God Save America

By Thomas E. Brewton

The experience of the Soviet Union, Japan, and China should, but will not, cause liberal activists to proceed with caution.

According to the New York Times:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said that if she became president, the federal government would take a more active role in the economy, to address what she called the excesses of the market and of the Bush administration…

Reflecting what her aides said were very different conditions today, Mrs. Clinton put her emphasis on issues like inequality and the role of institutions like government, rather than market forces, in addressing them.

The logical end of Senator Clinton's prescription was first articulated by the followers of Henri de Saint-Simon, who in 1829 addressed the following to the President of the French Chamber of Deputies:

The sole effect of [the free market place] system is to leave the distribution of social advantages to a chance few who are able to lay some pretence to it, and to condemn the numerically superior class to deprivation, ignorance, and misery. [Socialists] ask that all the instruments of production, all lands and capital, the funds now divided among individual proprietors, should be pooled so as to form one central social fund…

Click to read more …

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

By Warner Todd Huston

The west’s current battle with radical Islam has revealed the worst in both the west and the world of Islam. Obviously from Islam we have seen the intolerance, hatred, oppression and evil in its nature. But, from the west we have seen revealed the hollowness of its soul and a complete lack of self-regard as so many western nations allow the evil of Islam to attack them from within as well as from without. The west has lost its spine to stand up for its own principles, in fact has thrown away all pretext that it even has principles worth preserving.

Ben Franklin is reported to have said that for the American people the Founders had created a Republic but he added the caution "if you can keep it." By that he meant, of course, that it was up to future Americans to maintain the system grounded upon the first principles the Founders bequeathed to us. The same can be said of any society for if a society throws away or strays too far from its beginnings it becomes a materially different entity. Now sometimes it’s a good thing when a society strays from its genesis, to be sure. Leaving behind certain prejudices, rectifying the suppression of ideas or ending the oppression of minorities is the mark of a maturing, benevolent society. But, too much change can also be a bad thing. And change merely for changes sake is not a legitimate goal.

This dual reliance on conserving tradition while moving forward to liberalize society is familiar ground for the west in general and the United States in particular. The Founders clearly believed that both liberalization and conservatism could be enshrined in a modern state. After all, the whole thrust of the Founders’ ideology was that they were combining a preservation of the best of English tradition with the liberalization of government by the consent of the people and the ideals of religious liberty.

To the American Founders, these were principles well worth fighting for.

Click to read more …

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

By Christopher Adamo

This week marks thirty five years since the Supreme Court’s monstrous "Roe v. Wade" decision gave a blanket legalization to abortion, and by which the feminists claim that women have been greatly elevated in society. At this milestone, it is worthwhile to ponder the horrendous consequences they have paid.

The network news headlines on any average day reveal the grim facts. Women can comfortably degrade themselves in public, burdened with far less vocal judgment than they endured in the past. Perhaps, according to the twisted thinking of some, this constitutes an improvement. Yet on too many other fronts, their status in society has been significantly lowered. And abortion has been a major contributing factor.

Women are attacked abused and demeaned by brutish men, just as they always have been. Clearly, Roe did not fix that. Furthermore, the moment the PC police are not around, male discussions of women rapidly degenerate to the same crass themes that have always characterized such talk.

Despite the proliferation of rules and regulations ostensibly prohibiting this manner of treatment in the workplace and elsewhere, the pattern continues unabated. Far too many men still regard women as targets to be preyed upon.

The number of young girls who suddenly disappear, only to be recovered some time later as "remains," has reached a horrific level. Could it be that, despite all of the "I am woman hear me roar" rhetoric that deluged America since the 1970s, an underlying mindset of complete scorn for them, disregarding their worth as anything other than sexual "playtoys," increasingly pervades the culture?

Any intellectually honest assessment of the situation (and admittedly, both intellect and honesty are in very short supply these days, especially among the so-called "politically correct") would have to conclude that no single activity has contributed more than abortion to the demeaning of women in modern culture.

It has always been among the oddest of ironies that, in post-modern America, pro-abortion men are lauded by the liberal establishment as being "pro-woman." The evidence proves quite the contrary.

Consider, as the most striking example, Bill Clinton who was undoubtedly the most ardent pro-abortion individual ever to serve as president of the United States. Within the angry circles of embittered feminism, he is universally held in the highest esteem, having ensured by both his policy decisions and his Federal and Supreme Court appointments that no limitations on abortion would ever be implemented on his watch. A woman’s best friend, was he not?

Click to read more …

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

By Jim Kouri

To address concerns about unemployed or underemployed Soviet-era weapons scientists in Russia and other former Soviet Bloc nations, the US Department of Energy established the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention or IPP program in 1994. The general idea was to engage former Soviet weapons scientists in nonmilitary work in the short term and create private sector jobs for these scientists in the long term.

To address this issue, the US Congress requested that analysts from the Government Accountability Office analyze DOE policies, plans, and budgets. Analysts also interviewed key program officials and representatives from 22 Russian and Ukrainian institutes.

According to the GAO’s initial report, the DOE has overstated accomplishments for the 2 critical measures it uses to assess the IPP program’s progress and performance — the number of scientists receiving DOE support and the number of long-term, private sector jobs created.

