"History's verdict is all we have left.  And when tomorrow calls today into account, some of us want to say we stood up.  We called out.  We were not silent."
--Leonard Pitts, Jr., "Gestures of Conscience Bring Solace," Baltimore Sun, March 19, 2006

HOW RELIGION RUINED POLITICS AND POLITICS RUINED RELIGION

Print the article

This entry was posted on 6/2/2009 2:46 PM and is filed under uncategorized.

When I was in college back in the 70's, a series of personal and family tragedies that occurred back to back during my junior year left me emotionally shipwrecked and set apart from the vast majority of my classmates, whose biggest problem in life was what to wear to the spring formal or whether they'd pass an exam. 

Cut adrift from familiar shores, lost and alone, I floated into the current of the campus Christian evangelical community, and consequently accepted Christ as my personal savior and was baptised in a Southern Baptist church back home.

Because I never do anything halfway, I embraced my new life right down to my soul, so to speak, joining Campus Crusades for Christ, taking Bible courses as electives, going door to door saving souls, working as a "counselor" at Billy Graham movies, serving as a summer camp counselor at a Christian camp, dating seminary students, and after graduation, teaching at a private Christian academy in another state.

Because the Bible stated that "believers should not be yoked to non-believers," that meant freezing out many of my old friends, listening only to Christian music and reading Christian books, and so on.  Back then, Christianity had not yet become a multi-billion dollar industry, and so that dictate was harder than you might think.  I had to mix up my own cassette tapes of Christian music, although many of my friends frowned upon my collection of Mormon Tabernacle Choir music because everybody knew they were a cult and therefore, Satanic.

I'd hear stuff like that and just toss it off and not dwell on it too much.  I didn't think anyone who could make such astonishing music could be anything BUT close to God.  The lack of tolerance for even listening to their music baffled me, but I didn't argue about it.  I just privately played their soaring, blessed "Halleluyah Chorus" and didn't talk about it much.

And the popular self-help books I read, all about stuff like, how to submit myself to my lord and master--meaning, my future husband--well, that kinda bugged me too, but after all, I did want to find myself a good Christian husband, because every Singles Bible class I attended concentrated on husband-finding as if being a single woman were some sort of tragic disability.  You literally did think there was something wrong with you if you had no husband or marriage prospects on the near horizon, and so you took more Singles classes so you could figure out what you were doing wrong and fix it before all the Good Christian Men were taken.

But, basically, I was more of the intellectual Christian than the emotional one.  I didn't buy into the whole speaking-in-tongues and laying on of hands and other excesses of the faith.  In fact, I grew tired of the Baptists pretty quick because every single solitary sermon said the exact same thing, and so I found a nondenominational congregation near my campus and went three times a week.

Usually, I attended lectures where the speakers translated Bible verses from the original Hebrew or Aramaic, and I read bestselling Christian authors like C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer, who were known as the philosophical vanguards of the faith, and who dealt in the Deeper Questions of life.  Some of their reading was dense, but that was the challenge and the joy and, I confess, gave me a bit of a feeling of superiority over those who didn't read much at all but who did things like, stop taking their epilepsy medicine because "Jesus is going to heal me."

(That guy was later found by police, wandering down the street in his underwear.)

I had a boyfriend who was a seminary student at a non-denominational institution that was--and is to this day--highly respected, and he and his friends and I would have many all-nighters debating such heavy theological issues as dispensationalism, predestination, literal-versus-symbolic interpretation of scripture, and so on.  I took a comprehensive Bible class in the New Testament from the Moody Bible Institute, another respected institution, by correspondence, and after a couple of years, I could hold my own with the best born-and-bred Bible thumpers, even if my family and old friends worried that I'd lost my mind.

In a way, I had.  I just didn't know it at the time.

The comedown, when it came, came hard and fast and violently.  Teaching at the Christian academy, it wasn't just the undercurrent of prejudice (only white students and faculty), or the haphazard educational standards or poor availability of textbooks and supplies--it was coming face to face with the thunderous judgementalism, hypocrisy, and mean-spiritedness that I encountered from colleagues with otherwise impeccable gospel standards. 

What that enviornment was doing to the students drove me to a near nervous breakdown and I quit at Christmas break, for my own sanity.  When, a few months later, I reconnected with an old and dear friend with whom I'd been romantically involved, off and on, for many years--before the whole evangelical thing--and decided to marry him, the reaction from my evangelical friends at my old Baptist church back home shocked me to my core.

Because he was a privately spiritual person but averse to organized religion, they deemed him a "nonbeliever."  When my pastor's entreaties that I not marry "this man" did not work, he said he'd go ahead and perform the ceremony, "because there are some things I want to say."

I trusted him.  He was my pastor.

That was my first mistake.

At my wedding ceremony, in front of everyone invited, he scorched my now-husband and me with a patronizing lecture, scolding me about how I should understand "what it means to obey" my husband, and launching such a towering sermon that a future sister-in-law on the front pew whispered, "Everybody stay seated.  There's going to be a baptismal after the service."

When we kissed, the pastor scowled and dug his toe into the carpet, fleeing the church almost immediately.  He did not come to the reception.

He never spoke to me again.  None of my old Christian evangelical "friends" ever spoke to me again, although one did visit once, "because I wanted to reassure myself that what they were all saying about you wasn't true."  Apparently, it was, because I never heard from her again, either.

I've been "yoked to that nonbeliever" for 35 years now, and a stronger, kinder, more patient and spiritual man you won't find anywhere.  We raised our kids out in the country around animals and nature, with deep spiritual beliefs, having family devotionals every Sunday they were growing up, often outdoors in our Chinaberry Grove, because neither of us could really feel comfortable in churches for very long.

I have not, in fact, "submitted" myself to my husband, who is a 6'4" combat vet.  I'm a feminist--not afraid of the word--and he's secure enough in his manhood not to be threatened by that.  We've worked in partnership to raise two strong, independent kids.  My daughter supports herself and doesn't put up with crap from guys looking for wilting daisies, and my ex-Marine combat-vet son has no problem cleaning house or cooking dinner for his beautiful girlfriend.  (You got a problem with that???)

When I look back on who I was during that terribly vulnerable time in my life, a time when I was lost in grief and searching for comfort, I am amazed that I did not make so many mistakes I could have made, had I truly, truly listened to what they were trying to make me into.  I shudder to think what a disastrous marriage I might have made had I married any of the churchy guys my pastor kept fixing me up with.  (One of them was a college drop-out, unemployed, and didn't have a car, so the pastor loaned him a car and probably gave him some cash for the date.  As for his uncertain future, well, the Lord will provide, dontcha know.)

When I was a young mother, and Ronald Reagan embraced Jerry Falwell in his presidential campaign, I knew right away what was happening and what was about to happen, and I knew that it was ultimately going to be very bad for our country.  The hypocrisy of the religious right for hero-worshiping a man who did not himself ever go to church and whose wife consulted astrologers did not surprise me.

You'd be surprised what they can shut out of their minds when they don't want to face a truth.  (Although, what with the Creationist Museum and so on, maybe you wouldn't.)

From Reagan's massive success garnering votes from the religious right, Republican politicians began licking their chops.  Not only were they a reliable block vote--easily manipulated with emotional "wedge" issues--but they were a bottomless well of easy cash.

After having been willingly whipped into a frenzy over those very social issues, the religious right saw politics as the way to manipulate policy and gain power, and they embraced their new-found influence with a messianic zeal.

It was a holy marriage made in hell.

By the time Karl Rove got his plump little hands on it, "voting guides" were being passed out to congregations on Sundays and voter registration drives conducted in church buildings.  And that does not even count what was going on in evangelical television, radio, and publishing.

You were basically told who to vote for, and if you did not, well, you weren't Christian enough.  In fact, some Catholic churches threatened to kick you out of the church altogether for supporting Democrats.  At Jerry Falwell's own "Liberty University," you can get kicked off-campus these days for supporting Barack Obama.

The beauty of the whole system is the ease of manipulating and disseminating information, because of the way evangelicals isolate themselves from the entire "nonbelieving" world.  Christian evangelicals befriend, marry, worship, and educate their children with other Christian evangelicals; often they work in the evangelical community.  They watch Christian TV, listen to Christian radio, read Christian books, visit Christian websites.  (They even sin with other Christians; it's not unusual for online affairs--sexual and otherwise--to occur in Christian chat rooms.) 

