(It is difficult to imagine that our government has backed away from the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to the point that the following article from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College, would be necessary to remind us of the loss of our God given rights to free speech and freedom of religion. The media does not report the collapse of our freedoms, nor the refusal of the administration to protect us from Islamic attacks upon our culture. The following article says it all. It is worth the reading. Ed.)
*****************
Blasphemy and Free Speech
By Paul Marshall, Senior fellow, Hudson Institute
A growing threat to our freedom of speech is the attempt to stifle religious discussion in the name of preventing “defamation of” or “insults to” religion, especially Islam. Resulting restrictions represent, in effect, a revival of blasphemy laws.
Few in the West were concerned with such laws 20 years ago. Even if still on some statute books, they were only of historical interest. That began to change in 1989, when the late Ayatollah Khomeini, then Iran’s Supreme Leader, declared it the duty of every Muslim to kill British-based writer Salman Rushdie on the grounds that his novel, The Satanic Verses, was blasphemous. Rushdie has survived by living his life in hiding. Others connected with the book were not so fortunate: its Japanese translator was assassinated, its Italian translator was stabbed, its Norwegian publisher was shot, and 35 guests at a hotel hosting its Turkish publisher were burned to death in an arson attack.
More recently, we have seen eruptions of violence in reaction to Theo van Gogh’s and Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s film Submission, Danish and Swedish cartoons depicting Mohammed, the speech at Regensburg by Pope Benedict XVI on the topic of faith, reason, and religious violence, Geert Wilders’ film Fitna, and a false Newsweek report that the U.S. military had desecrated Korans at Guantanamo. A declaration by Terry Jones—a deservedly obscure Florida pastor with a congregation of less than 50—that he would burn a Koran on September 11, 2010, achieved a perfect media storm, combining American publicity-seeking, Muslim outrage, and the demands of 24 hour news coverage. It even drew the attention of President Obama and senior U.S. military leaders. Dozens of people were murdered as a result.
Such violence in response to purported religious insults is not simply spontaneous. It is also stoked and channeled by governments for political purposes. And the objects and victims of accusations of religious insults are not usually Westerners, but minorities and dissidents in the Muslim world. As Nina Shea and I show in our recent book Silenced, accusations of blasphemy or insulting Islam are used systematically in much of that world to send individuals to jail or to bring about intimidation through threats, beatings, and killings.
The Danish cartoons of Mohammed were published in Denmark’s largest newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, in September 2005. Some were reproduced by newspapers in Muslim countries in order to criticize them. There was no violent response. Violence only erupted after a December 2005 summit in Saudi Arabia of the Organization of the Islamic Conference—now the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The summit was convened to discuss sectarian violence and terrorism, but seized on the cartoons and urged its member states to rouse opposition. It was only in February 2006—five months after the cartoons were published—that Muslims across Africa, Asia, and the Mideast set out from Friday prayers for often violent demonstrations, killing over 200 people.
The highly controlled media in Egypt and Jordan raised the cartoon issue so persistently that an astonishing 98 percent of Egyptians and 99 percent of Jordanians—knowing little else of Denmark—had heard of them. Saudi Arabia and Egypt urged boycotts of Danish products. Iran and Syria manipulated riots partly to deflect attention from their nuclear projects. Turkey used the cartoons as bargaining chips in negotiations with the U.S. over appointments to NATO. Editors in Algeria, Jordan, India, and Yemen were arrested—and in Syria, journalist Adel Mahfouz was charged with “insulting public religious sentiment”—for suggesting a peaceful response to the controversy. Lars Vilks’ later and more offensive 2007 Swedish cartoons and Geert Wilders’ 2008 film Fitna led to comparatively little outcry, demonstrating further that public reactions are government-driven.
Repression based on charges of blasphemy and apostasy, of course, goes far beyond the stories typically covered in our media. Currently, millions of Baha’is and Ahmadis—followers of religions or interpretations that arose after Islam—are condemned en masse as insulters of Islam, and are subject to discriminatory laws and attacks by mobs, vigilantes, and terrorists. The Baha’i leadership in Iran is in prison, and there is no penalty in Iran for killing a Baha’i. In Somalia, al Shebaab, an Islamic group that controls much of that country, is systematically hunting down and killing Christians. In 2009, after allegations that a Koran had been torn, a 1,000-strong mob with Taliban links rampaged through Christian neighborhoods in Punjab, Pakistan’s largest province, killing seven people, six of whom, including two children, were burned alive. Pakistani police did not intervene.
Throughout the Muslim world, Sunni, Shia, and Sufi Muslims may be persecuted for differing from the version of Islam promulgated by locally hegemonic religious authorities. Saudi Arabia represses Shiites, especially Ismailis. Iran represses Sunnis and Sufis. In Egypt, Shia leaders have been imprisoned and tortured.
In Afghanistan, Shia scholar Ali Mohaqeq Nasab, editor of Haqooq-i-Zen magazine, was imprisoned by the government for publishing “un-Islamic” articles that criticized stoning as a punishment for adultery. Saudi democracy activists Ali al-Demaini, Abdullah al-Hamed, and Matruk al-Faleh were imprisoned for using “un-Islamic terminology,” such as “democracy” and “human rights,” when calling for a written constitution. Saudi teacher Mohammed al-Harbi was sentenced to 40 months in jail and 750 lashes for “mocking religion” after discussing the Bible in class and making pro-Jewish remarks. Egyptian Nobel prize winner in literature Naguib Mahfouz reluctantly abandoned his lifelong resistance to censorship and sought permission from the clerics of Al-Azhar University to publish his novel Children of Gebelawi, hitherto banned for blasphemy. Mahfouz subsequently lived under constant protection after being stabbed by a young Islamist, leaving him partly paralyzed.
After Mohammed Younas Shaikh, a member of Pakistan’s Human Rights Commission, raised questions about Pakistan’s policies in Kashmir, he was charged with having blasphemed in one of his classes. In Bangladesh, Salahuddin Choudhury was imprisoned for hurting “religious feelings” by advocating peaceful relations with Israel. In Iran, Ayatollah Boroujerdi was imprisoned for arguing that “political leadership by clergy” was contrary to Islam, and cleric Mohsen Kadivar was imprisoned for “publishing untruths and disturbing public minds” after writing Theories of the State in Shiite Jurisprudence, which questioned the legal basis of Ayatollah Khomeini’s view of government. Other charges brought against Iranians include “fighting against God,” “dissension from religious dogma,” “insulting Islam,” “propagation of spiritual liberalism,” “promoting pluralism,” and, my favorite, “creating anxiety in the minds of … Iranian officials.”
Muslim reformers cannot escape being attacked even in the West. In 2006, a group called Al-Munasirun li Rasul al Allah emailed over 30 prominent reformers in the West, threatening to kill them unless they repented. Among its targets was Egyptian Saad Eddin Ibrahim, perhaps the best known human rights activist in the Arab world. Another was Ahmad Subhy Mansour, an imam who was imprisoned and had to flee Egypt, in part for his arguments against the death penalty for apostasy. The targets were pronounced “guilty of apostasy, unbelief, and denial of the Islamic established facts” and given three days to “announce their repentance.” The message included their addresses and the names of their spouses and children.
Mimount Bousakla, a Belgian senator and daughter of Moroccan immigrants, was forced into hiding by threats of “ritual slaughter” for her criticism of the treatment of women in Muslim communities and of fundamentalist influences in Belgian mosques. Turkish-born Ekin Deligoz, the first Muslim member of Germany’s Parliament, received death threats and was placed under police protection after she called for Muslim women to “take off the head scarf.”
But the story gets worse. Western governments have begun to give in to demands from the Saudi-based OIC and others for controls on speech. In Austria, for instance, Elisabeth Sabbaditsch-Wolf has been convicted of “denigrating religious beliefs” for her comments about Mohammed during a seminar on radical Islam. Canada’s grossly misnamed “human rights commissions” have hauled writers—including Mark Steyn, who teaches as a distinguished fellow in journalism at Hillsdale College—before tribunals to interrogate them about their writings on Islam. And in Holland and Finland, respectively, politicians Geert Wilders and Jussi Halla-aho have been prosecuted for their comments on Islam in political speeches.
In America, the First Amendment still protects against the criminalization of criticizing Islam. But we face at least two threats still. The first is extra-legal intimidation of a kind already endemic in the Muslim world and increasing in Europe. In 2009, Yale University Press, in consultation with Yale University, removed all illustrations of Mohammed from its book by Jytte Klausen on the Danish cartoon crisis. It also removed Gustave Doré’s 19th-century illustration of Mohammed in hell from Dante’s Inferno. Yale’s formal press statement stressed the earlier refusal by American media outlets to show the cartoons, and noted that their “republication…has repeatedly resulted in violence around the world.”
Another publisher, Random House, rejected at the last minute a historical romance novel about Mohammed’s wife, Jewel of Medina, by American writer Sherry Jones. They did so to protect “the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel.”
The comedy show South Park refused to show an image of Mohammed in a bear suit, although it mocked figures from other religions. In response, Molly Norris, a cartoonist for the Seattle Weekly, suggested an “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.” She quickly withdrew the suggestion and implied that she had been joking. But after several death threats, including from Al-Qaeda, the FBI advised her that she should go into hiding—which she has now done under a new name.
In 2010, Zachary Chesser, a young convert to Islam, pleaded guilty to threatening the creators of South Park. And on October 3, 2011, approximately 800 newspapers refused to run a “Non Sequitur” cartoon drawn by Wiley Miller that merely contained a bucolic scene with the caption “Where’s Muhammad?”
Many in our media claim to be self-censoring out of sensitivity to religious feelings, but that claim is repeatedly undercut by their willingness to mock and criticize religions other than Islam. As British comedian Ben Elton observed: “The BBC will let vicar gags pass, but they would not let imam gags pass. They might pretend that it’s, you know, something to do with their moral sensibilities, but it isn’t. It’s because they’re scared.”
The second threat we face is the specter of cooperation between our government and the OIC to shape speech about Islam. A first indication of this came in President Obama’s Cairo speech in 2009, when he declared that he has a responsibility to “fight against negative stereotypes of Islam whenever they appear.” Then in July of last year in Istanbul, Secretary of State Clinton co-chaired—with the OIC—a “High-Level Meeting on Combating Religious Intolerance.” There, Mrs. Clinton announced another conference with the OIC, this one in Washington, to “exchange ideas” and discuss “implementation” measures our government might take to combat negative stereotyping of Islam. This would not restrict free speech, she said. But the mere fact of U.S. government partnership with the OIC is troublesome. Certainly it sends a dangerous signal, as suggested by the OIC’s Secretary-General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, when he commented in Istanbul that the Obama administration stands “united” with the OIC on speech issues.
The OIC’s charter commits it “to combat defamation of Islam.” Its current action plan calls for “deterrent punishments” to counter “Islamophobia.” In 2009, an official OIC organ, the “International Islamic Fiqh [Jurisprudence] Academy,” issued fatwas calling for speech bans, including “international legislation,” to protect “the interests and values of [Islamic] society.” The OIC does not define what speech should be outlawed, but the repressive practices of its leading member states speak for themselves.
The conference Secretary Clinton announced in Istanbul was held in Washington on December 12-14, 2011, and was closed to the public, with the “Chatham House Rule” restricting the participants (this rule prohibits the identification of who says what, although general content is not confidential). Presentations reportedly focused on America’s deficiencies in its treatment of Muslims and stressed that the U.S. has something to learn in this regard from the other delegations—including Saudi Arabia, despite its ban on Christian churches, its repression of its Shiite population, its textbooks teaching that Jews should be killed, and the fact that it beheaded a woman for sorcery on the opening day of the conference.
* * *
The encroachment of de facto blasphemy restrictions in the West threatens free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Nor will it bring social peace and harmony. As comedian Rowan Atkinson warns, such laws produce “a veneer of tolerance concealing a snake pit of unaired and unchallenged views.” Norway’s far-reaching restrictions on “hate speech” did not prevent Anders Behring Breivik from slaughtering over 70 people because of his antipathy to Islam: indeed, his writings suggest that he engaged in violence because he believed that he could not otherwise be heard.
In the Muslim world, such restrictions enable Islamists to crush debate. After Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab, was murdered early last year by his bodyguards for opposing blasphemy laws, his daughter Sara observed: “This is a message to every liberal to shut up or be shot.” Or in the words of Nasr Abu-Zayd, a Muslim scholar driven out of Egypt: “Charges of apostasy and blasphemy are key weapons in the fundamentalists’ arsenal, strategically employed to prevent reform of Muslim societies, and instead confine the world’s Muslim population to a bleak, colourless prison of socio-cultural and political conformity.”
President Obama should put an end to discussion of speech with the OIC. He should declare clearly that in free societies, all views and all religions are subject to criticism and contradiction. As the late Abdurrahman Wahid, former president of Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, and head of Nahdlatul Ulama, the world’s largest Muslim organization, wrote in his foreword to Silenced, blasphemy laws . . . narrow the bounds of acceptable discourse. . . not only about religion, but also about vast spheres of life, literature, science, and culture in general. . . . Rather than legally stifle criticism and debate—which will only encourage Muslim fundamentalists in their efforts to impose a spiritually void, harsh, and monolithic understanding of Islam upon all the world—Western authorities should instead firmly defend freedom of expression. . . .
America’s Founders, who had broken with an old order that was rife with religious persecution and warfare, forbade laws impeding free exercise of religion, abridging freedom of speech, or infringing freedom of the press. We today must do likewise.
*************
PAUL MARSHALL is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom. He has published widely in newspapers and magazines, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, First Things, The New Republic, and The Weekly Standard. He is the author or editor of more than 20 books on religion and politics, including Their Blood Cries Out, Religious Freedom in the World, and Blind Spot: When Journalists Don’t Get Religion. Most recently he is the co-author, with Nina Shea, of Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide.
The preceding is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., on February 3, 2012.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Unreported truths in the Zimmerman-Martin Shooting
From the Buclkeye Firearms Association website on May 29, 2012. You had better read and understand what this article declares. Your portection, including the protection of you life and that of your family, is solely up to you. You can't count on anybody else, ever.
************
Four simple truths about Florida's Zimmerman-Martin case that aren't being discussed by the media
by Don Kates
The shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman has been the subject of enormous confusion, not only because the facts are not entirely clear, but more because of public misunderstanding of the relevant law. I hope the following will help clarify things.
1. IT'S NOT THE JOB OF THE POLICE TO INTERRUPT CRIMES AND DEFEND CITIZENS.
The police exist to do two things ONLY: patrol thereby deterring crime; and investigating already-committed crimes to apprehend the perpetrators. The police cannot be expected to interrupt crime and defend citizens. This is because police are rarely around when criminals strike. The statistics on apprehension of criminals show that in less than 5% of cases does that happen while the crime is in progress. In many more cases the police arrive AFTER the crime has occurred and literally chase down the criminal. In many more cases yet the police arrive AFTER the crime has occurred and only make an arrest days or weeks later during which time investigation has identified some particular person as the criminal.
Because the police have no general duty to defend victims, by either statute or common law in EVERY STATE the police are immune from suit by victims who claim the police should have defended them. In no state are police liable even if they negligently fail to defend victims – because they have the duty ONLY to patrol and to apprehend after the crime, not to defend victims.
If you want to be defended from crimes you prepare to defend yourselves! If you want to defend your neighborhood, you organize a neighborhood watch like the one of which Zimmerman was a captain. (It was pursuant to his duty as captain that Zimmerman surveilled Martin, whom he saw as a suspicious character.)
2. IT WAS TO PROTECT ZIMMERMAN, NOT MARTIN, THAT POLICE DISCLAIMED ANY REQUEST TO FOLLOW MARTIN.
Why did the police dispatcher to whom Zimmerman reported Martin tell Zimmerman not to follow him further? [See caveat below] Because if she had not the Department might have been sued by Zimmerman or his surviving relatives. The dispatcher could reasonably have anticipated what Zimmerman claims did happen: that Martin attacked him, knocking him down, beating him about the face – thereby breaking his nose – and repeatedly smashing his head into the cement. Had Zimmerman not had a gun he might have been even more seriously injured or killed.
And guess who could have been sued for that? The police! They would not have been liable for failing to defend Zimmerman. But they would be liable for any injury Zimmerman suffered from following Martin pursuant to police approval. Telling Zimmerman not to follow Martin assured that police would not be held liable to Zimmerman for in any way authorizing or condoning his pursuit of Martin.
[CAVEAT: based on the transcript, the police did NOT tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin; they just disclaimed any request that he do so.]
3. ZIMMERMAN HAD A PERFECT RIGHT TO OBSERVE AND FOLLOW MARTIN ON PUBLIC STREETS.
The police have absolutely no special authority either themselves to observe or follow people on the public streets or to authorize or forbid others doing so. The law is that everyone has the right to observe or follow anyone else on the public streets. That is the only reason the police have the right to do so. Just like – and no more than – George Zimmerman had the right to observe or follow Martin on the public streets.
4. IRRELEVANCE OF "STAND YOUR GROUND" LAWS
Unfortunately news media coverage of this shooting has grossly mis-portrayed both the facts and law, thereby dragging in legal issues that have no relevance at all. News reports have consistently misled the public into thinking the case involves some unique recent Florida "stand your ground" law which protects victims who have stood their ground to defend themselves against attackers.
In fact, both the facts on which both sides agree and the allegations on which they disagree preclude application of any aspect of the "stand your ground" law: If, as the shooter claims, Martin rushed up behind him, knocked him down and was sitting on his chest beating him, retreat was impossible. Conversely, if as Martin's advocates claim, Martin posed no threat to Zimmerman and was wantonly shot down, Zimmerman committed murder. Under no view of these conflicting allegations is it relevant that Florida law allows a victim to stand his ground when attacked.
Moreover the "stand your ground" rule has been the majority rule among American states for over 200 years. It is true that a new statute endorsing the "stand your ground" rule has recently been adopted by twenty-five of our fifty states. But this statute makes no difference since almost all of those states – and the rest of the states -- had long endorsed the "stand your ground" principle. To reiterate, immunity from prosecution for standing your ground and defending yourself when attached has been the majority American law for centuries. In addition to the 25 states that have recently enacted the NRA statute, another seven states have earlier statutes applying "stand your ground" to situations outside the home, such as in vehicles or places of employment. Other states long ago adopted "stand your ground" by judge-made law.
Don Kates is a retired American professor of constitutional and criminal law, and a criminologist and research fellow with The Independent Institute in Oakland, California. His books include Armed: New Perspectives On Gun Control, Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, Firearms and Violence: Issues of Public Policy, and The Great American Gun Debate: Essays on Firearms and Violence. As a civil liberties lawyer he has represented gun owners attacking the constitutionality of certain firearms laws.
************
Four simple truths about Florida's Zimmerman-Martin case that aren't being discussed by the media
by Don Kates
The shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman has been the subject of enormous confusion, not only because the facts are not entirely clear, but more because of public misunderstanding of the relevant law. I hope the following will help clarify things.
1. IT'S NOT THE JOB OF THE POLICE TO INTERRUPT CRIMES AND DEFEND CITIZENS.
The police exist to do two things ONLY: patrol thereby deterring crime; and investigating already-committed crimes to apprehend the perpetrators. The police cannot be expected to interrupt crime and defend citizens. This is because police are rarely around when criminals strike. The statistics on apprehension of criminals show that in less than 5% of cases does that happen while the crime is in progress. In many more cases the police arrive AFTER the crime has occurred and literally chase down the criminal. In many more cases yet the police arrive AFTER the crime has occurred and only make an arrest days or weeks later during which time investigation has identified some particular person as the criminal.
Because the police have no general duty to defend victims, by either statute or common law in EVERY STATE the police are immune from suit by victims who claim the police should have defended them. In no state are police liable even if they negligently fail to defend victims – because they have the duty ONLY to patrol and to apprehend after the crime, not to defend victims.
If you want to be defended from crimes you prepare to defend yourselves! If you want to defend your neighborhood, you organize a neighborhood watch like the one of which Zimmerman was a captain. (It was pursuant to his duty as captain that Zimmerman surveilled Martin, whom he saw as a suspicious character.)
2. IT WAS TO PROTECT ZIMMERMAN, NOT MARTIN, THAT POLICE DISCLAIMED ANY REQUEST TO FOLLOW MARTIN.
Why did the police dispatcher to whom Zimmerman reported Martin tell Zimmerman not to follow him further? [See caveat below] Because if she had not the Department might have been sued by Zimmerman or his surviving relatives. The dispatcher could reasonably have anticipated what Zimmerman claims did happen: that Martin attacked him, knocking him down, beating him about the face – thereby breaking his nose – and repeatedly smashing his head into the cement. Had Zimmerman not had a gun he might have been even more seriously injured or killed.
And guess who could have been sued for that? The police! They would not have been liable for failing to defend Zimmerman. But they would be liable for any injury Zimmerman suffered from following Martin pursuant to police approval. Telling Zimmerman not to follow Martin assured that police would not be held liable to Zimmerman for in any way authorizing or condoning his pursuit of Martin.
[CAVEAT: based on the transcript, the police did NOT tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin; they just disclaimed any request that he do so.]
3. ZIMMERMAN HAD A PERFECT RIGHT TO OBSERVE AND FOLLOW MARTIN ON PUBLIC STREETS.
The police have absolutely no special authority either themselves to observe or follow people on the public streets or to authorize or forbid others doing so. The law is that everyone has the right to observe or follow anyone else on the public streets. That is the only reason the police have the right to do so. Just like – and no more than – George Zimmerman had the right to observe or follow Martin on the public streets.
4. IRRELEVANCE OF "STAND YOUR GROUND" LAWS
Unfortunately news media coverage of this shooting has grossly mis-portrayed both the facts and law, thereby dragging in legal issues that have no relevance at all. News reports have consistently misled the public into thinking the case involves some unique recent Florida "stand your ground" law which protects victims who have stood their ground to defend themselves against attackers.
In fact, both the facts on which both sides agree and the allegations on which they disagree preclude application of any aspect of the "stand your ground" law: If, as the shooter claims, Martin rushed up behind him, knocked him down and was sitting on his chest beating him, retreat was impossible. Conversely, if as Martin's advocates claim, Martin posed no threat to Zimmerman and was wantonly shot down, Zimmerman committed murder. Under no view of these conflicting allegations is it relevant that Florida law allows a victim to stand his ground when attacked.
Moreover the "stand your ground" rule has been the majority rule among American states for over 200 years. It is true that a new statute endorsing the "stand your ground" rule has recently been adopted by twenty-five of our fifty states. But this statute makes no difference since almost all of those states – and the rest of the states -- had long endorsed the "stand your ground" principle. To reiterate, immunity from prosecution for standing your ground and defending yourself when attached has been the majority American law for centuries. In addition to the 25 states that have recently enacted the NRA statute, another seven states have earlier statutes applying "stand your ground" to situations outside the home, such as in vehicles or places of employment. Other states long ago adopted "stand your ground" by judge-made law.
Don Kates is a retired American professor of constitutional and criminal law, and a criminologist and research fellow with The Independent Institute in Oakland, California. His books include Armed: New Perspectives On Gun Control, Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, Firearms and Violence: Issues of Public Policy, and The Great American Gun Debate: Essays on Firearms and Violence. As a civil liberties lawyer he has represented gun owners attacking the constitutionality of certain firearms laws.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Times-Reporter Misses Oil Lease Story
How could the Times-Reporter miss the following story about the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District (MWCD) leasing gas and oil rights to out of state drilling companies? One would suppose, with the economy in the condition it is, that the implications of this pending agreement between MWCD and a Houston driller would be important enough for the Times-Reporter to run a story in an effort to keep New Philadelphians up to date on drilling progress in Tuscarawas County. Evidently I'm mistaken. Fortunately newspapers from Mansfield and Coshocton, as well as others, have seen fit to bring us up-to-date with current reports. Here's one for your information.
************
Original article by Russ Zimmer, Mansfield News Journal, May 21, 2012
The Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District has approved the leasing of oil and gas rights to another out-of-state energy company in pursuit of the Utica Shale.
At Friday's monthly board meeting, the district's board agreed to allow Sierra Buckeye, of Houston, access to the natural gas and liquids under a 185-acre tract of land close to the Dover Dam in Tuscarawas County.
Though the lease has not yet been finalized, the proposal calls for the 18-county district to receive a bonus amount of $4,500 per acre, or $832,500 total, plus a 20 percent royalty on the value of the oil and gas pumped, according to a memo provided by the district.
The district does not own the land. It retained deep mineral rights below the surface as part of a sale many years ago, according to district spokesman Darrin Lautenschleger.
The district, which is responsible for water supply and flood prevention within its borders, covers about 8,000 square miles, or about 20 percent of the state. The following counties are included: Richland, Ashland, Belmont, Carroll, Coshocton, Guernsey, Harrison, Holmes, Knox, Licking, Morgan, Muskingum, Noble, Stark, Summit, Tuscarawas, Washington and Wayne.
The owners of the surface land already have a deal in place with the company, the memo states.
Sierra Buckeye is a privately held company with shale exploration experience in the south as well as Pennsylvania and Ohio, according to its website. It has not yet sought permission to drill any Utica Shale wells in Ohio as of last week, according to state data.
The district has been selling its mineral rights for decades and regularly draws six figures in annual leasing and royalty revenue, but in the last couple of years the scale has grown substantially.
At the April meeting, the board approved a deal with Chesapeake Energy for 3,700 acres at Leesville Lake in Harrison County for a signing bonus of $21.5 million. They also signed a lease with Gulfport Energy worth $15.6 million last summer.
It costs about $19 million annually to run the district, according to the 2010 annual report, the latest available. About $9.5 million has been raised each year since 2009 from a property tax levied on residences and businesses within the district.
************
Original article by Russ Zimmer, Mansfield News Journal, May 21, 2012
The Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District has approved the leasing of oil and gas rights to another out-of-state energy company in pursuit of the Utica Shale.
At Friday's monthly board meeting, the district's board agreed to allow Sierra Buckeye, of Houston, access to the natural gas and liquids under a 185-acre tract of land close to the Dover Dam in Tuscarawas County.
Though the lease has not yet been finalized, the proposal calls for the 18-county district to receive a bonus amount of $4,500 per acre, or $832,500 total, plus a 20 percent royalty on the value of the oil and gas pumped, according to a memo provided by the district.
The district does not own the land. It retained deep mineral rights below the surface as part of a sale many years ago, according to district spokesman Darrin Lautenschleger.
The district, which is responsible for water supply and flood prevention within its borders, covers about 8,000 square miles, or about 20 percent of the state. The following counties are included: Richland, Ashland, Belmont, Carroll, Coshocton, Guernsey, Harrison, Holmes, Knox, Licking, Morgan, Muskingum, Noble, Stark, Summit, Tuscarawas, Washington and Wayne.
The owners of the surface land already have a deal in place with the company, the memo states.
Sierra Buckeye is a privately held company with shale exploration experience in the south as well as Pennsylvania and Ohio, according to its website. It has not yet sought permission to drill any Utica Shale wells in Ohio as of last week, according to state data.
The district has been selling its mineral rights for decades and regularly draws six figures in annual leasing and royalty revenue, but in the last couple of years the scale has grown substantially.
At the April meeting, the board approved a deal with Chesapeake Energy for 3,700 acres at Leesville Lake in Harrison County for a signing bonus of $21.5 million. They also signed a lease with Gulfport Energy worth $15.6 million last summer.
It costs about $19 million annually to run the district, according to the 2010 annual report, the latest available. About $9.5 million has been raised each year since 2009 from a property tax levied on residences and businesses within the district.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Obama And Homosexuality
Obama is at it again. Now this being an election year, Obama has hopped in bed, no pun intended, with the homosexuals. Up until a couple of weeks ago, Obama had reservations about homosexuality.
Recently he changed his mind and stated that homosexuality is a good thing. It shouldn’t have come as a surprise, especially since the Democratic left has been pushing legislation to make teaching of homosexual techniques and practices in the nation’s public schools. Think about that one for a minute. Not only will the schools teaching our children that sex before marriage is acceptable, the Obama government wants to include courses in elementary schools that same gender sex by elementary school students is also acceptable. This is sickening.
Obama’s integrity has reached a new low. It has become obvious that he has neither morals nor honor. He has shown again that he will sell out God, as well as the American people, in his lust for power and control. In his attempt to destroy the United States he has again proven, this time without a doubt, that he holds himself above reproach. Everything which stands in the way of his dictatorial ambitions is to be swept aside.
For some time Obama was, at best, a sham Christian. There were concerns that he was a practicing Muslim, but now even that is doubtful. While Christianity and Islam have major disagreements, on one thing they agree. Homosexuality is detestable, unacceptable, immoral, an act which is to be condemned. The Koran demands death by stoning for the act of same gender sex. Christianity and Judaism declare it as immoral, sinful, and totally unacceptable, and against the precepts of God.
So why would Obama change his mind about homosexuality? To achieve his personal and political ambitions to become the dictator of a communistic United States. To complete his overthrow of the Constitution he has to destroy the morality, the responsibility, and self-esteem of the citizenry to the point that it will depend on a socialist government for its very existence.
Destroying their country's morality, ambition, and responsibility, worked for Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Castro. The Chinese, North Koreans, Vietnamese lost their countries with the same tactics.
Destruction of our moral values because of government intervention and legislation is occurring on a daily basis. Without morality, without respect for our religious values, without individual responsibility, an Obama takeover will occur in America. Once accomplished, the end result will be here to stay.
Do not be misled. The destruction of morality means the destruction of freedom. Without morality and responsibility on the part of the citizen, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness becomes nonexistent. Obama’s stand for acceptance of sexual immorality is another step in his plan to destroy the United States and replace it with Communistic dictatorship. Once gone the Republic we once knew will never return.
The choice is yours. Don’t be misled. We are in a fight for our country, our freedom, our very lives.
Recently he changed his mind and stated that homosexuality is a good thing. It shouldn’t have come as a surprise, especially since the Democratic left has been pushing legislation to make teaching of homosexual techniques and practices in the nation’s public schools. Think about that one for a minute. Not only will the schools teaching our children that sex before marriage is acceptable, the Obama government wants to include courses in elementary schools that same gender sex by elementary school students is also acceptable. This is sickening.
Obama’s integrity has reached a new low. It has become obvious that he has neither morals nor honor. He has shown again that he will sell out God, as well as the American people, in his lust for power and control. In his attempt to destroy the United States he has again proven, this time without a doubt, that he holds himself above reproach. Everything which stands in the way of his dictatorial ambitions is to be swept aside.
For some time Obama was, at best, a sham Christian. There were concerns that he was a practicing Muslim, but now even that is doubtful. While Christianity and Islam have major disagreements, on one thing they agree. Homosexuality is detestable, unacceptable, immoral, an act which is to be condemned. The Koran demands death by stoning for the act of same gender sex. Christianity and Judaism declare it as immoral, sinful, and totally unacceptable, and against the precepts of God.
So why would Obama change his mind about homosexuality? To achieve his personal and political ambitions to become the dictator of a communistic United States. To complete his overthrow of the Constitution he has to destroy the morality, the responsibility, and self-esteem of the citizenry to the point that it will depend on a socialist government for its very existence.
Destroying their country's morality, ambition, and responsibility, worked for Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Castro. The Chinese, North Koreans, Vietnamese lost their countries with the same tactics.
Destruction of our moral values because of government intervention and legislation is occurring on a daily basis. Without morality, without respect for our religious values, without individual responsibility, an Obama takeover will occur in America. Once accomplished, the end result will be here to stay.
Do not be misled. The destruction of morality means the destruction of freedom. Without morality and responsibility on the part of the citizen, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness becomes nonexistent. Obama’s stand for acceptance of sexual immorality is another step in his plan to destroy the United States and replace it with Communistic dictatorship. Once gone the Republic we once knew will never return.
The choice is yours. Don’t be misled. We are in a fight for our country, our freedom, our very lives.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Obama's Crucifixion of "Big Oil"
If it ever was a secret, it's not a secret any longer: The Obama Administration is on a vindictive campaign to injure America's oil and gas industry. The proof materialized last week when video of an Environmental Protection Agency official revealed the White House's vicious attitude toward the very industries that supply the American people a reliable, affordable energy source. Yesterday, that official fell on his sword and resigned to spare the president any further embarrassment from the truth he disclosed.
Last week, Heritage's Lachlan Markay reported on a video showing EPA Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz describe his agency's "philosophy of enforcement" with respect to the regulation of oil and gas companies -- likening it to brutal tactics employed by the ancient Roman army to intimidate its foes into submission. With a wry smile, Armendariz detailed the joy with which the EPA inflicts punishment on the disfavored industries:
It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer the villages in the Mediterranean. They'd go into a little Turkish town somewhere and they'd find the first five guys they saw and they'd crucify them. And then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.
Lest there be any doubt, it's worth reiterating the point -- according to Armendariz, the EPA views its enforcement efforts as a violent crucifixion used to strong arm companies into submission. The Constitution bars cruel and unusual punishment, but evidently that doesn't apply to the axe-wielding EPA when it comes to enforcing regulations.
None of this, though, should be a surprise coming from what very well may be the most anti-energy administration in history. For the president and his cadre of bureaucrats, "Big Oil" is the enemy that deserves to be beaten into submission.
Exhibit A: The president's unremitting crusade to raise taxes on the oil industry by denying it access to tax credits available to other industries. This, of course, is a game of semantics and populist rhetoric. In his appeal to the American people, the president is claiming that oil and gas companies enjoy special loopholes and subsidies that need to be eliminated. In reality, they get the same tax treatment enjoyed by producers of clothing, roads, electricity, water, and many other goods manufactured in the United States. Actually, oil companies receive less of a tax break than those manufacturers. (Oil companies receive a six percent reduction while all other manufacturers receive a nine percent reduction.) Yet the president wants to impose a higher targeted tax hike and take the tax break away completely.
When President Obama lashes out at "Big Oil," guess who's going to pay the price? You. First, raising taxes on any company means that the costs will be passed on to consumers. If you're tired of paying high gas prices, you would pay even more if the president levies new costs on the industry that is supplying your fuel.
Second, when the president talks about "Big Oil," keep in mind who "Big Oil" is -- it could very well be you. Thirty-one percent of U.S. oil and natural gas shares are owned by public or private pension plans. On top of that, individual retirement accounts hold 18 percent of shares, individual investors have 21 percent, and asset management companies including mutual funds account for 21 percent -- comprising more than 90 percent of oil and gas stocks in 2011. That means when those companies profit, there's a good chance you profit. And when those companies suffer, there's a good chance that you suffer, too.
That doesn't matter, though, to an Administration that is in an unyielding pursuit of a singular "green" agenda. Billions in taxpayer dollars are spent to fund solar companies that go bankrupt and to give tax credits to wealthy Americans so they can buy a handful of electric vehicles. Meanwhile, the president's Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, gives himself an "A" for his work in lowering gas prices, despite their reaching all-time highs under his watch. And all the while, the president is saying "NO" to domestic energy exploration, including his decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline.
So when Armendariz spoke of "crucifying" oil and gas companies, it was not a surprise. His crime was saying what the rest of the Obama Administration -- including the president -- have been thinking and doing all along. Last week, Armendariz apologized and called his comments "an offensive and inaccurate way to portray our efforts to address potential violations of our nation's environmental laws." In fact, though his words were vivid, they were all too accurate. The Obama Administration has an obvious political agenda that is not focused on enforcing rules, but on vindictively assaulting an industry that doesn't comport with its green agenda -- even though Americans depend on oil and gas companies each and every day. President Obama has said he favors an "all of the above" strategy when it comes to energy policy. "All of the above" apparently means taking no prisoners as he marches toward a "greener" future, regardless of what it costs the American people.
Last week, Heritage's Lachlan Markay reported on a video showing EPA Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz describe his agency's "philosophy of enforcement" with respect to the regulation of oil and gas companies -- likening it to brutal tactics employed by the ancient Roman army to intimidate its foes into submission. With a wry smile, Armendariz detailed the joy with which the EPA inflicts punishment on the disfavored industries:
It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer the villages in the Mediterranean. They'd go into a little Turkish town somewhere and they'd find the first five guys they saw and they'd crucify them. And then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.
Lest there be any doubt, it's worth reiterating the point -- according to Armendariz, the EPA views its enforcement efforts as a violent crucifixion used to strong arm companies into submission. The Constitution bars cruel and unusual punishment, but evidently that doesn't apply to the axe-wielding EPA when it comes to enforcing regulations.
None of this, though, should be a surprise coming from what very well may be the most anti-energy administration in history. For the president and his cadre of bureaucrats, "Big Oil" is the enemy that deserves to be beaten into submission.
Exhibit A: The president's unremitting crusade to raise taxes on the oil industry by denying it access to tax credits available to other industries. This, of course, is a game of semantics and populist rhetoric. In his appeal to the American people, the president is claiming that oil and gas companies enjoy special loopholes and subsidies that need to be eliminated. In reality, they get the same tax treatment enjoyed by producers of clothing, roads, electricity, water, and many other goods manufactured in the United States. Actually, oil companies receive less of a tax break than those manufacturers. (Oil companies receive a six percent reduction while all other manufacturers receive a nine percent reduction.) Yet the president wants to impose a higher targeted tax hike and take the tax break away completely.
When President Obama lashes out at "Big Oil," guess who's going to pay the price? You. First, raising taxes on any company means that the costs will be passed on to consumers. If you're tired of paying high gas prices, you would pay even more if the president levies new costs on the industry that is supplying your fuel.
Second, when the president talks about "Big Oil," keep in mind who "Big Oil" is -- it could very well be you. Thirty-one percent of U.S. oil and natural gas shares are owned by public or private pension plans. On top of that, individual retirement accounts hold 18 percent of shares, individual investors have 21 percent, and asset management companies including mutual funds account for 21 percent -- comprising more than 90 percent of oil and gas stocks in 2011. That means when those companies profit, there's a good chance you profit. And when those companies suffer, there's a good chance that you suffer, too.
That doesn't matter, though, to an Administration that is in an unyielding pursuit of a singular "green" agenda. Billions in taxpayer dollars are spent to fund solar companies that go bankrupt and to give tax credits to wealthy Americans so they can buy a handful of electric vehicles. Meanwhile, the president's Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, gives himself an "A" for his work in lowering gas prices, despite their reaching all-time highs under his watch. And all the while, the president is saying "NO" to domestic energy exploration, including his decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline.
So when Armendariz spoke of "crucifying" oil and gas companies, it was not a surprise. His crime was saying what the rest of the Obama Administration -- including the president -- have been thinking and doing all along. Last week, Armendariz apologized and called his comments "an offensive and inaccurate way to portray our efforts to address potential violations of our nation's environmental laws." In fact, though his words were vivid, they were all too accurate. The Obama Administration has an obvious political agenda that is not focused on enforcing rules, but on vindictively assaulting an industry that doesn't comport with its green agenda -- even though Americans depend on oil and gas companies each and every day. President Obama has said he favors an "all of the above" strategy when it comes to energy policy. "All of the above" apparently means taking no prisoners as he marches toward a "greener" future, regardless of what it costs the American people.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Tax Gimmicks, Tax Doom
The U.S. Senate could vote today on the gimmicky distraction known as the Buffett Rule -- President Obama's plan to raise taxes on wealthy Americans and job creators in order to supposedly bring "fairness" to the tax code and pay down the debt. As the paper-thin justification for the proposal continues to fade away, the American people are staring down Tax Day, continued joblessness, and the prospect of a major tax meltdown coming on January 1, 2013.
The facts of the Buffett Rule are simple. The President wants millionaires (and small businesses taxed as individuals) to pay a minimum tax of 30 percent. For all of his rhetoric that the measure would "stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade," the Buffett Rule would bring in only $47 billion in revenue in ten years. To put those numbers in context, President Obama's budget calls for adding $6.7 trillion to the national debt. So the Buffett Rule would cover just 0.007% of all of Obama's debt and .001% of Obama's spending.
None of this even touches on the failure in logic underlying the President's argument, as we detailed in depth last week. In short, President Obama is employing the Buffett Rule as an election-year class warfare weapon. And he's aiming it at the highest-earning families and businesses in America who are already shouldering the vast majority of the country's tax burden. Just one example: The top 1 percent of income earners -- those earning more than $380,000 in 2008 -- paid more than 38 percent of all federal income taxes while earning 20 percent of all income.
What's more, the whole idea of the Buffett Rule is based on a fallacy. The President says his tax is necessary because people like billionaire Warren Buffett's secretary pay a higher tax rate than the wealthiest Americans. In reality, Warren Buffett pays over 50 percent tax on his income. He earns much of his income as capital gains and dividends from stock he owns in businesses -- he pays a 15 percent tax on this income, but first, the businesses that generate this income pay a 35 percent corporate income tax. Corporate income is subject to at least two layers of tax. To create an artificial political fight, Obama and Buffett conveniently ignore the first.
Even some of the President's friends on the left are seeing the Buffett Rule for the ploy that it is. Last week, liberal Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank devoted an entire column to "Rebuffing Obama's gimmicky 'Buffett Rule,'" picking it apart as flawed policy and political rhetoric, noting that even White House reporters are "tiring of the theme." Milbank concludes that, "Obama's prioritization is no mystery: The populist Buffett Rule polls well. This explains its inclusion in countless presidential speeches and statements."
While the President keeps delivering those speeches and waging his war on the wealthy, the rest of America is being left behind in an economy that's barely growing. Placing more of a burden on investors and job creators will exacerbate the problem, and the debt will only keep growing.
To make matters worse, American taxpayers face an even bigger burden coming on January 1, 2013, unless Washington takes action. On that day, an unprecedented $494 billion tax hike known as "Taxmageddon" will descend on the United States. That includes, among other things, the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, the payroll tax cut, the patch on the Alternative Minimum Tax, the ability for businesses to fully expense capital investments, and the tax cuts from the 2009 stimulus. On top of all that, Obamacare's new taxes will arrive, and the death tax will rise to 55 percent while the exemption will fall. And while America waits for some certainty in tax policy, job creators are taking a step back not knowing what the future will hold. In turn, the economy is suffering as a result.
Instead of focusing on the country's debt crisis, unemployment, or the imminent tax maelstrom, the President is pitching a policy that makes for a nice talking point in his war on the wealthy. What the nation needs are serious solutions to our spending and debt crisis, and policies that really do create jobs. What it doesn't need are distractions from the problems at hand.
