By Sarah Palin
As I noted on Judge Jeanine Pirro’s show this weekend, I reject President Obama’s idea that Israel must cede back its territories to the 1967 line. Will we now be in the habit of telling our allies what their borders should be? Should Prime Minister Netanyahu suggest we return to our 1845 borders before the annexation of the southwest of the United States during the Mexican-American War? Should we give back parts of Texas, New Mexico, and California?
But the problem is even deeper. In both his State Department speech and his speech yesterday at AIPAC, President Obama made some seemingly specific comments about the Palestinian state that he wants to see created. He either misspoke or he has even more dangerous plans for our friends in Israel than he is publicly admitting.
In the State Department speech, President Obama said that he wants the borders of Palestine and Israel to “be based on the 1967 lines” (in other words, with both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as part of the new Palestinian state) and that he wants a Palestine that is a “sovereign and contiguous state” (emphasis added). The Merriam–Webster dictionary defines “contiguous” as “being in actual contact: touching along a boundary or at a point; of angles, adjacent; next or near in time or sequence; touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence,” like the “contiguous United States” which obviously excludes Alaska and Hawaii.
But the 1967 lines do not include a “contiguous” Palestine. (See the map here.) So what does he mean? The President proposes “mutually agreed [land] swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” Is linking Gaza and the West Bank with a road the “secured border” he has in mind? Or is he suggesting something more? Is it not possible he’s suggesting that the only way you can create a “contiguous” Palestinian state with “secured” borders is by carving Israel in half? Clarification on this point is of paramount importance, Mr. President.
In fact, that leads me to another even bigger geographic problem with the President’s remarks. As the British newspaper The Independent points out, there is further confusion because President Obama said, “The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.” As The Independent asks: “How does that square with the pre-1967 borders? Was the President implying that the new improved Israel will border neither Jordan nor Egypt, as it does now? Would Palestine’s contiguous territory come at the expense of Israel’s? Would Israel get the Gaza Strip and the Mediterranean and Palestine get the Negev and a Red Sea port?”
Is that what you have in mind, Mr. President? Do you not want an Israeli border with Egypt? You need to clarify what you mean. Diplomacy requires precision and you are causing enormous anxiety for some and making commitments to others that you might not be able to keep.
It has long been the dream of radicals like Noam Chomsky to create a “contiguous Palestine.” True, President George W. Bush spoke ambiguously of a “contiguous” Palestinian state, but he never defined it geographically with borders the way President Obama has, and he had the security of our ally Israel in mind more than our current President. President Obama has in essence boxed Israel in without regard for the facts on the ground and without appreciating the fact that Israel looks across the negotiating table and sees the terrorist organization Hamas in alliance with Fatah. Israel has demonstrated in the past that it is willing to negotiate fairly with a genuine partner in peace. Just look at the treaty it maintains to this day with Egypt. All of this should have been considered and the President’s words should have been carefully measured so as to help and not hinder the peace process. Unfortunately, his words have caused confusion and distressed our ally.
Read it
WOW !!! Mr Shapiro took a flamethrower to the JINO’s. This is the first time that I’ve heard the term JINO, but it makes perfect sense. It’s a word that I will use like a scalpel in my conversations with them. They should be ashamed. But, of course, Leftists seem immune to shame. Even if being a JINO makes them complicit “useful idiots” in a potential second holocaust.
He says, (“it means that voting for Barack Obama immediately places you in opposition to the Jewish people.”) In other words, traitors to their own people. It’s “funny” how the word traitor comes up so often, as regards the Left…
And it is tragically sad that the good opinion of anti-Semites is more important to the JINO, than the opinion of the good people of the world.
I’ve said this, here, before, if the second holocaust is begun, the JINO will no longer be needed by their masters, and they will then be disposed of…like the curs that they are.
Thank you for posting this, Mark. I had pretty much given up any hope of swaying any JINOs who were still supportive of Obama after the “67 Borders” speech of his. This solidifies that feeling. If a Jew is still an Obama supporter, I will consider them Leftists enemies to everything that I hold holy, and not Jews at all.
By the way, I consider Leftist Christians with the same disdain, as traitors and enemies. I suppose we could call them CINO’s.
I believe in the Scipture that states that he who blesses Israel will be blessed, he who curses her will be cursed (I paraphrase). And I have chosen my side…Long Live Israel !!
Ben Shapiro
Jews in Name Only
In 2008, Obama grabbed 78 percent of the Jewish vote. Even the most wildly optimistic polling today shows that Obama’s support remains high among Jews. It’s a result that Republicans simply can’t understand — why do so many Jews continue to support a president who has shown time and again that he stands against the State of Israel? Why the reflexive lever-pulling on behalf of a man who appoints anti-Semites to positions of high power, attends a virulently anti-Semitic church for 20 years, and sees Israel as the cause of the West’s conflict with the Muslim world?
The answer is deceptively simple: the Jews who vote for Obama are, by and large, Jews In Name Only (JINOs). They eat bagels and lox; they watch “Schindler’s List”; they visit temple on Yom Kippur — sometimes. But they do not care about Israel. Or if they do, they care about it less than abortion, gay marriage and global warming.
That prioritization is critical in understanding the Jewish vote. The same polls that report high levels of support for President Obama show that 94 percent of American Jews said that if Israel “no longer existed tomorrow,” it would be a tragedy (this means, by the way, that 6 percent of Jews should be automatically discounted as self-hating or insane) and that 77 percent of Jews believe that Israel should refuse to negotiate with a Hamas-backed Palestinian Arab government. The only way to reconcile that high level of support for Israel with a high level of support for an anti-Israel, anti-Semitic administration lies in the fact that all voters have priorities, and that Israel is not these voters’ highest priority.
Which is why they are known as JINOs.
Being Jewish is not like being black or Asian or Hispanic. It comes with certain attendant ideological responsibilities. There is no logical or inherent connection between skin color and liberalism or conservatism — melanin has no political playbook. Jewish identity, however, does. There is more to being truly Jewish than being born into a Jewish family, just as there is more to being Christian than being baptized.
Being truly Jewish requires allegiance to basic Judaic principles; the first and foremost of which is identity with the Jewish people and its enlightened national aspirations. In the Tanach (the Jewish canon, including the Old Testament, the Prophets and the Writings), when Ruth converts to Judaism, she states, “Your people will be my people and your God my God.” The connection between Jews and the land of Israel is the running theme of the Old Testament. Any Jew who does not take these principles seriously — more seriously than global warming or affirmative action, for example — is a JINO.
And voting for Obama is a violation of those principles. Obama’s speech last week implicitly blaming Israel’s failure to surrender its security for the radical terrorism of the Islamic world threatens Israel ideologically; his call for Israel to return to the pre-1967 borders as the basis for negotiation endangers Israel’s survival on a practical level, cutting the State to 9 miles wide and handing over the strategic high ground to enemy forces; his suggestion that a Palestinian state be “contiguous” by definition slices Israel in half; his failure to recognize the incoherence of the so-called “right of return” destroys Israel demographically.
Obama has backed the Muslim Brotherhood revolts throughout the Middle East and toppled Israeli peace partners in the process; he has appointed advisers who openly call for placing American troops on the ground in Israel to stop Israeli military action; he has allowed the United Nations to castigate Israel routinely while ignoring Palestinian terrorism on a daily basis. Obama is a man who used his Passover message to stump for the Muslim Brotherhood-backed Arab Spring. Seriously.
Simply put, Obama is an enemy of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. And any Jew who votes for him betrays his or her brothers and sisters at home and abroad. By definition, a vote for Obama is a vote against the truly Jewish part of Jewish identity. There is a reason that the observant Jewish community votes overwhelmingly Republican — they vote on Jewish principle.
Why bother exposing JINOs for what they are? First, it helps non-Jews understand the dynamics of the Jewish community — it is not monolithic, and much of it is not authentically Jewish. Second, it acts as a shaming mechanism for those Jews who throw away Jewish principle in pursuit of back-slapping from their liberal buddies. And they should be ashamed of what they do. They are the moral equivalent of Jewish Neville Chamberlain voters in 1939. They must understand that their votes have consequences.
Jewish identity is about more than ethnicity. Boiling it down to a propensity for “Seinfeld” cheapens the experience, the history and the bond of Judaism itself. Being Jewish means something. And if it means anything, it means that voting for Barack Obama immediately places you in opposition to the Jewish people.
=====================
Ben Shapiro is a regular guest on dozens of radio shows around the United States and Canada and author of Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House.
©Creators Syndicate
No Mark, I know they don’t think like that man. He’s Andrew Breitbart, a Conservative warrior. He is speaking about the Liberal American Jews and expressing the same confusion about them that I feel.
For me it’s like they have scales over their eyes. How else can you explain supporting a man who is an enemy to your own people. Like Breitbart said, it’s either suicidal or stupidity.
I’m anti-Leftist, I don’t care about race or creed.
Ed Koch, the former Mayor of NY, and a VERY influential Jewish man, has said that he will not vote for Obama if he continues with his policies towards Israel. Maybe some of the crazy Jewish liberals will be swayed by him. I hope so.
Bruce O’H,
if you think that majority of liberal Jews are thinking as this guy does – you are mistaken. Majority of American Jews are selfish liberal bastards who will continue to vote for this shit no matter what. I see them every day. If I were not be a Jew, knowing those Jews would turn me anti-Semite. For sure.
Check out what this Jewish man thinks of Obama, the Left, and Liberal Jews…
http://www.therightscoop.com/breitbart-without-conservative-christians-israel-would-be-up-shts-creek/
The Leftist media, speaking of dog S#!%, are not happy with the way they are being treated by Mrs. Palin…GOOD!!
Knock it off, you guys!
Whichever one it was that created man in His own image, Smartass.
If you’ve got a problem with that, perhaps you should take it up with Him.
Of course.
You are his meal ticket.
Which also his emotional meal ticket of course.
In some ways, yes.
In other ways, no.
Not more intuitive, but more alert to the unconscious sight cues we often give that tell them of those moods; also their acute olfactory sense can often pick up cues in the air, even from a distance, from greater or lesser amounts of perspiration we give off (as well as the contents of that perspiration).
Yes, but as I said, you can’t give an animal a conscience.
A man has a choice that a dog doesn’t have:
He can be obedient as a matter of ROTE (or fear)
— best that a dictator can hope for in a subject.
Or the man can be obedient as a matter of CONSCIENCE.
A dog’s obedience is ultimately strictly a matter of habit.
Your quarrel in that department is not with me, boychik.
Your quarrel is with God.
I repeat: Take it up with HIM.
Animals have no choice to deceive.
Humans DO have that choice.
There is no claim to virtue without temptation.
The learning is ALWAYS ‘artificial.’
You have to want to be SHOWN — by God — what you’ve done wrong.
That doesn’t come “naturally” to anybody.
The pleasure you’re speaking of is something a man uses to distract himself from intuition as foresight, or conscience in hindsight.
Since the animal has no conscience, it has no need to escape from the awareness that conscience represents.
I know enough about animals to know that animal behavior is perfection for an animal,
because an animal has only one nature, an animal nature.
So when it behaves as an animal, it has no conflict.
A man, however, has TWO natures:
an animal nature and a spiritual nature.
If he behaves in an animal manner,
he will — unlike the animal — have conflict for it.
There’s a reason for that.
.For someone with one foot in the grave and the other on a bar of soap, I wouldn’t hold your breath,on second thought, why don’t you hold your breath.
If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.
Harry Truman
dweller says:
Whose creator? Ours or yours?
What? A dog will give you unconditional love and loyalty,and he won’t betray you either; far more consequential than giving ones word.
He knows when you are displeased and will sulk or try to make up within the context of his dog behavior contexts. Dogs are more intuitive than humans and more sensitive to mood nuances than humans.
You can train humans to be obedient.
and look what Humans have done to that image?
some higher animals know how to say they are sorry. Most humans don’t. Animals are by nature not duplicitous most humans are. Repentance presupposes acknowledgement of what needs to be repentant. This is artificially learned in different cultures and not universally uniform. Different strokes for different folks. Show me an animal who kills for the emotional and intellectual pleasure of the act?
You know as much about animal behavior as you do Judaism, not much.
I understand your (.) of view, although I can not agree with you on following:
1. The most significant point: I DO NOT following idea of anthropomorphism by the simple reason – I am trying to separate pristine nature of a dog from corrupt nature of a human being.
2.”The results to which you refer are often the consequence of persons attempting an end-run around the conscience”. I am interested only in results. If one is killing another with the square look at victim’s face, it doesn’t compensate the fact of killing.
3. ““Wrong”?
Dogs — especially — can certainly tell, thru training or thru their capacity to pick up sight or sound cues, when they have displeased you”. I have different approach to my dogs. I NEVER train them (in terms of commonly used dog training programs). In stead I teach them exactly the same way as I taught my children. The results are just amazing. Yes, they do not understand the concept of G-d, but they feel G-d thru the each day of their lives. And they live by the Law of nature, the Law of G-d.
4. “Ultimately, they have only the one axis — pleasure-pain”. I believe that dogs have this second axis you are talking about “right/wrong”. Only two axis! Can we claim that we are living in multi-axial moral space? I doubt it. But if one will it will be the sin of pride that can be compared only to insanity.
5. “Man is the only creature that blushes, or needs to.”. Oh, if man would not be doing horrible deeds while he is blushing….
The results to which you refer are often the consequence of persons attempting an end-run around the conscience,
i.e., attempting to avoid staring it square in the face,
sometimes even in the name of obedience to conscience.
Quite so.
No conscience (or potential for one) means no sin.
And thus no need to repent.
“Wrong”?
Dogs — especially — can certainly tell, thru training or thru their capacity to pick up sight or sound cues, when they have displeased you.
And needing to know that they have pleased their master is an extremely vital — and characteristic — trait in the dog,
more so in the dog than in any other creature
(and an important reality to be aware of as a means of training them).
But to characterize their sense that they’ve displeased you as ‘knowing that they’ve done wrong’
is, I would submit, actually an instance of anthropormorphism on your part.
Ultimately, they have only the one axis — pleasure-pain — on which everything in their world hinges. Knowing that they have pleased their master can surely incorporate pleasure for them.
But only man has TWO axes, often appearing at right angles to each other:
pleasure-pain and right-wrong.
Yes, I’ve heard it attributed to him.
I’ve ALSO heard attributed to him the line,
“Man is the only creature that blushes,
or needs to.”
I hear what you have said. My thoughts about whole human history led me to conclusion that human conscience caused so many terrible and hard to comprehend results that now I doubt if human conscience could be of any good (just for an example read human history between XI – XXI centuries, or any time period for this matter). Meanwhile talking about potential to REPENT, you (with your extensive experience in being around animals/dogs) must know that they practically DO NOT COMMIT SIN. All they do its G-d’s good deeds. And thus they should not be subjected for penitence (although, they know well when they did something wrong, and they have feelings of shame). I do not know who said it (some said – Mark Twain, some said – even hitler…), but I totally agree: “The more I know people the more I love my dogs”… Thus, I share idea of misanthropy.
Understood.
On the other hand, those beautiful creatures’ Creator would disagree with you.
I’ve raised, and trained, more dogs than I would care to count.
I was fond of every one of them.
But I never had any illusions that any one of them had the potential to give his word and keep it.
You can train a dog to be obedient.
You can train him to do all sorts of things.
You cannot give him a conscience.
The fact that a man behaves in a manner that utterly ignores the demands of conscience
has no bearing on the standing he has by virtue of the fact that he came into the world created in God’s image.
Not only has an animal no potential for a conscience,
but also (and again, unlike man)
an animal has no potential to REPENT
of having ignored conscience.
Man is a special creation
– indeed the Crown of Creation
I have three dogs in my family. I can attest that for me (the one who knows those beautiful creatures) dog shit worth much, much more than the vast majority of “the Crown of Creation”.
Certainly.
Well, many of the same emotions (albeit perhaps not the range or subtlety).
And many of them have varying degrees of intellect as well.
And, yes, some of them share many of the same genes too.
What none of them share, however, with the human animal — in any degree — Catarin,
and what they have no potential to ever have,
is a CONSCIENCE.
None of them has the potential to give his word
and willingly bind himself to it in time
perhaps even against his own perceived interest,
let alone, bind himself to it forever.
Man is a special creation
— indeed the Crown of Creation.
One of the best materials for the open-minded American is this interview with the former USSR’s spy Yuri Bezmenov recorded in 1985 (see attached video). He was clearly stating that the main goal of the USSR KGB was not espionage (industrial or political), not physical destruction of material objects but rather moral indoctrination of masses and in particular intelligentsia (which was always been the source for destruction in any society). As Mr. Bezmenov said – if only Americans would pulled out bananas from their ears they would understand that KGB was very successful in destabilization of the very fragile minds of American public (usually not too well educated and to simply put – ignoramuses).
Today we see that KGB won the cold war because their count on American idiots was right.
Again this is the best learning material for American idiots, but it was never learned and never will.
One wise guy said that the difference between fool and smart is that the first one is learning on his own mistakes.
Here is priceless interview
First off, Thank you for having been a soldier. I use the term generically to cover all branches. Secondly, don’t presuppose my partisanship.
I am not a neophyte. I know that Washington DC is corrupt to the core. I have no allegiance to any Party.
Here is what is black and white, capitalism is the engine that propelled this country to greatness. Socialism has been a failure EVERY time it has been instituted. Not because the wrong people applied it wrongly, but because it is intrinsically flawed.
When I refer to Capitalism, I am not advocating “unfettered” capitalism. But I am opposed to an unfettered Fed Govt, also. And I will fight to my last breath to keep Communism from taking control of this country. If you think that I am being ridiculous about Communism, look up videos of this past May Day parade in LA. The Unions, SEIU, have embraced it. Andy Stern, former President of the SEIU visited the White House more than any other single person in 2010. The Dem Congress is controlled by the Progressive Congressional Caucus. The majority of it’s members are openly members of Socialist orgs.
The country IS at the crossroads that I spoke of, and tens of millions of Americans are actively working for a restoration of our Founding Principles. That was the referendum that we witnessed in the ’10 Midterm elections.
It took the Left 100 years to incrementally get the country to this point. It will take many election cycles and decades of work to reverse it.
If the Left/Jihadis don’t precipitate WW3 in the meantime. There’s a good chance that once the dust settles from the “democratic” revolutions, and the Jihadis mobilize, Israel will be attacked from all neighbors with the ocean at her back as it has always been since her rebirth.
Money. Michele Bachmann collected more total campaign contributions for her 2010 Congressional race than anyone has ever collected in the history of the Congress. It mainly consisted of donations under $100. We sent her $10’s and 20’s from all over the nation to keep that seat.
Sarah Palin does not need to worry about money, trust me, there is an army of supporters. More than you can imagine based on the caricature of her and her followers that I assume you probably have in your mind.
I can’t help but notice that you never address the crux of my comments…the alliance of the Left with your mortal enemies…why is that, Yamit, my friend?
Forget the corporations for now, the Lefts disgust with some bad corps has resulted in a hate of business in general.
Join us in restoring the country
My point was not of an academic debate. My points if you had taken the time to read all of the links I posted is that American political, social and economic condition is not as black and white s you present them. Most Jews in America for example are not leftists but firm believers and practitioners of capitalism. it was only after WW2 that American Jews attained equal opportunities in America but not before they fought since the early 1700’s to gain that equality. American Jews do adhere to what you understand to be what is called social Justice. That makes them socially concerned like when Jews were the founders of the NAACP. The first labor unions in America and Canada. Jews have always believed that by fighting for the social, political and economic rights of others they were in fact protecting their own unsure status.
Jews have always feared the entrenched power of government and that’s one of the reasons you have always seen them in the forefront of revolutionary movements.
Americas economic woes did not begin with Obama, he may have made an untenable situation even more so but the rot had set in long ago and it transcended all political streams in America. As a vet from both Korea and Nam I can say both were unnecessary and fought for all the wrong reasons. Yea I know the patriotic spin put on them but that was necessary to sell them to the gullible American mobs as were Iraq Afghanistan and now Libya.
Do you believe a nobody like Obama could have reached the WH without some very powerful entities not manipulating everything to bring it about. I’ve even read where the Obama campaign manipulated the democratic primary in favor of McCain. Obama is nothing more than a stooge for others agendas. Who are they? One can only speculate but a country where GM, IBM and tens of other mega American corps built the Nazi war machine up to and in some cases during the War, why should anyone be surprised that they and others like Wall street are not calling the shots today. These groups and companies have no national loyalty except for their own bottom lines. You speak of Capitalism as if it were the holy Grail but as they say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. no honest politician can ever be elected in America because not enough money will flow to their campaigns. To raise the necessary capital in order to compete in America, politicians must give moneyed vested interests promises of returns sufficient to receive large donations and it doesn’t matter which party.
Few mega billionaires in America earned their wealth by the sweat of their brows. They either inherited it or by investments and control of politicians, media and markets in their own favor. Where 1% of the population owns over 50% of the wealth in America, is that what you want to preserve and conserve? The economic history of America can be summed up as a mega moral hazard.
America used to have a normal economy that actually produced things. You have an economy of consumption without production and till now America borrowed from others who actually do produce to subsidize the consumption. America has lost her industrial base and a real sustainable recovery is doubtful. In past recessions and depressions America could produce her way out as you saw in WW2. Today that base is almost gone. When the Germans own the NYSE, you know that everything is on sale and some at fire-sale prices. nobody believes housing will rebound and nobody is talking much about credit defaults but they are great and mostly unsecured.
What’s my point? The rot was set deep long before Obama and not to be honest about blame renders your positions as partisan without a lot of objective and empirical truth.
You want the truth always follow the money and see who gains and who loses. Jingoism’s only serves the enemy domestic and foreign.
I will not engage in the historical or philosophical nuances of the words Liberal/Leftists/Conservative/Libertarian. It is a digression. The time is past for that academic luxury.
America is at an historic and crucial crossroads. Do we remain a Constitutional Republic or do we fundamentally transform into a Centrally Controlled economy and society? The inherent rights of the individual, as created by the Founders, or total control of every aspect of our lives by an all powerful Federal Government.
Each American will have to choose their side. The choices are stark, there are no gray areas.
If you are for fundamental transformation, you are a Leftist.
If you are against Capitalism, you are a Leftist.
If your sympathies are with the Palestinians, you are a Leftist.
If you believe that income disparity in the West, whose poor would be considered rich in every other part of the world, is the greatest threat to America, as opposed to the unholy alliance of Communists/Jihadists who are massing forces on Israels borders as we parse words…you are a foolish Leftist.
The evil that was Nazism is back, in different clothing, and has aligned with the international Communists to destroy the Jewish people and the West. Obama and the American Left have aligned with them. If you are not standing with those that resist it, then you are aiding it, if only by inaction. And, please, don’t give me the historical revision that the Nazi’s were of the Right. They were the National SOCIALIST Party.
I will not engage in academic or philosophical distinctions. The time is past for that. This is the time for choosing the side that you stand with, come what may. And if too many choose wrongly, and the Communist/Jihadist side wins…well, Israel and all of her people will cease to exist, and you and I will die at their hands, also. It is ALWAYS the way of the Left, that is a historical fact.
The Left have played on your good hearts and intentions with noble and moral sounding platitudes, but they just need you to help them achieve their true goals. When they do, you will be disposed of. That, too, is ALWAYS the way of the Left.
This is the reason that I came to Israpundit, to speak these words. That, and a desire to learn why American Jews can see a radical Leftist in the White House blatantly side with their/our enemies, and still support him.
“I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” Barack Hussein Obama, from his book, Dreams from My Father.
What part of that do you not understand?
You make the common error of using Leftist and liberal interchangeably. Not all liberals are leftists and most ideological leftists are not really liberal. You by inference confuse real conservatives with libertarians and seem to indicate that a real conservativ could not be a social justice liberal.
I could be a fiscal conservative and pro strong national defense but a liberal on most social issues.
Pls read:
Conservative vs. Liberal–A Debate
Are you aware?
Power in America
Wealth, Income, and Power
by G. William Domhoff
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.
If we count all of the taxes that people pay, from sales taxes to property taxes to payroll taxes (in other words, not just income taxes). And the top 1% of income earners, who average over $1 million a year, actually pay a smaller percentage of their incomes to taxes than the 9% just below them.
There has been an “astounding” 36.1% drop in the wealth (marketable assets) of the median household since the peak of the housing bubble in 2007. By contrast, the wealth of the top 1% of households dropped by far less: just 11.1%. So as of April 2010, it looks like the wealth distribution is even more unequal than it was in 2007.
For all Americans, things are getting worse: as the projections to July 2009 by Wolff (2010) make clear, the last few years have seen a huge loss in housing wealth for most families, making the gap between the rich and the rest of America even greater, and increasing the number of households with no marketable assets from 18.6% to 24.1%.
The old adage the the wealthy get wealthier and the poor get poorer is applicable to America. The problem to my mind is not that there is inequality of wealth distribution but that wealth equals political power and those who have wealth use it to control the political system to enhance and increase their own wealth at the expense of everyone else. The only industrialized democracy with a higher concentration of wealth in the top 10% than the United States is Switzerland at 71.3%.
wealth can be seen as a “resource” that is very useful in exercising power. That’s obvious when we think of donations to political parties, payments to lobbyists, and grants to experts who are employed to think up new policies beneficial to the wealthy. Wealth also can be useful in shaping the general social environment to the benefit of the wealthy, whether through hiring public relations firms or donating money for universities, museums, music halls, and art galleries.
Second, certain kinds of wealth, such as stock ownership, can be used to control corporations, which of course have a major impact on how the society functions. Third, just as wealth can lead to power, so too can power lead to wealth. Those who control a government can use their position to feather their own nests, whether that means a favorable land deal for relatives at the local level or a huge federal government contract for a new corporation run by friends who will hire you when you leave government. If we take a larger historical sweep and look cross-nationally, we are well aware that the leaders of conquering armies often grab enormous wealth, and that some religious leaders use their positions to acquire wealth. READ ALL HERE
It is my contention that the greatest threat to America is the inherent disparity of wealth in America.
Oh, really? Tell us how.
Dear Catarin, I have no doubt that you actually believe that Liberals follow in the footsteps of the Founders. I know how the Left is able to twist anything to please and conform to their simple view of the world and of themselves.
I know that you can totally ignore the fact that the Left has spent the last 50 years undermining the Founders, until they have been condensed down to NOTHING but old dead white men who owned slaves. As a matter of fact, if you are a true Leftist, your use of the Founders was a cynical intellectual ploy. I know this because your true opinion of the founders is filled with contempt for them…if you are a modern liberal.
By their work of art, I’m assuming that you’re referring to the Constitution. For a Leftist to piously call the Constitution a work of art, well, it’s just transparent sophistry. The Left has spent the last 50 years undermining the Constitution until it is NOTHING but the 3/5ths clause. The Left are “this close” to relegating the Constitution into a document that was relevant for it’s time…but not for this enlightened age. When in actuality, Unalienable Rights are timeless. There is no “living and breathing”, we don’t need that anymore, to it.
Western Civilization? Catarin…have you noticed the alliance between the Left and the Jihadists? You know, all of the anti-Semitic left of Europe and America taking sides against Israel, along with the useful idiots of the Jewish Left? I’ve often wondered, do you liberal Jews who side with the Palestinians, as you must, or you wouldn’t very well be good little Leftists, do you feel that since you’re a Leftist that you will be spared if they win? No, Catarin, in the final analysis…you…are…a…Jew…see ya.
My advice to you would be to open your eyes REALLY wide, and run as far away from the Leftist/Jihadist spectrum as you can. And work as hard as you can to elect people who have staked their political careers on standing with Israel.
Do you refer to Israel as the “occupiers” when you’re speaking with your enlightened friends?
Everyone is entitled to his own view. We Liberals follow in the footsteps of the Founding Fathers, whose work of art establishes inclusivity. No one is better or above anyone else. We are all entitled to the same rights. This is the story of Western Civilization. This is the principles of Judaism.
I am signing under each word in this message.
Catarin #46,
I’m not going to get into the “you lie, no, you lie” game. I’m not even going to respond to your talk of killing Republicans and how their funerals would benefit the economy.
No, I’m just doing everything in my power to remove the vile Left from every rung of power in our country. They are a cancer on the body politic. I don’t even want a Leftist dog catcher in my county.
The massacre that you saw the Party of a sitting President take in 2010? That was just the beginning. 2012 will be a repeat. Because even though you have the media, which makes it seem, to you, that you have the country…you don’t. The majority of the country finds Liberal/ Socialist policies to be despicable.
I know that you think highly of your snarky, uninformed, opinions…but the opinions of the Left are below contempt for me.