From the Vorthos Forum...something for Obama to consider, for the sake of his own race's survival!
Thursday, April 23, 2009
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)