Author: DELEITURAS

The Pentagon is sending several thousand more troops to the southwestern border, fulfilling a request made by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Currently, there are about 2,3000 troops stationed at the southwestern border. Pentagon officials revealed Tuesday that they will be deploying an additional 2,000 troops as part of the DHS’ request for the military to extend its mission there. Originally intended to last until Dec. 15, the military’s mission will now be extended to Sept. 30.

The entire operation is estimated to cost $132 million by the end of January, and over $600 million by the close of the fiscal year in September.

“We are supporting our federal partners on the border, and that mission has been extended until September,” stated Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Jamie Davis. “We are currently sourcing the units involved and there will be an increase of a few thousand troops.”

Beyond maintaining a troop presence, the Pentagon will also aid DHS officials with infrastructure development. Military troops will help set up more concertina wire and expand surveillance capabilities along the border.

“Most recently DHS has asked us to support them in additional concertina wire and then expanded surveillance capability, and we’ve responded with, you know, here’s how many people it would take,” Acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan told reporters on Tuesday.

The expansion of troops comes as President Donald Trump and congressional Democrats continue to be at odds over a proposed border wall.

After undergoing the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, Trump announced on Friday that he reached a temporary deal to reopen the government until Feb. 15 — giving the administration and congressional leaders three weeks to reach a long-term compromise on the border debate.

The president has demanded $5.7 billion in funding to build a 234-mile long wall on the southern border — construction of the wall would fulfill Trump’s biggest campaign pledge in 2016. However, Democratic leadership has maintained their opposition, framing it as immoral and too expensive.

I’ve written about this often: It seems that President Obama is taking the “throw it at the wall and see what sticks” approach to his campaign ads. This means that he is making claims, regardless of how false they are, and hoping they get enough viewership without the average American even checking on the validity of these claims themselves. Team Obama hopes that if repeated often enough, the electorate will simply believe these claims, without question, ultimately voting for a president based on lies and misinformation. For additional examples, see this post: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/06/fill-in-blank-obama-campaign-is-based.html. In fact, I highlighted the “science” behind the President’s campaign strategy here: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/06/obama-campaign-deceit-machine-rolls-on.html

In Obama’s newest campaign ad, he goes right after Mitt Romney and his tax rate. First,… why??? What in the world does this have to do with anything? Does Obama really think the American people are dumb enough to focus on Romney’s tax rate while ambassadors are getting mauled, 23,000,000 people are unemployed, and the national debt climbs to astronomical levels? I won’t answer that. Moving on and focusing on the facts that debunk Obama’s ad, let’s get some things straight:

– Mitt Romney has done NOTHING illegal. Nothing.

– Mitt Romney has paid every bit of taxes required of him.

– Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes in one year than an average American would pay in 448 years of work.

– Most importantly: Mitt Romney DID pay a higher tax rate than most Americans – I will address this specifically.

Let me see if I understand this: President Obama puts out the ad above and, in short, the ad uses creepy music and words like “probably” to make a claim about a guy who has done nothing wrong, all while lying about the tax rates of all Americans?

Okay, I will answer my own question: Yes, Obama truly does think Americans are that stupid. Allow me to elaborate.

First, with regards to the “Mitt Romney probably paid a lower tax rate than you” claim, did you notice the most important word? Of course, it’s “probably.” Why does Team Obama use that specific word? One simple phrase answers this question: “Plausible deniability.” Why didn’t Obama just say, “Mitt Romney paid a lower tax rate than you?” Answer: Because Obama knows this is absolute baloney. His campaign can twist their claim any way they want… IF and when the American people question it. Team Obama hopes and knows they won’t. Using the word “probably” is like an insurance policy. Just in case a fire storm does hit, the Obama campaign cannot get nailed for being entirely dishonest.

To understand this overall picture, I submit to you: When you’re putting out a claim to the country as a whole (the “probably paid more than ‘YOU’ part”), you’re implying that > 50% of people fall in to the category. You can’t claim “you” if it’s one in 100 people. So yes, when Obama claims, “Mitt Romney probably paid a lower tax rate than you,” he is implying Mitt Romney paid a lower tax rate than most people. Hmmm. I want take a brief step back to some internet propaganda I analyzed earlier this year. Back in March, I investigated the ridiculous claim of Mitt Romney’s versus a teacher’s tax rates.

What does the data show? It clearly says that yes, IRS data confirmed that “millionaires and billionaires” do not pay lower tax rates than the middle class. For those claiming “well, this doesn’t include payroll taxes…” You’re right. It doesn’t. But payroll taxes are a total of 7.65% of the first approximately $110,000 of earned income (BEFORE the payroll tax holiday). This means that for the average income, which is about $40,000, an American tax payer paid an income tax rate of 6.00% and a payroll tax rate of 7.65%. The conclusion: an average taxpayer pays about 13.65% in total federal taxes. Keep in mind this is the average. It’s a safe judgement to assume approximately 50% of Americans make more than and 50% of Americans make less than this average. Well, economics and math aside, if the majority of the country pays a tax rate of 13.65%, how can Mitt Romney pay a lower tax rate than most Americans when he pays around 14%? Keep in mind, these figures account for those Americans that DO pay taxes. When you factor those in that do not, all those Americans paying nothing significantly bring down the American average.

Now that the first Obama tax lie is debunked in theory, let’s talk about it in practice. Of course, as a good conservative economist, I wanted to look at some real IRS data to back my claim.

My analysis follows. First, be sure to look at the specific IRS tax data report I used for this analysis: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/12inwinbulratesshare.pdf

Let’s take a look. First, and this is a quick side note… we constantly hear the claim, 47% of Americans pay no taxes. Well, the opening line of the IRS report says the following:

– “Taxpayers filed 140.5 million individual income tax returns for Tax Year 2009. Of those, 81.9 million (or 58.3 percent) were classified as taxable returns. This represents the lowest percentage of taxable returns in more than 24 years. A taxable return is a return that has total income tax greater than $0.”

What?! That means, if we assume the US has about 310,000,000 people, that yes, about 54-55% didn’t even file tax returns (this is given as a range because the number could be different due to joint tax returns), but there is an even more important stat here: Only 81,900,000 of those paid taxes. So out of 310,000,000 people, only 26.4% had income tax to pay? How can this country be sustained when nearly 3 out of ever 4 people doesn’t even pay income tax? Perhaps the argument is, “73% of Americans pay no income tax, if you add payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare taxes) in, 47% still pay nothing? Hmmm.

Anyway, the glaring charts that stand out in the IRS data are Figures B and B1. Take a look:

(Click on image to zoom in)

What do you notice? Ahhh yes… truth and fact. This shows the average tax rates of the 81.9 million who DID pay taxes. Yes, this means that the people who did not pay taxes have had their figures removed, no longer bringing down the average. So out of all remaining taxpayers, for example, the average American making $30,000 – $50,000 per year paid a final tax rate (again, notice total income tax), of 6.4%. This is a different income range “bucket” from the discussion above, but it does paint the same picture.

 Now lets look at ALL TAX FILERS- including those who actually did file a tax return and didn’t pay any tax (about 41.7% of all tax filers). Check it out:

(Click on image to zoom in)

So… what did we find? Factoring in ALL TAX FILERS, the average American making $30,000 – $50,000 per year (this chart shows ALL income earners), paid a final tax rate of 2.9%. This means that even if you added in the 7.65% payroll tax rate, the average final tax rate of someone earning between $30,000 – $50,000 is 10.55%.  Did you notice anything else? Yes, many people get more in a tax refund than they paid in total income tax. These people essentially receive tax payments from the government.

Why did I highlight the $30,000 – $50,000 income range? Well, though this data is slightly outdated, the average American earns about $40,000 each year (it’s safe to assume this hasn’t changed drastically since): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States. To me, that’s the standard. If you claim, “Mitt Romney probably paid a lower tax rate than you,” I respond with an question of, “what did the average income earner pay?”

In simple conclusion, as the bright-as-the-sun data have shown, since the average American did not pay anything close to the rate that Mitt Romney did, how can this claim by team Obama be anything but a lie? Every American needs to see this before they simply believe another Team Obama lie.

Part – 2, a summation of how President Obama vilifies Mitt Romney (and the wealthy in general) for using “loopholes,” “deductions,” and “write-offs” to reduce his taxable income while doing it more and to a greater extent, can be seen here: http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/10/barack-obama-continues-to-lie-about-taxes-part-2/

Luke Bryan performs “Huntin’, Fishin’ And Lovin’ Every Day” from his Kill the Lights album.

For years adherents to the Austrian school of economics have been making the case that regulation bars access to economic opportunity, making it harder for the average producer to access and process from the boons of capitalist interactions.

Now validation of that principle is coming from an unlikely place: the federal government.

A report recently released by the Office of Economic Policy in the Department of Treasury in conjunction with the Department of Labor details how a rise in licensing requirements necessary for many professionals to legally practice business are often not reflective of marketable and necessary skills within a given profession and add to the cost of business:

“The evidence in this report suggests that licensing restricts mobility across States, increases the cost of goods and services to consumers, and reduces access to jobs in licensed occupations. The employment barriers created by licensing may raise wages for those who are successful in gaining entry to a licensed occupation, but they also raise prices for consumers and limit opportunity for other workers in terms of both wages and employment. By one estimate, licensing restrictions cost millions of jobs nationwide and raise consumer expenses by over one hundred billion dollars.”

