Monday, March 28, 2011
OPINION: Step up, take charge and lead the nation, Mr. President
- 03/28/11 06:28 AM ET
“Hope” is a great word, as is “liberty.” And “change” is nice. I have always been partial to “opportunity.”
They have all been words liberally applied in recent years by those running for office, many of whom have won. We now have a federal government that is dominated by elected people who have promised Hope, Liberty, Change and Opportunity. Where are we? We wait.
We confront a world where our role is in transition. Our policies in Afghanistan are struggling. The Middle East is in chaos and the cost of oil is threatening to stagger our economy. Our domestic energy policy is essentially non-existent, as is our immigration policy.
We have no good answer for Iran, Pakistan or North Korea, which represent legitimate threats in that they could be sources of weapons of mass destruction that may come under the control of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.
Our military is being asked to be nation builders. This is not a proper use of their expertise or people.
Our economy continues to struggle. This is due to many factors, but certainly a large part of the problem is the explosion in the size of the federal government. It has grown from 20 percent of GDP on average since the end of World War II to now absorbing 24 percent and going up.
This, coupled with an explosion of regulatory excess that makes France seem almost laissez-faire, has made the risk of taking risks and investing in new ventures that create jobs problematic.
Agencies like the FDA, EPA and the Labor Department have declared their own jihad against American entrepreneurs, resulting in a deflating of the forces that might give our economy some lift.
All of this is overlaid by a nation on a borrowing binge. Like a gambler who cannot stop placing bets, we continue to run up the debt — only in this case the house is made up of our international competitors, especially China.
No one knows how long they will continue to extend us a line of credit. One thing is obvious, though: we are losing our competitive position and jobs are going with it, as a result of our inability to manage our own fiscal house.
What is the answer to these troubles we face? It could easily be Hope, Change, Liberty and Opportunity. It also takes leadership to execute on these words, and if one thing has been missing in Washington these days, it is leadership.
Issue after issue is allowed to flop along. The need for someone to step up and not only define a path for addressing the challenges but actually lead us down that path could not be more apparent. Does anyone think that FDR, Truman or Reagan would have allowed these issues to fester without setting out proposals to address them? It is inconceivable that these men would have tolerated having America confront these types of challenges in a rudderless boat.
All these good words mean nothing if you do not have leadership to energize them and convert them to action that will move the nation forward and renew our culture. This leadership should come from the president. He is the focal point of our government and he has the ability and responsibility to step in front of the parade.
Yet he does not seem to be inclined to do so. This is strange. Clearly, he understands the issues and the extent of the threat both in the area of international affairs and in the arena of the looming fiscal crisis.
It is difficult to understand his reticence. He set up a commission on fiscal policy and then walked away from its report, leaving it to a small group of senators to try and move the effort. He also seems to have decided to step aside on the world stage and, even in areas where we have a huge investment such as Afghanistan, the policy is adrift.
This administration seems to be subject to a paralysis that is driven, one presumes, by an over-arching desire to set up for the reelection effort. No one should fault them for wanting to be strongly positioned for reelection. One of the best ways to do this would be to lead on these critical issues, give our nation a clear plan for our role in the world, our approach to Islamic fundamentalism and our massive debt problem.
The nation needs and the world needs the president to lead us on a course that will restore hope, change the tenor of the times, ensure and expand liberty and promote opportunity.
Judd Gregg is a former governor and three-term senator from New Hampshire who served as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and also as ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Foreign Operations Subcommittee.
They have all been words liberally applied in recent years by those running for office, many of whom have won. We now have a federal government that is dominated by elected people who have promised Hope, Liberty, Change and Opportunity. Where are we? We wait.
We confront a world where our role is in transition. Our policies in Afghanistan are struggling. The Middle East is in chaos and the cost of oil is threatening to stagger our economy. Our domestic energy policy is essentially non-existent, as is our immigration policy.
We have no good answer for Iran, Pakistan or North Korea, which represent legitimate threats in that they could be sources of weapons of mass destruction that may come under the control of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.
Our military is being asked to be nation builders. This is not a proper use of their expertise or people.
Our economy continues to struggle. This is due to many factors, but certainly a large part of the problem is the explosion in the size of the federal government. It has grown from 20 percent of GDP on average since the end of World War II to now absorbing 24 percent and going up.
