Wednesday, January 4, 2012
9:00 am
Daniel J. Summers
This is the last (or first, depending on how you're reading it) part of the series “2011 Year in Review: The Good, the Bad, and the Ridiculous.”
Evil's Class of 2011
2011 was a good year for tyrants to breathe their last. Osama bin Laden, head of al-Qaeda and mastermind of the September 11, 2001 terrors attacks, was killed in a daring raid on May 2nd. Muammar Gaddafi, the long-time leader of Lybia, was captured and killed October 20th. Then, a week before Christmas, Kim Jong-Il, the North Korean dictator, breathed his last. These three men did very little to soothe pain and suffering in this world, choosing rather to inflict it in an attempt to maintain their power and control. As of today, none of these three men control anything - in my book, that's a very good thing. (Even better would be a change in direction, though that's looking doubtful at this point, except possibly in Libya.)
Contrary to popular opinion, you can make value judgments about these nations (or, in al-Qaeda's case, their organization). Man has a God-given yearning to be free, both physically and spiritually. God also made it plain in His Word that choosing Him is a personal decision - it must be made in one's heart, not forced by government at the point of a gun. Regimes can try to control behavior, but they cannot change hearts. These leaders used violence and oppression to try to conquer the hearts of their citizens, rationalized in many cases via religion; the God of the Bible wants us to surrender our hearts to Him voluntarily. These leaders worked against Him, and they are gone.
9-9-9
While the Cain Train's derailment made the “bad” list, one positive to come out of his campaign was his 9-9-9 plan. This plan scraps all existing tax code, and replaces it with a 9% income tax, a 9% national sales tax, and a 9% corporate income tax. This plan is the first time a poll-leading presidential candidate has proposed such a massive overhaul of the tax system, and the only plan apart from the FairTax (which Mr. Cain also supports) that eliminates the ridiculous spaghetti of our tax code - spaghetti with a compliance price tag in the millions. While there was the expected knee-jerk reaction from the usual sources ("What? You mean POOR PEOPLE would have to pay 9% on THEIR INCOME, TOO?!?!"), Cain's analysis showed that this would bring in about the same amount of revenue. Combine that with the vast simplification of the tax code, thus eliminating much of the compliance and enforcement expense, and you've got something that just might work.
I realize Cain's analysis is that of someone running for office, but it does mesh with the analysis done by those that espouse the FairTax. 9-9-9 provides the most level of playing grounds - if you make $10,000, you'd owe $900; if you make $100,000, you'd owe $9,000; if you make $10,000,000, you'd owe $900,000. Corporations, although merely voluntary associations of individuals, are taxed at this rate as well. The national sales tax, balanced with reduced compliance cost to the businesses that would be collecting it, is nearly break-even. This would encourage growth without punishing success.
I can't remember where I read it, but it's almost like some people are obsessed with making sure everyone has their “fair share” of the pie. Others see the pie and ask “Hey, why don't we just get a few more of those?” 9-9-9 clearly falls into the latter camp. Basing economic policy on “It's not fair that he has more than me” is poor; there's a reason we teach children not to look at life that way. Instead, we should compare our poor to the poor of other nations, and realize that even the “poor” in this country are better off than the average citizen in many other nations.
I hope that, the next time an alternative tax is pitched, we can have a rational discussion about it. In fact, the FairTax is proposed nearly every year - if you read about it and like it, just let your Congress-critter know.
A Full Trip Through the Bible
Inspired by my Christmas gift from my family in 2010, I searched the web for reading plans and found this one, which looked very interesting. I started a Facebook group and asked if any of my friends would like to join me on this journey, and 22 others joined me; I even made a few new friends along the way. Each day I would post the reading for that particular day, and we could use the group to share, discuss, or encourage one another. There were times I got behind (it happens), and when I posted an encouragement to the group, others were there with me. We weren't judging each other, we were simply encouraging one another - as Hebrews 10:24 says, “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works.”
The pace was quick, and although I enjoyed it and was blessed by it, I believe 2012 will see me taking it a bit slower. I did flag several verses as I was reading through, and those are the places I'll start digging in and digesting what's there.
So, there you have it. As in previous years, while I had to cut off the lists for the bad and the ridiculous, those all happened externally. I could have filled the list for this post with solely personal things. This tells me that I serve a God Who blesses me, no matter what sort of bad or ridiculous stuff goes on around me. I believe more good is on its way in 2012, and some of it might not even be just for me. :)
Sunday, September 11, 2011
7:00 am
Daniel J. Summers
To the unholy alliance of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, I just have one question:
Are you enjoying your 72 raisins?
Never again. And if, by reason of treachery or covert actions, this does occur again, rest assured that your actions will lead to your fate matching that of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
(In prior years, I have written about remembering this travesty, the importance of persevering to defeat those who perpetrated this, and remembering how I felt on that day. It was also two years ago when I profiled Louis Neil Mariani, one of the innocent Americans killed 10 years ago today. All these still apply. But, for today, my fist is in the air; I'm still angry, and I regret that we cannot exhume every terrorist we've dispatched in the intervening 10 years, resuscitate them, and kill them again.)
Yesterday was a great day for the United States of America. In case you (like this guy used to do) have been living in a cave the past few days, the al-Qaeda leader behind the 9/11 terror attacks, Osama bin Laden, has been killed. After a nearly 10-year manhunt, most Americans are joyful today. While his death will not bring about the end of terrorism, it is an important symbolic victory in the continuing (if not in name) War on Terror. From the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, to the 2000 USS Cole bombing, Osama bin Laden had hit at American interests several times. 9/11 was the straw that broke the camel's back, and we began trying to get him in earnest. I have great hopes that the intel that was gathered during the mission will enable us to complete the work of dismantling the terror network for good.
Pakistan, you've got some questions to answer as well. Why did it take us not telling you about an operation for it to finally work?
And, a note to my Christian friends quoting Proverbs 24:17-18…
17 Do not rejoice when your enemy falls,
and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles, 18 lest the Lord see it and be displeased,
and turn away His anger from him.
Is the Lord going to bring Osama bin Laden back to life? I think not. This act was an act of vengeance, I'll not argue that point; however, it was also an act of defense. I will sleep better knowing that this person has begun meeting justice, and will be meeting it for eternity. As a Christian, I am sad that another soul has died without Christ; however, nothing I read in Scripture indicates that evil has unlimited chances to repent. In fact, the Bible says that all men are without excuse. His death will save lives long-term.
I leave you with the scene unfolding as David and the Israelite army return from battle, David having just slain Goliath.
6 As they were coming home, when David returned from striking down the Philistine, the women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul, with tambourines, with songs of joy, and with musical instruments. 7 And the women sang to one another as they celebrated….
There is absolutely no reason that we cannot rejoice in this military victory for our nation. As a nation, we haven't had a lot of bright spots lately, so this one is probably amplified because of that. God has delivered him into our hands - why should we not rejoice?
Thursday, January 11, 2007
10:20 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Several things are converging at once, and I believe they're related. Tuesday was a busy day, so I'll explain each, and then how they could be.
First, the hard-working 101st Congress started their 4-day work-week, after taking Monday off for the BCS championship game. (They should have taken Tuesday off instead of Monday, so they could sleep in Tuesday morning after the late finish.) This is the now Democrat-controlled House and Senate - the legislative body we'll have to deal with for the next two years.
Second, we have Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), on the heels of his joint letter with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) expressing opposition to increasing troop levels, announced that there will be a symbolic resolution voted on in the Senate next week opposing any escalation in the war in Iraq. (This is in the 4th paragraph under the heading “Dems considering options”.) That link also has a full story on the bill that Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy (D-MA) introduced to require Congressional approval for any troop increases in Iraq. This bill is a clear usurpation of executive power, and will not pass muster - however, its introduction and the accompanying rhetoric sends a message. (Mr. Kennedy also gave a speech at the National Press Club in which he was highly critical of the President and his Iraq policy. While I would love to give his speech the proper fisking it deserves (and may if I have the time), I'll quote one of the more egregious portions here…)
But I do not retreat from the view that Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam. At the critical moment in the war on terrorism, the administration turned away from pursuing Osama bin Laden and made the catastrophic choice instead that has bogged down America in an endless quagmire in Iraq.
(APPLAUSE)
Our misguided resort to war has created much more and much more intense anti-American feeling than Osama bin Laden ever dreamed of. And the sooner we reverse that distressing trend, the better.
I am convinced that John Kerry could have worked with the international community to end that war and bring our troops home with honor.
Third, the first open fighting of the year broke out in Baghdad, where Iraqi forces went after an insurgent stronghold after the insurgents killed over 100 people. The Iraqi forces called for US backup, and together they prevailed, but not after 10-hour firefight.
Are these three things related? If they are, there are two different ways that it could be. The most likely, and the way I believe these are related, is that the militant element in Iraq is emboldened by this new leadership. They hear the rhetoric from our newly-elected leaders, and they sense that the will of the American people may be waning. They feel that if they step up their attacks, and engage in open hostilities, that they will help those in this country who want us to pull out. We've known for a long time that terrorists prefer Democrats - remember Osama bin Laden's tape before the 2004 elections, threatening states that voted for President Bush? If this is what this turns out to be, I pray that we have the will to fight off this renewed zeal on the part of the terrorists.
Another option is that the Congressional Democrats are using the fighting in Iraq as a political issue. (Of course, the media goes right along with them - look at the first paragraph of this story about Sen. Tim Johnson's emergency brain surgery.) The worse the war goes, the better the Democrats look. I think that a lot of them are not realizing what this means. The Democrats have positioned themselves on the wrong side of this issue. If America loses the war, they win - their prognostications of doom and gloom will have been proved to be true, and they can give the rest of us a big “I told you so.” However, if America wins, they lose - and they will only be madder, and more resentful; they will never admit that our nation did the right thing by going into Iraq. Of course, in a way, they've already gotten a small victory; at the beginning, I never would have used the term “if America wins,” it would have been “when America wins.”
Where is the truth? Are these related at all? If they're not directly related, then they are at least mutually beneficial - which should be enough for any of us that love truth and freedom (and don't want the blood of our brothers in arms to have been spilt in vain) to know what side we should be on. Contrary to what Congress seems to think, the American people do not elect and seat 435 "Commander-in-Chief"s every two years - we elect one every four years. For the next two years, there is one Commander in Chief, with a new Secretary of Defense. If the Democrats have ideas for how to win the war, then let them work together with the administration so that we will prevail. If all they have is grandstanding, naysaying, and threats of treasonous proportions, then they need to sit down and shut up.
Why would a patriotic American position themselves so that they are only validated if America loses? The short answer - they wouldn't.
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
3:15 pm
Daniel J. Summers
He's at it again. The 42nd President of the United States, William Jefferson Blythe (Slick Willie, Bubba) Clinton, has resurfaced to promote his new book. Some folks fault him for not accepting the Sudan's offer to give us Osama bin Laden several years ago. In his defense of himself, he's providing many of us a reminder of just how grating he is to listen to. Did he admit that he had dropped the ball on that particular occasion? (Come on - are you kidding?) Did he adamantly deny this charge? He tried - he said "There was a story, which is factually inaccurate, that the Sudanese offered bin Laden to us. As far as I know, there is not a shred of evidence of that."
That's not a denial, folks; that's an assertion. “Factually inaccurate” means that the story could have the wrong date, or inaccuracies in the timeline - the phrase sounds nice, but it had a different meaning than “substantively inaccurate,” which is how I would describe something like that. (Actually, I probably would have called it a “pack of lies” or something like that…) And to his next phrase - he can't bring himself to say “I didn't do it,” he uses the cop-out “There's not a shred of evidence of that.” (If you'll recall, he's used that phrase before - when speaking of Mark Rich, the fundraising of Charlie Trie (paragraph 3), even when describing his own life. I saw that one person said “The proper way to parse that statement (“There's not a single shred of evidence”) is 'There are many shredded pieces of evidence.'” And, as if that's not a wishy-washy enough statement, he preceded it by saying “as far as I know.” Does this mean he's not sure whether there are shreds of evidence (or maybe even whole pages his staffers missed)?
This is the sort of pedantic double-speak that makes Clinton so dear to his party, and so frustratingly annoying to those not in his party. I would think that someone who was trying to rehabilitate their reputation would start talking straight. Ladies, think about it - if you accused your husband of having an affair with someone, and he said “As far as I know, there's not a shred of evidence that we ever had an affair,” would you be satisfied with that answer? What you would hear is something like “We did, but we covered our tracks really well, I think.” Back when the Godfather (Rush Limbaugh for those in Rio Linda) came into popularity (way back during Bush 41's presidency), one of his most common themes was that “words mean things.” (Sounds like a no-brainer, right?) Through Clinton's use of terms like this, and his creative narrowing of common terms such as is and sex, he harmed the moral fabric of this country immensely.
This mysogynistic, impeached rapist, who was held in contempt of court while seated as this nation's top executive officer, needs to go back into the shadows from where he came. The policy differences some folks have with our current President are nowhere close to Clinton's pattern of personal corruption, abuse of power, and illegal activities. Let's just hope against hope he doesn't become our first “First Gentleman”…
To the unholy alliance of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, I just have one question: