Cecil the lion and Planned Parenthood. Both Disgusting.

There was a variety of topics that I think I should address because the internet has buzzing with comments.Society has a funny way of deciding when to express outrage.A single lion, which most have never heard of, gets hunted for sport. International drama.Millions of innocent humans (aka pregnancy tissue) are slaughtered and their fully intact body parts are sold  No outrage. Here is a  coincidence.First of all I am DISGUSTED with a rich guy going to Africa and paying 50,000 $  just to kill a lion . Basically killing any living thing for thrill is a thin line that this guy has some psychological problems. What's the thrill ? Dr. Walter Palmer a dentist is a modern Nimrod , he has been in the spotlight before.  He was profiled in a 2008 New York Times piece; Stalking a Majestic Beast With an Eye on the Record Book. Though he has been in trouble for his hunting exploits before.  And he says it wasn't him. (Story now updated, he admits to killing the Cecil) Mr Palmer has also run into legal woes. In 2008, court records show, he pleaded guilty to making a false statement to federal wildlife officials concerning the exact location of the slaying of a black bear during a guided hunt in Wisconsin. He was sentenced to a year probation.

I have  read a great deal about comparing the killing of (2)>> Cecil the lion  – the most famous creature in one of Zimbabwe's national parks – was killed by an American hunter who has boasted about shooting a menagerie of animals with his bow and arrow, and why it' sparking so much opinion, then giving a silent majority to the  (1)>> Planned Parenthood abortion issue ?. Each issue for me is about the same thing .The hidden camera revelations about harvesting fetus parts for medical science , may not be nothing new .If you haven’t watched the damning videos of Planned

Parenthood officials discussing fetal tissue donation (or, in plain language, exchanging aborted babies’ body parts for money), you should watch them now before you read further. July 30–New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains’ Vice President and Medical Director, Dr. Savita Ginde, negotiating a fetal body parts deal, agreeing multiple times to illicit pricing per body part harvested, and suggesting ways to avoid legal consequences.But it is what precedes that “fetal tissue donation” that needs attention. Specifically, does Planned Parenthood regularly flout the federal ban on partial-birth abortion using loopholes? How do they get away with this? Do their patients—the women who apparently choose to donate the “fetal tissue”—know what’s going on in explicit terms? Yes, it's all about killing I believe the women are mostly deceived, and I actually think the lying and obfuscation is the main problem. They really either resist knowing or cannot believe the baby is real, and that the doctor is really going to kill their child. So I disagree that there is some kind of horrible immorality in the woman, it is wrong of course but it is more a caving in to pressure. It is mostly born of brainwashing and hiding the truth. Which is exactly what the news media is doing now. These are horrible horrible things to read, no doubt. But if they are not exposed and covered in the media, how are women and the general public going to even believe this is really happening?.It' how human beings ( American's now ) value "life" in general .  The same thing is going on inside PlannedParenthood. Abortion is the same , and both actions is about harvesting . Cecil the Lion had a horrible death , only to be skinned in the end .  The aborted fetuses are pulled out of the womb and harvested for medical research .    I frankly don't know which one is more Heinous.

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

1)>> Planned Parenthood. The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). Federal law also requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).Though it is a felony to profit from the sale of human fetal tissue, donations are within bounds, and the law explicitly allows unspecified compensation to cover the costs of preserving and processing fetal tissues for research. That’s what Planned Parenthood executives are shown discussing, over lunch in two of the videos, and in a lab in the third over a dissected fetal cadaver.  Do not know that these women knew exactly what they were doing, they pretend and lie a lot, acting like they are shocked. They did have sex irresponsibly. Such loose women know what it is. Its called individual responsibility. They are reactive and this is common for such loose women. Its the "oldest profession" however you spin it. Victims and backward class ppl can get other help, not by their  killing babies. Question . Have women been brainwashed into believing that an abortion is HER right alone ? Cecil the Lion’s death warrants outrage from the political left, but their darling abortion mogul–Cecile The Lyin’–can do no act heinous enough (like selling “unwanted” babies’ wanted organs), no Medicaid fraud egregious enough, no teen sex education misleading enough to stir a moment of discomfort for liberals.Cecile Richards .

Ironically Both are
named Cecil . The Lion and
Planned Parenthood President.

