Such a jerk...
Friday, December 4, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Kanye West gets to the heart of things
I guess when Obama called him a jackass, he was commenting from self knowledge...
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Rush on Pelosi, Obama and Hitler
This is from Rush's program today. BRILLIANT analysis!
* * * * *
You know, these Democrats think they live and operate in a vacuum. They run around and say, "Oh, yeah, people are showing up with swastikas," and that's going to be the end of the story. They create a whole new story and we find out that it's a Democrat meeting in '97 that they bring up a good friend of Jay Rockefeller's who's got a Nazi swastika tattooed on his arm. They accuse us of being Nazis and Obama's got a health care logo that's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook. Now what are the similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi party in Germany? Well, the Nazis were against big business. They hated big business and, of course, we all know that they were opposed to Jewish capitalism. They were insanely, irrationally against pollution. They were for two years mandatory voluntary service to Germany. They had a whole bunch of make-work projects to keep people working one of which was the Autobahn.
They were against cruelty and vivisection of animals but in the radical sense of devaluing human life, they banned smoking. They were totally against that. They were for abortion and euthanasia of the undesirables as we all know and they were for cradle-to-grave nationalized health care. I have always bristled when I hear people claim that conservatism gets close to Naziism. It is liberalism that's the closest you can get to Naziism and socialism. It's all bundled up under the socialist banner. There are far more similarities between Nancy Pelosi and Adolf Hitler than between these people showing up at town halls to protest a Hitler-like policy that's being heralded by a Hitler-like logo. Koko, do me a favor. Pardon me, folks. Private message here to my webmaster. Koko, get the e-mail that I sent you today with the two logos. Just put the graphic of the two logos on our website right now because Sweetness & Light is being bombarded. Just put up the Obama logo and then the Nazi logo side by side there. Just grab those two, put them up there because our servers can handle them. Okay, Koko says he's got it and he's on the case.
Barack Obama is losing the trust of the American people. Another similarity, Obama is asking citizens to rat each other out like Hitler did. Obama's the one that's got the snitch website right out of the White House, flag@whitehouse.gov, asking citizens to report people who are saying weird, odd things. You know, the White House responds, "No, no, no, we're not taking names here. We're not taking names. We're just taking people who are putting up faulty arguments and refuting them." Well, that's not the intention.
Ted Kennedy's dad, by the way, Joe Kennedy, sympathetic to Hitler, sympathetic to the Nazis. That's why FDR pulled him from his post as ambassador to Britain. You want to start talking, Ms. Pelosi, about ties to the Nazis? Let's focus on your party and some of the greatest heroes in your party that you hold up. And let's look at your policies, Ms. Pelosi. Your policies come dangerously close to some of those policies that Hitler forced on the German people. This is outrageous stuff for her to be running around saying these are unruly mobs with swastikas. Obama sends out the memo ginning up his ACORN mobs to try to fight this, taking names on a White House website of people who are telling the truth about health care is what this is about. He wants his stupid minions to snitch on people who are telling the truth about it.
Barack Obama had earned the trust of a majority of Americans. Right or wrong, he was trusted. Those who looked at Obama with clear eyes, however, always knew he was something other than what Obama said he was in speeches and what the State-Controlled Media reported. We knew he wasn't post-partisan. Barack Obama was the Senate's most liberal member. His alliances and associations were exclusively with hard, left radicals. We knew he wasn't post-racial. No one sits in a racially divisive and bigoted church for 20 years without agreement with the message. But people wanted to believe. They hoped love at first sight was the real thing. The American people trusted Barack Obama, but that was then. After Obama's election he has begun to govern, and since he has begun to govern, it isn't just his poll numbers that have fallen. The trust the American people placed in Obama has eroded, and this is key, because if there is no trust with an individual, that person cannot lead. Trust me on this. Obama is losing America's trust.
Obama said he cared about jobs. Well, we've lost almost three million since he took office. Even though he rammed a $1 trillion porkulus bill through and hundreds of thousands of jobs are still being lost every month. Despite his media's efforts to tell us the news is good, it isn't. He orchestrated a hostile takeover of General Motors and Chrysler to give them essentially to union executives. Obama Motors is something a majority of Americans would never have voted for. Obama is leading the charge to pass a cap-and-tax scheme, an energy tax just when Americans are struggling to get by. He's pressing to take over health care when Americans don't want that, either. He has demonized doctors, insurance companies, automobile executives, bankers, me, talk radio and now the president of the United States has descended to an unbelievable point. He is demonizing American citizens, average, ordinary, everyday people who do not have the jobs he assured them he cared about and was going to provide, Americans exercising the right to free assembly, the right to free speech. The president of the United States is demonizing them now.
These town hall meetings reveal a deep distrust of Barack Obama and his policies and everyone who supports them. The town hall meetings, ladies and gentlemen, are a manifestation of America's lack of trust in the Democrat Party and its leaders. And now this man who is losing our trust has started an enemies list -- essentially, a snitch list. Americans have figured out that Obama doesn't care if votes are taken on bills that haven't been written. He has broken most every promise he has made and everybody knows that his "No New Tax" pledge on the middle class tax is next. In fact, that's already been broken. All of these actions and more have amounted to a betrayal of trust. Barack Obama's not who he said he was. Just for a moment forget falling polls, forget rising unemployment.
The problem Obama faces is destroying his presidency as he's losing the trust of the American people. He can no longer say "Trust me," and this distrust Americans feel is growing stronger and deeper every day that passes. It's becoming clear as well that Barack Obama listens to nobody. It's his hard-left agenda and whatever it takes to ram it through. He doesn't care what Americans think. He doesn't care about their ideas. He doesn't care about their values. This is all about him. This is all about Barack Obama's personal agenda and objectives. It's about Barack Obama erecting monuments to himself. He has no intention of governing. He intends to rule. And that's why legislation is voted on that no one's read. That's why he rams through bills without hearings, without discussion and without knowing any details. He intends to rule, and Americans are figuring it out. They no longer trust Barack Obama.
* * * * *
You know, these Democrats think they live and operate in a vacuum. They run around and say, "Oh, yeah, people are showing up with swastikas," and that's going to be the end of the story. They create a whole new story and we find out that it's a Democrat meeting in '97 that they bring up a good friend of Jay Rockefeller's who's got a Nazi swastika tattooed on his arm. They accuse us of being Nazis and Obama's got a health care logo that's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook. Now what are the similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi party in Germany? Well, the Nazis were against big business. They hated big business and, of course, we all know that they were opposed to Jewish capitalism. They were insanely, irrationally against pollution. They were for two years mandatory voluntary service to Germany. They had a whole bunch of make-work projects to keep people working one of which was the Autobahn.
They were against cruelty and vivisection of animals but in the radical sense of devaluing human life, they banned smoking. They were totally against that. They were for abortion and euthanasia of the undesirables as we all know and they were for cradle-to-grave nationalized health care. I have always bristled when I hear people claim that conservatism gets close to Naziism. It is liberalism that's the closest you can get to Naziism and socialism. It's all bundled up under the socialist banner. There are far more similarities between Nancy Pelosi and Adolf Hitler than between these people showing up at town halls to protest a Hitler-like policy that's being heralded by a Hitler-like logo. Koko, do me a favor. Pardon me, folks. Private message here to my webmaster. Koko, get the e-mail that I sent you today with the two logos. Just put the graphic of the two logos on our website right now because Sweetness & Light is being bombarded. Just put up the Obama logo and then the Nazi logo side by side there. Just grab those two, put them up there because our servers can handle them. Okay, Koko says he's got it and he's on the case.
Barack Obama is losing the trust of the American people. Another similarity, Obama is asking citizens to rat each other out like Hitler did. Obama's the one that's got the snitch website right out of the White House, flag@whitehouse.gov, asking citizens to report people who are saying weird, odd things. You know, the White House responds, "No, no, no, we're not taking names here. We're not taking names. We're just taking people who are putting up faulty arguments and refuting them." Well, that's not the intention.
Ted Kennedy's dad, by the way, Joe Kennedy, sympathetic to Hitler, sympathetic to the Nazis. That's why FDR pulled him from his post as ambassador to Britain. You want to start talking, Ms. Pelosi, about ties to the Nazis? Let's focus on your party and some of the greatest heroes in your party that you hold up. And let's look at your policies, Ms. Pelosi. Your policies come dangerously close to some of those policies that Hitler forced on the German people. This is outrageous stuff for her to be running around saying these are unruly mobs with swastikas. Obama sends out the memo ginning up his ACORN mobs to try to fight this, taking names on a White House website of people who are telling the truth about health care is what this is about. He wants his stupid minions to snitch on people who are telling the truth about it.
Barack Obama had earned the trust of a majority of Americans. Right or wrong, he was trusted. Those who looked at Obama with clear eyes, however, always knew he was something other than what Obama said he was in speeches and what the State-Controlled Media reported. We knew he wasn't post-partisan. Barack Obama was the Senate's most liberal member. His alliances and associations were exclusively with hard, left radicals. We knew he wasn't post-racial. No one sits in a racially divisive and bigoted church for 20 years without agreement with the message. But people wanted to believe. They hoped love at first sight was the real thing. The American people trusted Barack Obama, but that was then. After Obama's election he has begun to govern, and since he has begun to govern, it isn't just his poll numbers that have fallen. The trust the American people placed in Obama has eroded, and this is key, because if there is no trust with an individual, that person cannot lead. Trust me on this. Obama is losing America's trust.
Obama said he cared about jobs. Well, we've lost almost three million since he took office. Even though he rammed a $1 trillion porkulus bill through and hundreds of thousands of jobs are still being lost every month. Despite his media's efforts to tell us the news is good, it isn't. He orchestrated a hostile takeover of General Motors and Chrysler to give them essentially to union executives. Obama Motors is something a majority of Americans would never have voted for. Obama is leading the charge to pass a cap-and-tax scheme, an energy tax just when Americans are struggling to get by. He's pressing to take over health care when Americans don't want that, either. He has demonized doctors, insurance companies, automobile executives, bankers, me, talk radio and now the president of the United States has descended to an unbelievable point. He is demonizing American citizens, average, ordinary, everyday people who do not have the jobs he assured them he cared about and was going to provide, Americans exercising the right to free assembly, the right to free speech. The president of the United States is demonizing them now.
