E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
James Novogrod / NBC News
Tamara Scott and former Iowa state Rep. Danny Carroll, increasingly visible surrogates for Michele Bachmann, speaking at an Ottumwa, Iowa, restaurant Thursday night.
By NBC's James Novogrod
BLOOMFIELD, Iowa -- Michele Bachmann’s 99-county bus tour reached the eight-day mark Friday, and the candidate was losing her voice. In a whisper she circulated tables at the Oasis Coffee House, greeting voters, autographing yard signs and posing for photos.
While the grueling schedule left Bachmann quieter than usual, a group of surrogates raised the volume this week on a message the campaign hopes will resonate among Iowa’s evangelical voters, in the run-up to the Jan. 3 caucus.
“Do you know that the qualifications for public office are found in the Bible?” asked Danny Carroll, a former state representative, during a visit to a restaurant in Albia on Thursday.
Carroll was citing a passage in Exodus in which Moses is counseled to trust those who "feared God, were capable, and hated dishonest gain."
“I believe that Michele Bachmann fits all of those qualifications,” he added.
Carroll, who has supported Bachmann since the summer, has hosted her at his farm in Grinnell – but had rarely joined her for public events around the state. His presence, the campaign says, sends a signal to Iowan social conservatives.
“He has a tremendous amount of credibility in that state, and people look to his opinion,” says campaign spokeswoman Alice Stewart.
After a 12-year career in the Iowa statehouse, Carroll was chairman of the board of the Iowa Family Policy Center, a group that was later spun into the Family Leader, one of Iowa’s most high-profile evangelical groups.
Carroll's message seems designed in part to punch back at the Family Leader's current CEO, Bob Vander Plaats, who earlier this week endorsed one of Bachmann's chief rivals for the evangelical vote: Rick Santorum.
The endorsement directed unwelcome attention on the Bachmann campaign, after Politico reported that Vander Plaats had tried to influence the race more directly, by calling Bachmann to urge her to drop out.
Bachmann acknowledges the call happened, but disputes the account of the discussion. (A source close to the telephone call tells NBC News that Vander Plaats called to ask that she merge her ticket with Santorum, or with Rick Perry. Bachmann, according to the source, declined.)
Since the endorsement, the Bachmann camp’s pushback has been polite but sharp.
A second surrogate, Tamara Scott – the Iowa director of a conservative women's group, Concerned Women for America – called out the Family Leader and Santorum by name Thursday, during a stop in Ottumwa.
"The Iowa Family Leader had a series of meetings, and the papers said it was to make sure [Mitt] Romney was not the nominee," Scott said.
"Bob Vander Plaats turned around and endorsed Santorum, who had endorsed Romney in the last election. I just don’t understand those kinds of politics," Scott said.
In an interview with NBC, Scott stressed that she is not speaking on behalf of Concerned Women for America, and added that Bachmann was the only candidate she felt comfortable endorsing.
“Her integrity is intact,” Scott said.
The effect of the campaign’s effort is unclear so far, but the bus tour itself has seemed to win points in rural counties. Voters in small restaurants and bakeries often said they appreciated Bachmann’s attention.
“She stands for Iowa,” said caucus-goer Kay Rouch, in Keosauqua, on Wednesday. “This is where her roots are, her beginnings, and I think that she basically has a real concern for the people in the Midwest.”
Leave a Comment:
Of all the candidates, I think Michele Bachmann is the one who deserves to win Iowa. She isn't someone I would vote for, but from what I've been reading of Iowans on the GOP side, it seems Michele is the closest to what they're looking for.
I would love to see Bachmann get the GOP nomination. It would guarantee Obama's re-election.
marlen, it's not going to happen. She has no money for a long drawn out campaign. But she has fought hard in Iowa and I would love to see her rewarded with a win.
[Michele Bachmann’s 99-county bus tour...]
I, for one, would like to know just where Bachmann's bus was manufactured?
Pat Boston,
And I would like to see her soundly defeated. She brings nothing of value to the conversation.
Jody from Iowa would strongly disagree with that. Bachmann represents one segment of the Iowan population, and it's not necessarily a representative segment. And no matter what your views of Iowans, they're not going to waste their vote on someone who stands absolutely no chance of winning.
Jack, it's my understanding there is a huge evangelical segment in Iowa. It is only them I am referring to. As I stated, I wouldn't vote for her, she is a screwball. But there's a reason why she became a darling in the TP. And a lot of those people are in Iowa. Bachmann is big on throwing around the "commie", "unAmerican" and "socialist" labels aimed at President Obama. This to me is why I think she became so popular in the GOP. It's exactly what they love to hear.
I for one don't believe Mitt deserves this win in Iowa any more than I believe Michele deserves to win the presidency. But if I had to pick one candidate to win in Iowa, I would pick her.
The others are less likeable than she is. And since she worked harder than they did, it is why I give her the edge.
I am stating my perspective from the sidelines of course. I am neither from Iowa or a Republican.
Pat Boston,
Got it!
Do you know that the qualifications for the office of the Presidency are found in the United States Constitution? Do you know that the Constitution says in Article 6, "....but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
If you want to live in a theocracy, that's just hunky dory. I hear there's a fine one in Iran.
And no matter what your views of Iowans, they are not going to waste their vote on someone who stands no chance of winning.
I will forever be grateful to Iowans. I remember quite well who won there in 2008 on the Democratic side. It forever changed the landscape of that election.
I'll never forget it. What a thrill!!
My, My. Look who dropped by. I'll be getting back to ya later. . . .
Pat Boston - good point. Did you see the Pats' game? Wow! What a come-from-behinder!
Religion aside ... how many candidates fit the LAST two? ESPECIALLY Bachman and clan?
Bachmann bears more FALSE WITNESS than any other political figure per politifact.com.
75% percent of her statements were found to be false.
She is liar liar pants on fire all the time,and she will end up in a very warm place.
Palin doesn't mind dishonest gain one single bit. Her farm got boatloads of unearned cash from the Federal government, as did her husband's bogus "clinic".
The GOP has gone thru great pains to show the American people that they are all about the rich these last two years. I for one will not vote for a single one of them.
Praise Jeebus, but watch out for those sexy Kung Fu Fighting Democrats. The round-house kick will knock you out, flat on your back.
BS! Put a condom over that bitch so we don't have to listen to her religious crap.
President Bachmann and what I would imagine would be her Cabinet of religious zealots bring about the Apocalypse in the name of Jesus!
Sound far fetched? Not so much.
evangelicals(Fundamentalist) are only about 10-12% of the nation. Why on Earth is she wasting time with them? All evangelicals (Fundamentalist) want is a Fundamentalist Theocratic state, Something both Democrats and True Eisenhower Republicans do not want.
Thank you, Magnum S. For years during the first half of my life I lived in a conservative, fundamentalist and BIGOTED family and have had it crammed down my throat and up my a** for all those years. It's amazing how Bachmann and her ilk (or ick, if you prefer) rant against the totalitarianism (or their interpretation thereof) of other faiths, including Islam...but that's exactly what they want to do to you and me and everyone else who claims to believe differently or (thanks to the Constitution) not at all. Deliver me from those maniacs!
The Flat Earth Party candidate is still hanging around? Time to fold your tent and fade back into obscurity, Michelle. You're not only unelectable, you're just syphoning votes from a legitimate GOP candidacy. You stayed with Jimmy Carter too long--you've become just as smarmy and opinionated as he is. And just as annoying.
I believe this and all elections are about who will do the best for the majority of the people (all the people), not who performs best for some loud and overstated minority in the Bible Belt Mid-West.
Michelle Bachman is in this for the money......that's it baby book deal speaking tour PAC funds etc etc etc as are the rest of the Republican Candidates. The Republican Machine knows they will not beat Obama so they are just letting these bunch of clowns make fools of themselves for a pretty handy pay-check in the end.
Volume won't help if the content doesn't change. Good luck with that.
All she can do is get the ignorant to follow her. You know, the ones that hear voices in their head and think that the invisible man in the sky is going to save everyone.
LMAO
Post #1.11,and #1.12.Do either of you have any idea what you are talking about ???Tipical Liberals...
It's just another clown coming to the annual repetitive clown party. I don't care what religion you are or if you claim God told you to do it. (As they are trying to suggest, again,as they always do.) I just want someone who will make the money flow better for everyone, not just a select few who are their buddies. All the arguments such as abortion and foreign policy will be taken care of by the system as a whole not the President! So we need to quit buying into the morality sales pitch and pick someone that will push ideas good for the country's economy and well being. Everything else will be hashed out. Oh, and I left out immigration because that has a lot to do with the economy. HELLO!
'Typical', Mr. TeaBagger.
To the Yank in Australiar --- you are wrong
Election in the US useless these days because: "America is politically corrupt. Corporations now dictate public policy. Both Republican and Democratic politicians are now bought and sold to act in the best interests of their contributors, and not in the best interests of the public."
(from a post of Michael Marowitz)
Magnum--I am an evangelical who voted for President Obama. Many of us believe that God is in charge of all things, therefore we do as Jesus said: "Give to Ceasar (your government) what is Ceasar's, give to God what is God's.
So far I see Ron Paul and Mr. Obama having the integrity and conviction to receive my vote as President. We are not electing the Pope.
Why is Bachman still beingcovered?She's as big a joke as
Palin and her crew!
I'm going to take the day off from slamming the GOP candidates and wish everyone a Merry Christmas.
Irish, how do you square what you just said about being a Christian, and Obama being pro-abortion. Correction on my part, not just pro-abortion, but pro-killing a baby in full term?
Arieus, threatened by Christians much? Seems so. Merry Christmas and Happy Birthday to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ! :)
Dear catgoddess. I can see why you would be threatened by someone who believes in a Creator. Wow! Really?
So---if you vote for Bachmann you're doing "the Lord's work? " I think people just flock to anyone that fits the mold of what they want as a leader. Now--if you like the guy with 3 religions and 3 wives, Gingrich is your guy. If you want another dumb ass from Texas, Perry is your man. If you like insane people that every word they say is contradictory to logic, Bachmann is your woman. According to evangelicals, Mormonism is a "cult", so throw out Huntsman, and Romney. And, then there's Ron Paul. Do I even want to go there? Yes. The man believes that every bit of conjecture that came out of Ayn Rand's mind is etched in stone. He named is son Rand, (guessing Ayn would have sounded that hot for a boy) and Rand was one serious atheist. Turning narcissism into an art form is not an admirable quality.
See--Jesus was a Liberal that personally showed bankers what he thought of them, (flipping those tables of the money lenders in the temple.) I guess, were he alive today, he'd join OWS, vote for the most Liberal candidate that he could find on a ballot, and surely wouldn't own a firearm. Christianity = Christ-Like?
HW2--no one in their right mind is going to argue that Washington, K Street, banksters, the defense contractors, et al aren't taking money on a daily basis from the very same people that they will pass favorable legislation on their behalf. You don't really pose any solution to the pervasive problem. It's not critical thinking that way. If you put Gandhi in that bed of corruption he'd be flipped in no time.
