Three more PJTV.com reports that are worth listening to.
The first deals with government and the food we eat. I can understand government wanting us to eat better so we will not be fat and thus better able to ward off bad health with all its abnormal costs.
My wife and I attended a concert recently and almost everyone was some 50 pounds overweight and I am being 'conservative.'
That said, the way this administration is going about it smacks of "big fat brother.'
The second program highlights how the NAACP has gone off the charts when it comes to their original mission. Their own race is suffering educationally and yet they continue to do everything to keep them trapped - how sad.
The third is about the pounding Sarah gets and allows to roll off her back. Why the abuse? Why is she such an object of liberal rancor? What is it about Sarah that makes her such a threat to our nation? They turned on Bork, Thomas, Cheney and GW so I guess it is time for a woman to become the object of their scorn.
Click on PJTV.com
"The Bottom Line: Eat It, Or Else: Uncle Sam's Food Fetish
Walter Olson of the CATO Institute joins James Poulos to discuss the Obama Administration's fascination with food. Should the government be telling us how to plate our dinner? Is this the beginning of big government menu control? Find out."
"Minority Report: The NAACP: Advancing Unions and the Democratic Party, Not Civil Rights
Has the NAACP lost its purpose and mission? The once great civil rights organization seems more concerned with helping unions and Democrats. In fact, they have even become apologists for failing union-controlled school systems. Hear more."
The Conversation: Time to Deflate the Palin Hate? Why Does the Media Obsessively Detest Sarah Palin
Meredith Dake of Big Government, Larry O'Connor of Breitbart.tv and Alexis Garcia discuss the media obsession with Gov. Sarah Palin. Could Sarah Palin's biggest enemies reside within the GOP tent, and not in the media? Find out.
---
Had dinner this evening with a lovely couple who politically consider themselves libertarians.
The husband is concerned about the current political discord and does not understand why the various factions cannot meet in the middle. I asked him to define where the middle was and he could not move from his own rigid position that everything was GW's fault.
I pointed out our recent discord did not happen overnight and probably began with Clinton's impeachment, was magnified by the Bork and Thomas hearing episodes and the peak/pique was reached with GW's alleged 'illegal' election over Gore. My friend was willing to accept my thesis but remained unwilling to consider Obama as being far left. I asked him did he believe Obama made a bad situation worse and he could not even go down that road because he would not get off the blame GW horse he felt comfortable riding.
I then suggested what he called our fractured politics was perhaps a reflection of his own desire to lay all the blame where he thought it should be placed and that was not a middle road approach.
I believe we have finally reached the end of the road, no place to hide the mess we are experiencing. The seriousness of our plight is out there for all to see. Until the various philosophical factions are willing to assume their share of blame and place the nation's interests and survival first the battle for primacy will continue. That is why the 2012 election is as critical as any our nation has faced since The Civil War.
There are those, like myself, who believe four more years of Obama will be untenable and there are those who believe it is all GW's fault and cannot acknowledge Obama had any hand in stirring the porridge. As long as that dichotomy exists there will be no solution, we will remain a divided nation and our politics will reflect that circumstance.
Personally, I see no reason to compromise. Going $700 billion in debt instead of $1.4trillion in debt to fund government programs that have proven do not work, are beyond our ability to pay without going more in debt and which cripple the private sector is simply being asked to take half the poison. We must regain control over spending, free the private sector of ghastly and stifling regulations, educate our citizens and return to the practices that made us the great nation we once were.
Until we are back on a sound social, educational, defense and fiscal track I see no reason to compromise because national suicide is not a direction or endeavor I care to support.
---
Avi Jorisch writes about the piracy stock exchange. (See 1 below.)
---
The rationale for why Bill Gross of Pimco, is averse to buying U.S. issued paper is explained in this precis of an article by investment guru, Jeff Clark. (See 2 below.)
---
Progressive education termites are at work under girding our nation's education system and the moral fiber of our society. Subtle but steady as they go! (See 3 below.)
---
Does Obama want to become Israel's undertaker? If so why? James Lewis presents his thoughts.
Can one pose the same question about our own nation? Perhaps the conspiratorial view of "The Manchurian Candidate" has currency. You decide. (See 4 and 4a below.)
Jordan's Abdullah adds his two cents and Turkey sides with the PA. (See 4b and 4c below.)
---
We can do better. Do we have the nerve and fortitude? You decide.(See 5 below.)
---
AlQaeda's snake grows another head. (See 6 below.)
---
Even most liberals should be able to grasp the concept that when you charge more you get less. But then when facts refute what many of these liberals believe they rush into the denial tent. (See 7 below.)
---
We will be hearing a lot more in the coming years from this man - Mark Rubio! The political tide is running his way and being Spanish will not hurt. I am posting his inaugural speech. (See 8 below.)
---
Spitzer resigned in disgrace and now makes millions on TV. Weiner is apparently going to resign shortly so maybe he could become a spokesperson for testosterone.com and make millions as well. When public officials can end their careers and make millions is that saying something about our debauched society? You decide.
---
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Today's Pirates Have Their Own Stock Exchange
by Avi Jorisch
Be the first of your friends to like this.Pirates are on a hot streak this season. World-wide, the first quarter of 2011 saw 142 recorded attacks, up from 67 in that time last year. Off the coast of Somalia there were 97, as against 35 last year. Why? Despite some efforts by Western powers to patrol the Horn of Africa, pirates are still able to access capital, as any successful business must.
The world's first pirate stock exchange was established in 2009 in Harardheere, some 250 miles northeast of Mogadishu, Somalia. Open 24 hours a day, the exchange allows investors to profit from ransoms collected on the high seas, which can approach $10 million for successful attacks against Western commercial vessels.
While there are no credible statistics available, reports from various news sources suggest that over 70 entities are listed on the Harardheere exchange. When a pirate operation is successful, it pays investors a share of the profits. According to a former pirate who spoke to Reuters, "The shares are open to all and everybody can take part, whether personally at sea or on land by providing cash, weapons or useful materials. . . . We've made piracy a community activity."
