Curt Schilling’s Rhode Island Hoodwink
Curt Montague Schilling, has never been one to duck controversy nor a good game of old-fashioned hard ball.
In fact, in the latter part of his Major League Baseball (MLB) career as a starting pitcher, who many experts believe will be an easy entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame, Schilling became a lightning rod for controversy.
With his outspokenness, particularly critical of fellow MLB players, initially with Barry Bonds, in addition to his political rants in interviews and on his website concerning Capitol Hill politics, Schilling relishes confrontation. Read more
Supremes reinforce secularization in government school programs
The U.S. Supreme Court banned the first amendment from government schools Oct. 4. In its refusal to hear an appeal of Stratechuk v. Board of Education, South Orange-Maplewood School District, the high court upheld a ruling that religious songs have no place in public school holiday performances.
School programs may include non-holiday religious music, and holiday religious music may be taught in classrooms.
Michael Stratechuk, the father of two in the school district, claimed the district’s action deprived his children of their rights under the Establishment Clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The test used by the District Court in analyzing the Establishment Clause was the Lemon test. This test has its origins in the Supreme Court 1971 case, Lemon v. Kurtzman. The three prongs of the test address whether the government’s action lacks a secular purpose, whether the government action has the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and whether the government action involves an excessive entanglement with religion. If any of these prongs are satisfied, the government action violates the Establishment Clause.
Stratechuk’s attorney, Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center, claimed the school district was “disapproving…
Underhanded or Incompetent; Tax Increases Cost Middle America This Year!
It’s not just the Bush Tax Cuts…Obama has already hit you with thousands in new taxes that may not even be aware of…yet.
Contrary to Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on the those making less than $250,000.00, a rate increase is already in effect, as of December 31, 2009, which will result in nearly 30 million working class Americans owing thousands more taxes, this year.
For the past decade, a “fix” has been passed annually to adjust the AMT or Alternative Minimum Tax threshold, for inflation. However, under Obama, the “fix” expired on December 31, 2009 and has not been renewed. Unless Congress passes the annual “fix” before December 31, 2010, nearly 30 million Americans will be hit with the tax increase. But hot on campaign trails, politicians are focused on their own careers and not on saving the American tax payer.
Who will the increase hit? Well, the Congressional Budget Office suggests that those affected will include:
- 3% of households earning under $50,000.00
- 40% of households making between $50,000.00 and $100,000.00
- 50% of households making between $100,000.00 and $200,000.00
- 15% of households making between $200,000.00 and $500,000.00
Actually, nearly every married couple, filing jointly, making a combined income of between $100,000.00 and $500,000.00 will be hit Read more
What the GOP Pledge Reflects and Why We Need To Stand By It
When the Pledge to America was first announced, it immediately met backlash from the other side of the aisle. President Obama began a tour dedicated specifically to breaking down the plan’s items one by one. While to many political strategists, this response may be seen as politics as usual, there are many holes in the argument that show his plans and the plans of his liberal followers may be sinking their own ship.
Generation Y Workers Are Special Cases
Generation Y workers are getting a cold dose of reality during this recession: they’re not particularly special after all. Read more
Will Obama Outsource US Airlift to Russia or France?
With the headlines dominated by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a controversial recess appointment, and Cold-war-era spy swaps, it is easy to lose sight of some very important national security issues. How the government spends money is often the real policy more than press secretary statements. With Congress considering defense appropriations, an important question is whether Congress and the President will provide our military with the equipment that they need to do their job and whether the Administration will attempt to balance the budget on the backs of our troops.
There is strong bipartisan support on Capitol Hill for maintaining and purchasing the widely versatile and highly capable C-17 airlifter. It is the only U.S. made military wide-body airlifter and it is the most flexible and most capable airlifter in the world. The C-17 can perform strategic and tactical missions, and serve military and humanitarian functions. It can land on standard runways and austere remote dirt airfields anywhere around the world. It can airlift troops, equipment, and supplies on a moment’s notice, as well as perform medical evacuations. Read more
The financial services ‘reform’ mess
By J.C. Watts
During my service in Congress, whenever legislation was dubbed “reform” it was especially necessary to analyze the details and consequences. So it is with congressional passage of President Barack Obama’s financial services “reform”– the biggest expansion of government power over banks and private markets since the Great Depression.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the 2,300-page law– crafted by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.– requires no fewer than 243 new rules by 11 federal agencies. “A general attack on our free enterprise system,” is how a frustrated U.S. Chamber of Commerce describes the law that will make it tougher for consumers and small businesses to borrow money.
Critics have focused on the bill’s costs and how it may affect access to credit. They warned that forcing banks to raise more capital will crimp their ability to advance loans, or raise the cost of doing so; tougher derivatives rules could raise the cost of hedging for companies that use these instruments in daily operations. Again, as The Wall Street Journal reports, tougher consumer rules could further pinch credit — especially for people with lower incomes.
Business undermined by greedy politicians
By T.R. Fehrenbach
President Calvin Coolidge said that the business of America was business, for which he was castigated or ridiculed by the aboriginal American intelligentsia.
Coolidge was disdained because he didn’t do much in office, but few presidents did unless faced with wars, rebellion, or other crises.
But the fact is, old Cal was right. Business is the thing most Americans do best, even better than government.
Everything that we do well, after all, depends on American business. Good government, military power, employment, charity, standards of living and serving as refuge to failed societies depend on the health of American enterprise. As business goes, so goes the nation. This should be evident in recessions.
The majority of Americans work and therefore eat and pay taxes because they are involved in some sort of surplus-producing private business, from industry to sales to finance to science and agriculture. Enterprises such as charities, education, and government — non-profits in general — are utterly dependent on profit-making business for funding. You’d think people would grasp this when things get rough.
Recess missing one key demand from the Obama/Pelosi Led House
The one thing Obama seemed to pride himself on was that his legislative majority, especially in the house, was behind him. When ObamaCare was signed into law, it was called a triumph by many of the liberal Representatives who supported it. However, when it came to actually supporting it on their land via health-care town halls the left sang a completely different tune.
Obama should be pro-market, not pro-business
By James Pethokoukis
Should the Obamacrats be friendlier to Corporate America? Big Business has certainly amped up its kvetching of late. But it’s not Washington’s job to be pro-business and make nice with CEOs. That smells of crony capitalism and often just means rewarding big campaign contributors with government favors. The better measure of any given Washington policy is whether it respects markets.
To hear many U.S. CEOs tell it the nation’s free enterprise system, as they call it, is faltering. General Electric boss Jeff Immelt, a member of President Barack Obama’s economic advisory board, says government and business are “out of sync.” Ivan Seidenberg, CEO of Verizon and head of the Business Roundtable, complains that “by reaching into virtually every sector of economic life, government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and making it harder to raise capital and create new businesses.”
