Courtesy of: www.christianparents.com
Humanism is as old as the garden of Eden, but few know what it is. The idea of Humanism replacing Godism can be seen in the garden of Eden when Satan taught Eve that she would know longer need God, she could be as her own god and do what she pleased after she got enough knowledge of her own.
Men have written on the subject since Plato and Aristotle, but still most people only think it means 'kind' or 'humane'.
A better definition is required if we are to understand the forces moving in the world systems today.
John Dewey gave us that definition when he signed the Humanist Manifesto.
That definition expressed by the Humanist Manifesto was given to us by no less than the man who has been called the father of modern American education. He influenced teachers in Russia, Asia, and Europe as well. We should take note of the words of such an influential man.
The Humanist Manifesto reveals a large picture of intent for education which Dewey shaped. It also shows a picture of what our government is doing, since it has been shaped so much by graduates of this modern system of education.
Please note the U.S. Dept. of Education did not exist until Lyndon B. Johnson as President. Such a department was never intended by the Founding Fathers. They didn't even want their children fed by the government, much less taught what to think by the ruling powers.
John Dewey had great influence in the National Education Association and reshaping America's schools. He has had a profound influence of generations of philosophers.
No one who leads or teaches others should be ignorant of purposes laid out in the Humanist Manifesto nor of the significance of those others who signed or agreed with the document.
The list of individuals, corporations, and trust funds is impressive with its power to influence. We come to see that the National Humanist Foundation, Society for the Humanities, and other such names do have a common philosophy and intent.
Seeing how great is the list of those who have publicly and openly endorse humanism in one way or another, it becomes clear that a common system of thought drives many sources of great economic and political power.
Having a common idea and goal makes it unnecessary to conspire. Just having a common philosophy and goal will eventually lead them closer and closer to support the same ways and means of accomplishing their common goal. How could anyone understand what is happening if he is ignorant of who is doing it, or ignorant of the power behind it, or is ignorant of the goal?
A few historical events focused into perspective can show you a picture of today's politics and economic powers that are shaping our government and education of our children. To draw that picture is the goal of this writing.
The Humanist Manifesto was signed by many prominent people. Since then a second, called The Humanist Manifesto II has been written and signed by many more.
That document, Humanist Manifesto and its follow up, Humanist Manifesto II , define a collectively held goal of many political-economic powers. No education is complete without understanding the big picture of Humanism.
The list of signers and their offshoots must also be traced even to see the connections between that philosophy and many things happening now. A clear example can be seen when you study the how The New Standard for American History has been developed by major Humanist supporters.
Philosophers have written on the subject since Plato and Aristotle. Later writers include French revolutionaries such as Rousseau in throwing off the authority of kings, and then Engles and Karl Marx in establishing the right of men to rule themselves.
Growth of the concept was slow for the first few thousand years of recorded history, until French and European philosophers further developed some of the details prior to the French Revolution. Then in 1859, Darwinism gave accelerated growth through the concepts of evolution, relativism and positivism. See Encyclopedia Britanica, 1952.
Law courses adopted the ideas of 'relativism' and 'positivism' in major universities as early as 1870.
By 1940, relative law or case law also called evolutionary law had replaced the absolute standard of original intent law. Justice Rhenquist has a book called Original Intent. Several other authors have books with the same title showing how different the new law interprets our Constitution by the changed standards of relativism.
A 1996 book, Original Intent, published by Wallbuilders with a four way index contrasting the original intent of our Constitution and how it has been changed, should be in all our schools.
This contrast is clearly shown by original documents from those great men who signed the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and other documents of that time.
Relativism as a positive gain relative to man's changing standards became popularized by the educational elite. Educators said since man evolves, his society evolves, and therefore his law must also change to fit the changing man. That's how Darwin's evolution impacted law, society, government, politics, economics of teaching in text book sales, as well as science in all its branches. Not only biology would change from Creationism to Evolution, but physics and math would change from Ordered Systems to Chaos as a focus of teaching.
Oliver Wendel Holmes was the first graduate of 'relative' legal standards interpretation.
Holmes began his influence on the Supreme Court in 1920.
By 1940 the absolute standards of Blackstone's Law Commentary had been discarded nearly everywhere.
Blackstone had been the standard of law interpretation since the British courts were developed.
Blackstone based all understanding on God, and natural law that came forth from God, and man's government law as derived from nature that was created by God. He believed in God, an absolute God, and he accepted an absolute system of law that like God did not change. The absolute system of Blackstone was discarded were discarded in favor of relative or situational law by 1940.
Engles and Marx brought Humanism to nation-wide birth for the Bolshevik Revolution.
After reading and correspondence with Europe, John Dewey, the Father of Modern Education John Dewey, traveled to Europe, China, and Turkey in the early nineteen thirties.
Upon his return to America, he helped author and did sign the Humanist Manifesto which was the Americanized version of the Communist Manifesto penned by Karl Marx.
Positivism says that what is a perceived gain, a plus, is a good thing. The plus or minus is measured from the relative point of view of an individual, not any absolute standard . Positivism along with Relativism are the basis of saying "The end justifies the means."
Humanism with its relative and subjective values feeds systems like, I'm OK. You're OK. or Tolerance in a big way. No absolutes. Each person establishes his own system of values as he sees fit with no absolutes or external authorities.
This results in calling them bigots who would impose any external authority or absolute standard of reference to right and wrong. It allows for saying the end justifies whatever means it takes to get a gain. So long as that gain seems to me as being a positive gain relative to how I see things, that's what I call good.
Humanism says forget the absolutes. Judge things by what seems to be right for you. Just like Satan tempted Eve in the garden. Humanism has crept into the pulpit of many churches.
During the 1950's and 60's many preachers strived to show where they could write or teach in a humanistic way. Such thinking was justified under the more naive definition of mankind doing good to man. The core idea being that Humanism as a system denies God, and Jesus as the Son of God who said that only God is Good.
Removal of God from the value system was done not only in the Bolshevik revolution but also in the Humanist Manifesto. Having no absolute standard leaves then only each individual to define his own ideas of what 'feels good' to him.
Another way of saying the same thing is to say, "Your way is OK for you, and my way is OK for me. Let's just be tolerant of each other and agree to disagree while still saying each other is right for himself.
Humanism has existed from the beginning of time. It was defined in the garden of Eden where Satan used his most tempting bait to get Eve first doubting and then ignoring the word of God. "...you shall be as gods..." Ancient philosophers, Plato, Aristotle and others, wrote on the theme of Humanism without recognizing its full picture.
Humanism can not be seen in its biggest context from its on point of view. Humanism denies God so it denies the total context. Only in a faith towards God can Humanism be seen for what it is in the highest context.
To those who believe in God, Humanism is man's way of saying, exactly what the Humanists proclaim, man must be his own god. That means to a Christian, rebellion against God.
The first rebellion was in the garden of Eden. It was over the idea of being as a god, self-directing and without further need of Almighty God. Thus the oldest Biblical word for what we call Humanism is Rebellion against God Almighty.
Most literature on humanism does not speak of rebellion against God. However humanistic writings were used to inspire rebellions against government in many places. Most notably, the Bolshevik Revolution which clearly and openly denounced God.
Humanism has been manifest since Eve was tempted to do away with her need for Almighty God and be her own god through partaking of all knowledge. Plato and Aristotle wrote on some ideas of Humanism.
Darwinism gave strength to Humanism after 1859. Engles and Karl Marx developed the European version of Humanism. By 1920, the Communist Revolution had motivated people around the world to read the ideas of Engles and Marx.
China did not ignore the rising trend of Humanism as expressed in the border nation of Russia. After reading and correspondence on these ideas, John Dewey traveled to China and Turkey. There he taught on state education to help develop students to better serve the state system.
Upon his return to America, John Dewey, the Father of Modern American Education wrote The Humanist Manifesto in 1933.
No education is complete today without understanding The Humanist Manifesto I and II and tracing the influence of those signers and supporters of the intentions expressed therein.
It is clear to see that the humanist designers of contemporary education do not want our children to have a complete education, else they would see what is happening.
To see where we came from and how we got where we are is to be able to see where we are headed. The direction and momentum must be realized to project a future path.
Read the article on Value of History comparing the graph of a golf ball's path to understanding the graph of where our nation is going.
Naivety and ignorance are a pitfall to everyone who assumes that humanism only means to be 'humane' or 'kind' to your neighbor. Teachers, pastors, and senators all need to recognize the strategy and goals of Humanists.
The system of money, philosophies of men, text books and politics that has entangled itself in America is now teaching our children from eight a.m. to 3 p.m. five days a week.
Look closely and you can see a loosening up of definitions, much like Satan redefined what God said to Eve. Teaching by loose analogies in the name of creative reasoning or higher order thinking is used to accustom children to believe anything can equal anything, which is exactly what Chaos says. But God says, I AM that I Am and I change not. Who will listen to the word of God and who will continue pleasing men, for the sake of paychecks going along and being friends with the system.
Pastors, you have the responsibility to warn your people. If you warn them and they do nothing, you are free; but if you do not warn them, then where does scripture say you are?
Humanism is nothing but a redefined label for the rebellion against God that happened in the garden, by adding to and taking from the truth of his word so to justify mankind in doing its own thing, whatever that may be.
The hearts of our children are the goal of those who have taught against absolutes and encouraged 'relative positivism' as a way of thinking based on loose association and calling it higher order thinking.
Be on guard. Be not deceived when you see those fine sounding phrases of "Changes in education for excellence" or "higher order thinking" or "critical thinking"; because most of those actions covered by those words are used to destroy faith in God.
Viewpoint from the New History" Consider this viewpoint from the New Standard of American History. Man emerged from the slime of a soupy organic ocean as he evolved from a protozoa form to higher and higher forms. So man is growing up. There was not a fall as the Bible teaches, but an upward evolution and therefore no need for a Savior. And as the humanists write, if man is going to be saved, he must do it himself.
Example of new history lesson: After many tribes of people grew, different ways of solving problems grew. Idols and many gods were one way man evolved to cope with his problems.
Then in the middle of civilization after man had been existent for thousands or millions of years, some small tribe called the Jews developed a system to cope with their problems, but their system was different, it was called monotheistic. And out of that failed system came what is called Christianity. But other systems were competing with Christianity and grew even bigger such as Buddhism and Islam and Brahman.
Today, dear students, we have the advantage of 'higher critical thinking' and as you compare and analyze the way those religions competed for converts, you can see how they slowly died out because their hope in God wasn't really solving problems. They still had wars and hunger and even killed one another in the name of their religions.
New history teaches children this way. So today, we clearly know that only man with clear thinking logic can save himself from his own problems. And as the new state religion of humanism, logic and reasoning by man, grows we will see the wonderful man made institutions of international scope solve the problems of our world. Man made cooperation for peace through the United Nations, the World Bank, and other such agencies are our way for peace in the new world economic order.
Dear parent or pastor, if you expect to send your child to school where this is taught and not have it impact his heart, please think again. The humanists expect to win the hearts of many children with their campaign. Scripture says they will succeed in doing much of their plan. They will ultimately fail. But meanwhile let those who hear take heed.
Even William Bennett, past Secretary of Education has called the educational system a 'blob'. If you stop it in one place, it just pours out in someplace else. If you ask for responsibility in one place, it just shifts the blame or question to someplace else. It includes the humanist favoring news reporters where they exist, the humanists in the N.E.A., and within each school system who do not teach God, and the U.S. Dept. of Education with its funds allocated to the "relativist, positive, no absolute standard " teaching methods that have done away with the absolute standards of teaching that helped us put men on the moon.
If humanistic ideas were not dominating the news how is it that such things as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and President Clinton's speech on it to a high school in 1995 could have been so kept from the parents and pastors of our churches?
When we are given clear right to restore Christian context to our school classes, the powers in effect keep the news from reaching those who would actually restore the Christian context.
If anyone says the news did reach the school districts, then let it also be said that not enough explanation reached the people to encourage the implementation of restoration of Christian context. The restoration must be done, and therefore people must be given enough encouragement from friendly media to accomplish the job!
Christian class books used to have little children reading stories with moral values and life helping information in them. Then the system switched to brainless Dick and Jane and from that to the current mass of nonsense and chaos books that fill our elementary schools. For example of a current title in elementary reading, I give you, "The Upside Down School".
Rather than building values, such books are acclimating our children to nonsense so they can equate anything with anything, another example of Chaos instead of Ordered Systems, or Relative Values verses the Absolutes of Christianity on which this nation was built. Restore values for our children!!!
Sources: The World's Oldest False Religion, Humanist Manifestos I and II, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952, Vol. 7, p 297
Sphere: Related Content
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Obama Breaks Promise, Embraces Healthcare Tax
Courtesy of Newsmax.com
WASHINGTON � The Obama White House left open the possibility Sunday that the president would break a campaign promise and raise taxes on people earning less than $250,000 to support his health care overhaul agenda.
White House adviser David Axelrod said the administration wouldn't rule out taxing some employees' benefits to fund a health care agenda that has yet to take final form. The move would be a compromise with fellow Democrats, who are pushing the proposal as a way to pay for the massive undertaking without ballooning the federal deficit.
"There are a number of formulations and we'll wait and see. The important thing at this point is to keep the process moving, to keep people at the table, to the keep the discussions going," Axelrod said. "We've gotten a long way down the road and we want to finish that journey."
But if President Barack Obama compromises on that point, it would reverse a campaign tax promise.
"I pledge that under my plan, no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any type of tax increase," Obama told a crowd in Dover, N.H., last year. "Not income tax, not capital gains taxes, not any kind of tax."
At the time, his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was proposing a tax on health benefits similar to the plan Obama is now considering. Just a year ago, Obama spent millions on campaign commercials attacking the idea.
One ad accused McCain of favoring "taxing health benefits for the first time ever ... taxing health care instead of fixing it. We can't afford John McCain."
A second Obama ad called McCain's approach "the largest middle-class tax increase in history." Driving the point home, it contended the "McCain tax could cost your family thousands. Can you afford it?"
Under the current proposals, a tax on health benefits would affect only those with pricey health plans. The idea would be to tax as income the portion of health benefits worth more than a specified limit. Officials are considering several options, including one that would set the limit at $17,240 for family coverage and $6,800 for individuals.
Plans worth more than that would be taxed; those worth less would see no increase.
Obama has faced similar criticism before. When he increased taxes on tobacco to pay for a children's health bill, his critics said he was raising taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year.
Obama left open the possibility of a tax during interviews last week, insisting he wasn't taking any option off the table despite his personal opposition. But two of his high-profile advisers budget chief Peter Orszag and economic adviser Jason Furman both have indicated they support some taxes on health benefits to pay for the overhaul.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said that Obama should step in an oppose the tax if he's truly against it. Otherwise, he faces a loss to his own Democratic Party and his own campaign credibility.
"I think it's going to take presidential leadership to get people of his party to see that we shouldn't be subsidizing high-end health insurance policies that drive up inflation in health insurance," said Grassley, the top Republican on the powerful finance committee.
Grassley and, to be sure, other Republicans remember Obama's scathing criticism of their GOP presidential nominee.
"Since the president denigrated John McCain's effort to move in this direction during the campaign, it's going to take, in order to win over Republicans, presidential leadership in that direction," Grassley said.
To help sell his plan, Obama scheduled a town hall-style meeting this week in Annandale, Va., a Washington suburb. He plans to take questions Wednesday from the audience and from online sites such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.
Axelrod insisted that the White House has made progress on a health care plan and is working with Congress. Even so, the emerging legislation is hardly the bipartisan collaboration Obama's top advisers had sought.
"One of the problems we've had in this town is that people draw lines in the sand and they stop talking to each other," Axelrod said. "And you don't get anything done. That's not the way the president approaches us."
Axelrod appeared on ABC's "This Week" and NBC's "Meet the Press." Grassley appeared on "This Week." Sphere: Related Content
WASHINGTON � The Obama White House left open the possibility Sunday that the president would break a campaign promise and raise taxes on people earning less than $250,000 to support his health care overhaul agenda.
White House adviser David Axelrod said the administration wouldn't rule out taxing some employees' benefits to fund a health care agenda that has yet to take final form. The move would be a compromise with fellow Democrats, who are pushing the proposal as a way to pay for the massive undertaking without ballooning the federal deficit.
"There are a number of formulations and we'll wait and see. The important thing at this point is to keep the process moving, to keep people at the table, to the keep the discussions going," Axelrod said. "We've gotten a long way down the road and we want to finish that journey."
But if President Barack Obama compromises on that point, it would reverse a campaign tax promise.
"I pledge that under my plan, no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any type of tax increase," Obama told a crowd in Dover, N.H., last year. "Not income tax, not capital gains taxes, not any kind of tax."
At the time, his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was proposing a tax on health benefits similar to the plan Obama is now considering. Just a year ago, Obama spent millions on campaign commercials attacking the idea.
One ad accused McCain of favoring "taxing health benefits for the first time ever ... taxing health care instead of fixing it. We can't afford John McCain."
A second Obama ad called McCain's approach "the largest middle-class tax increase in history." Driving the point home, it contended the "McCain tax could cost your family thousands. Can you afford it?"
Under the current proposals, a tax on health benefits would affect only those with pricey health plans. The idea would be to tax as income the portion of health benefits worth more than a specified limit. Officials are considering several options, including one that would set the limit at $17,240 for family coverage and $6,800 for individuals.
Plans worth more than that would be taxed; those worth less would see no increase.
Obama has faced similar criticism before. When he increased taxes on tobacco to pay for a children's health bill, his critics said he was raising taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year.
Obama left open the possibility of a tax during interviews last week, insisting he wasn't taking any option off the table despite his personal opposition. But two of his high-profile advisers budget chief Peter Orszag and economic adviser Jason Furman both have indicated they support some taxes on health benefits to pay for the overhaul.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said that Obama should step in an oppose the tax if he's truly against it. Otherwise, he faces a loss to his own Democratic Party and his own campaign credibility.
"I think it's going to take presidential leadership to get people of his party to see that we shouldn't be subsidizing high-end health insurance policies that drive up inflation in health insurance," said Grassley, the top Republican on the powerful finance committee.
Grassley and, to be sure, other Republicans remember Obama's scathing criticism of their GOP presidential nominee.
"Since the president denigrated John McCain's effort to move in this direction during the campaign, it's going to take, in order to win over Republicans, presidential leadership in that direction," Grassley said.
To help sell his plan, Obama scheduled a town hall-style meeting this week in Annandale, Va., a Washington suburb. He plans to take questions Wednesday from the audience and from online sites such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.
Axelrod insisted that the White House has made progress on a health care plan and is working with Congress. Even so, the emerging legislation is hardly the bipartisan collaboration Obama's top advisers had sought.
"One of the problems we've had in this town is that people draw lines in the sand and they stop talking to each other," Axelrod said. "And you don't get anything done. That's not the way the president approaches us."
Axelrod appeared on ABC's "This Week" and NBC's "Meet the Press." Grassley appeared on "This Week." Sphere: Related Content
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Pray for Monica Conyers
"If you're not praying for me, you're just adding to the problem," said Monica Conyers, wife of Congressman John Conyers who was implicated in a bribery investigation last week.
I hope every Christian takes the time to pray for Ms. Conyers that she sees the light of Christ's truth. She opened the door and now we are obligated to walk through it and ask for God's guidance. Sphere: Related Content
I hope every Christian takes the time to pray for Ms. Conyers that she sees the light of Christ's truth. She opened the door and now we are obligated to walk through it and ask for God's guidance. Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Obama Is My Shepard
THE FIRST BOOK OF DEMOCRAT
PSALM 2008-2012
OBAMA IS MY SHEPHERD, I SHALL NOT WANT.
PSALM 2008-2012
OBAMA IS MY SHEPHERD, I SHALL NOT WANT.
HE LEADETH ME BESIDE THE STILL FACTORIES.
HE RESTORETH MY FAITH IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
HE GUIDETH ME IN THE PATH OF UNEMPLOYMENT.
YEA, THOUGH I WALK THRU THE VALLEY OF THE BREAD LINE, I SHALL NOT GO HUNGRY.
OBAMA HAS ANOINTED MY INCOME WITH TAXES.
MY EXPENSES RUNNETH OVER MY INCOME.
SURELY, POVERTY AND HARD LIVING WILL FOLLOW ME ALL THE DAYS OF HIS TERM.
FROM HENCE FORTH, WE WILL LIVE ALL THE DAYS OF OUR LIVES IN A RENTED HOME WITH AN OVERSEAS LANDLORD.
BUT I AM GLAD I AM AN AMERICAN, I AM GLAD THAT I AM FREE.
BUT I WISH I WAS A DOG AND OBAMA WAS A TREE.
Today's Quote: "Too many Americans grew tired of being thought to be dumb by the rest of the world, so they went to the polls and removed all doubt."
Sphere: Related Content
Friday, June 5, 2009
Soros: European socialism needed
From an article on George Soros at www.discoverthenetworks.org You can read the full article here.
In a November 2008 interview with Spiegel, Soros made some comments that accurately outlined precisely the course that President Obama's administration would eventually pursue in 2009:
"I think we need a large stimulus package which will provide funds for state and local government to maintain their budgets -- because they are not allowed by the constitution to run a deficit. For such a program to be successful, the federal government would need to provide hundreds of billions of dollars. In addition, another infrastructure program is necessary. In total, the cost would be in the 300 to 600 billion dollar range [in addition to the $700 billion bailout which the government already had given to the financial industry]…. I think this is a great opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence. The U.S. needs a cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for emissions rights. I would use the revenues from these auctions to launch a new, environmentally friendly energy policy. That would be yet another federal program that could help us to overcome the current stagnation."
The interviewer then said: "Your proposal would be dismissed on Wall Street as 'big government.' Republicans might call it European-style 'socialism.'"
Soros replied:
"That is exactly what we need now. I am against market fundamentalism. I think this propaganda that government involvement is always bad has been very successful -- but also very harmful to our society…. I think it is better to have a government that wants to provide good government than a government that doesn't believe in government…. At times of recession, running a budget deficit is highly desirable. Once the economy begins to recover, you have to balance the budget. In 2010, the Bush tax cuts will expire and we should not extend them. But we will also need additional revenues."
Soros and his foundations have had a hand in funding such noteworthy leftist organizations as the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy; the Tides Foundation; the Tides Center; the National Organization for Women; Feminist Majority; the American Civil Liberties Union; People for the American Way; Alliance for Justice; NARAL Pro-Choice America; America Coming Together; the Center for American Progress; Campaign for America's Future; Amnesty International; the Sentencing Project; the Center for Community Change; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Human Rights Watch; the Prison Moratorium Project; the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement; the National Lawyers Guild; the Center for Constitutional Rights; the Coalition for an International Criminal Court; The American Prospect; MoveOn.org; Planned Parenthood; the Nation Institute; the Brennan Center for Justice; the Ms. Foundation for Women; the National Security Archive Fund; the Pacifica Foundation; Physicians for Human Rights; the Proteus Fund; the Public Citizen Foundation; the Urban Institute; the American Friends Service Committee; Catholics for a Free Choice; Human Rights First; the Independent Media Institute; MADRE; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; the Immigrant Legal Resource Center; the National Immigration Law Center; the National Immigration Forum; the National Council of La Raza; the American Immigration Law Foundation; the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee; and the Peace and Security Funders Group.
Apart from the more than $5 billion that Soros' foundation network has donated to leftist groups like those listed above, Soros personally has made campaign contributions to such notable political candidates as Charles Rangel, Al Franken, Tom Udall, Joe Sestak, and Sherrod Brown. Sphere: Related Content
In a November 2008 interview with Spiegel, Soros made some comments that accurately outlined precisely the course that President Obama's administration would eventually pursue in 2009:
"I think we need a large stimulus package which will provide funds for state and local government to maintain their budgets -- because they are not allowed by the constitution to run a deficit. For such a program to be successful, the federal government would need to provide hundreds of billions of dollars. In addition, another infrastructure program is necessary. In total, the cost would be in the 300 to 600 billion dollar range [in addition to the $700 billion bailout which the government already had given to the financial industry]…. I think this is a great opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence. The U.S. needs a cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for emissions rights. I would use the revenues from these auctions to launch a new, environmentally friendly energy policy. That would be yet another federal program that could help us to overcome the current stagnation."
The interviewer then said: "Your proposal would be dismissed on Wall Street as 'big government.' Republicans might call it European-style 'socialism.'"
Soros replied:
"That is exactly what we need now. I am against market fundamentalism. I think this propaganda that government involvement is always bad has been very successful -- but also very harmful to our society…. I think it is better to have a government that wants to provide good government than a government that doesn't believe in government…. At times of recession, running a budget deficit is highly desirable. Once the economy begins to recover, you have to balance the budget. In 2010, the Bush tax cuts will expire and we should not extend them. But we will also need additional revenues."
Soros and his foundations have had a hand in funding such noteworthy leftist organizations as the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy; the Tides Foundation; the Tides Center; the National Organization for Women; Feminist Majority; the American Civil Liberties Union; People for the American Way; Alliance for Justice; NARAL Pro-Choice America; America Coming Together; the Center for American Progress; Campaign for America's Future; Amnesty International; the Sentencing Project; the Center for Community Change; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Human Rights Watch; the Prison Moratorium Project; the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement; the National Lawyers Guild; the Center for Constitutional Rights; the Coalition for an International Criminal Court; The American Prospect; MoveOn.org; Planned Parenthood; the Nation Institute; the Brennan Center for Justice; the Ms. Foundation for Women; the National Security Archive Fund; the Pacifica Foundation; Physicians for Human Rights; the Proteus Fund; the Public Citizen Foundation; the Urban Institute; the American Friends Service Committee; Catholics for a Free Choice; Human Rights First; the Independent Media Institute; MADRE; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; the Immigrant Legal Resource Center; the National Immigration Law Center; the National Immigration Forum; the National Council of La Raza; the American Immigration Law Foundation; the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee; and the Peace and Security Funders Group.
Apart from the more than $5 billion that Soros' foundation network has donated to leftist groups like those listed above, Soros personally has made campaign contributions to such notable political candidates as Charles Rangel, Al Franken, Tom Udall, Joe Sestak, and Sherrod Brown. Sphere: Related Content
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Obama's Gramps: Gazing skyward on D-Day in England
By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press
WASHINGTON – Surely, Stanley Dunham was gazing skyward 65 years ago, on D-Day. Dunham, the man whom Barack Obama would one day call Gramps, was a 26-year-old supply sergeant stationed near the English Channel with the U.S. Army Air Forces when the invasion of Normandy at last began.
Six weeks later, he crossed the Channel, too, and followed the Allied front across France. A year later, he was on track to fight in Japan when the atom bomb sent him home instead.
Dunham, who died 17 years ago, was the Kansas-born grandfather with the outsized personality who helped to fill the hole in the future president's life created by the absence of Obama's Kenyan father. Sgt. Dunham's war years have been something of a mystery, the details of dates and places lost with the passage of time. The units that he served in were unknown even to the White House.
But a life-size portrait emerges from interviews and records unearthed by The Associated Press. On D-Day, documents place him at Stoney Cross, England, in the 1830th Ordnance Supply and Maintenance Co., Aviation.
"This was the day we had all been waiting for," Dunham's commanding officer wrote the night of June 6 from their base near the English Channel. "Planes by the hundreds took off and landed at our field from dusk until dawn."
His company supported the 9th Air Force as it prepared for the assault on Normandy and took part in the drive that carried the Allies across France. Dunham and the men of the 1830th came across six weeks after the initial Normandy invasion and followed the front through France, servicing airfields known by numbers — A-2, A-44, A-71, and more — in places such as Brucheville, Cricqueville, St.-Jean-de-Daye, Peray, Clastres, Juvincourt and Saint-Dizier.
On this coming Saturday, the 65th anniversary of D-Day, Obama will visit the gravesites and beaches of Normandy, and look out across the channel that his grandfather crossed from a staging area at Southampton, England.
"I knew him when he was older," Obama said of his grandfather in 2007. "But I think about him now and then as he enlisted — a man of 23, fresh-faced with a wise-guy grin."
To the 75 men of Dunham's company, he was a good guy to have around.
For one thing, he taught the men how to use their new gas masks.
He also came up with a radio, games and books for a day room that Dunham's commanding officer described as "a swell place to spend an evening."
And when the 1830th had a party in the gym three days after D-Day, they had Dunham to thank for it.
On May 31, 1944, payday, Dunham had taken up a collection of 35 British pounds — about $150 in today's dollars — to finance the event. He lined up a convoy of girls from Southampton who, the men hoped, would be "simply smashing," as his commanding officer, Frederick Maloof, wrote in his diary.
"The party was a huge success, except that the beer ran out about 10:30 p.m.," 1st Lt. Maloof later reported. "All agreed that the orchestra was good. A few of the die-hards were still crooning over the empty beer barrels at an early morning hour."
For all the good times, the strains of war were ever present for Dunham and his fellow soldiers.
On the evening after D-Day, Dunham's unit dug 27 foxholes.
"This was done in case of a retaliation by the Germans," Maloof wrote.
On June 11, the first hospital ships returned from France, bringing tales of the "hardships encountered on invasion day."
That same day, Maloof wrote that "our mail has not been reaching home, and the wives and sweethearts are beginning to wonder if we have gone across the channel on the first wave."
The wives included Madelyn Dunham, back home in Wichita, Kan., with Stanley Ann, a toddler who would grow up to be Obama's mother.
Madelyn, the beloved grandmother known as "Toot" who helped raise the future president, did her part for the war effort, working the night shift as a supervisor on the B-29 bomber assembly line at the Boeing plant.
Her brother is part of the war story, too. Charles Payne, Obama's great-uncle, in 1945 helped liberate a sub-camp of the Nazi concentration camp at Buchenwald, which Obama will visit this Friday.
Stanley Dunham's older brother Ralph, another great-uncle to Obama, also is a branch in the wartime family tree.
Ralph was called up after Stanley enlisted. He landed at Normandy's Omaha Easy Red beach on D-Day plus four, then worked his way through France, Italy and Germany as an assignment and personnel officer.
In the months before the invasion, the brothers met up twice in England while on leave. Once, they came across each other by happenstance in London, where Ralph was staying at the Russell Hotel.
"I walked down the steps and there was my brother sitting on a settee," 92-year-old Ralph Dunham said in interview with the AP.
It turned out that Stanley's hotel had run out of rations and he was sent to the Russell in search of food. The two Kansas boys — each 6-foot-2, by Ralph's recollection — spent the rest of their leave together, touring the Tower of London, Buckingham Palace and other sites with a helpful taxi driver. At night, they sampled the London theater offerings. Ralph remembers they saw "Hamlet."
The brothers had a double portrait snapped to send home — after Stanley borrowed a jacket from a fellow member of the 9th Air Force so they'd both be in uniform. The February 1944 portrait is one that Ralph still treasures.
Late in July, six weeks after D-Day, Stanley Dunham's unit crossed the English Channel and landed at Omaha Beach.
"After looking over the Atlantic wall, with its pill boxes, we all agreed it was a miracle that the Allies were able to land," Maloof wrote.
In his autobiography, Obama reports that during the war his grandfather was "sloshing around in the mud of France, part of Patton's Army."
That's right, at least for a few months.
In February 1945, at Saint-Dizier, Dunham's unit was assigned to Patton's 3rd Army, and Dunham remained in that company until early April. Prior to February, Dunham's unit had supported 1st Army operations.
Obama sketches Dunham as a man with a wild streak early on who settled down to sell furniture and life insurance.
By the time he joined the Army, he already had lived large.
He'd been thrown out of his high school in El Dorado, Kan., for punching the principal in the nose. For three years he'd lived off odd jobs, "hopping rail cars to Chicago, then California, then back again, dabbling in moonshine, cards and women," Obama wrote in his autobiography, "Dreams from My Father."
Dunham had also fallen in love with a woman from the other side of the tracks — the good side — and married her. He eloped with Madelyn Payne just before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, on Dec. 7, 1941, and he was quick to enlist after the Japanese attack.
"He was really gung-ho," remembers Ralph. "He didn't have to go because he was married. He could have held off."
He was inducted at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., on Jan. 15, 1942.
That November, while Dunham still was stationed stateside, he got leave to come home to Kansas when his daughter, Stanley Ann, was born at Fort Leavenworth.
Her unusual name, Obama wrote, was "one of Gramps' less judicious ideas — he had wanted a son." The family called her Stannie. Later, she would be known as Ann.
In December 1942, weeks-old Stanley Ann makes her appearance as a dependent on Dunham's pay records. (He's earning $22 a month, with $6.70 deducted for life insurance.)
Dunham spent the first year and a half of his war service stateside, part of it in the 1802nd Ordnance Medium Maintenance Company, Aviation, at Baer Field in Indiana, now Fort Wayne International Airport. He transferred to the 1830th in March 1943, and the unit shipped out to England on the HMS Mauretania that October.
"All officers and enlisted men alike tumbled out of bunks and hammocks to get the last view of the good old U.S.A. as it disappeared beyond the horizon," Maloof wrote.
The rhythms of life for Dunham and the men of the 1830th emerge in the weekly unit histories recorded by Maloof. Men transfer in and out. There is field training. There is a lecture on mines and booby-traps, another on "sex morality." Typhus shots are administered. The company drills on the use of the carbine. The men take a 3-mile hike and bivouacked overnight. Time and again, they move on from one airfield to the next, supporting the front lines.
A number of men go AWOL. Others are charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct. Dunham's name turns up with surprising frequency, but his conduct generates nothing but praise.
"Sgt. Dunham has been doing a good job as Special Service noncom," Maloof takes time to report in September 1944.
At Clastres in France, stoves are issued to each tent "as the weather at this base has been very cold." French classes are offered. At Juvincourt, it is worthy of note when a small shower is installed, heated by a boiler found in the ruins of an old building. "It is the best bathing facilities we have had since coming to France," the unit history states.
In October 1944, as the front presses forward, the men attend a compulsory lecture in the 367th Fighter Group area on "What to Expect When Stationed in Germany."
It turns out Dunham could have skipped that one. On April 7, 1945, one week before the 1830th moves on to Germany and three weeks before Hitler commits suicide, Dunham is transferred "to the infantry," the unit history shows. Further digging reveals he was assigned to the 12th Reinforcement Depot, based in Tidworth, England, where replacements were being trained for depleted combat units.
The war was winding down in Europe by then, with air superiority achieved and the Luftwaffe not a major threat. Ralph Dunham says his brother was sent back to the states to prepare for possible transfer to Japan in the infantry. Were it not for V-J Day in August 1945, "he would've been fighting in Japan," says Ralph.
Stanley Dunham's military personnel file was destroyed, along with millions of others, in a 1973 fire at the Military Personnel Records center in St. Louis.
The AP pieced together Dunham's war years from other records at the Air Force Historical Research Agency at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama and the St. Louis center, and with help from historian David Spires at the University of Colorado. The richest details, however, come from Ralph Dunham and the private papers of Maloof, who died in 2005. Maloof's granddaughter, Tamara Maloof Ryman in Houston, searched through page after page to pry out details about Dunham for the AP.
Four months after he transferred out of the 1830th, Stanley Dunham was discharged from the Army on Aug. 30, 1945, at Fort Leavenworth.
Obama tells the rest of the story in his autobiography.
"Gramps returned from the war never having seen real combat, and the family headed to California, where he enrolled at Berkeley under the GI Bill," Obama wrote. "But the classroom couldn't contain his ambitions, his restlessness, and so the family moved again, first back to Kansas, then through a series of small Texas towns, then finally to Seattle, where they stayed long enough for my mother to finish high school."
Wanderlust sent the family on to Hawaii, where Dunham and his wife would be central figures in the life of their grandson after Obama's father left the family. Madelyn died last year at age 86, two days before Obama was elected president.
Stanley, who called his grandson "Bar," died in 1992 at age 73. His ashes are inurned at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, commonly known as Punchbowl.
"It was a small ceremony with a few of his bridge and golf partners in attendance, a three-gun salute, and a bugle playing taps," Obama wrote.
That ceremony was 17 years ago.
But Ralph Dunham is reminded of his brother every time Obama's face appears on TV or in the paper.
"You know," Ralph says, "he looks exactly like Stanley. He looks exactly like my brother, only he's dark."
___
Associated Press writer Betsy Taylor in St. Louis and investigative researcher Randy Herschaft in New York contributed to this report. Sphere: Related Content
WASHINGTON – Surely, Stanley Dunham was gazing skyward 65 years ago, on D-Day. Dunham, the man whom Barack Obama would one day call Gramps, was a 26-year-old supply sergeant stationed near the English Channel with the U.S. Army Air Forces when the invasion of Normandy at last began.
Six weeks later, he crossed the Channel, too, and followed the Allied front across France. A year later, he was on track to fight in Japan when the atom bomb sent him home instead.
Dunham, who died 17 years ago, was the Kansas-born grandfather with the outsized personality who helped to fill the hole in the future president's life created by the absence of Obama's Kenyan father. Sgt. Dunham's war years have been something of a mystery, the details of dates and places lost with the passage of time. The units that he served in were unknown even to the White House.
But a life-size portrait emerges from interviews and records unearthed by The Associated Press. On D-Day, documents place him at Stoney Cross, England, in the 1830th Ordnance Supply and Maintenance Co., Aviation.
"This was the day we had all been waiting for," Dunham's commanding officer wrote the night of June 6 from their base near the English Channel. "Planes by the hundreds took off and landed at our field from dusk until dawn."
His company supported the 9th Air Force as it prepared for the assault on Normandy and took part in the drive that carried the Allies across France. Dunham and the men of the 1830th came across six weeks after the initial Normandy invasion and followed the front through France, servicing airfields known by numbers — A-2, A-44, A-71, and more — in places such as Brucheville, Cricqueville, St.-Jean-de-Daye, Peray, Clastres, Juvincourt and Saint-Dizier.
On this coming Saturday, the 65th anniversary of D-Day, Obama will visit the gravesites and beaches of Normandy, and look out across the channel that his grandfather crossed from a staging area at Southampton, England.
"I knew him when he was older," Obama said of his grandfather in 2007. "But I think about him now and then as he enlisted — a man of 23, fresh-faced with a wise-guy grin."
To the 75 men of Dunham's company, he was a good guy to have around.
For one thing, he taught the men how to use their new gas masks.
He also came up with a radio, games and books for a day room that Dunham's commanding officer described as "a swell place to spend an evening."
And when the 1830th had a party in the gym three days after D-Day, they had Dunham to thank for it.
On May 31, 1944, payday, Dunham had taken up a collection of 35 British pounds — about $150 in today's dollars — to finance the event. He lined up a convoy of girls from Southampton who, the men hoped, would be "simply smashing," as his commanding officer, Frederick Maloof, wrote in his diary.
"The party was a huge success, except that the beer ran out about 10:30 p.m.," 1st Lt. Maloof later reported. "All agreed that the orchestra was good. A few of the die-hards were still crooning over the empty beer barrels at an early morning hour."
For all the good times, the strains of war were ever present for Dunham and his fellow soldiers.
On the evening after D-Day, Dunham's unit dug 27 foxholes.
"This was done in case of a retaliation by the Germans," Maloof wrote.
On June 11, the first hospital ships returned from France, bringing tales of the "hardships encountered on invasion day."
That same day, Maloof wrote that "our mail has not been reaching home, and the wives and sweethearts are beginning to wonder if we have gone across the channel on the first wave."
The wives included Madelyn Dunham, back home in Wichita, Kan., with Stanley Ann, a toddler who would grow up to be Obama's mother.
Madelyn, the beloved grandmother known as "Toot" who helped raise the future president, did her part for the war effort, working the night shift as a supervisor on the B-29 bomber assembly line at the Boeing plant.
Her brother is part of the war story, too. Charles Payne, Obama's great-uncle, in 1945 helped liberate a sub-camp of the Nazi concentration camp at Buchenwald, which Obama will visit this Friday.
Stanley Dunham's older brother Ralph, another great-uncle to Obama, also is a branch in the wartime family tree.
Ralph was called up after Stanley enlisted. He landed at Normandy's Omaha Easy Red beach on D-Day plus four, then worked his way through France, Italy and Germany as an assignment and personnel officer.
In the months before the invasion, the brothers met up twice in England while on leave. Once, they came across each other by happenstance in London, where Ralph was staying at the Russell Hotel.
"I walked down the steps and there was my brother sitting on a settee," 92-year-old Ralph Dunham said in interview with the AP.
It turned out that Stanley's hotel had run out of rations and he was sent to the Russell in search of food. The two Kansas boys — each 6-foot-2, by Ralph's recollection — spent the rest of their leave together, touring the Tower of London, Buckingham Palace and other sites with a helpful taxi driver. At night, they sampled the London theater offerings. Ralph remembers they saw "Hamlet."
The brothers had a double portrait snapped to send home — after Stanley borrowed a jacket from a fellow member of the 9th Air Force so they'd both be in uniform. The February 1944 portrait is one that Ralph still treasures.
Late in July, six weeks after D-Day, Stanley Dunham's unit crossed the English Channel and landed at Omaha Beach.
"After looking over the Atlantic wall, with its pill boxes, we all agreed it was a miracle that the Allies were able to land," Maloof wrote.
In his autobiography, Obama reports that during the war his grandfather was "sloshing around in the mud of France, part of Patton's Army."
That's right, at least for a few months.
In February 1945, at Saint-Dizier, Dunham's unit was assigned to Patton's 3rd Army, and Dunham remained in that company until early April. Prior to February, Dunham's unit had supported 1st Army operations.
Obama sketches Dunham as a man with a wild streak early on who settled down to sell furniture and life insurance.
By the time he joined the Army, he already had lived large.
He'd been thrown out of his high school in El Dorado, Kan., for punching the principal in the nose. For three years he'd lived off odd jobs, "hopping rail cars to Chicago, then California, then back again, dabbling in moonshine, cards and women," Obama wrote in his autobiography, "Dreams from My Father."
Dunham had also fallen in love with a woman from the other side of the tracks — the good side — and married her. He eloped with Madelyn Payne just before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, on Dec. 7, 1941, and he was quick to enlist after the Japanese attack.
"He was really gung-ho," remembers Ralph. "He didn't have to go because he was married. He could have held off."
He was inducted at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., on Jan. 15, 1942.
That November, while Dunham still was stationed stateside, he got leave to come home to Kansas when his daughter, Stanley Ann, was born at Fort Leavenworth.
Her unusual name, Obama wrote, was "one of Gramps' less judicious ideas — he had wanted a son." The family called her Stannie. Later, she would be known as Ann.
In December 1942, weeks-old Stanley Ann makes her appearance as a dependent on Dunham's pay records. (He's earning $22 a month, with $6.70 deducted for life insurance.)
Dunham spent the first year and a half of his war service stateside, part of it in the 1802nd Ordnance Medium Maintenance Company, Aviation, at Baer Field in Indiana, now Fort Wayne International Airport. He transferred to the 1830th in March 1943, and the unit shipped out to England on the HMS Mauretania that October.
"All officers and enlisted men alike tumbled out of bunks and hammocks to get the last view of the good old U.S.A. as it disappeared beyond the horizon," Maloof wrote.
The rhythms of life for Dunham and the men of the 1830th emerge in the weekly unit histories recorded by Maloof. Men transfer in and out. There is field training. There is a lecture on mines and booby-traps, another on "sex morality." Typhus shots are administered. The company drills on the use of the carbine. The men take a 3-mile hike and bivouacked overnight. Time and again, they move on from one airfield to the next, supporting the front lines.
A number of men go AWOL. Others are charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct. Dunham's name turns up with surprising frequency, but his conduct generates nothing but praise.
"Sgt. Dunham has been doing a good job as Special Service noncom," Maloof takes time to report in September 1944.
At Clastres in France, stoves are issued to each tent "as the weather at this base has been very cold." French classes are offered. At Juvincourt, it is worthy of note when a small shower is installed, heated by a boiler found in the ruins of an old building. "It is the best bathing facilities we have had since coming to France," the unit history states.
In October 1944, as the front presses forward, the men attend a compulsory lecture in the 367th Fighter Group area on "What to Expect When Stationed in Germany."
It turns out Dunham could have skipped that one. On April 7, 1945, one week before the 1830th moves on to Germany and three weeks before Hitler commits suicide, Dunham is transferred "to the infantry," the unit history shows. Further digging reveals he was assigned to the 12th Reinforcement Depot, based in Tidworth, England, where replacements were being trained for depleted combat units.
The war was winding down in Europe by then, with air superiority achieved and the Luftwaffe not a major threat. Ralph Dunham says his brother was sent back to the states to prepare for possible transfer to Japan in the infantry. Were it not for V-J Day in August 1945, "he would've been fighting in Japan," says Ralph.
Stanley Dunham's military personnel file was destroyed, along with millions of others, in a 1973 fire at the Military Personnel Records center in St. Louis.
The AP pieced together Dunham's war years from other records at the Air Force Historical Research Agency at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama and the St. Louis center, and with help from historian David Spires at the University of Colorado. The richest details, however, come from Ralph Dunham and the private papers of Maloof, who died in 2005. Maloof's granddaughter, Tamara Maloof Ryman in Houston, searched through page after page to pry out details about Dunham for the AP.
Four months after he transferred out of the 1830th, Stanley Dunham was discharged from the Army on Aug. 30, 1945, at Fort Leavenworth.
Obama tells the rest of the story in his autobiography.
"Gramps returned from the war never having seen real combat, and the family headed to California, where he enrolled at Berkeley under the GI Bill," Obama wrote. "But the classroom couldn't contain his ambitions, his restlessness, and so the family moved again, first back to Kansas, then through a series of small Texas towns, then finally to Seattle, where they stayed long enough for my mother to finish high school."
Wanderlust sent the family on to Hawaii, where Dunham and his wife would be central figures in the life of their grandson after Obama's father left the family. Madelyn died last year at age 86, two days before Obama was elected president.
Stanley, who called his grandson "Bar," died in 1992 at age 73. His ashes are inurned at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, commonly known as Punchbowl.
"It was a small ceremony with a few of his bridge and golf partners in attendance, a three-gun salute, and a bugle playing taps," Obama wrote.
That ceremony was 17 years ago.
But Ralph Dunham is reminded of his brother every time Obama's face appears on TV or in the paper.
"You know," Ralph says, "he looks exactly like Stanley. He looks exactly like my brother, only he's dark."
___
Associated Press writer Betsy Taylor in St. Louis and investigative researcher Randy Herschaft in New York contributed to this report. Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Rasmussen: Only 68% Of American Oppose National Sales Tax
From Rasmussen Reports
To raise additional money for the government, just 18% of Americans nationwide favor a national sales tax. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 68% oppose such a tax.
There is more support for the concept if sales tax revenue is used to provide health insurance for all Americans. In that scenario, 40% favor a national sales tax and 49% are opposed.
Democrats strongly support a national sales tax to provide universal health insurance coverage. Republicans are opposed by a three-to-one margin, and those not affiliated with either major party are opposed two-to-one.
A plurality of Americans would support a national sales tax if it meant getting rid of the federal income tax: 43% favor that trade-off, but 38% are opposed. Pluralities of Republicans and unaffiliateds like the idea, while a plurality of Democrats are against it.
Forty-eight percent (48%) say a national sales tax is fairer than an income tax while 26% hold the opposite view. The sales tax is viewed as fairer by 52% of Republicans, 44% of Democrats and 49% of unaffiliateds.
According to recent news reports, some in Washington say adoption of a national sales tax on all goods and services would lead to a reduction in income tax rates. However, Americans are skeptical that the nation’s politicians would actually go through with such a trade-off.
Only 20% of Americans think it’s even somewhat likely that the government would actually cut income tax rates once the national sales tax was approved. Just eight percent (8%) say it’s Very Likely income tax rates would come down.
A Washington Post article this week said a national sales tax ranging from 10% to 25% is being discussed. In the Rasmussen Reports survey, no specific levels of taxation were mentioned. However, since the tax rate would be much higher than existing state sales taxes, it is likely that support for a national sales tax would decline as specific numbers became known.
An earlier survey found that 34% were generally willing to pay higher taxes to provide health insurance for all. But there was strong opposition to taxing health insurance benefits provided by companies. Fifty percent (50%) are willing to tax alcohol products to generate revenue for health care, but there is little support for a “sin-tax” on non-diet sodas.
Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters prefer a government that offers fewer services and has lower taxes. Seventy-seven percent (77%) say the bigger problem in the United States is the unwillingness of politicians to control government spending rather than Americans' unwillingness to pay higher taxes. Sphere: Related Content
To raise additional money for the government, just 18% of Americans nationwide favor a national sales tax. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 68% oppose such a tax.
There is more support for the concept if sales tax revenue is used to provide health insurance for all Americans. In that scenario, 40% favor a national sales tax and 49% are opposed.
Democrats strongly support a national sales tax to provide universal health insurance coverage. Republicans are opposed by a three-to-one margin, and those not affiliated with either major party are opposed two-to-one.
A plurality of Americans would support a national sales tax if it meant getting rid of the federal income tax: 43% favor that trade-off, but 38% are opposed. Pluralities of Republicans and unaffiliateds like the idea, while a plurality of Democrats are against it.
Forty-eight percent (48%) say a national sales tax is fairer than an income tax while 26% hold the opposite view. The sales tax is viewed as fairer by 52% of Republicans, 44% of Democrats and 49% of unaffiliateds.
According to recent news reports, some in Washington say adoption of a national sales tax on all goods and services would lead to a reduction in income tax rates. However, Americans are skeptical that the nation’s politicians would actually go through with such a trade-off.
Only 20% of Americans think it’s even somewhat likely that the government would actually cut income tax rates once the national sales tax was approved. Just eight percent (8%) say it’s Very Likely income tax rates would come down.
A Washington Post article this week said a national sales tax ranging from 10% to 25% is being discussed. In the Rasmussen Reports survey, no specific levels of taxation were mentioned. However, since the tax rate would be much higher than existing state sales taxes, it is likely that support for a national sales tax would decline as specific numbers became known.
An earlier survey found that 34% were generally willing to pay higher taxes to provide health insurance for all. But there was strong opposition to taxing health insurance benefits provided by companies. Fifty percent (50%) are willing to tax alcohol products to generate revenue for health care, but there is little support for a “sin-tax” on non-diet sodas.
Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters prefer a government that offers fewer services and has lower taxes. Seventy-seven percent (77%) say the bigger problem in the United States is the unwillingness of politicians to control government spending rather than Americans' unwillingness to pay higher taxes. Sphere: Related Content
Friday, May 29, 2009
Big Donors & Bundlers Among Obama's Picks
Courtesy of www.opensecrets.org
Published by Michael Beckel on May 28, 2009
U.S. presidents have long rewarded big campaign donors, fundraisers and other loyalists with ambassadorships, and Democratic President Barack Obama seems to be no exception. Yesterday, he officially announced his intent to nominate a dozen individuals to ambassadorships around the globe. That list included a handful of career Foreign Service officers, but it also included several big contributors and bundlers, who, along with their spouses, have given nearly $1 million almost exclusively to Democrats since the 1990 election cycle. These donations include $34,600 to Obama himself, on top of the hundreds of thousands of dollars they steered toward Obama's presidential campaign and inauguration committees as bundlers.
Some of the individuals nominated for ambassadorships have not contributed any money to federal candidates, parties or committees, but most have, including one who reportedly holds the nickname of "Vacuum Cleaner" for his ability to suck up checks for Democrats. The nominated individuals--including Obama's choice to be the ambassador to Ireland, which he announced on St. Patrick's Day--and their spouses, have contributed at least $968,900 since 1989. Of this sum, 89 percent has gone to Democrats. (Download a list of the political contributions the nominees have given by cycle, as well as the candidates that have received money from them here: Ambassador_Data.xls. Note that there are two tabs.)
Here's the money-in-politics breakdown for Obama's recent ambassador picks:
Louis B. Susman: This lawyer and investment banker has reportedly earned the nicknames the "vacuum cleaner" and "big bundler" for his prowess as a bundler of campaign cash. He bundled at least $100,000 for Obama's presidential campaign and at least $300,000 for his inauguration, according to Public Citizen. This includes $50,000 from his personal funds. Further, he and his wife have contributed at least $581,400 to federal candidates, committees and parties, with 99 percent of that sum going to Democrats, including at least $12,800 to Obama. He has been nominated to be the ambassador to the United Kingdom.
Daniel M. Rooney: Owner and chairman of the Pittsburgh Steeler's football team, he and his wife have contributed at least $152,400 to federal candidates, committees and parties since the 1990 election cycle, including $500 to Obama. Ninety percent of their funds have gone to Democrats. Rooney also endorsed Obama in the run-up to Pennsylvania's heated presidential primary in April of 2008. He is a co-founder of the Ireland-related fundraising organization, The Ireland Funds, as well, and he has been nominated to be the ambassador to Ireland.
Charles H. Rivkin: The head of the entertainment company W!LDBRAIN, he served as a delegate to the Democratic National Committee in support of Obama last summer. Moreover, he sent at least half-a-million towards Obama's campaign committee as a bundler and another $300,000 toward his inaugural committee. Since the 1994 election cycle, he has personally contributed more than $97,500 to Democrats, including $6,600 to Obama, and now he has been nominated to be the ambassador to France.
John V. Roos: This lawyer has bundled at least $500,000 to Obama's presidential campaign. He and his wife have also contributed at least $77,500 to Democrats since the 1992 election cycle, including $6,900 to Obama. Roos is the CEO of the technology-oriented law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and has been nominated to be ambassador to Japan.
Laurie S. Fulton: The long-time lawyer who also served on the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace from 2004 to 2008 bundled at least $100,000 for Obama's presidential campaign. Moreover, she has personally contributed at least $48,900 to Democrats since the 1992 election cycle, including $4,850 to Obama. She has been nominated to be the ambassador to Denmark.
Vilma S. Martinez: The former head of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and a litigator with Munger, Tolles & Olson, she has contributed more than $9,800 to Democratic candidates and groups since 1989, including at least $1,900 to Obama. She has been nominated to be ambassador to Argentina.
Miguel H. DÃaz: A professor of theology at St. John's University and the College of Saint Benedict in Minnesota, Diaz contributed $1,000 to Obama's campaign last fall, his only federal political contribution to meet disclosure requirements since 1989. He also served as a Catholic adviser to Obama's presidential campaign. He has been nominated to be the ambassador to the Vatican.
Michael A. Battle, Sr.: The president of the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta, Ga., Battle has no known history of giving federal campaign cash. He has also been an administrator at several higher education institutions, including Chicago State University, Virginia State University and Hampton University, and he has been nominated to be the U.S. representative to the African Union, which has the rank of ambassador.
Robert S. Connan: Working for the U.S. Commercial Service within the Department of Commerce since 1980, Connan has not made any contributions exceeding $200 to federal candidates, committees or parties. His most recent position has been with the European Union, and he has been nominated to be the ambassador to Iceland.
Patricia A. Butenis: A career officer with the U.S. Foreign Service, which she joined in 1980, Butenis has served most recently in the U.S. embassy in Iraq. She has been nominated to be the ambassador to both Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Butenis has not given contributions greater than $200 since 1989.
Christopher William Dell: A career officer with the U.S. Foreign Service, which he joined in 1983, he served most recently in the U.S. embassy in Afghanistan. He has been nominated to be the ambassador to Kosovo, and he does not have any known federal campaign contributions.
Thomas A. Shannon: A career member of the U.S. Foreign Service, which he joined in 1984, he is the current Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Ambassador. He has not given any federal campaign contributions greater than $200, and he has been nominated to be the ambassador to Brazil.
Timothy J. Roemer: The former six-term Democratic congressman from Indiana was a member of the 9/11 Commission and provided Obama with a hearty endorsement during the contentious primary race with Hillary Clinton. He currently heads the Center for National Policy, a DC-based public policy organization, and has been nominated to be the ambassador to India. He has not made any personal campaign contributions to federal candidates, but he does appear in our Revolving Door database.
Since John F. Kennedy was president in the 1960s, about one-third of American ambassadors have been political appointees, according to the American Academy of Diplomacy. The academy is among the groups that think the public would be served if that number was lowered, and have urged Obama to cut that number to about ten percent. "Too often ambassadorships have served as political rewards for unqualified candidates," they wrote in a letter to Obama last year.
Time will tell if the Obama administration has any plans to buck this tradition and reduce the number of non-career appointees. And even as Obama rewards some big donors with ambassadorships, he has also pledged to grow the number of Foreign Service officers. The budget plan he submitted to Congress earlier this year would increase by 25 percent the total number of Foreign Service officers by 2013 and double the number of staffers at the U.S. Agency for International Development by 2012.CRP Researchers Doug Weber and Carolyn Sharpe contributed to this report. Sphere: Related Content
Published by Michael Beckel on May 28, 2009
U.S. presidents have long rewarded big campaign donors, fundraisers and other loyalists with ambassadorships, and Democratic President Barack Obama seems to be no exception. Yesterday, he officially announced his intent to nominate a dozen individuals to ambassadorships around the globe. That list included a handful of career Foreign Service officers, but it also included several big contributors and bundlers, who, along with their spouses, have given nearly $1 million almost exclusively to Democrats since the 1990 election cycle. These donations include $34,600 to Obama himself, on top of the hundreds of thousands of dollars they steered toward Obama's presidential campaign and inauguration committees as bundlers.
Some of the individuals nominated for ambassadorships have not contributed any money to federal candidates, parties or committees, but most have, including one who reportedly holds the nickname of "Vacuum Cleaner" for his ability to suck up checks for Democrats. The nominated individuals--including Obama's choice to be the ambassador to Ireland, which he announced on St. Patrick's Day--and their spouses, have contributed at least $968,900 since 1989. Of this sum, 89 percent has gone to Democrats. (Download a list of the political contributions the nominees have given by cycle, as well as the candidates that have received money from them here: Ambassador_Data.xls. Note that there are two tabs.)
Here's the money-in-politics breakdown for Obama's recent ambassador picks:
Louis B. Susman: This lawyer and investment banker has reportedly earned the nicknames the "vacuum cleaner" and "big bundler" for his prowess as a bundler of campaign cash. He bundled at least $100,000 for Obama's presidential campaign and at least $300,000 for his inauguration, according to Public Citizen. This includes $50,000 from his personal funds. Further, he and his wife have contributed at least $581,400 to federal candidates, committees and parties, with 99 percent of that sum going to Democrats, including at least $12,800 to Obama. He has been nominated to be the ambassador to the United Kingdom.
Daniel M. Rooney: Owner and chairman of the Pittsburgh Steeler's football team, he and his wife have contributed at least $152,400 to federal candidates, committees and parties since the 1990 election cycle, including $500 to Obama. Ninety percent of their funds have gone to Democrats. Rooney also endorsed Obama in the run-up to Pennsylvania's heated presidential primary in April of 2008. He is a co-founder of the Ireland-related fundraising organization, The Ireland Funds, as well, and he has been nominated to be the ambassador to Ireland.
Charles H. Rivkin: The head of the entertainment company W!LDBRAIN, he served as a delegate to the Democratic National Committee in support of Obama last summer. Moreover, he sent at least half-a-million towards Obama's campaign committee as a bundler and another $300,000 toward his inaugural committee. Since the 1994 election cycle, he has personally contributed more than $97,500 to Democrats, including $6,600 to Obama, and now he has been nominated to be the ambassador to France.
John V. Roos: This lawyer has bundled at least $500,000 to Obama's presidential campaign. He and his wife have also contributed at least $77,500 to Democrats since the 1992 election cycle, including $6,900 to Obama. Roos is the CEO of the technology-oriented law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and has been nominated to be ambassador to Japan.
Laurie S. Fulton: The long-time lawyer who also served on the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace from 2004 to 2008 bundled at least $100,000 for Obama's presidential campaign. Moreover, she has personally contributed at least $48,900 to Democrats since the 1992 election cycle, including $4,850 to Obama. She has been nominated to be the ambassador to Denmark.
Vilma S. Martinez: The former head of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and a litigator with Munger, Tolles & Olson, she has contributed more than $9,800 to Democratic candidates and groups since 1989, including at least $1,900 to Obama. She has been nominated to be ambassador to Argentina.
Miguel H. DÃaz: A professor of theology at St. John's University and the College of Saint Benedict in Minnesota, Diaz contributed $1,000 to Obama's campaign last fall, his only federal political contribution to meet disclosure requirements since 1989. He also served as a Catholic adviser to Obama's presidential campaign. He has been nominated to be the ambassador to the Vatican.
Michael A. Battle, Sr.: The president of the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta, Ga., Battle has no known history of giving federal campaign cash. He has also been an administrator at several higher education institutions, including Chicago State University, Virginia State University and Hampton University, and he has been nominated to be the U.S. representative to the African Union, which has the rank of ambassador.
Robert S. Connan: Working for the U.S. Commercial Service within the Department of Commerce since 1980, Connan has not made any contributions exceeding $200 to federal candidates, committees or parties. His most recent position has been with the European Union, and he has been nominated to be the ambassador to Iceland.
Patricia A. Butenis: A career officer with the U.S. Foreign Service, which she joined in 1980, Butenis has served most recently in the U.S. embassy in Iraq. She has been nominated to be the ambassador to both Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Butenis has not given contributions greater than $200 since 1989.
Christopher William Dell: A career officer with the U.S. Foreign Service, which he joined in 1983, he served most recently in the U.S. embassy in Afghanistan. He has been nominated to be the ambassador to Kosovo, and he does not have any known federal campaign contributions.
Thomas A. Shannon: A career member of the U.S. Foreign Service, which he joined in 1984, he is the current Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Ambassador. He has not given any federal campaign contributions greater than $200, and he has been nominated to be the ambassador to Brazil.
Timothy J. Roemer: The former six-term Democratic congressman from Indiana was a member of the 9/11 Commission and provided Obama with a hearty endorsement during the contentious primary race with Hillary Clinton. He currently heads the Center for National Policy, a DC-based public policy organization, and has been nominated to be the ambassador to India. He has not made any personal campaign contributions to federal candidates, but he does appear in our Revolving Door database.
Since John F. Kennedy was president in the 1960s, about one-third of American ambassadors have been political appointees, according to the American Academy of Diplomacy. The academy is among the groups that think the public would be served if that number was lowered, and have urged Obama to cut that number to about ten percent. "Too often ambassadorships have served as political rewards for unqualified candidates," they wrote in a letter to Obama last year.
Time will tell if the Obama administration has any plans to buck this tradition and reduce the number of non-career appointees. And even as Obama rewards some big donors with ambassadorships, he has also pledged to grow the number of Foreign Service officers. The budget plan he submitted to Congress earlier this year would increase by 25 percent the total number of Foreign Service officers by 2013 and double the number of staffers at the U.S. Agency for International Development by 2012.CRP Researchers Doug Weber and Carolyn Sharpe contributed to this report. Sphere: Related Content
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Sounding Taps at Arlington - Fulfilling a Promise
This was posted on the Buglers Across America website. This has absolutely nothing to do with President Obama, but it is an inspiring story and felt it should be shared. Please do not misconstrue the policy at Arlington to be a slight by our President on the veterans - it is not. The policy was instituted by the U.S. Army and has been in place for decades. Now, for the "rest of the story..."
I promised a friend of mine, Len Cowherd, that I would sound Taps for his son, Leonard Cowherd III, somewhere and sometime on May 16th, the 5th anniversary of Leonard's death in Iraq, where he was killed by a sniper. (You can learn more about Leonard at www.cowherd.org)
I did not anticipate going to Arlington, where Leonard is buried (Section 60, No. 7983), but Pam and I decided that it was the only right thing to do.When we arrived at Arlington National Cemetery, I fealt that I should receive permission first to sound Taps for Leonard. Disappointedly, I was told that it was not allowed. That made me very upset, but I acknowledged their decision.
Pam and I proceeded to find Section 60, and Leonard's gravestone. After a few minutes of searching the thousands of gravestones up to 7983, we found Leonard. We placed a flag next to his stone. There were only a hand-full of visitors in the area, and I knew that they were very saddened to be there, so I was apprehensive about doing anything. A veteran came up to us and expressed his sorrow for our loss. We explained to him that we were there on the behalf of the Cowherd family and would like to sound Taps for their son/brother. After an extended conversation with Cpt. Edward Liu, of the Army National Guard, he stated that "no one is going to object to your sounding Taps for Leonard".
I went back to Leonard's gravesite, and, after a few moments of prayer, sounded Taps for 2nd Lt. Leonard M. Cowherd, US Army, who died in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was born on August 16, 1981, and died May 16, 2004. He was a recent graduate of West Point Academy.
From this experience, all I can say is do not hesitate to show your patriotism. With what is going on this day in age, we must stand up and say "No, I am going to honor this hero, whether it is allowed or not. It must be done".
If you don't, chances are, no one else will.As Sgt. Will Mock said (who was also killed in Iraq) "Strength and Honor" "Honor and Strength"!!! IE: Do not fear, and do not hesitate to honor!!!!! Sphere: Related Content
I promised a friend of mine, Len Cowherd, that I would sound Taps for his son, Leonard Cowherd III, somewhere and sometime on May 16th, the 5th anniversary of Leonard's death in Iraq, where he was killed by a sniper. (You can learn more about Leonard at www.cowherd.org)
I did not anticipate going to Arlington, where Leonard is buried (Section 60, No. 7983), but Pam and I decided that it was the only right thing to do.When we arrived at Arlington National Cemetery, I fealt that I should receive permission first to sound Taps for Leonard. Disappointedly, I was told that it was not allowed. That made me very upset, but I acknowledged their decision.
Pam and I proceeded to find Section 60, and Leonard's gravestone. After a few minutes of searching the thousands of gravestones up to 7983, we found Leonard. We placed a flag next to his stone. There were only a hand-full of visitors in the area, and I knew that they were very saddened to be there, so I was apprehensive about doing anything. A veteran came up to us and expressed his sorrow for our loss. We explained to him that we were there on the behalf of the Cowherd family and would like to sound Taps for their son/brother. After an extended conversation with Cpt. Edward Liu, of the Army National Guard, he stated that "no one is going to object to your sounding Taps for Leonard".
I went back to Leonard's gravesite, and, after a few moments of prayer, sounded Taps for 2nd Lt. Leonard M. Cowherd, US Army, who died in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was born on August 16, 1981, and died May 16, 2004. He was a recent graduate of West Point Academy.
From this experience, all I can say is do not hesitate to show your patriotism. With what is going on this day in age, we must stand up and say "No, I am going to honor this hero, whether it is allowed or not. It must be done".
If you don't, chances are, no one else will.As Sgt. Will Mock said (who was also killed in Iraq) "Strength and Honor" "Honor and Strength"!!! IE: Do not fear, and do not hesitate to honor!!!!! Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, May 21, 2009
GOP decries 'socialism' of Obama, Democrats
By Paul West
May 21, 2009
Baltimore Sun
OXON HILL - - The Republican National Committee approved a watered-down resolution Wednesday evening that called on President Barack Obama and the Democrats to stop "pushing our country towards socialism and government control."
The action, at a brief and rare special session of the RNC in Republican National Chairman Michael S. Steele's home county, spared the party the potential embarrassment of the more strident language of the original resolution.
An earlier version of the measure would have called for the opposition to "rename themselves the Democrat Socialist Party." The revised resolution was approved by a voice vote, in a package with two other measures, with just one dissenting vote by an unidentified committeewoman.
Steele, who worked behind the scenes in recent weeks to resolve the issue, had objected to the initial wording, warning in a memo last month that it would give the party's adversaries an opportunity to "mischaracterize Republicans."
Steele, a resident of nearby Upper Marlboro, presided over the 23-minute meeting, which concluded a three-day gathering of party officials.
The annual meeting of state Republican chairmen became a forum for Steele to try to relaunch his chairmanship after an uneven start. He delivered a speech Tuesday attacking Obama and declaring that after recent electoral losses, a Republican comeback has begun.
Steele described the sessions, held in Prince George's County at his request, as "successful." But he did not appear at a post-session news conference.
"There's some place he's got to be," an aide explained. A party spokesman, Trevor Francis, pointed out that Steele had never been scheduled to take questions from reporters.
Steele's exposure to the news media has been carefully controlled in the wake of a series of gaffes. At a private session with party leaders earlier in the week, he said he had learned his lesson and vowed to impose greater discipline on himself.
"I put my size 13s in my mouth several times, and I'm here to tell you I'm going to stop," Steele said, according to a participant.
Steele was asked on his way into the closing session why he wouldn't be taking questions from reporters.
"Because I'm tired," he said. Sphere: Related Content
May 21, 2009
Baltimore Sun
OXON HILL - - The Republican National Committee approved a watered-down resolution Wednesday evening that called on President Barack Obama and the Democrats to stop "pushing our country towards socialism and government control."
The action, at a brief and rare special session of the RNC in Republican National Chairman Michael S. Steele's home county, spared the party the potential embarrassment of the more strident language of the original resolution.
An earlier version of the measure would have called for the opposition to "rename themselves the Democrat Socialist Party." The revised resolution was approved by a voice vote, in a package with two other measures, with just one dissenting vote by an unidentified committeewoman.
Steele, who worked behind the scenes in recent weeks to resolve the issue, had objected to the initial wording, warning in a memo last month that it would give the party's adversaries an opportunity to "mischaracterize Republicans."
Steele, a resident of nearby Upper Marlboro, presided over the 23-minute meeting, which concluded a three-day gathering of party officials.
The annual meeting of state Republican chairmen became a forum for Steele to try to relaunch his chairmanship after an uneven start. He delivered a speech Tuesday attacking Obama and declaring that after recent electoral losses, a Republican comeback has begun.
Steele described the sessions, held in Prince George's County at his request, as "successful." But he did not appear at a post-session news conference.
"There's some place he's got to be," an aide explained. A party spokesman, Trevor Francis, pointed out that Steele had never been scheduled to take questions from reporters.
Steele's exposure to the news media has been carefully controlled in the wake of a series of gaffes. At a private session with party leaders earlier in the week, he said he had learned his lesson and vowed to impose greater discipline on himself.
"I put my size 13s in my mouth several times, and I'm here to tell you I'm going to stop," Steele said, according to a participant.
Steele was asked on his way into the closing session why he wouldn't be taking questions from reporters.
"Because I'm tired," he said. Sphere: Related Content
Friday, May 15, 2009
On Abortion, Obama Is Drawn Into Debate He Hoped to Avoid
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
New York Times
Published: May 14, 2009
WASHINGTON — In nearly four months in office, President Obama has pursued a careful two-pronged strategy on abortion, enacting policies that secure a woman’s right to the procedure while vowing to move beyond the culture wars that have divided the nation on the issue for more than three decades.
Now, Mr. Obama is suddenly in the thick of the battle he had hoped to transcend, and his delicate balancing act is being put to the test.
The confluence of two events — his commencement speech on Sunday at the University of Notre Dame, in Indiana, and his forthcoming choice of a candidate to replace Justice David H. Souter, who is retiring from the Supreme Court — threaten to upend Mr. Obama’s effort to “tamp down some of the anger” over abortion, as he said in a news conference last month, and to distract from his other domestic priorities, like health care.
The invitation from Notre Dame, a Roman Catholic institution, has riled opponents of abortion, who object to giving such a platform to a supporter of abortion rights. The local bishop has vowed to boycott the ceremony. Some graduating seniors are planning to protest it. Conservatives, frustrated by what they regard as Mr. Obama’s skillful efforts to paint himself as a moderate, are all over the airwaves denouncing him as “the most radical, pro-abortion of any American president,” as Newt Gingrich, a former House speaker, said on Fox News.
The White House must now decide whether to engage in the debate and, if so, how deeply. Mr. Obama’s communications adviser, Anita Dunn, said in an interview that the president was likely to “make reference to the controversy” in his speech on Sunday. “You can’t ignore it,” Ms. Dunn said, “but at the same time, you can’t allow it to become the focus of a day that’s actually supposed to be about the graduates.”
While the address has galvanized abortion opponents, the Supreme Court opening has galvanized backers of abortion rights. Both sides expect Mr. Obama to pick a candidate who would uphold Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. But interest groups are taking no chances. “Take Action: Protect a Woman’s Right to Choose!” declared the Center for Reproductive Rights in an e-mail message to supporters on Wednesday.
Mr. Obama frames his position on abortion as a nuanced one — he calls it a “a moral and ethical issue” best left to women and doctors — and he envisions himself forging consensus around causes like reducing unintended pregnancies and promoting adoption. As he said in a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, “Culture wars are so ’90s.”
As president, Mr. Obama, who during the campaign answered a question about when human life begins by saying it was “above my pay grade,” has tried to straddle the abortion divide. He has done so partly by reaching out to religious conservatives, partly by avoiding the most contentious legislative battles and partly by reversing the policies of his predecessor, George W. Bush, a faithful ally of abortion opponents, in piecemeal fashion — all while the nation has been consumed by the economic crisis.
He has named abortion rights advocates to top jobs; Dawn Johnsen, a former legal director of Naral Pro-Choice America, is his pick to run the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. He has repealed the so-called Mexico City rule, which prohibited tax dollars from going to organizations that provide abortions overseas; lifted Mr. Bush’s limits on embryonic stem cell research; stripped financing for abstinence-only sex education; and is seeking to undo a last-minute Bush regulation giving broad protections to health providers who refuse to take part in abortions.
Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said she told allies that their movement was emerging from “eight years in the wilderness.”
But even as Mr. Obama has delighted abortion rights advocates, he has dialed back some earlier ambitions. In 2007, he promised Planned Parenthood that “the first thing I’d do as president” would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which effectively codifies Roe v. Wade. Now he says the bill is “not my highest legislative priority,” as he put it at a recent news conference.
Mr. Obama is also reaching out. At his direction, his top domestic policy adviser, Melody C. Barnes, is convening a series of discussions with people on both sides of the debate, with a goal to draft a set of policy recommendations by late summer.
“What we’ve said to people is, ‘This isn’t an opportunity to relitigate Roe v. Wade,’ ” Ms. Barnes said. “The president wants us to talk about reducing unintended pregnancies, but he doesn’t want this to be the conversation that never ends. His goal is to get something done.”
David P. Gushee, a professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University in Atlanta who backed Mr. Obama despite their differences on abortion, has participated in the talks. He said the president was sending a message to moderate Catholics and evangelicals that “he clearly knows what the bright red lines are and is trying to avoid stepping over them.”
But religious conservatives and more ardent abortion opponents who have not been included say Mr. Obama is trying to have it both ways. Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, an advocacy group, said that if the president really wanted to forge consensus, he would advocate rules allowing parents to be notified if their teenage daughters sought an abortion and banning the procedure known as partial-birth abortion. As an Illinois state senator, Mr. Obama voted “present” on such initiatives, enabling their defeat.
“Moderate rhetoric, hard-left policies,” said Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, a vocal abortion opponent, assessing Mr. Obama’s approach.
Polls show that the American public is deeply conflicted over abortion and that support has declined steadily over the years. In 1995, roughly 60 percent of Americans believed abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Last month, in a survey by the Pew Research Center, that number stood at 46 percent. A Gallup survey that examined seven decisions early in Mr. Obama’s presidency found that the least popular was the one to overturn the ban on sending tax dollars to organizations that provide abortions overseas.
Douglas W. Kmiec, a constitutional scholar and former Notre Dame professor who was an outspoken critic of abortion when he worked for Presidents Ronald Reagan and the elder George Bush, said he had been advising the White House to use the speech at the university on Sunday to tackle the controversy head on, with the president making the case that “we already have agreement, we both respect life, we both view abortion as a moral tragedy.”
But as to whether Mr. Obama can indeed transcend the culture wars, Mr. Kmiec sounded uncertain.
“If there’s anybody who can, it’s the president,” he said. “Whether the culture wars will let him is the question, and the answer is unknown.” Sphere: Related Content
New York Times
Published: May 14, 2009
WASHINGTON — In nearly four months in office, President Obama has pursued a careful two-pronged strategy on abortion, enacting policies that secure a woman’s right to the procedure while vowing to move beyond the culture wars that have divided the nation on the issue for more than three decades.
Now, Mr. Obama is suddenly in the thick of the battle he had hoped to transcend, and his delicate balancing act is being put to the test.
The confluence of two events — his commencement speech on Sunday at the University of Notre Dame, in Indiana, and his forthcoming choice of a candidate to replace Justice David H. Souter, who is retiring from the Supreme Court — threaten to upend Mr. Obama’s effort to “tamp down some of the anger” over abortion, as he said in a news conference last month, and to distract from his other domestic priorities, like health care.
The invitation from Notre Dame, a Roman Catholic institution, has riled opponents of abortion, who object to giving such a platform to a supporter of abortion rights. The local bishop has vowed to boycott the ceremony. Some graduating seniors are planning to protest it. Conservatives, frustrated by what they regard as Mr. Obama’s skillful efforts to paint himself as a moderate, are all over the airwaves denouncing him as “the most radical, pro-abortion of any American president,” as Newt Gingrich, a former House speaker, said on Fox News.
The White House must now decide whether to engage in the debate and, if so, how deeply. Mr. Obama’s communications adviser, Anita Dunn, said in an interview that the president was likely to “make reference to the controversy” in his speech on Sunday. “You can’t ignore it,” Ms. Dunn said, “but at the same time, you can’t allow it to become the focus of a day that’s actually supposed to be about the graduates.”
While the address has galvanized abortion opponents, the Supreme Court opening has galvanized backers of abortion rights. Both sides expect Mr. Obama to pick a candidate who would uphold Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. But interest groups are taking no chances. “Take Action: Protect a Woman’s Right to Choose!” declared the Center for Reproductive Rights in an e-mail message to supporters on Wednesday.
Mr. Obama frames his position on abortion as a nuanced one — he calls it a “a moral and ethical issue” best left to women and doctors — and he envisions himself forging consensus around causes like reducing unintended pregnancies and promoting adoption. As he said in a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, “Culture wars are so ’90s.”
As president, Mr. Obama, who during the campaign answered a question about when human life begins by saying it was “above my pay grade,” has tried to straddle the abortion divide. He has done so partly by reaching out to religious conservatives, partly by avoiding the most contentious legislative battles and partly by reversing the policies of his predecessor, George W. Bush, a faithful ally of abortion opponents, in piecemeal fashion — all while the nation has been consumed by the economic crisis.
He has named abortion rights advocates to top jobs; Dawn Johnsen, a former legal director of Naral Pro-Choice America, is his pick to run the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. He has repealed the so-called Mexico City rule, which prohibited tax dollars from going to organizations that provide abortions overseas; lifted Mr. Bush’s limits on embryonic stem cell research; stripped financing for abstinence-only sex education; and is seeking to undo a last-minute Bush regulation giving broad protections to health providers who refuse to take part in abortions.
Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said she told allies that their movement was emerging from “eight years in the wilderness.”
But even as Mr. Obama has delighted abortion rights advocates, he has dialed back some earlier ambitions. In 2007, he promised Planned Parenthood that “the first thing I’d do as president” would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which effectively codifies Roe v. Wade. Now he says the bill is “not my highest legislative priority,” as he put it at a recent news conference.
Mr. Obama is also reaching out. At his direction, his top domestic policy adviser, Melody C. Barnes, is convening a series of discussions with people on both sides of the debate, with a goal to draft a set of policy recommendations by late summer.
“What we’ve said to people is, ‘This isn’t an opportunity to relitigate Roe v. Wade,’ ” Ms. Barnes said. “The president wants us to talk about reducing unintended pregnancies, but he doesn’t want this to be the conversation that never ends. His goal is to get something done.”
David P. Gushee, a professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University in Atlanta who backed Mr. Obama despite their differences on abortion, has participated in the talks. He said the president was sending a message to moderate Catholics and evangelicals that “he clearly knows what the bright red lines are and is trying to avoid stepping over them.”
But religious conservatives and more ardent abortion opponents who have not been included say Mr. Obama is trying to have it both ways. Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, an advocacy group, said that if the president really wanted to forge consensus, he would advocate rules allowing parents to be notified if their teenage daughters sought an abortion and banning the procedure known as partial-birth abortion. As an Illinois state senator, Mr. Obama voted “present” on such initiatives, enabling their defeat.
“Moderate rhetoric, hard-left policies,” said Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, a vocal abortion opponent, assessing Mr. Obama’s approach.
Polls show that the American public is deeply conflicted over abortion and that support has declined steadily over the years. In 1995, roughly 60 percent of Americans believed abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Last month, in a survey by the Pew Research Center, that number stood at 46 percent. A Gallup survey that examined seven decisions early in Mr. Obama’s presidency found that the least popular was the one to overturn the ban on sending tax dollars to organizations that provide abortions overseas.
Douglas W. Kmiec, a constitutional scholar and former Notre Dame professor who was an outspoken critic of abortion when he worked for Presidents Ronald Reagan and the elder George Bush, said he had been advising the White House to use the speech at the university on Sunday to tackle the controversy head on, with the president making the case that “we already have agreement, we both respect life, we both view abortion as a moral tragedy.”
But as to whether Mr. Obama can indeed transcend the culture wars, Mr. Kmiec sounded uncertain.
“If there’s anybody who can, it’s the president,” he said. “Whether the culture wars will let him is the question, and the answer is unknown.” Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Obama Skips Visit to Normandy, American Cemetery
Due to the upcoming 65th Anniversary of the Normandy Invasion, I think this is worth posting, even though it's a month late.
by Mark Impomeni
PoliticsDaily.com
Originally published April 8, 2009
Reports out of London indicate that President Barack Obama declined an inviation from French President Nicholas Sarkozy to visit Normandy's Omaha Beach and the American Cemetery at Colleville-sur-mer on his way to Strasbourg for the NATO summit last week. The Daily Telegraph reports that White House officials travelled to France last month to discuss the visit with their counterparts on Sarkozy's staff. But one American official familiar with the negotiations said that President Obama never had any intention of making the stop over.
"It wasn't going to happen. We went through the motions to placate President Sarkozy but giving special treatment to France was not on our agenda. During this trip, we wanted to maintain a balance between the British, [the] German[s], and France."
The White House refused to comment on the Telegraph's report.
The rejection of Sarkozy's offer is the latest snub of the French president by President Obama. Sarkozy reportedly tried in vain to meet wih then President-elect Obama in Washington late last year. The Telegraph reports further that Sarkozy was "piqued" that Obama held a 50-minute press conference with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown upon arriving in London last week. The president held only a brief media availability with Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
But perhaps most damaging for the Administration domestically is President Obama's failure to visit the American Cemetery in Normandy. During the campaign, Obama was heavily criticized for cancelling a planned visit to the U.S. military hospital in Ramstein, Germany, for a meeting with wounded troops. Skipping a visit to the cemetery could spark similar criticism. Moreover, the White House would not comment on whether President Obama will attend the ceremonies for the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landings in June, although a Sarkozy aide said Obama has agreed to the trip. So it remains unclear whether President Obama will get another chance to honor the 9,387 American soldiers buried there.
It is becoming clear, however, that there is tension between Obama and Sarkozy, despite French denials. Sarkozy has been critical of Obama's foreign policy ideas, especially with respect to Iran's nuclear programs. White House officials are not commenting, but they are also not going out of their way to quell the rumors. President Obama campaigned on a promise to reestablish relationships with American allies. So far, though, the relationship with France, and his personal relationship with Sarkozy, appears to be deteriorating with each new report. Sphere: Related Content
by Mark Impomeni
PoliticsDaily.com
Originally published April 8, 2009
Reports out of London indicate that President Barack Obama declined an inviation from French President Nicholas Sarkozy to visit Normandy's Omaha Beach and the American Cemetery at Colleville-sur-mer on his way to Strasbourg for the NATO summit last week. The Daily Telegraph reports that White House officials travelled to France last month to discuss the visit with their counterparts on Sarkozy's staff. But one American official familiar with the negotiations said that President Obama never had any intention of making the stop over.
"It wasn't going to happen. We went through the motions to placate President Sarkozy but giving special treatment to France was not on our agenda. During this trip, we wanted to maintain a balance between the British, [the] German[s], and France."
The White House refused to comment on the Telegraph's report.
The rejection of Sarkozy's offer is the latest snub of the French president by President Obama. Sarkozy reportedly tried in vain to meet wih then President-elect Obama in Washington late last year. The Telegraph reports further that Sarkozy was "piqued" that Obama held a 50-minute press conference with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown upon arriving in London last week. The president held only a brief media availability with Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
But perhaps most damaging for the Administration domestically is President Obama's failure to visit the American Cemetery in Normandy. During the campaign, Obama was heavily criticized for cancelling a planned visit to the U.S. military hospital in Ramstein, Germany, for a meeting with wounded troops. Skipping a visit to the cemetery could spark similar criticism. Moreover, the White House would not comment on whether President Obama will attend the ceremonies for the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landings in June, although a Sarkozy aide said Obama has agreed to the trip. So it remains unclear whether President Obama will get another chance to honor the 9,387 American soldiers buried there.
It is becoming clear, however, that there is tension between Obama and Sarkozy, despite French denials. Sarkozy has been critical of Obama's foreign policy ideas, especially with respect to Iran's nuclear programs. White House officials are not commenting, but they are also not going out of their way to quell the rumors. President Obama campaigned on a promise to reestablish relationships with American allies. So far, though, the relationship with France, and his personal relationship with Sarkozy, appears to be deteriorating with each new report. Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Obama plans National Day of Prayer proclamation, not event
By Adelle M. Banks
Religion News Service
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration says it will issue a proclamation marking the National Day of Prayer on Thursday (May 7), but appears to be moving away from the White House ceremonies hosted by former President George W. Bush.
"President Obama is a committed Christian and believes that we should be engaging Americans of faith in efforts to renew our country," a White House official said.
"He is following the tradition of Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and others by signing a proclamation honoring the National Day of Prayer, while continuing to work with communities of faith to improve our country."
During Bush's eight years in office, prominent evangelicals, including National Day of Prayer Task Force chairman Shirley Dobson, and her husband, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, gathered each year for an East Room ceremony on the first Thursday in May.
"We are disappointed in the lack of participation by the Obama administration," Shirley Dobson said in a statement issued by the task force on Monday. "At this time in our country's history, we would hope our president would recognize more fully the importance of prayer."
This year, task force organizers went ahead with their own plans and scheduled their traditional morning ceremonies on Capitol Hill for the morning, the same time of day when past White House events had been held. They asked for a White House representative to attend but had not received a response as of Monday.
At his press briefing on Friday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the president's upcoming plans included signing a proclamation to recognize the prayer day.
The National Day of Prayer was signed into law in 1952 by President Truman. President Reagan amended the law in 1988 to state that the observances would be held the first Thursday in May. Sphere: Related Content
Religion News Service
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration says it will issue a proclamation marking the National Day of Prayer on Thursday (May 7), but appears to be moving away from the White House ceremonies hosted by former President George W. Bush.
"President Obama is a committed Christian and believes that we should be engaging Americans of faith in efforts to renew our country," a White House official said.
"He is following the tradition of Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and others by signing a proclamation honoring the National Day of Prayer, while continuing to work with communities of faith to improve our country."
During Bush's eight years in office, prominent evangelicals, including National Day of Prayer Task Force chairman Shirley Dobson, and her husband, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, gathered each year for an East Room ceremony on the first Thursday in May.
"We are disappointed in the lack of participation by the Obama administration," Shirley Dobson said in a statement issued by the task force on Monday. "At this time in our country's history, we would hope our president would recognize more fully the importance of prayer."
This year, task force organizers went ahead with their own plans and scheduled their traditional morning ceremonies on Capitol Hill for the morning, the same time of day when past White House events had been held. They asked for a White House representative to attend but had not received a response as of Monday.
At his press briefing on Friday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the president's upcoming plans included signing a proclamation to recognize the prayer day.
The National Day of Prayer was signed into law in 1952 by President Truman. President Reagan amended the law in 1988 to state that the observances would be held the first Thursday in May. Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Specter is vulnerable in Democratic primary
By Christopher P. Borick
Philadelphia Inquirer
It seems like a done deal: Arlen Specter will be the Democratic nominee in Pennsylvania's 2010 U.S. Senate race. With the support of an all-star cast of Democrats that includes President Obama, Vice President Biden, Gov. Rendell, and Sen. Bob Casey Jr., it appears the path to the nomination has been cleared for the recent defector from the Republican ranks.
Surely no up-and-coming Democratic politician - such as U.S. Rep. Joseph Sestak or State. Rep. Josh Shapiro - would want to challenge a well-funded, well-connected incumbent who has likely given his new party the magical 60th seat in the Senate. That would only draw the ire of Democratic leaders in Washington and Harrisburg.
It may very well be that simple. But we shouldn't pencil in the name of the newest Democratic senator on the general-election ballot just yet.
One need look no further than the 2004 Republican Senate primary to find evidence that a candidate with ample funds and the support of party leaders can be pushed to the brink in an intraparty showdown. The conditions of that primary were notably similar to those emerging in the Democratic race today, with Specter again playing a leading role.
Few believed Specter was vulnerable in the 2004 GOP primary, despite long-simmering resentment among conservatives. After all, he was a four-term incumbent with the backing of the Republican establishment. George W. Bush, Rick Santorum, and Tom Ridge all threw their considerable influence behind him. Nevertheless, a fairly unknown congressman from the Lehigh Valley, Pat Toomey, came within a whisker of defeating him. How?
Toomey wisely recognized that Specter's popularity with moderates meant little in a closed party primary. He used his relatively limited resources to focus on Specter's shortcomings as a conservative, and to engage activists on the right to offset his lack of support from the party elite. While Toomey ultimately failed, he may have given a daring Democrat the perfect recipe for taking down Specter in 2010.
Perpetually denigrated as a RINO (Republican In Name Only) during much of his career, Specter has instantly become Pennsylvanian's most famous DINO: Democrat In Name Only. A smart fifth grader with access to Google could put together decades' worth of votes putting Specter at odds with Democratic positions. From Anita Hill to union card check, there is no shortage of material.
And, as recent elections have shown, nothing ramps up Democrats like tying a candidate to Bush. Even with Bush out of the spotlight, a series of ads reminding Democratic primary voters of the many times Specter went along with the former president could be a potent weapon. Specter's good friend Joe Lieberman can attest to the perils of getting too close to Bush.
A Democratic primary challenger might also be able to undermine one of Specter's greatest assets: his electability in November. Back in 2004, that helped Specter squeak out the victory over Toomey. But with well over a million more Democrats than Republicans in the commonwealth, any Democrat who is even remotely mainstream can claim to be favored to defeat the GOP nominee. This is especially true if a staunch conservative such as Toomey, the current front-runner, wins the Republican nomination. So Specter's general-election strengths would not be special.
Finally, will Pennsylvania's Democratic voters, flush with recent electoral successes, want to settle for Arlen Specter? Party leaders may welcome one more senator, but will rank-and-file Democrats give Specter a pass? They don't owe him anything. He may not be the ideal right-wing villain that Santorum was, but he certainly hasn't been a model Democrat, either.
When a party is weak, settling makes strategic sense. But the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania is anything but weak. As the excitement generated by Specter's defection wears off, Democratic voters may start to wonder whether they can do better.
Specter may be tailor-made for a general election in Pennsylvania. He is a true moderate in a truly moderate state. And with names like Obama, Rendell, and Casey in his camp, it's easy to see why many Democrats may take a pass on challenging him next year.
However, as Toomey demonstrated five years ago, there is plenty of opportunity for an entrepreneurial candidate to challenge Specter within the confines of a primary. And although Toomey's 2004 bid was unsuccessful, the loss certainly didn't end his political career. Ironically, it may be the model that encourages an up-and-coming Democrat to try to take down Specter next spring and face Toomey in November 2010. Sphere: Related Content
Philadelphia Inquirer
It seems like a done deal: Arlen Specter will be the Democratic nominee in Pennsylvania's 2010 U.S. Senate race. With the support of an all-star cast of Democrats that includes President Obama, Vice President Biden, Gov. Rendell, and Sen. Bob Casey Jr., it appears the path to the nomination has been cleared for the recent defector from the Republican ranks.
Surely no up-and-coming Democratic politician - such as U.S. Rep. Joseph Sestak or State. Rep. Josh Shapiro - would want to challenge a well-funded, well-connected incumbent who has likely given his new party the magical 60th seat in the Senate. That would only draw the ire of Democratic leaders in Washington and Harrisburg.
