The Department of Homeland Security has received complaints about “repeated handcuffing, brandishing of weapons, prolonged detentions, invasive and humiliating body searches and inappropriate questioning …” No, none of these accounts are describing the TSA and what it does to every man, woman and child on a daily basis at our airports. These complaints have been filed by the Council on American Islamic Relations over several alleged incidents at the U.S.-Canadian border. CAIR is upset that Muslims are being targeted at the border because of their background or appearance, and the Department of Homeland Security is so upset by this that they are going to launch an investigation into … the federal agents at U.S.-Canadian border crossings! The complaints include incidents that took place at the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit and others in the Detroit/Dearborn area, comprising the largest Muslim population in the United States. CAIR is upset that agents were apparently even asking people about their prayer schedules.
So now we have the Obama administration investigating CIA interrogators over their interrogation techniques and we have an investigation into border agents who are profiling Muslims entering into Detroit.
Remember … CAIR has close ties to Muslim terrorist organizations. If CAIR would spend as much time condemning Islamic terrorism as it does slamming our efforts to protect ourselves from murdering Muslim goons we might not have to ask probing questions of Muslims at our borders. In the meantime .. until this “kill Americans wherever you find them” nonsense ends, keep up the pressure.
There is a talking point floating around the Lib/Prog community right now about Social Security. After Friday’s report that Social Security will take in less than it is paying out in 2011 … liberals immediately moved to justify their Ponzi scheme, and this is what they’ve come up with: “Those who say that Social Security is in deficit this year are flat wrong,” said Nancy Altman, co-chair of Strengthen Social Security, in a Friday statement. “By law, Social Security cannot deficit-spend and cannot borrow, so it is obvious that Social Security cannot add a penny to the federal deficit.”
OK … let’s see if we can adequately explain why this is purified moose squeeze.
First of all … while there is a Social Security Trust Fund, that fund is not anything like you would imagine it to be. Most Americans think that the taxes they have been paying all these years have actually been set aside or invested somehow to be used later for the payment of Social Security benefits. For many years this is exactly what was happening; there was actual money in the SS trust fund. But as government grew and the political appetite for more money started to grow, the politicians started eyeing this money. They knew that a big hunk of the Social Security taxes that were being collected would have to be spent on actual Social Security benefits. But what about the rest of the cash? Let’s take that cash and spend it on our various vote-buying programs! Why let it sit there, or why let the Social Security Administration invest it? That money can equal votes — so let’s go get it! And get it they did. For decades now Republicans and Democrats have been taking this money to be used on their spending programs and leaving IOUs behind for the Social Security Administration. Essentially, the politicians were telling the Social Security administrators that when they actually needed that money back to pay benefits all they had to do is present their IOUs (Treasury bonds) to us and we’ll give you the money you need to pay benefits.
Well here we are. The Social Security folks will owe more in benefits this year than Social Security will be receiving in Social Security taxes. This does not technically mean that Social Security is broke or that it has to borrow money. It is not and it does not. What Social Security DOES have to do is present IOUs to the federal government for payment; and as we know the federal government simply does not have the money to honor those IOUs. So what’s next? It’s the federal government, not Social Security, that has to borrow the money to honor the IOUs it has been giving to Social Security over the years. So this gives the Democrats, the progs, the libs and the various defenders of the Social Security Ponzi scheme the ability totally cloud the issue by saying that Social Security isn’t adding to the deficit. They’re right. It’s the federal government that has to borrow money, and therefore add to the deficit, in order to pay off the IOUs it has been giving to Social Security all those years.
Harry Reid and his Democrat counterparts in the Senate are set on eliminating oil subsidies from the five biggest oil companies. Why? The real motivation here is nothing less than the promotion of class and wealth envy. Reid says, “We have to do something about the exorbitant gas prices, and the best way to start with that is to do something about the five big oil companies getting subsidies they don’t need.” Never mind that eliminating all oil subsidies would generate enough revenue to run our government for about 10 hours. Even the experts are now coming out and saying that eliminating these subsidies will have zero effect on gas prices. Senior Vice President of the Institute for Energy Research Dan Kish told CNSNews.com, eliminating tax write-offs for oil companies will not have any effect on gas prices. But it makes no difference. Harry Reid tried last night to get his vote passed in the Senate. He failed. But have no fear! Reid says that he will include the repeal of these subsidies in budget negotiations later this year. Can’t wait.
Just as a reminder, where are these high gas prices coming from? Maybe Harry Reid should look in the mirror. Taxes and government regulation add far more to the price of gasoline than evil oil company profits. Take a look at the stats from the American Thinker:
Understand where our money goes when we fill up at our corner station. Oil company profit is one place: the after-tax profits earned by the most successful oil companies in America works out to about 8-9% of revenues. That’s 8 cents of every dollar we spend at the pump, and it’s been much lower in years when prices are squeezed by too much supply …
The senators standing in front of the gas station would have you think such profit is the biggest chunk of your purchase price — but it isn’t even close. The taxes on gasoline at retail amount to a national average of 47 cents per gallon (including federal taxes of 18 cents, state and local taxes of 18 cents, and sales/other taxes at retail of more than 10 cents). And before taxpayers have paid that princely sum (to people who haven’t invested a penny to produce the product), the operating profits of the explorers are taxed at 34% — which is always passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. States get into the act here too, taxing the retailers’ profits after taxing the product at the pump. And let’s not forget the other costs that drive up the gallon price, such as drilling restrictions that force explorers 5 miles deep under the ocean, transportation regulations and taxes, refining regulations, licenses, leases, and myriads of others.
This demonization of “Big Oil” is exactly what you would expect from Democrats. Remember, the Democrat mantra is that anything government is good, and anything private sector is bad. Oil companies are private sector entities and therefore are great fodder for any leftist hack who wants to demonize free markets and the private sector in favor of an ever-bigger federal government.