In Thursday’s FOX News GOP Presidential Debate, a resounding roar of ‘boos’ filled the auditorium when debate moderator Washington Examiner Columnist Byron York asked Congresswoman Michele Bachmann whether she would be “submissive to her husband” if she were elected president.

This question was framed after a comment Bachmann had made a few years back about how she didn’t want to do something her husband had asked her to do (return to school to become a tax attorney), but she buckled down and did it because he asked. She said she was ‘submissive’ to his wishes.

The idea of wives submitting to their husbands is a Biblical-based principle ingrained into fundamental Christians since Paul wrote the words in Ephesians 2:22-24:

“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

The writer of Ephesians, Paul (formerly a soldier known as Saul who persecuted Christians in Rome), was writing letters to churches he supported while he was in prison and during his vast travels to support Christians in the region. He was outlining instructions/guidance to keep the people of the church focused on God in a society not all-together friendly to the Christian faith.

Let’s not forget Christians were being herded up and thrown into arenas and into Lion’s Dens. His words were those of comfort and of unity and were spoken out of a desire to allow Christians a support system. In the social class present back in the day, men were revered as the leader of the home and of the society in which they lived. Therefore, Paul instructed women to listen to their husbands (who were often more educated and world wise than they were) and then in turn, for husbands to support the church as Christ had.

There is still a place for this, but it is different now as times are different and a woman’s role in this society has astoundingly changed.

In our culture, meanings change through the years based on the times and the interpretation. If they didn’t, “gay” would still mean “happy”; “cool” would only mean a temperature and a rainbow would still represent God’s promise to Noah.

Times have indeed changed.

(more…)

President Obama has made a big deal out of corporate jets. Apparently they are a symbol not of success but of greed. Yet even as the private jet marked has lagged with the ongoing recession, President Obama’s own employees in his administration have significantly increased the number of limousines available for their travel.

The private jet market has historically risen in line with corporate profits, but started a steep downturn in 2008. The result was the loss of literally thousands of jobs in the factories that make private jets, with Cessna laying off almost 9000 workers alone, mostly in that notorious haunt of millionaires in Wichita, Kansas. Meanwhile, federal government departments increased the numbers of limousines bought in the first two years of the Obama administration by 73 percent, spending $1.9 billion on new cars in 2009 alone. These aren’t cheap autos, either. The most popular model is the Cadillac DTS, with the government paying about $60,000 per vehicle. Cadillac, of course, is part of the bailed-out General Motors.

This all confirms something I examine in my new book, Stealing You Blind: How Government Fatcats Are Getting Rich Off of You. When bureaucrats have taxpayer money to spend, they spend it on themselves. In Chapter Eight (“Municipal Madness”), for example, I detail how two departments (Public Works, and Transportation) of the City of Los Angeles received $111 million between them in stimulus money, and used it to ’save or create’ just 55 jobs, nearly all of them, apparently, in the public sector.

Another example comes in the increasingly risibly-named education sphere. As we all know, vast amounts of taxpayer money have been directed towards global warming research in the past few years. This has led, as we can see from numbers compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, to a substantial increase in the salaries of “atmospheric, earth, marine and space science teachers” at public universities. In 2004, before the wave of public funding was unleashed following An Inconvenient Truth, such teachers were paid $53 an hour. Today they earn $70 an hour. On top of that, of course, they have tenure and enviable benefits, not to mention the shorter hours.

Indeed, government workers have made out like bandits while the rest of us eked out our living in the recession. According to USA Today, “When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.” That was in 2009, before the President announced his much-vaunted “federal pay freeze.”

(more…)

He has fallen back to Earth. Should be a wild ride over the next 14 months.

This is a developing story as police are still investigating the shooting of a non-union business owner, John King, by what appears to be a union assailant.

With around 25 employees, John King owns one of the largest non-union electrical contracting businesses in the Toledo, Ohio area. As a non-union contractor, his business happens to be doing well at a time when unions in the construction industry are suffering. This, it seems, has made the usual animosity unions have for him even greater, making him a prime target of union thugs. So much so, that one of them tried to kill him last week at his home.

John King didn’t plan on being an enemy of unions. In fact, he says all he’s ever wanted to do is work at something he loves doing and be successful at it—something that most normal Americans would call ‘The American Dream.’

After high school and some college, Mr. King briefly worked for an IBEW contractor before being drafted into the military. Following his service in the early 70s, King became his own boss by going into business as the youngest electrical contractor in Toledo.

Over the years, King Electrical Services had always been a small business. However, during the Great Recession, King’s business has actually improved as his union competitors have priced themselves out of work.

Unfortunately, being a non-union electrical company, King has always been on the radar of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). In fact, in 2006, he won a significant case against the IBEW at the US Court of Appeals, after the union had improperly promised his electricians jobs on union sites if they voted the union into King’s company.

Since he’s been in business, in addition to the legal battles and verbal abuse, King’s company has been vandalized and threatened on numerous occasions.

“Back then, it was nothing to have to regularly buy a new set of tires.” King said during a telephone interview on Tuesday. “The ice pick was the weapon of choice.” (more…)

Gov. Rick Perry officially declared his candidacy for the presidency on Saturday, August 13. At that time, he took his place among a handful of other candidates, the apparent front runners of which were conservative Michele Bachmann and John McCain Jr. Mitt Romney. Following his announcement, the MSM dutifully did their best to undermine the success Perry has enjoyed as governor and Romney criticized him for never running a private business.

But that was three days ago.

And today, August 16, Gov. Perry has an 11% lead over Romney in the polls and a 16% lead over Bachmann.

Let’s face it folks, since Perry announced we’ve had 72 hours of watching him shake hands in the heartland and giving speeches in the Texas dialect. The speeches have been focused on tax cuts, jobs creation, getting government out of the people’s business, and labeling Obama the greatest threat facing our country.

The speeches have also contained a heavy dose of Perry’s love for God and country (two things noticeably absent from the speeches Obama’s been reading off teleprompters since taking office).

Perry connects with Americans because he is an American. By that I mean he is salt-of-the-earth America. He wears boots, wears jeans, says grace before meals, and draws his own pistol to shoot coyotes if they bother his dogs during his morning jog.

Seriously folks: Can you imagine watching Obama or Biden or any number liberal democrats trying to figure out how to load a pistol, much less draw one and shoot? On the other hand, Perry can shoot on the run.

(more…)

What do the London riots and the recent government crackdowns on Lemonade stands across America have in common? The answer is that in each case, government has done its best to control young people, to stop them engaging in enterprise. In Britain, the project is much more advanced. So if we want to know where the war on Lemonade selling ends up, we just have to look at the smashed windows and looted shops of Clapham Junction.

Let’s start in Britain so we can see where we’re going. The first thing to know is that government has removed the incentive to work. The British unemployment rate is currently 7.7%, yet there are over 100,000 households bringing in more than $37,000 annually in government handouts (the average household income in the UK). There are 650,000 households taking home more than $25,000 in these benefits.

That, however, is only part of the story. As that essential chronicler of British national demoralization, Theodore Dalrymple, said in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, employers are no longer interested in British youth:

But while the rioters have been maintained in a condition of near-permanent unemployment by government subvention augmented by criminal activity, Britain was importing labor to man its service industries. You can travel up and down the country and you can be sure that all the decent hotels and restaurants will be manned overwhelmingly by young foreigners; not a young Briton in sight (thank God).

The reason for this is clear: The young unemployed Britons not only have the wrong attitude to work, for example regarding fixed hours as a form of oppression, but they are also dramatically badly educated. Within six months of arrival in the country, the average young Pole speaks better, more cultivated English than they do.

The icing on the cake, as it were, is that social charges on labor and the minimum wage are so high that no employer can possibly extract from the young unemployed Briton anything like the value of what it costs to employ him. And thus we have the paradox of high youth unemployment at the very same time that we suck in young workers from abroad.

The role of the minimum wage is crucial. It is around $10 per hour (slightly lower for 18-20 year olds), much higher than the US minimum of $7.25. The difference is all the more important when one considers that the US has a higher average income (around $42,000 annually), meaning that British employers are being asked to pay (roughly) over half of average wage as a minimum rather than a third in the US.

(more…)

To say environmentalists are immune to reality is an understatement. When anyone dare question their conclusions, their deeply held “religious” beliefs, they are immediately attacked as a heretic, or worse, a shill for whatever industry they are trying to destroy. The soundness of the science, and the lack of such on their part, is irrelevant, it’s agenda uber alles. They find someone involved in what goes against their view who they can play “6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon” with and connect to whatever industry/organization they’re trying to destroy and claim that discredits everything contrary to their orthodoxy. But every once in a while something so beautifully karmic happens…That’s what this is about.

Bisphenol-A (BPA) is a chemical used to harden plastic so it can be used in the countless ways it helps improve countless millions of lives. As it is a chemical, it was only a matter of time before the extremist environmentalists started talking of the “dangers” of it to human beings. Ironically, charges of this nature are always led by people who have no concern of human beings. They are the same type of people who effectively banned the mosquito killing agent DDT. That ban has led to millions of avoidable deaths around the world from malaria. While the banning of BPA wouldn’t lead to deaths, it’s banning wouldn’t save any lives either. But it would put a lot of people out of work.

But work, jobs, livelihoods of individuals has no place in the environmental extremist agenda. They’ve replaced what was known to kill malaria carrying mosquitos with nets to sleep under. So instead of eliminating the problem they’ve reduced the problem…during sleep hours. Malaria’s largest number of victims are infants and children who don’t have the wherewithal to swat mosquitos away when they land on them, and since no one can live their whole life in a net, their exposure risk is high.

The book from which the religion of modern environmentalism sprang is “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson. In many ways it is the Bible of that movement. And even though it has been discredited, the “Silent Spring” model still serves as the modus operandi of the environmentalist cult. Ban first, ask questions later. That’s what they were trying to do with BPA.

But a funny thing happened on the way to Utopia…

(more…)

Gov. Rick Perry scorched the political pot on Tuesday with a red-hot rhetorical attack on Fed-head Ben Bernanke. When asked about the Fed reopening the monetary spigots, Perry said, “If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don’t know what y’all would do to him in Iowa, but we — we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas.”

And that wasn’t all. In a more controversial slam, Perry said, “Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous — or treasonous — in my opinion.” (Italics mine.)

Pretty rough stuff. Very aggressive language. And undoubtedly way too strong. It was poorly received in the financial world.

No, Ben Bernanke is not a traitor. This is a policy dispute; it’s not a matter of patriotism. However, and this is an important however, the rest of Perry’s statement suggests that his analysis of Fed policy is right on target. In other words, wrong words, right analysis.

The Texas governor, who by some polls is the new Republican presidential frontrunner, went on to say, “We’ve already tried this. All it’s going to be doing is devaluing the dollar in your pocket. And we cannot afford that.”

Well, to me that is exactly right.

(more…)

From The Washington Times:

Senator Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Independent who caucuses with the Democrats, told host John McCaslin on America’s Morning News radio show on Tuesday morning that he had not decided if he would endorse President Obama in 2012:

MCCASLIN: Will you be supporting Barack Obama in 2012 or are you going to be putting your money on a Republican candidate?

LIEBERMAN: Well I haven’t decided and I’m just waiting to see who the Republican candidate is and what President Obama’s positions are at that point, so I got a little time as an independent not to feel rushed, because this is an important position. And I’m only one person but for every one of us who we support next year is going to say a lot about how our kids and grandkids are going to grow up in America, so I’m watching.

(more…)

As the CWA picketing of Verizon continues it seems some of the union leadership is becoming more and more unhinged. Apparently one member of the union leadership went so far as to instruct his members, by way of publicly accessible telephone hotline, that it is now “open season” on “managers and scabs”. The thug went on to say that union members should “follow them” and “torture them, torture them with chants and noise”. (h/t Moon Bat Tracker)

The best part of WSYR’s report, though, has to be when they call another union boss to ask them about the ridiculous instructions and the guy basically says they’re cool with it. According to him there’s nothing wrong with “militancy”. How insane can you get? Is it any wonder that unions have such a terrible reputation anymore? Have they not earned it?

The sad thing, as the Verizon rep WSYR interviewed alluded to, is most union members aren’t violent nuts. Most of them just want to go to work, make a living, and support their families. It’s thugs like this that give them all a bad name.

(more…)

Judicial Watch earned a victory in court on August 4 in its pursuit of documents related to the Obama administration’s Black Panther scandal. (This gets a bit technical, so hang with me.)

In short, a federal court rejected a claim of the “attorney work-product doctrine” by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for documents prepared after the government dismissed its case against the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense on May 15, 2009. (The work-product doctrine shields materials prepared in anticipation of litigation from release. The Obama administration was using it to try to protect documents sought by JW through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and a related lawsuit.)

Several members of the New Black Panther Party were accused of engaging in voter intimidation during the 2008 presidential campaign.

In his August 4, 2011, decision, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton rejected the Obama DOJ’s arguments that documents prepared after the government dismissed its case (against the Black Panthers on May 15, 2009) could be withheld under the “attorney work-product privilege” exemption. Judge Walton explained:

Although an injunction remains in place in the New Black Panther Party case…the filing of the motion for voluntary dismissal largely marked the end of the litigation. As such, the documents prepared subsequent to that event were not prepared in contemplation of litigation and are thus outside the scope of the work-product privilege.

Because the case had essentially ended on May 15, 2009, Judge Walton found that “it is difficult to see how” the 24 documents created after May 15, 2009, “were prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation, which is the testing question the Court must answer in evaluating the DOJ’s work-product claim.”

(more…)

From Rasmussen Reports:

Texas Governor Rick Perry, the new face in the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, has jumped to a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann with the other announced candidates trailing even further behind.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary voters, taken Monday night, finds Perry with 29% support. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who ran unsuccessfully for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, earns 18% of the vote, while Bachmann, the Minnesota congresswoman who won the high-profile Ames Straw Poll in Iowa on Saturday, picks up 13%.

(more…)

I know that is a dumb statement. I mean, what candidate doesn’t have a plan when seeking office? So when I mean a plan, I mean a plan. Yesterday’s post about Southern bigotry, I said would be a major factor for Perry to overcome.

I also said this.

voters will get a tour de force from the liberal establishment on Perry’s views of states’ rights, gay marriage, civil rights, welfare, religion and abortion.

They won’t take his policy positions, his record as governor, and compare that against Obama’s. No, that would take away from the real purpose and turn a real threat to Obama and his liberal establishment, into credible threat.

They can’t have that now can they? So the story line is that Obama is having bad luck. That’s all. A run of tough breaks has done what was initially unthinkable: challenged his genius. Whereas, Perry has had good luck in Texas. That’s all. A run of good bounces that allowed him to plod his way along for 11 years. Like an ignorant child who walked his way under busy scaffolding and emerged unscathed and unharmed.

And so it starts; dutifully assumed by the New York Times.

But some economists as well as Perry skeptics suggest that Mr. Perry stumbled into the Texas miracle. They say that the governor has essentially put Texas on autopilot for 11 years, and it was the state’s oil and gas boom — not his political leadership — that kept the state afloat. They also doubt that the Texas model, regardless of Mr. Perry’s role in shaping it, could be effectively applied to the nation’s far more complex economic problems.

“Because the Texas economy has been prosperous during his tenure as governor, he has not had to make the draconian choices that one would have to make in the White House,” said Bryan W. Brown, chairman of the Rice University economics department and a critic of Mr. Perry’s economic record. “We have no idea how he would perform when he has to make calls for the entire country.”

Of course you can’t have real criticism without credible input from “respected” experts.

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Elizabeth Blackney are joined by Indiana State Treasurer and candidate for U.S. Senate Richard Mourdock to discuss the recent debt rating downgrade, how he would approach foreign policy matters in the Senate, and the need to replace long time Senator Dick Lugar who Barack Obama has called his favorite Republican.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

RichardMourdock.com
Richard Lugar Opponent Richard Mourdock Slams Indiana Senator As Clueless
Lugar vs. Mourdock on the Issues
Lugar trails Mourdock in Club for Growth poll
Mourdock favors Cut, Cap and Balance Act
Mourdock: Geithner Should Be Fired
77 percent of Ind. chairs backing Mourdock

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Elizabeth on Twitter
Follow Richard on Twitter

Google is one of the worlds most intriguing companies.  From its humble beginnings as a search engine company, Google has leveraged its mastery of the elusive formula for monetizing web traffic into a force capable of tangling with China—making it considerably stronger than our own State Department by some measures.  Its recent announcement that it plans to acquire Motorola Mobile makes it heir to a grand tradition of American manufacturing—not to mention possessor of a valuable trove of intellectual property, and a sudden direct competitor to stylish hardware king, Apple.

Along the way, Google has managed to wander into numerous areas of public policy, including privacy, data security, and telecommunications regulation.  It has attracted antitrust scrutiny, patent challenges, and copyright suits—along with the standard collection of business litigation.  It has become a significant contributor to election campaigns and an active bidder for government IT contracts.  Above all, Google has riveted the attention of both devoted fans and committed opponents.

What does it all mean?  How can we make sense of such a company?  And how can the answers to these questions inform contemporary political debate?

Of the many axes that define twenty-first century American politics, one economic split pits fans of the public sector against fans of the private sector.  While the vocal members of these warring camps tend to point to different virtues for the public and private sector, they each point to a similar vice: much of the political left is inherently distrustful of corporations, while much of the political right is inherently distrustful of government.  Why?  Those who trust government tend to believe that elections and constitutions constrain abuses of power, while corporations are slaves to profit-seeking shareholders and greedy board members.  Those who trust companies tend to believe that competition and market dynamics constrain abuses of power, while vocal, well-funded interest groups corrupt even the best meaning of government officials.

Companies like Google—along with Facebook and Apple, and in earlier times Standard Oil, IBM, or AT&T—confuse the issue.

(more…)

It’s been one helluva weekend for President Obama. Last Friday, he received two separate smackdowns via the Judicial Branch of government, and by Sunday, everyone was talking about his dismal polling results as his approval rating dropped below 40% for the first time. Whether he realizes it yet or not, what this weekend really showed was that the Constitution matters. Trampling this founding document as he has done for over two and a half years triggered that precious parchment’s checks and balances, and it caused the citizens of the country to express their disapproval of his performance.

On Friday, the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down as unconstitutional Obamcare’s individual mandate, ruling that it represented an overreach of Congress’s authority. The court stated the health care law was “breathtaking in its expansive scope.” Further, it wrote:

“The government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life. This theory affords no limiting principles in which to confine Congress’s enumerated power.”

Although the fate of Obamacare ultimately will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Circuit Court of Appeals 2-1 decision (with one of the two ruling against the law a Clinton appointee), is an early harbinger of the Judicial Branch’s view of the matter. The Constitution’s system of checks and balances – hopefully – will ensure the Legislative and Executive Branches of government are kept in check when our nation’s highest court weighs in.

(more…)

What is the most important part of the 11th Circuit’s recent ruling on The Affordable Care Act?  You might think it was the individual mandate being struck down.  But it was actually this:  Judicial engagement.

For the first time in our nation’s history, a federal court used the term “judicial engagement” in a ruling striking down federal legislation.   This is a cause for celebration because—regardless of one’s political leanings—we should all agree on the need for engaged judges.  (And regarding the individual mandate, we all know that it will ultimately reach the Supreme Court.)

As the nation’s leading legal advocate for liberty, the Institute for Justice enters courtrooms across America determined to vindicate our most precious rights.  And all too often, our opponents argue that judges should ignore facts or even make them up to justify what the government is doing.

Conservatives, liberals and libertarians should all be able to agree that we need judges that are serious about judging and examining the real facts about what our government is doing.

Today it is fashionable to laud judicial decisions that line up with one’s worldview—and condemn those that do not as “judicial activism.”  So it comes as no surprise that E.J. Dionne referred to the 11^th Circuit ruling on the individual mandate in the Washington Post as “the latest episode of rampant conservative judicial activism.”

But as constitutional expert Robert McNamara points out at The Corner, such responses miss the point.  The 11^th Circuit ruling was fundamentally about the role of courts and when our courts should step in to limit legislative power.

(more…)

Warren Buffett’s at it again. He has a column in the New York Times complaining that he has been coddled by the tax code and that “rich” people should pay higher taxes.

My first instinct is to send Buffett the website where people can voluntarily pay extra money to the federal government. I’ve made this suggestion to guilt-ridden rich people in the past.

But I no longer give that advice. I’m worried he might actually do it. And even though Buffett is wildly misguided about fiscal policy, I know he will invest his money much more wisely than Barack Obama will spend it.

But Buffett goes beyond guilt-ridden rants in favor of higher taxes. He makes specific assertions that are inaccurate.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

His numbers are flawed in two important ways.

1. When Buffett receives dividends and capital gains, it is true that he pays “only” 15 percent of that money on his tax return. But dividends and capital gains are both forms of double taxation. So if he wants honest effective tax rate numbers, he needs to show the 35 percent corporate tax rate.

Moreover, as I noted in a previous post, Buffett completely ignores the impact of the death tax, which will result in the federal government seizing 45 percent of his assets. To be sure, Buffett may be engaging in clever tax planning, so it is hard to know the impact on his effective tax rate, but it will be signficant.

2. Buffett also mischaracterizes the impact of the Social Security payroll tax, which is dedicated for a specific purpose. The law only imposes that tax on income up to about $107,000 per year because the tax is designed so that people “earn” a corresponding  retirement benefit (which actually is tilted in favor of low-income workers).

Imposing the tax on multi-millionaire income, however, would mean sending rich people giant checks from Social Security when they retire. But nobody thinks that’s a good idea. Or you could apply the payroll tax to all income and not pay any additional benefits. But this would turn Social Security from an “earned benefit” to a redistribution program, which also is widely rejected (though the left has been warming to the idea in recent years because their hunger for more tax revenue is greater than their support for Social Security).

If we consider these two factors, Buffett’s effective tax rate almost surely is much higher than the burden on any of the people who work for him.

(more…)

Since the union strike against Verizon began a little more than a week ago, incidents of sabotage and property damage have been reported, homes of company executives swarmed upon by union protesters, and injunctions issued.

While the unions, the Communications Workers of America (CWA) and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) are trying to insist their strike against the telecommunications giant is a “fight for middle class jobs,” an e-mail purportedly sent by a CWA boss in Pennsylvania sheds some insight into the tactics the unions are deploying.

Within days after the strike began, an e-mail surfaced allegedly sent by Jon Remington, Unit 44 President of CWA Local 13000 (which covers much of Pennsylvania). In the e-mail, Remington shares the union strategy of bending the interpretation of an injunction, picketing Verizon Wireless stores to keep customers out and decrease company profits, as well as jamming Verizon’s repair lines.

While recipients’ names and Verizon numbers have been removed, here is the e-mail (with emphasis added): (more…)