Black People are too Ignorant for Me, I Need a New Race

Warning: Explicit Language

Worth 1000 Words...

Chuck Woolery on Budget Cuts

US Debt Visualized

One Hundred Dollars

$100 - Most counterfeited money denomination in the world.

Keeps the world moving.

Ten Thousand Dollars

$10,000 - Enough for a great vacation or to buy a used car.
Approximately one year of work for the average human on earth.

One Million Dollars

$1,000,000 - Not as big of a pile as you thought, huh?
Still this is 92 years of work for the average human on earth.

One Hundred Million Dollars

$100,000,000 - Plenty to go around for everyone.
Fits nicely on an ISO / Military standard sized pallet.

One Billion Dollars

$1,000,000,000 - You will need some help when robbing the bank.
Now we are getting serious!

One Trillion Dollars

$1,000,000,000,000 - When the U.S government speaks about a 1.7 trillion deficit - this is the volumes of cash the U.S. Government borrowed in 2010 to run itself.
 Keep in mind it is double stacked pallets of $100 million dollars each, full of $100 dollar bills. You are going to need a lot of trucks to freight this around. If you spent $1 million a day since Jesus was born, you would have not spent $1 trillion by now...but ~$700 billion - same amount the banks got during bailout.

One Trillion Dollars

Comparison of $1,000,000,000,000 dollars to a standard sized American Football field and European Football field.
Say hello to the Boeing 747-400 transcontinental airliner that's hiding on the right. This was until recently the biggest passenger plane in the world.

15 Trillion Dollars

$15,000,000,000,000- Unless the U.S. government fixes the budget, US national debt (credit card bill) will topple 15 trillion by Christmas 2011.
 The Statue of Liberty seems rather worried as United States national debt passes 20% of the entire world's combined GDP (Gross Domestic Product). 
In 2011 the National Debt will exceed 100% of GDP, and venture into the 100%+ debt-to-GDP ratio that the European PIIGS have (bankrupting nations).

114.5 Trillion Dollars

$114,500,000,000,000 - US unfunded liabilities.
To the right you can see the pillar of cold hard $100 bills that dwarfs the 
WTC & Empire State Building - both at one point the world's tallest buildings.
 If you look carefully you can see the Statue of Liberty.
The 114.5 Trillion dollar super-skyscraper is the amount of money the U.S. Government 
knows it does not have to fully fund the Medicare, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, 
Social Security, Military and civil servant pensions. It is the money the USA knows it will not 
have to pay all its bills.
If you live in the USA, this is also your personal credit card bill; you are responsible along with 
everyone else to pay this back. The citizens of the USA created the U.S. Government to serve
 them, this is what the U.S. Government has done while serving The People.
The unfunded liability is calculated on current tax and funding inputs, and future demographic 
shifts in US Population.
Note: On the above 114.5T image the size of the base of the money pile is half a trillion, not 1T as on the 15T image. 
The height is double. This was done to reflect the base of Empire State and WTC more closely.
Everyone needs to see this.
Source: Federal Reserve & www.USdebtclock.org - visit it to see the debt in real time and get a better grasp of this amazing number.

A Home Builder Who Uses Only American Made Supplies

Economic Freedom of North America

Economic Freedom of North America is an attempt to gauge the extent of the restrictions on economic freedom imposed by governments in North America. The index published here measures economic freedom at two levels, the subnational and the all-government. At the subnational level, it measures the impact on economic freedom of provincial and municipal governments in Canada and of state and local governments in the United States. At the all-government level, it measures the impact of all levels of government—federal, provincial/state, and municipal/local—in Canada and the United States. All 10 provinces and 50 states are included.

Click Here To View Full Report...

Say Merry Christmas! (No More Politically Correct BS!)

Watch the whole video to see where it's going...

Protester defaces U.S. flag as Democrats celebrate Communism

by Robert Moon

The violent, degenerate lawlessness of the left's fake union rent-a-mobs (see here, here and here) hysterically rioting against Wall Street all across the country have not been enough to deter the Democratic Party from enthusiastically endorsing their openly Communist agenda any more than their bigoted racial attacks on anyone who dares to support the free market and the Constitution.

And neither has the fact that this entire Astro-turf "movement" is based on two outrageous partisan lies--one about why the economy tanked in the first place and the other about how much "the rich" (those who create all the jobs in this country) pay in taxes, compared to everyone else. But you would think that once they began defecating on police cars and even U.S. flags (see photo), Democrats in office would at least temporarily put the slobbering love affair on hold.

You would be mistaken. When Democrat power is on the line, there is nothing these "post-partisan" champions of "civility" and "tolerance" won't throw under the bus. Nothing.

Unions, Hollywood celebrities, the "news media" and even elected Democrats including Obama and Pelosi continue not only defending, lying for and publicly embracing these tantrum-throwing Marxist fanatics, but now they are even calling them "patriotic" and organizing petitions to support them.

Leftist mobs rioting in the streets against job-creators for daring to succeed and make money. Welcome to "the change we need."

Read More...

The Socialist Occupy Wall Street mob invades Oakland, CA

Plastic Bag Bans Are Bad for the Environment

The past several years have seen a groundswell of regulations on plastics, particularly plastic bags and cups and food containers made from polystyrene or Styrofoam. Supporters of these bans mostly claim that such policies promote environmental protection, when in reality they carry considerable environmental tradeoffs and impose needless burdens on consumers and economic growth, says Angela Logomasini, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Plastic bags generate 39 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than regular paper bags and require only 6 percent of the water necessary to make paper bags. Simultaneously, they consume 71 percent less energy during production than paper bags and produce one-fifth the amount of solid waste. Similarly, reusable bags are only more environmentally friendly than plastic bags if they are used 103 times, yet on average they are used only 51 times before they are thrown away. A comparison of the environmental impacts of plastic cups with paper alternatives yielded similar results, with plastic causing 50 percent less solid waste by volume.

Much of the craze that has inspired frivolous and counterproductive environmental bans stems from news stories that emphasize the negative impacts of excessive pollution and littering. Specifically, numerous references are made by environmental blogs and activists to the infamous garbage "island" in the Pacific -- a giant trash heap that is "twice the size of Texas." However, researchers have debunked much of the hype regarding this "island" by showing that no such island exists. Regardless, concerns about littering should not provoke environmental bans -- they should provoke greater public support of antilittering movements, says Logomasini.

Read More...

Ann Barnhardt Burns Quran - One Page At A Time...

Gene Simmons: “Capitalism is the best thing that ever happened"

'Debt crisis like fat people blaming bakers'

by Gene Simmons

THE first thing I would do if I was the benevolent dictator of planet Earth would be to fire all politicians — who are basically university lecturers in positions of power.

They might be able to quote the existential philosophers but that doesn't mean they know how to run businesses.

Countries are businesses — they have imports and exports and you want your exports to be higher than your imports so you can have a profit.

You want to make sure that whatever money you give out to your population is money that you can afford to send out.

Countries are a house of cards — and when the bottom few cards fall down they all topple over. Look at Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy.

If businessmen ran the country, this wouldn't happen. Richard Branson would make a great PM. He's more qualified.

Government makes money by taxing and spending.

It's so simple. If you spend more than you tax, you're out of business. MPs don't know what they're talking about.

And we created this miserable economic state. It's like fat people who think it's the bakery's fault they got fat.

No, you kept going in there and you kept eating cake. It's not the bakery's responsibility to tell you to slow down.

Banks shouldn't have to tell you not to borrow so much.

They're banks — they're supposed to lend you money. If you can't afford to take out £100,000, don't take out a £400,000 mortgage.

It's your responsibility to be a grown-up and take care of yourself.

Thank God we have lending institutions and banks. The planes that fly through the sky, the phones we use every day, the cars we drive, the houses we live in, the entire economy is all funded by firms who borrow in return for interest.

This mess is our fault — corporations have no responsibility.

Capitalism is the best thing that ever happened to human beings. The welfare state sounds wonderful but it doesn't work.

Governments hand out more money than they have to support welfare and they land in debt.

Then they have to borrow money — and then there's interest on top of that.

That's bad business. And it has created a culture of entitlement.

When I was growing up my mother went to work. There was no welfare. If you worked, you made money.

If you didn't work, you had to figure it out — you'd go and wash dishes.

The new breed of 20-year-olds don't want to do those jobs.

So people from other countries come over and are thrilled to get the chance to wipe the floors.

Kiss are the only business-savvy band about and I make no apologies for that.

We outsell The Beatles and Elvis put together.

People say things like: "Oh, you make so much money. What do you need any more for?"

Well, actually, I never asked for your opinion. I'll let you know when I have enough money.

Occupy Wall Street Protester Interview

TSA Checkpoints Now on Tennessee Interstate Highways

Anti-Semitic Protester at Occupy Wall Street

Are the Gospels Reliable Witnesses?

Serena Williams - Spoiled Rotten Loser

The US Open once again proved itself as one of the most theatrical stages in sports last night during the women's semifinals where Serena Williams saw her chances for repeating as champion ended after losing her cool and going off on a line judge. After Serena became upset at the judge's unexpected call for a foot fault, she pointed at the official and yelled, "I swear to God, I'm f*ckin' takin' this ball and shovin' it in(?) your f*ckin' throat… I swear to God." As if the outburst wasn't sensational enough, Williams then got docked for a penalty point (she had already received a warning after smashing her racket at the end of the first set) which couldn't have come at a worse time—match point. That meant that the confrontation would be the final point of the tournament for Williams, sent packing by Belgian Kim Clijsters. Here's the extended play of the whole string of events, that we imagine left Eli Manning doing a nervous gulp of his Oreo Double Stuff.



The Times calls Serena's flare-up "a shocking display of vitriol and profanity" and Mike Lupica's Sunday column really rails America's most dominant player in the sport these days, calling it "a shameful performance" and saying she "got exactly what she deserved." Williams did not win back any points for grace after the match, giving an unapologetic, nonchalant press conference saying she doesn't live her life with regrets. She also told reporters that "my idol was John McEnroe" and continues her on-court sentiment that "people have done way worse." She even defends herself that she had just been watching heated moments from Opens past in all the old matched\s being dug up by the networks and shown during the last two days of rain delays. (The media's glorification of violence strikes again!) The press conference, called by Lupica "a ridiculous, disingenuous performance" is after the jump.

Read More...

Agenda 21 For Dummies

Agenda 21: Sustainable Development or Total Control?

Premiums Up, Choices Down: The First Wave of Obamacare

by Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D.

Kaiser Family Foundation just released further bad news about the poorly named Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”). American families facing a bad economy, high unemployment, and crashing home values now get hit with another cost increase: higher health insurance premiums that are rising more every year.

Obama’s campaign focused on “hope and change,” but I suspect these winds of “change” are ones that most Americans did not “hope” for, did not want, and would like to escape.

Look at the bleak facts:

In 2011, the annual health insurance premium for a family of four was pushed above $15,000 for the first time ever.

The 2011 annual health insurance premium was 31% higher than 2006, and 113% higher than in 2001.

Health insurance premiums were 9% higher in 2011 than in 2010. And the media says there is no inflation? Did your income go up 9% from 2010 to 2011? Not for the vast majority of Americans!

Hurricane Irene wreaked visible damage all along the Eastern seaboard this fall. The damage from Obamacare’s extensive new mandates and regulations is less visible, but no less damaging to individuals, families, businesses, and our overall economy. At least we had warning that Hurricane Irene was coming and could take steps to prepare and protect ourselves. But we were falsely promised that the hurricane named Obamacare would lower costs, improve access to health insurance, and “protect patients.” Even in this earliest stage, with only a fraction of the mandates implemented, we are seeing massive damage.

Obamacare advocates like to blame the “greedy” insurance companies. But most of the blame for higher premiums is directly caused by the Obamacare first wave of mandates and regulations.

As of the fall of 2010, all insurance policies must:

keep adult “children” up to age 26 on parents’ policies,
provide “free” preventive care and screenings for everyone
cover pre-existing medical conditions for children

Adding this coverage unavoidably means the policy will have to cost more.

Obamacare regulations already control practically every decision a private insurance company can make. It is only going to get worse as government “medicrats” micromanage every single aspect of insurance coverage.

Read More...

A Short History of the Income Tax

Presidents Wilson (left) and Taft, fathers of the modern income tax

by John Steele Gordon

Whether the "millionaires and billionaires" are actually paying their fair share of taxes is a matter for the electorate to decide. After all, fairness is hardly an objective standard.

Before the modern era, however, the federal tax system was manifestly unfair by any reasonable standard, grossly biased in favor of the well off. Ironically, attempting to fix that unfairness is what has brought us to the present moment, with a federal tax system that is grotesquely complex, often arbitrary, and corrupted by mutual back-scratching between members of Congress and influential lobbyists.

After the Civil War, nearly all the wartime taxes—including the nation's first income tax—were repealed and the federal government relied mostly on the tariff for revenues. It provided the government with more than ample peacetime income. In 1882, the government had revenues of $403 million, but expenses were only $257 million, a staggering budget surplus of nearly 36%. The reason the tariff was so high was, ostensibly, to protect America's burgeoning industries from foreign competition.

