RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | America's Israel Print
Saturday, 01 March 2014 11:24

Bronner writes: "American foreign policy has undergone a qualitative change since Barack Obama took over the presidency from George W. Bush. It's not all rosy."

Bronner: 'Obama's administration has not provided Israel with a blank check, and it has not offered the type of uncritical support once given by neo-conservative  policy planners in the Bush administration.' (photo: Bettmann/CORBIS)
Bronner: 'Obama's administration has not provided Israel with a blank check, and it has not offered the type of uncritical support once given by neo-conservative policy planners in the Bush administration.' (photo: Bettmann/CORBIS)


America's Israel

By Stephen Eric Bronner, Reader Supported News

01 March 14

 

merican foreign policy has undergone a qualitative change since Barack Obama took over the presidency from George W. Bush. It's not all rosy. Hundreds of drone strikes costing thousands of lives have taken place in Libya and Pakistan. Guantanamo is still open. Skeletal forces remain in Afghanistan and Iraq - and (as of 2011) more than one thousand American bases dot the planet. Without discounting the waste of resources and lives, however, there is a bigger picture. Pre-emptive strikes are no longer the first option, the defense budget has been cut, military action in Syria has been avoided, Iran has not been bombed and (for the first time in nearly thirty years) negotiations with its government are underway. There is less talk about an axis of evil and a war on terror - almost all of this to the chagrin of the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The government's policy of expanding settlements and its stalling of the peace process have been openly criticized by President Obama, who is detested by Israeli hardliners. Obama's administration has not provided Israel with a blank check, and it has not offered the type of uncritical support once given by neo-conservative policy planners in the Bush administration. A "framework" for peace is now on the table that focuses on the West Bank in endorsing a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Many will claim that this is all too little and too late. UN condemnations of Israel are still vetoed by the United States, $60 million in support for UNESCO was withdrawn in 2011 when Palestine was admitted to the organization, and the Obama administration remains unwilling to officially recognize Palestine as a state in its current form. Hamas is still considered a terrorist organization, its effective exclusion from the current peace process bodes ill, and -- above all—American military support for Israel in the event of an armed conflict is a forgone conclusion. That is unlikely to change. According to the Defense News (Gannett), published in August 2013, Congress has provided Israel with $3.175 billion in military aid in grants and loans per year until 2017. The money is considered well spent. With roots in cold war thinking, when Israel appeared as a bulwark against the seemingly radical Arab States and (supposedly communist) movements of national liberation in the Middle East, the belief still exists among most mainstream politicians in the United States, conservative and liberal, that unquestioning support for Israel is fundamental to the national interest.

Why? Complex feelings mixing compassion and guilt, constantly reinforced by the American media, linger about the Holocaust. That this terrible event is continually manipulated by Israeli media politicians is ignored, and few Americans have any idea about the trauma (nakba) experienced by the more than 700,000 Arabs expelled from their land during the war of 1947-1948 that produced the state of Israel. Zionist myths still persist that Israel is based on "a land without a people for a people without a land." Some also still believe in the ideological stereotypes that emanated from films like Exodus or characters like Tevye the Milkman. There is real fear of the impending pogrom supposedly being plotted by Arab barbarians at the gate. But Israel has now existed as a colonial power for twice as long as the tiny state that first appeared in 1948. It is a leading military power with a sophisticated army and an estimated stockpile of 300-400 nuclear weapons. The Israeli economy is not labor intensive and it is robust. Yet Israel is by far the greatest recipient of American foreign (military) aid, double the amount given Egypt, the second greatest recipient. Many justify this by insisting that Israel is the only democratic state in the Middle East - or better, the only non-Arabic and non-Islamic state in the region. But this is a questionable claim. Israeli democracy bears marked similarities to that of South Africa under apartheid - or even the American South prior to the Civil Rights Movement. Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is considered grossly inhumane by most of the world, That is particularly the case with the "open air prison" of Gaza where ironically, at the behest of the West, democratic elections were held in 2006, resulting in a resounding victory for Hamas.

