Re: Why Social Security is welfare

Isn't theft by government grand?

"The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war."
- Bill St. Clair

On 03/08/2011 10:23 AM, dick thompson wrote:

    Disagree with Mr Samuelson completely.  When I retired I had to go to SSA to get my SS set up.  It was based on my contributions and the number of quarters I contributed.  If I had not maxed out every year from the time I was 18 on contributions, my SS would have been less.  If I had not contributed for so many quarters, my SS would have been less.  That to me spells out that since my pension was based on my contributions and the length of time I contributed, then this removes it from an entitlement and welfare.  It is not something I wanted to contribute to and for the 20 years I was a consultant and actually contributed both sides of the equation definitely not something I thought was a good idea.  However that does not take away from what it actually was - an insurance annuity program.

On 03/08/2011 11:12 AM, MJ wrote:

Published: March 7, 2011
Updated: March 8, 2011 7:32 a.m.
Why Social Security is welfare
By ROBERT J. SAMUELSON
Syndicated columnist
letters@washpost.com

In a recent column, I noted that Social Security is often "middle-class welfare" that bleeds the country. This offended many readers. In an e-mail, one snarled: "Social Security is not adding one penny to our national debt, you idiot." Others were more dignified: "Let's refrain from insulting individuals who have worked all their lives and contributed to the system for 50-plus years by insinuating that (their) earned benefits are welfare." Some argued that Social Security, with a $2.6 trillion trust fund, doesn't affect our budgetary predicament.

Wrong. As a rule, I don't use one column to comment on another. But I'm making an exception here because the issue is so important. Recall that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the main programs for the elderly, exceed 40 percent of federal spending. Exempting them from cuts -- as polls indicate many Americans prefer -- would ordain massive deficits, huge tax increases or draconian reductions in other programs. That's a disastrous formula for the future.


We don't call Social Security "welfare" because it's a pejorative term, and politicians don't want to offend. So their rhetoric classifies Social Security as something else when it isn't. Here is how I define a welfare program. First, it taxes one group to support another group, meaning it's pay-as-you-go and not a contributory scheme where people's own savings pay their later benefits. And second, Congress can constantly alter benefits, reflecting changing needs, economic conditions and politics. Social Security qualifies on both counts.

Let's start with its $2.6 trillion trust fund. Doesn't this prove that people's payroll taxes were saved to pay for future benefits, disconnecting them from our larger budget problems? Well, no. Since the 1940s, Social Security has been a pay-as-you-go program. Most benefits are paid by payroll taxes on today's workers; in 2010, those taxes covered 91 percent of benefits. The trust fund's $2.6 trillion would provide only 3.5 years of benefits, which totaled about $700 billion in 2010.

The trust fund serves mainly to funnel taxes to recipients, and today's big surplus is an accident, as Charles Blahous shows in his book "Social Security: The Unfinished Work." In 1983, when the trust fund was nearly exhausted, a presidential commission proposed fixes but underestimated their effects. The large surplus "just developed. It wasn't planned," the commission's executive director said later. Even so, the surplus will disappear as the number of retirees rises.

Similarly, Congress has repeatedly altered benefits. From 1950 to 1972, it increased them nine times, including a doubling in the early 1950s. In 1972, it indexed benefits to inflation. People didn't complain when benefits rose, but possible cuts now trigger howls that a "contract" is being broken. Not so. In a 1960 decision (Flemming v. Nestor), the Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument that people have a contractual right to Social Security. It cited the 1935 Social Security Act: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to Congress." Congress can change the program whenever it wants.

All this makes Social Security "welfare." Benefits shift; they're not strictly proportionate to wages but are skewed to favor low-wage earners -- a value judgment reflecting who most deserves help; and they aren't paid from workers' own "contributions." But we ignored these realities and encouraged people to think they "earned" benefits and that Social Security is distinct from the larger budget. Politicians, pundits, think-tank experts and journalists engaged in this charade to spare Social Security's 54 million recipients the discomfort of understanding they're on welfare.

A relatively small elderly population sustained these fictions. Now, this is no longer possible. Contrary to the Obama administration's posture, Social Security does affect our larger budget problem. Annual benefits already exceed payroll taxes. The gap will grow. The trust fund holds Treasury bonds; when these are redeemed, the needed cash can be raised only by borrowing, taxing or cutting other programs. The connection between Social Security and the rest of the budget is brutally direct. The arcane accounting of the trust fund obscures what's happening. As important, how we treat Social Security will affect how we treat Medicare and, to a lesser extent, Medicaid.

It is because these programs involve middle-class welfare that cuts could occur without inflicting widespread hardship. All the elderly aren't poor. In 2008, a quarter of families headed by someone 65 or over had incomes exceeding $75,000. No doubt people would be outraged. Having been misled, they'd feel cheated. They paid their taxes, why can't they get all their promised benefits? But the alternative is much worse: imposing all the burdens on younger taxpayers and cuts in other government programs. Shared sacrifice is meaningless if it excludes older Americans.


http://bit.ly/fa10Ko

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Looking for Insurance? Find it at Localpages.com
http://click.lavabit.com/ck1g8ayctbc65om4ekdyoapgz3xy3nfrcpcyod1378x8kgys3y8y/

--
"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." ~ Benjamin Franklin

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Love this story - great learning experience and great final result

b Now this is something good being done in a school - the girls will
have learned a lot from this one and it would also be a good one for the
guys to do as well. Kinda pity the service manager who tries to pull
the wool over the eyes of these young women in the future. He might
just be in for a big surprise.

http://www.teamsprite.com/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Why Social Security is welfare

"The brief summed up: " . . . social security must be viewed as a welfare instrument to which legal concepts of 'insurance,' 'property,' 'vested rights,' 'annuities,' etc., can be applied only at the risk of a serious distortion of language." Understanding the difficulties of Social Security policymaking "will be obscured by Procrustean efforts to force the social security program into the mold of inappropriate analogies.""

What Property Right to Benefits?
by John Attarian

June 20 marks another landmark anniversary in Social Security's history. On this date in 1960, the Supreme Court handed down the Flemming v. Nestor decision, which starkly revealed the mendacity and duplicity with which Social Security had been foisted on the American people since 1935.

The 1954 Amendments to the Social Security Act provided that anyone deported after August 1954 for illegal entry, conviction of a crime, or subversive activity was not to get old-age benefits. On July 7, 1956, Ephram Nestor, a Bulgarian-born alien who had been a Communist in 1933-1939, was deported.

Nestor had turned 65 and had become eligible for monthly benefits in November 1955. On December 2, 1955, he applied for benefits and began receiving them as of November. The Attorney General notified Social Security's Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance in August 1956 that he had been deported. Effective September 1956, his benefits were suspended.

Nestor appointed his wife and an attorney to represent him, and in May 1958, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the benefit suspension was illegal and unconstitutional. He argued that "throughout the history of the Social Security Act, old age insurance benefits have been referred to as a right of the recipient which he has earned and paid for." He cited remarks by such politicians as President Eisenhower and Senators Eugene Millikin and Walter George, "all of which," the government's appeal noted, "in effect state that Social Security benefits are not charity or a 'hand-out,' but rather are paid to the recipient as an earned right" and linked partly to his earnings. Nestor also reasoned that his benefits "were, in fact, earned through his work and are assured as a matter of statutory right." In short, he was asking Social Security to stand by its advertising.

Nestor won in the District Court, which ruled that his benefit termination had deprived him of a "property right" which had "fully accrued" to him.

Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Arthur Flemming appealed to the Supreme Court. In September 1959 the Justice Department filed a brief on Flemming's behalf – that is, on the Social Security Administration's behalf, Social Security then being part of HEW.

One of the issues, the brief acknowledged, was whether an alien who had begun receiving monthly benefits "has a vested or 'property' right to the continued receipt of such benefits," such that suspending them as the law provides following his deportation "deprives him of property without due process of law." The brief denied it, exploding the insurance myth promoted since 1935:

The OASI [Old-Age and Survivors Insurance] program is in no sense a federally-administered 'insurance program' under which each worker pays premiums over the years and acquires at retirement an indefeasible right to receive for life a fixed monthly benefit, irrespective of the conditions which Congress has chosen to impose from time to time.

While the Act uses the term 'insurance,' the true nature of the program is to be determined from its actual incidents. (italics added)

No comments necessary.

As for the payroll tax, which Social Security pamphlets had described as "a sort of premium on what might be called an insurance policy," the brief said: "The 'contribution' . . . is a true tax [italics in original]. It is not comparable to a premium under a policy of insurance promising the payment of an annuity commencing at a designated age."

Well, well!

The Trust Fund is simply "a contingency fund," to cover revenue shortfalls.

"The beneficiary or prospective beneficiary of the OASI program acquires no interest in the fund itself." Translation: you have no property in the Trust Fund – an official admission that this "trust fund" is not a true trust.

When Justice wrote this brief on the Social Security Administration's behalf, it was presumably saying what the SSA wanted said. Presumably too it consulted with the SSA so as to ensure accurate depiction of Social Security. So when Justice wrote these things, its was describing Social Security as it really is, using information "from the horse's mouth." In other words, the government was admitting that is own depiction of Social Security for public-relations purposes was a big lie.

Since the core issue was whether Nestor had been denied due process by being shorn of a "fully accrued property right" – that is, "the right to the continued receipt of social security benefits once they have been awarded" – the government understandably devoted much effort to arguing that "this view that such benefits are 'fully accrued property rights' is wholly erroneous."

For one thing, the Supreme Court had frequently distinguished between insurance and annuity programs, which create property rights, and pensions, which, being gratuities, do not. It had ruled that when Congress granted pension benefits, it didn't create vested rights; Congress could, if it chose, withdraw benefits conferred by gratuities. It had also ruled that pensions were gifts, not vested rights. Citing these precedents, the brief maintained that "the right to federal social security benefits is a statutory, conditional right, which the possessor enjoys subject to all the conditions which Congress has attached and may attach."

As for Section 1104 of the Social Security Act – "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress" – the brief observed, quite rightly, that "No contractual obligation on the part of the Government and no contractual right of a beneficiary could coexist with this reservation of power."

The brief summed up: " . . . social security must be viewed as a welfare instrument to which legal concepts of 'insurance,' 'property,' 'vested rights,' 'annuities,' etc., can be applied only at the risk of a serious distortion of language." Understanding the difficulties of Social Security policymaking "will be obscured by Procrustean efforts to force the social security program into the mold of inappropriate analogies."

Yet Social Security itself had perpetrated just such "distortion of language" and "inappropriate analogies" for decades!

If one has a "right" to benefits, the brief added, it is "subject to amendment or repeal as Congress in its wisdom feels will best promote the general welfare." One has "a statutory 'right,' . . . subject to the expressly reserved power of Congress to amend or repeal any provision of the law." The only restraint on Congress was that such amendment not be "arbitrary or unduly discriminatory."

If Social Security indeed isn't insurance and involves no vested rights – and given the program's history, the brief's arguments are irrefutable – Nestor's position was untenable. But then so, necessarily, is all the "insurance," "trust fund," and "earned right" propaganda disseminated since 1935.

Voting 5-4, the Supreme Court decided Flemming v. Nestor in the government's favor. Justice John Harlan wrote the opinion. On Nestor's purported "accrued property right," Harlan was brutally blunt. "Appellee's right to Social Security benefits cannot properly be considered to have been of that order."

"Of special importance in this case," he noted, is the fact that eligibility and benefit amounts "do not in any true sense depend on contribution to the program through the payment of taxes, but rather on the earnings record of the primary beneficiary." (Correct. Benefit amounts have always been calculated with a formula based on averaged monthly earnings. The beneficiary's tax payments made while working have nothing to do with it.)

Since a worker's benefits "are not dependent on the degree to which he was called upon to support the system by taxation," Harlan concluded that "It is apparent that the noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments." (italics added)

Social Security was meant to exist "into the indefinite future," Harlan observed, but its provisions "rest on predictions as to expected economic conditions which must inevitably prove less than wholly accurate," as well as on decisions about resource allocation which will be modified as conditions change. Therefore, he concluded,

 

To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands. It was doubtless out of an awareness of the need for such flexibility that Congress included in the original Act, and has since retained, a clause expressly reserving to it "[t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of the Act. . . .

We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments as would make every defeasance of "accrued" interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (italics added)

One's interest does give, Harlan conceded, the same protection from arbitrary governmental action as does the Due Process Clause. But this merely meant that the government couldn't act arbitrarily: "Particularly when we deal with a withholding of a noncontractual benefit under a social welfare program such as this, we must recognize that the Due Process Clause can be thought to interpose a bar only if the statue manifests a patently arbitrary classification, utterly lacking in rational justification."

Harlan was right, obviously. Social Security has no contract. It is welfare, not insurance. The original money-back guarantee had been removed in 1939. And the benefit cuts enacted in 1983 (gradually raised retirement age, benefit taxation, gradual cuts in the early retirement benefit) are further proof that one in fact has no real property rights.

So there you are: you have no accrued, vested property right to benefits, and you shouldn't, because your Uncle Sam just simply can't tie his hands by giving you real property rights. He has to be free to shaft you if he has a "rational justification" for it, such as averting national bankruptcy when the retiring baby boomers cause the Treasury to bleed to death. (If that isn't a "rational justification" for benefit cuts, it's hard to see what would be.) He has to have that freedom, so he does. If you were born after 1945, Uncle is going to cut your benefits. Mine too. I was born in 1956. I'll be 67 in 2023, by which time Social Security is projected to run cash deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

Does anybody really think Social Security will pay everybody all benefits mandated by current law under such circumstances, which will keep getting worse as tens of millions of us baby boomers flood the beneficiary rolls?

The projected cost of Social Security benefits under current law for 2025 is almost $2 trillion (about $1 trillion in 2003 dollars); for 2045 it's $5.2 trillion ($1.5 trillion 2003 dollars). Do you really think workers are going to cough up trillions in taxes every year for Social Security alone? Don't be silly. Uncle will cut our benefits. He'll have to. And he has all the legal cover he needs to do it. If you think you can stop him with a lawsuit, remember Ephram Nestor. He thought so too.

Fred Gandy on Fox News now

With Mrs. Fred on Megan Kelley at 1:33

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Why Social Security is welfare

There is no property right to social security ... thus, that you had to jump through certain hoops OR that the Congress decreed that your 'payment' was based upon some familiar formula only helps to MASK the reality that it is, remains and will always be just another transfer program; welfare. see Fleming v. Nestor for the Court's decree ... better yet, look at the EVIDENCE the Government provided.

Regard$,
--MJ

For the first time in human history, Western societies will have a large group of affluent, economically inactive, elderly voters who require expensive social services like health care and who depend upon government for much of their income.  It is a revolutionary class, one that is bringing down the social welfare state, destroying government finances, altering the distribution of purchasing power and threatening the investments that all societies need to make to have a successful future  If Social Security were a private company, it would be shut down as a fraud.  -- Dr. Gary North




At 01:23 PM 3/8/2011, you wrote:

    Disagree with Mr Samuelson completely.  When I retired I had to go to SSA to get my SS set up.  It was based on my contributions and the number of quarters I contributed.  If I had not maxed out every year from the time I was 18 on contributions, my SS would have been less.  If I had not contributed for so many quarters, my SS would have been less.  That to me spells out that since my pension was based on my contributions and the length of time I contributed, then this removes it from an entitlement and welfare.  It is not something I wanted to contribute to and for the 20 years I was a consultant and actually contributed both sides of the equation definitely not something I thought was a good idea.  However that does not take away from what it actually was - an insurance annuity program.

On 03/08/2011 11:12 AM, MJ wrote:

Published: March 7, 2011
Updated: March 8, 2011 7:32 a.m.
Why Social Security is welfare
By ROBERT J. SAMUELSON
Syndicated columnist
letters@washpost.com

In a recent column, I noted that Social Security is often "middle-class welfare" that bleeds the country. This offended many readers. In an e-mail, one snarled: "Social Security is not adding one penny to our national debt, you idiot." Others were more dignified: "Let's refrain from insulting individuals who have worked all their lives and contributed to the system for 50-plus years by insinuating that (their) earned benefits are welfare." Some argued that Social Security, with a $2.6 trillion trust fund, doesn't affect our budgetary predicament.

Wrong. As a rule, I don't use one column to comment on another. But I'm making an exception here because the issue is so important. Recall that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the main programs for the elderly, exceed 40 percent of federal spending. Exempting them from cuts -- as polls indicate many Americans prefer -- would ordain massive deficits, huge tax increases or draconian reductions in other programs. That's a disastrous formula for the future.


We don't call Social Security "welfare" because it's a pejorative term, and politicians don't want to offend. So their rhetoric classifies Social Security as something else when it isn't. Here is how I define a welfare program. First, it taxes one group to support another group, meaning it's pay-as-you-go and not a contributory scheme where people's own savings pay their later benefits. And second, Congress can constantly alter benefits, reflecting changing needs, economic conditions and politics. Social Security qualifies on both counts.

Let's start with its $2.6 trillion trust fund. Doesn't this prove that people's payroll taxes were saved to pay for future benefits, disconnecting them from our larger budget problems? Well, no. Since the 1940s, Social Security has been a pay-as-you-go program. Most benefits are paid by payroll taxes on today's workers; in 2010, those taxes covered 91 percent of benefits. The trust fund's $2.6 trillion would provide only 3.5 years of benefits, which totaled about $700 billion in 2010.

The trust fund serves mainly to funnel taxes to recipients, and today's big surplus is an accident, as Charles Blahous shows in his book "Social Security: The Unfinished Work." In 1983, when the trust fund was nearly exhausted, a presidential commission proposed fixes but underestimated their effects. The large surplus "just developed. It wasn't planned," the commission's executive director said later. Even so, the surplus will disappear as the number of retirees rises.

Similarly, Congress has repeatedly altered benefits. From 1950 to 1972, it increased them nine times, including a doubling in the early 1950s. In 1972, it indexed benefits to inflation. People didn't complain when benefits rose, but possible cuts now trigger howls that a "contract" is being broken. Not so. In a 1960 decision (Flemming v. Nestor), the Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument that people have a contractual right to Social Security. It cited the 1935 Social Security Act: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to Congress." Congress can change the program whenever it wants.

All this makes Social Security "welfare." Benefits shift; they're not strictly proportionate to wages but are skewed to favor low-wage earners -- a value judgment reflecting who most deserves help; and they aren't paid from workers' own "contributions." But we ignored these realities and encouraged people to think they "earned" benefits and that Social Security is distinct from the larger budget. Politicians, pundits, think-tank experts and journalists engaged in this charade to spare Social Security's 54 million recipients the discomfort of understanding they're on welfare.

A relatively small elderly population sustained these fictions. Now, this is no longer possible. Contrary to the Obama administration's posture, Social Security does affect our larger budget problem. Annual benefits already exceed payroll taxes. The gap will grow. The trust fund holds Treasury bonds; when these are redeemed, the needed cash can be raised only by borrowing, taxing or cutting other programs. The connection between Social Security and the rest of the budget is brutally direct. The arcane accounting of the trust fund obscures what's happening. As important, how we treat Social Security will affect how we treat Medicare and, to a lesser extent, Medicaid.

It is because these programs involve middle-class welfare that cuts could occur without inflicting widespread hardship. All the elderly aren't poor. In 2008, a quarter of families headed by someone 65 or over had incomes exceeding $75,000. No doubt people would be outraged. Having been misled, they'd feel cheated. They paid their taxes, why can't they get all their promised benefits? But the alternative is much worse: imposing all the burdens on younger taxpayers and cuts in other government programs. Shared sacrifice is meaningless if it excludes older Americans.


http://bit.ly/fa10Ko

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

The Ten Commandments of Leftist Reporting on Islam

Have plenty on hand when reading this.

The Ten Commandments of Leftist Reporting on Islam

Posted By Lisa Graas On March 8, 2011

Thanks to the rise of the internet and social media, people throughout the world can now gain access to far more information than was believed possible just two decades ago. However, the big leftist media conglomerates of old nevertheless retain great power to influence societal attitudes on a large scale…and they do not shy away from using that power to sway public opinion their way. Particularly in "movement media", we see an endless stream of radical propaganda that has become valuable as a political mechanism of organizing for the Shadow Party. But these and their compatriots in the so-called "mainstream media" have evolved even further in their role as a propaganda machine in recent years. They have become apologists not only for a secular ideology, but now also for a wholly political religion – Islam. These Islamapologists

have many clear lines that they invariably refuse to cross in their reporting on this particular religion; lines that are so unmistakable that we can identify them specifically. They are the "Ten Commandments of Leftist Reporting on Islam."

And we're starting with… censorship. 

I. Thou Shalt Not Take the Name of Muhammad in Vain

The founder of Islam is Muhammad and, just as the life and teachings of Jesus are at the top of the ladder in Christianity, the life and teachings of Muhammad are at the top of the ladder in Islam. Muhammad himself is the highest model for Muslims. His precepts as outlined in Sharia Law are considered by Muslims to be mandatory for all of mankind. Despite the unmistakable call in Islam for outright theocracy, wherein the religion and the state are completely inseparable, a situation that fundamentally imperils the very lives of all who dare dissent, the leftist media would, nevertheless, like you to meet and appreciate the founder of Islam. Meanwhile, those who may want to be critical face the possibility of being executed.

Arianna Huffington's blog The Huffington Post tends to lead the pack in promoting Muhammad as an individual. Though criticized by others on the left for such things as "bogus and crackpot medical theories", The Huffington Post frequently preaches the virtues of Muhammad with virtually no criticism for this Islamapologist behavior originating from any source outside conservative opinion media. Two of their recent Islamist "sermons" include "This Christmas, Give the Gift of Knowledge About Islam" and "The Idiocy of the Anti-Sharia Crowd".

At HuffPo, Muhammad is all the rage.

Next: The Second Commandment, Thou Shalt Compare Radical Islam to Conservatism

II. Thou Shalt Compare Radical Islam to Conservatism

In presenting his book American Taliban for public consumption, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga claimed that conservative concerns about leftist tolerance for Islamic terrorism are an "extra level of stupid" because "these Islamic fundamentalists subscribe to the very same ideology and values that drive American modern conservatives." The meme that conservatism is equivalent to Islamic fundamentalism got its first big jump-start in the leftist media and it continues today. On any given day and in all areas of both movement and 'mainstream" media, one can find radical Islam termed not as "radical Islam" but rather the "conservative" form of Islam. The left is hereby co-opting the term "conservative", using it to describe both those who murder in the name of Allah and mainstream leaders in America who happen to be politically conservative.

Recently, for example, the New York Times has taken to using the word "conservative" in defining Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Virginia Thomas and pro-life Catholics while also using the term to describe a "student vigilante" in Iran, Islamists in Tunisia who threaten the most basic rights of women, and Islamic bombers in Pakistan.

Using the same word to lump American conservatives in with Islamists? It's the leftist way.


III. Thou Shalt Keep Holy the Name of Islam

The term "Islamophobia" was first used in media by a member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences in 1990 to warn that the "Islamophobia" of Soviet leaders might result in an "Islamic explosion". In other words, if Islam is criticized, there will be violence. In this, it signified a dangerous capitulation to the inherently intolerant system that Islam is. By condemning criticism of Islam, one therein upholds the precept of the "supremacy" of Islam over all other belief systems. He has become a "dhimmi" by allowing Islam to conquer him internally through "jihad". In this context, the Islamist can truthfully claim that jihad" is not violent but is rather an "interior struggle". If one allows himself to be conquered internally by accepting that Islam is supreme and never to be criticized, there is no need, in the mind of an Islamist, for you to be killed. In reality, then, those who criticize Islam are not the "phobic" (fearful) ones. It is the dhimmis of the world who are fearful of Islam.

Conservative talk radio host Dennis Prager has noted that "Islamophobia" is a term that is "brilliant" in its shrewdness as it implies that disagreement with this political/religious ideology is "racist". The Left has been playing "identity politics" for years, having utterly rejected individualism on such a serious level that they cannot even acknowledge, let alone value, the clear distinction between individuals and ideology. This is dangerous. If one cannot distinguish between "persons" and "ideas", one might then reason that in order to "kill" an ideology, the people who hold the ideology must themselves be killed. Fascism and Communism, both of which are responsible for the murder of billions of individual persons in recent history, share collectivism as a key element. The Nazi regime and their compatriots tossed Jews into ovens to kill European "Jewry" and Stalin murdered millions of Ukranians in bringing "socialism to the countryside" . Collectivism, which rejects individualism, is the intellectual common ground that Islamists share with fascists and communists.

"Individualism" refers to the "moral worth of the individual". If I value the "moral worth of the individual", I will, as a matter of logic, understand that the people who hold to an ideology are not 'themselves' the ideology. David Horowitz has noted that justice compels us to warn people about the dangers of any destructive ideology in order to preserve individuals from harm. Warning others about that harm is an act of love, not hatred. It is not representative of fear, but courage.

Next: The Fourth Commandment, Thou Shalt Honor Radical Islamists

IV. Thou Shalt Honor Radical Islamists

"If a fellow called Mohammed mows down a bunch of students", Mark Steyn once wrote, then it is "just one of those things." Indeed, when Muslims commit the atrocities that their particular religion teaches them to commit, political correctness and appeasement by the Left results in our being kept in the dark. This is clear in the failure of so many on the Left to point out the jihadist nature of the Fort Hood massacre perpetrated by Nidal Malik Hasan. Most troubling, however, is that we find the Left frequently taking the wrong side on issues related to 9/11, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other areas directly related to national security. Tea Party groups protesting anti-Semitism are smeared as hate-mongers, while radical Islamists are honored. Jane Fonda must be proud.

One recent example of the honor Islamists receive in the leftist press is Arianna Huffington's decision to give a platform to stealth jihadist Tariq Ramadan. This grandson of the founder of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood was allowed to make the case for the Muslim Brotherhood's participation in Egypt's political process.

By honoring radicals with platforms through political correctness and appeasement and turning a blind eye to the radical Islamist agenda right here in America, the leftist media is responsible for misinforming Americans about the most dangerous threat to our national security. Meanwhile, the smearing of all who oppose anti-Semitism and jihad adds insult to injury.

I'm reminded of a quote from the Hebrew Scriptures, which all so-called "People of the Book" should heed:

Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.

V. Thou Shalt Ignore Islamists' Murderous Jihad Against "Infidels"

Islamists routinely call for a second Holocaust and have engaged in unspeakable horrors against the people of Israel, not to mention women, children,apostates and homosexuals. During recent years, jihad has been responsible for an ever-growing number of Christian deaths in Islamist countries throughout the world. Perhaps first among them, as of today, are the Coptic Orthodox Christians, especially in newly "democratized" Egypt. While the Obama Administration has expressed interest in the Muslim Brotherhood having a place at the table, the plight of Christians in Egypt has been virtuallyignored. Frequently found are articles about how wonderful the status of the Copts is in Egypt. But 'hearts and rainbows' accounts are merely anecdotes that distract millions of us from the sufferings of the Coptic community-at-large.

On February 24, we learned of Egyptian military attacks, with live ammunition and RPGs, on multiple monasteries in Egypt.

For the second time in as many days, Egyptian armed force stormed the 5th century old St. Bishoy monastery in Wadi el-Natroun, 110 kilometers from Cairo. Live ammunition was fired, wounding two monks and six Coptic monastery workers. Several sources confirmed the army's use of RPG ammunition. Four people have been arrested including three monks and a Coptic lawyer who was at the monastery investigating yesterday's army attack. [...]

[...] The army also attacked the Monastery of St. Makarios of Alexandria in Wady el-Rayan, Fayoum, 100 km from Cairo. It stormed the monastery and fired live ammunition on the monks. Father Mina said that one monk was shot and more than ten have injuries caused by being beaten with batons.

The only mention of this at the New York Times consists of one sentence buried in a March 3 article which mentions only the knocking down of the walls of one monastery. Not even the destruction of a home for handicapped children will pierce their hearts enough to report on the "utterly inhuman" jihad.

Next: The Sixth Commandment, Thou Shalt Not Put the Rights of Women Above Islam

VI. Thou Shalt Not Put the Rights of Women Above Islam

At Salon, women under Sharia are joked about…though Islamapologetics appears to be all the rage.

Much like a woman under Sharia law, the movies lose value when touched by another man.

At The Nation, stoning is condemned without any mention of Sharia, the religious system of Islamic law from which the practice comes, while Newt Gingrich is said to have "lost his marbles" for being concerned about this Islamic law. At Daily Kos, no mention could be found for women under Sharia since at least January, 2010, but "Islam" is popular. There is no mention of Sharia at Common Dreams; only a smear against Tea Party activists who dared criticize the anti-Semitism of ICNA.

Could there be any wonder that the Left loves Islam and Sharia? They are in sync with President Obama on the issue of women under Sharia. How can the Left, and particularly President Obama, claim to care for women considering that he hired Dalia Mogahed to serve on his Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships?

In early October 2009, Mogahed was interviewed on a British television program hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party, which seeks to facilitate the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of a worldwide Islamic state governed by Sharia Law. Bsis and another guest (also a member of Hizb ut Tahrir) stated that Sharia should be "the source of legislation" for all nations in the world; they also repeatedly condemned the "man-made law" and the "lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism" that existed in Western societies. Mogahed did not dispute any of their assertions.

But then, if the Left stops hating women by criticizing Sharia, then by extension they would also have to stop hating gays, Israel, America, Christians, Jews, etc. The radical Left has invested far too much in hatred to consider giving an inch of freedom to Muslim women.

Next: The Seventh Commandment, Thou Shalt Bear False Witness to Protect Islamists

VII. Thou Shalt Bear False Witness to Protect Islamists

In February, I outlined the "Top Five Muslim Brotherhood Front Groups Working to Destroy America from Within". These groups thrive by operating under the radar of public scrutiny the mainstream media is responsible for providing, an ability that is likely considerably enhanced by the Left's propensity to avoid legitimate research and reasoned debate in deference to day-dreaming about utopian fantasies. At times, however, a bit of extra effort is extended in the form of bearing false witness to promote Islam. Here are a few examples.

The Soros-funded group Media Matters claimed that Glenn Beck endorsed Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf as a "good Muslim". It wasn't true.

Sometimes lies reach conspiracy level as in the case of Max Blumenthal's claims about a 'Great Islamophobic Crusade' in America. As a Catholic, I'm particularly offended by Blumenthal's crusade fantasy in his conspiracy rant.

Besides providing the initial energy for the Islamophobic crusade, conservative elements from within the pro-Israel lobby bankrolled the network's apparatus, enabling it to influence the national debate.

We hear so much about "scary Jewish bankers" from Ron Paul fans, one wonders if Blumenthal has been hanging out at Liberty Forest. Blumenthal lied.

More recently, the New York Times is busily engaged in cheerleading for Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, describing him as one who "supports the idea of a pluralistic, multiparty, civil democracy", but who can forget this memorable quote from Qaradawi?

"Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers."

I'm not seeing any pluralism there…at…all.

Deception is a doctrine in Islam that leftists in media have embraced.

Next: The Eighth Commandment, Thou Shalt Not Be Troubled by the Muslim Brotherhood

VIII. Thou Shalt Not Be Troubled by the Muslim Brotherhood

The proverbial jury is no longer out when it comes to the dangers of the Muslim Brotherhood, but the leftist media continues to try to convince all who will listen that we should not be troubled by this terror-supporting organization. Unfortunately, they're getting a lot of help from people in high places. Today in the Washington Post, Lorenzo Vidino, offered an op-ed to relieve readers' concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood. Vidino does not mention in his bio that he was recently based at the Investigative Project on Terrorism [IPT] in Washington, D.C. Earlier this month, IPT published an article offering a decidedly different perspective.

Elements of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group whose ideology has inspired terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, are in the United States and have supported terrorism here and overseas, FBI Director Robert Mueller told a House committee Thursday.

Mueller joined seven other Obama administration intelligence and law enforcement officials at a hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. They spoke of the Brotherhood's U.S. ties as word spread in Egypt that President Hosni Mubarak was prepared to resign. Mubarak has repeatedly said his administration, in place since 1981, is the one thing keeping an Islamic state led by the Brotherhood from taking over Egypt.

Certainly, there is reason to be troubled.

IX. Thou Shalt Embrace Dhimmitude

One very reasonable explanation for the Left's willingness to become Islamapologists is that they have embraced "dhimmitude". It is not a stretch of the imagination to envision that so many have been swept up in a mission to defend the doctrines and agendas of Islamists because they have allowed Islam to conquer them either in embracing the hatred and collectivism of Islam or by simply being too afraid to speak out against a religion that demands the death penalty for critics.

As early as the eighth century, a formal set of rules was created to govern the relationships between the conquering Muslims and the defeated infidels. The framework of these regulations is known as "dhimmitude," a term connoting the lowly legal and social status of Jews and Christians who are subjected to Islamic rule. Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to the indigenous non-Muslim populations that surrendered by a treaty (dhimma) to Muslim domination.

A non-Muslim community that is forced to accept dhimmitude is condemned to live in a system that will protect it from violent jihad on only one condition: if it is completely subservient to a Muslim master. In return for that subservience, the community is granted limited rights, although dhimmis could be capriciously subjected to such depredations as mass slavery, abductions, and deportations.

No one would admit to having become a "dhimmi". We can only surmise this from the behaviors that have been outlined in the previous 'commandments'. It appears to me that in order for one to be unable to reject the core tenets of Islam, one must either be a devout Muslim, immoral, inept…or a dhimmi. I am certainly open to hearing other possible explanations.

Next: The Tenth Commandment, Thou Shalt Attack Those who Warn Others About the Dangers Within Islam

X. Thou Shalt Attack Those who Warn Others About the Dangers Within Islam

Theo Van Gogh, Father Daniil Sysoyev, Shahbaz Batti — the list of people murdered for criticizing Islam is very long and grows virtually every day. There are also attacks with words in the media.

When German chancellor Angela Merkel declared that the leftist doctrine of "multiculturalism" had "utterly failed", she was accused by Der Spiegel of not allowing "differences of any kind" and of harboring a view that only "primitive societies" and "dictatorships, which control all aspects of life" would hold. Der Spiegel also said that "only Germans" would think in such a way, indicating that Muslims (and everyone else?) are more advanced than primitive German totalitarian dictators. Through euphemism, this German newspaper was saying that Angela Merkel was acting like Adolf Hitler for simply expecting Muslims to be more tolerant of Western society. In fact, the closed, parallel societies of Poland were conducive, not detrimental, to creating an atmosphere of cultural ignorance that led to Polish Catholic participation in the Holocaust.

As bad as it is to be compared to Hitler (albeit through euphemism) in Der Spiegel, merely for calling for your nation to become more of a "melting pot" society, there are worse things. In The Netherlands, MP Geert Wilders is literally standing trial for speech…because it is speech that is critical of Islam. Slate characterized Wilders' criticism of this totalitarian political/religious system "anti-Muslim rhetoric". In other words, Slate refuses to differentiate between hating an "idea" and hating the "people" who hold those ideas.

---

 

Geert Wilders, Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy all understand the dangers of allowing closed, intolerant societies such as we see in the Muslim communities of Europe.

The big media conglomerates of the Left have become intolerant societies, as well. While media has become much more open with the rise of cable and the internet, people still move within information bubbles. All people, no matter how free-thinking they may be, have a natural tendency to gravitate to those they most agree with. Much of what is out there is leftist in nature, and is very destructive. The burden of judgment regarding what is 'right' and what is 'wrong', or what is 'fair' and what is 'unfair' is largely on the individual when it comes to analyzing the media. With the Left pressing so many intolerant and inaccurate messages, we can only hope that media consumers will have the good judgment to make the right choices. Freedom always comes with responsibility.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. — Ronald Reagan

~~~

Follow Lisa Graas on Twitter and visit her blog at LisaGraas.com

---

 

Article printed from NewsReal Blog: http://www.newsrealblog.com

URL to article: http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/03/08/the-ten-commandments-of-leftist-reporting-on-islam-1/

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Why Social Security is welfare

    Disagree with Mr Samuelson completely.  When I retired I had to go to SSA to get my SS set up.  It was based on my contributions and the number of quarters I contributed.  If I had not maxed out every year from the time I was 18 on contributions, my SS would have been less.  If I had not contributed for so many quarters, my SS would have been less.  That to me spells out that since my pension was based on my contributions and the length of time I contributed, then this removes it from an entitlement and welfare.  It is not something I wanted to contribute to and for the 20 years I was a consultant and actually contributed both sides of the equation definitely not something I thought was a good idea.  However that does not take away from what it actually was - an insurance annuity program.

On 03/08/2011 11:12 AM, MJ wrote:

Published: March 7, 2011
Updated: March 8, 2011 7:32 a.m.
Why Social Security is welfare
By ROBERT J. SAMUELSON
Syndicated columnist
letters@washpost.com

In a recent column, I noted that Social Security is often "middle-class welfare" that bleeds the country. This offended many readers. In an e-mail, one snarled: "Social Security is not adding one penny to our national debt, you idiot." Others were more dignified: "Let's refrain from insulting individuals who have worked all their lives and contributed to the system for 50-plus years by insinuating that (their) earned benefits are welfare." Some argued that Social Security, with a $2.6 trillion trust fund, doesn't affect our budgetary predicament.

Wrong. As a rule, I don't use one column to comment on another. But I'm making an exception here because the issue is so important. Recall that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the main programs for the elderly, exceed 40 percent of federal spending. Exempting them from cuts -- as polls indicate many Americans prefer -- would ordain massive deficits, huge tax increases or draconian reductions in other programs. That's a disastrous formula for the future.


We don't call Social Security "welfare" because it's a pejorative term, and politicians don't want to offend. So their rhetoric classifies Social Security as something else when it isn't. Here is how I define a welfare program. First, it taxes one group to support another group, meaning it's pay-as-you-go and not a contributory scheme where people's own savings pay their later benefits. And second, Congress can constantly alter benefits, reflecting changing needs, economic conditions and politics. Social Security qualifies on both counts.

Let's start with its $2.6 trillion trust fund. Doesn't this prove that people's payroll taxes were saved to pay for future benefits, disconnecting them from our larger budget problems? Well, no. Since the 1940s, Social Security has been a pay-as-you-go program. Most benefits are paid by payroll taxes on today's workers; in 2010, those taxes covered 91 percent of benefits. The trust fund's $2.6 trillion would provide only 3.5 years of benefits, which totaled about $700 billion in 2010.

The trust fund serves mainly to funnel taxes to recipients, and today's big surplus is an accident, as Charles Blahous shows in his book "Social Security: The Unfinished Work." In 1983, when the trust fund was nearly exhausted, a presidential commission proposed fixes but underestimated their effects. The large surplus "just developed. It wasn't planned," the commission's executive director said later. Even so, the surplus will disappear as the number of retirees rises.

Similarly, Congress has repeatedly altered benefits. From 1950 to 1972, it increased them nine times, including a doubling in the early 1950s. In 1972, it indexed benefits to inflation. People didn't complain when benefits rose, but possible cuts now trigger howls that a "contract" is being broken. Not so. In a 1960 decision (Flemming v. Nestor), the Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument that people have a contractual right to Social Security. It cited the 1935 Social Security Act: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to Congress." Congress can change the program whenever it wants.

All this makes Social Security "welfare." Benefits shift; they're not strictly proportionate to wages but are skewed to favor low-wage earners -- a value judgment reflecting who most deserves help; and they aren't paid from workers' own "contributions." But we ignored these realities and encouraged people to think they "earned" benefits and that Social Security is distinct from the larger budget. Politicians, pundits, think-tank experts and journalists engaged in this charade to spare Social Security's 54 million recipients the discomfort of understanding they're on welfare.

A relatively small elderly population sustained these fictions. Now, this is no longer possible. Contrary to the Obama administration's posture, Social Security does affect our larger budget problem. Annual benefits already exceed payroll taxes. The gap will grow. The trust fund holds Treasury bonds; when these are redeemed, the needed cash can be raised only by borrowing, taxing or cutting other programs. The connection between Social Security and the rest of the budget is brutally direct. The arcane accounting of the trust fund obscures what's happening. As important, how we treat Social Security will affect how we treat Medicare and, to a lesser extent, Medicaid.

It is because these programs involve middle-class welfare that cuts could occur without inflicting widespread hardship. All the elderly aren't poor. In 2008, a quarter of families headed by someone 65 or over had incomes exceeding $75,000. No doubt people would be outraged. Having been misled, they'd feel cheated. They paid their taxes, why can't they get all their promised benefits? But the alternative is much worse: imposing all the burdens on younger taxpayers and cuts in other government programs. Shared sacrifice is meaningless if it excludes older Americans.


http://bit.ly/fa10Ko

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Freedom: Loving Liberty or Licentious Anarchy?

Freedom: Loving Liberty or Licentious Anarchy?
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/085109-2011-03-05-freedom-loving-liberty-or-licentious-anarchy.htm

"Many cry for freedom and liberty, to survive and thrive outside the tyranny now posing as a democratic republic holed up in the District of Criminals. Many are laudably working to tear down the fascist corporate empire of the welfare/warfare police state and it’s mascot, Uncle Sam.  America must clean out the den of thieves on the Potomac, and bring traitors to justice soon. But after the anticipated revolution, how will we govern ourselves?"

---

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." ~ Benjamin Franklin

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft