Four in 10 Tea Party members are either Democrats or Independents, according to a new national survey. The findings provide one of the most detailed portraits to date of the grassroots movement that started last year. The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic, according to three national polls by the Winston Group, a Republican-leaning firm that conducted the surveys on behalf of an education advocacy group. Two-thirds of the group call themselves conservative, 26 are moderate and 8 percent say they are liberal.
Here is 10,000 pennies on the subject that explains why many conservatives jumped ship from Bush’s spending policies:
In blues, soul, and R&B music men like Bobby Womack, Bobby “Blue” Bland, Teddy Pendergrass, Marvin Gaye, and Al Green were noted specialists in a lyrical aesthetic known as “begging”. “Please, baby please” this, or “please, baby please” that. In my generation, the preeminent “begger” was Keith Sweat. Well, Keith ain’t got NUTHIN on this. Televangelist Benny Hinn has posted a plea for $2 million in donations on his website. Hinn says he accumulated the deficit in the past few months because offerings at some international appearances did not cover expenses.
Actually, it must be in a country that has strict gun laws already and they want to ban knives now. “Knives kill people, not people.” Here is the info from the YouTube site:
This is a knife crime animation about a group of Scottish teenagers and the consequences of knife crime. Watch how a knife affects one teen as he finds himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. http://www.noknivesbetterlives.com
Of course I am sure most “knife” crimes are not “first time ‘knifers’,” as shown in the animation, but street gangs and criminals. This is like people here depicting a child finding a gun and playing with it (the lowest amount of death due to negligence [not the gun itself], and then wanting to ban all guns. The question becomes this, will Scotland ban knives, or require a license to buy a set of knives for your kitchen?I wait with bated breath… not!
This “JourNOlist” thing gets worse and worse as time progresses. Here is a portion of an open letter from Brent Bozell to the Washington Post:
The JournoList scandal is getting worse every day and The Washington Post is at the center of it. Blogger Ezra Klein ran the operation and at least three other staffers were members. (Blogger Greg Sargent claims he wasn’t a member after he joined the Post.) In addition, at least one member of Slate and two from Newsweek, also owned by Washingtonpost. Newsweek Interactive, were members.
The almost constant revelations of political activism and journalistic conspiracy raise an enormous number of questions about Post policies, professionalism and ethics. As a conservative, and therefore a member of the movement JournoListers sought to demonize, I feel Post readers are owed full disclosure.
Any understanding of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics makes clear this list and the Post’s involvement violate a number of ethical guidelines. In fact, much of the code seems to have been ignored. Here are just a few examples from the code.
Journalists should:
“Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting,”
“Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection,”
“Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived,”
“Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests [emphasis added] and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.”
This great article comes from LIBERTARIAN REPUBLICAN and should be read by all, in it entirety. I am discussion this very same topic over at THE WORLD ACCORDING TO KIMBA, a misguided friend. He feels that to try and stop this Mosque is an affront to our history, not wanting to make subject/object distinctions, but instead tear at false arguments and ideas behind the opposition. Between this and the linked post of a friends site, one can piece together a pretty tight argument as to why this Mosques shouldn’t be built. Article will follow video. (Take note that Pamela had rushed from the top video to the Hannity show here — that’s why she is in the same suit.)
As one of America’s leading Libertarian thinkers, perhaps I’m always expected to give the “Libertarian answer” to every issue. But sometimes one has to speak not as a Libertarian, Republican or Democrat, but rather as an American- preferably a common sense American. The issue of allowing a mosque to be built in the shadow of the 9/11 terrorist tragedy is one of those times.
The answer is simple for a common sense American- I support religious freedom, as all Americans should. But this is not a case of religious freedom. Yes, Muslims can build their mosque virtually anywhere in America- despite 9/11…despite the Times Square bomber…despite plots by Islamic extremists to blow up the New York subway system…despite everything happening in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. That’s what makes our country great. We do in fact support religious freedom. You can build a mosque virtually anywhere in America.
However, there are also the rights and sensibilities of others to consider in a free society.
