IRS Speech Standard Needs Reform

By Father Frank Pavone

Tax law says that Churches may not intervene in political campaigns. But the definition and boundaries of such intervention are vague and confusing. In its attempt at guidance, the IRS says “all the facts and circumstances” have to be examined. From one point of view, this standard itself is not a standard at all, but a mere statement of the obvious. After all, if a person, in making any kind of judgment, does not consider “facts and circumstances,” what, after all, does he or she consider — crystal balls, astrological signs, dreams and hallucinations?

From another point of view, how can one possibly consider all facts and circumstances of any action or decision? In real day to day life, we consider those facts and circumstances of which we are aware in the amount of time we have to make the decision, and which seem important enough to influence the decision. It’s a normal fact of life that, looking back on decisions we have made, we come to see facts and circumstances we did not have the time or ability to weigh at the time of the decision. Obviously, a consideration of “all the surrounding facts and circumstances” — if it can ever happen at all — can only happen after the action has been taken, and perhaps a long time after, or indeed never.

The Congressional Research Service has reported, “In many situations, the activity is permissible unless it is structured or conducted in a way that shows bias towards or against a candidate. Some biases can be subtle and whether an activity is campaign intervention will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.” (Lunder & Whitkaker at 3.)

A question obviously arises here. Unless we are to say that Churches have no freedom to teach on issues that also happen to correspond to political debates, how are they protected from the accusation of being “partisan” simply because the position of the organization, or the teaching of the Church or the Gospel, corresponds to the position that one particular political party or candidate has, and is diametrically opposed to that of their opposing party or candidate?

The Church opposes abortion and stands up for the rights of the unborn. The Republican Party platform takes a similar position. The Democratic Party platform, on the other hand, supports abortion as a right. So now, is the Church’s pro-life position partisan, and therefore illegal to assert?

That would be both absurd and intolerable.

Erik Stanley states, “The predictable outcome of this state of affairs has been massive self-censorship among churches and pastors.” Even the Supreme Court, on more than one occasion, has noted with concern what happens when people aren’t given a clear, bright line regarding what speech and activity is forbidden and what is not. “Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to ‘steer far wider of the unlawful zone . . . than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked.’”(Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 109 (1972) (quoting Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 372 (1964)).

We at Priests for Life believe there is a solution to all this. We believe it’s time to stop censoring ourselves by the risk-averse mentality, often fostered by legal advisors, that wants to not only avoid breaking the law, but also avoid both the accusation and the appearance of breaking the law. This lack of willingness to fight leads to sterility and paralysis, keeping the Church’s mission from being fulfilled.

Instead, we should rely on legal counsel who are willing to interpret the IRS guidelines in a way that does not stifle our mission, and have the readiness to defend that interpretation. We need to conduct non-partisan activities in a way that common sense judges as non-partisan: no candidate or party is endorsed, and the activity is open to all. And we should push for legislation that provides a “bright line” test for Churches and tax exempt organizations so that they know ahead of time, by a clear, reasonable, and easily discernible standard, what does and does not constitute prohibited political intervention. A perfect example of this is provided in the Buckley vs. Valeo Supreme Court decision which, in another context, indicated the bright line to be defined by whether or not one uses “explicit words of advocacy of election or defeat of a candidate.” The Court gave examples of such words and phrases: ‘vote for,’ ‘elect,’ ‘support,’ ‘cast your ballot for,’ ‘Smith for congress,’ ‘vote against,’ ‘defeat,’ ‘reject.’

It is time to apply a clear standard like this in order to interpret the political intervention prohibition on Churches.

Father Pavone  is national director of Priests for Life

 

IRS Speech Standard Needs Reform

IRS Speech Standard Needs Reform

Free Speech Exercise Prompts Fed Investigation

Obama Outhouse Free Speech Exercise Prompts Fed Investigation

The Obama Justice Department thinks this is racist. It was crated by a veteran about the unnecessary deaths caused by Veterans Administration policies and the ensuing coverup.

 

By Charles C. W. Cooke

Nineteen terrifying words from the Omaha World-Herald: The U.S. Department of Justice has joined the discussions over a controversial float in the Norfolk Independence Day parade.

Thus did the federal government dispatch an emissary to investigate a minor instance of Midwestern dissent.

A quick recap for the happily uninitiated: The “controversial float” in question was one of many included in this year’s Independence Day parade in Norfolk, Neb. The entry, which featured a zombie standing on an outhouse marked “Obama Presidential Library,” was created by a veteran named Dale Remmich, and was designed, Remmich claims, to express the “political disgust” that he feels at the Obama administration’s mismanagement of the Department of Veteran Affairs. As is the habit now, pictures of the float were quickly pushed around the Internet, attracting the attention and disapprobation of such august institutions as the Washington Post, CBS, ABC, and the Huffington Post — and, it seems, the interest of the United States Department of Justice. This week, the World-Herald reports, the DOJ “sent a member of its Community Relations Service team, which gets involved in discrimination disputes, to a Thursday meeting about the issue.” Present at the summit were the NAACP, the mayor of the Nebraska town in which the float was displayed, and the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, which sponsored the event.

Now for the obvious question: Why? What, exactly, was the problem here? Nobody was killed. Nobody was maimed. Nobody had their material or spiritual interests injured, nor were they stripped of their livelihoods. No federal or state laws were broken. Indeed, not even private rules were broken. More to the point, there was no “discrimination dispute” of the sort with which the DOJ likes to concern itself. Instead, a few free people were vexed because a politician that they like was depicted in an unflattering light. One might well ask, “So what?” Once, Americans tackled the Oregon Trail. Are they now in need of their political “discussions” being arbitrated by glorified social workers sent by Uncle Sam?

In a typically risible statement, Nebraska’s state Democratic party described the incident as one of the “worst shows of racism and disrespect for the office of the presidency that Nebraska has ever seen.” That this is almost certainly true demonstrates just how much progress the United States has made in the last 50 years — and, in consequence, how extraordinarily difficult the professionally aggrieved are finding it to fill their quotas. If a fairly standard old saw is among the worst things to have happened to the Cornhusker State in recent memory, the country is in rather good shape, n’est-ce pas?

Exactly what it was about the float that rendered it “racist” was, of course, never explained. Instead, the assertion was merely thrown into the ether, ready to be accepted uncritically by the legions of righteously indignant keyboard warriors that lurk around social media as piranhas around a fresh carcass. But, for future reference at least, it would be nice to have the details of the offense unpacked. Are outhouses racist now? Are zombies? Or was it perhaps the overalls in which the zombie was dressed? Moreover, if any of these are now redolent of something sinister, at what point was this association held to be operative? A popular cartoon from 2006 depicted a latrine standing in the middle of the desert, on its outer wall the words “Bush Presidential Library.” Was this “racist,” or is this one of those timeless truths that were only discovered in 2009?

The float’s maker has insisted that the zombie represented himself and not the president. “I’ve got my bibs on, my walker, I’m covering my ears and I’m turning a bit green; I intended it to look like a zombie who has had enough,” he explained. Unsurprisingly, the NAACP didn’t buy it. “Looking at the float, that message absolutely did not come through,” the president of the outfit’s Iowa and Nebraska chapters griped. Fair enough. Arguendo , let’s presume that some of the spectators misunderstood the piece and believed that the president of the United States was being compared to a toilet-dwelling zombie. Again: Who cares? Are we now so hopelessly epicene that we expect federally funded conflict-resolution teams to swoop in on the hinterlands if the locals mutter too loudly about the government? I rather hope that we are not.

Frankly, as superficially appealing as they might sound, appeals to “the dignity of the office” are invariably prissy, serving more often than not as a means by which humorless partisans might grumble about their team’s being dinged without appearing hypersensitive. Indeed, far from damaging the national fabric, astringent mockery of the powerful is a healthy and necessary thing — a source of valuable catharsis that serves also as a canary in the proverbial coal mine. When I see the most powerful man in the country being not only mocked, but hanged and burned in effigy too, my first thought is less “gosh, how awful” than “wow, is this a free country or what?” A historical rule of thumb: If a ragtag group of political dissenters can simulate the violent execution of the head of the executive branch and not be so much as scratched as a result, the country is a free one. Who cares if a few of our more delicate sorts reach for the smelling salts?

It is always tempting to believe one’s own time to be particularly interesting or fractious, but there is little in politics that is genuinely new. Sharp and violent denunciations of the executive branch have been a feature of American life since the republic’s first days. Before the Revolution, the colonists routinely hanged likenesses of unpopular royal representatives, including King George III;Andrew Oliver , the Massachusetts Distributor of Stamps; and the loyalist Supreme Court justice, Thomas Hutchinson . Afterward, having dispensed with the old guard, Americans took to lambasting the new, among them George Washington, who had effected the king’s defeat; Thomas Jefferson, who had authored the charter of separation; and James Madison , who had drafted the lion’s share of the new Constitution. Chief Justice John Jay’s 1795 treaty with the British was so wildly unpopular among the Jeffersonians that Jay reported being able to travel from Boston to Philadelphia by the light of his burning effigies. Later, during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was subjected to the treatment. In one form or another, most presidents have been.

The modern era has served as no exception to the rule. During his two terms, George W. Bush was the object of considerable opprobrium, his likeness being frequently hanged, knived in the forehead, and even assassinated on prime-time television. At the height of the Left’s umbrage, progressive heroes Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield went so far as to take a twelve-foot effigy of Bush on a national tour, setting fire to it at each stop to the audience’s hearty cheers. Ben and Jerry make ice cream, not apple pie. But their barnstorming road trip could not have been more American. There are few things more indicative of human liberty than the ability to castigate power with impunity — up to and including the moment of offense. “To learn who rules over you,” Voltaire suggested, “simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Is Barack Obama to be a ruler?
Charles C. W. Cooke is a staff writer at National Review.

 

Free Speech Exercise Prompts Fed Investigation

Atlantic City Gambling Lesson

By Chris Freind

 

 

“If you must play, decide upon three things at the start: the rules of the game, the stakes, and the quitting time.”

— Chinese Proverb

Since China took a chapter from America’s playbook on working hard and smashing through any obstacle to achieve success, it’s too bad we didn’t reciprocate by heeding those prophetic words from the Orient. If we had, China wouldn’t be the massive tiger whose influence becomes more global each day, and we wouldn’t be on the fast track to becoming a paper tiger.

Yet, too many refuse to acknowledge the fact that the United States is, and has been, in a dangerous financial decline for decades, fueled by the self-interest of both political parties, and a public unwilling to demand accountability and a change in direction. In not believing that the rules apply to us, we continue to raise the stakes in a game we cannot win.

There is an extremely naïve mindset that we’re too big to fail (or fall) and that protests, righteous indignation and more money will solve everything, even when the books show we’re broke.

It is always easier to comprehend large issues on a local level. The recent spate of casino bankruptcies and closings in Atlantic City, and the reasons for their shutdowns, provide a microcosm of America’s problems. And it’s a sure bet that if America doesn’t turn things around soon, it’s bluff will be called and it will fold its hand, just as is happening in Atlantic City. Consider:

1. Former glory: The recent closing of the Atlantic Club Casino, along with the anticipated closings of the Showboat, Trump Plaza, and the new, $2.4 billion Revel would leave Atlantic City with just eight casinos, a whopping 33 percent decline since January. How could this happen?

Atlantic City was once a jet-set destination, the A-List place to see and be seen by the world’s rich and famous.

But that was then. As has been the case for decades, a huge percentage of residents live in extreme poverty, with an educational system so bad that even when the casinos were in full swing and had ample job opportunities, the city’s unemployment rate was double the national average.

Without education, and thus the prospect of gainful employment, crime and vice skyrocket, which we have seen not just in A.C. but nationwide, as America’s woefully inadequate (yet lavishly funded) public schools continue to fail our children. Despite all the promises of government leaders and industry officials to reinvigorate the city after building the casinos, the situation continues to deteriorate.

There are many who think that America’s glory days are behind her, as optimism in the future continues to wane, regardless of who occupies the White House. Jobs continue to be lost overseas, educational achievement levels are dropping, and the middle class is shrinking while an unaffordable and unsustainable entitlement class is growing. Despite blue ribbon commissions and campaign promises of a better tomorrow, things are going the wrong way with no solution in sight.

2. Resting On Laurels: America is still unquestionably the world’s most powerful nation — for now, but it has gotten sluggish. Content in its position, it refuses to see who is breathing down its neck. As a result, the competition is gaining while the U.S. remains stagnant. Each week brings news of the dollar’s further decline as more countries move to other currencies for their international transactions.

As America loses its reserve currency status, while continuing to print money to spend trillions it doesn’t have, the value of our incomes decline. But since no one wants to admit the mathematical certainty that insolvency is nearly upon us at municipal, state and federal levels, especially given the trillions in unfunded pension liabilities, the problems aren’t being addressed.

Atlantic City, located within driving distance of well over 100 million people, also rested on its laurels, as it had the casino industry all to itself. Until it didn’t — but by then it was too late. In its complacency, it never strove to better itself, nor was it proactive in re-inventing who it was and what it offered. That blindness made it impotent to compete when neighboring states started permitting casinos.

And then there was Vegas (a desert, without the allure of being next to an ocean), whose leaders had the foresight to make that town not just a gambling mecca, but a family vacation destination, a remarkable feat since the vast majority of visitors must fly there. Las Vegas markets itself brilliantly, keeps the city relatively safe and continues to attract people from all over the world. The numbers tell the story: Atlantic City’s gaming revenue has declined 50 percent since 2006, yet for the most part, Vegas continues to post moderate gains, and, unlike Atlantic City, the city still prospers even when revenues are down because of its diversification. The spoils go to the victor and Las Vegas is winning every hand.

Likewise, nations and financial institutions are parking their investment money in places other than America. And not only aren’t they buying American debt at previous levels, viewing it as an increasingly risky bet, but many are dumping it altogether. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that our house of cards strategy will, at some point, collapse.

3. Denial. Two plus two always equals four. If America continues to spend uncontrollably without reforming entitlements and rebuilding its moribund manufacturing base, there will be unprecedented pain. And no amount of protests, lobbying or complaining will change this.

In Atlantic City, casino employees and union members continue to protest the closings, playing the blame game and hammering owners, despite the mammoth losses being incurred by the casinos, with one union official even labeling the closing of one casino a “criminal act.”

Really? What planet are these people living on? If there’s no money, there’s no money. What part of that can people not comprehend?

If these casinos were profitable, they wouldn’t close. But they’re not. That’s why they are declaring bankruptcy and closing their doors. And the true blame must be shared by all: The city, which has for decades done nothing to improve itself; the industry, which sat on its derriere, arrogantly betting that people would always come; and the employees and unions who never prodded either to keep up with the times.

Now, with over 6,000 layoffs looming and certainly more to come, a city in despair, and the negative image associated with dying casinos, the few high-end stores that still remain in Atlantic City will eventually leave, furthering the death spiral.

Is there a solution? For Atlantic City, probably not. It would take a generation or more to turn that city around, yet there is not an iota of political or corporate will to do so. So the implosion will continue until that once great city won’t even be a shadow of itself, but just a sad ghost of the past.

Luck always runs out, so if America is to avoid A.C.’s fate, it needs to stop gambling with its future. Otherwise, it’ll be left holding a Dead Man’s Hand.

Atlantic City Gambling Lesson

Avrum Lapin Finding Emerging Donors

By Avrum Lapin

 

I am often surprised, even after three decades in the fundraising industry , by the often slow and resistant responses from many leading organizations in the Jewish community to the demands of the new circle of lead and major donors. Emanating from an ill – perceived notion of history and position, or from a sense of entitlement, many oganizations are slow to recognize that the emerging “class” of major donors – increasingly entrepreneurs and creators of ideas and solutions – is quite different from those who preceded them , and expect different things from the organizations and causes t hat they support.

Let me enumerate a few areas where things have continued to evolve and , in doing so, are transforming the narrative and many ways in which the nonprofit world functions and communicates.

1. Survival (or even existence) is not a goal. –Focus is on results Just because an organization exists does not automatically entitle it to support. Just because an organization has been around for a decade or a century no longer compels a donor to give. Donors are more interested in what you do, not so much that you have been doing it for years. The pace of change is so rapid today , and new actors pop up regularly and are aggressively competing for and entering the space historically occupied by traditional “ legacy” organizations. This phenomenon is happening largely because they tend to be more focused, they bring visions to the discussion that are contemporary , appealing and functional in today’s multi – channel world, and are more agile and less encumbered in their operations . Groups that do not see or resist this trend do so at their peril.

2. Loyalty is no longer the sole determinant of support We live in an increasingly competitive philanthropic marketplace – one that, as noted above, values outcomes , not only history or position. Understanding this should motivate organizations large and small to think about how they allocate resources and how that frames and communicates their “selling propositions.” And let’s stay with the notion of “selling.” We live increasingly in a transactional world, where value is determined by what you do, not only what you say you have done. And while we try not to be totally cynical, I am always struck by the number of times I see a prospective donor turn down a cause that should, by objective measure – including giving history, be a “slam dunk,” and who resists making the gift because of (lack of) efficiency, mission creep, market share, etc. Connecting with Major Donors

3. Bang for the Buck – Investing Charitable Dollars I was approached recently by a major donor at the close of a n event who asked me about my thoughts regarding the consolidation of asks for related organizations that occupy the same or overlapping program space . He complained that they were competing for resources, potentially diminishing the impact of the dollars that were donated to achieve a goal – not just support an organization. My response was the following: what was historically called the charitable are na has become the philanthropic marketplace , and that as a marketplace it is increasingly a venue where ideas compete and organizations were being rewarded at the intersection of relationship and results , not on relationship and history alone.

He went on to ask if I thought that we could create an appeal that would raise funds to achieve a goal and a solution, not necessarily fund a particular organization, and decide as part of the activity where the funds would be directed. He felt that the diminishment of loyalty and the focus on results would make it successful. I am thinking about it as well. In this vein, I also reiterate something that I have written and spoken about for years…the need for all successful nonprofits to invest energy and purpose in a business plan. This dynamic document concretizes the vision and makes it actionable financially. It demonstrates, with accountability, how it that vision would be realized and implemented over the ensuing months and years, with programmatic and financial milestones, deliverables and projected outcomes. And it would meet the expectations of many of today’s emerging major donors who seek to use their philanthropy to “invest” rather than just to “give.” While the functional end product for the organization may be the same – at least for the time being , the prompt for the donor is quite different. They want to see something happen rather than just funding an organization to do something.

Today’s emerging major donor is stepping up to leadership at a time w here the marketplace is still governed to some degree by uncertainty. This drives the expectation that, while they are prepared to be charitable, they want to see their money work and put to good and productive use. Successful nonprofits today must accommodate this imperative because it is not going away; in fact it is intensifying and becoming ever sharper. We therefore encourage our friends , many of who m lead very important organizations throughout the nonprofit world, to embrace this challenge. To continue to expect support because you believe that you should have it simply won’t work anymore.

Avrum Lapin is the President at The Lapin Group , LLC, a prominent fundraising consulting firm located in suburban Philadelphia

Finding Emerging Donors

Finding Emerging Donors

John Fund Independence Hall Speaker, Ukrainians Honored

By Teri Adams

Independence Day, 2014, proved to be a terrific anniversary year in two ways–the film America was introduced into the popular culture and, on a smaller, yet not insignificant note, the Independence Hall Foundation held its first July 4th event.

The Independence Hall Foundation offered an alternative ceremony on Independence Mall for those who would prefer to celebrate their July 4th with folks who truly believe in the blessings and greatness of America, and are not bashful about it.

While the official Philadelphia celebration included Vice President Joe Biden, along with Mayor Michael Nutter –and scant reference to, and praise of, our founding Fathers and Mothers–the Foundation’s Endowed by Our Creator July 4th Celebration featured WPHT talk-show hostDom Giordano, John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, and PA State Representative Richard Saccone, whose powerful messages saluted both the Declaration of Independence and the Founders.

(To read the highlights of the Biden/Nutter remarks, visit here)

The Foundation presented its 2014 Defender of Liberty Award to the Ukrainian People for their struggle against all odds to maintain their independence, just as our founding fathers and mothers did in 1776.

An emotional Natalia Shyrba, a leader of Razom for Ukraine, accepted the award on behalf of her compatriots.

The Foundation supports the right of the Ukrainian people to defend their national integrity and it encourages the US Government and NATO to supply Ukrainian Freedom Fighters with the weapons and other critical supplies they need to defend their nation’s Independence.

Last September, on the eve of the first anniversary of 2012 Benghazi Embassy attack, the Foundation named the four victims–US Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods–as recipients of its 2013 Defender of Liberty Award.
In addition, the Foundation honored JD Mullane with the 2013 Franklin Award for Courageous Journalism; Donald Coughlan, with the 2014 George Washington Leadership Award; and Maria Hyland with the 2014 Betsy Ross Activist of the Year Award.

The Reverend Jesse Woods opened the event with a stirring prayer and Tory McClintock provided a moving rendition of the Declaration of Independence.

Megan Rath was on hand to welcome folks to Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District and Jeff Bell stopped by to discuss matters important to New Jersey and our nation.

As well, the Whitehall Guard Fife and Drum turned in a stellar performance–and Anna Little lit up the room with her inspired singing of The Star Spangled Banner and God Bless America.

The Foundation thanks presenters Brandon Posner, Carol Klein, Cort Rosholt and its terrific volunteers!

On a final note, the Foundation wishes to express its deepest appreciation to a very thoughtful and generous benefactor (who wishes to remain anonymous) for offering crucial financial assistance in the 11th hour of this program.

The unsolicited donation was a remarkable blessing that will never be forgotten!

John Fund Independence Hall Speaker

 

John Fund Independence Hall Speaker

Our Roost, Obama’s Chickens

By Victor Davis Hanson

Often, crazy things seem normal for a time because logical catastrophes do not immediately follow.

A deeply suspicious Richard Nixon systematically and without pushback for years undermined and politicized almost every institution of the federal government, from the CIA and the FBI to the IRS and the attorney general’s office. Nixon seemed to get away with it — until his second term. Once the public woke up, however, the eventual accounting proved devastating: resignation of a sitting president, prison sentences for his top aides, collapse of the Republican party, government stasis, a ruined economy, the destruction of the Vietnam peace accords that had led to a viable South Vietnam, the end of Henry Kissinger’s diplomatic breakthroughs, and a generation of abject cynicism about government. Did Nixon ever grasp that such destruction was the natural wage of his own paranoia?

In the post-Watergate climate of reform, for nearly three years a naïve Jimmy Carter gave utopian speeches about how American forbearance would end the Cold War and create a new world order based on human rights — until America’s abdication started to erode the preexisting global order. Scary things followed, such as the fall of the shah of Iran, the rise of Iranian theocracy, the taking of American hostages in Tehran, revolutions and insurrection throughout Central America, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, radical Islamists taking over Mecca, more gas lines, continued stagflation, and China invading Vietnam. Did the puritanical Carter ever understand what might be the consequences of his own self-righteousness in an imperfect world?

Barack Obama likewise has done some crazy things that seemed for years to have no ramifications. Unfortunately, typical of the ways of Nemesis (a bitter goddess who waits until the opportune moment to demand payment for past hubris), suddenly the bills for Obama’s six years of folly are coming due for the American people.
When a president occasionally fails to tell the truth, you get a scandal like the monitoring of the Associated Press reporters. When a president serially fails to tell the truth, you get that plus the scandals involving the IRS, the NSA, the VA, Benghazi, and too many others to mention.

The same is true abroad. The American public hardly noticed when Obama recklessly withdrew every peacekeeper from Iraq. Did he not boast of “ending the Iraq War”? It did not mind when the U.S. posted dates for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Trashing all the Bush–Cheney anti-terrorism protocols, from Guantanamo to renditions, did not make much sense, when such policies had worked and, in fact, were of use to Obama himself. But again, most Americans took no note. Apparently the terrorists did, however, and they regrouped even as the president declared them “on the run.”

Lecturing Israel while praising Islamist Turkey was likewise ignored. America snoozed as its president insidiously redefined its role in the Middle East as secondary to the supposed pivot to Asia. Each new correction in and of itself was comparatively minor; but in aggregate they began to unravel the U.S.-inspired postwar global order.

At first, who cared whether Iran serially violated every Obama deadline on halting nuclear enrichment? Did we worry that Libya, where Obama was proud of having led from behind, was descending into Somalia? Few Americans were all that bothered over Obama’s empty order to Syrian president Bashar Assad to step down, or over Obama’s later vacuous red-line threats that bombs would follow any use by Assad of chemical weapons.

Few noted that Obama lied to the nation that a video had caused the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, that Obama had known who the real terrorist perpetrators were but had ordered no immediate action to kill or capture them, and that Americans had been engaged in mysterious and still unexplained covert activities in Benghazi. After all that, we still shrugged when the president traded five top terrorist leaders for an alleged American deserter.

Trashing George W. Bush’s policy toward Vladimir Putin while promising a new reset approach (illustrated with a plastic red button) to an aggressive dictator raised few eyebrows at the time. Nor did many Americans worry that our Pacific allies were upset over Chinese and North Korean aggression that seemed to ignore traditional U.S. deterrence.

We were told that only Obama-haters at home had catalogued the president’s apologies abroad, his weird multicultural bowing to authoritarians, his ahistorical speeches about mythical Islamic achievements, his surreal euphemisms for radical Islam, terrorism, and jihadism, his shrill insistence about civilian trials for terrorists and closing Guantanamo, or the radical cutbacks at the Pentagon, coupled with the vast increase in entitlement spending.

But after six years of all that, our allies have got the message that they are on their own, our enemies that there are few consequences to aggression, and neutrals that joining with America does not mean ending up on the winning side. The result is that the Middle East we have known since the end of World War II has now vanished.

Supposedly crackpot fantasies about a worldwide “caliphate” are becoming reified. What were once dismissed as conspiracy theories about an “Iranian arc” —  from a nuclear Tehran through Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon to the borders of Israel to the Shiite minorities in the Gulf kingdoms — do not seem so crazy.

The idea of visiting the Egyptian pyramids or hoping to reengage with a reforming Libya is absurd. The best of the Middle East — Israel, Jordan, Kurdistan — no longer count on us. The worst — ISIS, Iran, Syria — count on us to remain irrelevant or worse. Old allies in the Gulf would probably trust Israel or Russia more than the Obama administration. In the next two years, if Obama continues on his present course, we are going to see things that we could not have imagined six years ago in the Middle East, as it reverts to premodern Islamic tribalism.

The same trajectory has been followed on the home front. Americans at first were amused that the great conciliator — and greatest political recipient on record of Wall Street cash — went after the rich with an array of hokey epithets and slurs (fat cats, corporate-jet owners, Vegas junketeers, limb-lopping and tonsil-pulling doctors, business owners who should not profit, or should know when they have made enough money, or should admit they didn’t build their own businesses). Few connected the dots when the polarizing attorney general — the John Mitchell of our time — referred to African-Americans as “my people” and all the rest of the nation as “cowards.” Did we worry that the craziest things seem to come out of the president’s own mouth — the Trayvon-like son he never had, the stereotyping police, the absence of a “smidgen” of corruption in the Lois Lerner IRS scandal, or the mean Republicans who “messed” with him?

The president before the 2012 elections lamented to Latino groups that he did not have dictatorial powers to grant amnesty but urged them in the meantime to “punish our enemies” — a sort of follow-up to his 2008 “typical white person” incitement. Who was bothered that with “a pen and a phone” Obama for the first time in American history emasculated the U.S. Border Patrol, as part of a larger agenda of picking and choosing which federal laws the executive branch would enforce?

Those choices seemed to be predicated on two extralegal criteria: Did a law contribute to Obama’s concept of social justice, and did it further the progressive political cause? If the answer was no to either, the statute was largely unenforced. No president since World War II has done more to harm the U.S. Constitution — by ordering the executive branch not to enforce particular laws, by creating by fiat laws never enacted by Congress, by monitoring the communications of journalists and average Americans, by making appointments contrary to law — to the apparent yawns of the people.

Too few also seemed to care that almost everything the president had promised about Obamacare — keep your health plan, retain your doctor, save money on your premiums, sign up easily online, while we were lowering the annual deficit and reducing medical expenditures — was an abject lie. In such a climate, Obama felt no need to issue accurate data about how many Americans had lost their health plans, how many had simply transferred to Obamacare from Medicaid, how many had actually paid their premiums, or how many were still uninsured. The media ignored the serial $1 trillion deficits, the chronic high unemployment and low growth, the nonexistence of the long-promised “summer of recovery,” and the nonappearance of “millions of shovel-ready and green jobs.” The fact that electrical-power rates, gasoline prices, and food costs have soared under Obama as wages have stagnated has never really been noticed. Nor have the record numbers of Americans on food stamps and disability insurance.

Meanwhile, as Obama has refused to enforce immigration law, the result is chaos. Tens of thousands of children are flooding across our border illegally, on the scent of Obama’s executive-order amnesties. Advocates of open borders, such as progressive grandees Mark Zuckerberg and Nancy Pelosi, assume that these impoverished Third World children will not enroll in the private academies attended by their children or grandchildren, or need housing in one of their vacation estates, or crowd their specialists’ waiting rooms. They do not worry about the effects of illegal immigration on the wages of low-income Americans. Dealing first-hand with the ramifications of open borders is for unenlightened, illiberal little people.

Obama’s economic legacy is rarely appreciated. He has institutionalized the idea that unemployment between 6 and 7 percent is normal, that annual deficits over $500 billion reflect frugality, that soaring power, food, and fuel costs are not proof of inflation, that zero interest rates are the reward for thrift, that higher taxes are always a beginning, never an end, and that there is no contradiction when elite progressives — the Obamas, the Clintons, the Warrens — trash the 1-percenters, while doing everything in their power to live just like them.

We are the roost and, to paraphrase the president’s former spiritual adviser, Obama’s chickens are now coming home to us.

Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals. He is a contributor to NationalReview.com

Our Roost, Obama’s Chickens

 

Our Roost, Obama’s Chickens

Fireworks Forbidden Fruit In PRNJ

By Chris Freind

If it’s forbidden fruit you’re looking for, forget the Garden of Eden. The Garden State offers something so much better. Something that can provide a spark, light up your life, and keep your flame burning bright.
It’s a sparkler. And they’re illegal statewide. So if it’s fun you’re looking for this Fourth of July, be careful of lighting those nefarious instruments of destruction. Unlike merely incurring original sin, possession of sparklers is far worse: fines and a possible trip to a Jersey prison.
The real sin, however, isn’t that sparklers are banned, but the effort put into enforcing that law.
New Jersey is apparently the safest state in the union because, given the sizable state police resources used to combat fireworks, it must be free of murders, rapes, robberies and drugs.
In case you’re wondering, fireworks always rank right up there as one of the most pressing issues, along with curbing your dog and jaywalking. Clearly, controlling such items of mass destruction is paramount in the Garden State.
The threat of anyone in New Jersey enjoying themselves over the Fourth is so great, so irksome to government, that undercover storm troopers (sorry, meant “state” troopers) are being sent across enemy lines (the Jersey-Pennsylvania border) to stake out the parking lots of fireworks stores. There, they lie in wait for consumers with Jersey tags.
After stealthily tracking those individuals on their return trip, they radio to units on the down side of the bridge who nail the lawbreakers. In doing so, they perpetuate the public’s feeling that too many police are being used as revenue collectors.
(This is nothing new, as Pennsylvania state police run stakeout operations in Delaware liquor store parking lots, nailing those avoiding the staggering 18 percent Johnstown Flood Tax on wine and booze, a tax instituted to rebuild that city from the flood of 1936!)
Does the government have nothing better to do? Is it so safe that Jersey police need to harass their citizens in another state?
And it’s not like New Jersey ever had the most dangerous city in America. Oh wait. It does: Camden.
Which can only mean that Camden’s residents are safe walking down the street.
But just read the headlines to see that Camden is as dreadful as ever. So can it really be that the New Jersey’s leaders willingly place more emphasis on controlling sparklers than they do preventing people from getting shot?
And it’s not just New Jersey citizens who are being targeted. Drivers from other states who bought fireworks in Pennsylvania, and made several stops after leaving the store, still got nailed after crossing into Jersey. Undercover police are stooping to such deception that they are tracking fellow Americans in another state, potentially for hours on end, after buying fireworks legally, on merely the possibility that person might cross into New Jersey.
New Jersey officials even had the audacity to complain to Pennsylvania officials about the “legal loophole” of allowing Jersey residents to buy fireworks in Pennsylvania.
Loophole? It’s not a loophole. It’s freedom, clearly a principle that exists in small quantities across the Delaware River. What right does an official in New Jersey have to tell its citizens that they cannot engage in a legal activity in another state? Where does the government’s power grab end?
And let’s be honest. The regulations banning fireworks in New Jersey don’t stem from preventing forest fires, but are all about a paternalistic government that believes it, not the people, knows best.
It is a mentality that parents are not capable of properly supervising their children, so the government must step in and take control. Forget that the vast majority of revelers use fireworks with care, and that accidents are rare. New Jersey government, playing right into America’s culture of fear, thinks its nanny-state intervention will eliminate the risk of getting hurt.
What’s next? Banning skateboards? Or mandating that coffee be served at 75 degrees to prevent burns?
And how is it that Americans in so many other states use sparklers safely?
The irony of these Gestapo-like tactics is that it illustrates the beauty of America: No one has to live in New Jersey. If a state’s power becomes too onerous, one can move without asking permission. And it’s precisely why the “Red-Blue” divide in this country is wider than ever. Blue states continue to over-regulate and over-tax, while Red states offer a freer environment. Consequently, the states with booming populations, highest job creation, and most robust economies are Red.
 
The fact that we have such a choice is uniquely American.
So if you live in The People’s Republic of New Jersey, have a great time ringing in the freedom of the Fourth by firing up your flashlights.
Until they get banned too.
Fireworks Forbidden Fruit In PRNJ

 

Hat tip Newsmax.com

 

Sweet Land Of Liberty

By Pat Carfagno

My country tis of thee
Sweet land of liberty
Of thee I sing

Of thee I mourn.

On this upcoming Independence Day, many of us will mourn the country we loved from childhood, that our ancestors lived and died for.

They lived for freedom.  They died for freedom.
They lived so that they could practice their faith without impediment.  They lived their faith so that their liberty would not be lost because the citizenry couldn’t handle the responsibility of keeping it.    Freedom was born in America to house our yearning to worship in peace, and let the other guy worship in peace as well.

Now our freedom is gone. It is gone.

Hundreds of thousands of men and women died to preserve it and yet its gone without so much as a signature ceremony.

We cannot, we shall not, be able to reconstitute it from mere speeches and party politics.  In our revolution from the English Crown, the colonials threw off the tyranny of a King who saw his people only as servants to his will.   How are the people of these United States seen any differently today than they were in 1769?  We are subjects to self-appointed royalty. Interesting that the wonderful song quoted at the beginning of this writing, stole its tune from “God Save the King”.

Our religions, our faith, our culture and standards are mocked, threatened and regulated by the entitled.  Our property is up for grabs as is our very health and existence.  Our borders for all intents and purposes do  not exist.   Yet we take continuous abuse from our “betters” and take it again and again.

The question becomes not whether or not there will be a revolution, but what kind of revolution will it be, the stealth quiet “coup” version that we see now, a slow dedication to freedom’s destruction, or must we take back our beautiful liberated land old school?  What ever way we may choose if we wish to restore our republic, it will be messy.  It will dictate that we are willing to lose everything in order to preserve the existence of liberty.

How many folks do you know who are so willing?

Pat Carfagno’s works can be found at FreedomeRadioRocks.Com

Sweet Land Of Liberty

Sweet Land Of Liberty

Five Facts Concerning 2014 Pa Budget

 Commonwealth Foundation has published these five facts concerning 2014 Pa Budget.

By Bob Dick

On June 30, the General Assembly passed a $29.1 billion budget, sending it to Gov. Corbett for his approval. While Gov. Corbett is taking time to review it, here are five facts you should know.

1. Limited spending growth: The General Assembly’s budget represents a spending increase of 2 percent over the prior year’s budget. This is consistent with Taxpayer Protection Act, which calls for limiting increases in state government spending to inflation and population growth.

If fact, the budgets over the past four years have limited spending, with an average growth of less than 1 percent. In contrast, spending increased at double the rate of inflation over the previous 8 years, and has increased by an average of 6.2 percent per year since 1970.

2. No new taxes: Lawmakers did not include any new taxes in this year’s budget, despite pressure from outside groups pushing to increase the tax burden on working Pennsylvanians.

Not only did lawmakers resist calls for a unfair severance tax, which would have hurt farmers like Shawn Georgetti, but they also moved forward with the phase out of the Capital Stock and Franchise Tax after years of delaying its elimination.

3. State spending exceeds state revenues: For the seventh consecutive year, state spending will exceed state revenue collections. This is possible due to one-time transfers from other funds and one-time revenue collections.

While the state revenue sheet appears balanced, lawmakers will still have to make tough decisions to deal with our long-term fiscal challenges, which threaten the state’s fiscal health and economic growth.

4. Overall spending, including education spending, is at an all-time high:  Despite the myth being touted by government union executuves, Gov. Corbett and Republican lawmakers did not cut $1 billion from public schools.

In fact, state spending on education will be at the highest level ever this fiscal year. Of course, more education spending does not automatically translate into better student outcomes, absent reform.

5. Missed opportunites: The legislature will not pass meaningful pension reform and liquor privatization before the General Assembly breaks for summer recess. Moreover, they delayed action on paycheck protection for the time being.

But those issues aren’t going away just because lawmakers have recessed for a few months. The importance of addressing the state pension crisis, delivering the alcohol convenience most Pennsylvanians want, and ending the use of taxpayer resources to fund partisan politics will be just as great when lawmakers return in September.

 

Five Facts Concerning 2014 Pa Budget

 

Five Facts Concerning 2014 Pa Budget

Union Leaders Above Law

By Matthew J. Brouillette

Pennsylvania’s government union executives should be at the top of any list of political power players in Harrisburg. With the kind of influence that millions in campaign contributions and political ads can buy, shouldn’t they follow the same lobbying laws as other political organizations?

Wendell Young IV, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union Local 1776, says yes. He told the watchdog group Media Trackers, “We shouldn’t be held to a different standard than everyone else.”

But the fact is, they are – it’s just a much lower one. And a recent investigation reveals an above-the-law attitude that goes beyond mere political privilege.

Media Trackers reports that the heads of three major public unions are not – and haven’t ever – registered as lobbyists, as a 2006 state law requires. A Commonwealth Foundation search of the Pennsylvania Department of State’s lobbyist database confirms this. Yet these union executives maintain frequent contact with lawmakers and staff, in person and via phone and e-mail, on legislative issues.

Young and David Fillman, executive director of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 13, are required to report their lobbying to the federal government. According to public records filed with the U.S. Department of Labor and examined by Media Trackers, Young reported 8 percent of his time as being spent on “political activities and lobbying,” while Fillman claimed 15 percent. Pennsylvania AFL-CIO president Rick Bloomingdale, the third union leader mentioned in Media Trackers’ investigation, isn’t required to make the same reports.

None of the three is registered to lobby in Harrisburg, though other leaders of nonprofits – such as the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) president, Michael Crossey, and Gene Barr, president of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, are.

When confronted about the lack of registration by a Pennsylvania Independent reporter, Young replied, “Clearly I do lobby, but it’s not my primary function as president of the union.” Young was paid $23,421 (8 percent of his $292,765 salary) for political activity and lobbying in 2013. Registration is required by the commonwealth if payment for lobbying exceeds $2,500 per quarter.

How can union leaders lobby against liquor privatization and pension reform for years without registering as lobbyists? No one’s been checking up on them – until now.

Such activities should be a wakeup call for union members who think their dues are separate from political activities. They aren’t.

Union members’ dues can legally be spent on political activity, whether in the form of political commercials, paid lobbyists, or get-out-the-vote efforts. Indeed, the PSEA told its members last year that as much as $7 million of their dues could be spent on “lobbying and political expenses” in 2013-2014.

In the case of the UFCW, even workers who have opted out of the union are forced to fund political activities.

Recently, some absurd ads vilifying the prospect of selling wine in grocery stores have blanketed the state. (They claim, “It only takes a little bit of greed to kill a child.”) Those ads were paid for by the UFCW, which funded a similarly over-the-top $1 million ad campaign last year.

But when the union reported last year’s campaign to the U.S. Department of Labor, it called the nakedly political ads a “representational activity” rather than a “political” one – and the difference matters.

Government workers, like teachers or liquor store clerks, who don’t wish to fund political ads can opt out of union membership. But in many cases, they still have to pay the union a “fair share” fee, which is supposed to only cover “representational activity,” like collective bargaining costs. That fee cannot be used for politics.

The union may view ad campaigns as “representational,” but lobbying on issues before the legislature is clearly “political.” Beyond the legal questions involved, the liquor store clerks and teachers who have jumped through hoops to keep their money from being spent on politics are still being forced to fund union political activity.

And this all happens courtesy of the taxpayers. Government union leaders use public resources to collect union dues, fees, and campaign contributions from workers’ checks and then spend that money on politics with impunity. In recent years, several elected state officials have been prosecuted for using public resources for partisan purposes.

If we can’t control the behavior of union leaders, we can at least stop using taxpayer resources to collect union political money. Tell your representatives in Harrisburg to support paycheck protection, which would prevent governments from deducting union dues from the checks of public employees – and force unions to play by the same political rules as everyone else.

Matthew J. Brouillette is president and CEO of the Commonwealth Foundation (CommonwealthFoundation.org), Pennsylvania’s free market think tank.

Union Leaders Above Law

Union Leaders Above Law