Bernie Sanders, Who Is Thrilled By Higher Taxes, Pays Low Effective Tax Rate

By William Teach April 16, 2016 – 7:29 am

Bernie Sanders, like most Democrats, constantly calls for higher tax rates for Other People. For people “paying their fair share.” What about for himself?

U.S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who has made income inequality a top campaign theme, had taxable income of $205,271 in 2014, putting him almost in the top 5 percent of American earners, according to the release of Friday of his federal tax return.

That figure was still far below the millions earned by his main Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, in recent years.

Sanders and his wife, Jane, paid $27,653 in federal income taxes in 2014, an effective federal tax rate of 13.5 percent, on income of $205,271, which is their adjusted gross income before deductions. That figure is just below the $206,563 that Census data show as the lower limit for the top 5 percent of U.S. households in 2014.

It should be noted

Actually, he paid less in taxes per rate than Mitt, who paid in the 14-15% rate, due to his huge charitable contributions and the way the tax system is set up. The question for Sanders is, why is he not paying his fair share when his income is certainly much higher than the average American? Why is he taking advantage of the loopholes in the tax system?

Interestingly, the returns do not show Sanders’ net worth. Also interesting is the tone the article takes in firing shots at Hillary over her ability to rake in the cash. Usually, articles take subtle, and not so subtle, shots at Republicans, not fellow Democrats. It’ll be interesting to see what Hillary’s effective tax rate is.

But, hey, Bernie, pay your fair share!

Read: Bernie Sanders, Who Is Thrilled By Higher Taxes, Pays Low Effective Tax Rate »

Posted in Democrats | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Transcript Shows Hillary Knew Benghazi Attack Had Nothing To Do With Video

By William Teach April 16, 2016 – 7:15 am

More evidence that Madame Secretary lied to the American public about what happened in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, and surely the Obama administration knew (via Twitchy)

From Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch announced today it has obtained new documents from the Department of State containing the telephone transcripts from the evening of September 11, 2012, in which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton informs then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil that the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi “had nothing to do with the film.”  The documents include previously unreleased telephone transcripts with world leaders about the Benghazi attack.

Clinton’s admission to Kandil was first produced to the Select Committee on Benghazi on October 13, 2015 and publicized on the day of Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, October 22, but court filings in Judicial Watch litigationshow that the record was only produced after two federal court judges ordered the State Department to produce more Benghazi-related records to Judicial Watch.  Similarly, Judicial Watch litigation also forced the release of the September 11, 2012 email in which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton informed her daughter by email that the attack had been staged by an “Al Qaeda-like group,” rather than as the result of “inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” as Mrs. Clinton had claimed in her official public statement one hour earlier.

Don’t forget, this is the most transparent administration ever!

At 10:08 p.m. on September 11, Mrs. Clinton issued an official State Department press statement, approved by the White House, placing the blame for the attack on an Internet video:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

Yet the next day, in her 7:49 PM September 12 conversation with Kandil, Clinton said, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film.  It was a planned attack – not a protest.”  Kandil responded, “You’re not kidding. Based on the information we saw today we believe that group that claimed responsibility for this is affiliated with al-Qaeda.”

This shows that Hillary, and certainly the Obama administration, willfully misled the citizens of the United States (misleading the world is inconsequential) over the events of 9/11/12. And we can certainly infer that this was for political purposes with an election coming up. And their obstruction in producing the documents, forcing Judical Watch to “play wack a mole”, further shows they know Hillary, and others, lied to the American People.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Transcript Shows Hillary Knew Benghazi Attack Had Nothing To Do With Video »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 15, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful carbon friendly bicycle, which Everyone Else should be forced to used for their daily commutes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Protein Wisdom, with a post on having something to say.