Does “religious freedom” mean hate groups should build statues to Hitler in front of Jewish temples in America? Should Americans raise money to build Jewish temples and Christian churches at Mecca? Should Japan build a statue to the bravery of their pilots at Pearl Harbor? Should the U.S. build a statue to the bravery of our pilots at the site of Hiroshima? Aren’t those examples all about “freedom of expression,” “religious freedom” and property rights? Perhaps, but is it too much to ask for a little consideration and respect toward others?
[….]
Privately funded or backed by Foreign Governments?
[….]
Yes, private individuals and organizations have the right to build houses of worship with their own funds. But one has to wonder where the money is coming from to build a 15-story building on some of the most expensive real estate in the country. We Americans believe in the separation of Church and State. If it turns out that this project is sponsored by a foreign government — either directly or through a state-sponsored organization that engages in terrorism — than the idea of this being an issue of religious freedom is a sham and an argument can be made that our Constitution would actually prohibit this mosque from being built.
However, if this is privately funded by parties with no ties to a foreign government, I have to believe that we have enough people in this country who are offended by the prospect of a mosque at Ground Zero, that the money can be raised to buy this land at a fair price from the owners. I know I’d be the first to contribute to a foundation to keep this sacred land from ever being desecrated by a symbol of the very groups that attacked America on 9/11.
We can also put public pressure on the property owners to sell to this new patriotic foundation funded by Americans. We can organize massive protests, filling the streets surrounding this property with patriotic Americans concerned that the hallowed ground of 9/11 never be used as a political tool to taunt or embarrass the United States, or as a place to preach intolerance towards Americans. I, for one, am ready to fly 3000 miles to New York to join the protest.
These are the only rational answers for common sense patriotic Americans who still believe in a free society. In situations like this, none of us can afford to be Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, or politicians of any stripe. We are all proud Americans.
Editor’s Note – Wayne Root was the 2008 Libertarian Vice-Presidential candidate. He is currently an At-Large Member of the Libertarian National Committee, and Chair of the Libertarian Committee for Congressional candidates.
Ed Schultz continues the lie that the Bush tax-cuts only effect the top 2% of income earners. Let me tell you something. I have been diagnosed with MS, and my first bout with it was bad. Now, I like to say I’m 95% healthy and ready and raring to work. Yeah! Try and find a job right now. My wife has been blessed to just cover us. Ask her if the Bush tax cuts affect her or not…
I’d venture to say that most Americans who became parents in the last decade know Schultz’s claim is glaringly inaccurate for a specific reason — the child tax credit, which doubled to $1,000 per-child annually under the Bush tax cut of 2001. And helpfully indeed for those of us who aren’t wealthy, the child tax credit extended across all income brackets.
We are far from the top tier of income earners. NewsBusters continues:
“Unless Congress votes to extend the tax credit, the maximum amount will revert back to $500 for tax year 2011, and the number of families eligible for that amount will be much less as tougher eligibility standards that existed prior to EGTRRA (Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act) will go back into effect,” writes Eric Fox at Forbes.com.
As described by Erik Erickson yesterday at RedState, the Bush tax cut of 2001 was “George Bush’s version of Barack Obama’s stimulus plan” —
However, instead of creating a bunch of temporary government jobs and subsidizing the expansion of government, it cut tax rates, increased the child tax credit, increased the standard deduction for married couples, and increased contribution caps for a variety of savings programs. The result? The recession ended in November of 2001. (Source)
But, September 11, 2001, happened as the economy was recovering and throughout 2002, the economy grew at an anemic rate. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 revved up the 2001 tax cut package and cut taxes again on dividends and capital gains.
The result?
Under George W. Bush’s ‘tax cuts for the rich’ the rich paid more in taxes in 2005 than any time in the prior 20 years. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal noted, thanks to George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, the richest one percent went from paying 25 percent of all income taxes in 1990 to 39 percent in 2005. The richest 5 percent went from paying 44 percent of all income taxes in 1990 to paying 60 percent of all income taxes in 2005.
… More crucially, after the 2001 initial tax cuts, the annual growth rate went from 0.3 percent in 2001 to 2.5 percent in 2002. By 2004, GDP growth was the highest in 20 years. (Source)
Likewise, after the 2003 tax cuts, the unemployment rate fell to the lowest level since World War II. Let me repeat that: the Bush economic program created the lowest unemployment level ever. In fact, economists liken it to full employment given the demographic composition of those who were left on the unemployment line.
