Obama’s War on Me

If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, "We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us," if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder, and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2. – Barack Obama, Univision Interview, Oct. 25, 2010 (emphasis mine.)

That’s right. I am one of the President’s enemies, as are at least 60% of the rest of the country. Apparently, anyone who thinks that illegal immigration is, you know, illegal and dangerous to the sovereignty and safety of our country is an enemy and should be punished, according to our President. In fact, just the fact that you are reading this means that chances are good that you are an enemy of the President, as well.

Of course, this is not surprising. I knew the President held me in low regard before this. He has, at various times, described me as a bitter man, clinging to my guns and religion selfish, and racist. (Full disclosure - I don’t own any guns, but I will admit to clinging to my religion, though I’m pretty sure that Obama didn’t mean that as a compliment.) Just recently, he used the racially charged Jim Crow term to consign me to ride “in the back” of the bus, a phrase that would have been loudly denounced had it come from a conservative, and rightly so.

In Obama’s America, no one has an honest difference of opinion with him. Anyone who disagrees with him has malign intentions and are not opponents to be engaged and debated, but are enemies to be punished. We have seen plenty of evidence of this, such as when the White House tried to institute a boycott of FOX News – a move that failed due to the unexpected spine of the other news networks and the fact that no one hardly watches any other news, anymore.

It is an incredible thing when an American President declares that those with ideological differences are enemies, a designation, let it be known, that Obama will not utter in speaking of Iran, Hezbollah, or other of America’s enemies throughout the world. In fact, the same President who has called me an enemy, shook Hugo Chavez’s hand and addressed him as, “Mi amigo” (my friend.)

This is quite a departure from a candidate who campaigned as a post-partisan, post-racial “uniter, not a divider.” In fact, not since Woodrow Wilson has a president been more divisive. Can anyone imagine Ike, Reagan, Clinton, either Bush, or, yes, even Nixon refer to the majority of Americans as his enemy?

Six weeks after his inauguration, I wrote an article describing how it was obvious that President Obama was in over his head, an article for which I lost at least a couple of friends who, in true liberal fashion, accused me of racism. That is a common tactic of the left – if you can’t argue facts and policy, revert to racism as a conversation-stopper, a temptation that even our “post-racial” President can’t resist. At the mid-point of his first term, however, I am being vindicated by the fact that it appears as if the President’s political party is about to suffer an electoral defeat of near-epic proportions, based on his policies and his accomplishments. He has demonstrated himself to be intellectually vapid and morally vacuous. He is a small man in a big job.

We cannot have a President who thinks of greater than half of Americans as “the enemy.” We have seen that he will not hesitate to push cramming legislation down the throats of a majority of Americans who express a vociferous opposition, simply because he believes that he is right and those who disagree are stupid, special interest shills, racists, or all the above. It is essential that Americans elect a Congress that can stand up to the President and, yes, obstruct some of that destructive legislation. It is a further imperative that this man is a one-term President and that we put someone in office who respects Americans and is deserving of the job.

A Clear Choice

We are one week away from a historic election. Now, I am not one to indiscriminately encourage people to get out and vote because, frankly, I believe that most Americans have no business voting. Too often, Americans know the smallest detail about how Joey Buttafuco beat Lorena Bobbitt in Dancing with the Stars, but don’t have the foggiest idea of where their politicians stand on issues or even what those issues may be. Consequently, decisions on who we will have governing our country are decided by people who vote for an individual because of the candidate’s hairstyle, because their commercial tells the most convincing lie, or because I’ve always voted for one or the other of the political parties and everyone knows that the other party is evil. In my opinion, people who have not educated themselves on the issues and the candidates have a responsibility to stay home and not vote.

This year, however, the political landscape is different and the issues are much more black and white. This has presented the voters, even those who do not follow politics closely, a clear choice. Because the Democrats have had control of the White House and a veto-proof majority in the Senate and overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives, we know exactly the governing inclinations of the Democrat party.

If you desire a large government that interposes itself in every aspect of business, even to the point of essentially buying those businesses (GM, Chrysler, multiple banks), you should vote Democrat.

If you approve of a government that tells you what commodities you must buy, whether you want it or not, and one that would fundamentally destroy the best health care system in the world, you should vote Democrat.

If it is of no concern to you that those you elect disregard the wishes of the people and pass laws because they, in their wisdom, know better than you, and then complain that you should not be offended, but should, instead, thank them for it, you should vote Democrat.

If you are fine with your elected leaders systematically denigrating large swaths of the populace and stoking racial and class division, you should vote Democrat.

If you think that it is the government’s role to tell you what you can or cannot say, listen to, or even eat, you should vote Democrat.

If you think that giving foreign enemies of our country the same rights as our citizens, if you think it is a good idea to bring them from the battlefield into our civilian courts, and if you think that returning war veterans and the Christian right are as big a threat to our country as Al Qaeda, you should vote Democrat.

If you believe that the way to increase employment is to tax those who create the vast majority of jobs in this country so that we can spend trillions of dollars in order to do things like teach men in Africa to wash their genitals after sex, study the effects of cocaine on monkeys, and build turtle tunnels under highways, you should vote Democrat.

If you truly believe that the “biggest bang for the buck” in stimulus is food stamps and unemployment insurance, you should vote Democrat.

If you believe that a stagnant 10% unemployment rate, in spite of trillions of dollars of debt incurred, more debt in the first two years of this administration than was incurred from the administrations of George Washington through George W. Bush, has placed the country, “On the right track,” you should vote Democrat.

In short, if you think that the last two years of governing has been just wonderful and that you want the country to continue in the direction it is now heading, vote Democrat.

But if you are tired of Washington treating you like you are a child who needs their guidance, if you are think that government isn’t the answer to every question, if you are a believer in the free market and in American ingenuity and exceptionalism, then vote Republican.

Frankly, given their recent track record, I am not enamored of the current crop of Republicans. But like columnist Frank J. Fleming said, the Republicans suck in the manner of a dog barking all night, but the Democrats suck like the zombie apocalypse. We can’t say that we don’t want to escape the zombies because if we do so, we’ll have to go back to listening to that stupid dog barking all night. And, hopefully, the Republicans have been paying attention and will be responsive to their constituents this time. If not, we’ll vote ‘em out in 2012. And, if nothing else, at least the gridlock will stop the destruction of our way of life that is currently occurring.

This is an extraordinarily important election and the choices couldn’t be more clear.

Obama Is Making Things Difficult For His Defenders

A couple of weeks ago, a survey was published that indicated that 18% of Americans believe President Obama is Muslim and that only 34% of Americans believe he is Christian. A plurality of Americans (43%) said they didn’t know. This was roundly met with hysteria on the side of the left and the Main Stream Media (but I repeat myself) who claimed that everything from stupidity to racism was responsible for the misunderstanding. But Obama is making it very difficult for his defenders to continue to hold to their talking points.

