* It certainly appeared as if President Obama wanted to be anywhere but at the debate. And Governor Romney was energetic, enthusiastic and engaged with both Obama and the audience. Romney also came prepared with facts and argument.
* One of the most telling topics for this writer was the discussion about cutting tax rates. Romney said he would cut tax rates but also said he would cut deductions, essentially making his proposal revenue neutral. Obama kept saying how the numbers don't add up. Per Obama, we cannot cut enough deductions to make up for the cut in rates. He completely missed one essential Romney point: government revenues will grow when more people are back to work and paying taxes again. Those same people will no longer need government handouts of either welfare, food stamps, unemployment or social security disability.
* Obama's policies have hurt the middle class. According to the 10/3/12 Investor's Business Daily, the middle 20% of households suffered a 4% drop in income since 2009. The poorest 20% dropped 7%. The IBD also cites a study by the National Employment Law Project which found that 60% of the jobs lost due to the recession were mid-wage, but just 22% of the newly created jobs paid well. As Biden recently said, the middle class "has been buried the last four years." (After being told that did not look good for Obama, Biden then blamed Bush.)
* Obama previously complained that the US has only 3% of the world's population, but consumes 25% of the resources. He just does not get it. It is all a zero sum game to him. If the rich have more, the only way to even things out is to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. The US, as a wealthy nation, needs to consume less so others can consume more. In a nutshell, socialism. The last four years are proof enough to anyone willing to see that these policies do not work. (How many countries in Europe that have followed these policies are going under?) What works is a growing economy; the wealthy keep their money and the middle class grows. And many in the lower class can move up into the middle class because of good jobs.
* So the US should consume less? Maybe only our share of the world's population? How many jobs will be lost if we only buy 3% of the world's automobiles, for example. And only 3% of the world's cell phones and TVs and on and on. Millions of jobs would be lost as production dropped due to a lesser demand. It is NOT a zero sum game. When US consumers buy more, jobs are created all over the world. Would Obama also like us to only produce 3% of the world's food? Too bad for countries that depend on us?
* Obama just does not get it. It is time to put a man in the White House who understands that a growing economy benefits everyone.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Are We at War With Islam? Part III
* For those readers who may be new to this blog, I previously wrote two posts entitled "Are We at War With Islam, Parts I and II," on 8/29/10 and 9/13/10. These posts can still be read by simply scrolling down and clicking on "older posts." In my latest post of 9/23/12 I discussed how the Organization of Islamic States wants to criminalize any insults to Islam. I also discussed how the U.S. military is sanitizing all references to radical Islam and Jihad.
* At this past week's meeting of the U.N. General Assembly various world leaders spoke. In light of the recent violence across the Middle East, and the alleged provocation caused by the trailer for the film "The Innocence of Muslims," the topic of "free speech" was frequently discussed. President Obama, while again criticizing the film, gave a strong defense of the right to free speech. This is what the Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, had to say: "We expect from others, as they expect from us, that they respect our cultural specifics and religious references, and not seek to impose concepts or cultures that are unacceptable to us...Insults against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, are not acceptable. We will not allow anyone to do this by word or by deed." And exactly how will they "not allow" it? Here's a clue. While running for president of Egypt, Morsi said this: "The Quran is our Constitution. The Prophet Muhammad is our leader. Jihad is our path. And death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty aspiration." So, prevent insults by causing deaths?
* The President of Yemen had this to say: "...there should be limits for the freedom of expression, especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures." So, maybe we should outlaw criticism of the leaders of these countries too? The President of Pakistan also said he wanted to see "incitement of hate" against Islam criminalized. Said the Secretary General of the Arab League: "If the international community has criminalized bodily harm, it must just as well criminalize psychological and spiritual harm." (All quotes from the 9/27/12 New York Times.)
* In his 2009 speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, Obama said that "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance." When? Certainly not now. How come hundreds of thousands of Christians left Iraq? How come 100,000 Christians have left Egypt? How come Lebanon went from being a majority Christian country to an Islamic country? And why have Christians by the thousands left Gaza and the West Bank? How come you cannot even bring a bible into Saudi Arabia?
* You want to hear tolerance? Take a look at the Arab Muslim media. The highest ranking cleric in the Sunni Muslim world has referred to Jews as "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs." Morsi has concurred with that. This same cleric has called Jews "the scum of the earth." But they want to outlaw insults to Islam?
* Malmo, Sweden. It is Sweden's third largest city, with about 700 Jews but up to 100,000 Muslims, in this city of 300,000 people. In 2010 a group of Jews were attacked there by a group of Muslims. Earlier this year a Rabbi was assaulted. On 9/28/12, just a few days ago, there was an explosion at a Jewish Community Building. Malmo has been referred to as the "Baghdad" of Sweden with its increasing violence, explosions and murders, often caused by...take a guess.
* Think it is so much better here? At the Arab festival in Dearborn, Michigan, Christians holding Christian signs were attacked. They had bottles, stones, eggs and other objects thrown at them. A video showed kids from the festival participating in the assaults. The Police were not inclined to actually protect the Christians; instead they ordered them to leave.
* Meanwhile, the 9/27/12 Investor's Business Daily reports that the ACLU now has at least eight Muslims on its executive staff. What's the result of that? Jameel Jaffer heads the ACLU's Center for Democracy, and is friends with one Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ramadan was denied a visa in 2004 based upon claims that he raised funds for Hamas. Jaffer sued and got the ban lifted. Jaffer has lobbied the Justice department to remove CAIR and other front groups for Hamas and the Brotherhood removed from the blacklist of groups accused of raising money for terrorists. Jaffer has also tried to get suspected Muslim terrorists removed from the "no-fly" list. And Jaffer wants the Feds to stop freezing the assets of terrorist groups.
* I have said before that the failure to believe in free speech and freedom of religion presents a fundamental clash in values between the West and the Muslim world. And whether or not you agree with the opinions expressed in this blog, do you believe that these comments should be criminalized, because some may take them as an insult to Islam?
* At this past week's meeting of the U.N. General Assembly various world leaders spoke. In light of the recent violence across the Middle East, and the alleged provocation caused by the trailer for the film "The Innocence of Muslims," the topic of "free speech" was frequently discussed. President Obama, while again criticizing the film, gave a strong defense of the right to free speech. This is what the Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, had to say: "We expect from others, as they expect from us, that they respect our cultural specifics and religious references, and not seek to impose concepts or cultures that are unacceptable to us...Insults against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, are not acceptable. We will not allow anyone to do this by word or by deed." And exactly how will they "not allow" it? Here's a clue. While running for president of Egypt, Morsi said this: "The Quran is our Constitution. The Prophet Muhammad is our leader. Jihad is our path. And death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty aspiration." So, prevent insults by causing deaths?
* The President of Yemen had this to say: "...there should be limits for the freedom of expression, especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures." So, maybe we should outlaw criticism of the leaders of these countries too? The President of Pakistan also said he wanted to see "incitement of hate" against Islam criminalized. Said the Secretary General of the Arab League: "If the international community has criminalized bodily harm, it must just as well criminalize psychological and spiritual harm." (All quotes from the 9/27/12 New York Times.)
* In his 2009 speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, Obama said that "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance." When? Certainly not now. How come hundreds of thousands of Christians left Iraq? How come 100,000 Christians have left Egypt? How come Lebanon went from being a majority Christian country to an Islamic country? And why have Christians by the thousands left Gaza and the West Bank? How come you cannot even bring a bible into Saudi Arabia?
* You want to hear tolerance? Take a look at the Arab Muslim media. The highest ranking cleric in the Sunni Muslim world has referred to Jews as "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs." Morsi has concurred with that. This same cleric has called Jews "the scum of the earth." But they want to outlaw insults to Islam?
* Malmo, Sweden. It is Sweden's third largest city, with about 700 Jews but up to 100,000 Muslims, in this city of 300,000 people. In 2010 a group of Jews were attacked there by a group of Muslims. Earlier this year a Rabbi was assaulted. On 9/28/12, just a few days ago, there was an explosion at a Jewish Community Building. Malmo has been referred to as the "Baghdad" of Sweden with its increasing violence, explosions and murders, often caused by...take a guess.
* Think it is so much better here? At the Arab festival in Dearborn, Michigan, Christians holding Christian signs were attacked. They had bottles, stones, eggs and other objects thrown at them. A video showed kids from the festival participating in the assaults. The Police were not inclined to actually protect the Christians; instead they ordered them to leave.
