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.
Ron Paul to propose $1T in specific budget cuts
Ron Paul to propose $1T in specific budget cuts
By DAN HIRSCHHORN | 10/17/11 5:06 AM EDT
Ron Paul's opinions about cutting the budget are well-known, but on Monday, he'll get specific: the Texas congressman will lay out a budget blueprint for deep and far-reaching cuts to federal spending, including the elimination of five cabinet-level departments and the drawdown of American troops fighting overseas.
There will even be a symbolic readjustment of the president's own salary to put it in line with the average American salary.
During an afternoon speech in Las Vegas ahead of Tuesday's debate, Paul will say that his plan for $1 trillion in cuts will create a balanced federal budget by the third year of his presidency.
"Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a plan to cut spending and truly balance the budget," says an executive summary of the plan, which POLITICO obtained, along with detailed spending and taxation levels, ahead of its release. "This is the only plan that will deliver what America needs in these difficult times: Major regulatory relief, large spending cuts, sound monetary policy, and a balanced budget."
Many of the ideas are familiar from Paul's staunch libertarianism, as well as tea party favorites like eliminating the departments of education and energy. But Paul goes further: he'll propose immediately freezing spending by numerous government agencies at 2006 levels, the last time Republicans had complete control of the federal budget, and drastically reducing spending elsewhere. The EPA would see a 30 percent cut, the Food and Drug Administration would see one of 40 percent and foreign aid would be zeroed out immediately. He'd also take an ax to Pentagon funding for wars.
Medicaid, the children's health insurance program, food stamps, family support programs and the children's nutrition program would all be block-granted to the states and removed from the mandatory spending column of the federal budget. Some functions of eliminated departments, such as Pell Grants, would be continued elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy.
And in a noticeable nod to seniors during an election year when Social Security's become an issue within the Republican primary, the campaign says that plan "honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out."
The federal workforce would be reduced by 10 percent, and the president's pay would be cut to $39,336 a level that the Paul document notes is "approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker."
Paul would also make far-reaching changes to federal tax policy, reducing the top corporate income tax rate to 15 percent, eliminating capital gains and dividends taxes, and allowing for repatriation of overseas capital without tax penalties. All Bush-era tax cuts would be extended.
And like the rest of his GOP rivals, Paul would repeal President Barack Obama's health care reform law, along with the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform law enacted last year. Paul, a longtime Federal Reserve critic, would also push a full audit of the central bank, as well as legislation to "strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66114.html
Re: [LeftLibertarian2] "Costs of the Occupiers"
Tell me something I DON'T know.... FACT OTHUGO now has to bare SOME of the responsibilty here WHEN this goes SOUTH on him....
From: Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com>
To: politicalforum@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 5:30 AM
Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] "Costs of the Occupiers"
I am surprised that there is as many folks at this "Non-Event" as there are. No one really seems to know what the Hell they are doing there, and for what purpose!
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:20 AM, Roger Isom <obamaisaloser1@yahoo.com> wrote:
SORRY should have been UP!!! LOL
From: Roger Isom <obamaisaloser1@yahoo.com>
To: "politicalforum@googlegroups.com" <politicalforum@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] "Costs of the Occupiers"
--BRUCE I couldn't put it better.... these dudes are going to end uo causing a MASS MURDER at this point.Thats the ONLY way this can now end
From: Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com>
To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
Cc: smygo@yahoogroups.com; secularhumanist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 3:38 AM
Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] "Costs of the Occupiers"
The Occupiers are noxious to the people who work in the neighborhoods where they are urinating and defecating.--That is the main purpose of their rally.In that they are like marching Nazis in Skokie, IllinoisBoth are a form of pollution created by "public" "property" along with litterers, public school bullies, panhandlers, pick pockets, and many rapists, child molesters, and muggers.On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 5:00 AM, Dan Clore <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote:
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
[I'm posting this as an example of neocon reaction to the occupation
movement at its worst. Of all things, blaming the protestors because the
government taxes people to pay the police to beat them with truncheons,
pepperspray them, trample them with horses, run into them with mopeds,
etc., etc., etc. Yeah, that should make taxpayers mad, but not at the
victims.--DC]
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2011/10/14/malkin-costs-of-the-occupiers/
Malkin: Costs of the Occupiers
By Michelle Malkin
October 14, 2011 6:30 am
The trash generated by the "Occupy Wall Street" protests keeps piling
up. So do the bills. Liberal media outlets claim the anarchic,
anti-capitalist movement is more popular than the tea party. But wait
until Americans across the country get a full picture of the costs of
the aimless occupiers.
In New York City, government officials estimate the month-long siege of
Zuccotti Park has now imposed $3.2 million in overtime police costs on
the public. On Thursday, as Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office pressured
left-wing activists to vacate the park for cleaning, Occupy Wall Street
urged sympathizers to flood the city's customer services lines: "Call
311 and tell Bloomberg not to evict us!"
In Philadelphia, Mayor Michael Nutter told the press that demonstrators
outside city hall have incurred $164,000 in overtime public employee
costs and $237,000 in regular time. "At the current rate, if Occupy
Philly continues to the end of the month, the city would spend another
nearly $690,000 on police overtime alone," the local NBC affiliate
reported. "Besides the extra police presence being dedicated to the
Occupy Philly protests, other city departments have also incurred costs."
In Seattle, police have so far billed $30,000 in overtime, and the parks
department racked up nearly $4,000 in additional costs related to the
protests there. Occupiers have blocked traffic, assaulted an officer and
pitched illegal tents. Merchants in the area have been hurt as the
riff-raff deter customers. One business owner in Westlake Park, where
hundreds of protesters remain camped out, told Seattle TV station KIRO:
"There's definitely fewer people you can identify as people out, just
walking through the area."
Seattle's pushover mayor, Democrat Mike McGinn, now faces even greater
demands from the insatiable mob -- which wants a "guaranteed parking
space near City Hall Plaza that allows for around-the-clock parking,"
"24-hour access to the first floor of City Hall for restroom access, and
a written statement from the mayor approving the protesters' long-term
occupancy of City Hall Plaza."
In Boston, City Council President Stephen Murphy anticipates a $2
million hit to taxpayers if the protests refuse to disband by the end of
October. The local Fox affiliate notes the tab represents 8 percent of
the yearly budget for police overtime. "While we're all sympathetic with
our protesters down there," Murphy said, "Wall Street isn't picking up
the tab on this thing. It's the Boston taxpayers."
When fiscally conservative tea party activists held protests over the
past two years, they filed for all the required permits and paid for
their own power. Occupy Boston, by contrast, neither sought nor obtained
any proper permits at any level, according to the Boston Globe. Instead,
city and park officials have been cowed into providing them gratis
electricity and camp space lest there be "conflict."
Many of these occupiers are primarily occupied as paid rent-a-mobsters
for unions, left-wing think tanks and the radical Working Families
Party. While one collective hand soaks the taxpayers, the other hand is
busy soliciting free stuff. Occupy Los Angeles activists took to Skype
on their laptops to solicit donations of iPhones and iPads.
Occupy Wall Street members on Twitter organized an ongoing
"#needsoftheoccupiers" drive for everything from batteries and tarps to
"gently used" coats and sweaters, wool socks, sleeping bags and energy
bars. Occupy Austin organizers publicized their wish list, including a
free barbecue grill, portable toilets, extension cords, a Bobcat
forestry cutter for clearing brush and network cameras for a livestream.
These are not principled advocates of fiscal responsibility. They are
professional freeloaders.
Unlike tea party activists who focused like a laser beam on politicians
in both parties responsible for redistributing wealth to Big Business
cronies by force, the Occupy Wall Street movement is everywhere and
nowhere. The entitled Kamp Alinsky Kids are poaching WiFi and
trespassing on private property under the guise of "social justice" but
in plain service of themselves.
Their T-shirts and speeches glorify Marxist radicals Che Guevara,
Emiliano Zapata and Chairman Mao. They lionize convicted death row cop
killer Troy Davis and WikiLeaks collaborator Bradley Manning. They
condemn "Nazi Bankers," Jews, Fox News, the American Legislative
Exchange Council, Wisconsin GOP Gov. Scott Walker, the Koch family and
the New York Police Department ("Pigs!"). They promote the illegal alien
DREAM Act and 9/11 Trutherism.
They spout bumper-sticker profanities and inanities: "F**k banks."
"Unf**k the world." "Fuuuuu*k." "Free education." "Smash nationalism."
"People not profits."
They flash peace signs while celebrity supporter Roseanne Barr calls for
beheading financial industry workers and fellow marchers call explicitly
for "violent revolution" or for Obama to "Send SEAL Team 6" to Wall Street.
