James L. Paris's Blog, page 138

Hillary Proposes Top Estate Tax Rate of 65%

I���ve said it before, and I���ll say it again: Whatever you think of Hillary Clinton, she IS transparent about who she is and what she���s about.

Oh, I���m not talking about whether she is ���honest,��� in the garden-variety sense of the word; I think we all know the answer to THAT.

I���m referring to her general ideas, her policies���her vision for the future of the country.

That���s why there should be nothing surprising, in terms of Clinton���s known ideology, about her wish for an estate tax rate so high that the mere mention of it should be against the law. The Democratic nominee for president has actually outlined a plan wherein the top tax rate for the largest estates would sit at an astronomical 65%.

In addition to the 65% rate to be applied to estates in excess of $500 million for single people and $1 billion for married couples, a 55% rate would kick in for estates valued at more than $50 million per person, and a 50% rate would be levied against estates valued at over $10 million per person.

While those estate value thresholds are sums that are certainly much higher than most Americans will ever see, the idea that anyone, regardless of the amount of their wealth, should be mandated to fork over to the government as much as 65% of it at the event of their passing���is nothing short of obscene.

On that note, it is worth pointing out that Clinton is also in favor of lowering the per-person estate tax exemption threshold, as well. Right now, when someone passes, the first $5.45 million in estate value is exempt from any ���death tax��� obligation whatsoever, but Hillary wants that to come down to $3.5 million.

In other words, despite the fact that the exorbitant 65% rate would apply only to the wealthiest of all people, it is clear that Madam Collectivist has her eyes on everyone���s dough; after a few years at the $3.5 million mark, $3 million will start to look better to Hillary and her ilk, then $2 million will seem to make more sense, then $1 million, until all who die owe some amount of their estates, regardless of how small they may be, to our government masters.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

 

Charlotte NAACP Leader Says It ���Doesn���t Matter��� If Keith Scott Had a Gun

When you���re dealing with heavily agendized people, you go into those interactions assuming they will be distinctly partial to their interests, but that they will nevertheless allow for their perspectives to be informed by at least a modicum of common sense.

Well, apparently, THAT isn���t true.

The website Mediaite reports on an exchange that took place this past Thursday between CNN���s Carol Costello and Corine Mack, the president of the Charlotte, N.C. chapter of the NAACP, wherein it appears that Ms. Mack is so driven to see realized a narrative favoring Keith Scott, that she is willing to take full leave of her senses to make it happen.

The precise point of contention with respect to the faceoff between Scott and the Charlotte police is whether the victim was holding a book in his hand, as his family has claimed, or if he was, in fact, holding a gun, which has been the contention of police all along.

As it turns out, in the opinion of Ms. Mack, it does not matter if Keith Scott was holding a book OR a gun. In the words of Mack, ���I think the most important part is the contrast in him having a book versus a gun. But in my mind and in most of the community���s mind, it really doesn���t matter if he had a gun.���

It doesn���t matter if he had a gun?

As Mack said later in her exchange with Costello, ������I don���t want anyone to walk away from this conversation today thinking that a video showing he had a gun in any way says that he was guilty of anything.���

Except, maybe, of brandishing a firearm during a police encounter and not dropping it after being commanded a mere SEVEN TIMES by police to do so.

Except for that, maybe.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

 

2,000-Year-Old Coal Lump Found to Contain Biblical Text

The website Western Journalism is reporting on something awfully cool.

Back in 1970, during excavations taking place in En-Gedi, Israel, where lived a sizable Jewish community from roughly 800 B.C. to about 600 A.D., a burnt scroll was discovered. It turns out that the community was wiped out by a fire. Anyway, the scroll has always looked to be like a lump of charcoal, and, as such, has not been able to be read by anyone���until now.

Scientists at the University of Kentucky, using a technique they developed known as ���virtual unwrapping,��� which allows for an examination of the scroll���s contents without the need for it to be physically unwrapped or opened, have discovered something rather amazing: that this burnt scroll, this ���lump of charcoal,��� contains an early���VERY early���version of the first couple of chapters of the Book of Leviticus.

���We were amazed at the quality of the images ��� much of the text is as readable as that of unharmed Dead Sea scrolls,��� said biblical scholar Michael Segal of Jerusalem���s Hebrew University.

Continued Segal, ������ we now have evidence that this text was being used from a very early date by Jews in the land of Israel.���

Dead Sea scrolls expert Emanuel Tov, also of Hebrew University, said, ���We have never found something as striking as this. This is the earliest evidence of the exact form of the [early] text.���

And you thought the only news these days is bad news.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

 

Charlotte Police Planted Gun On Keith Lamont Scott?

MSNBC���s Joy Ann Reid pushed the narrative Friday that Charlotte police may have planted a gun on Keith Lamont Scott after shooting and killing him.