It may very well be that simple. But we shouldn't pencil in the name of the newest Democratic senator on the general-election ballot just yet.
One need look no further than the 2004 Republican Senate primary to find evidence that a candidate with ample funds and the support of party leaders can be pushed to the brink in an intraparty showdown. The conditions of that primary were notably similar to those emerging in the Democratic race today, with Specter again playing a leading role.
Few believed Specter was vulnerable in the 2004 GOP primary, despite long-simmering resentment among conservatives. After all, he was a four-term incumbent with the backing of the Republican establishment. George W. Bush, Rick Santorum, and Tom Ridge all threw their considerable influence behind him. Nevertheless, a fairly unknown congressman from the Lehigh Valley, Pat Toomey, came within a whisker of defeating him. How?
Toomey wisely recognized that Specter's popularity with moderates meant little in a closed party primary. He used his relatively limited resources to focus on Specter's shortcomings as a conservative, and to engage activists on the right to offset his lack of support from the party elite. While Toomey ultimately failed, he may have given a daring Democrat the perfect recipe for taking down Specter in 2010.
Perpetually denigrated as a RINO (Republican In Name Only) during much of his career, Specter has instantly become Pennsylvanian's most famous DINO: Democrat In Name Only. A smart fifth grader with access to Google could put together decades' worth of votes putting Specter at odds with Democratic positions. From Anita Hill to union card check, there is no shortage of material.
And, as recent elections have shown, nothing ramps up Democrats like tying a candidate to Bush. Even with Bush out of the spotlight, a series of ads reminding Democratic primary voters of the many times Specter went along with the former president could be a potent weapon. Specter's good friend Joe Lieberman can attest to the perils of getting too close to Bush.
A Democratic primary challenger might also be able to undermine one of Specter's greatest assets: his electability in November. Back in 2004, that helped Specter squeak out the victory over Toomey. But with well over a million more Democrats than Republicans in the commonwealth, any Democrat who is even remotely mainstream can claim to be favored to defeat the GOP nominee. This is especially true if a staunch conservative such as Toomey, the current front-runner, wins the Republican nomination. So Specter's general-election strengths would not be special.
Finally, will Pennsylvania's Democratic voters, flush with recent electoral successes, want to settle for Arlen Specter? Party leaders may welcome one more senator, but will rank-and-file Democrats give Specter a pass? They don't owe him anything. He may not be the ideal right-wing villain that Santorum was, but he certainly hasn't been a model Democrat, either.
When a party is weak, settling makes strategic sense. But the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania is anything but weak. As the excitement generated by Specter's defection wears off, Democratic voters may start to wonder whether they can do better.
Specter may be tailor-made for a general election in Pennsylvania. He is a true moderate in a truly moderate state. And with names like Obama, Rendell, and Casey in his camp, it's easy to see why many Democrats may take a pass on challenging him next year.
However, as Toomey demonstrated five years ago, there is plenty of opportunity for an entrepreneurial candidate to challenge Specter within the confines of a primary. And although Toomey's 2004 bid was unsuccessful, the loss certainly didn't end his political career. Ironically, it may be the model that encourages an up-and-coming Democrat to try to take down Specter next spring and face Toomey in November 2010. Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Philip Drew Administrator - project Gutenberg links
If you are interested in reading Philip Drew Administrator, you can click on one of the links below to give you the on-line text.
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/7phlp10.txt
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/8phlp10h.htm Sphere: Related Content
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/7phlp10.txt
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/8phlp10h.htm Sphere: Related Content
Philip Dru Administrator: Understanding where we are headed
I was listening to Glenn Beck's radio program this evening when he talked about reading a book that Stu never thought he would pick up. It's called, "Philip Drew Administrator," which Beck traces as the origin of modern progressivism. While doing a search for the book, I came across the following piece called, "The Future Is Calling" at www.pushhamburger.com, which gives a biographical sketch of Edward Mandell, the books author. Finding it quite fascinating reading, I thought I would share this segment with you. You can read the rest here.
The Future Is Calling
by G. Edward Griffin
Revised 2003, September 14
COLONEL HOUSE
As we re-activate our time machine, we find ourselves in the presence of one of the most colorful and mysterious figures of history. His name is Colonel Edward Mandell House. House was never in the military. The title of Colonel was honorary, granted by the Governor of Texas in appreciation for political services. He was one of the most powerful men in American politics and, yet, virtually unknown to most Americans today. He was the personal advisor to Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt. He was close to the Morgan banking dynasty and also to the powerful banking families of Europe. He attended school in England and surrounded himself with Fabians. His father, Thomas, was an exporter in the Southern states and also a lending agent for London banks, which preferred to remain anonymous. It was widely believed that he represented the Rothschild consortium. Thomas House was one of the few in the South who emerged from the War Between the States with a great fortune.
Colonel House was what they called a "king maker" in Texas politics. He personally chose Woodrow Wilson, the most unlikely of all political candidates, and secured his nomination for President on the Democratic ticket in 1912. It was House who convinced the Morgan group, and others with power in politics and media, to throw their support to Wilson, which is what enabled him to win the election and become the 28th President of the United States. House was certainly a member of the Round Table and possibly a member of its inner circle. He was a founder of the CFR.
In 1912 he wrote a novel, entitled Philip Drew Administrator. It was intended to popularize the Fabian blueprint for converting America to collectivism using the Fabian strategy of working slowly as a turtle and secretly as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The hero of his story is Philip Dru, who is a fictionalized version the author, himself: a quiet, unassuming intellectual, working behind the scenes advising and controlling politicians who are easily purchased and just as easily discarded. Speaking through Dru, House describes his political ideal as: "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx."1 Dru’s socialism, of course, was the Fabian version. It was to have gentle and humane qualities to soften its impact and set it apart from the Leninist version called Communism.
Like all collectivists, House spoke eloquently about defending the poor and the downtrodden, but in reality, he had great disdain for the masses. In his view, they are too stupid and lazy to take an interest in their own government, so it’s up to the professionals to do that for them. Speaking through the fictional character of Senator Selwyn, House says:
The average American citizen refuses to pay attention to civic affairs, contenting himself with a general growl at the tax rate, and the character and inefficiency of public officials. He seldom takes the trouble necessary to form the Government to suit his views. The truth is he has no cohesive or well-digested views, Philip Dru, Administrator (New York: Angriff Press, 1912) p. 45. it being too much trouble to form them; therefore, some such organization as ours is essential.
Philip Dru foments civil war, leads an uprising against the old order, captures control of the government, becomes a dictator with the grateful support of the people, is given the title Administrator of the Republic, scraps all constitutional restrictions against government power, establishes a progressive income tax, creates a national banking cartel, annexes Canada, conquers Mexico, invites European nations to participate in world government, and ushers in a glorious new age of collectivism. This was not just a fictional story for entertainment. House described this book as an expression of his own "ethical and political faith."
The reason this is important is that the ethical and political faith of Col. House now is the ethical and political faith of American leadership – and it started with Woodrow Wilson.
In his memoirs, President Wilson said: "Mr. House is my second personality. He is my independent self. His thoughts and mine are one."
George Viereck was an admiring biographer of Colonel House and approved of almost everything his did. This is what Viereck said:
For seven long years, Colonel House was Woodrow Wilson’s other self. For six long years he shared with him everything but the title of Chief Magistracy of the Republic. For six years, two rooms were at his disposal in the north wing of the White House. It was House who made the slate for the Cabinet, formulated the first policies of the Administration, and practically directed the foreign affairs of the United States. We had, indeed, two presidents for one! … He was the pilot who guided the ship.
THE WAR TO MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY
As we contemplate a member of the Rhodes secret society, occupying two rooms in the White House, virtually in control of American foreign policy, our time machine finally brings us to World War I. Since our main topic today is war, we must prepare now to comprehend the events we are about to see in terms of the strategy for using war to smash the world to bits and then remold it closer to the hearts desire.
The sinking of the Lusitania was the event that, more than any other, motivated the American people to accept the necessity and the morality of getting into World War I. Prior to that time, there was great reluctance to participate in a war that had little to do with Ibid., pp. 199, 200.
It must be remembered that Philip Dru was published in 1912. The U.S. income tax and Federal Reserve System were then in the drafting stages and being promoted by House, Wilson, J.P. Morgan, and other collectivists in Washington. The income tax and Federal Reserve were passed into law the following year, 1913.
"The Historical Significance of the House Diary," by Arthur Walworth, Yale University Library, http://www.library.yale.edu/un/house/hist_sig.htm. Also "An Internationalist Primer," by Wlliam Grigg, The New American, September 16, 1996, http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no19/vo12no19_cfr.htm.
Charles Seymour, The Intimate Papers of Colonel House (New York: Houghton Miffflin Co., 1926), Vol. 1, p.114.
George Sylvester Viereck, The Strangest Friendship in History: Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House (new York: Liveright Publishers, 1932).
American interests.
However, when the Lusitania left New York Harbor on May 1, 1915, with 196 Americans on board and was sunk six days later off the coast of Ireland, it became the cause celeb that moved the American consciousness into a war mood against Germany.
Americans were outraged at a nation that could viciously and cold-heartedly attack a peaceful passenger ship.
What is not well known about that piece of history is the role played by J.P. Morgan.
As you recall, the CFR was described by Professor Quigley as a front for J.P. Morgan and Company. We must remember that Morgan was, not only a founding member of the CFR, he was also a member of the Round Table, the inner group directing it, so how does Morgan fit into this?
During World War I, the Morgan Bank was the subscription agent for war loans to England and France. These countries had exhausted their financial resources to continue the war against Germany. So they came to the United States and asked J.P. Morgan – who was culturally closer to Britain than to America – to be their agent for selling war bonds. The House of Morgan was happy to do that, and it floated approximately $1.5 billion in war bonds on behalf of England and, to a lesser extent, for France.
Morgan was also the contract agent for these countries when they purchased materials and supplies from American firms. That means he had a wonderfully profitable revolving door in which he received a piece of the action as the money went out of the country as loans and again, when it came back into the country, for the purchase of materials.
As the war progressed, Britain and France were facing the increasing possibility of defeat. The Germans had unleashed a surprise weapon – the submarine – that was new to warfare in those days, and they were sinking the ships that carried food and other necessities to the British Isles. The Germans were literally starving the British into submission who, by their own estimate, at one point said they had only about seven weeks of food left.
For the British, there was only one salvation, and that was to have the Americans come into the war to help them. But on the American side, there was a different agenda.
What would happen to that $1.5 billion in war loans if Britain and France lost the war? The only time war loans are repaid is when the nation borrowing the money wins the war. Losers don’t pay off their bonds. So Morgan was in a terrible fix. Not only were his friends in England in dire danger, he and all his investors were about to lose $1.5 billion! A very serious situation, indeed.
The U.S. Ambassador to England at that time was Walter Page. Page was more than just an ambassador. Among other things, he was a trustee to Rockefeller’s General Education Board. It was in that capacity that he played a role in shaping educational policies to promote collectivism in America. Page sent a telegram to the State Department, and this is what he said,
The pressure of this approaching crisis, I am certain, has gone beyond the ability of the Morgan financial agency for the British and French Governments….
The only way of maintaining our present preeminent trade position and averting a panic is by declaring war on Germany.
Money was not the only motivator for bringing the United States into war. We must not forget that the American players in this drama dreamed of world government based on the model of collectivism, and they saw war as a great motivator to move society in that direction. They looked forward to the creation of the League of Nations when the fighting was over and knew that the only way for the United States to play a dominant role in shaping that world body was to be a combatant. The only ones who divide the spoils of war are the victors who fight the war, and it was that reality that fired the imaginations of House, Wilson, and even J.P. Morgan. Sphere: Related Content
The Future Is Calling
by G. Edward Griffin
Revised 2003, September 14
COLONEL HOUSE
As we re-activate our time machine, we find ourselves in the presence of one of the most colorful and mysterious figures of history. His name is Colonel Edward Mandell House. House was never in the military. The title of Colonel was honorary, granted by the Governor of Texas in appreciation for political services. He was one of the most powerful men in American politics and, yet, virtually unknown to most Americans today. He was the personal advisor to Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt. He was close to the Morgan banking dynasty and also to the powerful banking families of Europe. He attended school in England and surrounded himself with Fabians. His father, Thomas, was an exporter in the Southern states and also a lending agent for London banks, which preferred to remain anonymous. It was widely believed that he represented the Rothschild consortium. Thomas House was one of the few in the South who emerged from the War Between the States with a great fortune.
Colonel House was what they called a "king maker" in Texas politics. He personally chose Woodrow Wilson, the most unlikely of all political candidates, and secured his nomination for President on the Democratic ticket in 1912. It was House who convinced the Morgan group, and others with power in politics and media, to throw their support to Wilson, which is what enabled him to win the election and become the 28th President of the United States. House was certainly a member of the Round Table and possibly a member of its inner circle. He was a founder of the CFR.
In 1912 he wrote a novel, entitled Philip Drew Administrator. It was intended to popularize the Fabian blueprint for converting America to collectivism using the Fabian strategy of working slowly as a turtle and secretly as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The hero of his story is Philip Dru, who is a fictionalized version the author, himself: a quiet, unassuming intellectual, working behind the scenes advising and controlling politicians who are easily purchased and just as easily discarded. Speaking through Dru, House describes his political ideal as: "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx."1 Dru’s socialism, of course, was the Fabian version. It was to have gentle and humane qualities to soften its impact and set it apart from the Leninist version called Communism.
Like all collectivists, House spoke eloquently about defending the poor and the downtrodden, but in reality, he had great disdain for the masses. In his view, they are too stupid and lazy to take an interest in their own government, so it’s up to the professionals to do that for them. Speaking through the fictional character of Senator Selwyn, House says:
The average American citizen refuses to pay attention to civic affairs, contenting himself with a general growl at the tax rate, and the character and inefficiency of public officials. He seldom takes the trouble necessary to form the Government to suit his views. The truth is he has no cohesive or well-digested views, Philip Dru, Administrator (New York: Angriff Press, 1912) p. 45. it being too much trouble to form them; therefore, some such organization as ours is essential.
Philip Dru foments civil war, leads an uprising against the old order, captures control of the government, becomes a dictator with the grateful support of the people, is given the title Administrator of the Republic, scraps all constitutional restrictions against government power, establishes a progressive income tax, creates a national banking cartel, annexes Canada, conquers Mexico, invites European nations to participate in world government, and ushers in a glorious new age of collectivism. This was not just a fictional story for entertainment. House described this book as an expression of his own "ethical and political faith."
The reason this is important is that the ethical and political faith of Col. House now is the ethical and political faith of American leadership – and it started with Woodrow Wilson.
In his memoirs, President Wilson said: "Mr. House is my second personality. He is my independent self. His thoughts and mine are one."
George Viereck was an admiring biographer of Colonel House and approved of almost everything his did. This is what Viereck said:
For seven long years, Colonel House was Woodrow Wilson’s other self. For six long years he shared with him everything but the title of Chief Magistracy of the Republic. For six years, two rooms were at his disposal in the north wing of the White House. It was House who made the slate for the Cabinet, formulated the first policies of the Administration, and practically directed the foreign affairs of the United States. We had, indeed, two presidents for one! … He was the pilot who guided the ship.
THE WAR TO MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY
As we contemplate a member of the Rhodes secret society, occupying two rooms in the White House, virtually in control of American foreign policy, our time machine finally brings us to World War I. Since our main topic today is war, we must prepare now to comprehend the events we are about to see in terms of the strategy for using war to smash the world to bits and then remold it closer to the hearts desire.
The sinking of the Lusitania was the event that, more than any other, motivated the American people to accept the necessity and the morality of getting into World War I. Prior to that time, there was great reluctance to participate in a war that had little to do with Ibid., pp. 199, 200.
It must be remembered that Philip Dru was published in 1912. The U.S. income tax and Federal Reserve System were then in the drafting stages and being promoted by House, Wilson, J.P. Morgan, and other collectivists in Washington. The income tax and Federal Reserve were passed into law the following year, 1913.
"The Historical Significance of the House Diary," by Arthur Walworth, Yale University Library, http://www.library.yale.edu/un/house/hist_sig.htm. Also "An Internationalist Primer," by Wlliam Grigg, The New American, September 16, 1996, http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no19/vo12no19_cfr.htm.
Charles Seymour, The Intimate Papers of Colonel House (New York: Houghton Miffflin Co., 1926), Vol. 1, p.114.
George Sylvester Viereck, The Strangest Friendship in History: Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House (new York: Liveright Publishers, 1932).
American interests.
However, when the Lusitania left New York Harbor on May 1, 1915, with 196 Americans on board and was sunk six days later off the coast of Ireland, it became the cause celeb that moved the American consciousness into a war mood against Germany.
Americans were outraged at a nation that could viciously and cold-heartedly attack a peaceful passenger ship.
What is not well known about that piece of history is the role played by J.P. Morgan.
As you recall, the CFR was described by Professor Quigley as a front for J.P. Morgan and Company. We must remember that Morgan was, not only a founding member of the CFR, he was also a member of the Round Table, the inner group directing it, so how does Morgan fit into this?
During World War I, the Morgan Bank was the subscription agent for war loans to England and France. These countries had exhausted their financial resources to continue the war against Germany. So they came to the United States and asked J.P. Morgan – who was culturally closer to Britain than to America – to be their agent for selling war bonds. The House of Morgan was happy to do that, and it floated approximately $1.5 billion in war bonds on behalf of England and, to a lesser extent, for France.
Morgan was also the contract agent for these countries when they purchased materials and supplies from American firms. That means he had a wonderfully profitable revolving door in which he received a piece of the action as the money went out of the country as loans and again, when it came back into the country, for the purchase of materials.
As the war progressed, Britain and France were facing the increasing possibility of defeat. The Germans had unleashed a surprise weapon – the submarine – that was new to warfare in those days, and they were sinking the ships that carried food and other necessities to the British Isles. The Germans were literally starving the British into submission who, by their own estimate, at one point said they had only about seven weeks of food left.
For the British, there was only one salvation, and that was to have the Americans come into the war to help them. But on the American side, there was a different agenda.
What would happen to that $1.5 billion in war loans if Britain and France lost the war? The only time war loans are repaid is when the nation borrowing the money wins the war. Losers don’t pay off their bonds. So Morgan was in a terrible fix. Not only were his friends in England in dire danger, he and all his investors were about to lose $1.5 billion! A very serious situation, indeed.
The U.S. Ambassador to England at that time was Walter Page. Page was more than just an ambassador. Among other things, he was a trustee to Rockefeller’s General Education Board. It was in that capacity that he played a role in shaping educational policies to promote collectivism in America. Page sent a telegram to the State Department, and this is what he said,
The pressure of this approaching crisis, I am certain, has gone beyond the ability of the Morgan financial agency for the British and French Governments….
The only way of maintaining our present preeminent trade position and averting a panic is by declaring war on Germany.
Money was not the only motivator for bringing the United States into war. We must not forget that the American players in this drama dreamed of world government based on the model of collectivism, and they saw war as a great motivator to move society in that direction. They looked forward to the creation of the League of Nations when the fighting was over and knew that the only way for the United States to play a dominant role in shaping that world body was to be a combatant. The only ones who divide the spoils of war are the victors who fight the war, and it was that reality that fired the imaginations of House, Wilson, and even J.P. Morgan. Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Obama's liberal arrogance will be his undoing
The hubris and overreaching of the left sets the stage for the political correction sure to come.
Jonah Goldberg
Los Angeles Times
The most remarkable, or certainly the least remarked on, aspect of Barack Obama's first 100 days has been the infectious arrogance of his presidency.
There's no denying that this is liberalism's greatest opportunity for wish fulfillment since at least 1964. But to listen to Democrats, the only check on their ambition is the limits of their imaginations.
"The world has changed," Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York proclaimed on MSNBC. "The old Reagan philosophy that served them well politically from 1980 to about 2004 and 2006 is over. But the hard right, which still believes ... [in] traditional values kind of arguments and strong foreign policy, all that is over."
Right. "Family values" and a "strong foreign policy" belong next to the "free silver" movement in the lexicon of dead political causes.
No doubt Schumer was employing the kind of simplified shorthand one uses when everyone in the room already agrees with you. He can be forgiven for mistaking an MSNBC studio for such a milieu, but it seemed not to dawn on him that anybody watching might see it differently.
When George W. Bush was in office, we heard constantly about the poisonous nature of American polarization. For example, Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg came out with a book arguing that "our nation's political landscape is now divided more deeply and more evenly than perhaps ever before." One can charitably say this was abject nonsense. Evenly divided? Maybe. But more deeply? Feh.
During the Civil War, the political landscape was so deeply divided that 600,000 Americans died. During the 1930s, labor strife and revolutionary ardor threatened the stability of the republic. In the 1960s, political assassinations, riots and bombings punctuated our political discourse.
It says something about the relationship of liberals to political power that they can overlook domestic dissent when they're at the wheel. When the GOP is in office, America is seen as hopelessly divided because dissent is the highest form of patriotism. When Democrats are in charge, the Frank Riches suddenly declare the culture war over and dismiss dissent as the scary work of the sort of cranks Obama's Department of Homeland Security needs to monitor.
If liberals thought so fondly of social peace and consensus, they would look more favorably on the 1920s and 1950s. Instead, their political idylls are the tumultuous '30s and '60s, when liberalism, if not necessarily liberals, rode high in the saddle.
Sure, America was divided under Bush. And it's still divided under Obama (just look at the recent Minnesota Senate race and the New York congressional special election). According to the polls, America is a bit less divided under Obama than it was at the end of Bush's 100 days. But not as much less as you would expect, given Obama's victory margin and the rally-around-the-president effect of the financial crisis (not to mention the disarray of the GOP).
Meanwhile, circulation for the conservative National Review (where I work) is soaring. More people watch Fox News (where I am a contributor) in prime time than watch CNN and MSNBC combined. The "tea parties" may not have been as big as your typical union-organized "spontaneous" demonstration, but they were far more significant than any protests this early in Bush's tenure.
And yet, according to Democrats and liberal pundits, America is enjoying unprecedented unity, and conservatives are going the way of the dodo.
Obama has surely helped set the tone for the unfolding riot of liberal hubris. In his effort to reprise the sort of expansion of liberal power we saw in the '30s and '60s, Obama has -- without a whiff of self-doubt -- committed America to $6.5 trillion in extra debt, $65 billion for each one of his first 100 days, and that's based on an impossibly rosy forecast of the economy. No wonder congressional Democrats clamor to take over corporations, tax the air we breathe and set wages for everybody.
On social issues such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research, Obama has proved to be, if anything, more of a left-wing culture warrior than Bush was a right-wing one. All the while, Obama transmogrifies his principled opponents into straw-man ideologues while preening about his own humble pragmatism. For him, bipartisanship is defined as shutting up and getting in line.
I'm not arguing that conservatives are poised to make some miraculous comeback. They're not. But American politics didn't come to an end with Obama's election, and nothing in politics breeds corrective antibodies more quickly than overreaching arrogance. And by that measure, Obama's first 100 days have been a huge down payment on the inevitable correction to come. Sphere: Related Content
Jonah Goldberg
Los Angeles Times
The most remarkable, or certainly the least remarked on, aspect of Barack Obama's first 100 days has been the infectious arrogance of his presidency.
There's no denying that this is liberalism's greatest opportunity for wish fulfillment since at least 1964. But to listen to Democrats, the only check on their ambition is the limits of their imaginations.
"The world has changed," Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York proclaimed on MSNBC. "The old Reagan philosophy that served them well politically from 1980 to about 2004 and 2006 is over. But the hard right, which still believes ... [in] traditional values kind of arguments and strong foreign policy, all that is over."
Right. "Family values" and a "strong foreign policy" belong next to the "free silver" movement in the lexicon of dead political causes.
No doubt Schumer was employing the kind of simplified shorthand one uses when everyone in the room already agrees with you. He can be forgiven for mistaking an MSNBC studio for such a milieu, but it seemed not to dawn on him that anybody watching might see it differently.
When George W. Bush was in office, we heard constantly about the poisonous nature of American polarization. For example, Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg came out with a book arguing that "our nation's political landscape is now divided more deeply and more evenly than perhaps ever before." One can charitably say this was abject nonsense. Evenly divided? Maybe. But more deeply? Feh.
During the Civil War, the political landscape was so deeply divided that 600,000 Americans died. During the 1930s, labor strife and revolutionary ardor threatened the stability of the republic. In the 1960s, political assassinations, riots and bombings punctuated our political discourse.
It says something about the relationship of liberals to political power that they can overlook domestic dissent when they're at the wheel. When the GOP is in office, America is seen as hopelessly divided because dissent is the highest form of patriotism. When Democrats are in charge, the Frank Riches suddenly declare the culture war over and dismiss dissent as the scary work of the sort of cranks Obama's Department of Homeland Security needs to monitor.
If liberals thought so fondly of social peace and consensus, they would look more favorably on the 1920s and 1950s. Instead, their political idylls are the tumultuous '30s and '60s, when liberalism, if not necessarily liberals, rode high in the saddle.
Sure, America was divided under Bush. And it's still divided under Obama (just look at the recent Minnesota Senate race and the New York congressional special election). According to the polls, America is a bit less divided under Obama than it was at the end of Bush's 100 days. But not as much less as you would expect, given Obama's victory margin and the rally-around-the-president effect of the financial crisis (not to mention the disarray of the GOP).
Meanwhile, circulation for the conservative National Review (where I work) is soaring. More people watch Fox News (where I am a contributor) in prime time than watch CNN and MSNBC combined. The "tea parties" may not have been as big as your typical union-organized "spontaneous" demonstration, but they were far more significant than any protests this early in Bush's tenure.
And yet, according to Democrats and liberal pundits, America is enjoying unprecedented unity, and conservatives are going the way of the dodo.
Obama has surely helped set the tone for the unfolding riot of liberal hubris. In his effort to reprise the sort of expansion of liberal power we saw in the '30s and '60s, Obama has -- without a whiff of self-doubt -- committed America to $6.5 trillion in extra debt, $65 billion for each one of his first 100 days, and that's based on an impossibly rosy forecast of the economy. No wonder congressional Democrats clamor to take over corporations, tax the air we breathe and set wages for everybody.
On social issues such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research, Obama has proved to be, if anything, more of a left-wing culture warrior than Bush was a right-wing one. All the while, Obama transmogrifies his principled opponents into straw-man ideologues while preening about his own humble pragmatism. For him, bipartisanship is defined as shutting up and getting in line.
I'm not arguing that conservatives are poised to make some miraculous comeback. They're not. But American politics didn't come to an end with Obama's election, and nothing in politics breeds corrective antibodies more quickly than overreaching arrogance. And by that measure, Obama's first 100 days have been a huge down payment on the inevitable correction to come. Sphere: Related Content
Friday, April 24, 2009
White House Cheat Sheet: Obama's Swing State Road Show
The Fix
by Chris Cillizza
Washington Post
When President Obama commemorates his 100th day in office next Wednesday with a townhall meeting in St. Louis, Mo., it will mark the eleventh state he has visited during the early months of his presidency -- nearly every one of which is expected to be hotly contested in his 2012 reelection race.
In a little more than three months in office, Obama will have visited Arizona (Phoenix), California (Costa Mesa/Los Angeles), Colorado (Denver), Florida (Fort Myers), Illinois (Springfield/Peoria), Indiana (Elkhart), Iowa (Newton), Missouri (St. Louis), North Carolina (Camp Lejeune), Ohio (Columbus), and Virginia (Langley/Springfield/Willamsburg/Fairfax).
Of those eleven, nine were decided by nine points or less in the 2008 election -- the only exceptions being California and Obama's home state of Illinois -- and five were decided by four points or less. (Also worth noting: all of those nine states were carried by George W. Bush in 2004; seven of the nine flipped to Obama four years later.)
No state was closer than Missouri where Obama lost to Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) by approximately 4,500 votes out of more than 2.8 million cast.
Is it then mere coincidence that Obama is choosing to commemorate his first 100 days as president with a stop in Missouri? White House aides insist that is the case but the Fix has followed politics long enough to know that coincidences like that don't just happen.
The most precious commodity in a campaign or in the White House is the time of the candidate/president so it's nearly impossible to think that Obama's domestic travel schedule has not been chosen with an eye toward 2012 and the states he will need to secure for reelection.
This is nothing new in politics: every first term president spends his first four years positioning himself to win a second four years.
Nor does Obama's swing state tour mean that the sole driving force behind his travel schedule is the 2012 election.
But, what his domestic travel schedule does serve to remind us is that Obama and his inner circle are not simply idealists operating in a world without politics. He and they also carry a strong pragmatic streak -- his decisions to reject public financing during the campaign and to oppose the creation of a 9/11-like commission to look into the harsh interrogations used under the Bush administration yesterday are just two examples -- and understand that without winning in the political arena, victory is not possible on the policy front. Sphere: Related Content
by Chris Cillizza
Washington Post
When President Obama commemorates his 100th day in office next Wednesday with a townhall meeting in St. Louis, Mo., it will mark the eleventh state he has visited during the early months of his presidency -- nearly every one of which is expected to be hotly contested in his 2012 reelection race.
In a little more than three months in office, Obama will have visited Arizona (Phoenix), California (Costa Mesa/Los Angeles), Colorado (Denver), Florida (Fort Myers), Illinois (Springfield/Peoria), Indiana (Elkhart), Iowa (Newton), Missouri (St. Louis), North Carolina (Camp Lejeune), Ohio (Columbus), and Virginia (Langley/Springfield/Willamsburg/Fairfax).
Of those eleven, nine were decided by nine points or less in the 2008 election -- the only exceptions being California and Obama's home state of Illinois -- and five were decided by four points or less. (Also worth noting: all of those nine states were carried by George W. Bush in 2004; seven of the nine flipped to Obama four years later.)
No state was closer than Missouri where Obama lost to Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) by approximately 4,500 votes out of more than 2.8 million cast.
Is it then mere coincidence that Obama is choosing to commemorate his first 100 days as president with a stop in Missouri? White House aides insist that is the case but the Fix has followed politics long enough to know that coincidences like that don't just happen.
The most precious commodity in a campaign or in the White House is the time of the candidate/president so it's nearly impossible to think that Obama's domestic travel schedule has not been chosen with an eye toward 2012 and the states he will need to secure for reelection.
This is nothing new in politics: every first term president spends his first four years positioning himself to win a second four years.
Nor does Obama's swing state tour mean that the sole driving force behind his travel schedule is the 2012 election.
But, what his domestic travel schedule does serve to remind us is that Obama and his inner circle are not simply idealists operating in a world without politics. He and they also carry a strong pragmatic streak -- his decisions to reject public financing during the campaign and to oppose the creation of a 9/11-like commission to look into the harsh interrogations used under the Bush administration yesterday are just two examples -- and understand that without winning in the political arena, victory is not possible on the policy front. Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
