Breaking Silence, Refusing To Adjust: The US Army Attempts To Censor The Baptists

 It's not unexpected, really.

The Army has decided that evangelical Christians are a potential terrorist threat, and has focused its efforts on keeping us safe from the likes of the folks who go to Sunday School at First Baptist Church of anywhere-south-of-the-Ohio-River. Hotbeds of hatred and insurrection like Abingdon, Virginia, or Paducah Kentucky, or Enid, Oklahoma.

Damn, OS feels safer already!!

Now, a self-proclaimed Muslim Jihadi Army officer can walk into a crowded room of unarmed servicemen and women at Fort Hood, cry the 'God Is Great' warcry and begin murdering those innocent people, and that is not a terrorist act! This man has never been sent to court-martial, and likely never will be during the Obama administration.

But, those Baptist! They, by golly are a threat!! Just ask Homeland Security!

('But, but, but...weren't those Boston Bombers wannabe jihadis?' Hush-yo-mouf!! They just poor misguided souls, dat's all, let's not go dissin' nooooobodies Muslim faith, now!)

Of course, it was not long before the Army's attempt to block the site was discovered, and the word spread. Rapidly. Loudly.

Then the serious backtracking began:

The Dept. of Defense confirmed to Fox News late Wednesday that the SBC website had been blocked — but not intentionally. “The Department of Defense is not intentionally blocking access to this site, said Lt. Col. Damien Pickart. “We are working diligently to investigate what might be causing access issues for some of our service members and to correct the situation as quickly as possible.”

Translation being: Damn!! We got caught!! Of course it was deliberate, since it's impossible to 'unintentionally' block a website, but we'll just lie about that bit, and hope people don't pick up on it.
Back to the drawing board--we'll have to find more subtle ways to pressure the Evangelicals. Them and their inconvenient consciences and beliefs that there is a moral Almighty to whom they have to give account.

What puzzles OS is: So much of the military is drawn from small towns, from church-going families, many of whom have a long tradition of military service stretching back generations. From what portions of society do they now intend to recruit for military service? Will blind obedience and physical prowess be the qualities most prized? Does this not sound troubling, and familiar, this military untied from a moral tradition, and trained to swear fealty to a charismatic leader? This is the direction that we seem to be going, and it always takes a nation over the cliff.

It is disturbing, but symptomatic of a more pervasive attitude found in the upper reaches of leadership in government and academia.

Mr. Obama's remark about rural Pennsylvanians clinging to guns and religion is the coin of the realm in his crowd. But let's put their shared consensus another way: Somehow it became a conventional view in contemporary American politics that it is non-urban conservatives who in every case have to accommodate their beliefs to a national culture created by people who live somewhere else. "They" must adjust on abortion, guns, school prayer, sexual mores and all the rest of it. Liberals, meanwhile, not only feel no need to concede anything but use the commanding heights of the press and academia to define anyone who dissents from their ever-evolving national culture as a political fringe obsessed with people, one might say, who aren't like them.

OS does not have much to say, except: The horrors of twentieth-century Europe, the millions upon millions slaughtered, the other millions who perished of disease and starvation, the millions more displaced by war, the wholesale leveling of beautiful cities; all this was made possible by compliant populations who were persuaded to 'adjust' to a New Order, a 'modern' view of life, unshackled by outmoded religion and ethics.

We cannot afford to, and dare not 'adjust'. To simply withdraw from society, as OS sees some do, into one's own angry and heavily armed enclave, is a form of capitulation. To respond with violence instead of words and votes invites massive blood-letting--recall The War Between The States, and imagine it re-fought with modern arms. This is not an option.

We have to remain engaged, and firmly, quietly, as kindly as we can, one home at a time, one neighborhood at a time, one church at a time, one town or county at a time, one vote at a time, one state at a time--inform one and all that we will not be 'adjusting'.

The Choice, aka The Testimony The House Democrats Refused to Hear or Publish

It isn't just what happens that we should notice.

It's what doesn't happen.

It's the voices of dissent, however reasoned, that are suppressed, the testimony deliberately never entered into the record or published, that also must be noticed.

Robert Johnson, whose credentials are noted below, was called at the last minute to testify before the House Banking Services Committee this week. He warned starkly of the dangers of the bill proposed.

Five minutes into his testimony, he was cut off by the acting chair. He submitted his testimony, which was subsequently never published.

The account can be found here.

The full testimony can be found here.

Johnson is no tin-hat Tea Party type.  He is an experienced executive in the financial world, and is employed by the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute!  If his voice is to be suppressed, what then?

Here is the summary of his testimony, which runs twenty-sen pages.  Little wonder the Committee did not wish it entered in the record!

THE CHOICE: REFORM OR ENDORSEMENT OF A MAN MADE FAULTLINE

Wall Street's leaders cannot control their urge to seek protection despite the fact that it is demeaning to their reputations. Yet the members of this Committee and your counterparts in the Senate are responsible for resisting their demands for the good of society. I do believe that this is no minor matter. The financial security and strength of our nation is in the balance. Confidence in the U.S. dollar as the world's foremost reserve currency depends upon the integrity of our financial system. As I stated at the outset, I believe that the intersection between the OTC derivatives market and the large financial institutions is the financial equivalent of the San Andreas fault. Yet there is one difference. The San Andreas fault is a natural occurrence that we must all cope with to mitigate the consequences of an earthquake. It is beyond our power as people to eliminate. The current state of OTC derivatives regulation and its relation to the guarantees of large financial institutions are a man made fault that is the product of past human errors financial legislation and regulation. It has been revealed by catastrophic events to have devastating consequences. It has produced an avoidable earthquake.  That earthquake and its consequences need not be repeated. One can only imagine the consequences for the reputation of those public officials who would choose to act to codify into law this fault line and expose our society to a repetition of the financial crisis that has devastated the world in recent months.

To avoid reform would be harmful enough. We know the fault lines of past human error regarding the regulation of OTC derivatives continue to threaten us. But to affirm the status quo with new legislation that codifies these structural flaws and deems them to be healthy would be far worse. This is not about just leaving a few crumbs on the table for big financial institutions and asking the rest of us to pay a little more. This is about the representative government of our society choosing to affirm a dangerous financial structure that could explosively harm us all again just after we experienced a severe and unnecessary crisis that resulted from these very failures of design. It would be both dangerous and demoralizing for America and the world if our legislators choose to take that path forward in deference to the parochial desires of a few firms in the financial sector. 


Robert Johnson is the director of the Economic Policy Initiative at the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute and is a regular contributor to NewDeal 2.0. He serves on the United Nations Commission of Experts on Finance and International Monetary Reform. Previously, Dr. Johnson was a managing director at Soros Fund Management, where he managed a global currency, bond and equity portfolio specializing in emerging markets. He was also a managing director at the Bankers Trust Company. Dr. Johnson has served as chief economist of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee under the leadership of Chairman William Proxmire and was senior economist of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee under the leadership of Chairman Pete Domenici.