Trade Tax Increase for Vote Rigging Prosecutor

Congressional Republicans shouldn’t give President Barack Obama the tax increases he wants without getting something in return.

Many of the Republicans strongly opposed to tax increases believe Obama won the election because of voting irregularities in some states. They might find a tax increase more acceptable if the legislation were accompanied by appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of voting irregularities.

I don’t know how valid the allegations are or if the actions could actually have changed the outcome of the election. However, ignoring these allegations won’t make them disappear. Those who believe the allegations are valid will treat the failure to investigate as a cover up and wait for an opportunity to bring the subject up at a later time.

Any tax increases should include extending the Social Security tax to apply to all income received from an employer rather than just the first $110,000. The tax would apply to the incomes of employees like athletes and tv actors as well as employees like business executives. If lower income employees can afford to pay the Social Security tax on their incomes, then higher income employees can afford to pay taxes on the income above that normally subject to the Social Security tax. This tax would not be applied to business owners whose personal income and business income are the same. The tax would only apply to paid employees.

An option would be to add a temporary surtax that would be in effect until the deficit fell below some stated amount. Other tax increases could also be temporary with the duration and rate depending on the size of the deficit.

Congress should consider a temporary suspension of all tax credits with the duration of the suspension depending upon the size of the deficit. Many federal grant programs to state and local governments should be suspended as long as the deficit is too high.

Congress should stop talking about Medicare and Medicaid fraud and do something about it including hiring more investigators to the job and making executives in companies that engage in fraud subject to criminal prosecution.

Someone needs to tell those who don’t want an investigation of election allegations that ignoring questions of scandal can make the scandal seem worse than it is. The Watergate burglary during the Nixon administration wasn’t that big a deal, but the cover up made it a major scandal. Public opinion polls conducted in early 1973 [before Senate hearings] and early 1974 {after Senate hearings] indicated no change in what people believed happened but there was a change in how people viewed the significance of the scandal. Politicians never seem to learn that attempting to cover up “scandals” only makes the situation seem worse.

The recent election attracted a lot of support from various financial interests. A major scandal involving the financial interests who supported Obama would demonstrate a motive for “stealing” the election and increase the perception that the election was stolen and Obama is a crook.

I’m concerned about the potential for protests about the election turning violent. This has happened in other countries when governments have ignored complaints about election fraud.

I remember the sixties and would rather not go through something like that again.

Ask for New Election And Vote Fraud Investigation – Not Secession

Those who are talking about secession should shift their focus to calling for a new fair presidential election that does not allow use of the type of touch screen computers involved in election irregularities in various locations. Americans should copy the citizens of other countries who call for new elections when their leaders engage in election fraud.

Alternatively, Congress could trade establishment of a special prosecutor for election fraud for a tax increase. The allegations of vote rigging are far more significant than the Watergate burglary that was investigated by a Special Prosecutor. President Barack Obama probably was not involved in the vote rigging activities, but a failure to investigate and prosecute those involved could be considered an impeachable offense. A vote rigging Prosecutor might have to investigate some of Obama’s financial supporters, but probably wouldn’t investigate Obama. Republican voters might be more likely to accept a tax increase tied to an investigation of state and local Democratic officials.

I don’t know if Barack Obama would have won a fair election or not, but there are enough irregularities reported about the recent election to indicate he might have lost a fair election.

Irregularities include more than 100% turnout in some areas, allegations of illegal aliens being brought in to vote and voting machines that wouldn’t allow votes for Mitt Romney. Ohio had a policy of allowing people to register and than vote without allowing officials to make sure they were not also register elsewhere.

The first rule of election rigging should be “don’t be too obvious”. In parts of Cleveland and other locations Obama received 99% of the vote which looks suspicious.

Election rigging has a long history in the United States, particularly in major cities where corrupt political machines didn’t want to risk losing the offices that gave them power and money. For example, Chicago has a reputation for being a place in which the dead are allowed to briefly return to life to vote on election day.

It shouldn’t be surprising if vote rigging occurred in an election in which huge sums of money were donated to the presidential campaigns by wealthy individuals on both sides. Some rich folks don’t like to lose and will ignore laws if they think they can get away with it. Many believe that billionaire Nazi collaborator George Soros is behind the vote rigging.

Other wealthy interest groups are also potential suspects. For example, some carbon traders have violated European tax laws and even sold phony carbon credits. They might find spending a few million on vote rigging to be a good way to insure election of a president who supports the global warming scam.

Allegations of vote rigging might recede into the background for a time, but they could be resurrected if people believed Obama was abusing his office to benefit the wealthy interest groups that helped finance Obama’s reelection. Efforts to restrict gun ownership could also trigger allegations that he stole the election for that reason.

Reporters as Prostitutes II

The only differences between many American political reporters and prostitutes is that prostitutes understand what type of business they are in and prostitutes provide something of value to the people who pay them.

One of reasons Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney is because most political reporters at the Main Stream Media (MSM) are essentially prostitutes. They are partisan Obamista Democrats whose motto is “ours is not to question why. Ours is but to lie and lie.” They apparently believe their duty is to make their fellow Democrats look good and the Republicans look bad. If wealthy Republicans want to improve their chances of winning, they will need to invest in media companies and replace the partisan Democrats with either Republicans or with real journalists who believe they have a duty to pressure politicians regardless of party into being truthful.

American reporters should know better than to automatically believe any politicians, particularly those running for president. It wasn’t that long ago that President Bill Clinton was caught lying about his affair with an intern and President George W. Bush was claiming that Iraq President Saddam Hussein was about to give Weapons of Mass Destruction to al Qaeda. They certainly weren’t the first two presidents to lie. For example, President Franklin Roosevelt lied about the assistance he provided to the British prior to American entry into World War II while he was plotting with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to get the United States into the war.

American reporters continue to publish stories supporting the late Enron Corporation’s global warming scam even though the documents indicating Enron’s role in setting up the scam have been available for years. Reporters potentially have access to studies by scientists who question the claims about global warming, but refuse to consult the critics of global warming. Reporters ignore the fact that those who want to profit from trading carbon credits are likely to spend large sums to elect candidates like Barack Obama who support their agenda.

Real journalists recognize that when politicians and government officials try to keep documents secret, it is often to cover up damaging information. For example, in the1960 presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kennedy refused to release his medical records while falsely claiming he didn’t have any health problems. We didn’t learn until many years later that Kennedy was afflicted with Addison’s disease, a disorder that can cause a fatal drop in blood pressure.

When we elect a president we are really hiring a president. We should have access to the same information an employer might request from a potential employee. The news media should seek that information on our behalf.

Unfortunately, most American journalists don’t care about whether or not candidates are truthful about their background. For example, there have been cases in the past of journalists who have lied about the education. Thus, it would be reasonable to require presidential “job applicants” to make copies of their college records available to those who decide who to hire for the job.

Barack Obama claims to be healthy like Kennedy did, but refused to make his medical records public to confirm his claim. Obama’s body is consistent with the type of body that individuals with potentially fatal Marfan’s syndrome often have. Those with Marfan’s syndrome can suffer from sudden heart attacks. How can we be sure he doesn’t have Marfan’s syndrome if he won’t make his medical records public.

The presidency has citizenship and a minimum age requirement. Thus it is reasonable to require those applying for the job of President of the United States to submit a birth certificate to confirm he meets the citizenship requirement and is old enough to qualify for the job. However, MSM journalists act like the issue isn’t important. They continued to ignore the issue even after Obama posted an obviously forged birth certificate on line.

The forgery lists his “race” as “African” even though the term “African” cannot be used to indicate a specific race. Africa contains two visibly different groups of people. Those who live north of the Sahara Desert have light colored complexions. Those who live south of the Sahara have dark complexions.

The use of the word “African” instead of the term used at the time “Negro[the Spanish word for black]” could indicate Obama has been keeping the document secret for a reason other than where he was born. When Obama was born southern police were still beating civil rights demonstrators. If Obama’s complexion was light enough to pass for Hawaiian, his mother might have taken advantage of giving birth in Hawaii to list her son as whatever term was used for native Hawaiians. Obama might have decided to keep the document secret because he wanted to use his complexion to appeal to black voters and didn’t want them to think he was really an Hawaiian.

Obama’s decision to keep his birth certificate secret might involve an old dictator’s trick. A dictator wanting to determine how loyal his supporters are may say or do something questionable to determine who will support him regardless of what he has said or done.

The tendency of the MSM to bias news in favor of their Democratic Party has increased the degree of division between Democratic activists and Republican activists. Those who realize they cannot trust the MSM turn to Republican organizations that also present biased information.

The current situation with the media isn’t new. In the 19th Century Noah Webster observed: “The freedom of the press is a valuable privilege; but the abuse of it, in this country, … is a frightful evil. The licentiousness of the press is a deep stain upon the character of the country; & in addition to the evil of calumniating good men, & giving a wrong direction to public measures, it corrupts the people by rendering them insensible to the value of truth & of reputation.”

Mark Twain also had a low opinion of journalists. ” That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoe making and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poor house.”

Thinking About the Unthinkable in Libya

Recent claims that an attempt to rescue the American Ambassador in Libya was vetoed by someone high up in the administration raises a disturbing question. Did someone higher up want the Ambassador and/or others at the consulate to die?

Investigators need to examine this possibility. One potential problem might be that the action resulted from the same type of “failure to communicate” that caused the death of Canterbury Archbishop Thomas Becket in 1170. King Henry II was locked in a long running dispute with Beckett and at some point said something that caused his knights to mistakenly believe the king wanted Becket dead.

Someone in the White House may have believed that President Barack Obama wished something bad would happen to Ambassador Chris Stevens or someone else at the Libyan Consulate. When the report of the attack came in such an individual might have decided the attack would help the President get what he wanted and vetoed a rescue. I hope this is not what happened, but it is a possibility that deserves investigation.

I believe we can reject the possibility that Obama was worried about civilian casualties because Obama didn’t worry about that possibility when he was trying to overthrow the Libyan government and hasn’t worried about that possibility when authorizing drone strikes in Pakistan.

I initially thought the Obama administration simply didn’t have resources available to rescue people at the consulate because it didn’t recognize the potential threat due to the continued instability in Libya. However, the stories about the veto of a rescue attempt indicate rescue resources were available.

We know from the killing of Osama bin Laden that the Obama White House has the capability to monitor events like the attack on the Libyan consulate. Thus it is unlikely that the failure to respond was due to a lack of information. Either someone in the administration didn’t want to respond or Obama’s approval was needed and he was sleeping or brewing beer or something and didn’t want to be disturbed.

Did Obama Indirectly Admit to Being Muslim Recently?

I remember a few decades ago when the Roman Catholic Pope visited the United States. Some reporters in effect said that they were Catholics by using the Catholic term “Holy Father” when referring to the Pope.

Did President Barack Obama recently reveal that he’s a “closet” Muslim when he said: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Why did Obama use the name “Prophet of Islam” instead of “Mohammad” or “The Prophet Mohammad” like most non-Muslims would?

Obama admits that “to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”

Obama’s emphasis on not “slandering” the Prophet Mohammad implies he may assign greater status to Islam than other religions.

Obama has long