For ticket information, click here.
For ticket information, click here.
Live Action, known for its investigative journalism,came out with a guide to the position of the candidates running for president and vice-president. Those candidates are Republicans Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan as well as Democrat incumbents Barak Obama and Joe Biden.
After stating each candidate’s stand of the right to life, the guide present historical statements and positions of each candidate to prove the validity of each candidates views.
To read or download a copy of the guide, go to http://liveactionadvocate.org/LAFLYER.pdf.
by Raymond Ibrahim
Special to IPT News
October 26, 2012
The world’s double standards concerning which peoples qualify as oppressed and deserving of help are staggering. Two recent stories illustrate this point:
First, a report exposed, in the words of the Turkish Coalition of America, “Turkey’s continued interest in expanding business and cultural ties with the American Indian community” and “Turkey’s interest in building bridges to Native American communities across the U.S.” Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., even introduced a bill that would give Turks special rights and privileges in Native American tribal areas, arguing that “[t]his bill is about helping American Indians,” and about “helping the original inhabitants of the new world, which is exactly what this legislation would do.”
The very idea that Turkey’s Islamist government is interested in “helping American Indians” is preposterous, both from a historical and contemporary point of view. In the 15th century, when Christian Europeans were discovering the Americas, Muslim Turks were conquering and killing Christians in Europe (which, of course, is why Europeans starting sailing west in the first place). If early European settlers fought and killed natives, only recently, Turkey committed a mass genocide against Armenian Christians. And while the U.S. has made many reparations to its indigenous natives, Turkey not only denies the Armenian holocaust, but still abuses and persecutes its indigenous Christians.
In short, if Turkey is looking to help the marginalized and oppressed, it should start at home.
But of course, Turkey is only looking to help itself; the American Indians are mere tools of infiltration. One need not elaborate on the dangers involved in thousands of Muslim Turks settling in semi-autonomous areas in America and working closely with a minority group that holds a grudge against the United States.
Yet if one can understand Turkey’s machinations, what does one make of another recent report? Fifteen leaders from U.S. Christian denominations—mostly Protestant, including the Lutheran, Methodist, and UCC Churches—are asking Congress to reevaluate U.S. military aid to Israel, since “military aid will only serve to sustain the status quo and Israel’s military occupation of the Palestinian territories.”
These are the same church leaders who utter nary a word concerning the rampant persecution of millions of Christians from one end of the Muslim world to the other—a persecution that makes the Palestinians’ situation insignificant in comparison.
If Muslims are subjugated on Israeli land, at least one can argue that, historically, the Jews were there first—millennia before Muslims conquered Jerusalem in the 7th century. On the other hand, millions of Christians—at least 10 million in Egypt alone, the indigenous Copts—have been suffering in their own homelands for 14 centuries, since Islam burst in with the sword.
Nor is this limited to history: from Nigeria in the west, to Pakistan in the east, Christians at this very moment are being imprisoned for apostasy and blasphemy; their churches are being bombed and burned down; their women and children are being kidnapped, enslaved, and raped. For an idea, see my monthly Muslim Persecution of Christians series, where I collate dozens of anecdotes of persecution every month—any of which, if Palestinians experienced, would make headlines around the world; but as it is only “unfashionable” Christians who are experiencing these atrocities, they are regularly overlooked.
Nor are Palestinian Christians immune from this phenomenon: a pastor recently noted that “animosity towards the Christian minority in areas controlled by the PA continues to get increasingly worse. People are always telling [Christians], Convert to Islam. Convert to Islam.”
Indeed, the American Jewish Committee, which was “outraged by the Christian leaders’ call,” got it right by saying: “When religious liberty and safety of Christians across the Middle East are threatened by the repercussions of the Arab Spring, these Christian leaders have chosen to initiate a polemic against Israel, a country that protects religious freedom and expression for Christians, Muslims and others.”
By any objective measure, the atrocities currently being committed against Christians around the Muslim world are far more outrageous and deserving of attention and remedy than the so-called “Palestinian Question.” Incidentally, Israeli treatment of the Palestinians—some of whom, like Hamas, openly declare their intent to eradicate the Jewish state—is largely predicated on the aforementioned: Israel knows Islam’s innate animus for non-Muslims and does not wish to be on its receiving end, hence the measures it takes to exist.
There is a final important point of irony concerning the differences between Turkey’s Muslims and America’s liberal Christians: the former engage in hypocrisy to empower Islam; the latter engage in hypocrisy to disempower Christianity, even if unwittingly. Just like secular/liberal Americans who strive to disassociate themselves from their European heritage—seeing it as the root of all evil and championing the rights of non-whites like American Indians—liberal American Christians strive to disassociate themselves from their Christian heritage and champion the rights of non-Christians, hence their keen interest for Muslim Palestinians.
And all the while, the one religious group truly persecuted from one end of the Islamic world to the other—Christians—are devoutly ignored by the humanitarian hypocrites.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
by Daniel Downs
U.S. Senate candidate Josh Mandel is being accused of cronyism by incumbent Sherrod Brown. Mandel is guilty but with some qualification. Obviously, before becoming Ohio’s Treasurer, Mandel had his sights on Congress. When he became Treasurer he hired his friend and campaign manager Joe Aquilino. Keeping Joe’s valuable services for his present and future work was important for Mandel’s future success.