Write in Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
Fights,
There are many Christians who believe in abortions. You may be a zealot, but not all Christians are that interested in forcing their opinions on everybody (your last three posts). Instead they just find peace, happiness, and comfort in their own personal beliefs. Pay attention to the personal in my last sentence.
Guess they missed the part about love thy neighbor, helping the poor, things like that. Love how Republicans claim to be Christians, but do nothing that is important in the bible concerning the poor. They only help the rich and screw the poor. Also, how can you be a Christian, but soooooo eager for war?
Why don't you guys watch this on Youtube. Might enlighten you on what is really going on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUcnQcwlN2M
Has any politician denied it? Has any politician talked about what is killing this country. Cheep goods being imported at the American work force expense. Making record profits for the WalMarts etc in this country.
Why is it, that so many people slam Wal-Mart about making record profits, but then turn around and applaud the Big Oil Co.'s for making even Bigger record profits? The oil that American companies produce here, they ship over seas, and then turn around and import oil for American consumption at much higher prices, why? To make their record profits, the American Citizens be damned. Bachman is So Honest it's down right scary, hahahaha, yeah, right. The GOP(or should it be renamed the DBP) is a total joke and I can't really say that the Demo party is much better. RP or 4 more in 2012, just saying....
Butterfly...Put down the spiked egg nog and get with the program. This vine is about BACHMANN, not PALIN.
Same goes for you Brenda. Republicans are far more charitable and generous than Democrats. Statistics don't lie.
Ahh, Sandtrich, you're a man (woman?) after my own heart.
Right. At least Sanders has enough integrity to admit he's a socialist.
Bachman's campaign (funny how FR decides that a state legislator from Iowa speaks for Michelle, kinda like CNN stating Ron Paul stormed out of an interview when the footage shows no such event happened), and the other candidates should put aside the social issues. Obama is the worst president in modern history with an abysmal record that screams no leadership skills and corruption. The American people know this. Run on economic and foreign policy blunders the inept-in-chief has put on his record. It'll be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Don't allow the left leaning media to distract from Obama's record of failure.
He might not have "stormed out", but he was visibly pissed off at questions any candidate should have been asked, and he refused to continue the interview. It was bad form, no matter how you look at it. I totally disagree with Paul's ideology, but I lost a lot of respect for him over the way he handled that situation.
No president has ever entered office with the Senate Minority Leader declaring that his primary agenda was to ensure that the president served one term only. And the Republicans in both houses did everything they could to ensure he fails. I said this yesterday, and I'll say it today: Fifteen to twenty years from now, historians will look back at this period as the "Jackie Robinson" presidency.
Really? You have a very skewed sense of the history of a number of recent presidents whose records of corruption could be multiplied by a factor of 10 compared to Obama's.
Yawn ... the Lefties are restless again
Jack,
well actually Jack, your quote is only off by about two years of one party rule by the Dems. And then again ... adding just a wee bit of honesty to the topic ... What exactly would you expect from the other party? Rejoice? Adoration? Would you expect campaign contributions? I don't think so.
and your last point on corruption ... because you say so doesn't make it true. Probably the discussion should revolve around the fiscal stewardship involved in the use of public funds in the Stimulus (that wasn't) bill and the explosion of regulations to avoid the Congress
But back to my main point ... So much chatter from a bunch that aren't about to vote for anyone OTHER than the Golfer-in-Chief.
Again, a very Merry Christmas to you all ... Yawn! Maybe the New Year will open your minds.
Yeah, and you'll be astonished when Obama is re-elected.
Your point about the Stimulus not being a stimulus is incorrect. As I and many others who worked with Stimulus funds can attest, they halted the economic slide into a much worse situation--possibly another Great Depression. I wrote about that in another post and I'm not going to repeat it here. But the contractors who benefited from the Stimulus funds said it kept them from laying off workers, and the community benefited from needed infrastructure. Was it enough? No. Could some things have been done better? Yes. But the programs were hastily put together at a critical moment in time when a truly inept president was leaving office.
Your question about whether the other party should have rejoiced when Obama was elected is disingenuous--and you know it. Maybe you're too young to have experienced it, but I have lived through administrations when the two parties worked together even when they were at odds. At no time have I ever seen the kind of blatant refusal to cooperate with a president as I've seen these past three years, and it has been done with cynical disregard to the welfare of the people in this country.
Yeah, it does. The no-bid contracts for Haliburton during the Iraq war were astonishing demonstrations of corruption--and no one was held accountable. Rove's ploy to fire U.S. District Attorneys so he could move Republican ideologues into those positions had the potential of undermining the entire separate but equal branch of the judicial system. The people responsible should have been investigated and brought to trial. Either of those examples dwarf Solyndra, but there are many more from prior administrations.
You may wish for your point of view to be true, but that does not make it so.
Yawn.
Have you ever met a republican who gave a crap about the Constitution? All they care about is their goddam cult BuyBull...
Jack, Jack, Jack ...
Can we talk about THIS president? Unlike Obama, GWB is satisfied to let history judge his Presidency. After three (now going on four years) I haven't seen any results from the Obama regime that I'd agree with (I'll give you TARP because it was at least bipartisan, beyond that, none).
The Rove ploy ... let me think ... the Department of Justice serves at the discretion of the President. He could fire them all and nothing would be wrong. I frankly hope they clean house again in 2013.
Lastly, your age thing ..., I'm probably older than you (retirement eligible). Frankly, you have yourselves to blame for this. You had one party rule and rammed through Congress a very unpopular (and still is) Obama-care Act. Having you finger fully inserted into the eyeball of the minority party for 2 years doesn't really qualify as "reaching across the aisle". I actually do remember the Clinton administration that DID work with a Republican Congress and got a lot done. Sorry, but Barack isn't Bill Clinton. Maybe a James Buchanan or Jimmy Carter but not a Clinton
Don't need to wish ... time will tell!
And again, my friend, Merry Christmas!
Jack in Mass, Because anyone knows that anyone from PortSmith up to Portland ME. are known as Ma$$holes. I had this same stimulus discussion over dinner with an Indian couple from Ohio and a African American couple from here in Florida last evening. Neither of the other two couples had not observed any stimulus positives for all the money spent. I love the internet and smart phones! I was able to pull up the administrations stimulus web site and show them where all the work was done in their respective cities. Apparently they were unaware of all the money that was spent to improve their Infrastructure. I how ever was able to enlighten them, because in my own spring summer residence (Detroit) I personally observed the stimulus in action. Just as the release of the stimulus money was announced on the next block signs went up (4 of them) to the effect of "This is your stimulus at work brought to you by Mr Obama and your city council." They stayed up for 4 months, while I looked on line and could see all the work being done all over the neighborhood. Oddly I saw no work being done. Finally I was on my way to work and in the AM about 7 Union road work trucks on the street and thought Very good there going to add a lane or put in a turn lane. I called my wife and told her they were starting to work. On the way home, I turned on to my street and noticed the signs were taken down. And we had 8 brand new shiny curbs on each of the streets corners. The one thing that was good with out street WAS the existing curbs. I realize this is just one street, somehow I dont think it was isolated.
There's a tongue-twister. And I had a great deal of difficulty understanding the other things you said as well. But I think I got the gist. That was your experience. I had mine, and it was hands-on. And, importantly, I have direct knowledge of the work of others in the state who were involved in the same kinds of activity as I was. But here's a truth: people who were against the Stimulus generally have a great deal of difficulty acknowledging the good work that was done--unless they benefited directly from it. Which is the case in my experience--and, oh, I should say that generally speaking those who benefited were Republicans.
That statement seems to make your moniker (jollyoldsoul) an oxymoron. But whatever.
Astonished, Astonished, Astonished,
I guess you'll have to be astonished again. I was in the Marines when JFK was assassinated. Where were you?
It was done in an arbitrary way for political reasons, and the process was declared "unprecedented" by the Inspector General who investigated the cases. It may not have been illegal, as such, but it was definitely inappropriate. Generally, district attorneys are appointed for 4 year terms, and are only removed for reasons of just cause. There was no just cause in this case.
I'm guessing you're a Libertarian. Your "voice" has that certain arrogant ring to it.
Merry Christmas. May you be Astonished during the coming New Year.
While I agree with a portion of Ron Paul's philosophy regarding the removal of troops from war zones in the Middle East, I rebuke him on his "Aryan Nation" beliefs. A publication bears his name, year after year, and espouses racial hatred--it's his. I've read direct comments that were supportive of racists such as David Duke and it sickens me.
His minions line up with Hitler's philosophies and I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul on a cold day in Hawaii, (we have none.) His philosophies, like those of Grover Norquist will only advance the cause of the wealthy and white, while promoting race hate and income disparity.
Obama-Biden 2012--p.s. Give Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont a cabinet level post.
Since when did the Bible become involved in American politics???? When??? I though the Constitution specifically stated that church and state were SEPARATE. Man, these GOP social conservatives talk the talk but they don't walk the walk. And Astonished, I'm gonna give you one example of how Obama compromised with the GOP. The debt deal. He gave them entitlement reform and spending cuts in return for some tax increases, and they said no. It is not bad for a president to stand firm on certain issues and compromise on others. Obama passed the stimulus, which saved the economy; he passed the Dodd-Frank act, which will regulate Wall Street. And he passed the Obamacare bill, which will decrease the rise in healthcare costs while giving healthcare to millions of uninsured Americans. And don't criticize it now. Most of it is not even in effect. Wait until 2014 when it officially starts, wait two years, and then criticize President Obama in 2016 during the presidential election. Don't criticize something that hasn't even come into effect.
And to keep the spirit of the holidays, I won't argue with you anymore, Astonished. Merry Christmas to all and have a Happy New Year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jack,
well, Jack there you got me. I was in ninth grade then so you might have a couple years on me. But we're still close enough in age to know the same time frame.
To whom? You? OK, got it! but that's a big difference than illegal.
There you go again trying to paint "what I am". But more important is the 'arrogant' charge. There is no arrogance in any statement I make, just fact. But if you can throw some charge at me like "arrogant", I guess that makes YOU feel better. It still doesn't change the facts.
Have a nice day!
Astonished, Weren't the Democrats in control of the Senate when Obama took office? In fact they were in charge of BOTH houses at that time. That being a case in point than Obama did take office when the Senate MINORITY leader made the crack about Republicans' priorities being as they have been proven to be.
There's your arrogance.
I didn't say it was illegal, though I did say they should have been investigated, and I definitely misspoke when I said they should have been brought to trial.
But you are not thinking about the consequences. What Rove did was wrong--I don't care who is in power when it is done, it undermines the Justice Department to fire District Attorneys who are investigating wrongdoing that disagrees with your politics. It sets a bad precedent. Now you've got Gingrich saying that as president he would haul judges whose decisions he disagrees with up before Congress and/or fire them. That's just wonderful. Every time the presidency changes hands we'll have justices yanked out of their chairs. It will make for a real impartial judicial system, won't it, when we have justices who make rulings based on the political winds because they want to keep their jobs. And there goes one of the basic principles of our government--Separation of the Powers--right out the window.
