I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled It with seed. What a beauty of a bird feeder it was, as I filled it lovingly with seed.

Within a Week we had hundreds of birds Taking advantage of the Continuous flow of free and
easily accessible food. But then the birds started building nests in the boards Of the patio, above the table, And next to the barbecue. Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, The chairs, the table .. everywhere!

Then some of the birds turned mean. They would Dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had Fed them out of my own pocket. And others birds were boisterous and loud. They Sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at All hours of the day and night And demanded that I fill it When it got low on food.

After a while, I couldn’t even Sit on my own back porch Anymore. So I took down the Bird feeder and in three days The birds were gone. I cleaned Up their mess and took down\ The many nests they had built All over the patio. Soon, the back yard was like It used to be …. Quiet, serene…. And no one demanding their Rights to a free meal.

Now let’s see. Our government gives out Free food, subsidized housing, Free medical care and free Education, and allows anyone Born here to be an automatic citizen. Then the illegal’s came by the Tens of thousands. Suddenly Our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen By an emergency room doctor; Your child’s second grade class is Behind other schools because Over half the class doesn’t speak English. Corn Flakes now come in a Bilingual box; I have to ‘press one ‘ to hear my bank Talk to me in English, and People waving flags other Than ‘Old Glory’ are Squawking and screaming In the streets, demanding More rights and free liberties.

Just my opinion, but maybe it’s time for the government To take down the bird feeder. If you agree, pass it on; if not, Just continue cleaning up the poop .

Take our new poll!

By Dr. Paul Kengor
As posted at The Center for Vision and Values

I got the email in late afternoon. “In a major liberal initiative to curtail discussion of President Obama’s religious identity,” the email began, “over 70 Christian leaders and denominational heads have signed a letter saying that questions about the religious philosophy of the president of the United States should be ignored and suppressed by the major media.”

This couldn’t be correct. No doubt another internet hoax by the vast right-wing conspiracy. I wasn’t taking the bait.

Rather than hit delete, however, I took a moment to open the hyperlink. Lo and behold, the letter (click here), signed by over 70 self-described “Christian pastors and leaders,” proclaimed:

[W]e are deeply troubled by the recent questioning of President Obama’s faith…. [T]he personal faith of our leaders should not be up for public debate…. Therefore, we urge public officials, faith leaders, and the media to offer no further support or airtime to those who misrepresent and call into question the president’s Christian faith.

Likewise remarkable was the letter’s appeal to political neutrality. “This is not a political issue,” the pastors insisted.

The letter was posted at the website of Eleison Group, whose president, Burns Strider, offers faith-based political advice to Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. Signers include Jim Wallis, who is synonymous with faith and politics, widely known for his group Sojourners and bestseller God’s Politics.

Most striking is the letter’s stunning demand that the media offer no airtime to anyone questioning the president’s faith, even as this president has arguably the most unconventional faith profile of any president in history, understandably creating confusion among the public.

No airtime? Obviously, such a demand presents a host of thorny considerations, beginning, of course, with the First Amendment.

Would refusal of “airtime”-which I assume includes print and web media-extend to those arguing in favor of claims that Obama is a Christian? Apparently not. Would it apply to those who question Obama’s faith or (much broader) “call into question?” Who determines the difference?

And how about claims against other presidents?

Liberals constantly questioned Ronald Reagan’s faith, because of his infrequent church attendance, his wife consulting stargazers, his Central America policy, his welfare policy, his environmental policy. Reagan suffered these suspicions even as he repeatedly stated he was a Christian. He endured a question during a nationally televised presidential debate with Walter Mondale. Two weeks later, in another televised debate, Reagan was asked if his beliefs about Armageddon fueled his nuclear policy.

Still today, liberals ask me about Reagan’s faith, including if he was really a Christian.

Reagan is far from alone. Some 200 years after his presidency, Thomas Jefferson’s faith is ever-maligned. He’s accused of all sorts of things. Even the beliefs of Lincoln and Washington are debated.

What about our most recent president? I can’t tell you how many times I addressed serious inquiries about whether George W. Bush was seeking to impose a theocracy, or why Bush supposedly believed Christ had ordered him to defang Saddam. It took every bit of charity to suck it up and respond with patience. I never thought to stomp and sniff: That question should not be permitted airtime!

Most disturbing, but, frankly, not surprising, is that this push comes from self-anointed apostles of diversity and tolerance, who tell us the Religious Right is intolerant. It reminds of Nat Hentoff’s classic saying: “Free speech for me but not for thee.”

Not only does this letter make these pastors look bad, but it would probably backfire. When I hear CNN, MSNBC, or even Fox mention the latest poll on Obama’s faith, the reporter typical starts: “The latest poll shows nearly one in four Americans think Obama is a Muslim. In fact, Obama is a Christian….”

Don’t these liberal church leaders realize the media is on their side?

If they don’t like free discussion about the president’s faith, they should do what Americans have always done in their free society: Go to the public square-i.e., the media-hash it out, make your case, and persuade. Debate.

- Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values. His books include “God and Ronald Reagan,” “God and George W. Bush,” and “God and Hillary Clinton.”

Source: The Hill

Several great guests join me on this weekend’s 90 minute radio program.  Jerry Bowyer - economist, syndicated columnist, and a good friend - joined me in discussing President Obama’s failed $787 billion stimulus plan.  We also commented on the video, “Real or Fake,” a project that explores individual Americans’ comprehension of  federal government stimulus spending.  You decide, tax payer funds for talking robots!  Real or fake?  Tax payer funds for a pedestrian tunnel in Florida.  Real or Fake?  Watch the video here.  No matter what the government intentions are, bureaucrats do not spend our hard earned money better than we do ourselves.  Remember Milton Friedman’s famous question, “Just who are these angels in government who are going to solve all of our problems?”

Ed Stack, Chairman and CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods, joins me with insights on competition and on serving the needs of his clients.  One interesting component of the Dick’s story is that Ed created a unique category, a single storefront in a mall location that carries gear for every sporting, athletic, and outdoor activity need.  For example, Dick’s carries gold clubs, soccer gear, and skiing equipment, as well as hunting rifles & fishing tackle, climbing gear, and canoes.

