3 reasons why Johnny Manziel won’t win the Heisman

1.  He’s Johnny Manziel.

Since winning the Heisman last year, Manziel has lived a life that Justin Bieber would envy.  He has posted photos of himself enjoying his winnings at a casino and being surrounded by hot young babes.  He was also thrown out of a fraternity party in Austin, Texas, home of the University of Texas’ main campus.  UT-A is also Texas A&M’s biggest rival, so it was a double slap in the face for UT-A, which didn’t offer Manziel a scholarship even though he was a diehard Longhorns fan growing up.  Karma is such a bitch.

These actions also show that Johnny Football has something modern sports journalists don’t: a set of balls.  And the pussies in the media don’t like that.

2.  He’s white.

That’s right.  Manziel is getting discriminated against by the media because he is white.  If we just look at his statistics, there is no way the Manziel should be 3rd or 4th in media reports.  All of his stats surpass not only Mariota’s, Winston’s, and everyone else’s.  They also surpass his stats from last year when he won the Heisman.  Never mind the fact that Texas A&M plays in the SEC, which boasts some of the top defenses in the country.

Rush Limbaugh said it best, the media is very desirous of a successful black quarterback.  If race wasn’t an issue, or if Manziel were black, the media would be telling us how he is the greatest college QB ever!!!  Instead, he is on the outside looking in at a race between Marcus Mariota of Oregon and Jameis Winston of Florida State.*

3.  Anti-SEC bias

A team from the SEC has won the last 7 BCS championships, and Alabama is in line to win another one this year.  The SEC has been so dominant that in 2011 the championship game featured 2 teams from the SEC.  The SEC can also boast that 4 of the last 6 Heisman trophy winners played for SEC schools.

This dominance must rub the liberal bi-coastal sports journalists the wrong way.  After all, everyone knows that the South is full of backwards, redneck, racist bigots.  How can those backwards rednecks keep winning titles and awards?

* Last weekend, Mariota and Winston both had sub-par performances as Oregon lost to Stanford and the FSU defense carried that team in a drubbing of Wake Forest.  Manziel still isn’t the frontrunner, and a kid from Baylor is now in the mix because RGIII!!!

That explains it…

I used to like going to the movies.  I would go to a new movie every week or two, and I never missed the ‘blockbuster’ movies during the summer.

But in the last few years, I just can’t get excited about a new movie the way I used to.  This might explain why:

Save the cat.

Yeah, that explains why every movie I see today has the exact same plot.  And why I don’t care to go to the movies much anymore.

David and Goliath

Everyone has probably heard of David and Goliath, especially if they are sports fans. Manypeople understand that the expression “David versus Goliath” means the little guy taking on the big guy, and that the little guy has a very slim chance of winning.

But few understand the actual Biblical story of this encounter. It is found in the first book of Samuel, chapter 17. In verse 4 we read that Goliath was the champion of the Philistines, ancient rivals of Israel. The armies of the Philistines and the Israelites were on opposite sides of a battlefield, and every day for forty days Goliath issued the following challenge: if one of the Israelites could defeat him in battle, the Philistines would become servants of Israel. However, if Goliath defeated the champion of Israel, the Israelites would become the servants of the Philistines.

This arrangement was fairly common in ancient warfare. Often, the champions of each side would meet in battle in the middle. The winning champion was deemed to have won the battle for his side. It was a way to fight a war without losing too many of your men.  An example of this was filmed for the movie Troy; in the beginning of the movie Achilles defeats the champion of Greece’s enemy and thus wins the battle for the Greek king.

In verse 11, we read that Saul and the other Israelites were afraid of Goliath. I can’t say I blame them. Goliath stood almost ten feet tall, wore heavy bronze armor, and carried a huge spear. David enters the story when he arrives to bring food to three of his brothers who are in Saul’s army. He hears the challenge of Goliath, and is incensed that a pagan would dare to challenge the army of the chosen people of God.