And that's not fact. It's hyperbole, intended to incite others who want to believe it.
jonjojon,
Not sure what your point is. But if you were/are paying attention, the Senate under McConnell has used the filibuster an unprecedented number of times to thwart legislation put forth by the Democrats.
Personally, I feel the same way about this that I do regarding Rove's efforts to undermine the Justice Department. The filibuster should be discarded--one Senator, all by him/herself can prevent legislation coming to the floor for a vote that the other 99 might be in favor of. That's not democracy. And it's not democracy when the balance of power is 59-41 and the minority party filibusters and prevents a bill from coming to the floor. What it does do is cement partisanship.
A few years back the Senate almost decided to get rid of the filibuster. They should have. It's not good no matter who is in power.
This article byline is my hometown. Let me tell you even here in Iowa, Bachman's view represents a very very very small minority. The only reason she is doing so well is because a. she's poured everything into Iowa and b. she was born here. We have a very diverse population. She does not deserve to win this state as her position does NOT represent this state.
This racist newspaper issue is a throwback of the 2008 campaign and a non issue. Anybody can take letterhead of someone and write anything they want on it. Shoot a guy forged Hitler's diary and only the foremost experts caught the guy. One of the main argiments he puts forth to ending the war on drugs is that it is biased against minorities in conviction, etc. Is that the stance of a racist? Pau was harassed about that last time out, and it was declared pretty much a non issue once the hubbub ended.
Michelle Bachman is nothing but a blatant hypocrite. She defends and backs a party that certainly does not act Christian like. Defending the rich while trying to break the middle class and ignore the poor of this nation is all the Republicans/TP are about. I'm sick of hearing the babble from these people bowing down to the hardcore religious in this country. Try practicing what you preach for once in your pathetic lives. You all have some guts to preach to this country while stabbing all of us in the back every chance you get. Do these people think most of the people in this country are not catching on to their lies?
To "Jack in Portsmouth" , have you read this post about Obama?
The Obama phenomenon.
August 18, 2011 Obama: “The Affirmative Action President”, By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner) .
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job? .
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator.And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. .
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest? .
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves. .
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama. .
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? .
In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years. .
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly? .
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office. .
But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while. And really, isn't that all that matters
Astonished,
BTW: If you're not a Libertarian, why don't you simply say so?
As for my accusation of arrogance, I have had run-ins with a number of Libertarians on this site, and invariably they will begin one of the replies with: "Jack, Jack, Jack", just as you did in #1.46. It's condescending because you're talking down to someone as though they're a child. And it is therefore arrogant.
Harry Winter2,
Yeah, so? He quotes the "incomparable Norman Podhoretz", who is a renowned neoconservative. And Patterson himself is a contributor to a book published by HarperCollins entitled "Proud to Be Right: Voices of the Next Conservative Generation". So what would you expect from him? Adulation for the President? Get a grip, Winter. (No, I take that back--I like Winter just the way it is at the moment. . . .)
Jack, I fully agree with your post regarding mine. The point I was trying to make is that the MINORITY, as you stated has done nothing other than send up roadblocks to block suggested legislation from either the Democrats or President Obama.
In post 1:43 Astonished challenged your statement to the effect that it was so. {well actually Jack, your quote is only off by about two years of one party rule by the Dem's.} I was understand that the Democrats entered the 2009 session with a majority due, in part, to the shenanigans of the Bush administration giving them a landslide vote. Point being that if they were in the majority then the GOP was the minority party with a minority leader and that your statement is correct.
jonjojon,
Oh, my apologies. I thought that's what you might have meant, but I wasn't sure. Yes, I agree with exactly what you're saying. Thank you for supporting me. It's been a rough afternoon!
BTW: What the heck kind of animal is that in your avatar? It looks like a gerbil with a hat--or is it a cat with its ears tucked up beneath the hat? Pretty interesting. I like it.
Jonjojon,
My point ... The actual comment you are referencing about Senate Minority Leader McConnell was made after the successful 2010 mid term elections. He was the Minority Leader before the election, actually since the 2006 mid-term (i.e. starting in 2007) and still remains the Minority Leader today. The issue is when he made the statement regarding making Obama a one term President. He did not make that statement at the beginning of Obama's term of office in 2009 (hence my statement of being off by two years. But, again, why would you expect otherwise from him? In fact, Obama and his agenda has only succeeded in further polarizing the nation. He is ideologically incapable of moving to the right (as Bill Clinton did very successfully).
Jack,
No I'm not a Libertarian But like a very large percentage of the U.S. population (I've seen references to as high as 75%) , I am middle right in my political perspective. Party-wise, it gets harder and harder to even consider a Democrat because the party has been hijacked and owned by the Left and extreme Left. Have I in the past?... yes. Will I this year? NO WAY!
It just gets really old on this page with the self serving babble coming from the Left, just droning away without thinking and ignoring the key issues of the day: Jobs, The debt, The size of the federal government, and The evolution of governance via bureaucrat as opposed to legislative law. We could have tons of discussions on those topics but that would only demonstrates the incompetence of the Obama administration. Something you and the rest of the Lefties are trying to avoid. This administration has simply screwed the pooch!
Astonished,
I disagree with virtually everything you said. The country has been moving further and further to the right--and it is the right that has been doing the hijacking. Just look at the current crop of candidates and what they propose--their views are way to the right of what Reagan stood for.
And as someone who is pretty far to the left, I find Obama to be a moderate who leans left.
As for self-serving babble from the left, the people on the left who post on this site are, for the most part, very intelligent, critical thinking people. You can disagree with that statement all you want. But what I wonder is: Why do you post here if you find the discussions "really old on this page"? Isn't there a place where you could meet with minds that reflect your views and with whom you could have the discussions you so sorely miss?
Jack,
Why would I only want to discuss my opinions only with people that agree with me? What kind of discussion or debate is that? Actually, my faith in mankind leads me to the opinion some who read this will listen, consider, and think. I'm not afraid speak the truth, regardless of whether you personally are ready to listen.
Just so you know, I would definitely NOT consider Obama a moderate in any way, shape, or form. Not even close!
And finally you're honest about being extreme Left. Thank you for that.
Astonished,
You really need to complete statements like that. May I suggest that "I'm not afraid to speak the truth as I see it" would be both more accurate and less arrogant. You say that I am on the "extreme left". Hardly. It makes me laugh that you think that. But I do have a close personal friend to the left of me who often talks about "the Truth". Neither he nor you own the truth. And I do not believe that one can have an honest debate or discussion when one thinks one knows the truth and others don't.
I'm afraid this is the end of the discussion for me this evening, so you will get the last word--if you so wish.
HW2, Sandrich and others....... there is a solution........TERM LIMITS FOR ALL ELECTED POSITIONS. People like Michelle Bachman and most politicians who become Career Politicians (in all Western Democracies) get in originally because they have for the most part reached their level of incompetence in the private sector sometimes this is very early in life and sometimes later and yes of course there are those who get in with "good intentions".......but then they see the easy money and the cushy lifestyle and the long term benefits and all those good intentions can easily be set aside.
If limits were placed on the ability of the inadequate to secure a long term position in politics simply by every few years smiling, kissing babies, making empty promises and cow towing to the perceived mood of the electorate (this case being a typical example of that with Bachman making overtures to the Evangelical Bible Belt Christians because she thinks that will get her votes and as long a she remains in the race she gets to keep the contributions to her campaign she is in it for the money as she knows she has no chance of getting the nomination. This holds true for the rest of the circus as they and the Republican Machine know they have no hope of unseating the incumbent but they still get to keep the money). Yes term limits may keep the few good ones from staying past the limit but in my experience they are so few and far between that it will not make a bit difference.
TERM LIMITS is essential if we are ever to get ourselves out of this spiral of bought and sold politicians making decisions based on what is the most profitable for their masters and in turn themselves rather than what they are supposed to be doing which is governing for the majority of the people with due regards for the rights of the minority.
Simply put, hard to achieve as the Military Industrial Complex and the fat cat politicians who are doing quite nicely under the current system and are not likely to let loose of that control of your tax dollars easily...but it has to happen or eventually the "Michelle Bachman's" in both parties will completely take the reins and then we will really be in the poo.
In theory, this sounds like a great idea. However, there are a few problems with this scenario that may leave the country in worse shape in the long run. An imposition of term limits would only galvanize the politicians that they only have a limited amount of time to grab all the benefits they could before they would have to be out in the private sector again. Imagine, if you will, a politician who secured his position using money from one of those "people" that were created by Citizen's United. He has four years to ram everything he can through that will benefit that co... and thereby secure himself a cushy position when he is done. He wouldn't have to worry at all about what the public thinks about what he has done... after all, he isn't worried about losing his job or anything. And it certainly wouldn't stop any of them from telling lies and making promises just to get the vote in the first place.
These politicians don't hang on to these jobs for the paycheck. Most of the make more money in the private sector than they could in the public sector. They hang on to these jobs for the power... and that power translates into outside money to fatten their purses. (See Newt Gingrich and Fanny/Freddie "consulting") Instead of term limits, I propose we take the money incentives out. No campaign contributions from anyone. Public money only. This will level the playing field and keep corporations from being able to buy politicians. Overturning the Citizens decision is a given... and then force all lobbyists out in the open. Political persons can be "lobbied"... but only by submitting the appropriate forms that are available for public viewing.
And finally, more direct democracy. The founding fathers' fear that the "common man" would not be intelligent enough to be an appropriate steward of democracy has become a self-fullfilling prophecy. Entrusting public servants to act in public interest cannot be enforced when the public has so little say in the matter. Americans are probably the least educated populace with regards to their own government. And I suspect this is by design. My state has the all of the direct democracy tools at voter disposal.. so do a good many others. There is no reason why alot of the bills that are passed cannot be sent to the public, with layman explainations, as a ballot initiative. And that will stop a lot of this "add on" bull@!$%# that ends up on a lot of these bills.
/rant off lol
Just My 2 Coppers....
Totally agree with the last paragraph (the first 2 are a bit more pessimistic than I prefer to be) and it is very true that there was a concern that the "common man" might not make decisions with a balanced view, however I also suspect that there was the feeling that the common man was easily swayed by self proclaimed prophets and assorted snake oil peddlers and thus the Founding Fathers struck the representative form to prevent government by cult mentality. Yes and as you say this representative form has in fact been the downfall of reasonable government.
With distance, communication, education being what it is today perhaps at some point in time society may progress towards a government where the electorate have the decision making say when it comes to issues rather than having a say in the people who will make those decisions for them. But you gotta start change somewhere, yes there is always the worry that politicians will continue to bow to the wishes of their masters and try to push things through in a short time frame, however I would bank on enough concerned citizens being there to blunt that......remember it's still the people who put those Career Politicians in the positions in the end you get what you vote for.
I would prefer to take my chances with term limits over the current bought and paid for Career Politicians that we have now.
I agree, as you can tell above, that changes need to be made. However, exactly what weapon would the concerned citizens have to "blunt" the moves politicians make? Right now, they have the threat of the voting booth. Term limits would take that weapon away.
Absolutely. But I think it would be a move in the wrong direction to not allow the citizens to choose the "best person for the job" simply because of a calendar. There have been good career politicians and there may have been some bad ones. However, I don't think the bad ones usually last for long because they are answerable to the voting public for their misdeeds.
My problem lies less in the fact that they are career politicians... and more in the fact that they are bought and paid for.
TERM LIMITS doesn't mean you stop have elections on the same schedule that you do now, it just means you can only serve so many years.
Unfortunately I disagree with you on the Career Politicians issue there are very few, if any, good ones in the sense of making decisions for the benefit of the people as a whole or even their electorate. Once they have got to the point of politics as a career the only job they are interested in is their own. The bad ones last longer because the money from their masters is used to defeat any one of conscience that comes along. You are putting the result before the reason......we have Career Politicians because they are bought and paid for.....it's the corruption that comes first which will be limited by time.
Respectfully, I disagree. The point of even having representative from the State is to represent... the State. If a politician wishes to keep his job with the State, he will do what he must to keep his employers happy. The laws of plurality will keep any one state's interest from overshadowing another... and they would be forced to work together (I will vote for your bridge, if you will vote for my freeway) in order to get things done.
Take, for example, the late Strom Thurmond from South Carolina. Undeniably, he was a career politician. Did he need big money to keep getting re-elected for 48 years? No. He was a nasty old racist bastard that did one thing right... he did what the folks in South Carolina told him to do. He always put the needs of his state first. That is what he was supposed to do and that is how he got lifetime job security. In contrast, look at Bob Inglis of SC. While he enjoyed a pretty good run, his vote for the bank bailouts was NOT what his constituents wanted him to do. And so, thanks to that... and the tea party pac money... Bob lost.
Take away the money and you take away the purchased politicians. Take away the term limits and you take away a politicians motivation to look out for his own State.
In my opinion Strom Thurmond is a typical example of someone (good or bad) that was there way past their use by date.
Yes getting the getting the money out of politics is essential as is getting politics out of government....for every example of someone who is doing what is best for the electorate or the country, there would be 10+ plus who are bought and sold by some self interest group. It takes years (many trips to the whore houses, super bowl, exclusive golf courses, sailing on the Chesapeake etc) to corrupt someone....but once they are corrupt that's it (like a lame horse). If you reduce the time that is allotted to corrupt someone the money/influence peddling will start to recede and the result of better government will start to unveil.
PAC Money, private company and union "endorsements", unrestricted campaign advertising, the fact that politicians are able to keep money raised in unsuccessful campaigns and get taxpayer dollars if they get to a certain level of votes is just ludicrous......there must be a rehash of Campaign Financing Laws.....unfortunately there are too many career politicians taking advantage of the current Campaign Financing Laws that they won't be changed by the same people who are benefiting from them. That is why we need TERM LIMITS ..... these people will not change anything as they are currently taking advantage of those circumstances to profit. It's a vicious circle but something has to change.
In 11/11, all the Republican candidates were asked about the renewal of the payroll tax cut, all replying"Yes", but MB said, "I do not support the renewal of the payroll tax" because Social Security is going broke so rapidly already. Why would we want to push it over the edge even faster?
Giving the demagogic answer of "Yes" to a Republican constituency to this demagogic question was the default position of her Republican rivals, since they are against all tax increases.
But as MB explained elsewhere: 1) It is profoundly irresponsible fiscally to push SS over the edge even faster just for a few more votes; 2) 47% of Americans pay no Federal taxes other than the payroll (SS) tax. Why should we relieve these free riders from the obligation to pay for their own retirements, since future generations of taxpayers will have to pick up the tab even if these free riders did not pay into their own SS accounts? Congresswoman Bachmann is the most principled Constitutional Conservative on the national scene: the little lady with the spine of titanium.
"lady with the spine of titanium"
...and the reasoning ablility of a fruit fly.
Too funny!
Michelle Bachmann is one of the few Republicans brave enough to frequently state outright that she likes the idea of regressive taxation. Most of the rest dance around the issue because while it is standard policy for the party, it is also deeply unpopular with the electorate.
Robert, if she's so against a payroll tax reductions because SS is so broke now (which I don't necessarily disagree with) then why is she for tax cuts when the country is in a deficit? You simply can't cut enough to balance the budget, unless you want to do away with defense.
Drosen,
I agree with the question you asked Robert. Truth is, Bachmann is opportunistic. She really doesn't like Social Security either, but if she can use it against another policy she doesn't like, she will.
Yes, the vast majority of them retirees and the working poor. And, let's not forget that there are other forms of federal tax that we all pay on a daily basis. Income tax, and the payroll tax, are only two of many federal taxes that are collected.
Because they did pay their fair share into the SS system. Is it their fault they weren't born rich, or that congress spent the nation further into debt while cutting taxes?
...because they're the only ones stupid enough to vote for the clueless twat."
Bachman needs more than a prayer to win better drop out gurl, save yourself and others the headaches Learn and study the difference of fact and fiction then try running again in 2016 and really know what real issues are.She ls clueless
If you would check the IRS.GOV website, you could easily determine that is a bold faced lie. Just because Feux Noise, Rush, and the other liars repeat it over and over doesn't make it true.
If Bachman is actually concerned about the future viability of SS then why doesn't she introduce and push for an icrease in the level of earnings subject to SS withholding. It is now max'd at $106,900 per year.
So let's say that for one minute I believe this ridiculous statement. Exactly how much in taxes could the government get from single parent with two kids earning 25K a year? 25K a year is how much a person making $12 dollars a hour, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year makes. Now since most $12 dollar a hour jobs are nonunion their actual work week is 37.5 hours so they actually make 23.5K. Again how much do you think the government can get?
We are going bankrupt rapidly and obama and the democrats are spending more everyday. We cannot even begin to pay down our debt and we are borrowing .50 of every dollar spent now..... our grandkids will never be able to pay this off and if the value of the dollar keeps going down, the Chinese wont want to continue losing money on buying our debt. When the day comes that we not be able to find anyone to borrow from, that is the day America dies, and we are so very close to that right now... think about it.... i have not seen one single sign that anyone is concerned about the uncontrolled spending going on right now. Taxing the rich, you stupid libs, cannot begin to pay for the debt even if you confiscated every dime they have, so dont even go there. You class warfare is getting awful boring, and is simply untrue to begin with. If you people would work and live within your means, you would not have a problem, your the problem and you can just live with it.
Killerteam, you are wrong on several points. For on thing, the US government is borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar, not 50. On another position, Obama and the Democrats didn't necessarily start the spending binge. It was George Bush, and the current deficit results from the recession on top of Bush's deficits. And technically, everyone is concerned with out of control spending; the problem is both sides are too partisan to agree on something. And you cannot just keep cutting spending; that would damage the economy. And there isn't a lot of fat to cut in the budget, unless you want to cut defense and reform entitlements. And even with that, you would need extra savings to cut the debt in an effective manner. The same with tax increases; you shouldn't raise taxes in a recession, and the amount that you can make is limited. So, we must combine the two. Here is a BIPARTISAN plan to fix our debt WHILE helping the economy.
1. Deficit Reduction Package over 12 years:
2. Economic Plan (paid for by a 4% surtax on people who make over $1 million).
3. Reform Government.
I am open to all suggestions and would like some feedback on this plan
Iowa- A real brain-trust state, where, if they couldn't raise corn to make a living, they'd've starved to death generations ago.
"feared God, were capable, and hated dishonest gain." Those are some pretty flimsy qualifications. Personally I look for quite a few more in my President.
However, Bachmann is not capable, so she fails at that one.
And she may hate dishonest gains in others but doesn't quite mind them for herself.
If Bachmann repaid all the subsidies that her farm and her bogus clinic collected from the Federal Government, then she might have some credibility on this issue. She doesn't mind sucking from the government's teat -- she just doesn't want anyone else to.
Butterfly Mage, I am answering your second post about the Christian (God) church not understanding WHY “she” lets the US economy and country, with its people, go into Chaos. ---- That was a good question Mage and required a “higher Consciousness” than the posters here on this forum have. --- But YOU got it and might even understand my paper on this subject. --- I am sending you the URL via e-mail. I just hope you can find it between all the spam. ( I might send it several times, you deserve to get it.)
Although I am a religious person, no where have I read in our Constitution that you have to be religious to compete for office. The fact is, that the writers of our Constitution, though many were GOD fearing men, insisted that religion not be a part of government. How many times are we to be told that we have freedom to believe in any religion, just keep it out of government. GOD's laws and man's laws are two different things and not meant to be a part of governing. Even Christ said, give unto Caesar that which is his and give unto God that which is his.
Gene I must admit you are pretty open minded and give religious people a good name. I would ask you to take it a step further and not just say that we are free to believe in any religion, but also free to NOT believe in religion AT ALL and still be a good person. That to me would be the perfect post.
Just think? If our founding fathers had not won the war, or put in that Religious freedom clause in our national constitution, then those Evangelical Baptist would still be a cult banned by the Church of England...
If Bachmann repaid all the subsidies that her farm and her bogus clinic collected from the Federal Government, then she might have some credibility on this issue. She doesn't mind sucking from the government's teat -- she just doesn't want anyone else to.
=======================
You just described every republican in America.
It's ok to suck at the governments teat when you are republican and jesus condones it.
Being a republican is hard work when you have to lie cheat and steal your way through life and still look in the mirror and know what kind of a person you really are.
Thats why they all hail Satan hidden under a cloak of christianity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~"Bachmann looks like a drunk turkey"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bachmann is bought and paid for by AIPAC, that's why she always beats the drums of war with Iran during the debates, Gingrich and Romney are the same = Neocon trash that love killing people.
Moses is counseled to trust such people. The Bible doesn't call them leaders. Moses was the leader. Is there anything worse than an Evangelical who can't read?
to smb1970; where do you come off saying those hateful and untrue things about Michele Bachmann. I won't answer those scurilous and unfounded statements, but I will simply say "Yeah, Bachmann."
You of course are correct, however let him who is without sin cast the first stone, beyond that if you will read about all the candidates you will find that they all have stolen from the taxpayer, all politicians are lyers and cheats and about the only thing you can do is get rid of all of them and start over with new ones and pray for the best. I support Michele Bachmann.
http://minnesotaindependent.com/90549/bachmanns-nh-team-quits-cites-campaign-dishonesty-rudeness-cruelty...
So, her entire New Hampshire team quits citing "dishonesty" as the reason.. and yet, you know better than they?
I know it is easy to forget since she is so busy looking for a higher paying job, she really isn't doing any of the work of her current job... but Bachmann IS a politician. You know, those people you call "lyers" (liars) and "cheats" that you want to get rid of....
Bachmann fails at recognizing her own ineptitude, decries those profiting off the government while she and her husband do the same, and as for fearing God, the God evangelicals fear is the one made up in their minds as they go along. Their God is the one who looks the other way at their convenience, reaffirms whatever they do whenever they do it as following his guidance, and are resolved with his understanding of whatever they do will be the right thing to do - logic, facts, and history be damned.
Marinmom, I dare say that our founders would have no objection to a non believer as head of our Nation. Their only concern would have been that he or she not interfere with those who do believe. And I assumed that freedom of religion, meant you were free to believe or not to believe, your choice. Our founders concern was that we didn't want a Pope, Mullah, Reverend, or any other religious figure enacting laws that forced religion on our Nation and made religion the rule of law. That is why it is important that we fight for our freedom. Believing in God is what I do by faith. Believing that men with good intentions can imprison us with their religious beliefs is something I fear and will oppose. I am sure many who believe will condemn me for what I believe, but in the end I won't answer to their judgement but the Lord's.
Bachman is the head loon in the bin. If you wish to believe in an all powerful sky zombie so be it, but as presidential material she will go down in flames, kinda like her husband. Flaming, get it?
The thing that no fundamentalist Christian has ever been able to answer to my satisfaction is this: If the God of the Bible is all-good, all-loving, and all-powerful, then how did the Holocaust happen? It seems to me that Bible God sat that one out. He also doesn't seem to answer the prayers of Christian parents when their kids get cancer or leukemia or cystic fibrosis. Their survival rate is the same as kids whose parents are Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, Hindus, or atheists. So where is Bible God? How can Bible God claim to be "good" when he never intervenes to help out us poor slobs here on Earth?
I am not an atheist -- not by a long shot. But clearly the higher power doesn't work like the Bible says he/she/it works. And since that is very provable, we really don't need politicians claiming to work on the behalf of a god-concept that clearly isn't accurate.
ROFL!!! Sweetie, have you ever really read the Bible? How many times did God promise to have the Jews back and they get peeved and abandon them? I can count 6 without thinking very hard. The Jews ruled Canaan for about 700 years and spent nearly half of that in captivity in one place or another. Then Rome got tired of them mixing religion and politics (Jesus was crucified for treason against Rome. He claimed a political title), that they ran their asses out. They went north and started the Kashar Empire, which had become huge by the 10th century. Interesting that we can find no mention of this huge empire controlled by Jews and who terrorized the region for centuries with their mercenaries.
One other point since you mentioned the Holocaust. While there is no doubt that many Jews were killed, if you tally the entire body count, of Jews, in the 6 death camps, you come up with about 2 million. And no one ever feels sorry for the millions of others, Gypsies, Catholics, Gays and many others who died in those camps. Interestingly enough, if you trace the history of the Romany people, you will find that they actually split off from the Kharsar empire when it was forced to flee after neighboring powers had had enough of its crap. The rest of the survivors moved south, back into Palestine and blended with the Palestinians, until they conned the US and Britain to give them the entire area.
@Carlo, regarding the Holocaust, 6 million Jews were slaughtered, and not in just 6 camps. There were many more as well as mass slaughters of villages before the camps were even in existence )look up Babi-Yar). There were also several million others considered by the Nazis to be unworthy of life who were also killed. But there were 6 miilion Jews killed. Get your facts straight.
WTF difference does it mattered how many millions of who were killed? It was a horrible event in history. There millions more killed in WWII. It is the same argument as racism-my side got beat worse so I deserve to get more. Get with it, mooching is not the way of the Universe....
Getting back to Carlo's comments about the Jews, I think he's thinking of the Khazars, who aren't exactly unmentioned:
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Khazars
I don't know where he gets the idea that the Romany were Khazars, but his version of history seems a tad eccentric, to put it politely.
Regarding the Holocaust many besides jews were killed in those camps. Gypsys, mentally challenged persons, communists and basically anybody Hitler and his crew didn't like. To deny the holocaust also denies the death of these people. Remember the things we wish had never happened or they will happen again.
6 million did not die in those camps. I been to Auschwitz in 1997. The story goes that 20,000 bodies were cremated in 12 ovens there on average daily. That is 1,250 per oven per day. Sorry, but I don't think a bunch of guys can carry 1250 bodies throw them in an oven 10 at a time over a 24 hr period. Also the original 6 million figure was created when the incredible figure of 4 million killed at Auschwitz was still called on. The Polish Soviets reduced the number down to one million, but the 6 million total remained unchanged. The International Red Cross reported just over a million(of all camps) deaths, mostly due to typhus and starvation. In the holocaust clips that is why you see those starved out corpses, and nothing else. ANother questioin was asked and answered by other scholars/investigators about the coal that needed to be burned in order to cremate those bodies. In Auschwitz there were NO coal receiving stations of any kind to be found in aerial recon photos conducted by the USAAF or the Royal Airforce, nor seen in the camp today. It should be of note that during and after WWI, Jewish relief agencies received millions of relief money from good hearted Americans over the supposed 6 million Jews that perished during that conflict, which upon real investigation is a rather dubious claim. You might ask, who benefits from this story? The Jews have received tens of billions of dollars from European nations and corporations due to holocaust "guilt". The state of Israel now has acquired 6 German Dauphin class nuclear ballistic subs that can nuke any location on the planet for a fraction of the regular cost. Any nation on the planet that doesn't stay in line with international finance will be blackmailed now, not that the US isn't acting like its assasin now.
lonereb, how is that for a "Loving God" of the christians? --- It's "Noetic-evolution" of mankind, but that too is of God. --- let's see if I can give the URL of my paper on this?
http://www.msmisp.com/logos/foundation-for-evolutionary-spirituality.htm
Butterfly Mage,
Here is the Web-address which will answer "your questions" about the religious injustice in this (manifest) part of the World.
http://www.msmisp.com/logos/foundation-for-evolutionary-spirituality.htm
An other address is http://www.msmisp.com/logos/index-L.htm
Why don't Bachmann and Perry start a new country, a country of God, in Texas? Texas could secede from the Union and all the Tea Partyers could live happily there in a republic of God and Guns.
The rest of us wouldn't miss them. And when the rapture comes, Texas will become a desert landscape of empty clothes blowing away in the hot, dry wind.
Except that I think a large portion of "christians" are going to be in for a very unpleasant surprise when Christ calls them up to explain their actions.
Matthew 25:40:
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Here are some comments to a post by (the “Good-Witch”) Butterfly Mage. She wrote:
"The thing that no fundamentalist Christian has ever been able to answer to my satisfaction is this: If the God of the Bible is all-good, all-loving, and all-powerful, then how did the Holocaust happen? It seems to me that Bible God sat that one out. He also doesn't seem to answer the prayers of Christian parents when their kids get cancer or leukemia or cystic fibrosis. Their survival rate is the same as kids whose parents are Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, but now , Hindus, or atheists. So where is Bible God? How can Bible God claim to be "good" when he never intervenes to help out us poor slobs here on Earth?
----------I am not an atheist -- not by a long shot. But clearly the higher power doesn't work like the Bible says he/she/it works. And since that is very provable, we really don't need politicians claiming to work on the behalf of a god-concept that clearly isn't accurate. --- #4.1 - Sat Dec 24, 2011 6:28 PM EST
In my paper on “Evolutionary Spirituality”:
http://www.msmisp.com/logos/foundation-for-evolutionary-spirituality.htm
I am explaining that our morals and ethics as well as the compulsion to help others in need are also an objective of this evolution. As Gibran said:” We are the way AND the wayfarer”. And Shakespeare should have added to his line “All the World is a stage and we are just the players” the appendix “AND the Playwrights.” It was the author Liz Greene who audaciously claimed: “Nothing comes into a man’s life that is not a reflection of something within him self”; but is that statement always true? --- NO --- E.g.: Hundreds of thousands of innocent young Jewish children were brutally murdered in German Concentration camps. What could possibly have been “within young children to reflect a massacre?” --- It was GENESIS of a Culture by a culture, the ugliest form of nature’s or God’s bloody Evolution. I keep hearing Jesus’ question: Eli Eli Lama Sabachani? (My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me? A question asked again and again by Millions of “good people”. And may rightly so, because there is solid evidence that events in our “manifest” realm are predictable month and even years ahead. (Only the rules of “chaos theory” might limit future predictions.) In another post I told the story of my “psychic friend” being told to urge a customer NOT to go to work at the New York Trade-center at 9-11. And concerning the fate of sick children, who “Butterfly Mage” mentioned in her post, --- I myself used to have some of the healing abilities of Jesus or the Bodhisattvas of India. Yes, that too can be done from this “Unmanifest side” of our Universe, but apparently helping is considered interference with the success of Free Evolution. --- What an irony, here they are, God’s helpers, standing by with depraved indifference and watching the events on Earth. --- How do our Laws and judicial system look at this behavior? Concerning this case, I only know the reaction of the German legal-system. (I studied a few semesters there.) E.G. if a person is drowning and another person, who is well known as “expert swimmer”, is watching that without helping. The legal system would find him guilty of homicide by gross negligence.(Don’t know the legal term for this, maybe “Stelvertretendes Comodum” (in German)
-------- I personally was ‘born” with a “compulsion” to help, (much to my regret). E. g. I saved dozens of “grown-ups” at age 9 from being killed in a massive air attack in 1944 Germany. In winter 1945 I saved a boy from drowning in a frozen lake. In 1950 I saved dozens of children during a school outing. ---- I was finally able to give it up, but now, because of my strong critic of the behavior of these “helpers” in the heavens, I have become a “Persona Nongrata”.
Carlo and Robert: Are you two waiting for sieg heils??
Your fantasy versions of recent history would be laughable but you seem to actually believe your own drivel. No one outside your lunatic fringe does.
Why do these right wing Tea Party folk look positively delusional. There supporters also have delusional disorder as well. Some of them actually think that one of these unqualified people could become president of the US. There is no chance until the Republican Party can bring to the table someone who is a competent, qualified, intelligent conservative. The GOP must take the party back from the fringe lunatic gang.
Hi William-360414
I am feeding several “partly wild” animals at my house. There are several deer, a dozen raccoons, some possums and a "skunk" and all of them are Republicans! - How do I know that? --- It’s very simple, I have tried to teach them some English over the years, but they have learned only one single word à NO!
The answer is simple: they are delusional. Whatever is in that tea they're drinking, it has turned them all into brainless, witless idiots. Scary that there are so many of them.
We dismiss them at our peril.
The Tea Party took the Congress over and followed Mitch McConnels mission statement."Obstruct legislation and make O'barma a one time president."
Scary,but it looks like it will happen as Americans have short memories.The dems are too diverse and can't fight like GOP.
http://news.in.msn.com/international/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5694944
We dems are just fine so, worry not. :-) Obama will be re-elected easily... especially since the GOP fighting machine is so busy fighting each other. A protracted primary season, which is highly likely, is what will put Obama over the top. The pubs have no time to scurry back to the middle for the general election because they have had to go so far to the right to capture their base.
When Obama does win, you can thank the likes of Bachmann... she stayed in this race despite the fact that she has absolutely NO chance of gaining the nomination, like Santorum, Perry, and Huntsman. And most of the republican base would rather eat glass than vote for Paul. The uber-right would rather dance naked at the Olive Garden than vote for Gingrich. It will be Romney.. it was always going to be Romney. And he is milk-toast and easily defeatable. Ron will probably try an independent run and split the vote... and if Trump does the same (blech), there will be a further split as Trump energizes the truly stupid, reality TV addicts into finally registering to vote for the first time in their adult lives. (My ex is such a person.)