(From morningbell@heritage.com April 16, 2012)
The facts of the Buffett Rule are simple. The President wants millionaires (and small businesses taxed as individuals) to pay a minimum tax of 30 percent. For all of his rhetoric that the measure would "stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade," the Buffett Rule would bring in only $47 billion in revenue in ten years. To put those numbers in context, President Obama's budget calls for adding $6.7 trillion to the national debt. So the Buffett Rule would cover just 0.007% of all of Obama's debt and .001% of Obama's spending.
None of this even touches on the failure in logic underlying the President's argument, as we detailed in depth last week. In short, President Obama is employing the Buffett Rule as an election-year class warfare weapon. And he's aiming it at the highest-earning families and businesses in America who are already shouldering the vast majority of the country's tax burden. Just one example: The top 1 percent of income earners -- those earning more than $380,000 in 2008 -- paid more than 38 percent of all federal income taxes while earning 20 percent of all income.
What's more, the whole idea of the Buffett Rule is based on a fallacy. The President says his tax is necessary because people like billionaire Warren Buffett's secretary pay a higher tax rate than the wealthiest Americans. In reality, Warren Buffett pays over 50 percent tax on his income. He earns much of his income as capital gains and dividends from stock he owns in businesses -- he pays a 15 percent tax on this income, but first, the businesses that generate this income pay a 35 percent corporate income tax. Corporate income is subject to at least two layers of tax. To create an artificial political fight, Obama and Buffett conveniently ignore the first.
Even some of the President's friends on the left are seeing the Buffett Rule for the ploy that it is. Last week, liberal Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank devoted an entire column to "Rebuffing Obama's gimmicky 'Buffett Rule,'" picking it apart as flawed policy and political rhetoric, noting that even White House reporters are "tiring of the theme." Milbank concludes that, "Obama's prioritization is no mystery: The populist Buffett Rule polls well. This explains its inclusion in countless presidential speeches and statements."
While the President keeps delivering those speeches and waging his war on the wealthy, the rest of America is being left behind in an economy that's barely growing. Placing more of a burden on investors and job creators will exacerbate the problem, and the debt will only keep growing.
To make matters worse, American taxpayers face an even bigger burden coming on January 1, 2013, unless Washington takes action. On that day, an unprecedented $494 billion tax hike known as "Taxmageddon" will descend on the United States. That includes, among other things, the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, the payroll tax cut, the patch on the Alternative Minimum Tax, the ability for businesses to fully expense capital investments, and the tax cuts from the 2009 stimulus. On top of all that, Obamacare's new taxes will arrive, and the death tax will rise to 55 percent while the exemption will fall. And while America waits for some certainty in tax policy, job creators are taking a step back not knowing what the future will hold. In turn, the economy is suffering as a result.
Instead of focusing on the country's debt crisis, unemployment, or the imminent tax maelstrom, the President is pitching a policy that makes for a nice talking point in his war on the wealthy. What the nation needs are serious solutions to our spending and debt crisis, and policies that really do create jobs. What it doesn't need are distractions from the problems at hand.
(From morningbell@heritage.com April 16, 2012)
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Who Has The HIghest Taxes In The World?
America Has the Highest Taxes in the World?
(Initially published by Heritage.org, April 6, 2012)
There aren’t many American-owned companies more iconic than Anheuser-Busch, the famous producer of Budweiser beer based in St. Louis, Missouri. That was true up until 2008, when the Brazilian-Belgian company InBev executed a hostile takeover of the historic brewer, leading to layoffs of more than 1,800 workers. Unfortunately, conditions in the United States are growing ripe for even more takeovers like these to occur, especially now that the nation’s corporate tax rate is officially the highest in the world.
As of yesterday, the U.S. corporate tax rate of 39.2 percent claimed the world’s top spot, edging out Japan which recently lowered its rate from 39.5 percent to 36.8 percent. (The U.S. rate includes the 35 percent federal rate plus the average rate the states add on.) That’s well above the 25 percent average of other developed nations. Heritage’s Curtis Dubay explains the impact on companies based in the United States:
This gaping disparity means every other country that we compete with for new investment is better situated to land that new investment and the jobs that come with it, because the after-tax return from that investment promises to be higher in those lower-taxed nations.
Our high rate also makes our businesses prime targets for takeovers by businesses headquartered in foreign countries, because their worldwide profits are no longer subject to the highest-in-the-world U.S. corporate tax rate. Until Congress cuts the rate, more and more iconic U.S. businesses such as Anheuser-Busch will be bought by their foreign competitors.
Unfortunately, in the face of this tax rate, the Obama Administration is proposing measures that will make matters even worse for U.S. companies. Last week, Vice President Joe Biden proposed a “global minimum tax” in a wrongheaded effort to encourage companies to invest in the United States instead of overseas. Just like the rest of President Obama’s corporate tax policy, it will just make matters worse — punishing firms that seek new opportunities in growing markets by taxing their earnings in those developing markets even more heavily than they’re already taxed. The net result will be to make it even more likely that the companies’ assets would go up for sale to overseas firms in order to escape the Obama tax penalty. Unfortunately, America’s workers pay the price for this destructive tax policy. Heritage’s J.D. Foster explains why:
Economists and policymakers increasingly understand that while the tax is paid almost exclusively out of profits that would otherwise go to the shareholders, the true economic burden falls primarily on workers.
The reason is simply that the higher the effective corporate tax burden, the higher the hurdle rate on corporate investment. (The hurdle rate is the minimum rate a business must earn on investment to make the investment.) The higher the hurdle rate, the less investment takes place. The less investment takes place, the slower labor productivity grows, and the slower labor productivity grows, the slower wages grow.
Congress should act now to help make America more competitive on the global stage, and it can do so by reducing the corporate tax rate to match or preferably fall below the international average. The U.S. economy is struggling to recover from the global recession, and by lifting the burden of record-high corporate tax rates, Congress can give American companies incentive to grow and expand here at home. If not, the American people can expect to see more companies like Anheuser-Busch bought up by international competitors — and the jobs will go right along with them.
As of yesterday, the U.S. corporate tax rate of 39.2 percent claimed the world’s top spot, edging out Japan which recently lowered its rate from 39.5 percent to 36.8 percent. (The U.S. rate includes the 35 percent federal rate plus the average rate the states add on.) That’s well above the 25 percent average of other developed nations. Heritage’s Curtis Dubay explains the impact on companies based in the United States:
This gaping disparity means every other country that we compete with for new investment is better situated to land that new investment and the jobs that come with it, because the after-tax return from that investment promises to be higher in those lower-taxed nations.
Our high rate also makes our businesses prime targets for takeovers by businesses headquartered in foreign countries, because their worldwide profits are no longer subject to the highest-in-the-world U.S. corporate tax rate. Until Congress cuts the rate, more and more iconic U.S. businesses such as Anheuser-Busch will be bought by their foreign competitors.
Unfortunately, in the face of this tax rate, the Obama Administration is proposing measures that will make matters even worse for U.S. companies. Last week, Vice President Joe Biden proposed a “global minimum tax” in a wrongheaded effort to encourage companies to invest in the United States instead of overseas. Just like the rest of President Obama’s corporate tax policy, it will just make matters worse — punishing firms that seek new opportunities in growing markets by taxing their earnings in those developing markets even more heavily than they’re already taxed. The net result will be to make it even more likely that the companies’ assets would go up for sale to overseas firms in order to escape the Obama tax penalty. Unfortunately, America’s workers pay the price for this destructive tax policy. Heritage’s J.D. Foster explains why:
Economists and policymakers increasingly understand that while the tax is paid almost exclusively out of profits that would otherwise go to the shareholders, the true economic burden falls primarily on workers.
The reason is simply that the higher the effective corporate tax burden, the higher the hurdle rate on corporate investment. (The hurdle rate is the minimum rate a business must earn on investment to make the investment.) The higher the hurdle rate, the less investment takes place. The less investment takes place, the slower labor productivity grows, and the slower labor productivity grows, the slower wages grow.
Congress should act now to help make America more competitive on the global stage, and it can do so by reducing the corporate tax rate to match or preferably fall below the international average. The U.S. economy is struggling to recover from the global recession, and by lifting the burden of record-high corporate tax rates, Congress can give American companies incentive to grow and expand here at home. If not, the American people can expect to see more companies like Anheuser-Busch bought up by international competitors — and the jobs will go right along with them.
Monday, April 2, 2012
The Highest Taxes in the World
There aren't many American-owned companies more iconic than Anheuser-Busch, the famous producer of Budweiser beer based in St. Louis, Missouri. That was true up until 2008, when the Brazilian-Belgian company InBev executed a hostile takeover of the historic brewer, leading to layoffs of more than 1,800 workers. Unfortunately, conditions in the United States are growing ripe for even more takeovers like these to occur, especially now that the nation's corporate tax rate is officially the highest in the world.
As of yesterday, the U.S. corporate tax rate of 39.2 percent claimed the world's top spot, edging out Japan which recently lowered its rate from 39.5 percent to 36.8 percent. (The U.S. rate includes the 35 percent federal rate plus the average rate the states add on.) That's well above the 25 percent average of other developed nations. Heritage's Curtis Dubay explains the impact on companies based in the United States:
This gaping disparity means every other country that we compete with for new investment is better situated to land that new investment and the jobs that come with it, because the after-tax return from that investment promises to be higher in those lower-taxed nations.
Our high rate also makes our businesses prime targets for takeovers by businesses headquartered in foreign countries, because their worldwide profits are no longer subject to the highest-in-the-world U.S. corporate tax rate. Until Congress cuts the rate, more and more iconic U.S. businesses such as Anheuser-Busch will be bought by their foreign competitors.
Unfortunately, in the face of this tax rate, the Obama Administration is proposing measures that will make matters even worse for U.S. companies. Last week, Vice President Joe Biden proposed a "global minimum tax" in a wrongheaded effort to encourage companies to invest in the United States instead of overseas. Just like the rest of President Obama's corporate tax policy, it will just make matters worse -- punishing firms that seek new opportunities in growing markets by taxing their earnings in those developing markets even more heavily than they're already taxed. The net result will be to make it even more likely that the companies' assets would go up for sale to overseas firms in order to escape the Obama tax penalty. Unfortunately, America's workers pay the price for this destructive tax policy.
Heritage's J.D. Foster explains why:
Economists and policymakers increasingly understand that while the tax is paid almost exclusively out of profits that would otherwise go to the shareholders, the true economic burden falls primarily on workers.
The reason is simply that the higher the effective corporate tax burden, the higher the hurdle rate on corporate investment. (The hurdle rate is the minimum rate a business must earn on investment to make the investment.) The higher the hurdle rate, the less investment takes place. The less investment takes place, the slower labor productivity grows, and the slower labor productivity grows, the slower wages grow.
Congress should act now to help make America more competitive on the global stage, and it can do so by reducing the corporate tax rate to match or preferably fall below the international average. The U.S. economy is struggling to recover from the global recession, and by lifting the burden of record-high corporate tax rates, Congress can give American companies incentive to grow and expand here at home. If not, the American people can expect to see more companies like Anheuser-Busch bought up by international competitors -- and the jobs will go right along with them.
*************
(From morningbell@heritage.org April 2, 2012)
As of yesterday, the U.S. corporate tax rate of 39.2 percent claimed the world's top spot, edging out Japan which recently lowered its rate from 39.5 percent to 36.8 percent. (The U.S. rate includes the 35 percent federal rate plus the average rate the states add on.) That's well above the 25 percent average of other developed nations. Heritage's Curtis Dubay explains the impact on companies based in the United States:
This gaping disparity means every other country that we compete with for new investment is better situated to land that new investment and the jobs that come with it, because the after-tax return from that investment promises to be higher in those lower-taxed nations.
Our high rate also makes our businesses prime targets for takeovers by businesses headquartered in foreign countries, because their worldwide profits are no longer subject to the highest-in-the-world U.S. corporate tax rate. Until Congress cuts the rate, more and more iconic U.S. businesses such as Anheuser-Busch will be bought by their foreign competitors.
Unfortunately, in the face of this tax rate, the Obama Administration is proposing measures that will make matters even worse for U.S. companies. Last week, Vice President Joe Biden proposed a "global minimum tax" in a wrongheaded effort to encourage companies to invest in the United States instead of overseas. Just like the rest of President Obama's corporate tax policy, it will just make matters worse -- punishing firms that seek new opportunities in growing markets by taxing their earnings in those developing markets even more heavily than they're already taxed. The net result will be to make it even more likely that the companies' assets would go up for sale to overseas firms in order to escape the Obama tax penalty. Unfortunately, America's workers pay the price for this destructive tax policy.
Heritage's J.D. Foster explains why:
Economists and policymakers increasingly understand that while the tax is paid almost exclusively out of profits that would otherwise go to the shareholders, the true economic burden falls primarily on workers.
The reason is simply that the higher the effective corporate tax burden, the higher the hurdle rate on corporate investment. (The hurdle rate is the minimum rate a business must earn on investment to make the investment.) The higher the hurdle rate, the less investment takes place. The less investment takes place, the slower labor productivity grows, and the slower labor productivity grows, the slower wages grow.
Congress should act now to help make America more competitive on the global stage, and it can do so by reducing the corporate tax rate to match or preferably fall below the international average. The U.S. economy is struggling to recover from the global recession, and by lifting the burden of record-high corporate tax rates, Congress can give American companies incentive to grow and expand here at home. If not, the American people can expect to see more companies like Anheuser-Busch bought up by international competitors -- and the jobs will go right along with them.
*************
(From morningbell@heritage.org April 2, 2012)
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Obama To Compromise United States Security
Had this come from most other places that it did (www.morningbell@heritage.com, March 27, 2012), I might have written it off as really far out. But comparing the honesty and reputation of the Heritage Foundation with that of the Obama clique and its associated media, and the constant lying, hiding of information which is so prevalent with the Obama administration I had to pass it along. We are in serious trouble, fellow citizens. We are losing our country because of the likes of Barack Obama. Obama outdoes Benedict Arnold. If there was any question of where Obama stands, this ought to clear it up.
Editor.
Obama Whispers Away America's Security
(from www.morningbell@heritage.com, March 27, 2012)
It is hard to overstate the dangerous implications of what happened this week when President Obama was caught by an open mic sending a message to Russia's dictator-in-waiting to wait quietly till after the November elections, after which Mr. Obama could make concessions on America's national defense. The White House is trying to explain this incident away as par for the course in an electoral year. It is not.
Here, in essence, is what it appears to be: this was our commander in chief in league with an anti-American autocrat to dupe the American public until after it's too late. What makes it even worse is that the issue at hand--missile defense--has to do with protecting the American people against the likes of Russia.
We don't need to exaggerate what happened. All we need is to review what Obama, our President, was caught telling Russia's current president, Dmitri Medvedev, while the two met at the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea. Neither man knew the microphones were live and picked up their exchange. Here it is:
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you...
President Obama: (reaching over and putting his hand on Mr. Medvedev's knee): This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
The Vladimir in question is none other than Vladimir Putin, who just won elections in Russia this month under a cloud of suspicion, to replace Mr. Medvedev, who has been a fig leaf president for the past four years while Mr. Putin has wielded power from his post as prime minister.
Mr. Putin, who has been open and public in his disdain for both the United States and President Obama in particular, opposes American foreign policy from Syria to Asia to Latin America. He is the poster child for a new breed of authoritarian world leaders who openly want to thwart America's intentions. Most recently, Putin used hostile rhetoric toward the United States as a tool in his re-election campaign, labeling opposition leaders puppets of the CIA. That followed Russia's decision at the United Nations Security Council to veto a U.S.-backed resolution calling for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to step aside.
The President's surreptitious hat-tip to Putin comes at a dangerous time for the American people and U.S. allies. North Korea is preparing to launch yet another long-range missile, and Iran is in desperate pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, the United States and its allies remain unprotected from the threat of nuclear missiles, and now it appears that Obama wants to cede even more ground to Russia on vital national security issues.
The President, probably sensing the potential gravity of the situation, quickly addressed the incident. He tried to defend himself yesterday by saying:
Frankly, the current environment is not conducive to those kinds of thoughtful consultations. The stories you guys have been writing over the last 24 hours is probably pretty good evidence of that. I think we'll do better in 2013.
But this is not how democracy works. In asking Mr. Medvedev to tell Mr. Putin to "give me space" until he can be more flexible next year if he gets re-elected this November, Mr. Obama was clearly telegraphing the willingness to give Mr. Putin at least part of what he wants on missile defense. This President has already given too much. In the New START strategic nuclear arms control treaty with Russia, President Obama agreed that U.S. missile defense capabilities must be reduced along with strategic nuclear weapons -- essentially laying down America's arms and its shield, as well.
Now it appears that President Obama wishes to go even a step farther in order to appease Mr. Putin. Where that step leads, we truly don't know. All we can see is the direction the President is already headed.
The exchange with Mr. Medvedev, lastly, only deepens and validates two already extant and related narratives about our President: one is that he harbors views that are inimical to the American people and only come out in unguarded moments. An example of that is when he said in San Francisco four years ago that Americans cling to their religion and guns bitterly when they're afraid of the future. The other narrative is that the President will be unshackled once (and if) he is re-elected, and will put in place a plan far more radical than he is letting on in public at the moment.
If concessions to Russia on missile defense are what Mr. Obama wants, he can make his case to the American people and ask them to endorse his policies. To hide them until it is too late and he is safely ensconced in office is unseemly.
Obama Whispers Away America's Security
(from www.morningbell@heritage.com, March 27, 2012)
It is hard to overstate the dangerous implications of what happened this week when President Obama was caught by an open mic sending a message to Russia's dictator-in-waiting to wait quietly till after the November elections, after which Mr. Obama could make concessions on America's national defense. The White House is trying to explain this incident away as par for the course in an electoral year. It is not.
Here, in essence, is what it appears to be: this was our commander in chief in league with an anti-American autocrat to dupe the American public until after it's too late. What makes it even worse is that the issue at hand--missile defense--has to do with protecting the American people against the likes of Russia.
We don't need to exaggerate what happened. All we need is to review what Obama, our President, was caught telling Russia's current president, Dmitri Medvedev, while the two met at the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea. Neither man knew the microphones were live and picked up their exchange. Here it is:
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you...
President Obama: (reaching over and putting his hand on Mr. Medvedev's knee): This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
The Vladimir in question is none other than Vladimir Putin, who just won elections in Russia this month under a cloud of suspicion, to replace Mr. Medvedev, who has been a fig leaf president for the past four years while Mr. Putin has wielded power from his post as prime minister.
Mr. Putin, who has been open and public in his disdain for both the United States and President Obama in particular, opposes American foreign policy from Syria to Asia to Latin America. He is the poster child for a new breed of authoritarian world leaders who openly want to thwart America's intentions. Most recently, Putin used hostile rhetoric toward the United States as a tool in his re-election campaign, labeling opposition leaders puppets of the CIA. That followed Russia's decision at the United Nations Security Council to veto a U.S.-backed resolution calling for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to step aside.
The President's surreptitious hat-tip to Putin comes at a dangerous time for the American people and U.S. allies. North Korea is preparing to launch yet another long-range missile, and Iran is in desperate pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, the United States and its allies remain unprotected from the threat of nuclear missiles, and now it appears that Obama wants to cede even more ground to Russia on vital national security issues.
The President, probably sensing the potential gravity of the situation, quickly addressed the incident. He tried to defend himself yesterday by saying:
Frankly, the current environment is not conducive to those kinds of thoughtful consultations. The stories you guys have been writing over the last 24 hours is probably pretty good evidence of that. I think we'll do better in 2013.
But this is not how democracy works. In asking Mr. Medvedev to tell Mr. Putin to "give me space" until he can be more flexible next year if he gets re-elected this November, Mr. Obama was clearly telegraphing the willingness to give Mr. Putin at least part of what he wants on missile defense. This President has already given too much. In the New START strategic nuclear arms control treaty with Russia, President Obama agreed that U.S. missile defense capabilities must be reduced along with strategic nuclear weapons -- essentially laying down America's arms and its shield, as well.
Now it appears that President Obama wishes to go even a step farther in order to appease Mr. Putin. Where that step leads, we truly don't know. All we can see is the direction the President is already headed.
The exchange with Mr. Medvedev, lastly, only deepens and validates two already extant and related narratives about our President: one is that he harbors views that are inimical to the American people and only come out in unguarded moments. An example of that is when he said in San Francisco four years ago that Americans cling to their religion and guns bitterly when they're afraid of the future. The other narrative is that the President will be unshackled once (and if) he is re-elected, and will put in place a plan far more radical than he is letting on in public at the moment.
If concessions to Russia on missile defense are what Mr. Obama wants, he can make his case to the American people and ask them to endorse his policies. To hide them until it is too late and he is safely ensconced in office is unseemly.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Obamacare Comes before the Supreme Court
Rare is the occasion when the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court gather to hear three days of arguments, and rarer still is when it is for a case like Obamacare -- one that cuts to the core of the Constitution and whose outcome could fundamentally alter the role of the federal government and its power over the people. But today the Court will do just that when it open its doors and begins weighing the arguments on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's seminal health care law.
Were the American people to vote on the issue, they would fall decidedly against Obamacare, as recent polls have shown. But for the Court, the decision is not as cut and dried as an up or down vote, but one that involves the interplay of a series of issues raised by those who are challenging Obamacare -- more than half the States of the Union and a collection of interested organizations and private parties -- and those brought by the Obama Administration, which is defending the law. And they come to the Supreme Court after conflicting appellate court rulings which have left undecided the question of whether Obamacare is permissible under the Constitution.
The central issue before the Court is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause to impose the individual mandate on the American people, forcing them to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. If the Court holds that Congress was outside the bounds of its authority, it can strike down the individual mandate, leaving the justices to then decide whether all or part of Obamacare should fall along with it.
If the Court upholds the mandate, America will be in the same position it finds itself today -- facing a law that vests untold power and resources in the hands of the federal government, that transfers health care decision making from individuals to unelected bureaucrats, and that increases costs while decreasing access. In short, America's health care crisis will get worse, not better, and future generations will be left paying the tab. What's more, if the Court allows the individual mandate to stand, it will unhook Congress from its Constitutional leash, empowering it to regulate commerce and individual behavior in new ways never before imaginable.
There are other issues, too, besides the individual mandate. Even before the Court reaches that subject, it must broach the issue of the Anti-Injunction Act, a 145-year-old federal tax law which could bar the Court from even hearing a challenge to the individual mandate. Under that law, one cannot sue over a tax until they have paid it. If the penalty for violating Obamacare's individual mandate is considered a tax under that law, then the challenge could be brought at this time since the penalty has not yet taken effect. Obamacare's challengers and even the Obama Administration agree that the Anti-Injunction Act shouldn't prevent the Court from hearing the case, but the issue will still be heard, and some think that the Court could rely on the Act as a way of avoiding having to answer the question of whether the mandate is constitutional.
If the Court finds the Anti-Injunction Act doesn't apply, it will move on to the individual mandate. Its decision on that issue brings with it a whole other set of problems -- namely, if the Court finds that the mandate is unconstitutional, it must next decide the issue of severability -- whether Obamacare will operate as Congress intended if it is stripped of the mandate, or whether all or parts of the law must be struck down with the mandate. If the Court finds that the mandate is severable, the Court can strike it down and leave it up to Congress to clean up what's left, or, as the Obama administration has recommended, it can strike down the mandate and related provisions of the law that depend on it. Finally, if the justices find that the mandate is not severable, then it will throw out all of Obamacare, and it will again be up to Congress to enact real market-based health care reforms that bring down costs while increasing access to care.
There is another issue, too, tied to Obamacare, and that has to do with Congress's decision to impose new requirements on states forcing them to expand the Medicaid program and abide by the federal government's conditions, leaving them to shoulder much of the costs while operating Medicaid according to Washington's whims. If the states don't comply, they could lose all Medicaid funding, putting them in an untenable position in which both their autonomy and their sovereignty collapse under Obamacare's weight. It is up to the Court to decide whether Congress overstepped its bounds.
America waits for the Supreme Court to weigh the facts and the law, to consider the precedents and the policy, and to issue a decision that will have implications far into the future. Will Congress be limited by the Constitution, or will its authority expand beyond the limits that the Founders intended? Will Americans' liberties stand? Will Obamacare fall? No matter the outcome of the Court's ruling in June, Congress can and should act now to repeal Obamacare and rid the land of this intolerable act.
**********
Originally published by www.morningbell@heritage.com on March 26, 2012
Obama's Coil of Rage
Coil of Rage
After you've read to the end, come back and read this first paragraph again.
The character of any man is defined by how he treats his mother as the years pass... need I say more about this person below other than there is no character, no integrity but there is a ton of attitude and arrogance that defines his shallow past and hollow future ....
Read Obama's book, Audacity of Hope. It is difficult to read considering his attitude toward us and everything American. Let me add a phrase he uses to describe his attitude toward whites. He harbors a "COIL OF RAGE". His words not mine.
THIS IS OUR PRESIDENT!
HE'S RUNNING AGAIN, YOU KNOW!
Is anyone out there awake?
Everyone of voting age should read these two books by him: Don't buy them, just get them from the library.
From Dreams From My Father: "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."
From Dreams From My Father : "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race."
From Dreams From My Father: "There was something about her that made me wary, a little too sure of herself, maybe -- and white."
From Dreams From My Father: "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."
From Dreams From My Father: "I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself: the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela."
And FINALLY... and most scary, From Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
If you have never forwarded an e-mail, now is the time to do so!!! We have someone with this mentality running our GREAT nation!
Keep your eye on him and don't blink.
Democrat, Republican, Conservative or Liberal - be aware of the attitude and character of this sitting President.
The leopard Doesn't Change His Spots
After you've read to the end, come back and read this first paragraph again.
The character of any man is defined by how he treats his mother as the years pass... need I say more about this person below other than there is no character, no integrity but there is a ton of attitude and arrogance that defines his shallow past and hollow future ....
Read Obama's book, Audacity of Hope. It is difficult to read considering his attitude toward us and everything American. Let me add a phrase he uses to describe his attitude toward whites. He harbors a "COIL OF RAGE". His words not mine.
THIS IS OUR PRESIDENT!
HE'S RUNNING AGAIN, YOU KNOW!
Is anyone out there awake?
Everyone of voting age should read these two books by him: Don't buy them, just get them from the library.
From Dreams From My Father: "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."
From Dreams From My Father : "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race."
From Dreams From My Father: "There was something about her that made me wary, a little too sure of herself, maybe -- and white."
From Dreams From My Father: "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."
From Dreams From My Father: "I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself: the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela."
And FINALLY... and most scary, From Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
If you have never forwarded an e-mail, now is the time to do so!!! We have someone with this mentality running our GREAT nation!
Keep your eye on him and don't blink.
Democrat, Republican, Conservative or Liberal - be aware of the attitude and character of this sitting President.
The leopard Doesn't Change His Spots
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Marines Disarmed Panneta Speech in Afghanistan
"No-guns" zone at Afghanistan's Camp Leatherneck: U.S. Marines ordered to disarm before listening to secretary of defense speak
Submitted by cbaus on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 07:00. by Chad D. Baus
The New York Times is reporting that American Marines operating in war-time Afghanistan were ordered to disarm before being allowed to listen to a speech by President Obama's Secretary of Defense, Leon Panneta.
From the article:
In a sign of the nervousness surrounding the visit, Marines and other troops among the 200 people gathered in a tent at Camp Leatherneck to hear Mr. Panetta speak were abruptly asked by their commander to get up, place their weapons — M-16 and M-4 automatic rifles and 9-mm pistols — outside the tent and then return unarmed. The commander, Sgt. Maj. Brandon Hall, told reporters he was acting on orders from superiors.
"All I know is, I was told to get the weapons out," he said. Asked why, he replied, "Somebody got itchy, that's all I've got to say. Somebody got itchy; we just adjust."
Normally, American forces in Afghanistan keep their weapons with them when the defense secretary visits and speaks to them. The Afghans in the tent were not armed to begin with, as is typical.
According to the article, American officials later said that the top commander in Helmand, Maj. Gen. Mark Gurganus, had decided on Tuesday that no one would be armed while Mr. Panetta spoke to them, but the word did not reach those in charge in the tent until shortly before Mr. Panetta was due to arrive.
General Gurganus told reporters later that he had wanted a consistent policy for everyone in the tent, and that "I wanted to have the Marines look just like their Afghan partners." He insisted that his decision had nothing to do with the shooting on Sunday. he said.
The Times also quoted Gurganus as saying the first-ever incident of disarming troops for an address by their own secretary of defense "is not a big deal."
Got that? Imposing the same lack of trust they obviously have for the Afghans in the room on our U.S. servicemen and women is no "big deal."
American soldiers are already disarmed when they return from overseas duty. It was that policy which army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan exploited during a terrorist attack at Ft. Hood, Texas. Nidal knew his intended victims were unarmed, and used that fact to assure a high death toll.
As Buckeye Firearms Foundation Board of Directors member Gerard Valentino has pointed out, "When Nidal Hasan killed 13 Americans at one of the largest military bases in the United States, it should have served as a wake-up call. Instead, the military establishment based the safety of American soldiers on the false hope of gun free zones."
Indeed, and now we know that Obama's military commanders aren't just content with "no-guns" military bases here in the U.S. - for a short time on Wednesday, they implemented one in a theater of war.
Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Vice Chairman.
Submitted by cbaus on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 07:00. by Chad D. Baus
The New York Times is reporting that American Marines operating in war-time Afghanistan were ordered to disarm before being allowed to listen to a speech by President Obama's Secretary of Defense, Leon Panneta.
From the article:
In a sign of the nervousness surrounding the visit, Marines and other troops among the 200 people gathered in a tent at Camp Leatherneck to hear Mr. Panetta speak were abruptly asked by their commander to get up, place their weapons — M-16 and M-4 automatic rifles and 9-mm pistols — outside the tent and then return unarmed. The commander, Sgt. Maj. Brandon Hall, told reporters he was acting on orders from superiors.
"All I know is, I was told to get the weapons out," he said. Asked why, he replied, "Somebody got itchy, that's all I've got to say. Somebody got itchy; we just adjust."
Normally, American forces in Afghanistan keep their weapons with them when the defense secretary visits and speaks to them. The Afghans in the tent were not armed to begin with, as is typical.
According to the article, American officials later said that the top commander in Helmand, Maj. Gen. Mark Gurganus, had decided on Tuesday that no one would be armed while Mr. Panetta spoke to them, but the word did not reach those in charge in the tent until shortly before Mr. Panetta was due to arrive.
General Gurganus told reporters later that he had wanted a consistent policy for everyone in the tent, and that "I wanted to have the Marines look just like their Afghan partners." He insisted that his decision had nothing to do with the shooting on Sunday. he said.
The Times also quoted Gurganus as saying the first-ever incident of disarming troops for an address by their own secretary of defense "is not a big deal."
Got that? Imposing the same lack of trust they obviously have for the Afghans in the room on our U.S. servicemen and women is no "big deal."
American soldiers are already disarmed when they return from overseas duty. It was that policy which army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan exploited during a terrorist attack at Ft. Hood, Texas. Nidal knew his intended victims were unarmed, and used that fact to assure a high death toll.
As Buckeye Firearms Foundation Board of Directors member Gerard Valentino has pointed out, "When Nidal Hasan killed 13 Americans at one of the largest military bases in the United States, it should have served as a wake-up call. Instead, the military establishment based the safety of American soldiers on the false hope of gun free zones."
Indeed, and now we know that Obama's military commanders aren't just content with "no-guns" military bases here in the U.S. - for a short time on Wednesday, they implemented one in a theater of war.
Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Vice Chairman.
Monday, March 19, 2012
The Obamacare Cancer Must Be Stopped
(The following is a message from Ed Feulner initially published on morningbell@heritige.com on March 19, 2012)
Fellow Americans:
It has been two years this week since the passage of Obamacare, and the firestorm it ignited has not abated but only spread and intensified. Most Americans have already made up their minds, understanding that until it is completely removed, the cancer of Obamacare threatens not only our healthcare and our economy but also our most fundamental liberties and constitutional self-government.
Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on its constitutionality, bringing this intolerable act to the forefront of the American mind once again and reminding the country that the issue of Obamacare is by no means settled.
Nothing the Administration has done has made this law more palatable, quite the opposite, and none of the PR events the White House has planned for this week is likely to change people's minds.
Nor will Obamacare likely be settled by the Supreme Court. As with such divisive questions in the past, this question will be settled by the American people who have throughout this failed episode signaled loud and clear that they want the whole monstrosity repealed once and for all.
In its short 24-month life, Obamacare has done nothing but confirm our worst fears, being a signal failure from the very beginning.
Obamacare promised to make healthcare more accessible and cheaper without increasing taxes or the deficit. If you liked your doctor, of course you could keep your doctor. No one would be made to do anything against their will. These promises have all been broken.
The law's escalating regulations and costs weigh heavily on the businesses that fuel our economy, one of the reasons job creation has been so anemic and economic recovery has been lackluster. Obamacare is expected to force Americans to pay $99 billion more in taxes and penalties than originally anticipated. Families earning over $250,000 will get hit with a higher Medicare payroll tax.
And just last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that costs, originally pegged at $938 billion, have now risen to $1.76 trillion. Congressional Republicans estimate the tab to be $2.6 trillion. CBO also says that as many as 20 million Americans could lose their employer-provided coverage because of Obamacare.
Turning to the individual mandate forcing all Americans to buy insurance, it quickly led to a revolt by a majority of states, who are now challenging the law before the Supreme Court. The Heritage Foundation weighed in on the issue and filed an amicus brief urging the Court to strike down the law. If government can regulate inactivity, it can do anything.
As Obamacare moves into its implementation phase, we are beginning to see more clearly where it is headed. A heavy-handed mandate for preventive services collides with religious liberty by ordering all insurance plans to cover abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization at no-cost to the insured. Religious groups serving the public will have to provide such coverage regardless of their religious beliefs and deep moral objections. Those who choose not to comply will face heavy fines that will divert resources from their work to serve the poor, elderly, and sick, if not cause them to leave this work entirely. Such disregard not only tramples our basic liberties but also makes it hard for religious institutions to continue their important work serving communities all across America.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. With each new requirement, Obamacare will make insurance more expensive, reduce flexibility and choice, and take away liberty.
Given this sorry record it is not surprising that Obamacare has been a political loser for its proponents. Starting with the elections of Republican governors in Virginia and New Jersey in November 2009, then of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, of all places, two months later, and culminating in the watershed elections of November 2010, when the nation saw the biggest landslide in seven decades.
Today the legislation barely rates a mention in presidential speeches, the signature legislative achievement of President Obama's first term having become an albatross around his neck.
The American people had the common sense to understand from the start that there is something more at issue when more than 150 federal agencies, bureaus and commissions have the authority to intervene in some of the most personal and private decisions of our lives.
Poll after poll continues to demonstrate that Obamacare is not supported by the American people. The reason is that it offends our principled and abiding attachment to liberty and self government, going to the heart of the relationship between citizen and state.
The only complete remedy is the full repeal of Obamacare in all of its aspects. Like so many, we encourage the Supreme Court to reject the law on constitutional grounds. But Congress must be prepared to finish the job. The ultimate responsibility, though, lies with the American people, who are the ones who elect their leaders. America needs real health care reform that increases access, built on the firm foundation of constitutional principle and the commitment to freedom that has sustained this nation since its founding.
Sixty-five years ago, in the days after their noble victory in World War II, the British people chose not the hero who had led them, Winston Churchill, but replaced his coalition with a socialist Labour Party that quickly brought forth their now-infamous National Health System. By no coincidence, the British government announced a year later it could no longer afford its strategic responsibilities in the post-war world, seemingly reconciled to a declining status.
This will not be our fate. Americans do not line up for instructions from Washington. By their good character and dedication to the principles of liberty, Americans will never resign themselves to being the wards of a bureaucratic state where all is subject to government control, regulatory dictate and administrative whim.
Obamacare is a cancer. We must not rest until we are rid of it.
Join our fight to remove this cancer from America. We cannot wait even one more day.
Thank you for all you do for our cause.
Sincerely,
Ed Feulner
Fellow Americans:
It has been two years this week since the passage of Obamacare, and the firestorm it ignited has not abated but only spread and intensified. Most Americans have already made up their minds, understanding that until it is completely removed, the cancer of Obamacare threatens not only our healthcare and our economy but also our most fundamental liberties and constitutional self-government.
Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on its constitutionality, bringing this intolerable act to the forefront of the American mind once again and reminding the country that the issue of Obamacare is by no means settled.
Nothing the Administration has done has made this law more palatable, quite the opposite, and none of the PR events the White House has planned for this week is likely to change people's minds.
Nor will Obamacare likely be settled by the Supreme Court. As with such divisive questions in the past, this question will be settled by the American people who have throughout this failed episode signaled loud and clear that they want the whole monstrosity repealed once and for all.
In its short 24-month life, Obamacare has done nothing but confirm our worst fears, being a signal failure from the very beginning.
Obamacare promised to make healthcare more accessible and cheaper without increasing taxes or the deficit. If you liked your doctor, of course you could keep your doctor. No one would be made to do anything against their will. These promises have all been broken.
The law's escalating regulations and costs weigh heavily on the businesses that fuel our economy, one of the reasons job creation has been so anemic and economic recovery has been lackluster. Obamacare is expected to force Americans to pay $99 billion more in taxes and penalties than originally anticipated. Families earning over $250,000 will get hit with a higher Medicare payroll tax.
And just last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that costs, originally pegged at $938 billion, have now risen to $1.76 trillion. Congressional Republicans estimate the tab to be $2.6 trillion. CBO also says that as many as 20 million Americans could lose their employer-provided coverage because of Obamacare.
Turning to the individual mandate forcing all Americans to buy insurance, it quickly led to a revolt by a majority of states, who are now challenging the law before the Supreme Court. The Heritage Foundation weighed in on the issue and filed an amicus brief urging the Court to strike down the law. If government can regulate inactivity, it can do anything.
As Obamacare moves into its implementation phase, we are beginning to see more clearly where it is headed. A heavy-handed mandate for preventive services collides with religious liberty by ordering all insurance plans to cover abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization at no-cost to the insured. Religious groups serving the public will have to provide such coverage regardless of their religious beliefs and deep moral objections. Those who choose not to comply will face heavy fines that will divert resources from their work to serve the poor, elderly, and sick, if not cause them to leave this work entirely. Such disregard not only tramples our basic liberties but also makes it hard for religious institutions to continue their important work serving communities all across America.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. With each new requirement, Obamacare will make insurance more expensive, reduce flexibility and choice, and take away liberty.
Given this sorry record it is not surprising that Obamacare has been a political loser for its proponents. Starting with the elections of Republican governors in Virginia and New Jersey in November 2009, then of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, of all places, two months later, and culminating in the watershed elections of November 2010, when the nation saw the biggest landslide in seven decades.
Today the legislation barely rates a mention in presidential speeches, the signature legislative achievement of President Obama's first term having become an albatross around his neck.
The American people had the common sense to understand from the start that there is something more at issue when more than 150 federal agencies, bureaus and commissions have the authority to intervene in some of the most personal and private decisions of our lives.
Poll after poll continues to demonstrate that Obamacare is not supported by the American people. The reason is that it offends our principled and abiding attachment to liberty and self government, going to the heart of the relationship between citizen and state.
The only complete remedy is the full repeal of Obamacare in all of its aspects. Like so many, we encourage the Supreme Court to reject the law on constitutional grounds. But Congress must be prepared to finish the job. The ultimate responsibility, though, lies with the American people, who are the ones who elect their leaders. America needs real health care reform that increases access, built on the firm foundation of constitutional principle and the commitment to freedom that has sustained this nation since its founding.
Sixty-five years ago, in the days after their noble victory in World War II, the British people chose not the hero who had led them, Winston Churchill, but replaced his coalition with a socialist Labour Party that quickly brought forth their now-infamous National Health System. By no coincidence, the British government announced a year later it could no longer afford its strategic responsibilities in the post-war world, seemingly reconciled to a declining status.
This will not be our fate. Americans do not line up for instructions from Washington. By their good character and dedication to the principles of liberty, Americans will never resign themselves to being the wards of a bureaucratic state where all is subject to government control, regulatory dictate and administrative whim.
Obamacare is a cancer. We must not rest until we are rid of it.
Join our fight to remove this cancer from America. We cannot wait even one more day.
Thank you for all you do for our cause.
Sincerely,
Ed Feulner
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Obama Fraud Silence In US Media Questioned By Pravda
It’s a twist of irony: The Russian news website Pravda has published an accusation that the American media is “tame,” afraid to publish news and is “deliberately hiding the evidence published on the internet about [President Obama's] defrauding of the American public and the deliberate evisceration of the Constitution of the United States.”
In a March 7 Pravda column, “Arizona sheriff finds Obama presidential qualifications forged,” Dianna Cotter, a senior at American Military University, blasts America’s mainstream media for their virtual silence about Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s six-month investigation into the controversy surrounding Obama’s birth certificate and his constitutional eligibility for office.
“A singularly remarkable event has taken place in the United States of America,” Cotter wrote. “This event occurred in Arizona on March 1st and was an earth shattering revelation. … Yet, in the five days since [Arpaio's] revelations there has been little in the way of serious reporting on the findings he presented in his presser. With 6 short videos, the Sheriff and his team presented a devastating case, one the tame US press is apparently unable to report.”
Cotter recalls Obama April 27, 2011, press conference in which he “walked into the White House Press room with a Cheshire cat like grin and a ‘Long Form Birth Certificate’ from the State of Hawaii in hand.”
Speaking from the podium, Obama declared, “We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.”
“Quite the barb from a man holding a forged document,” Cotter wrote. “That’s right, forged.
She notes that the investigation also uncovered an allegedly forged Selective Service Card for Obama.
“Forged documents are being used to qualify a President of the United States for the office he holds,” she contends. “Or is usurped the more accurate term?
“The silence from the main stream media in the US is deafening. It almost seems as if the press is terrified to even think the question, let alone ask it: Is the President a criminal? The press in Arpaio’s audience were certainly asking him to state precisely that, yet nowhere has the question been asked of the White House by the press. Instead the American Press is aggressively protecting the presumed President of the United States, pushing the fraud upon both America and the world, supporting a man who may well have usurped the office.”
She asks, “What has been the response from the Obama era press?
“Silence.
“Silence so loud it can be felt.”
Cotter lays out detailed evidence of a widespread cover-up and concludes:
The American Press is deliberately hiding the evidence published on the internet about this defrauding of the American public and the deliberate evisceration of the Constitution of the United States. It is hiding Barack Obama’s Fraud as it has been revealed by a Sheriff in Arizona. The silence of the American press would be unbelievable if it weren’t so blatantly obvious.
It is nearly as egregious as the audacity of Obama’s fraud itself.
In a March 7 Pravda column, “Arizona sheriff finds Obama presidential qualifications forged,” Dianna Cotter, a senior at American Military University, blasts America’s mainstream media for their virtual silence about Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s six-month investigation into the controversy surrounding Obama’s birth certificate and his constitutional eligibility for office.
“A singularly remarkable event has taken place in the United States of America,” Cotter wrote. “This event occurred in Arizona on March 1st and was an earth shattering revelation. … Yet, in the five days since [Arpaio's] revelations there has been little in the way of serious reporting on the findings he presented in his presser. With 6 short videos, the Sheriff and his team presented a devastating case, one the tame US press is apparently unable to report.”
Cotter recalls Obama April 27, 2011, press conference in which he “walked into the White House Press room with a Cheshire cat like grin and a ‘Long Form Birth Certificate’ from the State of Hawaii in hand.”
Speaking from the podium, Obama declared, “We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.”
“Quite the barb from a man holding a forged document,” Cotter wrote. “That’s right, forged.
She notes that the investigation also uncovered an allegedly forged Selective Service Card for Obama.
“Forged documents are being used to qualify a President of the United States for the office he holds,” she contends. “Or is usurped the more accurate term?
“The silence from the main stream media in the US is deafening. It almost seems as if the press is terrified to even think the question, let alone ask it: Is the President a criminal? The press in Arpaio’s audience were certainly asking him to state precisely that, yet nowhere has the question been asked of the White House by the press. Instead the American Press is aggressively protecting the presumed President of the United States, pushing the fraud upon both America and the world, supporting a man who may well have usurped the office.”
She asks, “What has been the response from the Obama era press?
“Silence.
“Silence so loud it can be felt.”
Cotter lays out detailed evidence of a widespread cover-up and concludes:
The American Press is deliberately hiding the evidence published on the internet about this defrauding of the American public and the deliberate evisceration of the Constitution of the United States. It is hiding Barack Obama’s Fraud as it has been revealed by a Sheriff in Arizona. The silence of the American press would be unbelievable if it weren’t so blatantly obvious.
It is nearly as egregious as the audacity of Obama’s fraud itself.
Friday, March 16, 2012
The Secret Plan to Defend Obamacare
This week, The Heritage Foundation's Rob Bluey obtained a four-page strategy memo that outlines a White House-coordinated campaign to force an unwilling public to accept Obamacare. Once again, all the strategies by the Administration and its liberal allies involve how better to message this hated law as the anniversary of its passage approaches and the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on its constitutionality. If only the Administration put this much effort into lowering the price of gas or creating jobs.
The memo identifies the White House's target audience -- seniors, women, and young adults -- with a goal of "increas[ing] overall public support for the law by making the benefits of the law (and consequences of taking those benefits away) tangible by featuring stories of real people impacted." The effort will focus on two key issues:
"Remind people that the law is already benefiting millions of Americans by providing health care coverage, reducing costs and providing access to healthcare coverage. This message will include the ideas that these are benefits that politicans/the Court art (sic) are trying to take away from average Americans."
"Frame the Supreme Court oral arguments in terms of real people and real benefits that would be lost if the law were overturned. While lawyers will be talking about the individual responsibility piece of the law and the legal precedence, organizations on the ground should continue to focus on these more tangible results of the law."
The White House and its allies have a lot of persuading to do. The American people have come to their own conclusion about Obamacare -- the law was a serious mistake, and it's time for it to go.
Polling data shows the extent of the opposition. Fifty-three percent of Americans favor repeal, more than half of Americans say that the Supreme Court should strike down the mandate, 57 percent believe religious-affiliated employers should be exempt from the law's anti-conscience mandate, 51 percent support a religious and moral exemption for all employers, and 60 percent of physicians believe the law will have a negative impact on overall patient care.
There's good reason for their opposition. The latest news of Obamacare's impact came from a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report released this week. In one of the CBO's reported scenarios, 20 million Americans could lose their employer-sponsored health benefits, and 49 million more Americans could become dependent on government-sponsored health care. And it won't come cheaply for American taxpayers. Projecting through 2022, Obamacare could cost as much as $2.134 trillion, and individual and employer mandate penalties could hit $221 billion.
Then there's the issue of the unconstitutional individual mandate that forces Americans to buy government dictated health insurance or pay a penalty, as well as the anti-conscience mandate that religious employers, including schools, hospitals, and charities, must provide abortion-inducing drugs and contraception despite the fact that such services totally contradict many of these groups' core religious beliefs.
Under Obamacare, costs will go up, people will lose the coverage they have, and quality of care will decline. Individuals and businesses will face penalties, seniors will feel the effects of Obamacare's cuts to Medicare, doctors will suffer from increased regulation and lower government reimbursement for services, taxpayers will face new taxes, jobs will be lost, millions of Americans will remain uninsured and stuck in overcrowded emergency rooms, religious institutions and the faithful will suffer the loss of their religious liberties, and future generations will pay the costs.
That's not the message you'll see and hear next week as the White House and its supporters descend on Washington and take to the airwaves in defense of Obamacare. But as much as they'd like to portray their efforts as a grassroots groundswell in defense of the President's law, we know that it's a highly coordinated effort to preserve an unconstitutional affront to the American people.
*******************
Originally published by morningbell@heritage.com on March 16, 2012.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Chevy Volt Operating Cost
Eric Bolling (Fox Business Channel's Follow the Money) test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors. For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.
Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery. So, the range including the nine gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles. It will take you 4 1/2 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.
According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery. The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned so I looked up what I pay for electricity. I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh.
16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery. $18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery.
Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine only that gets 32 mpg. $3.89 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.12 per mile.
(Don't forget the pollution produced to make the electricity is probably very comparable to the pollution emitted by the gasoline car. That is just a trade-off rather than an advantage.)
The gasoline powered car cost about $15,000 while the Volt costs $46,000.
So this car manufacturer wants us to pay 3 times as much for a car that costs more than 7 times as much to run and takes 3 times as long to drive across country.
Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery. So, the range including the nine gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles. It will take you 4 1/2 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.
According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery. The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned so I looked up what I pay for electricity. I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh.
16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery. $18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery.
Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine only that gets 32 mpg. $3.89 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.12 per mile.
(Don't forget the pollution produced to make the electricity is probably very comparable to the pollution emitted by the gasoline car. That is just a trade-off rather than an advantage.)
The gasoline powered car cost about $15,000 while the Volt costs $46,000.
So this car manufacturer wants us to pay 3 times as much for a car that costs more than 7 times as much to run and takes 3 times as long to drive across country.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Detroit Today
By Frosty Wooldridge*
For 15 years, from the mid 1970's to 1990, I worked in Detroit, Michigan. I watched it descend into the abyss of crime, debauchery, gun play, drugs, school truancy, car-jacking, gangs and human depravity. I watched entire city blocks burned out. I watched graffiti explode on buildings, cars, trucks, buses and school yards. Trash everywhere!
Detroiters walked through it, tossed more into it, and ignored it. Tens of thousands, and then hundreds of thousands today exist on federal welfare, free housing, and food stamps!
With Aid to Dependent Children, minority women birthed eight to 10, and in one case, one woman birthed 24 children as reported by the Detroit Free Press, all on American taxpayer dollars.
A new child meant a new car payment, new TV, and whatever mom wanted. I saw Lyndon Baines Johnson's 'Great Society' flourish in Detroit. If you give money for doing nothing, you will get more hands out taking money for doing nothing.
Mayor Coleman Young, perhaps the most corrupt mayor in America, outside of Richard Daley in Chicago, rode Detroit down to its knees... He set the benchmark for cronyism, incompetence, and arrogance. As a black man, he said, "I am the MFIC." The IC meant "in charge".
You can figure out the rest Detroit became a majority black city with 67 percent African-Americans.
As a United Van Lines truck driver for my summer job from teaching math and science, I loaded hundreds of American families into my van for a new life in another city or state.
Detroit plummeted from 1.8 million citizens to 912,000 today. At the same time, legal and illegal immigrants converged on the city for the free government handouts, so much so, that Muslims number over 300,000. Mexicans number 400,000 throughout Michigan, but most work in Detroit. As the whites moved out, the Muslims moved in.
As the crimes became more violent, the whites fled. Finally, unlawful Mexicans moved in at a torrid pace. Detroit suffers so much shoplifting that grocery stores no longer operate in many inner city locations. You could cut the racial tension in the air with a knife! Detroit may be one of our best examples of multiculturalism: pure dislike, and total separation from America…
Today, you hear Muslim calls to worship over the city like a new American Baghdad with hundreds of Islamic mosques in Michigan, paid for by Saudi Arabia oil money. High school flunk out rates reached 76 percent last June, according to NBC's Brian Williams. Classrooms resemble more foreign countries than America... English? Few speak it! The city features a 50 percent illiteracy rate and growing.
Unemployment hit 28.9 percent in 2009 as the auto industry vacated the city. In Time Magazine's October 4, 2009, "The Tragedy of Detroit: How a great city fell, and how it can rise again," I choked on the writer's description of what happened. "If Detroit had been ravaged by a hurricane, and submerged by a ravenous flood, we'd know a lot more about it," said Daniel Okrent. "If drought and carelessness had spread brush fires across the city, we'd see it on the evening news every night." Earthquake, tornadoes, you name it, if natural disaster had devastated the city that was once the living proof of American prosperity, the rest of the country might take notice.
But Detroit, once our fourth largest city, now 11th and slipping rapidly, has had no such luck. Its disaster has long been a slow unwinding that seemed to remove it from the rest of the country.
Even the death rattle that in the past year emanated from its signature industry brought more attention to the auto executives than to the people of the city, who had for so long been victimized by their dreadful decision making."
As Coleman Young's corruption brought the city to its knees, no amount of federal dollars could save the incredible payoffs, kickbacks and illegality permeating his administration. I witnessed the city's death from the seat of my 18-wheeler tractor trailer because I moved people out of every sector of decaying Detroit.
"By any quantifiable standard, the city is on life support. Detroit 's treasury is $300 million short of the funds needed to provide the barest municipal services," Okrent said. "The school system, which six years ago was compelled by the teachers' union to reject a philanthropist's offer of $200 million to build 15 small, independent charter high schools, is in receivership. The murder rate is soaring, and 7 out of 10 remain unsolved. Three years after Katrina devastated New Orleans, unemployment in that city hit a peak of 11%. In Detroit today, the unemployment rate is 28.9%. That's worth spelling out: twenty-eight point nine percent.
At the end of Okrent's report, and he will write a dozen more about Detroit, he said, "That's because the story of Detroit is not simply one of a great city's collapse, it's also about the erosion of the industries that helped build the country we know today. The ultimate fate of Detroit will reveal much about the character of America in the 21st century.
If what was once the most prosperous manufacturing city in the nation has been brought to its knees, what does that say about our recent past? And if it can't find a way to get up, what does that say about America s future?"
As you read in my book review of Chris Steiner's book, $20 Per Gallon, the auto industry won't come back. Immigration will keep pouring more and more uneducated third world immigrants from the Middle East into Detroit, thus creating a beachhead for Islamic hegemony in America. If 50 percent illiteracy continues, we will see more homegrown terrorists spawned out of the Muslim ghettos of Detroit. Illiteracy plus Islam equals walking human bombs.
You have already seen it in Madrid, Spain, London, England, and Paris, France with train bombings, subway bombings and riots. As their numbers grow, so will their power to enact their barbaric Sharia Law that negates republican forms of government, first amendment rights, and subjugates women to the lowest rungs on the human ladder. We will see more honor killings by upset husbands, fathers and brothers that demand subjugation by their daughters, sisters and wives. Muslims prefer beheadings of women to scare the hell out of any other members of their sect from straying. Multiculturalism: what a perfect method to kill our language, culture, country and way of life.
I PRAY EVERYONE THAT READS THIS REALIZES THAT IF WE DON'T STAND UP, AND SCREAM AT WASHINGTON, AND OUR STATE, CITY AND LOCAL LEADERS THIS IS WHAT AWAITS THE REST OF AMERICA. IF YOU THINK MEXICANS AND MUSLIMS AND OTHER FOREIGNERS WILL EVENTUALLY FIT RIGHT IN, THEN YOU ARE AS BIG A PART OF THE PROBLEM AS THEY ARE.
IF YOU THINK THIS IS JUST A BUNCH OF HOOEY AND YOU FEEL NO DUTY TO FIGHT FOR THIS COUNTRY, THEN I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WILL TAKE FOR YOU TO STAND AND FIGHT?
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
-- Benjamin Franklin
*Frosty Wooldridge (born 1947) is a US journalist,
naturalist, writer, environmentalist, traveler, and
figure in the anti-illegal immigration movement
in the United States.
IF YOU LOVE AMERICA, PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG…..
The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Huge Tax Hike In New Obama Budget
Obama's Hidden Tax Hikes
EXCLUSIVE: It could be said that President Obama has never seen a tax hike he doesn't like -- whether it's letting the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire, insisting on higher taxes for job creators, and yesterday calling on Congress to raise taxes on the oil industry. But as much as the President wants to raise taxes, Heritage has discovered that are even more tax hikes hidden in his budget, adding up to a total of $2 trillion in higher taxes.
In a new report, Heritage's Curtis Dubay uncovers Obama's hidden tax hikes and finds that the President's proposed $1.561 trillion tax increase over 10 years is much bigger than advertised. In fact, the President wants to raise taxes by $1.689 trillion -- that's $128 billion more than was reported by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the President's FY 2013 budget proposal.
What's to account for the discrepancy? Dubay explains that OMB reports the tax hikes in areas other than the tax section, misleading readers into believing that the President's tax hikes are smaller than they are in reality. Among them are the "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee," better known as the bank tax, which adds another $61 billion to the President's tax hike total; a $44 billion tax hike from allowing the IRS to adjust a program integrity cap; a $48 billion increase of the unemployment tax; and a $1 billion hike of user fees for commercial navigation of inland waterways.
How's that for "the most transparent White House in history"?
But wait, there's even more.
On top of the $128 billion in hidden taxes, the President takes credit for tax cuts when he really doesn't deserve it. Dubay reports that the budget includes $317 billion in pre-existing tax cutting policies, including the payroll tax holiday ($31 billion), the American Opportunity Tax Credit ($137 billion), the Research and Experimentation Credit ($109 billion), the group of tax-reducing policies known as the "tax extenders" ($34 billion), along with a handful of other provisions totaling $6 billion -- even though these policies were already part of the tax code. In other words, the President wants to get all the credit, while dodging the blame.
Take away those wrongly counted cuts and the President actually wants to raise taxes by more than $2 trillion!
Dubay says the White House has some explaining to do:
Congress should disregard the misleading tax hike figure from OMB's table and use the correct $2 trillion amount when referring to the total tax hikes in the President's budget. And Members of Congress should question OMB as to why they chose to mislead readers about the total tax hike that President Obama has called for on American taxpayers.
Why does all this tax talk matter? Take a look at the economy. America is experiencing a historically slow recovery, the likes of which haven't been seen since World War II. Private-sector employment is 4.5 percent below pre-recession levels, unemployment remains at 8.3 percent -- the highest since the 1981-1982 recession -- and only 63.7 percent of adult Americans are active in the labor force, the lowest since 1983. Meanwhile, small businesses say taxes are among their most important problems -- they fear Washington will raise taxes in order to pay for even more spending, so they're sitting on the sidelines and not producing jobs. Now it appears that their worst fears are coming true.
Instead of raising taxes through the roof and hiding a chunk of those tax hikes from the American people, Washington should pursue policies that encourage growth and will help put the unemployed back to work. One way to do it is with Heritage's "New Flat Tax" which simplifies the tax system and encourages investment.
America doesn't need $2 trillion in higher taxes, especially in a time of a weak recovery. And it certainly doesn't need them slipped through under their noses. The President's budget claims credit for tax cuts he doesn't deserve, hides the true cost of the tax hikes he imposes, and punishes job creators instead of encouraging them to expand. Consider it the President's secret recipe for a weak economy.
EXCLUSIVE: It could be said that President Obama has never seen a tax hike he doesn't like -- whether it's letting the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire, insisting on higher taxes for job creators, and yesterday calling on Congress to raise taxes on the oil industry. But as much as the President wants to raise taxes, Heritage has discovered that are even more tax hikes hidden in his budget, adding up to a total of $2 trillion in higher taxes.
In a new report, Heritage's Curtis Dubay uncovers Obama's hidden tax hikes and finds that the President's proposed $1.561 trillion tax increase over 10 years is much bigger than advertised. In fact, the President wants to raise taxes by $1.689 trillion -- that's $128 billion more than was reported by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the President's FY 2013 budget proposal.
What's to account for the discrepancy? Dubay explains that OMB reports the tax hikes in areas other than the tax section, misleading readers into believing that the President's tax hikes are smaller than they are in reality. Among them are the "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee," better known as the bank tax, which adds another $61 billion to the President's tax hike total; a $44 billion tax hike from allowing the IRS to adjust a program integrity cap; a $48 billion increase of the unemployment tax; and a $1 billion hike of user fees for commercial navigation of inland waterways.
How's that for "the most transparent White House in history"?
But wait, there's even more.
On top of the $128 billion in hidden taxes, the President takes credit for tax cuts when he really doesn't deserve it. Dubay reports that the budget includes $317 billion in pre-existing tax cutting policies, including the payroll tax holiday ($31 billion), the American Opportunity Tax Credit ($137 billion), the Research and Experimentation Credit ($109 billion), the group of tax-reducing policies known as the "tax extenders" ($34 billion), along with a handful of other provisions totaling $6 billion -- even though these policies were already part of the tax code. In other words, the President wants to get all the credit, while dodging the blame.
Take away those wrongly counted cuts and the President actually wants to raise taxes by more than $2 trillion!
Dubay says the White House has some explaining to do:
Congress should disregard the misleading tax hike figure from OMB's table and use the correct $2 trillion amount when referring to the total tax hikes in the President's budget. And Members of Congress should question OMB as to why they chose to mislead readers about the total tax hike that President Obama has called for on American taxpayers.
Why does all this tax talk matter? Take a look at the economy. America is experiencing a historically slow recovery, the likes of which haven't been seen since World War II. Private-sector employment is 4.5 percent below pre-recession levels, unemployment remains at 8.3 percent -- the highest since the 1981-1982 recession -- and only 63.7 percent of adult Americans are active in the labor force, the lowest since 1983. Meanwhile, small businesses say taxes are among their most important problems -- they fear Washington will raise taxes in order to pay for even more spending, so they're sitting on the sidelines and not producing jobs. Now it appears that their worst fears are coming true.
Instead of raising taxes through the roof and hiding a chunk of those tax hikes from the American people, Washington should pursue policies that encourage growth and will help put the unemployed back to work. One way to do it is with Heritage's "New Flat Tax" which simplifies the tax system and encourages investment.
America doesn't need $2 trillion in higher taxes, especially in a time of a weak recovery. And it certainly doesn't need them slipped through under their noses. The President's budget claims credit for tax cuts he doesn't deserve, hides the true cost of the tax hikes he imposes, and punishes job creators instead of encouraging them to expand. Consider it the President's secret recipe for a weak economy.
**************
Origonally published by morningbell@heritage.com on March 2, 2012
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
White House Wants to Keep Gas Prices High
With the national average of gas prices hitting $3.65 a gallon, nearing $6 in some parts of the country, and poised to head even higher, America's families are wondering when the bleeding at the pump will stop. But for Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu, those steep prices aren't even a concern. In fact, he says his goal is not to get the price of gasoline to go down.
Chu delivered those stunning remarks in testimony before Congress yesterday. When Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R-Miss.) asked Chu whether it's his "overall goal to get our price" of gasoline lower, Chu said, "No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy."
As shocking as his remarks are, they shouldn't come as a surprise. Chu has a long record of advocating for higher gas prices. In 2008, he stated, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Last March, he reiterated his point in an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, noting that his focus is to ease the pain felt by his energy policies by forcing automakers to make more fuel-efficient automobiles. "What I'm doing since I became Secretary of Energy has been quite clear. What I have been doing is developing methods to take the pain out of high gas prices."
One of those methods is dumping taxpayer dollars into alternative energy projects like the Solyndra solar plant. Another is subsidizing the purchase of high-cost electric cars like the Chevy Volt to the tune of $7,500 per car (which the White House wants to increase to $10,000). In both cases, those methods aren't working. Solyndra went bankrupt because its product couldn't bear the weight of market pressures, and Chevy Volts aren't selling, even with taxpayer-funded rebates. What's the president's next plan? Harvesting "a bunch of algae" as a replacement for oil.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is seemingly doing everything it can to make paying for energy even more painful by refusing to open access to the country's oil and gas reserves and blocking new projects that would lead to the development of more energy in America. Case in point: the president's decision to say "no" to the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would have delivered hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil from Canada to Texas refineries, while bringing thousands of jobs along with it.
Sensing impending political fallout from the high cost of gas, President Obama last week spoke on the subject and attempted to deflect blame for the pain. He said that there is no quick fix to high gas prices and the nation cannot drill its way out of the problem, but as Heritage's Nicolas Loris writes, the president ignored reality and dished out a series of half-truths. Among them, the president claimed oil production is its highest in eight years, that increasing oil production takes too long, and that oil is not enough. Loris writes that while production is up on private lands, unrealized production on federal lands and offshore could have yielded even more output, increasing supply and driving down costs. If the president had said "yes" to Keystone, oil could have reach the market quickly. And as for the president's push for alternative energy, those sources simply cannot stand the test of the market.
There are steps the president and Congress can and should take today to bring down the cost of energy. Namely, end the de facto moratorium on drilling, open offshore areas that are off-limits to drilling, place a 270-day limit on environmental reviews for energy projects on federal lands, remove regulatory delays, and approve Keystone.
As Loris writes, "The market would respond if Congress and the Obama Administration allowed it to work." But Secretary Chu and the Obama Administration are evidently not interested in market-based reforms that bring down the cost of energy. Instead, they're bent on keeping energy costs high in order to placate the environmental left. And now Americans are paying the price.
Chu delivered those stunning remarks in testimony before Congress yesterday. When Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R-Miss.) asked Chu whether it's his "overall goal to get our price" of gasoline lower, Chu said, "No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy."
As shocking as his remarks are, they shouldn't come as a surprise. Chu has a long record of advocating for higher gas prices. In 2008, he stated, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Last March, he reiterated his point in an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, noting that his focus is to ease the pain felt by his energy policies by forcing automakers to make more fuel-efficient automobiles. "What I'm doing since I became Secretary of Energy has been quite clear. What I have been doing is developing methods to take the pain out of high gas prices."
One of those methods is dumping taxpayer dollars into alternative energy projects like the Solyndra solar plant. Another is subsidizing the purchase of high-cost electric cars like the Chevy Volt to the tune of $7,500 per car (which the White House wants to increase to $10,000). In both cases, those methods aren't working. Solyndra went bankrupt because its product couldn't bear the weight of market pressures, and Chevy Volts aren't selling, even with taxpayer-funded rebates. What's the president's next plan? Harvesting "a bunch of algae" as a replacement for oil.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is seemingly doing everything it can to make paying for energy even more painful by refusing to open access to the country's oil and gas reserves and blocking new projects that would lead to the development of more energy in America. Case in point: the president's decision to say "no" to the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would have delivered hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil from Canada to Texas refineries, while bringing thousands of jobs along with it.
Sensing impending political fallout from the high cost of gas, President Obama last week spoke on the subject and attempted to deflect blame for the pain. He said that there is no quick fix to high gas prices and the nation cannot drill its way out of the problem, but as Heritage's Nicolas Loris writes, the president ignored reality and dished out a series of half-truths. Among them, the president claimed oil production is its highest in eight years, that increasing oil production takes too long, and that oil is not enough. Loris writes that while production is up on private lands, unrealized production on federal lands and offshore could have yielded even more output, increasing supply and driving down costs. If the president had said "yes" to Keystone, oil could have reach the market quickly. And as for the president's push for alternative energy, those sources simply cannot stand the test of the market.
There are steps the president and Congress can and should take today to bring down the cost of energy. Namely, end the de facto moratorium on drilling, open offshore areas that are off-limits to drilling, place a 270-day limit on environmental reviews for energy projects on federal lands, remove regulatory delays, and approve Keystone.
As Loris writes, "The market would respond if Congress and the Obama Administration allowed it to work." But Secretary Chu and the Obama Administration are evidently not interested in market-based reforms that bring down the cost of energy. Instead, they're bent on keeping energy costs high in order to placate the environmental left. And now Americans are paying the price.
VIDEO: Watch President Obama and Secretary Chu describe in their own words their vision of higher energy prices. See the video on YouTube.
********
Monday, February 27, 2012
Gun Control Allowed the Chardon High School Shootings
Well, the gun control idiots win another one. In their premise that the forbidding of legal gun carry on school campuses will prevent violence to students, they provided another opportunity for another shooting incident in which students have been injured. A malcontent started shooting at 7:30 this morning, Monday, February 27, with no fear of being challenged by anyone.
While the news is somewhat scarce, the following seems to be apparent. An unnamed student last night broadcast his intent to bring a weapon to school today on the Internet. This message was read by numerous people, students included. He then walked into Chardon High School this morning and opened fire injuring at least four other students. At the time of this writing the condition of the wounded has not been defined but reports indicate that they have been transported to medical facilities for treatment.
This incident, as did those of other school shootings, raises problems which authorities, school, law enforcement, and government, as well as parents, have failed to recognize, problems which are not discussed for political reasons rather than reasons of public safety, for reasons which wholly political.
First is the Second Amendment issue, the right of the people to have guns, to carry and use them in the protection of their liberty. The constitution gives the American citizen the right not only to own a firearm but to carry it and use it when threatened by anybody. Along with this right comes the responsibility to provide protection to one's family, friends, and other citizens in time of danger. Surprisingly, the Constitution of the State of Ohio provides the same thing.
So why is this important and how does it fit into the Chardon High School shootings? What would have been the result if there had been even one armed person in the high school at 7:30 this morning in the area where the shootings took place? Would the casualty rate be as high as it was? Would it even have taken place? Obviously we'll never know the answer to that, but we do know this - in every instance where there has been a criminal attack, the criminal was the only one present with a gun, or so he thought. It is strange isn't it, that places at which a large number of armed people are present, are not usually brought under attack by stray gunmen. People who want to create mayhem with firearms seldom choose places frequented by others who are armed and competent to protect themselves.
The argument is used that the legally armed citizen is not need in these situations as we have trained law enforcement officers who can handle these situations. I have the greatest respect of law enforcement professionals and would feel very secure if they were on site when a shooting went down, but that is seldom the case. Police officials do not prevent crime, such as happened at Chardon, rather they clean up the mess after it is over. This is not a default towards their ability or dedication, merely a statement of fact.
Had someone legally armed been present could this shooting have be avoided? Possibly. But with no-one present who could have met the shooter's force with force, could it have been avoided? That answer is obvious. With at least four people wounded it is obvious that not only it couldn't be avoided, but it wasn't.
And what about that Internet message? Why was this not reported? It was read. What sort of responsibility was tossed aside by those who read it? Why was it not reported by those students, and others, who read it. Did student's parents have a clue what their children were reading on Facebook, or did they even care? Did the school administrators hear of the threat, and if they did, what did they do about it? With 1,100 students, their parents, school employees, and who knows who else had access to postings, how is it possible that the warning wasn't seen and acted upon? It is called responsibility to do something in a case like this, but responsibility failed completely once again.
So why the stupidity against firearms in schools, government buildings, at home? For the very reason that the Second Amendment was enacted in the first place, to protect ourselves from the government at all levels. Restrict gun ownership to the citizen and you restrict his liberty. Take away the guns from the citizen and you restrict his freedom. Prohibit the citizen from carrying guns and you prohibit his freedom. Take away the right of the citizen to defend himself and you take away his very life.
There is a lesson to be learned from the Chardon High School Shooting but government won't learn it. Guns don't kill people. It's the guy who holds and fires the gun who does. A lone gunman bent on rape, murder, robbery, or as in this case, shooting up another school, is hesitant to attack any place at which there may be others who are armed.
Chardon High School students were shot this morning because those in power believe the insanity that if the good guys are prohibited to carry weapons the rest of us will be safe and secure. Another example that not idiots are politicians, but all politicians, well, maybe I shouldn't go there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)