American interests have been undermined geopolitically, economically, and morally by the country's seemingly unflinching support of Israeli policies. Closer relations with the main oil-producing nations has been rendered more difficult and American influence has obviously declined in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and the Arab "street." American identification with Israeli interests has also proven (at best) a moral embarrassment in the eyes of world. The reaction has mixed arrogance with defensiveness. Aggressive Zionist organizations in the United States like Campus Watch have attempted to squash debate and intervened in academic matters including tenure at various universities. Criticism of Israeli foreign policy has purposefully and demagogically been conflated with anti-Semitism. Just as distressing, Prime Minister Netanyahu has ostentatiously attempted to interfere with American foreign policy formation, especially on Iran, which he calls an "existential threat" in his frequent (and consistently unctuous) addresses to Congress. For good measure, the celebratory wielding of political influence by lobbies for Israel like AIPAC has made genuinely anti-Semitic believers in a world Jewish conspiracy jump for joy.

Is all this really in the American national interest? It may not matter. Former speaker of the House Tip O'Neill liked to say that in America "all politics is local politics." More is involved here than the oft-noted indifference to foreign affairs by the voting public (except, of course, when the United States is directly affected). The American political system is one in which political parties are weak and organized interests are strong. It is federal in nature and it is built on single-member districts in which the winner takes all. This means that each candidate is on his own. Money by itself is not the issue. Politically motivated Jews are organized, they mostly support Israeli policies, and they have a host of lobbying organizations. They vote, and their vote is particularly important in cities in large states with many electoral votes in presidential campaigns such as California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York. Most of these states have any number of powerful liberal representatives, like Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) or Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) or Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ). But it would be more precise to say that they are liberal on virtually every issue but those that concern Israel. And that only makes sense. Arabs do not vote, and they lack strong lobbying organizations. There is no conspiracy at work: it is simply that, even were Jewish lobbies not to give a cent in donations, obvious political incentives exist for American politicians to support Israeli rather than Palestinian interests.

Local concerns trump the national interest in Congress and, if only for this reason, President Obama has been careful in pursuing his agenda in the Middle East. His office lifts his outlook beyond the local, but that is true only to a certain point. Other domestic and foreign policy issues exist for which he needs Congressional support, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict makes log-rolling and deal making on these other issues more difficult. President Obama can count on neither mainstream Democrats nor Republicans in developing a more radical policy for the Middle East (or for pressuring Israel through cuts in foreign aid) and he certainly cannot count on the Islamophobic far right that includes many Christian fundamentalists and members of the Tea Party. The only real hope for something more progressive is if his administration were pressured by the general public or a genuine social movement. More thoughtful liberal politicians might then change their views. Sympathy for Palestine has slowly been growing among the American public due to the publicity and work of organizations like US Campaign Against the Occupation, Code Pink, and supporters of Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS). But the critics remain in the minority. That is why expanding public debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is so important; why demonstrations are necessary; why attacking the bigoted stereotypes and prevalent political myths is crucial; why disseminating information is not just an academic enterprise; and why - above all - it needs to be made clear that the American national interest will be served only when Israel is judged on its actions and treated as one state among others.

Stephen Eric Bronner is Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University, Director of Global Relations at its Center for Genocide and Human Rights, and the 2011 recipient of the MEPeace Award given by the Middle East Network for Peace based in Jerusalem.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
How the Rich Became Dependent on Government Subsidies Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=14516"><span class="small">David Sirota, Salon</span></a>   
Friday, 28 February 2014 14:32

Sirota writes: "Remember when President Obama was lambasted for saying 'you didn't build that'? Turns out he was right, at least when it comes to lots of stuff built by the world's wealthiest corporations."

Billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. (photo: unknown)
Billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. (photo: unknown)


How the Rich Became Dependent on Government Subsidies

By David Sirota, Salon

28 February 14

 

A new report reveals America's largest companies aren't the models of self-sufficiency their CEOs seem to think

emember when President Obama was lambasted for saying "you didn't build that"? Turns out he was right, at least when it comes to lots of stuff built by the world's wealthiest corporations. That's the takeaway from this week's new study of 25,000 major taxpayer subsidy deals over the last two decades.

Titled "Subsidizing the Corporate One Percent," the report from the taxpayer watchdog group Good Jobs First shows that the world's largest companies aren't models of self-sufficiency and unbridled capitalism. To the contrary, they're propped up by billions of dollars in welfare payments from state and local governments.

Such subsidies might be a bit more defensible if they were being doled out in a way that promoted upstart entrepreneurialism. But as the study also shows, a full "three-quarters of all the economic development dollars awarded and disclosed by state and local governments have gone to just 965 large corporations" - not to the small businesses and start-ups that politicians so often pretend to care about.

In dollar figures, that's a whopping $110 billion going to big companies. Fortune 500 firms alone receive more than 16,000 subsidies at a total cost of $63 billion.

These kinds of handouts, of course, are the definition of government intervention in the market. Nonetheless, those who receive the subsidies are still portrayed as free-market paragons.

Consider Charles and David Koch. Their company, Koch Industries, has relied on $88 million worth of government handouts. Yet, as the major financiers of the anti-government right, the Kochs are still billed as libertarian free-market activists.

Similarly, behold the big tech firms. They are often portrayed as self-made success stories. Yet, as Good Jobs First shows, they are among the biggest recipients of the subsidies.

Intel leads the tech pack with 58 subsidies worth $3.8 billion. Next up is IBM, which has received more than $1 billion in subsidies. Most of that is from New York – a state proudly promoting its corporate handouts in a new ad campaign.

Then there's Google's $632 million and Yahoo's $260 million - both sets of subsidies primarily from data center deals. And not to be forgotten is 38 Studios, the now bankrupt software firm that received $75 million in Rhode Island taxpayer cash. The company received the handout at the very moment Rhode Island was pleading "poverty" to justify cuts to public workers' retirement benefits.

Along with propping up companies that are supposedly free-market icons, the subsidies are also flowing to financial firms that have become synonymous with never-ending bailouts. Indeed, companies like Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup – each of which was given massive taxpayer subsidies during the financial crisis - are the recipients of tens of millions of dollars in additional subsidies.

All of these handouts, of course, would be derided if they were going to poor people. But because they are going to extremely wealthy politically connected conglomerates, they are typically promoted with cheery euphemisms like "incentives" or "economic development." Those euphemisms persist even though many subsidies do not end up actually creating jobs.

In light of that, the Good Jobs First report is a reality check on all the political rhetoric about dependency. Most of that rhetoric is punitively aimed at the poor. That's because, unlike the huge corporations receiving all those subsidies, the poor don't have armies of lobbyists and truckloads of campaign contributions that make sure programs like food stamps are shrouded in the anodyne argot of "incentives" and "development."

But as the report proves, if we are going to have an honest conversation about dependency and free markets, then the billions of dollars flowing to politically connected companies need to be part of the discussion.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Mayor Chokwe Lumumba: A Life of Struggle, A Legacy of Progress Print
Friday, 28 February 2014 14:25

Goodman writes: "The world lost a visionary activist this week, with the death of Chokwe Lumumba, the newly elected mayor of Jackson, Miss."

Chokwe Lumumba. (photo: Lumumba for Mayor)
Chokwe Lumumba. (photo: Lumumba for Mayor)


Mayor Chokwe Lumumba: A Life of Struggle, A Legacy of Progress

By Amy Goodman, TruthDig

28 February 14

 

he world lost a visionary activist this week, with the death of Chokwe Lumumba, the newly elected mayor of Jackson, Miss. Lumumba died unexpectedly at the age of 66 of an apparent heart attack. Last June, he won the mayoral race in this capital of Mississippi, a city steeped in the history of racism and violence. He was a champion of human rights, a pioneering radical attorney, a proud Black Nationalist and a dedicated public servant. While his friends, family and allies mourn his death, there is much in his life to celebrate.

