The Gingrich Who Stole Palestine

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 7.0/7 (3 votes cast)

Gingrich Stole
“We have invented the Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs…..” Newt Gingrich on The Jewish Channel (Cable TV), December 12, 2011

“The Palestinian people does not exist,…only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of the Palestinian people.” Zahir Muhsein, Member of the PLO Executive Committee, 1977

The former House Speaker apparently agrees with Mr. Muhsein that Arabs living in the former Palestine Mandate territory do not constitute a separate people, but are merely a segment of the Arab people in one geographical area. He also agrees that the term “Palestinians” was invented to create an Arab state in place of the Jewish State of Israel.

The basic historical facts are not in dispute. The first time “Palestini” occurs in world literature is in the work of the Greek historian Herodotus, who wrote in the 5th century BCE. The land which is now Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Gaza was named “Syria Palestina” by Roman Emperor Hadrian about 165 CE after he crushed the Bar Kochba Revolt in Judaea. The Arab newspaper Filasteen referred to its readers as “Palestinians” around 1911, and the first Syrian-Palestinian Congress met in 1921. Residents of the Palestine Mandate (both Jewish and Arab) were referred to as Palestinians in Article 7 of the League of Nations Mandate. (Wikipedia)

The British severed the eastern part of Palestine in 1922 to form the Kingdom of Transjordan, now Jordan. In November 1947, the UN voted to partition western Palestine into a Jewish state (Israel) and an Arab state. During the ensuing war the West Bank of the Jordan River was seized by Jordan, and Gaza by Egypt, so Palestine disappeared from the maps of the world altogether. But Arabs continued to refer to all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean as Palestine, and several terrorist organizations were formed to “liberate Palestine” from the Zionists (Jews). In the course of the 1967 Six Day War Israel conquered both Gaza and the West Bank, bringing nearly 4 million Arabs under Israeli rule. Israel offered to withdraw from these territories in exchange for peace and recognition, but until 1977 no Arab nation agreed. The peace treaty with Egypt made that year left the Palestine question open to subsequent negotiation.

The Arab League had 19 years (1948 to 1967) to establish a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, but did not do so. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), formed by Yassir Arafat in 1964, explicitly denied any designs on the lands held by Egypt and Jordan; the goal was to replace Israel with an Arab state. In 1993 Arafat and PLO agreed to recognize Israel and accept Gaza and the West Bank as the “new Palestine,” but he made it clear to his fellow Arab leaders (but not to Israel or the US) that this was merely a first step toward the ultimate goal of one Arab state in the entire land. Israel assisted in setting up the Palestine Authority (PA) in Gaza and the West Bank, and offered in 2000 to establish a State of Palestine there. Arafat rejected this offer, and his successor Mahmoud Abbas rejected a similar offer in 2008. Meanwhile Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza, which was quickly taken over by the fanatical Islamist Hamas regime, which rejects any peace with Israel.

By building a fence around Gaza and the West Bank, Israel has essentially severed both lands from “Israel proper,” even though several hundred thousand Jews live in the West Bank among over two million Arabs, who call themselves “Palestinians” (even if Gingrich won’t). The US Government, under both Presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama, have sought to establish an Arab state in the two territories, much as the UN proposed back in 1947. Israel also supports the concept, but with several security caveats. Yet Israel and the PA are very far apart on issues such the future of Jerusalem, the West Bank settlements and possible rights of Palestinian Arabs to settle in Israel.

I contend that the PA dares not accept any deal to which Israel could possibly agree, so no State of Palestine will be established in the foreseeable future. Obama foolishly promised the Palestinians a state of their own in 2009, and now he cannot deliver one. Meanwhile, his carping crticism of Israel over expanding the settlements has alienated Jewish voters, who supported him overwhelmingly in 2008.

Although Newt Gingrich has repudiated the position of Republican President George W Bush, his rejection of Palestinian nationhood is politcally smart. This stance will appeal to both Jews and evangelical Christians, and the latter are important in Republican primaries and caucuses, especially in the early states of Iowa and South Carolina. If Gingrich is nominated, he will pull crucial Jewish votes away from Obama in New York and Florida.

In the unlikely event that Newt Gingrich becomes President,. at some point he will have to explain to the Palestinians and their allies in the Arab world why he does not believe they exist.

Gerald S Glazer
_____________________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 7.0/7 (3 votes cast)

Democracy: Path to Peace?

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Democracy Path To Peace
Philosopher Immanuel Kant once wrote that the majority of people would never go to war, except in self-defense. If so, an increase in democracy should lead to a more peaceful world. President Woodrow Wilson made this principle a key goal in World War I.

The history of the past century would appear to confirm this view. The nations that provoked the great wars of that century were either empires (Austria-Hungary, Wilhelmine Germany and Japan) or fascist dictatorships (Nazi Germany and Italy). Moreover, since World War II the dictatorial regimes that started the War were replaced by democracies, and all have kept the peace. Russia today, although not fully democratic, does not pose the threat to Europe that its Communist predecessor did. Similarly, the new democracy in Iraq is no threat to peace, in sharp contrast to the tyrannical regime of Sadam Hussein.

A drive to replace dictatorship with democracy has swept the Middle East in 2011; but will that mean a more peaceful region in the future?

Egypt, the largest and most powerful Arab state, has been under military rule since the overthrow of King Farouk in 1952 by Col. Gamal Abdul Nasser. Nasser embarked upon an aggressive policy: seizing the Suez canal in 1956, sending troops to Yemen in the early 1960′s, and deliberately provoking two wars with Israel (1956 and 1967), both of which Egypt lost. After his death in 1970, his successor, Anwar Sadat, launched another war against Israel in 1973, but made a peace treaty with the Jewish state in 1977, for which he was assassinated in 1981. The assassins were aligned with the miitant Muslim Brotherhood, which had been ruthlessly suppressed by both Nasser and Sadat.

Hosni Mubarak, who succeeded the slain Sadat, maintained Sadat’s policies of peace with Israel and suppression of the Islamists. But the overthrow of Mubarak earlier this year has given the Brotherhood and allied Islamic parties the opportunity to run for seats in the parliament, and perhaps the presidency. The first round of parliamentary elections last week was won by these parties.

If Kant and Wilson were right, the majority of Egyptians will opt for peace, so democracy in Egypt will be good for Israel and other nations in the region. But polls have shown that most Egyptians hate Israel with a passion, and only the repressive rule of the military has maintained the peace. It is significant that since Mubarak was forced out, the military junta now in power has opened the border with Gaza in response to popular sympathy with the Palestinians. In Egyptian politics, hostility to Israel is a major theme, like anti-communism was in the US in the early 1950′s.

In the western democracies the role of religion in setting national policies has declined over the past century, but in the Middle East the power of militant Islam is rising. At first it was the overthrow of the Shah of Iran by the ayatollahs in 1979, then the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, now the victories by militant Muslim parties in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt. Unlike Christianity, which espouses “Peace on Earth”, the branch of Islam embraced by Al Qaida, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood extols jihad (holy war) against the infidels (non-Muslims). That is why the conclusions of Christians like Kant and Wilson do not apply to Muslim countries: democracy may well empower jihadists, who will use the powers of government to provoke wars.

The best hope for peace in the Middle East is that the Arab masses will recognize that peace is in their interest, and they will curb the jihadists among them.

Gerald S Glazer

————————————————————————————-
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Gingrich: The Ultimate Partisan

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Newt Gingrich image
“Everybody on this stage would make a better Commander-in-Chief than Barack Obama!” Newt Gingrich at Republican candidate forum, Nov. 12, 2011

The former Speaker of the House of Representatives, apparently Mr. November in the GOP presidential sweepstakes, has been faulted for accepting about $1.6 million in consulting fees from the failed government-backed mortgage investor Freddie Mac. (1) But it is common for big time politicians to cash in on their savvy and connections after leaving public office, so that is not scandalous. (I would have taken the money myself, had it been offered, and I am pure as the driven snow.) Apparently, Newt has no problem with profligate spending by quasi-public entities such as Freddie Mac, as long as the money is spent on him.

As a contender for the Republican presidential nomination, he would be expected to guarantee his support for the 2012 GOP ticket. (2) But the statement quoted above goes way beyond that: he declared that every other Republican candidate (including those who have no chance of winning the nomination) is preferable to President Barack Obama, which implies that partisanship trumps all other considerations in evaluating candidates.

All the Republican candidates are for a smaller federal government and lower taxes. But aside from that Republican orthodoxy, some differ from each other as much as they differ from President Obama. For example, Jon Hunstman represented Obama’s China policies in Beijing with no problem for nearly three years, while Mitt Romney advocates punishing China for its predatory currency and trade practices. Since Gingrich considers both preferable to Obama, how to deal with China is no big deal to him.

Newt Gingrich considers himself a friend of Israel, and supported aid to Israel while in Congress, yet would rather have Rep. Ron Paul in charge of US Middle East policy than Barack Obama. Obama has been justly criticized for his opposition to Israeli settlements in Jerusalem, but the President has supported over $3 billion in aid to the Jewish state every year of his presidency and gave Israel the $200 million “Iron Dome” missile defense system. In sharp contrast, Rep. Paul has consistently voted against all foreign aid (of which Israel is the largest recipient) and cast one of only 5 votes in the entire House of Representatives (3) against supporting Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. Paul has long been rightly labeled one of the most anti-Israel members of the House, which Gingrich certainly knows, yet he would still prefer him over Obama! Apparently Gingrich’s love for Israel is overwhelmed by his love for the Republican Party.

Herman Cain’s 9% sales tax? No problem! Rick Perry’s desire to abolish the Department of Energy (which includes the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the watchdog over possible radioactive contamination) plus other agencies to named later? No problem! Michelle Bachmann’s hope to eliminate all federal taxes, so the government would have to close down permanently (not just a few days)? No problem! They are all Republicans, so they would all be better than Obama!

Newt Gingrich has a checkered past, including two (out of three, so far) failed marriages, shutting down the US government in 1995, impeachment of President Clinton, a $300,000 fine for an ethics violation while Speaker and his resignation from Congress (4). He has wisely refrained from lambasting his fellow Republican presidential candidates, which will help him pick up the support of those who fall by the wayside. But if he is nominated, his obsessive partisanship and cantankerous personality will probably sink the GOP ticket.

Gerald S Glazer

———————————————————————————-

(1) “Gingrich defends Freddie Mac pay” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Nov. 17, 2011, page 7A. “Freddie Mac” is a popular nickname for FHLMC, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, which was taken over by the US Government in 2008 to prevent collapse.

(2) After Eugene McCarthy refused to promise to support the 1968 Democratic presidential ticket, he never won another election.

(3)The others were Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, Nick Rahall and our own Gwen Moore.

(4) Wikipedia biography.

———————————————————————–

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VioSoftware.com

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

What Tree is This?

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 7.0/7 (1 vote cast)

Scott Walker Christmas Tree
Is the 30-foot tall evergreen tree in the Wisconsin Capitol Rotunda really a Christmas Tree? Since 1985 trees like it have been officially referred to as “holiday trees”, a euphemism designed to obfuscate the obvious Christian symbolism of the tree. But now Gov. Scott Walker has accurately labeled the “tannenbaum” as a Christmas tree; Annie Laurie Gaylor, president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, castigated Walker’s choice of words as “…. a slight and snub to non-Christians.” (1) Is she right?

The earliest documented use of the Christmas tree was in Estonia in 1441. The custom spread to northern Germany over the next hundred years and to England about 1800. (Wikipedia) Since no other religion widely practiced in the United States uses a decorated tree to celebrate a winter holiday, such a tree is clearly a symbol of Christmas and no other holiday. Jews and other non-Christians are not fooled by the ambiguous “holiday tree” designation.

But then, is it legal to display a Christmas tree on government property? In 1988 the city-county building in Pittsburgh displayed a 45-foot high Christmas tree alongside an 18-foot high Lubavitch Chanukah Menorah. The display was challenged in court as an endorsement of religion by local government. On July 3, 1989, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that since the display included symbols of two different religions, the county was not endorsing any one religion, and therefore the display did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. (2) Since about 1980 a similar Menorah has also been displayed in the Wisconsin State Capitol, and a sign by the Freedom from Religion Foundation denouncing all religions as “superstitions” has also been permitted. So Wisconsin’s display would be on safe constitutional ground. I would personally prefer no religious symbols on government property at all, but will settle for the multi-faith (and no faith) display.

While I believe that Scott Walker intended to bond with fellow Christians (the vast majority of Wisconsin voters) by denoting the tree as a Christmas tree, I doubt that it was ever intended as “slight” or “snub” to non-Christians, as Gaylor claimed. Walker has never shown such a tendency, and there is no political incentive to do so now.

Devout Christians believe in the “Second Coming” of Jesus. If J C were to return this year and celebrate his 2,011th birthday by touring the Wisconsin State Capitol, the Christmas tree would mean nothing to him. He would recognize the cross, not as a symbol of faith, but as a symbol of Roman persecution and cruelty. The only religious symbol he would recognize in the Capitol would be the Lubavitch Chanukah Menorah, and he would not call it a “Winter Candelabra.”

Gerald S Glazer

———————————————————————–

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Nov. 8, 2011, page 2B.

(2) County of Allegheny vs ACLU, 492 US 573 (1989)

———————————————————————–

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 7.0/7 (1 vote cast)

Mitt vs Medicare

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 6.0/7 (1 vote cast)

Mitt Romney Image1
Last Friday Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor whose health insurance plan was the model for the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“Obamacare”), introduced his alternative to Medicare: a voucher system proposed by US Rep. Paul Ryan (R, WI). (Republicans love vouchers!) He also favors repealing Obamacare. (1)

Under Romney’s plan, current Medicare enrollees could choose between Fee for Service (FFS) Medicare and the new vouchers, with which they could buy health insurance. FFS would be phased out as future enrollees would be offered only the vouchers. The proposal is intended to reduce federal spending on Medicare.

But a study comparing FFS Medicare with Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which are administered by private insurance companies, showed that for the same coverage MA cost 13% more than FFS in 2009 and nearly 9% more in 2010. This is because MA spends an average of only 83% of its revenue on payments to providers (hospitals, doctors and pharmacies) compared to 94% for Medicare. While Medicare spends 6% of its budget on administrative costs, MA spends 10% on administration and marketing and retains another 7% for corporate profit. (2)

This means that the government would have pay at least 9% more for the vouchers to secure the same coverage now offered by FFS Medicare. But Romney wants to reduce the federal outlay for medical coverage for the elderly, so coverage offered by the Ryan-Romney vouchers would be much less than Medicare today!

With the repeal of the Obamacare rules, insurance companies would be free to deny coverage to seniors with pre-existing conditions. The policies would have many exclusions, limitations (“caps”) and high deductibles. Moreover, the companies could maximize profits by rejecting as many claims as legally possible.

Those seniors who could not afford the premiums and co-pays or who exhausted their limitations of coverage would either seek help from Medicaid (if that still existed) or from family members. Some sick people would go without care. But those who are appalled at the prospect of government bureaucrats or “death panels” “pulling the plug” on terminally ill patients seem to accept the idea of health insurance claim managers doing the same thing with equanimity.

The net effect of the Ryan-Romney plan would be to shift the financial risk of serious illness in old age from the US Government to the patient. If you are on Medicare, or even hope to live long enough to qualify for it, this means YOU. Even if Romney wins the 2012 presidential election, his Medicare replacement plan will face determined opposition from the AARP, the most powerful lobby in Washington (per Forbes Magazine).

Gerald S Glazer

————————————————————–

(1) Associated Press, November 5, 2011.

(2) Paul Krugman in the NY Times, July 6, 2009
————————————————————–
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 6.0/7 (1 vote cast)

The Cain Scrutiny

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

herman-cain2
Herman Cain, who has risen to the top of GOP presidential contenders with his popular “Soak the Poor” proposal for a 9% federal sales tax, has now been accused by three unidentified women ( hereinafter noted as A,B and C) of sexual harrassment while Cain was head of the National Restaurant Association in the late 1990′s.

Last Sunday Politico.com revealed that A and B had filed complaints against the candidate, which were settled by 5-figure cash payments by the Association. (The NY Times reported Nov. 2 that Ms A had been paid $35,000 (1)) Although both women had signed confidentiality agreements as part of the settlements, at least one of them is now seeking to be released from it. It is a sure bet that tabloids and reporters will offer big pay-offs for both of their stories.

Now Ms C has come forward, also anonymously, and claimed that Cain harrassed her too, but she did not file a complaint. C said that Cain “made sexually suggestive remarks or gestures” to her and invited to her to his apartment. (2)

At first Cain denied any recollection of the complaints and how they were settled, but later admitted that he remembered that he was totally innocent, and that “agreements” (not “settlements”) were made with the complaining women. (If his memory is really so bad that he cannot recall events like this in his own life only about 15 years ago, he certainly should not become president!)

Columnist Cal Thomas, writing in the tradition of the late Attorney Johnny Cochran, claimed that “This story..has a noxious odor of racism about it. (3)” Baloney! A candidate for president must assume that the media will examine his life with a microscope (if not a proctoscope). White Democrats such as John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Anthony Weiner got this treatment, and Herman Cain should not have expected anything else. Either Cain is innocent and three women have lied about him, or he lied when he denied the allegations.

This is not over. Before too long, A, B and C will be identified and interviewed. (Considering the small number of female employees of the Restaurant Association during the years Cain led the group, and the cash incentives that will be offered, none of them will be anonymous for long.) Once they speak publicly, Cain will be dogged by this story for the rest of his campaign, which I do not expect to culminate in victory in the Electoral College.

Bill Clinton was impeached (though not convicted) because of the Paula Jones sexual harrassment suit, and John Edwards faces a federal trial for his effort to cover-up his marital infidelity. Some will echo Justice Clarence Thomas and label the probes into the Cain cases as another “high tech lynching.” I just call it “Hermaneutics.”

Gerald S Glazer

——————————————————————————————————-

(1) “An all-too-familiar scandal” by Maureen Dowd in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Nov. 3, 2011, page 11A.

(2) Associated Press, same day.

(3) “Herman Cain held to different standards” by Cal Thomas, same page as (1).

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Perry’s Pernicious Plan

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

perrywinkle
Texas Governor Rick Perry, one of the three top contenders for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination (1), has proposed both a huge cut in federal income tax revenues and a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. (2) Taken together, Perry’s plan would require massive cuts to federal spending, which would further his goal of shrinking the US Government to insignificant size.

Since he plans to keep Social Security benefits at current levels for those already receiving them (and those who will get them soon), all of the cuts would have to come from other programs. Perry also proposes allowing younger workers to divert some of their FICA taxes to private accounts and gradually increasing the age of eligibility for Social Security benefits, so that the program would shrink in the future.

Governor Perry suggests increasing the personal exemption to $12,500 and eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits, inheritances, dividends and capital gains. He would then impose a flat tax of 20% on the remainder of income (mainly salaries). Taxpayers would have the option of paying their taxes on the basis of the current rates, but only the poorest would have any incentive to do so. He did not estimate how much federal revenue would decline if his proposals were enacted, but I think about 20% would be a fair guess.

Right now the US government collects about $2 trillion in taxes: 42% from Social Security tax, 40% from individual income tax, 9% from corporate tax and the balance from excise and other taxes. The federal budget is about $3.5 trillion: 23% for Medicare and Medicaid, 20% each for Defense and Social Security, 6% for interest, and the balance for all other government costs (Treasury, Homeland Security, etc.). (3) The deficit of about $1.5 trillion is borrowed, primarily through Treasury bonds.

In order to balance the budget all federal spending must be cut by 43%. But to do so without cutting Social Security payments (as Perry proposes), and without defaulting on interest payments, all other spending would have to be cut a whopping 58.6%. But suppose that under Perry’s tax-cut plan revenue were to drop by twenty percent; to balance the budget then Congress would have to cut all spending except for Social Security and interest by 75%! No matter how these cuts were distributed, the United States would become a poor and weak nation. Millions of federal employees would be laid-off, plus millions more who work on government contracts and in nursing homes that depemd upon Medicare and Medicaid.

Of course, people whose taxes were reduced would have more money to spend on other things. But much of this wealth would be invested in real estate, gold and imported goods, so don’t count on it to create many more jobs in America. I contend that the Perry plan would lead to economic catastrophe within the first year of its full implementation.

Of course we all want to “trim the fat” from the federal budget and eliminate fraud and waste. But the inconvenient truth is that to maintain the quality of life to which most Americans have become accustomed and to maintain America’s role as the world’s only remaining superpower, the federal government must spend about $3.5 trillion per year. But to do so by borrowing 40% of our budget every year is not sustainable for long, so at some point we will have to raise taxes, not cut them.

But speaking this truth does not win elections, especially Republican primaries. Tax cuts are “clap-trap”, tax increases are ballot-box poison. (4) So Gov. Perry is saying what he must to win the Republican nomination, which is a real possibility. But before we all go and vote for him, take a hard look at where he would take us.

Gerald S Glazer

————————————————————————————

(1) Along with Mitt Romney and Herman Cain, according to a recent GOP poll. Moreover, Perry is expected to lead a united Texas delegation to the GOP convention, no doubt bolstered by many delegates from other southern and western states.

(2) Associated Press, October 26, 2011.

(3) Wikipedia. (FY 2010)

(4) Just ask Walter Mondale.
___________________________________________________________________

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Targeting Terrorists

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Anwar Al-Awlaki image
“How can you sanction killing an American without so much as a hearing?” Jonah Goldberg (1)

The assassination of Al Qaida propagandist Anwar Al-Awlaki on September 30 by a drone missile in Yemen has spurred this anguished question.

Nearly twenty years after the US tried to kill Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12333 which included the rule that “No person employed by…the United States Government shall engage in …..assassination.” (Wikipedia)

But in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Congress passed a law that stated that the President “is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against …persons he determines ….committed…the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2011…..” This law, which is tantamount to a declaration of war on Al Qaida, overrode President Reagan’s order, and so authorized the murder of Osama bin Laden in May of this year.

But bin Laden was not an American, and Al-Awlaki was. Does that matter? I contend that in war everyone in the enemy camp is an enemy, and thus a target, regardless of birth and citizenship. Had Al-Awlaki been located in the United States, the proper procedure would have been to arrest and try him for treason. Had he been located in a friendly and stable country such as Germany, France or Britain, the US should have requested the authorities in that country to arrest and extradite him.

The relevant fact was that Al-Awlaki was in Yemen, a failed state, literally in the camp of Al Qaida, so extradition was not possible. Although the Government of Yemen is nominally allied with the United States, it does not actually control all of its territory and a revolution is going on there. By defecting to al Qaida and joining its camp, this man had effectively renounced the rights he would have held as an American citizen.

Is there then any effective limit on the power of the President of the United States to kill anyone, anywhere in the world, by merely asserting that the victim was an enemy combatant or traitor? Roman emperors could kill anybody with impunity. Stalin could kill Trotsky, even in Mexico. Do we want our presidents to have this power?

The only effective restraint on the President is the power of impeachment by Congress, something the Caesars and Soviet dictators did not have to worry about. Rep. Ron Paul (R, Texas) thinks that Obama deserves impeachment for killing Al-Awlaki, but I say that most Americans believe that he did the right thing. If a future president kills an innocent person, he will be held accountable by the people, represented in Congress. President Nixon was forced to resign for less, and President Clinton was impeached (though not convicted) for much less.

Gerald S Glazer

———————————————————————-

(1) “The president’s terrorist dilemma” in the Milwaukee Journal Perspectives, October 5, 2011, page 15A.

____________________________

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not be verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Palin Makes Right Decision Not To Run

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 7.0/7 (1 vote cast)

Sarah Palin Photo
Sarah Palin’s announcement not to run for President in 2012 was noble.

Consider her qualifications.

Like Obama, she isn’t qualified to be the President of the most powerful nation on this planet. Having served as mayor of a small town and then briefly as Governor of Alaska, she lacks Federal legislative and executive experience in the brutal Washington political environment.

Moreover, she may not fully understand the enormous power struggles that go on in the Federal level and the difficult compromises that must be garnered, especially those that go against her principles.

Actually, Palin is more valuable to this country as a “cheerleader” for the Tea Party. She has a talent for motivating the base.

Finally, as a writer and an advocate at paid public appearances, she’s in a better place financially.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 7.0/7 (1 vote cast)

‘Dark Days Are Upon Us’….Really?

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 7.0/7 (1 vote cast)

Dark days ahead

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.” …Abraham Lincoln

Wouldn’t it be nice if one of these mornings we could wake up to no ‘bad’ news? Where a morning cup of coffee would buoy your spirits and fire you up to a brand new day full of prospect and good fortune?

But a sinking economy, recession, appeasement of those that would harm our country, a foreign policy that dilutes our supremacy on the world stage coupled with the now daily reports of the Obama administration’s corrupt dealings, would seem to sap our resolve in believing that Obama has killed American ‘exceptionalism’ and hope for a brighter future.

With all of that said, and some not said, I believe the American spirit, key to our survival of individual rights, freedom of choice and traditions, will triumph in the end despite the sad sack policies of a President whose every action seems intent on diluting and eventually killing that American spirit. Abraham Lincoln’s quote would seem to encourage us in that resolve, to rise up and take matters into our own hands. However, the intent was metaphorical.

We are slowly rising up especially with the advent of the Tea Party which has tweaked the American conscience to action. The key to success will be for us to be as unrelenting in our message in opposition to the Obama lemmings who seem to have no clue that their path, if successful, will lead to the eventual destruction of our country. Time to get up, get out and throw Obama and his pantywaist followers out of Washington in 2012.

But the battle will be only half won if the corrupting forces of the K St lobbyists and lawyers are allowed to continue do to everything possible to keep their ‘status quo,’ at the expense of the American people. Our mission then is to make sure whoever replaces the Alinskyite zombie now in the White House, is not allowed to continue in that vain. Just my opinion.

William McCullough

____________________________

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns.  Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not be verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 7.0/7 (1 vote cast)