They wouldn't allow a flyover by military airplanes. Here's is the serendipity that happened instead:
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Rudyard Kipling (a poem about Progressivism)
THE GODS OF THE COPYBOOK HEADINGS
by Rudyard Kipling
AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
by Rudyard Kipling
AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Regarding the constitutionality of requiring the purchase of health insurance
Atlanta Journal/Constitution article printed Monday, September 13, 2010:
This article was taken from the online version of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution
This article was taken from the online version of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution
By Bogdan KiplingHealth care debate will have been for nothing if court invalidates law.
The health care reform law is on the books, and yet nothing is settled. Chiefly, it is far from clear how to pay for the new, multi-trillion dollar national plan President Obama bulldozed through Congress in the teeth of widespread public hostility, and now increasing opposition from many moderate Democratic incumbents.
The law will be tested in the Supreme Court, and I believe it will be affirmed. The sum of that is the old if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em — or, as the Irish quip would have it: “No matter how you jump, your rear is always behind you.”
Obama tells Americans his program is good for them. In this, he imitates old-time doctors saying take your cod liver oil because it is good for you. Now, merely thinking about it may make you retch — but nevertheless, it is good for you.
Canadians can feel smug about their southern neighbors’ trials and tribulations. They have learned over the last 44 years how to pay medical bills. They tax everybody and use the money to pay for doctor and hospital care of every enrolled resident of Canada.
The concept is perfectly logical — at least, on paper. But poll after poll after poll shows most Americans disagree. That majority, I sense, sees Obama’s insurance program as an unseemly governmental encroachment on the rights of American patients and their doctors.
Canadians build on a different foundation. Canada’s early history shows public undertakings for public good praised and accepted by all.
I offer just three examples.
In 1905, Sir Adam Beck, an Ontario philanthropist, politician and cabinet minister, inspired the creation of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario as provider of electricity to Canada’s industrial heartland province. This staunch conservative businessman-politician believed in “donae nature pro populo sunt” — Latin for “the gifts of nature are for the public” — and he vigorously promoted the benevolent concept of “power at cost.” Thirty years later, Trans Canada Air Lines took off as the national air carrier. And three years before that, in 1932, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. went on the air as a radio link for all Canadians.
These remarkable state enterprises were launched by conservative governments. As late as 1983, such “crown corporations” accounted for 26 percent of Canada’s fixed assets. Ironically, many of them were later sold to private owners by Liberal administrations.
Canada’s Medicare belongs in the crown corporation category, and after 46 years of working experience, Canadian health experts should know all the pitfalls. Yet for all their invocations of Canada, it is my sense that American experts will choose to make their own mistakes.
The U.S. was the only industrialized nation without universal health care. That changed (on paper) when Obama signed his health bill in March. With his signature, the U.S. joined the world in the doctor’s crowded waiting room.
If the Supreme Court legitimizes Obama’s new baby, it may take years before Congress does anything to disown it.
Yet, if the court rules the bill unconstitutional because it forces people to buy insurance or face tax penalties, the American health care debate will have been for nothing.
My sense is the court will bless the baby and Americans may as well grin and pay. I can’t believe I said that because insurance companies will make a mint, and they are not among my favorite enterprises.
But if the law stays in place Americans would do well to recall the advice English mothers used to give their daughters on their wedding days in Victorian times when pre-arranged marriages were common: Close your eyes and think of England.
In this case, strike the word England and add Canada!
Bogdan Kipling is a Canadian columnist based in Washington.
No.
Obama may win on tax argument, but not on the commerce clause.
By Burke A. Christensen
The Obama health care law requires Americans to buy health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a penalty. The penalty is the higher of a fine of $695 or 2.5 percent of your income. If your income is $50,000 and you don’t buy the required “minimum essential coverage,” your 2014 income tax bill will increase by $1,250. This is not small potatoes. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the new law will take $4 billion from American taxpayers’ pockets in 2017.
You are exempt from the penalty if your income is below the IRS filing limit or if the cost of health insurance would be more than 8 percent of your annual income.
Despite the fact that the penalty will be paid to the government and reported to the IRS on your income tax return, President Obama has said that he “absolutely rejects” the notion that the penalty is a tax.
Perhaps this is because the president has also said that under his health care plan “no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
That was then, this is now.
Is it constitutional to mandate that Americans must purchase health care insurance from private companies or pay up to the IRS? The Constitution gives the administration two sources of power to defend this law. The first is the power to regulate interstate commerce and the second is the power to lay and collect taxes.
The interstate commerce clause regulates interstate economic activity that crosses state lines. But the failure to buy health insurance is intrastate economic inactivity.
The Constitution was drafted to limit the power of government. Why should the interstate commerce clause regulate a person’s decision not to engage in interstate commerce? To support the administration’s argument that inactivity can still actively affect interstate commerce, it may not surprise you to learn that the administration cites a nearly 70-year-old case, Wickard v. Filburn.
In that case, Ohio farmer Roscoe Filburn was penalized because the Supreme Court decided he had engaged in interstate commerce when he grew a small amount of wheat purely for his own use but in excess of his federally imposed production quota. The government argued that even though Roscoe’s entirely in-state production was trivial, lots of Roscoe Filburns, each one locally growing a little bit of wheat for his own use, was bad for the government.
What about the taxing power? Forget the president’s claim that the mandate is not a tax. He is now defending the mandate in court as a valid exercise of the power to impose taxes, and Obama will probably win because the taxing power is even broader than the commerce clause. But should he?
The president may be taking both sides of the “Is it a tax?” debate because his mandate has no teeth. The law does not permit the IRS to bring a criminal prosecution against anyone who violates the law but does not pay the penalty. Perhaps that is what he meant when he said that under his plan your taxes will not increase.
Under the president’s plan, we have the best of all possible worlds: Everyone has health insurance, the poor get it for free, you don’t have to pay the penalty, the government pays for it, and your taxes don’t go up. If you buy that last part, you probably sent money to that guy in Nigeria.
Politicians who continue expanding the size of government should at least be honest about who is going to pay for it. You are! Wasn’t it former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who said: “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money?”
Burke A. Christensen holds the Robert B. Morgan Chair of Insurance Studies at Eastern Kentucky University.
Another CZAR for the Current Administration?
Another CZAR? Just what this Republic needs, isn't it? Our Federal Government not only wants more of my money (and yours), they want to decide how my money is spent and to whom it is given, even if it goes against my conscience, my faith and my moral philosophy. Not matter that I was the one who worked for it, earned it and was forced to give it up (often called robbery.)
Here is an article from Investors.com that highlights the ideology of the current Federal Administration. (This article was copied from the web link
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/547421/201009151907/Another-Pay-Czar-.htm)
Taken from IBD Editorials, Investors Business Daily
_________________________________________________________________________________
Here is an article from Investors.com that highlights the ideology of the current Federal Administration. (This article was copied from the web link
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/547421/201009151907/Another-Pay-Czar-.htm)
Taken from IBD Editorials, Investors Business Daily
_________________________________________________________________________________
Another Pay Czar?
Unequal Protection: The vice president's chief economic adviser has decided that one group of Americans doesn't need all the money it earns. What gives him such authority?
Joe Biden's top economic adviser, Jared Bernstein — who does not hold an economics degree — entered on Tuesday the tax-cut debate that is preoccupying Washington. But rather than bring light to the discussion, he revealed the darkness that lives in the hearts of Democratic and progressive left.
"The most important thing we have to do right now," Bernstein said on Fox News, "is hold the line for the tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaires who, frankly, do not need the extra cash."
Bernstein's claim is not self-evident. There is, however, a unsettling feel about it. The America envisioned by the founders and defended with life and blood is not the sort of nation in which the government dictates how much of their own money its citizens can keep.
Nevertheless, our ruling class magisterially insists that it has the right to determine how much cash some of us need.
We shouldn't be too hard on Bernstein, though. He's merely following the administration's lead.
Recall when President Obama himself said in April, "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money"?
And when he told Joe the Plumber, "When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody"?
That wasn't merely a slip made by a weary candidate on the campaign trail. It was confirmation of a statement he made seven years before he talked to Joe the Plumber. In a 2001 interview with Chicago public radio station WBEZ, Obama lamented the civil rights movement's failure to "put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."
Maybe we shouldn't be too hard on Obama, either. The Democratic Party and its supporters have long been obsessed with wealth redistribution and shrinking what they believe to be high salaries.
These class-warfare fixations are so deeply ingrained that they refuse to acknowledge they violate the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment under the law — and exceed the bounds of any legitimate governing. They're political toxins in this Tea Party era.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Friday, July 9, 2010
Americans Speak Out Using Private Dollars
If you have difficulty pulling up the following link, you are NOT alone. It appears it is fast being either removed from the web or interrupted by a some other source. The text below mirrors the message at this link.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100709/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_donations
-------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
APNEWS BREAK - $500K Donated to Ariz to Defend Law
By PAUL DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer
PHOENIX – Retirees and other residents from all over the country were among those who donated nearly $500,000 to help Arizona defend its immigration enforcement law, with most chipping in $100 or less, according to an analysis of documents obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.
The donations, 88 percent of which came through the Arizona defense fund's website, surged this week after the federal government sued Tuesday to challenge the law. A document from Gov. Jan Brewer's office showed that 7,008 of the 9,057 online contributions submitted by Thursday morning were made in the days following the government's filing.
Website contributions came from all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including nearly 2,000 from Arizona. Donations ranged from $5 to $2,000, with the vast majority between $10 and $100.
The AP examined about a quarter of the fund's total contributions, and found only two that came from businesses.
The willingness of thousands of individual Americans to contribute to the Arizona fund illustrates broad concern and frustration over border security and illegal immigration. The state's legislation has since renewed calls for broader immigration changes.
The Arizona law includes a requirement that police enforcing another law generally must investigate the immigration status of people if there is "reasonable suspicion" to believe the people are in the United States illegally.
Brewer and other supporters say the law will prompt illegal immigrants to leave the state and that state action was required by a failure of the federal government to secure the border.
Opponents say the law will promote racial profiling and is unconstitutional because regulating immigration is reserved for the federal government.
Donors contacted by the AP said they contributed because the federal government should be helping Arizona, not taking the state to court.
"Arizona needs our help," said Mary Ann Rohde, a retired municipal worker who lives in Rialto, Calif., who donated $20 with her husband. "It's a disgrace what our government is doing."
Howard E. Sanner, of Houston, said Arizona's approval of its law should help prod the federal government to act on border security to help prevent criminals and terrorists from entering the country illegally.
"It's just a mess that has to be straightened out," said Sanner, a retired clothing and linen salesman who said he supports legal immigration and donated $5 to the fund.
Georganna Myer, an Arizona Department of Revenue spokeswoman, said the state tax agency believes contributions to the fund are deductible for Arizona and federal income purposes because they are donations to a state.
Brewer spokeswoman Tasya Peterson said Thursday that donors are required to identify themselves when they submit online contributions. An online form specifies a minimum donation of $5 but does not state a maximum.
With the federal lawsuit, the law enacted in April and set to take effect July 29 is now the subject of six lawsuits now pending in federal court. Other plaintiffs include civil rights groups, individuals and several Arizona municipalities.
Brewer established the Governor's Border Security and Immigration Legal Defense Fund with an executive order on May 26. Her office said the state had received about $10,000 in unsolicited donations from people in dozens of states by then.
It's unclear what the state's legal costs will be in defending the law. Snell & Wilmer, the Phoenix-based law firm representing the state in the pending challenges, told a federal judge Wednesday that its lawyers were working extra hours to respond to the filings in the cases.
Citing the crush of filings in the case, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has imposed limits on the size of so-called "friend of the court" briefs filed by groups in support or opposition to the law.
Snell & Wilmer managing partner John Bouma declined to estimate how much his firm's work would cost and said attorney-client confidentiality precluded him from discussing billing matters.
Peterson, the Brewer spokeswoman, said she did not know whether the state has received an initial bill from the firm.
Brewer hired the private lawyers to represent the state even before the Democratic attorney general, Terry Goddard, agreed to Brewer's demand to withdraw from the state's defense. He had opposed the legislation but said he was willing to do his duty to defend the state law.
Alessandra Solar Meetze, executive director of the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, declined to comment on the fund. The ACLU was among organizations that filed one of the major challenges to the law.
END QUOTE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100709/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_donations
-------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
APNEWS BREAK - $500K Donated to Ariz to Defend Law
By PAUL DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer
PHOENIX – Retirees and other residents from all over the country were among those who donated nearly $500,000 to help Arizona defend its immigration enforcement law, with most chipping in $100 or less, according to an analysis of documents obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.
The donations, 88 percent of which came through the Arizona defense fund's website, surged this week after the federal government sued Tuesday to challenge the law. A document from Gov. Jan Brewer's office showed that 7,008 of the 9,057 online contributions submitted by Thursday morning were made in the days following the government's filing.
Website contributions came from all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including nearly 2,000 from Arizona. Donations ranged from $5 to $2,000, with the vast majority between $10 and $100.
The AP examined about a quarter of the fund's total contributions, and found only two that came from businesses.
The willingness of thousands of individual Americans to contribute to the Arizona fund illustrates broad concern and frustration over border security and illegal immigration. The state's legislation has since renewed calls for broader immigration changes.
The Arizona law includes a requirement that police enforcing another law generally must investigate the immigration status of people if there is "reasonable suspicion" to believe the people are in the United States illegally.
Brewer and other supporters say the law will prompt illegal immigrants to leave the state and that state action was required by a failure of the federal government to secure the border.
Opponents say the law will promote racial profiling and is unconstitutional because regulating immigration is reserved for the federal government.
Donors contacted by the AP said they contributed because the federal government should be helping Arizona, not taking the state to court.
"Arizona needs our help," said Mary Ann Rohde, a retired municipal worker who lives in Rialto, Calif., who donated $20 with her husband. "It's a disgrace what our government is doing."
Howard E. Sanner, of Houston, said Arizona's approval of its law should help prod the federal government to act on border security to help prevent criminals and terrorists from entering the country illegally.
"It's just a mess that has to be straightened out," said Sanner, a retired clothing and linen salesman who said he supports legal immigration and donated $5 to the fund.
Georganna Myer, an Arizona Department of Revenue spokeswoman, said the state tax agency believes contributions to the fund are deductible for Arizona and federal income purposes because they are donations to a state.
Brewer spokeswoman Tasya Peterson said Thursday that donors are required to identify themselves when they submit online contributions. An online form specifies a minimum donation of $5 but does not state a maximum.
With the federal lawsuit, the law enacted in April and set to take effect July 29 is now the subject of six lawsuits now pending in federal court. Other plaintiffs include civil rights groups, individuals and several Arizona municipalities.
Brewer established the Governor's Border Security and Immigration Legal Defense Fund with an executive order on May 26. Her office said the state had received about $10,000 in unsolicited donations from people in dozens of states by then.
It's unclear what the state's legal costs will be in defending the law. Snell & Wilmer, the Phoenix-based law firm representing the state in the pending challenges, told a federal judge Wednesday that its lawyers were working extra hours to respond to the filings in the cases.
Citing the crush of filings in the case, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has imposed limits on the size of so-called "friend of the court" briefs filed by groups in support or opposition to the law.
Snell & Wilmer managing partner John Bouma declined to estimate how much his firm's work would cost and said attorney-client confidentiality precluded him from discussing billing matters.
Peterson, the Brewer spokeswoman, said she did not know whether the state has received an initial bill from the firm.
Brewer hired the private lawyers to represent the state even before the Democratic attorney general, Terry Goddard, agreed to Brewer's demand to withdraw from the state's defense. He had opposed the legislation but said he was willing to do his duty to defend the state law.
Alessandra Solar Meetze, executive director of the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, declined to comment on the fund. The ACLU was among organizations that filed one of the major challenges to the law.
END QUOTE
Friday, May 14, 2010
The Marietta Daily Journal - Illegal Aliens
It is mindboggling to believe that tax payers are subsidizing the college education of illegal aliens. But if you think this is an isolated case, you are naive. Illegal aliens are here for this very reason.
What a deal! Read this article from May 13, 2010:
The Marietta Daily Journal - Illegal Aliens
What a deal! Read this article from May 13, 2010:
The Marietta Daily Journal - Illegal Aliens
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
THE POOR WILL ALWAYS BE WITH YOU
Dr. Adrian Rogers said this in 1984, but his words are so relevant to what we are facing in America today. In fact, it was even read and posted in the Congressional Record by Congressman Steve King from the state of Iowa on January 14, 2009.
Dr. Rogers is quoted: "Friend, you cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. And what one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can't give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody. And when half of the people get the idea they don't have to work because the other half's going to take care of them, and when the other half get the idea it does no good to work because somebody's going to get what I work for. That, dear friend, is about the end of any nation."
“God’s Way to Health, Wealth and Wisdom” (CDA107).
(Listen to the full message in Real Player)
Dr. Rogers is quoted: "Friend, you cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. And what one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can't give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody. And when half of the people get the idea they don't have to work because the other half's going to take care of them, and when the other half get the idea it does no good to work because somebody's going to get what I work for. That, dear friend, is about the end of any nation."
“God’s Way to Health, Wealth and Wisdom” (CDA107).
(Listen to the full message in Real Player)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)