These town hall meetings reveal a deep distrust of Barack Obama and his policies and everyone who supports them. The town hall meetings, ladies and gentlemen, are a manifestation of America's lack of trust in the Democrat Party and its leaders. And now this man who is losing our trust has started an enemies list -- essentially, a snitch list. Americans have figured out that Obama doesn't care if votes are taken on bills that haven't been written. He has broken most every promise he has made and everybody knows that his "No New Tax" pledge on the middle class tax is next. In fact, that's already been broken. All of these actions and more have amounted to a betrayal of trust. Barack Obama's not who he said he was. Just for a moment forget falling polls, forget rising unemployment.
The problem Obama faces is destroying his presidency as he's losing the trust of the American people. He can no longer say "Trust me," and this distrust Americans feel is growing stronger and deeper every day that passes. It's becoming clear as well that Barack Obama listens to nobody. It's his hard-left agenda and whatever it takes to ram it through. He doesn't care what Americans think. He doesn't care about their ideas. He doesn't care about their values. This is all about him. This is all about Barack Obama's personal agenda and objectives. It's about Barack Obama erecting monuments to himself. He has no intention of governing. He intends to rule. And that's why legislation is voted on that no one's read. That's why he rams through bills without hearings, without discussion and without knowing any details. He intends to rule, and Americans are figuring it out. They no longer trust Barack Obama.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Something's fishy...
So have you seen this??? Click on the picture to see the whole thing.
Are we back to ratting out our neighbors, like they did during WWI? What do you think about this? Don't we have a First Amendment any more?
Are we back to ratting out our neighbors, like they did during WWI? What do you think about this? Don't we have a First Amendment any more?
Obama and the Single Payer System
These days, Obama claims he has no intention of having a single payer health care system, however, just under a year ago, that wasn't the case. Below is an article from a Wall St. Journal blog, written by Amy Chozik
* * * * *
Amy Chozick reports on the presidential race from Albuquerque, N.M.
Barack Obama said he would consider embracing a single-payer health-care system, beloved by liberals, as his plan for broader coverage evolves over time.
“If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall style meeting on the economy.
A single-payer system would eliminate private insurance companies and put a Medicare-like system into place where the government pays all health-care bills with tax dollars.
Many liberals have long embraced the coverage plan, saying it would cover everyone, take the profit out of health insurance and allow for greater efficiencies. But Republicans cringe at such deep government involvement in the private sector, calling it socialized medicine. And many Democrats, including Obama and former rival Hillary Clinton, have taken a much more moderate approach.
Obama’s health-care plan aims for universal coverage by offering a new government-run marketplace where Americans could buy insurance, mostly from private plans. He would offer subsidies to individuals and to small business owners that offer their workers coverage. His plan also would require that parents get insurance for their kids. And he aims to lower health-care costs to make coverage more affordable. His plan includes one small step toward single payer. His new marketplace would create a new government-run plan, like Medicare, to compete against the private plans.
But Obama repeated that he rejects an immediate shift to a single-payer system. “Given that a lot of people work for insurance companies, a lot of people work for HMOs. You’ve got a whole system of institutions that have been set up,” he said at a roundtable discussion with women Monday morning after a voter asked, “Why not single payer?”
“People don’t have time to wait,” Obama said. “They need relief now. So my attitude is let’s build up the system we got, let’s make it more efficient, we may be over time—as we make the system more efficient and everybody’s covered—decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively.”
* * * * *
Amy Chozick reports on the presidential race from Albuquerque, N.M.
Barack Obama said he would consider embracing a single-payer health-care system, beloved by liberals, as his plan for broader coverage evolves over time.
“If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall style meeting on the economy.
A single-payer system would eliminate private insurance companies and put a Medicare-like system into place where the government pays all health-care bills with tax dollars.
Many liberals have long embraced the coverage plan, saying it would cover everyone, take the profit out of health insurance and allow for greater efficiencies. But Republicans cringe at such deep government involvement in the private sector, calling it socialized medicine. And many Democrats, including Obama and former rival Hillary Clinton, have taken a much more moderate approach.
Obama’s health-care plan aims for universal coverage by offering a new government-run marketplace where Americans could buy insurance, mostly from private plans. He would offer subsidies to individuals and to small business owners that offer their workers coverage. His plan also would require that parents get insurance for their kids. And he aims to lower health-care costs to make coverage more affordable. His plan includes one small step toward single payer. His new marketplace would create a new government-run plan, like Medicare, to compete against the private plans.
But Obama repeated that he rejects an immediate shift to a single-payer system. “Given that a lot of people work for insurance companies, a lot of people work for HMOs. You’ve got a whole system of institutions that have been set up,” he said at a roundtable discussion with women Monday morning after a voter asked, “Why not single payer?”
“People don’t have time to wait,” Obama said. “They need relief now. So my attitude is let’s build up the system we got, let’s make it more efficient, we may be over time—as we make the system more efficient and everybody’s covered—decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively.”
Saturday, August 1, 2009
"Professor" Obama
by John Tantillo
Fox News
The health care debacle and the botched handling of the Gates arrest are showing us an important weakness in the Obama brand.
As I've mentioned before, Obama is at real risk of over-exposure. Even though it might seem that he has to appear everywhere to sell health care reform-- the opposite may be true at this point.
I'm also starting to think that the president's over-exposure is just a symptom of a deeper brand problem: Obama's urge to explain everything.
Let's call it "The Professor Factor."
It's as though Barack Obama believes that every situation can be addressed with reasonable negotiation and explanation. It's as if he believes that if he can just get everyone to sit down, talk (over a beer, perhaps?) or, more likely, listen to him and the wisdom he is delivering "whether in the form of a speech or mini-lecture" then almost every situation can be resolved.
Bottom line: this is simply not true, and it's a risky thing for a leader to believe.
Leadership is often about moving the ball forward and letting everyone catch up later. It is not about seeking approval after every play. It is about making the touchdown and winning the game -- whether or not the crowd agrees with or even understands your strategies.
After the Bush years, when momentous decisions were made with little articulation as to why, many Americans understandably craved a leader who could explain what he was doing and why.
Fact is, there is a limit to how much people want things explained. (The start time for the president's prime time press conference was changed last week because one of the broadcast networks refused to carry it. Why? Because the original start time conflicted with an interview of the "American Idol" runner-up. That tells us plenty.)
But more than over-exposure or over-explanation, we are talking about what image is beginning to harden in people's minds about our president.
The polls won't answer this question for us, but at some point everyone will simply know. Barack Obama's image is still forming. It has not yet hardened. But someday soon, the image will fit the man.
As president, you can only hope that it's an image that doesn't hobble your work. Reagan could get away with being seen as an actor because he got things done. Clinton's moral failings could be forgiven because he got things done.
It's when you don't get things done or you get the wrong things done that your image hardens into something toxic.
My concern is that in Obama's case the image might harden into that of an idealistic, professorial type who talks about leading rather than actually leads, who has big ideas, but little practical experience. Woodrow Wilson not FDR.
Think about John Kerry. As soon as he was labeled an overly-intellectual waffler, the label stuck because every time you saw him speaking, the image was re-enforced. He sounded like an overly-intellectual waffler.
But in Barack Obama's case, the "Professor Factor" could be even more damaging if combined with the belief that despite his appeals for objectivity, reason and the facts, he is already ideologically convinced (i.e., the Gates' incident... I don't know all the facts but here's my opinion).
And let's not forget Jimmy Carter. He was thought to be one of the most intelligent people ever to occupy the Oval Office -- but he micro-managed his way out of office by delegating too little and being seen as too mired down in the details.
So far, President Obama has avoided this fate of the sticky intellectual label and the micro-manager, but unless he seriously reassesses how he is coming across to his Target Market, it could happen soon.
Instead of being impressed by Obama's eloquence at the podium, people will connect his tendency to discourse with inaction and lack of results.
Now's the time for him to change: Step back from the public spotlight, be slower to react to the news cycle and more ready to take action without asking permission.
While campaigning, Senator Obama was often admired for playing it cool; President Obama has to do the same if he wants to be known as the leader with certain professorial tendencies -- rather than the professor who somehow became a president.
And remember, business and the business of politics is always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
John Tantillo is the Marketing and Branding Expert/Founder and President, of the Marketing Department of America.
Fox News
The health care debacle and the botched handling of the Gates arrest are showing us an important weakness in the Obama brand.
As I've mentioned before, Obama is at real risk of over-exposure. Even though it might seem that he has to appear everywhere to sell health care reform-- the opposite may be true at this point.
I'm also starting to think that the president's over-exposure is just a symptom of a deeper brand problem: Obama's urge to explain everything.
Let's call it "The Professor Factor."
It's as though Barack Obama believes that every situation can be addressed with reasonable negotiation and explanation. It's as if he believes that if he can just get everyone to sit down, talk (over a beer, perhaps?) or, more likely, listen to him and the wisdom he is delivering "whether in the form of a speech or mini-lecture" then almost every situation can be resolved.
Bottom line: this is simply not true, and it's a risky thing for a leader to believe.
Leadership is often about moving the ball forward and letting everyone catch up later. It is not about seeking approval after every play. It is about making the touchdown and winning the game -- whether or not the crowd agrees with or even understands your strategies.
After the Bush years, when momentous decisions were made with little articulation as to why, many Americans understandably craved a leader who could explain what he was doing and why.
Fact is, there is a limit to how much people want things explained. (The start time for the president's prime time press conference was changed last week because one of the broadcast networks refused to carry it. Why? Because the original start time conflicted with an interview of the "American Idol" runner-up. That tells us plenty.)
But more than over-exposure or over-explanation, we are talking about what image is beginning to harden in people's minds about our president.
The polls won't answer this question for us, but at some point everyone will simply know. Barack Obama's image is still forming. It has not yet hardened. But someday soon, the image will fit the man.
As president, you can only hope that it's an image that doesn't hobble your work. Reagan could get away with being seen as an actor because he got things done. Clinton's moral failings could be forgiven because he got things done.
It's when you don't get things done or you get the wrong things done that your image hardens into something toxic.
My concern is that in Obama's case the image might harden into that of an idealistic, professorial type who talks about leading rather than actually leads, who has big ideas, but little practical experience. Woodrow Wilson not FDR.
Think about John Kerry. As soon as he was labeled an overly-intellectual waffler, the label stuck because every time you saw him speaking, the image was re-enforced. He sounded like an overly-intellectual waffler.
But in Barack Obama's case, the "Professor Factor" could be even more damaging if combined with the belief that despite his appeals for objectivity, reason and the facts, he is already ideologically convinced (i.e., the Gates' incident... I don't know all the facts but here's my opinion).