* Meanwhile, the 9/27/12 Investor's Business Daily reports that the ACLU now has at least eight Muslims on its executive staff. What's the result of that? Jameel Jaffer heads the ACLU's Center for Democracy, and is friends with one Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ramadan was denied a visa in 2004 based upon claims that he raised funds for Hamas. Jaffer sued and got the ban lifted. Jaffer has lobbied the Justice department to remove CAIR and other front groups for Hamas and the Brotherhood removed from the blacklist of groups accused of raising money for terrorists. Jaffer has also tried to get suspected Muslim terrorists removed from the "no-fly" list. And Jaffer wants the Feds to stop freezing the assets of terrorist groups.
* I have said before that the failure to believe in free speech and freedom of religion presents a fundamental clash in values between the West and the Muslim world. And whether or not you agree with the opinions expressed in this blog, do you believe that these comments should be criminalized, because some may take them as an insult to Islam?
Sunday, September 23, 2012
The Middle East.
* Recently, the U.S. sponsored a Global Counter-terrorism Forum, which was held in Istanbul. The European Union and 29 other countries were invited. One country, with perhaps the greatest expertise in fighting terrorism, was not invited - Israel. According to a State Department official: "...We were concerned that if the central issue from the outset was whether or not Israel should be a member, that it would be difficult to pivot away from the politicized discussions happening at the U.N. and elsewhere." (Information and quote from an article by David Suissa in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, 8/10-8/16/12.) In other words, let's not offend the Muslim countries who are invited. The actions by the U.S. lend credibility to the "boycott, divest and sanction" movement. After all, if the U.S. can boycott Israel, why can't every other country in the world? Worse, the Arab/Muslim world could read into this lack of invitation an agreement with one of their own beliefs: that the U.S. agrees that killing of innocent Israelis is not terrorism because Israel is an "occupying" power. But Obama has Israel's back, and he always stands by our allies, right?
* For a number of years the Organization of Islamic States has been trying to get a measure approved by the U.N. that would make it illegal in all member states to insult Islam. Clearly, such a measure conflicts with our First Amendment rights to free speech; a right which the courts have consistently held is not limited by the offensiveness of the speech. In fact, as the courts note, speech is often intended to provoke and even insult. But the U.S. would never agree to such a measure, right? Well, when Obama spoke to the Muslim world from Cairo in 2009, he said it was his responsibility to "fight against negative stereotypes of Islam." And Obama did write in "Audacity of Hope": "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
* According to the 9/14/12 Investor"s Business Daily, Hillary Clinton met with officials from various Muslim countries to discuss establishing "mechanisms" to fight "Islamophobia" in the U.S. and the West. According to the I.B.D., the Justice Department "has considered designating Islamophobia as a hate crime." I.B.D. also states that the FBI and Homeland Security have "purged thousands of counter-terrorism training materials that Muslim reviewers complained pushed "negative stereotypes" of Islam." Jihad will no longer be defined as "holy war." (Maybe defined as something that is Bush's fault?) TRADOC (which the I.B.D. says is the Army's elite training and doctrine command) has "scrubbed all classes dealing with radical Islam."
* So, was the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, killed on 9/11/12, and did riots break out at 20 U.S. embassies in the Muslim world, because Muslims were offended by a movie trailer for a movie entitled "Innocence of Muslims?" That was the claim that the Obama Administration was pushing for the better part of a week. Strictly coincidental that a group of heavily armed terrorists, on 9/11, knew the location of our ambassador, killed him and three others at our consulate in Benghazi and dragged the ambassador's body through the streets. Our Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, said: "...this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large, or at U.S. policy; this is in response to a video that is offensive." Obama, in an election year, did not want to admit that his entire Mideast/Muslim policy was a failure. So, acting like it was all about a movie, and even though it was our first ambassador to be murdered in over 30 years, Obama headed off to yet another fund raiser in Las Vegas. (Just imagine what the mainstream media would have written had Bush gone off on a fund raiser after such an attack on American interests. Wait, they already did that when they complained that Bush sat for a few minutes with kids after the 9/11 attack. Then, the press complained that the Secret Service kept him from immediately returning to Washington. But Obama - "Hey, good luck in Vegas Barack!")
* No, the media was upset that Mitt Romney complained that U.S. embassy officials in Cairo criticized the film trailer, instead of standing up for the First Amendment. Said our Secretary of State: "The U.S. Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject it's content and message." Said Obama: "We reject all efforts to denigrate the beliefs of others." Now, Obama and Clinton also it made it clear that there was still no justification for violence. But they once again passed on a teachable moment. They should have spent NO time criticizing the film and filmmaker. They should have spent all their time explaining why we have a First Amendment, that it contains two rights Americans hold most dear - freedom of speech and freedom to practice one's religion. They should have made it clear that speech often offends, but that comes as the price of having a free society; and that countries that do not respect these "fundamental" rights could not be expected to receive our financial aid. They should have made it clear that we have "fundamental" disagreements with countries that do not honor and respect these rights.
* Now, we have a Pakistani Minister offering $100,000 of his own money for the murder of the film's producer; suggesting that the Taliban or Al Qaeda should murder the producer. (The Pakistani Government has distanced itself from that Minister and his threat.) Will our President speak out against that minister? Does he now understand that he never should have criticized the filmmaker, or distanced the government from that individual? And if the producer is assassinated, especially if on U.S. soil, what will he do? This is why the principle must ALWAYS be the focus of what his Administration says.
* Israeli P.M. asked for a meeting with Obama this month. Netanyahu has been pushing the Obama Administration to set clear "red lines" which, if crossed by Iran, would result in military action by the U.S. Obama has refused - both the red lines and any meeting with Netanyahu. Between the Europeans, and now the U.S., the West has been negotiating with Iran over their nuclear program for almost a decade. Iran has inched ever closer to building a bomb, and may be there in a matter of months. As noted before, Obama must act in this country's interest - not Israel's or any other country's. What is unclear to this writer is why it is not in our interests to stop the Iranians from getting a nuke. An Iranian nuke threatens regional and world stability; with a nuke Iran can threaten to cut off Mideast oil supplies; they could commit yet another Holocaust of the Jewish people by bombing our ally Israel; and, they could give a suitcase nuke to some terrorists they support, who might then bring it here.
* We were told that Obama's schedule was too full to meet with Netanyahu. Thankfully, he did have time to go on the Letterman show; following that fundraiser in Vegas. The 9/18/12 I.B.D. reports that "Obama has skipped more than half of his intelligence briefings." What - has anything big been happening in the world lately? Hmmm - unemployment remains over 8%, our debt now exceeds $16 trillion, and an ambassador and three other Americans were just murdered, with rioting at 20 U.S. embassies. No, nothing big.
* Remember when Obama was caught on an open mic talking to Russian President Medvedev; telling him he would have more "flexibility" after the U.S. election? Flexibility to do what? Now, the I.B.D. is reporting that there has been pressure from the the new Egyptian President, and member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Morsi, to release the blind Sheik from U.S. prison. This Sheik was instrumental in the first attack on the World Trade Center, during Clinton's Presidency. According to the I.B.D., Congressman Peter King, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, reports that his staff was approached by federal agents complaining about the Sheik's possible release. Of course, the release would not occur until after the election, and would be on "humanitarian" grounds. After killing six people, injuring over a thousand, and causing over half a billion dollars in damage, the real question is why this Sheik did not receive the death penalty. There is no question that he should not be released.
* What will Egypt promise in return? Next time they will try to protect our embassy? Reports have since come out that the Brotherhood actually encouraged the attack on our embassy in Cairo in order to help facilitate the release of the Sheik. Morsi has also told the Obama administration that prior administrations "have taken a very clear biased approach against something that (has) very strong ties to the people of the region - that is the issue of Palestine." So exactly what did Egypt do for the "palestinians" when they controlled Gaza from 1948 through 1967? Nothing.
* If Obama wins reelection will he really have Israel's back? He will not have to worry about the pro-Israel members of his party in Congress. He can safely ignore any pressure from them to protect Israel. He will not have to worry about the "Jewish vote." But, maybe he has already told Morsi that after the election he will have more "flexibility" to deal with the creation of a palestinian state. And he can tell Israel that they can pound dirt because he will not be getting involved militarily with Iran. Oh wait, he already did that through his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. General Martin Dempsey recently said that the U.S. will not be "complicit" in any Israeli attack on Iran. If Obama wins we'll know all too soon whose back he really has.
