The Value-Added Tax: A Nixonian Scheme to Fund Bigger Government

November 21, 2015

Phineas Fahrquar:

The VAT is to me an obviously bad idea, especially as long as there is also an income tax. But why Senators Cruz and Paul would support one is way beyond me.

Originally posted on International Liberty:

In early 2013, a reader asked me the best place to go if America suffered a Greek-style economic collapse.

I suggested Australia might be the best option, even if I would be too stubborn to take my own advice.

Perhaps because of an irrational form of patriotism, I’m fairly certain that I will always live in the United States and I will be fighting to preserve (or restore) liberty until my last breath.

But while I intend to stay in America, there is one thing that would make me very pessimistic about my country’s future.

Simply stated, if politicians ever manage to impose a value-added tax on the United States, the statists will have won a giant victory and it will be much harder to restrain big government.

But you don’t have to believe me. Folks on the left openly admit that a VAT is necessary to…

View original 1,184 more words

Donald Trump won’t rule out religious identification cards

November 19, 2015
Fine as long as the mouth stays shut

Fine as long as the mouth stays shut

No. Not just no, but Hell, no.

Yahoo News asked Trump whether his push for increased surveillance of American Muslims could include warrantless searches. He suggested he would consider a series of drastic measures.

“We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule,” Trump said. “And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.”

Yahoo News asked Trump whether this level of tracking might require registering Muslims in a database or giving them a form of special identification that noted their religion. He wouldn’t rule it out.

“We’re going to have to — we’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely,” Trump said when presented with the idea. “We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.”

This is the kind of crap that can only come from someone either woefully ignorant of History or suffering from a painfully tin ear.

I take a backseat to no one in my dislike for Islam and my wariness of jihad infiltration; I do not think we should be admitting Syrian refugees because, among other reasons, our ability to vet them for ties to jihadist groups has significant weaknesses. Just ask the FBI Director. To let them in is to take unconscionable risk with the safety of the American people.

But religious ID cards? Even to have that tossed out without immediately dismissing it, to include it in a range of reasonable possibilities, should disqualify him as a serious candidate for dog-catcher, let alone the presidency.

Not only is the idea offensive in itself (1), but I can already imagine the Democrats making hay out of this, whether he wins the nomination or not:

“We condemn the outrageous and racist suggestion of the Republican front-runner that Muslims should carry special identification.”

And picture Clinton, Obama, Wasserman-Schultz, Schumer, and every other Democrat intoning that over and over again in every venue they could find.  Imagine every single Jewish group in the US rightfully denouncing this, even if they loathe the Democrats’ treatment of Israel. Pity the poor serious Republican candidates who will likely have to answer question after question about what this moron said, rather than focusing on the crucial issues of the campaign.

Are we sure Donald Trump isn’t a deep-cover agent provocateur for the Democrats?

Via Jonah Goldberg, to whom I give the last word:

Now, I’ll bet Trump walks some of this back in the next 48 hours, just as he did with his initial call to admit Syrian refugees and other statements that have departed his posterior before his brain could catch them. But let’s be clear, getting the federal government involved in tracking and labeling citizens’ religious affiliations is abhorrent on the merits and a huge invitation to profound mischief down the road. Creating databases on all members of any religion is a terrible idea as well.


But I have little interest in going so far … that we actually resemble the straw men the Left has been screaming about all along.


(1) What else, Donald? Shall we make them wear green crescents on their clothing?


To defeat ISIS and the jihad, we need a successful climate-change conference. Really.

November 17, 2015
No way!!

Are you nuts??

I’m not sure what’s worse: that some moron could write such a smarmy, morally bankrupt piece of leftist, eco-warrior drivel, or that the author is French:

“However, people forget that the war that’s been declared on us is also psychological. The report released by ISIS to claim the massacre in Paris uses all the tools of conditioning and psychological manipulation: a turning of tables, presenting the Islamic State as a victim instead of an assassin, while promising to continue to spread terror, and criticizing policy makers for creating internal divisions– a criticism intended to bring about self-doubt.

“Our first response should be to understand this psychological tactic, so that we don’t allow them to win. No, we do not have to be guilt-tripped into fighting these barbaric groups that slit throats, rape, torture and kill innocent civilians in the most cowardly ways possible. No, our values are strong enough to refuse to sink to their level, and instead, to turn towards reinforcing national unity against their aggression. No, we do not doubt that enlightenment and democratic progress are strong enough to stand up to such behavior, which is sending us back to prehistoric times. No, we are not afraid, and it’s because we have no doubt that we will continue to live as we choose, and to defend the policies (1) that we believe to be essential.

You can almost see the progressive bogeyman forming in her mind: naturally, anyone advocating a robust, forceful, and yes violent response to ISIS’ massacre of hundred in Paris will, acting out of guilt, inevitably sink to the level of barbarity shown by these jihadist savages. The insulting moral equivalence aside, this is just delusional: modern Western militaries, while deploying awesome power, go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties when at all possible. And to imagine they would “sink to the level” of ISIS is to indulge in leftist fantasy worthy of The New Republic.

But wait! It gets better!

After this fool has warned us against being guilt-tripped into destroying maniacs who had just murdered hundreds (and want to kill far more), she offered up a better solution, one sure to end the jihad once and for all. What this crisis calls for is… (drum roll)

… a successful climate-change conference! We’re saved!!

Amongst these is the climate change issue, which will determine, in the long term, the survival of mankind, and, in the short term, the demographic balance. Because, contrary to what many people would say –especially those who are excited about averting the dangers that an agreement on climate change may pose for them– there are definitely several undeniable links between these barbaric and fascist acts by radical Islamists and the climate.

Lord, where do I begin? I… I can’t even.

Has climate change played a roll in the movement of peoples and been a cause of turmoil? Quite likely. I’m a bit of a geographical determinist when it comes to history and, sure, famine caused by a lack of rain could lead one group of people to attack another in order to take their more fertile land. I won’t claim that hasn’t ever happened.

But, not only is it cynically, foully exploitive of this former environment minister to use the atrocities in Paris to pump up the climate conference scheduled to take place there soon, but it ignores the far more real reason (2):

The attacks were the result of Muslims choosing to wage jihad against non-believers —as their religion demands— in return for great rewards (including sexual) when they reach Paradise, and not in some “acting out” against an imaginary carbon-dioxide demon.

Really, just how soul-dead and ideologically botoxed do you have to be to see hundreds of your countrymen murdered and think “I can use this to rally people to my fading cause and use it to boost my statist agenda!”

I’m surprised she isn’t a Bernie Sanders adviser.

via WUWT

(1) By the way, one means to spot the statist is when they prattle on about “defending policies,” not their country or their people or their civilization. Government is all that counts, baby.
(2) Come on, you all know what I think about anthropogenic climate change.



Another of @HillaryClinton’s many qualifications to be president: Confusion

November 16, 2015


Don’t take my word for it, Man, this comes straight from an email written by one of her top aides, Huma Abedin:

Abedin: Have you been going over her calls with her? So she knows singh is at 8? [India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh]
Hanley: She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard that she had an 8am call. Will go over with her
Abedin: Very imp to do that. She’s often confused.

“Hanley” is Monica Hanley, another aide to Clinton when she was Secretary of State. The email is part of a batch obtained by Judicial Watch and was written from Abedin’s address — you know, the private email server with laughable security Clinton operated at home and on which she illegally conducted government business. With messages like the ones quoted above from someone who knows her very well, I think we can see why Lady Macbeth didn’t want them revealed.

They certainly make me comfortable with the idea of an often-confused Hillary being in charge in a time of crisis. How about you?

via Byron York

(Video) Campaign finance reform is corruption

November 16, 2015

For Prager University, George Will explains how government regulation of political donations and even political speech (1) is nothing more that an incumbent protection act:

I honestly did not know the origins of campaign finance reform lay in Gene McCarthy insurgency against LBJ. But it shouldn’t surprise us that the Democratic Party, which Michael Walsh describes as a “criminal organization masquerading as a political party,” took the lead (2) in introducing this corruption into our political process.

(1) See, Citizens United.
(2) Sadly, Senator Feingold (D) found an old fool, Senator McCain (R), to create the bipartisan abomination known as McCain-Feingold.

Revenge of #KeystoneXL: labor union starts donating to Republicans

November 9, 2015
Feeling rejected.

Hates union jobs

Last Friday at the White House, President Obama finally did what he’s wanted to do for many years: kill the Keystone XL oil pipeline that would have safely carried Canadian crude to ports along the Gulf of Mexico.

In the process, he also killed prospects for tens of thousands of good-paying jobs on the pipeline itself and in supporting industries. Naturally, the relevant union is not happy. How unhappy are they?

They’re giving money to Republicans:

One of the nation’s largest unions accused President Obama of betraying workers and the labor movement by blocking the Keystone Pipeline and is backing up its rhetoric with campaign donations to Republicans.

The Laborers’ International Union of North America said that Obama’s bow to environmentalists meant that he was more concerned with “elitists” and “his legacy” than with helping workers provide for their families.

“President Obama today demonstrated that he cares more about kowtowing to green-collar elitists than he does about creating desperately needed, family-supporting, blue-collar jobs,”said Terry O’Sullivan, the union’s president, in a release following Obama’s Friday announcement.


LIUNA represents about 500,000 workers in the construction industry, one of the sectors hardest hit by the 2008 economic collapse. Keystone, which was expected to create 42,000 construction jobs, has been awaiting approval for about seven years. O’Sullivan said that Obama’s attempt to minimize job gains demonstrated his “utter disdain” for blue-collar workers.

Dear LIUNA members, and, indeed, private sector union members across the nation: the President and the Democrats have just sent you a message loud and clear — they prefer the money given by Green billionaires such as Tom Steyer and the Hollywood glitterati to your donations. They are willing to sacrifice your jobs to keep those people happy.

We on the Right do care, however. I’m not saying we’re likely to ever be best friends –we disagree over things like free trade and closed-shop collective bargaining, after all– but, here’s the thing: We want you to have jobs. Good ones.

We want the nation to prosper, and when you prosper, so does America. If the Canadians are still willing to do Keystone when a Republican comes to office in 2017, it will take us about 20 seconds to approve it — and other measures that get the government out of the way of job creation in the energy field and other industries.

When election day comes next November, pause for a moment and remember just who threw you under that oh-so-crowded bus.

And then vote your interests.

via Moe Lane

Most Transparent Administration Ever: No, you can’t see Obama’s emails to Hillary at her private address he didn’t know about

November 2, 2015

satire transparency

And no way was he looking at the address when he entered it or sent it, so he didn’t know, okay? Racist!

From Doug Powers writing at Michelle Malkin’s blog:

President Obama said previously he was unaware at the time Hillary Clinton was secretary of state that she used only a private email address. Now the White House is refusing to release emails between Obama and Hillary… the ones he sent to the email address he was unaware she used. It’s the kind of honesty and historic transparency we’ve come to expect.

Here’s one good, likely reason Obama doesn’t want those emails to come into the public eye:

Here’s what the Benghazi committee found in Thursday’s hearing. Two hours into Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan referred to an email Mrs. Clinton sent to her daughter, Chelsea, at 11:12 the night of the attack, or 45 minutes after the secretary of state had issued a statement blaming YouTube-inflamed mobs. Her email reads: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group.” Mrs. Clinton doesn’t hedge in the email; no “it seems” or “it appears.” She tells her daughter that on the anniversary of 9/11 an al Qaeda group assassinated four Americans.

We know Obama and Clinton talked by phone that night at around 10 PM, at about the same time she issued her infamous “It was that darned video’s fault!” statement, and 45 minutes before she told her daughter it was an Al Qaeda attack. Election Day was just a couple of months away, and Obama had staked a large portion of his claim to reelection on the assertion that “Al Qaeda was on the run.” In fact, for two full weeks after the night of the attack, he kept claiming falsely that the video was to blame — even in a speech to the UN General Assembly.

Now, do you think it possible any emails in that time period dealt with the events of that night and what public spin they should give? Coordinating stories, perhaps? Guess we’ll never know, since Hillary probably deleted them and Obama won’t give them up, and will likely delete them when he leaves office. (1)

Got to love that commitment to transparency.

(1) Oh, come on. We’re talking about a leftist who learned his political trade in Chicago! Of course he’ll delete them.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 16,492 other followers