Thursday, October 6, 2011

From Earlier In The Year, Even More Reading and Deciphering---

http://www.atr.org/california-democrats-fiddle-sacramento-burns-a5158

Jamie dimon  cali   Greece

http://www.financialfeed.net/the-rich-are-also-fit-with-a-tax-obligation-says-jpmorgan%E2%80%99s-dimon/852783/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/174955/re-paul/grover-norquist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986

http://www.atr.org/?search_tag=California
http://www.google.com/search?q=Location%3A+Milwaukee%2C+WI+Name+Occupation+Birth+Death+Known+for+Paul+Weyrich+Columnist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/06/27/2852171/state-budget-three-plans-no-deal.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/author/174954

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=120
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/04/07/biblical-slavery-for-non-christians-yes-suggests-website-of-mike-huckabees-favorite-historian-david-barton/

To reiterate, although David Barton might deny it one can reasonably assume he endorses the re-introduction of slavery given that an
article on Barton’s own Wallbuilders web site (which Barton links to in his own Wallbuilders articles), by a member of the Wallbuilders board of directors (Barton also serves on the board of an organization run by McDowell) endorses “Biblical slavery” as defined by Christian Reconstructionist titan R.J. Rushdoony, whose idiosyncratic views included rejecting Copernicus’ Heliocentric model of the Solar System. In his master work The Institutes of Biblical Law, Rushdoony argued that that less than one million Jews were killed by the Nazis during World War Two and asserted most of those died from cold rather than execution.

God’s laws concerning slavery provided parameters for treatment of slaves, which were for the benefit of all involved. God desires all men and nations to be liberated. This begins internally and will be manifested externally to the extent internal change occurs. The Biblical slave laws reflect God’s redemptive desire, for men and nations.
McDowell then lists various types of slavery which can be legal according to scripture from the Old Testament books of Leviticus, Exodus, and Deuteronomy. According to McDowell, “pagans [non-Christians] could be permanent slaves” and to bolster this position McDowell quotes theologian R.J. Rushdoony:
“since unbelievers are by nature slaves, they could be held as life-long slaves” 1 without piercing the ear to indicate their voluntary servitude (Lev. 25:44-46). This passage in Leviticus says that pagans could be permanent slaves and could be bequeathed to the children of the Hebrews.”
The Libertarian Theocrats: The Long, Strange History of R.J. Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism,
by Michael J. McVicar,
The Public Eye
Frederick Clarkson’s four-part series on Reconstructionism in
The Public Eye including Part Three, “No Longer Without Sheep.”
The Christian Right, Dominionism, and Theocracy,
by Chip Berlet,
The Public Eye
Bruce Wilson on the U.S. Taxpayers Party/Constitution Party’s relationship with Reconstructionism at
Talkto Action.
Rand Paul and the Influence of Christian Reconstructionism,
by Julie Ingersoll,
Religion Dispatches


http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v21n1/chamberlain_berlet_christian_right.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/opinion/19krugman.html

http://godsownparty.com/blog/
http://www.reclaim7mountains.com/
These seven mountains are business, government, media, arts and entertainment, education, the family and religion.

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70&sectiontree=5,70
http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/CPC.Budget.112th.Memo.pdf

A freeze on the debt ceiling could erode confidence in U.S. Treasury bonds in a number of ways, creating further and wider panic in financial markets. First,
by causing a disruption in the issuance of Treasury debt, as happened in 1995-96, a freeze would cause investors to seek alternative financial investments, even perhaps causing a run on Treasurys. Such a run would cause the cost of U.S. debt to soar, putting even more stress on our budget, and the resulting enormous capital flows would likely be highly destabilizing to global financial markets, potentially creating more asset bubbles and busts throughout the world.
Second, the massive withdrawal of public spending that would occur would cause significant concern among institutional investors worldwide that the U.S. would swiftly enter a second, very deep, recession, raising concerns about the ability of the United States to repay its debt. Finally, the sheer recklessness of a debt freeze during these tenuous times would signal to already nervous investors that there was a significant amount of political risk, which could cause them to shy away from investing in the United States generally.
Taken together, these factors would almost certainly result in a significant increase in the interest rates we currently pay on our national debt, currently just above 2.5 percent for a 10-year Treasury note. If in the near term these rates moved even to 5.9 percent, the long-term rate predicted by the Congressional Budget Office, then our interest payments would increase by more than double, to nearly $600 billion a year. These rates could climb even higher, if investors began to price in a “default risk” into Treasurys—something that reckless actions by Congress could potentially spark—thus greatly exacerbating our budget problems.
The U.S. dollar, of course, is the world’s reserve currency in large part because of the depth and liquidity of the U.S. Treasury bond market. If this market is severely disrupted, and investors lost confidence in U.S. Treasurys, then it is unclear where nervous investors might go next. A sharp and swift move by investors out of U.S. Treasury bonds could be highly destabilizing, straining the already delicate global economy.
Imagine, for example, if investors moved from sovereign debt into commodities, most of which are priced and traded in dollars. This could have the catastrophic impact of weakening the world’s largest economies while also raising the prices of the basic inputs (such as metals or food) that are necessary for economic growth.
In short, a freeze on the debt ceiling would cause our inter r interest payments to spike, making our budget situation even more problematic, while potentially triggering greater global instability—perhaps even a global economic depression.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/big_freeze.html
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/will-republicans-play-chicken-with-the-debt-ceiling-vote/
I think the more likely outcome is that the GOP, newly radicalized by the influx of Tea Party supported freshmen will push the House of Representatives into forcing another government shutdown, which seems to be the most likely outcome of a failure to raise the debt ceiling. In fact, there are already those on the right
who are saying that is exactly what they should do.
The head of the influential Americans for Tax Reform is encouraging the new House Republican majority to adopt a take-no-prisoners approach to federal spending — and if that leads to a 1995-style government shutdown, so be it.
Midterm voters “were voting to stop the Obama spendathon, and that’s what people were sent to Washington to do,” Norquist said in an interview for POLITICO’s “Taxing America” video series.
“That’s what all the freshmen are going to do. That’s what the fight’s going to be about,” he said of the party’s majority-makers, who are spoiling for a showdown with President Barack Obama. The president “will be less popular if — in the service of overspending and wasting people’s money — he closes the government down, as opposed to now, when he’s just wasting people’s money.”
The problem with Norquist’s advice is two-fold.
First, it rests on the premise that spending and debt were in the forefront of voters’ minds when they cast ballots in November 2nd. As I argued earlier this week, though,
there’s simply no evidence to support that assertion, and the exit polls make clear that it was the economy that voters were concerned with when they cast their ballots, all other issues were a distant, distant second. Additionally, more recent polling shows us that the public is divided over whether spending should go up or down, and not very impressed with the deficit cutting plan put forward by Senator Simpson and Erskine Bowles.
Second, it assumes that the public would back the Republicans in the event of a government shutdown. As anyone who was around Washington in 1995 could tell you, there’s absolutely no guarantee that would happen. Even Senator-Elect Rand Paul
recognizes that a shutdown would be politically risky:
[S]ome GOP members of Congress, as well as some of the activist conservatives elected on Nov. 2, continue to discuss a shutdown as a viable option. But Sen.-elect Paul is not among them.
In an exclusive interview Monday on Capitol Hill, the Kentucky ophthalmologist told Newsmax: “I think shutting down the government is a mistake. Nobody really wants that. That’s sort of government by chaos.”
Paul is right, of course, and doubly right to the extent we’re talking about a shutdown brought about by a failure to raise the debt ceiling. In that case, the fact that the government would not have the legal ability to borrow means that, in theory, everything would have to be shut down, even the so-called “essential” services that would normally be exempt during a shutdown caused by failure to pass a budget. Politically, that would mean that the White House could plausibly claim, for example, that Republicans were putting American troops in danger by not providing funding. Combine that with the panic in the financial markets that would likely take place, and there’s simply no way that the GOP would come out of a shutdown undamaged.
Raising the debt ceiling is a crappy vote for any legislator to take. It demonstrates as plain as day the fiscal irresponsibility of the Federal Government, and the act of voting to push the debt limit even further into the fiscal stratosphere is one that looks bad on any representative’s resume. However, it’s also not a vote to be playing games with, as Boehner correctly points out. Unless Republicans intend to use the debt ceiling vote as a catalyst to force a national debate on making the kinds of spending cuts and tax changes that will be needed to seriously deal with the debt (and I would love it if they did), they need to just swallow their pride and cast the vote.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/01/10/norquist-pledge-dont-raise-debt-limit-without-spending-cuts/


http://haywardeconblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/nice-chart-showing-increase-in-national.html

The just-concluded budget fight has spawned talk that the White House and Congress will perhaps resort to a series of short-term extensions of the debt limit while they bargain over a debt-reduction plan or some other mandatory budget restraints. The question is, how might global financial markets react?

“We’ve never seen that before,” said Robert E. Rubin, the Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton and a longtime Wall Street executive. “But I know this: It’s not a risk I’d take.”




http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/03/08/anti-tax-pledge-directs-california-budget-debate/

http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-03-17/opinion/28700853_1_spending-cuts-budget-talks-pension-reform
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/node/8746

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/node/8759


He was so successful in helping Arnold Schwarzenegger privatize the CalPERS system that the fund went into the toilet.  Even though Grover wants to drown government in the bathtub, which may help him raise funds for himself and his organization, I do not believe that it is the point of view of even conservative Republicans here in California.
Good-government Grover of course worked with the totally discredited convicted criminal Jack Abramoff, and public records allege that his group served as a conduit for funds contributed from Abramoff’s clients to finance “grassroots lobbying campaigns.”
It is not surprising that somebody who supported the illegal effort of Oliver North, which tried to overthrow various governments around the world, would want Republicans to deny their constituents the right to self-determination on any number of issues including increasing revenue to support schools, health, public safety and other measures.
Grover was once quoted as saying when he became 21, he decided nobody learned anything about politics after the age of 21. Clearly the man’s growth has been stunted.  His effort to stunt the growth of California makes this plain for all to see.
http://www.calitics.com/diary/13281/de-facto-ca-gop-leader-grover-norquist-needs-a-new-de-facto-job

how ar we so deceived? The whole basket is rarely brought, impossible to bring-
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/002137.htm

http://fairvaluesforamerica.org/mmtv/201004260046
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/08/civil.war.today/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/15/165169/-F****-on-Focus-on-the-Family
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/08/964724/-2006:-WI-Clerk-Nickolaus-Finds-Inexplicably-Misplaced-Votes
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=grover+norquist&btnG=Google+Search&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.talk2action.org%2F&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.talk2action.org%2F

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2005/12/22/14428/569/Front_Page/Machiavellian_Politics_and_the_Exploitation_of_America_s_Conservative_Christians


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1008-07.htm
And this country, people who may not make earning a lot of money the centerpiece of their lives, they may have other things to focus on, they just say it's not just. If you've paid taxes on your income once, the government should leave you alone. Shouldn't come back and try and tax you again.
Terry Gross: Excuse me. Excuse me one second. Did you just ...
Grover Norquist: Yeah?
Terry Gross:
compare the estate tax with the Holocaust?
Grover Norquist: No, the morality that says it's OK to do something to do a group because they're a small percentage of the population is the morality that says that the Holocaust is OK because they didn't target everybody, just a small percentage. What are you worried about? It's not you. It's not you. It's them. And arguing that it's OK to loot some group because it's them, or kill some group because it's them and because it's a small number, that has no place in a democratic society that treats people equally. The government's going to do something to or for us, it should treat us all equally.
"
Terry Gross: So you see taxes as being the way they are now terrible discrimination against the wealthy comparable to the kind of discrimination of, say, the Holocaust?
Grover Norquist: Well, what you pick -- you can use different rhetoric or different points for different purposes, and I would argue that those who say, 'Don't let this bother you; I'm only doing it' -- I, the government. The government is only doing it to a small percentage of the population. That is very wrong. And it's immoral. They should treat everybody the same. They shouldn't be shooting anyone, and they shouldn't be taking half of anybody's income or wealth when they die."

to prevent the holocaust, anything is better…
According to Bill Gates Sr. and Chuck Collins of the group Responsible Wealth, nearly half of all estate taxes are paid by the wealthiest 0.1 percent of the American population -- a few thousand families each year.
In 2001, Gates was the lead signer on Responsible Wealth's Call to Preserve the Estate Tax, which was signed by over 1,000 wealthy people personally affected by the estate tax -- including George Soros, Ted Turner, and David Rockefeller Jr. He points out that since it was enacted in 1916, the estate tax has helped to limit the concentration of wealth, making it easier for Americans to educate themselves, innovate, build new businesses, and prosper.
Gates also points out that while there is no question that "some people accumulate great wealth through hard work, intelligence, creativity, and sacrifice" it is equally important to acknowledge "the influence of other factors, such as luck, privilege, other people's efforts, and society's investment in the creation of individual wealth such as a patent system, enforceable contracts, open courts, property ownership records, protection against crime and external threats, and public education."
The father of the man with the billions understands the word "we."
http://www.theunion.com/article/20110406/NEWS/110409883/1024
http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8083
Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:57:07 AM PST

The weekend madness in Sacramento, product of the California Republican Party and its persistent refusal to accept reality, has finally led much of what remains of the media in California to call bullshit on their obstructionism. Even high Broderists like George Skelton, who usually find a way to avoid saying it's all the Republicans' fault,
today finally comes around in an excellent column that destroys the Republican notion that we can close the gap without new taxes:
To avoid raising taxes and still balance the books in Sacramento, you'd have to virtually shut down state government...
Ardent anti-taxers say the governor and Legislature should simply whack the "bloated" bureaucracy by 10%. Even 20% if need be. Lay off and cut pay. Pare benefits too. After all, private companies are doing it.
You could lay off all those state workers -- rid yourself of their pay and benefits -- and save only $24.4 billion....
OK, lose the Legislature, you say. It's good for nothing. But it's also not worth much when you're trying to fill that size deficit hole. The Legislature's 16-month cost is roughly $400 million.
So now one branch of government is critically wounded, and another is dead. And we're still $16 billion short of enough savings....
You could cut off all state money to higher education -- the two university systems and the community colleges. That would save the remaining $16 billion.
Hardly any Californian actually wants any of this. They don't want to shut down the prison system and let hundreds of thousands of criminals out on the streets. They don't want to close the DMV, or shut down the CHP, or destroy their children's chances at a college education, or close their neighborhood school.
They don't want any of that. But that's exactly what Republicans propose to do by their insane anti-tax position. It makes clear that Republicans see themselves as not representing the people of California, but instead they merely represent John & Ken and the staff of the Howard Jarvis Association. They see their oath as to Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge and not to the state constitution. And because of the 2/3 rule, we're all forced into membership in the death cult.
Regardless of the fate of this budget, it should now be clear to California that the Republican Party is a threat to our state's basic survival. The next move needs to be a systematic disempowerment of these terrorists. The 2/3 rule must be eliminated at the first available opportunity. And then we go after their seats - whether through a recall or a vote in 2010.
Hopefully this time, the media will not stand in the way of removing the last obstacles to economic recovery and a stable and effective government here in California.
. They see their oath as to Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge and not to the state constitution.----------------------

===================

References
1 Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, translated by Talcot Parsons (New York: Routledge, [1930] 1999). See also, Chip Berlet, "Calvinism, Capitalism, Conversion, and Incarceration,” The Public Eye, Political Research Associates (18)3, (Winter 2004), http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v18n3/berlet_calvinism.html.
2Chip Berlet and Pam Chamberlain, Running Against Sodom and Osama: The Christian Right, Values Voters, and the Culture Wars in 2006. A Report from Political Research Associates, October, 2006, http://www.publiceye.org/christian_right/values-voters/vv-toc.html.
3 Interview with Doug Henwood, based on comments made on LBO listserve.
4 Richard J. Meagher, 2006, "Tax Revolt as a Family Value: How the Christian Right Is Becoming A Free Market Champion," The Public Eye magazine, (Winter), pp. 1, 8-14, http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v21n1/meagher_tax_revolt.html
5 Meagher, citing Atwood, Aaron, "Death Should Not Be a Taxable Event," Focus on the Family CitizenLink.org, http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0037747.cfm, 9/15/06.
6 Meagher, citing Perkins, Tony, "Death and Taxes," Tony Perkins' Washington Update, http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA06D33#WA06D33, 9/15/06.
7 Richard J. Meagher, 2006, "Tax Revolt as a Family Value."
8 Ibid.
9 Norquist “crush” quote from Henderson and Hayward, “Happy Warrior"; Norquist “bathtub” quote from Ed Kilgore, “Starving the Beast: If President Bush keeps listening to Grover Norquist, Republicans won't have a government to kick around anymore,” Blueprint Magazine, The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) (June 30, 2003), http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=170&contentid=251788 (accessed June 16, 2006). Cockroach quotes appear in both.
10 Kilgore, “Starving the Beast.”
See Also:
God, Calvin, and Social Welfare: A Series
Fundamentalists Embrace Darwin!


Chip Berlet, Senior Analyst, Political Research Associates

The Public Eye: Website of Political Research Associates
Chip's Blog
References
1 Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, translated by Talcot Parsons (New York: Routledge, [1930] 1999). See also, Chip Berlet, "Calvinism, Capitalism, Conversion, and Incarceration,” The Public Eye, Political Research Associates (18)3, (Winter 2004), http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v18n3/berlet_calvinism.html.
2Chip Berlet and Pam Chamberlain, Running Against Sodom and Osama: The Christian Right, Values Voters, and the Culture Wars in 2006. A Report from Political Research Associates, October, 2006, http://www.publiceye.org/christian_right/values-voters/vv-toc.html.
3 Interview with Doug Henwood, based on comments made on LBO listserve.
4 Richard J. Meagher, 2006, "Tax Revolt as a Family Value: How the Christian Right Is Becoming A Free Market Champion," The Public Eye magazine, (Winter), pp. 1, 8-14, http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v21n1/meagher_tax_revolt.html
5 Meagher, citing Atwood, Aaron, "Death Should Not Be a Taxable Event," Focus on the Family CitizenLink.org, http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0037747.cfm, 9/15/06.
6 Meagher, citing Perkins, Tony, "Death and Taxes," Tony Perkins' Washington Update, http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA06D33#WA06D33, 9/15/06.
7 Richard J. Meagher, 2006, "Tax Revolt as a Family Value."
8 Ibid.
9 Norquist “crush” quote from Henderson and Hayward, “Happy Warrior"; Norquist “bathtub” quote from Ed Kilgore, “Starving the Beast: If President Bush keeps listening to Grover Norquist, Republicans won't have a government to kick around anymore,” Blueprint Magazine, The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) (June 30, 2003), http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=170&contentid=251788 (accessed June 16, 2006). Cockroach quotes appear in both.
10 Kilgore, “Starving the Beast.”
See Also:
God, Calvin, and Social Welfare: A Series
Fundamentalists Embrace Darwin!


Chip Berlet, Senior Analyst, Political Research Associates

The Public Eye: Website of Political Research Associates
Chip's Blog
===========================
Jane:
April 1, 2011 at 2:08 am
After poking around on the ALEC site to get an idea of what they were doing I found it easier to take a look at what they ‘oppose’; the following is a list of their ‘Resolutions’ opposing or against various topics:
Opposing Any Increase in the Starting Wage
Opposing Employer-Paid Health Care Mandates
Opposing Federal Regulation to Extend Unemployment Insurance Benefits to New Parents
Resolution opposing increases in minimum wage linked to the CPI
Resolution Opposing Federal Mandates on Unemployment Insurance
A Resolution Opposing A Federal Commission on State Workers’ Compensation Laws
Opposing Disruptive Union Organizing
Opposing Violence in Labor Disputes
Resolution Opposing “Card Check” and Forced, Compulsory Binding Arbitration
Resolution Opposing Taxpayer Financed Political Campaigns
Resolution in Opposition to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
Resolution Opposing Federal Takeover of State Election Procedures
Resolution in Opposition to Pay-to-Play Legislation
Resolution in Opposition to the REAL ID Act
Resolution in Opposition to EPA”s Regulation of Greenhouse Gases from Mobile Sources
Resolution In Opposition To EPA”s Plan To Regulate Greenhouse Gases Under The Clean Air Act
Resolution in Opposition to the EPA’s “Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule” and the Treatment of Biomass Energy
Resolution in Opposition of Carbon Dioxide Emission Standards
Resolution in Opposition to S. 1602: The “Chemical Security Act of 2002”
Resolution to Oppose the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA)
ALEC Resolution Opposing State and Local Mandates Requiring Warning Labels on Wireless Devices and Packaging
Resolution Opposing Unfair and Unbalanced Insurance “Bad Faith” Legislation
Resolution Opposing Anti-Indemnity And Anti-Additional Insured Legislation
Opposing Federal Legislation to Repeal or Modify the McCarran Ferguson Act (exempts for Insurance Co)
Opposing Government Mandated Disclosure of Proprietary, Trade Secret Information
Opposing Comparable Worth Legislation
Opposing Ergonomic Regulations Based on Unsound Science
Resolution in Opposition to a Consumer Financial Protection Agency
Opposing Government-Imposed Caps or Elimination of ATM Fees
Opposing “Pay at the Pump” Automobile Insurance
Resolution Against Federal Weight-Distance Tax Proposal
Resolution Opposing Federal Non-Commercial Driver’s License Standards
Resolution Opposing the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Proposal on Truck Driver Hours of Service
Resolution Opposing the Transportation Equity for All Americans Act and the Transportation Act for All Americans
Opposing Federal Standards for Monopoly Bargaining
Opposing Frivolous Complaints and Permits Extortion
Resolution Against U.S. Participation in International Agreement in Copenhagen
Resolution Opposing Government Involvement in Commercial Negotiations
Resolution Against Amnesty
Resolution to Oppose NCCUSL Effort to rewrite the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act
A Resolution in Opposition to Mandatory Unitary Combined Reporting
A Resolution in Opposition to Value-Added Taxes
Resolution Opposing the United Nations Drive for Global Taxes
A Resolution in Opposition to Discriminatory Food and Beverage Taxes
Resolution Opposing a la Carte Cable Offering Requirements
Resolution Opposing the Expansion of the Federal Trade Commissions Rulemaking Authority
It’s hard to imagine they have the average American’s interests at heart. Their resolutions, model ‘acts’ and statments numbered close to, if not over, a 1,000. How can so many Republicans, who say they are against big government, belong to an organization that churns out resolutions and model legislation on every topic under the sun? Who’s actually writing this stuff and, as they issue ‘Guides for State Legislatures’, how many legislatures are using the guides, pushing ALEC model acts? And when do they get time to work on legislation their constituents might actually need and want? If the State Legislatures are looking out for ALEC, who’s looking out for the American citizen?
Reply
  • Mel:

April 1, 2011 at 9:26 am
I think the key to cracking this will be found in their non-profit status 501(c)3. Non-profits cannot lobby and a host of other rules, primarily they have to be NON-profit. Who is making profits? Is it hidden profit, cooked books? ALEC has a strong legal team, but they are not part of the “27 person” office in DC. ALEC lawyers did at one time register as lobbyists in North Dakota. Is that significant, has anyone notified the IRS? Where else have they violated 501(c)3 status? If everyone in their own state starts doing research, hitting the databases we have wonderful access to, we can find where they violate 501(c)3 status.
Reply
    • Jane:

April 1, 2011 at 3:20 pm
According to ALEC, they are “classified by the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) non-profit public policy and educational organization” and they claim, in one publication, that nothing they write “is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the view of the American Legislative Exchange Council, its Board of Director, or its membership,or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before the Congress or in state legislatures.”
However, in the same document they say:
“ALEC’s Asbestos and Silica Claims Priorities Act, which has been adopted in Florida, Texas, Georgia and Ohio,…”,
“Over 20 states have enacted versions of ALEC’s Commonsense Consumption Act…”
If they are not attempting to “aid or hinder” the passage of bills why brag about the enactment of their model legislation? And why state:
“ALEC is able to respond immediately on issues that correlate to its model legislation on both the state and federal level, essentially communicating policy directives from the states”
“Interacting with state legislative leaders on a daily basis, ALEC policy experts have in-depth knowledge on state legislative issues and activity. In addition, ALEC staff, legislators and advisors provide authoritative testimony before state legislatures and Congress.”
Providing full contact details for their experts.
Furthermore they claim
“Legislators also contribute to advancing the ALEC agenda by serving on ALEC’s Board of Directors, or as State or Task Force Chairs. Among the leadership of America’s state legislatures, ALEC members hold an impressive presence: 38 speakers and speakers pro tempore; 25 senate presidents and senate presidents pro tempore; 31 senate majority and minority leaders; 33 house majority and minority leaders. ALEC alumni include six sitting governors, four lieutenant governors, two senior cabinet-level positions, and 96 members of Congress.”
This is an explicit statement that the legislators who join ALEC ‘advance’ ALEC’s agenda and, by implication, actively work on getting ALEC’s model legislation enacted at both State and Federal levels.
And in their Corporate Membership Brochure they claim “To date, ALEC has considered, written, and approved hundreds of model bills, resolutions, and policy statements. Historically, during each legislative cycle, ALEC legislators introduce more than 1,000 pieces of legislation based on these models, approximately 17 percent of which are enacted.”
“A DYNAMIC PARTNERSHIP – One of ALEC’s greatest strengths is the public-private partnership. ALEC provides the private sector with an unparalleled opportunity to have its voice heard, and its perspective appreciated, by the legislative members…The two groups
work in unison to solve the challenges facing the nation. The results are policies that will define the American political landscape in the 21st century.”
Implicit in the literature is
(a) our members are State Legislators, Members of Congress and Senators
(b) you get full access to them, and
(c) they will work with you on designing the policies you want
It is extremely difficult to see how they are not a politically ‘active organization’ attempting to influence legislature in contradiction to the IRS statement that “In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying).” In fact, all of ALEC’s activities appear directed towards that one aim.
=========================================
Reactions
Katherine Yurica of "The Yurica Report" wrote that Paul Weyrich guided Eric Heubeck in writing The Integration of Theory and Practice,[1] and that it calls for the use of deception, misinformation and divisiveness to allow conservative evangelical Christian Republicans to gain and keep control of seats of power in the government of the United States.[2]
TheocracyWatch calls the essay "Paul Weyrich's Training Manual"[4] and "a new manifesto" for Dominionism.[5]
[edit] History of the document
Originally appearing on the FreeCongressFoundation.org website in Summer of 2001,[6] it was removed in early 2006. Yurica says it was taken down from the Free Congress Foundation's website and those of other Christian groups after critics began linking the strategy it detailed to Dominionism and specific policies of the religious right.[7]
[edit] See also

·         The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement
·                      
·         by Eric Heubeck
·          
·         This essay is based on the belief that the truth of an idea is not the primary reason for its acceptance. Far more important is the energy and dedication of the idea's promoters--in other words, the individuals composing a social or political movement...
·         We must, as Mr. Weyrich has suggested, develop a network of parallel cultural institutions existing side-by-side with the dominant leftist cultural institutions. The building and promotion of these institutions will require the development of a movement that will not merely reform the existing post-war conservative movement, but will in fact be forced to supersede it--if it is to succeed at all--because it will pursue a very different strategy and be premised on a very different view of its role in society....
·         There will be three main stages in the unfolding of this movement. The first stage will be devoted to the development of a highly motivated elite able to coordinate future activities. The second stage will be devoted to the development of institutions designed to make an impact on the wider elite and a relatively small minority of the masses. The third stage will involve changing the overall character of American popular culture....
·         Our movement will be entirely destructive, and entirely constructive. We will not try to reform the existing institutions. We only intend to weaken them, and eventually destroy them. We will endeavor to knock our opponents off-balance and unsettle them at every opportunity. All of our constructive energies will be dedicated to the creation of our own institutions....
·         We will maintain a constant barrage of criticism against the Left. We will attack the very legitimacy of the Left. We will not give them a moment's rest. We will endeavor to prove that the Left does not deserve to hold sway over the heart and mind of a single American.  We will offer constant reminders that there is an alternative, there is a better way. When people have had enough of the sickness and decay of today's American culture, they will be embraced by and welcomed into the New Traditionalist movement. The rejection of the existing society by the people will thus be accomplished by pushing them and pulling them simultaneously.
·         We will use guerrilla tactics to undermine the legitimacy of the dominant regime...
·         We must create a countervailing force that is just as adept as the Left at intimidating people and institutions that are used as tools of left-wing activism but are not ideologically committed, such as Hollywood celebrities, multinational corporations, and university administrators. We must be feared, so that they will think twice before opening their mouths...
·         We will be results-oriented rather than good intentions-oriented. Making a good-faith effort and being ideologically sound will be less important than advancing the goals of the movement...
·         There is no medium more conducive to propagandistic purposes than the moving image, and our movement must learn to make use of this medium. A skillfully produced motion picture or television documentary has tremendous persuasive power...Rational arguments simply do not have this power, and all arguments made in print tend to appeal to the rational, critical faculties of the mind to a greater or lesser degree...
·         The visual image allows us to illustrate our beliefs and arguments to our members and others in highly compelling terms--we will be able to show all the examples of cultural decadence, irrationality and disingenuousness in public debate, combined with our commentary, selectively edited and arranged for maximum impact...
·         We need more people with fire in the belly, and we need a message that attracts those kinds of people....We must reframe this struggle as a moral struggle, as a transcendent struggle, as a struggle between good and evil. And we must be prepared to explain why this is so. We must provide the evidence needed to prove this using images and simple terms....
·         Some will argue that “conservatives” do not believe in apocalyptic fervor. The reader should simply ask himself, is he happy with the state of cultural conservatism in this country? If not, does he think it likely that conditions will improve in the future by operating according to the current rules? And if not, is he willing to witness the death of true civilization in this country so that conservatism will not suffer the ungentlemanly taint of "fervor"? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, this movement will not appeal to the reader.
·         [Emphasis was added by the Yurica Report.]
============================================
"Legislators beholden rizona Daily Star: Legislators beholden to Norquist pledge don't deserve their jobs

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
I have previously written here about the Grover Norquist "no tax" pledge that "[Lawmakers] have violated their oath of office by pledging their undying allegiance and loyalty to a corrupt K Street lobbyist, which for them takes precedence over their oath of office, and any accountability to the constituents who elected them. Anyone who signed this pledge is unfit to serve in public office."
Today the Arizona Daily Star joins us with its editorial opinion
Are no-new-tax state lawmakers merely puppets?:
Our View: Legislators beholden to Norquist pledge don't deserve their jobs
What's wrong with this picture? State legislators elected to represent the people of Arizona are receiving direction from Washington-based, uber-conservative, anti-tax gadfly Grover Norquist.
Let us pause here to note that, to our knowledge, Norquist has no skin in Arizona's game. He is not an Arizona taxpayer. He is not registered to vote in Arizona. His children do not attend Arizona public schools.
But he's a player, nevertheless.
As Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services reported on Saturday, Norquist "gave his permission" Friday for Arizona lawmakers who signed his "no tax" pledge to vote to send a measure to the ballot asking Arizona voters to temporarily raise the state sales tax.
Patrick Gleason, state affairs manager for Norquist's group, Americans for Tax Reform, said Norquist would not consider such a vote a violation of the Arizona lawmakers' pledge.
Budget negotiations in Phoenix were at a standoff last week because the GOP could not lasso enough votes to approve Gov. Jan Brewer's proposal to ask voters for a sales-tax increase.
Thirty-eight of Arizona's 90 lawmakers and Brewer herself signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge vowing to "oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes." No Democrats signed.
Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson, is a signatory. So are GOP Reps. Frank Antenori and David Gowan of Tucson.
The pledge has been an albatross on the back of policy-making throughout this legislative session. Lawmakers who signed it have essentially refused to consider revenue-raising measures to help close the state's gaping deficit and to avoid deep cuts in basic services.
But there's more.
Norquist made his approval of the sales-tax vote contingent on lawmakers voting for the tax cuts that are in the stalled budget deal.
The deal includes a 30 percent cut in corporate income taxes and a 6.6 percent cut in individual income-tax rates, both effective in 2011; it also repeals the now-suspended state property tax, which would raise $250 million a year.
Rep. Carl Seel, R-Phoenix, told Fischer he decided to go along with the sales-tax referral after speaking "at length" to someone at Americans for Tax Reform.
"They made it abundantly clear to me that, based on the structure of that bill, it's a net positive and would, in no way, shape or form violate the pledge," Seel said.
Way to represent your constituents' needs, Rep. Seel.
Gleason said Norquist believes the tax cuts compensate for any tax increase voters may approve.
If voters approve the sales-tax increase, it would raise $2.5 billion, but eliminating the property tax would save $1.25 billion over five years and the 2011 income tax cuts would save another $1.6 billion.
"We'll take that," Gleason said.
Americans for Tax Reform may be willing to take that. But what about the citizens of Arizona?
Norquist has a hard-line agenda that he is applying to Arizona without regard to the nuances of our state's tax structure, economy or residents' needs and preferences.
This is from the Americans for Tax Reform Web site (www.atr.org): "Americans for Tax Reform opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle. We believe in a system in which taxes are simpler, flatter, more visible and lower than they are today. The government's power to control one's life derives from its power to tax. We believe that power should be minimized."
We believe there's more to taxation than control, much more.
The government's ability to improve our lives — and remember, we are the government — also derives from its ability to tax.
Taxes pay for police and fire protection. They pay for our schools and universities. They provide health care for the poor and elderly.
So we disagree with Americans for Tax Reform. But even if we agreed, we would object to high-handed, ideologically rigid dictation of Arizona policy from afar.
Here is what Gleason told Capitol Media: Lawmakers must vote on the cuts and the referral to the voters on the same day, and both must be in the "same budget package."
Our complaint is that many pledge signers in Arizona appear more dedicated to adhering to their pledge than to serving their constituents.
At some point during seven months of tortuous budget negotiations in Phoenix, a lawmaker who is truly committed to his constitutents would have said, "Look, I took the pledge in good faith, but it cannot work for Arizona at this time. To take care of our problems in Arizona, we need new sources of revenue, perhaps even a new tax."
Policy for Arizonans should be made by elected officials who should study the state's needs and problems and listen to all views before making up their own minds.
Arizona lawmakers who allow an ideologue more than 2,000 miles away to guide their work in shaping a budget for Arizonans are failing their constituents and their state.
Voters, take note. The Republicans who signed the no-tax pledge and who cleave to it despite this state's budgetary crisis are not putting Arizona's needs first.
Remember that come election time.
Here is a handy dandy list from The Arizona Republic of
Lawmakers who signed Americans for Tax Reform pledge:
Senate:
Sylvia Allen, Snowflake
Bob Burns, Peoria
Pamela Gorman, Anthem
Ron Gould, Lake Havasu City
Chuck Gray, Mesa
Linda Gray, Glendale
Jack Harper, Surprise
John Huppenthal, Chandler
Barbara Leff, Paradise Valley
Al Melvin, Tucson
Russell Pearce, Mesa
Steve Pierce, Prescott
Jay Tibshraeny, Chandler
Thayer Verschoor, Gilbert
House of Representatives:
Kirk Adams, Mesa
Frank Antenori, Tucson
Ray Barnes, Phoenix
Nancy Barto, Phoenix
Andy Biggs, Gilbert
Tom Boone, Peoria
Judy Burges, Skull Valley
Sam Crump, Anthem
Adam Driggs, Phoenix
David Gowan, Tucson
Laurin Hendrix, Gilbert
John Kavanagh, Fountain Hills
Bill Konopnicki, Safford
Debbie Lesko, Glendale
Steve Montenegro, Litchfield Park
Rick Murphy, Peoria
Warde Nichols, Gilbert
Doug Quelland, Phoenix
Carl Seel, Phoenix
David Stevens, Sierra Vista
Andy Tobin, Paulden
Jerry Weiers, Glendale
Jim Weiers, Phoenix
Steve Yarbrough, Gilbert
http://www.google.com/search?q=editorial&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=z6E&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&q=editorial+Arizona+Daily+Star+norquist+%22Legislators+beholden&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=19c76914727a84f6
http://www.atr.org/userfiles/file/StatePledgeQ&A.pdf
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/national/12003727178871/anti-tax-pledge-directs-budget-debates-nationwide/
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20110130/articles/110139987
Meet the new majority: the "leave us alone" coalition.



Link to this page
The old Republican coalition of northerners, big business, farmers, and professionals has given way to a modern coalition of individuals and groups who share a common political goal: They all want to be left alone by the government.

This "Leave Us Alone" coalition is made up of taxpayers who oppose higher taxes and farmers and property owners who don't want the Federal government making their property useless by declaring it a wetland or
endangered species habitat or by inventing some other regulation. The coalition also includes westerners who resent being treated as a colony and having their water and land rationed by eastern bureaucrats. The 17,000,000 small businessmen and women who fear taxes and overregulation, the self-employed attacked by regulations and labor laws written for General Motors in the 1940s, and gun owners who do not want their weapons stolen have joined as well. The "Leave Us Alone" coalition provides a haven as well for the 1,000,000 parents who educate their children at home and the 12% of parents who send their children to private schools.

During the Cold War, Americans who were concerned about the threat of Soviet imperialism were a strong part of the "Leave Us Alone" coalition. They wanted to be left alone from foreign aggression. Today, Americans with the same concern about predatory criminals are part of the coalition. They know that the Left's response to the Soviet Union -- that it wasn't hostile, wasn't a real threat, and behaved badly only because it was mistreated by the U.S. -- is also the Left's response to crime and criminals. They believe that the Left's solution to crime -- gun control -- mirrors its belief that unilateral
arms control was the proper response to the Red Army.

The pro-family, traditional-values conservatives are an important part of the "Leave Us Alone" coalition. The so-called Religious Right did not organize in the wake-of the Supreme Court decision banning school prayer, or even after
Roe v. Wade. The development of a national grassroots conservative activism grew out of a self-defensive response to threats from the Carter Administration to regulate Christian radio stations and remove the tax-exempt status of Christian private schools.

In political terms, the pro-family movement can be understood best as a parents' rights me members fight against government interference and spending (financed by their own tax dollars) that insults and attacks their values and their faith. Pro-family leaders support school choice and the right of parents to direct the education of their own children. They have led the battle to win a $500-per-child credit so that parents can have the resources to take care of their own families, rather than have their income laundered through Washington and returned in the form of day care centers, educational bureaucracy, and social engineering.

The good news for conservatives is that every part of this coalition is growing --
in numbers and political sophistication. While the National Rifle Association has 3,000,-000 members and the Christian Coalition has 1,000,000, 20% of Americans, when polled, say they agree with the NRA and 19% identify with the Christian Coalition. More than 600,000 businesses are members of the National Federation of Independent Business, and every year more and more Americans strike out on their own in the marketplace.

Also important for the future is the fact that the "Leave Us Alone" coalition is built around a single political principle consistent with American history and tradition -- that government should be limited and the people free. As such, it is a "low maintenance" coalition. Conservative leaders can meet in a room, and the taxpayers can agree not to throw condoms at the children of Christians and orthodox Jews; the gun owners can agree not to raise everyone else's taxes; the Christians can agree not to steal anyone's guns; and they all can agree not to take anyone's property. Everyone in the coalition can agree to keep out of the pockets and faces of everyone else. United, they can turn to do battle with the Left. In America, unlike Europe, traditionalist and supporters of limited government are allies, since America's political tradition is one of ingrained distrust for centralized authority.

The Left as embodied in the Democratic Party is a "Takings" coalition made up of groups that want the government to take things -- usually money -- from other Americans and give it to them. This coalition includes government workers, unions, contractors, big-city machines, Federal grant recipients, left-wing intellectuals, and both wings of the "dependency lobby" (those locked into welfare dependency and those who earn a handsome living managing that deliberately never-ending dependency). A recent addition has been the new paymasters of the "Takings" coalition-trial lawyers.

Within these economically self-interested groups are the radical utopians who wish to use the power of the state to restructure society-radical leaders of the feminist, homosexual,
environmentalist, and animal rights movements. Then there are the anti-military pacifists, who now would have us surrender our sovereignty to the United Nations instead of the Soviet Union.

The bad news for the "Takings" coalition is that each of its parts is shrinking, and what remains is fractured and divided.
Labor union bosses are having trouble forcing a younger, more independent workforce into the harness of paying union dues. In state after state, citizens are pushing trial lawyers' litigious hands out of their pockets. Reduced Federal spending, resulting from the Republican Party's drive for a balanced budget, is forcing cutbacks in patronage hiring by corrupt big-city machines. State by state, Republican governors are passing welfare reforms that require work, limit dependency, and displace parasitic social workers. The radical utopians with their plans to remake society are finding that the new Congress is cutting back and threatening to ban the use of tax dollars for political advocacy.

When Bill Clinton first was elected with 43% of the vote in November, 1992, he knew that the "Takings" coalition he led no longer was the governing majority. In 1968,
Hubert Humphrey, the liberal candidate for president, received 42% of the votes, and George McGovern got 38% in 1972. In 1976, the Democrats promoted a more popular candidate who was a Southern Baptist, a naval officer, and an anti-washington populist. After Jimmy Carter became president, he governed as a liberal and dropped to 41% in 1980. Walter Mondale won 41% of the vote in 1984 after promising to raise taxes, and Michael Dukakis reached the liberal high-water mark of 46% in 1988.

Pres. Clinton, therefore, knew that he would have to spend all of his first term accomplishing two tasks: dividing the center-right "Leave Us Alone" coalition and increasing the number of Americans dependent on government who would become permanent fixtures in the "Takings" coalition. His drive for a government takeover of health care-15% of the nation's economy -- thus had nothing to do with health insurance and everything to do with power politics. Clinton has tried to turn the U.S. into a social democracy where the government is in control not only of health care, but education, retirement, and 40% of Americans' jobs. He knows that
socialized medicine is the key to controlling other aspects of Americans' lives. If it were introduced in the U.S., it would be here to stay.

The "Takings" coalitibn almost won on health care in 1994. Moderate Republicans expected to "make a deal" that would allow a gradual expansion of state power in health care if the President approached them, but Clinton never did. His
hubris saved the country from nationalized health care.

Having failed to turn America permanently down the path of social democracy, Clinton has hoped to divide the "Leave Us Alone" coalition by attacking social conservatives as those who would impose their morality on others. This effort has failed. Home schoolers do not wish to force other parents to home school. Gun owners do not insist that others buy guns or that hunting be promoted as an alternative lifestyle. It is not the National Rifle Association out lobbying to have government schools read books entitled Heather Has Two Hunters to preschoolers.

It is, in fact, the Left that strives to use state power to impose its morality by forcing all taxpayers to pay for abortions and public "art" that mocks people of faith. It is the Left that forces parents to pay for government schools where they do not wish to send their children.

Four steps toward freedom

In the wake of Clinton's 1996
reelection, again by less than a majority of the voters, the "Leave Us Alone" coalition has embarked on a four-part strategy to defeat the Washington establishment and the old Democratic majority. It is the same strategy that successfully broke the back of the Soviet empire.

The first step is containment. During the Cold War, Pres. Ronald Reagan made the promise of containment a reality. The Soviet Union ceased to expand and was challenged at its
outmost colonies in Angola, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and Cambodia. Containment in the struggle against Washington translates into the commitment to oppose any and all tax increases. More than 200 representatives and over 30 senators have taken the Taxpayer Protection Pledge against raising taxes. Denied additional tax revenues, the members of the "Takings" coalition have begun to turn against each other. Like gangs of muggers finding the streets empty of tourists, they begin to look at each other as funding sources.

The second step is ending the Left's sense of inevitability. The communists really did believe that their victory was historically and scientifically inevitable. Many anti-communists also thought this. When
Whittaker Chambers left the Communist Party and became a conservative, he commented that he believed he was joining the "losing side of history." In the 1950s, National Review publisher and syndicated columnist William F. Buckley said that the job of conservatives was to stand athwart history and yell, "Stop!" Imagine how difficult it was to recruit people to a movement where they were required to stand on the train tracks and be run down by "history." It might have been the virtuous position, but it was a tough sell.

Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, despite his personal travails, have promoted an optimistic and forward-looking conservatism. Reagan told the communists they would be swept into the ash bin of history. During the 1980s, the idea of an inevitable Soviet victory faded. What became inevitable was the breakup of the empire. In the U.S., devolution of power to the states, a private Social Security system, school choice, and welfare reform are viewed as inevitable by many.

The third step is seizing the moral high ground. Communists used to argue that they would do great things for humanity. There always seemed to be a great deal of blood on the floor and walls, but these sacrifices -- these broken eggs" -- one day would make a glorious omelet, they promised. Eventually, ever, even once enthusiastic proponents of communism lost their faith that all the blood would result in progress. At the end, the border guards in East Berlin did not believe strongly enough to pull the trigger.

Today, in Washington, no one believes in the moral superiority of
statism. Even liberal politicians know that welfare does not help the poor. They know that every day the welfare state destroys the futures and even the lives of individuals. Yet, they claim that they are powerless to stop the monster they have created. The dependency managers of the welfare state dominate their political conventions, and the mindless destruction goes on just as the Soviet Union went on, without believers at the helm. Conservatives know and can articulate that their opposition to welfare spending is not based just on concerns about wasted money, but on a principled opposition to the welfare state's destruction of lives. The "Leave Us Alone" coalition has the moral high ground, and the Left knows it.

The fourth step is defunding the opposition. Reagan cut off loans and strategic trade with a Soviet empire unable to create wealth and technological progress. Conservatives are beginning to cut off the flow of taxpayer funds and coerced labor union dues to the Left. When Republicans succeeded in cutting the
Legal Services Corporation (a government agency that funds left-wing lawyers) by $100,000,000, it was the equivalent of the Left burning down five Heritage Foundations in terms of denying resources to the other side.

In fact, every $1,000,000,000 cut from the budget ends the funding for 20,000 government workers receiving an average pay and benefits package of $50,000. Should the Republicans succeed in reducing government spending by $200,000,000,000 a year from projected trends, about 4,000,000 Americans who would have been dependent on government spending, loans, or jobs will be in the private sector in 2002.

Defunding the Washington establishment is defunding the Left and cutting off its supply lines. This is especially important since more than 75% of the American Left lives off tax dollars.

Freedom is on the march around the globe. There is a great deal of work to be done, but the imperial city of Washington will fall to the forces of freedom just as Moscow did. It is as hollow, as brittle, and as bereft of self-confidence. The "Leave Us Alone" coalition is growing, and it is fighting on the winning side of history.
COPYRIGHT 1997 Society for the Advancement of Education
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 19http://spectator.org/blog/2010/09/04/glenn-beck-and-the-leave-us-al97 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
http://www.logosjournal.com/thompson.pdf
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Meet+the+new+majority:+the+"leave+us+alone"+coalition.-a019622626
www.thefreelibrary.com
5 minutes ago · Like · · Unsubscribe
  •  

·          
Soup McGee
"The first step is containment. During the Cold War, Pres. Ronald Reagan made the promise of containment a reality. The Soviet Union ceased to expand and was challenged at its outmost colonies in Angola, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and Cambodia. Containment in the struggle against Washington translates into the commitment to oppose any and all tax increases. More than 200 representatives and over 30 senators have taken the Taxpayer Protection Pledge against raising taxes. Denied additional tax revenues, the members of the "Takings" coalition have begun to turn against each other. Like gangs of muggers finding the streets empty of tourists, they begin to look at each other as funding sources.

The second step is ending the Left's sense of inevitability. The communists really did believe that their victory was historically and scientifically inevitable. Many anti-communists also thought this. When Whittaker Chambers left the Communist Party and became a conservative, he commented that he believed he was joining the "losing side of history." In the 1950s, National Review publisher and syndicated columnist William F. Buckley said that the job of conservatives was to stand athwart history and yell, "Stop!" Imagine how difficult it was to recruit people to a movement where they were required to stand on the train tracks and be run down by "history." It might have been the virtuous position, but it was a tough sell.

Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, despite his personal travails, have promoted an optimistic and forward-looking conservatism. Reagan told the communists they would be swept into the ash bin of history. During the 1980s, the idea of an inevitable Soviet victory faded. What became inevitable was the breakup of the empire. In the U.S., devolution of power to the states, a private Social Security system, school choice, and welfare reform are viewed as inevitable by many.

The third step is seizing the moral high ground. Communists used to argue that they would do great things for humanity. There always seemed to be a great deal of blood on the floor and walls, but these sacrifices -- these broken eggs" -- one day would make a glorious omelet, they promised. Eventually, ever, even once enthusiastic proponents of communism lost their faith that all the blood would result in progress. At the end, the border guards in East Berlin did not believe strongly enough to pull the trigger.

Today, in Washington, no one believes in the moral superiority of statism. Even liberal politicians know that welfare does not help the poor. They know that every day the welfare state destroys the futures and even the lives of individuals. Yet, they claim that they are powerless to stop the monster they have created. The dependency managers of the welfare state dominate their political conventions, and the mindless destruction goes on just as the Soviet Union went on, without believers at the helm. Conservatives know and can articulate that their opposition to welfare spending is not based just on concerns about wasted money, but on a principled opposition to the welfare state's destruction of lives. The "Leave Us Alone" coalition has the moral high ground, and the Left knows it.

The fourth step is defunding the opposition. Reagan cut off loans and strategic trade with a Soviet empire unable to create wealth and technological progress. Conservatives are beginning to cut off the flow of taxpayer funds and coerced labor union dues to the Left. When Republicans succeeded in cutting the Legal Services Corporation (a government agency that funds left-wing lawyers) by $100,000,000, it was the equivalent of the Left burning down five Heritage Foundations in terms of denying resources to the other side."
4 minutes ago · Like
Soup McGee
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/david-barton-advocates-seven-mountains-dominionism
about a minute ago · Like
Soup McGee
"As we have explained before, Seven Mountains dominionism seeks to place Christians in control over the seven forces that shape and control our culture: (1) Business; (2) Government; (3) Media; (4) Arts and Entertainment; (5) Education; (6) Family; and (7) Religion. The reason for this, as Lance Wallnau, the leading advocate for Seven Mountains theology, explained is that Jesus "doesn't come back until He's accomplished the dominion of nations." And the way "dominion of nations" is accomplished is by having Christians gain control of these "seven mountains" in order to install a "virtual theocracy" overseen by "true apostles" who will fight Satan and his Antichrist agenda.""""""""'
a few seconds ago · Like
Soup McGee fails to see where this is a "both sides do it." Fair and balanced is a hollow philosophy---why remain balanced in the face of unfairness? Cirrusly, why? Who does That benefit?!?!?! UNCUT Immediately!!!

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/13/k-street-project/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5148982
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/erik_prince_and_the_last_crusa
v"Legislators beholden rizona Daily Star: Legislators beholden to Norquist pledge don't deserve their jobs