In conclusion... worry not. We got this. :-)
Although almost all of the GOP candidates are not qualified for the presidency, what's worse is the qualifications of the electorate that is supporting them. Entrenched in their philosophy, or lack thereof, is this notion that anyone is better than Obama, that the prez has to go, anyone else will do better. They have been brainwashed and duped by the GOP party that this is in their best interests. Hopefully, enough of them will see the light before it is too late and not give their support to the least of these candidates of whom Bachmann takes the cake. Otherwise, we all need to start praying.
She's looking for a home: Quick, someone open a sewer cover so she can get there.
Someone please tell MB that the amount of your SS check is arrived at by how much you have paid in when you were working. What a numnut!! I wonder if you an pray away the stupid and lying?? LOL
Let it roll, Michele, down the highway...
Last time these people found God's candidate they gave us George W. Bush, whose administration was a tragedy on so many levels the damage is still to be fully appreciated. And now they want to give us Michelle Bachman?
I've heard most of these candidates claim to have been told by God they should be President, which at the very least means that all but one and probably all of them are lying through their teeth.
Anyway, after the last Republican administration, if these people had any sense they'd never go near a voting booth again.
Mathew we don't have a "Democracy" in the US anymore! Read this part of a post from Michael Marowitz:
The message of OWS ought not to be lost because many of its participants are young, leaderless, filthy or clean. They share one thing in common—they’re unemployed or underemployed, as are many Americans. The message is simple: America is politically corrupt. Corporations now dictate public policy. Both Republican and Democratic politicians are now bought and sold to act in the best interests of their contributors, and not in the best interests of the public. Our representative democracy has been reduced to a corporate oligarchy.
Moreover, the Republican Party, acting in lock-step unison, has become the main instrument by which wealthy people compel a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the upper classes through tax policy and other means. That transfer of wealth can be easily seen by anyone who isn’t overwhelmed by Teapublican dogma. For example, worker wages, when inflation is taken into account, are about what they were in 1978, a staggering reflection of stagnant wages since Reagan’s time. This clearly reflects how, over the last 30 years, businesses have succeeded in defeating labor unions as effective advocates for workers. By comparison, “[t]he top 1% of income earners saw their after-tax income shoot up a whopping 275% between 1979 and 2007, and in the process more than doubled their share of all income, jumping from 8% to 17%, according to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office.” http://www.newser.com/story/131888/income-of-top-1-shot-up-275-since-1979-cbo.html. It is now the case that the top 20% of annual income earners in the United States control 85% of all annual income. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html. The remaining 80% fight over the remaining 15% of the income—the left-over scraps
The message of OWS ought not to be lost because many of its participants are young, leaderless, filthy or clean. They share one thing in common—they’re unemployed or underemployed, as are many Americans. The message is simple: America is politically corrupt. Corporations now dictate public policy. Both Republican and Democratic politicians are now bought and sold to act in the best interests of their contributors, and not in the best interests of the public. Our representative democracy has been reduced to a corporate oligarchy.
Moreover, the Republican Party, acting in lock-step unison, has become the main instrument by which wealthy people compel a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the upper classes through tax policy and other means. That transfer of wealth can be easily seen by anyone who isn’t overwhelmed by Teapublican dogma. For example, worker wages, when inflation is taken into account, are about what they were in 1978, a staggering reflection of stagnant wages since Reagan’s time. This clearly reflects how, over the last 30 years, businesses have succeeded in defeating labor unions as effective advocates for workers. By comparison, “[t]he top 1% of income earners saw their after-tax income shoot up a whopping 275% between 1979 and 2007, and in the process more than doubled their share of all income, jumping from 8% to 17%, according to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office.” http://www.newser.com/story/131888/income-of-top-1-shot-up-275-since-1979-cbo.html. It is now the case that the top 20% of annual income earners in the United States control 85% of all annual income. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html. The remaining 80% fight over the remaining 15% of the income—the left-over scraps
Well said.
also...distribution of wealth, thankyou.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
She's crazy. They're crazy. The appeal should work.
The last "born-again Christian" President was Jimmy Carter, and they abandoned him for an actor!
Isn't it wonderful how those with minimal brain power stick together??
when will these whack jobs realize there is no god. and the founding fathers wanted god out of government for a very good reason. religion is a childish notion that has no place in democracy, something they understood.
The God issue is a faith and opinion one ... therefore I don't argue it. However, the Constitution is clear that government and religion don't mix.
Merry Christmas & God bless you TP.
Actually the founding fathers' were descendent from people who ran from religious persecution. Yes, persecution from other religious mainstream believers. It had got so bad that the theocratic governments were burning people at the stake, cutting their heads off, and taking away their lands leaving their survivors destitute.
That's why the founding fathers wanted nothing to do with religion in government.
Let's not go back to the bad old days.
I've learned two things in my life there is a God and he doesn't run for office in the US or anywhere else. Merry Christmas to all. May next year be better than the last for all of us. Live everyday as if it was the end of the world and you won't have to panic everytime somebody claims the world is ending.
its always so impressive when you people use your little jesus comments and blessings as a backhanded insult to someone else. but, theres no doubt youre another angry, hypocrite christian!
sorry, but there isnt one shred of proof to support that comment. so...if you learned that, then you were brainwashed.
cheers!
Actually, the proof is inside us. How can science fully describe the human emotions: love, hate, sadness, grief, joy, and hope??? And how can science explain THE CAUSE of the Big Bang, or evolution, or the creation of life on Earth??
I'm not a Christian fundamentalist, I'm just a secular Christian who mixes science and belief to justify the existence of God. If your look scientifically, there is no creating action to the development of our universe, nor a catalyst to the Big Bang, nor one for the creation of matter and life. And the probability of the Universe being created by chance is practically slim to nothing. And who created the actual system of orbit, or gravity? And who created the matter that was so compressed in our Universe??? If you look spiritually, you find the traits and emotions that cannot be explained by science. Why are humans the only form of complex intelligent life on Earth that can think and feel emotions??? Why do we feel emotions like love, hate, joy, and grief??? The only answer is God, at least for now. Maybe in a few decades or a few centuries mankind may discover the answer for all of these things, and it is my belief that it will be God. But that is my opinion, not necessarily fact. I won't try to convert you, DMorgan, I just want to show you that there is at least some sort of proof that there MIGHT be a supernatural being out there. Happy Holidays.
I believe in God. No doubts. I'm not so crazy about organized religion though. Too much conflict and desire to force others to believe as they do. God is SO above all that. Yes, Jesus told us to spread the word but He likely didn't think we would torture and burn people to death in that endeavor.
Emotions are not particular to humans. Animals are also capable of emotions. Who can deny that a wiggly butt dog is experiencing complete Joy when his person comes home? The only things animals can't experience are an understanding of the future and a sense of eternal doom.- they live in the moment. They don't think for a moment that God will punish them for tormenting His squirrels... or stealing the holiday ham off the buffet. And He doesn't. Our burden is that we can imagine the future and our own demise and an animal can't.
The founding fathers where familiar with the horrors that religion had inflicted in Europe and did not want to see them repeated in there nice new country. I recommend that all liberal arm themselves for protection from gods followers.
MSNBC, your prejudice is showing. You give the bigoted impression that Evangelical Christians are inferior and not a legitimate political group. But you admire the "Occupy" protest organizations. It's estimated that there are up to 90 million people in America who call themselves Evangelicals. They are hard working, patriotic citizens who tend to be conservative. The kind of people that MSNBC can't stomach. Michele Bachmann is smart to try and court them.
Belief that the system is rigged is perfectly rational. Belief in a magical superbeing is ludicrous nonsense and childish, wishful thilnking
I don't have a problem with anyone believing in a higher power. My problem is that people believe in BOOKS about a higher power. Seriously, folks, the Bible has so many holes in it that it resembles Swiss cheese. I haven't read the Koran, but I imagine it's likewise flawed.
Here's a thought: How about we NOT have candidates who want to base the laws of a 21st century representative republic on the edicts of a badly-translated guidebook for a Bronze Age murder cult?
dougjmiller, your wrong on several accounts. First of all, Christianity is a RELIGION, not a political party. If you don't like the Constitution, move your ass to Iran and see how you like living in a theocracy. The Occupy protestors are made up of every religious and social group and are protesting income income inequality and to be honest, MSNBC did not cover the protests nearly as much or as fast as they should have. Despite being three blocks away they missed for nearly two months the violent tactics used by the NYPD.
Abortion, marriage rights, stem cells, are all issues which should be decided by national elections. If you put any of those issues on the ballot you will find them being voted for because most Americans want them. Take a look at the polls my friend. It is only radical fundamentalists (and yes, they are not "evangelicals", they are the same fundamentalists who were and still are blowing up clinics), who protest these issues. That is the problem with them. They cannot STAND to see someone else doing something that they personally don't like. If you people want to practice that Bronze Age idiocy, keep it in your freaking Churches. If the Churches want to get involved in politics, the FIRST step is to start PAYING TAXES!!!!!
And Butterfly Mage? Very well said. Kudos!!!
Except in questions involving science, I figure theists and atheists have about the same chance of being right. There is a "God", there is no "God". No way to tell which is right. Every single one of us is just guessing. If you can't truthfully say, "Its just my opinion, and I could well be wrong, but it seems to me that...(and tell your opinion)", then it seems to me there is no reason that anyone should value your opinion (whatever your opinion happens to be). After all, if you don't even realize that you are just guessing, how could your opinion count for anything?
If you think that your opinion is more than a guess, please inform us all how you know that the supernatual exists, or doesn't exist. What exactly is your evidence? BTW, telling us what someone else says, or believes is not evidence. Nor, is logic, actually. Nor is attacking someone elses opinion (after all, we just said that we're all just guessing). So, can we all talk like intelligent people here? Who are guessing about things that none of us will ever know, for sure? And, stop questioning each others intelligence, motivations, or characters?
Just because the other guy guesses differently than you, doesn't make him bad (shoot, it doesn't even make him wrong, you could be wrong, you both could be). If you can't tell yourself that you are just guessing, who are you really fooling?
Butterfly Mage,
Here's a thought: How about we NOT have candidates who want to base the laws of a 21st century representative republic on the edicts of a badly-translated guidebook for a Bronze Age murder cult?
The bible is as you've stated, is a guidebook, a guidebook to live by. Not something to kill by or govern to. It is still applicable today. If more people would try to live by its doctrine, or that of the Koran ( not a single one of them teach to kill, cheat, steal, lie, etc). the world could be a beautiful place.
I tried to live by the church only to find the people who smile and shake your hand on Sunday are the same ones who stab you in the back on Monday, but man is weak in the ways of god and we easily forget his message.
I like to believe that I'm not judgmental of my fellow man but sometimes even I can't hold my tongue.
I will strongly agree that using religion to gain political popularity should be illegal and frowned upon.
I simply do not care what they're religious views are I want to know how they will make my country great again. I'm ashamed and embarrassed for what she's become and I want her fixed, yesterday would have been perfect.
Why is it that every one who has an opinion only voices their complaints here?
How are "we" as a Nation going to fix this problem? Apparently it's up to us.
Why is it that corporate America can have special favors (corporate welfare = limit their take home pay) and the working man suffers with B.S. fees for any and everything they can come up with.
My brothers in arms who served so valiantly are cremated and thrown into a dump! Hardly a word is spoken. As President I would have personally overseen the courts martial for everyone involved!
The thieves of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae walk out with millions while America goes broke and family's become homeless?
To think it would be my gun sight the enemy would have to cross in order to get to them?
Makes you want to check fire doesn't it?
Why is it that there were so few of us who foresaw the 9/11 attacks coming? I was a mere foot soldier and witnessed them openly probe for intell in their shops and roadside markets in 1984 while serving in W. Germany! Reporting suspicion fell on deaf ears. Then in '91 when Bush Sr decides to "spearhead" the invasion of Desert storm I was furious because I knew he had sealed our fate.
Are any of these candidates wise enough to speak on these issues openly as well as for the future for our country?
I don't require that they point fingers, simply state the truths of these matters and then convince me that they can provide a stable and secure future.
Civil rights should NEVER be put up for a vote. That is a fundamental tenet of a Constitutional Republic.
I agree with everything else you said, though.
dougie boy- 90 million really - im glad you said up to because that number is way off - are you kidding their numbers are dwindling every day - and most of the wackos are some midwestern states and the south- and they gave us george bush and the tea party - if jesus is behind them , jesus is not all he is cracked up to be or......................... does not exist
A family member of mine is quite a religious woman, she went on a cruse (including crew 5000 people on the boat) On Sundays there was a mass at which maybe fifty people showed up. About the same percentage as most places as far as I can see. So I think the good guys are winning.
If you think that religion influences morality in a good way try staying in Memphis for a few weeks. Right on the buckle of the bible belt it has a church on every block, a hooker on every corner and every other kind of low life you could possibly think off. Boston, even New York are awesome in comparison.
Well, why not try to get support for the MYTH that you're an electable force to be reckoned with amongst those who believe other myths, too?
Michele Bachmann, the bat$h1t candidate for the bat$h1t people.
Evangelicals, the most gullible people in the world. They believe some made-up tale about a ill-humoured Sky Wizard because some guy in a pretty suit with a big, pretty building, a pretty wife, and a pretty luxury car tells them so. Fools.
Religion is all about scaring the fear of God into young children in order to control them for the rest of their lives. Religion is child abuse, plain and simple. We need to recognize what it is and put an end to the 2000 year Roman and Greek superstitions that it is. It is an immense dishonor to Jesus (actually Joshua in English) of Nazereth. His teaching were the very antithesis of what Christiantiy is! He did not teach hatred, bigotry, greed, and intolerance.
@GCV- couldn't have said it any better!
Butterfly Mage,
Even the pope has now excepted the scientific "Big Bang" theory as valid. With that he also acknowledged the existence of "Dualism" and again see my paper on the cause of Evolution.
And here is a post by Nichael Marowitz which could serve as a Manifest for the OWS demonstrators.
The message of OWS ought not to be lost because many of its participants are young, leaderless, filthy or clean. They share one thing in common—they’re unemployed or underemployed, as are many Americans. The message is simple: America is politically corrupt. Corporations now dictate public policy. Both Republican and Democratic politicians are now bought and sold to act in the best interests of their contributors, and not in the best interests of the public. Our representative democracy has been reduced to a corporate oligarchy.
Moreover, the Republican Party, acting in lock-step unison, has become the main instrument by which wealthy people compel a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the upper classes through tax policy and other means. That transfer of wealth can be easily seen by anyone who isn’t overwhelmed by Teapublican dogma. For example, worker wages, when inflation is taken into account, are about what they were in 1978, a staggering reflection of stagnant wages since Reagan’s time. This clearly reflects how, over the last 30 years, businesses have succeeded in defeating labor unions as effective advocates for workers. By comparison, “[t]he top 1% of income earners saw their after-tax income shoot up a whopping 275% between 1979 and 2007, and in the process more than doubled their share of all income, jumping from 8% to 17%, according to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office.” http://www.newser.com/story/131888/income-of-top-1-shot-up-275-since-1979-cbo.html. It is now the case that the top 20% of annual income earners in the United States control 85% of all annual income. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html. The remaining 80% fight over the remaining 15% of the income—the left-over scraps .
As a practical matter, workers’ pay has been stagnant ever since Republican hero Reagan started selling Milton Friedman’s economic snake oil, which has variously been called “austere capitalism,” “laissez faire capitalism” or “neoliberalism.” Supposedly in order to take full advantage of the blessings of capitalism, Friedman and his colleagues at the Chicago School of Economics prescribed “trickle down, supply-side economics,” deregulation of business, and eliminating government jobs by privatizing governmental functions (think Blackwater providing security for generals in the Green Zone, McDonald’s feeding our Iraq soldiers, private enterprises running prisons—a great way for Republicans to reward big campaign contributors, further corrupting democracy). When Reagan said, “Government isn’t the solution to people’s problems, it is the problem,” he was preaching Friedman’s gospel. Every Washington economic adviser since 1990 (among whom are Volker, Greenspan, Bernanke, Rubin, Summers, Paulson, Geithner) has been a Friedman acolyte. Friedman’s theories make up today’s orthodoxy in economic departments of universities, subscribing to them is a requirement for obtaining loans from IMF or the World Bank, and Geithner, one of those who helped install Friedman-inspired policies that led to the great financial collapse of 2007-08, is now the architect trying to undo their calamitous effects. We’ve been living for 30 years subject to a radical economic tyrant. To those who would dismiss this as “nonsense,” bear in mind that implementation of Friedman’s ideas has led to the enrichment of the wealthy and the impoverishment of the middle class in Pinochet’s Chile, post-Glasnost Russia, and Lech Walesa’s Poland.
While Teapublicans dwell on tax reductions, bloated government, welfare queens, 2nd Amendment rights, Obama as socialist, Obamacare as socialistic, bringing prayer into our schools, and maintaining bigotry against homosexuals, all because they have a tendency to believe in sheer fictions and and to be frightened easily by fairy tales articulated by angry, hubristic and often dull-witted rhetoricians (Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck), OWS has triggered a slumbering giant—those who have been screwed by a rigged political system that operates for the benefit of the wealthy at the expense of ordinary working people. They know that the “job creators” who enjoyed the fruits of higher worker productivity during the 90s and 2000s and got a massive tax cuts under Bush, have gladly accepted their tax cuts, bailouts and trillions in profits earned during Obama’s Presidency and are either sitting on those trillions of dollars or are shipping jobs to newly established factories, call-service centers (don’t they all seem to have an Indian accent?), and businesses in other countries with starving workers who aren’t represented by unions and will accept way-below minimum wages, thereby generating even greater profits for their corporate masters.
All Teapublicans who denounced Kevin for his naivete or alleged lack of education are nothing less than indoctrinated, ill-educated lemmings who prefer to believe corporate drivel. They like being corporate serfs, at least until the full impact of the ongoing income transfer is complete—when America will be a Third World country. After government has been dismantled (yes, Uncle Miltie, you won!) and federal income taxes are lowered (even though they are as low as they’ve been in 50 years), when they won’t have high taxes and bloated government to whine about, they won’t like rolling blackouts more than once per day, or the fact that there aren’t enough cops to catch criminals, not enough district attorneys to prosecute offenders, that interstate calamities/catastrophes won’t be addressed yet alone fixed (Katrina’s destruction of New Orleans will be the model of efficiency), potholes will never be fixed, that pollution will go completely unabated, public parks will close (already happening in California), potable water will be much more expensive, etc. The only benefit to Teapublicans will be that illegal immigration will stop—for undocumented aliens, the only reason to come is for the jobs, which will no longer exist).
In other words, OWS stopped believing in right-wing propaganda and are demanding economic equity and an end to political corruption. Their message will survive their end because it’s the main fight over the future of the United States.
#285.17 - Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:22 PM EST
Harry, wow. Great post. I have to say there are some outstanding posts on here tonight.
..."In other words, OWS stopped believing in right-wing propaganda and are demanding economic equity and an end to political corruption."....
I look forward to the message continuing in the summer of 2012, and support the above message OWS is trying to convey.
Those OWS citizens ought to get a national petition going to put on the 2012 ballot - term limits for Congress. The only thing is - kids - wear bullet proof jackets, if you mess with the Congress' career political aspirations. They'll have their minions gunning for your leaders.
Excellent post. One thing we're all forgetting though, remember how the earthquake and hurricane was god's punishment? I strongly believe that her loosing her voice is god's punishment to her for including him in her rhetoric.
Well said and worth repeating. It really is past the time for the BuyBull and the other Death Cults.
DMorgan and Butterfly Mage (the good witch)
Here is my address again for the paper on your "relegious" questions
Please read it "Butterfly Mage", you are likely the only one here who can understand it.
http://www.msmisp.com/logos/foundation-for-evolutionary-spirituality.htm
wwe need a Christian takeover of government through the ballot box. Now.
Now, what could you mean by that?
Considering that over 75% of the US population are self identified as "Christian" wouldn't that mean we have already "taken over the government"?
Or do you have a more repressive thought in mind?
Danny: Uh... you do realize that about 95% of the members of the House and Senate are some form of Christian, right? The last time I checked, there were a handful of Jews, one Buddhist, one Muslim, and one Hindu. Everyone else in the House and Senate are Christian. What more do you want?!
My guess is that your idea of a "Christian" takeover would actually mean a revocation of the 1st Amendment for anyone who isn't Christian. Your "Christian" takeover is probably a code word for "Jail or kill all the gays. Jail or kill all the abortion doctors. Jail or kill any woman who has an abortion (even if she is pregnant due to rape)." Am I right in my assumption?
Considering the facts stated here and the job they are doing the opposite would be a better idea!
Nothing is EVER improved by adding more religion. Seriously, Danny. Name *one* thing that functions better with the addition of religion.
Shopping in Christmas??????
How Christian of you Danny -- you DO realize that part of Christianity is supposed to be acceptance of those other than yourself? Shame on you. And I bet you call yourself a "Patriot." Why is it that the self-proclaimed Christians seem to behave the least Christian of anyone.
Danny
This is December. Your April Fools joke is too early!
Danny, isn't that how the Taliban and Alqueda (can't spell terrorist very well) feel about their countries too?
Butterfly Mage, you ask:
"Nothing is EVER improved by adding more religion. Seriously, Danny. Name *one* thing that functions better with the addition of religion."
-- How about Exorcism? --- LOL
Why, Danny? you itchin' to get out there and start killing Atheists and Liberals?
As has been pointed out, the majority of both houses are Christians. Or is it that they are the "WRONG" kind of Christians? By christian, you mean the Rushdoony Tali-born-again Dominionists, the ones who will bring back stoning, don't you?
What, you think you're going to be allowed to have everyone who laughed at you in High School stoned to death?
Even with all the RINOs and DINOs running around, the CINOs still outnumber them all. And they're the ones who would vote for someone like Bachmann.
i wish that would happen but it wont... too many athiest democrats around
"Carroll, who has supported Bachmann since the summer ... His presence, the campaign says, sends a signal to Iowan social conservatives."
Maybe the message was that he has gas.
Ahhh Michele - the craziest of the crazies - no doubt a favorite of some of the inbred right wingers who come here to cry. You gotta love a nut case who's married to a gay guy who's business is - wait for it - making gay guys straight AND the cream on top - taking government money to do it. You have to be a special kind of person to be THAT big a hypocrite but MB manages to pull it off. Good for you Michelle - I HOPE you get the nomination but I don't somehow think the rest of the Dem party would ever HOPE to be that lucky!
@StopTheTeaParty: You made a great argument NOT to even think of voting for this turd and for that reason, I'm sending you and your entire family to Disneyland. Tab paid for by the GOP!!! Have fun, lol.
Actually, if you think about it, Michele isn't necessarily the craziest of the crazies. I think that every GOP candidate (except Jon Huntsman, but unfortunately even he has been tacking to the right) is equally insane and unqualified to be president, and that includes Mittens Romney and Ron Paul. Our current President may not be great, but he is a thousand times better than all of these GOP candidates combined. I'd proudly vote for him; he is the ONLY one who has been willing to sacrifice his liberal base for the good of the nation (i.e. summer debt deal).
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
As usual, Bachmann is proving why she will never be president. If you're running for office, you need to have a broad-based appeal. All she appeals to are the fringe theofascist far right.
Citing Leviticus and how much you hate gays is NOT a substitute for having a grasp of economic policy, the Constitution, or anything else a president needs to know.
Compared to a $3-bill, BELCHmann makes one worth $10.00....
That woman is laughable by any standard of common sense.
It doesn't matter what your religious flavor is, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. If you are a fundamentalist that believes your religion should also be the government, then you are not about democracy. Forcing others to go along with BELIEFS, not truths, is no different than any dictatorship. We all see how wonderful things are in the religion controlled countries. And it isn't just because they are Muslims. The Catholics and Christians showed over the centuries how evil and nasty they can be. Ask the natives of North and South America how nice the Christians were to them when they stole their land and pushed them onto reservations. Ask the Africans that were brought to the US against their will about how nice their Christian owners were to them. Ask the Africans in South Africa how nice the white Christians were with them. Ask the real Americans of the bible belt how nice they were to those of dark skin after the civil war until they were forced into complying with the US Constitution. Look at the Red states and you can pretty much still see the civil war boundries. Hasn't changed a lot.
That's the kind of crap that can happen when you get a religious fundamentalist in power. Any zealot is dangerous and Perry, Bachmann and the like are zealots.
Dave, you don't know (any more that Michelle Bachman does) what the "TRUTH" is. You have one set of "beliefs", she has another. You are both just guessing. The irony is, your post could be from her (just by changing a couple of terms). You both have the same arrogant self assurance that not only do you have the ace of trump up your sleeve, but God put it there. You are free to believe what you like, but you are in fact, just guessing. Just as she is.
Dave, you (and the others of your ilk in this blog) are Michelle Bachman's twin! You both believe you are right, and you question other people's characters, based on your guess about the world.
It is impossible to prove something doesn't exist. Anyone can simply claim it just hasn't been found/seen/discovered yet. The burden of proof belongs on anyone claiming something DOES exist simply because if that something is real, there should be supporting evidence. Lack of said evidence isn't proof of nonexistence however it certainly very strongly suggests that something does not exist. Especially in the case of religion/god, belief in which has been around for thousands of years without real, measurable evidence.
Common Sense Ed, --- you are at the Atheistic stage of consciousness, ironically that is one step higher than all the believers of conventional religions. Only the next higher stage will give you a sense of Spirituality again. That's where I am:
"It's not that I am an Atheist, but rather that I am a member of God's loyal opposition!" See this web-page:
http://www.msmisp.com/logos/index-L.htm
Dave ..... it's refreshing how many honest and good Atheists here are on this forum. --- You are all one level higher in (God)consciousness than these Conventional religious peasants. Read my Web-page:
http://www.msmisp.com/logos/index-L.htm
The best news here is that she has lost her voice.
“Do you know that the qualifications for public office are found in the Bible?” asked Danny Carroll, a former state representative, during a visit to a restaurant in Albia on Thursday.
Carroll was citing a passage in Exodus in which Moses is counseled to trust those who "feared God, were capable, and hated dishonest gain."
Rubbish, Bachmann has gotten rich committing medicare fraud with that dandy she calls a husband.
I heard something really great today. My parents are staunch Republicans. They're thinking of sitting the next election out. Yay!!!! We need whatever is left of that crazy party to feel the same way. It's time to say goodbye to the GOP.
There is hope after all.
Thank your parents for me.
Me too. My parents both used to be republicans and are now both Democrats (or so they say).
Yea!
Please vote for me so that we can become the Christian version of the Taliban. We'll show all the other thousands of religions out there that ours is the right one. I have faith we can convince everybody of that.
Pretty much.
It does crack me up how all the Chri$tian Teabag$ are chomping at the bit to impose fundamentali$t Chri$tian theocracy upon America under the banner of "saving" us from the specter of fundamentali$t I$lamic theocracy. When you read the rhetoric (hatred of gays, diminution of women's rights, rejection of science, avocation of violence, etc) I, as a Wiccan, don't see a huge difference between the Christians and Muslims.
EFFORT & BUTTERFLY: Amen to that. (pun intended) These crazies are truly frightening. Can you imagine our country with a nutcase like Bachmann running it?
How dumb can you be when you're married to a man who runs a clinic that "prays the gay away" when he himself is obviously queen. You can't make this stuff up. She would give comics enough material to last a decade. Truly incredible. Guess it's time we had a fresh round of witch trials in this country.
What's your source? You realize, don't you, that homosexuality is forbidden by X-tians (?)
“Do you know that the qualifications for public office are found in the Bible?” asked Danny Carroll, a former state representative, during a visit to a restaurant in Albia on Thursday.
Carroll was citing a passage in Exodus in which Moses is counseled to trust those who "feared God, were capable, and hated dishonest gain."
Now, simple question. Where in the US Constitution does it say a freaking word about fearing God as a qualification for office? In fact, the Constitution says exactly the opposite. Its says "there shall be NO religious test for public office". It doesn't day a word about hating dishonest gain or being capable either. If it said being any of that George W. Bush would never have qualified. The man was investigated by the SEC three times for insider trading and ran every business he touched into the ground. Bush hating dishonest gain and being capable? I hardly think so. A capable Commander in Chief does not sit frozen for 7 minutes after being told the nation is under attack.
Bachmann, Perry, Huckabee, and Santorum all want to create a theocracy with big business as the new Pope and Wall Street as the new Vatican.
And here I thought that the teabaggers worshipped every word in the Consittution. Well, except for that section acknowledging the existence of slavery.....which they choose not to mention.
Teabaggers believe that they are the embodiment of the Constitution. As in the case of the Bush Administration approving torture. All republicans and hence all Teabaggers agreed with Bush. To them, the Constitution can be tossed aside if the mood hits them, after all, they are the "Real Americans".
It is the same with prayer in the public schools. Virtually all republicans support this. Another instance of ignoring the Constitution.
And that brings to mind the dishonesty of Antonin Scalia who doesn't believe that torture is covered by the Eighth Amendment.
So you see, Teabaggers and republicans treat the Constitution the same way they treat their religion. They talk about the things they believe, but the things that they do in their everyday lives are in direct opposition to the things they say. It's called hypocrisy, and it is the stock and trade of conservatives.
John,
You make the mistake of believing that Tea-baggers are republicans. They are not. Tea-baggers are extreme right-wing fanatics who have taken the republican party from real republicans. They are coporate shills, mouth-pieces created for and supported by corporate america, and if they continue to be allowed to do what they are doing, the republican party will ultimately fail, just as the Whigs did.
Cannot disagree with you about @!$%#-head Scalia and his hypocracy, though.
It would be nice to have the real GOP back within shouting distance to the middle. The US populace, overall, is a smidgen to the right. Democrats are to the left... but not as far as republicans are to the right. So, it all boils down to who is closer to where the public is sitting. As long as the GOP stays that far to the right, we will have a center left rule.
Carlo, your Pope and Wall Street comment actually covers the entirity of Republicandom, not just those you mentioned.
What I'm seeing is a group trying to de-evolve the United States.
The reason our founding fathers decided that religion was supposed to stay seperate from politics is because in their history they had had to deal with the Catholic church trying to dictate the affairs of state. At that point in time, the politicians were the clerics and if you did not believe in the dogma of their church, your whole estate could wind up in the churches coffers, and you could be tortured, put to death, etc. Do any of you remember the history of the Inquisition?!
As not one person on this planet can prove, with hard evidence, the existence of a heaven or a hell or even of a God, it is reasonable that the laws governing a country should be based solely on facts, since not everyone sees God the same way. That's why they're called beliefs. Since it cannot be proven one way or the other, our founding fathers wanted to build a nation that allowed every individual the opportunity to have their own belief, and no one religious dogma could force everybody to live by their rules. Look at middle east countries and sharia law if you have any doubt of the wisdom of their choice.
It is also entirely against the constitution for religious leaders to be speaking about politics from the pulpit, just as it is unconstitutional for the government to get involved with religious teachings, and every time these groups band together to force the whole country to live and function according to their dogmatic standards, they are violating my (and your) constitutional rights and freedom of choice. If that's the way they want to believe, that's fine, but leave me to choose how I want to believe in God. It is, quite frankly, none of your damned business, just as it is none of mine how anybody else chooses to see God. That's what our founding fathers wanted for this country.
As far as I'm concerned, a person's belief in, and relationship with, the divine should be more private than their sex life! I don't care who sleeps with whom (consenting adults, that is), and I don't care how, or even if, a politician believes; as long as they grant me that same freedom of choice, and don't try to force me to live the way their religion dictates. So, for all the evangelicals et al, I have two words: Prove it. With hard science and indisputable facts, and if you can't then shut up and keep it to yourself, thank you very much.
VERY WELL SAID.... I would add personally, that animals sacrifice or inflicting violence of any type, physical abuse or bodily harm, should not be tolerated as religious practice, especially if the victims can't defend themselves, as our animal brethern can't.
www.all-creatures.org
I imagine you would be hard pressed to get Michelle Bachmann to agree to your statement. She would likely give you one of those tangential answers of hers that really doesn't answer the question, or anything at all for that matter.
That said, the fact that she is conducting almost all of her campaigning in Iowa suggests that she doesn't think she is going to be able to pull off a victory elsewhere. Iowa's relevance to the whole selection process has waned over the last several decades, where the winner in Iowa is now less than 50% likely to capture the nomination. Well, at least she will end her campaign with like minded folk.
Actually most of the early colonists came to America to get out from under the control of the Anglican Church headed by the King of England. They definitely didn't want religion and governemnt together.
As I said Mike, "in their history..." which included breaking away from Catholicism to form the Anglican church so King Henry could divorce to marry Ann Boleyn. I was not trying to confuse points of history.
The point I was trying to make was that the founding fathers knew that church control of the state (any state) was not appropriate and therefor weren't about to let it happen in the new country they were building.