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.