Cop Watch

"I'm just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden ... He's a very smart guy. I spent a lot of time thinking about him. And I nearly got him once," Clinton said in the audio recording from the meeting, according to a Sky News Australia report this week. "I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him."

https://spectator.org/pelosi-outsmarted-herself-on-the-sotu/ When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi withdrew her original State of the Union invitation, preventing President Trump from delivering the address as scheduled on January 29, she was probably surprised when he responded with such calm forbearance: “This is her prerogative. I will do the address when the shutdown is over.” By the time Trump finished the rescheduled speech Tuesday evening, she no doubt understood that her petty political ploy had been a blunder. Trump, being no mean showman, had long since realized that the highly publicized delay would increase public interest in the speech — and that is precisely what happened. By the time he entered the House chamber, it was already obvious that the national audience would very likely exceed last year’s larger-than-usual viewership for such speeches. This is not typical for the SOTU address. The normal pattern is a reasonably large audience for a president’s first address, followed by a gradual decline in public interest each year thereafter. This was certainly true for Trump’s predecessor. Tuesday evening’s speech, however, drew a larger audience than did the President’s 2018 address. According to a report in the Hill, broadcast TV numbers from Nielsen show the audience share was 10 percent over last year’s speech: The four major broadcast outlets — CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox — combined for a 16.3 overnight rating during the address Tuesday night, which could result in total viewership of approximately 49 million when final numbers, to include the cable news networks and other outlets, are in later Wednesday. Moreover, CBS and CNN conducted polls of public reaction to Trump’s words and the vast majority of viewers liked what they heard. The CBS/YouGov poll found that 76 percent of the public approved of the address, including 97 percent of Republicans and a whopping 82 percent of Independents. And a majority of viewers agreed that the President accomplished one of his primary goals for the address — improving national unity. According to CBS, “Fifty-six percent of Americans who watched tonight feel the president’s speech will do more to unite the country.” On specific issues, an unambiguous majority of viewers agreed with the President. And, in more than one case, their answers debunked Democrat talking points. A particularly glaring example of this was the public’s response to his points on illegal immigration. The Democrats have consistently attempted to convince the public that President Trump and his administration is exaggerating the seriousness of the problem. They have frequently accused him of unnecessarily stoking racism and xenophobia in order to “manufacture a crisis.” Indeed, this is the primary basis for their consistent yet evidence-free claims that he himself is a racist. That is not, however, how the Americans who watched last night’s SOTU address view the issue: Most viewers had a favorable opinion of what Mr. Trump had to say about immigration.… From what they heard tonight, 71 percent of speech-watchers think there is a crisis at the southern border.

“I tuned in to watch Hitler . . . and there they were, singing ‘Happy Birthday’ to a Jew.”

out of touch lacking knowledge or information concerning current events and developments. "he seems surprisingly out of touch with recent economic thinking" lacking in awareness or sympathy. "we have been betrayed by a government out of touch with our values"

CNN: WOLF BLITZER: Quickly, I want to go to David Chalian, he’s got an instant poll on how the country is reacting to, at least those who watched, what have you got there, David? DAVID CHALIAN: At least those who watch. This is our first look at a new instant poll, but it is among speech watchers. I just want to stress here for a State of the Union address, the president’s partisans, his supporters tend to turn out to watch the speech. This is true of a president of either party. Tonight, we saw a heavily Republican-skewed audience turn out to watch the president’s speech. But, look at this. A very positive reaction from those who watched the speech tonight. 59 percent very positive, 17 percent somewhat positive, 23 percent negative.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rachel-maddow-niger-travel-ban_us_59ea060fe4b05b4f1c3ad52f It was a vintage Rachel Maddow stemwinder. A deft, 25-minute weaving of carefully curated sound bites, screenshots of news reports, slick maps and graphics, all strung together to make the case that something fishy is afoot. It’s a style Maddow has perfected, and it has propelled her to the top of the ratings heap. There was just one problem. Maddow’s theory was so flimsy that it could be debunked by a quick glance at a map, let alone a phone call with an expert.

The federal law approved by President Trump and the then-GOP controlled Congress limited SALT deductions to $10,000. The loss of revenue from New York’s wealthiest puts New York in a bind because the state relies on a progressive income tax system that taxes the rich at a higher rate. One percent of the state’s top income earners provide 46 percent of the state’s personal income tax revenues, officials said. Cuomo said Albany can’t go to the well and tax the wealthy again because that would only worsen the situation, citing “anecdotal” evidence that high-income New Yorkers are already fleeing the state to lower-tax jurisdictions. He offered no figures to back up the claim. “I don’t believe raising taxes on the rich. That would be the worst thing to do. You would just expand the shortfall,” he said. “God forbid if the rich leave.” Aside from spending, Cuomo’s slide presentation also mentioned the state is phasing in tax cuts for middle-income New Yorkers — raising questions whether the state would have to postpone the reductions.

2 weeks ago, the mainstream media, politicians, church officials, commentators, & celebrities rushed to judgment to wrongfully condemn, threaten, disparage & vilify Nick Sandmann based solely on a few seconds of an out-of-context video clip. It only takes 15 minutes to learn the truth. Here it is.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillinginfo/2016/02/22/debunking-myths-about-federal-oil-gas-subsidies/#616831386e1c In any presidential election year it is inevitable that candidates on both sides of the political spectrum will begin hailing or bashing tax breaks, subsidies, and regulations throughout the US business landscape. No business is more susceptible to these discussions than the Oil & Gas industry. Depending on the date and audience a candidate is speaking to, an observer will hear that the oil & gas industry is subsidized between $10 billion to $52 billion. Before we break down the numbers behind the claims, let’s first define subsidy. According to Dictionary.com subsidy can be defined four ways: a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like. a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return. a grant or contribution of money. money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs. The definition does not claim that a subsidy is defined as not paying a certain amount in taxes. Now let’s break down the so-called subsidies. You will see these numbers inflated or deflated depending upon the source. In order to arrive at the $52 billion amount we have to analyze estimates at the higher end of the spectrum. The top six “subsidies” included in the $10-$18.5 billion estimates are as follows: Master Limited Partnerships ($3.9 billion “subsidy”) – Ending the MLP “subsidy” would result in MLP’s being considered corporations that must be taxed before their distributions are passed along to shareholders. Therefore, any MLP income would be taxed at the corporate level and then again at the dividend level. Distributions to shareholders would be impacted substantially. Preventing double taxation is not a subsidy. MLPs also exist for Real Estate and other industries. Furthermore, the “subsidy” affects people across the spectrum from Pensioners, 401ks holders, to widows and orphans - hardly a “subsidy” for the oil and gas industry. Intangible Drilling Costs ($3.5 billion “subsidy” – low estimate is $780 million) - Intangible Drilling Costs are essentially the cost of drilling a new well that have no salvageable value. Currently, most exploration companies are allowed to deduct 100% of the costs in the year they are incurred with the majors able to deduct 70% of the costs immediately with the remaining 30% amortized over 5 years. In what world would money spent that may or may not be recovered be capitalized as an asset? Royalty Payment Reductions on Federal Lands ($2.2 billion “subsidy”) While paying no royalties on some offshore plots and reduced royalties in some regions might be considered a break by many. The incomes derived from operations are taxed at the same levels as any other income - hardly a “subsidy”. Depletion Allowance ($1 billion subsidy – low estimate is $900 million) The depletion allowance allows companies to treat reserves in the ground as a capitalized asset that may be written down by 15% per year. The government only allows the “subsidy” for independent producers. Integrated oil companies such as Exxon, BP etc. are not allowed the exemption. Companies across the US are allowed a depreciation deduction for taxation purposes. The oil & gas industry should not be an exception. Domestic Manufacturing Deduction ($1.7 billion per year – low estimate is $574 million) – Congress passed the tax break in 2004 to encourage manufacturing companies to maintain their operations in the US. The tax break has been extended to oil & gas companies and allows them to deduct 9% of their income from operations. Critics charge that companies would not leave for a lower tax rate. Ever looked at how much cheaper it would be to operate a refinery in another country? Furthermore, the tax break extends to companies across multiple business segments – not just the oil & gas sector. Foreign Tax Credit ($900 million) The tax break allows US companies to deduct taxes paid in foreign countries from profits when the money is returned to the US. Of all the tax breaks, calling the Foreign Tax Credit a subsidy for the oil & gas industry has to be the most egregious. The US Federal Government allows any corporation doing business outside of the US the same exception. Several “subsidies” totaling an additional $3 billion combine to complete the $18.5 billion estimate. In addition to the $18.5 billion in “subsidies” states also grant an additional $3 billion in tax breaks to the oil & gas sector that can be considered subsides. Politicians and political pundits tend to lump state and federal subsidies together. Shockingly, nobody holds them accountable for their misstatements. In addition to the “subsidies” given to oil & gas company operations, politicians attempt to lump in an additional $16 billion in consumption incentives to the oil & gas industry. Consumption incentives range from direct subsidies to low income households for heating oil to tax breaks for farmers, and the US military. It seems that these should be classified as breaks for farmers and the military rather than to oil & gas industry. To somehow get to the $52 billion total, activists then lump in the military costs to defend shipping lanes and pipelines in the Middle East. Now let’s analyze what the oil & gas sector pays in taxes. In 2012 the top two corporations paying federal taxes in the US were ExxonMobil and Chevron CVX -0.85% paying a combined total of $45.2 billion. On average, the industry pays a 45% tax rate when all state, federal, and foreign taxes are totaled up. By comparison the Healthcare Industry pays a total rate of 35% and the Pharmaceuticals pay an estimated rate of 21%. Based upon these numbers it’s hard to believe which business sector is criticized the most for “subsidies”.

45 Days