Reid posted several screenshots from the video that Scott���s family released Friday to Twitter.

via dailycaller.com

We are now supposed to believe that multiple officers, knowing they were being videotaped, all repeatedly yelled, "drop the gun" and then went on to plant a gun on Keith Lamont Scott. MSNBC has really reached new lows, and that is saying something (and this network pokes fun at Alex Jones for being a conspiracy theorist?).

James L. Paris
Editor-In-Chief ChristianMoney.com 
Follow Me on Twitter Twitter.com/jameslparis
Christian Financial Advice
Jim Paris 24 Hour Radio

Nation of Islam���s Farrakhan Slams Obama for Neglecting His ���Suffering People���

The controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, is apparently none too impressed with the job President Obama has done for blacks since he was elected America���s first African-American chief executive back in 2008, according to reporting by the website Western Journalism.

 

Speaking recently at Union Temple Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., Farrakhan made pointed references to the enormous problems besetting the black community in Chicago - the hometown of both Farrakhan and the president - and saying directly to Obama (who was not in attendance), ���Your people are suffering and dying in the streets.���

In his speech, Farrakhan conveyed, as well, his distaste for both Obama���s acute efforts at stopping Donald Trump from succeeding him, as well as the president���s overriding concern for his own legacy, saying to those assembled, ���So you Democrats, you been in their party a long time. Answer me, what did you get? You got a president. He is worried about his legacy. You want Hillary to get in to protect your legacy because Trump said the minute he gets in, he is going to reverse the Affordable Care Act.���

���Mr. President, let the man do, if he [Trump] gets in, what he wants to because he is not destroying your legacy. If your legacy is bound up in an Affordable Care Act that only affects a few million people and they are trying to make it really difficult for those of us who signed up, that���s not your legacy.���

Farrakhan suggested that it is, in fact, the hardships still facing multitudes of urban blacks that will serve as Obama���s real legacy.

���There���s your legacy, Mr. President, it���s in the streets with your suffering people, Mr. President. And if you can���t go and see about them, then don���t worry about your legacy. Cause the white people that you served so well, they���ll preserve your legacy. The hell they will. But you didn���t earn your legacy with us. We put you there.���

Farrakhan ended what amounted to a sermon with a swipe at gays and Jews, saying that President Obama put the interests of each of those groups ahead of the interests of blacks during his time in office.

���You fought for the rights of gay people. You fought for the rights of this people and that people. You fight for Israel. Your people are suffering and dying in the streets. That���s where you legacy is. Now you failed to do what should have been done.���

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

Poll Says 44% of NFL Fans Will Stop Watching If Anthem Protests Continue

According to a new Yahoo Sports/YouGov survey, 44 percent of fans say that they will stop watching NFL football if the various national anthem protests persist.

What started as a lone protest by San Francisco 49ers backup quarterback Colin Kaepernick during a preseason game has grown into something much more; now, fans can typically find, on ���any given Sunday,��� at least a handful of players on several teams throughout the league kneeling, raising fists, or making some other gesture���besides simply standing in honor of the national anthem as it is played before the start of a game.

The 44 percent number sure seems compelling, but one question it beckons is this: Is this number real?

That is, are these poll respondents really telling the truth here?

Probably not. Speaking for myself, as much as the anthem protests get under my skin, I still watch football, because I enjoy it so much. I���ve watched as much football as possible so far this season, and look forward to several games this coming Sunday and Monday.

Oh, I don���t doubt that some folks will stop watching pro football, at least for a little while, as long as the ���culture of protest��� continues to exist prominently as a part of the pre-game anthem ritual, but it is difficult to believe that nearly half of all fans will go cold turkey in avoiding the game they have loved for so many years.

That said, I would be careful not to confuse the idea that ���these poll numbers are a lie,��� which they may well be, to some extent, with the belief that NFL fans are entirely unchanged by these athletes showing such disrespect to one of the nation���s most revered and important symbols of national unity, loyalty, and patriotism. While I don���t see it as likely that 44 percent of fans will quit watching football in the way the poll suggests, I do think that if this aforementioned culture of protest sticks around and becomes a fixture at some level���that the crazed devotion for which football fans are famous will, indeed, diminish. How a drop in that devotion is ultimately manifested remains to be seen, but it seems a safe bet that the record attendance numbers, TV ratings, and revenue that have made the NFL what it has been for years will permanently come back to earth, once fans conclude that the game they love is not only no longer a refuge from the leftist politics they largely eschew, but has, in fact, become a vehicle for them.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

Mariners Suspend Player For Criticizing Charlotte Protesters

Catcher Steve Clevenger is a journeyman with six years in the majors.

(Photo: Ken Blaze, USA TODAY Sports)

The Seattle Mariners suspended Steve Clevenger without pay for the remainder of the season, moving swiftly Friday to discipline their backup catcher after his set of tweets imploring that protestors in Charlotte should be ���locked behind bars like animals.���

via www.usatoday.com

All of that freedom of speech talk in reference to players taking a knee during the national anthem seems to only apply in one direction. This shows the true hypocrisy of the left.

