A simple message to those who voted for Obama. It is ok to admit you were wrong. You are human and we all make mistakes. Hell, I voted for Carter the first time.
The question you now face is what are you going to do about it?
How can anyone, who is objective, rational, normal, even sane not come to the conclusion everything Obama has touched he has made worse? His economic policy is a disaster and his feckless foreign policy is even worse.
Common sense suggests Obama's actions are purposeful and his ultimate goal is, in fact, to weaken this nation so he will no longer feel compelled to apologize for our strength and involvement in world affairs,
Unlike Obama, I submit we are at war with a multitude of different radical Islamist groups whose goal is to weaken and gain control of their respective governments and their message is designed to stir the street people to riot etc..
Effectively meeting these groups head on is not easy, it does not lend itself to quick solutions but for sure seeking to appease them is the wrong prescription. Carter proved that as did Chamberlain. Their approach does not provide rational models but this is the path Obama has chosen to take knowing full well their disastrous results. Again, I mustconclude, Obama's behavior is purposeful. If you conclude otherwise then Obama cannot be the 'brain' everyone who adores him suggests .
Yet, according to Obama, who has sanitized all government training manuals etc., there is no evidence or reference to Islamaphobia or terrorists so we really have no problem to solve.But this behavior of denial will not make the rioters , the Islamist haters go away.
Does anyone in their right mind believe the riots going on throughout the Muslim World, the killing of American diplomats has nothing to do with radical Islamists and simply relates to Muslim movie goers who were upset.
What utter nonsense! (See 1 and 1a below.)
---
Martin Indyk does not spin. Meanwhile Obama's inept foreign policy initiatives have spun out of control. (See 2 and 2a below.)
One of our best Secretary's of State, George Schultz, weighs in with others. (See 2b below.)
---
The pigeons continue applauding as Obama's chickens come home to roost! (See 3 below.)
---
Finally, Rahm has concluded his Teacher Union friends would rather protest than teach.
Rahm wanted to block Chick Filet from coming to Chicago because they were not his kind of people. So what about these protesting teachers? More Liberal/Progressive hypocrisy! (See 4 and 4a below.)
---
Has campaigning and golf taken precedence over the nation's critical interests? You decide. (See 5 below.)
---
Most Fed 'soft landings' are hard. I suspect this one will be as well but Steve Steve Sjuggerud believes not just yet though he agrees Jim Rogers will ultimately be proven right. (See 6 below.)
---
Black minister tells his flock to stay home and not to vote. (See 7 below.)
---
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1)A Failed Presidency of Global Proportions
By Peter Heck
"These are the times that try men's souls." So wrote Thomas Paine in the midst of the darkest days of the American Revolution, when the fate of what would become the grandest experiment in human liberty hung in the balance. In recent weeks, those words have found renewed relevance as it becomes clear to this generation that the fate of our nation hangs in the balance again.
This much is now clear: on every count, domestic and foreign, the presidency of Barack Obama has failed.
Though pride or egotism may prevent many from acknowledging it, there is simply no rational argument left to plausibly deny this unfortunate reality. Whether it is the crumbling value of the dollar, the demise of an economy once in recovery into one now slouching towards another recession, the crushing debt that is spinning us dangerously close to the point of no return, a persistentunemployment crisis that has not been remotely remedied by the continued spending or quantitative easing of all our brilliant government central planners, or the skyrocketing energy costs that break the collective banks of American family budgets both at the gas tank and with the monthly heating bill, President Obama has been a domestic policy disaster. One of the worst ever.
On the foreign front, a similar conclusion was perhaps more difficult to discern until last week. To any informed observer, there was certainly always reason for concern as the terror obsessed Muslim Brotherhood stretched its influence and consolidated its power throughout the Middle East under the protective cloak of the Obama-approved label "Arab Spring." Prudent minds questioned how such a development could possibly end well for those who desire peace, and why despite being reassured by their president that "[t]he day I'm inaugurated, Muslim hostility will ease," America's approval rating in the Muslim world continued to plummet to new lows.
Moreover, watching the Obama team perform on the world stage, one couldn't help but come to the uncomfortable conclusion that we appeared to be running three or four different foreign policies concurrently. The only unifying element to President Obama's handling of foreign affairs was his stubborn insistence on apologizing profusely for America's role in the world. Only in prostrating himself and his nation before others did Obama's foreign policy find clarity and purpose. The self-proclaimed "citizen of the world" viewed this as the penitent way his United States could exorcise its imperialistic demons and assume a co-equal role among the brotherhood of all nations.
But beginning last week, the final verdict on that Obama Doctrine was rendered. The president's appeasement of radical Islam has only made the aggressor more aggressive. His weakness has not made us safer; it has imperiled us. Its fruits can be found in every bomb-shattered embassy, every fist-pumping mob dragging murdered American diplomats through the streets, every black al-Qaeda flag raised in triumph over the ashen remains of the stars and stripes.
And while his administration pitifully tries to pin responsibility for the anti-American violence on an insignificant and trivial homemade movie, how ironic that the very president who once campaigned against the saber-rattling swagger of George Bush that supposedly incited Muslim animosity has most likely brought on this current terror because of his own braggadocio. Not that radical Muslims have ever needed a good reason to attack the West, but if Barack Obama's strutting around like a peacock for 12 months boasting about how he ordered the raid to shoot Osama bin Laden in the skull doesn't provide it, I don't know what would.
Is Mitt Romney the answer? That remains to be seen. His recent statement on the terrorism now exploding onto and into American embassies worldwide was reason for pause. After correctly dissecting the roots of the problem back to a fundamental lack of American leadership, Romney vowed, "I intend to be a president that provides the leadership that America respects and keeps us admired throughout the world." That isn't quite right. We need a president to provide the leadership we admire because it is leadership that the world has no choice but to respect. And while reading his words in context provides reason to hope that is what Romney meant, we can be certain it is what Obama does not understand.
Historically speaking, it is almost always sound practice to allow for a healthy passage of time before drawing conclusions about the relative success or failure of a particular administration. But there was always a chance that a presidency would occur where the answer was painfully self-evident. In that sense, it appears Barack Obama was the one we'd been waiting for.
Peter is a public high school government teacher and radio talk show host in central Indiana.
1a)Hillary Cheered Broadway's Book of Mormon, Condemns Innocence of Muslims
By Jack Cashill
On Thursday of last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the video project Innocence of Muslims, the one that may or may not have provoked riots worldwide, "disgusting and reprehensible."
P
Although Clinton could have seen no more than a 13-minute trailer for the video, she condemned it in no uncertain terms: "Let me state very clearly -- and I hope it is obvious -- the United States government had nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message."
One would think that Clinton might have had a similar reaction to a musical comedy by the name of The Book of Mormon, a satirical, scandalously potty-mouthed riff on the Mormon religion. What follows is one of the show's printable lyrics, this from the song "All-American Prophet."
You all know the BibleIs made of Testaments old and new.You've been told it's just those two parts,Or only one, if you're a Jew.But what if I were to tell youThere's a FRESH third part out there?That was found by a HIP new prophetWho had a little...Donny Osmond flair.
Apparently, Secretary Clinton has flexible standards. The Associated Press reported soon after The Book of Mormon's opening that "[t]he show has been greeted not by protests but rhapsodic reviews and standing ovations from crowds that have included celebrities as diverse as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, actor Jack Nicholson and composer Stephen Sondheim." Indeed, the show has been the biggest hit on Broadway these past two seasons, winning nine Tony Awards along the way.
True, when the show premiered in 2011, the media were shocked. NPR accurately called it "blasphemous." The Washington Post called it "acidic." The New York Times called it "more foul-mouthed than David Mamet on a blue streak."
But the media did not stop there -- not at all. In context, NPR called The Book of Mormon "blasphemous, hilarious and oddly endearing." The Post called the show "one of the most joyously acidic bundles Broadway has unwrapped in years." And the Times called it, foul-mouthed or not, "a newborn, old-fashioned, pleasure-giving musical."
Although some likely found The Book of Mormon as "offensive and reprehensible and disgusting" as White House spokesman Jay Carney found Innocence of Muslims, the Obama administration chose not to denounce it. Nor could I find any protest from Carney when his former employer, TIME Magazine, praised The Book of Mormon as "bright and enjoyable, and good enough to make even a grumpy critic's 10 Best list."
The White House certainly did not ask the Eugene O'Neill Theater "to review" whether The Book of Mormon "violates their terms of use," as it asked Google to review the trailer for Innocence of Muslims.
Nor did the White House ask the FBI to interview everyone associated with the show, from the set designers to the producers, as it has done for Innocence of Muslims. "We cannot and will not squelch freedom of expression in this country," said Jay Carney. "It is a foundational principle of this nation." That bromide should reassure those people now being grilled by the FBI.
The media, even more than the White House, have been almost comically hypocritical about Innocence of Muslims. When Washington Post reviewer Ann Hornaday called the film "vile," she stopped there. It was not "vile, but." It was just simply vile.
Hornaday struggled to rationalize her contempt for its producers. "The jumble of cheesy-looking scenes and badly dubbed dialogue on display," she concluded, "look less like promotional scenes culled from a fully realized motion picture than a primitive piece of cynical agitprop." That is all true enough, but the left's openly voiced hatred for this project has little to do its with its admittedly awful production values.
The Huffington Post, whose reviewer was "praying" that The Book of Mormon would be "a huge hit and lead the way for more original shows like it," was now leading the way to expose the culprits behind The Innocence of Muslims. The publication has been running banner headlines that read "'Innocence Of Muslims' Filmmaker Identified By Law Enforcement" and "'Innocence Of Muslims' Shot On Hollywood Set, Film Permit Connected To Christian Charity." If the FBI asked the editors to hand out pitchforks and publish a map to the filmmaker's house, they likely would have complied.
The response by the media and the Obama administration would not have surprised Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens discovered the moral emptiness of his colleagues on the left when he labored to shelter his friend, Salman Rushdie. Rushdie, a westernized progressive, provoked a deeply serious death threat from the Iranian mullahs for his artful book The Satanic Verses.
In his memoir, Hitch-22, Hitchens relates his surprise upon finding the "postmodern Left in league with political Islam." He cites one prominent leftist after another denouncing Rushdie for having disturbed the status quo. The moral cowardice of his friends on the left depressed him almost as much as the sight of crowds in British cities demanding not only "less freedom," but also "the destruction of an author's work and even the taking of an author's life."
For the left, Hitchens came to understand, the sensitivity to Islam had much less to do with respect for religion than it did fear of offending its allies in post-colonial anti-Americanism. The "undercurrent of menace and implied moral and racial blackmail" paralyzed them. Given Rushdie's status as one of their own, more or less, leftists could not exactly demand his head. But the producers of Innocence of Muslims enjoy no such grace. If they can be tied to a "Christian charity," even an Egyptian one, the folks at the Huffington Post will be leading the lynch mob.
By contrast, the Mormon response to the Broadway show that profanes their faith has been exemplary. Church elders have said that "the musical might entertain you for a night, but the Book of Mormon, the scripture, will save your life." Individual Mormons have been lining up across the street from the theater -- not protesting, but handing out copies of the actual Book of Mormon.
According to TPM, a leftist blog, Mitt Romney has been "echoing [the] White House position" on Innocence of Muslims. "The idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong," Romney said. "And I wish people wouldn't do it." But this is hardly an echo. Wishing people would stop is not quite the same as dispatching the FBI.
The real difference, though, between Romney's response and the White House's, certainly the difference between his and Hillary's, is that he could and would have said the very same thing about The Book of Mormon.
1b)Rarely Has an International Crisis Been More Predictable
By Steve McCannP
Rarely has an international crisis and potential for a regional conflict been more predicable than what the world is witnessing in the Middle East and North Africa. The naiveté, ignorance and narcissism of Barack Obama coupled with his and other world leaders' despicable deference to radical Islam has eventuated in creating the Balkans of the 21st Century, whose counterpart in 1914 became the tinderbox that enflamed the globe as World War I; a war whose consequences are still felt to this day.
Barack Obama, determined to become the Muslim world's best friend, has instead unleashed the dogs of war in the Middle East. He has actively backed the overthrow of various governments in the vain and naïve hope that the extreme radical element of Islam would not step into the resultant leadership vacuum. He has essentially told Iran, that they are free to develop nuclear weapons and to meddle in the affairs of Lebanon, Syria and whatever country they choose with no consequences. He has given Hamas and the Palestinian Authority a green light to confront Israel, as U.S. policy is now to browbeat and intimidate the Israelis to accept any agreement while demanding their acquiescence to Iranian nuclear capability. He has willfully created a power and influence void into which Russia has now stepped.
Barack Obama has signaled, by his numerous apologies and adolescent groveling, that the United States is no longer engaged and is willing to be deferential to all the nations of the region regardless of their potential threat to America or the West, including Israel now essentially isolated and alone.
In his Cairo speech in 2009, Obama shamelessly blamed the West for all the problems with Islam and never once used the words; terrorism, terrorist, war on terror or radical Islam. Earlier in the same year he met secretly with the Muslim Brotherhood, the progenitor of Hamas and Al Qaeda, thus legitimizing them with a wink and a nod.
Once the riots in 2011 began in Egypt and other North African countries, regardless of what may have triggered them, the Islamists knew they had nothing to fear from the United States as the American president and his administration had made no meaningful overtures to the true democratic elements in those countries that were governed by dictatorial rulers friendly to the interests of the United States. Obama chose instead to appeal to the radical element believing that by the sheer force of his personality and persuasion the Islamists would change their spots.
While playing the game with Washington, the radicals knew if they could get the population into the streets they could exacerbate the situation to their advantage. Today in Egypt what began as student and middle class demonstrations in the spring of 2011 has evolved into a government dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood.
With Obama's determination to rid Libya of Muammar Gaddafi, without any potential moderate leadership waiting in the wings, he has provided a potential sanctuary for Al Qaeda and unleashed ancient tribal animosity.
Not only have the most radical elements of Islam now found homes other than in the mountains and caves of Afghanistan, Israel is surrounded by: Lebanon and Hezb'allah, Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood, and Syria dominated by the Iranian Islamists. All whose sole mission in life is to destroy Israel, impose sharia law throughout the region, and re-institute the old Muslim Caliphate. Their motivation is based on religious fanaticism, the most dangerous driver of human behavior.
To anyone who paid attention to this region and the virulent spread of radical Islam, their infiltration into Europe and the attacks on the United States, this potential outcome was self-evident. Barack Obama and other leaders in the West refused to believe the worst could happen, a belief that still motivates the American president. This was the same mindset which permeated the psyche of Neville Chamberlain and other politicians in Western Europe in the 1930's, as they refused to believe the Nazis were who they said they were.
Had Obama bothered to study history, he would have also realized that the overthrow of governments in nations without a long-term tradition of democracy has resulted a prolonged periods of upheaval and violence. That scenario has been repeated throughout the twentieth century from the initial Russian Revolution in 1917, which eventuated in the communist takeover and the death of untold millions throughout the world, to the Iranian Revolution in 1979, which opened the door to the current despotic theocracy in Iran, the modern day wellhead of today's radical Islamic movement.
Far more than those European leaders in the 1930's who were guilty only of naiveté, the ego and narcissism of a national leader imbued with a messianic mindset determined to change his country and the world is a threat in a dangerous and unstable world. In Barack Obama the people of the United States elected as president, and by default the leader of the free world, such a person.
He has revealed this mindset by his inability to accept any responsibility during the entire term of his presidency for the outcome of his policies and actions either domestic or foreign. This chronic character flaw has eventuated in Obama's latest obeisance to the radical Islamists. He has unleashed the police power of the state on the producer of a film conveniently and falsely blamed for the violence in the Muslim world, as if this obscure person had committed a crime for exercising his free speech rights. All this in an attempt to place blame elsewhere and placate a mob who will be further emboldened by this contemptible sign of weakness. That this is reminiscent of those actions expected in a nation controlled by despots is immaterial, as Barack Obama has, in his mind, a destiny to fulfill.
There will be a violent conflict in the Middle East. It is only a matter of time. The only question that remains is whether it will spread beyond the confines of the region. When the history of these times is written, Barack Obama will have heaped upon his shoulders a lion's share of the responsibility for the death and destruction certain to occur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)-Indyk: War with Iran in 2013 likely if no agreement reached
Without a negotiated solution over the Iranian nuclear program, 2013 will likely see a military confrontation with Iran, former US Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk said on CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday.
"There is still time, perhaps six months, even by Prime Minister Netanyahu's own time table to try to see if a negotiated solution can be worked out," Indyk said on the morning news show. "I'm pessimistic about that. If that doesn't work out -- and we need to make every effort, exhaust every chance that it does work -- then I am afraid that 2013 is going to be a year in which we're going to have a military confrontation with Iran."
In recent weeks, rhetoric over the possibility of a military strike against Iran ballooned as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu demanded that the US set "red lines" for Iran on its progressing nuclear program, and US President Barack Obama refused.
"The idea of putting out a public red line, in effect, issuing an ultimatum, is something that no president would do. You noticed Governor Romney is not putting out a red line. Senator McCain didn't either, and neither is Bibi Netanyahu for that matter in terms of Israel's own actions because it locks you in," he said."While there's still time, there is not a lot of time, and I don't think the difference between Netanyahu and Obama on this is that great in terms of the President's commitment not to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons," said Indyk, who served as US Ambassador to Israel twice and is currently Director for Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
While Netanyahu's comments on Iran have previously brought speculation that a unilateral Israeli strike on the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities is imminent, remarks he made toThe Jerusalem Post in a recent interview seemed to suggest that he would continue working to form a wider consensus on the issue.
In the interview published on Friday, Netanyahu put the need to place red lines on Iran on a continuum that stretches back nearly two decades.
Netanyahu recalled that he first sounded the alarm about a nuclear Iran 16 years ago, when few others were doing so, and then they joined in. He mentioned that he started talking about the need for economic sanctions against Iran when no one else was on board, and others joined in. And now, he said, we are in the “red lines phase.”
“I hope others will join,” he said. “It takes time to persuade people of the wisdom of this policy.”
Herb Keinon contributed to this report.
Al Qaeda is. Please inform your Ministry of Truth.
So, let me get this straight:
It is September 11, 2012. An Al Qaeda sponsored mob is marching, running, screaming towards the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. Supposedly they are angry about an e-mail cartoon about the Islamic figure, Mohammed. It is known right away that the organizers of the march are the same entity that did the mass murder of Americans on 9.11.01.
The Embassy issues an apology for an American using his free speech rights about a matter of deep concern. They attempt to appease the mob. It doesn't work. The mobs acts violently and disrespectfully towards the U.S. Embassy. They are al Qaeda. This is what they do.
No comment or almost none from Mr. Obama.
Then an al Qaeda mob attacks the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, Libya, burns it, kills the U.S. Ambassador and three other heroic American diplomats. Again, in a classic al Qaeda move, it is all timed perfectly to infuriate the USA. It isn't spontaneous. It was 9/11, for Pete's sake.
No comment from Mr. Obama except terse condolences.
Then along comes Governor Romney, who rightly says, "Hey, why are we appeasing an al Qaeda mob? Why aren't we calling these guys the vicious killers that they are? Why are we back in this apology to bad guys mode?"
Then, and only then, the Obama White House goes into hyper drive. It turns out that the real problem is not al Qaeda. No, and it's not Mr. Obama's appeasement. No, the real threat to America is (wait for it), Mitt Romney. Yes!!! According to White House uber-pal, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Romney is working with the terrorists against the U.S. government by calling for criticism of the al Qaeda!
Yes, Romney is the enemy for pointing out that Mr. Obama is ass kissing the terrorists!
This is terrifying. The media line up to get their marching orders from the Obama Ministry of Truth and suddenly it's Gospel: the problem is not al Qaeda. It is Romney. With a "more in sorrow than in anger…" look and tone, Mr. Obama pities Romney's naïveté.
This is disgusting. It is nauseating. This is what happens when you have a one-party media. The lie becomes the truth. George Orwell saw it coming. In 1984, his MiniTrue had up its mission.
Who controls the present, controls the past.
Who controls the past controls the future.
It has happened. The MSM and the White House have outlawed truth. Some of us old ones can remember when it was legal and the media worked to keep it alive. Now, like the firemen in Fahrenheit 451, the MSM press exists to obliterate truth -- not to preserve it.
Meanwhile, Mr. Netanyahu begs the U.S. to do something to protect it and the world from the Iranian bomb. Mr. Obama bobs and weaves to avoid contact with reality and responsibility. No one even mentions that if we had allowed Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush to build ABM defense, the whole world would be a safer place, and we race towards war or an Islamic control of our expression or both, and the master politician gets ready for his turn on Letterman.
God help us.
How I wish that someone that Mr. Obama respects (I have no idea if there is such a person) would look him in the eye and say, "Look, Mr. President, those Muslim terrorists in al Qaeda are not our friends. They have done terrible things to us. They have just done something brand new and horrible to us: they murdered our ambassador to Libya. No matter how much you kiss up to them, they will not be our friends. Maybe you think they'll be your friends because you have so many Muslim friends in the black community in Chicago.
"But they won't. They hurt us whenever they can. They are blood brothers to the people who run Iran. THEY ARE NOT REASONABLE PEOPLE. You cannot appease them into peace any more than Chamberlain could appease Hitler.
"The only thing they respect is strength. That's it. Their guru, Osama bin Laden, put it well. 'Between a strong horse and a weak horse, people will favor the strong horse.'
"That's what we have to learn, Mr. President. We have to be the strong horse. Not the buttering up horse. The strong horse. Get it?"
The big problem is that there is no one Mr. Obama really respects to tell him the truth and we will all have to pay for it.
2b)The Magnitude of the Mess We're In
The next Treasury secretary will confront problems so daunting that even Alexander Hamilton would have trouble preserving the full faith and credit of the United States.
By George P. Shultz, Michael J. Boskin, John F. Cogan, Allan H. Meltzer and John B. Taylor
Sometimes a few facts tell important stories. The American economy now is full of facts that tell stories that you really don't want, but need, to hear.
Where are we now?
Did you know that annual spending by the federal government now exceeds the 2007 level by about $1 trillion? With a slow economy, revenues are little changed. The result is an unprecedented string of federal budget deficits, $1.4 trillion in 2009, $1.3 trillion in 2010, $1.3 trillion in 2011, and another $1.2 trillion on the way this year. The four-year increase in borrowing amounts to $55,000 per U.S. household.
The amount of debt is one thing. The burden of interest payments is another. The Treasury now has a preponderance of its debt issued in very short-term durations, to take advantage of low short-term interest rates. It must frequently refinance this debt which, when added to the current deficit, means Treasury must raise $4 trillion this year alone. So the debt burden will explode when interest rates go up.
The government has to get the money to finance its spending by taxing or borrowing. While it might be tempting to conclude that we can just tax upper-income people, did you know that the U.S. income tax system is already very progressive? The top 1% pay 37% of all income taxes and 50% pay none.
Did you know that, during the last fiscal year, around three-quarters of the deficit was financed by the Federal Reserve? Foreign governments accounted for most of the rest, as American citizens' and institutions' purchases and sales netted to about zero. The Fed now owns one in six dollars of the national debt, the largest percentage of GDP in history, larger than even at the end of World War II.
The Fed has effectively replaced the entire interbank money market and large segments of other markets with itself. It determines the interest rate by declaring what it will pay on reserve balances at the Fed without regard for the supply and demand of money. By replacing large decentralized markets with centralized control by a few government officials, the Fed is distorting incentives and interfering with price discovery with unintended economic consequences.
Did you know that the Federal Reserve is now giving money to banks, effectively circumventing the appropriations process? To pay for quantitative easing—the purchase of government debt, mortgage-backed securities, etc.—the Fed credits banks with electronic deposits that are reserve balances at the Federal Reserve. These reserve balances have exploded to $1.5 trillion from $8 billion in September 2008.
The Fed now pays 0.25% interest on reserves it holds. So the Fed is paying the banks almost $4 billion a year. If interest rates rise to 2%, and the Federal Reserve raises the rate it pays on reserves correspondingly, the payment rises to $30 billion a year. Would Congress appropriate that kind of money to give—not lend—to banks?
The Fed's policy of keeping interest rates so low for so long means that the real rate (after accounting for inflation) is negative, thereby cutting significantly the real income of those who have saved for retirement over their lifetime.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is also being financed by the Federal Reserve rather than by appropriations, severing the checks and balances needed for good government. And the Fed's Operation Twist, buying long-term and selling short-term debt, is substituting for the Treasury's traditional debt management.
This large expansion of reserves creates two-sided risks. If it is not unwound, the reserves could pour into the economy, causing inflation. In that event, the Fed will have effectively turned the government debt and mortgage-backed securities it purchased into money that will have an explosive impact. If reserves are unwound too quickly, banks may find it hard to adjust and pull back on loans. Unwinding would be hard to manage now, but will become ever harder the more the balance sheet rises.
The issue is not merely how much we spend, but how wisely, how effectively. Did you know that the federal government had 46 separate job-training programs? Yet a 47th for green jobs was added, and the success rate was so poor that the Department of Labor inspector general said it should be shut down. We need to get much better results from current programs, serving a more carefully targeted set of people with more effective programs that increase their opportunities.
Did you know that funding for federal regulatory agencies and their employment levels are at all-time highs? In 2010, the number of Federal Register pages devoted to proposed new rules broke its previous all-time record for the second consecutive year. It's up by 25% compared to 2008. These regulations alone will impose large costs and create heightened uncertainty for business and especially small business.
