News

North Dakota Republican Dan Ruby wants to slash tax rates and ban abortion

Leave a comment
Rep. Dan Ruby
Rep. Dan Ruby

Wow, this guy is perfect!

He managed to get this pro-life bill passed in North Dakota.

Excerpt:

A strong majority of lawmakers in the North Dakota House of Representatives on Friday afternoon passed a law that would make it illegal to murder any human being from the moment of their conception.

The Defense of Human Life Act, HB 1450, recognizes every human being at any stage of development as a person under state law with a right to protection.

“The overwhelming community and legislative support for HB 1450 proves that North Dakota could be the first state to recognize the value and dignity of every living human being,” stated Representative Dan Ruby. “The Defense of Human Life Act is just common sense. Of course every human being is a person, and every innocent person should receive legal protection. I am motivated to see women and children protected by HB 1450, and I look forward to its passage in the Senate in the near future.”

While the bill prohibits chemical abortifiacients such as RU-486, it does not apply to emergency contraception, or other “contraception administered before a clinically diagnosable pregnancy.” The bill also exempts legitimate medical procedures that may lead to the death of children in the womb when a woman’s life is in danger. The bill also exempts pregnant women seeking abortions from criminal prosecution.

The bill, supported by ND Right to Life, ND Life League, ND Family Alliance, ND CWFA, and the ND Catholic Conference, passed 68-25 in Friday’s vote.

“HB 1450 simply states that all human beings will be equal under North Dakota state law.  Our law would treat all children as human beings,” said Republican Rep. Gary Paur in an email to supporters.

Daniel Woodard, a legal consultant for North Dakota Right to Life and the North Dakota Life League, told LifeSiteNews.com that the bill would put the one remaining abortion clinic in the state out of business. “This bill should shut down that clinic,” said Woodard.

That’s good, but here is something that is also just as good: not taking money away from families, and not taking money away from the corporations that enable families to have money.

Excerpt:

Under the Republican governor’s proposal, the lowest individual income tax rate would decline from 1.84 percent to 1.63 percent, while the top rate would fall from 4.86 percent to 4.65 percent. The cuts would save North Dakotans about $50 million in income tax payments over two years.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers have offered alternatives. Rep. Jerome Kelsh, D-Fullerton, the House minority leader, has introduced a bill to exempt a person’s first $40,000 of income, and a couple’s first $50,000, from the state income tax entirely.

Kelsh said he wanted to focus the tax break on lower-income North Dakotans.

“I don’t think (state) income tax, to the top level of income earners in North Dakota, is really a problem,” Kelsh said in an interview. “Maybe their federal is different, but North Dakota income tax is not very burdensome to anyone.”

Reps. Dan Ruby, R-Minot, and Jim Kasper, R-Fargo, have proposals that offer larger income tax cuts than the governor’s proposal.

Ruby’s legislation would slash corporate and individual income taxes by 60 percent. The state Tax Department estimates it would reduce income tax collections by $634.7 million over two years. It would also cut taxes on so-called “pass-through” income that individuals receive from partnerships and limited liability companies.

Ruby’s bill would cut the top corporate tax rate from 6.4 percent to 2.56 percent, and reduce all five of North Dakota’s individual income tax rates below 2 percent. The top income tax rate would fall from 4.86 percent to 1.94 percent.

Oh, and I should note that he is NOT a poet. He is a small business owner and a father of 10!

News

Obama administration covers up political correctness that led to massacre

5 Comments

From Hans Bader, at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Excerpt:

Discrimination and politically-correct blinders can be deadly. It was obvious in the aftermath of the Fort Hood shootings that the killer was inspired by Islamic extremism. Obvious, that is, to anyone but officials in the Obama administration, who continue to cling tightly to a culture of political correctness and preferential treatment that helped make the shootings possible.

Nidal Hasan shot dead 12 soldiers and a civilian at Fort Hood, while shouting “Allahu Akbar.”  But the Obama administration’s inquiry into the shootings falsely suggested Islamic extremism was not a factor in the shootings.  Its report on the Fort Hood massacre did not even “mention the words ‘Islam’ or ‘Muslim’ once,” referring to the killer simply as the “alleged perpetrator.” Instead, it claimed the tragedy resulted from “bureaucratic shortcomings” in the “sharing of information.”

[…]The shooter’s Islamic extremism was obvious.  Prior to the shooting, he had said that Muslims should rise up against the military, “repeatedly expressed sympathy for suicide bombers,” was pleased by the terrorist murder of an army recruiter, and engaged in hate-speech against non-Muslims, publicly calling for the beheading or burning of non-Muslims, and talking “about how if you’re a nonbeliever the Koran says you should have your head cut off, you should have oil poured down your throat, you should be set on fire.”  “In addition, Hasan openly had suggested revenge as a defense for the 9/11 attacks, defended Osama bin Laden, and said his allegiance to his religion was greater than his allegiance to the constitution.”

But the military did nothing to remove him from a position where he could harm others. Although his views were common knowledge, “a fear of appearing discriminatory . . . kept officers from filing a formal written complaint,” the Associated Press noted. Moreover, “a key official on a review committee reportedly asked how it might look to terminate a key resident who happened to be a Muslim,” as NPR noted.  Instead, the military effectively exempted Hasan from rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, in order to promote its conception of “diversity.”

As military attorney Thomas Kenniff notes, there was a climate of “obsessive political correctness” in the military. As Major Shawn Keller pointed out, in a column entitled “An Officer’s Outrage Over Fort Hood.” “There was no shortage of warning signs that Hasan identified more with Islamic Jihadists than he did with the US Army. . .But just like September 11, those agencies and individuals charged with keeping America and Americans safe failed to connect the dots that would have saved lives. Jihadist rhetoric espoused by Hasan was categorically dismissed out of submissiveness to the concepts of tolerance and diversity. . . . the leaders in Hasan’s chain-of-command failed to act . . . out of fear of being labeled anti-Muslim and receiving a negative evaluation report.”

Indeed, even after the shootings, government officials worried more about the fate of “diversity” than about the lives of their troops:  “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength,” Army Chief of Staff George Casey told NBC’s Meet the Press. “And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse,” Casey said.

Can you trust the Democrats on national security? I don’t see why.

Related posts

Commentary

What is the value proposition for a Christian man considering marriage?

78 Comments

Basically, I think that my job as husband and father is:

  1. to make sure that I focus on being a good protector, provider and moral spiritual leader by making good decisions and setting aside time to learn how to defend my views on religion and morality
  2. to make sure that I am aware of areas where God has an interest, like the abortion debate, the marriage debate, the debate over the origin of the universe, the debate over biological origins, the debate over free markets vs secular socialism, the debate over religious liberty and family vs fascism, etc.
  3. to make sure that I am aware of the skills, arguments and evidence that are related to these trouble areas
  4. to make sure that I assess the skills and capabilities of my future children
  5. to choose a wife who is aware of these problem areas and the relevant skills
  6. assess the skills and capabilities of the children
  7. communicate to them the areas where Christianity is under fire
  8. demonstrate to the children how much these areas matter to their parents
  9. together with my future wife, to steer the future children into degrees and careers that will move the ball forward in these areas.
  10. act intentionally to ensure that they achieve influence in the problem areas as effectively as possible

I don’t think that it is Dad’s job to just roll over and pay for a wife and several children unless the wife agrees with me to try and achieve something together that we could not achieve as singles. I.e. – I think that if we have a child, then we should NOT be as happy if the child is a poet as we would be if the child is Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or William Lane Craig. I think that some things that a child can be are more influential than others, and that children should be jointly steered in the direction of being influential and effective as a way of making the marriage count for the Lord. And I think the Bible supports the idea of stewardship and making the most of gifts and blessings.

So I don’t feel that I am obligated to marry unless I can foresee that my wife is serious about making the marriage, family and children count for God. If I don’t foresee a return on the investment, which is quite risky for the man given the feminism and socialism in the laws and tax codes, then wouldn’t I be better off just working and giving the money away to Christian speakers for apologetics speaking and debating? Children typically cost $250,000 and stay-at-home moms are expensive too. Is it worth it to have a wife who doesn’t agree with me on the purpose of the marriage and the parenting? Am I supposed to hand her hundreds of thousands of dollars and get nothing at all back to show for it?

I think the fundamental question is this: What is the purpose of marriage for men, and how should a prospective wife present herself to a man who wants the marriage and the children to count for the Lord? How can she show that she is aware of what he is planning and show that she has taken steps to help him to achieve results for God, instead of just making herself happy? How can she show that there a difference between a child being a good student and a bad student? How can she show that there a difference between writing poetry and being an ADF lawyer?

Are some directions more likely to have an influence on the culture than others? Is the role of parents to produce a return for the blessings that God has given them, or are they just supposed to let children do whatever makes them happy, so that the parents will be happy and be their children’s friends? I think what it boils down to is this: should Christian parents steer their children to be William Lane Craig or Michele Bachmann on purpose, or should they just let them be poets if that’s what makes the children happy?