In addition to sitting for over 20 years in a church presided over by a hate-spewing preacher whose doctrine is anything but Christian, in addition to regularly disparaging Christians (racists clinging to their God and their guns), he continues to stumble over basic precepts. For the latest example, check out this video during his speech for a dinner sponsored by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. See if you can spot the missing phrase:

If you picked up that the inalienable rights are apparently no longer “endowed by their creator”, you may be one of those religious bigots that Obama warned us about.

Are we to believe that this “genius” President just forgot that phrase? If so, I would like to congratulate the President on weaning himself from his teleprompter, even if only for a phrase.

Is America Islamophobic?

In my opinion, there are several suffixes in the political jargon of the day that need to die painful deaths. One of these is -gate. Since the infamous Watergate break-in, almost every political scandal or pseudoscandal has been labeled with this prefix. It has gotten to the point that, last month, after President Obama claimed he didn’t know who someone named Snookie (who is, apparently, some tramp in New Jersey who appears on some ridiculous “reality TV show”) was, even though he had previously used her name in a joke some speechwriter wrote for him. Some headline writer promptly labeled this “scandal”, Snookie-gate. Come on, people! Nixon resigned 36 years ago. Are you telling me that you couldn’t come up with something more original after 3 ½ decades?

Another suffix that should meet its ignoble end, at least in the political sense, is the suffix -phobia. Now phobia is a perfectly good psychological term, defined as an irrational and/or debilitating fear. Arachnophobia is an irrational and/or debilitating fear of spiders. Triskaidekaphobia is the irrational and/or debilitating fear of the number 13. Tristadekaphobia is an irrational and/or debilitating fear of pickles. (I actually have a friend who has this fear and, if she reads this, she will, no doubt, recognize herself and probably be surprised that I remembered. But there is no way I would ever forget something like that.)

The first political usage I can recall of -phobia, is homophobia. Now, of all the political uses of –phobia­, this may have been the closest to a correct usage. When AIDS was a rapidly expanding epidemic that was little understood, totally untreatable, and largely confined to IV drug users and the gay community, there probably was a true fear of gays, though I’m not sure that fear was totally irrational given as little as was known about the disease and its communicability. As HIV/AIDS and its mode of transmission and successful treatments have developed, true homophobia is probably very rare. In the meantime, the term has been warped to mean, roughly, “An epithet to be used in any instance of disagreement with the gay community.” Therefore, anyone who disagrees with gay marriage, gays in the military, etc., has been labeled homophobic, even though their reasons may be well-intentioned and well-considered and have little or nothing to do with fear of gays.

Like the perfectly utilitarian words fascism and racism, the suffix –phobia has been thrown around so indiscriminately that it has come to mean, “You disagree with me.” The latest iteration of this is the term, Islamophobia – literally, an irrational and/or debilitation fear of Islam.

We have heard this term since the 9/11/01 attacks. In fact, Islamophobia has been bandied about so much that one might be excused for thinking that the attacks were directed against Islam, rather than the other way around. Lately, we have been inundated with claims of American Islamophobia because of the controversy about the Ground Zero Mosque.

So is America Islamophobic? The answer is a flat NO. This country, in keeping with our tolerant, pluralistic tradition is quite possibly the most religiously tolerant country on the face of the earth. Even though after every attack on the United States by Islamic terrorists, we were roundly warned against retaliation, the people of the United States have been remarkably tolerant of Muslims in our midst. There has been no whole-scale persecution of American Muslims. There has been no pattern of mosque burnings. Each time a Muslim commits an atrocity against the United States – 9/11, Ft. Hood shooting, Christmas panty-bomber, and others – what has been America’s reaction? Precisely nothing. The long-awaited backlash has never occurred. According to the FBI, who tracks “hate crimes” (an odious designation, in itself), the most recent data available (2008) showed that for hate crimes involving a religious bias, 66.1% of the victims were Jewish and only 7.5% of the victims were Muslim.

Another reason the United States is not Islamophobic is because whatever fear of Islam there may be is neither irrational nor debilitating. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s famous plagiarized quote, “We have nothing to fear but fear, itself,” is a pithy, clever statement. It is also as false as Tammy Faye’s eyelashes. There are things out there that you darn well better fear. Fear is a God-given emotion that is designed for our survival. For example, most humans have a fear of snakes. This is a good thing in that there are snakes that can kill us. Our fear of snakes helps to keep us alive in those areas that are home to poisonous snakes. Likewise, if you live in a high crime area, your fear causes you to make sure your doors are locked and to be more alert on your strolls around the block. This is a healthy response and is one of those instincts that are essential to the survival of the human species.

The fact of the matter is that there are a not insignificant number of radical Muslims that want to kill us. Our political leaders keep telling us that Islam is a religion of peace, a concept that would, no doubt, be confusing to Mohammed, whose life and writings show he was a man who was not hesitant to wield a sword. As has been demonstrated numerous times over the past several decades, however, we may not be at war with Islam, but there is a faction of Islam that is at war with us. We know that this has penetrated deep into American life and even into our military. It is not unreasonable, therefore, that we have a healthy fear of Islam. It was the intentional disregard of this healthy fear that lead to the massacre of 13 people and the wounding of 30 others at Ft. Hood. We allow our reasonable fear to be allayed at our peril.

In spite of assurances by our leaders in Washington and elsewhere that we have nothing to fear from Islam, they understand that this is not true. Now I believe that those mallet-heads that would burn Qurans are stupid, provocative, and have very little understanding of true Christianity. But the response of our government illustrate very well that they know that there is something to fear from Islam. That is why General Petraeus warned that burning the Quran would endanger our troops, a message further reiterated by Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in a personal phone call to the lead Quran burning pinhead, Terry Jones. Eric Holder, the Attorney General, called Quran burning, “Idiotic and dangerous.” Both of which are true. The FBI even had a private chat with Mr. (I refuse to use the honorific, Rev.) Jones and reportedly said, “You know what happens to people who burn Qurans, right?” The FBI has even published a report that states that retaliation for the Quran burning is likely.

Compare that reaction with the reaction of Americans to the building of a controversial mosque at Ground Zero. No FBI visits to the Muslim community were necessary. Instead of President Obama, Eric Holder, and Robert Gates, among others, speaking out against this insensitive act, they supported it against the wishes of the majority of Americans. A solitary attack against an anti-Ground Zero Mosque Muslim cab driver by a man who volunteered with a group that supports the Ground Zero Mosque could just as easily have been perpetrated in order to try to make people believe that it was an attack in response to “Islamophobia”. But our government knows that, while there are a few nuts out there, the overwhelming majority of Americans pose no threat to the Islamic community. The converse is obviously untrue.

Of course, this is not to say that all Muslims are terrorists. Most Muslims in the United States are truly peace-loving people who make good friends and neighbors. But there are enough radicals who want to kill us and our way of life that a healthy fear is not unreasonable and shouldn’t be debilitating. Unfortunately, this seems better understood by our populace than by our leaders.

