Original data from Internal Revenue Service, July 2011
*This page was last modified on 6 July 2012, at 01:08.
Friday, July 6, 2012
US Federal Individual Income Taxes by Income Level 2001-2009
Original data from Internal Revenue Service, July 2011
*This page was last modified on 6 July 2012, at 01:08.
Presbyterian Church in US considers Israel divestment
Jewish groups claim Israel’s very legitimacy — not just millions of dollars invested in Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard and Motorola — is at stake in vote
A Caterpillar bulldozer clears the area where a smuggling border tunnel between the Gaza Strip and Egypt was targeted by an Israeli air strike at dawn in Rafah, southern Gaza, on July 14, 2011. (photo credit: Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90)
The largest Presbyterian group in the US is considering divesting from three major global companies over the Israeli military’s use of their products in the Palestinian territories.
The proposal before the Presbyterian Church (USA) has outraged many Jewish groups, who sent representatives to the church’s national assembly in Pittsburgh this week to lobby against the measure. Divestment supporters say the targeted companies — Caterpillar Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co. and Motorola — are profiting from Palestinian suffering. The American Jewish Committee, a public policy group, has said the proposal demonizes Israel and threatens Christian-Jewish relations.
Debate and vote were scheduled for late Thursday.
Pro-Palestinian Presbyterians have been trying for years to persuade the denomination to divest. But the church has been dissuaded by US Jewish groups and other Christians who argue that withdrawing investments will not contribute to peace in the region.
At this year’s Presbyterian General Assembly, pro-divestment activists believe momentum is on their side.
Pension funds in Norway and Sweden have divested themselves of holdings in some firms involved in building settlements or helping to erect Israel’s contentious West Bank separation barrier. European activists have stepped up pressure on companies by exposing their West Bank ties and picketing stores that sell goods produced in Israeli settlements.
Last week, the US investment firm MSCI Inc. announced it had removed Caterpillar from three of its popular indexes that track socially responsible investments, leading mutual fund giant TIAA-CREF to divest $72 million in Caterpillar stock.
MSCI was initially reported to have cited concerns about the Israeli military’s use of company bulldozers in the Palestinian territories. On Thursday, however, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations issued a press release to say that MSCI had clarified that the move was strictly a financial decision; the Presidents Conference added that it was satisfied with the explanation and considered the matter closed.
Caterpillar has come under scrutiny because of the Israeli military’s use of armored-plated Caterpillar bulldozers. Caterpillar says it does not equip tractors with armor or sell directly to the Israeli military. Instead, equipment is first sold to the US government and then resold to Israel and outfitted for military use.
Other major American Protestant denominations, including the United Methodist Church and the Episcopal Church, have rejected past divestment proposals.
The exact amount of money involved in the Presbyterian divestment is unclear. The funds are divided between the church Board of Pensions and the Presbyterian Foundation. The board investments are estimated to be around $16 million.
However negligible the economic impact, pro-Palestinian activists consider the withdrawal of funds an act of social witness.
The Rev. Walt Davis, of the Israel Palestine Mission Network, a pro-Palestinian Presbyterian group, argued the denomination would have divested years ago from the companies under church’s socially responsible investment guidelines “were it not for the Israel lobby.”
“They said first that it’s anti-Semitic, then that it’s anti-Israel, then that it delegitimizes Israel. It’s none of those,” Davis said. “It’s us being true to our values.”
But the liberal-leaning Americans for Peace Now, which calls for the evacuation of Jewish settlements in the territories and supports a Palestinian state, said the Presbyterian effort was “misguided and counterproductive.”
“Divestment campaigns such as this therefore raise very real and understandable worries about global anti-Semitism and the perception that the campaigns are not truly (or only) about Israeli policies but rather reflect a deep-seated hatred for and rejection of Israel,” the group said in a statement ahead of the vote.
The largest Presbyterian group in the US is considering divesting from three major global companies over the Israeli military’s use of their products in the Palestinian territories.
The proposal before the Presbyterian Church (USA) has outraged many Jewish groups, who sent representatives to the church’s national assembly in Pittsburgh this week to lobby against the measure. Divestment supporters say the targeted companies — Caterpillar Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co. and Motorola — are profiting from Palestinian suffering. The American Jewish Committee, a public policy group, has said the proposal demonizes Israel and threatens Christian-Jewish relations.
Debate and vote were scheduled for late Thursday.
Pro-Palestinian Presbyterians have been trying for years to persuade the denomination to divest. But the church has been dissuaded by US Jewish groups and other Christians who argue that withdrawing investments will not contribute to peace in the region.
At this year’s Presbyterian General Assembly, pro-divestment activists believe momentum is on their side.
Pension funds in Norway and Sweden have divested themselves of holdings in some firms involved in building settlements or helping to erect Israel’s contentious West Bank separation barrier. European activists have stepped up pressure on companies by exposing their West Bank ties and picketing stores that sell goods produced in Israeli settlements.
Last week, the US investment firm MSCI Inc. announced it had removed Caterpillar from three of its popular indexes that track socially responsible investments, leading mutual fund giant TIAA-CREF to divest $72 million in Caterpillar stock.
MSCI was initially reported to have cited concerns about the Israeli military’s use of company bulldozers in the Palestinian territories. On Thursday, however, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations issued a press release to say that MSCI had clarified that the move was strictly a financial decision; the Presidents Conference added that it was satisfied with the explanation and considered the matter closed.
Caterpillar has come under scrutiny because of the Israeli military’s use of armored-plated Caterpillar bulldozers. Caterpillar says it does not equip tractors with armor or sell directly to the Israeli military. Instead, equipment is first sold to the US government and then resold to Israel and outfitted for military use.
Other major American Protestant denominations, including the United Methodist Church and the Episcopal Church, have rejected past divestment proposals.
The exact amount of money involved in the Presbyterian divestment is unclear. The funds are divided between the church Board of Pensions and the Presbyterian Foundation. The board investments are estimated to be around $16 million.
However negligible the economic impact, pro-Palestinian activists consider the withdrawal of funds an act of social witness.
The Rev. Walt Davis, of the Israel Palestine Mission Network, a pro-Palestinian Presbyterian group, argued the denomination would have divested years ago from the companies under church’s socially responsible investment guidelines “were it not for the Israel lobby.”
“They said first that it’s anti-Semitic, then that it’s anti-Israel, then that it delegitimizes Israel. It’s none of those,” Davis said. “It’s us being true to our values.”
But the liberal-leaning Americans for Peace Now, which calls for the evacuation of Jewish settlements in the territories and supports a Palestinian state, said the Presbyterian effort was “misguided and counterproductive.”
“Divestment campaigns such as this therefore raise very real and understandable worries about global anti-Semitism and the perception that the campaigns are not truly (or only) about Israeli policies but rather reflect a deep-seated hatred for and rejection of Israel,” the group said in a statement ahead of the vote.
Destroying the Young with Permanent Bailouts
The tyranny of banking deposit insurance is leading young people to hate 'the market'...
Why aren't young people protesting against bailouts?
Younger adults are usually pretty quick to protest injustices, but they're strangely quiet on financial rescues. Few of them seem able to join the dots and see that bailouts are clobbering them hardest.
#1. The British economy is currently in a state of permanent government bailout. After spending all the money it raises in taxes our government prints £15 of new money per working person, per day, which it injects into the economy as public sector wages. The amount of cash in our system increases daily by about £300 million, as does the debt of the British government. If the tap were turned off we would sink into depression and most of our banks would fail amid a whirl of default and collapsing asset prices. That might be a bad thing, as most people think, or a good thing. It depends on whether you already own some of those assets, or whether you don't, but would like to one day.
#2. That daily money torrent prevents a collapse, at least for the moment. The cash swirls around for a bit, stimulating a little demand, before settling permanently in the bank accounts of wealth accumulators – both individuals and companies. There is nowhere else for it to go.
#3. Years ago, before this continuous pumping of new money, banks had less investable cash. They had less scope to lend it badly, and more motivation to seek the highest return by finding productive outlets for the limited amount of savings available. They sought out talented, ambitious people, who would have a long career in front of them, sufficient to pay back a loan – with interest. Credit found its way to the proto-entrepreneurs who would start and drive each new generation of businesses.
#4. But with the modern money tap stuck in the 'on' position a sort of natural selection has favoured a less productive type of entrepreneur – typified by the property developer – who uses money to acquire non-productive, rentable assets, and leaves someone else to get on with the tedious business of producing something. The wonder of workless income and capital gains has always spawned the search for rent and capital growth. But it used to be much riskier, because market forces usually kept prices in check with sharp periodic corrections. There used not to be £300 million pounds of new cash settling daily into the hands of wealth accumulators, and propping up the values of their assets.
#5. Regular price corrections, and liquidations of overextended risk-takers, and their banks, used to redistribute property away from rent seekers, and offer opportunity to people who were productive. This was the market at work, regulating itself, and oscillating in favour of the young and the productive instead of the old, rich, and un-productive. It brought asset prices back to levels which permitted sensible buying at sensible prices, and the sensible lending to support it. That is not a bad re-allocation of capital, and it required no special rules.
#6. But then a political shift created an idea which is very beguiling – that 'innocent' depositors should never lose money. This meant that banks should be guaranteed by central government, no matter how poorly they had chosen their borrowers.
#7. This scheme is – like most kinds of government protection – superficially attractive. But it turns out to be very bad news for the young. It has the effect of refusing to allow the price of assets to fall, so the bad lending decisions made by bankers are never exposed to insolvency, the marketplace is never cleansed by liquidation, and the re-allocation of capital to productive youth never occurs. Eventually credit is only available to people who are already asset-rich, and the gap between poor and rich grows wider.
#8. Nowadays at thirty, and forty, you are forced to stay on in your salaried role, paying inflated housing rent, and avoiding inflated commercial rent. Because of newly indestructible wealth any shops, factories and land which used to have a capital value equivalent to 1,000 days of your labour now cost 4,000 days of it. That four-fold multiplier turns a sensible risk for a young buyer into a dangerous one for both the buyer and his bank. It's no wonder younger people see the 'market' as their enemy.
#9. Meanwhile the banks are swelling with all the cancers which develop in state-run enterprises. They are no longer effective intermediaries for capital because what they borrow at 1% they distribute at 8%. They have become hopelessly inefficient at their core function. Instead they are supported by government money to provide – like corrupt governments – an increasingly politicised service while distributing almost the entire benefit handed out by government to their own staff. And as that pernicious drift to self-serving bureaucracy continues we see government feeling forced to intervene again, to correct the monster it has created, and direct banks to lend for political rather than business gain.
So where credit used to flow naturally to real business people with credible and productive plans, the government now mandates the distribution of silly little sums to politically correct but frequently un-creditworthy borrowers. Our bankers now spend their time rubber-stamping government guaranteed lending decisions to offer £2,000 of credit to a college leaver whose willingness to seek £2,000 via credit marks them as a poor risk in the first place, but whose competence at form-filling defines them as a lending prospect not to be discriminated against.
Government intervention has suppressed the price of credit, inflated asset prices, and directed ever larger sums of credit to the already-rich. It has made a mockery of what was previously a credit market. We rarely see markets operating any more; we see government regulating and dictating supply and price. The reason free choice through the market is not now working well is because previous interventions have broken the ability of free choice to apply its regulatory magic. So government blames the market, rather than their own clumsy manipulation of it, and they stack interventions one on top of the other trying to tame the beast of their creation. But that just makes it bigger and uglier than before.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to hear a new generation demanding the market be allowed to function properly? Wouldn't it be wonderful if a couple of million people under thirty finally got the fact that, far from being their oppressor, the unspoiled market is by far and away the best method of delivering practical democracy, freedom, choice and both individual and collective advancement?
Ten times a day or so, each of us chooses how our personal resources are deployed. In Britain the marketplace can thus count half a billion trivially small votes cast by 50 million people daily. The sum total of our economic votes grows the things we approve of and consigns the things we disapprove of to the dustbin. This is how we protect and promote minorities; by allowing smallness to be adequately supported by a small and enthusiastic constituency. It is the mechanism of the market which supports specialisation, diversity, choice, liberty and – let's not forget – efficiency. Government simply cannot compare.
But it can certainly obstruct.
Every time the government takes a pound of tax from you it re-directs it into a state run intervention which will never be tested by your freedom to choose. If you are a middle-income earner, already more than half your income is now taken from you and dropped into inefficient and ill-considered government schemes. You – meanwhile – are reduced to subsistence; because it is impossible for you to save. You can neither accumulate capital nor vote your money toward your own preferred minority interest, because the government takes all your discretionary spend from you for its officially righteous, publicly endorsed projects.
The government took responsibility for our after-school club. It is now overstaffed and half-empty, because they put it in the wrong place, and with state-assured funding there is no market vote forcing it to re-locate to where willing customers would pay to fill it up.
The nearest sports ground is 4 miles away, put there by a non-sports-playing bureaucrat to stimulate a run-down area which is too poor to support any jobs because the return on employment (and the cost of living) are below the government's minimum wage. That's why – instead of supporting low cost services delivered with low overheads – the area has become a complete job desert and a demand void.
There, the local pub closed for the last time last month. Government taxes a business premises at 5 times the rate of a private residence – mainly because the business has no quintennial vote. The market on the other hand used to count the pub's vote too, because its demand automatically allocated resources to things which served the business, like local staff. But that ability to vote by paying for the things it needed was eliminated by government imposing tax rise after tax rise on its premises (business rates), on its staff (Employers' National Insurance), on its product (sin taxes), or on anything else which does not get experienced directly by significant numbers of voters.
So jobs are lost and choices are removed. And soon the pub will be a local eyesore, and that's because of another intervention. You can't just buy it, fix it up, and live there. You need a change of use licence, which won't be granted because the owner has to pay the five-fold elevated council business rates on the property until it's condemned – a process which forces the landlord to pay while 'encouraging' its drift into ruin. So it'll be dragging down the neighbourhood for years.
Everywhere you look government interventions stifle our choices in free exchange and trade. We've forgotten that democracy is not centred on a quintennial popularity contest at election time. Real democracy is about organising things so that as far as is possible those 500 million daily economic choices of free people cause society to re-shape itself according to what people want. It is through the private decisions of un-regulated free exchange and trade, with its self-adjusting expansions and contractions, that government of the people, by the people, and for the people is properly implemented. The market is where you vote.
Oh dear. Having set out to explain that deposit protection is not benign I find I have wandered a little off topic. I seem to have ended where I so often end these days, feeling increasingly desperate and wondering why people cannot see it. We are falling into the oppressive command economy, where all property, price and process are government business, and where nothing happens except slowly, and inefficiently, with explicit government approval.
Even as I finish writing, the public voice of intelligence – BBC radio's Today program – spits out the word 'un-regulated' with its standard contemporary implication of cheating and shoddiness. They too have fallen completely into the trap.
Why aren't young people protesting against bailouts?
Younger adults are usually pretty quick to protest injustices, but they're strangely quiet on financial rescues. Few of them seem able to join the dots and see that bailouts are clobbering them hardest.
#1. The British economy is currently in a state of permanent government bailout. After spending all the money it raises in taxes our government prints £15 of new money per working person, per day, which it injects into the economy as public sector wages. The amount of cash in our system increases daily by about £300 million, as does the debt of the British government. If the tap were turned off we would sink into depression and most of our banks would fail amid a whirl of default and collapsing asset prices. That might be a bad thing, as most people think, or a good thing. It depends on whether you already own some of those assets, or whether you don't, but would like to one day.
#2. That daily money torrent prevents a collapse, at least for the moment. The cash swirls around for a bit, stimulating a little demand, before settling permanently in the bank accounts of wealth accumulators – both individuals and companies. There is nowhere else for it to go.
#3. Years ago, before this continuous pumping of new money, banks had less investable cash. They had less scope to lend it badly, and more motivation to seek the highest return by finding productive outlets for the limited amount of savings available. They sought out talented, ambitious people, who would have a long career in front of them, sufficient to pay back a loan – with interest. Credit found its way to the proto-entrepreneurs who would start and drive each new generation of businesses.
#4. But with the modern money tap stuck in the 'on' position a sort of natural selection has favoured a less productive type of entrepreneur – typified by the property developer – who uses money to acquire non-productive, rentable assets, and leaves someone else to get on with the tedious business of producing something. The wonder of workless income and capital gains has always spawned the search for rent and capital growth. But it used to be much riskier, because market forces usually kept prices in check with sharp periodic corrections. There used not to be £300 million pounds of new cash settling daily into the hands of wealth accumulators, and propping up the values of their assets.
#5. Regular price corrections, and liquidations of overextended risk-takers, and their banks, used to redistribute property away from rent seekers, and offer opportunity to people who were productive. This was the market at work, regulating itself, and oscillating in favour of the young and the productive instead of the old, rich, and un-productive. It brought asset prices back to levels which permitted sensible buying at sensible prices, and the sensible lending to support it. That is not a bad re-allocation of capital, and it required no special rules.
#6. But then a political shift created an idea which is very beguiling – that 'innocent' depositors should never lose money. This meant that banks should be guaranteed by central government, no matter how poorly they had chosen their borrowers.
#7. This scheme is – like most kinds of government protection – superficially attractive. But it turns out to be very bad news for the young. It has the effect of refusing to allow the price of assets to fall, so the bad lending decisions made by bankers are never exposed to insolvency, the marketplace is never cleansed by liquidation, and the re-allocation of capital to productive youth never occurs. Eventually credit is only available to people who are already asset-rich, and the gap between poor and rich grows wider.
#8. Nowadays at thirty, and forty, you are forced to stay on in your salaried role, paying inflated housing rent, and avoiding inflated commercial rent. Because of newly indestructible wealth any shops, factories and land which used to have a capital value equivalent to 1,000 days of your labour now cost 4,000 days of it. That four-fold multiplier turns a sensible risk for a young buyer into a dangerous one for both the buyer and his bank. It's no wonder younger people see the 'market' as their enemy.
#9. Meanwhile the banks are swelling with all the cancers which develop in state-run enterprises. They are no longer effective intermediaries for capital because what they borrow at 1% they distribute at 8%. They have become hopelessly inefficient at their core function. Instead they are supported by government money to provide – like corrupt governments – an increasingly politicised service while distributing almost the entire benefit handed out by government to their own staff. And as that pernicious drift to self-serving bureaucracy continues we see government feeling forced to intervene again, to correct the monster it has created, and direct banks to lend for political rather than business gain.
So where credit used to flow naturally to real business people with credible and productive plans, the government now mandates the distribution of silly little sums to politically correct but frequently un-creditworthy borrowers. Our bankers now spend their time rubber-stamping government guaranteed lending decisions to offer £2,000 of credit to a college leaver whose willingness to seek £2,000 via credit marks them as a poor risk in the first place, but whose competence at form-filling defines them as a lending prospect not to be discriminated against.
Government intervention has suppressed the price of credit, inflated asset prices, and directed ever larger sums of credit to the already-rich. It has made a mockery of what was previously a credit market. We rarely see markets operating any more; we see government regulating and dictating supply and price. The reason free choice through the market is not now working well is because previous interventions have broken the ability of free choice to apply its regulatory magic. So government blames the market, rather than their own clumsy manipulation of it, and they stack interventions one on top of the other trying to tame the beast of their creation. But that just makes it bigger and uglier than before.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to hear a new generation demanding the market be allowed to function properly? Wouldn't it be wonderful if a couple of million people under thirty finally got the fact that, far from being their oppressor, the unspoiled market is by far and away the best method of delivering practical democracy, freedom, choice and both individual and collective advancement?
Ten times a day or so, each of us chooses how our personal resources are deployed. In Britain the marketplace can thus count half a billion trivially small votes cast by 50 million people daily. The sum total of our economic votes grows the things we approve of and consigns the things we disapprove of to the dustbin. This is how we protect and promote minorities; by allowing smallness to be adequately supported by a small and enthusiastic constituency. It is the mechanism of the market which supports specialisation, diversity, choice, liberty and – let's not forget – efficiency. Government simply cannot compare.
But it can certainly obstruct.
Every time the government takes a pound of tax from you it re-directs it into a state run intervention which will never be tested by your freedom to choose. If you are a middle-income earner, already more than half your income is now taken from you and dropped into inefficient and ill-considered government schemes. You – meanwhile – are reduced to subsistence; because it is impossible for you to save. You can neither accumulate capital nor vote your money toward your own preferred minority interest, because the government takes all your discretionary spend from you for its officially righteous, publicly endorsed projects.
The government took responsibility for our after-school club. It is now overstaffed and half-empty, because they put it in the wrong place, and with state-assured funding there is no market vote forcing it to re-locate to where willing customers would pay to fill it up.
The nearest sports ground is 4 miles away, put there by a non-sports-playing bureaucrat to stimulate a run-down area which is too poor to support any jobs because the return on employment (and the cost of living) are below the government's minimum wage. That's why – instead of supporting low cost services delivered with low overheads – the area has become a complete job desert and a demand void.
There, the local pub closed for the last time last month. Government taxes a business premises at 5 times the rate of a private residence – mainly because the business has no quintennial vote. The market on the other hand used to count the pub's vote too, because its demand automatically allocated resources to things which served the business, like local staff. But that ability to vote by paying for the things it needed was eliminated by government imposing tax rise after tax rise on its premises (business rates), on its staff (Employers' National Insurance), on its product (sin taxes), or on anything else which does not get experienced directly by significant numbers of voters.
So jobs are lost and choices are removed. And soon the pub will be a local eyesore, and that's because of another intervention. You can't just buy it, fix it up, and live there. You need a change of use licence, which won't be granted because the owner has to pay the five-fold elevated council business rates on the property until it's condemned – a process which forces the landlord to pay while 'encouraging' its drift into ruin. So it'll be dragging down the neighbourhood for years.
Everywhere you look government interventions stifle our choices in free exchange and trade. We've forgotten that democracy is not centred on a quintennial popularity contest at election time. Real democracy is about organising things so that as far as is possible those 500 million daily economic choices of free people cause society to re-shape itself according to what people want. It is through the private decisions of un-regulated free exchange and trade, with its self-adjusting expansions and contractions, that government of the people, by the people, and for the people is properly implemented. The market is where you vote.
Oh dear. Having set out to explain that deposit protection is not benign I find I have wandered a little off topic. I seem to have ended where I so often end these days, feeling increasingly desperate and wondering why people cannot see it. We are falling into the oppressive command economy, where all property, price and process are government business, and where nothing happens except slowly, and inefficiently, with explicit government approval.
Even as I finish writing, the public voice of intelligence – BBC radio's Today program – spits out the word 'un-regulated' with its standard contemporary implication of cheating and shoddiness. They too have fallen completely into the trap.
Muslims to host events during DNC; up to 20,000 could attend
CHARLOTTE -- A national Muslim American organization plans a series of events to coincide with the Democratic National Convention in September.
The kick-off for its three days of events begins with a jummah prayer, the weekly mid-afternoon Friday prayer, at Marshall Park in uptown. Other events include an Islamic issues conference and banquet, and a cultural festival held in different parts of the city, including at the Park Expo and Conference Center off Independence Boulevard.
At a news conference Monday at Marshall Park, Jibril Hough, a local Muslim activist and spokesman for the nonprofit Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs, said the events will be open to anyone.
Hough, who expects up to 20,000 Muslims to attend the events, said he spoke to Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Rodney Monroe about the public prayer in particular and was told to go ahead with it.
Hough said the events are scheduled for several reasons: including to hold political parties accountable for issues that affect Muslim-Americans.
Among those issues, Hough said, is the Patriot Act, a law passed after the Sept. 11 attacks that expanded anti-terrorism surveillance. Other issues: the National Defense Authorization Act, which critics claim allows for indefinite military detention, and the New York Police Department’s wiretapping program to spy on Muslims.
“Thousands of Muslims are going to perform the Friday ritual prayer,” Hough said. “We hope our people will leave feeling rewarded about who they are and what their issues are and have a candidate checklist.”
There were 1,200 nonofficial convention-related events during the DNC in Denver in 2008. Charlotte expects about 1,000, said Suzi Emmerling, spokeswoman for the host committee Charlotte In 2012.
Emmerling said the host committee will publicize events for those groups that want their events to be made public.
“The host committee is trying to keep track of all events and also let our partners at CMPD know what’s going on so that they can allocate their resources appropriately,” Emmerling said.
Muhammad Jaaber, executive director of the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs, said smaller events are planned for the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., in late August.
The kick-off for its three days of events begins with a jummah prayer, the weekly mid-afternoon Friday prayer, at Marshall Park in uptown. Other events include an Islamic issues conference and banquet, and a cultural festival held in different parts of the city, including at the Park Expo and Conference Center off Independence Boulevard.
At a news conference Monday at Marshall Park, Jibril Hough, a local Muslim activist and spokesman for the nonprofit Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs, said the events will be open to anyone.
Hough, who expects up to 20,000 Muslims to attend the events, said he spoke to Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Rodney Monroe about the public prayer in particular and was told to go ahead with it.
Hough said the events are scheduled for several reasons: including to hold political parties accountable for issues that affect Muslim-Americans.
Among those issues, Hough said, is the Patriot Act, a law passed after the Sept. 11 attacks that expanded anti-terrorism surveillance. Other issues: the National Defense Authorization Act, which critics claim allows for indefinite military detention, and the New York Police Department’s wiretapping program to spy on Muslims.
“Thousands of Muslims are going to perform the Friday ritual prayer,” Hough said. “We hope our people will leave feeling rewarded about who they are and what their issues are and have a candidate checklist.”
There were 1,200 nonofficial convention-related events during the DNC in Denver in 2008. Charlotte expects about 1,000, said Suzi Emmerling, spokeswoman for the host committee Charlotte In 2012.
Emmerling said the host committee will publicize events for those groups that want their events to be made public.
“The host committee is trying to keep track of all events and also let our partners at CMPD know what’s going on so that they can allocate their resources appropriately,” Emmerling said.
Muhammad Jaaber, executive director of the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs, said smaller events are planned for the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., in late August.
Former Air America Radio Host Rants 'I Hate This G**-damned Country!'
What is it about leftists and their hate-hate affair with America?
RadioOrNot.com host Nicole Sandler, formerly of the justifiably defunct Air America Radio, has upped the ante on libtalker Bill Press, who vented about his visceral loathing for the national anthem, and chirpy MSNBC weekend host Chris Hayes, who sniffed in disdain at the notion of fallen soldiers as "heroes." (Full Article & Audio clip here).
RadioOrNot.com host Nicole Sandler, formerly of the justifiably defunct Air America Radio, has upped the ante on libtalker Bill Press, who vented about his visceral loathing for the national anthem, and chirpy MSNBC weekend host Chris Hayes, who sniffed in disdain at the notion of fallen soldiers as "heroes." (Full Article & Audio clip here).
Richard Vedder Professor of Economics Ohio University: Federal Student Aid and the Law of Unintended Consequences
FEDERAL STUDENT financial assistance programs are costly, inefficient, byzantine, and fail to serve their desired objectives. In a word, they are dysfunctional, among the worst of many bad federal programs.
These programs are commonly rationalized on three grounds: on the grounds that assuring more young people a higher education has positive spillover effects for the country; on the grounds that higher education promotes equal economic opportunity (or, as the politicians say, that it is “a ticket to achieving the American Dream”); or on the grounds that too few students would go to college in the absence of federal loan programs, since private markets for loans to college students are defective.
All three of these arguments are dubious at best. The alleged positive spillover effects of sending more and more Americans to college are very difficult to measure. And as the late Milton Friedman suggested to me shortly before his death, they may be more than offset by negative spillover effects. Consider, for instance, the relationship between spending by state governments on higher education and their rate of economic growth. Controlling for other factors important in growth determination, the relationship between education spending and economic growth is negative or, at best, non-existent.
What about higher education being a vehicle for equal economic opportunity or income equality?
These programs are commonly rationalized on three grounds: on the grounds that assuring more young people a higher education has positive spillover effects for the country; on the grounds that higher education promotes equal economic opportunity (or, as the politicians say, that it is “a ticket to achieving the American Dream”); or on the grounds that too few students would go to college in the absence of federal loan programs, since private markets for loans to college students are defective.
All three of these arguments are dubious at best. The alleged positive spillover effects of sending more and more Americans to college are very difficult to measure. And as the late Milton Friedman suggested to me shortly before his death, they may be more than offset by negative spillover effects. Consider, for instance, the relationship between spending by state governments on higher education and their rate of economic growth. Controlling for other factors important in growth determination, the relationship between education spending and economic growth is negative or, at best, non-existent.
What about higher education being a vehicle for equal economic opportunity or income equality?
Grassley asks for Justice Department records of field agent memo on Fast and Furious
ATF agent describes discussion of operation one day before Justice Department denial
WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley today asked Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. for information about who at the Department of Justice (DOJ) saw a memo from a special agent for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) who was stationed at the Phoenix field division and was knowledgeable about Operation Fast and Furious. This memo was produced the day before the Department of Justice flat out denied there was a program underway to let guns walk to straw buyers.
In a letter to Attorney General Holder this afternoon, Grassley said the memo traveled rapidly through the chain of command at ATF and was allegedly forwarded to DOJ headquarters on February 3, 2011, in advance of the February 4, 2011, denial by DOJ. Grassley’s office has been told that the substance of the memo “caused such a stir that ATF planned to put a panel together to address the allegations but someone within DOJ suppressed the idea.” The details in the agent’s memo would have provided DOJ officials important information about what, in fact, was happening in Operation Fast and Furious.
Grassley said he is asking questions today because discovering how high up the chain of command the memo was reviewed “has not been easy.” His requests to interview officials who might corroborate accounts has been denied, and DOJ may have withheld relevant documents from what it said were the deliberative materials used to draft the February 4, 2011, letter. Ultimately, in the face of mounting evidence presented by Grassley and others, DOJ withdrew its February 4 denial.
“Without the complete, documented set of facts, fair and informed conclusions can’t be drawn, and the Justice Department’s lack of transparency about what it knew and when about Operation Fast and Furious is unacceptable, especially in light of the connections to the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and an unknown number of Mexican citizens,” Grassley said.
Click here to read today’s letter from Grassley to Holder, which includes a copy of the February 3, 2011, memo by the ATF agent.
WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley today asked Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. for information about who at the Department of Justice (DOJ) saw a memo from a special agent for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) who was stationed at the Phoenix field division and was knowledgeable about Operation Fast and Furious. This memo was produced the day before the Department of Justice flat out denied there was a program underway to let guns walk to straw buyers.
In a letter to Attorney General Holder this afternoon, Grassley said the memo traveled rapidly through the chain of command at ATF and was allegedly forwarded to DOJ headquarters on February 3, 2011, in advance of the February 4, 2011, denial by DOJ. Grassley’s office has been told that the substance of the memo “caused such a stir that ATF planned to put a panel together to address the allegations but someone within DOJ suppressed the idea.” The details in the agent’s memo would have provided DOJ officials important information about what, in fact, was happening in Operation Fast and Furious.
Grassley said he is asking questions today because discovering how high up the chain of command the memo was reviewed “has not been easy.” His requests to interview officials who might corroborate accounts has been denied, and DOJ may have withheld relevant documents from what it said were the deliberative materials used to draft the February 4, 2011, letter. Ultimately, in the face of mounting evidence presented by Grassley and others, DOJ withdrew its February 4 denial.
“Without the complete, documented set of facts, fair and informed conclusions can’t be drawn, and the Justice Department’s lack of transparency about what it knew and when about Operation Fast and Furious is unacceptable, especially in light of the connections to the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and an unknown number of Mexican citizens,” Grassley said.
Click here to read today’s letter from Grassley to Holder, which includes a copy of the February 3, 2011, memo by the ATF agent.
Brad Pitt's Mother Pens Anti-Gay, Anti-Obama Letter to Local Newspaper
Jane Pitt calls the president "a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage" just months after her son reveals his support of Obama in a THR cover story.
An anti-gay letter urging Christians to vote for Mitt Romney that was printed today in The Springfield News-Leader has been confirmed by the newspaper as having been penned by Jane Pitt, mother of Brad Pitt.
Walter E. Williams: States should nullify Obamacare — won’t lead to military action against states
On Rush Limbaugh’s Thursday program, George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams outlined the case that states can nullify Obamacare, citing Thomas Jefferson’s 1789 Kentucky Resolution, which was a claim that the U. S. Constitution is a compact among the several states, and any power not delegated to the U.S. government is void.
“I think the American citizens ought to press their state governors and legislatures just to nullify the law — just to plain nullify it and say, ‘The citizens of such-and-such-a state don’t have to obey Obamacare because it’s unconstitutional, regardless of what the Supreme Court says,’” Williams said.
Williams cited Marbury v. Madison, which said “all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void” to further the case for nullification from the states.
Nullification is a doctrine introduced in the infancy of the United States and was what some have suggested led to the Civil War. As far as the legal precedent of nullification and how it led to the Civil War, Williams said he doubted the repercussions would as serious as they were in 1861.
“I think two things are different this time,” he said. “First, most Americans are against Obamacare. And secondly, I don’t believe — and you call me up and tell me if I’m wrong about this — I don’t believe that you could find a United States soldier who would follow a presidential order to descend on a state to round up or shoot fellow Americans because they refuse to follow a congressional order to buy health insurance.”
“I think the American citizens ought to press their state governors and legislatures just to nullify the law — just to plain nullify it and say, ‘The citizens of such-and-such-a state don’t have to obey Obamacare because it’s unconstitutional, regardless of what the Supreme Court says,’” Williams said.
Williams cited Marbury v. Madison, which said “all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void” to further the case for nullification from the states.
Nullification is a doctrine introduced in the infancy of the United States and was what some have suggested led to the Civil War. As far as the legal precedent of nullification and how it led to the Civil War, Williams said he doubted the repercussions would as serious as they were in 1861.
“I think two things are different this time,” he said. “First, most Americans are against Obamacare. And secondly, I don’t believe — and you call me up and tell me if I’m wrong about this — I don’t believe that you could find a United States soldier who would follow a presidential order to descend on a state to round up or shoot fellow Americans because they refuse to follow a congressional order to buy health insurance.”
Surprises In Supreme Court Ruling on Obamacare
Well, it’s official. It’s now constitutional for politicians to tell huge lies, and not only get away with it, but be rewarded for it. The Supreme Court’s ruling on Obamacare this week confirmed what most of us realized all along, that President Obama and congressional supporters of the “Affordable Care Act” lied to the nation, to all of us! They told us that it was not a tax increase, ardently, vehemently, and ad nauseam, yet that’s the very justification the Supreme Court used to rule it constitutional this week.
While debating the Act in congress, proponents claimed constitutional authority for the hostile takeover of the health care industry based on the commerce clause. And when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued the case in front of the Supreme Court justices, the Act’s constitutionality was based on the commerce clause, not on its merits as a tax.
But the end result is that one of the largest and most regressive tax increases ever, $1.76 trillion over ten years, according to updated figures from the Congressional Budget Office, has been thrust upon the taxpayers, courtesy of Obama and congressional Democrats. In a bizarre twist of irony, it’s their lie that allowed it to be ruled constitutional! And from a constitutional basis, we’re supposed to ignore the fact that as a tax bill, it originated in the Senate, another strike against its constitutionality.
Prior to Obamacare’s passage in 2010, Obama denied it was a tax. In September 2009, Obama told ABC News that the law “is absolutely not a tax increase.” In fact, in nearly every major sales pitches for the Act he would reassert, "for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.”
And he was not alone. All the congressional Democrats sang the same tune. Notably, the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, declared in 2010 that not only was it not a tax increase, but it certainly didn’t violate Obama’s pledge of absolutely no new taxes on the middle class. We all remember him promising in every campaign stop through the 2008 campaign, “I can make a firm pledge – under my plan, no family making less that $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.” Yet, of the 21 taxes included in the Act, nearly half will affect the middle class; the economic stratum that Obama promised no tax increases to.
There is one truly significant aspect to the ruling Thursday that is actually encouraging. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts ruled the “individual mandate,” relative to the commerce clause, was in fact unconstitutional. Roberts wrote, “The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.
Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do.”
The significance of this aspect of the ruling is nearly as great as upholding of the Act itself. This means there is now judicial precedence limiting congress’ authority to compel American citizens to purchase anything, or to be fined or otherwise punished or regulated for not engaging in certain behavior. They simply cannot mandate citizen behavior under the Commerce Clause. Those of us thinking the entire Act would be ruled unconstitutional because of the mandate were right. Little did we know that it would pass muster based on the taxing authority of congress.
Regrettably the Act is much more than a tax, as it takes complete control of our health care delivery mechanism. Tom Price, a congressman from Georgia and a medical doctor, said on Friday, “We clearly chose in 2008, and we’re now as a nation living under the consequences of that political choice. But as a physician, I can tell you that the doctors and the patients of this land are very troubled. Because this law violates every single principle we hold dear as a nation in health care. Whether it’s accessibility or affordability, or high quality care or choices for patients, this law violates all of those things and makes them more difficult.”
The oxymoronic title of the Act has already proven, in two short years, that it is anything but “affordable,” as premiums and health care costs have skyrocketed in anticipation of full implementation over the next two years. It was the wrong prescription for the ailments of health care delivery, and there were many less intrusive and cheaper ways to provide insurance to the uninsured, short of a hostile takeover of the entire industry.
Perusing the Roberts ruling from the NFIB v. Sibelius decision, there is a very strongly worded line in there that goes to the heart of the issue for those of us who are strict constructionists. He said, "The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”
He continues, "The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power."
“The Federal Government ‘is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers.’ That is, rather than granting general authority to perform all the conceivable functions of government, the Constitution lists, or enumerates, the Federal Government’s powers,” he wrote.
Although we perceive the ruling to be a loss to the constructionist argument, the first few pages of Robert’s explanation is a reaffirmation of the limits of federal government authority, based upon enumerated powers. He really gave us a gift, for by ruling as he did, he’s reaffirmed the constitutional limitations of the federal government and motivated the masses in revolt against the current regime. For as Roberts said later, whether the government should even be involved in mandated health care is a political question, one that we can address at the polls.
It seems sadly ironic that we would learn of the constitutionality of the one piece of congressional legislation most restrictive to personal freedom and liberty ever, on the eve of our national observance of our Independence Day. We can only hope that with a change in the White House and gains in the House and Senate in the November election, that this onerous legislation can be rewritten or repealed. For as it stands now, Obama’s win with the Supreme Court is a loss for the American people.
AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.
While debating the Act in congress, proponents claimed constitutional authority for the hostile takeover of the health care industry based on the commerce clause. And when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued the case in front of the Supreme Court justices, the Act’s constitutionality was based on the commerce clause, not on its merits as a tax.
But the end result is that one of the largest and most regressive tax increases ever, $1.76 trillion over ten years, according to updated figures from the Congressional Budget Office, has been thrust upon the taxpayers, courtesy of Obama and congressional Democrats. In a bizarre twist of irony, it’s their lie that allowed it to be ruled constitutional! And from a constitutional basis, we’re supposed to ignore the fact that as a tax bill, it originated in the Senate, another strike against its constitutionality.
Prior to Obamacare’s passage in 2010, Obama denied it was a tax. In September 2009, Obama told ABC News that the law “is absolutely not a tax increase.” In fact, in nearly every major sales pitches for the Act he would reassert, "for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.”
And he was not alone. All the congressional Democrats sang the same tune. Notably, the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, declared in 2010 that not only was it not a tax increase, but it certainly didn’t violate Obama’s pledge of absolutely no new taxes on the middle class. We all remember him promising in every campaign stop through the 2008 campaign, “I can make a firm pledge – under my plan, no family making less that $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.” Yet, of the 21 taxes included in the Act, nearly half will affect the middle class; the economic stratum that Obama promised no tax increases to.
There is one truly significant aspect to the ruling Thursday that is actually encouraging. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts ruled the “individual mandate,” relative to the commerce clause, was in fact unconstitutional. Roberts wrote, “The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.
Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do.”
The significance of this aspect of the ruling is nearly as great as upholding of the Act itself. This means there is now judicial precedence limiting congress’ authority to compel American citizens to purchase anything, or to be fined or otherwise punished or regulated for not engaging in certain behavior. They simply cannot mandate citizen behavior under the Commerce Clause. Those of us thinking the entire Act would be ruled unconstitutional because of the mandate were right. Little did we know that it would pass muster based on the taxing authority of congress.
Regrettably the Act is much more than a tax, as it takes complete control of our health care delivery mechanism. Tom Price, a congressman from Georgia and a medical doctor, said on Friday, “We clearly chose in 2008, and we’re now as a nation living under the consequences of that political choice. But as a physician, I can tell you that the doctors and the patients of this land are very troubled. Because this law violates every single principle we hold dear as a nation in health care. Whether it’s accessibility or affordability, or high quality care or choices for patients, this law violates all of those things and makes them more difficult.”
The oxymoronic title of the Act has already proven, in two short years, that it is anything but “affordable,” as premiums and health care costs have skyrocketed in anticipation of full implementation over the next two years. It was the wrong prescription for the ailments of health care delivery, and there were many less intrusive and cheaper ways to provide insurance to the uninsured, short of a hostile takeover of the entire industry.
Perusing the Roberts ruling from the NFIB v. Sibelius decision, there is a very strongly worded line in there that goes to the heart of the issue for those of us who are strict constructionists. He said, "The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”
He continues, "The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power."
“The Federal Government ‘is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers.’ That is, rather than granting general authority to perform all the conceivable functions of government, the Constitution lists, or enumerates, the Federal Government’s powers,” he wrote.
Although we perceive the ruling to be a loss to the constructionist argument, the first few pages of Robert’s explanation is a reaffirmation of the limits of federal government authority, based upon enumerated powers. He really gave us a gift, for by ruling as he did, he’s reaffirmed the constitutional limitations of the federal government and motivated the masses in revolt against the current regime. For as Roberts said later, whether the government should even be involved in mandated health care is a political question, one that we can address at the polls.
It seems sadly ironic that we would learn of the constitutionality of the one piece of congressional legislation most restrictive to personal freedom and liberty ever, on the eve of our national observance of our Independence Day. We can only hope that with a change in the White House and gains in the House and Senate in the November election, that this onerous legislation can be rewritten or repealed. For as it stands now, Obama’s win with the Supreme Court is a loss for the American people.
AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.
Transportation Secretary Praises Murderous Communists as “More Successful”
Obama Administration Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood has come out in favor of the Chicoms over Americans claiming that in China “only three people make the decision. In our country, 3,000 people do.”
Hannah Sternberg of Regnery gives a great example of that Chinese 3 man success. Likewise, the famed high spec rail system in China has come under investigation for corruption, is not making money, and has repeated broken down. The same three people who make decisions decided to make the man in charge of the rail system disappear.
Also, unlike the United States, the 3 men in China are able to have children forcibly aborted if their mothers exceed more than one child.
Also in China, unlike the United States, the 3 men in China are able to kill dissidents exercises what we hick Americans call our “first Amendment rights.”
But truth be told, in the United States, there are actually only 435 men and women who make decisions, with one Chief Executive to execute the law and 9 Justices to ensure equal protection of the law and justice.
The states have a similar construct. The barriers put in place to decision making have been put in place by people like Ray Lahood, a relic of Congress — and Republican no less — who voted to expand government and regulation and who still pushes an expansion of regulation.
Thomas Friedman disease has firmly set into the Adminstration. They’re rooting against us and for a murderous regime of despots.
By the way, objectively the United States is vastly superior both on the freedom scale and in terms of economic progress.
Hannah Sternberg of Regnery gives a great example of that Chinese 3 man success. Likewise, the famed high spec rail system in China has come under investigation for corruption, is not making money, and has repeated broken down. The same three people who make decisions decided to make the man in charge of the rail system disappear.
Also, unlike the United States, the 3 men in China are able to have children forcibly aborted if their mothers exceed more than one child.
Also in China, unlike the United States, the 3 men in China are able to kill dissidents exercises what we hick Americans call our “first Amendment rights.”
But truth be told, in the United States, there are actually only 435 men and women who make decisions, with one Chief Executive to execute the law and 9 Justices to ensure equal protection of the law and justice.
The states have a similar construct. The barriers put in place to decision making have been put in place by people like Ray Lahood, a relic of Congress — and Republican no less — who voted to expand government and regulation and who still pushes an expansion of regulation.
Thomas Friedman disease has firmly set into the Adminstration. They’re rooting against us and for a murderous regime of despots.
By the way, objectively the United States is vastly superior both on the freedom scale and in terms of economic progress.
The imperial presidency revisited
Beyond being logically ridiculous — if a state law is unconstitutional because it’s out of sync with the federal government’s current priorities, does it become constitutional again when federal policy changes? — this argument is “an astounding assertion of federal executive power,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito in a concurrence. The Obama Justice Department is suggesting that “a state law may be pre-empted, not because it conflicts with a federal statute or regulation, but because it is inconsistent with a federal agency’s current enforcement priorities. Those priorities, however, are not law. They are nothing more than agency policy.”
Tax Increases For Some Marylanders Go Into Effect This Week
FREDERICK, MD - Some people in Maryland will get a surprise when they look at their tax bill.
In a special session the Maryland General Assembly approved increasing taxes for people who make more than $100,000 a year and couples who make more than $150,000 a year. Those changes take effect this week.
"They will go up for most people anywhere from five to 15-percent, and what they'll also see is that they'll be retroactive....
In a special session the Maryland General Assembly approved increasing taxes for people who make more than $100,000 a year and couples who make more than $150,000 a year. Those changes take effect this week.
"They will go up for most people anywhere from five to 15-percent, and what they'll also see is that they'll be retroactive....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2012/07/05/the-ancients-declare-obamacare-ruling-worse-than-obamacare-itself/
Masked by chatter around judicial wrangling, electoral ramifications and how the surprising Obamacare decision impacts policy, many miss the wretched significance of Chief Justice Roberts’ twisted logic. He has empowered runaway government certain to incite chaos.
The Affordable Care Act reflects the logical continuation of a decades-long drift toward domineering by Washington over every facet of life. Not logical as in likely to succeed. Few government initiatives do. But logical because rather than scuttle past failures, subsequent congresses spawn new efforts to offset what prior funding merely squandered.
Taxpayers already footed over half America’s medical bills.....
Obamacare: Lies, Mistruths, Falsehoods and Fabrications
Legalization of something does not necessarily make it a good idea. It was once legal to own a slave. Democrats who voted against abolishing slavery in 1864, have been doing their part ever since to enslave Americans to one social program or another. Obamacare is just the latest example.
For years, Americans have been abundantly blessed with a mostly free-market healthcare system in which competent physicians at state-of-the-art healthcare facilities deliver the latest medical care. Yes, that care comes at a cost, but the alternative, which Obamacare will certainly create, is rationing.
Now that the Supreme Court deemed Obamacare’s individual mandate for what it is — a tax, Democrats are attempting to redefine it as a penalty. It’s just their nature. Why call it a baby when you can reduce it to a fetus? Why bother worrying about illegal aliens when the term “undocumented workers” sounds so much more nebulous? I’ll go halfway; let’s call it a “penalty tax.”
Lies, lies, and more lies
No tax increases on the middle class: Has anyone noticed Democrats are always talking about strengthening the middle class, and yet almost all of their legislation ends up hurting it? It’s the new “trickle down” theory. Take money from the top and sprinkle it over everyone else with no plan for growth. What you get is an increased lower class and a dwindling middle class. To make matters worse, Obama’s administration keeps redefining down the definition of middle class.
President Obama pledged (his word, not mine) “No family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.” Wall Street Journal’s senior writer Stephen Moore claims almost 75 percent of Obamacare expenses will be funded by those making less than $120,000 annually.
Trying to get ahead by doing a little investing? Think again. Section 1411 of the law will levy a 3.8 percent “Medicare tax” on capital gains, dividends, rents and royalties. The plan also penalizes “Cadillac” insurance plan holders by charging a whopping 40 percent excise tax — unless they are part of the White House’s chosen few who were given permission to opt out. Overall, Obamacare imposes 18 tax increases at a cost of $503 billion mostly funded by the middle class and the elderly via Medicare cuts.
In other words, there are no freebies that aren’t paid for by the same middle class taxpayers Obama purports to defend. Odds are, many of you reading my column will be recipients of this broken promise.
Medicare will be protected: Well, not actually. Funding cuts of more than $500 billion, in addition to more than 150 new provisions, will affect quality care. Like any business, physicians cannot remain in practice when their profits don’t keep pace with costs to do business. Obamacare will bleed them dry. It may not happen overnight, but rest assured, it will happen, and when it does, the government will be right there to fill the gap with government-run facilities. Ask veterans and their families how that’s working out for them.
Medicare’s Patient-Doctor relationship will be preserved: Much like the U.K.’s National Health Service (NHS), Obamacare is more about cost control than quality care. The NHS determines medical needs based upon a calculation created by economists, and uses it to determine who does or does not receive treatment. We’re not there yet, but Obamacare pushes us in that direction. Baby steps. And former Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL) had the audacity to suggest the Republican vision for healthcare boils down to letting people die. Physician heal thyself!
Obamacare will not add to the deficit: Democrats’ pants should be on fire for this promise. Research done by experts at the Heritage Foundation reveals Obamacare is “a trillion-dollar budget buster” and claims Democrats rigged their numbers using “budget gimmicks, sleights of hand, accounting tricks, and completely implausible assumptions.”
One of the greatest things about America is that we have the opportunity to right our wrongs by way of the ballot box. What the Supreme Court declared as constitutional voters can declare as history come November.
—–
Susan Stamper Brown is an opinion page columnist, motivational speaker and military advocate who writes about politics, the military, the economy and culture. Email Susan at writestamper@gmail.com or her website at susanstamperbrown.com.
For years, Americans have been abundantly blessed with a mostly free-market healthcare system in which competent physicians at state-of-the-art healthcare facilities deliver the latest medical care. Yes, that care comes at a cost, but the alternative, which Obamacare will certainly create, is rationing.
Now that the Supreme Court deemed Obamacare’s individual mandate for what it is — a tax, Democrats are attempting to redefine it as a penalty. It’s just their nature. Why call it a baby when you can reduce it to a fetus? Why bother worrying about illegal aliens when the term “undocumented workers” sounds so much more nebulous? I’ll go halfway; let’s call it a “penalty tax.”
Lies, lies, and more lies
No tax increases on the middle class: Has anyone noticed Democrats are always talking about strengthening the middle class, and yet almost all of their legislation ends up hurting it? It’s the new “trickle down” theory. Take money from the top and sprinkle it over everyone else with no plan for growth. What you get is an increased lower class and a dwindling middle class. To make matters worse, Obama’s administration keeps redefining down the definition of middle class.
President Obama pledged (his word, not mine) “No family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.” Wall Street Journal’s senior writer Stephen Moore claims almost 75 percent of Obamacare expenses will be funded by those making less than $120,000 annually.
Trying to get ahead by doing a little investing? Think again. Section 1411 of the law will levy a 3.8 percent “Medicare tax” on capital gains, dividends, rents and royalties. The plan also penalizes “Cadillac” insurance plan holders by charging a whopping 40 percent excise tax — unless they are part of the White House’s chosen few who were given permission to opt out. Overall, Obamacare imposes 18 tax increases at a cost of $503 billion mostly funded by the middle class and the elderly via Medicare cuts.
In other words, there are no freebies that aren’t paid for by the same middle class taxpayers Obama purports to defend. Odds are, many of you reading my column will be recipients of this broken promise.
Medicare will be protected: Well, not actually. Funding cuts of more than $500 billion, in addition to more than 150 new provisions, will affect quality care. Like any business, physicians cannot remain in practice when their profits don’t keep pace with costs to do business. Obamacare will bleed them dry. It may not happen overnight, but rest assured, it will happen, and when it does, the government will be right there to fill the gap with government-run facilities. Ask veterans and their families how that’s working out for them.
Medicare’s Patient-Doctor relationship will be preserved: Much like the U.K.’s National Health Service (NHS), Obamacare is more about cost control than quality care. The NHS determines medical needs based upon a calculation created by economists, and uses it to determine who does or does not receive treatment. We’re not there yet, but Obamacare pushes us in that direction. Baby steps. And former Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL) had the audacity to suggest the Republican vision for healthcare boils down to letting people die. Physician heal thyself!
Obamacare will not add to the deficit: Democrats’ pants should be on fire for this promise. Research done by experts at the Heritage Foundation reveals Obamacare is “a trillion-dollar budget buster” and claims Democrats rigged their numbers using “budget gimmicks, sleights of hand, accounting tricks, and completely implausible assumptions.”
One of the greatest things about America is that we have the opportunity to right our wrongs by way of the ballot box. What the Supreme Court declared as constitutional voters can declare as history come November.
—–
Susan Stamper Brown is an opinion page columnist, motivational speaker and military advocate who writes about politics, the military, the economy and culture. Email Susan at writestamper@gmail.com or her website at susanstamperbrown.com.
Obama’s shariah czar Mohamed Magid hands diversity award to Jew-hater Dawud Walid
One of the greatest social ills facing American today is Islamophobia, and anti-Muslim bigotry. And if you trace the organizations and the main advocates and activists in Islamophobia in America, you will see that all those organizations are pro-Israeli occupation organizations and activists.
So not only are the Jews the cursed of Allah, but the Jews are also behind “Islamophobia” — reviving longtime Islamic blood libels.
Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013
Six months from now, in January 2013, five major ObamaCare taxes will come into force:
1. The ObamaCare Medical Device Manufacturing Tax
This 2.3 percent tax on medical device makers will raise the price of (for example) every pacemaker, prosthetic limb, stent, and operating table. Can you remind us, Mr. President, how taxing medical devices will reduce the cost of health care? The tax is particularly destructive because it is levied on gross sales and even targets companies who haven’t turned a profit yet.
These are often small, scrappy companies with less than 20 employees who pioneer the next generation of life-prolonging devices. In addition to raising the cost of health care, this $20 billion tax over the next ten years will not help the country’s jobs outlook, as the industry employs nearly 400,000 Americans. Several companies have already responded to the looming tax by cutting research and development budgets and laying off workers.
2. The ObamaCare High Medical Bills Tax
This onerous tax provision will hit Americans facing the highest out-of-pocket medical bills. Currently, Americans are allowed to deduct medical expenses on their 1040 form to the extent the costs exceed 7.5 percent of one’s adjusted gross income.
The new ObamaCare provision will raise that threshold to 10 percent, subjecting patients to a higher tax bill. This tax will hit pre-retirement seniors the hardest. Over the next ten years, affected Americans will pony up a minimum total of $15 billion in taxes thanks to this provision.
3. The ObamaCare Flexible Spending Account Cap
The 24 million Americans who have Flexible Spending Accounts will face a new federally imposed $2,500 annual cap. These pre-tax accounts, which currently have no federal limit, are used to purchase everything from contact lenses to children’s braces. With the cost of braces being as high as $7,200, this tax provision will play an unwelcome role in everyday kitchen-table health care decisions.
The cap will also affect families with special-needs children, whose tuition can be covered using FSA funds. Special-needs tuition can cost up to $14,000 per child per year. This cruel tax provision will limit the options available to such families, all so that the federal government can squeeze an additional $13 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.
The targeting of FSAs by President Obama and congressional Democrats is no accident. The progressive left has never been fond of the consumer-driven accounts, which serve as a small roadblock in their long-term drive for a one-size-fits-all government health care bureaucracy.
For further proof, note the ObamaCare “medicine cabinet tax” which since 2011 has barred the 13.5 million Americans with Health Savings Accounts from purchasing over-the-counter medicines with pre-tax funds.
4. The ObamaCare Surtax on Investment Income
Under current law, the capital gains tax rate for all Americans rises from 15 to 20 percent in 2013, while the top dividend rate rises from 15 to 39.6 percent. The new ObamaCare surtax takes the top capital gains rate to 23.8 percent and top dividend rate to 43.4 percent. The tax will take a minimum of $123 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.
And, last but not least...
5. The ObamaCare Medicare Payroll Tax increase
This tax soaks employers to the tune of $86 billion over the next ten years.
As you can understand, there is a reason why the authors of ObamaCare wrote the law in such a way that the most brutal tax increases take effect conveniently after the 2012 election. It’s the same reason President Obama, congressional Democrats, and the mainstream media conveniently neglect to mention these taxes and prefer that you simply “move on” after the Supreme Court ruling.
1. The ObamaCare Medical Device Manufacturing Tax
This 2.3 percent tax on medical device makers will raise the price of (for example) every pacemaker, prosthetic limb, stent, and operating table. Can you remind us, Mr. President, how taxing medical devices will reduce the cost of health care? The tax is particularly destructive because it is levied on gross sales and even targets companies who haven’t turned a profit yet.
These are often small, scrappy companies with less than 20 employees who pioneer the next generation of life-prolonging devices. In addition to raising the cost of health care, this $20 billion tax over the next ten years will not help the country’s jobs outlook, as the industry employs nearly 400,000 Americans. Several companies have already responded to the looming tax by cutting research and development budgets and laying off workers.
2. The ObamaCare High Medical Bills Tax
This onerous tax provision will hit Americans facing the highest out-of-pocket medical bills. Currently, Americans are allowed to deduct medical expenses on their 1040 form to the extent the costs exceed 7.5 percent of one’s adjusted gross income.
The new ObamaCare provision will raise that threshold to 10 percent, subjecting patients to a higher tax bill. This tax will hit pre-retirement seniors the hardest. Over the next ten years, affected Americans will pony up a minimum total of $15 billion in taxes thanks to this provision.
3. The ObamaCare Flexible Spending Account Cap
The 24 million Americans who have Flexible Spending Accounts will face a new federally imposed $2,500 annual cap. These pre-tax accounts, which currently have no federal limit, are used to purchase everything from contact lenses to children’s braces. With the cost of braces being as high as $7,200, this tax provision will play an unwelcome role in everyday kitchen-table health care decisions.
The cap will also affect families with special-needs children, whose tuition can be covered using FSA funds. Special-needs tuition can cost up to $14,000 per child per year. This cruel tax provision will limit the options available to such families, all so that the federal government can squeeze an additional $13 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.
The targeting of FSAs by President Obama and congressional Democrats is no accident. The progressive left has never been fond of the consumer-driven accounts, which serve as a small roadblock in their long-term drive for a one-size-fits-all government health care bureaucracy.
For further proof, note the ObamaCare “medicine cabinet tax” which since 2011 has barred the 13.5 million Americans with Health Savings Accounts from purchasing over-the-counter medicines with pre-tax funds.
4. The ObamaCare Surtax on Investment Income
Under current law, the capital gains tax rate for all Americans rises from 15 to 20 percent in 2013, while the top dividend rate rises from 15 to 39.6 percent. The new ObamaCare surtax takes the top capital gains rate to 23.8 percent and top dividend rate to 43.4 percent. The tax will take a minimum of $123 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.
And, last but not least...
5. The ObamaCare Medicare Payroll Tax increase
This tax soaks employers to the tune of $86 billion over the next ten years.
As you can understand, there is a reason why the authors of ObamaCare wrote the law in such a way that the most brutal tax increases take effect conveniently after the 2012 election. It’s the same reason President Obama, congressional Democrats, and the mainstream media conveniently neglect to mention these taxes and prefer that you simply “move on” after the Supreme Court ruling.
Could Current Medicaid Recipients Lose Coverage From Supreme Court Ruling?
States Could Cut Medicaid Rolls In 2014 As A Result Of Court Ruling
Starting in 2014, things could get worse for people in Medicaid.
Not only could some states opt out of increasing the number of adults in the government health insurance program for the poor as a result of the Supreme Court's ruling, but they also could cut people now enrolled.
This wasn't supposed to happen under President Barack Obama's health law designed to expand coverage for 30 million Americans, in part by adding 17 million people to Medicaid....
Starting in 2014, things could get worse for people in Medicaid.
Not only could some states opt out of increasing the number of adults in the government health insurance program for the poor as a result of the Supreme Court's ruling, but they also could cut people now enrolled.
This wasn't supposed to happen under President Barack Obama's health law designed to expand coverage for 30 million Americans, in part by adding 17 million people to Medicaid....
Expanding the Obama-Endorsed "Axis of Evil"
Ahmadinejad invites Egypt's Obama's Morsi to Tehran summit
Anxiety Mounts as US Economy Limps Into 2nd Half
A slew of weak U.S. economic data is casting doubts over expectations of a pick-up in growth in the second half of the year.
From manufacturing to job growth to consumer spending, the numbers have been grim, and economists are wondering whether they need to dial down forecasts for the remainder of the year.
"Our sense was that of a gradual improvement. Now the sense is of muddling along at a low level of activity," said Adolfo Laurenti, deputy chief economist at Mesirow Financial in Chicago. "We went from seeing progress, though gradual and very uneven, to not seeing progress at all..."
From manufacturing to job growth to consumer spending, the numbers have been grim, and economists are wondering whether they need to dial down forecasts for the remainder of the year.
"Our sense was that of a gradual improvement. Now the sense is of muddling along at a low level of activity," said Adolfo Laurenti, deputy chief economist at Mesirow Financial in Chicago. "We went from seeing progress, though gradual and very uneven, to not seeing progress at all..."
Yet ANOTHER Unconstitutional Judgement: Man can't hand out Bibles at Gay Pride fest
A Wisconsin man who wants to hand out Bibles at the 40th Annual Twin Cities Pride festival in Loring Park this month will have to confine himself to a booth just outside of the event.
Chief U.S. District Judge Michael Davis issued a 41-page order Monday denying Brian Johnson's request for an injunction that would force the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board to allow him unfettered access to the festival grounds, reasoning that his constitutional challenge was unlikely to succeed....
Chief U.S. District Judge Michael Davis issued a 41-page order Monday denying Brian Johnson's request for an injunction that would force the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board to allow him unfettered access to the festival grounds, reasoning that his constitutional challenge was unlikely to succeed....
Big Sis: 'There's a pattern here'
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano this week linked climate change with the wildfires hitting Colorado.
Napolitano said “there’s a pattern here” as she noted the summer wildfires as well as the East Coast heat wave and the high-velocity winds that whipped through the mid-Atlantic late last week. Thousands of people remain without electricity because of the wind storm....
Napolitano said “there’s a pattern here” as she noted the summer wildfires as well as the East Coast heat wave and the high-velocity winds that whipped through the mid-Atlantic late last week. Thousands of people remain without electricity because of the wind storm....
Passengers could be asked to give drink samples to TSA
TSA wouldn't say what they're testing for or why they're doing it, travelers say they have right to know
Libya elections: Obama-Endorsed Muslim Brotherhood set to lead government
Libya's top politicians have hatched a deal that would see the Muslim Brotherhood lead the government after the country's first free elections in almost five decades takes place on Saturday.
The Obama-Endorsed Muslim Brotherhood would dominate the ministries.
The Obama-Endorsed Muslim Brotherhood would dominate the ministries.
Iraq warns over al-Qaeda flux to Syria
Al-Qaeda fighters are crossing from Iraq to Syria to carry out attacks there, Iraq’s foreign minister said on Thursday, as Syrian activists accused regime loyalists of committing atrocities in an opposition stronghold just outside Damascus...
GM sells 1,760 Volts in June, double from 2011
In the first half of 2012, GM sold 8,817 Volts, more than triple the 2,745 it sold in the same period last year. It already has topped Volt sales for all of 2011, which were about 7,600.
Volt sales have been boosted by California's decision to grant solo Volt drivers access to carpool lanes. GM spokesman Jim Cain said 1 in 5 Volts are sold in the Golden State...
Volt sales have been boosted by California's decision to grant solo Volt drivers access to carpool lanes. GM spokesman Jim Cain said 1 in 5 Volts are sold in the Golden State...
Woman accused of smoking Blizzard on maternity ward
(Photo: Carla Murphy not on drugs)
Long Beach Police Investigate Excessive Force in Pot-Shop Raid
The two-minute-long video shows at least two officers smashing the dispensary's surveillance cameras
More than a dozen Long Beach Police officers raided the THC Downtown marijuana dispensary for allegedly operating without a permit. The raid was caught on camera -- showing officers smashing surveillance cameras and stepping on volunteer employee Dorian Brooks, who has filed a lawsuit claiming excessive force was used. Michelle Valles reports from Long Beach for the NBC4 News at 6 p.m. on July 4, 2012.
Update: $1 Million Claim Filed in Pot Shop Raid
Update: $1 Million Claim Filed in Pot Shop Raid
ROMNEY RAISES $100M IN JUNE
Mitt Romney sets GOP fundraising record
The Romney campaign, along with its Romney Victory fund and the Republican National Committee, raised more than $100 million in June, obliterating the campaign's goal and setting the one-month record for any Republican campaign, according to a GOP official...
The Romney campaign, along with its Romney Victory fund and the Republican National Committee, raised more than $100 million in June, obliterating the campaign's goal and setting the one-month record for any Republican campaign, according to a GOP official...
Fear: Obama wants you to turn off Fox News
Obama suggests patron ask bar owner to switch off the conservative-leaning cable network.
As he thanked the group for their support, one of them, Jeff Hawks, gestured to one of the TV's and said, "You're in a building that has Fox news on."
Obama suggested that Hawks ask for it to be changed. "The customer is always right," he said.
"I'll arm-wrestle you for your vote," Hawks said to Obama. "No, I'll play basketball for your vote," he replied....
As he thanked the group for their support, one of them, Jeff Hawks, gestured to one of the TV's and said, "You're in a building that has Fox news on."
Obama suggested that Hawks ask for it to be changed. "The customer is always right," he said.
"I'll arm-wrestle you for your vote," Hawks said to Obama. "No, I'll play basketball for your vote," he replied....
"Economic Sense," UN Style
UN calls for 'billionaires tax' to help world's poor give them money
The United Nations on Thursday called for a tax on billionaires to help raise more than $400 billion a year for poor countries.
An annual lump sum payment by the super-rich is one of a host of measures including a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, currency exchanges or financial transactions proposed in a UN report that accuses wealthy nations of breaking promises to step up aid for the less fortunate....
The United Nations on Thursday called for a tax on billionaires to help raise more than $400 billion a year for poor countries.
An annual lump sum payment by the super-rich is one of a host of measures including a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, currency exchanges or financial transactions proposed in a UN report that accuses wealthy nations of breaking promises to step up aid for the less fortunate....
Clueless in Ohio:
Sobbing woman thanks Obama for health care law
SANDUSKY, Ohio -- An emotional Ohio voter personally thanked President Obama for passing a health care overhaul, relating the story of her late sister's battle with cancer.
After Obama's speech in Sandusky, he encountered a sobbing Stephanie Miller, who later told reporters about her encounter with Obama.
"I thanked him for the getting the Affordable Health Act passed," Miller said, referring to the health care overhaul the Supreme Court upheld last week...
After Obama's speech in Sandusky, he encountered a sobbing Stephanie Miller, who later told reporters about her encounter with Obama.
"I thanked him for the getting the Affordable Health Act passed," Miller said, referring to the health care overhaul the Supreme Court upheld last week...
UN Watch Exclusive Report: Syria Running for the U.N. Human Rights Council, Says U.S
U.S.-Sponsored Resolution Slams Syrian Candidacy
GENEVA - In the past decade, the U.N. Human Rights Council elected Col. Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya as chair, hailed Sri Lanka’s “promotion and protection of all human rights” after its army had killed thousands of civilians, and convened an emergency session to lament the death of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, founder of the Hamas terrorist organization.
Even so, historians will now have to decide whether the U.N.’s flagship human rights body is about to sink to a new low.
According to a U.S.-sponsored and EU-backed draft resolution that was debated today during informal meetings at the council in Geneva, the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad is a declared candidate for a seat on the 47-nation U.N. body, in elections to be held next year at the 193-member General Assembly.
As part of the U.N.’s 53-nation Asian group, Syria’s candidacy would be virtually assured of victory due to the prevalent system of fixed slates, whereby regional groups orchestrate uncontested elections, naming only as many candidates as allotted seats.
That’s how non-democracies like China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia won their current seats, and how Pakistan and Venezuela are about to do the same....
Even so, historians will now have to decide whether the U.N.’s flagship human rights body is about to sink to a new low.
According to a U.S.-sponsored and EU-backed draft resolution that was debated today during informal meetings at the council in Geneva, the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad is a declared candidate for a seat on the 47-nation U.N. body, in elections to be held next year at the 193-member General Assembly.
As part of the U.N.’s 53-nation Asian group, Syria’s candidacy would be virtually assured of victory due to the prevalent system of fixed slates, whereby regional groups orchestrate uncontested elections, naming only as many candidates as allotted seats.
That’s how non-democracies like China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia won their current seats, and how Pakistan and Venezuela are about to do the same....
Corzine still not indicted by Holder for missing $1.3 billion
Now, Corzine — just months removed from a humiliating financial scandal — is persona non grata in the tony playground of the rich, and it’s clearly taking its toll, insiders said.
State Department probing U.N. agency for computer shipments to Iran and North Korea
The U.S. State Department is investigating the shipment of computers and other sophisticated equipment to North Korea and Iran by way of an obscure United Nations agency, despite ongoing U.N. and U.S. sanctions against both governments aimed at blocking their development of nuclear weapons..
Palestinians try to give Arafat more dignified death
...intelligence officials estimated that he died of AIDS or of another infection that prompted his bodily systems to collapse.....
Thursday, July 5, 2012
A Country of Free Men or Free Things
As I write this, the barges are being towed along the Hudson. Streets have been blocked off, police officers collecting overtime have assembled, and the crowds are trickling in hours early to grab prime viewing positions for the fireworks display. While Independence Day is the official name of the celebration, the media is still celebrating a Supreme Court decision which granted the government the power to outsource taxation to corporations by compelling everyone to purchase a product from a private company by virtue of having been born.
Nancy Pelosi explained that the mandate was more of a penalty on “Free Riders” than a tax. Down by the Hudson River, British warships once plied the waterway in a bid to prevent the colonists from acting as “Free Riders” on their investment. The debate over whether people could be disenfranchised and compelled to pay for the grandiose plans of an out of touch government was eventually thought to have been settled further north at Saratoga. But the debate is back.
Co-Dependence Day is the new Independence Day. “I love you, you tolerate me and we all live together in a happy planned economy.” Free riders are people who, like the Colonists, are perceived to have benefited from the gargantuan investment of government without paying their proper share.
All that the Crown really wanted was for the colonists to pay their “fair share”, a share that was determined thousands of miles away. All that the colonists wanted was the rights of Englishmen that they believed they were entitled to. After a great deal of bloodshed, the colonists won the right to be Americans instead—an odd series of consonants and vowels having to do with an Italian explorer but meaning free and limited government.
The “Free Riders” who didn’t want to pay into the empire won the day, but hardly anyone in the crowds heading toward the Hudson remembers what the day is about. The denizens of public housing, who are the true “Free Riders”, certainly don’t. They are getting a free ride on everything from food to housing, but the free ride comes from the taxpayers that Pelosi and Obama damn as “Free Riders”. And the only way to keep their free ride going is by ending everyone else’s freedom.
The fireworks are just one more free thing in the sea of free things that they swim in. The Fourth to them is Fireworks Day. Every country has its fireworks days and this is the day that this one chooses to light up the night sky. The day means nothing to them because though they are surrounded by free things, they aren’t free. The difference between freedom and free things has been progressively erased so that many think that the American Revolution was fought because the British weren’t providing affordable health coverage to the colonies. If only they knew about the NHS, they would vote to go back.
There is a big difference between a free country and a country of free things. You can have one or the other, but you can’t have both. A free country isn’t obsessed with free riders, only a country of free things obsesses with making everyone pay their fair share for the benefit of the people who want the free things. The rugged individualism of Colonial America has given way to stifling crowds, co-dependent on each other, lined shoulder to shoulder, clutching at each other’s wallets, crying, “Take from him and give to me.”
We are a nation overflowing with the right to things paid for with other people’s money. A nation where the government gives you food, housing and education; while Walmart gives you cheap products made in China, that used to be made in America, back when people were able to afford health care, housing and food without having to pick each other’s pockets.
The fireworks that shoot up in a wonderland of blue and red, silver and gold, are a faint echo of the real thing, the gunpowder that blasted back and forth between the lines of government troops, their Hessian mercenaries and the rebel colonists who chose to ride free, rather than bend their necks to the plans of an expanding empire. The faint smell of gunpowder and the dark shapes of the barges only mime the war that was fought here. A play of light and shadow whose meaning reaches fewer and fewer people each year.
The expected speeches will celebrate some notion of American Exceptionalism and Independence, but what substance is there to either one? Did so many men risk their lives just to end up with a system that made the one they escaped seem positively libertarian by comparison? If they had known that they were going to end up with the NHS, death panels that will eventually adopt some version of the Liverpool Care Pathway’s euthanasia protocol, and a co-dependent system where everyone is looted for the greater good of the looters—they might have stayed home on their farms, sadly watching the fighting from a distance.
JFK’s famous line, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” was always a hollow lie. Half the country is expected to ask what their country can do for them, while the other half is expected to ask what they can do for their country. This simmering civil war is often pegged as a class war, but it isn’t about class. There are billionaires and paupers on both sides, and the divide cuts across the Middle Class, dividing those who derive their income from private business from those who receive it from government and government-subsidized employment.
The Fourth of July is Independence Day, but every other day is Co-Dependence Day, the days we celebrate our integration, our volunteerism and our compliance with a vast system which makes everyone dependent on the government and which makes the government dependent on everyone who still works for someone other than the government—including the freest of free riders, who work for themselves. Empires function by draining every drop from their possessions to cover their costs. The British Crown tried to drain America to pay down its debt, resulting in growing protests from the population and eventually a revolution. Now the Empire of Co-Dependency is draining its independent subjects for the benefit of its dependent subjects and the dependency infrastructure that employs its numberless bureaucrats who govern it all.
The Tea Party, both of them, began when an out of touch government and its monarch levied taxes on a subject population that the cloistered capital considered mere savages, clinging to backward beliefs and living without the benefit of the civilization to be found in the inner cities of the realm. The Gadsen flag with its twining serpent is not a symbol to be found on the split river that flows around a narrow island. But the island was a Loyalist government enclave even then, that Washington was forced to flee, putting the torch to half of Brooklyn to aid his escape. Now the new empire operates out of a city named after him and buildings with more bureaucrats than the entire deployment of British forces in the colonies govern what is still described as a “Free Nation.”
The American Revolution was not a struggle for another nation, one of many, but for a free nation. It was not split off to accommodate the national strivings of an ethnic group or their historical destiny. Its guiding idea, like its national holiday, was independence, but independence means very little unless it reaches the individual.
A nation where everyone is part of one great co-dependent community, a centrally planned marketplace that can only be balanced if everyone is forced to buy what they are told to buy, is not a free nation. It will not even be independent for long. The logic of co-dependence is to expand that dependency beyond the borders and make the region and then every part the world dependent on one another to balance out the numbers.
Co-dependence required an end to states rights. It will eventually require an end to the rights of nations. The Eurozone is a spectacle of co-dependent economic implosion with bailouts for all in the name of a regional stability that cannot be sustained. America, like Spain and Greece, is also passing along its debt to more vibrant economies. We are no longer co-dependent with the Mother Country, instead we are co-dependent with the People’s Republic of China, buying their products, while their buy our debt.
As Britain gives way to the European Union and America gives way to NAFTA and nations give way to the United Nations, the burden of dependency is passed on to greater and greater systems until its weight is more than that of the entire world. That burden of co-dependency is like a rock rolling downhill; it gathers more and more mass to itself, increasing its momentum, until it crashes.
The system attempts to stay ahead of the inevitable crash by making sure that every productive person pays his “fair share”. It hunts for “Free Riders”, both individuals and nations, who still aren’t rolling downhill, tips them over and pushes them off the mountain. All in the name of the greater good.
The “Free Rider” principle is that the benefits of a policy must be forcibly extended to everyone in order to mandate that they help fund the entitlement. There is no natural limit to such an expansion. If your wages can be said to have risen because unions negotiated a new contract, then you can be compelled to pay the union. If you aren’t buying health insurance, then you must be getting it for free. If you aren’t part of the system, then there will be a mandate that will make you part of it.
“Free Riders” is a polite version of the Soviet Union’s “Parasites”. The concept is the same. In a system where benefits are extended to everyone, everyone is obligated to the system. The new Crown is not a person, it is an idea. The throne at whose foot a formerly free people kneel is the golden seat of the welfare state. While the fireworks light up the sky, a counterrevolution undid the revolution. There is a new king and his face is on every magazine cover in the land. His bounty is a jagged bear trap that turns everyone into a ward of the state at their own expense.
As the last wave of fireworks die out, the shooting stars sinking to earth and vanishing into the darkness, the light of Independence Day fades and the crowds slowly trudge away from the brief spectacle, past the lines of police barricades, through narrow streets, past government buildings, back to their co-dependent lives in a co-dependent nation where the will of the people and the rights of the individual matter less than the latest proposal to solve the problems of their independence by making the country a more dependent place.
A few hundred years ago in these streets, men and women celebrated the end of tyranny, and in its darkest hour, lines of grim men marched along the waterfront up to the highest point on the island to mount a final defense. Sometimes the older buildings still wear their shadows on their brick walls and by the golden light of the fireworks you can almost see them, shadows moving in the darkness, their footsteps taking them north, a faint song on their lips, muskets in their hands, their lives lost and gained in defense of their freedom.
Co-Dependence Day is the new Independence Day. “I love you, you tolerate me and we all live together in a happy planned economy.” Free riders are people who, like the Colonists, are perceived to have benefited from the gargantuan investment of government without paying their proper share.
All that the Crown really wanted was for the colonists to pay their “fair share”, a share that was determined thousands of miles away. All that the colonists wanted was the rights of Englishmen that they believed they were entitled to. After a great deal of bloodshed, the colonists won the right to be Americans instead—an odd series of consonants and vowels having to do with an Italian explorer but meaning free and limited government.
The “Free Riders” who didn’t want to pay into the empire won the day, but hardly anyone in the crowds heading toward the Hudson remembers what the day is about. The denizens of public housing, who are the true “Free Riders”, certainly don’t. They are getting a free ride on everything from food to housing, but the free ride comes from the taxpayers that Pelosi and Obama damn as “Free Riders”. And the only way to keep their free ride going is by ending everyone else’s freedom.
The fireworks are just one more free thing in the sea of free things that they swim in. The Fourth to them is Fireworks Day. Every country has its fireworks days and this is the day that this one chooses to light up the night sky. The day means nothing to them because though they are surrounded by free things, they aren’t free. The difference between freedom and free things has been progressively erased so that many think that the American Revolution was fought because the British weren’t providing affordable health coverage to the colonies. If only they knew about the NHS, they would vote to go back.
There is a big difference between a free country and a country of free things. You can have one or the other, but you can’t have both. A free country isn’t obsessed with free riders, only a country of free things obsesses with making everyone pay their fair share for the benefit of the people who want the free things. The rugged individualism of Colonial America has given way to stifling crowds, co-dependent on each other, lined shoulder to shoulder, clutching at each other’s wallets, crying, “Take from him and give to me.”
We are a nation overflowing with the right to things paid for with other people’s money. A nation where the government gives you food, housing and education; while Walmart gives you cheap products made in China, that used to be made in America, back when people were able to afford health care, housing and food without having to pick each other’s pockets.
The fireworks that shoot up in a wonderland of blue and red, silver and gold, are a faint echo of the real thing, the gunpowder that blasted back and forth between the lines of government troops, their Hessian mercenaries and the rebel colonists who chose to ride free, rather than bend their necks to the plans of an expanding empire. The faint smell of gunpowder and the dark shapes of the barges only mime the war that was fought here. A play of light and shadow whose meaning reaches fewer and fewer people each year.
The expected speeches will celebrate some notion of American Exceptionalism and Independence, but what substance is there to either one? Did so many men risk their lives just to end up with a system that made the one they escaped seem positively libertarian by comparison? If they had known that they were going to end up with the NHS, death panels that will eventually adopt some version of the Liverpool Care Pathway’s euthanasia protocol, and a co-dependent system where everyone is looted for the greater good of the looters—they might have stayed home on their farms, sadly watching the fighting from a distance.
JFK’s famous line, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” was always a hollow lie. Half the country is expected to ask what their country can do for them, while the other half is expected to ask what they can do for their country. This simmering civil war is often pegged as a class war, but it isn’t about class. There are billionaires and paupers on both sides, and the divide cuts across the Middle Class, dividing those who derive their income from private business from those who receive it from government and government-subsidized employment.
The Tea Party, both of them, began when an out of touch government and its monarch levied taxes on a subject population that the cloistered capital considered mere savages, clinging to backward beliefs and living without the benefit of the civilization to be found in the inner cities of the realm. The Gadsen flag with its twining serpent is not a symbol to be found on the split river that flows around a narrow island. But the island was a Loyalist government enclave even then, that Washington was forced to flee, putting the torch to half of Brooklyn to aid his escape. Now the new empire operates out of a city named after him and buildings with more bureaucrats than the entire deployment of British forces in the colonies govern what is still described as a “Free Nation.”
The American Revolution was not a struggle for another nation, one of many, but for a free nation. It was not split off to accommodate the national strivings of an ethnic group or their historical destiny. Its guiding idea, like its national holiday, was independence, but independence means very little unless it reaches the individual.
A nation where everyone is part of one great co-dependent community, a centrally planned marketplace that can only be balanced if everyone is forced to buy what they are told to buy, is not a free nation. It will not even be independent for long. The logic of co-dependence is to expand that dependency beyond the borders and make the region and then every part the world dependent on one another to balance out the numbers.
Co-dependence required an end to states rights. It will eventually require an end to the rights of nations. The Eurozone is a spectacle of co-dependent economic implosion with bailouts for all in the name of a regional stability that cannot be sustained. America, like Spain and Greece, is also passing along its debt to more vibrant economies. We are no longer co-dependent with the Mother Country, instead we are co-dependent with the People’s Republic of China, buying their products, while their buy our debt.
As Britain gives way to the European Union and America gives way to NAFTA and nations give way to the United Nations, the burden of dependency is passed on to greater and greater systems until its weight is more than that of the entire world. That burden of co-dependency is like a rock rolling downhill; it gathers more and more mass to itself, increasing its momentum, until it crashes.
The system attempts to stay ahead of the inevitable crash by making sure that every productive person pays his “fair share”. It hunts for “Free Riders”, both individuals and nations, who still aren’t rolling downhill, tips them over and pushes them off the mountain. All in the name of the greater good.
The “Free Rider” principle is that the benefits of a policy must be forcibly extended to everyone in order to mandate that they help fund the entitlement. There is no natural limit to such an expansion. If your wages can be said to have risen because unions negotiated a new contract, then you can be compelled to pay the union. If you aren’t buying health insurance, then you must be getting it for free. If you aren’t part of the system, then there will be a mandate that will make you part of it.
As the last wave of fireworks die out, the shooting stars sinking to earth and vanishing into the darkness, the light of Independence Day fades and the crowds slowly trudge away from the brief spectacle, past the lines of police barricades, through narrow streets, past government buildings, back to their co-dependent lives in a co-dependent nation where the will of the people and the rights of the individual matter less than the latest proposal to solve the problems of their independence by making the country a more dependent place.
A few hundred years ago in these streets, men and women celebrated the end of tyranny, and in its darkest hour, lines of grim men marched along the waterfront up to the highest point on the island to mount a final defense. Sometimes the older buildings still wear their shadows on their brick walls and by the golden light of the fireworks you can almost see them, shadows moving in the darkness, their footsteps taking them north, a faint song on their lips, muskets in their hands, their lives lost and gained in defense of their freedom.
Govt. Issues Violent Right Wing Extremism Warning
Weeks after an official state report on militia activity classified groups that oppose abortion and illegal immigration as domestic terrorists, a separate federal government document warns against right wing extremist violence by Americans who share similar concerns.
A new Homeland Security report warns of the possibility of violence by unnamed right wing extremists worried about illegal immigration, abortion, firearms restrictions, the loss of U.S. sovereignty and increasing federal power. The 10-page report ("Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment") classifies war veterans as particular threats.
"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists," the report states. The concern, according to Homeland Security officials, is that right wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities.
Published by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, the document also implies that the election of an African American president and his expected policy changes are proving to be a driving force for right ring extremist recruitment and radicalization.
Just last month a Missouri State law enforcement report (“The Modern Militia”), with information partially gathered by federal law enforcement agencies, listed Christian conservatives and groups that oppose abortion and illegal immigration as domestic terrorists. Incredibly, the document completely omits domestic terror groups associated with fundamentalist Muslims or those connected to liberals such as extreme environmentalists.
A new Homeland Security report warns of the possibility of violence by unnamed right wing extremists worried about illegal immigration, abortion, firearms restrictions, the loss of U.S. sovereignty and increasing federal power. The 10-page report ("Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment") classifies war veterans as particular threats.
"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists," the report states. The concern, according to Homeland Security officials, is that right wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities.
Published by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, the document also implies that the election of an African American president and his expected policy changes are proving to be a driving force for right ring extremist recruitment and radicalization.
Just last month a Missouri State law enforcement report (“The Modern Militia”), with information partially gathered by federal law enforcement agencies, listed Christian conservatives and groups that oppose abortion and illegal immigration as domestic terrorists. Incredibly, the document completely omits domestic terror groups associated with fundamentalist Muslims or those connected to liberals such as extreme environmentalists.
Taxpayer Cost of GM Bailout Up to $35 Billion
General Motors shares fell to a fresh 2012 closing low of 19.57 on Monday. The stock hit 19 in mid-December, the lowest since the auto giant came public at $33 in November 2010 following its June 2009 bankruptcy.
Normally you might say, tough luck investors. But this is Government Motors. The Treasury still owns 26.5% of GM, or 500 million shares. Taxpayers are still out $26.4 billion in direct aid. Shares would have to hit $53 for the government to break even.
Those shares were worth about $9.8 billion as of Monday. That would leave taxpayers with a loss of $16.6 billion.
But that’s not the full tally. Obama let GM keep $45 billion in past losses to offset future profits. Those are usually wiped out or slashed, along with debts, in bankruptcy. But the administration essentially gifted $45 billion in write-offs (book value $18 billion) to GM. So when GM earned a $7.6 billion profit in 2011 (more on that below), it paid no taxes.
Include that $18 billion gift, and taxpayers’ true loss climbs to nearly $35 billion. (Read More)
Normally you might say, tough luck investors. But this is Government Motors. The Treasury still owns 26.5% of GM, or 500 million shares. Taxpayers are still out $26.4 billion in direct aid. Shares would have to hit $53 for the government to break even.
Those shares were worth about $9.8 billion as of Monday. That would leave taxpayers with a loss of $16.6 billion.
But that’s not the full tally. Obama let GM keep $45 billion in past losses to offset future profits. Those are usually wiped out or slashed, along with debts, in bankruptcy. But the administration essentially gifted $45 billion in write-offs (book value $18 billion) to GM. So when GM earned a $7.6 billion profit in 2011 (more on that below), it paid no taxes.
Include that $18 billion gift, and taxpayers’ true loss climbs to nearly $35 billion. (Read More)
Would that make today’s Democrats Tories, then?
Historian Thomas Fleming, writing in the Wall Street Journal about life in 1776:
Almost every American knows the traditional story of July Fourth—the soaring idealism of the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress’s grim pledge to defy the world’s most powerful nation with their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. But what else about revolutionary America might help us feel closer to those founders in their tricornered hats, fancy waistcoats and tight knee-breeches?
Those Americans, it turns out, had the highest per capita income in the civilized world of their time. They also paid the lowest taxes—and they were determined to keep it that way.
If only we could get that back!
Almost every American knows the traditional story of July Fourth—the soaring idealism of the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress’s grim pledge to defy the world’s most powerful nation with their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. But what else about revolutionary America might help us feel closer to those founders in their tricornered hats, fancy waistcoats and tight knee-breeches?
Those Americans, it turns out, had the highest per capita income in the civilized world of their time. They also paid the lowest taxes—and they were determined to keep it that way.
If only we could get that back!
A good old FCC roundup on Independence Day
It’s Independence Day, which was very nice for me since I kept on resting and feel just about healthy now. No Tech on Monday thanks to my cold that wiped me out since Sunday.
Unfortunately Google decided today was the day to celebrate a song that, while American, was specifically designed to carry political meaning as well as to reply to the Christian and patriotic God Bless America. Google apparently can’t even do Independence Day right.
But, Google does drive economic growth, which is why we need to keep a light regulatory touch with them. I just wish they’d realize that when they pushed for Net Neutrality, they were pushing for heavy regulation of firms that also drive economic growth.
Remember when the George Soros extremist left sued the FCC because its Open Internet order (the Net Neutrality rule) allegedly didn’t go far enough? The goal clearly was to try to make the FCC’s actions look centrist, rather than the extreme power grab that they were, because Free Press dropped the suit out of the blue.
More FCC? Some people love to write about the many ways the Obama EPA is out of control. Others detail the NLRB. The FTC, SEC, FDA, and others surely have their faults. We’ve even got a BOEMRE writers at RedState. But the FCC is mine. Let’s list a few problems with it real quick:
It’s proposing unconstitutional regulations with respect to 700MHz interoperability. It’s got the spectrum allocation process hindering investment, universal access, competition, and economic growth. It’s maintaining a blackout rule that’s purely a subsidy for big business. Congressional Democrats are cowardly folding on the blackout issue, but Verizon is fighting on spectrum/
Meanwhile, internationally, the ITU is trying to be even worse than the FCC, so we really have no reason to believe the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations are going any better. So it’s interesting that Barack Obama lost 132 Democrats on TPP transparency, on the heels of the administration blocking a request by Darrell Issa to monitor the sessions.
I think the fat is getting to Kim Dotcom’s brain, because he’s convinced Joe Biden is the mastermind of a vast conspiracy against him and his former criminal enterprise Megaupload.
A bill of rights should not be “a litany of goodies”, indeed. That was my initial reaction, though not so colorfully put, to these Digital Bill of Rights ideas. So yes, I lean against these proposals.
Because you know what? Sometimes people just want to sell their privacy in limited ways to get cheap stuff.
I still adamantly oppose the Lieberman-Collins Cybersecurity Act as a massive power grab, but of course Senate Democrats continue to fight for it. CISPA or SECURE IT would be fine thank you.
Here’s an interesting development: Euro court deals a blow to EULAs, those draconian software license agreements that many believed could never withstand court challenges.
Gotta love it when incompetent people write technical laws. This black box proposal in the UK is insane. Read generously, it merely proposes to require ISPs to do the impossible and install man-in-the-middle snooping attacks on secure Internet protocols. Read otherwise, it makes no technical sense at all.
Unfortunately Google decided today was the day to celebrate a song that, while American, was specifically designed to carry political meaning as well as to reply to the Christian and patriotic God Bless America. Google apparently can’t even do Independence Day right.
But, Google does drive economic growth, which is why we need to keep a light regulatory touch with them. I just wish they’d realize that when they pushed for Net Neutrality, they were pushing for heavy regulation of firms that also drive economic growth.
Remember when the George Soros extremist left sued the FCC because its Open Internet order (the Net Neutrality rule) allegedly didn’t go far enough? The goal clearly was to try to make the FCC’s actions look centrist, rather than the extreme power grab that they were, because Free Press dropped the suit out of the blue.
More FCC? Some people love to write about the many ways the Obama EPA is out of control. Others detail the NLRB. The FTC, SEC, FDA, and others surely have their faults. We’ve even got a BOEMRE writers at RedState. But the FCC is mine. Let’s list a few problems with it real quick:
It’s proposing unconstitutional regulations with respect to 700MHz interoperability. It’s got the spectrum allocation process hindering investment, universal access, competition, and economic growth. It’s maintaining a blackout rule that’s purely a subsidy for big business. Congressional Democrats are cowardly folding on the blackout issue, but Verizon is fighting on spectrum/
Meanwhile, internationally, the ITU is trying to be even worse than the FCC, so we really have no reason to believe the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations are going any better. So it’s interesting that Barack Obama lost 132 Democrats on TPP transparency, on the heels of the administration blocking a request by Darrell Issa to monitor the sessions.
I think the fat is getting to Kim Dotcom’s brain, because he’s convinced Joe Biden is the mastermind of a vast conspiracy against him and his former criminal enterprise Megaupload.
A bill of rights should not be “a litany of goodies”, indeed. That was my initial reaction, though not so colorfully put, to these Digital Bill of Rights ideas. So yes, I lean against these proposals.
Because you know what? Sometimes people just want to sell their privacy in limited ways to get cheap stuff.
I still adamantly oppose the Lieberman-Collins Cybersecurity Act as a massive power grab, but of course Senate Democrats continue to fight for it. CISPA or SECURE IT would be fine thank you.
Here’s an interesting development: Euro court deals a blow to EULAs, those draconian software license agreements that many believed could never withstand court challenges.
Gotta love it when incompetent people write technical laws. This black box proposal in the UK is insane. Read generously, it merely proposes to require ISPs to do the impossible and install man-in-the-middle snooping attacks on secure Internet protocols. Read otherwise, it makes no technical sense at all.
Freedom’s Slate
On this Independence Day, it is time to focus on improving the crop of Republican congressmen by examining some of the remaining Republican primaries.
Want the GOP to stand up to Barack Obama?
Tired of the GOP cutting deals?
Want to make sure the GOP doesn’t back out of full and complete repeal of Obamacare if they sweep in November?
Then you absolutely must support these candidates still in Republican primaries.
If you care about freedom, here is Freedom’s Slate.
These are the candidates guaranteed to restore the GOP’s testicular fortitude.
Want the GOP to stand up to Barack Obama?
Tired of the GOP cutting deals?
Want to make sure the GOP doesn’t back out of full and complete repeal of Obamacare if they sweep in November?
Then you absolutely must support these candidates still in Republican primaries.
If you care about freedom, here is Freedom’s Slate.
These are the candidates guaranteed to restore the GOP’s testicular fortitude.
Let Freedom Ring: Aaron Walker Talks About The Day He Was Arrested For Blogging
"But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing"~Thomas Paine
Aaron's Independence Day post deals with the day he was arrested for blogging about a public figure, Brett Kimberlin A bigot/racist/convicted perjurer/dope dealer/domestic terrorist turned political activist.
Very fitting.
His excellent post is a must read, "Let Freedom Ring"
Aaron's emergency stay ends tomorrow, he returns to court to see if he still can speak, blog about what the Speedway Bomber has done to silence him.
Yes, Let Freedom Ring. First Amendment rights belong to all Americans, not just Team Kimberlin
Previous:
Aaron reminds everyone do not contact, harass, email etc Team Kimberlin. The screencaps, emails, etc will be used for more lawfare. Besides, why turn yourself into those that disgust you as much as this group does They don't deserve to be threatened either is what I am getting at. First Amendment rights are for all citizens of this beautiful country, and eventually Team Kimberlin will understand that...eventually.[ Even their "apparent" astroturfed comments have failed.]
By posting about "Team Kimberlin" I am not threatening anyone, just linking to the facts. I wasn't asked to post this by Walker nor has anyone else "asked me" to post anything about this.
Aaron's Independence Day post deals with the day he was arrested for blogging about a public figure, Brett Kimberlin A bigot/racist/convicted perjurer/dope dealer/domestic terrorist turned political activist.
Very fitting.
His excellent post is a must read, "Let Freedom Ring"
Aaron's emergency stay ends tomorrow, he returns to court to see if he still can speak, blog about what the Speedway Bomber has done to silence him.
Yes, Let Freedom Ring. First Amendment rights belong to all Americans, not just Team Kimberlin
Previous:
Aaron reminds everyone do not contact, harass, email etc Team Kimberlin. The screencaps, emails, etc will be used for more lawfare. Besides, why turn yourself into those that disgust you as much as this group does They don't deserve to be threatened either is what I am getting at. First Amendment rights are for all citizens of this beautiful country, and eventually Team Kimberlin will understand that...eventually.[ Even their "apparent" astroturfed comments have failed.]
By posting about "Team Kimberlin" I am not threatening anyone, just linking to the facts. I wasn't asked to post this by Walker nor has anyone else "asked me" to post anything about this.
In Pennsylvania, an ‘old farm boy’ is taking on Democratic Sen. Bob Casey
Tom Smith didn’t go to college and has little political experience, but Republicans in Pennsylvania are counting on this “old farm boy” to give the incumbent Democratic senator from a well-known political family a run for his money in November.
“You can sum my life up in one sentence,” Smith recently told The Daily Caller. “I’m just an old farm boy that got in this place in the coal mines and wound up in business and did pretty well at it and now I’m running for the United States Senate.”
“You can sum my life up in one sentence,” Smith recently told The Daily Caller. “I’m just an old farm boy that got in this place in the coal mines and wound up in business and did pretty well at it and now I’m running for the United States Senate.”
Egypt's Sex-Slave Marriage
"When I want a sex-slave," [I] should be able to go "to the market and pick out whichever female I desire and marry her." — Sheikh Huwaini
Obama's 'American story' faces fresh scrutiny
When he first took the national stage, with his electrifying keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in the summer of 2004, Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, briefly summarized his unusual life story, with its biracial themes and trans-continental setting. "I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story," he said, adding: "In no other country on earth is my story even possible."
Would Be Lady Cops Try To Call Whaaambulance, Phone Too Heavy, DOJ To The Rescue
In Obamaville, affirmative action knows no boundaries. White males… your still racist oppressing scumbags.
(Washington Examiner) – The Corpus Christi, Tex. Police Department has found itself on the business end of a civil rights lawsuit after the Justice Department concluded that a physical ability test used when considering job applications discriminates against women...
(Washington Examiner) – The Corpus Christi, Tex. Police Department has found itself on the business end of a civil rights lawsuit after the Justice Department concluded that a physical ability test used when considering job applications discriminates against women...
Senator Grassley Reveals Damaging Fast & Furious Memo
Senator Charles Grassley wants answers from Attorney General Eric Holder about a memo that provides evidence of deliberate lies from the DOJ...
Obama Thanks Those Who Have Defended the 'God-Given Right' to Life
(CNSNews.com) - Making a reference to the Declaration of Independence as he spoke at the White House on Wednesday evening, President Barack Obama expressed gratitude to the members of military families who have sacrificed to defend the "God-given rights" of Americans, including the right to life.
In his remarks, Obama suggested that the Declaration was the first time the God-given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness had been "put to paper."
In his remarks, Obama suggested that the Declaration was the first time the God-given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness had been "put to paper."
In 2010 Obama Promised to Double Exports by 2015; So How's He Doing?
Purportedly the US is going to decouple from the global economy, led by exports. I believe otherwise, which got me to thinking about pledges president Obama made in January 2010...
Cities in California Consider Seizing Mortgages
A handful of local officials in California who say the housing bust is a public blight on their cities may invoke their eminent-domain powers to restructure mortgages as a way to help some borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth.
Investors holding the current mortgages predict the move will backfire by driving up borrowing costs and further depress property values. "I don't see how you could find it anything other than appalling," said Scott Simon, a managing director at Pacific Investment Management Co., or Pimco, a unit of Allianz SE.
Eminent domain allows a government to forcibly acquire ...
Investors holding the current mortgages predict the move will backfire by driving up borrowing costs and further depress property values. "I don't see how you could find it anything other than appalling," said Scott Simon, a managing director at Pacific Investment Management Co., or Pimco, a unit of Allianz SE.
Eminent domain allows a government to forcibly acquire ...
Allen West Called a “Bought Mother F*cker”
The individual flipped West the bird, and told him that he was a ”bought Mother F*cker.” We stopped the guy and asked him why he had to use foul language in front of women and children.
He then proceeding to try to say that conservatism was the root cause of slavery and women’s suffrage. Towards the end of the impromptu interview, we discovered that he is a ‘Bible Man’, citing the Bible and accusing yours truly of not reading the Bible, all while flipping me the bird. This video is priceless!
Conservatism has its basis in going against women’s suffrage it took the liberals to push that, it took the Liberals to push the anti-slavery…”-Angry Man with the Miller Lite
LOL! Marine Corps band plays Romney campaign song as Obama was greeting visitors at the White House
One awkward moment: A New York Times photographer in the pool mentioned that shortly after Obama ended his remarks and was shaking hands, the a subset of the Marine Corps band played one of Mitt Romney’s main walkout songs, Rod Atkins’ “It’s America.”
Hospitals Told Child Heart Surgery Will Stop
Three hospitals providing children's heart surgery in England have been told they must stop following an NHS review of resources.
Three out of 10 specialist units will stop performing heart surgery on children following an NHS review which decided resources were spread too thinly.
The Royal Brompton in Chelsea, west London, Leeds General Infirmary and Glenfield Hospital in Leicester will not stop providing surgery immediately as plans to implement the new streamlined service are still being developed.
Once they stop providing surgery, probably after 2013, the units will still see patients for diagnosis, monitoring and non-surgical treatment.
The consultation process by the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts (JCPCT) of England was part of a national review aimed at streamlining paediatric congenital cardiac surgery services.
The Safe and Sustainable review followed the landmark inquiry into children's heart surgery at Bristol Royal Infirmary between 1990 and 1995, where up to 35 children and babies died as a result of poor care.
The review recommended that surgery be concentrated in a few specialist centres in order to ensure quality of care.
One of the hospitals angered by the decision is Royal Brompton, which is the largest specialist heart and lung centre in the UK and among the largest in Europe.
Fearing for the future of the unit, it argued through the courts that the consultation process was unlawful but lost the legal battle in April in the Court of Appeal.
Bob Bell, chief executive of the Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, said the damaging effects on specialist respiratory care for children if it's paediatric intensive care unit closed had been highlighted "time and time again".
He said he would speak to the board, adding: "One thing is certain - I will not be asking them for the mandate to manage the destruction of a highly valued and respected children's unit."
Mike Collier, Chairman of Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, said: "This result flies in the face of logical health care planning and plain common sense."
He added: "We are surprised that the very clear wishes of over 600,000 people from this region appear to have been disregarded."
The Children's Heart Surgery Fund said it would attempt appeal to the health minister against the decision.
Charity director Sharon Cheng said: "Clinical logic has not been taken into consideration. They have ignored co-location. They have ignored patient choice."
But the Children's Heart Federation's chief executive Anne Keatley-Clarke said: "The delays to planned improvements in children's heart services caused a great deal of uncertainty for parents and professionals, so we are pleased for them that this has come to an end."
Sir Bruce Keogh, NHS medical director said: "These changes need to be made for the benefit of all children who have congenital heart disease.
"The review, which has been led by the NHS and is independent of ministers, has the support of the royal colleges as well as national charities.
"I hope that everyone involved can now work together to ensure the NHS delivers the very best services for children."
The institutions which will now house the specialist surgery centres are: Evelina Hospital, which is part of Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital Trust, Great Ormond Street, both in London, Southampton General Hospital, Birmingham Children's Hospital, Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, the Freeman Hospital in Newcastle and Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool.
Three out of 10 specialist units will stop performing heart surgery on children following an NHS review which decided resources were spread too thinly.
The Royal Brompton in Chelsea, west London, Leeds General Infirmary and Glenfield Hospital in Leicester will not stop providing surgery immediately as plans to implement the new streamlined service are still being developed.
Once they stop providing surgery, probably after 2013, the units will still see patients for diagnosis, monitoring and non-surgical treatment.
The consultation process by the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts (JCPCT) of England was part of a national review aimed at streamlining paediatric congenital cardiac surgery services.
The Safe and Sustainable review followed the landmark inquiry into children's heart surgery at Bristol Royal Infirmary between 1990 and 1995, where up to 35 children and babies died as a result of poor care.
The review recommended that surgery be concentrated in a few specialist centres in order to ensure quality of care.
One of the hospitals angered by the decision is Royal Brompton, which is the largest specialist heart and lung centre in the UK and among the largest in Europe.
Fearing for the future of the unit, it argued through the courts that the consultation process was unlawful but lost the legal battle in April in the Court of Appeal.
Bob Bell, chief executive of the Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, said the damaging effects on specialist respiratory care for children if it's paediatric intensive care unit closed had been highlighted "time and time again".
He said he would speak to the board, adding: "One thing is certain - I will not be asking them for the mandate to manage the destruction of a highly valued and respected children's unit."
Mike Collier, Chairman of Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, said: "This result flies in the face of logical health care planning and plain common sense."
He added: "We are surprised that the very clear wishes of over 600,000 people from this region appear to have been disregarded."
The Children's Heart Surgery Fund said it would attempt appeal to the health minister against the decision.
Charity director Sharon Cheng said: "Clinical logic has not been taken into consideration. They have ignored co-location. They have ignored patient choice."
But the Children's Heart Federation's chief executive Anne Keatley-Clarke said: "The delays to planned improvements in children's heart services caused a great deal of uncertainty for parents and professionals, so we are pleased for them that this has come to an end."
Sir Bruce Keogh, NHS medical director said: "These changes need to be made for the benefit of all children who have congenital heart disease.
"The review, which has been led by the NHS and is independent of ministers, has the support of the royal colleges as well as national charities.
"I hope that everyone involved can now work together to ensure the NHS delivers the very best services for children."
The institutions which will now house the specialist surgery centres are: Evelina Hospital, which is part of Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital Trust, Great Ormond Street, both in London, Southampton General Hospital, Birmingham Children's Hospital, Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, the Freeman Hospital in Newcastle and Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool.
USDA combats ‘mountain pride,’ self-reliance to boost food stamp rolls
One in seven Americans are on food stamps, but the government is pushing to enroll more — in many instances working to overcome Americans’ “pride,” self-reliance or failure to see a need.
“Our common goal is to increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” the United States Department of Agriculture explains on its “Outreach Toolkits” page. “Our purpose is to ensure that those going through difficult times can feed their families healthy, nutritious food. By working as a team, we can accomplish these goals.”
The USDA has adopted a range of strategies and programs designed to bring more people to SNAP, including taking on “pride.” A 2011 Hunger Champions Award document reveals that local assistance offices have been rewarded for “counteracting” pride and pushing more people to sign up for benefits.
The Ashe County Department of Social Services in Jefferson, N.C., for example, received a “Gold” award for confronting “mountain pride” and increasing food stamp participation by 10 percent.
“Hearing from the outreach worker that benefits could be used to purchase seeds and plants for their gardens turned out to be a very important strategy in counteracting what they described as ‘mountain pride’ and appealed to those who wished not to rely on others,” the document explains. “Eventually, many accepted assistance from the Low Income Energy Assistance Program, the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary program, and others, in some cases doubling a household’s net income. In 1 year, SNAP participation increased over 10 percent.”
Overcoming “beliefs” is a stated method from the USDA to bring more people to the program.
A “Common SNAP Myths” sheet from the “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Community Outreach Partner Toolkit” details the importance of reaching people who do not think they qualify or have beliefs that conflict with accepting food stamps.
“Millions of low-income people are not accessing the nutrition benefits for which they qualify,” the “myth” sheet explains. “To be effective, it is important that our national and local outreach efforts counter myths about SNAP among those who think they are not eligible or have beliefs that discourage them from enrolling.”
USDA claims that eligible people who do not participate are actually harming their communities by preventing additional funds from entering their respective economies.
“SNAP is an investment in our future. It offers nutrition benefits to participating clients, supports work, and provides economic benefits to communities,” USDA explains on one of its outreach pages. “However, too many low-income people who are eligible for the program do not participate and thus forgo nutrition assistance that could stretch their food dollars at the grocery store. Their communities lose out on the benefits provided by new SNAP dollars flowing into local economies.”
The agency adds that there are many hurdles — including reticence to accept government aid — that SNAP advocates must overcome in order to make eligible people accept the government’s help.
According to the USDA, 65 percent of those eligible claim SNAP benefits, a number the agency has been working to increase.
“The most common reason eligible people do not participate is because they do not realize they may be eligible,” USDA explains. “Others choose not to apply because of myths or misunderstandings about SNAP benefits or because of stigma that continues to persist. Others make a cost-benefit decision that the time involved in applying for benefits is not worth the expected return. Some do not want to accept government assistance.”
The USDA also claims increasing food stamp participation is an economic stimulus.
“Outreach and education are powerful tools in overcoming barriers to SNAP participation. Even a small increase in SNAP participation can have a substantial impact,” USDA continues. “If the national participation rate rose 5 percentage points, 1.9 million more low-income people would have an additional $1.3 billion in benefits per year to use to purchase healthy food and $2.5 billion total in new economic activity would be generated nationwide.”
Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, described USDA’s assertion that food stamps are beneficial to the economy as “ludicrous.”
Sessions, who has had his eye on food stamp reform for years, added that USDA’s focus on reducing cultural impediments to food stamp participation is particularly concerning.
“I think it’s a deep problem when SNAP officials think it is their duty to overcome ‘mountain pride’ or overcome the American sense of independence and individual responsibility,” Sessions told The Daily Caller in an interview. “They seem to think that is an anachronism and that modern Americans shouldn’t have pride and independence. I think it is highly troubling actually.” (SEE ALSO: USDA suggests food stamp parties, games to increase participation)
The Alabama senator’s most recent attempts at SNAP reform, in the 2012 farm bill — 80 percent of which was food stamp spending — were voted down by the Democratic majority in the Senate.
USDA responds, Sessions demands reform
“Our common goal is to increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” the United States Department of Agriculture explains on its “Outreach Toolkits” page. “Our purpose is to ensure that those going through difficult times can feed their families healthy, nutritious food. By working as a team, we can accomplish these goals.”
The USDA has adopted a range of strategies and programs designed to bring more people to SNAP, including taking on “pride.” A 2011 Hunger Champions Award document reveals that local assistance offices have been rewarded for “counteracting” pride and pushing more people to sign up for benefits.
The Ashe County Department of Social Services in Jefferson, N.C., for example, received a “Gold” award for confronting “mountain pride” and increasing food stamp participation by 10 percent.
“Hearing from the outreach worker that benefits could be used to purchase seeds and plants for their gardens turned out to be a very important strategy in counteracting what they described as ‘mountain pride’ and appealed to those who wished not to rely on others,” the document explains. “Eventually, many accepted assistance from the Low Income Energy Assistance Program, the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary program, and others, in some cases doubling a household’s net income. In 1 year, SNAP participation increased over 10 percent.”
Overcoming “beliefs” is a stated method from the USDA to bring more people to the program.
A “Common SNAP Myths” sheet from the “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Community Outreach Partner Toolkit” details the importance of reaching people who do not think they qualify or have beliefs that conflict with accepting food stamps.
“Millions of low-income people are not accessing the nutrition benefits for which they qualify,” the “myth” sheet explains. “To be effective, it is important that our national and local outreach efforts counter myths about SNAP among those who think they are not eligible or have beliefs that discourage them from enrolling.”
USDA claims that eligible people who do not participate are actually harming their communities by preventing additional funds from entering their respective economies.
“SNAP is an investment in our future. It offers nutrition benefits to participating clients, supports work, and provides economic benefits to communities,” USDA explains on one of its outreach pages. “However, too many low-income people who are eligible for the program do not participate and thus forgo nutrition assistance that could stretch their food dollars at the grocery store. Their communities lose out on the benefits provided by new SNAP dollars flowing into local economies.”
The agency adds that there are many hurdles — including reticence to accept government aid — that SNAP advocates must overcome in order to make eligible people accept the government’s help.
According to the USDA, 65 percent of those eligible claim SNAP benefits, a number the agency has been working to increase.
“The most common reason eligible people do not participate is because they do not realize they may be eligible,” USDA explains. “Others choose not to apply because of myths or misunderstandings about SNAP benefits or because of stigma that continues to persist. Others make a cost-benefit decision that the time involved in applying for benefits is not worth the expected return. Some do not want to accept government assistance.”
The USDA also claims increasing food stamp participation is an economic stimulus.
“Outreach and education are powerful tools in overcoming barriers to SNAP participation. Even a small increase in SNAP participation can have a substantial impact,” USDA continues. “If the national participation rate rose 5 percentage points, 1.9 million more low-income people would have an additional $1.3 billion in benefits per year to use to purchase healthy food and $2.5 billion total in new economic activity would be generated nationwide.”
Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, described USDA’s assertion that food stamps are beneficial to the economy as “ludicrous.”
Sessions, who has had his eye on food stamp reform for years, added that USDA’s focus on reducing cultural impediments to food stamp participation is particularly concerning.
“I think it’s a deep problem when SNAP officials think it is their duty to overcome ‘mountain pride’ or overcome the American sense of independence and individual responsibility,” Sessions told The Daily Caller in an interview. “They seem to think that is an anachronism and that modern Americans shouldn’t have pride and independence. I think it is highly troubling actually.” (SEE ALSO: USDA suggests food stamp parties, games to increase participation)
The Alabama senator’s most recent attempts at SNAP reform, in the 2012 farm bill — 80 percent of which was food stamp spending — were voted down by the Democratic majority in the Senate.
USDA responds, Sessions demands reform
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)