Folks like Red Tigress, who apparently is morally blind when it comes to everyone else but yours truly, called my behavior toward Jimmytherighteous 'dishonorable'. Of course, my behavior toward Jimmy is the same he started levying at me, incessantly, back in the day. Indeed, while I was trying to have my political blog, he created his own, he said, solely for the purpose of acting like the ass he is.
My solutions to his behavior all failed. I left T-blog a couple of times because he bullied me out. I was called a coward for that. I tried to be as nasty as he was, and then I was lectured for it (and compared to CBG guy by Whoisjohngalt). Indeed, whenever I tried to be civil and defend myself, Jimmytherighteous came swinging in and calling me a coward, telling others to laugh at me.
A note to Red Tigress: being made fun of for your religion, your weight, your perceived intellect, for poetry you wrote in graduate school, for every single thing your enemy can find is not defensible. And yet you'll jump on Jimmy's side. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Jimmy from the very start, the very start, decided to make his opposition to me very personal. He didn't just decide to disagree with me, no: this man had and has a special predilection for me. Of course it is cowardly; he knows who I am, I have no idea who he is. And he knows that this is a good thing.
So when he tells me to bring it on, when he makes my ability to do what I am allowed to do on T-blog excruciatingly hard by slandering me, making fun of me, and generally just trying to provoke a response out of me that he can make fun of, I've basically discovered that the only way I'm going to eliminate this jerk is if I speak to him in a language this guy will understand.
If Jimmy has a problem with me, he knows how to solve it. I'm done trying to relent to his hate machine. I won't do it. The bottom line is that if he tells me to bring it on, I will. The logical conclusion to his baiting me is an ass kicking, pure and simple. If I'm some fat, out of shape coward, then he should have no problem taking care of me. He obviously doesn't want me on T-blog, and I am tired of his actions. If Jimmy isn't going to be nice, if he's not going to grow up and drop his crusade against me, I'll make him. And trust me, no one wants that.
But to prove to everyone, including RedTigress (who had a jolly good laugh at my expense over CBG guy, such a good person she pretends to be), then I thought I'd show you how Jimmy started it all. Keep in mind, I didn't know who he was, I didn't read his blogs. But from the beginning, this is what Jimmy had to say about me:
October 3, 2003 is the earliest blog in the archives attributed to Jimmy. Check out the tolerant, good-natured language that I'm apparently forbidden from responding to:
"Since I'm tired and have a life, unlike our enormously fat facist friend the Reverend Jimmy the Righteous, I'm only going to tear apart one of his comments tonight. I promise more of my patented blog destruction soon..."
"See, posting as Mr. Dogmeat Jones on his blog, before he tucked tail and ran like the fat coward he is,"
"Of course, since I'm a liberal commie "turd" and/or "monumental dumbass" (some of Jimmy's quotes)" (note: investigate why I called him this)
"James Yerian is a racist, misogynist, facist, hateful person who doesn't give a damn about anyone other than the six people on earth that subscribe to his ultra-right wing, Catholic-central, anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-immigrant, anti-poor and intellectually barren ideology. "
This is his first blog, folks. So yeah, I reserve the right to respond to him in kind and, since that has failed, to knock his cowardly teeth out.
And I will.
Jimmy, I'm trying to bring it on! You have to be a man and show up!
Help me help you Jimmy. You've decided to dodge the issue of your towering cowardice yet again. You revert back to your usual hate parade and then go off with your amusing little threats.
You say 'bring it on' but then tuck your tail and run. You know how to reach me, child. Insult me all you want. The bottom line is you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is. You want me to bring it on? Be a man. Let's have a face-to-face. It will be therapeutic for the both of us.
You're a frightened little fuck off who hides behind an anonymous handle, scared of truly brining it on.
You're just running away with your infantile taunting. If you're serious about 'bringint it on', you know how to get me.
Don't hide. Show up. Be the man you accuse me of not being.
Have a good one, pussy.
(and yes, Jimbo I am infinitely smarter than you. Even my gaffes have greater intellectual weight than your childish boo-hooing and name-calling...your entire blog is testimony of what a pathetic, regrettable little prick you are...)
There's a big scandal out there involving John Kerry, but the US media has chosen to go AWOL in its
[b]So it has come to this - a choice of scandals[/b] (Filed: 15/02/2004) Mark Steyn
There are two "scandals" in American politics at the moment: the first features George W Bush and whether he was a "deserter", as Michael Moore, Hollywood's celebrated Leftie lardbutt, puts it. This goes back three decades to when Mr Bush was a young pilot in the Texas Air National Guard, the so-called "weekend warriors". By desertion, Moore and co mean that there were a lot of weekends when the warrior didn't show up. Terry McAuliffe, the highest-ranking official of the Democratic Party, prefers the term "Awol". He doesn't offer any evidence to support the accusation.
But, if you switch on pretty much any cable news station any time of day, you can find them going on about this "scandal". Their general philosophy is encapsulated by the headline on a recent column in Newsday: "Is Bush A 'Deserter'? It Doesn't Hurt To Ask." And they do. In return, John Kerry, the Democratic Presidential front-runner, portentously declines to comment, adding, "It's not my record that's at issue." This is a not so subtle reminder that, when Bush was doing a bit of dilettante piloting over Texas and Alabama, Kerry was getting shot up in Vietnam.
Actually, that is not strictly true. [b]In the period when Bush was in the National Guard, Kerry was an angry Vietnam veteran protesting with Jane Fonda and accusing his comrades of being drug-addled rapists, torturers, mutilators and murderers committing war crimes on a scale surpassing the Japanese and the Nazis. [/b] But that's a mere detail. To the media, the contrast is simple: Kerry = war hero; Bush = something smaller, shiftier. [b]Bill Clinton, of course, is smallest and shiftiest of the lot, but, back in '92, John Kerry stood shoulder to shoulder with his fellow Democrat and said, "We do not need to divide America over who served and how." Now, apparently, we do.[/b] So Kerry has his supporter Max Cleland, former Senator, fellow veteran and triple amputee, all over the talk-shows, explaining that the difference between giving Clinton a pass on draft-dodging and hammering relentlessly on Bush's National Guard record is that in 2004 "it's the national security, stupid. We want a President who can really be Commander-in-Chief". [b]And the fact that Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, has liberated two countries, overthrown the Taliban and slung Saddam in jail counts for less than whether he bunked off for the weekend in 1972.[/b]
Insofar as there is any basis for this scandal, [b]it rests on the word of one discredited witness plus one retired general with the name of Turnipseed who said four years ago he had no memory of seeing young Lt Bush at the base in Alabama. General Turnipseed later said that he didn't necessarily mean Bush wasn't there, and later still said he wasn't even sure he himself was there at the time in question. But it didn't matter. By the time an offhand remark had found its way to Michael Moore, it had become a charge of "desertion".[/b]
Now let's consider the Kerry scandal: If you read the British newspapers, you'll know all about it. It's not about whether he was Absent Without Leave, but the more familiar political failing of being Absent Without Pants. [b]It concerns a 24-year old woman - ie, 41 years younger than Mrs Kerry[/b] - and, with their usual efficiency, the Fleet Street lads have already interviewed her dad, who's called Kerry a "sleazeball". [b]But if you read the US newspapers or watch the news shows there's not a word about the Senator's scandal.[/b] Though it seems to have a somewhat sounder factual basis, and at least one witness more relevant to this situation than the loose-lipped Gen Turniphead was to Mr Bush's, [b]it's the media that's gone Awol. In this case, it seems it would hurt to ask. So Mr Bush has been unable to do the John Kerry routine, declining to comment but adding that "it's not my marital record that's at issue". We have two flimsy "scandals" tangentially related to character, but only one of them's all over the networks.[/b]
I don't want this election fought as the Adulterer vs the Deserter. [b]The "politics of personal destruction" is insufficient to the times, and an insult to the entirely non-metaphorical personal destruction of thousands of Americans that took place on September 11.[/b] [b][u]But the Democrats don't have any ideas on that score - Sen Kerry offers the usual lazy platitudes about working through the UN.[/b][/u] So he's running on "character" instead: he was in the jungle, Bush wasn't. True. [b]All Bush did was learn to fly an F-102, which is one serious plane. Bill Clinton can't do that and nor can all the baby-boom reporters huffin' an' a-puffin' about Lt Bush's 30-year-old payslips.[/b] By the standards of his generation, what Bush did in the 1970s was good enough.
[b]More to the point, whatever Bush did or didn't do back in those days is consistent with who he is. As horrified European commentators are fond of pointing out, Mr Bush is a "born-again" Christian.[/b] We don't need to see grainy home movies of a soused goofball in a Mexican bar face down in the beer nuts to know more or less the kind of guy he was 30 years ago. But he changed; he was born again. If you found some video of Bush rat-arsed (as the British say) in 1974, how relevant is that to the abstemious tucked-in-by-nine family man of 2004? [b]In that sense, even if everything the accusers said was true - that he was an absentee Guardsman - it's not inconsistent with the official Bush narrative.[/b]
By contrast, the Kerry narrative is almost impenetrable. [b]If Vietnam bitterly divided a nation, split communities, tore apart families, etc, etc, Sen Kerry somehow managed to wind up on both sides of the fence: in the 1960s, he was John Wayne taking out the gooks in 'Nam; in the 1970s, he was Hanoi Jane Fonda, leading the protest movement; [u]now, after two decades in Congress opposing every new weapons system for America's military, he's campaigning like Bob Hope on a USO tour flanked by wall-to-wall veterans.[/u] [/b] What story accounts for Senator Flip-Flop these past 40 years?
[b]If character is the issue, Bush can relax. And, if doing your bit for national security is the issue, then John Kerry's been Awol for two decades.[/b]
The office of Senator John Kerry sent an email to the saying that Kerry will try to repair the damage done by the incumbent president if he wins the election.
The text of the e-mail follows:
"As Americans who have lived and worked extensively overseas, we have personally witnessed the high regard with which people around the world have historically viewed the United States. Sadly, we are also painfully aware of how the actions and the attitudes demonstrated by the U.S. government over the past three years have threatened the goodwill earned by presidents of both parties over many decades and put many of our international relationships at risk.'
The Mehr news agency is the mouthpiece for the regime, with such insightful thoughts as:
'Bush's comments on Monday that Syria and Iran continue to harbor and assist terrorists, is totally unacceptable. It must be pointed out that it is the United States that in the very mean time is harboring terrorists in Iraq.
The Zionist lobby's efforts leveling unfounded allegations against the Islamic Republic of Iran and putting pressure on the U.S. and the EU have recently gained momentum. Its efforts started simultaneously with the increase in martyrdom-seeking operation of the Palestinian nation against the Israeli regime and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's oppressive measures against Palestinians.
Also concurrent with developments, the Iraqi people's attacks on the U.S. and British occupying forces have increased too. It is crystal clear that in a bid to detract world attention from their problems, both the U.S. and the Zionist regime have intensified their assaults on Iran.'
Does it make sense to elect someone sympathetic to terrorists our leader in a war against terrorists?
The Democrats, the Left, are revealing their true colors. Or maybe just their stupidity.
Let the record show: Jimmytherighteous runs away from the very fight he provoked.
There you have it, folks, the culmination of months of baiting me. After all, the logical conclusion of Jimmytherighteous' attacks on me, attacks that he started because boo hoo, he disagreed with me and couldn't take it, proves how much of a coward he really is when I ask him to take his faggot, girly, attacks to the next, logical level: if Jimmy is such a man, and I am such a coward, this pussy will have no problem a)showing the world who he is, b)emailing me, and c) meeting me face to face to chat about his problem with me.
I just won't take it anymore, Jimmy. The book if finally closed on you, asshole. It was put up or shut up time and you ran away, like I predicted. People like you always do. You accuse me of being a coward, but:
I always stand by what I say, I use my real name, I am standing up when someone provokes me.
Jimbo, you've been provoking me since you showed up. You want me to react this way, so I am: why are you such a loser that you can't be a man?
Because you're not a man and you never were. Look over your own blogs and you find a disturbing need to bring me down, not to out argue me. Since you've decided to go personal, since that's what you want, [u]that's what you get[/u].
King Pussy, that's what you are, Jimmy. You're a paper tiger. A big nothing. Like I said, the invitation is always open-- go ahead an email me, loser. Go ahead and use your real name. Go ahead and try to be a man.
What are you afraid of? I mean, I'm a 400 pound guy who lives with his parents and writes poetry, right? I live in my parents basement, right? I only have a hs diploma, right? To use another coward's comparison, I'm CBG guy, right? I mean you're such a man for making this shit up about me, you're begging to get me upset.
So I'm upset, so I'm ready to solve our little problem.
Let the record show: I was on Tblog before your sorry ass, and I only ever went negative because you went negative on me first. Since you can't stop being negative, since you think you're a man by calling me a coward, [i]I'm giving you the chance to prove it, sweetie[/i].
You squat to pee, Jimmy, and you know it. You provoked me and provoked me and now you're not ready to face what you caused. Boo-hoo, that would cut into your drinking time and remedial scientific research, I guess.
No more playing games. I'm smarter than you, and you hate me for it. I write better than you, and you hate me for it. I'm tougher than you, as you just proved, and you hate me for that, too. While you can't change the first two, you have a chance, big guy, to change the last.
This is what you get for calling me a coward. Words have meaning, chum; be enough of a man to stand by yours.
You know my email. Change your mind, grow some balls, and step up.
I know, I know: I'll get knee-walking drunk so I can be on your level. I'd still kick your ass, but you'd have a little more time to think about it.
I'm the coward because I don't like your constant slandering? I've already offered to kick your ass. You know who I am. Why don't you stop hiding behind your anonymity and be accountable for the prick you are? Talk about cowardly. C'mon, Jimbo. You're sick of my shit? I'm sick of yours. You have my email address. We'll schedule a place to meet, and then we'll see what you've got.
But I think you're too much of a pussy, too much of a REAL coward, to do that. You know what I hate? You're a slimy little alcoholic coward who can't stand up for his own insane beliefs. You get your ass kicked so much on your insane viewpoints that you can't handle it, and go off on me. You're a little punk bitch who can't handle another's opinion.
You've slandered me and you published my email on Tblog to get others to bash me, too. I don't care if anyone emails me: I just get tired of having to delete my inbox for jerk offs like you.
If you're such a man, and if I'm such the coward, then you should have no fear getting in touch with me. I'm tired of your shit, Jimbo-- if you knew you couldn't get away with it you wouldn't have the balls to do what you do. So now's your chance.
You know where to find me, cocksucker.
Let's go. From now on if you have something to say to me, have the balls to email me. Use your own name, pussy.
Why do I think you're not going to do that? Because you like to run away from a real challenge, naturally.
Nothing you can say is going to hurt me, so you'd better think of something else.
So much for the US-trained Iraqi police: 21 killed, prisoners freed in Iraq raid
Talk about your ridiculously messed up situations. Here in Iraq we have a culture built on rumors, and all it takes is the right one to spark violence (like in the north of Iraq regarding 'midnight' US 'murders', etc.). Then we have the massive catch-22 with elections-- no matter what the US does, no one will be happy,and it will give those peaceful Shiites a reason to be violent. Then we have the Kurds wanting their own state and pissing off the turks. Then we have the Sunnis who hate us because we took their power. Then we have the US apparently half-assing the training of the Iraqi police forces (and probably army too).
There have been about 550 US troops killed in Iraq. There have been almost that many Iraqi police killed. These Iraqi police guys are patriots too, they are our friends. They want to help their country. Why are they so ill-prepared? Why is US backup slow? Why do they not have the tools to do their job?
This is the reality, boys and girls. Iraq is going to take time, lots of it, like 4,6, 8 years, and we'd better damn well understand it. Forget time frames. Forget bowing to the lefties around the world that want us out asap (like France and Russia). When we are compromised in our ability to do things the right way, things that are based entirely on having massive amounts of time, then the whole thing turns to pot. Because we are trying to please everyone, the US is pissing off everyone (including those brave Iraqi policemen). We cannot create the right kind of environment for democracy is we are limited to deadlines.
God help us in Iraq. The Bush administration better put the wheels back on this vehicle and do it the way they originally planned. Damn congressional sniping about cost. In the long run, if we don't do this right, we'll be back there in another 10 years. And that will cost much, much more.
[b]Kerry smears without fear[/b] Brent Bozell February 13, 2004
It is a testament to the dignity of George Bush the Elder that in 1992, he refused to make endless fun of the draft shenanigans of Bill Clinton, who skipped off to Oxford after he received his draft notice to blab endlessly about politics and play strip poker with the lasses.
But he should have said something serious about it. Bush's campaign was so devoid of red meat on Clinton's military deficiencies that it was almost vegetarian in its fear of liberal media pounding.
Twelve years later, seemingly we have role reversal with President George W. Bush. Except there is no evidence of scandal against this president. And the Democrats won't stop making scurrilous accusations. And the media are eagerly promoting it all.
The media would have you imagine that Bush the Elder said "draft dodger" in every sentence on the stump. Wrong. [b]But thanks to the media's funhouse of double standards, the Democrats are getting millions of dollars of free publicity -- not to mention the imprimatur of credibility -- dragging this President Bush through the mud of gutter politics. Republicans have to pay money to put their opposition research on the air. The Democrats can count on the networks to offer it up. On demand. In heavy rotation. For free.[/b]
Now that John Kerry has emerged as the Democratic nominee, dragging Vietnam buddies from state to state, he's had the press actively in his corner. [b]Kerry gets to sneer on stage that "some of us know something about aircraft carriers for real," and no journalist can be found denouncing this cheap shot.[/b] On NBC News on Feb. 4, [b]Kerry equated Bush's Guard service with deserters and draft dodgers: "If people went to Canada, or if people opposed the war, or if people chose to be in the Guard, that's their choice, and I've never raised that as an issue."[/b]
[u]No reporter found it noteworthy that Kerry was doing exactly that.[/u] [b]Four days later on NBC, there was Kerry "never raising" the issue yet again. "Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question." [u]Days later, accuracy be damned, network reporters were still declaring Kerry was staying above the fray.[/b][/u]
The networks seem to be underlining one thing for the American people as the general election begins. [b]Democrats can be as nasty as they want to be; that they can accuse George W. Bush of being "AWOL" without any proof; that like a mob of Michael Moores, they can equate him to a deserter; and that the press will only cheer.[/b]
Tom Brokaw greeted Kerry's attacks by stating blandly that the Democrats are "anxious to show they will play hardball" on national security. [b]Great. They won't play hardball with Saddam Hussein, or Kim Jong Il, or France, or Germany, or Russia, or for that matter, anyone opposing the U.S. on national security. But they will play hardball with the Republicans. That ought to help Americans sleep at night. [/b]
Kerry's media cheerleaders won't bring up that [b]in 1992, Kerry denounced those who would dare bring up Clinton's draft-dodging record. Kerry lamented: "Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?" [/b]
[u]Just imagine what John Kerry (not to mention Tom Brokaw) would have said had Bob Dole tried to restart the draft issue with Clinton in 1996. Why, Clinton had been commander-in-chief for years! He'd sent soldiers into battle in military triumphs (OK, military adventures) to face those imminent threats to America in Haiti, Somalia and Bosnia. Dole would have been scalded as divisive and ugly and wrong.[b] Eight years later, the Kerry camp is spreading dirt with the express goal of being divisive and ugly, and no one dares to call this wrong. [/b][/u]
What a sick and pathetic game the Democratic-media complex is playing. As commander-in-chief, Bush has overseen dramatic military victories, first routing the Taliban dictatorship, and then crumbling the cruel and despotic reign of Saddam Hussein. [b]He is a war hero, and a liberator of two nations. Kerry served his country with distinction in Vietnam (hating the anti-communist cause all the way), but how many people did he heroically liberate? [/b]
And [b]when he returned, he boiled his "band of brothers" in rhetorical oil. National Review's latest cover story lays out Kerry's raw Senate testimony in 1971. He became the anti-war hero by recklessly charging his fellow soldiers with "crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command," including wild-eyed claims of rape, murder, mutilation, torture, animal cruelty and property destruction [u]reminiscent of "Genghis Khan."[/u][/b]
The network Kerry-coddlers haven't touched that yet. Doesn't that say it all?
[i]Brent Bozell is President of Media Research Center, a Townhall.com member group.[/i]
"[Israeli] soldiers deployed near Rafah spotted 3 suspects Thursday morning in a restricted area attempting to cross into Egypt...
The soldiers opened fire and, on reaching the site, discovered three children age 7 8 and 10.
One of the children, who was lightly wounded, was treated on site by medics, and the three were then handed over for questioning.
IDF officials said it is not the first time that terrorist organizations use small children and youths as decoys or on reconnaissance, sending them to compile information on routes between Egypt and Rafah that can be used in the future."
Gay marriage against law in California: will justice be served to San Francisco's mayor?
Leftists tend to believe that the law doesn't apply to them. It applies to everyone else, but not to them. This is why Alabama Judge Roy Moore was attacked by insisting on posting the 10 commandments in his courtroom. There was no law on the books preventing Moore from doing so, and since the 10th amendment granted him the right to post the 10 commandments in his court room. Yet, due to an unconstitutional court ruling, Moore had to take the commandments down and was removed from office.
Will San Francisco's mayor be removed from office for violating the laws of his own state? After all, Gavin Newsom is doing something worse than Moore-- handing out gay marriage certificates in spite of a law that tells him he can't do this. In 2000 California amended its Constitution to codify the definition of marriage. Newsom is clearly breaking the law. Moore was using the 10th amendment of the US Constitution; Newsom is violating the marriage amendment of his state constitution.
My guess is that Newsom will defy the law and take it to court, where a bunch of liberal judges will decide that, despite the clear definition of what marriage is in the constitution of the state of California, there is a 'right' to gay marriage in the constitution. Either that, or he'll continue to break the law and take his absurd case to SCOTUS, who will find, out of the blue, a right to gay marriage in the US Constitution.
The fact that Newsom is acting like a dictator and is breaking the law won't be touched upon. He should be removed from office.
Freedom of speech is protected, but yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre isn't. Likewise, publishing one's private email address in an attempt to destroy an enemy, libel, and the like are not protected forms of speech. Abusing an open forum for aims of hate, and cowardly hiding behind a fake name is not protected.
This of course refers to Jimmytherighteous and his incessant, never-ending, f-ed up obsession with all things James Yerian. Publishing my email address is a no-no-- I didn't give it out to the public.
The real censor here is Jimmy, who absolutely cannot stand contrary opinion that he attempts to shut me up with his politics of personal destruction.
Jimbo is a congenital slimeball. He cannot help but express it every time he launches his unprovoked attacks against me.
Slander, libel, divulging private info-- that ain't protected speech.
Of Jimmytherighteous, Red Tigress, and my personal email
Jimmytherighteous recently wrote a blog freaking out over my opinion that the Left-wing is a bunch of hysterial hating nut jobs. I guess the fact that Jimmytherighteous is himself a left-wing hysterical hating nut job, and proved it with his nice little letter, was overlooked. Oh well.
Propaganda is a Marxist invention, by the way. Read the works of Lenin, Mr. Scientist.
I knew it couldn't last long, Jimbo's turning the other cheek. All he does is keep proving that he does have psychological problems. Only an insane person would think that I'm 'crossing the line' because I think the Left-wing is full of shit.
As far as Red Tigress goes, my comment to her isn't offensive at all. I find it odd that someone who claims to love Israel so much wishes for the days of a President who helped sell Israel out. Indeed, if that's her position I hope she doesn't vote. I also think she is anti-Christian.
If you don't agree with that, who cares? If that was indeed her response to me, so what? It merely proves that in lieu of actually seeing how stupid she was to yearn for the days of Clinton she'd prefer to emotionally respond with such "tolerant", good Jewish girl words of hate.
And note to Red: I never said I was a good Catholic, not one bit. I admit I have faults. I am the only one that does.
But back to Jimbo. What actually does cross the line is his publishing my email address.
The only way he'd know of my email address is if he knew someone at one of the papers I've written to, someone on the inside, for my email has never been released, or he's someone that has written something our local media in the past that I've responded.
Either way, this is a violation of my privacy, and I will find your identity, Jimbo, and you will pay some sort of a price for this. This truly crosses the line.
And welcome back, by the way. True colors always show.
Greenspan argues for permanent Bush tax cuts, capping spending, and reforming Social Security
Well, this is a good start. But what should be done is that the tax cuts should remain permanent, discretionary spending should be watched BUT the government should cut programs (there are thousands that could be cut saving billions and billions), and Social Security should be reformed through private, free-market accounts that are guaranteed by the government for their minimal coverage if there is massive trauma in the market (such as the kind Bush has already supported). THIS would solve our problems, mostly.
[b]Greenspan: Make Bush Tax Cuts Permanent[/b] Thu Feb 12,10:56 PM ET Add Business - AP to My Yahoo! By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Thursday that Congress should make President Bush (news - web sites)'s tax cuts permanent and cover the $1 trillion price by trimming future benefits in Social Security and other entitlement programs.
Greenspan told the Senate Banking Committee that Congress, "as a first order of business," should restore budget rules that cap discretionary government spending and require increases in entitlement benefits or cuts in taxes to be offset by other program cuts or other tax increases.
Greenspan was asked how he would come up with the decade-long cost of $1 trillion to pay for extending the 2001 and 2003 individual tax cuts. "I would argue strenuously that it should be taken out on the expenditure side," he answered.
Greenspan, chairman of a commission that recommended solutions to a Social Security funding crisis in 1983, said he has felt for long time that the promised program benefits greatly outweighed the government's ability to pay for them.
He recommended two items for study in terms of trimming benefits: linking the retirement age to the population's longer life spans and tying annual cost of living benefits in Social Security to a less-generous inflation index than the Consumer Price Index (news - web sites).
Committee members questioned whether such proposals could pass Congress, especially because they would cut benefits for the 77 million Americans in the baby boom generation who are nearing retirement age.
But Greenspan said it was precisely as a result of that looming wave of retirement that lawmakers need to update Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs.
"We have constructed a good deal of the benefit structure over the last quarter century without a real firm look at whether or not the real resources were there to meet those benefits," Greenspan said. "And I suggest that what we have to do, as difficult as it's going to be, is to relook at some of these commitments."
Greenspan said it would be far better to do that now than to discover later that the government does not have the resources to meet baby boomers' needs.
"My real concern is that when the time comes to start to pay these benefits, we're going to find that we are in very serious fiscal difficulty," Greenspan said. "I do think it's important for the people who are retiring to have a sense of security that what is being promised to them as they retire will indeed be there."
The budget rules that Greenspan favors reinstating expired in late 2002. He wants those "pay as you go" rules to apply to both spending and taxes so the deficit does not worsen; Bush is recommending they cover only spending.
If Bush got his way, he would not have to come up with the estimated $1 trillion needed to make the tax cuts permanent.
Greenspan came out in support of the administration on the idea of permanent tax cuts, even in the face of deficits estimated to reach a record $521 billion this year.
At a critical point three years ago, the Fed chairman also endorsed the president's first tax cut, at a price of $1.35 trillion, as a good way to handle surpluses that were then projected to total $5.6 trillion over the next decade.
Also during the hearing, Greenspan was questioned about a recent tell-all book written about former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, whom Bush fired in December 2002.
In the book, O'Neill said he and Greenspan had a secret agreement that Greenspan would publicly call for a mechanism to be included in the 2001 tax cut that would tie the cuts in future years to continued budget surpluses. If the $5.6 trillion in projected surpluses did not materialize, then the trigger would roll back the cuts.
Greenspan said he believed at the time that such a mechanism, which O'Neill said he also advocated but was vetoed by Bush, needed to be part of the president's first tax cut because budget forecasts "are so difficult and we could not be certain that the surpluses were going to be in place."
Secreatary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in Munich recently was asked by a morally-equating Palestinian why the US was worried about Iran and North Korea's nukes "but is not doing anything about Israel's arsenal." Rumsfeld's response puts it all in perspective:
"You know the answer before I give it, I'm sure. The world knows the answer. We take the world like you find it; and Israel is a small state with a small population. It's a democracy and it exists in a neighborhood. Many, over a period of time, [have] opined from time to time that they'd prefer it not be there and they'd like it to be put in the sea. And Israel has opined that it would prefer not to get put in the sea, and as a result, over a period of decades, it has arranged itself so it hasn't been put in the sea."
In a recent blog spymaster calls Laura Bush a slut for attributing a horribly written poem to her husband in an anecdote about the joys of reading. I certainly can't explain why she would choose such a horrible poem, unless she was trying to be cute in the first place (poking fun at her husband that only she may be allowed to do-- couples humor), but I don't think that qualifies her as a slut.
And I also don't think it qualifies George Bush as a moron. Hey spymaster: do you have an MBA from Harvard? Do you know how to fly fighter jets?
No? Then what makes you think he's a moron? Oh, because you have your own blog and you know how to cut and paste?
Honestly-- there have been stupid statements from presidents since this republic was created. Why are you going nuts, spymaster, over a false one?
**I can already here the Leftists' reply: "Well, it was only ONE guy! What about his credibility? This [non-story] raises even more questions!
That's how you know someone is a leftist-- they refuse to admit their allegations are wrong. They simply say proof merely 'raises more questions.' It's because they desperately yearn to paint the opposition as beyond evil, and because they have no desire to profess truth, that they continue with the charade.
This story is like a dead possum on the side of the road. It appears to be alive because the Democrats and their press keep prodding it with their sticks.
The irony is that the Left kept wanting proof that Bush served and didn't go AWOL, and we have dental exams, pay stubs, misdemeanor records, several eyewitnesses, and a total discrediting of one accuser and still, [i]still[/i], the Left demands more.
John Kerry has given the impression that he is 'moving on', but he's the one that brought this to national attention with his smarmy 'Meet the Press' interview two weeks ago. He can give the impression of being the bigger guy now that he has the DNC chairman and the press doing his smear tactics for him.**
Ladies and gentlemen, I present yet more evidence that the Democrats are full of shit.
[b]Former Guardsman: Bush served with me in Alabama[/b] By the Associated Press
A retired Alabama Air National Guard officer said Friday that he remembers George Bush showing up for duty in Alabama in 1972, reading safety magazines and flight manuals in an office [b]as he performed his weekend obligations. [/b]
[b]"I saw him each drill period,"[/b] retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from Daytona Beach, Fla., where he is preparing to watch this weekend's big NASCAR race.
[b]"He was very aggressive about doing his duty there. He never complained about it. ... He was very dedicated to what he was doing in the Guard. He showed up on time and he left at the end of the day." [/b]
Calhoun, whose name was supplied to the AP by a Republican close to Bush, is the first member of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group to recall Bush distinctly at the Alabama base in the period of 1972-1973. He was the unit's flight safety officer.
The 69-year-old president of an Atlanta insulation company said Bush showed up for work at Dannelly Air National Guard Base for drills on at least six occasions. Bush and Calhoun had both been trained as fighter pilots, and Calhoun said the two would swap "war stories" and even eat lunch together on base.
Calhoun is named in 187th unit rosters obtained by the AP as serving under the deputy commander of operations plans. Bush was in Alabama on non-flying status.
"He sat in my office most of the time — he would read," Calhoun said. "He had your training manuals from your aircraft he was flying. He'd study those some. He'd read safety magazines, which is a common thing for pilots."
Democrats have asked for proof that Bush, then a 1st lieutenant with the Texas Air National Guard, turned up for duty in Alabama, where Bush had asked to be assigned while he worked on the U.S. Senate campaign of family friend Winton "Red" Blount.
[b]Pay and medical records released by the White House this week failed to quash allegations that Bush shirked his Guard responsibilities.[/b]
(BLOGGER'S NOTE: THE RECORDS 'FAILED' TO QUASH ALLEGATIONS BECAUSE THE PRESS DIDN'T WANT THE STORY CLOSED-- DESPITE THE PROOF)
The 187th's former commander, retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, has said he doesn't remember Bush ever turning up on base, and more than a dozen members of the 800-person unit, including its commander, told The Associated Press this week they have no recollection of Bush. Critics have made much of the fact that the White House has failed to produce anyone who could remember seeing Bush there.
(BLOGGER'S NOTE: TURNIPSEED HAS [b]RECANTED[/b]MUCH OF WHAT HE 'SAID'-- SEE RELATED BLOG ON MY SITE)
Calhoun said he contacted Texas GOP leaders with his story in 2000 when the issue was raised just before the November general election.
"I got on the phone and got information and called Austin, Texas, and talked to the Republican campaign. They said I was talking to the campaign manager," he said. "I told him my story and said I would be glad to provide information to that effect. At that time they said ... The story is not true. And we don't think it's got enough weight to stay out as a story.' And they said, 'But if it does we'll call you back.' And I never heard from them again."
Last week as the issue raged again, Calhoun sent an e-mail to the White House offering to tell his story. "I got a response back, one of those automatic responses," he said. It wasn't until his wife contacted Georgia GOP officials that Calhoun's name surfaced.
[b]White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Friday that the White House was not making any effort to try to locate people who might have served with Bush.[/b] [b]He also accused reporters of trying to raise new lines of questioning, beyond whether Bush served in Alabama. [/b]
(BLOGGER'S NOTE: THIS IS TRUE)
Critics have suggested that Bush used his family connections to get the safe Guard assignment ahead of thousands of others. But Calhoun said Bush never mentioned his congressman father while they sat together at Dannelly.
"I knew he was working in the senatorial campaign, and I asked him if he was going to be a politician," said Calhoun, who is a staunch Republican. "And he said, 'I don't know. Probably.'"
[b][u]Calhoun has not made any donations to Bush this election season or during the 2000 season, according to campaign finance records. [/b][/u]
Bush accuser on National Guard records-cleansing discredited
[i]My favorite part of this story is the quote from the guy writing the hatchet book on Bush next month (James Moore). If it is a classic 'he said, she said' problem, how in the hell is he so sure that he's right in his belief that Burkett's allegations are true? Oh, I know-- because he wants to sell books, that's why!
There is no proof to Burkett's allegations (WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE FOR THE LAST 6 YEARS), apparently it's just one man's personal crusade, which is part of the Left's large crusade to dismantle a man's character in any way possible. Lying is sport for the Left anyway-- but this kind of hate is unprecedented.
I've warned you before, but I'll do it again: in the coming months we will witness the largest campaign of personal destruction by the Left ever witnessed. There will be fraudulent ads, movies, and books (documented here, by the way), false statements, intentional media distortion, all because the Left cannot stand to argue with truth. And that's because their policies and beliefs always fail with the American people.
Do you like negativity? Smearing? Slander? Rubbish? Then join the Left. They ruin like no other.[/i]
[b]Doubts raised on Bush accuser Key witness disputes charge by Guard retiree that files were purged[/b] By Michael Rezendes, Globe Staff, 2/13/2004
For at least six years, a retired Texas National Guard officer has maintained that President Bush's record as a member of the Guard was purged of potentially embarrassing material at the behest of high-ranking Bush aides laying the groundwork for Bush's 2000 run for the presidency.
Retired Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett, who has been pressing his charges in the national news media this week, says he even heard one high-ranking officer issue a 1997 order to sanitize the Bush file, and later saw another officer poring over the records and discovered that some had been discarded.
But a key witness to some of the events described by Burkett has told the Globe that the central elements of his story are false.
[b]George O. Conn, a former chief warrant officer with the Guard and a friend of Burkett's, is the person whom Burkett says led him to the room where the Bush records were being vetted. But Conn says he never saw anyone combing through the Bush file or discarding records.
"I have no recall of that," Conn said. "I have no recall of that whatsoever. None. Zip. Nada."[/b]
Conn's recollection also undercuts another of Burkett's central allegations: that he overheard Bush's onetime chief of staff, Joe M. Allbaugh, telling a Texas Guard general to make sure there were no embarrassments in the Bush record.
[b]Burkett says he told Conn, over dinner that same night, what he had overheard. But Conn says that, although Burkett told him he worried that the Bush record would be sanitized, he never mentioned overhearing the conversation between Allbaugh and General Daniel James III.[/b]
Burkett's allegations about the Bush records come as the White House is attempting to answer mounting questions about whether Bush fulfilled his obligations as a member of the Texas Air Guard during the early 1970s. Burkett's allegations also will be a major focus of a book on Bush to be published next month.
But the book's author, [b]James Moore[/b], a former Houston TV news correspondent, [b]concedes [u]he never interviewed some of the key players[/u] who could have verified Burkett's charges, including Conn and retired National Guard Colonel John Scribner -- the officer Burkett says he saw removing items from the Bush file.[/b]
Moore, told yesterday that Conn contradicts Burkett's story, said he believes Burkett's allegations are true. "I think we're into a classic he-said, she-said," Moore said.
Earlier this week, Burkett told the Globe that, in the telephone conversation between Allbaugh and James, Allbaugh said the Bush file had to be sanitized because two of Bush's aides were planning to review the records in preparation for Bush's 1999 autobiography, "A Charge to Keep." Burkett said that he overheard the conversation, conducted over James's speaker phone, while standing outside the open door of James's office, and that he was so troubled he told Conn about it that evening.
But Conn, now a civilian government employee working with the US Army in Germany, [b]said Burkett never told him of the conversation. And Allbaugh, a Washington consultant and lobbyist, said, "I would never be so stupid as do something like that."[/b]
Allbaugh said he discussed Bush's file with Guard officials but only because Bush wanted to review it, and had never seen it.
Burkett, in his Globe interview and in Moore's book, titled "Bush's War for Re-election," said that a week to 10 days after he overheard the conversation between Allbaugh and James, Conn brought him to an office at the Camp Mabry military history museum, where Conn introduced Burkett to Scribner. Burkett says that at the moment they met Scribner, the officer was busy scrubbing the Bush file.
According to Burke, Conn asked Scribner what he was doing and Scribner replied that he was looking through Bush's records. Burkett said Conn and Scribner then briefly left him alone, and that he saw some pages of Bush's military records in a trash can near Scribner's desk.
[b]Conn contradicts most of Burkett's rendition. He said that he remembers introducing Burkett to Scribner at the museum but that Scribner never said he was going over the Bush file. "If he had said he was going through George W. Bush's records I would have dropped my teeth. Wow," Conn said. "I would definitely have remembered that. I don't recall that at all."[/b]
Burkett also says that, before the encounter with Scribner, he was standing with a group of Guard officers, and heard a ranking officer order Scribner to review the Bush file and remove any documents that might be embarrassing to the then-governor.
[b]But Scribner told the Globe yesterday that no such thing occurred. "It didn't happen. I wasn't even there," Scribner said.[/b]
Burkett has, in the past, raised his allegations about the Bush records as [b]part of his personal struggle with the Guard over medical benefits.[/b]
(BLOGGER'S NOTE: WE'VE GOT MOTIVE!)
For instance, in a 1998 letter to Texas state Senator Gonzalo Barrientos, Burkett complained that he had not received adequate medical care when he became seriously ill after returning from a mission to Panama.
He also said Guard officials had retaliated against him because he had conducted a management study critical of the Guard.
When it comes to our progress in the war on terror, it's clear why the Democrats and their friends in the media only want to carry on about how the decision to go to war in Iraq was made and how allegedly unprepared we were for the occupation. [b]The far bigger story of what has been accomplished since 9/11, as outlined by a senior Bush-administration official, effectively makes the case that the world is demonstrably safer owing to actions taken by the United States.[/b] The official's comments also make clear that [b]the White House intends to shatter the illusions of a peaceful past and forcefully make its case about the need for resolute attention to the dangers that continue to confront us. [/b]
In a discussion today, the official contrasted the threatening situation in existence before 9/11 with the still-present but steadily reduced threat we now face. [b]When President Bush took office, the Taliban was hosting al Qaeda training camps, with an estimated 20,000 graduates in the late 1990s. Saddam was a "continuing threat" to his neighbors and the world, and we faced "a serious proliferation problem, especially in [the] nuclear area that involved, we believed, Libya, Iran, based on past experience, Iraq, and North Korea certainly." [/b]
On Wednesday at the National Defense University, President Bush talked about how important it is to have put Abdul Qadeer Khan's network out of business. We know that the Pakistani scientist was supplying Libya with centrifuges and peddled his wares through a factory in Malaysia that has now been shut down. There is some speculation that Khan was working with Iran. According to the official, Khan "constituted a major, major threat" and other "key individuals are in custody in certain places." [b]It was pointed out that U.S. intelligence "knew a lot about the Khan network and had been working the problem for a long time." It was cited as an example of the kind of intelligence success that doesn't get sufficient attention. [/b]
[b]Al Qaeda, Saddam, and Khan were all freely operating three years ago.[/b] Then came 9/11, and it was clear that [b]the United States had "no effective strategy for dealing with terror."[/b] (BLOGGER'S NOTE: THANKS, CLINTON!) The threat they posed was dealt with by[b] ineffectual international accords and the attacks al Qaeda carried out were treated as a law-enforcement problem. [/b]
(BLOGGER'S NOTE: JOHN KERRY STILL SEES TERRORISM AS A LAW-ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM)
The bombing of the Beirut barracks in 1983, the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center — "the first al Qaeda attack on the U.S mainland" — and the bombings at the Khobar Towers and on the USS Cole showed terrorists that they "can launch attacks against the United States with relative impunity, there wouldn't be a significant price to pay." Then came "an event that changed everything."
[b]The attacks on 9/11 revealed "our vulnerabilities and an awareness on the part of the American people that what we faced was more like war than criminal acts." The official explained, "We learned in the aftermath that terrorists are committed to trying to obtain deadlier weapons and we have every reason to believe if they are ever successful in acquiring that capability, they will use it." [u]This is the present danger that now receives the daily concentrated attention of the administration. The official talked about the prospect of "an al Qaeda cell in one of our cities with a deadlier weapon than ever before — a biological or nuclear device."[/u][/b]
The Taliban is gone from Afghanistan and "enormous damage" has been done to al Qaeda there. Over 500 members of al Qaeda have been "wrapped up" in Pakistan, and an Iraqi regime with its "record of weapons of mass destruction and its established relationship with al Qaeda...a sanctuary for terrorists" is gone. [b]Clearly American leadership was crucial in reducing these threats.[/b] As the official pointed out, [b][u]when Khaddafi decided to give up his weapons of mass destruction, "he didn't call the U.N. or the IAEA...he got a hold of George Bush and Tony Blair." [/b][/u]
Finally, it was explained that the depth of repression and fear in Iraq, especially suffered by the Shia in the south, was underestimated. Given their experience with the brutal suppression of their uprising following the Gulf War, the senior official expects that [b]many Shia didn't think the U.S. would invade Iraq, doubted we would stay, and feared that Saddam would return. The office stressed that it is important to meet the June 30 deadline for transfer of authority to an interim Iraqi government and he welcomes the U.N.'s role in assisting with the handoff. He explained that all parties involved want to see elections and have differences only over how soon they could take place. The administration attributes good motives to Ayatollah al-Sistani, whose role as the leading Shia cleric is very significant.[/b]
(BLOGGER'S NOTE: I VERY MUCH DISAGREE WITH 'GOOD MOTIVES' OF AL-SISTANI, BUT I UNDERSTAND WHY HE MADE THE POINT. HE WAS BEING DIPLOMATIC. BUT SISTANI IS BAD NEWS..HE'LL BRING RADICAL ISLAM TO IRAQ..)
The official stated, "We've dealt very effectively with some very difficult problems," although he didn't want to underestimate the remaining challenges we face. [b][u]The challenge for Democrats is to avoid talking about the progress the administration has made in meeting threats they haven't the foggiest idea about how to handle.[/b][/u]
South Korea Cloning Experiment Proves Need for National/Global Ban
[b]South Korea Cloning Experiment Proves Need for National/Global Ban [/b]
Chicago, Illinois - February 12, 2004 - South Korean scientists have reportedly created cloned human embryos and obtained embryonic stem cells from them.
According to the researchers' report in today's issue of the journal Science, sixteen women donated a total of 242 eggs for the experiments. 30 cloned embryos reached the blastocyst stage where embryonic stem cells can be obtained. Only one embryonic stem cell line was established. [b]To date, no therapies or treatments exist that use such cells.[/b]
"Controversy continues to swirl around killing even long-abandoned human embryos for research," said John F. Kilner, Ph.D., President of The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. [b]"The South Korean experiment disturbingly goes significantly further. It produces human embryos for the explicit purpose of fatally mining them to obtain bodily materials for experimental purposes.[/b] One does not need to see human embryos as full-fledged persons to be deeply troubled by such [b]manipulation of human life." [/b]
The women who donated the eggs were unpaid and signed an informed consent form that blocked them from benefiting from the research. Each underwent a month-long fertility drug regimen designed to cause the women to superovulate (or release many eggs at once). They then underwent a surgical procedure to retrieve the eggs from the reproductive tract.
[b]"Cloning research is impossible to do without exploiting women. It should be banned immediately," [/b]said Daniel McConchie, Director of Public Relations and Public Policy for The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity.
"Obtaining eggs from women is a difficult and sometimes dangerous process, and cloning success is limited. [b]Many scientists promote cloning as a kind of 'fountain of youth' where diseases from Alzheimer's to diabetes may be cured. If we are successful in treating just one major disease using cloning methods, countless women will need to donate their eggs to make the cure available to all. Instead, we should focus on promoting promising research that is not weighed down by ethical problems, human rights questions, and limited viability."[/b]
Reporters: For Interviews
For reporters wanting interviews with John F. Kilner or Daniel McConchie, please call The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity at 847-317-4097.
About The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity is a 501(c) 3 non-profit think tank located in Chicago, Illinois. Its mission is to develop reasoned perspectives on all of today's bioethical issues and to disseminate them to health care professionals, academia, cultural and church leaders, public policy makers, and the media in order to protect human dignity. CBHD
Economic study: taxing internet access would REDUCE GDP, disposable income, and employment
**Look for taxing the internet to be one of the ways Liberals will want to reduce state and federal deficits, instead of cutting oppressive, economically destructive government programs. You want an 11% unemployment rate? Tax, tax, tax!**
[b]The Economic Impact of Taxing Internet Access[/b] by Norbert J. Michel, Ph.D., and William W. Beach WebMemo #424
February 11, 2004
The Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1997 imposed a moratorium on taxing Internet access, which expired in November 2003. The House passed legislation to continue the moratorium, but the Senate has failed to pass a corresponding bill. Critics of the House bill contend mistakenly that it does more than extend the moratorium and threatens states’ ability to collect sales taxes. Even if this were the case, though, economic analysis predicts that such taxes would reduce GDP, disposable income, and employment.
[b]Legislative Background[/b]
The House bill (H.R. 49), sponsored by Representative Christopher Cox (R-CA), permanently prohibits Internet access taxes, such as fees that would be added to an America Online bill. In the Senate, George Allen (R-VA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced a bill (S. 150) that would permanently extend the access tax ban and extend its scope. Complicating matters, Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Thomas Carper (D-DE) are expected to introduce another bill this week that would extend the moratorium for only two years, with a more limited scope, thus allowing many more services to be taxed.[1]
In addition to the competing versions of the legislation, the fact that critics have unfairly linked H.R. 49 to separate tax issues further diminishes prospects for a quick resolution.
[b]Two Taxes, Two Separate Issues[/b]
For several years, state and local governments have complained that Internet commerce threatens their ability to collect sales taxes.[2] Now, groups such as the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) have pinned the sales tax issue on H.R. 49. For instance, a new MTC report says that H.R. 49 goes “…beyond access by customers to the Internet…” and that it [b]expands “…the scope of the preemption to income, property and other business taxes…”[/b][3 ]
In fact, there is nothing in H.R. 49 (or S. 150) that prevents governments from levying these taxes. Nonetheless, the MTC claims that H.R. 49 would “…reduce revenues from current taxes levied by the 50 states, the District of Columbia and local governments a minimum of $4 billion and up to $8.75 billion annually by 2006.” The MTC also notes that, because their estimates do not include the full impact of the bill, they are “conservative” ; in nature.
[b]Economic Impact of Taxing the Internet[/b]
In effect, the MTC is saying that H.R. 49 would reduce “income, property and other business taxes” relative to current levels. Since the bill only deals with Internet access taxes, this claim seems somewhat dubious. Still, their estimates imply that H.R. 49 would lower taxes and thus contribute to economic growth in the private sector.
Of course, the MTC does not want these taxes to be reduced; they maintain that governments need these funds. An interesting question, therefore, is, would these taxes negatively impact economic activity? To investigate this possibility, CDA analysts converted the MTC’s estimates into increases in the average effective personal income tax rate (at the federal level).[4]
These changes in the tax rate were introduced into the Global Insight (GI) model of the U.S. economy beginning with the first quarter of 2004.[5] Taxes were allowed to remain above baseline (or those levels without any access tax) through the fourth quarter of 2013.[6] The GI model produced two sets of estimates, one that depends on the MTC’s “low” forecast of revenue reductions and the other that depends on the “high” forecast.
By the fourth quarter of 2006 - when the MTC believes the full impact of the revenue reductions will be felt - the GI U.S. Macroeconomic Model predicts the following outcomes:
[b]Total non-farm employment is lower by amounts that range between 91,000 and 209,000 workers;
The nation’s unemployment rate rises from 5.44 to 5.47 percent in the low revenue scenario, and from 5.44 to 5.53 percent in the high revenue scenario; Inflation adjusted Gross Domestic Product falls by amounts between $8.7 billion and $19.6 billion (between $79.10 and $178.21 per household);
Personal consumption falls by amounts ranging between $4.1 billion and $9.2 billion (between $37.28 and $83.65 per household); and
Inflation-adjusted disposable personal income (income left over after taxes have been paid) falls by amounts between $11.3 billion and $25.4 billion (between $102.74 and $230.95 per household).[/b]
[b]Taxes Slow Growth[/b]
By the MTC’s own assumptions, failing to implement H.R. 49 would come with an economic price. Not only would these taxes slow the growth of the Internet’s penetration rate (and perhaps its usage), but they would also slow economic activity throughout the country. [b]Tax increases, especially when levied on an activity engaged in by a large percentage of the population, frequently have a negative impact on economic activity.[/b][7]
The estimates above are suggestive of how important Internet technology is to our economy. And, [b]it is precisely because the technology sector has been a key source of economic growth in the U.S. that it is an attractive source of tax revenue for various constituents. Interestingly, these groups are discovering that the technology itself presents serious challenges to conventional methods for collecting taxes.[/b]
[b]Technology Threatens Tax Collections[/b]
Contrary to what the MTC may argue, state and local governments only have a “right” to collect taxes in the statutory sense. [b]In other words, popularly elected officials have passed legislation giving themselves the right to impose and collect taxes, [u]but they have no inherent right to collect any taxes.[/u][/b] If recent technological changes make it harder for governments to collect taxes, then they also make it easier for individuals to keep their own money.
[i]Norbert J. Michel, Ph.D., is a policy analyst in, and William W. Beach is director of, the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.[/i]
[1] Part of the controversy over H.R. 49 (and S. 150) stems from the difficulty in conclusively defining “Internet Access.” For instance, the Alexander-Carper bill would exclude from taxation Internet transmissions directly to consumers, but not transmissions on the Internet “backbone.”
[2] See Jennifer Beauprez, “Governor Opposes Net-tax Bill: Owens to Testify in Congress Against Proposed National System,” Denver Post, September 29, 2003, pg. E01.
[3] Dan Bucks, Elliott Dubin and Ken Beier, “Revenue Impact on State and Local Governments of Permanent Extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act,” September 24, 2003. This report is available at http://www.mtc.gov/ITFAestima...
[4]Instituting a tax at the federal level and instituting the same type of tax at the state level (in all 50 states) would be expected to produce similar outcomes.
[5]CDA used the DRI–WEFA Mark 11 U.S. Macroeconomic Model, owned by Global Insight, to conduct this analysis. The model was developed by Nobel laureate Lawrence Klein and several colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business. The methodologies, assumptions, conclusions, and opinions in this report are entirely the work of Heritage Foundation analysts. They have not been endorsed by and do not necessarily reflect the views of the owners of the model.
[6] Additional information on the methodology for these simulations is available from the authors upon request.
[7] The U.S. Department of Commerce estimates that, by September 2001, 174 million people were using the Internet in the U.S. (66 percent of the population). See U.S. Dept. of Commerce, “A Nation Online: How Americans Are Expanding Their Use of the Internet,” February 2002.
Kerry embraces the "band of brothers" he falsely accused of war crimes
[b]Kerry vs. Vietnam vets[/b] Rich Lowry February 13, 2004
The campaign season is still young, yet we already have a strong contender for what might be [b[the most dishonest paragraph of this election year[/b]. It was spoken by Sen. John Kerry, by way of explaining how a candidate [b]wrapping himself in Vietnam veterans made his public reputation by accusing them of war crimes.[/b]
In his famed 1971 anti-war congressional testimony, Kerry cited the so-called Winter Soldier Investigation, which gathered falsified testimonials of atrocities committed by American soldiers. [b]Kerry regurgitated stories of rapes, beheadings, torture and pillaging ("in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan") as part of his indictment against the Vietnam War.[/b] So it is odd that Kerry would celebrate the "band of brothers" he now says are fighting on behalf of his candidacy the way they once fought for their country. Does that mean they will behead Howard Dean and pillage the John Edwards campaign headquarters?
[b]Asked about the testimony the other day by Knight Ridder, Kerry said he relied on the Winter Soldier Investigation "because some of it was highly documented and very disturbing. I did in my heart what I thought was correct to help people understand what was going on. I've always honored the service of people over there. I never insinuated that everybody fell into one pot. I was looking forward to telling the truth about some of the things that were happening." [/b]
[b][u]This is a statement shot through with mendacity[/b][/u]. Let's take it sentence by sentence: [b]1) The Winter Soldier testimony was not "highly documented," but -- as Mack Owens of the Naval War College has reported -- totally unsubstantiated. The fantastic stories of atrocities should have been unbelievable to any Vietnam vet.[/b] 2) [b]Kerry[/b] didn't "help people understand what was going on," but rather [b]helped publicize lies.[/b] 3) [b]Kerry didn't "honor" the service of vets, but said, "We are ashamed of ... what we are called on to do in Southeast Asia," and maintained that in the vets, America "has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence."[/b] 4) [b]Kerry did insinuate that the atrocities were widespread, noting that they were "not isolated incidents, [u]but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."[/u][/b] These crimes tainted the nation -- "the crimes threaten [the country], not Reds," as "America lose[s] her sense of morality." 5) [b]If Kerry wanted to tell the truth, he shouldn't have traded in falsehoods.[/b]
[b]Dishonesty must be official policy at the Kerry campaign when it comes to his anti-Vietnam record.[/b] A Kerry spokeswoman has said that, back then, "he praised the noble service of his fellow servicemen and -women." [b]Yeah, right. Are we to believe that Kerry thought they were "noble" beheadings? "Noble" acts of torture?[/b] Kerry was indeed an advocate for better veteran health care. But this was partly because [b]he considered vets shattered wrecks destroyed by the immorality of their actions. He explained high alleged suicide figures among vets by the fact that "they have to face what they did in Vietnam." ([u]Vietnam vets actually have the same suicide rates as the general population[/u].)[/b]
[b]Kerry wasn't just wrong about the vets, he was wrong about the big picture, too. He called Vietnam a "mystical war against communism." [u]Given the massive aid to the North Vietnamese from the Soviets and Chinese, it was clearly a very real war against communism.[/u] "We cannot fight communism all over the world," Kerry declared. [i]But in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan fought communism in hot spots all over the globe and won the Cold War.[/i] [/b]
Kerry will never reverse his opposition to the Vietnam War, [u]but [b]he should at least disavow his smear of Vietnam vets.[/b][/u] He owes his "band of brothers" an apology, unless he still thinks they are a criminal gang. In which case, he should start looking for moral support from less compromised quarters.
[i]Rich Lowry is editor of National Review, a Townhall.com member group, and author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.[/i]
As Valentine's Day, or Black Saturday, approaches, I am reminded of a past V-day event that encapsulated what this sorry holiday means to me.
It was in 2000, I was in graduate school, and the apartment I lived in had paper-thin walls. The girl that lived next to me was very popular with the dudes, and usually you could hear her and her flavor of the month, without any intent, having sex. Since I had to study and grade papers all the time, getting about 3 hours of sleep a night, this was quite the distraction, as I'm sure it was for just about everyone else that lived withing a couple of doors.
On Valentines day of that year I didn't have to be on campus until noon, and I was pretty well caught up with my studies, so I thought that I'd be getting a goodly amount of sleep. I went to bed at 3am and thought I could sleep until 11am-- an eternity for a grad student.
My hopes were dashed when this woman's boyfriend apparently decided to 'surprise' his love with a phone call at 6am, roses delivered to the house at 7am, sex until 10 am, and then a fight until after I had to get up.
Needless to say, I didn't get any sleep at all, and even though I was a zombie I couldn't bring myself to tell her to be quiet, especially after her boyfriend broke up with her on V-day.
And no, I have no idea why she was in college.
Valentines Day is the devil!
Bush stole a wreath at Yale and may have tried to have it cleaned from his record! The horror!
Now that the slander that Bush is a deserter is effectively squashed, because after all, at the very least, look at the hypocrites making the charges and look at the proof, NOW the scandal has moved to whether Bush tried to clean his record from his National Guard files in 1997.
Of course, the jerk that made the accusations, Burkett, is now discredited, and the White House has released Bush's arrest record before he joined the guard. The record consists of a misdemeanor for a college prank (stealing a wreath when he was at Yale) and a car wreck or two.
How this has anything to do with Bush's ability to be president, or even his patriotism, is beyond me.
I mean, it's not like Bush forged records and pulled strings to get out of the service like Bill Clinton did and protest the war in Russia. It's not like he made up fake war crimes charges against Vietnam veterans, helped get fake veterans to testify to these crimes, celebrate the defeat of America, say that the US should hand over its military to the UN and dismantle the CIA and vote against every military and intelligence advancement in the last 20 years (as well as flip-flopping on the war on terror) as a Senator like HANOI JOHN KERRY.
IF, and I mean IF, Bush tried to clean up his record before he joined the guard when he ran for governor, he was cleaning up something that is completely excusable and petty- that's why he shouldn't have to worry about it in the first place. Chances are he worried what a bunch of limp-wristed hypocrtical Lefties might do with such petty information. He probably worried that they'd use their press to propagandize and slur him and accuse him of lies.
Oh well.
Nothing Bush has done comes close to what Kerry and Clinton did-- and the fact that these accusers are now being disproved by even liberal publications (like the New Republic and The Washington Post) shows that the Left has no intention of running a clean campaign based on issues.
And that's because they don't have any issues to run on. They have no solutions to any 'problems' America might be facing.
Very simply, a lie is an intentionally false statement. MoveOn.org's latest Bush bashing ad depicts a lie detector detecting lies after three Bush Iraq quotes, one of which is shamelessly edited to exacerbate the effect. At the end of the ad there is the phrase "Americans are dying to know the truth." Talk about disgusting. The irony is that it is the MoveOn.org ad itself, funded with billionaire currency manipulator George Soros' money, that is the real lie.
The first quote from Bush that registers a lie on the detector is when Bush says that Saddam Hussein has WMD, a key justification of the war. This is not a lie-- Hussein used his own WMD, declared he had WMD, UNSCOM frequently reported Hussein had WMD, Bill Clinton, who MoveOn.org was created to defend, said Hussein had WMD, most of the nations of the world, including France and Russia, said Hussein had WMD, the CIA said Hussein had WMD, and so on. Since the requirement for Hussein after Gulf War 1 was to dismantle his WMD and verify it, and since he didn't do it, we knew he had existing WMD. Like most good leftists, MoveOn.org forgets how that "lie" was made, and that everyone believed it.
And there is no proof now that Hussein doesn't have WMD.
The second lie that registers on the machine is when Bush says that Saddam Hussein recently sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Of course, MoveOn.org INTENTIONALLY OMITS what Bush said right before, which attributed that statement TO THE BRITISH. The British, by the way, stand by their statement to this day. We don't know if that is the truth or not, as intelligence is not black and white, but we certainly know that it was a)not a lie, and b) certainly wasn't Bush's lie.
The third lie that registers on the machine is a quote where Bush says that Hussein has worked in some capacity with al Qaeda. This, again, is true. Hussein had safe houses for al Qaeda, there have been numerous declassified CIA documents going back 12 years that show the al Qaeda-Hussein relationship, and there is even recent evidence uncovered this week that there is an old Iraq-al Qaeda familiarity. Again, what Bush said WAS NOT A LIE.
The disgusting thing about Leftists and their organizations is that they reflexively argue with lies. THey either don't care about the truth or simply don't have any ideas of their own to argue with. Lying is the best way to accomplish your tasks if you are a leftist: just repeat the lie and it becomes the reality. The Left, after all, invented and perfected propaganda.
Basically, if you are left of center you support lying as a means to get what you want. You disdain truth and honest debate. You hate facts, logic, and history. To you, disinformation means more than information. You cannot claim to be an American and love what this country is about and simultaneously say you're a liberal. For those on the Left are by default anti-American.
MoveOn.org should be ashamed for their bald-faced, evil lies.
Colin Powell defends Bush and sanity, puts Democratic congressman in his place
Before I go on, remember the nice Left-wing caricature of Colin Powell as a monkey during the 14-month 'rush' to war? Indeed, such tolerant people these Lefties are!
Colin Powell was testifying before the House Committee on International Relations, when Sherrod Brown, a Democrat from Ohio, contrasted Powell's military service with Bush's (stating that Bush "may have been AWOL" from duty). It was a clear attempt to bash Bush in a public forum and on t.v., and it had zilch to do with the purpose of the testimony.
Powell put this ass in his place:
Powell: "First of all, Mr. Brown, I won't dignify your comments about the president because you don't know what you are talking about."
Brown: "I'm sorry I don't know what you mean, Mr. Secretary."
Powell: "You made reference to the president. . . Mr. Brown, let's not go there. Let's not go there in this hearing. If you want to have a political fight on this matter, that is very controversial, and I think it is being dealt with by the White House, fine, but let's not go there."
Powell also again defended the war in Iraq, saying: "We didn't make it up [intel], it was information that reflected the views of analysts in all the various agencies."
Powell acted the way John Kerry should act in regard to Bush's service-- like a gentleman.
Oh well. I guess the Left can go ahead and rebut Powell (a war hero) by using the ancient stereotype of comparing him to a monkey, and that will be dandy.