Yes, Mandel deserves criticism for hiring an inexperienced investment bonds manager. If you read how Aquilino’s job is described you will glimpse Mandel’s reasonable strategy. First, he is referred to as the Director of the Debt Management Office and not of the Office of Debt Management. Second, the following is an excerpt from an April 4, 2012 Huffington Post article in which is disclosed Mandel’s view of Aquilino’s position:
“Joe is a licensed attorney. He managed staff in the Debt Management Department, and worked under Seth Metcalf’s direction on debt issuances,” Unger said. “Mr. Metcalf has extensive experience with debt issues, and continues to be the key person overseeing debt issuances in the treasurer’s office.”
In other words, Mandel hired experienced bonds manager Seth Metcalf to handle debt management. He kept attorney Joe Aquilino employed because he is an excellent manager of people and organizations. That is also why Aquilino is now employed as Mandel campaign manager.
Mandel was not rewarding his buddies with big jobs as campaign booty. Rather, it was a wise business decision: keeping a valuable employee.
by Raymond J. Keating
The vice presidential debate between Congressman Paul Ryan and Vice President Joe Biden was a lively affair. Though it often was difficult getting by the many interruptions served up by Biden, and Martha Raddatz’s bias as a moderator, in order to get at the substance.
But some clear themes did emerge that warrant the attention of entrepreneurs and small businesses.
First, this was a debate overwhelmingly about foreign policy, in particular about the Middle East and North Africa. Of course, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya and the rest of the general region rank as the immediate hotspots in terms of U.S. national security. And given the role played in oil markets, it’s a huge economic factor.
In the end, given the Obama administration’s mixed messages and general pulling back from the region, Congressman Ryan was justified in hitting the White House hard on their strategy, or lack thereof. There is no doubt that tumult and uncertainty in the region, including the role of the U.S., has been one of the key reasons for oil prices remaining high.
It also should be pointed out that Ryan mentioned greater North American energy independence. To the degree that is achieved will depend on U.S. policymaking, such as the extent of U.S. domestic exploration and production, as well as moving ahead with projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has been hostile to carbon-based energy in general, raised barriers to domestic production, and blocked the Keystone XL pipeline.
Second, a big difference emerged on the tax front.
Vice President Biden was unrelenting in pushing a class warfare agenda. He spoke of a fictional tax cut for the “middle class.” In fact, the Obama agenda offers no tax relief for middle-income earners. Rather, it proposes leaving today’s tax policies in effect for middle and low-income earners, while jacking up taxes on everyone else.
Meanwhile, Congressman Ryan pointed out that the Obama tax plan rests on a major tax hike on “successful small businesses.” He contrasted the Obama plan with the Romney plan by noting that the top income tax rate on small businesses would be nearly 45 percent under Obama, while it would be 28 percent under Romney. That’s a profound and economically substantive difference on tax rates.
Ryan also pointed out that 53 percent of small business income would be hit by the Obama tax increases.
For good measure, Ryan noted that this top Obama tax rate would make U.S. businesses far less competitive internationally. That’s very important. While President Obama, to his credit, has called for reducing the corporate income tax rate, he has pushed and pushed to increase the personal income tax rate, without mentioning that some 93 percent of businesses pay personal, rather than corporate, income taxes.
In the end, it needs to be understood that any kind of tax increase, especially in a tough economy, makes no sense whatsoever. No economists – no matter what school of economic thought they belong to – would advocate tax increases in this environment. Their reasoning surely would differ, but not their bottom line conclusion. And any economist pushing for a tax increase right now is playing politics, and not thinking as an economist.
And make no mistake, economics makes clear that tax increases on upper incomes – as included in ObamaCare and in terms of the additional hikes advocated by Obama – will hurt everyone, not just higher income earners. Biden asserted that the, as he put it, “super wealthy” can afford to pay more in taxes. What Biden misses in his class warfare hysteria is that the Obama-Biden tax increases mean reduced incentives and resources for entrepreneurship and investment. That means bad news throughout the economy – for everyone.
If we want to get economic growth back on track, experience rising incomes, and create more jobs, then taxes cannot be increased on the entrepreneurs and investors that are critical to making this happen.
Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. His article was first published by the SBE Council, 12 October, 2012, http://www.sbecouncil.org/2012/10/12/the-biden-and-ryan-debate-energy-and-taxes.
The Alabama Policy Institute (API) has released a new infographic in its By the Numbers series that presents side-by-side statistics from comparable time periods during the first terms in office of Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, as well as an updated infographic comparing the first terms in office of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
The one-page Clinton/Obama Presidents’ First Terms By the Numbers and the Bush/Obama Presidents’ First Terms By the Numbers infographics cover a variety of key issues including the cost of health insurance and a gallon of gas, as well as federal regulations implemented, length of unemployment, job creation and loss, per capita income, national debt, approval ratings, change in the S&P 500, number of federal employees, Americans on food stamps and others.
The infographics, in which all dollars have been adjusted for inflation to provide realistic comparisons, can be found in their entirety on the By the Numbers page at www.alabamapolicy.org.
According to API Policy Director and General Counsel Cameron Smith, API was vigilant in gathering truly comparable statistics.
“It was important to API that we provide an apples-to-apples comparison,” Smith said. “Since President Obama’s first term is not over, we did not pair statistics of his incomplete term with those of President Clinton’s or President Bush’s full term. If data was only available for the first three years of Mr. Obama’s administration for a particular statistic, we compared that figure to the same information from the first three years of the Bush and Clinton administrations.”
“An informed electorate is a powerful force, and we hope our By the Numbers series provides a basic, easy-to-comprehend snapshot that will educate Americans on the issues that matter most.”
By the Numbers</em. complements API's studies, white papers, issue briefs, editorials and other resources available at www.alabamapolicy.org. Other topics addressed in the By the Numbers series include Energy, K-12 Education and Medicaid.
For ticket information, click here.