Category: Government

Government: who rules us.

Aptos psychologist: Do you want Islamic sharia law that OKs beating wives and cutting off hands for those who steal? Let’s not return to 7th century life.

Support more mosques in your local community?

About time Americans get educated about Islamic law and how it can affect your local American community. Take a few minutes to read 10 reasons why NOT to have Islamic law affecting you and those you love.

By the way, the prophet Muhammad had nine (9) wives when he died. Yet he told his followers that they could only have four (4) wives. Is that an example of do what I say, not what I do? Some call that hypocrisy….?

Muhammad beat his wife A. and ok’s beating wives who are “high handed”. Wife beating ok? Not in my view.

Have we not evolved beyond the nomadic, violent values of 7th centurry?

Read more as to why Islamic sharia law should be rejected in America and other countries.
Continue reading “Aptos psychologist: Do you want Islamic sharia law that OKs beating wives and cutting off hands for those who steal? Let’s not return to 7th century life.”

Share

ObamaCare burdens small business with onerous paperwork. When Obama offers “help” – run the other way! says Aptos Psychologist

Nancy Pelosi: We have to pass ObamaCare to know what's in it.

Cameron Jackson www.freedomOK.net

One can see why the Tea Party movement keeps on growing. Rather than more efficient, less expensive government we get more expensive government than hinders business from creating new jobs.

Remember the Nancy Pelosi remark about ObamaCare, ‘We have to pass it to know what’s in it.” One thing in ObamaCare is a new requirement that all small businesses must fill out 1099 forms for doing business with anyone over $600. This new paperwork requirement is an onerous burden of time and money — which we can ill afford in today’s economy.

Hard to believe, only 7 Democrats broke from the liberal pack. Harry Reid kept control. This shows the power of the majority to thwart even popular measures.

As a psychologist, my clean-the-office team must get a 1099 once they make over $600.This burden is especially hard on small businesses.

What is a small business? Any business that has fewer than 500 employees. The conventional wisdom is that small businesses are who create the most jobs. In fact, about 40 percent of small businesses fail in the first five years. Job creation in the U.S. is about equally distributed between small (less than 500) and larger (more than 500) employees.

By Ruth Marcus www.postbulletin.com
WASHINGTON — It is taken as gospel among politicians of both parties that small business is the engine of job creation. “We’re starting with small businesses because that’s where most of the new jobs do,” President Obama said earlier this year. “Small businesses are the job generator of America,” echoed Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain.

They’re in good company. George W. Bush and John Kerry, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan have all made that claim. Only one problem: These assertions are overblown and simplistic. Take it from a reliable source — the chief economist for the Small Business Administration. “It’s not true,” Zoltan Acs told me when I asked about whether small business is, in fact, the engine of job creation. “It’s half the story.”

Small businesses are job creators; they are also job destroyers, as firms fail. Most startups do: About 40 percent of jobs created by startups are eliminated in the first five years. Meanwhile, established small businesses — your neighborhood dry cleaners — don’t generate many new jobs.

The chief source of small-business job creation comes from a mere handful of firms — the “gazelles,” in the evocative term of economist David Birch — that start small and prosper. The difficulty is that the gazelles among the herd can only been seen in the rear-view mirror.

And existing firms that change with the times and expand are another major source of new jobs, a phenomenon that the bipartisan fetishization of small business studiously ignores.

This conventional wisdom about small business was once revolutionary. About 30 years ago, Birch reported that small businesses were responsible for somewhere between two-thirds and four-fifths of net new jobs (jobs created minus jobs lost).

Later studies support his basic proposition: Small business plays an important, and previously overlooked, role in job creation. But the research suggests that Birch’s numbers are overstated — and that size isn’t all that counts.

This matters because it serves as the basis for key policy decisions. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy must be extended, Republicans argue, because — all together now — small business is the engine of job creation. The small-business bill now pending in the Senate must be passed, Democrats insist, because … you know the chorus.

Except that the sound bite is not accurate. A 2008 paper by David Neumark, Brandon Wall and Junfu Zhang examining all businesses in California between 1992 and 2004, concludes, “Although we still find that small establishments create more jobs, the difference is much smaller than that originally suggested by Birch.” (http://bit.ly/9XLWWM)

Likewise, a study that Acs conducted for the SBA found that “most, if not all, of the growth in employment comes from the 300,000 high-impact firms in the economy over any four-year period. Depending on the time period studied, this is about evenly split between firms with fewer than 500 employees (the SBA definition of small business) and firms with more than 500 employees. Therefore, it would appear that both small and large firms contribute about equally to employment growth.” (http://bit.ly/8ZaK8L)

A new paper by economists John C. Haltiwanger, Ron S. Jarmin and Javier Miranda adds another wrinkle to the data: the age of the business. In terms of job creation, younger is better. “Once we control for firm age there is no systematic relationship between firm size and growth,” they write. “Our findings highlight the important role of business startups and young businesses in U.S. job creation.” (http://bit.ly/bk1HcX)

Small business matters — just not as much as, and in more nuanced ways than, politicians proclaim. Indeed, one key difference between this recession and its predecessors is that small business has been hit harder than normal, perhaps because the downturn was driven by turmoil in the financial markets.

Where a typical recession tends to wallop big businesses harder than small ones, this time around “young, small businesses have taken it on the chin more than usual,” Haltiwanger told me.

Can government policy make a difference? Perhaps. If banks are wary of lending, loan guarantees, such as those in the measure now awaiting Senate action, might help startups get launched — and some of these might succeed in creating lasting jobs.

The argument that higher taxes would squelch job creation is far less convincing. The startups that need nurturing aren’t apt to be the ones hit by higher marginal tax rates.

But here’s a suggestion for policymaking about small business. Base it on the facts, not on wishful mythmaking — however bipartisan.

Share

Aptos psychologist: Separation of powers not working when Obama crafts a consumer protection agency that reports only to him over which Congress has no oversight.

Just say NO! to Obama. Obama runs rough shod over separation of powers – which protect our freedoms.

Tell your congress person to stop abdicating the power of the purse to Team Obama. The latest Obama bureaucracy — a consumer protection agency – costs $646 million and it is set up to dodge Congressional oversight. Another minion, who only reports to Obama, will run it.

Elizabeth Warren, Harvard Law, to run $646 million new consumer agency that reports to Obama not to Congress

Obama invests huge authority in an unelected official — Elizabeth Warren. As she cannot withstand public vetting they put the new agency – Consumer Financial Protection Agency – inside an agency it does not report to with a budget not subject to Congressional control with a leader not subject to Senate confirmation.

Obama appoints Elizabeth Warren to the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Once again, the Democratic Congress under Reid and Pelosi abdicates power of the purse to Executive branch.

Consider joining the Tea Party. How to do it: go to teapartypatriots.org

For some info on separation of powers see below:

“The Constitution contains no provision expliciting declaring that the powers of the three branches of the federal government shall be separated. James Madison, in his original draft of what would become the Bill of Rights, included a proposed amendment that would make the separation of powers explicit, but his proposal was rejected, largely because his fellow members of Congress thought the separation of powers principle to be implicit in the structure of government under the Constitution. Madison’s proposed amendment, they concluded, would be a redundancy.

The first article of the Constitution says “ALL legislative powers…shall be vested in a Congress.” The second article vests “the executive power…in a President.” The third article places the “judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court” and “in such inferior Courts as the Congress…may establish.”

Separation of powers serves several goals. Separation prevents concentration of power (seen as the root of tyranny) and provides each branch with weapons to fight off encroachment by the other two branches. As James Madison argued in the Federalist Papers (No. 51), “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” Clearly, our system of separated powers is not designed to maximize efficiency; it is designed to maximize freedom.

EXECUTIVE ENCROACHMENTS

Two very different views of executive power have been articulated by past presidents. One view, the “strong president” view, favored by presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt essentially held that presidents may do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution. The other, “weak president” view, favored by presidents such as Howard Taft, held that presidents may only exercise powers specifically granted by the Constitution or delegated to the president by Congress under one of its enumerated powers.
Our readings include two cases dealing with the breadth of executive power. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer (1952) arose when President Harry Truman, reponding to labor unrest at the nation’s steel mills during the Korean War, seized control of the mills. Although a six-member majority of the Court concluded that Truman’s action exceeded his authority under the Constitution, seven justices indicated that the power of the President is not limited to those powers expressly granted in Article II. Had the Congress not impliedly or expressly disapproved of Truman’s seizure of the mills, the action would have been upheld.

Share

How big were the Bush tax cuts? According to the Treasury Department*, there have been 19 significant federal tax cuts since the end of World War II. Three of them have been passed under the Administration of George W. Bush—the Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001

In recent years, which Presidents did tax cuts? Answer: 3 Who and how do they compare?

Kennedy, Reagen and Bush did tax cuts.

What surprised me is that Bush, if you add his 3 tax cuts together, comes in close to the winner, President Kennedy. Reagen was lower, 5.3 percent versus over 8% for both Bush and Kennedy.

And this completely surprised me: When Kennedy did tax cuts defense spending defense spending (back in the 1960’s) was a whooping 42 percent of the U.S. budget. Almost half of the U.S. budget went to defense back during the brief 2 year Kennedy Presidency.

With all the rhetoric regarding defense spending on the war in Irac and Afganistan, current defense spending is — quess what — only 17% of the budget. During the Reagen years defense spending was 22% of the budget. Eight years of war in Iraq and Afganistan and yet defense spending as a percent of the budget is lower than during Reagen or Kennedy.

Tax Foundation
National Press Building
529 14th Street, NW
Suite 420
Washington, DC 20045-1000
202.464.6200
August 24, 2004

Comparing the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush Tax Cuts
by William Ahern

Fiscal Fact No. 15

How big were the Bush tax cuts? According to the Treasury Department*, there have been 19 significant federal tax cuts since the end of World War II. Three of them have been passed under the Administration of George W. Bush—the Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001
In recent years, which Presidents did tax cuts? Answer: 3 Who and how do they compare?

Kennedy, Reagen and Bush did tax cuts.

What surprised me is that Bush, if you add his 3 tax cuts together, comes in close to the winner, President Kennedy. Reagen was lower, 5.3 percent versus over 8% for both Bush and Kennedy.

And this completely surprised me: When Kennedy did tax cuts defense spending defense spending (back in the 1960’s) was a whooping 42 percent of the U.S. budget. Almost half of the U.S. budget went to defense back during the brief 2 year Kennedy Presidency.

With all the rhetoric re defense spending on the war in Irac and Afganistan, current defense spending is — quess what — only 17% of the budget. During the Reagen years defense spending was 22% of the budget.

(EGTRRA), the Job Creation and Workers Assistance Act of 2002 (JCWA), and The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA).

Some taxpayers and policymakers have questioned the size of the Bush tax cut, considering the war costs and projected deficits. Table 1 below compares the 2003 tax cut with Bush’s 2001 and 2002 tax cuts, and with the two largest tax cuts in the post-WW II era—the Kennedy tax cut in 1964, and the Reagan tax cut in 1981. Table 2 compares these historic tax cuts to other federal fiscal priorities at the time.

Table 1. Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush Tax Cuts in Historical Perspective

Tax Legislation Tax Cut in Billions of Current Dollars (a) Tax Cut in Billions of Constant 2003 Dollars Tax Cut as a Percent of National Income (b) Surplus or Deficit (-) as a Percentage of National Income (b)
The Kennedy Tax Cut (Revenue Act of 1964) ($11.50) ($54.90) -1.90% -1.00%
The Reagan Tax Cut (Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981) ($38.30) ($68.70) -1.40% -2.80%
Bush Tax Cuts:

Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001 ($73.80) ($75.80) -0.80% 1.50%
Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 ($51.20) ($52.00) -0.60% -1.70%
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 ($60.80) ($60.80) -0.60% -3.20%
2001, 2002 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts if Combined in 2003 NA ($188.10) -2.00% –
(a) First year estimate.
(b) National Income as measured by Net National Product.

Source: Joint Committee on Taxation; Tax Foundation

Table 2. Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush Tax Cuts Compared to Other Budget Items

Tax Legislation As a Percent of Federal Budget (a)
Tax Relief Social Security Defense All Other Domestic Spending
The Kennedy Tax Cut (Revenue Act of 1964) 8.80% 12.80% 42.10% 36.30%
The Reagan Tax Cut (Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981) 5.30% 19.50% 22.00% 53.20%
Bush Tax Cuts:

Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001 3.80% 22.30% 15.80% 58.10%
Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 2.50% 22.10% 16.90% 58.50%
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 (Bush/Thomas Proposal as of May 5, 2003) 2.70% 21.70% 17.10% 58.40%

2001, 2002 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts if Combined in 2003 8.10% 20.50% 16.20% 55.20%
(a) Percentages treat tax relief as if it were a budgetary item.
(b) National Income as measured by Net National Product.

Source: Joint Committee on Taxation; Tax Foundation

Tables 3 and 4 both break down the Bush tax cuts to show the range of benefits. Table 3 is a geographic breakdown, showing how much the citizens of each state have saved in income taxes, in total, per capita and per tax filer. Table 4 breaks down the tax cuts by income class.

Table 3. Size of the Bush Tax Cuts by State, 2000-2004

State 2001 State Tax Liability Percent of U.S. Total Savings From Bush Tax Cuts ($ Billions) 2004 Pop. (estimate, in thousands) Per Capita Savings from Bush Cuts Tax Filers (2003 est.) * Savings Per Tax Filer

Alabama $9,412,417.00 1.00% $3.79 4,527 $836.27 2,015,137 $1,878.83
Alaska 2,136,784.00 0.20% 0.86 654 1,314.44 347,909 2,470.51
Arizona 13,609,239.00 1.50% 5.47 5,727 955.93 2,278,085 2,403.01
Arkansas 5,046,474.00 0.50% 2.03 2,751 737.94 1,183,660 1,714.95
California 125,777,308.00 13.60% 50.59 35,950 1,407.34 15,733,500 3,215.64
Colorado 16,826,868.00 1.80% 6.77 4,646 1,456.83 2,218,466 3,050.99
Connecticut 22,162,504.00 2.40% 8.91 3,502 2,545.35 1,769,126 5,039.07
Delaware 2,723,491.00 0.30% 1.1 829 1,322.23 400,211 2,737.33
Florida 54,187,833.00 5.90% 21.8 17,325 1,258.12 7,935,612 2,746.71
Georgia 23,817,405.00 2.60% 9.58 8,858 1,081.59 3,848,912 2,489.13
Hawaii 3,089,124.00 0.30% 1.24 1,264 983.12 605,529 2,052.07
Idaho 2,665,522.00 0.30% 1.07 1,390 771.11 591,917 1,811.39
Illinois 46,394,662.00 5.00% 18.66 12,736 1,465.27 6,124,277 3,047.22
Indiana 15,936,323.00 1.70% 6.41 6,240 1,027.30 3,002,832 2,134.75
Iowa 6,756,379.00 0.70% 2.72 2,954 919.89 1,429,879 1,900.66
Kansas 7,172,558.00 0.80% 2.89 2,740 1,053.06 1,293,839 2,229.89
Kentucky 8,666,347.00 0.90% 3.49 4,147 840.51 1,848,849 1,885.50
Louisiana 9,499,745.00 1.00% 3.82 4,512 846.97 1,983,686 1,926.33
Maine 3,099,563.00 0.30% 1.25 1,313 949.65 640,934 1,945.26
Maryland 20,635,795.00 2.20% 8.3 5,563 1,492.15 2,712,837 3,059.77
Mass. 31,731,518.00 3.40% 12.76 6,473 1,971.80 3,290,823 3,878.62
Michigan 29,473,770.00 3.20% 11.86 10,132 1,170.09 4,889,114 2,424.91
Minnesota 16,972,843.00 1.80% 6.83 5,111 1,335.78 2,525,155 2,703.69
Mississippi 4,784,752.00 0.50% 1.92 2,903 663.07 1,241,889 1,549.77
Missouri 14,857,762.00 1.60% 5.98 5,746 1,040.06 2,714,372 2,201.78
Montana 1,809,781.00 0.20% 0.73 923 788.7 448,966 1,621.45
Nebraska 4,354,554.00 0.50% 1.75 1,750 1,001.10 856,061 2,046.11
Nevada 7,422,619.00 0.80% 2.99 2,325 1,284.42 1,009,495 2,957.63
New Hampshire 5,118,685.00 0.60% 2.06 1,304 1,578.79 665,863 3,092.18
New Jersey 42,375,704.00 4.60% 17.05 8,708 1,957.36 4,304,520 3,959.89
New Mexico 4,580,918.00 0.50% 1.84 1,894 972.92 770,161 2,392.55
New York 84,835,378.00 9.20% 34.12 19,278 1,770.17 9,077,453 3,759.27
North Carolina 20,534,997.00 2.20% 8.26 8,544 966.76 3,848,408 2,146.37
North Dakota 1,391,591.00 0.20% 0.56 632 885.64 320,455 1,746.77
Ohio 30,596,084.00 3.30% 12.31 11,466 1,073.35 5,900,096 2,085.92
Oklahoma 7,400,592.00 0.80% 2.98 3,537 841.55 1,550,561 1,919.85
Oregon 8,895,806.00 1.00% 3.58 3,607 992 1,653,386 2,164.22
Pennsylvania 37,564,928.00 4.10% 15.11 12,385 1,220.01 6,144,559 2,459.14
Rhode Island 3,293,967.00 0.40% 1.32 1,083 1,223.10 523,296 2,531.99
South Carolina 8,669,661.00 0.90% 3.49 4,198 830.79 1,907,500 1,828.22
South Dakota 1,839,824.00 0.20% 0.74 768 963.86 375,870 1,968.93
Tennessee 14,603,813.00 1.60% 5.87 5,909 994.17 2,716,876 2,162.16
Texas 65,677,771.00 7.10% 26.42 22,515 1,173.36 9,579,599 2,757.79
Utah 4,697,606.00 0.50% 1.89 2,395 789.1 996,844 1,895.57
Vermont 1,691,182.00 0.20% 0.68 623 1,091.87 316,824 2,147.16
Virginia 25,568,904.00 2.80% 10.28 7,475 1,375.96 3,532,773 2,911.30
Washington 21,919,383.00 2.40% 8.82 6,215 1,418.63 2,934,159 3,004.94
West Virginia 3,269,958.00 0.40% 1.32 1,808 727.45 793,642 1,657.33
Wisconsin 15,447,757.00 1.70% 6.21 5,509 1,127.92 2,748,232 2,261.01
Wyoming 1,732,086.00 0.20% 0.7 503 1,384.52 248,872 2,799.52
D.C. 2,807,314.00 0.30% 1.13 562 2,010.74 295,522 3,821.13
U.S. Total $925,537,849.00 100.00% $372.29 293,909 $1,266.70 136,146,541 $2,734.50
* Estimates of individual tax filers from Intuit, Inc.

Source: Tax Foundation Individual Tax Model

Table 4. Before and After the Bush Tax Cuts, by Income Group

Before Bush Tax Cuts After Bush Tax Cuts
Share of Tax Liability Tax Reduction for 2004 Share of Tax Liability Share of Tax Cuts
Bottom 20%, $0 to $14,415 0.50% $1,976,256,511 0.30% 1.20%
Second 20%, $14,415 to $25,499 2.30% $7,177,358,834 1.90% 4.20%
Third 20%, $25,500 to $41,640 5.90% $15,905,120,495 5.20% 9.40%
Fourth 20%, $41,641 to $68,295 12.60% $29,559,373,144 11.60% 17.50%
Top 20%, $68,296 and above 78.70% $114,633,332,724 81.00% 67.70%
Total Tax Liability for all taxpayers 100.00% $169,251,441,709 100.00% 100.00%

Top 20%
Top 20%
First Half of top 10%, $68,296 to $97,685 11.90% $26,272,937,254 11.20% 15.50%
Second Half of Top 10%, $97,685 to $136,162 10.80% $18,560,111,502 10.80% 11.00%
Top 20-5%, $68,296 to $136,162 22.80% $44,833,048,756 22.00% 26.50%
Top 5-1%, $136,163 to $335,474 18.90% $25,482,868,099 19.70% 15.10%
Top 1%, $335,475 and above 37.10% $44,317,415,869 39.30% 26.20%
Total Tax Liability for Top 20% of Taxpayers 78.70% $114,633,332,724 81.00% 67.70%

Source: Tax Foundation Individual Tax Model

Tax Cuts and National Income
Contrasting the size of the tax cuts with national income shows that the Kennedy tax cut, representing 1.9 percent of income, was the single largest first-year tax-cut of the post-WW II era. The Reagan tax cuts represented 1.4 percent of income while none of the Bush tax cut even breaks 1 percent of income. The Kennedy tax cuts would only have been surpassed in size by combining all three Bush tax cuts into a single package.

Tax Cuts and Budget Resources
Comparing the size of these tax cuts with the federal budget shows that the Kennedy’s tax cuts represented 8.8 percent of the budget. In 1981, Reagan’s tax cuts represented 5.3 percent of the budget. Each of Bush’s tax cuts are smaller than Reagan’s—EGTRRA (3.8 percent), JCWA (2.5 percent) and the 2003 Tax Cut (1.8 percent). When the Bush tax cuts are combined (8.1 percent), they would be larger than Reagan’s tax cut, yet smaller than Kennedy’s tax cut.

Tax Cuts and Defense Costs
When the Kennedy tax cuts were enacted, defense spending constituted a whopping 42.1 percent of the federal budget. When President Reagan pushed though his tax cuts, the Pentagon consumed 22 percent of the budget. Today, defense spending consumes just 17.1 percent of the budget—25 percentage points below Kennedy’s defense spending.

Tax Cuts and Deficits
President Kennedy passed his tax cuts as he ran a deficit equaling 1 percent of national income. In 1981, Reagan cut taxes while running a deficit of 2.8 percent of national income. In contrast, Bush passed the largest of his three tax cuts, EGTRAA, in 2001 with a budget surplus of 1.5 percent of income.

Caveats: Comparing Taxes Over Time
Comparing tax legislation over time is tricky. In the 1960s, Congress only calculated how much a tax proposal would save taxpayers in the next year. In the late 1970s, five-year estimates became the norm, and more recently ten-year estimates have been required.

Obviously, no one should compare the dollar amount of a ten-year estimate to a five-year or one-year estimate. Whenever you hear or read that the Bush tax cut in 2001 was “the biggest tax cut ever,” that’s the mistake—it’s like saying an 8-oz. steak costs more now than a 16-oz. steak cost 20 years ago. With two precautions, however, tax legislation can be compared. The first step is to adjust for inflation, and the second is to compare the same number of years.

All tax estimates are published in “current dollars,” without any adjustment for inflation. Since a dollar is worth a lot less now than it was 20 or 40 years ago, all dollar amounts from past estimates must be converted into “constant dollars,” which adjusts for inflation. In the tables below, estimates from years past are converted into constant 2003 dollars. This answers the question: what would the tax cuts of yesteryear be worth today?

Another way to make estimates comparable over time is to measure them as a percentage of the U.S. economy, or as a percentage of the Federal Budget. Since these grow over time, we can get a sense of how big tax cuts of the past were. Keep in mind, though, that because the Kennedy tax cut was “scored” for one year only, we can only compare it to the first year of the other bills. The first year of some bills is unusually large; this is the case with the 2002 tax cut. Other tax bills have relatively small first-year effects.

And finally, one additional warning: these estimates are the predictions made before the tax cuts were passed. No one ever goes back to revise them if things turn out differently. For example, the 2001 Bush tax cut has so far turned out to be smaller than the estimates predicted because recessionary times prevented many people from taking advantage of lower rates. So while the comparison is interesting, and it gives a general idea of how large a tax cut past Presidents and Congresses were willing to consider, it is an exercise fraught with technical difficulties.

* Tempalski, Jerry, “Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills,” Office of Tax Analysis Working Paper 81, December 1998.

Attached Files
Fiscal Fact No. 15, PDF, 68.7 KB
by William Ahern
If you found this material useful, please consider making a donation to the Tax Foundation. Printer FriendlySend to a FriendClick here to sign up for email updates.
©2010 Tax Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Share

Aptos, CA psychologist: Duplicity – thy name is … not woman but the the replacement for ex-Senator Hilary Clinton

Do you trust Hillary Clinton’s replacement to the Senate? Would you send her a dime? I say “No!” based on her pro-Obama voting record and how she mis-leads the public about her work history.

Hilary Clinton’s replacement to the Senate is attorney Kristen Gillibrand. Gillibrand faces conservative Republican Joseph DioGuarrdi in Nov. 2010.

Gillibrand voted yes for all Obama spending programs. She called herself a public interest lawyer when she actually worked for Philip Morris. Her job for the tobacco company was to keep the research records out of the hands of the courts. Later, she worked for HUD secretary on new products — selling sub-prime mortgages. When the mortgage market collapsed she made money shorting companies such as Country-Wide.

From Dick Morris,com

“Had Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand used her incumbency to good advantage, her victory this fall in the heavily Democratic state of New York would be a foregone conclusion. Instead, she squandered her opportunity — remaining passive and on the sidelines while the Republicans fought for the right to oppose her.

“The rules are different for appointed senators, like Gillibrand, than for incumbents who’ve won election to the job: They have yet to make that crucial first sale with the voters.

“Indeed, they have yet to do most of the groundwork that leads to that sale — like having voters know who you are.

“Gillibrand remains largely unknown to her constituents. She should have used this spring and summer to tell New Yorkers who she is and what are her plans in the Senate. Instead, she hoarded her funds and chose to say and do nothing.

“So there is no true incumbent, just Gillibrand and GOP nominee Joseph DioGuardi competing for a vacancy.

DioGuardi brings real strengths to that competition — while Gillibrand has weaknesses. For starters, she’s reinvented herself again and again over the last two decades.

“It started long before the flip-flops she announced in her first months in the Senate. The “delete” button on her computer must have worn thin as she has erased large segments of her past.

“She now describes her self as having been a “public interest lawyer” in the 1990s. In fact, she represented Philip Morris — assisting its CEO in covering up evidence that he knew of tobacco’s addictive properties and that it caused cancer. Her job was to keep the company research records — which proved beyond a doubt that corporate execs knew the addictive qualities of tobacco — beyond the reach of American courts.

“For years, she hid that role from her constituents. Then, when The New York Times printed the facts, she claimed that she had no choice but to represent tobacco since she was only an associate at her firm. In fact, the firm’s policy was to let associates opt out of any case that offended their moral compass — and she definitely didn’t opt out.

“In 1999, she became counsel to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo. Her job was to promote “new products” for the agency — subprime mortgages for people who couldn’t afford them. But once the mortgage meltdown began, she hit the “delete” key again — expunging the item from her resume.

“She also faces the problem that she profited from the crisis: Once the financial meltdown started, she and her husband shorted firms like Countrywide that specialized in subprime mortgages.

“Bottom line: New Yorkers don’t yet really know Gillibrand as “their” senator — and they ought to know her as a chameleon who’s shown no principle in her pursuit of profit.

“Polls show her only barely above 50 percent before the Republican primary. Now, she is probably under 50 percent.

Joe DioGuardi, a committed conservative with a fine record in Congress, offers an alternative that voters will find attractive. He’s hampered by limited name recognition, likely still in the mid 30s.

But once an incumbent is under 50 percent, she is very vulnerable, particularly with Gillibrand’s record of support for every Obama big-spending scheme. And she stands for nothing in a year when voters are looking for sincerity.

If the national party and its New York adherents give DioGuardi the money he deserves, he has a real shot.

Share

We the People cannot afford the “Help” — Government Employees. What to do about it? written by Aptos, CA Psychologist

We The People cannot afford the Help — what the public sector provides to the public. They cost too much. It’s got to stop. Government workers make double what private sector employees make. What to do?

Imagine the following: A couple both work full time. And they have two children who are in school. And, they have a couple dogs. The couple want a House Cleaner to come and do the floors, bathrooms and kitchen for 4 hours a week.

But, the House Keeper charges double per hour what the couple makes. Can they afford the House Keeper? No. That is the situation that the country faces. We the People cannot afford the Help.

U.S. Government salaries have increased every year for the last 9 years. Now the average government employee makes DOUBLE what the typical person in the private sector makes.

What that means is that you and I in the private sector have to work TWO hours to pay for ONE hour of government work.

This is not Public Service, this is the Public Trough. We cannot afford the Help. Pure and simple.

What to do? Raise a howl. Write letters. Require that all salaries be re-negotiated and comparative to private sector salaries. Say NO MORE public trough.

The unions such as the SEIU and others are responsible for the huge increases in government salaries. The government sits down with the unions and nobody is there at the table representing US who pay the bill.

Think of the public schools. Who represents the kids? The teachers are out for a bigger hand out every year. The unions for the teachers negotiate so that bad teachers are not let go. The school boards are clueless how to reward better teachers and how to inform and involve the public.

So who is out to advocate for the children? There needs to be someone and that has to be parents and community members.

See the following from USA Today:

“At a time when workers’ pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees’ average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.

“Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available…”

Share

Obama puts foot in mouth equating a mosque at Ground Zero equal to a Temple or church says Brahimachara

Dreams of which fore-fathers?

What if the original colonists to America for 3-4 generations had all been of Islamic faith?

Imagine America founded by true believers of Islam. Since there is only Allah and one Faith, no other faiths would have been allowed in America. Like Saudi Arabia, which has no Christian churches, America would have only mosques. Had American been founded by Islamic believers, pedophilia (sex with pre-pubescent girls) would be OK, women would not have equal rights to men and America would not be a democracy. And on and on.

Obama just does not get it. Islam is principally a political ideology that seeks conquest through war. And non-believers at best — if followers of the Book– are to be humiliated and forced to pay a tax as a non-believer.

Now Obama has offended Hindus by equating mosques with temples. See below.

“A Hindu Temple and a Islamic Mosque is not the same thing. Obama should apologize for his misleading statement.: Brahmachari

(This message has been sent to the 9/11 protest organized by Hindu Human rights Watch from Upananda Brahmachari, Editor, Hindu Existence)
Barack Hussein Obama does not know about the Reality of Radical Islam.

“How could he really understand the difference of a Christian Church, a Hindu Temple and an Islamic Mosque?

I do not know extensive about Christianity and Jesus. But I believe that there is no scope of hatred preaching from the services of a Church. May it be for Justice, Peace and Love. And the Hindu Temples are the abode of peace and spirituality which embrace everybody in the fold of highest philanthropic attributes.
But the Mosques are the workshop of devils who want only Jehad to destroy the civil society to capture this world under a monolithic Islamic pattern. They don’t know democracy, not peace, love, brother hood anything with the non-believers. Mosques are the epicentre of all Islamic hatred, disharmony and the catastrophe for us. It is an arsenal of Allah to end up humanity.
“The mosques are our barracks, the domes are our helmets, the minarets are our swords, and the faithful are our army”… as they think so, why do you think different Mr. Obama?
The whole American Nation is against the proposed mosque near Ground Zero, where over 3000 innocent lives were lost under a complete Islamic massacre. And you are allowing a refuge of those radical Islamists in the name of Ground Zero Mosque. The rest of world is also against such aggression of Islam in NYC and USA.

Equating Hinduism with Islam, you did a Himalayan blander. Mr. President of US, you should apologize and keep the Ground Zero Mosque ever restrained.
There should be no Mosque at Ground Zero. Repeat, No Mosque at Ground Zero.
Brahmachari is available at hinduexistence@gmail.com or at +919007543148

Share

Obama: the goal of NASA is to improve relations with the Muslim world…Huh? Obama supported release of the terrorist bomber who killed 270 … huh? He lurches here and there… Maybe his father’s dreams explain Obama’s policies?

“A few weeks before Obama was elected President, I held my nose and read a used copy of his autobiography, ‘Dreams From My Father’.

I found the book to be a fraud. Instead of being a biography of Obama, it was instead a confusing sequence of rambling anecdotes about his search for his dead drunken, polygamist father. At the end of the book, I knew as little about Obama the person as I had when I’d started.

Nearly two years would pass before I discovered the reason for Obama’s vagueness about himself in his book; he didn’t write it. Obama literally couldn’t write anything; after four desperate years of trying, he hadn’t even been able to produce a one page outline. The task, therefore, had been given to Obama’s terrorist political mentor, Bill Ayers, who subsequently and effortlessly finished the book for him.

Despite that, however, the book did reveal something about Obama. And it is the superb insight of Dinesh D’Souza which now explains it to the world.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem_print.html

Unless one reads the book, one can not make sense of Obama’s seemingly contradictory policies as President.

Though elected as a ‘green’ President, Obama recently stunned his followers by pressing for funding for offshore drilling. He then bewildered them even more by threatening to refuse permission for banks to pay back their stimulus funding. He made it worse by threatening to impose even higher taxation on citizens who already contributed nearly 70% of the tax base. Though committed to defending Americans against terrorism, he instead pressed for the released of convicted terrorist Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, “the Lockerbie bomber convicted in connection with the deaths of 270 people, mostly Americans”. And, last but not least, he gave one of the most bizarre orders to NASA; from now on, “the primary mission of America’s space agency would be to improve relations with the Muslim world”.

All of this sounds bewildering – until Mr. D’Souza explains it all. The answer, he says, is stated clearly in the title of Obama’s book. Obama’s ‘dream’ for himself is actually a completion of the unfulfilled dream of his father – a dream to destroy the remnants of colonialism. For those who do not understand what anticolonialism is, D’Souza explains:

“Anticolonialism is the doctrine that rich countries of the West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America. As one of Obama’s acknowledged intellectual influences, Frantz Fanon, wrote in The Wretched of the Earth, “The well-being and progress of Europe have been built up with the sweat and the dead bodies of Negroes, Arabs, Indians and the yellow races.”

Anticolonialists hold that even when countries secure political independence they remain economically dependent on their former captors. This dependence is called neocolonialism, a term defined by the African statesman Kwame Nkrumah (1909–72) in his book Neocolonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. Nkrumah, Ghana’s first president, writes that poor countries may be nominally free, but they continue to be manipulated from abroad by powerful corporate and plutocratic elites. These forces of neocolonialism oppress not only Third World people but also citizens in their own countries. Obviously the solution is to resist and overthrow the oppressors. This was the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr…”

At the time that Obama, Sr. opposed colonialism in his native Kenya, the former colonialist structure had been the British empire. But by the time Obama, Sr. traveled to America to begin his studies at Harvard, he had come to realize that England had been totally surpassed in power and scope by a much greater colonialist, one that dwarfed all others on the face of this earth: America.

This then explains the bewildering actions of the President of the United States. Though elected to defend America, he is instead committed by his ideals and his past to destroying this country.

“From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America’s military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father’s position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America’s power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe’s resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet.”

This then explains Obama’s seemingly contradictory edicts while in office. To begin with, the offshore drilling he supported is not American but Brazilian. Why? Because in preventing America from drilling for oil but allowing other countries to do so, Obama can destroy America’s ‘colonial’ greed to exploit the wealth of other nations. In refusing to allow banks to pay back government stimulus money, Obama thus prevents them from breaking free of government’s control.

In imposing even higher taxes on citizens who already pay the bulk of taxes, Obama thus destroys the financial heart of colonialism – i.e., wealthy individuals who were the main impetus and benefactors of exploitation of colonies in the past.

Finally, Obama has delivered a blow to the religious heart of colonialism – the Christian faith. Obama’s Muslim father (and atheist mother) viewed the Christian faith as an evil tool of colonial oppression. This then explains Obama’s obsession with opposing that faith at every turn – which translates into support for its foe, the Muslim faith. This is why Obama supported the release of a Muslim terrorist from Scottish prison; why he has warped NASA from a space agency into a PR firm of Muslim outreach; and why he now refuses to defend Americans from a mosque being built on the ashes of those who were murdered by Islamic terrorists on 9/11.

In short, Obama’s dreams are his father’s dreams – the destruction of the greatest colonialist in the world and all that it represents. He warned about it in his book but too few people picked up that warning. Now the dreamer sits in the Oval Office. And his dreams are now our nation’s nightmare.

Reply
Forward

Share

What a dismal life so many Muslim women endure. Islam is a man’s religion and women treated so poorly. How can Western women reach out to Muslim women so that Muslim women have choice?

So few Muslim women speak out against their condition.

In A God Who Hates Wafa Sultan describes her grandmother’s life. Her husband, the grandmother’s husband, took a second wife after his sons died. The grandmother had to walk ahead of the couple and later had to serve the wife and stay in the background.

Some current info about Wafa Sultan follows:

Counterpoint: In defence of Wafa Sultan
Posted: March 12, 2010
By Joanne Hill

“Tarek Fatah has used the National Post to present a one-sided, inaccurate and potentially dangerous editorial about statements made by Dr. Wafa Sultan during her March 3rd debate in Toronto with Dr. Daniel Pipes.

“Mr. Fatah’s article is not an unbiased report: it is an opinion piece full of loaded terms such as slur, attack, hateful, anguish, Islam haters and vitriol. He misquotes Dr. Sultan and presents as fact a conclusion that is not supported by any of her statements: a conclusion that I believe puts her life in danger.

“I am a freelance reporter; I covered the debate between Dr. Pipes and Dr. Sultan for the Jewish Tribune. I have an audio recording of the entire event, including the Question and Answer period, so I can state with complete accuracy what was and was not said by Dr. Sultan.

“Mr. Fatah assumes the authority of a mind-reader to reveal what he claims is Dr. Sultan’s hidden intention. Given his first-hand experience of the eagerness of some Muslims (or “Islamists” if he would prefer) to issue death threats against anyone who is perceived as threatening Muslims, there are three reasons why I find it disturbing that he would attribute to Dr. Sultan this motivation: “Perhaps the answer she had in mind was too outrageous even by her own standards: Force Muslims to convert or die.”

This is disturbing, first of all, because Dr. Sultan said nothing that would lead the listener to come to this conclusion. When asked during the Q&A, “How do you get Muslims to reform? Do you expect them to convert to another religion?” Dr. Sultan replied:

“Give them the freedom to choose: that’s all I’m asking for. Give them the freedom to search, to ask, to be exposed to different sides, different values, different lifestyles. I can tell you from my very own experience, what has helped me to reform myself is being exposed to Western values and being free to express my conclusion. I always compare between my life under Islamic Sharia and my life as a free woman in America and I write about that on my website in Arabic. So when you expose people to different [sic], and you give them the freedom to choose, that’s all we need in the Islamic world. I’m not asking [them] to convert to a different religion; I’m asking to grant them the freedom to choose, the freedom to be, to follow whatever path they want to follow. That’s all.”

Second, this is what Dr. Sultan said at the conclusion of the Q & A:

“I’m not speaking up against Islam to please anyone but my conscience. We suffer a lot under Islamic Sharia. It is not fair. Enough is enough. We need to live our lives as human beings. I want you to know I’m not here to incite anyone against Muslims. Muslims are my family: my Mom, my brother, my sister. You know, I cannot peel off my own skin. I feel sorry for them because they are victims of a very hateful ideology. Really, if you take a look at any Islamic country, what do you see? Nothing but miserable situations, especially women who are living in this society. So I am speaking up to save them, looking for a better future for them. And believe it or not, when it comes to my readers in the Arab world, I feel it is easier for me to address my thoughts than to penetrate the Western mind. People in the West live by the Western ethical code which doesn’t allow them to judge people based on their religion – and there’s nothing wrong with that-but they need to know that Islam is not merely a religion: it is also a political ideology and that’s what I am fighting. That’s what I am speaking up against. And I hope one day, the future for our generation in the Muslim world will be much better than the life I lived under Islamic Sharia in Syria.”

And third, the terrible, secret motivation which Mr. Fatah attributes to Dr. Sultan is in fact a commandment made by Mohammed to his followers regarding non-Muslims:

“Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war… When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them… If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.” (Source: Sahih Muslim Book 19, Hadith #4294.)

There is more.

Contrary to what Mr. Fatah writes, Dr. Sultan did not say: “Muhammed was a child rapist.”

Rather, she said: “As a married man, Mohammed raped Aisha when she was nine; he was 54.”

If Mr. Fatah is hurt by this statement, perhaps he should consider the source: Islamic doctrine. I challenge Mr. Fatah to deny this.

When she said, “There is no moderate Islam,” Dr. Sultan stated quite clearly, more than once, that she was quoting the Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, who said in 2007 in response to the term “moderate Islam”: “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

Again, perhaps Mr. Fatah should take umbrage with Mr. Erdogan unless he, like the people who took Macleans Magazine to the “human rights” courts, would suggest that it is no longer permissible in Canada to quote Muslims when they have said something unpleasant about Islam.

I was paying close attention throughout the debate and at no time did I see Dr. Sultan sneer. She did not say, per Mr. Fatah, “I am ‘clean’ of Islam.”

Dr. Sultan was speaking of the long, difficult process of breaking free from a religious upbringing that has been embedded in one’s psyche from childhood. She said, “It is not an easy process: it is very tough. I still behave, in many ways, as a Muslim. I debate in a way [that] I am right and everybody else is wrong.” This drew laughter and applause from the audience. Dr. Sultan continued, “So it’s under my skin. I don’t follow a specific religion. Of course I believe in God and I am empowered by Him.”

Mr. Fatah writes that he was “traumatized” by Dr. Sultan’s words. If this is truly the case, I would suggest that Mr. Fatah’s sensitive feelings render him too delicate for this Western society in which he has chosen to live, because we in the free world are not required to continually couch our statements in qualifiers or cushion our strong words. Dr. Sultan spoke plainly and strongly about her personal experience as a woman raised in an Islamic country under Sharia law. Contrary to Mr. Fatah’s characterization, she was funny, down-to-earth and as far from hateful as one can get.

Besides, even if Dr. Sultan does hate Islam, what business is that of Mr. Fatah’s? Is she not entitled to her express own opinion? As a Christian, I was irked when Dr. Pipes said that Christianity “started on a much lower base” than Islam. But so what? Only a fool would deny the history of crimes committed by Christians against Jews.

Why was Avi Benlolo required to spend at least 20 minutes after the debate placating the hurt feelings and smoothing the ruffled feathers of a self-described “hardened secular Muslim” who is supposed to be on the side of freedom of religion and freedom of speech?

I see at the bottom of Mr. Fatah’s article that his upcoming book is entitled, Unveiling the Myths that Fuel Muslim Anti- Semitism. On the night of the debate, Mr. Fatah informed Avi Benlolo (in my presence) without a trace of irony that his new book was going to be called, Why We Hate Jews.

Unlike Mr. Fatah, I will not presume to know his motivation in saying that to Mr. Benlolo or in writing his misleading editorial about Dr. Sultan. I will say, however, that I believe he owes Dr. Sultan, this newspaper and its readers an apology and a retraction.

National Post

Share

Burn the Koran? No! Read it! Decide if you want that political philosophy running your community.

The Secretary of Defense called the preacher who planned to burn the Koran in protest against a mosque built at Ground Zero. And the preacher has backed down for now. No burning.

Better that the preacher and those who shape public policy in Washington D.C. and elsewhere read the Koran.

Look at the core values of the Koran and how those values shape Islamic societies.

So, is Jihad and beheading OK if you are Muslim?

Do you want religious freedom for Islamic persons to practice their religion as they choose in America? That sounds OK? General Colin Powell says so. He supports a mosque near Ground Zero.

What if the Islamic religion is not just a religion but also a political philosophy? What if Islamic religious law — Sharria law — makes you as a non-believer a second class citizen?

Do you want Islamic Sharria law to take root and spread via mosques throughout America? Do you want second class citizenship as a country?

Do you think marriage for 3rd graders is OK as Sharria law permits it? Do you want women required to wear a veil? Is it OK that a woman must have 4 witnesses to divorce and a man needs none? Do you want men to have 4 wives and multiple concubines? All of the above are integral to the political philosophy and Islamic Sharria law.

Stop thinking of Islam as a religion and think of it as a political philosophy.

How are people best organized as a political entity? Western civilization traces possible answers back to Plato and Socrates. The Middle East traces back to to Mo-hammed and the Koran.

Historically, we as Americans are tolerant. We don’t attack others. And we don’t lie down and give up when attacked.

Building an Islamic mosque near Ground zero is a provocation that should not be ignored.

Islamic terrorists are ruled by Islamic Sharria law. There is one law for Islam and another law for unbelievers which includes the West.

The events of 09-11, the day President Kennedy died and the bombing of Pearl Harbor are all defining moments for many Americans. Many of us remember where we were and what we were doing when we learned President Kennedy had been slain. And the same goes for 09-11. Only a few of us remain that personally remember the day Pearl Harbor was hit.

Without warning or provocation the Japanese killed thousands of American military at Pearl Harbor. Out of the blue, President Kennedy was slain while waving to people standing along the streets of Texas. On 09-11 America was attacked in multiple locations by Islamic extremists bent on murder.

09-11 woke America up. America had been hit before at the Trade Center but the first attack was prosecuted as a criminal act. On 09-11 America saw on TV a coordinated terrorist attack at multiple locations involving civilian and military victims.

It was some time before we learned that 14 of the 16 terrorists were young men from Saudi Arabia who shared the same political/religious Islamic political philosophy.

That on 09-11 there was dancing in the streets of some Muslim cities at the sight of the plane hitting the World Trade Center says a lot about how many Muslims view America — we are unbelievers who deserve to die.

Recently a Christian preacher threatened to burn the Koran. Bad idea!

Read the Koran! Learn about Sharria law and the political philosophy that under girds Islamic societies.

Let the words of the Koran burn into you.

After you have read the Koran, answer the following question: Do you want Islamic political philosophy and Sharria religious law organizing your local community? I don’t.

Where are the moderate Muslims? Why have they not publicly rejected the terrorists and radical Islam? Do the moderates fear that some Iman like the Australian Fritz Mohannand might put a jehad out to be-head them?

Probably time to find out what is preached by Imams in your local mosque and Islamic community center. Islam is more than a religion, it is a political philosophy.

Building a mosque near Ground Zero has aroused many Americans. And rightly so. Americans believe in fair play.

It is not fair that a greek orthodox church cannot re-build near by and planners OK a mosque.

Mosques are built as a sign of victory. It is not right to memorialize 3,000 plus Americans killed in the name of Allah and jehad.

For a non-partisan exam of th role values play in current issues of public policy — and the issue of building a mosque at Ground Zero certainly involves public policy — take a look at The Public Philosopher found at: www.thepublicphilosopher.com

written by Cameron Jackson
Monterey Bay Forum
www.FreedomOK.net

Share