WOOT! "The Great One" Uses The Lid

Last night, The Great One, Mark Levin used an article featured here on the Lid to show how the Obama Administration is taking away your freedom. The article was about a British Study which showed how Electric cars are putting more CO2 into the environment than the equivalent gas-powered car.

If you didn't listen to his show last night, the segment can be heard below. The original article is here. (if you cannot see the player below click here).

Thank you Mark Levin, I am honored.





Thank you Mark Levin, I am honored.

An Email Debate With a Liberal/Progressive

Some of you may remember a post from a while back that laid out the reasons I thought it was preferable for someone of the Jewish Faith to be politically conservative. Last week I received a letter from a reader questioning my rationale, not based on religious law which is what my original post talked about, but  using the kind of arguments made famous by MSNBC and the NY Times. As it might be interesting for others to read this grass-roots political debate, I have posted his letter and my response below (editing out his name)

To the editor:

Jeff Dunetz writes: "It does not mean, as the liberals ascribe to, when it comes to talents, predilections, or natural abilities we are all equal. Nor does it mean we all should have the same big screen TV, wireless internet, or savings account balance."

Jeff may be pleased to know that liberals do not ascribe to these things and never have. Many of us do believe in providing as level a playing field as possible to give those with talent and ability a fair chance to make money and have that big screen TV. One way is a by a progressive form of taxation. Conservatives do not believe in progressive taxation, and Americans can judge for themselves whether a system in which the rich do not pay their fair share works well.

Jeff writes: "Liberalism takes away our personal choice, gives it to the government, retarding our spiritual development and most importantly the opportunity to get closer to our Maker."

Jeff does not explain how liberalism does this, nor how conservatism honors this idea by generally restricting gay couples from marrying, restricting a woman's right to choose, by being on the wrong side of most civil rights issues historically, and generally attempting to legislate morality whereas liberals generally leave personal choices to the people.

Moreover, while Judaism values personal action through Tzedakah, it certainly does not prohibit collective action through government. However, Jeff's article would explain why conservatives want to get rid of Medicare and turn it over to those fantastic recipients of bailout money, the insurance companies. Somehow, I have a feeling even most conservative Jews don't support that one.

Jeff writes: "A Liberal/Progressive government teaches citizens that the government will always bear the responsibility of protecting you; there is no individual responsibility, just the collective bailout."

Jeff appears to have forgotten that the bailout began under President Bush, was supported by most Republicans, and opposed by many liberals.

Jeff should remember that Judaism values education and facts, particularly in a time when 45 percent of Republicans are part of the "birther" movement.

My response follows:

Dear xxxxx

I cannot tell you how much it pleases me that you read the article and thought enough about it to write a letter. Disagreeing and debating important issues is very much part of the Jewish tradition.You obviously put much thought into your correspondence so allow me to address your points as best as I can.

One of your points is that Conservatives do not believe in progressive taxation, and Americans can judge for themselves whether a system in which the rich do not pay their fair share works well. That is not the case.

The IRS reported 2008 (the last time they released this data) the rich pays more than their fair share. The top 1% of earners pay 38.02% of all income taxes, after deductions and such their average tax rate is 23.27%. The top 5% pay 58.72% of all income taxes their average tax rate is 20.70%. The bottom 50% pays 2.7% of taxes and their average tax rate is 2.59%. There is no one in the mainstream conservative movement calling for our income taxes to lose their “progressiveness.”

You say that the liberal position is not that we all should have the same big screen TV, wireless internet, or savings account balance…but to give those with talent and ability a fair chance to make money and have that big screen TV. I would submit to you that the redistribution of income called for by the President and liberal leaders such as Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi is being executed for that purpose. In progressive/liberal orthodoxy there is no rich or poor, just a mediocre middle. A great example of how this works in the U.S. is Obamacare, which is partially funded with high taxes on “Cadillac” plans (health plans which the govt. has determined cover too much). The objective is for everybody to have the same health plan.

Another question was about conservative suppression of individual rights. You gave examples such as gay couples marrying, restriction of abortion, being on the wrong side of most civil rights issues historically and attempting to legislate morality as opposed to personal choices to the people etc?

The historical truth is that the liberal/progressives have been on the wrong side of the Civil Right issue. Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican Party President; he had a fairly good civil rights position. Between the Civil war and World War I the military was integrated, but President Woodrow Wilson segregated the military (and fired most of the African Americans who had high positions in the federal government. Throughout the fifties and sixties it was the Democratic Party trying to delay civil rights. Sen. Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, unsuccessfully tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957. It was Democratic Party Governor George Wallace who stood on the steps of a Huntsville Alabama school trying to stop it from becoming integrated.