Don’t forget, all these IAYS posts are open threads to discuss whatever you want.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Why The Bathroom Wars Matter

By William Teach April 15, 2016 – 10:15 am

An interesting piece from Heather Wilhelm at Real Clear Politics

Decades ago, when Americans imagined 2016, hopeful citizens visualized groovy innovations like widely available personal jetpacks, easily accessible moon bases, and “futuristic” fashion trends that looked suspiciously like neon 1980s clothing coated with Saran wrap. So far, 2016 has brought us none of these delightful novelties, but it has delivered a series of depressing public bathroom wars.

Three weeks ago, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory signed a now-infamous “bathroom bill,” a law that, among other things, restricts access to public restrooms based on the sex that users were assigned at birth. The bill, which was cobbled together after 12 hours in an emergency session, came as a response to a Charlotte ordinance that declared gender identity, not biological sex, as the standard-bearer for proper bathroom entry. (big snip)

Interviewed last week by the Wall Street Journal, McCrory seemed baffled at the bathroom backlash. “Who would’ve thought?” he said. “I can’t believe we’re talking about this.” Indeed, in a world where ISIS is expanding into Europe, ghost ships full of corpses are washing onto Japanese shores from North Korea, Hillary Clinton is proposing a $1 trillion tax increase, and people are still paying good money to see Bruce Springsteen, it seems ludicrous to obsess about bathrooms.

It is ludicris. But, such are the priorities of Leftists, who think that passing laws forcing all business to comply with allowing fake women into the bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers of real women and girls by force of law.

So why can’t we just live and let live? Bathroom law opponents “are crusading against a tiny minority that poses no real threat,” Jillian T. Weiss, a transgender rights lawyer and activist, wrote in Wednesday’s USA Today. In a way, she’s correct: Demonizing transgender people is unfair in any light. But Weiss also misses the bigger picture behind the bathroom brouhaha. It’s not a fight against people. It’s a fight about reality, and whether the government can dictate a certain version of it. Ultimately, it’s a fight about freedom of thought.

Freedom of thought is a choice. And Leftists do not like that whatsoever. The only choice they approve of is aborting babies, and, even there, they are dead set against Wrongthink. We see this with ‘climate change’, we see it on college campuses, we see the rise of microaggressions and trigger warnings. Juveniles attending adult colleges have meltdowns over chalk writings. They say the feel “unsafe.” Even clapping can send them into safe rooms cuddling stuff toys and using coloring books. Their goal is to force societal change for nebulous rationales, without considering the consequences and certainly at the expense of the very people they proport to protect. Most probably have no idea what they’re fighting for, they are joining a cause for the sake of being part of a cause. And one thing they ultimately love is Force, particularly from Government.

Read: Why The Bathroom Wars Matter »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Bill Nye Joins In On Wanting Climate Skeptics Jailed

By William Teach April 15, 2016 – 7:13 am

Marc Morano of Climate Depot has an exclusive interview with Bill Nye, who has signed on to participate in the American release of the movie Climate Hustle, which is interesting, considering the movie is anti-Warmist, and the deck is stacked against Nye. What’s his angle? Anyhow, during the interview, we get

Morano: “We interviewed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. RJK Jr., the environmentalists. He said climate ‘deniers’, his words, Energy CEO’s belong at the Hague with three square meals and a cot with all of the other war criminals. What is your thought on that and do you think some of the rhetoric on your side — as I am sure both sides — gets too carried away. What is your thought on jailing skeptics as war criminals?”

Nye: “Well, we’ll see what happens. Was it appropriate to jail the guys from ENRON?”

Morano: “Interesting.”

Nye: “So, we will see what happens. Was it appropriate to jail people from the cigarette industry who insisted that this addictive product was not addictive and so on? And you think about in these cases — for me as a taxpayer and voter — the introduction of this extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen. So I can see where people are very concerned about this and are pursuing criminal investigations as well as engaging in discussion like this.”