First, although DOE claims to have engaged over 16,770 scientists in Russia and other countries, this total includes both scientists with and without weapons-related experience.

The GAO’s analysis of 97 IPP projects involving about 6,450 scientists showed that more than half did not claim to possess any weapons-related experience. In addition, officials from 10 Russian and Ukrainian institutes told GAO analysts that the IPP program helps them attract, recruit, and retain younger scientists who might otherwise emigrate to the United States or other western countries and contributes to the continued operation of their facilities.

This is contrary to the original intent of the program, which was to reduce the proliferation risk posed by Soviet-era weapons scientists.

Second, although DOE asserts that the IPP program helped create 2,790 long-term, private sector jobs for former weapons scientists, the credibility of this number is uncertain because DOE relies on "good-faith" reporting from US industry partners and foreign institutes on the number of jobs created and does not independently verify the number of jobs reported to have been created.

Click to read more …

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

By Robert E. Meyer

Numerous skeptics and modern historians raise an interesting question that has been hotly disputed in recent years; whether or not America was founded as a "Christian Nation."

Generally, secular humanists have tried to refute this claim by contending that certain key Founders believed merely in a deistic God which didn't intervene in human affairs.

They would be on safer ground if they had instead said that there were strains of religious unorthodoxy in the thinking of certain key Framers. The problem is that when those who claim the Founders were deists, define deism, they can't make that definition fit the concept of God expressed by the Framers themselves. It is clear that there was a solid belief in a God who actively manages and intervenes in human affairs.

Thomas Jefferson reflecting of the injustice of slavery stated…

"Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever."

This indicates a God who judges the deeds of humanity.

Benjamin Franklin, considered one of the least religious Founders, made this observation during the constitutional convention…

"In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor… Have we now forgotten this powerful friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs his affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, it is probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"

Notice here that as Franklin approached the end of his life he found convincing proof that God was actively involved in human interventions.

Click to read more …

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

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed a motion to intervene with the Federal District Court in New Hampshire today in its continuing efforts to protect the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Representing the Knights of Columbus and three New Hampshire families, The Becket Fund asked for permission to intervene and for the court to dismiss a case brought by Michael Newdow, a Sacramento physician-attorney who finds the words offensive.

“The Constitution doesn’t ban the word God from public discourse, in California or New Hampshire, in the Pledge or anywhere else” said Kevin “Seamus” Hasson, founder and president of the Becket Fund. “Every time we pledge allegiance to one nation under God, we are reminding the government that it must respect everyone’s rights – even Michael Newdow’s – because those rights are not given to us by the government, but by a source higher than the government.”

Dr. Newdow, who has a similar case pending before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, claims that the words “under God” violate the Establishment Clause of First Amendment of the Constitution. He won at the lower court, but the Becket Fund, representing the Knights of Columbus and eleven California school children, have appealed and are awaiting a decision.

In addition to lawsuits in New Hampshire and California, Dr. Newdow is also in the midst of a legal challenge to remove “In God We Trust” from U.S. currency. In 2004, Dr. Newdow sued to have all prayers, invocations and religious language removed from the U.S. Presidential inauguration ceremony. That suit was quickly dismissed.

Dr. Newdow’s latest complaint describes the voluntary recitation of the Pledge as “child neglect (if not child abuse).”

“Dr. Newdow’s theory that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance constitutes child abuse is his most outlandish yet.  If the courts adopted his reasoning, teachers would be in danger of going to jail. The court should reject this and the rest of his unfounded theories about the Pledge,” said Hasson

The Supreme Court has repeatedly used the Pledge as the standard for what is a permissible reference to God in a patriotic exercise.

To arrange an interview with a Becket Fund legal expert, contact Tom Carter , tcarter@becketfund.org  at 202-349-7205 or 202-538-2044

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

Washington, D.C. — Reuters has reported that, “A drug-resistant strain of potentially deadly bacteria has moved beyond the borders of U.S. hospitals and is being transmitted among gay men during sex, researchers said on Monday.

“They said methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, is beginning to appear outside hospitals in San Francisco, Boston, New York and Los Angeles.”

“‘Once this reaches the general population, it will be truly unstoppable,’ said Binh Diep, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco who led the study.”

According to the study, at this point, homosexual men are 13 times more likely to contract the potentially deadly, drug-resistant strain of staph infection, but the fear is that, because the infection is spread via skin-to-skin contact, homosexual men may soon spread it to the general population.

Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural issues with Concerned Women for America (CWA), said, “The medical community has known for years that homosexual conduct, especially among males, creates a breeding ground for often deadly disease. In recent years we have seen a profound resurgence in cases of HIV/AIDS, syphilis, rectal gonorrhea and many other STDs among those who call themselves ‘gay.’

“The human body is quite callous in how it handles mistreatment and the perversion of its natural functions. When two men mimic the act of heterosexual intercourse with one another, they create an environment, a biological counterfeit, wherein disease can thrive. Unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences.