David asks what the rewards are for killing Goliath, and is told that Saul will give him riches, his daughter, and make his father’s house free from taxes and service (1 Samuel 17:25). Saul receives word of David’s questioning, and sends for him. David volunteers to fight Goliath, and Saul tries to dissuade him and insists that David cannot win. David tells Saul that he has killed lions and bears defending his father’s flocks, and gives credit to God for enabling him to kill the lions and bears; he then states that God will protect him from Goliath as well.

Saul relents and dresses David in his own armor and gives him his sword. But Saul’s armor is too large and heavy for the teenager, and David takes it off. David trades the armor and sword for his shepherd’s staff, a sling, and five smooth stones from a nearby brook. Thus armed, he goes off to face Goliath.

It is very important to note that the battle between David and Goliath isn’t just a physical battle, it is a spiritual battle as well. The Philistines were pagans, and their name is now synonymous with the terms pagan and barbarian. In modern usage, ‘Philistine’ is a derogatory term.

With regards to the size of Goliath, in Genesis chapter 6 it states that there were once “giants on the earth”. These giants were the descendants of the sons of God who lived with the daughters of men. The term ‘sons of God’ is used in other books of the Bible, and always refers to angels. So, these angels defied God and left their heavenly abode. They had children with human women, and these children “were the mighty men of old, men of reknown”. Goliath was the descendant of one of these mighty men, a descendant of the offspring of fallen angels (also known as demons).

So, on one side we have the pagan/barbarian descendant of fallen angels, Goliath, who is challenging the armies of the chosen people of God. On the other side, we have a teenage boy with nothing more than a stick and some stones*. Goliath has the best armor a man can buy. David’s weapons were free. And herein lies the key to the entire battle.

For David is not clad in man-made armor. He does not carry a well-forged sword. Those are instruments of war, made by men. David carries a stick and stones*, made by God. In this way, David represents God’s judgment upon Goliath and the Philistines. David will get no endorsement deal with the ancient equivalent of Nike if he wins, no statements of how he “Just Did It” using their ancient Nike-brand armor and weapons. No, if David wins the glory belongs to God and not to a man. In actuality, the story of David and Goliath represents not the triumph of David over Goliath, but of God over those who defied Him.

If you are wondering how David could win using only a sling and a stone, it is helpful to know that slings were very effective weapons in the ancient world. Projectiles launched from a sling could reach speeds of up to 90 meters per second, and slings were one of the most accurate of the ancient ranged weapons. Add to this the possibility that Goliath may have been so confident of victory that he didn’t see the need to wear a helmet, and …

So as the story goes, David slew Goliath with a stone. Well, not quite. The text says that “the stone sank into Goliath’s forehead”, but he wasn’t dead. He was stunned and fell forward to the ground. David then used Goliath’s own sword to kill him and cut off his head. Seeing that Goliath was dead, the armies of the Philistines fled. Victory belonged to God and Israel.

The story of David and Goliath takes up the entire chapter of 1 Samuel 17, if you would like to read it for yourself.

* As an interesting aside, this may be where the saying “sticks and stones won’t break my bones” originated.

Those wonderful immigrants.

This article really got my goat today:

GOP should remember: Data show immigrants enforce, not threaten, US values

According to the Pew Research Center, 46 percent of Americans believe “the growing number of newcomers threaten traditional American values.” But the data show otherwise. Newcomers reinforce – not undermine – American values.

So, what are these “American values” that these immigrants enforce?  According to the author of this article, they are:

  1. Knowledge of American history and civics.
  2. Willingness to defend one’s country (patriotism).
  3. Law abidance.
  4. Religiosity.
  5. Intact families.
  6. Doing well in school.
  7. Starting businesses.

Let’s take a closer look at them.

Studies show that immigrants applying for citizenship surpass American citizens on tests of knowledge of American history and civics. To take one example, in a 2012 telephone poll, Xavier University researchers found that 35 percent of Americans failed the civics section of the US naturalization test. In contrast, 97.5 percent of immigrants applying for citizenship passed the test in 2012.

