The Year of Right-Wing Terrorists?
Email Brent Bozell
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up There is some very dangerous -- as in red-hot incendiary -- hatred going on, and it's being advanced by the national news media directly.
The panel of judges for the Media Research Center's Best Notable Quotables of 2010 found that theme time and time again while selecting the year's worst reporting and punditry.
PBS talk-show host Tavis Smiley won "The Poison Tea Pot Award for Smearing the Anti-Obama Rabble." On May 25, he was interviewing author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a bold critic of radical Muslims -- at the risk of a fatwa against her own life since 2004. Ali said jihadists "got into their minds that to kill other people is a great thing to do and that they would be rewarded in the hereafter."
Smiley shot back: "But Christians do that every single day in this country."
Jaws dropped. Ali couldn't believe her ears: "Do they blow people up every day?"
Read very carefully Smiley's response: "Yes. Oh, Christians, every day, people walk into post offices, they walk into schools. That's what Columbine is -- I could do this all day long."
Smiley wasn't done. Next, he smeared the tea party movement, repeating falsehoods as fact: "Here are folk in the tea party, for example, every day who are being recently arrested for making threats against elected officials, for calling people 'nigger' as they walk into Capitol Hill, for spitting on people."
What, oh, what is the U.S. Congress doing underwriting this radical leftist dishonesty with taxpayer money?
Liberals like Smiley cravenly plead that Islam is no more violent than any other faith. Then they blame Christians for violently persecuting Muslims. When controversy erupted this fall over a mega-mosque proposal at ground zero, Christian conservatives were put in the cross hairs. The dreadful ABC host Christiane Amanpour won "The Ground Zeroes Award for Impugning Americans as Islamophobic."
In an Oct. 3 "This Week" special on Islam, Amanpour opened fire on Gary Bauer in that snooty British accent of hers: "As you know, a series of politicians have used the Islamic center, have used sort of Islamophobia and scare tactics in their campaigns. ... My question is: Do you take any -- after some of the loaded things that have been said, and we can play you any number of tapes, Mr. Bauer -- do you take any responsibility at all for, for instance, what happened in Murfreesboro (Tenn., where a mosque site was vandalized)?"
Bauer, like Ali, was stunned. "Are you serious? Absolutely not. I have never encouraged violence. I condemn violence."
But Amanpour would have none of it. "You don't think the rhetoric lays the groundwork for others?"
When conservatives warn America of the potential threat of Islamic radicalism, they're "rhetorically laying the groundwork" for violence. When Islamic radicals actually plot -- and undertake -- violence, America is to be blamed for its failure to be open-minded enough. Such is the worldview of our increasingly radicalized "news" media.
If conservatives are going to be called terrorists, the megaphone-in-chief for that clarion call must be the rabid Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. He won the "Obama's Orderlies Award for Prepping America for ObamaCare" with a Jan. 5 screed about our allegedly murderous private health care system: "What would you do, sir, if terrorists were killing 45,000 people every year in this country? Well, the current health care system, the insurance companies and those who support them are doing just that. ... Because they die individually of disease and not disaster, (radio host) Neal Boortz and those who ape him in office and out approve their deaths, all 45,000 of them -- a year -- in America. Remind me again, who are the terrorists?"
Boortz wasn't alone as some kind of talk-radio terrorist in Olbermann's cockeyed view. Olbermann also took the "Crush Rush Award for Loathing Limbaugh" for his rant on the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. He wouldn't blame the actual (executed) bomber, Timothy McVeigh. He was still painting with liberal smears from the Clinton years: "What was the more likely cause of the Oklahoma City bombing: talk radio or Bill Clinton and Janet Reno's hands-on management of Waco? ... Obviously, the answer is talk radio. Specifically Rush Limbaugh's hate radio. ... Frankly, Rush, you have that blood on your hands now, and you have had it for 15 years."
You can dismiss these as the ludicrous utterances of Smiley, Amanpour and Olbermann. But what does it say that they are headliners for PBS, ABC and NBC? It is those networks, not just their reporters, that are advancing a very dangerous form of hatred on the airwaves.
Brent Bozell
Founder and President of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell runs the largest media watchdog organization in America.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Brent Bozell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
©Creators Syndicate
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
FROM TOWNHALL
Uncle Sam Will Help Buy You an Alpaca
Email John Stossel
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up I often bash government. I say it can't do anything better than people in a free market.
But the government is unequalled in producing one thing: negative unintended consequences. Show me a government activity, and I will show you bad results that even the program's advocates probably don't like. Here's one example.
Congressmen say our government should "support and strengthen family-based agriculture."
Abstractly, supporting family-based agriculture sounds good. Government policies often harm small farms by favoring corporate agribusinesses. Government could help family farms by ending the subsidies that mostly go to the big guys. But that doesn't interest the politicians. They prefer to do things like creating tax breaks to encourage livestock breeding.
The tax breaks have led to a boom in alpaca breeding. Twenty-five years ago, there were 150 alpacas in America. Now, there are 150,000.
One website even advertises: "Have Uncle Sam Help You Buy Your Alpacas."
Rose Mogerman raises alpacas in New Jersey, the most densely populated state. "I fell in love with them," she said.
But she fell in love with the tax break first.
"Yes. I have to be honest," she said. "I might have had two. I wouldn't have had 100. ... I was looking for a tax shelter."
The Alpaca Breeders Association asked its members, on a scale of 1 to 10, what motivated them to get into alpaca breeding. More than half rated "tax benefits" a 10.
Yes, alpacas are cute. They are also valued for the fiber made from their fleece. But selling the fleece doesn't explain the growth in alpaca raising. At auctions, prices have gotten absurdly high. Half-ownership of one male alpaca sold for $750,000.
This is not necessarily a good thing. Economists at the University of California, Davis warn that the industry is in a speculative bubble. "Alpacas sold today as breeding stock have values wildly in excess of even the most optimistic scenarios based upon current fiber prices and production costs," Tina L. Saitone and Richard J. Sexton write.
"(C)urrent prices are not supportable by economic fundamentals and, thus, are not sustainable," the UC Davis economists write. Their paper was originally published in the Review of Agricultural Economics in 2007 with the great title "Alpaca Lies? Speculative Bubbles in Agriculture."
In other words, people have overinvested, bid up input prices and produced too many animals given expected future demand for their fleece. As a result, I bet lots of people will lose money. Tax policy is surely a big reason for the overinvestment, and an unintended consequence will be bankruptcy for some alpaca breeders.
I'm using "bubble" in a nontechnical sense because, strictly speaking, a bubble is an unsustainable inflation of asset prices inconsistent with economic reality. However, even a wrongheaded tax preference is real and sustainable. So if the tax break is the reason for the alpaca boom, there's really no bubble.
The Alpaca Owners and Breeders Association says the UC Davis study is "seriously flawed (and) full of misinformation," but offered no evidence for that bald assertion. The authors stand by their study, saying that no conflicting studies have been published and that their research is confirmed by a recent price decline.
Government is good at inflating bubbles. The housing bubble was fueled by low interest rates, tax breaks and subsidies.
Last year, I reported how Congress' ridiculous tax credits stimulated demand for electric golf-carts. Electric vehicles are touted these days as "green" technology and so were given special tax treatment. Unfortunately, the plug-in carts are ultimately connected to coal-fired plants. The National Research Council says electric cars may be worse for the environment than gas-powered cars. That didn't matter to the policy-makers.
As a result of the tax benefit, golf-cart dealers had a field day. One advertised that his $6,000 carts were "free" because of the $6,000 tax credit. Gov. Mike Huckabee got one. His friend got seven. I got one, too.
The deal sure helped the golf-cart industry. My dealer sold 10,000 of them.
At least the golf-cart credit expired. Most government giveaways never go away.
Get ready for the bust of the alpaca bubble. Sadly, Congress will then probably bail out bankrupt alpaca farmers.
John Stossel
John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com.
Email John Stossel
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up I often bash government. I say it can't do anything better than people in a free market.
But the government is unequalled in producing one thing: negative unintended consequences. Show me a government activity, and I will show you bad results that even the program's advocates probably don't like. Here's one example.
Congressmen say our government should "support and strengthen family-based agriculture."
Abstractly, supporting family-based agriculture sounds good. Government policies often harm small farms by favoring corporate agribusinesses. Government could help family farms by ending the subsidies that mostly go to the big guys. But that doesn't interest the politicians. They prefer to do things like creating tax breaks to encourage livestock breeding.
The tax breaks have led to a boom in alpaca breeding. Twenty-five years ago, there were 150 alpacas in America. Now, there are 150,000.
One website even advertises: "Have Uncle Sam Help You Buy Your Alpacas."
Rose Mogerman raises alpacas in New Jersey, the most densely populated state. "I fell in love with them," she said.
But she fell in love with the tax break first.
"Yes. I have to be honest," she said. "I might have had two. I wouldn't have had 100. ... I was looking for a tax shelter."
The Alpaca Breeders Association asked its members, on a scale of 1 to 10, what motivated them to get into alpaca breeding. More than half rated "tax benefits" a 10.
Yes, alpacas are cute. They are also valued for the fiber made from their fleece. But selling the fleece doesn't explain the growth in alpaca raising. At auctions, prices have gotten absurdly high. Half-ownership of one male alpaca sold for $750,000.
This is not necessarily a good thing. Economists at the University of California, Davis warn that the industry is in a speculative bubble. "Alpacas sold today as breeding stock have values wildly in excess of even the most optimistic scenarios based upon current fiber prices and production costs," Tina L. Saitone and Richard J. Sexton write.
"(C)urrent prices are not supportable by economic fundamentals and, thus, are not sustainable," the UC Davis economists write. Their paper was originally published in the Review of Agricultural Economics in 2007 with the great title "Alpaca Lies? Speculative Bubbles in Agriculture."
In other words, people have overinvested, bid up input prices and produced too many animals given expected future demand for their fleece. As a result, I bet lots of people will lose money. Tax policy is surely a big reason for the overinvestment, and an unintended consequence will be bankruptcy for some alpaca breeders.
I'm using "bubble" in a nontechnical sense because, strictly speaking, a bubble is an unsustainable inflation of asset prices inconsistent with economic reality. However, even a wrongheaded tax preference is real and sustainable. So if the tax break is the reason for the alpaca boom, there's really no bubble.
The Alpaca Owners and Breeders Association says the UC Davis study is "seriously flawed (and) full of misinformation," but offered no evidence for that bald assertion. The authors stand by their study, saying that no conflicting studies have been published and that their research is confirmed by a recent price decline.
Government is good at inflating bubbles. The housing bubble was fueled by low interest rates, tax breaks and subsidies.
Last year, I reported how Congress' ridiculous tax credits stimulated demand for electric golf-carts. Electric vehicles are touted these days as "green" technology and so were given special tax treatment. Unfortunately, the plug-in carts are ultimately connected to coal-fired plants. The National Research Council says electric cars may be worse for the environment than gas-powered cars. That didn't matter to the policy-makers.
As a result of the tax benefit, golf-cart dealers had a field day. One advertised that his $6,000 carts were "free" because of the $6,000 tax credit. Gov. Mike Huckabee got one. His friend got seven. I got one, too.
The deal sure helped the golf-cart industry. My dealer sold 10,000 of them.
At least the golf-cart credit expired. Most government giveaways never go away.
Get ready for the bust of the alpaca bubble. Sadly, Congress will then probably bail out bankrupt alpaca farmers.
John Stossel
John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com.
FROM TOWNHALL
Internet Access Is Not a 'Civil Right'
Email Michelle Malkin
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 1diggdigg
Sign-Up When bureaucrats talk about increasing our "access" to x, y or z, what they're really talking about is increasing exponentially their control over our lives. As it is with the government health care takeover, so it is with the newly approved government plan to "increase" Internet "access." Call it Webcare.
By a vote of 3-2, the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday adopted a controversial scheme to ensure "net neutrality" by turning unaccountable Democratic appointees into meddling online traffic cops. The panel will devise convoluted rules governing Internet service providers, bandwidth use, content, prices and even disclosure details on Internet speeds. The "neutrality" is brazenly undermined by preferential treatment toward wireless broadband networks. Moreover, the FCC's scheme is widely opposed by Congress -- and has already been rejected once in the courts. Demonized industry critics have warned that the regulations will stifle innovation and result in less access, not more.
Sound familiar? The parallels with health care are striking. The architects of Obamacare promised to provide Americans more access to health insurance -- and cast their agenda as a fundamental universal entitlement.
In fact, it was a pretext for creating a gargantuan federal bureaucracy with the power to tax, redistribute and regulate the private health insurance market to death -- and replace it with a centrally planned government system overseen by politically driven code enforcers dictating everything from annual coverage limits to administrative expenditures to the makeup of the medical workforce. The costly, onerous and selectively applied law has resulted in less access, not more.
Undaunted promoters of Obama FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's "open Internet" plan to expand regulatory authority over the Internet have couched their online power grab in the rhetoric of civil rights. On Monday, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps proclaimed: "Universal access to broadband needs to be seen as a civil right ... (though) not many people have talked about it that way." Opposing the government Internet takeover blueprint, in other words, is tantamount to supporting segregation. Cunning propaganda, that.
"Broadband is becoming a basic necessity," civil rights activist Benjamin Hooks added. And earlier this month, fellow FCC panelist Mignon Clyburn, daughter of Congressional Black Caucus leader and Number Three House Democrat James Clyburn of South Carolina, declared that free (read: taxpayer-subsidized) access to the Internet is not only a civil right for every "nappy-headed child" in America, but is essential to their self-esteem. Every minority child, she said, "deserves to be not only connected, but to be proud of who he or she is."
Calling them "nappy-headed" is a rather questionable way of boosting their pride, but never mind that.
Face it: A high-speed connection is no more an essential civil right than 3G cell phone service or a Netflix account. Increasing competition and restoring academic excellence in abysmal public schools is far more of an imperative to minority children than handing them iPads. Once again, Democrats are using children as human shields to provide useful cover for not so noble political goals.
The "net neutrality" mob -- funded by billionaire George Soros and other left-wing think tanks and nonprofits -- has openly advertised its radical, speech-squelching agenda in its crusade for "media justice." Social justice is the redistribution of wealth and economic "rights." Media justice is the redistribution of free speech and other First Amendment rights.
The meetings of the universal broadband set are littered with Marxist-tinged rants about "disenfranchisement" and "empowerment." They've targeted conservative opponents on talk radio, cable TV and the Internet as purveyors of "hate" who need to be managed or censored. Democratic FCC panelists have dutifully echoed their concerns about concentration of corporate media power.
As the Ford Foundation-funded Media Justice Fund, which lobbied for universal broadband, put it: This is a movement "grounded in the belief that social and economic justice will not be realized without the equitable redistribution and control of media and communication technologies."
For progressives who cloak their ambitions in the mantle of "fairness," it's all about control. It's always about control.
Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2010).
Email Michelle Malkin
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 1diggdigg
Sign-Up When bureaucrats talk about increasing our "access" to x, y or z, what they're really talking about is increasing exponentially their control over our lives. As it is with the government health care takeover, so it is with the newly approved government plan to "increase" Internet "access." Call it Webcare.
By a vote of 3-2, the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday adopted a controversial scheme to ensure "net neutrality" by turning unaccountable Democratic appointees into meddling online traffic cops. The panel will devise convoluted rules governing Internet service providers, bandwidth use, content, prices and even disclosure details on Internet speeds. The "neutrality" is brazenly undermined by preferential treatment toward wireless broadband networks. Moreover, the FCC's scheme is widely opposed by Congress -- and has already been rejected once in the courts. Demonized industry critics have warned that the regulations will stifle innovation and result in less access, not more.
Sound familiar? The parallels with health care are striking. The architects of Obamacare promised to provide Americans more access to health insurance -- and cast their agenda as a fundamental universal entitlement.
In fact, it was a pretext for creating a gargantuan federal bureaucracy with the power to tax, redistribute and regulate the private health insurance market to death -- and replace it with a centrally planned government system overseen by politically driven code enforcers dictating everything from annual coverage limits to administrative expenditures to the makeup of the medical workforce. The costly, onerous and selectively applied law has resulted in less access, not more.
Undaunted promoters of Obama FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's "open Internet" plan to expand regulatory authority over the Internet have couched their online power grab in the rhetoric of civil rights. On Monday, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps proclaimed: "Universal access to broadband needs to be seen as a civil right ... (though) not many people have talked about it that way." Opposing the government Internet takeover blueprint, in other words, is tantamount to supporting segregation. Cunning propaganda, that.
"Broadband is becoming a basic necessity," civil rights activist Benjamin Hooks added. And earlier this month, fellow FCC panelist Mignon Clyburn, daughter of Congressional Black Caucus leader and Number Three House Democrat James Clyburn of South Carolina, declared that free (read: taxpayer-subsidized) access to the Internet is not only a civil right for every "nappy-headed child" in America, but is essential to their self-esteem. Every minority child, she said, "deserves to be not only connected, but to be proud of who he or she is."
Calling them "nappy-headed" is a rather questionable way of boosting their pride, but never mind that.
Face it: A high-speed connection is no more an essential civil right than 3G cell phone service or a Netflix account. Increasing competition and restoring academic excellence in abysmal public schools is far more of an imperative to minority children than handing them iPads. Once again, Democrats are using children as human shields to provide useful cover for not so noble political goals.
The "net neutrality" mob -- funded by billionaire George Soros and other left-wing think tanks and nonprofits -- has openly advertised its radical, speech-squelching agenda in its crusade for "media justice." Social justice is the redistribution of wealth and economic "rights." Media justice is the redistribution of free speech and other First Amendment rights.
The meetings of the universal broadband set are littered with Marxist-tinged rants about "disenfranchisement" and "empowerment." They've targeted conservative opponents on talk radio, cable TV and the Internet as purveyors of "hate" who need to be managed or censored. Democratic FCC panelists have dutifully echoed their concerns about concentration of corporate media power.
As the Ford Foundation-funded Media Justice Fund, which lobbied for universal broadband, put it: This is a movement "grounded in the belief that social and economic justice will not be realized without the equitable redistribution and control of media and communication technologies."
For progressives who cloak their ambitions in the mantle of "fairness," it's all about control. It's always about control.
Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2010).
FROM THE PATRIOT CHRONICLE
Chronicle · December 22, 2010
The Foundation
"[R]eligion and virtue are the only foundations, not of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all government and in all the combinations of human society." --John Adams
Editorial Exegesis
New Unit Service Patch"The U.S. military, already strained by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, faces transformation from the world's most powerful fighting machine into an organization where political correctness is more important than victory. Saturday's Senate vote cleared the final hurdle for the repeal of President Clinton's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy designed to prevent homosexual conduct in the ranks. Battle lines will now form over how the homosexual advocacy policies will be implemented. Though the repudiated lawmakers who rammed the repeal through this weekend's session pretend they are simply latter-day Rosa Parkses seeking to end discrimination, there is no comparison. Since 2005, a mere 1 percent of Army discharges involved homosexual conduct. This issue isn't about retaining or recruiting qualified personnel for the military. This is part of the Left's larger societal goal of using government to force others to embrace unorthodox personal lifestyle choices. The implications are clear from a look at how the federal government treats issues of homosexuality. ... Troops can look forward to so-called pride parades on military bases and awareness days for the transgendered. Everyone knows the sort of thing that might work in Greenwich Village or a San Francisco neighborhood doesn't go over well in a fighting force drawn largely from red state America -- an area whose residents Mr. Obama once derisively referred to as the type who 'cling to guns or religion.' That's why implementing the New Gay Army means forcing soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to endure 'diversity' training. Those who don't like it will be told to get out, as several senior military leaders have suggested already. Chaplains in particular will face the dilemma that preaching their faith will violate the new pro-homosexual code of conduct. As a result, far more are likely to leave or be thrown out of the military as a result of Mr. Obama's policy than were ever affected by Mr. Clinton's. It's hard to see how that will do anything to strengthen the nation's defenses." --The Washington Times
The Foundation
"[R]eligion and virtue are the only foundations, not of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all government and in all the combinations of human society." --John Adams
Editorial Exegesis
New Unit Service Patch"The U.S. military, already strained by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, faces transformation from the world's most powerful fighting machine into an organization where political correctness is more important than victory. Saturday's Senate vote cleared the final hurdle for the repeal of President Clinton's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy designed to prevent homosexual conduct in the ranks. Battle lines will now form over how the homosexual advocacy policies will be implemented. Though the repudiated lawmakers who rammed the repeal through this weekend's session pretend they are simply latter-day Rosa Parkses seeking to end discrimination, there is no comparison. Since 2005, a mere 1 percent of Army discharges involved homosexual conduct. This issue isn't about retaining or recruiting qualified personnel for the military. This is part of the Left's larger societal goal of using government to force others to embrace unorthodox personal lifestyle choices. The implications are clear from a look at how the federal government treats issues of homosexuality. ... Troops can look forward to so-called pride parades on military bases and awareness days for the transgendered. Everyone knows the sort of thing that might work in Greenwich Village or a San Francisco neighborhood doesn't go over well in a fighting force drawn largely from red state America -- an area whose residents Mr. Obama once derisively referred to as the type who 'cling to guns or religion.' That's why implementing the New Gay Army means forcing soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to endure 'diversity' training. Those who don't like it will be told to get out, as several senior military leaders have suggested already. Chaplains in particular will face the dilemma that preaching their faith will violate the new pro-homosexual code of conduct. As a result, far more are likely to leave or be thrown out of the military as a result of Mr. Obama's policy than were ever affected by Mr. Clinton's. It's hard to see how that will do anything to strengthen the nation's defenses." --The Washington Times
Thursday, December 16, 2010
FROM TOWNHALL
Dear fellow American,
Did you know that Barack Obama has already banned nearly a million American made rifles?
Nearly a million rifles.
Banned by Barack Obama and his anti-gun cronies.
In a bureaucratic block the Obama Administration secretly banned the re-importation of American made M-1 Garand and Carbine rifles being stored in South Korea.
These rifles were used by the US military during the Korean War and left there after the war was over.
With one stroke of his pen, Barack Obama bypassed the Constitution and single-handedly banned nearly a million American made rifles by executive fiat.
In response, I instructed my staff to prepare a petition for you to sign to voice opposition Obama's Historic Rifle Ban.
Please click here to watch the video they created in which NAGR Director of Operations Luke O'Dell discusses this latest gun ban with M-1 Garand expert Rory Edwards.
Make no mistake, these rifles were made in America, by Americans for Americans to defend freedom on foreign shores and are greatly sought after by American shooters and collectors.
Now State Department officials claim these antique, collector rifles could be used to commit crimes.
While the radical anti-gun crowd is giddy with praise for Obama’s latest back-door gun ban, law-abiding citizens across the United States are crying foul.
These outrageous claims are a thinly veiled attempt to distract from Obama’s special interest payback to the radical anti-gun crowd. This desperate pandering must not be allowed to continue.
That’s why we’ve prepared a petition and video against Obama’s Historic Rifle Ban.
Click here to watch the video and sign the petition.
It has been common practice since the end of World War II to re-import these American made rifles from the foreign allies they were lent to after the war.
During the Reagan Administration a similar import request for 200,000 Garand rifles was approved.
State Department officials say they are working with South Korea to “dispose” of these American made rifles.
You and I both know that is bureaucratic code for the melting down and destruction of these iconic American made rifles.
On top of banning American citizens from owning these rifles, Obama’s State Department is arranging for the destruction of nearly one million historic, American rifles.
To help dispel some of the myths surrounding this iconic American rifle, Director of Operations Luke O’Dell interviewed M-1 Garand expert Rory Edwards.
Click the link below to view the video.
Let me be clear: at no time in U.S. history has the ownership of any part of this gun been restricted or banned.
These firearms -- truly pieces of American history -- rightly belong in the hands of U.S. citizens, and Obama has banned nearly one million of them without cause.
Please click here to learn more about the M-1 Garand and Barack Obama’s ban on the re-import of nearly one million American made rifles.
Once you’ve watched the video, please sign the petition against Obama’s Historic Rifle Ban.
The National Association for Gun Rights’ staff will compile your petitions and forward them to President Barack Obama and Congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Also, please chip in $10 or $20 to help the National Association for Gun Rights continue to fight the Obama Historic Rifle Ban.
Thank you, in advance for joining me in standing up against this outrageous anti-gun action.
For liberty,
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights
P.S. In a bureaucratic block, President Barack Obama has blocked the re-import of nearly a million American made rifles.
That’s nearly a million historic rifles that Obama doesn’t want in the hands of American citizens like you and me.
Did you know that Barack Obama has already banned nearly a million American made rifles?
Nearly a million rifles.
Banned by Barack Obama and his anti-gun cronies.
In a bureaucratic block the Obama Administration secretly banned the re-importation of American made M-1 Garand and Carbine rifles being stored in South Korea.
These rifles were used by the US military during the Korean War and left there after the war was over.
With one stroke of his pen, Barack Obama bypassed the Constitution and single-handedly banned nearly a million American made rifles by executive fiat.
In response, I instructed my staff to prepare a petition for you to sign to voice opposition Obama's Historic Rifle Ban.
Please click here to watch the video they created in which NAGR Director of Operations Luke O'Dell discusses this latest gun ban with M-1 Garand expert Rory Edwards.
Make no mistake, these rifles were made in America, by Americans for Americans to defend freedom on foreign shores and are greatly sought after by American shooters and collectors.
Now State Department officials claim these antique, collector rifles could be used to commit crimes.
While the radical anti-gun crowd is giddy with praise for Obama’s latest back-door gun ban, law-abiding citizens across the United States are crying foul.
These outrageous claims are a thinly veiled attempt to distract from Obama’s special interest payback to the radical anti-gun crowd. This desperate pandering must not be allowed to continue.
That’s why we’ve prepared a petition and video against Obama’s Historic Rifle Ban.
Click here to watch the video and sign the petition.
It has been common practice since the end of World War II to re-import these American made rifles from the foreign allies they were lent to after the war.
During the Reagan Administration a similar import request for 200,000 Garand rifles was approved.
State Department officials say they are working with South Korea to “dispose” of these American made rifles.
You and I both know that is bureaucratic code for the melting down and destruction of these iconic American made rifles.
On top of banning American citizens from owning these rifles, Obama’s State Department is arranging for the destruction of nearly one million historic, American rifles.
To help dispel some of the myths surrounding this iconic American rifle, Director of Operations Luke O’Dell interviewed M-1 Garand expert Rory Edwards.
Click the link below to view the video.
Let me be clear: at no time in U.S. history has the ownership of any part of this gun been restricted or banned.
These firearms -- truly pieces of American history -- rightly belong in the hands of U.S. citizens, and Obama has banned nearly one million of them without cause.
Please click here to learn more about the M-1 Garand and Barack Obama’s ban on the re-import of nearly one million American made rifles.
Once you’ve watched the video, please sign the petition against Obama’s Historic Rifle Ban.
The National Association for Gun Rights’ staff will compile your petitions and forward them to President Barack Obama and Congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Also, please chip in $10 or $20 to help the National Association for Gun Rights continue to fight the Obama Historic Rifle Ban.
Thank you, in advance for joining me in standing up against this outrageous anti-gun action.
For liberty,
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights
P.S. In a bureaucratic block, President Barack Obama has blocked the re-import of nearly a million American made rifles.
That’s nearly a million historic rifles that Obama doesn’t want in the hands of American citizens like you and me.
FROM THE PATRIOT POST
Chronicle · December 15, 2010
The Foundation
"The freedom and happiness of man ... [are] the sole objects of all legitimate government." --Thomas Jefferson
Hope 'n' Change: ObamaCare Mandate Ruled UnconstitutionalOn Monday, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, appointed by George W. Bush, ruled that one of the core provisions of ObamaCare -- the one mandating that individuals buy health insurance -- is unconstitutional. "The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision [the individual mandate] would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers," wrote Hudson. "At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance -- or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage -- it's about an individual's right to choose to participate."
Read more here.
Editorial Exegesis
"U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson's ... court is the first in the country to invalidate any piece of [ObamaCare], a significant setback for those who have been clamoring for decades for a government takeover of health care. And it might not be the last court to rule against the legislation, given the number of other legal challenges out there. One such lawsuit in Florida was filed by 20 state attorneys general and governors and has been joined by incoming House Speaker John Boehner. It's scheduled to be heard this week by a judge who has indicated he too has problems with the individual mandate. Perhaps most importantly, Hudson's ruling puts the legislation's supporters on the defensive, both in the courts of law and in the court of public opinion, where it's not popular. Monday's decision is a strong momentum boost for the repeal movement, which at one time seemed like little more than wishful thinking. The ruling will, of course, be appealed. A Congress and White House that were so willing to trod on American liberty with their health care reform aren't going to let a federal court ruling stop their campaign to take over as much of the private sector as possible. ... As so many others have said, ObamaCare and the legal challenges surrounding it are not about the country's health care but about America's future and our legacy of constitutional freedom. The justices will be deciding if we are a nation of laws or of legislative whim. They need to get it right." --Investor's Business Daily
Upright
"According to Obama, the federal government can make you do something if your failure to do it, combined with similar inaction by others, has a 'substantial effect' on interstate commerce. By rejecting that premise on Monday, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson took a stand for the principle that Congress may exercise only those powers that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution." --columnist Jacob Sullum
"If the federal government can get away with ordering individuals to buy health insurance based on interstate commerce laws, it could order us to submit to any other practice it deems for our good based on similar misinterpretations of the Constitution. Such a course would further erode our liberties and move us closer to dictatorship and away from principles the Constitution was written to protect." --columnist Cal Thomas
"The Supreme Court, as currently constituted, seems unlikely to overturn Judge Hudson's holding on the individual mandate and the tax penalty. Yes, the highest court has gone very far in extending the Commerce Clause over the past seven decades. But even the Supremes have never gone as far as the Obama Justice Department desperately wants it to go. For the court to go that far, it will have to fundamentally break the Constitution, tearing out its strictures on a limited government. Such a ruling would mean the literal end of any limits on the power of Congress, posing the most dangerous political threat to our liberty since our nation's founding." --Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation
"Regarding the estate tax, or what has come to be known as the death tax, it is probably, of all the ways in which our government takes revenue, the most immoral. ... The death tax punishes the very behavior that defines the economic heart and soul of American prosperity. But perhaps worse, it attacks our most important social institution -- the American family. ... If we want to get back to prosperity, then it should be axiomatic that protecting freedom, entrepreneurship and family is the answer. Not the politics of power and envy." --columnist Star Parker
"Most people have no clue what military life is like, least of all the opinion makers in New York, Los Angeles and the nation's capital. The military is not representative of the country at large. It is disproportionately rural, small-town, Southern and Hispanic. We ask our troops to do a lot for very little money. Sometimes they die for us. The least Democrats could do is not pass grandstanding bills while self-righteously denouncing our servicemen as homophobes." --columnist Ann Coulter
Support The Patriot Post Today
Our team works tirelessly to consolidate a week's worth of the best insightful conservative analysis and the most outrageous comments made by assorted leftists in the media, politics and culture. Indeed, The Patriot Post's Chronicle is a one-of-a-kind information buffet that you won't find anywhere else.
We depend on your support to keep this priceless resource coming to your inbox every Wednesday. Help us by making a secure online donation to our 2010 Year-End Campaign. If you prefer to support us by mail, please use our printable donor form.
Thank you and God bless!
Nate Jackson
Managing Editor
The Foundation
"The freedom and happiness of man ... [are] the sole objects of all legitimate government." --Thomas Jefferson
Hope 'n' Change: ObamaCare Mandate Ruled UnconstitutionalOn Monday, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, appointed by George W. Bush, ruled that one of the core provisions of ObamaCare -- the one mandating that individuals buy health insurance -- is unconstitutional. "The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision [the individual mandate] would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers," wrote Hudson. "At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance -- or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage -- it's about an individual's right to choose to participate."
Read more here.
Editorial Exegesis
"U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson's ... court is the first in the country to invalidate any piece of [ObamaCare], a significant setback for those who have been clamoring for decades for a government takeover of health care. And it might not be the last court to rule against the legislation, given the number of other legal challenges out there. One such lawsuit in Florida was filed by 20 state attorneys general and governors and has been joined by incoming House Speaker John Boehner. It's scheduled to be heard this week by a judge who has indicated he too has problems with the individual mandate. Perhaps most importantly, Hudson's ruling puts the legislation's supporters on the defensive, both in the courts of law and in the court of public opinion, where it's not popular. Monday's decision is a strong momentum boost for the repeal movement, which at one time seemed like little more than wishful thinking. The ruling will, of course, be appealed. A Congress and White House that were so willing to trod on American liberty with their health care reform aren't going to let a federal court ruling stop their campaign to take over as much of the private sector as possible. ... As so many others have said, ObamaCare and the legal challenges surrounding it are not about the country's health care but about America's future and our legacy of constitutional freedom. The justices will be deciding if we are a nation of laws or of legislative whim. They need to get it right." --Investor's Business Daily
Upright
"According to Obama, the federal government can make you do something if your failure to do it, combined with similar inaction by others, has a 'substantial effect' on interstate commerce. By rejecting that premise on Monday, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson took a stand for the principle that Congress may exercise only those powers that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution." --columnist Jacob Sullum
"If the federal government can get away with ordering individuals to buy health insurance based on interstate commerce laws, it could order us to submit to any other practice it deems for our good based on similar misinterpretations of the Constitution. Such a course would further erode our liberties and move us closer to dictatorship and away from principles the Constitution was written to protect." --columnist Cal Thomas
"The Supreme Court, as currently constituted, seems unlikely to overturn Judge Hudson's holding on the individual mandate and the tax penalty. Yes, the highest court has gone very far in extending the Commerce Clause over the past seven decades. But even the Supremes have never gone as far as the Obama Justice Department desperately wants it to go. For the court to go that far, it will have to fundamentally break the Constitution, tearing out its strictures on a limited government. Such a ruling would mean the literal end of any limits on the power of Congress, posing the most dangerous political threat to our liberty since our nation's founding." --Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation
"Regarding the estate tax, or what has come to be known as the death tax, it is probably, of all the ways in which our government takes revenue, the most immoral. ... The death tax punishes the very behavior that defines the economic heart and soul of American prosperity. But perhaps worse, it attacks our most important social institution -- the American family. ... If we want to get back to prosperity, then it should be axiomatic that protecting freedom, entrepreneurship and family is the answer. Not the politics of power and envy." --columnist Star Parker
"Most people have no clue what military life is like, least of all the opinion makers in New York, Los Angeles and the nation's capital. The military is not representative of the country at large. It is disproportionately rural, small-town, Southern and Hispanic. We ask our troops to do a lot for very little money. Sometimes they die for us. The least Democrats could do is not pass grandstanding bills while self-righteously denouncing our servicemen as homophobes." --columnist Ann Coulter
Support The Patriot Post Today
Our team works tirelessly to consolidate a week's worth of the best insightful conservative analysis and the most outrageous comments made by assorted leftists in the media, politics and culture. Indeed, The Patriot Post's Chronicle is a one-of-a-kind information buffet that you won't find anywhere else.
We depend on your support to keep this priceless resource coming to your inbox every Wednesday. Help us by making a secure online donation to our 2010 Year-End Campaign. If you prefer to support us by mail, please use our printable donor form.
Thank you and God bless!
Nate Jackson
Managing Editor
FROM TOWNHALL
Changing America
Email Walter E. Williams
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up Dr. Thomas Sowell, in "Dismantling America," said in reference to President Obama, "That such an administration could be elected in the first place, headed by a man whose only qualifications to be president of the United States at a dangerous time in the history of the world were rhetoric, style and symbolism -- and whose animus against the values and institutions of America had been demonstrated repeatedly over a period of decades beforehand -- speaks volumes about the inadequacies of our educational system and the degeneration of our culture." Obama is by no means unique; his characteristics are shared by other Americans, but what is unique is that no other time in our history would such a person been elected president. That says a lot about the degeneration of our culture, values, thinking abilities and acceptance of what's no less than tyranny. As Sowell says, "Barack Obama is unlike any other President of the United States in having come from a background of decades of associations and alliances with people who resent this country and its people." In 2008, Americans voted for Obama's change. Let's look at some of it.
Obama's Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius threatened that there would be "zero tolerance" for "misinformation" in response to an insurance company executive who said that ObamaCare would create costs that force up health insurance premiums. That's not only an attack on our constitutionally guaranteed free speech rights but an official threat against people who express views damaging to the administration.
Not to be outdone by his HHS secretary's attack on free speech, Obama wants full disclosure of the names of people who were backers of campaign commercials critical of his administration, saying that there has been a "flood of deceptive attack ads sponsored by special interests, using front groups with misleading names." Disclosure would leave administration critics open to government and mob retaliation.
Obama and his congressional and union allies have lectured us that socialized medicine is the cure for the nation's ills, but I have a question. If socialized medicine, Obamacare, is so great for the nation, why permit anyone to be exempted from it? It turns out that as of the end of November, Obama's Health and Human Services secretary has issued over 200 waivers to major labor unions such as the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union and Transport Workers Union of America and major companies such as McDonald's and Darden Restaurants, which operates Red Lobster and Olive Garden. Keep in mind that the power to grant waivers is also the power not to grant waivers. Such power can be used to reward administration friends and punish administration critics by saddling them with millions of dollars of health care costs.
Obama's heath care legislation contains deviousness that has become all too common in Washington. What was sold to the American people as health care reform legislation includes a provision that would more heavily regulate and tax gold coin and bullion transactions. Whether gold and bullion transactions should or should not be more heavily regulated and taxed is not the issue. The administration's devious inclusion of it as a part of health care reform is.
Fighting government intrusion into our lives is becoming increasingly difficult for at least two reasons. The first reason is that educators at the primary, secondary and university levels have been successful in teaching our youngsters to despise the values of our Constitution and the founders of our nation -- "those dead, old, racist white men." Their success in that arena might explain why educators have been unable to get our youngsters to read, write and compute on a level comparable with other developed nations; they are too busy proselytizing students.
The second reason is we've become a nation of thieves, accustomed to living at the expense of one another and to accommodate that we're obliged to support tyrannical and overreaching government.
Adolf Hitler had it right when he said, "How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think."
Walter E. Williams
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.
Email Walter E. Williams
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up Dr. Thomas Sowell, in "Dismantling America," said in reference to President Obama, "That such an administration could be elected in the first place, headed by a man whose only qualifications to be president of the United States at a dangerous time in the history of the world were rhetoric, style and symbolism -- and whose animus against the values and institutions of America had been demonstrated repeatedly over a period of decades beforehand -- speaks volumes about the inadequacies of our educational system and the degeneration of our culture." Obama is by no means unique; his characteristics are shared by other Americans, but what is unique is that no other time in our history would such a person been elected president. That says a lot about the degeneration of our culture, values, thinking abilities and acceptance of what's no less than tyranny. As Sowell says, "Barack Obama is unlike any other President of the United States in having come from a background of decades of associations and alliances with people who resent this country and its people." In 2008, Americans voted for Obama's change. Let's look at some of it.
Obama's Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius threatened that there would be "zero tolerance" for "misinformation" in response to an insurance company executive who said that ObamaCare would create costs that force up health insurance premiums. That's not only an attack on our constitutionally guaranteed free speech rights but an official threat against people who express views damaging to the administration.
Not to be outdone by his HHS secretary's attack on free speech, Obama wants full disclosure of the names of people who were backers of campaign commercials critical of his administration, saying that there has been a "flood of deceptive attack ads sponsored by special interests, using front groups with misleading names." Disclosure would leave administration critics open to government and mob retaliation.
Obama and his congressional and union allies have lectured us that socialized medicine is the cure for the nation's ills, but I have a question. If socialized medicine, Obamacare, is so great for the nation, why permit anyone to be exempted from it? It turns out that as of the end of November, Obama's Health and Human Services secretary has issued over 200 waivers to major labor unions such as the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union and Transport Workers Union of America and major companies such as McDonald's and Darden Restaurants, which operates Red Lobster and Olive Garden. Keep in mind that the power to grant waivers is also the power not to grant waivers. Such power can be used to reward administration friends and punish administration critics by saddling them with millions of dollars of health care costs.
Obama's heath care legislation contains deviousness that has become all too common in Washington. What was sold to the American people as health care reform legislation includes a provision that would more heavily regulate and tax gold coin and bullion transactions. Whether gold and bullion transactions should or should not be more heavily regulated and taxed is not the issue. The administration's devious inclusion of it as a part of health care reform is.
Fighting government intrusion into our lives is becoming increasingly difficult for at least two reasons. The first reason is that educators at the primary, secondary and university levels have been successful in teaching our youngsters to despise the values of our Constitution and the founders of our nation -- "those dead, old, racist white men." Their success in that arena might explain why educators have been unable to get our youngsters to read, write and compute on a level comparable with other developed nations; they are too busy proselytizing students.
The second reason is we've become a nation of thieves, accustomed to living at the expense of one another and to accommodate that we're obliged to support tyrannical and overreaching government.
Adolf Hitler had it right when he said, "How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think."
Walter E. Williams
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.
FROM TOWNHALL
Memo to Conservatives: Quit Apologizing for Capitalism
Email David Limbaugh
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up Everywhere we turn these days, it seems, leftists are undermining and attacking capitalism on moral grounds. Their criticisms are directed not at merely certain corrupt corporations or individuals who abuse the system, but at the system itself.
Sadly, few conservatives, even conservative Christians, are willing or prepared to defend capitalism's virtues. Rather than tout it in terms of liberty, they sheepishly apologize for its allegedly inherent greed.
It's a testament to the power of propaganda and the appeal of emotion over reason that a system that has produced the greatest prosperity in world history is castigated on moral grounds, while those systems that have proliferated abject misery, poverty, tyranny and subjugation are hailed as morally superior.
Granted, most leftists don't openly confess their hostility to capitalism, but they come close, especially in their endless waging of class warfare.
Surely you've heard Obama say, preposterously, "A free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it." No one actually supports this straw man argument. American capitalism has always been subject to the rule of law. Even the fiercest free market proponents don't defend the license to steal or economic anarchy.
Hidden in Obama's statement (and more apparent in some of his other statements) are unmistakable implications that those who thrive in our system are immoral and don't deserve it and that the less successful have been cheated out of their just desserts. This doubtlessly proceeds from his leftist view of the relationship between government and the people.
The left doesn't seem to comprehend the indispensability of private property to liberty or the necessity of liberty to achieve prosperity. To them, it is not individuals operating in a climate of liberty who produce prosperity. Government produces (or magnanimously permits) the creation of wealth and is the most appropriate vehicle for distributing that wealth and delivering the greatest good to the greatest number of people.
America's gross national product first belongs to the government, and only that portion the government allows you, in its beneficence, to keep after taxes is your money. But even then, it is not wholly your money, for you are not free to transfer it by gift (lifetime or death) to whomever you'd like without penalty. And interest you earn on it will also be taxed.
Leftists pay lip service to America's founding ideal of equality of opportunity but honor instead the un-American idea of equality of outcomes. They fully intend to use the power of government to rectify America's inequitable distribution of resources. Don't forget that at one time, at the hands of the left, the top income tax rate was higher than 90 percent or that it was 70 percent before the Reagan cuts.
Indeed, it's ironic that leftists depict conservatives as hyperbolic and extreme for sometimes using the terms "socialist" and "Marxist" to describe Obama. They don't offer a substantive defense against the claim, but use the same argument they offer against all charges about Obama's radical behavior, namely that an elected American president couldn't possibly be a radical or a socialist and certainly couldn't be a Marxist. That's the stuff of spy novels.
Never mind Obama's actual background, his associations, his statements, his radical appointments and his unprecedented policies. Those who describe him in terms that accurately capture his extremism and divisiveness are the ones written off as extremists or divisive.
This irony is compounded by the fact that it is leftists who are guilty of hyperbole -- even paranoia -- in their attack on conservatives, their patriotism and their free market advocacy. Consider the bizarre rant of Obama's spiritual adviser, Jim Wallis, in trashing America's "conservative media" to a group of Britons.
Wallis said: "We now are controlled by the right-wing media, Fox News and all the rest, and this is the media that has an ideological point of view that America is best and the rest of you don't even count, that the rich are our salvation. ... When I say the 1 percent of the country has more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, they say that's a good thing. ... You just keep feeding the rich and the poor with their little tin cups hoping the rich are good tippers; that's a good thing for the economy."
Talk about the stuff of fiction. Conservatives don't believe foreign countries "don't count." Nor do they believe that the rich are anyone's salvation or that they are glorified benefactors of the economically less fortunate.
It is yet another irony that liberals accuse Christian conservatives of subordinating their theology to their politics, when it is their "social justice" brethren who are guiltier of conflating their politics with their ideology, idolizing redistributionism and, in my humble opinion, distorting the Gospel to conform to their political predispositions.
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 Everywhere we turn these days, it seems, leftists are undermining and attacking capitalism on moral grounds. Their criticisms are directed not at merely certain corrupt corporations or individuals who abuse the system, but at the system itself.
Sadly, few conservatives, even conservative Christians, are willing or prepared to defend capitalism's virtues. Rather than tout it in terms of liberty, they sheepishly apologize for its allegedly inherent greed.
It's a testament to the power of propaganda and the appeal of emotion over reason that a system that has produced the greatest prosperity in world history is castigated on moral grounds, while those systems that have proliferated abject misery, poverty, tyranny and subjugation are hailed as morally superior.
Granted, most leftists don't openly confess their hostility to capitalism, but they come close, especially in their endless waging of class warfare.
Surely you've heard Obama say, preposterously, "A free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it." No one actually supports this straw man argument. American capitalism has always been subject to the rule of law. Even the fiercest free market proponents don't defend the license to steal or economic anarchy.
Hidden in Obama's statement (and more apparent in some of his other statements) are unmistakable implications that those who thrive in our system are immoral and don't deserve it and that the less successful have been cheated out of their just desserts. This doubtlessly proceeds from his leftist view of the relationship between government and the people.
The left doesn't seem to comprehend the indispensability of private property to liberty or the necessity of liberty to achieve prosperity. To them, it is not individuals operating in a climate of liberty who produce prosperity. Government produces (or magnanimously permits) the creation of wealth and is the most appropriate vehicle for distributing that wealth and delivering the greatest good to the greatest number of people.
America's gross national product first belongs to the government, and only that portion the government allows you, in its beneficence, to keep after taxes is your money. But even then, it is not wholly your money, for you are not free to transfer it by gift (lifetime or death) to whomever you'd like without penalty. And interest you earn on it will also be taxed.
Leftists pay lip service to America's founding ideal of equality of opportunity but honor instead the un-American idea of equality of outcomes. They fully intend to use the power of government to rectify America's inequitable distribution of resources. Don't forget that at one time, at the hands of the left, the top income tax rate was higher than 90 percent or that it was 70 percent before the Reagan cuts.
Indeed, it's ironic that leftists depict conservatives as hyperbolic and extreme for sometimes using the terms "socialist" and "Marxist" to describe Obama. They don't offer a substantive defense against the claim, but use the same argument they offer against all charges about Obama's radical behavior, namely that an elected American president couldn't possibly be a radical or a socialist and certainly couldn't be a Marxist. That's the stuff of spy novels.
Never mind Obama's actual background, his associations, his statements, his radical appointments and his unprecedented policies. Those who describe him in terms that accurately capture his extremism and divisiveness are the ones written off as extremists or divisive.
This irony is compounded by the fact that it is leftists who are guilty of hyperbole -- even paranoia -- in their attack on conservatives, their patriotism and their free market advocacy. Consider the bizarre rant of Obama's spiritual adviser, Jim Wallis, in trashing America's "conservative media" to a group of Britons.
Wallis said: "We now are controlled by the right-wing media, Fox News and all the rest, and this is the media that has an ideological point of view that America is best and the rest of you don't even count, that the rich are our salvation. ... When I say the 1 percent of the country has more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, they say that's a good thing. ... You just keep feeding the rich and the poor with their little tin cups hoping the rich are good tippers; that's a good thing for the economy."
Talk about the stuff of fiction. Conservatives don't believe foreign countries "don't count." Nor do they believe that the rich are anyone's salvation or that they are glorified benefactors of the economically less fortunate.
It is yet another irony that liberals accuse Christian conservatives of subordinating their theology to their politics, when it is their "social justice" brethren who are guiltier of conflating their politics with their ideology, idolizing redistributionism and, in my humble opinion, distorting the Gospel to conform to their political predispositions.
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
Obama's Lies About His Broken Promises
Email Chuck Norris
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up Last week, President Barack Obama was backpedaling like a circus unicycle rider, after his compromise on extending Bush-era tax cuts for the country's top 2 percent of income earners. Because he had pledged repeatedly during his presidential campaign to raise those earners' taxes, he instantly was slammed by his political base. Even pro-Obama comedic commentators Jon Stewart and Bill Maher were left humor-speechless.
Feeling defensive and maybe even a bit insecure, Obama fired back in anger against people across the political spectrum. Wielding his verbal sword, the president poked and prodded: "Take a tally. Look at what I promised during the campaign. There's not a single thing that I've said that I would do that I have not either done or tried to do. And if I haven't gotten it done yet, I'm still trying to do it."
"Not a single thing"?
Well, as a fighting champion who takes taunting seriously, I thought I'd take the president up on his challenge for us to take a tally.
What I discovered is that of the more than 500 promises Obama made during his candidacy, even according to the pro-Obama website PolitiFact's "Obameter," his scorecard reads: 123 promises kept, 39 compromised, 24 broken, 82 stalled, 232 in the works and three not yet rated. What that coddled language boils down to is this: Even according to those on the political left, Obama has fulfilled 123 promises and left 380 pledges dangling farther than participles.
What PolitiFact overlooks is that what really matters isn't the count of broken promises; it's the caliber of those broken promises. If I fail to fulfill a promise to take my dog for a walk, that's one thing. But it's quite a different deal if I fail to take my wife on a promised date. The difference is a night in the doghouse!
Let me spare you a long list of substantial pledges and promises. Here's a short list, a few golden nuggets, or, should I say, fool's gold flakes. I'll set to the side presidential promises of transparency, C-SPAN coverage of health care debates and even Guantanamo Bay's closing. Instead, I'll go straight for the promise jugular. And so that no one thinks I'm overreaching my punch, here are the vows right out of the president's mouth:
--"We've got a philosophical difference, which we've debated repeatedly, and that is that Sen. (Hillary) Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it." (Spoken during the Democratic presidential debate on Feb. 21, 2008.)
--"We need tougher border security and a renewed focus on busting up gangs and traffickers crossing our border. ... That begins at home, with comprehensive immigration reform. That means securing our border and passing tough employer enforcement laws." (Spoken in Miami on May 23, 2008.)
--"Based on the conversations we've had internally, as well as external reports, we believe that you can get one to two brigades out a month. At that pace, the forces would be out in approximately 16 months from the time that we began. That would be the time frame that I would be setting up." (Spoken to The New York Times on Oct. 31, 2007, about the withdrawal from Iraq.)
--"We will launch a sweeping effort to root out waste, inefficiency and unnecessary spending in our government, and every American will be able to see how and where we spend taxpayer dollars by going to a new website called Recovery.gov." (Spoken in a speech on Jan. 28, 2009.)
--"There is no doubt that we've been living beyond our means and we're going to have to make some adjustments. Now, what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut." (Spoken during the presidential debate on Oct. 15, 2008.)
--"We are going to ban all earmarks." (Spoken at a news conference on Jan. 6, 2009.)
--"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase -- not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." (Spoken at a town hall meeting on Sept. 12, 2008.)
--And oh, yes, then there's that substantial promise repeated dozens of times in one way, shape or form on the campaign trail: "It's true that I want to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans." (Spoken in Chester, Pa., on Oct. 28, 2008.)
Now, what were those words the president used last week? "Not a single thing"?
I know some will accuse me of kicking the president while he's down. But he's actually roundhouse kicked himself (again), by not only lying about his broken promises but also dissing everyone inside and outside his own political camp.
Up against the political wall last week, Obama compared Republicans to hostage takers willing to harm Americans. Then he compared Democrats to unyielding stalemate causers who hold up political and American progress.
Seems to me the only politician President Obama hasn't demeaned is himself.
Is that because Obama is so far ahead of the American pack in wisdom or because he finally is walking alone with no one following? Have his arrogance, defiance, charismatic charade and inability to lead in conflict (proved last week by his need of former President Bill Clinton's presence) finally caught up with him, isolating him from even his most avid followers?
Maybe it's a good time this Christmas season for President Obama to contemplate a bit of wisdom from the Good Book: Pride comes before the fall.
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.
Email Chuck Norris
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up Last week, President Barack Obama was backpedaling like a circus unicycle rider, after his compromise on extending Bush-era tax cuts for the country's top 2 percent of income earners. Because he had pledged repeatedly during his presidential campaign to raise those earners' taxes, he instantly was slammed by his political base. Even pro-Obama comedic commentators Jon Stewart and Bill Maher were left humor-speechless.
Feeling defensive and maybe even a bit insecure, Obama fired back in anger against people across the political spectrum. Wielding his verbal sword, the president poked and prodded: "Take a tally. Look at what I promised during the campaign. There's not a single thing that I've said that I would do that I have not either done or tried to do. And if I haven't gotten it done yet, I'm still trying to do it."
"Not a single thing"?
Well, as a fighting champion who takes taunting seriously, I thought I'd take the president up on his challenge for us to take a tally.
What I discovered is that of the more than 500 promises Obama made during his candidacy, even according to the pro-Obama website PolitiFact's "Obameter," his scorecard reads: 123 promises kept, 39 compromised, 24 broken, 82 stalled, 232 in the works and three not yet rated. What that coddled language boils down to is this: Even according to those on the political left, Obama has fulfilled 123 promises and left 380 pledges dangling farther than participles.
What PolitiFact overlooks is that what really matters isn't the count of broken promises; it's the caliber of those broken promises. If I fail to fulfill a promise to take my dog for a walk, that's one thing. But it's quite a different deal if I fail to take my wife on a promised date. The difference is a night in the doghouse!
Let me spare you a long list of substantial pledges and promises. Here's a short list, a few golden nuggets, or, should I say, fool's gold flakes. I'll set to the side presidential promises of transparency, C-SPAN coverage of health care debates and even Guantanamo Bay's closing. Instead, I'll go straight for the promise jugular. And so that no one thinks I'm overreaching my punch, here are the vows right out of the president's mouth:
--"We've got a philosophical difference, which we've debated repeatedly, and that is that Sen. (Hillary) Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it." (Spoken during the Democratic presidential debate on Feb. 21, 2008.)
--"We need tougher border security and a renewed focus on busting up gangs and traffickers crossing our border. ... That begins at home, with comprehensive immigration reform. That means securing our border and passing tough employer enforcement laws." (Spoken in Miami on May 23, 2008.)
--"Based on the conversations we've had internally, as well as external reports, we believe that you can get one to two brigades out a month. At that pace, the forces would be out in approximately 16 months from the time that we began. That would be the time frame that I would be setting up." (Spoken to The New York Times on Oct. 31, 2007, about the withdrawal from Iraq.)
--"We will launch a sweeping effort to root out waste, inefficiency and unnecessary spending in our government, and every American will be able to see how and where we spend taxpayer dollars by going to a new website called Recovery.gov." (Spoken in a speech on Jan. 28, 2009.)
--"There is no doubt that we've been living beyond our means and we're going to have to make some adjustments. Now, what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut." (Spoken during the presidential debate on Oct. 15, 2008.)
--"We are going to ban all earmarks." (Spoken at a news conference on Jan. 6, 2009.)
--"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase -- not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." (Spoken at a town hall meeting on Sept. 12, 2008.)
--And oh, yes, then there's that substantial promise repeated dozens of times in one way, shape or form on the campaign trail: "It's true that I want to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans." (Spoken in Chester, Pa., on Oct. 28, 2008.)
Now, what were those words the president used last week? "Not a single thing"?
I know some will accuse me of kicking the president while he's down. But he's actually roundhouse kicked himself (again), by not only lying about his broken promises but also dissing everyone inside and outside his own political camp.
Up against the political wall last week, Obama compared Republicans to hostage takers willing to harm Americans. Then he compared Democrats to unyielding stalemate causers who hold up political and American progress.
Seems to me the only politician President Obama hasn't demeaned is himself.
Is that because Obama is so far ahead of the American pack in wisdom or because he finally is walking alone with no one following? Have his arrogance, defiance, charismatic charade and inability to lead in conflict (proved last week by his need of former President Bill Clinton's presence) finally caught up with him, isolating him from even his most avid followers?
Maybe it's a good time this Christmas season for President Obama to contemplate a bit of wisdom from the Good Book: Pride comes before the fall.
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.
FROM TOWNHALL
Obama's Tax Deal is a Raw Deal for Americans
Dear Londa,
When President Obama first announced his tax deal, we told Washington to slow down and not rubber stamp the package.
In November, the American people spoke out against typical Washington deal-making and in favor of politicians who will cast votes on principle. This deal reeked of Washington.
Now President Obama’s tax deal is an actual bill. And Harry Reid included even more spending in order to buy off votes to support it. To prevent a massive income tax increase, Members of Congress now are being asked to vote for ethanol subsidies, mass transit tax deductions, energy efficient appliance subsidies, and cash subsidies for alternative electricity generating corporations. All this in addition to tens of billions plus in unemployment compensation and a return of the death tax.
And what would conservatives get in return for this business-as-usual, spending binge? Two years of continued tax rates.
According to the conventional wisdom in Washington this is ‘the best deal we can get.’ We reject that.
November 2nd was supposed to signal an end to business as usual in Washington. It was supposed to be the beginning of a principle-driven Congress in which members fought for what they believe in, not what was politically palatable inside the Beltway.
This kind of insider deal is not what we sent people to Congress to do. It’s time to tell Washington: enough is enough.
Members of Congress who want to save the American people from increased taxes should fight hard for a clean extension of the Bush tax cuts. When they do, you and I will stand proudly on their side.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Neeham
Chief Executive Office
Heritage Action for America
Dear Londa,
When President Obama first announced his tax deal, we told Washington to slow down and not rubber stamp the package.
In November, the American people spoke out against typical Washington deal-making and in favor of politicians who will cast votes on principle. This deal reeked of Washington.
Now President Obama’s tax deal is an actual bill. And Harry Reid included even more spending in order to buy off votes to support it. To prevent a massive income tax increase, Members of Congress now are being asked to vote for ethanol subsidies, mass transit tax deductions, energy efficient appliance subsidies, and cash subsidies for alternative electricity generating corporations. All this in addition to tens of billions plus in unemployment compensation and a return of the death tax.
And what would conservatives get in return for this business-as-usual, spending binge? Two years of continued tax rates.
According to the conventional wisdom in Washington this is ‘the best deal we can get.’ We reject that.
November 2nd was supposed to signal an end to business as usual in Washington. It was supposed to be the beginning of a principle-driven Congress in which members fought for what they believe in, not what was politically palatable inside the Beltway.
This kind of insider deal is not what we sent people to Congress to do. It’s time to tell Washington: enough is enough.
Members of Congress who want to save the American people from increased taxes should fight hard for a clean extension of the Bush tax cuts. When they do, you and I will stand proudly on their side.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Neeham
Chief Executive Office
Heritage Action for America
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
