Political Courage - British Style
Larry Elder
Thursday, April 02, 2009
The Republicans finally found a leader. Too bad he's a Brit.
Daniel Hannan, who represents South East England in the European Parliament, stood up in that chamber and forcefully addressed Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
"Prime Minister," MEP Hannan said, "I see you've already mastered the essential craft of the European politician, namely the ability to say one thing in this chamber and a very different thing to your home electorate. You've spoken here about free trade, and amen to that. Who would have guessed, listening to you just now, that you were the author of the phrase 'British jobs for British workers' and that you have subsidized, where you have not nationalized outright, swathes of our economy, including the car industry and many of the banks? Perhaps you would have more moral authority in this house if your actions matched your words. Perhaps you would have more legitimacy in the councils of the world if the United Kingdom were not going into this recession in the worst condition of any G-20 country.
"The truth, Prime Minister, is that you have run out of our money. The country as a whole is now in negative equity. Every British child is born owing around 20,000 pounds. Servicing the interest on that debt is going to cost more than educating the child. Now, once again today you try to spread the blame around; you spoke about an international recession, international crisis. Well, it is true that we are all sailing together into the squalls. But not every vessel in the convoy is in the same dilapidated condition. Other ships used the good years to caulk their hulls and clear their rigging -- in other words, to pay off debt. But you used the good years to raise borrowing yet further. As a consequence, under your captaincy, our hull is pressed deep into the waterline under the accumulated weight of your debt. We are now running a deficit that touches 10 percent of GDP, an almost unbelievable figure -- more than Pakistan, more than Hungary, countries where the IMF have already been called in. Now, it's not that you're not apologizing; like everyone else, I have long accepted that you're pathologically incapable of accepting responsibility for these things. It's that you're carrying on, willfully worsening our situation, wantonly spending what little we have left. … In the last 12 months, 100,000 private-sector jobs have been lost, and yet you created 30,000 public-sector jobs.
"Prime Minister, you cannot carry on forever squeezing the productive bit of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorgement of the unproductive bit. You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt. And when you repeat, in that wooden and perfunctory way, that our situation is better than others, that we're 'well-placed to weather the storm,' I have to tell you (that) you sound like a Brezhnev-era apparatchik giving the party line. You know and we know -- and you know that we know -- that it's nonsense!"
The British prime minister's "solutions" resemble those of President Barack Obama, the Democrats and some Republicans -- solving a spending and borrowing crisis by spending and borrowing. Yet Obama brazenly calls his budget "A New Era of Responsibility."
Obama believes that merely raising taxes on the so-called rich will be sufficient to fund all of his programs. He believes that the behavior of the so-called rich will be unaffected by the fact that they will keep a lot less than what they make. He believes that the same government of unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare -- the same government that runs the now-broke post office and "managed" disaster relief after Katrina -- can "create" and "invest" in health care, "green" jobs and education. He does not pay the slightest attention to the founding principles of this country -- a limited government and a maximum of responsibility by its citizens.
On a recent cable newscast, a pundit actually said that "capitalism" no longer works. And he was a former top aide to then-Republican House Majority Leader Newt Gingrich! The future of this country, at least in my lifetime, has never seemed more frightening and uncertain.
While President Obama busies himself changing the very foundation that made America great, he might sign an executive order -- granting immediate citizenship to Daniel Hannan.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Let's All Surrender Our Weapons -- You First!
Let's All Surrender Our Weapons -- You First!
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
The rash of recent shooting incidents has led people who wouldn't know an AK-47 from a paintball gun to issue demands for more restrictions on guns. To be sure, it's hard to find any factor in these shootings that could be responsible -- other than the gun.
So far, this year's public multiple shootings were committed by:
-- Richard Poplawski, 23, product of a broken family, expelled from high school and dishonorably discharged from the Marines, who killed three policemen in Pittsburgh.
-- Former crack addict Jiverly Wong, 41, who told co-workers "America sucks" yet somehow was not offered a job as a speechwriter for Barack Obama, who blockaded his victims in a civic center in Binghamton, N.Y., and shot as many people as he could, before killing himself.
-- Robert Stewart, 45, a three-time divorcee and high school dropout with "violent tendencies" -- according to one of his ex-wives -- who shot up the nursing home in Carthage, N.C., where his newly estranged wife worked.
-- Lovelle Mixon, 26, a paroled felon, struggling to get his life back on track by pimping, who shot four cops in Oakland, Calif. -- before eventually being shot himself.
-- Twenty-eight-year-old Michael McLendon, child of divorce, living with his mother and boycotting family funerals because he hated his relatives, who killed 10 of those relatives and their neighbors in Samson, Ala.
It might make more sense to outlaw men than guns. Or divorce. Or crack. Or to prohibit felons from having guns. Except we already outlaw crack and felons owning guns and yet still, somehow, Wong got crack and Mixon got a gun.
After being pulled over for a routine traffic violation, Lovelle Mixon did exactly what they teach in driver's ed by immediately shooting four cops. Mixon's supporters held a posthumous rally in his honor, claiming he shot the cops only in "self-defense," which I take it includes the cop Mixon shot while the officer was lying on the ground.
I guess Mixon also raped that 12-year-old girl in "self-defense." Clearly, the pimping industry has lost a good man. I wish I'd known him. I tip my green velvet fedora with the dollar signs all over it to him. Why do the good ones always die young? Pimps, I mean.
Liberals tolerate rallies on behalf of cop-killers, but they prohibit law-abiding citizens working at community centers in Binghamton, N.Y., from being armed to defend themselves from disturbed, crack-addicted America-haters like Jiverly Wong.
It's something in liberals' DNA: They think they can pass a law eliminating guns and nuclear weapons, but teenagers having sex is completely beyond our control.
The demand for more gun control in response to any crime involving a gun is exactly like Obama's response to North Korea's openly belligerent act of launching a long-range missile this week: Obama leapt to action by calling for worldwide nuclear disarmament.
If the SAT test were used to determine how stupid a liberal is, one question would be: "The best defense against lawless rogues who possess _______ is for law-abiding individuals to surrender their own _______________."
Correct answer: Guns. We would also have accepted nuclear weapons.
Obama explained that "the United States has a moral responsibility" to lead disarmament efforts because America is "the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon."
So don't go feeling all morally superior to a country whose business model consists of exporting heroin, nuclear bombs and counterfeit U.S. dollars, and of importing Swedish prostitutes, you yahoo Americans with your little flag lapel pins.
On the other hand, the Japanese haven't acted up much in the last, say, 64 years ...
Fortunately, our sailors didn't wait around for Obama to save them when Somali pirates boarded their ship this week. Stop right now or I'll ask the U.N. to remind the "international community" that "the U.S. is not at war with Somali pirates."
Gun-toting Americans are clearly more self-sufficient than the sissy Europeans. This is great news for everyone except Barney Frank, who's always secretly wondered what it would be like to be taken by a Somali pirate.
Police -- whom I gather liberals intend to continue having guns -- and intrepid U.N. resolution drafters can't be everywhere, all the time.
If a single civilian in that Binghamton community center had been armed, instead of 14 dead, there might have only been one or two -- including the shooter. In the end, the cops didn't stop Wong. His killing spree ended only when he decided to stop, and he killed himself.
"The shooter will eventually run out of ammo" strategy may not be the best one for stopping deranged multiple murderers.
But it's highly unlikely that any community center in the entire state would be safe from a disturbed former crack-addict like Wong because New York's restrictive gun laws require a citizen to prove he has a need for a gun to obtain a concealed carry permit.
Instead of having Planned Parenthood distribute condoms in schools, they ought get the NRA to pass out revolvers. It would save more lives.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
The rash of recent shooting incidents has led people who wouldn't know an AK-47 from a paintball gun to issue demands for more restrictions on guns. To be sure, it's hard to find any factor in these shootings that could be responsible -- other than the gun.
So far, this year's public multiple shootings were committed by:
-- Richard Poplawski, 23, product of a broken family, expelled from high school and dishonorably discharged from the Marines, who killed three policemen in Pittsburgh.
-- Former crack addict Jiverly Wong, 41, who told co-workers "America sucks" yet somehow was not offered a job as a speechwriter for Barack Obama, who blockaded his victims in a civic center in Binghamton, N.Y., and shot as many people as he could, before killing himself.
-- Robert Stewart, 45, a three-time divorcee and high school dropout with "violent tendencies" -- according to one of his ex-wives -- who shot up the nursing home in Carthage, N.C., where his newly estranged wife worked.
-- Lovelle Mixon, 26, a paroled felon, struggling to get his life back on track by pimping, who shot four cops in Oakland, Calif. -- before eventually being shot himself.
-- Twenty-eight-year-old Michael McLendon, child of divorce, living with his mother and boycotting family funerals because he hated his relatives, who killed 10 of those relatives and their neighbors in Samson, Ala.
It might make more sense to outlaw men than guns. Or divorce. Or crack. Or to prohibit felons from having guns. Except we already outlaw crack and felons owning guns and yet still, somehow, Wong got crack and Mixon got a gun.
After being pulled over for a routine traffic violation, Lovelle Mixon did exactly what they teach in driver's ed by immediately shooting four cops. Mixon's supporters held a posthumous rally in his honor, claiming he shot the cops only in "self-defense," which I take it includes the cop Mixon shot while the officer was lying on the ground.
I guess Mixon also raped that 12-year-old girl in "self-defense." Clearly, the pimping industry has lost a good man. I wish I'd known him. I tip my green velvet fedora with the dollar signs all over it to him. Why do the good ones always die young? Pimps, I mean.
Liberals tolerate rallies on behalf of cop-killers, but they prohibit law-abiding citizens working at community centers in Binghamton, N.Y., from being armed to defend themselves from disturbed, crack-addicted America-haters like Jiverly Wong.
It's something in liberals' DNA: They think they can pass a law eliminating guns and nuclear weapons, but teenagers having sex is completely beyond our control.
The demand for more gun control in response to any crime involving a gun is exactly like Obama's response to North Korea's openly belligerent act of launching a long-range missile this week: Obama leapt to action by calling for worldwide nuclear disarmament.
If the SAT test were used to determine how stupid a liberal is, one question would be: "The best defense against lawless rogues who possess _______ is for law-abiding individuals to surrender their own _______________."
Correct answer: Guns. We would also have accepted nuclear weapons.
Obama explained that "the United States has a moral responsibility" to lead disarmament efforts because America is "the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon."
So don't go feeling all morally superior to a country whose business model consists of exporting heroin, nuclear bombs and counterfeit U.S. dollars, and of importing Swedish prostitutes, you yahoo Americans with your little flag lapel pins.
On the other hand, the Japanese haven't acted up much in the last, say, 64 years ...
Fortunately, our sailors didn't wait around for Obama to save them when Somali pirates boarded their ship this week. Stop right now or I'll ask the U.N. to remind the "international community" that "the U.S. is not at war with Somali pirates."
Gun-toting Americans are clearly more self-sufficient than the sissy Europeans. This is great news for everyone except Barney Frank, who's always secretly wondered what it would be like to be taken by a Somali pirate.
Police -- whom I gather liberals intend to continue having guns -- and intrepid U.N. resolution drafters can't be everywhere, all the time.
If a single civilian in that Binghamton community center had been armed, instead of 14 dead, there might have only been one or two -- including the shooter. In the end, the cops didn't stop Wong. His killing spree ended only when he decided to stop, and he killed himself.
"The shooter will eventually run out of ammo" strategy may not be the best one for stopping deranged multiple murderers.
But it's highly unlikely that any community center in the entire state would be safe from a disturbed former crack-addict like Wong because New York's restrictive gun laws require a citizen to prove he has a need for a gun to obtain a concealed carry permit.
Instead of having Planned Parenthood distribute condoms in schools, they ought get the NRA to pass out revolvers. It would save more lives.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Obama's Childish Vision of Politics
Obama’s Childish Vision of Politics
Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
“In the words of Scripture,” Barack Obama announced at his inauguration, “the time has come to set aside childish things.”
So why does the President of the United States embrace the most childish interpretation of political discourse ever put forward on a national stage?
Politics is about making choices. We either cut spending or we grow spending. We either have less regulation or more regulation. We either strengthen defense or we weaken it. Obama seemingly understands this. He has repeatedly referred to the “hard choices” we face as a nation.
Yet despite his “hard choices” rhetoric, Barack Obama’s favorite political tactic is to claim that no choices need be made at all; all political differences of opinion, he says, can be chalked up to misunderstanding rather than conflicting fundamental values. All choices are “false choices” if we just think deeply enough. Or rather, if Obama thinks deeply enough.
And so Obama claimed in the Chicago Tribune that Americans “need not choose between a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism and an oppressive government-run economy.” That choice, he said, is a “false choice.” It is a false choice as he phrases it -- capitalism isn’t chaotic and unforgiving. But the simple choice between capitalism and a government-managed economy is a real choice -- and it’s the most important choice Americans have faced in half a century. Obscuring the need to make that choice by glossing over it with happy talk does a profound disservice to the American people.
According to Obama, “false choices” aren’t restricted to the economy -- they’re also present with regard to stem cell research. While Obama paid lip service to the moral qualms of the anti-embryonic stem cell research advocates, he then dismissed their intelligence. “Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values,” he announced while restoring unfettered federal funding to embryonic stem cell research. Those moral thinkers who struggle with the implications of destroying potential human life in order to embark upon decades-long research projects are idiots, according to the president.
We’ve all been suckered by “false choices” on national defense, too, Obama tells us. Determining the future of Guantanamo Bay is easy, he smiles; we shut it down, thereby ending the “false choice between our safety and our ideals.” Again, this is nonsensical: Ask the Sept. 11 victims’ families whether releasing terrorists onto U.S. soil for civil liberties purposes presents a conflict between safety and ideals. American presidents from Washington to Lincoln to FDR to Bush have struggled with the balance between security and civil liberties. But apparently, according to Obama, they were a bunch of dummies -- that choice is “false.”
Obama’s not done with the “false choices.” There are “false choices” with regard to the environment, too. “Throughout our history,” Obama recently stated, “there's been a tension between those who have sought to conserve our natural resources for the benefit of future generations, and those who have sought to profit from these resources. But I’m here to tell you this is a false choice.” Really? Then why do Democrats insist on blocking drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve? After all, the choice between allowing oil companies to profit from resources and conserving natural resources is a false one.
In reality, of course, all of these choices are hard choices. Do we choose the warm feeling of a low-growth, government-managed economy over the dynamism and creativity of capitalism? Do we choose to destroy potential human beings in order to potentially save human beings? Do we stop law enforcement measures to preserve civil liberties or do we fight the threat of terrorism with every tool at our disposal? Do we choose green living over the continued expansion of our economy?
These are the questions around which American politics revolve. These are questions that reflect our fundamental values. And these are the questions President Obama hates, because they strip away the shallow, puerile rhetoric of hope, change, and unity, and instead ask Americans to think more deeply.
And so Obama labels such questions “false choices.” By doing so, he assumes the role of all-knowing prophet, able to solve all political conflicts by declaring them fictitious. While we mortals debate the issues, Obama stands far above them, handing down his judgment from on high, bringing unity where once there was conflict.
This is dangerous stuff. America’s greatness lies in its willingness to argue tough questions in the public square. Presenting such questions as easy calls to be handled by a wise aristocracy is fundamentally destructive of the very basis of self-government. But then again, according to Obama, the choice between rule of administrative aristocrats and the rule of the people is probably just another “false choice.”
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
“In the words of Scripture,” Barack Obama announced at his inauguration, “the time has come to set aside childish things.”
So why does the President of the United States embrace the most childish interpretation of political discourse ever put forward on a national stage?
Politics is about making choices. We either cut spending or we grow spending. We either have less regulation or more regulation. We either strengthen defense or we weaken it. Obama seemingly understands this. He has repeatedly referred to the “hard choices” we face as a nation.
Yet despite his “hard choices” rhetoric, Barack Obama’s favorite political tactic is to claim that no choices need be made at all; all political differences of opinion, he says, can be chalked up to misunderstanding rather than conflicting fundamental values. All choices are “false choices” if we just think deeply enough. Or rather, if Obama thinks deeply enough.