So to cynics like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney--who admit that in private, they themselves are not religious--the evanagelical community is putty in their hands.  How easy it was, for instance, for them to sell a war based on nothing more than waving flags, yellow-ribbon magnets, and "support the troops" church-drives and prayer lists--with a good solid dose of fear thrown in; fear of the "other," of rabid Muslims coming into our mostly-white, gated communities and destroying our way of life.

They don't question anything, because to question is to lead to answers they may not want to hear, and they are afraid that questioning tenets of the faith as flat-out literal, would be to see the whole thing collapse.  In truth, it's just the opposite--the more I questioned my own beliefs, the deeper my faith grew--it was different, certainly, but deeper.  (I now include Eastern traditions and Native American beliefs in with a symbolic interpretation of the Bible, and I continue to question things, every day.) 

But this lack of questioning is how they fail to see a dichotomy in accepting that a black presidential candidate can be both a radical Christian like the Jeremiah Wright-guy they saw on TV hundreds of times a day, AND a closet Muslim terrorist.  You just don't question.

I watched all of this unfold through the years with a particular kind of horror, because I knew the flip-side of sanctimonious piety.

In fact, Jesus knew it too--when he faced the Sadducees and Pharisees.  It was not the Romans, really, who crucified Jesus.

It was religious extremists who demanded purity tests of him that he ignored.  The price was his execution.

By torture.

Another little fact so conveniently ignored by the religious right.

Someone who has first-hand knowledge of the danger to this country in combining religion and politics is a man who lived it first-hand.  His name is Frank Schaeffer.

Yes, THAT Schaeffer.  The Francis Schaeffer whose books we read and debated in college Christian circles was Frank Schaeffer's dad.  During the zoom-growth years of the 80's, the Schaeffers basically created the Religious Right.  They were embraced by all the big evangelical names of the day:  Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, James Dobson, and others.

Republican presidents had them over to the White House, and powerful conservative politicians not only courted them, but had them speak to fellow conservative senators and congresspeople.

It was Frank Schaeffer who literally wrote the book (and made the movie) on the abortion issue that was to set the movement on fire--a fire that soon raged out of control and eventually resulted in "pro-life" bombings and assassinations, a tragedy that Schaeffer accepts responsibility for--probably more than he should, really.

But at least he's got the balls to admit it.

In the end, Schaeffer's own emotional and spiritual fall from evangelical graces was, like mine, hard, fast, and violent--but in his case, it was far more agonizing because he had invested his entire life in it, and because he knew, first-hand, things I had only intuited: that something was very, very rotten in Denmark.

Schaeffer's entire journey is detailed in his fascinating book: CRAZY FOR GOD: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back.

As I read the book and reflected on the immense respect we in the Christian intellectual community had had for Francis Schaeffer, I think that was one of the things that saddened me the most: the esteemed philosopher-theologian's own blunt disillusionment:


"Dad seemed lost in a depressed daze,"
Schaeffer writes, "He had recently been saying privately that the evangelical world was more or less being led by lunatics, psychopaths, and extremists, and agreeing with me that if 'our side' ever won, America would be in deep trouble."


Perhaps acknowledging that this might even apply to his own family, Schaeffer comments that he and his father gradually came to realize that, "...Evangecalism is not so much a religion as a series of fast-moving personality cults."

He writes:


"As soon as the leader steps aside, or is shoved aside, or stumbles, the crowd looks for the next man or woman to briefly follow.  There is always a bigger show down the street, another--even better--Bible-study leader or congregation to try, another hot author/guru to read, another trend, from speaking in tongues to giving homeschooling a try.  And most evangelicals spend a good portion of their time wandering from church to church, from one leader to another, in the same way that when I was a teen I'd  switch my loyalty from one rock band to another."


The bestselling books I had devoured in my evangelical days (I'm talking about the pop-Christian-psychology books and not the works of scholarship by his dad)--are exposed by Frank Schaeffer as being ridiculously easy to write and publish as long as the subject matter is the Hot Christian Topic of the day, and ridiculously easy to hoist up on the bestseller list.  (Dr. James Dobson once purchased 100,000 of Frank Schaeffer's own books to give away to his listeners.  My guess is that he did not purchase 100,000 copies of Crazy for God.  Probably never even read it.)

In the end, Schaeffer's analysis of what went wrong with the evangelical movement, and why it has been so poisonous for politics and the politicians who sucked up to it, can be summed up in the following astute paragraph:


"I think my problem with remaining an evangelical centered on what the evangelical community became.  It was the merging of the entertainment business with faith, the flippant lightweight kitsch ugliness of American right-wing enterprise, the platitudes married to pop culture, all of it...that made me crazy.  It was just too stupid for words."


However, "stupid" though it may be, that does not mean it cannot still be a dangerous force:


"One thing I do not regret is that I missed the 'opportunity' to be the so-called big-time evangelical leader.  I could have been.  I was good at speaking.  We would never have run out of paranoid delusions with which to stir up the ever-fearful and willfully ignorant.  But the idea of 'passing up' a chance to become a cross between Pat Buchanan, Elmer Gantry, and Ralph Reed never bothered me."

 
That sentence:  "We would never have run out of paranoid delusions with which to stir up the ever-fearful and willfully ignorant," hits at the very heart of what makes this movement such a serious threat to the very values that they pretend to hold dear.

I mean, just think about it: "Liberty" University does not give its own students the freedom to support the presidential candidate of their choice.

We saw this in full-blown force with the Sarah Palin candidacy.  The throngs of "good Christians" who flocked to her campaign events were the same ones who shouted twisted, hateful accusations at her opponent of being a closeted Muslim terrorist, of being not-quite-American-enough to pass muster, of being even...dangerous.  She goaded it along with a charming, pretty smile and lots of God-talk.

"Kill him!" screamed one Palin supporter at an event.

And when the Secret Service investigated the threat, evangelical bloggers referred to them as "The S.S.," as if they were Nazi storm-troopers and not a protective detail doing their job.

The backlash of such hate-speech never fails to "surprise" the evangelical community when violence results.  An abortion doctor is slain in church; anti-abortion activists claim it was some kind of righteous retribution for his being a "mass murderer," the assassin is made into an evangelical hero complete with prayer requests and jail-cell addresses for supportive cards and letters--and then they complain that the so-called "liberal media" makes them all out to be wild-eyed nutcases.

Frank Schaeffer says that, from the beginning, religious leaders like Jerry Falwell were not nearly as interested in saving souls as they were in gaining--and keeping--POWER.  He tells chilling stories about these famous characters and how they (meaning Fallwell, Robertson, Dobson and others) behaved backstage and in private.  Their support of party-purity litmus-test politicians was their ticket to power, and they played it for all it was worth.

But something happened on the way to the Right Hand of God and Washington, D.C.

The voters.

It's kind of hard to talk about loving Jesus in one breath, while you stand back and watch while thousands of people drown in a dying city.

It's kind of hard to talk about loving Jesus in one breath, while invading a country, starting a war, and instigating policies of torture in order to cement your power-gains.

It's kind of hard to talk about loving Jesus in one breath, while glancing the other way and pretending not to notice when extremists you harbor commit terrorist acts on American soil, whether bombing a federal building in Oklahoma City, bombing abortion clinics and Olympic venues, assassinating judges, doctors, lawyers, and others who don't agree with you, and so on.

It's hard to talk about loving Jesus in one breath, while forwarding around racist, bigoted e-mails that mock and denigrate the first black president of the United States.

And it's REAL hard not to appear just as crazy as you are when, for example, that same president comes out and presents a calm, clear, rational plan for something or other and you hit the airwaves in minutes, screaming that he's a socialist, a communist, an extremist, a terrorist, and any other "ist" you can come up with while the red light is on.

It's been an entire generation since Ronald Reagan first saw gold at the end of the church aisle, and all those mostly-white church-goers who thought he was god are now aging.

And their sons and daughters are dropping out.  Regular church attendance among young people has plummeted in recent years, and one of the reasons they state, when polled, is that they resent how the church took issues such as abortion and gay marriage and hinged an entire religion--and political future--on them--when young people care far more for such things as helping the poor and caring for the environment.  They worry about AIDS and climate change.  Gay couples don't bother them.  They may tend to be pro-life, but they have no desire to kill any living human being over the issue.

And as the religion itself is struggling (mega-churches have not appreciably added to the evangelical population overall), the political movement they fostered and nurtured is beginning to founder.

Political reporter Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post writes:


Quick -- think of the three faces of the Republican party: Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich immediately come to mind.

What do these men all have in common? They are over 50 years old, male, white and staunchly conservative.

That -- in a nutshell -- is the problem facing Republicans today, an imbroglio cast in sharp relief by a new analysis by Gallup of more than 26,000 interviews conducted in May.

Nearly nine in ten (89 percent) Republicans are white with the vast majority of those people describing themselves as "conservative" (63 percent). Just seven percent of Republicans are either Hispanic (five percent) or black (two percent).

Compare that to the composition of those who call themselves Democrats -- 65 percent white, 19 percent black and 11 percent Hispanic -- in the Gallup data and you quickly have a sense of the enormity of the problem for Republicans as they try to re-brand (and re-imagine) themselves.

"Republicans have a clear monopoly on the allegiance of white, conservative Americans but the GOP's challenge is to figuring out whether this is enough of a base on which to build for the future," writes Gallup poll director Frank Newport.

John Weaver, a longtime Republican strategist, said that diversifying the party demographically is an absolute necessity, arguing that the debate over whether or not to do so is "worrisome" in and of itself.

"Any student of political history knows political movements do not remain static," added Weaver. "They either grow -- and remain relevant -- or they recede -- and risk being replaced. And we're currently headed lickety-split down the replacement path."

...Demographics, in politics, is destiny. Republicans must find a way to solve their demographic dilemma quickly or risk being a minority party for years to come.


Even Bob Herbert, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the New York Times, thinks the religious/racist Republican majority may finally be on the way out, in his piece, "The Howls of a Fading Species":


One can only hope that the hysterical howling of right-wingers against the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is something approaching a death rattle for this profoundly destructive force in American life.

It’s hard to fathom the heights of hypocrisy currently being scaled by the foaming-in-the-mouth crazies who are leading the charge against the nomination...


After detailing the excessive posturing of the Newt Gingriches, Karl Roves, Rush Limbaughs, and so on, Herbert, who is African-American, writes:


It was always silly to pretend that the election of Barack Obama was evidence that the U.S. was moving into some sort of post-racial, post-ethnic, post-gender nirvana. But it did offer a basis for optimism. There is every reason to hope that we’ve improved as a society to the point where the racial and ethnic craziness of the Gingriches and Limbaughs will finally have a tough time finding any sort of foothold.

Those types can still cause a lot of trouble, but the ridiculousness of their posture is pretty widely recognized. Thus the desperate howling.


The racism--aided and abetted by the religious right--is becoming as anachronistic as a vote-getter as other big "wedge" issues like gay marriage, and yet, still the party grasps at these old mainstays because that is what you do when you are old and tired and have no new ideas.  You cling to the familiar and fight like hell to keep from losing it, like the old-timers who were given days and days' warning that Mount St. Helens was going to erupt and still refused to leave their homes, and so met their deaths beneath a cloud of volcanic ash.

Those of us who have long since moved on from that smothering place have not necessarily lost our faith altogether.  Frank Schaeffer has a new book coming out in October, 2009 called, PATIENCE WITH GOD: Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion (or Atheists).

Like me, he has groped his way to a profoundly spiritual and political activist life that has a healthy respect for a separation between the two, and like me, he has learned that you can be a Christian (or any other kind of religious belief system) without being an "evangelical."

The Republican right-wing Powers That Be embraced the religious evangelical community because they were greedy to get and hold power, and the religious evangelical community returned the embrace because of the same reason, but in the end, it turned out to be a Judas Kiss for them both.

 

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments

    • 6/6/2009 3:30 PM Regina wrote:
      Your willingness to revisit what was obviously a painful period in your life in order to shed light on what has become a very troubling aspect of our society, I believe, will cause others to reexamine some of their long held beliefs and actions. It was a good thing that you did.
      Reply to this
      1. 6/7/2009 10:03 AM Deanie Mills wrote:
        Regina, what would I do without you, girl?  Other than a friend of mine who tried to post here and had some trouble with the software, and so sent me her comment by e-mail, you are the ONLY person to comment on this post, either here or over at TPM.  One of my recent posts over there got 50 recommendations and 180 comments.  This one got ONE recommendation and NO comments.

        Why is that, I wonder?  Discounting the length, which is admittedly hefty for blog-readers, what is it about this subject that people shy away from?  (I'm not asking you, personally, for an answer, I'm just musing aloud...)

        Thank you for your support, as ever, my dear.


        Reply to this
    • 6/27/2009 4:11 PM Jody wrote:
      I just finished reading this entry. Long, yes, but excellent wrighting. As an agnostic with Buddhism leanings, I have watched the Christian fanatics with quite a bit of trepidation for many of my 55 years. Your article really hit home for me (family).
      I have not read such insightful commentary since Molly Ivins and I will be a frequent visitor to your site.
      Again, well done Ms. Mills.
      Reply to this
      1. 6/27/2009 5:16 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
        Wow--Molly Ivins!  That's the NICEST compliment you could ever have given me, and I thank you for it.

        It's good to see you at Blue Inkblots, Jody!  Come back frequently.  You're welcome anytime.
        Reply to this
    • 10/6/2009 12:37 AM Virgil Jose wrote:
      I was stationed in NC when JFK was president. I heard a great deal of resentment and hatred directed against him and Jackie.
      And much of this hatred by the good ol' boys was -- with minor exceptions -- the same as we hear against Obama.

      No doubt much of the Obama hatred has a racial element, but a big component, I suspect, is class also.

      FDR and his wife were despised by this same segment of the population.

      Talk radio demagogues have succeeded in legitimizing hate speech that was relatively parochial for years. Now it has entered mainstream. Call it a cancer that metastasized.
      Virgil Jose
      Author: "The Examined Life"
      A murder mystery at
      Amazon & bookstores






      xxx
      Reply to this
    • 10/6/2009 9:10 AM Brook wrote:
      I would like for Deanie to take my challenge. Let's identify the most radically racist member of Congress. That would be one Bobby Rush D(IL): a man so radically racist he defeated Obama in a Congressional campaign on a platform that Obama "wasn't black enough". Yes, this actually happened. Can you imagine a white politician saying anything of that nature and getting away with it? Did Deanie pace the floors of her home in a howling rage over Obama's defeat, based on naked racism in that race? No, of course not.

      Bobby Rush also basically forced the Senate to accept Roland Burris, a demonstrably incompetent, deceptive, and corrupt politician by accusing 99 US Senators of refusing to seat Burris -- because of race. He used the phrase "plantation politics". Again, now howling rage from Deanie.

      So, now we have a corrupt and incompetent Senator in our Congress, because of you Deanie, and others on the left who demonstrate tolerance for racially divisive speech all day long, as long as the speech is coming out of the mouth of a liberal.

      Why do we even have a Black Congressional Caucus? Has this question ever crossed Deanie's mind? No, because the BCC is made up of Democrats. Consider the horrible message it sends to the nation that even in the corridors of Congress, we are divided by race.

      Why is Charlie Rangel still sitting as chairman of House Ways and Means, even though he has broken the laws of this nation by failing to pay his taxes and using his power to block an investigation? Answer, because if anybody called for his removal, he would immediately attack them as racist, and Deanie and the rest of the liberal "bloggers" out there would sit silently by and allow this naked corruption to go on.

      The reality, Deanie, is that you have no credibility when it comes to talking about race, and you prove it on a daily basis. When I see you write a blog demanding Charlie Rangel step down and the disbanding of the Black Congressional Caucus and zero tolerance for the racially divisive language of it's members, then Deanie i might believe you actually use race for something other than scoring political points, and that you judge politicians by the content of their character and not their race.
      Reply to this
      1. 10/6/2009 3:15 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
        Charlie Rangel is being investigated as we speak, and may very well be asked to step down.  If he is found to have broken the law, then I will expect him to step down just as I might have any white politician of any political persuasion who did the same thing.

        You imbue Bobby Rush with way too much political power if you think 99 senators were pressured by him to seat Burns.  Are you telling me John Boehner or John Cornyn would be swayed by the likes of Bobby Rush?  Or John McCain?  I laugh.

        You misunderstand me if you think that because I see racism it means that (a) I do not think racism exists in the African American community.  Of course it does, and I don't condone it from blacks any more than I do whites or (b) that I don't think crooked black politicians exist--William Jefferson being Exhibit A.

        By the way, your rant went on for so long that it ran off the page of my computer screen, and it's possible that some of it was inadvertently cut off by my software.  You might cut your ravings somewhat shorter next time.
        Reply to this
        1. 10/7/2009 7:37 AM Brook wrote:
          If you didn't understand that Roland Burris was seated due to pressure from the BCC, based on race, then it's because you didn't want to see it.

          Deanie, we don't have time for these us and them blogs, with all due respect. Both parties are corrupt, and both parties are leading this country to fiscal default, and we have allowed this to happen. We cannot be divided as voters on intolerance for corruption and fiscal mismanagement. If confidence in the federal government continues to decline, we are going to see secession movements take hold, and this country will break apart.
          Reply to this
          1. 10/7/2009 8:38 AM Deanie Mills wrote:
            I have read all of your recent comments, late last night, but had to go to bed, and today I must run errands, and so will be unable to address them at any length until tomorrow, so please do not think I'm dodging you in any way or trying to avoid the issues you bring up; I simply haven't the time just yet to give them the attention they deserve.  I can see that you are not trying to deliberately provoke, as some do, but that you are genuinely worried and looking for answers.

            I do agree that "us and them" posts are not wise as a general rule, but I felt they had a place just now, considering the divisive August that was provoked, in large part, by Glenn Beck's 9/12 rally, the tea-bag marches and rallies and the loud and angry town hall meetings, as well as what I found to be lopsided coverage by the media on both ends of the spectrum.  I do not as a general rule write "us and them" posts--you can see what I wrote on Afghanistan, for example, as a more balanced sample, but I was disturbed by the dialogue that I saw taking shape.

            Another point I want to make is that, one thing I do try to do, which may not be as apparent in this particular posting, is that I read from a great and wide sampling.  I read conservative as well as more progressive sources.  I read all sorts of mainstream publications, and overseas publications as well, and I try to watch news that is as balanced as I can--I completely avoid the kinds of news comentary that I know will be deliberately provocative from a liberal perspective, like Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz, as well as Chris Matthews, and I seldom watch MSNBC.

            What I usually do, in fact, is mute the sound altogether, and read news crawls, then go online, and I will go to mainstream news sources, and I will print up two or three different articles on the same news event and read each one to see how they are all being covered.

            If, however, you are getting your news from only slanted sources--if you are only reading or watching news that simply confirms your own point of view over and over again and only validates how you feel on a subject; if, in your case, you are only getting your news from FOX, are only watching Beck or listening to Rush or reading WorldNewsnet or whatever--I'm just pulling those out of the air--then you are getting a lopsided view of world events, and it is frightening you, possibly unneccessarily.

            What I am trying to say is that this great and powerful nation has faced and overcome terrible challenges in its time and it has not "pulled apart" as you fear.  It did not even pull apart during the Civil War.  It did not pull apart during the Great Depression.  It did not pull apart during McCarthyism.  It did not pull apart during the riots of the sixties and the Vietnam war.

            And in spite of the boneheaded comments of people such as my own idiot governor, Rick Perry, it is not pulling apart now.

            Yes, we are in a fiscal mess right now, and it was a Republican president and a Republican congress who bankrupted this nation, flat-out.

            Obama is far from perfect, but he is not the demon he's being made out to be--and trust me, he is being screamed at just as bad by far-left liberals as he is by far-right conservatives (you would not believe).  But he has demanded a deficit-neutral health care plan, and congress is doing the best it can to come up with one.  They're a long way away, but they are working on it.  Let them do their job.

            We are all worried about the deficit, but it is not the end of the world, I assure you.  Broaden your horizons just a bit.  Trust a news source other than the one that only pumps out stuff you agree with all the time.

            When I read conservative columnists like Charles Krauthammer or George Will or Bill Kristol or Kathleen Parker or listen to any of a large number of them on Sunday morning talk shows, they provoke me sometimes and make me mad sometimes, but they also make me think.  And sometimes I can see that they do have a point.  Sometimes I do agree with them.

            I don't think this country is going to pull apart, and I don't want you to be afraid that it might.

            I will do my best to answer your concerns as you have presented them in your other comments but it might take me a day or two to get to them, and I'll also be out of town over the weekend.  Don't hesitate to leave comments as you please, but don't be put off if it takes me several days to get back to you.

            You have presented your arguments with respect, and I will respond in kind, as soon as I can.


            Reply to this
            1. 10/7/2009 8:41 PM Brook wrote:
              Deanie, blaming all the fiscal problems on the GOP is denial. These problems have been building up for 40 years, and both parties have failed to address them.

              Let's all hope and pray for our nation. We need a President that publicly lays out the deficit and the $ 50 trillion unfunded mandate vis-a-vis SS and Medicare -- and presents a plan to the nation to tackle the problem. Promising to reduce $ 300 billion in Medicare waste is just that -- a promise -- it's not a plan, and it's not believable. We need a credible, comprehensive plan.

              This is essentially what the tea party rallies have been about, and yes I have attended a few. The people that attended these were ordinary Americans, and they are far more fearful than angry. They don't believe Social Security will be there for them or their children, and they have good reason to think that.

              We have never faced national bankruptcy before, but we are on the brink. This is the reality. From the left or right, we will all be affected by this. This should be the priority we impose upon our government. Health care and climate change are irrelevant compared to this.
              Reply to this
              1. 10/8/2009 8:59 AM Deanie Mills wrote:
                Obama is trying to address the Medicare and Social Security problems, beginning with health care, and he is trying to work with the Republicans; if they would quit shouting so much and spend a little more time listening we might get a little more done on these important issues.

                The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office just released figures today on the Baucus Finance Committe health care bill that states it is not only deficit neutral but it actually REDUCES the defict by 89 billion, and it comes in under budget at 900 billion over ten years, and it covers an additional 29 million people.

                Let's put this in perspective.  The Pentagon budget is 900 billion dollars A YEAR.  Every single year we pump almost a trillion bucks into the Pentagon, and yes, that's national security and that is essential, but Sec. Gates--of whom I'm a big fan (he actually handed my son his degree at Texas A&M before taking his current job)--has pointed out that billions of that goes to bloated contracts to overbudget un-needed boondoggle weapons and so on. 

                What I'm saying is that all this screaming about budget deficits is not just about entitlement programs.  There is waste to spare that needs to be looked at, and Obama is doing his best, but every time Gates tries, he meets obstruction from the GOP, and the same thing is happening with Medicare.  Obama is trying to cut waste with Medicare, and the GOP is screaming that poor Granny will die when demonic Obama pulls the plug with his death panels.

                If budget decisions need to be made, they need to be made with a clear head and these political games need to stop, and that's true on both sides, I'll acknowledge that, but your side is a master of it, and I've been told that by long-time conservatives.  Our side is so busy arguing amongst themselves that we get blindsided by these spurious attacks on "death panels" and crap that have nothing to do with the truth and prevent substantive debate on serious issues that need serious attention if social security and Medicare, for example, are to survive.
                Reply to this
                1. 10/17/2009 8:53 AM Brook wrote:
                  I've reached the conclusion that fiscal default is inevitable, and it's the only way real change is going to happen. The system has to collapse, before common sense can prevail. You should prepare for this as well. It's simple math.

                  Some of my tea party friends created a list of demands, I believe you will agree with.

                  1. The funding of government via taxes and debt is an obsolete model that no longer works for this century.

                  2. Attaching debt interest to every dollar printed will become a criminal act and un-Constitutional.

                  3. The Federal Reserve Act must be repealed and control of our currency returned to the Treasury Department.

                  4. All debt interest owed to the Federal Reserve Bank will be cancelled, which will cut the deficit in half.

                  5. The Federal Reserve will submit to a full and complete audit and any obstruction will result in severe penalties.

                  6. All federal legislators will be required to pass a rigorous, comprehensive exam to demonstrate intricate knowledge of our history, our Constitution, and our existing government programs, and pending legislation.

                  We've got a lot more, but this is a good start. It's time for a liberal/conservative cease-fire. Talking about all these policies is pointless, when the underlying financial structure is collapsing. We have to get control of our currency, and we have to write down our debt and reduce the tax burden on ordinary Americans. These are principles both sides should be able to agree on.
                  Reply to this
                  1. 10/17/2009 10:06 AM Deanie Mills wrote:
                    <Some of my tea party friends created a list of demands, I believe you will agree with.>

                    I'd have to agree with the underlying premise, Brooke, which is that the whole underlying system is near catastrophic collapse, which I do not.  I never have bought into doomsday scenarios.

                    <2. Attaching debt interest to every dollar printed will become a criminal act and un-Constitutional.>
                    <3. The Federal Reserve Act must be repealed and control of our currency returned to the Treasury Department.>
                    <4. All debt interest owed to the Federal Reserve Bank will be cancelled, which will cut the deficit in half.>

                    According to who?  Are you intending an armed revolution?  A military coup?  Some sort of political takeover where a New Leader of Your Choosing will decree that these things are unconstitutional, repealed and so forth?

                    I know this is so hard for the tea party protesters to accept, but Obama was elected with 53% of the vote.  Democratically elected.  A majority of the American people put the man in office.  He is not a dictator.  He is president of the United States.  You are within your rights to try and get someone else elected in 2012, of course.  And we are within our rights to try and get him re-elected.  That is a democracy.

                    <6. All federal legislators will be required to pass a rigorous, comprehensive exam to demonstrate intricate knowledge of our history, our Constitution, and our existing government programs, and pending legislation.>

                    Well, that would immediately toss out Michelle Bachman, right?  (Forgive the snark; couldn't resist that one ha ha)

                    I'm not opposed to that, but in order to make that one a law, we'd have to do the same thing with out voters, dontcha think?  Were you aware that a full 6% of Republican voters don't even realize that Hawaii is a STATE?

                    Yeah, I'm picking on Republicans here, I admit, but actually, across the board, American voters are ridiculously ignorant (meaning, uneducated, not stupid) about all sorts of things, so it's no joke that the legislators they elect are a reflection of that, on both sides of the aisle.

                    I do agree that a "liberal-conservative cease-fire" is in order, but I disagree that the world is coming to an end.  We do have serious problems, no question about it, and solutions are in order, but demanding a complete reordering of the sort listed above is unrealistic.  It would make more sense to work within the system as it exists, flawed though it may be.

                    Calls for "revolution" from the far right are as out of place now as they were in the 60's from the far left.
                    Reply to this
    • 10/17/2009 12:21 PM Brook wrote:
      What is radical about demanding our money be printed without debt attached to it? What we are talking about here is replacing the private Federal Reserve Bank with a public Treasury -- something i would think a more left-leaning thinker would agree with. Ron Paul, in fact, has suggested this over and over and Dennis Kucinich as well. It's not a left/right issue.

      Are you aware that major shareholders in the Federal Reserve are European banks? What right do they have to print our money and charge us interest? What we may have agreed to in 1913 is not working in 2009, and we are demanding change of our monetary policy.

      Are you aware that when European bankers demanded 30% interest to bankroll Abe Lincoln, rather than plunge the nation into debt, he financed the entire Civil War with debt-free money printed by the Treasury? Is that such a novel concept -- printing our own national currency without charging us interest for it?

      Since you don't believe we are heading for default, then I'll ask you to tell me how we are going to fund SS and Medicare when we have 2 workers for every retiree? We'll be there in 20 years. Read the GAO report -- it is on the web, and it plainly states that these two entitlements are going to swallow the entire US budget. I'm not a doomsday prophet -- i'm simply someone who can add and subtract. The money to fund these programs is not there, and no amount of cost-cutting is going to salvage them.

      What we are proposing is a solution to the problem. Obama is a public servant, which means if the majority of Americans want this -- he should carry out our demands. We need strong voices on the left like yours to join us, but you have to at least look at the severity of the problem.

      You are correct, most Americans are uninformed, and they are shockingly uninformed about how our own money is manipulated and used to control us.

      Here is a very good Google video to watch. It's rather long, but these guys make an indisputable case that European bankers have plotted to get control of our money and finally succeeded with the Federal Reserve Act.

      http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+money+masters&hl=en&emb=0&aq=0&oq=the+money#

      The Federal Reserve and our debt-issue banking system is at the heart of the problem here. The key to a strong future for America is for us to get control of our own money again.

      We are not talking about a radical change -- just printing our money as needed without some private banker getting a piece of the action.

      Please consider these ideas without tossing them aside so quickly. I think you'll agree the idea makes sense, it's not radical at all, and it will secure the future for our children, when we stop piling more debt onto their generation. I appreciate your careful consideration here.
      Reply to this
      1. 10/17/2009 4:00 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
        I had just begun to figure out that this exchange was beginning to sound a bit more of the Libertarian/Ron Paul variety than the conservative Republican/George W. Bush variety when POP--up came his name, sure 'nuff.

        I am not dismissing your ideas and theories out of hand altogether, you understand, but when you start talking about Europeans plotting things, that's when I start rolling my eyes, because it sounds like so many other conspiracy theories through the years, you know, the black helicopters, the One World Order, and so on.

        I know you don't like to look backward, but I would like to remind you that much of this disastrous debt and deficit began when Bush and a Republican congress took Clinton's balanced budget and budget surplus and squandered it by ramming through a trillion-dollar tax cut for the top 1% of wage earners with a reconciliation vote of 50-plus-one percent right after Bush took office, which was renewed repeatedly, with absolutely no plans for how that would be paid for over time, followed by expensive prescription drug benefits with no plans for how THAT would be paid for, followed by two wars, which were not only borrowed heavily from China, but were not even included in the federal budget, but were hidden away in "emergency" measures year after year, again, with no plans as to how they would be paid for.  When a Bush budget-man said that a war in Iraq could run as much as a trillion dollars over time, he was fired.  We were told it would run only 50 or 60 billion.  It has now topped a trillion, as he said.

        So, here we are.

        And yes, Social Security and other entitlements are in trouble, as Obama has himself stated, but I do disagree with one conservative I heard who shouted, "Obama has bankrupted this country!" because he has not done in 9 months what Bush has worked on steadily for eight years.

        Anyway.  Looking forward.

        It is my understanding that Obama intends those tax cuts to roll back in 2010, which means they will be back at those draconian levels that were prevalent during that other bleeding-heart liberal president's tenure: Ronald Reagan.  Between 1979 and 2005, the wages of that top 1% skyrocketed some 228%, so I would say they can afford this tax roll-back, which would bring in some desperately needed revenue.

        Now, I know the word TAX sends the tea-partiers into swoons, but the fact is that revenues are needed to make up for the obscene, profligate, irresponsible spending of the Republican era, which they are trying desperately to make us forget right now that they are pretending to have gotten fiscal religion.

        Obama has insisted that his health care reform be deficit neutral, and so far, the bill out of the Finance committee is, and the House bills have been submitted to the CBO for the same scrutiny--SOMETHING THE REPUBLICANS NEVER DID.

        If Health Care reform is budget neutral and at the same time, can bring skyrocketing health care costs down, that should help ease some of the expenses you cite from going up up up.  Incoming revenue can also help.

        I do not pretend to have all the answers, by any means, but I will remind you that at the end of the Reagan presidency, there was also a large deficit that had many people very worried, and there were many dire and desperate predictions about where we would be if it kept going at that rate.  It did not keep going at that rate.  In fact, by Clinton's time, it was reversed.

        Obama intends to turn his attention to deficit reduction as soon as possible.  He knows he has to, and will do so in the near future.  He knows it is not only fiscally necessary but also politically necessary and he will do so.  But for God's sake, I have noticed a tendency not just from the right, but also from the left, to expect him to have ALREADY SOLVED problems that he inherited that were YEARS if not DECADES in the making.  And he is not solving them alone, but with a recalcitrant congress, half of which is determined to fight him no matter WHAT he does.

        I hear them screaming that he is making his generals wait for a decision in Afghanistan, when Bush waited four months to decide on the "surge" in Iraq.  Wouldn't they rather he made the right decision in a few weeks than the wrong decision in a hurry?  I come from a military family.  I could have three over there at the same time.  They all want him to do what's right.

        I've never seen a man pushed so hard so fast no matter what the issue is, from all sides.

        I have been a student of history for many years, and a student of politics, and I have seen many doomsday scenarios of, if this continues in this way until this time or that time or such and such happens in this way or that way ALL HELL WILL BREAK LOOSE, and nobody ever factors in the unexpected GOOD THING.

        There were unexpected good developments in our economy in the 90's with the tech developments that helped the Congress and Clinton to be able to balance the budget and leave Bush a surplus.  In fact, there was enough to make Social Security fiscally sound well into the future if that had been the intention of the incoming president, but it was not.

        If you want to worry about foreign shareholders in our economy, I should think you'd be far more worried about the vice-grip China has on us, now that we've borrowed nearly a trillion from them for these wars.  They don't have to lose a drop of blood, but they were quick into Iraq for oil rights, and they need us to secure AFghanistan for them too, for trade purposes.

        Europe.  I laugh.  That's old-guard thinking.
        Reply to this
    • 10/17/2009 6:37 PM Brook wrote:
      Allow me to correct you -- Clinton left office with a $ 5 trillion national debt. He did slow it's growth, but he did not balance our budget. Bush was a fiscal disaster -- very true.

      Please look at the facts first, before you dismiss, because i only deal in facts -- not theory.

      The Federal Reserve charges us interest on EVERY dollar printed in this country. They've been doing this since 1913. This mimicked the same pattern the Rothschilds used to gain control of every European central bank. Study the battle Andrew Jackson fought with them and won to keep European bankers from getting control of our money. Google Nathan Biddle and Andrew Jackson. Biddle was the Rothschild's agent in America that controlled the central bank of that time, and Jackson put him out of business. It's a great story few people know. This is the same strategy i am proposing. Sadly, Woodrow Wilson was no Andrew Jackson. He sold us out.

      So, what i am asking Deanie is this -- why should we pay a dime to uber-wealthy bankers for the privilige of printing our money for us. This essentially means they make money off every dollar printed in our economy. Add up the staggering profits generated by that. When you've got that much money, then you can turn around and use it to shape public policy in your direction. Are you aware of how many foundations and institutions the Rockefellers fund, including the Council On Foreign Relations? Where do they get the money for this? Answer -- your hard work and mine. Wouldn't you like to have that much money to nudge public policy in the direction you want? Too bad you're not a shareholder in the Federal Reserve.

      When you consider it, it's really quite a brilliant scheme. Imagine if you got a small cut of every dollar generated in your local economy -- when you actually do nothing to contribute to it. This is essentially what the Federal Reserve does.

      The amount of interest we owe to foreign nations is really only like $ 3 to 4 trillion dollars or so. The rest is owed to the Federal Reserve Bank. So, you can quickly see where cancelling all that artificial debt puts us in a much more manageable position.

      I really hope you'll study the history of central banking and especially how the Federal Reserve Act happened. Few Americans really know the real story, and trust me, when you study the real story, you will be pacing the floor in anger again. The Creature From Jekyll Island is another fantastic book on this subject -- and it is historically indisputable.

      If you have any other questions let me know. I'll only respond with facts i can prove -- not theory.
      Reply to this
    • 10/17/2009 7:04 PM Brook wrote:
      Here's a great Kucinich video. Listen at 1:05 where he excoriates the Federal Reserve. I don't agree with Dennis on anything, except the need to get rid of the Federal Reserve. Please add your voice to ours, Deanie. We want our country back, and it starts with getting control of our money. We all have a stake in this, and the stakes are very high.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsLiS8UlZyo&feature=PlayList&p=FD7F4A2DD12E98D6&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=34
      Reply to this
      1. 10/18/2009 2:46 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
        Look, I don't agree much with Dennis Kucinich either, other than that his wife is, indeed, quite beautiful.  My conservative friends are always dumbstruck to hear that I am not a liberal; I am in fact a moderate.  Kucinich is way too liberal for me.  But I will watch this for you.

        That said.  I don't like this business about "taking our country back," because I don't think anyone has taken your country away from you, unless you have an idealized or fantacized ideal of "country" that perhaps never existed other than fictionalized places such as Mayberry and Ozzie and Harriett. 

        I come from a military family.  My husband, brother, father, brother-in-law, and son are all combat vets.  We all deeply love our country, and we don't think we need to take it back from anybody or anything. 

        I opposed the war in Iraq, even though my son and two nephews fought in it.  I do not, however, oppose the war in Afghanistan.  My son, by the way, also opposed the war in Iraq even though he proudly fought in it, was injured in it, and lost buddies there.  These are complex, complicated issues, all of them, whether we are talking war and peace, the economy, the environment, health care reform, civil rights, or politics.

        There just ARE no absolutes, no blacks or whites, no "straw man" choices to be made.  Media mythology likes to set up these great titanic comic-book struggles between Good and Evil or between, say, in Afghanistan--pulling out or going all in--but these are false choices nowhere near the reality of the true situation.  General McChrystal understands this, as do Sec. Gates and President Obama.

        My son and my husband (who is a moderate Republican) both proudly supported Barack Obama in the election.  They think he is doing as good a job as he can under difficult circumstances, so far.  They do not understand the vitriol that has been hurled at him, and they do not believe that our country needs to be taken back from anyone, either.  The fabric of this great nation has stood the test of powerful strains for more than 200 years, including in Hamilton and Jefferson's time, and I believe it is not being torn asunder now, either.

        Of course there are terrible problems facing us, and things that keep me up at night, but they are different issues than the ones that worry you.  I worry a great deal about the environment, global warming, and of course, the war in Afghanistan.  I have two nephews still in active duty, and my son still in Ready Reserve status with the Marine Corps.  What happens in the Middle East directly effects our family.  I worry about health care reform because of my daughter's status.  Of course I worry about deficit and debt but it does not consume me the way it does you, not like, say, Afghanistan.

        This issue obviously means a great deal to you, and believe me, I respect that.  In no way do I denigrate that, sir.  But I am not likely to join a tea party anytime soon. 

        Reply to this
    • 10/22/2009 10:00 AM Brook wrote:
      With regard to this matter, it is pretty black and white. We either have control of our money or we don't. If we don't have complete control of our money, then we do not have complete control of our Republic. Every American must understand this.

      We are offering a solution to this problem and that is to write down all our debt interest owed to the Federal Reserve, then shut that corrupt institution down. The plan makes a lot of sense, and I am converting one person at a time, but it takes some effort for each person to educate themselves about the history of the Federal Reserve and how they manipulate our money to manipulate everything else in our nation.
      Reply to this
      1. 10/22/2009 1:00 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
        Well, even in the day of Hamilton and Jefferson there was vigorous disagreement about who should "control" the Republic.  Hamilton never trusted the people to control anything; he thought they were ignorant and for the most part, uneducated and incapable of understanding the intricacies of governing.  He thought a ruling elite should manage government, especially the Treasury.  Jefferson was more a populist and thought the people should be able to have a say, through elected representatives, as to what their government did.  But even in the beginning, the process could be vicious and far from perfect, as the rivalry between Adams and Jefferson himself could attest.

        I've always thought the modern Internet is, in a way, the revival of the basement pamphlets that were churned out by patriots such as Thomas Paine--people like you and me, who may disagree vehemently on one issue or another but who speak our minds as we see fit, which is what a democracy IS, after all.

        There is nothing wrong with "converting" others, one voice at a time, to your point of view.  I live in a very conservative Red State area; I'm talking a place where the W bumper stickers stayed on until just a year or so ago.  So I started driving around two whole years ago with a big ole OBAMA yard sign scotch-taped to the inside of my rear car window, and in the beginning, people would say, "What's an Obama?"

        Then they would say, "Who's Obama?"

        Then they would say, "Is that that guy running for President?"

        Then they would say, "What does he think about this...or that...?"  Or, "What does he intend to do about..."

        Then they would lower their voices as if we were secret agents in a dark alley someplace and say, "I support him too.  There's more of us out here than you think."

        At the Democratic caucus in my county?  I was the only white person not caucusing for Hillary, but there I was, with my big ole Obama sign.  He lost our county caucus three to one.  But he won the caucus in the state of Texas even though Hillary won the primary.

        And we both know what Obama is doing now, and what Hillary is doing.

        So keep speaking out on what you believe.  I may disagree with you, but I will always respect your voice.
        Reply to this
    • 10/22/2009 6:07 PM Brook wrote:
      You haven't commented on what you think of the plan.
      Reply to this
    • 10/24/2009 10:31 AM Brook wrote:
      Here is a list of the class A shareholders of the FRB.

      the Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris; Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy; Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam; Lehman Brothers Bank of New York; Kuhn, Loeb, and Co. of New York; Chase Manhattan Bank of New York; and Goldman, Sachs of New York

      and here is a great site with a concise but thorough history of the FRB, how it came into existence, who the players were, and what they got out of it.

      http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/final_warning/federal_reserve_act.htm

      The central promise of the Fed was to forever eliminate the economic boom and bust cycles that had plagued the nation. After 100 years, we the people are still waiting for them to deliver on that one.
      Reply to this
      1. 10/24/2009 3:01 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
        Yeah, and there's no way we could have whipped the Brits during the Revolutionary War without clear help from the French.  Foreign governments have been trying to feed at the American trough since the days of Columbus; and I still maintain we are in far more trouble with the Chinese debt over these endless wars than we are anything with the Europeans.

        You are aware, I  presume, that the Chinese seem to be scarfing up the oil contracts in Iraq?  So, they loaned us billions to fight the war, bleed and die, so they could move in afterward and monopolize the oil contracts?  So why, exactly, did we fight there?

        Weapons of mass destruction, my ass.

        But I digress.

        Brook, I simply do not buy into the New World Order or the One World Order or whatever it's called these days paranoia; I don't buy the whole original premise that we teeter on the verge of collapse because the Federal Reserve is bankrolled by foreign banks.  To me, that is simply not nearly as scary as the money we owe the Chinese for these wars we seem to be fighting so they can move in and take over the commerce we fought and died for.  I find that far more horrifying, since it's my family doing the fighting, not those who seem to be starting these wars.  But again, I do keep digressing, and forgive me for that.  I do know that Obama will probably send more troops to Afghanistan, but at least that makes some sort of sense as opposed to Iraq, which never did to me.

        The Reserve has indeed existed since 1913 and we didn't collapse in 1929; we didn't collapse in 1982; we didn't collapse in 2008 and I suspect we'll still be around in the next year or two.

        Paying back the Chinese however, that's going to take forever. 
        Reply to this
        1. 10/24/2009 4:32 PM Brook wrote:
          We are in total agreement on Iraq, except i go farther in asking -- how is it that the entire nation went to war on such flimsy intelligence? How is it that the entire US media sat mute, while this train wreck materialized? We've got to start asking some very tough questions.

          In this interview...

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bKwH3kJew4

          Henry Kissenger clearly states there is a need for a New World Order. These are not my words, they are the words of the elites spoken over and over in the media. You can choose (as i do) to figure out what they are really talking about, or you can attempt to stay comfortable in your denial that any such thing as a New World Order exists. As you have stated in a previous blog, your childhood beliefs are no longer your adult beliefs, which is a clear admission you had at one time an open mind. Do you still have an open mind? Why do you so quickly dismiss what Kissinger, Rockefeller, HW Bush, and many others continue to say publicly over and over? They use the phrase New World Order over and over. What are they talking about?

          I can't force you to acknowledge what your eyes and ears can clearly see and hear in this video. That is up to you. You have a great family. They are putting their lives on the line for this nation. We as citizens have a responsibility to insure that their sacrifice is aligned with the principles laid out in our Constitution, and the preservation of our nation. Any other ulterior motive cannot be tolerated.
          Reply to this
          1. 10/24/2009 6:07 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
            I guess the bottom line is that this whole New World Order thing is YOUR obsession, Brook, not mine.  I have obsessions of my own.  For several years, my obsession was ending the Iraq war--and we've still got a ways to go on that one.  I do agree with you on how the hell it was that the entire US media sat mute while the train wreck materialized--I never saw anything like it in my lifetime. 

            Don't even get me started on it.

            Funny thing--during the '08 campaign, the only candidate who received more donations from active-duty miitary than Obama was Ron Paul--the only other candidate to oppose the Iraq war.  (McCain's donations tended to come from officers; the grunts in the field donated overwhelmingly to Obama and Paul.)

            Anyway, the phrase "New World Order" can be taken to mean something sneaky and terrifying or it can be taken to mean a new way of looking at the world in the 21st century.  You see it as something organized and sinister.  Me, not so much.  To you it is an obsession, a very bad thing that has "taken our country" that has to be overturned or taken back or whatever and I just don't see it that way.  I see a world that is increasingly interconnected through the Internet, for one thing, through trade and commerce, and so on.  I see a greater need for global cooperation on many fronts.  This could be construed as a "new world order"--lower-case letters.  Technology has created a new world order--that is one way of looking at it that is not necessarily sinister.  We're no longer fighting a "Cold War" between Superpowers.  We no longer fight established states--our enemies are nebulous, cellular, moveable, guerilla--different--a matter for law enforcement and cooperation between nations.  New.  It is indeed a new world in many ways.

            I realize that is not what you are talking about.  I'm just saying.  An open mind can mean many different things.

            I am far more worried about the melting of the Arctic ice cap.  I am far more worried about two wars that seem to be going on endlessly.  I am far more worried about the fact that Global Warming combined with a booming global population is going to result in shrinking natural resources, so that eventually, wars are going to be fought over WATER, not OIL.  Food and other resources are going to shrink if the population continues to explode.  I am worried about the conservation of these resources.

            I'm worried about a floating mass of plastic the size of TEXAS in the Pacific Ocean, as we speak.  What happens when we pollute the seas to such an extent that we can't even count on them anymore?  We say there is such a thing as "clean coal" but it seems that when coal is not polluting the air, it is crapping up the water under the soil; either way it seems to be a filthy source of energy.  How long until we ruin our own planet and can no longer inhabit it?

            I worry a great deal that all this demonization of our first African American president is going to get him killed before he completes his first term in office.  Death threats against him have gone up 400% since he took office in January.  I worry about how he's going to complete a campaign in 2012 without someone trying to kill him.  All this hate rhetoric, all these nasty websites--yeah, liberals hated Bush, too, but liberals don't usually buy guns, do they?

            These are the things that worry me.

            I respect that this New World Order thing worries you a great deal.  But other things worry me, you see?
            Reply to this
            1. 10/25/2009 10:38 AM Brook wrote:
              I wouldn't say i'm worried about NWO as much as i just want to take some action to get control of our currency away from an unaccountable Fed that thumbs their nose at Congress repeatedly. Again, that is something every American should be in agreement on.

              You seem like a sweet person with a great family, but i must say it's been pretty typical of conversations i have with those on the left.

              They really don't know that much about the Fed at all, and frankly they are shockingly uninformed on most of the issues.

              If i ask them what has caused the global warming on Mars or what the Arctic ice melt looked like during our last warm period of the 30's -- they don't know. They don't know that the Anarctic ice pack has been building since 1980 and is projected to continue doing so well into this century.

              They don't know anything about cost shifting and how it affects health care costs in this country. A public option will make this problem far worse -- not better, and it will drive costs up even higher.

              I'm the right-wing evangelical that is supposed to be the dummy in the room. I have never seen the left so intellectually bankrupt in my life, and given the absolute control they have -- it's very troubling. Right now, they've set a course for high unemployment, high deficits, and higher taxes. We've won the trifecta.
              Reply to this
              1. 10/25/2009 12:11 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
                According to the latest figures by the Congressional Budget Office, which is nonpartisan, a public option would actually bring the deficit down.  Now, there are different ways to define "public option," because the term itself is nebulous, granted, but the CBO figures do not say it will drive the costs higher.

                And it is the right-wing that has driven up unemployment and high deficits, through eight years of the most colossal mismanagement this country has seen since Hoover.   I don't know about higher taxes, but I do know that this is the first time in our country's history that a president has declared not only one but TWO wars while simultaneously CUTTING taxes, a decision that contributed to the worst deficits in our nation's history, and even then, he hid the true costs of those wars by shoving them over into "emergency" funding rather than including them in the actual budget.

                Right now, only 6% of the nation's scientists even call themselves Republicans, so don't get all high and mighty with me on intellectual bankruptcy, because the Bush administration systematically politicized every single branch of government, including scientific branches, deliberately redacting and squelching their own studies that negated the evangelical position taken by the administration, particularly on issues such as global warming--which caused some 2000 scientists to sign petitions in protest.

                We can argue all day on whose facts are right, but I can tell you right now that 97 of the top 100 historians in this country placed George W. Bush as the worst president this country has ever seen.  Every single intellectual discipline you can name suffered under his administration because they twisted whatever facts they chose to fit whatever dogma they were pushing on that particular day.

                Including, but not limited to, so-called "intelligence" that led us into war. 
                Reply to this
    • 10/26/2009 9:36 PM Brook wrote:
      it's good that you've seen through the lies and distortions of bush/cheney. They used fear-mongering over terrorism to push the nation into war. In Gore's words, "they played on our fears".

      Now i'd simply ask you turn your clear vision on the Gore/Obama/Boxer Inc cabal that are telling us that we have to fork over $ 850 billion for a massive cap and trade tax or the planet won't survive. Oh, and the aribiter of the carbon credits market is going to be none other than Goldman Sachs -- a Federal Reserve shareholder.

      This is what the tea parties are really about. It's a post-partisan movement that rejects the deceitful, manipulative, and leaderless parties in Washington.
      Reply to this
      1. 10/27/2009 6:49 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
        "Seen through"???  Are you kidding me?  Do you know when they first started hyping the war in Iraq?  At GOP FUND-RAISERS in 2002, for the congressional elections.  FUND-RAISERS!  You don't start a war at fund-raisers!  I knew right then what they were up to, and I watched them go at it, step by cynical step.  They deliberately took the nation's post-traumatic stress left over from 9/11 and fearmongered it for all it was worth, while at the same time, destroying anyone's reputation who dared speak out against their war-plans as being anti-patriotic or anti-American.  Even Max Cleland!  The man left half his body behind in Vietnam and they compared him to Bin Laden in campaign ads!

        Rumsfeld and Cheney set up a secret Intelligence-gathering group in the Pentagon--since disbanded by Gates--whose job was to sift through raw Intelligence ("raw" has not been vetted or checked out for accuracy) and cherry-pick whatever they could find that would back up the plan to invade Iraq that had been on the books since the '90's, and Cheney set up the White House Intelligence Group, including Mary Matalin, among others, whose job it was to sell the plan to the public.  Scooter Libby milked the press, particularly Judith Miller at the NY Times, and so on.

        To send a son off to fight in a war I opposed was the hardest thing I've ever had to do in my life.  He enlisted in the Marines after college graduation because he thought he'd be chasing terrorists in Afghanistan, but instead, he did two tours in Iraq, including the terrible Battle of Fallujah in November of '04.  It damn near killed me.  He knew, though, that although I hated the war, I loved the warrior, and I let him know every moment of every day that I loved and supported him.

        When my third (cannibalized) computer broke down in as many months in '06, during his second, horrific deployment to the Anbar province, he told me that he wanted to buy me a new one, and that is what he did.  He took some of his combat pay and he bought me a brand-new computer for Mother's Day, and he said, "Mom, you speak out.  You use your gifts to do what you can to bring this godawful war to an end."  I told him I didn't want to get him into any trouble and he told me not to worry about it, that he could take care of himself, and he never said one word of complaint about anything I ever wrote about the Iraq war. He knew nobody ever supported the troops more than I did, and in fact, I considered what the administration had done to them to be abusive.

        And I hope those who started that war under false pretenses that led to the deaths and maiming of thousands burn in hell because of it, and that is the truth.

        Now, about cap and trade and the Federal Reserve.  Brook, Brook, Brook.

        Your obsession, my dear.

        I'm putting together a new post on Afghanistan and something Cheney said the other day.  That is where my interest lies right now.
        Reply to this
        1. 10/28/2009 10:35 AM Brook wrote:
          Not so fast, M'am. Read your above posts expressing concern over GW. There's nothing to fear about another politically manufactured crisis.

          Obama has a tough call to make on afghanistan. A good friend is a captain in the Canadian military, and he just came back describing a near hopeless situation -- in terms of building a cohesive nation. Afghanistan (like Iraq) was created by colonialists artificially, with no regard for ethnic and tribal boundaries. Men still make nails and horseshoes using ancient methods. My sense is we are growing more impatient with a complete lack of progress there, and Obama will have a tough sell to send more troops.

          However, we could wipe out this war debt the way Mr. Lincoln did -- and that is to write off the debt and create any new money necessary using his debt-free model. Sooner or later, the genius of this plan will dawn on you.
          Reply to this
          1. 10/28/2009 12:01 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
            I have been studying the situation in Afghanistan for several years now, and I can tell you that it is Medieval there.  There are no roads, no cities, no infrastructure, no government, no nothing.  It is most certainly NOT Iraq and it is not Vietnam, either.  It is what it is, a collection of tribes, warlords, and mud villages scattered in barren mountains, supported mostly by the opium trade.

            McChrystal's own report stated that the Taliban has already set up a shadow government of law enforcement and courts in 80% of the country.  Karzai's "government" is notoriously corrupt, so if we support them, we are alreayd hated.

            That said, no, we can't just pull out, not with Pakistan falling apart next door, and Obama knows that.  There are absolutely NO good choices in front of him right now.  No matter what he and his security team decide to do, it is going to piss off people, either on the left, the right, or the middle.

            I think the Pentagon--with or without nudging from McChrystal, but most likely with--attempted to blackmail the president when they leaked the report to the Washington Post and said, GIVE US 40,000 TROOPS RIGHT NOW OR WE'RE GONNA LOSE THE WAR!!!

            Well that's just outrageous.  We've been there going on nine years.  You don't "win" or "lose" anything in the Middle East.  What have we "won" in Iraq? The Chinese are gobbling up all the oil leases as we speak, much to Cheney's outraged chagrin, but then, they did loan us the money to fight his little war, so what are you gonna do, eh?

            The right wing predictably jumped right on the meme and started pressuring the White House to gimme gimme gimme the troops or we're gonna lose the war and it's gonna be that weak pussy Obama's fault blah blah blah blah but the truth is that we need probably 200,000 troops to really do the whole counterinsurgency thing that Petraeus's manual sets out.

            See, my brother-in-law is a retired brigadier general in the army special forces, so I'm not as bedazzled by all those shiney stars as some in the media and all those chicken hawk politicians are.  What people don't realize is what a politician you have to be to get all those stars on your uniform in the first place.  I'm not saying McChrystal's a bad guy; he seems very competent and I'm sure he's doing the best he can in an impossible situation. 

            Those poor guys in Afghanistan were ABANDONED for years and years and left to die out there with no Predators or choppers or supplies or ammo or materiel or SF troops--all that stuff was pulled out by Bush and Co and shipped out to Iraq years ago.  They've needed help for years and years.  I don't blame him for asking for more troops.  I know he wants them.  Generals always want more troops.

            But we can't start from scratch now.  We can't afford the blood and treasure after all these years.  Our guys are just exhausted; we're damn near broke from the years of fighting two wars; our materiel is in severe need of repair and replacement, and Afghanistan needs to be built from scratch.

            All this talk of training their army sounds great--but we'd have to PAY for those troops we train, we'd have to arm and uniform them as well, and pay them indefinitely, too.  It's a mess.

            I think Obama's going to have to go for a middle course of action.  He's going to have to pull into what major population centers do exist--which is consistent with McChrystal's strategy anyway--but will require fewer than 40,000 troops--and he's going to step up the civilian contingent to help out with other areas, and do what he can, but he can't send 40,000 more since he's already TRIPLED the number of troops that were there since January 2008. 

            People forget that.

            He will be screamed at by liberals for not pulling out, by right-wingers for not giving in to Pentagon blackmail, and by everybody else for whatever reason, but he's doing the best he can with a situation he inherited that is, by definition, impossible.  If he can bring a certain measure of stability in the country, beat back complete Taliban takeover and help Pakistan over on their side of that fake British border with their efforts to maintain some control, we might can stave off catastrophe.  Maybe.
            Reply to this
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Enter the above security code (required)

     Name (required)

     Email (will not be published) (required)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.