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.

Why Soccer Sucks

Once again, we are in the midst of the quadrennial snooze-fest that is known throughout the rest of the globe as the World Cup. Here in the USA, it is better known as that &#^!)* show that is pre-empting Judge Judy again.

Every four years, the rest of the world reminds us that “football”, as they call it (I personally think the NFL should copyright the word football so that it may be reserved for the noble game for which it rightfully belongs), is the most popular sport in the world. Of course it is. It is just about the only sport in which the rest of the world can beat the US, though every victory over the USA should come with an asterisk, as will be discussed shortly.

Actually, soccer is the quintessential European and South American game. You have a bunch of activity, aimless running about, and noise, but when the game is over, nothing much has taken place and everyone goes out to eat at McDonald’s and watch an American movie.

The World Cup also provides yet another excuse for the usual scolds to harangue the rest of us about what sport we should prefer. You know these people. They are usually the ones that wear shirts with little alligators or polo players on it, drink expensive wine with names like Chateau du toilette, and have bumper stickers on their Prius that say things like, “Wouldn’t it be great if schools had all the money they need and the Air Force had to have a bake sale to buy a bomber?” They inform us that Americans don’t have the sophistication or intelligence to appreciate the nuances of the game. This is a real laugh if you’ve seen European and South American soccer fans. Appreciation of nuance, for these fans, went out the window with their 4^th pre-match ale. Most of the effete Americans who describe the game thusly wouldn’t be caught dead sharing face paint with a European or South American fan.

By the way, any American that refers to soccer as “football” deserves, no, needs to be immediately pummeled for his own good.

This week, The Nation columnist, Dave Zirin, explains why the Right (i.e. – conservatives) doesn’t like soccer. The reason is . . . wait for it . . . if you think about it you’ll know . . . because of RACISM! Of course! We right-wing bigots don’t like to watch little brown men running around kicking a ball. That would also explain why Americans enjoy pro football (the REAL football), basketball, and baseball, because there are no minorities in those sports, right? Of course, every “failing” of conservatism can be explained by racism to these lefty nutcases.

No, the reason Americans don’t like soccer is that it is about as exciting as watching your toenails grow. Think about it. How many of these games end up in a 0-0 or 1-1 tie. (And while we’re at it, there is no such number as “nil”. C’mon people, it’s zero!) I mean, this is supposed to be the greatest sporting event in the world. How can you play 90 minutes and end up with the same score with which you started? What is the point? It is no wonder that there are so many riots by soccer fans. I can imagine someone saying, “I paid 800,000 lira for tickets and 14 beers and spent 2 hours of my afternoon to come to the game and nothing happened? Someone is going to get their head bashed for this!” If I wanted to watch TV to go to sleep, I’d watch Obama speeches.

In fact, soccer would be much more interesting if the camera would scan the crowd every once in a while which, of course, is the reason that they don’t. The crowds for the World Cup are a regular United Nations. On one side of the field, you might see tanked up Scots laying a beat-down on a group of Ecuadorians, while on the other, Brazilian fans might be flashing their ta-tas at the camera. Instead, the camera shows a bunch of guys in shorts kicking a ball, often backwards. If these fans had access to real sports, they would, no doubt, rather spend their time watching football or NASCAR.

The World Cup does, however, serve to demonstrate unequivocally that the United States has the best athletes in the world. Think about it. If you are the best athlete in Argentina or Great Britain, what sport do you play? Soccer, of course. Now, if you are an American, what sport do you play? Why, football, basketball, baseball, and maybe even hockey. I’ll be generous and say that maybe someone would choose soccer over hockey. That still means our soccer players are our fourth-class athletes. In fact, the Limeys should be hanging their heads in shame that their A-team was tied (of course) by our D-team. Imagine if Michael Jordan, Allen Iverson, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, and Randy Moss played soccer. Think of Wilt Chamberlain in goal or Bob Cousy as team captain. Think of someone trying to head a ball kicked by former Oakland Raider punter, Ray Guy. It would be the last thing he would ever head, primarily because his head would no longer be attached to his neck. We would hand the rest of the world’s butts to them on a platter.

The best soccer player in Europe right now is supposedly a British chap named Wayne Rooney. Rooney actually is a “footballer” (a stupid term in itself. It is a football player or, in this case, soccer player) that Americans might like. He looks kind of like a scaled down version of the UFC’s Randy Couture, and has roughly the same temperament. Rooney is best known for getting a “red card” (Sigh! Really?) for stomping on a Portuguese player in the World Cup four years ago. In the true football, Rooney might be a safety.

The best South American player, and possibly the best player in the world, is an Argentinean named Lionel Messi. Messi is 1.69 meters, 5’7” tall! Are you kidding me? In the US, he would be a jockey. And don’t even get me started on using the metric system for vital statistics. If they want Americans to be interested in the game, they could at least use the measurement system that God intended.

Now, the argument I often hear is, “Soccer is really hard. You couldn’t do it.” This is true. Of course, I can’t play the piccolo or do gymnastics, either, but that doesn’t mean that either of them is exciting to watch. Think about what soccer players do – they run and they kick. They don’t jump. They don’t throw. They don’t catch. They don’t even use their hands, for crying out loud! I realize that they run for 45 minutes at a time, but so do marathon runners. That doesn’t make it a manly sport. In fact, to watch these guys, you’d think they are the biggest wussies in the world. If they so much as get brushed, they immediately collapse to the ground as if shot and roll around in agony for about half an hour. What would happen if they were to meet Ray Lewis on the line of scrimmage? They’d probably scream and run away.

The major story about this year’s World Cup isn’t about the games at all (NEWSFLASH – Sri Lanka ties Paraguay 0 – 0!) No, the major story is about the fans’ vuvuzelas. In spite of the vaguely obscene sounding name, the vuvuzela is a plastic horn that, for some reason, is very popular at soccer games in South Africa. The fans, once again, demonstrating their appreciation of nuance, blow these things incessantly throughout the game, no matter who has the ball. When watching on TV, the vuvuzelas make it sound as if your Sony big screen has been infested with a swarm of cicadas. This proves that American fans are definitely more sophisticated than European fans. In the US vuvuelas would only be used when the Raiders come to the line of scrimmage or when Kobe Bryant is at the free throw line.

My best advice is to just put up with soccer for the month, and then you won’t have to think about it again for another four years. Don’t panic about the commentators who claim that soccer will be the next big thing in America. It ain’t gonna happen. Unless, of course, Obama totally sells us down the European road, then who knows?

Disclaimer – The author doesn’t really think that soccer sucks and actually kind of enjoys watching the World Cup. I just enjoy tweaking soccer fans and liberals even more. -jc

Why I Am Voting For Justin Amash

It is a biennial American tradition. We gripe about our politicians and claim we want something different, someone who is principled and honest, someone who will do as he says he will do. We want Jimmy Stewart’s Mr. Smith - someone who will stand up to the entrenched interests in Washington and vote his conscious, someone who will look out for his country, not his own self-interests. We say that this is the type of person we want to elect to Congress, and then we go out and pull the lever for the same old people, or politicians just like them.

Sure, sometimes we get excited about people who say that they are a different type of politician, but have never demonstrated any type of independent streak that would give credence to this claim. We have suffered through many politicians like this, our current President being exhibit A. Hope and change becomes the same old political game, only with more ineptitude and coarser tactics.

So where do we find a Mr. Smith? May I suggest that we have just a man in Michigan’s 3^rd Congressional district – Justin Amash.

Let me just say right now that I don’t work for Mr. Amash. I’ve never even met the man and I’m sure he wouldn’t know me from Adam were I to walk up to him on the street. Neither he nor his campaign solicited this endorsement. In fact, until I send it to him, they will have no clue that it is coming. But while I have never met Mr. Amash, I have followed his brief political career with interest.

Justin Amash is my state Representative in Lansing. He campaigned on a conservative platform and has consistently, and without exception, done what he said he would do. He is less of a Republican than he is a true conservative. His philosophy strongly leans libertarian and he is a consistent and vocal opponent of government expansion. He is a man who is not afraid to vote NO, even if it is an unpopular vote and even if it runs counter to his party. If you see votes of 103-1 in the Michigan House, chances are very good that one vote belongs to Mr. Amash. He will not “go along to get along.”

In an era where “transparency” is a mantra of every politician, Justin means it. He is the only Michigan legislator to post every vote he casts on Facebook and Twitter from the House floor. He gives the number of the bill, a brief synopsis, and the reason why he voted as he did. Sometimes that explanation may be along the lines of, “This sounds like it might be a good bill, but we weren’t given a chance to read all of it before we voted on it.” (He has promised not to vote for a bill he has not read, a stance that, in itself, is a breath of fresh air and a dose of common sense that should be welcome in Washington.) After posting his vote on Facebook, he welcomes comments and questions and often enters into the discussion. He is also one of the only one or two Michigan Representatives that has never missed a vote in the House.

In this day when “obstructionist” is a pejorative term, it is my belief that more obstructionists are exactly what are needed in Washington. We need someone who will stand up to the proponents of big government, from both parties. As he has done in Lansing, I have no doubt that Mr. Amash will gladly oppose his own party when necessary. If you are looking for someone who will expand government, play party politics, or “bring the pork back to Grand Rapids,” look elsewhere. That is not the way he has played the game in Lansing and I see no evidence that he will change now.

Please go to his website: http://amashforcongress.com for his specific policy positions and to learn more about him. If you are on Facebook, I encourage you to begin following Mr. Amash.

On Aug. 3, I encourage you to vote for Justin Amash in the Republican primary for Michigan’s 3^rd district. This year, let’s be serious when we say we want something different.

The Poor Need to Pay Their Fair Share

This week, Hillary Clinton trotted out the now familiar mantra of the Socialist Democrats that the wealthy "need to start paying their fair share." This is a tired trope which has as much to do with the Socialist Democratic political tactics of divide-and-conquer as it does with political philosophy.

In a country where the top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of the income taxes and the top 50% pay 97%, we have almost half of the wage earners in the United States paying only 3% of income taxes (IRS data for 2008.) Let me repeat that - practically the entire tax burden of this country is borne by half of the wage earners. In fact, the wealthy pay a higher percentage of taxes after the Bush tax cuts than before the Bush tax cuts. We are at the cusp of the disturbing and dangerous condition where the majority will be able to vote themselves unlimited benefits and demand that the minority pay for them.

This, of course, is the intention of the Socialist Democrats. The more savvy of them (in which category I do not place Barack Obama) know that socialism doesn't work. This type of redistribution of wealth has never worked, no matter how or where its been tried. For just the latest example, look at Greece. No, this is not about "fairness" or raising the poor out of poverty. On the contrary, the left would like to place more people in that class that depends on government largesse, because they are a reliable voting bloc. So, as they have successfully done for years with race (for the latest example, look at the flap over the Arizona situation), the Socialist Democrats are trying to divide the country along socioeconomic lines in order to preserve political power.

Anytime you make anything more costly, including by taxation, it creates a disincentive for whatever product or behavior is being taxed. The Socialist Democrats know this very well. This is why they propose taxing soft drinks, cigarettes, and fossil fuels - to discourage people from using them. Likewise, the more earnings and investments are taxed, the less incentive there is for people to earn or invest. In my case, for instance, I am considered by the Obama administration to be "wealthy", a threshold that is getting lower all the time. I work, on average, about 50 hours a week. By the time I pay federal, state, and city income tax, almost 25 of those hours will be spent working for the government. That doesn't count payroll tax, sales tax, etc. With the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the tax raises that are on the way for Obamacare, my marginal tax rate will be somewhere between 60-70%. I have to decide whether I should continue working in my field if I am going to be punished for it. Maybe it would be better for me to get a much lower stress, 30 hr./week job that pays a fraction of what I'm making now, but I don't have to pay taxes, or at least much in the way of taxes. Many other physicians are evaluating the same thing and, honestly, medicine doesn't look very promising right now.

Instead, I think we should look at a different solution - make the poor pay their fair share of taxes. In short, everyone who votes should be required to pay at least some income tax, no matter how little. When income taxes rise, they should all rise proportionately. This way, increased government spending will affect everyone. There will not be a class of people that vote for government projects and/or subsidies, yet are exempt from the negative ramifications of those projects. If we want to get control over government spending, just start making everyone pay for it. The politicians will get the message very quickly that it is not in their best interest to continue to spend like a drunken sailor. We keep hearing how we all need to participate in a "shared sacrifice". All right, let's make sure the sacrifice is truly shared.

How long do you suppose Nancy Pelosi will continue to utilize a government jet to fly back to California, instead of flying commercial, when someone making $35,000/yr. sees his taxes increase? How important will government funded frog tunnels be, then? Do you think that there may be just a little more outrage over a Timothy Geithner or Al Sharpton touting "shared sacrifice" as they simultaneously dodge the very tax collection agency that they oversee?

If President Obama and his lackeys in the Socialist Democratic party truly wanted to be uniters, not dividers, as they claim to be, I can think of nothing that would unite the people of this country more quickly than an announcement that everyone was going to have to help pay for all the spending the government is up to. That is, if they were serious.

And if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts every time they hopped.

Dereliction of Duty

On Monday, May 31st, the United States will celebrate Memorial Day. As a country, we have a tradition of holding our military in high esteem. We have experienced an unprecedented amount of freedom and we realize that it is because of our military that we are able to do so. Monday, cemeteries will be decorated, veteran's groups will have ceremonies, and flags will fly at half-staff.

Memorial Day is also a national holiday. Most Americans will be off work to enjoy time with their families, barbeque, and watch baseball and car races. It is good to take a respite from work to refresh the body and the mind and, hopefully, remember the sacrifices our men and women in uniform have made for us.

But not everyone will be on vacation. Our first responders will continue to be on the job. I and many of my fellow health care workers will spend the day in the hospital. Even some store clerks, gas station attendants, etc. will be on the job Monday. Most importantly, our active duty military men and women overseas will be at work. Meanwhile, President Obama will be taking a vacation.

Now, I'm not normally one to begrudge our Presidents their vacations. I realize that even the President, especially the President, deserves and needs a vacation. Frankly, I'd rather the President be on vacation rather than out stirring up mischief most of the time. But in taking a vacation on Memorial Day, the President is abdicating his duty.

The President of the United States of America is not only our chief executive, he is also Commander-in-Chief of our military. As Commander-in-Chief, it is his responsibility to order our troops into harm's way. In fact, he has done so by continuing the actions in Iraq and escalating the military presence in Afghanistan. This is an awesome responsibility and the military deserves to know that their Commander-in-Chief supports them and is cognizant of their sacrifice.

That is why it is inexcusable that, when a wreath is laid on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National cemetery - that monument recognizing the ultimate sacrifice given by generations of soldiers - that it will be Vice-President Biden laying the wreath. .

Oh, sure. I have no doubt that the "Office of the President" will issue a statement commending our military for their sacrifice and lecturing us to do the same. Maybe the President will have even read it before it is issued, but there is a significance in tradition and ceremony - in the military more than in almost any other institution in the country.

There have been other Presidents who have not attended the wreath laying ceremony at Arlington. In 2002, George W. Bush laid a wreath in the American cemetery in Normandy, France. President Reagan only made four of the Memorial Day ceremonies in his 8 years as President - for one of those, he'd just been shot and for two of the others he was at summits, one in Moscow and the other with leaders of democracies in Williamsburg, VA. The fourth, he was on vacation. George H.W. Bush took Memorial Day for vacation every year. So yes, I fault them for vacationing during this time, as well.

As a President and leader of a party which is seen by a significant segment of the American population as, at best, ambivalent about the military and, at worst, anti-military, it is especially important that Obama take steps to demonstrate that he does, in fact, support the military.

The President can pretty much set his own schedule. Why not take a three day weekend next weekend? Why not last weekend? Heck, take three days in the middle of the week. But the President needs to be at Arlington on Memorial Day.