The Democrat/Media Hispanic Hoax
by
Joel B. Pollak
4 Sep 2012
When Republicans feature a Latina governor and a Latino U.S. Senator at their party’s convention, the mainstream media reports it as a desperate attempt to reach out to a voting bloc it is rapidly losing. When Democrats feature a Latino mayor from a mid-size city as their keynote speaker, the mainstream media celebrates that as evidence of the party’s growing appeal among Hispanic voters, which is predicted to last generations.
That bias is compounded when additional facts are considered, such as the fact that San Antonio mayor Julian Castro is from an extremist, radical left background, with his mother belonging to the Partido Nacional de la Raza Unida (“Race Party”) organization. Or the fact that a busload of illegal immigrants is arriving at the Democratic National Convention, to participate in the politics of a nation whose laws they have broken.The mainstream media’s prejudice on this issue is not limited to influencing the election, but also aims at pushing the GOP to alter its policy on illegal immigration. The party is doomed, they say, unless it allows for some form of amnesty. Yet Republicans would not reap the benefits from such a capitulation: it would alienate the conservative, rule-of-law voters without earning the loyalty or appreciation of the targeted Latino demographic.
That is because there is one simple fact that determines the Latino vote: that Hispanic Americans are concentrated, residentially and economically, in areas dominated by the big-city Democratic Party machines and its union allies in town and country. It will take generations for that pattern to change--and, as with the Jewish vote, it may not change. A shift in the Republican immigration platform will have little more than a marginal effect.
What the mainstream media should be asking is whether Latino voters--and African-American voters for that matter--are well-served by a Democratic Party that showcases its “diversity” once every four years but blocks policies that would actually help people from these communities move forward. Instead it plays up the language of division, and prods our national political process into becoming little more than a racial census.
As even Chuck Todd of NBC admitted last week, the Republican Party has a roster of Hispanic leaders of which Democrats are secretly envious. That is not a coincidence, nor is it the product of racial manipulation. It is a result of the fact that the conservative vision of freedom is a faster path to success for immigrants than the statist, divisive approach favored by Democrats. But don’t look for the media to point that out tonight.
NEED ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE...$500 at BANCO SOCIAL, Un Verdadero Banco
Los impuestos a las empresas están haciendo que huyan fuera de Estados Unidos
El periódico Wall Street Journal informa de que el anticompetitivo código tributario empresarial de Estados Unidos está llevando a que las empresas americanas relocalicen sus sedes centrales en otros países. Es decir, unas de las principales razones por las que estas empresas están huyendo de nuestras fronteras son los impuestos.
Cada uno de los países que el artículo cita como lugares a los que las empresas de Estados Unidos han trasladado sus sedes centrales (Reino Unido e Irlanda, por ejemplo) es una nación con un tipo impositivo corporativo más bajo que en Estados Unidos. Esto no es nada sorprendente, dado que Estados Unidos tiene ya el tipo impositivo corporativo más alto del mundo desarrollado. No importa donde relocalice su sede central una empresa americana, allí afrontará un tipo más bajo.
De hecho, el tipo americano (el tipo federal sumado al tipo estatal promedio) es superior al 39%. El tipo impositivo promedio en otros países desarrollados es del 25%. Por tanto, Estados Unidos es un caso extraño yendo en la dirección equivocada. Para volver a ser competitivos, el Congreso y los estados necesitan rebajar el tipo conjunto hasta el 25% o preferiblemente por debajo de esta cifra.
Perder las sedes centrales de las empresas es problemático para la economía y para las localidades que pierden estos componentes principales de sus comunidades. Pregunten si no en St. Louis ahora que Anheuser-Busch es una compañía belga, principalmente debido a motivos tributarios. Sin embargo, al igual que todo eso es problemático debido a nuestro elevado tipo impositivo corporativo, Estados Unidos está perdiendo nuevas inversiones por parte tanto de empresas con sede en el territorio nacional como en el extranjero. Las nuevas inversiones que están haciendo estas empresas están yendo a parar a todos esos países con tipos más competitivos. Y esto le está costando empleos a nuestra economía cada día.
Ya es hora más que suficiente para que el Congreso corrija nuestro anticompetitivo sistema tributario empresarial. Y cuanto antes mejor puesto que, mientras el Congreso se retrasa, las empresas se continuan llevando sus inversiones y los empleos que crean a otros países más competitivos.
Ron Paul: How Long Will the Dollar Remain the World’s Reserve Currency
Infowars.com
September 4, 2012
We frequently hear the financial press refer to the U.S. dollar as the “world’s reserve currency,” implying that our dollar will always retain its value in an ever shifting world economy. But this is a dangerous and mistaken assumption.
Since August 15, 1971, when President Nixon closed the gold window and refused to pay out any of our remaining 280 million ounces of gold, the U.S. dollar has operated as a pure fiat currency. This means the dollar became an article of faith in the continued stability and might of the U.S. government.
In essence, we declared our insolvency in 1971. Everyone recognized some other monetary system had to be devised in order to bring stability to the markets.
Amazingly, a new system was devised which allowed the U.S. to operate the printing presses for the world reserve currency with no restraints placed on it– not even a pretense of gold convertibility! Realizing the world was embarking on something new and mind-boggling, elite money managers, with especially strong support from U.S. authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC in the 1970s to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence backed the dollar with oil.
In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup. This arrangement helped ignite radical Islamic movements among those who resented our influence in the region. The arrangement also gave the dollar artificial strength, with tremendous financial benefits for the United States. It allowed us to export our monetary inflation by buying oil and other goods at a great discount as the dollar flourished.
In 2003, however, Iran began pricing its oil exports in Euro for Asian and European buyers. The Iranian government also opened an oil bourse in 2008 on the island of Kish in the Persian Gulf for the express purpose of trading oil in Euro and other currencies. In 2009 Iran completely ceased any oil transactions in U.S. dollars. These actions by the second largest OPEC oil producer pose a direct threat to the continued status of our dollar as the world’s reserve currency, a threat which partially explains our ongoing hostility toward Tehran.
While the erosion of our petrodollar agreement with OPEC certainly threatens the dollar’s status in the Middle East, an even larger threat resides in the Far East. Our greatest benefactors for the last twenty years– Asian central banks– have lost their appetite for holding U.S. dollars. China, Japan, and Asia in general have been happy to hold U.S. debt instruments in recent decades, but they will not prop up our spending habits forever. Foreign central banks understand that American leaders do not have the discipline to maintain a stable currency.
If we act now to replace the fiat system with a stable dollar backed by precious metals or commodities, the dollar can regain its status as the safest store of value among all government currencies. If not, the rest of the world will abandon the dollar as the global reserve currency.
Both Congress and American consumers will then find borrowing a dramatically more expensive proposition. Remember, our entire consumption economy is based on the willingness of foreigners to hold U.S. debt. We face a reordering of the entire world economy if the federal government cannot print, borrow, and spend money at a rate that satisfies its endless appetite for deficit spending.
This article first appeared on Ron Paul’s House website Paul.house.gov.