James L. Paris
Editor-In-Chief ChristianMoney.com 
Follow Me on Twitter Twitter.com/jameslparis
Christian Financial Advice
Jim Paris 24 Hour Radio

Obama at UN: Current Nationalist and Populist Uprisings are No Good for Our World

In his last speech delivered to the General Assembly of the United Nations, President Obama left no doubt as to how he feels about the resurgence of nationalism and populism in countries of the world thought to be fully in the camp of the globalists.

Equating globalism with progress, Obama, in his address, bemoaned the ���alternative visions��� that have recently found life and are now presenting a distinct challenge to those who would lead the charge toward a fully consummated New World Order:

���Alternative visions of the world have pressed forward, both in the wealthiest countries and in the poorest. Religious fundamentalism. The politics of ethnicity or tribe or sect. Aggressive nationalism. A crude populism. Sometimes from the far left but more often from the far right.���

So, apparently, the ���religious fundamentalism,��� ���politics of ethnicity,��� ���aggressive nationalism,��� and ���crude populism��� to which Obama obviously so clearly objects are the manifestations of rightists in wealthy nations.

About which country do you suppose he was principally speaking?

If you have any doubt, note that Obama also made three references in his speech to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump���s vow to build a wall on America���s southern border:

���Today, a nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself.���

And, just after that, there was this:

���The world is too small for us to simply be able to build a wall and prevent it from affecting our own societies.���

And, once more, this time in the context of the threat from the Zika virus:

���Mosquitoes don���t respect walls.���

Was the president really delivering an address at the United Nations, or stumping for Hillary Clinton?

At one point, he said the following:

���The world is too small. We are too packed together for us to be able to resort to those old ways of thinking.���

And just what ���old ways��� are those, Mr. President? Wherein nation-states act in their own best interests, and see the promotion of their values and the safeguarding of their people as being more important, more righteous, than the agenda of universality?

Just asking.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

MSNBC���s Chris Hayes: How ���Lucky��� We All Are that NY/NJ Terrorist Used Bombs and Not Guns

Chris Hayes, an MSNBC sort-of wunderkind who hosts the daily news and opinion show All In with Chris Hayes on that network, hit the ball out of the park with his genius assessment on Monday, conveyed via Twitter, that we���re all just so lucky the New York/New Jersey terror bomber effected his attack with bombs rather than guns.

No, seriously, he did say that. Here, read for yourself what he wrote:

���We're also very very lucky that the attackers tried to use explosives rather than guns.���

Western Journalism did a good job illustrating just how badly Hayes was creamed on social media by those who were hip to the point he was trying to make with that assessment. See, no one with any sense would really think that the use of explosives is a safer alternative for prospective terror victims (I can���t even believe I���m writing this) than the use of firearms, and so the only reasonable conclusion to which an observer can come is that Hayes was trying to cleverly work in an anti-gun message in his series of tweets about the bombing.

No one fell for it, however; here is just a sample of the many digital responses that overwhelmed Hayes:

���oh yes! It's so great that victims of the Boston Marathon were blown up and not shot. Must be grateful��� - @RyJamesG

���Exactly. When the military wants to kill a lot of people, they avoid bombs.��� - @smittie61984

���We're very lucky 9/11 attackers used box cutters and not guns would have been Hayes tweet 15 yrs ago��� - @_RobertHoover

AND���there were lots more, but you get the picture.

Hayes later tried to deny that he was making a point about gun control, but no one believes him.

Because it���s not true.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

What a Shock: George H.W. Bush Will Reportedly Cast His Vote For Hillary this November

And that���s according to a Kennedy.

The Bushes, Kennedys, and Clintons���all on the same team for this November���s election���because they���re on the same team, period, when you get down to brass tacks.

American political dynasties have to stick together, do they not?

The cat found its way out of the bag initially when Kathleen Hartington Kennedy Townsend, a daughter of Robert F. Kennedy and herself a politician of some note ( she���s a former lieutenant governor in the state of Maryland), posted to her Facebook page that Bush 41 told her he���s casting his vote for Hillary.

According to Yahoo, Townsend confirmed with Politico that such was indeed the case, telling them that she met with the 92-year-old patriarch of the Bush clan in Maine on Monday, and he revealed his choice of Clinton at that time.

A Bush spokesman seemed to try to walk the news back a bit, telling ABC News, ���The vote President Bush will cast as a private citizen in some 50 days will be just that: a private vote cast in some 50 days. He is not commenting on the presidential race in the interim.���

The so-called mainstream news outlets are reporting this like it���s actually a surprise, but no one with even the slightest bit of awareness is taken aback by the news. The Bushes and Clintons are well-known to be on the same globalist page, and, what���s more, Baby Jeb���s explicit manhandling by Trump during the 2016 primary season clearly put an end to any hope that Trump might see an endorsement from any Bush.

Not that he would want such an endorsement, mind you. Were Trump to actually gain such a ���credential,��� it would likely hurt him more than it would help, given the heavily populist tenor of much of the Republican electorate this year.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large