[Breitbart] "Iranians are no threat to America in this country," said Ann Coulter during a Wednesday interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with host Rebecca Mansour and special guest host John Hayward, adding a warning of "30,000 Americans dying on American soil every year because of our neighbor to the south."
Mansour invited Coulter’s ranking of national security threats in the context of recent developments in Iran and Iraq, asking which country poses the greatest danger to America.
Thirty thousand Americans die every year as a result of border insecurity, stated Coulter, pointing to drug overdoses via substances smuggled across the southern border, fatal drunk driving accidents caused by illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. via Mexico, and Mexican drug cartel gang killings.
Coulter said, "I’m thinking national security must have something to do with keeping Americans alive, and yeah, that award would go to Mexico. On my very, very, very conservative estimate of heroin deaths, fentanyl deaths, methamphetamine deaths ‐ of the heroin, fentanyl, and methamphetamine coming [and] being brought to us by our neighbor on the south, Mexico ‐ drunk driving accidents ‐ again, very, very conservative estimate of how many deaths are attributable to drunk driving by Hispanics, either Mexicans themselves or those who have had safe passage through Mexico to our southern border and into our country ‐ and throw in the handful of gang killings, of Los Zetas, of the cartel killings, the occasional mass murder by Mexicans, and you get to 30,000 Americans dying on American soil every year because of our neighbor to the south."
#1
Unfortunately, whack jobs like coulter just give the gimmiegration scam legitimacy in the eyes of many.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
01/10/2020 10:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I support what Trump is doing in Iran; my only concern will be if all his bandwith gets sucked up by foreign affairs, and the Aztlanization of America isn't stopped and reversed.
[Mild snark from Glenn Beaton]
[AspenBeat] Purported leaders of American culture such as leftish Hollywood types candidly hope for death to Trump. Sadly, I can write that sentence without the metaphor-marking quotation marks around the two operative words. They are not being metaphorical.
They even fantasize about the mechanism of death to Trump. There’s beheading, shooting, burning alive, burying alive, exploding his head and, well, you get the idea.
Until they can effectuate their fatal fetish, the left name-calls Trump’s son "autistic" (even if he were, is that something to ridicule him and his parents about?), name-calls his wife a "whore" and name-calls citizens who vote for him "deplorables."
Even the Iranians don’t delightfully specify the mechanism for "death to" their enemies. In fact, Iranians now contend that their many "death to" slogans were not intended literally. And even the Iranians don’t generally name-call the wife and son of their opponents.
Normal people don't obsess about politicians. If so-and-so is a Bad Person, say so. But don't call him Genghis Mussolini Beelzebub. Don't try to convince normal people of good sense that one individual has the power to make mountains fall, to turn back the tides, to get inside our heads and mind-meld and mesmerize and hack our paper-based balloting system.
[Red State] Elizabeth Warren (shaking my head). She has earned a lot of pejorative names in recent years, but my favorite is "Fauxcahontas." How is it possible that the woman is apparently a serious Democrat presidential candidate after a lifetime of falsely passing herself off as someone of "Native American descent"? How does anybody take what she says seriously? Are rank-and-file Democrats that far gone? Why haven’t they demanded that she give her accumulated wealth away to the "poor" since it was gained under false pretenses?
Whenever I hear her screech in a public appearance, she reminds me of the caricature of the evil mother-in-law. I think of Endora from the ’60s/’70s sitcom "Bewitched" ‐ always meddling in stuff about which she knows nothing. Her strident and falsely earnest pronouncements about this and that are transparently politically-motivated and nonsensical. Let’s look at some of her recent public statements and activities:
She is all-in on the Green New Deal; it perfectly aligns with her socialist economics (an oxymoron if there ever was one). We witnessed 50 years of false claims by climate alarmists, and she and the GND crazies want to turn the US and world economies upside-down:
#4
"How is it possible that the woman is apparently a serious Democrat presidential candidate after a lifetime of falsely passing herself off as someone of 'Native American descent'"?
Beta: How is it possible that the man is apparently a serious Democratic presidential candidate after years of falsely passing himself off as someone of Mexican descent?
Fartacus: How is it possible that the man is apparently a serious Democratic presidential candidate after recounting fictional conversations with an imaginary friend called "TBone" and characterizing himself as a Roman slave uprising leader?
KamalHo: How is it possible that this person is apparently a serious "progressive" Democratic presidential candidate after she fucked her way into political office, job investment for years as a Pacific Heights socialite, and then abused her prosecutorial power to jail innocent people and override clear evidence exonerating a man falsely convicted of murder?
Castro: How is it possible that the man is apparently a serious Democratic presidential candidate after calling for open borders and demanding access to abortion - for MEN?
Biden: How is it possible that the man is apparently a serious Democratic presidential candidate after years of blatant, obvious, self-admitted corrupt interference in Ukraine, of all places?
Sanders: How is it possible that the man is apparently a serious Democratic presidential candidate after FIFTY YEARS of achieving nothing - absolutely nothing - as a backbencher socialist and mayor of a shitty little town in Vermont?
Buttfug: How is it possible that the man is apparently a serious Democratic presidential candidate after zero experience on the national stage?
[Babylon Bee] A gleeful Joy Behar reported to the audience of The View the startling revelation that Adolf Hitler never voted for Trump, causing the crowd to cheer wildly.
"This just in: it seems that Adolf Hitler never voted for Donald Trump!" Behar cried in ecstasy, causing the crowd to begin screaming in rapturous joy. "Shove that in your pipe and smoke it, bad orange man! Ha! You can't even get an evil Nazi dictator to fall for your shenanigans."
The studio audience chanted enthusiastically: "Adolf! Adolf! Adolf!" and held up signs with swastikas on them, overjoyed to discover that Adolf Hitler never once announced his public support for Trump's campaign.
"If it means owning Donald Trump, sure, I'll side with the Nazis," Behar said later.
WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - The idea of imposing a wealth tax on the richest Americans has elicited sharply divergent views across a spectrum of politicians, with President Donald Trump branding it socialist and progressive Democratic presidential contenders Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders prominently endorsing it.
But it may have broad public support, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that found nearly two-thirds of respondents agree that the very rich should pay more.
Among the 4,441 respondents to the poll, 64% strongly or somewhat agreed that "the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs" - the essence of a wealth tax. Results were similar across gender, race and household income. While support among Democrats was stronger, at 77%, a majority of Republicans, 53%, also agreed with the idea.
A wealth tax is levied on an individual’s net worth, such as stocks, bonds and real estate, as well as cash holdings, similar in concept to property taxes. It is separate from an income tax, which applies to wages, interest and dividends, among other sources.
Asked in the poll if "the very rich should be allowed to keep the money they have, even if that means increasing inequality," 54% of respondents disagreed.
It's always easy to spend other people's money. How's that working in CA and NY? The more you seek to steal, the more they'll seek to keep as both of you corrupt the system to do so.
#3
Personally, I favour capitalist taxes .i.e. Paying for government product at the market rate. Government's product is called title and it's mostly given away at far below value. To the establishment's great accumulation.
#4
how about wealth tax on the assholes in congress since they inexplicably become multi-millionaires with a relatively upper middle class salary.
turn 'serving' the people back into a hardship that was undertaken by those who were already accomplished in other areas of life, instead hollywood for ugly people
Posted by: Bob Grorong1136 ||
01/10/2020 7:36 Comments ||
Top||
#5
lessee - Bloomberg, Steyer, Bezos, Soros.... I could perhaps be persuaded.....
#7
How about importing billionaires instead of welfare immigrants? Anyone (within reason) with a billion $ to invest in America automatically gets automatic citizenship. Let their dollars compete for American workers instead of American workers competing with 1+ million new immigrants every year for limited investment dollars.
#8
Lemme see - we have a top marginal Federal tax rate of 37% which is levied on taxable incomes over $510,000 to which additional taxes may / will be assessed, like the Alternative Minimum Tax (which enforces a 26% effective tax rate), the Net Investment Income Tax (3.8% additional tax on certain incomes) and the Additional Medicare Tax (.9% additional tax on certain incomes). This, of course, leaves out state and local income tax levies.
Reuters - in what manner do we not already have a 'wealth tax', albeit an indirect one?
#9
The problem I've got with this is that it creates a whole new taxing mechanism. And once you turn that tiger loose there's no particular reason to assume that it will only eat what I think of as "the richest." It's not hard to imagine a future Dem Congress defining "the richest" to mean "Republican with $2 in his pocket."
If you take it a step further and require stocks and other assets to be marked-to-market annually for tax purposes, there lies madness.
Posted by: Matt ||
01/10/2020 11:28 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Fools. The French tried this recently and it was such a failure that the French scrapped it altogether.
#11
require stocks and other assets to be marked-to-market annually for tax purposes
I'm afraid that may exercise happen sooner rather than later.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
01/10/2020 11:38 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Along with 'nationalization' of 401Ks and other personal retirement plans.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
01/10/2020 11:39 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Thou shall not covet
You wouldn't have the Democrat Party without covetousness and all the larceny that comes with it.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
01/10/2020 12:04 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I wonder how many would been in favor if they were told, "Oh, by the way, in five years there's a 67% chance you will be considered 'very rich'?"
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/10/2020 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#15
#12 - spot on!
"Your retirement savings/pension/severance? You didn't build that! We need those 'investments' so you can have a reduced happy secure retirement under the New Social Security™"
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/10/2020 12:18 Comments ||
Top||
#16
The French tried this recently and it was such a failure that the French scrapped it altogether.
What do you expect from people who gave you the phrase "Real Socialism was never tried"?
#18
I wouldn't mind paying a bit more....if I knew the money was going to a worthy cause, not just pi**ed away like most of what we've already sent our Washington masters.
#19
^ Me neither, but this is not theoretical... we have real experience now, derived from California's ruinously high taxes. The result: the formerly world-class higher educational system in the state has gone downhill, the energy infrastructure is a joke, the roads aren't maintained, and the state has either failed utterly to move forward with new, large-scale infrastructure projects (e.g. de-salinization plants) or else thrown away billions on idiotic projects such as the Train to Nowhere.
We have seen the future of wealth tax / super-high income tax America.
#21
Skid (or anyone else) - if you're self-employed, you go to your state's Secretary of State's office and file Articles of Organization (fee in MA is $200) with some unique corporate name. Then go to the IRS and get an EIN (Employer's ID number) using the corporation's information (name & address). Take all that paperwork to your bank and open up a corporate checking account (in the corporation's name, of course). That's it.
Annual reports are then filed, well, annually. in MA the fee is $109 per annum.
Next step - file IRS Form 2553 with the IRS as soon as you can. This is a request for the corporation's shareholders to be taxed at the individual level, where (in general) tax rates are lower, and the individual's income is only subject to regular income tax, not the self-employment tax which is an additional (approx.) 14.2% of tax on that income. I saved one client $20K doing that.
Send an e-mail if you need anything else, or just ask on this / some other thread.
[American Thinker] Susan Rice was a little less ubiquitous this time around than during her infamous five-talk-show world tour repeating the lie that the Benghazi terrorist attack was the fault of an inflammatory video and not due to the criminal negligence of President Barack Hussein Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. But there she was again on MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Comedy Hour" defending her former boss, this time against charges that President Trump cleaned up more of Obama’s Iran mess by terminating the life and reign of terror of Iranian Gen. and Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani:
The Obama administration wasn't presented with the opportunity to take out Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who was killed by a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad early Friday, former national security adviser Susan Rice said Friday night.
"Had we been presented such an opportunity, what we would have done is weigh very carefully and very deliberately the risks versus the potential rewards," Rice told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow....
Rice questioned whether Trump made the right decision.
"So, if in fact the administration can be believed that there was indeed strong intelligence of an imminent threat against the United States that's being carried out by Soleimani and related militia then the question becomes [was] there more than one way to address that threat?" she told Maddow. "Was the only way to deal with it to kill Soleimani? Certainly, given his history and track record, he deserves his just rewards but the question is does that serve our interests? Does that make us more secure?"
Uh, yes it does, Susan. The Trump administration is certainly more believable than you and the Obama administration was in explaining why four Americans were abandoned to die in Benghazi, including Amb. Christopher Stevens. Because Trump killed Soleimani, the American embassy did not turn into another Obama-Clinton-Rice Benghazi tragedy.
The "reward" is that Soleimani can no longer ply his murderous trade and the families of the 600-plus Americans killed by his explosively-formed-penetrators can take some solace in his occupation of a special place in Hell. Those maimed by this butcher can take heart in that not enough pieces of him were found to have an open casket. And what were the risks? That those shouting "Death to America!" might try to kill us?