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
I have previously written here about the Grover Norquist "no tax" pledge that "[Lawmakers] have violated their oath of office by pledging their undying allegiance and loyalty to a corrupt K Street lobbyist, which for them takes precedence over their oath of office, and any accountability to the constituents who elected them. Anyone who signed this pledge is unfit to serve in public office."
Today the Arizona Daily Star joins us with its editorial opinion
Are no-new-tax state lawmakers merely puppets?:
Our View: Legislators beholden to Norquist pledge don't deserve their jobs
What's wrong with this picture? State legislators elected to represent the people of Arizona are receiving direction from Washington-based, uber-conservative, anti-tax gadfly Grover Norquist.
Let us pause here to note that, to our knowledge, Norquist has no skin in Arizona's game. He is not an Arizona taxpayer. He is not registered to vote in Arizona. His children do not attend Arizona public schools.
But he's a player, nevertheless.
As Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services reported on Saturday, Norquist "gave his permission" Friday for Arizona lawmakers who signed his "no tax" pledge to vote to send a measure to the ballot asking Arizona voters to temporarily raise the state sales tax.
Patrick Gleason, state affairs manager for Norquist's group, Americans for Tax Reform, said Norquist would not consider such a vote a violation of the Arizona lawmakers' pledge.
Budget negotiations in Phoenix were at a standoff last week because the GOP could not lasso enough votes to approve Gov. Jan Brewer's proposal to ask voters for a sales-tax increase.
Thirty-eight of Arizona's 90 lawmakers and Brewer herself signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge vowing to "oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes." No Democrats signed.
Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson, is a signatory. So are GOP Reps. Frank Antenori and David Gowan of Tucson.
The pledge has been an albatross on the back of policy-making throughout this legislative session. Lawmakers who signed it have essentially refused to consider revenue-raising measures to help close the state's gaping deficit and to avoid deep cuts in basic services.
But there's more.
Norquist made his approval of the sales-tax vote contingent on lawmakers voting for the tax cuts that are in the stalled budget deal.
The deal includes a 30 percent cut in corporate income taxes and a 6.6 percent cut in individual income-tax rates, both effective in 2011; it also repeals the now-suspended state property tax, which would raise $250 million a year.
Rep. Carl Seel, R-Phoenix, told Fischer he decided to go along with the sales-tax referral after speaking "at length" to someone at Americans for Tax Reform.
"They made it abundantly clear to me that, based on the structure of that bill, it's a net positive and would, in no way, shape or form violate the pledge," Seel said.
Way to represent your constituents' needs, Rep. Seel.
Gleason said Norquist believes the tax cuts compensate for any tax increase voters may approve.
If voters approve the sales-tax increase, it would raise $2.5 billion, but eliminating the property tax would save $1.25 billion over five years and the 2011 income tax cuts would save another $1.6 billion.
"We'll take that," Gleason said.
Americans for Tax Reform may be willing to take that. But what about the citizens of Arizona?
Norquist has a hard-line agenda that he is applying to Arizona without regard to the nuances of our state's tax structure, economy or residents' needs and preferences.
This is from the Americans for Tax Reform Web site (www.atr.org): "Americans for Tax Reform opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle. We believe in a system in which taxes are simpler, flatter, more visible and lower than they are today. The government's power to control one's life derives from its power to tax. We believe that power should be minimized."
We believe there's more to taxation than control, much more.
The government's ability to improve our lives — and remember, we are the government — also derives from its ability to tax.
Taxes pay for police and fire protection. They pay for our schools and universities. They provide health care for the poor and elderly.
So we disagree with Americans for Tax Reform. But even if we agreed, we would object to high-handed, ideologically rigid dictation of Arizona policy from afar.
Here is what Gleason told Capitol Media: Lawmakers must vote on the cuts and the referral to the voters on the same day, and both must be in the "same budget package."
Our complaint is that many pledge signers in Arizona appear more dedicated to adhering to their pledge than to serving their constituents.
At some point during seven months of tortuous budget negotiations in Phoenix, a lawmaker who is truly committed to his constitutents would have said, "Look, I took the pledge in good faith, but it cannot work for Arizona at this time. To take care of our problems in Arizona, we need new sources of revenue, perhaps even a new tax."
Policy for Arizonans should be made by elected officials who should study the state's needs and problems and listen to all views before making up their own minds.
Arizona lawmakers who allow an ideologue more than 2,000 miles away to guide their work in shaping a budget for Arizonans are failing their constituents and their state.
Voters, take note. The Republicans who signed the no-tax pledge and who cleave to it despite this state's budgetary crisis are not putting Arizona's needs first.
Remember that come election time.
Here is a handy dandy list from The Arizona Republic of
Lawmakers who signed Americans for Tax Reform pledge:
Senate:
Sylvia Allen, Snowflake
Bob Burns, Peoria
Pamela Gorman, Anthem
Ron Gould, Lake Havasu City
Chuck Gray, Mesa
Linda Gray, Glendale
Jack Harper, Surprise
John Huppenthal, Chandler
Barbara Leff, Paradise Valley
Al Melvin, Tucson
Russell Pearce, Mesa
Steve Pierce, Prescott
Jay Tibshraeny, Chandler
Thayer Verschoor, Gilbert
House of Representatives:
Kirk Adams, Mesa
Frank Antenori, Tucson
Ray Barnes, Phoenix
Nancy Barto, Phoenix
Andy Biggs, Gilbert
Tom Boone, Peoria
Judy Burges, Skull Valley
Sam Crump, Anthem
Adam Driggs, Phoenix
David Gowan, Tucson
Laurin Hendrix, Gilbert
John Kavanagh, Fountain Hills
Bill Konopnicki, Safford
Debbie Lesko, Glendale
Steve Montenegro, Litchfield Park
Rick Murphy, Peoria
Warde Nichols, Gilbert
Doug Quelland, Phoenix
Carl Seel, Phoenix
David Stevens, Sierra Vista
Andy Tobin, Paulden
Jerry Weiers, Glendale
Jim Weiers, Phoenix
Steve Yarbrough, Gilbert
http://www.google.com/search?q=editorial&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=z6E&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&q=editorial+Arizona+Daily+Star+norquist+%22Legislators+beholden&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=19c76914727a84f6
http://www.atr.org/userfiles/file/StatePledgeQ&A.pdf
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/national/12003727178871/anti-tax-pledge-directs-budget-debates-nationwide/
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20110130/articles/110139987
Meet the new majority: the "leave us alone" coalition.



Link to this page
The old Republican coalition of northerners, big business, farmers, and professionals has given way to a modern coalition of individuals and groups who share a common political goal: They all want to be left alone by the government.

This "Leave Us Alone" coalition is made up of taxpayers who oppose higher taxes and farmers and property owners who don't want the Federal government making their property useless by declaring it a wetland or
endangered species habitat or by inventing some other regulation. The coalition also includes westerners who resent being treated as a colony and having their water and land rationed by eastern bureaucrats. The 17,000,000 small businessmen and women who fear taxes and overregulation, the self-employed attacked by regulations and labor laws written for General Motors in the 1940s, and gun owners who do not want their weapons stolen have joined as well. The "Leave Us Alone" coalition provides a haven as well for the 1,000,000 parents who educate their children at home and the 12% of parents who send their children to private schools.

During the Cold War, Americans who were concerned about the threat of Soviet imperialism were a strong part of the "Leave Us Alone" coalition. They wanted to be left alone from foreign aggression. Today, Americans with the same concern about predatory criminals are part of the coalition. They know that the Left's response to the Soviet Union -- that it wasn't hostile, wasn't a real threat, and behaved badly only because it was mistreated by the U.S. -- is also the Left's response to crime and criminals. They believe that the Left's solution to crime -- gun control -- mirrors its belief that unilateral
arms control was the proper response to the Red Army.

The pro-family, traditional-values conservatives are an important part of the "Leave Us Alone" coalition. The so-called Religious Right did not organize in the wake-of the Supreme Court decision banning school prayer, or even after
Roe v. Wade. The development of a national grassroots conservative activism grew out of a self-defensive response to threats from the Carter Administration to regulate Christian radio stations and remove the tax-exempt status of Christian private schools.

In political terms, the pro-family movement can be understood best as a parents' rights me members fight against government interference and spending (financed by their own tax dollars) that insults and attacks their values and their faith. Pro-family leaders support school choice and the right of parents to direct the education of their own children. They have led the battle to win a $500-per-child credit so that parents can have the resources to take care of their own families, rather than have their income laundered through Washington and returned in the form of day care centers, educational bureaucracy, and social engineering.

The good news for conservatives is that every part of this coalition is growing --
in numbers and political sophistication. While the National Rifle Association has 3,000,-000 members and the Christian Coalition has 1,000,000, 20% of Americans, when polled, say they agree with the NRA and 19% identify with the Christian Coalition. More than 600,000 businesses are members of the National Federation of Independent Business, and every year more and more Americans strike out on their own in the marketplace.

Also important for the future is the fact that the "Leave Us Alone" coalition is built around a single political principle consistent with American history and tradition -- that government should be limited and the people free. As such, it is a "low maintenance" coalition. Conservative leaders can meet in a room, and the taxpayers can agree not to throw condoms at the children of Christians and orthodox Jews; the gun owners can agree not to raise everyone else's taxes; the Christians can agree not to steal anyone's guns; and they all can agree not to take anyone's property. Everyone in the coalition can agree to keep out of the pockets and faces of everyone else. United, they can turn to do battle with the Left. In America, unlike Europe, traditionalist and supporters of limited government are allies, since America's political tradition is one of ingrained distrust for centralized authority.

The Left as embodied in the Democratic Party is a "Takings" coalition made up of groups that want the government to take things -- usually money -- from other Americans and give it to them. This coalition includes government workers, unions, contractors, big-city machines, Federal grant recipients, left-wing intellectuals, and both wings of the "dependency lobby" (those locked into welfare dependency and those who earn a handsome living managing that deliberately never-ending dependency). A recent addition has been the new paymasters of the "Takings" coalition-trial lawyers.

Within these economically self-interested groups are the radical utopians who wish to use the power of the state to restructure society-radical leaders of the feminist, homosexual,
environmentalist, and animal rights movements. Then there are the anti-military pacifists, who now would have us surrender our sovereignty to the United Nations instead of the Soviet Union.

The bad news for the "Takings" coalition is that each of its parts is shrinking, and what remains is fractured and divided.
Labor union bosses are having trouble forcing a younger, more independent workforce into the harness of paying union dues. In state after state, citizens are pushing trial lawyers' litigious hands out of their pockets. Reduced Federal spending, resulting from the Republican Party's drive for a balanced budget, is forcing cutbacks in patronage hiring by corrupt big-city machines. State by state, Republican governors are passing welfare reforms that require work, limit dependency, and displace parasitic social workers. The radical utopians with their plans to remake society are finding that the new Congress is cutting back and threatening to ban the use of tax dollars for political advocacy.

When Bill Clinton first was elected with 43% of the vote in November, 1992, he knew that the "Takings" coalition he led no longer was the governing majority. In 1968,
Hubert Humphrey, the liberal candidate for president, received 42% of the votes, and George McGovern got 38% in 1972. In 1976, the Democrats promoted a more popular candidate who was a Southern Baptist, a naval officer, and an anti-washington populist. After Jimmy Carter became president, he governed as a liberal and dropped to 41% in 1980. Walter Mondale won 41% of the vote in 1984 after promising to raise taxes, and Michael Dukakis reached the liberal high-water mark of 46% in 1988.

Pres. Clinton, therefore, knew that he would have to spend all of his first term accomplishing two tasks: dividing the center-right "Leave Us Alone" coalition and increasing the number of Americans dependent on government who would become permanent fixtures in the "Takings" coalition. His drive for a government takeover of health care-15% of the nation's economy -- thus had nothing to do with health insurance and everything to do with power politics. Clinton has tried to turn the U.S. into a social democracy where the government is in control not only of health care, but education, retirement, and 40% of Americans' jobs. He knows that
socialized medicine is the key to controlling other aspects of Americans' lives. If it were introduced in the U.S., it would be here to stay.

The "Takings" coalitibn almost won on health care in 1994. Moderate Republicans expected to "make a deal" that would allow a gradual expansion of state power in health care if the President approached them, but Clinton never did. His
hubris saved the country from nationalized health care.

Having failed to turn America permanently down the path of social democracy, Clinton has hoped to divide the "Leave Us Alone" coalition by attacking social conservatives as those who would impose their morality on others. This effort has failed. Home schoolers do not wish to force other parents to home school. Gun owners do not insist that others buy guns or that hunting be promoted as an alternative lifestyle. It is not the National Rifle Association out lobbying to have government schools read books entitled Heather Has Two Hunters to preschoolers.

It is, in fact, the Left that strives to use state power to impose its morality by forcing all taxpayers to pay for abortions and public "art" that mocks people of faith. It is the Left that forces parents to pay for government schools where they do not wish to send their children.

Four steps toward freedom

In the wake of Clinton's 1996
reelection, again by less than a majority of the voters, the "Leave Us Alone" coalition has embarked on a four-part strategy to defeat the Washington establishment and the old Democratic majority. It is the same strategy that successfully broke the back of the Soviet empire.

The first step is containment. During the Cold War, Pres. Ronald Reagan made the promise of containment a reality. The Soviet Union ceased to expand and was challenged at its
outmost colonies in Angola, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and Cambodia. Containment in the struggle against Washington translates into the commitment to oppose any and all tax increases. More than 200 representatives and over 30 senators have taken the Taxpayer Protection Pledge against raising taxes. Denied additional tax revenues, the members of the "Takings" coalition have begun to turn against each other. Like gangs of muggers finding the streets empty of tourists, they begin to look at each other as funding sources.

The second step is ending the Left's sense of inevitability. The communists really did believe that their victory was historically and scientifically inevitable. Many anti-communists also thought this. When
Whittaker Chambers left the Communist Party and became a conservative, he commented that he believed he was joining the "losing side of history." In the 1950s, National Review publisher and syndicated columnist William F. Buckley said that the job of conservatives was to stand athwart history and yell, "Stop!" Imagine how difficult it was to recruit people to a movement where they were required to stand on the train tracks and be run down by "history." It might have been the virtuous position, but it was a tough sell.

Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, despite his personal travails, have promoted an optimistic and forward-looking conservatism. Reagan told the communists they would be swept into the ash bin of history. During the 1980s, the idea of an inevitable Soviet victory faded. What became inevitable was the breakup of the empire. In the U.S., devolution of power to the states, a private Social Security system, school choice, and welfare reform are viewed as inevitable by many.

The third step is seizing the moral high ground. Communists used to argue that they would do great things for humanity. There always seemed to be a great deal of blood on the floor and walls, but these sacrifices -- these broken eggs" -- one day would make a glorious omelet, they promised. Eventually, ever, even once enthusiastic proponents of communism lost their faith that all the blood would result in progress. At the end, the border guards in East Berlin did not believe strongly enough to pull the trigger.

Today, in Washington, no one believes in the moral superiority of
statism. Even liberal politicians know that welfare does not help the poor. They know that every day the welfare state destroys the futures and even the lives of individuals. Yet, they claim that they are powerless to stop the monster they have created. The dependency managers of the welfare state dominate their political conventions, and the mindless destruction goes on just as the Soviet Union went on, without believers at the helm. Conservatives know and can articulate that their opposition to welfare spending is not based just on concerns about wasted money, but on a principled opposition to the welfare state's destruction of lives. The "Leave Us Alone" coalition has the moral high ground, and the Left knows it.

The fourth step is defunding the opposition. Reagan cut off loans and strategic trade with a Soviet empire unable to create wealth and technological progress. Conservatives are beginning to cut off the flow of taxpayer funds and coerced labor union dues to the Left. When Republicans succeeded in cutting the
Legal Services Corporation (a government agency that funds left-wing lawyers) by $100,000,000, it was the equivalent of the Left burning down five Heritage Foundations in terms of denying resources to the other side.

In fact, every $1,000,000,000 cut from the budget ends the funding for 20,000 government workers receiving an average pay and benefits package of $50,000. Should the Republicans succeed in reducing government spending by $200,000,000,000 a year from projected trends, about 4,000,000 Americans who would have been dependent on government spending, loans, or jobs will be in the private sector in 2002.

Defunding the Washington establishment is defunding the Left and cutting off its supply lines. This is especially important since more than 75% of the American Left lives off tax dollars.

Freedom is on the march around the globe. There is a great deal of work to be done, but the imperial city of Washington will fall to the forces of freedom just as Moscow did. It is as hollow, as brittle, and as bereft of self-confidence. The "Leave Us Alone" coalition is growing, and it is fighting on the winning side of history.
COPYRIGHT 1997 Society for the Advancement of Education
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 19http://spectator.org/blog/2010/09/04/glenn-beck-and-the-leave-us-al97 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
http://www.logosjournal.com/thompson.pdf
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Meet+the+new+majority:+the+"leave+us+alone"+coalition.-a019622626
www.thefreelibrary.com
5 minutes ago · Like · · Unsubscribe
  •  

·          
Soup McGee
"The first step is containment. During the Cold War, Pres. Ronald Reagan made the promise of containment a reality. The Soviet Union ceased to expand and was challenged at its outmost colonies in Angola, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and Cambodia. Containment in the struggle against Washington translates into the commitment to oppose any and all tax increases. More than 200 representatives and over 30 senators have taken the Taxpayer Protection Pledge against raising taxes. Denied additional tax revenues, the members of the "Takings" coalition have begun to turn against each other. Like gangs of muggers finding the streets empty of tourists, they begin to look at each other as funding sources.

The second step is ending the Left's sense of inevitability. The communists really did believe that their victory was historically and scientifically inevitable. Many anti-communists also thought this. When Whittaker Chambers left the Communist Party and became a conservative, he commented that he believed he was joining the "losing side of history." In the 1950s, National Review publisher and syndicated columnist William F. Buckley said that the job of conservatives was to stand athwart history and yell, "Stop!" Imagine how difficult it was to recruit people to a movement where they were required to stand on the train tracks and be run down by "history." It might have been the virtuous position, but it was a tough sell.

Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, despite his personal travails, have promoted an optimistic and forward-looking conservatism. Reagan told the communists they would be swept into the ash bin of history. During the 1980s, the idea of an inevitable Soviet victory faded. What became inevitable was the breakup of the empire. In the U.S., devolution of power to the states, a private Social Security system, school choice, and welfare reform are viewed as inevitable by many.

The third step is seizing the moral high ground. Communists used to argue that they would do great things for humanity. There always seemed to be a great deal of blood on the floor and walls, but these sacrifices -- these broken eggs" -- one day would make a glorious omelet, they promised. Eventually, ever, even once enthusiastic proponents of communism lost their faith that all the blood would result in progress. At the end, the border guards in East Berlin did not believe strongly enough to pull the trigger.

Today, in Washington, no one believes in the moral superiority of statism. Even liberal politicians know that welfare does not help the poor. They know that every day the welfare state destroys the futures and even the lives of individuals. Yet, they claim that they are powerless to stop the monster they have created. The dependency managers of the welfare state dominate their political conventions, and the mindless destruction goes on just as the Soviet Union went on, without believers at the helm. Conservatives know and can articulate that their opposition to welfare spending is not based just on concerns about wasted money, but on a principled opposition to the welfare state's destruction of lives. The "Leave Us Alone" coalition has the moral high ground, and the Left knows it.

The fourth step is defunding the opposition. Reagan cut off loans and strategic trade with a Soviet empire unable to create wealth and technological progress. Conservatives are beginning to cut off the flow of taxpayer funds and coerced labor union dues to the Left. When Republicans succeeded in cutting the Legal Services Corporation (a government agency that funds left-wing lawyers) by $100,000,000, it was the equivalent of the Left burning down five Heritage Foundations in terms of denying resources to the other side."
4 minutes ago · Like
Soup McGee
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/david-barton-advocates-seven-mountains-dominionism
about a minute ago · Like
Soup McGee
"As we have explained before, Seven Mountains dominionism seeks to place Christians in control over the seven forces that shape and control our culture: (1) Business; (2) Government; (3) Media; (4) Arts and Entertainment; (5) Education; (6) Family; and (7) Religion. The reason for this, as Lance Wallnau, the leading advocate for Seven Mountains theology, explained is that Jesus "doesn't come back until He's accomplished the dominion of nations." And the way "dominion of nations" is accomplished is by having Christians gain control of these "seven mountains" in order to install a "virtual theocracy" overseen by "true apostles" who will fight Satan and his Antichrist agenda.""""""""'
a few seconds ago · Like
Soup McGee fails to see where this is a "both sides do it." Fair and balanced is a hollow philosophy---why remain balanced in the face of unfairness? Cirrusly, why? Who does That benefit?!?!?! UNCUT Immediately!!!

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/13/k-street-project/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5148982
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/erik_prince_and_the_last_crusa

No comments:

Post a Comment