The big player on the Harardheere exchange is a pirate named Mohammed Hassan Abdi, who goes by the name of "Afweyne," or "Big Mouth." Known as the "father of piracy," Abdi and his son Abdiqaadir are in charge of the exchange and are, according to a recent United Nations report, among the best-known pirates in the area. Abdi's boats have hijacked a variety of ships, including the German freighter Hansa Stavanger, which German special forces tried unsuccessfully to liberate in 2009. After a four-month hostage ordeal, the pirates released the ship off the coast of Kenya.
Piracy has changed Harardheere from a small fishing village to a town crowded with luxury cars. As local security officer Mohamed Adam put it to Reuters, "Piracy-related business has become the main profitable economic activity in our area and as locals we depend on their output." Mr. Adam claims that the district government gets a cut of every dollar collected by pirates and uses it—naturally—for schools, hospitals and other public infrastructure.
Cutting off these financial relationships is essential to curbing piracy. The U.S. could begin by instituting, via executive order, a sanctions regime against these rogue actors. Just as the government maintains lists of terrorists, narco-traffickers, weapons proliferators and money launderers, so too should it keep a list of pirates. This would heighten international awareness of piracy and give banks an additional tool to employ against illicit actors. Pirates, like all other criminals, eventually use the banking sector to try to hide their criminal gains.
The U.N. and other international organizations—such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an intergovernmental body that sets standards regarding terrorism finance and money laundering—also have roles to play. For one, the U.N. should expand its current Somalia and Eritrea monitoring committee, which was established in 1992 to implement the U.N. travel ban, asset freeze, and arms embargo on Somalia, as well as the arms embargo on Eritrea. An expanded committee could improve the anti-piracy intelligence-gathering capabilities of its members and track the finances of significant international pirates.
For its part, the FATF could get serious about including piracy within its mission of highlighting how money launderers and terrorists raise and move funds. To date, the organization has never issued a report on piracy. Doing so would prod a variety of international organizations, policy makers, law-enforcement agencies, and banking authorities to grapple seriously with this threat.
There are four banks in Somalia today—the Central Bank, the Commercial and Savings Bank of Somalia, and the Somali Development Bank (all of which are wholly or partly owned by the government), as well as the independent Universal Bank of Somalia. International financial institutions providing correspondent banking services to the four, or wiring money into or out of the country, should carry out enhanced due diligence on all transactions to make sure they are not related to piracy or the Harardheere stock exchange. In Washington, the Treasury Department could mandate this standard of care by issuing guidance to all American financial institutions.
Piracy increases the cost of international commerce by $12 billion annually, and in Somalia alone more than 20 vessels and 400 hostages are currently being held, according to the International Chamber of Commerce. The U.S. and others have a duty to deploy their financial firepower against this threat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)The Second-Best Time in 40 Years to Short the Bond Market
By Jeff Clark, editor, Advanced Income
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Jeff Clark believes '...Anyone who owns Treasury bonds has to ask themselves who is left to buy or better yet, "Who's stupid enough to buy?"
Since the yield on the 10-year Treasury has now droppedbelow 3% (The 10-year Treasury is a good "benchmark" for interest rates ans with inflation running at close to 6%, any bbuyers of the 10-year Treasury is locking in a 3% annual loss of purchasing power – before taxes.
The Chinese aren't stupid so they have begun a systematic program of being net sellers of U.S. Treasury debt for most of the past year.
Japan isn't stupid, either and are not far behind because they too have been on the sell side.
Because of QE2, the only one stupid enough to buy low-yielding U.S. Treasury debt is the U.S. itself. Over the past nine months, the Federal Reserve has increased its holdings of Treasury notes and bonds from $720 billion to more than $1.4 trillion.
Clark points out this was the whole reason for the second quantitative easing program (QE2.) By having the Fed buy up our own Treasury obligations, theoretically, we keep Treasury prices artificially high and interest rates artificially low.
However,as Clark notes, QE2 ends in two weeks. So again, we have to ask, "Who is left to buy?"
There will always be some demand coming from pension funds and other institutions that, by law, must hold a certain percentage of their assets in U.S. Treasury obligations. Furthermore, short-term hiccups in the stock market will send some stock investors running for the perceived safety of Treasury bonds.
That said, according to Clark an ever-increasing supply of new bonds combined with a shrinking demand, bond prices have only one way to go, You guessed it - down.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) The Latest Education Fad Inverts Justice
By Chuck Rogér
Something subtle and disturbing is happening under parents' radar. Growing numbers of progressive educators are twisting a four-thousand-year-old concept in order to induce schoolchildren to adopt amoral worldviews. A trend gathering steam nationwide teaches conflict resolution based on "restorative justice." Though traditionally applied in criminal situations, progressives are adapting the technique to the classroom.
Restorative justice is no new concept. Dating to two millennia B.C., the original approach eschewed a generic legal code, downplayed government-administered punishment, and encouraged victimizers to make amends to victims. Offenders apologized and did whatever was necessary to make up for the offenses.
But now across America, as in Seattle's Small Schools Project, educators are selling restorative justice as "a radically different approach to school discipline/classroom management." The approach is especially contorted in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The school district's website doesn't define restorative justice but states that students are taught "team building, conflict resolution, mediation, intrapersonal and interpersonal skills" in order to, among other objectives, engender "respect for everyone involved" in conflicts. A Santa Fe Restorative Justice Coordinator described the approach as "an alternative to traditional school discipline" that "involves all [conflict] participants" and "focuses on repairing harm."
High-minded intent. But any disciplinary "alternative" that puts "respect" for miscreants on par with justice for victims warps the very concept of justice. Coercing mistreated Ramon into respecting an abusive Joseph deals Ramon an injustice.
Indeed, the Santa Fe approach is divorced from justice. Mary Louise Romero calls her Santa Fe High School restorative justice class "an open house for the heart" in which children find "a connection to a deeper place." In one exercise, Romero encourages victims and bullies alike to "share" feelings of "loss, happiness, love, heartbreak, being misunderstood, being alive and so on." Having overseen a program aimed at helping young people and reducing juvenile crime, Romero seems sincerely motivated. But fanciful notions that morally equate victimizers and victims aren't likely to discourage victimization. Santa Fe-style restorative justice is about nonjudgmentalism, not justice.
In a similarly progressive vein, a Multnomah County Oregon restorative justice program touts principles that "emphasize healing over punishment, inclusion over exclusion, and individual accountability with a high level of community support." In Chicago, the Power-PAC Elementary Justice Committee claims that restorative justice balances "the needs of the community, the victim and the offender by involving the community in figuring out how to repair the damage done." In Colorado, enthusiasts dedicated to "healing relationships" champion "community circles" to build a "restorative path" for formerly incarcerated criminals.
These approaches are designed for failure. It is flat-out dishonest to teach children that the world doesn't judge, but instead waits patiently for emotional "healing" to occur. Conditioning victims to be sympathetic to the "needs" of offenders is breathtakingly abusive to the victims. Silliest of all, promoting "community circles" to create a "restorative path" for lost souls constitutes otherworldly nonsense.
But the world envisioned by progressives is filled with morality plays that mock truth and common sense. The mockery centers on denying two facts: that genuinely nasty people walk among the good and that the two camps are morally light years apart.
The denial practiced by self-anointed visionaries can assume spectacular form. In an exhibition of naïveté, a San Francisco law enforcement agency decrees that restorative justice develops and strengthens "empathy skills in order to allow offenders to confront the effects of their crimes." But reality dooms the approach.
Researchers Stanton Samenow and Samuel Yochelson determined that criminals commit at least fifty-two thought errors, acting out of malice and rejecting decent choices.[1] Samenow interviewed thousands of criminals, concluding that "no matter how bizarre or repugnant the crime, [the criminal] is rational, calculating, and deliberate..." Samenow observed, "When you think of how these people react, how their patterns go back to age 3 or 4, there isn't anything to rehabilitate."[2] Even the most liberal doses of restorative justice cannot eliminate aspects of human nature that predispose some individuals to unreformable behavior.
In One Nation under Therapy, Christina Hoff Sommers and Sally Satel discuss findings that can be used to bridge Samenow's and Yochelson's work into the school environment. Young people are not "improved by educators" who are "obsessed with the mission of boosting children's self-esteem," write Sommers and Satel. In fact, "unmerited self-esteem" can produce "antisocial behavior -- even criminality."[3] Furthermore:
Healthy young people are shortchanged, even endangered, when the adults in their lives take the view that what is most important is to keep them free from stress, free from self doubt, and happy in their conviction that they should be judged by no one's standards but their own.[4]
Sirens should blare in parents' heads when restorative justice zealots tell children to believe that no emotion, no matter how despicable, should be judged.
Besides eroding judgment skills, "helping" programs such as Santa Fe's perversion of restorative justice also waste taxpayer money on "teaching" the obvious. After a Santa Fe High School "sharing" session, a student remarked, "It proves that people don't always show their emotions on the outside, but they feel on the inside." Yes, since the dawn of our species people have suppressed certain emotions. Any honest, rational student of human nature would be concerned that restorative justice-style group-hugs might surface and sanction all emotions as morally equal and paint bad actors as deserving of forgiveness simply for "sharing" and "apologizing."
Sadly, in-school restorative justice programs are far from exclusive to Santa Fe. A restorative justice coordinator in Colorado, which hosted a summit for advocates of the technique, calls the state "the Mecca for youth-led restorative justice." The technique has also deeply invaded schools in the Northeast, on the West Coast, in Minnesota and Illinois. (Links to resources describing school and community restorative programs provided here.)
What will come of a generation taught that the world should judge no action and readily forgive nastiness? The question demands clear thinking. Yet throughout America, restorative justice is increasingly shaping children in ways destined to hatch chilling answers.
In New York City; Teton County, Wyoming; Denver, Colorado; South Duxbury, Vermont; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Pendleton, South Carolina; Miami, Florida; and in Santa Fe, restorative justice zealots are urging children to harshly judge no action and forgive offenders who have intentionally inflicted harm.
If not stopped, school-based "restorative justice" will cast yet another generation morally adrift, but this time like 1960s flower children on steroids. America will have to deal with widespread societal implications.
A writer, physicist, former high tech executive, and Cajun, Chuck Rogér invites you to sign up to receive his "Clear Thinking" blog posts by email at www.chuckroger.com. Contact Chuck at swampcactus@chuckroger.com.
[1] Samuel Yochelson and Stanton E. Samenow, The Criminal Personality, Vols. I, II, III, New York: Jason Aronson, 1976, 1977, 1986; cited in Morgan O. Reynolds, "Does Punishment Deter?," National Center for Policy Analysis, Policy Backgrounder, #148, Aug 17, 1998.
[2] Morgan O. Reynolds, "Crime by Choice: An Economic Analysis," Fisher Inst, p. 67, 1985; cited in Morgan O. Reynolds, "Does Punishment Deter?," National Center for Policy Analysis, Policy Backgrounder, #148, Aug 17, 1998.
[3] Christina Hoff Sommers and Sally Satel, One Nation Under Therapy, St. Martin's Press, 2005, p 6.
[4] Ibid, p 25.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Barack O'Bully Wants to End Israel
By James Lewis
"Racism" is a killing hatred for an ethnos, a people or nation. It could be cold hatred, where you just want all those people to disappear from the face of the earth, or red-hot hatred, where you're just itching to bring out your Turkish scimitar and start chopping innocent men, women and children. It doesn't matter if racism is cold or hot. It's the "final solution" that defines it.
Obama just demanded that seven million Jews in Israel abandon their homes to live inside the cease-fire lines of their War of Independence. Those cease-fire lines are not borders, and were never meant to be borders. They are so weirdly drawn that Israel becomes nine miles wide at the waist. For Israel to withdraw to those lines is to "commit suicide" as a nation, as Newt Gingrich has just said. Gingrich is right. This is what radical Islamists keep shouting about, in one, vast industrialized stream of oil-fueled hate propaganda.
And now, ten years after 9/11/01, Obama has joined them.
I don't think Americans really understand that yet. It's obvious that many American Jews don't understand it either. There's a kind of culture shock when radicals express their real beliefs. Nobody wants to believe it.
I can't read minds, and I don't know if Obama has a visceral hatred for Israel. It's not even the right question to ask. The real, practical question is whether Obama is trying to sabotage and ultimately destroy that country. It's "practical racism" that's the issue.
The Left is always trying to draw an imaginary line between Israel hatred and Jew hatred. But it's a distinction without a difference. It's like saying that you love Americans -- but the country named "America" has to be destroyed.
Barack Hussein Obama is therefore a practical racist -- he can proclaim all the lovely sentiments he wants to, finely tuned to whichever audience he wants to sucker, but his stated, practical goal is to shrink Israel into the tiniest and least defensible borders possible. It's like telling America to go back to the original thirteen colonies.
In a world of reality, not high-flown rhetoric, Obama wants to terminate a viable Jewish State in Israel, just as, deep down, he wants to terminate a viable nation of America. That's the program of the Left, and has been since Karl Marx. It's a utopian, one-world fantasy, that always sounds better than anything real. So Barack Hussein Obama, the President of the United States, has come out against the existence of a viable State of Israel. That would be Progress, he seems to think.
If you haven't understood that, your eyes are closed. Consider lifting your eyelids.
The word "racist" has become a word of abuse without real meaning, like the ancient word "bastard." It used to mean something, and then it became just a fuzzy thing meaning "really bad." The Left makes use of race to smear people it wants to oppress and control. It's a verbal club for beating people over the head. But there really are practical racists, people who dream of actually destroying an entire ethnos, a people. The other word for that is "genocide."
We now hear that Hillary Clinton and the Administration have again repeated that demand to commit national suicide. This is what O'Bully did to Hosni Mubarak during the phony "Egyptian Spring." He demanded that Mubarak must resign, and "Now means Now!!" But Mubarak had been our ally for almost 30 years, the man who kept the Egypt-Israel peace treaty alive. O'Bully humiliated Mubarak in public, a tremendous loss of face for an Arab leader, and he resigned.
Now the Muslim Brotherhood is making a grab for power in Egypt.
We've seen this totalitarian movie before. The last time it cost 100 million people their lives. Like Communists during the Soviet Union, Obama never talks about those 100 million victims of Marxist regimes in the 20th century.
Obama has apologized for America on numerous occasions, but he has never deplored the murderous record of Marxist-Leninism. That is significant.
Twenty years ago the Berlin Wall came down, after Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, John Paul II, and a host of freedom activists like Poland's Solidarity fought for human freedom.
Today Barack O'Bully is trying to reverse history by empowering the reactionary Muslim Brotherhood -- which now controls Turkey, Gaza, and maybe Egypt. The other brand of radical Islam is now in control of Iran, Syria and Lebanon.
Iran is getting nukes, and Obama is doing nothing to stop them. Some reports say it's a matter of weeks or months. The Syrians have been revealed as building two more nuclear sites, beside the one the Israelis identified and smashed several years ago. The Saudis, who are radical Sunnis, are due to buy their own nukes from Pakistan (where they helped to finance Pakistan's nukes).
It's happening right in front of our eyes. The facts are no longer in dispute.
They are what they are.
You can keep your eyes shut tight, like a hundred million liberals do every single day.
Or you can open your eyes.
The choice is yours.
4a) Last preparations before restart of Israel-Palestinian talks
The final touches on US President Barack Obama's push to revive Israel-Palestinian negotiations, stalled for nearly two years, are being put in place by his Middle East advisers David Hale and Dennis Ross and the legal adviser to the National Security Council Jonathan Schwartz who arrived in Israel Tuesday, June 14. After talks in Jerusalem, the group is to meet Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas Thursday in Amman and continue working on arrangements for a non-ceremonial, modest triple summit in Washington to kick off the negotiations.
According to sources, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas have quietly committed to sit down and talk without prior conditions: The Prime Minister has dropped his demand for Abbas to first recognize Israel as the Jewish national state, while the Palestinian leader has abandoned the prior conditions for Israel to accept the 1967 lines as the starting point of the talks and halt settlement construction.
Obama for his part stands by his insistence on the 1967 borders as the basis for negotiations. He also obtained Abbas' pledge to give face-to-face diplomacy one more chance before addressing a unilateral application to the UN for recognition of Palestinian statehood.
With these obstacles out of the way, Israeli-Palestinian talks are expected to restart within six weeks and should they go smoothly they would continue until August.
The plan is for the three leaders to retire behind closed doors after their initial joint photo op and launch their first round of talks. The exact location is one of the loose ends being resolved tied this week. Complete secrecy will be observed. US officials and other authorized spokesmen will issue bulletins when deemed appropriate.
It has also been agreed if the talks run into an impasse on any issue, the parties will move on to an easier item. This mechanism is being introduced to avoid the breakdown of the last round of talks inorder to keep them afloat well into the US presidential election year of 2012.
Obama is keen to get the Israeli and Palestinian leaders round the peace table in time for his re-election campaign - a diplomatic feat that has eluded him for two years. His administration is also keen on sidetracking Abbas from going ahead with his quest for UN recognition of a state within the 1967 lines.
Diplomatic sources report Washington and Jerusalem have succeeded in quiet diplomatic efforts in recent weeks to bite deep into the automatic UN majority the Palestinians are building.
The tally includes key governments in the Far East, Europe and Africa – some of them members of the Palestinian Donors' Committee – which have pledged to oppose the Palestinian initiative or abstain.
Among them are Germany, Italy, France, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. British Prime Minister David Cameron, who has yet to come around but is expected to join the opposing votes when the time comes. Pledges have also come from Canada, Japan, Austria and New Zealand.
More than half of African UN member-states have informed Washington or Paris they will cast their vote against the Palestinian draft.
According to Moscow sources, Russia, while declaring themselves in favor, have advised Abbas to beware of following a blind alley. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently counseled Fatah representatives visiting Moscow to think carefully about the morning after the passage of the Palestinian statehood resolution.
Based on what is known, nothing will happen, said Lavrov. The resolution will never be implemented.
Abbas needs a boost to his prestige and leverage of opening talks with Israel could drive off a serious challenge to his leadership possibly being launched within his own Fatah movement by a member of the PLO council - Mohammed Dahlan.
Dahlan hopes, it is believed, to bring Abbas down by a smear campaign. He claims he has proof the Palestinian leader is guilty of the biggest national robbery in modern Arab history, namely the appropriation and transfer to his private accounts of $1.4 billion left by Yasser Arafat after his death in 2004.
To promote his campaign to unseat Abbas, which has found some backing in the Fatah leadership in Ramallah, Dahlan has hired public relations consultants. This week, Abbas failed to rally enough support for his demand to expel Dahlan from Fatah leadership bodies.
Fatah-Gaza is solidly behind him, adding to Abbas' difficulties in his dealings with the rival Hamas since they signed a unity pact in April.