Obama's Labor Day Gift to Labor

On Labor Day this week, President Obama interrupted his 7th vacation since July 4th to jet to Milwaukee for yet another address from on high. That the President chose to deliver his message to a crowd composed of AFL-CIO union members was only right. After all, he bought them, he should be able to get some use out of them.

The line that got the most attention from the President was the "off-the-teleprompter" remark that, "They talk about me like a dog." This is patently untrue, since the majority of Americans like their dogs. Obama's poll numbers, in the meantime, have been falling faster than a fat man's pants on America's Funniest Home Videos. As usual, the White House has determined that this is because they have a "communications problem". To their way of thinking, whenever the American public doesn't like something, it is obviously because we are too stupid to understand the brilliance of their thinking, so they send out the Professor-in-Chief to explain it to us - over and over and over again. Hey, Chief, here's an idea - maybe your poll numbers are slipping not because of your communication, but because of the message that you are trying to communicate.

Of course, the usual suspects on the left are equally as convinced that the problem is that the President and his lackey-controlled Congress are having problems because they have been, get this, too moderate! That's right, according to former Enron-advisor Paul Krugman, Thomas Friedman, et al., this president, who has nationalized two thirds of our auto manufacturers, nationalized our largest lending and finance institutions, nationalized our health care system, wishes to tax us for using energy, appeased our enemies while snubbing our allies, and has increased the federal deficit more than all the presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan combined, is too "moderate".

This brings us back to the Labor Day speech. Obama obviously borrowed a page from out-going Chairperson of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, Christina Romer’s, resignation speech when she said (paraphrased) that the stimulus bill didn't work and, therefore, what we need is more stimulus. As one wag on Twitter stated, “President Obama is the type that, when he walks into a wall, feels the next time he should walk faster.”

Yes, that’s right. Obama is proposing more spending. He announced a $50 billion new plan to spend on infrastructure. According to Obama, this will create new jobs immediately while jump-starting the economy. Why didn’t someone think of that before? Oh, that’s right, they did. The first stimulus plan, we were told, would provide money for “shovel-ready” jobs that would keep unemployment under 8% while ramping up the economy and putting a unicorn in every garage. Okay, I made that bit about the unicorn up, but it is about as believable. In fact, unemployment promptly climbed to about 10%, where it has hovered for the past several months. The “Summer of Recovery” has become the Summer of Wreckovery as the economy stumbles, zombie-like, with practically no growth. Now, President Obama, who just last week told us that, “The economy is right on track,” now tells us that he wants to spend another $50 billion to, apparently, get the economy right on a better track.

President Obama has never run a business. He has never had to meet a payroll or balance a budget. As a community organizer, his job was, basically, to try to get as much money from the government as possible to put toward whatever community he was organizing at the time. It is understandable that he would think the way to solve every problem is to throw money at it. The problem is that money has to come from somewhere. Cutting spending is unacceptable to a Democrat (and most Republicans), so that leaves printing money and devaluing the currency, borrowing, taxing, or some combination of the three. While Obama, as a crumb to Democrats running for Congress in the midterms, sounds like he will extend the Bush tax cuts for the “middle class” (though don’t believe it until you see it), he says that he has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts for “millionaires and billionaires”, redefined by this administration to include anyone making over $200,000 a year. Of course, many of those filing taxes that make over $200,000 are small businesses filing as individuals.

This new infrastructure bill is merely yet another sop to the Democrat’s favorite special interest group – the unions. Now, I admit that there is a real need for some infrastructure repair and restoration, though in my opinion, like almost everything else, infrastructure repair would be better performed by almost any entity that is not run out of Washington. The fact is, according to the Davis-Bacon Act, any public works project funded by Washington is required to pay union scale wages and benefits. If we really wanted to put Americans back to work and reducing our deficit, Obama would suspend this act, as was done by Franklin Roosevelt, Nixon and both Bushes during times of emergency. Actually, he should repeal it, but the fact that he would rather have bamboo skewers inserted under his fingernails than upset the unions tells us all we need to know about how serious he is about turning around the economy.

If Obama really wanted to help the economy, he would dispel the climate of uncertainty around business by extending all the Bush tax cuts. He would push for a decreased business tax, and relax some of the ridiculous small-business strangling regulations. He would push for a repeal of Obamacare, which places huge taxes on businesses and individuals. He would announce a series of austerity measures to concentrate on reducing the deficit and he would resist the urge to insert the government in every crisis, allowing the free market to regulate itself, as it is meant to do.

Of course, the chances of any of this happening is approximately equal to that of Santa Claus sliding down my chimney on Christmas Eve and leaving Catherine Zeta Jones in my stocking (or better yet, in her stockings.)

Our economy needs a stimulus, but the stimulus it needs can only come from the private sector when the government gets out of the way. What we don’t need right now is another union handout.

Curmudgeonly Suggestions for Restaurants

I am uncertain about the age at which one passes from being a whiner to a curmudgeon. But now that I’m over 50 years old, I’m going to take the risk and assume that I have passed that threshold. I have a few pet peeves (and by “a few”, I mean “almost everything”) concerning restaurant service that I will now share for those of you in the restaurant business who may, potentially, see me as a customer

1. If you are a waiter, don’t sit at my table when taking my order – Seriously, when did this become okay? Listen, if I had wanted you to sit at my table, I would have invited you to dinner.

2. I can read my own menu, thank you – If you have specials that are not on the menu, fine, fire away. Otherwise, if the menu is confusing enough that you have to read it or explain it to me, you should probably re-think how your menu is written. But what I really don’t need is for you to stand (or sit . . . grrrrrrr!) there and read for me what I can read for myself.

3. I don’t want to get to know you – I don’t go to restaurants to make new friends. Often, I am at restaurants with friends with whom I’d like to converse. I don’t need the waiter to be my new best friend for the evening. I really don’t care if your mother loves the restaurant’s meatloaf. I don’t care if you are an aspiring cosmetologist. Frankly, I don’t even care that your name is Jake. If I want to know something, I will ask.

4. Just keep the darn sweetener on the table – Is sugar and Splenda now so expensive that we have to specifically ask for it to sweeten our tea? Are old ladies bankrupting restaurants by squirreling away packets of Equal in their purses? (Okay, I can sort of believe that one.) Just keep it on the table.

5. Don’t interrupt my conversation to ask me if I want my water refilled – The answer is always, “Yes.” Water is as close to free as it gets. Just assume that I want it refilled and refill it.

6. Don’t ask me how my food tastes – Don’t you know? Are you that unconfident in the consistency of your kitchen that you need to ask? Of course, this question almost always comes either in mid-chew or mid-conversation. (A corollary to this is to ask, before I’ve even had a chance to taste it, “How does everything look?” You have eyes, see for yourself.)

7. If I want to talk with the manager, I’ll ask for him – When we see a sudden trend in medicine, a sudden upsurge in the ordering of a specific test, for example, we joke that someone must have written an article in a popular medical journal on it. Someone must have written an article saying that what restaurant customers want more than anything in the world is for the manager come to their table, interrupt their conversation, introduce themselves, and ask if everything is okay. Hey, Mr. Manager. If everything is not okay, I will ask for you.

8. Cut it out with the birthday songs, already – Jeez, is there anything more irritating than to be in a restaurant having a nice conversation with someone when, all of a sudden, a raucous chorus of “This Is Your Birthday Song”, sung at 110 decibels, drowns out the conversation? This goes double for the birthday songs that begin with someone yelling to the entire restaurant, “May I have your attention, please!” Save the birthday songs for Chuck E. Cheese.

As a final note, I have one more suggestion for our friends in the British Isles – Iced tea is made by taking tea and pouring it over ice. It is really not that complicated. You guys made tea a national pastime, don’t tell me that you don’t have iced tea. Yes, Americans like their tea cold. We won the war, you lost. Get over it and give us ice in our tea.

Is Barack Obama A Muslim And Does It Matter?

Last week, Pew Research Company, a respected polling company, released a poll indicating that 18% of Americans think that President Obama is a Muslim. More interesting to me is that only 34% of respondants believe that he is what he claims to be - a Christian - or that a full 43% of people say that they don't know. This prompted the White House, aided by their usual allies in the mainstream media, to issue full-throated denials. Many news organizations including flatly stated that the perception of Obama as a Muslim is incorrect. The Associated Press calls the belief "incorrect", the Washington Post calls the belief "wrong", and the New York Times calls it a "misperception." I'm not even going to try to figure out how these organizations make that determination. I assume they take what the President says at face value which, as the last two years has shown, is a risky proposition.

Of course, the usual suspects are crying foul. John Farrell at US News and World Report says that those people who think Obama is Muslim are either "not paying attention" or are "willfully stupid." The George Soros funded Media Matters claim that Americans are falling for Right-Wing lies. And, of course, Ramzi Kassem of the New York Daily News, among others, claim that the rumors are due to . . . wait for it . . . you guessed it . . . racism.

I think that Byron York in the Washington Examiner gets it right in his typically outstanding article when he says that, if people are confused about Obama’s religion, he has only himself to blame. For the record, I don’t believe that President Obama is a Muslim. You can put me in the “none of the above” category. I think he is probably agnostic or possesses a belief outside of mainstream Christianity.

What, then, to think of the 1 in 5 people who think the President is a Muslim? First, we have to realize that is the same percentage that believe that aliens have visited earth, that believe the sun orbits the earth, and that is less than the percentage of the people who believe that the United States government was behind the 9/11 attacks (36%). In other words, approximately the same number of Americans believe the President is Muslim as believe that little green men with anal probes are kidnapping West Virginians. I think we can see that there are some people who will believe anything, no matter how strange.

Of course, some of those people may just be like me. If my caller ID was broken and I accidentally picked up the phone for a survey like this, I might claim that President Obama was born on a rocket ship inbound from Planet Zygon 6 and worships Neptune, just to mess with the pollsters.

So, does it really matter if the President is a Muslim? Well, some might say, it would undermine American’s trust in him because he lied about it. I’d reply that if they are just realizing that Obama lied to them, they haven’t been paying attention.

In actuality, if Obama was a Muslim, it might explain a lot, but it would change very little. Already, Obama is much more conciliatory toward Muslim countries than he is toward our traditional allies and, especially, toward Israel. From bowing before the Saudi king to drastically rewriting history in his Cairo speech to standing by silently while Iranian Republican Guards mowed down protestors in the streets, Obama has bent over backwards to curry favor with Islamic countries. At the same time, he has shown the back of his hand to our traditional Middle Eastern ally, Israel.

In the United States, Obama has been the apologist-in-chief for Islam in the United States, lecturing the public on the glories and beauty of Islam and, most recently, giving his imprimatur to a mosque planned for New York’s Ground Zero. While Obama has cancelled the National Day of Prayer ceremonies during his tenure in the White House, ostensibly concerned about the propriety of hosting a religious event, he has, over that same period, held Iftar dinners to celebrate the end of Ramadan.

So, it doesn’t really make a lot of difference if Obama is a Muslim or not. He clearly has a greater affinity for Islam than he has for traditional Christianity or Judaism. His foreign policy would not appreciably change, with the possible exception of dropping the pretense of a modicum of support for Israel. I could hardly see how much more hostile to Christianity and Judaism or conciliatory to Islam that this administration could be.

Meanwhile, while we are arguing over is-he-or-isn’t-he, we are losing jobs, going deeper in debt, destroying our health care system, and running our economy into the ground. There are plenty of excellent reasons to oppose this President and his policies, his religious affiliation, or lack thereof, is not one of them.

Rights vs. Wrongs

I can think of no more vile organization in the United States right now than the Westboro Baptist Church. Led by Rev. Fred Phelps, the WBC is an independent church, not affiliated with any other Baptist conventions. The theology of this church is built on hate. While they are fairly non-discriminatory about who they hate – any other religion or even denomination, unless it is strictly Calvinist Protestant (CRC, you’re okay. Nazarenes, not so much) qualifies - they reserve their deepest hate for homosexuals. According to Phelps and his acolytes, pretty much all of America’s ills are God’s punishment for homosexuality. With a logic almost as twisted as their belief system, the WBC demonstrates their fealty to these beliefs by picketing funerals – primarily funerals of Marines. Carrying signs proclaiming such vile epithets as “God Hates Fags”, “Thank God for IEDs”, and “Thank God for 9/11”, the WBC has been a fixture at funerals of Marines killed in the war. These people aren’t content with picketing soldier’s funerals, they also picket funerals of known homosexuals and have even picketed the funerals of Mr. Rogers and Jerry Falwell, for some reason.

The Cordoba Initiative is a group of Muslims who have decided that what New York City really needs is a 13-story mosque/community cultural center 600 feet from Ground Zero. The site is so close to Ground Zero that the landing gear from one of the planes that were hijacked and flown into the World Trade Center towers by Islamists crashed through the roof of the building currently on the site. This initiative is in keeping with an Islamic tradition to build a mosque on the site of a great military victory, just as they did in Cordoba, Spain. As I’ve written earlier, this is an acknowledgement that “Allah has delivered the infidel into our hands.” Even if you take the claims by the leader of the project, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, that the project (now renamed Park51, since Cordoba House was so controversial) is intending to “build bridges” between Muslims and non-Muslims, a claim that stretches credulity so much that Gumby is jealous, it has been a horrible failure. I am not sure why America doesn’t find the bridge building claim credible in a religious leader who said that “America was complicit in 9/11” and who refused to denounce Hamas saying, “Terrorism is a very complex issue.” In any case, many Americans find the placement of the mosque on the doorstep of the location of the murder of over 3000 of their fellow citizens by men driven by Muslim ideology offensive.

Which of these activities, the picketing of the funerals or the building of the mosque, should be stopped by the government? Which of these groups and their activities should be immune from criticism?

