How the Irish See It

Hillary was on CNN awhile back claiming she “helped bring peace to Northern Ireland”. Seems as that isn’t quite the case. From The Belfast Telegraph columnist Lindy McDowell. Make sure you read the last part of the op/ed. Heh.

The comedian Spike Milligan once published an autobiographical work about his Army service in World War II entitled Adolf Hitler: My Part in His Downfall. Spike, it goes without saying, was playing for laughs.

Not so Hillary Clinton, who as part of her current campaign for the Democratic nomination in the US has staked her own claim to fame in the always contentious field of foreign conflict resolution.

The Northern Ireland Troubles: My Part in Sorting Out That Lot.

As Hillary herself put it during a recent interview on CNN: “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.”

Beat that Barack Obama.

Hillary Clinton - Ireland’s Dalai O’Lama.

The role Hillary played in our peace process was, it seems, low-key, so low-key, in fact, that David Trimble, who jointly won the Nobel Prize for, er, helping bring peace to Northern Ireland can’t quite remember it.

Lord Trimble, as he now is, says that frankly she had no direct role in the process and that she is a “wee bit silly” for exaggerating her input.

Scathingly he adds: “She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player.”

Ouch!

In fairness, it should be pointed out that Lord Trimble’s fellow Nobel winner John Hume has countered: “She played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland. She visited Northern Ireland, met with very many people and gave very decisive support to the peace process.” The thing is - “visiting Northern Ireland”, “meeting with very many people” and giving “very decisive support” - just about every touring celeb and his or her granny could claim that.

In fact, I can’t recall a single visiting head of state, spouse of visiting head of state, pop singer, actress, potential investor or fading soap star who dropped in during that period, who did not show ‘very decisive support’ for peace. Let’s face it, they were unlikely to argue against it.

Hillary, however, would seem to infer she went a bit beyond mere cheerleading.

In her autobiography she describes a meeting at a cafe on the Lower Ormeau hosted by the late Joyce McCartan and attended by representatives from women’s groups from both sides of the community.

Nothing new there, of course. Contacts between such groups have long been the norm here. Although an outsider mightn’t guess that, the way Hillary tells it €

“I remember a meeting that I pulled together in Belfast, in the town hall there, bringing together for the first time Catholics and Protestants from both traditions, having them sitting a room where they had never been before with each other … “

I know. Don’t laugh.

I remember the visit to the cafe (town hall!) well. It was what’s known in the business as a photo opportunity. Something to keep the presidential spouse occupied while the actual office bearer was getting down to business.

It was a short, staged event ‘pulled together’ by local organisers. Amid all the security men and Press photographers it was hardly conducive to real business.

Instead, a bit like David Beckham’s recent trip to Africa to play footie with small children thus raising the awareness of UNICEF’s role there, the point of the cafe visit was to underline the good work already being done here. Cheerleading just about sums it up.

Ironically, drawing attention to past Clinton visits, only raises the spectre of an episode Hillary might prefer to forget.

When Bill arrived here in 1998 it was claimed in some quarters that the trip had rather conveniently helped him escape media attention back in the US where L’Affaire Lewinsky was then at its height.

If she’s what really drove him here, shouldn’t Monica also be eligible for peace-processing honours?

It’s no less tenuous than Mrs Clinton’s claim for credit.

Your piece in our peace?

As the intern might have said, you were close Hillary…

But no cigar.

Can that family ever tell the truth about anything?

This Would be Fun to Watch

From ABC News

“It is improbable but, yes, still mathematically possible that New York Sen. Hillary Clinton could win the Democratic presidential nomination.

What Democratic officials across the country fear is what Clinton will have to do to party rival Illinois Sen. Barack Obama — who leads in pledged delegates and the popular vote — to make that happen.

“I don’t think she has no chance, but the route for her to victory is so bad for the Democratic Party — it’s to damage Obama so much that people feel he’s not electable,” said ABC News political contributor Matthew Dowd, a former adviser to President Bush, repeating the sentiments of many in the other party.

One Democratic Party official called Clinton’s strategy “The Tonya Harding Option” – the idea that Clinton’s only path to the gold medal is to destroy her leading competitor.”[...]

Quote of the Day

From Rush’s show earlier today…

“Bill and Hillary are seething because the mainstream press is treating them like Republicans.”

LMAO

I’m Not Going to be PC

Well, I see that the RNC, the press, McCain and everyone is not going to use the full name of Barack Hussein Obama.

My question is: Why the hell not? It’s his given name.

Maybe the capitulating asshats in the RNC and the McCain campaign would be happier if I used the name from the Los Angeles Times….

Barack the Magic Negro.

In any event, I plan to use his full name in any future posts.

No, I don’t care what YOU think (unless you agree with me, of course).

Possible McCain Veep?

Got an email from a buddy of mine today who follows this stuff more closely than I do and he’s touting Sarah Palin, the Republican Governor of Alaska.

Looks like an inspired choice although why anyone would want to leave Alaska to deal with the children in the Senate is beyond me.

A Team of Idiots

The boys over at Power Line Blog point out some interesting things about Obama’s foreign policy advisers. It looks like the appeasement movement is alive and well in the Obama camp.

In addition to Zbigniew Brzezinski (a demonstrated failure under Carter) Obama has also tapped a certain Susan Rice, who played a major role in the decision to refuse Sudan’s offer to turn over Bin-Laden during the Clinton Presidency.

If Obama is the one calling for change and a new way of doing things in Washington, why is he using the same failed party hacks on what is arguably his most important advisory committee?

This Could Be Interesting

Looks like Team Clinton isn’t in the mood to respect the will of the voters. Check this out over at Politico.

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination.

