Is Ron Paul a Coward?

Rep. Ron Paul, a soon-to-be presidential candidate known for opposing U.S. military intervention overseas, said if he were president, he would not have duplicated President Obama’s plan for taking out the man responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Paul plans to announce his candidacy Friday in New Hampshire, two sources told Fox News. Ahead of that announcement, he suggested in a radio interview Tuesday that the U.S. government could have worked with Pakistan to secure Usama bin Laden’s capture instead of unilaterally entering the country and killing him — despite concerns that the Pakistanis could have tipped him off.

“It was absolutely not necessary,” Paul said of the May 1 CIA-led Navy SEALs raid.

The Texas congressman questioned whether Obama could have gotten away with the operation if Usama bin Laden had been in a country other than Pakistan.

“What if he had been in a hotel in London?” Paul said on Newsradio 1040 WHO. “So would we have sent the … helicopters into London because they were afraid the information would get out? No, you don’t want to do that.”

Paul said the United States should have gone after bin Laden the same way it went after Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, by working with the Pakistan government.

“They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us,” Paul said, suggesting the same formula should have applied to bin Laden.

Though Paul is credited by some with inspiring the Tea Party movement, one faction of that movement was not happy with the comment.

“If there is any doubt that Ron Paul should not even get near the Oval Office, even on a tour of the White House, he has just revealed it,” Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips said on his website. “For a Congressman to say the raid to kill the man who is one of the greatest mass murderers of Americans in history was, ‘not necessary,’ is simply nuts.”

Read more here.

House Says No to Obama Dictatorship

The House of Representatives voted to open more of the nation’s oceans for oil and gas exploration on Thursday by a vote of 243 to 179.

The “Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act,” requires the Interior Department to set a production goal of three million barrels of oil per day for its 2012-2017 leasing plan.

In order to reach that target, the legislation requires the department to hold lease sales off the coast of Southern California, in the Arctic Ocean, off Alaska’s Bristol Bay, and in the Atlantic Ocean from Maine to North Carolina.

Republicans say that the bill, along with two other drilling measures passed earlier this month, would create 1.2 million jobs and lower the price of oil. The Congressional Budget Office says that the offshore lease sales would generate $800 million in revenue over ten years.

The Obama administration released a statement opposing the bill Wednesday. The White House argued that the proposal would undermine the current leasing process and mandate drilling leases without input from the affected states.

Catholic Cathedral in Cordova Spain; Muslims want to Pray there; multi religion now?

Catholic Cathedral in Cordova Spain; Muslims want to Pray there; multi religion now?.

This is a Catholic Church in Cordova,  Spain.  Sorry no Muslims allowed.  Take your mat or towel and go pray to that factitious person you claim to be allah and do your chant in another region.  There are symbols of crosses in that Church. This is a sacred to Catholics. They exercise the seven sacraments in that Church and the devote prayers to the Lord Jesus Christ, who died for our sins with the coming of the Holy Spirit.

Get the message Muslims, go away, turn to mecca in another place, conflict of interest prevails.

Another tax the rich idea

Democrats just won’t give up on this; especially during an election year. They know that people who might easily be talked into voting Democrat are, economically ignorant. The newest idea? A 3% surtax on all earned incomes higher than $1,000,000 per year.

There are about 139,960,580 tax payers with positive AGI in 2010. Only 0.2% of taxpayers earn a million dollars or more, meaning that there about 279,921 households will be target with this wonderful new bash-the-rich surtax. Let’s assume that all of these households earn pretty much around the $1 million mark (because let’s face it, there are a lot more people earning close to a million than close to a billion). With a 3% surtax on $1 million, that comes out to $30,000 for every household — assuming they earn $1 million – and that’s not considering any tax breaks that might get in the way. Multiply the number of households earning a million (279,921) by the surtax ($30,000) and you get 8,397,630,000 … so about $8 billion. How fast do we spend money does our bloated federal government spend in a day? Try $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day, and that means that the wonderful 3% surtax on the evil rich would bring in enough money to operate our government until just about dinner time on only one day.

Let’s really give the left a wet dream … let’s just tax all AGI above $1,000,000 at 100%. After all, nobody really “needs” more than a million a year, right? And after all, with the Dear Ruler in office, it’s all about from each according to their ability and to each according to their need. So let’s just take it all. And just how long would that run our government? About three days.

You should also consider the fact that many taxpayers will magically change their earning habits to bring that total under $1 million in order to escape the extra tax. But this isn’t about funding government … this is about stirring up class envy and trying to convince the dumb masses that what were facing is not a spending problem .. it’s simply a taxing problem, and all we have to do is get the evil rich to “pay their fair share” and everything will just be fine.

What if we just taxed the billionaires …. Not just taxed them but took away everything that they earned and made them sell all of their assets? From Investors Business Daily:

According to the Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August.

Also consider that the top 1% of taxpayers earned $1.6 trillion in 2010. These are households earning over $380,000 a year. Even if we took all of their wealth earned in 2010, we would be unable to fund our government for one year, as we will spend $3.7 trillion.

Senior Member of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood Seeks Egypt Presidency!

A senior member of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood unveiled a bid on Thursday, May 12, to run for the country’s presidential elections.

“I will run as an independent candidate in the coming presidential elections,” Abdel-Moneim Abul-Futuh told Reuters.

“I am not a member of any party now.”

A doctor by profession, Abul-Futuh, 60, is currently secretary-general of the Arab Doctors Union.

He holds an MA in hospital management and an LLM from Cairo University’s Faculty of Law.

Abul-Futuh is a member of the Brotherhood’s Shura Council, but not the 16-member governing body.

By unveiling his presidential bid, Abul-Futuh will join a long list of candidates for Egypt’s top post.

Leading among presidential hopefuls are outgoing Arab League chief Amr Moussa and former chief of the UN nuclear watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei.

A poll published on April 22 in the state-run Ahram newspaper showed Abul-Futuh and Moussa, with the highest voter support at 20 percent, while ElBaradei had 12 percent support.

Communists/Democrats: Spot the Difference

Here’s a Communist Party of Canada video from the recent General Election.

Can anyone distinguish the policy ideas presented here, from those of the US Democratic Party?

‘Cutting the cheese’ cuts bus rides for Canal Winchester students

Two Canal Winchester Middle School students were booted off the school bus last week for, well, passing gas.

James Nichols and Kristine Kuzora are upset that their son’s flatulence was designated as an obscene gesture by school officials.

Their 13-year-old son and another boy were on the school bus Thursday when they both experienced an emission. Children being children, the flatulence apparently caused a ruckus on the bus amid a flurry of laughs, jeers and lowering of windows, Nichols said.

Canal Winchester Middle School officials cited the boys for making an obscene gesture in violation of the student code of conduct in revoking their rides to school Friday.

The bus driver had warned the boys a few weeks ago after another joint gas attack, so they apparently were designated repeat offenders and handed one-day bus suspensions, Nichols said.

Nichols has a sense of humor about the incident but is amazed that his seventh-grader, Anthony, would be kicked off the bus for doing what comes naturally – and accidentally.

“It’s very laughable, that’s what it is,” he said yesterday.

He said the bus driver reported the boys to the vice principal, Daniel Senu-Oke, with whom he discussed the punishment.

Read more here.

%d bloggers like this: