The Front Page Cover "I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened"
.
Featuring:
The nonexistent case
for progressive taxation
George F. Will .
"Rise up together as one voice"
"Be careful where you stand"
~~~lll~~~
.
How to Track Five Million Illegals 
The common perception is that most illegal aliens come across the border with Mexico, but most experts still believe that between 40% and 50% of illegals are actually people who came legally and overstayed their visas. According to a 2006 study by the Pew Research Center, "Nearly half of all the unauthorized migrants now living in the United States entered the country legally through a port of entry such as an airport or a border crossing point where they were subject to inspection by immigration officials." In other words, these folks aren't "undocumented" at all; they've just slipped through the cracks because enforcement has long been, shall we say, lacking.
If the giant bureaucracies of the Social Security Administration, Internal Revenue Service and Department of Homeland Security could work together, illegals who've overstayed would be easier to identify. (Maybe if the IRS wasn't so busy targeting conservatives... Just a thought.)
Well, the Associated Press reports, there's an effort afoot to track those who overstay visas: "U.S. Customs and Border Protection will begin capturing facial and eye scans of foreigners entering the country at San Diego's Otay Mesa port of entry on foot. By February, foreigners going to Mexico on foot through the checkpoint will get scanned. The trial run, which lasts through the end of June, will help determine if authorities expand biometric screening to foreigners at all land crossings on the 1,954-mile border with Mexico. Authorities will look at the accuracy of the cameras." The problem has never been the law. Congress has demanded these scans for more than 20 years. Again, it's lack of enforcement that presents the biggest problem. And a legitimate tracking system will go a long way toward fixing it. -The Patriot Post
.
.
Did DHS End Program Tracking San Bernardino Attackers?
Could U.S. law enforcement stop Tashfeen Malik — the woman who helped carry out the San Bernardino attack — after she applied for a visa, before she even entered the states? Former Customs and Border Patrol analyst Phil Haney told Fox News that it was possible, if the State Department and DHS' Office of Civil Rights had not stepped in over concerns that the program was politically incorrect. Haney had been tracking the Deobandi Movement, a group of fundamentalist Muslims, putting thousands of names and locations into a database, tracking the members as they traveled in and out of America using the visa waiver program. Both attackers were associated with the movement, and the wife's entry attempt might have been flagged had the investigation continued.
Haney received a letter of commendation after his work identified 300 terrorists. But then the PC police stepped in and said Haney was profiling Muslims. Records were deleted. When he spoke up, Haney lost his security clearance in September 2014. Haney said, "The administration was more concerned about the civil rights and liberties of foreign Islamic groups with terrorist ties than the safety and security of Americans." This administration can't be trusted with national security issues. It shut down a program trying to prevent terrorist acts before they happen, but it wants to expand background checks on firearm purchase to prevent mass shootings before they happen. Go figure.
In related news, there are reports that nObama instructed law enforcement to downplay the terrorism angle in the immediate aftermath of the attack, as it undercut his preferred narrative. -The Patriot Post
.
.
The Executives Act on Gun Control
Before the blood has even dried in San Bernardino, Barack nObama and his cronies began acting in political theater. This week, nObama's adviser Valerie Jarrett told a group of people holding a vigil in remembrance of the Sandy Hook massacre that her boss is considering proposals to institute a measure of gun control. More specifically, nObama will probably use his phone and pen to close the "gun show loophole" and expand background checks. Polls show people support background checks, so nObama's just trying to make Republicans look unreasonable for opposing him. That shores up an incrementally larger number of people who think Republicans just won't budge at all on the issue and don't care that Americans keep getting killed. Recall that nObama told NBC September 2014, "Part of this job is also the theater of it. A part of it is, you know, how are you, how, how are you, well, it's not something that — that always comes naturally to me. But it matters. And I'm mindful of that." Make no mistake: nObama is only playing political theater. As National Review's Charles C.W. Cooke noted, nObama doesn't have enough time in office to propose an executive order, hold a reasonable comment period and defend the action in court. It's all for show to demonstrate Democrats are doing something, anything, about "gun violence."
Meanwhile in the "Constitution State," Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy promised Thursday to sign an executive order banning the sale of firearms in the state to anyone that appears on the federal terrorism watch list, a clear erosion of due process. But like all the other gun control measures the state adopted after Sandy Hook, this one wouldn't have stopped that massacre. More theater. -The Patriot Post
.
.
Gitmo's 'Going Out of Business' Sale Within days after taking office, Barack nObama pompously penned an executive order closing the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, within a year. Seven years later, the facility remains open due to strenuous objections to moving Gitmo's occupants stateside (or elsewhere) as well as concerns over the cost of closing the prison. A recent Defense Department proposal pegged the cost as $600 million, which includes separate holding facilities around the country for the remaining detainees.
Frustrated at the lack of progress, some in nObama's camp want him to go the executive order route again and with a stroke of a pen magically make the holding cells disappear. In reality, though, nObama has stepped up the pace of releasing prisoners over the last several months with another five transferred to the United Arab Emirates this week. The current population of 107 may be in double-digits by year's end if nObama has his way. Last month, nObama spokesman Josh Earnest intoned, “I'm not aware of any ongoing effort to devise a strategy using only the president's executive authority to accomplish this goal. But I certainly wouldn't ... take that option off the table.” Going it alone is never off of nObama's table.
Emptying out the camp may be a campaign promise, but it also leaves the enormous risk of former prisoners returning to the battlefield, like a certain Yemeni al-Qaida leader.
According to Thomas Joscelyn in The Long War Journal, "Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) released a new video featuring a former Guantanamo detainee, Ibrahim Qosi, who is also known as Sheikh Khubayb al Sudani. In July 2010, Qosi plead guilty to charges of conspiracy and material support for terrorism before a military commission. His plea was part of a deal in which he agreed to cooperate with prosecutors during his remaining time in US custody. Qosi was transferred to his home country of Sudan two years later, in July 2012. Qosi joined AQAP in 2014 and became one of its leaders."
-The Patriot Post
.
.
.
Trump: You Should Ban Islamists, Not Muslims
{Daniel Pipes} ~ Donald Trump, the leading Republican presidential candidate, called on Dec. 7 for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."... Replace one word in this formulation and it goes from outrageous to brilliant. Reacting to massacres by Muslims in Paris and San Bernardino, Trump pointed to a Muslim hatred "beyond comprehension" for the West. Therefore, he concluded, "Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad." The negative responses, domestic and international, Muslim and non-Muslim, came in fast and furious – and rightly so, as Trump's crude blast is unconstitutional, unacceptable, unworkable, and unstrategic. http://www.danielpipes.org/16331/trump-ban-islamists-not-muslims
.
Missing: The State Depart emails of Hilly's computer guy
{Jeff Dunetz} ~ Remember Bryan Pagliano? He’s the senior Hilly Clinton IT guy who worked for her at State, and on her home server... When Pagliano was called to testify before the Benghazi committee he “took the fifth.” The latest Pagliano-related issue is that his State Department emails seem to have disappeared. Well not all of them are missing, just the ones written during Ms. Clinton’s tenure at Foggy Bottom. Politico is reporting that State Dept. officials told the Senate Judiciary Committee in a recent closed-door meeting that they could not locate what’s known as a “.pst file” for Pagliano’s work during Clinton’s tenure, which would have included copies of the tech expert’s emails, according to a letter Chairman Chuck Grassley sent to Secretary of State John hanoi-Kerry (embedded below). A personal storage table or .pst is an open file format used to store copies of messages, calendar events, and other items within Microsoft software such as Microsoft Exchange Client, Windows Messaging, and Microsoft Outlook. http://lidblog.com/missing-state-department-emails-of-hillary-clintons-computer-guy/?utm_source=The+Lid+List&utm_campaign=39fd67d15c-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_597b72c01c-39fd67d15c-291705165.
Hilly Clinton Calls Family of the Benghazi Dead… Liars!
{Onan Coca} ~ About a month ago we brought you a video produced by the folks at Townhall media that showed the majority of the families who lost loved ones in the Benghazi terrorist attack of 9/11/2012 were told by Hilly Clinton that the YouTube video was the cause of the attack... Now, almost exactly 4 weeks later, Hilly Clinton has responded to those families and what she is saying is DISGUSTING. This past Sunday, Hilly Clinton appeared on ABC’s This Week with the sycophantic George Stephanopoulos where she was asked about the Benghazi scandal and what these families had to say about her lies. Instead of apologizing or attempting to explain away her comments, Clinton chose to call these families LIARS. http://eaglerising.com/27416/hillary-clinton-calls-family-of-the-benghazi-dead-liars/.
Toronto’s Pearson Airport now has a “gender apartheid mosque”...
{Ezra Levant} ~ The Globe and Mail reports that the official Syrian refugee intake area at Toronto Pearson Airport has a mosque... We’re banning the Lord’s Prayer, but we’re building mosques with tax dollars. But not just any mosque. A gender apartheid mosque. Men over there. Women over there. So the very first thing these Syrians are seeing is not the Canadian belief in the equality of men and women. I don't understand why the West is bending over backwards for these people. The people who want to kill us.
.
DHS Shut Down Investigation into San Bernardino Jihadists
{Pamela Geller} ~ The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) deleted intel records relating to notorious jihadists linked to San Bernardino Islamic terrorists Sayed Farook and Tashfeen Malik... because they wanted to protect the “civil liberties” of members of the caliphate-supporting network. My civil liberties and your civil liberties are being abridged in accordance with the blasphemy laws under Shariah (Islamic laws). My organization is engaged in 15 different free speech lawsuits against various cities. Our free speech lawsuit against Boston is heading to the Supreme Court because even though truthful, our ads violate the laws of sharia (“do not criticize Islam”). We are being forced to adhere to sharia mores, but jihad murderers are given sanctuary and protection — to slaughter Americans. The immoral of the story is — jihad terror..
Black Lives Matter Protester Never Saw THIS Coming...
{gopthedailydose.com} ~ Black Lives Matter protesters are quickly learning a harsh lesson in how the real world works, as supporters of the police and military everywhere are fighting back... some with their words, some, like the courageous Marine in the following video, with their fists. These two Black Lives Matter protesters were shouting across the street at this Marine, who was shouting, “Police Lives Matter” in return. Suddenly the man decides to cross the street and bridge the gap between the three of them, leading to an altercation that became heated quicker than you can say race-baiters. The story was first posted on Conservative Tribune, but was quickly retracted for an unknown reason. Regardless, we have the incredible video footage to share with you of one of the most aggressive arguments between two completely opposing people that I have ever seen..
hanoi-Kerry Saving The Planet For The Zombies – Feed The...
{constitutionrising.com} ~ We all knew this grand proclamation was coming. It was as predictable as John hanoi-Kerry’s reptilian tongue being flicked to gauge the CO2 and methane content of the airborne manure he’s emitting... hanoi-Kerry and nObama forced this entire French farce and the grander fraud it “decided” upon the people of the United States and their counterparts, the willing leeches of the world. Now the incessant sales pitches designed to force us screaming into submission will begin. We can expect the relentless harping to include every aspect of daily life with the possible exceptions of nObama’s oversized ears, loathing of America and pathological lying as well as hnaoi-Kerry’s similarity to a Frankenstein zombie being the result of climate change. No aspect of American life will be free of their persistent assault until we relent, falsely admit that what we all know to be a scam is real and reward the climate charlatans with the payday they demand. Our elite masters didn’t go to all of this effort to be denied by a bunch of commoners. http://constitutionrising.com/archives/23540.
Sweden: Shambles in Asylum Heaven
{Ingrid Carlqvist} ~ In spite of the supposedly tighter asylum rules announced November 24, chaos rules in Sweden... So far, in 2015, 150,000 asylum seekers have been registered; but as there is nowhere to house them, people are sleeping in tents, on cardboard boxes in exhibition halls, and even on the street. Many run away from the Immigration Service facilities. More than 22,000 people are supposed to be deported but refuse to leave. Swedes are understandably terrified that terrorists might be hiding among the refugees. The police are busy with pointless border controls and cannot attend to their normal work. It is not an exaggeration to say that in this situation, Sweden has lost track of pretty much everything.
Even the asylum seekers are complaining. On a Swedish public television program, Uppdrag Granskning, aired on December 2, Salwa, a mother of young children, told the reporter how she is forced to live in an asylum house along with men she called "bad people." When the reporter explained to Salwa that 10,000 new asylum seekers arrive every week, and this was why everything was topsy-turvy, she replied: "Then close the borders. Stop taking in more people. If you have ten guests in your house and there is not enough room, would you still take in ten more?"
.
Judge Jeanine: The Real Hero In Washington Needs Our Support 
{nicedeb} ~ Judge Jeanine’s opening statement Saturday night was a change in form for her. Instead of reaming Barack nObama (or Hilly, or some other vile Democrat) for for seven minutes... she defended the integrity of a man she knows and obviously has deep admiration for – FBI Director James Comey. His name has come up on her show in the past, during discussions about the Clinton email investigation, which she has maintained is being conducted by the FBI in a non-partisan and above board manner. On Saturday night’s Justice, Pirro ran through a number of clashes Comey’s had with nObama for the past year – some of which – was news to me.
{nicedeb} ~ Judge Jeanine’s opening statement Saturday night was a change in form for her. Instead of reaming Barack nObama (or Hilly, or some other vile Democrat) for for seven minutes... she defended the integrity of a man she knows and obviously has deep admiration for – FBI Director James Comey. His name has come up on her show in the past, during discussions about the Clinton email investigation, which she has maintained is being conducted by the FBI in a non-partisan and above board manner. On Saturday night’s Justice, Pirro ran through a number of clashes Comey’s had with nObama for the past year – some of which – was news to me..
Foreign Interests Prepare To Can Conservative Broadcasters
{Cliff Kincaid} ~ The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is about the vote to let the Arabs, Russians and Chinese buy U.S. radio and TV licenses and force conservative broadcasters off the air... Jerry Kenney and Cliff Kincaid discuss the critical deadline coming up for public comment on this treasonous change in the law on foreign ownership of the U.S. media. The public must act now. http://www.trevorloudon.com/2015/12/foreign-interests-prepare-to-can-conservative-broadcasters/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NewZeal+%28New+Zeal+Blog%29
.
.
The nonexistent case
for progressive taxation
George F. Will.
.
Arguments for it are invariably arguments for increased equality of social outcomes. Because individuals have different vocational desires and different aptitudes for adding value to the economy, inequality is inevitable. Because individuals have different social sensibilities, opinions will differ about what degrees of inequality are intolerably unlovely (more about this aesthetic metric in a moment). But inequality, even when unlovely to some, is unjust only when it arises from unjust social arrangements. So, the degree to which inequality is morally troubling depends on the degree to which the process that allocates wealth does so according to political influence and rent-seeking rather than merit and self-reliance.
Arguments for it are invariably arguments for increased equality of social outcomes. Because individuals have different vocational desires and different aptitudes for adding value to the economy, inequality is inevitable. Because individuals have different social sensibilities, opinions will differ about what degrees of inequality are intolerably unlovely (more about this aesthetic metric in a moment). But inequality, even when unlovely to some, is unjust only when it arises from unjust social arrangements. So, the degree to which inequality is morally troubling depends on the degree to which the process that allocates wealth does so according to political influence and rent-seeking rather than merit and self-reliance.
.
Society should prevent extreme privation, no matter how far the top earners are from those near the bottom. But who is to decide, and how are they to decide, the ideal spread between the top and the bottom of income distribution? The argument for progressive taxation must demonstrate this: Such taxation does not do more harm by slowing economic growth than faster economic growth would do good by its distributive effects.
Society should prevent extreme privation, no matter how far the top earners are from those near the bottom. But who is to decide, and how are they to decide, the ideal spread between the top and the bottom of income distribution? The argument for progressive taxation must demonstrate this: Such taxation does not do more harm by slowing economic growth than faster economic growth would do good by its distributive effects.
.
Although the argument for progressive taxation usually begins with a moral judgment about social conditions, it usually becomes a moral assertion about equitable sacrifices. It asserts that money has declining marginal utility — that $1,000 subtracted from a wealthy person’s income diminishes that person’s happiness, or society’s sum of happiness, less than would $1,000 subtracted from the income of a person with a modest income.
Although the argument for progressive taxation usually begins with a moral judgment about social conditions, it usually becomes a moral assertion about equitable sacrifices. It asserts that money has declining marginal utility — that $1,000 subtracted from a wealthy person’s income diminishes that person’s happiness, or society’s sum of happiness, less than would $1,000 subtracted from the income of a person with a modest income.
.
But this ostensibly scientific, meaning empirical, generalization about how people value money often conceals moral judgments about how people ought to value money, or — again, an essentially aesthetic judgment — about the “social value” of expenditures by the wealthy and the non-wealthy. When these moral judgments are codified in tax policy, they conflict with this idea: “It is one of the virtues of a free society that, within the widest limits, men are free to maximize their satisfactions according to their own hierarchy of preferences.”
But this ostensibly scientific, meaning empirical, generalization about how people value money often conceals moral judgments about how people ought to value money, or — again, an essentially aesthetic judgment — about the “social value” of expenditures by the wealthy and the non-wealthy. When these moral judgments are codified in tax policy, they conflict with this idea: “It is one of the virtues of a free society that, within the widest limits, men are free to maximize their satisfactions according to their own hierarchy of preferences.”
.
So wrote two University of Chicago law professors, Walter J. Blum and Harry Kalven Jr., in a famous 1952 essay, “The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation.” Their understanding of a free society is shared by many conservatives, including many Republican presidential aspirants, who favor a “flat” or proportionate income tax: If taxpayer A earns 20 times more than taxpayer B earns, taxpayer A pays 20 times more dollars.
So wrote two University of Chicago law professors, Walter J. Blum and Harry Kalven Jr., in a famous 1952 essay, “The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation.” Their understanding of a free society is shared by many conservatives, including many Republican presidential aspirants, who favor a “flat” or proportionate income tax: If taxpayer A earns 20 times more than taxpayer B earns, taxpayer A pays 20 times more dollars.
.
Proportionate taxation always is what progressive taxation never is: simple. What justifies progressive taxation, and characterizes progressivism, is confidence that at any moment in society’s endless evolution, what is equitable can be known and society can be fine-tuned to achieve it. Which is how we got our baroque tax code.
Proportionate taxation always is what progressive taxation never is: simple. What justifies progressive taxation, and characterizes progressivism, is confidence that at any moment in society’s endless evolution, what is equitable can be known and society can be fine-tuned to achieve it. Which is how we got our baroque tax code.
.
As Blum and Kalven noted, “It is the very nature of majority rule that the majority can vote distinctive burdens for the minority.” It is, however, the nature of reality that burdens imposed on the wealthy minority can injure the majority by impairing economic incentives, thereby suppressing growth. Progressive taxation reduces the rewards of investments and the real rate of return on savings, thereby encouraging consumption over saving and hence over capital formation. When progressive taxation slows economic growth, it makes inequalities of wealth more durable by retarding the accumulation of new fortunes. And by encouraging constant tinkering with the tax code to perfect equity, progressive taxation gives a patina of altruism to rent-seeking by economic factions, whereby government enriches those sophisticated at manipulating it.
As Blum and Kalven noted, “It is the very nature of majority rule that the majority can vote distinctive burdens for the minority.” It is, however, the nature of reality that burdens imposed on the wealthy minority can injure the majority by impairing economic incentives, thereby suppressing growth. Progressive taxation reduces the rewards of investments and the real rate of return on savings, thereby encouraging consumption over saving and hence over capital formation. When progressive taxation slows economic growth, it makes inequalities of wealth more durable by retarding the accumulation of new fortunes. And by encouraging constant tinkering with the tax code to perfect equity, progressive taxation gives a patina of altruism to rent-seeking by economic factions, whereby government enriches those sophisticated at manipulating it.
.
Because other arguments produce only “uneasy” cases for progressive taxation, this is the argument of last resort: All striving occurs in, and all success is conditioned by, a social context. Each individual’s achievement, like each individual, is derivative of society, which is entitled to socialize — conscript — whatever portion of each individual’s acquisition that society calculates is its rightful share. Because collective choices (provision of education, infrastructure and other public goods) facilitate individuals’ strivings, the collectivity, represented by government, can take as much of created wealth as it decides it made possible. Being judge and jury in its own case, government will generously estimate its contributions and entitlements.
Because other arguments produce only “uneasy” cases for progressive taxation, this is the argument of last resort: All striving occurs in, and all success is conditioned by, a social context. Each individual’s achievement, like each individual, is derivative of society, which is entitled to socialize — conscript — whatever portion of each individual’s acquisition that society calculates is its rightful share. Because collective choices (provision of education, infrastructure and other public goods) facilitate individuals’ strivings, the collectivity, represented by government, can take as much of created wealth as it decides it made possible. Being judge and jury in its own case, government will generously estimate its contributions and entitlements.
.
The arguments for progressive taxation range from the feeble to the sinister. The case for it is not uneasy; it is nonexistent.
The arguments for progressive taxation range from the feeble to the sinister. The case for it is not uneasy; it is nonexistent.
.
Comments