Interestingly, today's small town/rural/born-again Republicans closely resemble and hail from the same roots as America's Prohibitionist anti-drinking movement of the 1920's. Both today's religious right and the Prohibitionists were determined, Taliban-style, to punish sinful city dwellers for having too much fun, as the devilish H.L. Mencken pointed out.
The Prohibitionists Are Back!
by Eric Margolis
I do a good deal of writing and broadcasting for international media. But it's not always easy to explain the quirks of our vast, complex nation.
As a native New Yorker, I try to explain how this great island metropolis off the New Jersey coast is physically in America, but it's not intellectually or emotionally part of the United States.
New York is cosmopolitan, educated, outward-looking and liberal – unlike much of the rest of inward-looking America, which considers the Big Apple a den of Godless moral depravity and a cesspool political vice.
In return, New Yorkers look down on the rest of America (San Francisco, Chicago, and the Pacific Northwest excepted) as "flyover country" populated by rednecks, hicks, and holy rollers. Crude stereotypes, of course, but there's some substance to these nasty views.
While at a base in Missouri during my Army service during the Vietnam era, I quickly learned to keep my mouth shut about being a Manhattanite after a sergeant asked me where I hailed from and then yelled out, "hey, guys, we got one of those rich shits from New York." I got pummeled by my brothers in arms from Arkansas and Alabama.
The last debates by Republican presidential candidates disturbingly reinforced the party's lack of interest in or knowledge of the outside world.
Leading candidates Mitt Romney, pizza mogul Herman Cain, and Texas tough guy Rick Perry barely mentioned world affairs, except to heap threats on the wicked Iranians.
The same malevolent Persians now stand accused of plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington by using Mexican drug cartel hitmen organized by a lame-brained used car salesman that strongly suggests the concocters of this melodrama need some new scriptwriters.
One of our dimmest members of Congress – I'm ashamed to say from New York – Rep. Pete King, just called the Iranian-Mexican imbroglio an act of war. On to Tehran!
When the Republican candidates did mention the outside world, it was to proclaim their undying loyalty to Israel, or to bluster, as Romney did, "the 21st century must be an American century." But no mention of where the money would come from to keep the world in the American Raj.
It takes lots of hard cash to run a world imperium. Right now, Washington has to borrow 40 cents of every dollar it spends from China and Japan.
One wishes the candidates had leveled with Americans and talked about the urgent need for a war tax to pay for America's foreign military operations that are now piled onto the gargantuan national debt.
Romney announced a slate of foreign affairs advisors drawn from the ranks of the Bush administrations wildest Islamophobic neoconservatives, wanna be West Bank settlers, and extreme right-wingers. The same crowd that brought us Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and Iraq, and now beats the war drums over Iran.
There was hardly any mention of the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are bleeding America's economy, or growing US military involvement in Yemen and sub-Saharan Africa, as witnessed by President Barack Obama's announcement last Friday that 100 US special forces where being sent to obscure places in Central Africa. On to Bangui! (where?)
Aside from macho chest-pounding over American greatness, some of the leading candidates made monkeys of themselves when talking about the outside world.
As a lifelong moderate Republican, I cringed with embarrassment at these later-day Dan Quayles.
Former senator Rick Santorum, a darling of the religious far right, thought exiled ex-Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf was still in power in Islamabad. Michele Bachmann stumbled around all those strange foreign names and seemed to be talking in tongues.
Herman Cain laughed off his own ignorance of foreign policy, making fun of the name "Uzbekistan." Swaggering Texas governor Perry confused India and Pakistan, both nuclear powers. Such stunning ignorance provoked shudders of dismay abroad, but at home no one seemed to care.
Ignorance has become a sort of badge of honor among many heartland Republicans, as witnessed by the popularity of the patron saint of lower IQ Americans, Sarah Palin.
Knowledge, education, being well read and, God forbid, speaking any foreign language except Mexican Spanish or Hebrew, are only for leftists, gays, and degenerate New York fops. Poor John Kerry never lived down being branded by Republicans as looking "French."
Only two candidates showed a firm grasp of world affairs: Rep. Ron Paul and former US ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman. Paul is the most honest politician in Washington. He calls for an end to America's foreign wars, eliminating the Federal Reserve bank, lowering America's foreign profile and rebuilding the run-down Unites States.
Because of these heresies, Dr. Paul, who is hugely popular among the young and independents, is systematically ignored or scorned by establishment media, even during TV debates.
Jon Hunstsman's Mormon faith is demeaned by many Protestants as a "cult." Romney is also a Mormon, a Church Elder and former missionary. Both are unpopular with rightwing Christian Protestants. Cain is a Baptist minister.
Both Paul and Huntsman are far too moderate for Republican party core voters, 44% of whom are believed to be born-again Evangelicals.
As author Kevin Phillips has documented, Republicans have become a theological party of the Christian white far right in America's heartland.These militant Bible Belt born-again fundamentalists are ardent Zionists and backers of America's military-security establishment. One recalls the fateful prediction of Sinclair Lewis,
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
Interestingly, today's small town/rural/born-again Republicans closely resemble and hail from the same roots as America's Prohibitionist anti-drinking movement of the 1920's. Both today's religious right and the Prohibitionists were determined, Taliban-style, to punish sinful city dwellers for having too much fun, as the devilish H.L. Mencken pointed out.
Of course, no one gets to be president by telling voters the hard facts they prefer not to hear. Synthetic, flag-waving patriotism still sells big in America's heartland and rural south. More important, America's political tradition, electoral system and political-media establishment will ensure that no candidate who strays from the party line is ever elected.
Still, looking at the latest crop of Republican candidates is pretty dismal.
America's next president, the world's most important leader, may believe that Earth was created only 10,000 years ago, as the Bible says. He or she may reject evolution and believes in Adam and Eve, and Noah's Ark. And believe, as do millions of Evangelicals, that Christ will return once all Jews are gathered into recreated Biblical Israel and then earth and its non-born again inhabitants will be destroyed by fire sent by God.
I pray New York City will be somehow saved.
www.ericmargolis.com
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Mr. Raghead says, “They piss their pants when they see us coming through airports”
WordPress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Ron Paul’s ‘Plan to Restore America’
Ron Paul's 'Plan to Restore America'
Posted by Tad DeHaven
October 17, 2011 @ 4:08 pm
Presidential candidate Ron Paul has released a fiscal reform plan that would dramatically cut spending and rein in the size and scope of the federal government. My reaction to the proposal can be summed up in one word: hallelujah.
Republican policymakers -- including the current GOP field of presidential candidates -- talk a good game about reducing spending, but very few are willing to spell out exactly what they'd cut. As NRO's Kevin Williamson puts it in the title of his write-up on the plan, "Ron Paul Dropping a Reality Bomb on the GOP Field."
The following are some of the plan's highlights:
- Paul would immediately eliminate five cabinet-level departments: Commerce, Education, Energy, HUD, and Interior.
- Paul says his plan would cut spending by $1 trillion in the first year alone, and balance the budget in three years without increasing taxes.
- Funding for the wars would end. That's not isolationism -- it's a common sense position that also reflects popular opinion. In addition, foreign aid spending would be zeroed out.
- Intelligent government reforms are proposed, including privatizing the Federal Aviation Administration and repealing costly Davis-Bacon rules.
- On entitlements, younger people would be given the freedom to opt out of Social Security and Medicare. Spending would be frozen for Medicaid and other welfare programs and they would be converted to block-grant programs.
That's an ambitious agenda to say the least, and one that the press is likely dismiss as a pipe-dream. Then again, Paul has managed to single-handedly turn the Federal Reserve into a campaign issue, which nobody could have foreseen just several short years ago. In fact, several of Paul's fellow candidates for the GOP nod have taken to echoing his anti-Federal Reserve sentiments. Hopefully, the other candidates will copy Paul again by getting specific on what they'd cut. If not, they should be prepared to explain to the electorate why taxpayers should keep funding the departments that Paul would ax.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/ron-pauls-plan-to-restore-america/
Like Good Little Dhimmi, West Stays Silent About Coptic Oppression
http://www.aina.org/news/20111015203449.htm
Like Good Little Dhimmi, West Stays Silent About Coptic Oppression
Posted GMT 10-16-2011 1:34:49
I am looking at a reproduction of an engraving of Jerusalem's Church of the Holy Sepulcher, said to the be the site of Jesus Christ's Crucifixion and burial. The church in this image, based on an 1856 photograph, has neither cross nor belfry. It stands in compliance with the Islamic law and traditions of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire, which ruled Jerusalem at the time.
I mention the engraving for a reason. It relates to last weekend's massacre of two dozen Coptic Christians in Cairo by Egyptian military and street mobs. The unarmed Copts were protesting the destruction of yet another church in Egypt, St. George's, which took place in Elmarinab following Friday prayers on Sept. 30. The trigger was repair work on the building -- work the local authorities had approved.
Does that explanation make sense? Not to anyone ignorant of Islamic law. Unfortunately, that criterion includes virtually all media reporting the story.
Raymond Ibrahim, an Islam specialist, Arabic speaker and author of "The Al Qaeda Reader," catalogs the events that turned a church renovation project into terror and flames.
With work in progress, he writes online at Hudson, N.Y, "it was not long before local Muslims began complaining, making various demands, including that the church be devoid of crosses and bells -- even though the permit approved them -- citing that 'the Cross irritates Muslims and their children.' "
Those details reminded me of the de-Christianized 19th-century-image of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher -- no cross, no bells. It becomes a revealing illustration of Islamic history repeating itself in this Shariah Autumn, the natural harvest of the grotesquely branded "Arab Spring."
Given our see-no-Shariah' media (and government), we have no context in which to place such events. That context is Shariah society, advanced (but not initiated) by the "Arab Spring," where non-Muslims -- "dhimmi" -- occupy a place defined by Islamic law "under terms of surrender as laid out in the 'dhimma' pact."
So writes theologian, author and Anglican pastor Mark Durie at markdurie.com. Such terms, Durie writes, "can be found laid out in countless legal textbooks." When non-Muslims violate these terms, they become subject to attack.
To place the dhimmi pact in comparable Western terms is to say the West has its Magna Carta, Islam has its Pact of Umar. Among other things, this seminal pact governing Muslim and non-Muslims relations stipulates, Durie notes, the condition that Christians "will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church or sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration."
Thus, this anti-Coptic violence, for the moment under world scrutiny, is Islamically correct. Westerners fail to grasp this fact. But Durie lays out the theological steps:
"For some pious Muslims in Egypt today, the act of repairing a church is a flagrant provocation, a breach of the peace, which amounts to a deliberate revocation of one's right to exist in the land."
As such, it "becomes a legitimate topic for sermons in the mosque [where] the faithful are urged ... to uphold the honor of Islam." In Islamic terms, then, it becomes "a duty to destroy the church and even then lives of Christians who have the temerity to repair their churches."
Meanwhile, dhimmi who protest the Islamically just church destruction "are also rebels who have forfeited their rights [under the pact] to '
'safety and protection.' " As violators of the "dhimmi" pact, they become fair game.
It's simple, but the theology eludes us. Why? To expose the facts about Shariah in the Western milieu is to invite their criticism. Such criticism is forbidden under Shariah. So, we remain silent -- something all good "dhimmi" do.
By Diana West
www.washingtonexaminer.com
Diana West is syndicated nationally by United Media and is the author of "The Death of the Grown-Up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization."
__._,_.___
MARKETPLACE
.
__,_._,___
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Fwd: [LA-F] Internet bigot Stephen Birrell jailed for eight months
17 October 2011 Last updated at 18:03 
Stephen Birrell admitted posting comments on a Facebook page about Neil Lennon
James Cook Scotland Correspondent, BBC News
Internet bigot Stephen Birrell jailed for eight months
Stephen Birrell admitted posting comments on a Facebook page about Neil LennonA man who posted sectarian comments on a Facebook page called "Neil Lennon Should be Banned" has been jailed for eight months.
Stephen Birrell, 28, from Glasgow, admitted posting the religiously prejudiced abuse earlier this year.
Sheriff Bill Totten said what Birrell had done was a hate crime which would not be tolerated by "the right thinking people of Glasgow and Scotland".
He said he wanted to send out "a clear message to deter others".
Glasgow Sheriff Court had previously heard how Birrell was caught after a police crackdown on sectarian internet campaigns.
A special team of officers began investigating hate comments after the so-called Old Firm "shame game" on 3 March.
Birrell posted sectarian comments about Catholics and Celtic fans between 28 February and 8 March, just days after being released early from a 12-month jail sentence.
*******
Analysis
James Cook Scotland Correspondent, BBC News The case of Stephen Birrell has reignited a debate about plans to tighten the law on religious hatred in Scotland.
Campaigners argue that the conviction of Birrell makes a mockery of the proposals, proving that powers to deal with such behaviour are already in place.
Dr Stuart Waiton, an academic running a campaign called Take a Liberty Scotland, goes further, describing the eight-month prison sentence as a "political imprisonment".
Given that Birrell did not actually incite violence, the jail term was "authoritarian and insane", he argued.
But the Crown Office welcomed the conviction and insisted the new law was also needed.
A spokesman said the new legislation would "ensure police and prosecutors have all the available tools in their armoury to punish offensive and bigoted behaviour whenever and wherever it occurs".
He pointed out that Scotland's chief prosecutor, the Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, had twice given evidence to MSPs outlining areas where the law could be tightened.
A spokesman for the Scottish government said the Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill would give police and prosecutors "the tools they have asked for in tackling such hate by filling clear gaps in the current law".
*******
On 1 March, two days before the Old Firm match, Birrell posted: "Hope they (Celtic fans) all die. Simple. Catholic scumbags ha ha."
On 4 March, the day after the game, he wrote: "Proud to hate Fenian tattie farmers. Simple ha ha."
Four days later Birrell posted: "They're all ploughing the fields the dirty scumbags."
He also posted abuse directed at the Pope.
Passing sentence, Sheriff Totten told Birrell: "I am satisfied that the nature of this offence, and in particular your previous record, means that I require to impose a prison sentence on you.
"I do want to make clear today that in selecting a prison sentence I also have in mind that the court should be sending out a clear message to deter others who might be tempted to behave in this way."
Banning orderHe also told Birrell that there was "no place in our modern society" for the use of the internet to spread or support abuse or to target people.
Birrell was banned from attending all regulated football matches in the UK for five years.
The postings made derogatory references to Celtic manager Neil Lennon and also included remarks about Catholicism.
Speaking following the sentencing, Lesley Thomson QC, the Solicitor General, said: "The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is absolutely determined to play its part in confronting the problems of sectarianism, religious offences and related disorder and violence.
"Whether the offences are at the football match itself, travelling to or from it, or as in this case online threatening communications, we will do all in our power to bring those who perpetrate such crimes to justice.
"Prosecutors will continue to prosecute anyone indulging in such behaviour which is completely unacceptable in modern Scotland."
At an earlier hearing defence solicitor John McLaughlin said: "These postings were distasteful and abusive. However, his postings did not contain threats or incitement to violence.
"There was no mention on them of Neil Lennon or the manager of Celtic."
Before sentence was passed it was said on Birrell's behalf he accepted that what he did was wrong.
-- Mario Huet Libertarian Alliance Forum List Administrator ********************************************** Words cannot picture her; but all men know That solemn sketch the pure sad artist wrought ********************************************** James Thomson, The City of Dreadful Night
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: America: With God on our side
Presidential candidates feel no shame in asserting divine purpose in
U.S. policies and actions
----
it's ok to have a god on our side ... just not a specific flavor of a
god
U.S. policies and actions
----
it's ok to have a god on our side ... just not a specific flavor of a
god
On Oct 17, 12:45 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Op-EdAmerica: With God on our sidePresidential candidates feel no shame in asserting divine purpose in U.S. policies and actions. In this ubiquitous view of American exceptionalism, the nation is not bound by rules to which others must submit.By Andrew J. Bacevich
> October 16, 2011
> In the United States, despite a Constitution that mandates the separation of church and state, religion and politics have become inseparable. To lend authority to their views, presidential aspirants of both parties regularly press God into service. They know what he intends.
> So the claims made by Republican front-runnerMitt Romneyin a recent speech at the Citadel managed to be both striking and unexceptionable. "God did not create this country to be a nation of followers," Romney announced. "America must lead the world." Absent the "clarity of American purpose and resolve, the world becomes a far more dangerous place," with freedom itself in jeopardy. To avert this catastrophe, Romney declared, "this century must be an American century," with the United States economically preeminent and wielding "the strongest military in the world."
> Whence do these insights derive? "Why should America be any different than scores of other countries around the globe?" Romney asked rhetorically. His answer captures the essence of our present-day civic religion: "I believe we are an exceptional country with a unique destiny and role in the world."
> The Hebrew Bible provides no evidence to support this proposition. Nor do the teachings of Jesus Christ and his disciples. Yet the American Bible incorporates a de facto Third Testament, which validates this assertion of American uniqueness. That testament, fashioned from a carefully tailored rendering of the 20th century, recounts the story of a new chosen people serving as God's instrument of salvation, leading humankind onward to the promised land.
> For anyone aspiring to high office, professing fealty to this Third Testament has become all but obligatory. And Romney took care to do so in his Citadel speech. Genuflecting before the "generations that fought in world wars, that came through the Great Depression and that gained victory in the Cold War," he summoned his listeners to "seize the torch" their forebears had held aloft, continuing the inexorable advance toward "freedom, peace and prosperity." This, he made clear, defines America's calling, one to which citizens of all religious persuasions (or none at all) can subscribe.
> "This is America's moment," Romney insisted. He likened those who disagree to Third Testament villains, proposing that the nation should "crawl into an isolationist shell" and "wave the white flag of surrender," acquiescing in the claim that "America's time has passed." All of this Romney dismissed as "utter nonsense."
> Now duty confers prerogatives. And God's elect are not bound by rules to which others must submit. Among other things, they need not admit error. "I will never, ever apologize for America," Romney promised. Apologies imply misjudgments, mistakes or wrongdoing, none of which figure in the Third Testament's depiction of a nation unsullied by malign intent or sordid action.
> Above all, the United States need not apologize for its pursuit of permanent military supremacy or for its propensity for violence. "When America is strong," Romney declared, "the world is safer." The post-Cold War era, with unquestionedU.S. militarypreeminence going hand in hand with widespread disorder, offers little to substantiate this proposition. Even so, an insistence that American military power and its application are conducive to peace remains one of the Third Testament's central tenets. So, whereas a single Chinese aircraft carrier poses a looming danger, a dozen American aircraft carriers make theU.S. Navya global force for good. A brief Russian incursion into Georgia threatens peace; protracted wars resulting from the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan advance it.
> In his Citadel speech, Romney said nothing that a thousand politicians and pundits have not already said a thousand times and will say again. The significance of his presentation lies not in its originality but in its familiarity. Are Mormons really Christians? Romney has rendered the question moot. In all the ways that count politically, he has shown himself to be a true believer, committed to a faith-based approach to statecraft.
> No leading contender for the Republican nomination will challenge the positions that Romney laid out. After all, they share his certain knowledge that God has designated America as his earthly agent. They endorse Romney's emphasis on enhancing U.S. military power as the key to perpetuating an American century. And they mirror his lack of interest in the world as it is, indulging instead the pretense that it's still 1945.
> The eventual Republican nominee, whoever that may be, will argue thatPresident Obamabelieves none of these things hence his unworthiness for a second term. For his part, the president will exert himself to prove otherwise. As he has done before, Obama will signal his own allegiance to militant exceptionalism, offered as positive proof that he is authentically American. Rival messianic visions will compete.
> Most experts expect bread-and-butter issues to decide the upcoming election. Yet regardless of the final outcome, the real winner is going to be the concept of American exceptionalism. Whoever takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2013, will be someone who believes in the American Bible's Third Testament. In that regard whether for better or worse the outcome appears foreordained. One might even say that God wills it.Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. He is the editor of "The Short American Century: A Postmortem," to be published next year.http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bacevich-american-exceptionalism-20111016,0,3240927.story
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Obama’s “Jobs Bill” Explained
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Fwd: Watch My Major Announcement Live Today
 Dear Bruce, Later today, I'll hold a press conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, to unveil my budget plan to put our nation back on track, and I don't want you to miss out on this major event. Of course, I realize many who would love to be there can't make it, so my campaign has ensured you can watch it LIVE from your computer! You can stream it absolutely free, and you only need to click a button to be in on the ground floor of a plan I believe sets a new standard for the budget debate in this country and can restore America's prosperity. The press conference starts at 6pm Eastern (3pm Pacific), and you can click here to watch it live. Thank you so much for your support, and I hope you can join in as our campaign continues to lead the way toward restoring America now. For Liberty,  Ron Paul P.S. To make sure as many people as possible hear about our Restore America budget plan, my campaign has ensured you can watch it LIVE from your computer. Click here at 6pm Eastern/3pm Pacific to view our press conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. |
This message was intended for: majors.bruce@gmail.com
You were added to the system May 24, 2011. For more information
click here.
Update your preferences | Unsubscribe
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Monday, October 17, 2011
America: With God on our side
Op-Ed
America: With God on our side
Presidential candidates feel no shame in asserting divine purpose in U.S. policies and actions. In this ubiquitous view of American exceptionalism, the nation is not bound by rules to which others must submit.
By Andrew J. Bacevich
October 16, 2011
In the United States, despite a Constitution that mandates the separation of church and state, religion and politics have become inseparable. To lend authority to their views, presidential aspirants of both parties regularly press God into service. They know what he intends.
So the claims made by Republican front-runner Mitt Romney in a recent speech at the Citadel managed to be both striking and unexceptionable. "God did not create this country to be a nation of followers," Romney announced. "America must lead the world." Absent the "clarity of American purpose and resolve, the world becomes a far more dangerous place," with freedom itself in jeopardy. To avert this catastrophe, Romney declared, "this century must be an American century," with the United States economically preeminent and wielding "the strongest military in the world."
Whence do these insights derive? "Why should America be any different than scores of other countries around the globe?" Romney asked rhetorically. His answer captures the essence of our present-day civic religion: "I believe we are an exceptional country with a unique destiny and role in the world."
The Hebrew Bible provides no evidence to support this proposition. Nor do the teachings of Jesus Christ and his disciples. Yet the American Bible incorporates a de facto Third Testament, which validates this assertion of American uniqueness. That testament, fashioned from a carefully tailored rendering of the 20th century, recounts the story of a new chosen people serving as God's instrument of salvation, leading humankind onward to the promised land.
For anyone aspiring to high office, professing fealty to this Third Testament has become all but obligatory. And Romney took care to do so in his Citadel speech. Genuflecting before the "generations that fought in world wars, that came through the Great Depression and that gained victory in the Cold War," he summoned his listeners to "seize the torch" their forebears had held aloft, continuing the inexorable advance toward "freedom, peace and prosperity." This, he made clear, defines America's calling, one to which citizens of all religious persuasions (or none at all) can subscribe.
"This is America's moment," Romney insisted. He likened those who disagree to Third Testament villains, proposing that the nation should "crawl into an isolationist shell" and "wave the white flag of surrender," acquiescing in the claim that "America's time has passed." All of this Romney dismissed as "utter nonsense."
Now duty confers prerogatives. And God's elect are not bound by rules to which others must submit. Among other things, they need not admit error. "I will never, ever apologize for America," Romney promised. Apologies imply misjudgments, mistakes or wrongdoing, none of which figure in the Third Testament's depiction of a nation unsullied by malign intent or sordid action.
Above all, the United States need not apologize for its pursuit of permanent military supremacy or for its propensity for violence. "When America is strong," Romney declared, "the world is safer." The post-Cold War era, with unquestioned U.S. military preeminence going hand in hand with widespread disorder, offers little to substantiate this proposition. Even so, an insistence that American military power and its application are conducive to peace remains one of the Third Testament's central tenets. So, whereas a single Chinese aircraft carrier poses a looming danger, a dozen American aircraft carriers make the U.S. Navy a global force for good. A brief Russian incursion into Georgia threatens peace; protracted wars resulting from the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan advance it.
In his Citadel speech, Romney said nothing that a thousand politicians and pundits have not already said a thousand times and will say again. The significance of his presentation lies not in its originality but in its familiarity. Are Mormons really Christians? Romney has rendered the question moot. In all the ways that count politically, he has shown himself to be a true believer, committed to a faith-based approach to statecraft.
No leading contender for the Republican nomination will challenge the positions that Romney laid out. After all, they share his certain knowledge that God has designated America as his earthly agent. They endorse Romney's emphasis on enhancing U.S. military power as the key to perpetuating an American century. And they mirror his lack of interest in the world as it is, indulging instead the pretense that it's still 1945.
The eventual Republican nominee, whoever that may be, will argue that President Obama believes none of these things hence his unworthiness for a second term. For his part, the president will exert himself to prove otherwise. As he has done before, Obama will signal his own allegiance to militant exceptionalism, offered as positive proof that he is authentically American. Rival messianic visions will compete.
Most experts expect bread-and-butter issues to decide the upcoming election. Yet regardless of the final outcome, the real winner is going to be the concept of American exceptionalism. Whoever takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2013, will be someone who believes in the American Bible's Third Testament. In that regard whether for better or worse the outcome appears foreordained. One might even say that God wills it.
Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. He is the editor of "The Short American Century: A Postmortem," to be published next year.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bacevich-american-exceptionalism-20111016,0,3240927.story
Fwd: [I-S] Where are Obama's girlfriends?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steve
From: Steve
AWAKE AMERICA BEFORE ITS TO LATE; THATS EVERYONE - RED, YELLOW, BLACK AND WHITE, NO MATTER WHAT THE RACE.
WHERE ARE THE GIRLFRIENDS? (or *guyfriends* )
I hadn't thought about this - but where are Obama's past girlfriends - surely he had at least one? No past girl friends popping
up anywhere? Strange - strange to the point of being downright weird!
OK, this is just plain old common sense, no political agendas for either side. Just common knowledge for citizens of a country, especially American citizens, who know every little tidbit about every other president (and their wives) that even know that Andrew Jackson's wife smoked a corn cob pipe and was accused of adultery, or that Lincoln never went to school or Kennedy wore a back brace or Truman
played the piano.
We are Americans! Our Media vets these things out! We
are known for our humanitarian interests and caring for our 'fellow
man.' We care, but none of us know one single humanizing fact about the
history of our own president.
Honestly, and this is a personal thing ... but it's
bugged me for years that no one who ever dated him ever showed up. Taken
his charisma, which caused the women to be drawn to him so obviously
during his campaign, looks like some lady would not have missed the
opportunity....
We all know about JFK's magnetism, McCain was no monk,
Palin's courtship and even her athletic prowess were probed. Biden's
aneurisms are no secret. Look at Cheney and Clinton-we all know about
their heart problems. How could I have left out Wild Bill before or
during the White House?
Nope... not one lady has stepped up and said, "He was
soooo shy," or "What a great dancer!"
Now look at the rest of what we know... no classmates,
not even the recorder for the Columbia class notes ever heard of him.
Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there.
Check for groomsmen. Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony.
Has anyone talked to the professors? Isn't it odd
that no one is bragging that they knew him or taught him or lived with
him..
When did he meet Michele and how? Are there photos?
Every president provides the public with all their photos, etc. for
their library. What has he released? Nada - other than what
was in this so-called biography! And experts who study writing
styles, etc. claim it was not Obama's own words or typical of his speech
patterns, etc.
Does this make any of you wonder?
Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from Obama's
past, saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend,
etc.? Not one person has ever come forward from his past. This should
really be a cause for great concern.
Did you see the movie titled, The Manchurian Candidate?
Let's face it. As insignificant as we all are...
someone whom we went to school with remembers our name or
face....someone remembers we were the clown or the dork or the brain or
the quiet one or the bully or something about us.
George Stephanopoulos, ABC News said the same thing
during the 2008 campaign. Even George questions why no one has
acknowledged that the president was in their classroom or ate in the
same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches on campus. Stephanopoulos was
a classmate of Obama at Columbia-class of 1984. He says he never had a
single class with him.
Since he is such a great orator, why doesn't anyone in
Obama's college class remember him?
And, why won't he allow Columbia to release his records?
Do you like millions of others, simply assume all this
is explainable - even though no one can?