Then they huff and puff (preferably in a creepy uniform chant they call
the "human microphone") that we just haven't taken the time to
understand what they're all about -- as they hawk $20 "Eat the Rich"
polo shirts and license their protest photos to Getty Images.
Viva la revolucion! Up with people! Stop the greed! (Cha-ching. Cha-ching.)
---
Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his
Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2010).
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://tinyurl.com/3tyj9cq
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is
in charge on this island?
Professor: Why, no one.
Skipper: No one?
Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy!
-- _Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan"
__._,_.___MARKETPLACE![Yahoo! Groups]()
.![]()
__,_._,___
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.
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.
--
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.
--
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.
The Embarrassing Republicans
THE EMBARRASSING REPUBLICANS
by Eric Margolis on Monday, October 17, 2011 at 10:16am
NEW YORK – This great city is physically in America but it's hardly 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 moral and political depravity and vice.
In return, New Yorkers (I'm one), look down on the rest of America (San Francisco and Pacific northwest excepted) as "flyover country" populated by rednecks, hicks, religious fanatics and know-nothings.
Last week's Republican debates reinforced the party's lack of interest in the outside world. Leading candidates Mitt Romney, pizza mogul Herman Cain, and Texas tough guy Rick Perry barely mentioned world affairs.
When they did, it was to either get on their knees to proclaim their 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.
Romney announced a slate of foreign affairs advisors drawn from the ranks of the Bush administrations wildest anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, anti-Iranian neoconservatives and far right-wingers. The same crowd that brought us Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and Iraq.
Aside from the macho chest-pounding, some of the leading candidates made monkeys of themselves when talking about the outside world. As a moderate Republican, I cringed with embarrassment.
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 Bachman stumbled around all those strange foreign names. 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.
But no matter. Ignorance has become a sort of badge of honor among many heartland Republicans, as witnessed by the popularity of the patron of low 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 New York city slickers.
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. He supports a Palestinian state.
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 is a Mormon, a faith 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 born-again Christian Evangelicals. 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 the famousUS author 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.
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 Earth was created only 10,000 years ago, as the Bible says. Who rejects evolution and believes in Adam and Eve, and Noah's Ark. Who may believe, as do millions of Evangelicals, that Christ will return once all Jews are gathered into recreated Biblical Israel and then earth will be destroyed by God.
Re: Oh no! It’s Little Justin!
Loved it and stole it.
On Oct 17, 8:07 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
> New post on *Fellowship of the Minds*
> <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/author/eowyn2/> Oh no! It's
> Little Justin!<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/oh-no-its-little-ju...>by
> Dr. Eowyn <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/author/eowyn2/>
>
> You've seen Steve's hilarious Little Johnny joke-posts. Here's Little
> Justin! LOL
>
> H/t my dear friend Sol.
>
> *~Eowyn*
>
> <http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/pee.gif>
>
> One day a fourth-grade teacher asked the children what their fathers did for
> a living.
>
> All the typical answers came up - fireman, mechanic, businessman,
> salesman... and so forth.
>
> However, little Justin was being uncharacteristically quiet, so when the
> teacher prodded him about his father, he replied, "My father's an exotic
> dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes to music in front of
> other men and they put money in his underwear. Sometimes, if the offer is
> really good, he will go home with some guy and stay with him all night for
> money."
>
> The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other
> children to work on some exercises and took little Justin aside to ask him,
> "Is that really true about your father?"
>
> "No," the boy said, "He works for the Democratic National Committee and
> helped to get Obama elected, but it's too embarrassing to say that in front
> of the other kids."
> *Dr. Eowyn <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/author/eowyn2/>* |
> October 17, 2011 at 2:00 am | Categories:
> Children<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=34928689>,
> Humor <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=376>,
> Liberals<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=35711271>| URL:http://wp.me/pKuKY-a1C
>
> Comment<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/oh-no-its-little-ju...>
> See all comments<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/oh-no-its-little-ju...>
>
> Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
> Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=49883164090367a8ae3126d288a16eee&...>.
>
> Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/oh-no-its-little-ju...
> Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://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.
Re: solutions
Doesn't this make him the only candidate that has a plan on paper??
On Oct 17, 9:31 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ron Paul Set to Unveil a $1 Trillion Budget
> Cut<http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/17/ron-paul-set-to-unveil-a-1-tri>
>
> Matt Welch <http://reason.com/people/matt-welch> | October 17, 2011
>
> [image: He'll cut you]Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) today "will lay out a budget
> blueprint for deep and far-reaching cuts to federal spending, including the
> elimination of five cabinet-level departments and the drawdown of American
> troops fighting overseas," *Politico* is
> reporting<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66114.html>.
> The $1 trillion in cuts aims to balance the budget within three years.
> Details:
>
> Many of the ideas [...] [include] tea party favorites like eliminating the
> departments of education and energy. But Paul goes further: he'll propose
> immediately freezing spending by numerous government agencies at 2006
> levels, the last time Republicans had complete control of the federal
> budget, and drastically reducing spending elsewhere. The EPA would see a 30
> percent cut, the Food and Drug Administration would see one of 40 percent
> and foreign aid would be zeroed out immediately. He'd also take an ax to
> Pentagon funding for wars.
>
> Medicaid, the children's health insurance program, food stamps, family
> support programs and the children's nutrition program would all be
> block-granted to the states and removed from the mandatory spending column
> of the federal budget. Some functions of eliminated departments, such as
> Pell Grants, would be continued elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy.
>
> [image: B-b-b-b-ut -- we've already cut to the bone!]And in a noticeable nod
> to seniors during an election year when Social Security's become an issue
> within the Republican primary, the campaign says that plan "honors our
> promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt
> out."
>
> The federal workforce would be reduced by 10 percent, and the president's
> pay would be cut to $39,336 — a level that the Paul document notes is
> "approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker."
>
> Paul would also make far-reaching changes to federal tax policy, reducing
> the top corporate income tax rate to 15 percent, eliminating capital gains
> and dividends taxes, and allowing for repatriation of overseas capital
> without tax penalties.
>
> Whole thing here <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66114.html>.
> Needless to say, this is quite different from politics as it is currently
> practiced<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020477460457663135006150...>
> .
>
> Read *Reason* economics columnist Veronique de Rugy on how cutting spending
> is the most effective
> way<http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/29/the-facts-about-spending-cuts>
> to
> reduce deficits and debts, then check out her (and Nick Gillespie's) "19
> Percent Solution<http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/14/the-19-percent-solution>"
> for bringing sanity back into federal budgeting.
>
> Reason on Ron Paul here <http://reason.com/topics/ron-paul>. Thanks to
> commenter
> Joe M<http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/17/reason-morning-links-bitcoin-v#comm...>
> for
> the link.
--
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.
solutions
Ron Paul Set to Unveil a $1 Trillion Budget Cut
Matt Welch | October 17, 2011
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) today "will lay out a budget blueprint for deep and far-reaching cuts to federal spending, including the elimination of five cabinet-level departments and the drawdown of American troops fighting overseas," Politico is reporting. The $1 trillion in cuts aims to balance the budget within three years. Details:
Many of the ideas [...] [include] tea party favorites like eliminating the departments of education and energy. But Paul goes further: he'll propose immediately freezing spending by numerous government agencies at 2006 levels, the last time Republicans had complete control of the federal budget, and drastically reducing spending elsewhere. The EPA would see a 30 percent cut, the Food and Drug Administration would see one of 40 percent and foreign aid would be zeroed out immediately. He'd also take an ax to Pentagon funding for wars.
Medicaid, the children's health insurance program, food stamps, family support programs and the children's nutrition program would all be block-granted to the states and removed from the mandatory spending column of the federal budget. Some functions of eliminated departments, such as Pell Grants, would be continued elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy.
And in a noticeable nod to seniors during an election year when Social Security's become an issue within the Republican primary, the campaign says that plan "honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out."
The federal workforce would be reduced by 10 percent, and the president's pay would be cut to $39,336 — a level that the Paul document notes is "approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker."
Paul would also make far-reaching changes to federal tax policy, reducing the top corporate income tax rate to 15 percent, eliminating capital gains and dividends taxes, and allowing for repatriation of overseas capital without tax penalties.
Whole thing here. Needless to say, this is quite different from politics as it is currently practiced.
Read Reason economics columnist Veronique de Rugy on how cutting spending is the most effective way to reduce deficits and debts, then check out her (and Nick Gillespie's) "19 Percent Solution" for bringing sanity back into federal budgeting.
Reason on Ron Paul here. Thanks to commenter Joe M for the link.
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.
Oh no! It’s Little Justin!
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.