Saturday, October 16, 2004
Consider these questions before you vote
Pastors.com Article: Consider these questions before you vote
Consider these questions before you vote
by Robert Jeffress
1. Demonstrate faith in God's power--Daniel 2:21. God is not sweating over the results of November 2 and neither should we.
2. Appreciate differences among believers. There is room for debate on Iraq, tax cuts, etc. God is neither Republican nor Democrat.
3. Propagate truth, not rumor. The Internet makes it possible to spread information that is not true (e.g. story about Kerry quoting John 16:3 as favorite Scripture passage). Ephesians 4:25 commands us to lay aside falsehood and speak truth.
4. Participate in the electoral process. Because our form of government is "we the people," we are the leaders of our nation and, by our vote, determine the spiritual direction of our nation.
Questions to consider:
Any candidate who says that his religious beliefs would have no effect on his policies either has a shallow faith or a shallow understanding of the issues.
Does he believe that government should only recognize marriages between men and women? The original and biblical definition of marriage is one man with one woman in a monogamous relationship. Any attempt to expand that definition to allow for homosexual or polygamous "marriages" would undermine the family and ultimately destroy society.
Should God be acknowledged in the "public square" or does the candidate believe that "the separation of church and state" prohibits such expressions? If a candidate uses "the separation of church and state" as a rationale for prohibiting nativity scenes on government property, forbidding prayers at school events, removing the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, or suggesting that government should in no way acknowledge God, he has little understanding of the Constitution or American history. As the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1892, "No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national; because this is a religious people. ... This is a Christian nation."
Does the candidate have a history of voting "pro-life" or does he support abortion under the guise of "women's reproductive rights"? In recent months candidates have had the opportunity to reveal their true beliefs about the sanctity of human life in two key votes: the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 and the Fetal Protection Act of 2004 recently signed into law by President Bush. Any candidate who would oppose limiting the barbaric practice of partial birth abortions or would oppose the punishment of those who harm the fetus of a pregnant woman while committing a federal crime does not recognize the sanctity of life within a mother's womb.
Does the candidate believe public schools should present optional views for the origin of life along with the theory of evolution? A recent Zogby poll revealed that 64% of Americans favor teaching creationism along with evolution, allowing students to weigh the evidence and decide for themselves. If the case for evolution is as strong as its advocates claim, why are they so insistent that no other viewpoint be presented?
What criteria would the candidate use to nominate federal judges? Those who are "constructionists" believe that judges have the responsibility to abide by the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. However, many liberal politicians view the Constitution as an "organic" document, meaning that judges are free to impose their own opinions or even the views of foreign courts on our nation -- even if such opinions contradict previous judicial decisions. This actually happened in June of 2003 when the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law outlawing sodomy, contradicting their previous rulings and citing other nations' acceptance of homosexuality as a basis for their opinion.
-Purpose-Driven®-
Dr. Robert Jeffress
Consider these questions before you vote
by Robert Jeffress
1. Demonstrate faith in God's power--Daniel 2:21. God is not sweating over the results of November 2 and neither should we.
2. Appreciate differences among believers. There is room for debate on Iraq, tax cuts, etc. God is neither Republican nor Democrat.
3. Propagate truth, not rumor. The Internet makes it possible to spread information that is not true (e.g. story about Kerry quoting John 16:3 as favorite Scripture passage). Ephesians 4:25 commands us to lay aside falsehood and speak truth.
4. Participate in the electoral process. Because our form of government is "we the people," we are the leaders of our nation and, by our vote, determine the spiritual direction of our nation.
Questions to consider:
Any candidate who says that his religious beliefs would have no effect on his policies either has a shallow faith or a shallow understanding of the issues.
Does he believe that government should only recognize marriages between men and women? The original and biblical definition of marriage is one man with one woman in a monogamous relationship. Any attempt to expand that definition to allow for homosexual or polygamous "marriages" would undermine the family and ultimately destroy society.
Should God be acknowledged in the "public square" or does the candidate believe that "the separation of church and state" prohibits such expressions? If a candidate uses "the separation of church and state" as a rationale for prohibiting nativity scenes on government property, forbidding prayers at school events, removing the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, or suggesting that government should in no way acknowledge God, he has little understanding of the Constitution or American history. As the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1892, "No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national; because this is a religious people. ... This is a Christian nation."
Does the candidate have a history of voting "pro-life" or does he support abortion under the guise of "women's reproductive rights"? In recent months candidates have had the opportunity to reveal their true beliefs about the sanctity of human life in two key votes: the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 and the Fetal Protection Act of 2004 recently signed into law by President Bush. Any candidate who would oppose limiting the barbaric practice of partial birth abortions or would oppose the punishment of those who harm the fetus of a pregnant woman while committing a federal crime does not recognize the sanctity of life within a mother's womb.
Does the candidate believe public schools should present optional views for the origin of life along with the theory of evolution? A recent Zogby poll revealed that 64% of Americans favor teaching creationism along with evolution, allowing students to weigh the evidence and decide for themselves. If the case for evolution is as strong as its advocates claim, why are they so insistent that no other viewpoint be presented?
What criteria would the candidate use to nominate federal judges? Those who are "constructionists" believe that judges have the responsibility to abide by the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. However, many liberal politicians view the Constitution as an "organic" document, meaning that judges are free to impose their own opinions or even the views of foreign courts on our nation -- even if such opinions contradict previous judicial decisions. This actually happened in June of 2003 when the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law outlawing sodomy, contradicting their previous rulings and citing other nations' acceptance of homosexuality as a basis for their opinion.
-Purpose-Driven®-
Dr. Robert Jeffress
DRUDGE Info on Teresa Heinz
Teresa Heinz Kerry Releases 2003 Tax Info; Paid Over $798,000 in Federal, State Income Taxes
Fri Oct 15 2004 17:44:41 ET
KERRY PRESS RELEASE
Mrs. Teresa Heinz Kerry announced today that she has filed her final 2003 federal tax forms and as she said promised last spring, has released the top two pages of her 1040 tax filings.
Mrs. Heinz Kerry paid $798,820 in state and federal income taxes in 2003, approximately 35 percent of her gross taxable income, according to figures and federal tax forms she released today.
Mrs. Heinz Kerry paid $627,150 in federal income taxes on gross taxable income of $2,291,137, primarily from dividends and interest she receives from Heinz family trusts. In addition, she paid an additional $171,670 in state income taxes and had $2,781,791 of tax exempt interest income from state, municipal and public entity bonds. These taxes are separate from and in addition to the income taxes paid directly by the Heinz family trusts and by other beneficiaries who receive income from those trusts.
In 2003, Mrs. Heinz Kerry was responsible for more than $4.6 million distributed as charitable contributions, primarily through charitable grants by the Heinz Family Foundation, a 501(c)(3) corporation Mrs. Heinz Kerry established with her late husband, Senator John Heinz and later significantly expanded after his death in 1991 through her creation of the Teresa and H. John Heinz III Fund within that Foundation. The Heinz Family Foundation is principally funded by a charitable lead trust, the Teresa & H. John Heinz III Charitable Trust, established as a result of estate planning decisions made by Senator Heinz and Mrs. Heinz Kerry before his death.
The Heinz Family Foundation is separate from the Howard Heinz Endowment, of which Mrs. Heinz Kerry is Chairman, and the Vira I. Heinz Endowment, of which she is a board member, both of which were established by earlier generations of the Heinz family and make significant annual charitable grants. Both the Heinz Family Foundation and the Endowments file publicly available Forms 990 PF on an annual basis, forms which set forth the charitable grants as well as investments made by each entity.
In 2000, then-candidate George Bush filed an extension for his 1999 taxes, released some information in the Spring and then released his 1040 Form after he filed his taxes in October 2000. Mrs. Heinz Kerry files a separate tax return from her husband, Senator John Kerry, and received an extension for filing her 2003 returns until October 15, 2004.
