Friday, March 30, 2012

On Standing Strong for Liberty

What might our forebears say to us, knowing what they knew, and having done what they did?

I have no doubt that they would tell us to channel our passions, speak the truth and do what is right—slowly, and with resolution; to work calmly, steadily and without animus or fear; to be like a rock in the tide, let the water tumble about us, and be firm and unashamed in our love of country. – Mike Pence (R-IN)

Let's rise up and stand together, patriots! I'm proud to put my shoulder alongside yours.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Congress gets at least one repeal of ObamaScare right!

Recently the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation repealing the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) created by the President's healthcare law. The IPAB would have been a powerful new board of 15 unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats whose job will be to save money by setting reimbursement rates for specific procedures – giving them the power to deny care to seniors. The law required no public comment or transparency prior to a decision and the board is authorized to make unilateral decisions that should be made by patients and their doctors.

Will this repeal pass the Senate? Will Obama sign it if it does get through the Senate?

Keep your eyes and ears open.

Friday, March 16, 2012

On Leftist tactics of deception

Sanford Horwitt prefaces his biography of [Saul] Alinsky, Let Them Call Me Rebel, with an anecdote he felt illuminated Alinsky's method. In this anecdote, Alinsky shares his wisdom with students wishing to protest the appearance on their campus of the first George Bush, then America's representative to the UN during the Vietnam War:

College student activists in the 1960s and 1970s sought out Alinsky for advice about tactics and strategy. On one such occasion in the spring of 1972 at Tulane University's annual week-long series of events featuring leading public figures, students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George H.W. Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations, a speech likely to be a defense of the Nixon Administration's Vietnam War policies [Note: the Nixon Administration was then negotiating with the North Vietnamese Communists to arrive at a peace agreement- DH.]

The students told Alinsky that they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush's address. That's the wrong approach, he rejoined - not very creative and besides, causing disruption might get them thrown out of school.... He told them, instead, to go hear the speech dressed up as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards, reading 'The K.K.K. supports Bush.' And that is what the students did with very successful, attention-getting results.

This vignette tells you everything you really need no know about Alinsky's ethics and his attitude towards means and ends. Lenin once said that the purpose of a political argument is not to refute your opponent "but to wipe him from the face of the earth." The mission of Alinsky radicals is a mission of destruction.

From David Horowitz, Barack Obama's Rules For Revolution - The Alinsky Model, (c)2009 David Horowitz Freedom Center, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

On government’s role in getting the economy moving

The government's role in restoring a healthy economy is primarily to get out of the way and to reduce the economic dead-load of taxes and excessive regulation.

Rocket blasting-off

In the very same way that the energy required for a rocket or an aircraft to gain altitude increases as the affect of gravity increases, so too do taxes and regulation increase the “energy” necessary to make the economy rise.

Therefore, half-measures must be avoided entirely. Half-measures will produce tepid or, worse, no improvement, while allowing political critics to say, "We've tried your ideas, and they didn't work."

The reforms introduced must be bold, courageous, determined and, yes, some will be painful, as well.

  • Some economic activity presently based on government interventions (e.g., subsidies, artificial demand) will cease to exist.
  • Initial price-jumps following the removal of interventions that were, in fact, or worked effectively as price controls will be unavoidable. Thankfully, the removal of some interventions will bring price decreases, as well.
  • Changes in the value of the U.S. Dollar are likely to occur. Protecting the U.S. economy against currency values being artificially manipulated by other nations (such as the Chinese Yuan) is not wrong as long as the protection imposed is directly correlated to the amount of manipulation in the estimated true value of the currency.
  • Recognition that disparities in income and wealth are normal, natural and actually function as a healthy stimulus to production and the growth of the economy is essential and should be articulated to the voters in a clear way.

When legislation is proposed, the changes and the impacts of the changes must be announced and explained in advance. The long-term vision must be reiterated. The reason for the change must be clearly defended against every onslaught from the opposition, and then the effects of the changes must be "survived" as reality sets in.

The costs the people must bear during the readjustment of the economy should be shared as widely as possible by implementing measures that are clearly articulated as "temporary" to ease the transition. Otherwise, the fragile political support of those suffering the temporary pain of the readjustment will be lost.

Telling the truth and not promising things that cannot be delivered is the only safeguard to the credibility of the reforms and of the officeholders who see that the reforms are imperative to our nation's full recovery and restoration.

We are here to help!

Saturday, March 10, 2012

On the TSA, bailouts and needless economic interventions

The TSA (Transportation Security Administration) was a G.W. Bush bailout for the airlines because, after 9/11, there was a genuine fear of flying amongst the American public. So, the U.S. government stepped in to give Americans confidence to fly again.

However, all this action did was create a moral hazard for the airlines. Every time there is a failure in TSA's security, the airlines are not be held responsible, the U.S. government is. As a result, there is an ongoing degradation of liberty and the humiliation of the U.S. traveler at the hands of government officials.

If the airlines were responsible for security, there would be competition in security. That competition would drive toward maximum security with minimum damage to the travelers' liberties accompanied by minimum cost and inconvenience, as well.

Some airlines would do better than others. Prices might even be affected by how well airlines do in the security department. All-in-all, there would be improved security at a lower cost—and the travelers would bear all of the cost. The American taxpayer would not be held hostage as the payer of last resort in the event of ongoing failures or the need for new technologies.

Already the Obama administration has handed out favorable contracts for the production of the new x-ray machines and other TSA equipment to manufacturing firms strongly connected to unions. It is just one more way of intervening in the economy where the government need not be present at all.

Friday, March 9, 2012

Supposed “racist” founding of U.S. debunked with facts

This five-minute video is well worth watching if you’ve believed that our Founding Fathers were generally pro-slavery and that they thought blacks were subhuman.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

The threat posed by radical Islam’s “civilization-jihadist process”

Here in America, a threat is posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its organizational arms, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America, and the many Muslim student associations.

These groups seek to persuade Americans that Islam is a religion of peace. However, a document obtained during the 2007 Holy Land Trial investigating terrorist funding—a Muslim Brotherhood Strategic Memorandum on North American Affairs—and approved by the Shura Council as well as the Organizational Conference in 1987, speaks of "Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims' causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims' efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic state wherever it is." [Emphasis added.]

Elsewhere, the document says:

"The process of settlement is a ‘civilization-jihadist process’ with all the means. The Ikhwan [the Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes...." [Emphasis added.]

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Cooperation between the Obama Administration and the OIC poses a threat to free speech in the U.S.

The… threat we face is the specter of cooperation between our government and the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) to shape speech about Islam. A first indication of this came in President Obama’s Cairo speech in 2009, when he declared that he has a responsibility to “fight against negative stereotypes of Islam whenever they appear.” Then in July of last year in Istanbul, Secretary of State Clinton co-chaired—with the OIC—a “High-Level Meeting on Combating Religious Intolerance.” There, Mrs. Clinton announced another conference with the OIC, this one in Washington, to “exchange ideas” and discuss “implementation” measures our government might take to combat negative stereotyping of Islam. This would not restrict free speech, she said. But the mere fact of U.S. government partnership with the OIC is troublesome. Certainly it sends a dangerous signal, as suggested by the OIC’s Secretary-General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, when he commented in Istanbul that the Obama administration stands “united” with the OIC on speech issues.

The OIC’s charter commits it “to combat defamation of Islam.” Its current action plan calls for “deterrent punishments” to counter “Islamophobia.” In 2009, an official OIC organ, the “International Islamic Fiqh [Jurisprudence] Academy,” issued fatwas calling for speech bans, including “international legislation,” to protect “the interests and values of [Islamic] society.” The OIC does not define what speech should be outlawed, but the repressive practices of its leading member states speak for themselves.

The conference Secretary Clinton announced in Istanbul was held in Washington on December 12-14, 2011, and was closed to the public, with the “Chatham House Rule” restricting the participants (this rule prohibits the identification of who says what, although general content is not confidential). Presentations reportedly focused on America’s deficiencies in its treatment of Muslims and stressed that the U.S. has something to learn in this regard from the other delegations—including Saudi Arabia, despite its ban on Christian churches, its repression of its Shiite population, its textbooks teaching that Jews should be killed, and the fact that it beheaded a woman for sorcery on the opening day of the conference.

* * *

The encroachment of de facto blasphemy restrictions in the West threatens free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Nor will it bring social peace and harmony. As comedian Rowan Atkinson warns, such laws produce “a veneer of tolerance concealing a snake pit of unaired and unchallenged views.” Norway’s far-reaching restrictions on “hate speech” did not prevent Anders Behring Breivik from slaughtering over 70 people because of his antipathy to Islam: indeed, his writings suggest that he engaged in violence because he believed that he could not otherwise be heard.

In the Muslim world, such restrictions enable Islamists to crush debate. After Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab, was murdered early last year by his bodyguards for opposing blasphemy laws, his daughter Sara observed: “This is a message to every liberal to shut up or be shot.” Or in the words of Nasr Abu-Zayd, a Muslim scholar driven out of Egypt: “Charges of apostasy and blasphemy are key weapons in the fundamentalists’ arsenal, strategically employed to prevent reform of Muslim societies, and instead confine the world’s Muslim population to a bleak, colourless prison of socio-cultural and political conformity.”

President Obama should put an end to discussion of speech with the OIC. He should declare clearly that in free societies, all views and all religions are subject to criticism and contradiction. As the late Abdurrahman Wahid, former president of Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, and head of Nahdlatul Ulama, the world’s largest Muslim organization, wrote in his foreword to Silenced, blasphemy laws

“. . . narrow the bounds of acceptable discourse. . . not only about religion, but also about vast spheres of life, literature, science, and culture in general. . . . Rather than legally stifle criticism and debate—which will only encourage Muslim fundamentalists in their efforts to impose a spiritually void, harsh, and monolithic understanding of Islam upon all the world—Western authorities should instead firmly defend freedom of expression. . . .”

America’s Founders, who had broken with an old order that was rife with religious persecution and warfare, forbade laws impeding free exercise of religion, abridging freedom of speech, or infringing freedom of the press. We today must do likewise.

From “Blasphemy and Free Speech” by Paul Marshall as published in “Imprimis” (Feb 2012, Vol. 41, No. 2), a publication of Hillsdale College

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Our failure to control spending will mean the death of our nation

This might be funny if it weren't so true.

Be sure to read all the way to the end:

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table,
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for
peanuts anyway!

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he
screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid...

Put these words
Upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me
to my doom...'

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges on Tax
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax


Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What in the heck happened?

Can you spell 'politicians?'

-- Charley Reese (Orlando Sentinel)

Please vote in every election for politicians that don’t see government spending as the solution to every problem. We need REAL CHANGE to restore what we've surrendered to the politicians!

Saturday, March 3, 2012

National Geographic magazine’s agenda

National Geographic reports that "unflagging demand" for oil is what drove companies to deep water drilling and led to the 2010 disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.  This, of course, is a lie that conveniently fits the magazine's agenda.

What drove oil companies to deep water drilling was government interventions that prevented these companies for working well-known, more accessible oil reserves that could have produced sufficient supplies of oil at lower cost and far less risk to men, capital and the environment.

What makes "Big Oil" bad and "Big Government" good in some non-thinkers' eyes?

History proves that it is "Big Government" that has killed millions of people and taken health, wealth and liberty from millions more over the last century – not "big oil" or "big business."

Friday, March 2, 2012

Health care bill creates “ObamaCare University”

The program is unassumingly titled the “United States Public Health Sciences Track,” and it’s among the many items hidden inside the massive, 2,000-plus-page health care reform package adopted by Congress in 2010.

But it is anything but innocent.

Instead, it is a first-of-its kind, federally funded and federally administered civilian medical school that grants advanced degrees (post-graduate, post-doctoral and technology) in medicine, dentistry, nursing and pharmacy, among others.
It will be run by Obama administration officials, namely, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who will determine the number of students who can enroll, and the Surgeon General, who will decide how to admit students, to recruit instructors and to write the curricula, among other tasks. Administration officials will act like college deans with the Surgeon General in charge of operations and the HHS Secretary in charge of funding.

[Sounds ghoulish, already, doesn’t it? Can’t you just imagine the powers this gives government over how and why health care is administered or withheld by medical professionals? Can you imagine what a Stalin or a Hitler might have done with such a tool in their hands?]

Like the grants and contract sections of the health care reform law that require the use of race-based criteria [really?!?] for awarding federal money to hospitals and schools for medical training programs, the Surgeon General is required to create race-based selection procedures for admitting students into what we’ve nicknamed “ObamaCare University.”
The more we know about the health care reform bill, the more unconstitutional and problematic it gets. The establishment of ObamaCare U and its race-based provisions reinforce the importance of striking down this law.

[Adapted from a report by Diane Cohen, an attorney with the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation]

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Congressional Black Caucus abuse by Democrats

U.S. Representative Sanford Bishop (D-GA) awarded three scholarships from the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation to his stepdaughter and wife’s niece between 2003 and 2005, according to records from the non-profit group.

In 2003, Emmaundia Whitaker, the niece of Vivian Creighton Bishop, who is Bishop’s wife, was awarded an education scholarship. She was also given a similar award in 2005.

And in 2003, Aayesha Owens Reese, the congressman’s stepdaughter, was granted an education scholarship as well.

Of course, this wasn’t done by a white, conservative Republican, so you probably didn’t read about in the papers or hear about it on the news on radio or TV.

And, of course, there were no laws broken. It is just another typical day of politicians using their power and influence for things other than “the national interest.”

But, frankly, it makes me a little angry.

Let me know if you hear of a black Republican Congressman doing the same thing and I’ll report it the same way.