 | ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 17 February 2001 | Vol. II #24 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 17 February 2001 | Vol. II #24 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
Thanks to Republican majorities in Congress and now a Republican president in the White House, Conservatives have the opportunity, for the first time since 1952, to take away federal funding of left wing non-profit groups. However, they must mobilize at the grass-roots level to get action from Congress as well as the executive branch in order to do it.
Taxpayers, according to research by the Capital Research Center, funded many left wing non-profits who campaigned against the nomination of John Ashcroft to Attorney General. Terrence Scanlon, president of the Capital Research Center, a group that styles itself as "The Philanthropic Watchdog" told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington that the left wing non-profits can be stopped and that's "good news."
"For the first time since 1952, we have a Republican Congress, House and Senate, we have a Republican President, so the agency heads will be hopefully mostly conservatives. So for the very first time we have an opportunity to go after these groups and take away their federal money. Let's do it," Scanlon said to thunderous applause.
As an example of a non-profit receiving huge federal funds, Scanlon named the American Association of Retired Persons, commonly known as the AARP.
"AARP received $73 million in federal grants in 1999. 73 million of your tax dollars went to the AARP. Most of this money came from the Labor Department for job training programs for seniors," Scanlon said.
However, Scanlon said the most "egregious" group to be receiving federal money is the National Council of Senior Citizens.
"This was a group that was started in 1960 during the Kennedy-Johnson campaign. They were well known four years ago during the Hillary Clinton health care debate when they were lobbying for national health care. Their budget is 96 percent federally funded. If it were not for federal dollars there would be no National Council of Senior Citizens," according to Scanlon.
Scanlon commended Senator Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) for attempting to take away federal funding from these non-profits during the last congressional session. Gregg may have lost the battle, but Scanlon believes his efforts gave conservatives much encouragement to keep up the fight.
A majority of non-profits in America are liberal, according to Scanlon, because Congress began giving federal grants to such groups back in the 1960s.
"Today, there are a billion non-profit organizations in the United States. Unfortunately, the majority are liberal. We're talking about Planned Parenthood, the NAACP, PETA, Children's Defense Fund. There have two things in common: they don't pay taxes on their revenues and the contributions made by their donors are tax deductible," Scanlon said.
The recent Ashcroft and Norton cabinet confirmations, Scanlon believes, illustrated "the power of these non-profit liberal groups who get government money. There was a meeting in Washington on January 9 sponsored by the American Association of University Women. There are some 50 liberal groups at the meeting and they were given an assignment to undo the nomination of Senator Ashcroft. We found that 18 of these groups receive considerable federal money in the prior four years."
Scanlon also said the National Resource Defense Council, which he said receives federal funds, campaigned against Gale Norton's confirmation as Interior Secretary.
"NRDC has a $30 billion budget based with lots of government money. One grant of $729,000 in 1998 was used for encouraging the purchase of energy efficient equipment, whatever that might be," Scanlon said.
[ Jim Burns , CNS ]
** Is President Bush tempting churches to violate the commandments of God?
By Greg Moeller
Sometimes it seems that there is no one left in Washington who does not believe that big government involvement is not the solution to everything. What ever happened to freedom? Now we have a President who may be well-intentioned, but who would like to have us believe that acting "compassionately" is equivalent to having the government tax money from us by force to fund the faith-based charitable organizations that government bureaucrats deem are most worthy. Great, that's all we need, allowing the federal government to determine which faith-based approaches are "better" in solving issues of human need. I think we all need to reconsider what charity is supposed to be about.
What makes some Christian faith-based charitable efforts so successful is that they are first and foremost based on Biblical faith and only secondarily social welfare programs. They are operated under Biblical principles, not government regulations. The fact that the Christian faith, both in doctrine and in practice is inextricably mixed with the act of caring for others is what makes them unique. Another part of their uniqueness is how they are funded.
According to Biblical precepts, caring for others in genuine need is a duty of individuals, families and the church and the financial resources that are needed for such are supposed to be freely and voluntarily given out of love. Money taken by force to "help" other people in "need" is not charity it is theft. Morally, it's pretty simple to understand. If you see someone in need, you are free to take money out of your own pocket to try and help them. However, although it is okay to try to encourage me to do the same, it is not right to take money from my pocket without my permission to help that other person. Such an act would be called stealing, a violation of the Eighth Commandment-"Thou Shalt Not Steal." This basic moral principle applies regardless of whether the theft occurs between two individuals, or if it is a government forcibly extracting money from individuals and families via taxation to fund "charitable" endeavors. Such money is stolen money and the use of it not only violates the moral principle against theft, but the principle of free will giving out of love that is supposed to be at the heart of true Christian charity.
Rather than expand the corrupting influence of illicitly obtained government money to the church, why not instead set the people of American free to support a return to genuine Christian charity? The solution to the mess caused by the ever-expanding government welfare state is not more federal government involvement. Instead the federal government should focus on the areas it legitimately should be involved in like, national defense while cutting taxes significantly and shutting down the government welfare establishment that has robbed those truly in need of real Christian charity. Once the oppressive tax burden is lifted, people will be free to give more of their time and financial resources to the churches and/or private faith-based organizations of their choice so that they can be empowered to engage in providing real, loving, godly charity to those who truly need it.
This is not what is being proposed by the Bush administration. Present at the recent ceremony launching President Bush's Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives were clergy from varied religions ranging from Roman Catholic and Muslim to Orthodox Jew. Is it right to force people to subsidize faith-based organizations whose fundamental faith precepts are contrary to their own? The answer that was given by President Bush was, "We will not fund the religious activities of any group, but when people of faith provide social services, we will not discriminate against them." In other words, only social services will be funded, not religious activities. But isn't that what has made faith-based social welfare programs work? Is a Christian social welfare program really Christian if it is not Christ centered? Is it really "faith-based" if religious activities are not integrated into the social welfare services? Will government funding only such organizations that keep their "faith" compartmentalized and separate from their charitable activities drive true "faith" out of social welfare? With government funding has always come government control in one form or another. The seeds that are being planted here are plain to see for those who want to see it.
Churches and faith-based organizations should be at liberty to carry out their duties free from government control and regulation. People should also be free to contribute to whatever faith-based organizations or causes they want to. They should not be forced to do so by way of taxation.
The question that now lies before us, however, is what will we personally do about all this? Will we stand for what is right and resist things like this that violate the principles of religious liberty and financial freedom? Or will we, under the banner of "compassionate conservatism" work to lay the temptation of illicitly obtained government money at the door of churches and faith-based organizations nationwide?
Our decision may end up making a bigger difference than we think.
[ Greg Moeller is Constitution Party Regional Co-Chairman - Central States ]
The White House will not interfere with a criminal probe of President Clinton's last-minute pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich, despite President Bush's call to "move on" and not dwell on the incident.
"I do not think it is the role of the president to dictate to the independent Justice Department what investigations they should or should not conduct," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said yesterday. "The president has expressed his opinion when he was asked about the Marc Rich pardon."
U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White of the Southern District of New York confirmed yesterday that her office is conducting a criminal probe of the Rich pardon, which Mr. Clinton issued only two hours before he left office, without any of the customary Justice Department review procedures that usually accompany pardons.
While Mrs. White refused to elaborate on the nature of the probe, law-enforcement officials say she is looking into whether personal gifts and political contributions by Mr. Rich's ex-wife, Denise Rich, influenced Mr. Clinton's decision.
Mrs. White is also looking into whether the wealthy Mr. Rich, who lives in Switzerland, might have helped Mrs. Rich finance the gifts. Mrs. Rich is believed to have contributed more than $1 million to Mr. Clinton's campaign, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Mr. Clinton's presidential library fund. She also gave furniture to the Clinton family.
While the president has unlimited power to grant pardons under the Constitution, nothing exempts him from federal laws against bribery.
