Lower Tax Rates Increase Government Revenue

Democrats are fond of accusing Republicans of "giving tax breaks to the rich." If you tell them that everyone got a tax break, rich and poor alike, they'll tell you that the rich got a bigger tax break, and because of that huge tax break for the rich, the government doesn't have enough money to fund social programs for the poor.

Democrats don't seem to understand that "the rich" own companies that fuel the economy, and when the economy is running full steam, everyone makes more money. They don't seem to understand that when everyone makes more money, more money goes to the government, not less. Everyone gets to put more money into their pocket, and the government gets more money to fund all of those programs that liberals love so much.

But democrats don't seem to understand this, or at least they deny that the economy works this way.

There was a report out on Tuesday that illustrates the principle that lower tax rates actually increase government revenue. According to the Treasury, total tax receipts on Friday, September 15 were $85.8 billion. That's up from the previous one-day record of $71 billion, set on September 15 of last year, also during the era of "Bush's tax cuts for the rich."

Ask a Democrat to explain again how these tax cuts are hurting the country.

A Little Too Sensitive?

They can call non-Muslims infidels; they can call for "death to the infidels"; they can deny that the holocaust ever happened; they can call for the destruction of Israel; but let anyone say anything against Islam, and riots erupt.

In a speech on Tuesday, Pope Benedict XVI quoted 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II who said, "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The picture you see above is some of the reaction as Muslims in India burn an effigy of the Pope.

These guys need to find a good anger management class.

Fitzgerald Owes Americans Some Answers

According to a report out today, columnist Robert Novak claims that in Richard Armitage's admission that he was the leaker in the Valerie Plame case, he is not being fully open about the manner in which the information was leaked.

In a September 7 CBS interview Armitage said, "At the end of a wide-ranging interview he (Novak) asked me, 'Why did the CIA send Ambassador (Wilson) to Africa?' I said I didn't know, but that she worked out at the agency.... I didn't put any big import on it and I just answered and it was the last question we had."

Novak, however, is painting a different picture. "When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week he was my source three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee, the former deputy secretary of state's interviews obscured what he really did," Bob Novak said. "Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column."

Regardless of the manner in which Valerie Plame was leaked, the fact is that it was Armitage, not Karl Rove or anybody else at the White House. The question and the outrage that I have is why were two years and who knows how much money spent on an investigation into who leaked Plame's name when the guilty party was known the whole time?

Armitage claims that he did not publicly reveal that he was the leaker because special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald asked him not to. "He (Fitzgerald) cannot order people not to speak, but he can request it, and he requested that I and others remain quiet about this. And I followed his request until last week, when I called him and said, 'Can I be relieved of this?' and he said yes."

Novak does not buy that as a legitimate reason not to come forward. "When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's request, that does not explain his silent three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30. Armitage's tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive."

Novak goes on to say that Armitage's two and one-half years of silence "caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source."

My questions, and ones I don't hear many others asking, are why did Fitzgerald ask Armitage to remain silent? Why would he conduct a two-year investigation to learn something that he already knew? Doesn't Fitzgerald, as a prosecutor, have to answer to someone for conducting a sham investigation at the expense of the American people?

The American people need to demand some answers.

American vs. Iraqi Controlled Prisons

Allegations of U.S. abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison dominated the headlines throughout 2004. In 2003, the reprehensible Americans tortured terrorist suspects by doing such things as photographing them in sexually explicit positions, forcing them to remain naked for days, putting a dog chain around a prisoner’s neck, pouring cold water on naked prisoners, and frightening prisoners with military dogs. There were accusations of more serious abuse as well, such as sodomizing a prisoner with a chemical light, and beating detainees with a broom handle.

But that was when the prison was under American control, and that has all changed now. On September 1, control of Abu Ghraib prison was handed over to the Iraqi government. Great news for the prisoners, right? Well, maybe not.

On September 8, 27 prisoners were hanged at Abu Ghraib. Two of those hanged were convicted of terrorism; the other 25 were convicted of murder and kidnapping.

When publicly announcing the executions, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had this to say: "This is the message I have for the terrorists: we will see that you get great punishment wherever you are. There is nothing for you but prison and punishment."

Great punishment for those convicted of terrorism, murder, and kidnapping? There’s a novel idea.

Apparently, the executions are not the only changes at the prison since the Iraqis took over. A witness who visited Abu Ghraib was denied access to the block where the terrorism suspects were held, but said that he heard screaming coming from that block.

I am sure someone was being beaten; they were screaming like they were being hit... I heard shouting, like someone had a hot iron on their body, screams... Someone was shouting “Please help us, we want the human rights officers, we want the Americans to come back.”

What? They want the Americans to come back? Not the sadistic Americans! How can that be?

One prisoner, Khalid Alaani, who was interviewed after being released from the prison, said,

The Americans were better than the Iraqis. They treated us better...We preferred the Americans. We asked to move with them to Baghdad airport because we knew the treatment would be changed because we know what the Iraqis are. When the Americans left everything changed.

Somehow, this just doesn’t fit the template forged by much of the world and validated by the American left, the template that says that America is the great evil of the world, the cause of the war and suffering.

The world can refer to America as the “Great Satan,” but ask those captured in the war against terror whether they would rather be held captive by Americans or by Iraqis. Ask those at Guantanamo Bay whether they would like to remain under American control or be turned over to the Iraqis.

The Americans don’t look so bad now.