Amongst those hardest hit: immigrants, those with criminal convictions and military spouses who must reapply for a license every time they move.

Though the report also states there are benefits to licensing, such as creating an increased professionalism amongst tradesmen, there is another obvious market mechanism that has the same results: discretion.

Anyone who patronizes a business and finds the workmanship shoddy and underwhelming will not return. When enough of a consensus in a community is reached, that business fails, allowing more meritorious practices to rise up. Discretion is the natural weedkiller of the capitalist wilds.

Also of note is the discrepancy in licensing requirements between older, more traditional occupations and those that have risen from recent innovation.

Almost ninety percent of health care practitioners- who coincidentally are part of the largest sector of the U.S. economy- are most heavily licensed, contributing to the cost and inanities of an already over-regulated, inefficient field.

Meanwhile, the licensing for computer and mechanical professionals is negligible. Most economists believe that the increased in automated production will lead to a significant shift in the work force, dramatically increasing the need for computer technicians and maintenance experts. So, any increase in licensure requirements could dramatically impact future prosperity. And, with the slowest recovery in American history still an exigent political issue, this is something to watch out for in future.

The rise of bureaucrats and the extra-constitutional abilities they have through regulation make it a heady seduction. Indeed, the passage of Net Neutrality already threatens the future of Internet freedom, particularly for small businesses whose customer base is expanded through online sales and marketing.

This is a rare moment of honesty for the federal government, perhaps speaking to the fact that the effects are so overwhelmingly negative they cannot be equivocated away. But, will the temptations of power prove a powerful enough piece of witchcraft to cause would-be regulators to overlook this? History suggests so, but, as the 2016 election cycle moves forward, this should become an integral talking point for conservatives.

LOS ANGELES — U.S. customs agents seized 221.7 pounds (100.6 kilograms) of Cocaine worth approximately $2 million concealed in produce cargo vessels arriving from Ecuador and Guatemala.

On January 22, while conducting an enforcement boarding of a refrigerated vessel arriving from Ecuador, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers discovered 80 bundles of cocaine weighing 204.2 pounds (92.64 kilograms). The narcotics were concealed within the floorboards of the cargo vessel. A week after, on January 28, CBP officers discovered seven bundles of cocaine weighing 17.5 pounds (7.96 kilograms) inside the floorboards in another cargo vessel this time arriving from Guatemala.

Located in Ventura County, Port Hueneme is the only commercial deep-water port between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Strategically located, Port Hueneme is an important hub for imports of autos, fresh produce, general cargo, bulk liquids, and fish.

“This is the largest drug seizure at Port Hueneme in the last quarter of a century,” said LaFonda Sutton-Burke, CBP Port Director of the LA/Long Beach Seaport, and Port Hueneme. “I’m extremely proud of the results of this joint effort, it shows the professionalism, vigilance and keen focus of both agencies in preventing dangerous drugs into our communities.”

The investigative expertise from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigation (HSI) special agents who are now leading the ongoing investigation, was critical to the success of this interception.

“HSI is committed to stopping those who seek to smuggle illegal drugs across our borders,” said Joseph Macias, Special Agent in Charge for Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Los Angeles. “As drug traffickers get more creative, we are working round-the-clock with CBP and our law enforcement partners to stop this activity. HSI is generating a significant amount of intelligence in this investigation, which we will use to identify, disrupt and ultimately dismantle the criminal organization behind this scheme.”

“CBP plays a critical role in the effort to keep dangerous drugs from illegally entering the country. Specifically, by leveraging a comprehensive, multi-layered, intelligence driven, and threat-based approach to enhance the security of our seaports, we can diminish the effectiveness of transnational criminal organizations drug operations,” said Carlos C. Martel, CBP Director of Field Operations in Los Angeles.

With two kids and a busy life, it’s hard to find time to go to the mall, search through stores or spend hours surfing the internet to find a great gift for my children.

I just found this page listing the most popular toys and games being purchased this year and got some great ideas immediately.

The page lists the Best Selling Toys and Games this Season with reviews, comparison pricing and tons of information on each item to help buyers make good decisions whether they are buying for their children, nieces and nephews or grandchildren.

Gifts can be filtered by age, child’s interest, cost, and buyer review rating and many are marked down to Black Friday deal prices!