And so Obama claimed in the Chicago Tribune that Americans “need not choose between a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism and an oppressive government-run economy.” That choice, he said, is a “false choice.” It is a false choice as he phrases it -- capitalism isn’t chaotic and unforgiving. But the simple choice between capitalism and a government-managed economy is a real choice -- and it’s the most important choice Americans have faced in half a century. Obscuring the need to make that choice by glossing over it with happy talk does a profound disservice to the American people.
According to Obama, “false choices” aren’t restricted to the economy -- they’re also present with regard to stem cell research. While Obama paid lip service to the moral qualms of the anti-embryonic stem cell research advocates, he then dismissed their intelligence. “Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values,” he announced while restoring unfettered federal funding to embryonic stem cell research. Those moral thinkers who struggle with the implications of destroying potential human life in order to embark upon decades-long research projects are idiots, according to the president.
We’ve all been suckered by “false choices” on national defense, too, Obama tells us. Determining the future of Guantanamo Bay is easy, he smiles; we shut it down, thereby ending the “false choice between our safety and our ideals.” Again, this is nonsensical: Ask the Sept. 11 victims’ families whether releasing terrorists onto U.S. soil for civil liberties purposes presents a conflict between safety and ideals. American presidents from Washington to Lincoln to FDR to Bush have struggled with the balance between security and civil liberties. But apparently, according to Obama, they were a bunch of dummies -- that choice is “false.”
Obama’s not done with the “false choices.” There are “false choices” with regard to the environment, too. “Throughout our history,” Obama recently stated, “there's been a tension between those who have sought to conserve our natural resources for the benefit of future generations, and those who have sought to profit from these resources. But I’m here to tell you this is a false choice.” Really? Then why do Democrats insist on blocking drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve? After all, the choice between allowing oil companies to profit from resources and conserving natural resources is a false one.
In reality, of course, all of these choices are hard choices. Do we choose the warm feeling of a low-growth, government-managed economy over the dynamism and creativity of capitalism? Do we choose to destroy potential human beings in order to potentially save human beings? Do we stop law enforcement measures to preserve civil liberties or do we fight the threat of terrorism with every tool at our disposal? Do we choose green living over the continued expansion of our economy?
These are the questions around which American politics revolve. These are questions that reflect our fundamental values. And these are the questions President Obama hates, because they strip away the shallow, puerile rhetoric of hope, change, and unity, and instead ask Americans to think more deeply.
And so Obama labels such questions “false choices.” By doing so, he assumes the role of all-knowing prophet, able to solve all political conflicts by declaring them fictitious. While we mortals debate the issues, Obama stands far above them, handing down his judgment from on high, bringing unity where once there was conflict.
This is dangerous stuff. America’s greatness lies in its willingness to argue tough questions in the public square. Presenting such questions as easy calls to be handled by a wise aristocracy is fundamentally destructive of the very basis of self-government. But then again, according to Obama, the choice between rule of administrative aristocrats and the rule of the people is probably just another “false choice.”
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
ACORN - Liberal Census Dishonesty = Permanent Democratic Control
We received the following e-mail today. Is there anyone who thinks the following isn't true? Since it is true how can anyone in good conscience possibly vote for a Democrat. Obviously their fraud goes way deeper than this, but this alone should put people like Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid in jail, or at least get them removed from office and the government.
Dear CHERYL ,
It has become plain that when candidate Obama talked about change--he was talking about using the system to create permanent liberal control of the federal government.
Our Constitution requires we take a population census every 10 years.
"Ok -- so what?" you might ask.
Well -- the future shape of Congress, state legislatures and the balance of political power between states are at stake. This is because individual election district lines will be redrawn based on the Census figures.
The Census further determines changes in population and demographics across the country and has an impact on the amount of federal funds which are allotted to individual states.
It determines the number of Representatives each state has in the U.S. House and therefore the make-up of the Electoral College that will determine the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election.
It seems the Obama Administration has plans to rig the Census results.
President Obama's old friends from ACORN, the leftist, urban "community" organization with a long history of promoting vote fraud, has been chosen by the Administration as a "partner" with the Census Bureau to determine population counts in cities around the country.
With this group's track record of coming up with countless fraudulent voter registrations in heavily Democrat areas to sway elections to ultra-liberals, you can be sure they'll be manipulating population numbers as well.
And after receiving millions in political payback from the Democrats' recently passed "Stimulus" Bill, ACORN's community organizers are eager to once again take action to aid their old friend in the White House.
Why is this important? The U.S. population has shifted in the last ten years. States like Illinois, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania (all states Obama won in 2008) have smaller populations, and states like Arizona, Georgia and South Carolina (all states that John McCain carried) have gained population.
The trend illustrates that urban strongholds, which favor Democrats, continue to lose population to more decentralized areas in states more likely to lean Republican.
If the Democrats and their friends at ACORN have their way, the Census will only "estimate" state populations and therefore be subject to political calculations. And surely their estimate will be far higher than the actual number of people, and voters, present.
We must not let the Democrats and their radical leftist allies falsify the U.S. Census and manipulate elections in their favor. Our democracy, and the principle of "One Person, One Vote" are in jeopardy.
Please help the Republican Party's effort to spread the word about the Obama Democrats' misuse of power and plans to end free and fair elections. Support our effort to get the word out about this threat and ensure an accurate, non-partisan Census by making a contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 to the Republican National Committee today.
Your gift will also help support the recruitment and election of principled candidates who will defeat the Democrats in 2010 and pave the way to send Barack Obama packing in 2012. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael Steele
Chairman, Republican National Committee
P.S. CHERYL , we are working hard to expose the irresponsible and unethical actions of Democrats in Washington and their left-wing enablers, but we need your financial support to do this vital work. That's why I hope you'll take this opportunity right now to support our fight against bad leadership and bad legislation by making a secure online contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 to the RNC today. Thank you.
Dear CHERYL ,
It has become plain that when candidate Obama talked about change--he was talking about using the system to create permanent liberal control of the federal government.
Our Constitution requires we take a population census every 10 years.
"Ok -- so what?" you might ask.
Well -- the future shape of Congress, state legislatures and the balance of political power between states are at stake. This is because individual election district lines will be redrawn based on the Census figures.
The Census further determines changes in population and demographics across the country and has an impact on the amount of federal funds which are allotted to individual states.
It determines the number of Representatives each state has in the U.S. House and therefore the make-up of the Electoral College that will determine the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election.
It seems the Obama Administration has plans to rig the Census results.
President Obama's old friends from ACORN, the leftist, urban "community" organization with a long history of promoting vote fraud, has been chosen by the Administration as a "partner" with the Census Bureau to determine population counts in cities around the country.
With this group's track record of coming up with countless fraudulent voter registrations in heavily Democrat areas to sway elections to ultra-liberals, you can be sure they'll be manipulating population numbers as well.
And after receiving millions in political payback from the Democrats' recently passed "Stimulus" Bill, ACORN's community organizers are eager to once again take action to aid their old friend in the White House.
Why is this important? The U.S. population has shifted in the last ten years. States like Illinois, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania (all states Obama won in 2008) have smaller populations, and states like Arizona, Georgia and South Carolina (all states that John McCain carried) have gained population.
The trend illustrates that urban strongholds, which favor Democrats, continue to lose population to more decentralized areas in states more likely to lean Republican.
If the Democrats and their friends at ACORN have their way, the Census will only "estimate" state populations and therefore be subject to political calculations. And surely their estimate will be far higher than the actual number of people, and voters, present.
We must not let the Democrats and their radical leftist allies falsify the U.S. Census and manipulate elections in their favor. Our democracy, and the principle of "One Person, One Vote" are in jeopardy.
Please help the Republican Party's effort to spread the word about the Obama Democrats' misuse of power and plans to end free and fair elections. Support our effort to get the word out about this threat and ensure an accurate, non-partisan Census by making a contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 to the Republican National Committee today.
Your gift will also help support the recruitment and election of principled candidates who will defeat the Democrats in 2010 and pave the way to send Barack Obama packing in 2012. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael Steele
Chairman, Republican National Committee
P.S. CHERYL , we are working hard to expose the irresponsible and unethical actions of Democrats in Washington and their left-wing enablers, but we need your financial support to do this vital work. That's why I hope you'll take this opportunity right now to support our fight against bad leadership and bad legislation by making a secure online contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 to the RNC today. Thank you.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Top 5 Reasons 'The Left' Hates Individual Liberty
Top Five Reasons
The Left Hates Individual Liberty (A Rush Handout)
1.Because they can’t claim credit for its achievements.
Right: “When one starts poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition… I am not ashamed to confess that 25 years ago I was a hired laborer, mauling rails, at work on a flatboat – just what might happen to any poor man’s son!” – Abraham Lincoln 1860.
Left: “Do any of them seriously believe if I had been President, and my economic team had been in place the last eight years, that this [economic crisis] would be happening today? I think they know the answer to that: No.” – Bill Clinton, Feb. 16, 2009.
Liberals love you loving them – and believing you owe them. The source of their power is convincing you that all the good in your life is thanks to their existence. You’re not driving across that bridge because of American ingenuity engineered and built it, but because Robert C. Byrd funded it. You didn’t make money in the 90’s because you worked for it; Bill Clinton’s economic team created it for you. You’re not going to get out of this economic crisis with risk and toil; Obama will pay your mortgage. Bottom line: If you’re independent, liberals don’t own you, and if they don’t own you, you realize how useless – even detrimental – they really are.
2.Because it is a check on their power.
Right: “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.” – Declaration of Independence, July 1776.
Left: “Why don’t you mind your goddamned business?” – Rep. Charlie Rangel, when Jason Mattera of Young Americans for Freedom dared ask Rangel about his tax dodges, March 9, 2009.
3. Because it disproves their ideas.
Right: “Don’t be silly, Mr. Gorbachev. You can’t even feed your own people.” – Margaret Thatcher to Mikhail Gorbachev during their first meeting, as he “attempted to argue the superiority of communism,” 1985.
Left: “Yes” – Rep. Nancy Pelosi, when asked if she would support the revival of the “Fairness Doctrine,” June 2008
The Korean peninsula alone demonstrates that liberty is far superior to the devastating “care” of the commie state. But as in the failed Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, liberals can’t let the truth get out about the results of their disastrous policies – hence the ever-present push to control the terms of the debate, and the media.
4. Because it produces wealth they can’t control.
Right: “This country believes in prosperity. It is absurd to suppose that it is envious of those who are already prosperous. The wise and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which every one will have a better chance to be successful.” – Calvin Coolidge, 1925.
Left: “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” Hillary Clinton, June 28, 2004.
Left: “My colleagues and I are sending a letter to [AIG CEO Edward] Liddy informing him that he can go right ahead and tell these employees that are scheduled to get bonuses that they should voluntarily return them because if they don’t, we plan to virtually tax all of it. He should tell these employees if they don’t give the money back, we’ll put in place a new law that will allow us to tax these bonuses at a very high rate… So for those of you who are getting these bonuses, be forewarned: You will not be getting to keep them.” – Sen. Chuck Schumer, March 17, 2009.
5. Because it is the foundation upon which America was uniquely built.
Right: “The last hope of human liberty in this world rests on us.” – Thomas Jefferson, March 28, 1811.
Right: “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.” – Ronald Reagan, Oct. 27, 1964.
WARNING!!!WARNING!!!WARNING!!!WARNING!!!WARNING!
Left: “As radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution… generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you. But it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.” – Barack Obama, 2001.
Liberals may claim that they love America, but they want to alter nearly everything about it. “Fundamental change!” they cry – as they confiscate wealth, impose onerous government regulation on every daily activity, and insist on a “living, breathing” Constitution that bends to their whims. Dirty little secret: liberals don’t believe in the greatness of America, They believe ours is a nation founded on racism, sexism, homophobia, greed – a blemish on the globe. They are embarrassed by it. They apologize for it overseas. They think it’s their “duty” to transform it – and they mean to drive a stake through the heart of the only thing standing in their way: liberty.
The Limbaugh Letter – April 2009.
The Left Hates Individual Liberty (A Rush Handout)
1.Because they can’t claim credit for its achievements.
Right: “When one starts poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition… I am not ashamed to confess that 25 years ago I was a hired laborer, mauling rails, at work on a flatboat – just what might happen to any poor man’s son!” – Abraham Lincoln 1860.
Left: “Do any of them seriously believe if I had been President, and my economic team had been in place the last eight years, that this [economic crisis] would be happening today? I think they know the answer to that: No.” – Bill Clinton, Feb. 16, 2009.
Liberals love you loving them – and believing you owe them. The source of their power is convincing you that all the good in your life is thanks to their existence. You’re not driving across that bridge because of American ingenuity engineered and built it, but because Robert C. Byrd funded it. You didn’t make money in the 90’s because you worked for it; Bill Clinton’s economic team created it for you. You’re not going to get out of this economic crisis with risk and toil; Obama will pay your mortgage. Bottom line: If you’re independent, liberals don’t own you, and if they don’t own you, you realize how useless – even detrimental – they really are.
2.Because it is a check on their power.
Right: “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.” – Declaration of Independence, July 1776.
Left: “Why don’t you mind your goddamned business?” – Rep. Charlie Rangel, when Jason Mattera of Young Americans for Freedom dared ask Rangel about his tax dodges, March 9, 2009.
3. Because it disproves their ideas.
Right: “Don’t be silly, Mr. Gorbachev. You can’t even feed your own people.” – Margaret Thatcher to Mikhail Gorbachev during their first meeting, as he “attempted to argue the superiority of communism,” 1985.
Left: “Yes” – Rep. Nancy Pelosi, when asked if she would support the revival of the “Fairness Doctrine,” June 2008
The Korean peninsula alone demonstrates that liberty is far superior to the devastating “care” of the commie state. But as in the failed Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, liberals can’t let the truth get out about the results of their disastrous policies – hence the ever-present push to control the terms of the debate, and the media.
4. Because it produces wealth they can’t control.
Right: “This country believes in prosperity. It is absurd to suppose that it is envious of those who are already prosperous. The wise and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which every one will have a better chance to be successful.” – Calvin Coolidge, 1925.
Left: “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” Hillary Clinton, June 28, 2004.
Left: “My colleagues and I are sending a letter to [AIG CEO Edward] Liddy informing him that he can go right ahead and tell these employees that are scheduled to get bonuses that they should voluntarily return them because if they don’t, we plan to virtually tax all of it. He should tell these employees if they don’t give the money back, we’ll put in place a new law that will allow us to tax these bonuses at a very high rate… So for those of you who are getting these bonuses, be forewarned: You will not be getting to keep them.” – Sen. Chuck Schumer, March 17, 2009.
5. Because it is the foundation upon which America was uniquely built.
Right: “The last hope of human liberty in this world rests on us.” – Thomas Jefferson, March 28, 1811.
Right: “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.” – Ronald Reagan, Oct. 27, 1964.
WARNING!!!WARNING!!!WARNING!!!WARNING!!!WARNING!
Left: “As radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution… generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you. But it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.” – Barack Obama, 2001.
Liberals may claim that they love America, but they want to alter nearly everything about it. “Fundamental change!” they cry – as they confiscate wealth, impose onerous government regulation on every daily activity, and insist on a “living, breathing” Constitution that bends to their whims. Dirty little secret: liberals don’t believe in the greatness of America, They believe ours is a nation founded on racism, sexism, homophobia, greed – a blemish on the globe. They are embarrassed by it. They apologize for it overseas. They think it’s their “duty” to transform it – and they mean to drive a stake through the heart of the only thing standing in their way: liberty.
The Limbaugh Letter – April 2009.
America has a Naive President
America Has a Naive President
Dennis Prager
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
“The basic bargain is sound: countries with nuclear weapons will move toward disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them.” -- President Barack Obama, Prague, April 6, 2009
As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, the President of the United States wants America to disarm: “Countries with nuclear weapons will move toward disarmament.”
It is hard to imagine a more destructive goal. A nuclear disarmed America would lead to massive and widespread killing, more genocide, and very possibly the nuclear holocaust worldwide nuclear disarmament is meant to prevent.
There is nothing moral, let alone realistic, about this goal.
Here is an analogy. Imagine that the mayor of a large American city announced that it was his goal to have all the citizens of his city disarm -- what could be more beautiful than a city with no weapons? This would, of course, ultimately include the police, but with properly signed agreements, vigorously enforced, and violators of the agreement punished, it would remain an ideal to pursue.
One has to assume that most people would regard this idea as, at the very least, useless. There would be no way to ensure that bad people would disarm; and if the police disarmed, only bad people would have weapons.
The analogy is virtually precise -- but only if you acknowledge that America is the world’s policeman. To idealists of the left, however, the notion of America as the world’s policeman is both arrogant and misguided. A strengthened “world community” -- as embodied by the United Nations – should be the world’s policeman.
To the rest of us, however, the idea of the United Nations as the world’s policeman is absurd and frightening. The United Nations has proven itself a moral wasteland that gives genocidal tyrannies honored positions on human rights commissions. The weaker the U.N. and the stronger America, the greater the chances of preventing or stopping mass atrocities.
On the assumption that the left and the right both seek a world without genocide and tyranny, it is, then, the answer to this question that divides them: Are genocide and tyranny more or less likely if America is the strongest country on earth, i.e., the country with the greatest and most weapons, nuclear and otherwise?
Moreover even if you answer in the negative and think that the world would experience less evil with a nuclear disarmed America, the goal of worldwide nuclear disarmament is foolish because it is unattainable. And unattainable goals are a waste of precious time and resources.
For one thing, it is inconceivable that every nation would agree to it. Why would India give up its nuclear weapons? There aren’t a dozen Hindus who believe that Pakistan would give up every one of its nuclear weapons. And the same presumably holds true for Muslims in Pakistan with regard to India disarming.
And what about Israel? Would that country destroy all its nuclear weapons? Of course not. And it would be foolish to do so. Israel is surrounded by countries that wish not merely to vanquish it, but to destroy it. It regards nuclear weapons as life assurance. And it regards the United Nations (with good reason) as its enemy, not its protector.
As for states like Iran and North Korea, they have already violated agreements regarding nuclear weapons. What would prompt them to do otherwise in a world where America got weaker? United Nations sanctions? And why would Russia and China even agree to them?
Finally, there would be no way to prevent rogue scientists from selling materials and know-how to terrorists.
The result of this left-wing fantasy of worldwide nuclear disarmament would simply be that those who illegally acquired or made but one nuclear weapon would be able to blackmail any nation.
What any president of the United States should aspire to is: 1). to keep America the strongest country in the world militarily (as well as economically, but that is not the question on the table); 2) to destroy those individuals and organizations that seek nuclear weapons so as to kill as many innocent people as possible; and 3) remain the world’s policeman. These aims cannot be achieved if America aims to disarm.
President Obama said “I am not naïve” in his talk. That, unfortunately, is as accurate as his statement before the joint session of Congress that “I do not believe in bigger government.”
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Dennis Prager
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
“The basic bargain is sound: countries with nuclear weapons will move toward disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them.” -- President Barack Obama, Prague, April 6, 2009
As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, the President of the United States wants America to disarm: “Countries with nuclear weapons will move toward disarmament.”
It is hard to imagine a more destructive goal. A nuclear disarmed America would lead to massive and widespread killing, more genocide, and very possibly the nuclear holocaust worldwide nuclear disarmament is meant to prevent.
There is nothing moral, let alone realistic, about this goal.
Here is an analogy. Imagine that the mayor of a large American city announced that it was his goal to have all the citizens of his city disarm -- what could be more beautiful than a city with no weapons? This would, of course, ultimately include the police, but with properly signed agreements, vigorously enforced, and violators of the agreement punished, it would remain an ideal to pursue.
One has to assume that most people would regard this idea as, at the very least, useless. There would be no way to ensure that bad people would disarm; and if the police disarmed, only bad people would have weapons.
The analogy is virtually precise -- but only if you acknowledge that America is the world’s policeman. To idealists of the left, however, the notion of America as the world’s policeman is both arrogant and misguided. A strengthened “world community” -- as embodied by the United Nations – should be the world’s policeman.
To the rest of us, however, the idea of the United Nations as the world’s policeman is absurd and frightening. The United Nations has proven itself a moral wasteland that gives genocidal tyrannies honored positions on human rights commissions. The weaker the U.N. and the stronger America, the greater the chances of preventing or stopping mass atrocities.
On the assumption that the left and the right both seek a world without genocide and tyranny, it is, then, the answer to this question that divides them: Are genocide and tyranny more or less likely if America is the strongest country on earth, i.e., the country with the greatest and most weapons, nuclear and otherwise?
Moreover even if you answer in the negative and think that the world would experience less evil with a nuclear disarmed America, the goal of worldwide nuclear disarmament is foolish because it is unattainable. And unattainable goals are a waste of precious time and resources.
For one thing, it is inconceivable that every nation would agree to it. Why would India give up its nuclear weapons? There aren’t a dozen Hindus who believe that Pakistan would give up every one of its nuclear weapons. And the same presumably holds true for Muslims in Pakistan with regard to India disarming.
And what about Israel? Would that country destroy all its nuclear weapons? Of course not. And it would be foolish to do so. Israel is surrounded by countries that wish not merely to vanquish it, but to destroy it. It regards nuclear weapons as life assurance. And it regards the United Nations (with good reason) as its enemy, not its protector.
As for states like Iran and North Korea, they have already violated agreements regarding nuclear weapons. What would prompt them to do otherwise in a world where America got weaker? United Nations sanctions? And why would Russia and China even agree to them?
Finally, there would be no way to prevent rogue scientists from selling materials and know-how to terrorists.
The result of this left-wing fantasy of worldwide nuclear disarmament would simply be that those who illegally acquired or made but one nuclear weapon would be able to blackmail any nation.
What any president of the United States should aspire to is: 1). to keep America the strongest country in the world militarily (as well as economically, but that is not the question on the table); 2) to destroy those individuals and organizations that seek nuclear weapons so as to kill as many innocent people as possible; and 3) remain the world’s policeman. These aims cannot be achieved if America aims to disarm.
President Obama said “I am not naïve” in his talk. That, unfortunately, is as accurate as his statement before the joint session of Congress that “I do not believe in bigger government.”
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics
Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics
Dr. Paul Kengor
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
President Obama says the economy is the worst since the Great Depression. Actually, it is the worst since the Reagan recession of 1982-83. Further, the 2009 market crash is not the worst since 1929 but since 1987—also on Ronald Reagan’s watch.
What did Reagan do—or, more importantly, didn’t do—in response to these “crises?” How was Ronald Reagan’s response different from what Barack Obama is doing?
In both cases, Reagan did the exact opposite of Obama’s massive government spending infusions. In fact, it’s worth noting that Bill Clinton—listen up, Democrats—didn’t invoke Obama’s method when he faced recessions at the very start and end of his presidency. (That’s another article for another time.)
As for the Reagan recession, the president waited extremely patiently—to the point where he drove his advisers nearly nuts—for his huge 1981 tax cuts to take effect. He didn’t spend money because he believed spending had been out-of-control, particularly since FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society, which created systemic deficits. Reagan felt that high spending, high regulation, and high taxes had sapped the American economy of its vitality, and particularly its ability to rebound from recession. The economy needed to be freed in order to perform.
Reagan’s prescription rested on four pillars: tax cuts, deregulation, reductions in the rate of government spending, and a stable, carefully managed growth of the money supply. The federal income tax reduction was the centerpiece: Reagan secured a 25 percent across-the-board reduction over a three-year period, beginning in October 1981. The upper income marginal tax rate was dropped from 70 percent, which Reagan believed was punitive and stifling, to 28 percent.
By 1983, America had begun its longest peacetime economic expansion in history, cruising right through the 1987 market plunge.
What did Reagan do about the October 1987 crash? Basically nothing—certainly nothing like a massive government “stimulus.”
“Some people are talking of panic,” Reagan calmly confided to his diary. “Chrmn. of Stock Exchange is acting very upset.”
Those are Reagan’s only diary references to the financial crisis. With the economy freed, he was confident it would bounce back. Reagan let the economy correct itself.
Okay, but Reaganomics created huge deficits, right?
That’s the big criticism. It isn’t accurate. It needs to be understood—now more than ever.
First off, know these crucial facts: The deficit under Ronald Reagan increased 35 percent, from an inherited deficit (from President Jimmy Carter) of $104 billion in 1980 to a final deficit of $141 billion in 1989. The deficit peaked at $236 billion in 1983, particularly because of the plummet in tax revenue during the recession. It began dropping steadily in 1986, continuing through the 1987 crash. (Source: Congressional Budget Office figures, “Historical Tables.”)
Compare that to what’s happening now, where the direct opposite of Reaganomics is being pursued by the liberal Democratic president and Congressional leadership:
President Obama inherited a record Bush deficit of $400 billion, but is generating a far worse $1.8-trillion deficit in his first year. (Source: Congressional Budget Office, March 20, 2009.) We’ve never seen anything like this. This unthinkable explosion is a direct result of the stunning government spending unleashed by Obama and the Democratic leadership in just eight weeks—an unheard of development in 233 years of American history.
So, think about this:
Ronald Reagan increased the deficit by 35 percent in eight years, whereas Barack Obama has increased the deficit by 450 percent in eight weeks. Reagan created an extra $37 billion in annual deficit. Obama has already created an extra $1.4 trillion in annual deficit.
But what, exactly, caused the Reagan deficits? There were several factors: the recession of 1982-83, the Reagan defense spending—implemented to turn the screws on the Soviets—the domestic social spending by the Democratic Congress, and more. Some reasons were Reagan’s fault; others were Congress’ doing—both share blame in differing degrees.
Importantly, and despite what you’ve heard, Reagan’s tax cuts didn’t create the deficit. Tax revenues actually boomed from roughly $600 billion in 1981 to $1 trillion in 1989.
The primary cause of the deficit was recession and spending, mainly spending—as is always the case. It is especially the case right now under Obama, with the spending component utterly out-of-control.
The crucial lesson for today is that the best “stimulus” is one that relies on the tried-and-true American way: letting free individuals and entrepreneurs stimulate the economy through their own earnings and economic activity. Wealth confiscation and redistribution by government collectivists and central planners never works; unfortunately, it is that failed, extremely destructive method that Americans elected in November 2008.
For three decades now, the minority of Americans who make up the hard left have been trashing Reaganomics. Well, on November 4, 2008, for the first time in American history, they convinced enough voters to join them in electing the extreme opposite.
At long last, they will pay for the economic consequences of their ideology, as will their children and grandchildren.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Dr. Paul Kengor
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
President Obama says the economy is the worst since the Great Depression. Actually, it is the worst since the Reagan recession of 1982-83. Further, the 2009 market crash is not the worst since 1929 but since 1987—also on Ronald Reagan’s watch.
What did Reagan do—or, more importantly, didn’t do—in response to these “crises?” How was Ronald Reagan’s response different from what Barack Obama is doing?
In both cases, Reagan did the exact opposite of Obama’s massive government spending infusions. In fact, it’s worth noting that Bill Clinton—listen up, Democrats—didn’t invoke Obama’s method when he faced recessions at the very start and end of his presidency. (That’s another article for another time.)
As for the Reagan recession, the president waited extremely patiently—to the point where he drove his advisers nearly nuts—for his huge 1981 tax cuts to take effect. He didn’t spend money because he believed spending had been out-of-control, particularly since FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society, which created systemic deficits. Reagan felt that high spending, high regulation, and high taxes had sapped the American economy of its vitality, and particularly its ability to rebound from recession. The economy needed to be freed in order to perform.
Reagan’s prescription rested on four pillars: tax cuts, deregulation, reductions in the rate of government spending, and a stable, carefully managed growth of the money supply. The federal income tax reduction was the centerpiece: Reagan secured a 25 percent across-the-board reduction over a three-year period, beginning in October 1981. The upper income marginal tax rate was dropped from 70 percent, which Reagan believed was punitive and stifling, to 28 percent.
By 1983, America had begun its longest peacetime economic expansion in history, cruising right through the 1987 market plunge.
What did Reagan do about the October 1987 crash? Basically nothing—certainly nothing like a massive government “stimulus.”
“Some people are talking of panic,” Reagan calmly confided to his diary. “Chrmn. of Stock Exchange is acting very upset.”
Those are Reagan’s only diary references to the financial crisis. With the economy freed, he was confident it would bounce back. Reagan let the economy correct itself.
Okay, but Reaganomics created huge deficits, right?
That’s the big criticism. It isn’t accurate. It needs to be understood—now more than ever.
First off, know these crucial facts: The deficit under Ronald Reagan increased 35 percent, from an inherited deficit (from President Jimmy Carter) of $104 billion in 1980 to a final deficit of $141 billion in 1989. The deficit peaked at $236 billion in 1983, particularly because of the plummet in tax revenue during the recession. It began dropping steadily in 1986, continuing through the 1987 crash. (Source: Congressional Budget Office figures, “Historical Tables.”)
Compare that to what’s happening now, where the direct opposite of Reaganomics is being pursued by the liberal Democratic president and Congressional leadership:
President Obama inherited a record Bush deficit of $400 billion, but is generating a far worse $1.8-trillion deficit in his first year. (Source: Congressional Budget Office, March 20, 2009.) We’ve never seen anything like this. This unthinkable explosion is a direct result of the stunning government spending unleashed by Obama and the Democratic leadership in just eight weeks—an unheard of development in 233 years of American history.
So, think about this:
Ronald Reagan increased the deficit by 35 percent in eight years, whereas Barack Obama has increased the deficit by 450 percent in eight weeks. Reagan created an extra $37 billion in annual deficit. Obama has already created an extra $1.4 trillion in annual deficit.
But what, exactly, caused the Reagan deficits? There were several factors: the recession of 1982-83, the Reagan defense spending—implemented to turn the screws on the Soviets—the domestic social spending by the Democratic Congress, and more. Some reasons were Reagan’s fault; others were Congress’ doing—both share blame in differing degrees.
Importantly, and despite what you’ve heard, Reagan’s tax cuts didn’t create the deficit. Tax revenues actually boomed from roughly $600 billion in 1981 to $1 trillion in 1989.
The primary cause of the deficit was recession and spending, mainly spending—as is always the case. It is especially the case right now under Obama, with the spending component utterly out-of-control.
The crucial lesson for today is that the best “stimulus” is one that relies on the tried-and-true American way: letting free individuals and entrepreneurs stimulate the economy through their own earnings and economic activity. Wealth confiscation and redistribution by government collectivists and central planners never works; unfortunately, it is that failed, extremely destructive method that Americans elected in November 2008.
For three decades now, the minority of Americans who make up the hard left have been trashing Reaganomics. Well, on November 4, 2008, for the first time in American history, they convinced enough voters to join them in electing the extreme opposite.
At long last, they will pay for the economic consequences of their ideology, as will their children and grandchildren.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Random Thoughts
Random Thoughts
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Random thoughts on the passing scene:
I am so old that I can remember when music was musical.
Now that the federal government says that it will stand behind the warranties on General Motors' automobiles, does that make you more likely or less likely to buy a car from GM? If you were a rising young executive with a promising future, would you be more likely or less likely to go to work for a company where politicians can fire you?
We have become such suckers for words that politicians can spend our tax money like a drunken sailor, provided they call it "investment." At least the drunken sailor is spending his own money but people look down on him because he doesn't call it "investment."
Barack Obama seems determined to repeat every disastrous mistake of the 1930s, at home and abroad. He has already repeated Herbert Hoover's policy of raising taxes on high income earners, FDR's policy of trying to micro-manage the economy and Neville Chamberlain's policy of seeking dialogues with hostile nations while downplaying the dangers they represent.
We seem to be moving steadily in the direction of a society where no one is responsible for what he himself did but we are all responsible for what somebody else did, either in the present or in the past.
The famous editorial cartoonist Herblock could write as well as draw. In one of his books, he said something like: "You too can have the soothing feeling of nature's own baby-soft wool being pulled gently over your resting eyes." I think of that every time I see Barack Obama talking.
It has long been said that uncertainty is the hardest thing for a market to adjust to. No one can generate uncertainty as much as the government, which can change the rules in midstream or come out with some new bright idea at any time, as the current administration has already demonstrated.
We have now reached the truly dangerous point where we cannot even be warned about the lethal, fanatical and suicidal hatred of our society by Islamic extremists, because to do so would be politically incorrect and, in some European countries, would be a violation of the law against inciting hostility to groups.
Perhaps the scariest aspect of our times is how many people think in talking points, rather than in terms of real world consequences.
Barack Obama's favorable reception during his tour in Europe may be the most enthusiastic international acclaim for a democratic government leader since Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich in 1938, proclaiming "peace in our time."
How a man who holds the entire population of a country as his prisoners, and punishes the families of those who escape, can be admired by people who call themselves liberals is one of the many wonders of the human mind's ability to rationalize. Yet such is the case with Fidel Castro.
What does "economic justice" mean, except that you want something that someone else produced, without having to produce anything yourself in return?
Perhaps the way President Obama will reduce the deficit is by making more presidential appointments of people who will pay the back taxes they owe, in order to get confirmed by the Senate.
Liberals seem to think that they are doing lagging groups a favor by making excuses for counterproductive and self-destructive behavior. The poor do not need press agents. They need the truth. No one ever said, "Press agents will make you free."
If I were Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, I would not sign any long-term lease on a home in Washington.
Socialists believe in government ownership of the means of production. Fascists believed in government control of privately owned businesses, which is much more the style of this government. That way, politicians can intervene whenever they feel like it and then, when their interventions turn out badly, summon executives from the private sector before Congress and denounce them on nationwide television.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Random thoughts on the passing scene:
I am so old that I can remember when music was musical.
Now that the federal government says that it will stand behind the warranties on General Motors' automobiles, does that make you more likely or less likely to buy a car from GM? If you were a rising young executive with a promising future, would you be more likely or less likely to go to work for a company where politicians can fire you?
We have become such suckers for words that politicians can spend our tax money like a drunken sailor, provided they call it "investment." At least the drunken sailor is spending his own money but people look down on him because he doesn't call it "investment."
Barack Obama seems determined to repeat every disastrous mistake of the 1930s, at home and abroad. He has already repeated Herbert Hoover's policy of raising taxes on high income earners, FDR's policy of trying to micro-manage the economy and Neville Chamberlain's policy of seeking dialogues with hostile nations while downplaying the dangers they represent.
We seem to be moving steadily in the direction of a society where no one is responsible for what he himself did but we are all responsible for what somebody else did, either in the present or in the past.
The famous editorial cartoonist Herblock could write as well as draw. In one of his books, he said something like: "You too can have the soothing feeling of nature's own baby-soft wool being pulled gently over your resting eyes." I think of that every time I see Barack Obama talking.
It has long been said that uncertainty is the hardest thing for a market to adjust to. No one can generate uncertainty as much as the government, which can change the rules in midstream or come out with some new bright idea at any time, as the current administration has already demonstrated.
We have now reached the truly dangerous point where we cannot even be warned about the lethal, fanatical and suicidal hatred of our society by Islamic extremists, because to do so would be politically incorrect and, in some European countries, would be a violation of the law against inciting hostility to groups.
Perhaps the scariest aspect of our times is how many people think in talking points, rather than in terms of real world consequences.
Barack Obama's favorable reception during his tour in Europe may be the most enthusiastic international acclaim for a democratic government leader since Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich in 1938, proclaiming "peace in our time."
How a man who holds the entire population of a country as his prisoners, and punishes the families of those who escape, can be admired by people who call themselves liberals is one of the many wonders of the human mind's ability to rationalize. Yet such is the case with Fidel Castro.
What does "economic justice" mean, except that you want something that someone else produced, without having to produce anything yourself in return?
Perhaps the way President Obama will reduce the deficit is by making more presidential appointments of people who will pay the back taxes they owe, in order to get confirmed by the Senate.
Liberals seem to think that they are doing lagging groups a favor by making excuses for counterproductive and self-destructive behavior. The poor do not need press agents. They need the truth. No one ever said, "Press agents will make you free."
If I were Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, I would not sign any long-term lease on a home in Washington.
Socialists believe in government ownership of the means of production. Fascists believed in government control of privately owned businesses, which is much more the style of this government. That way, politicians can intervene whenever they feel like it and then, when their interventions turn out badly, summon executives from the private sector before Congress and denounce them on nationwide television.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Is Obama Afraid of the J-Word?
Is Obama Afraid of the J-Word?
Chuck Norris
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
According to a new national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 11 percent of Americans still believe President Barack Obama is a Muslim. Seven percent of Democrats believe it. And nearly 20 percent of evangelicals do.
What I find fascinating is that the same study shows only 55 percent of Democrats know or believe Obama is a Christian, even after Obama spent nearly two years on the presidential campaign trail spouting his views and beliefs on everything under the sun.
Moreover, about 1 in 3 people don't have any idea what his religious convictions are. Should the percentages be that high? Religion might be a private choice, but should it be a secret one, too, even for leaders?
While those stats say something about Obama's neutrality and respect for representing our nation's religious melting pot, they also say something about the politically correct climate across our land, in which people are afraid to stand up for their convictions so as not to be branded as intolerant or bigots. We have become a nation that fears opinion. Even Holy Week, once celebrated in the corridors of the Capitol, is now a clandestine commemoration full of holy hesitations.
America's Founders built this nation upon religious freedom. They valued denominational pluralism. They were unified in their diversity. They all believed in a Creator. And they were almost all vocal about their Christian beliefs. They certainly weren't ashamed. And neither should we be, especially during this week.
I believe in God, just as our Founders did. As Benjamin Franklin noted in his 1787 pamphlet for those in Europe thinking of relocating to America: "To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there."
I also believe in the First Amendment, which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The American Civil Liberties Union and like-minded groups are not preserving First Amendment rights; they are perverting the meaning of the Establishment Clause (which was to prevent the creation of a national church, such as the Church of England) to deny the Free Exercise Clause (which preserves our right to worship as we want, privately and publicly). Both clauses were intended to safeguard religious liberty, not to circumscribe its practice. The Framers were seeking to guarantee a freedom of religion, not a freedom from religion.
I agree with John Jay -- the first chief justice of the United States, appointed by George Washington -- who wrote to Jedidiah Morse Feb. 28, 1797 (the same year the Treaty of Tripoli was ratified): "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." I believe that we should not fear religious diversity, but we never should forget we were born a Christian nation.
Under Article VI, Section 3 of the new Constitution, denominational tests for public office were prohibited, but the idea that Judeo-Christian ideas and practices must be kept separate from government would have struck our Founders as ridiculous because the very basis for the Founders' ideas were rights that were endowed upon all of us by our Creator.
Many may not realize there was an active clergyman (Presbyterian minister John Witherspoon) among the signers of the Declaration of Independence. And two others had been ministers previously. Others were sons of clergymen. Virtually all were Protestants.
Even signers of the Constitution included Abraham Baldwin, a minister. Others had studied religion but never were ordained. And again, most signers of the Constitution were also Protestants. Two, Charles Carroll and Thomas Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics.
I, too, respect all religions but adhere to one. I believe what Benjamin Rush -- a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the presidential administrations of Adams, Jefferson and Madison -- wrote: "Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth, than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament."
Like George Washington, I don't believe we can maintain morality and civility apart from a religious foundation: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. … Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Mostly, I believe in the collection of beliefs stated so poetically in the Apostles' Creed: "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ His only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and buried; he descended to the grave: the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from where he will come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit; the holy Christian church; the fellowship of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and eternal life. Amen."
No Holy Week hesitations here. His name is Jesus, and I believe he was born into this world to die for the sins of mankind, that whosoever believes in him shall have eternal life -- just as I chose to do decades ago at a Billy Graham crusade in Los Angeles.
Is Obama afraid of the word "Jesus"? I'm not, and maybe that's where my heart and mind should dwell during this period, in which 1 billion people around the world are commemorating his Via Dolorosa. Rather than asking what we believe about Obama's religion, maybe we should be answering what we believe about ours.
Whatever your religious persuasion, don't be ashamed of it. And don't hesitate to let others know where you stand, but do so with respect. This is America. And that's one of the things that still make us a great nation. In God we trust.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Chuck Norris
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
According to a new national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 11 percent of Americans still believe President Barack Obama is a Muslim. Seven percent of Democrats believe it. And nearly 20 percent of evangelicals do.
What I find fascinating is that the same study shows only 55 percent of Democrats know or believe Obama is a Christian, even after Obama spent nearly two years on the presidential campaign trail spouting his views and beliefs on everything under the sun.
Moreover, about 1 in 3 people don't have any idea what his religious convictions are. Should the percentages be that high? Religion might be a private choice, but should it be a secret one, too, even for leaders?
While those stats say something about Obama's neutrality and respect for representing our nation's religious melting pot, they also say something about the politically correct climate across our land, in which people are afraid to stand up for their convictions so as not to be branded as intolerant or bigots. We have become a nation that fears opinion. Even Holy Week, once celebrated in the corridors of the Capitol, is now a clandestine commemoration full of holy hesitations.
America's Founders built this nation upon religious freedom. They valued denominational pluralism. They were unified in their diversity. They all believed in a Creator. And they were almost all vocal about their Christian beliefs. They certainly weren't ashamed. And neither should we be, especially during this week.
I believe in God, just as our Founders did. As Benjamin Franklin noted in his 1787 pamphlet for those in Europe thinking of relocating to America: "To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there."
I also believe in the First Amendment, which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The American Civil Liberties Union and like-minded groups are not preserving First Amendment rights; they are perverting the meaning of the Establishment Clause (which was to prevent the creation of a national church, such as the Church of England) to deny the Free Exercise Clause (which preserves our right to worship as we want, privately and publicly). Both clauses were intended to safeguard religious liberty, not to circumscribe its practice. The Framers were seeking to guarantee a freedom of religion, not a freedom from religion.
I agree with John Jay -- the first chief justice of the United States, appointed by George Washington -- who wrote to Jedidiah Morse Feb. 28, 1797 (the same year the Treaty of Tripoli was ratified): "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." I believe that we should not fear religious diversity, but we never should forget we were born a Christian nation.
Under Article VI, Section 3 of the new Constitution, denominational tests for public office were prohibited, but the idea that Judeo-Christian ideas and practices must be kept separate from government would have struck our Founders as ridiculous because the very basis for the Founders' ideas were rights that were endowed upon all of us by our Creator.
Many may not realize there was an active clergyman (Presbyterian minister John Witherspoon) among the signers of the Declaration of Independence. And two others had been ministers previously. Others were sons of clergymen. Virtually all were Protestants.
Even signers of the Constitution included Abraham Baldwin, a minister. Others had studied religion but never were ordained. And again, most signers of the Constitution were also Protestants. Two, Charles Carroll and Thomas Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics.
I, too, respect all religions but adhere to one. I believe what Benjamin Rush -- a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the presidential administrations of Adams, Jefferson and Madison -- wrote: "Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth, than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament."
Like George Washington, I don't believe we can maintain morality and civility apart from a religious foundation: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. … Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Mostly, I believe in the collection of beliefs stated so poetically in the Apostles' Creed: "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ His only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and buried; he descended to the grave: the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from where he will come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit; the holy Christian church; the fellowship of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and eternal life. Amen."
No Holy Week hesitations here. His name is Jesus, and I believe he was born into this world to die for the sins of mankind, that whosoever believes in him shall have eternal life -- just as I chose to do decades ago at a Billy Graham crusade in Los Angeles.
Is Obama afraid of the word "Jesus"? I'm not, and maybe that's where my heart and mind should dwell during this period, in which 1 billion people around the world are commemorating his Via Dolorosa. Rather than asking what we believe about Obama's religion, maybe we should be answering what we believe about ours.
Whatever your religious persuasion, don't be ashamed of it. And don't hesitate to let others know where you stand, but do so with respect. This is America. And that's one of the things that still make us a great nation. In God we trust.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Trouble in River City
Trouble in River City
Cal Thomas
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
When Meredith Willson wrote the wildly popular musical "The Music Man" half a century ago, Harold Hill proclaimed trouble had come to River City, Iowa in the form of a pool hall, which he claimed would corrupt young people unless the local citizens bought the musical instruments he was selling and got their kids into a marching band. He promised that playing music would keep kids from "fritterin' away their mealtime, suppertime, chore time, too" and going to the track to watch "some stuck-up jockey boy sittin' on Dan Patch."
Neither Willson, nor his mythical character Hill, could have foreseen what "trouble" the Iowa Supreme Court has brought on the state (and potentially the nation) when it unanimously ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry "does not substantially further any important government objective," in the words of Justice Mark S. Cady, who wrote the opinion for the seven-member court.
Opponents of same-sex marriage vow to fight the ruling; but Iowa law requires a two-year process to amend the state constitution and with Democrats controlling the legislature and homosexuals a significant part of the party's base, it is unlikely the ruling will be overturned.
One must hand it to the gay rights movement. They have taken advantage of a morally exhausted nation that tolerates so many things that used to be intolerable -- from abortion, to easy divorce, to pornography. And they have attacked American traditions at their strongest points, from the military, to pressuring Disney to allow "gay days" at their amusement parks, to marriage.
The problem with the Iowa Court ruling is that it vitiates a standard that defined marriage as between two people of the opposite sex, which was God's idea, not government's (see Genesis 2:24), while failing to substitute a new standard.
If homosexual marriage is now one of two equally valid choices, will other options be available anytime soon? On HBO, a popular series called "Big Love" portrays a Mormon polygamist and his three wives (he nearly took a fourth wife this season). I wonder why this never works with a woman having three husbands? But I digress, or do I? If this man lived in Iowa and wanted three wives, how could the Iowa Supreme Court stop him? Utah was not allowed to enter the Union until it agreed to outlaw polygamy. Today, under the new "no standards" established by the Iowa Supreme Court, it would be impossible to enforce anything.
As Iowa and other courts continue to dismantle the foundations of our nation without the approval of its citizens (each time the public gets an opportunity to vote on marriage, it votes to uphold the male-female version), they have an obligation to say where they intend to take us. What is the new standard for human relationships? Or do we make this up as we go, bowing to whatever pressure group makes the most noise?
To those on the political and religious right who are intent on continuing the battle to preserve "traditional marriage" in a nation that is rapidly discarding its traditions, I would ask this question: what poses a greater threat to our remaining moral underpinnings? Is it two homosexuals living together, or is it the number of heterosexuals who are divorcing and the increasing number of children born to unmarried women, now at nearly 40 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?
Most of those who are disturbed about same-sex marriage are not as exercised about preserving heterosexual marriage. That's because it doesn't raise money and won't get them on TV. Some preachers would rather demonize gays than oppose heterosexuals who violate their vows by divorcing, often causing harm to their children. That's because so many in their congregations have been divorced and preaching against divorce might cause some to leave and take their contributions with them.
The battle over same-sex marriage is on the way to being lost. For conservatives who still have faith in the political system to reverse the momentum, you are -- to recall Harold Hill -- "closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge."
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Cal Thomas
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
When Meredith Willson wrote the wildly popular musical "The Music Man" half a century ago, Harold Hill proclaimed trouble had come to River City, Iowa in the form of a pool hall, which he claimed would corrupt young people unless the local citizens bought the musical instruments he was selling and got their kids into a marching band. He promised that playing music would keep kids from "fritterin' away their mealtime, suppertime, chore time, too" and going to the track to watch "some stuck-up jockey boy sittin' on Dan Patch."
Neither Willson, nor his mythical character Hill, could have foreseen what "trouble" the Iowa Supreme Court has brought on the state (and potentially the nation) when it unanimously ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry "does not substantially further any important government objective," in the words of Justice Mark S. Cady, who wrote the opinion for the seven-member court.
Opponents of same-sex marriage vow to fight the ruling; but Iowa law requires a two-year process to amend the state constitution and with Democrats controlling the legislature and homosexuals a significant part of the party's base, it is unlikely the ruling will be overturned.
One must hand it to the gay rights movement. They have taken advantage of a morally exhausted nation that tolerates so many things that used to be intolerable -- from abortion, to easy divorce, to pornography. And they have attacked American traditions at their strongest points, from the military, to pressuring Disney to allow "gay days" at their amusement parks, to marriage.
The problem with the Iowa Court ruling is that it vitiates a standard that defined marriage as between two people of the opposite sex, which was God's idea, not government's (see Genesis 2:24), while failing to substitute a new standard.
If homosexual marriage is now one of two equally valid choices, will other options be available anytime soon? On HBO, a popular series called "Big Love" portrays a Mormon polygamist and his three wives (he nearly took a fourth wife this season). I wonder why this never works with a woman having three husbands? But I digress, or do I? If this man lived in Iowa and wanted three wives, how could the Iowa Supreme Court stop him? Utah was not allowed to enter the Union until it agreed to outlaw polygamy. Today, under the new "no standards" established by the Iowa Supreme Court, it would be impossible to enforce anything.
As Iowa and other courts continue to dismantle the foundations of our nation without the approval of its citizens (each time the public gets an opportunity to vote on marriage, it votes to uphold the male-female version), they have an obligation to say where they intend to take us. What is the new standard for human relationships? Or do we make this up as we go, bowing to whatever pressure group makes the most noise?
To those on the political and religious right who are intent on continuing the battle to preserve "traditional marriage" in a nation that is rapidly discarding its traditions, I would ask this question: what poses a greater threat to our remaining moral underpinnings? Is it two homosexuals living together, or is it the number of heterosexuals who are divorcing and the increasing number of children born to unmarried women, now at nearly 40 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?
Most of those who are disturbed about same-sex marriage are not as exercised about preserving heterosexual marriage. That's because it doesn't raise money and won't get them on TV. Some preachers would rather demonize gays than oppose heterosexuals who violate their vows by divorcing, often causing harm to their children. That's because so many in their congregations have been divorced and preaching against divorce might cause some to leave and take their contributions with them.
The battle over same-sex marriage is on the way to being lost. For conservatives who still have faith in the political system to reverse the momentum, you are -- to recall Harold Hill -- "closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge."
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Monday, April 6, 2009
One Dollar Bill - It's Origins
ONE DOLLAR BILL
Take out a one dollar bill, and look at it. The one dollar bill you're looking at first came off the presses in 1957 in its present design. This so-called paper money is in fact a cotton and linen blend, with red and blue minute silk fibers running through it. It is actually material. We've all washed it without it falling apart. A special blend of ink is used, the contents we will never know. It is overprinted with symbols and then it is starched to make it water resistant and pressed to give it that nice crisp look.
If you look on the front of the bill, you will see the United States Treasury Seal.
On the top you will see the scales for a balanced budget.
In the center you have a carpenter's square, a tool used for an even cut.
Underneath is the Key to the United States Treasury.
That's all pretty easy to figure out, but what is on the back of that dollar bill is something we should all know.
If you turn the bill over, you will see two circles.
Both circles, together, comprise the Great Seal of the United States.
The First Continental Congress requested that Benjamin Franklin and a group of men come up with a Seal. It took them four years to accomplish this task and another two years to get it approved.
If you look at the left-hand circle, you will see a Pyramid.
Notice the face is lighted, and the western side is dark. This country was just beginning.
We had not begun to explore the West or decided what we could do for Western Civilization.
The Pyramid is uncapped, again signifying that we were not even close to being finished.
Inside the capstone you have the all-seeing eye, an ancient symbol for divinity.
It was Franklin's belief that one man couldn't do it alone, but a group of men, with the help of God, could do anything.
"IN GOD WE TRUST" is on this currency.
The Latin above the pyramid - ANNUIT COEPTIS - means,
"God has favored our undertaking."
The Latin below the pyramid - NOVUS ORDO SE CLORUM - means,
"A new order has begun."
At the base of the pyramid is the Roman Numeral for 1776 -MDCCLXXVI.
If you look at the right-hand circle, and check it carefully, you will learn that it is on every National Cemetery in the United States.
It is also on the Parade of Flags Walkway at the Bushnell, Florida National Cemetery, and is the centerpiece of most hero's monuments.
Slightly modified, it is the seal of the President of the United States, and it is always visible whenever he speaks, yet very few people know what the symbols mean.
The Bald Eagle was selected as a symbol for victory for two reasons: First, he is not afraid of a storm; he is strong, and he is smart enough to soar above it.
Secondly, he wears no material crown. We had just broken from the King of England.
Also, notice the shield is unsupported. This country can now stand on its own.
At the top of that shield you have a white bar signifying congress, a unifying factor. We were coming together as one nation.
In the Eagle's beak you will read, "E PLURIBUS UNUM", meaning, "one nation from many people".
Above the Eagle, you have thirteen stars, representing the thirteen original colonies, and any clouds of misunderstanding rolling away. Again, we were coming together as one.
Notice what the Eagle holds in his talons. He holds an olive branch and arrows.
This country wants peace, but we will never be afraid to fight to preserve peace.
The Eagle always wants to face the olive branch, but in time of war, his gaze turns toward the arrows.
They say that the number 13 is an unlucky number.
This is almost a worldwide belief.
You will usually never see a room numbered 13, or any hotels or motels with a 13th floor.
But think about this:
13 original colonies,
13 signers of the Declaration of Independence,
13 stripes on our flag,
13 steps on the Pyramid,
13 letters in the Latin above,
13 letters in "E Pluribus Unum",
13 stars above the Eagle,
13 bars on that shield,
13 leaves on the olive branch,
13 fruits, and if you look closely, 13 arrows.
And, for minorities: the 13th Amendment.
I always ask people, "Why don't you know this?" Your children don't know this, and their history teachers don't know this.
Too many veterans have given up too much to ever let the meaning fade.
Many veterans remember coming home to an America that didn't care.
Too many veterans never came home at all.
Share this page with everyone, so they can learn what is on the back of the UNITED STATES ONE DOLLAR BILL, and what it stands for... Otherwise, they will probably never know...
Take out a one dollar bill, and look at it. The one dollar bill you're looking at first came off the presses in 1957 in its present design. This so-called paper money is in fact a cotton and linen blend, with red and blue minute silk fibers running through it. It is actually material. We've all washed it without it falling apart. A special blend of ink is used, the contents we will never know. It is overprinted with symbols and then it is starched to make it water resistant and pressed to give it that nice crisp look.
If you look on the front of the bill, you will see the United States Treasury Seal.
On the top you will see the scales for a balanced budget.
In the center you have a carpenter's square, a tool used for an even cut.
Underneath is the Key to the United States Treasury.
That's all pretty easy to figure out, but what is on the back of that dollar bill is something we should all know.
If you turn the bill over, you will see two circles.
Both circles, together, comprise the Great Seal of the United States.
The First Continental Congress requested that Benjamin Franklin and a group of men come up with a Seal. It took them four years to accomplish this task and another two years to get it approved.
If you look at the left-hand circle, you will see a Pyramid.
Notice the face is lighted, and the western side is dark. This country was just beginning.
We had not begun to explore the West or decided what we could do for Western Civilization.
The Pyramid is uncapped, again signifying that we were not even close to being finished.
Inside the capstone you have the all-seeing eye, an ancient symbol for divinity.
It was Franklin's belief that one man couldn't do it alone, but a group of men, with the help of God, could do anything.
"IN GOD WE TRUST" is on this currency.
The Latin above the pyramid - ANNUIT COEPTIS - means,
"God has favored our undertaking."
The Latin below the pyramid - NOVUS ORDO SE CLORUM - means,
"A new order has begun."
At the base of the pyramid is the Roman Numeral for 1776 -MDCCLXXVI.
If you look at the right-hand circle, and check it carefully, you will learn that it is on every National Cemetery in the United States.
It is also on the Parade of Flags Walkway at the Bushnell, Florida National Cemetery, and is the centerpiece of most hero's monuments.
Slightly modified, it is the seal of the President of the United States, and it is always visible whenever he speaks, yet very few people know what the symbols mean.
The Bald Eagle was selected as a symbol for victory for two reasons: First, he is not afraid of a storm; he is strong, and he is smart enough to soar above it.
Secondly, he wears no material crown. We had just broken from the King of England.
Also, notice the shield is unsupported. This country can now stand on its own.
At the top of that shield you have a white bar signifying congress, a unifying factor. We were coming together as one nation.
In the Eagle's beak you will read, "E PLURIBUS UNUM", meaning, "one nation from many people".
Above the Eagle, you have thirteen stars, representing the thirteen original colonies, and any clouds of misunderstanding rolling away. Again, we were coming together as one.
Notice what the Eagle holds in his talons. He holds an olive branch and arrows.
This country wants peace, but we will never be afraid to fight to preserve peace.
The Eagle always wants to face the olive branch, but in time of war, his gaze turns toward the arrows.
They say that the number 13 is an unlucky number.
This is almost a worldwide belief.
You will usually never see a room numbered 13, or any hotels or motels with a 13th floor.
But think about this:
13 original colonies,
13 signers of the Declaration of Independence,
13 stripes on our flag,
13 steps on the Pyramid,
13 letters in the Latin above,
13 letters in "E Pluribus Unum",
13 stars above the Eagle,
13 bars on that shield,
13 leaves on the olive branch,
13 fruits, and if you look closely, 13 arrows.
And, for minorities: the 13th Amendment.
I always ask people, "Why don't you know this?" Your children don't know this, and their history teachers don't know this.
Too many veterans have given up too much to ever let the meaning fade.
Many veterans remember coming home to an America that didn't care.
Too many veterans never came home at all.
Share this page with everyone, so they can learn what is on the back of the UNITED STATES ONE DOLLAR BILL, and what it stands for... Otherwise, they will probably never know...
Apologizing for America
Apologizing for America
Mona Charen
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
One of President Obama's first official acts was to grant an interview to Al Arabiya, the Arabic language network that broadcasts worldwide. It signified, aides explained, the new page that Obama meant to turn in relations with the Arab and Muslim worlds. Just as he did last week in Europe, Obama began the conversation by criticizing America. Asked about relations between Israel and the Palestinians and the appointment of George Mitchell as special envoy, President Obama said " ... what I told (Mitchell) is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues -- and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen." Throughout the rest of the interview, Obama returned again and again to the word "respect," stressing that his administration -- unlike previous American presidents -- would base relations with the Muslim world on "mutual respect."
In Europe, the president returned to this leitmotif, telling his audience that "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward Europe. He went on to note that Europeans had responded with an anti-Americanism that "is at once casual but can also be insidious." That sounds awfully high-mindedly evenhanded -- except that in Obama's telling, America's arrogance comes first. If that were truly the case, who could blame the Europeans for feeling resentful?
Don't hold your breath waiting for any European to acknowledge that they have been guilty of arrogance. And before giving Obama too much credit for humility, consider that the planted axiom of these declarations is that he is different. It was that ham-handed predecessor of his who blundered through the world, disrespecting allies, needlessly insulting enemies, and crashing through drawing rooms like the proverbial bull, or perhaps like a Texas steer. But as former Ambassador John Bolton reminds us, during the glory days of the Clinton administration, French President Francois Mitterrand said this: "We are at war with America-- a permanent war ... a war without death. They are very hard, the Americans. They are voracious. They want undivided power over the world." Compared with that, the most stinging rebuke to come out of the Bush administration -- Rumsfeld's swipe about "old Europe" -- seems downright polite.
There's nothing wrong with pleasant atmospherics, of course. And if Barack and Michelle Obama wowed the crowds in London and Prague, that's nice. But what you might have missed in all the hyperventilating in the media about the new incarnation of Jack and Jackie was that President Obama was rebuffed by Europe. He had asked them to pass stimulus bills like the one the Democrats passed in the U.S. Germany's Angela Merkel and the others turned that down flat. European nations have even graver problems with promised social safety net programs than we do, and they sensibly decided that further indebting themselves would aggravate rather than alleviate their troubles.
President Obama further requested that more troops be sent to Afghanistan. He wasn't subtle about it either. "Europe should not simply expect the United States to shoulder that burden alone," he said. "This is a joint problem and it requires a joint effort." Adoring crowds notwithstanding, they refused that request as well. Oh, wait. That's not quite true. According to Fox News, "Belgium offered to send 35 military trainers and Spain offered 12."
Back to relations with the Muslim world. Lest this slander pass into conventional wisdom, it must be protested. George W. Bush was never disrespectful to the Muslim world. He was extraordinarily careful to telegraph his respect for the Muslim faith -- some thought to a fault. ("Why is it," asked one wag, "that the only people who say Islam is religion of peace are Christians?") Bush made the Feast of Eid, which marks the end of Ramadan, an annual White House celebration with prominent Muslim guests. He arguably saved more Muslim lives through the African AIDS initiative than any other world leader could claim. Mrs. Bush made improving the lives of women and girls in Afghanistan her special project. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, when this was not an obvious move, he visited the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C., to telegraph to the nation that anger toward American Muslims would be a misplaced response to the atrocity.
This caricature of Bush as a heedless militarist and xenophobe -- which no one is doing more to promote than the current president -- is a libel.
There is one other troubling aspect to President Obama's diplomatic debut. Being eager to ingratiate oneself with Europeans is an understandable liberal impulse. The left wing of the Democratic Party reveres European welfare states. But President Obama also bowed low (literally) before the king of Saudi Arabia. That was more than courtesy; it was abasement.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Mona Charen
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
One of President Obama's first official acts was to grant an interview to Al Arabiya, the Arabic language network that broadcasts worldwide. It signified, aides explained, the new page that Obama meant to turn in relations with the Arab and Muslim worlds. Just as he did last week in Europe, Obama began the conversation by criticizing America. Asked about relations between Israel and the Palestinians and the appointment of George Mitchell as special envoy, President Obama said " ... what I told (Mitchell) is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues -- and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen." Throughout the rest of the interview, Obama returned again and again to the word "respect," stressing that his administration -- unlike previous American presidents -- would base relations with the Muslim world on "mutual respect."
In Europe, the president returned to this leitmotif, telling his audience that "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward Europe. He went on to note that Europeans had responded with an anti-Americanism that "is at once casual but can also be insidious." That sounds awfully high-mindedly evenhanded -- except that in Obama's telling, America's arrogance comes first. If that were truly the case, who could blame the Europeans for feeling resentful?
Don't hold your breath waiting for any European to acknowledge that they have been guilty of arrogance. And before giving Obama too much credit for humility, consider that the planted axiom of these declarations is that he is different. It was that ham-handed predecessor of his who blundered through the world, disrespecting allies, needlessly insulting enemies, and crashing through drawing rooms like the proverbial bull, or perhaps like a Texas steer. But as former Ambassador John Bolton reminds us, during the glory days of the Clinton administration, French President Francois Mitterrand said this: "We are at war with America-- a permanent war ... a war without death. They are very hard, the Americans. They are voracious. They want undivided power over the world." Compared with that, the most stinging rebuke to come out of the Bush administration -- Rumsfeld's swipe about "old Europe" -- seems downright polite.
There's nothing wrong with pleasant atmospherics, of course. And if Barack and Michelle Obama wowed the crowds in London and Prague, that's nice. But what you might have missed in all the hyperventilating in the media about the new incarnation of Jack and Jackie was that President Obama was rebuffed by Europe. He had asked them to pass stimulus bills like the one the Democrats passed in the U.S. Germany's Angela Merkel and the others turned that down flat. European nations have even graver problems with promised social safety net programs than we do, and they sensibly decided that further indebting themselves would aggravate rather than alleviate their troubles.
President Obama further requested that more troops be sent to Afghanistan. He wasn't subtle about it either. "Europe should not simply expect the United States to shoulder that burden alone," he said. "This is a joint problem and it requires a joint effort." Adoring crowds notwithstanding, they refused that request as well. Oh, wait. That's not quite true. According to Fox News, "Belgium offered to send 35 military trainers and Spain offered 12."
Back to relations with the Muslim world. Lest this slander pass into conventional wisdom, it must be protested. George W. Bush was never disrespectful to the Muslim world. He was extraordinarily careful to telegraph his respect for the Muslim faith -- some thought to a fault. ("Why is it," asked one wag, "that the only people who say Islam is religion of peace are Christians?") Bush made the Feast of Eid, which marks the end of Ramadan, an annual White House celebration with prominent Muslim guests. He arguably saved more Muslim lives through the African AIDS initiative than any other world leader could claim. Mrs. Bush made improving the lives of women and girls in Afghanistan her special project. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, when this was not an obvious move, he visited the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C., to telegraph to the nation that anger toward American Muslims would be a misplaced response to the atrocity.
This caricature of Bush as a heedless militarist and xenophobe -- which no one is doing more to promote than the current president -- is a libel.
There is one other troubling aspect to President Obama's diplomatic debut. Being eager to ingratiate oneself with Europeans is an understandable liberal impulse. The left wing of the Democratic Party reveres European welfare states. But President Obama also bowed low (literally) before the king of Saudi Arabia. That was more than courtesy; it was abasement.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
7 Reasons Why the GOP Comeback Will Begin in 2010
Seven Reasons Why the GOP Comeback Will Begin in 2010
John Hawkins
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Although trying to play Nostradamus with U.S. politics is always a risky endeavor, particularly this early in a political cycle, the odds would seem to heavily favor a GOP comeback in 2010.
Here's why the smart money should be on Elephants instead of Donkeys:
1) History is on our side: Typically, the party in power loses "23 seats in the U.S. House and two in the U.S. Senate in a new president’s first midterm election."
Certainly, that's not always the case. For example, George Bush actually gained seats in the post-9/11 environment that the GOP ran in back in 2002, but you've still got to love our chances.
2) The GOP is starting to pull it together: Throughout George Bush's time in office, particularly in his last term, the GOP was a pile of mush that tried to please everyone and as a result, ended up pleasing no one. They talked ceaselessly about cutting the size of government, cutting the deficit, and enforcing immigration laws even as they expanded government, pumped up the deficit, and worked towards amnesty and open borders.
However, in the first two months of the Obama Administration, we've seen Republicans put teeth behind their rhetoric for the first time in eight years. For example, no Republican in the House and only three in the Senate voted for the Stimulus Bill while not a single Republican in Congress supported Obama's extravagant budget. For the first time in years, voters are being genuinely presented with a clear, unequivocal choice: capitalism or socialism? Out-of-control deficits that destroy America economically or fiscal responsibility? A government that believes in limits on its power or power-hungry statists who want to take permanent government control of banking, finance, the auto industry, the Internet, and health care? In a center-right country, that sort of clarity favors us.
3) The economy: Although we can be certain that the economy will eventually recover, probably some time between late 2009 and early-to-mid 2010 (although who really knows), the public's perception of the economy generally lags far behind actual economic growth.
In other words, even if the economy improves by mid-2010 and the media trumpets it to the skies, the public still may be skeptical -- and the Democrats would be sure to get the blame. Couple that with a housing market that is likely years away from getting back to 2008 numbers, gas prices that are likely to rise, a jobless rate at 8.5% and rising, and a level of debt that has grown so large that it imperils the continued prosperity of our country -- and economic worries are still likely to be very prevalent in November of 2010.
4) How much lower can the Republicans go?: We are still a two-party country and after a couple of stupendously bad election cycles in a row, how much farther is the GOP even capable of falling at this point, absent a Whig-style complete meltdown? Just look at the numbers in the House:
Right now, we know that there are at least 70 if not more Democrats who sit in red districts....there are only five Republicans in districts that John Kerry won in 2004
The numbers aren't quite as bleak for the Democrats in the Senate, but clearly, almost all the low hanging fruit has already been picked in the last two elections.
5) No Bush: George Bush was the leader of the Republican Party and with his approval in the low thirties in late 2006 and in the mid-twenties in late 2008, it was like every Republican running for office had strapped his boot laces to the Titanic. In 2010, the GOP isn't going to have one of the least popular Presidents in American history as its front man.
6) Barack Obama isn't going to be on the ballot: Obama will certainly be able to help the Democrats in 2010, even if his popularity has dropped significantly from where it is today, by raising money and doing campaign appearances. So, unless the bottom has completely fallen out of his presidency, he should be an asset for them.
However, he is not going to be on the ballot and thus far, he has shown little ability to mobilize his supporters to do anything other than vote for him. Will young voters and black voters turn out to vote if Obama isn't on the ticket?
Probably not. In fact, Obama may have a lot of trouble turning them out himself in 2012. After all, voting the first black President into office was a history-making event. Doing it again, on the other hand, would just be a boring vote for more-of-the-same.
7) Barack Obama's radicalism: So far, Obama has turned out to be worse than the worst case scenario that the GOP posited during the 2008 election. He is on pace to run up a larger deficit than every other U.S. President combined, he has repealed welfare reform, he's trying to take over and micromanage large segments of the economy, and via Cap and Trade he has proposed the largest tax increase in history -- one that would hit the poor and middle class particularly hard.
Even though Obama has been in office for less than ninety days, a lot of people who pulled the lever for him are probably already wishing there were more Republicans in office to help keep him from governing like such a Hugo Chavez wannabe.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
John Hawkins
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Although trying to play Nostradamus with U.S. politics is always a risky endeavor, particularly this early in a political cycle, the odds would seem to heavily favor a GOP comeback in 2010.
Here's why the smart money should be on Elephants instead of Donkeys:
1) History is on our side: Typically, the party in power loses "23 seats in the U.S. House and two in the U.S. Senate in a new president’s first midterm election."
Certainly, that's not always the case. For example, George Bush actually gained seats in the post-9/11 environment that the GOP ran in back in 2002, but you've still got to love our chances.
2) The GOP is starting to pull it together: Throughout George Bush's time in office, particularly in his last term, the GOP was a pile of mush that tried to please everyone and as a result, ended up pleasing no one. They talked ceaselessly about cutting the size of government, cutting the deficit, and enforcing immigration laws even as they expanded government, pumped up the deficit, and worked towards amnesty and open borders.
However, in the first two months of the Obama Administration, we've seen Republicans put teeth behind their rhetoric for the first time in eight years. For example, no Republican in the House and only three in the Senate voted for the Stimulus Bill while not a single Republican in Congress supported Obama's extravagant budget. For the first time in years, voters are being genuinely presented with a clear, unequivocal choice: capitalism or socialism? Out-of-control deficits that destroy America economically or fiscal responsibility? A government that believes in limits on its power or power-hungry statists who want to take permanent government control of banking, finance, the auto industry, the Internet, and health care? In a center-right country, that sort of clarity favors us.
3) The economy: Although we can be certain that the economy will eventually recover, probably some time between late 2009 and early-to-mid 2010 (although who really knows), the public's perception of the economy generally lags far behind actual economic growth.
In other words, even if the economy improves by mid-2010 and the media trumpets it to the skies, the public still may be skeptical -- and the Democrats would be sure to get the blame. Couple that with a housing market that is likely years away from getting back to 2008 numbers, gas prices that are likely to rise, a jobless rate at 8.5% and rising, and a level of debt that has grown so large that it imperils the continued prosperity of our country -- and economic worries are still likely to be very prevalent in November of 2010.
4) How much lower can the Republicans go?: We are still a two-party country and after a couple of stupendously bad election cycles in a row, how much farther is the GOP even capable of falling at this point, absent a Whig-style complete meltdown? Just look at the numbers in the House:
Right now, we know that there are at least 70 if not more Democrats who sit in red districts....there are only five Republicans in districts that John Kerry won in 2004
The numbers aren't quite as bleak for the Democrats in the Senate, but clearly, almost all the low hanging fruit has already been picked in the last two elections.
5) No Bush: George Bush was the leader of the Republican Party and with his approval in the low thirties in late 2006 and in the mid-twenties in late 2008, it was like every Republican running for office had strapped his boot laces to the Titanic. In 2010, the GOP isn't going to have one of the least popular Presidents in American history as its front man.
6) Barack Obama isn't going to be on the ballot: Obama will certainly be able to help the Democrats in 2010, even if his popularity has dropped significantly from where it is today, by raising money and doing campaign appearances. So, unless the bottom has completely fallen out of his presidency, he should be an asset for them.
However, he is not going to be on the ballot and thus far, he has shown little ability to mobilize his supporters to do anything other than vote for him. Will young voters and black voters turn out to vote if Obama isn't on the ticket?
Probably not. In fact, Obama may have a lot of trouble turning them out himself in 2012. After all, voting the first black President into office was a history-making event. Doing it again, on the other hand, would just be a boring vote for more-of-the-same.
7) Barack Obama's radicalism: So far, Obama has turned out to be worse than the worst case scenario that the GOP posited during the 2008 election. He is on pace to run up a larger deficit than every other U.S. President combined, he has repealed welfare reform, he's trying to take over and micromanage large segments of the economy, and via Cap and Trade he has proposed the largest tax increase in history -- one that would hit the poor and middle class particularly hard.
Even though Obama has been in office for less than ninety days, a lot of people who pulled the lever for him are probably already wishing there were more Republicans in office to help keep him from governing like such a Hugo Chavez wannabe.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Gays in Iowa are rejoicing.
Gays in Iowa are Rejoicing.
4-3-2009.
All in all it's just another brick in the wall, as far as the breakdown of the family unit goes. The breakdown of families is only the biggest problem of our society today - that's all. The Gays win but the family loses. It's more acceptance of homosexuality as God is pushed further away. The minority rules. Because now in Iowa gay marriage is legal we are supposed to just accept it - when for Christians (the ones who follow the Bible's teachings anyway) this would be accepting sin. Either we are followers of Jesus or we give in to those who sin as a way of life. We do not have to accept or acknowledge gay marriage, and I won't. It mentioned in a story today that because it is Iowa that means it is "mainstream". Since I actually live in Iowa I can say "bullshit". If the people of Iowa were allowed to vote on whether gay marriage should be legal or not in Iowa the gays would still lose - but that doesn't matter to them. If a bunch of homosexuals moved to Iowa to live as "man and man" or "woman and woman" they would quickly discover that such behavior (and it is behavior rather than an identity) won't go over too well with many of their neighbors.
At the company where I work they provide health insurance for domestic partners and I believe they also cover sex-change operations. We have diversity training that instructs us to treat these people "as normal". I told the diversity lady that since I don't see them as normal and can't see them as normal the best I can do is to be civil to them. I'm not interested in knowing them. That doesn't make me "hateful" or a "homophobe" - I don't hate gays nor do I fear them. I just don't want to know them.
Marriage should always be between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is a perversion. Once we accept perversions where do we draw the line? Should we even draw a line anymore? If gay's can legally marry why not have polygamy, or adults marrying children, or people marrying animals, or cousins, or brothers, or sisters. A perversion is a perversion - once you break Gods laws you may as well go for broke, because your soul will end up at the same destination either way. Below is an article to further illustrate a response of this sad day for our state...
The Preposterous Premise for Gay Marriage
Frank Turek
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
After the passage of Prop 8 in California, homosexuals are still howling that they don’t have “equal rights.” Hopefully, the California Supreme Court will respect the equal rights of voters by affirming Prop 8 because the howls of homosexuals are false. The truth is every person in America already has equal marriage rights!
We’re all playing by the same rules—we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone—every adult person has the same right to marry.
Homosexuals want the court to believe that because of their sexual desires they are a special class of persons that is being discriminated against. In other words, they think that sexual desires guarantee people special legal rights.
That’s a preposterous premise! It would mean that men born with a desire for many women (i.e. most men) are having their rights violated because marriage laws provide no means for polygamy. Likewise, it would mean that people desiring to marry their close relatives don’t have “equal rights” because our marriage laws have no provision for incest. And bisexuals could object because existing marriage laws don’t allow them to marry a man and a woman!
If desires alone guarantee someone special rights, why no special rights for pedophiles and gay bashers? The answer is obvious—because desires, even if you were “born” with them, do not justify behavior, do not make anyone a special class, and should have no impact on our laws.
Laws encourage good behavior or prevent bad behavior. Desires are irrelevant. We enact all kinds of laws that conflict with people’s desires. In fact, that’s why we need them! We wouldn’t need any laws if people always desired to do good, which is why James Madison wrote, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
So there should be no legal class of “gay” or “straight,” just a legal class called “person.” And it doesn’t matter whether persons desire sex with the same or opposite sex, or whether they desire sex with children, parents, or farm animals. What matters is whether the behavior desired is something the law should prohibit, permit or promote. Those are the only three choices we have when it comes to making law.
We already permit homosexuals to pledge themselves to one another “till death do them part.” They can privately commit themselves to one another in every state, and in California domestic partnerships give them all the benefits of marriage. But that’s not enough for homosexual activists. They want homosexuality to be promoted and endorsed by getting the government to call it “marriage.” That way they can get the social approval they want and use the law as a club to beat homosexual values into our school children, businesses, and charities.
Sorry, but there is no “right” to have any sexual relationship officially called “marriage” and have it granted benefits by the state. We have government-backed natural marriage because it benefits the country greatly, especially children, and because we voted for it!
Gay complaints of “discrimination” are bogus as well. Marriage laws do not discriminate against persons, they discriminate against behavior. That’s true of most laws. For example, the Thirteenth Amendment discriminates against the behavior of some businessmen who might like to improve their profits through slavery, but it does not discriminate against those businessmen as persons. And the First Amendment’s freedom-of-religion protections discriminate against the behavior of some Muslims who want to impose Islam on the entire nation, but it does not discriminate against those Muslims as persons. Likewise, our marriage laws discriminate against the desired behaviors of homosexuals, polygamists, bigamists, adulterers, and the incestuous, but they do not discriminate against them as persons.
The nonsensical comparisons to interracial marriage don’t work either. Race is irrelevant to marriage while gender is essential to it. There is nothing wrong with interracial marriages because men and women are designed for one another and can procreate regardless of their racial background. But same-sex marriages can’t procreate or provide a mom and a dad to kids. No law can change that or alleviate the documented health problems that result from same-sex couplings. So our marriage laws should be color blind but not gender blind.
Ironically, it’s not conservatives but homosexual activists who are acting like racists. Instead of asking the state to recognize the preexisting institution of marriage, homosexuals are asking the state to define marriage. That’s exactly what racists were trying to do to prevent interracial marriage. Racists wanted the state to define marriage as only between same-race couples, instead of having the state recognize what marriage already was—the union of a man and a woman regardless of their racial background. While racists and homosexuals may want to alter the legal definition of marriage, they can’t alter the laws of nature that helped lead to the recognition of legal marriage in the first place.
The bottom line is that we’re not discriminating against anyone with our current marriage laws. Like most laws, we’re only discriminating for or against behavior that is good or bad for our country. So this debate really has nothing to do with equal rights, discrimination, hate or bigotry, but whether or not same-sex marriage would be good or bad for our country. As I’ve shown in Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It’s Bad, the evidence clearly shows same-sex marriage would be detrimental to everyone which is why we should oppose it.
If the California Supreme Court overturns Proposition 8, the people who will be denied equal rights are the majority of Californians who voted for it. The rights of more than six million voters will be denied by four judges who refuse to acknowledge a false and preposterous premise. Only democracy will be in the closet at that point.
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
4-3-2009.
All in all it's just another brick in the wall, as far as the breakdown of the family unit goes. The breakdown of families is only the biggest problem of our society today - that's all. The Gays win but the family loses. It's more acceptance of homosexuality as God is pushed further away. The minority rules. Because now in Iowa gay marriage is legal we are supposed to just accept it - when for Christians (the ones who follow the Bible's teachings anyway) this would be accepting sin. Either we are followers of Jesus or we give in to those who sin as a way of life. We do not have to accept or acknowledge gay marriage, and I won't. It mentioned in a story today that because it is Iowa that means it is "mainstream". Since I actually live in Iowa I can say "bullshit". If the people of Iowa were allowed to vote on whether gay marriage should be legal or not in Iowa the gays would still lose - but that doesn't matter to them. If a bunch of homosexuals moved to Iowa to live as "man and man" or "woman and woman" they would quickly discover that such behavior (and it is behavior rather than an identity) won't go over too well with many of their neighbors.
At the company where I work they provide health insurance for domestic partners and I believe they also cover sex-change operations. We have diversity training that instructs us to treat these people "as normal". I told the diversity lady that since I don't see them as normal and can't see them as normal the best I can do is to be civil to them. I'm not interested in knowing them. That doesn't make me "hateful" or a "homophobe" - I don't hate gays nor do I fear them. I just don't want to know them.
Marriage should always be between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is a perversion. Once we accept perversions where do we draw the line? Should we even draw a line anymore? If gay's can legally marry why not have polygamy, or adults marrying children, or people marrying animals, or cousins, or brothers, or sisters. A perversion is a perversion - once you break Gods laws you may as well go for broke, because your soul will end up at the same destination either way. Below is an article to further illustrate a response of this sad day for our state...
The Preposterous Premise for Gay Marriage
Frank Turek
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
After the passage of Prop 8 in California, homosexuals are still howling that they don’t have “equal rights.” Hopefully, the California Supreme Court will respect the equal rights of voters by affirming Prop 8 because the howls of homosexuals are false. The truth is every person in America already has equal marriage rights!
We’re all playing by the same rules—we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone—every adult person has the same right to marry.
Homosexuals want the court to believe that because of their sexual desires they are a special class of persons that is being discriminated against. In other words, they think that sexual desires guarantee people special legal rights.
That’s a preposterous premise! It would mean that men born with a desire for many women (i.e. most men) are having their rights violated because marriage laws provide no means for polygamy. Likewise, it would mean that people desiring to marry their close relatives don’t have “equal rights” because our marriage laws have no provision for incest. And bisexuals could object because existing marriage laws don’t allow them to marry a man and a woman!
If desires alone guarantee someone special rights, why no special rights for pedophiles and gay bashers? The answer is obvious—because desires, even if you were “born” with them, do not justify behavior, do not make anyone a special class, and should have no impact on our laws.
Laws encourage good behavior or prevent bad behavior. Desires are irrelevant. We enact all kinds of laws that conflict with people’s desires. In fact, that’s why we need them! We wouldn’t need any laws if people always desired to do good, which is why James Madison wrote, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
So there should be no legal class of “gay” or “straight,” just a legal class called “person.” And it doesn’t matter whether persons desire sex with the same or opposite sex, or whether they desire sex with children, parents, or farm animals. What matters is whether the behavior desired is something the law should prohibit, permit or promote. Those are the only three choices we have when it comes to making law.
We already permit homosexuals to pledge themselves to one another “till death do them part.” They can privately commit themselves to one another in every state, and in California domestic partnerships give them all the benefits of marriage. But that’s not enough for homosexual activists. They want homosexuality to be promoted and endorsed by getting the government to call it “marriage.” That way they can get the social approval they want and use the law as a club to beat homosexual values into our school children, businesses, and charities.
Sorry, but there is no “right” to have any sexual relationship officially called “marriage” and have it granted benefits by the state. We have government-backed natural marriage because it benefits the country greatly, especially children, and because we voted for it!
Gay complaints of “discrimination” are bogus as well. Marriage laws do not discriminate against persons, they discriminate against behavior. That’s true of most laws. For example, the Thirteenth Amendment discriminates against the behavior of some businessmen who might like to improve their profits through slavery, but it does not discriminate against those businessmen as persons. And the First Amendment’s freedom-of-religion protections discriminate against the behavior of some Muslims who want to impose Islam on the entire nation, but it does not discriminate against those Muslims as persons. Likewise, our marriage laws discriminate against the desired behaviors of homosexuals, polygamists, bigamists, adulterers, and the incestuous, but they do not discriminate against them as persons.
The nonsensical comparisons to interracial marriage don’t work either. Race is irrelevant to marriage while gender is essential to it. There is nothing wrong with interracial marriages because men and women are designed for one another and can procreate regardless of their racial background. But same-sex marriages can’t procreate or provide a mom and a dad to kids. No law can change that or alleviate the documented health problems that result from same-sex couplings. So our marriage laws should be color blind but not gender blind.
Ironically, it’s not conservatives but homosexual activists who are acting like racists. Instead of asking the state to recognize the preexisting institution of marriage, homosexuals are asking the state to define marriage. That’s exactly what racists were trying to do to prevent interracial marriage. Racists wanted the state to define marriage as only between same-race couples, instead of having the state recognize what marriage already was—the union of a man and a woman regardless of their racial background. While racists and homosexuals may want to alter the legal definition of marriage, they can’t alter the laws of nature that helped lead to the recognition of legal marriage in the first place.
The bottom line is that we’re not discriminating against anyone with our current marriage laws. Like most laws, we’re only discriminating for or against behavior that is good or bad for our country. So this debate really has nothing to do with equal rights, discrimination, hate or bigotry, but whether or not same-sex marriage would be good or bad for our country. As I’ve shown in Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It’s Bad, the evidence clearly shows same-sex marriage would be detrimental to everyone which is why we should oppose it.
If the California Supreme Court overturns Proposition 8, the people who will be denied equal rights are the majority of Californians who voted for it. The rights of more than six million voters will be denied by four judges who refuse to acknowledge a false and preposterous premise. Only democracy will be in the closet at that point.
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
April... You Know
April... You Know
Rich Galen
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
I was going to write an April Fool's Day column about how the President of the United States fired the CEO of General Motors and made it clear he wanted the majority of the board of directors to resign and how he was going to replace them with people from the Administration but I thought that was way, WAY too far fetched.
Then I was going to write how the President had appointed a guy to run an outfit named "Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers," but I thought the "and Workers" part was too obvious even for Barack Obama, so that wasn't going to work as an April Fool's prank.
I mean, don't Workers count as part of the Community of Autos? Or did someone want to make certain that the UAW and the AFL-CIO understood they were going to be actually running the Auto Communities ere long?
Next I thought I might write a joke item about how "Health and Human Services nominee Kathleen Sebelius recently corrected three years of tax returns and paid more than $7,000 in back taxes after finding "unintentional errors.'"
The funny part was going to be a when I reported that the Associated Press headlined her appearance before a Senate Subcommittee as part of her confirmation process: "HHS nominee calls for health care fraud crackdown."
But who would believe that on the same day she admitted to missing by $7,000 on her taxes she would have the chutzpah to say she wanted to, "send the signal that there's a new sheriff in town."
No one would believe that, so I couldn't use it as part of my April Fool's Day column.
Then I thought it would be amusing to write that the Japanese Prime Minister dissed the German Prime Minister in the run-up to the G-20 meeting in the UK this week. I was going to suggest that Japan's PM Taro Aso told German PM Angela Merkel not to worry her pretty little head about it, but the Financial Times beat me to it writing that Japan feels "Germany has failed to understand why strong fiscal action is vital for recovery."
After I passed on a bullet point about how Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner had been given the power to decide how much every employee at every bank or financial institution should be paid, I was going to write about how the University of Kentucky went out and hired itself a basketball coach and was going to pay him $35 million over eight years.
I thought it was funny that a public institution could go out and pay a guy $4,375,000 a year to coach 12 teenagers what with public colleges being recipients of federal funds in the form of grants to researchers, tax dollars for teachers, and loans for students and all.
Goes back to Babe Ruth in the 1930's when he was asked what he thought about making more than the President of the United States, Herbert Hoover: "I had a better year than he did," Ruth is reported to have said.
Finally, ending up where we started with the car companies, I watched the press conference by the Obama-appointed Chairman of GM, Fritz Henderson claiming that GM would cover up to nine months of car payments for people who bought a GM vehicle then lost their job.
I thought that had to be an early April Fool's joke. Where would Fritz Henderson get the money to do that? I mean, that would be just about as funny as giving mortgages to people to buy houses who …
Oh. Wait a minute. You mean my tax dollars - already going to people who bought houses they couldn't afford - are now going to go to people who buy cars they can't afford?
Looks like the joke's on me.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Rich Galen
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
I was going to write an April Fool's Day column about how the President of the United States fired the CEO of General Motors and made it clear he wanted the majority of the board of directors to resign and how he was going to replace them with people from the Administration but I thought that was way, WAY too far fetched.
Then I was going to write how the President had appointed a guy to run an outfit named "Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers," but I thought the "and Workers" part was too obvious even for Barack Obama, so that wasn't going to work as an April Fool's prank.
I mean, don't Workers count as part of the Community of Autos? Or did someone want to make certain that the UAW and the AFL-CIO understood they were going to be actually running the Auto Communities ere long?
Next I thought I might write a joke item about how "Health and Human Services nominee Kathleen Sebelius recently corrected three years of tax returns and paid more than $7,000 in back taxes after finding "unintentional errors.'"
The funny part was going to be a when I reported that the Associated Press headlined her appearance before a Senate Subcommittee as part of her confirmation process: "HHS nominee calls for health care fraud crackdown."
But who would believe that on the same day she admitted to missing by $7,000 on her taxes she would have the chutzpah to say she wanted to, "send the signal that there's a new sheriff in town."
No one would believe that, so I couldn't use it as part of my April Fool's Day column.
Then I thought it would be amusing to write that the Japanese Prime Minister dissed the German Prime Minister in the run-up to the G-20 meeting in the UK this week. I was going to suggest that Japan's PM Taro Aso told German PM Angela Merkel not to worry her pretty little head about it, but the Financial Times beat me to it writing that Japan feels "Germany has failed to understand why strong fiscal action is vital for recovery."
After I passed on a bullet point about how Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner had been given the power to decide how much every employee at every bank or financial institution should be paid, I was going to write about how the University of Kentucky went out and hired itself a basketball coach and was going to pay him $35 million over eight years.
I thought it was funny that a public institution could go out and pay a guy $4,375,000 a year to coach 12 teenagers what with public colleges being recipients of federal funds in the form of grants to researchers, tax dollars for teachers, and loans for students and all.
Goes back to Babe Ruth in the 1930's when he was asked what he thought about making more than the President of the United States, Herbert Hoover: "I had a better year than he did," Ruth is reported to have said.
Finally, ending up where we started with the car companies, I watched the press conference by the Obama-appointed Chairman of GM, Fritz Henderson claiming that GM would cover up to nine months of car payments for people who bought a GM vehicle then lost their job.
I thought that had to be an early April Fool's joke. Where would Fritz Henderson get the money to do that? I mean, that would be just about as funny as giving mortgages to people to buy houses who …
Oh. Wait a minute. You mean my tax dollars - already going to people who bought houses they couldn't afford - are now going to go to people who buy cars they can't afford?
Looks like the joke's on me.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Invasion of the Corporate Snatchers
Invasion of the Corporate Snatchers
Cal Thomas
Thursday, April 02, 2009
The plot of the 1956 cult classic "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" seems remarkably similar to the storyline of the Obama administration, which is invading, and appears eager to take over, corporate America. Unfortunately, the reality of the threat to American corporations is far creepier than any science-fiction film could ever be.
Here's Wikipedia's plot summary of "Body Snatchers," with my editorial additions in parentheses: "Set in the fictional town of Santa Mira, Calif., (Washington, D.C.), the plot centers on Dr. Miles Bennell (Rush Limbaugh), a local doctor (radio talk show host), who finds a rash of patients (Americans/listeners) accusing their loved ones of being imposters (collectivists).
"Assured at first by the town psychiatrist, Dr. Dan Kaufman, (Barack Obama), that the cases are nothing but 'epidemic mass hysteria,' Bennell (Limbaugh) soon discovers, with the help of his friend Jack Belicec (Sean Hannity), that the townspeople are, in fact, being replaced by simulations grown from plantlike pods (socialism); perfect physical duplicates who kill (regulate) and dispose of (bankrupt) their human (corporate) victims. The Pod People (duped Americans who know little about capitalism and who have fallen for the "punish the rich" class warfare line) are indistinguishable from normal (free market capitalists) people, except for their utter lack of emotion (the modern version is that Obama supporters respond only to emotion and care little about substance). The Pod People (the duped Americans, who have now become socialists without realizing it) work together to secretly spread more pods (socialism) -- which grew from 'seeds drifting through space (Russia) for years ' -- in order to replace the entire human (capitalist) race (system).
"The film climaxes with Bennell (Limbaugh) and his former sweetheart, Becky Driscoll, (Laura Ingraham) attempting to escape the Pod People, intending to warn the rest of humanity (America). They hide; Driscoll (Ingraham) falls asleep and is subverted. With the Pod People close behind, a seemingly crazed Bennell (Limbaugh) runs onto the highway frantically screaming of the alien force that has overrun Santa Mira (Washington) to the passing motorists and then looks into the camera and yells, 'They're here already! You're next!'"
The government, which is decreasingly capable of running itself, will now dictate to corporate America how to run companies. The Obama administration has even promised that government will insure any warranties that might be in jeopardy should GM and Chrysler declare bankruptcy. It is a dangerous precedent that should frighten all of us into opposing the administration's plans with every fiber of our still free beings.
President Obama says the American auto industry will not be allowed to "simply vanish." No, but the direction in which it is heading will require what's left of the companies to manufacture cars even fewer people want to buy, thus requiring the effective nationalization of the automobile industry. If people aren't buying cars from GM and Chrysler in sufficient numbers to make a profit today, why would they buy them when they are even less attractive?
Obama is Jimmy Carter's second term. In 1977, Carter went on television in the midst of an "energy crisis." Wearing a cardigan to signal that it, not natural gas or heating oil, was the best way to keep warm, he spoke to the American people as if our best days were behind us.
Like President Obama, Carter said we had to sacrifice and "learn to live thriftily," no longer spending or consuming as we had been. It was the year the musical "Annie" became a smash hit on Broadway with its optimistic message, three years before Ronald Reagan won the Republican nomination for president, rejecting Carter's pessimism and instead telling Americans that our best days were yet to come.
That's the message needed today. Government can't revive anything. You might as well ask the dead to get up and walk. Americans must revive themselves with the same vision and purpose that has worked in the past. If we don't want an America that resembles the system we worked 70 years to defeat, we had better get to work quickly, because the socialists are already here and they are plotting which companies to target next.
A bigger political voice than talk radio hosts must carry this message. Is there anyone like Reagan out there? Please call immediately before any more companies are snatched away, taking our freedoms along with them.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Cal Thomas
Thursday, April 02, 2009
The plot of the 1956 cult classic "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" seems remarkably similar to the storyline of the Obama administration, which is invading, and appears eager to take over, corporate America. Unfortunately, the reality of the threat to American corporations is far creepier than any science-fiction film could ever be.
Here's Wikipedia's plot summary of "Body Snatchers," with my editorial additions in parentheses: "Set in the fictional town of Santa Mira, Calif., (Washington, D.C.), the plot centers on Dr. Miles Bennell (Rush Limbaugh), a local doctor (radio talk show host), who finds a rash of patients (Americans/listeners) accusing their loved ones of being imposters (collectivists).
"Assured at first by the town psychiatrist, Dr. Dan Kaufman, (Barack Obama), that the cases are nothing but 'epidemic mass hysteria,' Bennell (Limbaugh) soon discovers, with the help of his friend Jack Belicec (Sean Hannity), that the townspeople are, in fact, being replaced by simulations grown from plantlike pods (socialism); perfect physical duplicates who kill (regulate) and dispose of (bankrupt) their human (corporate) victims. The Pod People (duped Americans who know little about capitalism and who have fallen for the "punish the rich" class warfare line) are indistinguishable from normal (free market capitalists) people, except for their utter lack of emotion (the modern version is that Obama supporters respond only to emotion and care little about substance). The Pod People (the duped Americans, who have now become socialists without realizing it) work together to secretly spread more pods (socialism) -- which grew from 'seeds drifting through space (Russia) for years ' -- in order to replace the entire human (capitalist) race (system).
"The film climaxes with Bennell (Limbaugh) and his former sweetheart, Becky Driscoll, (Laura Ingraham) attempting to escape the Pod People, intending to warn the rest of humanity (America). They hide; Driscoll (Ingraham) falls asleep and is subverted. With the Pod People close behind, a seemingly crazed Bennell (Limbaugh) runs onto the highway frantically screaming of the alien force that has overrun Santa Mira (Washington) to the passing motorists and then looks into the camera and yells, 'They're here already! You're next!'"
The government, which is decreasingly capable of running itself, will now dictate to corporate America how to run companies. The Obama administration has even promised that government will insure any warranties that might be in jeopardy should GM and Chrysler declare bankruptcy. It is a dangerous precedent that should frighten all of us into opposing the administration's plans with every fiber of our still free beings.
President Obama says the American auto industry will not be allowed to "simply vanish." No, but the direction in which it is heading will require what's left of the companies to manufacture cars even fewer people want to buy, thus requiring the effective nationalization of the automobile industry. If people aren't buying cars from GM and Chrysler in sufficient numbers to make a profit today, why would they buy them when they are even less attractive?
Obama is Jimmy Carter's second term. In 1977, Carter went on television in the midst of an "energy crisis." Wearing a cardigan to signal that it, not natural gas or heating oil, was the best way to keep warm, he spoke to the American people as if our best days were behind us.
Like President Obama, Carter said we had to sacrifice and "learn to live thriftily," no longer spending or consuming as we had been. It was the year the musical "Annie" became a smash hit on Broadway with its optimistic message, three years before Ronald Reagan won the Republican nomination for president, rejecting Carter's pessimism and instead telling Americans that our best days were yet to come.
That's the message needed today. Government can't revive anything. You might as well ask the dead to get up and walk. Americans must revive themselves with the same vision and purpose that has worked in the past. If we don't want an America that resembles the system we worked 70 years to defeat, we had better get to work quickly, because the socialists are already here and they are plotting which companies to target next.
A bigger political voice than talk radio hosts must carry this message. Is there anyone like Reagan out there? Please call immediately before any more companies are snatched away, taking our freedoms along with them.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Why Is Rick Wagoner Fired and Nancy Pelosi Still Working?
Why Is Rick Wagoner Fired and Nancy Pelosi Still Working?
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Apparently, it's OK for Obama to fire the head of General Motors, but Bush can't fire his own U.S. attorneys.
It is generally agreed that the Obama administration's demand that Rick Wagoner resign as chairman of General Motors is the price of GM's accepting government money.
To promote the sales of GM vehicles, Obama says the government will stand by your GM car warranty. And all the taxpayers will get a lube job. The new GM owner's manual will come with a disclaimer: "Close enough for government work."
Now that we're all agreed that the government can make hiring and firing decisions based on infusions of taxpayer money, I can think of a lot more government beneficiaries who are badly in need of firing.
Just off the top of my head, how about Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and everybody at the Department of Education?
How about firing all the former Weathermen, like Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Mark Rudd, whose university salaries are subsidized by the taxpayer?
Nearly every university in the country accepts government money. Is there any industry in America more in need of some "restructuring" than academia? What's Berkeley's "business plan" to stop turning out graduates who hate America?
And what is Obama's justification for keeping Shirley M. Tilghman as president of Princeton University as long as Princeton employs prominent crackpot Peter Singer?
Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton's Center for Human Values, believes parents should have the right to kill newborn babies with birth defects, such as Down syndrome and hemophilia, and says there is nothing morally wrong with parents conceiving children in order to harvest them for spare parts for an older child -- or even for society to breed children on a massive scale for spare parts.
His views on these issues are so extreme I'm surprised Singer hasn't been offered a position in the Obama cabinet yet. Perhaps he paid his taxes and was disqualified.
Singer compares the black liberation movement to the liberation of apes, saying we must "extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species." (Imagine if Rush Limbaugh had said that and then go lie down for 20 minutes.)
The esteemed professor Singer also believes sex with animals is acceptable and has no objections to necrophilia -- provided the deceased gave consent when still alive. We're still waiting to hear his views on sex with dead animals. Especially me, as I have no plans for next weekend.
Doesn't a "new vision" for Princeton -- which benefits from massive taxpayer subsidies in the form of student loans and government grants -- require firing the president of Princeton? That university is clearly teetering on the brink of moral bankruptcy.
When is the government going to get around to firing 99 percent of public school superintendents? They're clearly turning out an inferior product -- i.e., America's public school graduates -- as compared to some of the foreign models now available.
In New York City, spending on public schools increased by more than 300 percent between 1982 and 2001, coming in at $11,474 per pupil annually -- compared to about $5,000 for private schools.
But in 2003, a New York court ruled that graduates of New York City's public schools did not have the skills to be "capable of voting and serving on a jury." (Worse, some kids coming out of New York high schools are so stupid they don't even know how to get out of jury duty.)
If Obama can tell GM and Chrysler that their participation in NASCAR is an "unnecessary expenditure," isn't having public schools force students to follow Muslim rituals, recite Islamic prayers and plan "jihads" also an "unnecessary expenditure"? Are all those school condom purchases considered "necessary expenditures"?
Illegal aliens cost the American taxpayer more than $10 billion a year, net, in Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, free school lunches, prison, school and court costs. And yet cities, counties and states across the nation are openly refusing to enforce federal immigration law against illegal aliens -- all while accepting billions of dollars of stimulus money on top of a litany of other federal payouts.
Shouldn't somebody be fired over this? Like maybe Geraldo Rivera?
How about hauling San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom before a congressional committee and firing him? In fact, just being named "Gavin Newsom" should be grounds for dismissal. San Francisco is getting $18 million of stimulus money -- to say nothing of its residents who receive federal money in the form of Social Security payments, government grants, welfare payments, federal highway funds and on and on and on.
Doesn't PBS take federal funds? Obama should really ask Big Bird to step down. While we're at it, shouldn't Tim Geithner be fired?
Now that the government owns everything, there's no end to the dead wood that can be cleared out.
Except the problem is -- as this very partial list demonstrates -- most of the dead wood exists only because of the government in the first place. Capitalism has its own methods of clearing out dead wood, which the government keeps preventing by forcing the taxpayer to bail out capitalism's losers.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Apparently, it's OK for Obama to fire the head of General Motors, but Bush can't fire his own U.S. attorneys.
It is generally agreed that the Obama administration's demand that Rick Wagoner resign as chairman of General Motors is the price of GM's accepting government money.
To promote the sales of GM vehicles, Obama says the government will stand by your GM car warranty. And all the taxpayers will get a lube job. The new GM owner's manual will come with a disclaimer: "Close enough for government work."
Now that we're all agreed that the government can make hiring and firing decisions based on infusions of taxpayer money, I can think of a lot more government beneficiaries who are badly in need of firing.
Just off the top of my head, how about Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and everybody at the Department of Education?
How about firing all the former Weathermen, like Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Mark Rudd, whose university salaries are subsidized by the taxpayer?
Nearly every university in the country accepts government money. Is there any industry in America more in need of some "restructuring" than academia? What's Berkeley's "business plan" to stop turning out graduates who hate America?
And what is Obama's justification for keeping Shirley M. Tilghman as president of Princeton University as long as Princeton employs prominent crackpot Peter Singer?
Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton's Center for Human Values, believes parents should have the right to kill newborn babies with birth defects, such as Down syndrome and hemophilia, and says there is nothing morally wrong with parents conceiving children in order to harvest them for spare parts for an older child -- or even for society to breed children on a massive scale for spare parts.
His views on these issues are so extreme I'm surprised Singer hasn't been offered a position in the Obama cabinet yet. Perhaps he paid his taxes and was disqualified.
Singer compares the black liberation movement to the liberation of apes, saying we must "extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species." (Imagine if Rush Limbaugh had said that and then go lie down for 20 minutes.)
The esteemed professor Singer also believes sex with animals is acceptable and has no objections to necrophilia -- provided the deceased gave consent when still alive. We're still waiting to hear his views on sex with dead animals. Especially me, as I have no plans for next weekend.
Doesn't a "new vision" for Princeton -- which benefits from massive taxpayer subsidies in the form of student loans and government grants -- require firing the president of Princeton? That university is clearly teetering on the brink of moral bankruptcy.
When is the government going to get around to firing 99 percent of public school superintendents? They're clearly turning out an inferior product -- i.e., America's public school graduates -- as compared to some of the foreign models now available.
In New York City, spending on public schools increased by more than 300 percent between 1982 and 2001, coming in at $11,474 per pupil annually -- compared to about $5,000 for private schools.
But in 2003, a New York court ruled that graduates of New York City's public schools did not have the skills to be "capable of voting and serving on a jury." (Worse, some kids coming out of New York high schools are so stupid they don't even know how to get out of jury duty.)
If Obama can tell GM and Chrysler that their participation in NASCAR is an "unnecessary expenditure," isn't having public schools force students to follow Muslim rituals, recite Islamic prayers and plan "jihads" also an "unnecessary expenditure"? Are all those school condom purchases considered "necessary expenditures"?
Illegal aliens cost the American taxpayer more than $10 billion a year, net, in Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, free school lunches, prison, school and court costs. And yet cities, counties and states across the nation are openly refusing to enforce federal immigration law against illegal aliens -- all while accepting billions of dollars of stimulus money on top of a litany of other federal payouts.
Shouldn't somebody be fired over this? Like maybe Geraldo Rivera?
How about hauling San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom before a congressional committee and firing him? In fact, just being named "Gavin Newsom" should be grounds for dismissal. San Francisco is getting $18 million of stimulus money -- to say nothing of its residents who receive federal money in the form of Social Security payments, government grants, welfare payments, federal highway funds and on and on and on.
Doesn't PBS take federal funds? Obama should really ask Big Bird to step down. While we're at it, shouldn't Tim Geithner be fired?
Now that the government owns everything, there's no end to the dead wood that can be cleared out.
Except the problem is -- as this very partial list demonstrates -- most of the dead wood exists only because of the government in the first place. Capitalism has its own methods of clearing out dead wood, which the government keeps preventing by forcing the taxpayer to bail out capitalism's losers.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Who Am I????
Who Am I ???????
I was born in one country , raised in another. My father was born in another country. I was not his only child. He fathered several children with numerous women.
I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me. My mother died at an early age from cancer.
Later in life, questions arose over my real name. My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a legitimate, reliable birth certificate .
I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity, as it was widely accepted in my country, but I practiced non-traditional beliefs & didn't follow Christianity, except in the public eye under scrutiny.
I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult, disguising myself as someone who really cared about them.
That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.
I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.
I became active in local politics in my 30's then with help behind the scenes, I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office in my 40s. They said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into anything. That reinforced my conceit.
I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker and citizens were drawn to me as though I were a magnet and they were small roofing tacks.
I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances. This bolstered my ego.
At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I was very critical of my country in the last war and seized every opportunity to bash my country.
But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better and every poor person would be fed & housed for free.
I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess. It was the free market, banks & corporations. I decided to start making citizens hate them and if they were envious of others who did well, the plan was clinched tight.
I called mine "A People's Campaign" and that sounded good to all people.
I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics & was able to gain widespread popular support.
I knew that, if I merely offered the people 'hope' , together we could change our country and the world.
So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on behalf of the downtrodden, the poor, the ignorant and the "persecuted minorities". My true views were not widely known & I needed to keep them unknown, until after I became my nation's leader.
I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with..
I'm glad they didn't. I became the most powerful man in the world. And the world learned the truth.
Who am I? ..........
ADOLF HITLER .
What? Who did you think it was?
I was born in one country , raised in another. My father was born in another country. I was not his only child. He fathered several children with numerous women.
I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me. My mother died at an early age from cancer.
Later in life, questions arose over my real name. My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a legitimate, reliable birth certificate .
I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity, as it was widely accepted in my country, but I practiced non-traditional beliefs & didn't follow Christianity, except in the public eye under scrutiny.
I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult, disguising myself as someone who really cared about them.
That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.
I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.
I became active in local politics in my 30's then with help behind the scenes, I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office in my 40s. They said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into anything. That reinforced my conceit.
I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker and citizens were drawn to me as though I were a magnet and they were small roofing tacks.
I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances. This bolstered my ego.
At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I was very critical of my country in the last war and seized every opportunity to bash my country.
But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better and every poor person would be fed & housed for free.
I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess. It was the free market, banks & corporations. I decided to start making citizens hate them and if they were envious of others who did well, the plan was clinched tight.
I called mine "A People's Campaign" and that sounded good to all people.
I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics & was able to gain widespread popular support.
I knew that, if I merely offered the people 'hope' , together we could change our country and the world.
So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on behalf of the downtrodden, the poor, the ignorant and the "persecuted minorities". My true views were not widely known & I needed to keep them unknown, until after I became my nation's leader.
I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with..
I'm glad they didn't. I became the most powerful man in the world. And the world learned the truth.
Who am I? ..........
ADOLF HITLER .
What? Who did you think it was?
Saint Nancy (Pelosi).
Nancy Pelosi is now a Saint....CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS ?
On a Saturday afternoon, in Washington, D. C., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's aide visited the Cardinal of the Catholic cathedral.
He told the Cardinal that Nancy Pelosi would be attending the next day's se rmon, and he asked if the Cardinal would kindly point out Pelosi to the congregation and say a few words that would include calling Pelosi a saint.
The Cardinal replied, "No. I don't really like the woman, and there are issues of conflict with the Catholic Church over certain of Pelosi's views." Pelosi's aide then said, "Look. I'll write a check here and now for a donation of $100,000 to your church if you'll just tell the congregation you see Pelosi as a saint."
The Cardinal thought about it and said, "Well, the church can use the money, so I'll work your request into tomorrow's sermon." As Pelosi's aide promised, House Speaker Pelosi appeared for the Sunday sermon and seated herself prominently at the edge of the main aisle.
And, during the sermon, as promised, the Cardinal pointed out that House Speaker Pelosi was present.
Then the Cardinal went on to explain to the congregation -- "While Speaker Pelosi's presence is probably an honor to some, she is not my favorite person. Some of her views are contrary to those of the church, and she tends to flip-flop on many other views. Nancy Pelosi is a petty, self-absorbed hypocrite, a thumb sucker, and a nit-wit. Nancy Pelosi is also a serial liar, a cheat, and a thief.
Nancy Pelosi is the worst example of a Catholic I have ever personally witnessed.
She married for money and is using it to lie to the American people. She also has a reputation for shirking her Representative obligations both in Washington , and in California . She simply is not to be trusted."
The Cardinal completed his view of Pelosi with, "But, when compared to Senators Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and John Kerry, House Speaker Pelosi is a saint."
I have to disagree. Pelosi is just as bad (probably worse) than these other three idiots. I would go so far (and it is far) to say she is even worse than Barack Obama. Barack Obama may be the anti-Christ, but Nancy is more qualified for the job.
On a Saturday afternoon, in Washington, D. C., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's aide visited the Cardinal of the Catholic cathedral.
He told the Cardinal that Nancy Pelosi would be attending the next day's se rmon, and he asked if the Cardinal would kindly point out Pelosi to the congregation and say a few words that would include calling Pelosi a saint.
The Cardinal replied, "No. I don't really like the woman, and there are issues of conflict with the Catholic Church over certain of Pelosi's views." Pelosi's aide then said, "Look. I'll write a check here and now for a donation of $100,000 to your church if you'll just tell the congregation you see Pelosi as a saint."
The Cardinal thought about it and said, "Well, the church can use the money, so I'll work your request into tomorrow's sermon." As Pelosi's aide promised, House Speaker Pelosi appeared for the Sunday sermon and seated herself prominently at the edge of the main aisle.
And, during the sermon, as promised, the Cardinal pointed out that House Speaker Pelosi was present.
Then the Cardinal went on to explain to the congregation -- "While Speaker Pelosi's presence is probably an honor to some, she is not my favorite person. Some of her views are contrary to those of the church, and she tends to flip-flop on many other views. Nancy Pelosi is a petty, self-absorbed hypocrite, a thumb sucker, and a nit-wit. Nancy Pelosi is also a serial liar, a cheat, and a thief.
Nancy Pelosi is the worst example of a Catholic I have ever personally witnessed.
She married for money and is using it to lie to the American people. She also has a reputation for shirking her Representative obligations both in Washington , and in California . She simply is not to be trusted."
The Cardinal completed his view of Pelosi with, "But, when compared to Senators Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and John Kerry, House Speaker Pelosi is a saint."
I have to disagree. Pelosi is just as bad (probably worse) than these other three idiots. I would go so far (and it is far) to say she is even worse than Barack Obama. Barack Obama may be the anti-Christ, but Nancy is more qualified for the job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)