Jon Huntsman Sr. has given away about $1.5 billion to worthy causes – about 80% of his total wealth. He is also spending $200 million building Huntsman Springs, a golf resort and nature reserve in Idaho that will donate all proceeds of real estate sold to his family’s charitable foundation. But neither of these totals include his strict tithing to the Mormon church of 10% of everything he has ever earned.
“My philanthropy is not borne out of my faith,” he says. “They require 10% tithing. I don’t consider that to be philanthropy and I don’t consider it to be part of my philanthropic giving. I consider it as club dues.
“People who put money in the church basket and people who go to church and pay the pastor: that isn’t real philanthropy, that’s just like you belong to a country club. You pay your dues to belong to that church so you pay your tithing or whatever it is. I’ve never added that into my philanthropy in any way because I just think it’s a part of a person’s life.”
It is initially very perplexing to me to hear someone put the philanthropic value of tithing to one’s church — in particular a church of mostly unpaid, lay ministry like the church to which Jon Huntsman belongs — on par with paying membership dues to a country club. For one thing, with respect to the LDS church, tithing is voluntary and (with the exception of our temples, which many members probably do not use more than a few times a year anyway), no secular rights, access, or benefits are lost by not paying a tithe. Most other members have no idea whether one pays tithing or not, and regardless, there is no economic “status” connected with tithe paying because everyone pays a different amount. Even the “widow’s mite” can constitute a full tithe:
And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
But secondly and most importantly, the federal government places special value on religious organizations, as discussed in Justice William Brennan’s concurrence in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, a 1970 US Supreme Court case. The case is about real property taxes, but the excerpt quoted below is instructive:
Government has two basic secular purposes for granting real property tax exemptions to religious organizations. First, these organizations are exempted because they, among a range of other private, nonprofit organizations contribute to the well-being of the community in a variety of nonreligious ways, and thereby bear burdens that would otherwise either have to be met by general taxation, or be left undone, to the detriment of the community. See, for example, 1938 N. Y. Constitutional Convention, Report of the Committee on Taxation, Doc. No. 2, p. 2. Thus, New York exempts “[r]eal property owned by a corporation or association organized exclusively for the moral or mental improvement of men and women, or for religious, bible, tract, charitable, benevolent, missionary, hospital, infirmary, educational, public playground, scientific, literary, bar association, medical society, library, patriotic, historical or cemetery purposes, for the enforcement of laws relating to children or animals, or for two or more such purposes…” N. Y. Real Prop. Tax Law § 420, subd. 1 (Supp. 1969-1970).
Appellant seeks to avoid the force of this secular purpose of the exemptions by limiting his challenge to “exemptions from real property taxation to religious organizations on real property used exclusively for religious purposes.” Appellant assumes, apparently, that church-owned property is used for exclusively religious purposes if it does not house a hospital, orphanage, week-day school, or the like. Any assumption that a church building itself is used for exclusively religious activities, however, rests on a simplistic view of ordinary church operations. As the appellee’s brief cogently observes, “the public welfare activities and the sectarian activities of religious institutions are…intertwined… Often a particular church will use the same personnel, facilities and source of funds to carry out both its secular and religious activities.” Thus, the same people who gather in church facilities for religious worship and study may return to these facilities to participate in Boy Scout activities, to promote antipoverty causes, to discuss public issues, or to listen to chamber music. Accordingly, the funds used to maintain the facilities as a place for religious worship and study also maintain them as a place for secular activities beneficial to the community as a whole. Even during formal worship services, churches frequently collect the funds used to finance their secular operations and make decisions regarding their nature.
Second, government grants exemptions to religious organizations because they uniquely contribute to the pluralism of American society by their religious activities. Government may properly include religious institutions among the variety of private, nonprofit groups that receive tax exemptions, for each group contributes to the diversity of association, viewpoint, and enterprise essential to a vigorous, pluralistic society. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U. S. App. D. C. 371, 373, 249 F. 2d 127, 129 (1957). To this end, New York extends its exemptions not only to religious and social service organizations but also to scientific, literary, bar, library, patriotic, and historical groups, and generally to institutions “organized exclusively for the moral or mental improvement of men and women.” The very breadth of this scheme of exemptions negates any suggestion that the State intends to single out religious organizations for special preference. The scheme is not designed to inject any religious activity into a nonreligious context, as was the case with school prayers. No particular activity of a religious organization —for example, the propagation of its beliefs—is specially promoted by the exemptions. They merely facilitate the existence of a broad range of private, nonprofit organizations, among them religious groups, by leaving each free to come into existence, then to flourish or wither, without being burdened by real property taxes.
Churches are designed to provide temporal and spiritual support to the people in a community, with an emphasis on the less fortunate in that community. Country clubs are designed to provide fun places to hang out for rich people and their kids.
I admire Jon Huntsman for his philanthropy. His generosity has helped more people than I could ever dream of. This post is not meant to be critical of him, but I wonder why he chose to analogize his church donations to country club dues. The two are not remotely similar. In the context of whether contributions to a church are charitable donations, the comparison to country club dues sounds somewhat stupid and even insulting. It also potentially gives more fodder to the people that want to do away with the tax exempt status of churches.
For example, this disgustingly oblivious change.org petition that has 375 supporters: Petitioning End Church Tax Exempt Status, Faith Based Politics: Religions and churches should pay a fair share:
The money parishioners donate to churches should ethically go to indiscriminately feed the poor and offer low income people healthcare and housing. (isn’t that the true meaning of charity?) It should not go to greedy, hateful and glutenous right wing media houses and fanatical senators to promote their anti woman and anti homosexual religious agendas. LGBT are people and citizens too. Why do homosexuals pay government taxes that in-turn our government gives to a church that is trying to erode the homosexual’s and women’s person-hood and social equality? This is the bait and switch tactic. Clergy use the church and their sad Jesus story allure of religion to entice their followers and the government into believing the church actually cares about the down trodden of society. Then these churches send the money off to their political cronies.
It goes on, and it gets more ranty.
Then there’s this story out of Nebraska from January of this year, where fruitcake Ernie Chambers, who in 2007 filed a lawsuit against God, introduced a bill to do away with the state’s property tax exemption for religious organizations:
So, is Huntsman right?
I know this is old, but I was reflecting on the iconic Peggy Joseph video once again recently and something really bothers me about it.
She seems like she is about to say something that will be poignant and inspiring. She begins by saying it was a touching moment and she never thought she would see this day come. Surely — surely — she will next talk about what it means to her to see an African-American elected president, given how minority races, ethnicities, and religions have been treated in this country for most of our history. Or maybe she will point to her children beside her and say, “Now I can tell them they can grow up to be anything they want to be in this country.”
Something big along those lines.
She says she experienced her “touching moment” because she’s getting a financial bailout.
Barack Obama has been the president for five and a half years. Democrats had the presidency and both houses of congress for his first two years. They could have passed any legislation they wanted. They didn’t reform immigration then. They still haven’t. The multitude of actual and potential problems with illegal immigration are well-known and are beyond the scope of this post. For purposes of this post, the problems are assumed.
Yet, undocumented immigrants have practically been invited here by our president. He had an event the other day at the White House with a bunch of illegal immigrant children. Do you think that got any play in Central American media?
Two weeks ago, the Obama administration even honored ten activists and recipients of temporary amnesty at a “Champions of Change” White House ceremony. That prompted Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI), who is the Vice Chair of the House Homeland Security Committee and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, to say the “tone-deaf” event is an example of the type of messaging that is “fueling the unprecedented surge of immigrant children being smuggled across our southern border” by “flaunting the success stories of ten immigrant children who entered the U.S. illegally.”
“How can we expect to dispel rumors throughout Central America that children who enter America illegally will be allowed to stay while simultaneously touting the success stories of a few illegal immigrant children granted de facto amnesty by the administration?” Miller said.
No wonder more than 50,000 kids have come here in less than a year. No wonder they expect “leniency” from Obama’s government.
More than 52,000 unaccompanied children have been detained after crossing the Texas-Mexico border since October in what President Obama has called a humanitarian crisis. Many of the illegal immigrants are under the impression that they will receive leniency from U.S. authorities.
Deportations of criminal illegal aliens (supposedly a priority to Obama) are actually down 40-50% over the last three years. Obama has falsely claimed deportations are up, but this is only accomplished by changing the way deportations are calculated.
States and municipalities like Arizona and Hazleton, Pennsylvania have tried to take action to address the illegal immigration problem in their communities. Obama and/or the ACLU have sued to block them.
Obama won’t enforce US immigration law. Obama will do anything he can to stop individual cities and states from enforcing any laws touching on immigration. Taxes are way up — especially in California cities like Murrietta — to pay for public benefits and other government expenditures, and Obama now wants to put even more of a burden on America communities for his failure to do anything about the border, all while basically coaxing illegal immigrants to come here? Not to mention: Why is the United States government whisking these folks around the country and helping them find places to stay? Why are we making illegal immigration something the federal government is now complicit in and actually assisting with?
This article is amazing: Homeland Security helps smuggle illegal immigrant children into the U.S. Here is an excerpt:
A federal judge in Texas late last week accused the Obama administration of aiding drug cartels, saying that instead of enforcing immigration laws, agents knowingly helped smuggle an illegal immigrant girl into the U.S. to live with her mother, also an illegal immigrant, in Virginia.
In a 10-page order, Judge Andrew S. Hanen said the case was the fourth such case he’s seen over the last month, and in each instance Customs and Border Protection agents have helped to locate and deliver the children to their illegal immigrant parents.
The judge said in each case, the taxpayers footed the bill for flights — including flights to multiple locations in different parts of the U.S. that it took to find one of the children’s parents.
“The DHS is rewarding criminal conduct instead of enforcing the current laws. More troubling, the DHS is encouraging parents to seriously jeopardize the safety of their children,” the judge said, adding that some of the children have been made to swim the Rio Grande River or traverse remote areas as part of the smuggling.
I speak from a position of actually having worked in the immigration law field for the better part of two years.
The claim that these people are fleeing gangs, violence and abuse is often questionable. The same liberals who clamor to tout Central American violence out of one side of their mouths will wait until the gun debate comes around again and then tell us that the US is the most violent nation on the planet. If true, why would Central Americans come to the United States to flee violence?
Completely independent of that illogical claim, claims for asylum (which the articles discussing these buses allude to) are often extremely tenuous. Women have been granted asylum because their husbands hit them, kids have been granted asylum due to common childhood bullying. The United States is not a haven from violence, domestic abuse, or bullying. But these purported grounds for asylum have succeeded in some cases.
People upset about illegal immigrants coming here set up a mob in Murrietta, California. They stole a page out of the left’s book. But the left can’t take a dose of its own medicine. When liberals do it, it’s awesome. They can poop on police cars to make their point. But when a mob forms to try to peacefully get the government to follow its own laws, then mobs are bad and wrong.
Originally written November 7, 2012. Previously unpublished.
I wrote this the day after the 2012 presidential election. Like one of those angry emails you’re supposed to sleep on, I didn’t post it, thinking I might reconsider. I haven’t. Eighteen months later, recalling Mitt’s loss still makes me shake my head.
*(US Weekly is a celebrity gossip magazine, heavy on glossy photos and fluff, but without any substance.)
Obama was not reelected on his record. He was elected because people wanted to have a beer with him. He aggressively and unfairly slandered Romney and ran out the clock on any exposure of his own failures over the last four years. And the media was unbelievably complicit in all of this.
Just look at a few examples.
Any of the problems surrounding (before, during, or after) the Benghazi Libya terrorist attack on September 11, 2012 were more explosive than President Nixon’s famous scandal at the Watergate Hotel (Watergate death count: zero).
In Benghazi, our consulate was vulnerable because requests for increased security were repeatedly denied. Four brave Americans died because the administration didn’t want to create an incident by sending in backup to repel the terrorist attack. Then the administration lied about the nature of the attack for the next two months. This was because the President’s foreign policy reelection argument was based on his (false) claim that al Qaida was “decimated” and “on the run.”
CBS held, until November 5th (Election Day was November 6th), a taped Obama interview from September 12th in which he said the previous day’s attack was not planned terrorism. This would have been useful after the fireworks of the second debate in which CNN’s Candy Crowley unbelievably and incorrectly fact-checked Mitt Romney (and bolstered Obama) on the topic. Wow, I mean, just think of the sheer newsworthiness of that information in CBS’ possession! You would think that would be important to a news organization. But they held it until it couldn’t do any damage to Obama. The story was overlooked and completely buried by election coverage on the day before the vote. I think CBS had to know that would happen.
The “Fast and Furious” gun walking program that gave American weapons to Mexican drug cartels was more explosive than Watergate (again, death toll: zero). At least one American border agent and hundreds of innocent Mexicans died in Obama’s gun scandal. The Obama administration has claimed it wasn’t involved, but has cited “executive privilege” to protect DOJ documents from disclosure to Congressional investigators. What in the world could be the purpose of giving guns to Mexican drug cartels? We don’t know and we might never know.
In almost countless instances, Obama has failed to comply with laws that apply to the executive branch and failed to fulfill basic, clear promises he himself has made.
I will list a few below. Almost any one of these is worse than George HW Bush’s “read my lips no new taxes” pledge that he violated and that many historians agree got him voted out:
Obama promised the most transparent administration ever. He’s had one of the least transparent.
Obama promised bills would be online for five days prior to a vote and that Obamacare negotiations would all be broadcast on CSPAN. It didn’t happen.
Obama promised reduced unemployment by Election Day (5.4%). He has missed that number by a mile.
Obama promised no lobbyists in his administration, but he has granted waivers to dozens.
Obama promised improved American standing in the Muslim world. Then 9/11/12 happened and we saw they hate us just as much as before — maybe more. And maybe some of that is due to Obama spiking the football over killing bin Laden.
Obama promised to lower taxes, told us Obamacare would cut costs, and that it merely contained a penalty, not a tax. Obamacare has drastically increased costs, is being enforced by the IRS, and the Supreme Court ruled that it is a tax.
When Obama was making all his promises about Obamacare the sad reality is that he was just making stuff up. Whatever he wanted us to believe
Obama promised to cut the deficit in half, but he doubled it. He promised he would not include a mandate in any federal healthcare bill. Yet he did. He promised to close Guantanamo in his first year. It is still open. These are just some of his failed promises and scandals.
By law, Obama was required, but failed, to timely disclose information so that employers could comply with the WARN Act. He violated this law for political purposes (layoffs would have been announced in October, days before the election).
His congress is required to pass an annual budget (but has not for three years). Obama submitted his and it was voted on three times, never garnering a single vote from any member of the house or senate of any political party any of the three times. Think about that.
Obama committed US troops to fighting a war in Libya in violation of the War Powers Act.
Obama gave hundreds of millions of dollars of borrowed stimulus money (our children’s debt) to donors of his 2008 campaign whose companies have failed and gone bankrupt in droves without providing hardly any jobs (the original, stated purpose of the stimulus was to provide “shovel ready jobs, but it was passed after the recession has already ended).
Obama has reduced drilling for oil on federal lands, said anyone who opens a coal plant in the US will go bankrupt if he has his way, and has delayed (and essentially rejected) the Keystone pipeline.
With all of the above, and with GDP growing at 1/2 or 1/3 of the rate it should be growing, unemployment above 8% for over 3.5 years, and gas prices doubled, the case against Obama’s reelection was so clear. It’s like I am taking crazy pills knowing he did not lose last night by a landslide.
But it wasn’t just Romney who couldn’t beat Obama. Conservatives received an absolute beatdown all across the country yesterday. By, I would argue, largely uninformed voters.
I mean, a Democrat who was shown to have cravenly lied about being a Native American in order to advance her legal teaching career won a senate seat in Massachusetts for goodness sake.
Uninformed Obama voters, Exhibit A:
Exhibit B (Language advisory):
The Obama-Biden-Axelrod-Cutter strategy in this election was clearly to play the low information voters by distorting the facts and relying on the media to cover for them.
Recall how many times at the debates, in response to a factually true statement from Romney or Ryan, the incumbent’s first response would be “that’s not true!” Ninety-plus percent of the time it was true. But the low information voters didn’t see that and the media didn’t care to bring it to their attention.
Even despite the painfulness of the beatdown, it was still relatively close in many races. I don’t blame Romney or any of the conservative candidates for losing this time.
But imagine if journalists were unbiased.
People are blaming the candidates. Those people are wrong. The electorate only votes for MARKETING.
— RB (@RBPundit) November 7, 2012
And Democrats control the MARKETING via the media. PERIOD.
— RB (@RBPundit) November 7, 2012
I hope our country rebounds, but I fear that the recovery under this administration may not be as good as it could be. Lest we think, “ah, then everyone will see once and for all that liberal ideas have failed and we need to return to conservative principles,” that didn’t work this time. Obama blamed his conservative predecessor for “failed policies” (even though the mortgage crisis that crashed our economy was almost entirely initiated, enabled, and mismanaged by democrats); blamed “gridlock” in Congress for why he couldn’t fix the economy during his first term (even though he had huge majorities in both the house and senate for two full years; and let’s not forget…the “headwinds.”
