Archive for April, 2008
By Alan Caruba
There was a Washington Post news report in late March that the United Nations had “presented its top donors with a request for nearly $1.1 billion in additional funds over the next two years—boosting current U.N. expenses by 25 percent and marking the global body’s highest-ever administrative budget, according to internal U.N. memos.”
Since I am no fan of the United Nations, my first thought was to ask why the U.S. and other “top donors” would toss more money at this bloated and morally corrupt international bureaucracy when it is manifestly unable to prevent wars—its primary mission—and remains a platform for belligerence, bigotry, and intolerance?
According to the report, the request for more money is blamed on the Bush administration’s “demands for a more ambitious U.N. role around the world.” That seems a rather convenient explanation given the poor performance of most of the U.N.’s so-called peace-keeping missions, some of which degraded into the rape of the women it was supposed to be protecting; its 60-year support of the Palestinians, making them the oldest refugee group in history; and its deplorable environmental program, a platform for the most appalling lies about the climate.
We have the final years of the Roosevelt administration for the creation of the United Nations as World War Two wound down. The failure of the League of Nations to prevent the war should have been sufficient reason not to go down that path again, but perhaps it was seen as the very reason to create a new, international organization to prevent wars?
(Washington, DC) – The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), focusing on constitutional law, said today it is demanding that a community college in New York end its hostility toward a Christian student who has been punished because of her religious beliefs. The ACLJ represents Gina DeLuca, a student at Suffolk County Community College (SCCC), who has received lower grades and has been labeled “closed-minded” by a professor who requires students to acknowledge the possibility that God does not exist in order to participate in a philosophy class. The ACLJ has sent a letter demanding that the school end its discriminatory actions against DeLuca or face a federal lawsuit.
“This is another troubling example of how some in the academic world believe it’s acceptable to violate the First Amendment rights afforded to all students – especially students who hold Christian beliefs,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “The actions by this professor clearly reflect hostility toward religion. To require students to acknowledge the possibility that God does not exist in order to participate in a class is not only wrong, but clearly violates the constitutional rights of students who hold religious beliefs. Unless this school takes corrective action, we will go to federal court to protect the rights of our client.”
In its letter to Suffolk County Attorney Christine Malafi, the ACLJ explains that the problem began when DeLuca took a philosophy class which is required for graduation.
DeLuca, who has been a student at SCCC for two years, has maintained a 3.9 GPA and has had good relationships with her professors at the school. She received good grades in the philosophy class until her religious beliefs became known.
According to the ACLJ letter, “…the grades she received on class assignments dropped significantly once God and religion became prominent topics of class discussion and her refusal to compromise her Christian faith became apparent. This is because the course goes beyond merely requiring knowledge of prominent philosophers and their arguments or ways of thinking, which Gina does not object to.” The letter adds that the professor “believes that it is his job to get students to change their own personal viewpoints or state that they are unsure of whether their own personal beliefs are correct.”
In addition to giving DeLuca lower grades, the ACLJ contends that the professor labeled her “closed-minded,” “uncritical,” “hurtful,” and “blinded by belief” simply because she did not adopt his way of thinking.
“SCCC must take immediate action to correct this problem,” the ACLJ letter states. “While a college professor may encourage students to be informed about viewpoints and arguments that differ from their own, it is inappropriate—and unconstitutional—for a public college professor to make passing a required course (and thus graduation) contingent upon a student’s willingness to express agreement with philosophical viewpoints that conflict with her religious beliefs.”
The ACLJ is asking the school to end this discriminatory action against DeLuca, provide assurances that her constitutional rights will be preserved, and advise the professor about the First Amendment rights of students. The ACLJ is demanding that the school provide these assurances by April 14th or face a federal lawsuit.
The ACLJ defends the constitutional rights of students nationwide and most recently secured a victory for an Arizona college journalism student who faced discrimination – and a failing grade – because of her Christian faith. After the ACLJ intervened on behalf of that student, the school reversed itself and awarded her an occupational journalism certificate in addition to her associate’s degree.
Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses on constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C.
By Randall H. Nunn
The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Senator Barack Obama’s spiritual mentor, believes, among other things, that merging Marxism with the Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. The basis for the black liberation philosophies advocated by Reverend Wright is the work of James Cone, founder of the modern black liberation theology movement. Senator Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a member of Reverend Wright’s congregation for many years, surely knows the views of Reverend Wright and presumably the views of James Cone. Does Senator Obama believe that merging Marxism with the gospel will show the way to a better tomorrow? And, if not, why did he sit in Reverend Wright’s congregation for more than 20 years, listening to his anti-American tirades and soaking up philosophies incompatible with the views of the great majority of Americans?
If one disagrees with a philosophy disseminated from the pulpit, not in a subtle and devious fashion but in a blisteringly blatant bombardment by a loud and rabid activist, how likely is it that he or she would remain as a loyal attendee of the church? Yet, Senator Obama and his wife continued to attend Reverend Wright’s ranting sermons with no protest. None, that is, until Senator Obama realized that his attendance of Wright’s church and support for his “spiritual mentor” might become a political liability. And even then, Senator Obama was careful not to totally repudiate Reverend Wright. Obama said he “strongly disagreed” with “many” of Wright’s political views. It’s just that it took over 20 years for this Harvard-trained lawyer and aspirant to The White House to get worked up enough to register his disagreement. I have a feeling that the majority of Americans do not believe Obama’s remarks aimed, as they were, at carefully distancing himself from Wright’s more outrageous statements without antagonizing the far left wing of his party.
What does the Reverend Wright affair tell us about Senator Obama’s political views? It clearly tells us that Senator Obama is not just liberal—he is liberal to the point of being radical and on the very fringe of liberal political thinking in this country. Read the rest of this entry »
By Jim Kouri
There is a far-reaching scandal brewing for presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, thanks to a radio talk show host based in Oregon. Syndicated talk host Laurie Roth’s revelations make the news story about Obama’s relationship with a racist, anti-American pastor look like child’s play.
A top official at the Pentagon during former-President George H. W. Bush’s Administration and a former CIA intelligence officer maintain that Barack Obama and former Weather Underground honcho William Ayers funneled money to Professor Rashid Khalidi, a known terrorist sympathizer.
Khalidi serves on the faculty of Columbia University in New York and is best known as the professor who invited Iranian President Ahmedinejad to visit Columbia University after he finished his speech at the United Nations. According to confidential sources, Khalidi has direct ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), a group on the US State Department’s list of known terrorist groups.
“One source for this information was once a top military figure in the 1990s. He doesn’t take making allegations lightly. If he says something happened, believe me, it happened,” said syndicated radio talk show host Laurie Roth ( http://www.therothshow.com/ )
“Another source is a former agent for the Central Intelligence Agency, who is an expert in counterterrorism,” said Roth, who broke the story on her show Friday night.
“I certainly don’t want to demonize someone because they are a woman, black or liberal running for President. I love the idea that in our culture, a black and woman can now run. However, it does matter to me with any candidate, their consistency with good judgment, their voting record, their association with people with questionable backgrounds and commitment to our country,” she said during her show.
Here are the connections as described by very reliable sources, who possess impressive military, national security and intelligence backgrounds:
Allison Davis, who hired the young Obama into his small, Chicago law firm Davis, Miner, and Barnhill in 1993, left the firm in late 1999-2000 and became a housing developer. Davis went into business with Tony Rezko, the indicted businessman who’s scheduled to go on trial for corruption in Illinois, and who was a major fundraiser for Obama.
Davis met Rezko when he was a client of Davis, Miner, and Barnhill. Rezko is currently under indictment in Illinois for demanding kickbacks from companies seeking state government business contracts under Governor Blagojevich. Obama was identified as one of the politicians cited in the indictment as having received political contributions from Rezko out of his kickback funds.
ARLINGTON, Va. April 14 /Standard Newswire/ – U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement on former President Carter's plans to meet with Hamas:
"It is a grave and dangerous mistake for an American leader to meet with a terrorist organization like Hamas. Engaged in a campaign that deliberately targets innocent Israeli civilians, Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. President Carter is wrong to meet with Hamas, a terrorist group that has also killed innocent Americans.
"The very idea that a former President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief would meet with a terrorist organization demands a clear stance from all presidential candidates. Refusing to take a stand, as Senator Obama has done, is not the strong leadership we need today. If Senator Obama is not decisive enough to condemn former President Carter, how can he be strong enough to deal with the threat they pose to America and to our allies?"
Contact: Press Office, 703-650-5550; www.JohnMcCain.com
By Alan Caruba
Recently I emailed a gentleman who is highly regarded, nationally and internationally, as one of the top strategic, military and economic long-range thinkers of our times. He is the author of several bestselling books about the way globalization is impacting the lives of the Earth’s population.
In addition to having read his books and magazine articles, I occasionally visit his blog to read what he is thinking about currently. I noticed that he was casually referencing “global warming” in a post, so I emailed to let him know that there is no scientific proof or basis for the endless global warming claims. I cited all the usual data that disputes it and I provided the URLs of several websites that could provide him with even more.
His response was quite revealing. “It doesn’t matter one way or the other. All the same fixes are required for sheer pollution reasons on a global scale given population increase and consumption increase. You’re arguing the past.” He would later post that, so far as the data debunking global warming, he was “beyond caring.”
As I interpret this, no matter how utterly false the justifications are for the global warming hoax given by Al Gore, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and others, leading to efforts to replace, slow or deter the use of energy sources such as coal, natural gas and oil, this particular influential intellectual was beyond caring because the world’s population was responsible for pollution and consuming too much of everything.
By Alan Caruba
Okay, let’s say that President Obama or Hillary is in office and Congress has passed a bill that requires everyone to have health insurance. Gas is up over $4.00 a gallon, food prices are sky high, and, if you’ve recently graduated from college, you are paying off loans at $1,000 per month.
If you’re a homeowner, you have a mortgage, property taxes, and a stack of other bills. You’ve got to decide between paying the mandated premium or being able to drive to work, buy food, holding onto your home, or keeping the bill collector from your door.
All of a sudden, mandatory health insurance doesn’t seem like such a great idea. In fact, your big worry is that Social Security will be able to send you a monthly check and that Medicare and Medicaid won’t go flat broke before you die. Trustees for these massive entitlement programs just announced Social Security will be depleted by 2041, while Medicare goes bust eight years from now in 2019.
According to a March 18 Policy Analysis published by the Cato Institute, health care consumers are annually spending “more than $1.8 trillion dollars for overall health costs, more than what Americans spend on housing, food, national defense, or automobiles.”
Moreover, “because of the way health care costs are distributed, they have become an increasing burden on consumers and businesses alike. On average, health insurance now costs $4,479 for an individual and $12,106 for a family per year. Health insurance premiums rose by little more than 6 percent in 2007, faster on average than wages.”
The news gets worse. “Moreover, government health care programs, particularly Medicare and Medicaid, are piling up enormous burdens of debt for future generations. Medicare’s unfunded liabilities now top $50 trillion.”
By Robert E. Meyer
The late Christian philosopher and apologist Francis Schaeffer was once asked by a colleague which cultural trend he feared most looking toward the future. Without hesitation, Schaeffer replied "statism."
Our presidential campaign thus far has shown us that Schaeffer's concerns from yesteryear were anything but indulgence in paranoia.
The democratic front runner, Barack Obama, has garnered much political capital on a vague platform template of "change." His swooning crowds of admirers reflexively applauding, or even fainting, at his every statement and gesture. Obama's campaign has been so emotionally hypnotic, that Schaeffer's son Frank is gushing giddily about supporting Barack with his heart. What candidate of the opposition party has ever offered anything unique to the theme of change?
What this "change" really connotes, amounts to more government programs, and increased dependence on government, resulting in greater learned helplessness by individual citizens.
People are now asking government to meet the needs that were once obligations of individuals themselves, family and neighbors, the public charity, church organizations, and Almighty God. A clear recipe for tyranny.
The Democratic platform, and to a lesser degree some Republican politicians, have forsaken individual accountability and initiative, while moving in a direction contrary to the roles of limited government delineated by our Founders. The best government is one that governs least.
Far too many people have stopped asking the question about what limited role in society our government should fulfill, but have hopped aboard the gravy train to paradise, never suspecting it to be the graveyard express to the ideological gulag.
In 1971, the English rock band, The Who, released an album that featured their anthem "Won't Get Fooled Again."
WASHINGTON, April 10 /Christian Newswire/– On her television show Oprah Winfrey has been pushing a new book by Eckhart Tolle called A New Earth. In fact, Oprah has now taken up preaching as a new past time and has determined in her own mixed-up mind there are now millions of ways to get to heaven.
This is so sad because Oprah is a hero of tens of millions of television viewers and she is expressing her own Biblical beliefs without any understanding of the Bible. Oprah has in effect denied the teachings of the Bible and of Jesus Christ by asking her viewing audience, "How can there be only one way to heaven or to God?"
When a lady in her audience asked, "What about Jesus?" Oprah defiantly answered her by repeating the question, "What about Jesus?" Oprah went on to explain how she had been a Baptist until she heard a charismatic Pastor make the statement that God was a jealous God. She told her viewers in her opinion God was simply love and God being described as a Jealous God made her really stop and think.
Don Swarthout, President of Christians Reviving America's Values said, "Oprah Winfrey has in reality just exposed her own lack of understanding about the God of Christianity. God may be a God of love, but he is also a God of justice and judgment."
Don Swarthout said, "The point is there are millions upon millions of Christians in the United States who thoroughly believe what Jesus taught in the Bible and for Oprah to come out against that teaching so strongly is simply appalling. Oprah should really stop to think before she goes off preaching her own unfounded beliefs to the world on her show."
Rebecca Chadwick, a news contributor for CRAVE said, "All cults share the same premise; they misrepresent the nature of God. Let's pray for Oprah and Tolle… and all those who are lost."
Contact: Don Swarthout, President, Christians Reviving America's Values, CRAVE, 859-219-1222, 859-619-2811 Cell
By Alan Caruba
Americans know that we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I suspect they have little idea that nearly a half-million of our soldiers, marines, airmen, sailors and coast guard are in far-flung places prepared to deter and defeat the enemies of, not just our nation, but of the freedom we enjoy and want to extend worldwide.
“About 490,000 U.S. service personnel are forward-deployed around the world.”
The quote above is from Major General Richard Sherlock, director of operational planning for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It should be noted that they are all volunteers.
In a nation with just over three hundred million population, their bravery, their dedication, their sacrifice strikes me as extraordinary, but I also think we probably need a lot more such people as the 21st century portends an “asymmetrical war” against fanatical jihadists bent on dragging everyone back to the 7th century.
A February article in The American Legion Magazine by Alan W. Dowd, drawing on available data from public records, including the Pentagon’s “Active-Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and By Country” report, reveals just how committed the United States is to the mission of maintaining peace throughout of the entire world.