![Hope for a Change]()
by Fersboo
Or is it change for a hope? I admit my confusion on this issue. The American public was told during the 2008 Presidential campaign that things would be different. So far, it's more of the same, only worse. It seems like the entire country has gone stark, raving mad.
To wit, as the Obama Administration's Cabinet nominees wind their way through the approval process, we find that not one, not two, not three, but four have a prior history of not paying their taxes. What is going on here? The best thing to come out of this mess is that the American taxpayer, at last count, is ahead some $176,000. Could this be President Obama's plan to fund this massive "economic stimulus" package that is being ramrodded through Congress? Just collect the back taxes owed by his nominees? I'm not sure that the IRS, Congress or the American public would be as forgiving if I were the one to not have paid my taxes. But then again, I try to live a life of integrity.
I've read a lot about the economic stimulus package making its way through the bowels of Congress and I'm confused about that too. Or maybe I'm not the one who's confused. To me, economic stimuli are those things that stimulate the economy. Immediately. Not three years from now. So, as one of the conditions for accepting TARP money, The Brains in Washington [...]
![Hope for a Change]()
by Art Smith
For many of us, any number of things were expected as part of the new President's first month in office, including the first five Executive Orders, some of which impacted protections of the unborn and the public at large. And Democrats increased control of Congress will doubtfully lead to more and more spending that will help maintain the poverty status quo.
But many would never have expected to see a new effort on the part of Democrats to work their way around the First Amendment, which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
But here it comes already, hidden in the dress surrounding an already ridiculous "stimulus" package. In a section to provide new money for renovation and repair of public schools, there is a clause that restricts the use of the money where "sectarian instruction, religious worship or a school or department of divinity" exist.
While I would understand that any private school should [...]
![Hope for a Change]()
by Art Smith
Reprinted from The Iowa Family Policy Center Blog, with permission.
Hugh Hewitt recently interviewed theologian J.P. Moreland on the evangelical understanding (or lack there of) of being a responsible Christian citizen in our democratic republic.
Moreland, who has written extensively on Christian truth in the public square, had this to say:
"Being involved in politics is not unchristian. In fact, it’s a part of our calling as Christians. Why? Because we are supposed to do good to all people including the household of faith. And to do good to all people means establishing just laws and a just and a stable social order. And that’s the job of the state. It’s political. So the first thing a pastor should do and the Church should do is to enlist people like the dickens to be involved in the political process and vote. It is unconscionable that we have these rights, and that we have an obligation as disciples of Jesus to try to bring goodness and truth to society, that we don’t use all means available to promote just laws and a just and stable social order through the political process. And so voting is absolutely critical."
In addition to
![Hope for a Change]()
by Art Smith
Thank goodness there must have been SOME voice of reason in the US House today regarding the switch to digital television transmission and the shutting down of analog transmissions. Although the special rules required a 2/3 vote to approve, at least the House did not roll over and give in like the idiots in the Senate on Monday night (who voted for this travesty unanimously).
Why is this bill a problem?
Well, we understand and accept the fact that, ahem, 4% of households have not yet switched to the digital format (most simply needing a $50 converter box that the government has been providing a $40 coupon for now for over a year now. Evidently, part of the issue is the sudden delay in sending out coupons. According to the Wall Street Journal:
Republicans say the extra money isn't necessary because
by Fersboo
There’s something just a little, how do I put it, smarmy about our soon-to-be new Secretary of the Treasury. Here he is, applying for the job that oversees the IRS, and somehow a few years back he came up about $30,000 short on various taxes. Where I grew up,...
![Hope for a Change]()
by Fersboo
Dear President Obama:
Congratulations on your historic ascendancy to the office of the President of the United States. You are now the leader of the free world. My hope is that you understand the gravity of this office and that you are serious in reaching out to all Americans, myself included.
I have to be honest. I didn't vote for you. Some of your campaign rhetoric seemed designed to do nothing more than to win the election, even though you and I both know that there was no way you could adhere to the promises you made. But many of my fellow Americans were unable or unwilling to think critically, so now you're my President.
I apologize that I was unable to watch your inauguration ceremony yesterday. Unfortunately, many of us had to work to pay the taxes to support the United States Treasury and the government that you are now responsible for. I guess that my efforts allowed others to take the day off and actually go to Washington and bask in your afterglow yesterday. Be that as it may, here are a few things you can do for me and my family in the next four years.
First, please don't raise my taxes. My wife and I already [...]
![Hope for a Change]()
by Art Smith
Today we celebrate the birth of one of the icons of our nation: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I shared some thoughts last year, which remain as they are, but I never imagined at that time the course that history would take between these two celebrations of his birth.
There are days that I still find myself seeing even more deeply just how depraved we have been as a nation. I've been studying our history this past year, and find that in the midst of a hundred other events in the course of time we have been surrounded by our constant failure to give all people the respect and opportunity they deserve. Although I would contend that we have done what should be done by government to bring dignity and equality to the masses, I know that many would be quick to disagree. It would be interesting to hear the opinions of those like Condoleezza Rice, Barack Obama, Clarence Thomas, all of whom have lived through the years of dramatic change in out society and have been in roles where they can see many of the aspects of the society's changes in judicial, legislative and education worlds.
I consider myself, as well as the whole nation, indebted to Dr. King for his sacrifice in carrying the message of our social failure and need for transformation to the leaders and people of our country. It still makes me sad to think he died so young (he was only 39), but he had already successfully lit the fire of reform in the hearts of many people, both black and white.
It surprises me that racism is still such an unfettered evil in our society. It pains me to think that people can still look down on others for any reason. But we have frail feelings, frail hearts, frail souls... we are difficult to mend.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Tomorrow the 44th President of the United States will be inaugurated. The first African-American to be President.
I don't agree with Mr. Obama on some key policy areas, and that is not likely to change. But I do hope that he is successful in his role as President. For the [...]
![Hope for a Change]()
by Fersboo
The headline on the front page of yesterday's (Monday, January 12, 2009) Wall Street Journal read "Obama Plans to Keep Estate Tax". This is the opening salvo of President-Elect Obama's tax hike and wealth redisribution plan.
In 2009, estates of less than $3.5 million per person and $7 million per couple are exempt from taxation. The value of estates over that are taxed at 45%. Under current tax law, signed by President Bush in 2001, there is no estate tax in 2010. As I joke with my clients, if you're going to die, do it in 2010, because under current law, in 2011 the estate tax reverts to Clinton-era levels--a $1 million exclusion, with the rest taxed at 55%.
Here's why the estate tax, in and of itself is wrong. Congress has the Constitutional right to tax any and all sources of income. Sources of [...]
![Hope for a Change]()
by Art Smith
We've finally given birth to our first regional site "The Conservative Reader: Iowa". Henceforth, the site you are currently reading will be focused on international and national topics, and stories that are specifically tied to regional topics will appear in an appropriate regional site.
We expect that there may be times when a regional story will warrant national focus, and as such we may promote the story either by reference or by elevating it to the national site. For instance, if a story related to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojavich's improprieties in selecting a Senator to replace Obama were to appear in an Illinois TCR site (we don't have one yet), it would likely get placement on the national site, or at least promotion on the national site if the story were on a strongly localized angle.
TCR's Iowa site will be covering the same types of Iowa focused issues that have appeared on this page in the past. We plan to provide Iowa-based news feeds in the near future, as well as opinion feeds from other Iowa sources. We will [...]
![Hope for a Change]()
by Linda Morgan
We’ve recently watched as Israel and Hamas have slugged it out. As always, when Israel seeks to defend itself, there have been many saying Israel’s response to Hamas has not been “proportionalâ€.
What is, in fact, a proportional response?. Any other country suffering under the weight of literally thousands of rockets landing indiscriminately on their territory would not only have responded with harsher and more deadly methods, but the world community would have likely agreed with their doing so. Yet Israel has to defend its right to survive in the court of world opinion. That’s a discrepancy I’ve never understood.
Some historical perspective is in order. Let’s take World War II, Japan. The Allied offer at Potsdam was rejected. Pottsdam demanded surrender. Japan refused and kept fighting.. Nothing short of total Japanese defeat was going to end the war, So, the only way out of this fight was to win it.
As a direct result of unrestrained force.. (What, after all, is nuclear warfare but unrestrained force?) resulting in defeat of Japan, the war [...]
