Ragbag Headliners

The Next Battle: U.S. Debt Limit To Be Reached Near End Of 2012

The U.S. Treasury quietly warned at the end of a statement issued last Wednesday that it expects the federal government to hit its legal debt limit before the end of this year–which means before the new Congress is seated–and that “extraordinary measures” will be needed before then to keep the government fully funded into the early part of 2013.

On Aug. 2, 2011, President Obama signed a deal he had negotiated with congressional leaders to increase the debt limit of the federal government by $2.4 trillion. But, now, after only 15 months, almost all of that additional borrowing authority has been exhausted.

Although Treasury revealed in its statement on Wednesday that it was likely to hit the debt limit by the end of the year, Treasury Secretary Geithner failed to respond to a letter that Senate Finance Ranking Member Orrin Hatch and Senate Budget Ranking Member Jeff Sessions sent to him on Oct. 15 demanding that he notify them by Nov. 1 what he believes to be the exact date Treasury will hit the debt limit and the date he expects to begin using “extraordinary measures” to avoid it.

“Treasury continues to expect the debt limit to be reached near the end of 2012,” says the tenth paragraph of the “Quarterly Refunding Statement” put out by Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Markets Matthew Rutherford. –Vision To America/November 7, 2012

 <><><>*<><><>

Fatah Facebook Page Shows Mother Placing Suicide Belt On Son

A recent photo posted to Facebook page of Fatah’s Information and Culture Commission shows a mother placing suicide belt on her young son.

A recent photo posted to the official Facebook page of Fatah’s Information and Culture Commission in Lebanon shows a mother placing a suicide belt on her young son, reported Palestinian Media Watch, which has documented the ongoing glorification of violence and martyrdom by the Palestinian Authority.

Beside the picture is written an imaginary conversation between the two which reads as follows:

“My mother dressed me in a strange belt (i.e., a suicide belt).

I asked her: ‘What is this, mother?’

She said: ‘I will put it on you and you will go to your death!’

I said to her: ‘Mother, what have I done that you want me to die?’

She shed a tear that hurt my heart and said: ‘The homeland needs you, son. Go and blow up the sons of Zion.’

I said to her: ‘Why me and not you?’

She said: ‘I will stay in order to give birth to more children for the sake of Palestine.’

I kissed her hand and said to her: ‘Keep it up, mother, for you and for Palestine I will kill the impure and the damned.’” -By Rachel Hirshfeld/Arutz Sheva 7/October 30, 2012

If I Were Evil

I would sit in the pews of your churches and marvel at the youth available to me. I would make life easy, convenient, and without consequence. I would be an expert at division and subjugation. I would make most of you think I was right there with you; fighting for you and everything you want.

If I were evil, “traditional” would be a relative and scorned term; especially when it didn’t fit into the ever evolving puzzle called life. Mistakes would be successes and children a burden not a blessing. Nature would be our enemy not our warning. Logic would be hard to find and emotion would rule every minute of every day.

Your schools wouldn’t have a safe hiding place. Every classroom would be my playground. I would be in your children’s textbooks and their libraries. My ideas would be their candy store and your money (or everyone’s money) would pay to bring them closer to me. If I were evil, earthly happiness would be my ally. Reality would be my enemy and alternative views would be infinite.

I wouldn’t build weapons of mass destruction; governments would. Your food and water would be my weapon. Not your currency or your economy. Those things just seem to get in the way.

Technology would be my opiate: drawing you closer to an answer to your selfish questions that never arrives.

If I were evil very few people would ever look over their shoulder. They would always look forward to new beginnings and never dare to look back for fear of having to admit and atone for their human failures. Ever moving forward…….sometimes running, full sprint ………to me. If I were evil everybody would worship my benevolence and God would be an unspoken word. After all, if I were evil, faith would be my easiest target.

If I were evil, I would be unremarkable and irrelevant. I would be a shadow not a sunburst.

Evil doesn’t want your guns and bullets. It wants you to be addicted to your desires, legislated freedoms, and ambiguous rights. Evil wants you angry and violent: not thoughtful and forgiving. It desires for all of us to be obsessed with winning at all costs.

If I were evil I wouldn’t wear a Rolex, you would.  I would be born poor like Christ not blessed by Washington, D.C. and elite money. I wouldn’t pretend to have any educated answers just humble solutions.

I would put beautiful and sexy objects in your way so that decency and respect were victims to avarice and pride. I would be your quiet mistress: nothing but pillow talk and intellectual submission. And I would own your heart and soon your soul.

I am not evil. I have met evils minions from time to time in my life and yes, I have sampled its empty promises and detrimental outcomes. Barack Obama is not evil. He is a pawn of evil; intoxicated by its promise of legacy and fame. He’s just setting the table and he knows not what he is doing. –By John DeMayo/Political Outcast/November 12, 2012

CAIR Confronts Allen West (with subtitles)

^^^*^^^

In the video above, Nezar Hamze, the executive director of the Council on American-Islam Relations (CAIR) was on attack mode with the typical Moslem bravado when he challengingly questioned Florida's Republican Congressman Allen West. Hamze thought he would be dealing with just another typical American pantywaist, wishy-washy politician, who likes to "sweet talk" just to get voter approval.

The Middle Class Is Worse Off Than You Think: Michael Greenstone

The decline of the middle class has emerged as a key issue in the presidential campaign with both candidates promising policies to restore the economic stability of the middle class.

The conventional view has wages for the middle class, particularly men, stagnating over the past 40 years. But Michael Greenstone, economics professor at MIT and director of The Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project, says the situation is much worse than that.

Greenstone tells The Daily Ticker that after studying the data more carefully he found "that a lot of men are no longer in the workforce or are working part time."

"If you put them back in, the earnings of the guy in the middle have declined 20% over the last four decades," he says. "As a result, the median earnings of men are back to the levels that prevailed in the 1960s."

In the latest jobs report released Friday, the average hourly earnings for men and women rose a penny to $23.58 an hour. That caps a 1.6% gain over the past 12 months, which is not enough to keep up with 2% inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index.

Related: Job Growth Brightens But "There Are a Few Dark Clouds in This Picture": Reinhart

Greenstone says the increase of women in the workplace has offset some of the impact of the rising number of men who've left the workforce.

"There's been a remarkable increase in [women's] earnings, education and a series of other great indicators," says Greenstone. "But in the last decade we're started to see some of the same trends for women (as men); their wages have to stagnate and he notes there are still few women CEOs and members of Congress."

More evidence of the declining middle class can be found in a recent report from The National Employment Law Project. Since 2001, employment has grown 8.7 percent in lower-wage jobs and 6.6 percent in high-wage ones but they've fallen more than 7% in mid-wage jobs. The situation since the Great Recession is similar: jobs in the mid-range paying $14 to $21 accounted for 60% of jobs lost but only 22% of the job gained while lower wage jobs paying a median wage ranging from $7.70 to $13.83 represented 58% of all new jobs.

Greenstone says the key to reviving the middle class is education. Up until 30 years ago, he says each successive generation got more education than the previous one. With that no longer the case, high school and college graduation rates, especially among men, have stagnated, Greenstone says.
Related: A College Degree Doesn't Guarantee a Good Job: Gary Shilling "The data are incredibly clear," says Greenstone. "An investment in college has an enormous payoff, much higher than you can get in the stock market in bonds, and from buying a home."

Despite the decline in middle class wages and jobs, Greenstone, a former chief economist for President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, says the labor market today is much healthier than it was four years ago.

"In the October 2008 jobs report the economy lost 500,000. This month we gained about 170,000 and there were positive revisions for the previous two months. The future looks much brighter today than it did 4 years ago," says Greenstone. -By Bernice Napach/Yahoo Finance/November 5, 2012

The Citizens United Catastrophe

We have seen the world created by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, and it doesn’t work. Oh, yes, it works nicely for the wealthiest and most powerful people in the country, especially if they want to shroud their efforts to influence politics behind shell corporations. It just doesn’t happen to work if you think we are a democracy and not a plutocracy.

Two years ago, Citizens United tore down a century’s worth of law aimed at reducing the amount of corruption in our electoral system. It will go down as one of the most naive decisions ever rendered by the court.

The strongest case against judicial activism — against “legislating from the bench,” as former President George W. Bush liked to say — is that judges are not accountable for the new systems they put in place, whether by accident or design.

The Citizens United justices were not required to think through the practical consequences of sweeping aside decades of work by legislators, going back to the passage of the landmark Tillman Act in 1907, who sought to prevent untoward influence-peddling and indirect bribery.

If ever a court majority legislated from the bench (with Bush’s own appointees leading the way), it was the bunch that voted for Citizens United. Did a single justice in the majority even imagine a world of super PACs and phony corporations set up for the sole purpose of disguising a donor’s identity? Did they think that a presidential candidacy might be kept alive largely through the generosity of a Las Vegas gambling magnate with important financial interests in China? Did they consider that the democratizing gains made in the last presidential campaign through the rise of small online contributors might be wiped out by the brute force of millionaires and billionaires determined to have their way?

“The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.” Those were Justice Anthony Kennedy’s words in his majority opinion. How did he know that? Did he consult the electorate? Did he think this would be true just because he said it?

Justice John Paul Stevens’ observation in his dissent reads far better than Kennedy’s in light of subsequent events. “A democracy cannot function effectively,” he wrote, “when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.”

But ascribing an outrageous decision to naivetéis actually the most sympathetic way of looking at what the court did in Citizens United. A more troubling interpretation is that a conservative majority knew exactly what it was doing: that it set out to remake our political system by fiat in order to strengthen the hand of corporations and the wealthy. Seen this way, Citizens United was an attempt by five justices to push future electoral outcomes in a direction that would entrench their approach to governance.

In fact, this decision should be seen as part of a larger initiative by moneyed conservatives to rig the electoral system against their opponents. How else to explain conservative legislation in state after state to obstruct access to the ballot by lower-income voters — particularly members of minority groups — through voter identification laws, shortened voting periods and restrictions on voter registration campaigns?

Conservatives are strengthening the hand of the rich at one end of the system and weakening the voting power of the poor at the other. As veteran journalist Elizabeth Drew noted in an important New York Review of Books article, “little attention is being paid to the fact that our system of electing a president is under siege.”

Those who doubt that Citizens United (combined with a comatose Federal Election Commission) has created a new political world with broader openings for corruption should consult reports last week by Nicholas Confessore and Michael Luo in the New York Times and by T.W. Farnam in The Washington Post. Both accounts show how American politics has become a bazaar for the very wealthy and for increasingly aggressive corporations. We might consider having candidates wear corporate logos. This would be more honest than pretending that tens of millions in cash will have no impact on how we will be governed.

In the short run, Congress should do all it can within the limits of Citizens United to contain the damage it is causing. In the long run, we have to hope that a future Supreme Court will overturn this monstrosity, remembering that the first words of our Constitution are “We the People,” not “We the Rich.” -By E.J. Dionne Jr./Washington Post/February 5, 2012

Islam And Free Speech: OIC vs. Universal Declaration Of Human Rights

One of the important early contributions of James Madison to American life was his impact on the framing of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1776. One section stated that "all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience." Another declared that "any citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right." The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution went even further with the provision that Congress should make no law "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion or abridge the freedom of speech or of the press.

As a result of Islamic activity in recent years the question has arisen in Western countries whether tension or incompatibility exists between the two principles, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and whether restrictions should be imposed on speech critical of religions or religious beliefs. Should those beliefs and belief systems be protected from adverse comment? Equally should not those who may be offended by such comment tolerate the legitimate exercise of free expression in democratic societies?

In the contemporary world two general problems have arisen on this issue: Islamic attempts to ban criticism of their religion and its Prophet by sponsoring resolutions in international forums condemning "defamation of religions," and the increase in laws on hate speech and blasphemy.

In April 1999 the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (now the UN Human Rights Council, UNHRC) for the first time adopted a resolution "Defamation of Religions" introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference that purported to be concerned with "negative stereotyping of religions." It was really primarily interested in countering what it called the view that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and with terrorism." Since then this strategy has been incessantly repeated in international organizations, in the UN General Assembly, from 2005, and in the UN Human Rights Council, from 1999 to the present, which have passed resolutions aimed at "combatting the defamation of Islam." One example of many was the resolution of the UN General Assembly 62/154 of December 18, 2007 which noted with concern that "defamation of religions could lead to social disharmony and violations of human rights of their adherents."

Two issues are relevant. The fundamental problem is that in this and all similar resolutions the only specific reference to religions was Islam, and "the negative projection of Islam in the media and the introduction and enforcement of laws that specifically discriminate against and target Muslims." The call is always to combat effectively defamation of all religions and incitements to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular." The major player in this strategy is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), formerly the Organization of Islamic Conference, a group of 57 Muslim countries, with a headquarters in Saudi Arabia. It has called for legislation by states to prohibit the defamation of religions, thus seeking to criminalize incitement to hatred and violence on religious grounds.

The other issue is that international human rights laws exist to protect individuals in the exercise of their freedom of religion or belief, not religions as such. The OIC's strategy is contrary to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948, that stated in Article 19; "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression." The OIC"s objective is to limit freedom of expression on religion.

Only in July 2011 was there a change with a statement by the Human Rights Committee, (HRC), a body of 18 independent experts, "of high moral character and recognized competence in the field of human rights," set up to examine compliance with the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which entered into force in 1976, that provided for freedom of expression. It found that blasphemy laws, such as those in countries like Egypt and Pakistan, are in essence restrictions on free speech. The penal code of Pakistan proscribes imprisonment and even death for insults to religion and to the prophet Muhammad. Blasphemy laws tend to be broad in scope and political weapons to stifle dissent. The statement of HRC, General Comment No. 34, a comment on Article 19 of the 1966 International Covenant, said that blasphemy laws and prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief systems, were incompatible with universal human rights standards. Though recognizing the difficulty in implementing the goal, the Committee reaffirmed the central importance of freedom of expression that is crucial for transparency and accountability that in turn are essential for human rights.

This conclusion is eminently justified because the activity of the OIC is clearly a violation of the universality of human rights, though the OIC claims that the 1990 Cairo Declaration is not an alternative competing worldview on human rights. That Cairo Document, approved on August 5, 1990 by the then 45 members of the OIC, declared, Art 22 (a), that "Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such a manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia," and in Art 22 (c) that "Information…may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets," and in Art 24 that "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia."

Hate speech laws in a number of European countries have, since the defeat of Nazi Germany, tried to prevent or punish incitement to religious and racial hatred. No universal definitional agreement of "hate speech" exists. Though the primary original intention, after Nazism, was to reduce expressions of antisemitism, laws for some time have been used to punish speech regarded as insulting to a race, nationality, ethnicity, or religion, and expressions of hatred founded on intolerance including religious intolerance. In particular, Islamic groups, to prevent criticism, have tried to use them or to misinterpret the European and International Covenants on Human Rights and the Elimination of Religious Discrimination on which the laws are based.

It seems to be clear that case law decided by the European Court of Human Rights has established that expressions constituting hate speech which are insulting to particular individuals or groups can be restricted by governments in their national law. Yet some ambiguity remains. The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe (The European Commission for Democracy in Law), a group of independent experts and distinguished academics, was established in 1990 as the Council of Europe's advisory body on constitutional issues. The Commission on October 17-18, 2008 concluded that the offence of blasphemy should be abolished, and that in democratic countries it was neither necessary nor desirable to create an offence of religious insult (insult to religious feelings) without the element of incitement to hatred as an essential component.

In December 12-14, 2011 the OIC met in Washington, D.C. with the Obama Administration to discuss what has become known as the Istanbul Process, the issue of implementing the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 adopted without a vote on March 24, 2011. This Resolution reaffirmed the obligation of states to prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion or belief. It condemned any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence, and expressed deep concern about "derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief." It was noticeable that this Resolution did not use the term "defamation" of religions but used a softer term, "persons based on their religion or belief." The Resolution urged states "to take effective measures" to prevent discrimination against such persons. This Resolution was approved, a week after the D.C. meeting, unanimously by the UN General Assembly on December 19, 2011.

The first such meeting, launched by the Secretary-General of the OIC , to implement 16/18 was held in Istanbul in July 2011, and the third will be hosted, at the tentative date of July 2012, by the European Union. The irony in the D.C. meeting and in the Resolution is that the OIC has been active in trying to limit freedom of expression about its religion rather than protecting freedom of religion as a whole. This has been evident since the Cairo Declaration by the OIC in 1990 that declared that free speech must be consistent with sharia law. The OIC intent is to limit rather than to protect speech.

All too many attacks on free speech have been made in recent years by Islamic groups in the Western world. In April 2011 an episode of "South Park" was censured because of uncomplimentary remarks about the Prophet Muhammad. Earlier incidents are well known. Salman Rushdie was victimized by a fatwa by the Ayatollah Khomeini ordering him to be killed for writing The Satanic Verses, which the Iranian leader held to be blasphemous. Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker of Submission, a film that connected the mistreatment of Muslim women to the Koran, was murdered by a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim in 2004. The editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, was threatened for publishing 12 cartoons of the prophet on September 30, 2005. The consequence was riots by Muslims who killed over 100 people. The Dutch politician Geert Wilders was indicted for his comments on Islam and Muslims and threatened for his film Fitna with its critical passages about the Koran. It took several years of proceedings before he was acquitted. The unorthodox French author Michel Houellebecq was indicted, though acquitted, for calling Islam "stupid" and "dangerous." The film star Brigitte Bardot was convicted on a number of occasions for critical remarks which were held to be racial hatred about Muslims The office of Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical weekly, was firebombed in 2011 after it had published a story that the prophet was to be a guest editor for a special edition of the journal, which would be renamed Sharia Hebdo in order to celebrate Islamic victory in Tunisia. Arrest warrants were issued first in Switzerland in 2002 and then in Italy in 2005 for the writer Oriana Fallaci for alleged remarks offensive to Islam in her book, The Force of Reason. The remarks of Pope Benedict XVI, critical of the practice of forced religious conversion, at a speech at Regensburg University on September 20, 2006 were held to be "unfortunate and unwarranted" -- just to name a few incidents.

The democratic world must take care that any action based on the UNHRC's Resolution 16/18, "Combatting intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief" does not diminish the fundamental right to free speech. –By Michael Curtis/Gatestone Institute/February 8, 2012

Foot Note: Michael Curtis is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Rutgers University, and author of the forthcoming book, Should Israel Exist? A sovereign nation under assault by the international community.

Thanksgiving Song - Mary Chapin Carpenter

Have a Blessed Thanksgiving

Ragbag Headliners

Can You Sue The Government For Spying On You?

While most of the federal government was shut down in response to Hurricane Sandy, the Roberts Court was considering a case that tests the limits of the federal government’s surveillance powers in a post-9/11 world. Or at least promises to.

The case stems from the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, legislation that retroactively legalized the Bush administration’s warrantless spying program. It was a massive blow to civil liberties and authorized warrantless surveillance aimed at targets abroad and their contacts–including contact where one of the target’s points of contact is within the United States. Essentially this means the US government can, and likely does, spy on American citizens without a warrant or probable cause.

Prior to the FISA Amendments Act surveillance in cases targeting foreign agents had to be approved by a special FISA court, in part to protect against this kind of roving, warrantless and likely baseless surveillance. That is no longer the case.

Troubled by these developments a group of journalists, lawyers and human rights activists challenged the law and it is that challenge that is finally before the Court now. The issue before the Supreme Court is not whether or not this kind of spying on American citizens is okay. Instead, the Court is set to answer whether the lawyers, activists and journalists can bring a claim to begin with.

It’s the government’s position that the plaintiffs in this case don’t have standing. That is, the government claims these plaintiffs can’t prove they will be harmed by the law, in part because who the government spies on is, by definition, secret.

In a nutshell the government’s case is that the plaintiffs can’t prove they were illegally spied upon because who the government spies on is classified by law.

The state’s secret doctrine has been used to justify failing to disclose warrantless domestic wiretaps, extraordinary rendition for torture and whether or not Americans have been placed on “kill lists.” In a post-9/11 world “state’s secrets” means basically whatever the executive branch wants it to mean, and the federal judiciary has largely played along.

Will they continue to do so? It’s hard to say. The Roberts Court has continued the legacy of its predecessor and has taken nearly every opportunity to cut off access to the federal courts that have been presented in previous cases, so there’s no reason to think they would automatically be inclined to give the ACLU and human rights advocates another day in court. And even if they do and the plaintiffs win there is even less a guarantee their challenges to the law will succeed.

Welcome to the new normal.

By Jessica Pieklo/Care2/October 31, 2012

<><><>*<><><>

Saudi King Urges UN Action Against Religious Insults
 
Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz on Saturday demanded a UN resolution condemning insults on monotheistic religions after a low-budget film produced in the US sparked deadly protests last month.

"I demand a UN resolution that condemns any country or group that insults religions and prophets," he said during a meeting at his palace with religious figures and heads of hajj delegations in the Mina valley where pilgrims were performing final rituals of hajj.

"It is our duty and that of every Muslim to protect Islam and defend the prophets."

A low-budget film produced in the US, Innocence of Muslims, triggered a wave of deadly anti-American violence last month across the Muslim world targeting US symbols ranging from embassies and schools to fast food chains.

Saudi Arabia had threatened to block YouTube in the kingdom if Google did not respond to a request to deny access to the video footage of the film. YouTube then extended its restrictions on the video to Saudi Arabia.

The king also called on Saturday for the "unity of the Islamic nation (and) rejecting division to face the nation's enemies" as he urged for dialogue among Muslims.

"Dialogue strengthens moderation and ends reasons of conflict and extremism," he said.

"The interconfessional dialogue centre which we had announced in Mecca does not necessarily mean reaching agreements on the matters of belief, but it aims at reaching solutions to divisions and implementing co-existance among sects," he added.

The Saudi monarch proposed in August setting up a centre for dialogue between Muslim confessions in Riyadh. –France24/October 27, 2012

Troubles Await The Next US Administration

Unemployment, growing debt and Iran’s nuclear program among problems facing whoever wins Tuesday’s election

The next president will be under fire to get millions of people back to work, shrink a soaring federal debt, end America’s longest war, unite a divided country and prevent Iran from building a bomb that could unnerve the world.

And that’s just what comes after the inauguration.

The work that begins right after Tuesday’s election could determine whether the White House and Congress can keep the country from plunging back into recession in the new year. That’s because without action by the nation’s leaders, a battery of tax increases and spending cuts will kick in come January, making life harder for families and endangering the economic recovery.

Win or lose, President Barack Obama will be in charge until Jan. 20, which means dealing with this “fiscal cliff” is his problem. But Republican Mitt Romney wants to have a significant stamp on the matter as president-elect if he wins.

The economy, stable but struggling, will drive the agenda in the next term. It touches all the core issues that the election has been about — middle-class security, job creation, home values, taxes, basic opportunity for a better life.

The next president will not be dealing with the combined chaos of a financial sector, an employment picture and a stock market in free-fall, all of which started to consume Obama even before he was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009.

Yet the public will expect results soon.

More than 23 million people are unemployed, working part time when they want full-time jobs or out of patience looking for work. Obama and Romney have both promised a more robust rebound, but they’re deeply divided over the best ways to get there.

The new president probably will get to nominate at least one Supreme Court justice, if not up to three, as Vice President Joe Biden has suggested. Even one such lifetime appointment could tip the ideological balance of the high court.

And the world will not wait to test the next president, either.

Iran’s yearslong standoff with the West over its nuclear program is intensifying. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned that allies have until next summer to stop Iran from having the capability to build a nuclear bomb. Whatever the timeline, the US president will be under pressure to rally partners, enforce already crippling sanctions and deepen the threat of military intervention to keep Iran in check, or risk seeing the United States pulled into another war.

Other international crises demanding American leadership are everywhere.

Syria’s civil war has left more than 30,000 dead and counting. Israelis and Palestinians are nowhere near peace. Europe’s financial troubles threaten America’s economic stability. Mexico’s fight against guns and drugs is on the US door step. The Arab Spring has faded into fears of instability and, in one case, left four dead Americans in Libya.

The threat of terrorism may no longer hang over daily life in the United States, but it will for the president, whose most sacred job is protecting America. And that prison for suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? Still open.

The US-led war in Afghanistan is still going, too, after more than 11 years. The United States and its partners plan to end the war at the close of 2014. The president must decide when and how to pull home the 68,000 US troops who remain and whether to cut a deal with the Afghan government to leave some lasting US military presence after that.

At home, the presidential winner is likely to find struggles in dealing with Congress. Obama, the Democrat, is alm0ost certain to be contending again with a Republican-led House of Representatives. Even if voters choose Romney, they may well keep the Senate in control of Democrats, which would limit his legislative agenda.

Indeed, the basic state of Washington politics is broken.

The next president will inherit that problem, which is often beyond the president’s ability to fix despite campaign promises, as Obama and Republican George W. Bush before him found.

Should the election be as close as polls suggest, the president in 2013 will be leading a nation in which about half the people voted against him. Most states are so decidedly Democratic or Republican they were not even contested this year. In a country built by dreamers, hope and optimism are sagging.

The impending fiscal crisis will have a cascading effect on the next presidential term.

How it is resolved will shape the chances of serious change ahead on tax law and entitlement programs such as Medicare, the government health care program for the elderly.

January is on pace to bring across-the-board spending cuts of $109 billion, which, in real terms, would undermine the military and the core functions of government. The cuts were never intended to take effect. They were an onerous incentive for lawmakers to reach a broad deficit-reduction deal, but that never happened.

The fiscal cliff also gets its name from a series of expiring tax cuts. Romney wants to extend all the Bush-era tax cuts. Obama wants to extend them only for individuals making less than $200,000 and married couples making less than $250,000. The new president also will have to get Congress to increase the debt limit again to avoid a crippling default.

The debt is now above $16 trillion, with cries from every corner to reduce that figure or risk a choking of the economy.

One of the best known challenges awaiting is simply the unknown: A drought, a bridge collapse, a mass shooting, a major oil spill, a super storm.

It will be the job of the next president of the United States, ultimately, to handle everything. –The Times of Israel/November 5, 2012

Ethos

Amazing Story Of Survival After Toms River Man Leaves ‘Farewell’ Note

A Toms River, N.J., man who didn't think he would survive Sandy's storm surge, broke into a stranger's house and left a farewell note asking her to "tell my Dad I love him."

Thankfully the letter writer, identified only as Mike, was reunited with his father, Tony. And both will have a lifetime to retell his tale of survival.

So will Christine Treglia, who found this unsettling note when she returned home, which she had evacuated before the storm:

    Who ever reads this I'm DIEING — I'm 28 yrs old my name is Mike. I had to break in to your house. I took blankets off the couch. I have hypothermia. I didn't take any thing. A wave thru me out of my house down the block. I don't think I'm going to make it. The water outside is 10ft deep at least. There's no res[c]ue.

    Tell my dad I love him and I tryed get[t]ing out. His number is ###-###-#### his name is Tony. I hope u can read this I'm in the dark. I took a black jacket too. Goodbye. God all mighty help me.

Treglia posted this response on Facebook along with a link to the story about the note:

    "This was my house that Mike found refuge in. We found this letter and 2 others in our home along with "help me" signs posted to our windows. We called immediately and were so relieved that Mike was safe and made his way home."

In an interview with Justin Louis of WOBM radio, Mike, who still seemed amazed by his ordeal, shared the story behind his frantic note.

He said he was at his home in the Green Island community of Toms River when his kitchen was swept away, so he walked out of his house and was swept up in the current. He said he was pulled a half-mile into the bay and then spent about four hours trying to swim back home.

"Well, the current took me to somewhere, which I didn't even know where I was, and it threw me back into the bay. And I tried to swim back to my house for some reason," Mike said. "You know, sometimes you don't think."

He said he ended up across the bay at "some lady's house."

"She had towels on the couch. I just wrapped my body with the towels. ... I was so thirsty because I drank so much salt water. I didn't think I was gonna make it."

He penned the note in the dark.

"I just wanted to have that note to tell my father I tried. You know, I wasn't a baby about it. I tried, I did my thing." Mike told WOBM.

"I was swimming for so long. ... I was so cold, I thought I was just going to freeze right there," he said, "But that lady, I felt like for some reason, she knew someone was going to be in that house. She had these wool blankets all over the place. And I just wrapped myself in them."

After a few hours inside in the dark, Mike ventured back out into the waters.

"In the street there was about eight feet of water, and I'm like, I ain't dying like this, after all this, I ain't dying like this."

He said he was picked up by someone named Frank on a personal watercraft. Frank took in Mike and warmed him by a gas stove and gave him hot chocolate.

On Facebook, "Frank" Vicendese of Green Island writes of Mike, "He was very thankful to be alive and warm, also very emotional after warming up by my stove after it started to sink in what happened."

Mike's journey took him to a friend's house in Kettle Creek, and then his dad came and picked him up. "I told my dad when I got home, you follow me" wherever I go, he said.

Mike says in his conversation with Treglia he apologized for entering her home and said, "There was money on the table, I didn't take nothing. I just took something that would keep me warm."

Treglia did not respond to a request for an interview.

Louis of WOBM told Yahoo News he wanted to initially ensure the incident was a not a hoax so he called the number on the note.

"At first it went straight to voice mail," Louis said. "But I had this feeling I should give it one more shot."

When Louis called Tony's number, the happy father said, "That's my son Mike!"

"He seems like a typical down-to-earth, mid-20s guy who is still pretty shaken up," Louis said of Mike after their interview.

Some people on social media have called Mike's survival a miracle.

He may not believe he stole anything during his ordeal. But certainly he was given a most valuable gift—his life.

To be honest with you, I'm afraid of the dark now. I was in the dark for so long with at least 15 to 20 foot waves that with the bay crashing over me. I couldn't even breathe.

I told my dad when I got home, you follow me everywhere you go.

By Ron Recinto/Yahoo News/November 5, 2012

Reasons For Sensitivity Training For Men

*A fellow was devastated to find out that his wife was having an affair. To come to terms with the wife's misdeed, he turned to religion. He converted to Islam, and the wife was stoned to death after the noon prayer on Friday.

*At a local bar, the guys started shouting "pedophile!" and other names at a man who walked in simply because his wife is 24 and he is 50. It completely spoiled their 10th wedding anniversary.

*A man recently called 911 and said, "I think my wife is dead". The operator asked, "How do you know?" The man replied, "The laundry is piling up!"

*A man who converted to Buddhism was explaining to his wife that when you die you get reincarnated, but must come back as a different creature. She said she would like to come back as a cow. The man said, "You obviously haven't been listening."

*The police told the husband whose wife had been missing for a week to prepare for the worst. So, he went down to the Salvation Army to get all of her clothes back.

*The Red Cross representative knocked at the front door, and asked the husband who answered the knock if he could contribute to the flood in Pakistan. He said, "I'd love to, but my garden hose only reaches up to the driveway."

Author Unknown

EVERYONE who owns and uses a credit or debit card should watch this video! Watch the video below.

^^^*^^^

WTHR_The Risk inside your credit card

At Test

If you can read and understand the article below, you have a strong mind. And better yet, you most likely will not be plagued by Alzheimer's.

7H15 M3554G3
53RV35 7O PR0V3
H0W 0UR M1ND5 C4N
D0 4M4Z1NG 7H1NG5!
1MPR3551V3 7H1NG5!
1N 7H3 B3G1NN1NG
17 WA5 H4RD BU7
N0W, 0N 7H15 LIN3
Y0UR M1ND 1S
R34D1NG 17
4U70M471C4LLY
W17H 0U7 3V3N
7H1NK1NG 4B0U7 17,
B3 PROUD! 0NLY
C3R741N P30PL3 C4N
R3AD 7H15.
PL3453 F0RW4RD 1F
U C4N R34D 7H15.

Can you laos raed this? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can. I cdnuolt blveiee that I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd what I was rdanieg, wihch is porof fo teh phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in what oerdr the ltteres in a word are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is that the frsit and last ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can still raed it whotuit a pboerlm. This is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the word as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! -Source/Author Unknown

Ex-Muslim: Islam 'Scares The Hell Out Of Me'

'My culture of origin is infecting America with fear of speaking the truth'

(Editor’s note: The following is Part 1 of a two-part interview with Nonie Darwish, founder of Arabs for Israel. Part 2 is available below.)

Islamic countries indoctrinate children with hatred toward Israel and teach them Israel has no historic claim to the land or the city of Jerusalem, Nonie Darwish, founder of Arabs for Israel, told WND’s Greg Corombos.

Darwish shared her story of being born into a Muslim family in Egypt and being raised to hate Israel.

“It is the total annihilation of Israel and the Jews,” she said. “This is what the center of the educational system in the whole Arab world is. We were taught Jerusalem is a Muslim city; Jews had nothing to do with it, and we have to liberate it. … There’s no acknowledgement that Jerusalem has any roots in Judaism or Christianity. There’s total denial of history.”

Darwish said she only learned the truth after she came to America, because the Muslim world often filters and censors information.

“I actually worked in censorship when I was a journalist in the Middle East,” she explained. “Information is totally filtered, and the propaganda, at the same time, is daily, very intense. Islam lives on propaganda and denies the truth.”

She said any person who challenges the Muslim version of the truth is “immediately regarded as a traitor, and riots happen and this person’s life is threatened.”

Darwish warned, “This is now coming to the West, this fear that I used to live in in the Muslim world – which was fear of speaking my mind, fear of saying the truth – is now following me to America. … My culture of origin is now infecting America with fear of speaking the truth.

She continued, “Unfortunately, we have an administration now that is allowing this to happen and finding excuses for it. And that scares the hell out of me.”

Darwish said she wants to see Arabs and Israelis living side by side in peace, but that cannot happen as long as “the number one enemy of Islam is the truth.” She explained that Muslims have failed to deal with reality for the past 1,400 years and have irrationally loathed the Jewish people since they rejected Muhammad in the seventh century.

In Part 2 of the interview with WND, which can be heard below, Darwish said President Obama’s Middle East policy is a failure and it’s been proven by the events of the past three weeks.

She said it’s unthinkable that America’s consulate in Benghazi did not have enough security and that the Obama administration took 10 days to admit Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were killed in a terrorist attack.

Obama called the murders a “bump in the road,” and Darwish wants to know, “A bump in the road to what? The road to what?”

She added, “The road in the Middle East is turning into hell. What road is he talking about?

“The Muslim Brotherhood already took over. Radical Islam and Shariah are being entrenched in the whole Middle East. The radical Islamist groups are ruling countries there now. They’re now ganging up to destroy Israel. They’re about to have nuclear weapons. We are in grave danger, and President Obama is talking about what? He’s talking about a road to destruction. … He thinks there is a road that will bring peace? What is he talking about?”

Darwish slammed what she considers Obama’s habit of apologizing to Muslims and said it’s unclear why America should be apologizing.

“We are giving them the impression that we are very weak, and we want to appease them,” she said. “We’re acting out of guilt for what?! We lost 3,000 citizens on 9/11, and we’re apologizing for what?”

She said Obama’s United Nations speech scared her – especially his statement that “the future does not belong to those who slander of the prophet of Islam.” Darwish said no religion should be above criticism, and Obama’s language reminds her of the repression inside her native Egypt. She also said the lack of media scrutiny for Obama policies reminds her of how the governments often control the media in the Middle East.

Finally, Darwish said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a “brave man” in his defiance toward the Iranian nuclear program, but she questioned whether Israel can successfully stop the program without any help from the United States. She said it may already be too late to prevent a nuclear Iran.

(Editor’s note: The following is Part 2 of the two-part interview with Nonie Darwish, founder of Arabs for Israel.)

WND/October 1, 2012

Ragbag Headliners

Poll Debunks Media: Most “Gays” Poor, Uneducated, Minorities

Poorer blacks and Asians are more likely to be gay than wealthier whites, a controversial study claimed yesterday.

A Gallup survey – said to be the largest of its kind ever undertaken in America – estimated that 3.4 per cent of US adults saw themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).

That figure consisted of 4.6 per cent of African-Americans, 4.3 per cent of Asians, 4 per cent of Hispanics – but only 3.2 per cent of whites.

In contrast to earlier, smaller studies, researchers also found that Americans with the lowest levels of education were most likely to say they were gay.

A similar pattern was found in wealth, with more than 5 per cent of those with annual incomes of under £15,000 identified as gay compared with 2.8 per cent earning more than £37,000 a year.

And while 21 per cent of American adults earn more than £56,000 a year, only 16 per cent of gay people claimed to earn that much.

The survey – based on interviews with more than 121,000 people – contradicts the perception that lesbians and gays are mostly white, urban and affluent, said lead author Gary Gates.

‘Contemporary media often think of LGBT people as disproportionately white, male, urban and pretty wealthy,’ said Mr Gates of the University of California, Los Angeles. ‘But this data reveals that relative to the general population, the LGBT population has a larger proportion of non-white people and clearly is not overly wealthy.’ -By Joel McDurmon/American Vision/October 22, 2012

<><><>*<><><>

Obamacare Mandate: Anyone Who Works 30-Hour Week Is Now ‘Full-Time’

 A little-known section in the ObamaCare health reform law defines “full-time” work as averaging only 30 hours per week, a definition that will affect some employers who utilize part-time workers to trim the cost of complying with the ObamaCare rule that says businesses with 50 or more workers must provide health insurance or pay a fine.

“The term ‘full-time employee’ means, with respect to any month, an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week,” section 1513 of the law reads. (Scroll down to section 4, paragraph A.)

That section, known as the employer mandate, requires any business with 50 or more full-time employees to provide at least the minimum level of government-defined health coverage to those employees.

In other words, a business must provide insurance if it has 50 or more employees working an average of just 30 hours per week, which is 10 hours per week fewer than the traditional 40-hour work week. –Vision To America/October 22, 2012

Howard Stern contributors Sal and Richard traveled to Harlem to interview Obama supporters and ask them why they are voting for Obama. They did this back in 2008, so see what happened when they did it again in 2012!

You would think someone would be holding those who “educate” accountable for this consistent embarrassment.

^^^*^^^

An Open Letter To Ann Coulter

John Franklin Stephens

Dear Ann Coulter,

Come on Ms. Coulter, you aren’t dumb and you aren’t shallow.  So why are you continually using a word like the R-word as an insult?

I’m a 30 year old man with Down syndrome who has struggled with the public’s perception that an intellectual disability means that I am dumb and shallow.  I am not either of those things, but I do process information more slowly than the rest of you.  In fact it has taken me all day to figure out how to respond to your use of the R-word last night.

I thought first of asking whether you meant to describe the President as someone who was bullied as a child by people like you, but rose above it to find a way to succeed in life as many of my fellow Special Olympians have.

Then I wondered if you meant to describe him as someone who has to struggle to be thoughtful about everything he says, as everyone else races from one snarkey sound bite to the next.

Finally, I wondered if you meant to degrade him as someone who is likely to receive bad health care, live in low grade housing with very little income and still manages to see life as a wonderful gift.

Because, Ms. Coulter, that is who we are – and much, much more.

After I saw your tweet, I realized you just wanted to belittle the President by linking him to people like me.  You assumed that people would understand and accept that being linked to someone like me is an insult and you assumed you could get away with it and still appear on TV.

I have to wonder if you considered other hateful words but recoiled from the backlash.

Well, Ms. Coulter, you, and society, need to learn that being compared to people like me should be considered a badge of honor.

No one overcomes more than we do and still loves life so much.

Come join us someday at Special Olympics.  See if you can walk away with your heart unchanged.

A friend you haven’t made yet,
John Franklin Stephens
Global Messenger
Special Olympics Virginia

Something Unusual Is Happening In Israel

NOTE: I got this from a friend, who has a brother in Israel and who believes that "something is coming".
This friend said:

I don't know if you follow such things, but my brother and his family live in Jerusalem. He is a minister and a former Navy SEAL; his office is close to one of Israel's largest underground military bases.

He called me last night which is very unusual because usually he just emails.

He called to tell me that he is sending his family back to the US immediately due to what he sees happening and what he is being told by his military contacts in both the Israel and US military.

He said he has seen with his own eyes military movements the likes of which he has never seen in his 20+ years in Israel. What he called a "massive deployment of protective tactics and forces" is underway.

Over the last two days, he has seen anti-aircraft missile deployments throughout the Jerusalem area including 3 mobile units that he can see from his office windows. In addition, he has seen very large Israeli armored columns moving fast toward the Sinai where Egypt has now reportedly moved in armor.

There are reports of the top military leaders meeting with Israel's Sr. Rabbi which is something that has happened preceding every prior military campaign. His admonition is to watch carefully and pray for Israel and its people.

He feels that, "something" between Israel and neighboring Arab countries & Iran is about to take place - with or without the US - and very soon. It is the belief in Israel that Obama does not stand with Israel but with the Arab countries.

He has told me before that Israel will saber rattle from time to time but that this time is very different from what he is seeing and hearing.

He was recently at the Wailing Wall, and there were hundreds of Israel Defense Force soldiers there. As he was leaving, he passed at least 20 military buses full of soldiers en route to the Wall.

He has never seen this before either.

Just thought I would pass this along. My brother is not an alarmist by any means.

So, when he talks like this, it gets my attention and usually I find he knows more than he shares. There have been reports that Israel has asked Obama to come to Israel immediately but the request has been answered with silence.

My opinion is, I see the making of a perfect storm.

Author/Source Unknown

Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney

Epic Rap Battles Of History Season 2

Lawsuits Piling Up Against New England Compounding Over Meningitis Deaths

As the number of people sickened with meningitis after receiving contaminated steroid injections continues to rise, lawsuits are starting to pile up.

At least 12 people have filed separate complaints in federal and state courts seeking damages from the compounding pharmacy that produced the steroids, New England Compounding Center of Framingham, Mass.

Attorneys for many of the more than 280 afflicted patients — 23 of whom have died — predict that the number of suits will multiply exponentially in the coming weeks. And several of the plaintiffs are among the roughly 14,000 people who received injections from the implicated lots but who have not actually been diagnosed with meningitis, suggesting the ultimate tally of lawsuits could run in the thousands.

The race to sign up clients is palpable, even in states where the outbreak has been relatively contained. In Minnesota, where seven people have been officially linked to the outbreak since the first cases were detected last month, a recent edition of the Minneapolis Star Tribune featured prominent advertisements by two law firms. And a Google search of the term “fungal meningitis” brings up a blizzard of paid ads from attorneys across the country urging the reader to “Protect Your Loved One’s Rights!” and “Contact Us Immediately.”

Alyson Oliver, an attorney whose Rochester, Mich.-based firm bought its first Google ad last Monday, said she was motivated to do so after agreeing to file suit in U.S. District Court on behalf of Brenda Bansale, a 46-year-old homemaker who was hospitalized to treat severe headaches shortly after receiving a shot from one of the potentially contaminated lots.

“We’re already going to be deeply involved in investing resources and time to help Mrs. Bansale,” Oliver said. “So, to the extent that we can take that knowledge and put it to use for other people involved, that would be beneficial.”

Several plaintiffs attorneys said their hand could be strengthened if federal authorities successfully pursue criminal charges against New England Compounding.

Federal Drug Administration criminal investigators searched the company’s offices Tuesday. In a statement issued that day, U.S. Attorney Carmen A. Ortiz confirmed that her staff and other law enforcement agencies are investigating allegations concerning the company. However, she said it was “entirely premature” to predict the results.

A spokesman for New England Compounding, Andrew Paven, declined to discuss the company’s legal situation.

“While the company is cooperating with both federal and state authorities to determine the cause of contamination, and at the same time professionally and efficiently manage the recalls that have been initiated, we will refrain from commenting on legal issues both existing and hypothetical,” Paven wrote in an e-mail Friday.

Among the challenges for plaintiffs is the considerable variation among state laws likely to apply. So far, the outbreak has spanned 16 states, including some with strict limits on product liability claims.

For instance, in Tennessee, whose 69 cases and nine fatalities are the highest of any state, patients have only one year to file against an involved party, said Fred Pritzker, a Minneapolis-based attorney who is counseling about 40 clients from various states. By contrast, in Minnesota, where Pritzker has filed suit in federal district court on behalf of a 41-year-old woman, the statute of limitations is four years for product liability suits and six years for those claiming negligence.

Tennessee lawmakers also recently capped economic or punitive damages in such suits at $500,000, and damages for pain and emotional suffering at $750,000, Pritzker said. Minnesota has no caps.

“The range of laws and the effect on cases is huge,” he said. “It’s a free-for-all, frankly.”

State laws might not govern damages if the plaintiffs consolidate their claims into a class action.

But attorneys said the more likely approach will be to seek multidistrict litigation status. In that scenario, one judge would oversee the discovery process. But unless the case is resolved through settlement, the outcomes of individual suits would need to be litigated in the plaintiff’s home state in accordance with relevant state law.

Will Moody, who is representing a Salem, Va., man, has chosen to file in Roanoke Circuit Court. Moody didn’t want to risk having the case transferred to a federal court “far away from here,” he said. Virginia’s court system “moves cases along expeditiously and the juries have been very fair,” he added.

Many attorneys warn that even if their clients are able to win favorable judgments or settlements, New England Compounding is unlikely to have enough funds — or enough liability insurance — to adequately compensate them.

“There are no guarantees on any of this,” said Jeffrey Montpetit, the attorney who has filed the other Minnesota federal court case.

If New England Compounding declares bankruptcy, it could further complicate the deadlines for patients seeking legal redress.

Such possibilities will almost certainly prompt a scramble to identify other sources of compensation. Attorneys said they hope to “pierce the corporate veil” around New England Compounding to determine the financial liability of affiliated companies.

And they said they would examine the possible culpability of “upstream” parties such as suppliers of the ingredients and “downstream” entities such as the clinics and doctors that bought and administered the injections. Already the plaintiff in at least one suit, filed in Virginia state court, has named the clinic that gave her the shot in addition to New England Compounding, according to news reports.

But, again, there are hurdles. Doctors can’t generally be sued for product liability. Instead, patients must pursue a medical malpractice claim, said Christopher Chestnut, an attorney who has filed in Florida state court on behalf of a man who lives there. And in contrast to product liability claims — which merely require plaintiffs to demonstrate that a product was defective and caused them harm — medical malpractice suits require proof that the harm resulted because the provider breached a standard of care.

“It’s subjective versus objective,” Chesnut said.

Still, he said, he could envision at least one avenue to pursue: Compounding pharmacies are generally supposed to fill only individual prescriptions and are prohibited from producing drugs in bulk, he said. So if a doctor or clinic can be shown to have knowingly purchased the injections in large batches, that could constitute proof of negligence, for which the doctor or clinic is liable.

“By buying in bulk, they sacrificed the safety of their patients for profits,” he said. “It’s unfathomable.” -By N.C. Aizenman/Washington Post/October 21, 2012

How Groupthink Is Turning Kids Into Moral Midgets

Groupthink is a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1918–1990). Janis served as a research psychologist at Yale University and was professor emeritus at the University of California.

Groupthink “occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of ‘mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment.’ Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making.”

Groupthink was operating at Penn State University for more than a decade. Groupthink is more common than you know. Shifts in moral thinking are guided by Groupthink. Few people want left out of the group, especially when career advancement is on the line. There are numerous examples of Groupthink in history: Salem Witch Trials, French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the rise of Adolf Hitler, the perpetrators of the Holocaust, mass suicide at Jonestown, nearly every government program from Social Security to Obamacare, and the normalization of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism.

No social group is immune from the effects of Groupthink. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. The people at Penn State have university degrees, and yet, they stood by while they knew that evil was in their midst. Social commentator David Brooks offers an insightful explanation that makes Groupthink look rational:

“I don’t think it was just a Penn State problem. You know, you spend 30 or 40 years muddying the moral waters here. We have lost our clear sense of what evil is, what sin is; and so, when people see things like that, they don’t have categories to put it into. They vaguely know it’s wrong, but they’ve been raised in a morality that says, ‘If it feels all right for you, it’s probably OK.’ And so that waters everything down.”

About the time Jerry Sandusky was molested young boys at Penn State and in his home, there was an article written that caught my attention. While most people are shocked that intelligent people can stand by while they witness evil taking place right before their eyes (Andrew Breitbart, Ann Coulter and Grover Norquist are examples for their support of the homosexual organization GOProud), Kay Haugaard is not.

Kay Haugaard has taught creative writing since 1970. As with most of her classes, students read and discuss Shirley Jackson’s short story “The Lottery.” Jackson’s lottery isn’t about winning millions of dollars by picking the right series of numbers; it’s about human sacrifice that a small town accepts and takes part in with no questions asked. As the years of teaching this story have passed, Haugaard began to see a change in the moral perceptions of her students. Their views on right and wrong had been dulled by the rhetoric of moral neutrality, “the danger of just ‘going along’ with something habitually, without examining its rationale and value.”[1] Haugaard’s closing comments are chilling:

No one in the whole class of more than twenty ostensibly intelligent individuals would go out on a limb and take a stand against human sacrifice.

I wound up the discussion. “Frankly, I feel it’s clear that the author was pointing out the dangers of being totally accepting followers, too cowardly to rebel against obvious cruelties and injustices.” I was shaken, and I thought that the author, whose story had shocked so many, would have been shaken as well.

The class finally ended. It was a warm night when I walked to my car after class that evening, but I felt shivery, chilled to the bone.[2]

We’ve become a nation of moral bystanders. Deep down the majority of Americans know certain behaviors are wrong, but they’ve been cajoled into believing that nothing can be said in objection to the new amoral climate. If we do react, we are labeled “intolerant” and “insensitive” to different “lifestyle choices.” Christians are told that they are not being “loving” when they enter an opposing opinion on moral questions.

The change in moral perceptions and attitudes has been stunning. “After the horrendous crime against the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001, a young Yale student has this observation: ‘Absent was a general outcry of indignation . . . [M]y generation is uncomfortable assessing, or even asking, whether a moral wrong has taken place.’”[3]

Where are young people getting this type of thinking? At schools like Penn State. Parents send their children off to the big-name university for the sake of prestige and they come back as moral midgets, and they wonder why. Of course, it doesn’t happen to every child, but it happens to enough of them that we are beginning to see the effects of an immoral backlash. –Godfather Politics/November 15, 2011

Notes:

1 Kay Haugaard, “The Lottery Revisited,” Unriddling Our Times: Reflections on the Gathering Cultural Crisis, ed. Os Guinness (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 138.

2 Haugaard, “The Lottery Revisited,” 141.

3 Peter Jones, Capturing the Pagan Mind: Paul’s Blueprint for Thinking and Living in the New Global Culture (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 50.

Remembering Our Veterans