(2)>>Cecil the lion. Conservation groups in Zimbabwe reacted angrily to the news that the 13-year-old animal had been killed: partly because the lion was known to visitors and seemingly enjoyed human contact, and partly because of the way in which he was killed. He was lured out of the national park and shot.According to the Zimbabwe Professional Hunter and Guides Association, bow hunting is only permissible in private hunting concessions or communal hunting areas - never in a national park or government-controlled safari area.Lions are hunted either statically, by hanging bait from a tree then hiding nearby, or by stalking. According to Zimbabwean conservationists, hunting by bow and arrow is on the increase because is it silent and therefore those hunting illegally or unethically are not detected by the authorities.Emmanuel Fundira, president of the Safari Operators Association of Zimbabwe, called for Palmer to be prosecuted as a criminal. “Cecil was a collared lion, a protected species,” he said. “The rules are clear in Zimbabwe that no protected lions should be hunted. The American members of our association are encouraged to conduct themselves in a way that is beyond reproach. We are using hunting as a conservation tool, but when the tool is abused in this way, it destroys the whole principle.”He added: “The culprits should be brought to book and punished at the highest level." This is really reckless.”Cecil’s death is yet another blow to Zimbabwe’s economy, which is teetering under president Robert Mugabe. Fundira said: “We are extremely saddened. Cecil was a drawcard, well-known in the industry. Travellers came from all over the world for the experience and it’s been taken away.“If you imagine the amount being talked about as changing hands, $50,000, the country has been short changed. An iconic animal like that is worth much more in the long term. It’s a huge loss and people are grieving.”“If you imagine the amount being talked about as changing hands, $50,000, the country has been short changed. An iconic animal like that is worth much more in the long term. It’s a huge loss and people are grieving.”

--The Guardian

See The Guardian here for a long list of people who kill for sport :

http://www.theguardian.com/environmen

THE " TRUMP CARD."

 The Trump card

n.

1. Games A card in the trump suit, held in reserve for winning a trick.

2. A key resource to be used at an opportune moment; a trump: "[They] seem determined to use the agreement as a trump card to obtain ... all the advantages they feel they deserve"(Christian Science Monitor).

(***) Donald Trump as obnoxious as he is . Honestly,  he is challenging the establishment . He's ruffling the feathers of the (1)>> GOP , he is bashing the Democrats . He started the birther debate about President Obama , from his embrace of "birtherism," attempting to prove Obama was not actually born in the United States; to bouts of childish name-calling directed at the likes, recently, of syndicated columnist/Fox News analyst Charles Krauthammer, who dared to laugh off his presidential bid.  By far Trump is gaining momentum on the GOP contenders. Politicians campaign to win votes and collect contributions. So somebody who is unfettered by either of those concerns represents a bit of a wild card - and a reason why Donald Trump is sucking oxygen out of the Republican presidential race. He is a freak show of sorts . He attracts the curious.  (2)>>He will say outlandish things to stir up controversy. The town on the U.S.-Mexico border will become the center of attention today when the Republican presidential candidate stops by for a visit. The billionaire business mogul whose controversial comments about Mexican immigrants have been the talk of the campaign in recent weeks will receive a briefing from Hector Garza, president of the local chapter of the National Border Patrol Council, according to Trump's campaign. Trump's visit to the town, where the population is over 90 percent Hispanic, will begin with a town hall meeting in which law enforcement officers will give The Donald their own views on the situation at the border. Trump, they say, is not just a threat to the GOP's hopes of winning back the presidency by alienating key constituencies -- Donald Trump is a man you either love or hate, depending on your views of how the country should be run. Regardless of how people feel about the man and his commentary, there are some compelling reasons to believe that he will face off Hillary Clinton . BUT what he says on the issues is true . He's on the campaign of assaults  & insults . Kicking the buts of the political establishment.  (3)>> Fuming boycotts . His comments regarding illegal immigration have given him