The answers are both and neither.

The fact is that we are guaranteed wide latitude for religious activities by the First Amendment to the Constitution. As long as an activity is compliant with the law and does not infringe on the Constitutional rights of others, we are free to follow the tenets and practices of our religion however we like – no matter how evil or offensive those practices may be. This is as it should be and is one of the things that make America great. It is very important that these liberties be preserved because we never know when others might find our religious practices offensive and seek to use the government to stop those practices.

This view is shared by every credible person on both sides of the Ground Zero mosque issue from Pres. Obama to Sarah Palin to Harry Reid to Newt Gingrich. The only person of any note to deviate from this opinion is Nancy Pelosi, who suggested that the persons complaining about the Ground Zero mosque be investigated. But remember that I said every credible person. Queen Nancy lost any semblance of credibility long ago.

But while the Constitution guarantees us the right to practice our religion, it does not guarantee us a right to be free of criticism – in fact, quite the opposite is true. The Constitution also guarantees the freedom of speech that we use to voice our opposition to things we find offensive. For the government to try to stifle that free speech, as Pelosi intimated she was in favor of, is every bit as unconstitutional as if the government prohibited these groups from practicing their religion as they see fit

In fact, there are times when we, as good citizens, should be vocal in our opposition to abhorrent practices. Can you imagine President Obama saying that the Westboro Baptist Church has the right to conduct their protests but that he would not comment on the wisdom of it? I think that most would find that a ridiculous position for him to take, and rightly so.

Let me be clear (to use a favorite phrase of our President), criticism is not an abridgement of freedom of religion or any other freedom. This is a reading of our Constitution that just isn’t there. When Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich or moi criticize the Ground Zero mosque, no one’s religious rights are violated. While Nancy Pelosi is within her rights and her purview to criticize us, she has no right, whatsoever, to try to intimidate that speech by threatening a government investigation.

The idea that criticism is an abridgement of our rights is common and mistaken. We heard this refrain from the Dixie Chicks, for example, when their record sales fell off after they stated, in a concert in Berlin, Germany, that they were embarrassed by hailing from the same state as President Bush. Many people took issue with that comment and stopped buying their music. They then whined that their free speech was violated – as if the Constitution guaranteed them the right to have people buy their albums.

We are hearing it now from Dr. Laura Schlessinger who, after she was roundly criticized for using offensive language on her radio show, announced that she was quitting to “regain my First Amendment rights.” The fact is that, not only does Dr. Schlessinger not have the right to not be criticized, she doesn’t even have the right to say anything that her employer tells her she can’t say. The First Amendment, as is true for the remainder of the Bill of Rights, is a limit on what government can do. My employer is not constrained by the First Amendment. If I work for Ford and go on television to tout the superiority of Toyotas, the government will not prosecute me, but I can certainly expect my employer to fire me. (And no, unless I am a judge or serving on a jury, I do NOT have to presume someone is innocent until proven guilty.)

In my opinion, it is the responsibility of good citizens to be vocal in their opposition to the abhorrent practices of the Westboro Baptist Church. While they cannot use their power in office to stop or intimidate the same practices, I would also expect our elected leaders to be vocal in their opposition. I don’t understand why we should expect any less in response to the offensive Ground Zero mosque. This is not an issue of protecting rights, no one is advocating that any rights being abrogated, it is an issue of speaking out against wrongs.

A Government Upside Down

The most famous speech ever delivered in America, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, was written to honor the men who died in that great battle in order to preserve the union of the United States of America. This short, but powerfully moving, speech culminates with the wish that the dead would not have died in vain, but that, “ . . . the government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

It is no accident that the Constitution of the United States of America begins with the words, “We the people.” We take it for granted now, but at the time this was a radical and unique idea. Monarchies dominated Europe. The concept of the divine right of kings, the idea that God had granted certain men and women dominion over others based solely on their bloodline, was still prevalent throughout the world. Even the French Revolution, occurring only 3 years after the Constitution’s ratification, was based on the idea of an aristocracy – the idea that an elite, enlightened group of men would wield the reins of power over the country.

We all learned in school that the United States is a Republic. Those who would govern this country are elected by the people in order to represent our interests. Instead of a top-down system, like a monarchy or oligarchy, our republic was designed to be a bottom-up system of government. The will of the people, not those of the governing body, was to reign supreme.

Unfortunately, under the Obama regime (and I use that term advisedly) and the Democrats in Congress, this system of government has been turned on its head. No longer are our elected representatives doing the will of the people, but they are imposing their will onto the people. Our President lectures us like a college professor or a stern parent, telling us what is good for us and disparaging those who would disagree with him. Our Congress has repeatedly demonstrated the contempt they hold for the people and the Constitution of the United States.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the passage of the health care law. When citizens raised protests in town hall meetings and demonstrations, they were called un-American by the Speaker of the House (the second person in Presidential succession) and by the Senate Majority Leader. The President told opponents to “Stop talking and get out of the way.” When polls indicated that over 60% of Americans were opposed to the health care bill, the Democrats used an arcane rule to get around the people’s desires and force the bill through. Or, as said the former judge who was impeached for corruption, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), “There ain’t no rules here, we’re trying to accomplish something . . . All this talk about rules . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make ‘em up as we go along.” Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL) echoed this sentiment when he was questioned about the Constitutionality of mandated purchase of health insurance saying, “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest.” Well, at least he is an honest, if deeply unethical, politician.

The attitude of the President, his administration, and Congress is that the people in power somehow know better than the remainder of us how the country should be run and will run it that way, whether the peasants like it, or not. While the federal government unilaterally made the decision not to enforce legally passed immigration laws, one state, Arizona, suffering the violence and the increased costs incurred by their porous border with Mexico, passed a law basically identical to the federal law in order to try to control illegal immigration. In spite of nearly 60% of Americans and 70% of Arizonans favoring the law, the Obama administration sued the state to stop enforcement of the law. Should it, then, come as a surprise that a leaked White House memo outlined ways that the administration could usurp the role of Congress by administratively “offering relief” to illegal aliens if Congress didn’t pass immigration reform?

Of course, this is nothing new for this administration. When it became obvious that there was no way the ruinous Cap and Trade bill was going to be passed, the Obama regime made and end-run and had the Environmental Protection Agency declare that they would begin regulating greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide.

The Democrats in Congress have dropped all pretense of representing their constituents, passing huge bills filled with pork in the middle of the night without allowing them to even be read by themselves or by the public. They have demonstrated themselves to be beholden to their union benefactors and their corporate benefactors instead of their constituents. Exhibit number one is the new Financial Regulatory Reform law. This law, which was supported by mega-banks such as Citigroup and AIG encodes regulations sure to cripple smaller lending institutions into law.

The latest slap in the face was the endorsement of building a mosque at Ground Zero by the President, a position opposed by about 70% of Americans. Of course, when he was roundly criticized, he quickly pulled back, which was quickly followed by another pullback that his first statement was correct. I guess he was for it before he was against it before he was for it, again.

The arrogance and contempt of the President and Congress toward the American people is staggering. The people’s wishes no longer matter – only those desires of the oligarchs matter. They are even living the lifestyle of the aristocracy of old, enriching themselves at the public’s expense a la Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) or thumbing their noses at laws the remainder of us are expected to follow a la Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). Of course, let’s not forget the 5 vacations the first family has taken since July 4^th, including lavish vacations to Spain and Martha’s Vineyard, all subsidized by you, the taxpayer, in a time of economic crisis.

The last time Americans were ruled without representation, a revolution was fomented. It is time for another revolution, this time at the ballot boxes. If we do not throw these people out on their ears, all hope for a government of the people, by the people, and for the people is lost.

When Life Gives You Lemonade, The Government Will Turn It Into Lemons

Last week, budding entrepreneur, 7 year old Julie Murphy, loaded up her wagon with packets of Kool-Aide brand lemonade, sugar, and bottles of water and, accompanied by her mother, headed to the Last Thursday monthly arts and crafts festival in Portland, Oregon. Business was brisk, until about 20 minutes after Julie opened, until a Multnomah County inspector arrived and asked to see Julie’s temporary restaurant license. After being told that the 7 year old did not have the $120 license, the inspector told Julie that she would have to shut down or face a $500 fine.

A friend who sent me this story titled his email “You Won’t Believe This.” Unfortunately, as I told him, it is all too believable. In fact, this happens every day, maybe not to 7-year-old girls, but to small businessmen and women across the country.

After the case was publicized, Multnomah County wisely publicly apologized to Julie and the county manager assured Julie’s mother that he would “look into” what should be done in future incidents of this kind. But what if the lemonade stand owner was not a 7-year-old girl? What if the lemonade stand owner had been a 30-year-old man? Do you think that the next time, the temporary business license would be waived?

This case seems like a very minor incident, but it is emblematic of a major problem in our country. Overregulation by the government is a burden on small business and this is often intentional.

I looked up the Multnomah County Health Departments site on temporary restaurant licenses. It seems that, even if Julie had forked over the $120 and filled out the two page application form, she still would have been require to come up with the following items:

· An Approved Kitchen – If any food is to be prepared ahead of time, stored, or handled at a different location than the event, then it must be done in an approved and licensed kitchen.

· Handwashing – A handwashing station providing free flowing water must be set up inside the booth. This can be as simple as a 5+ gallon container with a faucet on the bottom which can drain out fresh warm water, a 5+ gallon bucket underneath to catch the falling water, liquid soap, and paper towels. The spigot must be the type that can stay on by itself so that you can wash both hands under the running water.

· Cold and Hot Holding Facilities – For cold items you can use commercial refrigerators, ice chests, and refrigerator trucks work well. For hot items you can use grills, steam tables, ovens, and/or burners.

· Roof and Floor – Unless you are inside a building your will need these items. For a roof a tarp like rain cover should suffice. For a floor sheets of plywood work well, unless you happen to be on concrete which will suffice.

· Probe Thermometer – A pocket probe thermometer with a range of 0 – 220 F is needed to check food temperatures.

· Sanitizing Cloths – A one gallon bucket of water with 100-ppm free chlorine (about a teaspoon/tablespoon of bleach is needed to sanitize food contact surfaces

Of course, this assumes that Julie had already obtained her county food handler’s card. Oh, and nothing can be made at home, it all must be made on site or in an “approved” kitchen.

It is easy to see how these regulations increase costs to the businessperson. Every increased cost, particularly in the natal period of the business, decreases that business chance of survival. The fact of the matter is that every regulation increases the cost of business. The cost is not only in fees and fines, but man-hours assuring compliance and often alterations to efficiency and the costs of bringing the business into compliance with the regulations

A dirty little secret is that, often, these regulations are placed at the behest of large corporations. It should come as no surprise that one of the biggest supporters of the recent financial regulatory reform bill was Citibank. (Citibank, incidentally, was the sixth largest donor to Pres. Obama’s campaign and the largest donor to his inauguration. Citibank was also the 4th largest donor to Chris Dodd’s latest re-election campaign. Dodd was the author of the reform bill.) The fact of the matter is that these regulations are often written by corporations with the intention of putting smaller, competing companies out of business.

Let’s take an example: In the recently passed Financial Reform Bill, there is a clause that requires any financial business to submit an IRS 1099 form to any business in which they conduct more than $600 worth of business in any given year. So who is going to be better able to absorb this cost, the mega-bank that has thousands of employees and low-level clerks, or the small town community bank that employs a dozen people? As a percentage of income, this regulation has a markedly greater impact on the smaller business.

Overregulation costs consumers, as well. Not only do we pay a higher price, passed along in the goods that we buy, but someone has to pay the regulators. That means taxes. So essentially, we are paying more money to bureaucrats to regulate – an activity in which nothing tangible is produced. In other words, it is an outlay with recompense.

Rarely taken into account when passing regulations is the Law of Unintended Consequences. This “law” says that there are always unforeseen consequences whenever there is regulation. For instance, in order to protect US steel from cheaper foreign imports, the United States placed quotas on foreign steel. Not having to compete with the foreign steel, the steel companies in the United States were able to sell their steel at higher prices. Good for them, right? Not so fast. It seems that auto manufacturers, faced with rising costs of steel, started moving their factories overseas, where steel is cheaper. Consequently, the auto companies stopped buying steel from American producers. Now, there are no more major steel manufacturers in the United States.

Now, I’m not saying that regulations are all unnecessary. You can make a case for a few of them, but if we want to encourage small business and economic growth, we need to realize the burden that government regulations impose. Increased regulations decrease efficiency, increase barriers to business – disproportionally to small businesses -, and increase costs for everyone.

Wanted: A Spine in the White House

Yesterday, I wrote about the proposed mosque and Islamic cultural center to be built at Ground Zero. As I discussed yesterday, the government has no right to interfere with the building of the mosque on religious grounds. This is as it should be. We cannot pick and choose which religions receive Constitutional protection. Our liberties are being eroded so quickly in this current administration that we cannot be complicit in the further weakening of our Constitution.

But while the government cannot prohibit this project from being built, the citizenry has not only the right, but the responsibility to object. In his role as leader of the United States, President Obama should rebuke the Cordoba Project. While he cannot bring a legal challenge to bear, he certainly can use his bully pulpit to bring attention to this travesty and to apply public pressure on those that would desecrate the site where so many innocents died at the hands of Islamic extremists.

Unfortunately, President Obama has not expressed an opinion on the situation, except to say, through his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, that he will “not get involved in local decision-making like this.”

Obama’s reluctance to express opinions on local issues must come as a surprise to the citizens of Arizona. Or the Cambridge police. Or anyone who objects to the idea of the government mandating that they purchase a product. It doesn’t get much more local than that.

Coming from the President, this is not surprising. While Obama has wasted no amount of overheated rhetoric blasting talk radio, Fox News, Tea Partiers, and anyone else who would dare to voice disagreement with any of the power grabbing schemes he has spearheaded, he has been strangely conciliatory to the Arab (read: Islamic) world. I have no doubt that if he would answer honestly, if he’s capable, he would say that Rush Limbaugh is a greater threat to democracy and world peace than radical jihadists.

Can you imagine what Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, or Ronald Reagan would have said about the Ground Zero mosque? I suspect that they would not have mumbled that they “ . . . [would] not get involved in local decision-making issues like this.”

Of course, all of those previous Presidents possessed a spine.

Just Because They Have The Right To Do It Doesn't Mean It's Right To Do

I was performing fluoroscopy – barium enemas, upper GI studies, and such – at Butterworth Hospital in downtown Grand Rapids. I was between cases when one of our techs came in and said that a plane had flown into the World Trade Center. Thinking that it must have been a small sightseeing plane, I continued working. Shortly thereafter, someone else came in and said that another plane had flown into the World Trade Center and still another had flown into the Pentagon. I went into the patient waiting room, where there was a television, and watched as the second tower fell.

Very little work got done that day. Every chance we had, we’d stand and numbly watch the coverage of the events of that tragic day. I remember the sick feeling in my stomach and the feeling of walking around in a fog all day. I remember seeing people run in panic from the Capitol Building and from the crumbling towers. I remember watching the images over and over as jets flew into the twin towers and watching the towers fall. I remember my horror as I watched people jump from the towers, rather than being burned to death. I recall the enormous clouds of ash that covered blocks of Manhattan and anyone nearby. I remember following the news, hoping against hope that survivors would be found. Of course, they never were.

I went to a chapel service at the hospital the next day and remember one of the other physicians vent about how terribly angry he was. I was on the verge of tears the entire time. Probably everyone who reads this can recount similar stories and emotions from that day.

Today, 8 ½ years after over 3,000 innocent men, women, and children were slaughtered by radical Islamists, the final hurdle was cleared for the construction of a 13 story mosque and Islamic cultural center 600 feet from Ground Zero, slated to cost more than $100 million. The New York Landmarks Preservation Commission unanimously voted today that the building that stands on the site of the proposed mosque is not of sufficient architectural or historical interest that it would rise to landmark status.

The leader of the effort to build this complex at Ground Zero, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, claims that the Cordoba House, as it will be called, will be a “bridge to understanding” between the West and Islam. This “interfaith” center will, according to Rauf, help heal the wounds caused by the 9/11 attacks.

This, of course, is simply a steaming pile of bovine excrement.

The backers of this project have no desire to build bridges. They have no intention of healing wounds, but to rub salt in them. Anyone who truly believes the lies of Imam Rauf and his apologists, including New York Mayor Bloomberg, are ignorant – and it is a willing ignorance. Even a minimal amount of reading and research explains the purpose of this mosque. It is simply a symbol of conquest.

It is the ancient practice of Islamic conquerors to build mosques on the sites of their conquests. Think the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. After Jerusalem fell to the armies of Islam, the Temple of Solomon was razed and the Mosque of the Rock built in its place. Look at the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, Turkey. Formerly an Orthodox basilica, after the Islamic conquest of Istanbul, it was turned into a mosque. Even the name “Cordoba” has significance. It hearkens back to a great mosque built on the ruins of a Catholic Church after the Islamic conquest of Cordoba, Spain.

As such, the proposed Cordoba House is not so much a provocation, as some suggest. It is a proclamation. It is a statement that a great victory has been won – Allah has delivered the infidels to the army of Islam. It is a symbol that here is a foothold of Islam into the heart of the dhimmi – the peoples who do not live under the rule of Islam and Sharia. It is a monument to jihad.

Of course, the construction of this mosque in this place is extraordinarily offensive. But, no matter how offensive, no matter how sensitive, no matter how in-your-face, it isn’t illegal.

One of the paradoxes of our right to freedom of religion is that those rights are extended to those who would not grant us those same rights, were they in charge. And this is as it should be. Our country was originally settled by people fleeing religious persecution and they realized that religious freedom is a basic human right. Now, religious freedom cannot impinge on others’ individual freedoms. This is why, I don’t care what your religion says, human sacrifice is not permitted. Nor are honor killings, stoning of women who have been raped, killing of homosexuals, and other niceties of Sharia law. But building a mosque, in an area that is zoned for that type of activity, should not prohibited merely because it is offensive.

In order for any of our faiths to be protected from discrimination, all of our faiths must be protected. The government cannot be permitted to pick and choose between groups based on religious affiliation.

But while the government cannot be allowed to discriminate based on religious affiliation, the same does not hold true for individual citizens, non-governmental organizations, and other religious groups. We do not have the same responsibility of cooperation and non-judmentalism, as does our government. One of the most disappointing facets of this whole sordid affair is the unsurprising silence from other “mainstream” Muslims.

If any bridges are going to be built, it is imperative that the Muslim community in the United States denounces Sharia and its adherents. Vocal objections to the Cordoba Project would be a good place to start.

After the hearing by the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission today, a construction worker in attendance, Andy Sullivan, who volunteered at Ground Zero in the days after 9/11, said, “You’re going to have a problem getting labor there. Everyone I’ve talked to will not lift a finger to build that disgrace.” I hope he is correct. I hope that construction workers, plumbers, electricians, and suppliers refuse to assist on the project, but with the economy and unemployment as it is, I won’t hold my breath.

I hope that inspectors go over the building with a fine-toothed comb, looking for any infractions they can find. I don’t believe the City of New York should cut the Cordoba House any slack, whatsoever.

I hope that protesters gather in front of the mosque every day that it is open. I would like to see the people behind this and all who enter shunned and shamed.

The problem is that it is impossible to shame those who have no shame.

Ahoy there, maties! Belay those taxes!

Making the leap from total irrelevance to barely relevant last week was the man who is described by columnist Jonah Goldberg as “The Human Toothache” – Sen. John Kerry.

It seems that the erstwhile Presidential candidate recently bought a luxury yacht valued at $7 million, built in New Zealand.

Now, I don’t really care how Kerry spends his money, he married it legally. If he wants to stimulate the economy of New Zealand, that’s his business. The problem, it seems, is that Kerry, in order to avoid the exorbitant excise and mooring taxes of his home state of Massachusetts, decided to moor his yacht in the much more yacht-friendly state of Rhode Island. In so doing, Kerry avoids approximately $437,500 in sales tax and an additional $70,000/year in excise taxes. As one of the ruling elite who constantly remind us that the wealthy need to “pay their fair share” of taxes, Kerry painted himself into a corner of having to choose between fiscal stupidity and rank hypocrisy. In true liberal elite fashion, he chose hypocrisy. Would that Senator Kerry was as responsible with the American taxpayer’s money as with his own.

What does this episode teach us, except for the obvious fact that the ruling elites feel that they don’t have to live by the same rules that they impose on the rest of us? The primary, elementary, lesson we can take from this is that taxes are a disincentive.

Like water, business flows downhill from those areas of higher expense to areas of lower expense. In this case, in order to squeeze the maximum dollar out of a taxpayer, the state of Massachusetts lost all revenue from this activity to the state of Rhode Island, which has a much more favorable tax rate.

This should be a “duh!” concept. Taxes are an expense and every businessman knows that if you can turn out the same product for less expense, you increase your profit. Yet, as obvious as this concept is, our state and federal governments continue to insist that, in this recession, the way to raise revenue is to increase taxes on the very businesses and job creators that are keeping the economy afloat. When I had the opportunity to question a candidate vying to be governor of Michigan who favors keeping Michigan’s odious business tax in place why I should locate a new business in Michigan when right across the border in Indiana, there are much more favorable tax rates, he said that he doesn’t like the business tax, but it must be kept in place in order to maintain tax revenue. Of course, the problem with this thinking is that, even though Michigan collects much more in the way of taxes than does Indiana on each individual business, it is very difficult to collect taxes on a non-existent business.

Likewise, existing businesses must make a decision on whether the cost of moving their business to a state with more favorable tax rates is more prohibitive than staying in state and paying the confiscatory tax rates. In our modern global economy, what is true for our states is also true for nations. The United States has one of the highest business tax rates in the world. Why, then, do we wonder why our companies are fleeing to those countries with more favorable business environments?

What is true for businesses is also true for individuals. Whether we realize it or not, tax rates have a major influence on our population. The most obvious way this occurs is when workers move to follow a moving business. As I told this gubernatorial candidate, a large reason Michigan is in a fiscal crisis even deeper than that of most of the remainder of the US is not because our tax rates aren’t high enough. It is because we are hemorrhaging jobs and, therefore, dramatically contracting our tax base.

In addition to this, taxes are factored into the cost of living in any particular region. State and local taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. are all obvious factors in the cost of living. Those same taxes on businesses and services that are passed on to the consumer in the price of the object are less opaque, but no less real. Taxes are no less of an expense on a business than payroll and inventory and the business owner needs to recoup those expenses to make a profit. When business falls off, the owner of the business needs to cut expenses in order to stay afloat. Since taxes are a fixed expense, the business owner must cut expenses elsewhere. In a business that is running close to the margin of efficiency, anyway, the only way to do this often involves cutting personnel or cutting employee benefits.

It is incontrovertible that taxes harm businesses. This is why people such as the Obama administration’s Chair of Economic Advisors, Christina Romer and Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, have both recently stated that raising taxes during a recession will prolong or deepen a recession. Yet, Obama and the Congressional Democrats are determined to do just that by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on Dec. 31, 2010.

As of now, the Democrats say that the increases will only affect the “rich”, even though many of those affected will be small businesses that file taxes as individuals. So, in this era of almost 10% unemployment, the Democrats are proposing taxes be raised on the very people and businesses that are employers.

It is also easy for the Democrats to say, “Trust us. We’ll only let the taxes expire on the wealthy. The rest of you have nothing to worry about.” Yet, no bill has, as yet, been offered in Congress to extend the tax cuts for the lower income brackets. Why is that? When the Congress has an approval rating of 11% and Obama’s approval rating is less than 50%, wouldn’t it make sense to introduce a bill that is bound to be very popular before the mid-term elections? Do you really trust Congress when they tell you that they’ll pass a bill extending the tax cuts after the mid-term elections? Because politicians never lie, right?

Speaking of politicians never lying, Kerry, one week after this incident became public has vowed to “ . . . pay all the taxes I legally owe.” Yeah, we’ll see. Personally, I would rather have seen him keep the boat in Rhode Island and tell Massachusetts to jump in the ocean with their taxes. Maybe that would have given the Bay State an incentive to lower their taxes and keep business in state.

Hey, there’s an idea!

Shooting for the Crescent Moon

During his inaugural address, our new President, Barack Obama, promised to "restore science to its rightful place." Never mind that, under his predecessor, George W. Bush, there was no evidence that science ever slipped from the vernerated position that it has always held in the United States. Everyone understood that this was a shot at Bush's ethical position that unborn life is precious and worth protecting as well as his reticence to sacrifice the United States' economy on the altar of global warming alarmism that has subsequently been shown to rely on poorly conducted and blatantly political "science". Still, if, as Keith Olbermann claims, Obama "is one of the 1000 smartest people in the country" (which demonstrates, once again, that Olbermann is either one of the great satirists in history or totally bat-guano nuts), one would have to anticipate an exciting new path for scientific enquiry and progress from this administration.

And sure enough, this week we found that our Scientist-in-chief has forged a new path for the sciences through no less than the agency that, with the possible exception of the Manhattan Project (and I won't even go there), is the verysymbol of American scientific prowess and innovation - the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). At the end of June this year, the director of NASA, Charles Bolden, in an interview with Al Jazeera stated that President Obama had outlined his priorities for NASA:

"When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- [Obama] charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering,"

(If you receive your news solely from the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, you may be excused from not hearing this story, as it has not been mentioned once in the Washington Post, New York Times, or on ABC, NBC, or CBS newscast.)

So, I guess that this means that this President feels that the "rightful place" of science is to raise the self-esteem of Muslims. Maybe President Obama should educate us on the historic contributions of Islam to science and math, because whatever they may have once been, there has not been much contribution lately. In a 2006 article in the journalNature, Jim Al-Khalili states that:

Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) nations spend 0.34% of their GDP on scientific research, compared to the global average of 2.36%

Scientists, engineers, and technicians make up less than 1% of the population in Muslim countries, compared to about 4% worldwide and 14% in developed countries

Less than 1% of the world's academic papers come from Muslim nations

The entire "Arab world" publishes fewer academic papers than Harvard University researchers alone.

Indeed, Islam has been traditionally skeptical, if not overtly hostile to science. Much of the glowing rhetoric we heard concerning Islamic achievement in math and sciences in President Obama's Cairo speech was flat-out wrong. Even in the minority of those cases where the putative achievement didn't occur elsewhere (e.g. - the compass was invented in China, long before Mohammed was a twinkle in his daddy's eye), they were often achieved by Jewish or Christian Arabs in the face of active hostility from Islam. It seems that the Great Redistributor is not merely content with the redistribution of wealth, but now is intent on redistributing achievement, as well.

Maybe we should impress on the Muslim world that a religious establishment that forbids women to have any place in academia deserves not to feel so good about their contributions, however inflated those may be.

"Restoring science to its rightful place" is just another example of the flowery rhetoric of a vapid President for whom no low is too low to stoop if it will advance his liberal agenda.

I still recall the excitement and awe that I, as well as the entire nation, felt upon watching Neil Armstrong step onto the moon. It is a sad statement that this proud agency's "foremost" priority is no longer the exploration of the final frontier, but is, instead, to raise the self-esteem of the slow kid in the classroom.