by David Limbaugh
Everywhere we turn these days, it seems, leftists are undermining and attacking capitalism on moral grounds. Their criticisms are directed not at merely certain corrupt corporations or individuals who abuse the system, but at the system itself.
Sadly, few conservatives, even conservative Christians, are willing or prepared to defend capitalism's virtues. Rather than tout it in terms of liberty, they sheepishly apologize for its allegedly inherent greed.
It's a testament to the power of propaganda and the appeal of emotion over reason that a system that has produced the greatest prosperity in world history is castigated on moral grounds, while those systems that have proliferated abject misery, poverty, tyranny and subjugation are hailed as morally superior.
Granted, most leftists don't openly confess their hostility to capitalism, but they come close, especially in their endless waging of class warfare.
Surely you've heard Obama say, preposterously, "A free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it." No one actually supports this straw man argument. American capitalism has always been subject to the rule of law. Even the fiercest free market proponents don't defend the license to steal or economic anarchy.
Hidden in Obama's statement (and more apparent in some of his other statements) are unmistakable implications that those who thrive in our system are immoral and don't deserve it and that the less successful have been cheated out of their just desserts. This doubtlessly proceeds from his leftist view of the relationship between government and the people.
The left doesn't seem to comprehend the indispensability of private property to liberty or the necessity of liberty to achieve prosperity. To them, it is not individuals operating in a climate of liberty who produce prosperity. Government produces (or magnanimously permits) the creation of wealth and is the most appropriate vehicle for distributing that wealth and delivering the greatest good to the greatest number of people.
America's gross national product first belongs to the government, and only that portion the government allows you, in its beneficence, to keep after taxes is your money. But even then, it is not wholly your money, for you are not free to transfer it by gift (lifetime or death) to whomever you'd like without penalty. And interest you earn on it will also be taxed.
____
David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of new book Crimes Against Liberty, the definitive chronicle of Barack Obama's devastating term in office so far.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
Palin And The Ryan Roadmap
by John Hayward
Writing for the Wall Street Journal today, Sarah Palin unfurls the fiscal “road map” prepared by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, and likes where it leads.
She didn’t much care for the recommendations of the President’s bipartisan deficit reduction panel, co-chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, although she commends the authors for taking the problem seriously. “The report shows we're much closer to the budgetary breaking point than previously assumed,” Palin says. “The Medicare Trust Fund will be insolvent by 2017. As early as 2025, federal revenue will barely be enough to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on our national debt. With spending structurally outpacing revenue, something clearly needs to be done to avert national bankruptcy.”
I personally think 2017 and 2025 are generous assessments of the fiscal “doomsday” date, because those dates don’t properly account for the dynamic affects of a shrinking economy as fiscal collapse approaches. If we don’t get on a road map to fiscal sanity very soon, we’re going to arrive in 2017 on a roller coaster, picking up speed as it rattles down the tracks.
Palin judges the deficit commission’s report inadequate because it leaves three major financial tumors largely untreated: Social Security, ObamaCare, and our incredibly convoluted tax system. The commission would address Social Security by raising the retirement age, long after the point where the system would have become insolvent – and even at that, it would be making an already rotten deal for future retirees even worse. Ryan’s “Roadmap For America’s Future,” on the other hand, offers a program for younger workers to opt into a private retirement account, while preserving existing benefits for those 55 and older. There is, quite frankly, no other approach that will save the system.
“On health care,” Palin continues, the Roadmap “would replace ObamaCare with a new system in which people are given greater control over their own health-care spending. It achieves this partly through creating medical savings accounts and a new health-care tax credit - the only tax credit that would be left in a radically simplified new income tax system that people can opt into if they wish.” It also reforms Medicare for those under 55 into a “voucher with which people can purchase their own care.” The one thing we’ve never tried to do, in the course of “reforming” health care, is give individuals more control over it, coupled with more incentives for health care providers to win their business through competition.
On taxes, the Ryan plan would “replace our high and anticompetitive corporate income tax with a business consumption tax of just 8.5%. The overall tax burden would be limited to 19% of GDP (compared to 21% under the deficit commission's proposals).” From World War II to the 1970s, the government spent less than 20% of GDP. Our fiscal health went terminal when that limit was exceeded. There is a school of economic thought that suggests it’s essentially impossible for any government to indefinitely sustain spending beyond the 20% threshold, as the recessive effects of excessive taxation and spending cause the economy to begin deflating. I think we’ve gotten close enough to proving this theory to suspend the experiment.
Ryan’s plan also simplifies the tax system to two rates, 10% for single filers up to $50,000 or joint filers up to $100,000, and 25 percent for higher amounts, with a generous standard deduction. It eliminates double taxation on savings, investments, and estates, taxing only income. Aside from the health care credit, the rest of the complex maze of deductions, subsidies, and penalties that turn our current tax code into an instrument of social control are eliminated.
“Together these reforms help to secure our entitlement programs for the 21st century,” Palin concludes. “According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Roadmap would lead to lower deficits and a much lower federal debt. The CBO estimates that under current spending plans, our federal debt would rise to 87% of GDP by 2020, to 223% by 2040, and to 433% by 2060. Under Rep. Ryan's Roadmap, the CBO estimates that debt would rise much more slowly, peaking at 99% in 2040 and then dropping back to 77% by 2060.”
It’s important to see one of the most popular figures in the conservative movement throwing her weight behind a carefully thought-out set of proposals like Ryan’s. As Palin concedes, the Roadmap for America’s Future isn’t perfect, but it’s clearly not a bunch of cockamamie ideas Ryan tossed out in a beer-fueled rant after realizing he couldn’t handle Speaker Nancy Pelosi for one more instant. Ryan’s ideas are also consonant with a lot of interesting things Mike Pence has been saying lately.
The common liberal knock on the Tea Party movement in general, and Sarah Palin in particular, is that they have no ideas, only complaints and sound bites. Palin expresses her own concrete proposals on a regular basis, and now she’s signing on to the reinforced concrete of Paul Ryan’s comprehensive plan. As Americans watch the Democrats dissolve in a petulant meltdown over their own childish demands, economic fantasies, and utter irresponsibility, they would do well to learn that people like Palin, Ryan, and Pence are the adults in the room.
____
John Hayward is a staff writer for HUMAN EVENTS, and author of the recently published Doctor Zero: Year One. Follow him on Twitter: Doc_0. Contact him by email at jhayward@eaglepub.com.
Writing for the Wall Street Journal today, Sarah Palin unfurls the fiscal “road map” prepared by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, and likes where it leads.
She didn’t much care for the recommendations of the President’s bipartisan deficit reduction panel, co-chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, although she commends the authors for taking the problem seriously. “The report shows we're much closer to the budgetary breaking point than previously assumed,” Palin says. “The Medicare Trust Fund will be insolvent by 2017. As early as 2025, federal revenue will barely be enough to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on our national debt. With spending structurally outpacing revenue, something clearly needs to be done to avert national bankruptcy.”
I personally think 2017 and 2025 are generous assessments of the fiscal “doomsday” date, because those dates don’t properly account for the dynamic affects of a shrinking economy as fiscal collapse approaches. If we don’t get on a road map to fiscal sanity very soon, we’re going to arrive in 2017 on a roller coaster, picking up speed as it rattles down the tracks.
Palin judges the deficit commission’s report inadequate because it leaves three major financial tumors largely untreated: Social Security, ObamaCare, and our incredibly convoluted tax system. The commission would address Social Security by raising the retirement age, long after the point where the system would have become insolvent – and even at that, it would be making an already rotten deal for future retirees even worse. Ryan’s “Roadmap For America’s Future,” on the other hand, offers a program for younger workers to opt into a private retirement account, while preserving existing benefits for those 55 and older. There is, quite frankly, no other approach that will save the system.
“On health care,” Palin continues, the Roadmap “would replace ObamaCare with a new system in which people are given greater control over their own health-care spending. It achieves this partly through creating medical savings accounts and a new health-care tax credit - the only tax credit that would be left in a radically simplified new income tax system that people can opt into if they wish.” It also reforms Medicare for those under 55 into a “voucher with which people can purchase their own care.” The one thing we’ve never tried to do, in the course of “reforming” health care, is give individuals more control over it, coupled with more incentives for health care providers to win their business through competition.
On taxes, the Ryan plan would “replace our high and anticompetitive corporate income tax with a business consumption tax of just 8.5%. The overall tax burden would be limited to 19% of GDP (compared to 21% under the deficit commission's proposals).” From World War II to the 1970s, the government spent less than 20% of GDP. Our fiscal health went terminal when that limit was exceeded. There is a school of economic thought that suggests it’s essentially impossible for any government to indefinitely sustain spending beyond the 20% threshold, as the recessive effects of excessive taxation and spending cause the economy to begin deflating. I think we’ve gotten close enough to proving this theory to suspend the experiment.
Ryan’s plan also simplifies the tax system to two rates, 10% for single filers up to $50,000 or joint filers up to $100,000, and 25 percent for higher amounts, with a generous standard deduction. It eliminates double taxation on savings, investments, and estates, taxing only income. Aside from the health care credit, the rest of the complex maze of deductions, subsidies, and penalties that turn our current tax code into an instrument of social control are eliminated.
“Together these reforms help to secure our entitlement programs for the 21st century,” Palin concludes. “According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Roadmap would lead to lower deficits and a much lower federal debt. The CBO estimates that under current spending plans, our federal debt would rise to 87% of GDP by 2020, to 223% by 2040, and to 433% by 2060. Under Rep. Ryan's Roadmap, the CBO estimates that debt would rise much more slowly, peaking at 99% in 2040 and then dropping back to 77% by 2060.”
It’s important to see one of the most popular figures in the conservative movement throwing her weight behind a carefully thought-out set of proposals like Ryan’s. As Palin concedes, the Roadmap for America’s Future isn’t perfect, but it’s clearly not a bunch of cockamamie ideas Ryan tossed out in a beer-fueled rant after realizing he couldn’t handle Speaker Nancy Pelosi for one more instant. Ryan’s ideas are also consonant with a lot of interesting things Mike Pence has been saying lately.
The common liberal knock on the Tea Party movement in general, and Sarah Palin in particular, is that they have no ideas, only complaints and sound bites. Palin expresses her own concrete proposals on a regular basis, and now she’s signing on to the reinforced concrete of Paul Ryan’s comprehensive plan. As Americans watch the Democrats dissolve in a petulant meltdown over their own childish demands, economic fantasies, and utter irresponsibility, they would do well to learn that people like Palin, Ryan, and Pence are the adults in the room.
____
John Hayward is a staff writer for HUMAN EVENTS, and author of the recently published Doctor Zero: Year One. Follow him on Twitter: Doc_0. Contact him by email at jhayward@eaglepub.com.
Federal Reserve's 'money magicians' exposed
DEAL OF THE DAY
Ron Paul: 'Be prepared for 1 heck of a journey through time and mind'
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Thousands of readers consider it simply the best, most understandable, yet most mind-boggling and comprehensive expos̩ ever written on the Federal Reserve System, and today only, WND readers can get G. Edward Griffin's legendary 608-page blockbuster, "The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve," for only $4.95 Рa savings of almost $20!
Where does money come from? Where does it go? Who makes it? All of these questions and more are revealed in this mesmerizing book as the money magicians' secrets are unveiled. We are invited to take a close look at their mirrors and smoke machines, and their pulleys, cogs, and wheels that create the grand illusion called money.
Banking and the Federal Reserve ... a dry and boring subject? Don't believe it! Once you pick up this book you'll be hooked in five minutes. This book reads like a detective story – which it really is; but it's all true. "The Creature from Jekyll Island" is about the most blatant scam of all history. You'll find it all here: the cause of wars, boom-bust cycles, inflation, depression, prosperity and more.
"A superb analysis deserving serious attention by all Americans. Be prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind." – U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, member, House Banking Committee
"What every American needs to know about central bank power. A gripping adventure into the secret world of the international banking cartel." – Mark Thornton, assistant professor of economics, Auburn University Coordinator of Academic Affairs, Ludwig von Mises Institute
"A magnificent accomplishment – a trainload of heavy history, organized so well and written in such a relaxed and easy style that it captivated me. I hated to put it down." – Dan Smoot, publisher/editor, Dan Smoot Report
"The Creature from Jekyll Island" will change the way you view the world, politics, and money. After you finish this book, your world view will have changed forever. You'll never trust a politician again – or a banker.
