---
More of the same but worthy of reading because it is so true. Does pursuit of truth carry any meaning any more? What is truth and how do you determine it? (See 1 below.)
---
If an economic recovery ever returns interest rates will rise but if the recovery remains flaccid, as is the most likely bet, interest rates can continue to drop.
What this suggests is something good is the consequence of something far worse. (See 2 below.)
---
Onward and downward. Just give him another 4 years! (See 3 and 3a below.)
---
Why should colleges teach students about the underlying principles pertaining to the documents that once were deemed important and constitute the very foundation of our nation? (See 4 below.)
---
Huntsman offers sound advice regarding how to have a relationship with China. (See 5 below.)
---
I needed to go to the store this morning in order to prepare for our beach trip at the end of the week and my gas tank was low so I decided to put in some hope and change. Didn't get out of the garage!
Obama's campaign has begun and is running on 2008 fumes because he has nothing substantive to point to after three years except one failed policy after another.
Middle East in turmoil, Europe financially busted and Europeans , after flirting with austerity for a few random months , have decided it is better to spend more of what they do not have. Relations with China are tenuous. Relations with Russia are basically non existent unless we pander to their demands. U.S. employment remains spotty and erratic, home prices have stabilized around the bottom but more foreclosures are in the offing.
Again we are going through what is a prolonged period of de-leveraging. Bad Obama and Fed policies will impact the pace at which it occurs but there is no way around the problems created by decades of excessive spending, government waste and policies that undercut our nation's productivity.
Labor unions have outlived their effectiveness and we have overseas jobs and a terrible education picture as a consequence. Our tax policies are counterproductive, government spending remains out of control and unsustainable but this president has no desire to act responsibly because he is hell bent on being re-elected and that means spreading goodies around with abandon. Every trip he makes involves a buying spree and more and more promises he cannot possibly meet.
Obama has chosen a four track campaign strategy of attack, duck, divide and promise. He has governed that way so I doubt he will change. This is the person the voters chose and perhaps still want because they have become mesmerized by his hype.
But this conservative Hispanic pretty much sees Obama and Romney as Tweedledum and Tweedledee when it comes to their respective campaign styles and in this regard he might be correct.
I long for the day when a presidential candidate speaks to the nation as if we were adults. (See 6 below.)
---
What?
"Bill feared his wife Angee wasn't hearing as well as she used to and he thought she might need a hearing aid.
Not quite sure how to approach her, he called the family Doctor to discuss the problem.
The Doctor told him there is a simple informal test the husband could perform to give the Doctor a better idea about her hearing loss.
'Here's what you do,' said the Doctor, 'stand about 40 feet away from her, and in a normal conversational speaking tone see if she hears you. If not, go to 30 feet, then 20 feet, and so on until you get a response.'
That evening, the wife is in the kitchen cooking dinner, and he was In the den. He says to himself, 'I'm about 40 feet away, let's see what happens.' Then in a normal tone he asks, 'Honey, what's for dinner?'
No response.
So the husband moves closer to the kitchen, about 30 feet from his wife and repeats, ' Angee, what's for dinner?'
Still no response.
Next he moves into the dining room where he is about 20 feet from his wife and asks, 'Honey, what's for dinner?'
Again he gets no response.
So, he walks up to the kitchen door, about 10 feet away. 'Honey, what's for dinner?'
Again there is no response.
So he walks right up behind her. ' Sweetie , what's for dinner?'
'For the FIFTH time, Bill
We’re having CHICKEN!"
---
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)How Big Government Makes Life Worse
I am not particularly annoyed by the overall protests. It’s an American tradition to take to the streets. These folks need an economic lesson at the very least, and none of us should tolerate violence or destruction. But many of the Occupiers appear more open to ideas than our state legislators, who continually express similar ill-defined anti-corporate sentiments. To those who run California’s grotesquely large and bumbling state government, the problem always is the same: the private sector, a good bit of which is fleeing to other states.
Well, I investigated another crucial angle. I've just completed a book on Obama's mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, set for release in July, titled The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, the Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mentor. In my research, I read about 500 pages of the Chicago Star, the Communist PartyUSA (CPUSA) newspaper for Chicago from 1946-48. The founding editor-in-chief for the Star was Frank Marshall Davis. These pages are unflaggingly pro-Soviet. From line to line and page to page, they unflinchingly toe the CPUSA/Soviet line.
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)How Big Government Makes Life Worse
Another day, another story of government waste, fraud, or abuse.
Occupy Wall Street protesters are reminiscent of writer R. Emmett Tyrrell’s criticism of radical feminists: They don’t know what they want, but they want it very badly. On May Day, the protesters tied up the streets of Oakland, San Francisco, and elsewhere. They are mad as hell and they are not going to take it any more, although it remains unclear what, specifically, they are angry about.
I am not particularly annoyed by the overall protests. It’s an American tradition to take to the streets. These folks need an economic lesson at the very least, and none of us should tolerate violence or destruction. But many of the Occupiers appear more open to ideas than our state legislators, who continually express similar ill-defined anti-corporate sentiments. To those who run California’s grotesquely large and bumbling state government, the problem always is the same: the private sector, a good bit of which is fleeing to other states.
A new ad on a major Bay Area radio station is recruiting high-tech employees for positions in Detroit. Talk about insults. San Francisco is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, and wretched, cold Detroit is going to seed, literally. Michiganders talk about rural sprawl rather than urban sprawl—so many neighborhoods have been abandoned and bulldozed that farms are sprouting within the city limits. But despite the fantasies of Gov. Jerry Brown and his fellow Democrats, people will indeed leave this magnificent place for less-desirable locales to pursue better economic opportunities.
Not everyone lives on a trust fund or works for, or is retired from, the government, which, these days, is more lucrative than having such a fund. A recent San Francisco Chronicle column explained, “When it comes to city worker payouts, forget the old $100,000 club or even the $250,000 club—the new elite among San Francisco's civic workforce are those who got more than $500,000 in pay last year.” Apparently, it’s impossible to exaggerate how wasteful California governments have become.
I heard that radio ad after returning from Austin, Texas, where the locals talk about the sea of Californians moving to their pro-growth (but attractive, friendly, and hip) locale. California officials remain in denial. They promote bills that shift more money from the private economy to the state, which promptly squanders it as quickly as possible. They mock Texas, which lures our most energetic workers and laughs all the way to the state treasury.
As an example of misplaced priorities, California’s Democratic legislators say they have no time to deal with the pension crisis, busy as they are creating new rules, regulations, and programs. Their big idea was to create a new mini-Social Security system. In their view, the problem isn’t an unaffordable and unsustainable public system that lavishes huge payouts on union members, but a too-stingy private one. That’s almost too goofy to mock, given that the private system isn’t destroying public budgets. That proposal epitomizes the thinking in Sacramento.
There is nothing perfect in this world, so the private sector will always be afflicted with imperfections borne of the human condition. In the private world, we have to pay our own way—there is no mechanism to live off of the fruits of others, which upsets those who are frustrated that they cannot have everything they want as quickly as they want it
All great advancements in affluence have come from the private realm, although some government is necessary to provide the backdrop to all of this through the administration of a legal system and construction of infrastructure. We know the wretchedness found in government-dominated societies. Most of what American governments do these days strays far outside those boundaries, but I’ve sensed no area of our economic life that our state's leaders would not subject to government control.
Entrepreneurs take risks. They often fail, but they sometimes make great strides forward. Government employees go to jobs where they cannot be fired except in the most extreme circumstances. They regulate us and provide “services” few of us want. They retire at young ages with pensions that make them the envy of their neighbors. They consume an ever-larger share of the money earned by those who take risks and create growth. Then their unions lobby for more government. And our fellow citizens willingly vote for the politicians who perpetuate this system.
These lessons should be obvious in the world following the collapse of the Soviet Union. But they seem forgotten and not just in California. The unions protesting Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s reforms have been shockingly bold in their hard-left rhetoric and clenched-fist symbolism. Whereas the Occupy protesters are a straggly group of powerless young people and vagrants, the radicalization of the union movement is something that should cause worry.
Every day, we read the stories of malfunctioning government agencies, of government waste, fraud, and abuse. Journalist H.L. Mencken quipped that all government is evil and efforts to improve it therefore are a waste of time. Maybe he exaggerated, but there is little hope in reforming government—the only solution is cutting it back. Yet legislators believe in this magical thing called government. They provide new funds and create new agencies to solve problems.
Then out of nowhere a newspaper will expose how that agency really works, and everyone pretends to be shocked. For instance, the Sacramento Bee recently reported how the federal Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services really operates, which “has accidentally killed more than 50,000 animals since 2000 that were not problems, including federally protected golden and bald eagles; more than 1,100 dogs, including family pets."