The beleaguered Palestinian leader hopes revival of US-sponsored negotiations with Israel will occupy the minds of his party associates and distract their attention from the charges hurled by his opponent.
The Israeli prime minister also has good reason to welcome the restart of talks under the US aegis.
For months, his many political, economic and media critics have portrayed him as diplomatically inert and therefore responsible for the cutoff of peace talks with the Palestinians which, they say, led to Israel being internationally isolated in the face of a major Palestinian UN initiative.
Netanyahu's denial has had little resonance. However the resumption of talks – especially if Abbas is sidetracked from his UN initiative – could enable Netanyahu to silence his critics should a successful diplomatic breakthrough be the result.
4b)Jordan's Abdullah: Israel is not interested in peace
In interview with Washington Post, Jordan King Abdullah laments Israeli public's gravitation toward the right, rejection of 1967 borders, saying prospects for Middle East peace are grim.
By Haaretz
Jordanian King Abdullah expressed alarm over Israel's prevailing political opinions in an interview with the Washington Post Thursday, saying that the Israeli public is not interested in a return to 1967 borders, with its leadership no longer working toward a two state solution or peace.
The Jordanian king noted a marked shift toward the right in Israel in recent years, quoting statistics stating that 85 percent of Israelis are not interested in a return to 1967 borders.
Abdullah told the Post that he believes this to be testimony that the Israeli public is "beginning to believe the rhetoric of their leaders," with popular opinion gravitating toward the right and what he called the "hard right".
“I’m not convinced that they (Israel) are interested in a two-state solution," Abdullah said, adding "they’re not interested in peace with the Arabs, because unless they do the two-state solution, that can’t happen."
Abdullah lamented the current Palestinian-Israeli stalemate, saying that he is the most pessimistic he has ever been in 11 years. "2011 will be, I think, a very bad year for peace," he said, adding that "invariably when there’s a status quo, usually what shakes everybody up is some sort of military confrontation, at which point we all come running and screaming to pick up the pieces. Nobody wins in a war."
When asked about Netanyahu's recent trip to United States following U.S. President Barack Obama's Middle East policy speech, Abdullah said he did not believe the visit was successful.
"[Netanyahu] basically came to say, ‘It’s my way or the highway,’" the Jordanian monarch said.
Abdullah touched briefly on the contested upcoming UN vote on a unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood in September, saying that he would support any new innovation or peace initiative from Washington or elsewhere, but was not hopeful that any major powers would take steps to shake the current Palestinian-Israeli status quo.
Despite his overall pessimism regarding Middle East peace, Abdullah called on regional and international powers to take action now, saying that the more time goes by without a solution, the more complicated the situation will be for Israel.
"An isolated Israel and an insecure Israel [is not] a healthy thing for any of us," Abdullah told the Post, saying "let's solve it now where we’ve all got our heads above the water as opposed to the quagmire we might find ourselves in four, five years from now.”
4c)Turkey to vote for PA recognition in UN
Ankara's Abdullah Gül tells Japanese publication his country will support unilateral Palestinian bid in September
Turkey will vote for a UN resolution to recognize Palestine as a sovereign state, Turkish President Abdullah Gül said Thursday.
“We hope that an independent Palestine (is) established based on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital,” Gül was quoted by the Japanese newspaper Nikkei.
“We are among the strongest supporters of Palestine,” he also said.
Israel and the United States object a unilateral UN bid by the Palestinians. Washington has urged the Palestinian Authority and to avoid any unilateral steps that could jeopardize a final peace settlement.
Gül said there is “no doubt” that Turkey would vote for the resolution.
In a recent speech at the UN Security Council, Turkey's Ambassador to the UN Ertuğrul Apakan stated Ankara's support for the Palestinian's move: “Through their state building efforts, the Palestinian Authority has proven to all the skeptics that they deserve to attain their decades-long target of internationally recognized statehood, even though they continue to suffer under occupation."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)We Can Do Better
By Jeffrey Folks
In its most recent report, Blue Chip Economic Indicators predicted that the nation's unemployment rate would fall to 8% by the end of 2012. That might seem like good news, considering the fact that unemployment now stands at 9.1%. But it is not good news for the President.
Barring some cataclysmic event ("wag the dog") that would rally the country behind him, Obama's reelection rests on the health of the economy and especially on employment. The problem for this President is that unemployment rates during the second and third quarters of 2012, when undecided voters will make up their minds, will not be 8% -- it will be somewhat higher than 8%. Whether it is 8.2% or 8.5% does not really matter -- the difference is a rounding error. The salient point is that the nation's unemployment rate in the summer of 2012, when undecided voters make up their minds, will certainly be higher than 8%.
Early in 2009 the President's economic team promised that the unemployment rate would not rise above 8%. It has never fallen below 8%, not since Congress passed his $878 billion stimulus bill. The Republican nominee, whoever he or she may be, should focus the campaign on the fact that Obama's management of the economy has been a colossal failure. Point to the facts, and continue pointing to them throughout the campaign. Present the voter with this one indisputable fact: after four years, unemployment is still above 8%. How long does Obama need to turn things around -- eight years?
Elections turn not so much on what is said but on the tacit knowledge that every voter carries to the polls. In 1980 the public understood that it was time for a change. Jimmy Carter had failed on both foreign affairs and the domestic front. Our country had been humiliated by a small band of Iranian radicals who held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. In the months ahead of the presidential election the rate of inflation reached 14.5%, and unemployment stood at 7.5%. The "misery index," a combination of unemployment and inflation rates, climbed to 22%. It's worth pointing out that the misery index has risen under Barack Obama from 7.73%, the rate when George W. Bush left office, to 12.3%.
The GOP does not need to enumerate all the reasons for Obama's failure. It does not even need to be told that the misery index has risen by 60%. The electorate knows that times are hard, and none of Obama's little trips to green energy plants-\ -- all of them subsidized with taxpayer money at something like $450,000 per job -- will change that impression. Everyone has a family member or friend who is unemployed or underemployed. Everyone knows that the national debt is out of control, and everyone fears the inflation to come when creditors are no longer willing to accept 3% for 10-year treasury bonds.