First, take a step back, and look at the history of Jackson, Miss. As my "Democracy Now!" news hour co-host, Juan Gonzalez, pointed out when we interviewed Lumumba the day after he was elected, Jackson was "a center of racism and racial oppression over centuries. The city was named after Andrew Jackson by the white settlers when Jackson, in 1820, was able, as Indian commissioner, to pressure the Choctaw Indians to give up 13 million acres of land ... in the Treaty of Doak's Stand. That's why the white settlers named the city after Jackson, because of his success at ethnic cleansing." Jackson, Miss., where the NAACP's first field secretary for Mississippi, Medgar Evers, was assassinated on the evening of June 12, 1963. This city is just 80 miles from Philadelphia, Miss., where Freedom Summer activists Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Michael Schwerner were murdered, and 95 miles from Money, Miss., where 14-year-old Emmett Till was kidnapped, tortured and murdered in 1955, for allegedly "wolf-whistling" at a white woman. Jackson, Miss., is the political, economic and historic center of so much violence and racial hatred, which is why Lumumba's victory in the mayoral race held such import.

Lumumba told me last June, "I attribute the victory that we had this last week to the people, the people of Jackson, who were more than ready to have leadership that was forward-looking and ready to raise Jackson to a different level of development, ready to embrace the ideas that all government should do the most to protect the human rights of the people." He was dedicated to human rights, and was embarking on a progressive agenda for the city. His slogan read "One City, One Aim, One Destiny."

Continue Reading: Mayor Chokwe Lumumba: A Life of Struggle, A Legacy of Progress

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | A Shadow US Foreign Policy Print
Friday, 28 February 2014 13:08

Parry writes: "A shadow foreign policy apparatus built by Ronald Reagan for the Cold War survives to this day as a slush fund that keeps American neocons well fed and still destabilizes target nations, now including Ukraine."

Former U.S. President Ronald Reagan. (photo: unknown)
Former U.S. President Ronald Reagan. (photo: unknown)


A Shadow US Foreign Policy

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

28 February 14

 

he National Endowment for Democracy, a central part of Ronald Reagan's propaganda war against the Soviet Union three decades ago, has evolved into a $100 million U.S. government-financed slush fund that generally supports a neocon agenda often at cross-purposes with the Obama administration's foreign policy.

NED is one reason why there is so much confusion about the administration's policies toward attempted ousters of democratically elected leaders in Ukraine and Venezuela. Some of the non-government organizations (or NGOs) supporting these rebellions trace back to NED and its U.S. government money, even as Secretary of State John Kerry and other senior officials insist the U.S. is not behind these insurrections.

So, while President Barack Obama has sought to nurture a constructive relationship with Russia's President Vladimir Putin especially in hotspots like Iran and Syria, NED has invested in projects in Russia's close neighbor, Ukraine, that fueled violent protests ousting President Viktor Yanukovych, who won election in 2010 in balloting that was viewed by international observers as fair and reflecting the choice of most Ukrainian citizens.

Thus, a U.S.-sponsored organization that claims to promote "democracy" has sided with forces that violently overthrew a democratically elected leader rather than wait for the next scheduled election in 2015 to vote him out of office.

For NED and American neocons, Yanukovych's electoral legitimacy lasted only as long as he accepted European demands for new "trade agreements" and stern economic "reforms" required by the International Monetary Fund. When Yanukovych was negotiating those pacts, he won praise, but when he judged the price too high for Ukraine and opted for a more generous deal from Russia, he immediately became a target for "regime change."

Last September, NED's longtime president, Carl Gershman, took to the op-ed page of the neocon-flagship Washington Post to urge the U.S. government to push European "free trade" agreements on Ukraine and other former Soviet states and thus counter Moscow's efforts to maintain close relations with those countries. The ultimate goal, according to Gershman, was isolating and possibly toppling Putin in Russia with Ukraine the key piece on this global chessboard.

"Ukraine is the biggest prize," Gershman wrote. "The opportunities are considerable, and there are important ways Washington could help. The United States needs to engage with the governments and with civil society in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova to ensure that the reform process underway not only promotes greater trade and development but also produces governments that are less corrupt and more accountable to their societies. An association agreement with the European Union should be seen not as an end in itself but as a starting point that makes possible deeper reforms and more genuine democracy.

"Russian democracy also can benefit from this process. Ukraine's choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents. … Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself."

Shadow Structure

In furtherance of these goals, NED funded a staggering 65 projects in Ukraine, according to its latest report. The funding for these NGOs range from tens of thousands of dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars and created for NED what amounted to a shadow political structure of media and activist groups that could be deployed to stir up unrest when the Ukrainian government didn't act as desired.

This NED shadow structure, when working in concert with domestic opposition forces, had the capability to challenge the decisions of Yanukovych's elected government, including the recent coup - spearheaded by violent neo-Nazis - that overthrew him. Presumably, NED wanted the "regime change" without the neo-Nazi element. But that armed force was necessary for the coup to oust Yanukovych and open the path for those IMF-demanded economic "reforms."

Beyond the scores of direct NED projects in Ukraine, other major NED recipients, such as Freedom House, have thrown their own considerable weight behind the Ukraine rebellion. A recent Freedom House fundraising appeal read: "More support, including yours, is urgently needed to ensure that Ukrainian citizens struggling for their freedom are protected and supported." Freedom House meant the "citizens struggling" against their elected government.

So, over this past week, a policy dispute about whether Ukraine should accept the European Union's trade demands or go with a more generous $15 billion loan from Moscow escalated into violent street clashes and finally a putsch spearheaded by neo-Nazi storm troopers who took control of government buildings in Kiev.

With Yanukovych and his top aides forced to flee for their lives, the opposition-controlled parliament then passed a series of draconian laws often unanimously, while U.S. neocons cheered and virtually no one in the U.S. press corps noted the undemocratic nature of what had just happened. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Cheering a 'Democratic' Coup in Ukraine."]

An Incipient Civil War

On Wednesday, Yanukovych insisted that he was still the rightful president and his supporters seized government buildings in the eastern, ethnically Russian part of the country, setting the stage for what has the look of an incipient civil war.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government appears nearly as divided as the Ukrainian people. While neocon holdovers in the State Department, particularly Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, helped instigate the crisis, President Obama has seen his collaboration with Putin to tamp down crises in Syria and Iran put at risk. That cooperation was already under attack from influential neocons at the Washington Post and other media outlets.

Then, last December, Nuland, the wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan, reminded Ukrainian business leaders that, to help Ukraine achieve "its European aspirations, we have invested more than $5 billion." She said the U.S. goal was to take "Ukraine into the future that it deserves," meaning out of the Russian orbit and into a Western one.

On Jan. 28, Nuland spoke by phone to U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt about how to manipulate Ukraine's tensions and who to elevate into the country's leadership. According to the conversation, which was intercepted and made public, Nuland ruled out one opposition figure, Vitali Klitschko, a popular former boxer, because he lacked experience.

Nuland also favored the UN as mediator instead of the European Union, at which point in the conversation she exclaimed, "Fuck the E.U." to which Pyatt responded, "Oh, exactly …" [See Consortiumnews.com's "Neocons and the Ukraine Coup."]

Yet, the larger question for Americans may be whether NED and its slush fund have helped create not only shadow political structures in countries around the world but whether one now exists in the United States. Though NED has always justified its budget by focusing on what it will do in other countries, it spends much of its money in Washington D.C., funding NGOs that pay salaries of political operatives who, in turn, write American op-eds often from a neocon, interventionist perspective.

