[Don't forget: (1) This week's broadcast of "Truth That Trasnforms" (Sunday, 5 pm, ch. 55.1 in Orlando; (2) The editorial cartoons at Worldmag.com; and (3) The upcoming Sunday Special.]
Static Government Means Dynamic Citizens - by John Hayward 09/20/2011 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46298
[Note: If you are like me, the explanation contained below is quite a bit "above my pay grade" to fully understand. I would direct you to the portions I have highlihted throughout that explanation but especially those throughout the rest of the article.]
Since the President has kicked off another round of class warfare tedium by calling for the rich to “pay their fair share,” it’s a good time to review how much “the rich,” at various levels of evil, actually fork over in taxes. From a summary of calendar year 2008 by The Tax Foundation:
*Each year from 2005 to 2007, the top 1 percent's constantly growing share of income earned and taxes paid set a record. That trend reversed in 2008. In fact, the income share for the top 1 percent of tax returns was lower in 2008 than in 2000, largely due to differences in capital gains. Another indicator of this reversal in the income and tax shares of the top 1 percent is that during 2007, the top 1 percent had actually paid more in federal income tax than the bottom 95 percent, a comparison that was much remarked on a year ago. But the diminished income of the top 1 percent in 2008 means that the comparison no longer holds. During 2008, the bottom 95 percent (AGI under $159,619) paid 41.3 percent of the total collected, a larger share than the 38.0 percent paid by the top 1 percent (AGI over $380,354).
The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $159,619), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.
For the past few years, the IRS has also been presenting data on a small subset of the top 1 percent, the top 0.1 percent (the top 10 percent of the top 1 percent). In 2008, this top 0.1 percent filed 140,000 tax returns, reporting nearly 10 percent of all adjusted gross income earned and paying approximately 18.5 percent of the nation's federal individual income taxes. The average income for a tax return in the top 0.1 percent was $6.0 million in 2008, while the average amount of income tax paid was $1.36 million, indicating an average effective individual income tax rate of 22.7 percent. Both the income figures and tax figures for this group in 2008 were down significantly from 2007 levels."
The adjusted gross income for the top 5% is $159,619, while the top 1% begins at $380,354. Since this is adjusted gross income, the top 5% tracks fairly closely with the greedy “millionaires” Obama wants to hit with higher taxes. They earn 34.7% of the nation’s income, and pay 58.7% of income taxes… but they’re not “paying their fair share.” Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of income earners account for 12.75% of the nation’s adjusted gross income, but paid only 2.7% of income taxes.
As always, good luck getting President Obama, or any other socialist, to tell you exactly what the optimum “fair” amount paid should be, or what logical calculation of “fairness” helped them arrive at that number. You won't have any more success getting them to explain why such a large number of people should be exempted from paying income taxes entirely. “ Fairness” is a crowbar used by greedy politicians to bludgeon outnumbered segments of the population. As you can see, it has nothing to do with matching the percentage of income earned to the amount of government “burden” income groups are expected to shoulder.
Not only is our “progressive” tax system grossly unfair, but too much of it has been hidden from taxpayers. This is especially evident in the case of corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. Corporate taxes are paid by consumers, not corporations. The tax amounts are built into the purchase price of goods and services, as companies pass them along to customers. Because the vast majority of Americans never see these taxes, they don’t have the knowledge required to arrive at informed opinions about raising them. If all corporate taxes were instead collected in the manner of sales tax, as a line item on your receipt at the time of purchase, Americans would be much less sanguine about paying the highest corporate tax rates in the world.
Capital gains taxes are also hidden, because they are a double tax. Dollars have to be earned before they can be invested. These dollars are taxed once when earned, then again when investments earn a profit. Yet another layer of taxation is hidden within the effect of inflation upon capital gains. It can take a long time to see profit on an investment, during which time inflation eats away the value of the invested dollars… but the capital gains tax doesn’t take that into account.
This leaves most Americans reacting to class-warfare appeals based only on the portion of the tax system that Big Government acolytes choose to show them. Even then, the language of “fairness” is used to obscure how much each income group is actually paying, while terms like “millionaire” are twisted to distort the true identity of income groups. Stripping away this confusion would lead us to a more static method of collecting government revenue. As it stands, elaborate deduction mazes, alternative minimum tax snake pits, and confiscatory tax rates produce a lot of dynamic behavior. In other words, people with money work very hard to avoid paying those high tax rates, and most of their avoidance strategies result in less of the job-nourishing economic growth we need.
It’s also immoral, and contrary to the spirit of our Constitutionally limited government, to turn the process of taxation into a desperate flight through the murky woods of an incomprehensible, ever-shifting tax code. The process of leveling taxes and granting exceptions should not be a source of power for politicians. It should be a simple, transparent process in which free people decide how much they are prepared to pay, and what they expect their government to accomplish with the funds it is given. The process of paying lower, flatter, simpler taxes becomes static: taxpayers don’t dramatically change their behavior to get around the tax code.
Taxpayers should be the masters of the government they have consented to fund, not the confused and frightened targets of political fox hunts. We should be looking for the most straightforward and painless way to fund the necessary expense of government, not listening to political elites lecture us on how much of our property we should be allowed to keep. Taxation, in other words, should be a means, not an end. If Americans would be a dynamic people, it’s time for them to decisively reject class warfare, and insist on a static government. [as always, bold and italics emphasis mine]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Hayward is a staff writer for HUMAN EVENTS, and author of the recently published Doctor Zero: Year One. Follow him on Twitter: Doc_0. Contact him by email at jhayward@eaglepub.com.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
#128 -When The Cultural Elite Drive the Conversation - (3) How Harry Reid Manufactured a Crisis Over Disaster Aid
Posted By Rob Bluey On September 27, 2011 > http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/27/morning-bell-how-harry-reid-manufactured-a-crisis-over-disaster-aid/print/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Listening to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) or reading The New York Times yesterday gave the impression that disaster relief victims were suffering from a lack of government aid. “Without additional funding,” Reid warned , “thousands of people who have lost literally everything they owned will be forced to go without food and shelter.” The New York Times, reporting from Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania, noted , “Uprooted and desolate, hard-working people in this part of the country expec a bit more from their government.”
Yesterday, with Reid on the brink of forcing a government shutdown , the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced that things aren‘t so dire . The agency has $114 million on hand for the remainder of the week, enough to get through the end of the fiscal year on September 30.
So the agenda of the tax-and-spend crowd is now clear. President Obama created the problem by overusing FEMA on disasters a record 222 times so far this year where federal aid was not essential. Then liberals manufactured a crisis and exploited disaster relief victims in order to keep expanding the size of government. What’s worse is that the some members of the media played along with it. Not once in yesterday’s Times story does it mention the role of private charities in and around Tunkhannock. Yet a few phone calls by Heritage revealed that these organizations are doing yeoman’s work for flood victims. They’re playing a vital role that Reid and the Big Government amen corner completely ignored in the funding dispute.
Take the Wyoming County United Way , for example. Its executive director, Connie Pheiff, said she’s been overwhelmed by the community’s generous support. Private citizens have donated food, clothing and furniture — so much that Pheiff is now looking for a warehouse in Scranton to store the items until flood victims are ready to accept the donations. Private industry has also stepped forward to make an incredible difference in the community. Pheiff acknowledged the support of a handful of oil and gas companies, many conducting hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the area. Those companies suspended work for days to help evacuees at all hours of the day.So far the Wyoming County United Way has received 2,000 disaster-assistance applications. Pheiff expects that number to more than double in the coming weeks. The organization is offering vouchers and providing support for temporary housing. Pheiff said private donations to the group have made it possible.
While the local United Way is helping with housing, other groups have stepped forward to feed families. Ed Shaffer of the Seven Loaves Soup Kitchen in Tunkhannock is supplying goods to food shelters and collecting perishable items from community organizations. He said there’s been no shortage of donations. The Weinberg Regional Food Bank, meanwhile, has fed 6,500 families, the equivalent of 15,000 people. Gene Brady, executive director of the Commission on Economic Opportunity, said the food bank is serving three counties hit hardest by the floods in Pennsylvania. It has received 233,863 pounds of food and disbursed 176,759 pounds. Brady credited private companies such as Procter & Gamble, Nature’s Way, and Wegmans for coming through with large donations of paper products and food. Local retailers have also pitched in to help.
Those are just a few examples we found in Pennsylvania. But these stories aren’t isolated. Communities across America come together after disasters to provide relief to those in need. They also do a better job of it than FEMA or any other government agency. Writing about grassroots disaster response, Heritage’s James Carafano and Jennifer Marshall noted, “The greatest advance that America could make in preparing for catastrophic disasters is to build better individual-based programs, a culture of preparedness, and resilient and self-reliant communities.”That’s because these groups are more personally engaged than a government agency or bureaucrat could ever be. Heritage’s Ryan Messmore has observed :
"Driven by deep convictions and compassion, such organizations can provide loving forms of assistance and care that government programs cannot offer. And they often do so for less money. Smaller and more flexible than most government bureaucracies, local congregations and charities can also spawn creative social innovations that benefit those in need."
In his speech to the Senate yesterday, Reid spoke glowingly of the miracles performed by FEMA while trashing those asking for offsets to pay for the additional spending.“Republicans must not continue to block FEMA from getting the resources it needs to help disaster victims,” Reid said, an assertion even that FEMA has now debunked.Reid failed to acknowledge a single private charity helping with disaster relief. The Times published a 1,000-word article about the same Pennsylvania community we’ve told you about. Upon reading the Times story, you might think private charities don’t exist there.
Liberals in Washington and New York have spent too much time isolated in a bubble. They’ve become too reliant on government to solve all of America’s problems. It’s time to put faith back in our communities.
Listening to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) or reading The New York Times yesterday gave the impression that disaster relief victims were suffering from a lack of government aid. “Without additional funding,” Reid warned , “thousands of people who have lost literally everything they owned will be forced to go without food and shelter.” The New York Times, reporting from Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania, noted , “Uprooted and desolate, hard-working people in this part of the country expec a bit more from their government.”
Yesterday, with Reid on the brink of forcing a government shutdown , the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced that things aren‘t so dire . The agency has $114 million on hand for the remainder of the week, enough to get through the end of the fiscal year on September 30.
So the agenda of the tax-and-spend crowd is now clear. President Obama created the problem by overusing FEMA on disasters a record 222 times so far this year where federal aid was not essential. Then liberals manufactured a crisis and exploited disaster relief victims in order to keep expanding the size of government. What’s worse is that the some members of the media played along with it. Not once in yesterday’s Times story does it mention the role of private charities in and around Tunkhannock. Yet a few phone calls by Heritage revealed that these organizations are doing yeoman’s work for flood victims. They’re playing a vital role that Reid and the Big Government amen corner completely ignored in the funding dispute.
Take the Wyoming County United Way , for example. Its executive director, Connie Pheiff, said she’s been overwhelmed by the community’s generous support. Private citizens have donated food, clothing and furniture — so much that Pheiff is now looking for a warehouse in Scranton to store the items until flood victims are ready to accept the donations. Private industry has also stepped forward to make an incredible difference in the community. Pheiff acknowledged the support of a handful of oil and gas companies, many conducting hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the area. Those companies suspended work for days to help evacuees at all hours of the day.So far the Wyoming County United Way has received 2,000 disaster-assistance applications. Pheiff expects that number to more than double in the coming weeks. The organization is offering vouchers and providing support for temporary housing. Pheiff said private donations to the group have made it possible.
While the local United Way is helping with housing, other groups have stepped forward to feed families. Ed Shaffer of the Seven Loaves Soup Kitchen in Tunkhannock is supplying goods to food shelters and collecting perishable items from community organizations. He said there’s been no shortage of donations. The Weinberg Regional Food Bank, meanwhile, has fed 6,500 families, the equivalent of 15,000 people. Gene Brady, executive director of the Commission on Economic Opportunity, said the food bank is serving three counties hit hardest by the floods in Pennsylvania. It has received 233,863 pounds of food and disbursed 176,759 pounds. Brady credited private companies such as Procter & Gamble, Nature’s Way, and Wegmans for coming through with large donations of paper products and food. Local retailers have also pitched in to help.
Those are just a few examples we found in Pennsylvania. But these stories aren’t isolated. Communities across America come together after disasters to provide relief to those in need. They also do a better job of it than FEMA or any other government agency. Writing about grassroots disaster response, Heritage’s James Carafano and Jennifer Marshall noted, “The greatest advance that America could make in preparing for catastrophic disasters is to build better individual-based programs, a culture of preparedness, and resilient and self-reliant communities.”That’s because these groups are more personally engaged than a government agency or bureaucrat could ever be. Heritage’s Ryan Messmore has observed :
"Driven by deep convictions and compassion, such organizations can provide loving forms of assistance and care that government programs cannot offer. And they often do so for less money. Smaller and more flexible than most government bureaucracies, local congregations and charities can also spawn creative social innovations that benefit those in need."
In his speech to the Senate yesterday, Reid spoke glowingly of the miracles performed by FEMA while trashing those asking for offsets to pay for the additional spending.“Republicans must not continue to block FEMA from getting the resources it needs to help disaster victims,” Reid said, an assertion even that FEMA has now debunked.Reid failed to acknowledge a single private charity helping with disaster relief. The Times published a 1,000-word article about the same Pennsylvania community we’ve told you about. Upon reading the Times story, you might think private charities don’t exist there.
Liberals in Washington and New York have spent too much time isolated in a bubble. They’ve become too reliant on government to solve all of America’s problems. It’s time to put faith back in our communities.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
# 127 - When The Cultural Elite Drive the Conversation > (2) The Execution of Troy Davis
[Thursday night,the major news networks had stories on the execution discussed below and what was glaring was the absence of any of the points made below, with the emphasis being on what those opposed to the execution had to say. The things ponted out below are a good reminder that we always have to keep in mind that the media - as Chuck Colson pointed out in yesterdays blog posting - always promotes their agenda in what they report and choose not to report.]
There Is No Travesty of Justice in Georgia. by Erick Erickson
Wednesday, September 21st at 10:40PM EDT http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/09/21/there-is-no-travesty-of-justice-in-georgia-executive-troy-davis/
Tonight (9/21) the United States Supreme Court declined to stay Troy Davis’s execution. He will, by the time many of you are reading this, be dead. There were no expressions of dissent or objection from any of the 9 members of the Supreme Court. I like Guy Benson a lot, but his column on Troy Davis got my blood pressure up. I’m hearing a lot from people opposed to Troy Davis’s execution that there is no physical evidence in the case — and a whole lot of other hoo-haa.
First of all, let’s set out that the case has been going on for twenty years.
Second, let’s point out that two witnesses at Davis’s trial testified under oath that Troy Davis admitted to the shooting. Yes, those witnesses have now, twenty years and much badgering by anti-death penalty advocates later, recanted. A federal judge spent two days reviewing the evidence and the testimony last year and issued a 172 page order explaining why the witnesses recanting was “smoke and mirrors.”
In fact, one of the chief nuggets of the case is that there was no physical evidence. Except that is crap. There is the matter of Troy Davis’s bloody clothes that you’ve probably never heard of. There was a .38 caliber gun. Both Troy Davis and the man Davis’s team claims in the real murderer, Sylvester Coles, had a .38 caliber gun. Davis’s gun had been used in another shooting and the gun casing were linked between both shootings. Everyone likes to gloss over that. They point out that the man who claimed Davis fired on him has now recanted — yet again 20 years later.
But here are some additional facts — if we’re going to deal with things that weren’t in contention twenty years ago.
The federal courts and state courts in Georgia have all denied Davis’s appeal. Prior to 2008, Georgia’s Supreme Court was decidedly liberal and even they passed.
For the first time in 50 years the United States Supreme Court ordered a federal court to conduct an entire rehearing of all the evidence. The court did and found all the new stuff was, again, “smoke and mirrors,” including the retracted confessions. And while building the case to claim that Sylvester Coles was the real murderer, the defense would not call Coles in for examination.
But then there is Officer MacPhail himself and what the defense all too conveniently forgets to bring up. Officer MacPhail “testified” at Troy Davis’s murder trial. See, MacPhail, an Army Ranger and police officer was working a second job that night as a security guard. He chased Davis and Sylvester Coles, who were assaulting a homeless man over a beer. MacPhail reported in that he had run passed Sylvester Coles. MacPhail was shot from the front in the chest and face — not from behind where Coles was, but from the front where MacPhail himself located Troy Davis.
And then, if we really want to get into the weeds and talk about facts, consider this fact. Troy Davis immediately became the suspect and fled. Police roped off his house, obtained entry, and searched the home. In the laundry they found Troy Davis’s shorts from that night with evidence on the clothing directly tying him to Officer MacPhail’s murder — Officer MacPhail’s blood. (editorial note: it should be noted that Troy Davis’s shorts were not DNA tested. There were multiple people’s blood on his shorts)
According to Darrell Collins, who is now recanting everything or claiming not to remember anything, Davis admitted to Collins that Davis had shot MacPhail in the chest and then went back to shoot MacPhail in the head at close range because MacPhail had seen his face — hence MacPhail’s blood on Davis’s shorts. Oh, and at the time Collins gave his statement way back in 1989 it was not public knowledge that Officer MacPhail had been shot in the chest and then at close range in the face.
(remember as well that there were 34 witnesses, not the 9 as claimed. The defense claims seven witnesses changed their testimony. That’s actually not true. Only two materially changed their testimony and Davis’s attorneys refused to present those two in federal court in 2010 to be examined in the evidentiary hearing even though they sat outside the courtroom door. Among the eyewitnesses were three airmen in the Air Force in a bus who had prime viewing for the murder and all identified Troy Davis as the wearer of the white Batman t-shirt, which is what the murderer wore)
Of course, this justice system that is supposedly about to carry out a travesty of justice ordered Davis’s shorts excluded as evidence from the trial because the police did not get a search warrant. So anti-death penalty advocates can conveniently say there is no physical evidence by discounting the gun, the casings, and ignoring Officer MacPhail’s blood on Troy Davis’s clothes found in Troy Davis’s laundry all because the very same court system that found him guilty without that physical evidence followed the law and excluded it.
Troy Davis is a cop killer and I’m perfectly fine with his execution.
There Is No Travesty of Justice in Georgia. by Erick Erickson
Wednesday, September 21st at 10:40PM EDT http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/09/21/there-is-no-travesty-of-justice-in-georgia-executive-troy-davis/
Tonight (9/21) the United States Supreme Court declined to stay Troy Davis’s execution. He will, by the time many of you are reading this, be dead. There were no expressions of dissent or objection from any of the 9 members of the Supreme Court. I like Guy Benson a lot, but his column on Troy Davis got my blood pressure up. I’m hearing a lot from people opposed to Troy Davis’s execution that there is no physical evidence in the case — and a whole lot of other hoo-haa.
First of all, let’s set out that the case has been going on for twenty years.
Second, let’s point out that two witnesses at Davis’s trial testified under oath that Troy Davis admitted to the shooting. Yes, those witnesses have now, twenty years and much badgering by anti-death penalty advocates later, recanted. A federal judge spent two days reviewing the evidence and the testimony last year and issued a 172 page order explaining why the witnesses recanting was “smoke and mirrors.”
In fact, one of the chief nuggets of the case is that there was no physical evidence. Except that is crap. There is the matter of Troy Davis’s bloody clothes that you’ve probably never heard of. There was a .38 caliber gun. Both Troy Davis and the man Davis’s team claims in the real murderer, Sylvester Coles, had a .38 caliber gun. Davis’s gun had been used in another shooting and the gun casing were linked between both shootings. Everyone likes to gloss over that. They point out that the man who claimed Davis fired on him has now recanted — yet again 20 years later.
But here are some additional facts — if we’re going to deal with things that weren’t in contention twenty years ago.
The federal courts and state courts in Georgia have all denied Davis’s appeal. Prior to 2008, Georgia’s Supreme Court was decidedly liberal and even they passed.
For the first time in 50 years the United States Supreme Court ordered a federal court to conduct an entire rehearing of all the evidence. The court did and found all the new stuff was, again, “smoke and mirrors,” including the retracted confessions. And while building the case to claim that Sylvester Coles was the real murderer, the defense would not call Coles in for examination.
But then there is Officer MacPhail himself and what the defense all too conveniently forgets to bring up. Officer MacPhail “testified” at Troy Davis’s murder trial. See, MacPhail, an Army Ranger and police officer was working a second job that night as a security guard. He chased Davis and Sylvester Coles, who were assaulting a homeless man over a beer. MacPhail reported in that he had run passed Sylvester Coles. MacPhail was shot from the front in the chest and face — not from behind where Coles was, but from the front where MacPhail himself located Troy Davis.
And then, if we really want to get into the weeds and talk about facts, consider this fact. Troy Davis immediately became the suspect and fled. Police roped off his house, obtained entry, and searched the home. In the laundry they found Troy Davis’s shorts from that night with evidence on the clothing directly tying him to Officer MacPhail’s murder — Officer MacPhail’s blood. (editorial note: it should be noted that Troy Davis’s shorts were not DNA tested. There were multiple people’s blood on his shorts)
According to Darrell Collins, who is now recanting everything or claiming not to remember anything, Davis admitted to Collins that Davis had shot MacPhail in the chest and then went back to shoot MacPhail in the head at close range because MacPhail had seen his face — hence MacPhail’s blood on Davis’s shorts. Oh, and at the time Collins gave his statement way back in 1989 it was not public knowledge that Officer MacPhail had been shot in the chest and then at close range in the face.
(remember as well that there were 34 witnesses, not the 9 as claimed. The defense claims seven witnesses changed their testimony. That’s actually not true. Only two materially changed their testimony and Davis’s attorneys refused to present those two in federal court in 2010 to be examined in the evidentiary hearing even though they sat outside the courtroom door. Among the eyewitnesses were three airmen in the Air Force in a bus who had prime viewing for the murder and all identified Troy Davis as the wearer of the white Batman t-shirt, which is what the murderer wore)
Of course, this justice system that is supposedly about to carry out a travesty of justice ordered Davis’s shorts excluded as evidence from the trial because the police did not get a search warrant. So anti-death penalty advocates can conveniently say there is no physical evidence by discounting the gun, the casings, and ignoring Officer MacPhail’s blood on Troy Davis’s clothes found in Troy Davis’s laundry all because the very same court system that found him guilty without that physical evidence followed the law and excluded it.
Troy Davis is a cop killer and I’m perfectly fine with his execution.
# 126 - When the Cultural Elite Directs the Conversation > (1) Opening the Military to Homosexuals
[This is part one of a two-part pair of postings on how the cultural elite in our country is driving the conversation on critical iswues. Below is the first example of this. The second example will be posted in a special Saturday posting tomorrow.]
Say 'No' to Silence - Building a Movement for Marriageby Chuck Colson|Breakpoint.com: September 22, 2011
Why all the media celebration over the end of "Don’t Ask Don’t Tell?" You’d almost think there’s another agenda at work here.
You were probably as grossed out as I was the other day when you picked up the newspaper to see a picture of two men kissing. The occasion? They were celebrating the demise of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Everywhere you turned, homosexual and lesbian members of the military “came out” very publicly to celebrate what the media is heralding as a huge victory for human rights.
Why the huge media splash? Most Americans, after all, are either indifferent or opposed to gays openly serving in the military. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” served most Americans well — it kind of fit the prevailing public mood on homosexuality, which is this: “What you do in private is your business, just don’t shove it in my face.”
But that’s not good enough for the gay-rights lobby or the media. Make no mistake: The celebration of the end of “Don’t’ Ask Don’t Tell” is a calculated step on the path to gay “marriage.” This is a battle for the heart and soul of marriage. And it is brought to us complements of the less than 10 percent of Americans who belong to the cultural elite. They are the ones who when they speak, people read about it, hear about it. They control the TV networks, the internet service providers, and the newspapers. And actually, they are more of a governing influence on us today than Congress and the White House, which are in total gridlock. The real centers of cultural power — Hollywood, New York —are disseminating a clear message about homosexual behavior: That it’s normal, here to stay, and you’d better not say anything against it.They are cowing the majority of Americans into what German sociologist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann calls the “spiral of silence.”
It works something like this: The mass media portray a given issue in a certain way with an eye to actually shaping public opinion. Once individuals see the issue as “decided,” they clam up, even if they disagree. That’s because most people don’t like to go against the grain; they don’t want to be socially isolated, they don’t want to seem to be cranks, or be labeled as bigots.
So how do you control America today? You control it by shaping the ideas of the people and silencing the opposition. And we’re letting a small, unelected elite shape those ideas and define what is and what is not permissible to say. Shame on us. Because we should be shaping ideas, proclaiming truth from our pulpits and from every platform we have — from the neighborhood cookout to the school board meeting.
Look at England in the early 19th century. The slave trade was legal and lucrative. The slave traders literally owned Parliament. They seemed invincible. But when the Wesley holiness movement got involved, when Wilberforce began to write and preach, they so infiltrated and shaped public opinion that Wilberforce himself could march into Parliament with nearly 400,000 signatures on a petition demanding the end to the slave trade.
Folks, only this kind of a popular movement can stop the gay-“marriage” crusade. Remember, the people with the real power are the people with the microphones in their hands. And the only way we can break their power — the only way we can save the institution of marriage — is to wake up, reject the spiral of silence, and create and motivate a movement that will speak out. [empasis mine]
Say 'No' to Silence - Building a Movement for Marriageby Chuck Colson|Breakpoint.com: September 22, 2011
Why all the media celebration over the end of "Don’t Ask Don’t Tell?" You’d almost think there’s another agenda at work here.
You were probably as grossed out as I was the other day when you picked up the newspaper to see a picture of two men kissing. The occasion? They were celebrating the demise of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Everywhere you turned, homosexual and lesbian members of the military “came out” very publicly to celebrate what the media is heralding as a huge victory for human rights.
Why the huge media splash? Most Americans, after all, are either indifferent or opposed to gays openly serving in the military. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” served most Americans well — it kind of fit the prevailing public mood on homosexuality, which is this: “What you do in private is your business, just don’t shove it in my face.”
But that’s not good enough for the gay-rights lobby or the media. Make no mistake: The celebration of the end of “Don’t’ Ask Don’t Tell” is a calculated step on the path to gay “marriage.” This is a battle for the heart and soul of marriage. And it is brought to us complements of the less than 10 percent of Americans who belong to the cultural elite. They are the ones who when they speak, people read about it, hear about it. They control the TV networks, the internet service providers, and the newspapers. And actually, they are more of a governing influence on us today than Congress and the White House, which are in total gridlock. The real centers of cultural power — Hollywood, New York —are disseminating a clear message about homosexual behavior: That it’s normal, here to stay, and you’d better not say anything against it.They are cowing the majority of Americans into what German sociologist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann calls the “spiral of silence.”
It works something like this: The mass media portray a given issue in a certain way with an eye to actually shaping public opinion. Once individuals see the issue as “decided,” they clam up, even if they disagree. That’s because most people don’t like to go against the grain; they don’t want to be socially isolated, they don’t want to seem to be cranks, or be labeled as bigots.
So how do you control America today? You control it by shaping the ideas of the people and silencing the opposition. And we’re letting a small, unelected elite shape those ideas and define what is and what is not permissible to say. Shame on us. Because we should be shaping ideas, proclaiming truth from our pulpits and from every platform we have — from the neighborhood cookout to the school board meeting.
Look at England in the early 19th century. The slave trade was legal and lucrative. The slave traders literally owned Parliament. They seemed invincible. But when the Wesley holiness movement got involved, when Wilberforce began to write and preach, they so infiltrated and shaped public opinion that Wilberforce himself could march into Parliament with nearly 400,000 signatures on a petition demanding the end to the slave trade.
Folks, only this kind of a popular movement can stop the gay-“marriage” crusade. Remember, the people with the real power are the people with the microphones in their hands. And the only way we can break their power — the only way we can save the institution of marriage — is to wake up, reject the spiral of silence, and create and motivate a movement that will speak out. [empasis mine]
Oct. 2, 2011, #130 > Sunday Special - When Well-Known Christians Take the Moral LOW Ground
[Don't forget to check out today's "Truth That Transforms" broadcast (Orlando > 5 pm, ch. 55.1)]
[I was stunned when I heard about Pat Robertson's statement discussed below. I felt ashamed when the media took the high ground morally by sharing stories of elderly people who continued caring for their spousses with Alzheimer's, possibly till death. It is up to believers who know better to *divorce* themselves from Robertson's type of statements.]
The fgollowing is by Mickey McLeanSeptember 16, 2011, http://online.worldmag.com/2011/09/16/a-repudiation-of-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ/
Pat Robertson says outlandish things. That’s a given. And often when the media represents him as speaking for all Christians, we cringe. Most of the time we can just ignore him, but with his latest comments, he has not only damaged the reputation of believers, he has done damage to the gospel of Jesus Christ. As Christianity Today reported earlier this week, a 700 Club viewer asked Robertson Tuesday what should be done about a married friend of his who was dating another woman because his wife as he once knew her was “gone.” She had Alzheimer’s.
“That is a terribly hard thing,” Robertson replied. “I hate Alzheimer’s. It is one of the most awful things because here is a loved one—this is the woman or man that you have loved for 20, 30, 40 years. And suddenly that person is gone. They’re gone. They are gone. So, what he says basically is correct. But I know it sounds cruel, but if he’s going to do something he should divorce her and start all over again.”
Even his co-host, Terry Meeuwsen, was taken aback by her boss’s reaction, asking Robertson if taking such action would be in violation of the couple’s marriage vows.
Robertson said a person in this predicament could continue to obey the vow “till death do us part” because Alzheimer’s was a “kind of death.” “It’s really hurtful because they say crazy things,” Robertson continued. “Nevertheless, it is a terribly difficult thing for somebody. I can’t fault him for wanting some kind of companionship.” Robertson said he does not want to lay a “guilt trip” on those seeking what he considers to be a “right of companionship,” which is just one more made-up entitlement to add to a growing list in our individualistic, narcissistic, morally relativistic culture.
One of the best responses I’ve seen to Robertson “advice” comes from Russell Moore: “This is more than an embarrassment. This is more than cruelty. This is a repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” ... Marriage, the Scripture tells us, is an icon of something deeper, more ancient, more mysterious. The marriage union is a sign, the Apostle Paul announces, of the mystery of Christ and his church (Eph. 5). The husband, then, is to love his wife ‘as Christ loved the church’ (Eph. 5:25). This love is defined not as the hormonal surge of romance but as a self-sacrificial crucifixion of self. The husband pictures Christ when he loves his wife by giving himself up for her.“At the arrest of Christ, his Bride, the church, forgot who she was, and denied who he was. He didn’t divorce her. He didn’t leave. The Bride of Christ fled his side, and went back to their old ways of life. When Jesus came to them after the resurrection, the church was about the very thing they were doing when Jesus found them in the first place: out on the boats with their nets. Jesus didn’t leave. He stood by his words, stood by his Bride, even to the Place of the Skull, and beyond.
“A woman or a man with Alzheimer’s can’t do anything for you. There’s no romance, no sex, no partnership, not even companionship. That’s just the point. Because marriage is a Christ/church icon, a man loves his wife as his own flesh. He cannot sever her off from him simply because she isn’t ‘useful’ anymore. Pat Robertson’s cruel marriage statement is no anomaly. He and his cohorts have given us for years a prosperity gospel with more in common with an Asherah pole than a cross. They have given us a politicized Christianity that uses churches to ‘mobilize’ voters rather than to stand prophetically outside the power structures as a witness for the gospel.”
The pressure to follow the advice of the Pat Robertsons of this world is strong in our society. I’ve often heard of “friends” of spouses of Alzheimer’s patients encouraging them to get on with their lives and to find another companion, even to the point of actively trying to fix them up with somebody. We, as believers, need to pray for and encourage these men and women who faithfully stand beside the person they committed to in this life, to mirror Christ’s relationship to the church and not to buy into Satan’s lie.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
[I was stunned when I heard about Pat Robertson's statement discussed below. I felt ashamed when the media took the high ground morally by sharing stories of elderly people who continued caring for their spousses with Alzheimer's, possibly till death. It is up to believers who know better to *divorce* themselves from Robertson's type of statements.]
The fgollowing is by Mickey McLeanSeptember 16, 2011, http://online.worldmag.com/2011/09/16/a-repudiation-of-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ/
Pat Robertson says outlandish things. That’s a given. And often when the media represents him as speaking for all Christians, we cringe. Most of the time we can just ignore him, but with his latest comments, he has not only damaged the reputation of believers, he has done damage to the gospel of Jesus Christ. As Christianity Today reported earlier this week, a 700 Club viewer asked Robertson Tuesday what should be done about a married friend of his who was dating another woman because his wife as he once knew her was “gone.” She had Alzheimer’s.
“That is a terribly hard thing,” Robertson replied. “I hate Alzheimer’s. It is one of the most awful things because here is a loved one—this is the woman or man that you have loved for 20, 30, 40 years. And suddenly that person is gone. They’re gone. They are gone. So, what he says basically is correct. But I know it sounds cruel, but if he’s going to do something he should divorce her and start all over again.”
Even his co-host, Terry Meeuwsen, was taken aback by her boss’s reaction, asking Robertson if taking such action would be in violation of the couple’s marriage vows.
Robertson said a person in this predicament could continue to obey the vow “till death do us part” because Alzheimer’s was a “kind of death.” “It’s really hurtful because they say crazy things,” Robertson continued. “Nevertheless, it is a terribly difficult thing for somebody. I can’t fault him for wanting some kind of companionship.” Robertson said he does not want to lay a “guilt trip” on those seeking what he considers to be a “right of companionship,” which is just one more made-up entitlement to add to a growing list in our individualistic, narcissistic, morally relativistic culture.
One of the best responses I’ve seen to Robertson “advice” comes from Russell Moore: “This is more than an embarrassment. This is more than cruelty. This is a repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” ... Marriage, the Scripture tells us, is an icon of something deeper, more ancient, more mysterious. The marriage union is a sign, the Apostle Paul announces, of the mystery of Christ and his church (Eph. 5). The husband, then, is to love his wife ‘as Christ loved the church’ (Eph. 5:25). This love is defined not as the hormonal surge of romance but as a self-sacrificial crucifixion of self. The husband pictures Christ when he loves his wife by giving himself up for her.“At the arrest of Christ, his Bride, the church, forgot who she was, and denied who he was. He didn’t divorce her. He didn’t leave. The Bride of Christ fled his side, and went back to their old ways of life. When Jesus came to them after the resurrection, the church was about the very thing they were doing when Jesus found them in the first place: out on the boats with their nets. Jesus didn’t leave. He stood by his words, stood by his Bride, even to the Place of the Skull, and beyond.
“A woman or a man with Alzheimer’s can’t do anything for you. There’s no romance, no sex, no partnership, not even companionship. That’s just the point. Because marriage is a Christ/church icon, a man loves his wife as his own flesh. He cannot sever her off from him simply because she isn’t ‘useful’ anymore. Pat Robertson’s cruel marriage statement is no anomaly. He and his cohorts have given us for years a prosperity gospel with more in common with an Asherah pole than a cross. They have given us a politicized Christianity that uses churches to ‘mobilize’ voters rather than to stand prophetically outside the power structures as a witness for the gospel.”
The pressure to follow the advice of the Pat Robertsons of this world is strong in our society. I’ve often heard of “friends” of spouses of Alzheimer’s patients encouraging them to get on with their lives and to find another companion, even to the point of actively trying to fix them up with somebody. We, as believers, need to pray for and encourage these men and women who faithfully stand beside the person they committed to in this life, to mirror Christ’s relationship to the church and not to buy into Satan’s lie.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
#125 - Even Liberals Admit the President's Not Being Truthful
[Note: There are all kinds of people who are questioning the President's stated reason for wanting a huge increase in taxes. And they aren't just conservatives, whose views I always share in this blog. As an example, here is a posting by a source that is known to slant their stories towad the liberal line. But not even they can defend the President's arguments.]
FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER - Associated Press Sept. 20,2011
..WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama makes it sound as if there are millionaires all over America paying taxes at lower rates than their secretaries.
"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said Monday. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."
The data tell a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
In his White House address Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the "Buffett rule," named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett. The rule says, "People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay." "Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it," Obama said. "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million." Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office. [By the way, Warren Buffet is a big financial supporter of the President and other liberal politicians.]
This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank. Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.
The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS. Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.
Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official scorekeeper on revenue issues.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes.
"People who are doing quite well and worry about low-income people not paying any taxes bemoan the fact that they get so many tax breaks that they are zeroed out," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "People at the bottom of the distribution say, but all of those rich guys are getting bigger tax breaks than we're getting, which is also the case."
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was pressed at a White House briefing on the number of millionaires who pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-income families. He demurred, saying that people who make most of their money in wages pay taxes at a higher rate, while those who get most of their income from investments pay at lower rates. "So it really depends on what is your profession, where's the source of your income, what's the specific circumstances you face, and the averages won't really capture that," Geithner said. [emphasis mine]
For another look at the President's proposal, check out what The Heritage Foundation says at:http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/20/morning-bell-1-5-trillion-in-new-taxes/print/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER - Associated Press Sept. 20,2011
..WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama makes it sound as if there are millionaires all over America paying taxes at lower rates than their secretaries.
"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said Monday. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."
The data tell a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
In his White House address Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the "Buffett rule," named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett. The rule says, "People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay." "Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it," Obama said. "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million." Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office. [By the way, Warren Buffet is a big financial supporter of the President and other liberal politicians.]
This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank. Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.
The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS. Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.
Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official scorekeeper on revenue issues.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes.
"People who are doing quite well and worry about low-income people not paying any taxes bemoan the fact that they get so many tax breaks that they are zeroed out," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "People at the bottom of the distribution say, but all of those rich guys are getting bigger tax breaks than we're getting, which is also the case."
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was pressed at a White House briefing on the number of millionaires who pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-income families. He demurred, saying that people who make most of their money in wages pay taxes at a higher rate, while those who get most of their income from investments pay at lower rates. "So it really depends on what is your profession, where's the source of your income, what's the specific circumstances you face, and the averages won't really capture that," Geithner said. [emphasis mine]
For another look at the President's proposal, check out what The Heritage Foundation says at:http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/20/morning-bell-1-5-trillion-in-new-taxes/print/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Thursday, September 15, 2011
#124 - Sunday Special - When Christians Are Falsely Labeled To Scare Others
[Don't miss this week's : 1) "Truth That Transforms" [After the message by Dr. Kennedy, they will show excerpts from a new documentary on the nature of militant Islam.](Sunday; 5pm, ch. 55.1, Orlando); 2)"Cross Examine* (Mon., 52.2, Orlando,) and 3)Worldmag.com editorial cartoons.]
A Sunday Funny (MikeysFunnies.com) - An African-American preacher in Alabama during the Dust Bowl scheduled a special prayer service to pray for rain. The church was packed out with folks from far and wife. The preacher stepped into the pulpit, scanned the assembled congregation, and told everyone, "Y'all can head on home. This service is over!" The people protested, "But we've not prayed for rain!" "Won't do a lick of good," the preacher replied. "Ain't none of you brought their umbrella!" [forwarded by Dave Wilson]
Are You a Theocrat? Secular Scare Tactics
By: Chuck Colson|Breakpoint.com September 7, 2011
So now merely expressing orthodox Christian beliefs makes a political candidate a theocrat?
I want you to guess which prominent American public figure said the following: “I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’” He added that what makes a law “just” is that it “squares with the moral law or the law of God,” conversely “unjust” laws are those that are “out of harmony with the moral law.”
Well, we just unveiled a statue of him on the National Mall. Yes, Martin Luther King penned those famous words in his 1963 “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” Those words and the convictions that prompted them changed America. But today, they would cause the great civil rights leader to be labeled a “theocrat.”
“Theocrat,” and related words like “Dominionist” and “Christianist,” are the latest in a series of epithets directed at Christians who insist that their faith is not merely a private matter. Suggesting Christians want to impose biblical law on civil society is an attempt to make a comparison between us and people like the Mullahs in Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Case in point: a recent column in the Washington Post by Dana Milbank that called governor Perry of Texas a “theocrat.” Given that Perry has been elected governor of the second-largest state twice, that’s an extraordinary claim that ought to require extraordinary proof.Milbank provides no such proof. Instead, he points to Perry’s belief that “the truth of Christ’s death, resurrection, and power over sin is absolute . . .”
Now, if you’re thinking, “I believe the same thing, does that make me a ‘theocrat?’”, well, that’s exactly the point: by Milbank’s uninformed reasoning every orthodox Christian is a “theocrat.” Milbank fumes that “Perry has no use for those who ‘want to recognize Jesus as a good teacher, but nothing more.’ Of those non-Christians, Perry asks, ‘why call him good if he has lied about his claims of deity and misled two millennia of followers?’”
I take it Milbank didn’t realize that Perry was using Oxford Professor C. S. Lewis’s classic argument for the divinity of Christ. If Jesus was not who He said He was, Lewis wrote, he was either “a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg”—or a liar. That’s called theology, not theocracy.
Now, there are such things as Christian theocrats, usually called “theonomists,” but they’re a tiny fringe. The people being labeled “theocrats” and “Dominionists” by the press today don’t want the United States governed by a Christian equivalent of sharia law. Like, Dr. King, they simply believe that their religious positions and moral convictions don’t disqualify them from the public square.
The irony is that if this standard had been applied in the past, much of what is worth celebrating in our history would never have happened. Many of the great social reforms such as abolitionism grew out of specifically Christian convictions like those of John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, Perry’s own tradition.
Then, as now, there were those who decried what they deemed the “imposition” of religious views in public life. If they had prevailed, America would be a far less just, decent, and civilized place.
It would be an America where the newest statue on the National Mall would be given the same demolition treatment that the Taliban gave the giant statutes of the Buddha in Afghanistan. I guess it’s the Taliban and the secular elite who are alike in one way; that is, they believe some ideas are too dangerous to express in public. [emphasis mine]
A Sunday Funny (MikeysFunnies.com) - An African-American preacher in Alabama during the Dust Bowl scheduled a special prayer service to pray for rain. The church was packed out with folks from far and wife. The preacher stepped into the pulpit, scanned the assembled congregation, and told everyone, "Y'all can head on home. This service is over!" The people protested, "But we've not prayed for rain!" "Won't do a lick of good," the preacher replied. "Ain't none of you brought their umbrella!" [forwarded by Dave Wilson]
Are You a Theocrat? Secular Scare Tactics
By: Chuck Colson|Breakpoint.com September 7, 2011
So now merely expressing orthodox Christian beliefs makes a political candidate a theocrat?
I want you to guess which prominent American public figure said the following: “I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’” He added that what makes a law “just” is that it “squares with the moral law or the law of God,” conversely “unjust” laws are those that are “out of harmony with the moral law.”
Well, we just unveiled a statue of him on the National Mall. Yes, Martin Luther King penned those famous words in his 1963 “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” Those words and the convictions that prompted them changed America. But today, they would cause the great civil rights leader to be labeled a “theocrat.”
“Theocrat,” and related words like “Dominionist” and “Christianist,” are the latest in a series of epithets directed at Christians who insist that their faith is not merely a private matter. Suggesting Christians want to impose biblical law on civil society is an attempt to make a comparison between us and people like the Mullahs in Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Case in point: a recent column in the Washington Post by Dana Milbank that called governor Perry of Texas a “theocrat.” Given that Perry has been elected governor of the second-largest state twice, that’s an extraordinary claim that ought to require extraordinary proof.Milbank provides no such proof. Instead, he points to Perry’s belief that “the truth of Christ’s death, resurrection, and power over sin is absolute . . .”
Now, if you’re thinking, “I believe the same thing, does that make me a ‘theocrat?’”, well, that’s exactly the point: by Milbank’s uninformed reasoning every orthodox Christian is a “theocrat.” Milbank fumes that “Perry has no use for those who ‘want to recognize Jesus as a good teacher, but nothing more.’ Of those non-Christians, Perry asks, ‘why call him good if he has lied about his claims of deity and misled two millennia of followers?’”
I take it Milbank didn’t realize that Perry was using Oxford Professor C. S. Lewis’s classic argument for the divinity of Christ. If Jesus was not who He said He was, Lewis wrote, he was either “a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg”—or a liar. That’s called theology, not theocracy.
Now, there are such things as Christian theocrats, usually called “theonomists,” but they’re a tiny fringe. The people being labeled “theocrats” and “Dominionists” by the press today don’t want the United States governed by a Christian equivalent of sharia law. Like, Dr. King, they simply believe that their religious positions and moral convictions don’t disqualify them from the public square.
The irony is that if this standard had been applied in the past, much of what is worth celebrating in our history would never have happened. Many of the great social reforms such as abolitionism grew out of specifically Christian convictions like those of John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, Perry’s own tradition.
Then, as now, there were those who decried what they deemed the “imposition” of religious views in public life. If they had prevailed, America would be a far less just, decent, and civilized place.
It would be an America where the newest statue on the National Mall would be given the same demolition treatment that the Taliban gave the giant statutes of the Buddha in Afghanistan. I guess it’s the Taliban and the secular elite who are alike in one way; that is, they believe some ideas are too dangerous to express in public. [emphasis mine]
#123 - The BETER Plan the Media Won't Tell You About
[Don't miss this week's : 1) "Truth That Transforms" [After the message by Dr. Kennedy, they will show excerpts from a new documentary on the nature of militant Islam.](Sunday; 5pm, ch. 55.1, Orlando); 2)"Cross Examine* (Mon., 52.2, Orlando,) and 3)Worldmag.com editorial cartoons.]
The Tale of Two Jobs Plans - Posted By Mike Brownfield On September 15, 2011; In Enterprise and Free Markets [Taken from:The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog, The Heritage Foundation - http://blog.heritage.org -http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/15/morning-bell-the-tale-of-two-jobs-plans/print/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
It’s been one week since President Barack Obama announced his latest “stimulus” plan, and despite a cross-country road show aimed at selling his proposals to the American people, the commander in chief is finding that his message of more taxes and spending isn’t hitting home. Meanwhile, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) has outlined [1] a markedly different way to help the U.S. economy get back on track.
According to a new National Journal/United Technologies poll, only one in six Americans [2] think that the President’s plan will decrease unemployment “a lot,” while one-quarter doubted that the plan would affect unemployment at all. Then there are the 39 percent who think that the President’s policies have made unemployment even worse (twice as many as those who say he’s made unemployment better). Now The New York Times is raining on the President’s parade, too, reporting [3] that Democrats are “balking at Obama’s jobs bill” and “say there is little chance they will be able to support the bill as a single entity, citing an array of elements they cannot abide.”
Though it might be surprising that the President is struggling even among his own party to garner support for the plan that he has demanded they pass, it’s no wonder that the country doubts his plan for job growth. After all, with its $447 billion sticker price and reliance on big government spending, it looks much like what he has tried and failed for the duration of his presidency. In short, it calls for more borrowing, spending and higher taxes–none of which is going to help America create more jobs.
Rather than take a stab at making government bigger, Ryan says in a new video [1] that there’s a better path forward–pro-growth tax reform that makes the tax code fairer, competitive, and simpler, all of which will help unleash the creative power of America’s private sector. In an exclusive interview with The Heritage Foundation, Ryan explained why the tax code is so desperately in need of reform:
'[The tax code] penalizes all those qualities that make us great and make our economy grow–saving, investing, risk taking. It penalizes those things. It’s basically a crony capitalist creation, where Congress has decided to put itself in the role of picking and choosing winners and losers in the economy through the tax code. When you carve out all these preferences to benefit one industry or business over others, you have to raise tax rates higher than you otherwise would have to, which makes it harder for the economy to grow, for businesses to become created.'
Ryan says that the tax code has become “an economic incumbent protection plan” that ultimately leads to higher taxes across the board, leaving the United States less competitive in the global economy. His solution? Level the tax code playing field:
'What we want to do is get all the social engineering and crony capitalism loopholes out, so we can lower the tax rates and let businesses keep their money in the first place–let people keep their money in the first place–and that way the determining factor of whether a business succeeds or fails will be based upon merit, will be based upon achievement, will be based about innovation, will be based upon whether they’re pleasing customers or not, and not whether they have access to people in Congress or the federal government.'
Don’t confuse Ryan’s call for fairness in the tax code with President Obama’s calls for “shared sacrifice” — which for him means higher taxes on America’s job creators. Ryan says there is an inherent difference in aspiration and philosophy about the role of government in the economy:
"I aspire to achieve a culture, an economy, a society where we promote equal opportunity, so people can prosper and make the most of their lives. I would argue with the President’s rhetoric and actions–he’s aspiring to a society where the government sees its role as equalizing the results of our lives. It’s a way of looking at the economy and the society as if the pie were fixed, and therefore the government has to have as its role redistributing the slices of the pie more equitably in the name of fairness or equality. That’s not how the world works. That’s not how the economy works. Our goal is to grow the pie, not have the government figure out how to redistribute slices from some to others–which ends up putting a penalty or a hurdle on growth and innovation and prosperity–but grow the pie itself. I will grant the President that class warfare can make for really good politics, but it doesn’t make for good economics."
Ryan is on the right track. Whereas President Obama wants to keep increasing spending and paying for it with higher taxes, Ryan is advocating a much-needed revamp of the tax code. Whereas the President’s policies would permanently increase taxes, increase the size of government, and make America’s unemployment picture even worse, Ryan looks to make government smarter and fairer, allowing businesses to grow, compete, and thrive. The former is a recipe for continued failure; the latter offers some much-needed hope to a country that has been struggling for too long.
The Tale of Two Jobs Plans - Posted By Mike Brownfield On September 15, 2011; In Enterprise and Free Markets [Taken from:The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog, The Heritage Foundation - http://blog.heritage.org -http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/15/morning-bell-the-tale-of-two-jobs-plans/print/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
It’s been one week since President Barack Obama announced his latest “stimulus” plan, and despite a cross-country road show aimed at selling his proposals to the American people, the commander in chief is finding that his message of more taxes and spending isn’t hitting home. Meanwhile, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) has outlined [1] a markedly different way to help the U.S. economy get back on track.
According to a new National Journal/United Technologies poll, only one in six Americans [2] think that the President’s plan will decrease unemployment “a lot,” while one-quarter doubted that the plan would affect unemployment at all. Then there are the 39 percent who think that the President’s policies have made unemployment even worse (twice as many as those who say he’s made unemployment better). Now The New York Times is raining on the President’s parade, too, reporting [3] that Democrats are “balking at Obama’s jobs bill” and “say there is little chance they will be able to support the bill as a single entity, citing an array of elements they cannot abide.”
Though it might be surprising that the President is struggling even among his own party to garner support for the plan that he has demanded they pass, it’s no wonder that the country doubts his plan for job growth. After all, with its $447 billion sticker price and reliance on big government spending, it looks much like what he has tried and failed for the duration of his presidency. In short, it calls for more borrowing, spending and higher taxes–none of which is going to help America create more jobs.
Rather than take a stab at making government bigger, Ryan says in a new video [1] that there’s a better path forward–pro-growth tax reform that makes the tax code fairer, competitive, and simpler, all of which will help unleash the creative power of America’s private sector. In an exclusive interview with The Heritage Foundation, Ryan explained why the tax code is so desperately in need of reform:
'[The tax code] penalizes all those qualities that make us great and make our economy grow–saving, investing, risk taking. It penalizes those things. It’s basically a crony capitalist creation, where Congress has decided to put itself in the role of picking and choosing winners and losers in the economy through the tax code. When you carve out all these preferences to benefit one industry or business over others, you have to raise tax rates higher than you otherwise would have to, which makes it harder for the economy to grow, for businesses to become created.'
Ryan says that the tax code has become “an economic incumbent protection plan” that ultimately leads to higher taxes across the board, leaving the United States less competitive in the global economy. His solution? Level the tax code playing field:
'What we want to do is get all the social engineering and crony capitalism loopholes out, so we can lower the tax rates and let businesses keep their money in the first place–let people keep their money in the first place–and that way the determining factor of whether a business succeeds or fails will be based upon merit, will be based upon achievement, will be based about innovation, will be based upon whether they’re pleasing customers or not, and not whether they have access to people in Congress or the federal government.'
Don’t confuse Ryan’s call for fairness in the tax code with President Obama’s calls for “shared sacrifice” — which for him means higher taxes on America’s job creators. Ryan says there is an inherent difference in aspiration and philosophy about the role of government in the economy:
"I aspire to achieve a culture, an economy, a society where we promote equal opportunity, so people can prosper and make the most of their lives. I would argue with the President’s rhetoric and actions–he’s aspiring to a society where the government sees its role as equalizing the results of our lives. It’s a way of looking at the economy and the society as if the pie were fixed, and therefore the government has to have as its role redistributing the slices of the pie more equitably in the name of fairness or equality. That’s not how the world works. That’s not how the economy works. Our goal is to grow the pie, not have the government figure out how to redistribute slices from some to others–which ends up putting a penalty or a hurdle on growth and innovation and prosperity–but grow the pie itself. I will grant the President that class warfare can make for really good politics, but it doesn’t make for good economics."
Ryan is on the right track. Whereas President Obama wants to keep increasing spending and paying for it with higher taxes, Ryan is advocating a much-needed revamp of the tax code. Whereas the President’s policies would permanently increase taxes, increase the size of government, and make America’s unemployment picture even worse, Ryan looks to make government smarter and fairer, allowing businesses to grow, compete, and thrive. The former is a recipe for continued failure; the latter offers some much-needed hope to a country that has been struggling for too long.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
#122 > A Plan With No HOPE of Making CHANGE In Our Economy
What Does More Stimulus Mean for America? http://www.askheritage.org/what-does-more-stimulus-mean-for-america/?utm_source=AH_Weekly&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2011-09-09&utm_campaign=2011_Brand Sept. 9, 2011
By most accounts, President Obama’s $800 billion “stimulus” bill that was passed in February 2009 with the promise of keeping unemployment below 8 percent was an absolute failure. However, last night in a speech to a joint session of Congress, the President demanded that it spend another $450 billion on more of the same “stimulus” that has left America with zero job growth and continued economic stagnation. But don’t worry. His top economic adviser Gene Sperling told NBC that this one would likely get us down to 8 percent.
Despite Sperling’s predictions, there are a lot of problems with the broad outlines in the President’s proposal, not the least of which is the fact that President Obama is insisting Congress immediately pass a bill that doesn’t exist. No legislative details have been offered; nothing has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office; there has been no debate or negotiation; and there is no accompanying plan on how to pay for it. President Obama only promised he would talk about paying for it in the weeks to come, and that onus likely will fall on the congressional “super committee” that was supposed to be focused on reducing our debt.
“Minor” details such as ... money to pay for it aside (or the fact that $450 billion in one year is more than twice as costly as the annual sticker price of Obama’s last foray into stimulus spending), there are serious substantive problems with the ideas the President proposed. Last night, Heritage’s experts provided their reactions to some of those proposals:
Unemployment Benefits: President Obama wants to extend unemployment benefits yet again as a way to boost the economy. That just won’t work. Heritage’s James Sherk writes, “For welfare reasons Congress wants to help workers who cannot find jobs. This is understandable. That doesn’t mean it will help the economy, no matter how much the President wants it to.” The stimulus bill extended unemployment benefits, Congress has kept them in place several times since then, and the federal government has spent over $300 billion on unemployment benefits since Obama took office. It hasn’t stimulated the economy before. It’s not going to stimulate it now.
Reviving the Failed Hiring Tax Credit: In order to help businesses create new jobs, the President proposed a tax credit for businesses hiring new workers. The trouble is that he’s been there, done that, and it didn’t work. Why try it again? Heritage’s Curtis Dubay explains the problem with the proposal: “A credit of a few thousand dollars, a mere fraction of the cost of hiring a worker, does nothing to change that calculation. The only positive effect on hiring the credit could have would be on temporary positions if it makes adding a few new temps profitable in the short term. But once the credit expires businesses will let those workers go.”
Tax Hikes on Job Creators: Taxing those who create jobs as a way to help create jobs is entirely counterintuitive, but the President proposed it anyway. Even though he has agreed that tax hikes slow economic growth and deter job creation, last night he proposed raising taxes on investors, businesses, and entrepreneurs. Dubay says, “This is akin to bailing water into an already-sinking ship.” And with businesses looking for more certainty, continuing to threaten more tax hikes will only dampen America’s chances of real recovery.
Infrastructure Banks That Won’t Build the Economy: Throwing more money at building roads and bridges, President Obama tells us, will create new jobs. So he is proposing the creation of an infrastructure bank that would require a whole new bureaucracy. Heritage’s Patrick Knudsen says that increasing spending on these projects “simply moves resources from one place to another — it may employ construction workers, but only by reducing jobs in other sectors.” And taxpayers end up paying the price, all without creating net job growth or boosting the economy in the near term.
Going the Wrong Way on Education: America’s education system needs less federal involvement, not more. But the President used his jobs speech as a way to shoehorn the federal government further into the education business, proposing that Washington spend billions on school construction and new jobs for teachers. Never mind that since 1970, school enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools has increased just 7 percent, while staff hires have increased 83 percent. Heritage’s Lindsey Burke explains, “On a per-pupil basis, federal spending on education has nearly tripled since the 1970′s.” And for all that spending, Washington hasn’t improved results.
There’s more the President proposed, as well, but much more he didn’t mention, too. He demagogued his political opponents for favoring smaller government and the “rigid ideas” of what government can and cannot do.
He presented one false choice, among many, between reducing government regulations and protecting the American people. He also promised to “root out” unnecessary regulations, as he has for four straight years, while only adding more costly rules to the books. He proposed a puzzling plan to allow refinancing of mortgages without explaining the details or who pays for it. He proposed extending the payroll tax “holiday,” which won’t create jobs. He ignored serious ways to grow the economy, like pursuing domestic energy production, which he himself has stalled.
President Obama has spent two and a half years increasing federal spending, growing government, and punishing businesses with burdensome regulations, and today 14 million Americans remain unemployed. Now the President is demanding more of the same at an even higher price. That is not a plan to create new jobs–that is a politically motivated message that ignores the reality of America’s economic crisis.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
By most accounts, President Obama’s $800 billion “stimulus” bill that was passed in February 2009 with the promise of keeping unemployment below 8 percent was an absolute failure. However, last night in a speech to a joint session of Congress, the President demanded that it spend another $450 billion on more of the same “stimulus” that has left America with zero job growth and continued economic stagnation. But don’t worry. His top economic adviser Gene Sperling told NBC that this one would likely get us down to 8 percent.
Despite Sperling’s predictions, there are a lot of problems with the broad outlines in the President’s proposal, not the least of which is the fact that President Obama is insisting Congress immediately pass a bill that doesn’t exist. No legislative details have been offered; nothing has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office; there has been no debate or negotiation; and there is no accompanying plan on how to pay for it. President Obama only promised he would talk about paying for it in the weeks to come, and that onus likely will fall on the congressional “super committee” that was supposed to be focused on reducing our debt.
“Minor” details such as ... money to pay for it aside (or the fact that $450 billion in one year is more than twice as costly as the annual sticker price of Obama’s last foray into stimulus spending), there are serious substantive problems with the ideas the President proposed. Last night, Heritage’s experts provided their reactions to some of those proposals:
Unemployment Benefits: President Obama wants to extend unemployment benefits yet again as a way to boost the economy. That just won’t work. Heritage’s James Sherk writes, “For welfare reasons Congress wants to help workers who cannot find jobs. This is understandable. That doesn’t mean it will help the economy, no matter how much the President wants it to.” The stimulus bill extended unemployment benefits, Congress has kept them in place several times since then, and the federal government has spent over $300 billion on unemployment benefits since Obama took office. It hasn’t stimulated the economy before. It’s not going to stimulate it now.
Reviving the Failed Hiring Tax Credit: In order to help businesses create new jobs, the President proposed a tax credit for businesses hiring new workers. The trouble is that he’s been there, done that, and it didn’t work. Why try it again? Heritage’s Curtis Dubay explains the problem with the proposal: “A credit of a few thousand dollars, a mere fraction of the cost of hiring a worker, does nothing to change that calculation. The only positive effect on hiring the credit could have would be on temporary positions if it makes adding a few new temps profitable in the short term. But once the credit expires businesses will let those workers go.”
Tax Hikes on Job Creators: Taxing those who create jobs as a way to help create jobs is entirely counterintuitive, but the President proposed it anyway. Even though he has agreed that tax hikes slow economic growth and deter job creation, last night he proposed raising taxes on investors, businesses, and entrepreneurs. Dubay says, “This is akin to bailing water into an already-sinking ship.” And with businesses looking for more certainty, continuing to threaten more tax hikes will only dampen America’s chances of real recovery.
Infrastructure Banks That Won’t Build the Economy: Throwing more money at building roads and bridges, President Obama tells us, will create new jobs. So he is proposing the creation of an infrastructure bank that would require a whole new bureaucracy. Heritage’s Patrick Knudsen says that increasing spending on these projects “simply moves resources from one place to another — it may employ construction workers, but only by reducing jobs in other sectors.” And taxpayers end up paying the price, all without creating net job growth or boosting the economy in the near term.
Going the Wrong Way on Education: America’s education system needs less federal involvement, not more. But the President used his jobs speech as a way to shoehorn the federal government further into the education business, proposing that Washington spend billions on school construction and new jobs for teachers. Never mind that since 1970, school enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools has increased just 7 percent, while staff hires have increased 83 percent. Heritage’s Lindsey Burke explains, “On a per-pupil basis, federal spending on education has nearly tripled since the 1970′s.” And for all that spending, Washington hasn’t improved results.
There’s more the President proposed, as well, but much more he didn’t mention, too. He demagogued his political opponents for favoring smaller government and the “rigid ideas” of what government can and cannot do.
He presented one false choice, among many, between reducing government regulations and protecting the American people. He also promised to “root out” unnecessary regulations, as he has for four straight years, while only adding more costly rules to the books. He proposed a puzzling plan to allow refinancing of mortgages without explaining the details or who pays for it. He proposed extending the payroll tax “holiday,” which won’t create jobs. He ignored serious ways to grow the economy, like pursuing domestic energy production, which he himself has stalled.
President Obama has spent two and a half years increasing federal spending, growing government, and punishing businesses with burdensome regulations, and today 14 million Americans remain unemployed. Now the President is demanding more of the same at an even higher price. That is not a plan to create new jobs–that is a politically motivated message that ignores the reality of America’s economic crisis.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Sept.9, 2011 > #121 - Are We Really Safer Ten Years Later?
[Don't miss this week's : 1) "Truth That Transforms" [An expert speaks on the real history of the Islamic Jihad.](Sunday; 5pm, ch. 55.1, Orlando); 2)"Cross Examine* (Mon., 52.2, Orlando,) and 3)Worldmag.com editorial cartoons.]
What is the Right Strategy to Fight Terrorism? The Heritage Foundation [membership@heritage.org] Sept. 2, 2011
In what has been described as an ”act of international terrorism,” news agencies report that a suicide car bomb struck the United Nations building in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital, on [Sept. 26th]. Though details are sketchy and there is no immediate claim of responsibility, if the attack is, indeed, an act of terrorism, it reaffirms what we already know: The world continues to face an ongoing threat–and America must be prepared for the next wave of terrorist attacks.
Since September 11, 2001, at least 40 Islamist-inspired terror plots aimed at the United States have been thwarted. And though all categories of successful terrorist attacks against U.S. targets (both at home and overseas) have been on a downward trend since 2005, the number of disrupted plots has risen considerably since 2007. In a new paper by The Heritage Foundation Counterterrorism Task Force, “A Counterterrorism Strategy for the ‘Next Wave,’” Heritage lays out steps that America should take to ensure a successful end to the long war against terrorism.
Unfortunately today, the United States is not on a trajectory to adequately counter the terrorism threat. Though America has enjoyed success in thwarting al-Qaeda’s efforts against the United States, those victories have come as a result of a decade of taking the offensive in the war on terrorism. Now, though, the Obama Administration is changing course with its new National Strategy for Counterterrorism. Heritage explains:
"The Administration now seeks to treat terrorism under a law enforcement paradigm that failed to protect Americans from terrorism when it was adopted by the Clinton Administration before 9/11. In addition, the White House intends to follow a “small footprint” strategy for overseas operations, relying primarily on Special Forces operations, covert action, and strikes with unmanned aerial vehicles.' The President’s strategy cedes the initiative to America’s enemies and provides them the opportunity to reconstitute both their moral and physical assets.
According to the task force, the President’s strategy sets America on a course for failure because it fundamentally fails to appreciate that Islamist beliefs are rooted in a culture that equates honor with power–and that means that “by unilaterally withdrawing from the conflict, the Administration allows al-Qaeda to paint a narrative of the U.S. in retreat.” One successful major terrorist attack will allow al-Qaeda to claim a “victory” and regain its “honor,” further empowering their cause.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration offered an ambivalent response to the “Arab Spring,” failed to capitalize on the opportunity to build a plan for the future of U.S. engagement with the “new” Middle East, has allowed al-Qaeda to physically re-establish itself in the Afghanistan–Pakistan theater, has ignored what al-Qaeda has been doing on a global scale, and has paid insufficient attention to state-sponsored terrorism. The Heritage task force offers its recommendation of what America should do next:
The primary goal of the U.S. counterterrorism strategy must be to prevent the emergence of a global Islamist insurgency. The danger to the security, freedom, and prosperity of the U.S. and the Western world is far graver than what might be achieved by any individual terrorist act. An insurgency is a threat to the fundamental legitimacy of all free societies.
"The first element of the U.S. strategy should be persistence, the Heritage task force says, and the right way to conquer the terrorist threat is to divide and defeat the enemy. American can get there through “hard” power and strong bilateral cooperation between the U.S. and nations that share a commitment to defending free, just, and open societies."
Though the United States has had success since 9/11 in combating terrorism and averting attacks at home and abroad, that success did not come easily–and it was not accomplished without taking an aggressive stance against al-Qaeda. Continued terrorist attacks around the world should remind America that the threat to our homeland remains and that the right strategy is needed in order to ensure our continued security at home and abroad. [bold and italics emphasis mine]
P.S. - Also, don't forget the hundreds of billions of dollars that could be automartically cut if the "Super Committee" that has begun discussions of how to reduce our budget by $1.4 trillion fails to come to an agreement.
What is the Right Strategy to Fight Terrorism? The Heritage Foundation [membership@heritage.org] Sept. 2, 2011
In what has been described as an ”act of international terrorism,” news agencies report that a suicide car bomb struck the United Nations building in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital, on [Sept. 26th]. Though details are sketchy and there is no immediate claim of responsibility, if the attack is, indeed, an act of terrorism, it reaffirms what we already know: The world continues to face an ongoing threat–and America must be prepared for the next wave of terrorist attacks.
Since September 11, 2001, at least 40 Islamist-inspired terror plots aimed at the United States have been thwarted. And though all categories of successful terrorist attacks against U.S. targets (both at home and overseas) have been on a downward trend since 2005, the number of disrupted plots has risen considerably since 2007. In a new paper by The Heritage Foundation Counterterrorism Task Force, “A Counterterrorism Strategy for the ‘Next Wave,’” Heritage lays out steps that America should take to ensure a successful end to the long war against terrorism.
Unfortunately today, the United States is not on a trajectory to adequately counter the terrorism threat. Though America has enjoyed success in thwarting al-Qaeda’s efforts against the United States, those victories have come as a result of a decade of taking the offensive in the war on terrorism. Now, though, the Obama Administration is changing course with its new National Strategy for Counterterrorism. Heritage explains:
"The Administration now seeks to treat terrorism under a law enforcement paradigm that failed to protect Americans from terrorism when it was adopted by the Clinton Administration before 9/11. In addition, the White House intends to follow a “small footprint” strategy for overseas operations, relying primarily on Special Forces operations, covert action, and strikes with unmanned aerial vehicles.' The President’s strategy cedes the initiative to America’s enemies and provides them the opportunity to reconstitute both their moral and physical assets.
According to the task force, the President’s strategy sets America on a course for failure because it fundamentally fails to appreciate that Islamist beliefs are rooted in a culture that equates honor with power–and that means that “by unilaterally withdrawing from the conflict, the Administration allows al-Qaeda to paint a narrative of the U.S. in retreat.” One successful major terrorist attack will allow al-Qaeda to claim a “victory” and regain its “honor,” further empowering their cause.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration offered an ambivalent response to the “Arab Spring,” failed to capitalize on the opportunity to build a plan for the future of U.S. engagement with the “new” Middle East, has allowed al-Qaeda to physically re-establish itself in the Afghanistan–Pakistan theater, has ignored what al-Qaeda has been doing on a global scale, and has paid insufficient attention to state-sponsored terrorism. The Heritage task force offers its recommendation of what America should do next:
The primary goal of the U.S. counterterrorism strategy must be to prevent the emergence of a global Islamist insurgency. The danger to the security, freedom, and prosperity of the U.S. and the Western world is far graver than what might be achieved by any individual terrorist act. An insurgency is a threat to the fundamental legitimacy of all free societies.
"The first element of the U.S. strategy should be persistence, the Heritage task force says, and the right way to conquer the terrorist threat is to divide and defeat the enemy. American can get there through “hard” power and strong bilateral cooperation between the U.S. and nations that share a commitment to defending free, just, and open societies."
Though the United States has had success since 9/11 in combating terrorism and averting attacks at home and abroad, that success did not come easily–and it was not accomplished without taking an aggressive stance against al-Qaeda. Continued terrorist attacks around the world should remind America that the threat to our homeland remains and that the right strategy is needed in order to ensure our continued security at home and abroad. [bold and italics emphasis mine]
P.S. - Also, don't forget the hundreds of billions of dollars that could be automartically cut if the "Super Committee" that has begun discussions of how to reduce our budget by $1.4 trillion fails to come to an agreement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