NOBODY REMEMBERS OBAMA AT COLUMBIA
Looking for evidence of Obama's past, Fox News
contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama
claims to have been there, but not one remembers him. For example,
Wayne Allyn Root was (like Obama) a political science major at Columbia,
who graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, "I don't know a
single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me. I don't
have a single classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia ... EVER!
Nobody recalls him. Surely, that is not because he was
never there......???
Root adds that he was, "Class of '83 political
science, pre-law" and says, "You don't get more exact or closer than
that. Never met him in my life, don't know anyone who ever met him."
At our 20th class reunion five years ago, who was
asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack!
And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the
class notes, who's kind of the, as we say in New York, 'the macha' who
knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him."
Obama's photograph does not appear in the school's
yearbook, and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his
years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any
former classmates or friends while at Columbia.
How can this be?
NOTE: Wayne Allyn Root can easily be verified.
He graduated valedictorian from his high school,
Thornton-Donovan School, then graduated from Columbia University in 1983
as a Political Science major
in the same '83 class in which Barack Hussein Obama
states he was.
Some other interesting questions.
Why was Obama's law license inactivated in 2002?
Why was Michelle's law license inactivated by court
order?
According to the U.S. Census, there is only one Barack
Obama -
but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 aliases.
WHAT!?
The Social Security number he uses now originated in
Connecticut where he is never reported to have lived.
No wonder all his records are sealed!
Please continue sending this out to everyone.
Somewhere, someone had to know him in school...before he
"reorganized" Chicago and burst upon the scene at the 2004 Democratic
Convention and made us swoon with his charm, poise, and speaking
pizzazz.
One of the biggest CONS this country has ever seen, and
getting away with it. And most of the liberal media is helping him.
Go watch the movie The Manchurian Candidate, with
Lawrence Harvey! Good movie!
--
John
__._,_.___
MARKETPLACE
.
__,_._,___
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Get Real About the Economy's Problems
DUMB AND DUMBER: THE DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN PROPOSALS TO FIX THE
ECONOMY
ECONOMY
The pundits and politicians on the left and on the right have been
amazingly consistent in their analyses of our budget crisis as well as
the proposals they each subscribe to for fixing the economy. Since
most of us do not have the time or inclination to corroborate the
validity of the "facts" or the reasonableness of the proposals
presented by each side of this debate we tend to agree with the
analyses of the party we have affiliated with in the past. But – if
you listen carefully and take the time to do some basic fact-checking
– you will find some serious flaws in both the Republicans' and the
Democrats' facts and proposals.
Here are the theses so consistently offered by each party it is
practically guaranteed they will be repeated by the politicians and
pundits in any conversation about the economy.
• Republican: If tax rates were reduced for individuals and
corporations the economy would flourish as individual and corporate
taxpayers alike would have additional money in their pockets to spend;
as a result consumer spending would increase and corporations would
use the additional funds to hire more employees. This worked when
Reagan was president and will work today.
• Democrat: Instead of worrying about the deficit and debt we need to
focus on jobs. (Often this is left hanging without explanation of how
these jobs will be created – because even Democrats are wary of openly
suggesting more government spending. But when an explanation is given
– here are the talking points…) Our [choose from the following;
infrastructure, education system, unemployed] needs improvement or
assistance and if the government spends to improve or benefit
[infrastructure, children, unemployed] then jobs will be created and
private sector spending will increase, boosting our economy to new
heights.
On the surface both arguments seem plausible. However, if the facts
are presented – including a basic analysis of the current economic
situation – then both arguments fall flat. To appreciate how truly
wrongheaded either of these proposals are we need to understand where
our economy is now and how we got here.
Budget History and Current Economy
During our post-WWII economy only two administrations produced a
budget surplus – Truman's and Clinton's. All other administrations
during this 60+ year period operated in the red – realizing budget
deficits. Not a record to be proud of. More important than the basic
deficit versus surplus status is the trend over time – which can be
seen from the chart below.
Average (AVG) Annual Budget and GDP Amounts During Post WWII
Presidential Terms
Plus 2010 and 2011 Annual Budget and GDP Amounts – Barack Obama
AVG GDP AVG
Receipts AVG Spending AVG Surplus/(Deficit)
President (term*) $Billion % of GDP %
of GDP% of GDP
Harry S. Truman (1947-
54) $306.58
16.96% 16.55% 0.41%
Dwight Eisenhower
(1955-62) $480.08
17.33% 17.88% (0.55)%
John F. Kennedy (1963-
64) $620.35
17.67% 18.52% (0.85)%
Lyndon B. Johnson
(1965-70) $847.08 18.28%
19.04% (0.76)%
Richard Nixon (1971-
75) $1,313.16
17.78% 19.62% (1.84)%
Gerald Ford
(1976-
77)** $1,390.33
17.62% 21.03% (3.41)%
Jimmy Carter (1978-81) $2,625.03 18.85%
21.26% (2.41)%
Ronald Reagan (1982-
89) $4,264.80
18.00% 22.14% (4.14)%
George Bush (1990-93) $6,123.58 17.69%
21.92% (4.23)%
William J. Clinton
(1994-2001) $8,520.68 19.38%
19.28% 0.10%
George W. Bush (2002-
09) $12,681.51
17.03% 20.52% (3.49)%
Barack Obama, FY 2010 $14,660.40 14.08%
23.60% (9.52)%
Barack Obama, FY 2011
(estimated) $15,079.60
14.40% 25.30% (10.90)%
*The budget fiscal year begins October 1 of the previous year. For
example Fiscal Year 2009 began October 1, 2008. For this reason,
budget years appear to not correspond with a president's term. For
example George W. Bush took office January 2001 but the FY 2001 budget
was prepared by the Clinton Administration and authorized by Congress
in 2000.
** The fiscal year changed from ending June 30 to September 30 during
Ford's administration
Aside from the interest you might have in a particular president or
party, the theme of a trend of increasing deficits over time should be
troubling. But this trend is also instructive in that it strongly
supports the theory that democracies tend to reward politicians
willing to rob Peter to pay Paul while also rewarding those who
deliver on the promise of lower taxes; two policies on a collision
course heading for bankruptcy.
Also instructive in regards to a more positive statistic is the
possibility of reversing this trend – as can be seen for the Clinton
administration. So the question I hope you are asking is how the
Clinton administration was able to buck the trend and produce a
surplus (and how can this be replicated today!) The short answer is a
contentious political battle followed by compromise.
In his first year, Clinton increased the tax rates as well as passed
through a then Democratic controlled Congress other significant tax
and spending legislation. Not surprisingly, this law change improved
future receipts but the government outlays did not change much.
However, in 1994 the Republicans won over both houses in the midterm
elections. Following that there was definitely a divided government.
The ensuing years saw plenty of political theater with the Republicans
demanding cuts in government spending (and being labeled as heartless
functionaries of the rich) and the Democrats resisting this (and being
accused of being irresponsible and profligate). In the end the
Republicans were able to enact deficit reduction legislation which
Clinton signed into law. The result was a significant reduction in
spending, a fairly stable experience of receipts being collected,
annual surpluses, and a healthy growth in the economy. And this good
outcome for the economy came to be because both sides were able to
meet in the middle. Is there a lesson here?
Unfortunately we are not in the same environment today – politically
or economically. Looking at the 2011 budget it is anticipated that
receipts will be 14.40% of GDP and spending will be 25.30% of GDP.
Either figure should scare the crap out of anyone aware of the history
shown in the chart above. Put simply…
• If we proposed to fix this problem strictly by cutting spending that
would require a decrease of around 43% of the 2011 estimated spending
– a laughable goal at best.
• If we proposed to fix this problem strictly by increasing taxes that
would require a 76% increase in taxes – a solution no one who
currently pays taxes would vote for.
So before pondering anyone's solution to this budget mess – and the
problems it has caused in our economy in general – can we agree that
the answer must include corrections to both spending and taxation, not
relying on one to the exclusion of the other? Based on the current
situation and the historical information shown in the chart it is not
realistic to make a proposal to solve our problems by focusing
exclusively on the spending side or exclusively on the taxation side
of the equation.
Republican Argument
The Republican assertion that reducing the highest tax rates will fix
the budget problem is presented with another assertion: that this
approach worked successfully during the Reagan administration. To the
Republican's credit – they also call for a significant reduction in
government spending (at least in speech, if not in deed). However
doubtful one might be about any politician's seriousness about really
reducing spending the concept seems to have been adopted in theory by
both those on the left as well as those on the right; a positive
development in itself.
If we give the Republicans the benefit of the doubt regarding their
sincerity for reducing spending we are then left with the question of
the validity of their claim that tax rate reduction will spur economic
growth and job creation. Let us begin by testing the validity of the
claim that it was successful when Reagan was president. This claim is
framed based on the dollar amount of tax collections; i.e., that tax
receipts increased for the year tax rates were reduced as compared to
the previous (pre-reduction) year. This statistic is misleading in
that during the entire 37 year post-WWII period up to and including
the first year Reagan was responsible for the budget (1946 to 1982)
there were only 5 years where government receipts were less, in
absolute dollar terms, than the previous year. An expected nominal
dollar increase year-to-year is easily explained in that the growth of
GDP provides a larger base to be taxed each succeeding year. Even
using this misleading nominal dollar yardstick, in 1983 (following
Reagan's 1982 reduction in the top individual tax rate from 70% to
50%) government collections fell by $17 billion as compared to 1982.
In any case, the relevant statistic for measuring year-to-year
fluctuations in tax receipts is the percentage of GDP collected as
compared to the previous year. Based on this statistic the history of
the relationship between tax rate reductions and the government's
receipts will be seen in a very different light.
• In 1946 the highest individual income tax rate was reduced to 91%
from 94%; in 1964 Kennedy reduced the rate to 77% from the previous
91%; in 1965 LBJ reduced the rate to 70% from the previous 77%; and in
each of those years of rate reduction, tax collections decreased
compared to the previous year as measured by the percentage of GDP so
collected. By today's standards these rates seem punitive but keep in
mind that coming out of WWII our nation was still spending
considerable funds on defense (e.g.; in 1966 defense spending amounted
to 8.84% of GDP as compared to 2011 defense spending of 6.40% of GDP)
and the wealthy were indeed providing a greater share of tax revenue
as compared to today – thus the much touted rise of the middle class
from the 1950s through the early 1970s. Whatever one thinks of the
tax policy during this period the inescapable conclusion is that
reductions in the highest individual tax rate led to reductions in tax
collections in the year the rate change occurred, as measured in
percent of GDP. And no one would question that this period includes
our golden years in terms of economic growth and stability.
• And regarding the Reagan years: the highest individual tax rate was
reduced from 70% to 50% in 1982; from 50% to 38.50% in 1987 and ended
up at 28% in 1988. For each of these years that rates were reduced,
excepting 1987, the government's receipts declined as measured by
percentage of GDP.
So the "history" that reducing tax rates increases revenue is
nonexistent. Quite the opposite is the case whether you look at the
Reagan years specifically or the post-WWII period in general.
Moreover, when considering the post-WWII period prior to Reagan –
where the highest individual income tax rate was never less than 70% –
it simply seems implausible to expect that reducing the current top
rate of only 35% (to what??) would boost the economy or government
receipts. This is so especially in recognition of the fact that the
2010 receipts amounted to the pathetically sorry statistic of 14.8% of
GDP and it appears 2011 will not be much different. (Compare this to
the 17%-19% of GDP figure for government receipts during the 1950s –
1970s and rise of the middle class that occurred then as well as an
economy growing at rates we can only dream of today.)
The Republican dialogue does distinguish between business and
individual income tax rates. Their belief is that decreasing
corporate rates will lead to job creation (which we are all for) based
on the theory that the additional available cash to corporations will
be applied to the hiring of more workers. In fact – it is often
repeated by the politician or pundit speaking on this issue that they
have firsthand knowledge from the powers that be (corporate managers)
that reducing the corporate tax rate will lead to hiring. I hope not
to be taken as the ultimate cynic – but I would expect most anyone
asked if they want their taxes reduced would whole heartedly support
the notion – even to the extent of promising to help fix our economy
in return for the favor. More importantly, whether such conversations
have happened or not there is a major fact that belies this supposed
quid pro quo that corporate tax reduction will lead to jobs:
corporate balance sheets reflect an historical high point in cash.
This leads to an obvious conclusion – If corporations are currently
drowning in cash (and clearly not hiring) why would an additional
infusion of cash by way of a tax reduction suddenly change the
behavior toward hiring?
A plausible theory of why all this cash sits in corporate coffers but
hiring has stagnated is that corporate managers are worried – just as
most of the rest of us are – about the implications of a government
incapable of doing anything constructive in the face of bankruptcy.
Is consumer demand going to really dry up when the country goes
broke? Is inflation going to become so extreme that corporate margins
will suffer? If these issues are on their minds, I do not blame
corporate managers for keeping their powder dry until this either gets
fixed by a more competent government or the new reality unfolds to the
point that path forward becomes clearer. In the meantime, reducing
corporate tax rates seems to be a red herring as a solution to our
economic problems.
On the subject of being able to convince the government to reduce your
taxes, here is a strange twist: Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have
made public their opinion that anyone earning over $1 million should
be subject to a higher tax rate than currently exists. These are
smart guys and, not to take away from their spirit of generosity, if
this were followed up on they would likely benefit from such a tax
increase in the long run. If you are worth $50 billion or so (we can
dream) and earn say around $100 million a year (probably less is my
guess – but let us be generous), a 15% increase in tax rates will cost
you $15 million of additional tax. (Under current law with ordinary
income taxable at 35% this presumes those earning more than $1 million
will be taxed at 50% instead – which of course presumes capital gains
and dividends also get taxed at a higher rate for these fortunate
few.) Why would anyone agree to this – patriotic motivations aside?
Simple answer: If tax receipts continue on their current pathetic path
and spending is not curtailed the economy as a whole is headed for
serious trouble – which would be a much bigger nominal dollar loss for
someone with $50 billion in stocks, bonds, etc. than the average
taxpayer. Thus if Berkshire Hathaway or Microsoft stock plus other
assets Bill or Warren hold lost 10% of their value (hardly a stock
market crash – it could be much worse) the $50 billion of previous
holdings for each would shed $5 billion of value. Test question:
What would you rather do; pay $15 million additional tax per year
(knowing other wealthy people are doing the same to increase the
likelihood of a more balanced budget) or lose $5 billion or more in
net worth when the economy fails?
So however troubling it might be to have to raise taxes the outcome of
doing so will be much more beneficial than imagining our way out of
the current budget crisis by attacking the spending side of the
equation alone. I hope anyone promoting the idea that reducing taxes
will achieve anything beyond propelling a misinformed or disingenuous
politician into office will think otherwise after reviewing the
facts. And for those who think they can embarrass me because I am
calling for "raising taxes on the rich" you should know that I also am
for the proposition that all but the poorest should pay taxes – in
reaction to the fact that around 50% of households pay no tax. Such a
tax system would reduce the incentives for continuing the robbing of
Peter to pay Paul philosophy of current politics.
Democrat Argument
The argument offered by Democrats indicates they are in denial of the
necessity to cut spending. As their argument goes, if we just spend
more money on infrastructure or education or the unemployed this will
spur the economy. They find authoritative support for this – and
often refer to – the late economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynes
promoted his economic theories during the 1930s – a time when a very
different economic environment existed. In 1930 our government spent
3.4% of GDP and the national debt was 17.75% of GDP and these figures
climbed by 1934 (this was the Great Depression) to spending at a then
outrageous 10.6% of GDP and debt at 40.98% of GDP. If Keynes was
alive today I do wonder if he would be so keen on the idea of more
spending to spur the economy given the current situation of spending
at 25.3% of GDP and the debt soon to exceed 100% of GDP; not to
mention an expected 10+% of GDP budget deficit – greater than total
annual spending that occurred during the 1930s. I doubt Keynes would
support such idiocy given our current out of control spending.
However you may view the theories of Keynes, in today's world with the
current out of control spending and monumental debt it seems
preposterous to believe we can spend our way to prosperity.
Furthermore, as long as the Democrats try to promote such policies it
would surely be viewed by business leaders as a government digging a
deeper hole and rational businesses would be reluctant to risk
expansion or hiring in such a dangerous environment. Sadly the only
businesses that would likely prosper if such policies were pursued
would be those employed by the government – not the best approach for
allocating resources or building a vibrant and competitive economy in
the global market we must now compete in.
So whether these spending proposals are motivated by an attempt at
buying votes or something less nefarious the results will be the same
– accelerating our march toward the cliff of bankruptcy.
Now What?
Though I do not expect anyone to change their political party after
exposing these fallacies each party supports and since "none of the
above" is not a viable option when casting your vote I do however hope
to encourage the reader to seek out and support those (rare) leaders
who put common sense ahead of party dogma.
Since we live in a democracy we are free to complain and criticize.
Given the current situation we have good reason to do so. But now is
a critical time in our history and finding leaders that deserve our
support and taking the time (and money if you can afford it) to keep
or get them into office is the best use of our energy.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.