 |
|
 |
 |
Is Chris Mathews a RACIST....... Or maybe he is just working hard for the left to inject race into the 2012 election. I rarely watch NBC for politics but his show came on and I decided to watch. I was amazed to hear what he and his guests were saying. I am a white american who did not vote for Barack Obama because I am a Republican that leans to the right. I have never thought of Barack Obama as a black man but only as a president. I do not believe that he thinks of the America people in the context of color but only as Americans. I have never heared a Republican speak of race or have racial over tones in their speach. The only time that I hear race as a topic in politics is when I turn on MSNBC. Whatever color the president is - whatever color I am - he is the president and I am an American. |
The Bitter Fruit of ObamaCare
By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
Get ready for your life to change. The so-called benefits of ObamaCare don't start until 2014, but the tax increases, misallocated resources and federal regulations start now.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said the night of ObamCare's passage, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it …” The emerging picture is frightening.
ObamaCare dramatically alters the already-overregulated health insurance market. The federal government will now manage your health care decisions. The law creates a maze of mandates, federal directives, price controls, tax increases and subsidies.
We all begin paying ObamaCare taxes this year. The law includes at last count at least 19 new taxes. As Americans begin to reap the personal financial burden of Obamacare, the movement to repeal it is mounting.
Individuals must pay an annual penalty of $695, or up to 2.5 percent of their annual income, if they don't purchase an approved health insurance plan. Penalties on families include an annual penalty of $347 per child, up to $2,250 per family, if parents don't purchase an approved policy.
Most of us have heard about the penalties on employers. Business owners must buy a government -approved health plan or pay a penalty of $2,000 per employee if they have 50 employees or more.
Investors get whacked hard. ObamaCare imposes a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for individuals making $200,000 or more and on families making $250,000 or more. The investment tax is not indexed for inflation, so as time passes more people will be expected to pay. Seniors on fixed incomes and pensioners with IRAs and 401(k) plans will be hit hard.
The so-called "Tax on 'Cadillac' health plans" imposes a 40 percent tax on health care plans valued at $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families.
Medicare taxes are climbing up, too. The bill requires single people earning $200,000 or more and couples earning $250,000 or more to pay an additional 0.9 percent in Medicare taxes.
Thinking about downsizing or buying a new home? There are new taxes on home sales tacked on the bill. ObamaCare imposes a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions. Almost every homeowner qualifies as “rich” for one day, the day they sell their house.
Taxes on medical devices will also be going up to 2.9 percent under ObamaCare.
And we can't forget the new 10 percent tax on tanning.
ObamaCare empowers the IRS for enforcement. The IRS is hiring 16,500 new enforcement officials. The IRS will confiscate tax refunds, place liens on property and seek jail time if healthcare penalties and taxes are not paid.
But don't despair. As of July 14,130 members of Congress have signed a discharge petition that will force Nancy Pelosi to hold a straight up-or-down vote on HR 4972, a bill, proposed by Congressman Steve King, that repeals ObamaCare
In plain language, that means that the repeal of ObamaCare is actually within our grasp. Congressman King is upbeat, saying: "I am optimistic that we will be able to attract the 218 signatures we will need to force a vote on repealing ObamaCare. ... Signatures on the discharge petition have come more quickly than I had expected."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 What Took Them So Long?
By Tom Purcell
Now they tell us.
I speak of the erstwhile Obama supporters and admirers, in particular journalists, who are suddenly finding fault with our president.
New York Times columnist David Brooks says he's a sap for believing Obama "when he said he wanted to move beyond the stale ideological debates that have paralyzed this country."
Brooks is disappointed, you see. He had famously said, prior to the 2008 election, that Obama had a perfect crease in his pants -- that he had the appearance of a fellow who was going to make a fine president.
Well, Obama inherited a sizable mess, to be sure. The hope was he'd be the reasonable centrist fellow his supporters and admirers said he would be.
And since we knew so little about him -- and the press passed on many opportunities to examine him in detail during the election -- I certainly hoped and prayed for the best.
Then he and the Democrats rammed through a massive stimulus bill, much of it wasteful, a massive government-directed health bill and all kinds of new regulations, and it became clear we were in for a rocky ride.
Now, as the economy stumbles with no end in sight and our debt grows by leaps and bounds, some former supporters are questioning Obama's abilities.
Drew Westen, a professor at Emory University, examined the matter in a Sunday edition of The New York Times. His essay "What Happened to Obama?" offered some interesting insights:
"Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted 'present' (instead of 'yea' or 'nay') 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues."
Sheesh! Wouldn't this have been helpful to point out before the 2008 election?
I suppose it takes some courage to publicly question your decision to support a fellow who turned out differently than you expected.
Though the real courage would have been to do so during an amazing campaign when it would have been heresy to question Obama's abilities.
Heck, people were fawning and fainting every time Obama said "hope and change." Such people were in no mood for criticism of their savior.
Obama is to be credited for running a slick campaign and maneuvering events to his advantage.
But during that whole period, I felt like a movie actor in a bizarre scene who looks directly at the camera and says, "What the ... ?!"
The hypnotic effect he had on so many was surreal to me. Now, as we near 2012, reality has set in and our president is not up to the job.
Just as we need our president to lead genuine tax reform and entitlement reform -- which would bring needed stability to get our economy going again -- he is in full campaign mode, demonizing "the rich" and offering up platitudes he knows have no chance of becoming law.
Just as we need to come together, the leader of the free world is driving us apart in a desperate, hollow attempt to politicize his way to a second term.
So here we are as a country, badly in need of leadership, and Obama's erstwhile supporters have decided it's finally a good time to examine his ability to manage the hardest job on Earth?
Oh, well. At least they aren't waiting until two and a half years into his second term.
 |
|
| - |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Is Collectivism Moral?
By Susan Stamper Brown
British author Graham Greene so aptly wrote in his novel "The Power and the Glory," "There is always one moment in childhood when the door opens and lets the future in." Rather than one moment, for me, it was a collection of moments growing up in a home in which my folks did not divvy out weekly allowances unless they were earned, and encouraged us to attend college but did not pay the bill. Never letting us perceive our situation as unfair, Dad taught us the value of hard work by the example he set working overtime in order to make ends meet.
Recently, after reading a few articles in Sojourners magazine, written by President Obama's spiritual advisor, Jim Wallis, I was reminded how far away from these basic values we've strayed as a nation. An October 20, 2011 article, "The Un-Economy," which can be read online at http://blog.sojo.net, depicts the economy as "unfair, unsustainable, and unstable," and made the spiritual case for resolution through collectivism. "If you search the scriptures," Wallis wrote, "you'll find that God not only cares about poverty, but especially, unfairness and equality."
Of course, God cares about poverty. Taken at face value, Wallis' statements are harmless enough to those who have no knowledge of his background. Like Jeremiah Wright, Wallis has been preaching the "gospel" of collectivism for more than 30 years, convincing many that it is morally acceptable to deploy American tax dollars to alleviate suffering the world over. And now, Wallis' has both a bully pulpit and the ear of our president to further his anti-capitalism cause.
In another article, "An Open Letter to the Occupiers from a Veteran Troublemaker," Wallis referenced a "moral economy" and told Occupy Wall Street protestors they had created "new safe spaces" for Americans to examine "who we are, what we value most, and where we want to go from here."
I'm not a theologian like the good reverend, but I dare say the same God who cares about poverty and inequality provided an effective way to administer remedy by way of a small, four-letter word: WORK. Since Wallis began the conversation about mixing the toxic brew of church and state, I thought it would be an opportune time to mention the Bible he references makes it quite clear in II Thessalonians that each person has the responsibility to care for himself, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." It also specifically charges the church and not government with the responsibility of caring for the poor, widows and orphans.
The same Bible Wallis uses also encouraged "reverends" to live exemplary lives by supporting themselves in lieu of receiving financial support. The apostle Paul was a tent maker. Jesus was a carpenter. Times have obviously changed. According to the online source dynamodata.fdncenter.org in 2009, Sojourners, Inc. gross receipts were over $5 million, and as an executive director, Wallis received $196,244 in compensation plus $21,918 in other compensation.
According to Christianity Today, George Soros' organizations "bankrolled Sojourners with a $200,000 grant in 2004," and "received at least two more grants from Soros' organizations later on." On October 14, 2011, a blackchristiannews.com article claims Sojourners received an additional $150,000 from Soros' Open Society. The article said Sojourners "is a useful tool in reducing evangelical support for conservatives."
Three years ago, I was taken back over the number of so-called evangelical Christians supporting Obama, but came to realize that well-funded organizations like Sojourners were able to convince badly informed Christians that Obama was some sort of global savior sent here to solve all the world's problems. Secular leftists such as atheist George Soros obviously jumped at the opportunity to take advantage, using the "religious left" to help elect Obama.
Wallis' heart seems to be in the right place, but fails to understand that prodding young Occupy protestors toward what he perceives as one of those open door moments Graham Greene wrote about, would usher in a future none of us will recognize, not even Wallis |
 Nader Just Won't Learn
Peter Funt
Despite nagging evidence to the contrary, Ralph Nader is basically a smart guy. Certainly he's aware of the damage he wrought in 2000 by taking enough votes from Al Gore to hand the presidency to George W. Bush. So, you would assume he would never again gamble with the nation's highest office.
But Nader is back, telling anyone with a microphone that he'd like a clutch of Democrats, perhaps a half-dozen, to challenge President Obama for the 2012 nomination. Nader doesn't plan to run himself; in fact, he claims he doesn't want any of his Trojan candidates to actually win the nomination. All he wants is a good brawl in the form of pre-convention debates.
As evidenced each of Nader's three failed campaigns for the presidency, there are elements in his progressive agenda that would benefit the country. His frustration over President Obama's inability to push back against the Republican-controlled Congress is shared by many Democrats who helped elect Obama in 2008.
"I just want all these liberal, progressive agendas to be robustly debated," explained Nader. "Otherwise, there will be a de facto blackout of their discussion" during next year's campaign.
Strategically, Nader has much in common with Michele Bachmann. As the darling of the Tea Party, she is ostensibly running for president while beating the drum for the group's ultra-right brand of conservatism. For the party seeking to regain the White House that makes some sense — as long as GOP activists rally around the eventual candidate.
But among Democrats, an exercise like Nader envisions would be a circus, and a destructive one at that. The goal, after all, is retaining the White House while hoping that Republicans lose at least some of their muscle in the House. It serves no purpose to confront the president with a progressive agenda — much of which he personally subscribes to — that has no chance of succeeding on Capitol Hill.
The only certain result of such a process is that Republicans would have an arsenal of new video clips to use against Obama in the 2012 campaign.
As Nader's own foolhardy efforts in the past have proved, there is no room for third-party candidates in the modern presidential system. They can't be elected; they only siphon votes from their own side and push undecided voters in the wrong direction.
Compounding Nader's mischief is the fact that he is joined by the noted Princeton professor Cornell West, an influential voice among African Americans, who has called the president, "a black puppet of corporate plutocrats." Vermont's crusading socialist, Sen. Bernie Sanders, also favors a challenge to Obama, as does the Ohio maverick, Rep. Dennis Kucinich.
Despair among progressives is understandable, but what's the alternative? President Rick Perry?
What this flap reminds us is that it's one thing to articulate policy in the abstract, and quite another thing to make it work in the real world of partisan politics — especially the form that has overrun Washington like an out-of-control virus.
That's not to say progressives should become mute and stop articulating the grander visions. But it should not be done as a direct challenge to the party's leader, who is also its certain nominee.
Recent polls show that 40 percent of voters identify themselves as "moderate." President Obama needs to woo them, whether progressives like it or not. Republicans, meanwhile, will be hurt by the deepening fissure within their ranks, and the last thing Democrats need is to replicate that condition.
If Ralph Nader is as smart as he thinks he is, he'll start campaigning for Obama and retreat from a plan that represents the nadir of foolishness.
|
|
A Summer of Discontent
