Tag Archives: Politics

Media Focuses On Obama’s Religion, Disappointing

For the first time (I’m guessing) in the history of the United States, an official at The White House has issued a statement that says the President is a Christian. And that he prays daily. The statement wasn’t clear whether he prays to Allah, God or Karl Marx. The fact that such a statement was even made underscores the fact that the question is out there. A rather stunning question about the President of the United States.

My reaction to this ‘news’ that Obama is a Christian falls in the ‘disappointed’ category.

First and foremost, disappointed that his religion should be a topic at all, let alone newsworthy. If you understand the First Amendment, he is free to believe or not to believe in whatever religion he wants. The fact that liberalism itself has become a religion is besides the point. In much the same way that Islam is inextricably connected to government, social behavior, and all aspects of public and private life. The Left sure made a big deal about Gov. Romney’s religion didn’t they?

But in America, and as far as I’m concerned, I don’t care if he is an atheist or a witch doctor. It’s what the president does and says that matters to me.

Second, that 18 percent of the American people believe he is Muslim, and only 34 percent believe his is a Christian, and a whopping 48 percent don’t know, says a lot of how disconnected this president is from the American people. That’s disappointing. It is symptomatic of his style. Don’t commit to anything, even your faith, else there is someone out there who will be offended. (Like radical Muslims) He is the total opposite of say, Ronald Reagan. Everyone knew who he was and that he stood for America and every American within its borders, and of every faith. He did not play favorites.

For Obama, he traipse around the world, into the Muslim world, and apologizes for American mistakes and arrogance (his words). He doesn’t attend a National Prayer breakfast, but does host a Ramadan dinner at The White House. He, and his Attorney General, go to great lengths to afford Gitmo terrorists, who also happen to be radical Muslims from foreign lands, the protections of our Constitution and civilian court system. And most recently, he spoke in favor of building a mosque (a trophy mosque to Islamic extremists) in the shadow of Ground Zero in New York, totally offending not only the victims’ families but seventy percent of Americans.

Taking his actions and words into account, it is not hard to understand why two-thirds of the country either think he is a Muslim or just don’t know what religion he is. And that’s disappointing indeed.

Link: White House says Obama is Christian, prays daily

No Mosque There

Those on the political Left that want to paint anyone on the Right that opposes the building of that mosque in the shadow of ground zero as an anti-Muslim bigot, or of being anti-First Amendment, and trying to leverage opposition into a political talking point, should look at the opposition a little closer. Because from a political standpoint, there is bi-partisan support against locating the mosque where Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (that Hamas-supporting bridge builder) wants to put it. No one is saying he hasn’t the right to build it there. Just because you can do something, doesn’t always mean that you should.

And to his own detriment, Obama’s dancing around the subject (the other self-proclaimed bridge builder) isn’t bringing anyone together. So maybe Geraldine Ferraro will aim her bigoted accusations at the Democrats too? Ya think? Or maybe she should just go home and enjoy retirement.

It’s The Economy Stupid, Part 2

That echo from the early 90’s is bouncing off the fiscal wall again. It’s just much worse this time. The co-chairmen of President Obama’s debt and deficit commission gave an ominous assessment of the nation’s fiscal future, calling current budgetary trends a cancer “that will destroy the country from within” unless checked by tough action in Washington.

That we are headed for an economic calamity, unless drastic changes take place, is not a right-wing talking point. No amount of hope will change this picture. It will affect us all unless we take steps to live within our means.

Blaming W for this is getting old and, does not solve the problem. Nor does it justify increasing the debt from $1.3 trillion to $13-20 trillion over the next ten years like this Congress has done.

Let’s recognize one fact about this debt that Obama inherited. It was proposed and passed by a Democrat controlled Congress. Recall that Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. And it is Congress that makes all tax and spending legislation. They, Obama included, voted for every dollar of this debt that they have been blaming Bush for. In fact, they continually complained that he wasn’t spending enough. That Gawd awful prescription drug entitlement program and his doubling the size of government was not enough for the then minority party. If they are sincere in their blaming Bush for his spending now, please show me the news accounts of Democrats urging Bush to use his veto pen.  But I digress.

This graph, supplied by The White House Office of Management and Budget clearly shows that at present, current federal revenue (for those educated in government schools, that means the sum of all taxes) is fully consumed by just three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, veterans, you name it,  — the whole rest of the discretionary budget is borrowed from China and other countries.

See anything there that you want to eliminate or cut back? Living within our means necessitates that we find things here to eliminate or cut back. For starters, ‘means testing’ should apply in every entitlement program. Walter Williams talks to this calamity too in his piece What Handouts To Cut?

This debt is too large for the country to grow out of and there is not enough economic activity to eliminate it even if the IRS tax rate was 100%. That should tell you that adding a VAT (Value Added Tax) isn’t the answer either.  On the contrary, adding or increasing taxes will only further depress the economy and increase the jobless population. Is there any doubt that this is what candidate Obama meant when he said he wanted to fundamentally change America?

Dr. Farid Khavari’s Economic Plan For Floridians

Running as an Independent candidate for Governor of the State of Florida, Dr. Farid Khavari is the only candidate that has a plan that is designed to help the state, and every citizen in it as well. His plan will generate money for the State that will be used to lower costs that our taxes currently pay for. His plan will lower our cost of living via lower interest rates on everything we do.

Lowering costs is the way to lift us all up without creating more debt. And his plan is so simple, you’ll wonder why other States are not doing it. Actually, candidates in other states are considering it right now. But Khavari’s plan for Florida doesn’t stop at a public bank. The public bank is the engine that will fund and drive projects in all aspects of our lives, including reducing the costs of education, health care, and reducing or eliminating taxes, creating energy independency, and more. He wrote the book on it. Towards a Zero-Cost Economy is available from his website free for download.

Enjoy the videos. Visit his campaign website for the details, and vote for Dr. Farid Khavari in Florida’s primary. Florida needs him. And he needs your support.

Link: Farid Khavari for Florida Governor

Who Should ‘Recognize And Respect’ Ground Zero?

From The White House, speaking at an event to observe the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, President Obama hung out yet another straw man argument in support of the radical* Imam’s intent to build a mosque near ground zero when he said . . .

As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.

No, there is no Constitutional right to build anything in this country. On the contrary, under the property grabbing scheme of eminent domain, they can take your property from you to give to someone else. Building a mosque has nothing whatsoever to do with religious freedom.

The president also said . . .

We must all recognize and respect the sensibilities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and experience of suffering by those who have lost loved ones is just unimaginable.  Ground zero is indeed hallowed ground.

So why is it that the president is not asking this Imam to show some tolerance and respect to the victims of 9/11 and the country, instead of the other way around?

Link: The White House, Celebrating Ramadan at the White House

{transcripts of this video are available in Arabic, Persian, and Russian. Not English}

*Says 9/11 was our fault, wants Sharia law in the U.S., supporter of Hamas and a group that funded the Gaza Flotilla

It’s Social Security Season

The very same Social Security System that people like President Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid say is in fine shape, isn’t. And it hasn’t been for decades. Only now, even the mainstream media seems to admit that is going bankrupt. In Obama’s so-called summer of recovery, what government entitlement program isn’t headed for bankruptcy?

Social Security is brought to the forefront of the discussion every political season. And all attempts to ‘fix’ Social Security is easily and effectively demagogued by the Left  in a new kind of class warfare, age warfare. Question is, what has to happen before all Americans, or at least a majority in Congress, understand the problem and demand that it be fixed? The answer lies not in more taxes, but in less benefits, including means testing. Not because the government is cruel and mean-spirited but because we have to learn to live within our means.

From the Senate’s Special Committee on Aging Report . . .

Although Social Security remains a crucial benefit for millions of seniors, the program was designed to serve an American society of 75 years ago. Much has changed since its inception: Americans are living longer, women’s participation in the labor force has significantly increased, and with a rise in the divorce rate, household composition has changed. In addition, the labor force is growing more slowly and the nature of work and compensation has altered in ways that affect workers’ ability to save for retirement. As a result, under its current design, Social Security may not be as effective as it could be in addressing the needs of our society both now and in the future. Therefore, modernizing the program to reflect America’s evolving demographics is vital to ensuring that benefits are adequate and equitable for generations to come.

Some fun facts about Social Security:

  • Unless Congress acts, Social Security’s combined retirement and disability trust funds are expected to run out of money in 2037. At that point, Social Security will collect enough in payroll taxes to cover about three-fourths of the benefits.
  • Social Security’s short-term finances are being hurt by a recession that shed more than 8 million jobs, reducing revenue from the payroll taxes that support the program. Social Security’s long-term finances will be strained as the 78 million baby boomers reach retirement age – and live longer as life expectancy increases.
  • For the first time since the 1980s, Social Security is paying out more money in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes. The program is projected to post surpluses again in 2012 through 2014 but will return to permanent deficits in 2015, its trustees said in their annual report last week.
  • The disability program is in even worse shape. The disability trust fund is projected to be exhausted by 2018, meaning Congress will have to act soon to address it.
  • The combined trust funds have built up a $2.5 trillion surplus over the past 25 years. But the federal government has borrowed {uh, stolen} that money over the years {Starting with President Lyndon B. Johnson’s ‘Great Society’} to spend on other programs. The government must now start borrowing money from public debt markets – adding to the federal budget deficit – to repay Social Security.
  • Over the next decade, the federal government will pay Social Security more than $1.5 trillion in interest, though the transfers are essentially an accounting procedure, switching money from one government account to another.

Links: Rhetoric dims hope for Social Security compromiseReport of The Special Committee On Aging

Special Session For ‘Jobs Bill’

The House is back in a special session to vote on a $26 Billion spending bill to temporarily bail out labor unions. Paying for it by raising taxes and raiding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. That would be the food-stamp program.

The labor unions on the receiving end are the teachers unions and the AFSCME, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.  Not coincidentally, ‘ two key components of the Democrats’ political base whose get-out-the-vote efforts in November could determine whether they hold or lose control of Congress.’

This $26 Billion of new spending will not create one job nor stimulate job creation. All while there is still over $350 Billion of so-called stimulus money that still has not been allocated. Can you say ‘slush fund?’ It’s the Chicago way.

Related Links: AP: House members scurry back to pass jobs billPensacola, It’s Time To Take Care Of Business

What Joe Biden Said, A Reminder

Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

In what was the biggest political head-fake of the Obama campaign, or just dumb luck, then VP candidate Joe Biden said that Obama will be tested as President. He didn’t know how right he was. Or did he?

“It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

“I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate,” Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. “And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you – not financially to help him – we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

The context of his statement was regarding national defense issues on the global stage. But the economic recession and millions of jobs lost became his real test. Creating jobs, he said, was going to be his number one priority if elected. Getting Americans back to work. And his fix has deliberately ‘generated’ continued joblessness for the longest period since the Great Depression.

It’s safe to say that as President, Obama failed his biggest test. He failed it to the point that his advisers created a new measure for jobs. They called it ‘saved or created.’ But Biden was right. The resulting economic crisis became an international one, and it was generated right here by Obama and his party.

Links: Ben Smith’s Blog: Biden: Obama will be tested – Politico.com.  |  What Caused The Economic Crisis?

Where Do Anchor Babies Come From?

Justice Brennan’s Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies

by Ann Coulter

Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you’re 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.

The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.

In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.

The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves — many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.

The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)

Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it’s amazing the drafters even considered the amendment’s effect on the children of aliens.

But they did.

The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians — because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to legal permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, the Clement L. Bouve — the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book.

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement — who, I’m guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.

Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such “plausible distinction(s)” before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases, and have some qualification to be here other than “lives within walking distance.”

But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen.

Combine Justice Brennan’s footnote with America’s ludicrously generous welfare policies, and you end up with a bankrupt country.

Consider the story of one family of illegal immigrants described in the Spring 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:

“Cristobal Silverio came illegally from Oxtotilan, Mexico, in 1997 and brought his wife Felipa, plus three children aged 19, 12 and 8. Felipa … gave birth to a new daughter, her anchor baby, named Flor. Flor was premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator, and cost San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, (Felipa’s 19-year-old daughter) Lourdes plus her illegal alien husband produced their own anchor baby, Esmeralda. Grandma Felipa created a second anchor baby, Cristian. … The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding. Flor gets $600 per month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. Cristobal and Felipa last year earned $18,000 picking fruit. Flor and Cristian were paid $12,000 for being anchor babies.”

In the Silverios’ munificent new hometown of Stockton, Calif., 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in 2003 in the San Joaquin General Hospital were anchor babies. As of this month, Stockton is $23 million in the hole.

It’s bad enough to be governed by 5-4 decisions written by liberal judicial activists. In the case of “anchor babies,” America is being governed by Brennan’s 1982 footnote.

Want More? Tax Less. Tax More? Get Less.

That about sums up the one an only truism about taxation. That politicians become drunk with power once they have the ‘tax hammer’ in their hot little hand is another. But that is more of a moral issue than an economic one. I came across this publication from the U.S. Treasury called The History of the U.S. Tax System. It’s something that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner should read. As Congress and the Obama administration seem to be on a mad dash to tax us into prosperity and borrow our way out of debt, this piece from the Treasury Dept. should be required reading.

Lower marginal tax rates were ‘essential to a strong economy.’ Meddling with the system with that ‘tax hammer’ can make it worse.

The economic boom following the 1982 recession convinced many political leaders of both parties that lower marginal tax rates were essential to a strong economy, while the constant changing of the law instilled in policy makers an appreciation for the complexity of the tax system. Further, the debates during this period led to a general understanding of the distortions imposed on the economy, and the lost jobs and wages, arising from the many peculiarities in the definition of the tax base.

History demonstrates, whether you want to learn from it or not, that taxing business excessively, ‘over-reaching,’ leads to collapse.

The 1986 Tax Reform Act was roughly revenue neutral, that is, it was not intended to raise or lower taxes, but it shifted some of the tax burden from individuals to businesses. Much of the increase in the tax on business was the result of an increase in the tax on business capital formation. It achieved some simplifications for individuals through the elimination of such things as income averaging, the deduction for consumer interest, and the deduction for state and local sales taxes. But in many respects the Act greatly added to the complexity of business taxation, especially in the area of international taxation. Some of the over-reaching provisions of the Act also led to a downturn in the real estate markets which played a significant role in the subsequent collapse of the Savings and Loan industry.

The power trip, aka tax hammer, became addictive for the politicos. It never occurred to them to quit increasing government spending. Only how and where and what to raise taxes on.

Between 1986 and 1990 the Federal tax burden rose as a share of GDP from 17.5 to 18 percent. Despite this increase in the overall tax burden, persistent budget deficits due to even higher levels of government spending created near constant pressure to increase taxes. Thus, in 1990 the Congress enacted a significant tax increase featuring an increase in the top tax rate to 31 percent. Shortly after his election, President Clinton insisted on and the Congress enacted a second major tax increase in 1993 in which the top tax rate was raised to 36 percent and a 10 percent surcharge was added, leaving the effective top tax rate at 39.6 percent. Clearly, the trend toward lower marginal tax rates had been reversed, but, as it turns out, only temporarily.

The tax code becomes a vehicle for spending programs. Wielding the tax hammer for social engineering increases public debt. Lesson not learned here is that money doesn’t grow on trees and, stop increasing the spending. But it’s OK if you can use the tax code to buy votes. What? This is where the class envy/class warfare tactic, as connected to the tax code, was taken to a higher level.

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 made additional changes to the tax code providing a modest tax cut. The centerpiece of the 1997 Act was a significant new tax benefit to certain families with children through the Per Child Tax credit. The truly significant feature of this tax relief, however, was that the credit was refundable for many lower-income families. That is, in many cases the family paid a “negative” income tax, or received a credit in excess of their pre-credit tax liability. Though the tax system had provided for individual tax credits before, such as the Earned Income Tax credit, the Per Child Tax credit began a new trend in federal tax policy. Previously tax relief was generally given in the form of lower tax rates or increased deductions or exemptions. The 1997 Act really launched the modern proliferation of individual tax credits and especially refundable credits that are in essence spending programs operating through the tax system.

“There’s no difference at all in terms of the effects on the federal deficit,” says Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center. “It’s perfectly equivalent. It’s just easier to say, ‘I cut your taxes’ as opposed to ‘I created a new federal program to send money to people.'”

Reducing taxes helped, not hurt, economic recovery.

The 2001 tax cut will provide additional strength to the economy in the coming years as more and more of its provisions are phased in, and indeed one argument for its enactment had always been as a form of insurance against an economic downturn. However, unbeknownst to the Bush Administration and the Congress, the economy was already in a downturn as the Act was being debated. Thankfully, the downturn was brief and shallow, but it is already clear that the tax cuts that were enacted and went into effect in 2001 played a significant role in supporting the economy, shortening the duration of the downturn, and preparing the economy for a robust recovery.

One can only hope that the next generation of political leaders will have learned something from the past and not repeat that which has failed before. Here’s hoping that the next chapter in The History of the U.S. Tax System describes unprecedented economic recovery after abolishing  the current income-based tax system and going to the consumption-based tax system called the FairTax.

Links: History of the U.S. Tax SystemThe Income Tax System Is Broken