Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (45636)	9/12/2010 4:45:28 PM
From: sandintoes	3 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 71588

The Republican party is trying to oust the tea party candidates.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (45636)	9/14/2010 8:59:09 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

Glenn Beck, Progressives and Me The TV host has a point when he says a limitless view of state power is un-American. SEPTEMBER 15, 2010. By RONALD J. PESTRITTO On television, on radio, in books, and in a widely viewed speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this year, Glenn Beck has pronounced "progressivism" as the "disease" that afflicts America. His progressive opponents, meanwhile, seem obsessed with attacking him for this obsession—the Center for American Progress has even launched a series of papers to "set the record straight." This battle reveals a deeper dispute about American history. Mr. Beck and others—such as Jonah Goldberg in his 2008 book, "Liberal Fascism"—tie today's progressives (the new word for liberals) to the progressive movement at the turn of the 20th century. They contend that the original progressives—including leaders such as Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt—rejected America's founding principles. Mr. Beck also claims that today's leftist policies are the culmination of a journey begun by progressives over a century ago. I think it's fair to say that I'm one of those indirectly responsible for the fuss. Messrs. Beck and Goldberg have drawn from my academic work on Woodrow Wilson, and I've been interviewed about this work by Mr. Beck as an occasional guest on his program. Whatever I or anyone else thinks about Mr. Beck's programming or political views, on one central historical issue he is correct: The progressive movement did indeed repudiate the principles of individual liberty and limited government that were the basis of the American republic. America's original progressives were convinced that the country faced a set of social and economic problems demanding a sharp increase in federal power. They also said that there was too much emphasis placed on protecting the liberty of individuals at the expense of broader social justice. So did this make them socialists—a charge frequently leveled by Mr. Beck? Woodrow Wilson did oppose the actual socialist movement of his day, and he didn't believe that the government at the time was capable of accomplishing everything socialists then had in mind. Nevertheless, in his 1887 essay, "Socialism and Democracy," Wilson considered the socialist principle—"that all idea of limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view"—to be entirely consistent with democratic principles: "In fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. . . . Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none." Theodore Roosevelt also recoiled from the socialist movement. But in his famous "New Nationalism" speech of 1910, he said it was necessary that there be "a far more active governmental interference" with the economy. "It is not enough," he said, that a fortune was "gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community." To achieve their ends, progressives understood that the original constitutional limits on the scope of the federal government had to be breached. This is why Roosevelt railed against court decisions, like the famous Supreme Court case of Lochner v. New York (1905), that upheld individual property rights against progressive legislation (in this case a law limiting the number of hours a baker could work). It is also why Wilson consistently advocated the adoption of a more English-style government, where there is no written fundamental law to serve as a check on the authority of the national legislature. All this makes puzzling recent calls from some conservative quarters to lay off the original progressives. Matthew Continetti in the Weekly Standard, for instance, claims that "progressivism is a distinctly American tradition." In fact, it was anything but. Wilson sought, in his 1886 essay on "The Study of Administration," to model America's national administration on Bismarck's Prussia. He wrote that this model of centralized government "is not of our making; it is a foreign science, speaking very little of the language of English or American principle. It . . . utters none but what are to our minds alien ideas. . . . It has been developed by French and German professors." Other leading progressives such as Frank J. Goodnow, the president of Johns Hopkins University, noted approvingly (in a 1916 lecture) that in Europe, unlike in America, the rights an individual possesses "are, it is believed, conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action." In thinking about alternatives to such a limitless vision of state power, we need not turn to some kind of minimalist anarchy. The Federalists of America's founding era were hardly shrinking violets about centralized government power; and police power lodged in the states was used vigorously prior to the progressive era of the early 20th century. But at a time when there is a serious debate about first principles—and when significant elements of the public appear receptive to criticisms of our march toward European-style social democracy—the meaning of progressivism, past and present, is surely relevant. Today, a congressman such as Pete Stark can simply boast that the federal government "can do most anything in this country." And Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi won't even consider the constitutionality of a government takeover of health care a "serious question." Given this state of affairs, it does not seem unreasonable to reflect on the origins of the disdain for the Constitution in the Progressive Era. Mr. Pestritto is a professor of politics at Hillsdale College and the author of "Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism" (Rowman and Littlefield, 2005). online.wsj.com

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (45636)	9/15/2010 9:21:48 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Ruling Class vs. the People by A.W.R. Hawkins 09/02/2010 Unemployment is hovering around 9.6%, our national debt is over $13 trillion, one-in-six Americans are receiving some type of government help, and Barack Obama just wrapped his sixth vacation in less than two years as President. It was a waterfront vacation in Martha’s Vineyard that cost around $50,000 for the rental property alone. (This doesn’t count the cost of staff, of Secret Service protection, or the transport and fuel for the 20-vehicle caravan that traveled with the President all over the island.) If a sixth vacation of this magnitude seems a bit pretentious to you, you’re not alone. Even David Letterman, the decidedly liberal host of the “Late Night Show,” thought the trip so ostentatious at a time like this that he said: “[Obama will] have plenty of time for vacations after his one term is up." Letterman is right on the mark here. With AP polls showing that 56% of voters disapprove of the way Obama has handled the economy, he’s courting political disaster by continuing his smug trek from beach house to golf course to beach house again, during a summer when many Americans didn’t even get one vacation. (Nor is Obama’s image helped by the fact that he has played more rounds of golf in less than two years than President George W. Bush did in two whole terms.) But this is a teachable moment: For we have to understand that “hope and change” was every bit the façade that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin warned us it would be. Obama doesn’t care about the plight of the average Joe anymore than he cared about the plight of the now-famous “Joe the Plumber.” This is because Obama is part of the ruling class. As such, he is literally against the people. And his wife is right there with him (she may actually be more smug than he). Who, but the wife of a member of the ruling class, could take a $375,000 European vacation at time when the American people suffer as they now do? Moreover, who but the haughtiest of ruling class members could do so knowing that the American taxpayer was going to be stuck holding tab? I’m aware that the Obama has tried to lessen the criticism hurled at Mrs. Obama by announcing that she would pay for all “personal expenses” out of pocket, but, as with Martha’s Vineyard, that doesn’t include the cost of staff, Secret Service, etc. In fact, estimates place the cost of simply flying Michelle and her entourage to Spain and back at $178,000, and that’s $178,000 which taxpayers are going to pay. There’s always been a strong hint of entitlement swirling around Mr. and Mrs. Obama. Now that the media has crammed picture after picture of the first family’s sixth vacation down our throats, the hint is so strong as to become repugnant. We the people have been duped. There is no hope and change. There is only the growing feeling of a Carter-like malaise that threatens to overtake the American people even as “Obama the most merciful” plans his seventh vacation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HUMAN EVENTS columnist A.W.R. Hawkins holds a Ph.D. in U.S. Military History from Texas Tech University. He will be a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal during the summer of 2010. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- humanevents.com

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (45636)	3/1/2013 9:46:37 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Why Public Schools Should Teach the Bible Westerners cannot be considered literate without a basic knowledge of this foundational text.. February 28, 2013, 8:01 p.m. ET By ROMA DOWNEY AND MARK BURNETT Have you ever sensed in your own life that "the handwriting was on the wall"? Or encouraged a loved one to walk "the straight and narrow"? Have you ever laughed at something that came "out of the mouths of babes"? Or gone "the extra mile" for an opportunity that might vanish "in the twinkling of an eye"? If you have, then you've been thinking of the Bible. These phrases are just "a drop in the bucket" (another biblical phrase) of the many things we say and do every day that have their origins in the most read, most influential book of all time. The Bible has affected the world for centuries in innumerable ways, including art, literature, philosophy, government, philanthropy, education, social justice and humanitarianism. One would think that a text of such significance would be taught regularly in schools. Not so. That is because of the "stumbling block" (the Bible again) that is posed by the powers that be in America. It's time to change that, for the sake of the nation's children. It's time to encourage, perhaps even mandate, the teaching of the Bible in public schools as a primary document of Western civilization. We know firsthand of its educational value, having grown up in Europe—Mark in England, Roma in Ireland—where Bible teaching was viewed as foundational to a well-rounded education. Now that we are naturalized U.S. citizens, we want to encourage public schools in America to give young people the same opportunity. This is one of the reasons we created "The Bible," a 10-part miniseries premiering March 3 on the History Channel that dramatizes key stories from Scriptures. It will encourage audiences around the world to open or reopen Bibles to understand and enjoy these stories. Without the Bible, Shakespeare would read differently—there are more than 1,200 references to Scripture in his works. Without the Bible, there would be no Sistine Chapel and none of the biblically inspired masterpieces that hang in countless museums world-wide. In movies, without biblical allegories, there would be no "Les Misérables," no "Star Wars," no "Matrix," no "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, no "Narnia" and no "Ben-Hur." There would be no Alcoholics Anonymous, Salvation Army or Harvard University—all of which found their roots in Scripture. And really, what would Bono sing about if there were no Bible? Teaching the Bible is of course a touchy subject. One can't broach it without someone barking "separation of church and state" and "forcing religion down my throat." Yet the Supreme Court has said it's perfectly OK for schools to do so, ruling in 1963 (Abington School District v. Schempp) that "the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as a part of a secular (public school) program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment." The Supreme Court understood that we're not talking about religion here, and certainly not about politics. We're talking about knowledge. The foundations of knowledge of the ancient world—which informs the understanding of the modern world—are biblical in origin. Teddy Roosevelt, the 26th president known more as a cigar-chomping Rough Rider than a hymn-signing Bible-thumper, once said: "A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education." Can you imagine students not reading the Constitution in a U.S. government class? School administrators not sharing the periodic table of the elements with their science classes? A driver's ed course that expected young men and women to pass written and road tests without having access to a booklet enumerating the rules of the road? It would be the same thing, we believe, to deny America's sons and daughters the benefits of an education that includes a study of the Bible. Although we are both Christians, the list is long of ardent atheists who appreciate the Bible's educational heft while rejecting its spiritual claims. It is possible to have education without indoctrination. On this point, believers and nonbelievers should be able to "see eye to eye." (More Bible goodness.) Interestingly enough, the common desktop reference guide "The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy" best sums up the Bible's value as a tool of cultural literacy. Its first page declares: "No one in the English speaking world can be considered literate without a basic knowledge of the Bible." Can we hear an amen? Ms. Downey is an actress best known for her role in the TV series "Touched by an Angel." Mr. Burnett is the producer of several TV shows, including "Survivor" and "The Voice." online.wsj.com