According to a 2018 report in the Daily Beast, Obama launched 186 drone strikes in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan during just his first two years in office. If he wanted to, he could have found and killed him. He killed Osama bin Laden, and took credit for it, even though the legwork was done by the preceding Bush administration. Osama bin Laden was killed while Obama was president, not because he was president
Obama didn't want to kill Soleimani. He wanted the nuclear deal sellout with Iran, and killing Iran's Quds Force commanding general would not have advance the deal. Better for Obama to release $150 billion to the Iranians and fly in some $1.8 billion in cash and drop it on an Iranian tarmac in the middle of the night. Quid pro quo, anyone? Obama not only didn’t pursue Soleimani as a matter of policy, he provided Soleimani and Iran with a terrorist-and-weapons slush fund to play with.
The Obama administration actually killed a chance to get Soleimani in a move unbelievably callous and self-serving. As TownHall reports:
According to a January 2018 report from the Israel newspaper Haaretz, leaders in Israel were prepared to kill Soleimani back in 2015 but the Obama administration put an end to the plan. Just as Israel was "on the verge" of killing Soleimani, the Obama administration alerted Iranian officials about Israel's plans and their close tracking of the military leader....
It really isn't that surprising to learn that the Obama administration intervened to keep Soleimani alive. President Barack Obama never stood by Israel even though the country is considered the United States' greatest ally in the Middle East.
Tyler O'Neil at PJ Media noted an important tidbit about the revelation: "Yet the news that the Obama's administration prevented Israel from assassinating the Quds Force leader seems particularly significant, since the Obama administration also kept a list of approximately 500 American soldiers who were murdered by Iranian IEDs. Since the Quds Force spearheads Iran's operations outside the Islamic Republic, Soleimani would arguably be responsible for all of those deaths."
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/10/2020 07:09 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran Proxies
#1
Surreal. The people who helped bankroll Suleimani criticizing DJT for "making us less secure" - by taking out Suleimani.
Is there any more evidence needed that Zero and his crew were determined to aid and abet Iran?
#2
These people need to just be honest: they hated Netanyahu and Israel, and they downplayed the threat posed to our interests by an imperialist Iran.
Their sympathies were obviously with Israel's antagonists, and their strategic calculus was that Islamic Iran was a useful counterweight to Israel in the region. What foolishness.
Their stupidity and incompetence are mind-boggling. They should STFU and exit the public square now.
We really need to see the offshore money flows related to the billions these fools sent to Iran.
I want to know which Swiss bank accounts are owned by the Iranian Foreign Minister and his crew, -- as well as any that Kerry, Rice and their family members own - and how much has flowed into them during the last 5-6 years.
[JPost] - The United States learned the "kindergarten lesson" this week, something Israel has sharpened and perfected over the years in the way it formulates policy.
It goes something like this: if Hamas fires a rocket but it doesn’t hurt anyone then there is no reason to retaliate aggressively.
What’s the "kindergarten lesson?" Since everyone knows that if a rocket were to hit a kindergarten in Sderot, Kfar Aza or somewhere else along the southern border and cause extensive casualties, Israel would have no choice but to launch a large-scale military offensive. As long as that doesn’t happen though, Israel doesn’t have to.
The problem is that this is no way to formulate policy. If rocket fire is a threat, then it needs to be dealt with whether the rockets hit and hurt someone or don’t. A government shouldn’t wait for people to be killed before dealing with a threat. That is not a strategy.
A variation of this played out on Wednesday morning, when Iran fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at bases that house US soldiers in Iraq.
While satellite footage showed damage at the al-Assad airbase, no US military personnel were injured or killed. Donald Trump made a point of stressing this in his speech at the White House the following afternoon, explaining why he was holding his fire, for now.
What that means though, is that if a barracks had been hit, and a number of soldiers had been killed, the response would have had to be different.
Is this a way to formulate strategy? Probably not.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru ||
01/10/2020 06:42 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Is this a way to formulate strategy?
Old as the bible - an eye for eye, a tooth for a tooth, a brother for a brother. (adding the NYC descriptive "in spades")
#2
Iran is being dealt with thru diplomatic and economic measures as well as cyber activity and espionage.
If results can be achieved that way, why not?
Posted by: lord garth ||
01/10/2020 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Sometimes letting the opponent save face and back down is a better option than continued escalation. Only time will tell if this was one of those times.
[American Thinker] Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau is saying out loud what others have been thinking since the news broke that Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 crashed soon after taking off from the airport in Tehran ‐ namely, that "the plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile," likely unintentionally.
According to the New York Times, American officials also had a "high level of confidence" that the Iranians destroyed the airliner by mistake. One official specifically cited two SA-15 missiles fired from an Iranian air defense system.
If Trudeau proves right, this will not be the first time an anxious military accidentally shot down a non-threatening commercial aircraft. On July 17, 1996, a comparable missile strike destroyed TWA 800 off the coast of Long Island shortly after the Boeing 747 took off from JFK.
We know why the Iranians were antsy earlier this week. Their military fired off multiple missiles late Tuesday night at American targets and were likely expecting retaliation. On July 17, 1996, the American military had reason to be on edge as well.
Two days before the start of the Atlanta Olympics, the Clinton administration had the U.S. Navy on the highest state of alert since the Cuban Missile crisis. In this hair-trigger environment, accidents could happen.
Accidents had happened before in such an environment. On July 3, 1988, at the tail end of the Iran-Iraq War, an Aegis cruiser in the Persian Gulf, the USS Vincennes, fired two Standard Missiles at a commercial Iranian Airbus, IR 655.
IR 655 had reached 13,500 feet, a final altitude almost identical to TWA 800's, when Capt. Will Rogers III gave the order to fire. Rogers and his crew had mistaken the ascending passenger jet with 290 people on board for a descending Iranian F-14, a fighter plane.
With the media's help, the truth about the Vincennes ultimately surfaced. With the media's help, the truth about TWA 800 was successfully buried, but here is what we have been able to dig up.
CNN Breaking - Susan Rice reports Tehran crash ruled 'pilot error.' Russian Tor AAA missile found at Ukraine crash site was being returned to Russia for routine maintenance.
[Zeihan.com] It isn’t every day you can say a missile strike means things are calming down, but hey, it’s the Middle East. The rules are different.
Overnight Jan 2-3 the United States killed Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s go-to guy for using paramilitary tactics to spread Iranian influence throughout the Middle East. As Soleimani was the lynchpin for much of Iran’s regional strategy, Iran immediately swore revenge. According to Iranian state media, that revenge began last night (overnight Jan 7-8) when the Iranians sent a few missile barrages into Iraq, ostensibly targeting US troops.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Herb McCoy ||
01/10/2020 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
[American Thinker] - For the West to live, equality must die. By the latter, I mean equality dogma, and a recent video I stumbled across again brought this issue to mind. It was part of an intersex wage-gap discussion that took place in Australia last year among renowned Canadian psychology professor Jordan Peterson, Labor Party politician Terri Butler, and other individuals on a program called Q&A. While as usual Peterson made good points and deserves credit for suffering fools gladly, a more fundamental problem should be addressed: Why assume that "equality" is any kind of good at all?
#1
Why assume that "equality" is any kind of good at all?
Mother nature doesn't. Then again, the same people who scream the science is settled and save Mother Gaia, don't care about truly natural aspects of evolution. Hint - its all about power.
#4
Equality under (God's) law has always been the bedrock of Judaeo-Christian civilization.
Try living for a while in one of the many societies that do not enshrine equality under law, and you'll start to appreciate our culture's commitment to due process, equal treatment and equal opportunity.
Which of course are not synonymous with equal outcomes.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Mild snark from Glenn Beaton]
[Red State] Elizabeth Warren (shaking my head). She has earned a lot of pejorative names in recent years, but my favorite is "Fauxcahontas." How is it possible that the woman is apparently a serious Democrat presidential candidate after a lifetime of falsely passing herself off as someone of "Native American descent"? How does anybody take what she says seriously? Are rank-and-file Democrats that far gone? Why haven’t they demanded that she give her accumulated wealth away to the "poor" since it was gained under false pretenses?
[Babylon Bee] A gleeful Joy Behar reported to the audience of The View the startling revelation that Adolf Hitler never voted for Trump, causing the crowd to cheer wildly.
[American Thinker] Susan Rice was a little less ubiquitous this time around than during her infamous five-talk-show world tour repeating the lie that the Benghazi terrorist attack was the fault of an inflammatory video and not due to the criminal negligence of President Barack Hussein Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. But there she was again on MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Comedy Hour" defending her former boss, this time against charges that President Trump cleaned up more of Obama’s Iran mess by terminating the life and reign of terror of Iranian Gen. and Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani:
[American Thinker] Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau is saying out loud what others have been thinking since the news broke that Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 crashed soon after taking off from the airport in Tehran ‐ namely, that "the plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile," likely unintentionally.
