Taxed Enough Already!
Email Chuck Norris
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up Now that we have new representatives, it's time to advance immediately on them and address the issue that can both rebuild our economy and relieve us of government oppression: tax reform.
As I began to point out in last week's article, Congress' plan to subsidize all its outrageous borrowing and spending will demand far more than the tax man's just collecting on expired Bush tax cuts. There are a host of other levies coming down the turnpike from Washington.
Who isn't already completely fed up with the feds' utter waste of our tax monies? Just a week ago, war analysts and government auditors reported that only 10 percent of U.S. taxpayers' money being poured into Afghanistan is actually being used to stabilize the country, with as much as $1 billion in aid ending up in the hands of the Taliban and other insurgency groups!
When a nation is in economic peril, who in their right minds spend tens of millions of taxpayers' dollars to fund a president's 10-day tour to India, Indonesia, China, Japan and South Korea? Couldn't we have sent any other ambassador, who wouldn't have required the accompaniment of such a massive security, political, corporate and media entourage?
So first, there's all that federal waste happening, which already has cost taxpayers exorbitant amounts. It has been estimated by watchdog organizations that the feds waste nearly $1 trillion every year.
Second, as I itemized last week, the expiring Bush tax cuts are on the imminent horizon, which, if they were to expire, would cost Americans a minimum of $3.8 trillion over the next 10 years.
And then there are the inevitable taxes that are coming because of the feds' massive and compounding deficits and debts. Even if all the Bush tax cuts were repealed, the Congressional Budget Office concludes that the deficit would be nearly $1.1 trillion in 2011. The cumulative deficit from 2010 to 2019 under President Barack Obama's proposals would total $9.3 trillion. And the national debt in 2020 would top $24.5 trillion, exceeding the gross domestic product projection for 2019 of $22.8 trillion. And here's the kicker: By 2020, half of income tax revenue would go toward paying interest on that $24 trillion national debt.
That is why Washington is considering charging Americans an additional, European-style value-added tax -- above and beyond sales tax -- which is a form of consumption tax at each stage of an item's manufacturing or distribution, ultimately passed on to the consumer (even though the National Retail Federation just released a study saying a VAT "would result in the loss of 850,000 jobs in its first year, reduce the US gross domestic product for three years, and cut retail spending by $2.5 billion over its first decade," as summarized by CNBC).
And if Obamacare is not repealed, a host of other taxes are coming to your front door. Americans for Tax Reform has pulled from Obamacare legislation almost 20 taxes coming down the pike (with references to the location in the law and the dates the taxes begin, some in 2011) that will result in working families paying more than $500 billion in additional taxes.
And don't forget that entitlement spending already is growing at an alarming rate. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs alone constitute 56 percent of federal expenditures. And even CBS recently admitted that by 2020, roughly 93 cents of every dollar of federal revenue will be eaten up by major entitlement programs and payments on the national debt.
And we are going to pay for Obamacare how?
Should we feel any more confident that Washington bureaucrats are handling our tax monies when The Wall Street Journal recently reported that as of the end of last year, federal workers nationwide owed $1 billion in overdue taxes -- with Capitol Hill employees owing $9.3 million, an average of $15,498 among those working in the House and $12,787 among those working in the Senate. They're like tax junkies on steroids!
America's Founders would have been horrified at the bloated federal bureaucracy we have now and the maze of taxes we have to navigate -- sales taxes, income taxes, school taxes, fuel taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes, bridge and road usage taxes (tolls), corporate taxes, property taxes, Social Security taxes, utility taxes and even death taxes!
The debt and taxation frenzy we face today was among the great concerns to our Founders at the dawn of our republic. Thomas Jefferson said it best: "Considering the general tendency (of the federal government) to multiply offices and dependencies and to increase expense to the ultimate term of burden which the citizen can bear, it behooves us to avail ourselves of every occasion which presents itself for taking off the surcharge; that it may never be seen here that, after leaving to labor the smallest portion of its earnings on which it can subsist, government shall itself consume the residue of what it was instituted to guard."
I'll say it again: Now that we have new representatives, it's time to advance immediately on them and address the issue that can both rebuild our economy and relieve us of government oppression: tax reform.
(In my next article, I will show how the U.S. can do away with the Internal Revenue Service and replace it with a far more inexpensive taxation system that is equitable for all.)
<
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris is a columnist and impossible to kill.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Chuck Norris and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Saturday, November 6, 2010
FROM PROPHOECY NEWS WATCH
Christian Couple Banned from Foster Parenting Because of their Objection to Homosexuality
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eunice and Owen Johns will argue that Christians are now being forced to live “in the closet” as the state’s interpretation of equality law favours gay rights over religious freedom.
The Christian Legal Centre, which is backing the couple, said the future of Christian foster carers and adoptive parents “hangs in the balance”.
Gay rights campaigners said the couple’s views were out of date and that councils should protect the rights of a child before the “prejudices” of parents.
Mr and Mrs Johns' case represents the latest clash of rights resulting from equality laws which were introduced under Labour and designed to prevent discrimination on the grounds of religion or sexuality.
Roman Catholic adoption agencies have closed because they cannot reconcile the requirements under the new laws with their belief that children should not be placed with gay couples.
Mr and Mrs Johns, who have fostered almost 20 children over several years, applied in 2007 to become foster carers, providing respite care for children between the ages of five and 10.
But Derby City Council withdrew their application after a social worker discovered that their traditional views on the family meant they could never tell a child that homosexuality was acceptable.
The couple then challenged the council and were given the opportunity to reapply in 2008 but Derby’s adoption panel failed to come to a final decision about the their application. A judicial review of their case, which is supported by the council, is expected to begin at the High Court, sitting in Nottingham, on Monday.
“It may not be long before local authorities decide that Christians cannot look after some of the most vulnerable children in our society, simply because they disapprove of homosexuality,” said a spokesman for the the Christian Legal Centre which was set up to protect the freedom of Christians to live their lives in accordance with their beliefs.
Andrea Minichiello-Williams, barrister and director of the CLC, added: “The Johns are a loving Christian couple, who have in the past, and would in the future, give a wonderful home to a vulnerable child.
“Research clearly establishes that children flourish best in a family with both a mother and father in a committed relationship, like the Johns have.
“One of the issues before the Court is whether Christian couples, who have traditional views on sexual ethics, are ‘fit and proper persons’ to foster - and, by implication, adopt.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eunice and Owen Johns will argue that Christians are now being forced to live “in the closet” as the state’s interpretation of equality law favours gay rights over religious freedom.
The Christian Legal Centre, which is backing the couple, said the future of Christian foster carers and adoptive parents “hangs in the balance”.
Gay rights campaigners said the couple’s views were out of date and that councils should protect the rights of a child before the “prejudices” of parents.
Mr and Mrs Johns' case represents the latest clash of rights resulting from equality laws which were introduced under Labour and designed to prevent discrimination on the grounds of religion or sexuality.
Roman Catholic adoption agencies have closed because they cannot reconcile the requirements under the new laws with their belief that children should not be placed with gay couples.
Mr and Mrs Johns, who have fostered almost 20 children over several years, applied in 2007 to become foster carers, providing respite care for children between the ages of five and 10.
But Derby City Council withdrew their application after a social worker discovered that their traditional views on the family meant they could never tell a child that homosexuality was acceptable.
The couple then challenged the council and were given the opportunity to reapply in 2008 but Derby’s adoption panel failed to come to a final decision about the their application. A judicial review of their case, which is supported by the council, is expected to begin at the High Court, sitting in Nottingham, on Monday.
“It may not be long before local authorities decide that Christians cannot look after some of the most vulnerable children in our society, simply because they disapprove of homosexuality,” said a spokesman for the the Christian Legal Centre which was set up to protect the freedom of Christians to live their lives in accordance with their beliefs.
Andrea Minichiello-Williams, barrister and director of the CLC, added: “The Johns are a loving Christian couple, who have in the past, and would in the future, give a wonderful home to a vulnerable child.
“Research clearly establishes that children flourish best in a family with both a mother and father in a committed relationship, like the Johns have.
“One of the issues before the Court is whether Christian couples, who have traditional views on sexual ethics, are ‘fit and proper persons’ to foster - and, by implication, adopt.
FROM TOWNHALL
We Are Not for Sale
Email Caroline Glick
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is playing with fire. And Israel is getting burned.
Over the past week, it has been widely reported that the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government are conducting secret negotiations regarding future Israeli land surrenders to the Palestinians in the Jordan Valley and Jerusalem. According to the reports, the Obama administration has presented Netanyahu with a plan whereby Israel will cede its rights to eastern Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley to the Palestinians and then lease the areas from the Palestinians for a limited period.
The reports on the length of the lease vary. Some claim that the White House is offering a seven year rental. Others claim the Americans are offering Israel to lease Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley for several decades before relinquishing them completely.
Netanyahu has reportedly accepted Obama's proposal in principle. The only remaining dispute is the length of the lease. Netanyahu is demanding that Israel be permitted to lease Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley from the Palestinians for somewhere between forty and ninety-nine years. The Americans foresee a shorter timeframe.
The fact that these discussions are taking place is deeply disturbing both for what they tell us about the Obama administration's view of Israel and for what they tell us about Netanyahu's wisdom and character.
By calling for Israel to cede the Jordan Valley to the Palestinians, US President Barack Obama is ignoring the most fundamental reality of the Middle East: Israel is besieged by its neighbors who seek its destruction. Without the Jordan Valley Israel would become the modern day equivalent of Czechoslovakia stripped of the Sudetenland in 1938. It would be utterly indefensible.
None of Israel's neighbors have accepted Israel's right to exist. The absolute majority of the Arabs in all of the states neighboring Israel wish to see Israel destroyed. By relinquishing the Jordan Valley Israel would effectively be committing national suicide by inviting an invasion it would be incapable of staving off.
This is the truth today and given the depth of Arab hatred of Jews, in all likelihood, it will remain the case in forty years and in 99 years. At any rate, Obama's suggestion that Israel entrust its future to an unsubstantiated hope that the Arab world will be fundamentally transformed is both ignorant and dangerous.
As for Netanyahu, he has no right to gamble away Israel's future. He has no right to commit future generations to strategic suicide on the basis of Obama's strategic myopia.
The very notion that Israel ought to ever surrender control over the Jordan Valley is egregious and unacceptable. And by proposing that Israel do so, the Obama administration is destroying the last vestiges of its credibility as an ally to the Jewish state. But that is not the worst aspect of the reported US proposal to Israel.
The worst aspect of the US proposal is that it calls for Israel to cede Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley to the Palestinians and then lease them from the Palestinians. Speaking to Army Radio, Science Minister Daniel Herschkowitz explained, "If we agree to the offer, we will be broadcasting to the Palestinians that the land is actually theirs."
Indeed, we would. But it is worse than that.
Jerusalem is the center of Jewish history, civilization, culture, and faith. It is the lifeblood of the Jewish state and the Jewish people. As for the Jordan Valley, Jerusalem cannot be defended without it. When the US asks Israel to lease the areas from the Palestinians, what the US is telling Israel is that it rejects the very notion of Jewish national rights to the State of Israel.
Perhaps one day Israel's leaders may be foolish enough to withdraw from Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley. Perhaps one day they will be stupid enough to withdraw from the Galilee and the Negev. But no Israeli leader has the right to cede the Jewish people's national rights to the land of Israel to anyone.
At heart, the US proposal entails an Israeli submission to the Palestinians. It requires Israel's leaders to say that the Palestinians have all the rights. We just have some minor security and political considerations. These considerations in turn are of limited duration and once they are settled, we will be out of everybody's way. The Palestinians will be free to enjoy all of their rights without the troublesome Jews around bothering them.
Netanyahu knows full well that Israel cannot survive without the Jordan Valley. He also knows that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people and that we are the rightful owners of this land. So what explains his actions?
In acting as he is, Netanyahu is clearly trying to avert yet another crisis with the Obama administration. No doubt he believes that the Palestinians will save the day again by refusing to make a deal with Israel. Just as the Palestinians refuse to accept Israel's right to exist, just as they refuse to give up on their demand that Israel destroy itself by accepting millions of foreign born Arabs as full citizens in the framework of a "peace" agreement; and just as they refuse to accept any limitations on the sovereignty of a future Palestinian state, so Netanyahu believes, they will refuse to lease the Jordan Valley and Jerusalem to Israel for 40 or 99 years.
Netanyahu may be right to think this. The Palestinians may reject the deal. But he is taking an enormous risk.
Yassir Arafat didn't have a problem lying to Yitzhak Rabin in 1993. To get Rabin to set up the Palestinian Authority, arm the PLO, raise billions of dollars in international aid for the PA, and allow it to expand to the outskirts of Israel's major cities, Arafat lied and said that the PLO recognized Israel and would live at peace with the Jewish state.
It is easy to imagine Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat's deputy of forty years acting in a similar fashion.
And then what would Netanyahu do?
If Netanyahu's tactics could only cause Israel tactical damage, his gamble that the Palestinians will also refuse this deal might be defensible. But his tactics cause Israel strategic harm even if the Palestinians reject this deal as well. And so they are inexcusable. Israel cannot survive without the Jordan Valley. By negotiating a surrender of the Jordan Valley, Netanyahu makes it acceptable for the US and the rest of the world to demand that Israel commit national suicide.
Even worse than that, Netanyahu's willingness to negotiate with the US on the basis of a plan that rejects the Jewish people's right to the land of Israel confuses Israel's friends and so dooms their defenses of Israel to failure.
By accepting the legitimacy of this proposal, Netanyahu is telling Israel's supporters abroad that the Palestinians are right. Israel belongs to the Arabs more than it belongs to the Jews. With this message, the only thing supporters of Israel can do is encourage the Israeli government to make territorial concessions that are suicidal for the country.
This disastrous belief has been engendered since the inception of the Oslo process in 1993. Its deleterious influence abroad is evidenced by the flood of statements over the years by Israel's supporters claiming that Israel must vacate Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and the Golan Heights.
Take a recent statement by the American pollster Frank Luntz. Luntz often advises American pro-Israel groups about how to improve Israel's image in the world. Yet as this friend of Israel sees things, "The only way for Israel to create sympathy is to be the side working hardest for peace. The best case for Israel is to demonstrate that she is willing to go twice as far as her neighbors to establish peace."
And while moves like Netanyahu's confuse Israel's friends abroad, his willingness to consider a plan that denies Jewish rights to Israel and calls for Israel to make suicidal withdrawals demoralize Israelis at home. For evidence of this demoralization, one need only look to the Kadima Party.
As Kadima's leader Tzipi Livni reminds us every time she opens her mouth, Kadima's plan is for Israel to destroy itself by withdrawing to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines as quickly as possible.
Livni says day in and day out that Israel's interests are best served by surrendering Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, and the Jordan Valley as quickly as possible. To the extent that Netanyahu tries to withstand US pressure to surrender all these areas, Livni accuses him of endangering the country.
Livni's most recent broadside came on Wednesday at the Knesset. There she attacked the Netanyahu government for purportedly reacting with happiness to the news that the Republicans won control of the US House of Representatives in Tuesday's elections.
As she put it, "For those of you who believe that Obama's loss is good for Netanyahu, I ask myself have you all gone crazy?... He who says that a... weak American president is good for Israel is not just speaking stupidly, they are encouraging something that endangers Israel itself."
Obviously Livni is wrong. Israel is not best served by preferring the political fortunes of a hostile US President to its national interests and rights. If Netanyahu and his associates expressed happiness at the outcome of the US elections they would be fully justified for doing so. The overwhelming majority of Israelis -- who rightly view Obama as hostile --understand this.
But despite the idiocy of Livni's arguments and the lunacy of Kadima's policy, consistent opinion polls show Kadima closely trailing Likud. And Netanyahu deserves a large share of the blame for this state of affairs.
When Netanyahu agrees to negotiate from a position of moral weakness and strategic blindness, the message he sends the public is that we should take the likes of Livni seriously. He tells us that the difference between Kadima and Likud is one of tone, not substance.
They are all shoving us off the same cliff so we might as well go with Blondie. For 17 long years, successive Israeli leaders have come into office committed to defending the country only to be reduced within a few short months to quibbling over the price of surrender. Leaders from the Right hoped that the Palestinians would scuttle the deals. Leaders from the Left begged the Palestinians to accept them.
If Netanyahu wishes to be remembered as something more than another hack no different from Livni and all the rest, he should end these destructive talks and tell the Obama administration the truth: Israel's survival is non-negotiable and the rights of the Jewish people are not for sale.
Caroline Glick
Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, where this article first appeared.
Email Caroline Glick
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is playing with fire. And Israel is getting burned.
Over the past week, it has been widely reported that the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government are conducting secret negotiations regarding future Israeli land surrenders to the Palestinians in the Jordan Valley and Jerusalem. According to the reports, the Obama administration has presented Netanyahu with a plan whereby Israel will cede its rights to eastern Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley to the Palestinians and then lease the areas from the Palestinians for a limited period.
The reports on the length of the lease vary. Some claim that the White House is offering a seven year rental. Others claim the Americans are offering Israel to lease Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley for several decades before relinquishing them completely.
Netanyahu has reportedly accepted Obama's proposal in principle. The only remaining dispute is the length of the lease. Netanyahu is demanding that Israel be permitted to lease Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley from the Palestinians for somewhere between forty and ninety-nine years. The Americans foresee a shorter timeframe.
The fact that these discussions are taking place is deeply disturbing both for what they tell us about the Obama administration's view of Israel and for what they tell us about Netanyahu's wisdom and character.
By calling for Israel to cede the Jordan Valley to the Palestinians, US President Barack Obama is ignoring the most fundamental reality of the Middle East: Israel is besieged by its neighbors who seek its destruction. Without the Jordan Valley Israel would become the modern day equivalent of Czechoslovakia stripped of the Sudetenland in 1938. It would be utterly indefensible.
None of Israel's neighbors have accepted Israel's right to exist. The absolute majority of the Arabs in all of the states neighboring Israel wish to see Israel destroyed. By relinquishing the Jordan Valley Israel would effectively be committing national suicide by inviting an invasion it would be incapable of staving off.
This is the truth today and given the depth of Arab hatred of Jews, in all likelihood, it will remain the case in forty years and in 99 years. At any rate, Obama's suggestion that Israel entrust its future to an unsubstantiated hope that the Arab world will be fundamentally transformed is both ignorant and dangerous.
As for Netanyahu, he has no right to gamble away Israel's future. He has no right to commit future generations to strategic suicide on the basis of Obama's strategic myopia.
The very notion that Israel ought to ever surrender control over the Jordan Valley is egregious and unacceptable. And by proposing that Israel do so, the Obama administration is destroying the last vestiges of its credibility as an ally to the Jewish state. But that is not the worst aspect of the reported US proposal to Israel.
The worst aspect of the US proposal is that it calls for Israel to cede Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley to the Palestinians and then lease them from the Palestinians. Speaking to Army Radio, Science Minister Daniel Herschkowitz explained, "If we agree to the offer, we will be broadcasting to the Palestinians that the land is actually theirs."
Indeed, we would. But it is worse than that.
Jerusalem is the center of Jewish history, civilization, culture, and faith. It is the lifeblood of the Jewish state and the Jewish people. As for the Jordan Valley, Jerusalem cannot be defended without it. When the US asks Israel to lease the areas from the Palestinians, what the US is telling Israel is that it rejects the very notion of Jewish national rights to the State of Israel.
Perhaps one day Israel's leaders may be foolish enough to withdraw from Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley. Perhaps one day they will be stupid enough to withdraw from the Galilee and the Negev. But no Israeli leader has the right to cede the Jewish people's national rights to the land of Israel to anyone.
At heart, the US proposal entails an Israeli submission to the Palestinians. It requires Israel's leaders to say that the Palestinians have all the rights. We just have some minor security and political considerations. These considerations in turn are of limited duration and once they are settled, we will be out of everybody's way. The Palestinians will be free to enjoy all of their rights without the troublesome Jews around bothering them.
Netanyahu knows full well that Israel cannot survive without the Jordan Valley. He also knows that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people and that we are the rightful owners of this land. So what explains his actions?
In acting as he is, Netanyahu is clearly trying to avert yet another crisis with the Obama administration. No doubt he believes that the Palestinians will save the day again by refusing to make a deal with Israel. Just as the Palestinians refuse to accept Israel's right to exist, just as they refuse to give up on their demand that Israel destroy itself by accepting millions of foreign born Arabs as full citizens in the framework of a "peace" agreement; and just as they refuse to accept any limitations on the sovereignty of a future Palestinian state, so Netanyahu believes, they will refuse to lease the Jordan Valley and Jerusalem to Israel for 40 or 99 years.
Netanyahu may be right to think this. The Palestinians may reject the deal. But he is taking an enormous risk.
Yassir Arafat didn't have a problem lying to Yitzhak Rabin in 1993. To get Rabin to set up the Palestinian Authority, arm the PLO, raise billions of dollars in international aid for the PA, and allow it to expand to the outskirts of Israel's major cities, Arafat lied and said that the PLO recognized Israel and would live at peace with the Jewish state.
It is easy to imagine Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat's deputy of forty years acting in a similar fashion.
And then what would Netanyahu do?
If Netanyahu's tactics could only cause Israel tactical damage, his gamble that the Palestinians will also refuse this deal might be defensible. But his tactics cause Israel strategic harm even if the Palestinians reject this deal as well. And so they are inexcusable. Israel cannot survive without the Jordan Valley. By negotiating a surrender of the Jordan Valley, Netanyahu makes it acceptable for the US and the rest of the world to demand that Israel commit national suicide.
Even worse than that, Netanyahu's willingness to negotiate with the US on the basis of a plan that rejects the Jewish people's right to the land of Israel confuses Israel's friends and so dooms their defenses of Israel to failure.
By accepting the legitimacy of this proposal, Netanyahu is telling Israel's supporters abroad that the Palestinians are right. Israel belongs to the Arabs more than it belongs to the Jews. With this message, the only thing supporters of Israel can do is encourage the Israeli government to make territorial concessions that are suicidal for the country.
This disastrous belief has been engendered since the inception of the Oslo process in 1993. Its deleterious influence abroad is evidenced by the flood of statements over the years by Israel's supporters claiming that Israel must vacate Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and the Golan Heights.
Take a recent statement by the American pollster Frank Luntz. Luntz often advises American pro-Israel groups about how to improve Israel's image in the world. Yet as this friend of Israel sees things, "The only way for Israel to create sympathy is to be the side working hardest for peace. The best case for Israel is to demonstrate that she is willing to go twice as far as her neighbors to establish peace."
And while moves like Netanyahu's confuse Israel's friends abroad, his willingness to consider a plan that denies Jewish rights to Israel and calls for Israel to make suicidal withdrawals demoralize Israelis at home. For evidence of this demoralization, one need only look to the Kadima Party.
As Kadima's leader Tzipi Livni reminds us every time she opens her mouth, Kadima's plan is for Israel to destroy itself by withdrawing to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines as quickly as possible.
Livni says day in and day out that Israel's interests are best served by surrendering Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, and the Jordan Valley as quickly as possible. To the extent that Netanyahu tries to withstand US pressure to surrender all these areas, Livni accuses him of endangering the country.
Livni's most recent broadside came on Wednesday at the Knesset. There she attacked the Netanyahu government for purportedly reacting with happiness to the news that the Republicans won control of the US House of Representatives in Tuesday's elections.
As she put it, "For those of you who believe that Obama's loss is good for Netanyahu, I ask myself have you all gone crazy?... He who says that a... weak American president is good for Israel is not just speaking stupidly, they are encouraging something that endangers Israel itself."
Obviously Livni is wrong. Israel is not best served by preferring the political fortunes of a hostile US President to its national interests and rights. If Netanyahu and his associates expressed happiness at the outcome of the US elections they would be fully justified for doing so. The overwhelming majority of Israelis -- who rightly view Obama as hostile --understand this.
But despite the idiocy of Livni's arguments and the lunacy of Kadima's policy, consistent opinion polls show Kadima closely trailing Likud. And Netanyahu deserves a large share of the blame for this state of affairs.
When Netanyahu agrees to negotiate from a position of moral weakness and strategic blindness, the message he sends the public is that we should take the likes of Livni seriously. He tells us that the difference between Kadima and Likud is one of tone, not substance.
They are all shoving us off the same cliff so we might as well go with Blondie. For 17 long years, successive Israeli leaders have come into office committed to defending the country only to be reduced within a few short months to quibbling over the price of surrender. Leaders from the Right hoped that the Palestinians would scuttle the deals. Leaders from the Left begged the Palestinians to accept them.
If Netanyahu wishes to be remembered as something more than another hack no different from Livni and all the rest, he should end these destructive talks and tell the Obama administration the truth: Israel's survival is non-negotiable and the rights of the Jewish people are not for sale.
Caroline Glick
Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, where this article first appeared.
FROM PATRIOT
The Foundation
"The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." --Patrick Henry
Government & PoliticsElection Wrap: The House
Boehner takes the gavelBy summer, it was widely expected that the Republican Party would snatch control of the House of Representatives from the Democrats this year, but the extent of the GOP victory was nothing short of historic. Republicans gained at least 60 seats Tuesday, swinging them to a 239-186 majority so far. Ten races are still undecided as of this writing. The results surpassed the 1994 Gingrich Revolution that netted 54 seats and to which this year was frequently compared. In fact, Tuesday's GOP victory was the largest gain for either party since 71 Democrats were defeated in the 1938 midterms.
The message among the electorate was loud in clear in the House races: Turn out big spenders and yank the speaker's gavel from Nancy Pelosi's hands. The Speaker had become a lightning rod in the final weeks of the campaign, and election results demonstrated that the American public had finally tired of her arrogant and far-left "leadership."
Key to the Republican House victory was targeting vulnerxable freshmen Democrats who rode Obama's coattails into office two years ago. Several such representatives were elected in 2008 by thin margins in traditionally Republican districts, indicating that their victory was more repudiation of the GOP than embrace of Democrat principles (if there is such a thing). The Democrats' lukewarm conservative Blue Dog coalition took a huge hit as well. Their ranks were reduced from 54 to 26, with two retirements, two leaving for higher office, and 24 electoral defeats. Of course, only 24 of those 54 voted against ObamaCare, which gives us an idea of just how "conservative" the caucus is.
Other notable defeats for Democrats included Chet Edwards of Texas, Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt of South Carolina, and 17-term fixture Ike Skelton of Missouri, who was chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and John Dingell of Michigan survived hard-fought Republican challenges to their seats, but we can take pleasure in knowing that they will no longer be chairing any committees.
Tom Perriello of Virginia kept the Obama Curse alive by going down to defeat after repeated personal appearances by the president. The president's personal endorsement also proved fatal in other races. So much for the guy who had boasted to a concerned House Democrat, "Well, the big difference here and in '94 was you've got me."
Election Wrap: The Senate
Republicans fell short of taking the Senate, but they managed to gain at least six seats as of this writing. Republican Dino Rossi has conceded Washington's Senate race to incumbent Patty Murray, but the contested Alaska seat is sure to remain in Republican hands. There, Democrat Scott McAdams dropped out after coming in a distant third behind current senator and write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski, and Republican primary-winner Joe Miller. It will take time to tally the write-in ballots, but at this point, it seems Murkowski has accomplished the unthinkable.
Notable Republican gains included John Boozman over Democrat Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas and Dan Coats over Democrat Brad Ellsworth in Indiana. Russ Feingold was also sent packing by voters in the birthplace of progressivism, Wisconsin.
As in the House, the Tea Party's contribution to GOP gains was mixed, but mostly positive. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio handily won their contests in Kentucky and Florida, respectively. Conservative Pat Toomey defeated Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania, one of many GOP victories that rocked the Keystone State Tuesday night. In a key symbolic win, moderate Republican Mark Kirk beat Obama basketball buddy Alexi Giannoulias to take the president's old Illinois seat.
World Wrestling Entertainment mogul Linda McMahon was defeated in Connecticut by Richard "Fighting Dick" Blumenthal, and Leftmedia punching bag Christine O'Donnell lost in Delaware to "bearded Marxist" Chris Coons. Both McMahon and O'Donnell were victims of less-than-enthusiastic support from the state and national Republican apparatus. California voters continued to defy all reason as Carly Fiorina fell short in her bid to unseat the obnoxious Barbara Boxer. In Nevada, Sharron Angle failed to send Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid back to Searchlight.
Reid faced the fight of his political life Tuesday in a state with 15 percent unemployment and a record-high home foreclosure rate. Despite the poor economic conditions and Reid's longtime Washington insider status, some 11 percent of voters didn't make up their minds about who to vote for until the weekend before the election. Most of them ended up voting for Reid. Angle drew strong support from voters disappointed with Obama and Washington, but Reid spared no expense in a massive get-out-the-vote campaign that chartered buses to shuttle voters to the polls. Reid's win may not be great news for Republicans, but his gift for shooting off his mouth or, alternatively, putting his foot in it, will serve its purpose in the battles to come next session.
The outlook for 2012 could be even better for Republicans. Democrats will have to defend 21 seats then, compared to just 10 for Republicans. Several of those 21 Democrats won election for the first time in the Democrat takeover of 2006 and must defend their seats in red states. As they look at losses in Illinois and Wisconsin, Democrat senators from Nebraska, Florida and Missouri must be getting a little nervous.
Election Wrap: The States
Republicans cleaned up on the state level, too, with a net gain of 10 governorships -- Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Republicans also picked up more than 650 state legislator pickups across the nation. The GOP now controls both houses of the legislatures of 26 states, and controls the governor's mansion in 15 of those 26.
That will be an important factor as the run-up to 2012 begins. State legislatures control redistricting, and governors can play key roles in presidential races, turning out voters and donors for candidates visiting their state. This year's sweep was good timing for the GOP because they are now in position after the 2010 census to re-draw the lines of certain states' congressional districts advantageously. That could help them preserve their gains in 2012 and perhaps even recapture the White House.
Quote of the Week
"We make a great mistake if we believe that ... these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican Party. What they are is a second chance, a second chance for Republicans to be what they said they were going to be not so long ago." --Senator-elect Marco Rubio (R-FL)
On Cross-Examination
"In short, despite all of the flack and the arguments from a couple months ago, I am forced to conclude that the Buckley rule still seems the most sound: vote for the most conservative candidate electable. Now, I will concede that's hardly an easily applied rule of thumb like, say, 'Never try to tickle a wolverine when it's eating.' But I think reasonable people understand that electability is a perfectly valid factor to consider and not impossible to apply, either." --columnist Jonah Goldberg
This Week's 'Braying Jenny' Award
"Looking at what happened [Tuesday], what we heard and saw [then] is -- let's understand the message. The message was not, 'I reject the course that you are on.' The message is it didn't go fast enough to produce jobs. ... No regrets. Because we believe we did the right thing. I feel very at peace with how things have proceeded." --soon-to-be-former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
From the Files of the Just Plain Bizarre
"Harry Reid isn't just Dracula, he isn't just Lazarus, he's our leader and our whole caucus is thrilled that he's unbreakable and unbeatable." --Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
Rebutting Obama's Rebuttal
Patriot Post Publisher Mark Alexander responds to Barack Hussein Obama's spin on the midterm election derailment of his endeavor to "fundamentally transform America." Read more here.
Campaign Finances
"Everything was going great and all of a sudden secret money from God knows where -- because they won't disclose it -- is pouring in," said Nancy Pelosi, shortly before Tuesday's midterm elections. She-Who-Will-Not-Be-Speaker was referring to the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. FEC ruling in January. The Court struck down provisions of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (a.k.a. McCain-Feingold) that limited corporate campaign spending, holding that they violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.
Obama criticized the decision at the time, spinning scary predictions of foreign entities' involvement in American politics. But what he and his cronies really feared were American companies contributing to candidates friendlier to the free market.
In fact, it has been primarily Democrats that have reaped the benefits from McCain-Feingold since its passage. The law still permits political contributions from 527 groups (named for the section of the law that allows them), many of which work for Democrat electoral success (e.g., ACORN and MoveOn.org). In the 2004, 2006 and 2008 elections, such 527 groups spent $667 million on Democrat candidates, nearly three times more than on Republicans. But as dissatisfaction with the Obama-Pelosi agenda grew, so did groups willing to oppose them. The Citizens United decision leveled the playing field even more, as evidenced by Obama and Pelosi's indictment of it and by the Republican's electoral wave earlier this week. Ironically, the law, which amounted to little more than incumbent protection, didn't work for one of its authors, soon-to-be-former Sen. Russ Feingold.
News From the Swamp: Now What
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), currently minority whip but likely to become majority leader, has released a 22-page plan for House Republicans now that they have control of the chamber. "Delivering on Our Commitment" outlines several priorities. For example, Cantor aims to do away with legislation recognizing "individuals, groups, events and institutions," which he believes takes up too much of Congress' time. Better oversight is another crucial thing under his plan, with committees asked to produce quarterly reports on their areas. Of course, curbing runaway spending is the primary goal for Republicans. It remains to be seen if they learned their lesson after their own spendthrift ways cost them control of Washington in 2006 and 2008.
In other news, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) stepped down from his post at the head of the House Republican Conference, a post he has held since 2008. "Now that we have restored a Republican majority to the House of Representatives and I have fulfilled my commitment to the Republican Conference, my family and I have begun to look to the future," Pence wrote to Republicans. Many interpret his words about the future as indicating a possible run for president in 2012. Pence, a solid constitutional conservative, would be a welcome addition to the field.
On the other side of the aisle, Reps. Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Maxine Waters (D-CA) face ethics trials. House Ethics Committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) announced in October that the trials wouldn't happen before the elections. Rangel's trial is scheduled to begin Nov. 15, while Waters will face trial Nov. 29.
Amazingly, Nancy Pelosi has indicated she is considering staying in Congress to run for minority leader. It had been widely expected that she would leave Congress. Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC), a member of the Blue Dog coalition, is among a few Democrats publicly urging Pelosi to step aside. Schuler says he will challenge her for the minority leader post if she seeks it.
Click Here
New! First Navy Jack license plate
We are proud to offer our new First Navy Jack license plate. Handsome and well-made in the U.S.A., the plate is 6" x 12" .032 gauge heavy duty aluminum with a protective UV coating.
The Patriot Post Needs Your Help
"Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!" --George Washington
Fellow Patriots, our 2010 Annual Fund campaign is now underway. In today's political climate, The Patriot Post's voice is needed more than ever to help keep the great heritage of our constitutional Republic front and center. Please join us in this noble cause.
Like many mission-based organizations, we typically raise most of our budget in the last two months of each year. We still must raise approximately $345,795 before year's end. These funds ensure that our dedicated team of editors, writers and support staff can continue to provide The Patriot Post, free of charge, to the kind of grassroots leaders that make our country great.
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization. Nor do we accept any online or e-mail advertising. Our operations and mission are funded by -- and depend entirely upon -- the voluntary financial support of American Patriots like YOU!
Fellow Patriots, Please Support Our 2010 Year-End Campaign
Donate Online
Donate by Mail
Please, if you have the ability, take a moment to support The Patriot Post online today by making a contribution -- however large or small. (If you prefer to support us by mail, please use our printable donor form.)
I thank you for the honor and privilege of serving you as editor and publisher of The Patriot Post. On behalf of our staff and National Advisory Committee, thank you and God bless you and your family!
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post
National SecurityWarfront With Jihadistan: Bomb Plot Thwarted
Last Friday, two explosive-laden packages on board FedEx and UPS cargo planes bound for the U.S. from Yemen were intercepted in the UK and Dubai. The bombs, wired to explode using cell phones as timers, were powerful enough to bring the aircraft down, according to U.S. and British officials. French officials said that one bomb was only 17 minutes from exploding. Discovery of the bombs led officials to conduct wider searches for additional such devices at the Newark and Philadelphia airports, as well as a delivery truck in New York City. It also prompted the Air Force to escort a passenger plane to New York. No other bombs were found.
The packages, addressed to Jewish synagogues in Chicago, were intercepted after a detailed tip from Saudi intelligence that included the packages' tracking numbers. It is believed that al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula, a Yemeni group that is affiliated with Osama bin Laden and includes the radical U.S.-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, is responsible for this latest attack. It is also believed that the group, responsible for last year's failed Christmas Day undi-bomber attack on a Detroit-bound airliner, performed a dry run of this cargo plane attack in September.
This latest incident has governments and aviation authorities around the globe ramping up security. In typical Beltway fashion, even though the bombs targeted synagogues exclusively, a politically correct FBI agent warned, "Since two of the suspicious packages that were intercepted were addressed to religious institutions in Chicago, all churches, synagogues and mosques in the Chicago area should be vigilant for any unsolicited or unexpected packages, especially those originating from overseas locations." Why would mosques need to worry about bombs from radical Islamists -- unless someone there was expected to help with their final "delivery"? The Long War is being made even longer with this kind of pathetically PC thinking.
Department of Military Correctness: Light Sentence
On Sunday, a military judge sentenced Omar Khadr, a teen terrorist convicted of five war crimes, to 40 years in prison. That sentence, however, was merely symbolic as the U.S. had already agreed to limit his prison time to eight years, the bulk of which will be served in Canada. Khadr, who is from Toronto, planted land mines in Afghanistan and hurled a grenade that killed Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer in 2002. The seven-officer jury was unaware of the sentencing deal before deliberations began on Saturday. According to McClatchy, "The Pentagon's Chief War Crimes Prosecutor, Navy Capt. John F. Murphy, said he made the eight-year plea deal with Khadr to secure the certainty of a conviction for the victims of the so-called 'child-soldier.'"
Former Army Sgt. Layne Morris lost an eye in the firefight that resulted in Khadr's capture, and he had a different perspective, saying Khadr's short sentence put him on "the fast-track to freedom'' during "the prime of his life." And tragically, SFC Speer and his widow had the prime of their lives ripped away by this brutal jihadi.
In related news, today marks the one year anniversary of the attack at Fort Hood, which left 14 dead (including an unborn child) and 32 wounded. U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, M.D., who was paralyzed from the chest down when civilian police shot him, faces the death penalty.
Click Here
New! Radko Holy Holly Ornament
A beautiful Christopher Radko cross adorned with deep green holly and berries is all tied together with gold-trimmed red ribbon. Ornament measures 6".
From the Left: A Passage to Asia
A familiar adage says that when the going gets tough, the tough get going. Notoriously thin-skinned Barack Obama doesn't strike us as particularly tough, but after what he called Tuesday's "shellacking" of his chosen party, he's leaving anyway, embarking on a 10-day Asian trip to India, Indonesia, Korea and Japan, complete with a fleet of 34 warships.
Yet the part that has raised eyebrows is the cost: The three-day Indian portion of the junket has been reported by Indian media as costing $200 million a day. Apparently, coconut removal is expensive. Considering the idea of the trip is to promote American jobs, though, it seems like we're redistributing an awful lot of cash by sending 3,000 people on the trip.
While the Mumbai trip is noteworthy for its scheduled visit with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and a celebration of the Indian Diwali holiday, also included in the itinerary is a G-20 summit in Seoul and an Asia-Pacific leaders summit in Yokohama. But the president will return just in time for a lame-duck session of Congress that will likely spend much more than $200 million a day. It's possible that this Asian trip could be a comparative bargain to taxpayers.
Business & EconomyRegulatory Commissars: De Facto Drilling Ban Continues
The administration's ill-advised moratorium on deepwater oil drilling ended last month, but no one is in a hurry to issue permits. None have been issued since last May and it could be months before the first new one is issued. Michael Bromwich, Director of the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE, which we pronounce "bummer"), was coy when asked about permits. He hopes it happens before year's end, which doesn't boost our confidence, nor probably that of the oil companies seeking the permits.
It's not just deepwater drilling permits that are going nowhere either. Shallow-water permits have dropped 53 percent since last year. Michael Hecht, President and CEO of GNO Inc., an economic development agency, said, "The concern is that we still have a de facto moratorium." For an administration supposedly focused on creating -- and saving -- jobs, their actual policies continue to have the opposite effect. No doubt, though, they will take all the credit for the economy adding 151,000 jobs last month and the stock market surging this week. The expected political tsunami Tuesday might have had something to do with that.
The Federal Reserve Has a Plan
Perhaps spurred by the smashing success (cough, cough) of this administration's economic stimu-less package, the Federal Reserve has announced it will buy $600 billion in government bonds over the next eight months in an attempt to speed up the economic recovery. This is known as "quantitative easing," which is known in straight talk circles as inflation. Combine this with the $35 billion the Fed is dishing out monthly to replace mortgage bonds in its portfolio that are being retired, and the "investment" total is monumental. As The Wall Street Journal explains, "In essence, the Fed now will print money to buy as much as $900 billion in U.S. government bonds through June -- an amount roughly equal to the government's total projected borrowing needs over that period." Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) described the risk of this move as "incalculable," and Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City President Thomas Hoenig called the decision a "bargain with the devil."
Indeed, economists from Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC said that even were the Fed to buy up $1.5 trillion in Treasury bonds, unemployment would drop by only 0.3 percentage points in each of the next two years. Meanwhile, the injection of newly printed money isn't sitting well internationally, and the London Telegraph reports that several countries have implemented or are considering capital controls to deal with the "Fed's lax policy [which] is causing havoc."
Yet despite the risks and ramifications, the Fed marches on. After all, when it comes to interfering in the market, the only pace bureaucrats know is full speed ahead.
Click Here
New! Gadsden Tervis 12 oz. set
A new addition to our Tervis collection made especially for The Patriot Shop, the Gadsden Flag Tervis design is now available as a 12 oz. set of four. Each clear tumbler is made from high-grade polycarbonate, and features an embroidered Gadsden flag emblem between the insulated walls. Unconditional lifetime guarantee!
Red Tag Sale at GM
Even President Ronald Reagan used the government to rescue Chrysler, probably against his best instincts, but his rescue didn't involve a ridiculous federal government takeover of the company accompanied by the willful destruction of stock and bondholder rights. What is more, whereas Reagan's plan worked because it was limited in scope, today's typical government bureaucrat never mentions just exactly whom Obama's takeover helped. It certainly wasn't "the little guy."
Under the steady guidance of the Obama administration, government-owned General Motors is planning on issuing its first stock IPO since it became Government Motors. The company's goal is to raise $50 billion, but that may be hard to do given that GM expects to sell it's stock at $27 a share -- half what the government needs to earn a profit.
There was no word on why the Obama administration decided that now is a good time to cash out and reduce its ownership in Government Motors from 50 percent to 35 percent. We're sure it can't possibly be related to the continued decline in GM's share of the U.S. auto market and the central planners' failure to solve the cost issues that drove GM into bankruptcy in the first place.
Culture & PolicyAround the Nation: Notable Ballot Measures
Congressional seats weren't the only things on the ballot around the country Tuesday. Notables include rejections of the individual mandate of ObamaCare in Arizona, Oklahoma and Colorado. The provisions, while largely symbolic at this point, were to be strong rebukes of Democrats' takeover of the health care system and unconstitutional mandate that individuals purchase insurance. The measures won in Arizona and Oklahoma by comfortable margins, though Colorado voters fell for leftist propaganda and the measure failed. Numerous state legislatures will take up some version of a rejection of the mandate when those legislatures return to session next year, while court challenges work their way through the system.
In Iowa, three state Supreme Court justices were voted out of office, marking the first time that had happened since the current system was set up in 1962. Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and justices David Baker and Michael Streit were voted off the bench, all as a result of the court's unanimous ruling this year legalizing same-sex marriage. Supporters of the justices formed a group called Fair Courts For Us to try to save them from electoral defeat. Dan Moore, the group's co-chairman, said, "What I want Iowans to know is that our courtrooms need to be the safest place for parties to go to work out their differences and disputes. They need to know courts will be fair and impartial and decisions won't be based on fear and popularity." Of course, had justices not legislated from the bench, this triple play never would have been an issue.
As we noted last week, voters in Portland, Maine, considered allowing legal residents who are not U.S. citizens to vote in local elections, but not state or federal elections. That measure failed Tuesday 52-48.
Finally, California's Proposition 19, which would have legalized marijuana, failed 46-53. What was particularly interesting is that many police and parents supported the measure, while marijuana growers and potheads opposed it. The reason for that apparent oddity is that, for pot growers, Prop. 19 would so tax and regulate marijuana as to make it unprofitable. Besides, if people can smoke it at the World Series with impunity as it is, why go to all that trouble to make it "legal"?
ACORN Files Chapter 7
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) was founded in 1970 as a way to get out the vote among various leftists, particularly minorities. However, last year, after an undercover investigation revealing a willingness to break the law on the part of ACORN workers, the organization has had a hard fall from the tree.
Ironically, ACORN filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on Election Day. CEO Bertha Lewis was defiant to the end, saying in a statement, "For over 40 years ACORN has fought the good fight." However, a "barrage of unmitigated accusations certainly took its toll," and the "ongoing political onslaught caused irreparable harm." She continued, "We have spent our remaining resources trying to dissolve the organization with integrity, while continuing to respond to the extremist attacks. Let us all learn from the past, and march boldly into the future." We hope that future is something other than enabling voter fraud and aiding other illegal activity.
From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File
Do you have kids who are learning to ride a bike? Better buy some insurance along with those training wheels. A New York Supreme Court justice recently ruled that a six-year-old girl can be sued over accusations that she hit an 87-year-old woman with a training bicycle. The judge's decision revolves around a 2009 accident, in which a pair of then-four-year-old children struck an elderly pedestrian with their bikes. The woman, who underwent surgery for a fractured hip, died from complications three months later.
King's County Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten rejected arguments presented by the attorney for one of the children that the case should be dismissed because of the child's age and that the child shouldn't be liable because she was under her mother's supervision. Instead, Wooten determined that the child has apparently reached the age of sue-ability. "For infants above the age of 4," he wrote, "there is no bright-line rule." It seems there is also no bright light of common sense in the judge's ruling. With judicial activism like this, infants who spit up on Aunt Susie's favorite blouse will soon be liable for property damage.
Click Here
Essential Liberty Collection
The Essential Liberty Collection brings together the Web's best selection of resources promoting the restoration of Constitutional integrity, including Essential Liberty pocket references, founding documents, books, commemorative coins and great gifts affirming our heritage of liberty.
And Last...
Nancy Pelosi's home city made some waves on Tuesday. "San Francisco has become the first major U.S. city to pass a law that cracks down on the popular practice of giving away free toys with unhealthy restaurant meals for children," Reuters reports. Indeed, the tolerant "live and let live" Board of Supervisors in one of America's most leftist cities has targeted McDonald's by requiring certain nutritional standards for kids' meals before toys may be included in the package. Those standards include, according to Reuters, "meals that have less than 600 calories, contain fruits and vegetables, and include beverages without excessive fat or sugar." Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure, crowed, "We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice." Apparently, "food justice" is nothing more than taking toys from kids. You could call it No Child's Toy Left Behind.
(To submit reader comments click here.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion
Jonah Goldberg: In Victory, the GOP Will Turn on Each Other
Charles Krauthammer: A Return to the Norm
Linda Chavez: A Cautionary Note for GOP in Tuesday's Election
Mona Charen: Impressions From a Historic Election
Michelle Malkin: Voters Speak: No to Soak-the-Rich Schemes
David Limbaugh: Obama Doesn't Seek Compromise; Neither Should We
Jonah Goldberg: Defeat, Then Denial
L. Brent Bozell: Losing Your Head at the Supreme Court
Suzanne Fields: A Reprise of the Goblins
Oliver North: Heroes
Ann Coulter: We're all Bigots Now!
Michael Reagan: Repeal It Now!
Jeff Jacoby: Debt Solution Lies in Success of Europe
Lawrence Kudlow: Stopping the Bad Stuff Is a Plus
Larry Elder: November 3 Contract With America
More Opinion
"The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." --Patrick Henry
Government & PoliticsElection Wrap: The House
Boehner takes the gavelBy summer, it was widely expected that the Republican Party would snatch control of the House of Representatives from the Democrats this year, but the extent of the GOP victory was nothing short of historic. Republicans gained at least 60 seats Tuesday, swinging them to a 239-186 majority so far. Ten races are still undecided as of this writing. The results surpassed the 1994 Gingrich Revolution that netted 54 seats and to which this year was frequently compared. In fact, Tuesday's GOP victory was the largest gain for either party since 71 Democrats were defeated in the 1938 midterms.
The message among the electorate was loud in clear in the House races: Turn out big spenders and yank the speaker's gavel from Nancy Pelosi's hands. The Speaker had become a lightning rod in the final weeks of the campaign, and election results demonstrated that the American public had finally tired of her arrogant and far-left "leadership."
Key to the Republican House victory was targeting vulnerxable freshmen Democrats who rode Obama's coattails into office two years ago. Several such representatives were elected in 2008 by thin margins in traditionally Republican districts, indicating that their victory was more repudiation of the GOP than embrace of Democrat principles (if there is such a thing). The Democrats' lukewarm conservative Blue Dog coalition took a huge hit as well. Their ranks were reduced from 54 to 26, with two retirements, two leaving for higher office, and 24 electoral defeats. Of course, only 24 of those 54 voted against ObamaCare, which gives us an idea of just how "conservative" the caucus is.
Other notable defeats for Democrats included Chet Edwards of Texas, Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt of South Carolina, and 17-term fixture Ike Skelton of Missouri, who was chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and John Dingell of Michigan survived hard-fought Republican challenges to their seats, but we can take pleasure in knowing that they will no longer be chairing any committees.
Tom Perriello of Virginia kept the Obama Curse alive by going down to defeat after repeated personal appearances by the president. The president's personal endorsement also proved fatal in other races. So much for the guy who had boasted to a concerned House Democrat, "Well, the big difference here and in '94 was you've got me."
Election Wrap: The Senate
Republicans fell short of taking the Senate, but they managed to gain at least six seats as of this writing. Republican Dino Rossi has conceded Washington's Senate race to incumbent Patty Murray, but the contested Alaska seat is sure to remain in Republican hands. There, Democrat Scott McAdams dropped out after coming in a distant third behind current senator and write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski, and Republican primary-winner Joe Miller. It will take time to tally the write-in ballots, but at this point, it seems Murkowski has accomplished the unthinkable.
Notable Republican gains included John Boozman over Democrat Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas and Dan Coats over Democrat Brad Ellsworth in Indiana. Russ Feingold was also sent packing by voters in the birthplace of progressivism, Wisconsin.
As in the House, the Tea Party's contribution to GOP gains was mixed, but mostly positive. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio handily won their contests in Kentucky and Florida, respectively. Conservative Pat Toomey defeated Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania, one of many GOP victories that rocked the Keystone State Tuesday night. In a key symbolic win, moderate Republican Mark Kirk beat Obama basketball buddy Alexi Giannoulias to take the president's old Illinois seat.
World Wrestling Entertainment mogul Linda McMahon was defeated in Connecticut by Richard "Fighting Dick" Blumenthal, and Leftmedia punching bag Christine O'Donnell lost in Delaware to "bearded Marxist" Chris Coons. Both McMahon and O'Donnell were victims of less-than-enthusiastic support from the state and national Republican apparatus. California voters continued to defy all reason as Carly Fiorina fell short in her bid to unseat the obnoxious Barbara Boxer. In Nevada, Sharron Angle failed to send Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid back to Searchlight.
Reid faced the fight of his political life Tuesday in a state with 15 percent unemployment and a record-high home foreclosure rate. Despite the poor economic conditions and Reid's longtime Washington insider status, some 11 percent of voters didn't make up their minds about who to vote for until the weekend before the election. Most of them ended up voting for Reid. Angle drew strong support from voters disappointed with Obama and Washington, but Reid spared no expense in a massive get-out-the-vote campaign that chartered buses to shuttle voters to the polls. Reid's win may not be great news for Republicans, but his gift for shooting off his mouth or, alternatively, putting his foot in it, will serve its purpose in the battles to come next session.
The outlook for 2012 could be even better for Republicans. Democrats will have to defend 21 seats then, compared to just 10 for Republicans. Several of those 21 Democrats won election for the first time in the Democrat takeover of 2006 and must defend their seats in red states. As they look at losses in Illinois and Wisconsin, Democrat senators from Nebraska, Florida and Missouri must be getting a little nervous.
Election Wrap: The States
Republicans cleaned up on the state level, too, with a net gain of 10 governorships -- Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Republicans also picked up more than 650 state legislator pickups across the nation. The GOP now controls both houses of the legislatures of 26 states, and controls the governor's mansion in 15 of those 26.
That will be an important factor as the run-up to 2012 begins. State legislatures control redistricting, and governors can play key roles in presidential races, turning out voters and donors for candidates visiting their state. This year's sweep was good timing for the GOP because they are now in position after the 2010 census to re-draw the lines of certain states' congressional districts advantageously. That could help them preserve their gains in 2012 and perhaps even recapture the White House.
Quote of the Week
"We make a great mistake if we believe that ... these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican Party. What they are is a second chance, a second chance for Republicans to be what they said they were going to be not so long ago." --Senator-elect Marco Rubio (R-FL)
On Cross-Examination
"In short, despite all of the flack and the arguments from a couple months ago, I am forced to conclude that the Buckley rule still seems the most sound: vote for the most conservative candidate electable. Now, I will concede that's hardly an easily applied rule of thumb like, say, 'Never try to tickle a wolverine when it's eating.' But I think reasonable people understand that electability is a perfectly valid factor to consider and not impossible to apply, either." --columnist Jonah Goldberg
This Week's 'Braying Jenny' Award
"Looking at what happened [Tuesday], what we heard and saw [then] is -- let's understand the message. The message was not, 'I reject the course that you are on.' The message is it didn't go fast enough to produce jobs. ... No regrets. Because we believe we did the right thing. I feel very at peace with how things have proceeded." --soon-to-be-former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
From the Files of the Just Plain Bizarre
"Harry Reid isn't just Dracula, he isn't just Lazarus, he's our leader and our whole caucus is thrilled that he's unbreakable and unbeatable." --Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
Rebutting Obama's Rebuttal
Patriot Post Publisher Mark Alexander responds to Barack Hussein Obama's spin on the midterm election derailment of his endeavor to "fundamentally transform America." Read more here.
Campaign Finances
"Everything was going great and all of a sudden secret money from God knows where -- because they won't disclose it -- is pouring in," said Nancy Pelosi, shortly before Tuesday's midterm elections. She-Who-Will-Not-Be-Speaker was referring to the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. FEC ruling in January. The Court struck down provisions of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (a.k.a. McCain-Feingold) that limited corporate campaign spending, holding that they violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.
Obama criticized the decision at the time, spinning scary predictions of foreign entities' involvement in American politics. But what he and his cronies really feared were American companies contributing to candidates friendlier to the free market.
In fact, it has been primarily Democrats that have reaped the benefits from McCain-Feingold since its passage. The law still permits political contributions from 527 groups (named for the section of the law that allows them), many of which work for Democrat electoral success (e.g., ACORN and MoveOn.org). In the 2004, 2006 and 2008 elections, such 527 groups spent $667 million on Democrat candidates, nearly three times more than on Republicans. But as dissatisfaction with the Obama-Pelosi agenda grew, so did groups willing to oppose them. The Citizens United decision leveled the playing field even more, as evidenced by Obama and Pelosi's indictment of it and by the Republican's electoral wave earlier this week. Ironically, the law, which amounted to little more than incumbent protection, didn't work for one of its authors, soon-to-be-former Sen. Russ Feingold.
News From the Swamp: Now What
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), currently minority whip but likely to become majority leader, has released a 22-page plan for House Republicans now that they have control of the chamber. "Delivering on Our Commitment" outlines several priorities. For example, Cantor aims to do away with legislation recognizing "individuals, groups, events and institutions," which he believes takes up too much of Congress' time. Better oversight is another crucial thing under his plan, with committees asked to produce quarterly reports on their areas. Of course, curbing runaway spending is the primary goal for Republicans. It remains to be seen if they learned their lesson after their own spendthrift ways cost them control of Washington in 2006 and 2008.
In other news, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) stepped down from his post at the head of the House Republican Conference, a post he has held since 2008. "Now that we have restored a Republican majority to the House of Representatives and I have fulfilled my commitment to the Republican Conference, my family and I have begun to look to the future," Pence wrote to Republicans. Many interpret his words about the future as indicating a possible run for president in 2012. Pence, a solid constitutional conservative, would be a welcome addition to the field.
On the other side of the aisle, Reps. Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Maxine Waters (D-CA) face ethics trials. House Ethics Committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) announced in October that the trials wouldn't happen before the elections. Rangel's trial is scheduled to begin Nov. 15, while Waters will face trial Nov. 29.
Amazingly, Nancy Pelosi has indicated she is considering staying in Congress to run for minority leader. It had been widely expected that she would leave Congress. Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC), a member of the Blue Dog coalition, is among a few Democrats publicly urging Pelosi to step aside. Schuler says he will challenge her for the minority leader post if she seeks it.
Click Here
New! First Navy Jack license plate
We are proud to offer our new First Navy Jack license plate. Handsome and well-made in the U.S.A., the plate is 6" x 12" .032 gauge heavy duty aluminum with a protective UV coating.
The Patriot Post Needs Your Help
"Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!" --George Washington
Fellow Patriots, our 2010 Annual Fund campaign is now underway. In today's political climate, The Patriot Post's voice is needed more than ever to help keep the great heritage of our constitutional Republic front and center. Please join us in this noble cause.
Like many mission-based organizations, we typically raise most of our budget in the last two months of each year. We still must raise approximately $345,795 before year's end. These funds ensure that our dedicated team of editors, writers and support staff can continue to provide The Patriot Post, free of charge, to the kind of grassroots leaders that make our country great.
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization. Nor do we accept any online or e-mail advertising. Our operations and mission are funded by -- and depend entirely upon -- the voluntary financial support of American Patriots like YOU!
Fellow Patriots, Please Support Our 2010 Year-End Campaign
Donate Online
Donate by Mail
Please, if you have the ability, take a moment to support The Patriot Post online today by making a contribution -- however large or small. (If you prefer to support us by mail, please use our printable donor form.)
I thank you for the honor and privilege of serving you as editor and publisher of The Patriot Post. On behalf of our staff and National Advisory Committee, thank you and God bless you and your family!
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post
National SecurityWarfront With Jihadistan: Bomb Plot Thwarted
Last Friday, two explosive-laden packages on board FedEx and UPS cargo planes bound for the U.S. from Yemen were intercepted in the UK and Dubai. The bombs, wired to explode using cell phones as timers, were powerful enough to bring the aircraft down, according to U.S. and British officials. French officials said that one bomb was only 17 minutes from exploding. Discovery of the bombs led officials to conduct wider searches for additional such devices at the Newark and Philadelphia airports, as well as a delivery truck in New York City. It also prompted the Air Force to escort a passenger plane to New York. No other bombs were found.
The packages, addressed to Jewish synagogues in Chicago, were intercepted after a detailed tip from Saudi intelligence that included the packages' tracking numbers. It is believed that al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula, a Yemeni group that is affiliated with Osama bin Laden and includes the radical U.S.-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, is responsible for this latest attack. It is also believed that the group, responsible for last year's failed Christmas Day undi-bomber attack on a Detroit-bound airliner, performed a dry run of this cargo plane attack in September.
This latest incident has governments and aviation authorities around the globe ramping up security. In typical Beltway fashion, even though the bombs targeted synagogues exclusively, a politically correct FBI agent warned, "Since two of the suspicious packages that were intercepted were addressed to religious institutions in Chicago, all churches, synagogues and mosques in the Chicago area should be vigilant for any unsolicited or unexpected packages, especially those originating from overseas locations." Why would mosques need to worry about bombs from radical Islamists -- unless someone there was expected to help with their final "delivery"? The Long War is being made even longer with this kind of pathetically PC thinking.
Department of Military Correctness: Light Sentence
On Sunday, a military judge sentenced Omar Khadr, a teen terrorist convicted of five war crimes, to 40 years in prison. That sentence, however, was merely symbolic as the U.S. had already agreed to limit his prison time to eight years, the bulk of which will be served in Canada. Khadr, who is from Toronto, planted land mines in Afghanistan and hurled a grenade that killed Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer in 2002. The seven-officer jury was unaware of the sentencing deal before deliberations began on Saturday. According to McClatchy, "The Pentagon's Chief War Crimes Prosecutor, Navy Capt. John F. Murphy, said he made the eight-year plea deal with Khadr to secure the certainty of a conviction for the victims of the so-called 'child-soldier.'"
Former Army Sgt. Layne Morris lost an eye in the firefight that resulted in Khadr's capture, and he had a different perspective, saying Khadr's short sentence put him on "the fast-track to freedom'' during "the prime of his life." And tragically, SFC Speer and his widow had the prime of their lives ripped away by this brutal jihadi.
In related news, today marks the one year anniversary of the attack at Fort Hood, which left 14 dead (including an unborn child) and 32 wounded. U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, M.D., who was paralyzed from the chest down when civilian police shot him, faces the death penalty.
Click Here
New! Radko Holy Holly Ornament
A beautiful Christopher Radko cross adorned with deep green holly and berries is all tied together with gold-trimmed red ribbon. Ornament measures 6".
From the Left: A Passage to Asia
A familiar adage says that when the going gets tough, the tough get going. Notoriously thin-skinned Barack Obama doesn't strike us as particularly tough, but after what he called Tuesday's "shellacking" of his chosen party, he's leaving anyway, embarking on a 10-day Asian trip to India, Indonesia, Korea and Japan, complete with a fleet of 34 warships.
Yet the part that has raised eyebrows is the cost: The three-day Indian portion of the junket has been reported by Indian media as costing $200 million a day. Apparently, coconut removal is expensive. Considering the idea of the trip is to promote American jobs, though, it seems like we're redistributing an awful lot of cash by sending 3,000 people on the trip.
While the Mumbai trip is noteworthy for its scheduled visit with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and a celebration of the Indian Diwali holiday, also included in the itinerary is a G-20 summit in Seoul and an Asia-Pacific leaders summit in Yokohama. But the president will return just in time for a lame-duck session of Congress that will likely spend much more than $200 million a day. It's possible that this Asian trip could be a comparative bargain to taxpayers.
Business & EconomyRegulatory Commissars: De Facto Drilling Ban Continues
The administration's ill-advised moratorium on deepwater oil drilling ended last month, but no one is in a hurry to issue permits. None have been issued since last May and it could be months before the first new one is issued. Michael Bromwich, Director of the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE, which we pronounce "bummer"), was coy when asked about permits. He hopes it happens before year's end, which doesn't boost our confidence, nor probably that of the oil companies seeking the permits.
It's not just deepwater drilling permits that are going nowhere either. Shallow-water permits have dropped 53 percent since last year. Michael Hecht, President and CEO of GNO Inc., an economic development agency, said, "The concern is that we still have a de facto moratorium." For an administration supposedly focused on creating -- and saving -- jobs, their actual policies continue to have the opposite effect. No doubt, though, they will take all the credit for the economy adding 151,000 jobs last month and the stock market surging this week. The expected political tsunami Tuesday might have had something to do with that.
The Federal Reserve Has a Plan
Perhaps spurred by the smashing success (cough, cough) of this administration's economic stimu-less package, the Federal Reserve has announced it will buy $600 billion in government bonds over the next eight months in an attempt to speed up the economic recovery. This is known as "quantitative easing," which is known in straight talk circles as inflation. Combine this with the $35 billion the Fed is dishing out monthly to replace mortgage bonds in its portfolio that are being retired, and the "investment" total is monumental. As The Wall Street Journal explains, "In essence, the Fed now will print money to buy as much as $900 billion in U.S. government bonds through June -- an amount roughly equal to the government's total projected borrowing needs over that period." Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) described the risk of this move as "incalculable," and Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City President Thomas Hoenig called the decision a "bargain with the devil."
Indeed, economists from Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC said that even were the Fed to buy up $1.5 trillion in Treasury bonds, unemployment would drop by only 0.3 percentage points in each of the next two years. Meanwhile, the injection of newly printed money isn't sitting well internationally, and the London Telegraph reports that several countries have implemented or are considering capital controls to deal with the "Fed's lax policy [which] is causing havoc."
Yet despite the risks and ramifications, the Fed marches on. After all, when it comes to interfering in the market, the only pace bureaucrats know is full speed ahead.
Click Here
New! Gadsden Tervis 12 oz. set
A new addition to our Tervis collection made especially for The Patriot Shop, the Gadsden Flag Tervis design is now available as a 12 oz. set of four. Each clear tumbler is made from high-grade polycarbonate, and features an embroidered Gadsden flag emblem between the insulated walls. Unconditional lifetime guarantee!
Red Tag Sale at GM
Even President Ronald Reagan used the government to rescue Chrysler, probably against his best instincts, but his rescue didn't involve a ridiculous federal government takeover of the company accompanied by the willful destruction of stock and bondholder rights. What is more, whereas Reagan's plan worked because it was limited in scope, today's typical government bureaucrat never mentions just exactly whom Obama's takeover helped. It certainly wasn't "the little guy."
Under the steady guidance of the Obama administration, government-owned General Motors is planning on issuing its first stock IPO since it became Government Motors. The company's goal is to raise $50 billion, but that may be hard to do given that GM expects to sell it's stock at $27 a share -- half what the government needs to earn a profit.
There was no word on why the Obama administration decided that now is a good time to cash out and reduce its ownership in Government Motors from 50 percent to 35 percent. We're sure it can't possibly be related to the continued decline in GM's share of the U.S. auto market and the central planners' failure to solve the cost issues that drove GM into bankruptcy in the first place.
Culture & PolicyAround the Nation: Notable Ballot Measures
Congressional seats weren't the only things on the ballot around the country Tuesday. Notables include rejections of the individual mandate of ObamaCare in Arizona, Oklahoma and Colorado. The provisions, while largely symbolic at this point, were to be strong rebukes of Democrats' takeover of the health care system and unconstitutional mandate that individuals purchase insurance. The measures won in Arizona and Oklahoma by comfortable margins, though Colorado voters fell for leftist propaganda and the measure failed. Numerous state legislatures will take up some version of a rejection of the mandate when those legislatures return to session next year, while court challenges work their way through the system.
In Iowa, three state Supreme Court justices were voted out of office, marking the first time that had happened since the current system was set up in 1962. Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and justices David Baker and Michael Streit were voted off the bench, all as a result of the court's unanimous ruling this year legalizing same-sex marriage. Supporters of the justices formed a group called Fair Courts For Us to try to save them from electoral defeat. Dan Moore, the group's co-chairman, said, "What I want Iowans to know is that our courtrooms need to be the safest place for parties to go to work out their differences and disputes. They need to know courts will be fair and impartial and decisions won't be based on fear and popularity." Of course, had justices not legislated from the bench, this triple play never would have been an issue.
As we noted last week, voters in Portland, Maine, considered allowing legal residents who are not U.S. citizens to vote in local elections, but not state or federal elections. That measure failed Tuesday 52-48.
Finally, California's Proposition 19, which would have legalized marijuana, failed 46-53. What was particularly interesting is that many police and parents supported the measure, while marijuana growers and potheads opposed it. The reason for that apparent oddity is that, for pot growers, Prop. 19 would so tax and regulate marijuana as to make it unprofitable. Besides, if people can smoke it at the World Series with impunity as it is, why go to all that trouble to make it "legal"?
ACORN Files Chapter 7
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) was founded in 1970 as a way to get out the vote among various leftists, particularly minorities. However, last year, after an undercover investigation revealing a willingness to break the law on the part of ACORN workers, the organization has had a hard fall from the tree.
Ironically, ACORN filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on Election Day. CEO Bertha Lewis was defiant to the end, saying in a statement, "For over 40 years ACORN has fought the good fight." However, a "barrage of unmitigated accusations certainly took its toll," and the "ongoing political onslaught caused irreparable harm." She continued, "We have spent our remaining resources trying to dissolve the organization with integrity, while continuing to respond to the extremist attacks. Let us all learn from the past, and march boldly into the future." We hope that future is something other than enabling voter fraud and aiding other illegal activity.
From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File
Do you have kids who are learning to ride a bike? Better buy some insurance along with those training wheels. A New York Supreme Court justice recently ruled that a six-year-old girl can be sued over accusations that she hit an 87-year-old woman with a training bicycle. The judge's decision revolves around a 2009 accident, in which a pair of then-four-year-old children struck an elderly pedestrian with their bikes. The woman, who underwent surgery for a fractured hip, died from complications three months later.
King's County Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten rejected arguments presented by the attorney for one of the children that the case should be dismissed because of the child's age and that the child shouldn't be liable because she was under her mother's supervision. Instead, Wooten determined that the child has apparently reached the age of sue-ability. "For infants above the age of 4," he wrote, "there is no bright-line rule." It seems there is also no bright light of common sense in the judge's ruling. With judicial activism like this, infants who spit up on Aunt Susie's favorite blouse will soon be liable for property damage.
Click Here
Essential Liberty Collection
The Essential Liberty Collection brings together the Web's best selection of resources promoting the restoration of Constitutional integrity, including Essential Liberty pocket references, founding documents, books, commemorative coins and great gifts affirming our heritage of liberty.
And Last...
Nancy Pelosi's home city made some waves on Tuesday. "San Francisco has become the first major U.S. city to pass a law that cracks down on the popular practice of giving away free toys with unhealthy restaurant meals for children," Reuters reports. Indeed, the tolerant "live and let live" Board of Supervisors in one of America's most leftist cities has targeted McDonald's by requiring certain nutritional standards for kids' meals before toys may be included in the package. Those standards include, according to Reuters, "meals that have less than 600 calories, contain fruits and vegetables, and include beverages without excessive fat or sugar." Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure, crowed, "We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice." Apparently, "food justice" is nothing more than taking toys from kids. You could call it No Child's Toy Left Behind.
(To submit reader comments click here.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion
Jonah Goldberg: In Victory, the GOP Will Turn on Each Other
Charles Krauthammer: A Return to the Norm
Linda Chavez: A Cautionary Note for GOP in Tuesday's Election
Mona Charen: Impressions From a Historic Election
Michelle Malkin: Voters Speak: No to Soak-the-Rich Schemes
David Limbaugh: Obama Doesn't Seek Compromise; Neither Should We
Jonah Goldberg: Defeat, Then Denial
L. Brent Bozell: Losing Your Head at the Supreme Court
Suzanne Fields: A Reprise of the Goblins
Oliver North: Heroes
Ann Coulter: We're all Bigots Now!
Michael Reagan: Repeal It Now!
Jeff Jacoby: Debt Solution Lies in Success of Europe
Lawrence Kudlow: Stopping the Bad Stuff Is a Plus
Larry Elder: November 3 Contract With America
More Opinion
QUOTES GEORGE WASHINGTON
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
George Washington
It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.
George Washington
Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God.
George Washington
George Washington
It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.
George Washington
Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God.
George Washington
FROM TOWNHALL
Obama Doesn't Seek Compromise; Neither Should We
Email David Limbaugh
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up I take no great pleasure in having been correct in predicting Barack Obama's reaction to his Tuesday "shellacking." To borrow his terminology, he is wired not to hear the American people's opposition to his radical agenda, as painfully demonstrated in his postelection news conference.
Unhappily, Obama's answers showed even deeper intransigence than I had thought he would be willing to reveal. He is every bit as committed to his destructive agenda as he was Nov. 1 and, despite his claims, is not looking for "common ground."
He said that every election "is a reminder that in our democracy, power rests not with those of us in elected office, but with the people we have the privilege to serve." But if anyone needs to be reminded of that, it is he, because he crammed through Obamacare and other offensive agenda items against the express will of the people.
As it happened, power rested with him, not the people. He saw to that by breaking all the rules to push the measures through. And when asked whether he has any regrets about doing so, he said no. He regrets the process wasn't "healthier," but "the outcome was a good one." Translation: "Though I just said power resides with the people, I didn't mean it, as you can see by my cynical absence of contrition at having usurped their power on this bill." Again, the end justifies the means, and the people don't know what's good for them.
Moreover, he emphatically refuses to consider repealing Obamacare, saying "we'd be misreading the election if we thought that the American people want to see us for the next two years re-litigate arguments that we had over the last two years." Sorry, but there was no litigation in the first place, just a kangaroo court where he imposed his will on us like a tyrannical judge. But he's correct that we don't want to argue anymore about it. We want it repealed -- yesterday!
He said, "The most important contest we face is not the contest between Democrats and Republicans ... (but) between America and our economic competitors around the world." Assuming, for purposes of argument, that our greatest challenge is with foreign economic competitors, we'll never improve our competitive position as long as Obama insists on bankrupting the nation with policies that also depress our economic growth. In that sense, the contest is between Democrats and Republicans.
Throughout the conference, Obama kept reiterating his tired lament that we need to build consensus and work together to achieve "civility." That's "the overwhelming message" he heard from the voters. And he promises to alleviate their concerns by proving there are pressing areas on which the parties can agree, such as electric cars. Boy, that's a relief.
His interpretation of the voters' message strikes me as odd. The overwhelming message I heard was that people are scared to death of this mounting debt and the socialization of health care and other sectors of the economy.
Especially coming from this intransigent "superjumbo Democrat," this constant talk about consensus is very hard to take, particularly when he cites areas such as "transparency," a promise he campaigned on and serially obliterated. Consensus is way overrated in the first place, but it's patently ridiculous for him to pretend he even aspires to it. It's his policies that people are most horrified by, not the lack of smooching across the partisan aisle.
Indeed, Obama outright rejects the idea that voters repudiated his agenda. Read the transcript if you doubt that. Just as he's been saying for a year or more, Americans are simply frustrated that economic recovery isn't occurring more quickly. But it is occurring, mind you, just not fast enough for the ignorant, impatient electorate.
He is convinced beyond the slightest reflection that his pump priming with borrowed money from the private sector is the only thing that saved us from a depression; never mind that the unemployment rate persists much higher than he promised. So we mustn't bother him further with our silly concerns about the mounting debt, because he saved us from an "emergency." As nothing will ever disabuse him of that myth, it's pointless for us even to approach him about compromising on his major economic policies.
When we have a president who believes that the government, not the private sector, creates jobs and who believes that extending unemployment benefits ad infinitum is not only the compassionate thing to do but also the healthiest thing for the economy, where can you begin?
I'll tell you where you don't begin: in the quixotic pursuit of a consensus that he has no intention of achieving. Neither should we have such an intention. This is a war of ideas, and we must suit up for battle.
David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of new book Crimes Against Liberty, the definitive chronicle of Barack Obama's devastating term in office so far.
Email David Limbaugh
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up I take no great pleasure in having been correct in predicting Barack Obama's reaction to his Tuesday "shellacking." To borrow his terminology, he is wired not to hear the American people's opposition to his radical agenda, as painfully demonstrated in his postelection news conference.
Unhappily, Obama's answers showed even deeper intransigence than I had thought he would be willing to reveal. He is every bit as committed to his destructive agenda as he was Nov. 1 and, despite his claims, is not looking for "common ground."
He said that every election "is a reminder that in our democracy, power rests not with those of us in elected office, but with the people we have the privilege to serve." But if anyone needs to be reminded of that, it is he, because he crammed through Obamacare and other offensive agenda items against the express will of the people.
As it happened, power rested with him, not the people. He saw to that by breaking all the rules to push the measures through. And when asked whether he has any regrets about doing so, he said no. He regrets the process wasn't "healthier," but "the outcome was a good one." Translation: "Though I just said power resides with the people, I didn't mean it, as you can see by my cynical absence of contrition at having usurped their power on this bill." Again, the end justifies the means, and the people don't know what's good for them.
Moreover, he emphatically refuses to consider repealing Obamacare, saying "we'd be misreading the election if we thought that the American people want to see us for the next two years re-litigate arguments that we had over the last two years." Sorry, but there was no litigation in the first place, just a kangaroo court where he imposed his will on us like a tyrannical judge. But he's correct that we don't want to argue anymore about it. We want it repealed -- yesterday!
He said, "The most important contest we face is not the contest between Democrats and Republicans ... (but) between America and our economic competitors around the world." Assuming, for purposes of argument, that our greatest challenge is with foreign economic competitors, we'll never improve our competitive position as long as Obama insists on bankrupting the nation with policies that also depress our economic growth. In that sense, the contest is between Democrats and Republicans.
Throughout the conference, Obama kept reiterating his tired lament that we need to build consensus and work together to achieve "civility." That's "the overwhelming message" he heard from the voters. And he promises to alleviate their concerns by proving there are pressing areas on which the parties can agree, such as electric cars. Boy, that's a relief.
His interpretation of the voters' message strikes me as odd. The overwhelming message I heard was that people are scared to death of this mounting debt and the socialization of health care and other sectors of the economy.
Especially coming from this intransigent "superjumbo Democrat," this constant talk about consensus is very hard to take, particularly when he cites areas such as "transparency," a promise he campaigned on and serially obliterated. Consensus is way overrated in the first place, but it's patently ridiculous for him to pretend he even aspires to it. It's his policies that people are most horrified by, not the lack of smooching across the partisan aisle.
Indeed, Obama outright rejects the idea that voters repudiated his agenda. Read the transcript if you doubt that. Just as he's been saying for a year or more, Americans are simply frustrated that economic recovery isn't occurring more quickly. But it is occurring, mind you, just not fast enough for the ignorant, impatient electorate.
He is convinced beyond the slightest reflection that his pump priming with borrowed money from the private sector is the only thing that saved us from a depression; never mind that the unemployment rate persists much higher than he promised. So we mustn't bother him further with our silly concerns about the mounting debt, because he saved us from an "emergency." As nothing will ever disabuse him of that myth, it's pointless for us even to approach him about compromising on his major economic policies.
When we have a president who believes that the government, not the private sector, creates jobs and who believes that extending unemployment benefits ad infinitum is not only the compassionate thing to do but also the healthiest thing for the economy, where can you begin?
I'll tell you where you don't begin: in the quixotic pursuit of a consensus that he has no intention of achieving. Neither should we have such an intention. This is a war of ideas, and we must suit up for battle.
David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of new book Crimes Against Liberty, the definitive chronicle of Barack Obama's devastating term in office so far.
FROM TOWNHALL
We're All Bigots Now
Email Ann Coulter
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up After Tuesday's election, the fresh new faces of the Democratic Party are ... Harry Reid and Jerry Brown! (Who had the worst election night? Chuck Schumer, who's been waiting in the wings to replace Reid as Senate majority leader. Who had the second worst election night? The people who live below Barney Frank's apartment.)
With the addition of new Republican senators Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), Rand Paul (Kentucky) and Marco Rubio (Florida) -- among others -- the average IQ of Senate Republicans has just increased by about 20 points. Also, liberals won't have Sharron Angle to kick around anymore. Now that Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are gone, Keith Olbermann is indefinitely suspending his "Worst Persons of the World" segment.
Republicans added two magnificent new black faces to the Congress with Allen West in Florida, who beat sore loser Ron Klein 54.3 percent to 45.7 percent (with 97 percent counted, Klein wouldn't concede), and Tim Scott in South Carolina, who crushed Democrat Ben Frasier, 65-29.
Republicans also launched two new Hispanic stars this election: Sen.-elect Marco Rubio from Florida and the new governor of New Mexico, Susanna Martinez. And we got a bonus Sikh -- Nikki Haley, the new governor of South Carolina. MSNBC is still searching for the "Republicans are racist" angle in all of this.
The most important outcome of this week's election is that Republicans clobbered the Democrats in the state gubernatorial and legislative races. Next year, state lawmakers draw new congressional districts, determining the congressional map for the next decade. In the past, Democrats have had a 2-1 advantage in congressional redistricting. Not anymore.
Tuesday night, Republicans won governorships in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Alabama, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina -- pause, deep breath -- New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Alaska, Maine, Iowa and Florida. They also swept the state legislatures.
Meanwhile, the Democrats won governor's races in California, New York, Massachusetts, Arkansas and Maryland.
Not only are all the Democrats' states losing population, which isn't as important for redistricting, but the Democrats' biggest plum, California -- losing congressional seats for the first time since the '50s -- also approved a ballot measure that will take redistricting out of the hands of the California legislators and turn it over to a Citizens Redistricting Commission.
So the Democrats got nothing out of this election. Worst of all, now they're stuck with Harry Reid.
Democrats' congressional redistricting dreams weren't the only thing that died Tuesday night. A slew of election myths died -- though I'm sure they'll have to be killed off again in every future election:
(1) All but the broadest election predictions are interesting and give us valuable information.
We may as well listen to people on TV give us their guesses on how many jellybeans are in the 10-gallon jar. The only prediction that came true was my prediction that most predictions were worthless.
Last week, Charles Krauthammer predicted a pickup of 55 House seats and eight Senate seats -- which, weirdly, was the exact polling average given by Real Clear Politics. For months now, Dick Morris has been assuring Fox News viewers that Republicans were going to take both houses. If only some of that precious airtime had been spent interviewing the great Bill Brady, he would not now be locked in a tight election recount for governor in Illinois -- Obama's home state and the sixth most populous state in the nation.
(2) A "wave" election would give the victory to Republicans in all close Senate races.
We had a wave. We had an enormous wave, a tidal wave, a wave that produced more than 60 seats in the House in the biggest party turnover since 1948. But Democrats still won all Senate races that were tied in the polls. The fact that the close races were all in solidly Democratic states had more to do with the outcome than the "wave." Demographics matter, not "waves."
(3) Newt Gingrich engineered the 1994 Republican sweep of Congress.
All Newt did was avoid standing in front of a runaway freight train in 1994, when Republicans picked up a comparatively paltry 54 seats. We would have done that if Pee-wee Herman had been the face of the Republican Party. This year, with absolutely no Republican or Tea Party leader, Republicans picked up 60-plus House seats.
Republican landslides are apparently inevitable whenever Democrats try to turn our health care over to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
(4) Tea Party candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell were bad for the Republican Party.
Au contraire! Every Republican who won a tightly contested election should be sending a thank-you note to Angle and O'Donnell for taking all the fire from the mainstream media and keeping the heat off of them.
Republicans never had a chance to take the Senate, and anyone who knows the difference between California and Tennessee knew that. Most of the Senate seats up this year happened to be in very, very "blue" states. Short of a Republican invasion of the body snatchers, Republicans weren't going to be electing senators from California, New York and Oregon.
Acting as if O'Donnell's primary victory dashed Republican dreams of taking the Senate was always absurd -- particularly coming from the people who supported a World Wrestling Entertainment impresario in Connecticut and did nothing to help a Republican who could have won that race.
(5) The Republican landslide in the House will lead to a bitterly divided Congress with unimaginable gridlock.
The fact that this year's crop of Senate elections was bad for the Republicans means the Senate elections two years from now, and then again four years from now, are going to be fantastic for Republicans.
Do you think Claire McCaskill, Jim Webb, Sherrod Brown and Jon Tester of Montana -- all of whom will be facing the voters in two years -- noticed that popular, long-serving Democrat Russ Feingold just lost an election in a much more liberal state than their own?
Even Lindsey Graham is going to start voting with the Republicans!
(6) Connecticut voters wouldn't mind a World Wrestling Entertainment impresario.
Connecticut isn't Minnesota. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with Connecticut knew WWE owner Linda McMahon never had a chance even against Dick Blumenthal, a Democrat so repulsive even The New York Times attacked him.
Republicans had the ideal Connecticut candidate in Rob Simmons, who lost the primary to McMahon. He had won in liberal districts before, was a graduate of Haverford College and Harvard University, was an Army colonel who served in Vietnam and teaches at Yale. He also never kicked a man in the groin for entertainment. But Simmons didn't have McMahon's money, so Republicans went with McMahon.
If, instead of listening to pundits guess how many jellybeans are in the jar, the conservative media had showcased Simmons, he would have won the primary, and today conservatives and liberals would be united in joy over the defeat of Dick Blumenthal.
Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter is a columnist and author of Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault On America.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Ann Coulter and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox. Most Recent Articles
Ethnic cloud hangs over Guinea presidential poll
Giant Jesus statue completed in Polish town
Russian reporter in coma after beating in Moscow
US military flies over Haiti to view storm damage
Report: Somali pirates release SKorean ship
Economy recovering, but recession's shadow is long
Ivory Coast withdraws ambassador from Senegal
Pope blasts Spain's "aggressive" anti-church ways
Email Ann Coulter
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up After Tuesday's election, the fresh new faces of the Democratic Party are ... Harry Reid and Jerry Brown! (Who had the worst election night? Chuck Schumer, who's been waiting in the wings to replace Reid as Senate majority leader. Who had the second worst election night? The people who live below Barney Frank's apartment.)
With the addition of new Republican senators Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), Rand Paul (Kentucky) and Marco Rubio (Florida) -- among others -- the average IQ of Senate Republicans has just increased by about 20 points. Also, liberals won't have Sharron Angle to kick around anymore. Now that Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are gone, Keith Olbermann is indefinitely suspending his "Worst Persons of the World" segment.
Republicans added two magnificent new black faces to the Congress with Allen West in Florida, who beat sore loser Ron Klein 54.3 percent to 45.7 percent (with 97 percent counted, Klein wouldn't concede), and Tim Scott in South Carolina, who crushed Democrat Ben Frasier, 65-29.
Republicans also launched two new Hispanic stars this election: Sen.-elect Marco Rubio from Florida and the new governor of New Mexico, Susanna Martinez. And we got a bonus Sikh -- Nikki Haley, the new governor of South Carolina. MSNBC is still searching for the "Republicans are racist" angle in all of this.
The most important outcome of this week's election is that Republicans clobbered the Democrats in the state gubernatorial and legislative races. Next year, state lawmakers draw new congressional districts, determining the congressional map for the next decade. In the past, Democrats have had a 2-1 advantage in congressional redistricting. Not anymore.
Tuesday night, Republicans won governorships in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Alabama, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina -- pause, deep breath -- New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Alaska, Maine, Iowa and Florida. They also swept the state legislatures.
Meanwhile, the Democrats won governor's races in California, New York, Massachusetts, Arkansas and Maryland.
Not only are all the Democrats' states losing population, which isn't as important for redistricting, but the Democrats' biggest plum, California -- losing congressional seats for the first time since the '50s -- also approved a ballot measure that will take redistricting out of the hands of the California legislators and turn it over to a Citizens Redistricting Commission.
So the Democrats got nothing out of this election. Worst of all, now they're stuck with Harry Reid.
Democrats' congressional redistricting dreams weren't the only thing that died Tuesday night. A slew of election myths died -- though I'm sure they'll have to be killed off again in every future election:
(1) All but the broadest election predictions are interesting and give us valuable information.
We may as well listen to people on TV give us their guesses on how many jellybeans are in the 10-gallon jar. The only prediction that came true was my prediction that most predictions were worthless.
Last week, Charles Krauthammer predicted a pickup of 55 House seats and eight Senate seats -- which, weirdly, was the exact polling average given by Real Clear Politics. For months now, Dick Morris has been assuring Fox News viewers that Republicans were going to take both houses. If only some of that precious airtime had been spent interviewing the great Bill Brady, he would not now be locked in a tight election recount for governor in Illinois -- Obama's home state and the sixth most populous state in the nation.
(2) A "wave" election would give the victory to Republicans in all close Senate races.
We had a wave. We had an enormous wave, a tidal wave, a wave that produced more than 60 seats in the House in the biggest party turnover since 1948. But Democrats still won all Senate races that were tied in the polls. The fact that the close races were all in solidly Democratic states had more to do with the outcome than the "wave." Demographics matter, not "waves."
(3) Newt Gingrich engineered the 1994 Republican sweep of Congress.
All Newt did was avoid standing in front of a runaway freight train in 1994, when Republicans picked up a comparatively paltry 54 seats. We would have done that if Pee-wee Herman had been the face of the Republican Party. This year, with absolutely no Republican or Tea Party leader, Republicans picked up 60-plus House seats.
Republican landslides are apparently inevitable whenever Democrats try to turn our health care over to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
(4) Tea Party candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell were bad for the Republican Party.
Au contraire! Every Republican who won a tightly contested election should be sending a thank-you note to Angle and O'Donnell for taking all the fire from the mainstream media and keeping the heat off of them.
Republicans never had a chance to take the Senate, and anyone who knows the difference between California and Tennessee knew that. Most of the Senate seats up this year happened to be in very, very "blue" states. Short of a Republican invasion of the body snatchers, Republicans weren't going to be electing senators from California, New York and Oregon.
Acting as if O'Donnell's primary victory dashed Republican dreams of taking the Senate was always absurd -- particularly coming from the people who supported a World Wrestling Entertainment impresario in Connecticut and did nothing to help a Republican who could have won that race.
(5) The Republican landslide in the House will lead to a bitterly divided Congress with unimaginable gridlock.
The fact that this year's crop of Senate elections was bad for the Republicans means the Senate elections two years from now, and then again four years from now, are going to be fantastic for Republicans.
Do you think Claire McCaskill, Jim Webb, Sherrod Brown and Jon Tester of Montana -- all of whom will be facing the voters in two years -- noticed that popular, long-serving Democrat Russ Feingold just lost an election in a much more liberal state than their own?
Even Lindsey Graham is going to start voting with the Republicans!
(6) Connecticut voters wouldn't mind a World Wrestling Entertainment impresario.
Connecticut isn't Minnesota. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with Connecticut knew WWE owner Linda McMahon never had a chance even against Dick Blumenthal, a Democrat so repulsive even The New York Times attacked him.
Republicans had the ideal Connecticut candidate in Rob Simmons, who lost the primary to McMahon. He had won in liberal districts before, was a graduate of Haverford College and Harvard University, was an Army colonel who served in Vietnam and teaches at Yale. He also never kicked a man in the groin for entertainment. But Simmons didn't have McMahon's money, so Republicans went with McMahon.
If, instead of listening to pundits guess how many jellybeans are in the jar, the conservative media had showcased Simmons, he would have won the primary, and today conservatives and liberals would be united in joy over the defeat of Dick Blumenthal.
Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter is a columnist and author of Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault On America.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Ann Coulter and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox. Most Recent Articles
Ethnic cloud hangs over Guinea presidential poll
Giant Jesus statue completed in Polish town
Russian reporter in coma after beating in Moscow
US military flies over Haiti to view storm damage
Report: Somali pirates release SKorean ship
Economy recovering, but recession's shadow is long
Ivory Coast withdraws ambassador from Senegal
Pope blasts Spain's "aggressive" anti-church ways
FROM TOWNHALL
RELEASE: Conservative Mandate
Wed. 11-03
Congress
Posted by: Dan Holler
November 3, 2010 By Dan Holler 33 Comments
Conservative Mandate
Heritage Action to Aggressively Push Conservative Agenda
Washington, D.C. – Heritage Action for America congratulates those newly elected conservative members and stands ready to work them on their conservative mandate.
“Tonight’s results mark a turning point in American politics,” Heritage Action’s CEO Michael A. Needham said. “During the past decade, Americans witnessed a bipartisan tendency to spend too much, centralize control and minimize individual liberty. Americans rejected that philosophy tonight.”
“But the fight has only just begun,” Needham continued. “Now, we must translate this conservative mandate into conservative policy victories in Washington. Heritage Action will work to ensure tonight’s conservative victory is not co-opted by the Washington establishment.”
Heritage Action will work aggressively to push a conservative agenda in Congress and hold Members accountable to their electoral mandate using paid issue advertisements, local grassroots activity, online activist tools and earned media. For more information, visit heritageforamerica.org.
Press Contact:
Dan Holler
202.548.5284
dan.holler@heritageforamerica.org
Filed Under: Congress Tagged With: accountablility, conservative principles, election
Share
Wed. 11-03
Congress
Posted by: Dan Holler
November 3, 2010 By Dan Holler 33 Comments
Conservative Mandate
Heritage Action to Aggressively Push Conservative Agenda
Washington, D.C. – Heritage Action for America congratulates those newly elected conservative members and stands ready to work them on their conservative mandate.
“Tonight’s results mark a turning point in American politics,” Heritage Action’s CEO Michael A. Needham said. “During the past decade, Americans witnessed a bipartisan tendency to spend too much, centralize control and minimize individual liberty. Americans rejected that philosophy tonight.”
“But the fight has only just begun,” Needham continued. “Now, we must translate this conservative mandate into conservative policy victories in Washington. Heritage Action will work to ensure tonight’s conservative victory is not co-opted by the Washington establishment.”
Heritage Action will work aggressively to push a conservative agenda in Congress and hold Members accountable to their electoral mandate using paid issue advertisements, local grassroots activity, online activist tools and earned media. For more information, visit heritageforamerica.org.
Press Contact:
Dan Holler
202.548.5284
dan.holler@heritageforamerica.org
Filed Under: Congress Tagged With: accountablility, conservative principles, election
Share
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Should Christians Support Obama
Dr. David Barton is more of a historian than a Biblical speaker, but very famous for his knowledge of historical facts as well as Biblical truths.
He was on Dr. Charles Stanley's program "In Touch" as a guest speaker. I almost shouted "HALLELUJAH" when I finished reading. Forward or discard....it's your choice.
Dr. David Barton - on Obama
Respect the Office? Yes.
Respect the Man in the Office? No, I am sorry to say. I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama.
Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOT uniting behind Obama !
I will respect the Office which he holds, and I will acknowledge his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it.
I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure that he is a one-term President!
Why am I doing this ?
It is because:
- I do not share Obama's vision or value system for America ;
- I do not share his Abortion beliefs;
- I do not share his radical Marxist's concept of re-distributing wealth;
- I do not share his stated views on raising taxes on those who make $150,000+ (the ceiling has been changed three times since August);
- I do not share his view that America is Arrogant;
- I do not share his view that America is not a Christian Nation;
- I do not share his view that the military should be reduced by 25%;
- I do not share his view of amnesty and giving more to illegals than our American Citizens who need help;
- I do not share his views on homosexuality and his definition of marriage;
- I do not share his views that Radical Islam is our friend and Israel is our enemy who should give up any land;
- I do not share his spiritual beliefs (at least the ones he has made public);
- I do not share his beliefs on how to re-work the healthcare system in America;
- I do not share his Strategic views of the Middle East; and
- I certainly do not share his plan to sit down with terrorist regimes such as Iran.
Bottom line: my America is vastly different from Obama's, and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my GOD to do what is Right!
For 8 years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs!
They have not moved toward the center in their beliefs and their philosophies, and they never came together nor compromised their personal beliefs for the betterment of our Country!
They have portrayed my America as a land where everything is tolerated except being intolerant!
They have been a vocal and irreverent minority for years !
They have mocked and attacked the very core values so important to the founding and growth of our Country!
They have made every effort to remove the name of GOD or Jesus Christ from our Society!
They have challenged capital punishment, the right to bear firearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code!
They have attacked one of the most fundamental of all Freedoms, the right of free speech!
Unite behind Obama? Never!
I am sure many of you who read this think that I am going overboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I believe are the embodiment of Evil!
PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his Presidency, and I am not sure how history will judge him. However, I believe that he weighed his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!!!
Majority rules in America, and I will honor the concept; however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and his "goals for America.."
I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left unchecked, will destroy our Country! Any more compromise is more defeat!
I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-GOD crowd to slowly change so much of what has been good in America!
"Error of Opinion may be tolerated where Reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson
GOD bless you and GOD bless our Country!
(Please, please, please, pass this on if you agree. If you don't agree, just delete it.)
Thanks for your time, may you, your family and friends be safe.
"In GOD We Trust"
Dr. David Barton is more of a historian than a Biblical speaker, but very famous for his knowledge of historical facts as well as Biblical truths.
He was on Dr. Charles Stanley's program "In Touch" as a guest speaker. I almost shouted "HALLELUJAH" when I finished reading. Forward or discard....it's your choice.
Dr. David Barton - on Obama
Respect the Office? Yes.
Respect the Man in the Office? No, I am sorry to say. I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama.
Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOT uniting behind Obama !
I will respect the Office which he holds, and I will acknowledge his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it.
I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure that he is a one-term President!
Why am I doing this ?
It is because:
- I do not share Obama's vision or value system for America ;
- I do not share his Abortion beliefs;
- I do not share his radical Marxist's concept of re-distributing wealth;
- I do not share his stated views on raising taxes on those who make $150,000+ (the ceiling has been changed three times since August);
- I do not share his view that America is Arrogant;
- I do not share his view that America is not a Christian Nation;
- I do not share his view that the military should be reduced by 25%;
- I do not share his view of amnesty and giving more to illegals than our American Citizens who need help;
- I do not share his views on homosexuality and his definition of marriage;
- I do not share his views that Radical Islam is our friend and Israel is our enemy who should give up any land;
- I do not share his spiritual beliefs (at least the ones he has made public);
- I do not share his beliefs on how to re-work the healthcare system in America;
- I do not share his Strategic views of the Middle East; and
- I certainly do not share his plan to sit down with terrorist regimes such as Iran.
Bottom line: my America is vastly different from Obama's, and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my GOD to do what is Right!
For 8 years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs!
They have not moved toward the center in their beliefs and their philosophies, and they never came together nor compromised their personal beliefs for the betterment of our Country!
They have portrayed my America as a land where everything is tolerated except being intolerant!
They have been a vocal and irreverent minority for years !
They have mocked and attacked the very core values so important to the founding and growth of our Country!
They have made every effort to remove the name of GOD or Jesus Christ from our Society!
They have challenged capital punishment, the right to bear firearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code!
They have attacked one of the most fundamental of all Freedoms, the right of free speech!
Unite behind Obama? Never!
I am sure many of you who read this think that I am going overboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I believe are the embodiment of Evil!
PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his Presidency, and I am not sure how history will judge him. However, I believe that he weighed his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!!!
Majority rules in America, and I will honor the concept; however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and his "goals for America.."
I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left unchecked, will destroy our Country! Any more compromise is more defeat!
I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-GOD crowd to slowly change so much of what has been good in America!
"Error of Opinion may be tolerated where Reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson
GOD bless you and GOD bless our Country!
(Please, please, please, pass this on if you agree. If you don't agree, just delete it.)
Thanks for your time, may you, your family and friends be safe.
"In GOD We Trust"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
