DOGS.....DOGS..........DOGS................DOGS...................(TOUGH BUT TASTY)

Can you believe the media this week.  All they wanted to talk about for days was how Romney transported his dog on a trip to Canada.  Then we come to find out the Obama ate dog as a kid..............

Now all the media wants to talk about is Romney's opinion on some cookies?????????

I don't care about the cookies.   Maybe Romney didn't like them?  Maybe that was just his opinion???  who cares.....But is it news worthy??

As for all the Dog news, I don't care how Romney got the dog to Canada, and I don't care that Obama ate dog as a kid, (in some foreign countries, they do that)....

But THIS is what the MEDIA wants to focus on?????

What about 16 Trillion in debt. 
What about unemployment being over 8.2% for the past 3 years??
What about all the money the Government wastes (GSA)??
What about the Senate no passing a budget in....what.....3 years???   When the Constitution says it is to be passed EVERY year??

All the Media is doing is diverting attention away from Obama's record so they don't have to talk about it or defend it, because it can't be defended.....

The Media is killing America by not giving the facts on what goes on in Washington, so that the people who are the ones that are supposed to be running this country can make an informed decision.....

 
 


 

OBAMA.............2/3 OF MILLIONAIRES..............BIG JOKE.........BIG LIE!!!!!!!!!

Recently Obama said that 2/3 of all millionaires support raising taxes on them.  

Well, the problem is that...

Projections say that Obama's tax plan will raise about 800 Billion over the next 10 years.  But let's be generous, let's say it will raise 1 Trillion over the next 10 years, that's 100 Billion a year.  The problem is back in 2010, we had a 1.3 TRILLION dollar deficit......just for that one year.  So under Obama's "Millionaire tax" (which includes anybody making over $200,000 dollars) you would still have a 1.2 TRILLION dollar deficit.....So raising taxes on "Millionaires" isn't going to make a dent in the deficit......

Let's say that you taxed everybody with incomes of 1 Million and over at a rate of 100%, that would raise just under 700 Billion Dollars, in one year.  So that would still leave about a 600 Billion dollar deficit.  But that would probably trash the economy, because then the "Rich" wouldn't be putting any money into the economy.  So taxing at 100% won't help.....

Here is one area that I believe the left is disingenuous, Obama says that 2/3 of Millionaires would be willing to pay higher taxes.....well, if they are truly saying this, all they have to do is....WRITE A CHECK.  That's right, just pull out your check book and send the IRS all the money you want.  And that goes to all you liberal/progressives out there who think we need to pay more in taxes, just send them the money, they will take it.  And you don't need the Government to pass a new tax law to do it.

Our Government is too big, it's spending money on things that they don't have the Constitutional Authority to spend on....like the Department of Education, with a budget of about 70 BILLION.  Where in the Constitution does the federal Government have the power to have a Department of Education.  The Government needs to quit spending OUR money.

They need to get rid of the departments that shouldn't be there. Then they could cut 10% in ALL Government spending from all departments left. Put together a flat tax with no deductions so EVERYBODY is paying their fair share.  And I don't have a problem with a progressive tax system where the lowest income earners pay maybe 2 - 5%, and have 3 or 4 rates up to where anybody making 1Million or more pay 25%.  You could do you taxes on a post card,

                                 your income

                            x                 15%            

                                what you owe.  

 It's that simple.

I believe all that Pres. Obama is doing is stirring up class warfare.  He wants the American people divided so he can get re-elected and pass even more radical socialistic type policies.  

Obama is also misleading the American people when he says that rich people are paying a lower tax rate.  He uses the example that Buffet is only paying 15% and his secretary pays 35%.  The misleading part of this is the secretary is paying Fed Income taxes, and Buffet is paying Long Term Capital Gains tax.

For Buffet to say we need to pay more in taxes is a joke.   

Buffet CHOOSES to not take a salary, which would be taxed at 35%, and gets his money from capital gains on investments, which is taxed at 15%.  But for those that are in the 35% Fed Tax bracket and have investment income, (which the investment has already been taxed), will have to pay the additional 15% on investment income.  So in effect some people are already paying 45% of their income just in Fed Taxes, and then you have to add State & Local Taxes.  So how are they not paying their “fair share”?

If I thought that taxing the rich would help pay off the Debt in the next ten years, (which is almost 16 TRILLION DOLLARS), I might could be persuaded to go along.  But to do that you would have to run a 1.6 Trillion dollar surplus every year for the next 10 years.  And I don't see that happening, no matter what the Government does.

Think about how long it would take to pay back 16 TRILLION DOLLARS: (if we don't accumulate any more debt)

                A 1 Trillion Dollar Budget Surplus, per year, would take 16 years

                A 500 Billion Dollar Surplus, per year,  would take 32 years

                A 250 Billion Dollar Surplus, per year, would take 64 Years.....you get the picture.

We can't even run a balanced budget, more less a surplus.....

People my age will have to accept the fact that we will never see the debt go away, and possibly even my Grandchildren will never see it go away.  and that is a sad thing for this Country.

Can we afford 4 more years of Obama and his socialistic/progressive policies and a big nanny state government......

   

MEDIA............SUPREME COURT.............KAGAN............RECUSAL

 We have nine members of the US Supreme Court.  The media is focusing on only five of them.  Four of them are getting a pass.  Four of them are considered to be above and beyond question.  And those are the four liberal justices.  You hear the media saying the Conservative Judges need to be opened minded.  But yet the liberal slanted Judges are not expected to be open-minded.  The media's not asking them to consider things outside their normal purview.  But the four conservatives and the one moderate, Anthony Kennedy?  Well......

The media is challenging them to be open-minded about this, to maybe see the way to voting against the way they are preternaturally inclined.  So four justices are given a pass.  The four liberal justices are considered, to have the right way of thinking and pressure is being brought to bear on the other five.  But beyond that, do you not find it troubling that in a case so blatantly unconstitutional, in a law that is so blatantly in violation of the United States Constitution, we have to rely on one or two justices to protect the republic?  You would think that this wouldn't even be a question for all nine of them. 

Our Judges have gotten away from what the Constitution gives them power to do.  They are to tell Congress and the President how and what the Constitution says about a law they wish to pass.  And they are to base this on what the Constitution says, not what case history says.  There have been some bad judgements made by the Supreme Court in the past, and that is why they don't need to make judgement on case history, because then all they are doing is making another bad judgement based on a previous bad judgement.  If you use the Constitution every time, the judges should be making Constitutional judgements. 

Like I said there have been some bad judgement made in the past from the bench.  And now with Obama-Care before the Supreme Court, I believe that there is a judge that needs to recuse herself.  

First the law: A federal statute requires that any “justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Federal law also requires that a judge recuse herself if the judge previously served in governmental employment “and in that capacity participated as a ... counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”

As many have pointed out, there are legitimate arguments that these rules point to recusal. Was Kagan a “counsel” or “adviser” on this issue? We know that she was on an e-mail exchange between her top deputy, Neal Katyal, and Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli, about a meeting to discuss the litigation strategy for the ACA litigation, and lawyers in her office would be present. We also know she attended at least one meeting where the litigation was discussed

We also know that Kagan wrote an e-mail to Laurence Tribe, a famous Harvard constitutional law professor who was also working for the administration at the time the law passed, in which she said, “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.” The email's subject line was "fingers and toes crossed today!"

A few years ago, Justice Scalia recused himself from a case challenging the constitutionality of the “under God” provision of the Pledge of Allegiance because he made a few for offhand comments about the case during a speech. Most liberals approved of Scalia’s decision at the time. The case for Kagan’s recusal, while different, seems even stronger to me. Scalia recused himself because he preliminarily aligned himself with a view of the case while it was pending. But Kagan was politically aligned with the president who is identified with the law at issue. She was aligned with him when the law was passed, and that president—and his administration’s—future may be severely impacted by the court’s ruling on the ACA. Scalia’s problem in the Pledge case was limited to what he said. Kagan’s problem with the ACA lies in what she did.

Take away any one of these facts and perhaps the recusal issue would change.

1)  She served as the solicitor general of the United States during the time that the ACA was furiously debated in Congress, discussed in town halls across the country, and enacted;

2) The ACA is the most important, controversial, and partisan piece of legislation put forward by the Obama administration while Kagan worked as the president’s top lawyer to the Supreme Court. If he didn’t consult with her about it, he should have.

3) She was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Obama shortly after the ACA was passed, and the president is closely and personally identified with the law;

4) She has to review the law just a few months before President Obama runs for re-election;

5) His re-election might well be affected by how the Supreme Court rules; and

6) We know she celebrated the passage of the law.

But she did all of these.....

 

 The Supreme Court is increasingly seen as a partisan political institution making political decisions instead of a true court deciding cases using the Constitution as their guide. Justice Kagan has a golden moment to display that at least one Supreme Court justice has integrity and character that exceed her party loyalty and political past. If she sees herself as a political official who, because of the office she occupies, gets to cast an important vote on an issue that may decide an election, she should stay on the case. But, if she views herself as a judge of law who is obligated to approach legal issues objectively and open-mindedly without regard to partisan political outcomes, she ought to step aside. 

Nothing less than the integrity of the Supreme Court is at stake.