David Limbaugh
More and more people are finally coming to the realization that President Obama is presiding over America's decline, though there are differences of opinion as to whether he's deliberately or even directly causing it.
You have to admit that it's outright bizarre and alarming that people are even having this discussion, yet many of us have been warning about it for years now. It is gratifying that others -- albeit belatedly -- are waking up.
There are two separate issues: Is Obama trying to bring America down, and is his presidency falling apart (and what does that mean)?
As for the first, many get hung up on the semantics of whether Obama is trying to destroy America. Few are willing to believe anything so sinister of a twice-elected president. It's an easier sell to say that he doesn't believe in American exceptionalism or decries the very idea of nationalism and prefers to consider us all citizens of the world. He believes that capitalism yields unfair results, which leads him to desire a redistribution of our resources within the United States -- and from the United States to the rest of the world. So he is pursuing an agenda that will bring America into line with the rest of the world, which is to say, he is making us weaker and less prosperous.
I also happen to believe he has a grudge against America and wants to bring us down to size. But in his bizarro world, that's not destroying America; it's making it fairer and more just.
Concerning the second issue -- whether Obama's presidency is falling apart -- it's important that we are clear on what we mean by this. Most seem to agree that Obama's honeymoon with the American people has degenerated into serious marital difficulties, as evidenced by his nose dive in approval polls. Some consider this data, along with his multitudinous scandals, and conclude, "His presidency is imploding."
I believe that's correct only in the limited sense that he has lost the good will to accomplish much more of his agenda through proper constitutional channels. But I don't believe that it means he will be unable to accomplish anything for the remainder of this term. He has already proved that he is fully able and willing to act unilaterally on a wide range of issues, both domestic and foreign, with or without constitutional authority or congressional approval.
He wasn't just bluffing when he smugly declared, "I've got a pen, and I've got a phone." He was expressing his frustration with his political opponents' sometimes refusal to roll over to his dictates and his resolve to circumvent them every time he gets a chance.
This was nothing new. He and his advisers had said many times that he intended to liberally use executive orders and other tricks to advance his agenda at every opportunity. He's also made clear his willingness to act lawlessly and encouraged his administrative agencies to do likewise. Nor will anything deter his enabling Democrats in Congress to assist and provide him cover every chance they get. Just watch the congressional hearings involving the Internal Revenue Service scandal if you want to understand how national Democrats invariably place their party's interests above those of the nation -- and above the law.
As for his propensity for lawless unilateral action, remember when he admitted he didn't have the authority to pass the DREAM Act on his own and then two weeks later went ahead and issued an executive order implementing important provisions of it? Everyone has watched his whimsical, arbitrary and capricious granting of Obamacare exemptions. He intervened militarily in Libya without even consulting Congress, much less obtaining its approval. His Environmental Protection Agency, doing his bidding, has issued far-reaching emissions standards. The IRS was fulfilling his aims in criminally targeting conservative groups for punitive treatment under the tax code. His subordinates Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice were carrying out his direct orders in falsely blaming an Internet video for the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Oh, yes, and he abused his recess appointment power to appoint a National Labor Relations Board president when the Senate wasn't in recess, for which the Supreme Court surprisingly slapped his hand. I could continue.
So if you choose to believe that Obama's presidency is imploding, I hope you understand that this doesn't mean he no longer represents a threat to America as founded or is impotent to do any further damage.
It's silly to write this all off with a wave of a hand, saying, "This is America. One man can't do that much damage." If you don't believe enormous damage has already been done in the past six years, we are on different planets. Look at the latest quarterly economic report, which shows a 2.9 percent shrinkage in the gross domestic product, with no end in sight. The number of people on food stamps and dependent on other government programs. The labor participation rate. The debt. The explosive costs and abominable failures of Obamacare. The state of the Middle East and the explosive rise in Islamic jihad.
Regardless of whether Obama has the political clout to pass major legislation now or in the remaining 2 1/2 years, his executive powers alone -- including those he has usurped -- are enough to keep us on this downward spiral. Even without any further executive power usurpations, we are already on autopilot to spend ourselves into bankruptcy.
27 Jun 2014
NASTY PLAYING CARDS AND APOLOGIES
Brent Bozell
There's a new card game making the rounds that's designed to offend. What does it say about our culture that this marketing strategy actually works?
"Cards Against Humanity is a party game for horrible people," reads the game's website. "Unlike most of the party games you've played before, Cards Against Humanity is as despicable and awkward as you and your friends."
The game's concept is simple: A dealer issues a black fill-in-the-blank card, and using their a handful of white answer cards, players try to come up with the funniest (and often most offensive-sounding) combinations. The player who accomplishes that wins the round.
For example, a typical black card begins, "The class field trip was completely ruined by -- ." The white cards offer answers, including famous people: George Bush, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama and then more colorful attacks. The deck includes both "Glenn Beck being harried by a swarm of buzzards," and "Glenn Beck catching his scrotum on a curtain hook."
You can also try the religion-mocking cards, including "The Pope," "The Jews," "The Holy Bible" and even "Muhammad (Praise Be Unto Him)."
Don't bother complaining. The game's rules manual ends with the request to send all complaints to Dick Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute offices in Washington, D.C.
Oh, wait. Max Temkin, the creator of this new sensation in rudeness, found one group he felt he had to apologize for including. It wasn't "elderly Japanese men." It wasn't the cards unleashing laughs about "a robust mongoloid" or "kids with ass cancer." It wasn't even "Two midgets s--tting into a bucket."
Ready? It was "passable transvestites." Nineteen-year-old Jonah Miller, who "identifies as transgender," lit the card on fire, posting a photo to his Tumblr and Instagram accounts with the caption "DEATH TO TRANSPHOBIA."
This apparently required Temkin to confess: "I regret writing this card. It was a mean, cheap joke. We took it out of the game a while ago." Here's a game designed to be "despicable," and yet Temkin found just one card that was a "mean, cheap joke"?
Disgraced bicyclist Lance Armstrong tweeted about the card that says "Lance Armstrong's missing testicle," the one he lost to cancer. Temkin didn't pull that card or apologize.
But Armstrong is a straight white male. Temkin has proclaimed he doesn't want to "victimize people in marginalized groups." He wants to make fun of "power structures," so "Making jokes about rapes, making jokes about trans people, they don't have the same cultural power."
Obviously, "trans people" are making it quite clear they're beginning to pack a wallop of cultural power. Temkin boasts of adding cards that mock "heteronormativity," "the patriarchy" and "white privilege."
Don't worry. You can still combine cards for the concept "What am I giving up for Lent? ... Altar boys." You can still enjoy combining "In the new Disney Channel Original Movie, Hannah Montana struggles with ... Stifling a giggle at the mention of Hutus and Tutsis."
Because apparently nothing is funnier than a Rwandan genocide.
Or "Instead of coal, Santa now gives children ... Pac-Man uncontrollably guzzling (semen)." And "I drink to forget ... (masturbating) into a pool of children's tears." You can still enjoy the combo "Life for American Indians was forever changed when the White Man introduced them to ... Firing a rifle into the air while balls deep into a squealing hog."
But the "passable transvestites" have been spared. They hold the privileged place of sacredness, free from mockery. Thank G-d for standards.
There's a new card game making the rounds that's designed to offend. What does it say about our culture that this marketing strategy actually works?
"Cards Against Humanity is a party game for horrible people," reads the game's website. "Unlike most of the party games you've played before, Cards Against Humanity is as despicable and awkward as you and your friends."
The game's concept is simple: A dealer issues a black fill-in-the-blank card, and using their a handful of white answer cards, players try to come up with the funniest (and often most offensive-sounding) combinations. The player who accomplishes that wins the round.
For example, a typical black card begins, "The class field trip was completely ruined by -- ." The white cards offer answers, including famous people: George Bush, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama and then more colorful attacks. The deck includes both "Glenn Beck being harried by a swarm of buzzards," and "Glenn Beck catching his scrotum on a curtain hook."
You can also try the religion-mocking cards, including "The Pope," "The Jews," "The Holy Bible" and even "Muhammad (Praise Be Unto Him)."
Don't bother complaining. The game's rules manual ends with the request to send all complaints to Dick Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute offices in Washington, D.C.
Oh, wait. Max Temkin, the creator of this new sensation in rudeness, found one group he felt he had to apologize for including. It wasn't "elderly Japanese men." It wasn't the cards unleashing laughs about "a robust mongoloid" or "kids with ass cancer." It wasn't even "Two midgets s--tting into a bucket."
Ready? It was "passable transvestites." Nineteen-year-old Jonah Miller, who "identifies as transgender," lit the card on fire, posting a photo to his Tumblr and Instagram accounts with the caption "DEATH TO TRANSPHOBIA."
This apparently required Temkin to confess: "I regret writing this card. It was a mean, cheap joke. We took it out of the game a while ago." Here's a game designed to be "despicable," and yet Temkin found just one card that was a "mean, cheap joke"?
Disgraced bicyclist Lance Armstrong tweeted about the card that says "Lance Armstrong's missing testicle," the one he lost to cancer. Temkin didn't pull that card or apologize.
But Armstrong is a straight white male. Temkin has proclaimed he doesn't want to "victimize people in marginalized groups." He wants to make fun of "power structures," so "Making jokes about rapes, making jokes about trans people, they don't have the same cultural power."
Obviously, "trans people" are making it quite clear they're beginning to pack a wallop of cultural power. Temkin boasts of adding cards that mock "heteronormativity," "the patriarchy" and "white privilege."
Don't worry. You can still combine cards for the concept "What am I giving up for Lent? ... Altar boys." You can still enjoy combining "In the new Disney Channel Original Movie, Hannah Montana struggles with ... Stifling a giggle at the mention of Hutus and Tutsis."
Because apparently nothing is funnier than a Rwandan genocide.
Or "Instead of coal, Santa now gives children ... Pac-Man uncontrollably guzzling (semen)." And "I drink to forget ... (masturbating) into a pool of children's tears." You can still enjoy the combo "Life for American Indians was forever changed when the White Man introduced them to ... Firing a rifle into the air while balls deep into a squealing hog."
But the "passable transvestites" have been spared. They hold the privileged place of sacredness, free from mockery. Thank G-d for standards.
PRESERVING POWER AT ANY COST
Erick Erickson
Last Tuesday in Mississippi, incumbent Republican Sen. Thad Cochran beat his challenger, State Sen. Chris McDaniel, in a Republican runoff. There is no dispute that Cochran won by bringing thousands of Democrats into the Republican runoff to support him.
Cochran's victory, if left unaddressed by conservatives, will set a dangerous precedent within Republican primaries. Republican PACs, national Republican political operatives and the Republican establishment collaborated to accuse conservative and tea party activists of racism. These Republicans painted their very base as the second coming on the KKK and Hitler.
These groups accused Chris McDaniel of being a neo-confederate and claimed that any group that supported him was supporting a racist. They passed out flyers designed to scare and intimidate black voters into voting for Cochran. One of the flyers had scenes of the civil rights struggle on it and declared Chris McDaniel would take away the right to vote.
It was all hysterical nonsense, but it worked. This is a tactic Democrats have used in the past to generate black turnout. In Georgia in 1998, flyers appeared in black neighborhoods in Atlanta with pictures of burning crosses and hooded Klansmen. The flyers urged black voters to go stop Republican gubernatorial candidate Guy Millner, lest all the advances of the civil rights movement be undone.
In Louisiana in 2003, Democrats in northern Louisiana passed out flyers to white Democrats that darkened Republican Bobby Jindal's skin color, making him look like a black man. The flyers encouraged white Democrats to go stop Jindal's election. It worked, but Jindal won the Governor's Mansion in 2007 with the votes of many who had opposed him after those voters saw just how incompetent Governor Kathleen Blanco was in office.
Democrats excel at this level of racial politics. But last Tuesday in Mississippi, it was Republicans doing it. National Republicans and their local allies in Mississippi made those attacks on their own base. They painted their own voters as crazy, bigoted racists. They were willing to do it to keep Thad Cochran, a man who has been in the Senate since 1978 and in Washington since 1973, in office.
Why Republicans were willing to attack their own base so savagely is eye opening. Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour left the Governor's Mansion and returned to his former career as a lobbyist. He ran of the key super PAC's supporting Cochran. Many lobbyists in Washington have, for years, used Thad Cochran as a marionette, pulling his strings and getting him to spread American tax dollars around.
Years ago, when a Jack Abramoff associate complained that Ann Copland, Cochran's executive assistant of 29 years, demanded too many things, i.e. tickets to see Paul McCartney and Green Day, Abramoff replied back, "She gets everything she wants." Abramoff and Copland both went off to jail. Cochran stayed, and the money flowed in other directions.
The Republican establishment in Washington no longer has core principles and values. It has a list of corporate donors and rich men with business interests. The party keeps its elderly leaders in the House and Senate to send American tax dollars to their preferred donors. In fact, all the Republican Party stands for at the moment is telling President Barack Obama "no" and rewarding large donors with tax breaks, government contracts, and our tax dollars.
But this becomes a problem for the Republican Party. Its core activists hate its leadership more and more. But its leadership are dependent more and more on large check writers to keep their power. Those large check writers are further and further removed from the interests of both the base of the party and Main Street.
To keep power, the GOP focuses more and more on a smaller and smaller band of puppeteers to keep their marionettes upright. At some point, there will be more people with knives out to cut the strings than there will be puppeteers with checkbooks. And at some point those people with knives become more intent on cutting the strings than taking the place of the marionettes.
Last Tuesday in Mississippi, incumbent Republican Sen. Thad Cochran beat his challenger, State Sen. Chris McDaniel, in a Republican runoff. There is no dispute that Cochran won by bringing thousands of Democrats into the Republican runoff to support him.
Cochran's victory, if left unaddressed by conservatives, will set a dangerous precedent within Republican primaries. Republican PACs, national Republican political operatives and the Republican establishment collaborated to accuse conservative and tea party activists of racism. These Republicans painted their very base as the second coming on the KKK and Hitler.
These groups accused Chris McDaniel of being a neo-confederate and claimed that any group that supported him was supporting a racist. They passed out flyers designed to scare and intimidate black voters into voting for Cochran. One of the flyers had scenes of the civil rights struggle on it and declared Chris McDaniel would take away the right to vote.
It was all hysterical nonsense, but it worked. This is a tactic Democrats have used in the past to generate black turnout. In Georgia in 1998, flyers appeared in black neighborhoods in Atlanta with pictures of burning crosses and hooded Klansmen. The flyers urged black voters to go stop Republican gubernatorial candidate Guy Millner, lest all the advances of the civil rights movement be undone.
In Louisiana in 2003, Democrats in northern Louisiana passed out flyers to white Democrats that darkened Republican Bobby Jindal's skin color, making him look like a black man. The flyers encouraged white Democrats to go stop Jindal's election. It worked, but Jindal won the Governor's Mansion in 2007 with the votes of many who had opposed him after those voters saw just how incompetent Governor Kathleen Blanco was in office.
Democrats excel at this level of racial politics. But last Tuesday in Mississippi, it was Republicans doing it. National Republicans and their local allies in Mississippi made those attacks on their own base. They painted their own voters as crazy, bigoted racists. They were willing to do it to keep Thad Cochran, a man who has been in the Senate since 1978 and in Washington since 1973, in office.
Why Republicans were willing to attack their own base so savagely is eye opening. Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour left the Governor's Mansion and returned to his former career as a lobbyist. He ran of the key super PAC's supporting Cochran. Many lobbyists in Washington have, for years, used Thad Cochran as a marionette, pulling his strings and getting him to spread American tax dollars around.
Years ago, when a Jack Abramoff associate complained that Ann Copland, Cochran's executive assistant of 29 years, demanded too many things, i.e. tickets to see Paul McCartney and Green Day, Abramoff replied back, "She gets everything she wants." Abramoff and Copland both went off to jail. Cochran stayed, and the money flowed in other directions.
The Republican establishment in Washington no longer has core principles and values. It has a list of corporate donors and rich men with business interests. The party keeps its elderly leaders in the House and Senate to send American tax dollars to their preferred donors. In fact, all the Republican Party stands for at the moment is telling President Barack Obama "no" and rewarding large donors with tax breaks, government contracts, and our tax dollars.
But this becomes a problem for the Republican Party. Its core activists hate its leadership more and more. But its leadership are dependent more and more on large check writers to keep their power. Those large check writers are further and further removed from the interests of both the base of the party and Main Street.
To keep power, the GOP focuses more and more on a smaller and smaller band of puppeteers to keep their marionettes upright. At some point, there will be more people with knives out to cut the strings than there will be puppeteers with checkbooks. And at some point those people with knives become more intent on cutting the strings than taking the place of the marionettes.
THE CONSERVATIVE POLICY IN IRAQ
John Nantz
“England has no eternal friends, England has no perpetual enemies, England has only eternal and perpetual interests”. Lord Palmerston
Thanks to Barack Obama Iraq is burning. ISIS forces rampage as Iraqi forces crumble before the onslaught of fanatical Islamists. As Iraq burns and smolders, Obama’s foreign policy proceeds and America’s national interest is again sacrificed to Obama’s new world order. But what is “national interest” and what, if any, interest do we, as a nation, have in far away Iraq?
National interest must be defined as any circumstance that affects the security, prosperity, and prestige of our sovereign nation.
The most basic purpose of government is to provide for the common defense. Therefore, anything that threatens our security becomes a keen national interest. Our response to national security threats must be swift and unambiguous. When American lives are threatened at home and abroad, there should be a powerful military response and a projection of power which culminates in absolute victory. Anything short of this is a betrayal of the American people and of its military. As Reagan put it, our power of defense should be unassailable. Peace can only be maintained through the deterrent effect of a vastly superior military force. Maintaining the status of the world’s only superpower should be America’s primary national interest.
American economic interests must be guarded by an administration which is committed to a philosophy of American exceptionalism. This means that foreign policy must be pursued to advantage American economic interests to the exclusion of competing international powers. This may strike many in academe as a novel idea, but when America prospers the world prospers. We see the effects of Obama’s administration which views our economic interests with disdain, despising our capitalist system yet all too willing to enjoy the fruits of capitalist prosperity. Obama’s marxism is antithetical to the capitalism of our founders. Our economy languishes while Obama favors not our interests but those of the third world and European powers. Obama delights in drawing comparisons with France and models his economy after the socialist continental nations.
Reagan was a master at illuminating American power and achievement, drawing nations to wonder at the “shining city on a hill.” Obama embarks on European and Middle East apology junkets and bemoans his fictions of American injustices domestically and imperialism abroad. Where Reagan extolled the virtues of a nation which has produced the greatest social compact in human history, Obama can only carp and unravel the magnificent tapestry of the Constitution. Again, Obama betrays the national interest.
Though America has been the most compassionate country in the world, national interest does not include notions of meddling in the affairs of other nations, so long as their operations serve our interest. This may include cooperation with and support of dictatorial powers that pursue outcomes that are parallel to our own. As a free people, we desire to see the rest of humanity freed from the bonds of servitude, however, our resources are not infinite and must be put to the service of our own sovereign national interests.
Barack Obama has ignored the dictates of national interest in favor of seeking parity or even disparity in relation to the world’s nations. Obama views our actions, regardless of their merit, as meddling, imperialist, and predatory. This is why he leaves the fate of the Iraqi people to ravening wolves who hoist the black flag on their standard. There is no American exceptionalism for Obama, there is only America standing uneasily among peers in a global community.
Our policy must reject the notion of parity with a global community of nations and recognize American sovereignty and exceptionality. A sound foreign policy seeks our own interest and our own advantage among a dysfunctional community of often hostile nations. Americans need a new view of sovereignty, of an America that flourishes and seeks its own best advantage.
do not seek friendships and democracy is an aberration in the brutal totalitarian history of man. If America is not aggressive in its defense of its sovereignty it will fall prey to the eternal predations of aggressor nations. Make no mistake, we are swimming in an international tank filled with sharks, sniffing for blood.
Iraq does represent a national interest that impacts directly on national security since the cancerous spread of fascistic Mohammadism is an ever present threat to citizens domestically and abroad. We need only make reference to the attacks on 9/11 to make a case for national security concerns. Our national interest is also implicated through the deaths of 4,500 American soldiers during the Iraq war—no stronger case for implicating national interest could be made. Additionally, our national interest is impacted by virtue of the mountains of national treasure expended in Iraq. Also, America’s prestige is marred by the capitulation of Obama in Iraq, having left a power vacuum that ISIS has been most happy to fill. Obama has, in essence, provided a training camp for future terrorists that could not have been imagined in Osama Bin Laden’s wildest dream.
However, given the incompetence, disregard, and unpatriotic sentiments of Barack Obama it cannot be a conscientious conservatives position to return to Iraq. Simply put, our military men and women deserve better than Obama. And, until the American people can supply a President who is also a statesman and patriot, we have no business sending troops into harms way.
“England has no eternal friends, England has no perpetual enemies, England has only eternal and perpetual interests”. Lord Palmerston
Thanks to Barack Obama Iraq is burning. ISIS forces rampage as Iraqi forces crumble before the onslaught of fanatical Islamists. As Iraq burns and smolders, Obama’s foreign policy proceeds and America’s national interest is again sacrificed to Obama’s new world order. But what is “national interest” and what, if any, interest do we, as a nation, have in far away Iraq?
National interest must be defined as any circumstance that affects the security, prosperity, and prestige of our sovereign nation.
The most basic purpose of government is to provide for the common defense. Therefore, anything that threatens our security becomes a keen national interest. Our response to national security threats must be swift and unambiguous. When American lives are threatened at home and abroad, there should be a powerful military response and a projection of power which culminates in absolute victory. Anything short of this is a betrayal of the American people and of its military. As Reagan put it, our power of defense should be unassailable. Peace can only be maintained through the deterrent effect of a vastly superior military force. Maintaining the status of the world’s only superpower should be America’s primary national interest.
American economic interests must be guarded by an administration which is committed to a philosophy of American exceptionalism. This means that foreign policy must be pursued to advantage American economic interests to the exclusion of competing international powers. This may strike many in academe as a novel idea, but when America prospers the world prospers. We see the effects of Obama’s administration which views our economic interests with disdain, despising our capitalist system yet all too willing to enjoy the fruits of capitalist prosperity. Obama’s marxism is antithetical to the capitalism of our founders. Our economy languishes while Obama favors not our interests but those of the third world and European powers. Obama delights in drawing comparisons with France and models his economy after the socialist continental nations.
Reagan was a master at illuminating American power and achievement, drawing nations to wonder at the “shining city on a hill.” Obama embarks on European and Middle East apology junkets and bemoans his fictions of American injustices domestically and imperialism abroad. Where Reagan extolled the virtues of a nation which has produced the greatest social compact in human history, Obama can only carp and unravel the magnificent tapestry of the Constitution. Again, Obama betrays the national interest.
Though America has been the most compassionate country in the world, national interest does not include notions of meddling in the affairs of other nations, so long as their operations serve our interest. This may include cooperation with and support of dictatorial powers that pursue outcomes that are parallel to our own. As a free people, we desire to see the rest of humanity freed from the bonds of servitude, however, our resources are not infinite and must be put to the service of our own sovereign national interests.
Barack Obama has ignored the dictates of national interest in favor of seeking parity or even disparity in relation to the world’s nations. Obama views our actions, regardless of their merit, as meddling, imperialist, and predatory. This is why he leaves the fate of the Iraqi people to ravening wolves who hoist the black flag on their standard. There is no American exceptionalism for Obama, there is only America standing uneasily among peers in a global community.
Our policy must reject the notion of parity with a global community of nations and recognize American sovereignty and exceptionality. A sound foreign policy seeks our own interest and our own advantage among a dysfunctional community of often hostile nations. Americans need a new view of sovereignty, of an America that flourishes and seeks its own best advantage.
do not seek friendships and democracy is an aberration in the brutal totalitarian history of man. If America is not aggressive in its defense of its sovereignty it will fall prey to the eternal predations of aggressor nations. Make no mistake, we are swimming in an international tank filled with sharks, sniffing for blood.
Iraq does represent a national interest that impacts directly on national security since the cancerous spread of fascistic Mohammadism is an ever present threat to citizens domestically and abroad. We need only make reference to the attacks on 9/11 to make a case for national security concerns. Our national interest is also implicated through the deaths of 4,500 American soldiers during the Iraq war—no stronger case for implicating national interest could be made. Additionally, our national interest is impacted by virtue of the mountains of national treasure expended in Iraq. Also, America’s prestige is marred by the capitulation of Obama in Iraq, having left a power vacuum that ISIS has been most happy to fill. Obama has, in essence, provided a training camp for future terrorists that could not have been imagined in Osama Bin Laden’s wildest dream.
However, given the incompetence, disregard, and unpatriotic sentiments of Barack Obama it cannot be a conscientious conservatives position to return to Iraq. Simply put, our military men and women deserve better than Obama. And, until the American people can supply a President who is also a statesman and patriot, we have no business sending troops into harms way.
YOUTH AND JIHAD IN KASHMIR
Shujaat Bukhari
Last year when I wrote about the boys who had graduated in different streams and joined the “Jehad” in Kashmir and the increasing number of people joining their funeral prayers, many “analysts” responded by saying that it was “a mere exaggeration”. But the killing of a young boy in Sopore on Monday stands testimony to the fact how the Kashmir society, particularly the youth, are identifying themselves with the renewed phase of militancy. The boy—Arshad Ahmad was not part of a group that was demonstrating against the breakdown in power supply, nor was he among those agitating for a Tehsil or a Block. He was part of the group that was protesting against the killing of a local militant in an encounter with forces a few hours before.
His killing is a grim reminder about how the state has lost control over its forces.
Once known as “Capital of Militancy”, Sopore has a long history of being at forefront to voice the dissent. Notwithstanding the fact that Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah held the first meeting of the then converted Muslim Conference into National Conference in Sopore only after he faced resentment in Srinagar, the town has emerged as symbol of resistance for many decades now. It has paid the price for being anti-establishment as it voted the fire brand Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Geelani to Assembly at least three times, thus rejecting the traditional National Conference. When armed rebellion broke out in 1989, Sopore was leading the movement and one of the formidable organisation’s – Hizbul Mujahideen’s – base outfit Tehreek e Jehadi Islami was born here only. For being on the opposite side, Sopore has been neglected in development as compared to other towns. It records almost zero polling so the attention towards the development is well understood.
The incident on Monday refreshes our memory not only about the town but also the renewed phase of youth opting for violence to fight for their political rights. Some may call them misguided or paid, but the fact is that there are lots who choose this dangerous path with a conviction. According to outgoing General Officer Commanding (GoC) Lt Gen Gurmit Singh, the number of militants killed since 2013 in Valley is 102.
By any assessment and analysis this is a big number keeping in view the statements from the government that the militancy was waning and it should be considered as “residual”. If the official sources are to be believed the number of local boys in the ranks has now crossed 50 percent. The militant groups also get the support at the ground level. In Sopore area alone there have been number of encounters in the recent past which suggests that the trend of “foreigners dominating militant ranks” is now reversing.
Not only are more boys turning to militancy as symbol of resistance but the public at large and their families have also openly glorified them. In a society of contrasts called Kashmir, there are people who queue up for voting, attend public meetings of mainstream parties but this stark reality also exists on ground that they have not “divorced” the militants. Thousands are seen chanting pro freedom slogans and women paying tributes by singing traditional wedding songs when the body of a militant is taken away to graveyard. When three militants were killed in an encounter in Tral last week, their families did not mourn but told journalists that they were “proud” of their children. Adil Mir (26) was the son of 55-year-old Bashir Ahmad Mir.
In March 2009 his eldest son, Naeem Mir, left home for the Islamic University of Science and Technology (IUST), Awantipora, but did not return. A final year student of B. Tech (Food Technology) at IUST, Naeem, joined Hizb and was killed in an encounter in September 2010. Exactly 21 days after his killing, Adil left home. Mir said the motivation for his sons has been religion, “Both of them followed religion in a steadfast manner and this is the only thing that motivated them to take up arms.” I am very proud of my sons,” says Mir. One may not generalize this phenomenon but there is surely a change in the society. After 2010 unrest in which 120 civilians were killed, the mode of agitation in Kashmir has been taking this route. Complete absence of political engagement and recognizing the fact that the distances between Srinagar and Delhi particularly among youth were increasing obviously has this route to take. Continued denial about aspirations of people only throws the space out for violence. Peace has not been allowed to substitute the violence even as it has created a conducive environment with two parallel engagements viz Srinagar-New Delhi and New Delhi-Islamabad for about five years from 2003. But with Mumbai coming in its way, New Delhi and Islamabad did not look back and hung their egos with that single happening.
The armed struggle in Kashmir has always had a strong backing of educated people. In 60s Al Fateh was the first armed group, which challenged Indian rule in Kashmir. It was led by qualified people who later on ended up in becoming top-level officers in the government. Similarly in 1989, the first batch of JKLF comprised of fresh college pass outs and later on a number of intellectuals, doctors, lawyers and academicians threw their weight behind the “freedom movement”. It is not pure radicalization among youth that is taking them to this path, that too with a “sanction” from society. It has lot to do with the political reality on ground. Though rejected worldwide as an option to achieve a political goal, this resurgence in Kashmir is surely something that cannot be brushed aside. This amply makes it clear that the constituency of peace has not been capitalized and the political establishment has not recognized the transition from violence to non-violence. People in Kashmir have also shown their penchant against violence, but continued absence of political engagement does add to an atmosphere in which they feel cheated and betrayed. To neutralize the trend of violence again taking over all the spaces, re-opening of the process of dialogue and reconciliation is must, otherwise the youth will further repose their faith in violence irrespective of the results it throws up.
Last year when I wrote about the boys who had graduated in different streams and joined the “Jehad” in Kashmir and the increasing number of people joining their funeral prayers, many “analysts” responded by saying that it was “a mere exaggeration”. But the killing of a young boy in Sopore on Monday stands testimony to the fact how the Kashmir society, particularly the youth, are identifying themselves with the renewed phase of militancy. The boy—Arshad Ahmad was not part of a group that was demonstrating against the breakdown in power supply, nor was he among those agitating for a Tehsil or a Block. He was part of the group that was protesting against the killing of a local militant in an encounter with forces a few hours before.
His killing is a grim reminder about how the state has lost control over its forces.
Once known as “Capital of Militancy”, Sopore has a long history of being at forefront to voice the dissent. Notwithstanding the fact that Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah held the first meeting of the then converted Muslim Conference into National Conference in Sopore only after he faced resentment in Srinagar, the town has emerged as symbol of resistance for many decades now. It has paid the price for being anti-establishment as it voted the fire brand Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Geelani to Assembly at least three times, thus rejecting the traditional National Conference. When armed rebellion broke out in 1989, Sopore was leading the movement and one of the formidable organisation’s – Hizbul Mujahideen’s – base outfit Tehreek e Jehadi Islami was born here only. For being on the opposite side, Sopore has been neglected in development as compared to other towns. It records almost zero polling so the attention towards the development is well understood.
The incident on Monday refreshes our memory not only about the town but also the renewed phase of youth opting for violence to fight for their political rights. Some may call them misguided or paid, but the fact is that there are lots who choose this dangerous path with a conviction. According to outgoing General Officer Commanding (GoC) Lt Gen Gurmit Singh, the number of militants killed since 2013 in Valley is 102.
By any assessment and analysis this is a big number keeping in view the statements from the government that the militancy was waning and it should be considered as “residual”. If the official sources are to be believed the number of local boys in the ranks has now crossed 50 percent. The militant groups also get the support at the ground level. In Sopore area alone there have been number of encounters in the recent past which suggests that the trend of “foreigners dominating militant ranks” is now reversing.
Not only are more boys turning to militancy as symbol of resistance but the public at large and their families have also openly glorified them. In a society of contrasts called Kashmir, there are people who queue up for voting, attend public meetings of mainstream parties but this stark reality also exists on ground that they have not “divorced” the militants. Thousands are seen chanting pro freedom slogans and women paying tributes by singing traditional wedding songs when the body of a militant is taken away to graveyard. When three militants were killed in an encounter in Tral last week, their families did not mourn but told journalists that they were “proud” of their children. Adil Mir (26) was the son of 55-year-old Bashir Ahmad Mir.
In March 2009 his eldest son, Naeem Mir, left home for the Islamic University of Science and Technology (IUST), Awantipora, but did not return. A final year student of B. Tech (Food Technology) at IUST, Naeem, joined Hizb and was killed in an encounter in September 2010. Exactly 21 days after his killing, Adil left home. Mir said the motivation for his sons has been religion, “Both of them followed religion in a steadfast manner and this is the only thing that motivated them to take up arms.” I am very proud of my sons,” says Mir. One may not generalize this phenomenon but there is surely a change in the society. After 2010 unrest in which 120 civilians were killed, the mode of agitation in Kashmir has been taking this route. Complete absence of political engagement and recognizing the fact that the distances between Srinagar and Delhi particularly among youth were increasing obviously has this route to take. Continued denial about aspirations of people only throws the space out for violence. Peace has not been allowed to substitute the violence even as it has created a conducive environment with two parallel engagements viz Srinagar-New Delhi and New Delhi-Islamabad for about five years from 2003. But with Mumbai coming in its way, New Delhi and Islamabad did not look back and hung their egos with that single happening.
The armed struggle in Kashmir has always had a strong backing of educated people. In 60s Al Fateh was the first armed group, which challenged Indian rule in Kashmir. It was led by qualified people who later on ended up in becoming top-level officers in the government. Similarly in 1989, the first batch of JKLF comprised of fresh college pass outs and later on a number of intellectuals, doctors, lawyers and academicians threw their weight behind the “freedom movement”. It is not pure radicalization among youth that is taking them to this path, that too with a “sanction” from society. It has lot to do with the political reality on ground. Though rejected worldwide as an option to achieve a political goal, this resurgence in Kashmir is surely something that cannot be brushed aside. This amply makes it clear that the constituency of peace has not been capitalized and the political establishment has not recognized the transition from violence to non-violence. People in Kashmir have also shown their penchant against violence, but continued absence of political engagement does add to an atmosphere in which they feel cheated and betrayed. To neutralize the trend of violence again taking over all the spaces, re-opening of the process of dialogue and reconciliation is must, otherwise the youth will further repose their faith in violence irrespective of the results it throws up.
DHAKA AS THE GATEWAY TO INDIA'S LOOK EAST POLICY
D Suba Chandran
The visit of the new External Affairs Minister of India Sushma Swaraj to Dhaka is timely and of importance. If pursued with the right spirit sustained momentum, Bangladesh has the potential of becoming a huge success story for the new government’s approach towards its neighbourhood.
Consider the current strategic environment in this part of the region. It is positive, despite minor setbacks, and has the potential to take bilateral relations to a new level. The government in Dhaka may not be totally pro-India but is certainly not anti-India. Even the public attitude towards India in Bangladesh has remained positive in the last few years. At the external level, the proposed BCIM corridor with Bangladesh, China, India and Myanmar is bound to bring Dhaka closer and open new vistas in bilateral relations relating to trade and movement of goods. It is unfortunate that the previous government could not make use of this positive environment and convert it into a success story for New Delhi in the neighbourhood.
The High Commissioner of Bangladesh in New Delhi has been earnestly campaigning to keep the momentum going between the two governments in Delhi and Dhaka. Unfortunately, New Delhi during the last phase of Manmohan Singh’s leadership let the momentum slow down. Mamata Banerjee was made a scapegoat - although did play a role in being a spoilsport, Manmohan Singh could have taken the relationship forward despite it if he was serious. This should be the first approach that Sushma Swaraj ensures in terms of regaining the momentum with Bangladesh and bulldozing bilateral relations forward.
Such a regaining of momentum could be done by engaging Dhaka in a constructive roadmap and making it a gateway for India’s Look East Policy (LEP). That could be the second approach for the new government towards Bangladesh. For a long time, New Delhi has been talking about its Look East policy, with Myanmar and India’s Northeast as gateways. Geographically and strategically, Dhaka should be the gateway for India’s LEP. Land and maritime access and trade and travel routes have to criss-cross eastern India comprising West Bengal and the Northeast and Bangladesh before entering Myanmar and progressing further east.
Like India, Bangladesh also has a serious stake in looking east. The ongoing Rohingya crisis and the violence against Bengali Muslims in Rakhine State has dented Bangladesh-Myanmar relations; worse was the recent firing and subsequent killing of a Bangladeshi soldier by Myanmarese guards along the border which has galvanised anti-Myanmar sentiment within Bangladesh. Despite this, Dhaka has to look east for it makes much economic sense in terms of trade and even the movement of Bangladeshi labour to ASEAN countries, especially Singapore and Malaysia. This provides an opportunity for India and Bangladesh to work together; in fact, New Delhi and Dhaka could Look East together.
In order to ensure that Dhaka is willing to be India’s gateway, the new government has to constructively engage Bangladesh in multiple sub-regional forums and institutions. If the Bangladesh–China–India–Myanmar Forum for Regional Cooperation (BCIM) offers one such opportunity, the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) which is older than the former, offers another opening to work with other countries in the region, which include Bhutan, Nepal, Myanmar and Thailand. While the first one would provide a great opportunity in terms of establishing infrastructure for trade and movement of goods, the second would be greatly beneficial in integrating the eastern part of the region.
Obviously, there have been issues over bilateral trade between the two countries despite the multiple agreements. Sharing of river waters will be another serious issue, given the alarming use of water war bogeys in the sub-continent and the emotionalism attached to it. Both could be over come if India and Bangladesh are integrated with the rest of the region. In fact, such an approach would even provide much needed space for the government in Delhi from its anti-India detractors and opposition.
The third and equally important approach is to use India’s border with Bangladesh as a bridge between the two countries. Bangladesh is not ‘India-locked’ but surrounded by West Bengal and the Northeast. What is generally referred as an ‘India lock’ is in fact always open, all along the border, despite the fencing. The illegal movement of people, goods and cattle mocks the entire concept of Bangladesh being ‘India-locked’. While it is a political issue, the hard reality also is that there is a market for this movement, and a regional economy within India thriving on this illegal border crossing of people, goods and even cattle.
New Delhi will have to provide some space to the regional states, as Beijing provides to Yunnan and Sichuan, in reaching out to the region. It is by no means an argument asking for the decentralisation of foreign policy, but only a petition to listen to the regional voices and use the border as a bridge to integrate Bangladesh better with West Bengal and the Northeast. Instead of looking only through the prism of bilateral trade and illegal migration, other innovative means could be used to help such a process of integration. There are ample means for the legal movement of people for different purposes – from conferences to football matches to more border haats - to bring the two civil societies together, especially along the borders of India.
Finally, the new government will have to engage in a charm offensive; the much debated but least used ‘soft power’ of India could very well part of such an engagement. While the reservations and restrictions imposed by the Home Ministry in this context is understandable, the PMO should allow the Foreign Ministry to have a larger role in deciding the movement of people, especially students, journalists, teachers, members of the strategic, business and fine arts communities etc. By no means are these people going to be a threat to India and are bound to return to Bangladesh as India’s unofficial ambassadors. In fact, New Delhi should provide multiple entry visas to a broad category of people and allow the foreign ministry to decide this movement. By not allowing this movement, we are not only choking bilateral relations but also our own voice in Bangladesh.
Bangladesh under the present government in Dhaka provides a huge opportunity. The new government in New Delhi should make use of this momentum and take the process forward in making Dhaka India’s gateway towards the East.
The visit of the new External Affairs Minister of India Sushma Swaraj to Dhaka is timely and of importance. If pursued with the right spirit sustained momentum, Bangladesh has the potential of becoming a huge success story for the new government’s approach towards its neighbourhood.
Consider the current strategic environment in this part of the region. It is positive, despite minor setbacks, and has the potential to take bilateral relations to a new level. The government in Dhaka may not be totally pro-India but is certainly not anti-India. Even the public attitude towards India in Bangladesh has remained positive in the last few years. At the external level, the proposed BCIM corridor with Bangladesh, China, India and Myanmar is bound to bring Dhaka closer and open new vistas in bilateral relations relating to trade and movement of goods. It is unfortunate that the previous government could not make use of this positive environment and convert it into a success story for New Delhi in the neighbourhood.
The High Commissioner of Bangladesh in New Delhi has been earnestly campaigning to keep the momentum going between the two governments in Delhi and Dhaka. Unfortunately, New Delhi during the last phase of Manmohan Singh’s leadership let the momentum slow down. Mamata Banerjee was made a scapegoat - although did play a role in being a spoilsport, Manmohan Singh could have taken the relationship forward despite it if he was serious. This should be the first approach that Sushma Swaraj ensures in terms of regaining the momentum with Bangladesh and bulldozing bilateral relations forward.
Such a regaining of momentum could be done by engaging Dhaka in a constructive roadmap and making it a gateway for India’s Look East Policy (LEP). That could be the second approach for the new government towards Bangladesh. For a long time, New Delhi has been talking about its Look East policy, with Myanmar and India’s Northeast as gateways. Geographically and strategically, Dhaka should be the gateway for India’s LEP. Land and maritime access and trade and travel routes have to criss-cross eastern India comprising West Bengal and the Northeast and Bangladesh before entering Myanmar and progressing further east.
Like India, Bangladesh also has a serious stake in looking east. The ongoing Rohingya crisis and the violence against Bengali Muslims in Rakhine State has dented Bangladesh-Myanmar relations; worse was the recent firing and subsequent killing of a Bangladeshi soldier by Myanmarese guards along the border which has galvanised anti-Myanmar sentiment within Bangladesh. Despite this, Dhaka has to look east for it makes much economic sense in terms of trade and even the movement of Bangladeshi labour to ASEAN countries, especially Singapore and Malaysia. This provides an opportunity for India and Bangladesh to work together; in fact, New Delhi and Dhaka could Look East together.
In order to ensure that Dhaka is willing to be India’s gateway, the new government has to constructively engage Bangladesh in multiple sub-regional forums and institutions. If the Bangladesh–China–India–Myanmar Forum for Regional Cooperation (BCIM) offers one such opportunity, the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) which is older than the former, offers another opening to work with other countries in the region, which include Bhutan, Nepal, Myanmar and Thailand. While the first one would provide a great opportunity in terms of establishing infrastructure for trade and movement of goods, the second would be greatly beneficial in integrating the eastern part of the region.
Obviously, there have been issues over bilateral trade between the two countries despite the multiple agreements. Sharing of river waters will be another serious issue, given the alarming use of water war bogeys in the sub-continent and the emotionalism attached to it. Both could be over come if India and Bangladesh are integrated with the rest of the region. In fact, such an approach would even provide much needed space for the government in Delhi from its anti-India detractors and opposition.
The third and equally important approach is to use India’s border with Bangladesh as a bridge between the two countries. Bangladesh is not ‘India-locked’ but surrounded by West Bengal and the Northeast. What is generally referred as an ‘India lock’ is in fact always open, all along the border, despite the fencing. The illegal movement of people, goods and cattle mocks the entire concept of Bangladesh being ‘India-locked’. While it is a political issue, the hard reality also is that there is a market for this movement, and a regional economy within India thriving on this illegal border crossing of people, goods and even cattle.
New Delhi will have to provide some space to the regional states, as Beijing provides to Yunnan and Sichuan, in reaching out to the region. It is by no means an argument asking for the decentralisation of foreign policy, but only a petition to listen to the regional voices and use the border as a bridge to integrate Bangladesh better with West Bengal and the Northeast. Instead of looking only through the prism of bilateral trade and illegal migration, other innovative means could be used to help such a process of integration. There are ample means for the legal movement of people for different purposes – from conferences to football matches to more border haats - to bring the two civil societies together, especially along the borders of India.
Finally, the new government will have to engage in a charm offensive; the much debated but least used ‘soft power’ of India could very well part of such an engagement. While the reservations and restrictions imposed by the Home Ministry in this context is understandable, the PMO should allow the Foreign Ministry to have a larger role in deciding the movement of people, especially students, journalists, teachers, members of the strategic, business and fine arts communities etc. By no means are these people going to be a threat to India and are bound to return to Bangladesh as India’s unofficial ambassadors. In fact, New Delhi should provide multiple entry visas to a broad category of people and allow the foreign ministry to decide this movement. By not allowing this movement, we are not only choking bilateral relations but also our own voice in Bangladesh.
Bangladesh under the present government in Dhaka provides a huge opportunity. The new government in New Delhi should make use of this momentum and take the process forward in making Dhaka India’s gateway towards the East.
26 Jun 2014
THE HIDDEN ECONOMIC DAMAGE OF OBAMACARE
Daniel J. Mitchell
Obamacare resulted in big increases in the fiscal burden of government (ironically, it would be even worse if Obama hadn’t unilaterally suspended parts of the law).
The legislation increased government spending, mostly for expanded Medicaidand big subsidies for private insurance.
There were also several tax hikes, with targeted levies on medical device makers and tanning beds, as well as some soak-the-rich taxes on upper-income taxpayers.
These various policies are bad news for economic performance, but the damage of Obamacare goes well beyond these provisions.
Writing for Real Clear Markets, Professor Casey Mulligan of the University of Chicago explains that Obamacare contains huge implicit tax hikes on work and other forms of productive behavior.
…can we begin to take seriously the idea that the fiscal policies and regulations hidden in the Affordable Care Act are shrinking our economy? …Politicians and journalists use the term tax more narrowly than economists do, but the economic definition is needed to understand the economic effects of the ACA. …Withholding benefits from people who work or earn is hardly different than telling them to pay a tax. For this reason, economists refer to benefits withheld as “implicit taxes.” What really matters for labor market performance is the reward to working inclusive of implicit taxes, and not the amount of revenue delivered to the government treasury… The ACA…is full of implicit taxes. Many of them have remained hidden in the “fog of controversy” surrounding the law and their effects excluded from economic analyses of it.
In other words, his basic message is that the government reduces incentives to be more productive and earn more money when it provides handouts that are based on people earning less money.
Indeed, click here to see a remarkable chart showing how redistribution programs discourage work.
And speaking of charts, here’s one from Professor Mulligan’s article, and it shows the nation’s largest tax hikes based on what happened to the marginal tax rate on working.
Wow. No wonder we’re suffering from a very anemic recovery.
Professor Mulligan elaborates.
During a period that included more than a dozen tax increases, the ACA is arguably the largest as a single piece of legislation, adding about six percentage points to the marginal tax rate faced, on average, by workers in the economy. The only way to cite larger marginal tax increases would be to combine multiple coincident laws, such as the Revenue Acts of 1950 and 1951 and the new payroll tax rate that went into effect in 1950. Even with these adjustments, the ACA is still the third largest marginal tax rate hike during the seventy years. …Let’s not be surprised that, as we implement a new law that taxes jobs and incomes, we are ending up with fewer jobs and less income.
By the way, other academics also have found that Obamacare will lure many people out of the workforce and into government dependency.
The White House actually wants us to believe this is a good thing, as humorously depicted by this Glenn McCoy cartoon.
But rational people understand that our economic output is a function of how much labor and capital are being productively utilized.
In other words, Obamacare is a mess. It’s hurting the economy and should be repealed as the first step in a long journey back to market-based healthcare.
P.S. Mulligan’s chart also re-confirms that unemployment benefits increase unemployment. Heck, that’s such a simple and obvious concept that it’s easily explained in this Wizard-of-Id parody and this Michael Ramirez cartoon.
Obamacare resulted in big increases in the fiscal burden of government (ironically, it would be even worse if Obama hadn’t unilaterally suspended parts of the law).
The legislation increased government spending, mostly for expanded Medicaidand big subsidies for private insurance.
There were also several tax hikes, with targeted levies on medical device makers and tanning beds, as well as some soak-the-rich taxes on upper-income taxpayers.
These various policies are bad news for economic performance, but the damage of Obamacare goes well beyond these provisions.
Writing for Real Clear Markets, Professor Casey Mulligan of the University of Chicago explains that Obamacare contains huge implicit tax hikes on work and other forms of productive behavior.
…can we begin to take seriously the idea that the fiscal policies and regulations hidden in the Affordable Care Act are shrinking our economy? …Politicians and journalists use the term tax more narrowly than economists do, but the economic definition is needed to understand the economic effects of the ACA. …Withholding benefits from people who work or earn is hardly different than telling them to pay a tax. For this reason, economists refer to benefits withheld as “implicit taxes.” What really matters for labor market performance is the reward to working inclusive of implicit taxes, and not the amount of revenue delivered to the government treasury… The ACA…is full of implicit taxes. Many of them have remained hidden in the “fog of controversy” surrounding the law and their effects excluded from economic analyses of it.
In other words, his basic message is that the government reduces incentives to be more productive and earn more money when it provides handouts that are based on people earning less money.
Indeed, click here to see a remarkable chart showing how redistribution programs discourage work.
And speaking of charts, here’s one from Professor Mulligan’s article, and it shows the nation’s largest tax hikes based on what happened to the marginal tax rate on working.
Wow. No wonder we’re suffering from a very anemic recovery.
Professor Mulligan elaborates.
During a period that included more than a dozen tax increases, the ACA is arguably the largest as a single piece of legislation, adding about six percentage points to the marginal tax rate faced, on average, by workers in the economy. The only way to cite larger marginal tax increases would be to combine multiple coincident laws, such as the Revenue Acts of 1950 and 1951 and the new payroll tax rate that went into effect in 1950. Even with these adjustments, the ACA is still the third largest marginal tax rate hike during the seventy years. …Let’s not be surprised that, as we implement a new law that taxes jobs and incomes, we are ending up with fewer jobs and less income.
By the way, other academics also have found that Obamacare will lure many people out of the workforce and into government dependency.
The White House actually wants us to believe this is a good thing, as humorously depicted by this Glenn McCoy cartoon.
But rational people understand that our economic output is a function of how much labor and capital are being productively utilized.
In other words, Obamacare is a mess. It’s hurting the economy and should be repealed as the first step in a long journey back to market-based healthcare.
P.S. Mulligan’s chart also re-confirms that unemployment benefits increase unemployment. Heck, that’s such a simple and obvious concept that it’s easily explained in this Wizard-of-Id parody and this Michael Ramirez cartoon.
THE PROGRESSIVE POVERTY PORN
Derek Hunter
I was a kid when breakdancing was a thing. Parachute pants, awful music and bad hair were all the rage for about 20 minutes in my pre-pubescent years. A staple of that horrible time in human history was the “break-fight.” A break-fight was a dance-off between two people or two groups of people because they lacked anything better to do. The winner, if you could call it that, won bragging rights for the 30 or so seconds the people who watched it took to turn away and forget the whole thing had happened. In the last week Democrats participated in a break-fight of sorts, but it was more of a “broke-fight,” and if any of them win, we all will lose.
It started with Hillary Clinton claiming she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House. Diane Sawyer knew this was a lie. Everyone who heard it knew it was a lie. Hillary knew it was a lie when she said it, but she said it anyway because she was trying to convince middle income Americans that she “feels their pain.”
It was an obvious lie, but Hillary wants to be president herself, and her party just spent a billion dollars in 2012 demonizing a man who’d given away his entire trust fund and actually earned hundreds of millions of dollars on his own as being an out-of-touch elitist. Unlike Mitt Romney, who made decisions, founded companies and took risks to make his fortune, Bill and Hillary wrote books and gave speeches.
Knowing this, she doubled-down this week. She said, “but they don’t see me as part of the problem because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names…” Yes, she said having a net worth of between $100 and $200 million isn’t “truly well off.” I know Obama has been a disaster for the economy, but c’mon. She finished her statement with “…and we’ve done it through dint of hard work.”
The Clintons are the very definition of elites trading on their name to make their fortune. No jobs were created, no risks taken, and the only sweat broken was from the spotlight while they were on stage collecting millions of dollars for speaking. The only dirt they’ve had under their nails got there from counting money. If the risk of a paper cut from a $275,000 check for a speech is considered “hard work,” I completely misunderstood my time as a roofer in college.
But Hillary wasn’t the only Clinton engaging in poverty porn this week. Chelsea told a magazine, “I was curious if I could care about (money) on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t.” That’s weird, because just a couple of years ago she signed a deal with NBC News for $600,000 per year to do “reports” for them. That was after her time working for a hedge fund, which are not known for their minimum-wage positions. Of course, it’s easy to not care about money when your family is marinating in it, much like no one ever thought “Man, I’m thirsty,” while drowning.
Not to be outdone, Vice-President Biden told the “White House Summit on Working Families” that he is an economic illiterate. Well, he didn’t use those exact words. He actually said “don’t hold it against me that I don’t own — that I don’t own a single stock or bond — I have no savings accounts.” Aside from this being a lie, he continued, “but I got a great pension and I got a good salary.”
What he has is a congressional pension that will pay him 80 percent of the average of his three highest years’ salaries. That’s forever and on top of whatever book deal and speech money he gets. Yes, he’s just like us!
In reality, Joe Biden is the type of person for whom Velcro shoes were invented. That he’s able to open a can of soup, let alone earn millions of dollars, is a testament to the American Dream.
But the American Dream isn’t what progressives are selling nowadays. They’re selling victimhood. As such, wealthy Democrats are rushing to paint themselves as victims.
Even the First Lady joined in the party.