This strategy was confirmed to me by a high-ranking Clinton official on Monday. And I am not talking about superdelegates, those 795 party big shots who are not pledged to anybody. I am talking about getting pledged delegates to switch sides.

What? Isn’t that impossible? A pledged delegate is pledged to a particular candidate and cannot switch, right?

Like I said, this could be interesting.

Two Messages

The Wall Street Journal is carrying two large op-ed pieces; one written by the Hildebeast and the other by advisors to Obamarama.

Hildebeast here.

Obamarama here.

A few comments. The message in the Obama piece is just about the same as all of his campaign speeches. Change, future, no plan or details on how all these great ideas are going to be implemented or paid for. Frankly, this is the hyperbole I’ve come to expect from the left….”vote for me!!! I have great ideas!!! You’ll have to elect me to see what they are.”

From Hillary…again the same stuff from her speeches. Grand ideas financed by the government with no mention of how she plans to pay for all this fairy godmother-like largesse. Well, we all know how she’s going to pay for it…..if you make more than $20,000/year, she’s going to take all of it in taxes.

One other thing that’s common to both pieces is that they blame it all on Bush. (Obama in the third paragraph, Hillary in the sixth). Someone ought to tell them Bush isn’t up for re-election.

Meh

Well, my man Fred Dalton Thompson is out of the race.

Will someone remind me again what the difference is between the remaining candidates on both sides of the aisle?

Fisking the Rangel Tax Hikes

Charlie Rangel, head of the House Ways and Means Committee, has decided that your taxes are too low. He’s couching it in terms of removing the AMT which is nothing more than armed robbery by Washington. You can read about the plan in Mr. Rangel’s own words, here.

If you bother to read the article, you’ll see that it’s nothing more than the old Dhimm mantra of “tax the rich”, i.e. tax the men and women who produce.

Happily, Pete duPont, the former governor of Delaware and the chairman of The National Center for Policy Analysis, points out the many shortcomings and failures of Rangel’s (Hillary’s) tax hikes. Both Rangel’s column and duPont’s column are courtesy of The Wall Street Journal. (Any emphasis mine.)

Inconvenient Tax Truths
Charlie Rangel and other liberal leaders want to raise tax rates even if it means lower tax revenues.

BY PETE DU PONT
Tuesday, October 30, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Nobel Peace laureate Al Gore believes global warming is “an inconvenient truth.” Here are some economic truths that America’s liberal leadership finds too inconvenient to support.

Tax rate reductions increase tax revenues. This truth has been proved at both state and federal levels, including by President Bush’s 2003 tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends. Those reductions have raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.

Finally, another inconvenient truth is that there have been 49 consecutive months of job growth as a result of the economic expansion induced by President Bush’s 2003 tax rate reductions.

One would think that this positive economic performance would inspire Congress to continue the successful policies that caused it. But the liberal establishment takes a negative view of tax rate reductions and embraces the opposite approach: ensure expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2011 and in the meantime enact substantial tax increases.

Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, last week introduced an estimated $3.5 trillion tax increase that would raise the capital gains tax rate from to 19.6% from 15% and places a surtax of as much as 4.6% on people making more than $150,000 a year. Mr. Rangel applies it not to current taxable income but to adjusted gross income, thus phasing down itemized deductions such as charitable contributions, home mortgage deductions, and state and local tax deductions. Together with the end of the Bush tax cuts, Mr. Rangel’s plan would increase the top income tax rate to 44% from 35% for individuals, small-business owners and farmers, who make up about three-fourths of taxpayers in the highest bracket.

While raising taxes on individuals, the Rangel bill would reduce corporate tax rates to 30.5% from 35% and eliminate the alternative minimum tax. That would be “paid for” by increasing taxes on hedge funds and buyout firms by about $48 billion.

Federal tax revenues have been rising between 6.7% and 14.5% in each of the past three years, but the proposed tax increases, by slowing rather than stimulating the economy, would ensure that these percentages decline. Hillary Clinton defines the liberal tax policy as “we are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good,” but in the unlikely event that the tax bill passes Congress next year, President Bush’s veto pen will surely take away from the liberal leadership things that will do harm to the common good.

On the other hand, the 2008 elections could lead to a very different outcome, for the Rangel bill shows in which direction tax policy will proceed if there is a Democratic president and Congress in 2009.

A much more interesting approach was introduced in the House three weeks ago by Rep. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican: elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax, extension of the 15% capital gains and dividend rates that expire in 2010, and giving taxpayers a choice between filing under the current tax system or a new option with just two income tax brackets, 10% for joint filers with incomes less than $100,000 and 25% for those with higher incomes. It includes a $25,000 standard deduction plus a $3,500-a-person exemption, which comes to $39,000 for a family of four. The new option would be a flat-tax choice, with no other exemptions or loopholes, and the AMT would be gone.

Every taxpayer would be able to make a choice between the current tax system with the AMT burden, tax rates from 10% to 35%, and many complex deduction options, or the Taxpayer Choice Act. Mr. Ryan estimates that the federal government’s revenues–excluding AMT revenues, the elimination of which would cost the government only about 2.4% of revenues over 10 years–would be about the same as under the current system, and the top 5% and 1% of taxpayers would pay slightly higher taxes than they do today.

Such a system would stimulate the economy, increase economic growth and job opportunities, and simplify a very complex and frustrating current tax system. But for the liberal establishment a flat tax with lower rates would be a very inconvenient truth. Much better in their view are the substantial Rangel tax increases.

Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.

It’s really tragic that the Dhimms and RINOs don’t understand that higher taxes lead to a reduction of tax revenues. Every nation in Europe is cutting taxes with the most successful going to a flat tax. Hell, even Russia enacted a flat tax. I have a question for everyone who wants tax increases:

Name one civilization or nation that taxed its way to prosperity.