Morano also asked Nye about the “chilling effect” of threatening investigations and jail to scientists who dissent on man-made global warming claims. ‘

Nye responded: “That there is a chilling effect on scientists who are in extreme doubt about climate change — I think is good. The extreme doubt about climate change people – without going too far afield here – are leaving the world worse than they found it because they are keeping us from getting to work. They are holding us back.”

There is a growing movement amongst members of the Cult of Climastrology to restrict the free speech of climate skeptics, much like there is a growing movement among the greater Progressive membership to do the same with all speech they disagree with. This applies to even criminalizing speech that the groups do not like. In this case, Warmists are trying to say it is the same as the tobacco industry. A big difference is that they didn’t want to jail tobacco users or restrict their ability to speak out in support of a position. Here, they are. How soon till we are treated to the whole microaggressions and triggering whinefest, as with other issues Progressives disapprove of?

Video of the interview is available at the link, along with highlighting other Warmists engaged in intimidation and belief in jailing skeptics. Do not forget that Bernie Sanders, a Democratic presidential contender, has as part of his official climate change stance the notion to “Bring climate deniers to justice.” Other elected Democrats, such as Sheldon Whitehouse, also advocate limiting free speech and even criminalizing “climate denial”.

Read: Bill Nye Joins In On Wanting Climate Skeptics Jailed »

Posted in Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Trump Is Still Whining About Colorado Loss

By William Teach April 15, 2016 – 6:53 am

Why yes, yes Donald Trump is still pitching a fit over the way Colorado chose its delegates, to the point of writing an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, in which he does make a few good points, but, really, it just seems whiny

On Saturday, April 9, Colorado had an “election” without voters. Delegates were chosen on behalf of a presidential nominee, yet the people of Colorado were not able to cast their ballots to say which nominee they preferred.

A planned vote had been canceled. And one million Republicans in Colorado were sidelined.

In recent days, something all too predictable has happened: Politicians furiously defended the system. “These are the rules,” we were told over and over again. If the “rules” can be used to block Coloradans from voting on whether they want better trade deals, or stronger borders, or an end to special-interest vote-buying in Congress—well, that’s just the system and we should embrace it.

Let me ask America a question: How has the “system” been working out for you and your family?

The system gave us John McCain and Mitt Romney. It also gave us control of the Senate, House, a majority of state governor mansions, and a huge increase in state general assemblies. You know who should have been complaining about the GOP establishment? Christine O’Donnell, who legitimately won the primary to be the Senate candidate in Delaware, then had the NRSC immediately state they would not provide funding, and pretty much refused to back her. Yet, instead of being whiny, she plugged on.

Anyhow, let’s refer back to this

Priebus went on to tweet about how the entire nomination process works, certainly a shot at Trump. Who continues on and on with his complaints in the WSJ opinion piece. And then takes shots at Ted Cruz, including

The great irony of this campaign is that the “Washington cartel” that Mr. Cruz rails against is the very group he is relying upon in his voter-nullification scheme.

My campaign strategy is to win with the voters. Ted Cruz’s campaign strategy is to win despite them.

The problem here is that Trump is actively working to isolate a goodly chunk of Republican voters, who may well refuse to vote for him in the general election, and it doesn’t seem as if he even knows it. For one thing, he complains about special interest groups, without realizing that many of those groups are made up of good conservatives. The NRA is a special interest group. So are TEA Party groups. Does Trump have a problem with them? He’s turned Republicans into voters who aren’t just against him during the primaries, but also the general

Just as I have said that I will reform our unfair trade, immigration and economic policies that have also been rigged against Americans, so too will I work closely with the chairman of the Republican National Committee and top GOP officials to reform our election policies. Together, we will restore the faith—and the franchise—of the American people.

Here he shows that he has no clue how the system works. The individual states pick how they’re nomination process works, with some input from the national GOP. It sure appears as if Trump wants to implement a centralized government solution in creating a one size fits all method.

Do you know what would be great? If Trump would spend as much time attacking Democrats, Hillary, Obama, Sanders, etc, as he does attacking Ted Cruz, the RNC, the “GOPe”, and other Republicans.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Surprise: Trump Is Still Whining About Colorado Loss »

Posted in GOP | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Surprise: Leftists Find A Reason To Be Against Polygamy

By William Teach April 14, 2016 – 3:18 pm

Let’s start here, with an article by Noah Feldman on why polygamy is Constitutional

Now that a U.S. appeals court has declined to strike down Utah’s bigamy laws, it’s reasonable to ask: What does the Constitution, properly interpreted, have to say about the topic?

Legally speaking, the issue can be split in two. The first question is whether a state may criminalize marriage to more than one person. The second is whether, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year to require states to recognize same-sex marriage, there now exists a fundamental right to marry more than one person — and to make states treat plural marriages on equal terms with marriages between two people.

I’ll leave you to read the rest, but, it is something many people, including myself, noted in the post gay marriage as approved by the Supreme Court nation. If marriage is no longer between a man and woman, if this all about love being love and no one should stand in the way, then why not have bigamy and polygamy be legal? Love is love. If it’s consenting, sure thing. Ah, not according to the always very leftist and unhinged Washington Monthly

In our present society, marriage is a consensual matter and an entirely optional one. It isn’t actually necessary anymore. But that doesn’t mean that we’ve entirely transcended human nature. There are still a host of reasons why our society benefits when people form monogamous units, including the increased likelihood that children are raised by both parents, the avoidance of the transmittal of sexual diseases, the reduction of how many families need government assistance, and (yes) a reduction in male violence.

Finally, if we look around the world and in the history books, polygamy and women’s rights do not go together. If we’re talking about a situation where women are completely autonomous agents who enter into these plural marriages voluntarily, that may seem almost like an advance in rights. After all, they’d be free to have multiple husbands. Somehow, it never works out like that, as we can see in the still-surviving polygamist outposts in our own country.

Got that? Having just two parents over multiple parents is supposedly a benefit. It’s not explained, we just have to take their word for it. Interestingly, Liberals have worked very hard to destroy the family unit. Double interestingly, those against gay marriage have stated that it is a benefit to have a mother and a father, rather than 2 mothers or two fathers. Suddenly, liberals like a similar argument.

Furthermore, we are being told that a consensual arrangement is Violence Towards Women in practice. What happened to Love Is Love?

However you look at it, I don’t think you can productively analyze the merits of anti-polymany laws without reference to more than the implications of some recent Supreme Court cases and an appeal to fundamental rights. We’re people who are trying to live together in societies. Our laws and customs reflect that, even when they become less and less ideally suited to the times.

Yes, our laws and customs do reflect our rights. Why did the political Left destroy them regarding gay marriage? Why are they looking to destroy them regarding the restriction of people to the bathroom of the biological sex? Why the need to make belief in abortion a sacrament? Why the need to go against the passage of time and look to re-institute authoritarian government within democratic societies? Why the need for class warfare? And so, so much more? And it does beg the question within context: if gay marriage is suited for the times, why not polygamy and bigamy? Love is love, right? Right?

Read: Surprise: Leftists Find A Reason To Be Against Polygamy »

Posted in Liberal World | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 14, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a world drying out and turning to dirt from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Fire Andrea Mitchell, with a post on Progressives destroying a war memorial.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Scientists With Vested Interest Confirm The 97% Consensus Or Something

By William Teach April 14, 2016 – 8:52 am

Those who make their living by pushing a political position regarding ‘climate change’ are at it again

Scientists Just Confirmed The Scientific Consensus On Climate Change

Almost 16 years after Harvard researcher Naomi Oreskes first documented an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, a research team confirmed that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening.

The study, published Tuesday, brought together 16 scientists, including seven authors of consensus studies that documented similar conclusions over the years despite varying research approaches. While reaching this so-called “consensus on consensus,” authors concluded that scientific agreement on human-caused climate change is “robust” with a range of 90 to 100 percent, depending on the question and methodology.

“It’s important to have [it] on the record,” said Will Cantrell, professor of physics at Michigan Technological University, who was not part of the study. “I don’t think any one study is going to change a lot of people’s minds, but it’s better to have the information than to not have it,” he told ThinkProgress.

Let’s start off by noting that consensus is not science. Secondly, many of the papers mentioned later in the missive have been proven to be frauds, such as the Cook 97% paper….say, isn’t it interesting that they all seem to arrive at the same number? Never 95, 96, 98. Always 97…..which has been shown to be even more of a fraud.

Techniques used to assess expert views on human-caused climate change include analyzing peer-reviewed climate papers, surveying members of the relevant scientific community, compiling public statements by scientists, and mathematically analyzing citation patterns. For this paper, authors used a statistical technique called meta-analysis, which is a way to combine the findings from independent studies, and essentially did a meta-study of meta-studies.

In other words, they simply looked at papers by those with similar beliefs (and monetary interests) and put them together. It is interesting that the Warmists try this consensus schtick constantly, rather than providing rock solid scientific proof. Correlation is not causation.

That’s from Watts Up With That?, regarding a different consensus chart.

Read: Scientists With Vested Interest Confirm The 97% Consensus Or Something »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Glenn Beck: Trump Will Campaign With Hillary If He Loses

By William Teach April 14, 2016 – 7:15 am

Let’s note first that Glenn Beck went off the rails long ago in regards to Donald Trump running for president. I do believe that I’ve mentioned before that it seems that Trump is just about all Beck talks about, and it’s not very flattering, almost every time I tune in to his show. Granted, I typically only listen for short periods a few times a week, but, anecdotally, it’s almost every time I tune in. Or a commercial. Or product endorsement. Or some of that old time revival religion.

The thing is, once you remove the Cwaaaaazy, he’s been kinda right. Is he right on this?

(The Blaze) Glenn Beck boldly predicted Wednesday morning that current Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump will join forces with Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton if he fails to secure the GOP nomination in July.

“You will see Donald Trump, if he loses the primary, if he loses the nomination — and he doesn’t start a third party, which I don’t think he will — you will see Donald Trump run or campaign with Hillary Clinton,” Beck opined on The Glenn Beck Radio Program.

The conservative talker said Trump would be inclined to team up with the former secretary of state because, should he lose the Republican nomination at the party’s convention this summer, he will feel it was stolen from him.

“You will see him, because he’ll say, ‘They stole it from me, and Lyin’ Ted, you can’t have Lyin’ Ted.’ And he will campaign with Hillary,” Beck said.

Might Trump do this? If he loses, we shall see. Considering his Democratic Party support in the past, and, quite frankly, his whining about the process (you know, the one that is published and set before the primary season even starts) could lead to this.

Beck’s prediction comes on the heels of Trump telling supporters at a New York rally Tuesday that the Republican political system is “rigged” against him, adding that it is both “dirty” and “disgusting.”

Whose fault was it that Trump had no ground game in Colorado? Trump often has no ground game outside of a few markets, while Cruz is traveling all over states.

Of course, in all fairness, I have to wonder if Beck will support Hillary if Trump wins. Most likely not, he would back so third party unknown. I will say this (again): the idea is to win the general election, while retaining the Senate (which has the possibility of flipping back to D) and the House, along with as many state governorships and general assemblies. The GOP has become so polarized that it might be impossible for Trump supporters to vote for Cruz and visa versa. Much of the blame can be laid at the feet of Trump and his staff. You can also blame big pundits like Beck, who I heard say the other day that it might be better to have Hillary as president than Trump, in a situation where the GOP would be able to block her.

Which is super awesome, because the GOP has done a great job in blocking Obama, am I right?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Glenn Beck: Trump Will Campaign With Hillary If He Loses »

Posted in GOP | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove