Looking through an expert's prism on US. - Germany parallels

Hugh Trevor-Roper

Carol Forsloff - Trevor Roper, the British historian of Adolph Hitler, spoke at the University of Washington of parallels between Germany and the United States and the risks from their histories that mirror news today.

It was a different time, when Roper spoke.  It was early 1965.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been passed.  John F. Kennedy's death, howeverfresh, had been absorbed, the grief had passed, the country had moved on.  It was a time of optimism mostly, with a belief in the power to change and with a relatively new President Johnson promising to eradicate poverty and racism along with it.  Women gained new opportunities. American looked ahead.  The War in Vietnam was debated, but the country believed it would be over in time and folks would carry on.

These days the conflicts in the press reveal great political divisions,
issues so greatly espoused that it is debated by experts whether people
will even read or listen to another view.

It is a time when the President of the United States Barack Obama has been compared to Hitler; some associate Hitler with the last President of the United States,George Bush,  by those whose agendas are different and who may or may not understand the specifics of German and American history as Roper knew so well.

And the fear for the future, if all things happened in the right way, according to Roper, was from the right, with the values that reflect where that place is on today's spectrum of political and social concerrns.

Roper was considered the foremost authority on the life of Adolph
Hitler at the time he spoke at the University of Washington, as he had tracked the rise and fall of the dictator in the context of Germany and the history of the world.  He knew beyond the superficial the risks that had occurred in Germany and what America could face without its people using reason and commitment to rise above the foolish and the vain.  He was an admirer of the works of Locke and Rousseau.

In the context of his work,Roper is considered to be by his  peers to be right of center on his political views,significantly anti-Communist at the time of his flowering as a historian, and someone who brought to bear a broad spectrum from the social sciences to support his views.  He was not without controversy
either, having at one time authenticated the Hitler diaries and then withdrew his support.  But his knowledge of Hitler's last days has been accepted by others as substantial enough for realistic discussion, as he is considered an authoritative source of that period.

At the time of Roper's presentation at the University of Washington,  a
reporter was yet somewhat a girl, naively, blithely believing in the best.  As years have passed the reporter has turned gray, the words, the message fresh as it was heard.

Roper said this, as I paraphrased it in notes at the time, as he made the parallels about the United States and Germany and whether America could experience the trauma of Germany and the dissolution of its democratic ways.

"Germany and the United States were both expanded through violence,
through the submission of minorities to the will of the richer and more
powerful groups, " Roper said, outlining his first comparison.  "Both
worship the gun and uniforms.  Both have had a history of admiration and
glorification of war and the military.  Both are democratic countries,
with highly literate populations and Christian majorities.  Both believe
they are superior to others."

What might happen that could catapult the United States into a cauldron
where untruths could surface, where idle stories would become
pronounced, where liberty would become license and lies transformed to
false realities while people marched along?  Roper was asked by that
young journalist, who stood and trembled with the question from the
floor.

This is what Roper said, in words that journalist remembers, on pieces of paper scratched and soiled and barely readable now.

"It would take a time of great strife, an economic devastation not
unlike Germany had before World War II,"  Roper explained.   His words
are paraphrased as these:   "From that problem people could become
chaotic and fix on leaders, empty promises and lose trust.  They would
respond to slogans, paranoia, parades that could grow to mobs."


Roper's warning recalled from those decades when America held such
promise for its young, is brought forward as context for the news today.  ISIS is the terror of the moment, as the Republicans have now gained control of both houses of Congress as well as dominance of the Supreme Court.  

The election of 2016 will determine whether all the elements of Roper's conditions are met and if indeed the United States could face a right-wing thrust that would make it the inheritor of the type of mantle it once fought valiantly against.

What does America's Pledge of Allegiance teach us about today's epidemic of fear?

Children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance

For more than a century the word "socialist" has been used as an epithet to undermine help for desperate groups and to deny serious discussion at a time it's needed most in arguments against the national banking system, public education, Social Security, Medicare and Obama's health care plan.  And as people in the United States laud the symbols of patriotism, such as the Pledge of Allegiance, it turns out that the writer of it was a well-known social liberal of his day.

Before the Civil War the debate about collectivism or socialism was over the national banking system.  While slavery is remembered as a major cause for war, the provocation most pronounced at the outset was the South's rejection of the national banking system and other economic issues.  The argument of states rights and the notion of forced collectivism was posed in hostile language, name-calling, and aggressive tactics that instigated war.

Around the turn of the 20th century public education was also indicted as socialism too, with the proposal for a uniform practice for public schools in order to raise literacy rates and to afford more and more children an education with some standards.  The opposition called it socialist instead.
Using the word socialist has also been done to undermine Social Security, Medicare, and Obama's health care program, and to deny needed help to desperate groups as well as to prevent discussion by issuing emotionally laden jargon.  

Indeed the newspapers of the day and the talk of the town everywhere was like an epidemic, against what was interpreted as socialism, or anything that involved support for a group of people that did not focus especially on the individual at its core.  It was an epidemic of fear.  The notion of a group effort to educate, and to make it possible for everyone, was seen as an assault on American ability to make decisions about what to learn in a classroom and to embrace people in those classrooms who did not have the "right" pedigrees,in terms of economics or class.

It is during elections that the term socialist is heard most often as an epithet, including being hurled at President Barack Obama.  The problem is that the term is used too often to avoid legitimate debate on the issues.  Few people know that the symbols they admire, like the Pledge of Allegiance, was written by a man who, with his brother were both socialists.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in response to  concerns about opposition against public education.  It was composed by Francis Bellamy, (1855 - 1931)  a Baptist minister and author who composed the Pledge in 1892 as part of a quadricentennial program celebrating Columbus Day and for an educational journal called The Youth’s Companion. 

Bellamy's ideas were considered socialist and radical for his time, similar to those of first cousin, Edward Bellamy, who had written several American socialist novels including Looking Backward andEquality. Both Francis and Edward Bellamy believed in a planned economy that would provide political, social and economic equality, beliefs which caused Francis to be asked to leave his position as minister of a Baptist church in Boston. 

During the Columbus Day Program Bellamy addressed state superintendents of education in the National Education Association as well as a large gathering of young people and other celebrants. He knew many Americans considered public schools to be socialistic and that President Harrison was worried about the backlash.  

Bellamy also recognized the nation continued to struggle with its identity as a republic, something that had been declared established by the Civil War that had taken place thirty years before but that continued to be tested by certain social struggles. 

At that Columbus Day presentation, Bellamy began his presentation by talking about how the public schools could unite the nation. He went on to say: "The coming century promises to be more than ever the age of the people; an age that shall develop a greater care for the rights of the weak, and make a more solid provision for the development of each individual by the education that meets his need…... Our fathers in their wisdom knew that the foundations of liberty, fraternity, and equality must be universal education. The free school, therefore, was conceived as the cornerstone of the Republic. Washington and Jefferson recognized that the education of citizens is not the prerogative of church or of other private interest; that while religious training belongs to the church, and while technical and higher culture may be given by private institutions - the training of citizens in the common knowledge and the common duties of citizenship belongs irrevocably to the State.”

Following these statements Bellamy unveiled his Pledge of Allegiance. The original Pledge was as follows, “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Bellamy had considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. 

When the Pledge was changed from “my flag” to “the Flag of the United States of America,” Bellamy protested and was ignored. 

The words “under God” were added in 1954 in response to issues raised during the McCarthy era of anti-Communism when many loyal Americans, including another great African American of intellect, Paul Robeson, had their patriotism challenged. Many of Bellamy’s descendants have said that Bellamy would not have liked the addition of the words “under God,” particularly since he had to leave his position as minister and his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. 

So what was Bellamy thinking when he wrote the original pledge? Writers about Bellamy and the Pledge seem to agree that he wanted to stress the importance of the nation as a republic, one nation indivisible. Although Bellamy was to show some ambivalence to immigrant groups and to African Americans in his later writings, he was considered to be a social liberal with respect to the ideals he held at the time he wrote the Pledge.

So do symbols and how we use them make us Americans? Not according to the experts and not according to the one who made one of the most powerful contributions to America’s repository of valued sayings and symbols recited at important meetings and school events across the United States, the Pledge of Allegiance.

Indeed the conclusion seems to be that being an American has more to do with standing for an indivisible republic and recognizing the values of liberty, equality and justice within it. These are the values espoused by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address and the Pledge of Allegiance. The principal authors of these documents would likely agree with modern scholars on etiquette that respectful attention to the symbols, however that might be demonstrated, is more important than some outdated specified practice that does not reflect at all on whether or not a person is a true patriotic American.

They would certainly be worried that the old arguments continue to be dredged up in the same way all the time, which was seen then as efforts to negate helping the greater community in favor of the rich and their needs.  The Pledge of Allegiance is said to have been written not to be recited in ritualistic fashion, in a special way with the hands over the heart, but simply to stand respectfully as it is said.  It is one of those historical references that allow people to understand that symbols and their representations may not always have been conceived in the fashion they are represented today and may indeed be like other symbols, meant to consolidate community support to help the greater good.

And as today's greater good can mean a worldwide effort to combat infectious diseases like Ebola, even as fear again points to anything being done to help that greater community and the greater good as undermining individual freedom of choice, using epithets like socialism instead of reason and justice, something the Bellamy brothers valued most.

ReferencesAssociated Press, June 2002, Pledge writer probably wouldn't mind removal of under God, family says,”
Baer, John. The Pledge of Allegiance, A Revised History and Analysis, 2007Baer, John, The Life and Ideas of Francis Bellamy, 1992
John McCormick, Obama in Red, White and Blue, Chicago Tribune, June 30, 2008
Miller, Margarette S. Twenty-Three Words, Portsmouth, Va. Printcraft Press, 1976.
Snopes.com
Worley, Stephen L., SMSgt. USAF (Ret). Prairie Ridge US History "The Pledge of Allegiance- Francis Bellamy." 1998.  

Is the new American Civil War a continuation of the first?

[caption id="attachment_20598" align="alignleft" width="300"] Confederate Cabinet of the Civil War reflected political positions similar to today's Tea Party.[/caption]

Carol Forsloff--As the United States presently struggles with the debt ceiling and the government shutdown, is this newest civil war, becoming increasingly uncivil, a continuation of the first?

Scholars now tell us that the demographics of the argument over the nation's financial issues and the choices between local control vs federal domination, the same arguments existed prior to the first American civil war.

And those who initiated and maintain the arguments continue to represent the familiar demographics, with similar arguments about who is in charge and what should be the relative relationship between local and Federal control.   Furthermore the controversies also mirror similar arguments about the role of government to take care of its poorest and most oppressed.

Fareed Zakaria of CNN is one of the foremost international journalists who has maintained that the demographics of the American Civil War are consistent with those today.  The geographical boundaries of the rebel states, including those within them, are reminiscent of the same ones that existed prior to the first Civil War.  Furthermore, the resistance to complying with Federal mandates following the Civil War and the demonizing of those who tried to comply, or forced compliance, has been maintained for generations.

In 2008, Dr. John Fleming, an M.D. and entrepreneur with a number of Subway restaurants in Louisiana, was running for the House against what some might call a more moderate opponent, if moderate defines any politician in the State.  His opponent, however, was Barack Obama, at that time running for President of the United States.  Instead of displaying the opponents positions and taking aim at those, Dr. Fleming chose to highlight his opposition to Barack Obama's Presidency with many of the same arguments now being used in his opposition to the President's policies now.  However, at the time of that original opposition, many of Obama's political opinions were somewhat different on the matter of gay rights and even health care.  So the opposition was likely influenced more by the culture of the region represented by Fleming, and his appeal to that culture, instead of current legislation.

That pattern of opposing Federal intrusion into State's authority came up at a political rally for Dr. Fleming that following year, after Barack Obama's election as President,  When Dr. Fleming answered a question about national banking, one of the members of the audience spoke of how it should be possible to oppose the intrusion of the national government in some important way and pointed to the Federal banking system.  By localizing banking, the audience member said, one would not have to rely on the Federal government in managing economic issues.  Dr. Fleming agreed and spoke of secession as a possible option for negating national control over banking as well as social and political issues as well.

This had been the South's core argument about national banking that spilled over into slavery.  Today the argument about the Federal government's rights vs. local ones continues to vacillate among a number of different areas from gun control to health care as well as gay rights and marijuana distribution.  The intractability of the positions against the Federal government's growth and control has been a pattern of the same group, now called the Tea Party and at the time of the  Civil War, the Rebels.

Despite these conflicts, there have always been those within the borders of the resistance, that Tea Party - Rebel group, who have opposed extremism, just as it is opposed in other parts of the United States, outside of the South.  The problem, however, is that opposition and the more extreme views of the region find more dramatic play in the media then those who quietly go about the business of the day, hoping, like every other American, that the conflicts might end without a worst case scenario.

During the America's first Civil War that conflict ended in war.  Many hope that today's conflict might not end in a way of a different kind that may have far more reaching effects.

Should America be 'restored' or 'rebuilt?'

[caption id="attachment_17546" align="alignleft" width="800"] Franklin Graham sits with his father, Billy Graham[/caption]

Carol Forsloff — "I pray that all Christians and God-fearing Americans will put aside labels and vote for principles–God’s principles–that for many years have resulted in His blessing upon our nation." With that statement Franklin Graham put aside any notions of separation of church and state to endorse Mitt Romney for President, reflecting the moral biases of evangelicals in the political process.

Prior to the Presidential election of 2012, Graham said, "President Clinton said that President Obama “has a plan to rebuild America from the ground up.” But God-fearing Americans have no desire to see America rebuilt–but rather restored. To “rebuild it” would be to create a new nation without God or perhaps under many gods. This was never the intent of those who shed their blood for the freedom to worship as “one nation under God.”

This notion of restoring America has been the watchword of the Republican party since Ronald Reagan's Presidency, according to Mark Silk, who is Professor of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College and director of the Greenberg Center. It is the banner upheld during public debates and the reason for some of debates on moral values, as fundamental religious belief hearkens to the good old days of the founding fathers as the way things still should be.

"One nation under God" and "In God We Trust", however, were not the phrases used by the founding fathers, specifically those who wrote the Constitution. Instead the focus was on making sure people had certain freedoms to worship without interference and also to recognize that government and religion were not intertwined in all respects, as the separation of church and state was underlined by Thomas Jefferson as important.

These references to God came later, as many of the founding father were humanists or Deists as opposed to fundamental Christians, as many believe. President Eisenhower initiated the prayer breakfast in the 1950's and Congress added the words "In God We Trust" on all paper money during that same decade. "One nation under God" came in 1956, replacing "E Pluribus Unum." Adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance was part of this same era, as the writer, Edward Bellamy, had no reference to God in his original composition.

So as Franklin Graham made assertions about the moral consequences of electing Mitt Romney over Barack Obama, using the notion of restoring the nation to its original God-fearing ways, those same ways, at the time of independence, also included women and blacks unable to vote, folks working long hours with little concern for health and safety, and the separation of whites from blacks in every area of community life. Many of these same problems remained during the 1950's when God's name was inserted into political speeches and recitations.

The notion of restoration, referencing the founders intent, seems not be as Graham has discussed; but it does maintain an attitude that maintaining the past beliefs and direction is to be favored over rebuilding a nation in economic distress.

 

 

Transcripts of Obama's and Boehner's speeches regarding the budget

[caption id="attachment_6386" align="alignleft" width="384" caption="Flag flying in front of Independence Hall. Philadelphia, PA Summer 2008. Photo/Kay Mathews"][/caption]

As a news organization it is our duty to provide you with the means to make informed decisions and with that responsibility in mind we have decided to include on our front page the transcripts of both Obama's and Boehner's speeches regarding the budget.

As Americans it is our duty to stay abreast of major events in our nation. We must make informed decisions when we vote and make informed suggestions when we contact our representatives. There are times when our responsibility means we must take serious considerations of both sides of the political spectrum.

Obama:

Good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we've been having in Washington over the national debt - a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans.

For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation's credit card.

As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more - on tax cuts for middle-class families; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit.

Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can't balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money - the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won't have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that's what we've been trying to do. I won't bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.

The first approach says, let's live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let's cut domestic spending to the lowest level it's been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let's cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let's cut out the waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare - and at the same time, let's make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let's ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions.

This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt. And the cuts wouldn't happen so abruptly that they'd be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small business and middle-class families get back on their feet right now.

This approach is also bipartisan. While many in my own party aren't happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared. While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said "Yes, I'm willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem." And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks.

The only reason this balanced approach isn't on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach - an approach that doesn't ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scales, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about - cuts that place a greater burden on working families.

So the debate right now isn't about whether we need to make tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, don't understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don't get. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don't need and didn't ask for?

That's not right. It's not fair. We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country - things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research.

Keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98% of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we're talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade - millionaires and billionaires - to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. In fact, over the last few decades, they've pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit. The first time a deal passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this:

"Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer."

Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan. But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach - an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, President Clinton, myself, and many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate. So we are left with a stalemate.

Now, what makes today's stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling - a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before.

Understand - raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it 7 times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won't be able to pay all of our bills.

Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they'll vote to prevent America's first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach.

If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills - bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans' benefits, and the government contracts we've signed with thousands of businesses.

For the first time in history, our country's Triple A credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet. Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, mortgages, and car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis - one caused almost entirely by Washington.

Defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn't solve the problem.

First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there's no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road.

But there's an even greater danger to this approach. Based on what we've seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now. The House will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach. Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions. Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare. And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way.

That is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It is a dangerous game we've never played before, and we can't afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. We can't allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington's political warfare.

Congress now has one week left to act, and there are still paths forward. The Senate has introduced a plan to avoid default, which makes a down payment on deficit reduction and ensures that we don't have to go through this again in six months.

I think that's a much better path, although serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform. Either way, I have told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress - a compromise I can sign. And I am confident we can reach this compromise. Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before. And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress.

I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and I don't see eye-to-eye on many issues. But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons. Yes, many want government to start living within its means. And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few. But do you know what people are fed up with most of all?

They're fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word. They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table. And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington. They see leaders who can't seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans. They are offended by that. And they should be.

The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn't vote for a dysfunctional government. So I'm asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your Member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.

America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise. As a democracy made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one. We have engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: "Every man cannot have his way in all things…Without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society."

History is scattered with the stories of those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed. But those are not the Americans we remember. We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good. We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union.

That's who we remember. That's who we need to be right now. The entire world is watching. So let's seize this moment to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth - not just because we can still keep our word and meet our obligations, but because we can still come together as one nation.

Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.



Boehner:

Good evening. I'm John Boehner. I serve as Speaker of the whole House -- of the members of both parties that you elect. These are difficult times in the life of our nation. Millions are looking for work, have been for some time, and the spending binge going on in Washington is a big part of the reason why.

Before I served in Congress, I ran a small business in Ohio. I was amazed at how different Washington DC operated than every business in America. Where most American business make the hard choices to pay their bills and live within their means, in Washington more spending and more debt is business as usual.

I've got news for Washington - those days are over.

President Obama came to Congress in January and requested business as usual -- yet another routine increase in the national debt limit -- we in the House said 'not so fast.' Here was the president, asking for the largest debt increase in American history, on the heels of the largest spending binge in American history.

Here's what we got for that spending binge: a massive health care bill that most Americans never asked for. A 'stimulus' bill that was more effective in producing material for late-night comedians than it was in producing jobs. And a national debt that has gotten so out of hand it has sparked a crisis without precedent in my lifetime or yours.

The United States cannot default on its debt obligations. The jobs and savings of too many Americans are at stake.

What we told the president in January was this: the American people will not accept an increase in the debt limit without significant spending cuts and reforms.

And over the last six months, we've done our best to convince the president to partner with us to do something dramatic to change the fiscal trajectory of our country. . .something that will boost confidence in our economy, renew a measure of faith in our government, and help small businesses get back on track.

Last week, the House passed such a plan, and with bipartisan support. It's called the 'Cut, Cap, and Balance' Act. It CUTS and CAPS government spending and paves the way for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which we believe is the best way to stop Washington from spending money it doesn't have. Before we even passed the bill in the House, the President said he would veto it.

I want you to know I made a sincere effort to work with the president to identify a path forward that would implement the principles of Cut, Cap, & Balance in a manner that could secure bipartisan support and be signed into law. I gave it my all.

Unfortunately, the president would not take yes for an answer. Even when we thought we might be close on an agreement, the president's demands changed.

The president has often said we need a 'balanced' approach -- which in Washington means: we spend more. . .you pay more. Having run a small business, I know those tax increases will destroy jobs.

The president is adamant that we cannot make fundamental changes to our entitlement programs. As the father of two daughters, I know these programs won't be there for them and their kids unless significant action is taken now.

The sad truth is that the president wanted a blank check six months ago, and he wants a blank check today. That is just not going to happen.

You see, there is no stalemate in Congress. The House has passed a bill to raise the debt limit with bipartisan support. And this week, while the Senate is struggling to pass a bill filled with phony accounting and Washington gimmicks, we will pass another bill - one that was developed with the support of the bipartisan leadership of the U.S. Senate.

Obviously, I expect that bill can and will pass the Senate, and be sent to the President for his signature. If the President signs it, the 'crisis' atmosphere he has created will simply disappear. The debt limit will be raised. Spending will be cut by more than one trillion dollars, and a serious, bipartisan committee of the Congress will begin the hard but necessary work of dealing with the tough challenges our nation faces.

The individuals doing this work will not be outsiders, but elected representatives of the people, doing the job they were elected to do as outlined in the Constitution. Those decisions should be made based on how they will affect people who are struggling to get a job, not how they affect some politician's chances of getting reelected.

This debate isn't about President Obama and House Republicans … it isn't about Congress and the White House … it's about what's standing between the American people and the future we seek for ourselves and our families.

You know, I've always believed, the bigger government, the smaller the people. And right now, we have a government so big and so expensive it's sapping the drive of our people and keeping our economy from running at full capacity.

The solution to this crisis is not complicated: if you're spending more money than you're taking in, you need to spend less of it,

There is no symptom of big government more menacing than our debt. Break its grip, and we begin to liberate our economy and our future.

We are up to the task, and I hope President Obama will join us in this work.

God bless you and your families, and God bless America.

Obama in the UK: What the press said

Michael Cosgrove - Now that President Obama has left British shores for Deauville in France and the G8 summit, the extent and nature of British press reaction to his visit is now online. Here's a round-up of what was said, which ranges from almost adoring praise to suspicions that he only went to make poor old British PM David Cameron feel wanted in a world which is seeing a decline in British influence.

Highlights of the visit included a stack of photo ops in Cameron's company, talks at Downing Street, and a barbecue during which Barack, Michelle, David and his wife Samantha served up the burgers (Dave and B) and salad (Michelle and Sammy) to servicemen and women injured in action. The Telegraph pithily called this 'a triumph for barbecue democracy.' Michelle wowed him out though with her visit to the august Oxford University to have a girls-only chat with a group of schoolgirls from a school-like-all-the-others in London.

It was a very smart move. Oxford University is currently under fire for allegedly not accepting enough black students (only 99 undergraduates out of a total of  11,000) which made her decision to talk to girls from a school with a majority of black children a talking point.  Although she didn't allude to this issue she recalled her doubts as a person from a relatively lower social status as she entered a prestigious American university to begin her studies. “Don’t be afraid to fail, to take a risk, to ask stupid questions, to trip, fall and get back up again” she said, and her message was unequivocal. The girls could do what she had done, black or not. To cap it all of she revealed that she thought Barack was "cute" when she first met him. Mission accomplished.

Back to Barack, and he said what Cameron and Europe wanted to hear, which was that he was committed to the transatlantic relationship and the UK. That the United States may neglect Europe in favor of the dynamic Far East has been a major worry here, so Cameron must have been over the moon when Obama said on the subject of changes in the global power and economy equation that "And yet, as this rapid change has taken place, it has become fashionable in some quarters to question whether the rise of these nations will accompany the decline of American and European influence around the world. Perhaps, the argument goes, these nations represent the future and the time for our leadership has passed. That argument is wrong. The time for our leadership is now."

In fact Obama had already guaranteed himself a certain amount of popularity with a BBC video interview in which he called Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh "extraordinarily gracious people". That is cannot-fail stuff, no doubt about it.

But not everyone at the Beeb agreed with everything he did. Top BBC  journalist and American citizen Mark Mardell said that his speech at Westminster Hall was "flat and lacked soaring passion." Mardell's view is that Obama sometimes sounded more like a Neo-Con than an anti-war president. This was because Obama's speech was essentially about how Britain and the Magne Carta had started off the whole rights and democracy thing, that the USA had always supported this and that both were spreading not Western values but universal rights. Mardell says that "He doesn't spell it out, but it is a reminder many of the rising powers don't value democracy and human rights. Those that do may not have the desire to promote them in the muscular way that Britain and America can and do - at the point of a gun."

Most of The Telegraph's coverage was positive, but they did let off a round across Obama's bows in an editorial which claims that his policy towards the Arab world is inconsistent and that he resents Britain's colonial past. Also, the paper says that those British people sympathetic to Israel's cause - and The Telegraph takes a generally pro-Israel stance - will be angered by his plan to return Israel to its 1967 borders. Both claims are the paper's opinion of course but many British people will share its sentiment that "Mr Obama is not interested in British domestic politics."

The Guardian summed that opinion up better and more succinctly than most with a cartoon sketch showing the Obamas waving goodbye as they leave Downing Street on their way out of Britain. Michelle whispers "He's not that special" and Barack answers "...but he is essential." Why does he say that? Because there's a valet behind him carrying their luggage items, which are labeled "Libya", "free market globe trot", "Afghanistan" and "Trident cruises" (in reference to Britain's nuclear deterrent.)

Most opinion in Britain would agree that Obama's visit was effectively more about keeping Europe happy and onboard on issues concerning them than anything else, because his biggest priorities now lie elsewhere in the world and with other geopolitical interests and economies, such as those concerning China, India, Pakistan and the Far East in general.

And as Britain is no longer a major world player, and because the British are now aware of this reality, it may well be safe to say that most of them are pragmatically thinking along the lines of "fair enough, he's pretty cool as politicians go, and although we know we're not too important now and that he was mostly doing a PR job, I'd do the same if I were him."

Happy birthday, Mr. President: The lady sings for you.

[caption id="attachment_11219" align="alignleft" width="237" caption="Marilyn Monroe"][/caption]

 Carol Forsloff - Today is Barack Obama's 49th birthday.  Like John F. Kennedy, Obama's Presidency is marred by controversy, but unlike John, Barack won't get the same kind of cake.





Remember that cake on John F. Kennedy's birthday?  Those of a certain age do.  It was brought out with much hoopla in the misty memories and sexy sashay of Marilyn Monroe.

There were speculations at the time about Kennedy and Monroe having had a love affair, but those were the days when discretion truly was the better part of valor.  Valor meant standing bravely and understanding people have foibles in the midst of a very big job.

This wasn't the time of the tell-all, throw-it-all society.  Reality shows were Father Knows Best, and that was enough.  Private lives were private, including, and most especially that of the President.

News media had journalists with training in journalist, and they too had an understanding about the public's right to know.  Wonder why they weren't so apt to reveal every nick and pimple on someone's bottom as part of that right.  It was also the time when releasing secret files during war would have been met with citizen horror.

Now young people consider it honorable for a man in military uniform in the war in the Middle East to make confidential papers available to the media and for the media to brag about having it.

It's a different atmosphere and a different kind of birthday.

Whether folks like his politics or not, the President represents the country as a whole; and on this occasion, why not simply say.  It is Barack Obama's special day.   And here's what Kennedy got on his birthday, from me to you today.

Happy Birthday, Mr. President.