the most traction, inspiring Tea Party conservatives to rally behind his call for border security.Although those comments have sparked both outcry and backlash, Trump has used the subsequent media attention to his advantage, taking the time to speak about other issues, and to connect with voters on a wider range of topics.Trump refuses to apologize or to abandon his campaign for the GOP nomination. Throughout 2015, he continues to attract large crowds and major media coverage as he travels around the country. Very hard to say if Trump is serious about running, just having fun, or trying to work his way into another TV reality show. If he really has a business sense (and since he went bankrupt numerous times, don't know how smart he is in that regard), then he knows that trying for  a 3rd party candidate is just pissing his money away.As a third-party candidate — with the money that he has to spend and the media attention he can command — Trump can have a bigger impact. As Trump has shown in his initial attacks, he holds a grudge. If he feels like he was squeezed from the GOP it is likely he would direct his venom toward them in a third-party campaign of retribution. This whole argument that Donald Trump is a lunatic, which he is, but the rest of the GOP are sober, real and presidential proves we live in a hall of mirrors! Donald is just as dangerous as any of the other GOP candidates. This means only one thing and that's if the GOP is to avoid the loss in 2016 of the popular vote in the sixth out of the last seven national elections there has to be a near crusade to the polls by the GOP's traditional base. .However, the one issue that has some possible shelf life in it to stir the juices in legions of GOP ultra-conservatives is illegal immigration. Open borders are a bad thing for any country. the media chooses to focus on defaming Mr. Trump instead of the issue he is addressing. There are some bad people that come into the country and there are many other concerns about uncontrolled illegal entry into this country that has to do with economics . The free handouts and the absurd sanctuary cities .That's a potential nightmare scenario for the GOP establishment: a populist outsider with unlimited resources attacking their nominee from the right in the general election, raising hell -- and attracting votes --Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton leads Bush, 50% to 44%, in a head-to-head match-up, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll out this week. But throw an independent Trump into that race, and Clinton's lead grows significantly to 46%, leaving Bush at 30%.

You see it's call in the "cards".

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

(***)>>In 2004, Mr. Trump said that he "identifies as a Democrat". If he runs as a third party candidate, he can get a lot of Democrat votes too. Bring it on! The GOP is not afraid at all: Hillary Clinton is a dishonest and incompetent person. Not many people are solid H. Clinton voters.(1)>> GOP .Panicked by Trump’s momentum, all the other GOP candidates — Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson and George Pataki, Lindsay Graham, and Rick Perry, except Ben Carson and Ted Cruz — spend a large chunk of their respective campaign funds and press interviews denouncing Trump, giving him even more media attention. Trump joins Sarah Palin as the most polarizing Republican in living political memory. As with Palin, the GOP pragmatists who control the money, media spin and party apparatus will do everything they can to maneuver and massage the primaries and convention to ensure that Trump dies a quick political death. Donald doubled down instead of folding and didn’t suffer all that much in the polls as a weird kind of reward. Granted, his numbers would be considered positively anemic in an ordinary presidential cycle. But with 15 official Republican candidates and counting, clearly this is no ordinary presidential cycle. While front-runner Jeb! Bush holds down the top spot, for now (16.3 percent nationally, according to RealClearPolitics), the distance between No. 2 Scott Walker (10.5 percent) and Trump (6.5 percent) is only 4 percentage points, give or take – definitely within striking distance for a campaign that knows what it’s doing about six months out from the first primary. And under the Republican rules, if the debates were held tomorrow, Trump would make the cut, where his loose-cannon act could do real damage to the GOP brand in a crowded field with no clear front-runner. Which makes some wonder why The Donald’s apparently shameless, racist buffoonery has propelled him past the likes of “serious” candidates like Rick Perry (3.8 percent), Carly Fiorina (2 percent) and Lindsey Graham (1.3 percent). (2)>> at Trump Tower in New York that he said: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." Immediately after those comments Republican strategists did not know whether to laugh or cry. After all, all you need do is look at the growth of the Latino population in America, assess their growing electoral importance in influencing the next presidential election, and how in the 2012 race their vote broke more or less 2:1 in favour of the Democrats, to realise that this is a group who need to be wooed and cajoled by the Republicans. But remarkably the leadership has sat on its hands, and said next to nothing. Ditto some of the other Republican candidates vying for the nomination. (3)>>Fuming boycotts.  the presidential hopeful called out Macy's — who has stopped selling his merchandise — on Twitter, saying that his fans are more loyal to him than they are to the department store chain. NBC has also ended its business relationship with the 69-year-old, and will not air Miss USA or Miss Universe.

Iran Deal is about OIL.

Well  the  Right Wing media commentators have already said that President Obama sold us out in the Iran deal ( including Israel )"Don't like the Iran deal? (1)>> What's the alternative? .There are no supporters for this deal worldwide with the exception of Russia which wants to sell Iran arms and China which wants to buy Iranian oil. All of the Arab states are opposed. Traditional Democratic bases of support such as the Jewish community are adamantly opposed. This deal has the potential to dramatically change the political landscape and rewrite who’s America’s allies are from now on as nations like Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states perceive that America has abandoned them.  There is an alternative, that's costly . It's military action (oh well , on the Republican side) . That's to say the better deal, the "credible alternative". Er, where is it? What was it? How does it work? Honestly we as a nation have to deal with Iran on a diplomatic level first .  I guess that's our first alternative. But President Obama  and his aides are relying on a three-word question to protect the agreement from congressional interference: "Compared to what?". Israeli PM Netanyahu declared that the deal even as it was taking shape spelled an end to the State of Israel. Most of the Israeli center-left opposition has since joined in the doomsday predictions. However, senior officials in Israel's defense establishment hold that the deal would actually reduce the threat posed by Iran, freeing resources to deal with other threats. REALISTICALLY . (2)>> There is more to the deal . It's lifting decades long economic sanctions . The UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution Monday endorsing the historic deal on Iran's nuclear program and cleared a path to lift sanctions crippling its economy.The passing of the resolution sets in motion a gradual process -- conditional on Iran abiding by the deal -- that can terminate seven UN resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran since 2006.The agreement with Tehran was reached on Tuesday in Vienna by the UN council's five permanent members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany. Perhaps it involves "returning" billions of assets frozen since the 1980's . It's

(3)>> MORE ABOUT OIL , getting cheapest oil (with exception in California ) . A sneaky Capitalist dream . Faced with the prospect of Iranian oil returning to the global market, crude prices fell for a fourth straight session, dropping to $50.15 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.What oil bears may underestimate is the hurdles on the diplomatic path to Iran's return to world energy markets.Some energy experts estimate that Iran could raise its exports by 500,000-800,000 barrels per day (bpd) within six months of sanctions being lifted, but that is likely to be a result of a gradual build-up.Iran’s economy is still heavily dependent on oil; 15% of it is based on oil, compared with 50% of government income that comes from crude sale. Many big oil firms, such as ENI, Shell and Total, are looking into Iran’s oil and gas opportunities. Iran’s oil ministry is offering lucrative deals. With US ties improving, American multinationals such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron, which were previously absent from Iran, could also weigh in. It has also been reported that Apple and even McDonald’s are looking into franchise-based business operations in the country. It is really not designed to solve any real problem of nuclear proliferation as Iran never had a bomb and, as confirmed by US and Israeli intelligence agencies, has not worked on nuclear weapons since at least 2003. This was about regime change in Iran to a regime more inclined to take orders from Washington. However Obama has figured out that he needs Iran to assist in overcoming (4)>>  Islamic State  and also in making life even more difficult for Russia by putting further downward pressure on oil prices and in getting Iran to substitute its Gas supplies to Western Europe for those of Russia. Iran has somewhere around 158 billion barrels of oil reserves, the fourth largest in the world. It also sitting on the second largest reserves of natural gas. But much of that has not been developed yet, due to the isolation it has faced in recent years.At the OPEC meeting in early June 2015, several oil companies gushed over the potential in Iran. They also visited Iran for more direct talks. The FT reports that Royal Dutch Shell and Italian oil giant ENI traveled to Tehran in May and June to discuss areas of cooperation. Oil exports at a time when daily crude supply already is outstripping global demand. That would lead to lower oil prices.Oil traders' knee-jerk reaction was to dump oil early Tuesday: A barrel of U.S. based crude, or West Texas Intermediate, tumbled more than 2.5%, But oil rebounded later in the day. WTI posted a gain for the day of $1.06, or 2%, to $53.26.  

Yes, the American people are easily misled, but some are waking up. Its about the oil . Forget the NUKES!

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

(1)>>  What's the alternative ? The polls speak for themselves . Americans support the nuclear agreement with Iran by 56% to 37%. No, they disapprove of the deal, 48% to 38%.  The conflicting findings come from respected polling operations with long track records of accurately tracking public opinion. A Washington Post/ABC News survey released Monday found Americans supporting the deal; a poll from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center released Tuesday found disapproval.How can both be correct? Question wording seems likely to be a big part of the answer.For starters, realize that maybe one in a hundred people on the street could give you even a general sense of what the actual terms of the deal are. This is chiefly a proxy question, at least for partisans, of how much they trust Obama. Democrats do so they’re pro-deal, Republicans don’t so they’re anti. There’s also an element on both sides, although certainly bigger on the left, that believes any deal is better than nothing at this point because it means there’ll be no war, and that’s the most important accomplishment in all of this. The White House itself shares that view. Stopping an Iranian bomb would be nice, stopping an attack on Iran by Israel and/or the U.S. would be nicer. (2)>> REALISTICALLY. There more to the deal like a domino effect , let's explain ...Barack Obama signed a nuclear deal with Iran so that he can extract concessions over Syria in return for Iran being allowed to control Iraq and for which it has to rein in the Houthis in Yemen to pacify the Saudis and simultaneously restrain Kurdish ambitions thus easing Turkey’s anxiety about Kurdish independence as an incentive for it to cooperate regionally allowing both Saudi Arabia and Turkey to come on board with Obama’s plan for Israel/Palestine which will also appease Egypt allowing it to play a bigger role in Libya to control the southern shores of the Mediterranean reducing migrant flows into Europe to ease the pressure on Greece and Italy for which Europe agrees to soften its stance against Russia allowing for a solution in Ukraine that allows NATO to maintain a presence in the East without threatening Russia which will be rewarded by removing the international sanctions against it allowing it to increase its trade with Europe.(3)>> OIL. Iran would soon be able to sell crude. will start competing fiercely to regain market share that they have lost to their Persian Gulf neighbors. Unfortunately for Iran, the timing could not be worse. Oil prices are depressed and already there is a glut of oil on the market. Adding Iran’s crude

will put further downward pressure on oil prices. (4)>> ISLAMIC STATE.  Contrary to any popular belief . The Terrorist State of Levant has a revenue source in oil. Most western countries not knowing and buying blind to "cheap oil" .  Yes, most American's and British alike are filling up their cars with Islamic State oil .  Islamic State is still extracting and selling oil in Syria and has adapted its trading techniques despite a month of strikes by U.S.-led forces aimed at cutting off this major source of income for the group, residents, oil executives and traders say.The 11 oil fields that IS controls in Iraq and Syria have made it a largely independent financial machine. Reports show that IS-controlled fields in Iraq produce between 25,000 and 40,000 barrels of oil per day, at an estimated value of approximately $1.2 million, before being smuggled out to Iran, Kurdistan, Turkey and Syria.  NATO doesn't want to bomb the oil because they want some to siphon after all this is over.

Taxes. Mrs. Clinton , and more taxes......