And let's not forget Jimmy Carter. He was thought to be one of the most intelligent people ever to occupy the Oval Office -- but he micro-managed his way out of office by delegating too little and being seen as too mired down in the details.
So far, President Obama has avoided this fate of the sticky intellectual label and the micro-manager, but unless he seriously reassesses how he is coming across to his Target Market, it could happen soon.
Instead of being impressed by Obama's eloquence at the podium, people will connect his tendency to discourse with inaction and lack of results.
Now's the time for him to change: Step back from the public spotlight, be slower to react to the news cycle and more ready to take action without asking permission.
While campaigning, Senator Obama was often admired for playing it cool; President Obama has to do the same if he wants to be known as the leader with certain professorial tendencies -- rather than the professor who somehow became a president.
And remember, business and the business of politics is always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.
John Tantillo is the Marketing and Branding Expert/Founder and President, of the Marketing Department of America.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Liberal Fascism
Here's Glenn Beck's interview with author Jonah Goldberg, who wrote the GREAT book "Liberal Fascism." A Must Read!
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Many Declaration Signers Paid Dearly for their Cause
by Tom Joyce
Mount Airy News
The Fourth of July is one of the holidays I value the most. For one thing, it is a uniquely American observance, since it honors the very foundation of our existence as a nation.
It is a time that stresses basic values such as freedom and patriotism, which thankfully the populace can still revel in without requiring a trip to the card store, flower shop or jewelers.
But when we use such frequently uttered phrases as “celebrating our liberty,” what exactly does that mean, and what should it mean?
While July 4 might signify Independence Day parades or communitywide gatherings, fireworks displays, stuffing one’s face with hot dogs and all-around flag-waving, modern joys surrounding Fourth activities are far removed from what many signers of the Declaration of Independence endured.
Of course, the sugar-coated history portrayed in textbooks conjures up images of a bunch of Colonial dudes with funny hair simply getting together in a big room in Philadelphia, and slapping their John Henrys (or John Hancocks) on a piece of paper.
But contrary to popular belief, they then didn’t all just go over to Samuel Adams’ place and drink beer to celebrate what they had done.
Though participants such as Thomas Jefferson would advance to greater glory, it generally was anything but fun and games for the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. After all, these colonists had just outwardly defied the greatest military power on Earth at the time, the British.
And the crown didn’t take this act of rebellion lightly, but considered it a blatant act of treason by the signers, who then were systematically dealt with accordingly in any way the enemy could, including the penalty of death if captured. Signers ended up sacrificing lives, families, fortunes and homes.
Various historical accounts show that five of those 56 brave souls were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died.
Another nine Declaration signers later would succumb to wounds, disease or other causes in the Revolutionary War. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned, while two lost sons in the war and another two had sons captured.
Francis Lewis, one of the signers from New York, had his home and properties destroyed and the British jailed his wife, who died soon thereafter.
After he inked the Declaration of Independence, New Jersey’s John Hart had to flee from his wife’s deathbed and their 13 children were driven away. Hart lived in caves and woods for more than a year, returning to find his fields and gristmill in ruin and his family gone. Within weeks, he would be dead from exhaustion and grief.
Soldiers or looters also scavenged the homeplaces of three of the four Declaration signers from South Carolina — Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton and Thomas Heyward Jr. — and five others suffered a similar fate.
Wealthy Virginia planter and trader Carter Braxton had his ships devastated by the British Navy and died in rags after being forced to sell off his properties to pay his debts.
Thomas McKean of Delaware also was relegated to a life of poverty after his possessions were taken from him, and his family constantly was on the run from the enemy. So great was McKean’s conviction to independence that he served in Congress without pay.
Signers’ hardships lasted right until the end of the bloody conflict. After Cornwallis, the British general, occupied the home of Thomas Nelson Jr. as his headquarters during the Battle of Yorktown, Nelson urged Gen. George Washington to fire at the structure. It was destroyed, and though the Revolution had been won, Nelson would die broke.
These men were not just a bunch of hoodlums or rabble-rousers, but merchants, farmers, lawyers and other leaders in their respective communities. And a quick count of all those who suffered horrible tragedies show that a good percentage of the signers saw their once-comfortable lives ruined to some extent as a result of their desire for liberty.
So here we are 233 years later, waving the flags and enjoying the freedom that our Founding Fathers gave us through their blood and tears and sacrifices.
But how many of us today would be willing to take a stand against oppression or injustice to the point where we risked our existence by signing a document that could be considered our own death sentence?
I hate to admit it about our “evolved” society. But if this country had to depend on some of the attitudes and apathy prevalent among citizens today in order to gain its independence in 1776, there’s no doubt America would still be a British colony.
Mount Airy News
The Fourth of July is one of the holidays I value the most. For one thing, it is a uniquely American observance, since it honors the very foundation of our existence as a nation.
It is a time that stresses basic values such as freedom and patriotism, which thankfully the populace can still revel in without requiring a trip to the card store, flower shop or jewelers.
But when we use such frequently uttered phrases as “celebrating our liberty,” what exactly does that mean, and what should it mean?
While July 4 might signify Independence Day parades or communitywide gatherings, fireworks displays, stuffing one’s face with hot dogs and all-around flag-waving, modern joys surrounding Fourth activities are far removed from what many signers of the Declaration of Independence endured.
Of course, the sugar-coated history portrayed in textbooks conjures up images of a bunch of Colonial dudes with funny hair simply getting together in a big room in Philadelphia, and slapping their John Henrys (or John Hancocks) on a piece of paper.
But contrary to popular belief, they then didn’t all just go over to Samuel Adams’ place and drink beer to celebrate what they had done.
Though participants such as Thomas Jefferson would advance to greater glory, it generally was anything but fun and games for the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. After all, these colonists had just outwardly defied the greatest military power on Earth at the time, the British.
And the crown didn’t take this act of rebellion lightly, but considered it a blatant act of treason by the signers, who then were systematically dealt with accordingly in any way the enemy could, including the penalty of death if captured. Signers ended up sacrificing lives, families, fortunes and homes.
Various historical accounts show that five of those 56 brave souls were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died.
Another nine Declaration signers later would succumb to wounds, disease or other causes in the Revolutionary War. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned, while two lost sons in the war and another two had sons captured.
Francis Lewis, one of the signers from New York, had his home and properties destroyed and the British jailed his wife, who died soon thereafter.
After he inked the Declaration of Independence, New Jersey’s John Hart had to flee from his wife’s deathbed and their 13 children were driven away. Hart lived in caves and woods for more than a year, returning to find his fields and gristmill in ruin and his family gone. Within weeks, he would be dead from exhaustion and grief.
Soldiers or looters also scavenged the homeplaces of three of the four Declaration signers from South Carolina — Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton and Thomas Heyward Jr. — and five others suffered a similar fate.
Wealthy Virginia planter and trader Carter Braxton had his ships devastated by the British Navy and died in rags after being forced to sell off his properties to pay his debts.
Thomas McKean of Delaware also was relegated to a life of poverty after his possessions were taken from him, and his family constantly was on the run from the enemy. So great was McKean’s conviction to independence that he served in Congress without pay.
Signers’ hardships lasted right until the end of the bloody conflict. After Cornwallis, the British general, occupied the home of Thomas Nelson Jr. as his headquarters during the Battle of Yorktown, Nelson urged Gen. George Washington to fire at the structure. It was destroyed, and though the Revolution had been won, Nelson would die broke.
These men were not just a bunch of hoodlums or rabble-rousers, but merchants, farmers, lawyers and other leaders in their respective communities. And a quick count of all those who suffered horrible tragedies show that a good percentage of the signers saw their once-comfortable lives ruined to some extent as a result of their desire for liberty.
So here we are 233 years later, waving the flags and enjoying the freedom that our Founding Fathers gave us through their blood and tears and sacrifices.
But how many of us today would be willing to take a stand against oppression or injustice to the point where we risked our existence by signing a document that could be considered our own death sentence?
I hate to admit it about our “evolved” society. But if this country had to depend on some of the attitudes and apathy prevalent among citizens today in order to gain its independence in 1776, there’s no doubt America would still be a British colony.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Polar Bear Population Increasing!
NewScientist
Climate myths: Polar bear numbers are increasing
17:00 16 May 2007 by Phil McKenna
Polar bears have become the poster children of global warming. The bears spend most or all of the year living and hunting on sea ice, and the accelerating shrinking of this ice appears to pose a serious threat. The issue has even become politically sensitive.
Yet recently there have been claims that polar bear populations are increasing. So what's going on? There are thought to be between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears in 19 population groups around the Arctic. While polar bear numbers are increasing in two of these populations, two others are definitely in decline. We don't really know how the rest of the populations are faring, so the truth is that no one can say for sure how overall numbers are changing.
The two populations that are increasing, both in north-eastern Canada, were severely reduced by hunting in the past and are recovering thanks to the protection they and their prey now enjoy.
The best-studied population, in Canada's western Hudson Bay, fell by 22% from 1194 animals in 1987 to 935 in 2004, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. A second group in the Beaufort Sea, off Alaska's north coast, is now experiencing the same pattern of reduced adult weights and cub survival as the Hudson Bay group.
A comprehensive review (pdf) by the US Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that shrinking sea ice is the primary cause for the decline seen in these populations, and it recently proposed listing polar bears as threatened (pdf) under the Endangered Species Act. The World Conservation Union projects the bears' numbers will drop by 30% by 2050 (pdf) due to continued loss of Arctic sea ice.
Climate myths: Polar bear numbers are increasing
17:00 16 May 2007 by Phil McKenna
Polar bears have become the poster children of global warming. The bears spend most or all of the year living and hunting on sea ice, and the accelerating shrinking of this ice appears to pose a serious threat. The issue has even become politically sensitive.
Yet recently there have been claims that polar bear populations are increasing. So what's going on? There are thought to be between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears in 19 population groups around the Arctic. While polar bear numbers are increasing in two of these populations, two others are definitely in decline. We don't really know how the rest of the populations are faring, so the truth is that no one can say for sure how overall numbers are changing.
The two populations that are increasing, both in north-eastern Canada, were severely reduced by hunting in the past and are recovering thanks to the protection they and their prey now enjoy.
The best-studied population, in Canada's western Hudson Bay, fell by 22% from 1194 animals in 1987 to 935 in 2004, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. A second group in the Beaufort Sea, off Alaska's north coast, is now experiencing the same pattern of reduced adult weights and cub survival as the Hudson Bay group.
A comprehensive review (pdf) by the US Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that shrinking sea ice is the primary cause for the decline seen in these populations, and it recently proposed listing polar bears as threatened (pdf) under the Endangered Species Act. The World Conservation Union projects the bears' numbers will drop by 30% by 2050 (pdf) due to continued loss of Arctic sea ice.
What would Neda Soltani say?
It's a bit like watching a man rape a woman and saying, "I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out."
Daniel Inouye Linked to Questionable Bank Bailout
From CBS.com
A struggling Hawaii bank received a $135 million federal bailout last fall two weeks after staff from the office of Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, a big investor in the bank, called federal regulators about the aid application, according to a report in ProPublica Tuesday.
Bank regulators had designated Central Pacific Financial as a marginal candidate to receive federal assistance, according to documents cited in the report. But soon after the phone call from Inouye's office, the Treasury directed millions of dollars to bolster the bank's capital reserves.
Inouye, D-Hawaii, owns shares in the bank that totaled between $350,000 and $700,000 at the end of 2007, according to the report. That amounts to roughly two-thirds of the senator's personal wealth.
Since 2007, the bank's stock has lost 79 percent of its value.
While it's not unique for a senator to have a stake in a local bank, it was unusual for Inouye's office to contact regulators about the bank's application, the report states.
Inouye acknowledged in a statement that an aide did contact the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation about Central Pacific's application, but denied trying to influence any decision. He didn't mention whether the aide contacted regulators at his request.
Such involvement wouldn't violate Senate rules, the report cites experts as saying.
The FDIC and Treasury said the decision to bail out the bank was not related to the communication with Inouye's office, according to the report.
A struggling Hawaii bank received a $135 million federal bailout last fall two weeks after staff from the office of Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, a big investor in the bank, called federal regulators about the aid application, according to a report in ProPublica Tuesday.
Bank regulators had designated Central Pacific Financial as a marginal candidate to receive federal assistance, according to documents cited in the report. But soon after the phone call from Inouye's office, the Treasury directed millions of dollars to bolster the bank's capital reserves.
Inouye, D-Hawaii, owns shares in the bank that totaled between $350,000 and $700,000 at the end of 2007, according to the report. That amounts to roughly two-thirds of the senator's personal wealth.
Since 2007, the bank's stock has lost 79 percent of its value.
While it's not unique for a senator to have a stake in a local bank, it was unusual for Inouye's office to contact regulators about the bank's application, the report states.
Inouye acknowledged in a statement that an aide did contact the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation about Central Pacific's application, but denied trying to influence any decision. He didn't mention whether the aide contacted regulators at his request.
Such involvement wouldn't violate Senate rules, the report cites experts as saying.
The FDIC and Treasury said the decision to bail out the bank was not related to the communication with Inouye's office, according to the report.
Friday, June 19, 2009
OK, now Glenn Beck weighs in...
Glenn Beck weighs in on "SENATOR" Barbara Boxer--- And Ann Coulter has a few words to say, too! Enjoy!
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
A Crisis Obama Won't Waste
from dickmorris.com
By Dick Morris
04.8.2009
Published on TheHill.com on April 7, 2009
This economic crisis is too useful for Obama to want it to end. When Rahm Emanuel — and later Hillary Clinton — spoke of never letting a good crisis “go to waste,” many people were shocked. But now Obama seems to embody the corollary: that the crisis should continue until he has thoroughly milked it to reshape American politics, society and the economy. Like Faust, he seems to wish that this “given moment” will “endure forever.” Unlike Faust, however, he will not lose his “life and soul” to such a wish. He’ll sacrifice ours instead.
First came the “stimulus package.” With only about $185 billion of its $800 billion in spending to be spent in 2009, Obama clearly never intended the spending to be about stimulus but wanted the need for a stimulus to trigger the spending he wanted anyway.
Then came the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funding, often forced down banks’ throats. Now comes word that even as banks want to return the money, the Treasury is making them keep it. One source at a TARP bank reports that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is insisting that banks go through their “stress test” before refunding the TARP money. As Stuart Varney speculates, in The Wall Street Journal, Obama wants the banks to keep the money so he can enforce his regulations on them.
Now comes Geithner’s plea for extra regulatory powers and Obama’s concession to global economic regulation at the G-20 summit. Both moves are game-changers for any major American business. Geithner wants the power to take over any business — presumably in any field — whose failure would imperil the national economy. Today it’s banks, brokerage houses, car companies and insurance firms. Tomorrow? Who knows?
And Obama agreed to agree on international “high standards” for the regulation of all “systemically important” companies to be promulgated by the new global Financial Stability Board (FSB). The United States, occupying one of 20 chairs on the FSB board (21 if we count the EU), will come to a consensus with other central bankers from the G-20 nations on what these regulations should say. Then the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve and the other regulatory arms of the U.S. government will impose them on our economy.
(Some have objected that Congress needs to be consulted, but as long as the agreements are “voluntary” and the U.S. agencies are merely “asked” to impose the regulations, no further grant of congressional authority is needed. But, of course, there will be nothing voluntary about the administration’s demand that the agencies implement the coming FSB directives, no matter how intrusive they may be.)
And, finally, there is Obama’s delegation of a total overhaul of the tax code to a commission headed by Paul Volcker with a mandate to report back in December of this year.
So with the tax code totally changing, Europe about to formulate regulations for our economy, the U.S. government empowered to take over any large company, the deficit and spending reaching unbelievable levels and the feds insisting on continued control of banks, what businessman in his right mind is going to invest in anything? How could even the most foolish optimist pull the trigger on a business investment without knowing the tax consequences, the regulatory framework and the policy of the banks on lending?
But Obama knows all this. He knows that his steps will delay economic recovery. But he wants these changes, not as means to an end, but as the end itself. And he is determined to get them passed and set in stone while the rubric of “crisis” justifies his doing so.
He is not unlike a leader who takes his country into war, knowing that by “wagging the dog” he can reinforce his power.
But ultimately, does Obama care if he is reelected? Doesn’t he know that he needs a good economy to extend his mandate to eight years? Yes, of course he does. But he probably figures that he can turn the economy around as Election Day 2012 draws nearer and reap all the credit then. In the meantime, no good crisis should ever go to waste.
By Dick Morris
04.8.2009
Published on TheHill.com on April 7, 2009
This economic crisis is too useful for Obama to want it to end. When Rahm Emanuel — and later Hillary Clinton — spoke of never letting a good crisis “go to waste,” many people were shocked. But now Obama seems to embody the corollary: that the crisis should continue until he has thoroughly milked it to reshape American politics, society and the economy. Like Faust, he seems to wish that this “given moment” will “endure forever.” Unlike Faust, however, he will not lose his “life and soul” to such a wish. He’ll sacrifice ours instead.
First came the “stimulus package.” With only about $185 billion of its $800 billion in spending to be spent in 2009, Obama clearly never intended the spending to be about stimulus but wanted the need for a stimulus to trigger the spending he wanted anyway.
Then came the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funding, often forced down banks’ throats. Now comes word that even as banks want to return the money, the Treasury is making them keep it. One source at a TARP bank reports that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is insisting that banks go through their “stress test” before refunding the TARP money. As Stuart Varney speculates, in The Wall Street Journal, Obama wants the banks to keep the money so he can enforce his regulations on them.
Now comes Geithner’s plea for extra regulatory powers and Obama’s concession to global economic regulation at the G-20 summit. Both moves are game-changers for any major American business. Geithner wants the power to take over any business — presumably in any field — whose failure would imperil the national economy. Today it’s banks, brokerage houses, car companies and insurance firms. Tomorrow? Who knows?
And Obama agreed to agree on international “high standards” for the regulation of all “systemically important” companies to be promulgated by the new global Financial Stability Board (FSB). The United States, occupying one of 20 chairs on the FSB board (21 if we count the EU), will come to a consensus with other central bankers from the G-20 nations on what these regulations should say. Then the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve and the other regulatory arms of the U.S. government will impose them on our economy.
(Some have objected that Congress needs to be consulted, but as long as the agreements are “voluntary” and the U.S. agencies are merely “asked” to impose the regulations, no further grant of congressional authority is needed. But, of course, there will be nothing voluntary about the administration’s demand that the agencies implement the coming FSB directives, no matter how intrusive they may be.)
And, finally, there is Obama’s delegation of a total overhaul of the tax code to a commission headed by Paul Volcker with a mandate to report back in December of this year.
So with the tax code totally changing, Europe about to formulate regulations for our economy, the U.S. government empowered to take over any large company, the deficit and spending reaching unbelievable levels and the feds insisting on continued control of banks, what businessman in his right mind is going to invest in anything? How could even the most foolish optimist pull the trigger on a business investment without knowing the tax consequences, the regulatory framework and the policy of the banks on lending?
But Obama knows all this. He knows that his steps will delay economic recovery. But he wants these changes, not as means to an end, but as the end itself. And he is determined to get them passed and set in stone while the rubric of “crisis” justifies his doing so.
He is not unlike a leader who takes his country into war, knowing that by “wagging the dog” he can reinforce his power.
But ultimately, does Obama care if he is reelected? Doesn’t he know that he needs a good economy to extend his mandate to eight years? Yes, of course he does. But he probably figures that he can turn the economy around as Election Day 2012 draws nearer and reap all the credit then. In the meantime, no good crisis should ever go to waste.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Abortion and Black Genocide
From the Vorthos Forum...something for Obama to consider, for the sake of his own race's survival!
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Jimmy Carter's War on Israel
This is disturbing and totally disgraceful. WARNING: there are some images of terrorist violence here, in case you're a bit squeamish.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Obama Stem Cell Sham
From The Weekly Standard
by P.J. O'Rourke
03/23/2009, Volume 014, Issue 26
When a Democratic president goes from being wrong to being damn wrong is always an interesting moment: Bay of Pigs, Great Society, Jimmy Carter waking up on the morning after his inauguration, HillaryCare. Barack Obama condemned himself (and a number of human embryos to be determined at a later date) on March 9 when he signed an executive order reversing the Bush administration's restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research.
President Obama went to hell not with the stroke of a pen, but with the cluck of a tongue. His executive order was an error. His statement at the executive order signing ceremony was a mortal error: "In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values."
A false choice is no choice at all--Tweedledee/Tweedledum, Chevy Suburban/GMC Yukon XL, Joe Biden/Triumph the Insult Comic Dog. Is there really no difference "between sound science and moral values"? Webster's Third New International Dictionary states that science is, definition one, "possession of knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding."
Let's look at the various things science has "known" in the past 3,000 years.
Lightning is the sneeze of Thor.
The periodic table consists of Earth, Wind, and Fire and a recording of "Got To Get You into My Life."
The world is flat with signs saying "Here Be Democrats" near the edges.
You can turn lead into gold without first selling your Citibank stock at a huge loss.
We're the center of the universe and the Sun revolves around us (and shines out of Uranus, Mr. President, if I may be allowed a moment of utter sophomoricism).
But, lest anyone think I'm not serious, let me quote with serious revulsion the following passages from the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1911)--that great compendium of all the knowledge science possessed, carefully distinguished from ignorance and misunderstanding, as of a hundred years ago:
[T]he negro would appear to stand on a lower evolutionary plane than the white man, and to be more closely related to the highest anthropoids.
Mentally the negro is inferior to the white.
[A]fter puberty sexual matters take the first place in the negro's life and thought.
The above are quoted--not out of context--from the article titled "Negro" written by Dr. Walter Francis Willcox, chief statistician of the U.S. Census Bureau and professor of social science and statistics at Cornell. I trust I've made my point.
Now let's look at the things morality has known. The Ten Commandments are holding up pretty well. I suppose the "graven image" bit could be considered culturally insensitive. But the moralists got nine out of ten--a lot better than the scientists are doing. (And, to digress, the Obama administration should take an extra look at the tenth commandment, "Thou shalt not covet," before going into nonkosher pork production with redistributive tax and spend policies.)
A false choice means there's no choosing. The president of the United States tells us that sound science and moral values are united, in bed together. As many a coed has been assured, "Let's just get naked under the covers, we don't have to make love." Or, as the president puts it, "Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose this research. And I understand their concerns, and I believe that we must respect their point of view."
Mr. President, sir, if this is your respect, I'd rather have your contempt or your waistline or something other than what you're giving me here. The more so because in the next sentence you say,
But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans--from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs--have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research.
Mr. President, you're lying. There is no consensus. And you are not only wrong about the relationship between facts and morals, you are wrong about the facts of democracy. In America we have a process called voting--I seem to remember you were once very interested in it. We the citizens determine whether and how to spend the proceeds of taxation, which we alone are empowered to impose upon ourselves through our elected representatives in Congress, not the White House. If you want to kill little, bitty babies, get Congress to pass a law to kill little, bitty babies, if you can. I'm not going to bother arguing with you about whether it's wrong. Surely you too gazed at the sonogram screen and saw a thumb-sized daughter tumbling in the womb, having the time of her life. And a short life it will be, in a Petri dish. But we've already established that you don't know wrong from right.
The question is not about federal funding for stem cell research, the question is are you a knave or a fool? I'm inclined to take the more charitable view. For one thing you have a foolish notion that science does not progress without the assistance of government.
Philosophy was once considered science. After Alexander the Great had accepted the surrender of Athens, he found Diogenes the Cynic living in a barrel.
"What can I do for you?" Alexander asked.
"Get out of my light," Diogenes said.
On the other hand, you, Mr. President, said that scientific progress "result from painstaking and costly research, from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit, and from a government willing to support that work."
Thus it was that without King George's courtiers winding kite string for Ben Franklin and splitting firewood and flipping eye charts to advance his painstaking and costly research into electricity, stoves, and bifocals, Ben's years of lonely trial and error never would have borne fruit. To this day we would think the bright flash in a stormy summer sky is God having an allergy attack. We would heat our homes by burning piles of pithy sayings from Poor Richard's Almanac in the middle of the floor. And we would stare at our knitting through the bottoms of old Coke bottles.
We'd probably have telephones and light bulbs if President Rutherford B. Hayes (a Republican) had been willing to support the work of Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison. As you say, Mr. President, "When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed." (Although the light bulbs would now have to be replaced by flickering, squiggly fluorescent devices anyway, to reverse global warming.)
Also, Mr. President, you make a piss poor argument in favor of embarking on what you yourself admit is an uncertain course of action. You say, "At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated." And you find it necessary to say, "I can also promise you that we will never undertake this research lightly."
As your reasons for this research--which we are to perform with heavy hearts--you name a few misty hopes: "to regenerate a severed spinal cord," "lift someone from a wheelchair," "spare a child from a lifetime of needles." Then you undercut yourself by introducing a whole new fear. "And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society." Because cloning cells to make a human life is so much worsehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif than cloning cells from a human life that's already been destroyed. Why, it's as dangerous, as profoundly wrong, and has as little place in our society as being pro-life.
Mr. President, any high school debate team could do better. Even debate teams from those terrible inner-city public high schools that your ideology demands that you champion no matter how little knowledge they provide. And I particularly enjoyed the part of your speech where you said that "we make decisions based on facts, not ideology."
P.J. O'Rourke is a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
by P.J. O'Rourke
03/23/2009, Volume 014, Issue 26
When a Democratic president goes from being wrong to being damn wrong is always an interesting moment: Bay of Pigs, Great Society, Jimmy Carter waking up on the morning after his inauguration, HillaryCare. Barack Obama condemned himself (and a number of human embryos to be determined at a later date) on March 9 when he signed an executive order reversing the Bush administration's restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research.
President Obama went to hell not with the stroke of a pen, but with the cluck of a tongue. His executive order was an error. His statement at the executive order signing ceremony was a mortal error: "In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values."
A false choice is no choice at all--Tweedledee/Tweedledum, Chevy Suburban/GMC Yukon XL, Joe Biden/Triumph the Insult Comic Dog. Is there really no difference "between sound science and moral values"? Webster's Third New International Dictionary states that science is, definition one, "possession of knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding."
Let's look at the various things science has "known" in the past 3,000 years.
Lightning is the sneeze of Thor.
The periodic table consists of Earth, Wind, and Fire and a recording of "Got To Get You into My Life."
The world is flat with signs saying "Here Be Democrats" near the edges.
You can turn lead into gold without first selling your Citibank stock at a huge loss.
We're the center of the universe and the Sun revolves around us (and shines out of Uranus, Mr. President, if I may be allowed a moment of utter sophomoricism).
But, lest anyone think I'm not serious, let me quote with serious revulsion the following passages from the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1911)--that great compendium of all the knowledge science possessed, carefully distinguished from ignorance and misunderstanding, as of a hundred years ago:
[T]he negro would appear to stand on a lower evolutionary plane than the white man, and to be more closely related to the highest anthropoids.
Mentally the negro is inferior to the white.
[A]fter puberty sexual matters take the first place in the negro's life and thought.
The above are quoted--not out of context--from the article titled "Negro" written by Dr. Walter Francis Willcox, chief statistician of the U.S. Census Bureau and professor of social science and statistics at Cornell. I trust I've made my point.
Now let's look at the things morality has known. The Ten Commandments are holding up pretty well. I suppose the "graven image" bit could be considered culturally insensitive. But the moralists got nine out of ten--a lot better than the scientists are doing. (And, to digress, the Obama administration should take an extra look at the tenth commandment, "Thou shalt not covet," before going into nonkosher pork production with redistributive tax and spend policies.)
A false choice means there's no choosing. The president of the United States tells us that sound science and moral values are united, in bed together. As many a coed has been assured, "Let's just get naked under the covers, we don't have to make love." Or, as the president puts it, "Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose this research. And I understand their concerns, and I believe that we must respect their point of view."
Mr. President, sir, if this is your respect, I'd rather have your contempt or your waistline or something other than what you're giving me here. The more so because in the next sentence you say,
But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans--from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs--have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research.
Mr. President, you're lying. There is no consensus. And you are not only wrong about the relationship between facts and morals, you are wrong about the facts of democracy. In America we have a process called voting--I seem to remember you were once very interested in it. We the citizens determine whether and how to spend the proceeds of taxation, which we alone are empowered to impose upon ourselves through our elected representatives in Congress, not the White House. If you want to kill little, bitty babies, get Congress to pass a law to kill little, bitty babies, if you can. I'm not going to bother arguing with you about whether it's wrong. Surely you too gazed at the sonogram screen and saw a thumb-sized daughter tumbling in the womb, having the time of her life. And a short life it will be, in a Petri dish. But we've already established that you don't know wrong from right.
The question is not about federal funding for stem cell research, the question is are you a knave or a fool? I'm inclined to take the more charitable view. For one thing you have a foolish notion that science does not progress without the assistance of government.
Philosophy was once considered science. After Alexander the Great had accepted the surrender of Athens, he found Diogenes the Cynic living in a barrel.
"What can I do for you?" Alexander asked.
"Get out of my light," Diogenes said.
On the other hand, you, Mr. President, said that scientific progress "result from painstaking and costly research, from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit, and from a government willing to support that work."
Thus it was that without King George's courtiers winding kite string for Ben Franklin and splitting firewood and flipping eye charts to advance his painstaking and costly research into electricity, stoves, and bifocals, Ben's years of lonely trial and error never would have borne fruit. To this day we would think the bright flash in a stormy summer sky is God having an allergy attack. We would heat our homes by burning piles of pithy sayings from Poor Richard's Almanac in the middle of the floor. And we would stare at our knitting through the bottoms of old Coke bottles.
We'd probably have telephones and light bulbs if President Rutherford B. Hayes (a Republican) had been willing to support the work of Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison. As you say, Mr. President, "When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed." (Although the light bulbs would now have to be replaced by flickering, squiggly fluorescent devices anyway, to reverse global warming.)
Also, Mr. President, you make a piss poor argument in favor of embarking on what you yourself admit is an uncertain course of action. You say, "At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated." And you find it necessary to say, "I can also promise you that we will never undertake this research lightly."
As your reasons for this research--which we are to perform with heavy hearts--you name a few misty hopes: "to regenerate a severed spinal cord," "lift someone from a wheelchair," "spare a child from a lifetime of needles." Then you undercut yourself by introducing a whole new fear. "And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society." Because cloning cells to make a human life is so much worsehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif than cloning cells from a human life that's already been destroyed. Why, it's as dangerous, as profoundly wrong, and has as little place in our society as being pro-life.
Mr. President, any high school debate team could do better. Even debate teams from those terrible inner-city public high schools that your ideology demands that you champion no matter how little knowledge they provide. And I particularly enjoyed the part of your speech where you said that "we make decisions based on facts, not ideology."
P.J. O'Rourke is a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
Sebelius Not Telling the Truth About Tiller In Answers To Senate Committee
from OperationRescue.org
Records available online debunk her story about dinner with Tiller in 2007 and prove Tiller gave her more money that she admits.
Washington, DC – The U.S. Senate Finance Committee has published written answers submitted by Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius in response to questions submitted to her during her examination for confirmation as Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Official public records prove that her response to a question from Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) about her relationship with late-term abortionist George R. Tiller is filled with falsehoods, again raising ethical questions about Sebelius’ fitness to serve.
In response to Sen. Kyl, Sebelius stated that she received $12,450 from Tiller during her campaign for Insurance Commissioner.
However, contribution and expenditure reports on file with the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission show the figure to be closer to $38,450 – a discrepancy of $26,000. Records also show that some of that money was used for her 2002 campaign for governor. Detailed information on Sebelius’ campaign finance ties to Tiller has been meticulously compiled by a political researcher and is available on his blog at www.kansasmeadowlark.com.
Sebelius added comments regarding a 2007 party she hosted at the official governor’s mansion, Cedar Crest, for Tiller and his entire abortion clinic staff. She stated that in 2006, she donated a reception at Cedar Crest to a “non-profit” group, the Greater Kansas City Women‘s Political Caucus (GKCWPC), for their annual fundraiser, the Torch Dinner. All costs were reimbursed to the state.
However, there are several factual problems with Sebelius’ statement:
• The Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus is a Political Action Committee, not a non-profit group.
• GKCWPC records on file with the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission show no purchase or contribution of any kind by Tiller or anyone related to him in 2006.
• Sebelius claims that the cost of the Tiller dinner was reimbursed to the state. However, Operation Rescue obtained receipts that show the dinner was paid for by taxpayers. Sebelius’ spokesperson has stated that the reimbursement occurred on May 23, 2008, but official expenditure records for the GKCWPC for that time period show no such reimbursement. No receipts to prove a reimbursement occurred have ever been produced.
• All documentation supports the claims of Operation Rescue’s original source, a former Tiller employee who attended the Cedar Crest party. She provided photos of the event and told OR that it was an invitation only dinner given by Sebelius to honor Tiller and his abortion clinic staff, not an auction prize. No evidence has ever been produced to refute her claims.
“The records prove that Sebelius’ story about the Tiller dinner being an auction prize is manufactured out of whole cloth. There is not one shred of evidence to back it up. Sebelius’ continued unwillingness to tell the truth about her relationship with Tiller, in spite of the evidence, shows that from an ethical standpoint alone, she is not fit to serve,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “If she will lie to the U.S. Senate and the American people about this, she simply cannot be trusted.”
Records available online debunk her story about dinner with Tiller in 2007 and prove Tiller gave her more money that she admits.
Washington, DC – The U.S. Senate Finance Committee has published written answers submitted by Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius in response to questions submitted to her during her examination for confirmation as Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Official public records prove that her response to a question from Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) about her relationship with late-term abortionist George R. Tiller is filled with falsehoods, again raising ethical questions about Sebelius’ fitness to serve.
In response to Sen. Kyl, Sebelius stated that she received $12,450 from Tiller during her campaign for Insurance Commissioner.
However, contribution and expenditure reports on file with the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission show the figure to be closer to $38,450 – a discrepancy of $26,000. Records also show that some of that money was used for her 2002 campaign for governor. Detailed information on Sebelius’ campaign finance ties to Tiller has been meticulously compiled by a political researcher and is available on his blog at www.kansasmeadowlark.com.
Sebelius added comments regarding a 2007 party she hosted at the official governor’s mansion, Cedar Crest, for Tiller and his entire abortion clinic staff. She stated that in 2006, she donated a reception at Cedar Crest to a “non-profit” group, the Greater Kansas City Women‘s Political Caucus (GKCWPC), for their annual fundraiser, the Torch Dinner. All costs were reimbursed to the state.
However, there are several factual problems with Sebelius’ statement:
• The Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus is a Political Action Committee, not a non-profit group.
• GKCWPC records on file with the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission show no purchase or contribution of any kind by Tiller or anyone related to him in 2006.
• Sebelius claims that the cost of the Tiller dinner was reimbursed to the state. However, Operation Rescue obtained receipts that show the dinner was paid for by taxpayers. Sebelius’ spokesperson has stated that the reimbursement occurred on May 23, 2008, but official expenditure records for the GKCWPC for that time period show no such reimbursement. No receipts to prove a reimbursement occurred have ever been produced.
• All documentation supports the claims of Operation Rescue’s original source, a former Tiller employee who attended the Cedar Crest party. She provided photos of the event and told OR that it was an invitation only dinner given by Sebelius to honor Tiller and his abortion clinic staff, not an auction prize. No evidence has ever been produced to refute her claims.
“The records prove that Sebelius’ story about the Tiller dinner being an auction prize is manufactured out of whole cloth. There is not one shred of evidence to back it up. Sebelius’ continued unwillingness to tell the truth about her relationship with Tiller, in spite of the evidence, shows that from an ethical standpoint alone, she is not fit to serve,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “If she will lie to the U.S. Senate and the American people about this, she simply cannot be trusted.”
Tax Day Tea Party!
If you can possibly swing it, please go to the Tax Day Tea Party nearest you and voice your protest against new taxes, wasteful spending and encroaching socialism.
Here's the website! Some of the parties are in the evening, so working people can go, too.
Clicketh HERE
Here's the website! Some of the parties are in the evening, so working people can go, too.
Clicketh HERE
Bama went to church!
Not exactly the stuff of St. John of the Cross, but then again...
Source: The New York Daily News
BY MICHAEL SAUL
DAILY NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
Updated Monday, April 13th 2009, 6:57 AM
When it comes to church, President Obama can't avoid trouble.
As the First Family attended an Easter Sunday service at St. John's Church across from the White House Sunday, the Rev. Luis Leon unleashed a vicious and unholy attack on New York.
He insulted the Yankees.
With the Obamas sitting in the sixth row, Leon told congregants that "baseball season has started" and that the church's drummer is a huge Yankees fan.
Leon then said he wanted to remind everybody that the Orioles have beaten the Yankees twice so far, and therefore, "The world lives in hope."
"I'm a fairly charitable person," the good reverend said, "but I have to tell you - I hate the Yankees."
Laughter erupted from the pews. It was unclear whether the Obamas joined in.
White House spokesman Bill Burton did not respond last night to the Daily News' urgent inquiry into this matter.
Last year, Obama publicly split from his longtime pastor and friend, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the family is still searching for a new spiritual home.
New York's leaders defended their team with pride.
Stu Loeser, Mayor Bloomberg's press secretary, said, "We checked with a religious authority here in New York, and on this specific area of belief, Mayor Bloomberg's rabbi assures us that President Obama's minister is mistaken."
Former Mayor Ed Koch said, "When I see the Yankees attacked, the hairs on the nape of my neck go up, and the guy who attacks them is lucky if I don't hit him and then run."
Source: The New York Daily News
BY MICHAEL SAUL
DAILY NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
Updated Monday, April 13th 2009, 6:57 AM
When it comes to church, President Obama can't avoid trouble.
As the First Family attended an Easter Sunday service at St. John's Church across from the White House Sunday, the Rev. Luis Leon unleashed a vicious and unholy attack on New York.
He insulted the Yankees.
With the Obamas sitting in the sixth row, Leon told congregants that "baseball season has started" and that the church's drummer is a huge Yankees fan.
Leon then said he wanted to remind everybody that the Orioles have beaten the Yankees twice so far, and therefore, "The world lives in hope."
"I'm a fairly charitable person," the good reverend said, "but I have to tell you - I hate the Yankees."
Laughter erupted from the pews. It was unclear whether the Obamas joined in.
White House spokesman Bill Burton did not respond last night to the Daily News' urgent inquiry into this matter.
Last year, Obama publicly split from his longtime pastor and friend, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the family is still searching for a new spiritual home.
New York's leaders defended their team with pride.
Stu Loeser, Mayor Bloomberg's press secretary, said, "We checked with a religious authority here in New York, and on this specific area of belief, Mayor Bloomberg's rabbi assures us that President Obama's minister is mistaken."
Former Mayor Ed Koch said, "When I see the Yankees attacked, the hairs on the nape of my neck go up, and the guy who attacks them is lucky if I don't hit him and then run."
Monday, April 13, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
10 Holy Cross Priests Denounce Obama ND Speech
from the Associated Press and Fox News
SOUTH BEND, Ind. —
Ten priests from the order that founded the University of Notre Dame say the school risks its "true soul" and could distance itself from the Roman Catholic Church by inviting President Barack Obama to campus next month.
The members of the Congregation of the Holy Cross, which helps run the university, asked the Rev. John Jenkins, the Holy Cross priest who is Notre Dame's president, and the university's board of fellows to reconsider the invitation to Obama because he supports abortion rights.
"Failure to do so will damage the integrity of the institution," said the letter published Wednesday in Notre Dame Observer.
Notre Dame announced last month that Obama would deliver the university's May 17 commencement address and receive an honorary degree. The decision by the nation's best-known Catholic university sparked widespread anger among many Catholics who said Notre Dame should not honor someone whose policies on abortion and embryonic stem-cell research clash with core church teachings on human life.
Hundreds of abortion opponents protested on campus Sunday, and the priests said the invitation has opened a "fissure" between Notre Dame and many bishops. More than a dozen bishops have denounced Obama's appearance, including Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Jenkins has said the university does not condone all of Obama's policies, and spokesman Dennis Brown has said Notre Dame does not plan to rescind the invitation.
"We respect the opinions of members of the Holy Cross community and others," Brown said.
Obama would be the ninth U.S. president to receive an honorary degree from Notre Dame and sixth sitting president to address graduates. Other commencement speakers have included Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush.
Cecilia Prinster, president of the Notre Dame Alumni Association, noted in a column also published in the campus newspaper that Obama's policies in areas such as health care reform, economic security and environmental stewardship are in line with Catholic social teaching.
"Although we disagree with Mr. Obama on some core issues, we must not condemn," Prinster wrote.
Four days before his Notre Dame speech, Obama is set to deliver a much less controversial commencement address at Arizona State University. But the public school in Tempe is denying the president something he's getting at South Bend: an honorary degree.
"It's our practice to recognize an individual for his body of work, somebody who's been in their position for a long time," Sharon Keeler, an ASU spokeswoman, told The Associated Press. "His body of work is yet to come. That's why we're not recognizing him with a degree at the beginning of his presidency."
Recent recipients of honorary degrees at ASU include J. Craig Venter, an internationally known scientist credited for developing high-volume genome sequencing, and Wu Qidi, vice minister of education of the People's Republic of China.
The university's policy is different from the one at Notre Dame, where Brown said it's customary to confer a degree on every guest speaker.
SOUTH BEND, Ind. —
Ten priests from the order that founded the University of Notre Dame say the school risks its "true soul" and could distance itself from the Roman Catholic Church by inviting President Barack Obama to campus next month.
The members of the Congregation of the Holy Cross, which helps run the university, asked the Rev. John Jenkins, the Holy Cross priest who is Notre Dame's president, and the university's board of fellows to reconsider the invitation to Obama because he supports abortion rights.
"Failure to do so will damage the integrity of the institution," said the letter published Wednesday in Notre Dame Observer.
Notre Dame announced last month that Obama would deliver the university's May 17 commencement address and receive an honorary degree. The decision by the nation's best-known Catholic university sparked widespread anger among many Catholics who said Notre Dame should not honor someone whose policies on abortion and embryonic stem-cell research clash with core church teachings on human life.
Hundreds of abortion opponents protested on campus Sunday, and the priests said the invitation has opened a "fissure" between Notre Dame and many bishops. More than a dozen bishops have denounced Obama's appearance, including Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Jenkins has said the university does not condone all of Obama's policies, and spokesman Dennis Brown has said Notre Dame does not plan to rescind the invitation.
"We respect the opinions of members of the Holy Cross community and others," Brown said.
Obama would be the ninth U.S. president to receive an honorary degree from Notre Dame and sixth sitting president to address graduates. Other commencement speakers have included Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush.
Cecilia Prinster, president of the Notre Dame Alumni Association, noted in a column also published in the campus newspaper that Obama's policies in areas such as health care reform, economic security and environmental stewardship are in line with Catholic social teaching.
"Although we disagree with Mr. Obama on some core issues, we must not condemn," Prinster wrote.
Four days before his Notre Dame speech, Obama is set to deliver a much less controversial commencement address at Arizona State University. But the public school in Tempe is denying the president something he's getting at South Bend: an honorary degree.
"It's our practice to recognize an individual for his body of work, somebody who's been in their position for a long time," Sharon Keeler, an ASU spokeswoman, told The Associated Press. "His body of work is yet to come. That's why we're not recognizing him with a degree at the beginning of his presidency."
Recent recipients of honorary degrees at ASU include J. Craig Venter, an internationally known scientist credited for developing high-volume genome sequencing, and Wu Qidi, vice minister of education of the People's Republic of China.
The university's policy is different from the one at Notre Dame, where Brown said it's customary to confer a degree on every guest speaker.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Reducing Charitable Donations Hurts Society
by Ryan Messmore
Heritage Foundation
In February, the Obama Administration announced its proposals to raise tax rates on high-income earners and to reduce their tax deduction rate on gifts made to charities. These strategies are intended to raise funds for Obama's health care plan.
The Senate Budget Committee passed an amendment by Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) to the budget resolution that would prevent this policy from going into effect. Congress should give this amendment full consideration. In so doing, it can resist government crowd out of the valuable charitable work performed by individuals and nonprofits.
The Proposal
American citizens in the highest marginal personal income tax bracket are taxed at a rate of 35 percent.[1] If they donate to a charitable organization, they can receive a tax deduction at the same 35 percent rate. For example, if a couple in this marginal bracket gives $10,000 to a hospital, they can write off $3,500 when filing their taxes.
Under Obama's proposal, beginning in 2011, families making over $250,000 a year would see their marginal personal income tax rate rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.[2] Rather than keeping the charitable deduction rate consistent with the tax rate, Obama proposes reducing it to 28 percent. At this reduced rate, the possible tax write off from a $10,000 donation would drop from $3,500 to $2,800, a difference of $700.[3]
The Obama Administration estimates that its proposed tax changes will fill government health care coffers with around $630 billion over 10 years.
The Likely Consequences
The President claims that his tax plan will only have a small negative effect on charitable giving. Percentage-wise, this may be true, but the estimated reduction in giving means billions of dollars less each year for charities, especially if weak economic conditions continue.
Scholars at the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University estimated that, had Obama's proposed changes been in place in 2006, total itemized contributions from wealthy households would have dropped almost $4 billion.[4]
While this amount is only a small percentage of total charitable donations given each year, it represents more than the annual operating budgets of the American Cancer Society, World Vision, St. Jude's Children's Hospital, Habitat for Humanity, and the American Heart Association combined.[5] Moreover, other scholars estimate that under Obama's proposal charitable organizations would see donations drop possibly by as much as $9 billion every year.[6]
In addition to receiving less money from wealthy donors, charitable organizations under Obama's plan could face a more subtle yet significant challenge: government crowding them out of social welfare provision. This phenomenon occurs when government claims increasing responsibility for tasks once performed by civil society, absorbing a larger percentage of the resources dedicated to carrying out those tasks.[7]
Shifting Focus
Obama defends his proposal as a way of "equalizing" tax breaks for donors in different tax brackets. In his March 24 prime-time news conference, Obama said it would not be fair to allow wealthy donors to write off more than lower- or middle-income donors who give the same amount. "Ultimately," he added, "if we're going to tackle the serious problems that we've got, then in some cases those who are more fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more."[8]
But Obama ignores the fact that wealthy citizens get a higher deduction precisely because they already pay more--a lot more--in taxes. In fact, although families making over $250,000 a year represent less than 5 percent of income earners in America, they pay 48 percent of all federal income taxes.[9] That a portion of their giving may go to private charities instead of to the government does not change the fact that, under the present tax system, the wealthy already shoulder a larger burden for social welfare. But Obama seems to believe that federal government bureaucracy can deploy the resources of the wealthy more effectively than nonprofit civil society organizations can.
President Obama has stated his desire to help "folks who have fallen on very hard times."[10] Yet he is standing by his proposal to lower deductions for charitable giving, which would hamper efforts by nonprofits to help needy families. The President seems to be letting his desire to equalize differences undercut his desire to help the poor.
Mediating Institutions
Perhaps most importantly, Obama's proposal says something about who Obama thinks can best determine how to distribute people's money.
In their influential book To Empower People, Peter Berger and the late Richard John Neuhaus describe the importance to a healthy democratic society of "mediating institutions"--i.e., forms of association like the family, church, and nonprofit organization that stand between citizens and the large institutions of public life.[11]
Mediating institutions are essential for generating and maintaining the operative values of society. They are also well-equipped to provide a helping hand to people in the context of face-to-face relationships. They have intimate knowledge of those in need--they understand social problems in up-close and personal ways. Driven by deep convictions and compassion, such organizations can provide loving forms of assistance and care that government programs cannot offer. And they often do so for less money. Smaller and more flexible than most government bureaucracies, local congregations and charities can also spawn creative social innovations that benefit those in need.
Berger and Neuhaus claim that public policy should "cease and desist from damaging mediating structures."[12] More than that, though, public policy should protect mediating institutions and, where possible without co-opting them, empower them in their efforts to promote the common good.
The tax plan put forward in Obama's 2010 budget blueprint, however, implies that the state should assume responsibility for people's needs even at the expense of vital mediating institutions. And it communicates the notion that America is better off with expansive and intrusive--rather than limited--government.
In short, Obama's proposed tax plan penalizes those who can give the most, shifts dollars from citizens and local private charities to distant government bureaucracy, and prioritizes mandatory taxation to voluntary tithing and giving.
Unfortunately, Obama's proposed tax changes move the dial of social responsibility one more notch in the direction of the state. This sets a course for adopting many future policies that could chip away at local, personal, mutual obligation and increase dependence on government. For an example of this, one need look no further than Obama's vision of expanding government control over health care, which is the very objective behind proposals to raise taxes and reduce charitable deductions for wealthy citizens.
The Bully Pulpit
Obama should use his presidential authority and influence to encourage voluntary giving and protect nonprofit groups, especially during tough economic times. President Obama speaks articulately and often of the important role charitable institutions play in America. He should send an equally clear message in his policy. Reconsidering the tax changes proposed for charitable donations would be good place to begin.
Ryan Messmore is William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.
Heritage Foundation
In February, the Obama Administration announced its proposals to raise tax rates on high-income earners and to reduce their tax deduction rate on gifts made to charities. These strategies are intended to raise funds for Obama's health care plan.
The Senate Budget Committee passed an amendment by Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) to the budget resolution that would prevent this policy from going into effect. Congress should give this amendment full consideration. In so doing, it can resist government crowd out of the valuable charitable work performed by individuals and nonprofits.
The Proposal
American citizens in the highest marginal personal income tax bracket are taxed at a rate of 35 percent.[1] If they donate to a charitable organization, they can receive a tax deduction at the same 35 percent rate. For example, if a couple in this marginal bracket gives $10,000 to a hospital, they can write off $3,500 when filing their taxes.
Under Obama's proposal, beginning in 2011, families making over $250,000 a year would see their marginal personal income tax rate rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.[2] Rather than keeping the charitable deduction rate consistent with the tax rate, Obama proposes reducing it to 28 percent. At this reduced rate, the possible tax write off from a $10,000 donation would drop from $3,500 to $2,800, a difference of $700.[3]
The Obama Administration estimates that its proposed tax changes will fill government health care coffers with around $630 billion over 10 years.
The Likely Consequences
The President claims that his tax plan will only have a small negative effect on charitable giving. Percentage-wise, this may be true, but the estimated reduction in giving means billions of dollars less each year for charities, especially if weak economic conditions continue.
Scholars at the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University estimated that, had Obama's proposed changes been in place in 2006, total itemized contributions from wealthy households would have dropped almost $4 billion.[4]
While this amount is only a small percentage of total charitable donations given each year, it represents more than the annual operating budgets of the American Cancer Society, World Vision, St. Jude's Children's Hospital, Habitat for Humanity, and the American Heart Association combined.[5] Moreover, other scholars estimate that under Obama's proposal charitable organizations would see donations drop possibly by as much as $9 billion every year.[6]
In addition to receiving less money from wealthy donors, charitable organizations under Obama's plan could face a more subtle yet significant challenge: government crowding them out of social welfare provision. This phenomenon occurs when government claims increasing responsibility for tasks once performed by civil society, absorbing a larger percentage of the resources dedicated to carrying out those tasks.[7]
Shifting Focus
Obama defends his proposal as a way of "equalizing" tax breaks for donors in different tax brackets. In his March 24 prime-time news conference, Obama said it would not be fair to allow wealthy donors to write off more than lower- or middle-income donors who give the same amount. "Ultimately," he added, "if we're going to tackle the serious problems that we've got, then in some cases those who are more fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more."[8]
But Obama ignores the fact that wealthy citizens get a higher deduction precisely because they already pay more--a lot more--in taxes. In fact, although families making over $250,000 a year represent less than 5 percent of income earners in America, they pay 48 percent of all federal income taxes.[9] That a portion of their giving may go to private charities instead of to the government does not change the fact that, under the present tax system, the wealthy already shoulder a larger burden for social welfare. But Obama seems to believe that federal government bureaucracy can deploy the resources of the wealthy more effectively than nonprofit civil society organizations can.
President Obama has stated his desire to help "folks who have fallen on very hard times."[10] Yet he is standing by his proposal to lower deductions for charitable giving, which would hamper efforts by nonprofits to help needy families. The President seems to be letting his desire to equalize differences undercut his desire to help the poor.
Mediating Institutions
Perhaps most importantly, Obama's proposal says something about who Obama thinks can best determine how to distribute people's money.
In their influential book To Empower People, Peter Berger and the late Richard John Neuhaus describe the importance to a healthy democratic society of "mediating institutions"--i.e., forms of association like the family, church, and nonprofit organization that stand between citizens and the large institutions of public life.[11]
Mediating institutions are essential for generating and maintaining the operative values of society. They are also well-equipped to provide a helping hand to people in the context of face-to-face relationships. They have intimate knowledge of those in need--they understand social problems in up-close and personal ways. Driven by deep convictions and compassion, such organizations can provide loving forms of assistance and care that government programs cannot offer. And they often do so for less money. Smaller and more flexible than most government bureaucracies, local congregations and charities can also spawn creative social innovations that benefit those in need.
Berger and Neuhaus claim that public policy should "cease and desist from damaging mediating structures."[12] More than that, though, public policy should protect mediating institutions and, where possible without co-opting them, empower them in their efforts to promote the common good.
The tax plan put forward in Obama's 2010 budget blueprint, however, implies that the state should assume responsibility for people's needs even at the expense of vital mediating institutions. And it communicates the notion that America is better off with expansive and intrusive--rather than limited--government.
In short, Obama's proposed tax plan penalizes those who can give the most, shifts dollars from citizens and local private charities to distant government bureaucracy, and prioritizes mandatory taxation to voluntary tithing and giving.
Unfortunately, Obama's proposed tax changes move the dial of social responsibility one more notch in the direction of the state. This sets a course for adopting many future policies that could chip away at local, personal, mutual obligation and increase dependence on government. For an example of this, one need look no further than Obama's vision of expanding government control over health care, which is the very objective behind proposals to raise taxes and reduce charitable deductions for wealthy citizens.
The Bully Pulpit
Obama should use his presidential authority and influence to encourage voluntary giving and protect nonprofit groups, especially during tough economic times. President Obama speaks articulately and often of the important role charitable institutions play in America. He should send an equally clear message in his policy. Reconsidering the tax changes proposed for charitable donations would be good place to begin.
Ryan Messmore is William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.
Obama = Jimmy Carter
from Fox News Forum
by Cal Thomas
President Barack Obama is relentlessly pursuing a socialist agenda and substantial numbers of the American people seem fine with it. The forced resignation of Rick Wagoner as CEO of General Motors again shows the danger of a private corporation taking a government handout. Once government gets in the door they not only do not leave, they take over the company and begin to dictate terms.It should serve as a lesson to “faith-based” ministries that believe they can take government money without government dictates as to how their organizations should be run.
Each generation must renew the freedoms handed down to them by the previous generation, or they risk losing those freedoms. The government schools, the Democratic Party and their acolytes in the big media have been replaced in the public’s mind by the principles of capitalism, prosperity and growth with envy and class warfare. They punish and discourage success and subsidize and promote failure and mediocrity.
President Obama is Jimmy Carter’s second term. Thirty years ago, Carter went on TV in a cardigan sweater and essentially told America that her days of prosperity were over. We needed to cut back, he said, and realize we could no longer live and consume energy and other products as we had been doing. In the midst of Carter’s gloom and doom emerged Ronald Reagan, who said America’s best days were not behind us, but ahead of us. Americans responded by electing Reagan and a Republican Senate majority. With their confidence restored, Reagan and the Republicans helped launch record years of prosperity unseen since the end of World War II.
The same circumstances are in place as they were in 1979. We have a president who is in sync with Carter. Now all we need are Republicans who believe as Reagan did. And, then, we could use another Reagan to rekindle the innate optimism that has always defined Americans and America. Is he (or she) out there?
by Cal Thomas
President Barack Obama is relentlessly pursuing a socialist agenda and substantial numbers of the American people seem fine with it. The forced resignation of Rick Wagoner as CEO of General Motors again shows the danger of a private corporation taking a government handout. Once government gets in the door they not only do not leave, they take over the company and begin to dictate terms.It should serve as a lesson to “faith-based” ministries that believe they can take government money without government dictates as to how their organizations should be run.
Each generation must renew the freedoms handed down to them by the previous generation, or they risk losing those freedoms. The government schools, the Democratic Party and their acolytes in the big media have been replaced in the public’s mind by the principles of capitalism, prosperity and growth with envy and class warfare. They punish and discourage success and subsidize and promote failure and mediocrity.
President Obama is Jimmy Carter’s second term. Thirty years ago, Carter went on TV in a cardigan sweater and essentially told America that her days of prosperity were over. We needed to cut back, he said, and realize we could no longer live and consume energy and other products as we had been doing. In the midst of Carter’s gloom and doom emerged Ronald Reagan, who said America’s best days were not behind us, but ahead of us. Americans responded by electing Reagan and a Republican Senate majority. With their confidence restored, Reagan and the Republicans helped launch record years of prosperity unseen since the end of World War II.
The same circumstances are in place as they were in 1979. We have a president who is in sync with Carter. Now all we need are Republicans who believe as Reagan did. And, then, we could use another Reagan to rekindle the innate optimism that has always defined Americans and America. Is he (or she) out there?
Glenn Beck on the $10 trillion deficit
Some great commentary on the tax-and-spend President...the reference to Nero was touching.
Krauthammer on Obama
Got this from Tammy Bruce's Twitter page...
I was happy to see him stand up for the US and to tell the truth about Obama's arrogant attitude!
I was happy to see him stand up for the US and to tell the truth about Obama's arrogant attitude!
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Commercial Refused by the Super Bowl
Here's a commercial that NBC and CNN refused to run during the Super Bowl. I wonder why?
Obama at Notre Dame? What???
As one of my students said today, maybe it should be called "Notre Shame":
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Obama a Narcissist? One man's opinion...
This is only one man's opinion, but it's a VERY interesting video about Obama and Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). This was done during the campaign, but what "Dr. Sina" says makes me think a lot about Obama's attitude right now. This is not to say that Obama actually has NPD -- the video is meant to show certain narcissistic personality traits that Obama has displayed throughout the campaign. "Dr. Sina's" goal is to promote the idea that public officials should be screened for mental illnesses, just as cops and firemen are, since they are in charge of WMD's etc. Take a look and keep an open mind!
John Boehner's Speech on the House Floor
John Boehner (R-OH), gave a fantastic speech on the House floor on the "pork-a-palooza," otherwise known as the Stimulus Package. Straight to the point!
Monday, March 2, 2009
Read Obama's Lips
From the Weekly Standard's Blog
Read Obama's Lips
This may come back to haunt him:
But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.
Obama seems intent on running a permanent campaign, and he's still making the kind of over-the-top promises that campaigns toss around like Monopoly money. In this speech he promised cap and trade and health care reform this year. He promised universal college education. He promised a cure for cancer. Obama also promised that he, too, would "sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars."
Obama's critics during the campaign -- Democratic and Republican -- painted Obama as a lightweight who talked a good game but wouldn't be able to deliver. Clinton accused Obama of raising a "false hope" and pointed out that it wasn't the speeches of JFK and Martin Luther King that landed a man on the moon and ended segregation, but the competence and oversight of a rather less inspiring LBJ. Now Obama, having promised so much during the campaign and already off to a bad start with his new era of bipartisanship, is pledging massive increases in spending, huge reductions in the deficit, and no new taxes for 95 percent of Americans. It's only been a few weeks, but so far all the American people have to show for Obama's election is $1 trillion in new debt and a thousand point drop in the Dow. Everything else is still just talk, some of which has the potential to damage the economy even further if implemented poorly or, in the case of cap and trade, implemented at all. The only thing Obama's certain to deliver is the one thing he claimed tonight he didn't believe in -- bigger government.
Obama Rescinds the Bush Abortion Rule
Obama to Rescind Bush Abortion Rule | ||
| ||
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is moving to rescind a federal rule that reinforced protections for medical providers who refuse to perform abortions or other procedures on moral grounds, an official said Friday.
A Health and Human Services official said the administration will publish notice of its intentions early next week, and open a 30-day comment period for advocates, medical groups and the public. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the official notice has not been completed.
The Bush administration instituted the rule in its last days, and it was quickly challenged in federal court by several states and medical organizations. As a candidate, President Barack Obama criticized the regulation and campaign aides promised that if elected, he would review it.
Abortion opponents hailed the Bush regulation, saying it clarified federal policies and raised awareness about the rights of medical providers to follow their consciences. But abortion rights advocates said it could reduce access to other services — allowing a drug store clerk to refuse to sell birth control pills, for example.
Federal law has long forbidden discrimination against health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions or provide referrals for them. The Bush administration's rule requires institutions that get federal funding to certify their compliance with laws protecting conscience rights. It was intended to block the flow of federal funds to hospitals and other institutions that ignore the rights of religious and moral objectors.
The Obama administration supports the underlying federal laws that protect conscience rights, said the HHS official.
But the administration was concerned that the Bush regulation could also be used to refuse birth control, family planning services and counseling for vaccines and transfusions.
"The administration supports a tightly written conscience clause," said the HHS official. "While we are concerned about the Bush rule, we also understand there might be a need to clarify existing laws."
The administration will review comments from the public before making a final decision. Options range from simply repealing the regulation to writing a new one with a narrower scope.
The administration's move was first reported by The Los Angeles Times.
© 2009 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. | ||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)