'No Child Left Behind Stupidity' - English Proficiency

My oldest is finishing up her last day of First Grade this week. This is also the time that I am completing papers for my youngest to start kindergarten in the fall.

One form that we had to complete for each of them contained questions on whether they could speak a foreign language and whether there were any foreign language speakers in the house. The form noted that if you answered 'yes' to these questions that your child would automatically be labeled a non-native English speaker (or something similar to this. I forget the exact designation).

I was hesitant to mention any foreign language skill for my daughter, simply because she was also a fluent native English speaker. After all, she was born here and basically her entire foreign language proficiency was the result of my wife being an army of one in teaching our daughter her native language. I was afraid that she would end up in some special treatment intended for actual foreign language speakers with limited English proficiency. However, since we did not want to lie on the form, we told the truth.

So our daughter was tested in Kindergarten on a 1 to 6 scale in her English proficiency and received a score of 4. The test results came with a two page explanation of the results. However the explanation was totally useless in determining how our daughter did in the exam because nowhere in the paper did it explain that 4 was the highest score a Kindergarten student can receive because at that level they do not test reading comprehension. Leave it to the Government to design a test where a child can get the highest grade while leaving the parents completely confused as to how their child could do so poorly on the test.

Upon learning the news that our daughter is doing fine, I wanted to remove her from this program. Her teacher noted that there was no harm in her participation and she was losing no time from the classroom. My wife agreed and I relented. Eventually, the testing will remove a student based on the result. However, the letter from the school noting that my daughter is now proficient in English, also declares her as 'formerly limited English Proficient (FLEP)'

So there you have it. The Government had classified my child as LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT solely based on our declaration that she had the ability to speak another language and was in a household where at least one parent also spoke a foreign language. There was no testing done to ever determine if there was any limitation to her English proficiency. She had spent two years in pre-school. Never was there any comment concerning any problems with her language skills. This is all due to idiotic Government Regulations. 

Worse, I have no doubt that my daughter is now a stat supporting how great the school is in successfully turning children with limited English proficiency into proficient students. A stat that will now reduce how badly the number that fail to achieve that goal. Don't get me wrong, our local elementary school is great. However, they did nothing to improve her proficiency in relation to other native English-speaking classmates as she was a native speaker to begin with.

Well, I have learned my lesson. During the completion of the enrollment forms for my son, I have included a letter refusing to permit my son's participation in this program. Apparently the form produced a bit of consternation at the school, but it also resulted in discovery of a form that excludes my son's participation in this program. While my daughter is all good with participating in any sort of project or test, My son is a little more stubborn and the last thing I need is for him to notice that he is being testing when others are not. Because he will not take their exam or create some problem where there is none. I do believe in testing, but I am against senseless testing. And this program is needlessly creating students in need that don't exist.

.

-------------------- --------------------

FACTA Killed My Foreign Account

FATCA is a law in the US. The long name is 'Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act'. This law is causing havoc for Americans who either want or need bank and financial accounts in other countries. This is because FACTA requires foreign banks to tell the US Government information on any accounts that may be held by Americans.

The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), Subtitle A of Title V of the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (HIRE), enacts Chapter 4 of, and makes other modifications to, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the tax law of the United States. FATCA has a few main parts:

1. It requires foreign banks to find any American account holders and disclose their balances, receipts, and withdrawals to the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS), or be subject to a 30% withholding tax on income from US financial assets held by the banks.
2. Owners of these foreign-held assets must report them on a new Form 8938 along with US tax returns if they are worth more than US$50,000; a higher reporting threshold applies to overseas residents. Account holders would be subject to a 40% penalty on understatements of income in an undisclosed foreign financial asset.
3. It closes a tax loophole that investors had used to avoid paying any taxes on dividends by converting them into dividend equivalents.

The reporting requirements are in addition to reporting of foreign financial assets to the US Treasury Department, particularly the "Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts" (FBAR) for foreign financial accounts exceeding US$10,000 required under Bank Secrecy Act regulations issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). - Wikipedia

The stated goal of this law is to catch tax evaders. However, this law has turned thousands of law abiding Americans into victims. This is because many banks are deciding that it is better for their business to get rid of all their American customers, than it is to meet the requirements of this new law. This is an example of what Americans living in the US and abroad are receiving:

Notice of Termination – Custody Account / Account Agreement

Nordnet Bank AB Finnish Branch hereby terminates Your Custody Account / Account Agreement as of May 31, 2012 in accordance with the Nordnet Bank AB Finnish Branch’s general terms and conditions, paragraph G.12.

The termination is due to the changes in the American legislation, which means that U.S. residents or those liable to pay taxes in the U.S. will no longer have the option to remain customers at Nordnet. We regret the need to terminate Your account.

During the period of notice both parties must comply with the general terms and conditions.

The termination means that You need to transfer or sell Your securities at Nordnet and transfer Your cash balance from Nordnet to another service provider. Nordnet does not charge a fee from the transfer of securities or cash. Below You can find further information on how to proceed.

In case our information of Your U.S. residency or taxpayer status is incorrect, we kindly ask You to promptly contact us via asiakaspalvelu@nordnet.fi or by phone +358 20 198 5898. Our customer service is open on weekdays 9–18.30 (Finnish time).


Best regards,

Nordnet Bank AB Finnish Branch

This 'example' is a copy of the termination notice sent to me. I have a dilemma here as the account has barely any money in it and it will probably cost more money for me to close out the account than it is worth. Hell, the biggest asset this account probably has is the potential for me to file a discrimination suit in Finland as this firms action's appears to be based solely on my nationality. I do have other accounts, but combined, they do not add up to an amount requiring me to report these foreign assets to the IRS on my tax return. That said, my other accounts are very useful for me as my wife has relatives there and we spend a good deal of time in Finland each year and having a domestic bank account makes life much easier when paying bills and renting apartments. I am concerned that those banks will also attempt to close our accounts. No matter, I will get by with or without them. As for Nordnet Bank, no grudge against them. I do not need their services. I will use another company. I used to recommend them to my Finnish friends, but now will point them elsewhere. This will however just waste time during my next visit.

There are however many Americans living overseas who simply cannot manage without a local bank account. They are the primary victims here. The US Government should be ashamed of this kind of damage it is doing to law-abiding citizens. Oddly enough, this kind of stupidity is going to result in Americans putting money in bank accounts under the names of others, in effect creating the hidden money that this law was attempting to unearth!


-------------------- --------------------

Obama's 'Gutsy Call' - Not Even At The Table

President Obama is once again using the killing of Osama Bin Laden as a prop in his reelection campaign. I have no problem with the President point to this as one of the accomplishments of his Presidency. After all, it is one of the few actual accomplishments that most Americans give him credit for. However, for some reason, the President's campaign staff are now suggesting that Presidential candidate Mitt Romney would not have given the go-ahead to kill Bin Laden, distorting a comment of his as their evidence. Mitt Romney's comment is so taken out of context as his actual statement is that killing any one terrorist is not not a strategy, but a starting point. Basically he is advocating a much stronger response than the assassination of one man. 

Lets not forget that the President's 'Gutsy Call'  was given only after sleeping on it, a full 16 hours after being asked. Now maybe Mitt Romney would have said no, but I seriously doubt he's take a nap first. (Mitt Romney in response to the Obama Campaign allegation notes that even Carter would have made the call to take out Osama.)

The Obama campaign's outright lying of the facts reminded me of the photo of President Obama in the Situation room observing the mission as it happened. For making such a 'Gutsy Call', the President does not even have a seat at the table. Why exactly is that? How many other White House photos have you seen where the President does not have a prominent place at the table? Any table? I am no fan of the President, but if I had him over for dinner, I'd give him the honor of my place at the table, if for no reason than one of respect.

Now take the following story that appeared on the internet shortly after this photo appeared that comments on the situation leading up to the photo, keeping in mind that there is nothing to back up the allegations made in the story:

I have been told by more than one source that Leon Panetta was directing the operation with both his own CIA operatives, as well as direct contacts with military – both entities were reporting to Panetta only at this point, and not the President of the United States. There was not going to be another delay as had happened 24 hour earlier. The operation was at this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated. President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission. Upon his arrival there was a briefing held which included Bill Daley, John Brennan, and a high ranking member of the military. When Obama emerged from the briefing, he was described as looking “very confused and uncertain.” The president was then placed in the situation room where several of the players in this event had already been watching the operation unfold. Another interesting tidbit regarding this is that the Vice President was already “up to speed” on the operation. A source indicated they believe Hillary Clinton had personally made certain the Vice President was made aware of that day’s events before the president was. The now famous photo released shows the particulars of that of that room and its occupants. What that photo does not communicate directly is that the military personnel present in that room during the operation unfolding, deferred to either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates. The president’s role was minimal, including their acknowledging of his presence in the room. - Socyberty (White House Insider: Obama Hesitated – Panetta Issued Order to Kill Osama Bin Laden)

Go read the entire article which notes how much of an obstacle Valerie Jarrett was on behalf of the President and how those interested in actually fighting a war on terrorism managed to work around the President. Providing that there is any truth to this story.

Interestingly enough, the recent Times article on the raid, provides a copy of the mission order Leon Panetta issued (At least his note of it). This part of the official story just happens to fit into the storyline above.

Given that the President's campaign is all interested in discussing the raid on Bin Laden, perhaps they would like to explain why the President is sitting in the corner during one of the most important meetings of his Presidency. Perhaps, this was to give him easy access for the door in case the raid did not end so well. I wonder, are there any photos of this meeting where the President is not seated in the room...

I suspect that we will be returning to this photo before November's Election.

-------------------- --------------------

Banning Child Labor on Farms - To Benefit Illegal Aliens?

You have probably seen the news that the Obama Administration is planning to pass new rules that will effectively ban children from working on farms, even if they waork on their own family farm:

A proposal from the Obama administration to prevent children from doing farm chores has drawn plenty of criticism from rural-district members of Congress. But now it’s attracting barbs from farm kids themselves. The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families’ land. - Daily Caller

There seems to be no legitimate explanation for this change in the rules, especially given that this same proposed rule will stop the 4-H and FFA from conducting farm training, to be replaced with Government training.

Lets face it, the family farmers are not the biggest Obama voting block, so perhaps this is a little payback from what is a very vindictive Administration. But that does not help them win reelection for their boss in November. However, if the children cannot do as much on the farm, perhaps they think the farmers will have to hire outside workers and perhaps even illegal aliens farm hands.

I would not be surprised at all if this rule is some half-assed Government plan to increase farm-based employment. No matter the reason, this is just one more reason to vote against Obama on Election day.

-------------------- --------------------

Anchor Country - Argentina

I have not written about anchor countries in a while, but Argentina's recent actions certainly win it a place in this category for some of the worst countries on earth. The actions I am talking about are the child's tantrum the country and its President are throwing because the UK won't hand over the Falkland Islands, simply because the Argentinians are demanding it.

Argentina’s industry minister called for British imports to be banned, in the latest attempt to compel Britain to negotiate over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands as tension rises ahead of the 30th anniversary of the 1982 war. Britain responded by summoning Osvaldo Marsico, charge d’affaires at the Argentine embassy in London, to receive a formal protest at the Foreign Office. “We made clear that such actions against legitimate commercial activity were a matter of concern not just for the UK, but for the European Union as a whole, and that we expect the EU to lodge similar concerns with Argentine authorities,” said a Foreign Office spokesman. - The Telegraph

In addition to the calls to boycott UK goods, Argentina has recently refused entry to their ports to cruise ships that have called the Falklands as well as have refused entry for Falklands fishing vessels, a port ban that has spread to neighboring countries as well. All actions that will probably hurt the Argentine economy more than that of the Falklands. 

A couple of weeks ago there was a press storm over a Falkland Island paper labeling Argentina's President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner a bitch. But lets be realistic now. IT is Argentina that is creating this conflict by harassing the Falkland Islands again. Argentina lost a war about 30 years ago over the islands and is now upset that it appears that the UK will defend their possession of the islands again if pushed to do so. 'Bitch' might be a raw word to describe the President of Argentina, but more mainstream words are not much nicer, just more accurate. Such as troublemaker, bully and instigator. 

It is President Kirchner's actions that are threatening peace in stability in the region. Given Argentina's past history and current actions, it is prudent that the UK send reinforcements to the area. The big question is, will President Kirchner start another war over the Falkland Islands? A war her country is likely to lose and put her people and country through more hard times. Anyway, I'm not planning any trip to Argentina in the near future. However, if I were, I would seriously reconsider, as I would hate to be caught in a country, unable to leave and be a sitting duck in a country that decided to poke the UK a little too hard one time too many.

 The latest moves by Argentina's President Kirchner do nothing but confirm my thoughts that she is hell-bent on damaging Argentina. It is not enough that she is stilling up old friction with the UK over the Falklands, but now she is attacking an ally against English rule over the Falklands, Spain:

Facing intense criticism over the nationalization of its biggest oil firm, Argentina on Thursday ordered the seizure of YPF Gas, another group controlled by Spain's Repsol, a move expected to further inflame tensions. - Yahoo News

When a country starts taking over industry, you can bet that anyone who can more their money out of the country will be desperate to do so before the Government seizes their assets as well. Good luck in making this plan work. I just don't see a positive outcome for the country. It will just end badly for the population. And it is kind of hard to feel sorry for them given that they voted for this lunatic. Good luck anyway. At least I hope she is smart enough not to pick another fight with the UK.

-------------------- --------------------

Dan Mitchell - 'The Tax System Explained in Beer'

Dan Mitchell shares in his recent post 'The Tax System Explained in Beer' a great example showing just how messed up our tax system is:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

• The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
• The fifth would pay $1
• The sixth would pay $3
• The seventh would pay $7
• The eighth would pay $12
• The ninth would pay $18
• The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

• And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
• The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
• The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
• The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
• The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
• The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. - International Liberty

There is a huge difference from the story and our tax status, as in the story, all the men voluntarily decided to share the bill and share it in a lopsided fashion. In the end, the richest man decided that the company was no longer worth the price and decided to no longer participate. This is not something that you can easily do with your tax bill. Instead the others, who all pay less, demand that those who earn more pay ever more to meet some mythical 'Fair Share'. You know what a fair share is? IT is where people simply pay their taxes and don't feel like they are being taken advantage of. And at that point, the desire, and incentive, to cheat on one's taxes (or simply avoid taxation) diminishes and disappears, no longer being seen as a worthwhile activity. 

Tax avoidance and tax evasion are present in our society simply because the scenario above is not fair. Not at all.

-------------------- --------------------

ObamaCare - If a Corporation Did This, People Would Go To Jail

You sometime have to wonder just what would happen if our own politicians were forced to follow the standard and rules that officers of corporations need to follow. you know, the rules where they end up going to jail for breaking. Take this non-surprising news out today:

President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law. Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation. - Washington Examiner

This is no surprise. The accounting tricks were put in by design as one of the main selling points of ObamaCare was that it was going to save money. This is a lie and it was a lie when it was told to the American people when they were trying to get the bill pass into law. 

Had a publicly traded corporation pull such financial shenanigans, the shareholders would be suing the officers and directors of the firm and the SEC and other parts of the Government would be digging through every corner of the corporation investigating the kinds of criminal charges they could bring against management and what kind of fines they could impose on the corporation. Take this recent example:

The government filed in federal court Monday a $25 billion settlement with the five largest mortgage lenders, putting an official stamp on the landmark agreement over alleged foreclosure abuses. The court papers offered few new details on the deal between the federal government, 49 states and Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo & Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Ally Financial Inc. The deal was first announced last month. - Washington Post

This is what happens to banks for partly doing exactly what the Government wanted. It wasn't until the house of cards fell apart that they went looking for a fall guy. And what of the Government-sponsored entities who created the demand for crappy mortgages?:

The deal applies only to privately held mortgages and not to those owned by mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Banks own about half of all U.S. mortgages, or about 30 million loans; Fannie and Freddie own the other half. - Washington Post

You don't need to look far for other examples. Take the Department of Justice's arming of criminals through Fast and Furious. If Americans went and did this on their own, they would be thrown behind bars for the rest of their lives. So far the Government is protecting the Government 'servants' who were the masterminds of this criminal activity. Then take the issue of illegal aliens. As an employer, you're screwed if your caught with a company full of illegal aliens. And yet, those running the Government are doing everything possible to ensure that they are around to be able to look for jobs. 

This can't last. It won't. Just watch out when it all falls apart.As for the ObamaCare lie, people should be held accountable, starting with the President. The first step is voting him out come this fall.

-------------------- --------------------

Made in America - CANADA - CHINA Oil Deal...

I wrote before, it was stupid for President Obama to reject the Canadian oil pipeline. Now comes news that the damage to the country as a result of the President's rejection of the Keystone XL oil pipeline very well might be permanent as Canada has found a willing buyer for their oil in China.

(Photo Found here)

BEIJING — The prospect of Canada entering free-trade talks with China is suddenly being discussed, as Chinese leaders indicated during Prime Minister Stephen Harper's visit that they are prepared to head down that path — even though Canadian officials aren't so sure this country is ready for the jump. The development came as China and Canada declared Thursday that bilateral relations have reached "a new level" following a series of multibillion-dollar trade and business agreements to ship additional Canadian petroleum, uranium and other products to the Asian superpower. - The Province

The Canadian oil was always coming out of the ground. Refusing to approve a pipeline to deliver this oil to US refineries is nothing other than ACTING AGAINST THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

Previous:
Dear Liberals, YOU WANT THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE 

Keystone XL Pipeline - You Don't Get a Much Better Example of How Anti-Business (and Petty) This Administration is 

You're Not Going to Get Job Stimulus From Democrats - They Hate Your Job
-------------------- --------------------

Dear Liberals, YOU WANT THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

Let's try this again. I previously wrote about the pipeline in my post 'Keystone XL Pipeline - You Don't Get a Much Better Example of How Anti-Business (and Petty) This Administration is'. I noted:

There is one thing that really gets me about the battle over whether the Obama Administration will permit the building of a pipeline to carry oil from Canada to oil refineries in the United States. That is that this battle is going on at all. Really, at it's simplest level, the Keystone XL pipeline is a business project. A pipeline. - Link

Today, the President once again came out front and center and killed this business project. Surely, the non-union portion of his Liberal base is celebrating this victory. But be careful what you wish for, because killing this oil pipline is only going to force the Canadians to transport this oil in more environmentally risky ways.

This oil will be moved to market, and by removing the safest and cheapest transport method will merely result in this cargo traveling via other means to get to refineries. The main alternatives to moving liquids by pipeline are moving them by tanker truck, ships, barges and rail cars.

This oil will most likely be sent through existing pipelines to be exported from Canada by tanker. In which case others will benefit for America's stupidity. The Merchant Mariner in me is just fine with killing off any pipeline as pipelines 'steal' cargo from tankers. Mobil Oil used to have a number of gasoline tankers bringing gasoline from Texas to the Port of New York. A pipeline put at least five tankers and their crews out of work. So you can bet that the tanker companies are not complaining about today's decision.

Better yet, some of this Canadian oil may still end up at the same refineries that it was destined for via the pipeline. See the map below to get a reminder of how far oil from the Middle East travels to get to the US. Taking this oil from Canada is a no-brainer, even if it has to travel a more expensive, more dangerous route. Really, just how do they think we get oil pumped out of the ground in Alaska?

Liberals however like to pretend that this oil will somehow just remain in the ground if they put up enough roadblocks in the way of getting this oil to market. This of course will never happen

As a reminder, the dispute is about whether a pipeline will be built. And it's not like this is a new idea. As the map below illustrates, the United States is already covered by pipelines. Then there is the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, built in one of the world's most sensitive, and environmentally brutal climates. Nor would this be the first oil pipeline from Canada either. The only reason this pipeline is having problems is because this is the first time the US Government was being run by an Administration that is both anti-business, anti-jobs and anti-oil. The President was given the opportunity to kill a project that will bring energy into the US from a friendly neighbor.

Too bad we can't run our cars and heat our homes on hope.

(Map found here) 

-------------------- --------------------

Pelosi Starts 2012 Repeating Biggest Lie of 2011

So here we have Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi with her first comments of the year:

Q: Leader Pelosi, one more please. It looks like the Obama reelection campaign may criticize Congress as part of its effort. Would you feel you are being thrown under the bus if they do that?

Leader Pelosi. Well, I think the President has been clear that it is the Republican Congress that has been an obstruction to job creation this year. Just think, for this year, you take me back to the fact that it is one year since they were sworn in as the majority, one year without any major jobs initiative, any jobs agenda; starting the year with the Ryan budget, starting their initiative with the Ryan budget which broke the guarantee for Medicare, which did not create jobs and which did not reduce the deficit. - Link

Not being able to think of anything new, or apparently interested in documenting her (and her party's) failure to do anything about jobs in the years that she held control of the House of Representatives, she has to go and attack Congressman Ryan's budget proposal as was done last year. Any the Democrat's attacks on the Ryan budget proposal were declared the biggest lie of 2012:

It's not as eagerly awaited as Time's "Man of the Year" was back when people paid attention to Time, but PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year" nonetheless manages to generate a lot of chatter, aimed as it is at those who chatter for a living. This year almost all of the chatter was negative, as the St. Petersburg Times's self-styled "fact checking" operation, which usually leans left, tacked to the right, naming as its "Lie" the claim that "Republicans voted to end Medicare." The reference is to Rep. Paul Ryan's reform proposal, which passed the GOP-controlled House as part of a budget resolution before being rejected by the Democratic Senate - Wall Street Journal

And yet, even after the publicity of this story just a couple weeks ago, Pelosi is out there repeating the same lie. And the lies:

• They ignored the fact that the Ryan plan would not affect people currently in Medicare -- or even the people 55 to 65 who would join the program in the next 10 years.

• They used harsh terms such as "end" and "kill" when the program would still exist, although in a privatized system.

• They used pictures and video of elderly people who clearly were too old to be affected by the Ryan plan. The DCCC video that aired four days after the vote featured an elderly man who had to take a job as a stripper to pay his medical bills. - Politifact

And don't forget the video of 'Ryan' pushing Granny over the cliff in her wheelchair. Of course they are doing this to paint the Republicans as the ones who are killing off Medicare. Strangely enough, they do this by resisting any reform that might prevent the system from going bankrupt.

-------------------- --------------------

Romney Is 2012's McCain...

I had been thinking this for a while now and John McCain's endorsement of Romney seals it. We ended up with McCain as the Republican nominee in 2008. Nobody wanted him and all that did was help the current president win his job. Now four years later we are looking at going down the very same road with Romney. And for what it's worth, the guy that nobody wanted in 2008 comes out to back the guy that nobody (really) wants in 2012 (other than his strong base). Look, no matter who is the nominee for the Republican party, I'll be voting for him in November. I was asked over Christmas by a liberal cousin of mine who I liked on the Republican side. My response was simple. I like the guy who gets nominated. After all, it doesn't matter while one I support, he'll (and every other Democrat) will have problems with my choice. So, I choose the nominee. It could be Satan (or Ron Paul, God Help us) that's the guy i'll be voting for. Looking back at the 2008 Primaries, it seems that I was all the willing to vote for Romney, for no other reason that he would be better than McCain. Go figure:

I'm left with Romney and McCain.

My first thought is to write in Thompson. No, that's not right. Not unless there is some sort of massive write-in organized, and that will never happen. So I guess I will vote for Romney. Now I just need to get excited about it. Well it will be excitement enough if he beats whoever the Democrats push forward. And when that happens, there will be no shortage of lost marbles on the left. That has to be worth a good laugh.

Rusty at The Jawa Report expresses a strong case for supporting Romney in his post "Fredheads, It's Time to Support Mitt". Thanks Rusty. - 22 Jan 2008

2012 is only just starting. Given that Gingrich has atoned for his ad with Pelosi, he is a very viable option, as is Santorum. So lets see who we line up to support this year. After all, nobody expect McCain in 2008...

-------------------- --------------------

Keystone XL Pipeline - You Don't Get a Much Better Example of How Anti-Business (and Petty) This Administration is

There is one thing that really gets me about the battle over whether the Obama Administration will permit the building of a pipeline to carry oil from Canada to oil refineries in the United States. That is that this battle is going on at all. Really, at it's simplest level, the Keystone XL pipeline is a business project. A pipeline.

Sure there are regulations to be met and it will have to be done a certain way for the project to be safe and to protect the environment. But for such a project to involve the President of the United States to not just get involved, but to become the center figure in this issue is just crazy.

Worse is how the President decided to get involved, in that he shelved making any decisions on permitting this private business project to go ahead until after the 2012 Presidential election, well over a year away. Delaying not only the project itself, but all the jobs that come with it.

This of course did not sit well with lots of people, and members of Congress decided that the President should be forced to act one way or the other on this pipeline. And amazingly, word is coming out that the President will use this prodding as an excuse to kill the project.

Republicans hailed inclusion of the pipeline provision as a victory, but Democrats said the practical effect of the language would be to kill the project. “They’ve just killed the Keystone pipeline. They killed it because they forced the president to make a decision before he can make it so he’s not going to move forward with it,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and an ally of environmental groups. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said he was not concerned about giving in to Republicans on the Keystone provision. “The president is apparently just going to use the option given to him not to let it go [forward],” said Levin. “There’s a waiver in there which we understand the president is going to exercise.” - The Hill

As a reminder, they are all talking about whether a pipeline will be built. And it's not like this is a new idea. As the map below illustrates, the United States is already covered by pipelines. Then there is the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, built in one of the world's most sensitive, and environmentally brutal climates. Nor would this be the first oil pipeline from Canada either. The only reason this pipeline is having problems is because this is the first time the US Government was being run by an Administration that is both anti-business, anti-jobs and anti-oil

(Map found here) 

Apparently, the excuse that will be used to kill this project will be the risk to the environment that this project popes. This of course is a lie. As it stands, sending oil by pipeline is not only the cheapest way to move oil, but it is also the safest.

The alternatives to moving liquids by pipeline are moving them by tanker truck, ships and barges.

Liberals however like to pretend that this oil will somehow just remain in the ground if they put up enough roadblocks in the way of getting this oil to market. This of course will never happen. Instead the oil will most likely be sent through existing pipelines to be exported by tanker. In which case others will benefit for America's stupidity. Worse, some of this oil may still end up at the same refineries that it was destined for via the pipeline. See the map to get a reminder of how far oil from the Middle East travels to get to the US. Taking this oil from Canada is a no-brainer, even if it has to travel a more expensive, more dangerous route. Really, just how do they think we get oil pumped out of the ground in Alaska?

Is it possible that there will be an accident over the lifetime of this pipeline. It sure is possible. But this also goes for all the alternative methods of moving this oil, all of which carry a greater risk of a mishap. Even better, the oil transported by this pipeline will reduce the US need for other foreign oil coming by ship. I understand that there are concerns about the process involved in extracting the oil from the ground. This however is irrelevant to this debate, as the Canadians are going to extract it regardless. And frankly, if we are going to look into issues like this, then why not look at the human rights abuses being conducted in the countries we currently buy our oil from?

To conclude, beware of the regulators who claim to be acting on projects like this for our benefit. It is just not true. Take the DEEPWATER HORIZON disaster. 'Environmental Concerns' are part of the reason why oil companies are drilling in such deep water far offshore. Simply, the thinking appears to be, lets make it as difficult as possible for the drillers to operate and then lets crucify them when there is an accident. Here is a thought, if you want to reduce the risk of accidents, and want to increase our chances of dealing with problems when they come about, how about letting these companies drill closer to shore in shallower water. Everything is easier, from finding your keys lost overboard, to drilling on the seabed. 

Update: 28 Feb 2013
So it is two months later and our petty President has still not gotten out of the way of construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Liberals are doing their best to silence criticism of the President in this matter. Take a look at a recent post on Business Insider, 'Why We'll Have To Keep Waiting For Obama's Decision On The Keystone XL Pipeline', where Liberals killed every comment by flagging them as offensive, including a comment by the author who eventually turned comments off for the post.

But they cannot stop the flow of oil coming out of Canada. One recent story which validates my original post is the following noting the rising demand for tank cars for the transport of oil:

The number of tank cars ordered for shipping crude and expected to be delivered by the end of 2014 will be enough to move two million barrels of oil per day, almost three times what is currently extracted from the Bakken shale basin, Mr. Kolstad said. That’s the size of two Keystone XLs and one Seaway pipeline. As much as 40% of the orders are from Canadian entities desperate to get their crude out of Western Canada and into U.S. refineries in the East and on the Gulf Coast. - Financial Post (22 February 2013)

Read the rest of the story. So good job liberals. The oil you hoped to keep trapped in Canada is coming to the US, in a more expensive mode of transportation, which happens to also be less safe and less green.

-------------------- --------------------

2012 First World Borrowing - $1,500 per Human!

The OECD is warning that the Industrialized World is expecting to borrow over $10 trillion in 2012.

The OECD says the gross borrowing needs of OECD governments is expected to reach $10.4tr in 2011 and will increase to $10.5tr next year – a $1tr increase on 2007 and almost twice as much as in 2005. This highlights the risks for even the most advanced economies that in many cases, such as Italy and Spain, are close to being shut out of the private markets. - FT

If you want an example of just how out of control Government spending is, keep in mind that $10.5 trillion comes out to $1,500 borrowed per human on Earth. This is not how much is being spent per human, that clearly is much more. As a bonus, almost the same amount was borrowed this year.

It is worse when you consider that this number does not include any third world borrowing. I'm also rounding up the planet's population to $7 billion.

Such amounts cannot be paid back. The planet does not make enough money to tax these funds back.

P.S.

The US 2011 deficit is $1.27 trillion. That is $4,100 borrowed per American, $16,500 for a family of 4.

The US debt is about $15.1 trillion coming to $49,200 owed per American. For a family of 4, that is close to $197,000. The average US family income in 2011 was just under $50,000. If the US were a business, it would be bankrupt.

-------------------- --------------------

You're Not Going to Get Job Stimulus From Democrats - They Hate Your Job

With the President demanding that Congress pass his latest job stimulus bill, keep in mind that there are very few jobs that President Obama and his fellow Democrats actually like. These jobs include:

• Government Jobs
• Union Jobs
• 'Green' Jobs
• Teachers
• Firefighters
• Policemen, although only when they are making endorsements and looking the other way

Of course they like their own job, but they are not going to lift a finger to help you get one of those.

Other than union jobs for private employers, all of the kinds of jobs that the Democrats like require the rest of us to pay taxes to that they have the money to pay the salaries for these workers. This is the heart of the problem. Government needs more private workers so that more tax revenue is collected to pay the salaries of Government employees. So it should be an easy task to pass a bill that will result in stimulating the creation of jobs. One problem, Democrats hate most kinds of private jobs. These jobs include:

• Banking sector jobs
• Investment/Wall Street jobs
• Insurance Industry jobs
• Healthcare jobs
• Toymaker jobs (Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act in July 2008 which requires expensive 3rd party testing for lead)
• Slaughterhouse Jobs (Slaughter of horses banned since 2007)
• Music Instrument Manufacturing Jobs (Gibson Guitars) 
• Coal Industry jobs
• Offshore Oil Drilling jobs (Offshore Drilling Moratorium - Atlantic and Pacific off-limits)
• Pipeline construction jobs (Keystone XL Canada-US Pipeline)

Think I am being dramatic? Here is an example of the President and his Democrat allies idea of 'Stimulus':

New documents obtained by Judicial Watch show acting National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Lafe Solomon joking that the NLRB's suit against Boeing would kill jobs in South Carolina. Commenting on a Planet Labor article whose headline suggests Boeing might not be able to open its new plant in South Carolina because of "antiunion behavior," Solomon writes:

The article gave me a new idea. You go to geneva and I get a job with airbus. We screwed up the us economy and now we can tackle europe.

The NLRB is upset that Boeing decided to open a second assembly plant not nearby it's current union-staff plant, but instead in worker friendly South Carolina. The Government's position is that Boeing did not have the right to build a new plant where it wanted. Nancy Pelosi has even declared 'that Boeing should either unionize its production facilities in South Carolina, or shut them down entirely.' (Link) Well, you can bet that Boeing won't union it's production. I suspect that they would first simply decide to move the assembly plant outside the United States. This is a perfect example of how many US jobs are not running overseas, they are in fact being driven overseas, by over-regulation and a Government that is hostile to business.

As for stimulus to encourage more jobs, as I said before, it is easy for the Government to get this started:

The President can easily set in motion a huge business boom. All he need do is get out of the way of energy production of oil, coal and gas and power plant construction, whether it be natural gas, coal, nuclear or hydroelectric. These two things will then spur the demand, and funding, for improved infrastructure, simply to get the supplies to help build the oil, gas and electric businesses. If we can get this moving, lots of other industries that support this will follow. - Fred Fry, Oct 2011

Validation of my comments can be found in this recent Wall Street Journal post:

So President Obama was right all along. Domestic energy production really is a path to prosperity and new job creation. His mistake was predicting that those new jobs would be "green," when the real employment boom is taking place in oil and gas. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported recently that the U.S. jobless rate remains a dreadful 9%. But look more closely at the data and you can see which industries are bucking the jobless trend. One is oil and gas production, which now employs some 440,000 workers, an 80% increase, or 200,000 more jobs, since 2003. Oil and gas jobs account for more than one in five of all net new private jobs in that period. The ironies here are richer than the shale deposits in North Dakota's Bakken formation. While Washington has tried to force-feed renewable energy with tens of billions in special subsidies, oil and gas production has boomed thanks to private investment. And while renewable technology breakthroughs never seem to arrive, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have revolutionized oil and gas extraction—with no Energy Department loan guarantees needed. - 'The Non-Green Jobs Boom - Forget 'clean energy.' Oil and gas are boosting U.S. employment.' - Wall Street Journal

This growth in jobs is despite the Government's best efforts to kill 'carbon' jobs. Just image the growth in jobs that could be attained it the Government merely got out of the way and let industry bring these energy sources to market as well as permit utility companies replace their aging power generation equipment with new power plants of their choice. All of this can be done at no cost to the Government. The Democrats will not let it happen though, because to do so will result in lower energy costs, which will surely bankrupt more of their 'Green' pet projects.

-------------------- --------------------

Finnish Triple-Murderer Escapes (Yet Again)

Surprise, surprise, a triple murderer with a history of escape, has yet again made a mockery of the Finnish Prison system.

In 2009, Fouganthine was granted a conditional release (Note: from a 'life sentence' for triple murder), but was re-arrested in Finland in June of this year and sentenced to four and a half months in prison for drunken driving and making illegal threats with an air gun. On Wednesday morning, Fouganthine failed to show up for his prison work duty at the minimum security Kerava prison in Finland, the Finnish Daily Ilta Sanomat reported. According to reports in the Finnish media, the escape comes shortly before he was set to be released. - Local.se

A sad fact is that he committed three murders while on conditional release from other crimes. He has a history of escapes as well as ongoing issues regarding theft as well as threats. This is a man who killed three people, one a child, over a bicycle he stole. The man should have been executed for his crimes. However, apparently more sophisticated people think that he should be given an unlimited number of extra chances. The only question I have is just when is he going to kill again. He is already threatening people. It will not take much if someone challenges him. Knowing Finland, there is a pretty good chance that this will happen eventually. Alcohol consumption basically guarantees it. 

Previous:

• Finnish Triple-Murderer Freed From Prison (AGAIN) - 2 Feb 2009
• As Expected, Finnish Triple-Murderer Runs Away Once Freed - 13 May 2008
• Finnish Triple-Murderer Freed From Prison - 26 Feb 2008
• Finnish Triple-Murderer to Go Free - 5 Dec 2007
• Finnish Triple-Murderer Escapes from an 'Open Institution' - 29 Nov 2006

-------------------- --------------------