This, coupled with an explosion of regulatory excess that makes France seem almost laissez-faire, has made the risk of taking risks and investing in new ventures that create jobs problematic.
Agencies like the FDA, EPA and the Labor Department have declared their own jihad against American entrepreneurs, resulting in a deflating of the forces that might give our economy some lift.
All of this is overlaid by a nation on a borrowing binge. Like a gambler who cannot stop placing bets, we continue to run up the debt — only in this case the house is made up of our international competitors, especially China.
No one knows how long they will continue to extend us a line of credit. One thing is obvious, though: we are losing our competitive position and jobs are going with it, as a result of our inability to manage our own fiscal house.
What is the answer to these troubles we face? It could easily be Hope, Change, Liberty and Opportunity. It also takes leadership to execute on these words, and if one thing has been missing in Washington these days, it is leadership.
Issue after issue is allowed to flop along. The need for someone to step up and not only define a path for addressing the challenges but actually lead us down that path could not be more apparent. Does anyone think that FDR, Truman or Reagan would have allowed these issues to fester without setting out proposals to address them? It is inconceivable that these men would have tolerated having America confront these types of challenges in a rudderless boat.
All these good words mean nothing if you do not have leadership to energize them and convert them to action that will move the nation forward and renew our culture. This leadership should come from the president. He is the focal point of our government and he has the ability and responsibility to step in front of the parade.
Yet he does not seem to be inclined to do so. This is strange. Clearly, he understands the issues and the extent of the threat both in the area of international affairs and in the arena of the looming fiscal crisis.
It is difficult to understand his reticence. He set up a commission on fiscal policy and then walked away from its report, leaving it to a small group of senators to try and move the effort. He also seems to have decided to step aside on the world stage and, even in areas where we have a huge investment such as Afghanistan, the policy is adrift.
This administration seems to be subject to a paralysis that is driven, one presumes, by an over-arching desire to set up for the reelection effort. No one should fault them for wanting to be strongly positioned for reelection. One of the best ways to do this would be to lead on these critical issues, give our nation a clear plan for our role in the world, our approach to Islamic fundamentalism and our massive debt problem.
The nation needs and the world needs the president to lead us on a course that will restore hope, change the tenor of the times, ensure and expand liberty and promote opportunity.
Judd Gregg is a former governor and three-term senator from New Hampshire who served as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and also as ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Foreign Operations Subcommittee.
Presidential “Latinos and Education” Town Hall—A Key to Winning the Future
Posted by on March 28, 2011 at 06:09 PM EDT
En español.President Obama participated in an historical town hall event focused on education and the Latino community this morning at Bell Multicultural High School, a dual-language school situated in the heart of the Hispanic community in Columbia Heights in the nation’s capitol. It’s a school 66 percent Hispanic, 37 percent English language learners and where 90 percent of the students are eligible for free or reduced lunch. Hosted by Univision, this community conversation gave the President a chance to talk directly to Hispanic students, parents and their teachers about the importance of education in the rapidly growing Latino community and the country as a whole.
President Barack Obama, with moderator Jorge Ramos, left, addresses a town hall meeting hosted by Univision at Bell Multicultural High School in Washington, D.C., March 28. 2011. Ramos is a news anchor and Univision. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) The only way we can achieve these goals is to clearly understand that the future of America is inextricably linked to the future of the Latino community. At more than 54 million strong – including nearly 4 million in Puerto Rico -- Hispanics are both the largest and fastest-growing minority group, yet they have the lowest education attainment levels of any group in the country. In the 21st century global economy, the fact that Latinos will form a larger growing portion of the American workforce makes this challenge even more central to the nation: as more Americans retire, this will be the population that retirees and the rest of America depends upon.Latinos number more than 12 million students in America’s public schools and make up more than 1 in 5 (22 percent) of all pre-K-12 public school students. Yet, less than half of Latino children are enrolled in any early learning program. Only about half of Latino children earn their high school diploma on time; those who do finish high school are only half as likely as their peers to be prepared for college. Only 13 percent of Latinos hold a bachelor’s degree, and just four percent have completed graduate or professional degree programs. For the Hispanic community, there is a lot work to be done across the entire education spectrum.
The only way we can make change happen in the Latino community is to make sure everyone brings their self-interests and talents to the table—students, parents, and families working hand-in-hand with teachers and principals; superintendents collaborating more closely with community college and four-year university education leaders; governors, mayors, and other elected officials partnering with the business, philanthropic, nonprofit, and grassroots sectors; everyone sharing the responsibility for helping us win the future.
Our office has been fortunate to connect with the Latino community in over 100 different cities in nearly 40 states, D.C. and Puerto Rico over the past year and a half. In each city, one message has been crystal clear: education is the path to the American Dream for the Hispanic community. On Monday, you’ll get the chance to hear the President talk about his vision for how we help Latino kids and all students succeed—from cradle to career.
I hope you watch the broadcast airing on the Univision network at 7 pm ET/PT and 6 pm CT/MT on Monday, March 28. You can also see it streamed online at www.EsElMomento.com in English and Spanish and simulcast on Univision Radio. When you do, let us know what you think. What do you think it will take for Latinos to increase their education attainment levels and help America win the future?
President Addresses Nation on Libya
March 28, 2011 | 26:32 | Public Domain
Monday, March 28, 2011, the President delivers an address at the National Defense University in Washington, DC to update the American people on the situation in Libya, including the actions we’ve taken with allies and partners to protect the Libyan people from the brutality of Moammar Qaddafi, the transition to NATO command and control, and our policy going forward.
Obama: U.S. intervened for humanitarian and national interests
President Obama, March 28, 2011
Video Playlist
Photo Gallery
 |  |
Washington, DC
Monday, March 28, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
With the conflict in Libya continuing, and NATO taking over command of the no-fly zone, President Obama addressed the nation tonight from the National Defense University on the U.S. role in Libya.
In the speech, which lasted just under 30 minutes, Obama said the U.S. intervened because a stable Libya is in the U.S.'s strategic interest and because of the humanitarian crisis.
"Gaddafi declared that he would show 'no mercy' to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world," Obama said.
Obama offers some insight into the future of the mission:
"As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do – and will do – is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners as they’re in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power," Obama said.
The President has been under pressure from both Republicans and Democrats to discuss the U.S. policy and how long the U.S. military will be involved in the mission. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on the Senate floor this afternoon that he wants the president to answer many questions on Libya, such as the U.S.'s role and when the U.S. combat role will end.
When asked at the Defense Department briefing about who the opposition rebels are, Vice Admiral William Gortney told the press that he did not know. "We would like a much better understanding of the opposition but we don't have it," Gortney said. He said they are providing neither direct support nor is the U.S. "consulting" with those fighting Col. Gadhafi's forces.
The American Enterprise Institute held a discussion on "Odyssey Dawn", the name given to the operations in Libya. Panelists included former Defense official for the Bush administration Paul Wolfowitz, and former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack. The panelists said President Obama has failed to adequately explain the incursion in Libya to the American public and his speech tonight should have been given sooner. Pollack said the president should consider a "preemptive" attempt to change political structure in the Arab world and that he should also give a speech explaining broader U.S. strategy in the Middle East.
In the speech, which lasted just under 30 minutes, Obama said the U.S. intervened because a stable Libya is in the U.S.'s strategic interest and because of the humanitarian crisis.
"Gaddafi declared that he would show 'no mercy' to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world," Obama said.
Obama offers some insight into the future of the mission:
"As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do – and will do – is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners as they’re in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power," Obama said.
The President has been under pressure from both Republicans and Democrats to discuss the U.S. policy and how long the U.S. military will be involved in the mission. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on the Senate floor this afternoon that he wants the president to answer many questions on Libya, such as the U.S.'s role and when the U.S. combat role will end.
When asked at the Defense Department briefing about who the opposition rebels are, Vice Admiral William Gortney told the press that he did not know. "We would like a much better understanding of the opposition but we don't have it," Gortney said. He said they are providing neither direct support nor is the U.S. "consulting" with those fighting Col. Gadhafi's forces.
The American Enterprise Institute held a discussion on "Odyssey Dawn", the name given to the operations in Libya. Panelists included former Defense official for the Bush administration Paul Wolfowitz, and former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack. The panelists said President Obama has failed to adequately explain the incursion in Libya to the American public and his speech tonight should have been given sooner. Pollack said the president should consider a "preemptive" attempt to change political structure in the Arab world and that he should also give a speech explaining broader U.S. strategy in the Middle East.
Updated: 1 hr., 58 min. ago
Conservative Principles PAC Conference
Related Video
Telephone lines were open for viewer reaction to a day-long conservative conference in Des Moines, Iowa.
Telephone lines were open for viewer reaction to a day-long conference on conservative values.
Those who spoke and committee meeting
Representative Steve King spoke at the Conservatives Principles Political Action Committee Conference in Des Moines, Iowa. In his remarks he gave an overview of his conservative agenda including .. Read More
Governor Haley Barbour spoke at the Conservatives Principles Political Action Committee Conference in Des Moines, Iowa. Among the topics he addressed were jobs, the economy, and energy policy.
Betsy McCaughey spoke at the Conservatives Principles Political Action Committee Conference in Des Moines, Iowa. She focused on repealing health care reform legislation. She also criticized the .. Read More
Newt Gingrich spoke at the Conservatives Principles Political Action Committee Conference in Des Moines, Iowa. In his remarks he focused on the 2012 presidential election, repeal of health care .. Read More
Panelists spoke at the Conservatives Principles Political Action Committee Conference in Des Moines, Iowa on jobs and the economy. They also responded to questions from the audience.
Panelists spoke about family values and social issues at the Conservatives Principles Political Action Committee Conference in Des Moines, Iowa. Among the topics they addressed were marriage, .. Read More
Kim Reynolds spoke at the Conservatives Principles Political Action Committee Conference in Des Moines, Iowa.
Minnesota Republican Congressman Michele Bachmann talked about the 2012 election and her efforts to repeal and defund the federal health care law. She made these remarks at a Conservatives .. Read More
Panelists spoke at the Conservatives Principles Political Action Committee Conference in Des Moines, Iowa on repealing the health care law. They also responded to questions from the audience.
Jan Mickelson spoke conservative values and social issues at the Conservatives Principles Political Action Committee Conference in Des Moines, Iowa. Among the topics he addressed were prayer, .. Read More
Rosemary Jenks spoke at the Conservatives Principles Political Action Committee Conference in Des Moines, Iowa. She focused on immigration policy and called for and end to birthright citizenship and .. Read More
Herman Cain talked about his possible run for President in 2012 and talked about the many crises facing America today under the leadership of President Obama. He made these remarks at a .. Read More
Panelists spoke about media coverage of political campaigns and Iowa's place in the campaign process at the Conservative Principles Political Action Committee Conference in Des Moines, Iowa. They .. Read More
Former Ambassador John Bolton criticized President Obama for the “bad” timing of the U.S. mission in Libya, saying if “we had intervened earlier, the mission would now be over.” He also .. Read More
Representative Thaddeus McCotter spoke at the Conservatives Principles Political Action Committee Conference in Des Moines, Iowa.
Representative Steve King (R-IA) gave closing remarks at a day-long conference on conservative values in Des Moines, Iowa.
Excellent Video By Abort73 - The Case Against Abortion
March 28, 2011
I ask is this one of those movies that they make women watch after they ask for an abortion. What will they make women do or see because conservative Republicans think we are not capable of taking care of our selves or our own bodies. Like I have stated I do not believe in abortion, but that is my opinion and I do not have the right to bare knuckle my opinion on others. We are free thinking, free voting, American women.....
Sen. Rand Paul Responds to President Obama's Address
So, now what? Liberals still push their agenda and the GOP with it. A lot of talk, but no action. Congress has power but is afraid to use it. The military does not even consider if the order is legitimate. No one has the guts to stand up to Obama, Reid or Pelosi.
I hope the Tea Party produces more patriots. These GOP folks are professional politicians that couldn't care less for the country than for their own reelection.
Social Conservatives Speak at Conservative Principles PAC Conference in Des Moines
Mar 282011
Representatives from various social conservative organizations spoke at Steve King’s Conservative Principles PAC Conference to an audience of 550 on Saturday. Panel participants included: Emmett McGroarty of American Principles Project, Connie Mackey of Family Research Council, Former Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) of Susan B. Anthony List, and Brian Brown of National Organization for Marriage. You can watch the panel discussion below.
MSNBC’s First Read reported on McGroarty’s response to Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour’s "main thing" comment which garnered a positive response from the audience.
Barbour focused largely on the economy.
"The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing," Barbour joked, adding, "and the main thing is economic growth."
Barbour was generally well received, and earlier in the week, he showed no qualms in expressing his emotion on the issue of abortion. But with Iowa being a caucus state dominated by social conservatives, some attendees in the hallways and in the audience questioned that focus.
Another speaker, Emmett McGroarty, on a panel on family values, wrapped his speech by with what appeared to be a mild shot at Barbour. He said social-conservative values are part of "the main thing, and that’s the main thing I’m focused on today."
That drew a mix of laughs and applause.
As he’s said before, Barbour stressed that the presidential election needs to be about policy, "because these are the wrong policies. … These policies make it harder to create jobs."
As I have said before, Governor Barbour has to overcome his social conservative problem, and he didn’t help himself on Saturday.
**Thanks to Eric Goranson for videoing the panel discussion.
Rep. Steve King's Kooky Summit
by David A. Graham
It must be the eve of an election, because the political conference season is in full swing. The latest: Saturday’s Conservative Principles Political Action Committee Conference in Des Moines, Iowa (not to be confused with the Conservative Political Action Conference, nor the Conservative Party Political Action Conference). It’s the brainchild of Rep. Steve King, the Hawkeye State Republican known for his extremely hawkish views on illegal immigration and his outlandish statements.
5 things to watch for this weekend at CPPAC. Credit: AP Photo King hasn’t had a great few months. He was passed over for the position as chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee that he coveted, and—as he’s quick to point out—health-care reform has still not been defunded. But King remains a potent figure in Tea Party and social conservative circles, and he’ll flex those muscles at Saturday’s conference. Here are the highlights to watch.
1. The Presidential Hopefuls on the Scene…
The parade of would-be GOP nominees will start bright and early with Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour just after 9 a.m., and it won’t let up for the rest of the day. He’ll be joined by Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Herman Cain. Add to that Rep. Michele Bachmann, who’s been seen as an unlikely candidate but is now rumored to be close to launching an exploratory committee, and John Bolton, the former U.N. ambassador. Keynote speaker Sen. Jim DeMint has also been mentioned as a contender but doesn’t appear to be leaning that way. That’s a nearly full roster of the lesser-known end of the GOP slate, who need every opportunity they can to make an impression (Santorum, for example, has little name recognition but has been a frequent Iowa visitor.
If you’re hoping to see Republican frontrunners Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty—or even Sarah Palin—look elsewhere. While the little guys need every opportunity they can to make an impression with movers and shakers in the state with the nation’s first caucuses, the big dogs are nowhere near the conference, which doesn’t have the cachet of CPAC. And with the unpredictable King helming things, being present could be more danger than it’s worth.
3. Tough Talk on King’s Pet Issues
After passing a bill that would defund health-care reform, most House Republicans seem content to let the matter rest for the time being—an acknowledgment that while they oppose the law, any bill they pass now will die in the Democratic-controlled Senate. King has remained militant about the issue, though, even clashing with Bachmann. He’s doubling down this weekend: Not only will Betsy McCaughey, the woman credited with helping to kill President Clinton’s health-care plan, speak in the morning, King and McCaughey will sit on a panel devoted to repealing the Obama law. King could use the occasion to call out his colleagues for not acting more forcefully to defang the law. And there will likely be plenty of discussion on illegal immigration, too. Russell Pearce, the Arizona state senator who sponsored his state’s bill mandating that police check the immigration status of anyone they suspect might be undocumented, was scheduled to attend but apparently had to pull out because of a family commitment. Don’t expect King to drop the banner, though, and watch to see whether he lays out any new proposals.
4. Searching for a Tea Party Foreign Policy
While the Tea Party’s priorities lie in domestic matters, without a unified approach to foreign affairs, the intervention in Libya will force some discussion of the matter, and Bolton’s presence ups the ante. Bolton will bring his hawkishness to an audience that may be skeptical of American adventurism, but he has been granted nearly half an hour to speak—almost half as long as the other contenders. Gingrich, meanwhile, will likely be called on to explain his repeated flip-flops on whether he backs American intervention against Muammar Gaddafi and why.
5. The Iowa Delegation
As presidential hopefuls try to curry favor with Iowans, the key figures in the state will be there assessing the field. Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn is emceeing the closing banquet, and Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds snagged a prime post-lunch speaking slot. Gov. Terry Branstad, who’s warned candidates to skip or underestimate the Iowa caucuses at their own peril, won’t be there, but his office says he has a wedding to attend or else would be present.
David Graham is a reporter for Newsweek covering politics, national affairs, and business. His writing has also appeared in The Wall Street Journal and The National in Abu Dhabi.
It must be the eve of an election, because the political conference season is in full swing. The latest: Saturday’s Conservative Principles Political Action Committee Conference in Des Moines, Iowa (not to be confused with the Conservative Political Action Conference, nor the Conservative Party Political Action Conference). It’s the brainchild of Rep. Steve King, the Hawkeye State Republican known for his extremely hawkish views on illegal immigration and his outlandish statements.
5 things to watch for this weekend at CPPAC. Credit: AP Photo King hasn’t had a great few months. He was passed over for the position as chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee that he coveted, and—as he’s quick to point out—health-care reform has still not been defunded. But King remains a potent figure in Tea Party and social conservative circles, and he’ll flex those muscles at Saturday’s conference. Here are the highlights to watch.1. The Presidential Hopefuls on the Scene…
The parade of would-be GOP nominees will start bright and early with Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour just after 9 a.m., and it won’t let up for the rest of the day. He’ll be joined by Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Herman Cain. Add to that Rep. Michele Bachmann, who’s been seen as an unlikely candidate but is now rumored to be close to launching an exploratory committee, and John Bolton, the former U.N. ambassador. Keynote speaker Sen. Jim DeMint has also been mentioned as a contender but doesn’t appear to be leaning that way. That’s a nearly full roster of the lesser-known end of the GOP slate, who need every opportunity they can to make an impression (Santorum, for example, has little name recognition but has been a frequent Iowa visitor.
As presidential hopefuls try to curry favor with Iowans, the key figures in the state will be there assessing the field.
2. … And Those Who Are SkippingIf you’re hoping to see Republican frontrunners Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty—or even Sarah Palin—look elsewhere. While the little guys need every opportunity they can to make an impression with movers and shakers in the state with the nation’s first caucuses, the big dogs are nowhere near the conference, which doesn’t have the cachet of CPAC. And with the unpredictable King helming things, being present could be more danger than it’s worth.
3. Tough Talk on King’s Pet Issues
After passing a bill that would defund health-care reform, most House Republicans seem content to let the matter rest for the time being—an acknowledgment that while they oppose the law, any bill they pass now will die in the Democratic-controlled Senate. King has remained militant about the issue, though, even clashing with Bachmann. He’s doubling down this weekend: Not only will Betsy McCaughey, the woman credited with helping to kill President Clinton’s health-care plan, speak in the morning, King and McCaughey will sit on a panel devoted to repealing the Obama law. King could use the occasion to call out his colleagues for not acting more forcefully to defang the law. And there will likely be plenty of discussion on illegal immigration, too. Russell Pearce, the Arizona state senator who sponsored his state’s bill mandating that police check the immigration status of anyone they suspect might be undocumented, was scheduled to attend but apparently had to pull out because of a family commitment. Don’t expect King to drop the banner, though, and watch to see whether he lays out any new proposals.
4. Searching for a Tea Party Foreign Policy
While the Tea Party’s priorities lie in domestic matters, without a unified approach to foreign affairs, the intervention in Libya will force some discussion of the matter, and Bolton’s presence ups the ante. Bolton will bring his hawkishness to an audience that may be skeptical of American adventurism, but he has been granted nearly half an hour to speak—almost half as long as the other contenders. Gingrich, meanwhile, will likely be called on to explain his repeated flip-flops on whether he backs American intervention against Muammar Gaddafi and why.
5. The Iowa Delegation
As presidential hopefuls try to curry favor with Iowans, the key figures in the state will be there assessing the field. Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn is emceeing the closing banquet, and Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds snagged a prime post-lunch speaking slot. Gov. Terry Branstad, who’s warned candidates to skip or underestimate the Iowa caucuses at their own peril, won’t be there, but his office says he has a wedding to attend or else would be present.
David Graham is a reporter for Newsweek covering politics, national affairs, and business. His writing has also appeared in The Wall Street Journal and The National in Abu Dhabi.
The Hopper: Disaster planning
Overseas natural disasters, like the recent earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan, unsurprisingly gravitate attention toward the nation’s own disaster planning infrastructure. A small number of bills in Congress deal with disaster planning or recovery efforts.
* Reacting to the earthquake in Japan, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) introduced the Critical Infrastructure Earthquake Preparedness Act of 2011 (HR 1132) on March 16. The bill would direct the administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to create a grant program specifically for improving the ability of hospitals and airports to withstand earthquakes. Communities on active fault lines could be eligible for funding under his measure. Cohen’s own district in Tennessee is located along the New Madrid Fault Line, and in a press release on the bill, he notes that Memphis could obtain funds to reinforce its airport under this bill. It has not had committee or floor action.
* HR 570 is the Dental Emergency Responder Act of 2011, and passed the House on March 8. The bill, from Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Texas), would clarify that dentists could be considered as voluntary disaster-response public health workers under the federal disaster-response framework. The bill has not had Senate action.
* HR 175 is the Smart Housing in Disasters Act of 2011, and was introduced on Jan. 5, by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who is the ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee. The bill would direct the administrator of FEMA to develop “lifecycle plans and tracking procedures” for housing provided after a disaster. It has not has committee or floor action.
* HR 57 is the Disaster Recovery Improvement Act and was introduced on Jan. 5, by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.). It would amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to require swifter decisions on appeals of decisions pertaining to eligibility for, and amounts of, federal disaster assistance; direct the president to implement certain regulations pertaining to the repair of public facilities damaged by disasters; direct FEMA to revise the evaluation process for governors’ requests for major disaster declarations; and authorize the president to provide assistance for pets and service animals during emergencies. It has not had committee or floor consideration.
— Stacey Skotzko, Congress.org
'Rise of the New Right'
I am posting Chris Mathews program videos on 'Rise of the New Right' I somehow miss them last year. They happened in June 2010.
I preached against homosexuality, but I was wrong
SUNDAY, MAR 27, 2011 14:01 ET
As a Presbyterian minister, I believed it was a sin. Then I met people who really understood the stakes: Gay men
iStockphoto/ArtisticCaptures
A recent poll shows a huge shift in American attitudes toward gay marriage, from a 32 percent approval in 2004 to 53 percent today.
I am one of those people who changed their minds.
In 1989 when I was ordained as a minister to serve a small church in North Carolina, homosexuality was an invisible issue. Gay rights were barely on the radar of mainstream churches. The idea of an openly gay pastor was beyond the pale.
I knew there were "gay churches," of course, but I did not believe one could be a practicing homosexual and a Christian. The Bible was straightforward on this issue. It all seemed incredibly obvious to me.
But over the next five years, homosexuality not only became an issue -- it became The Issue. Sides were drawn, and those of us in the middle were pulled to either end. I was a biblical Christian, of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" crowd. And so it seemed clear that I could not fully accept, ordain and marry gays. If I was going to be forced to choose a side, that was mine.
The truth is, I was put out that this was an issue. Feeding the hungry, preaching the gospel, comforting the afflicted, standing up to racial intolerance -- these were the struggles I signed up for, not determining the morality of what adults did in their bedrooms.
But the debate would not go away. It came up, again and again, year after year, pushed by activists on either end. Each time, I grudgingly voted to hold the traditional line and limit the role of gays in the church. But I felt increasingly uncomfortable. What I believed was biblically correct began to feel less and less right in my heart.
While the church was fighting it out, I was going through my own battle. I moved to Alaska in 1996, but the debate followed me. And three major things happened which started to crack the wall of my complacency.
First, I had a long, online conversation with a gay Christian man who had wrestled with his sexuality and finally decided, as he put it, that God was more concerned with his pride than his sexuality. He was hesitant to talk about the subject when I first broached it, partially because every other pastor he'd talked to wanted to convert him. But in the end, he's the one who taught me. He surprised me by saying he did not know he was gay until he was in his early 20s. (He just thought he had an extraordinary respect for women.)
Next, a parishioner asked me to do an exorcism for him because he was gay. He had tried everything else he could think of -- therapy, prayer, will power, alcohol, support groups, marriage -- and nothing worked. It was a heartbreaking situation. As a minister I may have questioned the sinfulness of his actions, but I absolutely knew he was not demon-possessed.
Then I met a woman whose husband had left her for another man. They were a clergy couple, serving a small-town church. She had every right to be angry and hurt, but I was awed by her grace. She told me he was the best minister she had ever known. (From his work record, I would agree.) He simply got to the point where he could no longer live the lie of his sexuality. Of course he had to leave the ministry once he came out. It must have been a hideous choice: Pretend to be something he was not, or leave his calling because of the person he loved.
These experiences shook my worldview. It became clear to me that none of these men had chosen to be gay, just as I had never chosen to be heterosexual. How could I condemn someone for something that was really not their fault? Meanwhile, I was experiencing the slow disintegration of my own marriage. Needless to say, it was hard for me to condemn anyone else for their relationships when mine was in such bad shape. I began moving closer to the center. If homosexuality was a "sin," I wanted to add an asterisk to it.
Toward the end of my parish ministry, I was approached by five individuals who demanded that I do a sermon to come out strong against any acceptance of gays and lesbians in the church. They wanted to hear what the Bible said on the issue. The funny thing was, all five of them were divorced and remarried. Had I done a sermon on what the Bible said about divorce, every one of them would have left the church in a huff.
I did that sermon, however, and it was not my best hour as a Minister of Word and Sacrament. In my research, I found that the Bible was more nuanced about the issue than I previously believed, and I tried to convey that, but ultimately I still came out against acceptance of homosexuality. Now, I wish I'd been more upfront about how my own views were transforming, but I took a back-door approach to the subject. I talked about all the sins according to the Bible, and said if we were going to start throwing out sinners from our church, I wanted to start with the gossips.
Looking back, I see how much my own opinions had been formed by the fact that I was representing a split congregation. Our church, like so many, was divided. And while the people who believed it should be accepted were not going to leave if we maintained a position of non-acceptance, those who felt it was a sin would bolt in a heartbeat if we ever allowed gay clergy or gay marriage. If they bolted, half our budget would go out the door. I knew the issue could tear the church apart. What I didn't realize was how it could tear apart the people in the church as well.
Every year we send young people to our national meeting as youth delegates. In a year when gay ordination was going to be discussed (again), I sat down with our selected delegate to share some of my own thoughts on the topic. Later, the person declined the position. I was given reasons, but none of them made any real sense until I learned, many years later, that the person had come out of the closet. What had I said back then? I couldn't remember exactly, but I am pretty sure it boiled down to the idea that there was no place for homosexuals in our church.
In 2005 I left the parish ministry to work as a hospital chaplain. Part of the reason for leaving was my separation. But also, I was tired of trying to live up to standards that I did not fully agree with.
With distance, I could see the mean-spirited nature of the anti-gay movement, and the naked way large Christian organizations used the "gay threat" to raise money. Free from the constraints of a congregation, I could spend more time actually looking at the biblical texts that deal with homosexuality, and I was surprised to find they were not as clear as I had supposed they were. At this point, I have done a 180 on the topic. And I believe it's a change for the good.
So why had we singled out homosexuality as a litmus test for True Christianity in the first place? Why had it become such a lightning rod for self-righteousness?
One reason, I think, is that it's easy to condemn homosexuality if you are not gay. It is much harder than condemning pride, or lust or greed, things that most practicing Christians have struggled with. It is all too easy to make homosexuality about "those people," and not me. If I were to judge someone for their inflated sense of pride, or their tendency to worship various cultural idols, I would feel some personal stake, some cringe of self-judgment. Not so with homosexuality.
Now I am wondering why, if two gay people want to commit their lives to one another, they should ever be denied that chance. No church or pastor should be forced to perform those ceremonies, and they can choose not to recognize gay marriage for their adherents. But the constitution of the Presbyterian Church does not explicitly forbid a pastor from being a thief, a murderer, or an egotistical jerk. It is not designed to do these things. It does prohibit a gay person from becoming a pastor. All I can ask is: Why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)