Newt Gingrich called Barack Obama “The Food Stamp President.” In answer to this Obama said that food stamp usage did not go up dramatically under him it went up under George Bush. It‘s Bush’s fault…..waaaaaah.
Here is what the USDA shows:
Before we say that under Republicans people just do not get taken care of we should know that Obama also said that people become ‘eligible’ for food stamps. Presidents do not “put them on” food stamps. Of course people become eligible when the economy is poor.
Brett Baier, Fox News, gave an interesting report this afternoon on the subject of everyone paying their fair share. Brett has it that the IRS reports a large number of government employees owe back taxes. Perhaps those who want more tax revenues should press the government to collect from those who owe taxes. How will another law that isn’t enforced change those who are not following the laws we already have?
IRS REPORT OF BACK TAXES OWED
Postal Service Employees ……………………………….$269.6 Million
Workers on Capitol Hill……………………………………..$10.6 Million
Treasury Department…………………………………………$9.3 Million
Executive Office of the President……………………………$833,970
Image by 401K via Flickr
The 2012 mantra is going to be, “Everyone should pay his or her fair share.” The News Free Press morning paper headline was ‘Obama Calls for Millionaire Tax Hike’ and beneath the headline was a picture of Mitt Romney with the caption ROMNEY’S RICHES.
What is a person’s “fair share?” Are you paying your fair share or should you be paying more? Should you pay the same rate on income as a higher wage earner?
If Obama is actually ‘fair’, he will tell you that he isn’t calling for Romney or any other millionaire to pay more income tax right now. The rich already pay a higher rate of income tax according to the IRS. Obama is calling for a doubling of the capital gains tax. When the capital gains tax is raised it affects Americans who are not millionaires as well. I am not sure if Warren Buffet was talking about “Income Tax” when he said he paid a lower rate than his secretary. Perhaps he was comparing apples to oranges. His income tax rate should have been higher. If most of his money is earned through capital gains, then that rate may have been lower depending upon how much she makes. Capital gains taxes are the same across the board. Listen to what was said in 2008.
If Democrats want fairness, then they want those who have not been paying anything, roughly 47% of all Americans to begin to pay ‘their fair share.’ Mitt Romney paid $3,080,000 in capital gains taxes alone last year. This doesn’t include other taxes he had to pay. He gave over 15% of his wealth to charity compared to Barack Obama’s 1% during 2000 – 2004 and Joe Biden’s much less than 1%. If we are going to be fair, shouldn’t those who refuse to give to charity be required to pay more taxes to welfare recipients since we all should care for those on welfare and not just those who feel generous?
Better yet, let’s vote for a candidate who will do away with the IRS and replace it with the Fair Tax.
Image by jschneid via Flickr
It is probably true that “The pen is mightier than the sword.” The Mic is mighty as well, but when an agency or broadcasting network is dishonest, sometimes it will backfire.
Listening to radio news today I happened to hear an ABC report. They told how Obama will speak tonight about how rich Americans should pay their fair share of taxes. I suppose that could be considered news. They, however, did not stop there. In the news, was also the information that Mitt Romney made $22,000,000 in investments last year and that, according to ABC, he did not pay his fair share. If it were true, that would be news. The really despicable thing about ABC’s comment is that it isn’t true. Mitt Romney paid what the law required, unlike our esteemed Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner. I cannot go back and check, but I wonder if ABC even reported Geithner’s failure to pay his taxes until he was forced in order to be given the position he holds.
What ABC news doesn’t get is that the American people on the whole are tired of such foolishness being given as news. Americans do not mind political commentary and opinion when it is up-front and identified as such, but to attempt to sway voters in such a blatant fashion is ridiculous.
What happened in South Carolina should have given ABC a clue. Rather than allow Newt Gingrich‘s political opponents to dig up his past indiscretions, the news service took it upon themselves to do so. The good people of SC responded by voting for the person ABC tried to trash.
Perhaps ABC thinks only Republicans will respond this way. Or perhaps they think only South Carolinians actually care what they do. I think they are wrong. While it is true that many in South Carolina have ancestry dating back to Ft. Sumter and King’s Mountain and these independent loving people despise cheap, obnoxious political tricks, many Americans share these values. I believe that all fair-minded people, when presented with the facts, will agree that media needs to do one of two things. 1) Go back to reporting news or 2) Declare themselves to be what they are; in the case of ABC a political operative for Obama.
The purpose of this blog is to help readers understand that voting for Barack Obama is voting for the end of life for many unborn infants.
Keep yourself far from a false matter; do not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked. Exodus 23:7
Those who watched Huckabee this week-end know what actually happens in abortion ‘clinics’. I was shocked to learn that young women are ‘set up’ in order to ensure their return to the clinic for future abortions.
Prior to Obama, Catholics and evangelicals have been free to stand for life and refuse to abort pre-born children. Now, under this man and the health care bill he and the Democrats in Congress passed against the will of the American people, the exemption always given to Catholic hospitals in the past has been taken away.
In August, the administration announced interim rules requiring coverage for contraceptive services without co-pays or deductibles. It provided an exemption from this requirement to “religious employers,” but the exemption was so narrow that it largely left out Catholic hospitals, universities and other church-affiliated institutions.
Obama is not ‘pro-life’. Obama is not ‘pro-choice’. Barack Obama is pro-abortion. If you have any doubts about Obama’s intentions, I urge you to watch the video at “Worse than murder.” Hear the words of Barack Obama.
Obama promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act when elected.
The next time anyone who purports to be pro-life tells you that there is no difference between the Republican and the Democrat party on the issue of abortion, please remember this story and kindly tell them they are either sadly misinformed or blatantly lying.
Other than the Supreme Court Justices who voted for Roe vs Wade and actual abortionists, Obama has possibly done more to take away rights of the unborn than any person living today.
According to the National Right to Life:
As I write this blog, names and faces come before me. I know many autistic people.
Being a retired teacher, I am well aware of ‘autism’. Two things I know. The number of children suffering from autism sky-rocketed in recent years and autistic children are intelligent. Some are gifted above the average child.
Meet Carly:
There have been studies showing mercury-based vaccines given to infants and young children could be a cause of autism.
But one theory that’s been discussed and studied all over the world is whether the rise in autism has anything to do with the increase in childhood vaccinations. Why? The controversy was ignited in 1998 by a small study based on reports from parents of 12 children with autism.
Another reason why parents and some doctors thought that childhood vaccines might be one of the potential causes of autism is because they used to contain a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal. While no studies showed a link between any harmful side effects and the thimerosal in vaccines, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service agencies decided to remove thimerosal from childhood vaccines in 1999. Today, the only childhood vaccine used with any regularity that contains thimerosal is the influenza vaccine, says McMillan.
Personally, I find it very interesting that the product was removed for ‘no reason’.
Sadly, the cause of autism has become politicized. This should never happen, but often does when money, government, and big companies are involved. Recently in Britain, a conspiracy has come to light involving the British Medical Journal that is largely financed by the vaccine companies:
The BMJ, in essence, has been caught pulling off what may be the largest scientific fraud ever perpetrated by any medical journal in the history of the world. It grossly misrepresented the facts in falsely accusing Dr Wakefield of fabricating the clinical trial data that led to his landmark study being published in The Lancet in 1998. The innocence of Dr Wakefield has now been established by these newly-released documents.
The study of the relationship between autism and vaccines has been very politicized in the US as well and there are those who believe that many who suffer from the disease are victims of the use of thimerosol.
The removal of ‘thimerosal’ is a good step in the right direction, but there is still doubt in the minds of many because:
While it’s still possible to find the occasional study showing evidence that a link between childhood vaccines and autism could be possible, the bulk of the scientific research does not support this view. And the majority of experts say that the theory just isn’t backed up with good scientific evidence.
Perhaps, with break throughs such as the one Carly and her family have experienced, those who are suffering from the condition may be able to take up the cause of finding out the reasons for autism and how to prevent it.
Pam’s story is ‘anti-abortion’ and that is a good thing! Even”pro-choice” people have said many times that they are not “pro-abortion” and that being pro-choice doesn’t mean one believes abortion is a good thing. So why isn’t the true story of a woman choosing life over abortion with a good outcome a blessing for everyone to celebrate?
If you read what is written here, perhaps you read the post on Snopes and their inability to determine that Pam’s Story concerning the birth of her son, Tim Tebow, was true. They gave as their excuse that abortion isn’t legal in the Philippines unless the life of the mother is at risk. Pam clearly stated that the doctors thought she should have an abortion all the way through to the seventh month of her pregnancy in order to save her life.
Abortion to protect the life of the mother is legal in the Philippines. Perhaps this needs to be explained to Snopes in order for them to be able to determine the veracity of the story. The greater question, however, is should a pro-life commercial be considered controversial and should those who want to produce such an ad be pressured to cease and desist?
When ‘Focus on the Family’ bought commercial time to tell Pam’s story in 2006 there was an outcry from those who are apparently “pro-abortion” that the story might contain an “anti-abortion”message. I say “pro-abortion” because “choice” by its very nature means that some people will choose not to abort and that choice will be accepted and respected, as well it should be. When a person or group fails to recognize that life is also a ‘choice’ it follows that they have shown themselves to be, not pro-choice, but pro-abortion.
This seems to be the forgotten aspect by those who carry the ‘pro-choice’ banner. Women like Mrs. Pam Tebow have their integrity questioned or their story stifled simply because of the prejudice our nation now embraces against those who choose against abortion.
This is another example of our ‘up-side down land’.
This year perhaps all who are pro-life will continue to work together to support women and families like Pam and the Tebow family in their decision for life. May God continue to richly bless her for this choice.
Last night, when Juan questioned Newt Gingrich about some of his ‘controversial’ remarks such as calling President Obama the “food-stamps president” and suggesting that students would be better off if they worked jobs doing janitorial work while still in school,
Today on The Five, Juan Williams sat in for Bob Beckel and as usual did a great job. Juan also did something that will surprise some people. He said that Newt Gingrich won the debate and “knocked it out of the park.” (I liked that.) At that moment, so did Juan Williams!
Juan Williams is the kind of person who gives journalists a good name. He is honest and he is fair. These are traits that are not often found in journalism today. He is one of the few people, who self-identifies as a liberal, and does not give that word a bad name.
Newt Gingrich knocked it out of the ball park last night. Juan Williams, whom I have personally grown to like a lot, was stuck with asking him a “liberal, gottcha” question and it did not go over well in SC. When asked if he did not see that he had insulted all Americans, particularly black Americans by suggesting that poor kids be allowed to work as janitors in schools to earn money, Newt’s answer was brilliant and got a standing ovation. His answer was also ‘spot on’.
Society is able to determine how our youth feel about work and about making money. If youth are insulted it is because we have not taught them that it is more honorable to work than to accept charity from those who do work.
If you watch the video you will understand why Huffington post were reluctant to put all of what Newt Gingrich had to say on their site.
Newt is on sound footing. The Bible clearly teaches that there is no shame in working with our hands.
When you eat the labor of your hands, you shall be happy, and it shall be well with you. Psalm 128:2
And we labor, working with our own hands. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure; 1 Corinthians 4:12
Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need…Ephesians 4:28
…that you also aspire to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you…1 Thessalonians 4:11
For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. 2 Thessalonianss 3:10
PS. I do not think Juan should have been booed. He was just giving Newt a chance to respond to critics.
The Sunday prior to Martin Luther King Day, in Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist church, the pulpit was filled by Valerie Jarrett. Valerie Jarrett is a senior adviser to President Barack Obama and she delivered what some might describe as a campaign speech at the ‘worship’ service. After the service, voter registration was held.
The American Spectator tells us that:
Jarrett is a business executive, she also has been a well-known political operative for Chicago Democrats back to her days working in the background as an adviser to late Chicago mayor Harold Washington, as well as the Daley family.
Certainly Valerie Jarrett has been involved in Chicago politics. She has also been described as a business woman who is into progressive far-left leaning politics.
This event interested me partly because I recently saw on Facebook an e-mail copied and posted that stated in part:
Obama made a policy that NO U.S. SERVICEMAN CAN SPEAK AT ANY FAITH-BASED PUBLIC EVENTS ANYMORE.
Snopes states that the e-mail is FALSE. The e-mail stated that Greg Stubes was a disabled Green Beret soldier who was asked to speak at Catch-A-Dream Foundation in order to grant a wish for a child with a life threatening illness. It turns out that part is TRUE. The event was cancelled. That is TRUE as well. Two things weren’t true. Obama did not call the foundation and request the speaker be canceled. The Defense Department canceled the speaker. Also, the department stated they were canceling not due to the fact that it was a ‘faith-based’ organization but rather a fund-raising’ organization.
Valerie Jarrett is not a member of the armed forces, so she is not affected by this policy. Members of the Obama team may speak at worship services used as fund-raising events and voter registration whenever they please. Will this effect the tax-free status of Ebenezer Baptist Church? Probably not.
Is what the Obama administration did and is doing legal?
Not being a lawyer, I cannot answer, however this is what is written in the IRS code:
Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations
During election campaigns, many churches, universities, hospitals, social service providers, and other section 501(c)(3) organizations are uncertain about the extent to which they can discuss issues of importance in the campaigns or interact with candidates for public office. They are also uncertain about the role they can play in encouraging citizens to register and vote. This fact sheet is intended to help organizations understand what they can and cannot do when an election campaign is under way.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to all campaigns including campaigns at the federal, state and local level. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Those section 501(c)(3) organizations that are private foundations are subject to additional restrictions that are not described in this fact sheet.
What do you think? Perhaps a better question would be, do you think any action will be taken against any party who violates this section if they are associated with the Obama administration?