Of course immigrants applying for citizenship surpass American citizens on these tests.  They are required to know these things in order to get their citizenship.  In fact, here is the list of requirements that have to be met for someone to be eligible for U.S. Citizenship:

If you are a green card holder of at least 5 years, you must meet the following requirements in order to apply for naturalization:

  • Be 18 or older at the time of filing
  • Be a green card holder for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the Form N-400, Application for Naturalization
  • Have lived within the state, or USCIS district with jurisdiction over the applicant’s place of residence, for at least 3 months prior to the date of filing the application
  • Have continuous residence in the United States as a green card holder for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the application
  • Be physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the application
  • Reside continuously within the United States from the date of application for naturalization up to the time of naturalization
  • Be able to read, write, and speak English and have knowledge and an understanding of U.S. history and government (civics).
  • Be a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States during all relevant periods under the law

So there you have it.  People who wish to become U.S. citizens are required to know these things in order to become citizens.  Is it that surprising that they then study hard to pass an exam that determines whether or not they become citizens?  I think not.  And it’s not hard to do better than most U.S. citizens on these exams, as the educational system in the U.S. no longer teaches history to students; it is too busy teaching things like the benefits of ‘diversity’ and how to put a condom on a banana.

The article then goes off the rails on a Crazy Train:

The willingness to defend one’s country is generally considered a reliable measure of patriotism. As General George S. Patton once said, “The highest obligation and privilege of citizenship is that of bearing arms for one’s country.”

Immigrants have served with distinction in the US military in every major armed conflict since the Revolutionary War. And according to the Center for Naval Analysis, the three-month attrition rate of non-citizen soldiers is nearly twice that of US citizens.

Sounds like we all need to do our part.  After all, “Service Guarantees Citizenship”:

Many thousands of men and women have made the journey from non-citizen immigrant to citizen while fighting, and sometimes dying, in the US military. The Pentagon estimates that roughly 8,000 non-citizens join the military every year, which can be a path to citizenship.

Do you know what they call non-citizens who fight in other countries’ militaries?  Mercenaries.  And why do they do this?  For “private gain and material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party.”  These immigrant mercenaries aren’t fighting in our military because they love the United States, they fight for the benefits that they will obtain from doing so.

Law abidance is another basic marker of good citizenship. And studies show that both legal and illegal immigrants are less likely than the native born to break the law. That was the conclusion of a 2010 Cato Institute report, which cited a 2008 study by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), the state with the highest number of immigrants. It found that “US-born men have an institutionalization rate that is 10 times higher than that of foreign-born men.”

Overall, the PPIC researchers found that American-born adult men are two-and-a-half times more likely to be incarcerated than foreign-born men, including both legal and illegal immigrants. The Cato report cites Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson, who in 2006 concluded that immigrants have not increased crime in America, and that they could actually be part of the reason why crime has decreased so much.

The problem with this assertion is that there is too much missing here to prove the authors thesis.  Where are the foreign-born men from?  What is their socioeconomic background?  Are we comparing poor black men to educated men who came here from China and India?  If so, it stands to reason that a college professor from China isn’t going to be incarcerated for selling drugs on the street.  The type of crime also matters:

Nevertheless, it is also fact that a disproportionately high percentage of illegal aliens are criminals and sexual predators. That is part of the dark side of illegal immigration and when we simply allow the “good’ in we get the “bad” along with them. Ignoring the fact that just being an illegal alien already makes one a criminal, the question is, how much really “bad” is acceptable and what price are we willing to pay in terms of the collateral damage being inflicted by simply allowing all of them in?

***

Nevertheless, it is also fact that a disproportionately high percentage of illegal aliens are criminals and sexual predators. That is part of the dark side of illegal immigration and when we simply allow the “good’ in we get the “bad” along with them. Ignoring the fact that just being an illegal alien already makes one a criminal, the question is, how much really “bad” is acceptable and what price are we willing to pay in terms of the collateral damage being inflicted by simply allowing all of them in?

Kinda blows away that whole ‘law abidance’ thing, doesn’t it?

Religiosity is also a traditional American value. In his book “Democracy in America,” Alexis De Tocqueville wrote: “Religion in America … must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country.” Legal immigrants are more religious than native-born Americans. The most important recent shift in religious observance has been the rise of the “nones” – those with no religious affiliation, whose share of the adult population reached 20 percent in 2012, according to the Pew Forum. In contrast, a May 2013 Pew Form survey found that only 14 percent of legal immigrants are religiously unaffiliated, a share that has remained relatively stable over many years.

Religiosity is defined as “a comprehensive sociological term used to refer to the numerous aspects of religious activity, dedication, and belief (religious doctrine).”  That is, religiosity refers to how many times one goes to religious services, practicing certain rituals, revering certain symbols, and the fervor of one’s beliefs in certain doctrines about deities and the afterlife.

Religiosity is not an American value.  Christianity is.  Note that one does not have to be a Christian to meet the author’s definition of religiosity.  Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims all go to religious services, practice certain rituals, and have beliefs about deities and the afterlife.  However, practitioners of those religions do not believe in the Christian God.  Many of the Hindu gods are barbaric, Buddhists don’t believe there is a god, and followers of Islam worship a moon god.  Suffice it to say that they are not going to have the same values and mores as a Christian.  And the fact is that the U.S. was founded by white Christians, for white Christians.

Also, as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush pointed out in a recent speech, immigrants’ families are more likely to be intact than those of native-born Americans. According to the Census Bureau’s most recent data, 39 percent of births to native-born Americans are to unwed mothers, while just 24 percent of births to foreign-born mothers are out of wedlock.

Intact families are not an American value.  The divorce rate in the U.S. is around 50%, so this claim is false.  Intact families used to be valued in this country, at least until the government got involved in marriages.  No-fault divorce and other institutional changes since the 1960s have eroded the legal support for marriage and family structure.

In many cases, native-born Americans aren’t doing as well in school as the children of recent immigrants. A February Pew Research Center survey found that immigrants’ children are more likely than the general population to have a bachelor’s degree (36 percent to 31 percent). The report also found that “second-generation Hispanics and Asians place more importance than does the general public on hard work and career success.”

Note that phrase, recent immigrants.  It is quite possible that this study included foreigners who came here to get their degree and remained in the U.S. after graduation.  Not to mention the affirmative-action programs that favor immigrants and foreigners over native-born students.

Finally, native-born Americans start fewer businesses than immigrants. In fact, they were half as likely as foreign-born Americans to start a new business in 2011.

There’s a big reason why immigrants are more likely to start a new business: the federal government subsidizes immigrant businesses with low-interest loans and grant programs.  For example, ever wonder why so many hotels and motels are run by immigrants?  I would start such a business, but I am not “economically disadvantaged” because I am white and male.

All in all, this is an opinion piece that is backed up by cherry-picked articles that seem to reinforce the author’s point: that the Republicans in Congress should pass an immigration bill that will let more immigrants into the country.  Personally, I was stunned that this was written by someone affiliated with the Christian Science Monitor.  So much for that news site being ‘conservative’.

The real 47%

The good news is, MORE JOBS:

The Labor Department reported that the economy gained 195,000 jobs in June, which beat economists’ expectations. The Department also reported that the economy gained 70,000 more jobs in April and May than it originally estimated.

The bad news is, only 47%of Americans have a full time job.  And this will only get worse as Obamacare causes businesses to shift their employees from full time positions to part time positions to avoid being hit with the penalty tax.

God Bless America…

Not yours to give.

by Col. David Crockett, U.S. Representative from Tennessee

Originally published in The Life of Colonel David Crockett,
by Edward Sylvester Ellis

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

“Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.

“We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.

“Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.

“I began: ‘Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and –’

“‘Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again.’

“This was a sockdologer… I begged him tell me what was the matter.

“‘Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.

“‘I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.’

“‘But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.’

“‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

“‘Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did.’

“‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

“‘What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

“‘If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.

“‘Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.

“‘The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.

“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

“‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’

“He laughingly replied; ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

“If I don’t, said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

“‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

“‘Well I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.’

“‘My name is Bunce.’

“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’

“‘Yes.’

“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’

“It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, and for a heart brim-full and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him — no, that is not the word — I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted — at least, they all knew me.

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

“‘Fellow-citizens — I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

“‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

“‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

“He came up to the stand and said:

“‘Fellow-citizens — it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday. There is one thing which I will call your attention, you remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men — men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased — a debt which could not be paid by money — and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

— Col. David Crockett

Happy Independence Day.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

Check out the links and see how ‘free’ you really are…

REPOST: Taxation, Marriage, and Children (updated)

Reposting this from a couple of months ago.  I found some more information, so this has been updated a bit.

The Marriage Penalty

Most Americans believe that the tax code is designed to encourage marriage and children.  In truth, the tax code provides a tax penalty for getting married.  The term ‘marriage penalty’ refers to the fact that married couples pay a higher amount in taxes than unmarried couples, even if  the spouses are making approximately the same taxable income.  That is, being ‘married filing jointly’ may result in a higher tax bill than if the same two people filed separate tax returns as if they were unmarried (i.e., filing as “single”, not “married filing separately”).  Yes, the tax code penalizes married couples.

But what effect does having children affect a couple’s tax bill?

Children are inferior (goods, that is)

In economics, a good is classified as an ‘inferior good’ if demand for that good goes down when an individual’s income increases.  If this relationship holds, then we would expect individuals with higher incomes to have fewer children, ceteris paribus.

This is what the research shows.  As incomes rise, people have fewer children; that is, poor people have more children than rich people.  Reasons for this may include individuals putting off marriage and childbearing until they complete their educations; the availability of contraception and abortion; the decrease in infant mortality in developed countries; a shift from a more rural population to a more urban population; and other institutional changes that have reduced the incentives for individuals to form families and keep them intact.  All of these changes have led to a decline in the number of children that couples are having in more developed countries.

This post was inspired by my discovery of the Marriage Bonus and Penalty calculator on the Tax Policy Center website.  At first glance, it seemed that the tax code penalizes married couples for having children.  If true, this would provide another incentive for couples who choose to marry to avoid having children.

Taxing the production of children?

Using the Marriage Bonus and Penalty calculator, I estimated the tax impact of having children on a single couple and a married couple.  I used the following scenarios:

No children

  1. A couple with $50,000 in income (both spouses work, $25,000 in income each).  The result: no marriage penalty or bonus.
  2. A couple with $50,000 in income (one working spouse).  The result: a marriage bonus of $2,321.
  3. A couple with $75,000 in income (both spouses work, $50,000 in income for one $25,000 in income for the other).  The result: a marriage bonus of $375.
  4. A couple with $75,000 in income (one working spouse).  The result: a marriage bonus of $4,821.
  5. A couple with $250,000 in income (both spouses work, one with $200,000 and one with $50,000 in income).  The result: a marriage bonus of $547.
  6. A couple with $250,000 in income (one spouse works).  The result: a marriage bonus of $11,118.

Based on these results, I can conclude that the tax code encourages marriage, at least marriages in which there is one breadwinner and one stay-at-home spouse.  But these results do not include having children, so my guess is that the stay-at-home spouse will be pretty bored.  What happens when we add children to the mix?  Each simulation assumes that all children are under 13 years of age.

One child

  1. A couple with $50,000 in income (both spouses work, $25,000 in income each).  The result: a marriage penalty of $2,450.
  2. A couple with $50,000 in income (one working spouse).  The result: a marriage bonus of $1,328.  The bonus is $3,906 if the couple are not married and the child is claimed as a dependent by the person with no income.
  3. A couple with $75,000 in income (both spouses work, $50,000 in income for one $25,000 in income for the other).  The result: a marriage penalty of $619.  The marriage penalty is $2,075 if the couple is not married and the child is claimed as a dependent by the person with the lower income.
  4. A couple with $75,000 in income (one working spouse).  The result: a marriage bonus of $2,293.  The marriage bonus is $6,406 if the couple is not married and the child is claimed as a dependent by the person with no income.
  5. A couple with $250,000 in income (both spouses work, one with $200,000 and one with $50,000 in income),one child.  The result: a marriage penalty of $784.  The marriage penalty is $1,332 if the child is claimed as a dependent by the person with the lower income.
  6. A couple with $250,000 in income (one spouse works).  The result: a marriage bonus of $10,374.

It appears that the tax code encourages marriage, especially if the non-working spouse is the one with a child.  The tax code seems to encourage low-income couples to have fewer children, and high-income couples to have more children.  Additionally, having one child increases the penalty if both individuals work, and reduces the marriage bonus if you are married and have a child.

Two children

  1. A couple with $50,000 in income (both spouses work, $25,000 in income each).  The result: a marriage penalty of $4,901.
  2. A couple with $50,000 in income (one working spouse).  The result: a marriage bonus of $2,913.
  3. A couple with $75,000 in income (both spouses work, $50,000 in income for one $25,000 in income for the other).  The result: a marriage penalty of $3,069.
  4. A couple with $75,000 in income (one working spouse).  The result: a marriage bonus of $3,878.
  5. A couple with $250,000 in income (both spouses work, one with $200,000 and one with $50,000 in income).  The result: a marriage penalty of $3,158.
  6. A couple with $250,000 in income (one spouse works).  The result: a marriage bonus of $10,787.

Having a second child increases the marriage penalty for couples where both work, and increases the marriage bonus if only one spouse works.

Three children

  1. A couple with $50,000 in income (both spouses work, $25,000 in income each).  The result: a marriage penalty of $6,118.
  2. A couple with $50,000 in income (one working spouse).  The result: a marriage bonus of $1,687.
  3. A couple with $75,000 in income (both spouses work, $50,000 in income for one $25,000 in income for the other).  The result: a marriage penalty of $619.
  4. A couple with $75,000 in income (one working spouse).  The result: a marriage bonus of $1,513.
  5. A couple with $250,000 in income (both spouses work, one with $200,000 and one with $50,000 in income).  The result: a marriage penalty of $519.
  6. A couple with $250,000 in income (one spouse works).  The result: a marriage bonus of $10,787.

Things change once a couple has a third child.  The marriage penalty increases for couples at the $50,000 income level, even if only one spouse works; at the same time, the marriage bonus is reduced.  At an income level of $75,000, the marriage penalty and the marriage bonus are both reduced.  For a couple with $250,000 in income, the marriage penalty is reduced while the marriage bonus is the same as when a couple has only two children.

Four children

  1. A couple with $50,000 in income (both spouses work, $25,000 in income each).  The result: a marriage penalty of $7,838.
  2. A couple with $50,000 in income (one working spouse).  The result: a marriage bonus of $4,655.
  3. A couple with $75,000 in income (both spouses work, $50,000 in income for one $25,000 in income for the other).  The result: a marriage penalty of $4,616.
  4. A couple with $75,000 in income (one working spouse).  The result: a marriage bonus of $5,073.
  5. A couple with $250,000 in income (both spouses work, one with $200,000 and one with $50,000 in income).  The result: a marriage penalty of $4,743.
  6. A couple with $250,000 in income (one spouse works).  The result: a marriage bonus of $10,787.

The results here are kind of weird.  Having a fourth child increases the marriage penalty and the marriage bonus at all income levels simulated.  If only one spouse works and earns an income of $250,000, the marriage bonus is the same as it was for the third child.  It appears that couples are penalized if they have a third child, and rewarded if they have a fourth.

Conclusions

This was not a scientific study, and I did not consult with tax attorneys or CPAs.  I also did not add in the effects of deductions for mortgage interest, student loan interest, childcare expenses, or state income taxes, all of which would change the amount of the marriage penalty or bonus.  It is possible that the tax code encourages both marriage and the production of children.

From my results, it appears that the tax code does encourage couples to marry.  If a couple has no children, then there is a marriage bonus at the levels of income that I entered into the calculator.  If a couple does have children, then the tax code appears to provide an incentive to have one parent stay in the home while the other works.

The production of a second child results in a higher marriage penalty, as well as higher marriage bonuses.  The penalty is larger for those with a lower level of income, and the bonuses are relatively larger at lower levels of income as well.

Having a third child increases the penalty at lower levels of income, and reduces the marriage bonus in the bottom two income categories; at the $250,000 income level the bonus is unchanged.

The fourth child increases both the marriage penalty and the marriage bonus, with the exception once again at the $250,000 income level where the bonus is unchanged.

These were not the results I expected when I first stumbled upon the Marriage Bonus and Penalty calculator.  I expected the tax code to punish couples for having more children, and it appears that it does (but only for the third child).

There is one more thing to consider.  The median household income in the U.S. is less than $50,000. This means that half of the income earners in the U.S. earn $50,000 or less, which happens to be the income level where there is a marriage penalty.  This is why I used examples with $50,000 as the income.  Some politicians have stated that if you make $75,000 a year you are ‘rich’ (which means that they want to tax you even more).  And, in the latest debates over raising taxes, politicians in the federal government have used $250,000 as the benchmark to determine who is ‘rich’.

So that’s where I got the income levels from, and those are the results.

Mea Culpa

As I wrote above, this was not a very scientific analysis.  I also didn’t add in variables like childcare expenses, state income taxes, or mortgage interest deductions.

I will be the first to admit when I am wrong.  But in this case, it appears my earlier hunch was right: the U.S. tax code penalizes couples for getting married and having children.  One thing that I forgot to mention was the fact that people who make over $50,000 in income become eligible for may fall under the Alternative Minimum Tax system.

The AMT

The Alternative Minimum Tax was imposed in 1969  and took effect in 1970.  The impetus for the creation of the AMT was the fact that 155 high-income households did not pay any federal income tax.  This shocked Congress into creating an add-on tax on high-income households, equal to 10% of the sum of tax preferences in excess of $30,000 plus the taxpayer’s regular tax liability.  The idea was to ‘tax the rich’.

The problem is, Congress did not think to index the incomes covered by the AMT to inflation.  As a result, people who are not making a high level of income are now becoming subject to the tax ($50,000 today is the equivalent of $8,488 in 1970).

And in order to ‘tax the rich’ who weren’t paying their ‘fair share’, once you fall under the AMT you cannot take any of the standard deductions.  You get no personal exemptions, no exemptions for children, no deductions for childcare expenses, no deductions for student loan interest, and no deductions for mortgage interest payments.  If you fall under the AMT, you will have to pay more in taxes (in part because the graduated tax rate of the regular tax code is replaced by a flat rate of 28% on all income).

The AMT, Marriage, and Children

The following graphic is from the Tax Policy Center website:

AMT-marriage-penalty-for-TaxVox

Under the AMT, we now see that high-income earners are penalized both for being married and for having children.  As the number of children increases, so does the marriage penalty.  According to the Congressional Budget Office, taxpayers with large families—and specifically families with 3 or more children—are more likely to pay the AMT than smaller families.  You can read the entire 10-page report here.

This is what happens when the laws and regulations are written for the purposes of social engineering and not for raising revenue.  It’s no wonder that most couples today do not marry and have children:

marriage ratesbut shack up and get pets instead:

shacking up