Jim Gaffney, a partner at Peak Performance Management, also joins me on the program.  Jim tells his own story, answering questions concerning his own sales experience, including, how he got into sales, how he learned to sell, and important resources he discovered along the way.

Source: Port Authority Transit

By Dr. Tracy C. Miller
As posted at The Center for Vision and Values

Not long ago, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell toured the state to highlight its crisis in transportation funding. He called on the General Assembly to resolve the crisis this year. In May, the State Transportation Advisory Committee estimated that the state faced a funding gap of $3 billion to meet needs for maintaining, repairing, and expanding state and local roads, highways, and bridges.
In spite of the crisis, it is doubtful whether the legislature will agree to raise fuel taxes or find another way to raise additional money for highways and bridges this year. Although this may be partly a reflection of the state of the economy combined with election-year politics, opposition to raising fuel taxes remains strong at both the national and local levels.

Americans were not always so hostile to fuel taxes. One of the few taxes that was generally accepted and even welcomed when it was first enacted was the tax on gasoline. Unlike most other taxes, many Americans recognized that paying fuel taxes would result in benefits for themselves. They valued the improved roads and highways, which fuel taxes made possible.

Recent strong opposition to increases in fuel taxes does not mean that Americans are less willing than before to pay taxes in order to have better roads. What it does reflect is voters’ opposition to money paid in fuel taxes being used for purposes other than highway spending. In recent years, almost 20 percent of money paid into the Federal Highway Trust Fund (FHTF) has been spent on mass transit. In addition, FHTF money is being spent on recreational trails, historic preservation, and scenic easements. Besides the FHTF money allocated for non-highway purposes, a growing share is used for earmarks that reflect the political priorities of members of Congress rather than the priorities of highway users who pay gasoline taxes.

Why should federal fuel taxes, which are paid by rural and urban drivers alike, be used to pay for public transportation, which primarily benefits residents of large metropolitan areas? In Pennsylvania, 90 percent of transit-operating grants is paid to the Southeast Pennsylvania Transportation Authority and the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAAC). But only 50 percent of the state’s population lives in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh areas served by these transit agencies. In these two metropolitan areas, less than five percent of local trips are on public transportation while almost all the rest are by automobile.

Not only is it unfair to use fuel taxes to subsidize transit and other projects of dubious benefit to the drivers who pay them, but it is evident that transit subsidies are often spent on projects that are excessively costly relative to the benefits they provide. A good example of this is the North Shore Connector, a 1.2-mile extension of the light-rail line in Pittsburgh, which is currently under construction. Senators John McCain and Tom Coburn recently criticized this project as one of the three most offensive uses of federal stimulus funds. If it had not been for $62.5 million of economic stimulus funds, construction of the Connector would likely have been halted due to cost overruns. Not only has the cost increased from an original estimate of $363 million to $528.8 million, but, as noted by the Allegheny Institute, the project was scaled back in size after the federal government agreed to provide most of the funds.

Consumers will not be willing to pay even close to the cost (more than six dollars per ride) that would be required to cover just the annual interest on the money invested in the North Shore Connector. The money spent on this project could be used to buy a brand new $40,000 SUV for each of the 11,500 riders per day that are expected to use this 1.2-mile section of light rail.

The federal government would get much more for its transportation dollars if it used all of them for maintaining and expanding highways and bridges and left transit funding to local governments. If the federal fuel tax were eliminated and each state raised its fuel tax by the same amount, more money would be available for roads and highways. The Pennsylvania Constitution prohibits using state fuel-tax revenue for purposes other than funding roads and highways. Using the money paid in fuel taxes exclusively for roads, highways, and bridges would eliminate some of the funding gap faced by Pennsylvania and other states. In addition, a variety of innovative approaches to highway construction and maintenance, including public-private partnerships, could help reduce costs. To make up the remaining shortfall, citizens might be more willing to pay higher fuel taxes if they could be confident that the money was being spent for highways and bridges with spending priorities better reflecting drivers’ priorities.

- Dr. Tracy C. Miller is an associate professor of economics at Grove City College and contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values. He holds a Ph.D. from University of Chicago.

July 21, 2010 6pm

There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.

The proposed “Cordoba House” overlooking the World Trade Center site - where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks - is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites. For example, most of them don’t understand that “Cordoba House” is a deliberately insulting term. It refers to Cordoba, Spain - the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third-largest mosque complex.

“Cordoba,” in Islamic symbolic terms, means Islamic rule in the West.  Today, some of the Mosque’s backers insist this term is being used to “symbolize interfaith cooperation” when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest. It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that they would deliberately insult us this way. Those Islamists and their apologists who argue for “religious toleration” are arrogantly dishonest. They ignore the fact that more than 100 mosques already exist in New York City. Meanwhile, there are no churches or synagogues in all of Saudi Arabia. In fact no Christian
or Jew can even enter Mecca. And they lecture us about tolerance.  If the people behind the Cordoba House were serious about religious toleration, they would be imploring the Saudis, as fellow Muslims, to immediately open up Mecca to all and immediately announce their intention to allow non-Muslim houses of worship in the Kingdom. They should be asked by the news media if they would be willing to lead such a campaign.

We have not been able to rebuild the World Trade Center in nine years.  Now we are being told a 13 story, $100 million megamosque will be built within a year overlooking the site of the most devastating surprise attack in American history.  Finally where is the money coming from? The people behind the Cordoba House refuse to reveal all their funding sources. America is  experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could.

No mosque. No self deception. No surrender.  The time to take a stand is now - at this site on this issue.

As forwarded by Emanuel Tanay, M.D.

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. ‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’

We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march… It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:

Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts — the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, worldwide, read this and think about it, and send it on - before it’s too late.

Paul E. Marek is a second-generation Canadian, whose grandparents fled Czechoslovakia just prior to the Nazi takeover. He is an educational consultant specializing in programs that protect children from predatory adults.

Dr . Emanuel Tanay MD is a well-known forensic psychiatrist who has been an expert witness in many famous cases . He has served as an officer or committee member on the Michigan Psychiatric Society, the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, the American Psychiatric Association (APA), and others . He is a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology and of the American Board of Forensic Psychiatry and a distinguished fellow of the APA and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFC).

A Holocaust survivor himself, Dr Tanay coauthored a book about the survivors of the Holocaust and was asked by the German government to consult on just compensation for the Holocaust survivors . Dr. Tanay has served on several journal editorial boards, authored many publications, and presented countless times on forensic medicine . His efforts have also produced many awards and commendations from groups such as the Michigan State Medical Society, APA, the Detroit Institute of Technology, and AAFC, among others.

Comments below the fold

By now, many of you have probably read or heard about President Obama’s recent verbal attack on Americans for Prosperity (AFP). You can listen to the comments here.

Tim Philips, President of AFP joined me on last weekend’s radio program to talk about this attack (click the play icon above to listen). In his ridiculous statement, Obama equated AFP’s 1.3 million activists with foreign controlled corporations, big oil companies, big banks, and health insurance companies. President Obama then blamed the U.S. Supreme Court for allowing groups like Americans for Prosperity to organize, and suggested that Congress needs to “fix it” so that these organizations can no longer contribute to the political process. Does President Obama believe in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? It doesn’t sound like it.

Tim reminded us that AFP members are also tea party patriots and 9/12 activists. They are grass roots Americans who love this country, who believe in limited government and free market principles, and who oppose the political left’s radical agenda (including Obamacare and Cap and Trade). In other words, AFP activists are in the mainstream of America. No wonder President Obama’s approval rating hit another low (41%) last week in Gallup’s polling data.

Liberals and “progressives” on the political left are spending their time and energy demonizing conservatives; distorting our message of freedom, personal responsibility, and fairness; destroying our prosperity by employing failed Keynesian economics; and blaming former President Bush for all of our current problems. Meanwhile, Conservatives are educating others about the merits of limited government, lower taxes, and less government spending. We are winning the hearts and minds of the American people.

Does the state have the right to prevent people from training for particular careers because the state disagrees with their religious beliefs? U.S. District Judge George Steeh has made just such a ruling. Eastern Michigan University expelled Julea Ward from its master’s program in school counseling because Ms. Ward refused to undergo a reeducation program to silence her beliefs and to keep her convictions in check when counseling.
The flashpoint was Ms. Ward’s refusal to counsel homosexuals about relationships because such behaviors are not consistent with her religious beliefs. The dismissal of Ms. Ward’s lawsuit could have a chilling effect on religious freedom. The threat goes far beyond the issue of homosexuality. If the government can determine that some beliefs make a person unfit for a profession, then anyone who has an unpopular belief can be denied the opportunity to practice his or her own profession. After all, if the government can determine that personal beliefs can make a person ineligible to train for a particular profession, what is there to stop the government from forcing people out of their existing profession? This ruling is a threat to everyone’s freedom, no matter what one believes about homosexuality.

Judge Steeh ruled that Eastern Michigan had “a rational basis” for requiring students to counsel all possible clients. I will leave the constitutional law questions for the legal scholars. My concern is for the counseling profession and clients.

While I am neither a clinical psychologist, nor a counselor, I do have some graduate training in clinical psychology. I am confident that Judge Steeh’s ruling not only harms religious freedom, it will harm counseling and ultimately harm those who seek counseling. Proponents of the decision are attacking a belief system they find particularly odious, but they are also attacking the freedom of counselors to best meet people’s needs.

The issue is whether a given counselor should counsel any and every client. Historically, the answer to this question has been that counselors should not counsel every possible client. We all have biases. Sometimes a personal bias, religious or otherwise, would prevent a counselor from providing the high quality, neutral service that fully respects the client and the client’s right to self-determination. For example, I once heard a person who does marital therapy say that he did not counsel couples when the husband was physically abusive. This therapist believed that his strong negative feelings about abusive husbands would prevent him from counseling such couples well. The ethical approach for counselors in these situations is to refer clients to a therapist who will better meet their needs. To demand that counselors always be neutral regardless of their biases and convictions is to demand superhuman abilities.

Ironically, then, Ms. Ward was striving to treat homosexual clients with integrity and respect for their right of self-determination. Knowing that she would not be able to be supportive of homosexual behavior and relationships, she sought to allow homosexual clients to seek therapy from counselors who would be supportive. In my opinion, had Ms. Ward counseled homosexuals about relationships, this would have been unethical, her clients would not have received the neutral help they needed, and they may have been harmed.

The state has no business determining which biases are so unsavory that they must be changed through reeducation and which are benign. In the counseling room, any bias on the part of a counselor has the potential to harm certain clients. Counselors and therapists need the ability to refer clients to another professional when a personal bias could affect the clients’ treatment. Opponents of freedom of conscience may be able to use the power of the state to drive people with unpopular beliefs out of the counseling profession. However, the resulting profession will be less honest, less diverse, and less able to reduce human suffering.

- Dr. Joseph J. Horton is an associate professor of psychology at Grove City College and a researcher on Positive Youth Development with The Center for Vision & Values.

Who are these angels in Government who are going to solve all of our problems for us?

Editor’s note: This article first appeared in USA Today.

The recent poll by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life is generating much discussion over its provocative finding that an increasing number of Americans (nearly one in five) believe that President Obama is a Muslim. The survey was completed before Obama’s recent comments endorsing the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero.

While this no doubt is a fascinating development, consuming most media coverage of the poll, and unprecedented in presidential history, the figure of greater interest to me-and not surprising-is the percentage of Americans unsure about whether Obama is a Christian, or, more generally, about his faith at all.

“[T]he proportion saying [Obama] is a Christian has declined,” reports Pew. “More than a year and a half into his presidency, a plurality of the public says they do not know what religion Obama follows.” Pew added: “Only about one-third of adults (34 percent) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48 percent in 2009. Fully 43 percent say they do not know what Obama’s religion is.”

