Pierre Rehov’s: BEHIND THE SMOKE SCREEN

BEHIND THE SMOKE SCREEN

by Pierre Rehov

“You can see why NBC News might want to smear the work of the Gatestone Institute (the dirty work I wrote about here yesterday). Gatestone has posted Pierre Rehov’s video Behind the Smoke Screen on Hamas’s Gaza production (below). From inside Gaza, Rehov reports the reality of the so called “peaceful demonstrations.” He invites viewers: “Watch Hamas hate speeches. See how they build their propaganda at the expense of brainwashed, deceived and manipulated unfortunate people. Understand why Israel has no choice but to protect itself using lethal force.” Like Richard Kemp’s Gatestone column “Smoke & mirrors” yesterday, Rehov’s video is more informative than the sum total of everything NBC News has on offer today.”

Please click below to view the program:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/05/behind-the-smoke-screen.php

President Trump Speaks at Nashville

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/05/29/watch_live_president_trump_speaks_at_nashville_rally_800_pm.html

Minnesota’s Dayton Menace

Minnesota’s Mr. Wrong: Gov. Dayton’s Math and Reasons for Vetoing Tax Bill Don’t Hold Water

 by Peter Zeller, Director of Operations at Center of the American Experiment.

(Article sent by Mark Waldeland:

 Mark Haveman, our friend who runs the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence, penned a brilliant op-ed in today’s Star Tribune that blows up Gov. Dayton’s stated main reason for vetoing the 2018 tax bill.

Haveman devastated Dayton’s main criticism that “misguided priorities for corporations” emphasize “tax cuts for corporations over real people.”

For starters, the claim of excessively favorable treatment of corporations doesn’t match the reported numbers. Conforming to the federal government’s broadening of the corporate tax base actually exposes more Minnesota corporate income to the state’s tax rates. According to nonpartisan legislative staff, the vetoed tax bill was projected to increase Minnesota’s corporate franchise tax collections by nearly $50 million in the state’s next two-year budget cycle.

That doesn’t exactly meet the test of a huge giveaway to big corporations.

And what about the phased-in corporate rate reductions?

According to a study by the accounting firm Ernst and Young, even if a state decides not to conform to any of the new provisions imposing a tax on foreign source income, the increase in the state corporate tax base from other federal conformity provisions is likely to average 10 percent. Applying that estimate to Minnesota means that even if we left foreign earnings alone, lowering the corporate tax rate to 8.8 percent would still have kept us revenue-neutral.

Since the tax bill did capture some of these foreign earnings and would have brought the corporate rate down to only 9.1 percent by 2020, there’s an argument to be made that it would have increased state taxes on corporations over the long term.

Dayton wanted to aggressively tax foreign profits to raise an estimated $378 million to permanently expand a government program but the Legislature “unwilling to be as aggressive in laying claim to multinational corporate profits” whose “constitutional authority and legal framework for states to tax these earnings is far from settled.”  The last thing Minnesota needs is to add new permanent spending and then find out the taxes used to pay for it were unconstitutional and must be returned.

Plus corporate income taxes are highly unpredictable, twice as volatile as individual income taxes and almost five times more than general sales taxes.

Haveman closes with more wise advice that Minnesota governors and legislatures should take to heart:

The fiscally irresponsible action would be to march full speed ahead and bank on hundreds of millions of inevitably litigious, uncertain, volatile — and in many cases one-time — revenues to pay for permanent spending increases and individual income tax relief. That would jeopardize the very fiscal stability the governor applaudingly wants to leave as his legacy.  …

Big multinational corporations might always be great villains and foils for politicians, but the income taxes they pay will always be lousy foundations for ensuring state fiscal stability.

 

Obama Knew of the Spying on the Trump Campaign

Of Course, Obama Knew of the Spying on the Trump Campaign

by Bruce Bialosky  at Jewish World Review:

The earth-shattering story that the MSM has attempted in all regards to ignore that then-existing Administration was spying on a presidential campaign broke a couple weeks ago and the spy has now been identified. The logical end question has now been asked — Did President Obama know that his spying agencies had infiltrated the Trump campaign? The unequivocal answer is YES.

Do I have definitive proof that Obama knew? No. And we never will because Valerie Jarrett kept him away from the parties at hand. But I base my conclusion on 40 years of doing this and eight years of studying the Obama Administration and their disregard for the norms that had been established before them due to their thirst to thrust their ideological platform on the American people.

There are four principle reasons why the Obama team thought they could get away with spying on Trump:

1. The fawning press would never question them. They had gone through more than eight years of the press tripping over each other lauding their actions, so why would the press question them now?
2. Their prior actions (which are delineated below) went by with meager questioning and virtually no accusations of impropriety.
3. They assumed Hillary was going to win and thus the improper actions would never be reviewed. They had to go to Plan B on this once she lost and accuse Trump and his people of gross negligence and then their spying on Trump would be buried in the hysteria regarding Russian Collusion.
4. The biggest, boldest reason was the Black Card. The Obama Administration had used this so many times it became de rigueur. The whimpering press would never question the Black President, the Black Attorney General nor the Black White House Adviser because of their white guilt. This is a form of reverse racism. If you did question them you would automatically be branded a racist. In fact, me just pointing this out opens me up to being branded by the Obama acolytes as a racist.

By the time 2016 came around, Obama was already emboldened by the factors above and they had tested it on:

1. The IRS/Tea Party scandal.
2. Benghazi where four Americans were killed, and no one was ever held accountable despite the lies.
3. The Veteran’s Administration Scandal where our soldiers died with no responsibility.
4. Fast and Furious where Obama/Holder gave guns to Mexican gangs.
5. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that was established as separately funded from Congress and then went off and did illegal activities such as pursuing car dealer loans despite being specifically precluded from that.
6. Bill Clinton meeting on the tarmac with Attorney General Lynch that was clearly improper over which someone should have resigned.
7. The fact that the number two person at the FBI could not figure out that his wife taking $700,000 from a high-level Democratic operative was the definition of conflict of interest.
8. More and More and More.

When did the press ever bring these people to task? Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress and now he is thinking of running for president. President Obama stated there was “not a smidgen of corruption” with the IRS scandal, but if you asked all the people who were never able to form their entities they might think differently.

On the way out the door, Valerie Jarrett stated about President Obama: “He prides himself on the fact that his administration hasn’t had a scandal and he hasn’t done something to embarrass himself.” When there are assertions like this that largely go undisputed by the press, you really wonder what planet everybody was on during these eight years. Yet Jake Tapper can question the current president as to his lies.

Obama kept himself, on the face of it, insulated from any of the misdeeds of his administration, but does anyone believe he did not know Holder was illegally selling those guns in Fast and Furious? Yet, Holder did not resign. Does anyone believe Obama did not know Lynch was meeting Clinton on the tarmac? Yet she did not resign.

There was virtually nothing the Obama team could say or do that got them in trouble for eight years. Obviously, they knew what was going on with the invasion of the Trump campaign. What is to question except for once again they will be let off the hook?

Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0518/bialosky052918.php3#5ADwV9f1UDCo18cw.99

 

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0518/bialosky052918.php3