God Save America

by Nancy Salvato

I’ve been following the news story on the execution style killings of three college bound students in Newark, NJ. It is just so horrific that I wanted to find some justification, no matter how slight, for such an atrocity to befall this particular group of victims; young adults whose gruesome fate was decided because they chose to hang out in the wrong place at the wrong time. I was particularly disappointed when Bill O’Reilly’s guest, Jesse Peterson, a professor of hip hop culture, had absolutely no concrete suggestions on how to prevent kids from turning into thugs –except to suggest paying teachers more money so that the schools can better address troubled youth.

If O’Reilly’s producers want to continue with this thread of discussion, a solid case could be made that offering parental school choice would go a long way toward solving many of the problems that plague our young people. By offering parents without economic mobility the means to provide their children a place to explore without fear, or being forced to grow up too fast, where administrators can enforce standards of behavior and create a culture of learning, these kids might stand a chance. As it stands now, in many lower Socio Economic Status (SES) areas, public schools have become dumping grounds and even the kids who are excited about learning, are left behind. In this atmosphere, students will not come close to receiving the level of intellectual stimulation from their teachers or peers to which higher SES students are exposed. Why has this been allowed to happen?

One third of an individual’s salary goes to pay taxes. This is money that is supposed to be spent in ways to maintain or expand this country’s infrastructure, compensate those who make and enforce our rule of law, and provide a means for the defense of the populace. Obviously, these monies are not always spent in ways that benefit the general public. For example, it is hard to justify that building a bridge to an island with a population of 50 persons benefits our society in some way. However, there is a legitimate argument to set aside public money to make sure every child is provided equal access to a quality education. Clearly, though, this is not what is happening.

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

by Sher Zieve

The Democrat-run Senate has provided We-the-People with yet another example of its aversion to the will of US citizens. Despite the fact that the American people, in overwhelming numbers, told both Houses of Congress that they did not and do not want any Amnesty Bill for any illegal aliens—the Senate is determined to pass one. Now Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and his pro-illegal-invasion bunch are working diligently to push through the DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act. This is the same bill that provides the receipt of benefits for illegal aliens’ "children" that are either not provided or are far greater than the benefits provided for US citizens’ children.

Note: It now seems almost impossible to count on our elected officials to actually uphold any laws with which they disagree or those that will not promote their political and personal agenda and ambitions. It is also becoming seemingly hopeless to even remotely believe that either Democrats or RINOs are listening any longer to the majority of the US electorate. This is the same US Congress that still patently refuses to build any fence to protect our US southern borders.

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

by Thomas E. Brewton

Left wing churches ignore the law, engage in the equivalent of judicial activism.

The Wall Street Journal, in its July 20, 2007, edition printed an article based on a Time Magazine story in the July 30 edition. The first two paragraphs are the following:

"Sanctuary Drive Could Bolster Religious Left TIME — JULY 30

"A movement to give sanctuary in churches to illegal immigrants threatened with deportation might bring new firepower to the long-quiescent religious left, writes David Van Biema in Time.

"Inspired by churches who offered sanctuary to Central Americans fleeing civil wars in the 1980s, members of a range of religious faiths have launched the New Sanctuary Movement in cities around the U.S. The effort has been small-scale, housing eight undocumented immigrants in churches in five U.S. cities. (While immigration authorities legally can raid a church, they rarely do.) NSM activists say four more congregations will house immigrants in August, and the mainline Protestant United Church of Christ has resolved to work with it."

A few observations:

First, deciding to break the law of the land solely on the basis of what an individual or a group, including a church, thinks the law ought to be is essentially what activist judges do when they ignore the Constitution or statute law and, in effect, legislate from the bench.

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

by Robert E. Meyer

I recently heard about a statement from a discussion that allegedly occurred between an Islamic student attending an American university, and a traditional America student. The following statement may well be a fictitious conversation based in urban legend, but it is an accurate anecdote of the real threat America faces from the ideology of radical Islamic extremism. The Islamic student apparently stated resolutely, "Because of your Democracy we will invade you. Because of my religion we will dominate you." It rings as almost a parallel to the prophetic proclamation of Nikita Kruschev, who uttered from an Iowa cornfield during his excursion of the U.S., "we will bury you."

Many liberals, as well as certain of my conservative brethren, have sounded the alarm about the perils to freedom that come from surveillance programs initiated or expanded under the Patriot Act by the current administration. Yet, one has to wonder how we could have or will continue to root out existing internal security threats without them? Such regulation occupies a thankless status. I often have said to colleagues in regards to small, consistent pay increases in my profession: "You hardly notice the difference when you get your raises, but you would sure notice if you weren't getting them." I would suggest something similar could be said regarding onerous security measures. You don't notice that they do any good, but I suspect you would notice something bad were they not in place. That sort of condition lends itself to pejorative consideration.

Imagine a different scenario. You pick up a major newspaper on September 12th, 2001. On page A-17 is a short news story about how several small groups of young Saudi males carrying box cutters, were stopped by security at JFK and Logan International Airports.

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

by Jim Kouri, CPP

(This article is based on a report received by the National Association of Chiefs of Police.)

While the battle over providing illegal aliens with driver's licenses rages in state capitals and Washington, DC, North Carolina created the first "North American Union" driver's license, complete with a hologram of the North American continent on the licenses.

The hologram is a facsimile of the map of North America that is used as the background for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America logo on the SPP website.

Marge Howell, spokeswoman for the North Carolina DMV, told the press that the state was embedding a hologram of North America on the back of their new driver's licenses. "It's a security element that eventually will be on the back of every driver's license in North America," Howell said.

Howell explained the hologram of the North American continent was the creation of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization that, according to the group's website, "develops model programs in motor vehicle administration, law enforcement and highway safety."

Founded in 1933, AAMVA represents state and provincial officials in the United States and Canada who administer and enforce motor vehicle laws. The government of Mexico is also a member, though the individual Mexican states have yet to join.

According to the group's website, AAMVA's programs are designed "to encourage uniformity and reciprocity among the states and provinces."

"The goal is of the North American hologram," Howell explained, "is to get one common element that law enforcement throughout the continent can look at on all driver's licenses and tell that the driver's license is an official document."

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

by Sher Zieve

On 6 June 1944, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered one of the most arguably powerful prayer speeches in history given by an American president. Over Radio, Roosevelt’s speech was given as allied forces comprised of Americans, Brits and Canadians battled valiantly on the beaches of Normandy. This was D-Day in World War II. If the same speech were given today, in an ACLU and terrorist-accepting (if not terrorist-friendly) society, current presidents—most specifically Republican presidents—would be vilified. As a matter of fact, President George W. Bush has already been soundly denounced by the media and those who would placate the opponents of humankind for one word he used to describe a campaign against these enemies of humanity.

Note: The word used by President Bush was crusade and the terrorist and Western ‘mainstream’ media, alike, excoriated Bush for using it—just days after the brutal Islamist 9/11 attacks on the United States of America.

In his D-Day speech, President Roosevelt said: "And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade." Please bear in mind that the 1930’s and 1940’s liberal media was almost as appeasing and placating to the enemies of the USA as are our own current leftist channels of manipulated news. But, despite the media’s disagreement with President Roosevelt’s waging WW II he was—after all—a Democrat. And, just as today, with a few exceptions Democrats were largely given a pass by their media brothers and sisters—no matter what they did. Just five days after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush told the American people: "This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while." The Western media dutifully and with great politically-correct aplomb attacked President Bush for his use of the "C" word.

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

by Thomas E. Brewton

Atheists thought that God really was dead

French revolutionary philosophers and the socialist theoreticians who followed them in the early 1800s were captured by what British socialist Graham Wallas called the liberal fallacy: the self-absorbed assumption that whatever their reasoning told them had, by definition, to be the truth and, furthermore, that everyone else on earth would naturally agree with their conclusions. It is a form of tunnel vision that ignores all factors other than what interests liberals.

We see this today in the prescriptions of liberal Republicans and liberal Democrats. They are confident that, because they abhor war, so too does Al Queda. Because liberals are willing to relinquish our national sovereignty to the UN, confident that every dispute can be resolved by rational discussion, they assume Islamic jihadists are wired the same way.

At the apogee of atheistic materialism, in the 1830s, Auguste Comte's well-intentioned expectation was that all the world would quickly recognize the superiority of his Positivistic philosophy and its Religion of Humanity. People from the rest of Europe, from America, and from Asia, he assumed, would all come to sit worshipfully at his feet to learn the proper new system of socialist government and its canon of materialistic ethics.

Central to the process, of course, would be accepting the belief that there is no God other than human reason and that the proper object of worship is Man in the abstract, Humanity.

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

by Carey Roberts

Why are men reflexively treated as the fall-guy in the abortion debate?

Recently National Review Online convened a group to opine what would happen in a post-Roe v. Wade world to women who might obtain an illegal abortion. The panelists reveal that before 1973, women who sought an abortion were not subject to criminal prosecution. So overturning Roe v. Wade would not fill our jails with post-abortive women. [http://article.nationalreview.com/?=ZjkwNWQ4ZDQ2NTljNDg4MjUyYWIxZWQ0NDVjMTkxYjg=]

One theme surfaces repeatedly in the commentaries: feckless boyfriends who abandon their partners in their hour of greatest need.

Hadley Arkes of Amherst College describes women having an abortion as routinely "Abandoned by the man." And Dorinda Bordlee from the Bioethics Defense Fund obliquely refers to fathers as "those who should be caring for [the mothers] and their unborn children."

So does research back up these broad pronouncements of male abandonment?

In their book Men and Abortion: Lessons, Losses, and Love, Shostak and McLouth report that 44% of single men offered to marry the woman, 18% of the couples had discussed adoption, and half the men accompanied the woman to the abortion clinic >– hardly the image of wholesale male abandonment.

When these men show up at the clinic, they are met with a chilly reception. Two-thirds of the fathers want to accompany their partner throughout the experience, and nine out of 10 hope to hold the hand of their partner in the recovery room. But in most cases abortion clinics prohibit men from such expressions of support.

But the NRO panel reserves it harshest criticism for men who force their girlfriends to abort.

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.