Health Care Reform is Paid for by Cuts to Medicare

FLEMING HEALTH CARE REPEAL UPDATE

Health Care Reform is Paid for by Cuts to Medicare

The enormous health care bill signed into law will be largely paid for by cuts to services many seniors depend on. Here is just a sampling of the Medicare cuts, totaling more than $500 billion, to come:

In 2010:

Medicare will cut reimbursements to inpatient psychiatric hospitals.

In 2011:

Medicare cuts to home health agencies begin.
Wealthier seniors ($85K/$170K) begin paying higher Part D premiums.
Medicare cuts begin to ambulance services, ambulatory surgery centers, diagnostic labs, and durable medical equipment.
Seniors are prohibited from purchasing power wheelchairs unless they first rent for 13 months.
New Medicare cuts to long term care hospitals begin.
New Medicare cuts to hospitals and cuts to nursing homes begin (FY12)
Medicare Advantage cuts begin. Participating seniors will face premium increases, benefit cuts, or both.

In 2012:

Medicare reimbursements for dialysis treatments are cut.
Medicare cuts to hospice begin.

In 2013:

Medicare reimbursements to hospitals that serve low-income seniors will be cut.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU: When providers get paid less by Medicare for services seniors depend on, many may be forced to decrease their services or close some of their locations just to make ends meet. This means that seniors may experience a decrease in their access to essential care, which is already a problem for many in rural districts. The cuts to Medicare Advantage may cause many of these insurance providers to stop offering plans to seniors, forcing seniors back into traditional Medicare.

THE DOCTOR'S DIAGNOSIS: Seniors should not have to bear the cost of health care reform. Instead, we need common-sense health reform that will lead to quality, affordable health care, without breaking the bank, or cutting services to seniors. We need to repeal the bill.

As this process unfolds, I will continue to work to represent you, bring common-sense to this debate, and work to repeal this unpopular law.

Sincerely,

JOHN FLEMING, M.D.

Member of Congress

P.S. If you’d like more information, please take a minute to visit my newly redesigned website at http://www.fleming.house.gov/or follow me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/repjohnfleming or on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/repfleming

Restoring Federalism: Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment

by Alan Snyder

The “Restoring Honor” event at the Lincoln Memorial was inspiring. That should be just the beginning of a “Restoration Movement.” We don’t really need a revolution in America; all we need to do is restore what once was. I have a suggestion for another aspect of our Founding that needs to be restored—a suggestion that some will call unrealistic, yet one that the Founders considered essential.

Let’s restore the provision in the original wording of the Constitution that allows state legislatures to choose a state’s senators who serve in Congress.

Article I, Section 3 says, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof.”

The reasoning was lucid: the people of each state already had direct representation into the national government via the House of Representatives; it was necessary as well to provide representation for the state governments in the national Congress. The goal was to make sure that laws passed by each state were not going to be overturned by the national government without good reason.

It was one of those key checks on power; it was to provide balance in the federal system.

Why did this change?


By the early twentieth century, the progressive movement was gaining ascendancy. One of the primary tenets of the movement was to add an amendment to the Constitution allowing the people of each state to elect senators directly, just as they already did for representatives.

The argument was pretty much the following: there is too much corruption in the Senate, and the only way to ensure good government is to give the people at large the vote for senators. That will end the “evil” of state legislatures sending their favorites to Congress.

This reasoning was based on the belief that state governments usually legislated against the well-being of the people and assumed that if the people, not the state legislatures, chose the senators, they would no longer be corrupt.

Consequently, in 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment was added to the Constitution, shifting the choice of senators from the state legislatures to the people of the states. Now that the people choose their senators, corruption has vanished from the halls of the Senate.

Is there really anyone who believes that fantasy?

If state legislatures are corrupt, the people can change them. The maxim holds: in a representative system, the government is a reflection of the people who voted them into power. If corruption exists, the people allowed it. If the people awaken to the corruption, it will be much easier to root it out at the state level than at the national because the state government is closer to the people, and their voice can be more clearly heard.

Denying the state legislatures the choice of senators has effectively eliminated state government influence on national legislation. The senators don’t have to answer to their state governments anymore; they are elected or re-elected by the people directly. As a result, they don’t care about the interests of the state governments. They only have to pay attention if the people get aroused on an issue.

This changes the role of senators. They are now just like their counterparts in the House; the only differences are that their district is comprised of the entire state and they get to hang around for six years rather than two.

The problems go beyond theory. What about unfunded mandates? This is when Congress passes laws that require states to pay for them. Who is in the Congress to plead for the state governments and be concerned about state budgets? No one. In some respects, the state governments have become mere appendages of the national government. They have no say or recourse except to try to find relief through the courts.

Here’s another very specific consequence. The Senate has the responsibility for confirming federal judges, even to the Supreme Court. When going through the confirmation process, does any senator take into consideration how a judge’s judicial philosophy will affect state laws?

When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, forty-four state laws restricting abortion were overturned. If senators had to protect their state’s laws, as representatives of their respective legislatures, they would have been more attuned to whether the judges they placed on the Supreme Court would have the tendency to overthrow the principle of the sanctity of life.

In the past thirty-seven years, more than fifty million innocent children have lost their lives. Part of the blame should rest on the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment.

It’s time to consider the repeal of this amendment. Very few have taken up this cause. I know its repeal is not probable—but it is possible. If we can at least start the discussion, you never know where it may lead.

May the “Restoration Movement” continue to thrive.

Obama Tax Hikes Defended by Myths and Straw Men

This is a Backgrounder On Taxes


Published on August 26, 2010 by J.D. Foster, Ph.D. Backgrounder

Abstract: President Obama has called for a huge tax increase to take effect on January 1, 2011. Instead of reducing spending, he proposes to raise taxes on a wide swath of taxpayers—including small businesses—despite the weak economic recovery. Congressional Democrats stand poised (immediately following the November elections) to endorse the President’s request and threaten to go much further. Proponents of letting the tax cuts expire—which would indeed be a tax hike—have offered a wide array of justifications for this wrongheaded policy. Heritage Foundation fiscal policy expert J. D. Foster wades through the myths and straw arguments to set the record straight.

President Barack Obama has called for a huge, $921 billion tax increase beginning on January 1, 2011, and congressional Democrats have signaled their intent to meet his request and more—after the mid-term elections.[1] To achieve the bulk of this increase, the Democratic leadership need merely do nothing: The tax relief enacted a decade ago during a mild recession is scheduled to expire and Congress apparently intends to let this tax relief lapse in 2011 coming out of a severe recession.

In the big picture raising taxes is not about the size of the deficit but about a vision for America and the appropriate size of government. Federal spending has exploded under President Obama. It now consumes around 25 percent of the economy, producing dangerous and unsustainable deficits. Either Congress and the President return spending to historically normal levels of about 20 percent of the economy, or taxes must go up dramatically. While the long-run budget picture remains the greater threat, current deficits are a severe and immediate threat that must be addressed very soon.

The state of the economy today plays an especially critical role in how Congress should respond. The unemployment rate hovers near 10 percent and is likely to remain highly elevated for years according to the Administration’s own economic forecast. The American economy seemed poised to recover earlier in the year, but is restrained by a number of factors internal to the economy such as ongoing weakness in the real estate market, factors external to the economy such as a potential slowing of export markets abroad, and especially by the broad erosion of business and consumer confidence due to policy threats from Washington. For all the talk of jobs, jobs, jobs, Washington policymakers appear singularly intent on inhibiting job creation. The Obama tax hike arising from the expiration of long-standing tax relief is but one example of many.

The Obama tax increase proposal should be denied. The arguments for defeating the tax increase and preserving current law are sound. Arguments for allowing any or all of the relief to lapse are flimsy or false. The sole substantive argument offered by proponents for the Obama tax hike is that it supports a vastly and permanently larger government presence in the lives of Americans, American communities, American state governments, and the economy. This, however, is a vision of a less prosperous America, a less free America. In short, it is the wrong vision for America.

Tax Relief Erased Excessive Tax Burdens

Contrary to claims by big-government advocates, the 2001 and 2003 tax relief did not strip the government of its normal tax revenues. In 2000, federal receipts breeched $2 trillion and set a post-war high of 20.6 percent of the U.S. economy, just as the economy began to slide into recession. Having campaigned on tax relief to restore the level of taxation to its historical share of between 18 and 19 percent, President Bush was well prepared and the Congress enacted his program of sweeping tax relief mid-year 2001. Unwisely, Congress chose to phase in the tax relief, so the economic recovery remained anemic. Correcting its error two years later, Congress made the 2001 relief immediately effective and added important new pro-growth elements of dividend and capital gains rate relief. It worked. Over the next 12 months the economy surged by 4 percent and the recovery was well underway.

By 2007, total federal receipts had recovered along with the economy. As the unemployment rate fell from its recession high of 6.3 percent in June 2003 to 4.6 percent in June 2007, receipts hit $2.6 trillion, far above the previous highs, while the tax share returned to a more normal 18.5 percent. The 2008–2009 recession reduced tax receipts dramatically once again, yet Obama Administration figures indicate that even absent any tax hikes federal receipts would reach $3.7 trillion by 2016, more than a trillion dollars above their previous highs. Perhaps more telling, the federal tax share would soon return to the 18.5 percent of the economy last attained in 2007, while rising further as the decade progresses.

In nominal terms, economic growth will again push federal tax receipts to yearly highs as soon as 2012 according to Administration figures. Yet despite this rapid growth in receipts, the federal government is projected to run massive deficits of more than $1.4 trillion in 2009, 2010, and 2011, and deficits are projected to remain at about a trillion dollars a year through the end of the decade. The reason deficit projections are so high is that spending growth has and is projected to continue to outstrip revenue growth by a wide margin. As the problem begins and ends with excessive spending, solutions to the budget deficit should likewise begin, and end, with spending reductions.

Proponents of raising taxes have offered many straw man arguments and myths to support their case. While sometimes clever and well-presented, they remain myths just the same.

STRAW MAN: Extending current tax policy will not stimulate the economy.

REALITY: While extending current tax policy will provide at most a modest boost to the economy, raising taxes will slow down recovery.

Will extending current tax policy (and therefore abstaining from raising taxes) stimulate the economy? Not significantly, and no serious proponent of lower taxes and a smaller government would argue the contrary.

This is a straw man argument because continuing current policy cannot add much stimulus. To stimulate the economy substantially there must be some new and effective policy, such as a reduction in the corporate tax rate or further increases in the amount of investment a small business can deduct immediately. The admittedly modest stimulus from extending current tax policy would stem from erasing the debilitating threat hanging over all business decisions that their taxes will jump. The real issue is not whether extending current policy would be a powerful stimulus—it would not—but how much damage a massive tax hike would inflict on a weak economy. It’s not whether tax policy presses harder on the accelerator, but whether Washington will slam on the brakes.

MYTH: Preventing a tax hike is a tax cut.

FACT: Extending the 2001–2003 tax provisions is not a tax cut; the failure to extend any of these provisions as Obama proposes is a tax hike.

It is absurd to suggest that extending current policy is a tax cut. The facts are plain: The failure to extend current tax policy would impose massive tax hikes on millions of Americans. Preserving current tax policy cannot, therefore, be a tax cut. The confusion is perpetuated by a long-standing, distorted, and misleading Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scoring convention.

The Obama Administration and outgoing Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag deserve credit for instituting a balanced and accurate presentation of the facts in its very first budget submission and more recently in the “Mid-Session Review.”[2] In its current policy baseline the Obama Administration assumes expiring spending provisions like the highway program and appropriations programs will be extended. Thus spending levels are presented assuming the current level of services will be maintained. New spending proposals are treated as additions or subtractions to current policy. This is a sensible approach.

In like manner, the Obama Administration’s current policy revenue baseline assumes that expiring tax provisions will be extended. In other words, current policy is extended, while new proposals are shown as deviations from the current policy baseline. His proposal to raise the individual income tax rate, for example, is shown as raising revenue.

CBO, in contrast, persists in presenting an asymmetric treatment, assuming expiring spending provisions will be extended while expiring tax provisions will be allowed to lapse. Consequently, the revenue baseline fails to reflect an assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax relief would be extended. Therefore, proposals to extend the relief appear in the CBO and Joint Tax Committee revenue tables as reductions in revenue. This sort of scoring perversity is indefensible, yet CBO has refused to correct its conventions, leaving policymakers with a very distorted picture of the budget and a distorted interpretation of policy.

MYTH: An extension of the tax cuts must be paid for.

FACT: It is neither necessary nor logical to raise taxes to avoid a tax hike elsewhere.

The expression of the “fact” in this case may seem so obvious as to be perplexing. But that is the point here: The argument the tax hike proponents are making is so nonsensical that when expressed simply, its absurdity is inescapable. If true tax relief were under consideration, in the context of the current outsized budget deficits one could argue the tax relief should be offset within the budget, preferably with suitable spending reductions. But, as noted, extending current tax policy is not a tax cut. It is the prevention of a tax hike, and therefore there is no basis for arguing that extending current policy needs to be offset with other budgetary savings.

Many commentators demonstrate a noteworthy inconsistency in this area. A wide range of tax provisions expire at the end of 2010. These include, for example, a doubling of the child tax credit to $1,000, marriage penalty relief, and the 10 percent tax bracket, in addition to the higher rates on individual income and the higher rates on capital gains and dividends. If one argues that extending the higher income tax rates and capital gains and dividend tax rates must be paid for, then the same must apply to the lower-income and middle-income tax provisions, such as the higher child tax credit. To put these figures into context: Whereas the Obama tax hikes total some $628 billion over 10 years, the balance of the tax provisions that would then have to be paid for would require about $2.4 trillion in offsets over 10 years.

MYTH: Higher tax rates would not weaken the economy in the short run.

FACT: Higher tax rates would sap the recovery.

Proponents of the Obama tax hikes argue they would do little damage to the economy in the short run. It is important not to overstate the matter—the Obama tax hikes would not by themselves cause a depression, nor would they tip a strong economy into a recession. But raising taxes on work and investment will mean less work and less investment—which, in the context of an unemployment rate hovering around 10 percent and monetary authorities exploring new ways to prop up a faltering economy—can only be regarded as an overtly hostile anti-jobs policy.

When it comes to incentives, proponents of big government can never seem to keep their story straight. They understand raising taxes on tobacco inhibits cigarette sales. They argue for various penalties in the areas of labor law and the environment, as well as for consumer protections, to encourage good behavior on the part of employers, manufacturers, and service providers. They support subsidies for alternative energies to encourage the production of otherwise wholly uneconomic fuels. More generally they adamantly support a wide range of incentive carrots and sticks to shift the economy away from fossil fuels, going so far as to advocate the creation of an artificial market via a cap-and-trade scheme so producers can see and respond to the incentives presented by a market price charged to emit pollutants. But the proponents of all these behavior-distorting policies inexplicably lapse into programmed denial when it comes to the most basic of economic incentives— the after-tax earnings incentives to work, to save, to invest, to take risks, to start a new business—and the obvious influence marginal tax rates have on those incentives.

MYTH: Small businesses would be only marginally affected by higher taxes rates.

FACT: Successful, growing, hiring small businesses are especially targeted by higher tax rates.

Another popular myth offered to sustain the Obama tax hikes is that higher tax rates would fall on too few small businesses to matter. While less than 2 percent of tax returns reporting small-business income would be subject to the higher tax rates Obama proposes, there is much more to the story.

Millions of American taxpayers earn a few bucks on the side. Sometimes the extra income is from a lucrative hobby; sometimes the work is more serious. Millions of these sideliners are honest enough to report their earnings as small-business income. But they are not small businesses in the traditional sense. They have no employees. They have no fixed place of business. They do not offer services widely.

True small businesses have employees. They invest in machinery. They offer goods and services widely. And the successful ones earn significant sums to compensate for the risks of running the business and to earn a return on capital invested, typically plowing those earnings back into the business so it can expand further by investing more money and hiring more workers. And because they earn significant sums, successful small businesses earn the bulk of small business income. So, while only a small portion of taxpayers reporting small-business income would face Obama’s higher rates, those facing the higher rates are the successful and expanding small businesses that create new jobs the economy needs to grow. According to a survey by the National Association of Independent Business, the businesses most likely to face Obama’s higher rates are those employing between 20 and 250 workers. Raising rates on successful small businesses is a big part of the reason why the Obama tax hikes would hurt the economy.

Myth: Tax rates matter little in the long run.

Fact: Tax rates have their most powerful effects on long-run growth and wages.

Additional tax rate reduction would benefit the economy as it struggles to recover, in contrast to the ineffectual profusion of debt adopted by President Obama and his congressional allies. However, lower tax rates on productive activity have their greatest effects on productivity and wage gains in the long run as workers and businesses respond to and plan on the improved returns to economic effort.

For example, allowing the tax relief to lapse, especially the higher tax rates on individual income, on dividends, and on capital gains, would drive up the hurdle rate or required pre-tax return for new investment. Businesses generally face an array of investment opportunities and levels. They determine which investments to pursue by comparing the expected pre-tax return on each investment with the firm’s internal hurdle rate after accounting for risk and taxes. The higher the tax rate, the higher the hurdle rate, the fewer of the possible investments that make the cut and so the less investment a business will undertake.

These effects take time to manifest, however, because major business investments typically require extended evaluation and planning. Also, businesses already have certain levels of productive equipment in place and more on order. A hurdle rate driven higher by higher tax rates may significantly reduce the company’s target level of capacity, but the company will rarely respond by unloading excess equipment. Rather, the company will shrink its operations over time as equipment becomes worn out or obsolete and not replaced. In the short run, this means a sizable drop in business investment and real economic growth; over the long run it means less capital employed in the economy, less productivity growth, less wage growth, and less competitiveness in global markets.

Similarly, while workers can and do respond quickly to changes in tax rates, a full response requires an extended period. For example, Obama’s proposed higher tax rates will drive many two-earner couples with children to decide that one parent should leave the workforce and raise the children. However, the couple may hold off with this decision for a while to adjust the family’s finances to reflect the reduction in after-tax family income.

MYTH: The country cannot afford not to raise taxes.

FACT: The problem is spending, not revenues. The country cannot afford to let current spending levels continue.

Supporters of the Obama tax hikes sometimes argue the nation cannot afford not to raise taxes. This argument perpetuates two false mindsets. The first is that the level of tax collections under present law is unusually low. As noted above, taxes as a share of the economy will soon return to, or exceed, the historical average, reaching 18.5 percent in 2012 and rising thereafter. While the level of tax collections is exceptionally depressed in 2010, this is due to the recession and its effects on taxable income.

The second false mindset runs deeper, as it reflects a point of view regarding the proper relationship between the citizen and the state. This point of view suggests that the foregone tax revenues properly belong to the government and that taxpayers are being granted a favor of some kind in being allowed to keep more of their own money. Raising taxes is not just a bookkeeping exercise: This money is the taxpayer’s property and government is taking it.

The federal government is currently running, and is projected to continue to run, unsustainable near-term deficits which serve as a bridge to long-standing, unsustainable long-term deficits. The nation cannot afford these deficits, and the economy cannot afford vastly higher taxes—which means it cannot afford to continue spending at current levels. In a strict mathematical sense, unsustainable budget deficits can be met with equal effectiveness through tax increases or spending reductions. But rampant federal spending created unsustainable deficits and spending should be cut to restore a sound fiscal policy.

MYTH: The Obama tax hikes would alleviate the long-term budget crisis.

FACT: The Obama tax hikes, while enormous in their own right, are almost inconsequential compared to the size of the unfunded spending in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Tax hike proponents sometimes suggest the nation’s long-term fiscal problems are largely due to inadequate revenues. The facts say otherwise. To begin, the nation’s long-term fiscal problems deriving from unaffordable benefit promises in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid were made long before President Obama took office. In fact, they were made long before President George W. Bush took office. True, Bush worsened Medicare’s plight with the enactment of the new Medicare drug benefit, but the drug benefit’s enactment occurred subsequent to and independent of the tax relief enacted in the past decade. Tax relief enacted a decade ago did not cause the long-run budget crisis arising from excessive entitlement spending.

Turning now to the data, according to the Administration’s figures, the tax relief in toto is projected to be about 1.6 percent of the economy in 2012, rising to about 2 percent by 2020. In 2000, the level of taxation reached 20.6 percent of the economy, fell to a more normal 18.5 percent in 1997, and is projected to return to 18.5 percent by 2016. In contrast, the CBO projects that federal spending will reach 24.3 percent in 2010, and rise to 27.6 percent by 2035, whereas the normal level is around 20 percent.[3] In short, revenues will soon return to normal levels as a share of the economy, rising steadily thereafter, while spending is vastly higher than normal today due to President Obama’s spending policies, and is projected to rise rapidly in coming years as entitlement spending accelerates.

MYTH: A strong economy will solve America’s budget woes.

FACT: A strong economy will help, but only aggressive spending reductions will restore a sound fiscal policy.

A strong economy is necessary to begin to drive down the unemployment rate and create opportunities for America’s workers and families. A strong economy would also rapidly increase the flow of revenues into federal coffers, helping to bring down the deficit. A strong economy will not, by itself, restore a sound fiscal policy.

Federal receipts are projected to be about 15 percent of the economy in 2010, whereas the normal level of receipts is between 18 percent and 19 percent. If and when the Obama Administration calls a truce to its anti-growth policies and allows the economic recovery to flourish, revenues will quickly return to normal levels as the Obama Administration projects. However, even under its rosy spending projections the Administration expects spending to remain around 23 percent of the economy. With a maximum sustainable deficit of about 2 percent of the economy, that leaves an excess budget deficit of about 3 percent of the economy, or more than $400 billion in 2010.

This also suggests the only viable solution for the budget deficit. A strong economic recovery is a necessary condition for a sustainable near-term budget. Higher taxes would weaken the recovery dramatically, and so whatever progress on deficit reduction one expected from higher taxes would be long delayed, along with the job creation the nation needs. Thus, the only practical alternative that can restore a sound fiscal policy consistent with a strong recovery is a significant reduction in spending.

MYTH: President Bush intended the tax cuts to expire.

FACT: The tax cuts were intended to be permanent and were enacted on a temporary basis solely to overcome a parliamentary hurdle.

One of the oddest and newest myths surrounding the 2001–2003 tax relief is that President Bush and Congress conspired for the tax relief to expire 10 years after its enactment. It is impossible to construct a conspiracy to explain such a policy without quickly falling into the valley of the absurd. Nevertheless, a brief review of the record is in order.

President Bush proposed permanent tax relief. He did so during the campaign and as President, and he did so because he believed, correctly, that taxes had risen too high, because permanent tax relief would be more effective in strengthening the economy in the short run and for the long haul, and because stability is inherently good in a tax code. Many in Congress also preferred permanent tax relief. However, to overcome certain parliamentary hurdles in Congress it proved necessary to pass the legislation under what is called “reconciliation,” and tax relief enacted under reconciliation automatically expires after 10 years. In every budget President Bush submitted in the following years he proposed that Congress make the tax relief permanent.

Conclusion

The nation is engaged in a profound debate over the proper size and scope of government. Under President Obama, the size and scope of government has expanded radically, along with the level of federal spending. The resulting budget deficits are unsustainable and pose a severe and immediate threat to the economy. The President and his allies are now calling for the higher taxes necessary to pay for this new spending. Allowing some or all of the 2001–2003 tax cuts to expire would be merely a small down payment on the sums necessary to sustain current spending levels.

Suggesting such a massive tax hike to underwrite current bloated spending levels is inappropriate under any circumstances, but when the economy is perilously close to recession and deflation such suggestions are grossly irresponsible. The only responsible solution to the budget deficit that would be both effective and consistent with a strong economic recovery is to cut spending significantly, returning it to historically normal levels. Spending during the Clinton Administration averaged almost 20 percent of the economy. Spending during the Bush Administration averaged about the same. Reducing federal spending from the current level of 25 percent to the levels prevalent during the Bush and Clinton Administrations would fully address the short-run budget problems.

Obama and his allies have increased spending radically. A sound, responsible budget policy absent tax hikes does not demand radically lower levels of spending. It only requires reversing Obama’s radical spending. Congress should make current tax policy permanent, as President Bush originally proposed—and then get about the business of paring government spending to sustainable levels.

—J. D. Foster, Ph.D., is Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

LaRouche supporter assaulted by Alaska State Fair Security

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppBZM88mHvQ&feature=player_embedded


From Kyle Hopkins in Anchorage, Alaska --

This 10-minute clip of a protester with a Lyndon LaRouche "Impeach Obama Now" sign clashing with state fair security appeared yesterday on YouTube and is gaining buzz this morning.

What we know so far: The man in the video is Sidney Hill, 52, and he has been arrested by Palmer police for assault, disorderly conduct and criminal mischief.

That according to Palmer police commander Thomas Remaley, who says Hill had a handgun that police seized for evidence and "safekeeping."

“He’s probably legal to have a gun, but you’re not allowed to have a gun at the fairgrounds, so they would have taken it away from him," Remaley said.

Hill was taken to Mat-Su pretrial in Palmer with bail set at $500. He was arraigned this afternoon but had not posted bail as of 2 p.m. today.

I'm trying to reach the private security firm seen in the video.

What exactly launched this encounter? Are fairgoers with political signs always asked to leave?

“It is private property, open to the public. They get to determine their rules," Remaley said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE: Fair marketing director Dean Phipps says the fair has an unwritten policy against people campaigning in common areas of the fairgrounds.

If people want to deliver a political message -- on abortion or Pebble Mine, for example -- they're expected to rent a booth and follow vendor guidelines, he said.

As for the security guards? Did they go too far?

Phipps defended the use of force seen in the clip.

“The initial attempt was to educate him and let him know what the rules were, and he became belligerent. They felt that they were assaulted ... and then responded to that.”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Troopers spokeswoman Megan Peters said the trooper who appears partway through the clip was off duty.

More soon.

If you saw what happened yesterday, give me a call at 257-4334 or e-mail khopkins@adn.com.



Read more: http://community.adn.com/adn/node/152921#ixzz0y6YMTQMn

Obama: Muslim missionary? Part 3

Posted: August 30, 20101:00 am Eastern© 2010

In response to the Pew Research Center poll that indicated one in five Americans think President Obama is a Muslim, a week ago the White House released a rebuttal insisting that the president is "a committed Christian."

Those words remind me of those from President Teddy Roosevelt, who said, "Rhetoric is a poor substitute for action, and we have trusted only to rhetoric. If we are really to be a great nation, we must not merely talk; we must act big."

Even more apropos, Christianity's founder, Jesus Christ, said we would be able to distinguish authentic Christian leaders from false ones not by what they say but "by their fruit [or actions] you will recognize them."

And Obama's actions are again our focus here in Part 3.

In Part 1, I began to demonstrate how the President is using U.S. Special Envoy Rashad Hussain, his own presidential position and others in his administration to deepen and expand the partnerships between the United States and the religion of Islam.

In Part 2, I detailed Obama's real spiritual beliefs based upon a rare in-depth 2004 interview by a religious reporter for a major newspaper publication, including his beliefs about prayer, sin, heaven, the Bible and the person of Jesus.

Now, in Part 3, I will demonstrate how Obama categorically has been prejudicial in his treatment of Islam versus Christianity.

My question is: Just as Obama committed for Muslims in Cairo in 2009, why doesn't he also consider it his responsibility to "fight against negative stereotypes" of Christianity "wherever they appear" too, especially since the majority in Americans still profess affinity with Christendom, and he claims to be "a committed Christian"?

As president, why doesn't he defend the rights of Christians too, especially those whose voice and freedoms have been suppressed because of opposition?

In just the last few months, why didn't the president step forward and stand up publicly for any of the following Christians who had their First Amendment rights trampled upon by others, just as he had done for Muslims who are attempting to build the Ground Zero mosque?

• 
  Why doesn't the president stand up for the rights of Christian organizations, whose rights to hire same faith or mission-minded employees are protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment, but are right now having to urge Congress to reject legislation that would prohibit them from hiring only fellow believers?
• 
  Why didn't the president stand up for the rights of the North Carolina pastor who was fired from his duties as an honorary chaplain of the state house of representatives after he closed a prayer "in the name of Jesus"?
  
• Why didn't the president stand up for the rights of those in Utah who erected 14 memorial crosses on highways for state troopers killed in the line of duty, but were told by federal judges they are to come down because they are unconstitutional?
  
• Why didn't the president himself stand up for the human rights of the Christian missionaries and medical team in Afghanistan, including six Americans, to practice medicine and their faith, even after they were murdered by Islamic extremists? Wouldn't other medical missionaries in Afghanistan appreciate Obama's defense more now than ever?
  
• Why didn't the president stand up for the four missionaries arrested at an Arab festival in Dearborn, Mich., just for exercising their freedom of speech and religion?
  
• Why didn't the president stand up for the rights of the Rev. Franklin Graham, the son of the Rev. Billy Graham, who was disinvited from a Pentagon prayer service on the National Day of Prayer because of his "extremist" Christian views and values?
  
• Why didn't the president stand up for the rights of the Christian student who was booted from her graduate counseling program at a public university over her belief and conviction that homosexuality is morally wrong?
  
• Why didn't the president stand up for the three Christian evangelists who were arrested for sharing the gospel and singing hymns on a public sidewalk outside an Islamic mosque in Philadelphia?
  
• And, mostly, why didn't the president stand up for the rights of the Greek Orthodox Church, the only church that was actually destroyed in the Sept. 11 attacks, as church leaders have been frustrated and fouled by New York officials who have virtually turned their backs on the reconstruction of the church near Ground Zero?
  

Gone are the days when even Thomas Jefferson, hailed as the great separatist who fought against the tyranny of denominational sectarianism in the state (and vice versa), nevertheless endorsed the use of government buildings (like the Capitol) for church services, signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that allotted federal money to support the building of a Catholic church and to pay the salary of the church's priests and repeatedly renewed legislation that gave land to the United Brethren to help their missionary activities among the Indians. He also fought for years against Muslim extremists who tried to threaten U.S. citizens and trade abroad in the Barbary wars.

Today, however, we have a president who, according to his own confession and 2009 Cairo creed, considers it "part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear" and create "partnership between America and Islam." (Notice again: a country and a religion, not a country and Arab states.) Moreover, Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference Rashad Hussain is being called to "deepen and expand the partnerships that the United States has pursued with Muslims around the world since President Obama's speech in Cairo last June."

And that's exactly what the president has done. In countless speeches and actions since taking office, Obama has sympathized and supported pro-Islamic ideologies and practice. That is why the New York Times even recently published a multiple-page report on how the "White House quietly courts Muslims in the U.S."

The U.S. State Department just reported, under the guise of "cultural affairs" and "Cultural Preservation 2010 Awards," that it is giving away U.S. taxpayer funds to 63 foreign historic and cultural sites in 55 nations, including $50,000 for an Islamic Monument in India, $76,000 for a 16th century mosque in China, $67,000 for a mosque in Pakistan and $77,000 to restore minarets (tall slender towers attached to Mosques) in Nigeria and Mauritania. Should the State Department even be funding any of these religious quests, especially when the U.S. is broke? (To be fair, they are also giving monies to restore early Christian Frescoes in Greece, 17th and 18th century church paintings in Peru, etc., too.).

Is it any surprise that another recent poll shows an increase in Jewish and Catholic citizens who more inclined to vote Republican in November?

If a self-proclaimed non-Muslim president would fight repeatedly for Muslims' religious rights to the degree that our president has, don't you think "a committed Christian" president would at least fight once for any antagonistic oppression of Christian faith and practice, too? Yet, on no occasion since taking office has President Obama stood up publicly for a single Christian individual, group, church, act or event, whom or which was being opposed or oppressed by others.

All of it makes me ponder the application of the verse in the biblical book of James, which says, "Faith without works is dead."

Even more apropos might be Quran 4:76: "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah."

Order Chuck's brand new book, "The Official Chuck Norris Fact Book: 101 of Chuck's Favorite Facts and Stories"

Obama: Muslim missionary? Part 2

Posted: August 23, 20101:00 am Eastern© 2010

Last week, the media, White House and nation were in a hullabaloo over a Pew Research Center poll which revealed that one in five Americans believe President Obama is a Muslim.

The poll received so much attention and response that the White House released a rebuttal reiterating that Obama is "a committed Christian."

The fact is, Americans are more baffled now by Obama's personal religion than they were when he first came into office.

John Green, University of Akron politics professor and senior fellow with the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, concluded, "I haven't seen any example, and I've been following polling of presidents for a long time now, of where we've seen increased confusion about religiosity the longer they're in office."

Part of the confusion comes, for example, when Obama doesn't make room to commemorate a National Day of Prayer with prominent Christian leaders or even spend time with the God-centered Boy Scouts of America at their national jamboree (as preceding presidents have), but he doesn't miss hosting the Muslim Iftar Ramadan dinner at the White House or pass up the chance to fight for the rights of Muslims to construct an Islamic mosque near Ground Zero.

At times, Obama has given pointed responses about his faith in Christ. At other times, he comes across ambiguous and even clueless about his faith. Still, at other times, he is downright condescending about the Christian faith.

With all the confusion and quandaries about Obama's religion lately, I rearranged the order of this four-part series to detail today exactly what Obama believes, including his beliefs about prayer, sin, heaven, the Bible and the person of Jesus, based upon a rare in-depth interview by a religious reporter of a major newspaper publication.

By far, the best documentation of Obama's faith comes from this rare in-depth interview on March 27, 2004, when he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate. In it, Obama gave often lengthy responses about his faith and practice to a series of questions from then Chicago Sun Times religion reporter Cathleen Falsani, though he often seems confused and even obtuse in his replies.
To the question do you pray often, Obama replied: "Uh, yeah, I guess I do."

"Guess"? Not sure?

When asked if he has read the Bible, Obama responded: "Absolutely. [But] These days I don't have much time for reading or reflection, period. … I'll be honest with you, I used to all the time, in a fairly disciplined way. But during the course of this campaign, I don't."

"I don't"?

In answering reporter Falsani's question, "Is there an example of a role model who combines everything you said you want do in your life, and your faith?" Obama's first response was, "I think Gandhi is a great example of a profoundly spiritual man."

Gandhi? A Hindu? How about Jesus, since Obama claims to be a "committed Christian"?

Regarding sin, Obama defined it as: "Being out of alignment with my values."

Mr. President, "your values," or God's values? Sin is transgression of God's law – period.

And here is Barack Obama's response when asked pointedly, "Who's Jesus to you?" Immediately after the question, Obama laughed nervously. Then, after a rather sarcastic, "Right," he proceeded, "Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he's also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher. And he's also a wonderful teacher. I think it's important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history."

Could that "reaching something higher" possibly be heaven?

In answering the question on whether he believed in a literal heaven or not, Obama retorted: "Do I believe in the harps and clouds and wings? … What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don't presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die."

Obama went on in that same 2004 interview to explain his faith in these flip-flopping, relative, all-inclusive, New Age and even secular terms: "I am a Christian. … On the other hand, I was born in Hawaii where obviously there are a lot of Eastern influences. I lived in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, … I believe that there are many paths to the same place, … I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I'm not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I've got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others. … I'm a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at its best comes with a big dose of doubt. I'm suspicious of too much certainty. [T]here's an enormous amount of damage done around the world in the name of religion and certainty. … I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. … That's just not part of my religious makeup."

No wonder that, when asked to describe the moment at which he went forward in response to an altar call in his and Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church in 1987 or 1988, Obama said: "I think it was just a moment to certify or publicly affirm a growing faith in me."

"I think it was"? Not sure again?

No wonder Americans are confused about Obama's religion, because he himself sounds confused about it.

Probably most revealing here are Obama's words to reporter Falsani about his modus operandi: "Part of the reason I think it's always difficult for public figures to talk about [their religious belief] is that the nature of politics is that you want to have everybody like you and project the best possible traits onto you. Oftentimes that's by being as vague as possible, or appealing to the lowest common denominators. The more specific and detailed you are on issues as personal and fundamental as your faith, the more potentially dangerous it is."

If "being as vague as possible" is Obama's political advice to himself and others, he sure hasn't followed it with either his presidential commitment to pro-Islamic brawls or in his past anti-Christian rants. Remember, this is the president who gave this 2009 Cairo creed, emphatically stating to the Middle Eastern world that it was "part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

Yet, when it comes to Christianity, he has actually done just the opposite. Two years after his interview with Chicago Sun Times religion reporter Cathleen Falsani, on June 28, 2006, then-Sen. Obama publicly perpetuated negative stereotypes of Christianity and defamed the religion and the words of its founder. From the pulpit of a church, speaking to a live audience about religious diversity, Obama sarcastically belittled America's Judeo-Christian heritage and degraded its adherents with trite remarks typical of any atheistic antagonist, saying things like: "Whatever we were, we are no longer a Christian nation," "The dangers of sectarianism are greater than ever," "Religion doesn't allow for compromise," "The Sermon on the Mount [is] a passage that is so radical that our own defense department wouldn't survive its application" and "To base our policy making upon such commitments [as moral absolutes] would be a dangerous thing." (You must see the YouTube video: "Barack Obama on the importance of a secular government.")

That diatribe is nothing short of a pure unadulterated rallying cry for antagonists of Christianity.

And gone but not forgotten is Obama's religiously belittling statement on the campaign trail in April of 2008 about many residents in small-town America. You might recall, at a private California fundraiser, when he addressed the economic hardships of those in Pennsylvania, he criticized them by saying: "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. … And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion … as a way to explain their frustrations."

And to which "religion" was Obama negatively referring? Islam? Christianity, of course.

And the whole time I consider Obama's anti-Christian diatribes and religious rubbish, I keep coming back to the words of President George Washington in his presidential Farewell Address, advice our current president would be wise especially now to heed: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them."

"A committed Christian"?

I guess I completely don't understand what the word "committed" means.

Order Chuck's brand new book, "The Official Chuck Norris Fact Book: 101 of Chuck's Favorite Facts and Stories"

Obama: Muslim missionary? Part 1

Posted: August 16, 20101:00 am Eastern© 2010

Unlike any other time in U.S. history, our First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion are in jeopardy. As if recently passed "hate-crime" laws and a politically correct culture weren't bad enough, now our president is using international pressure and possibly law to establish a prohibition against insulting Islam or Muslims.

Let me remind us how we got here.

Speaking for most founders in his day, John Jay, America's first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, appointed by George Washington himself, said, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Two hundred years later, President Obama has already denied America's rich Judeo-Christian heritage before the eyes and ears of other countries, as he publicly declared in Turkey on April 6, 2009, for the whole world to hear: "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."

Then there was Cairo in June 2009, when President Obama vowed to establish "a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world … I also know civilization's debt to Islam. … I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. … And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. … So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed."

He goes on to say, "That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

That last line is really one of the most unique U.S. presidential religious passions and missions stated to date: "And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

Another big question is: What did the president mean when he said, "That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't"? It makes no sense at all to refer to a partnership between a country and religion – America and Islam. Why not say partnership between America and Muslim nations or a partnership between Americans and Muslims or even a partnership between Christianity and Islam? That comment is very strange to me and has a much deeper meaning.

Roughly six months later, in February 2010, Obama appointed Rashad Hussain to serve as his special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, or OIC, an inter-governmental body of 56 Muslim countries that also forms an official body represented in the United Nations. (Where is the same treatment from this White House for countries that uphold Judeo-Christian values to unite and have the same treatment that allows them to form an official body represented in the U.N.? Or any religion, for that matter? There's something rotten in the state of Denmark!)

Obama rejoiced, "I'm proud to announce today that I am appointing my special envoy to the OIC – Rashad Hussain. As an accomplished lawyer and a close and trusted member of my White House staff, Rashad has played a key role in developing the partnerships I called for in Cairo. And as a hafiz of the Quran, he is a respected member of the American Muslim community, and I thank him for carrying forward this important work."

In 2007, then President George W. Bush explained the initial purpose for a OIC representative: "Our special envoy will listen to and learn from representatives from Muslim states, and will share with them America's views and values. This is an opportunity for Americans to demonstrate to Muslim communities our interest in respectful dialogue and continued friendship."

But Obama has considerably upped the OIC ante. Today, the White House purports from its website that special envoy, Muslim and hafiz of the Quran, Rashad Hussain, "will deepen and expand the partnerships that the United States has pursued with Muslims around the world since President Obama's speech in Cairo last June."

Again, notice the differences between the Bush and Obama plans with the special OIC envoy: from Bush's mission to "listen and learn from representatives" to Obama's mission to "deepen and expand the partnerships."

The OIC members (including U.S. Special Envoy Rashad Hussain) pledge to its charter mission to rid the world of "the defamation of religion." But the "defamation of religion" translates to mean "defamation of Islam." An article on the OIC website explains, "Western foreign policy is considered to be the single most significant factor determining the attitudes of many Muslims toward the West. … Unfortunately, Islam often conjures in the Western minds images of authoritarian government, subjugation of women, cruel punishments of Shariah law and violence in the popular Western mind."

"Unfortunately"?!

The world also just learned recently from the assistant secretary for public affairs in the State Department, P.J. Crowley, that the White House has repeatedly sent out as an American ambassador of peace the Islamic fundamentalist and executive director of the Ground Zero mosque, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is being sponsored by the U.S. State Department for repeated trips to the Middle East, where he is teaching on Muslim life in America and promoting religious tolerance.

But doesn't one who called the U.S. an "accessory" to Sept. 11 just a few weeks after the tragic event and one who still refuses to call Hamas a foreign terrorist organization seem a strange choice for a U.S. ambassador of peace who promotes religious tolerance?

It is absolutely no surprise, therefore, though gravely unfortunate and disappointing for our commander in chief to blurt out last Friday night, while celebrating the holy month of Ramadan at a White House dinner, that he is in favor of building the mosque near Ground Zero!

The president explained the next day, "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about."

White House spokesman Bill Burton reiterated the next day about Obama's stance on constructing the mosque: "Just to be clear, the president is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night. It is not his role as president to pass judgment on every local project. But it is his responsibility to stand up for the constitutional principle of religious freedom and equal treatment for all Americans. What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that if a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque."

But I could not agree more with Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son was killed at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11: "As an Obama supporter, I really feel that he's lost sight of the germane issue, which is not about freedom of religion. It's about a gross lack of sensitivity to the 9/11 families and to the people who were lost."

And Debra Burlingame, a spokeswoman for some Sept. 11 families and the sister of one of the pilots killed in the attacks, summed it up perfectly: "Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America's heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see."

Obama is not just rebooting America's image in the Muslim world. He's deepening and expanding Islamic belief, practice, culture around the world, like a Muslim missionary.

(Next week in Part 2, I will discuss how the Obama administration has changed course in just this past year regarding passing anti-First Amendment defamation of religion resolutions, as well as demonstrate how Obama has been prejudice in his treatment of Islam versus Christianity).

Order Chuck's brand new book, "The Official Chuck Norris Fact Book: 101 of Chuck's Favorite Facts and Stories"

Lindsay Lohan Poisoned! Along with 300 Million Other Americans

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel#p/u

China, Not U.S., Likely to Benefit from Afghanistan's Mineral Riches

Daily Finance

By CHARLES WALLACE

Posted 1:20 PM 06/14/10 Economy, Investing


Although the U.S. government has spent more than $940 billion on the conflict in Afghanistan since 2001, a treasure trove of mineral deposits, including vast quantities of industrial metals such as lithium, gold, cobalt, copper and iron, are likely to wind up going to Russia and China instead of American firms.

The New York Times reported Monday that U.S. officials and American geologists have found an estimated $1 trillion worth of mineral deposits that have yet to be exploited in the country. The paper said a Pentagon report called Afghanistan potentially "the Saudi Arabia of lithium," a key component in batteries for cellphones, laptop computers and eventually, a plug-in fleet of electric cars.

But while the United States and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries are providing the bulk of the security for Afghanistan -- U.S. troop levels are set to rise to 100,000 by year's end -- the firms that are profiting from the resource boom are primarily Chinese, and to a lesser extent, Russian.

"China has an absolute advantage in Afghanistan as far as resource development goes," says James R. Yeager, a Tucson, Ariz., consultant who worked as an adviser to the Afghan Ministry of Mines.

Murky Deals, Bribes and State Support

In December, 2007, China's state-owned China Metallurgical Group Corp. (MCC) signed a $2.9 billion agreement with the Kabul government to extract copper from the Aynak deposit, one of the world's largest unexploited copper deposits with an estimated 240 million tons of ore.

The Washington Post, quoting a U.S. intelligence official, reported that the Afghan minister of mines was accused of taking approximately $30 million in bribes from the Chinese company in exchange for the contract. The minister denied the charge and said the Chinese firm had offered the best deal.

Yeager produced a 78-page investigation into the Aynak deal, which he described as a "murky and insufficient tender process." He said a number of sources have come forward since the report was written to confirm that bribes were paid to Afghan officials at clandestine meetings in Dubai in the Aynak tender process.

Yeager says that transparency may no longer be such a big problem because a new minister of mines has taken office and has vowed to clean up the systematic corruption. Now the problem is the way the Kabul government interprets the mining laws.

The law says that if you buy land and acquire exploration rights, then you can go right into a mining license," Yeager says. " But the government of Afghanistan says if you go out and explore and find something, you can give it back to us and we'll tender it. No one will put up their risk capital just to turn the deposit over to the Chinese."

Chinese, Russian Firms Don't Explore

Yeager also said the cozy relationship between the Russian and Chinese governments and Russian and Chinese mining firms gave them a major advantage over Western firms in winning mining licenses.

MCC, for example, is 44% owned by the Chinese government. When MCC entered into negotiations with the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, it offered substantial aid for resource development as part of the package, Yeager says. The United States, on the other hand, has no program to support U.S. mining companies with development assistance or other aid.

The irony is that it is U.S. government geologists and Western companies that are locating the vast mineral deposits that the Chinese and Russians are exploiting in Afghanistan.

"The problem with the Chinese is that they are developers of resources and not explorers of resources," Yeager says. "They will look at projects where they already have a reserve in place and then go out and buy it. They don't spend the risk capital and the exploration dollars."

According to Yeager, the countries that are doing the most exploration are Australia and Canada. But they also don't pay bribes to local officials or provide vast amounts of state aid to the government in return for valuable mining licenses.

Tagged: afghanistan, America, Aynak, bribe, china, copper, gold, iron, Kabul, karzai, lithium, MCC

Replace the IRS With The Fair Tax

The following is a KSCO commentary. Here is Kay Zwerling:

This commentary was broadcast about eight years ago. And so now it is a clarification of the fair tax because once again some national leaders are attempting to replace the IRS with the fair tax. I believe it is a worthy change for our government, and surely much more fair for all citizens.

It is well known that the only constants in life are death and taxes. Death is not negotiable, but taxes are, at least in a sense that they could be made more equitable. The IRS taxing system is unwieldy, unfair, old-fashioned, and overburdened, but it is here and we are stuck with it because no political leaders will step forward to suggest changes and follow through on those changes. The IRS is like a mini city which supports thousands of employees. Only when enough citizens demand of our government representatives that it is way past time for a change, will anything happen. When a system is so unjust that large corporations making millions of dollars are legally able to use government sanctioned loopholes so they pay no taxes whatsoever, it is time for a change. Will it happen? Probably not. Too many thousands work for the IRS and will be displaced. So, what? The rest of us, the little people who have been carrying the load all these years, we are tired of it all.

To replace the federal income tax, it has been suggested that there be a fair tax, which is essentially a sales tax. The so-called fair tax has been bandied about for some time. Briefly, fair taxation is dedicated to fully replacing all the revenue generated under the current federal income tax system with a single rate. There are 27 benefits from the fair tax, and here are a number of them:

You keep 100% of your pay and pension.
You never file a tax return.
No more IRS.
No audits of citizens.
It has the lowest overall tax rate of any tax system.
It eliminates all marriage tax penalties.
All taxpayers are treated fairly.
No loopholes for anyone or any corporations.
Social Security benefits will no longer be taxed.
No taxes for buying necessities for your family.
Average family incomes will soar more than ten percent.
No taxes on the poor. They may be provided with credit cards exempting them from taxes for all purchases.
Mortgage rates will drop between 20-30%.
Small businesses would never have to track income, payroll tax withholdings, or deductions.
Even criminals will pay taxes when spending their ill-gotten gains.
Those who take the most out of society by consuming more pay the most in taxes.
Individuals will have more control. People can make choices about how much they want to pay in taxes by deciding when and what to buy.
Used goods are not taxed.
Tax evasion will decrease. It is impossible to hide consumption.
And finally, the fair tax is more suitable for the information age, the age of non-traceable transactions with the advent of the Internet.


For KSCO, this is Kay Zwerling.

© copyright 2010

Why Missouri has no illegal immigrates.

The following is a KSCO commentary. Here is Kay Zwerling:

This is called: Why Missouri has no illegal immigrates.

Kudos to Rae Williams for sharing this information.

If every State followed Missouri, illegal immigration would no longer be a U.S. problem.

Missouri’s approach to illegal immigration appears to be more advanced, sophisticated, strict, and effective than anything to date in Arizona.

When is Obama going to take action to require Missouri to start accepting illegal immigrants once again? Never.

Because there are no Mexican illegals in Missouri to demonstrate.

In 2007, Missouri placed on the ballot a proposed Constitutional Amendment designating English as the Official Language of Missouri. In November 2008, nearly 90% voted it in favor. Thus, English became the Official Language for all governmental activities in Missouri.

Also, in 2008, a measure was passed that required the Missouri Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be in Missouri illegally.

And again, in Missouri, illegal immigrants do not have access to taxpayers’ benefits such as food stamps and healthcare through Missouri Health Net.

In 2009, a measure was passed that insures Missouri’s public institutions of higher education to not award financial aid to individuals who are illegally in the U.S.

So, while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it is important to remember Missouri has been far more proactive in addressing this horrific problem. Missouri has made it clear that illegal immigrants are not welcome in the State and they will certainly not receive public benefits at the expense of Missouri taxpayers.

So, what happily happens? Illegals do not go to Missouri.

It appears that Obama picks and chooses which State to sue, so why wasn’t there a stink about this official English-only law for Missouri?

Kudos to the Show Me State for now showing us this bit of human wisdom (condoning or forgiving bad behavior with bleeding heart assistance of illegality does not produce good citizenship or gratitude – rather it creates contempt and false justification). Amnesty is destructive. Will we ever learn?

Obama – are you listening? We know you just want their votes.

For KSCO, this is Kay Zwerling.

© copyright 2010

Birthright Citizenship

By Mark Alexander · Thursday, August 26, 2010

Only if your mother was "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (Ciudadanía por Nacimiento -- sólo si su madre estaba sujeta a su jurisdicción)

"The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment." --George Washington

Coming to America Given the far-reaching implications of illegal immigration, and more recently the Left's objections to enforcing immigration law in border states like Arizona, the 14th Amendment of our Constitution is receiving some long-overdue attention.

Like every contemporary political debate, the questions raised concerning the meaning of the 14th Amendment are, essentially, about whether we are a nation subject to Rule of Law codified in our Constitution, or we are subjects under the rule of men, subject to a "living constitution" amended primarily by judicial diktat and legislative mischief, rather than amended by the people, as prescribed in Article V.

Does the 14th Amendment mean what its framers intended and the states ratified, or does it mean whatever the courts and Congress have construed it to mean today?

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which pertains to immigration and naturalization, reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

To discern the authentic meaning of this amendment as originally intended by its framers, we must first start with its plain language, and then further examine the context under which it was proposed and passed. Any debate about the authority of our Constitution must begin with First Principles , original intent.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States..."

This language is plain and easily understood.

"[A]nd subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

This language, too, is plain and easily understood, unless there is a contemporary Leftist political agenda, which does not comport with that understanding, in which case benefactors and beneficiaries of that agenda will interpret (read: misconstrue) it to fit their purposes.

So, what does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" actually mean? Beyond the apparent plain language definition, a factual interpretation is supported by the context in which this amendment was framed and ratified.

After the War Between the States, freedmen (former slaves) may have been liberated by Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, but they didn't enjoy the same rights as those who freed them. Though slaves were in the United States legally, and thus, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," they had no assurance of equal rights.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was designed to rectify this injustice by noting in part, "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. ... All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."

The first definition of "citizenship" in legal references is "nationality or legal status of citizenship."

The 1866 act defined "persons within the jurisdiction of the United States" as all persons at the time of its passage, born in the United States, including all slaves and their offspring.

However, concern that the Act might be overturned by a future Congress motivated its sponsors to make it more resistant to the arbitrary rule of men, so they proposed the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, which upon ratification, would protect the provision of the 1866 Act from legislatures and the courts.

Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard, one of two principal authors of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (the Citizenship Clause), noted that its provision, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," excluded American Indians who had tribal nationalities, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

According to University of Texas legal scholar Lino Graglia, the second author of the Citizenship Clause, Illinois Sen. Lyman Trumbull, added that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else."

Thus, in the plain language of its author, those who are not born to American citizens have no birthright to citizenship.

Despite the confidence of the 14th Amendment's authors that it wouldn't be subject to legislative and judicial mischief, subsequent generations of legislatures and judges have so twisted its plain language as to all but alienate it from its original intent -- as they have likewise done with the rest of our Constitution.

For that reason, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) is now proposing a measure to restore the original intent of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause by way of another amendment.

The problem is that Boehner and likeminded conservatives still erroneously rely on the Rule of Law, an assumption that our Constitution is still the Supreme Law of the land. Unfortunately, it has been thoroughly subordinated to the rule of men.

Where does that leave the birthright citizenship debate?

Today, more than 20 percent of all children born in the United States are born to those who have entered the United States unlawfully, and who are, by any authentic definition of the 14th Amendment, NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. because they are not citizens. Yet Barack Hussein Obama and his Socialist Bourgeoisie assert that the "anchor babies" of illegal immigrants are owed all the entitlements of an American citizen.

The near-term consequences of this fallacious assertion have dire implications for the future of Liberty, for the Rule of Law, and for the very survival of our nation. But this is consistent with Obama's "fundamental transformation" agenda to break the back of free enterprise, which is essential to liberty.

In 1776, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson proposed the national motto, "E pluribus unum" ("Out of many, one"), but that unity will not last much longer if we do not take dramatic action to restore the Rule of Law.

In 1919, Theodore Roosevelt penned these words: "We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Indeed.

Now, writes Graglia, "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry," making a child born to that immigrant "an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state."

For the record, according to both the Justice Department and Homeland Security, "A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment."

So, according to current laws and regulations, consistent with the original intent of both the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment as duly ratified on 9 July 1868, the child of a diplomat born in the United States, though that diplomat is legally on U.S. soil, has no birthright entitlement to citizenship.

However, according to Obama and his Leftist cadres, inconsistent with both the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, a child born to anyone who enters the U.S. illegally has a birthright entitlement to citizenship.

Which will it be, then: Rule of Law or the rule of Obama?

When America was God’s Country

The world looks toward America as the last hope for the free world. But, are we still the land of the free and home of the brave and is our motto still “In God We Trust?”

When America was God’s Country

By Calvin E. Johnson Jr. Friday, August 27, 2010

The United States of America is a vast melting pot of many people of different origins and religions….And, thank God, we are still free to worship at the church, synagogue or mosque of our choice as our nation celebrates her 234th birthday as an American-Christian Republic

But, today, some folks are questioning the wisdom, or lack of, in building a Mosque and Islamic Center near “Ground Zero” the sacred site where the World Trade Center was destroyed by terrorists on September 11, 2001. This is sacred-honored ground that some compare to the Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii where thousands were also senselessly killed.

Is this the same America of forty-five “45” years ago, when our nation celebrated the Civil War Centennial or over two-hundred “200” years ago, when our founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence? Are children still taught the words to the Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights?

Why do some of our Washington representatives, who are sworn to defend the Constitution and American people, criticize the State of Arizona for upholding the Constitution and protecting their people?

If only we had the values of the 1960s when….

Mothers, Fathers, Grandmas and Grandpas shared stories and words of wisdom with their children. The young folks were encouraged to live more constructive and fruitful lives by avoiding cigarettes, alcohol and drugs and obeying the laws of God—that are the Ten Commandments and the laws of man.

During 1961-65, America remembered the men of the Union Blue and Confederate Gray of the War Between the States and….

In 1965 people enjoyed quality time at the drive-in or in-door picture show to see such great movies as: “Shenandoah” starring James Stewart, “A High Wind in Jamaica” starring Anthony Quinn, “Von Ryan’s Express” starring Frank Sinatra, “The Sons of Katie Elder” starring John Wayne and the academy award winner “The Sound of Music” starring Julie Andrews. Veteran Movie Director Henry Koster was still making family film classics like: Dear Brigitte starring James Stewart and Glynis Johns.

Television shows during the autumn of 1965 were magnificently transcending from black and white to color, that included such shows as: “The Lawrence Welk Show” on ABC, “Daniel Boone” staring Fess Parker on NBC and “The Andy Griffith Show” also starring Don Knotts on CBS.

During the 1960s, presidents hardly ever apologized for America, the family attended church on Sunday and streets were safer even though firearms were easier to purchase.

The music scene of 1965 exploded with excitement with such entertainers as: the Beatles, the Supremes, the Dixie Cups, Elvis Presley, the Beach Boys, Paul Revere and the Raiders, Gary Lewis and the Playboys, Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons, Louis Armstrong, Tennessee Ernie Ford, George Jones and Loretta Lynn—to name a few.

In 1965, a Mother could safely leave her front door unlocked to go the store, school bands still played “Dixie” and everyone respected the fireman, policeman, paramedic, school teacher and soldier.

America has never been perfect but Capitalism, not Communism, has endured the test of time. When I was growing up, no one quoted former Communist or Socialist leaders. Americans quoted from great men like: George Washington, Sir Winston Churchill, Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee.

The world looks toward America as the last hope for the free world. But, are we still the land of the free and home of the brave and is our motto still “In God We Trust?”

Calvin E. Johnson, Jr., Speaker and Author of the book “When America Stood for God, Family and Country.”

Grounds for impeachment

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL

Documented: Grounds for impeachment
'This is the beginning of the end for the United States unless ... '

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 23, 2010
9:04 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Lying, bribing, subverting election laws, payoffs, aiding the nation's enemies, seeking the abrogation of the U.S. Constitution – which of these does not fall under the "high crimes and misdemeanors" required in the nation's founding documents for the removal of a sitting president, asks a new special report.

"The Case for Impeachment: Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America" by Steven Baldwin covers all of these issues and more in making its arguments.

"This is the beginning of the end for the United States unless the people exercise their precious remaining liberties and stand and demand that their elected representatives impeach this president before further mortal damage is inflicted upon America," the report concludes.

The author explains that the Founding Fathers enshrined the impeachment clause into the United States Constitution because they feared that a president intent on subverting the very principles upon which the American experiment was built would someday rise to power.

Get the details, in "The Case for Impeachment: Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America"

"Despite all the checks and balances and obstacles they put in place, the Founders knew a determined cabal could still gain control of all three branches of government and wield this consolidation of power to dismantle our cherished constitutional principles, and eradicate the freedoms that generations of Americans sacrificed their lives to preserve," he writes.

"Make no mistake: That day is now upon us."

In "The Case for Impeachment," Baldwin, a senior research fellow at the Western Journalism Center, says the issue of impeachment "is no longer a laughing matter."

"With the economy continuing to implode, the coming collapse of the dollar, high unemployment rates, the government takeover of entire industries, the administration's weak and naive response to the worldwide jihadist threat, and the ongoing frontal assault on our Judeo-Christian heritage, the impeachment option is one that can no longer be ignored," he finds.

Impeachment, after all, is based on "high crimes and misdemeanors," an "old English common law phrase which, in the 1600s, meant negligence, abuse of power, and abuse of trust," the report says.

"Not only has the Obama administration promoted dangerous and unsustainable policies, but it has also engaged in corrupt and illegal activities such as bribery, a crime the Founders specifically cited as an impeachable offense. Moreover, this report details numerous instances of Obama lying to the American people, a pattern which clearly indicates a character defect that in itself endangers America. Given this, we believe impeachment is necessary for the future survival of America," says the report.

Among the factors Americans should consider:


Obama's violations of federal campaign and ethics laws, including the offers from his administration to Democratic U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, who reported he was offered a high-ranking government job to drop his opposition in the Pennsylvania Senate primary to sitting Sen. Arlen Specter.


Obama's effort "to persuade the [Illinois] governor to fill the vacated Senate seat with his longtime adviser Valerie Jarrett."


Suggestions from Obama's own Federal Election Commission documentation that he got at least $33.8 million for his campaign from disallowed foreign contributions, including 520 contributions from interests in Iran as well as $30,000 from the Hamas-controlled Gaza area.


Obama's administration decision to drop a case that prosecutors already had won against "black nationalist thugs" who were seen on video apparently intimidating voters during the 2008 election.


Obama fired an inspector general, Gerald Walpin, after he exposed corruption linked to one of Obama's buddies, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson.


The president's system of rewarding supporters has come under question. The report confirms more than 70 individuals who raised $50,000 or more for Obama "have been rewarded with ambassadorships or high ranking jobs."
The report documents how Obama's actions even may have endangered Americans by "treating the war on terrorism as a criminal matter and downplaying the war on terrorism."

"This attitude has manifested itself in a number of ways: Obama's casual attitude may have encouraged domestic terrorist attacks, such as the November 5, 2009, Ft. Hood shooting by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan that left thirteen American military personnel dead."

His Department of Homeland Security also has "described veterans and other law-abiding Americans [as] 'rightwing extremists,'" the report says.

Further, the report explains how the U.S. State Department gave a grant to the Al-Quds television network, owned by the terrorist group Hamas, and invited them to the U.S. to produce a propaganda film.

Samantha Power, who once referred to the U.S. presence in Iraq as an "occupation" even as she favored sending troops to Israel to forcibly impose a Palestinian state, was appointed by Obama to the National Security Council, the report says.

And the report reveals how rapper Jay-Z and Beyonce were photographed sitting around the "Situation Room" – the confidential White House location filled with top secret communications equipment that allows the tracking of terror threats worldwide.

Access to the room normally requires a high security clearance level.

"Many of Obama's actions, if they do not flat-out violate the Constitution, certainly undermine the spirit and intent of the Constitution as envisioned by our Founding Fathers," the report explains.

And his fiscal policies "are causing unprecedented damage to America's financial health and to our reputation abroad."

The president even has changed history to remove Christian references, the report explains.

"In his 2010 Easter greeting message, Obama quoted from a sermon given by a military pastor on Iwo Jima in 1945. However, he removed passages dealing with Christian doctrine – like Christ's resurrection – in order to make the quote appealing to all religions, even though Easter is NOT a multicultural event; it's a Christian event. Obama altered a great historical quote in order to serve his multicultural worldview. Apparently he is embarrassed by America’s Christian heritage."

The report also has extensive sections on Democrats' new health-care law and what it means, as well as immigration.

"President Barack Obama has proven to be incompetent, reckless, deceitful, and naive when it comes to making economic decisions and protecting America’s security interests. His history of corruption, power-grabbing, and misleading the American people have created a pattern we believe jeopardizes America," the report says.

"This report reveals a pattern that demonstrates Obama is constantly engaging in actions that reflect a hard-left ideology antithetical to America's founding principles. … Obama is clearly dismissive of America’s constitutional principles and obviously dislikes the role America plays in the world. He dislikes our Judeo-Christian heritage and detests America's historical allies.

"Less than halfway through his first term, Obama has done more damage to America than any previous president in history. Some of the damage can be repaired; some can't. Some of his policies will haunt generations to come," the report says. "It's time for the American people to rise up and demand Congress impeach him."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related offer:

"The Case for Impeachment: Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America"



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bob Unruh is a news editor for WorldNetDaily.com.