Journalists let Obama get away with those excuses this time and they will let Democrats do it again in four years.
It is a tragedy that Mitt lost this one. In terms of leadership and ideas, he was miles and miles beyond the incumbent.
Going forward, I have these concerns: Are conservatives going to be able to defeat the corrupt media and are they going to be able to woo the growing segment of “US Weekly” voters? If so, how?
Here’s an updated list of Obama’s failures 18 months into his second term.
Here are a bunch of previously unpublished, semi-disjointed thoughts on the comical overreach of gun control efforts in early 2013.
Below I mock (1) the proposed concept of only protecting constitutional rights everyone unanimously agrees that we “need” and (2) the idea that we should do everything, no matter the cost, if it could “save just one life.” (Those were President Obama’s two strongest arguments for gun control). Then I play around with using arguments for other issues (ie abortion, abstinence education, prohibition, etc) in the gun control debate:
No more guns for self-defense! Instead, let’s just pass a law that says all criminals must obey the law. Then we’ll all be safe.
No one needs a 30 round magazine. Just put better restrictions on crime! For example: Under my plan, breaking and entering is not just illegal; now it is really illegal! Plus, it is now illegal for more than one intruder at a time to break and enter (this may have been a loophole before).
Also — listen up criminals — if you break and enter and the resident is present, you have to turn around and leave. If you forget this rule and you accidentally attack the resident and the resident shoots and misses six times (thus running out of ammunition under the proposed magazine restrictions), you have to lie down and play dead until the cops get there 15 minutes later to arrest you.
So in conclusion, if criminals will just follow these simple rules, none of the gun nuts will even need a 30 round magazine. Problem solved!
Banning guns will definitely work well
We all know if the government bans something, it will go away, basically solving all societal problems stemming from the banned thing. Just look at how little we hear about illegal drugs like cocaine and methamphetamine today since they are banned in the US. Or how little alcohol consumption, alcohol-related corruption, and alcohol-related organized crime existed during Prohibition from 1920-1933. Also illegal immigration; the government made it illegal, so no immigrants come here except lawfully.
Therefore, just ban all guns (like the things I’ve mentioned above) and our gun problems will be solved JUST LIKE ALL THE PROBLEMS I’VE MENTIONED ABOVE.
If you won’t support reasonable alcohol control, you obviously want children to die.
I believe in the 21st amendment, but I am also for reasonable alcohol control.
In the United States annually, we can expect approximately 25,000 deaths directly attributed to alcohol use. Imagine 1,000 Sandy Hooks every year. That is how many Americans die from assault alcohol.
No one really needs alcohol. It probably has about the same redeeming social value as oh I don’t know hunting. I think we can all wholeheartedly agree that anything we don’t really need should be done away with if it could save a single life, let alone prevent 1,000 Sandy Hooks every year.
But like I said, I believe in the 21st amendment. Therefore not all alcoholic drinks will be banned, just drinks with high alcohol content. We also need to create a drinker’s license. Basically under my plan, all beer will still be legal, but all persons will be required to pass a background check to show they have no felonies, DUIs, history of domestic violence, and that they are not preggers or taking any medications that should not be mixed with alcohol. All qualified drinkers will be required to register themselves as such and pay a licensing fee. Anything with higher alcohol content than oh six percent will be banned completely. No one needs more alcohol than that.
Based the proposed six percent alcohol limit, the following beverages will be outlawed under my plan:
India Pale Ale
Cask Strength Whiskey
Neutral Grain Spirits
See, the 21st amendment is still alive and well. We are just making sure alcohol never causes another death. Please contact your senator or representative today and remind them that if they don’t support this plan they obviously want children to die.
Time to get rid of social media. Like semi-automatic weapons and the second amendment, social media allows people to exercise their first amendment rights too efficiently.
I believe in the first amendment. I am a responsible first amendment user. But even I know that social media like Twitter and Facebook go way beyond any sort of free speech our Founders could have envisioned at the time the first amendment was drafted. No one really needs social media.
If we take away Twitter and Facebook, it won’t make a difference because FarmVille is a waste of time anyway just like weird American pastimes like oh I don’t know hunting. People can just call, text or email friends if they need to communicate. Companies or individuals can just hire a public relations professional and set up their own website if they need to announce anything. Many children have been cyber-bullied using social media and committed suicide as a result.
Anything that (a) no one really needs, (b) wasn’t specifically envisioned by the Founders, and (c) has the potential to harm a single child should be banned. Therefore all social media, including, but not limited to, Facebook and Twitter, should be banned.
No one really needs a dog. Dogs kill 26 children and adults every year. Passing a law making it illegal to own a dog might save one life. If banning something no one really needs could hypothetically save even one life, we should do it. Therefore, it should be illegal to own a dog in the United States of America (except maybe in zoos where they can be kept by trained professionals).
No one really needs a motorcycle. Motorcycles cause or contribute to approximately 4,000 deaths per year. Passing a law banning motorcycles might save one life. If banning something no one really needs could hypothetically save even one life, we should do it. Therefore, it should be illegal to own a motorcycle in the United States of America. (except maybe trained daredevils who work for Red Bull so I can continue to be entertained on New Year’s Eve).
What if pro-abortion arguments were used to defend second amendment rights?
I believe gun sales should be safe, legal, and rare in this country. Gun owners should not be forced into back alley transactions where their safety may be put in danger for exercising a constitutional right. My waistband, my choice.
What if the same arguments for schools providing contraception to 12 year olds were used to defend second amendment rights?
You can outlaw them, but people are always going to have guns. It is stupid to assume that gun abstinence programs will work — they won’t! Instead, teach safe gunning. And give out free gun safety equipment.
Gun control by schoolmarm
The first amendment allows a lot, but does not allow you to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. Therefore, if some people abuse the first amendment by yelling “fire” in crowded theaters, congress should close all theaters. After all, the people have shown they cannot exercise their rights responsibly. This sterling logic worked in third grade when one kid misbehaved and the teacher made the entire class miss recess, so it clearly justifies our entire nation of 300 million people losing a constitutional right.
“I think there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can’t have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high-capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids,” Obama said [to justify further infringement on the second amendment].
In other words, if people with severe psychological problems can’t handle firearms responsibly, we’re taking them away from all of you. Back to third grade.
“I don’t see why anyone needs…” (Code for “I don’t do it, so let’s ban it”).
Basically anything that I don’t think you really need should be banned.
Assaults on our country’s foundational principles by our nation’s chief executive
“At some point, you’ve earned enough money.”
– Obama disagrees with the Declaration of Independence in his first term.
“No one needs a 30-round magazine.”
- Obama disagrees with the Second Amendment second term.
What will Biden disagree with in his first term?
“At some point, you’ve had enough free speech.”
“No one needs to go to church every week.”
“If rescinding your right to trial by jury can save at least one child’s life, shouldn’t we do it?”
I know this is an immature take on a potentially very serious topic. But some of the most popular arguments for gun control are so utterly stupid and illogical. I hope these thought experiments have helped illustrate that.
Could fiscal cluelessness like this have something to do with it?
“I’m at the breaking point,” said Gretchen Gardner, an Austin artist who bought a 1930s bungalow in the Bouldin neighborhood just south of downtown in 1991 and has watched her property tax bill soar to $8,500 this year.
“It’s not because I don’t like paying taxes,” said Gardner, who attended both meetings. “I have voted for every park, every library, all the school improvements, for light rail, for anything that will make this city better. But now I can’t afford to live here anymore. I’ll protest my appraisal notice, but that’s not enough. Someone needs to step in and address the big picture.”
Do American schools teach the concept of “cause and effect” anymore?
Have you ever flown a Boeing 777, or ridden in one, or saw one at the airport? Please report to CNN for your interview
— Noah Pollak (@NoahPollak) March 17, 2014
@NoahPollak None of the above, but I have seen Executive Decision, Air Force One & first couple of seasons of Lost, and I have some ideas…
— Mike McNally (@notoserfdom) March 17, 2014
Now I ain’t saying you’re a gold digger you got needs
You don’t want your dude to smoke but he can’t buy weed
You got out to eat and he can’t pay you all can’t leave
There’s dishes in the back, he gotta roll up his sleeves
But why you all washing watch him
He gone make it into a Benz out of that Datsun
He got that ambition, baby, look in his eyes
This week he mopping floors next week it’s the fries
So, stick by his side
I know this dude’s balling but yeah that’s nice
And they gone keep calling and trying
But you stay right girl
But when you get on he leave your ass for a white girl
-Kanye West “Gold Digger” feat. Jamie Foxx
See additional coverage at Powerline Blog.