The raising of any kind of taxes draws criticism no matter . Hillary Clinton put an end to two years of speculation by announcing that she will run for President in 2016 Mrs. Clinton has also  a elaborate tax plan that is just as puzzling as her (3)>> Husband's old tax plan  , but not so similar . For all of us Americans , they have been stuck back and forth between tax plans . I have problems with the the tax system . I agree that the top earners need to pay more .(***)>> ALSO that REAL Tax relief should be given to people struggling . Every President since I have been alive has made obvious tax plans to help Americans , but HONESTLY we have been undercut to corporate billionaires. With the last Bush tax plan which "merged" with President Obama's plan of 2008 , now soon to be  "sandwiched" between Mrs. Clinton's  new plan.The proposal, called the "Rising Incomes, Sharing Profits" Tax Credits, is her first economic policy roll-out of the campaign and comes days after Clinton outlined her economic platform in New York.The plan, according to campaign aides, said Thursday, would cost in the low tens of billions of dollars over a 10-year period, and would be paid for by closing tax loopholes that Clinton "will identify as part of the comprehensive agenda ... in the weeks and months ahead." With wages are stagnating while corporate profits are hovering around record highs. So it's easy to see the logic behind Hillary Clinton's latest economic proposal, which she unveiled Thursday in New Hampshire: a tax cut for companies that share their profits with their employees. That may be true. But it's easy to imagine companies introducing profit sharing with the help of a tax credit, then holding back on raises, or hiring new workers for lower pay. After all, President Obama raised the top rate to 39.6%, but he, himself, only paid between 16% and 20% effective tax rates in any given year. Let’s not forget the $5.5 million he made in one year during his first term, thanks to well selling books. Given the fact that members of Congress are not required to disclose their tax returns, it certainly makes this citizen wonder how much tax there are actually paying – or how much they are actually NOT paying. I have always said that MOST tax plans we have seen come out of Washington D.C. over the years always favors the vary rich .In theory, most individuals are supposed to pay 40% in taxes. In practice, however, the wealthy pay closer to 22% for various reasons: many have a predominance of investment income, which is taxed at 20%; some may enjoy tax breaks from mortgage interest payments; some may donate to charities or have rental income that’s excluded; and most are able to deduct state and local taxes from their federal taxable income. The list goes on. Even those with $200,000 to $500,000 in annual income enjoy an effective tax rate of only 23%.! However, there is a widening partisan gap in several public attitudes about the federal tax system. Today, Republicans are 20 points more likely than Democrats to say they are paying more than their fair share in taxes (50% vs. 30%). In the 2011 survey, nearly identical percentages of Republicans (37%) and Democrats (38%) said they were paying more than their fair share. The six-year-old  (Obama ) economic recovery plan  has only  succeeded in restoring corporate profits and creating some jobs, but it hasn’t brought pay raises for many workers. Wage growth is running ahead of inflation, but it remains low and hasn’t accelerated as the economy as a whole has improved. And as Clinton stressed throughout her speech, many of those problems predate the recession, suggesting deeper structural challenges in the U.S. economy.  So the finger pointing.  Mrs. Clinton to Senator Rubio's  proposed tax plan: (1)>> "Another priority must be reforming our tax code. Now, we hear Republican candidates talk a lot about tax reform. But take a good look at their plans. Sen. Rubio's would cut taxes for households making around $3 million a year by almost $240,000, which is way more than three times the earnings of a typical family." Many of Clinton’s themes will sound familiar to anyone who’s been listening to President Obama over the past eight years. She wants to boost incomes for the (2)>> middle class, raise taxes on the wealthy and make it easier for parents to juggle work and family. Recently announced presidential candidate Ted Cruz hit on that pressure point in his speech this week when he mentioned the tax code. "Instead of a tax code that crushes innovation, that imposes burdens on families struggling to make ends meet, imagine a simple flat tax that lets every American fill out his or her taxes on a postcard," the GOP senator from Texas said. "Imagine abolishing the IRS."Cruz may be a dreamer, but he's not the only one — 59 percent of Americans agree "there is so much wrong with the federal tax system that Congress should completely change it," according to a recent study by the Pew Research Center. Calling inequality a "drag" on the entire economy, Clinton targeted Bush directly for saying last week that Americans needed to "work longer hours" -- a portion of the former Florida governor's discussion of economic solutions that his campaign said critics have taken out of context. Clinton said Bush "must not have met very many American workers," and challenged him to repeat the claim to nurses, teachers and others who she said "do not need a lecture. They need a raise." For example, she endorsed a Buffett tax on very-high-income households, tax relief for small business but new taxes on multinationals that benefit from “overseas loopholes,” a $1500 tax credit for business that hire or train new workers, and an end to the carried interest rules that allow managers of some investment firms to turn compensation into  tax favored capital gains. She embraced the New Markets Tax Credit and Empowerment Zones, two tax-based subsidy programs aimed at encouraging investment in low-income communities. She also proposed less specific ideas to encourage firms on how  to create profit-sharing plans for workers, reform capital gains taxes to reward longer-term investments, and give “hard working families tax relief and simplification.” For Clinton, some tax subsidies are useful tools for economic development while others are loopholes or giveaways. The new twist for Clinton isn't a surprise: That same day, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has been stealing Clinton's thunder and firing up crowds in Iowa and New Hampshire, sent a letter to President Obama saying that "it is critical that we fight to protect and expand Social Security." Among the 71 congressional Democratic co-signers calling on the White House to join the fight was leading Senate liberal Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.In her detail-light speech, Clinton gave no hint of how she planned either to defend or enhance Social Security. Sanders, on the other hand, has been quite specific.A detailed analysis of his Social Security Expansion Act by the retirement program's actuaries reveals that Sanders would raise taxes by more than trillion over a decade to improve the program's solvency and pay for a benefit increase. So we have to take heed on this , If Mrs. Clinton wins , your taxes are going to shoot the roof. Back in 2012 Hillary Clinton gave us fair warning .  "One of the issues that I have been preaching about around the world is collecting taxes in an equitable manner — especially from the elites in every country," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in her speech at the Clinton Global . "It is a fact that the elites in every country are making money. There are rich people everywhere, and yet they do not contribute to the growth of their own countries," Clinton said. Yes, she has taxation on her mind . Regardless of your yearly earnings she is coming after (4)>> YOU!

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

(***)>>The rich already have enough money to live a great lifestyle; it won't hurt them as much to increase their taxes. The power of rich individuals such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and George Soros, must be contained by limiting their wealth. with more funds instead going to lobbyists, campaign contributors, and other friends of politicians (i.e. "crony capitalism"). Even when money is directed to worthy causes, the federal bureaucracy incurs so much inefficiency and fraud that only a fraction of it goes to the intended recipients. While running for president, Clinton also advocated repealing the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000. While this was very much in line with President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party more generally, this policy also meant extending about three-quarters of the Bush tax cuts and adding trillions to the deficit. Even so, sticking to the $250,000 threshold would have been better than the ultimate deal that President Obama cut (and Clinton may have cut as well), which only repealed the Bush tax cuts for those making over $450,000. 

(1)>> Clinton said that Rubio’s tax plan "would cut taxes for households making around $3 million a year by almost $240,000, which is way more than three times the earnings of a typical family."It is possible to take issue with the statement in some ways. The source of her claim uses an earlier version of Rubio’s plan in its analysis,  and she said $3 million when she should have said $3.3 million. But the thrust of her statement is sound. An analysis of a plan extremely similar to the one put forth by Rubio would cut taxes for those making $3.3 million and more by nearly $240,000, which is more than three times the U.S. median household income of $53,046. We rate her statement Mostly True. (2)>> The typical (median) U.S. household earned just less than $52,000 before taxes in 2013, the latest year for which full data is available. Adjusting for inflation, that’s less than in 1989, suggesting that the middle class has experienced two and a half decades of income stagnation. (3)>> Mr Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 into law. This act created a 36 percent to 39.6 income tax for high-income individuals in the top 1.2% of wage earners. Businesses were given an income tax rate of 35%. The cap was repealed on Medicare. The taxes were raised 4.3 cents per gallon on transportation fuels and the taxable portion of Social Security benefits were increased. The Taxpayer Relief Act (1997) reduced some federal taxes. Due to certain phase-in rules, the rate 28% was lowered to 20% in the top capital gains. The bracket that was 15% fell to 10%. In 1980, a tax credit was put into place based on the number of individuals under the age of 17 in a household. In 1998, it was $400 per child. In 1999, it was raised to $500. High-income families had this Act phased out. This Act took out from taxation profits on the sale of a house of up to $500,000 for individuals who are married, and $250,000 for single individuals. Educational savings and retirement funds were given tax relief. Some of the expiring tax provisions were extended for selected businesses. Since 1998, an exemption could be taken out for those family farms and small businesses that qualified for it. In 1999, the correction of inflation on the $10,000 annual gift tax exclusion was accomplished. By the year 2006, the $600,000 estate tax exemption had risen to $1 million. (4)>> YOU! . Well, at least Hillary is honest on one issue, she's come out and admitted that she is nothing but a traditional "Tax & Spend Democrat".  Obama spewed this same B.S. in that his "tax the rich" mantra did increase taxes, but not just the rich.

NEW HORIZON'S PLUTO : Aftermath.

My last post called  2015: SPACE ODYSSEY. PART 8th. I summarized how spectacular the mission was . It's by all standards of technology an amazing feat by NASA . All the scientists do deserve praise for even getting a piano sized probe out 3 billion miles . I love pretty much seen all the NASA missions over the two decades , as each spacecraft landed or flew by a planet . Namely growing up , I saw the Voyager 1, 2 missions , starting in 1979 we saw our first glimpses of Jupiter , then came Saturn in 1981 and in 1986 Uranus and finally Neptune in 1989. The grand tour of the outer solar system was done . There is one mission that is ongoing for note . This is the Cassini -Saturn Mission which right now is NASA's biggest and costly . The Presumed price tag for Cassini was a billion dollars , and its the largest orbiting probe ever sent to a planet . It's almost the size of a school bus . This mission shared some of the costs with the ESA (European Space Agency ). Back in 2005 the Cassini probe piggy backed a small lander named Huygens  to the surface of Titian a planet sized moon , it landed and briefly survived the frigid surface long enough to take pictures . The Mars rovers are grand missions , and more rovers will be sent to Mars to 2020's for a grandiose sample return . These missions for me are worth my tax dollars . Campaigners have calculated that it costs $0.15 per American per year for the New Horizons mission. BUT I am a little BUMMED out on the Pluto mission . First its remarkable that the Pluto probe made it out there soo quickly , yes , it zipped by so fast that in 4 hours it was already a million miles past Pluto white the NASA scientists on Earth waited for the scientific information to come in .New Horizons is collecting so much data it will take 16 months to send it all back to Earth. Yes, it needs to actually *transmit* all the photos! New Horizons has a very limited data transfer rate - again due to serious practical constraints - and will be transmitting its data for weeks after passing by Pluto & Charon. YET we will still have to wait for the data to come in according to top NASA scientists . So, it seemed to me that the mission is a flop already . Yes , I can argue that we

made IT to Pluto . My problem is that NEW HORIZONS is heading out into a void probably never to encounter anything . This would mean that the probe will have it's camera's turned off . There is nothing to look at out there , unless you aim the spacecraft on a different trajectory to another dwarf planet , the mission was a waste of money in the sense .  I had a friend tell me that NASA had years to plan the mission to settle in an orbit around Pluto . Yes YEARS!, they just did not want it to orbit Pluto , but do a bullet shot mission that had no breaks to slow down. New Horizons did not carry enough fuel to go into orbit around Pluto, ..... what he told me was that the NASA scientists were vary "nervous" about this mission , one of the planners was worried that it would collide with some debris , and we would not  know it . Because the probe was zipping bye so fast that NASA scientists were pacing around JPL hoping that 700,000,000 $ won't just blow up in outer space . Yet NASA had it's excuses . NEW HORIZONS was to explore the *** Kuiper Belt out beyond Pluto . I wished that they put NEW HORIZONS in orbit around Pluto , even if it was not so scientifically possible , I still believe that there was so much more to learn from the Pluto system that the quick shot approach to this kinda of space exploration ruined a great space craft.

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

*** KUIPER BELT:  sometimes called the Edgeworth–Kuiper belt, is a region of the Solar System beyond the planets, extending from the orbit of Neptune (at 30 AU) to approximately 50 AU from the Sun.^[2] It is similar to the asteroid belt, but it is far larger—20 times as wide and 20 to 200 times as massive. The NASA space probe is now racing away from Pluto at around 30,800 miles per hour, looking back at the dwarf planet and its moons to take images as it does so.Yet New Horizons could be about to travel even further into the unknown by becoming the first spacecraft to visit the icy blocks encircling our solar system in a ring of debris called the Kuiper Belt. New Horizons is to continue travelling out to the edge of the solar system, but scientists hope to persuade NASA to allow them to alter its direction to send it towards one of two icy objects in the Kuiper Belt - a ring of debris that surrounds our solar system. The spacecraft, which will be the first to make such a journey, visiting one of these mysterious objects Depending on its fuel levels, the spacecraft would fly past either MT69, a 37 mile (60km) wide object or MT70, a 47 mile (76km) wide object, sometime between January and March 2019. Still we don't have a clue what's out there . That's why I am musing that NEW HORIZONS was better off orbiting Pluto as mankind's farthest outpost . So if makes it out there by 2019 , MT69 and MT70 orbit around four billion miles from the Sun - 44 times further out than the Earth. Other than believing MT70 is larger than MT69 and also brighter, scientists know little else about these objects. Yet like it has already with Pluto, New Horizons could

provide our first close up look at these icy places on the edge of our solar system and perhaps reveal new information about how our solar system formed. The simple reason is that New Horizons can’t make a stop at the Pluto-Charon system. It’s a constraint that has as much to do with engineering as it does with basic physics. To get New Horizons into Pluto’s orbit, mission planners would have to reduce its speed by over 90%, which would require more than 1,000 times the amount of fuel the probe can carry. That’s a technologically unfeasible proposition. And so, the probe will have no choice but to zoom past Pluto, feverishly snapping pics and taking measurements before being flung outward towards the Kuiper belt. But knowing we will probably NEVER send another probe to Pluto, why not give it a try? At least an impact Huygens-type probe!

.