“In recent years our culture has adopted a laissez faire attitude toward sexual deviancy. Television shows like Will and Grace glorify the homosexual lifestyle while our children are taught in schools that homosexuality is a perfectly healthy, alternative sexual ‘orientation.’ ‘Stay out of our bedrooms!’ we’re often commanded by militant ‘gay’ activists.

“Well, now the dangerous and possibly deadly consequence of what occurs in those bedrooms is spilling over into the general population. It’s not only frightening, it’s infuriating.

“Citizens, especially parents, need to stand up and say, ‘No More! We will no longer sit idly by while politically correct cultural elites endanger our children and larger communities through propagandist promotion of this demonstrably deadly lifestyle.’

“Why does it take a potentially deadly staph epidemic for people to acknowledge reality? Will that even do it? Enough is enough!” concluded Barber.

For Information Contact:
Natalie Bell
(202) 488-7000
media.cwfa.org

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

“In examining the operations of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, it is clearer than ever that it is in business to kill children for a profit,” said Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League. “In our latest survey of Planned Parenthood’s affiliates and their services, we have uncovered the fact that the organization has greatly increased the number of facilities that commit abortion.”

“The numbers speak for themselves,” said Marie Hahnenberg, researcher and director of ALL’s Map Room project. “Planned Parenthood has a total of 855 clinics across the country. We now know that 287-a greater number than ever before-are surgical and medical abortion centers. That marks an increase of 55 abortion locations over the previous year.”

It is most noteworthy that Planned Parenthood has nearly doubled the number of medical abortion only facilities that distribute the abortion drugs Mifepristone (RU-486) and Methotrexate, both of which result in killing of the preborn baby. The new survey shows 108 locations that offer medical abortions, an increase of 48 over the previous survey.

“Since the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases decriminalized abortion in 1973, there have been an estimated four million babies killed at Planned Parenthood facilities alone, and the number continues to rise,” Sedlak said. “Let us remember all of the deaths and hurt mothers across the country, as we pray and continue to fight for this hidden holocaust to end.”

Sedlak encourages pro-lifers to get involved in the effort to stop Planned Parenthood by visiting www.all.org/stopp/maps and either joining or starting a peaceful protest outside a Planned Parenthood facility in their communities.

Source: American Life League

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

By Daniel Clark

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has decided to postpone the construction of an American missile defense base in his country, a move that news reports have attributed to his being less pro-American than his predecessor, Jaroslaw Kaczynski. Tusk’s reason for this change in policy, however, does not indicate an erosion of the Poles’ loyalty to their American allies. Rather, it is based on their concerns about America’s wavering dedication to its own missile defense project.

Tusk wants to delay the deployment of the missile shield until after this year’s U.S. presidential election, and it’s hard to argue with his judgment. Everybody knows that if the Democrats win the presidency, they will mothball our missile defense plan, just as Bill Clinton did for the entire eight years of his administration. Russia, the powerful and cantankerous neighbor to Poland’s east, has protested the U.S. missile shield from the outset. If Tusk proceeds with the project, only to see it abandoned by our next president, he’ll have antagonized the Kremlin for no good reason.

It’s not as if the Poles would have a hard time believing that the Democrats would hang them out to dry. That’s because Poland has been among our most trusted allies in Iraq – you know, the ones that John Kerry slandered as "the coalition of the bribed and coerced." Those allies can’t help but be leery of Kerry’s party, members of which have threatened to cut off funding for the war, demanded a "redeployment" to Okinawa, and refused to accept the delivery of good news from General Petraeus.

With the prospect of a Democrat victory in November, Poland risks angering not only Russia, but also a newly elected, Democrat-controlled government here in the U.S.

The real story out of Poland, then, is that the Democrats have succeeded in deterring an ally from helping the United States. This is important not only insofar as their obstruction of our missile defenses are concerned, but also in serving as a parallel to their effect on another important American ally – the people of Iraq.

Click to read more …

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

By Erik Rush

"There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish a Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people."

–President George W. Bush, January 10, 2008

Geopolitics is such a complicated subject, you see, far beyond the comprehension of the average American. Those whom destiny has ordained to ameliorate the world’s geopolitical woes are far more insightful and inherently capable that you or I could ever hope to be.

I’m being facetious, of course. Without going into the promotion of that belief by politicians over the years due to spineless vacillation or their quest to keep Americans ignorant and uninvolved in the political process, I’d be interested in hearing how the Founding Fathers of this nation would have viewed the above concept, those who took on the most powerful empire on the planet and declaring that they were prepared to fight, kill and die to throw off the yoke of tyranny.

President Bush has gotten a lot of bad press from the establishment media because of who and what they are. I was forwarded some factoids the other day which, though verifiable, I was reluctant to use simply because the initial contact was a group email from a business associate.

There have been 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That’s just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.

Though some claim that President Bush "shouldn’t have started this war," consider:

FDR (a Democrat) led us into World War II. Although we were attacked, from 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman (a Democrat) finished that war and started one in Korea.

North Korea never attacked us.

From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy (a Democrat) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.

Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson (a Democrat) turned Vietnam into a quagmire.

From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

President Clinton (a Democrat) went to war in Bosnia without United Nations or French consent.

Bosnia never attacked us.

Click to read more …

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