* For a number of years the Organization of Islamic States has been trying to get a measure approved by the U.N. that would make it illegal in all member states to insult Islam. Clearly, such a measure conflicts with our First Amendment rights to free speech; a right which the courts have consistently held is not limited by the offensiveness of the speech. In fact, as the courts note, speech is often intended to provoke and even insult. But the U.S. would never agree to such a measure, right? Well, when Obama spoke to the Muslim world from Cairo in 2009, he said it was his responsibility to "fight against negative stereotypes of Islam." And Obama did write in "Audacity of Hope": "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
* According to the 9/14/12 Investor"s Business Daily, Hillary Clinton met with officials from various Muslim countries to discuss establishing "mechanisms" to fight "Islamophobia" in the U.S. and the West. According to the I.B.D., the Justice Department "has considered designating Islamophobia as a hate crime." I.B.D. also states that the FBI and Homeland Security have "purged thousands of counter-terrorism training materials that Muslim reviewers complained pushed "negative stereotypes" of Islam." Jihad will no longer be defined as "holy war." (Maybe defined as something that is Bush's fault?) TRADOC (which the I.B.D. says is the Army's elite training and doctrine command) has "scrubbed all classes dealing with radical Islam."
* So, was the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, killed on 9/11/12, and did riots break out at 20 U.S. embassies in the Muslim world, because Muslims were offended by a movie trailer for a movie entitled "Innocence of Muslims?" That was the claim that the Obama Administration was pushing for the better part of a week. Strictly coincidental that a group of heavily armed terrorists, on 9/11, knew the location of our ambassador, killed him and three others at our consulate in Benghazi and dragged the ambassador's body through the streets. Our Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, said: "...this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large, or at U.S. policy; this is in response to a video that is offensive." Obama, in an election year, did not want to admit that his entire Mideast/Muslim policy was a failure. So, acting like it was all about a movie, and even though it was our first ambassador to be murdered in over 30 years, Obama headed off to yet another fund raiser in Las Vegas. (Just imagine what the mainstream media would have written had Bush gone off on a fund raiser after such an attack on American interests. Wait, they already did that when they complained that Bush sat for a few minutes with kids after the 9/11 attack. Then, the press complained that the Secret Service kept him from immediately returning to Washington. But Obama - "Hey, good luck in Vegas Barack!")
* No, the media was upset that Mitt Romney complained that U.S. embassy officials in Cairo criticized the film trailer, instead of standing up for the First Amendment. Said our Secretary of State: "The U.S. Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject it's content and message." Said Obama: "We reject all efforts to denigrate the beliefs of others." Now, Obama and Clinton also it made it clear that there was still no justification for violence. But they once again passed on a teachable moment. They should have spent NO time criticizing the film and filmmaker. They should have spent all their time explaining why we have a First Amendment, that it contains two rights Americans hold most dear - freedom of speech and freedom to practice one's religion. They should have made it clear that speech often offends, but that comes as the price of having a free society; and that countries that do not respect these "fundamental" rights could not be expected to receive our financial aid. They should have made it clear that we have "fundamental" disagreements with countries that do not honor and respect these rights.
* Now, we have a Pakistani Minister offering $100,000 of his own money for the murder of the film's producer; suggesting that the Taliban or Al Qaeda should murder the producer. (The Pakistani Government has distanced itself from that Minister and his threat.) Will our President speak out against that minister? Does he now understand that he never should have criticized the filmmaker, or distanced the government from that individual? And if the producer is assassinated, especially if on U.S. soil, what will he do? This is why the principle must ALWAYS be the focus of what his Administration says.
* Israeli P.M. asked for a meeting with Obama this month. Netanyahu has been pushing the Obama Administration to set clear "red lines" which, if crossed by Iran, would result in military action by the U.S. Obama has refused - both the red lines and any meeting with Netanyahu. Between the Europeans, and now the U.S., the West has been negotiating with Iran over their nuclear program for almost a decade. Iran has inched ever closer to building a bomb, and may be there in a matter of months. As noted before, Obama must act in this country's interest - not Israel's or any other country's. What is unclear to this writer is why it is not in our interests to stop the Iranians from getting a nuke. An Iranian nuke threatens regional and world stability; with a nuke Iran can threaten to cut off Mideast oil supplies; they could commit yet another Holocaust of the Jewish people by bombing our ally Israel; and, they could give a suitcase nuke to some terrorists they support, who might then bring it here.
* We were told that Obama's schedule was too full to meet with Netanyahu. Thankfully, he did have time to go on the Letterman show; following that fundraiser in Vegas. The 9/18/12 I.B.D. reports that "Obama has skipped more than half of his intelligence briefings." What - has anything big been happening in the world lately? Hmmm - unemployment remains over 8%, our debt now exceeds $16 trillion, and an ambassador and three other Americans were just murdered, with rioting at 20 U.S. embassies. No, nothing big.
* Remember when Obama was caught on an open mic talking to Russian President Medvedev; telling him he would have more "flexibility" after the U.S. election? Flexibility to do what? Now, the I.B.D. is reporting that there has been pressure from the the new Egyptian President, and member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Morsi, to release the blind Sheik from U.S. prison. This Sheik was instrumental in the first attack on the World Trade Center, during Clinton's Presidency. According to the I.B.D., Congressman Peter King, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, reports that his staff was approached by federal agents complaining about the Sheik's possible release. Of course, the release would not occur until after the election, and would be on "humanitarian" grounds. After killing six people, injuring over a thousand, and causing over half a billion dollars in damage, the real question is why this Sheik did not receive the death penalty. There is no question that he should not be released.
* What will Egypt promise in return? Next time they will try to protect our embassy? Reports have since come out that the Brotherhood actually encouraged the attack on our embassy in Cairo in order to help facilitate the release of the Sheik. Morsi has also told the Obama administration that prior administrations "have taken a very clear biased approach against something that (has) very strong ties to the people of the region - that is the issue of Palestine." So exactly what did Egypt do for the "palestinians" when they controlled Gaza from 1948 through 1967? Nothing.
* If Obama wins reelection will he really have Israel's back? He will not have to worry about the pro-Israel members of his party in Congress. He can safely ignore any pressure from them to protect Israel. He will not have to worry about the "Jewish vote." But, maybe he has already told Morsi that after the election he will have more "flexibility" to deal with the creation of a palestinian state. And he can tell Israel that they can pound dirt because he will not be getting involved militarily with Iran. Oh wait, he already did that through his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. General Martin Dempsey recently said that the U.S. will not be "complicit" in any Israeli attack on Iran. If Obama wins we'll know all too soon whose back he really has.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Why the Democrats Hate Republicans, But Feel So Good About Themselves.
* I was recently asked for my opinion on why there seems to be more hostility and bitterness than ever before between the two parties. While I accept that there is a great deal of bitterness, the truth is that most of it emanates from the left/democrats and is directed at the right/republicans. The issue, then, is why the increased hostility? The answer is fairly straightforward: the democrats and republicans no longer share the same fundamental values. When there is agreement on the basics, then differences over particular issues are not as intense; as both sides feel they are still on the same team. But the left no longer shares the fundamental American values. (It was Obama who said that he wanted to bring "fundamental" change to this country.)
* If you have not had the opportunity to do so, look at the last posting entitled "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat." The comments by the various democrat mayors quoted reflects that they no longer believe in free speech if it opposes their viewpoint; they no longer believe in freedom of religion if it is contrary to their viewpoint; they no longer believe business people who disagree with them have the right to make a living. When Dan Cathy, the CEO of Chick-fil-A, said he believed in traditional marriage, the democrats did NOT say (a quote generally credited to Voltaire): "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The reason is that the democrats are solely issue-oriented. Whatever the issue - gay marriage, abortion, immigration - trumps the fundamentals of free speech or freedom of religion or other fundamental American values. The democrats do NOT believe that there can be an honest, good-faith disagreement on any of their issues. Those who disagree are labeled racists, bigots, ignorant, or haters, and on and on it goes. The main stream media joins in with the labeling. Once you have put those kinds of labels on your opposition it becomes difficult to give any respect to their opinions. In fact, it becomes difficult to respect them as fellow human beings. Hence, the hatred.
* A few examples. It was Obama who disrespected those whom he said "cling to their guns and religion" and dislike people not like them. (Who dislikes whom?) It was Obama who said: "The Republican plan...boils down to this...Dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance." Biden, speaking to an audience with a large number of blacks, said Republicans are going to "put y'all back in chains." Maxine Waters: "And as far as I'm concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to Hell." Former Rep. Alan Grayson, in reference to Fox News: "It is a threat to this country." Wanda Sykes: "(Rush Limbaugh) just wants the country to fail...I hope his kidneys fail." Cher recently expressed that she hoped Rep. Todd Akin would "get raped by a man with HIV/AIDS." (Akin recently made the ridiculous comment about "legitimate" rape, and that a woman's body can prevent a pregnancy in those cases. He immediately apologized, but the penalty for offending the left is, apparently, death. Something they seem to have in common with radical Muslims.) And my personal favorite, in terms of the venomous hatred for anyone daring to hold a contrary viewpoint, comes from Ellen Barkin, expressing her wish that Hurricane Isaac would "wash every pro-life, anti-education, anti-women, xenophobic, gay-bashing racist SOB right into the ocean."
* So maybe the democrats have given up on being the party of "tolerance." But aren't they still the compassionate party? Aren't they the party that cares about the average working guy? After all, it was the then head of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, who said: "Our moral values, in contradistinction to the Republicans', is we don't think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night." And that sentence, my friends, pretty well sums up why so many vote democrat. They believe that they are being "compassionate." And because those same people let their beliefs dictate their reality, it does not matter to them that Republican policies are the ones that better protect the average person.
* Case in point. Is it more compassionate to provide welfare and food stamps, or a job? Which has a better chance of feeding hungry children: a parent with a good paying job, or welfare and food stamps? According to the Department of Labor, states with Republican Governors have, on average, a 7.6% unemployment rate. Those with Democrat Governors average 8.8% unemployment. When VA Governor Bob McDonnell spoke at the Republican convention he noted that 12 of the 15 states ranked best for doing business in were Republican lead. The bottom three states: Democrat lead and high unemployment (Illinois, 8.9% unemployment, New York, 9.1% unemployment, and California, with 10.7% unemployment). But Governor McDonnell cut spending, did not raise taxes, yet managed to balance the state budget, lower unemployment to 5.9%, and improve his state's standing in the best places to do business to 6th place. Oh, he was even able to create a budget SURPLUS of $448.5 million.
* But Governor McDonnell is not alone. Other Republican governors have obtained similar results: Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Chris Christie in New Jersey, John Kasich in Ohio, Mitch Daniels in Indiana, to name just a few. But the Democrat Governor of California, Jerry Brown, wants to pass a November ballot measure that will significantly raise taxes. It is hard to see where the compassion is for so many people out of work - when the Governor wants to raise the sales taxes on items they buy.
* But lowering taxes and balancing the budget and improving the business climate with resultant lower unemployment is not Obama's way. That is not the Democrat way. After all, it was Obama who said that after you've made a certain amount of money, he thinks you've made enough. It is Obama who creates class warfare by criticizing those who have achieved what used to be called the "American Dream" - success and wealth. Who thinks a society is healthier when it creates millions upon millions of people dependent upon government handouts? (According to the 8/15/12 Investor's Business Daily, we now have over 1/3 of Americans receiving some government welfare, not counting Medicare or Social Security.) Who thinks a society is healthier when the government plays a smaller role with less taxes and less regulations, and allows businesses large and small to thrive?
* There was an interesting piece on FoxNews.com from 8/20/12. A study by the Chronicle of Philanthropy found that states with greater religious participation, such as the South, tended to give a greater percent of their discretionary income to charity. The Northeast, with the lowest religious participation, was also the least generous in charitable giving. (The South tends toward Republican and the Northeast Democrat. But we already know that Republicans give more to charity.) The part I found to be particularly interesting was a comment by a Boston College professor, apparently defending his less than generous Northeast. He said that people in the less religious states give in a "different" way. How? They are more willing to pay higher taxes so the government can equitably distribute more to the poor. And that is how Democrats convince themselves that they are compassionate: by taking other peoples' money and redistributing it around. I would bet these same democrats do not voluntarily pay more than the law requires in taxes. No, their generosity consists of taking other peoples' money. I would also bet that the religious who live in the higher tax states give more of their after-tax income to charity than the liberal, non-religious.
* You see, the real difference between the "compassionate" Obama/today's Democrats and Republicans is this: Obama does not care if his policies bring everyone down to a lower standard of living, as long as it is more "equal." Republicans want to see an ever expanding economy with everyone having the "opportunity" to succeed, to become a millionaire, or even become the next Bill Gates. So, ending where I started, this basic American value of having the freedom to succeed economically and even amass huge wealth, is no longer shared by the Democrats. Unless American values are again taught in our schools and universities, the long term future for freedom and liberty in this country will be very much in doubt.
* If you have not had the opportunity to do so, look at the last posting entitled "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat." The comments by the various democrat mayors quoted reflects that they no longer believe in free speech if it opposes their viewpoint; they no longer believe in freedom of religion if it is contrary to their viewpoint; they no longer believe business people who disagree with them have the right to make a living. When Dan Cathy, the CEO of Chick-fil-A, said he believed in traditional marriage, the democrats did NOT say (a quote generally credited to Voltaire): "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The reason is that the democrats are solely issue-oriented. Whatever the issue - gay marriage, abortion, immigration - trumps the fundamentals of free speech or freedom of religion or other fundamental American values. The democrats do NOT believe that there can be an honest, good-faith disagreement on any of their issues. Those who disagree are labeled racists, bigots, ignorant, or haters, and on and on it goes. The main stream media joins in with the labeling. Once you have put those kinds of labels on your opposition it becomes difficult to give any respect to their opinions. In fact, it becomes difficult to respect them as fellow human beings. Hence, the hatred.
* A few examples. It was Obama who disrespected those whom he said "cling to their guns and religion" and dislike people not like them. (Who dislikes whom?) It was Obama who said: "The Republican plan...boils down to this...Dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance." Biden, speaking to an audience with a large number of blacks, said Republicans are going to "put y'all back in chains." Maxine Waters: "And as far as I'm concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to Hell." Former Rep. Alan Grayson, in reference to Fox News: "It is a threat to this country." Wanda Sykes: "(Rush Limbaugh) just wants the country to fail...I hope his kidneys fail." Cher recently expressed that she hoped Rep. Todd Akin would "get raped by a man with HIV/AIDS." (Akin recently made the ridiculous comment about "legitimate" rape, and that a woman's body can prevent a pregnancy in those cases. He immediately apologized, but the penalty for offending the left is, apparently, death. Something they seem to have in common with radical Muslims.) And my personal favorite, in terms of the venomous hatred for anyone daring to hold a contrary viewpoint, comes from Ellen Barkin, expressing her wish that Hurricane Isaac would "wash every pro-life, anti-education, anti-women, xenophobic, gay-bashing racist SOB right into the ocean."
* So maybe the democrats have given up on being the party of "tolerance." But aren't they still the compassionate party? Aren't they the party that cares about the average working guy? After all, it was the then head of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, who said: "Our moral values, in contradistinction to the Republicans', is we don't think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night." And that sentence, my friends, pretty well sums up why so many vote democrat. They believe that they are being "compassionate." And because those same people let their beliefs dictate their reality, it does not matter to them that Republican policies are the ones that better protect the average person.
* Case in point. Is it more compassionate to provide welfare and food stamps, or a job? Which has a better chance of feeding hungry children: a parent with a good paying job, or welfare and food stamps? According to the Department of Labor, states with Republican Governors have, on average, a 7.6% unemployment rate. Those with Democrat Governors average 8.8% unemployment. When VA Governor Bob McDonnell spoke at the Republican convention he noted that 12 of the 15 states ranked best for doing business in were Republican lead. The bottom three states: Democrat lead and high unemployment (Illinois, 8.9% unemployment, New York, 9.1% unemployment, and California, with 10.7% unemployment). But Governor McDonnell cut spending, did not raise taxes, yet managed to balance the state budget, lower unemployment to 5.9%, and improve his state's standing in the best places to do business to 6th place. Oh, he was even able to create a budget SURPLUS of $448.5 million.
* But Governor McDonnell is not alone. Other Republican governors have obtained similar results: Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Chris Christie in New Jersey, John Kasich in Ohio, Mitch Daniels in Indiana, to name just a few. But the Democrat Governor of California, Jerry Brown, wants to pass a November ballot measure that will significantly raise taxes. It is hard to see where the compassion is for so many people out of work - when the Governor wants to raise the sales taxes on items they buy.
* But lowering taxes and balancing the budget and improving the business climate with resultant lower unemployment is not Obama's way. That is not the Democrat way. After all, it was Obama who said that after you've made a certain amount of money, he thinks you've made enough. It is Obama who creates class warfare by criticizing those who have achieved what used to be called the "American Dream" - success and wealth. Who thinks a society is healthier when it creates millions upon millions of people dependent upon government handouts? (According to the 8/15/12 Investor's Business Daily, we now have over 1/3 of Americans receiving some government welfare, not counting Medicare or Social Security.) Who thinks a society is healthier when the government plays a smaller role with less taxes and less regulations, and allows businesses large and small to thrive?
* There was an interesting piece on FoxNews.com from 8/20/12. A study by the Chronicle of Philanthropy found that states with greater religious participation, such as the South, tended to give a greater percent of their discretionary income to charity. The Northeast, with the lowest religious participation, was also the least generous in charitable giving. (The South tends toward Republican and the Northeast Democrat. But we already know that Republicans give more to charity.) The part I found to be particularly interesting was a comment by a Boston College professor, apparently defending his less than generous Northeast. He said that people in the less religious states give in a "different" way. How? They are more willing to pay higher taxes so the government can equitably distribute more to the poor. And that is how Democrats convince themselves that they are compassionate: by taking other peoples' money and redistributing it around. I would bet these same democrats do not voluntarily pay more than the law requires in taxes. No, their generosity consists of taking other peoples' money. I would also bet that the religious who live in the higher tax states give more of their after-tax income to charity than the liberal, non-religious.
* You see, the real difference between the "compassionate" Obama/today's Democrats and Republicans is this: Obama does not care if his policies bring everyone down to a lower standard of living, as long as it is more "equal." Republicans want to see an ever expanding economy with everyone having the "opportunity" to succeed, to become a millionaire, or even become the next Bill Gates. So, ending where I started, this basic American value of having the freedom to succeed economically and even amass huge wealth, is no longer shared by the Democrats. Unless American values are again taught in our schools and universities, the long term future for freedom and liberty in this country will be very much in doubt.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Why I Am No Longer a Democrat.
* The Chick-Fil-A controversy. The company is a family owned business and its' president, Dan Cathy, said that he believes in the biblical definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat, said: "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values." I suppose that means the right to free speech and religious freedom, as given in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, are not Chicago values. Chicago Alderman Proco "Joe" Moreno, another Democrat, indicated he would block Chick-fil-A's efforts to open a store in his ward. So, the right to run a business and make a living are also not Chicago values apparently.
Moreno said: "Because of this man's (Cathy) ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A's permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward." The "ignorance" he refers to arises out of the Judeo-Christian bibles, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Judeo-Christian values are also not Chicago values. Said Mayor Edwin Lee, a Democrat, of San Francisco: "The closest Chick-fil-A to San Francisco is 40 miles away and I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer." So now we get to threaten businesses if they do not meet our political litmus-test. There's a value. Washington, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray, a Democrat, referred to Chick-fil-A chicken as "hate chicken." (I don't really know the chickens' opinions on gay marriage, but that's another matter.)
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, yet another Democrat, said: "There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it." So, the Founders then did NOT believe in the First Amendment? I wonder how it ended up in the Constitution. When American soldiers fight and die for this country they are doing so for freedom and liberty for ALL Americans, not just those who are Democrats.
So what's going on here with these Democrats? The "values" that they are expressing are essentially fascist values. The sad part is that they and their party have moved so far to the left, that they often express, as above, completely non-democratic values. The Left also uses language to support their demonization of those opposed to them. Therefore, instead of "gay marriage" they talk about "marriage equality." So, if you are opposed to "equality" you must be evil, ignorant,etc. Hence, the verbal attacks and even threats. (This is analagous to those on the left not using the word "abortion" but, rather, "a woman's right to choose.") Of course, they do make exceptions for their friends and allies. In 2008, candidate for president Barack Obama said: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian...it is also a sacred union." This comment, expressed on national TV, did not prevent Mr. Emanuel from accepting the job of Chief of Staff to the President. Nor did Mr. Emanuel express any concerns at the time about the President's "values."
Not a single one of these democrats was able to demonstrate that Chick-fil-A discriminated against gays in hiring, or in denying of service. But here's a question: if a Muslim owned restaurant opened in their city and it was run by a devout Muslim who did not believe in gay marriage, what do you think you would hear from these Mayors? Silence. The same silence you hear from them about the real mistreatment of gays that occurs throughout the muslim world.
* Who plays the race/ethnic card? In one of the more racist, elitist and otherwise arrogant comments by an elected official, Senator Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, and a Democrat, said this on 8/10/11: "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican. Do I need to say more?" Yes, Senator, you do. First, an apology to Republican Hispanics would be nice. Second, it is exactly this type of thinking by my former party that I find so incredibly distasteful. If you are Hispanic you must be a Democrat? Why? Because the Democrats will give you more handouts at taxpayers' expense? What about those Hispanics, and there are many, who believe in hard work and the freedom and opportunity to succeed on their own? What about people who don't just want a handout? Need I say more, Senator Reid?
Not to be outdone by Senator Reid, however, is the head of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Obviously a Democrat. Ms. Schultz: "There is nothing, and I mean nothing, in the Republicans' right wing agenda that appeals to the American Jewish Community." So, again, if you are a Jew (like Hispanics) you must be a Democrat. Must I? Really? If I thought she would read it, I would send her the link to this blog and she could see what this Jew finds more appealing from the Right than the Left. But let's be honest. Even if she read the blog, she would say that I just did not know what was best for me. This idea of "group-think" is another distasteful idea promulgated by...that's right...Democrats.
It is precisely this type of thinking that leads Democrats to demonize any minority group member who happens to be a Republican. They trashed Justice Clarence Thomas, a black man, for having conservative views. Larry Elder, a black radio talk show host has been called all sorts of horrendous names by black Democrat callers. And the Democrats will trash Senator Marco Rubio, a Hispanic, if Romney picks him as his running mate.
* Is that your business or Obama's? By now, most people have heard President Obama, a Democrat, say: "If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He later explained that he was referring to the bridges and roads throughout the country that enable businesses to operate. He had also mentioned having a great teacher to help you. This was after-the-fact nonsense. Here's the proof. Obama had already said: "I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there." This is nothing other than collectivist thinking, which comes as no shock to those of us paying attention during the last election when Obama said: "it's a good idea to spread the wealth around."
When he said "somebody" helped to build the American system that allows business to thrive, he is correct. But it was the American citizen and taxpayer, often that "self-made" businessman, who did that. And maybe more often, it was private companies building roads and railways and airlines. But don't tell me everyone created Microsoft. Or Apple. Or any number of other businesses, large and small. Yes, there are plenty of smart and hardworking people out there. But it takes more than smarts and hard work, it involves a willingness to take a risk, often with one's own money, to make for a successful business. I know when I work long hours at night or on the weekend no one is there helping me or sitting next to me. (Well, maybe the IRS looking for their cut, but that's a different matter.) So don't tell business people they didn't build their business. Of course they did. And often they do it notwithstanding all the tax and regulatory burdens placed on them.
* Here's the real bottom line for Obama and the Democrats - since you didn't build it, you have no right to keep the proceeds from it. After all, there are other smart people out there. There are other hard-working people out there. Why should millionaires and billionaires get to keep money they didn't really earn? And THAT is how Obama and today's Democrats see the world. Doubt me? Then how about this recent line from Obama in reference to an across the board extension of what's referred to as the "Bush-era tax cuts" - we cannot afford "another trillion-dollar giveaway for millionaires." In other words, the government would be "giving away" a trillion dollars to these wealthy Americans if they don't raise their taxes and take that money away! Except that's backwards from American notions of freedom - if you earned the money, THEN IT'S YOUR MONEY. It is in no sense a giveaway of money that the government neither owns nor has a right to own. Unless, of course, you are Obama or a modern day Democrat, people who have adopted the type of collectivist mentality that was always considered to be antithetical to American values.
And it is, in part, for all of the Democrat viewpoints expressed above that I am no longer a Democrat. For those of you who are Democrats, and if you agree with these leaders of your party, do you at least acknowledge that freedom and liberty and the Constitution have been replaced by other values?
Moreno said: "Because of this man's (Cathy) ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A's permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward." The "ignorance" he refers to arises out of the Judeo-Christian bibles, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Judeo-Christian values are also not Chicago values. Said Mayor Edwin Lee, a Democrat, of San Francisco: "The closest Chick-fil-A to San Francisco is 40 miles away and I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer." So now we get to threaten businesses if they do not meet our political litmus-test. There's a value. Washington, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray, a Democrat, referred to Chick-fil-A chicken as "hate chicken." (I don't really know the chickens' opinions on gay marriage, but that's another matter.)
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, yet another Democrat, said: "There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it." So, the Founders then did NOT believe in the First Amendment? I wonder how it ended up in the Constitution. When American soldiers fight and die for this country they are doing so for freedom and liberty for ALL Americans, not just those who are Democrats.
So what's going on here with these Democrats? The "values" that they are expressing are essentially fascist values. The sad part is that they and their party have moved so far to the left, that they often express, as above, completely non-democratic values. The Left also uses language to support their demonization of those opposed to them. Therefore, instead of "gay marriage" they talk about "marriage equality." So, if you are opposed to "equality" you must be evil, ignorant,etc. Hence, the verbal attacks and even threats. (This is analagous to those on the left not using the word "abortion" but, rather, "a woman's right to choose.") Of course, they do make exceptions for their friends and allies. In 2008, candidate for president Barack Obama said: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian...it is also a sacred union." This comment, expressed on national TV, did not prevent Mr. Emanuel from accepting the job of Chief of Staff to the President. Nor did Mr. Emanuel express any concerns at the time about the President's "values."
Not a single one of these democrats was able to demonstrate that Chick-fil-A discriminated against gays in hiring, or in denying of service. But here's a question: if a Muslim owned restaurant opened in their city and it was run by a devout Muslim who did not believe in gay marriage, what do you think you would hear from these Mayors? Silence. The same silence you hear from them about the real mistreatment of gays that occurs throughout the muslim world.
* Who plays the race/ethnic card? In one of the more racist, elitist and otherwise arrogant comments by an elected official, Senator Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, and a Democrat, said this on 8/10/11: "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican. Do I need to say more?" Yes, Senator, you do. First, an apology to Republican Hispanics would be nice. Second, it is exactly this type of thinking by my former party that I find so incredibly distasteful. If you are Hispanic you must be a Democrat? Why? Because the Democrats will give you more handouts at taxpayers' expense? What about those Hispanics, and there are many, who believe in hard work and the freedom and opportunity to succeed on their own? What about people who don't just want a handout? Need I say more, Senator Reid?
Not to be outdone by Senator Reid, however, is the head of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Obviously a Democrat. Ms. Schultz: "There is nothing, and I mean nothing, in the Republicans' right wing agenda that appeals to the American Jewish Community." So, again, if you are a Jew (like Hispanics) you must be a Democrat. Must I? Really? If I thought she would read it, I would send her the link to this blog and she could see what this Jew finds more appealing from the Right than the Left. But let's be honest. Even if she read the blog, she would say that I just did not know what was best for me. This idea of "group-think" is another distasteful idea promulgated by...that's right...Democrats.
It is precisely this type of thinking that leads Democrats to demonize any minority group member who happens to be a Republican. They trashed Justice Clarence Thomas, a black man, for having conservative views. Larry Elder, a black radio talk show host has been called all sorts of horrendous names by black Democrat callers. And the Democrats will trash Senator Marco Rubio, a Hispanic, if Romney picks him as his running mate.
* Is that your business or Obama's? By now, most people have heard President Obama, a Democrat, say: "If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He later explained that he was referring to the bridges and roads throughout the country that enable businesses to operate. He had also mentioned having a great teacher to help you. This was after-the-fact nonsense. Here's the proof. Obama had already said: "I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there." This is nothing other than collectivist thinking, which comes as no shock to those of us paying attention during the last election when Obama said: "it's a good idea to spread the wealth around."
When he said "somebody" helped to build the American system that allows business to thrive, he is correct. But it was the American citizen and taxpayer, often that "self-made" businessman, who did that. And maybe more often, it was private companies building roads and railways and airlines. But don't tell me everyone created Microsoft. Or Apple. Or any number of other businesses, large and small. Yes, there are plenty of smart and hardworking people out there. But it takes more than smarts and hard work, it involves a willingness to take a risk, often with one's own money, to make for a successful business. I know when I work long hours at night or on the weekend no one is there helping me or sitting next to me. (Well, maybe the IRS looking for their cut, but that's a different matter.) So don't tell business people they didn't build their business. Of course they did. And often they do it notwithstanding all the tax and regulatory burdens placed on them.
* Here's the real bottom line for Obama and the Democrats - since you didn't build it, you have no right to keep the proceeds from it. After all, there are other smart people out there. There are other hard-working people out there. Why should millionaires and billionaires get to keep money they didn't really earn? And THAT is how Obama and today's Democrats see the world. Doubt me? Then how about this recent line from Obama in reference to an across the board extension of what's referred to as the "Bush-era tax cuts" - we cannot afford "another trillion-dollar giveaway for millionaires." In other words, the government would be "giving away" a trillion dollars to these wealthy Americans if they don't raise their taxes and take that money away! Except that's backwards from American notions of freedom - if you earned the money, THEN IT'S YOUR MONEY. It is in no sense a giveaway of money that the government neither owns nor has a right to own. Unless, of course, you are Obama or a modern day Democrat, people who have adopted the type of collectivist mentality that was always considered to be antithetical to American values.
And it is, in part, for all of the Democrat viewpoints expressed above that I am no longer a Democrat. For those of you who are Democrats, and if you agree with these leaders of your party, do you at least acknowledge that freedom and liberty and the Constitution have been replaced by other values?
Sunday, July 15, 2012
It's the Economy, Stupid.
* The June jobs report came out and showed that the economy created only 80,000 new jobs. The second quarter averaged only 75,000 new jobs per month, generally considered to be rather lackluster (pathetic actually) by economists on all sides. Unemployment remained at 8.2%; although if you count those who have given up looking it is as high as 14.9%. (Per the Investor's Business Daily, 7/12/12, citing the Labor Dept. numbers.) Unemployment has remained over 8% for the last 3 1/2 years - not coincidentally the same length of time that Obama has been President. Obama proudly proclaims that the private sector has grown 4.4 million jobs while he has been President. But when Reagan inherited a worse economy and worse unemployment numbers, the economy grew 9.5 million jobs. And it did so with a smaller population. (Data from 7/9/12 IBD.) Obama initially said the 80,000 number was a "step in the right direction." He did not repeat that claim. But DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said she was "pretty happy" with the economy. And Obama's lead economic adviser Alan Krueger claimed that the economy is "continuing to heal."
* Remember when Obama said if he did not get the unemployment rate under 8% he did not deserve to be reelected? No wonder he's not talking about the economy. Nor is he talking about Obamacare, the highly unpopular bill that turned out to be one of the largest tax increases. Instead, he is making up stories about Romney and Bain Capital. I say making up because the liberal Washington Post has a fact checker which says most (if not all) of the Obama campaign's allegations are WRONG! This does not deter either Obama or his campaign from repeating the same falsehoods. It's the old Big Lie theory - say it loud enough and often enough and a whole bunch of people will believe it.
* As we know, Obama wants to let what are referred to as the Bush era tax cuts expire at the end of this year. This will result in an increase in your income taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes and estate taxes. According to the lead editorial in the 7/9/12 Wall Street Journal, Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation reported that 53% of the tax increases will come from business. As the Journal notes: "Those are the businesses that aren't hiring people (already) as they wait out the tax and other policy uncertainties." But let me explain once again: Obama and the left do not care about the actual impact their policies have on people. They just care about the ideology.
* Disagree? Then explain the following. In a 2008 interview with Charles Gibson at ABC, Obama was asked why he would raise the capital gains tax when, historically, a raise in the rates has resulted in less revenue to the government. Obama: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness." Again, the ideology over outcome. Still doubt it? One of Obama's close advisers, Andy Stern of the Service Employees International Union, said this: "I think Western Europe...has made different trade-offs which may have ended up with a little more unemployment but a lot more equality." A "little" more unemployment is when some other guy is unemployed. Try telling someone who has lost their job, their home, and their ability to take care of their family, that at least the wealthy are paying more than they already do in taxes. I'm sure that will make the unemployed happy. Again, ideology over results. One last example. When the country was debating Obamacare the LA Times had an article about the Canadian government run healthcare system. They interviewed a doctor who acknowledged that there were long waits, and perhaps lesser care, but he justified it by saying it was, at least, more "equal." Again, ideology over results.
* You still doubt it? Then tell me why liberals cannot stand Republican Governors like Mitch Daniels in Indiana and Scott Walker in Wisconsin, along with various other Republican governors, all of whom have turned around their states' economies. Lower unemployment because of lower taxes and less regulation. Deficits reduced or eliminated. Business moving in. After all, these governors inherited the same "Bush-era" economy that Obama blames everything on. Here's why liberals do not like these Republican governors - liberals do NOT care about results, just their ideology. The fact that Republican policies have benefited people in states with Republican governors is of no import. But the liberals in California will continue to vote in Democrats, notwithstanding cities going bankrupt, and the state being on the brink.
* Speaking of which, San Bernardino is the latest city to decide to file for bankruptcy protection. As noted by the 7/11/12 LA Times, part of the City's problems are "escalating pension costs (and) lucrative labor agreements." These ridiculously high public employee salaries and pensions are given to the unions as a reward by democrats, who receive much in the way of campaign contributions from these same unions. If you want fiscal solvency in your governmental entities, then you need to do what the Republican governors have been doing vis-a vis these unions. Or, if you care more about ideology than results, you can keep voting for more democrats.
* In the 7/6/12 LA Times was a report that retail sales grew only 0.1% in June. The Times notes that this was "the worst monthly showing since August, 2009." Hardly surprising. More people out of work means less people buying. Less people buying means stores will often have to lay off even more people. In a related story, the 7/7/12 LA Times lead business section headline was: "Engine of job growth sputtering." They quote one Chris Christopher, senior principal economist at IHS Global Insight: "There is no reason for small businesses to do well in this environment." Generally, small businesses are the drivers of job growth. The article goes to say that "about 30% of companies plan to reduce the number of employees in the next year, 48% plan to stay at the same level, and only 21% plan to hire new workers." Many businesses have said they have the money to hire, but will not do so until they see what is going to happen with all the new taxes (especially if the "Bush tax cuts" expire), and new taxes and regs under Obamacare. At a time when Obama should have been trying to stimulate the economy with tax cuts and less regulation, he instead spent two years getting Obamacare passed. The "ideology" of equality in healthcare over the negative impact on the economy, and over what will eventually be a negative impact on healthcare in this country.
* But some numbers are up. An increasing number of people are on Social Security Disability. Also way up are the number of people receiving food stamps (although the program is now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). According to the 7/5/12 USA Today the number of people on food stamps has skyrocketed to 46 million people as of April,2012. The USA Today notes that that means one in every seven Americans is on food stamps. Obama has no problem with these numbers - he buys votes with government handouts. The democrats are used to this approach (see above about public employee unions).
* So, we the people have a very real choice in this election. If you prefer things as they are, and do not mind if they get worse, so long as the wealthy pay more in taxes, then vote for Obama. Although maybe you can tell me why the top 10% paying 70% of the federal income taxes, with the bottom 50% paying no taxes is not fair enough. If, however, you prefer job growth, lower budget deficits, and less taxes then vote for Romney. If you are on the fence do yourself a favor. Look at how states run by Republican governors are doing compared to those run by Democrats. Do not let your beliefs (ideology) win out over results (reality).
* Remember when Obama said if he did not get the unemployment rate under 8% he did not deserve to be reelected? No wonder he's not talking about the economy. Nor is he talking about Obamacare, the highly unpopular bill that turned out to be one of the largest tax increases. Instead, he is making up stories about Romney and Bain Capital. I say making up because the liberal Washington Post has a fact checker which says most (if not all) of the Obama campaign's allegations are WRONG! This does not deter either Obama or his campaign from repeating the same falsehoods. It's the old Big Lie theory - say it loud enough and often enough and a whole bunch of people will believe it.
* As we know, Obama wants to let what are referred to as the Bush era tax cuts expire at the end of this year. This will result in an increase in your income taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes and estate taxes. According to the lead editorial in the 7/9/12 Wall Street Journal, Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation reported that 53% of the tax increases will come from business. As the Journal notes: "Those are the businesses that aren't hiring people (already) as they wait out the tax and other policy uncertainties." But let me explain once again: Obama and the left do not care about the actual impact their policies have on people. They just care about the ideology.
* Disagree? Then explain the following. In a 2008 interview with Charles Gibson at ABC, Obama was asked why he would raise the capital gains tax when, historically, a raise in the rates has resulted in less revenue to the government. Obama: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness." Again, the ideology over outcome. Still doubt it? One of Obama's close advisers, Andy Stern of the Service Employees International Union, said this: "I think Western Europe...has made different trade-offs which may have ended up with a little more unemployment but a lot more equality." A "little" more unemployment is when some other guy is unemployed. Try telling someone who has lost their job, their home, and their ability to take care of their family, that at least the wealthy are paying more than they already do in taxes. I'm sure that will make the unemployed happy. Again, ideology over results. One last example. When the country was debating Obamacare the LA Times had an article about the Canadian government run healthcare system. They interviewed a doctor who acknowledged that there were long waits, and perhaps lesser care, but he justified it by saying it was, at least, more "equal." Again, ideology over results.
* You still doubt it? Then tell me why liberals cannot stand Republican Governors like Mitch Daniels in Indiana and Scott Walker in Wisconsin, along with various other Republican governors, all of whom have turned around their states' economies. Lower unemployment because of lower taxes and less regulation. Deficits reduced or eliminated. Business moving in. After all, these governors inherited the same "Bush-era" economy that Obama blames everything on. Here's why liberals do not like these Republican governors - liberals do NOT care about results, just their ideology. The fact that Republican policies have benefited people in states with Republican governors is of no import. But the liberals in California will continue to vote in Democrats, notwithstanding cities going bankrupt, and the state being on the brink.
* Speaking of which, San Bernardino is the latest city to decide to file for bankruptcy protection. As noted by the 7/11/12 LA Times, part of the City's problems are "escalating pension costs (and) lucrative labor agreements." These ridiculously high public employee salaries and pensions are given to the unions as a reward by democrats, who receive much in the way of campaign contributions from these same unions. If you want fiscal solvency in your governmental entities, then you need to do what the Republican governors have been doing vis-a vis these unions. Or, if you care more about ideology than results, you can keep voting for more democrats.
* In the 7/6/12 LA Times was a report that retail sales grew only 0.1% in June. The Times notes that this was "the worst monthly showing since August, 2009." Hardly surprising. More people out of work means less people buying. Less people buying means stores will often have to lay off even more people. In a related story, the 7/7/12 LA Times lead business section headline was: "Engine of job growth sputtering." They quote one Chris Christopher, senior principal economist at IHS Global Insight: "There is no reason for small businesses to do well in this environment." Generally, small businesses are the drivers of job growth. The article goes to say that "about 30% of companies plan to reduce the number of employees in the next year, 48% plan to stay at the same level, and only 21% plan to hire new workers." Many businesses have said they have the money to hire, but will not do so until they see what is going to happen with all the new taxes (especially if the "Bush tax cuts" expire), and new taxes and regs under Obamacare. At a time when Obama should have been trying to stimulate the economy with tax cuts and less regulation, he instead spent two years getting Obamacare passed. The "ideology" of equality in healthcare over the negative impact on the economy, and over what will eventually be a negative impact on healthcare in this country.
* But some numbers are up. An increasing number of people are on Social Security Disability. Also way up are the number of people receiving food stamps (although the program is now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). According to the 7/5/12 USA Today the number of people on food stamps has skyrocketed to 46 million people as of April,2012. The USA Today notes that that means one in every seven Americans is on food stamps. Obama has no problem with these numbers - he buys votes with government handouts. The democrats are used to this approach (see above about public employee unions).
* So, we the people have a very real choice in this election. If you prefer things as they are, and do not mind if they get worse, so long as the wealthy pay more in taxes, then vote for Obama. Although maybe you can tell me why the top 10% paying 70% of the federal income taxes, with the bottom 50% paying no taxes is not fair enough. If, however, you prefer job growth, lower budget deficits, and less taxes then vote for Romney. If you are on the fence do yourself a favor. Look at how states run by Republican governors are doing compared to those run by Democrats. Do not let your beliefs (ideology) win out over results (reality).
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Obamacare Upheld Under a Flimsy - and Dangerous - Theory.
In my posting of 4/15/12, entitled "Obamacare at the Supreme Court," I suggested that Chief Justice John Roberts might join an already existing majority in order to be able to assign the writing of the opinion to himself; allowing him to make the decision "as broad or as limited as the Chief wants." Admittedly, I did not anticipate that the Chief would end up being the deciding vote to uphold Obamacare, especially given the fact that four Justices were prepared to throw out the entire law. The liberal media, highly critical of Roberts to date, was gushing with praise for his "courageous" vote.
So what happened? It is not unusual for Courts to look for ways to uphold the constitutionality of statutes passed by Congress. Here, Roberts ruled that the "individual mandate" could not be upheld as an exercise of the interstate commerce clause, as was argued before the Court. Rather, Roberts deemed the requirement to buy insurance as not being mandatory; a failure to do so merely meant that one was obligated to pay a sum of money to the IRS. Obama insisted it was not a tax; Congress in the legislation expressly stated in numerous places that it was a "penalty" for failing to buy insurance. But, according to Roberts, Congress anticipated that many people (up to 4 million) would not buy insurance; and Congress did not intend to make all those people "outlaws." Rather, according to Roberts, Congress was giving the people the option of buying insurance or paying a tax.
Undoubtedly, Roberts believed he was limiting the power of Congress by expressly stating that the mandate could not be upheld under the commerce clause. Said Roberts: "Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and - under the government's theory - empower Congress to make those decisions for him." In this writer's opinion, Roberts was wrong both in considering the penalty to be a "tax," and in thinking that he was limiting the power of the federal government.
If this is a tax, it is the first of its kind. Roberts argued that Congress was merely encouraging people to buy insurance, otherwise they would have to pay a "tax." Roberts: "Congress's use of the taxing clause to encourage buying something is...not new." He pointed to tax incentives to buy homes and get a professional education. However, a "deduction" for buying a home, gives one a tax break. While not buying a home will mean not having that deduction, and likely a higher tax rate, we understand that not qualifying for a deduction is not the same as a tax. As the dissent said: "Taxes have never been popular...they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at the next election, which is never more than two years off."
The dissent continued: "We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty." Given the fact that Congress had the option to make it a "tax" and declined, meant that Roberts was not simply interpreting the statute - he was rewriting it. Besides, think of all the various taxes that you and I pay. Generally, we are taxed any time money changes hands (like the mob getting their "cut"). An employer pays an employee - taxed. Purchase of a good or service - taxed. We are also taxed for owning real or personal property, and investment property (stocks, some bonds). But under Roberts' decision, you can now be "taxed" for inaction - not buying the insurance. Again, completely different than giving a deduction for those who do buy the insurance.
Which leads me to my next point. If Congress can now tax us for failing to buy a product, how can that power in any sense be considered less all-encompassing than Congress' power under the commerce clause. Roberts tries to limit that power when he says: "Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today." Is he kidding? Of course it does! Congress already dictates fuel efficiency in cars. Why can't they order us all to buy small cars or hybrids - or pay a "tax" for failing to do so. Through the Food and Drug Administration the feds dictate certain requirements in food products and labeling. So what's to stop them from telling us we must buy certain food products - or pay a "tax." Given how many areas of life Congress has in some way regulated, there is no apparent limit on what Congress can order us to do - or pay a "tax" if we don't.
The outcome of all this is that the Court has now legitimized the lies of the Congress and the President when they repeatedly insisted that this was not a tax. Roberts thought it was more important to uphold the law under any theory imaginable, rather than insist on the integrity of our elected officials. We already know that politicians lie; now we know that the Court has sanctioned those lies. Said Roberts: "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." Maybe not, but wouldn't it be nice if one branch of government insisted on truthfulness and integrity in our officials.
A side issue rarely commented on, is that Obamacare does not require illegal aliens to purchase the insurance. Nevertheless, they cannot legally be turned away from any emergency room. Maybe someone can explain to me why someone here illegally gets all the benefits but none of the obligations. If the estimate is between 10 and 20 million illegals in the country, why isn't it important for them to have insurance? Wasn't Obamacare intended to cover ALL the uninsured?
The only good news is that Obama now has to run for reelection after having signed into law (Obamacare) the biggest tax increase in our country's history; and having done so during one of our worst economic downturns. Not surprisingly, the White House still will not call the refusal to buy insurance a "tax." Said Press Secretary Jay Carney: "It's a penalty, because you have a choice. You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right?"
It should be quite clear to all now that there is not a single branch of the federal government that will protect your economic liberty. You have only that liberty that a Congress and President will allow you to have; there are no Constitutional restraints. As noted by various commentators, this decision makes the upcoming November election more important than ever. Do not think for one minute that this President and Reid and Pelosi do not understand the virtually limitless power that Roberts has handed to them. If the democrats retake the House, you can count on them to address their social equality agenda by "giving you the option" (as Roberts would say) of buying a certain good or service - or paying a tax. Even if you like Obamacare, you may not like what the next Congress decides to order you to buy - or pay a "tax."
So what happened? It is not unusual for Courts to look for ways to uphold the constitutionality of statutes passed by Congress. Here, Roberts ruled that the "individual mandate" could not be upheld as an exercise of the interstate commerce clause, as was argued before the Court. Rather, Roberts deemed the requirement to buy insurance as not being mandatory; a failure to do so merely meant that one was obligated to pay a sum of money to the IRS. Obama insisted it was not a tax; Congress in the legislation expressly stated in numerous places that it was a "penalty" for failing to buy insurance. But, according to Roberts, Congress anticipated that many people (up to 4 million) would not buy insurance; and Congress did not intend to make all those people "outlaws." Rather, according to Roberts, Congress was giving the people the option of buying insurance or paying a tax.
Undoubtedly, Roberts believed he was limiting the power of Congress by expressly stating that the mandate could not be upheld under the commerce clause. Said Roberts: "Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and - under the government's theory - empower Congress to make those decisions for him." In this writer's opinion, Roberts was wrong both in considering the penalty to be a "tax," and in thinking that he was limiting the power of the federal government.
If this is a tax, it is the first of its kind. Roberts argued that Congress was merely encouraging people to buy insurance, otherwise they would have to pay a "tax." Roberts: "Congress's use of the taxing clause to encourage buying something is...not new." He pointed to tax incentives to buy homes and get a professional education. However, a "deduction" for buying a home, gives one a tax break. While not buying a home will mean not having that deduction, and likely a higher tax rate, we understand that not qualifying for a deduction is not the same as a tax. As the dissent said: "Taxes have never been popular...they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at the next election, which is never more than two years off."
The dissent continued: "We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty." Given the fact that Congress had the option to make it a "tax" and declined, meant that Roberts was not simply interpreting the statute - he was rewriting it. Besides, think of all the various taxes that you and I pay. Generally, we are taxed any time money changes hands (like the mob getting their "cut"). An employer pays an employee - taxed. Purchase of a good or service - taxed. We are also taxed for owning real or personal property, and investment property (stocks, some bonds). But under Roberts' decision, you can now be "taxed" for inaction - not buying the insurance. Again, completely different than giving a deduction for those who do buy the insurance.
Which leads me to my next point. If Congress can now tax us for failing to buy a product, how can that power in any sense be considered less all-encompassing than Congress' power under the commerce clause. Roberts tries to limit that power when he says: "Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today." Is he kidding? Of course it does! Congress already dictates fuel efficiency in cars. Why can't they order us all to buy small cars or hybrids - or pay a "tax" for failing to do so. Through the Food and Drug Administration the feds dictate certain requirements in food products and labeling. So what's to stop them from telling us we must buy certain food products - or pay a "tax." Given how many areas of life Congress has in some way regulated, there is no apparent limit on what Congress can order us to do - or pay a "tax" if we don't.
The outcome of all this is that the Court has now legitimized the lies of the Congress and the President when they repeatedly insisted that this was not a tax. Roberts thought it was more important to uphold the law under any theory imaginable, rather than insist on the integrity of our elected officials. We already know that politicians lie; now we know that the Court has sanctioned those lies. Said Roberts: "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." Maybe not, but wouldn't it be nice if one branch of government insisted on truthfulness and integrity in our officials.
A side issue rarely commented on, is that Obamacare does not require illegal aliens to purchase the insurance. Nevertheless, they cannot legally be turned away from any emergency room. Maybe someone can explain to me why someone here illegally gets all the benefits but none of the obligations. If the estimate is between 10 and 20 million illegals in the country, why isn't it important for them to have insurance? Wasn't Obamacare intended to cover ALL the uninsured?
The only good news is that Obama now has to run for reelection after having signed into law (Obamacare) the biggest tax increase in our country's history; and having done so during one of our worst economic downturns. Not surprisingly, the White House still will not call the refusal to buy insurance a "tax." Said Press Secretary Jay Carney: "It's a penalty, because you have a choice. You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right?"
It should be quite clear to all now that there is not a single branch of the federal government that will protect your economic liberty. You have only that liberty that a Congress and President will allow you to have; there are no Constitutional restraints. As noted by various commentators, this decision makes the upcoming November election more important than ever. Do not think for one minute that this President and Reid and Pelosi do not understand the virtually limitless power that Roberts has handed to them. If the democrats retake the House, you can count on them to address their social equality agenda by "giving you the option" (as Roberts would say) of buying a certain good or service - or paying a tax. Even if you like Obamacare, you may not like what the next Congress decides to order you to buy - or pay a "tax."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)