At the same White House Summit, Michelle Obama told her sad tale of working part-time while raising her kids, with help from a “babysitter” (READ: Nanny, but only rich people have nannies, so…). She had it so rough that when she went from working part-time to vice president of her hospital she said she’d do it only if they’d cater to her family desires for time off. Yes, you read that right – she went from a part-time employee to VP, but claims she said she’d do it only on her terms. The word “hero” leaps to mind…
Of course, her husband being a politician didn’t help her at all; she did it all on her own. By the way, want to buy a bridge?
Democrats are falling all over each other to identify with the victim mentality they’ve created and cultivated. But it’s like Dr. Frankenstein claiming he “gets” his monster because he’s glued a couple of bolts to his neck – it’s transparently phony. Then again, we’re talking about Democrats here, so…
This “broke-fight” isn’t going to end anytime soon, there’s too much money in it. In fact, and ironically given the latest GDP numbers, poor people and rich people clamoring to pretend they know what it’s like to be poor may well be the only growth industries in Barack Obama’s economy.
I was a kid when breakdancing was a thing. Parachute pants, awful music and bad hair were all the rage for about 20 minutes in my pre-pubescent years. A staple of that horrible time in human history was the “break-fight.” A break-fight was a dance-off between two people or two groups of people because they lacked anything better to do. The winner, if you could call it that, won bragging rights for the 30 or so seconds the people who watched it took to turn away and forget the whole thing had happened. In the last week Democrats participated in a break-fight of sorts, but it was more of a “broke-fight,” and if any of them win, we all will lose.
It started with Hillary Clinton claiming she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House. Diane Sawyer knew this was a lie. Everyone who heard it knew it was a lie. Hillary knew it was a lie when she said it, but she said it anyway because she was trying to convince middle income Americans that she “feels their pain.”
It was an obvious lie, but Hillary wants to be president herself, and her party just spent a billion dollars in 2012 demonizing a man who’d given away his entire trust fund and actually earned hundreds of millions of dollars on his own as being an out-of-touch elitist. Unlike Mitt Romney, who made decisions, founded companies and took risks to make his fortune, Bill and Hillary wrote books and gave speeches.
Knowing this, she doubled-down this week. She said, “but they don’t see me as part of the problem because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names…” Yes, she said having a net worth of between $100 and $200 million isn’t “truly well off.” I know Obama has been a disaster for the economy, but c’mon. She finished her statement with “…and we’ve done it through dint of hard work.”
The Clintons are the very definition of elites trading on their name to make their fortune. No jobs were created, no risks taken, and the only sweat broken was from the spotlight while they were on stage collecting millions of dollars for speaking. The only dirt they’ve had under their nails got there from counting money. If the risk of a paper cut from a $275,000 check for a speech is considered “hard work,” I completely misunderstood my time as a roofer in college.
But Hillary wasn’t the only Clinton engaging in poverty porn this week. Chelsea told a magazine, “I was curious if I could care about (money) on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t.” That’s weird, because just a couple of years ago she signed a deal with NBC News for $600,000 per year to do “reports” for them. That was after her time working for a hedge fund, which are not known for their minimum-wage positions. Of course, it’s easy to not care about money when your family is marinating in it, much like no one ever thought “Man, I’m thirsty,” while drowning.
Not to be outdone, Vice-President Biden told the “White House Summit on Working Families” that he is an economic illiterate. Well, he didn’t use those exact words. He actually said “don’t hold it against me that I don’t own — that I don’t own a single stock or bond — I have no savings accounts.” Aside from this being a lie, he continued, “but I got a great pension and I got a good salary.”
What he has is a congressional pension that will pay him 80 percent of the average of his three highest years’ salaries. That’s forever and on top of whatever book deal and speech money he gets. Yes, he’s just like us!
In reality, Joe Biden is the type of person for whom Velcro shoes were invented. That he’s able to open a can of soup, let alone earn millions of dollars, is a testament to the American Dream.
But the American Dream isn’t what progressives are selling nowadays. They’re selling victimhood. As such, wealthy Democrats are rushing to paint themselves as victims.
Even the First Lady joined in the party.
At the same White House Summit, Michelle Obama told her sad tale of working part-time while raising her kids, with help from a “babysitter” (READ: Nanny, but only rich people have nannies, so…). She had it so rough that when she went from working part-time to vice president of her hospital she said she’d do it only if they’d cater to her family desires for time off. Yes, you read that right – she went from a part-time employee to VP, but claims she said she’d do it only on her terms. The word “hero” leaps to mind…
Of course, her husband being a politician didn’t help her at all; she did it all on her own. By the way, want to buy a bridge?
Democrats are falling all over each other to identify with the victim mentality they’ve created and cultivated. But it’s like Dr. Frankenstein claiming he “gets” his monster because he’s glued a couple of bolts to his neck – it’s transparently phony. Then again, we’re talking about Democrats here, so…
This “broke-fight” isn’t going to end anytime soon, there’s too much money in it. In fact, and ironically given the latest GDP numbers, poor people and rich people clamoring to pretend they know what it’s like to be poor may well be the only growth industries in Barack Obama’s economy.
THE REVISIONIST HISTORY PREVAILS ON IRAQ INVASION
Victor Davis Hanson
So who lost Iraq?
The blame game mostly fingers incompetent Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Or is Barack Obama culpable for pulling out all American troops monitoring the success of the 2007-08 surge?
Some still blame George W. Bush for going into Iraq in 2003 in the first place to remove Saddam Hussein.
One can blame almost anyone, but one must not invent facts to support an argument.
Do we remember that Bill Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 that supported regime change in Iraq? He gave an eloquent speech on the dangers of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
In 2002, both houses of Congress voted overwhelmingly to pass a resolution authorizing the removal of Saddam Hussein by force. Senators such as Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Harry Reid offered moving arguments on the Senate floor why we should depose Saddam in a post-9/11 climate.
Democratic stalwarts such as Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Rep. Nancy Pelosi lectured us about the dangers of Saddam's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. They drew on the same classified domestic and foreign intelligence reports that had led Bush to call for Saddam's forcible removal.
The Bush administration, like members of Congress, underestimated the costs of the war and erred in focusing almost exclusively on Saddam's supposed stockpiles of weapons. But otherwise, the war was legally authorized on 23 writs. Most of them had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction and were unaffected by the later mysterious absence of such weapons -- which is all the more mysterious given that troves of WMD have turned up in nearby Syria and more recently in Iraqi bunkers overrun by Islamic militants.
Legally, the U.S. went to war against Saddam because he had done things such as commit genocide against the Kurds, Shiites and the Marsh Arabs, and attacked four of his neighbors. He had tried to arrange the assassination of a former U.S. president, George H.W. Bush. He had paid bounties for suicide bombers on the West Bank and was harboring the worst of global terrorists. Saddam also offered refuge to at least one of the architects of the first World Trade Center Bombing in 1993, and violated U.N.-authorized no-fly zones.
A number of prominent columnists, right and left -- from George Will, David Brooks and William F. Buckley to Fareed Zakaria, David Ignatius and Thomas Friedman -- supported Saddam's forcible removal. When his statue fell in 2003, most polls showed that over 70 percent of Americans agreed with the war.
What changed public opinion and caused radical about-faces among the war's most ardent supporters were the subsequent postwar violence and insurgency between 2004 and 2007, and the concurrent domestic elections and rising antiwar movement. Thousands of American troops were killed or wounded in mostly failed efforts to stem the Sunni-Shiite savagery.
The 2007-08 surge engineered by Gen. David Petraeus ended much of the violence. By Obama's second year in office, American fatalities had been reduced to far less than the monthly accident rate in the U.S. military. "An extraordinary achievement" Obama said of the "stable" and "self-reliant" Iraq that he inherited -- and left.
Prior to our invasion, the Kurds were a persecuted people who had been gassed, slaughtered and robbed of all rights by Saddam. In contrast, today a semi-autonomous Kurdistan is a free-market, consensual society of tolerance that, along with Israel, is one of the few humane places in the Middle East.
In 2003, the New York Times estimated that Saddam Hussein had killed perhaps about 1 million of his own people. That translated into about 40,000 deaths for each year he led Iraq.
A Saddam-led Iraq over the last decade would not have been a peaceable place.
We can also imagine that Saddam would not have sat idly by the last decade as Pakistan and North Korea openly sold their nuclear expertise, and as rival Iran pressed ahead with its nuclear enrichment program.
Nor should we forget that the U.S. military decimated al-Qaeda in Iraq. Tens of thousands of foreign terrorists flocked to Anbar Province and there met their deaths. When Obama later declared that al-Qaeda was "on the run," it was largely because it had been nearly obliterated in Iraq.
Launching a costly campaign to remove Saddam may or may not have been a wise move. But it is historically inaccurate to suggest that the Iraq War was cooked up by George W. Bush alone -- or that it did not do enormous damage to al-Qaeda, bring salvation for the Kurds, and by 2009 provide a rare chance for the now-bickering Iraqis to make something out of what Saddam had tried to destroy.
So who lost Iraq?
The blame game mostly fingers incompetent Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Or is Barack Obama culpable for pulling out all American troops monitoring the success of the 2007-08 surge?
Some still blame George W. Bush for going into Iraq in 2003 in the first place to remove Saddam Hussein.
One can blame almost anyone, but one must not invent facts to support an argument.
Do we remember that Bill Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 that supported regime change in Iraq? He gave an eloquent speech on the dangers of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
In 2002, both houses of Congress voted overwhelmingly to pass a resolution authorizing the removal of Saddam Hussein by force. Senators such as Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Harry Reid offered moving arguments on the Senate floor why we should depose Saddam in a post-9/11 climate.
Democratic stalwarts such as Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Rep. Nancy Pelosi lectured us about the dangers of Saddam's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. They drew on the same classified domestic and foreign intelligence reports that had led Bush to call for Saddam's forcible removal.
The Bush administration, like members of Congress, underestimated the costs of the war and erred in focusing almost exclusively on Saddam's supposed stockpiles of weapons. But otherwise, the war was legally authorized on 23 writs. Most of them had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction and were unaffected by the later mysterious absence of such weapons -- which is all the more mysterious given that troves of WMD have turned up in nearby Syria and more recently in Iraqi bunkers overrun by Islamic militants.
Legally, the U.S. went to war against Saddam because he had done things such as commit genocide against the Kurds, Shiites and the Marsh Arabs, and attacked four of his neighbors. He had tried to arrange the assassination of a former U.S. president, George H.W. Bush. He had paid bounties for suicide bombers on the West Bank and was harboring the worst of global terrorists. Saddam also offered refuge to at least one of the architects of the first World Trade Center Bombing in 1993, and violated U.N.-authorized no-fly zones.
A number of prominent columnists, right and left -- from George Will, David Brooks and William F. Buckley to Fareed Zakaria, David Ignatius and Thomas Friedman -- supported Saddam's forcible removal. When his statue fell in 2003, most polls showed that over 70 percent of Americans agreed with the war.
What changed public opinion and caused radical about-faces among the war's most ardent supporters were the subsequent postwar violence and insurgency between 2004 and 2007, and the concurrent domestic elections and rising antiwar movement. Thousands of American troops were killed or wounded in mostly failed efforts to stem the Sunni-Shiite savagery.
The 2007-08 surge engineered by Gen. David Petraeus ended much of the violence. By Obama's second year in office, American fatalities had been reduced to far less than the monthly accident rate in the U.S. military. "An extraordinary achievement" Obama said of the "stable" and "self-reliant" Iraq that he inherited -- and left.
Prior to our invasion, the Kurds were a persecuted people who had been gassed, slaughtered and robbed of all rights by Saddam. In contrast, today a semi-autonomous Kurdistan is a free-market, consensual society of tolerance that, along with Israel, is one of the few humane places in the Middle East.
In 2003, the New York Times estimated that Saddam Hussein had killed perhaps about 1 million of his own people. That translated into about 40,000 deaths for each year he led Iraq.
A Saddam-led Iraq over the last decade would not have been a peaceable place.
We can also imagine that Saddam would not have sat idly by the last decade as Pakistan and North Korea openly sold their nuclear expertise, and as rival Iran pressed ahead with its nuclear enrichment program.
Nor should we forget that the U.S. military decimated al-Qaeda in Iraq. Tens of thousands of foreign terrorists flocked to Anbar Province and there met their deaths. When Obama later declared that al-Qaeda was "on the run," it was largely because it had been nearly obliterated in Iraq.
Launching a costly campaign to remove Saddam may or may not have been a wise move. But it is historically inaccurate to suggest that the Iraq War was cooked up by George W. Bush alone -- or that it did not do enormous damage to al-Qaeda, bring salvation for the Kurds, and by 2009 provide a rare chance for the now-bickering Iraqis to make something out of what Saddam had tried to destroy.
THE THEORY OF THE WORLD IS WRONG
Rich Galen
We've been through this before, but it bears repeating today: Politics = winning. Religion = salvation.
Those are not the same thing.
To the surprise of almost everyone, this year's Theory of the World, cited 173 times each and every day on cable networks, radio talk shows, podcasts, and in the lunch line at the Longworth Cafeteria, was dealt a real blow last night.
The Theory of the World is: This is an virulently anti-incumbent year. People who are long-time denizens of Washington, DC are in real trouble. They will be beaten. They will lose. Their time is over.
After the primary that showed soon-to-be-former Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) the door in Richmond, the Theory of the World took hold: Dave Brat won because Americans hate Washington and everyone who works there.
The thing about Brat's win over Cantor was, until he won, Tea Party groups had studiously ignored him. Only after his stunning victory did they light their torches, hoist their signs, and march victoriously around Capitol Square in Richmond claiming credit.
Last night two denizens, Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) and Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), with a combined denization of about 85 years, confounded the experts by winning their respective primary elections.
Rangel is running for his 23rd term in Congress and, as of this writing, has a mathematically insurmountable lead over his opponent, Adriano Espaillat, even with some absentee votes still to be counted.
Rangel's Bronx, New York District has been as safe as any in the nation for an African-American. But, the district is changing and there are a significant number of Hispanics in the mix leading the geniuses in Washington to believe that Espaillat, would win the primary and be the next Congressman.
Rep. Rangel promised this would be his last run and, it seems, was awarded a victory lap by his constituents and will return to the House of Representatives next January.
Sen. Cochran's story is different. He has been in Washington (House and Senate) for 41 years and he lost the primary in Mississippi three weeks ago by a handful of votes to Tea Party darling Chris McDaniel.
But, McDaniel ended up just shy of the 50-percent-plus-one threshold to avoid a runoff and so the two squared off again yesterday.
The Theorists of the World gave Sen. Cochran between no chance and zero chance (although, because of the World Cup, some gave him nil chance) to hold onto his seat.
In Mississippi, unlike Virginia, the Tea Partiers were all over the race against Cochran. Chris McDaniel was going to win and win big.
Yeah, well ?
Cochran's re-vamped campaign actively courted Democrats in Mississippi - specifically African American Democrats - to vote in the open primary for the Senator. The strategy worked and, according to CNN "about 61,000 more people voted Tuesday than in the primary two weeks ago."
The Tea Partiers howled like stubbed toes that Cochran's campaign had, in fact, cheated by getting African Americans to not just turn out in a GOP primary, but turned out to vote for a White Incumbent Senator.
McDaniel's supporters - and McDaniel himself - claimed Cochran was more interested in winning than he is in fighting President Obama and changing the direction of America.
Elections are about winning so you can go to the city council, or state legislature, or the U.S. Senate and cast votes. If you lose the election - no matter how pure your positions - you get to use your ample free time to cast for trout.
Successful elections are about convincing enough voters that you will represent them better than your opponent. Successful elections, are rarely about convincing some voters that you will be true to a specific ideology and exclude any other opinion or position.
So far, this primary season, only two Federal incumbents have been beaten: The aforementioned Eric Cantor, and 91-year-old Texas Congressman Ralph Hall. That is a fairly typical result.
According to Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley, writing for Prof. Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball;
"In 2010, the year of the Tea Party, 397 members of the House ran for renomination, and just four were denied it (1 percent).
In 2012, 391 members of the House ran for renomination: 13 lost (3 percent), but eight of those lost to other members of Congress in redistricting-induced member vs. member battles."
So, incumbents are still winning, challengers are still losing.
We've been through this before, but it bears repeating today: Politics = winning. Religion = salvation.
Those are not the same thing.
To the surprise of almost everyone, this year's Theory of the World, cited 173 times each and every day on cable networks, radio talk shows, podcasts, and in the lunch line at the Longworth Cafeteria, was dealt a real blow last night.
The Theory of the World is: This is an virulently anti-incumbent year. People who are long-time denizens of Washington, DC are in real trouble. They will be beaten. They will lose. Their time is over.
After the primary that showed soon-to-be-former Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) the door in Richmond, the Theory of the World took hold: Dave Brat won because Americans hate Washington and everyone who works there.
The thing about Brat's win over Cantor was, until he won, Tea Party groups had studiously ignored him. Only after his stunning victory did they light their torches, hoist their signs, and march victoriously around Capitol Square in Richmond claiming credit.
Last night two denizens, Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) and Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), with a combined denization of about 85 years, confounded the experts by winning their respective primary elections.
Rangel is running for his 23rd term in Congress and, as of this writing, has a mathematically insurmountable lead over his opponent, Adriano Espaillat, even with some absentee votes still to be counted.
Rangel's Bronx, New York District has been as safe as any in the nation for an African-American. But, the district is changing and there are a significant number of Hispanics in the mix leading the geniuses in Washington to believe that Espaillat, would win the primary and be the next Congressman.
Rep. Rangel promised this would be his last run and, it seems, was awarded a victory lap by his constituents and will return to the House of Representatives next January.
Sen. Cochran's story is different. He has been in Washington (House and Senate) for 41 years and he lost the primary in Mississippi three weeks ago by a handful of votes to Tea Party darling Chris McDaniel.
But, McDaniel ended up just shy of the 50-percent-plus-one threshold to avoid a runoff and so the two squared off again yesterday.
The Theorists of the World gave Sen. Cochran between no chance and zero chance (although, because of the World Cup, some gave him nil chance) to hold onto his seat.
In Mississippi, unlike Virginia, the Tea Partiers were all over the race against Cochran. Chris McDaniel was going to win and win big.
Yeah, well ?
Cochran's re-vamped campaign actively courted Democrats in Mississippi - specifically African American Democrats - to vote in the open primary for the Senator. The strategy worked and, according to CNN "about 61,000 more people voted Tuesday than in the primary two weeks ago."
The Tea Partiers howled like stubbed toes that Cochran's campaign had, in fact, cheated by getting African Americans to not just turn out in a GOP primary, but turned out to vote for a White Incumbent Senator.
McDaniel's supporters - and McDaniel himself - claimed Cochran was more interested in winning than he is in fighting President Obama and changing the direction of America.
Elections are about winning so you can go to the city council, or state legislature, or the U.S. Senate and cast votes. If you lose the election - no matter how pure your positions - you get to use your ample free time to cast for trout.
Successful elections are about convincing enough voters that you will represent them better than your opponent. Successful elections, are rarely about convincing some voters that you will be true to a specific ideology and exclude any other opinion or position.
So far, this primary season, only two Federal incumbents have been beaten: The aforementioned Eric Cantor, and 91-year-old Texas Congressman Ralph Hall. That is a fairly typical result.
According to Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley, writing for Prof. Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball;
"In 2010, the year of the Tea Party, 397 members of the House ran for renomination, and just four were denied it (1 percent).
In 2012, 391 members of the House ran for renomination: 13 lost (3 percent), but eight of those lost to other members of Congress in redistricting-induced member vs. member battles."
So, incumbents are still winning, challengers are still losing.
25 Jun 2014
BEST WAYS TO PREPARE FOR RETIREMENT
Being financially secure in retirement just doesn’t happen magically. It takes lots of planning, time and savings.
Some scary facts about retirement:
More than 50% of persons do not have enough finances for retirement.
25% do not participate in their company’s retirement plan.
The average person spends 20 years in retirement.
Here are some tips to help you plan correctly:
1. Talk to a financial professional. Every few years, it’s a good idea to schedule a meeting with a financial planner to get a ‘check-up’. It’s just like a doctor’s visit, and you should really talk about your present situation and future goals.
2. Save, save, and keep on saving. Make it a habit to save as much as you can.
Learn your retirement needs. Retirement can be expensive. Learn from today how much you need to save for your retirement. Talk to a financial planner, or find an online retirement calculator.
3. Take part in your employer’s retirement plans. If your company offers one, it is usually the best tool you can use. Talk to a financial professional for all your options.
4. Learn about pension plans. If you have an employer or government pension plan, learn all the details.
5. Keep your retirement savings off-limits. Don’t make a withdrawal until you retire, you might incur penalties and it will be a setback for realizing your goals.
6. Get your employer to start a plan. If your present job doesn’t offer a retirement plan, ask for one to be started. Many times it isn’t a cost to your employer to start one, and it can help you tremendously.
7. Learn about your government’s retirement plans. Every country has different plans some with special tax incentives, so learn what your country offers and plan accordingly.
8. Do your own research. Use the Internet, read the newspapers and magazines, talk to your friends, to find out as much as you can about retirement.
Some scary facts about retirement:
More than 50% of persons do not have enough finances for retirement.
25% do not participate in their company’s retirement plan.
The average person spends 20 years in retirement.
Here are some tips to help you plan correctly:
1. Talk to a financial professional. Every few years, it’s a good idea to schedule a meeting with a financial planner to get a ‘check-up’. It’s just like a doctor’s visit, and you should really talk about your present situation and future goals.
2. Save, save, and keep on saving. Make it a habit to save as much as you can.
Learn your retirement needs. Retirement can be expensive. Learn from today how much you need to save for your retirement. Talk to a financial planner, or find an online retirement calculator.
3. Take part in your employer’s retirement plans. If your company offers one, it is usually the best tool you can use. Talk to a financial professional for all your options.
4. Learn about pension plans. If you have an employer or government pension plan, learn all the details.
5. Keep your retirement savings off-limits. Don’t make a withdrawal until you retire, you might incur penalties and it will be a setback for realizing your goals.
6. Get your employer to start a plan. If your present job doesn’t offer a retirement plan, ask for one to be started. Many times it isn’t a cost to your employer to start one, and it can help you tremendously.
7. Learn about your government’s retirement plans. Every country has different plans some with special tax incentives, so learn what your country offers and plan accordingly.
8. Do your own research. Use the Internet, read the newspapers and magazines, talk to your friends, to find out as much as you can about retirement.
WELCOME TO THE EXECUTIVE DICTATORSHIP
Ben Shapiro
The Constitution is dead.
Long live the executive dictatorship.
There is almost nothing the president of the United States cannot do. This week, we found out President Barack Obama's IRS not only targeted conservative nonprofit applicants with impunity but then destroyed the emails that could have illuminated the process behind such targeting. Meanwhile, the attorney general -- the executive officer charged with fighting government criminality -- continues to stonewall an independent prosecutor, maintaining along with his boss that there is not a "smidgen of corruption" in the IRS.
On the southern border, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been converted from a policing agency to a humanitarian-aid agency, as the Obama administration encourages thousands of unaccompanied minors to flood Texas and Arizona. Those illegal immigrants are being shuttled around the southwest and released into the general population, and told by activists that they are just months away from amnesty.
Across the seas, Obama is unilaterally destroying America's anti-terror infrastructure. Iraq has become the preserve of the al-Qaida offshoot ISIS and the Iranian-connected Shiite government -- the specific outcome the United States originally wanted to avoid in the country. Afghanistan will soon devolve back into a Taliban-led cesspool for terror. And the Obama administration continues to fund a Palestinian government that includes terrorist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and that has now kidnapped an American citizen, along with two other Israeli boys.
Nobody in the executive branch has been punished for Benghazi, Libya, Fast and Furious, serious national security leaks to major news outlets, violations of civil rights by the National Security Agency or any other major scandal. The Obama administration has seized authority to regulate health care, carbon emissions and labor relations in unforeseen ways.
And no one will stop the executive branch. Impeachment will not solve the problem of a 3 million-strong regulatory branch in which accountability is a fantasy. The legislature has no interest in stopping the growth of the executive, given that legislators seek re-election by avoiding responsibility, and granting more power to the executive avoids such responsibility. And the judiciary seems unwilling to hem in the executive branch at all, given its decisions on the Environmental Protection Agency and Obamacare.
So what's left? An elected tyranny in which the whims of the president and all of his men decide the fate of millions. The founders would have fought such a government with every fiber of their being -- and, in fact, they did fight such a government. The question now is whether state governments, elected officials and the people themselves will be willing to take the measures necessary to do the same.
The Constitution is dead.
Long live the executive dictatorship.
There is almost nothing the president of the United States cannot do. This week, we found out President Barack Obama's IRS not only targeted conservative nonprofit applicants with impunity but then destroyed the emails that could have illuminated the process behind such targeting. Meanwhile, the attorney general -- the executive officer charged with fighting government criminality -- continues to stonewall an independent prosecutor, maintaining along with his boss that there is not a "smidgen of corruption" in the IRS.
On the southern border, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been converted from a policing agency to a humanitarian-aid agency, as the Obama administration encourages thousands of unaccompanied minors to flood Texas and Arizona. Those illegal immigrants are being shuttled around the southwest and released into the general population, and told by activists that they are just months away from amnesty.
Across the seas, Obama is unilaterally destroying America's anti-terror infrastructure. Iraq has become the preserve of the al-Qaida offshoot ISIS and the Iranian-connected Shiite government -- the specific outcome the United States originally wanted to avoid in the country. Afghanistan will soon devolve back into a Taliban-led cesspool for terror. And the Obama administration continues to fund a Palestinian government that includes terrorist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and that has now kidnapped an American citizen, along with two other Israeli boys.
Nobody in the executive branch has been punished for Benghazi, Libya, Fast and Furious, serious national security leaks to major news outlets, violations of civil rights by the National Security Agency or any other major scandal. The Obama administration has seized authority to regulate health care, carbon emissions and labor relations in unforeseen ways.
And no one will stop the executive branch. Impeachment will not solve the problem of a 3 million-strong regulatory branch in which accountability is a fantasy. The legislature has no interest in stopping the growth of the executive, given that legislators seek re-election by avoiding responsibility, and granting more power to the executive avoids such responsibility. And the judiciary seems unwilling to hem in the executive branch at all, given its decisions on the Environmental Protection Agency and Obamacare.
So what's left? An elected tyranny in which the whims of the president and all of his men decide the fate of millions. The founders would have fought such a government with every fiber of their being -- and, in fact, they did fight such a government. The question now is whether state governments, elected officials and the people themselves will be willing to take the measures necessary to do the same.
IRAN: THE EXISTENTIAL THREAT
Ken Blackwell
In the confusion that accompanies the surge of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), it is not surprising that many are deeply concerned. This extraordinarily savage group of terrorists has stormed out of Syria and is threatening many cities in Iraq—cities that Americans liberated with their blood and treasure. It’s not surprising that, faced with such a stunning development, even officials like Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) might consider working with Iran’s mullahs to stem the tide.
It was Churchill who decided to work with Stalin following Hitler’s betrayal of his ally some 73 years ago. He said if Hitler invaded hell, he would at least make favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.
But nothing could be more damaging to America’s long-term security interests than aligning with the murderous regime of Tehran in any way for any purpose. The phrase that best describes the theocratic regime in Tehran is hostis humani generis—enemies of all mankind. This Latin term is applied in international law to terrorists, pirates, and slave traders. It fits this regime's rule well.
Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. It is a major persecutor of religion. In today’s Iran, Christians, Jews, Baha’i, Zoroastrians, and minority Muslim sects are actively suppressed and terrorized. Pastor Saeed Abedini was sentenced to eight years in a filthy prison, beaten and abused for “threatening the national security of Iran.” His crime: He started an orphanage!
Our own State Department reports on the full range of human rights abuses in Iran. These include:
disappearances; cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, including judicially sanctioned amputation and flogging; politically motivated violence and repression, such as beatings and rape; harsh and life-threatening conditions in detention and prison facilities, with instances of deaths in custody; arbitrary arrest and lengthy pretrial detention, sometimes incommunicado; continued impunity of security forces; denial of fair public trials, sometimes resulting in executions without due process…
[See more at: http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/#wrapper]
Nor should it be forgotten that Iran publicly hangs homosexuals. Add to this catalogue of abuses even more from the State Department:
…violence against women, children, ethnic and religious minorities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons based on perceived sexual orientation and gender identity;
What other evidence is needed to label them justly “enemies of all mankind?”
The regime's savagery is real and growing. No other nation so regularly calls for the physical elimination of the United States or its neighbor, Israel. No other nation is so actively seeking nuclear weapons.
Do we dare to dismiss their genocidal threats as bluster?
In Paris this week, groups of Iranian exiles, U.S. and European parliamentarians, military experts, and diplomats will meet to discuss ways to neutralize or change the regime in Iran.
Event organizers have announced that American participants include Gen. George Casey, Michael Mukasey, Marc Ginsberg, Amb. John Bolton, Gov. Ed Rendell, and Frances Townsend. Topics will include: deteriorating human rights situation in Iran, Tehran's nuclear weapons program, and the fate of Iranian refugees at Camp Liberty in Iraq.
If this conclave can reach consensus, and , if they can persuade the Western democracies to take concerted action, we may yet avert the most terrible conflict since the Second World War.
Every day the mullahs' regime spinning centrifuges bring them a step closer to having a nuclear weapon. Iran’s former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly declared he could foresee “a world without the United States.” And he dismissed Israel as “a two-bomb country.”
The Washington Post earlier this month informed us of the stalling of nuclear talks with Iran:
Iran says such experiments--detailed in documents obtained by Western spy agencies--never occurred, but it has refused to allow IAEA officials near the site since 20
In the confusion that accompanies the surge of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), it is not surprising that many are deeply concerned. This extraordinarily savage group of terrorists has stormed out of Syria and is threatening many cities in Iraq—cities that Americans liberated with their blood and treasure. It’s not surprising that, faced with such a stunning development, even officials like Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) might consider working with Iran’s mullahs to stem the tide.
It was Churchill who decided to work with Stalin following Hitler’s betrayal of his ally some 73 years ago. He said if Hitler invaded hell, he would at least make favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.
But nothing could be more damaging to America’s long-term security interests than aligning with the murderous regime of Tehran in any way for any purpose. The phrase that best describes the theocratic regime in Tehran is hostis humani generis—enemies of all mankind. This Latin term is applied in international law to terrorists, pirates, and slave traders. It fits this regime's rule well.
Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. It is a major persecutor of religion. In today’s Iran, Christians, Jews, Baha’i, Zoroastrians, and minority Muslim sects are actively suppressed and terrorized. Pastor Saeed Abedini was sentenced to eight years in a filthy prison, beaten and abused for “threatening the national security of Iran.” His crime: He started an orphanage!
Our own State Department reports on the full range of human rights abuses in Iran. These include:
disappearances; cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, including judicially sanctioned amputation and flogging; politically motivated violence and repression, such as beatings and rape; harsh and life-threatening conditions in detention and prison facilities, with instances of deaths in custody; arbitrary arrest and lengthy pretrial detention, sometimes incommunicado; continued impunity of security forces; denial of fair public trials, sometimes resulting in executions without due process…
[See more at: http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/#wrapper]
Nor should it be forgotten that Iran publicly hangs homosexuals. Add to this catalogue of abuses even more from the State Department:
…violence against women, children, ethnic and religious minorities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons based on perceived sexual orientation and gender identity;
What other evidence is needed to label them justly “enemies of all mankind?”
The regime's savagery is real and growing. No other nation so regularly calls for the physical elimination of the United States or its neighbor, Israel. No other nation is so actively seeking nuclear weapons.
Do we dare to dismiss their genocidal threats as bluster?
In Paris this week, groups of Iranian exiles, U.S. and European parliamentarians, military experts, and diplomats will meet to discuss ways to neutralize or change the regime in Iran.
Event organizers have announced that American participants include Gen. George Casey, Michael Mukasey, Marc Ginsberg, Amb. John Bolton, Gov. Ed Rendell, and Frances Townsend. Topics will include: deteriorating human rights situation in Iran, Tehran's nuclear weapons program, and the fate of Iranian refugees at Camp Liberty in Iraq.
If this conclave can reach consensus, and , if they can persuade the Western democracies to take concerted action, we may yet avert the most terrible conflict since the Second World War.
Every day the mullahs' regime spinning centrifuges bring them a step closer to having a nuclear weapon. Iran’s former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly declared he could foresee “a world without the United States.” And he dismissed Israel as “a two-bomb country.”
The Washington Post earlier this month informed us of the stalling of nuclear talks with Iran:
Iran says such experiments--detailed in documents obtained by Western spy agencies--never occurred, but it has refused to allow IAEA officials near the site since 20
OMISSION CONTROL
John Stossel
ReReporter Sharyl Attkisson's story sounds familiar to me: A major network got tired of her reports criticizing government. She no longer works there.
The CBS correspondent reported on Fast and Furious, the shifting explanation for the Benghazi, Libya, attacks and the bungled rollout of the Obamacare website.
"But as time went on, it was harder to get stories on," she says.
"There are people who simply would rather just avoid the headache of going after powers that be because of the pushback that comes with it, which has become very organized and well-financed," she says on my TV show this week.
I left ABC for similar reasons. When I began consumer reporting, I assumed advertisers would censor me, since sponsors who paid my bosses wouldn't want criticism. But never in 30 years was a story killed because of advertiser pressure. Not once.
I hear that's changed since, and big advertisers, such as car dealers, do persuade news directors to kill stories.
"I do a lot of reporting on corporate interests and so on, so there's pressure from that end," says Attkisson, but "there's a competing pressure on the ideological end." Right. Ideology affects more stories than "corporate interests." My ABC bosses leaned left. They liked stories about weird external threats from which government can swoop in to rescue you.
They are much less fond of complex stories in which problems are solved subtly by the dynamism of the free market. The invisible hand, after all, is invisible. It works its magic in a million places and makes adjustments every minute. That's hard for reporters to see -- especially when they're not looking for it.
Often, when it comes to news that happens slowly, the media get it utterly wrong. I suspect we get it wrong now about things like global warming, genetically modified foods, almost any story related to science or statistics, or, heck, basic math. Math threatens many reporters.
Combine all that with the news proverb "If it bleeds, it leads," and you get some very misleading, scary reporting.
That's why it's good that there's a new media organization called Retro Report that reveals media hype of the past.
It archives stories like the purported "crack babies" epidemic, Tawana Brawley's being "attacked by six white men," the rise of "super-predator" teenagers, and other disasters that didn't happen -- but did have big effects on public policy, as politicians rushed to fight the imaginary menaces.
I believed in many similar stories when I was a young reporter. You would have, too. We interviewed scientists who sounded alarmed. They had data that proved coffee causes pancreatic cancer and cellphones cause brain cancer.
Of course, other scientists were skeptical, but they were harder to interview than the crusading scientists. What was in it for the calm, reasonable ones? What would they gain by taking time from their own research to try to educate stupid reporters? Plus, if they were quoted, they'd make enemies. It's easier just to avoid the media.
So we reporters talked to the activists and trusted them. They were like us. They wore blue jeans and said they wanted to protect people. The scientists who were skeptical about the latest scare, on the other hand, were often funded by business. They wore suits. Why trust them?
And they were boring, the ultimate crime in media. Company lawyers had told them, "be cautious" when talking to reporters. Caution is poison to us. A scientist saying we don't really have good evidence that coffee causes cancer is just not as interesting as one saying, "Coffee may kill you!"
Plus, politicians were always ready with some proposed regulatory "solution." That's easy to report on, too. Just go to the politician's press conference. Then we feel we've done our job.
But all we've really done is spread the hype pushed by the big-government establishment. They fool us again and again.porter Sharyl Attkisson's story sounds familiar to me: A major network got tired of her reports criticizing government. She no longer works there.
The CBS correspondent reported on Fast and Furious, the shifting explanation for the Benghazi, Libya, attacks and the bungled rollout of the Obamacare website.
"But as time went on, it was harder to get stories on," she says.
"There are people who simply would rather just avoid the headache of going after powers that be because of the pushback that comes with it, which has become very organized and well-financed," she says on my TV show this week.
I left ABC for similar reasons. When I began consumer reporting, I assumed advertisers would censor me, since sponsors who paid my bosses wouldn't want criticism. But never in 30 years was a story killed because of advertiser pressure. Not once.
I hear that's changed since, and big advertisers, such as car dealers, do persuade news directors to kill stories.
"I do a lot of reporting on corporate interests and so on, so there's pressure from that end," says Attkisson, but "there's a competing pressure on the ideological end." Right. Ideology affects more stories than "corporate interests." My ABC bosses leaned left. They liked stories about weird external threats from which government can swoop in to rescue you.
They are much less fond of complex stories in which problems are solved subtly by the dynamism of the free market. The invisible hand, after all, is invisible. It works its magic in a million places and makes adjustments every minute. That's hard for reporters to see -- especially when they're not looking for it.
Often, when it comes to news that happens slowly, the media get it utterly wrong. I suspect we get it wrong now about things like global warming, genetically modified foods, almost any story related to science or statistics, or, heck, basic math. Math threatens many reporters.
Combine all that with the news proverb "If it bleeds, it leads," and you get some very misleading, scary reporting.
That's why it's good that there's a new media organization called Retro Report that reveals media hype of the past.
It archives stories like the purported "crack babies" epidemic, Tawana Brawley's being "attacked by six white men," the rise of "super-predator" teenagers, and other disasters that didn't happen -- but did have big effects on public policy, as politicians rushed to fight the imaginary menaces.
I believed in many similar stories when I was a young reporter. You would have, too. We interviewed scientists who sounded alarmed. They had data that proved coffee causes pancreatic cancer and cellphones cause brain cancer.
Of course, other scientists were skeptical, but they were harder to interview than the crusading scientists. What was in it for the calm, reasonable ones? What would they gain by taking time from their own research to try to educate stupid reporters? Plus, if they were quoted, they'd make enemies. It's easier just to avoid the media.
So we reporters talked to the activists and trusted them. They were like us. They wore blue jeans and said they wanted to protect people. The scientists who were skeptical about the latest scare, on the other hand, were often funded by business. They wore suits. Why trust them?
And they were boring, the ultimate crime in media. Company lawyers had told them, "be cautious" when talking to reporters. Caution is poison to us. A scientist saying we don't really have good evidence that coffee causes cancer is just not as interesting as one saying, "Coffee may kill you!"
Plus, politicians were always ready with some proposed regulatory "solution." That's easy to report on, too. Just go to the politician's press conference. Then we feel we've done our job.
But all we've really done is spread the hype pushed by the big-government establishment. They fool us again and again.
ReReporter Sharyl Attkisson's story sounds familiar to me: A major network got tired of her reports criticizing government. She no longer works there.
The CBS correspondent reported on Fast and Furious, the shifting explanation for the Benghazi, Libya, attacks and the bungled rollout of the Obamacare website.
"But as time went on, it was harder to get stories on," she says.
"There are people who simply would rather just avoid the headache of going after powers that be because of the pushback that comes with it, which has become very organized and well-financed," she says on my TV show this week.
I left ABC for similar reasons. When I began consumer reporting, I assumed advertisers would censor me, since sponsors who paid my bosses wouldn't want criticism. But never in 30 years was a story killed because of advertiser pressure. Not once.
I hear that's changed since, and big advertisers, such as car dealers, do persuade news directors to kill stories.
"I do a lot of reporting on corporate interests and so on, so there's pressure from that end," says Attkisson, but "there's a competing pressure on the ideological end." Right. Ideology affects more stories than "corporate interests." My ABC bosses leaned left. They liked stories about weird external threats from which government can swoop in to rescue you.
They are much less fond of complex stories in which problems are solved subtly by the dynamism of the free market. The invisible hand, after all, is invisible. It works its magic in a million places and makes adjustments every minute. That's hard for reporters to see -- especially when they're not looking for it.
Often, when it comes to news that happens slowly, the media get it utterly wrong. I suspect we get it wrong now about things like global warming, genetically modified foods, almost any story related to science or statistics, or, heck, basic math. Math threatens many reporters.
Combine all that with the news proverb "If it bleeds, it leads," and you get some very misleading, scary reporting.
That's why it's good that there's a new media organization called Retro Report that reveals media hype of the past.
It archives stories like the purported "crack babies" epidemic, Tawana Brawley's being "attacked by six white men," the rise of "super-predator" teenagers, and other disasters that didn't happen -- but did have big effects on public policy, as politicians rushed to fight the imaginary menaces.
I believed in many similar stories when I was a young reporter. You would have, too. We interviewed scientists who sounded alarmed. They had data that proved coffee causes pancreatic cancer and cellphones cause brain cancer.
Of course, other scientists were skeptical, but they were harder to interview than the crusading scientists. What was in it for the calm, reasonable ones? What would they gain by taking time from their own research to try to educate stupid reporters? Plus, if they were quoted, they'd make enemies. It's easier just to avoid the media.
So we reporters talked to the activists and trusted them. They were like us. They wore blue jeans and said they wanted to protect people. The scientists who were skeptical about the latest scare, on the other hand, were often funded by business. They wore suits. Why trust them?
And they were boring, the ultimate crime in media. Company lawyers had told them, "be cautious" when talking to reporters. Caution is poison to us. A scientist saying we don't really have good evidence that coffee causes cancer is just not as interesting as one saying, "Coffee may kill you!"
Plus, politicians were always ready with some proposed regulatory "solution." That's easy to report on, too. Just go to the politician's press conference. Then we feel we've done our job.
But all we've really done is spread the hype pushed by the big-government establishment. They fool us again and again.porter Sharyl Attkisson's story sounds familiar to me: A major network got tired of her reports criticizing government. She no longer works there.
The CBS correspondent reported on Fast and Furious, the shifting explanation for the Benghazi, Libya, attacks and the bungled rollout of the Obamacare website.
"But as time went on, it was harder to get stories on," she says.
"There are people who simply would rather just avoid the headache of going after powers that be because of the pushback that comes with it, which has become very organized and well-financed," she says on my TV show this week.
I left ABC for similar reasons. When I began consumer reporting, I assumed advertisers would censor me, since sponsors who paid my bosses wouldn't want criticism. But never in 30 years was a story killed because of advertiser pressure. Not once.
I hear that's changed since, and big advertisers, such as car dealers, do persuade news directors to kill stories.
"I do a lot of reporting on corporate interests and so on, so there's pressure from that end," says Attkisson, but "there's a competing pressure on the ideological end." Right. Ideology affects more stories than "corporate interests." My ABC bosses leaned left. They liked stories about weird external threats from which government can swoop in to rescue you.
They are much less fond of complex stories in which problems are solved subtly by the dynamism of the free market. The invisible hand, after all, is invisible. It works its magic in a million places and makes adjustments every minute. That's hard for reporters to see -- especially when they're not looking for it.
Often, when it comes to news that happens slowly, the media get it utterly wrong. I suspect we get it wrong now about things like global warming, genetically modified foods, almost any story related to science or statistics, or, heck, basic math. Math threatens many reporters.
Combine all that with the news proverb "If it bleeds, it leads," and you get some very misleading, scary reporting.
That's why it's good that there's a new media organization called Retro Report that reveals media hype of the past.
It archives stories like the purported "crack babies" epidemic, Tawana Brawley's being "attacked by six white men," the rise of "super-predator" teenagers, and other disasters that didn't happen -- but did have big effects on public policy, as politicians rushed to fight the imaginary menaces.
I believed in many similar stories when I was a young reporter. You would have, too. We interviewed scientists who sounded alarmed. They had data that proved coffee causes pancreatic cancer and cellphones cause brain cancer.
Of course, other scientists were skeptical, but they were harder to interview than the crusading scientists. What was in it for the calm, reasonable ones? What would they gain by taking time from their own research to try to educate stupid reporters? Plus, if they were quoted, they'd make enemies. It's easier just to avoid the media.
So we reporters talked to the activists and trusted them. They were like us. They wore blue jeans and said they wanted to protect people. The scientists who were skeptical about the latest scare, on the other hand, were often funded by business. They wore suits. Why trust them?
And they were boring, the ultimate crime in media. Company lawyers had told them, "be cautious" when talking to reporters. Caution is poison to us. A scientist saying we don't really have good evidence that coffee causes cancer is just not as interesting as one saying, "Coffee may kill you!"
Plus, politicians were always ready with some proposed regulatory "solution." That's easy to report on, too. Just go to the politician's press conference. Then we feel we've done our job.
But all we've really done is spread the hype pushed by the big-government establishment. They fool us again and again.
THE PROGRESSIVE WAR ON HARD WORKS CONTINUES
Michael Schaus
The misguided attempt to increase the minimum wage can almost be passed off as institutionalized economic illiteracy. Many people, however, have argued that it’s more than simple ignorance that drives the Left to ignore fiscal sanity and push for a $15 per hour burger-flipping wage. Well, if the latest attempt to institute mandated-minimum-pay illustrates anything, it shows that the Left isn’t that fond of the effort/reward relationship of hard work. Labor groups are now aiming to snuff out the system of tipping servers because… well… because it’s “unfair”.
There is a movement to bump the minimum wage for tipped servers (often lower than the official minimum wage, because they are primarily compensated by gratuities), which has emboldened people who seem to disdain the performance-based nature of the service industry. According to Fox News:
One advocate, Saru Jayaraman, co-director of the Restaurant Opportunities Center United, has been quoted in multiple media outlets as supporting a push to get rid of tips altogether. She was quoted in the Seattle Times describing tips as “institutionalized sexism,” and told the University of California, Berkeley’s alumni magazine that “Ultimately, this system of tipping needs to go.”
Ugh, Berkeley… Saru, of course, feels that tips are inherently unfair because America is full of a bunch of sexist cheapskates who undervalue minority workers. Or something. Although, to be fair, she does say that her comments were taken out of context. She clarified that tips would be completely eliminated only in a “utopian” world.
Right… Because who in their right mind would embrace the idea of earning more for doing a better job? I mean, isn’t it so unfair for patrons of a business to reward their waiter (or waitress) based on the service they received? (Yes… Both of those sentences were, in fact, sarcasm.) Apparently, in a “utopian” world, restaurants would compensate their servers the same way that Chicago teacher unions compensate their rank and file: Without regard to performance, or competency.
I mean, heck, tipping is the unbridled definition of “fair” in the real world… But, since when do liberals pay attention to the real world? Saru’s solution, according to the piece in Fox News, is to replace the entire tipping system with a simple “livable wage” for servers. See, this way waitresses won’t be subjected to the inherent sexism of a hungry American public. (I mean, sure: They also won’t be rewarded handsomely for doing a great job – but maybe we can just give all employees a trophy. Right?)
So now – if the labor movement gets their way and replaces tips with flat wages – the person that was making $300 in tips on a Friday night (not un-heard of in most corners of the service world), will suddenly be making a mere “livable” wage. Oh, and the employer will have to shell out more to keep this newly-impoverished member of their wait staff employed. So, yeah, hooray for liberalism: Bankrupting businesses, and impoverishing otherwise competent low-skill laborers.
And, again, what was wrong with the tipping system? Aside from its somewhat arbitrary nature (Seinfeld covered this issue pretty extensively), it appears to be fairly effective. The opportunity to make more money has proven to be a pretty motivational influence in people’s desire to work hard. In fact, unlike labor-sponsored tenure plans and scheduled pay increases, tipping provides workers with a limitless ability to improve their take-home pay through nothing other than hard work.
Oh… Wait. Now I get it. Hard work is supposed to be frowned upon by modern society. Apparently, everyone is entitled only to the wage that a bunch of academic, intellectually vacant, government bureaucrats have determined is “fair”. Because, as it turns out, preserving a relationship between reward and effort is simply unjust in a progressive utopia.
Trophies for everyone! (Just don’t tip the trophy maker.)
The misguided attempt to increase the minimum wage can almost be passed off as institutionalized economic illiteracy. Many people, however, have argued that it’s more than simple ignorance that drives the Left to ignore fiscal sanity and push for a $15 per hour burger-flipping wage. Well, if the latest attempt to institute mandated-minimum-pay illustrates anything, it shows that the Left isn’t that fond of the effort/reward relationship of hard work. Labor groups are now aiming to snuff out the system of tipping servers because… well… because it’s “unfair”.
There is a movement to bump the minimum wage for tipped servers (often lower than the official minimum wage, because they are primarily compensated by gratuities), which has emboldened people who seem to disdain the performance-based nature of the service industry. According to Fox News:
One advocate, Saru Jayaraman, co-director of the Restaurant Opportunities Center United, has been quoted in multiple media outlets as supporting a push to get rid of tips altogether. She was quoted in the Seattle Times describing tips as “institutionalized sexism,” and told the University of California, Berkeley’s alumni magazine that “Ultimately, this system of tipping needs to go.”
Ugh, Berkeley… Saru, of course, feels that tips are inherently unfair because America is full of a bunch of sexist cheapskates who undervalue minority workers. Or something. Although, to be fair, she does say that her comments were taken out of context. She clarified that tips would be completely eliminated only in a “utopian” world.
Right… Because who in their right mind would embrace the idea of earning more for doing a better job? I mean, isn’t it so unfair for patrons of a business to reward their waiter (or waitress) based on the service they received? (Yes… Both of those sentences were, in fact, sarcasm.) Apparently, in a “utopian” world, restaurants would compensate their servers the same way that Chicago teacher unions compensate their rank and file: Without regard to performance, or competency.
I mean, heck, tipping is the unbridled definition of “fair” in the real world… But, since when do liberals pay attention to the real world? Saru’s solution, according to the piece in Fox News, is to replace the entire tipping system with a simple “livable wage” for servers. See, this way waitresses won’t be subjected to the inherent sexism of a hungry American public. (I mean, sure: They also won’t be rewarded handsomely for doing a great job – but maybe we can just give all employees a trophy. Right?)
So now – if the labor movement gets their way and replaces tips with flat wages – the person that was making $300 in tips on a Friday night (not un-heard of in most corners of the service world), will suddenly be making a mere “livable” wage. Oh, and the employer will have to shell out more to keep this newly-impoverished member of their wait staff employed. So, yeah, hooray for liberalism: Bankrupting businesses, and impoverishing otherwise competent low-skill laborers.
And, again, what was wrong with the tipping system? Aside from its somewhat arbitrary nature (Seinfeld covered this issue pretty extensively), it appears to be fairly effective. The opportunity to make more money has proven to be a pretty motivational influence in people’s desire to work hard. In fact, unlike labor-sponsored tenure plans and scheduled pay increases, tipping provides workers with a limitless ability to improve their take-home pay through nothing other than hard work.
Oh… Wait. Now I get it. Hard work is supposed to be frowned upon by modern society. Apparently, everyone is entitled only to the wage that a bunch of academic, intellectually vacant, government bureaucrats have determined is “fair”. Because, as it turns out, preserving a relationship between reward and effort is simply unjust in a progressive utopia.
Trophies for everyone! (Just don’t tip the trophy maker.)
MODI AND SINO-INDIAN RELATIONS
Siwei Liu
Recently, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi had a very useful and timely India trip, during which he not only held talks with his Indian counterpart Sushma Swaraj but also met with the newly- elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Pranab Mukherjee. Doubtlessly, Wang’s visit – viewed as the first foreign power to establish direct contact in a bilateral format with Modi’s government – has a great significant for present-day Sino–India relations. The current Sino-India relationship is heading towards a critical juncture at which both nations should seize the opportunity and take some creative and pragmatic measures to improve bilateral relations. However, meanwhile, both countries should keep calm and remain level-headed to get a better understanding of bilateral relations that remain full of challenges and uncertainness – and avoid negative impacts of possible frustrations resulting from the gap between reality and high expectations.
Potential New Opportunities
Indeed, Wang’s visit created a warm and friendly atmosphere for Sino-India bilateral interaction, in which the both sides recognised it was necessary to mark a fresh beginning in the ties, with mutual respect and common national interests. Just as related analyses argued, Wang’s India trip helped a great deal in not only re-establishing a connection between the two governments, but also paved the way for more intensive interaction between both nations at the highest levels in the future – including Chinese President Xi Jinping’s India visit later this year and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s possible China visit in the next couple of months.
Although it is premature to draw conclusions on Modi’s policy towards China, given the current positive interactions between two sides, people of both countries have reasons to believe that new opportunities for promoting Sino-India relations are coming. Economically, there is a high likelihood that the two sides will take some measures to solve the trade deficit issue that has troubled the bilateral ties for many years. Security-wise too there are potential opportunities for cooperation between the two nations. Actually, although in the recent years, the Sino-India security relations have witnessed upheavals, related cooperation measures such as counter-terrorism and joint military exercises were still held occasionally. With China and India both adjusting their understanding on security and starting to pay more attention on non-traditional security threats (NST), there will be more opportunities for both nations to cooperate in the security sector, especially on the NSTs. Moreover, given the current positive interaction between the highest levels of both nations, it is possible to create a golden opportunity for the two sides to increase people-to-people linkages and mutual cultural communication – that always need a harmonious and friendly interactive environment led by the governments.
Potential Challenges
Simultaneously, Sino-India bilateral relations face various challenges. In the recent years, the bilateral has been troubled by some negative factors from competitions and disputes, particularly in the security domain. For instance, although both countries openly declared that improving their security relations were necessary, and took measures such as increasing military–military communications, traditional security issues such as over-securitisation of the border issue – especially a border standoff between the two countries’ militaries in 2013 – increased the tension between Beijing and New Delhi. Additionally, the securitisation of increasing NTS issues ranging from economic and environmental threats, terrorism and non-proliferation, to issues of identity and culture also occasionally complicated the bilateral interactions. This brings not only increasing cooperation, but also a series of competition or disputes for the bilateral.
Competitions and disputes between China and India cannot be resolved overnight, and the two nations might face many challenges in future. For example, the uncertainty
Recently, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi had a very useful and timely India trip, during which he not only held talks with his Indian counterpart Sushma Swaraj but also met with the newly- elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Pranab Mukherjee. Doubtlessly, Wang’s visit – viewed as the first foreign power to establish direct contact in a bilateral format with Modi’s government – has a great significant for present-day Sino–India relations. The current Sino-India relationship is heading towards a critical juncture at which both nations should seize the opportunity and take some creative and pragmatic measures to improve bilateral relations. However, meanwhile, both countries should keep calm and remain level-headed to get a better understanding of bilateral relations that remain full of challenges and uncertainness – and avoid negative impacts of possible frustrations resulting from the gap between reality and high expectations.
Potential New Opportunities
Indeed, Wang’s visit created a warm and friendly atmosphere for Sino-India bilateral interaction, in which the both sides recognised it was necessary to mark a fresh beginning in the ties, with mutual respect and common national interests. Just as related analyses argued, Wang’s India trip helped a great deal in not only re-establishing a connection between the two governments, but also paved the way for more intensive interaction between both nations at the highest levels in the future – including Chinese President Xi Jinping’s India visit later this year and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s possible China visit in the next couple of months.
Although it is premature to draw conclusions on Modi’s policy towards China, given the current positive interactions between two sides, people of both countries have reasons to believe that new opportunities for promoting Sino-India relations are coming. Economically, there is a high likelihood that the two sides will take some measures to solve the trade deficit issue that has troubled the bilateral ties for many years. Security-wise too there are potential opportunities for cooperation between the two nations. Actually, although in the recent years, the Sino-India security relations have witnessed upheavals, related cooperation measures such as counter-terrorism and joint military exercises were still held occasionally. With China and India both adjusting their understanding on security and starting to pay more attention on non-traditional security threats (NST), there will be more opportunities for both nations to cooperate in the security sector, especially on the NSTs. Moreover, given the current positive interaction between the highest levels of both nations, it is possible to create a golden opportunity for the two sides to increase people-to-people linkages and mutual cultural communication – that always need a harmonious and friendly interactive environment led by the governments.
Potential Challenges
Simultaneously, Sino-India bilateral relations face various challenges. In the recent years, the bilateral has been troubled by some negative factors from competitions and disputes, particularly in the security domain. For instance, although both countries openly declared that improving their security relations were necessary, and took measures such as increasing military–military communications, traditional security issues such as over-securitisation of the border issue – especially a border standoff between the two countries’ militaries in 2013 – increased the tension between Beijing and New Delhi. Additionally, the securitisation of increasing NTS issues ranging from economic and environmental threats, terrorism and non-proliferation, to issues of identity and culture also occasionally complicated the bilateral interactions. This brings not only increasing cooperation, but also a series of competition or disputes for the bilateral.
Competitions and disputes between China and India cannot be resolved overnight, and the two nations might face many challenges in future. For example, the uncertainty
24 Jun 2014
A LAME DUCK COUNTRY?
Thomas Sowell
Pundits are pointing to President Barack
Obama's recent decline in public opinion
polls, and saying that he may now become
another "lame duck" president, unable to
accomplish much during his final term in
office.
That has happened to other presidents. But it
is extremely unlikely to happen to this
president. There are reasons why other
presidents have become impotent during
their last years in office. But those reasons do
not apply to Barack Obama.
The Constitution of the United States does not
give presidents the power to carry out major
policy changes without the cooperation of
other branches of government. Once the
country becomes disenchanted with a
president during his second term, Congress
has little incentive to cooperate with him --
and, once Congress becomes uncooperative,
there is little that a president can do on his
own.
That is, if he respects the Constitution.
President Obama has demonstrated, time and
again, that he has no respect for the
Constitution's limitations on his power.
Despite his oath of office, to see that the laws
are faithfully executed, Barack Obama has
unilaterally changed welfare reform laws, by
eliminating the work requirement passed by
Congress during the Clinton administration.
He has repeatedly and unilaterally changed
or waived provisions of the ObamaCare law
passed by Congress during his own
administration.
President Obama has ordered Border Patrol
agents not to carry out provisions of the
immigration laws that he does not like. We
see the results today in the tens of thousands
of illegal immigrants entering the country
unimpeded.
President Obama's oath of office obviously
means no more to him than his oft-repeated
promise that "you can keep your own doctor"
under ObamaCare.
Why do we have a Constitution of the United
States if a president can ignore it without any
consequences?
The Constitution cannot protect our rights if
we do not protect the Constitution. Freedom
is not free, and the Constitution is just some
words on paper if we do not do anything to
those who violate it.
What can ordinary citizens do?
Everything! Theirs is the ultimate power of
the ballot that can bring down even the most
powerful elected official.
The most important thing the voters can do is
vote against anyone who violates the
Constitution. When someone who has violated
the Constitution repeatedly gets re-elected,
then the voters are accomplices in the erosion
of protection for their own freedom.
Laws without penalties are just suggestions --
and suggestions are a pitiful defense against
power.
After voters have failed to protect the
Constitution, the last-ditch remedy is
impeachment. But Barack Obama knows that
he is not going to be impeached.
Who wants to provoke a Constitutional crisis
and riots in the streets? And, worst of all, end
up with Joe Biden as President of the United
States? Some cynics long ago referred to
Barack Obama's choice of mental lightweight
Biden to be his vice president as
"impeachment insurance."
With neither the Constitution, nor the voters,
nor the threat of impeachment to stop him,
Barack Obama has clear sailing to use his
powers however he chooses.
Far from seeing his power diminish in his
last years, President Obama can extend his
power even beyond the end of his
administration by appointing federal judges
who share his disregard of the Constitution
and can enact his far-left agenda into law
from the bench, when it cannot be enacted
into law by the Congress.
Federal judges with lifetime tenure can make
irreversible decisions binding future
presidents and future Congresses. If
Republicans do not win control of the Senate
in this fall's elections, a Senate controlled by
Majority Leader Harry Reid can confirm
judges who will have the power to extend
Barack Obama's agenda and complete the
dismantling of Constitutional government.
Barack Obama can, as he said before taking
office, fundamentally "change the United
States of America." Far from being a lame
duck president, Obama can make this a lame
duck democracy.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the
Hoover Institution, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305. His website is
www.tsowell.com. To find out more about
Thomas Sowell and read features by other
Creators Syndicate columnists and
cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web
page at www.creators.com.
Pundits are pointing to President Barack
Obama's recent decline in public opinion
polls, and saying that he may now become
another "lame duck" president, unable to
accomplish much during his final term in
office.
That has happened to other presidents. But it
is extremely unlikely to happen to this
president. There are reasons why other
presidents have become impotent during
their last years in office. But those reasons do
not apply to Barack Obama.
The Constitution of the United States does not
give presidents the power to carry out major
policy changes without the cooperation of
other branches of government. Once the
country becomes disenchanted with a
president during his second term, Congress
has little incentive to cooperate with him --
and, once Congress becomes uncooperative,
there is little that a president can do on his
own.
That is, if he respects the Constitution.
President Obama has demonstrated, time and
again, that he has no respect for the
Constitution's limitations on his power.
Despite his oath of office, to see that the laws
are faithfully executed, Barack Obama has
unilaterally changed welfare reform laws, by
eliminating the work requirement passed by
Congress during the Clinton administration.
He has repeatedly and unilaterally changed
or waived provisions of the ObamaCare law
passed by Congress during his own
administration.
President Obama has ordered Border Patrol
agents not to carry out provisions of the
immigration laws that he does not like. We
see the results today in the tens of thousands
of illegal immigrants entering the country
unimpeded.
President Obama's oath of office obviously
means no more to him than his oft-repeated
promise that "you can keep your own doctor"
under ObamaCare.
Why do we have a Constitution of the United
States if a president can ignore it without any
consequences?
The Constitution cannot protect our rights if
we do not protect the Constitution. Freedom
is not free, and the Constitution is just some
words on paper if we do not do anything to
those who violate it.
What can ordinary citizens do?
Everything! Theirs is the ultimate power of
the ballot that can bring down even the most
powerful elected official.
The most important thing the voters can do is
vote against anyone who violates the
Constitution. When someone who has violated
the Constitution repeatedly gets re-elected,
then the voters are accomplices in the erosion
of protection for their own freedom.
Laws without penalties are just suggestions --
and suggestions are a pitiful defense against
power.
After voters have failed to protect the
Constitution, the last-ditch remedy is
impeachment. But Barack Obama knows that
he is not going to be impeached.
Who wants to provoke a Constitutional crisis
and riots in the streets? And, worst of all, end
up with Joe Biden as President of the United
States? Some cynics long ago referred to
Barack Obama's choice of mental lightweight
Biden to be his vice president as
"impeachment insurance."
With neither the Constitution, nor the voters,
nor the threat of impeachment to stop him,
Barack Obama has clear sailing to use his
powers however he chooses.
Far from seeing his power diminish in his
last years, President Obama can extend his
power even beyond the end of his
administration by appointing federal judges
who share his disregard of the Constitution
and can enact his far-left agenda into law
from the bench, when it cannot be enacted
into law by the Congress.
Federal judges with lifetime tenure can make
irreversible decisions binding future
presidents and future Congresses. If
Republicans do not win control of the Senate
in this fall's elections, a Senate controlled by
Majority Leader Harry Reid can confirm
judges who will have the power to extend
Barack Obama's agenda and complete the
dismantling of Constitutional government.
Barack Obama can, as he said before taking
office, fundamentally "change the United
States of America." Far from being a lame
duck president, Obama can make this a lame
duck democracy.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the
Hoover Institution, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305. His website is
www.tsowell.com. To find out more about
Thomas Sowell and read features by other
Creators Syndicate columnists and
cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web
page at www.creators.com.
BLOCKING FAITH, FAMILY AND FREEDOM WEBSITES
Chuck Norris
As most kids are screaming "School's out for
summer," 18-year-old high-school student
Andrew Lampart is still trying to figure out
why his school's Internet service blocked him
from gathering conservative facts for his side
of the argument on his school debate team.
Andrew told Fox News, "I knew it was
important to get facts for both sides of the
case." But when he tried to do an Internet
search of conservative views, he was
prevented at every turn.
After being blocked from websites supporting
Americans' constitutional right to bear arms
as stated in the Second Amendment, Andrew
soon learned his school's computers
prohibited him from viewing any website or
information that wasn't liberal in nature.
National Rifle Association website -- blocked.
The Republican Party website -- blocked.
National Right to Life website -- blocked. Pro-
traditional marriage websites -- blocked.
Vatican website -- blocked.
But here's what wasn't blocked in his
continued Internet search: pro-gun-control
websites, the Democratic Party website, the
Planned Parenthood website, an LGBT
website and an Islamic website.
Andrew took his grievance up the chain of
command at his Connecticut high school --
first to the principal and then to the
superintendent and then to the school board.
Nearly two months after the incident,
Andrew's only official response has come
through the superintendent, who wrote a
letter about the issue to parents and citizens
in their community because news of the
liberal bent was spreading like wildfire. She
blamed Andrew's conservative education
prohibition on the school's Internet filtering,
which she said is intended to "protect minors
from potentially harmful or inappropriate
content" -- for example, "violence/hate/
racism, cults/the occult, to name a few."
She was puzzled, however, that "many of the
liberal sites accessible to the student fell into
the 'not rated' category, which was unblocked
while many of the conservative sites were in
the 'political/advocacy group' which is
accessible to teachers but not to students."
Mrs. Superintendent, there's no surprise or
mystery here. The problem is not the
software but those programming it. As long
as you have liberal-minded architects across
the spectrum who only want to steer kids in
their own particular secular and progressive
direction, changing Internet filters all day
long isn't going to change the educational
outcome; students will be prohibited from
conservative education. Website accessibility
is no different from choosing textbooks or
instructors in classes; if liberals are in
control, liberalism is the education.
A high school's prohibiting conservative
views isn't shocking to any of us who for
decades have watched the dilapidating state
of public education. It's just one more sign
that public schools are little more than
secular progressive indoctrination camps.
Andrew was exactly right when he said about
his Internet education experience -- or lack
thereof: "This is really borderline
indoctrination. Schools are supposed to be
fair and balanced towards all ways of
thinking. It's supposed to encourage students
to formulate their own opinions. Students
aren't able to do that here at the school,
because they are only being fed one side of
the issue."
Out of the mouth of babes.
True education doesn't fear alternative views
or even falsehoods, though they should be
couched in age-appropriateness and a venue
where options are presented with evidence.
At least, that was the educational belief of our
Founding Fathers and those who followed
them for a few generations.
With Independence Day fast approaching,
consider alone the words of one of the
greatest American minds and educators and
one of the pillars of our republic, Thomas
Jefferson, who vehemently fought for the
broad education of common Americans. As
he founded the University of Virginia, he
wrote this about his philosophy and goal of
education on Dec. 26, 1820: "This institution
of my native state, the Hobby of my old age,
will be based on the illimitable freedom of
the human mind, to explore and to expose
every subject susceptible of (its)
contemplation."
The very next day, he further elaborated
about what "illimitable freedom of the human
mind" should encompass: "This institution
will be based on the illimitable freedom of
the human mind. For here we are not afraid
to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to
tolerate any error so long as reason is left
free to combat it."
Jefferson was exactly right, too. Regardless of
whether our views define truth and reality,
an open education is about presenting every
side of the coin -- no matter how ignorant or
idiotic we believe another's views are or
appear to be. That is why teaching about
"intelligent design" and religion should be an
integral part of every curriculum.
Roughly 30 years ago, Dr. Allan Bloom wrote
these words of warning about a country and
educational system that were mimicking
fascism more than they were freedom, in his
now classic book "The Closing of the
American Mind": "True openness is the
accompaniment of the desire to know, hence
of the awareness of ignorance. To deny the
possibility of knowing good and bad is to
suppress true openness."
There is also no doubt about this: When we
fear alternative views to the extent that we
eliminate them from curricula, we have
reduced education to nothing more than
tyranny and indoctrination.
As Bloom said, "freedom of the mind requires
not only, or not even especially, the absence
of legal constraints but the presence of
alternative thoughts. The most successful
tyranny is not the one that uses force to
assure uniformity but the one that removes
the awareness of other possibilities."
(If you haven't seen the movie "God's Not
Dead," which addresses the very heart of this
academic issue, please see it. If you can't find
it in a local theater, try to find it at a church
in your area that has bought a license to show
it. For more information, go to http://
godsnotdeadthemovie.com.)
As most kids are screaming "School's out for
summer," 18-year-old high-school student
Andrew Lampart is still trying to figure out
why his school's Internet service blocked him
from gathering conservative facts for his side
of the argument on his school debate team.
Andrew told Fox News, "I knew it was
important to get facts for both sides of the
case." But when he tried to do an Internet
search of conservative views, he was
prevented at every turn.
After being blocked from websites supporting
Americans' constitutional right to bear arms
as stated in the Second Amendment, Andrew
soon learned his school's computers
prohibited him from viewing any website or
information that wasn't liberal in nature.
National Rifle Association website -- blocked.
The Republican Party website -- blocked.
National Right to Life website -- blocked. Pro-
traditional marriage websites -- blocked.
Vatican website -- blocked.
But here's what wasn't blocked in his
continued Internet search: pro-gun-control
websites, the Democratic Party website, the
Planned Parenthood website, an LGBT
website and an Islamic website.
Andrew took his grievance up the chain of
command at his Connecticut high school --
first to the principal and then to the
superintendent and then to the school board.
Nearly two months after the incident,
Andrew's only official response has come
through the superintendent, who wrote a
letter about the issue to parents and citizens
in their community because news of the
liberal bent was spreading like wildfire. She
blamed Andrew's conservative education
prohibition on the school's Internet filtering,
which she said is intended to "protect minors
from potentially harmful or inappropriate
content" -- for example, "violence/hate/
racism, cults/the occult, to name a few."
She was puzzled, however, that "many of the
liberal sites accessible to the student fell into
the 'not rated' category, which was unblocked
while many of the conservative sites were in
the 'political/advocacy group' which is
accessible to teachers but not to students."
Mrs. Superintendent, there's no surprise or
mystery here. The problem is not the
software but those programming it. As long
as you have liberal-minded architects across
the spectrum who only want to steer kids in
their own particular secular and progressive
direction, changing Internet filters all day
long isn't going to change the educational
outcome; students will be prohibited from
conservative education. Website accessibility
is no different from choosing textbooks or
instructors in classes; if liberals are in
control, liberalism is the education.
A high school's prohibiting conservative
views isn't shocking to any of us who for
decades have watched the dilapidating state
of public education. It's just one more sign
that public schools are little more than
secular progressive indoctrination camps.
Andrew was exactly right when he said about
his Internet education experience -- or lack
thereof: "This is really borderline
indoctrination. Schools are supposed to be
fair and balanced towards all ways of
thinking. It's supposed to encourage students
to formulate their own opinions. Students
aren't able to do that here at the school,
because they are only being fed one side of
the issue."
Out of the mouth of babes.
True education doesn't fear alternative views
or even falsehoods, though they should be
couched in age-appropriateness and a venue
where options are presented with evidence.
At least, that was the educational belief of our
Founding Fathers and those who followed
them for a few generations.
With Independence Day fast approaching,
consider alone the words of one of the
greatest American minds and educators and
one of the pillars of our republic, Thomas
Jefferson, who vehemently fought for the
broad education of common Americans. As
he founded the University of Virginia, he
wrote this about his philosophy and goal of
education on Dec. 26, 1820: "This institution
of my native state, the Hobby of my old age,
will be based on the illimitable freedom of
the human mind, to explore and to expose
every subject susceptible of (its)
contemplation."
The very next day, he further elaborated
about what "illimitable freedom of the human
mind" should encompass: "This institution
will be based on the illimitable freedom of
the human mind. For here we are not afraid
to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to
tolerate any error so long as reason is left
free to combat it."
Jefferson was exactly right, too. Regardless of
whether our views define truth and reality,
an open education is about presenting every
side of the coin -- no matter how ignorant or
idiotic we believe another's views are or
appear to be. That is why teaching about
"intelligent design" and religion should be an
integral part of every curriculum.
Roughly 30 years ago, Dr. Allan Bloom wrote
these words of warning about a country and
educational system that were mimicking
fascism more than they were freedom, in his
now classic book "The Closing of the
American Mind": "True openness is the
accompaniment of the desire to know, hence
of the awareness of ignorance. To deny the
possibility of knowing good and bad is to
suppress true openness."
There is also no doubt about this: When we
fear alternative views to the extent that we
eliminate them from curricula, we have
reduced education to nothing more than
tyranny and indoctrination.
As Bloom said, "freedom of the mind requires
not only, or not even especially, the absence
of legal constraints but the presence of
alternative thoughts. The most successful
tyranny is not the one that uses force to
assure uniformity but the one that removes
the awareness of other possibilities."
(If you haven't seen the movie "God's Not
Dead," which addresses the very heart of this
academic issue, please see it. If you can't find
it in a local theater, try to find it at a church
in your area that has bought a license to show
it. For more information, go to http://
godsnotdeadthemovie.com.)
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS
Cal Thomas
It is a line I have used to open speeches on
the lecture circuit for years and it never fails
to get a laugh: "I'm happy to be here tonight
from Washington, D.C., where the only
politicians with convictions are in prison."
That's only partially true. Democrats have
convictions. They know what to do with
power when they get it and how to isolate,
even punish, any member of their party who
dares to take a different position on an issue.
Republicans seem to constantly react to the
policies of Democrats or slam each other
instead of making a case for the superiority
of their ideas. It doesn't help Republicans that
they lack the Democrats' uniformity.
President Obama's approval ratings continue
to plummet while polls showing that voters
think the country is on the "wrong track"
seem to be on the rise. Republicans should
focus less on scandals and policy failures and
begin promoting a positive, inspirational and
motivational message that reminds
Americans of who we are, where we came
from and what we can be again. Rather than
settle for a Democratic nanny state,
Republicans should feature in their speeches,
political ads and conversations the virtues of
liberty and the benefits and personal
satisfaction that come from the power within
each of us to make decisions that can improve
any life far better than government.
Telling America's story might inspire a
younger generation to reach back and
consider the values that sustained this nation
in the face of numerous challenges. Good
history is worth repeating.
Cynics might say it is too late, that
government has grown too big and there are
far too many dependent on it to turn the
country around and embrace liberty and
personal responsibility. What the country
needs is the political equivalent of a Rev.
Billy Graham to rally the nation. A spiritual
revival would be even better, but that's for a
Higher Authority to direct.
Americans should never have to "settle," even
in the midst of a failed presidency, as this
one is by any objective standard. Americans
have always believed we can do things better
than other nations and we have proved it in
the past.
inspiration-motivation-perspiration, rather
than the envy-entitlement-greed culture in
which we are now immersed. "We can do
better," said John F. Kennedy during the 1960
presidential campaign. Indeed we can.
Indeed we must.
As I write in my book "What Works: Common
Sense Solutions for a Stronger America," we
didn't just crawl out of a cave; we don't have
to discover fire or invent the wheel. We have
a history of problems that were solved,
challenges met and innovation encouraged
and rewarded. Why do we continue to
conduct political discourse that sounds like
stale sitcom dialog and lob the same
rehearsed and focus-grouped sound bites at
each other to no effect? Why not try
something old that worked?
Given their party's deplorable state of
disunion and the country's fixation on self, a
Republican "revivalist" will have to sell his or
her platform based on self-interest, featuring
men and women who have overcome by
making right choices, if we can still define
"right" in a country that increasingly
considers all choices equal.
Republicans should promise that if voters
allow them to regain control of all three
branches of government, an outside auditor
will be named to go through the federal
government, recommending to Congress
which agencies can be reduced in size or
even eliminated. Congress would require
itself to accept the auditor's findings, as with
the Defense Base Realignment and Closing
Commission, which has been charged with
increasing the Defense Department's
efficiency by the realignment and closure of
unnecessary U.S. military installations.
This will be a challenge for Republicans.
We'll soon know if they can meet it and,
more importantly, whether voters will
respond to such a message. The time may be
right for someone with real convictions and
the courage to state them, regardless of what
polls say.
Meanwhile, God save us from popular opinion
and from politicians whose only convictions
come in a courtroom.
It is a line I have used to open speeches on
the lecture circuit for years and it never fails
to get a laugh: "I'm happy to be here tonight
from Washington, D.C., where the only
politicians with convictions are in prison."
That's only partially true. Democrats have
convictions. They know what to do with
power when they get it and how to isolate,
even punish, any member of their party who
dares to take a different position on an issue.
Republicans seem to constantly react to the
policies of Democrats or slam each other
instead of making a case for the superiority
of their ideas. It doesn't help Republicans that
they lack the Democrats' uniformity.
President Obama's approval ratings continue
to plummet while polls showing that voters
think the country is on the "wrong track"
seem to be on the rise. Republicans should
focus less on scandals and policy failures and
begin promoting a positive, inspirational and
motivational message that reminds
Americans of who we are, where we came
from and what we can be again. Rather than
settle for a Democratic nanny state,
Republicans should feature in their speeches,
political ads and conversations the virtues of
liberty and the benefits and personal
satisfaction that come from the power within
each of us to make decisions that can improve
any life far better than government.
Telling America's story might inspire a
younger generation to reach back and
consider the values that sustained this nation
in the face of numerous challenges. Good
history is worth repeating.
Cynics might say it is too late, that
government has grown too big and there are
far too many dependent on it to turn the
country around and embrace liberty and
personal responsibility. What the country
needs is the political equivalent of a Rev.
Billy Graham to rally the nation. A spiritual
revival would be even better, but that's for a
Higher Authority to direct.
Americans should never have to "settle," even
in the midst of a failed presidency, as this
one is by any objective standard. Americans
have always believed we can do things better
than other nations and we have proved it in
the past.
inspiration-motivation-perspiration, rather
than the envy-entitlement-greed culture in
which we are now immersed. "We can do
better," said John F. Kennedy during the 1960
presidential campaign. Indeed we can.
Indeed we must.
As I write in my book "What Works: Common
Sense Solutions for a Stronger America," we
didn't just crawl out of a cave; we don't have
to discover fire or invent the wheel. We have
a history of problems that were solved,
challenges met and innovation encouraged
and rewarded. Why do we continue to
conduct political discourse that sounds like
stale sitcom dialog and lob the same
rehearsed and focus-grouped sound bites at
each other to no effect? Why not try
something old that worked?
Given their party's deplorable state of
disunion and the country's fixation on self, a
Republican "revivalist" will have to sell his or
her platform based on self-interest, featuring
men and women who have overcome by
making right choices, if we can still define
"right" in a country that increasingly
considers all choices equal.
Republicans should promise that if voters
allow them to regain control of all three
branches of government, an outside auditor
will be named to go through the federal
government, recommending to Congress
which agencies can be reduced in size or
even eliminated. Congress would require
itself to accept the auditor's findings, as with
the Defense Base Realignment and Closing
Commission, which has been charged with
increasing the Defense Department's
efficiency by the realignment and closure of
unnecessary U.S. military installations.
This will be a challenge for Republicans.
We'll soon know if they can meet it and,
more importantly, whether voters will
respond to such a message. The time may be
right for someone with real convictions and
the courage to state them, regardless of what
polls say.
Meanwhile, God save us from popular opinion
and from politicians whose only convictions
come in a courtroom.
IRAQ AGONISTES
Paul Greenberg
"The greatest evil is not now done in those
sordid 'dens of crime' that Dickens loved to
paint. It is not even done in concentration
camps and labor camps. In those we see
(evil's) final result. But it is conceived and
ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and
minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-
lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars
and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks
who do not need to raise their voices."
--C.S. Lewis, "The Screwtape Letters"
Call it déjà vu, the feeling that we've been
here before, that events in the news are
happening again, only with a new cast. This
flashback could be titled Iraq Agonistes,
except it's no play. It is all too real. For those
are real people suffering and dying, and real
diplomats and generals, presidents and
pundits, senators and senior advisers ... all
proudly displaying their gobsmacked
ineptitude.
There is something eerily, depressingly
familiar about the latest news from the state
formerly known as Iraq as this all too
familiar tragedy is re-enacted in a different
setting with a different suffering people.
The players may have changed, but not the
tragedy. Indeed, the plot is so familiar you
can almost see the audience yawning and
heading for the exits. ("Not this sad show
again!") In these fast-moving or rather fast-
collapsing days for the "republic" of Iraq,
some of us wake up every morning with the
idle thought: Is there still an Iraq? And if so,
who cares?
All the old, blood-soaked scenes of an earlier
performance by the same theatrical company
-- let's dub it the Washington Players -- return
like a recurrent nightmare: the agony of
friends and allies who counted on us only to
be abandoned, the innocents caught in the
crossfire, the usual parade of mutual
atrocities, and a nebulous government whose
power and authority is not just eroding but
disappearing every day, every hour, every
minute. No matter how much its remaining
leaders may deny it.
How long before these leaders, too, become
former leaders and retreat to their villas in
the south of France, and give interviews
explaining how right they were all along?
Much like Jimmy Carter still trying to justify
the malaise he presided over in his now
almost forgotten day.
It's been almost a decade now since peace
was restored after an earlier crisis in Iraq
and then maintained at the cost of still more
American blood and treasure. But now the
violent bear it away again. And we in this
blessed country enable the violent
everywhere by our indifference, aided and
abetted as always by the steady current of
isolationism that flows deep in the American
ethos. We never seem to learn.
From the moment our failing president tried
to justify his hasty withdrawal from Iraq by
telling us everything was just fine and dandy
over there, it hasn't been. And by now things
have grown much worse. But that didn't stop
him from declaring Mission Accomplished:
"Everything that American troops have done
in Iraq -- all the fighting and all the dying,
the bleeding and the building, and the
training and the partnering -- all of it has led
to this moment of success. Now, Iraq is not a
perfect place. It has many challenges ahead.
But we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable,
and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative
government that was elected by its people." --
Barack Obama, Fort Bragg, N.C., December
14, 2011.
Sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq is now
any anything but, and never has been while
this president was supposedly in charge -- in
large part because of his leadership, or rather
lack of same.
Once again we watch as a demoralized
army's retreat turns into a rout, neighboring
states circle like vultures to pick up the
choicer pieces for themselves, and any
remaining islands of stability and refuge are
overrun -- by a flood of refugees they cannot
cope with.
Even the reactions from Washington are
tinged with the same old excuses for inaction.
These days they come with an almost
desperate air as this administration tries to
evade responsibility for what has happened
in the power vacuum it created when it
decided to withdraw from still another part
of the world. Even if the scenes we recall
today aren't from the Middle but the Far
East.
Remember Saigon 1975? How long will it be
before the television cameras again record
American disgrace as the last panic-stricken
civilians try to clamber aboard the last
helicopter leaving the American embassy, this
time in Baghdad instead of Saigon?
Our president and "commander-in-chief" has
decreed no more boots on the ground in Iraq.
That policy is the big problem. But as that
former country disintegrates, he has relented
to the extent of ordering more troops to
protect our embassy in Baghdad. It's a step
up from the administration's fecklessness at
Benghazi, but only a small step. Let's hope it
will be enough to protect our people now on
the front lines, but hope is scarcely an
adequate substitute for a foreign policy.
Meanwhile, scenes from the tragedy enacted
in Vietnam decades ago continue to recur --
right down to mission creep. The White
House has ordered 300 "military advisers" to
Iraq, which is just the way our misadventure
in Vietnam started. The one thing worse than
a shameful withdrawal overseas may be an
uncertain one that leaves everyone guessing
whether we're leaving or going back in.
This administration, which looks more and
more like only a collection of slow learners,
lacks the one essential requisite for a
thoughtful and effective foreign policy:
constancy of purpose. Instead, an American
administration is reduced once again to buck-
passing as it is obliged to make ad-hoc
decisions in response to one immediate crisis
after another, the total effect of which is to
invite more crises.
Confronted by such disarray in Washington
once again, what useful judgment can any
observer make except a slow, sad shake of the
head? Yes, will we ever learn?
"Stand by your friends, and stand up to
bullies."
--Margaret Thatcher
"The greatest evil is not now done in those
sordid 'dens of crime' that Dickens loved to
paint. It is not even done in concentration
camps and labor camps. In those we see
(evil's) final result. But it is conceived and
ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and
minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-
lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars
and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks
who do not need to raise their voices."
--C.S. Lewis, "The Screwtape Letters"
Call it déjà vu, the feeling that we've been
here before, that events in the news are
happening again, only with a new cast. This
flashback could be titled Iraq Agonistes,
except it's no play. It is all too real. For those
are real people suffering and dying, and real
diplomats and generals, presidents and
pundits, senators and senior advisers ... all
proudly displaying their gobsmacked
ineptitude.
There is something eerily, depressingly
familiar about the latest news from the state
formerly known as Iraq as this all too
familiar tragedy is re-enacted in a different
setting with a different suffering people.
The players may have changed, but not the
tragedy. Indeed, the plot is so familiar you
can almost see the audience yawning and
heading for the exits. ("Not this sad show
again!") In these fast-moving or rather fast-
collapsing days for the "republic" of Iraq,
some of us wake up every morning with the
idle thought: Is there still an Iraq? And if so,
who cares?
All the old, blood-soaked scenes of an earlier
performance by the same theatrical company
-- let's dub it the Washington Players -- return
like a recurrent nightmare: the agony of
friends and allies who counted on us only to
be abandoned, the innocents caught in the
crossfire, the usual parade of mutual
atrocities, and a nebulous government whose
power and authority is not just eroding but
disappearing every day, every hour, every
minute. No matter how much its remaining
leaders may deny it.
How long before these leaders, too, become
former leaders and retreat to their villas in
the south of France, and give interviews
explaining how right they were all along?
Much like Jimmy Carter still trying to justify
the malaise he presided over in his now
almost forgotten day.
It's been almost a decade now since peace
was restored after an earlier crisis in Iraq
and then maintained at the cost of still more
American blood and treasure. But now the
violent bear it away again. And we in this
blessed country enable the violent
everywhere by our indifference, aided and
abetted as always by the steady current of
isolationism that flows deep in the American
ethos. We never seem to learn.
From the moment our failing president tried
to justify his hasty withdrawal from Iraq by
telling us everything was just fine and dandy
over there, it hasn't been. And by now things
have grown much worse. But that didn't stop
him from declaring Mission Accomplished:
"Everything that American troops have done
in Iraq -- all the fighting and all the dying,
the bleeding and the building, and the
training and the partnering -- all of it has led
to this moment of success. Now, Iraq is not a
perfect place. It has many challenges ahead.
But we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable,
and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative
government that was elected by its people." --
Barack Obama, Fort Bragg, N.C., December
14, 2011.
Sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq is now
any anything but, and never has been while
this president was supposedly in charge -- in
large part because of his leadership, or rather
lack of same.
Once again we watch as a demoralized
army's retreat turns into a rout, neighboring
states circle like vultures to pick up the
choicer pieces for themselves, and any
remaining islands of stability and refuge are
overrun -- by a flood of refugees they cannot
cope with.
Even the reactions from Washington are
tinged with the same old excuses for inaction.
These days they come with an almost
desperate air as this administration tries to
evade responsibility for what has happened
in the power vacuum it created when it
decided to withdraw from still another part
of the world. Even if the scenes we recall
today aren't from the Middle but the Far
East.
Remember Saigon 1975? How long will it be
before the television cameras again record
American disgrace as the last panic-stricken
civilians try to clamber aboard the last
helicopter leaving the American embassy, this
time in Baghdad instead of Saigon?
Our president and "commander-in-chief" has
decreed no more boots on the ground in Iraq.
That policy is the big problem. But as that
former country disintegrates, he has relented
to the extent of ordering more troops to
protect our embassy in Baghdad. It's a step
up from the administration's fecklessness at
Benghazi, but only a small step. Let's hope it
will be enough to protect our people now on
the front lines, but hope is scarcely an
adequate substitute for a foreign policy.
Meanwhile, scenes from the tragedy enacted
in Vietnam decades ago continue to recur --
right down to mission creep. The White
House has ordered 300 "military advisers" to
Iraq, which is just the way our misadventure
in Vietnam started. The one thing worse than
a shameful withdrawal overseas may be an
uncertain one that leaves everyone guessing
whether we're leaving or going back in.
This administration, which looks more and
more like only a collection of slow learners,
lacks the one essential requisite for a
thoughtful and effective foreign policy:
constancy of purpose. Instead, an American
administration is reduced once again to buck-
passing as it is obliged to make ad-hoc
decisions in response to one immediate crisis
after another, the total effect of which is to
invite more crises.
Confronted by such disarray in Washington
once again, what useful judgment can any
observer make except a slow, sad shake of the
head? Yes, will we ever learn?
"Stand by your friends, and stand up to
bullies."
--Margaret Thatcher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)