A New Years Gift brought to be the fine people of the “Tolerance”, “Diversity” and “Inclusion” crowd.
The morally superior Left. 🙂
Did you call a transsexual person “he” or “she” when they preferred to be called “zhe?” According to a newly updated anti-discrimination law in New York City, you could be fined an eye-watering $250,000.
In the latest, astonishing act of draconian political correctness, the NYC Commission on Human Rights have updated a law on “Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression” to threaten staggering financial penalties against property owners who “misgender” employees or tenants.
Incidents that are deemed “wilful and malicious” will see property owners face up to $250,000 in fines, while standard violations of the law will result in a $125,000 fine. For small business owners, these sums are crippling.
It’s not as simple as referring to transmen “he” or transwomen as “she,” either. The legislation makes it clear that if an individual desires, property owners will have to make use of “zhe,” “hir” and any other preferred pronoun. From the updated legislation:
The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification. Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles.
Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir
Other violations of the law include refusing to allow individuals to use single-sex facilities such as bathrooms that are “consistent with their gender identity,” failing to provide employee health benefits for “gender-affirming care” and “imposing different uniforms or grooming standards based on sex or gender.”
Examples of such illegal behaviour include: “requiring female bartenders to wear makeup,” “Permitting only individuals who identify as women to wear jewellery or requiring only individuals who identify as male to have short hair,” and “permitting female but not male residents at a drug treatment facility to wear wigs and high heels.”
So, Klinger on M*A*S*H could not get Col. Blake or Col. Potter fined $250,000 for objecting to him where a dress to work. (Military Protocols aside because after all, that just government sanctioned discrimination anyhow).
Not mention that Klinger being of Middle Eastern descent could also charge him with Islamophobia!
Yeah, that make perfect sense! 🙂
In other words, if a bar owner prevents male bartenders from wearing lipstick and heels, they’ll be breaking the law. They’ve now got a choice between potentially scaring off customers, and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. Regardless of the establishment’s clientèle or aesthetic, every property owner will be forced to conform to the same standard.
This is the latest in what Spiked Online editor-in-chief Brendan O’Neill calls “The Crisis of Character” in the west, in which identities become grounded in subjective interpretation rather than objective reality. The state is now forcing society to recognise the subjective identities of individuals, regardless of how absurd or surreal they may seem. In New York City, recognising someone’s identity is no longer a matter of case-by-case common sense and courtesy. It’s zir way or the highway. (Breitbart)
And in Orwellian Language Manipulation and Reality Control along with Moral Relativism (where the only moral thing is do the Leftist Politically Correct thing or be a “bigot”, “racist” or both).
The Left: We want to do whatever the fuck we want to do, and when we want to do it, because we want to do it and you heathen mongrel Neanderthals who aren’t worth of kissing our ass will just have to shut and do as you are told or else.
We are the superior beings and we will rule over you with an iron fist of “social justice”.
We are your Superiors in every way possible, now and forever.
You do as your told when you are told, or else!
<<insert maniacal laugh here>>
Welcome to end of 2015, The Year of Orwellian Madness.
Here comes 2016, the End of The World Vote.
You will bow down peasants to your new Monarch, Queen Hillary The First.
That is the only choice you will be given to avoid punishment.
Or Else, The Scarlet “B” (BIGOT) be ‘tattooed’ on your forever!
You will burn in Liberal Politically Incorrect until you are re-educated and renounce your unenlightened non-diversity, non-inclusion and intolerant heathen ways.
After Being Fined and Forced to Host Gay Weddings, Christian Farm Owners Make Drastic Decision That ‘Will Likely Hurt Their Business’
I want to thank the Egotistical Liberals for their “tolerance” and “sensitivity” for ruining the “choice” for everyone because they have to feel powerful and stroke their egos!
They go looking for people to sue and be “offended” by. It gives them power.
Yeah, they stuck it to those “hateful” “right wing Christians”! And I’m sure they are damn proud of themselves!
Congrats, you spoiled it for everyone. Your “discrimination” has hurt our “choice”. Your “freedom” to have your Lawyer-on-Speed-Dial crush anyone anytime some uppity non-Gay Liberal dares to get in your way is very “diverse” and loving of you.
Some are just more “equal” than others…. 🙂
Should the government be in the business of “re-educating” its citizens to change their moral beliefs?
No. But don’t tell that to the Sanctimonious Left!
A husband and wife who were fined $13,000 and told they could not discriminate against same-sex couples after refusing to allow a gay wedding on their New York farm have announced that they will “no longer host any wedding ceremonies on their property.”
“Going forward, [Cynthia and Robert Gifford] have decided to no longer host any wedding ceremonies on their property (other than the ones already under contract),” Alliance Defending Freedom attorney James Trainor told TheBlaze in a statement.
A judge ruled earlier this month that the Giffords’ farm is a public accommodation because they rent their space out, and they therefore must abide by New York anti-discrimination law.
“Since the order essentially compelled them to do all ceremonies or none at all, they have chosen the latter in order to stay true to their religious convictions, even though it will likely hurt their business in the short run,” Trainor said.
The family will continue hosting wedding receptions, but ceremonies — which have traditionally been hosted inside the Giffords’ home on the property or at another nearby location — will immediately cease. Same-sex receptions will be allowed on the grounds.
The move comes after Jennifer McCarthy and Melisa Erwin, a lesbian couple, approached Cynthia and Robert Giffords in 2012 and inquired about holding their nuptials at the Liberty Ridge Farm in Schaghticoke, New York.
The Giffordses, who are Christian and hold the belief that marriage is restricted to one man and one woman, said the couple was welcome to hold their reception on the property, but not the actual ceremony.
McCarthy and Erwin complained to New York’s Division of Human Rights, claiming they had been discriminated against as a result of their sexual orientation.
A judge subsequently ruled in their favor, rejecting the Giffords’ argument that the family owns a private business that is legally permitted to issue such refusals.
Judge Migdalia Pares ruled that Liberty Ridge Farm is a public accommodation because it rents its space and regularly collects fees from the public. The judge said the fact that the owners live on the premises does not mean that their business is private in nature.
Pares ordered that the Giffordses must abide by anti-discrimination regulations under New York’s Human Rights Law and must pay a $10,000 fine, as well as an additional $1,500 each to McCarthy and Erwin, Religion News Service reported.
A representative for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal firm, told TheBlaze that in addition to the fines, New York State is forcing the Giffordses to” teach classes to their employees that impose the state’s view of marriage.” Gay marriage was legalized in the state in 2011.
The Alliance Defending Freedom said the Giffordses should have the right to hold and exercise their religious views without the “threat of government punishment.”
The Giffordses and their attorneys believe that the family has been punished for taking a biblical position and for exercising their First Amendment rights.
“The government should not force anyone to participate in or celebrate an event that violates their faith and beliefs. However, that’s exactly what the state of New York has done to the Giffords,” the firm said. “The Giffords serve all people with respect and care. They have hired homosexual employees and have hosted events for same-sex couples.”
The family has not yet decided if it will appeal the judge’s decision. (The Blaze)
The Giffords must pay a $1,500 mental anguish fine to each of the women and pay $10,000 in civil damages penalty to New York State. If they can’t pay in 60 days, a nine percent interest rate will be added to that total. Like Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Giffords must also institute anti-discrimination re-education classes and procedures for their staff. (Daily Signal)
Do not Violate the Sanctimony of The Politically Correct Leftist Activist or else they will find a judge who crush you for your impudence, slave.
This, by the way, is the “pro-choice”, “tolerance”, “diversity”, “fair”, “compassionate” Left. 🙂
Owners of a family farm in Schaghticoke, New York, are being fined $13,000 for refusing to allow a gay wedding ceremony to take place on their property in 2012, just one year after the state legalized same-sex nuptials.
Cynthia and Robert Gifford, owners of Liberty Ridge Farm, a family-friendly farm and special events venue, told Jennifer McCarthy and Melisa Erwin, a lesbian couple from Newark, New Jersey, that they were welcome to hold their reception on the property, but not the actual wedding ceremony, according to Religion News Service.
The Giffords live on the premises and these ceremonies are typically conducted on the first floor of their home or on the nearby property. Considering that they are Christians and consider marriage to be confined to relationships involving one man and one woman, the two weren’t comfortable hosting McCathy and Erwin’s nuptials.
An attorney for the couple told Religion News Service that the two have both employed gay staffers and hosted events for same-sex couples in the past, but that a gay wedding ceremony in their home was too close for comfort.
McCarthy and Erwin weren’t happy with this rejection, so they took their complaint to the New York’s Division of Human Rights, claiming that they were discriminated against as a result of their sexual orientation.
Yeah, like it was the only wedding chapel type farm in all of North America. Boo-Hoo. Gee, ever heard of talking your money somewhere else, instead of ringing your Lawyer on speed dial!
A judge subsequently ruled in their favor in the case New York State Division of Human Rights v. Liberty Ridge Farm, rejecting the Giffords’ argument that the family owns a private business that is legally permitted to issue such refusals.
Judge Migdalia Pares, who argued that the fact that the owners live on the premises does not mean that the business is private in nature, ruled that Liberty Ridge Farm is a public accommodation as it rents its space and regularly collects fees from the public.
So their house is a public accommodation? Fascinating…
As a result, the judge found that the couple must abide by anti-discrimination regulations under New York’s Human Rights Law, ruling that the Giffords must pay a $10,000 fine and give an additional $1,500 each to McCarthy and Erwin, Religion News Service reported.
“No one should have the happiest time of their life marred by discrimination,” McCarthy, who was represented alongside her wife by the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement, according to the New York Law Journal. “We hope this decision will protect all New Yorkers from having to go through the hurt that we experienced.”
Or, they could have just been mature and “tolerant” and gone somewhere else. But no, the little Dominatrix’s wanted you to bow down to them or else!
They wanted to be offended so they could get their Speed Dial Lawyers and Leftist Agenda Judges out to summarily crush the infidels who dared to defy them!
But attorney James Trainor of Cutler, Trainor & Cutler, who represented the Giffords, said that the recent Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision that barred the government from forcing small companies with religious objections to provide controversial birth control devices for employees should have been considered in this case.
“The judge and commissioner each had the opportunity to reconsider the Giffords’ religious rights after the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that businesses can exercise the religious rights of their owners in Hobby Lobby decision of June 30, yet failed to do so,” Trainor told the New York Law Journal.
It is currently unclear whether the Giffords will continue a legal battle against the ruling.
A phone message left for the Giffords by TheBlaze Thursday was not immediately returned. (The Blaze)
Unfortunately, New York’s Human Right’s law (Executive Law, art. 15) creates special privileges based on sexual orientation that trump the rights of business owners. Because the Giffords’ family farm is open to the public for business, New York classifies it as a “public accommodation” and then mandates that it not “discriminate” on the basis of sexual orientation.
So they have special rights. They are More “equal” than you. Now that’s fair.
Man, I need to see if I can find my college roommates, The Gay Wiccan and The Satanist, we need a New York Holiday. 🙂
Of course the Giffords were not engaging in any insidious discrimination—they were acting on their belief about the nature of marriage. They do not object to gay or lesbian customers attending the fall festivals, or going berry picking, or doing any of the other activities that the farm facilitates. The Giffords’ only objection is to being forced to abide by the government’s views on sexuality and host a same-sex wedding. The Human Rights Commission has now declared this historic belief about marriage to be “discrimination.”
The Giffords must pay a $1,500 mental anguish fine to each of the women and pay $10,000 in civil damages penalty to New York State. If they can’t pay in 60 days, a nine percent interest rate will be added to that total. Like Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Giffords must also institute anti-discrimination re-education classes and procedures for their staff.
The question before all citizens is whether this law and this fine are just. Should the government be able to force family businesses to betray their consciences and participate in ceremonies that violate their beliefs? Should the government be in the business of “rehabilitating” consciences or “re-educating” its citizens to change their moral beliefs about the definition of marriage?
Government should not create special legal privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Instead, government should protect the rights of Americans and the associations they form to act in the public square in accordance with their beliefs. The Giffords’ case illustrates the growing conflict between religious liberty rights and laws that grant special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In a nation founded on limited government and religious freedom, government should not attempt to coerce any citizen, association, or business into celebrating same-sex relationships.
But we’re talking about the Sanctimony and the Outrage of the Politically Correct Thought Police Leftists who want to force you, in the name of “fairness”, “tolerance” and “diversity” to bow down and submit to them like a good submissive slave does to their Masters and Mistresses.
So I guess when tragedy strike and people die, it’s off to Vegas Baby!
OBAMACARE
When Obamacare’s individual mandate takes effect in 2014, all Americans who file income tax returns must complete an additional IRS tax form. The new form will require disclosure of a taxpayer’s personal identifying health information in order to determine compliance with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.
As confirmed by IRS testimony to the tax-writing House Committee on Ways and Means, “taxpayers will file their tax returns reporting their health insurance coverage, and/or making a payment”.
So why will the Obama IRS require your personal identifying health information?
Simply put, there is no way for the IRS to enforce Obamacare’s individual mandate without such an invasive reporting scheme.
Every January, health insurance companies across America will send out tax documents to each insured individual. This tax document—a copy of which will be furnished to the IRS—must contain sufficient information for taxpayers to prove that they purchased qualifying health insurance under Obamacare.
This new tax information document must, at a minimum, contain:
the name and health insurance identification number of the taxpayer; the name and tax identification number of the health insurance company; the number of months the taxpayer was covered by this insurance plan; and whether or not the plan was purchased in one of Obamacare’s “exchanges.” (KFYI)
So you will be required to rat on yourself if you don’t have it. Then you’ll be fined. And you still won’t have it. Isn’t that special.
And if you don’t, undoubtedly that’s “tax evasion”. because as the Supreme Court ruled it is a TAX.
Because the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate penalty is a tax, the IRS will be able to assess interest and non-criminal penalties on those families who will not or cannot pay the tax. The IRS will issue regular, periodic correspondence audits to these families to help them comply with their filing responsibilities. (ATR)
Well, isn’t that special.
Americans for Tax Relief have prepared a ‘proposed’ form for this tax page at:
And there’s still over 1700 waivers for Obama’s Cronies and political friends.
So do you think Romney & Ryan can come up with a better idea than this sh*t!?
I think so.
Ann Coulter: The single most important issue in this election is ending the national nightmare of ObamaCare. If it’s not stopped, it will permanently change the political culture of this country. There will be no going back.America will become a less-productive, less- wealthy nation. What wealth remains will have to be plowed into ObamaCare — to the delight only of the tens of thousands of government bureaucrats administering it.
One moment won’t mark the end of America. Everything will just gradually get worse, like trains and the tax code, until a bustling, prosperous nation is as distant a memory as pleasurable train travel and one-page tax returns.
The reason we have ObamaCare is not because the public was clamoring for the federal government to take over health care. It’s because the Democrats had 60 senators. In the frozen ideology of the left, it doesn’t matter if anyone wants government health care. Democrats had been waiting 50 years to win huge majorities in the House and Senate and the presidency, so they could check off this box on “FDR’s Unfinished Business.”
Unlike all other major legislation in the nation’s history, ObamaCare was passed exclusively by one party that had just won an aberrationally large majority in Congress. Not a single Republican in the House or Senate voted for it.
Republicans have passed legislation on partisan votes too, but never something that would fundamentally change the lives of every American. Nationalizing one-sixth of the economy is not the kind of thing one party should pass by sneering, “Ha, ha — we have 60 votes!”
As soon as all Americans have been thrown off their employer-provided insurance plans and are forced to start depending on the government for health care, Republicans will never be able to repeal it.
The private insurance market will be gone. Most Americans won’t be able to conceive of getting health care that doesn’t come from the government — just as people in the Soviet Union couldn’t imagine how they’d get bread if the government didn’t provide it.
(Also similar to Communist systems, you’ll have to know someone in power to get decent medical care.)
A powerful health care Leviathan will arise, composed of self-paced, well-pensioned, unionized government workers who will manage our health care from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., except federal holidays, sick days, mental health days and in bad weather.
This new phalanx of government workers will spend the bulk of their time campaigning to ensure the election of more Democrats who promise to lessen their workload and increase their benefits. Even Republicans will have to run for office promising only to enlarge Obama-Care. Newt Gingrich will call plans to alter ObamaCare “right-wing social engineering.” The Democrats’ idea for funding their endless government programs is always the same: Tax the rich, and just keep taxing them, no matter how high taxes have to be raised. One thing all such people have in common is that they’ve never had a real job, meaning a job from which you can be fired. Not Bernie Sanders, not Barack Obama, not Joe Biden, not Chuck Schumer and on and on.
Such people simply cannot grasp that doubling tax rates will not double government revenues because people won’t work as hard for half the money. Their ideas about tax policy will put America on a high-speed train to government deficits rivaling Greece. We’ll be a country with no military, no wealth, no hope.
Even before the train wreck of ObamaCare, health care was half-a-disaster because that’s the percentage of medical care in this country that was already provided by the government — via Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans hospitals and other public hospitals.
In 2008, a single county in Florida — Miami-Dade — received more money in Medicare home health care payments than the entire rest of the country combined. This continued throughout the entire year and was finally noticed by our Department of Health and Human Services in December 2009. Do you think it would take a private insurer two years to catch onto the fact that health care claims coming from a single county in Florida were larger than the rest of the country combined?
Lifelong politicians haven’t the first idea what an efficient system would even look like. If only we had a presidential candidate who had spent his life working in the private sector . . .
The way to fix health care is to take as much as possible away from the government and give it to the private sector. It is a universal law of nature that everything run by the government gets worse and more expensive over time — the postal service, airport security and Amtrak. Everything run by the private sector gets better and cheaper over time — cellphones, computers, hair products, dishwashers, etc.
You know who specializes in rescuing failing enterprises and making things work? Mitt Romney. Contrary to slanders about Romney’s private sector work, his specialty was not buying thriving companies and stripping them for parts. Rather, the Bain Capital model was to take companies that were on the verge of collapse — about to cut all jobs, pensions and health care for their workers — and save them.
Romney is the Red Adair of his profession. He’s like a doctor who specializes in multiple gunshot wounds or an oncologist who takes only Stage 4 cancer patients. Yes, there were layoffs, but also lots and lots of jobs, profit, success, efficiency, saved businesses and saved lives.
Romney will be the most accomplished incoming president since Dwight Eisenhower.
Not only has Romney promised to issue a 50-state waiver from ObamaCare on his first day in office and then seek a formal repeal and replacement, but he’ll know how to do it. The savior of dying companies will fix health care in this country so that no Democrat will be able to wreck it again.
The only way to rid ourselves of this national poison pill, set to destroy both health care and the nation at large, is to elect Mitt Romney our next president.
Then get the bastards to do something. Not an easy task these days because the Democrats and the News Media will go into hysterical hyperbole overload if they lose.
Then comes the “obstruction” and the lawsuits (and conspiracies) that contest it.
Charges of racism.
The same old stuff.
BUT WE HAVE TO GET RID OF OBAMA FIRST!
NO!!!!!!! It’s Not True! It Cant Be!……Search your Wallet Luke, You know it to be True!
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is planning to ban the sale of large sugary drinks known to most Americans as big gulps and smaller drinks such as Snapples. Why the need for the ban? To save people from themselves combat obesity of course.
The proposed first-in-the-nation ban would impose a 16-ounce limit on the size of sweetened drinks sold at restaurants, movie theaters, sports venues and street carts. It would apply to bottled drinks as well as fountain sodas.
The ban, which could take effect as soon as March, wouldn’t apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks or alcoholic beverages.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Wednesday that he “thinks it’s what the public wants the mayor to do.”
Hmm….considering Diet soda has been shown to also cause people to gain weight and that fruit juice has just as much sugar as soda, this is clearly drink discrimination. But, there’s a loophole!
But there’s speculation that customers will just buy two 16-ounce bottles instead of one 20-ounce drink. (Townhall)
Maybe while getting a little weed and a little blow on the street you can get a black market 20 oz Mountain Dew!! 🙂
Flee THE Tax Man
New York thinks of itself as the place to be, but its high taxes have made it a place to flee. Those who have escaped the Empire State tax man could fill a major city.
The state of New York, with about 19.5 million people, has no known plans to erect concrete barriers or barbed wire fences. But from 2000 to 2010 it suffered an exodus of some 3.4 million New Yorkers — nearly a million more people than in Germany’s post-war experience and more than that of any other state.
And the outflow hasn’t stopped. The income loss for the state is $45.6 billion, the Tax Foundation says.
Granted, it’s not just one-way traffic. New York has plenty of immigration from abroad; its more than 4 million foreign-born residents give it the second-biggest immigrant population in America.
So net outward migration is about 1.3 million.
Most New York refugees are in sunny, zero-income-tax Florida. The Sunshine State, along with its rays, offer big relief from New York’s state tax on income, which starts at almost 6.5% and reaches nearly 9% for the overly successful.
On top of that are high sales taxes that approach 9% in New York City, but 7% in some other areas.
Heritage Foundation analyst Nick Kasprak said taxes play a role in people’s decisions to relocate.
“You generally see people moving from higher-tax states to lower-tax states,” he said. “Certainly, taxes are one way that states compete with one another.”
Florida wins that competition with New York hands down. It has no income tax and no estate tax.
New Yorkers who leave an estate of more than $1 million to their loved ones get hit with a state death tax reaching 16%, bringing billions into state coffers.
Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo admits that “working families can’t afford to pay the ever-increasing tax burden … and this state has no future if it is going to be the tax capital of the nation.”
But like a long line of New York politicians from both parties, what he dangles is relief from the state’s high property taxes, which are tied to state government spending mandates on localities — a longtime shell game showing no real signs of ending.
Cuomo’s predecessor, Eliot Spitzer (aka the Emperor’s Club escort agency’s Client No. 9), actually attained the governorship as a tax crusader of sorts, suing H&R Block for $250 million on fraud charges as state attorney general while simultaneously seeking the governor’s mansion.
But Spitzer didn’t, and Cuomo hasn’t, threatened New York’s status as “tax capital of the nation” with any substantive reform that changes the status quo.
Like those formerly enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, New Yorkers’ choice is a wrenching one: either escape by leaving home, or spend years waiting for a liberator to arrive.
Michelle Malkin: Are your kids learning the right lessons about 9/11? Ten years after Osama bin Laden’s henchmen murdered thousands of innocents on American soil, too many children have been spoon-fed the thin gruel of progressive political correctness over the stiff antidote of truth.
“Know your enemy, name your enemy” is a 9/11 message that has gone unheeded. Our immigration and homeland security policies refuse to profile jihadi adherents at foreign consular offices and at our borders. Our military leaders refuse to expunge them from uniformed ranks until it’s too late (see: Fort Hood massacre). The j-word is discouraged in Obama intelligence circles, and the term “Islamic extremism” was removed from the U.S. national security strategy document last year.
Similarly, too many teachers refuse to show and tell who the perpetrators of 9/11 were and who their heirs are today. My own daughter was one year old when the Twin Towers collapsed, the Pentagon went up in flames and Shanksville, Pa., became hallowed ground for the brave passengers of United Flight 93. In second grade, her teachers read touchy-feely stories about peace and diversity to honor the 9/11 dead. They whitewashed Osama bin Laden, militant Islam and centuries-old jihad out of the curriculum. Apparently, the youngsters weren’t ready to learn even the most basic information about the evil masterminds of Islamic terrorism.
Mary Beth Hicks, author of the new book “Don’t Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid,” points to a recent review of 10 widely used textbooks in which the concepts of jihad and sharia were either watered down or absent. These childhood experts have determined that grade school is too early to delve into the specifics of the homicidal clash of Allah’s sharia-avenging soldiers with the freedom-loving Western world.
Yet, many of the same protectors of fragile elementary-school pupils can’t wait to teach them all the ins and outs of condoms, cross-dressers and crack addictions.
We pulled our daughter out of a cesspool of academic and moral relativism and found a reality-grounded, rigorous charter school where no-nonsense teachers refuse to sugarcoat inconvenient facts and history. Many of the students are children of soldiers and servicemen and women who — inspired by the heroes of 9/11 — have voluntarily deployed time and time again to kill the American Dream destroyers abroad before they kill us over here.
There’s no better way to hammer home the message that “freedom is not free” than to have your kids go to school with other kids whose dads and moms are gone for years at a time — missing births and birthday parties, recitals and soccer practice, Christmas pageants and Independence Day fireworks.
But instead of unfettered pride in our armed forces, social justice educators in high schools and colleges across the country indoctrinate American students into viewing our volunteer armed forces as victims, monsters and pawns in a leftist “social struggle.”
A decade after the 9/11 attacks, Blame America-ism still permeates classrooms and the culture. A special 9/11 curriculum distributed in New Jersey schools advises teachers to “avoid graphic details or dramatizing the destruction” wrought by the 9/11 hijackers, and instead focus elementary school students’ attention on broadly defined “intolerance” and “hurtful words.”
No surprise: Jihadist utterances such as “Kill the Jews,” “Allahu Akbar” and “Behead all those who insult Islam” are not among the “hurtful words” studied.
Middle-schoolers are directed to “analyze diversity and prejudice in U.S. history.” And high-school students are taught “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs” – pop-psychology claptrap used to excuse jihadists’ behavior based on their purported low self-esteem and oppressed status caused by “European colonialism.”
It is no wonder that a new poll released this week showed that Americans today “are generally more willing to believe that U.S. policies in the Middle East might have motivated the 9/11 terror attacks on New York and the Pentagon,” according to Reuters.
To make matters worse, we have an appeaser-in-chief who wrote shortly after the jihadist attacks a decade ago that the “essence of this tragedy” derives “from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others.” A “climate of poverty and ignorance” caused the attacks, then-Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama preached. Never mind the Ivy League and Oxford educations, the oil wealth and the middle-class status of legions of al-Qaida plotters and operatives.
9/11 was a deliberate, carefully planned evil act of the long-waged war on the West by Koran-inspired soldiers of Allah around the world. They hated us before George W. Bush was in office. They hated us before Israel existed. And the avengers of the religion of perpetual outrage will keep hating us no matter how much we try to appease them.
The post-9/11 problem isn’t whether we’ll forget. The problem is: Will we ever learn?
College Threatens to Nix 9/11 Tribute As Too American: Human Events
If you thought that something as innocuous as putting up 3,000 American flags on school grounds to pay tribute to those murdered on September 11 couldn’t be controversial, you haven’t been to Marietta College.
Administrators at this liberal arts college in southeast Ohio are threatening to cancel a 9/11 memorial planned by their students if flags from other countries are not observed in the activities as well.
In addition to organizing a candlelight vigil, Snow sought to plant 3,000 American flags around campus starting this Sunday morning. She received approval from the Office of Student Life on June 23, more than two months ago. But when she returned to campus for the fall semester, days before the memorial was to begin, the vice president of Student Life, Robert Pastoor, vowed to terminate the tribute unless foreign flags were mixed together with American ones.
“He [Robert Pastoor] insisted we add the international flags for the reason that it was a ‘global perspective’ school,”
“Other nationalities were killed in the twin towers as well” and that Marietta must “consider how the Muslim and Chinese students will feel about the [American flag] display.”
The school backed down, but Marietta officials are hosting 9/11 events on their own, but those activities pertain to how American Muslims are treated in a post-9/11 world.
DETROIT SCHOOLS: Debbie Schlussel
At Brother Rice, Kuschel — who teaches history and government — will focus on what the attacks did to American society and constitutional freedoms. “It’s important to understand who did this to us and why. Kids want to know why we’re resented abroad.”
Kuschel said he’ll look for a good, short video for students to watch, and then have them write responses to questions he poses online. Having had to focus their thoughts, those answers will provide the grist for in-class discussions.
Gregory Evans teaches seventh-grade geography at Bates Academy in the Detroit Public Schools. Since his students are younger — and because Evans remembers his own fears during the Cold War — he doesn’t want to alarm them. But he does think it’s important they understand how American policies affect people overseas, “and how our good intentions aren’t always perceived as good.”
Yes, apologists like these two jerks populate schools across America, poisoning your kids’ and grandkids’ minds and blaming America.
Ten years later, it’s amazing we still have people spouting this “here’s why they hate us” BS. What we need to be asking is “why don’t we hate them” yet. 3,000 Americans, the Fort Hood massacre, the Underwear and Times Square bombers, multiple other failed attempts that might have succeeded. All done by Muslims. And these “teachers” are still using the same old excuses for it all.
Until we learn to hate our enemies and treat them in kind, we will continue to lose the battle. Not just on the involuntary battlefields like the twin towers and the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field. But willingly and insidiously throughout our culture and our society.
We are already losing that battle and have for ten years.
Seventy years ago we weren’t wasting times and minds asking and telling kids why the Nazis hated us. We spent the time hating and defeating them.
And that’s why we’ll never defeat these jihadists or their sister and brother Muslims who pose an equally sinister Islamic threat.
Middle School Analysis:
In New Jersey, many of whose residents were among the dead, middle-schoolers will mark the anniversary with a special 9/11 curriculum that will “analyze diversity and prejudice in U.S. history.”
Mark Steyn:And so we commemorate an act of war as a “tragic event,” and we retreat to equivocation, cultural self-loathing, and utterly fraudulent misrepresentation about the events of the day. In the weeks after 9/11, Americans were enjoined to ask “Why do they hate us?” A better question is: “Why do they despise us?” And the quickest way to figure out the answer is to visit the Peace Quilt and the Wish Tree, the Crescent of Embrace and the Hole of Bureaucratic Inertia.
Hugh Hewitt w/ Mark Steyn: But if half of what I read is true, that there will be no preachers, prayers, religious portion of this commemoration, I will think we have just absolutely lost our collective minds in Manhattan. What do you understand to be what’s planned for 9/11, and its implications, if any?
Wouldn’t want to offend the Muslims now would we! 🙂
MS: Well, I think there will be eunuch celebrations. They will be equivolist and mired in a kind of cultural relativism that says the real lesson we need to learn from 9/11 is that we need far more multicultural outreach. I think that’s the reason, by the way, that Nanny Bloomberg isn’t having any members of the clergy there, because if he had a Catholic preacher, or an Episcopalian, or whatever, there would probably be pressure on him to have a Rabbi. And then if he has a Rabbi, he’s probably got to have a big shot Imam. And then if he had a big shot Imam at the service, there would be people who would be objecting to him standing next to an Imam at the 9/11 commemoration. And that’s a good example of where we’ve come, by the way, because I don’t think if you’d had a sort of multi-faith civic service before 9/11, anyone would have thought you needed necessarily to have some big shot Imam in on the party. And the fact that 9/11, we are such a perversely, self-loathing culture, that the lesson we are supposed to draw from 9/11 is we need to be nicer to the people in whose faith 3,000 people died, I think gets to the heart of the 9/11 question. It’s not about them, it’s about us.
Marvin McCardle (ordinary liberal moron): Of course he was relaxed. He already knew of the attack. 911 was a conspiracy. The facts bear this out. He was not surprised at all. Some day the truth will come out, but unfortunately Bush will be gone and the shame of it all will fall on his grandchildren.
In San Francisco they are have a 9/11 Conspiracy Movie Marathon!
Guy Benson: Excerpt from AFL-CIO’s Head Skullcracker’s 9/11 Letter to his Union Members:
Just 10 years after 9/11, despite our vows, the public servants, construction workers and others who lost their lives or still suffer with the cancerous remnants of the Twin Towers haven’t just been forgotten. They’ve been vilified. The extremist small government posse has turned them into public enemy No. 1, as though teachers and firefighters, EMTs and nurses and union construction workers ruined America’s economy.
In state after state this year—with the heroism of 9/11 less than a decade behind us—politicians targeted the paychecks, benefits and basic rights of these workers in a rabid campaign to shift government support to tax breaks for the wealthy and already profitable corporations. Wealthy CEOs, anti-government extremist front groups and frothing talk show hosts—from the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks to the Koch brothers, Karl Rove’s American Crossroads group, Americans for Prosperity, the Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and the American Legislative Exchange Council—also pushed open the door to hate.
Make no mistake—setting workers against workers is a highly profitable endeavor. How many times during the vilest state attacks on public workers did we hear the question: “Other people don’t have pensions. Why should he?” Prompting that question required twisting the American psyche—which, by its founding nature, seeks to lift the common good. The appropriate question should have been, “Why doesn’t everybody have a pension?” followed by collective action for retirement security.
We’ve seen the costs of hatred in ill-thought wars, in shameful attacks on immigrants and our LGBT neighbors. We saw it in the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. We saw it in the racism that has found overt and covert expression since Barack Obama began his run for office—from outright declarations of people who said out loud they would never vote for a black man to the ridiculously persistent obsession with our president’s birth certificate. Regardless of his policies or priorities, President Obama is shadowed by the drumbeat of suspicion based on his “other”-ness. And those suspicions are fed and watered constantly by forces that were threatened by his message of “hope and change.”
We’ve seen the cost of greed in the recklessness of financial institutions that created the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression and the devastating jobs crisis that persists today. But I remember that other door that opened on 9/11—the door to our better selves, to our understanding that we are one and our values require us to care for one another.
That’s what sent 347 firefighters to their death at the Twin Towers 10 years ago. It’s also what sent firefighters to stand with teachers in Wisconsin even though Gov. Scott Walker had exempted them from his attack on public employees. It’s what moves employed people now to demand good jobs for the 26 million Americans who are looking for work. It’s what gives us the courage to take on a crumbling economy and the politicians preaching austerity and ignoring our jobs crisis—to take them on and say, “We are America. We are better than this. And we are one.” Brothers and sisters, friends, I hope you will join me in marking this solemn anniversary by committing to redouble your activism on behalf of America’s everyday working heroes. We will rise or fall together. This is appalling, and requires no further commentary. It truly speaks for itself. My only concern was that it was so cartoonish and vile that it might not be authentic. I called the AFL-CIO, and a representative told me it “appears to be legitimate.” She said she’d get back to me with final confirmation, but conceded that it’s a fair assumption that Trumka is, in fact, the piece’s author. Egads. UPDATE – I received the following confirmation from an AFL-CIO spokesperson: “The September 11 (9/11) page on the AFL-CIO’s website is valid, per our phone conversation earlier. Thank you for your patience as we verified this.”
I feel so much better now, don’t you?
The White House Speaks:
The White House has issued detailed guidelines to government officials on how to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, with instructions to honor the memory of those who died on American soil but also to recall that Al Qaeda and other extremist groups have since carried out attacks elsewhere in the world, from Mumbai to Manila.
The White House in recent days has quietly disseminated two sets of documents. One is framed for overseas allies and their citizens and was sent to American embassies and consulates around the globe. The other includes themes for Americans here and underscores the importance of national service and what the government has done to prevent another major attack in the United States. That single-page document was issued to all federal agencies, officials said.
So depending on who you are you got a tailored politically correct message. He was talking out of 3 sides of his mouth at once. Say what you have to to the group in front of you but stand for nothing.
Sounds like him.
“The important theme is to show the world how much we realize that 9/11 — the attacks themselves and violent extremism writ large — is not ‘just about us,’ ” said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal White House planning.
Smelling a theme are we?
This is one American citizen’s response to the president’s “Guidelines on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 observances,” saying that 9/11 wasn’t just about us and that our actions to defend our nation after 9/11 angered other nations and we must be sensitive to that. I suppose we should have apologized after being attacked at Pearl Harbor.
9/11 is about us.
9/11 is about terror and the first act of war directly on the American mainland.
9/11 is about those unbelievably heroic firemen, policemen and ordinary citizens who entered the twin towers knowing they would never come out again.
9/11 is watching fellow Americans knowingly choose to jump to their deaths rather than burn alive. Think about that.
9/11 is about the unbelievable heroes of Flight 93. They personified the uniquely American spirit.
9/11 is about radical Islamic terrorists carefully and coldly plotting for years to target the primary symbol of freedom in this world, the United States of America. Saying that may not be politically correct, but it is the truth.
9/11 is about Americans putting aside differences to unite against a common enemy — evil personified.
9/11 is about all Americans praying together and honoring and respecting their religious traditions and differences. Hear that, Mayor Bloomberg?
9/11 is about all freedom and peace loving people throughout the world saying “We are with you. We are all Americans today.”
9/11 is about truth, not fear, not political correctness and not moral equivalency. To equate 9/11 with a nightclub bombing or other terror attacks does a grave disservice to those who died on 9/11.
9/11 is about confronting our enemies and supporting and defending those who seek to live in freedom and peace.
9/11 is about not apologizing for what we did to defend our nation and our freedom.
9/11 is about the millions of Americans who died defending not only the freedoms this nation cherishes, but the lives and freedoms of millions throughout the world since the founding of this nation.
9/11 is about being proud, not ashamed, of American exceptionalism, our Judeo-Christian heritage and our uncompromising principle of freedom of, and freedom from, religion for all.
9/11 is about being unabashedly and unashamedly patriotic. Other countries don’t apologize for their love of country. We shouldn’t either.
9/11 is about admitting our mistakes as a nation and correcting them.
9/11 is about freedom and not about the government telling its citizens what to say or not to say on a most sacred national observance. To do so does not do justice to the memory of those who died that day and to the millions of brave men and women who died defending our freedom, as citizens, to speak.
L.C. Ketter, Federal Way,Washington. (Federal Way Mirror)
Today, a record number of Americans—52 million, or 36 percent of all filers—have no direct connection with the basic cost of government because they pay no income taxes. If we add this group to the people who have some income but don’t file a tax return, the ranks of American households outside the income tax system rise to 48 percent.
It gets worse, just keep reading. And remember the liberal mantra that evil Rich people don’t pay any taxes!
Tax Expenditures and Progressivity
There is a common belief that because so many tax expenditures benefit upper-income taxpayers, the “rich” are not paying their fair share of taxes. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Indeed, because of the expansion of tax benefits aimed at low- and middle-income households, the OECD finds that the U.S. has the most progressive income tax system of any industrialized country. What that means is that the top 10 percent of U.S. taxpayers pay a larger share of the income tax burden than do the wealthiest decile in any other industrialized country, including traditionally “high-tax” countries such as France, Italy, and Sweden.
Meanwhile, because of the generosity of such preferences as the EITC and child credit, low-income Americans have the lowest income tax burden of any OECD nation. Indeed, the study reports that while most countries rely more on cash transfers than taxes to redistribute income, the U.S. stands out as “achieving greater redistribution through the tax system than through cash transfers.”
The share of the income tax burden borne by America’s wealthiest taxpayers has been growing steadily for more than two decades. Figure 4 compares the share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers to the share paid by the bottom 90 percent of taxpayers.
The chart shows that, as of 2008, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 38 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent of taxpayers paid just 30 percent of the income tax burden. By any measure, this is the sign of a very progressive tax system.
Indeed, many of these 52 million tax filers now look to the IRS as a source of income thanks to the more than $100 billion in refundable tax credits paid to people who have no income tax liability.
As a result of removing millions of people from the bottom of the tax rolls, we have dramatically reduced the number of people with “skin in the game.” Indeed, the top 1 percent of taxpayers now pays a greater share of the income tax burden than the bottom 90 percent combined.
Sadly, individuals are not the only taxpayers looking to the IRS as a source of income. The proliferation of tax credits aimed at promoting technologies such as renewable energy and fuel-efficient products has addicted many companies and industries to IRS handouts. In a recent case, one-third of the profits of a major appliance company were attributable to energy production credits.
Ironically, but perhaps not surprisingly, the sectors suffering the biggest financial crises today—health care, housing, and state and local governments—all receive the most subsidies through the tax code. The cure for what ails these industries is to be weaned off the tax code, not given more subsidies through such things as the First Time Homebuyer’s Credit, Premium Assistance credits, or more tax-free bonds.
Washington can actually do more for the American people by doing less. The solution lies in fundamental tax reform. Indeed, as the plan authored by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson (co-chairmen of President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform), demonstrated, Americans could enjoy much lower tax rates, and the government could raise the same amount of revenue if most—if not all—tax expenditures were eliminated.
That said, the primary goal of fundamental tax reform should not be raising more money for government. The primary goal should be improving the nation’s long-term economic growth and lifting living standards.
Economists at the OECD have determined that high corporate and personal income tax rates are the most harmful taxes for long-term economic growth. Unfortunately, the U.S. has one of the highest corporate income taxes among industrialized nations and one of the most progressive personal income tax systems.
Cutting these rates while broadening the tax base would greatly improve the nation’s prospects for long-term GDP growth. The benefits of higher economic growth will accrue to taxpayers and Uncle Sam alike.
To be sure, many people improperly view the forgone revenue from tax expenditures as “the government’s money.” By this view, what the tax code allows taxpayers to keep through tax preferences has thus been “spent” in the same manner as a government program.
But there is a very real moral and functional difference between the government taking $1,000 from a taxpayer and giving it to the Department of Energy for switch grass research, and a tax preference which allows that taxpayer to keep $1,000 of his own money because he purchased new windows for his home. The tax credit may be poor tax policy, but the transaction is clearly one that the taxpayer chose of his own accord. The government did not actively take his money and give it to Home Depot for the new windows.
One of the dominant issues in any discussion of tax expenditures is who benefits from them. Because the value of a tax deduction depends upon the taxpayer’s marginal tax rate, many of the largest and best known tax preferences, such as the mortgage interest deduction, do tend to benefit upper-income taxpayers. However, over the past 20 years or so, lawmakers have increasingly turned to using tax credits to benefit low- and middle-income taxpayers. This has had the unintended consequence of removing millions of taxpayers from the tax rolls altogether.
Most tax credits can only reduce the amount a taxpayer owes to zero, but the EITC and the child tax credit are also refundable, meaning that taxpayers are eligible to receive a check even if they have paid no income tax during the year. Those tax returns have become, in effect, a claim form for a subsidy delivered through the tax system in much the same way that a traditional government program sends out a welfare check or a farm support check.
In 2008, according to the most recent IRS data available, 25 million tax filers received $51.6 billion in EITC benefits. Of this amount, $50.5 billion was refundable in excess of their income tax liability. Also in 2008, some 25.3 million filers received $30.7 billion in child tax credit benefits, with more than 18 million of these filers getting $20.5 billion in refundable checks. Many families are eligible for both the EITC and the child credit. These are not refunds of overpaid tax; they are payments to people who have already gotten back everything that was withheld from their paychecks during the year.
In an important 2009 study, in order to gain a better understanding of the overall amount of redistribution that occurs through both tax and spending policies, Tax Foundation economists measured how much families at various income levels paid in taxes versus how much they received in spending benefits. The results of this analysis show that federal tax and spending policies are very heavily tilted to the poor and middle-class, even before considering the Obama administration’s major policy initiatives such as health care reform. For 2010, the Tax Foundation report found that the bottom 60 percent of American families received more in government spending than they paid in taxes.
Not surprisingly, as Figure 5 shows, government spent $10.44 on the lowest-income families for every dollar they paid in taxes. Remarkably, families in the middle-income group received $1.15 for every dollar they paid in taxes.
By contrast, the top 40 percent of families paid more in taxes as a group than they received in government spending benefits. The highest-income families received 43 cents in government spending for every dollar they pay in taxes, even though they are assumed in this study to disproportionately benefit from public goods such as national defense.
Overall, federal tax and spending policies combined to redistribute more than $824 billion from the top 40 percent of families to the bottom 60 percent of families in 2010. In other words, the entire federal fiscal system is very progressive and redistributive.
But you’ll never hear that from your anti-rich, anti-corporate Class Warfare liberal.
Why?
Because that like asking Al Sharpton to not be a Race Baiter. It’s what they do. It’s at the core of what they do.
That’s the game.
And that’s their skin in that game. Without it, they have no skin.
And speaking of snakes and skin: Rep. Anthony “The Weiner” Weiner who once boasted that ObamaCare and he were “one” now wants waivers from ObamaCare for New York City because he wants to run for Mayor some day soon.
That’s his skin in the game.
New York Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner toasted the one-year anniversary of Obamacare this week — and accidentally spilled his champagne glass all over the disastrous, one-size-fits-all mandate. Ostensibly one of the federal health care law’s staunchest defenders, Weiner exposed its ultimate folly by pushing for a special cost-saving regulatory exemption for New York City.
If it’s good for the city Weiner wants to be mayor of, why not for each and every individual American and American business that wants to be free of Obamacare’s shackles?
Weiner joins a bevy of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s” loudest cheerleaders — unions, foundations and left-leaning corporations — in clamoring for more waivers for favors. (The list of federal waiver recipients now tops 1,000, covering more than 2.6 million workers.) And he follows a gaggle of health care takeover-promoting Democrats maneuvering on Capitol Hill for get-out-of-Obamacare loopholes.
At a speech before the George Soros-supported Center for American Progress, as reported by Politico.com, Weiner revealed that he’s “in the process now of trying to see if we can take (President Barack Obama) up on” a favor waiver and is “taking a look at all of the money we spend in Medicaid and Medicare and maybe New York City can come up with a better plan.” Echoing all the Republican critics of Obamacare who objected to top-down rules that override local variations in health care expenditures, Weiner explained: “I’m just looking internally to whether the city can save money and have more control over its own destiny.”
More local control over taxpayers’ destiny, eh? Give that man a “Hands Off My Health Care” sign, a Gadsden flag and a tea party membership card ASAP!
I kid, of course. The ultimate agenda of many waiver-seekers is to create a wormhole path to even more radical restructuring of the health system. Weiner has brazenly called for a single-payer “public option” to replace Obamacare should it be repealed. Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon has also crusaded for more Kabuki “flexibility” in the law through a bipartisan state waiver proposal.
But as The Heritage Foundation noted, the plan “simply changes a date on an existing ‘state innovation’ provision of Obamacare from 2017 to 2014 — still well after the federal Obamacare infrastructure has been cemented in place.” And it is essentially “a back-door vehicle for progressive states to enact the ‘public option’ and speed up the establishment of a single-payer system for health care.” White House health care advisers Nancy-Ann DeParle and Stephanie Cutter further reinforced in a conference call to liberal advocates that the bill would help states implement single-payer health care plans, such as those tested in Connecticut and Vermont.
Weiner argues that the waiver process dispels “this notion that the government is shoving the bill down people’s throats.” But only the politically connected, deep-pocketed, lawyered-up and Beltway-savvy can apply. And the White House refuses to shed more light on its decision-making process. Obama’s selective favor waivers simply underscore the notion that unaccountable regulatory bureaucrats are presiding over government by the cronies, for the cronies and of the cronies.
Real control over our destinies means flexibility and choice for all. Repeal is the ultimate democratic waiver. (Michelle Malkin)
A year after the passing of health reform, a new industry report revealed that consumers may be paying billions of dollars more in out-of-pocket health care expenses than was previously thought.
These “hidden” costs of health care — like taking time off to care for elderly parents — add up to $363 billion, according to a report from the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, a research group.
That amounts to $1,355 per consumer, on top of the $8,000 the government says people spend on doctor fees and hospital care.
The out-of-pocket costs that the government tallies usually include only insurance-related costs like premiums, deductibles, and co-payments.
The study is the first to estimate how much consumers dish out on health care related goods and services not covered by private or government insurance.
These include: ambulance services, alternative medicines, nutritional products and vitamins, weight-loss centers and supervisory care of elderly family members.
The average household income fell 1.9% last year while health care costs rose 6%.(KFYI)
I guess findout what was in the bill after passing it was like finding a zonk on “Let’s Make a Deal”.
But don’t tell that to a Liberal, they will just rant on about evil capitalists.
But it’s not a real surprise. Not really. Not if you live in reality. Not Liberal socialist fantasy land.
You have massive number of new regulations. More Adverse Selection has been forced on the industry.
The term adverse selection was originally used in insurance. It describes a situation where an individual’s demand for insurance (either the propensity to buy insurance, or the quantity purchased, or both) is positively correlated with the individual’s risk of loss (e.g. higher risks buy more insurance), and the insurer is unable to allow for this correlation in the price of insurance. This may be because of private information known only to the individual (information asymmetry), or because of regulations or social norms which prevent the insurer from using certain categories of known information to set prices (e.g. the insurer may be prohibited from using information such as gender or ethnic origin or genetic test results). The latter scenario is sometimes referred to as ‘regulatory adverse selection’.
The potentially ‘adverse’ nature of this phenomenon can be illustrated by the link between smoking status and mortality. Non-smokers, on average, are more likely to live longer, while smokers, on average, are more likely to die younger. If insurers do not vary prices for life insurance according to smoking status, life insurance will be a better buy for smokers than for non-smokers. So smokers may be more likely to buy insurance, or may tend to buy larger amounts, than non-smokers. The average mortality of the combined policyholder group will be higher than the average mortality of the general population. From the insurer’s viewpoint, the higher mortality of the group which ‘selects’ to buy insurance is ‘adverse’. The insurer raises the price of insurance accordingly. As a consequence, non-smokers may be less likely to buy insurance (or may buy smaller amounts) than if they could buy at a lower price to reflect their lower risk. The reduction in insurance purchase by non-smokers is also ‘adverse’ from the insurer’s viewpoint, and perhaps also from a public policy viewpoint.
So all that “can’t refuse people with pre-existing” conditions means your insurance goes UP!
But then again, as I said repeatedly, and I do mean repeatedly, that ObamaCare was about bring down the cost of health care, it was about bringing down the entire private health care industry so that socialist government health care is all that was left and you’d have no choice.
And that still stands.
So Happy Birthday, ObamaCare. the Damien Hell-child of The Left.
Oh, and then there’s this from Rep. Anthony “The Whiner” Weiner, one the most vocal leftists:
Rep. Anthony Weiner said Wednesday he was looking into how a health law waiver might work for New York City.
Weiner, who is likely to run for mayor of New York, said that because of the city’s special health care infrastructure, his office was looking into alternatives that might make more sense. Weiner is one of the health care law’s biggest supporters; during the debate leading up to reform, he was one of the last holdouts in Congress for the public option.
“The president said, ‘If you have better ideas that can accomplish the same thing, go for it,’” said Weiner. “I’m in the process now of trying to see if we can take [President Barack Obama] up on it in the city of New York, … and I’m taking a look at all of the money we spend in Medicaid and Medicare and maybe New York City can come up with a better plan.”
Hey, Mr. Weiner I have a much better plan to never have passed the damn thing in the first place, but since you crammed down our throats and now your political fantasies are gagging on it here’s your better plan — REPEAL THE DAMN THING!!!!! 🙂
During the debate over his health care law, President Obama repeatedly promised that “if you like your plan, you can keep it,” but for millions of Americans that promise has already been broken.
In a shocking admission, Obama’s administration has granted more than 1,000 waivers to the health law to prevent 2.6 million workers from losing their coverage. Millions more weren’t lucky enough to get a waiver, and have already been forced to switch plans.
Most waivers have been distributed to Fortune 500 corporations like Pepsi and McDonald’s, unions, Las Vegas casinos and in one case an entire state.
If corporations and unions can get a waiver from the health law, every American should get one. That is why I have introduced a bill that would allow anyone – an individual, a family, a small business – to receive a waiver. You should not need to be politically connected to keep your health insurance.
My bill uses the same standard created by the Obama Administration. If the law increases your insurance premiums, you can apply for a waiver. If you’re forced to drop the coverage you like, you can apply for a waiver. The bill also requires the Obama Administration to educate the public about the option and regularly report how many families and employers have received waivers.
The Obama Administration has been pretty clear why these waivers are necessary. In an application posted on the Department of Health and Human Services website, applicants are told they can receive a waiver if the lifetime limit mandate would result in a “significant increase in premiums” or a “significant decrease in access to benefits.”
“We don’t want to take away people’s health insurance before they have some realistic other choices,” Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius told one newspaper.
This confession by the administration is telling. There are countless mandates in the law which would increase premiums and decrease the ability to obtain coverage. For example, by 2014 every American will be required to purchase expensive, government-designed health insurance. Most employers will be forced by Washington to offer comprehensive health benefits or face a fine. The law’s one-size-fits-all benefit mandates will likely eliminate Health Savings Accounts for 11 million families. According to the administration’s own data, the law’s restrictive rules will force 80 percent of small businesses to drop their current plans and purchase more expensive coverage.
The President promised his health law would reduce premiums by $2,500 per family, but insurance has only become more expensive under the law. In New Hampshire, some plans are seeing premiums go up more than 40 percent. In Massachusetts, several plans have announced rate increases of 20 percent or more. In my home state of Michigan, 15 percent rate increases are becoming routine.
Increasing costs are the number one reason Americans cannot access insurance. Yet ObamaCare does nothing to actually reign in health care costs. Instead, it forces Americans to purchase a government-designed insurance product which will be unaffordable for countless employers and workers.
If given the chance, most Americans would prefer to keep the coverage they have. Expanding the administration’s own waiver process will allow families to keep their plans and small businesses to continue offering benefits. (U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI))
Your new #2 at the “Social” Justice Department, James Cole, appointed by recess fiat from Obama’s vacation in Hawaii: Cole went on to write that the United States has faced “many forms of devastating crime,” from the drug trade to organized crime to rape and child abuse. “The acts of Sept. 11 were horrible, but so are these other things,” he wrote.
Ah, good old liberal Moral Equivalency where nothing is better or worse than anything else. Just different.
And that 3,000 people dying in an actual terrorist attack is the same as a rapist. No more important than that.
Car bombs the same as doing a dubbie in the back of car.
Drug Cartel Violence. Domestic Violence. No difference.
Doesn’t it just fill your heart with joy this New Year’s Eve to know that you this man going Big Sis Janet and AG Eric Holder in protecting and upholding our rights?
<<sound of screaming and running away>>
*****
Oh, did you hear this one?
The reason why New Yorkers were buried in snow for days on end and 2 people died (including a baby) is because the Sanitation UNION was “quietly” protesting. They were having a childish moment of defiance!
Yes, you got it. They deliberately took their time and did it as slow as possible to protest cuts in their budgets.
2 people f*cking Died!!
And you wonder why why I hate Unions.
Indolent New York City union officials who oversee snow removal apparently live by a different creed: Sloth enhances political power, Da Boss slow the plow.
Come rain or shine, wind, sleet or blizzard, Big Labor leaders always demonstrate perfect power-grabby timing when it comes to shafting taxpayers. Public-sector unions are all-weather vultures ready, willing and able to put special interest politics above the citizenry’s health, wealth and safety. Confirming rumors that have fired up the frozen metropolis, the New York Post reported Thursday that government sanitation and transportation workers were ordered by union supervisors to oversee a deliberate slowdown of its cleanup program — and to boost their overtime paychecks.
Why such vindictiveness? It’s a cold-blooded temper tantrum against the city’s long-overdue efforts to trim layers of union fat and move toward a more efficient, cost-effective privatized workforce.
Welcome to the Great Snowmageddon Snit Fit of 2010.
New York City Councilman Dan Halloran, R-Queens, told the Post that several brave whistleblowers confessed to him that they “were told (by supervisors) to take off routes (and) not do the plowing of some of the major arteries in a timely manner. They were told to make the mayor pay for the layoffs, the reductions in rank for the supervisors, shrinking the rolls of the rank-and-file.”
It would be laugh-out-loud comedy if not for the death of at least one newborn whose parents waited for an ambulance that never came because of snowed-in streets.
This isn’t a triumphant victory for social justice and workers’ dignity. This is terrifying criminal negligence.- Michelle Malkin
I agree. The Union and their bosses should be hounded to their political death for this one. NEVERMORE!
Naturally, the Unions deny it. What, are they going to come out and be honest and say, “Yep, we did it. Screw you!”.
I think not.
**********************************************
For an Obama bureaucrat, however, the will of Congress is a mere speed bump. Hence this regulatory trifecta, each one moving smartly left — and nicely clarifying what the spirit of bipartisan compromise that President Obama heralded in his post-lame-duck Dec. 22 news conference was really about: a shift to the center for public consumption and political appearance only.
These regulatory power plays make political sense. Because Obama needs to appear to reclaim the center, he will stage his more ideological fights in yawn-inducing regulatory hearings rather than in the dramatic spotlight of congressional debate. How better to impose a liberal agenda on a center-right nation than regulatory stealth?
It’s Obama’s only way forward during the next two years. He will never get past the half-Republican 112th what he could not get past the overwhelmingly Democratic 111th. He doesn’t have the votes and he surely doesn’t want the publicity. Hence the quiet resurrection, as it were, of end-of-life counseling.
Obama knows he has only so many years to change the country. In his first two, he achieved much: the first stimulus, Obama-Care and financial regulation. For the next two, however, the Republican House will prevent any repetition of that. Obama’s agenda will therefore have to be advanced by the more subterranean means of rule-by-regulation.
But this must simultaneously be mixed with ostentatious displays of legislative bipartisanship (e.g., the lame-duck tax-cut deal) in order to pull off the (apparent) centrist repositioning required for re-election. This, in turn, would grant Obama four more years when, freed from the need for pretense, he can reassert himself ideologically and complete the social-democratic transformation — begun Jan. 20, 2009; derailed Nov. 2, 2010 — that is the mission of his presidency.– Charles Krauthammer
Ignoring both Congress and the voters, the Environmental Protection Agency starts the new year governing by decree with job-killing regulations. Take a deep breath, but if you exhale you’re a polluter.
Cap-and-trade is dead, long live cap-and-trade in the form of regulations promulgated in the coming year by what George Orwell might call the Ministry of Environment. It claims that the Clean Air Act and a Supreme Court ruling in 2007 let the EPA regulate carbon dioxide as a planet-warming pollutant.
We recently commented on the EPA’s recent commandeering of the permitting process from Texas, with which it is in a legal tussle over federalism, states’ rights and the Constitution’s enumeration of powers and who may exercise them.
The federal agency also plans to issue greenhouse gas permits in seven other states — Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Oregon and Wyoming.
The EPA held its fire, hoping a Democratic Congress would get cap-and-trade legislation through both houses. In April, 2009, Time magazine ran a piece titled “EPA’S CO2 Finding: Putting A Gun To Congress’ Head.” Last year the New York Times said that if Congress fails to ram through cap-and-trade legislation, the EPA should ram it down our throats. And so it did.
With Barack Obama’s election, liberal hopes for cap-and-trade rose. But neither businessmen nor homeowners were buying it, especially after the data manipulation and fraud perpetrated by the U.N.’s IPCC, Britain’s Climate Research Unit and even our own NASA.
So now just as rationing and death panels return under regulations written “as the secretary shall determine,” a phrase rapidly replacing “we the people” under this administration, the EPA plans to propose so-called performance standards for oil- and coal-fired power plants in July 2011 and for refineries in December 2022.
“We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce (greenhouse gas) pollution that threatens the health and welfare or American and contributes to climate change,” says EPA administrator Lisa Jackson. Perhaps she appreciates the irony of the people of Cowlitz, Wash., as columnist George Will points out, approving construction of a coal export terminal to send energy-hungry Beijing coal we won’t burn here. The transporters? Ships that themselves burn fossil fuels.
As it turns out, much of China’s domestic coal is far inland away from urban centers. High-speed trains, as such, have nothing to do with being “green.” Far from it. They enable China to use more coal — not less.
As Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, related on a YouTube video: “Lisa Jackson, Obama’s EPA administrator, admitted to me publicly that EPA based its action today (issuing its finding) in good measure on the findings of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. She told me that EPA accepted those findings without any serious, independent analysis to see whether they were true.”
We hope the incoming Republican House will deal rapidly with what is bad regulation based on junk science.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, says: “There are serious questions about EPA’s decision to move forward with these job-killing regulations that will usurp power from the states, violating the principles of federalism that are the backbone of the Clean Air Act.”
Otherwise China will burn our coal and steal our jobs, polluting planetary skies, with that pollution wafting its way across the Pacific to the Western shores of an industrially neutered America and a foolish California.
Oh, and remember those high-speed electric trains in China that have people like the New York Times’ Tom Friedman cooing over how green China is? James Fallows, writing in the Atlantic, quotes a Chinese official as saying they are being built to move passenger trains out of the way of coal trains. (IBD)
And Obama will want to borrow even more money from them to fund it all!!
Rejoice!! 🙂
Another one:
On Dec. 23, the Interior Department issued Secretarial Order 3310 reversing a 2003 decision and giving itself the authority to designate public lands as “Wild Lands.” A clever twofer: (1) a bureaucratic power grab — for seven years up through Dec. 22, wilderness designation had been the exclusive province of Congress, and (2) a leftward lurch — more land to be “protected” from such nefarious uses as domestic oil exploration in a country disastrously dependent on foreign sources. (IBD)
That $5 a Gallon Oil price that is coming isn’t from some greedy Texas oil millionaire (or the increase in grocery and other product costs because of it) but a bunch of “green” Liberals who want you in your solar-powered house with your electric car eating government approved food ,watching government approved TV, your end-of-life counseling on the table in front of you, and surfing the Government-approved Internet.
“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”– George Orwell
HAPPY NEW YEAR From The Liberal Progressive Democrat Party! 🙂
“Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away…” (Songwriter Darryl Worley)
We cannot afford to forget what today really means.
“Have you forgotten when those towers fell?”
3000 men, women, and children were slaughtered by terrorist in the most brutal and shocking way possible.
That memory should be burned into any mind that was alive and aware enough on that day.
Period.
Tolerance of those who committed this act, Radical Muslims, is not required or desired.
They would kill you in a heart beat. Infidel!
9/11 was pre-meditated murder. They had been planning this for months.
The 1993 bombing was a test run.
The USS Cole was a warm up (which now the Obama Justice Dept refuses to prosecute!)
The Embassy Bombings.
All were tests.
They continue to test.
The shoe bomber. The underwear bomber. et al.
That is not fear-mongering or hate-speech. It is simply the truth.
You don’t have to like it. No one said you had to. It just is.
Deal with it.
As Americans jumped to their deaths from burning skyscrapers, the academics, like Reverend Jeremiah Wright (Obama’s pastor for 20 years) and other Ivory Tower Liberals began penning sermons and papers on how the “chickens coming home to roost.”
And to all the sickos on The Left who say we deserved it, we asked for it or George Bush (who had only been in office since January) and Co planned it…
Get some professional help. Your mental disorder is a danger to the country at large. Period.
Can you even imagine in your worst nightmares being in an office in The World Trade Center and seeing a plane coming right at you!??
Or on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania knowing your going to die in the next few minutes??
Or walking down the corridors of the Pentagon and have a Plane suddenly hit you. You’re dead!
So to the kooks on The Left and the “tolerance” crowd I say… F U!
New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan spoke out Friday against Saturday’s planned New York protests, saying Sept. 11 “has become a holy day in our community and our nation.”
“We must never allow Sept. 11th to become a time for protest and division,” he added. “Instead, this day must remain a time for promoting peace and mutual respect.”
There may not be any hope for that as the Left’s “tolerance” and appeasement crowd call anyone who disagrees with them intolerant and hateful. Ironic isn’t it? 🙂
“This is a time of difficulty for our country,” the president said. “And it is often in such moments that some try to stoke bitterness — to divide us based on our differences, to blind us to what we have in common.
“But on this day, we are reminded that at our best, we do not give in to this temptation,” Obama said. “We stand with one another. We fight alongside one another. We do not allow ourselves to be defined by fear, but by the hopes we have for our families, for our nation, and for a brighter future.”
Says the Snake Oil president who has done nothing but divide people for 20 months!
FEAR IS HOPE!
Nine years and it still seems like we just woke from a nightmare. September 11, 2001, is seared into the national consciousness like Pearl Harbor 60 years before – only worse because we watched it on television as it happened. A nation was transfixed while 3,000 of our friends, our neighbors, our co-workers, our classmates and our family members perished in violence and fire.
They were killed in the Twin Towers, in a field in Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon itself. Police officers and fire fighters fell by the hundreds trying to save as many as they could. All were victims of the kind of terror Americans had grown used to hearing about elsewhere. But not here.
A grieving America turned to images of the Statue of Liberty to find solace. Artists from around the world depicted the statue as sad or proud or a mother defending her child. Our nation rallied under the motto: “United We Stand.”
Now we know we were never all that united. Soon after fire fighters raised a flag in the ruins of New York, the fingerpointing began. George Bush was to blame, though he only recently had taken office. America was to blame because of its longstanding friendship with Israel. Everyone was to blame it seemed, except the monsters driven by hate to harm the innocent.
Not long after the Twin Towers fell, the crazy conspiracies rose in their place. The attack was an inside job we were told as the 9/11 truther industry spread like the plague it is. By 2004, “half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders ‘knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act,’” according to a Zogby International poll.
Nearly a decade after these attacks, many crazies still believe America was involved or knew they were going to happen. A poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion from March 2010 claims 15 percent “think claims that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition are credible.” Millions around the globe believe this garbage – blaming the U.S. or even Israel for the attacks.
Journalism, the supposed “first draft of history,” has failed in one of the most important events in recent memory. It’s no wonder. Many of today’s talking heads have pushed this hurtful nonsense as a way to bash Bush.
Hollywood’s own Rosie O’Donnell told “The View” that, while she didn’t blame government for the World Trade Center attack, one of the buildings fell in a way that “defies physics.” O’Donnell went on to say “it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved.” The same show also devoted some of its airtime to the equally despicable truther fantasies of former Minnesota Gov. and pro wrestler Jesse “The Body” Ventura.
It wasn’t just the news. The FX show “Rescue Me” even included claims that a 9/11 conspiracy was part of of “a massive neo-conservative government effort.” Whether it’s former green jobs czar Van Jones signing a truther petition or loose cannon Florida Rep. Alan Grayson who said Bush “let it happen,” too many fringe elements have capitalized on our national misery.
Just scant days before this year’s 9/11 anniversary, ABC’s “Nightline” profiled a talk radio truther who said the attacks were “an inside job” and “a staged event to launch the Iraq war.”
Some crazies are laughing all the way to the bank. Search Amazon.com for “9/11 truth” and there are more than 200 items from books and DVDs to T-shirts with the slogan “9/11 was an inside job!” and a picture of the buildings burning with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld laughing nearby.
Far too many on the left and right believe such insanity. Their theories have thousands of their fellow Americans complicit in the evil scheme, because it would have taken a cast of thousands to accomplish such evil. They believe nonetheless.
Others chastise us for responding at all. Newsweek International editor Fareed Zakaria recently blasted America’s response to the attacks. According to Zakaria, who will soon be moving his tripe to Time magazine, “September 11 was a shock to the American psyche and the American system. As a result, we overreacted.”
Somehow I doubt Zakaria overreacted. It’s also unclear what would have satisfied him. Did Minute Men overreact after Lexington and Concord? We certainly could have tried harder to find peace with Britain rather than fight. Should we have forgiven Santa Anna his attack on the Alamo? I doubt those who died there would have wanted that. Did we overreact after Pearl Harbor? Perhaps America should have tried to find peace with Imperial Japan instead of fighting for freedom.
That’s the kind of 20/20 hindsight easy for those in the media who think themselves so above the pain and anguish that they remove flags and patriotism from their broadcasts. This year, journalists will once again try to understand the lingering wound that is 9/11. And once again they will fail.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of Americans want more. Nine years later and we are still seeking justice. Perhaps Bin Laden is already dead or we might never find him. One day he will answer for his crimes. The Bible tells us: “Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.” This 9/11, perhaps that’s all is the comfort we can find.(Dan Gainor)
Anything else is just bigotry 😦
“Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away…”
And we won’t get to keep our country if we wilt under domestic media manipulation by Time Magazine and others that suggest citizen opposition to what some have described as a “victory mosque” is a symptom of Islamophobia.
And we won’t get to keep our country … by sending mosque promoter Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf on a taxpayer-funded trip through the Middle East to bolster support for the Ground Zero mosque’s construction.
And we won’t get to keep our country if we permit the construction of a 1,056-foot tall “middle finger” just a couple of blocks from where 19 Muslim terrorists murdered almost 3,000 Americans during the most deadly attack on the U.S. mainland in history.
“Have you forgotten all the people killed?
Yeah, some went down like heroes, in that Pennsylvania field
Have you forgotten about our Pentagon?
All the loved ones that we lost and those left to … carry on.”
Regardless of one’s views on Islam, building a mosque near Ground Zero is deliberately provocative and unacceptable. This is not an example of Islamophobia, it’s just common sense to “…those left to… carry on.”
Carry on?
Yes — that’s US!
Every single one of U.S.! (IBD)
There’s tolerance and then their’s just blind,naive,rose-colored 60’s hippie denial of reality.
A reality that could get you killed. Period.
End of Story.
It already got thousands of husbands,wives,friends killed in the most brutal way.
Mischief in Manhattan: We Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation
By Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah Last week, a journalist who writes for the North Country Times, a small newspaper in Southern California, sent us an e-mail titled “Help.” He couldn’t understand why an Islamic Centre in an area where Adam Gadahn, Osama bin Laden’s American spokesman came from, and that was home to three of the 911 terrorists, was looking to expand.
The man has a very valid point, which leads to the ongoing debate about building a Mosque at Ground Zero in New York. When we try to understand the reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicentre of the worst-ever attack on the U.S., we wonder why its proponents don’t build a monument to those who died in the attack.
New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it’s not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.
The Koran commands Muslims to, “Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book” — i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of “fitna” (that is, “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden by the Koran).
So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the “Cordoba Initiative” and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?
Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?
There are many questions that we would like to ask. Questions about where the funding is coming from? If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans, as nine of the jihadis in the Twin Tower calamity were Saudis.
If Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not. We passed on this message to him through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer. He could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to.
It’s a repugnant thought that $100 million would be brought into the United States rather than be directed at dying and needy Muslims in Darfur or Pakistan.
Let’s not forget that a mosque is an exclusive place of worship for Muslims and not an inviting community centre. Most Americans are wary of mosques due to the hard core rhetoric that is used in pulpits. And rightly so. As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.
The Koran implores Muslims to speak the truth, even if it hurts the one who utters the truth. Today we speak the truth, knowing very well Muslims have forgotten this crucial injunction from Allah.
If this mosque does get built, it will forever be a lightning rod for those who have little room for Muslims or Islam in the U.S. We simply cannot understand why on Earth the traditional leadership of America’s Muslims would not realize their folly and back out in an act of goodwill.
As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.
Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.
I guess the piece’s authors are just “traumatized” Anti-Muslim bigots like the rest of us, huh? 🙂
“We have been able to deliver the most progressive legislative agenda — one that helps working families — not just in one generation, maybe two, maybe three,” Obama said.”This is exactly when you want to be president,” Obama said. “This is why I ran, because we have the opportunity to shape history for the better.”–in Hollywood very recently.
“The truth is that we’re a party of principle,”-Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the House’s only Muslim member.
The fact is, they have the legal right to build it, but that’s not the issue. But it is, for the fitna-Democrats and the guilt-laden “fairness” Democrats that they appear to be “tolerant”.
And anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot and religiously intolerant.
Sound familiar?
The issue is, just because you can, should you?
The answer is no.
But the Democrats and the liberals and the Mainstream media all want to argue legality because in this instance if they argue their usual emotion over logic they lose big time. So they’ve all turned into unemotional lawyers because if they don’t, they lose. And they know it.
You wanna know how bankrupt these people can be?
Let’s take Gettysburg. The site of the most famous, most important battle of the Civil War, one of the most hallowed places in all of America.
Some developers want to build a casino there!
“Preservation does not exist in a vacuum. Our local preservation work cannot thrive absent a local economy that helps induce and support it,” writes Brendan Synnamon, Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association. president.
A %&$%&%## Casino!!
I guess they’ll call the chips, Pickett’s Charge! 😦
“The GBPA’s reference to this debate as a ‘local issue’ is tragically out of step with the way most Americans view the Gettysburg battlefield.” — Opponent said.
Sound familiar??
Casino supporters say the resort’s location one-half mile from Gettysburg National Military Park presents no threat to the historical significance of the field where 172,000 Union and Confederate troops fought and nearly 8,000 died.
And building a Islamic Mosque (“community Center”) 2 blocks (which in New York is 1/5 of a mile) from Ground Zero where the very building they want to tear down was hit by debris from the South Tower is a “show of tolerance” and a way to bring the community together.
Indyfromaz's Blog: The Thoughts of An Independent Arizonan 