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.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
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."
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility
BORN IN THE USA?
Is president a 'natural-born citizen' as Constitution requires?
By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?
The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."
If the Supreme Court decides to grant the "writ of certiorari," it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court's decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.
If any court hears the merits of the case, Apuzzo says it will mark the "death knell" for Obama's legitimacy.
"Given my research of what a natural-born citizen is, he cannot be a natural-born citizen so it's a death knell to his legitimacy. What happens on a practical level, how our political institutions would work that out, is something else," Apuzzo told WND.
Apuzzo observed it is "undisputed fact" that Obama's father was a British subject.
A hearing on the merits "is also a death knell because it would allow discovery so we would be able to ask him for his birth certificate, and we don't know what that would show," according to Apuzzo. "We might not even get to the question of defining 'natural-born citizen.' If he was not born in the U.S., he'd be undocumented, because he's never been naturalized. We don't even know what his citizenship status is. Hawaii has said they have his records, but that's hearsay. We have not seen the root documents."
Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility cases to the Supreme Court, Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink Obama's presidency.
"If one court had guts enough to deal with this and allow discovery, Obama would be out of office," Berg told WND. "We would ask for a lift of Obama's ban on all of his documents. The last official report said Obama has spent $1.6 million in legal fees [keeping his papers secret], and the total is probably over $2 million now. You don't spend that kind of money unless there's something to hide, and I believe the reason he's hiding this is because he was not born in the United States."
"The Supreme Court has never decided to hear the merits of an eligibility case," Berg added. "If the Supreme Court would decide to hear a case, Obama would be out of office instantly. If Congress decided to hear a case, Obama would be out of office."
"They're taking a different approach, arguing that both parents must be citizens," Berg noted.
Apuzzo is arguing the "Vattel theory," which asserts that the term "natural-born citizen" as used in the Constitution was defined by French writer Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, "The Law of Nations," was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens.
According to Apuzzo, Congress and the courts have addressed the question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American Indians. However, the term "natural-born citizen" has never been altered.
"The courts and Congress have never changed the definition," said Apuzzo. "The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him."
Apuzzo said the Supreme Court had clearly accepted Vattel's definition of "natural-born citizen" in "dicta," or statements made in opinions on cases addressing other matters. He cited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the 1814 "Venus" case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel's definition.
Apuzzo also cites the writings of founding father David Ramsay, an influential South Carolina physician and historian who used similar language to Vattel.
Previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility have all been rejected on technical grounds. Numerous courts have decided that the plaintiffs do not have "standing" to bring a suit against Obama because they have failed to prove they are directly injured by his occupation of the Oval Office.
"To me that's false," said Berg. "The 10th Amendment refers to 'we the people.' If the people can't challenge the president's constitutionality, that would be ridiculous."
"My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president," said Apuzzo. "Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients."
Apuzzo said the founding fathers had good reason to require the president to be a natural-born citizen.
"They were making sure the President had the values from being reared from a child in the American system, and thereby would preserve everybody's life, liberty and property in the process.
"They made that decision, so my clients have every right to expect the president to be a natural-born citizen. It goes to all your basic rights, every right that is inalienable. The president has to be a natural-born citizen."
Is president a 'natural-born citizen' as Constitution requires?
By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?
The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."
If the Supreme Court decides to grant the "writ of certiorari," it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court's decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.
If any court hears the merits of the case, Apuzzo says it will mark the "death knell" for Obama's legitimacy.
"Given my research of what a natural-born citizen is, he cannot be a natural-born citizen so it's a death knell to his legitimacy. What happens on a practical level, how our political institutions would work that out, is something else," Apuzzo told WND.
Apuzzo observed it is "undisputed fact" that Obama's father was a British subject.
A hearing on the merits "is also a death knell because it would allow discovery so we would be able to ask him for his birth certificate, and we don't know what that would show," according to Apuzzo. "We might not even get to the question of defining 'natural-born citizen.' If he was not born in the U.S., he'd be undocumented, because he's never been naturalized. We don't even know what his citizenship status is. Hawaii has said they have his records, but that's hearsay. We have not seen the root documents."
Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility cases to the Supreme Court, Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink Obama's presidency.
"If one court had guts enough to deal with this and allow discovery, Obama would be out of office," Berg told WND. "We would ask for a lift of Obama's ban on all of his documents. The last official report said Obama has spent $1.6 million in legal fees [keeping his papers secret], and the total is probably over $2 million now. You don't spend that kind of money unless there's something to hide, and I believe the reason he's hiding this is because he was not born in the United States."
"The Supreme Court has never decided to hear the merits of an eligibility case," Berg added. "If the Supreme Court would decide to hear a case, Obama would be out of office instantly. If Congress decided to hear a case, Obama would be out of office."
"They're taking a different approach, arguing that both parents must be citizens," Berg noted.
Apuzzo is arguing the "Vattel theory," which asserts that the term "natural-born citizen" as used in the Constitution was defined by French writer Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, "The Law of Nations," was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens.
According to Apuzzo, Congress and the courts have addressed the question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American Indians. However, the term "natural-born citizen" has never been altered.
"The courts and Congress have never changed the definition," said Apuzzo. "The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him."
Apuzzo said the Supreme Court had clearly accepted Vattel's definition of "natural-born citizen" in "dicta," or statements made in opinions on cases addressing other matters. He cited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the 1814 "Venus" case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel's definition.
Apuzzo also cites the writings of founding father David Ramsay, an influential South Carolina physician and historian who used similar language to Vattel.
Previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility have all been rejected on technical grounds. Numerous courts have decided that the plaintiffs do not have "standing" to bring a suit against Obama because they have failed to prove they are directly injured by his occupation of the Oval Office.
"To me that's false," said Berg. "The 10th Amendment refers to 'we the people.' If the people can't challenge the president's constitutionality, that would be ridiculous."
"My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president," said Apuzzo. "Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients."
Apuzzo said the founding fathers had good reason to require the president to be a natural-born citizen.
"They were making sure the President had the values from being reared from a child in the American system, and thereby would preserve everybody's life, liberty and property in the process.
"They made that decision, so my clients have every right to expect the president to be a natural-born citizen. It goes to all your basic rights, every right that is inalienable. The president has to be a natural-born citizen."
Monday, November 22, 2010
The reckoning: This single report could sink Obama's presidency
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
BORN IN THE USA?
Free, landmark summary explains eligibility issue clearly,suggests what you should do
There have been billboards, posters, questions at White House press briefings, "jokes" about it by the mainstream media and a ton of lawsuits and other challenges – including several pending.
But, come on, is there really the possibility that Barack Obama doesn't meet the requirements of the U.S. Constitution to occupy the hallowed Oval Office?
That question and many others surrounding the constitutional issue of presidential eligibility are addressed in a new, free special report by WND.
GET THE REPORT
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=199373
"The citizens of the United States have a right to know if their president is constitutionally eligible to hold the office," says the report, now available from WND.
"Obama's hospital of birth, birth documents, passport and Social Security number are all in question, and his legal defense never addresses the merits of the eligibility challenges. Instead, Obama relies on procedural objections and compliant judges to get the cases thrown out of court," says the report.
"President Obama could quickly and easily resolve the issue by releasing his personal historical documents to authenticate his claims," it concludes.
So why hasn't he?
The dispute over Obama's eligibility arose even before the 2008 election. Several legal challenges questioned just exactly who is supposed to make sure that a political party's candidate – no matter how charismatic – actually qualifies.
WND has reported on the multitude of cases and continues to report on pending disputes.
The report suggests the issue will have to be resolved in a public fashion sooner or later.
"Despite a virtual blackout by the mainstream media, Obama's eligibility troubles have spread across America, and public opinion has gradually turned against the president. … More than a dozen U.S. House Republicans co-sponsored a bill … [to] require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility by providing a copy of their birth certificates," the report says.
Similar moves are developing at the state level. And a recent poll showed only 4 in 10 Americans believed Obama's own explanation of his birth and growing up years.
On the legal front is the dramatic case of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who challenged Obama's eligibility as an Army officer and could face prison for his decision. The goal of his case, like others, is to reach the level of discovery, so that Obama's documentation becomes public.
Another pending case by attorney Mario Apuzzo alleges Congress failed its constitutional duties to make sure the president is qualified. Other cases in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had asked that the California Electoral College votes for Obama be thrown out.
The report includes:
* An explanation of how the issue developed around Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
* A review of the possible scenarios regarding Obama's birth, including his father's status as a British subject at the time of his birth and British law calling for Obama to be governed by that nation's provisions at the time.
* A discussion of "natural born citizen."
* An explanation of Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" posted on the Internet and how it falls short of providing proof.
* What those Honolulu Star-Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser "announcements" about Obama's birth in 1961 really mean.
* Why has no doctor or hospital come forward to speak of Obama's birth?
* Should state officials who claim to have "seen" Obama's "original birth certificate" be believed?
* What about those African newspapers that during his campaign called Obama "Kenyan-born?"
* Were they "slips of the tongue" when Michelle Obama called Kenya the land of her husband?
Obama's "official account of his identity and background is riddled with inaccuracy and unanswered questions," the report says. "Even Obama'sSocial Security number may very well be fraudulent. He has literally spent a fortune in legal efforts to avoid producing the documents that would verify his eligibility."
Lending credibility to the concerns being raised is the intense war fought by attorneys trying to keep information about Obama secret. Besides his original birth certificate, still concealed are his kindergarten records, Punahou School records, OccidentalCollege records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, client list from his time in private practice, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, his baptism records and his adoption records.
The report notes Obama "has gone to great efforts to sell the public on his own version of his life, but his story has been inconsistent. For example, according to Illinois state filings, when Obama registered as an attorney in 1991, he stated he did not have any former names. In fact, he had been known for several years as Barry Soetoro."
Just the facts that are not in dispute would create issues, the report notes:
"Assuming Obama's parents were Barack Obama Sr., a British subject of Kenyan origin, and Stanley Ann Dunham, an eighteen-year-old American woman, neither of his parents were qualified to transmit U.S. citizenship to him. Barack Obama Sr.'s foreign allegiance disqualified Dunham's mother from conferring U.S. citizenship under the law prevailing at the time. The law required any U.S. citizen having a child with a non-citizen to have been physically present in the United States for at least five years after the age of sixteen to automatically transmit American citizenship. Because neither parent could confer American citizenship to their son, Obama can only be a U.S. citizen if he were actually born in the United States."
It documents how at the time of the Constitution's writing, "natural born citizen" was understood to mean a person whose parents were both American citizens.
So has Obama proved he was born in the U.S?
GET THE REPORT
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=199373
BORN IN THE USA?
Free, landmark summary explains eligibility issue clearly,suggests what you should do
There have been billboards, posters, questions at White House press briefings, "jokes" about it by the mainstream media and a ton of lawsuits and other challenges – including several pending.
But, come on, is there really the possibility that Barack Obama doesn't meet the requirements of the U.S. Constitution to occupy the hallowed Oval Office?
That question and many others surrounding the constitutional issue of presidential eligibility are addressed in a new, free special report by WND.
GET THE REPORT
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=199373
"The citizens of the United States have a right to know if their president is constitutionally eligible to hold the office," says the report, now available from WND.
"Obama's hospital of birth, birth documents, passport and Social Security number are all in question, and his legal defense never addresses the merits of the eligibility challenges. Instead, Obama relies on procedural objections and compliant judges to get the cases thrown out of court," says the report.
"President Obama could quickly and easily resolve the issue by releasing his personal historical documents to authenticate his claims," it concludes.
So why hasn't he?
The dispute over Obama's eligibility arose even before the 2008 election. Several legal challenges questioned just exactly who is supposed to make sure that a political party's candidate – no matter how charismatic – actually qualifies.
WND has reported on the multitude of cases and continues to report on pending disputes.
The report suggests the issue will have to be resolved in a public fashion sooner or later.
"Despite a virtual blackout by the mainstream media, Obama's eligibility troubles have spread across America, and public opinion has gradually turned against the president. … More than a dozen U.S. House Republicans co-sponsored a bill … [to] require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility by providing a copy of their birth certificates," the report says.
Similar moves are developing at the state level. And a recent poll showed only 4 in 10 Americans believed Obama's own explanation of his birth and growing up years.
On the legal front is the dramatic case of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who challenged Obama's eligibility as an Army officer and could face prison for his decision. The goal of his case, like others, is to reach the level of discovery, so that Obama's documentation becomes public.
Another pending case by attorney Mario Apuzzo alleges Congress failed its constitutional duties to make sure the president is qualified. Other cases in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had asked that the California Electoral College votes for Obama be thrown out.
The report includes:
* An explanation of how the issue developed around Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
* A review of the possible scenarios regarding Obama's birth, including his father's status as a British subject at the time of his birth and British law calling for Obama to be governed by that nation's provisions at the time.
* A discussion of "natural born citizen."
* An explanation of Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" posted on the Internet and how it falls short of providing proof.
* What those Honolulu Star-Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser "announcements" about Obama's birth in 1961 really mean.
* Why has no doctor or hospital come forward to speak of Obama's birth?
* Should state officials who claim to have "seen" Obama's "original birth certificate" be believed?
* What about those African newspapers that during his campaign called Obama "Kenyan-born?"
* Were they "slips of the tongue" when Michelle Obama called Kenya the land of her husband?
Obama's "official account of his identity and background is riddled with inaccuracy and unanswered questions," the report says. "Even Obama'sSocial Security number may very well be fraudulent. He has literally spent a fortune in legal efforts to avoid producing the documents that would verify his eligibility."
Lending credibility to the concerns being raised is the intense war fought by attorneys trying to keep information about Obama secret. Besides his original birth certificate, still concealed are his kindergarten records, Punahou School records, OccidentalCollege records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, client list from his time in private practice, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, his baptism records and his adoption records.
The report notes Obama "has gone to great efforts to sell the public on his own version of his life, but his story has been inconsistent. For example, according to Illinois state filings, when Obama registered as an attorney in 1991, he stated he did not have any former names. In fact, he had been known for several years as Barry Soetoro."
Just the facts that are not in dispute would create issues, the report notes:
"Assuming Obama's parents were Barack Obama Sr., a British subject of Kenyan origin, and Stanley Ann Dunham, an eighteen-year-old American woman, neither of his parents were qualified to transmit U.S. citizenship to him. Barack Obama Sr.'s foreign allegiance disqualified Dunham's mother from conferring U.S. citizenship under the law prevailing at the time. The law required any U.S. citizen having a child with a non-citizen to have been physically present in the United States for at least five years after the age of sixteen to automatically transmit American citizenship. Because neither parent could confer American citizenship to their son, Obama can only be a U.S. citizen if he were actually born in the United States."
It documents how at the time of the Constitution's writing, "natural born citizen" was understood to mean a person whose parents were both American citizens.
So has Obama proved he was born in the U.S?
GET THE REPORT
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=199373
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Attacking “The Wealthy” Hurts Everyone
by Nicole Kurokawa
All eyes are back on Congress as the lame duck session continues. One topic on everyone’s mind: extending the Bush tax cuts. In fact, the showdown over the cuts is likely to be one of the biggest policy fights of President Obama’s term to date.
For months, the Administration officials said they would only accept an extension for the middle class, and fully intended to raise rates on “the wealthy” (defined as those making over $250,000 per year). So who are “the wealthy,” exactly?
In many cases, the “wealthy” are small businesses.
Given that many small businesses aren’t structured as formal corporations, their owners file as individual taxpayers – meaning they are subject to increases in the income tax rate. According to the Internal Revenue Service’s 2008 Statistics of Income Data, there are 30 million small business owners in the country – 22 million sole proprietors, and 8 million partnerships and S-corporations. Ryan Ellis, director of tax policy at Americans for Tax Reform, estimates that two-thirds of small business profits face tax rate hikes under the White House’s plan.
Those successful small businesses – the ones with profits – are the ones who hire workers. They are the ones who purchase goods and services from other companies. These are the people who will be hit with tax increases. In an increasingly interconnected economy, it is impossible to penalize the few without injuring many. Pillaging these businesses' profits will mean less expansion, fewer jobs, and diminished output and will decrease incentives to be successful.
Many “wealthy” small business owners are women. According to the Oct 2010 Department of Commerce report “Women-Owned Businesses in the 21st Century,” 6.7 percent of all women-owned firms had sales of $250,000 or above in 2002 – a year that boasted 6.5 million women-owned firms in total. Breaking those numbers down, that means that 435,500 women-owned firms saw sales of $250,000 or above. Given the number of women-owned businesses jumped to 7.8 million in 2007, that number is sure to rise (the Census Bureau will release more detailed data from 2007 regarding women business owners in December 2010). The report goes on to note, however, that women-owned businesses are often smaller than men-owned businesses, and "average sales/receipts for women-owned businesses are only 25% of average sales/receipts for men-owned businesses." With a narrower margin, higher taxes bills can mean the difference between staying open or shutting the doors for these companies.
The “wealthy” are also the upwardly mobile. Americans are an aspirational people. Although many Americans are not “wealthy” in the White House’s eyes, many would like to be. College enrollment continues to increase, demonstrating the priority that individuals place on education as the stepping stone to a better life.
In addition, entrepreneurship – the very essence of trying to better one’s station in life – has long been a hallmark of the American economy; the Small Business Administration’s September 2010 report “Global Entrepreneurship and the United States” ranks the U.S. third out of 71 countries on its Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index, which provides a comprehensive measure of entrepreneurship drawing on economic freedom, competitiveness, and entrepreneurial activity. Women have taken advantage of the United States’ business-friendly environment; according to “Women-Owned Businesses in the 21st Century,” between 1997 and 2007, the number of women-owned businesses grew 44 percent – twice as fast as men-owned businesses.
The American economy is extremely dynamic, and income mobility is considerable. A 2007 report from the U.S. Treasury Department notes “the analysis found that more than half of taxpayers (56 percent by one measure and 55 percent by another measure) moved to a different income quintile between 1996 and 2005.” Importantly, however, not only do people have the chance to move up, but the top bracket is not set. The report also states that, “the composition of the very top income groups changes dramatically over time. Less than half (40 percent or 43 percent by different measures) of those in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still in the top 1 percent in 2005.” Taxing the “wealthy” doesn’t just affect those at the top, but slows the ascent of those who dream of making it to the top, discouraging the innovation and hard work needed to grow the economy.
And bear in mind – although $250,000 seems like a high benchmark, it’s certainly possible for a couple of Chicago schoolteachers or public officials to hit that threshold.
Despite the government’s best efforts at class warfare, to attack “the wealthy” will only serve to slow the overall economy – hurting everyone in the process. In order to maintain the nation’s global competitiveness, it is critical to not raise rates on engines of growth and mobility. By penalizing the most productive members of society, small businesses, and entrepreneurs, our country’s leaders will discourage the virtues that made this country great. The only true solution to the nation’s
fiscal crisis is for the economy to grow – not to tax itself to irrelevance.
_____
Nicole Kurokawa is a Senior Policy Analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum.
All eyes are back on Congress as the lame duck session continues. One topic on everyone’s mind: extending the Bush tax cuts. In fact, the showdown over the cuts is likely to be one of the biggest policy fights of President Obama’s term to date.
For months, the Administration officials said they would only accept an extension for the middle class, and fully intended to raise rates on “the wealthy” (defined as those making over $250,000 per year). So who are “the wealthy,” exactly?
In many cases, the “wealthy” are small businesses.
Given that many small businesses aren’t structured as formal corporations, their owners file as individual taxpayers – meaning they are subject to increases in the income tax rate. According to the Internal Revenue Service’s 2008 Statistics of Income Data, there are 30 million small business owners in the country – 22 million sole proprietors, and 8 million partnerships and S-corporations. Ryan Ellis, director of tax policy at Americans for Tax Reform, estimates that two-thirds of small business profits face tax rate hikes under the White House’s plan.
Those successful small businesses – the ones with profits – are the ones who hire workers. They are the ones who purchase goods and services from other companies. These are the people who will be hit with tax increases. In an increasingly interconnected economy, it is impossible to penalize the few without injuring many. Pillaging these businesses' profits will mean less expansion, fewer jobs, and diminished output and will decrease incentives to be successful.
Many “wealthy” small business owners are women. According to the Oct 2010 Department of Commerce report “Women-Owned Businesses in the 21st Century,” 6.7 percent of all women-owned firms had sales of $250,000 or above in 2002 – a year that boasted 6.5 million women-owned firms in total. Breaking those numbers down, that means that 435,500 women-owned firms saw sales of $250,000 or above. Given the number of women-owned businesses jumped to 7.8 million in 2007, that number is sure to rise (the Census Bureau will release more detailed data from 2007 regarding women business owners in December 2010). The report goes on to note, however, that women-owned businesses are often smaller than men-owned businesses, and "average sales/receipts for women-owned businesses are only 25% of average sales/receipts for men-owned businesses." With a narrower margin, higher taxes bills can mean the difference between staying open or shutting the doors for these companies.
The “wealthy” are also the upwardly mobile. Americans are an aspirational people. Although many Americans are not “wealthy” in the White House’s eyes, many would like to be. College enrollment continues to increase, demonstrating the priority that individuals place on education as the stepping stone to a better life.
In addition, entrepreneurship – the very essence of trying to better one’s station in life – has long been a hallmark of the American economy; the Small Business Administration’s September 2010 report “Global Entrepreneurship and the United States” ranks the U.S. third out of 71 countries on its Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index, which provides a comprehensive measure of entrepreneurship drawing on economic freedom, competitiveness, and entrepreneurial activity. Women have taken advantage of the United States’ business-friendly environment; according to “Women-Owned Businesses in the 21st Century,” between 1997 and 2007, the number of women-owned businesses grew 44 percent – twice as fast as men-owned businesses.
The American economy is extremely dynamic, and income mobility is considerable. A 2007 report from the U.S. Treasury Department notes “the analysis found that more than half of taxpayers (56 percent by one measure and 55 percent by another measure) moved to a different income quintile between 1996 and 2005.” Importantly, however, not only do people have the chance to move up, but the top bracket is not set. The report also states that, “the composition of the very top income groups changes dramatically over time. Less than half (40 percent or 43 percent by different measures) of those in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still in the top 1 percent in 2005.” Taxing the “wealthy” doesn’t just affect those at the top, but slows the ascent of those who dream of making it to the top, discouraging the innovation and hard work needed to grow the economy.
And bear in mind – although $250,000 seems like a high benchmark, it’s certainly possible for a couple of Chicago schoolteachers or public officials to hit that threshold.
Despite the government’s best efforts at class warfare, to attack “the wealthy” will only serve to slow the overall economy – hurting everyone in the process. In order to maintain the nation’s global competitiveness, it is critical to not raise rates on engines of growth and mobility. By penalizing the most productive members of society, small businesses, and entrepreneurs, our country’s leaders will discourage the virtues that made this country great. The only true solution to the nation’s
fiscal crisis is for the economy to grow – not to tax itself to irrelevance.
_____
Nicole Kurokawa is a Senior Policy Analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)