The Civil rights act of 1964 was filibustered by Democrats led by Richard Russell (D-GA) Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states." That filibuster lasted 57 days, until the morning of June 10, 1964, when former KKK member, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation.

As far as “the restrictions on free choice” issues such as abortion or rights or gay marriage. Allow me to provide some facts, without sharing my opinion on the issues.

Being pro-life is not only a conservative position. A February 2011 Rasmussen poll reported that 53% of voters consider abortion morally wrong most of the time, while just 32% say it is morally acceptable most of the time. That is much larger than the conservative community (which is not necessarily homogeneous on that issue).

The Catholic community which tends to vote for liberal causes as much as Jewish voters is aggressively anti-abortion. And when you look at the 53-32% margin above, a fair-minded observer could claim that it is the pro-choice voters who are mandating their morals on the rest of the country.

Likewise the gay marriage issue has proponents and opponents on both sides. For example the “Defense of Marriage Act” was a Bill Clinton invention. The 2008 Prop 8 vote in California banning gay marriage was passed by liberals. According to pollsters the margin of defeat was provided by African Americans who came out in abnormally large numbers to vote for Barack Obama. These voters were liberal in every way except for religious-based issues such as Gay Marriage.

There are examples of liberal politicians legislating morality and lifestyle. The laws restricting soda in schools, or “happy meals” in fast food places takes decision making out of the hands of parents and into the government’s (as is the proposed San Francisco law to ban the circumcision of children). The legislation restricting the amount of salt a restaurant can put in food, restricts adult decision making.

Liberal politicians’ refusal to drill for oil, even though the last two Congressional Research Service studies show we have more oil than Saudi Arabia is another example. Those gas prices approaching $5.00 are a clear example of what the President said during the campaign (under my energy plan prices will necessarily skyrocket). He is trying to force America into a low fossil fuel lifestyle which may not be warranted by the climate change science or the technology. And for those who say that people must be forced to abandon fossil fuels because they really believe global warming is the truth; that may be so. But understand the liberal position that it’s OK to enforce their beliefs about man-made global warming are no different than a person who is pro-life trying to enforce their belief about when life begins.

As far as Medicare, I am assuming that you are talking about Paul Ryan’s plan I suggest you read the plan itself and not the headlines in the media or the political words of our President. It does not get rid of Medicare, nor does it change the plan at all for anyone with-in ten years of retirement. It gives the money directly into the hands of the patient and lets them pick their insurers. That in itself is the key difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives believe in the basic good of people and their ability to make the best decisions for themselves. It does not give the money to banks, the auto-unions or anyone else who received government bailouts (by the way most conservatives were anti-bailout).

Ryan’s plan does not “bail out” or help insurance companies. The plan removes the restrictions preventing insurance companies to cross state lines increasing competition. In fact it puts them on their toes and will make them cut costs. Marketplace competition is a great regulator and competition improves service and product and pricing.

You are correct when you say that the recent banking bailout was supported by many Republicans (and Democrats). But my essay was about conservatives and they were vehemently anti-bailout. During the past primary season many liberal/progressive Republicans were not re-nominated specifically because of conservatives objection to their vote on the bailout (Senator Bennett from Utah for example).

And as far as the last point, I am too am proud that Judaism values education and facts. With that in mind I will share with you my disappointment that an April 26th poll by USA Today reported only 38% of all Americans believed that the President was born in the U.S. I have written often that the “birther” issue, which was invented by a Hillary Clinton operative named Philip Berg, was—well quite frankly an ignorant one and it takes away from the important issues we should be debating (an April 28th article I wrote for Big Government called birtherism and the search for his college records-stupid).

It is my hope that I addressed all of your concerns.

And once again, I would like to thank you for your thoughtful questions.

Warmest Regards



Jeff Dunetz

Civil War Sesquitennial

Stan and I really wanted to go to Charleston, SC last Tuesday for the 150th anniversary of the first shot fired that started the War of Northern Aggression. But he had to work. We were so disappointed. But I found these photos on the Internet and used them to make a scrapbook layout of the Civil War Sesquitennial.

Carpetbaggers

I'm sure you've heard the term, "carpetbagger" but do you know where it came from and what it means?



Before "recycling" was cool, it was a necessity. Carpetbags were cheap luggage during the Reconstruction Era (after the War of Northern Aggression). It was recycled carpet made into bags. But the term, "carpetbaggers", came from Southerners who used the term to describe the opportunists from the North.

After the War of Northern Aggression, the devastated South was enemy occupied territory. Northern armies occupied the southern states and our state governments were forcibly changed. All of this was done, not for the betterment of former slaves or mankind, but for unscupulous people to take opportunity to make money off of us. Carpetbaggers saw money in the process and came down here to make their fortune off of us. It was used as a derogatory term, suggesting opportunism and exploitation by the outsiders. The relocated northerners often formed alliances with freed slaves and southern whites who were Republicans, who were nicknamed scalawags. Together they are said to have politically manipulated and controlled former Confederate states for varying periods for their own financial and power gains. The term carpetbaggers was also used to describe the white Northern Republican political appointees who came South, arriving with their travel carpetbags. They had no knowledge of, connections to or sympathy for the Southern area they were placed in charge of. And they had no intention of listening or cooperating. Southerners considered these Northern appointees ready to loot and plunder the defeated South and they generally did.

This term did not refer to abolitionists, reformers, missionaries and schoolteachers who really came South to try to help people. Most of the freed blacks had not had any education or experience in leadership so what could you expect but that they were led by the nose by the more sophisticated Northern carpetbaggers. But carpetbaggers were both white and black. The black carpetbaggers were, at the best, naive and easily led, and, at the worst, greedy as their white colleagues. To make money off of misery is the lowest of the low. Whether you make it off the backs of the poor slaves or you make it off the backs of the poor and defeated white Southerners. It shows that greed, selfishness, cruelty and evil are no respecter of persons.

The backlash of the Reconstruction Era corruption and carpetbagging politics came in the form of white supremacy groups like the infamous KKK. After the South somewhat stabilized then these groups began to form as the suppressed anger boiled to a boiling point. Wrath was taken out on those who were probably lowest on the totem pole... blacks. We had lost the Civil War and had no ability to start it up again so whites reached out against those they could get to... the blacks in their own communities.

A typical human response is misplaced anger. For instance, you get dumped on by your boss but you can't complain and yell at him so you come home and yell at your wife. If you yell at your boss, you get fired. The price is too high. But if you yell at your wife, she has to take it. So that's what you do. Whites couldn't retaliate against the U.S. government again so they jumped on the blacks who had no advocates or power.

All of it was so wrong, wrong, wrong. Slavery was wrong, mistreatment and abuse of slaves was wrong, trying to dominate the Southern states to the enrichment of Northerners was wrong, Abraham Lincoln starting the War of Northern Aggression was wrong, the politics and corruption of Reconstruction was wrong, the greed of carpetbaggers was wrong, white supremacy groups were wrong, civil rights abuses for whites or blacks are wrong. It just kept escalating like a snowball effect and so many have paid the price for it over several hundreds of years. Innocent people, whites and blacks, families, have paid dearly for these terrible injustices.

We are very blessed to live in a more enlightened time but don't ever think that we are more civilized today. Greed is still a great sin. Pride and power still drives. Selfishness runs rampant. Corruption is still practised. And we are doomed to repeat the vices of our forefathers unless we realize that all are sinners. We all sin and come short of the glory of God. None of us are good. We all have the potential for evil and we are born with an evil human nature.

What is the answer? Jesus Christ! He is the only way to be forgiven and saved. As long as we live we will have to contend with our human nature but once we are saved we have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which works within us to grow our new spirit. If we allow the Holy Spirit to work in us then we can be better people. If we listen to God, we can do good things instead of bad. If we follow His Ways, we can do the right thing instead of the wrong thing.

Romans 8:6-13 (Contemporary English Version)
If our minds are ruled by our desires, we will die. But if our minds are ruled by the Spirit, we will have life and peace.
Our desires fight against God, because they do not and cannot obey God's laws.
If we follow our desires, we cannot please God.
You are no longer ruled by your desires, but by God's Spirit, who lives in you. People who don't have the Spirit of Christ in them don't belong to him.
But Christ lives in you. So you are alive because God has accepted you, even though your bodies must die because of your sins.
Yet God raised Jesus to life! God's Spirit now lives in you, and he will raise you to life by his Spirit.
My dear friends, we must not live to satisfy our desires.
If you do, you will die. But you will live, if by the help of God's Spirit you say "No" to your desires.
Only those people who are led by God's Spirit are his children.