July 29, 2010
The Sun Journal
LETTER TO THE EDITOR:The Enemy within
In last Sundays Letter to the Editor, a resident liberal walked us through the Tea Party connection to GOP contributors. What we need to do is take a closer look at is who supports the left wing of the Democratic Party. Allow me to introduce you to MoveOn.org.
MoveOn was launched on September 22, 1998 as a web-based, grassroots political network that organizes “electronic advocacy groups” of online activists around specific issues, generates political ads and works to win young recruits through its appeal to the Net-savvy, MTV subculture. Today, MoveOn boasts an email list of more than 3.2 million members. So where does the money come from to run an organization this size?
MoveOn has received financial support from numerous leftist organizations, including George Soros’s Open Society, the Tides Foundation and the Shefa Fund, to name just a few. Another supporter, Wesley Boyd and his wife Joan Blades, who had earned a fortune with their software company Berkeley Systems joined with George Soros after a meeting in September of 2003 and gave MoveOn 6.2 million over a six month period. The contributions included $2.5 million from George Soros personally; an avowed Socialist.
Shefa's areas of funding included social and economic justice; community and economic development; feminism and gender issues, which included Jewish feminist educational curricula; minority rights and entitlements; Middle East peace and economic development; the transformation of Jewish life, including youth funding and projects relating to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues. Shefa also funded and promoted voting rights for all immigrants regardless of citizenship status.
"Social Justice" is a code phrase of the left, which believes that such justice can only be achieved by the recognition that capitalism and the economic inequality it produces must be replaced by a "classless" society wherein all differences in wealth and property have been eliminated. (Source: Discover theNet works.org)
For me the choice is simple; I am a Tea Party supporter as most of you have been all our lives. I say this because in your heart, like me, you carry a love for this great Country that has achieved great things through freedom. Like me, you believe in our Constitution and the protections it provides. But make no mistake; our Constitution is under attack, not by some foreign power but by the enemies within our own borders.
In order to insure a future for our children and grandchildren, in this freedom living Country we call home, we must stand for the hard right against the easy wrong. That stand starts in November, 2010.
CCTA Member, Louis Call
River Bend, NC
The letter Mr. Call is commenting on can be found at: http://www.newbernsj.com/articles/tea-89267-partier-party.html
Friday, July 30, 2010
Sect. 342 sets up racial, ethnic, and gender diversity quotas that must be followed by every financial institution that does business with the government.
Yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, two Democrat pollsters, Pat Cadell and Doug Schoen, accused Obama of being a divider of America based upon “race, class, and partisanship.”
Today we learn that Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner is going to move employees at seven federal agencies over to the newly empowered watchdog agency -- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
You may ask why the CFPB is going to require so many employees. Here’s why:
The 2,300 page, newly passed financial regulatory bill (signed by Obama on 7.21.10 and undoubtedly penned by Obama’s czars who work 24/7 to insert his liberal-left agenda into our country) contains Section 342.
As explained by Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute in her 7.8.10 article, she was searching through the 2,300 page financial regulation bill and discovered Section 342.
To her horror Sect. 342 sets up racial, ethnic, and gender diversity quotas that must be followed by every financial institution that does business with the government.
Section 342 sets up at least 20 Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion, and this means separate offices have to be established to make sure quotas based upon race, ethnicity, and gender diversity are followed in all “financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, asset management firms, brokers, dealers, financial services entities, underwriters, accountants, investment consultants and…law firms working for financial entities.”
As explained in Diana Furchtgott-Roth’s article, each of these 20 Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion will be required to have:
…its own director and staff to develop policies promoting equal employment opportunities and racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of not just the agency's workforce, but also the workforces of its contractors and sub-contractors…
Ultimately, the only way that financial firms doing business with the government would be able to comply with the law is by showing that a certain percentage of their workforce is female or minority…
To comply, federal agencies are likely to find it easier to employ and contract with less-qualified women and minorities, merely in order to avoid regulatory trouble.
[I, for one, believe that people need to be hired based upon their skills and expertise rather than upon their race, ethnicity, or gender diversity. We citizens should certainly care when the institutions that govern our country’s financial stability are at stake.
I taught school for 33+ years, and I know how important it is for students to learn to pay attention to detail.
Who cares what people’s skin color, ethnicity, or gender diversity might be if they are charged with handling trillions of our nation’s dollars? -- Donna Garner]
Now we understand why Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner is so busily stealing staff from financial agencies and moving them over to set up his newly empowered watchdog agency -- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
It takes “manpower” [dare I use that word?] to make sure race-based, ethnicity-based, and gender-diversity-based quotas are forced on every financial institution that does business with the government.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth did her part to read the 2,300 page bill and to warn the Senators before they foolishly signed the financial regulation bill on 7.15.10, and I did my part to contact my Senators and to help spread Furchtgott-Roth’s article around the country. All to no avail -- Those voting for the bill were three Republicans (Sen. Brown (R-MA), Sen. Collins (R-ME), and Sen. Snowe (R-ME)) and 57 Democrats; Sen. Feingold (D-WI) was the only Democrat who opposed the bill.
Now all of our financial institutions are held captive to race, ethnic, and gender-diversity quotas.
To read Diana Furchtgott-Roth’s entire article, please go to:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/07/08/diversity_in_the_financial_sector_98562.html
To read more about Tim Geitner’s plan to steal employees to staff his watchdog organization, please go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072806040.html?wpisrc=nl_fed
To read H. R. 4173, the ‘‘Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,” Section 342, please go to:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h4173enr.txt.pdf
Today we learn that Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner is going to move employees at seven federal agencies over to the newly empowered watchdog agency -- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
You may ask why the CFPB is going to require so many employees. Here’s why:
The 2,300 page, newly passed financial regulatory bill (signed by Obama on 7.21.10 and undoubtedly penned by Obama’s czars who work 24/7 to insert his liberal-left agenda into our country) contains Section 342.
As explained by Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute in her 7.8.10 article, she was searching through the 2,300 page financial regulation bill and discovered Section 342.
To her horror Sect. 342 sets up racial, ethnic, and gender diversity quotas that must be followed by every financial institution that does business with the government.
Section 342 sets up at least 20 Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion, and this means separate offices have to be established to make sure quotas based upon race, ethnicity, and gender diversity are followed in all “financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, asset management firms, brokers, dealers, financial services entities, underwriters, accountants, investment consultants and…law firms working for financial entities.”
As explained in Diana Furchtgott-Roth’s article, each of these 20 Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion will be required to have:
…its own director and staff to develop policies promoting equal employment opportunities and racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of not just the agency's workforce, but also the workforces of its contractors and sub-contractors…
Ultimately, the only way that financial firms doing business with the government would be able to comply with the law is by showing that a certain percentage of their workforce is female or minority…
To comply, federal agencies are likely to find it easier to employ and contract with less-qualified women and minorities, merely in order to avoid regulatory trouble.
[I, for one, believe that people need to be hired based upon their skills and expertise rather than upon their race, ethnicity, or gender diversity. We citizens should certainly care when the institutions that govern our country’s financial stability are at stake.
I taught school for 33+ years, and I know how important it is for students to learn to pay attention to detail.
Who cares what people’s skin color, ethnicity, or gender diversity might be if they are charged with handling trillions of our nation’s dollars? -- Donna Garner]
Now we understand why Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner is so busily stealing staff from financial agencies and moving them over to set up his newly empowered watchdog agency -- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
It takes “manpower” [dare I use that word?] to make sure race-based, ethnicity-based, and gender-diversity-based quotas are forced on every financial institution that does business with the government.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth did her part to read the 2,300 page bill and to warn the Senators before they foolishly signed the financial regulation bill on 7.15.10, and I did my part to contact my Senators and to help spread Furchtgott-Roth’s article around the country. All to no avail -- Those voting for the bill were three Republicans (Sen. Brown (R-MA), Sen. Collins (R-ME), and Sen. Snowe (R-ME)) and 57 Democrats; Sen. Feingold (D-WI) was the only Democrat who opposed the bill.
Now all of our financial institutions are held captive to race, ethnic, and gender-diversity quotas.
To read Diana Furchtgott-Roth’s entire article, please go to:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/07/08/diversity_in_the_financial_sector_98562.html
To read more about Tim Geitner’s plan to steal employees to staff his watchdog organization, please go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072806040.html?wpisrc=nl_fed
To read H. R. 4173, the ‘‘Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,” Section 342, please go to:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h4173enr.txt.pdf
JLF legal expert explains how matching-funds provisions chill free speech
Friday Interview: Taxpayer-Financed Election Campaigns Critiqued
JLF legal expert explains how matching-funds provisions chill free speech
July 30, 2010
Daren Bakst
RALEIGH — North Carolina legislators left Raleigh this year without expanding the state’s system of taxpayer-financed election campaigns. But advocates pushed for expansion, and they’re likely to push the idea again in 2011. Before lawmakers left town, Daren Bakst, John Locke Foundation Director of Legal and Regulatory Studies, discussed the problems associated with so-called “public financing” of campaigns during an interview with Donna Martinez for Carolina Journal Radio. (Click here to find a station near you or to learn about the weekly CJ Radio podcast.)
Martinez: This just doesn’t sound right. Let me make sure I understand this. Would this mean that, for example, a progressive, a liberal person, would end up having to help fund the election campaign of a fiscal conservative?
Bakst: Yes. They’d have no choice but to be funding those campaigns.
Martinez: How does this work? What’s written into this bill?
Bakst: Well, what it does is it gives some local governments the option of using public financing, i.e., taxpayer financing, to subsidize candidates for office. So basically these candidates get a lump sum amount of taxpayer dollars to run their campaigns. You don’t have a choice about whether or not that taxpayer money, your taxpayer money, is going to candidates you oppose or people who support ideas that you find reprehensible.
Martinez: What would happen if, let’s say, that I’m a taxpayer and I’ve decided for whatever reason that I’m just not interested in politics? I’m not even going to vote.
Bakst: Well, you decide you don’t want to pay taxes, but that wouldn’t be a good idea, so you have no choice.
Martinez: Well, supporters say this would move us toward something they describe as a “clean election system.” They say this will help fend off corruption so that people don’t have to go out and raise a bunch of money on their own. Valid? Or not?
Bakst: Well, the problem is, first of all I want to clear up [that] this entire system is almost certainly unconstitutional. And I won’t get into the constitutional analysis, but two federal District Courts recently have struck down these types of taxpayer financing systems, and I think certainly this would be found unconstitutional.
Martinez: What is the basis — for those of us who aren’t attorneys — the basis for striking that down?
Bakst: Well, the way it works is that the systems try to equalize the funding between candidates. So, if Candidate A, who is not taking taxpayer dollars, spends, say, $100,000, and they set a threshold limit of $95,000, and if you spend beyond $95,000, any additional amount beyond that goes to the opponent. So if I spent $5,000 above a threshold amount, the candidate that takes the taxpayer dollars gets $5,000 to equalize the funding between the candidates.
But as a result, if I’m the candidate who knows that I’m going to give $5,000 to my opponent, what am I going to do? Well, I’m not going to engage in speech. And what it does is, that is exactly what happens. It chills free speech because you don’t want to engage in speech if you’re going to help your opponent. And that’s why, primarily, they are being struck down.
Martinez: There are some candidates, and I have read about them and heard about them, who really like this idea of publicly financed campaigns. They don’t want to go out and raise money. But raising money, the folks on the other side say, is part of the whole process of vetting the ideas in the marketplace.
Bakst: Well, when you say the other side, I think you mean my side.
Martinez: Exactly.
Bakst: Right, absolutely. You know this idea that fundraising is somehow evil or is bad, well, fundraising is an essential part of the political process. That is how we determine whether or not somebody is a legitimate candidate. That is part of the process. Of course a lot of candidates don’t want to raise money. Why should they have to try to actually get support when they can take your taxpayer dollars and, you know, they can sit around and drink pina coladas.
Martinez: Interesting. You know over in Chapel Hill in Orange County, they actually had a pilot program with public financing of local election campaigns. This took place last fall. There’s been some interesting reaction to how that worked. What’s your take on what happened in Chapel Hill?
Bakst: You know, proponents of taxpayer financing can’t get their stories right. On the state level, they argue, “Oh, see the program works because so many people participate in taxpayer financing programs.” Well, of course people participate because if you’re going to punish a candidate for not participating so severely, you have no choice but to participate.
But then in Chapel Hill, what happened was only a couple of candidates participated, and most of the candidates didn’t participate. So it was kind of tricky for them. “We can’t argue that a lot of candidates participated.” What they did was to show that the candidate that did participate won. Well, that doesn’t show that the system works because a candidate won. … It doesn’t do anything as it relates to taxpayer financing. As for politicians, of course they love it, also not only because they get to sit around and hang out and listen to Jimmy Buffett and drink pina coladas, they…
Martinez: Who wouldn’t want that?
Bakst: Right. Who wouldn’t want to do that? You know, what’s important is, if they’re incumbents, it helps them because if you have equalized funding between candidates, incumbents are always going to benefit because they have better name recognition. So the only way for the challenger to overcome that advantage is to spend more money.
And the idea that more money somehow is bad for the system is incorrect. We need money to kind of get the message out there. It’s not just spending money; it’s about getting the message out. People become more informed about the campaigns, not to mention these systems only deal with direct contributions to these campaigns. It doesn’t deal with independent expenditures or other types of spending. So it’s not decreasing the total amount of spending in these campaigns — only one type of spending, basically.
Martinez: This issue of public financing of campaigns at the local level is one that’s probably going to be coming up. So if I’m a citizen out in the community and I know that my local government entity is talking about this, what questions should I be prodding them to ask as they consider this?
Bakst: Mr. Politician, Mrs. Politician, do you believe in political welfare? Do you believe that you should be taking our hard-earned dollars away from critical issues such as safety — if it was on the county level, from schools, maybe roads — and instead giving it to you for your personal benefit so that you can run your campaign so you don’t actually have to get out and actually raise money on your own? Is that really what you think our tax dollars are for — for your benefit? That would be one good question. Also, do you respect the United States Constitution? Because almost certainly, these systems are unconstitutional.
Martinez: What we’re talking about is doing this at the local level, but North Carolina does engage in public financing of campaigns a couple of different ways. Tell us what they are. One is judicial races.
Bakst: Judicial races — appellate judicial races — and also three Council of State races, which means the Commissioner of Insurance and a couple of other positions.
Martinez: There is somewhat of a push, by some folks at least, to fund more Council of State campaigns this way.
Bakst: Absolutely. I mean, look, the goal for people that support clean elections is to have clean elections for every race. What’s interesting is that the State of Arizona, where clean elections kind of started — one of the states — there’s tons of corruption. Because what happens is people game the system and they will figure out ways to trigger these kind of funds that I was talking about — these matching funds — to the candidate. So I’ll run an ad that actually hurts a particular candidate as opposed to helping and gives the impression that it is helping. Then it triggers money to the other candidate that I actually support. So there’s lots of gamesmanship. There’s lots of corruption in those systems as well. So it’s not getting rid of corruption.
Money isn’t bad in the system. There are many other alternatives. And also, we need to do things that are actually consistent with the Constitution. The other thing — final point — taxpayers simply don’t support these systems. On the tax returns in the state, you … can check off a little box. Only about 7 percent or 8 percent of taxpayers have checked off that box to support public financing
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=6670
JLF legal expert explains how matching-funds provisions chill free speech
July 30, 2010
Daren Bakst
RALEIGH — North Carolina legislators left Raleigh this year without expanding the state’s system of taxpayer-financed election campaigns. But advocates pushed for expansion, and they’re likely to push the idea again in 2011. Before lawmakers left town, Daren Bakst, John Locke Foundation Director of Legal and Regulatory Studies, discussed the problems associated with so-called “public financing” of campaigns during an interview with Donna Martinez for Carolina Journal Radio. (Click here to find a station near you or to learn about the weekly CJ Radio podcast.)
Martinez: This just doesn’t sound right. Let me make sure I understand this. Would this mean that, for example, a progressive, a liberal person, would end up having to help fund the election campaign of a fiscal conservative?
Bakst: Yes. They’d have no choice but to be funding those campaigns.
Martinez: How does this work? What’s written into this bill?
Bakst: Well, what it does is it gives some local governments the option of using public financing, i.e., taxpayer financing, to subsidize candidates for office. So basically these candidates get a lump sum amount of taxpayer dollars to run their campaigns. You don’t have a choice about whether or not that taxpayer money, your taxpayer money, is going to candidates you oppose or people who support ideas that you find reprehensible.
Martinez: What would happen if, let’s say, that I’m a taxpayer and I’ve decided for whatever reason that I’m just not interested in politics? I’m not even going to vote.
Bakst: Well, you decide you don’t want to pay taxes, but that wouldn’t be a good idea, so you have no choice.
Martinez: Well, supporters say this would move us toward something they describe as a “clean election system.” They say this will help fend off corruption so that people don’t have to go out and raise a bunch of money on their own. Valid? Or not?
Bakst: Well, the problem is, first of all I want to clear up [that] this entire system is almost certainly unconstitutional. And I won’t get into the constitutional analysis, but two federal District Courts recently have struck down these types of taxpayer financing systems, and I think certainly this would be found unconstitutional.
Martinez: What is the basis — for those of us who aren’t attorneys — the basis for striking that down?
Bakst: Well, the way it works is that the systems try to equalize the funding between candidates. So, if Candidate A, who is not taking taxpayer dollars, spends, say, $100,000, and they set a threshold limit of $95,000, and if you spend beyond $95,000, any additional amount beyond that goes to the opponent. So if I spent $5,000 above a threshold amount, the candidate that takes the taxpayer dollars gets $5,000 to equalize the funding between the candidates.
But as a result, if I’m the candidate who knows that I’m going to give $5,000 to my opponent, what am I going to do? Well, I’m not going to engage in speech. And what it does is, that is exactly what happens. It chills free speech because you don’t want to engage in speech if you’re going to help your opponent. And that’s why, primarily, they are being struck down.
Martinez: There are some candidates, and I have read about them and heard about them, who really like this idea of publicly financed campaigns. They don’t want to go out and raise money. But raising money, the folks on the other side say, is part of the whole process of vetting the ideas in the marketplace.
Bakst: Well, when you say the other side, I think you mean my side.
Martinez: Exactly.
Bakst: Right, absolutely. You know this idea that fundraising is somehow evil or is bad, well, fundraising is an essential part of the political process. That is how we determine whether or not somebody is a legitimate candidate. That is part of the process. Of course a lot of candidates don’t want to raise money. Why should they have to try to actually get support when they can take your taxpayer dollars and, you know, they can sit around and drink pina coladas.
Martinez: Interesting. You know over in Chapel Hill in Orange County, they actually had a pilot program with public financing of local election campaigns. This took place last fall. There’s been some interesting reaction to how that worked. What’s your take on what happened in Chapel Hill?
Bakst: You know, proponents of taxpayer financing can’t get their stories right. On the state level, they argue, “Oh, see the program works because so many people participate in taxpayer financing programs.” Well, of course people participate because if you’re going to punish a candidate for not participating so severely, you have no choice but to participate.
But then in Chapel Hill, what happened was only a couple of candidates participated, and most of the candidates didn’t participate. So it was kind of tricky for them. “We can’t argue that a lot of candidates participated.” What they did was to show that the candidate that did participate won. Well, that doesn’t show that the system works because a candidate won. … It doesn’t do anything as it relates to taxpayer financing. As for politicians, of course they love it, also not only because they get to sit around and hang out and listen to Jimmy Buffett and drink pina coladas, they…
Martinez: Who wouldn’t want that?
Bakst: Right. Who wouldn’t want to do that? You know, what’s important is, if they’re incumbents, it helps them because if you have equalized funding between candidates, incumbents are always going to benefit because they have better name recognition. So the only way for the challenger to overcome that advantage is to spend more money.
And the idea that more money somehow is bad for the system is incorrect. We need money to kind of get the message out there. It’s not just spending money; it’s about getting the message out. People become more informed about the campaigns, not to mention these systems only deal with direct contributions to these campaigns. It doesn’t deal with independent expenditures or other types of spending. So it’s not decreasing the total amount of spending in these campaigns — only one type of spending, basically.
Martinez: This issue of public financing of campaigns at the local level is one that’s probably going to be coming up. So if I’m a citizen out in the community and I know that my local government entity is talking about this, what questions should I be prodding them to ask as they consider this?
Bakst: Mr. Politician, Mrs. Politician, do you believe in political welfare? Do you believe that you should be taking our hard-earned dollars away from critical issues such as safety — if it was on the county level, from schools, maybe roads — and instead giving it to you for your personal benefit so that you can run your campaign so you don’t actually have to get out and actually raise money on your own? Is that really what you think our tax dollars are for — for your benefit? That would be one good question. Also, do you respect the United States Constitution? Because almost certainly, these systems are unconstitutional.
Martinez: What we’re talking about is doing this at the local level, but North Carolina does engage in public financing of campaigns a couple of different ways. Tell us what they are. One is judicial races.
Bakst: Judicial races — appellate judicial races — and also three Council of State races, which means the Commissioner of Insurance and a couple of other positions.
Martinez: There is somewhat of a push, by some folks at least, to fund more Council of State campaigns this way.
Bakst: Absolutely. I mean, look, the goal for people that support clean elections is to have clean elections for every race. What’s interesting is that the State of Arizona, where clean elections kind of started — one of the states — there’s tons of corruption. Because what happens is people game the system and they will figure out ways to trigger these kind of funds that I was talking about — these matching funds — to the candidate. So I’ll run an ad that actually hurts a particular candidate as opposed to helping and gives the impression that it is helping. Then it triggers money to the other candidate that I actually support. So there’s lots of gamesmanship. There’s lots of corruption in those systems as well. So it’s not getting rid of corruption.
Money isn’t bad in the system. There are many other alternatives. And also, we need to do things that are actually consistent with the Constitution. The other thing — final point — taxpayers simply don’t support these systems. On the tax returns in the state, you … can check off a little box. Only about 7 percent or 8 percent of taxpayers have checked off that box to support public financing
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=6670
Amnesty Memo
According to an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo going the rounds of Capitol Hill and obtained by National Review, the agency is considering ways in which it could enact “meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action” — that is, without the consent of the American people through a vote in Congress.
This memorandum offers administrative relief options to . . . reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization,” it reads.
Also: “In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear (NTA), and adopting significant process improvements.”
In recent weeks, Sen. Chuck Grassley and others in Congress have been pressing the administration to disavow rumors that a de facto amnesty is in the works, including in a letter to Department of Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano. “Since the senators first wrote to the president more than a month ago, we have not been reassured that the plans are just rumors, and we have every reason to believe that the memo is legitimate,” a Grassley spokesman tells NR. (NR contacted DHS, but a spokesman did not have a comment on the record.)
Many of the memo’s proposals are technical and fine-grained; for example, it suggests clarifying the immigration laws for “unaccompanied minors, and for victims of human trafficking, domestic violence, and other criminal activities.” It also proposes extending the “grace period” H-1B visa holders have between the expiration of their visa and the date they’re expected to leave the country.
With other ideas, however, USCIS is aiming big. Perhaps the most egregious suggestion is to “Increase the Use of Deferred Action.” “Deferred action,” as the memo defines it, “is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion not to pursue removal from the U.S. of a particular individual for a specific period of time.” For example, after Hurricane Katrina, the government decided not to remove illegal immigrants who’d been affected by the disaster.
The memo claims that there are no limits to USCIS’s ability to use deferred action, but warns that using this power indiscriminately would be “controversial, not to mention expensive.” The memo suggests using deferred action to exempt “particular groups” from removal — such as the illegal-immigrant high-school graduates who would fall under the DREAM Act (a measure that has been shot down repeatedly in Congress). The memo claims that the DREAM Act would cover “an estimated 50,000” individuals, though as many as 65,000 illegal immigrants graduate high school every year in the U.S.
In the immediate wake of the court decision blocking the Arizona immigration law yesterday, the memo is sure to create controversy — and the sense that the administration is bent on preserving and extending the nation’s de facto amnesty.
UPDATE: USCIS has released a statement on the memo:
Internal draft memos do not and should not be equated with official action or policy of the Department. We will not comment on notional, pre-decisional memos. As a matter of good government, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will discuss just about every issue that comes within the purview of the immigration system. We continue to maintain that comprehensive bipartisan legislation, coupled with smart, effective enforcement, is the only solution to our nation’s immigration challenges.
Internal memoranda help us do the thinking that leads to important changes; some of them are adopted and others are rejected. Our goal is to implement policies wisely and well to strengthen all aspects of our mission. The choices we have made so far have strengthened both the enforcement and services sides of USCIS — nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions. To be clear, DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.
National Review Online
http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topic/show?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A2447214&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
This memorandum offers administrative relief options to . . . reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization,” it reads.
Also: “In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear (NTA), and adopting significant process improvements.”
In recent weeks, Sen. Chuck Grassley and others in Congress have been pressing the administration to disavow rumors that a de facto amnesty is in the works, including in a letter to Department of Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano. “Since the senators first wrote to the president more than a month ago, we have not been reassured that the plans are just rumors, and we have every reason to believe that the memo is legitimate,” a Grassley spokesman tells NR. (NR contacted DHS, but a spokesman did not have a comment on the record.)
Many of the memo’s proposals are technical and fine-grained; for example, it suggests clarifying the immigration laws for “unaccompanied minors, and for victims of human trafficking, domestic violence, and other criminal activities.” It also proposes extending the “grace period” H-1B visa holders have between the expiration of their visa and the date they’re expected to leave the country.
With other ideas, however, USCIS is aiming big. Perhaps the most egregious suggestion is to “Increase the Use of Deferred Action.” “Deferred action,” as the memo defines it, “is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion not to pursue removal from the U.S. of a particular individual for a specific period of time.” For example, after Hurricane Katrina, the government decided not to remove illegal immigrants who’d been affected by the disaster.
The memo claims that there are no limits to USCIS’s ability to use deferred action, but warns that using this power indiscriminately would be “controversial, not to mention expensive.” The memo suggests using deferred action to exempt “particular groups” from removal — such as the illegal-immigrant high-school graduates who would fall under the DREAM Act (a measure that has been shot down repeatedly in Congress). The memo claims that the DREAM Act would cover “an estimated 50,000” individuals, though as many as 65,000 illegal immigrants graduate high school every year in the U.S.
In the immediate wake of the court decision blocking the Arizona immigration law yesterday, the memo is sure to create controversy — and the sense that the administration is bent on preserving and extending the nation’s de facto amnesty.
UPDATE: USCIS has released a statement on the memo:
Internal draft memos do not and should not be equated with official action or policy of the Department. We will not comment on notional, pre-decisional memos. As a matter of good government, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will discuss just about every issue that comes within the purview of the immigration system. We continue to maintain that comprehensive bipartisan legislation, coupled with smart, effective enforcement, is the only solution to our nation’s immigration challenges.
Internal memoranda help us do the thinking that leads to important changes; some of them are adopted and others are rejected. Our goal is to implement policies wisely and well to strengthen all aspects of our mission. The choices we have made so far have strengthened both the enforcement and services sides of USCIS — nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions. To be clear, DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.
National Review Online
http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topic/show?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A2447214&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
Ashley Woolard for Congress » Campaign News » Woolard: Butterfield must give back Rangel payoff or.
Woolard: Butterfield must give back Rangel payoff or face escalation
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Woolard: Butterfield must give back Rangel payoff or face escalation
Washington, NC-July 29,2010-Republican Congressional nominee Ashley Woolard (NC-1) strongly criticized incumbent G.K. Butterfield this afternoon following release of Ethics Panel charges against embattled Democratic congressman Charlie Rangel. Earlier this week Woolard, in a series of district-wide press conferences, demanded Butterfield return "political bribes" given him in the form of campaign contributions from Rangel.
Butterfield sits on the Ethics Committee investigating Rangel that handed down today's decision. Opensecrets.org has reported Rangel has made $4000 in contributions to Butterfield.
"Congressman Butterfield must return these political bribes before the September trial. Failure to do so -- as many of his Democratic colleagues have done already -- ensures this issue will be a dominant theme in the upcoming election campaign," said Woolard Thursday.
"Charlie Rangel is another corrupt Democratic congressman that belongs in prison like Frank Ballance. Congressman Butterfield has taken a payoff to watch his back and unless these ill-gotten funds are returned, runs the risk of having the First District seat tainted by corruption once more," Woolard said.
Butterfield was first elected to congress in a 2004 special election to fill the unexpired term of convicted felon Frank Ballance. Ballance resigned suddenly amidst scandal involving embezzlement of taxpayer monies.
"Congressman Butterfield knows keeping this money is wrong, yet he refuses to return it. This begs the question of who he is really working for -- it's obvious it is not the people of eastern North Carolina,” Woolard said.
For further information:
Bill Tarpenning
Woolard For Congress
PO Box 1116
107 Gladden Street
Washington, NC 27889
Phone 252-944-5377
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Woolard: Butterfield must give back Rangel payoff or face escalation
Washington, NC-July 29,2010-Republican Congressional nominee Ashley Woolard (NC-1) strongly criticized incumbent G.K. Butterfield this afternoon following release of Ethics Panel charges against embattled Democratic congressman Charlie Rangel. Earlier this week Woolard, in a series of district-wide press conferences, demanded Butterfield return "political bribes" given him in the form of campaign contributions from Rangel.
Butterfield sits on the Ethics Committee investigating Rangel that handed down today's decision. Opensecrets.org has reported Rangel has made $4000 in contributions to Butterfield.
"Congressman Butterfield must return these political bribes before the September trial. Failure to do so -- as many of his Democratic colleagues have done already -- ensures this issue will be a dominant theme in the upcoming election campaign," said Woolard Thursday.
"Charlie Rangel is another corrupt Democratic congressman that belongs in prison like Frank Ballance. Congressman Butterfield has taken a payoff to watch his back and unless these ill-gotten funds are returned, runs the risk of having the First District seat tainted by corruption once more," Woolard said.
Butterfield was first elected to congress in a 2004 special election to fill the unexpired term of convicted felon Frank Ballance. Ballance resigned suddenly amidst scandal involving embezzlement of taxpayer monies.
"Congressman Butterfield knows keeping this money is wrong, yet he refuses to return it. This begs the question of who he is really working for -- it's obvious it is not the people of eastern North Carolina,” Woolard said.
For further information:
Bill Tarpenning
Woolard For Congress
PO Box 1116
107 Gladden Street
Washington, NC 27889
Phone 252-944-5377
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Where is the Outrage?
The Sun Journal New Bern, NC
Letter to the Editor
Where is the Outrage?
How many times have we heard the word ‘Racist’ fall from the lips of Nancy Pelosi, Al Sharpton and so many of the reporters on ABC, NBC & CBS? How many times have we heard the liberal establishment rail against ‘hate speech’ in relation to statements made against blacks or black organizations? And yet, when hate speech and physical intimidation was used at a polling place in Philadelphia on November 4th, 2008.…Silence.
The incident in question was made public by Bartle Bull, renowned civil rights attorney and one time New York campaign manager for Robert F. Kennedy. Mr. Bull was a poll watcher and witnessed the actions of three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick or baton that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. He reportedly said “ you are about to be ruled by a black man, Cracker”. Prosecutors went on to say that he “supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews.”
Subpoenaed to appear in court to answer charges of voting rights violations they failed to appear, thumbing their nose at our judicial system. According to federal prosecutor J. Christian Adams, this case was a ‘slam dunk’ based of video tapes of the incident and from witnesses coming forward to testify. The case against these three thugs was dismissed by Eric Holder and the Department of Justice. Adams has since resigned his job with the DOJ stating that “Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.”
So I ask, where is the outrage from the liberals among us? Where was the condemnation from the Obama White House or does Obama support black racism against a white populace? Both he and Holder have been mute on this case; makes you wonder doesn’t it.
CCTA Member,
Louis Call
River Bend, NC
Letter to the Editor
Where is the Outrage?
How many times have we heard the word ‘Racist’ fall from the lips of Nancy Pelosi, Al Sharpton and so many of the reporters on ABC, NBC & CBS? How many times have we heard the liberal establishment rail against ‘hate speech’ in relation to statements made against blacks or black organizations? And yet, when hate speech and physical intimidation was used at a polling place in Philadelphia on November 4th, 2008.…Silence.
The incident in question was made public by Bartle Bull, renowned civil rights attorney and one time New York campaign manager for Robert F. Kennedy. Mr. Bull was a poll watcher and witnessed the actions of three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick or baton that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. He reportedly said “ you are about to be ruled by a black man, Cracker”. Prosecutors went on to say that he “supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews.”
Subpoenaed to appear in court to answer charges of voting rights violations they failed to appear, thumbing their nose at our judicial system. According to federal prosecutor J. Christian Adams, this case was a ‘slam dunk’ based of video tapes of the incident and from witnesses coming forward to testify. The case against these three thugs was dismissed by Eric Holder and the Department of Justice. Adams has since resigned his job with the DOJ stating that “Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.”
So I ask, where is the outrage from the liberals among us? Where was the condemnation from the Obama White House or does Obama support black racism against a white populace? Both he and Holder have been mute on this case; makes you wonder doesn’t it.
CCTA Member,
Louis Call
River Bend, NC
WOOLARD TAKES ON G.K. BUTTERFIELD
.Statement – Ashley Woolard, candidate for Congress – NC 1
7/27/10
I'm angry and the voters in the First Congressional District are angry and rightfully so. Whey see the arrogance and corruption in Washington, and we don’t like it. We are especially upset that Rep. G. K. Butterfield, has violated the spirit of the Congressional Ethics Committee while he is a serving member of that body.
Charlie Rangel, who has served in Congress for 40 years, was charged with numerous ethics violations. It has taken the Ethics Committee two years of investigation to even admit that there might be sufficient evidence to bring charges against Rep. Rangel.
Rep. G. K. Butterfield while serving on the Ethics Committee received a $4,000 campaign donation from Rep. Rangel. By any standard, receiving a donation from someone that you are investigating for a crime would itself be a crime. As of this date, G. K. Butterfield has not returned the $4,000. I demand in the name of the good people of the 1st district that Rep. Butterfield return that money immediately.
Rangel is charged with failure to pay taxes on income earned on properties he owns in the Caribbean. He will also be charged with allowing corporations to pay for his trips to the Caribbean. Rep. Butterfield has also allowed corporations to pay for his trips to the Caribbean at the same time.
Butterfield was first elected to congress in a 2004 Special Election to fill the unexpired term of convicted felon Frank Ballance, who pled guilty to embezzling taxpayer monies through a sophisticated money-laundering scheme.
There is a wind sweeping across this great nation that will cleanse our political system. Greed and corruption is destroying our great country. Washington needs to be cleaned from top to bottom and I want to be part of that cleanup.
I promise to honestly and faithfully represent my friends and neighbors in the First District.
If you want change and honest representation in Washington, then remember me, ASHLEY WOOLARD, when you vote on November 2.
http://www.woolardforcongress.com/
For further information or to schedule an interview with Ashley Woolard call:
Bill Tarpenning - 252-944-5377
WOOLARD TO CALL ON BUTTERFIELD TO RETURN TAINTED CONTRIBUTIONS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
WOOLARD TO CALL ON BUTTERFIELD TO RETURN TAINTED CONTRIBUTIONS
GOP First District Congressional candidate Ashley Woolard will call on Congressman G.K. Butterfield to return tainted campaign contributions from embattled Democratic congressman Charlie Rangel in a series of press conferences Tuesday.
Woolard will appear at the Pitt County Courthouse in Greenville at 10:30 AM, Woolard for Congress Headquarters in Washington, NC at 1:30 PM and the Wayne County GOP Headquarters in Goldsboro, NC at 4:00 PM.
Butterfield is a member of the House Ethics Committee investigating Rangel on charges of tax evasion. The House Ethics Committee is scheduled to meet Thursday to address this issue.
“Unless returned, this money has the appearance of a bribe,” said Woolard on Monday. “Congressman Chandler gave back donations from Rangel last year and I call on Congressman Butterfield to do the same before he votes on these charges in committee.”
According to Opensecrets.org, Rangel contributed $4000 to Butterfield. Butterfield was first elected to congress in a 2004 Special Election to fill the unexpired term of convicted felon Frank Ballance, who pled guilty to embezzling taxpayer monies through a sophisticated money-laundering scheme.
“Congressman Butterfield must return this ill-gotten money or step down from the Ethics Committee,” said Woolard. “Anything less leaves him as a possible accessory to the crime.”
For further information call:
Bill Tarpenning
252-944-5377
WOOLARD TO CALL ON BUTTERFIELD TO RETURN TAINTED CONTRIBUTIONS
GOP First District Congressional candidate Ashley Woolard will call on Congressman G.K. Butterfield to return tainted campaign contributions from embattled Democratic congressman Charlie Rangel in a series of press conferences Tuesday.
Woolard will appear at the Pitt County Courthouse in Greenville at 10:30 AM, Woolard for Congress Headquarters in Washington, NC at 1:30 PM and the Wayne County GOP Headquarters in Goldsboro, NC at 4:00 PM.
Butterfield is a member of the House Ethics Committee investigating Rangel on charges of tax evasion. The House Ethics Committee is scheduled to meet Thursday to address this issue.
“Unless returned, this money has the appearance of a bribe,” said Woolard on Monday. “Congressman Chandler gave back donations from Rangel last year and I call on Congressman Butterfield to do the same before he votes on these charges in committee.”
According to Opensecrets.org, Rangel contributed $4000 to Butterfield. Butterfield was first elected to congress in a 2004 Special Election to fill the unexpired term of convicted felon Frank Ballance, who pled guilty to embezzling taxpayer monies through a sophisticated money-laundering scheme.
“Congressman Butterfield must return this ill-gotten money or step down from the Ethics Committee,” said Woolard. “Anything less leaves him as a possible accessory to the crime.”
For further information call:
Bill Tarpenning
252-944-5377
Sunday, July 25, 2010
The Ten Commandments According to Obama
The Ten Commandments According to Obama
By: Patriot Update
© 2009 The Patriot Update. Feel free to circulate this article, but please link / give credit to The Patriot Update.
After observing Obama on the campaign trail and during his first six months in office, we have concluded that our President lives and governs according to his own set of “Ten Commandments.” They’re certainly NOT the Ten Commandments you learned in Sunday School. In fact, many are the direct opposite! To prove that our conclusions are correct, you will find a link to source documentation for each commandment on the Patriot Update web site.
I. Thou shalt have no God in America, except for me. For we are no longer a Christian nation and, after all, I am the chosen One. (And like God, I do not have a birth certificate.) SOURCE
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/204016.aspx
II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it is my face carved on Mt. Rushmore. SOURCE
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/obama-eyeing-sp.html
III. Thou shalt not utter my middle name in vain (or in public). Only I can say Barack Hussein Obama. SOURCE http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1718255,00.html
IV. Remember tax day, April 15th, to keep it holy. SOURCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBAsBCVOOu8
V. Honour thy father and thy mother until they are too old and sick to care for. They will cost our public-funded health-care system too much money. SOURCE
http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/2009/06/25/did-obama-say-we-should-kill-the-old-folks-to-save-money-last-night/
VI. Thou shalt not kill, unless you have an unwanted, unborn baby. For it would be an abomination to punish your daughter with a baby. SOURCE
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12231
VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery if you are conservative or a Republican. Liberals and Democrats are hereby forgiven for all of their infidelity and immorality, but the careers of conservatives will be forever destroyed. SOURCE http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=593232
VIII. Thou shalt not steal, until you've been elected to public office. Only then is it acceptable to take money from hard-working, successful citizens and give it to those who do not work, illegal immigrants, or those who do not have the motivation to better their own lives. SOURCE
http://www.americanvision.org/article/obama-hood-and-obamanomics-/
IX. Thou shalt not discriminate against thy neighbor unless they are conservative, Caucasian, or Christian. SOURCE http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2009/04/according-to-janet-napolitano-you-are-a-right-wing-extremist-if-you/
X. Thou shalt not covet because it is simply unnecessary. I will place such a heavy tax burden on those that have achieved the American Dream that, by the end of my term as President, nobody will have any wealth or material goods left for you to covet. SOURCE
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/obama_ceo_pay_and_the_politics.html
By: Patriot Update
© 2009 The Patriot Update. Feel free to circulate this article, but please link / give credit to The Patriot Update.
After observing Obama on the campaign trail and during his first six months in office, we have concluded that our President lives and governs according to his own set of “Ten Commandments.” They’re certainly NOT the Ten Commandments you learned in Sunday School. In fact, many are the direct opposite! To prove that our conclusions are correct, you will find a link to source documentation for each commandment on the Patriot Update web site.
I. Thou shalt have no God in America, except for me. For we are no longer a Christian nation and, after all, I am the chosen One. (And like God, I do not have a birth certificate.) SOURCE
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/204016.aspx
II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it is my face carved on Mt. Rushmore. SOURCE
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/obama-eyeing-sp.html
III. Thou shalt not utter my middle name in vain (or in public). Only I can say Barack Hussein Obama. SOURCE http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1718255,00.html
IV. Remember tax day, April 15th, to keep it holy. SOURCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBAsBCVOOu8
V. Honour thy father and thy mother until they are too old and sick to care for. They will cost our public-funded health-care system too much money. SOURCE
http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/2009/06/25/did-obama-say-we-should-kill-the-old-folks-to-save-money-last-night/
VI. Thou shalt not kill, unless you have an unwanted, unborn baby. For it would be an abomination to punish your daughter with a baby. SOURCE
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12231
VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery if you are conservative or a Republican. Liberals and Democrats are hereby forgiven for all of their infidelity and immorality, but the careers of conservatives will be forever destroyed. SOURCE http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=593232
VIII. Thou shalt not steal, until you've been elected to public office. Only then is it acceptable to take money from hard-working, successful citizens and give it to those who do not work, illegal immigrants, or those who do not have the motivation to better their own lives. SOURCE
http://www.americanvision.org/article/obama-hood-and-obamanomics-/
IX. Thou shalt not discriminate against thy neighbor unless they are conservative, Caucasian, or Christian. SOURCE http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2009/04/according-to-janet-napolitano-you-are-a-right-wing-extremist-if-you/
X. Thou shalt not covet because it is simply unnecessary. I will place such a heavy tax burden on those that have achieved the American Dream that, by the end of my term as President, nobody will have any wealth or material goods left for you to covet. SOURCE
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/obama_ceo_pay_and_the_politics.html
Report Illegal Aliens!
ReportIllegals.com
ReportIllegals.com provides a quick and anonymous way to report illegal aliens (undocumented immigrants) and illegal employers to the proper U.S. government agencies. http://www.reportillegals.com/
ReportIllegals.com provides a quick and anonymous way to report illegal aliens (undocumented immigrants) and illegal employers to the proper U.S. government agencies. http://www.reportillegals.com/
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Bernanke Urges Congress to Renew Bush Tax Cuts
Bernanke Urges Congress to Renew Bush Tax Cuts
Thursday, 22 Jul 2010 08:13 PM By: David A. Patten
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke dropped a major bombshell on Democrats seeking massive new revenues to narrow the deficit, announcing Thursday that he favors preserving the Bush administration tax cuts to help a faltering U.S. economy.
“In the short term I would believe that we ought to maintain a reasonable degree of fiscal support, stimulus for the economy,” Bernanke told the House Financial Services Committee. “There are many ways to do that. This is one way.”
Bernanke's statement put him directly at odds with White House officials and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who favor raising taxes on wealthy Americans by letting the tax cuts the Bush administration passed in 2001 and 2003 expire.
Bernanke's views also conflict with those of his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, who told Bloomberg TV's Judy Woodruff just last week that lawmakers should allow the Bush tax cuts to expire as scheduled at year's end.
Greenspan conceded, however, that doing so probably would slow growth.
Bernanke emphasized the importance of giving the economy a boost. But he also told the House committee that dealing with the deficit, which has ballooned during the Obama administration, remains a major consideration.
“We need to be taking steps to reassure the American people and the markets that our fiscal situation is going to be well controlled,” Bernanke said. “That means that, if you extend the tax cuts, you need to find other ways to offset them.”
Bernanke's comments came on a day when the Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped 201 points, in part on reports of strong corporate profits.
But the markets were also encouraged by the news that two more Senate Democrats — Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb. — are joining the growing number of voices urging an extension of the tax breaks enacted under the Bush administration to stave off the possibility of a double-dip recession.
Fox News business editor and anchor Neil Cavuto said the market's reaction was telling. "Don't you find it a tad odd that, among the many reasons the Dow soared more than 200 points today, was this talk that some Democrats want to delay the tax hike for the rich. Telling, don't you think? Government stands down," he said, "stocks shoot up."
In supporting the tax-cut extension, Conrad and Nelson allied themselves with fellow Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, who made similar remarks in support for keeping the tax breaks last week.
"As a general rule, you don't want to be cutting spending or raising taxes in the midst of a downturn," Conrad said. "We know that very soon we've got to pivot and focus on the deficit. But it probably is too soon to cut spending or raise taxes."
The Wall Street Journal reported that at least six Democrats in the House also have come out in favor of delaying the scheduled tax increases for those earning $250,000 or more annually — a demographic that consists of many small business owners who play a key role in job creation.
Bernanke's support for lower taxes was widely seen as evidence of Fed nervousness about recent signs of growing economic weakness.
The Labor Department reported a spike in claims for state unemployment benefits Thursday, to more than 464,000 last week. In what may have been the understatement of the day, Bernanke's colleague, New York Fed President William Dudley, told the panel that the “road to recovery is turning out to be a bit bumpy.”
Bernanke's support for extended tax cuts also is being seen as a tacit admission that simply lowering interest rates and increasing the money supply may not be enough.
“There is an implicit message from various Fed speakers that monetary policy is less useful now than most times,” Tom Gallagher, senior managing director at International Strategy & Investment Group in Washington, told Bloomberg. “It is a fair inference that Bernanke thinks it would be good to avoid fiscal restraint rather than have more monetary ease if the outlook for 2011 is poor.”
Although Bernanke continues to maintain that there's still plenty the Fed can do to spur the economy, many analysts worry that with interest rates so low the Fed's toolbox of resources has been spent.
So far, Bernanke continues to say no second recession will occur. But he left little doubt Thursday that the central bank intends to respond if necessary to stave another downturn.
"We are ready and will act if the economy does not continue to improve, if we don't see the kind of improvements in the labor market that we are hoping for and expecting," he told the committee.
Fiscal conservatives used the hearing to continue to lambast the Obama administration for its management of the economy. Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., blasted "the spendthrift, anti-business and anti-job economic policies of this administration," adding that "the staggering amount of money that we're spending on government programs is jeopardizing both our short- and long-term economic future."
Allowing the tax breaks to expire would push the top individual tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. Taxes on capital gains and dividends would go up as well.
Republicans have been arguing for months that raising taxes amidst a struggling economy wracked by high unemployment would be a major mistake.
Congress has adopted budget rules that would allow lawmakers to extend tax cuts on households earning less than $250,000 a year, which both Democrats and Republicans favor. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated those reductions would cost federal coffers about $255 billion per year. There is no such rule in place for tax breaks to those making more than $250,000 a year. Those extensions would cost another $115 billion, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. Other sources estimate the gap at closer to $55 billion.
Despite Bernanke's testimony, there has been no indication the president is reconsidering campaign pledge to do away with the Bush tax cuts.
In his Rose Garden speech Monday in support of extending unemployment benefits, Obama attacked Republicans who "didn't have any problems spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans."
There also appears to be a concerted effort among Democratic leaders to stave off any momentum for keeping the tax breaks.
White House economic adviser Larry Summers voiced his opposition to any such moveon Wednesday . On Thursday, just hours before Bernanke's scheduled testimony, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told reporters: "It is appropriate to allow tax cuts for the wealthy to expire."
And Speaker Pelosi adamantly weighed in against Bernanke's proposal as well.
“My stance is that the Bush-era tax cuts contributed to the deficit, did not create any jobs, and that they should be repealed,” said the California Democrat.
After the hearing, George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said he likes Bernanke's proposal, but doesn't know whether it will persuade his colleagues enough to change their minds.
Bloomberg News asked House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., for his reaction.
"In an ideal world, I agree with him," Hoyer said.
Bernanke made it clear that he shares the No. 1 worry of those members of Congress who will find their names on a ballot this November, saying, "I absolutely agree with you that unemployment is the most important problem that we have right now."
Thursday, 22 Jul 2010 08:13 PM By: David A. Patten
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke dropped a major bombshell on Democrats seeking massive new revenues to narrow the deficit, announcing Thursday that he favors preserving the Bush administration tax cuts to help a faltering U.S. economy.
“In the short term I would believe that we ought to maintain a reasonable degree of fiscal support, stimulus for the economy,” Bernanke told the House Financial Services Committee. “There are many ways to do that. This is one way.”
Bernanke's statement put him directly at odds with White House officials and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who favor raising taxes on wealthy Americans by letting the tax cuts the Bush administration passed in 2001 and 2003 expire.
Bernanke's views also conflict with those of his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, who told Bloomberg TV's Judy Woodruff just last week that lawmakers should allow the Bush tax cuts to expire as scheduled at year's end.
Greenspan conceded, however, that doing so probably would slow growth.
Bernanke emphasized the importance of giving the economy a boost. But he also told the House committee that dealing with the deficit, which has ballooned during the Obama administration, remains a major consideration.
“We need to be taking steps to reassure the American people and the markets that our fiscal situation is going to be well controlled,” Bernanke said. “That means that, if you extend the tax cuts, you need to find other ways to offset them.”
Bernanke's comments came on a day when the Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped 201 points, in part on reports of strong corporate profits.
But the markets were also encouraged by the news that two more Senate Democrats — Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb. — are joining the growing number of voices urging an extension of the tax breaks enacted under the Bush administration to stave off the possibility of a double-dip recession.
Fox News business editor and anchor Neil Cavuto said the market's reaction was telling. "Don't you find it a tad odd that, among the many reasons the Dow soared more than 200 points today, was this talk that some Democrats want to delay the tax hike for the rich. Telling, don't you think? Government stands down," he said, "stocks shoot up."
In supporting the tax-cut extension, Conrad and Nelson allied themselves with fellow Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, who made similar remarks in support for keeping the tax breaks last week.
"As a general rule, you don't want to be cutting spending or raising taxes in the midst of a downturn," Conrad said. "We know that very soon we've got to pivot and focus on the deficit. But it probably is too soon to cut spending or raise taxes."
The Wall Street Journal reported that at least six Democrats in the House also have come out in favor of delaying the scheduled tax increases for those earning $250,000 or more annually — a demographic that consists of many small business owners who play a key role in job creation.
Bernanke's support for lower taxes was widely seen as evidence of Fed nervousness about recent signs of growing economic weakness.
The Labor Department reported a spike in claims for state unemployment benefits Thursday, to more than 464,000 last week. In what may have been the understatement of the day, Bernanke's colleague, New York Fed President William Dudley, told the panel that the “road to recovery is turning out to be a bit bumpy.”
Bernanke's support for extended tax cuts also is being seen as a tacit admission that simply lowering interest rates and increasing the money supply may not be enough.
“There is an implicit message from various Fed speakers that monetary policy is less useful now than most times,” Tom Gallagher, senior managing director at International Strategy & Investment Group in Washington, told Bloomberg. “It is a fair inference that Bernanke thinks it would be good to avoid fiscal restraint rather than have more monetary ease if the outlook for 2011 is poor.”
Although Bernanke continues to maintain that there's still plenty the Fed can do to spur the economy, many analysts worry that with interest rates so low the Fed's toolbox of resources has been spent.
So far, Bernanke continues to say no second recession will occur. But he left little doubt Thursday that the central bank intends to respond if necessary to stave another downturn.
"We are ready and will act if the economy does not continue to improve, if we don't see the kind of improvements in the labor market that we are hoping for and expecting," he told the committee.
Fiscal conservatives used the hearing to continue to lambast the Obama administration for its management of the economy. Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., blasted "the spendthrift, anti-business and anti-job economic policies of this administration," adding that "the staggering amount of money that we're spending on government programs is jeopardizing both our short- and long-term economic future."
Allowing the tax breaks to expire would push the top individual tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. Taxes on capital gains and dividends would go up as well.
Republicans have been arguing for months that raising taxes amidst a struggling economy wracked by high unemployment would be a major mistake.
Congress has adopted budget rules that would allow lawmakers to extend tax cuts on households earning less than $250,000 a year, which both Democrats and Republicans favor. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated those reductions would cost federal coffers about $255 billion per year. There is no such rule in place for tax breaks to those making more than $250,000 a year. Those extensions would cost another $115 billion, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. Other sources estimate the gap at closer to $55 billion.
Despite Bernanke's testimony, there has been no indication the president is reconsidering campaign pledge to do away with the Bush tax cuts.
In his Rose Garden speech Monday in support of extending unemployment benefits, Obama attacked Republicans who "didn't have any problems spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans."
There also appears to be a concerted effort among Democratic leaders to stave off any momentum for keeping the tax breaks.
White House economic adviser Larry Summers voiced his opposition to any such moveon Wednesday . On Thursday, just hours before Bernanke's scheduled testimony, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told reporters: "It is appropriate to allow tax cuts for the wealthy to expire."
And Speaker Pelosi adamantly weighed in against Bernanke's proposal as well.
“My stance is that the Bush-era tax cuts contributed to the deficit, did not create any jobs, and that they should be repealed,” said the California Democrat.
After the hearing, George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said he likes Bernanke's proposal, but doesn't know whether it will persuade his colleagues enough to change their minds.
Bloomberg News asked House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., for his reaction.
"In an ideal world, I agree with him," Hoyer said.
Bernanke made it clear that he shares the No. 1 worry of those members of Congress who will find their names on a ballot this November, saying, "I absolutely agree with you that unemployment is the most important problem that we have right now."
Dismantling America
Thomas Sowell: Dismantling America
Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?
Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers-- that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?
Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?
Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?
Does any of this sound like America?
How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.
How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.
We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.
How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.
Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country.
Jeremiah Wright said it with words: "God damn America!" Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.
Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.
Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn't know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?
Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government-- people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America's influence in the world.
Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration's enemies list.
Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year-- each bill more than a thousand pages long-- too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question-- and the biggest question for this generation.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/10/27/dismantling_america/page/full#
Thomas Sowell's Biography Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
©Creators Syndicate
Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?
Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers-- that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?
Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?
Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?
Does any of this sound like America?
How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.
How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.
We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.
How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.
Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country.
Jeremiah Wright said it with words: "God damn America!" Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.
Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.
Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn't know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?
Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government-- people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America's influence in the world.
Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration's enemies list.
Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year-- each bill more than a thousand pages long-- too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question-- and the biggest question for this generation.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/10/27/dismantling_america/page/full#
Thomas Sowell's Biography Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
©Creators Syndicate
Friday, July 23, 2010
'Lose Christianity or face expulsion'
BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A lawsuit against Augusta State University in Georgia alleges school officials essentially gave a graduate student in counseling the choice of giving up her Christian beliefs or being expelled from the graduate program.
School officials Mary Jane Anderson-Wiley, Paulette Schenck and Richard Deaner demanded student Jen Keeton, 24, go through a "remediation" program after she asserted homosexuality is a behavioral choice, not a "state of being" as a professor said, according to the complaint.
Also named as defendants in the case that developed in May and June are other administrators and the university system's board of regents.
The remediation program was to include "sensitivity training" on homosexual issues, additional outside study on literature promoting homosexuality and the plan that she attend a "gay pride parade" and report on it.
Where has higher education in America gone? Find out in "Freefall of the American University"
The lawsuit, filed by attorneys working with the Alliance Defense Fund, asserted the school cannot violate the Constitution by demanding that a person's beliefs be changed.
"ASU faculty have promised to expel Miss Keeton from the graduate Counselor Education program, not because of poor academic showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity," the law firm explained.
School spokeswoman Kathy Schose today declined to address the allegations in the case but agreed to discuss the counselor teaching program in general.
She cited the American Counseling Association's code of ethics and said students would be required to adopt its provisions.
"There is a code of ethics that govern counselors," she said. "They have to abide by the code of the profession."
Ethics codes generally govern behavior, and Schose denied the school was attempting to alter any student's beliefs or moral values.
But the lawsuit specifically charges the faculty members targeted Keeton's biblically based belief system and values, not her behavior regarding the treatment of any clients, which had not yet happened.
"Schenck told Miss Keeton that it was unethical for her to believe that her convictions should also be shared by other persons. … Schenck explained that while Miss Keeton was free to have points of view about how she personally should conduct and define herself, she may not believe that others should adopt the standards she personally is convinced are true," the lawsuit said.
Anderson-Wiley confirmed that Miss Keeton will not be able to successfully complete the remediation plan and thus complete the ASU counseling program unless she commits to affirming the propriety of gay and lesbian relationships if such an opportunity arises in her future professional efforts," it continued.
ADF Senior Counsel David French contended a public university student "shouldn't be threatened with expulsion for being a Christian and refusing to publicly renounce her faith, but that's exactly what's happening here."
"Simply put, the university is imposing thought reform," he said. "Abandoning one's own religious beliefs should not be a precondition at a public university for obtaining a degree. This type of leftist zero-tolerance policy is in place at far too many universities, and it must stop. Jennifer's only crime was to have the beliefs that she does."
Keeton's own e-mail response to the faculty members who allegedly were pressuring her to adopt a pro-homosexual belief system defines the dispute.
"At times you said that I must alter my beliefs because they are unethical. … other times you said that I can keep my beliefs so long as they are only personal and I don't believe that anyone else should believe like me. But that is just another way of saying that I must alter my beliefs, because my beliefs are about absolute truth. ….. in order to finish the counseling program you are requiring me to alter my objective beliefs and also to commit now that if I ever may have a client who wants me to affirm their decision to have an abortion or engage in gay, lesbian, or transgender behavior, I will do that. I can't alter my biblical beliefs, and I will not affirm the morality of those behaviors in a counseling situation," she wrote.
Faculty members had demanded she "attend at least three workshops … which emphasize … diversity training sensitive toward working with GLBTQ populations." They also wanted her to "develop" her knowledge of homosexuality by reading 10 articles and increasing her exposure to homosexuals and lesbians by attending "the Gay Pride Parade."
According to the complaint documentation, which also seeks a preliminary injunction in the case, Keeton asked Anderson-Wiley how her Christian convictions are any less acceptable than those of a Buddhist or Muslim student. Anderson-Wiley responded, "Christians see this population as sinners."
The complaint alleges Anderson-Wiley specifically told Keeton she was being asked to alter some of her beliefs. The "remediation" program included a statement that Keeton would be dismissed from the program if she chose not to comply, the lawsuit said.
"Unless and until defendant's unconstitutional speech-regulating policies and threatened … actions against Miss Keeton are enjoined, Miss Keeton will suffer and continue to suffer irreparable injury to her constitutional rights," the lawsuit said.
Among the alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments are viewpoint discrimination, compelled speech, equal protection and freedom of speech, it said.
"By conditioning Miss Keeton's continued enrollment in the ASU school counselor masters degree program on her waiver of rights to speech and free exercise of religion … by requiring that she alter her beliefs and speech, and that she … commit to affirm in a hypothetical future context the ethical propriety of transgender and homosexual identification and behavior by others, as well as other values and behaviors she now disapproves, and which violate her religion convictions, defendants have imposed an unconstitutional condition on Miss Keeton," the complaint alleges.
"The First Amendment never permits the government to penalize beliefs in this manner," the complaint said.
The ADF said it also is litigating a case involving a Georgia counselor fired by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention because she would not agree to affirm homosexual behavior. While an earlier similar case at Missouri State has been resolved, there is another in which Eastern Michigan University is defendant on similar allegations.
In the Missouri State case, a social work professor, Frank Kauffman, eventually was placed on leave as part of a settlement of the lawsuit brought on behalf of student Emily Brooker. The student had refused his assignment to lobby on behalf of homosexual adoptions because it violated her religious beliefs. She then was brought up on ethics charges in the school.
The settlement also included monetary damages and the removal of the charges against her from her record. The school's own commissioned conclusion in the case found "many students and faculty stated a fear of voicing differing opinions. … In fact, 'bullying' was used by both students and faculty to characterize specific faculty."
In the still-pending case involving Eastern Michigan, lawmakers there considered calling top school officials on the carpet after they expelled from a counseling program a Christian student who refused to argue in support of the homosexual lifestyle.
As WND reported, trouble began for master's program student Julea Ward when she refused to accept a client whose issue concerned a homosexual relationship.
The school expelled her from the counseling program March 12, 2009, for refusing to abrogate her own personal religious beliefs and support the homosexual lifestyle.
Since then, Ward has brought a lawsuit through the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom.
Members of the Michigan Senate shortly later approved legislation that includes a provision calling on university counseling programs to evaluate and affirm how they can accommodate the religious beliefs of students.
State Rep. Tom McMillin told WND at the time the case was "extremely alarming," and there was growing support for an effort to penalize universities that don't accommodate religious beliefs.
"This is a state-taxpayer-supported university," he said. "She's got a court case. Hopefully that will be resolved."
In the case, the judge refused to dismiss the complaint, determining there were "genuine issues of material fact" about the school's "true motivations" for dismissing Ward from the program. Further, the judge concluded, the student's actions to avoid in advance a counseling session for which she had reservations probably followed professional ethical guidelines.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=182441
'Lose Christianity or face expulsion' -- Georgia student told to read 'gay' lit, attend 'pride parade,' change beliefs
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A lawsuit against Augusta State University in Georgia alleges school officials essentially gave a graduate student in counseling the choice of giving up her Christian beliefs or being expelled from the graduate program.
School officials Mary Jane Anderson-Wiley, Paulette Schenck and Richard Deaner demanded student Jen Keeton, 24, go through a "remediation" program after she asserted homosexuality is a behavioral choice, not a "state of being" as a professor said, according to the complaint.
Also named as defendants in the case that developed in May and June are other administrators and the university system's board of regents.
The remediation program was to include "sensitivity training" on homosexual issues, additional outside study on literature promoting homosexuality and the plan that she attend a "gay pride parade" and report on it.
Where has higher education in America gone? Find out in "Freefall of the American University"
The lawsuit, filed by attorneys working with the Alliance Defense Fund, asserted the school cannot violate the Constitution by demanding that a person's beliefs be changed.
"ASU faculty have promised to expel Miss Keeton from the graduate Counselor Education program, not because of poor academic showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity," the law firm explained.
School spokeswoman Kathy Schose today declined to address the allegations in the case but agreed to discuss the counselor teaching program in general.
She cited the American Counseling Association's code of ethics and said students would be required to adopt its provisions.
"There is a code of ethics that govern counselors," she said. "They have to abide by the code of the profession."
Ethics codes generally govern behavior, and Schose denied the school was attempting to alter any student's beliefs or moral values.
But the lawsuit specifically charges the faculty members targeted Keeton's biblically based belief system and values, not her behavior regarding the treatment of any clients, which had not yet happened.
"Schenck told Miss Keeton that it was unethical for her to believe that her convictions should also be shared by other persons. … Schenck explained that while Miss Keeton was free to have points of view about how she personally should conduct and define herself, she may not believe that others should adopt the standards she personally is convinced are true," the lawsuit said.
Anderson-Wiley confirmed that Miss Keeton will not be able to successfully complete the remediation plan and thus complete the ASU counseling program unless she commits to affirming the propriety of gay and lesbian relationships if such an opportunity arises in her future professional efforts," it continued.
ADF Senior Counsel David French contended a public university student "shouldn't be threatened with expulsion for being a Christian and refusing to publicly renounce her faith, but that's exactly what's happening here."
"Simply put, the university is imposing thought reform," he said. "Abandoning one's own religious beliefs should not be a precondition at a public university for obtaining a degree. This type of leftist zero-tolerance policy is in place at far too many universities, and it must stop. Jennifer's only crime was to have the beliefs that she does."
Keeton's own e-mail response to the faculty members who allegedly were pressuring her to adopt a pro-homosexual belief system defines the dispute.
"At times you said that I must alter my beliefs because they are unethical. … other times you said that I can keep my beliefs so long as they are only personal and I don't believe that anyone else should believe like me. But that is just another way of saying that I must alter my beliefs, because my beliefs are about absolute truth. ….. in order to finish the counseling program you are requiring me to alter my objective beliefs and also to commit now that if I ever may have a client who wants me to affirm their decision to have an abortion or engage in gay, lesbian, or transgender behavior, I will do that. I can't alter my biblical beliefs, and I will not affirm the morality of those behaviors in a counseling situation," she wrote.
Faculty members had demanded she "attend at least three workshops … which emphasize … diversity training sensitive toward working with GLBTQ populations." They also wanted her to "develop" her knowledge of homosexuality by reading 10 articles and increasing her exposure to homosexuals and lesbians by attending "the Gay Pride Parade."
According to the complaint documentation, which also seeks a preliminary injunction in the case, Keeton asked Anderson-Wiley how her Christian convictions are any less acceptable than those of a Buddhist or Muslim student. Anderson-Wiley responded, "Christians see this population as sinners."
The complaint alleges Anderson-Wiley specifically told Keeton she was being asked to alter some of her beliefs. The "remediation" program included a statement that Keeton would be dismissed from the program if she chose not to comply, the lawsuit said.
"Unless and until defendant's unconstitutional speech-regulating policies and threatened … actions against Miss Keeton are enjoined, Miss Keeton will suffer and continue to suffer irreparable injury to her constitutional rights," the lawsuit said.
Among the alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments are viewpoint discrimination, compelled speech, equal protection and freedom of speech, it said.
"By conditioning Miss Keeton's continued enrollment in the ASU school counselor masters degree program on her waiver of rights to speech and free exercise of religion … by requiring that she alter her beliefs and speech, and that she … commit to affirm in a hypothetical future context the ethical propriety of transgender and homosexual identification and behavior by others, as well as other values and behaviors she now disapproves, and which violate her religion convictions, defendants have imposed an unconstitutional condition on Miss Keeton," the complaint alleges.
"The First Amendment never permits the government to penalize beliefs in this manner," the complaint said.
The ADF said it also is litigating a case involving a Georgia counselor fired by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention because she would not agree to affirm homosexual behavior. While an earlier similar case at Missouri State has been resolved, there is another in which Eastern Michigan University is defendant on similar allegations.
In the Missouri State case, a social work professor, Frank Kauffman, eventually was placed on leave as part of a settlement of the lawsuit brought on behalf of student Emily Brooker. The student had refused his assignment to lobby on behalf of homosexual adoptions because it violated her religious beliefs. She then was brought up on ethics charges in the school.
The settlement also included monetary damages and the removal of the charges against her from her record. The school's own commissioned conclusion in the case found "many students and faculty stated a fear of voicing differing opinions. … In fact, 'bullying' was used by both students and faculty to characterize specific faculty."
In the still-pending case involving Eastern Michigan, lawmakers there considered calling top school officials on the carpet after they expelled from a counseling program a Christian student who refused to argue in support of the homosexual lifestyle.
As WND reported, trouble began for master's program student Julea Ward when she refused to accept a client whose issue concerned a homosexual relationship.
The school expelled her from the counseling program March 12, 2009, for refusing to abrogate her own personal religious beliefs and support the homosexual lifestyle.
Since then, Ward has brought a lawsuit through the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom.
Members of the Michigan Senate shortly later approved legislation that includes a provision calling on university counseling programs to evaluate and affirm how they can accommodate the religious beliefs of students.
State Rep. Tom McMillin told WND at the time the case was "extremely alarming," and there was growing support for an effort to penalize universities that don't accommodate religious beliefs.
"This is a state-taxpayer-supported university," he said. "She's got a court case. Hopefully that will be resolved."
In the case, the judge refused to dismiss the complaint, determining there were "genuine issues of material fact" about the school's "true motivations" for dismissing Ward from the program. Further, the judge concluded, the student's actions to avoid in advance a counseling session for which she had reservations probably followed professional ethical guidelines.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=182441
NC Session Offers Disappointment, Not Much Surprise
John Hood's Daily Journal: Session Offers Disappointment, Not Much Surprise
By Becki Gray, July 23, 2010
This week’s “Daily Journal” guest columnist is Becki Gray, Vice President for Outreach at the John Locke Foundation.
RALEIGH — During the recent legislative session, I relied heavily, as you have, on Carolina Journal, The Locker Room, and JLF policy reports and briefings to understand the debate and decisions made by North Carolina’s 50 senators and 120 House members.
In addition, in my role as the Locke legislative liaison, I spent most of my time since May 12 at the General Assembly, walking the 206,000 square feet of the Jones Street complex, monitoring meetings of the 67 legislative committees, talking with lawmakers and many of the 500 legislative staffers, and attending session on the 35 days they met (at a cost to the taxpayer of $62,500 per day, or $2,187,500 for the short session), along with 734 registered lobbyists and 93 government agency liaisons. Since the principal clerks dropped hankies and adjourned sine die at 5:30 a.m. Saturday, July 11, I’ve had time to reflect on the 2010 short session, the 876 bills considered, and the 127 new laws passed.
And here’s what I think…
I think government is too big.
In the last 15 years, North Carolina’s budget has more than doubled while population has grown only 28 percent. There are more than 661,000 current and retired state employees, all eligible for state-sponsored health insurance and pensions, both grossly underfunded. Instead of shoring up the plans, legislators added 863 new government jobs this year. Medicaid is the fastest-growing segment of state government and now consumes 16 percent of the budget. Almost 20 percent of North Carolinians are eligible to receive Medicaid. Estimates show government agencies will seek next year at least $3 billion more than the state has available from recurring taxes and fees. When government becomes bigger than the sources that pay for it, the whole system becomes unsustainable.
I think government costs too much.
This year’s final budget topped out at $20.6 billion. General Fund spending increased by $200 million when you count the $1.6 billion in federal stimulus money. (Why wouldn’t you count it?) Instead of lowering the corporate tax rate for all businesses, legislators authorized more than $350 million in new corporate welfare for targeted businesses, including a $1 million tax break for big name movie stars. There are $1.45 billion in new fees and taxes this year. Our state debt is more than $6 billion, over a third of it non-voter-approved, and service on that debt now eats up 4.25 percent of the state budget.
I think government should mind its own business.
In the ultimate nanny-state legislation, the honorables decided kids are too fat. Thus government should regulate the amount of juice kids in day care should be served and whether it should be in a cup or a bottle. The honorables wanted to outlaw 2 percent milk for children over 2 years old, as well as chocolate milk and sodas. A watered-down version of these ideas passed. Now they are guidelines, rather than mandates. But the point was made — government knows better than parents what kids should eat.
They banned the use of plastic bags in all stores in several coastal counties. They tried to outlaw country stores from making and selling peanut butter and banana sandwiches and pimento cheese sandwiches. They continued to cap the number of charter schools at 100, limiting education choices for students and their families. In spite of concerns over privacy issues, arrests for most felonies will warrant DNA collection.
Only after a very loud public outcry was a plan to use taxpayer money to fund more political campaigns for Council of State and municipal offices rejected. A two-year fight continued to wrestle a federal license for hydroelectric plants away from the company that built and owns them. Cities still have the ability to annex property owners against their will, and efforts to protect property owners constitutionally from government land grabs through eminent domain were dropped.
I think government is not being entirely honest.
Aside from the budget, ethics reform was the must-do issue of the short session. Lawmakers argued long into the final hours to pass a bill that claims to clean up bad behavior. It turns out that the final bill regulates lobbyists, contributors, and other elected officials; makes public records more accessible; and offers little additional oversight of lawmakers themselves. Efforts to expand the cooling-off period longer than six months for lawmakers who want to become lobbyists were unsuccessful, and a key provision to eliminate pay for play was dropped at the last minute.
They claimed to help small businesses while maintaining a high marginal income tax rate that affects most businesses, along with a high corporate tax rate. They offered minimal tax breaks that may sound good, but affect few businesses and actually help even fewer.
They preached open meetings, transparency, and fairness while backroom deals continued. Lengthy, complicated bills were changed with little notice and even less time to review. A budget technical corrections bill that did much more than make technical corrections was introduced in the final hours of the session with virtually no time for review. New provisions that were not included in either version of the House or Senate budgets showed up in the final budget conference report — a clear violation of legislative rules. Most bills considered were sponsored by the majority party, and most of the minority party’s bills were never heard.
Legislators loved gambling when the lottery passed in 2005 (with the tiebreaking vote cast by then Lt Gov. Bev Perdue), but they hate it now that video poker and sweepstakes have proliferated. Despite claims of the potential of 10,000 lost jobs and a $576 million revenue loss, video sweepstakes were banned. Thirty-one legislators who voted no for privately operated gambling voted yes for state-run gambling in 2005. They promised lottery proceeds would never supplant existing education spending and then passed a budget that uses lottery money to fund teacher salaries.
I think government is headed in the wrong direction.
Next year the $1.3 billion state tax increase sunsets, and the $1.6 billion federal stimulus money runs out, creating a $3 billion shortfall. The state treasurer has advised that the debt limit has been reached and that pension contributions will require $1.2 billion next year. The reserve accounts have all been drained. Lawmakers took more than $30 million out to balance this year’s budget with plans to take $152 million more if Congress doesn’t come up with FMAP money. North Carolina’s economic recovery is expected to be slow. The years of spend-and-tax ratcheting, dependence on one-time revenue to fill recurring obligations, and offering short-term solutions for long-term problems finally have caught up with us.
I think we need to change the way we look at government.
The years of excessive spending, government growth, infringement on rights, nanny-state regulation, and hollow claims of responsible governing continued during the short session and have left us with an unsustainable system. North Carolina’s tax system, which was established in the 1930s, needs to be updated. It should be fair, revenue-neutral, rooted in a respect for liberty, and dedicated to freedom of choice. Government has a role, and it’s defined in the Constitution. Growth in government should be tied to population growth. People should be given ample freedoms to make choices without government interference, and they should be held accountable for those choices, as should elected officials.
The 2010 short session was a disappointment, but not a surprise.
I think we can do better.
©2010 John Locke Foundation, 200 West Morgan St., Raleigh, NC 27601, Voice: (919) 828-3876
DesignHammer, a Raleigh, Durham web design company ~ Building Smarter websites
http://www.carolinajournal.com/jhdailyjournal/index.html
By Becki Gray, July 23, 2010
This week’s “Daily Journal” guest columnist is Becki Gray, Vice President for Outreach at the John Locke Foundation.
RALEIGH — During the recent legislative session, I relied heavily, as you have, on Carolina Journal, The Locker Room, and JLF policy reports and briefings to understand the debate and decisions made by North Carolina’s 50 senators and 120 House members.
In addition, in my role as the Locke legislative liaison, I spent most of my time since May 12 at the General Assembly, walking the 206,000 square feet of the Jones Street complex, monitoring meetings of the 67 legislative committees, talking with lawmakers and many of the 500 legislative staffers, and attending session on the 35 days they met (at a cost to the taxpayer of $62,500 per day, or $2,187,500 for the short session), along with 734 registered lobbyists and 93 government agency liaisons. Since the principal clerks dropped hankies and adjourned sine die at 5:30 a.m. Saturday, July 11, I’ve had time to reflect on the 2010 short session, the 876 bills considered, and the 127 new laws passed.
And here’s what I think…
I think government is too big.
In the last 15 years, North Carolina’s budget has more than doubled while population has grown only 28 percent. There are more than 661,000 current and retired state employees, all eligible for state-sponsored health insurance and pensions, both grossly underfunded. Instead of shoring up the plans, legislators added 863 new government jobs this year. Medicaid is the fastest-growing segment of state government and now consumes 16 percent of the budget. Almost 20 percent of North Carolinians are eligible to receive Medicaid. Estimates show government agencies will seek next year at least $3 billion more than the state has available from recurring taxes and fees. When government becomes bigger than the sources that pay for it, the whole system becomes unsustainable.
I think government costs too much.
This year’s final budget topped out at $20.6 billion. General Fund spending increased by $200 million when you count the $1.6 billion in federal stimulus money. (Why wouldn’t you count it?) Instead of lowering the corporate tax rate for all businesses, legislators authorized more than $350 million in new corporate welfare for targeted businesses, including a $1 million tax break for big name movie stars. There are $1.45 billion in new fees and taxes this year. Our state debt is more than $6 billion, over a third of it non-voter-approved, and service on that debt now eats up 4.25 percent of the state budget.
I think government should mind its own business.
In the ultimate nanny-state legislation, the honorables decided kids are too fat. Thus government should regulate the amount of juice kids in day care should be served and whether it should be in a cup or a bottle. The honorables wanted to outlaw 2 percent milk for children over 2 years old, as well as chocolate milk and sodas. A watered-down version of these ideas passed. Now they are guidelines, rather than mandates. But the point was made — government knows better than parents what kids should eat.
They banned the use of plastic bags in all stores in several coastal counties. They tried to outlaw country stores from making and selling peanut butter and banana sandwiches and pimento cheese sandwiches. They continued to cap the number of charter schools at 100, limiting education choices for students and their families. In spite of concerns over privacy issues, arrests for most felonies will warrant DNA collection.
Only after a very loud public outcry was a plan to use taxpayer money to fund more political campaigns for Council of State and municipal offices rejected. A two-year fight continued to wrestle a federal license for hydroelectric plants away from the company that built and owns them. Cities still have the ability to annex property owners against their will, and efforts to protect property owners constitutionally from government land grabs through eminent domain were dropped.
I think government is not being entirely honest.
Aside from the budget, ethics reform was the must-do issue of the short session. Lawmakers argued long into the final hours to pass a bill that claims to clean up bad behavior. It turns out that the final bill regulates lobbyists, contributors, and other elected officials; makes public records more accessible; and offers little additional oversight of lawmakers themselves. Efforts to expand the cooling-off period longer than six months for lawmakers who want to become lobbyists were unsuccessful, and a key provision to eliminate pay for play was dropped at the last minute.
They claimed to help small businesses while maintaining a high marginal income tax rate that affects most businesses, along with a high corporate tax rate. They offered minimal tax breaks that may sound good, but affect few businesses and actually help even fewer.
They preached open meetings, transparency, and fairness while backroom deals continued. Lengthy, complicated bills were changed with little notice and even less time to review. A budget technical corrections bill that did much more than make technical corrections was introduced in the final hours of the session with virtually no time for review. New provisions that were not included in either version of the House or Senate budgets showed up in the final budget conference report — a clear violation of legislative rules. Most bills considered were sponsored by the majority party, and most of the minority party’s bills were never heard.
Legislators loved gambling when the lottery passed in 2005 (with the tiebreaking vote cast by then Lt Gov. Bev Perdue), but they hate it now that video poker and sweepstakes have proliferated. Despite claims of the potential of 10,000 lost jobs and a $576 million revenue loss, video sweepstakes were banned. Thirty-one legislators who voted no for privately operated gambling voted yes for state-run gambling in 2005. They promised lottery proceeds would never supplant existing education spending and then passed a budget that uses lottery money to fund teacher salaries.
I think government is headed in the wrong direction.
Next year the $1.3 billion state tax increase sunsets, and the $1.6 billion federal stimulus money runs out, creating a $3 billion shortfall. The state treasurer has advised that the debt limit has been reached and that pension contributions will require $1.2 billion next year. The reserve accounts have all been drained. Lawmakers took more than $30 million out to balance this year’s budget with plans to take $152 million more if Congress doesn’t come up with FMAP money. North Carolina’s economic recovery is expected to be slow. The years of spend-and-tax ratcheting, dependence on one-time revenue to fill recurring obligations, and offering short-term solutions for long-term problems finally have caught up with us.
I think we need to change the way we look at government.
The years of excessive spending, government growth, infringement on rights, nanny-state regulation, and hollow claims of responsible governing continued during the short session and have left us with an unsustainable system. North Carolina’s tax system, which was established in the 1930s, needs to be updated. It should be fair, revenue-neutral, rooted in a respect for liberty, and dedicated to freedom of choice. Government has a role, and it’s defined in the Constitution. Growth in government should be tied to population growth. People should be given ample freedoms to make choices without government interference, and they should be held accountable for those choices, as should elected officials.
The 2010 short session was a disappointment, but not a surprise.
I think we can do better.
©2010 John Locke Foundation, 200 West Morgan St., Raleigh, NC 27601, Voice: (919) 828-3876
DesignHammer, a Raleigh, Durham web design company ~ Building Smarter websites
http://www.carolinajournal.com/jhdailyjournal/index.html
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Billy Graham's Prayer For Our Nation
THIS MAN SURE HAS A GOOD VIEW OF WHAT'S HAPPENING TO OUR COUNTRY!
'Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done.
We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable. We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem. We have abused power and called it politics. We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition. We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.
Search us, Oh God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and Set us free.
Amen!'
Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, 'The Rest of the Story,' and received a larger response to this program than any other he has ever aired. With the Lord's help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called 'One nation under God!'
'Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done.
We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable. We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem. We have abused power and called it politics. We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition. We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.
Search us, Oh God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and Set us free.
Amen!'
Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, 'The Rest of the Story,' and received a larger response to this program than any other he has ever aired. With the Lord's help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called 'One nation under God!'
The Obama Tax Tsunami is Here
Morning Bell: The Obama Tax Tsunami is Here
Posted July 22nd, 2010 at 9:23am in Entitlements with 0 comments Print This Post
The American people are already well aware of President Barack Obama’s historic expansion of government spending: his $862 billion economic stimulus that has completely failed to keep unemployment below 8% as promised; his still-expanding health care law which the Congressional Budget Office now admits will cost more than $1 trillion; and an Obama budget that increases government spending by $12,000 per household. But all that spending is just the first half of President Obama’s game plan.
The second half of Obama’s attempted transformation began last night when the Senate rejected Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R-SC) effort to end the Death Tax. This year is actually the first year since 1916 that Americans do not have to pay any federal taxes when a family member dies. But thanks to the way Congress had to pass the legislation that phased out the Death Tax in 2001, it is set to go from zero percent to 55 percent at the stroke of midnight on December 31, 2010. The Death Tax is but one of many government taxes on capital and entrepreneurship, and its reinstatement will be yet another job killer from the Obama administration. It rewards estate tax lawyers, insurance companies and big businesses at the expense of small family-owned enterprises. According to a study by the American Family Business Foundation, a full repeal of the death tax, like the one rejected by the Senate last night, would create 1.5 million jobs. Before the vote, Sen. DeMint described the tax as an “unfair, immoral double tax on property and assets that folks have already paid taxes on throughout their lives.” He added: “The Obama death tax is just the latest example of this administration’s assault on small businesses.”
Sen. DeMint is dead on. Last night’s vote to raise the Death Tax is just the beginning of the Obama administration’s historic tax hike campaign. Unless Congress acts to oppose President Obama’s agenda, everyone’s taxes on personal income, capital gains and dividends will rise. Married couples will see their taxes rise even higher, as will families with children. According to The Tax Foundation, a family of four with two earners making $85,000 a year would pay about $1,800 more in federal income taxes in 2011. Tax Foundation president Scott Hodge tells MSNBC: “I’m hard pressed to think of another moment in the history of the tax code in which we have had so many provisions expire at the same time impacting so many Americans all at once.”
For two generations after post-war reconstruction, Europe and America have pursued different economic models, and accordingly, moved in different economic directions. The American model was low tax, low spending and small government. It favored growth, income and vibrancy. The European model is high tax, high spending and big government. It favored fairness, equality and stability. It also featured unemployment rates double those of the United States, often hovering around 10 percent. Now that is no longer the case. Under Obama’s economic leadership, U.S. unemployment rates are surpassing Europe’s.
Last night’s vote was just the beginning of a larger choice the American people must make: do they want to continue down the Obama path of high taxes, high spending and high unemployment? Or do they still believe in American exceptionalism, in limited government and in a vibrant U.S. economy? Last night’s vote was a step in the wrong direction.
Quick Hits:
•While the Obama administration continues to kill thousands of jobs in the Gulf with its oil drilling ban, countries like Norway, Brazil and Canada are increasing their deep-water oil drilling.
•While the oil spill has been an economic disaster for the Gulf, like everything else in the Obama administration, it has been a boon to Washington’s economy as energy and environmental groups spent millions to shape any energy legislation inspired by the crisis.
•According to The New York Times, the TARP inspector general has called the Obama administration’s mortgage modification program “one of the greatest failures” of the Treasury Department.
•Thanks to unemployed older Americans, illegal immigrants and an increase in the minimum wage, the teen unemployment rate in June was at 25.7 percent – about three times the national rate of 9.5 percent.
•According to Gallup, only 11 percent of Americans say they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress, placing them dead last out of the 16 institutions rated this year
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/22/morning-bell-the-obama-tax-tsunami-is-here/
Posted July 22nd, 2010 at 9:23am in Entitlements with 0 comments Print This Post
The American people are already well aware of President Barack Obama’s historic expansion of government spending: his $862 billion economic stimulus that has completely failed to keep unemployment below 8% as promised; his still-expanding health care law which the Congressional Budget Office now admits will cost more than $1 trillion; and an Obama budget that increases government spending by $12,000 per household. But all that spending is just the first half of President Obama’s game plan.
The second half of Obama’s attempted transformation began last night when the Senate rejected Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R-SC) effort to end the Death Tax. This year is actually the first year since 1916 that Americans do not have to pay any federal taxes when a family member dies. But thanks to the way Congress had to pass the legislation that phased out the Death Tax in 2001, it is set to go from zero percent to 55 percent at the stroke of midnight on December 31, 2010. The Death Tax is but one of many government taxes on capital and entrepreneurship, and its reinstatement will be yet another job killer from the Obama administration. It rewards estate tax lawyers, insurance companies and big businesses at the expense of small family-owned enterprises. According to a study by the American Family Business Foundation, a full repeal of the death tax, like the one rejected by the Senate last night, would create 1.5 million jobs. Before the vote, Sen. DeMint described the tax as an “unfair, immoral double tax on property and assets that folks have already paid taxes on throughout their lives.” He added: “The Obama death tax is just the latest example of this administration’s assault on small businesses.”
Sen. DeMint is dead on. Last night’s vote to raise the Death Tax is just the beginning of the Obama administration’s historic tax hike campaign. Unless Congress acts to oppose President Obama’s agenda, everyone’s taxes on personal income, capital gains and dividends will rise. Married couples will see their taxes rise even higher, as will families with children. According to The Tax Foundation, a family of four with two earners making $85,000 a year would pay about $1,800 more in federal income taxes in 2011. Tax Foundation president Scott Hodge tells MSNBC: “I’m hard pressed to think of another moment in the history of the tax code in which we have had so many provisions expire at the same time impacting so many Americans all at once.”
For two generations after post-war reconstruction, Europe and America have pursued different economic models, and accordingly, moved in different economic directions. The American model was low tax, low spending and small government. It favored growth, income and vibrancy. The European model is high tax, high spending and big government. It favored fairness, equality and stability. It also featured unemployment rates double those of the United States, often hovering around 10 percent. Now that is no longer the case. Under Obama’s economic leadership, U.S. unemployment rates are surpassing Europe’s.
Last night’s vote was just the beginning of a larger choice the American people must make: do they want to continue down the Obama path of high taxes, high spending and high unemployment? Or do they still believe in American exceptionalism, in limited government and in a vibrant U.S. economy? Last night’s vote was a step in the wrong direction.
Quick Hits:
•While the Obama administration continues to kill thousands of jobs in the Gulf with its oil drilling ban, countries like Norway, Brazil and Canada are increasing their deep-water oil drilling.
•While the oil spill has been an economic disaster for the Gulf, like everything else in the Obama administration, it has been a boon to Washington’s economy as energy and environmental groups spent millions to shape any energy legislation inspired by the crisis.
•According to The New York Times, the TARP inspector general has called the Obama administration’s mortgage modification program “one of the greatest failures” of the Treasury Department.
•Thanks to unemployed older Americans, illegal immigrants and an increase in the minimum wage, the teen unemployment rate in June was at 25.7 percent – about three times the national rate of 9.5 percent.
•According to Gallup, only 11 percent of Americans say they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress, placing them dead last out of the 16 institutions rated this year
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/22/morning-bell-the-obama-tax-tsunami-is-here/
Did Liberal Media Plot Against Sarah Palin?
Did Liberal Media Plot Against Sarah Palin?
Jonathan Strong on explosive article in the Daily Caller
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4290697/did-liberal-media-plot-against-sarah-palin/
Jonathan Strong on explosive article in the Daily Caller
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4290697/did-liberal-media-plot-against-sarah-palin/
GOP Lawmaker Blasts White House for $23M Spent on Kenya Constitution Vote
By Tess Civantos
Published July 21, 2010 on FoxNews.com
A Republican lawmaker is accusing the White House of “unconscionable” and “illegal” acts for its role in Kenya's referendum on a new constitution, which would legalize abortion in the country for the first time.
Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey cited a report by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, which estimated that more than $23 million in U.S. taxpayer funds have been spent on the referendum, and Smith and other conservatives have complained that at least some of that money has been spent in sport of the proposed constitution, possibly violating U.S. law.
“Under no circumstances should the U.S. government take sides,” Smith said at a news conference Wednesday. “Yet that is precisely what the Obama administration has done.”
He and other lawmakers accuse the Obama administration of offering incentives to Kenya to approve the controversial new constitution, promising that passage would “allow money to flow” into the nation's coffers. A federal law known as the Siljander Amendment makes it illegal for the U.S. government to lobby on abortion in other countries.
“We were unable to get any information prior to asking for those (USAID) reports,” Smith said. “There’s been no transparency in this process.”
Smith had been joined by Reps. Darrell Issa of California and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida in requesting the federal investigation into the administration's spending on the referendum.
“U.S. law is being violated with impunity,” Smith told FoxNews.com. “We shouldn’t be pushing for other the ‘yes’ or the ‘no’ camp, but instead, we’re bankrolling the ‘yes’ campaign.”
One group that has received almost $3 million from the U.S. government, Development Alternatives, openly supported “advocating for efforts to eventually legalize abortion in Kenya,” Smith said. Another group, The Committee of Experts on Constitutional Review in Kenya, changed the wording of the Kenyan constitution’s abortion clause to make abortion more widely accessible – and has received over $180,000 from the U.S.
Thanks to these findings, nine of the more than 200 organizations in Kenya that received money from the U.S. have been suspended from receiving assistance, the U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Katya Thomas in Nairobi told the AP Friday.
But the congressmen are asking for more. They want the White House to be held accountable for its role.
“If violations of the law have occurred, which on the face of it they have, the information must be brought before law enforcement,” Smith said. “Not even presidents are above the law.”
The federal probe also found that the Kenyan constitution was not actually written by Kenyans, but by “U.S.-funded NGOs, working in concert with Planned Parenthood,” Smith said.
According to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s website, Planned Parenthood supports the Kenyan groups that wrote the abortion clause – the Kenyan Federation of Women Lawyers and its parent organization the Kenyan Reproductive Health and Rights Alliance.
Planned Parenthood’s website states that it sought “to improve maternal health conditions in Kenya by securing reproductive health laws and policies that promote women's health,” its motivation for becoming involved in the constitutional revision process.
But some Kenyans think that the role of American organizations like Planned Parenthood in drafting the Kenyan constitution compromises Kenyan sovereignty and assaults its cultural heritage.
Theresa Okafor, CEO of Kenya’s Life League, said in a speech that the proposed constitution is “a conspiracy to strip Africa of its cherished values by international organizations like Planned Parenthood and the United Nations.”
“Africans regard every child as a blessing,” Okafor said. “Amidst biting poverty, the birth of a child is celebrated with pomp and pageantry. Children are treasures in Africa.”
Because abortion has never been an issue in Kenya until now, the country lacks an organized anti-abortion movement on the scale seen in the United States. But a number of church groups are mobilizing against the proposed constitution, as are some Kenyans who want to preserve the traditional culture of family values.
In March 2003, a group of young professionals formed the Life League, one of Kenya’s first pro-life organizations. In 2009, the Life League and 20 other Kenyan pro-life and pro-family groups united to form the Foundation for African Cultural Heritage – a heritage which they believe the abortion provision attacks.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/21/gop-lawmaker-blasts-white-house-m-spent-kenya-constitution-vote/
Published July 21, 2010 on FoxNews.com
A Republican lawmaker is accusing the White House of “unconscionable” and “illegal” acts for its role in Kenya's referendum on a new constitution, which would legalize abortion in the country for the first time.
Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey cited a report by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, which estimated that more than $23 million in U.S. taxpayer funds have been spent on the referendum, and Smith and other conservatives have complained that at least some of that money has been spent in sport of the proposed constitution, possibly violating U.S. law.
“Under no circumstances should the U.S. government take sides,” Smith said at a news conference Wednesday. “Yet that is precisely what the Obama administration has done.”
He and other lawmakers accuse the Obama administration of offering incentives to Kenya to approve the controversial new constitution, promising that passage would “allow money to flow” into the nation's coffers. A federal law known as the Siljander Amendment makes it illegal for the U.S. government to lobby on abortion in other countries.
“We were unable to get any information prior to asking for those (USAID) reports,” Smith said. “There’s been no transparency in this process.”
Smith had been joined by Reps. Darrell Issa of California and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida in requesting the federal investigation into the administration's spending on the referendum.
“U.S. law is being violated with impunity,” Smith told FoxNews.com. “We shouldn’t be pushing for other the ‘yes’ or the ‘no’ camp, but instead, we’re bankrolling the ‘yes’ campaign.”
One group that has received almost $3 million from the U.S. government, Development Alternatives, openly supported “advocating for efforts to eventually legalize abortion in Kenya,” Smith said. Another group, The Committee of Experts on Constitutional Review in Kenya, changed the wording of the Kenyan constitution’s abortion clause to make abortion more widely accessible – and has received over $180,000 from the U.S.
Thanks to these findings, nine of the more than 200 organizations in Kenya that received money from the U.S. have been suspended from receiving assistance, the U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Katya Thomas in Nairobi told the AP Friday.
But the congressmen are asking for more. They want the White House to be held accountable for its role.
“If violations of the law have occurred, which on the face of it they have, the information must be brought before law enforcement,” Smith said. “Not even presidents are above the law.”
The federal probe also found that the Kenyan constitution was not actually written by Kenyans, but by “U.S.-funded NGOs, working in concert with Planned Parenthood,” Smith said.
According to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s website, Planned Parenthood supports the Kenyan groups that wrote the abortion clause – the Kenyan Federation of Women Lawyers and its parent organization the Kenyan Reproductive Health and Rights Alliance.
Planned Parenthood’s website states that it sought “to improve maternal health conditions in Kenya by securing reproductive health laws and policies that promote women's health,” its motivation for becoming involved in the constitutional revision process.
But some Kenyans think that the role of American organizations like Planned Parenthood in drafting the Kenyan constitution compromises Kenyan sovereignty and assaults its cultural heritage.
Theresa Okafor, CEO of Kenya’s Life League, said in a speech that the proposed constitution is “a conspiracy to strip Africa of its cherished values by international organizations like Planned Parenthood and the United Nations.”
“Africans regard every child as a blessing,” Okafor said. “Amidst biting poverty, the birth of a child is celebrated with pomp and pageantry. Children are treasures in Africa.”
Because abortion has never been an issue in Kenya until now, the country lacks an organized anti-abortion movement on the scale seen in the United States. But a number of church groups are mobilizing against the proposed constitution, as are some Kenyans who want to preserve the traditional culture of family values.
In March 2003, a group of young professionals formed the Life League, one of Kenya’s first pro-life organizations. In 2009, the Life League and 20 other Kenyan pro-life and pro-family groups united to form the Foundation for African Cultural Heritage – a heritage which they believe the abortion provision attacks.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/21/gop-lawmaker-blasts-white-house-m-spent-kenya-constitution-vote/
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright
Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright
THE DAILY CALLER
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/print/#ixzz0uFfIBUrs
THE DAILY CALLER
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/print/#ixzz0uFfIBUrs
TERROISM: Hizb ut-Tahrir in America: Lessons from Great Britain
Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), a transnational Islamist movement described as a "conveyor belt" for jihadist terror, is preparing to play a much more active role in recruiting American Muslims. Although the cancellation of HT's U.S. Khilafah Conference this month was a setback, the group is likely to persist in its American recruitment efforts because it is committed to its ultimate mission: establishing an international Islamic caliphate (Khilafah).
Read more: http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010071911056/homeland-security/hizb-ut-tahrir-in-america-lessons-from-great-britain.html
Read more: http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010071911056/homeland-security/hizb-ut-tahrir-in-america-lessons-from-great-britain.html
Kagan wins Senate confirmation in mostly partisan vote, 13 to 6
Kagan wins Senate confirmation in mostly partisan vote, 13 to 6
THE HILL--By Susan Crabtree - 07/20/10 12:31 PM ET
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/109763-kagan-wins-confirmation-in-party-line-vote
THE HILL--By Susan Crabtree - 07/20/10 12:31 PM ET
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/109763-kagan-wins-confirmation-in-party-line-vote
Glenn Beck: Does Presidential Assassination Program Exist?
Glenn Beck: Does Presidential Assassination Program Exist?
A story came out a little while ago that, quite honestly, I can't believe I missed, but someone sent it to me. It's about the "presidential assassination program," where "American citizens are targ...eted for killings far away from any battlefield, based exclusively on unchecked accusations by the executive branch that they're involved in terrorism." There are allegedly "dozens of Americans" on this hit list who "pose a threat" to the United States.
Length: 15:02
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxTTD8pW9W0
A story came out a little while ago that, quite honestly, I can't believe I missed, but someone sent it to me. It's about the "presidential assassination program," where "American citizens are targ...eted for killings far away from any battlefield, based exclusively on unchecked accusations by the executive branch that they're involved in terrorism." There are allegedly "dozens of Americans" on this hit list who "pose a threat" to the United States.
Length: 15:02
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxTTD8pW9W0
Monday, July 19, 2010
Notes from the July 16th [2010] Governor Beverly Perdue’s Advisory Council on Hispanic / Latino Affairs
Concerned Citizens and Immigration Reformers,
Below is a brief of the first meeting of NC Governor Bev Perdue's Advisory Council on Hispanic/Latino Affairs, which appears to be setup in actuality to provide benefits to illegal immigrants and pander for votes. I think you will be disturbed with some of the details:
BACKGROUND INFO: The Hispanic/Latino population is estimated to be approximately 700,000 in North Carolina with one half or 350,000 of this group being illegal immigrants. The estimated total population of North Carolina is approximately 9.5 million. Therefore legal resident Hispanic/Latinos in North Carolina comprise less than 4% of the total population. So why do we need a special Governor’s Advisory Council for Hispanics/Latinos? We don’t have a Governor’s Advisory Council for unemployed citizens, which comprise 10% of the workforce. Is North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue going to setup other race-based Advisory Councils?
Notes from the July 16th [2010] Governor Beverly Perdue’s Advisory Council on Hispanic / Latino Affairs
Ms. Gabriela Zabala is Director of the recently formed Governor’s Advisory Council on Hispanic/Latino Affairs. She mostly spoke during their first meeting in Raleigh on July 16th, which I attended along with Randy Dye, James, Maureen, and Frank.
This Advisory Council is to give advice to Governor Beverly Perdue on issues concerning the Hispanic/Latino community along with governmental policy recommendations.
Gabriela Zabala, Director of the Hispanic/Latino Advisory Council pointed out she was a senior member on Governor Beverly Perdue’s staff and appeared to brag about her access to Governor Perdue.
There are fifteen members on Governor Beverly Perdue’s Hispanic/Latino Advisory Council, one of whom is Wayne Cooper. Although Mr. Cooper is a citizen, he is an honorary consul of Mexico for North Carolina. It appears to be his only qualification for being on the Council. This member gives Mexico a “seat at the table” of an Advisory Council to provide policy recommendations to the Governor of North Carolina.
In addition to the fifteen members of the Governor’s Hispanic/Latino Advisory Council, there are ex officio members who mostly consist of the leadership of North Carolina’s major governmental departments such as Labor, Employment Security Commission, Department of Health and Human Services, Education, etc. So these state departmental staff personnel will be attending and presenting information to the Hispanic/Latino Advisory Council when they have meetings. Obviously this will give the Council “special access” to leadership within our North Carolina governmental departments. Also this Advisory Council will have the opportunity to lobby for privileges and benefits for illegal immigrants, but I expect only for Hispanic/Latino illegal immigrants, since this is an ethnic and race-based Advisory Council.
It was also stated that support staff for the Hispanic/Latino Advisory Council will be provided by the Governor’s Office.
It was mentioned that all Council members should abide by and obey all laws. Of course this is interesting, given several of the Advisory Council members have openly advocated for rights for illegal immigrants. So I can only suppose that obeying the law is open for interpretation.
Ms. Yvonne Pagan, another Advisory Council member, was quoted in the media as saying “in North Carolina we aren’t facing the same (immigration) problems as Arizona”. FACT: illegal immigration is costing the State of North Carolina over $1 billion per year [net cost] to incarcerate, educate, and medicate illegal immigrants and their dependents. I would suggest spending $1 billion per year of citizens’ money due to illegal immigration is a problem.
It was suggested that Credit Unions [specifics weren’t given] would be urged to provide funds to help Hispanics/Latinos open small businesses in categories such as landscaping, construction, and cleaning services.
With a smile on her face, Ms. Gabriela Zabala said she expected more money was coming to North Carolina from the Obama Administration for government services. She also said she would press for more Title 6 [Civil Rights Act] funds to provide interpreters.
ONE DOES NOT NEED CLAIRVOYANT POWERS TO DISCERN THE REAL PURPOSE OF GOVERNOR BEVERLY PERDUE’S ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISPANIC/LATINO AFFAIRS. CITIZENS AND LEGAL RESIDENTS WOULD NOT NEED A SPECIAL ADVISORY COUNCIL TO ACQUIRE GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES, AND IF THEY DID IT SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON ETHNICITY AND RACE. THIS ADVISORY COUNCIL IS AN EFFORT TO CURRY FAVOR WITH AN ETHNIC GROUP WITH THE INTENTION TO PROVIDE SPECIAL BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES (TO MORE THAN LIKELY INCLUDE BENEFITS TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS) IN ORDER TO GAIN POLITICAL ADVANTAGE AND FUTURE VOTES.
Go to this link for a short video clip from Randy Dye:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU48rBIpPlg&feature=player_embedded
Regards,
Ron Woodard
Director
NC LISTEN
OFc: (919) 460-8156
www.nclisten.com
Below is a brief of the first meeting of NC Governor Bev Perdue's Advisory Council on Hispanic/Latino Affairs, which appears to be setup in actuality to provide benefits to illegal immigrants and pander for votes. I think you will be disturbed with some of the details:
BACKGROUND INFO: The Hispanic/Latino population is estimated to be approximately 700,000 in North Carolina with one half or 350,000 of this group being illegal immigrants. The estimated total population of North Carolina is approximately 9.5 million. Therefore legal resident Hispanic/Latinos in North Carolina comprise less than 4% of the total population. So why do we need a special Governor’s Advisory Council for Hispanics/Latinos? We don’t have a Governor’s Advisory Council for unemployed citizens, which comprise 10% of the workforce. Is North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue going to setup other race-based Advisory Councils?
Notes from the July 16th [2010] Governor Beverly Perdue’s Advisory Council on Hispanic / Latino Affairs
Ms. Gabriela Zabala is Director of the recently formed Governor’s Advisory Council on Hispanic/Latino Affairs. She mostly spoke during their first meeting in Raleigh on July 16th, which I attended along with Randy Dye, James, Maureen, and Frank.
This Advisory Council is to give advice to Governor Beverly Perdue on issues concerning the Hispanic/Latino community along with governmental policy recommendations.
Gabriela Zabala, Director of the Hispanic/Latino Advisory Council pointed out she was a senior member on Governor Beverly Perdue’s staff and appeared to brag about her access to Governor Perdue.
There are fifteen members on Governor Beverly Perdue’s Hispanic/Latino Advisory Council, one of whom is Wayne Cooper. Although Mr. Cooper is a citizen, he is an honorary consul of Mexico for North Carolina. It appears to be his only qualification for being on the Council. This member gives Mexico a “seat at the table” of an Advisory Council to provide policy recommendations to the Governor of North Carolina.
In addition to the fifteen members of the Governor’s Hispanic/Latino Advisory Council, there are ex officio members who mostly consist of the leadership of North Carolina’s major governmental departments such as Labor, Employment Security Commission, Department of Health and Human Services, Education, etc. So these state departmental staff personnel will be attending and presenting information to the Hispanic/Latino Advisory Council when they have meetings. Obviously this will give the Council “special access” to leadership within our North Carolina governmental departments. Also this Advisory Council will have the opportunity to lobby for privileges and benefits for illegal immigrants, but I expect only for Hispanic/Latino illegal immigrants, since this is an ethnic and race-based Advisory Council.
It was also stated that support staff for the Hispanic/Latino Advisory Council will be provided by the Governor’s Office.
It was mentioned that all Council members should abide by and obey all laws. Of course this is interesting, given several of the Advisory Council members have openly advocated for rights for illegal immigrants. So I can only suppose that obeying the law is open for interpretation.
Ms. Yvonne Pagan, another Advisory Council member, was quoted in the media as saying “in North Carolina we aren’t facing the same (immigration) problems as Arizona”. FACT: illegal immigration is costing the State of North Carolina over $1 billion per year [net cost] to incarcerate, educate, and medicate illegal immigrants and their dependents. I would suggest spending $1 billion per year of citizens’ money due to illegal immigration is a problem.
It was suggested that Credit Unions [specifics weren’t given] would be urged to provide funds to help Hispanics/Latinos open small businesses in categories such as landscaping, construction, and cleaning services.
With a smile on her face, Ms. Gabriela Zabala said she expected more money was coming to North Carolina from the Obama Administration for government services. She also said she would press for more Title 6 [Civil Rights Act] funds to provide interpreters.
ONE DOES NOT NEED CLAIRVOYANT POWERS TO DISCERN THE REAL PURPOSE OF GOVERNOR BEVERLY PERDUE’S ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISPANIC/LATINO AFFAIRS. CITIZENS AND LEGAL RESIDENTS WOULD NOT NEED A SPECIAL ADVISORY COUNCIL TO ACQUIRE GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES, AND IF THEY DID IT SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON ETHNICITY AND RACE. THIS ADVISORY COUNCIL IS AN EFFORT TO CURRY FAVOR WITH AN ETHNIC GROUP WITH THE INTENTION TO PROVIDE SPECIAL BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES (TO MORE THAN LIKELY INCLUDE BENEFITS TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS) IN ORDER TO GAIN POLITICAL ADVANTAGE AND FUTURE VOTES.
Go to this link for a short video clip from Randy Dye:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU48rBIpPlg&feature=player_embedded
Regards,
Ron Woodard
Director
NC LISTEN
OFc: (919) 460-8156
www.nclisten.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