{ Washington Times ]
TCN Comment: This was a common tactic all during the Clinton administration and now we see the same corrupt practices rearing their ugly heads in the Bush administration…. The only cause sufficient to bring about a DOJ investigation, is a congressional investigation. Then DOJ can block access to information and witnesses requested by congress because it might hinder the DOJ investigation.
Bush will not hinder the DOJ investigation because he knows Mrs. White, a Clinton appointee, will accomplish just what he wants, stopping the congressional investigation in its tracks. The only thing that could be as corrupt as the Clinton administration is any administration that would knowingly and look the other way.
While giving a talk in far-off Australia on February 1st, U. S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg may have thought it was safe to take a cheap shot at a fellow American back home. Nor was she restrained by the fact that what she said was a lie. Back in 1997, Congressman Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said, "when judges exercise powers not delegated to them by the Constitution, impeachment is a proper tool." He cited as an example, a judge who ordered a tax increase in Kansas City. "Do judges have the authority to raise taxes?" he asked. "Of course not."
In Australia, however, Justice Ginsburg declared: "Tom DeLay has advocated the impeachment of judges who render unpopular decisions that, in his view, do not follow the law." She added, "Mr. DeLay is not a lawyer but, I am told, an exterminator by profession."
Perhaps an academic audience at the University of Melbourne law school might find it amusing to disdain a non-academic, non-lawyer who dared to question one of the anointed, but anyone whose home has been threatened by termites might have a better appreciation of someone who did useful and vital work in the real world, even if not in the rarefied atmosphere of academia. Justice Ginsburg's disdain was not unrelated to the very problem that Congressman DeLay complained of, arrogant over-reaching by judges who impose their own presumptions on others, while claiming to be enforcing the law.
This issue is much bigger than Justice Ginsburg and Congressman DeLay put together.
Over the past half century, far too many judges -- including justices of the Supreme Court -- have "interpreted" laws to mean the direct opposite of what the written words of those laws plainly said. You don't need a law degree to know that, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbad group preferences and quotas, Justice William Brennan's "interpretation" of it 15 years later in the Weber case to permit group preferences and quotas was an exercise in raw judicial power, based on sheer gall and a defiance of anybody to do anything about it. One of the dissenting justices likened Justice's Brennan's evasion of the law to the great escapes of Houdini.
It is not a question whether group preferences and quotas are popular or unpopular, good policy or bad policy. It is a question whether courts of law become arenas for arbitrary exercises of power -- the very antithesis of law.
The people of this country have long had differing opinions on quotas, abortion, pornography and many other controversial issues. That is why we have elections at all levels of government and differing laws from one state or locality to another. But those who think themselves so far above ordinary people that they ought to impose their own opinions on the unwashed masses have supported judges who turn these political questions into constitutional issues without any basis in the constitution.
At the heart of the constitution is a separation of powers, which limits each branch of government and allows other branches of government to stop it from over-stepping its bounds. Without that, we are at the mercy of whoever happens to be the most ruthless in grabbing power. That is why impeachment has to be a remedy.
According to Justice Ginsburg, "casual use of impeachment would disserve not only the federal judiciary but also the constitutional principles that have seen the United States through its worst crises."
Who said anything about "casual" use of impeachment? What federal judge has ever been casually impeached? Even where there were charges of gross judicial corruption by bribery -- the impeachment of federal judge Alcee L. Hastings a decade ago -- the Congress took weeks of lengthy testimony, evidence and argument before removing Judge Hastings from the bench. Other judges have continued to draw their salaries while behind bars for violations of the law because they had not been impeached.
The danger is not in "casual" removal of judges but in casual lying, such as Justice Ginsburg has engaged in, not only in this attempt to distort the issue of impeachment, but also in other instances of distorting the constitution to impose her own personal ideology as "the law of the land." Nor is she the only one.
Nothing is more dangerous than the idea that some public officials are above the law. If they are, then we don't have law -- and we won't have freedom much longer either.
[ T Sowell, Townhall.com ]
The recent report was that a cable had been cut and the Internet connection to China was temporarily lost. It is evidently now repaired and with added features.
TCN had a few subscribers in China, but no more. The following message is bounced when the TCN is sent.
**
This is the Postfix program at host bjmx2.163.net.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that the message returned below could not be delivered to one or more destinations.
For further assistance, please contact <postmaster@163.net>
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the message returned below.
The Postfix program
<AddressOmitted@163.net> : This Message is not welcome
**
"Failed presidential candidate John McCain continues to push his widely discredited 'Party Killer' campaign finance reform. This week, rumors abounded that McCain's 'ego is so out of whack, his grasps on the effects of his proposed legislation so tenuous, he is willing to switch political parties and caucus with the liberal Democrats if his terms are not met.' McCain's bill proposal would essentially strip the ability of Republican and corporate organizations from raising sums of money necessary to communicate with voters during an election, while leaving Big Labor essentially unregulated. Perhaps the best explanation of the proposal, and its dangerous effect on the American political system, can be found in a new publication by the Americans for Tax Reform. 'Trojan Horse: Understanding How McCain-Feingold Exempts Most Labor Union Political Activities from New Restrictions' by Ronald Nehring, Jami Lund and Shawn Stair. Copies can be found on the ATR website at www.ATR.ORG or ordered by calling 202-785-0266."
[ Adam Smith ]
"In the face of giant budget reserves in recent years, many Republican governors have proposed net tax increases. Those governors include George Pataki (N.Y.), who signed a huge 55 cents a pack increase in the cigarette tax; Don Sundquist (Tenn.), who is lobbying for a state income tax; Jane Hull (Ariz.), who supported an increase in the sales tax to pay for more school spending; George Ryan (Ill.), who raised taxes by more than $300 million in 1999; Louisiana's Mike Foster, who won an extension of the 3 percent sales tax on food and utilities; and Bob Taft of Ohio, who raised several taxes his first year in office and proposed a $200 million environmental bond initiative. Mike Leavitt (Utah) is leading the charge in the states for an Internet taxing scheme."
[ Stephen Moore & Stephen Slivinski of the Cato Institute, Wall Street Journal ]
"At some point you have to wonder who still takes Jesse Jackson seriously. ... No comparable figure would have survived the scandals, sleaze, failure, and sheer nonsense that have trailed Jackson over the years as tenaciously as the TV cameras. If he were white, he would have about as much prominence in national life as Jimmy Swaggart. Yet he endures and thrives, raking in vast fortunes from corporate America, betraying his family, casting racial aspersions on anyone with whom he disagrees, and inveigling his offspring in the corrupt and corrupting operation he laughably calls the Citizen Education Fund (CEF). ... No one should invite him on television again, and no corporation should do business with him. He should return the $35,000 (for moving expenses) to CEF, pay for his mistress and child out of his own pocket, and leave public life at the earliest opportunity for good."
[ Andrew Sullivan in the New Republic ]
The 28th Annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) kicked off yesterday in Crystal City, Virginia featuring a veritable who's-who list of conservative speakers, including: David Keene of the American Conservative Union, Virginia Governor and RNC Chairman Jim Gilmore, Chuck Cunningham, Wayne LaPierre and Charlton Heston of the National Rifle Association, columnists John Gizzi of Human Events and Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard, best-selling authors David Horowitz, Bill Gertz and Ann Coulter, Rep. Tom "The Hammer" DeLay, Steve Moore from the Club for Growth, pollster Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, Morton Blackwell of the Leadership Institute, Terry Scanlon or the Capital Research Center, Stefan Gleason of the National Right to Work Foundation and Paul Beckner of Citizens for a Sound Economy. Whew.
**And that was just Day One.
About 3,000 child-starving, elderly-hating, puppy-kicking heartless right-wing extremists have gathered here to listen to the stars ... past and present ... of the conservative movement. Our favorite line of the day came from Ms. Coulter: "The mistake Republicans have made over the years is treating Democrats like adults." Amen, sister. Amen.
[ GOP N&V ]
Did Clinton avoid the word "is" on purpose? All the networks on Thursday night quoted Bill Clinton's statement denying he did anything improper in granting the Marc Rich pardon, but only FNC picked up on Clinton's grammatical error in which he incorrectly used the word "are" instead of "is."
During the roundtable segment on Special Report with Brit Hume viewers saw this text on screen of Clinton's statement: "Any suggestion that improper factors including fundraising for the DNC or my library had anything to do with the decision are absolutely false."
Hume observed: "So the suggestion 'are' false. Mort, any thoughts as to how because that statement is not grammatical and we're using the word 'is' there, is that a way out of this statement if it turns out to be true?"
Mort Kondracke postulated: "Maybe the word 'is' is not in Clinton's vocabulary anymore." Kondracke urged a careful "parsing" of the words and jokingly suggested: "Maybe the 'fact,' if it were a fact that he gave the pardons out in return for money or for the library or something like that, the fact would be true but the 'suggestion' is false."
Don't be too quick to dismiss that parsing.
The Federalist saw it this way:
"There's not a single, solitary shred of evidence that I did anything wrong, or that [fugitive financier] Marc Rich's money changed hands. There's certainly no evidence that I took any of it." --Bill Clinton who, you will note, did not say he did not do anything wrong - just that there is no "evidence that I did anything wrong" - classic chameleonic Clintonese."
TCN Comment: A lie can be told with perfectly true statements. The intent to deceive is what makes it a lie, not the words. Clinton is a liar.
Sen. Barbara Boxer on partial-birth abortion: "That this Constitution as it currently is -- some want to amend it to say life begins at conception. ... I am not willing to amend the Constitution to say that a fetus is a person...."
Sen. Barbara Boxer on trees: "We are talking about God's creations that we have a responsibility to protect. This is Mojave National Preserve's Joshua trees. We have to move to protect them."
[ The Federalist ]
A key United Nations agency has lent its support to a Palestinian Authority tourism map that completely obliterates Israel.
Established by a U.N. resolution in 1978, the United Nations Development Program opened an office in eastern Jerusalem in 1981. It assists PA ministries in the development of the economy, infrastructure, schools, hospitals, water and rural areas.
Five percent of its funding comes from U.N. headquarters, with the rest coming from donors including Japan, the U.S., and European Union member states.
The PA Ministry of Tourism's new map, called "Palestine, The Holy Land," shows the entire expanse of present-day Israel, the disputed West Bank and Gaza Strip. The whole area is called "Palestine." There is no reference to Israel, or indication of borders between Israel and areas controlled by the PA.
"This publication was made possible thanks to the support of the United Nations Development Program/Program of assistance to the Palestinian people," reads a small credit on the back of the map.
[ Taken from an article by Julie Stahl, CNS ]
We received the following correction and elaboration with regard to information we printed on the Indianapolis Baptist Temple fiasco.
== Quote ==
It was BOB DOLE who chaired the committee that wrote the legislation requiring churches to act as a publican. RONALD REAGAN signed the bill into "law."
The judge, Sarah Evans Barker is a REPUBLICAN who was appointed by REAGAN.
At the Supreme Court level, Justice Stevens, a REPUBLICAN who was nominated by JERRY FORD, denied the stay.
This attack against IBT has been a REPUBLICAN deal all the way ever since 1983.
Your article states Barker was a Clintonite (untrue) and while it properly blames Bush and Ashcroft implies they inherited the problem from Bubba when it has always been a REPUBLICAN pet project from day one. Call Dr. Dixon. He'll tell you the GOP and not the Jack Asses did him in.
Ed DeVries
== End Quote ==
Thanks Dr DeVries. We stand corrected.
The homepage and archives for The Conservative Newsletter are located on the WWW at http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn/
This newsletter is sent by subscription only. If you do not wish to be on the mailing list, please let us know and you will be removed immediately. To be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this newsletter with the word REMOVE in the body of your reply. You may also send your request to tcn@wilderness-cry.net .
Thank you.