If you’re still looking for ideas, here’s a few of the highest rated gift ideas that just might help you get through your list (click on the images to see reviews, pricing and descriptions):
MOTA JETJAT Ultra Drone with One Touch Take-Off & Landing, Black

Gund Baby Animated Flappy The Elephant Plush Toy

LEGO TECHNIC Porsche 911 GT3 RS 42056

Crayola Air Marker Sprayer, Marker Art Tool, Turn Markers Into Spray Art, Airbrush Like a Pro,

Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida condemned leaders of the Women’s March Friday for failing to “repudiate anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry.”

Wasserman Schultz, who is Jewish, joins a growing list of left-wing personalities and groups distancing themselves from the organization run by co-presidents Tamika Mallory and Bob Bland and board members Carmen Perez, Linda Sarsour and Breanne Butler.

“While I still firmly believe in its values and mission, I cannot associate with the national march’s leaders and principles, which refuse to completely repudiate anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry,” Wasserman Schultz wrote in an op-ed for USA Today. “I cannot walk shoulder to shoulder with leaders who lock arms with outspoken peddlers of hate.”

Tablet Magazine published an investigation in December revealing anti-Semitic comments and behavior from top organizers in the Women’s March. The Women’s March organization, especially board members Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour, also came under fire for its connections to the Nation of Islam and its openly anti-Semitic leader Louis Farrakhan.

Farrakhan has called Nazi leader Adolf Hitler “a very great man” and claimed that “there were many Israelis and Zionist Jews in key roles in the 9/11 attacks.”

“It’s clear that the leadership of the march has yet to cut ties with those who promulgate hate and anti-Semitic rhetoric. Until it does, I cannot stand alongside it,” Wasserman Schultz wrote.

The annual Women’s March, the event for which the organization was founded, is set to take place Saturday, but many local chapters have already distanced themselves from the national organization. Wasserman Schultz said she will march alongside the groups that have condemned the national organization Saturday.

Some groups continue to support the Women’s March national leadership, however. The abortion provider Planned Parenthood stood by the organization in the days following the Tablet Magazine investigation’s release.

“Over the last two years, we’ve seen unprecedented attacks on our health and rights from the Trump-Pence administration. The Women’s March has become a symbol of our collective resistance to these damaging and discriminatory policies and Planned Parenthood is proud to once again, join our progressive partners for the #WomensWave mobilization to protect and advance the progress we’ve made as a movement dedicated to equity and justice for all people,” Planned Parenthood communications director Erica Sackin said in a statement to left-wing website Refinery29.

Financial powerhouse JPMorgan is launching its own version of bitcoin, CNBC first reported Thursday — even though JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon called bitcoin a “fraud” and “stupid” in 2017.

“JPM Coin” will have a fixed value of $1. It will only be available for major institutional customers in trials that will start in a few months, reported CNBC. JPMorgan wants to expand JPM Coin to include a wider range of customers later in the year.

JPMorgan is the first major U.S. financial institution to launch its own kind of cryptocurrency, which describes digital currency that uses encryption to operate and doesn’t need regulation from a centralized system. Cryptocurrencies are very difficult to counterfeit and often rely on blockchain technology.

Bitcoin was the first kind of cryptocurrency to use blockchain technology and was started in the late 2000s. JPM Coin will not be traded freely like bitcoin is.

JPMorgan wants to use cryptocurrency to facilitate international payments for its big corporate clients.

“Money sloshes back and forth all over the world in a large enterprise,” Umar Farooq, head of JPMorgan’s blockchain projects, told CNBC. “Is there a way to ensure that a subsidiary can represent cash on the balance sheet without having to actually wire it to the unit? That way, they can consolidate their money and probably get better rates for it.”

JPMorgan moves more than $6 trillion around the world every day for its customers, according to CNBC.

JPMorgan’s cryptocurrency shift has an ironic undertone for several reasons — for instance, the company banned the purchase of bitcoin using its credit cards. Bitcoin was created to “disrupt the established banking world” after all, according to CNN Business.

But JPMorgan is not the first U.S. bank to create a cryptocurrency. New York-based Signature Bank launched its blockchain transaction platform Jan. 1, reported CNN Business. Signature Bank says its customers are using the cryptocurrency for millions in transactions, according to Coindesk.

“If you’re not into blockchain technology as a bank, you won’t be around in three to seven years,” Signature CEO Joseph DePaolo said according to CNN Business.

Signature Bank is about 2 percent of the size of JPMorgan, according to Coindesk.

Watch the new trailer for Transformers: The Last Knight Directed by Michael Bay – coming to theaters in June 2017!

Directed by Michael Bay

Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Josh Duhamel, Anthony Hopkins, Laura Haddock, Isabella Moner, Stanley Tucci, John Turturro

• Documents dating back to the 1970s were made available after Johnson & Johnson was compelled to share them with 11,700 plaintiffs claiming Baby Powder and similar products gave them cancer, according to Reuters.
• Johnson & Johnson saw its stock fall 9 percent after the Friday publication of a Reuters report claiming company leaders mishandled knowledge that some samples of its talc powder tested positive for asbestos.
• Asbestos is a naturally occuring mineral that has been linked to ovarian cancer and mesothelioma.

Johnson & Johnson saw its stock fall 9 percent after the Friday publication of a Reuters report that alleges the company did not tell regulators or the public about asbestos found in its talc products, including Baby Powder, for decades.

Individuals have sued Johnson & Johnson for years claiming that asbestos in its products made them seriously ill, but the report details brand-new company documents in which executives, lawyers and scientists discuss powder samples that were found to contain asbestos in the lab.

The documents span from 1971 to the 2000s. They were made available only once Johnson & Johnson was compelled to share them with 11,700 plaintiffs claiming Baby Powder and similar products gave them cancer, according to Reuters.

Asbestos is a naturally occuring mineral that has been linked to ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer. The effects of asbestos can take years to manifest after exposure to the carcinogen.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned many uses of asbestos in the 1970s, according to the EPA website.

The Reuters story focused on Darlene Coker, a woman who died in 2009 at age 63 after being diagnosed with mesothelioma. She had sued Johnson & Johnson after years of using Baby Powder but was forced to drop the suit in 1999 when she couldn’t provide enough evidence, reported Reuters.

Johnson & Johnson has had both favorable and unfavorable verdicts in cases involving plaintiffs who allege its talc products gave them mesothelioma, according to Reuters. The company’s lawyers have used the following arguments in court, according to Reuters:

In court, [Johnson & Johnson] lawyers have told jurors that company records showing that asbestos was detected in its talc referred to talc intended for industrial use. Other records, they have argued, referred to non-asbestos forms of the same minerals that their experts say are harmless. J&J has also argued that some tests picked up “background” asbestos – stray fibers that could have contaminated samples after floating into a mill or lab from a vehicle clutch or fraying insulation.

In July, a jury awarded 22 plaintiffs nearly $4.7 billion in damages based on their claim that asbestos in Baby Powder and Shower to Shower talc gave them ovarian cancer, reported The St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Shower to Shower is a brand that Johnson and Johnson used to own, according to Reuters.

Johnson & Johnson says it will appeal the verdicts against it, reported Reuters.

Ernie Knewitz, Johnson & Johnson’s vice president of global media relations, wrote the following statement to Reuters in an email:

Plaintiffs’ attorneys out for personal financial gain are distorting historical documents and intentionally creating confusion in the courtroom and in the media. This is all a calculated attempt to distract from the fact that thousands of independent tests prove our talc does not contain asbestos or cause cancer. Any suggestion that Johnson & Johnson knew or hid information about the safety of talc is false.

The earliest mention of asbestos in Johnson & Johnson’s newly shared documents came in 1957 and 1958 lab reports on talc sourced from Italy. The reports didn’t refer to asbestos by name but mentioned a contaminant known as tremolite, which is a form of asbestos.

In 1969, a Johnson & Johnson talc executive asked a company doctor in a memo about tremolite, which he said it was “normal” to find in U.S. talc deposits.

“We have to firm up the position the Company should have on the presence of the mineral Tremolite in talc,” Ashton wrote. “The question is … How bad is Tremolite medically, and how much of it can safely be in a talc base we might develop?”

The doctor responded by informing Ashton of the potential medical dangers of the substance and telling him “it would seem to be prudent to limit any possible content of Tremolite … to an absolute minimum,” according to Reuters.

Talc products are just a drop in the bucket that is Johnson & Johnson’s revenue. Those products made up $420 million of the company’s $76.5 billion in revenue in 2017, according to Reuters.

Johnson & Johnson has been sued for allegedly colluding with a former U.S. Food & Drug Administration commissioner to enrich themselves by failing to disclose the dangers what the lawsuit deemed a “deadly” antibiotic.

The allegations against Johnson & Johnson come as other groups in the health industry face scrutiny. For example, at least 16 drug companies making roughly 300 generic medications are facing increasing pressure in an illegal price-fixing investigation. And e-cigarette giant Juul is facing criticism for allegedly marketing its adults-only product to teens, although the medical community does not understand what vaping does to developing minds and bodies.

The Daily Caller News Foundation reached out to Johnson & Johnson but did not receive a response at the time of publication.