In other words, the public understands that Obama has failed just as Jimmy Carter did in the 1970s, and for the same reasons. Obama's handling of the economy has put this nation in peril. His foreign policy, based on the doctrine of reaching out to terrorist regimes while distancing ourselves from our traditional allies, is equally destructive. Americans with common sense know that Hugo Chavez is an enemy, but Obama refuses to acknowledge the fact. The voters know that, given the chance, Ahmadinejad would cut the throats of every man, woman, and child in Israel and in the United States as well, but Obama pledges to meet with this terrorist leader "without preconditions." Not once has Obama even spoken the words, "War on Terror." But if there is no war on terror, what are we doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Yemen? Obama's faint-hearted posture merely emboldens our enemies and prolongs the war.
In sum, Obama's handling of foreign affairs has been amateurish and misguided. But the more important issue in the 2012 campaign will be the economy. The public understands that Obama's huge stimulus programs were a failure. It recognizes that ObamaCare was a mistake, and it is still angry about the way in which health care reform was rammed through Congress without proper deliberation or even a proper vote. It knows that Obama's ban on offshore drilling has cost jobs and driven up the price of gas. It understands that all of Obama's talk about "green energy jobs" is a fantasy designed to appease the environmental left.
All of this latent knowledge is just sitting there, waiting to be tapped by a conservative presidential candidate. That candidate does not need to talk about the intricacies of health care reform or the global energy markets. He just needs to point out, again and again, that Obama has failed on the most important promises of his presidency.
In 1980 Ronald Reagan famously asked voters, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" The 2012 GOP candidate need not repeat Reagan's exact words, but he would do well to pose the same question. The public knows they are not better off, and they are convinced they will be worse off with another four years of Obama.
If a majority of voters go to the polls certain of this knowledge, the Republican will win. Anyone who doubts this might want to recall what happened on November 4, 1980, when Reagan won 44 states and 489 electoral votes. Aside from his home state of Georgia, Carter won only Hawaii, Maryland, West Virginia, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia -- all of them traditional Democratic strongholds.
Barring the emergence of another Reagan, the GOP can't expect to do that well in
2012. But a look at another electoral map -- the one for 2004 -- tells us how things may go next year. A few of those states in the upper Midwest may even turn red. All the GOP needs to do is allow Obama to continue what he is doing -- and a Republican House can't do much about executive overreaching, anyway. Then the GOP candidate needs to repeat, again and again, "Obama has failed, and we can do better."
Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) Bin Laden's right-hand man Zawahri named al-Qaida chief
By REUTERS
Ayman al-Zawahri takes command of al-Qaida; vows to continue to fight to "expel invaders from the land of Muslims and to purify it from injustice."
DUBAI - Ayman al-Zawahri has taken command of al-Qaida after the May killing of Osama bin Laden, an Islamist website said on Thursday.
Long known as bin Laden's lieutenant and the brains behind many of al-Qaida's operations, Egyptian-born Zawahri vowed earlier this month to press ahead with al Qaida's campaign against the United States and its allies.
"The general leadership of al-Qaida group, after the completion of consultation, announces that Sheikh Dr. Ayman Zawahri, may God give him success, has assumed responsibility for command of the group," the Islamist website Ansar al-Mujahideen (Followers of the Holy Warriors) said in a statement.
The bespectacled Zawahri had been seen as bin Laden's most likely successor after the man held responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington was shot dead by US commandos in Pakistan 45 days ago.
His whereabouts are unknown, although he has long been thought to be hiding along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United States is offering a $25 million reward for any information leading to his capture or conviction.
Believed to be in his late 50s, Zawahri met bin Laden in the mid-1980s when both were in Pakistan to support guerrillas fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Born to an upper-class Cairo family, Zawahri trained as a doctor and surgeon.
"A worthy successor to a great predecessor. We ask God to grant you and your soldiers success for the victory of Islam and Muslims and to raise the banner of religion," a contributor to another Islamist militant website, As-Ansar, said in a posting.
In a video message posted on the internet on June 8, Zawahri said al-Qaida would continue to fight.
"The Sheikh (bin Laden) has departed, may God have mercy on him, to his God as a martyr, and we must continue on his path of jihad to expel the invaders from the land of Muslims and to purify it from injustice," Zawahri said.
"Today, and thanks be to God, America is not facing an individual or a group ... but a rebelling nation which has awoken from its sleep in a jihadist renaissance challenging it wherever it is."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)Why 70% Tax Rates Won't Work
Memo to Robert Reich: The income tax brought in less revenue when the highest rate was 70% to 91% than it did when the highest rate was 28%.
By ALAN REYNOLDS
The intelligentsia of the Democratic Party is growing increasingly enthusiastic about raising the highest federal income tax rates to 70% or more. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich took the lead in February, proposing on his blog "a 70 percent marginal tax rate on the rich." After all, he noted, "between the late 1940s and 1980 America's highest marginal rate averaged above 70 percent. Under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Not until the 1980s did Ronald Reagan slash it to 28 percent."
That helped set the stage for Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.) and nine other House members to introduce the Fairness in Taxation Act in March. That bill would add five tax brackets between 45% and 49% on incomes above $1 million and tax capital gains and dividends at those same high rates. The academic left of the Democratic Party finds this much too timid, and would rather see income tax rates on the "rich" at Mr. Reich's suggested levels—or higher.
This new fascination with tax rates of 70% or more is ostensibly intended to raise gobs of new revenue, so federal spending could supposedly remain well above 24% of gross domestic product (GDP) rather than be scaled back toward the 19% average of 1997-2007.
landingsAll this nostalgia about the good old days of 70% tax rates makes it sound as though only the highest incomes would face higher tax rates. In reality, there were a dozen tax rates between 48% and 70% during the 1970s. Moreover—and this is what Mr. Reich and his friends always fail to mention—the individual income tax actually brought in less revenue when the highest tax rate was 70% to 91% than it did when the highest tax rate was 28%.
When the highest tax rate ranged from 91% to 92% (1951-63), even the lowest rate was quite high—20% or 22%. As the nearby chart shows, however, those super-high tax rates at all income levels brought in revenue of only 7.7% of GDP, according to U.S. budget historical data.
President John F. Kennedy's across-the-board tax cuts reduced the lowest and highest tax rates to 14% and 70% respectively after 1964, yet revenues (after excluding the 5%-10% surtaxes of 1969-70) rose to 8% of GDP. President Reagan's across-the-board tax cuts further reduced the lowest and highest tax rates to 11% and 50%, yet revenues rose again to 8.3% of GDP. The 1986 tax reform slashed the top tax rate to 28%, yet revenues dipped trivially to 8.1% of GDP.
What about those increases in top tax rates in 1990 and 1993? The top statutory rate was raised to 31% in 1991, but it was really closer to 35% because exemptions and deductions were phased-out as incomes increased. The economy quickly slipped into recession—as it did during the surtaxes of 1969-70 and the "bracket creep" of 1980-81, which pushed many middle-income families into higher tax brackets. Revenues fell to 7.8% of GDP.
The 1993 law added two higher tax brackets and, importantly, raised the taxable portion of Social Security benefits to 85% from 50%. At just 8% of GDP, however, individual income tax receipts were surprisingly low during President Bill Clinton's first term.
The Internet/telecom boom of 1998-2000 was the only time individual income tax revenues remained higher than 9% of GDP for more than one year without the economy slipping into recession (as it did when the tax topped 9% in 1969, 1981 and 2001).
But that was an unrepeatable windfall resulting from the quintupling of Nasdaq stocks—combined with (1) the proliferation of nonqualified stock options that have since been thwarted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, and (2) the 1997 cut in the capital gains tax to 20%. Realized capital gains rose to 4.6% of GDP from 1997 to 2002—up from 2.5% of GDP from 1987 to 1996 when the capital gains tax was 28%.
Suppose the Congress let all of the Bush tax cuts expire in 2013, which is the current trajectory. That would bring us back to the tax regime of 1993-96 when the individual income tax brought in no more revenue (8% of GDP) than it did in 2006-08 (8.1% of GDP).
It is true that President Obama proposes raising the capital gains tax to 23.8%, which could raise more revenue than the 28% rate of 1993-96. But a 23.8% tax on capital gains and dividends would nevertheless be high enough to depress stock prices and related tax revenues.
Still, pundits cling to the myth that lower tax rates mean lower revenues. "You do probably get a modest boost to GDP from tax cuts," concedes the Atlantic's Megan McCardle. "But you also get falling tax revenue. It can't be said too often—and there you are, I've said it again."
Yet the chart nearby clearly shows that reductions in U.S. marginal tax rates did not cause "falling tax revenue." It is not necessary to argue that tax rate reduction paid for itself by increasing economic growth. Lowering top marginal tax rates in stages from 91% to 28% paid for itself regardless of what happened to GDP.
It is particularly remarkable that individual tax revenues did not fall as a percentage of GDP because changes in tax law, most notably those of 1986 and 2003, greatly expanded refundable tax credits, personal exemptions and standard deductions. As a result, the Joint Committee on Taxation recently reported that 51% of Americans no longer pay federal income tax.
Since the era of 70% tax rates, the U.S. income tax system has become far more "progressive." Congressional Budget Office estimates show that from 1979 to 2007 average income tax rates fell by 110% to minus 0.4% from 4.1% for the second-poorest quintile of taxpayers. Average tax rates fell by 56% for the middle quintile and 39% for the fourth, but only 8% at the top. Despite these massive tax cuts for the bottom 80%, overall federal revenues were the same 18.5% share of GDP in 2007 as they were in 1979 and individual tax revenues were nearly the same—8.7% of GDP in 1979 versus 8.4% in 2007.
In short, reductions in top tax rates under Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, and reductions in capital gains tax rates under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, not only "paid for themselves" but also provided enough extra revenue to finance negative income taxes for the bottom 40% and record-low income taxes at middle incomes.
Mr. Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and the author of "Income and Wealth" (Greenwood Press 2006).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8)Text of Marco Rubio's first Senate speech
U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio delivered his maiden speech on the Senate floor Tuesday. Here is the text of Rubio's remarks, as delivered.
• • •
Thank you, Mr. President. I have the honor of representing the great people of the state of Florida here in the Senate. And today I speak for the first time on this floor on their behalf.
The Senate is a long ways away from where I come from, both literally and figuratively.
I come from a hard-working and humble family. One that was neither wealthy nor connected. Yet I've always considered myself to be a child of privilege because growing up I was blessed with two very important things.
I was raised by a strong and stable family.
And I was blessed to be born here in the United States of America.
America began from a powerful truth – that our rights as individuals do not come from our government. They come from our God.
Government's job is to protect those rights. And here this Republic has done that better than any government in the history of the world.
America is not perfect. It took a bloody civil war to free over 4 million African Americans who lived enslaved. It took another hundred years after that before they achieved full equality under the law.
But since her earliest days, America has inspired people from all over the world. Inspired them with the hope that one day their own countries would be one like this one.
Many others decided they could not wait. And so they came here from everywhere, to pursue their dreams and to work to leave their children better off than themselves. And the result was the American miracle.
A miracle where a 16-year-old boy from Sweden came here with no English in his vocabulary and five dollars in his pocket. But he saved enough money to open up a shoe store. Today, that store, Nordstrom, is a multi-billion dollar global retail giant.
A miracle that led to a young couple with no money and no business experience to open up a toy company out of the garage of their home. Today, that company, Mattel, is one of the world's largest toy manufacturers.
A miracle where the French-born son of Iranian parents created a website called AuctionWeb in the living room of his home. Today, that company, known as eBay, stands as a testament to the familiar phrase, "Only in America."
These are just three examples of Americans whose extraordinary success began with nothing more than an idea.
But it's important to remember that the American dream was never just about how much money you made. It is also about something that typifies my home state of Florida: the desire of every parent to leave their children with a better life.
And it is a dream lived by countless people whose stories will never be told. Americans that never made a million dollars, never owned a yacht, a plane or a second home. And yet, they too lived the American dream – because through their hard work and sacrifice, they were able to open doors for their children that had been closed for them.
It is the story of the people who clean our offices here in this building, who work hard so that one day their children can go to college.
It is the story of the men and women who serve our meals in this building, who work hard so that one day their children can accomplish their own dreams.
It is the story of a bartender and a maid in Florida. Today their son serves here in the Senate, and stands as a proud witness of the greatness of this land.
Becoming a world power was never America's plan. But that's exactly what the American economic miracle made her.
Most great powers have used their strength to conquer. But America's different.
For us, our power always has come with a sense that to those that much is given, much is expected. A sense that with the blessings that God bestowed upon this land, came the responsibility to make the world a better place.
And in the 20th century, that is precisely and exactly what America did.
America led in two world wars so that others could be free.
America led in a Cold War to stop the spread of, and ultimately defeat, communism.
While our military and foreign policy contributions helped save the world, it was our economic and cultural innovations that helped transform it.
The fruits of the American miracle can be found in the daily lives of people everywhere.
Anywhere in the world, when someone uses a mobile phone, email, the Internet or GPS, they are enjoying the benefits of the American miracle.
Anywhere in the world, when a bone marrow, lung or heart transplant saves a life, they are touched by the value of the American miracle.
And on one night in July of 1969, the whole world witnessed the American miracle firsthand.
For on that night an American walked on the surface of the moon, and it was clear to the whole world that these Americans… could do anything.
Clearly, America's rise was not free of adversity.
We faced a civil rights struggle that saw Governors defy Presidents, that saw police dogs attack innocent, peaceful protesters, and that saw little children murdered in churches by bombs.
We faced two oil crises. America faced Watergate. America faced American hostages in Iran.
I grew up in the 1980s, a time when it was morning in America. Yet even then, we faced a war on drugs, we lost soldiers in Beirut and Astronauts on the Challenger. We faced a devastating oil spill in Alaska and a terrifying new disease called AIDS.
Through challenges and triumphs, the 20th century was the American century. A century where America's political, economic and cultural exceptionalism made the world a more prosperous and peaceful place.
• • •
But now we find ourselves in a new century. And there's this growing sense that for America, things will never be the same. That maybe this century will belong to someone else.
Indeed, we do now stand now at a turning point in our history. One where there are only two ways forward for us. We will either bring on another American century, or we are doomed to witness America's decline.
Another American century is fully within our reach, because there is nothing wrong with our people.
The American people haven't forgotten how to start a business. The American people haven't run out of good ideas.
We Americans are as great as we have ever been. But our government is broken. And it is keeping us from doing what we have done better than any people in the history of the world: Create jobs and prosperity.
If we here in Washington could just find agreement on a plan to get control of our debt, if we could just make our tax code simpler and more predictable, and if we could just get the government to ease up on some of these onerous regulations, the American people will take care of the rest.
If this government will do its part, this generation of Americans will do theirs. They will give us a prosperous, upwardly mobile economy. One where our children will invent, build and sell things to a world where more people than ever can afford to buy them.
If we give America a government that could live within its means, the American economy will give us a government of considerable means. A government that can afford to pay for the things government should be doing, because it does not waste money on the things government should not be doing.
If we can deliver on a few simple but important things, we have the chance to do something that's difficult to imagine is even possible. An America whose future will be greater than her past.
• • •
But sadly, that's not where we're headed.
We have made no progress on the issues of our time because, frankly, we have too many people, in both parties, who have decided that the next election is more important than the next generation.
And our lack of progress on these issues has led to something even more troubling – a growing fear that maybe these problems are too big for us to solve. Too big for even America.
• • •
Well, there is no reason to be afraid.
Our story, the story of America, it is not the story of a nation that never faced problems. It is the story of a nation that faced its challenges and solved them.
Our story, the story of the American people, is not the story of a people who always got it right. It is the story of a people who, in the end, got it right.
We should never forget who we Americans are.
Every single one of us is the descendant of a go-getter. Of dreamers and of believers. Of men and women who took risks and made sacrifices because they wanted their children to live better off than themselves.
And so whether they came here on the Mayflower, on a slave ship or on an airplane from Havana, we are all descendants of the men and women who built here the nation that saved the world.
We are still the great American people. And the only thing standing in the way of solving our problems is our willingness to do so.
• • •
And whether we do so or not is of great consequence. And not just to us, but to the whole world.
I know that now some say that times are so tough here at home that we can no longer afford to worry about what happens abroad. That maybe America needs to mind its own business.
Well, whether we like it or not, there is virtually no aspect of our daily lives that is not directly impacted by what happens in the world around us. We can choose to ignore global problems, but global problems will not ignore us.
You know, one of my favorite speeches is one that talks about our role in the world. It was the speech that President Kennedy was set to give had he lived just one more day. It closes with these words:
"We in this country, in this generation, are- by destiny rather than by choice- the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of 'peace on earth, good will toward men.' That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago "except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain."
Almost half a century later, America is still the only watchman on the wall of world freedom. And there is still no one to take our place.
What will the world look like if America declines?
Well, today people all over the world are forced to accept the familiar lie that the price of security is our liberty.
If America declines, who will serve as living proof that liberty, security and prosperity can all exist together?
Today, radical Islam abuses and oppresses women. It has no tolerance for other faiths, and it seeks to impose its will on the whole world.
If America declines, who will stand up to them and defeat them?
Today, children are used as soldiers and trafficked as slaves.
Dissidents are routinely imprisoned without trial. They're subjected to torture and forced into confessions and labor.
If America declines, what nation on the earth will take these causes as their own?
What will the world look like if America declines?
Who's going to create the innovations of the 21st century?
Who will stretch the limits of human potential and explore the new frontiers?
And if America declines, who will do all these things and ask for nothing in return?
Motivated solely by the desire to make the world a better place?
The answer is no one will. There is still no nation or institution on this planet that is willing or able to do what America has done.
• • •
Ronald Reagan famously described America as a shining city on a hill.
Now, some say that we can no longer afford the price we must pay to keep America's light shining.
Others like to say that there are new shining cities that will soon replace us.
I say they're both wrong.
Yes, the price we're going to pay to keep America's light shining is high. But the price we will pay if America's light stops shining is even higher.
And yes, there are new nations emerging with prosperity and influence. And that is what we always wanted.
America never wanted to be the only shining city on the hill. We wanted our example to inspire the people of the earth to build one of their own.
You see, these nations, these new emerging nations, these new shining cities, we hope they will join us, but they can never replace us. Because their light is but a reflection of our own.
The light of an American century that now spreads throughout the earth.
A world that still needs America.
A world that still needs our light.
A world that needs a new American century.
And I pray with God's help, that will be our legacy to our children and to the world.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Marco Rubio is a United States senator representing Florida.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment