Archive for Conservatism

Why Was Martin Bashir Permitted To Resign?

Why didn’t MSNBC fire him?

Just over two weeks ago, MSNBC host Martin Bashir delivered a harsh piece of commentary that culminated in the suggestion that someone should “s-h-i-t” in former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin‘s (R-AK) mouth. Bashir offered an abject apology on his next broadcast, but a chorus of critics continued to demand action against the host. After a reported “vacation” for the host earlier this week, Bashir announced, in a statement to Mediaite Wednesday afternoon, that MSNBC and Martin Bashir are parting ways.

Here’s the statement to Mediaite, from Martin Bashir, via email:

After making an on-air apology, I asked for permission to take some additional time out around the Thanksgiving holiday.
Upon further reflection, and after meeting with the President of MSNBC, I have tendered my resignation. It is my sincere hope that all of my colleagues, at this special network, will be allowed to focus on the issues that matter without the distraction of myself or my ill-judged comments.
I deeply regret what was said, will endeavor to work hard at making constructive contributions in the future and will always have a deep appreciation for our viewers – who are the smartest, most compassionate and discerning of all television audiences. I would also wish to express deepest gratitude to my immediate colleagues, and our contributors, all of whom have given so much of themselves to our broadcast.’

MSNBC released Bashir’s statement, plus the following statement from MSNBC President Phil Griffin:

“Martin Bashir resigned today, effective immediately. I understand his decision and I thank him for three great years with msnbc. Martin is a good man and respected colleague – we wish him only the best.”

Seriously, why is it ok to suggest that someone piss and shit into a woman’s mouth, just because she has the gall to be a conservative woman? Why is this ok? Why did it take this long for him to go, and why was he allowed to resign?

– Aggie

Comments (3)

Milton Friedman Warned Us

Over 30 years ago, and in less than 2 1/2 minutes:

And with a smile and a laugh, no less. Friedman would have swatted Obama like an annoying fly. Who’s around any more to articulate his philosophy, his truth?

Comments (1)

RepubliCare

Watching ObamaCare topple across the fruited plain like Saddam’s statue in Baghdad is glorious to behold, I think we all agree.

But is there something to put in its place? We’re starting to see some options:

What Republicans can and should do is offer the public something better. Now is the time to advance a conservative reform that can solve the serious, discrete problems of the health-care system in place before ObamaCare, but without needlessly upending people’s arrangements or threatening what works in American medicine. That the Democrats are now making things worse doesn’t mean the public wants to keep that prior system, or that Republicans should.

The biggest Republican misconception about health care is that the system before ObamaCare was a free-market paradise. On the contrary: It has consisted chiefly of massive and inefficient entitlements that threaten to bankrupt the nation; the lopsided tax treatment of employer-provided coverage that creates incentives for waste and overspending; and an underdeveloped individual market struggling to fill the gaps.

Exploding health-care costs and millions left needlessly uninsured are a result of misguided federal policies. Solutions require targeted reforms to those policies.

The first step of a plan to replace ObamaCare should be a flat and universal tax benefit for coverage. Today’s tax exclusion for employer-provided health coverage should be capped so that people would not get a bigger tax break by buying more extensive and expensive insurance. The result would be to make employees more cost-conscious; and competition for their favor would make insurance cheaper.

That tax break would also be available—ideally as a refundable credit sufficient at least for the purchase of catastrophic coverage—to people who do not have access to employer coverage. This would enable people who now choose not to buy insurance to get catastrophic coverage with no premium costs. It also would give those who want more-comprehensive coverage in the individual market the same advantage that people with employer plans get.

Medicaid could be converted into a means-based addition to that credit, allowing the poor to buy into the same insurance market as more affluent people—and so give them access to better health care than they can get now.

All those with continuous coverage, which everyone could afford thanks to the new tax treatment, would be protected from price spikes or plan cancellations if they got sick. This guarantee would provide a strong incentive to buy coverage, without the coercion of the individual mandate. People who have pre-existing conditions when the new rules take effect would be able to buy coverage through subsidized, high-risk pools.

By making at least catastrophic coverage available to all, and by giving people such incentives to obtain it, this approach could cover more people than ObamaCare was ever projected to reach, and at a significantly lower cost.

I have a bedrock aversion to using the tax code for social policy—my version of a 1040 would be a post card—but I salute everything else. The big, big, big, big difference between this and all Democrat notions is individual responsibility. ObamaCare is all about mandates and the government’s unimpeachable determination on what passes for coverage. (I still can’t get over that part—who is Obama to tell you that your plan is inadequate? Go to hell! … Sir.) This model allows individual Americans to pick from a broad range of coverages, using supply and demand to hold prices as low as possible.

I’m serious when I say that’s a big If in today’s America. Do we still have it in us to make our own choices? That’s been debatable for a while, and our decision to allow ourselves to be folded into the bosom of Big Government erodes what faith I have in even our desire to decide our fates for ourselves.

Many countries have socialized medicine, just as many have strict gun control, limits on free speech, and other manifestations of federal control. Some of them are lovely countries, delightful to visit. But do we want to live there? I love America’s “exceptionalism”, it’s treatment of its citizens as sovereigns jointly working together. I grant you that that’s an outdated notion, at least two centuries past its heyday, but a boy can dream.

Comments

What Might Have Been

Instead of the Abortable Care Act:

[T]he Heritage Foundation last week released a definitive compilation of health-care solutions that make patients the primary decisionmakers. Our commonsense solutions are based on five principles:

Let Americans have total choice and control with regard to their health insurance.

Allow free-market forces, with light regulation, to incentivize insurers and health-care providers to offer affordable and effective health coverage.

Encourage businesses to provide portable health-insurance benefits to their employees.

Help the most vulnerable Americans through the states, non-government organizations, and the free market.

Protect Americans’ right of conscience and unborn children.

Our solutions include changing the tax treatment of health insurance so that all Americans, not just those getting coverage through work, can benefit from a tax credit to buy private insurance.

What does health care have to do with tax law? Don’t be silly! Next you’ll tell me the individual mandate can be twisted into a tax, and that the IRS will end up enforcing this crap law. Get out!

We also encourage states to use high-risk pools or reinsurance and risk-transfer mechanisms, so that insurance companies are able to insure patients with preexisting medical issues without risking insolvency.

See? How hard is that? If the government deems it vital that Americans without insurance, but with preexisting conditions, be covered by private insurance, government should kick in—have skin in the game, as Obama likes to say. Private insurance isn’t in the business of giving stuff away. Government is.

Why would Democrats forbid such initiatives? Because they empower the individual citizen, make him or her a sovereign unto him- or herself. [Bleep] that.

Comments

See Cruz

Rush Limbaugh said this on his show today:

RUSH: Now, a lot of people say that Cruz is really exposing people, using them, setting them up for a massive disappointment. “Cruz is promising them things that can’t happen! Obamacare’s not gonna be defunded. Obamacare’s not gonna be delayed. Cruz knows it, but he’s making these people think that that can happen and they are going to be sadly disappointed.”

“Yes, he is. Ted Cruz is making people think that they can actually support and make happen the defunding of Obamacare, and it can’t happen. There aren’t the votes.

“He’s using people, and he’s setting people up for a major, major disappointment. It’s going to fail. It’s so mean. And then Ted Cruz is making people think that if they support him and sign his petition,” he’s not asking for money, by the way, “that they can delay Obamacare. And they can’t, and it won’t happen. He’s just using people, and he’s setting people up for major, major disappointment. It’s not nice and it’s very selfish.”

Well, my question is, “Why isn’t that said about Obama?” You want to talk about misleading people and setting them up for major disappointment and shock? How about a guy who’s promised people will “get to keep their doctor,” and they don’t. How about a guy who’s promised that their premiums come down $2500, and they won’t? How about all the promises Obama’s made with his stimulus and all the shovel-ready jobs?

None of it’s happened. How come the same standard is not applied to Barry? How come it’s not said of Barry that, “Oh, God, what a mean guy! He’s really using us. He’s setting people up. He’s promising all these wonderful things that are not possible really, and they’re going to be so disappointed.” Why is that not said, folks? I think it’s a perfectly legitimate question. Obama is misleading people.

Fine, you say, but hardly unique. Who isn’t saying that?

But who was saying that on October 11th, more than three weeks ago?! He replayed the rant today. I don’t post it to credit Rushtradamus. I post it because it was right then and is right today.

Ted Cruz may have done Obama a (temporary) favor by distracting the public from the rancid smell of the Abortable Care Act, aka EdselCare. But people will little note nor long remember that Cruz read Green Eggs and Ham on the floor of the Senate. They will remember that he was the last man standing in the fight to stop it. We may get our first evidence of that in the Virginia governor’s race, where Democrat (and Clinton stooge) Terry McAuliffe has been leading Republican Ken Cuccinelli throughout the campaign. As the deadline nears, however, EdselCare is featuring more prominently. Obama is even on the stump for McAuliffe, and Cuccinelli is portraying his victory as a “refudiation” of EdselCare. If the Republican wins, a lot of Democrat drawers will be soiled.

Comments

Creating Conservative Converts

Not really, but read on, and you too will wonder why not:

For more than a decade, Robin Emmons felt helpless as her older brother lived on the streets, eating out of garbage cans.

After he was arrested in 2008 for damaging someone’s car during a schizophrenic outburst, she was finally able to become his legal guardian and get him into a halfway house with psychiatric services.

She investigated and found out that the nonprofit facility was mainly feeding him packaged and canned foods because it couldn’t afford fresh fruits and vegetables.

“I had a small garden, so I thought, ‘Well, I’ll just put in some extra rows,'” Emmons said. “I began making weekly deliveries of whatever was coming up.”

She soon realized, however, that the problem extended well beyond her brother’s transitional home. While farmers markets were springing up across the city, she noticed that low-income and working-class neighborhoods had few grocery stores or places to buy fresh produce.

A recent study from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte confirmed her impressions. It showed that more than 72,000 low-income city residents, many of them minorities, lived in “food deserts” — areas without a supermarket with fresh food nearby. They also faced a greater risk of cardiovascular disease and premature death.

“I really thought it was an injustice. … Healthy food is a basic human right,” she said. “I decided to rip up my whole backyard and make it all a garden, and it just kind of snowballed from there.”

Today, Emmons has 200 volunteers helping her tend 9 acres of crops on three sites. Since 2008, she says, her nonprofit, Sow Much Good, has grown more than 26,000 pounds of fresh produce for underserved communities in Charlotte.

Let’s see: government “benefits” barely feed the body, let alone the soul. But individuals, acting in concert, without any benefit from government, manage to grow tons and tons of food for their own benefit. They have learned the ultimate conservative value of self-sufficiency and hard work. It’s not only wrong to rely on the government, it’s unhealthy. If they’re not all overnight Ted Cruz supporters, I don’t get it.

Comments

Say, You Know What ObamaCare Reminds Me Of?

Slavery! What, you don’t see it?

He does:

Controversial physician-turned political commentator Ben Carson has claimed that Obamacare is the worst thing to happen to America ‘since slavery’.

The incoming Fox News contributor made the statement during a fiery speech at the annual Values Voter Summit in Washington on Friday.

‘You know Obamacare is really, I think, the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery,’ he said.

‘And it is in a way, it is slavery in a way, because it is making all of us subservient to the government, and it was never about health care – It was about control.’

‘Slavery was a clear evil which had a very negative impact on everything in our society, and ObamaCare is a clear evil that is also going to have a very negative impact on everything in our society — in addition to the fact that it subjugates the population to the government,’ he said.

You remember this guy, don’t you? President Obama sure does:

Carson has become known for his acerbic statements following his speech at this year’s National Prayer Breakfast, during which he criticized a number of President Obama’s policies as the president sat nearby.

But he is arguably best known for a speech where he called white liberals ‘racist’.

‘[White liberals are] the most racist people there are,’ he said in April.

‘You know, they put you in a little category, a little box — you have to think this way. How could you dare come off the plantation?’

Someone sounds a little obsessed with the topic—understandably. Slavery was a Very Bad Thing. One to which Carson’s forebears were subjected, presumably, and one to which the president’s were not (presumably). I believe it was Maureen Dowd who cited the Doctrine of Absolute Moral Authority as it applies to those who have suffered such wounds and abuses. Like the Pope’s supposed infallibility, the DAMA put those like Cindy Sheehan—perhaps only Cindy Sheehan—above reproach. Where she still stands (presumably not), like one of those statues barricaded from view by the National Park Service SWAT Team.

Perhaps Carson is falling into the trap of Godwin’s Law, only this time with reference to slavery, not Nazis. Likening a national health care law to the Peculiar Institution of slavery is a bit of a stretch, wouldn’t you say? I mean, sure, each is imposed by a distant and inhuman federal government upon a powerless, subservient populace that barely knows any other way of life. Both are (were) also practiced in many other countries, with mixed results. Both might have been (are) benign in nature, but led (lead) to unimaginable cruelty when taken to their logical (illogical) extremes. Both are/wee the Law of the Land, reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.

Then again, maybe Carson is on to something, and Godwin can shove his Law up his keister.

Comments

“A Great American, and a True Hero”

CNN columnist, LZ Granderson, black and gay, had this to say a couple of weeks ago:

[T]he reason why you probably have not heard of Bayard Rustin has nothing to do with the significance of his contributions to the March on Washington or the civil rights movement in general. His absence is epitomized by the sentiment woven between the lines of that joke between Jones and Rustin’s protege. You see, the organizer of the great march, the man who held a fundraiser at Madison Square Garden to help fund the bus boycott in Montgomery, the intellectual behind the founding of the Southern Christian Leadership Council was also unabashedly gay. And it was the discomfort some had with his sexuality that led to his disappearance in our history books.

“We must look back with sadness at the barriers of bigotry built around his sexuality,” wrote NAACP chairman emeritus Julian Bond in “I Must Resist,” a collection of Rustin letters. “We are the poorer for it.”

Cathy Young, not black and I’m not sure of her sexuality, says not so fast:

The standard media narrative on Rustin is that he was sidelined in the civil rights movement and nearly erased from its history due to homophobia. But this is not entirely accurate—especially not the second part.

[P]aradoxically, when Sen. Strom Thurmond openly denounced Rustin as (among other things) a homosexual a few weeks before the March on Washington, his attack ended up neutralizing the issue: other black activists rallied around him in solidarity against the segregationist politician. Scholar Arch Puddington, who later worked with Rustin at Freedom House, asserts that after this incident, Rustin’s homosexuality “was never again a serious impediment to his career as civil rights or human rights advocate.” He was a prominent speaker at the march; he and his mentor, union leader A. Philip Randolph, appeared on the cover of Life as its leaders. Six years later, a feature on Rustin in the New York Times Magazine stated that he “came on the intellectual and political scene as the most articulate strategist of the drive for Negro equality.”

Rustin was a committed liberal integrationist in an era of rising black radicalism and nationalism. Younger militants tended to see him as an Uncle Tom—particularly a 1968 controversy in which he backed the United Federation of Teachers in a conflict with black activists in New York over the transfer of several white teachers from a mostly black school district. What’s more, Rustin spoke out against the anti-Semitic rhetoric employed by some of the activists against the union’s mostly Jewish leadership; in a speech to a conference of the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation League, he deplored “young Negroes speaking material directly from ‘Mein Kampf.’”

Rustin’s comments were reported in February, 1969—a handful of years after the Civil Rights protests, supported by many Jews; and less than two years after Israel held off annihilation from massed Arab armies. What the [bleep] was wrong with those “young Negroes”?

They must have hated this:

Rustin further alienated the left with his passionate support for Israel. He framed the issue in stark terms: “Since Israel is a democratic state surrounded by essentially undemocratic states which have sworn her destruction, those interested in democracy everywhere must support Israel’s existence.” He criticized fellow civil rights leaders Andrew Young and Jesse Jackson for their contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization, which he described as “an organization committed to racism, terrorism, and authoritarianism.” In observations that remain highly relevant, he called Israel “the opiate of the Arabs” and accused “proto-fascist” Middle Eastern regimes of whipping up Israel-hatred to divert attention from their own failure to “liberate their people from poverty and misery.”

Is that Bayard Rustin or is that me?

And then there was Vietnam:

Rustin, a devout pacifist with a Quaker background and a World War II draft resister, had initially urged King to oppose the war as early as 1965, and defended his right to do so in 1967. But as historian John D’Emilio notes in the 2003 biography, Lost Prophet, Rustin himself kept his distance from antiwar activism, and “when he did make statements about the building opposition to the war, he tended toward criticism of the movement.”

According to Puddington, Rustin “opposed the war but was deeply disturbed by the prospect of Vietnam’s people coming under the domination of a totalitarian regime on the Soviet or Chinese model.” He came to oppose American withdrawal without a negotiated settlement. He was appalled by antiwar radicals who cheered for a Viet Cong victory, and lambasted the “political naïveté” of well-meaning people who were willing to work with Communists and Maoists in the name of peace.

The tributes to Rustin often describe him as a pacifist. In fact, by 1970, his view of pacifism had changed dramatically. Rustin bluntly stated, “Whereas I used to believe that pacifism had a political value, I no longer believe that.” He still considered himself a pacifist insofar as he had a strong interest in non-military means to defend freedom, which he now regarded as the most important value; without such feasible alternatives, he argued, it was “ridiculous…to talk only about peace.”

Rustin’s pro-Israel advocacy was part of his more general turn to international issues, including human rights activism on behalf of refugees from tyrannical regimes. He became executive chairman of Freedom House, a non-governmental organization that criticized both right-wing and left-wing dictatorships but had a strong anti-Communist bent.

Labels aside, Bayard Rustin was a great American and a true hero. He had firsthand experience of oppression and prejudice; yet for him, human rights activism was never about solidarity with his own group but about freedom, justice and dignity for all. He had firsthand experience of the shortcomings of Western democracy—yet he understood that it was the bulwark of the values he believed in, and that it’s worth fighting for. His legacy presents a challenge to both left and right: to the right, a warning against demonizing social democratic politics and gay advocacy (which Rustin embraced late in life, less as a personal cause than as an integral part of the human rights struggle); to the left, a warning against treating the West and its allies as the cause of all ills.

What a great article. And infinitely more illuminating than the drivel Granderson dribbled. I’m sure Strom Thurmond was homophobic, just as I am sure some black leaders were. What I learned from this piece, as I have learned repeatedly over the past decade of discovery, is that the roots of leftism tap into some very foul ground.

Comments (1)

Did He Have To?

You know President Obama (unfortunately): he just couldn’t help himself:

“His words belong to the ages, possessing a power and prophecy unmatched in our time,” Obama told a crowd that gathered under gray skies and intermittent drizzle to attend the five-hour ceremony.

King, Obama said, “gave mighty voice to the quiet hopes of millions,” heralding leaders who braved intimidation and violence in their fight for equal rights.

“Because they kept marching, America changed. Because they marched, the civil rights law was passed. Because they marched, a voting rights law was signed,” Obama said. “Because they marched, city councils changed and state legislatures changed and Congress changed and, yes, eventually, the White House changed.”

Because it’s all… about… him.

And did it really take five hours, or did it just seem that way?

The speech starts off promising enough: “His words belong to the ages, possessing a power and prophecy unmatched in our time.” Not bad, and true.

But then he makes a rhetorical fumble. Why start off with the grandest statement—America had changed—and then bother with the trivialities? Who cares, really, about city councils? And to culminate with himself—not Congress, not the landmark laws, not the country,himself—displays a narcissism bordering on obscene.

And this part was particularly disappointing:

Some conservatives have criticized the 50th anniversary celebration as an exercise of liberal Democratic politics, though the organizers have said the agenda is nonpartisan.

Organized labor; lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups; and opponents of “stand your ground” laws all see Wednesday’s event as an opportunity to get their messages out.

However, many Republicans have chosen to remain on the sidelines.

I’m sure it did become a political rally—Dr. King would have been a gay-marriage-supporting, single-payer-advocating, gun-control activist, who supported bombing Syria without delay.

But Republicans were instrumental in passing the civil rights bills—Republican senators and congressmen voted for them at a higher percentage than their segregationist Democrat colleagues. (Look it up—I’ve posted on this several times.) Eisenhower did as much or more to desegregate than Kennedy. I can understand not wanting to be associated with rank partisan hacks, but Martin Luther King is too important to this country to have his bones picked by those hyenas.

I wish one or both Bushes had attended and spoken. I wish David Eisenhower, a historian, had spoken. Carter, Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Oprah Winfrey—they all spoke. But the best conservatives got was this (and it was very good indeed):

Social activist Robert Woodson, who heads the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, said the African-American community faced a completely different set of issues in the 1960s. “Our problems today are not the Klan coming in, but it is, what are we doing to ourselves?”

Woodson added, “About 10 years ago, there was a Klan rally in downtown Washington, and The Washington Post asked an old black guy in (mostly black) Ward 8 — the highest crime area of the city — if he was going to join in the demonstration. He said, ‘Bring the Klan down here if they can get rid of these drug dealers.’ ”

Woodson, who is black and describes himself an independent, is highly critical of the current state of civil rights advocacy. He recently addressed a meeting of the Republican National Committee, echoing some of his concerns about the movement and the state of black leadership.

“I really think it has morphed into a race-grievance industry. I think they have descended from the moral high ground that they used to occupy. And that they have become an extension of the Democratic Party,” Woodson said.

Great. I mean it. But the Republican Party, political conservatives, can’t cede “the moral high ground” to the “race-grieving industry”. Dr. King dreamt of the day when a person would be judged not on the color of his skin, but the content of his character. That’s Conservatism 101. And a high-profile conservative Republican should have been there to pay honor to King’s legacy.

Comments

Gang of 8 – 1 = 0

It wasn’t Marco Rubio’s efforts at trying to bring sense to immigration reform that so angered conservatives. We want reform too. It was the people—and their motives—with whom he was trying to do it.

Sounds like he got the message:

After relentlessly defending for months the Senate’s ambitious overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws, Sen. Marco Rubio didn’t respond when House GOP leaders last week trashed it as a “flawed … massive, Obama-care like bill.”

The Florida Republican’s office, which churned out countless press releases touting his interviews and speeches about the legislation, hasn’t said a word about immigration since the Senate passed the bill on June 27.

The silence is a sign that, at least publicly, Rubio won’t try to dissuade the House from a piecemeal approach that excludes a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Instead, Rubio is turning to the safer, more-conservative-friendly issues he campaigned on in 2010—President Obama’s health care law, federal spending, the deficit—but with less support from Republicans than before, according to public polls.

There may be a way to satisfy concerns of conservatives over border security and the rule of, and respect for, law. But I don’t think Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin are going to find it. Rubio’s choice is to stick with the Gang of 8 or with his conservative base of (somewhat shaken) admirers. Sounds like he’s made his choice.

Comments

“Mad, Swivel-Eyed Loons”

And proud of it!

My interest in Nigel Farage lies largely in his oratorical skills. Repeatedly, and without a teleprompter, he jousts against the socialist behemoth of the EU in Brussels, drawing blood with every thrust. I don’t follow UKIP closely enough to embrace their every position (ditto with the Republican Party here), but they’re on the right side of independence and self rule.

And they’re making their presence felt at home too:

Local Conservative party campaigners, including the chairman of one constituency association, will this week pledge their support for Nigel Farage after one of David Cameron’s allies described grassroots Tories as “mad, swivel-eyed loons”.

Mr Farage uses an advertisement in Monday’s Telegraph to urge Conservative voters to back Ukip. The “loons” description, he says, is “the ultimate insult” from a party leadership that has betrayed the trust of its own supporters.

The Prime Minister’s own position was called into question as Tory members demanded that the Conservative leadership identify the individual responsible for the “loons” comment and eject that person from the party.

Six members of the Tory group on Merton council in south London are quitting. One, Richard Hilton, who has been acting chairman of the local Conservative association, said he would join Ukip because the insult was “the final straw”.

He added that the comment demonstrated “the arrogance and the attitude of the liberal elite that runs the Tory party nowadays”.

Suzanne Evans, another defecting Merton Tory councillor, said grassroots members worked “phenomenally hard” and would feel insulted by the comments.

The differences between UKIP and the Tea Party are greater than the similarities, but they share this: a deep distrust of a distant, bloated government; and contempt from the leadership of the party from which they were born.

Comments

Book Group

The best answer:

When Marion Bower decided to start her tea party organization in 2010, she didn’t know that it would take nearly two years for the Internal Revenue Service to approve her request for tax-exempt status.

The Ohio woman also did not expect that providing information about the books her group read would be part of the application process.

“I was trying to be very cordial, but they wanted copies of unbelievable things,” Bower told ABC News today. “They wanted to know what materials we had discussed at any of our book studies.”

She ultimately sent one of the books, “The Five Thousand Year Leap,” promoted frequently by Glenn Beck, to the IRS official handling her tax-exempt request in Cincinnati. She also sent a paperback copy of the Constitution.

“They wanted a synopsis of all the books we read,” Bower said. “I thought, I don’t have time to write a book report. You can read them for yourselves.”

It’s a great response, but I get a Soviet shiver when I read this story.

Comments

« Previous Page« Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries »Next Page »