This is all bad enough, but where we are headed is even worse.
President Obama's budget will raise the federal debt-to-GDP ratio to 80.4% in two years, about double its level at the end of 2008, and a larger percentage point increase than Greece from the end of 2008 to the beginning of this year.
Under the president's budget, for example, the debt expands rapidly to $18.8 trillion from $10.8 trillion in 10 years. The interest costs alone will reach $743 billion a year, more than we are currently spending on Social Security, Medicare or national defense, even under the benign assumption of no inflationary increase or adverse bond-market reaction. For every one percentage point increase in interest rates above this projection, interest costs rise by more than $100 billion, more than current spending on veterans' health and the National Institutes of Health combined.
Worse, the unfunded long-run liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid add tens of trillions of dollars to the debt, mostly due to rising real benefits per beneficiary. Before long, all the government will be able to do is finance the debt and pay pension and medical benefits. This spending will crowd out all other necessary government functions.
What does this spending and debt mean in the long run if it is not controlled? One result will be ever-higher income and payroll taxes on all taxpayers that will reach over 80% at the top and 70% for many middle-income working couples.
Did you know that the federal government used the bankruptcy of two auto companies to transfer money that belonged to debt holders such as pension funds and paid it to friendly labor unions? This greatly increased uncertainty about creditor rights under bankruptcy law.
The Fed is adding to the uncertainty of current policy. Quantitative easing as a policy tool is very hard to manage. Traders speculate whether and when the Fed will intervene next. The Fed can intervene without limit in any credit market—not only mortgage-backed securities but also securities backed by automobile loans or student loans. This raises questions about why an independent agency of government should have this power.
When businesses and households confront large-scale uncertainty, they tend to wait for more clarity to emerge before making major commitments to spend, invest and hire. Right now, they confront a mountain of regulatory uncertainty and a fiscal cliff that, if unattended, means a sharp increase in taxes and a sharp decline in spending bound to have adverse effect on the economy. Are you surprised that so much cash is waiting on the sidelines?
What's at stake?
We cannot count on problems elsewhere in the world to make Treasury securities a safe haven forever. We risk eventually losing the privilege and great benefit of lower interest rates from the dollar's role as the global reserve currency. In short, we risk passing an economic, fiscal and financial point of no return.
Suppose you were offered the job of Treasury secretary a few months from now. Would you accept? You would confront problems that are so daunting even Alexander Hamilton would have trouble preserving the full faith and credit of the United States. Our first Treasury secretary famously argued that one of a nation's greatest assets is its ability to issue debt, especially in a crisis. We needed to honor our Revolutionary War debt, he said, because the debt "foreign and domestic, was the price of liberty."
History has reconfirmed Hamilton's wisdom. As historian John Steele Gordon has written, our nation's ability to issue debt helped preserve the Union in the 1860s and defeat totalitarian governments in the 1940s. Today, government officials are issuing debt to finance pet projects and payoffs to interest groups, not some vital, let alone existential, national purpose.
The problems are close to being unmanageable now. If we stay on the current path, they will wind up being completely unmanageable, culminating in an unwelcome explosion and crisis.
The fixes are blindingly obvious. Economic theory, empirical studies and historical experience teach that the solutions are the lowest possible tax rates on the broadest base, sufficient to fund the necessary functions of government on balance over the business cycle; sound monetary policy; trade liberalization; spending control and entitlement reform; and regulatory, litigation and education reform. The need is clear. Why wait for disaster? The future is now.
The authors are senior fellows at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. They have served in various federal government policy positions in the Treasury Department, the Office of Management and Budget and the Council of Economic Advisers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)-O the apologist
By MICHAEL GOODWIN
According to President Obama’s narrative, the murder of four Americans in Libya is a story of “senseless violence” provoked by an anti-Islam video. According to his Praetorian Guards in the media, the story is how Mitt Romney rudely criticized
Obama’s foreign policy.
Here’s the real story: The murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others is the most important terrorist attack on American civilians since 9/11. And it happened on the 11th anniversary of that day of infamy, on Obama’s watch.
There were no Marines on guard, and there are reports that the Benghazi embassy had been warned of an al Qaeda assault, yet there were no precautions. It is likely the organized attackers, some carrying rocket-propelled grenades, had inside information about a “safe house,” where they killed two of the Americans.
Obama, after offering condolences and vowing to find those responsible, flew to a campaign event in Vegas.
If that were all, it would be reason enough to doubt his competency and character. But it’s not all.
The crisis, including riots at our embassies in 20 countries, is the full flowering of a policy predicated on appeasement and apology. To borrow a phrase, the Obama chickens are coming home to roost.
The essence of his doomed approach is revealed in Obama’s refusal to meet with the prime minister of Israel while finding time to meet with the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt. The choice raises a fundamental question: Whose side are you on, Mr. President?
To ask is to concede despair. Starting with his Cairo speech in 2009, Obama promised a “new beginning” in our relations with Muslims. Had the comment been a marketing tool for a new administration, it would have been understandable. But the speech was far from benign. It foretold the ruinous path he would follow.
In Cairo, Obama insisted that, after 9/11, America “acted contrary to our ideals,” by using torture — a libel against his own country and the warriors who defend it. Under the Obama “ideals,” we follow a “kill or release” protocol, blasting terrorist leaders with drones while freeing all others without interrogation. So death is now more humane than water boarding.
He suggested in Cairo that Americans harbor bigotry against Muslims, saying, “We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism.” That, too, was a slander, and the policy corollary is that he says nothing about the slaughter of Christians in Arab lands.
He misstated Mideast history to draw a moral equivalency between Israelis and Palestinians. His portrayal of a “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza was spun of whole cloth, as was his claim that Israeli settlement activity “violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace.” As a result, there have been no direct negotiations during his term.
On Iran, he talked as if the mad mullahs and the US are equally responsible for the 30-year rupture, even though Iran was at that moment helping to kill our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said, “No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons,” a tip-off to his feckless policy.
The central idea of that speech is that America and Israel are largely to blame for radical Islam. The same instinct drips from the statement issued by Obama’s Cairo representative last Tuesday.
Utterly craven, the statement “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims
— as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions . . . we firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
Deciphering the childish gibberish leads to the conclusion that free speech is OK only until Muslim feelings are hurt. Then we surrender our values to the mob.
In its cockeyed defense, the White House offered conflicting claims: one, that the statement came before the riots began; two, that we should, Obama said, “cut folks a little bit of slack” when they fear for their lives.
Let’s see — there was no riot, but they feared for their lives?
In fact, the embassy reaffirmed the apology twice while the riots raged.
After the statement was online for nearly 10 hours, Mitt Romney called it disgraceful and the White House quickly disavowed it.
Until then, the apology for free speech was the sole response from the White House to the day’s events.
And why not? It is perfectly consistent with the last four years.
Smoking gun from desk of DiNapoli
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4) Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is turning to the courts to try to put an end to a teachers strike that's entering its second week and has left parents scrambling to make alternative child care arrangements for at least two more days.
The union and school leaders seemed headed toward a resolution at the end of last week, saying they were optimistic students in the nation's third-largest school district would be back in class by Monday. But teachers uncomfortable with a tentative contract offer decided Sunday to remain on strike, saying they needed more time to review a complicated proposal.
Emanuel fired back, saying he told city attorneys to seek a court order forcing Chicago Teachers Union members back into the classroom.
The strike is the first for the city's teachers in 25 years and has kept 350,000 students out of class, leaving parents to make other plans.
Working mom Dequita Wade said that when the strike started, she sent her son 15 miles away to a cousin's house so he wouldn't be left unsupervised in a neighborhood known for violent crime and gangs. She was hoping the union and district would work things out quickly.
"You had a whole week. This is beginning to be ridiculous," Wade said. "Are they going to keep prolonging things?"
Months of contract negotiations have come down to two main issues central to the debate over the future of education across the United States: teacher evaluations and job security.
Union delegates said they felt uncomfortable approving the contract because they had seen it only in bits. The union will meet again Tuesday, after the end of the Rosh Hashana, the Jewish new year.
"There's no trust for our members of the board," Chicago Teachers Union president Karen Lewis told reporters Sunday night. "They're not happy with the agreement. They'd like it to actually be a lot better."
Emanuel said the strike was illegal because it endangers the health and safety of students and concerned issues — evaluations, layoffs and recall rights — that state law says cannot be grounds for a work stoppage.
"This was a strike of choice and is now a delay of choice that is wrong for our children," Emanuel said in a written statement.
The strike has shined a spotlight on Emanuel's leadership more than ever, and some experts have suggested the new contract — which features annual pay raises and other benefits — is a win for union.
"I'm hard-pressed to imagine how they could have done much better," said Robert Bruno, a professor of labor and employment relations at the University of Illinois at Chicago. "This is a very impressive outcome for the teachers."
With an average salary of $76,000, Chicago teachers are among the highest-paid in the nation, and the contract outline calls for annual raises. But some teachers are upset it did not restore a 4 percent raise Emanuel rescinded last year.
Emanuel pushed for a contract that includes ratcheting up the percentage of evaluations based on student performance, to 35 percent within four years. The union contends that does not take into account outside factors that affect student performance such as poverty and violence.
The union pushed for a policy to give laid-off teachers first dibs on open jobs anywhere in the district, but the city said that would keep principals from hiring the teachers they think are most qualified.
The union has engaged in something of a publicity campaign, telling parents about problems that include a lack of important books and basic supplies.
Some parents said they remain sympathetic to teachers.
"I don't think they're wrong. The things they're asking for are within reason," said Pamela Edwards, who has sent her 16-year-old daughter to one of about 140 schools the district has kept open during the strike to provide meals and supervision.
Others said they understand why teachers are taking their time.
"As much as we want our kids back in school, teachers need to make sure they have dotted all their i's and crossed their t's," said Becky Malone, mother of a second grader and fourth grader, who've been studying at home and going to museums over the last week. "What's the point of going on strike if you don't get everything you need out of it? For parents, it'll be no more of a challenge than it's been in the past week."
4a)Chicago Strike Shows Why we Need School Choice
By Star Parker
It says something about today’s public education reality that the two sides in the teachers’ union dispute in Chicago are the union and the mayor.
Allegedly the point of schools is to educate children. But which side in this dispute has sole interest in children and their parents?
The answer, of course, is neither side.
Unions are about the economic interests of the teachers. The mayor is about his budget and the economic interests of the city.
No one solely represents the interests of the kids.
It’s not to say that the union or the mayor has no interest in the quality of education being delivered. But this is just part of their agenda.
Do union members have to worry that their jobs will be gone if children don’t get the best possible education? No. Does the mayor have to worry that his job will be gone or his career over if children don’t get the best possible education? No.
In private sector labor disputes, sitting across from the union representative is the representative of a private company. The survival of that firm depends on its ability to serve its customers. Its labor cost is one line item in the cost structure of the products it sells.
The firm negotiating with the union does have to be concerned that union demands will drive it out of business – that it won’t be able to deliver the best, most competitively priced products.
This helps explains why private sector union membership has dropped dramatically. In the mid-1950’s, 36 percent of the private sector labor force belonged to unions. Today it is less than 7 percent.
Union demands that cause uncompetitive pricing or poorer quality products threaten the survival of the firm because it cannot serve its customers. The customer is king.
If the customer doesn’t like what he’s getting, that customer will go somewhere else.
But what about parents and kids? They have no where else to go. In Chicago, they are stuck with whatever outcome the confrontation between the mayor and the union produces because there is no competition.
Beyond this, even the best public school teachers have their hands tied because they cannot provide what so many of these kids need. A structure of values, discipline, and a clear sense of meaning and right and wrong.
The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof writes, “In fairness, it’s true that the main reason inner city schools do poorly isn’t teachers’ unions, but poverty.”
But now we have a chicken and egg problem. Are kids not getting educated because they are poor or are they poor because the public schools, generation after generation, provide such poor education in these communities?
Poverty is preponderant among single parent households, and single parent households have grown dramatically in black communities over the last half century. In 1970, 38 percent of black births were to unmarried women. Today it’s over 70 percent.
Should we consider it an accident that over this same period a cultural transformation took place in this country? Court decisions removed prayer and traditional religious values from our public schools. Is it worth considering that the purge of traditional values from public schools and widespread family breakdown were two sides of the same cultural coin?
I think so. But whether you agree with me or not, parents who want their children in a school teaching traditional values, rather than the moral relativism endemic in K-12 public schools today, should have this choice in an allegedly free country.
Eighty six percent of the kids in Chicago’s public schools are minority kids from low income families. Meaning and teaching of right and wrong is what these kids need. Whatever compromise the unions and the mayor reach won’t matter to them.
What they need is school choice.
4a)Chicago Strike Shows Why we Need School Choice
By Star Parker
It says something about today’s public education reality that the two sides in the teachers’ union dispute in Chicago are the union and the mayor.
Star Parker
Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Obama Skipped Security Briefings, Caught Off Guard on Libya, Egypt
As more information comes to light regarding the violence in Egypt and Libya, including the deaths of four Americans, it becomes apparent that Barack Obama was caught completely off guard. Not only does it appear that the violence in Libya was coordinated and planned, but Barack Obama hadn't even attended a security briefing in a week.
As reported by Tony Lee at Breitbart.com, the Internet movie which is being blamed by the Obama administration as the cause for the attacks in Libya and Egypt most likely was just a cover for a coordinated attack that had been planned for some time.
But a closer examination of the evidence indicates al-Qaeda orchestrated these attacks, and the movie was just a bogus excuse used to trigger the widespread violence. Even worse, it seems al-Qaeda telegraphed these attacks, and the Obama administration still got caught flat-footed, unaware of the terror group's strength in the region, missing key signals and clues that were out in the open.
One day before September 11, al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri posted a 42-minute video on Jihadist forums urging Libyans to attack Americans to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, the terror organization's second-in-command, whom U.S. drones killed in June of 2012 in Pakistan.
In the video, al-Zawahri said al-Libi's "blood is calling, urging and inciting you to fight and kill the Crusaders," leading up to a date heralded and celebrated by radical Islamists.
Another version of the video was actually posted on YouTube on September 9 and yet, President Barack Obama, who has not attended an intelligence briefing since September 5, and his administration did not beef up security at the embassy and consulate on September 11. There were no Marines present to protect Americans abroad, as the Islamic mobs overwhelmed what little security presence there was.It's just shocking that in the days leading up to the 9/11 anniversary that Obama would be skipping national security briefings. Shouldn't all embassies be under extra alertness and protection at a time when the events of radical Islamic attacks are being remembered and those lost are being mourned?
In a report by Reuters, U.S. officials say the attack in Libya may have been planned:
The officials said there were indications that members of a militant faction calling itself Ansar al Sharia - which translates as Supporters of Islamic Law - may have been involved in organizing the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya's second-largest city.
They also said some reporting from the region suggested that members of Al-Qaeda's north Africa-based affiliate, known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, may have been involved.
"It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack" and appeared to be preplanned, one U.S. official said.
The Daily Mail also reports on the "premeditated and coordinated" nature of the attacks.In particular, the rocket attack on the car of Ambassador Christopher Stevens as he was driven from the Benghazi consulate bore the hallmarks of a well-trained terrorist group.
It appears the killers had identified the ambassador's car, knew what his escape route would be and perhaps triggered the violence to lure him into the trap they had laid. There is a possibility some kind of inside information from within he embassy was used.
In June, a pro-al Qaeda group calling itself the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades claimed responsibility for detonating an explosive device outside the US Consulate in Benghazi and and later released a video of that attack.
The same group is believed to have been behind a rocket attack on the convoy of Dominic Asquith, the British ambassador to Libya, when he was visiting Benghazi the same month and an attack against the Red Cross in Misrata the following day. Two of Asquith's bodyguards were wounded.
In a statement today, the Qulliam Foundation counter-extremism think tank concludes: 'The military assault against the US Consulate in Benghazi should not be seen as part of a protest against a low budget film which was insulting Islam - there were just a few peaceful protesters present at the event.
'Indeed, there have been no other demonstrations regarding this film in Libya. We at Quilliam believe the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was a well-planned terrorist attack that would have occurred regardless of the demonstration, to serve another purpose.'
And what has Barack Obama been doing? One thing he has NOT been doing is attending his daily national security briefings. As Marc A. Thiessen notes in an op-ed in the Washington Post, Obama has attended less than half of his daily security and intelligence briefings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6)The Government Accountability Institute, a new conservative investigative research organization, examined President Obama's schedule from the day he took office until mid-June 2012, to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) -- the meeting at which he is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his PDB just 536 times -- or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent -- falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.
And this is the man charged with the protection of the United States?
| |||
| "It's going to end terribly," Jim Rogers told CNBC this week. Jim is worth listening to… In the early 1970s, he co-founded the Quantum Fund with George Soros, which returned 4,000%-plus in 10 years. After achieving one of the greatest investment track records ever, Jim retired. On CNBC this week, he boiled down what's happening today:
Jim is right. We're in the middle of an artificial rally. And it will end badly. But when? My answer is… Not yet. I expect it will take years… and this will be an exciting time for investors… As I described to you last week, we've just entered what I call theBernanke Asset Bubble…
But when will this Fed-induced rally end? That's the big question. Jim was careful not to put a date on it… I think it will take years… You see, Bernanke is actually doing his job… His job description is to 1) keep inflation low while 2) helping to maintain a healthy unemployment rate. Bernanke is "juicing" the economy – cutting interest rates to zero and printing money – to help stimulate investment and consumer demand… which should help with unemployment. As long as the inflation rate doesn't take off, he will keep doing this. In the coming years, real estate prices, commodities (from energy to precious metals), and stocks will soar to heights nobody can imagine right now… to valuations that are off the charts. In between, we will have some major downward corrections. Stocks don't go up in a straight line. Neither do commodities. On the way up, people will get scared and bail out. It is the natural "pulse" of a bull market. Up three steps, back two… up three, back two. We've had a solid "up" lately. It's time for a "back." But the people who will get scared and pull out of the market simply don't believe in our "script." They don't have the conviction that prices can go to crazy heights. We do… We intend to own all the way up. We intend to capture as much of this upside as possible. And we will use trailing stops to get us out when the market finally turns. Jim Rogers is right – this artificial rally, created by Ben Bernanke, will end badly. But we have a couple years before it does. A simple indicator for when to sell your stocks will be when the 12-month inflation rate (the consumer price index) pokes its head above 5%. At that point, the Bernanke Asset Bubble will have to end… Why? Remember part one of Bernanke's job description – keep inflation low. If inflation moves above 5%, the game is over. Bernanke will have to raise interest rates. At that point, it is time to move on. We have a couple years, though… No guarantees, of course, but you can have some fun making money for a few years in the Bernanke Asset Bubble before Jim Rogers' dire prediction comes true. -------------------------------------------------------------7) Black Pastors Say 'Stay Home' Election Day Some black clergy see no good presidential choice between a Mormon candidate and one who supports gay marriage, so they are telling their flocks to stay home on Election Day. That's a worrisome message for the nation's first African-American president, who can't afford to lose any voters from his base in a tight race. The pastors say their congregants are asking how a true Christian could back same-sex marriage, as President Barack Obama did in May. As for Republican Mitt Romney, the first Mormon nominee from a major party, congregants are questioning the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its former ban on men of African descent in the priesthood. In 2008, Obama won 95 percent of black voters and is likely to get an overwhelming majority again. But any loss of votes would sting. "When President Obama made the public statement on gay marriage, I think it put a question in our minds as to what direction he's taking the nation," said the Rev. A.R. Bernard, founder of the predominantly African-American Christian Cultural Center in New York. Bernard, whose endorsement is much sought-after in New York and beyond, voted for Obama in 2008. He said he's unsure how he'll vote this year. It's unclear just how widespread the sentiment is that African-American Christians would be better off not voting at all. Many pastors have said that despite their misgivings about the candidates, blacks have fought too hard for the vote to ever stay away from the polls. Black church leaders have begun get-out-the-vote efforts on a wide range of issues, including the proliferation of state voter identification laws, which critics say discriminate against minorities. Last Easter Sunday, a month before Obama's gay marriage announcement, the Rev. Jamal-Harrison Bryant of Baltimore formed the Empowerment Network, a national coalition of about 30 denominations working to register congregants and provide them with background on health care, the economy, education and other policy issues. Yet, Bryant last month told The Washington Informer, an African-American newsweekly, "This is the first time in black church history that I'm aware of that black pastors have encouraged their parishioners not to vote." Bryant, who opposes gay marriage, said the president's position on marriage is "at the heart" of the problem. Bryant was traveling and could not be reached for additional comment, his spokeswoman said. The circumstances of the 2012 campaign have led to complex conversations about faith, politics and voting. The Rev. George Nelson Jr., senior pastor of Grace Fellowship Baptist Church in Brenham, Texas, participated in a conference call with other African-American pastors the day after Obama's announcement during which the ministers resolved to oppose gay marriage. Nelson said Obama's statement had caused a "storm" in the African-American community. Still, he said "I would never vote for a man like Romney," because Nelson has been taught in the Southern Baptist Convention that Mormonism is a cult. As recently as the 2008 GOP primaries, the SBC's Baptist Press ran articles calling the LDS church a cult. This year, however, prominent Southern Baptists have discouraged use of the term when addressing theological differences with Mormonism. Many Southern Baptist leaders have emphasized there are no religious obstacles to voting for a Mormon. Nelson planned to vote and has told others to do the same. He declined to say which candidate he would support. "Because of those that made sacrifices in days gone by and some greater than others with their lives. It would be totally foolish for me to mention staying away from the polls," he said in an email exchange. Romney has pledged to uphold conservative positions on social issues, including opposing abortion and gay marriage. But many black pastors worry about his Mormon beliefs. Christians generally do not see Mormonism as part of historic Christianity, although Mormons do. African-Americans generally still view the church as racist. When LDS leaders lifted the ban on blacks in the priesthood in 1978, church authorities never said why. The Mormon community has grown more diverse, and the church has repeatedly condemned racism. However, while most Christian denominations have publicly repented for past discrimination, Latter-day Saints never formally apologized. Bernard is among the traditional Christians who voted for Obama in 2008 and are now undecided because of the president's support for gay marriage. But Bernard is also troubled by Romney's faith. "To say you have a value for human life and exclude African-American human life, that's problematic," Bernard said, about the priesthood ban. "How can I judge the degree to which candidate Romney is going to allow his Mormonism to influence his policies? I don't know. I can't." Romney said in a 2007 speech that LDS authorities would have no influence on his policies as president. He also said he wept when he learned that the priesthood ban had been abolished because he was anxious for it to be lifted. But that has done little to change perceptions among African-Americans and others. "Obama was supposed to answer for the things that Rev. Wright said," said the Rev. Floyd James of the Greater Rock Missionary Baptist Church in Chicago, at a recent meeting of the historically black National Baptist Convention. "Yet here's a guy (Romney) who was a leader in his own church that has that kind of history, and he isn't held to some kind of account? I have a problem with that." Obama broke in 2008 with his longtime Chicago pastor, Jeremiah Wright, after videos of his incendiary sermons were broadcast. Many Democrats and Republicans have argued that Romney's faith should be off limits. The Rev. Derrick Harkins, faith outreach director for the Democratic National Committee, travels around the country speaking to African-American pastors and other clergy. He said concerns over gay marriage have receded as other issues take precedence, and no pastors have raised Mormonism in their conversations with him about the two candidates. "There's just no space in this campaign for casting aspersions on anyone's faith," Harkins said in a phone interview. "It's not morally upright. It's not ethically appropriate." The Rev. Howard-John Wesley, who leads the Alfred Street Baptist Church in Alexandria, Va., said he is telling his congregants, "Let's not make the election a decision about someone's salvation." Last spring, when it became clear that Romney would be the GOP nominee, congregants starting asking about Mormonism, so Wesley organized a class on the faith. He said congregants ultimately decided that "we could not put Mormons under the boundaries of orthodox Christianity." But Wesley said, "I don't want Gov. Romney to have to defend the Mormon church, the way President Obama had to defend Jeremiah Wright." Wesley, whose congregation has more than 5,000 members, said he will be voting for Obama. The Rev. Lin Hill, an associate pastor of Bethany Baptist Church in Chesapeake, Va., said in a phone interview that he plans to travel with other local pastors to about 50 congregations over two weeks to hold discussions and distribute voter guides that will include a contrast between historic Christianity and Mormonism, and educate congregants about the former priesthood ban. Hill is active in his local Democratic Party but said he's acting independently of the campaign. He said Mormon theology becomes relevant when congregants argue that they can't vote for Obama because, as a Christian, he should have opposed gay marriage. "If you're going to take a tenet of a religion and let that dissuade you from voting, then we have to," discuss Mormon doctrine, Hill said. "We want folks to have a balanced view of both parties, but we can't do that without the facts." The Rev. Dwight McKissic, a prominent Southern Baptist and black preacher, describes himself as a political independent who didn't support Obama in 2008 because of his position on social issues. McKissic said Obama's support for same-gender marriage "betrayed the Bible and the black church." Around the same time, McKissic was researching Mormonism for a sermon and decided to propose a resolution to the annual Southern Baptist Convention that would have condemned Mormon "racist teachings." McKissic's Mormon resolution failed. On Election Day, McKissic said, "I plan to go fishing." ------------------------------------------------------------ |
No comments:
Post a Comment