Of course, the owners of those burgeoning industries—i.e., the rich—were greatly helped by the protection, which enabled them to charge higher prices and make greater profits than if they had had to face unbridled foreign competition.

But the tariff is a consumption tax, which is simply added to the price of the goods sold. And consumption taxes are inherently regressive. The poor, by definition, must spend all of their income on necessities and thus pay consumption taxes on all of their income. The rich, while living in luxury, bank most of their income and largely escape these types of taxes.

As the vast surpluses piled up in the Treasury, the political pressure to institute an income tax on the rich grew steadily. In 1894, with Democrat Grover Cleveland in the White House and Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, a federal income tax became law. The new tax, however, was very different from the Civil War income tax, which had exempted only the poor. The new one hit only the rich, imposing a 2% tax on incomes above $4,000. Less than 1% of American households in 1894 met that income threshold.

Needless to say, the tax was attacked in court, in a 1895 test case called Pollack v. Farmers' Loan & Trust. The case turned on the definition of a "direct tax," which the Constitution requires to be apportioned equally among the states according to population, something obviously impossible with an income tax.

The court split 4-4 as to whether the new income tax was constitutional. One member of the court, Justice Howell Jackson of Tennessee, was absent because of illness (and died less than three months later). But with the case drawing enormous public attention, the court agreed to reargue it and Justice Jackson rose from his deathbed to hear it.

Jackson was known to favor the income tax and it was assumed that it would now be upheld 5-4. But one of the other justices switched his vote (the opinion is unsigned and we don't know by whom or why) and it was voted down 5-4.

The income tax was dead. But the pressure to tax the incomes of the largely untaxed rich only increased, especially as the Progressive wing of the Republican Party grew in strength under Theodore Roosevelt. By the time of the administration of President William Howard Taft (1909-13) the pressure was becoming overwhelming. One representative suggested simply repassing the 1894 tax bill and daring the Supreme Court to overturn it a second time.

That idea horrified Taft, who revered the court. He feared that it would weaken its position as the final arbiter of the Constitution. He came up with a brilliant, very lawyerly, alternative: He proposed a constitutional amendment to legalize a personal income tax, while meanwhile imposing a tax on corporate profits. In the early 20th century such a tax was, in effect, a tax on the rich. As the corporate income tax is technically an excise tax, there was no constitutional problem. Taft's solution was implemented and in 1913 the 16th Amendment was declared ratified, just as Taft was leaving office.

The new president, Woodrow Wilson, and the strongly Democratic Congress promptly passed a personal income tax. It kicked in at 1% on incomes above $3,000 (a comfortable upper middle-class income at the time) and reached 7% on incomes over $500,000. But there were many deductions, bringing the effective tax rates down sharply from the marginal ones—a feature of the tax system ever since.

Unfortunately the corporate income tax, originally intended as only a stopgap measure, was left in place unchanged. As a result, for the last 98 years we have had two completely separate and uncoordinated income taxes. It's a bit as if corporations were owned by Martians, otherwise untaxed, instead of by their very earthly—and taxed—stockholders.

This has had two deeply pernicious effects. One, it allowed the very rich to avoid taxes by playing the two systems against each other. When the top personal income tax rate soared to 75% in World War I, for instance, thousands of the rich simply incorporated their holdings in order to pay the much lower corporate tax rate.

There has since been a sort of evolutionary arms race, as tax lawyers and accountants came up with ever new ways to game the system, and Congress endlessly added to the tax code to forbid or regulate the new strategies. The income tax act of 1913 had been 14 pages long. The Revenue Act of 1942 was 208 pages long, 78% of them devoted to closing or defining loopholes. It has only gotten worse.

The other pernicious consequence of the separate corporate and personal income taxes has been a field day for demagogues and the misguided to claim that the rich are not paying their "fair share." Warren Buffett recently claimed that he had paid only $6.9 million in taxes last year. But Berkshire Hathaway, of which Mr. Buffett owns 30%, paid $5.6 billion in corporate income taxes. Were Berkshire Hathaway a Subchapter S corporation and exempt from corporate income taxes, Mr. Buffett's personal tax bill would have been 231 times higher, at $1.6 billion.

Just as in the late 19th century, the tax code is now hopelessly arbitrary and unfair. It requires a complete overhaul.

Mr. Gordon is the author of "An Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power" (HarperCollins, 2004).

Obama Isn't Working: Labor

33 minutes that will rock your world...

News Anchor Fail: Obama killed & Killer Gas

Wild Bill: Dirty Filthy 2012