Indeed, it would be hard to comprehend why the American neocon power structure didn't capsize after the disastrous Iraq War without factoring in the financial ballast provided by NED and other neocon funding sources. That steady flow of NED funding, topping $100 million, gave the neocon movement the staying power that other foreign policy viewpoints lacked.

Cold War Relic

NED was founded in 1983 at the initiative of Cold War hardliners in the Reagan administration, including then-CIA Director William J. Casey. Essentially, NED took over what had been the domain of the CIA, i.e. funneling money to support foreign political movements that would take the U.S. side against the Soviet Union.

Though the Reagan administration's defenders insist that this "democracy" project didn't "report" to Casey, documents that have been declassified from the Reagan years show Casey as a principal instigator of this operation, which also sought to harness funding from right-wing billionaires and foundations to augment these activities.

In one note to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese, Casey endorsed plans "for the appointment of a small Working Group to refine the proposal and make recommendations to the President on the merit of creating an Institute, Council or National Endowment in support of free institutions throughout the world."

Casey's note, written on CIA stationery, added, "Obviously we here should not get out front in the development of such an organization, nor do we wish to appear to be a sponsor or advocate. … We would be pleased to make suggestions on the composition of the Working Group and Commission."

To organize this effort, Casey dispatched one of the CIA's top propaganda specialists, Walter Raymond Jr., to the National Security Council. Putting Raymond at the NSC insulated the CIA from accusations that it institutionally was using the new structure to subvert foreign governments - while also helping fund American opinion leaders who would influence U.S. policy debates, a violation of the CIA's charter. Instead, that responsibility was shifted to NED, which began doing precisely what Casey had envisioned.

Many of the documents on this "public diplomacy" operation, which also encompassed "psychological operations," remain classified for national security reasons to this day, more than three decades later. But the scattered documents that have been released by archivists at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, reveal a whirlwind of activity, with Raymond in the middle of a global network.

Who Is Walt Raymond?

Reagan's White House was so nervous that the press corps might zero in on Raymond's CIA propaganda background that it prepared guidance in case anyone should ask, according to a document recently released by the Reagan library. If a reporter questioned White House claims that "there is no CIA involvement in the Public Diplomacy Program" - by asking, "isn't Walt Raymond, a CIA employee, involved heavily?" - the scripted answer was to acknowledge that Raymond had worked for the CIA but no longer.

"It is true that in the formative stages of the effort, Walt Raymond contributed many useful ideas. It is ironic that he was one of those who was most insistent that there be no CIA involvement in this program in any way."

As for the role of CIA officials, the guidance asserted, "they do not want to be involved in managing these programs and will not be. We have nothing to hide here." But if a reporter then "pressed about where [Raymond] last worked," the answer was "he retired from CIA. … If pressed about what his duties were: His duties there were classified." Indeed, sources say Raymond was the CIA's top expert on propaganda and psychological operations.

As NED took shape, Gershman was in frequent contact with Raymond, who oversaw a network of inter-agency task forces that implemented a global propaganda and psy-op strategy. Documents also make clear that Raymond kept CIA Director Casey periodically informed about the project's developments.

In effect, NED took over many CIA responsibilities but did them more openly. The U.S. government also took steps to insulate NED from the resistance of targeted countries. Governments that objected to NED's presence were deemed anti-democratic and thus subjected to other pressures.

But governments that permitted NED to function often found themselves facing internal political pressures from NED-funded NGOs to shift those countries' policies to the right by eliminating social programs deemed "socialistic" and hewing to "reform" demands from international bankers, which usually meant ceding some sovereignty to the IMF or other global institutions. [For more details on Raymond's operation, see Robert Parry's Lost History.]

A Hand Out

Documents released by the Reagan library also reveal that one of the first organizations to put a hand out for U.S. government largesse was Freedom House, which describes itself as a human rights organization.

For instance, on Aug. 9, 1982, Freedom House executive director Leonard R. Sussman complained to Raymond that money problems had caused Freedom House to consolidate two of its publications, stating: "We would, of course, want to expand the project once again when … and if the funds become available. Offshoots of that project appear in newspapers, magazines, books and on broadcast services here and abroad. It's a significant, unique channel of communication."

Once NED was up and running in 1983 and beyond, Freedom House became a major recipient of grants as it frequently echoed U.S. propaganda themes, though the public had little knowledge about the behind-the-scenes relationships.

But the network that Casey and Raymond built has outlived both of them and has outlived the Cold War, too. Nevertheless, NED and its funding recipients have pressed on, trying to implement the strategies of hardliners such as former Vice President Dick Cheney, who wanted not just the dismantling of the Soviet Union but the elimination of Russia as any kind of counterweight to U.S. hegemony.

Indeed, the momentum that this three-decade-old "public diplomacy" campaign has achieved - both from NED and various neocons holding down key positions in Official Washington - now pits this shadow foreign policy establishment against the President of the United States. Barack Obama may see cooperation with Vladimir Putin as crucial to resolving crises in Iran and Syria, but elements of Obama's own administration and U.S.-financed outfits like NED are doing all they can to create crises for Putin on his own border.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Jan Brewer: A Profile in Courage Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Thursday, 27 February 2014 16:06

Pierce writes: "Brewer's decision was reached democratically, using the legitimate powers of her office. If she bowed to economic and corporate pressure to make it, well, welcome to the United States of America in 2014."

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. (photo: Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. (photo: Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)


Jan Brewer: A Profile in Courage

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

27 February 14

 

o, it appears that Governor Jan Brewer boldly stepped up last night and declined to let the bigotry of her state's legislature demolish her state's image and its tourist economy simultaneously.

"To the supporters of the legislation, I want you to know that I understand that long-held norms about marriage and family are being challenged as never before. Our society is undergoing many dramatic changes," she said. "However, I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve. It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and no one would ever want. "Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value. So is non-discrimination."

Not everyone agrees with the decision, of course. Over at Tiger Beat On The Potomac, Rich (Sparkle Pants) Lowry would like you to know that there was absolutely nothing anti-gay about the bill, and he cites among the misinformed, "influential liberal pundit Kirsten Powers," whereupon the gods on Olympus laughed so loud and long that there were 40 days of rain in Sparta.

The question isn't whether businesses run by people opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds should provide their services for gay weddings; it is whether they should be compelled to by government. The critics of the much-maligned Arizona bill pride themselves on their live-and-let-live open-mindedness, but they are highly moralistic in their support of gay marriage, judgmental of those who oppose it and tolerant of only one point of view on the issue - their own. For them, someone else's conscience is only a speed bump on the road to progress. It's get with the program, your religious beliefs be damned.

And this in a column that calls other people hysterical.

(By the way, here's a passage from the longtime white-supremacist journal that Lowry edits: "There are those who sincerely believe progress is not fashioned out of that kind of clay. There actually are true and wise friends of the Negro race who believe that a federal law, artificially deduced from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution or from the 14th Amendment, whose marginal effect will be to instruct small merchants in the Deep South on how they may conduct their business, is no way at all of promoting the kind of understanding which is the basis of progressive and charitable relationships between the races." This was occasioned by the March on Washington in 1963.)

Brewer's decision was reached democratically, using the legitimate powers of her office. If she bowed to economic and corporate pressure to make it, well, welcome to the United States of America in 2014. Have I introduced you to Messrs. Glass and Steagall over here? This law was no more about religious freedom than Brewer's veto was about her devotion to gay rights, but, if the right thing gets done for the wrong reason, well, that's the way things work in a democratic republic. As to the rest, I once again associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Rock of Brooklyn.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkxB15nXRvM

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2951 2952 2953 2954 2955 2956 2957 2958 2959 2960 Next > End >>

Page 2957 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN