“If this is Saturday, I must be a day late” OTA

Yep. Open Trackbacks Alliance post. Open all weekend long (except for yesterday, when I failed to post it–Friday was eaten by locusts). Link to this post and then track back. If you want to host your own linkfests, check out the Open Trackbacks Alliance.

Also note the other fine blogs featuring linkfests at Linkfest Haven.

Linkfest Haven

Meanwhile, the locusts loom on the horizon for today as well, so hie thyself to Stop the ACLU and read about the latest from The Enemies of Democracy (unless by “democracy” one were to accept—as apparently the Ninth Circuit Court does— the ACLU’s definition of “democracy” as rule by a mob of illegal aliens… )

“By their fruits shall you know them”—Matthew 7:16/Stop the ACLU

[Note: The video below is obviously a very abbreviated excerpt from a longer video. If I can track down the original, full video, I’ll update this post with that info. —mnmus]

16By their fruits shall you know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit. 18 A good tree can’t produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit.”—Matthew 7:16-18


Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

Hat tip: Ban The ACLU This was found on youtube and it’s pretty short at 3 minutes. I wish I could find more footage somewhere. It is an accurate account of the ACLU’s founding. Does the ACLU’s communist founding mean anything about what the ACLU is today? Well, if you plant a lemon seed would you expect the tree to produce peaches? Compare their current goals to the 45 communist goals in the Congressional Record and decide for yourself.

One of the greatest myths about the ACLU is that they started out as a noble cause. The roots of a tree go deep. There is no question that it was founded on communist/socialist principles. There is no question to the founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin’s, ideals.

“I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities…and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

Only after the Nazi-Soviet Non-Agression Pact of 1939, which allowed Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party to take over much of Eastern Europe, did Mr. Baldwin become disenchanted with the Soviet version of Communism. Yet Baldwin held Communist/Socialist sympathies to the end of his life. Later in life, he said,…

“Anti-communism never affected our civil liberties very much. And the Communist party in the United States was certainly never strong enough to be a menace at any time in any way. The only menace was the people who believed in a Communist dictatorship, which is a denial of civil liberties. They did not belong with us in a leadership position.”Source

Baldwin rid the ACLU board of overt Communists because of his anger about the Nazi-Soviet pact, establishing a policy that read, in part: “The Board of Directors and the National Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union….hold it inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarian dictatorship in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle.” Source

While Mr. Baldwin made a great show of the Communist purge in 1940 he never let go of his passion for socialist ideals. Neither did the ACLU. In 1961 numerous communist connections were entered into the Congressional Record. In November of 1964 the ACLU came to the defense of Communist-front organizations. The Union argued that there was a fundamental difference between a Communist-action organization and a Communist-front group.

Throughout the 1960s many members of the ACLU took umbrage at the principles of the 1940 Resolution. According to William Donohue’s book, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union, a 1967 Resolution was viewed by many on the board that voted for it to supersede and effectively rendered the 1940 Resolution impotent. In April of 1967 the ACLU board voted to rescind the 1940 decision of ousting Elizabeth Gurley Flynn for her uncompromising support for Communism. More important than the vote to recognize Flynn was the board’s conclusion that “the expulsion of Ms. Flynn was not consonant with the basic principles on which the ACLU was founded and has acted for fifty-four years.” The board also agreed that language should be drafted to indicate its happiness with the removal of the 1940 Resolution from the ACLU constitution in 1967.”

Today’s ACLU still espouses the ideals of socialism under the guise of liberalism. They still defend Communist propaganda. One of the goals of the Communist agenda is to abolish all loyalty oaths. It is interesting that the ACLU celebrate the fact that they will not sign oaths promising not to support terrorism.

Whether today’s ACLU is a communist/socialist organization or not their goals most definitely align with the ideologies of socialism. Regardless of what one label today’s ACLU there are many dangerous positions in practice that have never changed with them. Their unflinching support of abortion, euthanasia, their strange position on the Second Amendment and their open border policy are just a few examples. They consistently work to thwart the government’s efforts to protect its citizens, undermine America’s sovereignty, and defend America’s enemies. They have defended traitors funding Hamas, the PLO, and confessed Al-Qaeda operatives. All of these seem to support their founder’s goal of abolishing of the State itself.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

Wednesday OTA/Fair Tax

Tax Slave

tax_slave.jpg

In addition to being the Fair Tax Blogburst post for today, this is an Open Trackbacks Alliance post, open Wednesday and Thursday. Link to this post and then track back. If you want to host your own linkfests, check out

Also note the other fine blogs featuring linkfests at Linkfest Haven.

Linkfest Haven


by Jonathan Garner of Publius Rendezvous

It has been interesting lately to observe just what the critics of the Fair Tax have to say. Lately, much of what has been said has centered around percentages. Clever as it may be to confuse people with cleverly worded assertions that tend to fool the average American when it comes to these issues. If anyone in the audience is similar to me, it takes focused attention lest my eyes glaze over at the thought of following someone’s lessons involving percentages, statistics and numbers in general.

Succinctly, what has been asserted that I have seen generally resembles something such as this: (http://www.jpfo.org/fairtax.htm)

Remember, even the proponents admit they’d need a 23 percent tax rate to fund the current size of the federal government. However, they are starting out their new “fair” tax system with highly deceptive language.

H.R. 25, Section 101(b)(1) states “FOR 2005- In the calendar year 2005, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.” Note the phrase “of the gross payment.”

Here’s how it works: You buy a candy bar for a total price, including tax, of $1.30. One dollar of that price pays for the candy bar; $.30 goes to the federal government.

One dollar purchase + $.30 in tax sounds like 30 percent to you and me (and to every state that currently has a sales tax). But the “FairTaxers” don’t calculate it that way. They say: $1.30 total price. $.30 = 23 percent of $1.30, therefore the tax is 23 percent.

Many critics have pointed out that this is a deceptive way to calculate a sales tax. AFT rebuts the critics by saying (we paraphrase for simplicity), “If you made $1.30 in income and paid $.30 of it in tax, you’d call it a 23 percent tax rate.” The 23 percent figure is what AFT refers to as the “tax inclusive” rate.

But a sales tax is not an income tax, and when we see national sales tax advocates and uncritical journalists promoting the 23 percent figure without giving the underlying explanation, we can only think that some very thick wool is being pulled over people’s eyes.

But, as we shall see, there is yet again another major study that has been conducted that definitively illustrates the merit of the Fair Tax. As has been reported by The Fair Tax Blog (http://www.fairtaxblog.com/20061002/kotlikoff-study-23-fairtax-revenue-neutral/), Boston University Economics Professor Laurence Kotlikoff’s much-anticipated study of the necessary revenue-neutral rate for the FairTax has been published and released. Terry and I will refrain from reproducing the entire study, but peruse through the abstract below to see just how much the supporters already know!

As specified in Congressional bill H.R. 25/S. 25, the FairTax is a proposal to replace the federal personal income tax, corporate income tax, payroll (FICA) tax, capital gains, alternative minimum, self-employment, and estate and gifts taxes with a single-rate federal retail sales tax. The FairTax also provides a prebate to each household based on its demographic composition. The prebate is set to ensure that households pay no taxes net on spending up to the poverty level.

Bill Gale (2005) and the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform (2005) suggest that the effective (tax inclusive) tax rate needed to implement H.R. 25 is far higher than the proposed 23% rate. This study, which builds on Gale’s (2005) analysis, shows that a 23% rate is eminently feasible and suggests why Gale and the Tax Panel reached the opposite conclusion.

This paper begins by projecting the FairTax’s 2007 tax base net of its rebate. Next it calculates the tax rate needed to maintain the real levels of federal and state spending under the FairTax. It then determines if an effective rate of 23% would be sufficient to fund 2007 estimated spending or if not, the amount by which non-Social Security federal expenditures would need to be reduced. Finally, it shows that the FairTax imposes no additional real fiscal burdens on state and local government, notwithstanding the requirement that such governments pay the FairTax when they purchase goods and services.

Implementing the FairTax rate of 23% would produce $2,586 billion in federal tax revenues which is $358 billion more than the $2,228 billion in tax revenues generated by the taxes it repeals. Adjusting the base for the prebate and the administrative credit paid to businesses and states for collecting the tax results in a net tax base of $9,355 billion. In 2007, spending at current levels is projected to be $3,285 billion. Revenues from the FairTax at a 23% tax rate, plus other federal revenues, are estimated to yield $3,209 billion which is $76 billion less than current CBO spending projections for 2007. The $76 billion amounts to only 2.73% of non-Social Security spending ($2,177 – $2,101). This is a remarkably small adjustment when set against the more than 30% rise in the real value of these expenditures since 2000.

Ensuring real revenue neutrality at the federal level, given the net base of $9,355 billion, implies a rate of 23.82% on a tax-inclusive basis and 31.27% on a tax-exclusive basis. These and other calculations presented here ignore a) general equilibrium feedback (supply-side and demand-side) effects that could significantly raise the FairTax base (see, for example, Kotlikoff and Jokisch, 2005), b) the possibility that tax evasion would exceed the considerable amount automatically incorporated here via the use of NIPA data, which undercount consumption expenditures due to evasion under the current tax system, and c) the roughly $1 trillion real capital gain the federal government would secure on its outstanding nominal debt, were consumer prices to rise by the full amount of the FairTax.

The FairTax redistributes real purchasing power from state and local governments to their state and local income-tax taxpayers. It does so by reducing factor prices relative to consumer prices and, thereby, reducing the real value (measured at consumer prices) of state and local income tax payments, which are assessed on factor incomes (namely, factor supplies times factor prices).

Gale (2005) and the Tax Panel (2005) recognized this loss in real state and local government revenues in claiming that these governments need to be compensated for having to pay the FairTax. But what they apparently missed is that this loss to these governments is exactly offset by a gain to their taxpayers.

Were state and local governments to maintain their real income tax collections – the assumption made here – by increasing their tax rates appropriately, their taxpayers’ real tax burdens would remain unchanged and there would be no need for the federal government to compensate state and local governments for having to pay the FairTax on their purchases. The second is that H.R. 25 does not preclude state and local governments from levying their sales taxes on the FairTax-inclusive price of consumer goods and services. This produces significantly more revenue compared to levying their sales taxes on producer prices.

Moreover, Gale (2005) and the Tax Panel (2005) arrived at a higher tax rate because they did not estimate the FairTax rate, but instead estimated a sales tax of their own design which had a substantially narrower base.


The FairTax Blogburst is jointly produced by Terry of The Right Track Blog and Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous. If you would like to host the weekly postings on your blog, please e-mail Terry. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.

Open Trackbacks in “honor” of America’s one “distinctly native criminal class”

This is an open trackbacks post. Link to this post and then track back. If you want to host your own linkfests, check out the Open Trackbacks Alliance.

Also note the other fine blogs featuring linkfests at Linkfest Haven.

Linkfest Haven


The Mark Foley brouhaha is just more “dog bites man” news from our congresscritters. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. As Twain put it,

It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.

With the steady stream of revelations of disregard for law, common decency and all manner of shenanigans, who doubts that what is shown is but the tip of the iceberg? Kipling’s famous lines could probably be better applied to our congresscritters today tha n to anything the British Empire had in Kipling’s day:

Thus, the artless songs I sing
Do not deal with anything
New or never said before.
As it was in the beginning
Is to-day official sinning,
And shall be for evermore!


As I said, this is an open trackbacks post. Link here and track back.

Guard the Borders

Today’s blogburst post is by Heidi, and she’s included a “must-see” video. DO keep in mind when you watch the video: projection of future events/circumstances via statistical analysis depends upon no variables changing in the intervening time frame. If we make changes for the better, in any number of areas, including but not limited to controlling and limiting ALL forms of immigration, we can avoid the disaster the video projects.

IF


By Heidi at Euphoric Reality

This is a MUST SEE video for anyone interested in the immigration debate, whether you are a citizen, a legal immigrant, an illegal alien or a Congressman. This clip is from the longer video, Immigration by the Numbers, and features Roy Beck of NumbersUSA demonstrating the catastrophe of unrestricted immigration by Third World people into our nation. He uses standard statistics and simple gumballs to show this disaster in the making.

This video is very short – only 17 minutes total – don’t miss it! Even if you think you know what our future looks like, this video will shock you!


H/T for the video: Third World County

Here are some additional resources concerning the population disaster that is pending for our nation.

You can order videos of Immigration by the Numbers and others for only $10.

A chart of the declining levels of Americans and the exploding numbers of foreign-born immigrants.

A chart of the future of the U.S. in this century

*These numbers are NOT fanciful or manipulated to make a political point. They are cold, hard facts calculated by the most conservative estimator of all – the U.S. Census Bureau.

Despite the sheer impossibility of the numbers in the video and the source link above, you should know that they DO NOT include the number of illegal aliens and their offspring. Why?

The bar graph counts only the annual number of legal immigrants.

If illegal aliens could be accurately counted and included, it is likely that the 1966-89 period would be revealed as being even more disparate from earlier eras. Illegal immigration is believed to be far higher during recent decades than in the past.

The Census Bureau estimates there are 8 million illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. [A very conservative estimate – the numbers are possibly 2 1/2 to more than 3 times greater than estimated by the Census Bureau. -ed.]

On annual illegal immigration, the Center for Immigration Studies has extrapolated the latest Census data to show that 700,000 to 800,000 new illegal aliens are settling each year. Now, far, far more than that enter illegally each year, but there is a lot of back and forth. The 700,000 to 800,000 represents illegals who truly settle in for at least a couple of years, and usually much, much longer. [emphasis added above]

As bad as it looks on paper now, it is actually much worse in reality. We already know that the number of illegal aliens is more than quadruple the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country each year. The Border Patrol estimates that more than 4 million illegal aliens enter the country each year – and they apprehend about one in seven. That means, while they are catching 571,000 illegals each year, almost 3.5 million escape detection and melt into our communities.

What would the graph of the population explosion look like if the numbers of illegal aliens are included? The numbers are almost incomprehensible. We are looking at the utter devastation of our nation.


This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we’re going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our Blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to admin at guardtheborders dot com.

Hit me with a cluebat, already!/Monday Open Post

This is an open trackbacks post. Link to this post and then track back. If you want to host your own linkfests, check out the Open Trackbacks Alliance.

Also note the other fine blogs featuring linkfests at Linkfest Haven.

Linkfest Haven


Short shrift, today. Full schedule here in America’s Third World County. So, just a few thoughts:

Since Jesus proclaimed a message of peace and encouraged his followers to “love one another” and do good to their enemies; since He refused to give a group of men typical of 99.99999% of those who habituate the mosques honoring the Butcher of Medina permission to stone a woman to death; since there is no record of lies, deciet, murder and betrayal performed by Him for His followers to point to as an excuse for barbarous acts, then those who act like faithful Muslims while falsely claiming to be Christians are liars and the truth is not in them.

OTOH, anyone claiming to be a follower of Mohammed who is NOT a murdering, raping, treacherous savage is a liar. For Mohammed was a murdering rapist and pedophile, a savage brute in all that can be imagined. Anyone who claims to be a follower of the Butcher of Medina who does not emulate him in his treachery, sexual predation and savage, murderous ways is not really a Muslim. They’re kinda Muslims like Unitarians are Christians. Not at all.

Just something to think about.


As I said, this is an open trackbacks post. Link to this post and track back.

Climate Alarmists: a poke in the eye with a sharp stick…

…from a U.S. Senator? Yeh, James Inhoffe, who—appart from the now usual *sigh* grammatical and word usage gaffes so common among supposedly literate people—stuck it to climate alarmists* in a speech delivered from the Senate floor, Monday. All the climate alarmists in the Senate, of course, stuck their fingers in their ears and made “la-la-la-la” sounds when he said such things as

…I would like to summarize some of the recent developments in the controversy over whether or not humans have created a climate catastrophe. One of the key aspects that the United Nations, environmental groups and the media have promoted as the “smoking gun” of proof of catastrophic global warming is the so-called ‘hockey stick’ temperature graph by climate scientist Michael Mann and his colleagues.

This graph purported to show that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century presumably due to human activity. Mann, who also co-publishes a global warming propaganda blog reportedly set up with the help of an environmental group, had his “Hockey Stick” come under severe scrutiny.

The “hockey stick” was completely and thoroughly broken once and for all in 2006. Several years ago, two Canadian researchers tore apart the statistical foundation for the hockey stick. In 2006, both the National Academy of Sciences and an independent researcher further refuted the foundation of the “hockey stick.”

The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth’s climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.

All of that is common knowledge for folks who’ve been paying attention to history, let alone recent (deeply-buried) news articles. That a U.S. Senator has twigged to the Medieval Warm Period and the Maunder Minimum that put paid to it IS news, though. *heh* News that won’t get very far with the Mass Media Podpeople.

Oh, well. The fact that when Greenland was settled, about a millennium ago, it was farmable and was for some time a net exporter of goods (primarily grain and dairy products!) is little known, largely because of an apparent conspiracy (of dunces) to turn Americans into historically ignorant sheeple, prey for alarmist wolves. Oh! But that terrible “global warming” led to mass epidemics, didn’t it? Well, yeh, indirectly. Longer growing seasons led to a population explosion in Europe (and massive increases in wealth, BTW), which, in the existing society meant more rats to spread the plague brought back from trade with China.

Still and all, the warm climate of the Medieval Warm period allowed Europe to essentially breed itself out of trouble, resulting in conditions favorable to the Rennaisance…

Oops. The refining and expansion of Western Civilization. A definitely “bad thing” to climate alarmists in general. Led to the development of *shudder* science and advanced technologies. Things to be eschewed in favor of voodooism (like Mann’s “hockey stick”) and shrill shouting in Mass Media Podpeople Hivemind cant.

Oh, yeh: h.t. Chaos Manor Musings

Exegesis

While the pope may have backed down from the “schoolyard bully” and issued and apology (of sorts, where an apology of ANY sort is inexcusable), others have taken the popes comments that so inflamed an easily-provoked bunch of savages and “revised and extended” them in a way that offers food for thought. Joshua Trevino, at The Brussels Journal is one such.

As we look toward the plight of the Christians of the Middle East at large, we must be reminded that they are an embattled minority in large part because their doctrinal precepts are simply more humane… The superior creed in the eyes of history may be that with the more force and fury on its side; but in the eyes of history’s God, the criteria for rectitude are doubtless rather different.

Worth reading. Anyone with two eyes and a working synapse in their cranium could—and probably has—thought or said (perhaps even thoughtfully said :-)) as much as Trevino, though likely not in so measured a tone. *heh*

Noted at TMH’s Bacon Bits and The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns.