Right to Opine

With all of the recent class warfare rhetoric coming from the Left, I’ve devised the perfect economic recovery proposal for the GOP this election cycle. Why would this work for the Republicans but not for the Democrats?

• It only rewards taxpayers. Rather than redistributing wealth from those who produce to those who don’t, it would acknowledge the contributions of those who actually shoulder the burden of the federal government.
• Democrats like buying votes, but only when it increases their power and makes more people dependent on them. This plan would foster hard work and decrease overall dependence on government handouts.
• It would significantly reduce the size and power of the federal government, upon both of which the Democrats rely.

Here’s how it works. Whoever is the eventual Republican candidate should announce as part of his platform:

When I am elected, I am going to institute Taxpayer Appreciation Day, a recurring event to be celebrated on the 16th of every month. On TAD, the Internal Revenue Service shall issue a non-taxable check in the amount of $1 million to one randomly selected taxpayer per Congressional district in recognition of his contributions to this great nation. Eligibility will be determined in accordance with the following criteria:

1. He must have a positive net tax burden for the most recent tax year. This calculation shall not include Social Security and Medicare withdrawals. [If you want to include those, quit pretending that those entitlements aren’t part of the annual federal budget.]
2. Neither he nor anyone claimed as a dependent on his last tax return may have received any federal assistance in the current or previous tax year. This includes, but is not limited to:
   • food programs (e.g., SNAP, WIC, and free/reduced school breakfast or lunch)
   • federally subsidized housing (e.g., HUD housing or FHA loans)
   • tuition assistance (e.g., Pell grants and federally-backed student loans)
   • farm or other subsidies
   • medical assistance (Medicare/Medicaid)
   • retirement (Social Security or retirement pay from federal civil service)
3. Exceptions to #2 are granted to those with military service utilizing benefits such as the G.I. Bill, VA loans and medical care, service-related disability, military retirement pay, etc. This will include the commonly recognized branches of service as well as the Border Patrol, U.S. Marshal Service, Coast Guard, and personnel in government service who are/were employed in positions which either require the carry of a firearm or are otherwise life-endangering (e.g., FBI/BATFE/CIA field agents, but not office workers) for at least 50% of the employment period or the current or prior tax year.
4. He must be registered to vote.
5. He must not be a previous TAD award recipient.

Federal policies will be modified as follows:

1. All federal outlay to states for unemployment assistance, farm subsidies, funding for non-interstate roadways, etc., will be eliminated immediately.
2. Federal taxes will be simplified to a 20% rate for all sources of income, personal and corporate.
3. Personal and corporate tax deductions will be eliminated with the following exceptions. (Corporations will only be eligible for the charitable deduction.)
   • Charitable donations to organizations which expend at least 25% of their funds providing demonstrable societal benefits such as food, clothing, housing, and medical care. (No upper limit on charitable donation deductions.)
   • Medical payments for insurance premiums, annual medical/visual checkups, and non-elective procedures and prescribed medications. (No upper limit on medical deductions.)
   • Mortgage or rental payments for a single dwelling occupied as a primary residence by the taxpayer up to $12,000.
   • Food allowance of $2000 per dependent.
   • Clothing allowance of $500 per dependent.
4. The award amount and tax deductions will be indexed annually to the average rate of inflation.
5. Federal agencies and organizations not specifically authorized by the Constitution or specifically created by the Congress shall be disbanded. This will include, but is not limited to, every “czar” installed by any previous administration regardless of party affiliation.
6. All regulations created by federal agencies and organizations, which regulations were not specifically voted upon by both the House of Representatives and Senate, and signed into law by the President, shall be declared null and void.
7. DHS will grant a universal waiver for Obamacare.

The Taxpayer Appreciation Day program will cost $5.22 billion annually. This will be more than offset by the reduction in expenses due to closed federal agencies, fewer people using federal assistance (in order to attain TAD eligibility), and the increase in economic productivity as American businesses are relieved of crushing regulations.

WSJ — Nearly Half of U.S Lives in Household Receiving Government Benefits  

This is, of course, a huge boon to the Democrats since it buys them votes needed to keep expanding handouts, which buys more votes, and…

On the Keystone XL pipeline:

• National Journal — Obama Rejecting Pipeline, Pokes Back At GOP
• Jonah Goldberg — A Question of Priorities
• WSJ — The Anti-Jobs President: Obama rejects the Keystone XL pipeline and blames Congress

NY Times — Obama Reaffirms Insurers Must Cover Contraception

Really think there’s no war on religious freedom coming from the Left? Or that liberals really care about separation of church and state? Or that you can keep your current coverage if you like it, as Catholic organizations drop insurance coverage for their employees?

Fox News — School Fears “Cougars” Mascot Will Offend Women

File that under You-Have-Got-To-Be-@#$^%-Kidding! We wonder why our kids are dumb when they have idiots running their schools.

Washington Times — Uncle Sam’s empty cupboards: Obama is about to pour another trillion dollars down the drain

Apparently the term “debt ceiling” has no meaning remotely related to the literal dictionary definition of the term. If we’re going to raise the national credit card limit every other month—as is the current case—why not just eliminate it entirely and quit pretending Congress actually cares about the debt?

Michelle Malkin — The Land of Obama Make-Believe

Express-Times — Suspects in fatal robbery at Phillipsburg gas station head to Warren County on murder charges

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard from anti-gun friends or co-workers, “Just cooperate with a mugger. He’ll take what he wants & leave.” Well, maybe; maybe not. I’m not going to bet my life on it, and neither should you.

The Hill — Bain gives more campaign money to Democrats than it does to Republicans

Almost three times as much to the Democrats. Oh, the delicious irony.

Real Clear Politics — Hooray for the “Do-Nothing” Congress

The niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. on her uncle’s legacy:

Gingrich slap-down on Juan Williams

Mark Wahlberg on his faith

WSJ — Fuel Arrives, but Deep Freeze Endures

American Thinker — Speaking of desecrations
Thomas Sowell — An Ignored ‘Disparity’

Townhall — Why the Doctor Won’t See You

WSJ — The Bain Capital Bonfire: Romney has a good story to tell, if he’s willing to tell it.

Probably the best defense of the work Romney did at Bain Capital that I’ve seen in print. It’s not like they bought profitable companies and just gutted them. The purpose of a company is to turn a profit—NOT to pay people who aren’t productive. In the end, Bain created far more jobs than it cut.

This story is not getting nearly the airplay it deserves.

In a very rare unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled—against Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—that religious organizations do, in fact, have the authority to determine who they employ and are protected by the First Amendment from government interference in this vital function.

First, the background. A Lutheran church in Michigan which runs a private school employs two types of teachers: called and lay. A called teacher must be a minister of the church, completing a specific course of theological study and being designated as an official church minister. Lay teachers have no such ministerial designation, and do not even have to be members of the Lutheran Church.

A called teacher developed narcolepsy, and was unable to teach for an extended period of time. The church, in the meantime, filled her position with a lay teacher. When she was ready to return to teaching, the church notified her that the position had been filled. Contrary to church rules for Lutheran ministers, which require that a minister with a complaint take such to an internal arbitration board, she threatened to (and eventually did) file suit in court. The church, in accordance with longstanding policy, removed her calling and terminated her employment.

To complicate matters, the teacher in question was originally hired as a lay teacher. She later specifically accepted the designation as a called teacher—a minister of the church. She spent six years of study, lay work, and church examination to attain that designation. She also claimed a special ministerial tax exemption for a housing allowance.

But I digress. The teacher, with the backing and legal representation of the Obama EEOC, claimed her employ was illegally terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The church contended the firing was the result of violation of church policy regarding lawsuits vs. arbitration. The lower court sided with the church, but on appeal the EEOC prevailed with the argument that the ADA trumped the church’s First Amendment protection. The Supreme Court ruled against the appeals court in favor of the church.

The full decision is here. It’s very much worth a read, as the court eviscerates the EEOC case in under 40 pages while still managing to provide important historic context, precedent, and original arguments for the decision. Any time the SC hands out a unanimous decision against the administration, you know the White House has failed to grasp the meaning of the Constitution. This, of course, comes as no surprise to most of us.

If you refuse to read the whole decision, you should at least read Justice Roberts’ majority opinion. Thomas and Alito filed concurring opinions (with Kagan joining Alito—will surprises never cease!), but Roberts writes a masterful piece. Those of you on the Left who like to bash conservatives for their ignorance, lack of education, blah blah blah, should read Roberts’ decision and note that all of the liberals on the court (save Kagan) joined him with nary a comment. His portion goes back to the Magna Carta, and gives a masterful exposition on religious freedom over the ensuing millenium.

For those of you too lazy to read the court’s full decision, let me pull out some juicy snippets. (These are, by very nature, out of context. If you have a beef, read the dang thing!)

• The First Amendment provides, in part, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Familiar with life under the established Church of England, the founding generation sought to foreclose the possibility of a national church. By forbidding the “establishment of religion” and guaranteeing the “free exercise thereof,” the Religion Clauses ensured that the new Federal Government—unlike the English Crown—would have no role in filling ecclesiastical offices.
• […] it is impermissible for the government to contradict a church’s determination of who can act as its ministers.
• Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.
• The Court cannot accept the remarkable view [of the EEOC] that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers.
• The present case […] concerns government interference with an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself.

You must not miss this one:

• Any suggestion that Hosanna-Tabor’s asserted religious reason for firing Perich was pretextual misses the point of the ministerial exception. The purpose of the exception is not to safeguard a church’s decision to fire a minister only when it is made for a religious reason. The exception instead ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful is the church’s alone.

Read that again. Its impact is vital to religious freedom in our nation!

• By forbidding the “establishment of religion” and guaranteeing the “free exercise thereof,” the Religion Clauses ensured that the new Federal Government—unlike the English Crown— would have no role in filling ecclesiastical offices. The Establishment Clause prevents the Government from appointing ministers, and the Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own.
• The “scrupulous policy of the Constitution in guarding against a political interference with religious affairs,” Madison explained, prevented the Government from rendering an opinion on the “selection of ecclesiastical individuals.”
• the First Amendment “permit[s] hierarchical religious organizations to establish their own rules and regulations for internal discipline and government, and to create tribunals for adjudicating disputes over these matters.”

To mollify Leftist readers, from (conservative) Roberts’ opinion:

The case before us is an employment discrimination suit brought on behalf of a minister, challenging her church’s decision to fire her. Today we hold only that the ministe- rial exception bars such a suit. We express no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits, including actions by employees alleging breach of contract or tor- tious conduct by their religious employers. There will be time enough to address the applicability of the exception to other circumstances if and when they arise.

This is not carte blanche for religious organizations to discriminate against anyone for any reason at will.

Continuing:

• Religious groups are the archetype of associations formed for expressive purposes, and their fundamental rights surely include the freedom to choose who is qualified to serve as a voice for their faith.
• When it comes to the expression and inculcation of religious doctrine, there can be no doubt that the messenger matters.
• A religion cannot depend on someone to be an effective advocate for its religious vision if that person’s conduct fails to live up to the religious precepts that he or she espouses. For this reason, a religious body’s right to self-governance must include the ability to select, and to be selective about, those who will serve as the very “embodiment of its message” and “its voice to the faithful.”

Kudos to our Justices for that rare instance in which ALL agree in favor of the religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment.

This story is not getting nearly the airplay it deserves.

In a very rare unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled—against Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—that religious organizations do, in fact, have the authority to determine who they employ and are protected by the First Amendment from government interference in this vital function.

First, the background. A Lutheran church in Michigan which runs a private school employs two types of teachers: called and lay. A called teacher must be a minister of the church, completing a specific course of theological study and being designated as an official church minister. Lay teachers have no such ministerial designation, and do not even have to be members of the Lutheran Church.

A called teacher developed narcolepsy, and was unable to teach for an extended period of time. The church, in the meantime, filled her position with a lay teacher. When she was ready to return to teaching, the church notified her that the position had been filled. Contrary to church rules for Lutheran ministers, which require that a minister with a complaint take such to an internal arbitration board, she threatened to (and eventually did) file suit in court. The church, in accordance with longstanding policy, removed her calling and terminated her employment.

To complicate matters, the teacher in question was originally hired as a lay teacher. She later specifically accepted the designation as a called teacher—a minister of the church. She spent six years of study, lay work, and church examination to attain that designation. She also claimed a special ministerial tax exemption for a housing allowance.

But I digress. The teacher, with the backing and legal representation of the Obama EEOC, claimed her employ was illegally terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The church contended the firing was the result of violation of church policy regarding lawsuits vs. arbitration. The lower court sided with the church, but on appeal the EEOC prevailed with the argument that the ADA trumped the church’s First Amendment protection. The Supreme Court ruled against the appeals court in favor of the church.

The full decision is here. It’s very much worth a read, as the court eviscerates the EEOC case in under 40 pages while still managing to provide important historic context, precedent, and original arguments for the decision. Any time the SC hands out a unanimous decision against the administration, you know the White House has failed to grasp the meaning of the Constitution. This, of course, comes as no surprise to most of us.

If you refuse to read the whole decision, you should at least read Justice Roberts’ majority opinion. Thomas and Alito filed concurring opinions (with Kagan joining Alito—will surprises never cease!), but Roberts writes a masterful piece. Those of you on the Left who like to bash conservatives for their ignorance, lack of education, blah blah blah, should read Roberts’ decision and note that all of the liberals on the court (save Kagan) joined him with nary a comment. His portion goes back to the Magna Carta, and gives a masterful exposition on religious freedom over the ensuing millenium.

For those of you too lazy to read the court’s full decision, let me pull out some juicy snippets. (These are, by very nature, out of context. If you have a beef, read the dang thing!)

• The First Amendment provides, in part, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Familiar with life under the established Church of England, the founding generation sought to foreclose the possibility of a national church. By forbidding the “establishment of religion” and guaranteeing the “free exercise thereof,” the Religion Clauses ensured that the new Federal Government—unlike the English Crown—would have no role in filling ecclesiastical offices.
• […] it is impermissible for the government to contradict a church’s determination of who can act as its ministers.
• Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.
• The Court cannot accept the remarkable view [of the EEOC] that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers.
• The present case […] concerns government interference with an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself.

You must not miss this one:

• Any suggestion that Hosanna-Tabor’s asserted religious reason for firing Perich was pretextual misses the point of the ministerial exception. The purpose of the exception is not to safeguard a church’s decision to fire a minister only when it is made for a religious reason. The exception instead ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful is the church’s alone.

Read that again. Its impact is vital to religious freedom in our nation!

• By forbidding the “establishment of religion” and guaranteeing the “free exercise thereof,” the Religion Clauses ensured that the new Federal Government—unlike the English Crown— would have no role in filling ecclesiastical offices. The Establishment Clause prevents the Government from appointing ministers, and the Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own.
• The “scrupulous policy of the Constitution in guarding against a political interference with religious affairs,” Madison explained, prevented the Government from rendering an opinion on the “selection of ecclesiastical individuals.”
• the First Amendment “permit[s] hierarchical religious organizations to establish their own rules and regulations for internal discipline and government, and to create tribunals for adjudicating disputes over these matters.”

To mollify Leftist readers, from (conservative) Roberts’ opinion:

The case before us is an employment discrimination suit brought on behalf of a minister, challenging her church’s decision to fire her. Today we hold only that the ministe- rial exception bars such a suit. We express no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits, including actions by employees alleging breach of contract or tor- tious conduct by their religious employers. There will be time enough to address the applicability of the exception to other circumstances if and when they arise.

This is not carte blanche for religious organizations to discriminate against anyone for any reason at will.

Continuing:

• Religious groups are the archetype of associations formed for expressive purposes, and their fundamental rights surely include the freedom to choose who is qualified to serve as a voice for their faith.
• When it comes to the expression and inculcation of religious doctrine, there can be no doubt that the messenger matters.
• A religion cannot depend on someone to be an effective advocate for its religious vision if that person’s conduct fails to live up to the religious precepts that he or she espouses. For this reason, a religious body’s right to self-governance must include the ability to select, and to be selective about, those who will serve as the very “embodiment of its message” and “its voice to the faithful.”

Kudos to our Justices for that rare instance in which ALL agree in favor of the religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment.

WSJ — Contempt for Congress: Obama makes recess appointments when there’s no recess

Cato — Playing Politics with the Constitution and the Law

Does anyone even remember how the Left yelled and screamed at every opportunity about how Bush was a dictator, Nazi, Bushitler, etc.? Never did he blatantly ignore the Constitution in the manner Obama is doing almost daily now. The Left is getting what they wanted—rule by fiat rather than a constitutional republic.

Townhall — Why OWS Hates Married, Filing Jointly

A young mom—cornered in her home by two armed intruders—shot and killed one, sending the other fleeing for his life.

This is exactly why every law-abiding American citizen—particularly the most vulnerable—should have a gun and know how to use it. The Left—spearheaded by George Soros, the Brady Campaign, and their ilk—would prefer to have left this young woman and her infant child defenseless.

Doug Giles, Townhall — The Santa Killer Was a Religion of Peacer

Andy Kessler, WSJ — The Rise of Consumption Equality

AP — Mount Rainier remains closed after ranger shooting

Of course the liberal knee-jerk reaction is to blame the NRA, et al, for lax gun laws. But murdering a park ranger is already illegal. Do you really think the perp would have obeyed a law banning the weapon when he clearly disregarded the more serious one re its use?

NY Times — Overtures to Egypt’s Islamists Reverse Longtime U.S. Policy

The reversal also reflects the administration’s growing acceptance of the Brotherhood’s repeated assurances that its lawmakers want to build a modern democracy that will respect individual freedoms, free markets and international commitments, including Egypt’s treaty with Israel.

The blind naivete of this administration is simply astounding and will have devastating consequences for decades to come.

Fox News — School Defends “Occupy” Song For 8-year-olds

Um, yeah, right. A bunch of third-graders wrote those lyrics. Sorry, but have you actually read anything written by a third-grade kid?

Dave Berry, Miami Herald — Dave Barry’s 2011 Year in Review

PJ Media — Ten 2011 Examples of Major Media Malfeasance

Yid With Lid — Alan Colmes is a Despicable Low Life Scumbag!

There was a time when I thought Colmes was a thoughtful—if always wrong—voice on the Left. No longer. This isn’t just a “mistake” but a revealing insight into a hate-filled heart and mind.