While she is not a candidate for any public office and the release of this tax information is not required by law, it fulfills the commitment Mrs. Heinz Kerry made last May. The release of this information is in addition to the financial information Sen. Kerry and Mrs. Heinz Kerry already had disclosed through the forms required by the Senate Financial Disclosure Report and the Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report, both of which are publicly available on Senator Kerry's campaign website, johnkerry.com.
"This tax information goes beyond any legal requirement, but John and I believe it strikes a proper balance between my family's privacy and the media's requests for additional information," Mrs. Heinz Kerry said.
______________________
AND FROM POWERLINE:
"http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008199.php"
Vincent Morris and Deborah Orin report on Teresa Heinz Kerry's 2003 income tax information released yesterday: "Scouring Teresa's taxes." They report:
John Kerry's near-billionaire wife, Teresa, reported more than $5 million in total income last year but paid only 12.5 percent in federal taxes — less than the average middle-class family — according to documents released yesterday by his campaign.
Teresa Heinz Kerry reported a total income of $5,072,533, including nearly $2.8 million that escaped all federal taxes because it was on interest-free investments from state, city and other public bonds.
She paid $628,401 in federal taxes, or a rate of 12.47 percent. The average middle-class family pays more than 20 percent.
Posted by The Big Trunk at 08:07 AM
Fri Oct 15 2004 17:44:41 ET
KERRY PRESS RELEASE
Mrs. Teresa Heinz Kerry announced today that she has filed her final 2003 federal tax forms and as she said promised last spring, has released the top two pages of her 1040 tax filings.
Mrs. Heinz Kerry paid $798,820 in state and federal income taxes in 2003, approximately 35 percent of her gross taxable income, according to figures and federal tax forms she released today.
Mrs. Heinz Kerry paid $627,150 in federal income taxes on gross taxable income of $2,291,137, primarily from dividends and interest she receives from Heinz family trusts. In addition, she paid an additional $171,670 in state income taxes and had $2,781,791 of tax exempt interest income from state, municipal and public entity bonds. These taxes are separate from and in addition to the income taxes paid directly by the Heinz family trusts and by other beneficiaries who receive income from those trusts.
In 2003, Mrs. Heinz Kerry was responsible for more than $4.6 million distributed as charitable contributions, primarily through charitable grants by the Heinz Family Foundation, a 501(c)(3) corporation Mrs. Heinz Kerry established with her late husband, Senator John Heinz and later significantly expanded after his death in 1991 through her creation of the Teresa and H. John Heinz III Fund within that Foundation. The Heinz Family Foundation is principally funded by a charitable lead trust, the Teresa & H. John Heinz III Charitable Trust, established as a result of estate planning decisions made by Senator Heinz and Mrs. Heinz Kerry before his death.
The Heinz Family Foundation is separate from the Howard Heinz Endowment, of which Mrs. Heinz Kerry is Chairman, and the Vira I. Heinz Endowment, of which she is a board member, both of which were established by earlier generations of the Heinz family and make significant annual charitable grants. Both the Heinz Family Foundation and the Endowments file publicly available Forms 990 PF on an annual basis, forms which set forth the charitable grants as well as investments made by each entity.
In 2000, then-candidate George Bush filed an extension for his 1999 taxes, released some information in the Spring and then released his 1040 Form after he filed his taxes in October 2000. Mrs. Heinz Kerry files a separate tax return from her husband, Senator John Kerry, and received an extension for filing her 2003 returns until October 15, 2004.
While she is not a candidate for any public office and the release of this tax information is not required by law, it fulfills the commitment Mrs. Heinz Kerry made last May. The release of this information is in addition to the financial information Sen. Kerry and Mrs. Heinz Kerry already had disclosed through the forms required by the Senate Financial Disclosure Report and the Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report, both of which are publicly available on Senator Kerry's campaign website, johnkerry.com.
"This tax information goes beyond any legal requirement, but John and I believe it strikes a proper balance between my family's privacy and the media's requests for additional information," Mrs. Heinz Kerry said.
______________________
AND FROM POWERLINE:
Vincent Morris and Deborah Orin report on Teresa Heinz Kerry's 2003 income tax information released yesterday: "Scouring Teresa's taxes." They report:
John Kerry's near-billionaire wife, Teresa, reported more than $5 million in total income last year but paid only 12.5 percent in federal taxes — less than the average middle-class family — according to documents released yesterday by his campaign.
Teresa Heinz Kerry reported a total income of $5,072,533, including nearly $2.8 million that escaped all federal taxes because it was on interest-free investments from state, city and other public bonds.
She paid $628,401 in federal taxes, or a rate of 12.47 percent. The average middle-class family pays more than 20 percent.
Posted by The Big Trunk at 08:07 AM
Friday, October 15, 2004
Adopt a Sniper
Friday, October 15, 2004
Charity for the new millennium
For all those of you who have moved beyond sponsoring a six year old girl in Botswana so that her village can drill a water well, or a Peruvian urchin to give him and his siblings a chance to escape the cycle of poverty - here's a new cause: Adopt a Sniper. http://adoptasniper.org/about.html
Charity for the new millennium
For all those of you who have moved beyond sponsoring a six year old girl in Botswana so that her village can drill a water well, or a Peruvian urchin to give him and his siblings a chance to escape the cycle of poverty - here's a new cause: Adopt a Sniper. http://adoptasniper.org/about.html
Thursday, October 14, 2004
AlphaPatriot: Just How Rich?
Just How Rich?
Say Uncle finds this "quote of the day" from Clayton Cramer:
Remember: an income tax isn’t a tax on rich people. It’s a tax on those trying to get rich.
Nice.
But Cramer goes on to make this statement:
I do hope that the Bush campaign makes an issue of how little the Kerrys pay in income taxes--and what hypocrites they are for talking about "Two Americas." There are two Americas, but the gap between George Bush's net worth and mine is a heck of a lot smaller than the gap between George Bush and John Kerry.
"Perhaps in percentage terms, but certainly not in dollar terms," I thought -- so I decided to do a little digging.
According to the Center for Public Integrity, the exact amount that each candidate's assets is worth is not known precisely, but there is a minimum and a maximum so we can get an idea.
Candidate Minimum Assets Maximum Assets
Ralph Nader $4,081,185 $4,916,176
George Bush $7,663,048 $18,904,000
John Edwards $14,283,165 $44,602,000
Dick Cheney $23,913,028 $111,258,000
John Kerry $189,811,467 $747,659,000
Bush's maximum asset valuation is an order of magnitude lower than Kerry's minimum value. His maximum value is almost 40 times less than Kerry's.
Realize, of course, that asset value does not equal net worth because debt is not taken into account. Still, the difference is pretty startling.
Graphically (click for larger image):
CandidateAssetWorthSm.gif
Say Uncle finds this "quote of the day" from Clayton Cramer:
Remember: an income tax isn’t a tax on rich people. It’s a tax on those trying to get rich.
Nice.
But Cramer goes on to make this statement:
I do hope that the Bush campaign makes an issue of how little the Kerrys pay in income taxes--and what hypocrites they are for talking about "Two Americas." There are two Americas, but the gap between George Bush's net worth and mine is a heck of a lot smaller than the gap between George Bush and John Kerry.
"Perhaps in percentage terms, but certainly not in dollar terms," I thought -- so I decided to do a little digging.
According to the Center for Public Integrity, the exact amount that each candidate's assets is worth is not known precisely, but there is a minimum and a maximum so we can get an idea.
Candidate Minimum Assets Maximum Assets
Ralph Nader $4,081,185 $4,916,176
George Bush $7,663,048 $18,904,000
John Edwards $14,283,165 $44,602,000
Dick Cheney $23,913,028 $111,258,000
John Kerry $189,811,467 $747,659,000
Bush's maximum asset valuation is an order of magnitude lower than Kerry's minimum value. His maximum value is almost 40 times less than Kerry's.
Realize, of course, that asset value does not equal net worth because debt is not taken into account. Still, the difference is pretty startling.
Graphically (click for larger image):
CandidateAssetWorthSm.gif
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Monday, October 11, 2004
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Friday, October 08, 2004
OpinionJournal - Featured Article
Judging from the current Iraq debate, you might think Saddam Hussein didn't use poison gas on the Kurds and the Iranians in the 1980s. Or that 500,000 American troops hadn't been sent to the Gulf in 1990-91 to reverse his invasion of Kuwait. Or that Saddam hadn't tried to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush in 1993, or long harbored one of the bombers who attacked the World Trade Center that year.
It might also be easy to forget that Saddam never came clean about his weapons of mass destruction, resulting in Bill Clinton's Desert Fox bombing of 1998 and the ejection of U.N. inspectors. Or that he necessitated a huge U.S. troop presence in the region, which Osama bin Laden cited in his 1998 fatwa as one of his primary grievances against America.
It's clear why John Kerry doesn't want to talk about these things, having decided for now that Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." Count us a bit mystified, however, that the incumbent hasn't done a better job putting his Iraq policy in this context. Fortunately for President Bush, Congressional Oil for Food hearings and Charles Duelfer's final weapons inspections report for the CIA have come along this week to remind us all that the "containment" of Saddam was neither as blissful as certain partisans remember it, nor even sustainable.
"By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," Mr. Duelfer writes. "Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime."
We realize that some of our media friends think the salient news here is the old news: that Saddam did not possess large stockpiles of WMDs when Coalition forces invaded in March 2003. But Mr. Duelfer explicitly rejects the facile conclusion that therefore sanctions were working. Among his other findings, based in part on interviews with Saddam himself and other senior regime figures:
• Saddam believed weapons of mass destruction were essential to the preservation of his power, especially during the Iran-Iraq and 1991 Gulf wars.
• He engaged in strategic deception intended to suggest that he retained WMD.
• He fully intended to resume real WMD production after the expected lifting of U.N. sanctions, and he maintained weapons programs that put him in "material breach" of U.N. resolutions including 1441.
• And he instituted an epic bribery scheme aimed primarily at three of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, with the intent of having them help lift those sanctions.
"Saddam personally approved and removed all names of voucher recipients," under the Oil for Food program, Mr. Duelfer writes. Alleged beneficiaries of such bribes include individuals in China, as well as some with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin and French President Jacques Chirac.
As Congressmen Chris Shays's House International Relations Committee heard in testimony on Tuesday, France, Russia and China did in fact work hard to help Saddam skirt and escape sanctions. One Iraqi intelligence report uncovered by Mr. Duelfer says that a French politician assured Saddam in a letter that France would use its U.N. veto against any U.S. effort to attack Iraq--as indeed France later threatened to do.
Evidence also continues to mount that U.N. Oil for Food Program director Benon Sevan was among those on Saddam's payroll. (He denies it.) And contrary to earlier claims that Secretary-General Kofi Annan's son Kojo severed connections with the Swiss-based firm Cotecna prior to it winning its Oil for Food inspections contract, we now know that Kojo was kept on the company payroll for another year. We eagerly await the promised interim report from the U.N.'s Paul Volcker-led Oil for Food review panel, and hope in the interests of an informed electorate that it can be delivered soon.
But there are already plenty of facts on the table to support one conclusion. To wit: Even if one accepts the desirability of some kind of "global test" before America acts militarily, U.N. Security Council approval can't be it. There was never any chance that this "coalition of the bribed" was going to explicitly endorse regime change, or the presumed alternative of another 12 years of economic sanctions. "Politically," writes Mr. Duelfer, "the Iraqis were losing their stigma" by 2001.
The sanctions-were-working crowd also ignores that Saddam never would have readmitted weapons inspectors without the kind of U.S. troop mobilization that isn't feasible with any frequency. For President Bush to have backed off in 2003 without unambiguous disarmament would have meant the end once and for all of any real threat of force behind "containment."
Senator John McCain summed it up well at the Republican Convention: "Those who criticize that decision [to go to war in Iraq] would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone." Supporters of his Iraq policy are hoping that Mr. Bush finds a similar voice tonight.
It might also be easy to forget that Saddam never came clean about his weapons of mass destruction, resulting in Bill Clinton's Desert Fox bombing of 1998 and the ejection of U.N. inspectors. Or that he necessitated a huge U.S. troop presence in the region, which Osama bin Laden cited in his 1998 fatwa as one of his primary grievances against America.
It's clear why John Kerry doesn't want to talk about these things, having decided for now that Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." Count us a bit mystified, however, that the incumbent hasn't done a better job putting his Iraq policy in this context. Fortunately for President Bush, Congressional Oil for Food hearings and Charles Duelfer's final weapons inspections report for the CIA have come along this week to remind us all that the "containment" of Saddam was neither as blissful as certain partisans remember it, nor even sustainable.
"By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," Mr. Duelfer writes. "Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime."
We realize that some of our media friends think the salient news here is the old news: that Saddam did not possess large stockpiles of WMDs when Coalition forces invaded in March 2003. But Mr. Duelfer explicitly rejects the facile conclusion that therefore sanctions were working. Among his other findings, based in part on interviews with Saddam himself and other senior regime figures:
• Saddam believed weapons of mass destruction were essential to the preservation of his power, especially during the Iran-Iraq and 1991 Gulf wars.
• He engaged in strategic deception intended to suggest that he retained WMD.
• He fully intended to resume real WMD production after the expected lifting of U.N. sanctions, and he maintained weapons programs that put him in "material breach" of U.N. resolutions including 1441.
• And he instituted an epic bribery scheme aimed primarily at three of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, with the intent of having them help lift those sanctions.
"Saddam personally approved and removed all names of voucher recipients," under the Oil for Food program, Mr. Duelfer writes. Alleged beneficiaries of such bribes include individuals in China, as well as some with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin and French President Jacques Chirac.
As Congressmen Chris Shays's House International Relations Committee heard in testimony on Tuesday, France, Russia and China did in fact work hard to help Saddam skirt and escape sanctions. One Iraqi intelligence report uncovered by Mr. Duelfer says that a French politician assured Saddam in a letter that France would use its U.N. veto against any U.S. effort to attack Iraq--as indeed France later threatened to do.
Evidence also continues to mount that U.N. Oil for Food Program director Benon Sevan was among those on Saddam's payroll. (He denies it.) And contrary to earlier claims that Secretary-General Kofi Annan's son Kojo severed connections with the Swiss-based firm Cotecna prior to it winning its Oil for Food inspections contract, we now know that Kojo was kept on the company payroll for another year. We eagerly await the promised interim report from the U.N.'s Paul Volcker-led Oil for Food review panel, and hope in the interests of an informed electorate that it can be delivered soon.
But there are already plenty of facts on the table to support one conclusion. To wit: Even if one accepts the desirability of some kind of "global test" before America acts militarily, U.N. Security Council approval can't be it. There was never any chance that this "coalition of the bribed" was going to explicitly endorse regime change, or the presumed alternative of another 12 years of economic sanctions. "Politically," writes Mr. Duelfer, "the Iraqis were losing their stigma" by 2001.
The sanctions-were-working crowd also ignores that Saddam never would have readmitted weapons inspectors without the kind of U.S. troop mobilization that isn't feasible with any frequency. For President Bush to have backed off in 2003 without unambiguous disarmament would have meant the end once and for all of any real threat of force behind "containment."
Senator John McCain summed it up well at the Republican Convention: "Those who criticize that decision [to go to war in Iraq] would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone." Supporters of his Iraq policy are hoping that Mr. Bush finds a similar voice tonight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
