[FYI - My GENday is Sept. 19th. When is YOURS?]
[NOTE: I was watching a commercial for Presdient Obama that featured former President Clinton. I remember saying, "That's not true. How can he look into the camera and lie like that?." Then, when I realized who I was speaking of, I remember thinking, "Oh yeah, the guy who told the American people he "had not had sexual relations with that woman - Monica Lewinsky." - Stan]
- By: Allan Ryskind 9/5/2012 https://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/05/clinton-rejects-obamanomics-embraces-reaganomic/
When Bill Clinton puts Barack Obama’s name in nomination at the Time Warner Cable Arena in Charlotte, he will be bathed in affection and viewed as a miracle worker. Arguably, despite his impeachment he is the most successful politician of his party since Franklin Roosevelt.
He’s the only Democrat since FDR to win two full presidential terms, presiding over the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. Unemployment, 7.5 percent when Clinton took office, was down to 4 percent when he left. The Dow Jones industrial average, which roughly charts the growth of pensions and retirement accounts, more than tripled on his watch. Even more stunning, the U.S. government was beginning to sustain the most serious budget surpluses in nearly a century.
Embraced Reaganomics
But there is much irony in all of this: The great Clinton economy began when he embraced the essence of Reaganomics: tax cuts, spending restraint, welfare reform, free trade and the end of his own budget-crushing entitlement program, universal health care.
Clinton, it is mostly forgotten, was on the verge of becoming a failed president in his first two years. Even the Democratic-controlled Congress had defeated his much touted stimulus package and an enormous hike in energy taxes. HillaryCare, the forerunner to Obamacare, was dead in the water by the summer of 1994, with the Senate Democrats hoisting the white flag on this signature issue on the eve of the Congressional elections.
Clinton’s most significant achievement was a huge but unpopular tax rate increase that Obama seems determined to duplicate. So unappealing was his record, the Republicans swept both houses of Congress in November for the first time in four decades. Newt Gingrich, the political warrior who led the GOP comeback, was enthroned as House Speaker, poised to push through his Reaganite Contract with America. Clinton’s first term was in shambles and it was only half over.
A panicky president, consulting Dick Morris, then decided to steal from the Reagan
playbook, though neither Clinton nor Morris has ever given the iconic GOP president the credit he deserves. Slowly but surely Clinton began tacking to the right, (though he had embraced one Republican idea earlier, the NAFTA free trade pact). Beginning in 1995 he deep-sixed HillaryCare for good, then hinted he would work with Republicans on a decent balanced budget proposal. In an October 17 fundraiser in Houston, he signaled tax cuts were very much in play: “I think,” he conceded, “I raised them [taxes] too much.”
“Era of big government over”
His most obsequious genuflection to the GOP came in his 1996 State of the Union address when he grandly pronounced–to roars of approval from the Republican lawmakers present–”The era of big government is over.”
Rhetorically, Clinton had surrendered to conservative ideology, but substance was to follow. In that same election year, he signed, with liberals howling in protest, a historic GOP welfare reform program, largely designed by Reagan’s own welfare expert, Robert Carleson. The initial results—which Clinton trumpeted at the Democratic Convention in 2000—were spectacular, with caseloads on the verge of falling like stones.
More Clinton concessions were to come. In August of 1997, the president signed a bipartisan balanced budget measure, packed with several critical Republican tax relief items, including a solid, pro-family middle-class tax cut that was in Gingrich’s Contract and had been relentlessly pushed by Christian activist Gary Bauer.
He even slashed Reagan’s tax burden on capital gains by nearly one-third (from 28 percent to 20 percent), embraced a serious decrease in estate taxes, backed several pro-business measures and created the Roth IRA retirement savings account, named after conservative Republican Sen. William Roth. The booming economy was also pushed along by two other little-noted factors: Alan Greenspan’s accommodating Federal Reserve policy and, in the words of former Congressional Budget Office Director June O’Neill, “the absence of legislation that meddled with the economy or that had major, long-run spending consequences on the budget.”
There was yet another beneficent outcome of these GOP-inspired programs: historic budget surpluses. The general prosperity brought in huge sums of revenues to the federal government. Income tax revenue soared.
The cap gains tax reduction generated billions of dollars more. The Social Security Trust Fund was beginning to overflow, due in large part to enactment of proposals by the Reagan created Greenspan Commission. The end of the Cold War, again, courtesy of Ronald Reagan, also permitted hefty cuts in military spending. According to a jointly authored piece by Clinton’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his defense secretary (The Washington Post, Aug 10, 2000): “This ‘peace dividend,’ amounting to about $100 billion a year, has been a major contributor to the balanced budget that our economy now enjoys.”
Bill Clinton, not Barack Obama, will be the man of the hour at Charlotte, but the Democratic delegates there will not have the slightest clue as to why they are drenching him in applause. Nor, you can be certain, will the American media enlighten a single, solitary soul as to the reasons for Clinton’s presidential success.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Clinton Is Wrong on Welfare Reform"- By Amy Payne On September 6; http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/06/morning-bell-clinton-is-wrong-on-welfare-reform/print/?roi=echo3-13042959471-9621042-b32bf29b6fc0a2534526a1cc84f38d7c&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Two Huge Flaws in the Legend of the Clinton Economy"by J.D. Foster, Ph.D.,September 7; http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/07/two-huge-flaws-in-the-legend-of-the-clinton-economy/
Friday, September 7, 2012
Thursday, September 6, 2012
#313(9/6) - "At the DNC - Did Castro Channel Marco Rubio and the American Dream?"
[FYI - My GENday is Sept. 19th. When is YOURS?]
[NOTE: Whether it is Michelle Obama or, as discussed below, the Hispanic mayor of San Antonio, there were great deliveries of speeches given at the Democratic National Convention Tuesday night. But as you'll discover as you read below, an analysis of the substance of what the mayor said illustrates that you have to listen to the content of speeches and not be swayed just by any eloquence of the oration or the response of the (obviously partisan) audience. (If you looked carefully at the content of the First Lady's speech, you will discover many things the mainstream media neglected to vet.) It's too bad the following analysis couldn't be presented afterwards on national television just as they give time for a contrary response to the State of the Union. - Stan]
- by David Azerrad, September 5, 2012; http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/05/did-castro-channel-marco-rubio-and-the-american-dream/
A charismatic young Hispanic politician yesterday delivered one of the best speeches in recent memory on the American Dream. In retelling the story of his family’s rise from poverty, he hit all the right notes. He described America as “the land of opportunity,” praised hard work, stressed the importance of pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps, and celebrated individual success. He concluded by invoking the “wisdom of our founders and the values of families.”
So what was Marco Rubio doing delivering a nationally televised keynote address yesterday? Well, that wasn’t Rubio but rather Julian Castro, the mayor of San Antonio and a rising star in the Democratic Party.
The moving personal story and all the talk of opportunity, prosperity and hard work were a brilliant display of one of the oldest rhetorical tricks of the left: the repackaging of statism and governmental paternalism under the guise of traditional American ideals. There was just enough of the real American Dream in Castro’s fine speech for you perhaps not to notice that he was in fact selling a very different dream: a liberal dream where big government is there every step of the way, slowly sapping our self-reliant spirit and transforming Americans into a herd of timid and envious creatures who turn for succor to an omnipotent state.
For the left, government spending to “stimulate the economy” and cradle-to-grave entitlements are what makes the American Dream possible. Hence Castro’s line that we must “invest in opportunity today for prosperity tomorrow.” The auto bailouts, the stimulus, Obamacare, the orgy of spending we’ve witnessed in recent years—they are all about “investing” in opportunity. Free markets don’t create opportunity—government spending does.
Absent from this dream is even the slightest acknowledgment of how all this spending and red tape actually restricts opportunity—by saddling the next generation with an unconscionable level of debt ($16 trillion as of yesterday), submerging job-creating businesses under a regulatory tidal wave, and fueling crony capitalism and rigging the rules in favor of the well-connected big players.
Castro’s perfunctory nods to work and family notwithstanding, this new dream also ignores the profound damage done by the welfare state to the real pillars of the American Dream. Far from fulfilling its promises of eradicating poverty and creating opportunity, the welfare state in fact traps people in poverty by undermining the family and discouraging work.To convince Americans to sign off on his call to “invest in opportunity,” Castro made sure to depict the alternative in true straw-man terms as a Wild West bordering on anarchy where it’s every man, woman, and child for himself: "Of all the fictions we heard last week in Tampa, the one I find most troubling is this: If we all just go our own way, our nation will be stronger for it. Because if we sever the threads that connect us, the only people who will go far are those who are already ahead."
This in fact the great fiction of the left: the Manichean choice between a world where we are all completely on our own and the togetherness of government. Faced with such stark alternatives, who but the most hardened of Ron Swansons will dare oppose the benevolent nanny state?
In reality, of course, the conservative opposition to big government goes hand in hand with a strong defense of civil society. In between the individual and the state exists the vibrant realm of civil society where Americans join and form myriad associations, from families to churches to Rotary clubs. In trying to rein in limitless liberalism, conservatives want to strengthen the real robust ties that bind us to one another and sever the flimsy ties of dependence on government.
When we depend on the government, we don’t depend on each other. And any dream that tries to substitute individual effort and civic interdependence with collective government dependency is no American Dream. What’s worse, by eroding the great American spirit of self-reliance, it threatens to make the American Dream a distant memory.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Castro’s ‘progress’ agenda for San Antonio: Reduce car use, triple bus ridership, double ‘green jobs,’ grow arts funding
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/05/julian-castros-progress-agenda-for-san-antonio-reduce-car-use-triple-bus-ridership-double-green-jobs-grow-arts-funding/#ixzz25dIzNJda
[NOTE: Whether it is Michelle Obama or, as discussed below, the Hispanic mayor of San Antonio, there were great deliveries of speeches given at the Democratic National Convention Tuesday night. But as you'll discover as you read below, an analysis of the substance of what the mayor said illustrates that you have to listen to the content of speeches and not be swayed just by any eloquence of the oration or the response of the (obviously partisan) audience. (If you looked carefully at the content of the First Lady's speech, you will discover many things the mainstream media neglected to vet.) It's too bad the following analysis couldn't be presented afterwards on national television just as they give time for a contrary response to the State of the Union. - Stan]
- by David Azerrad, September 5, 2012; http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/05/did-castro-channel-marco-rubio-and-the-american-dream/
A charismatic young Hispanic politician yesterday delivered one of the best speeches in recent memory on the American Dream. In retelling the story of his family’s rise from poverty, he hit all the right notes. He described America as “the land of opportunity,” praised hard work, stressed the importance of pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps, and celebrated individual success. He concluded by invoking the “wisdom of our founders and the values of families.”
So what was Marco Rubio doing delivering a nationally televised keynote address yesterday? Well, that wasn’t Rubio but rather Julian Castro, the mayor of San Antonio and a rising star in the Democratic Party.
The moving personal story and all the talk of opportunity, prosperity and hard work were a brilliant display of one of the oldest rhetorical tricks of the left: the repackaging of statism and governmental paternalism under the guise of traditional American ideals. There was just enough of the real American Dream in Castro’s fine speech for you perhaps not to notice that he was in fact selling a very different dream: a liberal dream where big government is there every step of the way, slowly sapping our self-reliant spirit and transforming Americans into a herd of timid and envious creatures who turn for succor to an omnipotent state.
For the left, government spending to “stimulate the economy” and cradle-to-grave entitlements are what makes the American Dream possible. Hence Castro’s line that we must “invest in opportunity today for prosperity tomorrow.” The auto bailouts, the stimulus, Obamacare, the orgy of spending we’ve witnessed in recent years—they are all about “investing” in opportunity. Free markets don’t create opportunity—government spending does.
Absent from this dream is even the slightest acknowledgment of how all this spending and red tape actually restricts opportunity—by saddling the next generation with an unconscionable level of debt ($16 trillion as of yesterday), submerging job-creating businesses under a regulatory tidal wave, and fueling crony capitalism and rigging the rules in favor of the well-connected big players.
Castro’s perfunctory nods to work and family notwithstanding, this new dream also ignores the profound damage done by the welfare state to the real pillars of the American Dream. Far from fulfilling its promises of eradicating poverty and creating opportunity, the welfare state in fact traps people in poverty by undermining the family and discouraging work.To convince Americans to sign off on his call to “invest in opportunity,” Castro made sure to depict the alternative in true straw-man terms as a Wild West bordering on anarchy where it’s every man, woman, and child for himself: "Of all the fictions we heard last week in Tampa, the one I find most troubling is this: If we all just go our own way, our nation will be stronger for it. Because if we sever the threads that connect us, the only people who will go far are those who are already ahead."
This in fact the great fiction of the left: the Manichean choice between a world where we are all completely on our own and the togetherness of government. Faced with such stark alternatives, who but the most hardened of Ron Swansons will dare oppose the benevolent nanny state?
In reality, of course, the conservative opposition to big government goes hand in hand with a strong defense of civil society. In between the individual and the state exists the vibrant realm of civil society where Americans join and form myriad associations, from families to churches to Rotary clubs. In trying to rein in limitless liberalism, conservatives want to strengthen the real robust ties that bind us to one another and sever the flimsy ties of dependence on government.
When we depend on the government, we don’t depend on each other. And any dream that tries to substitute individual effort and civic interdependence with collective government dependency is no American Dream. What’s worse, by eroding the great American spirit of self-reliance, it threatens to make the American Dream a distant memory.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Castro’s ‘progress’ agenda for San Antonio: Reduce car use, triple bus ridership, double ‘green jobs,’ grow arts funding
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/05/julian-castros-progress-agenda-for-san-antonio-reduce-car-use-triple-bus-ridership-double-green-jobs-grow-arts-funding/#ixzz25dIzNJda
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
#312(9/5) - "Union Money in Elections"
[FYI #1 - My GENday is Sept. 19th. When is YOURS?]
PRAYER REQUEST: "Louisiana and Mississippi residents face dangerous heat conditions after Isaac"(September 03, 2012)
"More than 100,000 utility customers on the Gulf Coast remained without power almost a week after Isaac’s landfall, while about 2,800 were still in shelters in Louisiana and Mississippi because of flooding..."(Sources: CNN, Washington Post)
(from The "Presidential" Prayer Team)As the Lord leads, please pray:
•For families and businesses who have lost power, cooling and water.
•For those without homes or properties because of flooding.
•For safety and strength for the many rescuers, volunteers and first-aid providers.
•For the weather, that it will not further hamper the recovery and restoration work.
FYI #2 - Be sure to be REGISTERED TO VOTE. To get details of doing that in your state, go to > http://www.cbn.com/special/register-to-vote/
For a REVIEW OF THE CRITICAL ISSUES to consider in your voting, please go to > http://www.truthinaction.org/PDF/Final_Voters_Guide.pdf
ALSO,BEGIN PRAYING FOR THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS; Download a free prayer guide at > http://www.prayerconnect.net/resources/prayer-guides/2012-election-prayer-guide
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[NOTE: One thing you might notice in the following article is the lack of mention that the unions and the Democrats have for a long time been beholden to each other. In the Obama administration, we've had a record number of "former" union leaders in key positions. One union leader has even boasted of visiting the White House almost every day and meeting often with the President. Also, one of the biggest unions gave a whopping $60 million! to th Obama campaign in '08; amazing how none in the mainstream media has ever asked what influnce that bought them. Be sure to check out the link afterwards that tell of how the unions are not exactly excited in this election.- Stan]
- By Amy Payne On September 3, 2012
This election year, millions of Americans will donate to the political candidates and initiatives of their choice at the local, state, and federal levels. But for unionized workers, union dues come out of their paychecks and go to political causes—and they aren’t consulted on where that money will go.
In July, The Wall Street Journal’s Tom McGinty and Brody Mullins published an eye-opening report [1] that “Organized labor spends about four times as much on politics and lobbying as generally thought.” They broke down the unions’ political spending from 2005 to 2011: $1.1 billion “supporting federal candidates through their political-action committees, which are funded with voluntary contributions, and lobbying Washington, which is a cost borne by the unions’ own coffers.”
But that was only the beginning. Add to that another $3.3 billion for political activity from “polling fees, to money spent persuading union members to vote a certain way, to bratwursts to feed Wisconsin workers protesting at the state capitol last year.” Who pays for this? The workers, McGinty and Mullins report: “Much of this kind of spending comes not from members’ contributions to a PAC but directly from unions’ dues-funded coffers.”
Despite findings that 60 percent of union members object to their dues being spent on political causes, this practice continues. Why?
In the 27 states without right-to-work laws, many unions are able to put clauses in their contracts that allow them to fire workers who do not pay union dues. If a worker wants to work for a unionized firm, he or she is forced to join the union and pay the dues, which can run from several hundred to several thousand dollars a year.
In a new paper [2], Heritage’s James Sherk gives an example of this rule at work: “The United Auto Workers (UAW), which organized General Motors’ Michigan factories in 1937, is a case in point. Michigan does not have a right-to-work law, so union-represented workers must pay the union’s dues or get fired.” Notice the year there—1937. The workers coming on the job in 2012 are bound by a vote taken by their ancestors, essentially. “General Motors’ current employees never had the chance to vote [2] for or against the UAW. UAW representation was a non-negotiable condition of their employment.”
Sherk argues that these rules make no sense for today’s workers. Just 7 percent of private-sector union members voted for the union that represents them, and the vast majority of government unions organized at least 30years ago. The workers inherit the representation of yesteryear, which negotiates their terms of pay, promotion, layoff, and retirement.
Once organized, unions remain indefinitely. Naturally, that gives union leaders little reason to be accountable to their members in any way—they’re not going to have to stand for re-election.
To give unionized workers the freedom they deserve, Sherk says [2], this system should end. Congress and state legislatures should at the least require government and private-sector unions to stand for re-election. Re-election votes every two to four years would allow employees to regularly assess their union’s performance as their representative.…
An even better reform would be to give workers representative choice—allowing individual employees to choose who represents them, irrespective of who other employees select. This would remove the union’s monopoly over the workplace, allowing employees to negotiate contracts tailored to their needs.
Workers should have the freedom to choose whether they want union representation or not. And if they do want to join a union, they should be able to choose which union they join. This freedom would give them more say over paying union dues in the first place, and how those dues are used. It would also give them the opportunity to negotiate merit-based raises, which unions do not allow.
America’s unionized workers deserve the same freedoms as non-unionized workers—in an election year and every year.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/03/morning-bell-union-money-in-elections/
URLs in this post:
[1] report: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304782404577488584031850026.html
[2] new paper: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/unelected-unions-why-workers-should-be-allowed-to-choose-their-representatives
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Union Bosses Keeping [Mostly] Low Profiles At DNC’s Union-Free Convention- By:LaborUnionReport; September 3rd
http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/03/union-bosses-keeping-mostly-low-profiles-at-dncs-union-free-convention/
"...The lack of union support (and money) at the convention is likely why the DNC is giving away free tickets to people from neighboring states to go and watch Obama’s acceptance speech on Thursday. Although about a dozen of the building trade unions, along with Machinists’ union boss Tom Buffenbarger (of course), are boycotting (and some plan to protest) the Democrats’ soiree, other union bosses are attending the convention. However, they are taking fewer members and a much lower profile than past conventions.."
PRAYER REQUEST: "Louisiana and Mississippi residents face dangerous heat conditions after Isaac"(September 03, 2012)
"More than 100,000 utility customers on the Gulf Coast remained without power almost a week after Isaac’s landfall, while about 2,800 were still in shelters in Louisiana and Mississippi because of flooding..."(Sources: CNN, Washington Post)
(from The "Presidential" Prayer Team)As the Lord leads, please pray:
•For families and businesses who have lost power, cooling and water.
•For those without homes or properties because of flooding.
•For safety and strength for the many rescuers, volunteers and first-aid providers.
•For the weather, that it will not further hamper the recovery and restoration work.
FYI #2 - Be sure to be REGISTERED TO VOTE. To get details of doing that in your state, go to > http://www.cbn.com/special/register-to-vote/
For a REVIEW OF THE CRITICAL ISSUES to consider in your voting, please go to > http://www.truthinaction.org/PDF/Final_Voters_Guide.pdf
ALSO,BEGIN PRAYING FOR THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS; Download a free prayer guide at > http://www.prayerconnect.net/resources/prayer-guides/2012-election-prayer-guide
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[NOTE: One thing you might notice in the following article is the lack of mention that the unions and the Democrats have for a long time been beholden to each other. In the Obama administration, we've had a record number of "former" union leaders in key positions. One union leader has even boasted of visiting the White House almost every day and meeting often with the President. Also, one of the biggest unions gave a whopping $60 million! to th Obama campaign in '08; amazing how none in the mainstream media has ever asked what influnce that bought them. Be sure to check out the link afterwards that tell of how the unions are not exactly excited in this election.- Stan]
- By Amy Payne On September 3, 2012
This election year, millions of Americans will donate to the political candidates and initiatives of their choice at the local, state, and federal levels. But for unionized workers, union dues come out of their paychecks and go to political causes—and they aren’t consulted on where that money will go.
In July, The Wall Street Journal’s Tom McGinty and Brody Mullins published an eye-opening report [1] that “Organized labor spends about four times as much on politics and lobbying as generally thought.” They broke down the unions’ political spending from 2005 to 2011: $1.1 billion “supporting federal candidates through their political-action committees, which are funded with voluntary contributions, and lobbying Washington, which is a cost borne by the unions’ own coffers.”
But that was only the beginning. Add to that another $3.3 billion for political activity from “polling fees, to money spent persuading union members to vote a certain way, to bratwursts to feed Wisconsin workers protesting at the state capitol last year.” Who pays for this? The workers, McGinty and Mullins report: “Much of this kind of spending comes not from members’ contributions to a PAC but directly from unions’ dues-funded coffers.”
Despite findings that 60 percent of union members object to their dues being spent on political causes, this practice continues. Why?
In the 27 states without right-to-work laws, many unions are able to put clauses in their contracts that allow them to fire workers who do not pay union dues. If a worker wants to work for a unionized firm, he or she is forced to join the union and pay the dues, which can run from several hundred to several thousand dollars a year.
In a new paper [2], Heritage’s James Sherk gives an example of this rule at work: “The United Auto Workers (UAW), which organized General Motors’ Michigan factories in 1937, is a case in point. Michigan does not have a right-to-work law, so union-represented workers must pay the union’s dues or get fired.” Notice the year there—1937. The workers coming on the job in 2012 are bound by a vote taken by their ancestors, essentially. “General Motors’ current employees never had the chance to vote [2] for or against the UAW. UAW representation was a non-negotiable condition of their employment.”
Sherk argues that these rules make no sense for today’s workers. Just 7 percent of private-sector union members voted for the union that represents them, and the vast majority of government unions organized at least 30years ago. The workers inherit the representation of yesteryear, which negotiates their terms of pay, promotion, layoff, and retirement.
Once organized, unions remain indefinitely. Naturally, that gives union leaders little reason to be accountable to their members in any way—they’re not going to have to stand for re-election.
To give unionized workers the freedom they deserve, Sherk says [2], this system should end. Congress and state legislatures should at the least require government and private-sector unions to stand for re-election. Re-election votes every two to four years would allow employees to regularly assess their union’s performance as their representative.…
An even better reform would be to give workers representative choice—allowing individual employees to choose who represents them, irrespective of who other employees select. This would remove the union’s monopoly over the workplace, allowing employees to negotiate contracts tailored to their needs.
Workers should have the freedom to choose whether they want union representation or not. And if they do want to join a union, they should be able to choose which union they join. This freedom would give them more say over paying union dues in the first place, and how those dues are used. It would also give them the opportunity to negotiate merit-based raises, which unions do not allow.
America’s unionized workers deserve the same freedoms as non-unionized workers—in an election year and every year.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/03/morning-bell-union-money-in-elections/
URLs in this post:
[1] report: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304782404577488584031850026.html
[2] new paper: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/unelected-unions-why-workers-should-be-allowed-to-choose-their-representatives
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Union Bosses Keeping [Mostly] Low Profiles At DNC’s Union-Free Convention- By:LaborUnionReport; September 3rd
http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/03/union-bosses-keeping-mostly-low-profiles-at-dncs-union-free-convention/
"...The lack of union support (and money) at the convention is likely why the DNC is giving away free tickets to people from neighboring states to go and watch Obama’s acceptance speech on Thursday. Although about a dozen of the building trade unions, along with Machinists’ union boss Tom Buffenbarger (of course), are boycotting (and some plan to protest) the Democrats’ soiree, other union bosses are attending the convention. However, they are taking fewer members and a much lower profile than past conventions.."
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
#311(9/4) - "Lessons from the Akin Fiasco - Principles and Facts"
[FYI #1 - My GENday is Sept. 19th. When is YOURS?]
FYI #2 - Be sure to be REGISTERED TO VOTE. To get details of doing that in your state, go to > http://www.cbn.com/special/register-to-vote/
For a REVIEW OF THE CRITICAL ISSUES to consider in your voting, please go to > http://www.truthinaction.org/PDF/Final_Voters_Guide.pdf
ALSO,BEGIN PRAYING FOR THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS; Download a free prayer guide at > http://www.prayerconnect.net/resources/prayer-guides/2012-election-prayer-guide
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
- by John Stonestreet, Breakpoint.org. August 31, 2012
Trust me. I had very much hoped to avoid this train wreck scenario surrounding the comments of Republican Senate nominee Todd Akin from Missouri.
But there’s something about this whole event, and especially its aftermath, that has troubled me enough to comment: how Akin’s stance on abortion in cases of rape or incest has been all mixed together with his comments about rape itself. That needs to be addressed and clarified, especially in light of the embarrassment otherwise pro-life candidates have shown about their own views on abortion in cases of rape or incest.
Look, I quickly join my voice with the legions of others that despite our intentions, we should never use this phrase “legitimate rape” again. No rape is legitimate; all rape is devastating, evil, and dehumanizing. I also join with others in condemning the profoundly unscientific idea that a woman’s body prevents pregnancy in cases of rape.
Mr. Akin was apparently drawing from an old pro-life argument that the trauma of rape somehow makes female victims far less likely to conceive a child. But research by the Journal of American Obstetrics and Gynecology suggests that the incidence of rape-related pregnancies is about 5 percent. That may sound like a low percentage, but that translates to more than 32,000 rape-related pregnancies every year. That doesn’t sound rare to me, especially when what hangs in the balance are at least 64,000 moms and babies who bear the image and likeness of God.
Clearly the first lesson to be learned is, we need to know our facts. This is true whether we’re talking about abortion or something like evolution. We’re too quick to jump to an argument or quote some statistics simply because it seems to work for our cause at that time. And that creates a huge problem when those stats or facts change with new data. Plus, this points directly to the second lesson we should learn from this whole fiasco.
Let me explain. Akin was being asked about abortion in cases of rape and incest. His position, which he went on to clarify later, is that abortion should be illegal in cases of rape or incest because it creates a second victim from the initial evil act. But he jumped out with a pragmatic argument for what is essentially a moral dilemma.
Even if his argument about rape pregnancies being rare was true, though clearly it wasn’t, the frequency of rape-related pregnancies has nothing to do with whether aborting a baby in cases of rape is right or wrong. The fundamental moral question, as my friends at Pro-Life Training Institute often point out, is “what is the unborn?”strong> If the unborn is a distinct, whole, living human being, then abortion is always taking of innocent life. Abortion in cases of rape and incest is creating a second victim of what is already an evil, terrible dehumanizing crime.
We must continue to appeal to people on the basis of moral truth, good and evil, even in our increasingly postmodern society. Truth is not based on statistics, opinion polls, or frequency. Truth, even hard truth like this one, reflects the way that the God of the Bible designed the world we live in.
[P.S.]- I am thrilled to host Megan Almon and Scott Klusendorf of the Life Training Institute on BreakPoint this Week to talk about this very difficult issue. How can we love victims of rape enough to not only care for them, but to also help them protect the unborn? Scott’s book The Case for Life is the most practical resource available for being consistently pro-life in our day.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BP This Week: Answering Hard Questions About Abortion, By: Shane Morris| August 30, 2012, http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/discourse/discourse-archive/entry/15/20190
FYI #2 - Be sure to be REGISTERED TO VOTE. To get details of doing that in your state, go to > http://www.cbn.com/special/register-to-vote/
For a REVIEW OF THE CRITICAL ISSUES to consider in your voting, please go to > http://www.truthinaction.org/PDF/Final_Voters_Guide.pdf
ALSO,BEGIN PRAYING FOR THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS; Download a free prayer guide at > http://www.prayerconnect.net/resources/prayer-guides/2012-election-prayer-guide
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
- by John Stonestreet, Breakpoint.org. August 31, 2012
Trust me. I had very much hoped to avoid this train wreck scenario surrounding the comments of Republican Senate nominee Todd Akin from Missouri.
But there’s something about this whole event, and especially its aftermath, that has troubled me enough to comment: how Akin’s stance on abortion in cases of rape or incest has been all mixed together with his comments about rape itself. That needs to be addressed and clarified, especially in light of the embarrassment otherwise pro-life candidates have shown about their own views on abortion in cases of rape or incest.
Look, I quickly join my voice with the legions of others that despite our intentions, we should never use this phrase “legitimate rape” again. No rape is legitimate; all rape is devastating, evil, and dehumanizing. I also join with others in condemning the profoundly unscientific idea that a woman’s body prevents pregnancy in cases of rape.
Mr. Akin was apparently drawing from an old pro-life argument that the trauma of rape somehow makes female victims far less likely to conceive a child. But research by the Journal of American Obstetrics and Gynecology suggests that the incidence of rape-related pregnancies is about 5 percent. That may sound like a low percentage, but that translates to more than 32,000 rape-related pregnancies every year. That doesn’t sound rare to me, especially when what hangs in the balance are at least 64,000 moms and babies who bear the image and likeness of God.
Clearly the first lesson to be learned is, we need to know our facts. This is true whether we’re talking about abortion or something like evolution. We’re too quick to jump to an argument or quote some statistics simply because it seems to work for our cause at that time. And that creates a huge problem when those stats or facts change with new data. Plus, this points directly to the second lesson we should learn from this whole fiasco.
Let me explain. Akin was being asked about abortion in cases of rape and incest. His position, which he went on to clarify later, is that abortion should be illegal in cases of rape or incest because it creates a second victim from the initial evil act. But he jumped out with a pragmatic argument for what is essentially a moral dilemma.
Even if his argument about rape pregnancies being rare was true, though clearly it wasn’t, the frequency of rape-related pregnancies has nothing to do with whether aborting a baby in cases of rape is right or wrong. The fundamental moral question, as my friends at Pro-Life Training Institute often point out, is “what is the unborn?”strong> If the unborn is a distinct, whole, living human being, then abortion is always taking of innocent life. Abortion in cases of rape and incest is creating a second victim of what is already an evil, terrible dehumanizing crime.
We must continue to appeal to people on the basis of moral truth, good and evil, even in our increasingly postmodern society. Truth is not based on statistics, opinion polls, or frequency. Truth, even hard truth like this one, reflects the way that the God of the Bible designed the world we live in.
[P.S.]- I am thrilled to host Megan Almon and Scott Klusendorf of the Life Training Institute on BreakPoint this Week to talk about this very difficult issue. How can we love victims of rape enough to not only care for them, but to also help them protect the unborn? Scott’s book The Case for Life is the most practical resource available for being consistently pro-life in our day.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BP This Week: Answering Hard Questions About Abortion, By: Shane Morris| August 30, 2012, http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/discourse/discourse-archive/entry/15/20190
Monday, September 3, 2012
#310 (9/3) - "In Celebration of Labor"
[FYI - My GENday is Sept. 19th. When is YOURS?]
- "The Value of a Good Day's Work"
by Chuck Colson, Breakpoint.org, posted on Sept. 3, 3012
What does Labor Day mean? For most of us, it's nothing more than a welcome break from what we tend to see as "the daily grind." Work to so many people is simply a necessary evil. The goal in life is putting in enough time to retire and relax.
But that attitude and that goal is contrary to a Christian worldview perspective on work.
Christians have a special reason to celebrate Labor Day, which honors the fundamental dignity of workers, because we worship a God Who labored to make the world—and Who created human beings in His image to be His workers. When God made Adam and Eve, He gave them work to do: cultivating and caring for the earth.
In the ancient world, the Greeks and Romans looked upon manual work as a curse, something for lower classes and slaves. But Christianity changed all of that. Christians viewed work as a high calling—a calling to be co-workers with God in unfolding the rich potential of His creation. This high view of work can be traced throughout the history of the Church. In the Middle Ages, the guild movement grew out of the Church. It set standards for good workmanship and encouraged members to take satisfaction in the results of their labor. The guilds became the forerunner of the modern labor movement.
Later, during the Reformation, Martin Luther preached that all work should be done to the glory of God. Whether ministering the Gospel or scrubbing floors, any honest work is pleasing to the Lord. Out of this conviction grew the Protestant work ethic.
Christians were also active on behalf of workers in the early days of the industrial revolution, when factories were "dark satanic mills," to borrow a phrase from Sir William Blake. In those days, work in factories and coal mines was hard and dangerous. Men, women, and children were practically slaves—sometimes even chained to machines.
Then John Wesley came preaching and teaching the Gospel throughout England. He came not to the upper classes, but to the laboring classes—to men whose faces were black with coal dust, women whose dresses were patched and faded. John Wesley preached to them—and in the process, he pricked the conscience of the whole nation. Two of Wesley's disciples, William Wilberforce and Lord Shaftesbury, were inspired to work for legislation that would clean up abuses in the workplace. At their urging, the British parliament passed child-labor laws, safety laws, and minimum-wage laws.
But here in America we've lost the Christian connection with the labor movement. In many countries, however, from Canada to Poland, that tradition still remains strong. Much of our culture has a distinctly Greek view of work: We work out of necessity. But, you see, we are made in the image of God and as such we are made to work—to create, to shape, to bring order out of disorder.
So this Labor Day, remember that all labor derives its true dignity as a reflection of the Creator. And that whatever we do, in word or deed, we should do all to the glory of God.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
- "The Value of a Good Day's Work"
by Chuck Colson, Breakpoint.org, posted on Sept. 3, 3012
What does Labor Day mean? For most of us, it's nothing more than a welcome break from what we tend to see as "the daily grind." Work to so many people is simply a necessary evil. The goal in life is putting in enough time to retire and relax.
But that attitude and that goal is contrary to a Christian worldview perspective on work.
Christians have a special reason to celebrate Labor Day, which honors the fundamental dignity of workers, because we worship a God Who labored to make the world—and Who created human beings in His image to be His workers. When God made Adam and Eve, He gave them work to do: cultivating and caring for the earth.
In the ancient world, the Greeks and Romans looked upon manual work as a curse, something for lower classes and slaves. But Christianity changed all of that. Christians viewed work as a high calling—a calling to be co-workers with God in unfolding the rich potential of His creation. This high view of work can be traced throughout the history of the Church. In the Middle Ages, the guild movement grew out of the Church. It set standards for good workmanship and encouraged members to take satisfaction in the results of their labor. The guilds became the forerunner of the modern labor movement.
Later, during the Reformation, Martin Luther preached that all work should be done to the glory of God. Whether ministering the Gospel or scrubbing floors, any honest work is pleasing to the Lord. Out of this conviction grew the Protestant work ethic.
Christians were also active on behalf of workers in the early days of the industrial revolution, when factories were "dark satanic mills," to borrow a phrase from Sir William Blake. In those days, work in factories and coal mines was hard and dangerous. Men, women, and children were practically slaves—sometimes even chained to machines.
Then John Wesley came preaching and teaching the Gospel throughout England. He came not to the upper classes, but to the laboring classes—to men whose faces were black with coal dust, women whose dresses were patched and faded. John Wesley preached to them—and in the process, he pricked the conscience of the whole nation. Two of Wesley's disciples, William Wilberforce and Lord Shaftesbury, were inspired to work for legislation that would clean up abuses in the workplace. At their urging, the British parliament passed child-labor laws, safety laws, and minimum-wage laws.
But here in America we've lost the Christian connection with the labor movement. In many countries, however, from Canada to Poland, that tradition still remains strong. Much of our culture has a distinctly Greek view of work: We work out of necessity. But, you see, we are made in the image of God and as such we are made to work—to create, to shape, to bring order out of disorder.
So this Labor Day, remember that all labor derives its true dignity as a reflection of the Creator. And that whatever we do, in word or deed, we should do all to the glory of God.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Sunday, September 2, 2012
#309 (9/2) - Sunday Special > "NASA Astronauts Religion in Space Controversies"
[FYI #1 - My GENday is Sept. 19th. When is YOURS?]
FYI #2 - Be sure to be REGISTERED TO VOTE. To get details of doing that in your state, go to > http://www.cbn.com/special/register-to-vote/
For a REVIEW OF THE CRITICAL ISSUES to consider in your voting, please go to > http://www.truthinaction.org/PDF/Final_Voters_Guide.pdf
ALSO,BEGIN PRAYING FOR THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS; Download a free prayer guide at > http://www.prayerconnect.net/resources/prayer-guides/2012-election-prayer-guide
FYI #3 - Also, as usual on Sundays, please try to catch this week's broadcast of "Truth That Transforms."(In Central Florida, 9-9:30 am, 10-10:30 am, 5-5:30 pm; check your TV listings) or watch it at www.truthinaction.org. This week's very timely message is entitled “The Bankruptcy of Socialism" and looks at our country's unemployment and underemployment crisis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- "Genesis Reading, Moon Communion, Homage to Missionaries Anger Some";
by Aimee Larsen Stoddardn Feb 25, 2010 > http://suite101.com/article/nasa-astronauts-religion-in-space-controversies-a206289
Science-religion, church-state separation debates have surrounded NASA and astronauts. Find out why atheists, secularists, and others have opposed proselytizing in space.
Since its inception in 1958, NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, a government agency funded by taxpayer dollars, has periodically been caught up in religion-science and church-state separation debates.
Three specific incidents — the Apollo 8 astronauts’ recitation from the Book of Genesis, Apollo 11 astronaut Eugene “Buzz” Aldrin’s taking of Communion on the moon, and Discovery astronaut Patrick Forrester’s tribute to martyred Christian missionaries — highlight the controversies over the place of religion in secular government and the separation of church and state.
Apollo 8 Astronauts' Reading from Book of Genesis
In 1968, the Apollo 8 astronauts, Jim Lovell, William Anders, and Frank Borman, became the first humans to orbit the moon. The crew participated in a Christmas Eve television broadcast — the most watched broadcast in history up to that point — during which they each took turns reading from the Old Testament Book of Genesis as the lunar sunrise came into view.
Genesis begins, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”
Madalyn Murray O’Hair filed a lawsuit, O’Hair v. Paine, with the U.S. Supreme Court over the reading from Genesis by the astronauts. O’Hair contended that since the astronauts were U.S. government employees, they should not pray or perform religious rituals while on the job in outer space. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the case because of lack of jurisdiction.
Apollo 11 Astronaut Eugene “Buzz” Aldrin’s Communion on the MoonIn 1969, Eugene “Buzz” Aldrin took Communion on the moon. Aldrin had wanted to broadcast his self-communion, but NASA decided not to allow this because it was concerned over the spectacle created by the lawsuit O’Hair had brought against the agency.
Before taking communion, Aldrin said, “This is the LM [lunar module] pilot. I'd like to take this opportunity to ask every person listening in, whoever and wherever they may be, to pause for a moment and contemplate the events of the past few hours and to give thanks in his or her own way.” News that Aldrin had given himself communion with a kit provided by the Webster Presbyterian Church, in Houston, Texas, did not come out for several years after it happened.
Discovery Astronaut Patrick Forrester’s Honoring of Christian Martyrs In 2009, on the space shuttle Discovery Patrick Forrester carried a piece from the battery box of an airplane piloted by Christian missionary Nate Saint who went to Ecuador to proselytize. In the mid-1950s, Saint and four other proselytizers were working to convert the Waodani tribal people, but the Waodani killed the missionaries.
NASA allows astronauts to carry a small bag of personal effects into space. It was in this bag that Forrester put the piece of Saint’s plane, which was transported to the International Space Station. Forrester commented, "Bringing attention to and renewing interest in missions would be a great result of this experience."
Should Astronauts Be Allowed to Promote Religious Beliefs in Space?
The Apollo 8 astronauts’ readings from the Book of Genesis, Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin’s taking of Communion on the moon, and Discovery astronaut Patrick Forrester’s carrying of a memento memorializing Christian missionaries have elicited heated debate.
Some people argue that science and religion and church and state should be kept separate and that NASA, a government agency funded by tax money, should not allow astronauts to publicly endorse religion. In any case, since Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s lawsuit against NASA over the Apollo 8 TV broadcast of the astronauts’ readings from Genesis, religion has played a much less prominent role in NASA operations.
Yet the drive for exploration and discovery — the desire to learn from where humans came, where humankind is going, and if humans are alone in the great expanse of outer space — may at its foundation be thought of as spiritual and religious. The resultant questions of how to effectively contain, describe, and deal with the intersection of science and spirituality are at the forefront of humankind’s journey beyond the swirling blue-and-white mass of Earth and into the unknown reaches of space.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obamaspace Condemned by Neil Armstrong, Applauded by Buzz Aldrin, http://suite101.com/article/nasas-future-still-uncertain-a271475
"...The famously reclusive Neil Armstrong, commander of Gemini VIII and Apollo 11 and the first man to walk on the Moon, testified before Congress against the President’s plan, pointing out that Project Constellation was the end result of two years of intensive and transparent study by experts in the aerospace industry, adding, “I have yet to find a person in NASA, the Defense Department, the Air Force, the national academies, industry, or academia that had any knowledge of the plan prior to its announcement” – a low-key statement compared to some of the angry rhetoric heard from Cernan and others, but a scathing condemnation from the shy, quiet and introspective First Man on the Moon (12 May 2010, "Neil Armstrong's statement on Human Spaceflight," youtube, accessed 4 August 2010)..."
FYI #2 - Be sure to be REGISTERED TO VOTE. To get details of doing that in your state, go to > http://www.cbn.com/special/register-to-vote/
For a REVIEW OF THE CRITICAL ISSUES to consider in your voting, please go to > http://www.truthinaction.org/PDF/Final_Voters_Guide.pdf
ALSO,BEGIN PRAYING FOR THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS; Download a free prayer guide at > http://www.prayerconnect.net/resources/prayer-guides/2012-election-prayer-guide
FYI #3 - Also, as usual on Sundays, please try to catch this week's broadcast of "Truth That Transforms."(In Central Florida, 9-9:30 am, 10-10:30 am, 5-5:30 pm; check your TV listings) or watch it at www.truthinaction.org. This week's very timely message is entitled “The Bankruptcy of Socialism" and looks at our country's unemployment and underemployment crisis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- "Genesis Reading, Moon Communion, Homage to Missionaries Anger Some";
by Aimee Larsen Stoddardn Feb 25, 2010 > http://suite101.com/article/nasa-astronauts-religion-in-space-controversies-a206289
Science-religion, church-state separation debates have surrounded NASA and astronauts. Find out why atheists, secularists, and others have opposed proselytizing in space.
Since its inception in 1958, NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, a government agency funded by taxpayer dollars, has periodically been caught up in religion-science and church-state separation debates.
Three specific incidents — the Apollo 8 astronauts’ recitation from the Book of Genesis, Apollo 11 astronaut Eugene “Buzz” Aldrin’s taking of Communion on the moon, and Discovery astronaut Patrick Forrester’s tribute to martyred Christian missionaries — highlight the controversies over the place of religion in secular government and the separation of church and state.
Apollo 8 Astronauts' Reading from Book of Genesis
In 1968, the Apollo 8 astronauts, Jim Lovell, William Anders, and Frank Borman, became the first humans to orbit the moon. The crew participated in a Christmas Eve television broadcast — the most watched broadcast in history up to that point — during which they each took turns reading from the Old Testament Book of Genesis as the lunar sunrise came into view.
Genesis begins, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”
Madalyn Murray O’Hair filed a lawsuit, O’Hair v. Paine, with the U.S. Supreme Court over the reading from Genesis by the astronauts. O’Hair contended that since the astronauts were U.S. government employees, they should not pray or perform religious rituals while on the job in outer space. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the case because of lack of jurisdiction.
Apollo 11 Astronaut Eugene “Buzz” Aldrin’s Communion on the MoonIn 1969, Eugene “Buzz” Aldrin took Communion on the moon. Aldrin had wanted to broadcast his self-communion, but NASA decided not to allow this because it was concerned over the spectacle created by the lawsuit O’Hair had brought against the agency.
Before taking communion, Aldrin said, “This is the LM [lunar module] pilot. I'd like to take this opportunity to ask every person listening in, whoever and wherever they may be, to pause for a moment and contemplate the events of the past few hours and to give thanks in his or her own way.” News that Aldrin had given himself communion with a kit provided by the Webster Presbyterian Church, in Houston, Texas, did not come out for several years after it happened.
Discovery Astronaut Patrick Forrester’s Honoring of Christian Martyrs In 2009, on the space shuttle Discovery Patrick Forrester carried a piece from the battery box of an airplane piloted by Christian missionary Nate Saint who went to Ecuador to proselytize. In the mid-1950s, Saint and four other proselytizers were working to convert the Waodani tribal people, but the Waodani killed the missionaries.
NASA allows astronauts to carry a small bag of personal effects into space. It was in this bag that Forrester put the piece of Saint’s plane, which was transported to the International Space Station. Forrester commented, "Bringing attention to and renewing interest in missions would be a great result of this experience."
Should Astronauts Be Allowed to Promote Religious Beliefs in Space?
The Apollo 8 astronauts’ readings from the Book of Genesis, Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin’s taking of Communion on the moon, and Discovery astronaut Patrick Forrester’s carrying of a memento memorializing Christian missionaries have elicited heated debate.
Some people argue that science and religion and church and state should be kept separate and that NASA, a government agency funded by tax money, should not allow astronauts to publicly endorse religion. In any case, since Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s lawsuit against NASA over the Apollo 8 TV broadcast of the astronauts’ readings from Genesis, religion has played a much less prominent role in NASA operations.
Yet the drive for exploration and discovery — the desire to learn from where humans came, where humankind is going, and if humans are alone in the great expanse of outer space — may at its foundation be thought of as spiritual and religious. The resultant questions of how to effectively contain, describe, and deal with the intersection of science and spirituality are at the forefront of humankind’s journey beyond the swirling blue-and-white mass of Earth and into the unknown reaches of space.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obamaspace Condemned by Neil Armstrong, Applauded by Buzz Aldrin, http://suite101.com/article/nasas-future-still-uncertain-a271475
"...The famously reclusive Neil Armstrong, commander of Gemini VIII and Apollo 11 and the first man to walk on the Moon, testified before Congress against the President’s plan, pointing out that Project Constellation was the end result of two years of intensive and transparent study by experts in the aerospace industry, adding, “I have yet to find a person in NASA, the Defense Department, the Air Force, the national academies, industry, or academia that had any knowledge of the plan prior to its announcement” – a low-key statement compared to some of the angry rhetoric heard from Cernan and others, but a scathing condemnation from the shy, quiet and introspective First Man on the Moon (12 May 2010, "Neil Armstrong's statement on Human Spaceflight," youtube, accessed 4 August 2010)..."
Saturday, September 1, 2012
#308 (9/1) - A MOST Memorable Republican Convention; The Clint Eastwood Speech
[FYI - My GENday is Sept. 19th. When is YOURS?]
AS I SEE IT: If you are a conservative in your political views as I am, I hope that you took the time to watch as much of the coverage of the just completed Republican National Convention as I did. These occasions tend to be dominated by speeches from less than stellar speakers who are almost always politicians. What a blessing to find among the speakers 1)so many politicians who were anything but boring, with a surprising number of them who were not only from various ethnic backgrounds but also the Governors of many states; 2)so many people who could have been our neighbors as well as former Olympians who told very personal stories. The one that most moved me to tears was the woman who told of Mitt Romney regularly visitinig her dying 14 year old son, helping him to write his will and then giving his eulogy as he requested. Hearing so many stories, and later Paul Ryan speaking so lovingly of his Mom and Mitt Romney sharing of missing his boys running into his bedroom as he and his wife were still in bed, made you wonder how people could be so swayed by vicious and incredibly misleading political ads that accused them of being responsible for the death of a man's wife or conducting a "war against women." It does tell a lot of their opposition when, rather than talking about what they believe they accomplished, they are more interested in smearing the characters of two clearly decent and honorable men. P.S.- In case you missed it, the following are website you can go to for the text, and in 2cases the video, of what I consider 3 noteworthy speeches. - Stan]
Mitt Romney gave a great speech. In case you missed it, you can find it at: "Romney Offers Vision of Hope for America, Sets Himself Apart from Obama", by John Gizzi,8/30/2012 > http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/30/romney-offers-vision-of-hope-for-america-sets-himself-apart-from-obama/
An even better speech, I believe, was given by the one I consider the most eloquent and passionate of ANY politician today, Senator Marco Rubio. Whenever he speaks, it's like watching an atomic bomb go off. There is a palpable stillness in the air and the words literally consume you. You can find the video and text of Marco Rubio’s 2012 RNC speech at > http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/30/text-of-marco-rubios-2012-rnc-speech/ Of note was that he spoke of God in his speech more than ANY other speaker. Personally, I don't think there is anyone in America who doubts this man will one day be running for the Presidency himself.
And while there were, again, many other memorable speeches, I was especially impressed by that given by Vic-Presidential nominee Paul Ryan. If Senator Rubio spoke with the power of an atomic bomb exploding, Congressman Ryan spoke like a series of guided missles surgically hitting its target with precision. He used humor and an incredible number of well-crafted lines in speaking of President Obama's failures without ever sounding mean. You can find a video of his speech at > http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/29/ryan-proud-to-accept-the-calling-of-my-generation/.(Well worth your time viewing, especially if you haven't heard it.) The article below talks about what I will remember as the most memorable line from any speech at the convention. It's definitely a classic that was clearly directed to the many young college students who rallied for the President in '08.
Ryan’s ‘Fading Obama Posters’ http://www.redstate.com/2012/08/30/ryans-fading-obama-posters-line-spawns-an-excellent-ad/ an Excellent Ad
By: Jeff Emanuel, August 30th
Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s speech to the RNC Wednesday night was addressed in no small part to the segment of the population that supported President Obama in 2008, but who were turned off enough by the last four years to consider an alternative in the upcoming election. One of the most vivid lines in Ryan’s speech – and one which conveyed that message very effectively – was the following:
"We are four years into this presidency. The issue is not the economy that Barack Obama inherited, not the economy as he envisions, but this economy that we are living. College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Next President [and comments on the Clint Eastwood talk]By: Erick Erickson, August 31st
http://www.redstate.com/2012/08/31/the-next-president/
[NOTE:This is anoather review of Mitt Romney's acceptance speech, BUT it includes a brief comment about the Clint Eastwood presentation that you may have found weird and at times uncomfortable to listen to as I did. His talk seemed at times rambling and his humor definitely crude. But the fact that all the left-leaning media people found it a big blunder by the Republicans made me wonder if they were purposely trying to just have us look at it as damaging. If you go to the article noted above, you'll find a surprising number of comments submitted at the end that actually commends the speech. I was particularly struck by the following comment left at the end of the article."Conservatives need to understand that Democrats hate, absolutely hate to be mocked. Clint mocked Obama and Biden. He was funny. Obama has given us plenty of material. Clint has shown us how to win-mockery of Obama. They hate Palin because she is good at it." Maybe the man really did know what he was doing in giving that speech. - Stan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a fuller descriptioni of the speech, see > "Clint Eastwood’s Mysterious, Yet Kinda Cool Speech, by Hope Hodge,8/30/2012, http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/30/clint-eastwood-delivers-mysterious-yet-humorous-address/
AS I SEE IT: If you are a conservative in your political views as I am, I hope that you took the time to watch as much of the coverage of the just completed Republican National Convention as I did. These occasions tend to be dominated by speeches from less than stellar speakers who are almost always politicians. What a blessing to find among the speakers 1)so many politicians who were anything but boring, with a surprising number of them who were not only from various ethnic backgrounds but also the Governors of many states; 2)so many people who could have been our neighbors as well as former Olympians who told very personal stories. The one that most moved me to tears was the woman who told of Mitt Romney regularly visitinig her dying 14 year old son, helping him to write his will and then giving his eulogy as he requested. Hearing so many stories, and later Paul Ryan speaking so lovingly of his Mom and Mitt Romney sharing of missing his boys running into his bedroom as he and his wife were still in bed, made you wonder how people could be so swayed by vicious and incredibly misleading political ads that accused them of being responsible for the death of a man's wife or conducting a "war against women." It does tell a lot of their opposition when, rather than talking about what they believe they accomplished, they are more interested in smearing the characters of two clearly decent and honorable men. P.S.- In case you missed it, the following are website you can go to for the text, and in 2cases the video, of what I consider 3 noteworthy speeches. - Stan]
Mitt Romney gave a great speech. In case you missed it, you can find it at: "Romney Offers Vision of Hope for America, Sets Himself Apart from Obama", by John Gizzi,8/30/2012 > http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/30/romney-offers-vision-of-hope-for-america-sets-himself-apart-from-obama/
An even better speech, I believe, was given by the one I consider the most eloquent and passionate of ANY politician today, Senator Marco Rubio. Whenever he speaks, it's like watching an atomic bomb go off. There is a palpable stillness in the air and the words literally consume you. You can find the video and text of Marco Rubio’s 2012 RNC speech at > http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/30/text-of-marco-rubios-2012-rnc-speech/ Of note was that he spoke of God in his speech more than ANY other speaker. Personally, I don't think there is anyone in America who doubts this man will one day be running for the Presidency himself.
And while there were, again, many other memorable speeches, I was especially impressed by that given by Vic-Presidential nominee Paul Ryan. If Senator Rubio spoke with the power of an atomic bomb exploding, Congressman Ryan spoke like a series of guided missles surgically hitting its target with precision. He used humor and an incredible number of well-crafted lines in speaking of President Obama's failures without ever sounding mean. You can find a video of his speech at > http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/29/ryan-proud-to-accept-the-calling-of-my-generation/.(Well worth your time viewing, especially if you haven't heard it.) The article below talks about what I will remember as the most memorable line from any speech at the convention. It's definitely a classic that was clearly directed to the many young college students who rallied for the President in '08.
Ryan’s ‘Fading Obama Posters’ http://www.redstate.com/2012/08/30/ryans-fading-obama-posters-line-spawns-an-excellent-ad/ an Excellent Ad
By: Jeff Emanuel, August 30th
Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s speech to the RNC Wednesday night was addressed in no small part to the segment of the population that supported President Obama in 2008, but who were turned off enough by the last four years to consider an alternative in the upcoming election. One of the most vivid lines in Ryan’s speech – and one which conveyed that message very effectively – was the following:
"We are four years into this presidency. The issue is not the economy that Barack Obama inherited, not the economy as he envisions, but this economy that we are living. College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Next President [and comments on the Clint Eastwood talk]By: Erick Erickson, August 31st
http://www.redstate.com/2012/08/31/the-next-president/
[NOTE:This is anoather review of Mitt Romney's acceptance speech, BUT it includes a brief comment about the Clint Eastwood presentation that you may have found weird and at times uncomfortable to listen to as I did. His talk seemed at times rambling and his humor definitely crude. But the fact that all the left-leaning media people found it a big blunder by the Republicans made me wonder if they were purposely trying to just have us look at it as damaging. If you go to the article noted above, you'll find a surprising number of comments submitted at the end that actually commends the speech. I was particularly struck by the following comment left at the end of the article."Conservatives need to understand that Democrats hate, absolutely hate to be mocked. Clint mocked Obama and Biden. He was funny. Obama has given us plenty of material. Clint has shown us how to win-mockery of Obama. They hate Palin because she is good at it." Maybe the man really did know what he was doing in giving that speech. - Stan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a fuller descriptioni of the speech, see > "Clint Eastwood’s Mysterious, Yet Kinda Cool Speech, by Hope Hodge,8/30/2012, http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/30/clint-eastwood-delivers-mysterious-yet-humorous-address/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
