CNS News Ticker

Sports Tickers






Stock Market Indices
&ltPARAM NAME="1:multiline" VALUE="true">
[Scroll Left] <     • STOP •     > [Scroll Right]



Haircut: 25 Cents / Shave: 15 Cents / Talk Of The Town: Free



The Inside Track ... News With Views You Won't Hear On The News ...


New GlowBarber Shoppe Gazette Articles Are Also Indexed Online At ... http://del.icio.us/Gazette

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Election 2006: Republicans Deserve To Lose


POLITICS / ELECTION 2006: REPUBLICANS DESERVE TOLOSE



ChuckBaldwin



Smiley Flag WaverWith congressional elections less than three weeks away, Republicans are extremely nervous about possible major losses in both chambers. To which I say, "They deserve to lose!"

The Republican Party in Washington, D.C., has done nothing to show the American people that they are any better than the Democrats. They have exploded the level of federal spending. They have broken promise after promise to their conservative constituents. With total control of the entire federal government, Republicans have created a Big Brother regime that Democrats could only dream about. This is not the kind of leadership that deserves to be rewarded with reelection.



REPUBLICANS DESERVE TO LOSE


~ By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

October 20, 2006

NewsWithViews.com


The foibles of the current power structure in Washington, D.C., continue to mount. It has gotten so bad that it is becoming extremely difficult to tell who the good guys are anymore. Those of us who expected Republicans to provide some sanity to national leadership have been jolted into the reality that there is little if any relief when the GOP is at the helm.

Just this past week, President George W. Bush boldly proclaimed that "part of the solution to illegal immigration 'must' include a way for those already in the United States but without legal authorization to be given that status." (Source: World Net Daily) In other words, amnesty.

In spite of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans strongly disapprove of any form of amnesty for illegal aliens, President Bush seems determined to provide just that. Such a policy certainly makes the President's "war on terror" seem disingenuous.

With upwards of 20 million illegals already here and millions more pouring unimpeded across our southern border, the prospect that terrorists are already among us is very real. Last year, the Washington Times reported that Hezbollah has been infiltrating the United States and is believed to have cells in at least ten U.S. cities. How many other terrorists have snuck across the border is anyone's guess. Yet, President Bush fully intends to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. However, the push for amnesty does not extend to unborn babies.

The U.S. Supreme Court last week, without comment or dissent, "rejected a request from Sandra Cano, the Georgia woman who was used as the plaintiff in the 1973 ruling that created a 'health' exception for abortions, to reconsider the case." (Source: World Net Daily) This was the infamous Doe v. Bolton ruling that, along with the Roe v. Wade decision, legalized abortion-on-demand in all three trimesters for virtually any reason.

Please understand that all but two of the current Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents, including the last two, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who were appointed by G.W. Bush. So, once again, a Republican-dominated Supreme Court has reaffirmed abortion-on-demand. This latest decision does not send a hopeful message to pro-life conservatives who were assured that Bush's Supreme Court appointees would help tip the balance of the Court in favor of protecting unborn babies.

Add to the above the recent announcement by FBI Director Robert Mueller that he expects Internet service providers to record and store their customers' online activities. (Source: CNET News.com) Of course, this is merely the latest example of how the Bush administration desires to turn America into an Orwellian surveillance society. In fact, the American people today are under as much, if not more, government scrutiny than people in communist China.

With congressional elections less than three weeks away, Republicans are extremely nervous about possible major losses in both chambers. To which I say, "They deserve to lose!"

The Republican Party in Washington, D.C., has done nothing to show the American people that they are any better than the Democrats. They have exploded the level of federal spending. They have broken promise after promise to their conservative constituents. With total control of the entire federal government, Republicans have created a Big Brother regime that Democrats could only dream about. This is not the kind of leadership that deserves to be rewarded with reelection.

Until the American people awaken (and I hope it is soon) to the fact that neither of the two major parties deserves their support and start electing truly independent, constitutionally-minded people to public office, the best we can hope for is gridlock. At least when Republicans and Democrats are attacking each other, they are not attacking the liberties of the American people. I shudder to think what two more years of total Republican domination would look like. It would doubtless look as bad as when Democrats enjoyed exclusive power.

As it stands right now, no matter which party wins the elections, the American people and constitutional government continue to lose. It really is difficult to know who the good guys are, isn't it?

© 2006 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved


E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, and are not for sale or resale.




Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.

Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, "Chuck Baldwin Live" This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and newspapers.

To learn more about his radio talk show please visit his web site at: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. When responding, please include your name, city and state.

E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com



E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Democrat Party Doesn't Care About Working Class


POLITICS / DEMOCRAT PARTY DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE WORKING CLASS



Devvy Kidd



Smiley Flag WaverI have belonged to no party since 1996. My blind loyalty isn't to either one of the evil machines passing themselves off as a two party system; they are just two wings on the same bird of prey. Let me tell you just a few of the ways the Democratic Party has betrayed the working class ...



THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE WORKING CLASS



~ By: Devvy Kidd
October 21, 2006



"The New Deal will bring the Communist Party within striking distance of overthrow of the American form of government. ..." --Arthur Henning, 1935, Chicago Tribune. "... The New Deal is to America what the early phase of Nazism was to Germany." --Mark Sullivan, Buffalo Evening News, 1935

My column on the women's vote drew the usual screeching from women who know nothing about the U.S. Constitution, but instead, have given their blind loyalty to Marxists like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, drunks like Teddy Chappaquidick Kennedy and craven hucksters like Harry Reid. The sissy men in the Democratic Party kow tow to sexual deviants, women who demand the "right" to murder their unborn baby on demand and every other special interest hot button group in the country. These weak kneed pansies spit on their oath of office every day by promising to violate the supreme law of the land for votes by those who have been duped by this machine since FDR took his place in history and began the systematic destruction of the working class.

I have belonged to no party since 1996. My blind loyalty isn't to either one of the evil machines passing themselves off as a two party system; they are just two wings on the same bird of prey. Let me tell you just a few of the ways the Democratic Party has betrayed the working class:

Taxing them to death (and, yes, I will get to the Republicans in my next column). How many good, decent Americans who belong to the Democratic Party know anything about the Federal Reserve and it's feeding artery, the IRS? Oh, they complain about taxes, everyone does. But, do Democratic voters have any real understanding that in order to feed the unconstitutional "Federal" Reserve Banking System, Congress will continue to steal the sweat off their backs in bigger and bigger chunks via heavier taxation until they retire in poverty? If you would like to learn about the "FED," my Reading Room is full of books; you can read an indictment against the "FED" here. Sixteen years ago I woke up and it wasn't because of the taxation issue, it was because of the privately owned Federal Reserve and its systematic looting of the American people.

America's participation in the communist United Nations is unconstitutional; see here. America should never have become a member of the an organization whose mission is to destroy the sovereignty of our republic. The American people are being raped in taxes to fund this corrupt cabal while being further dragged into a one world totalitarian nightmare. This is NOT what our military have fought and died for in every war since WWI. Every Democrat in Congress votes to continue stealing from your wallet to fund this maniacal operation. Before vote fraud began stealing our elections, we actually had real statesmen and women in Congress:

On January 9, 1953, Senator John W. Bricker gave a speech titled, 'Our Liberty Must be Guarded.' This was a major discussion about the loss of our sovereignty and the passing of the UN Covenant of Human Rights. Bricker felt there wasn't much chance of getting it passed [this was before electronic ballot fraud started insuring no more loyal Americans would serve in Congress, only the corrupt, the ignorant and the supporters of globalism] but he nonetheless said:

"But the Constitution should be amended now to forestall a loss of freedom to our children and to oncoming generations through the power of treaties and executive agreements designed to circumvent the Constitution."

February 3, 1953, Congressman Burdick, asking the question, "Mr. Speaker, the subject I was going to speak on now and do speak on is: What can this country, the U.S. do to prevent the United Nations from destroying the Constitution of the United States of America and the constitution and laws of the various states of the Union?" The liberals and the government's media apparatus all chant that the UN is the answer to the world's problems of violence, terrorism and ethnic cleansing. What rubbish. What pure, undiluted propaganda.

January 15,1962, Congressman Utt: "You can expect to see a one world government, Communist controlled, under the United Nations. You will see the United Nations run up astronomical debts, which we, under the terms of the treaty, are bound to pay."

We're talking hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars to fund the anti-American agenda of the UN, the International Monetary Fund, USAID and World Bank. There is NO constitutional authority to steal from the people's treasury to fund these mechanisms bankrupting America, yet not one single Democrat in Congress has stepped forward to end our participation in any of them because they are owned by the banking cartels. Showing their civic ignorance, every Democrat in Congress, like a drunk who can't get it straight, constantly regurgitates "our democracy." How many folks in America who vote Democrat know that America is NOT a democracy, but a constitutional republic? They don't. Learn the difference by clicking here. Print it out, read it and reject democracy:

"Democracy is the most vile form of government ... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." James Madison, known as the Father of the U.S. Constitution

In 1996 in my Blind Loyalty booklet, I wrote about The Democratic Socialists of America and the 57 members in Congress - all Democrats - who belong to this organization working to undermine America and our legal form of government. Nary a ripple crossed this great country. It's no great secret that a large number of Hollywood icons and "stars" throw bushels of money at the Democrats each election. Why? Because they want the Democratic Party to continue their agenda ranging from fascism, socialism to communism cloaked in "democracy" and "liberalism." Why? Because they obviously believe in the ideology of those forms of government. Back on October 9, 1999, I wrote a column on Warren Beatty and this very issue. I hope you can take the time to read it over a cup of coffee or on your lunch break. You will find it shocking.

The illegals invasion. No matter how many times you define legal vs illegal aliens, Democrats in Congress go into their socialist spiel about human rights, jobs Americans won't do and all the other claptrap. After all, they need those votes from illegals voting. Both Frosty Wooldridge and I have done extensive writing on this invasion which is one of the major factors contributing to the death of the middle class and jobs. If one listens, I mean really listens to the garbage out of the mouths of "liberal" Democrats about illegals, it all boils down to endorsing and rewarding foreigners who smuggle themselves into our country, committing a criminal act in the process. That's what Democrats in Congress wish to reward right along with the RINOs serving in that corrupt body of lawbreakers.

The Democratic Party has NEVER told their constituents the truth about social security, the voluntary nature of participation and how it dooms the working class to live at poverty level in their golden years; see my columns on SS here. Social security can't be saved; reform and so-called privatization are more distractions pumped out by "think tanks." Yes, it must be funded out for those who depend on it, but let this mathematically doomed system die out a natural death.

Last week I wrote about withholding. No Democrat in Congress has told their constituents the truth about this taxing scheme that must be abolished. If Congress as a whole really wanted to help the working class, they would have abolished this scam decades ago. Americans would take home their ENTIRE wages for their labor and just think about how that would help everyone and the economy.

One of the universally accepted political myths is that Democrats take care of domestic matters while Republican stewardship is better for international issues. Of course, this is a big, fat lie when you look at the voting record of members of Congress since FDR. The Democrats try to appear tough on terrorism, but it's all just a smokescreen. Too many of them went right along with the Republican majority in sanctioning the unconstitutional invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq based on a mountain range of bald faced lies. Now they want you to reward them and their party for their failure to uphold the supreme law of the land. Do I believe the Democratic "leadership" in Congress would be reckless if left in charge of national security? Absolutely, but what the Republicans have done in the past five years is so egregious, one runs out of words to describe their destruction of the Bill of Rights. Contrary to the hysterical rhetoric by Shallow Shawn Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, just because millions of good, decent, loyal Americans know the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were born of lies and executed unlawfully, doesn't mean any of us are for appeasement of terrorists or hate America.

Jobs. During the last pretend election, I watched a "middle aged white guy" out in Ohio shout into the microphone of a reporter, "This election isn't about Viet Nam or abortion, it's about jobs." Millions of words have been written about unconstitutional treaties (NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA) and the destruction of good American jobs by what's called outsourcing. These factually challenged nincompoops representing Democrats around the country have tried to make the situation worse with their non solution called raising the minimum wage. All Band-Aids, just like the transportation bill passed last year. This bill signed into law by Bush, promises to spend $286.5 BILLION dollars to create jobs. The problem is, there are no dollars in the U.S. Treasury. Every penny will have to be borrowed and by the time the interest is paid on those borrowed "dollars," the cost will double. Congressional Record, House, Sept. 29, 1941, page 7583, Congressman Wright Patman on the government borrowing to fund operations:

"Mr. Speaker, our government debt at this time is approximately $50 billion. By the time that it's paid, it will aggregate $100 billion ... The amount of 100 percent is due to the interest charges ... I have never yet had anyone who could, through the use of logic and reason, justify the federal government borrowing the use of its own money ... I believe the time will come when people will demand that this be changed. I believe the time will come in this country when they will actually blame you and me and everyone else connected with this Congress for sitting idly by and permitting such an idiotic system to continue.

"I have talked to the secretary of the Treasury and members of the Federal Reserve Board and other people who are supposed to know about the money system of our country. They know this can be done easily and conveniently and will save money ... We have what is known as the Federal Reserve Bank System. That system is not owned by the government. Many people think that it is because it says "Federal Reserve." It belongs to private banks, private corporations. So we have farmed out to the Federal Reserve Banking System that which is owned exclusively, wholly, 100 percent to the private banks -- we have farmed out to them the privilege of issuing the government's money!"

There is a great deal of media and political hoopla going on about the Foley filth and the possibility that the Republicans will lose control of Congress next month. Voters in the districts of those members of Congress who participated in the cover up over Foley's sodomy lifestyle should be evaluated by their constituents. The constituents in the 16th District in Florida (Foley's vacated seat) will decide which of the lesser evils they will swallow. For people in the 3rd District in California to cast their vote for a member of Congress based on the Foley debacle in Florida would be silly and without rational thought process, but the rats who control the Democratic Party are pitching this stupidity for all it's worth.

If Americans who belong to the Democratic Party would just take the time to understand the money trail, how the fruits of their labor is being stolen and handed over to the international banking cartel, they would boot out every Democrat in Congress and replace them with constitutionalists and real statesmen. You can read about the money and tax issue here. If time is an issue for you, that column and others are on my CDs so you can listen and get educated with FACTS while you drive, jog or working around the house. "More money for education" and the other popular, worn out campaign chants are just more distractions to keep all Americans from learning the painful truth: Democrats have been played for suckers, just like GOP faithful who blindly vote for a party instead of constitutional government.

Any Democrat who voted for the misnamed Patriot Act, the National ID or the Military Commissions Act should be booted out of office, period and don't replace them with clones who are no different than the one you want out of office just because they are a Democrat. Example: Dr. Bob Bowman, candidate for Congress, has become very popular with the 911 Truth Movement. While I respect his military service and his courage in speaking out about 911, I wouldn't vote for him. Dr. Bowman is on the same page as Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. Go to his web site. As a potential big spending Democrat, Bowman wants a national health care system and expansion of Medicare until "every American is covered." If might surprise Bowman to know that I don't want Medicare and will never go under that socialist system. Medicare is a massive failure which will continue to run up astronomical, unpayable debt slapped on the back of my daughter, your children and their children. I won't participate because I know it's wrong and really isn't the solution. Bowman has overlooked the fact that the U.S. Constitution does not authorize Congress to create a "national health care" plan or interfere in the medical practice within the states.

I was shocked at Dr. Bowman's solution to jobs because he starts off real well, but then says, "If the private sector can't provide jobs for all, the government should take up the slack – not with welfare, but with productive work. FDR did it, and it worked. It also resulted in enormous improvements in the nation's infrastructure." Nothing could be further from the truth. FDR's programs did nothing but further socialism and government dependency for jobs. It is NOT the responsibility of the U.S. Government to provide jobs (except in a communist system) other than those absolutely necessary to support legitimate functions, i.e. staff for federal courts and constitutional agencies. What FDR did was deliberately promote more government dependency using the deliberately created depression as justification.

His diabolical agenda should have been been stopped right then and there by a unified Congress. It wasn't for future votes from a desperate population beaten down by the "Great Depression." Bowman wants the dangerous Kyoto Treaty passed. His position on social security taxes is so convoluted, it tells me he knows nothing about Title 42. The bottom line is that while I respect Bowman's stand on 911, if he were elected, the damage he would do in voting for unconstitutional legislation and pushing more socialism upon the American people is exactly what we're trying to get rid of in Congress.

2007 will be a water shed year for this republic, make no mistake about it. It's imperative that Americans learn how they are being sent to the poor house and how our sovereignty is being sold out to foreign interests. Jefferson said it so well:

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be ... if we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."


© 2006 - NewsWithViews.com - All Rights Reserved


Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, and are not for sale or resale.




Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, "Why A Bankrupt America" and "Blind Loyalty," which sold close to 2,000,000 copies. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country, ran for Congress, and is a highly sought after public speaker. Your complimentary copy of the 32-page report may be obtained from El Dorado Gold. Devvy is a contributing writer for www.NewsWithViews.com.

Devvy's website: www.devvy.com

E-mail is: devvyk@earthlink.net



E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Hillary Loses Senate Debate - Big Time



POLITICS / ELECTION 2006: HILLARY LOSES SENATE DEBATE - BIG TIME


NewsMax.com Mast Head



Smiley Flag WaverHillary Clinton was a Richard Nixon look-alike tonight, wearing pancake makeup, featuring hooded eyes that never met the camera, and looking like she felt -- angry at having to waste time justifying her Senate tenure in something as trivial as an election.

Spencer pinned her ears back with his opening statement when he declared: "I am the only person here who really wants to be the Senator from New York . . . she wants to be President."



Hillary Loses Senate Debate . . . Big Time


~ By Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
October 21, 2006


On Friday night, Hillary Clinton finally had to face an unscripted, uncontrolled media event -- a debate with her feisty opponent John Spencer, the Republican candidate for Senator from New York this year.

Spencer pinned her ears back with his opening statement when he declared: "I am the only person here who really wants to be the Senator from New York . . . she wants to be President."

And then he exploited the opening by reminding Hillary "you're not the President yet."

During the debate, Spencer highlighted Hillary's vote against the NSA's wiretapping program and her efforts to kill the Patriot Act.

John Spencer began his challenge to Hillary tonight. The race starts today.

Hillary's huge financial advantage and her lead in the polls was of little use tonight because it was obvious that the empress has no clothes.

While Hillary gave scripted, rehearsed answers, Spencer challenged her failure to deliver on her campaign promises of 200,000 new jobs and mocked her refusal to accept blame for anything, pinning the job loss on Bush and the North Korea bomb on the State Department.

But beyond the words, there were the appearances. Hillary Clinton was a Richard Nixon look-alike tonight, wearing pancake makeup, featuring hooded eyes that never met the camera, and looking like she felt -- angry at having to waste time justifying her Senate tenure in something as trivial as an election.

John Spencer may not beat Hillary, but he sure made her sweat tonight. If she wins by less than 12 points -- the margin Lazio lost by in 2000 -- she will have a lot of explaining to do. And John Spencer, may just be the guy to make it happen.




NewsMax.com
4152 West Blue Heron Blvd, Ste 1114
Riviera Beach, FL, 33404 USA




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Friday, October 20, 2006

KGB Letter Links Sen. Kennedy To Soviet Communists


POLITICS / KGB LETTER LINKS DEMOCRAT SENATOR EDWARD KENNEDY [D-MASS.] TO SOVIET COMMUNISTS



CNS Mast Head



Smiley Flag WaverA KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War that shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan's foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.

The letter, dated May 14, 1983, was sent from the head of the KGB to Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Soviet Union's Communist Party.

Former U.S. Sen. John Tunney (D-Calif.) had traveled to Moscow on behalf of Kennedy to seek out a partnership with Andropov.



Nation

KGB Letter Outlines Sen. Kennedy's Overtures To Soviets, Prof Says


~ By Kevin Mooney
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 20, 2006


(CNSNews.com) -- The antipathy that congressional Democrats have today toward President George W. Bush is reminiscent of their distrust of President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War, a political science professor says.

"We see some of the same sentiments today, in that some Democrats see the Republican president as being a threat and the true obstacle to peace, instead of seeing our enemies as the true danger," said Paul Kengor, a political science professor at Grove City College and the author of new book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.

In his book, which came out this week, Kengor focuses on a KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War that shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan's foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.

The letter, dated May 14, 1983, was sent from the head of the KGB to Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Soviet Union's Communist Party.

In his letter, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov offered Andropov his interpretation of Kennedy's offer. Former U.S. Sen. John Tunney (D-Calif.) had traveled to Moscow on behalf of Kennedy to seek out a partnership with Andropov and other Soviet officials, Kengor claims in his book.

At one point after President Reagan left office, Tunney acknowledged that he had played the role of intermediary, not only for Kennedy but for other U.S. senators, Kengor said. Moreover, Tunney told the London Times that he had made 15 separate trips to Moscow.

"There's a lot more to be found here," Kengor told Cybercast News Service. "This was a shocking revelation."

It is not evident with whom Tunney actually met in Moscow. But the letter does say that Sen. Kennedy directed Tunney to reach out to "confidential contacts" so Andropov could be alerted to the senator's proposals.

Specifically, Kennedy proposed that Andropov make a direct appeal to the American people in a series of television interviews that would be organized in August and September of 1983, according to the letter.

"Tunney told his contacts that Kennedy was very troubled about the decline in U.S -Soviet relations under Reagan," Kengor said. "But Kennedy attributed this decline to Reagan, not to the Soviets. In one of the most striking parts of this letter, Kennedy is said to be very impressed with Andropov and other Soviet leaders."

In Kennedy's view, the main reason for the antagonism between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s was Reagan's unwillingness to yield on plans to deploy middle-range nuclear missiles in Western Europe, the KGB chief wrote in his letter.

"Kennedy was afraid that Reagan was leading the world into a nuclear war," Kengor said. "He hoped to counter Reagan's polices, and by extension hurt his re-election prospects."

As a prelude to the public relations strategy Kennedy hoped to facilitate on behalf of the Soviets, Kengor said, the Massachusetts senator had also proposed meeting with Andropov in Moscow -- to discuss the challenges associated with disarmament.

In his appeal, Kennedy indicated he would like to have Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.) accompany him on such a trip. The two senators had worked together on nuclear freeze proposals.

But Kennedy's attempt to partner with high-level Soviet officials never materialized. Andropov died after a brief time in office and was succeeded by Mikhail Gorbachev.

In his attempt to reach out the Soviets, Kennedy settled on a flawed receptacle for peace, Kengor said. Andropov was a much more belligerent and confrontational leader than the man who followed him, in Kengor's estimation.

"If Andropov had lived and Gorbachev never came to power, I can't imagine the Cold War ending peacefully like it did," Kengor told Cybercast News Service. "Things could have gotten ugly."

In the long run of history, Kengor believes it is evident that Reagan's policies were vindicated while Kennedy was proven wrong. In fact, as he points out in his book, Kennedy himself made a "gracious concession" after Reagan died, crediting the 40th president with winning the Cold War.



Make media inquiries or request an interview about this article.

Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-Brief.

E-mail a comment or news tip to Kevin Mooney.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.


CNS Mast Head

Copyright 1998-2006 Cybercast News Service.




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Thursday, October 19, 2006

Voter Polls - Evaluating The Numbers


ELECTION 2006 / VOTER POLLS: EVALUATING THE NUMBERS & PERCENTAGES



Right Wing News Mast Head



Smiley Flag WaverDon't Look At Polls, Look At Trends: Because of the margin of error built into every poll and the occasional statistical blips that cause polls to blow out in one direction or another, any one poll isn't necessarily all that meaningful (although of course, you'd always prefer to be ahead, rather than behind, and the bigger the margin, the more chance that it accurately portrays who's ahead and who's behind.)



A Simple, Three Step Guide To Getting The Most Out Of Election Polls


~ John Hawkins


You hear a lot of people saying that you can't trust the polls and that they're always slanted against the GOP. That's actually not true. Rather than go into a long, detailed breakdown on polling data, let me give you some short and simple tips on how to actually get meaning out of the poll numbers you're going to see in abundance in the run-up to the election.

  • #1) What Type Of Voters Are Being Polled: Polls of adults? They're meaningless for political purposes and slant heavily towards the Democrats. Polls of registered voters? They're a bit more meaningful, but they still slant towards the Democrats. Polls of likely voters? These are the most meaningful and accurate polling numbers for election results.
  • #2) All Pollsters Are Not Created Equal: In my book, there are two types of elections pollsters.

The first is reputable pollsters including, but not limited to: Gallup, Rasmussen, Survey USA, Quinnipiac, Mason Dixon, etc. The pollsters aren't perfect, but you can have some confidence in their numbers.

The second group of pollsters includes universities and newspapers in general, internal polls, polls done by partisan polling companies, and Zogby. These polls aren't meaningless, but you should really take the numbers they put out with a grain of salt.

  • #3) Don't Look At Polls, Look At Trends: Because of the margin of error built into every poll and the occasional statistical blips that cause polls to blow out in one direction or another, any one poll isn't necessarily all that meaningful (although of course, you'd always prefer to be ahead, rather than behind, and the bigger the margin, the more chance that it accurately portrays who's ahead and who's behind.)

So, in order to get the most value out of polling data, you need multiple polls from multiple polling agencies to get a real sense of who's ahead or behind.

For example, show me three polls from a month ago showing a candidate down by an average of 15 points and three polls from last week showing the same candidate down by an average of 4 points and you can comfortably predict that candidate has momentum.

Show me three polls, all from roughly the same time period, showing a candidate down by 4, 1, and 5 points, and you can feel comfortable in saying that candidate is really down.

Show me three polls, showing a tie, one candidate up by 2, and the other showing the other candidate up by 3, and you can comfortably predict that the race is within the margin of error.

Now, will this always work? No, because when you play with statistics, you're going to come up with some oddball numbers every once in a while. But, it will usually work and if you follow trends, not individual polls, you'll have a pretty good idea of what's going on as long as there is enough polling data to work with.





© Copyright 2001-2006 John Hawkins




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Wednesday, October 18, 2006

New York Times Bashes Religious Tax Exemptions


MEDIA / NEW YORK TIMES BASHES RELIGIOUS TAX EXEMPTIONS



Business Media Institute



Smiley Flag WaverMost people don't believe that another person's tax break worsens their situation. "Otherwise we would have no deductions, no exclusions.” For example, childless people would protest the child tax credit, arguing that it was “shifting the tax burden” onto them. People gladly take deductions for mortgage interest, while understanding that credit card interest isn’t deductible -- some financial decisions are favored by the tax structure.

While states exempt religious organizations from property taxes, they do it “typically through statutes that also cover charities, libraries, museums, private schools and other secular nonprofit groups. Indeed, when the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of this tax break in 1970 it noted approvingly that the benefits did not fall exclusively on churches.” That key fact was buried in the story series, but the writer did not allow it any relevance.



In Government's Name: New York Times Bashes Religious Tax Exemptions

Four-Day 'In God's Name' Series Argues Churches Cheat Taxpayers And Cities Out Of Money


~ By Julia A. Seymour and Amy Menefee
Business & Media Institute
10/11/2006 3:53:12 PM


The New York Times has put an ironic twist on the 8th Commandment: “Thou shalt not steal.” It’s accused churches nationwide of fleecing taxpayers and local governments using the First Amendment.

The Times devoted more than 17,000 words and a four-day series indicting religious groups for what it argued was essentially cheating taxpayers across the country. The pro-government, pro-regulation treatise by business reporter Diana B. Henriques was titled "In God's Name."

Churches “enjoy an abundance of exemptions from regulations and taxes” and the result is “religious organizations of all faiths stand in a position that American businesses -- and the thousands of nonprofit groups without that ‘religious’ label -- can only envy,” wrote Henriques. But she wasn’t suggesting businesses and nonprofits should enjoy fewer regulations or taxes. On the contrary, the story series lobbied for more government control over religious organizations.

Henriques stated that “tax breaks are widely defended both as an acknowledgement of religion’s contributions to society and as a barrier to unjustified government limitations.” Her articles didn’t explore that defense; rather, they blamed religious organizations for burdening local governments and the churches’ neighbors -- taxpayers. She referred to religious groups as a “cost” to government or other citizens 11 times.

In a country where 92 percent say they believe in God or a higher power, according to a recent Baylor University study, Henriques never mentioned that members of all the religious organizations would also be taxpayers -- the same people who support their communities’ public services with their hard-earned dollars. Instead, her portrayal indicated congregations were mooching off the rest of their communities:

• “These organizations and their leaders still rely on public services -- police and fire protection, street lights and storm drains, highway and bridge maintenance, food and drug inspections, national defense. But their tax exemptions shift the cost of providing those benefits onto other citizens. The total cost nationwide is not known, because no one keeps track.”

• “There are no national figures on how much money these tax breaks save religious organizations and on how much extra cost is shifted to other citizens.”

• “Congressional budget records show that just the income tax breaks uniquely available for ministers, rabbis and other clergy members cost taxpayers just under $500 million a year.”

A similar struggle of churches versus local economies also appeared on the front page of the October 9 USA Today, where Emily Bazar reported that “churches are being turned away by cities and towns that hope to enliven a fading downtown or boost their tax base.”

Churches ‘Costing’ Government Money

The idea that any time someone does not pay a dollar in taxes, that is a “cost” of one dollar to the government, is pervasive among journalists. The Business & Media Institute addressed common distortions on tax issues in a 2005 report, “Tax & Spin.”

Henriques used that logic to argue that tax breaks for religious groups cost local governments money -- just as ABC’s “World News Sunday” did on its October 1 broadcast. In that story, reporter Geoff Morrell said the mayor of one Texas town feared churches would “bust the budget” because they weren’t paying taxes.

That’s “the same line opponents of federal tax cuts use,” said Pete Sepp, vice president for communications with the National Taxpayers Union.

And in Henriques’ stories, that zero-sum logic spilled over into a more personal accusation -- that churches were shifting the tax burden onto other individuals in their cities.

Sepp said most people don't believe that another person's tax break worsens their situation. "Otherwise we would have no deductions, no exclusions,” he said. For example, childless people would protest the child tax credit, arguing that it was “shifting the tax burden” onto them. People gladly take deductions for mortgage interest, while understanding that credit card interest isn’t deductible -- some financial decisions are favored by the tax structure.

But Henriques took churches to task for not paying property taxes. She admitted that while states exempt religious organizations from property taxes, they do it “typically through statutes that also cover charities, libraries, museums, private schools and other secular nonprofit groups. Indeed, when the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of this tax break in 1970 it noted approvingly that the benefits did not fall exclusively on churches.” That key fact was buried in the story series, but the writer did not allow it any relevance.

“Historically, the reason for income and property tax exemptions was because of the benefit they provide to their community, because they lift a burden from the government,” said Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of the Liberty Counsel and Dean of the Liberty University School of Law. The Liberty Counsel describes itself as a “nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom.”

He mentioned that the Red Cross and other non-profits also receive tax exemptions for this reason.

The idea that localities have been hurting in property tax collections is laughable, Sepp said. "Most state and local governments have benefited handsomely from the run-up in housing values," he said. In fact, state and local revenue from property taxes has increased by a whopping 50 percent since 2000, according to the Census Bureau.

Attacking Churches for ‘Competing’ with Businesses

As the Business & Media Institute has documented, the mainstream media are not usually the biggest supporters of the free market system. Ironically, the Times series complained that religious organizations were hurting businesses by “competing” with many of their ministries, including bookstores and coffee shops.

Throughout the articles, religious groups were painted as villains: unfairly competing to provide child care in Alabama; seeking to destroy “open spaces” by fighting a zoning restriction in Colorado; discriminating by setting an age of retirement in New York; and being uncharitable by creating a retirement community for affluent seniors in Indiana

Henriques wrote that religious tax exemptions “collide with other values important in this country.” The theme was that religious organizations are favored by government and receive special treatment in the form of tax breaks, exemptions from regulations and hiring and firing requirements, and advantages over businesses in fighting existing laws.

Those who consider such benefits an “affirmative action program for religion,” Staver said, he considers “naïve, uninformed or shortsighted,” because in attacking the benefits provided to religious non-profits, the effect would be to undermine those given to all non-profits.

“Some of the questions raised in the article ignore the historical perspective that churches have always adapted to the needs of the community,” said Gary McCaleb, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which describes itself as a legal alliance that defends religious liberty. “A large part of Western civilization was preserved because long ago churches served as libraries, agricultural centers and schools for the community’s sake. And ironically we have people complaining today because churches are responding to needs as an act of their religious faith.”

Experts Cited Critical of Religion

Henriques didn’t acknowledge the radical nature of several anti-religious sources mentioned in her series. In a section about a tax dispute, she mentioned how the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco had appointed “Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor then on the faculty at the University of Southern California” to assist in the case. However, the Times article left out that Chemerinsky also has strident views against conservative Christianity – saying “The religious right is the enemy of freedom,” in a Web posting.

That post, a Sept. 28, 2005, article on the liberal Huffingtonpost blog, was headlined “Time to Fight the Religious Right.” The piece criticized fundamentalists of all religions who “share remarkably similar views on many issues -- and remarkably similar intolerance.” Chemerinsky’s own comments mention how he “argued a case in the Supreme Court challenging a six-foot tall, three feet wide Ten Commandments monument that sits between the Texas State Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court.”

Further, Henriques ignored the widespread criticism of the Ninth Circuit as being liberal, and ruling that the words “under God” were an unconstitutional endorsement of religion in a case about the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Times acknowledged that another legal scholar was also a religion critic. Marci A. Hamilton, is “a law professor at the Cardozo law school at Yeshiva University in New York and the author of ‘God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law,’ which is critical of many religious exemptions, particularly in the areas of land use and family law.”

However, that only hinted at Hamilton’s position. In a Sept. 24, 2004, column on CNN.com, she called a bill in support of the words “under God” in the pledge as “lunacy.” “The powers that be at the moment have covered over these fundamental beliefs with misleading blather about how this is a ‘Christian’ nation, implying that Christians are the sole keeper of conscience and morals in the country,” she continued.

The Times story also referenced a study about abuse at child care centers and addiction treatment programs. The study was performed by the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund, “a nonprofit research organization that opposed the faith-based initiatives.” Unsurprisingly, the analysis found higher instances of abuse and neglect at “alternatively accredited facilities” or religious sites.

However, Henriques again underplayed the anti-conservative nature of the organization. The fund is part of the Texas Freedom Network which claims on its own Web site works “to counter the religious right.” The fund “researches the agenda, activities and funding of the religious right.”




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below