That's right. Your eyes are not deceiving you. Right now, you can save almost $20 off the cover price of G. Edward Griffin's masterpiece, "The Creature from Jekyll Island."
Until tonight at 10 p.m. Pacific tonight, you can get your copy for only $4.95 by taking advantage of this special offer, exclusively from WorldNetDaily.
But wait – it gets better. There's another part to this deal. When you order "The Creature from Jekyll Island " for $4.95, we will also send you, FREE, three sizzling issues of WND's critically acclaimed monthly magazine, Whistleblower.
Many readers consider Whistleblower to be simply the world's best news magazine. Each issue focuses like a powerful laser on a single topic – from how to survive financial meltdown to understanding the secret agendas of America's establishment elite – explored thoroughly, and with facts and insight such as you've never seen anywhere else. Recent issues include "SHADOW GOVERNMENT: Inside the mad, mad, mad, mad world of Obama's czars," "MEDICAL MURDER: Why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers," "THE GREAT AWAKENING: How tea partiers are setting a new course for America," "NARCISSIST IN CHIEF: Experts explain what makes Barack Obama tick" and "BLACK HOLE: The shocking truth about the U.S. economy – and what you can and must do."
So, for $4.95 you get a copy of "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin, plus you get three sample issues of Whistleblower – in hopes, of course, that you will do what most people do, which is to become a long-term Whistleblower subscriber.
(Note: This offer does not apply to current Whistleblower subscribers or those living outside the U.S. However, if you are already a Whistleblower subscriber, or if you want to subscribe now, we have an outstanding offer for you to check out!)
Important: For this very special $4.95 offer, you will receive G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island" as well as three free issues of Whistleblower magazine. Also included with your free issues will be a renewal notice for a one-year Whistleblower subscription. If you wish to renew, do nothing, and your credit or debit card will be charged the low annual renewal rate of $39.95. (There's no risk, because at any time you can cancel your subscription for a full refund on the unused portion.) If you don't want to renew, simply cancel by calling 1-800-4WNDCOM (800-496-3266) or by emailing canceltrial@wnd.com before the charge date printed on the renewal card you'll receive. Either way, the book and the 3 free issues are yours to keep. (Only one copy of " The Creature from Jekyll Island" at this price per household. Offer good only in the U.S.)
Please note: If you like your three free Whistleblower issues and renew, when your Whistleblower subscription eventually expires, you'll receive another renewal notice from us. To keep Whistleblower coming, do nothing and we'll renew your subscription automatically at the low prevailing rate by charging your credit or debit card. As always, there's never any risk, as you may cancel at any time for a full refund of the unused portion of your subscription.
"This is an amazing offer, one that sounds almost too good to be true," said WND Editor Joseph Farah. "But it is true – our way of giving loyal WND readers a fantastic bargain, while at the same time introducing them to our monthly magazine."
"I urge readers to take advantage of this special deal now, because we can only offer it for a short time," Farah added.
Order your copy of "The Creature from Jekyll Island" for only $4.95! Special offer ends tonight at 10 p.m. Pacific.
If you prefer to order by phone rather than online, call our toll-free customer service line at 1-800-4WND-COM (1-800-496-3266) between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Central.
Ron Paul: 'Be prepared for 1 heck of a journey through time and mind'
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Thousands of readers consider it simply the best, most understandable, yet most mind-boggling and comprehensive expos̩ ever written on the Federal Reserve System, and today only, WND readers can get G. Edward Griffin's legendary 608-page blockbuster, "The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve," for only $4.95 Рa savings of almost $20!
Where does money come from? Where does it go? Who makes it? All of these questions and more are revealed in this mesmerizing book as the money magicians' secrets are unveiled. We are invited to take a close look at their mirrors and smoke machines, and their pulleys, cogs, and wheels that create the grand illusion called money.
Banking and the Federal Reserve ... a dry and boring subject? Don't believe it! Once you pick up this book you'll be hooked in five minutes. This book reads like a detective story – which it really is; but it's all true. "The Creature from Jekyll Island" is about the most blatant scam of all history. You'll find it all here: the cause of wars, boom-bust cycles, inflation, depression, prosperity and more.
"A superb analysis deserving serious attention by all Americans. Be prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind." – U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, member, House Banking Committee
"What every American needs to know about central bank power. A gripping adventure into the secret world of the international banking cartel." – Mark Thornton, assistant professor of economics, Auburn University Coordinator of Academic Affairs, Ludwig von Mises Institute
"A magnificent accomplishment – a trainload of heavy history, organized so well and written in such a relaxed and easy style that it captivated me. I hated to put it down." – Dan Smoot, publisher/editor, Dan Smoot Report
"The Creature from Jekyll Island" will change the way you view the world, politics, and money. After you finish this book, your world view will have changed forever. You'll never trust a politician again – or a banker.
That's right. Your eyes are not deceiving you. Right now, you can save almost $20 off the cover price of G. Edward Griffin's masterpiece, "The Creature from Jekyll Island."
Until tonight at 10 p.m. Pacific tonight, you can get your copy for only $4.95 by taking advantage of this special offer, exclusively from WorldNetDaily.
But wait – it gets better. There's another part to this deal. When you order "The Creature from Jekyll Island " for $4.95, we will also send you, FREE, three sizzling issues of WND's critically acclaimed monthly magazine, Whistleblower.
Many readers consider Whistleblower to be simply the world's best news magazine. Each issue focuses like a powerful laser on a single topic – from how to survive financial meltdown to understanding the secret agendas of America's establishment elite – explored thoroughly, and with facts and insight such as you've never seen anywhere else. Recent issues include "SHADOW GOVERNMENT: Inside the mad, mad, mad, mad world of Obama's czars," "MEDICAL MURDER: Why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers," "THE GREAT AWAKENING: How tea partiers are setting a new course for America," "NARCISSIST IN CHIEF: Experts explain what makes Barack Obama tick" and "BLACK HOLE: The shocking truth about the U.S. economy – and what you can and must do."
So, for $4.95 you get a copy of "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin, plus you get three sample issues of Whistleblower – in hopes, of course, that you will do what most people do, which is to become a long-term Whistleblower subscriber.
(Note: This offer does not apply to current Whistleblower subscribers or those living outside the U.S. However, if you are already a Whistleblower subscriber, or if you want to subscribe now, we have an outstanding offer for you to check out!)
Important: For this very special $4.95 offer, you will receive G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island" as well as three free issues of Whistleblower magazine. Also included with your free issues will be a renewal notice for a one-year Whistleblower subscription. If you wish to renew, do nothing, and your credit or debit card will be charged the low annual renewal rate of $39.95. (There's no risk, because at any time you can cancel your subscription for a full refund on the unused portion.) If you don't want to renew, simply cancel by calling 1-800-4WNDCOM (800-496-3266) or by emailing canceltrial@wnd.com before the charge date printed on the renewal card you'll receive. Either way, the book and the 3 free issues are yours to keep. (Only one copy of " The Creature from Jekyll Island" at this price per household. Offer good only in the U.S.)
Please note: If you like your three free Whistleblower issues and renew, when your Whistleblower subscription eventually expires, you'll receive another renewal notice from us. To keep Whistleblower coming, do nothing and we'll renew your subscription automatically at the low prevailing rate by charging your credit or debit card. As always, there's never any risk, as you may cancel at any time for a full refund of the unused portion of your subscription.
"This is an amazing offer, one that sounds almost too good to be true," said WND Editor Joseph Farah. "But it is true – our way of giving loyal WND readers a fantastic bargain, while at the same time introducing them to our monthly magazine."
"I urge readers to take advantage of this special deal now, because we can only offer it for a short time," Farah added.
Order your copy of "The Creature from Jekyll Island" for only $4.95! Special offer ends tonight at 10 p.m. Pacific.
If you prefer to order by phone rather than online, call our toll-free customer service line at 1-800-4WND-COM (1-800-496-3266) between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Central.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
McCain: 264,600 may quit military
THE GAY-ING OF AMERICA
3 top commanders warn Senate: Don't accept open homosexuality, 'reprogramming' rejected
By Brian Fitzpatrick© 2010 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – As the commanders of the Army, Air Force and Marines cautioned the U.S. Senate against abruptly repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, critics are also warning that accepting open homosexuality and pro-homosexual "reprogramming" could drive massive numbers of troops out of the service.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., pointed out during the first day of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on Thursday that according to a survey conducted for the Pentagon, repealing DADT could create an "alarming" troop retention problem at a time when the military is already shorthanded.
Get the inside story on what's happening to America, in "HOW EVIL WORKS: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America"
Said McCain, "If 12.6 percent of the military left earlier, that translates into 264,600 men and women who would leave the military earlier than they had planned … Do you think that's a good idea to replace 265,000 troops … in a time of war?"
Military analyst Bob Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and senior fellow for national security at the Family Research Council, said the real number could exceed half a million.
"Twelve-point-six percent is just the people who said they would leave," Maginnis told WND. "If you add in the number who said they 'might' leave, you get 23.7 percent. That would be 528,000, when you count both active duty and reserves.
"And that's only if you trust their numbers," Maginnis continued. "They have a real problem with their numbers. It's skewed toward noncombatants, and the Air Force had much larger proportional participation than the Army, so the numbers are totally unreliable.
"They spun their questions in a way that's absolutely bizarre. They literally have distorted the truth, it's all about repeal, not about what's good for the service," he said..
"I don't think people understand how they have spun these numbers. Not only is the survey biased, the way they combined their percentages is skewed. They say 50 or 55 percent of the troops support repeal, but that's not true. The big slice of that 55 percent is 'mixed', some positive, some negative." The truth is, it was 30 percent negative, and 15 or 20 percent positive."
Maginnis said the results of the survey consistently show that two service members oppose DADT repeal for every supporter.
Marine Corps commandant Gen. James Amos acknowledged Friday that a clear majority of combat Marines oppose permitting open homosexuality in the ranks.
"Their message is that the potential exists for disruption of the successful execution of our current combat mission should repeal be implemented at this time," said Amos.
In addition to compromising combat effectiveness, repealing DADT would also threaten unit cohesion and combat readiness, according to Amos.
"If the law is changed, successfully implementing repeal and assimilating openly homosexual Marines into the tightly woven fabric of our combat units has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level," Amos testified. "It will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat." >"[I] would not recommend going forward at this time, given everything the Army has on its plate," said Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey. "I believe the law should be repealed eventually." Casey said DADT could be repealed with "moderate risk to our military effectiveness and the long-term health of the force.".
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz advised delaying any change until 2012, to give the military enough time to implement "training and education programs."
Only Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead recommended repealing DADT this year, parroting an argument made Wednesday by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that the risks involved in allowing open homosexuality in the ranks could be overcome by "leadership."
"I believe these concerns can be effectively mitigated through engaged leadership," said Roughead.
Far from easing the transition to a "gay"-friendly military, the "training and education" recommended by Schwartz could actually amplify recruitment and retention problems, according to Maginnis. "You'll sit through mandatory classes and someone tells you what you can and cannot do. Criticism of homosexuality will receive zero tolerance. Sex and gender equality will be embedded in every basic officer training course all the way up to the war colleges." "'Re-education,' that's a good term … or call it 'reprogramming,'" said Maginnis. "Ever since George Washington the military has been programmed to believe homosexuals are disruptive to morale and unit cohesiveness, and are a readiness problem. You have to expunge all those negative thoughts you have about homosexuality and replace them with what you're told by the chain of command about what's right and wrong. "If you have strongly held religious beliefs you'll have cognitive dissonance, and it'll be very difficult to overcome. The military is ignoring privacy concerns, and you'll be told you'll have to room with a homosexual. Your commander will tell you that you will never be propositioned and your roommate will never leer at you, so your deeply held religious beliefs will be of no consequence," he said.
"You have a disproportionate number of evangelicals in the armed forces today. Retention among that population is going to be hit. >"Recruitment is the big elephant in the living room," Maginnis added. "The report says enlistment could decline by seven percent. That's serious. What they don't tell you is we recruit from the south and the mountain west states, which have the highest Protestant numbers of any of the states. We also find they come from families with a history of service. It's the fathers or grandfathers who recommend them to join the service. FRC looked at these vets, and they're decisively against these changes." McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a leader of anti-repeal senators, claimed on Friday that enough senators oppose repealing DADT to block a vote on the issue during the current lame duck session. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., leader of the pro-repeal forces, reportedly has said enough senators will support a vote to override a filibuster.
The House has already passed legislation to repeal DADT, and President Obama is vigorously supporting the repeal.
3 top commanders warn Senate: Don't accept open homosexuality, 'reprogramming' rejected
By Brian Fitzpatrick© 2010 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – As the commanders of the Army, Air Force and Marines cautioned the U.S. Senate against abruptly repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, critics are also warning that accepting open homosexuality and pro-homosexual "reprogramming" could drive massive numbers of troops out of the service.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., pointed out during the first day of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on Thursday that according to a survey conducted for the Pentagon, repealing DADT could create an "alarming" troop retention problem at a time when the military is already shorthanded.
Get the inside story on what's happening to America, in "HOW EVIL WORKS: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America"
Said McCain, "If 12.6 percent of the military left earlier, that translates into 264,600 men and women who would leave the military earlier than they had planned … Do you think that's a good idea to replace 265,000 troops … in a time of war?"
Military analyst Bob Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and senior fellow for national security at the Family Research Council, said the real number could exceed half a million.
"Twelve-point-six percent is just the people who said they would leave," Maginnis told WND. "If you add in the number who said they 'might' leave, you get 23.7 percent. That would be 528,000, when you count both active duty and reserves.
"And that's only if you trust their numbers," Maginnis continued. "They have a real problem with their numbers. It's skewed toward noncombatants, and the Air Force had much larger proportional participation than the Army, so the numbers are totally unreliable.
"They spun their questions in a way that's absolutely bizarre. They literally have distorted the truth, it's all about repeal, not about what's good for the service," he said..
"I don't think people understand how they have spun these numbers. Not only is the survey biased, the way they combined their percentages is skewed. They say 50 or 55 percent of the troops support repeal, but that's not true. The big slice of that 55 percent is 'mixed', some positive, some negative." The truth is, it was 30 percent negative, and 15 or 20 percent positive."
Maginnis said the results of the survey consistently show that two service members oppose DADT repeal for every supporter.
Marine Corps commandant Gen. James Amos acknowledged Friday that a clear majority of combat Marines oppose permitting open homosexuality in the ranks.
"Their message is that the potential exists for disruption of the successful execution of our current combat mission should repeal be implemented at this time," said Amos.
In addition to compromising combat effectiveness, repealing DADT would also threaten unit cohesion and combat readiness, according to Amos.
"If the law is changed, successfully implementing repeal and assimilating openly homosexual Marines into the tightly woven fabric of our combat units has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level," Amos testified. "It will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat." >"[I] would not recommend going forward at this time, given everything the Army has on its plate," said Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey. "I believe the law should be repealed eventually." Casey said DADT could be repealed with "moderate risk to our military effectiveness and the long-term health of the force.".
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz advised delaying any change until 2012, to give the military enough time to implement "training and education programs."
Only Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead recommended repealing DADT this year, parroting an argument made Wednesday by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that the risks involved in allowing open homosexuality in the ranks could be overcome by "leadership."
"I believe these concerns can be effectively mitigated through engaged leadership," said Roughead.
Far from easing the transition to a "gay"-friendly military, the "training and education" recommended by Schwartz could actually amplify recruitment and retention problems, according to Maginnis. "You'll sit through mandatory classes and someone tells you what you can and cannot do. Criticism of homosexuality will receive zero tolerance. Sex and gender equality will be embedded in every basic officer training course all the way up to the war colleges." "'Re-education,' that's a good term … or call it 'reprogramming,'" said Maginnis. "Ever since George Washington the military has been programmed to believe homosexuals are disruptive to morale and unit cohesiveness, and are a readiness problem. You have to expunge all those negative thoughts you have about homosexuality and replace them with what you're told by the chain of command about what's right and wrong. "If you have strongly held religious beliefs you'll have cognitive dissonance, and it'll be very difficult to overcome. The military is ignoring privacy concerns, and you'll be told you'll have to room with a homosexual. Your commander will tell you that you will never be propositioned and your roommate will never leer at you, so your deeply held religious beliefs will be of no consequence," he said.
"You have a disproportionate number of evangelicals in the armed forces today. Retention among that population is going to be hit. >"Recruitment is the big elephant in the living room," Maginnis added. "The report says enlistment could decline by seven percent. That's serious. What they don't tell you is we recruit from the south and the mountain west states, which have the highest Protestant numbers of any of the states. We also find they come from families with a history of service. It's the fathers or grandfathers who recommend them to join the service. FRC looked at these vets, and they're decisively against these changes." McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a leader of anti-repeal senators, claimed on Friday that enough senators oppose repealing DADT to block a vote on the issue during the current lame duck session. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., leader of the pro-repeal forces, reportedly has said enough senators will support a vote to override a filibuster.
The House has already passed legislation to repeal DADT, and President Obama is vigorously supporting the repeal.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
The Blue Bloodbath
by John Hayward
In a recent interview, former First Lady Barbara Bush said of potential presidential candidate Sarah Palin: “I sat next to her once, thought she was beautiful, and I think she’s very happy in Alaska… and I hope she stays there.”
This prompted Palin to respond, in a radio interview with conservative host Laura Ingraham, "I don't think the majority of Americans want to put up with the blue bloods. And I say it with all due respect - because I love the Bushes - but the blue bloods want to pick and chose their winners, instead of allowing competition to pick and choose the winners."
This prompted Meghan McCain, improbably employed as a professional writer by The Daily Beast, to declare she had never heard the term “blue bloods” before, so she had to Google it, and found herself boiling with rage by the time the page finished loading. Actually, the first hit returned by Google for the search phrase “blue bloods” is a link to watch the CBS cop drama of the same name, so maybe Meghan paused to enjoy Tom Selleck’s fine performance as a police chief (whose name, coincidentally, is “Reagan”) before she began seething. Here’s a sample of the fiery stew slopping over the edge of her literary pot:
“I actually had to Google what the meaning of ‘blue bloods’ was, although I could surmise that it was some kind of knock against education and coming from a family of some success. Yes, in essence that is what this statement meant. Families that work hard and achieve a long line of successful people are ‘blue bloods’ and thus, she implied the opinions of said people are jaded and elitist, even if that family lineage has a long history of public service and leadership within Republican Party.
[…] None of this is all together surprising except for the fact that historically it is the moderates - or people like yours truly - who get accused of starting party infighting and this statement from Sarah Palin showcases that on a very basic level the underlying cultural separation in this country is also happening within the Republican party itself.”
McCain seems to have lost track of who “started” this round of “party infighting,” but leaving that aside, this is not just a case of cultural separation. “Blue blood” is a term that resonates with a frustrated nation, weary of serving at the pleasure of an insular ruling class. The inheritance of power, through family or party machinery, is of far greater concern to middle-class Americans than the inheritance of wealth.
Meghan McCain makes a show of willfully misinterpreting “blue bloods” as a slam at educated people from successful families. It is actually a derogatory term for unearned privilege. The phrase does not conjure images of a new generation skillfully managing inherited wealth and running productive family corporations. The defining characteristic of the blue blood is their immunity from consequence. They don’t live in the same world as the rest of us. They are not crushed in the gears of a system they control from above.
For example, a group of super-wealthy liberals recently made news by openly begging for the government to raise their taxes. They spoke in support of a system that drains only a few drops of blood from their ample financial arteries, while plunging needles directly into the hearts of the middle class. Tax increases, short of outright confiscation, will not destroy an opulent lifestyle, especially for those who can afford the finest accountants and lawyers… but they’re murder on the humble lives of all the people those billionaires could hire, if they kept their money and invested it, rather than handing it over to the government. Soaring tax rates won’t make the rich live in poverty, but they will prevent the middle class from becoming rich.
The Bushes were painted as blue bloods long ago, when the Clinton campaign hammered George Bush with a phony story that he’d never seen bar code scanners in grocery checkout lines before. It wasn’t true, but voters recoiled from the perception that Bush was disconnected from their hardships in a down economy. If there had been absolutely no substance to the caricature, Bush would have overcome it easily.
What Barbara Bush said about Sarah Palin is equally out of touch. Palin’s Facebook page is brimming with substantial essays, including a letter to freshman Republicans packed with policy ideas, and serious criticism of the monetary policy known as “quantitative easing.” Treating her like a pretty little bumpkin that should stay put in the hinterlands feeds a Democrat narrative that will suppress her ideas, by ensuring the public doesn’t take her seriously enough to listen to them. Mrs. Bush is under no obligation to support her, but she isn’t doing the Tea Party-infused Republican base any favors with her sneering dismissal.
The larger point about aristocracies forming like barnacles around family fortunes, lifetime congressional seats, and ancient bureaucracies is important. We all labor under the dead hand of the past, forced to pay for commitments made before we were born. The way things are going, it will be even worse for our children. The modern Democrat Party is one huge, useless royal family, gaping in helpless amazement as the “family business” they inherited comes crashing down around them. The last thing the Republicans should do to compete in 2012 is trot out the latest tired old scion from their own political dynasties. It isn’t money, a venerable family name, or time spent in exclusive schools that make a “blue blood.” The key ingredients are arrogance and inertia.
_____
John Hayward is a staff writer for HUMAN EVENTS, and author of the recently published Doctor Zero: Year One. Follow him on Twitter: Doc_0. Contact him by email at jhayward@eaglepub.com.
In a recent interview, former First Lady Barbara Bush said of potential presidential candidate Sarah Palin: “I sat next to her once, thought she was beautiful, and I think she’s very happy in Alaska… and I hope she stays there.”
This prompted Palin to respond, in a radio interview with conservative host Laura Ingraham, "I don't think the majority of Americans want to put up with the blue bloods. And I say it with all due respect - because I love the Bushes - but the blue bloods want to pick and chose their winners, instead of allowing competition to pick and choose the winners."
This prompted Meghan McCain, improbably employed as a professional writer by The Daily Beast, to declare she had never heard the term “blue bloods” before, so she had to Google it, and found herself boiling with rage by the time the page finished loading. Actually, the first hit returned by Google for the search phrase “blue bloods” is a link to watch the CBS cop drama of the same name, so maybe Meghan paused to enjoy Tom Selleck’s fine performance as a police chief (whose name, coincidentally, is “Reagan”) before she began seething. Here’s a sample of the fiery stew slopping over the edge of her literary pot:
“I actually had to Google what the meaning of ‘blue bloods’ was, although I could surmise that it was some kind of knock against education and coming from a family of some success. Yes, in essence that is what this statement meant. Families that work hard and achieve a long line of successful people are ‘blue bloods’ and thus, she implied the opinions of said people are jaded and elitist, even if that family lineage has a long history of public service and leadership within Republican Party.
[…] None of this is all together surprising except for the fact that historically it is the moderates - or people like yours truly - who get accused of starting party infighting and this statement from Sarah Palin showcases that on a very basic level the underlying cultural separation in this country is also happening within the Republican party itself.”
McCain seems to have lost track of who “started” this round of “party infighting,” but leaving that aside, this is not just a case of cultural separation. “Blue blood” is a term that resonates with a frustrated nation, weary of serving at the pleasure of an insular ruling class. The inheritance of power, through family or party machinery, is of far greater concern to middle-class Americans than the inheritance of wealth.
Meghan McCain makes a show of willfully misinterpreting “blue bloods” as a slam at educated people from successful families. It is actually a derogatory term for unearned privilege. The phrase does not conjure images of a new generation skillfully managing inherited wealth and running productive family corporations. The defining characteristic of the blue blood is their immunity from consequence. They don’t live in the same world as the rest of us. They are not crushed in the gears of a system they control from above.
For example, a group of super-wealthy liberals recently made news by openly begging for the government to raise their taxes. They spoke in support of a system that drains only a few drops of blood from their ample financial arteries, while plunging needles directly into the hearts of the middle class. Tax increases, short of outright confiscation, will not destroy an opulent lifestyle, especially for those who can afford the finest accountants and lawyers… but they’re murder on the humble lives of all the people those billionaires could hire, if they kept their money and invested it, rather than handing it over to the government. Soaring tax rates won’t make the rich live in poverty, but they will prevent the middle class from becoming rich.
The Bushes were painted as blue bloods long ago, when the Clinton campaign hammered George Bush with a phony story that he’d never seen bar code scanners in grocery checkout lines before. It wasn’t true, but voters recoiled from the perception that Bush was disconnected from their hardships in a down economy. If there had been absolutely no substance to the caricature, Bush would have overcome it easily.
What Barbara Bush said about Sarah Palin is equally out of touch. Palin’s Facebook page is brimming with substantial essays, including a letter to freshman Republicans packed with policy ideas, and serious criticism of the monetary policy known as “quantitative easing.” Treating her like a pretty little bumpkin that should stay put in the hinterlands feeds a Democrat narrative that will suppress her ideas, by ensuring the public doesn’t take her seriously enough to listen to them. Mrs. Bush is under no obligation to support her, but she isn’t doing the Tea Party-infused Republican base any favors with her sneering dismissal.
The larger point about aristocracies forming like barnacles around family fortunes, lifetime congressional seats, and ancient bureaucracies is important. We all labor under the dead hand of the past, forced to pay for commitments made before we were born. The way things are going, it will be even worse for our children. The modern Democrat Party is one huge, useless royal family, gaping in helpless amazement as the “family business” they inherited comes crashing down around them. The last thing the Republicans should do to compete in 2012 is trot out the latest tired old scion from their own political dynasties. It isn’t money, a venerable family name, or time spent in exclusive schools that make a “blue blood.” The key ingredients are arrogance and inertia.
_____
John Hayward is a staff writer for HUMAN EVENTS, and author of the recently published Doctor Zero: Year One. Follow him on Twitter: Doc_0. Contact him by email at jhayward@eaglepub.com.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Obama's IRS accused of targeting Jews
THE POWER TO DESTROY
'Special Policy' demands: 'Does your organization support existence of Israel?'
By Eugene J. Koprowski
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
An attorney for an educational organization called Z Street says there's now evidence Internal Revenue Service agents under the direction of the Obama administration intentionally are targeting the free speech and religious rights of American Jews.
WND reported only weeks ago when the IRS delayed approval of a tax-exempt status for a private organization and was reviewing its educational work after explaining it must be examined by Washington because its activities may "contradict the administration's public policies."
That allegation was contained in a federal lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Z Street, a Merion Station, Pa., group that educates on the statehood and status of Israel.
Now Jerome M. Marcus, an attorney for Z Street, has revealed to WND that additional documents have been found demonstrating how the IRS has moved "beyond the pale" by cracking down on education groups that focus on Israel.
Marcus, of the firm Marcus & Auerbach in suburban Philadelphia, said such "viewpoint discrimination" is a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
He said the government isn't allowed to weigh the religious viewpoints of educational organizations when deciding whether to grant them tax exempt status under federal charity laws.
Marcus has filed a memorandum opposing the government's motion to dismiss the case and it includes new evidence: a letter sent to another Jewish organization which raised questions about political beliefs similar to those that were asked of Z Street.
The brief, which has been posted online, challenges the IRS' motives and methods.
"This shows that what happened to my client was not anomalous, not just an agent [IRS agent Diane Gentry] who didn't understand that Z Street was an educational organization," Marcus told WND. "This information indicates that this is a policy that the IRS is pursuing. It is not an appropriate inquiry asking about someone's religious beliefs or political beliefs."
A hearing may be held in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia to probe the questions raised by the evidence, Marcus said.
"That should be interesting," he said.
The IRS did not comment on the matter. A spokeswoman in the Washington, D.C., office referred a journalist to the agency's Philadelphia contact and the contact there told WND he could not comment.
Marcus said the IRS had an initial deadline this week to respond to last week's filing for Z Street, but asked for an extension of the deadline due to the Thanksgiving holiday and Z Street agreed.
'Wildly Improper'
In his brief, Marcus details the "wildly improper" questioning by the IRS of yet another Jewish organization.
Marcus wrote: "As detailed in the Declaration of Jerome M. Marcus, Z STREET's counsel in this case, after the instant Complaint was filed, Plaintiff learned that another organization – this one simply Jewish and without any publicly stated positions on political issues affecting the State of Israel – applied for a charitable exemption. While the application was pending, its representative received a letter from the IRS, all but the first page of which appears as Exhibit 1 to Mr. Marcus's declaration. The letter, sent not by Agent Gentry, who was handling Plaintiff's application, but by a different IRS agent, inquires of the applicant: 'Does your organization support the existence of the land of Israel? Describe your organization's religious belief system towards the land of Israel.'"
Marcus continued, "Can one imagine that an application for tax exemption could – constitutionally – be affected in any conceivable way by the answer to these questions?"
In his brief last week, Marcus also noted that the fact the answers are being demanded makes it clear beyond doubt that IRS officials have taken the time to determine that this is a useful line of inquiry; have obtained approval for this conclusion; disseminated this conclusion to agents processing applications for 501(c)(3) exemption; drafted questions designed to ferret out the answers the government needs to apply this policy; and then spent more time posing the questions, and then weighing their significance to determine the answers' impact on whether exemptions from tax should be granted.
'Israel Special Policy'
The IRS is executing its "Israel Special Policy" which agent Gentry informed Marcus about orally during talks about the non-profit application before the case was filed, Marcus said, noting that IRS has also established a "special unit" in its offices in Washington, D.C., to examine Jewish groups that may advocate policies contrary to those espoused by Barack Hussein Obama.
"This is not an appropriate inquiry – what are your religious beliefs," Marcus told WND. "As long as one's beliefs are factually based, IRS has no business questioning them. Inquiring into the substance of one's political beliefs is beyond the pale. It's pure viewpoint discrimination and a violation of the First Amendment."
Lori Lowenthal-Marcus, founder of Z Street, said in an interview that the group was formally organized during the summer of 2009, and applied for charitable tax exempt status from IRS last fall. The IRS' delay in granting 501c3 status has "damaged" the fundraising of the group, as large donors usually want to have their donations be tax deductible.
"We have no problem getting membership fees, which are $18," Lowenthal-Marcus told WND. "But those are small donations. People don't worry about tax deductions for small donations."
Lowenthal-Marcus said that other Jewish groups are starting to acknowledge viewpoint discrimination as well in postings online, including a posting by a man identifying himself as a "CPA" on the blog Isra-Pundit on Nov. 28, 2010.
The poster stated, "IRS policy has completely changed regarding Jewish organizations. We see with every inquiry. It is scary. We had a case that was verbally approved by a given agent. And then pulled away for additional questions."
Even tax law professors are outraged, according to a posting on the blog for tax lawyer and professors which asks the question, "is failure to support Obama administration's foreign policy grounds to deny tax exempt status?"
Said Lowenthal-Marcus: "Other people are starting to come out of the woodwork. The same thing is happening to them."
She told WND earlier the organization has met all of the requirements to be granted tax-exempt status. But the approval was delayed because of a "Special Israel Policy that requires greater scrutiny of organizations which have to do with Israel, in part to determine whether they espouse positions on Israel contrary to those of the current administration."
'Special Policy' demands: 'Does your organization support existence of Israel?'
By Eugene J. Koprowski
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
An attorney for an educational organization called Z Street says there's now evidence Internal Revenue Service agents under the direction of the Obama administration intentionally are targeting the free speech and religious rights of American Jews.
WND reported only weeks ago when the IRS delayed approval of a tax-exempt status for a private organization and was reviewing its educational work after explaining it must be examined by Washington because its activities may "contradict the administration's public policies."
That allegation was contained in a federal lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Z Street, a Merion Station, Pa., group that educates on the statehood and status of Israel.
Now Jerome M. Marcus, an attorney for Z Street, has revealed to WND that additional documents have been found demonstrating how the IRS has moved "beyond the pale" by cracking down on education groups that focus on Israel.
Marcus, of the firm Marcus & Auerbach in suburban Philadelphia, said such "viewpoint discrimination" is a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
He said the government isn't allowed to weigh the religious viewpoints of educational organizations when deciding whether to grant them tax exempt status under federal charity laws.
Marcus has filed a memorandum opposing the government's motion to dismiss the case and it includes new evidence: a letter sent to another Jewish organization which raised questions about political beliefs similar to those that were asked of Z Street.
The brief, which has been posted online, challenges the IRS' motives and methods.
"This shows that what happened to my client was not anomalous, not just an agent [IRS agent Diane Gentry] who didn't understand that Z Street was an educational organization," Marcus told WND. "This information indicates that this is a policy that the IRS is pursuing. It is not an appropriate inquiry asking about someone's religious beliefs or political beliefs."
A hearing may be held in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia to probe the questions raised by the evidence, Marcus said.
"That should be interesting," he said.
The IRS did not comment on the matter. A spokeswoman in the Washington, D.C., office referred a journalist to the agency's Philadelphia contact and the contact there told WND he could not comment.
Marcus said the IRS had an initial deadline this week to respond to last week's filing for Z Street, but asked for an extension of the deadline due to the Thanksgiving holiday and Z Street agreed.
'Wildly Improper'
In his brief, Marcus details the "wildly improper" questioning by the IRS of yet another Jewish organization.
Marcus wrote: "As detailed in the Declaration of Jerome M. Marcus, Z STREET's counsel in this case, after the instant Complaint was filed, Plaintiff learned that another organization – this one simply Jewish and without any publicly stated positions on political issues affecting the State of Israel – applied for a charitable exemption. While the application was pending, its representative received a letter from the IRS, all but the first page of which appears as Exhibit 1 to Mr. Marcus's declaration. The letter, sent not by Agent Gentry, who was handling Plaintiff's application, but by a different IRS agent, inquires of the applicant: 'Does your organization support the existence of the land of Israel? Describe your organization's religious belief system towards the land of Israel.'"
Marcus continued, "Can one imagine that an application for tax exemption could – constitutionally – be affected in any conceivable way by the answer to these questions?"
In his brief last week, Marcus also noted that the fact the answers are being demanded makes it clear beyond doubt that IRS officials have taken the time to determine that this is a useful line of inquiry; have obtained approval for this conclusion; disseminated this conclusion to agents processing applications for 501(c)(3) exemption; drafted questions designed to ferret out the answers the government needs to apply this policy; and then spent more time posing the questions, and then weighing their significance to determine the answers' impact on whether exemptions from tax should be granted.
'Israel Special Policy'
The IRS is executing its "Israel Special Policy" which agent Gentry informed Marcus about orally during talks about the non-profit application before the case was filed, Marcus said, noting that IRS has also established a "special unit" in its offices in Washington, D.C., to examine Jewish groups that may advocate policies contrary to those espoused by Barack Hussein Obama.
"This is not an appropriate inquiry – what are your religious beliefs," Marcus told WND. "As long as one's beliefs are factually based, IRS has no business questioning them. Inquiring into the substance of one's political beliefs is beyond the pale. It's pure viewpoint discrimination and a violation of the First Amendment."
Lori Lowenthal-Marcus, founder of Z Street, said in an interview that the group was formally organized during the summer of 2009, and applied for charitable tax exempt status from IRS last fall. The IRS' delay in granting 501c3 status has "damaged" the fundraising of the group, as large donors usually want to have their donations be tax deductible.
"We have no problem getting membership fees, which are $18," Lowenthal-Marcus told WND. "But those are small donations. People don't worry about tax deductions for small donations."
Lowenthal-Marcus said that other Jewish groups are starting to acknowledge viewpoint discrimination as well in postings online, including a posting by a man identifying himself as a "CPA" on the blog Isra-Pundit on Nov. 28, 2010.
The poster stated, "IRS policy has completely changed regarding Jewish organizations. We see with every inquiry. It is scary. We had a case that was verbally approved by a given agent. And then pulled away for additional questions."
Even tax law professors are outraged, according to a posting on the blog for tax lawyer and professors which asks the question, "is failure to support Obama administration's foreign policy grounds to deny tax exempt status?"
Said Lowenthal-Marcus: "Other people are starting to come out of the woodwork. The same thing is happening to them."
She told WND earlier the organization has met all of the requirements to be granted tax-exempt status. But the approval was delayed because of a "Special Israel Policy that requires greater scrutiny of organizations which have to do with Israel, in part to determine whether they espouse positions on Israel contrary to those of the current administration."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)