Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:12:05 PM
The Far-Right Christian Movement Driving the Debt Default
By Deborah Caldwell
Posted: 10/14/2013 11:24 am
If the U.S. breaches its debt ceiling this week, bringing with it the global financial panic economists predict, leaders of a little-known far-right movement called Christian Reconstructionism [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism#Christian_Reconstructionism ] can claim partial responsibility. Their goal: to eradicate the U.S. government so that a theocratic Christian nation emerges to enforce biblical laws.
That's right -- laws out of the Book of Leviticus [ http://www.conservapedia.com/Leviticus ] prohibiting adultery, homosexuality, and abortion, with penalties including death by stoning [ http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/n/north-gary.html ].
The key leader of this movement is Gary North, founder of the Institute for Christian Economics [ http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/sidefrm2.htm ] in Tyler, Texas. He's a long-time associate of Ron Paul, intellectual godfather of the Tea Party movement -- the very people responsible for Congressional deadlock over the government shutdown and debt ceiling debate.
Paul and North go way back. North served on Paul's first congressional staff in 1976, and North describes himself as Paul's "original staff economist." Earlier this year, Paul announced plans for a curriculum for home schoolers that will teach "biblical" concepts. The director of curriculum development for the program? Gary North.
In an Oct. 4 column in The Tea Party Economist, North describes government default as a "fake threat [ http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/10/04/fake-threat-government-default/ ]." So it can't be a surprise that the Tea Party caucus isn't taking government default seriously.
And what of the connection between this group and Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who almost singlehandedly created the government shutdown and debt ceiling crisis?
Cruz is the son of Rafael Cruz, a Texas pastor who directs Purifying Fire Ministries [ http://www.purifyingfire.org/ministries.htm ]. According to a biography [ http://www.truethevotesummit.com/Home/Speaker/10 ] page for the True the Vote [ http://www.truethevote.org/ ] summit [ http://www.truethevotesummit.com/ ] in April 2013, Rafael Cruz became active in politics during the 1980 presidential campaign, joining the Religious Roundtable [ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/national/10mcateer.html ], founded in 1979 to involve conservative Christians in politics. "The Religious Roundtable was a Judeo-Christian organization that mobilized millions of Christians all across the United States and helped elect Ronald Reagan," Cruz said. "It was a precursor of the Tea Party, even before the Moral Majority."
What to make of all of this? For the last few weeks Tea Party-leaning members of Congress have been described as "kooks" and "crazies" by the Washington establishment, liberals, moderate Republican leaders, and the media.
The name-calling might be satisfying to those who oppose the Tea Party, but it's entirely untrue. These are people who are patient, determined, deliberate, and rational.
I know this because I spent many years as a reporter covering religion and politics, more than four of them in Texas. So I've been watching conservative Christians for a long time, since the era of the late Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, to the days of Pat Robertson's early Christian Coalition, and on to the culture wars of the 1990s and early 2000s.
During the years I covered religion, I watched politicking creep into evangelical congregations from New Jersey to Pennsylvania to Texas and beyond. In New Jersey, I interviewed the state coordinator of the Christian Coalition who in those early days revealed to me the movement's stealth plan to "take over" the Republican Party, "precinct by precinct."
Later, when I was working in Dallas, I wrote another story, this time about a movement to "take down" the nation's public schools [ http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/schoolz.htm ], promoted by the Alliance for the Separation of School and State, among other groups. As it turns out, Ron Paul was one of the signers of the group's proclamation [ http://www.schoolandstate.org/proclamation.htm ] to "end government involvement in education."
Then there were the annual meetings of the Southern Baptist Convention [ http://sbc.org/ ], America's largest Protestant denomination, which during those years was engaged in an epic battle [ ] between conservative and moderate factions. At the time, a group of fundamentalist Southern Baptists had hatched a plan to "take back" the denomination. Over about 25 years, they prevailed.
At one such meeting in the Superdome in New Orleans, a distraught pastor told me he believed something darker than a desire for conservative theology was driving the battle in his denomination, and he handed me a sheaf of papers describing Christian Reconstructionism. He claimed that the fundamentalists wanted to use the denomination as a launching pad to bring down the federal government and usher in a Christian nation ruled by biblical laws.
Was it true? I didn't know. I kept the file and referred to it occasionally in the following years as I reported on the Religious Right.
Recently, however, I came across a line from North's book Unholy Spirits [ http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Spirits-Occultism-New-Humanism/dp/0930462025 ] that gave me pause. He wrote, "The ideas of the Reconstructionists have penetrated into Protestant circles that for the most part are unaware of the original source of the theological ideas that are beginning to transform them."
And then there are newsletters [ http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/sidefrm2.htm ] stretching back to 1977 on Gary North's website, describing "guerilla tactics" and "bottom-up theocracy" to achieve Christian Reconstructionism's goals.
The unifying principle of all these data points: a long-term covert plan of destruction for the Republican Party, the nation's public schools, the nation's largest Protestant denomination. And, of course, for the nation itself.
But why? In his 1991 book, Christian Reconstructionism: What It Is, What It Isn't [ http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/pdf/christian_reconstruction.pdf ], North writes, "Reconstructionists... do not believe that the will of the political majority is the final law in society." They believe that the Bible is.
In order to make their vision of society a reality, they are willing to wait a long time and to engage in politics to make it happen. "We are to work at our callings and wait on the Lord to place us in positions of influence in his time," according to North's book.
Once in power, they assert their brand of Christianity: "Christian Reconstructionists further insist that Jesus Christ is Lord of political leaders," he writes. "All political leaders are directly responsible to Jesus Christ in the discharge of their public office, as well as in their private lives... Practically, this means that political leaders should seek the guidance of Scripture in framing their political positions and programs."
Interestingly, Reconstructionists don't seem to care about actually holding onto power in the conventional sense: "The purpose of getting involved in politics, as Reconstructionists see it, is to reduce the power of the State," according to North's book.
And they are willing to wait to get what they want. "History is with the Reconstructionists as they advocate a return to God's law as the standard for righteous living, for the individual in self-government as well as elected officials in civil government," North writes.
That is what makes the debt ceiling debate so chilling. The Reconstructionists have waited a long time to be in powerful positions. And now that they possess power, they are perfectly willing to use it to "reduce the power of the state" so that the God of the Old Testament can swoop in to rule the Christian nation they believe will result from chaos.
And from where they sit, blowing up the financial system is a pretty good way to make it happen.
*
Related:
Slideshow [embedded]: People Associated With Christian Dominionism
*
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-caldwell/christian-dominionism-debt-default-_b_4097017.html [with comments]
--
Stenographer Dianne Reidy Goes Off On House Floor - Devil Shows Up
Published on Oct 17, 2013
House of Representatives stenographer Dianne Reidy was rushed off the floor while addressing the chamber during the vote to reopen the federal government.
The video & audio is a little off because I had to download separate audio and line it up with the video.
Her comments:
"He will not be mocked. He will not be mocked. He will not be mocked. The greatest deception here is this is not one nation under God. It never was. Had it been, it would not have been— no. It would not have been— constitution would not have been written by Freemasons. They go against God. You cannot serve two masters. You cannot serve two masters. Praise be to God, Lord Jesus Christ."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FX7ZqPMM7Y [with comment] [also e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MH-xnlP5sQ (with comments), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BbiFJ0m3Zg (with comments), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI0eT-GYv5w (with comments)] [representative articles: "Stenographer dragged off House floor after protest", http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/17/stenographer-dragged-off-house-floor-after-protest/ (with embedded audio { https://soundcloud.com/toddzwillich-1/floor1-101612-wav }); "Stenographer Removed For Shouting On House Floor", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/16/stenographer-shouting-on-house-floor_n_4112145.html (with embedded video, embedded audio { https://soundcloud.com/toddzwillich-1/floor1-101612-wav }, and comments)]
--
Eight Things You Don't Know About Ted Cruz
He’s okay with vampire squids but hates squishes
By Pema Levy
10.11.13
The standard, stirring bootstrap story Ted Cruz tells about himself goes something like this: His father arrived in America from Cuba with nothing but $100 sewn into his underwear; he went to Princeton and then Harvard Law School; he clerked for the chief justice of the United States, repeatedly argued before the Supreme Court; he served as Texas solicitor general for seven years, and 10 months ago, Texans sent him to the U.S. Senate.
It's a compelling story, but it leaves out so many other good stories, so here, in splendid listicle form, are eight things you probably don’t know about Cruz, the quick-tweeting Tea Party darling who has brought the Republican Party to its knees.
1. He had a role in Bill Clinton's impeachment
Working for Charles Cooper, a partner at a conservative law firm in Washington, Cruz drafted arguments showing that Clinton's missteps qualified as exactly the sort of "high crimes and misdemeanors" the Founding Fathers had in mind as grounds for impeachment.
2. He doesn't cotton to squishes
Cruz helped kill Senate legislation earlier this year that, in the wake of the massacre of 20 schoolchildren and six teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., would have expanded background checks on gun buyers. Cruz said he would filibuster any bill that would restrict gun sales in any way and taunted Republicans who backed the bill, calling them "squishes."
3. He's an author
Cruz contributed a chapter to Thank You, President Bush, a little-read 2004 book designed to rebut "Bush-haters who seek nothing but to distort his ongoing record of achievement" and portray George W. as "one of the nation’s great presidents." Cruz’s essay is titled "The Rise of Opportunity Conservatism," an infelicitous phrase he likes so much he is urging Republicans to embrace "opportunity conservatism" as a way to win the 2016 presidential election.
4. His wife makes rich Texans richer
Not a lot has been written about Cruz's wife, Heidi Nelson Cruz, who works as a vice president in Goldman Sachs's Houston office, managing investments for super-rich clients. Heidi Cruz, who lives with Cruz and their two young daughters, Caroline and Catherine, in Houston, has an MBA from Harvard Business School. She worked on George W.'s first presidential campaign and held posts in W's first administration. She also wrote a Thank You, President Bush chapter, "Expanding Opportunity Through Free Trade."
5. He speaks in stump speeches
He often lapses into a stump speech to avoid awkward questions. "We sat together in the back seat of a car," reported a Weekly Standard profile writer. "He spoke of his father again. He mentioned the great divide in America, again, and was quoting Margaret Thatcher when I realized he was giving a speech again, except this time at close quarters, only a few feet away, in the back seat of a car." So that’s why he kept talking and talking and talking in the Senate.
6. He's a creative conspiracy theorist
Cruz believes Agenda 21, a non-binding 1992 United Nations document on sustainable development endorsed by that well-known radical, President George H.W. Bush, is a sinister "globalist plan that tries to subvert the U.S. Constitution and the liberties we all cherish as Americans." He accuses U.N. plotters of aiming to abolish "golf courses, grazing pastures, and paved roads" and fingers George Soros, a billionaire funder of liberal causes, as the puppet-master behind the plan.
7. He favors very, very harsh penalties for stealing calculators
Cruz doesn't talk much about the case of Michael Haley [ http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1824.ZD1.html ], erroneously sentenced to 14 years in prison for stealing a calculator from Walmart when the maximum sentence was two years. Acknowledging the longer sentence was an error, Cruz nevertheless argued before the Supreme Court that Haley should serve the full 14 years, a position that prompted Justice John Paul Stevens to wonder whether the "state has forgotten its overriding 'obligation to serve the cause of justice.' " The court sent the case back to the lower court, which freed Haley.
8. His Dad is a Former Castro Commie Who Hates Obamacare
If you think Ted Cruz hates Obamacare, you haven't met his father, Rafael, 74, who happily fought alongside Fidel Castro as a teen and runs a ministry in the Dallas area. Earlier this month, the elder Cruz warned that Obamacare "rationed" care for the elderly, determined through a cost-benefit analysis by bureaucrats, and provided older Americans with mandatory suicide counseling. "One of the things in Obamacare is that for the elderly, every five years you must have end-of-life counseling," he recently said at a dinner event near Denver.
© Copyright 2013 IBT Media Inc. (emphasis in original)
http://mag.newsweek.com/2013/10/11/eight-things-you-don-t-know-about-ted-cruz.html
--
Rafael Cruz at Free the People
Published on Jul 6, 2013 by FreedomWorksAction
Rafael Cruz at FreedomWorks' Free the people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGURa1DfWEo [with comments] [embedded/more at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/ted-cruz-fidel-castro_n_4101974.html (with comments)]
--
Why we miss Kay Bailey Hutchison
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, center, talks to Lynn Lunsford, right, public affairs manager with the Federal Aviation Administration after a tower dedication ceremony at Abilene Regional Airport Wednesday, May 2, 2012, in Abilene, Texas.
Photo By Nellie Doneva/Associated Press
Things surely would look far different with Sen. Hutchison in office in the nation's capital
Editorial
October 15, 2013 | Updated: October 16, 2013 11:22am
Does anyone else miss Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison?
We're not sure how much difference one person could make in the toxic, chaotic, hyperpartisan atmosphere in Washington, but if we could choose just one it would be Hutchison, whose years of service in the Senate were marked by two things sorely lacking in her successor, Ted Cruz.
For one thing, Hutchison had an unswerving commitment to the highest and best interests of Texas at all times. This revealed itself in a thousand different ways. Hereabouts, we miss her advocacy for NASA, the Port of Houston and the energy industry. And we know she worked just as hard for Dallas, San Antonio and a hundred smaller Texas cities and towns.
And dare we say it? We miss her extraordinary understanding of the importance of reaching across the aisle when necessary. Neither sitting Texas senator has displayed that useful skill, and both the state and the Congress are the poorer for it.
One reason we particularly believe that Hutchison would make a difference in these hectic days is that if she had kept her seat, Cruz would not be in the Senate.
When we endorsed Ted Cruz [ http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Cruz-for-Senate-3961708.php ] in last November's general election, we did so with many reservations and at least one specific recommendation - that he follow Hutchison's example in his conduct as a senator.
Obviously, he has not done so. Cruz has been part of the problem in specific situations where Hutchison would have been part of the solution.
We feel certain she would have worked shoulder to shoulder with Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, in crafting a workable solution that likely would have avoided the government shutdown altogether.
But we'll never know.
While we're on the topic, we'd like to think our first choice to succeed Hutchison in the Senate, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, would have been more amenable to following Hutchison's example than Cruz has been. But these days, we're not so sure. Dewhurst, long considered a moderate in the Texas GOP, clearly was rattled by his unexpected loss to Cruz for the Senate seat.
Since the defeat, the lieutenant governor has attempted a full-blown political makeover designed to make him the darling of the conservative wing of the Texas party.
Faced with the impossible task of outflanking three strong conservative challengers, the traditional moderate Dewhurst does not seem like a man comfortable in his own skin. It's painful to watch.
Copyright 2013 Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Why-we-miss-Kay-Bailey-Hutchison-4898405.php [with comments]
--
Cruz Stock Soars with Tea Party, Sours in U.S. Congress
Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, speaks to the media at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 16, 2013. The bipartisan leaders of the U.S. Senate reached an agreement to end the fiscal impasse and to increase U.S. borrowing authority and McConnell said they want to pass the deal today.
Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
By Julie Bykowicz & Heidi Przybyla - Oct 16, 2013 11:00 PM CT
Texas Senator Ted Cruz stayed true to his campaign mantra “stand and fight” yesterday as he stood amid a crowd of reporters and vowed to keep pressing to dismantle President Barack Obama’s health-care law.
“This fight, this debate will continue until collectively the American people can make D.C. listen,” said Cruz, as other Republican senators streamed out of a meeting lamenting the political damage wrought by an unwinnable showdown with the White House championed by one of their newest members.
Cruz, 42, is emerging from what Arizona Republican Senator John McCain called a “shameful chapter” in the Senate’s history largely unscathed in the eyes of his donors and Republican activists.
“To the conservative movement in America, he is what courage looks like,” said Matt Hoskins, executive director of the Senate Conservatives Fund [ http://www.senateconservatives.com/ ], which promotes Tea Party-backed candidates who favor smaller government.
Cruz, a lawyer who argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court prior to his 2012 election, is counted among prospective Republican Party presidential contenders in 2016. His take-no-prisoners approach could play well in Iowa, where caucuses typically start the nomination process, said David Yepsen, director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University Carbondale and a former political reporter in Iowa for 30 years.
Scoring Points
“He scored a lot of points with the party’s most conservative elements, and those are people who dominate the caucuses,” Yepsen said.
He cautioned that Cruz will need to guard against dangers that come with a high profile. “A meteoric rise like this can be accompanied by a meteoric fall,” Yepsen said.
A Pew Research Center poll [ http://www.people-press.org/2013/10/15/as-debt-limit-deadline-ne ] released yesterday showed that Cruz’s popularity among Tea Party Republicans has soared to 74 percent from 47 percent in July. Among non-Tea Party Republicans, he is viewed unfavorably by 31 percent -- a 15-percentage-point increase since the summer survey.
A senator for just nine months, Cruz’s attention-grabbing tactics have strained his relations with colleagues in Congress and reliable Republican allies outside of it. On Sept. 24, a week before the government shutdown began on Oct. 1, Cruz started a 21-hour speech on the Senate floor attacking the Affordable Care Act, a tactic the Wall Street Journal editorial page described as the equivalent of charging into “fixed bayonets.”
Private Meetings
Tension flared during a closed-door luncheon of Senate Republicans on Oct. 2. New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte challenged Cruz to disavow the Senate Conservatives Fund because the group was equating some lawmakers’ procedural votes to support for the health-care law. He refused to do so, according to a Senate aide.
At another meeting of Senate Republicans the following week, McCain asked those who viewed the bid to defund Obamacare as a winning strategy to raise their hands. No one -- including Cruz -- did, according to a senator who was present. Cruz skipped many of the Republican conferences after that.
Last night, shortly before the Senate passed a bipartisan plan to reopen government and raise the debt ceiling, Cruz on the chamber’s floor excoriated many of his party colleagues, saying they “decided to direct their cannon fire at House Republicans” instead of “standing together” to insist on defunding Obamacare.
“This is a terrible deal for the American people,” he said of the fiscal agreement.
‘Policy Guy’
Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, was diplomatic yesterday when asked about Cruz and the Senate colleagues who were part of his fight, including Senator Mike Lee of Utah.
“I can only monitor my own conduct, if you will. I came here as a fiscal conservative,” Corker said in an interview. “I’m a substance guy. I’m a policy guy. I’m not the kind of guy to try to capture flashy objects.”
House Republicans who fumed over private strategy meetings between Cruz and like-minded members of that chamber’s caucus have been more forthright.
“He’s the guy who caused this,” said Representative Peter King, a New York Republican who urged the party to avoid including anti-Obamacare provisions in a government funding bill. “He’s the guy who caused the defeat. He’s the guy who was a fraud because he never had a strategy to begin with. If we let him do it again, it’s our fault.
“It’s important to stand together,” King said in an interview. “We do agree on most issues and we would have been fine with this if we didn’t let Cruz hijack the party,”.
Cruz’s Fundraising
While Washington Republicans complain, the party’s grassroots celebrate, and Cruz’s campaign coffers show no signs of suffering: He raised about $1.2 million in the three-month period that ended Sept. 30, a few days after his filibuster. That’s about what he collected in the three months before that.
His donors -- mostly Tea Party backers rather than big businesses -- say they knew what they were getting when they helped propel him to an unexpected victory over Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, the Republican establishment favorite, in Texas’s Senate primary last year. And they’re proud of him.
“I just like a guy who is fighting, who seems like he is going to do everything he said he was going to do,” Dougal Cameron, president and owner of a real-estate development firm in Houston, said in an interview this week. “If that gets him in trouble with the media and others, that’s OK with me.”
Straw Poll
Last week, a convention of anti-abortion activists at the Values Voter Summit in Washington chose him as their top pick for president in 2016. The 42 percent of the straw poll votes he captured buried the single digits notched by other Republican presidential prospects, including Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Three years before the 2012 presidential campaign, Mike Huckabee won the same straw poll with 28 percent. The former Arkansas governor ended up not running last year.
Referring to Republican leaders in his speech to the summit, Cruz boasted about “going over their heads” to make the case that Washington lawmakers should defund Obamacare.
“Senator Cruz and Senator Lee have been at the forefront of this effort, and they deserve tremendous credit for standing up and making the case,” said Dan Holler, a spokesman for Heritage Action for America, a Washington group that advocates for smaller government.
Town Halls
Heritage held “Defund Obamacare” town halls in nine cities in August. The Senate Conservatives Fund put up a website called dontfundit.com that attracted more than 2 million signatures on a petition against Obamacare. Holler said the effort led by Cruz “would have gone nowhere” without that outcry from Americans.
The Senate Conservatives Fund and another pro-Tea Party group, the Club for Growth, were Cruz’s top financiers last year. Their donors shipped Cruz $1.7 million of his total $14.5 million haul, according to the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics. The Club and the Fund, along with their related super-political action committees, also helped Cruz with $7.1 million in outside advertising.
That donor base has helped Cruz resist the outcry of a business community that became irritated about Republicans’ role in the shutdown, Anthony Holm, a Republican strategist based in Austin, Texas, said in an interview this week.
“Ted Cruz doesn’t have to bow down to anybody,” Holm said.
To contact the reporters on this story: Julie Bykowicz in Washington at jbykowicz@bloomberg.net; Heidi Przybyla in Washington at hprzybyla@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jeanne Cummings at jcummings21@bloomberg.net
©2013 BLOOMBERG L.P.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-16/cruz-stock-soars-with-tea-party-sours-in-u-s-congress.html [with embedded videos, and comments]
--
Anderson Cooper to GOP pundit: “Are you high?”
Alex Castellanos
(Credit: CNN)
Republican strategist and CNN contributor Alex Castellanos goes off the rails
By Elias Isquith
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2013 09:20 AM CDT
Appearing on “Anderson Cooper 360? Tuesday night, GOP strategist and CNN contributor Alex Castellanos tried out an interesting new metaphor to explain the behavior of Senator Ted Cruz. It didn’t quite work.
“A friend explained to me today, finally, what Ted Cruz is doing,” Castellanos began, “and I finally understand: he’s having bunny sex.”
“In nature, there are boom and bust cycles; the snowshoe hare, every ten years, multiplies six fold.”
“Are you high?,” interrupted a perplexed (but seemingly amused) Cooper.
“I wish I was,” Castellanos responded, before continuing, “the snowshoe hare — I thought it’s a marvelous explanation — every ten years, multiplies six fold. Bunnies like sex apparently. But the boom produces a bust. They press their food supply, they invite predators. Right now, Ted Cruz, what’s he’s doing, feels good; he’s growing his supporters. It’s leading the Republican Party, I think, into a bust.”
“I think you’re digging a ditch,” was Cooper’s response.
Via the Raw Story [ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/16/anderson-cooper-decides-gop-strategist-is-high-after-he-says-cruz-is-having-bunny-sex/ ], watch the whole bizarre exchange here:
[video embedded]
Copyright © 2013 Salon Media Group, Inc.
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/16/anderson_cooper_to_gop_pundit_are_you_high/ [with comments]
--
Bachmann End Times
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-danziger/bachmann-end-times_b_4077480.html [with comments]
--
Bill Maher: Antonin Scalia And Michele Bachmann Are 'The Exact Same Idiot'
By Katla McGlynn
Posted: 10/12/2013 11:05 am EDT | Updated: 10/12/2013 11:18 am EDT
Bill Maher had plenty of material to work with on "Real Time" Friday night, considering the fact that both Rep. Michele Bachmann and Justice Antonin Scalia publicly addressed their concerns about the end of days and the devil (respectively) in the same week.
At the end of his "New Rules" segment, Maher took aim at Bachmann's recent comments that we're living "in the End times [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/07/michele-bachmann-end-times_n_4060063.html ]," by suggesting we consider that theory when it comes time for her to perform her Congressional duties.
"If you think the world is about to end, that's your right," Maher said. "But you don't get to vote on next year's budget because it doesn't concern you."
But Bachmann's fear of Judgment Day is hardly shocking when compared to Justice Scalia's recent interview in which he discussed his belief in the Devil [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/07/justice-scalia-devil-_n_4059202.html ]. Maher concluded that while most "reasonable people see Michele Bachmann as a total loon, but Scalia as a serious intellectual," they are actually, "the exact same idiot."
After reviewing Scalia's theories on why the Devil doesn't seem to be around anymore (because he isn't possessing people, running pigs off cliffs or doing other things described in the Old Testament) Maher admits that it isn't Scalia's beliefs that bother him, but the whole "making decisions for the rest of us" thing.
"It'd be one thing if Mr. Scalia sold pizza for a living, but this is a man we go to to interpret our laws. It's like smelling a gas leak and calling an exorcist."
Watch the full clip above.
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc. (emphasis in original)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/12/bill-maher-scalia-bachmann-devil-video_n_4089147.html [the YouTube, as embedded, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PEA5QXbfX0 ; with comments] [transcript at http://www.hbo.com/real-time-with-bill-maher#/real-time-with-bill-maher/episodes/0/297-episode/article/new-rules.html ]
--
This Is the Supreme Court's Shutdown
By Mansur Gidfar
Posted: 10/11/2013 4:14 pm
If you've tuned in to the media coverage of the ongoing government shutdown, you've probably seen or heard some variation of the following headline: "Politicians Point Fingers As Shutdown Continues." And while there's certainly plenty of finger pointing to go around, few of them have been pointed in the right direction. This isn't President Obama's shutdown or John Boehner's shutdown -- it's Citizens United's.
As a result of the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (FEC), a handful of moneyed interests have managed to circumvent the democratic process and engineer a government shutdown that nobody else wanted. The forces driving the current shutdown are just the latest indication of a disturbing trend in American politics: Elected officials increasingly feel accountable to a vanishingly small percentage of the population with the financial means to threaten their political existence instead of the voters they're elected to represent.
As summarized by a recent New York Times article [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a-federal-budget-crisis-months-in-the-planning.html?pagewanted=all (first item at/see {linked in} http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92774828 and preceding and following)], we've learned that the shutdown was planned months in advance by a very small but incredibly wealthy network of outside interest groups. Roughly three dozen well funded political organizations signed off on the "Blueprint to Defunding Obamacare [ http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/ryanriebe/joint-letter-on-sequester-savings ]," which outlined the strategy of using a government shutdown as leverage against the healthcare law, back in February -- nearly eight months before the shutdown went into effect. A Supreme Court hostile to any efforts to curtail the corrosive influence of money in politics has given these groups free reign to enforce this strategic vision, will of the people be damned.
A quick review: In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court ruled any restrictions of independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or trade unions unconstitutional. Since most people don't have a lot of money to spare for political contributions -- less than one half of one percent [ http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/donordemographics.php?cycle=2012 ] of the population donated over $200 to political candidates, parties, or PACs in the last election -- the practical result of Citizens United and subsequent federal court decisions is an explosion in spending by outside interest groups fueled by an incredibly small group of people.
There are two important factors to bear in mind here. The first is just how large [ http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/cycle_tots.php?cycle=2014&view=A&chart=N#viewpt ] this explosion in spending was. Outside groups spent over $338 million trying to influence the 2008 elections, which was the last presidential election cycle before the Citizens United ruling. A handsome sum to be sure, but one that pales in comparison to the mind-boggling figure of over $1 billion of outside spending in the 2012 elections. In fact, there was more outside spending in the 2012 election cycle then in every presidential election cycle since 1992 combined.
The second is just how small the number of people doing this spending is. In the 2012 election cycle, 216 people [ http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/donor_stats.php ] -- that's .00007 percent of the population -- contributed over $560 million to super PACs alone, which is more than one and a half times the amount of all outside spending in the 2008 election cycle combined. Put another way, 216 people spent nearly 11,000 times the amount an average family of four makes in an entire year [ http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/17/news/economy/poverty-income/index.html ] on vapid attack ads produced by nebulous groups with names like "Americans for a More American America."
Thanks to Citizens United, these outside groups can now use the threat of a primary challenge backed by multimillion-dollar ad buys to force their agendas. Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, estimates [ http://www.npr.org/2013/10/07/230023637/politics-within-the-gop-keeps-shutdown-in-motion ] that there are about 30 hardliners in the House driving the government shutdown and another 150 Republicans who are just playing along out of sheer terror of crossing the incredibly powerful coalition of post-Citizens United interest groups . With organizations like the Senate Conservative Fund and Heritage Action running targeted ads against congressional Republicans who haven't voiced enough enthusiasm for the shutdown strategy, the message that's being sent is clear: If you don't want a super PAC or 501(c)4 backing your next primary challenger to spring up overnight, you'll fall in line and you'll do it now.
A popular Democratic talking point throughout the shutdown accuses congressional Republicans of "holding the government hostage," but this metaphor is an imperfect one. The would-be hostage takers are themselves held hostage by a political system dominated by a handful of wealthy special interests. The opinions of the public or even the majority of congressional Republicans don't matter -- it's the money that's running the show.
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mansur-gidfar/this-is-the-supreme-court_b_4086269.html [with comments]
--
NBC12 Decision Virginia: Ken Cuccinelli on God's Judgement
Published on Oct 14, 2013 by NBC12 News
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's remarks at the Christian Life Summit 2012. Read more and see the full video [second item below] at: http://blogs.nbc12.com/decisionvirginia/2013/10/cuccinelli-warned-of-gods-judgement-related-to-abortion-in-2012-speech.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FimzTaT_3IE [with comments]
--
Ken Cuccinelli Is Amazed God Hasn't Punished America For Abortion
By Laura Bassett
Posted: 10/15/2013 9:40 am EDT | Updated: 10/15/2013 1:58 pm EDT
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has been trying to downplay his outspoken opposition to abortion rights [ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-evolution-of-ken-cuccinelli ] in his campaign for governor this year as part of an effort to win back the support of women voters [ http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/10/quinnipiac-poll-mcauliffe-has-lead-on-cuccinelli-95166.html ].
But in his speech to the Christian Life Summit last year -- unearthed Monday night by NBC12 [ http://blogs.nbc12.com/decisionvirginia/2013/10/cuccinelli-warned-of-gods-judgement-related-to-abortion-in-2012-speech.html ] -- Cuccinelli said he is surprised that God has not yet "imposed" more judgment on America for allowing abortion to be legal.
"Really, given that God does judge nations, it's amazing that abortion has run as far and foully as it has, without what I would consider to be a greater imposition of judgment on this country," Cuccinelli said. "Who knows what the future holds?"
Cuccinelli also criticized the Catholic church for its "soft and weak" leadership on social issues.
In a statement to NBC12, Cuccinelli's campaign did not directly address the comments. "It's no secret that Ken Cuccinelli is proudly pro life," his spokesman Richard Cullen said. "His focus as governor will be to implement his jobs plan, which will create 58,000 jobs and ease tax burdens on middle class families and workers."
Cuccinelli, who introduced a fetal personhood bill as state legislator and has since pushed to implement a strict new set of building regulations for abortion clinics, has said repeatedly in his campaign that he will not touch the issue of birth control [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/ken-cuccinelli-birth-control_n_3832319.html ] or expand the state's abortion laws as governor.
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/ken-cuccinelli-abortion_n_4100404.html [with non-YouTube version of the YouTube just above this item embedded, and (approaching 4,000) comments]
--
Ken Cuccinelli at Christian Life Summit 2012
Published on Sep 30, 2012 by prolifenews
The Va State Attorney General talks about the Importance of Christian leadership in defending the defenseless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QNT4GulxDA [with comments]
--
The religious right is a fraud: Nothing Christian about Michele Bachmann’s values
The American right obsesses over abortion and birth control, not helping people. It's different around the globe
Oct 15, 2013
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/15/the_religious_right_is_a_fraud_nothing_christian_about_michele_bachmanns_values/ [with comments]
--
Morgan Griffith, GOP Rep, Compares Default To American Revolution
10/12/2013
Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) compared the looming default to the American Revolution on Saturday after a meeting with House Republicans.
The Hill reports [ http://thehill.com/homenews/house/328185-house-gop-powwows-as-debt-limit-looms ] Griffith suggested that even if it resulted in a severely damaging default, the House should reject an unfavorable agreement from the Senate.
“We have to make a decision that’s right long-term for the United States, and what may be distasteful, unpleasant and not appropriate in the short run may be something that has to be done,” Griffith said, according to The Hill. “I will remind you that this group of renegades that decided that they wanted to break from the crown in 1776 did great damage to the economy of the colonies. They created the greatest nation and the best form of government, but they did damage to the economy in the short run.”
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/12/default-american-revolution-morgan-griffith_n_4089911.html [with (over 5,000) comments]
--
What Happened The Last Time A Major Western Country Defaulted
10/14/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/14/what-happened-the-last-ti_n_4098078.html [with comments]; http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-13/u-s-risks-joining-1933-germany-in-pantheon-of-deadbeat-defaults.html [with comments]
--
Bill Moyers Essay: Shutdown Showdown
Published on Oct 4, 2013 by MoyersandCompany
This week's government shutdown has consequences for all of us, costing an estimated $300 million each day that the government is closed for business. Many Americans have voiced their frustrations with the fallout from the shutdown on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter using the hash tag #DearCongress. Here, Bill Moyers shares his own frustrations, admonishing the Republican Party for holding the country hostage via an irrational "ransom list" of demands — while sabotaging democracy in the process. "When the President refused to buckle to this extortion, they threw their tantrum," Bill says. "Like the die-hards of the racist South a century and a half ago, who would destroy the union before giving up their slaves, so would these people burn down the place, sink the ship." He goes on to tell us where the "reckless ambition" of the Republicans could lead us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itzdTasneSI [with comments] [(linked in http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92775155 and preceding (and any future following)]
--
Modern GOP is still the party of Dixie
George Wallace, Rand Paul
(Credit: AP/Erik Schelzig)
How the South poisons American conservatism and sabotages our politics
By Kim Messick [ http://www.salon.com/writer/kim_messick/ ]
Saturday, Oct 12, 2013 01:00 PM CDT
In two earlier articles (here [ http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/the_tea_partys_paranoid_aesthetic/ ] and here [ http://www.salon.com/2013/08/31/the_conservative_crackup_how_the_republican_party_lost_its_mind/ ]), I argued that the Republican Party’s extremism can be traced to its increased dependence on an electorate that is largely rural, Southern and white. These voters, who figure prominently in the Tea Party [ http://www.salon.com/2011/08/02/lind_tea_party/ ], often decline to interpret political conflict as a struggle among interest groups or a good-faith clash of opinion. Instead, they tend to identify the country as a whole with an idealized version of themselves, and to equate any dissent from their values with disloyalty by alien, “un-American” forces. This paranoid vision of politics, I argued, makes them seek out opportunities for dramatic conflict and to shun negotiation and compromise.
In what follows, I want to extend these thoughts a bit further by exploring one simple question: why is this strain of political paranoia so entrenched in the South? The answer, I believe, will shed light not only on the current state of our politics but on the evolution of American conservatism generally.
*
We should begin with a clarification. What we want to explain isn’t why rural voters might think their interests sometimes diverge from those of urban (and suburban) Americans. That is easily enough explained: they think it because it’s true. Rural and urban areas have distinctive concerns, and these sometimes result in incompatible demands on policymakers. These kinds of conflicts are the mother’s milk of politics, so none of this is particularly surprising or, indeed, interesting.
What is surprising and interesting is when this conflict is experienced not as a matter of interests but of identity. It’s one thing to see urbanites as fellow citizens whose policy preferences depart from one’s own; it’s quite another to argue that their policy preferences give rise to serious doubt about whether they’re really Americans. Yet exactly this is the message of all those conservative complaints about “socialistic” Democrats who ignore our constitutional traditions as they labor to install a “nanny state [ http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/09/19/nanny-state ].” These aren’t true Americans, resolute, independent, self-reliant; they’re feckless, faux-European traitors. (Though one, in particular, may have closer connections with Africa than Europe. You know who I mean.)
To think in this way, one must identify the country with one’s own beliefs and values. Those with different preferences then become almost definitionally “un-American.” This identification has the consequence, however, that political conflicts are often experienced as personal crises; what’s at stake isn’t simply policy, but one’s own sense of self. This releases anxieties that cluster around an intensely imagined Other: liberal, conspiratorial, seditious.
This explanation of the mechanics of political paranoia may or may not be correct; I argued in detail for it in the first article mentioned above. But even if true, it leaves one important question unanswered: what prompts that first crucial step — the identification of one’s own values with the country as a whole?
A partial answer arises directly from the sociology of rural culture. Persons who live in cities learn quickly that the world is full of different kinds of people; diversity — of race, religion, outlook, speech, etc. — is a fact of life. Because of this, they tend not to connect these personal attributes with one’s ability to be a trustworthy member of the community. If they think about the conditions of citizenship, they are more likely to associate them with general qualities of character — honesty, integrity, loyalty — equally available to everyone, regardless of background.
Many rural areas, by contrast, lack this aboriginal experience of diversity; they may be characterized by high levels of uniformity in ideology, race and religion. Given this, it may be natural to assume that “everyone” believes what you believe, or worships as you worship, or looks and speaks as you look and speak. And because these attributes characterize the community as a whole, it may be equally natural to define the latter in terms of the former — to think of these qualities as necessary for responsible citizenship, for being “one of us.” Only a small step is needed to extend this logic from one’s own community to the country as a whole.
I said this answer is only partial. That’s because it explains why the identification of self with nation arises in the first place, but not why it persists. In the America of 2013, more thoroughly colonized by communications technology than any society in the history of the planet, no community is an island; each is part of the main — and The Matrix. Geographic isolation has been overwhelmed by smart phones, the internet, cable and satellite TV and Red Box. One’s own community might be an emblem of ideological orthodoxy, racial purity or religious conformity — but there is no escaping the knowledge that the country as a whole (much less the world) is not. So if we want to know why this identification endures in some environments but not others, we’ll have to add something to our account — a mechanism to explain the stubborn insistence that some people will always be outsiders. And because the South is ground zero for the paranoia that rules today’s Republicans, our explanation will have to apply with particular force and resonance to it.
I don’t think we have to look far. The explanation lies in the South’s experience with black slavery and white supremacy.
Slavery has been around a long time, of course, but in the ancient and medieval worlds it was rarely a matter of race. Slaves were often drawn from conquered peoples — they were part of the spoils of war — and were more often than not of the same race as their masters. When the ancients bothered to justify slavery at all, they usually did so on purely utilitarian grounds: you couldn’t run a successful society without it. There were occasional exceptions, Aristotle being the most notorious, but they stand out precisely because of their rarity. As the British philosopher Bernard Williams [ http://www.amazon.com/Shame-Necessity-Sather-Classical-Lectures/dp/0520256433 ] pointed out, Aristotle’s tortured attempt to argue that some people were “natural slaves” convinced few and puzzled many.
This view of slavery as grounded in social (mainly economic) necessity had an important implication. It meant there was no irrevocable fund of social animus directed at former slaves. Classical civilization accepted the slave’s fate, from his or her own point of view, as a grievous personal misfortune. A slave lucky enough to gain his freedom did not face a community which regarded him with sustained suspicion and contempt. He took his place in society and enjoyed the liberties and prerogatives to which his station entitled him.
The situation was quite different in the antebellum South. Slavery there was based on race and was justified by an ideology of white supremacy. Blacks were seen as inherently, necessarily, irreparably inferior to whites, who ruled over them in accordance with Nature and Nature’s God. But this meant, of course, that even a freed slave was exiled from his wider society. He could never participate in its dominant institutions or gain acceptance from its members. The membrane dividing slave from non-slave might be legally permeable; manumissions did sometimes occur. Socially, however, it was unbridgeable.
For black Americans slavery was a holocaust and a nightmare. For white Southerners it meant (among other things) living intimately with millions of human beings who were permanent outsiders — persons whose natural incapacities, as the white South saw them, meant they could never be trustworthy members of the community. For white supremacists, citizenship had one very definite condition of entry: white skin, and the potential for moral personality that came with it. The racial divide defined the difference between civilized society and the enthralled barbarism that lay beyond and beneath it.
It would be hard to overstate the influence of this experience on the mind of the South. For one thing, it meant that the white South was, in effect, a garrison state [ http://www.amazon.com/From-Rebellion-Revolution-Afro-American-Lectures/dp/0807117684 ]. White Southerners lived in close proximity to a large population they routinely abused, terrorized and defiled. Fear of black violence and revolt is a constant theme of white society before and after the Civil War. The South’s noisily martial version of patriotism has its roots here, as does the region’s love affair with guns. And there are obvious connections between these facts and its stubborn embrace of patriarchy and misogyny. (Does the name “Todd Akin” ring any bells?)
Of greater relevance to our present concerns, however, are the implications for the South’s political psychology. Here the region’s history as a slave society left a very particular imprint, one that lingered long after slavery and Jim Crow collapsed. I mean the habit of imagining society as a two-tiered structure, with the “normative” community on top and a degenerate class of outsiders below. The former consists of those who satisfy the prerequisites of citizenship, and can therefore be trusted to fulfill the social contract voluntarily; the latter of those whose inherent debilities ensure that coercion is the only reliable guarantee of cooperation.
This is a fraught subject, so I want to make my meaning clear. I am not arguing that all Southerners — or all conservatives — are racists or paranoids; I’m not even arguing that all Southerners are conservatives. (I myself would personally disprove that assertion.) Slavery, thankfully, disappeared long ago, and Jim Crow is now almost two generations behind us. Racism lingers on in the South as in America generally, but for the most part must now keep its head down and its voice low; it’s the vice that dare not speak its name. (This is not to deny, of course, that it retains considerable social valence.) What I am arguing is that a certain habit of thought, powerfully shaped by the experience of slavery, survived the passage of that curse and continues to influence some Southern conservatives to this day. It no longer takes the form of a blatant assertion that only the white race is worthy of social trust; its definition of the normative community has shifted. (Though it remains associated with racialist, or at least race-conscious, themes.) It is now more likely to define that community in ideological terms — to see it as consisting of those who endorse a particular view of government and its rightful relations with traditional mores and economic power. It has, however, retained certain aspects of its earlier, darker origins. It is still obsessed with purity — ideological if not racial — and still invests those it regards as impure with a harsh, acute animus. And it continues to equate difference with illegitimacy. Those on the outside — the liberals, the Democrats, the “socialists” — cannot be trusted partners in political life; they want only to undermine our institutions and must therefore be expelled from them.
Thus we arrive at the paranoid version of politics described above, in which policy disputes signal an insidious betrayal of “our” way of life. This is surely what animates the conduct of today’s Republicans — the reflexive rejection of compromise, the flagrant violation of long-established institutional norms, the experience of diversity as an invasion by foreign, unfamiliar powers.
The Republican belief that it would be better to suspend the government (or default on the debt) than to fund “Obamacare,” for instance, can be explained only by this kind of wrathful, embattled logic. There is a sense in which the current shutdown is the culmination of the last 50 years of Republican history. Today’s GOP is the heir of Reagan’s remark that “[G]overnment is not the solution… government is the problem,” even as Reagan embodied the strident, anti-statist dogmas of Barry Goldwater. The Party’s development since 1964 has, in effect, been one long preparation for the time when it would have to argue that no government would be better than liberal government. It would make no sense to say this if liberals were simply misguided souls with some bad policy ideas. It makes perfect sense when one sees them through the prism of Tea Party doctrine: as illegitimate interlopers from the outer darkness whose intent is to exploit and subvert the normative American community.
Not long after the shutdown began, Rep. Martha Blackburn [ http://www.policymic.com/articles/66021/government-shutdown-8-people-who-are-actually-happy-about-it ], a Republican from Tennessee, appeared on Fox News. “I think… people are probably going to realize they can live with a lot less government than what they thought they needed,” she chirped. The hapless John Boehner [ http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/boehner-shutdown-congressional-meeting/2013/10/02/id/528996 ], emerging from a meeting with the President and other Congressional leaders, was less exuberant but no less revealing. The President’s refusal to negotiate, he implied, was inconsistent with the fact that “we’ve got divided government.” In his mind, whether the government should continue to function is just one more conflict to be stage-managed and gamed out; one more thing we might be divided over, no different in kind from disputes about tax rates or military policy. That government is the framework within which democracy occurs; that a minority committed to democracy would recognize this; that therefore real questions are raised when a minority favors its own constituency over the continuation of government — none of these things occurs to him. But the intellectual architecture behind these thoughts disappeared from Boehner’s universe long ago. For today’s Republicans, government — like health care reform, abortion, and same-sex marriage — is just another emanation from the liberal darkness. These New Confederates have reversed the logic of the Old; unlike their predecessors, they don’t want to secede from government: they want government to secede from American life. But like their ancestors in 1860, they’ve bestowed upon us a full-blown legitimation crisis. It’s their gift to America.
*
As the shutdown makes clear, we don’t have the option of shrugging this off as a matter of purely sectional concern. While these attitudes are certainly not confined to the South, they seem to have a special virulence there, and the South is now the electoral center of gravity for the Republican Party. That party, in turn, is the institutional face of the conservative movement. In closing, I would like to explore the implications of this analysis for a certain question about American conservatism.
Left-leaning students of conservatism — in whose ranks I include myself — sometimes impose on it the demand for a specious (not to say foolish) consistency. They want to find a principle that reconciles John Adams with Joe McCarthy, or that exhibits William F. Buckley, Jr. as a direct descendant of Edmund Burke. Seeing that this is impossible, they infer that conservatism isn’t a coherent intellectual tradition at all but simply an amalgam of reactionary impulses — a “collection of irritable mental gestures” as the critic Lionel Trilling [ http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Imagination-Review-Books-Classics/dp/1590172833 ] memorably put. (Though Trilling, I hasten to add, was far too subtle a thinker to believe this caricature applied to the conservative tradition as a whole.)
The truth is that conservatism, like liberalism or any other tradition worthy of serious study, is too complex to sustain this kind of reductionism. Outside of mathematics and logic, coherence is rarely a matter of deductive rigor. If we can find a few core concepts or concerns in a body of ideas, and if these have any force at all, that justifies taking it seriously.
I think we can find such an intellectual core in American conservatism. It is most easily discerned, perhaps, in contrast with its great rival, liberalism. Liberals — surprise! — believe in liberty. To put this point less abstractly (and tendentiously), they believe individual liberty should be the central value in the organization of political life. A corollary of this view is that liberty should be restricted only for the sake of a greater liberty.
Conservatives may agree that liberty is an important value – Burke [ http://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Revolution-France-Edmund-Burke/dp/1617206709 ], for example, endorsed the ideal of an “ordered liberty” — but not that it’s the paramount value. Because no person can lead a recognizably human life outside society, conservatives believe the integrity of the social fabric must be ensured even when this conflicts with individual liberty. The paramount value for conservatism, then, tends to be a principle of authority.
One way to distinguish among different strands of conservatism is to ask exactly how this principle is defined and applied. When given a narrowly religious construal, for example, it can result in a social world that is punitive, harsh and dogmatic. (One thinks immediately of Joseph de Maistre [ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1990/sep/27/joseph-de-maistre-and-the-origins-of-fascism/?pagination=false ] and the Catholic Right in France.) More influential for American conservatism, however, was the English emphasis on society as a network of institutions and practices — some religious, some cultural and political, some economic — whose combined efficacy depends on a carefully preserved balance. This view, presented so forcefully by Burke in England, was echoed by early American conservatives such as John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.
The idea of society as a delicate weave of various elements has an important consequence: namely, that every element makes some claim on every other. These conservatives certainly thought of hierarchy as important to society, but it was a hierarchy within society: each “interest” was accepted as part of the social fabric and its concerns accorded an appropriate weight. This sense of the nation as a community prompted Thomas Carlyle [ http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/carlyle/diniejko1.html ] and John Ruskin [ http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/ruskin/grose4.html ], for instance, to criticize the socially corrosive effects of early English capitalism.
This vision did not, of course, transfer seamlessly to the very different society of the new American nation. Some tensions were always apparent, most notably the fact that, outside the South, American society was significantly more liberalized than the English. This gave rise to a peculiar (if piquant) paradox: the social order that American conservatives sought to “conserve” was in many respects a liberal one.
Most of the obscurities and difficulties of American conservatism derive from this antinomy. The solution of mainstream thinkers was to argue that American culture includes conservative forces — forces, such as religious faith, that constrain the dynamism of its economy and society — and that these should be safeguarded and encouraged. They also emphasized, more or less persuasively, the importance to capitalist democracy of certain “conservative” habits of thought and conduct — honesty, prudence, reliability, etc.
In doing so, conservatives did not abandon their sense of society as a kind of community, one whose stability depends crucially on relations of fidelity and mutuality. Not, that is, until they responded to the entreaties of white Southerners in full recoil from the civil rights movement of the mid-1960s. Under the influence of this new constituency, their vision of the community as a whole began to curdle and contract, until finally it extended no further than the “normative” community: that subset of persons whose interests alone were deemed to have weight and value.
As mentioned previously, it is no longer customary to specify this subset in explicitly racial terms. These days the preferred enumeration is ideological: the insiders consist of the productive and self-reliant, those who accept and enact the values of work. On the outside are the “takers,” the parasites, the “47% [ http://visual.ly/putting-47-percent-perspective ],” all those whose sloth and selfishness leave them dependent on the diligence of others. (That this ideological turn is still heavily implicated in racial distrust may be too obvious to require mention.)
This fracturing of vision has secured for conservatives the loyalty of the revanchist South, but at a considerable price. A creed that once sought to moderate social tensions is now the vehicle of an intense animus. The belief that all members of society have claims to make has been replaced by an angry, bitter exclusionism. And its embrace of self-reliance has hardened into an economic Darwinism more inclined to celebrate than to critique an increasingly rapacious global capitalism.
This last point is especially important, because it highlights the absurdity of the notion that today’s conservatives have any meaningful relationship with libertarianism. One often hears, for example, Rand Paul or Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz referred to as members of the “libertarian wing [ http://www.policymic.com/articles/29823/ted-cruz-rand-paul-and-cpac-is-it-libertarians-moment-to-shine ]” of the Republican Party. This sort of thing makes one wonder if the commentator thinks “libertarian” is a synonym for “intransigent.” It is, in fact, the name of a particularly stringent form of liberalism, one that differs from anarchism only in its belief that some kind of highly minimal, schematic state can be justified. The question, of course, is what fills the social space created by the contraction of the state. Libertarians, rightly called, believe this space should be filled by a principle of individual liberty. But this is not what Paul or Rubio or Cruz or any other Republican believes. Paul, for instance, opposes [ http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htm ] abortion rights and same sex marriage. Like Rubio and Cruz and the Tea Party generally, he seeks a smaller government in order to fill the resulting space with some other source of authority and power. He is a perfect example of Sunbelt business conservatism, which wants to displace government so corporate and personal wealth can prevail in a social world dominated by the traditional culture of the evangelical South.
William F. Buckley, Jr., in so many ways the father of modern American conservatism, once famously described the conservative as “standing athwart History, yelling ‘Stop! [ http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/williamfb384475.html ]’” But the shrill faux-individualism of today’s Southern-fried conservatives actively abets one of the most destructive trends in American life: the fact that our notions of agency are increasingly fragmented even as the structural forces which constrain agency grow ever larger. In a 2012 Republican Presidential debate held in Florida, Ron Paul, Rand’s father, asked rhetorically what should happen if someone without health insurance shows up at an emergency room. “Let him die! [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0 (next below(]”
That is the cry of our Southern conservatism.
Kim Messick lives and writes in North Carolina. He's working on a novel.
Copyright © 2013 Salon Media Group, Inc. (emphasis in original)
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/12/modern_gop_is_still_the_party_of_dixie/ [with comments]
--
Louie Gohmert: A Debt Default Is 'An Impeachable Offense By The President'
10/15/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/louie-gohmert-impeach_n_4094707.html [with embedded video report, and (approaching 5,000) comments]
--
On October 17, If Congress Fails the President Has No Choice
10/15/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-schweber/on-october-17-if-congress_b_4100402.html [with comments]
--
Sarah Palin: Obama On Verge Of 'Impeachable Offenses'
Posted: 10/14/2013 4:31 pm EDT | Updated: 10/15/2013 11:08 am EDT
Former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin took to Facebook [ https://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin/posts/10151931198833588 ] on Monday to accuse President Barack Obama of toying with "impeachable offenses" to address the looming debt ceiling deadline.
"Apparently the president thinks he can furlough reality when talking about the debt limit," Palin wrote.
Palin said Obama, who has repeatedly warned about the dangers of default if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling ahead of the October 17 deadline, is using the debt limit to scare the public.
"It’s also shameful to see him scaremongering the markets with his talk of default," she wrote. "There is no way we can default if we follow the Constitution."
Palin went on to cite the Constitution's 14th Amendment [ http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv ].
"The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4, requires that we service our debt first," she wrote. "We currently collect more than enough tax revenue to service our debt if we do that first."
However, Palin suggested that Obama could face impeachment if he used the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval — an option endorsed in a Courier-Journal op-ed [ http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20131013/OPINION04/310130027/-1/7daysarchives/14th-Amendment-debt-safeguard?nclick_check=1 ] by constitutional lawyer Brianne Gorod. Former President Bill Clinton [ http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/07/20/138511612/bill-clinton-says-hed-raise-the-debt-ceiling-using-14th-amendment ] and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/nancy-pelosi-14th-amendment-debt_n_3991148.html ] have also urged Obama to invoke the 14th Amendment if necessary.
Palin, on the other hand, said any such action would be a "betrayal" of future generations.
"It’s time for the president to be honest with the American people for a change. Defaulting on our national debt is an impeachable offense, and any attempt by President Obama to unilaterally raise the debt limit without Congress is also an impeachable offense," Palin wrote. "A default would also be a shameful lack of leadership, just as mindlessly increasing our debt without trying to rein in spending is a betrayal of our children and grandchildren who will be stuck with the bill."
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/14/sarah-palin-obama-impeachable_n_4098643.html [with embedded video report, and comments]
--
George Will to Fox News
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-danziger/george-will-to-fox_b_4094055.html [with comments]
*
George Will Compares Obamacare To Fugitive Slave Act
10/09/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/george-will-obamacare-slavery_n_4070389.html [with comments]
Ignorant Tea Party outrage: Sarah Palin’s latest Obamacare lie
Sarah Palin, Ben Carson and others who compare Obamacare to slavery don't know much about either
Oct 14, 2013
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/14/ignorant_tea_party_outrage_sarah_palins_latest_obamacare_lie/singleton/ [with comments]
--
The GOP’s Backdoor Impeachment Scheme
The Jefferson Memorial is seen with its entry closed off in Washington October 1, 2013.
Republicans have lost at the ballot box and the Supreme Court, so they’ve decided to nullify President Obama another way: keep his government from working, period.
Oct 14, 2013
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/14/the-gop-s-backdoor-impeachment-scheme.html [with comments]
--
Tea Party Hypocrisy
10/13/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-peyronnin/tea-party-hypocrisy_b_4094958.html [with comments]
--
Who is responsible for the US shutdown? The same idiots responsible for the 2008 meltdown
A Tea Party rally against the Affordable Care Act in Washington, DC last month. 'An opinion poll [in] 2012 showed that a majority of Americans, while opposing Obamacare, strongly support most of its provisions.'
Photograph: UPI /Landov / Barcroft Media
In opposing Obamacare, the radical-populist right exposes its own twisted ideology
Slavoj Žižek
The Guardian, Friday 11 October 2013 11.15 EDT
In April 2009 I was resting in a hotel room in Syracuse, hopping between two channels: a PBS documentary on Pete Seeger, the great American country singer of the left; and a Fox News report on the anti-tax Tea Party [ http://www.theguardian.com/world/tea-party-movement ], with a country singer performing a populist song about how Washington is taxing hard-working ordinary people to finance the Wall Street financiers. There was a weird similarity between the two singers: both were articulating an anti-establishment, populist complaint against the exploitative rich and their state; both were calling for radical measures, including civil disobedience.
It was another painful reminder that today's radical-populist right reminds us of the old radical-populist left (are today's Christian survivalist-fundamentalist groups with their half-illegal status not organised like Black Panthers back in the 1960s?). It is a masterful ideological manipulation: the Tea Party agenda is fundamentally irrational in that it wants to protect the interests of hardworking ordinary people by privileging the "exploitative rich", thus literally countering their own interests.
This twisted ideology is also behind the current federal government shutdown [ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/11/us-shutdown-talks-end-without-agreement ] in the US. An opinion poll at the end of June 2012 showed that a majority of Americans, while opposing Obamacare, strongly support most of its provisions. Here we encounter Tea Party ideology at its purest: the majority wants to have its ideological cake and eat the real baking. They want the real benefits of healthcare reform [ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/02/obamacare-lifesaver-signup ], while rejecting its ideological form, which they perceive as a threat to the "freedom of choice". They reject the concept of fruit, but they want apples, plums and strawberries.
Some of us remember the infamous communist tirades against bourgeois "formal" freedom. Ridiculous as these arguments were, there is some truth in the distinction between "formal" and "actual" freedom. A manager in a company in crisis has the "freedom" to fire workers, but not the freedom to change the situation that imposes on him this choice. We see it in the US healthcare debate [ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/11/truth-obamacare-rocky-rollout ], too: Obamacare would deliver many people from the dubious "freedom" to worry about who will cover their illness.
Freedom of choice is something that only functions if a complex network of legal, educational, ethical, economic and other conditions exists – the constraints that form the invisible underpinning to the exercise of our freedom. This is why, as an antidote to the populist rightwing ideology of choice, countries such as Norway should be held up as a model: although all main agents respect a basic social agreement and large social projects are enacted in solidarity, the economy is thriving [ http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/oct/30/global-prosperity-index-usa-economy ] (and not only because of the oil reserves), flatly contradicting the common wisdom that such a society should be stagnating.
Not many people know – and even fewer appreciate the irony of the fact – that Frank Sinatra's iconic song My Way – which is supposed to epitomise the American individualist attitude – is in fact a version of the French song Comme d'Habitude, which means "as usual, as is customary". It is all too easy to see this as yet another example of the opposition between sterile French manners and American inventiveness. But what if this is a phoney opposition? What if, in order to be able to do it my way, I have to rely on things going on comme d'habitude? A lot of things have to be regulated if we are to enjoy our non-regulated freedom.
One often hears that the US shutdown is the result of partisan bickering, that politicians should learn to rise above it and find bipartisan solutions for the good of the nation. Not only the Tea Party, but also Barack Obama is accused of dividing the American people instead of bringing them together. But what if this, precisely, is what is good about Obama [ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/06/obama-shutdown-dont-cave-republicans ]? In situations of deep crisis, an authentic division is urgently needed: a division between those who want to drag on within the old parameters and those who are aware of the need for radical change. This, not opportunistic compromise, is the only path to true unity.
One of the weird consequences of the 2008 financial meltdown and the measures taken to counteract it (enormous sums of money to help banks) was the revival of the work of Ayn Rand, the closest one can get to an ideologist of the "greed is good" radical capitalism. The sales of her opus Atlas Shrugged exploded. According to some reports, there are already signs that the scenario described in Atlas Shrugged – the creative capitalists themselves going on strike – is coming to pass in the form of a populist right. However, this misreads the situation: what is effectively taking place today is almost the exact opposite. Most of the bailout money is going precisely to the Randian "titans", the bankers who failed in their "creative" schemes and thereby brought about the financial meltdown. It is not the "creative geniuses" who are now helping ordinary people, it is the ordinary people who are helping the failed "creative geniuses [ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/11/shutdown-congress-gets-pay-perks ]".
John Galt, the central character in Atlas Shrugged, is not named until near the end of the novel. Before his identity is revealed, the question is repeatedly asked, "Who is John Galt". Now we know precisely who he is: John Galt is the idiot responsible for the 2008 financial meltdown, and for the ongoing federal government shutdown in the US.
© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/11/who-responsible-us-shutdown-2008-meltdown-slavoj-zizek [with comments]
--
The default has already begun
October 14, 2013
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/10/14/the-default-has-already-begun/ [with comments]
--
Viewing U.S. in Fear and Dismay
A Greek retiree named Yiannis was among those expressing shock that American politicians had allowed their disagreements to reach this point.
Angelos Tzortzinis for The New York Times
By DAMIEN CAVE
Published: October 15, 2013
MEXICO CITY — The word many Mexicans now use to describe Washington reflects a familiar mix of outrage and exasperation: berrinche. Technically defined as a tantrum, berrinches are also spoiled little rich kids, blind to their privilege and the effects of their misbehavior.
“It’s a display of American arrogance,” said Raúl Silva, 40, an entrepreneur grabbing coffee at an upscale cafe here. “It’s a problem, and it’s going to affect us.”
Faced with Washington’s march toward a default, the world has reacted mostly with disbelief that the reigning superpower could fall into such dysfunction, worry over global suffering to come and frustration that American lawmakers could let the problem reach this point.
A common question crossing continents remains quite simple: The Americans aren’t really that unreasonable and self-destructive, are they?
“It just goes to show that it’s not only Greece that has irresponsible and shortsighted politicians,” said Ioanna Kalavryti, 34, a teacher in Athens. “We’ve been held hostage by our reckless politicians, and the interests they serve, for more than three years now. I guess our American friends are getting a taste of the same medicine.”
For countries that have had their own experiences with financial crises — often followed by American dictates about the need to be more responsible — the brinkmanship in the United States has produced an especially caustic mix of bewilderment, offense and more than a little eagerness to scold.
Many people in countries like Greece, Argentina, Mexico and Russia still have searing memories of defaults and their lasting effects, including lost power. Especially galling for those who endured crises of their own is the fact that the United States remains sheltered: a default could well hurt weaker countries more than the United States, which has the advantage of the dollar’s being used as a global currency.
Indeed, the unequal distribution of power and wealth — part of the exceptionalism that American politicians loudly defend — has become a focal point for many foreign economists and officials. If any other nation had gotten this close to failing to pay its debts, they say, its economy would have already collapsed as investors fled, creating the need for a bailout not unlike what occurred here in Mexico in 1994.
“The U.S.'s exorbitant privilege” — of issuing the world’s most widely accepted currency — “allows it not to have a budget, to bump against debt limit with scant market reaction,” said Luis de la Calle, a Mexican economist.
If Mexico and many other countries shut down their governments, stopped paying salaries and threatened to default, he added, the titans of global finance, as they have in the past, would make sure the consequences were swift and severe. “We have little choice but to be responsible,” Mr. de la Calle said.
Especially in places accustomed to American lectures on good governance, finger-wagging has been easy to find. In Egypt, where the military-backed government has been criticized by the Obama administration for its heavy-handed crackdown on opponents, the American woes were splashed across the front page of the flagship state newspaper this week with alarm and a hint of satisfaction.
In Argentina, which defaulted on around $100 billion in debt in 2001, then the biggest default in history [ http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/24/world/argentine-leader-declares-default-on-billions-in-debt.html ], the newspaper La Nación pointed out in an article that the United States “is supposedly an international leader, and one that speaks every day of setting an example.”
But in many countries, a wide range of people, from executives to shoe shiners, simply seemed surprised and annoyed, with some saying they hoped that Washington’s dangerous game of chicken would draw to an end without global repercussions.
“They’re putting at risk thousands of jobs here in Mexico,” said Ahmad Fayad, 31, an administrative assistant leaving a bank in Mexico City. “Many companies here depend on the American economy’s health. And if everything continues to be so uncertain, they’ll start laying people off.”
Already, many argue, the standoff in Washington has deepened the sense of America’s decline. On the streets of many countries, conversations about the United States now regularly include expressions of shock and dismay. One businessman in Mexico said that following the fracas was like watching a famous couple’s marriage collapse in public, with shoving, shouting and ugly insults.
How, many ask, did the United States become more like the rest of the world, and less of an obvious leader? “I think the U.S. is losing its place,” said Osama Shawki, a shopkeeper in Cairo.
Others agreed. “It’s strange that such a thing has happened there,” said Irina Popova, 40, a homemaker in Russia, which suffered a financial collapse and default in 1998. “I always dreamed of going to America. It can happen to any country. It was us before, now it’s them.”
On the streets of Greece, people seemed to be shaking their heads, stunned at what they saw as American political weakness corroding a country of obvious strength.
“I never thought a global superpower like the U.S. could ever be in a comparable position to Greece,” said Theodore Couloumbis, emeritus professor of international relations at the University of Athens. “Both countries are paying dearly for rising political tensions. But in America’s case, there is the potential for serious global repercussions, too.”
For some, that shared risk led to empathy. “I have lots of friends in America,” said Zhanna Lanskaya, 36, a school director in Moscow. “I worry what effect it will have on ordinary people.”
For others, though, there was only disappointment — and some sanctimony. Many said that the United States needed to accept that the current crisis was the product of the same absolutist tendencies that had aggravated foreigners for centuries.
“America has fallen into a trap of its own making,” said Artur Khanukaev, 26, a ballistics engineer in Moscow. Even if the United States never slips into default, he said, the fear of collapse “will be a very good lesson.”
In some countries, pundits have singled out President Obama, questioning his leadership. But generally opinion pages have been focused on explaining the Tea Party and condemning it for the political paralysis. Columnists in Argentina have written that the Tea Party is blackmailing the United States and, in turn, the world.
Here in Mexico, José Luis Valdés Ugalde, a political science professor at the national university, recently compared Tea Party lawmakers to “reckless scoundrels who can sink the local and, in passing, also the global economy in the name of a reaction, rather than rational action.”
For Mexico, the risks of an American default are enormous. The government shutdown has already doubled wait times at some border crossings, slowing commerce with the United States, Mexico’s largest trading partner. The Mexican peso has fallen to a two-month low, and many business owners are anxious about what will come next.
Many here and elsewhere say that they expect the United States to avoid default. But others say that “tantrums” have come to define Washington, and that a reprieve will probably be short lived.
“They are supposed to be an example of consensus and democracy for the rest of the world,” said Salomón Cavane, 33, the owner of a men’s clothing business. “The fact they can’t come to an agreement because of their pride and their need to show who has the power — it is just ridiculous. I find it quite irresponsible as well.”
Reporting was contributed by Paulina Villegas from Mexico City, Andrew Roth and Patrick Reevell from Moscow, Niki Kitsantonis from Athens, Jonathan Gilbert from Buenos Aires, and Kareem Fahim from Cairo.
© 2013 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/world/viewing-us-in-fear-and-dismay.html [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/world/viewing-us-in-fear-and-dismay.html?pagewanted=all ] [with comments]
--
Republicans Back Down, Ending Crisis Over Shutdown and Debt Limit
Speaker John A. Boehner before voting Wednesday night. He told his members to hold their heads high, go home and regroup.
Doug Mills/The New York Times
Video [embedded]: Obama Speaks After Senate Passes Bill
Video: Mitch McConnell on Fiscal Deal
http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/10/16/us/politics/100000002502256/mitch-mcconnell-on-fiscal-deal.html
Video: Reid Thanks GOP Leader for Cooperation
http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/10/16/us/politics/100000002502441/reid-on-reaching-deal-to-end-shutdown.html
Slide Show: Following the Fiscal Crisis
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2013/10/16/us/20131017_SHUTDOWN.html
Graphic: The Back and Forth Over the Shutdown and Debt Ceiling
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/30/us/politics/the-back-and-forth-over-the-shutdown.html
Interactive Graphic: Senate Votes to Approves Budget Compromise
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/senate/1/219
Interactive Graphic: House Votes to Approve Budget Compromise
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/1/550
President Obama after speaking about the government shutdown Wednesday at the White House.
Saul Loeb/Agence France-Presse - Getty Images
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada helped negotiate the deal Wednesday.
Gabriella Demczuk/The New York Times
By JONATHAN WEISMAN and ASHLEY PARKER
Published: October 16, 2013
WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans conceded defeat on Wednesday in their bitter budget fight with President Obama over the new health care law as the House and Senate approved last-minute legislation ending a disruptive 16-day government shutdown and extending federal borrowing power to avert a financial default with potentially worldwide economic repercussions.
With the Treasury Department warning that it could run out of money to pay national obligations within a day, the Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday evening, 81 to 18 [ http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/senate/1/219 ], to approve a proposal hammered out by the chamber’s Republican and Democratic leaders after the House on Tuesday was unable to move forward with any resolution. The House followed suit a few hours later, voting 285 to 144 to approve the Senate plan [ http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/1/550 ], which would fund the government through Jan. 15 and raise the debt limit through Feb. 7.
Mr. Obama signed the bill about 12:30 a.m. Thursday.
Most House Republicans opposed the bill, but 87 voted to support it. The breakdown showed that Republican leaders were willing to violate their informal rule against advancing bills that do not have majority Republican support in order to end the shutdown. All 198 Democrats voting supported the measure.
Mr. Obama, speaking shortly after the Senate vote, praised Congress, but he said he hoped the damaging standoff would not be repeated.
“We’ve got to get out of the habit of governing by crisis,” said Mr. Obama, who urged Congress to proceed not only with new budget negotiations, but with immigration changes and a farm bill as well. “We could get all these things done even this year, if everybody comes together in a spirit of, how are we going to move this country forward and put the last three weeks behind us?”
After the House vote, officials announced that the federal government would reopen on Thursday and that federal employees should return to work.
The result of the impasse that threatened the nation’s credit rating was a near total defeat for Republican conservatives, who had engineered the budget impasse as a way to strip the new health care law of funding even as registration for benefits opened Oct. 1 or, failing that, to win delays in putting the program into place.
The shutdown sent Republican poll ratings plunging, cost the government billions of dollars and damaged the nation’s international credibility. Mr. Obama refused to compromise, leaving Republican leaders to beg him to talk, and to fulminate when he refused. For all that, Republicans got a slight tightening of income verification rules for Americans accessing new health insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act.
“We fought the good fight,” said Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio, who has struggled to control the conservative faction in the House, in an interview with a Cincinnati radio station. “We just didn’t win.”
In a brief closed session with his Republican rank and file, Mr. Boehner told members to hold their heads high, go home, get some rest and think about how they could work better as a team.
Two weeks of relative cohesion broke down into near chaos on Tuesday when Republican leaders failed twice to unite their troops behind a last-gasp effort to prevent a default on their own terms. By Wednesday, House conservatives were accusing more moderate Republicans of undercutting their position. Representative Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, a leading Republican voice for ending the fight, said Congress should have passed a bill to fund the government without policy strings attached weeks ago.
“That’s essentially what we’re doing now,” Mr. Dent said. “People can blame me all they want, but I was correct in my analysis and I’d say a lot of those folks were not correct in theirs.”
Under the agreement to reopen the government, the House and Senate are directed to hold talks and reach accord by Dec. 13 on a long-term blueprint for tax and spending policies over the next decade. Mr. Obama said consistently through the standoff that he was willing to have a wide-ranging budget negotiation once the government was reopened and the debt limit raised.
Mr. Boehner and his leadership team had long felt that they needed to allow their restive conference to pitch a battle over the president’s health care law, a fight that had been brewing almost since the law was passed in 2010. Now, they hope the fever has broken, and they can negotiate on issues where they think they have the upper hand, like spending cuts and changes to entitlement programs.
But there were no guarantees that Congress would not be at loggerheads again by mid-January, and there is deep skepticism in both parties that Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin and Senator Patty Murray of Washington, who will lead the budget negotiations, can bridge the chasm between them.
“This moves us into the next phase of the same debate,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat. “Our hope is now that Speaker Boehner and his caucus have played out their scenario with a tragic outcome, perhaps they’ll be willing to be more constructive.”
As Republican lawmakers left the closed meeting Wednesday, some were already thinking of the next fight.
“I’ll vote against it,” said Representative John C. Fleming, Republican of Louisiana, referring to the Senate plan. “But that will get us into Round 2. See, we’re going to start this all over again.”
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader who was instrumental in ending the crisis, stressed that under the deal he had negotiated with the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the across-the-board budget cuts extracted in the 2011 fiscal showdown remained in place over the objections of some Democrats, a slim reed that not even he claimed as a significant victory.
The deal, Mr. McConnell said, “is far less than many of us hoped for, quite frankly, but it’s far better than what some had sought.”
“Now it’s time for Republicans to unite behind other crucial goals,” he added.
Chastened Senate Republicans said they hoped the outcome would be a learning experience for the lawmakers in the House and the Senate who shut down the government in hopes of gutting the health law, Mr. Obama’s signature domestic achievement. Instead of using the twin issues of government funding and borrowing authority to address the drivers of the federal deficit, conservatives focused on a law they could never undo as long as Mr. Obama is president, several lawmakers said.
“Goose egg, nothing, we got nothing,” said Representative Thomas H. Massie, Republican of Kentucky.
Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina took a swipe at his fellow Republican senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah, as well as House members who linked government financing to defunding the health care law, which is financed by its own designated revenues and spending cuts.
“Let’s just say sometimes learning what can’t be accomplished is an important long-term thing,” Mr. Burr said, “and hopefully for some of the members they’ve learned it’s impossible to defund mandatory programs by shutting down the federal government.”
While Mr. Cruz conceded defeat, he did not express contrition.
“Unfortunately, the Washington establishment is failing to listen to the American people,” he said as he emerged from a meeting of Senate Republicans called to ratify the agreement.
For hundreds of thousands of federal workers across the country furloughed from their jobs, the legislative deal meant an abrupt end to their forced vacation as the government comes back to life beginning Thursday.
In a statement late Wednesday, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, made the reopening official.
“Employees should expect to return to work in the morning,” she said, adding they should check news reports and the Office of Personnel Management’s Web site [ http://www.opm.gov/ ] for updates.
For Mr. Boehner, who had failed to unite his conference around a workable plan, Wednesday’s decision to take up the Senate bill proved surprisingly free of conflict. Hard-line Republican lawmakers largely rallied around the speaker.
Representative Raúl R. Labrador of Idaho, said he was “really proud” of how Mr. Boehner had handled the situation. “I’m more upset with my Republican conference, to be honest with you,” he said.
Michael D. Shear contributed reporting.
© 2013 The New York Times Company
*
Related in Opinion
Editorial: The Republican Surrender (October 17, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/opinion/the-republican-surrender.html
Editorial: The Senate Tries to End the Crisis (October 15, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/opinion/the-senate-tries-to-end-the-crisis.html
Op-Ed Contributor: Changing the Debt-Ceiling Game (October 15, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/opinion/changing-the-debt-ceiling-game.html
*
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/us/congress-budget-debate.html [with (over 3,000) comments]
--
President Obama Statement on Debt Ceiling Deal Reopening Government
Published on Oct 16, 2013 by C-SPAN
Following the Senate vote approving a Debt Ceiling Deal Reopening Government, 81-18, President Obama delivered a statement from the White House. Included in his statement he said, "Once this agreement arrives on my desk I will sign it immediately. We'll begin reopening our government immediately." The House will vote later. Complete coverage on http://www.c-span.org/
*
Statement by the President of the United States
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
October 16, 2013
8:28 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening, everybody. Tonight, the Republicans and Democrats in Congress have come together around an agreement that will reopen our government and remove the threat of default from our economy.
The Senate has now voted to approve this agreement, and Democrats and Republicans in the House still have an important vote to take, but I want to thank the leaders of both parties for getting us to this point. Once this agreement arrives on my desk, I will sign it immediately. We'll begin reopening our government immediately, and we can begin to lift this cloud of uncertainty and unease from our businesses and from the American people.
I'll have more to say about this tomorrow. And I've got some thoughts about how we can move forward in the remainder of the year and stay focused on the job at hand, because there is a lot of work ahead of us, including our need to earn back the trust of the American people that has been lost over the last few weeks. And we can begin to do that by addressing the real issues that they care about.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: I am willing to work with anybody, I am eager to work with anybody -- Democrat or Republican, House or Senate members -- on any idea that will grow our economy, create new jobs, strengthen the middle class, and get our fiscal house in order for the long term. I've never believed that Democrats have a monopoly on good ideas. And despite the differences over the issue of shutting down our government, I'm convinced that Democrats and Republicans can work together to make progress for America.
In fact, there are things that we know will help strengthen our economy that we could get done before this year is out. We still need to pass a law to fix our broken immigration system. We still need to pass a farm bill. And with the shutdown behind us and budget committees forming, we now have an opportunity to focus on a sensible budget that is responsible, that is fair, and that helps hardworking people all across this country.
And we could get all these things done even this year if everybody comes together in a spirit of how are we going to move this country forward and put the last three weeks behind us. That’s what I believe the American people are looking for -- not a focus on politics, not a focus on elections, but a focus on the concrete steps that can improve their lives. That’s going to be my focus. I'm looking forward to Congress doing the same.
But, once again, I want to thank the leadership for coming together and getting this done. Hopefully, next time, it won't be in the 11th hour. One of the things that I said throughout this process is we've got to get out of the habit of governing by crisis. And my hope and expectation is everybody has learned that there is no reason why we can't work on the issues at hand, why we can't disagree between the parties while still being agreeable, and make sure that we're not inflicting harm on the American people when we do have disagreements.
So hopefully that’s a lesson that will be internalized, not just by me but also by Democrats and Republicans, not only the leaders but also the rank and file.
Thanks very much, everybody.
Q Mr. President, isn't this going to happen all over again in a few months?
THE PRESIDENT: No. (Laughter.)
END
8:31 P.M. EDT
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iDW_73DIRE [with comments] [also at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAnRik_DTzA / http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/10/17/government-shutdown-over ]; http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/10/16/statement-president-united-states
--
Buzzards
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-danziger/buzzards_b_4107033.html [with comments]
--
Obama is The NWO's Closer to Finish Off America
Published on Oct 16, 2013 by TheAlexJonesChannel
Alex expresses his true concern for America as he breaks down the information surrounding the announcement that Chase Bank has begun limiting wire transfers and international transfers...the beginnings of full economic control in America by the New World Order and the removal of private liberties.
Stay in the know - Follow Alex on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones
'Like' Alex on FACEBOOK - https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEme
http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
http://www.infowars.net/
http://www.prisonplanet.tv
**NEW ITEM**[[SURVIVAL SHIELD-NASCENT IODINE]]
http://www.infowarsshop.com/Survival-Shield--Nascent-Iodine_p_1104.html
Retail Price $49.95-Your Price $29.95*
Your Savings $20.00
[[START GETTING HEALTHY NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE]]
**Beyond Tangy Tangerine 2.0 is the most advanced multi-vitamin mineral complex to date. http://infowarshealth.com/
[[PREPAREDNESS PRODUCTS]] NEW ITEMS**
**EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO SURVIVE THE COLLAPSE**
http://www.infowarsshop.com/-Preparedness-Products_c_55.html
[[INFOWARS MAGAZINE]] Special Halloween Mask Double Cover Edition**
http://www.infowarsshop.com/-Infowars-Magazine_c_65.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmzje0jqD7s [with comments]
--
Lectures in History: Ku Klux Klan in 1920s America
Published on Oct 9, 2013 by C-SPAN
Preview - Full Program Airs October 12, 2013 at 8pm and October 13, 2013 at 12am & 1pm ET - For More Information: http://www.c-span.org/History/Events/Lectures-in-History-Ku-Klux-Klan-in-1920s-America/10737441749/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ACrE37Zl6A [with comment]
--
Obamacare Halloween Nightmare
Published on Oct 6, 2013 by TheAlexJonesChannel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n90xmjjbkqI
--
President Obama Speaks on Reopening the Government
Published on Oct 17, 2013 by The White House
In a statement from the White House Press Briefing Room, President Obama says that because Democrats and responsible Republicans came together, the first government shutdown in 17 years is now over and the first default in more than 200 years will not happen. October 17, 2013.
*
President Obama’s Oct. 17, 2013 remarks on the budget deal, as transcribed by Federal News Service.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good morning, everybody. Please have a seat.
Last night I signed legislation to reopen our government and pay America's bills. Because Democrats and responsible Republicans came together, the first government shutdown in 17 years is now over; the first default in more than 200 years will not happen. These twin threats to our economy have now been lifted, and I want to thank those Democrats and Republicans for getting together and ultimately getting this job done.
Now, there's been a lot of discussion lately of the politics of this shutdown. But let's be clear. There are no winners here. These last few weeks have inflicted completely unnecessary damage on our economy. We don't know yet the full scope of the damage, but every analyst out there believes it's slowed our growth. We know that families have gone without paychecks or services they depend on. We know that potential homebuyers have gotten fewer mortgages and small business loans have been put on hold. We know that consumers have cut back on spending and that half of all CEOs say that the shutdown and the threat of shutdown set back their plans to hire over the next six months.
We know that just the threat of default, of America not paying all the bills that we owe on time, increased our borrowing costs, which adds to our deficit. And of course, we know that the American people's frustration with what goes on in this town has never been higher.
That's not a surprise that the American people are completely fed up with Washington. At a moment when our economic recovery demands more jobs, more momentum, we've got yet another self-inflicted crisis that set our economy back. And for what? There was no economic rationale for all of this. Over the past four years, our economy has been growing, our businesses have been creating jobs, and our deficits have been in half. We hear some members who pushed for the shutdown say they were doing it to save the American economy. But nothing has done more to undermine our economy these past three years than the kind of tactics that create these manufactured crises.
And you don't have to take my word for it. The agency that put America's credit rating on watch the other day explicitly cited all of this, saying that our economy remains more dynamic and resilient than other advanced economies and that the only thing putting us at risk is -- and I'm quoting here -- "repeated brinksmanship." That's what the credit rating agency said.
That wasn't a political statement. That was an analysis of what's hurting our economy by people whose job it is to analyze these things.
That also happens to be the view of our diplomats, who have been hearing from their counterparts internationally.
Some of the same folks who pushed for the shutdown and threatened default claim their actions were needed to get America back on the right track, to make sure we're strong.
But probably nothing has done more damage to America's credibility in the world, our standing with other countries, than the spectacle that we've seen these past several weeks. It's encouraged our enemies, it's emboldened our competitors, and it's depressed our friends, who look to us for steady leadership.
Now the good news is, we'll bounce back from this. We always do. America's the bedrock of the global economy for a reason. We are the indispensable nation that the rest of the world looks to as the safest and most reliable place to invest, something that's made it easier for generations of Americans to invest in their own futures.
We have earned that responsibility over more than two centuries because of the dynamism of our economy and our entrepreneurs, the productivity of our workers, but also because we keep our word and we meet our obligations. That's what full faith and credit means. You can count on us.
And today I want our people and our businesses and the rest of the world to know that the full faith and credit of the United States remains unquestioned.
But to all my friends in Congress, understand that how business is done in this town has to change because we've all got a lot of work to do on behalf of the American people, and that includes the hard work of regaining their trust.
Our system of self-government doesn't function without it. And now that the government has reopened and this threat to our economy is removed, all of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists, and the bloggers, and the talking heads on radio and the professional activists who profit from conflict, and focus on what the majority of Americans sent us here to do, and that's grow this economy, create good jobs, strengthen the middle class, educate our kids, lay the foundation for broad-based prosperity and get our fiscal house in order for the long haul. That's why we're here. That should be our focus.
Now, that won't be easy. We all know that we have divided government right now. There's a lot of noise out there, and the pressure from the extremes affect how lot of members of Congress see the day-to-day work that's supposed to be done here.
And let's face it. The American people don't see every issue the same way. That doesn't mean we can't make progress. And when we disagree, we don't have to suggest that the other side doesn't love this country or believe in free enterprise or all the other rhetoric that seems to get worse every single year. If we disagree on something, we can move on and focus on the things we agree on and get some stuff done.
Let me be specific about three places where I believe we can make progress right now.
First, in the coming days and weeks, we should sit down and pursue a balanced approach to a responsible budget, a budget that grows our economy faster and shrinks our long-term deficits further. At the beginning of this year, that's what both Democrats and Republicans committed to doing. Senate passed a budget. House passed a budget. They were supposed to come together and negotiate. And had one side not decided to pursue a strategy of brinksmanship, each side could have gotten together and figured out how do we shape a budget that provides certainty to businesses and people who rely on government, provides certainty to investors and our economy, and we'd be growing faster right now.
Now, the good news is the legislation I signed yesterday now requires Congress to do exactly that, what it could have been doing all along. And we shouldn't approach this process of creating a budget as an ideological exercise, just cutting for the sake of cutting. The issue's not growth versus fiscal responsibility. We need both. We need a budget that deals with the issues that most Americans are focused on, creating more good jobs that pay better wages.
And remember, the deficit is getting smaller, not bigger. It's going down faster than it has in the last 50 years. The challenge that we have right now are not short-term deficits; it's the long-term obligations that we have around things like Medicare and Social Security.
We want to make sure those are there for future generations.
So the key now is a budget that cuts out the things that we don't need, closes corporate tax loopholes that don't help create jobs and frees up resources for the things that do help us grow, like education and infrastructure and research. And these things historically have not been partisan.
And this shouldn't be as difficult as it's been in past years because we already spend less than we did a few years ago. Our deficits are half of what they were a few years ago. The debt problems we have now are long term. And we can address them without short-changing our kids or short-changing our grandkids or weakening the security that current generations have earned from their hard work. So that's number one.
Number two, we should finish fixing the job of our -- let me say that again. Number two. We should finish the job of fixing our broken immigration system. There's already a broad coalition across America that's behind this effort of comprehensive immigration reform, from business leaders to faith leaders to law enforcement.
In fact, the Senate has already passed a bill with strong bipartisan support that would make the biggest commitment to border security in our history, would modernize our legal immigration system, make sure everyone plays by the same rules, make sure that folks who came here illegally have to pay a fine, pay back taxes, meet their responsibilities. That bill's already passed the Senate. And economists estimate that if that bill becomes law, our economy would be 5 percent larger two decades from now. That's $1.4 trillion in new economic growth.
The majority of Americans think this is the right thing to do. And it's sitting there waiting for the House to pass it. Now, if the House has ideas on how to improve the Senate bill, let's hear them. Let's start the negotiations. But let's not leave this problem to keep festering for another year or two years or three years. This can and should get done by the end of this year.
Number three. We should pass a farm bill, one that American farmers and ranchers can depend on, one that protects vulnerable children and adults in times of need, one that gives rural communities opportunities to grow and the long-term certainty that they deserve. Again, the Senate's already passed a solid bipartisan bill. It's got support from Democrats and Republicans. It's sitting in the House waiting for passage. If House Republicans have ideas that they think would improve the farm bill, let's see them. Let's negotiate. What are we waiting for? Let's get this done.
So, passing a budget, immigration reform, farm bill. Those are three specific things that would make a huge difference in our economy right now, and we could get them done by the end of the year -- if our focus is on what's good for the American people. And that's just the big stuff.
There are all kinds of other things that we could be doing that don't get as much attention.
I understand we will not suddenly agree on everything now that the cloud of crisis has passed. Democrats and Republicans are far apart on a lot of issues. And I recognize there are folks on the other side who think that my policies are misguided. That's putting it mildly. That's OK. That's democracy. That's how it works. We can debate those differences vigorously, passionately, in good faith, through the normal democratic process. And sometimes we'll be just too far apart to forge an agreement.
But that should not hold back our efforts in areas where we do agree. We shouldn't fail to act on areas that we do agree or could agree just because we don't think it's good politics, just because the extremes in our party don't like the word "compromise." I will look for willing partners wherever I can to get important work done. And there's no good reason why we can't govern responsibly, despite our differences, without lurching from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis.
In fact, one of the things that I hope all of us have learned these past few weeks is that it turns out smart, effective government is important. It matters. I think the American people, during the shutdown, had a chance to get some idea of all the things large and small that government does that make a difference in people's lives.
And we hear all the time about how government is the problem. Well, it turns out we rely on it in a whole lot of ways. Not only does it keep us strong through our military and our law enforcement, it plays a vital role in caring for our seniors and our veterans, educating our kids, making sure our workers are trained for the jobs that are being created, arming our businesses with the best science and technology so they can compete with companies from other countries. It plays a key role in keeping our food and our toys and our workplaces safe. It helps folks rebuild after a storm. It conserves our natural resources. It finances startups. It helps to sell our products overseas. It provides security to our diplomats abroad.
So let's work together to make government work better instead of treating it like an enemy or purposely making it work worse. That's not what the founders of this nation envisioned when they gave us the gift of self-government. You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don't break it. Don't break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That's not being faithful to what this country's about.
And that brings me to one last point. I've got a simple message for all the dedicated and patriotic federal workers who've either worked without pay or have been forced off the job without pay these past few weeks, including most of my own staff: Thank you. Thanks for your service. Welcome back. What you do is important. It matters. You defend our country overseas. You deliver benefits to our troops, who have earned them, when they come home. You guard our borders. You protect our civil rights. You help businesses grow and gain footholds in overseas markets. You protect the air we breathe and the water our children drink, and you push the boundaries of science and space, and you guide hundreds of thousands of people each day through the glories of this country. Thank you. What you do is important, and don't let anybody else tell you different, especially to the young people who come to this -- this city to serve, believe that it matters. Well, you know what? You're right. It does.
And those of us who have the privilege to serve this country have an obligation to do our job as best we can. We come from different parties, but we are Americans first. That's why disagreement cannot mean dysfunction. It can't degenerate into hatred.
The American people's hopes and dreams are what matters, not ours. Our obligations are to them. Our regard for them compels us all, Democrats and Republicans, to cooperate and compromise and act in the best interests of our nation, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thanks very much.
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZeOhgEj-hw [with comments]/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/10/17/government-shutdown-over ; http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-president-obamas-oct-17-remarks-on-shutdown-deal/2013/10/17/3eff02b6-3738-11e3-8a0e-4e2cf80831fc_story.html [with comments; official transcript to be at http://edit.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/10/17/remarks-president-reopening-government ]
--
in addition to (linked in) the post to which this is a reply and preceding and (other) following, see also (linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=78429713 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85825396 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=86746920 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=89182231 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91145449 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91425190 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92582379 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92596262 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92665554 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92774828 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92878340 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92879056 and preceding and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92881914 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92881487 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92884002 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92886960 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92887896 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92891230 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92891668 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92894615 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92895370 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92896774 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92898321 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92899696 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92901724 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92902288 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92902319 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92903734 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92913104 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92917043 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92918883 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92918928 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92918994 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92919100 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92919131 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92920341 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92921182 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92921350 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92930091 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92930178 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92930507 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92933396 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92935253 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92937353 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92937853 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92961194 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92961924 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92962250 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92964018 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92974007 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92993928 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92994578 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92995705 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92997978 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93000797 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93001496 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93007178 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93015172 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93023743 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93028926 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93031303 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93035860 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93036036 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93036259 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93036741 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93037580 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93037888 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93038344 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93041265 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93043684 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93048268 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93048655 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93056143 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93062553 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93066954 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93068192 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93069194 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93070608 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93071471 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93071625 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93078452 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93080098 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93081774 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93081983 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93082337 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93083019 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93084082 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93084250 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93086457 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93094031 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93099129 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93106343 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93114288 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93120920 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93121049 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93121218 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93121350 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93122395 (and any future following)
By Deborah Caldwell
Posted: 10/14/2013 11:24 am
If the U.S. breaches its debt ceiling this week, bringing with it the global financial panic economists predict, leaders of a little-known far-right movement called Christian Reconstructionism [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism#Christian_Reconstructionism ] can claim partial responsibility. Their goal: to eradicate the U.S. government so that a theocratic Christian nation emerges to enforce biblical laws.
That's right -- laws out of the Book of Leviticus [ http://www.conservapedia.com/Leviticus ] prohibiting adultery, homosexuality, and abortion, with penalties including death by stoning [ http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/n/north-gary.html ].
The key leader of this movement is Gary North, founder of the Institute for Christian Economics [ http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/sidefrm2.htm ] in Tyler, Texas. He's a long-time associate of Ron Paul, intellectual godfather of the Tea Party movement -- the very people responsible for Congressional deadlock over the government shutdown and debt ceiling debate.
Paul and North go way back. North served on Paul's first congressional staff in 1976, and North describes himself as Paul's "original staff economist." Earlier this year, Paul announced plans for a curriculum for home schoolers that will teach "biblical" concepts. The director of curriculum development for the program? Gary North.
In an Oct. 4 column in The Tea Party Economist, North describes government default as a "fake threat [ http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/10/04/fake-threat-government-default/ ]." So it can't be a surprise that the Tea Party caucus isn't taking government default seriously.
And what of the connection between this group and Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who almost singlehandedly created the government shutdown and debt ceiling crisis?
Cruz is the son of Rafael Cruz, a Texas pastor who directs Purifying Fire Ministries [ http://www.purifyingfire.org/ministries.htm ]. According to a biography [ http://www.truethevotesummit.com/Home/Speaker/10 ] page for the True the Vote [ http://www.truethevote.org/ ] summit [ http://www.truethevotesummit.com/ ] in April 2013, Rafael Cruz became active in politics during the 1980 presidential campaign, joining the Religious Roundtable [ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/national/10mcateer.html ], founded in 1979 to involve conservative Christians in politics. "The Religious Roundtable was a Judeo-Christian organization that mobilized millions of Christians all across the United States and helped elect Ronald Reagan," Cruz said. "It was a precursor of the Tea Party, even before the Moral Majority."
What to make of all of this? For the last few weeks Tea Party-leaning members of Congress have been described as "kooks" and "crazies" by the Washington establishment, liberals, moderate Republican leaders, and the media.
The name-calling might be satisfying to those who oppose the Tea Party, but it's entirely untrue. These are people who are patient, determined, deliberate, and rational.
I know this because I spent many years as a reporter covering religion and politics, more than four of them in Texas. So I've been watching conservative Christians for a long time, since the era of the late Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, to the days of Pat Robertson's early Christian Coalition, and on to the culture wars of the 1990s and early 2000s.
During the years I covered religion, I watched politicking creep into evangelical congregations from New Jersey to Pennsylvania to Texas and beyond. In New Jersey, I interviewed the state coordinator of the Christian Coalition who in those early days revealed to me the movement's stealth plan to "take over" the Republican Party, "precinct by precinct."
Later, when I was working in Dallas, I wrote another story, this time about a movement to "take down" the nation's public schools [ http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/schoolz.htm ], promoted by the Alliance for the Separation of School and State, among other groups. As it turns out, Ron Paul was one of the signers of the group's proclamation [ http://www.schoolandstate.org/proclamation.htm ] to "end government involvement in education."
Then there were the annual meetings of the Southern Baptist Convention [ http://sbc.org/ ], America's largest Protestant denomination, which during those years was engaged in an epic battle [ ] between conservative and moderate factions. At the time, a group of fundamentalist Southern Baptists had hatched a plan to "take back" the denomination. Over about 25 years, they prevailed.
At one such meeting in the Superdome in New Orleans, a distraught pastor told me he believed something darker than a desire for conservative theology was driving the battle in his denomination, and he handed me a sheaf of papers describing Christian Reconstructionism. He claimed that the fundamentalists wanted to use the denomination as a launching pad to bring down the federal government and usher in a Christian nation ruled by biblical laws.
Was it true? I didn't know. I kept the file and referred to it occasionally in the following years as I reported on the Religious Right.
Recently, however, I came across a line from North's book Unholy Spirits [ http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Spirits-Occultism-New-Humanism/dp/0930462025 ] that gave me pause. He wrote, "The ideas of the Reconstructionists have penetrated into Protestant circles that for the most part are unaware of the original source of the theological ideas that are beginning to transform them."
And then there are newsletters [ http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/sidefrm2.htm ] stretching back to 1977 on Gary North's website, describing "guerilla tactics" and "bottom-up theocracy" to achieve Christian Reconstructionism's goals.
The unifying principle of all these data points: a long-term covert plan of destruction for the Republican Party, the nation's public schools, the nation's largest Protestant denomination. And, of course, for the nation itself.
But why? In his 1991 book, Christian Reconstructionism: What It Is, What It Isn't [ http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/pdf/christian_reconstruction.pdf ], North writes, "Reconstructionists... do not believe that the will of the political majority is the final law in society." They believe that the Bible is.
In order to make their vision of society a reality, they are willing to wait a long time and to engage in politics to make it happen. "We are to work at our callings and wait on the Lord to place us in positions of influence in his time," according to North's book.
Once in power, they assert their brand of Christianity: "Christian Reconstructionists further insist that Jesus Christ is Lord of political leaders," he writes. "All political leaders are directly responsible to Jesus Christ in the discharge of their public office, as well as in their private lives... Practically, this means that political leaders should seek the guidance of Scripture in framing their political positions and programs."
Interestingly, Reconstructionists don't seem to care about actually holding onto power in the conventional sense: "The purpose of getting involved in politics, as Reconstructionists see it, is to reduce the power of the State," according to North's book.
And they are willing to wait to get what they want. "History is with the Reconstructionists as they advocate a return to God's law as the standard for righteous living, for the individual in self-government as well as elected officials in civil government," North writes.
That is what makes the debt ceiling debate so chilling. The Reconstructionists have waited a long time to be in powerful positions. And now that they possess power, they are perfectly willing to use it to "reduce the power of the state" so that the God of the Old Testament can swoop in to rule the Christian nation they believe will result from chaos.
And from where they sit, blowing up the financial system is a pretty good way to make it happen.
*
Related:
Slideshow [embedded]: People Associated With Christian Dominionism
*
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-caldwell/christian-dominionism-debt-default-_b_4097017.html [with comments]
--
Stenographer Dianne Reidy Goes Off On House Floor - Devil Shows Up
Published on Oct 17, 2013
House of Representatives stenographer Dianne Reidy was rushed off the floor while addressing the chamber during the vote to reopen the federal government.
The video & audio is a little off because I had to download separate audio and line it up with the video.
Her comments:
"He will not be mocked. He will not be mocked. He will not be mocked. The greatest deception here is this is not one nation under God. It never was. Had it been, it would not have been— no. It would not have been— constitution would not have been written by Freemasons. They go against God. You cannot serve two masters. You cannot serve two masters. Praise be to God, Lord Jesus Christ."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FX7ZqPMM7Y [with comment] [also e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MH-xnlP5sQ (with comments), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BbiFJ0m3Zg (with comments), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI0eT-GYv5w (with comments)] [representative articles: "Stenographer dragged off House floor after protest", http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/17/stenographer-dragged-off-house-floor-after-protest/ (with embedded audio { https://soundcloud.com/toddzwillich-1/floor1-101612-wav }); "Stenographer Removed For Shouting On House Floor", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/16/stenographer-shouting-on-house-floor_n_4112145.html (with embedded video, embedded audio { https://soundcloud.com/toddzwillich-1/floor1-101612-wav }, and comments)]
--
Eight Things You Don't Know About Ted Cruz
He’s okay with vampire squids but hates squishes
By Pema Levy
10.11.13
The standard, stirring bootstrap story Ted Cruz tells about himself goes something like this: His father arrived in America from Cuba with nothing but $100 sewn into his underwear; he went to Princeton and then Harvard Law School; he clerked for the chief justice of the United States, repeatedly argued before the Supreme Court; he served as Texas solicitor general for seven years, and 10 months ago, Texans sent him to the U.S. Senate.
It's a compelling story, but it leaves out so many other good stories, so here, in splendid listicle form, are eight things you probably don’t know about Cruz, the quick-tweeting Tea Party darling who has brought the Republican Party to its knees.
1. He had a role in Bill Clinton's impeachment
Working for Charles Cooper, a partner at a conservative law firm in Washington, Cruz drafted arguments showing that Clinton's missteps qualified as exactly the sort of "high crimes and misdemeanors" the Founding Fathers had in mind as grounds for impeachment.
2. He doesn't cotton to squishes
Cruz helped kill Senate legislation earlier this year that, in the wake of the massacre of 20 schoolchildren and six teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., would have expanded background checks on gun buyers. Cruz said he would filibuster any bill that would restrict gun sales in any way and taunted Republicans who backed the bill, calling them "squishes."
3. He's an author
Cruz contributed a chapter to Thank You, President Bush, a little-read 2004 book designed to rebut "Bush-haters who seek nothing but to distort his ongoing record of achievement" and portray George W. as "one of the nation’s great presidents." Cruz’s essay is titled "The Rise of Opportunity Conservatism," an infelicitous phrase he likes so much he is urging Republicans to embrace "opportunity conservatism" as a way to win the 2016 presidential election.
4. His wife makes rich Texans richer
Not a lot has been written about Cruz's wife, Heidi Nelson Cruz, who works as a vice president in Goldman Sachs's Houston office, managing investments for super-rich clients. Heidi Cruz, who lives with Cruz and their two young daughters, Caroline and Catherine, in Houston, has an MBA from Harvard Business School. She worked on George W.'s first presidential campaign and held posts in W's first administration. She also wrote a Thank You, President Bush chapter, "Expanding Opportunity Through Free Trade."
5. He speaks in stump speeches
He often lapses into a stump speech to avoid awkward questions. "We sat together in the back seat of a car," reported a Weekly Standard profile writer. "He spoke of his father again. He mentioned the great divide in America, again, and was quoting Margaret Thatcher when I realized he was giving a speech again, except this time at close quarters, only a few feet away, in the back seat of a car." So that’s why he kept talking and talking and talking in the Senate.
6. He's a creative conspiracy theorist
Cruz believes Agenda 21, a non-binding 1992 United Nations document on sustainable development endorsed by that well-known radical, President George H.W. Bush, is a sinister "globalist plan that tries to subvert the U.S. Constitution and the liberties we all cherish as Americans." He accuses U.N. plotters of aiming to abolish "golf courses, grazing pastures, and paved roads" and fingers George Soros, a billionaire funder of liberal causes, as the puppet-master behind the plan.
7. He favors very, very harsh penalties for stealing calculators
Cruz doesn't talk much about the case of Michael Haley [ http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1824.ZD1.html ], erroneously sentenced to 14 years in prison for stealing a calculator from Walmart when the maximum sentence was two years. Acknowledging the longer sentence was an error, Cruz nevertheless argued before the Supreme Court that Haley should serve the full 14 years, a position that prompted Justice John Paul Stevens to wonder whether the "state has forgotten its overriding 'obligation to serve the cause of justice.' " The court sent the case back to the lower court, which freed Haley.
8. His Dad is a Former Castro Commie Who Hates Obamacare
If you think Ted Cruz hates Obamacare, you haven't met his father, Rafael, 74, who happily fought alongside Fidel Castro as a teen and runs a ministry in the Dallas area. Earlier this month, the elder Cruz warned that Obamacare "rationed" care for the elderly, determined through a cost-benefit analysis by bureaucrats, and provided older Americans with mandatory suicide counseling. "One of the things in Obamacare is that for the elderly, every five years you must have end-of-life counseling," he recently said at a dinner event near Denver.
© Copyright 2013 IBT Media Inc. (emphasis in original)
http://mag.newsweek.com/2013/10/11/eight-things-you-don-t-know-about-ted-cruz.html
--
Rafael Cruz at Free the People
Published on Jul 6, 2013 by FreedomWorksAction
Rafael Cruz at FreedomWorks' Free the people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGURa1DfWEo [with comments] [embedded/more at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/ted-cruz-fidel-castro_n_4101974.html (with comments)]
--
Why we miss Kay Bailey Hutchison
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, center, talks to Lynn Lunsford, right, public affairs manager with the Federal Aviation Administration after a tower dedication ceremony at Abilene Regional Airport Wednesday, May 2, 2012, in Abilene, Texas.
Photo By Nellie Doneva/Associated Press
Things surely would look far different with Sen. Hutchison in office in the nation's capital
Editorial
October 15, 2013 | Updated: October 16, 2013 11:22am
Does anyone else miss Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison?
We're not sure how much difference one person could make in the toxic, chaotic, hyperpartisan atmosphere in Washington, but if we could choose just one it would be Hutchison, whose years of service in the Senate were marked by two things sorely lacking in her successor, Ted Cruz.
For one thing, Hutchison had an unswerving commitment to the highest and best interests of Texas at all times. This revealed itself in a thousand different ways. Hereabouts, we miss her advocacy for NASA, the Port of Houston and the energy industry. And we know she worked just as hard for Dallas, San Antonio and a hundred smaller Texas cities and towns.
And dare we say it? We miss her extraordinary understanding of the importance of reaching across the aisle when necessary. Neither sitting Texas senator has displayed that useful skill, and both the state and the Congress are the poorer for it.
One reason we particularly believe that Hutchison would make a difference in these hectic days is that if she had kept her seat, Cruz would not be in the Senate.
When we endorsed Ted Cruz [ http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Cruz-for-Senate-3961708.php ] in last November's general election, we did so with many reservations and at least one specific recommendation - that he follow Hutchison's example in his conduct as a senator.
Obviously, he has not done so. Cruz has been part of the problem in specific situations where Hutchison would have been part of the solution.
We feel certain she would have worked shoulder to shoulder with Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, in crafting a workable solution that likely would have avoided the government shutdown altogether.
But we'll never know.
While we're on the topic, we'd like to think our first choice to succeed Hutchison in the Senate, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, would have been more amenable to following Hutchison's example than Cruz has been. But these days, we're not so sure. Dewhurst, long considered a moderate in the Texas GOP, clearly was rattled by his unexpected loss to Cruz for the Senate seat.
Since the defeat, the lieutenant governor has attempted a full-blown political makeover designed to make him the darling of the conservative wing of the Texas party.
Faced with the impossible task of outflanking three strong conservative challengers, the traditional moderate Dewhurst does not seem like a man comfortable in his own skin. It's painful to watch.
Copyright 2013 Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Why-we-miss-Kay-Bailey-Hutchison-4898405.php [with comments]
--
Cruz Stock Soars with Tea Party, Sours in U.S. Congress
Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, speaks to the media at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 16, 2013. The bipartisan leaders of the U.S. Senate reached an agreement to end the fiscal impasse and to increase U.S. borrowing authority and McConnell said they want to pass the deal today.
Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
By Julie Bykowicz & Heidi Przybyla - Oct 16, 2013 11:00 PM CT
Texas Senator Ted Cruz stayed true to his campaign mantra “stand and fight” yesterday as he stood amid a crowd of reporters and vowed to keep pressing to dismantle President Barack Obama’s health-care law.
“This fight, this debate will continue until collectively the American people can make D.C. listen,” said Cruz, as other Republican senators streamed out of a meeting lamenting the political damage wrought by an unwinnable showdown with the White House championed by one of their newest members.
Cruz, 42, is emerging from what Arizona Republican Senator John McCain called a “shameful chapter” in the Senate’s history largely unscathed in the eyes of his donors and Republican activists.
“To the conservative movement in America, he is what courage looks like,” said Matt Hoskins, executive director of the Senate Conservatives Fund [ http://www.senateconservatives.com/ ], which promotes Tea Party-backed candidates who favor smaller government.
Cruz, a lawyer who argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court prior to his 2012 election, is counted among prospective Republican Party presidential contenders in 2016. His take-no-prisoners approach could play well in Iowa, where caucuses typically start the nomination process, said David Yepsen, director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University Carbondale and a former political reporter in Iowa for 30 years.
Scoring Points
“He scored a lot of points with the party’s most conservative elements, and those are people who dominate the caucuses,” Yepsen said.
He cautioned that Cruz will need to guard against dangers that come with a high profile. “A meteoric rise like this can be accompanied by a meteoric fall,” Yepsen said.
A Pew Research Center poll [ http://www.people-press.org/2013/10/15/as-debt-limit-deadline-ne ] released yesterday showed that Cruz’s popularity among Tea Party Republicans has soared to 74 percent from 47 percent in July. Among non-Tea Party Republicans, he is viewed unfavorably by 31 percent -- a 15-percentage-point increase since the summer survey.
A senator for just nine months, Cruz’s attention-grabbing tactics have strained his relations with colleagues in Congress and reliable Republican allies outside of it. On Sept. 24, a week before the government shutdown began on Oct. 1, Cruz started a 21-hour speech on the Senate floor attacking the Affordable Care Act, a tactic the Wall Street Journal editorial page described as the equivalent of charging into “fixed bayonets.”
Private Meetings
Tension flared during a closed-door luncheon of Senate Republicans on Oct. 2. New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte challenged Cruz to disavow the Senate Conservatives Fund because the group was equating some lawmakers’ procedural votes to support for the health-care law. He refused to do so, according to a Senate aide.
At another meeting of Senate Republicans the following week, McCain asked those who viewed the bid to defund Obamacare as a winning strategy to raise their hands. No one -- including Cruz -- did, according to a senator who was present. Cruz skipped many of the Republican conferences after that.
Last night, shortly before the Senate passed a bipartisan plan to reopen government and raise the debt ceiling, Cruz on the chamber’s floor excoriated many of his party colleagues, saying they “decided to direct their cannon fire at House Republicans” instead of “standing together” to insist on defunding Obamacare.
“This is a terrible deal for the American people,” he said of the fiscal agreement.
‘Policy Guy’
Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, was diplomatic yesterday when asked about Cruz and the Senate colleagues who were part of his fight, including Senator Mike Lee of Utah.
“I can only monitor my own conduct, if you will. I came here as a fiscal conservative,” Corker said in an interview. “I’m a substance guy. I’m a policy guy. I’m not the kind of guy to try to capture flashy objects.”
House Republicans who fumed over private strategy meetings between Cruz and like-minded members of that chamber’s caucus have been more forthright.
“He’s the guy who caused this,” said Representative Peter King, a New York Republican who urged the party to avoid including anti-Obamacare provisions in a government funding bill. “He’s the guy who caused the defeat. He’s the guy who was a fraud because he never had a strategy to begin with. If we let him do it again, it’s our fault.
“It’s important to stand together,” King said in an interview. “We do agree on most issues and we would have been fine with this if we didn’t let Cruz hijack the party,”.
Cruz’s Fundraising
While Washington Republicans complain, the party’s grassroots celebrate, and Cruz’s campaign coffers show no signs of suffering: He raised about $1.2 million in the three-month period that ended Sept. 30, a few days after his filibuster. That’s about what he collected in the three months before that.
His donors -- mostly Tea Party backers rather than big businesses -- say they knew what they were getting when they helped propel him to an unexpected victory over Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, the Republican establishment favorite, in Texas’s Senate primary last year. And they’re proud of him.
“I just like a guy who is fighting, who seems like he is going to do everything he said he was going to do,” Dougal Cameron, president and owner of a real-estate development firm in Houston, said in an interview this week. “If that gets him in trouble with the media and others, that’s OK with me.”
Straw Poll
Last week, a convention of anti-abortion activists at the Values Voter Summit in Washington chose him as their top pick for president in 2016. The 42 percent of the straw poll votes he captured buried the single digits notched by other Republican presidential prospects, including Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Three years before the 2012 presidential campaign, Mike Huckabee won the same straw poll with 28 percent. The former Arkansas governor ended up not running last year.
Referring to Republican leaders in his speech to the summit, Cruz boasted about “going over their heads” to make the case that Washington lawmakers should defund Obamacare.
“Senator Cruz and Senator Lee have been at the forefront of this effort, and they deserve tremendous credit for standing up and making the case,” said Dan Holler, a spokesman for Heritage Action for America, a Washington group that advocates for smaller government.
Town Halls
Heritage held “Defund Obamacare” town halls in nine cities in August. The Senate Conservatives Fund put up a website called dontfundit.com that attracted more than 2 million signatures on a petition against Obamacare. Holler said the effort led by Cruz “would have gone nowhere” without that outcry from Americans.
The Senate Conservatives Fund and another pro-Tea Party group, the Club for Growth, were Cruz’s top financiers last year. Their donors shipped Cruz $1.7 million of his total $14.5 million haul, according to the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics. The Club and the Fund, along with their related super-political action committees, also helped Cruz with $7.1 million in outside advertising.
That donor base has helped Cruz resist the outcry of a business community that became irritated about Republicans’ role in the shutdown, Anthony Holm, a Republican strategist based in Austin, Texas, said in an interview this week.
“Ted Cruz doesn’t have to bow down to anybody,” Holm said.
To contact the reporters on this story: Julie Bykowicz in Washington at jbykowicz@bloomberg.net; Heidi Przybyla in Washington at hprzybyla@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jeanne Cummings at jcummings21@bloomberg.net
©2013 BLOOMBERG L.P.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-16/cruz-stock-soars-with-tea-party-sours-in-u-s-congress.html [with embedded videos, and comments]
--
Anderson Cooper to GOP pundit: “Are you high?”
Alex Castellanos
(Credit: CNN)
Republican strategist and CNN contributor Alex Castellanos goes off the rails
By Elias Isquith
Wednesday, Oct 16, 2013 09:20 AM CDT
Appearing on “Anderson Cooper 360? Tuesday night, GOP strategist and CNN contributor Alex Castellanos tried out an interesting new metaphor to explain the behavior of Senator Ted Cruz. It didn’t quite work.
“A friend explained to me today, finally, what Ted Cruz is doing,” Castellanos began, “and I finally understand: he’s having bunny sex.”
“In nature, there are boom and bust cycles; the snowshoe hare, every ten years, multiplies six fold.”
“Are you high?,” interrupted a perplexed (but seemingly amused) Cooper.
“I wish I was,” Castellanos responded, before continuing, “the snowshoe hare — I thought it’s a marvelous explanation — every ten years, multiplies six fold. Bunnies like sex apparently. But the boom produces a bust. They press their food supply, they invite predators. Right now, Ted Cruz, what’s he’s doing, feels good; he’s growing his supporters. It’s leading the Republican Party, I think, into a bust.”
“I think you’re digging a ditch,” was Cooper’s response.
Via the Raw Story [ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/16/anderson-cooper-decides-gop-strategist-is-high-after-he-says-cruz-is-having-bunny-sex/ ], watch the whole bizarre exchange here:
[video embedded]
Copyright © 2013 Salon Media Group, Inc.
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/16/anderson_cooper_to_gop_pundit_are_you_high/ [with comments]
--
Bachmann End Times
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-danziger/bachmann-end-times_b_4077480.html [with comments]
--
Bill Maher: Antonin Scalia And Michele Bachmann Are 'The Exact Same Idiot'
By Katla McGlynn
Posted: 10/12/2013 11:05 am EDT | Updated: 10/12/2013 11:18 am EDT
Bill Maher had plenty of material to work with on "Real Time" Friday night, considering the fact that both Rep. Michele Bachmann and Justice Antonin Scalia publicly addressed their concerns about the end of days and the devil (respectively) in the same week.
At the end of his "New Rules" segment, Maher took aim at Bachmann's recent comments that we're living "in the End times [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/07/michele-bachmann-end-times_n_4060063.html ]," by suggesting we consider that theory when it comes time for her to perform her Congressional duties.
"If you think the world is about to end, that's your right," Maher said. "But you don't get to vote on next year's budget because it doesn't concern you."
But Bachmann's fear of Judgment Day is hardly shocking when compared to Justice Scalia's recent interview in which he discussed his belief in the Devil [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/07/justice-scalia-devil-_n_4059202.html ]. Maher concluded that while most "reasonable people see Michele Bachmann as a total loon, but Scalia as a serious intellectual," they are actually, "the exact same idiot."
After reviewing Scalia's theories on why the Devil doesn't seem to be around anymore (because he isn't possessing people, running pigs off cliffs or doing other things described in the Old Testament) Maher admits that it isn't Scalia's beliefs that bother him, but the whole "making decisions for the rest of us" thing.
"It'd be one thing if Mr. Scalia sold pizza for a living, but this is a man we go to to interpret our laws. It's like smelling a gas leak and calling an exorcist."
Watch the full clip above.
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc. (emphasis in original)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/12/bill-maher-scalia-bachmann-devil-video_n_4089147.html [the YouTube, as embedded, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PEA5QXbfX0 ; with comments] [transcript at http://www.hbo.com/real-time-with-bill-maher#/real-time-with-bill-maher/episodes/0/297-episode/article/new-rules.html ]
--
This Is the Supreme Court's Shutdown
By Mansur Gidfar
Posted: 10/11/2013 4:14 pm
If you've tuned in to the media coverage of the ongoing government shutdown, you've probably seen or heard some variation of the following headline: "Politicians Point Fingers As Shutdown Continues." And while there's certainly plenty of finger pointing to go around, few of them have been pointed in the right direction. This isn't President Obama's shutdown or John Boehner's shutdown -- it's Citizens United's.
As a result of the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (FEC), a handful of moneyed interests have managed to circumvent the democratic process and engineer a government shutdown that nobody else wanted. The forces driving the current shutdown are just the latest indication of a disturbing trend in American politics: Elected officials increasingly feel accountable to a vanishingly small percentage of the population with the financial means to threaten their political existence instead of the voters they're elected to represent.
As summarized by a recent New York Times article [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a-federal-budget-crisis-months-in-the-planning.html?pagewanted=all (first item at/see {linked in} http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92774828 and preceding and following)], we've learned that the shutdown was planned months in advance by a very small but incredibly wealthy network of outside interest groups. Roughly three dozen well funded political organizations signed off on the "Blueprint to Defunding Obamacare [ http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/ryanriebe/joint-letter-on-sequester-savings ]," which outlined the strategy of using a government shutdown as leverage against the healthcare law, back in February -- nearly eight months before the shutdown went into effect. A Supreme Court hostile to any efforts to curtail the corrosive influence of money in politics has given these groups free reign to enforce this strategic vision, will of the people be damned.
A quick review: In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court ruled any restrictions of independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or trade unions unconstitutional. Since most people don't have a lot of money to spare for political contributions -- less than one half of one percent [ http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/donordemographics.php?cycle=2012 ] of the population donated over $200 to political candidates, parties, or PACs in the last election -- the practical result of Citizens United and subsequent federal court decisions is an explosion in spending by outside interest groups fueled by an incredibly small group of people.
There are two important factors to bear in mind here. The first is just how large [ http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/cycle_tots.php?cycle=2014&view=A&chart=N#viewpt ] this explosion in spending was. Outside groups spent over $338 million trying to influence the 2008 elections, which was the last presidential election cycle before the Citizens United ruling. A handsome sum to be sure, but one that pales in comparison to the mind-boggling figure of over $1 billion of outside spending in the 2012 elections. In fact, there was more outside spending in the 2012 election cycle then in every presidential election cycle since 1992 combined.
The second is just how small the number of people doing this spending is. In the 2012 election cycle, 216 people [ http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/donor_stats.php ] -- that's .00007 percent of the population -- contributed over $560 million to super PACs alone, which is more than one and a half times the amount of all outside spending in the 2008 election cycle combined. Put another way, 216 people spent nearly 11,000 times the amount an average family of four makes in an entire year [ http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/17/news/economy/poverty-income/index.html ] on vapid attack ads produced by nebulous groups with names like "Americans for a More American America."
Thanks to Citizens United, these outside groups can now use the threat of a primary challenge backed by multimillion-dollar ad buys to force their agendas. Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, estimates [ http://www.npr.org/2013/10/07/230023637/politics-within-the-gop-keeps-shutdown-in-motion ] that there are about 30 hardliners in the House driving the government shutdown and another 150 Republicans who are just playing along out of sheer terror of crossing the incredibly powerful coalition of post-Citizens United interest groups . With organizations like the Senate Conservative Fund and Heritage Action running targeted ads against congressional Republicans who haven't voiced enough enthusiasm for the shutdown strategy, the message that's being sent is clear: If you don't want a super PAC or 501(c)4 backing your next primary challenger to spring up overnight, you'll fall in line and you'll do it now.
A popular Democratic talking point throughout the shutdown accuses congressional Republicans of "holding the government hostage," but this metaphor is an imperfect one. The would-be hostage takers are themselves held hostage by a political system dominated by a handful of wealthy special interests. The opinions of the public or even the majority of congressional Republicans don't matter -- it's the money that's running the show.
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mansur-gidfar/this-is-the-supreme-court_b_4086269.html [with comments]
--
NBC12 Decision Virginia: Ken Cuccinelli on God's Judgement
Published on Oct 14, 2013 by NBC12 News
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's remarks at the Christian Life Summit 2012. Read more and see the full video [second item below] at: http://blogs.nbc12.com/decisionvirginia/2013/10/cuccinelli-warned-of-gods-judgement-related-to-abortion-in-2012-speech.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FimzTaT_3IE [with comments]
--
Ken Cuccinelli Is Amazed God Hasn't Punished America For Abortion
By Laura Bassett
Posted: 10/15/2013 9:40 am EDT | Updated: 10/15/2013 1:58 pm EDT
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has been trying to downplay his outspoken opposition to abortion rights [ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-evolution-of-ken-cuccinelli ] in his campaign for governor this year as part of an effort to win back the support of women voters [ http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/10/quinnipiac-poll-mcauliffe-has-lead-on-cuccinelli-95166.html ].
But in his speech to the Christian Life Summit last year -- unearthed Monday night by NBC12 [ http://blogs.nbc12.com/decisionvirginia/2013/10/cuccinelli-warned-of-gods-judgement-related-to-abortion-in-2012-speech.html ] -- Cuccinelli said he is surprised that God has not yet "imposed" more judgment on America for allowing abortion to be legal.
"Really, given that God does judge nations, it's amazing that abortion has run as far and foully as it has, without what I would consider to be a greater imposition of judgment on this country," Cuccinelli said. "Who knows what the future holds?"
Cuccinelli also criticized the Catholic church for its "soft and weak" leadership on social issues.
In a statement to NBC12, Cuccinelli's campaign did not directly address the comments. "It's no secret that Ken Cuccinelli is proudly pro life," his spokesman Richard Cullen said. "His focus as governor will be to implement his jobs plan, which will create 58,000 jobs and ease tax burdens on middle class families and workers."
Cuccinelli, who introduced a fetal personhood bill as state legislator and has since pushed to implement a strict new set of building regulations for abortion clinics, has said repeatedly in his campaign that he will not touch the issue of birth control [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/ken-cuccinelli-birth-control_n_3832319.html ] or expand the state's abortion laws as governor.
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/ken-cuccinelli-abortion_n_4100404.html [with non-YouTube version of the YouTube just above this item embedded, and (approaching 4,000) comments]
--
Ken Cuccinelli at Christian Life Summit 2012
Published on Sep 30, 2012 by prolifenews
The Va State Attorney General talks about the Importance of Christian leadership in defending the defenseless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QNT4GulxDA [with comments]
--
The religious right is a fraud: Nothing Christian about Michele Bachmann’s values
The American right obsesses over abortion and birth control, not helping people. It's different around the globe
Oct 15, 2013
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/15/the_religious_right_is_a_fraud_nothing_christian_about_michele_bachmanns_values/ [with comments]
--
Morgan Griffith, GOP Rep, Compares Default To American Revolution
10/12/2013
Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) compared the looming default to the American Revolution on Saturday after a meeting with House Republicans.
The Hill reports [ http://thehill.com/homenews/house/328185-house-gop-powwows-as-debt-limit-looms ] Griffith suggested that even if it resulted in a severely damaging default, the House should reject an unfavorable agreement from the Senate.
“We have to make a decision that’s right long-term for the United States, and what may be distasteful, unpleasant and not appropriate in the short run may be something that has to be done,” Griffith said, according to The Hill. “I will remind you that this group of renegades that decided that they wanted to break from the crown in 1776 did great damage to the economy of the colonies. They created the greatest nation and the best form of government, but they did damage to the economy in the short run.”
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/12/default-american-revolution-morgan-griffith_n_4089911.html [with (over 5,000) comments]
--
What Happened The Last Time A Major Western Country Defaulted
10/14/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/14/what-happened-the-last-ti_n_4098078.html [with comments]; http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-13/u-s-risks-joining-1933-germany-in-pantheon-of-deadbeat-defaults.html [with comments]
--
Bill Moyers Essay: Shutdown Showdown
Published on Oct 4, 2013 by MoyersandCompany
This week's government shutdown has consequences for all of us, costing an estimated $300 million each day that the government is closed for business. Many Americans have voiced their frustrations with the fallout from the shutdown on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter using the hash tag #DearCongress. Here, Bill Moyers shares his own frustrations, admonishing the Republican Party for holding the country hostage via an irrational "ransom list" of demands — while sabotaging democracy in the process. "When the President refused to buckle to this extortion, they threw their tantrum," Bill says. "Like the die-hards of the racist South a century and a half ago, who would destroy the union before giving up their slaves, so would these people burn down the place, sink the ship." He goes on to tell us where the "reckless ambition" of the Republicans could lead us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itzdTasneSI [with comments] [(linked in http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92775155 and preceding (and any future following)]
--
Modern GOP is still the party of Dixie
George Wallace, Rand Paul
(Credit: AP/Erik Schelzig)
How the South poisons American conservatism and sabotages our politics
By Kim Messick [ http://www.salon.com/writer/kim_messick/ ]
Saturday, Oct 12, 2013 01:00 PM CDT
In two earlier articles (here [ http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/the_tea_partys_paranoid_aesthetic/ ] and here [ http://www.salon.com/2013/08/31/the_conservative_crackup_how_the_republican_party_lost_its_mind/ ]), I argued that the Republican Party’s extremism can be traced to its increased dependence on an electorate that is largely rural, Southern and white. These voters, who figure prominently in the Tea Party [ http://www.salon.com/2011/08/02/lind_tea_party/ ], often decline to interpret political conflict as a struggle among interest groups or a good-faith clash of opinion. Instead, they tend to identify the country as a whole with an idealized version of themselves, and to equate any dissent from their values with disloyalty by alien, “un-American” forces. This paranoid vision of politics, I argued, makes them seek out opportunities for dramatic conflict and to shun negotiation and compromise.
In what follows, I want to extend these thoughts a bit further by exploring one simple question: why is this strain of political paranoia so entrenched in the South? The answer, I believe, will shed light not only on the current state of our politics but on the evolution of American conservatism generally.
*
We should begin with a clarification. What we want to explain isn’t why rural voters might think their interests sometimes diverge from those of urban (and suburban) Americans. That is easily enough explained: they think it because it’s true. Rural and urban areas have distinctive concerns, and these sometimes result in incompatible demands on policymakers. These kinds of conflicts are the mother’s milk of politics, so none of this is particularly surprising or, indeed, interesting.
What is surprising and interesting is when this conflict is experienced not as a matter of interests but of identity. It’s one thing to see urbanites as fellow citizens whose policy preferences depart from one’s own; it’s quite another to argue that their policy preferences give rise to serious doubt about whether they’re really Americans. Yet exactly this is the message of all those conservative complaints about “socialistic” Democrats who ignore our constitutional traditions as they labor to install a “nanny state [ http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/09/19/nanny-state ].” These aren’t true Americans, resolute, independent, self-reliant; they’re feckless, faux-European traitors. (Though one, in particular, may have closer connections with Africa than Europe. You know who I mean.)
To think in this way, one must identify the country with one’s own beliefs and values. Those with different preferences then become almost definitionally “un-American.” This identification has the consequence, however, that political conflicts are often experienced as personal crises; what’s at stake isn’t simply policy, but one’s own sense of self. This releases anxieties that cluster around an intensely imagined Other: liberal, conspiratorial, seditious.
This explanation of the mechanics of political paranoia may or may not be correct; I argued in detail for it in the first article mentioned above. But even if true, it leaves one important question unanswered: what prompts that first crucial step — the identification of one’s own values with the country as a whole?
A partial answer arises directly from the sociology of rural culture. Persons who live in cities learn quickly that the world is full of different kinds of people; diversity — of race, religion, outlook, speech, etc. — is a fact of life. Because of this, they tend not to connect these personal attributes with one’s ability to be a trustworthy member of the community. If they think about the conditions of citizenship, they are more likely to associate them with general qualities of character — honesty, integrity, loyalty — equally available to everyone, regardless of background.
Many rural areas, by contrast, lack this aboriginal experience of diversity; they may be characterized by high levels of uniformity in ideology, race and religion. Given this, it may be natural to assume that “everyone” believes what you believe, or worships as you worship, or looks and speaks as you look and speak. And because these attributes characterize the community as a whole, it may be equally natural to define the latter in terms of the former — to think of these qualities as necessary for responsible citizenship, for being “one of us.” Only a small step is needed to extend this logic from one’s own community to the country as a whole.
I said this answer is only partial. That’s because it explains why the identification of self with nation arises in the first place, but not why it persists. In the America of 2013, more thoroughly colonized by communications technology than any society in the history of the planet, no community is an island; each is part of the main — and The Matrix. Geographic isolation has been overwhelmed by smart phones, the internet, cable and satellite TV and Red Box. One’s own community might be an emblem of ideological orthodoxy, racial purity or religious conformity — but there is no escaping the knowledge that the country as a whole (much less the world) is not. So if we want to know why this identification endures in some environments but not others, we’ll have to add something to our account — a mechanism to explain the stubborn insistence that some people will always be outsiders. And because the South is ground zero for the paranoia that rules today’s Republicans, our explanation will have to apply with particular force and resonance to it.
I don’t think we have to look far. The explanation lies in the South’s experience with black slavery and white supremacy.
Slavery has been around a long time, of course, but in the ancient and medieval worlds it was rarely a matter of race. Slaves were often drawn from conquered peoples — they were part of the spoils of war — and were more often than not of the same race as their masters. When the ancients bothered to justify slavery at all, they usually did so on purely utilitarian grounds: you couldn’t run a successful society without it. There were occasional exceptions, Aristotle being the most notorious, but they stand out precisely because of their rarity. As the British philosopher Bernard Williams [ http://www.amazon.com/Shame-Necessity-Sather-Classical-Lectures/dp/0520256433 ] pointed out, Aristotle’s tortured attempt to argue that some people were “natural slaves” convinced few and puzzled many.
This view of slavery as grounded in social (mainly economic) necessity had an important implication. It meant there was no irrevocable fund of social animus directed at former slaves. Classical civilization accepted the slave’s fate, from his or her own point of view, as a grievous personal misfortune. A slave lucky enough to gain his freedom did not face a community which regarded him with sustained suspicion and contempt. He took his place in society and enjoyed the liberties and prerogatives to which his station entitled him.
The situation was quite different in the antebellum South. Slavery there was based on race and was justified by an ideology of white supremacy. Blacks were seen as inherently, necessarily, irreparably inferior to whites, who ruled over them in accordance with Nature and Nature’s God. But this meant, of course, that even a freed slave was exiled from his wider society. He could never participate in its dominant institutions or gain acceptance from its members. The membrane dividing slave from non-slave might be legally permeable; manumissions did sometimes occur. Socially, however, it was unbridgeable.
For black Americans slavery was a holocaust and a nightmare. For white Southerners it meant (among other things) living intimately with millions of human beings who were permanent outsiders — persons whose natural incapacities, as the white South saw them, meant they could never be trustworthy members of the community. For white supremacists, citizenship had one very definite condition of entry: white skin, and the potential for moral personality that came with it. The racial divide defined the difference between civilized society and the enthralled barbarism that lay beyond and beneath it.
It would be hard to overstate the influence of this experience on the mind of the South. For one thing, it meant that the white South was, in effect, a garrison state [ http://www.amazon.com/From-Rebellion-Revolution-Afro-American-Lectures/dp/0807117684 ]. White Southerners lived in close proximity to a large population they routinely abused, terrorized and defiled. Fear of black violence and revolt is a constant theme of white society before and after the Civil War. The South’s noisily martial version of patriotism has its roots here, as does the region’s love affair with guns. And there are obvious connections between these facts and its stubborn embrace of patriarchy and misogyny. (Does the name “Todd Akin” ring any bells?)
Of greater relevance to our present concerns, however, are the implications for the South’s political psychology. Here the region’s history as a slave society left a very particular imprint, one that lingered long after slavery and Jim Crow collapsed. I mean the habit of imagining society as a two-tiered structure, with the “normative” community on top and a degenerate class of outsiders below. The former consists of those who satisfy the prerequisites of citizenship, and can therefore be trusted to fulfill the social contract voluntarily; the latter of those whose inherent debilities ensure that coercion is the only reliable guarantee of cooperation.
This is a fraught subject, so I want to make my meaning clear. I am not arguing that all Southerners — or all conservatives — are racists or paranoids; I’m not even arguing that all Southerners are conservatives. (I myself would personally disprove that assertion.) Slavery, thankfully, disappeared long ago, and Jim Crow is now almost two generations behind us. Racism lingers on in the South as in America generally, but for the most part must now keep its head down and its voice low; it’s the vice that dare not speak its name. (This is not to deny, of course, that it retains considerable social valence.) What I am arguing is that a certain habit of thought, powerfully shaped by the experience of slavery, survived the passage of that curse and continues to influence some Southern conservatives to this day. It no longer takes the form of a blatant assertion that only the white race is worthy of social trust; its definition of the normative community has shifted. (Though it remains associated with racialist, or at least race-conscious, themes.) It is now more likely to define that community in ideological terms — to see it as consisting of those who endorse a particular view of government and its rightful relations with traditional mores and economic power. It has, however, retained certain aspects of its earlier, darker origins. It is still obsessed with purity — ideological if not racial — and still invests those it regards as impure with a harsh, acute animus. And it continues to equate difference with illegitimacy. Those on the outside — the liberals, the Democrats, the “socialists” — cannot be trusted partners in political life; they want only to undermine our institutions and must therefore be expelled from them.
Thus we arrive at the paranoid version of politics described above, in which policy disputes signal an insidious betrayal of “our” way of life. This is surely what animates the conduct of today’s Republicans — the reflexive rejection of compromise, the flagrant violation of long-established institutional norms, the experience of diversity as an invasion by foreign, unfamiliar powers.
The Republican belief that it would be better to suspend the government (or default on the debt) than to fund “Obamacare,” for instance, can be explained only by this kind of wrathful, embattled logic. There is a sense in which the current shutdown is the culmination of the last 50 years of Republican history. Today’s GOP is the heir of Reagan’s remark that “[G]overnment is not the solution… government is the problem,” even as Reagan embodied the strident, anti-statist dogmas of Barry Goldwater. The Party’s development since 1964 has, in effect, been one long preparation for the time when it would have to argue that no government would be better than liberal government. It would make no sense to say this if liberals were simply misguided souls with some bad policy ideas. It makes perfect sense when one sees them through the prism of Tea Party doctrine: as illegitimate interlopers from the outer darkness whose intent is to exploit and subvert the normative American community.
Not long after the shutdown began, Rep. Martha Blackburn [ http://www.policymic.com/articles/66021/government-shutdown-8-people-who-are-actually-happy-about-it ], a Republican from Tennessee, appeared on Fox News. “I think… people are probably going to realize they can live with a lot less government than what they thought they needed,” she chirped. The hapless John Boehner [ http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/boehner-shutdown-congressional-meeting/2013/10/02/id/528996 ], emerging from a meeting with the President and other Congressional leaders, was less exuberant but no less revealing. The President’s refusal to negotiate, he implied, was inconsistent with the fact that “we’ve got divided government.” In his mind, whether the government should continue to function is just one more conflict to be stage-managed and gamed out; one more thing we might be divided over, no different in kind from disputes about tax rates or military policy. That government is the framework within which democracy occurs; that a minority committed to democracy would recognize this; that therefore real questions are raised when a minority favors its own constituency over the continuation of government — none of these things occurs to him. But the intellectual architecture behind these thoughts disappeared from Boehner’s universe long ago. For today’s Republicans, government — like health care reform, abortion, and same-sex marriage — is just another emanation from the liberal darkness. These New Confederates have reversed the logic of the Old; unlike their predecessors, they don’t want to secede from government: they want government to secede from American life. But like their ancestors in 1860, they’ve bestowed upon us a full-blown legitimation crisis. It’s their gift to America.
*
As the shutdown makes clear, we don’t have the option of shrugging this off as a matter of purely sectional concern. While these attitudes are certainly not confined to the South, they seem to have a special virulence there, and the South is now the electoral center of gravity for the Republican Party. That party, in turn, is the institutional face of the conservative movement. In closing, I would like to explore the implications of this analysis for a certain question about American conservatism.
Left-leaning students of conservatism — in whose ranks I include myself — sometimes impose on it the demand for a specious (not to say foolish) consistency. They want to find a principle that reconciles John Adams with Joe McCarthy, or that exhibits William F. Buckley, Jr. as a direct descendant of Edmund Burke. Seeing that this is impossible, they infer that conservatism isn’t a coherent intellectual tradition at all but simply an amalgam of reactionary impulses — a “collection of irritable mental gestures” as the critic Lionel Trilling [ http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Imagination-Review-Books-Classics/dp/1590172833 ] memorably put. (Though Trilling, I hasten to add, was far too subtle a thinker to believe this caricature applied to the conservative tradition as a whole.)
The truth is that conservatism, like liberalism or any other tradition worthy of serious study, is too complex to sustain this kind of reductionism. Outside of mathematics and logic, coherence is rarely a matter of deductive rigor. If we can find a few core concepts or concerns in a body of ideas, and if these have any force at all, that justifies taking it seriously.
I think we can find such an intellectual core in American conservatism. It is most easily discerned, perhaps, in contrast with its great rival, liberalism. Liberals — surprise! — believe in liberty. To put this point less abstractly (and tendentiously), they believe individual liberty should be the central value in the organization of political life. A corollary of this view is that liberty should be restricted only for the sake of a greater liberty.
Conservatives may agree that liberty is an important value – Burke [ http://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Revolution-France-Edmund-Burke/dp/1617206709 ], for example, endorsed the ideal of an “ordered liberty” — but not that it’s the paramount value. Because no person can lead a recognizably human life outside society, conservatives believe the integrity of the social fabric must be ensured even when this conflicts with individual liberty. The paramount value for conservatism, then, tends to be a principle of authority.
One way to distinguish among different strands of conservatism is to ask exactly how this principle is defined and applied. When given a narrowly religious construal, for example, it can result in a social world that is punitive, harsh and dogmatic. (One thinks immediately of Joseph de Maistre [ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1990/sep/27/joseph-de-maistre-and-the-origins-of-fascism/?pagination=false ] and the Catholic Right in France.) More influential for American conservatism, however, was the English emphasis on society as a network of institutions and practices — some religious, some cultural and political, some economic — whose combined efficacy depends on a carefully preserved balance. This view, presented so forcefully by Burke in England, was echoed by early American conservatives such as John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.
The idea of society as a delicate weave of various elements has an important consequence: namely, that every element makes some claim on every other. These conservatives certainly thought of hierarchy as important to society, but it was a hierarchy within society: each “interest” was accepted as part of the social fabric and its concerns accorded an appropriate weight. This sense of the nation as a community prompted Thomas Carlyle [ http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/carlyle/diniejko1.html ] and John Ruskin [ http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/ruskin/grose4.html ], for instance, to criticize the socially corrosive effects of early English capitalism.
This vision did not, of course, transfer seamlessly to the very different society of the new American nation. Some tensions were always apparent, most notably the fact that, outside the South, American society was significantly more liberalized than the English. This gave rise to a peculiar (if piquant) paradox: the social order that American conservatives sought to “conserve” was in many respects a liberal one.
Most of the obscurities and difficulties of American conservatism derive from this antinomy. The solution of mainstream thinkers was to argue that American culture includes conservative forces — forces, such as religious faith, that constrain the dynamism of its economy and society — and that these should be safeguarded and encouraged. They also emphasized, more or less persuasively, the importance to capitalist democracy of certain “conservative” habits of thought and conduct — honesty, prudence, reliability, etc.
In doing so, conservatives did not abandon their sense of society as a kind of community, one whose stability depends crucially on relations of fidelity and mutuality. Not, that is, until they responded to the entreaties of white Southerners in full recoil from the civil rights movement of the mid-1960s. Under the influence of this new constituency, their vision of the community as a whole began to curdle and contract, until finally it extended no further than the “normative” community: that subset of persons whose interests alone were deemed to have weight and value.
As mentioned previously, it is no longer customary to specify this subset in explicitly racial terms. These days the preferred enumeration is ideological: the insiders consist of the productive and self-reliant, those who accept and enact the values of work. On the outside are the “takers,” the parasites, the “47% [ http://visual.ly/putting-47-percent-perspective ],” all those whose sloth and selfishness leave them dependent on the diligence of others. (That this ideological turn is still heavily implicated in racial distrust may be too obvious to require mention.)
This fracturing of vision has secured for conservatives the loyalty of the revanchist South, but at a considerable price. A creed that once sought to moderate social tensions is now the vehicle of an intense animus. The belief that all members of society have claims to make has been replaced by an angry, bitter exclusionism. And its embrace of self-reliance has hardened into an economic Darwinism more inclined to celebrate than to critique an increasingly rapacious global capitalism.
This last point is especially important, because it highlights the absurdity of the notion that today’s conservatives have any meaningful relationship with libertarianism. One often hears, for example, Rand Paul or Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz referred to as members of the “libertarian wing [ http://www.policymic.com/articles/29823/ted-cruz-rand-paul-and-cpac-is-it-libertarians-moment-to-shine ]” of the Republican Party. This sort of thing makes one wonder if the commentator thinks “libertarian” is a synonym for “intransigent.” It is, in fact, the name of a particularly stringent form of liberalism, one that differs from anarchism only in its belief that some kind of highly minimal, schematic state can be justified. The question, of course, is what fills the social space created by the contraction of the state. Libertarians, rightly called, believe this space should be filled by a principle of individual liberty. But this is not what Paul or Rubio or Cruz or any other Republican believes. Paul, for instance, opposes [ http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htm ] abortion rights and same sex marriage. Like Rubio and Cruz and the Tea Party generally, he seeks a smaller government in order to fill the resulting space with some other source of authority and power. He is a perfect example of Sunbelt business conservatism, which wants to displace government so corporate and personal wealth can prevail in a social world dominated by the traditional culture of the evangelical South.
William F. Buckley, Jr., in so many ways the father of modern American conservatism, once famously described the conservative as “standing athwart History, yelling ‘Stop! [ http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/williamfb384475.html ]’” But the shrill faux-individualism of today’s Southern-fried conservatives actively abets one of the most destructive trends in American life: the fact that our notions of agency are increasingly fragmented even as the structural forces which constrain agency grow ever larger. In a 2012 Republican Presidential debate held in Florida, Ron Paul, Rand’s father, asked rhetorically what should happen if someone without health insurance shows up at an emergency room. “Let him die! [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0 (next below(]”
roared part of the audience, to loud applause.
That is the cry of our Southern conservatism.
Kim Messick lives and writes in North Carolina. He's working on a novel.
Copyright © 2013 Salon Media Group, Inc. (emphasis in original)
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/12/modern_gop_is_still_the_party_of_dixie/ [with comments]
--
Louie Gohmert: A Debt Default Is 'An Impeachable Offense By The President'
10/15/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/louie-gohmert-impeach_n_4094707.html [with embedded video report, and (approaching 5,000) comments]
--
On October 17, If Congress Fails the President Has No Choice
10/15/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-schweber/on-october-17-if-congress_b_4100402.html [with comments]
--
Sarah Palin: Obama On Verge Of 'Impeachable Offenses'
Posted: 10/14/2013 4:31 pm EDT | Updated: 10/15/2013 11:08 am EDT
Former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin took to Facebook [ https://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin/posts/10151931198833588 ] on Monday to accuse President Barack Obama of toying with "impeachable offenses" to address the looming debt ceiling deadline.
"Apparently the president thinks he can furlough reality when talking about the debt limit," Palin wrote.
Palin said Obama, who has repeatedly warned about the dangers of default if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling ahead of the October 17 deadline, is using the debt limit to scare the public.
"It’s also shameful to see him scaremongering the markets with his talk of default," she wrote. "There is no way we can default if we follow the Constitution."
Palin went on to cite the Constitution's 14th Amendment [ http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv ].
"The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4, requires that we service our debt first," she wrote. "We currently collect more than enough tax revenue to service our debt if we do that first."
However, Palin suggested that Obama could face impeachment if he used the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval — an option endorsed in a Courier-Journal op-ed [ http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20131013/OPINION04/310130027/-1/7daysarchives/14th-Amendment-debt-safeguard?nclick_check=1 ] by constitutional lawyer Brianne Gorod. Former President Bill Clinton [ http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/07/20/138511612/bill-clinton-says-hed-raise-the-debt-ceiling-using-14th-amendment ] and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/nancy-pelosi-14th-amendment-debt_n_3991148.html ] have also urged Obama to invoke the 14th Amendment if necessary.
Palin, on the other hand, said any such action would be a "betrayal" of future generations.
"It’s time for the president to be honest with the American people for a change. Defaulting on our national debt is an impeachable offense, and any attempt by President Obama to unilaterally raise the debt limit without Congress is also an impeachable offense," Palin wrote. "A default would also be a shameful lack of leadership, just as mindlessly increasing our debt without trying to rein in spending is a betrayal of our children and grandchildren who will be stuck with the bill."
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/14/sarah-palin-obama-impeachable_n_4098643.html [with embedded video report, and comments]
--
George Will to Fox News
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-danziger/george-will-to-fox_b_4094055.html [with comments]
*
George Will Compares Obamacare To Fugitive Slave Act
10/09/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/george-will-obamacare-slavery_n_4070389.html [with comments]
Ignorant Tea Party outrage: Sarah Palin’s latest Obamacare lie
Sarah Palin, Ben Carson and others who compare Obamacare to slavery don't know much about either
Oct 14, 2013
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/14/ignorant_tea_party_outrage_sarah_palins_latest_obamacare_lie/singleton/ [with comments]
--
The GOP’s Backdoor Impeachment Scheme
The Jefferson Memorial is seen with its entry closed off in Washington October 1, 2013.
Republicans have lost at the ballot box and the Supreme Court, so they’ve decided to nullify President Obama another way: keep his government from working, period.
Oct 14, 2013
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/14/the-gop-s-backdoor-impeachment-scheme.html [with comments]
--
Tea Party Hypocrisy
10/13/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-peyronnin/tea-party-hypocrisy_b_4094958.html [with comments]
--
Who is responsible for the US shutdown? The same idiots responsible for the 2008 meltdown
A Tea Party rally against the Affordable Care Act in Washington, DC last month. 'An opinion poll [in] 2012 showed that a majority of Americans, while opposing Obamacare, strongly support most of its provisions.'
Photograph: UPI /Landov / Barcroft Media
In opposing Obamacare, the radical-populist right exposes its own twisted ideology
Slavoj Žižek
The Guardian, Friday 11 October 2013 11.15 EDT
In April 2009 I was resting in a hotel room in Syracuse, hopping between two channels: a PBS documentary on Pete Seeger, the great American country singer of the left; and a Fox News report on the anti-tax Tea Party [ http://www.theguardian.com/world/tea-party-movement ], with a country singer performing a populist song about how Washington is taxing hard-working ordinary people to finance the Wall Street financiers. There was a weird similarity between the two singers: both were articulating an anti-establishment, populist complaint against the exploitative rich and their state; both were calling for radical measures, including civil disobedience.
It was another painful reminder that today's radical-populist right reminds us of the old radical-populist left (are today's Christian survivalist-fundamentalist groups with their half-illegal status not organised like Black Panthers back in the 1960s?). It is a masterful ideological manipulation: the Tea Party agenda is fundamentally irrational in that it wants to protect the interests of hardworking ordinary people by privileging the "exploitative rich", thus literally countering their own interests.
This twisted ideology is also behind the current federal government shutdown [ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/11/us-shutdown-talks-end-without-agreement ] in the US. An opinion poll at the end of June 2012 showed that a majority of Americans, while opposing Obamacare, strongly support most of its provisions. Here we encounter Tea Party ideology at its purest: the majority wants to have its ideological cake and eat the real baking. They want the real benefits of healthcare reform [ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/02/obamacare-lifesaver-signup ], while rejecting its ideological form, which they perceive as a threat to the "freedom of choice". They reject the concept of fruit, but they want apples, plums and strawberries.
Some of us remember the infamous communist tirades against bourgeois "formal" freedom. Ridiculous as these arguments were, there is some truth in the distinction between "formal" and "actual" freedom. A manager in a company in crisis has the "freedom" to fire workers, but not the freedom to change the situation that imposes on him this choice. We see it in the US healthcare debate [ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/11/truth-obamacare-rocky-rollout ], too: Obamacare would deliver many people from the dubious "freedom" to worry about who will cover their illness.
Freedom of choice is something that only functions if a complex network of legal, educational, ethical, economic and other conditions exists – the constraints that form the invisible underpinning to the exercise of our freedom. This is why, as an antidote to the populist rightwing ideology of choice, countries such as Norway should be held up as a model: although all main agents respect a basic social agreement and large social projects are enacted in solidarity, the economy is thriving [ http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/oct/30/global-prosperity-index-usa-economy ] (and not only because of the oil reserves), flatly contradicting the common wisdom that such a society should be stagnating.
Not many people know – and even fewer appreciate the irony of the fact – that Frank Sinatra's iconic song My Way – which is supposed to epitomise the American individualist attitude – is in fact a version of the French song Comme d'Habitude, which means "as usual, as is customary". It is all too easy to see this as yet another example of the opposition between sterile French manners and American inventiveness. But what if this is a phoney opposition? What if, in order to be able to do it my way, I have to rely on things going on comme d'habitude? A lot of things have to be regulated if we are to enjoy our non-regulated freedom.
One often hears that the US shutdown is the result of partisan bickering, that politicians should learn to rise above it and find bipartisan solutions for the good of the nation. Not only the Tea Party, but also Barack Obama is accused of dividing the American people instead of bringing them together. But what if this, precisely, is what is good about Obama [ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/06/obama-shutdown-dont-cave-republicans ]? In situations of deep crisis, an authentic division is urgently needed: a division between those who want to drag on within the old parameters and those who are aware of the need for radical change. This, not opportunistic compromise, is the only path to true unity.
One of the weird consequences of the 2008 financial meltdown and the measures taken to counteract it (enormous sums of money to help banks) was the revival of the work of Ayn Rand, the closest one can get to an ideologist of the "greed is good" radical capitalism. The sales of her opus Atlas Shrugged exploded. According to some reports, there are already signs that the scenario described in Atlas Shrugged – the creative capitalists themselves going on strike – is coming to pass in the form of a populist right. However, this misreads the situation: what is effectively taking place today is almost the exact opposite. Most of the bailout money is going precisely to the Randian "titans", the bankers who failed in their "creative" schemes and thereby brought about the financial meltdown. It is not the "creative geniuses" who are now helping ordinary people, it is the ordinary people who are helping the failed "creative geniuses [ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/11/shutdown-congress-gets-pay-perks ]".
John Galt, the central character in Atlas Shrugged, is not named until near the end of the novel. Before his identity is revealed, the question is repeatedly asked, "Who is John Galt". Now we know precisely who he is: John Galt is the idiot responsible for the 2008 financial meltdown, and for the ongoing federal government shutdown in the US.
© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/11/who-responsible-us-shutdown-2008-meltdown-slavoj-zizek [with comments]
--
The default has already begun
October 14, 2013
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/10/14/the-default-has-already-begun/ [with comments]
--
Viewing U.S. in Fear and Dismay
A Greek retiree named Yiannis was among those expressing shock that American politicians had allowed their disagreements to reach this point.
Angelos Tzortzinis for The New York Times
By DAMIEN CAVE
Published: October 15, 2013
MEXICO CITY — The word many Mexicans now use to describe Washington reflects a familiar mix of outrage and exasperation: berrinche. Technically defined as a tantrum, berrinches are also spoiled little rich kids, blind to their privilege and the effects of their misbehavior.
“It’s a display of American arrogance,” said Raúl Silva, 40, an entrepreneur grabbing coffee at an upscale cafe here. “It’s a problem, and it’s going to affect us.”
Faced with Washington’s march toward a default, the world has reacted mostly with disbelief that the reigning superpower could fall into such dysfunction, worry over global suffering to come and frustration that American lawmakers could let the problem reach this point.
A common question crossing continents remains quite simple: The Americans aren’t really that unreasonable and self-destructive, are they?
“It just goes to show that it’s not only Greece that has irresponsible and shortsighted politicians,” said Ioanna Kalavryti, 34, a teacher in Athens. “We’ve been held hostage by our reckless politicians, and the interests they serve, for more than three years now. I guess our American friends are getting a taste of the same medicine.”
For countries that have had their own experiences with financial crises — often followed by American dictates about the need to be more responsible — the brinkmanship in the United States has produced an especially caustic mix of bewilderment, offense and more than a little eagerness to scold.
Many people in countries like Greece, Argentina, Mexico and Russia still have searing memories of defaults and their lasting effects, including lost power. Especially galling for those who endured crises of their own is the fact that the United States remains sheltered: a default could well hurt weaker countries more than the United States, which has the advantage of the dollar’s being used as a global currency.
Indeed, the unequal distribution of power and wealth — part of the exceptionalism that American politicians loudly defend — has become a focal point for many foreign economists and officials. If any other nation had gotten this close to failing to pay its debts, they say, its economy would have already collapsed as investors fled, creating the need for a bailout not unlike what occurred here in Mexico in 1994.
“The U.S.'s exorbitant privilege” — of issuing the world’s most widely accepted currency — “allows it not to have a budget, to bump against debt limit with scant market reaction,” said Luis de la Calle, a Mexican economist.
If Mexico and many other countries shut down their governments, stopped paying salaries and threatened to default, he added, the titans of global finance, as they have in the past, would make sure the consequences were swift and severe. “We have little choice but to be responsible,” Mr. de la Calle said.
Especially in places accustomed to American lectures on good governance, finger-wagging has been easy to find. In Egypt, where the military-backed government has been criticized by the Obama administration for its heavy-handed crackdown on opponents, the American woes were splashed across the front page of the flagship state newspaper this week with alarm and a hint of satisfaction.
In Argentina, which defaulted on around $100 billion in debt in 2001, then the biggest default in history [ http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/24/world/argentine-leader-declares-default-on-billions-in-debt.html ], the newspaper La Nación pointed out in an article that the United States “is supposedly an international leader, and one that speaks every day of setting an example.”
But in many countries, a wide range of people, from executives to shoe shiners, simply seemed surprised and annoyed, with some saying they hoped that Washington’s dangerous game of chicken would draw to an end without global repercussions.
“They’re putting at risk thousands of jobs here in Mexico,” said Ahmad Fayad, 31, an administrative assistant leaving a bank in Mexico City. “Many companies here depend on the American economy’s health. And if everything continues to be so uncertain, they’ll start laying people off.”
Already, many argue, the standoff in Washington has deepened the sense of America’s decline. On the streets of many countries, conversations about the United States now regularly include expressions of shock and dismay. One businessman in Mexico said that following the fracas was like watching a famous couple’s marriage collapse in public, with shoving, shouting and ugly insults.
How, many ask, did the United States become more like the rest of the world, and less of an obvious leader? “I think the U.S. is losing its place,” said Osama Shawki, a shopkeeper in Cairo.
Others agreed. “It’s strange that such a thing has happened there,” said Irina Popova, 40, a homemaker in Russia, which suffered a financial collapse and default in 1998. “I always dreamed of going to America. It can happen to any country. It was us before, now it’s them.”
On the streets of Greece, people seemed to be shaking their heads, stunned at what they saw as American political weakness corroding a country of obvious strength.
“I never thought a global superpower like the U.S. could ever be in a comparable position to Greece,” said Theodore Couloumbis, emeritus professor of international relations at the University of Athens. “Both countries are paying dearly for rising political tensions. But in America’s case, there is the potential for serious global repercussions, too.”
For some, that shared risk led to empathy. “I have lots of friends in America,” said Zhanna Lanskaya, 36, a school director in Moscow. “I worry what effect it will have on ordinary people.”
For others, though, there was only disappointment — and some sanctimony. Many said that the United States needed to accept that the current crisis was the product of the same absolutist tendencies that had aggravated foreigners for centuries.
“America has fallen into a trap of its own making,” said Artur Khanukaev, 26, a ballistics engineer in Moscow. Even if the United States never slips into default, he said, the fear of collapse “will be a very good lesson.”
In some countries, pundits have singled out President Obama, questioning his leadership. But generally opinion pages have been focused on explaining the Tea Party and condemning it for the political paralysis. Columnists in Argentina have written that the Tea Party is blackmailing the United States and, in turn, the world.
Here in Mexico, José Luis Valdés Ugalde, a political science professor at the national university, recently compared Tea Party lawmakers to “reckless scoundrels who can sink the local and, in passing, also the global economy in the name of a reaction, rather than rational action.”
For Mexico, the risks of an American default are enormous. The government shutdown has already doubled wait times at some border crossings, slowing commerce with the United States, Mexico’s largest trading partner. The Mexican peso has fallen to a two-month low, and many business owners are anxious about what will come next.
Many here and elsewhere say that they expect the United States to avoid default. But others say that “tantrums” have come to define Washington, and that a reprieve will probably be short lived.
“They are supposed to be an example of consensus and democracy for the rest of the world,” said Salomón Cavane, 33, the owner of a men’s clothing business. “The fact they can’t come to an agreement because of their pride and their need to show who has the power — it is just ridiculous. I find it quite irresponsible as well.”
Reporting was contributed by Paulina Villegas from Mexico City, Andrew Roth and Patrick Reevell from Moscow, Niki Kitsantonis from Athens, Jonathan Gilbert from Buenos Aires, and Kareem Fahim from Cairo.
© 2013 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/world/viewing-us-in-fear-and-dismay.html [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/world/viewing-us-in-fear-and-dismay.html?pagewanted=all ] [with comments]
--
Republicans Back Down, Ending Crisis Over Shutdown and Debt Limit
Speaker John A. Boehner before voting Wednesday night. He told his members to hold their heads high, go home and regroup.
Doug Mills/The New York Times
Video [embedded]: Obama Speaks After Senate Passes Bill
Video: Mitch McConnell on Fiscal Deal
http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/10/16/us/politics/100000002502256/mitch-mcconnell-on-fiscal-deal.html
Video: Reid Thanks GOP Leader for Cooperation
http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/10/16/us/politics/100000002502441/reid-on-reaching-deal-to-end-shutdown.html
Slide Show: Following the Fiscal Crisis
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2013/10/16/us/20131017_SHUTDOWN.html
Graphic: The Back and Forth Over the Shutdown and Debt Ceiling
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/30/us/politics/the-back-and-forth-over-the-shutdown.html
Interactive Graphic: Senate Votes to Approves Budget Compromise
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/senate/1/219
Interactive Graphic: House Votes to Approve Budget Compromise
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/1/550
President Obama after speaking about the government shutdown Wednesday at the White House.
Saul Loeb/Agence France-Presse - Getty Images
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada helped negotiate the deal Wednesday.
Gabriella Demczuk/The New York Times
By JONATHAN WEISMAN and ASHLEY PARKER
Published: October 16, 2013
WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans conceded defeat on Wednesday in their bitter budget fight with President Obama over the new health care law as the House and Senate approved last-minute legislation ending a disruptive 16-day government shutdown and extending federal borrowing power to avert a financial default with potentially worldwide economic repercussions.
With the Treasury Department warning that it could run out of money to pay national obligations within a day, the Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday evening, 81 to 18 [ http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/senate/1/219 ], to approve a proposal hammered out by the chamber’s Republican and Democratic leaders after the House on Tuesday was unable to move forward with any resolution. The House followed suit a few hours later, voting 285 to 144 to approve the Senate plan [ http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/1/550 ], which would fund the government through Jan. 15 and raise the debt limit through Feb. 7.
Mr. Obama signed the bill about 12:30 a.m. Thursday.
Most House Republicans opposed the bill, but 87 voted to support it. The breakdown showed that Republican leaders were willing to violate their informal rule against advancing bills that do not have majority Republican support in order to end the shutdown. All 198 Democrats voting supported the measure.
Mr. Obama, speaking shortly after the Senate vote, praised Congress, but he said he hoped the damaging standoff would not be repeated.
“We’ve got to get out of the habit of governing by crisis,” said Mr. Obama, who urged Congress to proceed not only with new budget negotiations, but with immigration changes and a farm bill as well. “We could get all these things done even this year, if everybody comes together in a spirit of, how are we going to move this country forward and put the last three weeks behind us?”
After the House vote, officials announced that the federal government would reopen on Thursday and that federal employees should return to work.
The result of the impasse that threatened the nation’s credit rating was a near total defeat for Republican conservatives, who had engineered the budget impasse as a way to strip the new health care law of funding even as registration for benefits opened Oct. 1 or, failing that, to win delays in putting the program into place.
The shutdown sent Republican poll ratings plunging, cost the government billions of dollars and damaged the nation’s international credibility. Mr. Obama refused to compromise, leaving Republican leaders to beg him to talk, and to fulminate when he refused. For all that, Republicans got a slight tightening of income verification rules for Americans accessing new health insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act.
“We fought the good fight,” said Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio, who has struggled to control the conservative faction in the House, in an interview with a Cincinnati radio station. “We just didn’t win.”
In a brief closed session with his Republican rank and file, Mr. Boehner told members to hold their heads high, go home, get some rest and think about how they could work better as a team.
Two weeks of relative cohesion broke down into near chaos on Tuesday when Republican leaders failed twice to unite their troops behind a last-gasp effort to prevent a default on their own terms. By Wednesday, House conservatives were accusing more moderate Republicans of undercutting their position. Representative Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, a leading Republican voice for ending the fight, said Congress should have passed a bill to fund the government without policy strings attached weeks ago.
“That’s essentially what we’re doing now,” Mr. Dent said. “People can blame me all they want, but I was correct in my analysis and I’d say a lot of those folks were not correct in theirs.”
Under the agreement to reopen the government, the House and Senate are directed to hold talks and reach accord by Dec. 13 on a long-term blueprint for tax and spending policies over the next decade. Mr. Obama said consistently through the standoff that he was willing to have a wide-ranging budget negotiation once the government was reopened and the debt limit raised.
Mr. Boehner and his leadership team had long felt that they needed to allow their restive conference to pitch a battle over the president’s health care law, a fight that had been brewing almost since the law was passed in 2010. Now, they hope the fever has broken, and they can negotiate on issues where they think they have the upper hand, like spending cuts and changes to entitlement programs.
But there were no guarantees that Congress would not be at loggerheads again by mid-January, and there is deep skepticism in both parties that Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin and Senator Patty Murray of Washington, who will lead the budget negotiations, can bridge the chasm between them.
“This moves us into the next phase of the same debate,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat. “Our hope is now that Speaker Boehner and his caucus have played out their scenario with a tragic outcome, perhaps they’ll be willing to be more constructive.”
As Republican lawmakers left the closed meeting Wednesday, some were already thinking of the next fight.
“I’ll vote against it,” said Representative John C. Fleming, Republican of Louisiana, referring to the Senate plan. “But that will get us into Round 2. See, we’re going to start this all over again.”
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader who was instrumental in ending the crisis, stressed that under the deal he had negotiated with the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the across-the-board budget cuts extracted in the 2011 fiscal showdown remained in place over the objections of some Democrats, a slim reed that not even he claimed as a significant victory.
The deal, Mr. McConnell said, “is far less than many of us hoped for, quite frankly, but it’s far better than what some had sought.”
“Now it’s time for Republicans to unite behind other crucial goals,” he added.
Chastened Senate Republicans said they hoped the outcome would be a learning experience for the lawmakers in the House and the Senate who shut down the government in hopes of gutting the health law, Mr. Obama’s signature domestic achievement. Instead of using the twin issues of government funding and borrowing authority to address the drivers of the federal deficit, conservatives focused on a law they could never undo as long as Mr. Obama is president, several lawmakers said.
“Goose egg, nothing, we got nothing,” said Representative Thomas H. Massie, Republican of Kentucky.
Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina took a swipe at his fellow Republican senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah, as well as House members who linked government financing to defunding the health care law, which is financed by its own designated revenues and spending cuts.
“Let’s just say sometimes learning what can’t be accomplished is an important long-term thing,” Mr. Burr said, “and hopefully for some of the members they’ve learned it’s impossible to defund mandatory programs by shutting down the federal government.”
While Mr. Cruz conceded defeat, he did not express contrition.
“Unfortunately, the Washington establishment is failing to listen to the American people,” he said as he emerged from a meeting of Senate Republicans called to ratify the agreement.
For hundreds of thousands of federal workers across the country furloughed from their jobs, the legislative deal meant an abrupt end to their forced vacation as the government comes back to life beginning Thursday.
In a statement late Wednesday, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, made the reopening official.
“Employees should expect to return to work in the morning,” she said, adding they should check news reports and the Office of Personnel Management’s Web site [ http://www.opm.gov/ ] for updates.
For Mr. Boehner, who had failed to unite his conference around a workable plan, Wednesday’s decision to take up the Senate bill proved surprisingly free of conflict. Hard-line Republican lawmakers largely rallied around the speaker.
Representative Raúl R. Labrador of Idaho, said he was “really proud” of how Mr. Boehner had handled the situation. “I’m more upset with my Republican conference, to be honest with you,” he said.
Michael D. Shear contributed reporting.
© 2013 The New York Times Company
*
Related in Opinion
Editorial: The Republican Surrender (October 17, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/opinion/the-republican-surrender.html
Editorial: The Senate Tries to End the Crisis (October 15, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/opinion/the-senate-tries-to-end-the-crisis.html
Op-Ed Contributor: Changing the Debt-Ceiling Game (October 15, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/opinion/changing-the-debt-ceiling-game.html
*
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/us/congress-budget-debate.html [with (over 3,000) comments]
--
President Obama Statement on Debt Ceiling Deal Reopening Government
Published on Oct 16, 2013 by C-SPAN
Following the Senate vote approving a Debt Ceiling Deal Reopening Government, 81-18, President Obama delivered a statement from the White House. Included in his statement he said, "Once this agreement arrives on my desk I will sign it immediately. We'll begin reopening our government immediately." The House will vote later. Complete coverage on http://www.c-span.org/
*
Statement by the President of the United States
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
October 16, 2013
8:28 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening, everybody. Tonight, the Republicans and Democrats in Congress have come together around an agreement that will reopen our government and remove the threat of default from our economy.
The Senate has now voted to approve this agreement, and Democrats and Republicans in the House still have an important vote to take, but I want to thank the leaders of both parties for getting us to this point. Once this agreement arrives on my desk, I will sign it immediately. We'll begin reopening our government immediately, and we can begin to lift this cloud of uncertainty and unease from our businesses and from the American people.
I'll have more to say about this tomorrow. And I've got some thoughts about how we can move forward in the remainder of the year and stay focused on the job at hand, because there is a lot of work ahead of us, including our need to earn back the trust of the American people that has been lost over the last few weeks. And we can begin to do that by addressing the real issues that they care about.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: I am willing to work with anybody, I am eager to work with anybody -- Democrat or Republican, House or Senate members -- on any idea that will grow our economy, create new jobs, strengthen the middle class, and get our fiscal house in order for the long term. I've never believed that Democrats have a monopoly on good ideas. And despite the differences over the issue of shutting down our government, I'm convinced that Democrats and Republicans can work together to make progress for America.
In fact, there are things that we know will help strengthen our economy that we could get done before this year is out. We still need to pass a law to fix our broken immigration system. We still need to pass a farm bill. And with the shutdown behind us and budget committees forming, we now have an opportunity to focus on a sensible budget that is responsible, that is fair, and that helps hardworking people all across this country.
And we could get all these things done even this year if everybody comes together in a spirit of how are we going to move this country forward and put the last three weeks behind us. That’s what I believe the American people are looking for -- not a focus on politics, not a focus on elections, but a focus on the concrete steps that can improve their lives. That’s going to be my focus. I'm looking forward to Congress doing the same.
But, once again, I want to thank the leadership for coming together and getting this done. Hopefully, next time, it won't be in the 11th hour. One of the things that I said throughout this process is we've got to get out of the habit of governing by crisis. And my hope and expectation is everybody has learned that there is no reason why we can't work on the issues at hand, why we can't disagree between the parties while still being agreeable, and make sure that we're not inflicting harm on the American people when we do have disagreements.
So hopefully that’s a lesson that will be internalized, not just by me but also by Democrats and Republicans, not only the leaders but also the rank and file.
Thanks very much, everybody.
Q Mr. President, isn't this going to happen all over again in a few months?
THE PRESIDENT: No. (Laughter.)
END
8:31 P.M. EDT
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iDW_73DIRE [with comments] [also at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAnRik_DTzA / http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/10/17/government-shutdown-over ]; http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/10/16/statement-president-united-states
--
Buzzards
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-danziger/buzzards_b_4107033.html [with comments]
--
Obama is The NWO's Closer to Finish Off America
Published on Oct 16, 2013 by TheAlexJonesChannel
Alex expresses his true concern for America as he breaks down the information surrounding the announcement that Chase Bank has begun limiting wire transfers and international transfers...the beginnings of full economic control in America by the New World Order and the removal of private liberties.
Stay in the know - Follow Alex on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones
'Like' Alex on FACEBOOK - https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEme
http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
http://www.infowars.net/
http://www.prisonplanet.tv
**NEW ITEM**[[SURVIVAL SHIELD-NASCENT IODINE]]
http://www.infowarsshop.com/Survival-Shield--Nascent-Iodine_p_1104.html
Retail Price $49.95-Your Price $29.95*
Your Savings $20.00
[[START GETTING HEALTHY NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE]]
**Beyond Tangy Tangerine 2.0 is the most advanced multi-vitamin mineral complex to date. http://infowarshealth.com/
[[PREPAREDNESS PRODUCTS]] NEW ITEMS**
**EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO SURVIVE THE COLLAPSE**
http://www.infowarsshop.com/-Preparedness-Products_c_55.html
[[INFOWARS MAGAZINE]] Special Halloween Mask Double Cover Edition**
http://www.infowarsshop.com/-Infowars-Magazine_c_65.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmzje0jqD7s [with comments]
--
Lectures in History: Ku Klux Klan in 1920s America
Published on Oct 9, 2013 by C-SPAN
Preview - Full Program Airs October 12, 2013 at 8pm and October 13, 2013 at 12am & 1pm ET - For More Information: http://www.c-span.org/History/Events/Lectures-in-History-Ku-Klux-Klan-in-1920s-America/10737441749/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ACrE37Zl6A [with comment]
--
Obamacare Halloween Nightmare
Published on Oct 6, 2013 by TheAlexJonesChannel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n90xmjjbkqI
--
President Obama Speaks on Reopening the Government
Published on Oct 17, 2013 by The White House
In a statement from the White House Press Briefing Room, President Obama says that because Democrats and responsible Republicans came together, the first government shutdown in 17 years is now over and the first default in more than 200 years will not happen. October 17, 2013.
*
President Obama’s Oct. 17, 2013 remarks on the budget deal, as transcribed by Federal News Service.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good morning, everybody. Please have a seat.
Last night I signed legislation to reopen our government and pay America's bills. Because Democrats and responsible Republicans came together, the first government shutdown in 17 years is now over; the first default in more than 200 years will not happen. These twin threats to our economy have now been lifted, and I want to thank those Democrats and Republicans for getting together and ultimately getting this job done.
Now, there's been a lot of discussion lately of the politics of this shutdown. But let's be clear. There are no winners here. These last few weeks have inflicted completely unnecessary damage on our economy. We don't know yet the full scope of the damage, but every analyst out there believes it's slowed our growth. We know that families have gone without paychecks or services they depend on. We know that potential homebuyers have gotten fewer mortgages and small business loans have been put on hold. We know that consumers have cut back on spending and that half of all CEOs say that the shutdown and the threat of shutdown set back their plans to hire over the next six months.
We know that just the threat of default, of America not paying all the bills that we owe on time, increased our borrowing costs, which adds to our deficit. And of course, we know that the American people's frustration with what goes on in this town has never been higher.
That's not a surprise that the American people are completely fed up with Washington. At a moment when our economic recovery demands more jobs, more momentum, we've got yet another self-inflicted crisis that set our economy back. And for what? There was no economic rationale for all of this. Over the past four years, our economy has been growing, our businesses have been creating jobs, and our deficits have been in half. We hear some members who pushed for the shutdown say they were doing it to save the American economy. But nothing has done more to undermine our economy these past three years than the kind of tactics that create these manufactured crises.
And you don't have to take my word for it. The agency that put America's credit rating on watch the other day explicitly cited all of this, saying that our economy remains more dynamic and resilient than other advanced economies and that the only thing putting us at risk is -- and I'm quoting here -- "repeated brinksmanship." That's what the credit rating agency said.
That wasn't a political statement. That was an analysis of what's hurting our economy by people whose job it is to analyze these things.
That also happens to be the view of our diplomats, who have been hearing from their counterparts internationally.
Some of the same folks who pushed for the shutdown and threatened default claim their actions were needed to get America back on the right track, to make sure we're strong.
But probably nothing has done more damage to America's credibility in the world, our standing with other countries, than the spectacle that we've seen these past several weeks. It's encouraged our enemies, it's emboldened our competitors, and it's depressed our friends, who look to us for steady leadership.
Now the good news is, we'll bounce back from this. We always do. America's the bedrock of the global economy for a reason. We are the indispensable nation that the rest of the world looks to as the safest and most reliable place to invest, something that's made it easier for generations of Americans to invest in their own futures.
We have earned that responsibility over more than two centuries because of the dynamism of our economy and our entrepreneurs, the productivity of our workers, but also because we keep our word and we meet our obligations. That's what full faith and credit means. You can count on us.
And today I want our people and our businesses and the rest of the world to know that the full faith and credit of the United States remains unquestioned.
But to all my friends in Congress, understand that how business is done in this town has to change because we've all got a lot of work to do on behalf of the American people, and that includes the hard work of regaining their trust.
Our system of self-government doesn't function without it. And now that the government has reopened and this threat to our economy is removed, all of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists, and the bloggers, and the talking heads on radio and the professional activists who profit from conflict, and focus on what the majority of Americans sent us here to do, and that's grow this economy, create good jobs, strengthen the middle class, educate our kids, lay the foundation for broad-based prosperity and get our fiscal house in order for the long haul. That's why we're here. That should be our focus.
Now, that won't be easy. We all know that we have divided government right now. There's a lot of noise out there, and the pressure from the extremes affect how lot of members of Congress see the day-to-day work that's supposed to be done here.
And let's face it. The American people don't see every issue the same way. That doesn't mean we can't make progress. And when we disagree, we don't have to suggest that the other side doesn't love this country or believe in free enterprise or all the other rhetoric that seems to get worse every single year. If we disagree on something, we can move on and focus on the things we agree on and get some stuff done.
Let me be specific about three places where I believe we can make progress right now.
First, in the coming days and weeks, we should sit down and pursue a balanced approach to a responsible budget, a budget that grows our economy faster and shrinks our long-term deficits further. At the beginning of this year, that's what both Democrats and Republicans committed to doing. Senate passed a budget. House passed a budget. They were supposed to come together and negotiate. And had one side not decided to pursue a strategy of brinksmanship, each side could have gotten together and figured out how do we shape a budget that provides certainty to businesses and people who rely on government, provides certainty to investors and our economy, and we'd be growing faster right now.
Now, the good news is the legislation I signed yesterday now requires Congress to do exactly that, what it could have been doing all along. And we shouldn't approach this process of creating a budget as an ideological exercise, just cutting for the sake of cutting. The issue's not growth versus fiscal responsibility. We need both. We need a budget that deals with the issues that most Americans are focused on, creating more good jobs that pay better wages.
And remember, the deficit is getting smaller, not bigger. It's going down faster than it has in the last 50 years. The challenge that we have right now are not short-term deficits; it's the long-term obligations that we have around things like Medicare and Social Security.
We want to make sure those are there for future generations.
So the key now is a budget that cuts out the things that we don't need, closes corporate tax loopholes that don't help create jobs and frees up resources for the things that do help us grow, like education and infrastructure and research. And these things historically have not been partisan.
And this shouldn't be as difficult as it's been in past years because we already spend less than we did a few years ago. Our deficits are half of what they were a few years ago. The debt problems we have now are long term. And we can address them without short-changing our kids or short-changing our grandkids or weakening the security that current generations have earned from their hard work. So that's number one.
Number two, we should finish fixing the job of our -- let me say that again. Number two. We should finish the job of fixing our broken immigration system. There's already a broad coalition across America that's behind this effort of comprehensive immigration reform, from business leaders to faith leaders to law enforcement.
In fact, the Senate has already passed a bill with strong bipartisan support that would make the biggest commitment to border security in our history, would modernize our legal immigration system, make sure everyone plays by the same rules, make sure that folks who came here illegally have to pay a fine, pay back taxes, meet their responsibilities. That bill's already passed the Senate. And economists estimate that if that bill becomes law, our economy would be 5 percent larger two decades from now. That's $1.4 trillion in new economic growth.
The majority of Americans think this is the right thing to do. And it's sitting there waiting for the House to pass it. Now, if the House has ideas on how to improve the Senate bill, let's hear them. Let's start the negotiations. But let's not leave this problem to keep festering for another year or two years or three years. This can and should get done by the end of this year.
Number three. We should pass a farm bill, one that American farmers and ranchers can depend on, one that protects vulnerable children and adults in times of need, one that gives rural communities opportunities to grow and the long-term certainty that they deserve. Again, the Senate's already passed a solid bipartisan bill. It's got support from Democrats and Republicans. It's sitting in the House waiting for passage. If House Republicans have ideas that they think would improve the farm bill, let's see them. Let's negotiate. What are we waiting for? Let's get this done.
So, passing a budget, immigration reform, farm bill. Those are three specific things that would make a huge difference in our economy right now, and we could get them done by the end of the year -- if our focus is on what's good for the American people. And that's just the big stuff.
There are all kinds of other things that we could be doing that don't get as much attention.
I understand we will not suddenly agree on everything now that the cloud of crisis has passed. Democrats and Republicans are far apart on a lot of issues. And I recognize there are folks on the other side who think that my policies are misguided. That's putting it mildly. That's OK. That's democracy. That's how it works. We can debate those differences vigorously, passionately, in good faith, through the normal democratic process. And sometimes we'll be just too far apart to forge an agreement.
But that should not hold back our efforts in areas where we do agree. We shouldn't fail to act on areas that we do agree or could agree just because we don't think it's good politics, just because the extremes in our party don't like the word "compromise." I will look for willing partners wherever I can to get important work done. And there's no good reason why we can't govern responsibly, despite our differences, without lurching from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis.
In fact, one of the things that I hope all of us have learned these past few weeks is that it turns out smart, effective government is important. It matters. I think the American people, during the shutdown, had a chance to get some idea of all the things large and small that government does that make a difference in people's lives.
And we hear all the time about how government is the problem. Well, it turns out we rely on it in a whole lot of ways. Not only does it keep us strong through our military and our law enforcement, it plays a vital role in caring for our seniors and our veterans, educating our kids, making sure our workers are trained for the jobs that are being created, arming our businesses with the best science and technology so they can compete with companies from other countries. It plays a key role in keeping our food and our toys and our workplaces safe. It helps folks rebuild after a storm. It conserves our natural resources. It finances startups. It helps to sell our products overseas. It provides security to our diplomats abroad.
So let's work together to make government work better instead of treating it like an enemy or purposely making it work worse. That's not what the founders of this nation envisioned when they gave us the gift of self-government. You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don't break it. Don't break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That's not being faithful to what this country's about.
And that brings me to one last point. I've got a simple message for all the dedicated and patriotic federal workers who've either worked without pay or have been forced off the job without pay these past few weeks, including most of my own staff: Thank you. Thanks for your service. Welcome back. What you do is important. It matters. You defend our country overseas. You deliver benefits to our troops, who have earned them, when they come home. You guard our borders. You protect our civil rights. You help businesses grow and gain footholds in overseas markets. You protect the air we breathe and the water our children drink, and you push the boundaries of science and space, and you guide hundreds of thousands of people each day through the glories of this country. Thank you. What you do is important, and don't let anybody else tell you different, especially to the young people who come to this -- this city to serve, believe that it matters. Well, you know what? You're right. It does.
And those of us who have the privilege to serve this country have an obligation to do our job as best we can. We come from different parties, but we are Americans first. That's why disagreement cannot mean dysfunction. It can't degenerate into hatred.
The American people's hopes and dreams are what matters, not ours. Our obligations are to them. Our regard for them compels us all, Democrats and Republicans, to cooperate and compromise and act in the best interests of our nation, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thanks very much.
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZeOhgEj-hw [with comments]/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/10/17/government-shutdown-over ; http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-president-obamas-oct-17-remarks-on-shutdown-deal/2013/10/17/3eff02b6-3738-11e3-8a0e-4e2cf80831fc_story.html [with comments; official transcript to be at http://edit.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/10/17/remarks-president-reopening-government ]
--
in addition to (linked in) the post to which this is a reply and preceding and (other) following, see also (linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=78429713 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85825396 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=86746920 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=89182231 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91145449 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91425190 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92582379 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92596262 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92665554 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92774828 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92878340 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92879056 and preceding and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92881914 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92881487 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92884002 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92886960 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92887896 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92891230 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92891668 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92894615 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92895370 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92896774 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92898321 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92899696 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92901724 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92902288 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92902319 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92903734 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92913104 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92917043 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92918883 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92918928 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92918994 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92919100 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92919131 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92920341 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92921182 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92921350 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92930091 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92930178 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92930507 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92933396 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92935253 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92937353 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92937853 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92961194 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92961924 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92962250 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92964018 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92974007 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92993928 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92994578 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92995705 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92997978 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93000797 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93001496 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93007178 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93015172 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93023743 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93028926 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93031303 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93035860 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93036036 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93036259 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93036741 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93037580 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93037888 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93038344 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93041265 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93043684 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93048268 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93048655 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93056143 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93062553 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93066954 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93068192 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93069194 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93070608 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93071471 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93071625 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93078452 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93080098 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93081774 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93081983 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93082337 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93083019 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93084082 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93084250 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93086457 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93094031 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93099129 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93106343 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93114288 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93120920 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93121049 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93121218 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93121350 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93122395 (and any future following)
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
