Here are some stark realities.

Taxpayers are being screwed and they don’t realize it.

The people with the power to tax know that taxpayers are being screwed and they don’t realize it, and that’s why they know they can screw people.

Rush Limbaugh spoke extensively about taxes and tax cuts on his radio program today.

His analysis was spot on BRILLIANT. It should serve as an education to everyone who forks over their hard-earned money to the government.

Here’s a portion of what he had to say:

“Americans Spend More on Taxes Than Food and Clothing Combined.” And you know what? I’ve got the numbers here. I’ll bet you most Americans don’t know that. I’ll bet you most Americans would come across this story, they wouldn’t know it.

You know what strikes me? Whenever tax cuts comes up as an idea, I am always, still to this day, shocked that a great majority of Americans do not join the effort. Really. I expect whenever the idea of tax cuts come up that this is something all — now, I understand, look, I’ve had calls from seasoned citizens. I’ll never forget this one call from an elderly woman in Boston. And she did not want her sons and her grandsons to have a tax cut because a tax cut meant less welfare for her.

Now, I know that there are people like that out there, but I’m talking about the vast majority of people who work. And I think the reason most people don’t join this call for tax cuts is they have no idea how much they’re paying in taxes, ’cause they never see the money. All they see — and they may not even get a check anymore. There may not even be a paycheck with a stub. With automatic deposit, an amount of money every pay period just shows up in the checking account, and that’s it. And they never take the time to look at what has been withheld.

So they don’t know what federal taxes they’re paying. And when it comes to filing their federal taxes, most of them don’t have to pay anything because they’re already so overtaxed that they get a refund. So when April 15th comes around or whenever they file, they expect a refund, and they think they’re screwing the government, and they love to brag to people, “Yeah, my refund, I’m getting $1,200 back this year. I’m really taking it to them.”

You’re not screwing anybody. They’re screwing you!

If you get a tax refund, it means that way more money was withheld from you than you were required to have withheld . Now, a lot of people like getting a refund because it’s the one time of year that they have a big bundle of cash, like a thousand dollars or $1,200 or whatever it is to go spend on whatever they want to spend it on. But smart money management would say plan your taxes so that you don’t get a refund and so that you don’t owe anything, or owe a little.

But there’s no reason to give the government control of your money when they’re not paying you any interest on it. So getting a big tax refund is not smart. It may make you feel good. Bottom line is people don’t know how much they’re paying in taxes. They never have to write the check. They never actually have possession of the money and have to give it away. They never see it because of withholding.

Capiche?

The entire transcript from Limbaugh’s segment today is here.

A friend saw this on the Internet.

No joke. News people are wrestling with what terms to use as this issue has once again resurfaced during the onslaught of Harvey.

Houston’s mayor has imposed a night-time curfew on the city as authorities try to stem looting of homes hit by Hurricane Harvey. The mandatory curfew will run from midnight to 5 a.m. local time and run until further notice.

The word “looting” is once again, as it did during Katrina, causing angst.  Sparking the most recent controversy was Tom Llamas of ABC News.  In the middle of discovering a dead body from the flooding,  Llamas saw people with their faces covered entering a supermarket. Llamas did the correct thing by telling police.

Social media was outraged.

Meanwhile the press is conflicted, all tied up in knots.

From the “You can’t make this stuff up” file, are they “looters” or “finders”?

 

 

Obviously the destruction and fury caused by Hurricane Harvey must be due to climate change.

Liberals, their chums in the media, and Al Gore worshipers are loving this disastrous opportunity to take advantage of their flawed logic that climate change is a reality.

Not so fast.

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

In other words, Dr. Spencer knows a heckuva lot more than the guy at the end of the bar who likes to watch MSNBC.

He blogs, and rather bluntly without resorting to multiple syllabic words William Buckley would have used to argue that no, Harvey is not a classic example of global warming, I’m sorry, climate change.

The flood disaster unfolding in Houston is certainly very unusual. But so are other natural weather disasters, which have always occurred and always will occur.

Love this line:

By the way, making naturally-occurring severe weather seem unnatural is a favorite tactic of Al Gore…

Here’s just a sample from this great article:

Bill Read, a former director of the National Hurricane Center was asked by a CNN news anchor whether he thought that Harvey was made worse because of global warming. Read’s response was basically, No.

“Unprecedented” doesn’t necessarily mean it represents a new normal. It can just be a rare combination of events. In 2005 the U.S. was struck by many strong hurricanes, and the NHC even ran out of names to give all of the tropical storms. Then we went almost 12 years without a major (Cat 3 or stronger) hurricane strike.

Weird stuff happens.

Read the entire piece here.

What if?

I think we know the answer.

I loved our recent family trip to the Milwaukee Public Museum, but I still can’t get a particular moment out of my head.

It occurred during this program in the Planetarium.

During the show there was a segment about man first landing on the moon. A narrator read these famous words spoken by Neil Armstrong:

“That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.”

Did you catch that?

That’s what a narrator in the Museum show says, but is that really what Armstrong said?

I hear “one small step for man.” I don’t hear the ‘a.’

Armstrong insists I’m mistaken along with probably millions of others.

A 2013 article by the LA Times contains this quote from the famous astronaut:

“I think that reasonable people will realize that I didn’t intentionally make an inane statement and that certainly the ‘a’ was intended, because that’s the only way the statement makes any sense.”

Fine, that was his intent. Is there better evidence? Try this.

Peter Shann Ford is a Sydney, Australia-based computer programmer who has worked at a company that specializes in helping physically handicapped people use their nerve impulses to communicate through computers. Ford claims Armstrong spoke, “One small step for a man … ” with the “a” lasting a total of 35 milliseconds, 10 times too quickly to be heard.”

So for decades history has been missing an asterisk?

NASA and the Public Museum agree with Armstrong.

I’m still scratching my head.

President Trump’s pardon of Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio has triggered shockwaves across America, primarily among lefty groups and their wholly-owned subsidiary, the mainstream media.

While driving home from timing a high school soccer game Monday night I scanned my radio dial and stopped at public radio, knowing fully well what I was in for.

My scanning stopped at “To the Point,” which has become almost a nightly assault on the president.

The final segment was on Arpaio, and was promoted on the program’s website:

He was convicted of contempt of court for refusing to stop illegally detaining Latinos while still in office. But before he was even sentenced by a federal Judge, President Trump issued a pardon. Last Friday, he tweeted that Arpaio was “an American patriot” who “kept America safe.” Mark Joseph Stern, a legal correspondent for Slate, discusses what this most unusual pardon could portend for the future.

To hear Stern talk with host Warren Olny you would have thought President Trump’s pardon was exponentially more disastrous than Hurricane Harvey. The discussion was typical of the heavily biased reporting that has been an orchestrated with hunt.

There’s a side to the story that’s been ignored, for obvious reasons.

Let’s back up a bit. On August 9, I received an e-mail from the sheriff’s wife, asking for help for her husband’s legal defense fund that was sponsored by the National Center for Police Defense Fund, non-profit, pro-law enforcement organization. Here’s a portion of the e-mail:

Never in a million years could I have dreamed I would ever have to write this letter to you.

But just days ago, my husband of 60 years, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, was convicted of criminal contempt by a judge and is now facing a possible sentence of up to six months in jail!

Needless to say, we are devastated by this news!

I never could have imagined that after over 55 years of serving and protecting America…

… 31 of those years as a police officer and top official with the US Drug Enforcement Administration around the world and…

… 24 of those years as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona…

… my husband would be waiting to hear whether or not he would be going to jail himself thanks to a politically-motivated lawsuit brought by holdovers from the Obama Justice Department!

For over 50 years, I’ve worried night and day about Joe being killed by violent gang members, drug traffickers, or career criminals here at home and around the world.

Now that he is out of office, this should be the time for him to laugh with our two children, enjoy our four grandchildren to the fullest, and to focus on the future.

Instead, he’s been focused exclusively on the result of a trial.

During his 24 years as the longest serving Sheriff in Maricopa County, folks have heard about him putting criminals in pink underwear in “tent cities” in the desert, but not very many people know that he also gave shelter to abandoned and endangered cats, dogs and other animals in his jails and had the prisoners care for them and save them.

That’s the kind of man Joe is.

This man has been a loving husband, father and grandfather. He’s put his life on the line in the U.S. Army, the DEA, as a beat cop in Washington, D.C. and Las Vegas and for the last 24 years as the Sheriff. He’s a hero and a patriot..I hope and pray to hear from you right away. Thank you and God bless you.

Yours truly,

Mrs. Ava Arpaio

Less than two weeks later, I received another e-mail, this time from the sheriff himself:

As I’m sure you know from the liberal mainstream media, who are absolutely jubilant over my verdict, I lost.

Yes, the Obama holdovers at the Justice Department finally got what they wanted: “America’s Toughest Sheriff” FOUND GUILTY of criminal contempt of court!

I was found guilty by a federal judge after a referral by another judge in the same courthouse.

That’s right, despite the charges against me, I wasn’t allowed to have a jury to hear my defense!

My friend, being let down by the very legal system I swore an oath to protect for 56 years in law enforcement is a tough pill to swallow.

I know that if my request for a jury trial — my Constitutional and express statutory right to one — had not been repeatedly denied, this made-up case against me would never have stood a chance.

And again, not only did the Obama DOJ holdovers prosecuting my case have my former attorney testify against me…

…They fought tooth-and-nail to make darn sure my 6th Amendment right to a trial by jury was repeatedly denied!

.Our team got every single one of the Department of Justice witnesses against me to admit that I never told them to disobey the judicial order to halt my round-ups of illegal aliens. Despite having the entire FBI at its disposal, the Department of Justice couldn’t find one witness who could testify that I intended to violate the court order, or that the court order was clear and definite at the time it was issued.

Furthermore, the same witnesses also testified that no one in my chain-of-command told them to ignore it, either.

That’s why I’m utterly convinced that, if my right to a trial by jury was honored like it should have been, I would have been exonerated!

Make no mistake: the ACLU and the Obama-era DOJ attorneys behind the case against me cheered when I turned in my Maricopa County Sheriff’s badge…

…Then, they deliberately stripped me of my right to a trial by a jury of my peers.

Yours truly,

Sheriff Joe Arpaio (ret.)

Four days later, Arpaio was pardoned.

Bottom line: President Trump’s action was legal.