The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, freedom
and individual liberty
"There is but
one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Obama Tells Veterans Sequester Puts Their Benefits in
Jeopardy
Totally Insane. How about
quit sending money to the Muslim Brotherhood? There are billions of things we
could cut, yet liberals want to make sure that the cuts hurt.
President Obama took his case for ending the sequester to hundreds of disabled veterans Saturday, saying he protected their benefits from the “reckless” cuts to the federal budget but suggesting next year might be different. “It’s hurting our military. I made it clear that your veteran’s benefits are exempt from this year’s sequester,” the president said to the applause of hundreds at the Disabled American Veterans’ convention in Orlando, Fla. “But I want to tell you going forward the best way to protect the VA care you have earned is to get rid of this sequester altogether.” The president but the blame squarely on Congress, which returns in about four weeks to work on a new federal budget and increasing the federal debt limit. “We’ve got these reckless, across-the-board budget cuts called the sequester that are hitting a lot of folks hard,” Obama said. “Congress needs to come together and agree on a responsible plan that reduces our deficit and keeps our promises to our veterans and keeps our promises to future generations.” This from a President that has failed to produce a budget in nearly five years that lead to the sequester due to the debt ceiling. He cannot and will not take any responsibility for the debacle of "Sequester" that he bargained for!
President Obama took his case for ending the sequester to hundreds of disabled veterans Saturday, saying he protected their benefits from the “reckless” cuts to the federal budget but suggesting next year might be different. “It’s hurting our military. I made it clear that your veteran’s benefits are exempt from this year’s sequester,” the president said to the applause of hundreds at the Disabled American Veterans’ convention in Orlando, Fla. “But I want to tell you going forward the best way to protect the VA care you have earned is to get rid of this sequester altogether.” The president but the blame squarely on Congress, which returns in about four weeks to work on a new federal budget and increasing the federal debt limit. “We’ve got these reckless, across-the-board budget cuts called the sequester that are hitting a lot of folks hard,” Obama said. “Congress needs to come together and agree on a responsible plan that reduces our deficit and keeps our promises to our veterans and keeps our promises to future generations.” This from a President that has failed to produce a budget in nearly five years that lead to the sequester due to the debt ceiling. He cannot and will not take any responsibility for the debacle of "Sequester" that he bargained for!
~~~~~~
What would the civil rights pioneers think?
One can’t imagine the fear in the hearts of the
parents of those nine black students who walked past shouting, placardcarrying
mobs as they entered Little Rock Central High School in 1957. Each day, they were greeted with angry shouts
of “Two, four, six, eight, we don’t want to integrate.” In some rural and urban
areas, during the school desegregation era, parents escorted their 5- and
6-yearold children past crowds shouting threats and screaming racial epithets. Often
there were Ku Klux Klan marches and cross burnings. Much of this protest was in
the South, but Northern cities were by
no means exempt from the turmoil and violence of school desegregation.
Most of the parents and civil rights leaders whose sacrifices and courage made today’s educational opportunities possible are no longer with us. My question is: If they could know what many of today’s black youngsters have done with the fruits of their sacrifice, would they be proud?
Most schools identified as “persistently dangerous” are predominantly black schools. To have a modicum of safety, many schools are equipped with walk-through metal detectors, security cameras and conveyor belt X-ray machines that scan book bags and purses. Nationally, the black four year high-school graduation rate is 52 percent. In some cities, such as Detroit and Philadelphia, it’s considerably lower – 20 percent and 24 percent, respectively. In Rochester, N.Y., it’s 9 percent. What black politicians, parents, teachers and students have created is nothing less than a gross betrayal and squandering of the struggle paid in blood, sweat and tears by previous generations to make possible the educational opportunities that were denied to blacks for so long.
Born in 1936, I’ve lived during some of our racially discriminatory history. I recall being chased out of Fishtown and Grays Ferry, two predominantly Irish Philadelphia neighborhoods, with my cousin in the 1940s and not stopping until we reached a predominantly black North Philly or South Philly neighborhood. Today that might be different. A black person seeking safety might run from a black neighborhood to a white neighborhood. On top of that, today whites are likely to be victims of blacks. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2008 National Crime Victimization Survey, in instances of interracial crimes of violence, 83 percent of the time, a black person was the perpetrator and a white person was the victim.
Most interracial assaults are committed by blacks. What’s worse is there are blacks still alive – such as older members of the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP and National Urban League – who lived through the times of lynching, Jim Crow and open racism and who remain silent in the face of the current situation.
After the George Zimmerman trial, in cities such as Baltimore, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Chicago and New York, there have been a number of brutal revenge attacks on whites in the name of “justice for Trayvon.” Over the past few years, there have been many episodes of unprovoked attacks by black gangs against white people at beaches, in shopping malls, on public conveyances and in other public places in cities such as Denver, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, Washington and Los Angeles. There’s no widespread condemnation, plus most of the time, the race of the attackers was not reported, even though media leftists and their allies are experts in reporting racial differences in everything else.
Would those black Americans who fought tooth and nail against Jim Crow, segregation, lynching and racism be proud of the findings of a recent Rasmussen poll in which 31 percent of blacks think that most blacks are racists and 24 percent of blacks think that most whites are racists? Among whites, in the same Rasmussen poll, 38 percent consider most blacks racist, and 10 percent consider most whites racist.
Black people don’t need to have a conversation with white people on matters of race. One first step would be to develop a zero tolerance for criminal and disruptive school behavior, as well as a zero tolerance for criminal behavior in neighborhoods. If city authorities cannot or will not provide protection, then law-abiding black people should find a way to provide that protection themselves. WALTER E. WILLIAMS - Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University and a syndicated columnist.
Most of the parents and civil rights leaders whose sacrifices and courage made today’s educational opportunities possible are no longer with us. My question is: If they could know what many of today’s black youngsters have done with the fruits of their sacrifice, would they be proud?
Most schools identified as “persistently dangerous” are predominantly black schools. To have a modicum of safety, many schools are equipped with walk-through metal detectors, security cameras and conveyor belt X-ray machines that scan book bags and purses. Nationally, the black four year high-school graduation rate is 52 percent. In some cities, such as Detroit and Philadelphia, it’s considerably lower – 20 percent and 24 percent, respectively. In Rochester, N.Y., it’s 9 percent. What black politicians, parents, teachers and students have created is nothing less than a gross betrayal and squandering of the struggle paid in blood, sweat and tears by previous generations to make possible the educational opportunities that were denied to blacks for so long.
Born in 1936, I’ve lived during some of our racially discriminatory history. I recall being chased out of Fishtown and Grays Ferry, two predominantly Irish Philadelphia neighborhoods, with my cousin in the 1940s and not stopping until we reached a predominantly black North Philly or South Philly neighborhood. Today that might be different. A black person seeking safety might run from a black neighborhood to a white neighborhood. On top of that, today whites are likely to be victims of blacks. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2008 National Crime Victimization Survey, in instances of interracial crimes of violence, 83 percent of the time, a black person was the perpetrator and a white person was the victim.
Most interracial assaults are committed by blacks. What’s worse is there are blacks still alive – such as older members of the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP and National Urban League – who lived through the times of lynching, Jim Crow and open racism and who remain silent in the face of the current situation.
After the George Zimmerman trial, in cities such as Baltimore, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Chicago and New York, there have been a number of brutal revenge attacks on whites in the name of “justice for Trayvon.” Over the past few years, there have been many episodes of unprovoked attacks by black gangs against white people at beaches, in shopping malls, on public conveyances and in other public places in cities such as Denver, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, Washington and Los Angeles. There’s no widespread condemnation, plus most of the time, the race of the attackers was not reported, even though media leftists and their allies are experts in reporting racial differences in everything else.
Would those black Americans who fought tooth and nail against Jim Crow, segregation, lynching and racism be proud of the findings of a recent Rasmussen poll in which 31 percent of blacks think that most blacks are racists and 24 percent of blacks think that most whites are racists? Among whites, in the same Rasmussen poll, 38 percent consider most blacks racist, and 10 percent consider most whites racist.
Black people don’t need to have a conversation with white people on matters of race. One first step would be to develop a zero tolerance for criminal and disruptive school behavior, as well as a zero tolerance for criminal behavior in neighborhoods. If city authorities cannot or will not provide protection, then law-abiding black people should find a way to provide that protection themselves. WALTER E. WILLIAMS - Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University and a syndicated columnist.
~~~~~~
Religious belief a challenge for politics by
E.J. DIONNE
Whenever I write sympathetically about religion, I
get bombarded by tweets and notes from readers who normally agree with me but
cannot abide the idea that religious belief should be seen as intellectually
serious. And because I have written favorably about Pope Francis, I get more
than my share of angry comments about the Catholic pedophilia scandal, which
continues to haunt the church and troubles even its most loyal members.
Getting lambasted doesn’t bother me. On the contrary, citizens talking back to the purveyors of opinion is a glorious aspect of free speech. But my correspondents underscore the existence of a strong anti-religious current within a segment of the liberal community that is both an important political fact and a potential problem for progressives. Here’s the challenge: Americans who are left-of-center are far more religiously diverse than their opponents on the conservative side. When it comes to matters of faith, liberals and Democrats have a far more complicated task of coalition management – although religion also raises some serious difficulties for the right.
Consider the findings of a survey (in which I was involved) released last month by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution. Using the answers to a wide variety of questions, we created a scale that broke our respondents into four groups: Religious conservatives, moderates, progressives and the non-religious. Overall, we found that 28 percent of Americans could be classified as religious conservatives, 38 percent as religious moderates, and 19 percent as religious progressives. An additional 15 percent were non-religious. But among supporters of the two parties, Republicans were far more cohesive. The analysis found that 56 percent of Republicans were religious conservatives and 33 percent were religious moderates. Only 5 percent were religious progressives and just 6 percent were non-religious. Democrats, by contrast, were all over our analytical map: 28 percent were religious progressives, 13 percent were religious conservatives, 42 percent were religious moderates, and 17 percent were non-religious. Among self-identified political liberals, the proportion of the nonreligious – essentially, the folks sending me those messages – was even larger: 31 percent of liberals were non-religious, 33 percent were religious progressives, 30 percent were religious moderates and 6 percent were religious conservatives.
Two things are thus true simultaneously: Non-religious Americans are a very important part of the liberal constituency; yet the majority of liberals have ties to religion. The survey found that African-Americans, who are deeply loyal to most liberal causes (and to the Democratic Party), are among the most religious people in the country. For liberalism to thrive, there needs to be acceptance and, even better, some respect across the boundaries of belief and non-belief.
Yet if liberals face obstacles when it comes to faith, conservatives have problems of their own. The most serious? The religious conservatism that is such an important component of the right and the Republican Party is deeply unattractive to the rising generation of voters. In addition, many across age groups who are quite conservative in their theological views are rather progressive when it comes to economics, especially on issues such as raising the minimum wage.
The generation gap on religious commitment is stark. In the Silent Generation (Americans 68 and older), 47 percent are religious conservatives, while only 12 percent are religious progressives and 10 percent are non-believers. These figures are reversed for Millennials (Americans 33 and under), only 17 percent of whom are religious conservatives, while 23 percent are religious progressives, and nearly as many, 22 percent, are non-religious. (The remainder in both groups were moderates.) These trends should disturb conservatives looking to the future, but they should also give pause to religious leaders. The association of religion, and particularly Christianity, with conservatism appears to be turning off substantial numbers of young Americans to faith.
On the other hand, a concern for social justice not only unites large numbers of believers across conservative/ progressive lines but also appeals deeply to the more skeptical young. This is one reason why Pope Francis’ eloquent emphasis on lifting up the poor, so visible during his recent trip to Brazil, could make him a transformational leader.
Conservatives need to pay attention to the power of justice and compassion. Otherwise, they will find their cause undercut, even within their religious base, by a refusal to grapple with the economic system’s unfairness. As for progressives, they would be foolish to push away religious allies who are instructed by scripture of the Almighty’s ambition to “loose the bonds of injustice” and “let the oppressed go free.” - E.J. Dionne is a columnist for the Washington Post.
Getting lambasted doesn’t bother me. On the contrary, citizens talking back to the purveyors of opinion is a glorious aspect of free speech. But my correspondents underscore the existence of a strong anti-religious current within a segment of the liberal community that is both an important political fact and a potential problem for progressives. Here’s the challenge: Americans who are left-of-center are far more religiously diverse than their opponents on the conservative side. When it comes to matters of faith, liberals and Democrats have a far more complicated task of coalition management – although religion also raises some serious difficulties for the right.
Consider the findings of a survey (in which I was involved) released last month by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution. Using the answers to a wide variety of questions, we created a scale that broke our respondents into four groups: Religious conservatives, moderates, progressives and the non-religious. Overall, we found that 28 percent of Americans could be classified as religious conservatives, 38 percent as religious moderates, and 19 percent as religious progressives. An additional 15 percent were non-religious. But among supporters of the two parties, Republicans were far more cohesive. The analysis found that 56 percent of Republicans were religious conservatives and 33 percent were religious moderates. Only 5 percent were religious progressives and just 6 percent were non-religious. Democrats, by contrast, were all over our analytical map: 28 percent were religious progressives, 13 percent were religious conservatives, 42 percent were religious moderates, and 17 percent were non-religious. Among self-identified political liberals, the proportion of the nonreligious – essentially, the folks sending me those messages – was even larger: 31 percent of liberals were non-religious, 33 percent were religious progressives, 30 percent were religious moderates and 6 percent were religious conservatives.
Two things are thus true simultaneously: Non-religious Americans are a very important part of the liberal constituency; yet the majority of liberals have ties to religion. The survey found that African-Americans, who are deeply loyal to most liberal causes (and to the Democratic Party), are among the most religious people in the country. For liberalism to thrive, there needs to be acceptance and, even better, some respect across the boundaries of belief and non-belief.
Yet if liberals face obstacles when it comes to faith, conservatives have problems of their own. The most serious? The religious conservatism that is such an important component of the right and the Republican Party is deeply unattractive to the rising generation of voters. In addition, many across age groups who are quite conservative in their theological views are rather progressive when it comes to economics, especially on issues such as raising the minimum wage.
The generation gap on religious commitment is stark. In the Silent Generation (Americans 68 and older), 47 percent are religious conservatives, while only 12 percent are religious progressives and 10 percent are non-believers. These figures are reversed for Millennials (Americans 33 and under), only 17 percent of whom are religious conservatives, while 23 percent are religious progressives, and nearly as many, 22 percent, are non-religious. (The remainder in both groups were moderates.) These trends should disturb conservatives looking to the future, but they should also give pause to religious leaders. The association of religion, and particularly Christianity, with conservatism appears to be turning off substantial numbers of young Americans to faith.
On the other hand, a concern for social justice not only unites large numbers of believers across conservative/ progressive lines but also appeals deeply to the more skeptical young. This is one reason why Pope Francis’ eloquent emphasis on lifting up the poor, so visible during his recent trip to Brazil, could make him a transformational leader.
Conservatives need to pay attention to the power of justice and compassion. Otherwise, they will find their cause undercut, even within their religious base, by a refusal to grapple with the economic system’s unfairness. As for progressives, they would be foolish to push away religious allies who are instructed by scripture of the Almighty’s ambition to “loose the bonds of injustice” and “let the oppressed go free.” - E.J. Dionne is a columnist for the Washington Post.
~~~~~~
Darwin debunked at Hollywood High Students exposed to
theories based on 'nothing but blind faith' by
Bob Unruh
A must watch http://youtu.be/U0u3-2CGOMQ
Documentaries, especially those quoting renowned
scientists talking about their specialties, often are dull. So how is this “Evolution vs. God” project
by Christian evangelist Ray Comfort raising so much ruckus? Perhaps it’s
because the evolutionary experts themselves are unable to provide scientific
evidence to support the theory to which they have devoted their lives. The push and shove has gotten to the
point that American Atheists Inc tweeted to its 31,000 followers that Comfort
should release unedited footage of interviews he conducted with four
evolutionary scientists.
In the film, “Evolution
vs. God,” the scientists are unable to offer any observable scientific evidence
for Darwinian evolution. The tweet said, “Ray, we challenge you to post the
unedited interviews of the scientists – We’ll help promote them if you do.” Other atheists joined the call, with Andrew
Dougy Rutherford stating, “Yeah, getting to see the full unedited interviews
would be great. If your case against them is as solid as you claim then you
would have no problem doing this.” Added Andy Ball, “Yes please do release the
unedited interviews, let us judge for ourselves what they’re talking about.”“They
are worried, and they’ve got a right to be,” commented Comfort.
“‘Evolution vs. God’
shows that there’s no evidence for Darwinian evolution – that it rests on
nothing but blind faith,” he said. “So they are hoping to find some ‘silver
bullet’ in what wasn’t used that will discredit the movie. They know
that millions are going to end up
seeing evolutionary scientists from USC and UCLA gasping like fish out of
water, as they try to think of scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution.” He responded: “American Atheists, Inc. Want to see all the interview footage? Let’s
go on TV. Convince me with a good reason to, and I will release it.”
In the documentary, a
prominent anthropology professor from UCLA offers a solution for those who
doubt Darwinian evolution: Use your imagination. The faceoff
with the atheists happened just as Comfort’s organization was announcing plans
to hand out the documentary to students arriving at Hollywood High School in
Los Angeles. The documentary has been viewed thousands of times online as a
premium product and 100,000 times in just the first few days of its
availability on YouTube. Very simply, the film gives scientists the chance to
talk about the evidence for evolution. Comfort
explained: “I went to the experts with a camera and asked evolutionary
scientists for scientific proof for Darwinian evolution, and the silence was
deafening. They didn’t have any, and the reason that they didn’t have any is
because there isn’t any. If you don’t believe it, watch the movie. If you are a
believer in evolution, prepare to have your faith shaken.”
~~~~~~
Harry Reid Comes Clean: Obamacare Is First Step to Single
Payer System (Socialized Medicine)
For all the naysayers that continue to who claim
that Obamacare is good for America and isn’t about government takeover of
healthcare, well Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid is making no bones about it. He says that Obamacare is merely a step towards a single
payer system. During a Friday night appearance on Las Vegas PBS’
program “Nevada Week in Review,” Reid made clear what the objective of
Obamacare is. “What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right
direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,”
Reid said. When then asked by panelist
Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a
health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid
said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.” The idea of introducing a single-payer
national health care system to the United States, or even just a public option,
sent lawmakers into a tizzy back in 2009, when Reid was negotiating the health
care bill. Reid went on to expound on that. “We had a real good run at
the public option … don’t think we didn’t have a tremendous number of people
who wanted a single-payer system.” In
other words it was manipulating language in order to get public opinion without
telling them what they were doing.
~~~~~~
No comments:
Post a Comment