This confusion is not confined to Republicans. Pew notes: “fewer Democrats today say he is a Christian (down nine points since 2009).”

The numbers among Democrats are telling. Indeed, it’s easy for Obama defenders to lash out at this data as allegedly reflective of narrow-minded anti-Obama conservatives. In truth, there is confusion about what Obama believes because, in fact, there is-rightly so-confusion about what Obama believes.

Uncertainty builds

I say this as someone who studies faith and politics, and who has written books on the faith of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Hillary Clinton-books that hit upon the faith of just about every president.

For the record, in one of those books-the 2007 one on Hillary Clinton, who I described as a “lifelong, committed Christian”-I wrote briefly about an emerging political dynamo named Barack Obama. “Obama is a Christian,” I reported confidently, seeing no reason to say otherwise.

As November 2008 approached, I wrote similar things, though acknowledging the growing uncertainty about Obama’s beliefs. I recall speaking at a church near Pittsburgh where one liberal couple practically jumped out of their seats when I dared mention a June 2008 Newsweek poll that found 12 percent of Americans believed Obama is a Muslim.

Those perceptions, already evident then, have only intensified. And for those Obama supporters enraged by this, please try to understand the legitimate confusion, including for someone like myself who carefully studies these things:

Generally, when it comes to faith, Americans accept whatever self-designation offered by a president, especially as his background leaves little doubt. President Jimmy Carter called himself a “born-again” Baptist from Plains, Ga., which the record easily supported. President Woodrow Wilson referred to himself as a Presbyterian in the “Reformed” tradition, and a mere cursory examination revealed precisely that.

Sometimes, we dig deeper. My experience in the case of Ronald Reagan is especially relevant now, as I’m being cited by liberals who point to Reagan’s infrequent church attendance as support for their insistence that Obama’s infrequent church attendance doesn’t mean he lacks faith. (Ironically, in the 1980s, it was liberals who questioned whether the president was really a Christian.) That comparison, however, is misplaced, for reasons that underscore the questions about Obama. Consider:

Reagan attended church his entire life, from the First Christian Church on S. Hennepin Avenue in Dixon, Ill. in the 1920s, to churches in Iowa in the 1930s, to varying churches in California from the 1940s through the 1970s, and again after his presidency. As a new president, he immediately began attending the National Presbyterian Church, present for all but one or two services prior to when he was shot by John Hinckley. I interviewed the pastor of that church, the Rev. Louis Evans, at length, plus other witnesses. Reagan’s attendance declined only after the assassination attempt. He cited security reasons, and the record supported his explanation. Beyond that, Reagan’s personal life, family background, writings, speeches, and much more, revealed a deep, pervasive Christian faith throughout his entire life.

The record

For President Obama, a similar evidentiary record does not exist. Unlike Reagan, Obama was not raised by an intensely pious mother, nor was there an extremely influential pastor in his adolescent years. As noted by an excellent Newsweek piece during the campaign, Obama was reared by a “Christian-turned-secular mother”-herself a product of “two lapsed Christian” parents-and was the son of a “Muslim-turned-atheist African father” and a stepfather with a “unique brand of Islam.”

As Obama himself candidly admits, he meandered his way through Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism, Protestantism, asceticism, with, along the way, smatterings of Augustine, Graham Greene, and Nietzsche, just for starters.

Amazingly, the only Christian church to which Obama could have been considered a consistent member was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church. And if we are to believe the disclaimers of Obama and his supporters, he rarely attended Wright’s services, and even more rarely listened or paid attention.

Likewise, Michelle and the girls have not attended church regularly, if ever. Newsweek reported a remarkable fact for a major presidential candidate who would win the presidency: “Obama is a little spiritually rootless again.”

Our puzzling president

All of this, from rare church attendance to the lack of other conventional displays of faith, has persisted well into Obama’s presidency. Think about the oddity of this one fact alone: The current president has neither a church, nor, to my knowledge, even a denomination. When I’m asked questions about his faith, by sincere people not looking to attack, I sincerely can’t give a good answer. It’s a problem I didn’t have with any of the Bushes, the Clintons, Reagan, Carter, and on and on.

In short, and I don’t mean this to be disparaging, with Barack Obama we are witnessing the most unconventional faith profile of a president in arguably 200 years. The assessment we’re getting from a curious public is not a crass misperception by a bunch of intolerants, but, rather, natural puzzlement.

Of course, it shouldn’t be difficult to rectify misperceptions. Throughout American history, presidents have been asked about their faith and sat for lengthy interviews sharing their thinking, explaining precisely what they believe. Why doesn’t Obama simply do the same? This isn’t rocket science.

Will some people still not believe him? Of course. But Obama’s problem isn’t a tiny fringe that believes he faces Mecca to pray five times a day, but an increasingly large number of Americans that aren’t sure what he believes. Until he makes that clearer, confusion will understandably reign.

- Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values. His books include “God and Ronald Reagan,” “God and George W. Bush,” and “God and Hillary Clinton.”

On the program this weekend, I talk about the “Cordoba House” Mosque project that developers wish to build in Manhattan at Ground Zero.  Tim Philips, President of Americans For Prosperity joins me on the program to talk about President Obama’s recent comments denigrating AFP members.  The political left just does not understand Conservatives.  No wonder President Obama’s approval rating hit another low (41%) this week in Gallup’s polling data.

Glen Meakem is a successful technology entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and conservative talk radio show host, who offers information and insights on how individuals and our nation can be more successful. Glen’s unique perspective has been shaped by his experiences as founder, chairman and CEO of the B2B internet success Freemarkets Inc - which he founded in 1995, took public in 1999, and sold to Ariba in 2004. In 2005, Glen co-founded Meakem Becker Venture Capital, a firm that invests in early stage start up companies. Concerned about the liberal political agenda that has gripped the United States and his home state of Pennsylvania, Glen launched the Glen Meakem Program in 2008. Glen served as an officer in the United States Army Reserve and is a veteran of the First Gulf War. He also earned his undergraduate degree from Harvard and his MBA from Harvard Business School. For more information about Glen and the Glen Meakem Radio Program, or to read his blog, please visit http://glenmeakem.com.

Editor’s Note: A longer version of this article first appeared in American Thinker.

A couple of years ago, the terms “too big to fail” and “bailout” were the trendy buzzwords. Currently, the “in” word seems to be “austerity.” On both sides of the Atlantic, public officials and media pundits are debating the need for “fiscal austerity programs,” i.e., shrinking government deficits by increasing tax revenues and/or reducing expenditures.

The term “austerity” is problematic. It connotes sacrifice and deprivation. While “austerity” programs include cutbacks in some persons’ lifestyles, it seems odd to say that learning to live within one’s means is a sacrifice. What some call “austerity” is simply the recognition of reality: A society cannot chronically consume more than it produces.

Favoring “austerity” are those worried that today’s swollen budget deficits and national debts, if not corrected, will trigger an economic catastrophe through a sovereign debt crisis (i.e., the inability of governments to find buyers for their bonds). Opposing it are those who profess concern about the economic hardship that would be endured by innocent victims, and/or those who believe that the right economic policy is for governments to increase spending and budget deficits even more than they already have.

Traditionally, “austerity programs” have been International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailouts of heavily indebted, virtually bankrupt Third World governments. For governments to obtain a loan, the IMF has required them to get their fiscal affairs in order by reducing their budget deficits.

Today, by contrast, we find that some of the wealthiest countries in the world require “austerity programs.” The dangerous indebtedness of the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain) is well known. This has deflected our attention from the salient reality that the United States has comparable degrees of debt and deficits to those European countries. We, too, are in danger of either a sovereign-debt and currency crisis.

We should be ashamed and alarmed that we are even talking about “austerity programs” for the United States of America. The very fact that we are doing so means that we have lapsed into a Third-World-style quagmire of fiscal incompetence and over-indebtedness. Like a banana republic, we have allowed a self-serving political class to spend tax dollars and borrowed funds to “buy” popularity and take us to the brink of national bankruptcy.

Uncle Sam has behaved like a guy earning $40,000 per year who-with the help of borrowing-has been spending $60,000 per year. Obviously, that can’t continue indefinitely. In fact, such a person can’t repair his balance sheet even if he reduces his annual consumption to $40,000; he has to consume less than $40,000 to be able to serve his debt obligations. So it is with Uncle Sam.

In recent years, our government has gone on a spending binge. As a result, today’s economy is sluggish and severely hung over. Yet Keynesian economists like Paul Krugman tell us that we haven’t binged enough. We’ve been belting down doubles, but Krugman says that the cure for our fiscal hangover is to go back to the bar and start chugging triples. No thank you.

Other pundits on the left are calling for tax increases instead of spending cuts. Their primary goal is the redistribution of wealth, and so they object to the alleged unfairness of spending cuts. This raises the issue of whether existing government payments to individuals ever were fair. There isn’t space to debate this now, but the overriding problem is this: If federal spending isn’t cut significantly, we will end up with a financial crisis and economic crack-up that will cause more economic pain for more people, including those that the redistributionists claim to want to help. What could possibly be fair about that?

It is clear what we must do: slash government spending. Tax rates should not be raised while we are in this weakened economic condition.

What some call “austerity” is simply a return to fiscal sanity and economic reality. We cannot continue to spend more than we produce. The adjustments will be painful, but the longer we wait to bite the bullet, the more painful those necessary adjustments will be.

One more point: The blame for the pain caused by “austerity” belongs, not to those who make the politically difficult decisions to cut spending, but, to those in the past who made politically facile decisions to spend beyond our means. They are the ones who got us into this mess.

- Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

For information on how to catch a bus from the Pittsburgh area to Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor Rally on Saturday, August 28, click here.

For information on how to catch a bus outside of the Pittsburgh area, click here.

September 12th

For information on how to catch a bus from the Pittsburgh area to the National Taxpayer March on Washington D.C. on September 12, click here.

For additional information on the event, and for transportation options outside of the Pittsburgh area, click here.

Mark it down. At 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, August 10, 2010, the U.S. Federal Reserve made a historic announcement. It signaled that the central bank was going to “preserve the size of its balance sheet.” The announcement didn’t sound all that dramatic, but don’t be fooled. In the two subsequent days, the stock market fell over 300 points, and the price of gold rose $20.

The Fed’s balance sheet, which historically consisted of nearly 100 percent U.S. Treasury securities, has grown in size from about $850 billion to a towering $2.3 trillion (or $2,300 billion) currently. In the middle of the financial crisis two years ago, the Fed expanded its holding of securities by purchasing lower-quality, mortgage-backed debt securities primarily from our nation’s domestic banking system. The need for this balance sheet expansion was to provide massive liquidity for our entire financial system.

The cash used to purchase the debt securities was literally created out of thin air, or in other words, the Fed simply printed the money. Two years ago, the financial emergency was deemed severe enough to require this dramatic money-printing exercise by the Fed. There was never any intent to make the vast expansion of money injected into the banking system anything other than “temporary” due to the financial emergency. There was always discussion in the financial press and among Fed policy makers of an “exit strategy.” The “exit strategy” discussion implied that the inflationary (or even “hyper-inflationary”) potential of this massive expansion of the banking system’s base reserves was being monitored closely. The financial markets took comfort that the Fed was standing at the ready, to withdraw the cash, should there be any sign that the central bank’s monetization exercise was having a negative effect on investor inflation psychology. That feeling of comfort has been dealt a blow with the Fed’s announcement on August 10. There is now no “exit strategy” being considered, and the size of the central bank’s balance sheet may very well become permanent.

Historically, the U.S. Federal Reserve has been given two primary objectives: one is the preservation of the purchasing power of the U.S. Dollar, and the other is to conduct a monetary policy that supports full employment. It is not an easy task to serve two masters. Additionally, in its role as a central bank, the Fed is to remain an independent institution that resists political influences. This, too, is not an easy task. The Fed’s track record as an independent institution that has preserved the purchasing power of our currency and maintained full employment is fully open to challenge. The central bank has not always demonstrated a firm independence from political influence, and the purchasing power of the U.S. Dollar has significantly diminished over the past 40 years.

An independent central bank, free of political influence, has always been a critical corner stone supporting confidence in whatever the currency the bank is charged with managing. Confidence is the one and only real currency of a central bank. What has just transpired here with the Fed’s announcement is that, in no uncertain terms, the central bank has explicitly stated it is prepared to “preserve the size of its balance sheet.” And I would add, what it didn’t say explicitly, but did signal to the political class in Washington, is a willingness to “further expand the balance sheet dramatically if need be.” The fancy term being used to describe its intent here is called “quantitative easing” or “QE.”

The real inflationary (or hyperinflationary) risk that the financial markets will calculate very carefully going forward is that the central bank, with this announcement, has now opened itself to being fully co-opted by the political process in Washington. Consider, why make hard political decisions on taxes and spending when the central bank has, in effect, just announced that it stands at the ready to print the money to finance any deficit of any size in order to underwrite any amount of future debt accumulation?

The political class in Washington will see the Fed’s announcement as a potential gold mine. They will no doubt attempt to mine it for all it’s worth. The significantly rising risk is that the accumulation of future government debt attended to this process will result in hyperinflation rather than a garden-variety, modest inflation.

Hyperinflation occurs when there is a total collapse of confidence in a currency. A central bank that is willing to simply print money out of thin air to finance unlimited amounts of debt will eventually undermine the confidence in the currency being managed as lenders eventually seize on the realization that they will never be paid back in anything other than worthless paper.

The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions.

- Fred A. Kingery is a self-employed, private-equity investor in domestic and international financial markets from New Wilmington, Pa., and a guest commentator for The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

Take the challenge yourself and see if you can tell which “stimulus” programs are real, and which ones are fake.

This is why I say that individuals spend their own money better than government bureaucrats…

• Tax payer money for talking robots?
• Tax payer money for turtle tunnel?
• Tax payer money for prostitute drinking programs?

Less than 80 days until the November elections.

Glen Meakem is a successful technology entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and conservative talk radio show host, who offers information and insights on how individuals and our nation can be more successful. Glen’s unique perspective has been shaped by his experiences as founder, chairman and CEO of the B2B internet success Freemarkets Inc - which he founded in 1995, took public in 1999, and sold to Ariba in 2004. In 2005, Glen co-founded Meakem Becker Venture Capital, a firm that invests in early stage start up companies. Concerned about the liberal political agenda that has gripped the United States and his home state of Pennsylvania, Glen launched the Glen Meakem Program in 2008. Glen served as an officer in the United States Army Reserve and is a veteran of the First Gulf War. He also earned his undergraduate degree from Harvard and his MBA from Harvard Business School. For more information about Glen and the Glen Meakem Radio Program, or to read his blog, please visit http://glenmeakem.com.

via hotair.com

UPDATED

On this past weekend’s radio program, I talked about the liberal Democrats’ job killing agenda.

Brian Kapp, co-founder and principal of Kapp/Scanlon, joined me on the program to talk about the current state of our economy. July was a tough month with 484,000 new jobless claims last week alone, $165.04 Billion in federal deficit spending (second highest July deficit on record), home foreclosures up 6%, and a recent correction in the investment markets. Brian suggests that these headlines, coupled with certain leading indicators (including the ECRI index, LEI index, and NFRB surveys), indicate that we may already be in a recession, and that we will probably see negative growth by the end of the third quarter 2010. Brian has been steadfast in his negative predictions for the immediate future, and I have found his independent perspective to be insightful.

I also talked with Dale McCoy, a Pittsburgh electrician and union member, about his new blog The Blue Collar Commentary available at glenmeakem.com. Dale is a great guy who loves this country and is concerned about the Democrat’s steady drift towards the political left, and President Obama’s destructive agenda. If you wish to learn more about Dale and his concerns, please read his “Open Letter” and his Biography.

President Obama’s promise to put Americans back to work is being undermined by his tax, borrow, and spend agenda. Obama was elected President of the United States in part because of his promises to cut deficit spending and to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for anyone making less than $200,000 a year. He and the liberal Democrats in Congress have failed to do both. Instead, they have increased annual deficit spending to well over $1 trillion and will implement the largest tax increase in U.S. history on January 1, 2011. And with each passing week, more and more Americans suffer due to high unemployment, a lousy housing market, and rising foreclosure rates. We must vote “progressives” out of office in November, and replace them with conservative leaders who offer REAL economic and political PROGRESS for the American people.

We have eleven weeks to go until election day. Keep on fighting for America!

Glen Meakem is a successful technology entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and conservative talk radio show host, who offers information and insights on how individuals and our nation can be more successful. Glen’s unique perspective has been shaped by his experiences as founder, chairman and CEO of the B2B internet success Freemarkets Inc - which he founded in 1995, took public in 1999, and sold to Ariba in 2004. In 2005, Glen co-founded Meakem Becker Venture Capital, a firm that invests in early stage start up companies. Concerned about the liberal political agenda that has gripped the United States and his home state of Pennsylvania, Glen launched the Glen Meakem Program in 2008. Glen served as an officer in the United States Army Reserve and is a veteran of the First Gulf War. He also earned his undergraduate degree from Harvard and his MBA from Harvard Business School. For more information about Glen and the Glen Meakem Radio Program, or to read his blog, please visit http://glenmeakem.com.

from wikipedia

By Dr. Paul Kengor
Originally published at The Center for Vision and Values

The blogosphere is burning red, consumed with fury over President Obama’s announcement-made at the end of the news cycle, with talk-radio on weekend break-that he supports the construction of a mosque near the downed World Trade Center buildings. While much is being said, there’s one thing that really struck me about Obama’s announcement: In a 1,200-word statement, which named the Constitution once, Thomas Jefferson twice, and the Founders three times-odd for Obama, who invokes the Founders far less than previous presidents-Obama began with backing from George W. Bush and ended with backing from Jesus Christ. At the same time, he didn’t name Bush or Christ.
First, consider the Bush reference. It came in Obama’s opening:

Here at the White House, we have a tradition of hosting iftars that goes back several years, just as we host Christmas parties and Seders and Diwali celebrations. And these events celebrate the role of faith in the lives of the American people. They remind us of the basic truth that we are all children of God, and we all draw strength and a sense of purpose from our beliefs.

The line about “we are all children of God” is hardly unique-to Obama or Bush; numerous Americans and presidents have used it. That said, more than any president in history, Bush applied that line specifically to Muslims. He did so to insist that Americans not only respect Muslims but understand that Muslims, too, are born with fundamental, unalienable rights and dignity, and, moreover, are capable of establishing democratic governments in places like the Middle East.

Yet, where Obama directly, uniquely invoked Bush was in the very first line of his statement: “Here at the White House, we have a tradition of hosting iftars that goes back several years.”

Americans might wonder when that “tradition” began. Well, not long ago-too recent, in fact, to be called a tradition. As President Obama himself said, this so-called tradition is only “several years” old. The hosting of iftars, consistently, goes back to President Bush.

Ironically, Obama and the angry left blasted Bush (with Obama, the digs have been more subtle) for his alleged callousness and insensitivity to Muslims. Nothing could be further from the truth. In researching a book on the faith of George W. Bush, I encountered innumerable glowing appraisals of Islam, so flattering and exaggerated-to the point of error-that Bush could have been mistaken for a Muslim.

Really, it was fundamentalist Christians who were most perplexed by Bush, especially as Bush repeatedly, over two terms as president, told multiple interviewers that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Obviously, that’s a problematic assessment, given that Christians worship Jesus Christ as God. Muslims do not believe that Jesus was God.

The point here is that Obama’s supporters hammered Bush relentlessly for his supposed intolerance of Muslims. And now, alas, we have the spectacle of Obama, in an extremely controversial statement calling for toleration-more than that, endorsement-of a mosque near the 9/11 site, launching his case by referencing the iftar dinners begun by Bush.

Will Obama’s angrily secular supporters know that the dreaded Bush was behind this “tradition?” Of course, not.

For that matter, will they recognize the source of Obama’s concluding thought? Obama finished his case for the mosque with this wrap up:

And we can only achieve “liberty and justice for all” if we live by that one rule at the heart of every great religion, including Islam-that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

I’m happy to argue that this is a universal principle. As St. Augustine said, there’s a God-shaped vacuum in all human hearts that God alone can fill. We know, in heart and soul, as products of God, designed by God, made in God’s image, through faith and reason, that such abiding principles are true. In other words, being merely a creature-a creation of God, whether you know it or not-you nod in assent when you hear this statement. To borrow from Jefferson, such are the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.

That said, any Christian immediately recognizes that Obama’s final words are Christ’s words: the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12).

Here, too, though, Obama didn’t cite his source. Why not? Is it because the principle is so universal that no source is needed? Or could it be that Obama, ironically, is bending over backwards not to offend Muslims in a statement calling upon Christians (and other non-Muslims) not to be offended by the mosque?

As often with President Obama, when it comes to matters of faith, he has left us with more questions than answers.

- Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His books include “God and George W. Bush” and the forthcoming “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.”

This morning I talked about the liberal Democrats’ job killing agenda.  I also talk with Pat Toomey, Republican candidate for the Senate from Pennsylvania.

You can listen to the program here if you missed it.

Glen Meakem is a successful technology entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and conservative talk radio show host, who offers information and insights on how individuals and our nation can be more successful. Glen’s unique perspective has been shaped by his experiences as founder, chairman and CEO of the B2B internet success Freemarkets Inc - which he founded in 1995, took public in 1999, and sold to Ariba in 2004. In 2005, Glen co-founded Meakem Becker Venture Capital, a firm that invests in early stage start up companies. Concerned about the liberal political agenda that has gripped the United States and his home state of Pennsylvania, Glen launched the Glen Meakem Program in 2008. Glen served as an officer in the United States Army Reserve and is a veteran of the First Gulf War. He also earned his undergraduate degree from Harvard and his MBA from Harvard Business School. For more information about Glen and the Glen Meakem Radio Program, or to read his blog, please visit http://glenmeakem.com.

This morning, Rep. Tim Murphy joined me on the program to talk about the $29 billion bailout that was passed in a special session of Congress this week.  Dale McCoy, a Pittsburgh electrician and union member, also joined me to talk about a new feature at glenmeakem.com called “The Blue Collar Commentary.”  Dale is a great guy and we plan on having him back on the weekend program this coming weekend.

You can listen to the program here if you missed it.

Glen Meakem is a successful technology entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and conservative talk radio show host, who offers information and insights on how individuals and our nation can be more successful. Glen’s unique perspective has been shaped by his experiences as founder, chairman and CEO of the B2B internet success Freemarkets Inc - which he founded in 1995, took public in 1999, and sold to Ariba in 2004. In 2005, Glen co-founded Meakem Becker Venture Capital, a firm that invests in early stage start up companies. Concerned about the liberal political agenda that has gripped the United States and his home state of Pennsylvania, Glen launched the Glen Meakem Program in 2008. Glen served as an officer in the United States Army Reserve and is a veteran of the First Gulf War. He also earned his undergraduate degree from Harvard and his MBA from Harvard Business School. For more information about Glen and the Glen Meakem Radio Program, or to read his blog, please visit http://glenmeakem.com.

Blue Collar Commentary

With Dale McCoy

My name is Dale McCoy.  I am a husband and father.  I am a union member.  I am a democrat.  But first and foremost, I am an American.

On April 15th I spoke at my first tea party rally at Mellon Square in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  I opened my speech with these words, which came from the bottom of my heart.

“Our country is truly in trouble. For years I have stood by and remained silent while watching our schools, our media, my union, and our society drift steadily left. I have watched the government try to legislate fairness, decency, and common sense, but these things cannot be legislated. Inevitably, laws aimed at fairness and social justice are doomed to fail, and in many cases they result in having the opposite of the intended effect. Whether or not such laws are made with good intentions, the consequences of their failure look the same. I have watched the decay of our inner cities, and welfare did not help. I have watched the decay of our industry, and regulations did not help.  The truth is, additional government mandates and entitlements will not solve our growing economic and social problems.

As we continue living in hard economic and political times, it is easy to look to the government for help.  That help comes at a terrible price, and that price is our freedom. Any school, any business, and any institution that accepts tax-payer money from the Federal Government is subject to regulations created by both elected and unelected officials who may or may not be accountable to the people.  Government currently has an unprecedented control over U.S. banks, car companies, insurance companies, schools, colleges, utilities, railroads, factories… and the list goes on and on.  We the people are increasingly controlled by agencies like the Department of Transportation, the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.  We are drowning in a sea of taxes, regulation, and red ink.”

My frustration with constantly increasing regulations and fees is what brought me to the Tea Party.

In my life, I have been fortunate enough to dine with those who have plenty, and to sit around the campfire with those who have little. I have learned that happiness does not come from material things, and that success is in the eye of the beholder. I have attended meetings with company managers and meetings with labor. I have worked side by side with both union and non-union workers . I am sure that the vast majority of the people I’ve met share similar values, hopes, and dreams; and equally  sure that the majority of Americans simply ask for a fair wage and fair treatment in the work place.  Most union members are not thugs, just like most tea party members are not radicals.

Anyone who understands the history of this steel valley (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) also understands that there was a time when the unions and the democratic party benefited the working man. I don’t forget those times or the benefits that were created, but I do believe that the leaders of both the unions and the democratic party have lost their way.  We can not afford to sacrifice liberty for the promise of security. If we lose our freedom, our union cards will be worthless.  I know there are union members who would like to speak out against their leadership, but avoid doing so because they fear possible repercussions.  However, the time has come for us all to be courageous and speak the truth.  Our freedom depends on it.  Teddy Roosevelt wrote that “capital organizes, therefore labor must organize”.  I agree with these words. But unfortunately, big labor is as corrupt as big business and big government.  All must be subject to checks and balances. Only freedom and free markets can come close to balancing these forces.

America rose to become the greatest power on earth in less than 200 years because freedom unleashed the talent of individuals, and allowed them to pursue prosperity. The result was that everyone’s standard of living increased. Our country and our constitution are neither perfect nor absolutely fair, but they are by far the best that human history has to offer, and I will defend them with everything I have.

As I said in my speech, America has been through many hardships in the past, and we will make it through our current trying times.  But to do so, we must put aside our minor disagreements (We can continue to debate them after we save our Republic).  Regardless of political party, union affiliation, or material worth, all freedom loving Americans must work together to vote our current Congressional leaders and White House administration out of office.

One final note. Thanks to our Pittsburgh Tea Party group, I was fortunate enough to spend some time with pastor C.L. Bryant after the April tea party event. C.L. noted that he once held very liberal views. There were a number of events and thoughts that helped to change his political course, but one stood out for me. C.L. said that one day he asked himself; “What do I really know, and what do I believe because someone told me it was true?”  I don’t know if that is an original thought, but it certainly is profound. I hope that everyone who reads this will ask themselves the same question… then educate themselves on the issues…. and then vote.

I will no longer remain silent,

Dale McCoy

I also talked about the $29 billion “jobs” bill that was passed by the House yesterday, and the increasing disparity between public and private compensation.

Take our poll: “Did Pres. Truman do the right thing?”

You can listen to the entire program here if you missed it live.

Glen Meakem is a successful technology entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and conservative talk radio show host, who offers information and insights on how individuals and our nation can be more successful. Glen’s unique perspective has been shaped by his experiences as founder, chairman and CEO of the B2B internet success Freemarkets Inc - which he founded in 1995, took public in 1999, and sold to Ariba in 2004. In 2005, Glen co-founded Meakem Becker Venture Capital, a firm that invests in early stage start up companies. Concerned about the liberal political agenda that has gripped the United States and his home state of Pennsylvania, Glen launched the Glen Meakem Program in 2008. Glen served as an officer in the United States Army Reserve and is a veteran of the First Gulf War. He also earned his undergraduate degree from Harvard and his MBA from Harvard Business School. For more information about Glen and the Glen Meakem Radio Program, or to read his blog, please visit http://glenmeakem.com.

via wikipedia

On August 9, 2010, Dr. Paul Kengor (Director of The Center for Vision and Values and Professor of Political Science at Grove City College) “appeared” with me on “America’s Morning Show” to discuss his recent article, “When They Dropped the Bomb: Remembering August 1945.”  It was a fantastic interview.  Shortly after it concluded, I received an on-air phone call from John Snyder, a combat veteran who served with the 4th Marine Division in Iwo Jima during WWII.  John remembers his own reactions to President Truman’s decision to drop the bomb in 1945.  I’ve combined Paul’s interview with John’s reaction.  Click on the icon above to listen.  You can access the entire August 9th program here if you missed it live.

Take our poll: “Did Pres. Truman do the right thing?”

Glen Meakem is a successful technology entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and conservative talk radio show host, who offers information and insights on how individuals and our nation can be more successful. Glen’s unique perspective has been shaped by his experiences as founder, chairman and CEO of the B2B internet success Freemarkets Inc - which he founded in 1995, took public in 1999, and sold to Ariba in 2004. In 2005, Glen co-founded Meakem Becker Venture Capital, a firm that invests in early stage start up companies. Concerned about the liberal political agenda that has gripped the United States and his home state of Pennsylvania, Glen launched the Glen Meakem Program in 2008. Glen served as an officer in the United States Army Reserve and is a veteran of the First Gulf War. He also earned his undergraduate degree from Harvard and his MBA from Harvard Business School. For more information about Glen and the Glen Meakem Radio Program, or to read his blog, please visit http://glenmeakem.com.

- Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His books include “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism” and the forthcoming “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.”