to what is being said and done in Raleigh as well as in Washington. I know the state Constitution requires a balanced budget. The governor is responsible for this so do you think Underhill wants Gov. Dumpling to look bad? What Real Facts NC did not tell in its propaganda was that there is still a $3 billion hole in the budget. It mentioned education and how Underhill had saved teacher jobs. It was actually the pork/stimulus money that saved jobs for this year. They failed to mention that the lottery funds that were promised to be used for schools and schools only were used to close a $2 billion budget hole.
A quick check of Real Fact NC finds they are funded by the N.C. Association of Educators. It has been long known that the NEA, its parent organization, has not been for children. It has its own agenda. It appears the NCAE is doing the same thing. Real Facts NC is very anti-business when they attack Real Jobs NC and Norm Sanderson. They say absolutely nothing about the lottery funds being robbed like the highway funds were to balance the budget. Don’t get me wrong, I am not against teachers but I am against the NCAE when they care more about politics than they do the children. All this money being dumped into Real Facts NC and the mailings could have gone to the schools.
As I said before teachers jobs were saved by pork/stimulus funds this year. All school systems across this state are looking at what to do in fiscal year 2011-2012. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools are going to close school as well as lay off teachers. Lincoln County is making plans to do some of the same. There is nothing coming from Craven County on what they will do. I’ve got to believe they are covering for Alice Underhill’s failures.
I hope that when all the votes are counted on Nov. 2, Norm Sanderson will be our representative in Raleigh. My other hope is that the NCAE will be flat broke from all the propaganda mailings it has sent out and its Real Facts NC. I sent all their mailings to the landfill after reading the first without reading anymore. Just too much stretching of the truth and outright lies about a fine man, Mr. Sanderson.
Rick Lail, Vanceboro
REID 'FREE FOOD' AT TURNOUT EVENTS--UNIONS 'GIFT CARDS' FOR VOTES
Two days ago, the Democratic Secretary of State announced that voters can be provided "free food" at "voter turnout events." Harry Reid has been offering free food and, according to other reports, some Democratic allies such as teachers' unions are offering gift cards in return for a vote for Reid.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2010/oct/26/angle-campaign-attorney-reid/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2010/oct/26/angle-campaign-attorney-reid/
MORE VOTER FRAUD IN NEVADA
Nevada Voter Claims Reid’s Name Was Pre-Checked on Her Ballot
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nevada-voter-claims-reids-name-was-pre-checked-on-her-ballot/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nevada-voter-claims-reids-name-was-pre-checked-on-her-ballot/
OUR GOVERNMENT AGAINST US!
9th Court Overturns Arizona’s Proof of Citizenship Requirement for Voter Registration
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, October 26, 2010, 2:56 PM
This is insanity.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out Arizona’s requirement that people show proof of citizenship today. The law has been on the books since 2004.
AZStarNet reported:
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned Arizona’s requirement that people show proof of citizenship to register to vote.
The split decision by a three-judge panel determined that the requirement to show proof of citizenship — passed by voters in 2004 — is not consistent with the National Voter Registration Act.
Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, temporarily sitting by designation, and Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, with chief judge Alex Kozinski dissenting, said Prop. 200 creates an additional hurdle, while the national act is intended to reduce “state-imposed obstacles” to registration.
The majority noted that Congress was well aware of the problem of voter fraud when it passed the voter act, and built in sufficient protections, including applying perjury penalties to applicants who lie about their eligibilty.
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/10/9th-court-overturns-arizonas-proof-of-citizenship-requirement-for-voter-registration/
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, October 26, 2010, 2:56 PM
This is insanity.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out Arizona’s requirement that people show proof of citizenship today. The law has been on the books since 2004.
AZStarNet reported:
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned Arizona’s requirement that people show proof of citizenship to register to vote.
The split decision by a three-judge panel determined that the requirement to show proof of citizenship — passed by voters in 2004 — is not consistent with the National Voter Registration Act.
Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, temporarily sitting by designation, and Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, with chief judge Alex Kozinski dissenting, said Prop. 200 creates an additional hurdle, while the national act is intended to reduce “state-imposed obstacles” to registration.
The majority noted that Congress was well aware of the problem of voter fraud when it passed the voter act, and built in sufficient protections, including applying perjury penalties to applicants who lie about their eligibilty.
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/10/9th-court-overturns-arizonas-proof-of-citizenship-requirement-for-voter-registration/
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
NEW BERN: Important Board of Election Meeting
Here is a non-partisan meeting. The NC BOE is sending someone from the compliance dept down to New Bern Wed October 27 – 3PM in the Co Comissioners’ chamber to hear from interested parties about the malfunction of the iVotronic s all around the county – the state for that matter.
Please come out and be a part of this if you can! We would like to pack the place. Maybe the overflow can parade out front with signs like Stop Stealing Our Votes and I want my Franchise back.
Hopefully all of the media, including TV will be there, so we need a good crowd.
SEE HOW THIS CAN AFFECT AN A ELECTION! This has been happening in Craven County, around the state of North Carolina and in other states!
Vote Flipping and Touchscreens (2008)
There have been a number of recent reports of touchscreen voting machines "flipping" voters' choices in early voting in the US Presidential election. If true, that's a very serious problem, apparently confirming everyone's worst fears about the reliability and security of the technology. So what should we make of these reports, and what should we do?
In technical terms, many of the problems being reported may be related to mis-calibrated touch input sensors. Touchscreen voting machines have to be adjusted from time to time so that the input sensors on the screen correspond accurately to the places where the candidate choices are displayed. Over time and in different environments, these analog sensors can drift away from their proper settings, and so touchscreen devices generally have a corrective "calibration" maintenance procedure that can be performed as needed. If a touchscreen is not properly accepting votes for a particular candidate, there's a good chance that it needs to be re-calibrated. In most cases, this can be done right at the precinct by the poll workers, and takes only a few minutes. Dan Wallach has an excellent summary (written in 2006) of calibration issues on the ACCURATE web site. The bottom line is that voters should not hesitate to report to poll workers any problems they have with a touchscreen machine -- there's a good chance it can be fixed right then and there.
Unfortunately, the ability to re-calibrate these machines in the field is a double edged sword from a security point of view. The calibration procedure, if misused, can be manipulated to create exactly the same problems that it is intended to solve. It's therefore extremely important that access to the calibration function be carefully controlled, and that screen calibration be verified as accurate. Otherwise, a machine could be deliberately (and surreptitiously) mis-calibrated to make it difficult or impossible to vote for particular candidates.
Is this actually happening? There's no way to know for sure at this point, and it's likely that most of the problems that have been reported in the current election have innocent explanations. But at least one widely used touchscreen voting machine, the ES&S iVotronic, has security problems that make partisan re-calibration attacks a plausible potential scenario.
I led the team that examined the security of the iVotronic (and the rest of the ES&S system) at Penn for the State of Ohio last year. Among other problems, we found it to be particularly easy to tamper with the calibration of the iVotronic's touchscreen by entering its cofiguration menu. This can be done entirely from the front panel (the part voters have private access to), and doesn't require knowing any passwords or other secrets.
One of the simplest, and yet most important, configuration parameters of the iVotronic DRE is the calibration of its touchscreen input sensors. Calibration (which can be performed in the field through the screen itself) affects how voters' tactile input "maps" to different locations on the screen. If the procedure is performed incorrectly (or has been deliberately altered), voter choices might not be correctly recorded.
It is easy to surreptitiously re-calibrate the screen of an iVotronic terminal in a way that allows most input to behave normally but that denies access to specific screen regions (e.g., those corresponding to certain candidate selections).........
A terminal can be maliciously re-calibrated (by a voter or poll worker) to prevent voting for certain candidates or to cause voter input for one candidate to be recorded for another. The terminal will remain in this state until the problem is detected (e.g., through voter complaints) and the terminal correctly re-calibrated by poll workers (which may require consultation with the central county office). Voters may or may not recognize that their votes are not correctly recorded, depending on voter training and other factors.
While a maliciously calibrated terminal may be noticed by voters and can, in principle, be corrected in the field, the attack is extremely simple for a poll worker ..........and so may represent a serious practical threat. We note that iVotronic behavior consistent with such attacks has been reported in various jurisdictions during actual elections.
Some wording has been ommitted, so as not to further contribute to the problem.
Please come out and be a part of this if you can! We would like to pack the place. Maybe the overflow can parade out front with signs like Stop Stealing Our Votes and I want my Franchise back.
Hopefully all of the media, including TV will be there, so we need a good crowd.
SEE HOW THIS CAN AFFECT AN A ELECTION! This has been happening in Craven County, around the state of North Carolina and in other states!
Vote Flipping and Touchscreens (2008)
There have been a number of recent reports of touchscreen voting machines "flipping" voters' choices in early voting in the US Presidential election. If true, that's a very serious problem, apparently confirming everyone's worst fears about the reliability and security of the technology. So what should we make of these reports, and what should we do?
In technical terms, many of the problems being reported may be related to mis-calibrated touch input sensors. Touchscreen voting machines have to be adjusted from time to time so that the input sensors on the screen correspond accurately to the places where the candidate choices are displayed. Over time and in different environments, these analog sensors can drift away from their proper settings, and so touchscreen devices generally have a corrective "calibration" maintenance procedure that can be performed as needed. If a touchscreen is not properly accepting votes for a particular candidate, there's a good chance that it needs to be re-calibrated. In most cases, this can be done right at the precinct by the poll workers, and takes only a few minutes. Dan Wallach has an excellent summary (written in 2006) of calibration issues on the ACCURATE web site. The bottom line is that voters should not hesitate to report to poll workers any problems they have with a touchscreen machine -- there's a good chance it can be fixed right then and there.
Unfortunately, the ability to re-calibrate these machines in the field is a double edged sword from a security point of view. The calibration procedure, if misused, can be manipulated to create exactly the same problems that it is intended to solve. It's therefore extremely important that access to the calibration function be carefully controlled, and that screen calibration be verified as accurate. Otherwise, a machine could be deliberately (and surreptitiously) mis-calibrated to make it difficult or impossible to vote for particular candidates.
Is this actually happening? There's no way to know for sure at this point, and it's likely that most of the problems that have been reported in the current election have innocent explanations. But at least one widely used touchscreen voting machine, the ES&S iVotronic, has security problems that make partisan re-calibration attacks a plausible potential scenario.
I led the team that examined the security of the iVotronic (and the rest of the ES&S system) at Penn for the State of Ohio last year. Among other problems, we found it to be particularly easy to tamper with the calibration of the iVotronic's touchscreen by entering its cofiguration menu. This can be done entirely from the front panel (the part voters have private access to), and doesn't require knowing any passwords or other secrets.
One of the simplest, and yet most important, configuration parameters of the iVotronic DRE is the calibration of its touchscreen input sensors. Calibration (which can be performed in the field through the screen itself) affects how voters' tactile input "maps" to different locations on the screen. If the procedure is performed incorrectly (or has been deliberately altered), voter choices might not be correctly recorded.
It is easy to surreptitiously re-calibrate the screen of an iVotronic terminal in a way that allows most input to behave normally but that denies access to specific screen regions (e.g., those corresponding to certain candidate selections).........
A terminal can be maliciously re-calibrated (by a voter or poll worker) to prevent voting for certain candidates or to cause voter input for one candidate to be recorded for another. The terminal will remain in this state until the problem is detected (e.g., through voter complaints) and the terminal correctly re-calibrated by poll workers (which may require consultation with the central county office). Voters may or may not recognize that their votes are not correctly recorded, depending on voter training and other factors.
While a maliciously calibrated terminal may be noticed by voters and can, in principle, be corrected in the field, the attack is extremely simple for a poll worker ..........and so may represent a serious practical threat. We note that iVotronic behavior consistent with such attacks has been reported in various jurisdictions during actual elections.
Some wording has been ommitted, so as not to further contribute to the problem.
Preferential Tax Treatment in NC for California Millionaires
Congratulations fellow North Carolinians, you are about to forfeit an untold amount of tax revenue to the millionaires at Warner Brothers – again – while the state faces a budget deficit upwards of $3 billion. Governor Perdue (D) announced in a press release last week that New Line Cinema, a subsidiary of Warner Brothers, will film a multi-million dollar motion picture in our state and will enjoy a 25% tax credit on qualifying expenses.
This summer, the General Assembly voted to expand the film production tax credit from 15% to 25%. The bill, HB1973, was a wish list of economic incentives (read: unfair tax treatment) sponsored by Reps. Bill Owens (D-Pasquotank), Pryor Gibson (D-Anson), William Wainwright (D-Craven), and Harold Brubaker (R-Randolph). Interestingly, the bill also created a tax exemption for wood chippers.
Warner Brothers also produces “One Tree Hill,” a television series, in North Carolina. The cost of credits to the state over the three tax years from 2007-2009 for One Tree Hill totaled $12 million. As a note, the total cost of credits to the state for those three years was just short of $36 million. Several of these films are rated R and one especially egregious film, with a cost of credits totaling $713,104, is titled “A Good Old Fashioned Orgy.” Meanwhile, North Carolinians have suffered sales tax hikes, higher fees, and income tax surcharges. The General Assembly raised taxes by $1.1 billion in 2009.
Further, businesses in other industries which have operated in North Carolina for years are subject to the full tax burden while Warner Brothers enjoys preferential tax treatment. Governor Perdue seems to think that “North Carolina was selected because of the state’s talented and trained film professionals and the water tank at EUE/Screen Gems.” Those of us in reality know that the state used our tax dollars to bribe Warner Brothers.
Proponents of the film production credits will argue that the preferential tax treatment the multimillionaires in California enjoy at our expense will boost the economy. However, these tax credits come at a cost as the loss in revenue must be offset by taxes on other goods and services paid by local businesses and individuals or by cuts to services such as education. What North Carolina needs to stimulate economic growth is an equitable, and much less onerous, tax structure. How can our political leaders claim to be for the “little man” when Average Joe is taxed to make up for the tax breaks enjoyed by wealthy Californians? Whose side are you on, Governor Perdue?
http://www.civitasreview.com/budget-taxes/preferential-tax-treatment-in-nc-for-california-millionaires/
This summer, the General Assembly voted to expand the film production tax credit from 15% to 25%. The bill, HB1973, was a wish list of economic incentives (read: unfair tax treatment) sponsored by Reps. Bill Owens (D-Pasquotank), Pryor Gibson (D-Anson), William Wainwright (D-Craven), and Harold Brubaker (R-Randolph). Interestingly, the bill also created a tax exemption for wood chippers.
Warner Brothers also produces “One Tree Hill,” a television series, in North Carolina. The cost of credits to the state over the three tax years from 2007-2009 for One Tree Hill totaled $12 million. As a note, the total cost of credits to the state for those three years was just short of $36 million. Several of these films are rated R and one especially egregious film, with a cost of credits totaling $713,104, is titled “A Good Old Fashioned Orgy.” Meanwhile, North Carolinians have suffered sales tax hikes, higher fees, and income tax surcharges. The General Assembly raised taxes by $1.1 billion in 2009.
Further, businesses in other industries which have operated in North Carolina for years are subject to the full tax burden while Warner Brothers enjoys preferential tax treatment. Governor Perdue seems to think that “North Carolina was selected because of the state’s talented and trained film professionals and the water tank at EUE/Screen Gems.” Those of us in reality know that the state used our tax dollars to bribe Warner Brothers.
Proponents of the film production credits will argue that the preferential tax treatment the multimillionaires in California enjoy at our expense will boost the economy. However, these tax credits come at a cost as the loss in revenue must be offset by taxes on other goods and services paid by local businesses and individuals or by cuts to services such as education. What North Carolina needs to stimulate economic growth is an equitable, and much less onerous, tax structure. How can our political leaders claim to be for the “little man” when Average Joe is taxed to make up for the tax breaks enjoyed by wealthy Californians? Whose side are you on, Governor Perdue?
http://www.civitasreview.com/budget-taxes/preferential-tax-treatment-in-nc-for-california-millionaires/
A MUST SEE!
John Stossel (Fox News) - "Battle for the Future"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5UOJXGxLLM&feature=related (Pt. 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6hxe8zEJPw&feature=related (Pt. 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMI6H0p4cr8&feature=related (Pt. 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEgB0rcqgqo&feature=related (Are Americans Too Stupid to Vote)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WnS96NVlMI&feature=related (Insurance Makes Healthcare More Expensive)
Battle for The Future (partial transcript)
by John Stossel, Oct. 22, 2010, on FoxNews.com
For most of the life of America, and when it grew fastest, government spent just a few hundred dollars per person. Today, the federal government alone spends $10,000.
Politicians talk about cuts, but the cuts rarely happen. The political class always needs more.
I see the pressure. All day, Congress listens to people who say they need and deserve help.
The cost of any one program per taxpayer is small, but the benefits are concentrated on well-organized interest groups. It's tough for a weak politician to say no.
But maybe things are changing. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., believes that "more and more people in America are beginning to wake up to the fact that this thing is coming unglued."
I asked Ryan why his colleagues say it's OK to spend more. Are they just stupid? Don't they care? Or are they pandering for votes?
"Pandering could be a part of it," he said. "But ... they believe that the government should be far larger." They are taught that by the progressives who rule academia, like Columbia University Professor Marc Lamont Hill.
"We have to make sure that the most vulnerable people are always protected," Hill says. Everyone benefits when we pay a little bit more to create universal health care. Everyone benefits when we pay a little more to have better public education systems."
Progressives use the word "we" too often. When I argued the that "we" and "government" are not the same, he said, "We always talk about the government like it's this monster in the hills that comes down and hands things out and takes our tax money."
Well, yes.
Those are "libertarian fairytales," Hill says. "In real life, the government is us."
Government is not "us." Well, it's us in the sense that we pay the bills. But it ain't us. It's them, the policy elite and their patrons.
What percent of the economy does Hill think government should be?
"For me, housing, health care and education, in addition to national defense, are things that the government must provide for people. So if that means 20 percent, I'm OK with it. If it means 30 percent, I'm OK with it.
I don't think it'll ever get that big."
Give me a break. It's already at 40 percent!
All that spending is taken from your and my pockets — some in taxes, much in sneakier ways like government borrowing. The national debt — now $13 trillion — simply represents future taxes or the erosion of the dollar.
Yet progressives want us to pay more. One woman activist told our camera, "It costs to live in a civilized society, and we all need to pay our fair share."
Our "fair share" sounds good. Progressives say taking from the rich to help the poor is simply fair.
I put that to Arthur Brooks, who heads the American Enterprise Institute.
"No, the fairest system is the one that rewards the makers in society as opposed to rewarding the takers in society."
Brooks wrote "The Battle," which argues that the fight between free enterprise and big government will shape our future.
"The way that our culture is moving now is toward more redistribution, toward more progressive taxation, exempting more people from paying anything, and loading more of the taxes onto the very top earners in our society."
But it seems "kind" to take it away from wealthier people and give it to those who need it more.
"Actually, it's not," Brooks says. "The government does not create wealth. It uses wealth that's been created by the private sector."
He warns that "Americans are in open rebellion today because the government is threatening to take us from a maker nation into taker nation status."
Americans in "open rebellion"? I'm skeptical. Handouts create fierce constituencies. The tea party movement is wonderful, but it takes strength to say no to government freebies. When I've said to tea partiers, "We should cut Medicare, eliminate agriculture subsidies, kill entire federal agencies," the enthusiasm usually fades from their eyes.
I hope that I am wrong and Brooks is right.
John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at http://www.johnstossel.com/
COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5UOJXGxLLM&feature=related (Pt. 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6hxe8zEJPw&feature=related (Pt. 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMI6H0p4cr8&feature=related (Pt. 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEgB0rcqgqo&feature=related (Are Americans Too Stupid to Vote)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WnS96NVlMI&feature=related (Insurance Makes Healthcare More Expensive)
Battle for The Future (partial transcript)
by John Stossel, Oct. 22, 2010, on FoxNews.com
For most of the life of America, and when it grew fastest, government spent just a few hundred dollars per person. Today, the federal government alone spends $10,000.
Politicians talk about cuts, but the cuts rarely happen. The political class always needs more.
I see the pressure. All day, Congress listens to people who say they need and deserve help.
The cost of any one program per taxpayer is small, but the benefits are concentrated on well-organized interest groups. It's tough for a weak politician to say no.
But maybe things are changing. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., believes that "more and more people in America are beginning to wake up to the fact that this thing is coming unglued."
I asked Ryan why his colleagues say it's OK to spend more. Are they just stupid? Don't they care? Or are they pandering for votes?
"Pandering could be a part of it," he said. "But ... they believe that the government should be far larger." They are taught that by the progressives who rule academia, like Columbia University Professor Marc Lamont Hill.
"We have to make sure that the most vulnerable people are always protected," Hill says. Everyone benefits when we pay a little bit more to create universal health care. Everyone benefits when we pay a little more to have better public education systems."
Progressives use the word "we" too often. When I argued the that "we" and "government" are not the same, he said, "We always talk about the government like it's this monster in the hills that comes down and hands things out and takes our tax money."
Well, yes.
Those are "libertarian fairytales," Hill says. "In real life, the government is us."
Government is not "us." Well, it's us in the sense that we pay the bills. But it ain't us. It's them, the policy elite and their patrons.
What percent of the economy does Hill think government should be?
"For me, housing, health care and education, in addition to national defense, are things that the government must provide for people. So if that means 20 percent, I'm OK with it. If it means 30 percent, I'm OK with it.
I don't think it'll ever get that big."
Give me a break. It's already at 40 percent!
All that spending is taken from your and my pockets — some in taxes, much in sneakier ways like government borrowing. The national debt — now $13 trillion — simply represents future taxes or the erosion of the dollar.
Yet progressives want us to pay more. One woman activist told our camera, "It costs to live in a civilized society, and we all need to pay our fair share."
Our "fair share" sounds good. Progressives say taking from the rich to help the poor is simply fair.
I put that to Arthur Brooks, who heads the American Enterprise Institute.
"No, the fairest system is the one that rewards the makers in society as opposed to rewarding the takers in society."
Brooks wrote "The Battle," which argues that the fight between free enterprise and big government will shape our future.
"The way that our culture is moving now is toward more redistribution, toward more progressive taxation, exempting more people from paying anything, and loading more of the taxes onto the very top earners in our society."
But it seems "kind" to take it away from wealthier people and give it to those who need it more.
"Actually, it's not," Brooks says. "The government does not create wealth. It uses wealth that's been created by the private sector."
He warns that "Americans are in open rebellion today because the government is threatening to take us from a maker nation into taker nation status."
Americans in "open rebellion"? I'm skeptical. Handouts create fierce constituencies. The tea party movement is wonderful, but it takes strength to say no to government freebies. When I've said to tea partiers, "We should cut Medicare, eliminate agriculture subsidies, kill entire federal agencies," the enthusiasm usually fades from their eyes.
I hope that I am wrong and Brooks is right.
John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at http://www.johnstossel.com/
COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
Chuck Norris
$200,000 for Capitol Hill Bottled Water?
The Congressional Budget Office just reported that in the past two years since President Barack Obama took office, federal spending is up 21.4 percent.
The national deficit was $1.29 trillion in 2010 (second to the $1.4 trillion in Obama's first year in office, 2009), which means that for every $1 the federal government spent this past year, it borrowed 37 cents of it!
The feds will tell you that their outrageous spending habits were necessary to pull our economy out of its recession. But would their same rationale justify the fact that the money Congress spends on itself has soared 89 percent over the past decade, more than three times the U.S. inflation rate?
It's true. In 2000, the feds spent $2.87 billion to run Capitol Hill. In fiscal year 2010, they almost doubled the amount, to an enormous $5.42 billion. From 2000-10, while inflation went up 26 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Capitol expenses went up 89 percent.
Were all those expenditures necessary to pull the economy out of a recession, too? Will the Obama administration again blame former President George W. Bush for its contemptible spending habits in its first two years?
According to Capitol News Connection and the congressional watchdog groups Sunlight Foundation and LegiStorm, here are just some of the itemized personnel costs of your legislative branch of government, including their comparative increases from 2000:
--Congress members' salaries and benefits: $126 million, up 23.5 percent.
--Expense allowances for Senate leaders: $180,000, up 99 percent.
--Senate officers: $178.98 million, up 99 percent.
--House leadership offices: $25.88 million, up 82 percent.
--Other House officers: $198.30 million, up 120 percent.
--Senators' personal offices: $422 million, up 75 percent.
--Representatives' personal offices: $660 million, up 62 percent.
--Architect of the Capitol salaries: $106.78 million, up 118 percent.
--Capitol Police salaries: $265.18 million, up 237 percent.
--Capitol Police general expenses: $63.13 million, up 860 percent.
Other items:
--Senate inquiries and investigations: $140.5 million, up 96 percent.
--Capitol grounds upkeep: $10.97 million, up 102 percent.
--Capitol building maintenance: $33.18 million (not listed separately in 2000).
--Senate office buildings: $74.39 million, up 16 percent.
--House office buildings: $100.46 million, up 169 percent.
--Capitol Visitor Center: $22.45 million (didn't exist in 2000).
--Congressional Budget Office: $45.16 million, up 72 percent.
--Government Accountability Office: $556.84 million, up 47 percent.
--Library of Congress: $446.15 million, up 73 percent.
--Congressional Research Service: $112.49 million, up 57 percent.
And if you don't think those costs are reflective of a nation in economic peril and government run amok, consider momentarily how critical these following costs are to running our country -- or are they?
--Since Democrat Nancy Pelosi took over the position of speaker of the House in January 2007, funding for her office soared 62 percent, from $2.9 million to $4.7 million. For a single office?!
--And taxpayers paid an enormous printing bill of $93.76 million, up 212 percent. (How many copies of the 1,000-plus-page Obamacare bill do you think that bought the feds? In a computer age of paperless transactions, don't you think they could save a few dollars here by learning what PDF files are?)
--According to the Sunlight Foundation, $4.28 million was spent on student loan repayments during the first quarter of this year as one of the congressional staff member employment perks.
--Pension costs continue to soar as congressional members enjoy the $60,000 annual benefit when they retire at age 62 after only having five years of congressional service. More than 400 former members receive average pensions of $60,000 a year.
--Taxpayers also forked out $3.27 million for Capitol Hill office supplies, as well as $628,332 for food. In addition, we spent $51.05 million on electricity and $4.63 million on sewer and water services in the Capitol building.
--And that water bill doesn't include the bottled water, which the House offices alone spent nearly $200,000 on during just the first quarter of 2010!
Friends, this next election fight is not for the weak at heart. Those elected next will either plummet our country into a fiscal abyss by maintaining the present course or deliver our economy from utter ruin by turning sharply to avoid economic disaster.
If our country is to survive, we must elect only those who show proof of fiscal discipline, refuse under all circumstances to increase our national deficit, disdain special interests, are willing to radically cut spending, and commit to pass and live under a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. (Please join the movement to pressure Congress to do so, by signing BBA Now's petition for a Common Sense Balanced Budget Amendment. And for a voter guide detailing where candidates in your state stand on issues, go to http://www.christianvoterguide.com/.)
With the present elective battle at hand, I call upon the great battalion of patriots to get out and vote Nov. 2 in the same spirit in which George Washington admonished his army in 1776: "The hour is fast approaching, on which the Honor and Success of this army, and the safety of our bleeding Country depend. Remember officers and Soldiers, that you are Freemen, fighting for the blessings of Liberty -- that slavery will be your portion, and that of your posterity, if you do not acquit yourselves like men."
(I also encourage everyone to check out the trailers to two new patriotic films playing near you, "I Want Your Money" and "Battle for America.")
Chuck Norris is a columnist and impossible to kill.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Chuck Norris and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2010/10/26/$200,000_for_capitol_hill_bottled_water/page/1
The Congressional Budget Office just reported that in the past two years since President Barack Obama took office, federal spending is up 21.4 percent.
The national deficit was $1.29 trillion in 2010 (second to the $1.4 trillion in Obama's first year in office, 2009), which means that for every $1 the federal government spent this past year, it borrowed 37 cents of it!
The feds will tell you that their outrageous spending habits were necessary to pull our economy out of its recession. But would their same rationale justify the fact that the money Congress spends on itself has soared 89 percent over the past decade, more than three times the U.S. inflation rate?
It's true. In 2000, the feds spent $2.87 billion to run Capitol Hill. In fiscal year 2010, they almost doubled the amount, to an enormous $5.42 billion. From 2000-10, while inflation went up 26 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Capitol expenses went up 89 percent.
Were all those expenditures necessary to pull the economy out of a recession, too? Will the Obama administration again blame former President George W. Bush for its contemptible spending habits in its first two years?
According to Capitol News Connection and the congressional watchdog groups Sunlight Foundation and LegiStorm, here are just some of the itemized personnel costs of your legislative branch of government, including their comparative increases from 2000:
--Congress members' salaries and benefits: $126 million, up 23.5 percent.
--Expense allowances for Senate leaders: $180,000, up 99 percent.
--Senate officers: $178.98 million, up 99 percent.
--House leadership offices: $25.88 million, up 82 percent.
--Other House officers: $198.30 million, up 120 percent.
--Senators' personal offices: $422 million, up 75 percent.
--Representatives' personal offices: $660 million, up 62 percent.
--Architect of the Capitol salaries: $106.78 million, up 118 percent.
--Capitol Police salaries: $265.18 million, up 237 percent.
--Capitol Police general expenses: $63.13 million, up 860 percent.
Other items:
--Senate inquiries and investigations: $140.5 million, up 96 percent.
--Capitol grounds upkeep: $10.97 million, up 102 percent.
--Capitol building maintenance: $33.18 million (not listed separately in 2000).
--Senate office buildings: $74.39 million, up 16 percent.
--House office buildings: $100.46 million, up 169 percent.
--Capitol Visitor Center: $22.45 million (didn't exist in 2000).
--Congressional Budget Office: $45.16 million, up 72 percent.
--Government Accountability Office: $556.84 million, up 47 percent.
--Library of Congress: $446.15 million, up 73 percent.
--Congressional Research Service: $112.49 million, up 57 percent.
And if you don't think those costs are reflective of a nation in economic peril and government run amok, consider momentarily how critical these following costs are to running our country -- or are they?
--Since Democrat Nancy Pelosi took over the position of speaker of the House in January 2007, funding for her office soared 62 percent, from $2.9 million to $4.7 million. For a single office?!
--And taxpayers paid an enormous printing bill of $93.76 million, up 212 percent. (How many copies of the 1,000-plus-page Obamacare bill do you think that bought the feds? In a computer age of paperless transactions, don't you think they could save a few dollars here by learning what PDF files are?)
--According to the Sunlight Foundation, $4.28 million was spent on student loan repayments during the first quarter of this year as one of the congressional staff member employment perks.
--Pension costs continue to soar as congressional members enjoy the $60,000 annual benefit when they retire at age 62 after only having five years of congressional service. More than 400 former members receive average pensions of $60,000 a year.
--Taxpayers also forked out $3.27 million for Capitol Hill office supplies, as well as $628,332 for food. In addition, we spent $51.05 million on electricity and $4.63 million on sewer and water services in the Capitol building.
--And that water bill doesn't include the bottled water, which the House offices alone spent nearly $200,000 on during just the first quarter of 2010!
Friends, this next election fight is not for the weak at heart. Those elected next will either plummet our country into a fiscal abyss by maintaining the present course or deliver our economy from utter ruin by turning sharply to avoid economic disaster.
If our country is to survive, we must elect only those who show proof of fiscal discipline, refuse under all circumstances to increase our national deficit, disdain special interests, are willing to radically cut spending, and commit to pass and live under a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. (Please join the movement to pressure Congress to do so, by signing BBA Now's petition for a Common Sense Balanced Budget Amendment. And for a voter guide detailing where candidates in your state stand on issues, go to http://www.christianvoterguide.com/.)
With the present elective battle at hand, I call upon the great battalion of patriots to get out and vote Nov. 2 in the same spirit in which George Washington admonished his army in 1776: "The hour is fast approaching, on which the Honor and Success of this army, and the safety of our bleeding Country depend. Remember officers and Soldiers, that you are Freemen, fighting for the blessings of Liberty -- that slavery will be your portion, and that of your posterity, if you do not acquit yourselves like men."
(I also encourage everyone to check out the trailers to two new patriotic films playing near you, "I Want Your Money" and "Battle for America.")
Chuck Norris is a columnist and impossible to kill.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Chuck Norris and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2010/10/26/$200,000_for_capitol_hill_bottled_water/page/1
More than 80 years ago, the "tax cuts for the rich" argument was refuted, both in theory and in practice, by Andrew Mellon, who was Secretary of the Treasury in the 1920s.
Thomas Sowell: Brass Oldies
Classic songs from years past are sometimes referred to as "golden oldies." There are political fallacies that have been around for a long time as well. These might be called brass oldies. It certainly takes a lot of brass to keep repeating fallacies that were refuted long ago.
One of these brass oldies is a phrase that has been a perennial favorite of the left, "tax cuts for the rich." How long ago was this refuted? More than 80 years ago, the "tax cuts for the rich" argument was refuted, both in theory and in practice, by Andrew Mellon, who was Secretary of the Treasury in the 1920s.
When Mellon took office, there was a large national debt, the economy was stagnating, and tax rates were high, though the tax revenues were still not enough to cover government expenditures. What was Mellon's prescription for getting out of this mess? A series of major cuts in the tax rates!
Then as now, there were people who failed to make the distinction between tax rates and tax revenues. Mellon said, "It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue for the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower rates."
How can that be? Because taxpayers change their behavior according to what the tax rates are. When one of the Rockefellers died, Mellon discovered that his estate included $44 million in tax-exempt bonds, compared to $7 million in Standard Oil securities, even though Standard Oil was the source of the
Rockefeller fortune.
For the country as a whole, the amount of money tied up in tax-exempt securities was estimated to be three times as large as the federal government's expenditures and more than half as large as the national debt.
In short, huge amounts of money were not being invested in productive capacity, such as factories or power plants, but was instead being made available for local political boondoggles, because this money was put into tax-exempt state and local bonds.
When tax rates are reduced, investors have incentives to take their money out of tax shelters and put it into the private economy, creating higher returns for themselves and more production in the economy. Andrew Mellon understood this then, even though many in politics and the media seem not to understand it now.
Mellon was able to persuade Congress to lower the tax rates by large amounts. The percentage by which tax rates were lowered was greater at the lower income levels, but the total amount of money saved by taxpayers was of course greater on the part of people with higher incomes, who were paying much higher tax rates on those incomes.
Between 1921 and 1929, tax rates in the top brackets were cut from 73 percent to 24 percent. In other words, these were what the left likes to call "tax cuts for the rich."
What happened to federal revenues from income taxes over this same span of time? Income tax revenues rose by more than 30 percent. What happened to the economy? Jobs increased, output rose, the unemployment rate fell and incomes rose. Because economic activity increased, the government received more income tax revenues. In short, these were tax cuts for the economy, even if the left likes to call them "tax cuts for the rich."
This was not the only time that things like this happened, nor was Andrew Mellon the only one who advocated tax rate cuts in order to increase tax revenues. John Maynard Keynes pointed out in 1933 that lowering the tax rates can increase tax revenues, if the tax rates are so high as to discourage economic activity.
President John F. Kennedy made the same argument in the 1960s -- and tax revenues increased after the tax rates were cut during his administration. The same thing happened under Ronald Reagan during the 1980s. And it happened again under George W. Bush, whose tax rate cuts are scheduled to expire next January.
The rich actually paid more total taxes, and a higher percentage of all taxes, after the Bush tax rate cuts, because their incomes were rising with the rising economy.
Do the people who keep repeating the catch phrase, "tax cuts for the rich" not know this? Or are they depending on your not knowing it?
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/10/26/brass_oldies
Classic songs from years past are sometimes referred to as "golden oldies." There are political fallacies that have been around for a long time as well. These might be called brass oldies. It certainly takes a lot of brass to keep repeating fallacies that were refuted long ago.
One of these brass oldies is a phrase that has been a perennial favorite of the left, "tax cuts for the rich." How long ago was this refuted? More than 80 years ago, the "tax cuts for the rich" argument was refuted, both in theory and in practice, by Andrew Mellon, who was Secretary of the Treasury in the 1920s.
When Mellon took office, there was a large national debt, the economy was stagnating, and tax rates were high, though the tax revenues were still not enough to cover government expenditures. What was Mellon's prescription for getting out of this mess? A series of major cuts in the tax rates!
Then as now, there were people who failed to make the distinction between tax rates and tax revenues. Mellon said, "It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue for the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower rates."
How can that be? Because taxpayers change their behavior according to what the tax rates are. When one of the Rockefellers died, Mellon discovered that his estate included $44 million in tax-exempt bonds, compared to $7 million in Standard Oil securities, even though Standard Oil was the source of the
Rockefeller fortune.
For the country as a whole, the amount of money tied up in tax-exempt securities was estimated to be three times as large as the federal government's expenditures and more than half as large as the national debt.
In short, huge amounts of money were not being invested in productive capacity, such as factories or power plants, but was instead being made available for local political boondoggles, because this money was put into tax-exempt state and local bonds.
When tax rates are reduced, investors have incentives to take their money out of tax shelters and put it into the private economy, creating higher returns for themselves and more production in the economy. Andrew Mellon understood this then, even though many in politics and the media seem not to understand it now.
Mellon was able to persuade Congress to lower the tax rates by large amounts. The percentage by which tax rates were lowered was greater at the lower income levels, but the total amount of money saved by taxpayers was of course greater on the part of people with higher incomes, who were paying much higher tax rates on those incomes.
Between 1921 and 1929, tax rates in the top brackets were cut from 73 percent to 24 percent. In other words, these were what the left likes to call "tax cuts for the rich."
What happened to federal revenues from income taxes over this same span of time? Income tax revenues rose by more than 30 percent. What happened to the economy? Jobs increased, output rose, the unemployment rate fell and incomes rose. Because economic activity increased, the government received more income tax revenues. In short, these were tax cuts for the economy, even if the left likes to call them "tax cuts for the rich."
This was not the only time that things like this happened, nor was Andrew Mellon the only one who advocated tax rate cuts in order to increase tax revenues. John Maynard Keynes pointed out in 1933 that lowering the tax rates can increase tax revenues, if the tax rates are so high as to discourage economic activity.
President John F. Kennedy made the same argument in the 1960s -- and tax revenues increased after the tax rates were cut during his administration. The same thing happened under Ronald Reagan during the 1980s. And it happened again under George W. Bush, whose tax rate cuts are scheduled to expire next January.
The rich actually paid more total taxes, and a higher percentage of all taxes, after the Bush tax rate cuts, because their incomes were rising with the rising economy.
Do the people who keep repeating the catch phrase, "tax cuts for the rich" not know this? Or are they depending on your not knowing it?
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/10/26/brass_oldies
CNSNews.com
Debt Has Increased $5 Trillion Since Speaker Pelosi Vowed, ‘No New Deficit Spending’
Monday, October 25, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey
(CNSNews.com) - When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave her inaugural address as speaker of the House in 2007, she vowed there would be “no new deficit spending.” Since that day, the national debt has increased by $5 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.
"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,” Pelosi said in her speech from the speaker’s podium. “Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."
Pelosi has served as speaker in the 110th and 111th Congresses.
At the close of business on Jan. 4, 2007, Pelosi’s first day as speaker, the national debt was $8,670,596,242,973.04 (8.67 trillion), according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. At the close of business on Oct. 22, it stood at $13,667,983,325,978.31 (13.67 trillion), an increase of 4,997,387,083,005.27 (or approximately $5 trillion).
Pelosi, the 60th speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has added more to the national debt than the first 57 House speakers combined.
The $4.997-trillion increase in the national debt since she took the gavel is more debt than the federal government amassed from the speakership of Rep. Frederick Muhlenberg of Pennsylvania, who became the first speaker of the House on April 1, 1789, to the start of the speakership of Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, the 58th speaker, who took up the gavel on Jan. 4, 1995.
The national debt first topped $5 trillion on Feb. 23, 1996, more than a year into Gingrich’s speakership.
Gingrich served as speaker in the 104th and 105th Congresses, officially taking the office on Jan. 4, 1995 and leaving office on Jan. 3, 1999. During that period, according to the Treasury Department, the national debt increased $812.4 billion dollars ($812,423,595,162.98), rising from $4.8 trillion ($4,801,793,426,032.89) to $5.6 trillion ($5,614,217,021,195.87).
Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), the 59th speaker, who presided over the 106th, 107th, 108th and 109th Congresses (serving as speaker from Jan. 6, 1999 to Jan. 3, 2007), enjoys the distinction of having increased the debt more than any other speaker except Pelosi. During Hastert’s time, the national debt increased $3.1 trillion ($3,061,785,703,851.74).
Thus far (the 111th Congress will not be done until the end of the year), Pelosi has increased the debt by an average of $2.5 trillion for each Congress she has led as speaker. Hastert increased the debt by an average of about $785 billion per Congress, while Gingrich increased the debt by an average of $406 billion per Congress.
Under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government cannot spend any money that has not been approved by congressional appropriations; and, by congressional precedent, appropriations bills originate in the House.
"No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law," says Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution.
“By precedent, appropriations originate in the House, with the Senate following suit,” says the House Rules Committee in an explanation of the appropriations process.
Annual federal expenditures have increased by about $730 billion in the Pelosi era, while annual deficits have increased almost 8 fold. In fiscal 2007, when Pelosi became speaker, the federal government spent $2.73 trillion and ran an annual deficit of $162.8 billion, according to the Treasury Department. In fiscal 2009, the federal government spent $3.52 trillion and ran an annual deficit of $1.4157 trillion. In fiscal 2010, the federal government spent $3.46 trillion and ran an annual deficit of $1.2941 trillion.
“The 2010 deficit was equal to 8.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), CBO estimates, down from 10.0 percent in 2009 (based on the most current estimate of GDP),” the Congressional Budget Office said in its October Monthly Budget Review. “The 2010 deficit was the second-highest shortfall—and 2009 the highest—since 1945, relative to the size of the economy.”
SEE VIDEO:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-has-increased-5-trillion-speaker-pe
Monday, October 25, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey
(CNSNews.com) - When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave her inaugural address as speaker of the House in 2007, she vowed there would be “no new deficit spending.” Since that day, the national debt has increased by $5 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.
"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,” Pelosi said in her speech from the speaker’s podium. “Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."
Pelosi has served as speaker in the 110th and 111th Congresses.
At the close of business on Jan. 4, 2007, Pelosi’s first day as speaker, the national debt was $8,670,596,242,973.04 (8.67 trillion), according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. At the close of business on Oct. 22, it stood at $13,667,983,325,978.31 (13.67 trillion), an increase of 4,997,387,083,005.27 (or approximately $5 trillion).
Pelosi, the 60th speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has added more to the national debt than the first 57 House speakers combined.
The $4.997-trillion increase in the national debt since she took the gavel is more debt than the federal government amassed from the speakership of Rep. Frederick Muhlenberg of Pennsylvania, who became the first speaker of the House on April 1, 1789, to the start of the speakership of Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, the 58th speaker, who took up the gavel on Jan. 4, 1995.
The national debt first topped $5 trillion on Feb. 23, 1996, more than a year into Gingrich’s speakership.
Gingrich served as speaker in the 104th and 105th Congresses, officially taking the office on Jan. 4, 1995 and leaving office on Jan. 3, 1999. During that period, according to the Treasury Department, the national debt increased $812.4 billion dollars ($812,423,595,162.98), rising from $4.8 trillion ($4,801,793,426,032.89) to $5.6 trillion ($5,614,217,021,195.87).
Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), the 59th speaker, who presided over the 106th, 107th, 108th and 109th Congresses (serving as speaker from Jan. 6, 1999 to Jan. 3, 2007), enjoys the distinction of having increased the debt more than any other speaker except Pelosi. During Hastert’s time, the national debt increased $3.1 trillion ($3,061,785,703,851.74).
Thus far (the 111th Congress will not be done until the end of the year), Pelosi has increased the debt by an average of $2.5 trillion for each Congress she has led as speaker. Hastert increased the debt by an average of about $785 billion per Congress, while Gingrich increased the debt by an average of $406 billion per Congress.
Under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government cannot spend any money that has not been approved by congressional appropriations; and, by congressional precedent, appropriations bills originate in the House.
"No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law," says Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution.
“By precedent, appropriations originate in the House, with the Senate following suit,” says the House Rules Committee in an explanation of the appropriations process.
Annual federal expenditures have increased by about $730 billion in the Pelosi era, while annual deficits have increased almost 8 fold. In fiscal 2007, when Pelosi became speaker, the federal government spent $2.73 trillion and ran an annual deficit of $162.8 billion, according to the Treasury Department. In fiscal 2009, the federal government spent $3.52 trillion and ran an annual deficit of $1.4157 trillion. In fiscal 2010, the federal government spent $3.46 trillion and ran an annual deficit of $1.2941 trillion.
“The 2010 deficit was equal to 8.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), CBO estimates, down from 10.0 percent in 2009 (based on the most current estimate of GDP),” the Congressional Budget Office said in its October Monthly Budget Review. “The 2010 deficit was the second-highest shortfall—and 2009 the highest—since 1945, relative to the size of the economy.”
SEE VIDEO:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-has-increased-5-trillion-speaker-pe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