The problem is not with one agency, but with the vast expansion of federal and state government, which takes our money and freedoms and leaves a path of destruction wherever it goes. Sure the Occupy protesters are annoying. But the real surprise is why the rest of us aren’t at least as angry as they are.
Steven Greenhut is vice president of journalism at the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
| |||
| Everyone believes interest rates have to go up… After all, at less than 2%, 10-year Treasury bond yields are the lowest in U.S. history. They HAVE to go up… right? If you believe that, you are part of "the crowd." History says rates could stay this low for a long time. And possibly fall even lower in the next few years. Let me explain… EVERYONE believes interest rates HAVE to go up. In Barron's latest "Big Money" poll (out April 21), just 2% of respondents expected U.S. Treasury interest rates to go lower. Said another way, 98% of respondents don't expect lower rates. But do interest rates HAVE to go up? Let's take a look at what's happened in Japan for guidance… In 1996, Japan cut interest rates from above 2% to next-to-nothing – just like Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke did a couple years ago. As the chart below shows, long-term interest rates in Japan (the solid red line) followed the short-term rates (the dotted red line) lower. Long-term interest rates in Japan fell below 1%. Today, long-term interest rates in Japan are STILL below 1%.  Just a few years ago, the U.S. started dramatically cutting interest rates like Japan did. And just like in Japan, long-term interest rates have come down slowly. Long-term interest rates in the United States are now down to 2%. This is just like it was in Japan when Japan started cutting rates. In the next chart, I've overlaid the last five years of U.S. long-term interest rates (the solid blue line) and Ben Bernanke's big interest-rate cut (the dotted blue line) over the same dates as Japan's big interest rate cut in the '90s. The outcome has been nearly identical…  So could long-term interest rates fall farther in the U.S.? Absolutely. They're in a downtrend, as the chart shows. And we're right on track with Japanese rates from the '90s. Right now, 98% of people think rates can't go lower (according to theBarron's poll). And a lot of smart analysts are betting on them going higher. They could very well be right. But as history shows, it's NOT inevitable. And when a huge majority believes something, the market has a habit of doing the opposite. Good investing, Steve Sjuggerud --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) |
'Forward!' with Obama, Axelrod, Jarret and Frank Marshall Davis
By Paul Kengor
There has been some interesting commentary in the conservative media regarding the new Obama campaign slogan for 2012: "Forward!" The slogan debuted on April 30 -- May Day eve -- in a seven-minute video by the Obama campaign, with the "O" in "Forward!" familiarly styled upon the Obama logo.
Conservatives have noted the communist/socialist roots of the slogan. It began with an article in the Washington Times by Victor Morton, titled, "New Obama slogan has long ties to Marxism, socialism." The article noted that "Forward!" has a "long and rich association" with Marxism: "Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name 'Forward!' or its foreign cognates." The article noted that even Wikipedia "has an entire section called 'Forward (generic name of socialist publications).'"
The Washington Times piece was posted by Drudge, which crafted some choice artwork portraying Obama in Lenin-like imagery. From there, it went viral, with others investigating. Jeffrey Lord in American Spectator noted Mao's infamous call for his Great Leap Forward.
Being that this is my area of research, I naturally paused to consider this bizarre spectacle. I contacted Ion Mihai Pacepa, a goldmine of information on this sort of thing. Pacepa, now in his 80s, was the highest-ranking intelligence official to defect the Soviet bloc. He had been the right-hand man to Romanian dictator Nicolai Ceausescu. When he defected in 1978, Pacepa's positions included being head of Romania's so-called "Presidential House," which was equivalent to being White House chief of staff and director of the CIA, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security. 
Pacepa knows the communist world better than just about anyone on the planet. Here's what he told me about the "Forward!" slogan:
Pacepa knows the communist world better than just about anyone on the planet. Here's what he told me about the "Forward!" slogan:Forward," rooted in Lenin's book Two Steps Backwards, One Step Forward, was frequently used by most leaders of the Soviet bloc I met. "Forward Comrades" was one of Ceausecu's favorite slogans. In 1972, when I had my last meeting with Fidel, he also used it many times. Raul did too.... Look also into Vorwärts (German for Forward), which was the newspaper of the Social Democratic Party of Germany.
Pacepa further affirms these troubling origins.
But has Obama -- and his chief strategist and image-maker, David Axelrod -- deliberately tapped a communist slogan, or was this mere accident?
Well, I investigated another crucial angle. I've just completed a book on Obama's mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, set for release in July, titled The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, the Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mentor. In my research, I read about 500 pages of the Chicago Star, the Communist PartyUSA (CPUSA) newspaper for Chicago from 1946-48. The founding editor-in-chief for the Star was Frank Marshall Davis. These pages are unflaggingly pro-Soviet. From line to line and page to page, they unflinchingly toe the CPUSA/Soviet line.
I went back to the Star last week to look for uses of "Forward!" I found a front-page example from (appropriately) the May Day issue for 1948. (Click here for full page image.) It's a quote from an old socialist named August Spies:
"BRAVELY FORWARD! WORKMEN, LET YOUR WATCHWORD BE: NO COMPROMISE! THE FIRST OF MAY, WHOSE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE WILL BE UNDERSTOOD AND APPRECIATED ONLY IN LATER YEARS, IS HERE."
Frank Marshall Davis did absolutely everything for the Star, from writing text to headlines to layout, and no doubt would have been the Star staffer (there weren't many) who thrust this quote onto the front page.
There's much irony in the quote, if you apply it to Obama today, including the obvious historical significance of the "progressive" long march culminating in the Obama presidency. That's a "historical significance" "understood and appreciated only" in today's "later years." And most of us learned and contemplated the historical significance of the Obama "Forward!" slogan on the first of May, 60-plus years later.
As I continued to look back through my research, I found other examples. For instance, Frank 
Marshall Davis's 600-page FBI file notes that Davis "became interested in the Communist Party" in the early 1930s. Among the chief attractions for Davis was the case of Angelo Herndon, a cause célèbre for communists. Davis discussed Herndon in his memoirs, describing him as a "young black Communist" of "unbelievable courage," who had prompted a "number" of "young Afro-Americans" to join the Communist Party.
Marshall Davis's 600-page FBI file notes that Davis "became interested in the Communist Party" in the early 1930s. Among the chief attractions for Davis was the case of Angelo Herndon, a cause célèbre for communists. Davis discussed Herndon in his memoirs, describing him as a "young black Communist" of "unbelievable courage," who had prompted a "number" of "young Afro-Americans" to join the Communist Party.
The details of the Herndon case are complicated and not important here. As related to the "Forward!" slogan: It was used by Herndon's boosters. This is evident in a June 1934 pamphlet titled, "Free Angelo Herndon," published by the Young Worker, an arm of Herndon's Young Communist League of America. The concluding words of the pamphlet urge: "Forward to the freedom of Angelo Herndon! ... Forward to a Soviet America...!"
In short, Frank Marshall Davis, Obama's mentor, was an extremely active communist agitator no doubt familiar with "Forward!" as a communist slogan.
Finally, we cannot ignore the David Axelrod factor. Axelrod is Obama's chief campaign strategist, who specializes in sloganeering. Axelrod coined the "hope and change" slogan in 2008, and surely devised "Forward!" in 2012.
Well, Axelrod is likewise a product of this Chicago world, including (to some degree) the communist influences. Axelrod was mentored by David Canter. David and his father, Harry, were part of Chicago's communist orbit. Harry had been secretary of Boston's Communist Party, and both father and son spent the 1930s in Moscow, where Harry he worked for the Soviet government as a translator of Lenin's writings. Harry was among the small group that purchased the Chicago Star from Frank Marshall Davis in September 1948. Harry was familiar to Star readers. Among other instances, he appeared in the April 28, 1947 edition, wishing "May Day Greetings" to fellow comrades. Davis would have joined Harry at that May Day parade in Chicago. Davis editorialized in support of the 1947 May Day.
Both Harry and David Canter, like Davis, worked in the communist publishing world. In fact, David Canter worked with Frank Marshall Davis -- and also with Vernon Jarrett, Valerie Jarrett's father-in-law -- as a writer for the communist-controlled Packinghouse Workers Union.
Crazy, isn't it? Yes, totally, but it's true. You can't make this up.
Anyway, all of these comrades were familiar with slogans like "Forward!"
* * *
So, what does this mean? Am I saying that Obama and Axelrod learned "Forward!" from their old Chicago communist forebears? That's something I'm unable to definitively confirm. I'm inclined to think all of this is mere coincidence, and that the slogan is just some general left-wing platitude. But, gee, it's a heck of a coincidence -- and yet another at that.
Moreover, Obama and Axelrod are geniuses at coming up with words and phrases that seem vague and benign to the larger population -- especially to the ignorant independents/moderates who elected Obama in 2008 -- but which resonate with a hard left that understands the deeper meaning completely. That was certainly true for the "change" slogan. Those of us savvy to this stuff know the underlying message in "change." We interpret it the way that progressives and Fabian socialists and, yes, communists, understand it.
If Obama and Axelrod spent a lot of time with these Chicago influences and circles, they could have easily picked up the slogan "Forward!"
Either way, the "fundamental transformation" of America continues, compliments of the oblivious Americans who elected this political insanity in November 2008.
Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century. His forthcoming book is The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, the Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mentor
3a)
Obama's Second Term Transformation Plans
By Steve McCann
The 2012 election has often been described as the most pivotal since 1860. This statement is not hyperbole. If Barack Obama is re-elected the United States will never be the same, nor will it be able to re-capture its once lofty status as the most dominant nation in the history of mankind.
The overwhelming majority of Americans do not understand that Obama's first term was dedicated to putting in place executive power to enable him and the administration to fulfill the campaign promise of "transforming America" in his second term regardless of which political party controls Congress. That is why his re-election team is virtually ignoring the plight of incumbent or prospective Democratic Party office holders.
The most significant accomplishment of Obama's first term is to make Congress irrelevant. Under the myopic and blindly loyal leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats have succeeded in creating an imperial and, in a second term, a potential dictatorial presidency.
During the first two years of the Obama administration when the Democrats overwhelming controlled both Houses of Congress and the media was in an Obama worshipping stupor, a myriad of laws were passed and actions taken which transferred virtually unlimited power to the executive branch.
The birth of multi-thousand page laws was not an aberration. This tactic was adopted so the bureaucracy controlled by Obama appointees would have sole discretion in interpreting vaguely written laws and enforcing thousands of pages of regulations they and not Congress would subsequently write.
For example, in the 2,700 pages of ObamaCare there are more than 2,500 references to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. There are more than 700 instances when he or she is instructed that they "shall" do something and more than 200 times when they "may" take at their sole discretion some form of regulatory action. On 139 occasions, the law mentions that the "Secretary determines." In essence one person, appointed by and reporting to the president, will be in charge of the health care of 310 million Americans once ObamaCare is fully operational in 2014.
The same is true in the 2,319 pages of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act which confers nearly unlimited power on various agencies to control by fiat the nation's financial, banking and investment sectors. The bill also creates new agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not subject to any oversight by Congress. This overall process was repeated numerous times with other legislation all with the intent of granting unfettered power to the executive branch controlled Barack Obama and his radical associates.
Additionally, the Obama administration has, through its unilaterally determined rule making and regulatory powers, created laws out of whole cloth. The Environmental Protection Agency on a near daily basis issues new regulations clearly out of their purview in order to modify and change environmental laws previously passed and to impose a radical green agenda never approved by Congress. The same is true of the Energy and Interior Departments among many others.
None of these extra-constitutional actions have been challenged by Congress. The left in America knows this usurpation of power is nearly impossible to reverse unless stopped in its early stages.
It is clearly the mindset of this administration and its appointees that Congress is merely a nuisance and can be ignored after they were able to take full advantage of the useful idiots in the Democrat controlled House and Senate in 2009-2010 and the Democrat Senate in the current Congress.
Additionally, Barack Obama knows after his re-election a Republican controlled House and Senate will not be able to enact any legislation to roll back the power previously granted to the Executive Branch or usurped by them. His veto will not be overridden as there will always be at least 145 Democratic members of the House or 34 in the Senate in agreement with or intimidated by an administration more than willing to use Chicago style political tactics.
The stalemate between the Executive and Legislative Branches will inure to the benefit of Barack Obama and his fellow leftists.
The most significant power Congress has is the control of the purse-strings as all spending must be approved by them. However, once re-elected, Barack Obama, as confirmed by his willingness to do or say anything and his unscrupulous re-election tactics, would not only threaten government shutdowns but would deliberately withhold payments to those dependent on government support as a means of intimidating and forcing a Republican controlled Congress to surrender to his demands, thus neutering their ability to control the administration through spending constraints.
Further, this administration has shown contempt for the courts by ignoring various court orders, e.g. the Gulf of Mexico oil drilling moratorium, as well as stonewalling subpoenas and requests issued by Congress. The Eric Holder Justice Department has become the epitome of corruption as part of the most dishonest and deceitful administration in American history. In a second term the arrogance of Barack Obama and his minions will become more blatant as he will not have to be concerned with re-election.
Who will be there to enforce the rule of law, a Supreme Court ruling or the Constitution? No one. Barack Obama and his fellow-travelers will be unchallenged as they run roughshod over the American people.
Many Republicans and conservatives dissatisfied with the prospect of Mitt Romney as the nominee for president are instead focused on re-taking the House and Senate. That goal, while worthy and necessary, is meaningless unless Barack Obama is defeated. The nation is not dealing with a person of character and integrity but someone of single-minded purpose and overwhelming narcissism. Judging by his actions, words and deeds during his first term, he does not intend to work with Congress either Republican or Democrat in his second term but rather to force his radical agenda on the American people through the power he has usurped or been granted.
The governmental structure of the United States was set up by the founders in the hope that over the years only those people of high moral character and integrity would assume the reins of power. However, knowing that was not always possible, they dispersed power over three distinct and independent branches as a check on each other.
What they could not imagine is the surrender and abdication of its constitutional duty by the preeminent governmental branch, the Congress, to a chief executive devoid of any character or integrity coupled with a judiciary essentially powerless to enforce the law when the chief executive ignores them
Conservatives, Libertarians, the Republican Party and Mitt Romney must come to grips with this moment in time and their historical role in denying Barack Obama and his minions their ultimate goal. All resources must be directed at that end-game and not merely controlling Congress and the various committee chairmanships
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Peter Berkowitz: Why Colleges Don't Teach the Federalist Papers
At America's top schools, graduates leave without reading our most basic writings on the purpose of constitutional self-government.
At America's top schools, graduates leave without reading our most basic writings on the purpose of constitutional self-government.
By PETER BERKOWITZ
It would be difficult to overstate the significance of The Federalist for understanding the principles of American government and the challenges that liberal democracies confront early in the second decade of the 21st century. Yet despite the lip service they pay to liberal education, our leading universities can't be bothered to require students to study The Federalist—or, worse, they oppose such requirements on moral, political or pedagogical grounds. Small wonder it took so long for progressives to realize that arguments about the constitutionality of ObamaCare are indeed serious.
The masterpiece of American political thought originated as a series of newspaper articles published under the pseudonym Publius in New York between October 1787 and August 1788 by framers Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. The aim was to make the case for ratification of the new constitution, which had been agreed to in September 1787 by delegates to the federal convention meeting in Philadelphia over four months of remarkable discussion, debate and deliberation about self-government.
By the end of 1788, a total of 85 essays had been gathered in two volumes under the title The Federalist. Written at a brisk clip and with the crucial vote in New York hanging in the balance, the essays formed a treatise on constitutional self-government for the ages.
The Federalist deals with the reasons for preserving the union, the inefficacy of the existing federal government under the Articles of Confederation, and the conformity of the new constitution to the principles of liberty and consent. It covers war and peace, foreign affairs, commerce, taxation, federalism and the separation of powers. It provides a detailed examination of the chief features of the legislative, executive and judicial branches. It advances its case by restatement and refutation of the leading criticisms of the new constitution. It displays a level of learning, political acumen and public-spiritedness to which contemporary scholars, journalists and politicians can but aspire. And to this day it stands as an unsurpassed source of insight into the Constitution's text, structure and purposes.
At Harvard, at least, all undergraduate political-science majors will receive perfunctory exposure to a few Federalist essays in a mandatory course their sophomore year. But at Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Berkeley, political-science majors can receive their degrees without encountering the single surest analysis of the problems that the Constitution was intended to solve and the manner in which it was intended to operate.
Most astonishing and most revealing is the neglect of The Federalist by graduate schools and law schools. The political science departments at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Berkeley—which set the tone for higher education throughout the nation and train many of the next generation's professors—do not require candidates for the Ph.D. to study The Federalist. And these universities' law schools (Princeton has no law school), which produce many of the nation's leading members of the bar and bench, do not require their students to read, let alone master, The Federalist's major ideas and main lines of thought.
Of course, The Federalist is not prohibited reading, so graduates of our leading universities might be reading it on their own. The bigger problem is that the progressive ideology that dominates our universities teaches that The Federalist, like all books written before the day before yesterday, is antiquated and irrelevant.
Particularly in the aftermath of the New Deal, according to the progressive conceit, understanding America's founding and the framing of the Constitution are as useful to dealing with contemporary challenges of government as understanding the horse-and-buggy is to dealing with contemporary challenges of transportation. Instead, meeting today's needs requires recognizing that ours is a living constitution that grows and develops with society's evolving norms and exigencies.
Then there's scientism, or enthrallment to method, which collaborates with progressive ideology to marginalize The Federalist, along with much of the best that has been thought and said in the West. Political science has corrupted a laudable commitment to the systematic study of politics by transforming it into a crusading devotion to the refinement of method for method's sake. In the misguided quest to mold political science to the shape of the natural sciences, many scholars disdainfully dismiss The Federalist—indeed, all works of ideas—as mere journalism or literary studies which, lacking scientific rigor, can't yield genuine knowledge.
And thus so many of our leading opinion formers and policy makers seem to come unhinged when they encounter constitutional arguments apparently foreign to them but well-rooted in constitutional text, structure and history. These include arguments about, say, the unitary executive; or the priority of protecting political speech of all sorts; or the imperative to articulate a principle that keeps the Constitution's commerce clause from becoming the vehicle by which a federal government—whose powers, as Madison put it in Federalist 45, are "few and defined"—is remade into one of limitless unenumerated powers.
By robbing students of the chance to acquire a truly liberal education, our universities also deprive the nation of a citizenry well-acquainted with our Constitution's enduring principles.
Mr. Berkowitz is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. His latest book is "Israel and the Struggle over the International Laws of War" (Hoover Press, 2012).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)How to Manage the China Relationship
Despite economic success and growing regional influence, Chinese leaders are profoundly insecure.
By JON HUNTSMAN
The recent drama in Beijing over dissident Chen Guangcheng illuminates two of the most important characteristics of today's China and its political system. First, despite China's economic success and growing regional influence, the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party is profoundly insecure. Second, the Chinese people are increasingly demanding a more transparent and fair society.
The Communist Party's insecurity has been amplified by the 18th Party Congress, an unprecedented leadership transition taking place this fall with a backdrop of domestic political scandal, social unrest, uncertainties about the Chinese growth model, and increased tensions with the United States. The party fears that liberalization would unleash centrifugal forces that would threaten its authority. Yet people such as Mr. Chen, artist and dissident Ai Wei Wei, Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, who is now imprisoned in China, and so many others provide a glimpse of China's potential if it were to unlock the talents of its people.
In crafting an effective approach to the U.S.-China relationship, we need to understand China and all of its complexities—not engage in hyperbole or wishful thinking. Saying that the U.S.-China relationship is among the most important in the world today is not a statement meant to set China above our allies on our priority list, nor does it convey any aspiration for a "G-2" management of global problems. Rather, it is recognition of what is at stake.
AFP/Getty Images
A banner in support of Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng, Hong Kong, May 4.
There is no other relationship in the world that, if mismanaged, carries greater long-term negative consequences for the U.S., the Asia-Pacific region, and the world. By contrast, wise stewardship of the relationship will make us and our allies safer, wealthier and more confident about global stability in the future.
The best hope for sustained bilateral cooperation will come from strategically identifying shared interests and operating from a position of shared values. Unfortunately, in today's China those values we share are found mostly among people like Mr. Chen, and not in the Communist Party or the government.
America's policy toward China should rest on the following pillars:
The U.S. must deal with China from a position of strength. This means getting our economic house in order by undertaking difficult structural reforms. China will approach all interactions with the U.S. by first sizing up relative strength and leverage. If we remain on our present course of fiscal irresponsibility, innovation-stifling policies and political paralysis, we can anticipate greater Chinese assertiveness and foreign policy adventurism.
Economics and trade must drive our foreign policy and Asia strategy. Chinese leaders have demonstrated that they want trade to be the lifeblood of their ties to the region. Today Beijing is the leading trading partner of most of our regional allies. Given the scale of the Chinese market, we should prudently consider the second-order effects of those relationships changing the regional incentive structure. Washington must get back in the game of robust trade liberalization. Beyond the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks, we should be pursuing free trade agreements with Japan, Taiwan and India, and allowing American businesses to enter Burma.
We should renew our ties to key allies, focusing on joint endeavors that hedge against some of the more difficult contingencies we could face in the region from an aggressive China and People's Liberation Army. There is vast potential for cooperative problem solving among countries that do share our values, and this "outside-in" approach to Beijing will demonstrate the benefits to being a friend of the United States. We can clearly communicate to our allies through our actions that the U.S. will be able to project power in the region despite Chinese opposition.
Values matter. We have an opportunity to shape outcomes by living up to our ideals and demonstrating we are worthy of the region's admiration and emulation. This approach will not only be consistent with the aspirations of many in China, but it will also leave the door open for a truly strong U.S.-China relationship based on shared values—should leaders in the Communist Party eventually embrace liberal reforms.
While our national leaders must try to bridge the communication gap in the near term, it will ultimately be everyday commercial, cultural and social interactions that will transform bilateral ties. I believe our peoples are more alike than different, and can see a future China where the likes of Chen Guangcheng are celebrated by both the people and the state rather than persecuted. Meanwhile, we should creatively engage constituencies beyond the government in Beijing and allow a multitude of relationships to flourish.
We must work with China on shared interests, while remaining vigilant to the inevitably competitive nature of our relationship for the foreseeable future. I've seen the competition up close, and I believe we can succeed with the right policies and leadership.
Chen Guangcheng has given us an opening that we can either see as a source of conflict or as an opening for expanding our dialogue on issues that increasingly matter to so many in China. The world will be watching.
Mr. Huntsman was U.S. ambassador to China from 2009-2011. A former governor of Utah and candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, he is now chairman of the Huntsman Cancer Foundation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)
6)
| Ruben Navarrette Jr. |
| |||||
 | ||||||
| Tweedledum and Tweedledee | ||||||
The irony is that the two are actually quite similar. Both are establishment candidates known for playing it safe and catching grief from extreme members of their party. And both are willing to turn themselves inside out to appeal to voters at the other end of the spectrum who typically escape them -- conservatives for Obama, liberals for Romney. Even their "Hispanic outreach" efforts are alike. Both Obama and Romney are making a big show of the fact that they're pursuing Hispanic voters. And yet, given their awful records on the immigration issue, who do they think they are fooling? All they bring are empty promises, flip-flops, half-truths and rhetorical sleights of hand. As for Obama, his latest offering was skimpy, and it smelled like leftovers. In an interview with Spanish-language television network Univision, the president promised that he would pursue immigration reform once re-elected. Yet Obama would only go so far. "I can promise that I will try to do it in the first year of my second term," he said. Let's remember that in 2008, Obama promised to make immigration reform a priority of his first term. Whether he does anything or not, the president wants credit from Hispanics for trying. Sure he does. Obama always treats Hispanics like he's doing us a favor. What other bloc of voters gets talked to this way? In politics, what matters is results; not good intentions. Besides, given that he has deported more than 1.2 million illegal immigrants, we're still not sure what Obama's true intentions are. Note what the president went on to say: "The challenge we've got on immigration reform is very simple. I've got a majority of Democrats who are prepared to vote for it, and I've got no Republicans who are prepared to vote for it." Seriously? The last time that Congress debated immigration reform compromise bills, in 2006 and 2007, there were almost two-dozen Republican senators who voted in favor of reform. It wasn't because they loved immigrants. It was because the GOP loves business, and business loves immigrants and their work ethic. Meanwhile, Romney is just as bad. No sooner had the former Massachusetts governor gained the inside track on the nomination with the withdrawal of Rick Santorum from the primary race than he began to try to mend fences with Hispanics. But who do you suppose tore down many of those fences? It was Mitt Romney. While on the stump during the primaries, Romney routinely antagonized Hispanics. He pledged to veto the DREAM Act, which would give legal status to illegal immigrants who go to college or join the military, and he called Arizona's immigration law a model for the nation. He also touted the endorsement of Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who wrote language for laws such as Arizona's. The new Romney is attempting to distance himself from Kobach, talking about how Republicans need to reach out to Hispanics, and filling key positions with individuals known to be supporters of comprehensive immigration reform. Kobach calls himself an "adviser" to the Romney campaign. But recently, the campaign told Politico that the anti-illegal-immigration crusader is merely a "supporter." Kobach insists his role has not changed. Maybe not. Then what he should be worried about is why the Romney campaign wants people -- especially Hispanics -- to think otherwise. According to NBC News, Romney told supporters at an April 15 fundraiser in Palm Beach, Fla., that "we have to get Hispanic voters to vote for our party" because otherwise it "spells doom for us." He told the crowd that a "Republican DREAM Act" -- which offers legal status but not a direct path to citizenship -- might do the trick. Romney has also hired Republican strategist Ed Gillespie as a senior adviser to help with "messaging" and "overall strategy." As a moderate and a proponent of Hispanic outreach by the GOP who served as an adviser to George W. Bush when the White House was trumpeting comprehensive immigration reform, Gillespie is one of the good guys. Obama and Romney. What a pair. All they need for their Hispanic outreach efforts to be successful is for those voters to be long on trust and short on memory. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment