Academia to high schools: No God allowed
State rejects Christian education as valid for university admissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 19, 2008
12:00 am Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Arguments were heard today in a federal district court case to determine whether a state university system can dictate that private Christian schools in the state teach their college prep courses from exclusively secular, Bible- and God-free textbooks.
As WND reported earlier, the University of California system adopted a policy last year that basic science, history, and literature textbooks by major Christian book publishers wouldn't qualify for core admissions requirements because of the inclusion of Christian perspectives.
Robert Tyler, who is representing Calvary Chapel Christian School and five students in the case against the University of California, told WND that the university's discriminatory policy creates an ultimatum for Christian schools. "If you want courses to be approved in private education, so your students are qualified to attend (UC) institutions, you must teach from a secular point of view," he said.
"Christian schools will have to decide: teach from a Christian worldview and eliminate your student's ability to attend a UC school, or teach from a secular worldview, so that the kids can enter the UC school system," he explained.
Please, read the rest of the story by clicking HERE
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Dirty Politics
Here is an example of the dirty infighting that goes on in Congress. Senator Coburn (R-OK) has been blocking an attempt by Senator Reid to pass an $11 billion spending bill and Senator Reid initiated a Senate Ethics committee hearing on Senator Coburn for delivering babies for free.
This is from the Family Research Council:
What Does Sen. Reid Have Against Babies?
Of the nearly 890 Senate bills passed this session, you may be surprised to learn that there has been debate on only 50 of them. The others were approved by "unanimous consent" with little or no discussion. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) is one of the many conservatives frustrated by the leadership's disregard for transparency. Repeatedly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to ramrod legislation through the chamber without allowing any discourse between leaders. He attempted this--unsuccessfully--with a massive $11 billion spending bill last week. Mockingly called the "Coburn Omnibus" because it contained several programs and expenditures that the Oklahoma Senator opposed, Reid's bundle of fiscally irresponsible projects failed.
Unable to exact revenge on Coburn in the omnibus, liberals are now attacking the senator for his charitable work. The Ethics panel has launched an investigation on Coburn, who, as an obstetrician, delivers babies for free. As a member of Congress, Coburn can't receive payment for his work at Muskogee Regional Medical Center because of a "potential conflict of interest." Since Muskogee is now a private facility, the Ethics panel says it has new concerns. Coburn's office came out swinging. "...[P]arents don't choose to receive his services at a particular hospital because Dr. Coburn has somehow endorsed [it]... Has Sen. Leahy provided an improper endorsement to Warner Brothers for appearing in Batman?"
Is Sen. Reid foolish enough to publicly oppose volunteerism? He and his liberal attack dogs seem bent on tearing down the generous work of a citizen legislator. No doubt this would have been a non-issue if instead of delivering babies, Sen. Coburn had offered to abort them.
For the full story from The Hill, an online newspaper, please click
HERE
This is from the Family Research Council:
What Does Sen. Reid Have Against Babies?
Of the nearly 890 Senate bills passed this session, you may be surprised to learn that there has been debate on only 50 of them. The others were approved by "unanimous consent" with little or no discussion. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) is one of the many conservatives frustrated by the leadership's disregard for transparency. Repeatedly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to ramrod legislation through the chamber without allowing any discourse between leaders. He attempted this--unsuccessfully--with a massive $11 billion spending bill last week. Mockingly called the "Coburn Omnibus" because it contained several programs and expenditures that the Oklahoma Senator opposed, Reid's bundle of fiscally irresponsible projects failed.
Unable to exact revenge on Coburn in the omnibus, liberals are now attacking the senator for his charitable work. The Ethics panel has launched an investigation on Coburn, who, as an obstetrician, delivers babies for free. As a member of Congress, Coburn can't receive payment for his work at Muskogee Regional Medical Center because of a "potential conflict of interest." Since Muskogee is now a private facility, the Ethics panel says it has new concerns. Coburn's office came out swinging. "...[P]arents don't choose to receive his services at a particular hospital because Dr. Coburn has somehow endorsed [it]... Has Sen. Leahy provided an improper endorsement to Warner Brothers for appearing in Batman?"
Is Sen. Reid foolish enough to publicly oppose volunteerism? He and his liberal attack dogs seem bent on tearing down the generous work of a citizen legislator. No doubt this would have been a non-issue if instead of delivering babies, Sen. Coburn had offered to abort them.
For the full story from The Hill, an online newspaper, please click
HERE
Monday, July 28, 2008
TheCall
Those that know me understand that I have a great passion for this nation. This is a site I stumbled across on an because of an email concerning Kay Arthur and a correction about a talk she gave recently in Atlanta about this nation. It grabbed my attention because it "is committed to mobilizing people from all across America to gather together to petition God for His undeserved mercy for our nation in 12-hour solemn assemblies."
TheCall is organizing a gathering in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, August the 16th to pray for this nation.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -Edmund Burke
I hope that the number of people in Washington, D.C. on the 16th is staggering. We are a nation in grave peril and we all need to be on our knees praying to our Father, glorifying his name.
To read more about TheCall Click Here
TheCall is organizing a gathering in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, August the 16th to pray for this nation.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -Edmund Burke
I hope that the number of people in Washington, D.C. on the 16th is staggering. We are a nation in grave peril and we all need to be on our knees praying to our Father, glorifying his name.
To read more about TheCall Click Here
Friday, July 25, 2008
Moral Relativism Is Killing Our Country
Friday, July 25, 2008
Moral Relativism Is Killing Our Country
by Mike Gallagher
The failure to readily identify the battle between good and evil is a nagging, ongoing, dangerous pattern that shows no sign of easing up any time soon.
This week on Fox News Channel, I appeared on a show and “debated” Ibrahim Hooper, a vocal and forceful representative of CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations. The topic? Whether or not it’s a good idea for a group of Islamic folks, represented by a man once linked by the federal government of plotting to blow up buildings and kill innocent Americans, to be allowed to plaster over a thousand subway cars in New York City with advertisements promoting Islam.
I’m not kidding you.
This man, a Brooklyn imam named Siraj Wahhaj, is all over a promotional video hyping the ad campaign for the trains. According to the New York Post, he has said things like, “In time, democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing, and the only thing that will remain will be Islam.”
He was named by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White as one of 170 unindicted co-conspirators in the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.
The Post reports that he has called the FBI and CIA “the real terrorists.”
And he served as a character witness for “the blink sheik”, Omar Abdel-Rahman, currently rotting in jail for his role as one of the masterminds of the 1993 WTC bombing.
Now, he’s a spokesman for this wacky ad campaign that would attempt to teach people stuck on subway trains in New York City all about the wonders of Islam.
I can’t think of any city on the planet that should have to endure such a cruel taunt. But the idea of doing this to New Yorkers is obscene.
Already a number of NYC officials are calling upon the MTA, the transit agency that runs the subway system, to reject the ill-conceived ad campaign.
This week on the Fox News program, Mr. Hooper attempted to deliver a monologue about what a wonderful man this Siraj Wahhaj is; how those of us who object to the subway ad campaign are trying to prohibit “free speech;” and the old favorite of activists like Hooper, we’re demonstrating anti-Islamic bigotry.
It’s simply astounding that such a debate could even occur in the United States today. Picture what this country felt like in the weeks and months after 9/11. Can you imagine anyone even beginning to allow an advertising campaign promoting Islam, being endorsed and supported by a man the feds believe to be a terrorist, on New York City subways?
And yet we are suffering through the stench of moral relativism. Every position must be countered. Right doesn’t necessarily mean right, wrong might not be wrong.
A brutal, cowardly Arab terrorist who was convicted of bashing a little 4-year old Jewish girl’s head in with a rifle butt is released to Lebanon in exchange for a pair of dead Israeli soldiers. He’s met by adoring, cheering crowds and given a red-carpet welcome.
The Democrat presidential candidate continues to insist that the American military surge in Iraq isn’t really the reason for the overwhelming reduction of violence there.
Our country gives a couple of million minimum wage workers a big hourly pay hike and the mainstream media immediately complains by saying that high gas and food prices make the pay increase irrelevant. And when former Sen. Phil Gramm accurately points out that we’re a nation of whiners and misery sells newspapers, he’s forced to resign from his leadership post in the John McCain campaign.
I yearn for the day when we’ll return to the foundational value that makes this country great. Right and wrong are not relative terms. There are fundamental truths. Evil flourishes, but good men continue to battle it – and win.
Good can and will triumph over evil.
We just have to have the guts to know the difference between the two.
Moral Relativism Is Killing Our Country
by Mike Gallagher
The failure to readily identify the battle between good and evil is a nagging, ongoing, dangerous pattern that shows no sign of easing up any time soon.
This week on Fox News Channel, I appeared on a show and “debated” Ibrahim Hooper, a vocal and forceful representative of CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations. The topic? Whether or not it’s a good idea for a group of Islamic folks, represented by a man once linked by the federal government of plotting to blow up buildings and kill innocent Americans, to be allowed to plaster over a thousand subway cars in New York City with advertisements promoting Islam.
I’m not kidding you.
This man, a Brooklyn imam named Siraj Wahhaj, is all over a promotional video hyping the ad campaign for the trains. According to the New York Post, he has said things like, “In time, democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing, and the only thing that will remain will be Islam.”
He was named by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White as one of 170 unindicted co-conspirators in the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.
The Post reports that he has called the FBI and CIA “the real terrorists.”
And he served as a character witness for “the blink sheik”, Omar Abdel-Rahman, currently rotting in jail for his role as one of the masterminds of the 1993 WTC bombing.
Now, he’s a spokesman for this wacky ad campaign that would attempt to teach people stuck on subway trains in New York City all about the wonders of Islam.
I can’t think of any city on the planet that should have to endure such a cruel taunt. But the idea of doing this to New Yorkers is obscene.
Already a number of NYC officials are calling upon the MTA, the transit agency that runs the subway system, to reject the ill-conceived ad campaign.
This week on the Fox News program, Mr. Hooper attempted to deliver a monologue about what a wonderful man this Siraj Wahhaj is; how those of us who object to the subway ad campaign are trying to prohibit “free speech;” and the old favorite of activists like Hooper, we’re demonstrating anti-Islamic bigotry.
It’s simply astounding that such a debate could even occur in the United States today. Picture what this country felt like in the weeks and months after 9/11. Can you imagine anyone even beginning to allow an advertising campaign promoting Islam, being endorsed and supported by a man the feds believe to be a terrorist, on New York City subways?
And yet we are suffering through the stench of moral relativism. Every position must be countered. Right doesn’t necessarily mean right, wrong might not be wrong.
A brutal, cowardly Arab terrorist who was convicted of bashing a little 4-year old Jewish girl’s head in with a rifle butt is released to Lebanon in exchange for a pair of dead Israeli soldiers. He’s met by adoring, cheering crowds and given a red-carpet welcome.
The Democrat presidential candidate continues to insist that the American military surge in Iraq isn’t really the reason for the overwhelming reduction of violence there.
Our country gives a couple of million minimum wage workers a big hourly pay hike and the mainstream media immediately complains by saying that high gas and food prices make the pay increase irrelevant. And when former Sen. Phil Gramm accurately points out that we’re a nation of whiners and misery sells newspapers, he’s forced to resign from his leadership post in the John McCain campaign.
I yearn for the day when we’ll return to the foundational value that makes this country great. Right and wrong are not relative terms. There are fundamental truths. Evil flourishes, but good men continue to battle it – and win.
Good can and will triumph over evil.
We just have to have the guts to know the difference between the two.
Bush Should Strip Sanctuary Cities of Federal Funds
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Bush Should Strip Sanctuary Cities of Federal Funds
by Michael Reagan
Three good men are dead thanks largely to San Francisco’s outrageous sanctuary-city policy, which forbids city authorities from notifying federal immigration authorities when they arrest illegal aliens for crimes they commit, and it’s time for President Bush to crack down on all the cities in the United States that follow this absurd policy.
On June 22, Anthony Bologna and his sons Michael and Matthew were shot to death by Edwin Ramos, 21, after a brief traffic incident when Anthony Bologna allegedly briefly blocked Ramos' car from making a left turn, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
Ramos, an alleged member of the vicious the Mara Salvatrucha gang, known as MS-13, should never have been around to kill the three men, and wouldn’t have been -- were not for the city’s sanctuary-city policy. Ramos, an illegal immigrant, was found guilty of committing two felonies when he was 17 -- involving a gang-related assault of a Municipal Railway passenger and the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman -- yet was never surrendered by the city’s juvenile justice authorities to federal officials for possible deportation as required by federal law.
Ramos was taken to juvenile hall on charges of assault and participating in a street gang, and was later convicted in juvenile court and put in a shelter. Under federal law, he should have been referred to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) but the Juvenile Probation Department's policy for dealing with offenders stipulated that "probation officers shall not discriminate in any fashion against minors based on their immigration status."
On April 2, 2004, Ramos was released to the custody of his mother, despite the fact that he had already been flagged by federal authorities as an illegal immigrant. He was still considered a ward of the court and was on probation. Just four days later, records show, he committed another crime at 19th and Mission streets, two blocks from the site of the attack on the Muni passenger. He was released after city prosecutors declined to charge him in connection with an arrest in March on suspicion of weapons and gang violations.
There is a dispute revolving around the question of whether ICE was ever notified of the Ramos arrest, but the fact remains that for the last 10 years the city’s juvenile justice authorities have followed a policy of not turning over illegal-immigrant felons to the federal government, basing the practice on San Francisco's sanctuary-city status and state law barring local officials from surrendering them for deportation.
After a storm of protest following the slayings of the Bologna family men, San Francisco’s ultra-liberal Mayor Gavin Newsom belatedly rescinded that policy earlier this month following a report in the Chronicle that the city had flown a number of youths out of the country on its own, in possible violation of federal law, and then housed some in unlocked group homes from which they quickly escaped. His action came too late to save the lives of the Bologna men.
Those are the facts in this shocking case. They illustrate the lethal effects this idiotic and dangerous sanctuary-city policy can have on the safety of innocent Americans.
Sanctuary-city policies defy guidelines from the 9/11 Commission Report, which called on state and local authorities to help federal agencies crack down on illegal immigration. “There is a growing role for state and local law enforcement agencies [for the enforcement of immigration law],” the report stated. “They need more training and work with federal agencies so that they can cooperate more effectively with those federal authorities in identifying terrorist suspects.”
Instead, a host of cities across the United States classify themselves as havens for illegal aliens, despite the fact that such policies result in creating safe havens for illegal aliens who are criminals and potential terrorists. They allow criminal aliens to avoid deportation because they prevent local police from reporting them to ICE.
President Bush should issue an executive order denying any federal funds to those cities which either officially or unofficially provide sanctuaries enabling illegal aliens who commit crimes to escape deportation. They need to learn there is a price to be paid for exposing their citizens to criminal activities by aliens here illegally.
Bush Should Strip Sanctuary Cities of Federal Funds
by Michael Reagan
Three good men are dead thanks largely to San Francisco’s outrageous sanctuary-city policy, which forbids city authorities from notifying federal immigration authorities when they arrest illegal aliens for crimes they commit, and it’s time for President Bush to crack down on all the cities in the United States that follow this absurd policy.
On June 22, Anthony Bologna and his sons Michael and Matthew were shot to death by Edwin Ramos, 21, after a brief traffic incident when Anthony Bologna allegedly briefly blocked Ramos' car from making a left turn, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
Ramos, an alleged member of the vicious the Mara Salvatrucha gang, known as MS-13, should never have been around to kill the three men, and wouldn’t have been -- were not for the city’s sanctuary-city policy. Ramos, an illegal immigrant, was found guilty of committing two felonies when he was 17 -- involving a gang-related assault of a Municipal Railway passenger and the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman -- yet was never surrendered by the city’s juvenile justice authorities to federal officials for possible deportation as required by federal law.
Ramos was taken to juvenile hall on charges of assault and participating in a street gang, and was later convicted in juvenile court and put in a shelter. Under federal law, he should have been referred to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) but the Juvenile Probation Department's policy for dealing with offenders stipulated that "probation officers shall not discriminate in any fashion against minors based on their immigration status."
On April 2, 2004, Ramos was released to the custody of his mother, despite the fact that he had already been flagged by federal authorities as an illegal immigrant. He was still considered a ward of the court and was on probation. Just four days later, records show, he committed another crime at 19th and Mission streets, two blocks from the site of the attack on the Muni passenger. He was released after city prosecutors declined to charge him in connection with an arrest in March on suspicion of weapons and gang violations.
There is a dispute revolving around the question of whether ICE was ever notified of the Ramos arrest, but the fact remains that for the last 10 years the city’s juvenile justice authorities have followed a policy of not turning over illegal-immigrant felons to the federal government, basing the practice on San Francisco's sanctuary-city status and state law barring local officials from surrendering them for deportation.
After a storm of protest following the slayings of the Bologna family men, San Francisco’s ultra-liberal Mayor Gavin Newsom belatedly rescinded that policy earlier this month following a report in the Chronicle that the city had flown a number of youths out of the country on its own, in possible violation of federal law, and then housed some in unlocked group homes from which they quickly escaped. His action came too late to save the lives of the Bologna men.
Those are the facts in this shocking case. They illustrate the lethal effects this idiotic and dangerous sanctuary-city policy can have on the safety of innocent Americans.
Sanctuary-city policies defy guidelines from the 9/11 Commission Report, which called on state and local authorities to help federal agencies crack down on illegal immigration. “There is a growing role for state and local law enforcement agencies [for the enforcement of immigration law],” the report stated. “They need more training and work with federal agencies so that they can cooperate more effectively with those federal authorities in identifying terrorist suspects.”
Instead, a host of cities across the United States classify themselves as havens for illegal aliens, despite the fact that such policies result in creating safe havens for illegal aliens who are criminals and potential terrorists. They allow criminal aliens to avoid deportation because they prevent local police from reporting them to ICE.
President Bush should issue an executive order denying any federal funds to those cities which either officially or unofficially provide sanctuaries enabling illegal aliens who commit crimes to escape deportation. They need to learn there is a price to be paid for exposing their citizens to criminal activities by aliens here illegally.
Dr. J. I. Packer Speaks Out On Homosexuality
Dr. Packer opened his remarks with a statement explaining why this issue is of such great importance in the Anglican Church today. "In brief," he said, "because it involves the denial of something that's integral to the Christian Gospel.
"That is, whereas the Bible says that same-sex unions are off limits as far as God is concerned, and that the Gospel requires any who have been involved in them to repent of that involvement and to abandon it, this point of view against which we are standing, treats gay unions...as a form of holiness, and encourages, affirms and blesses them, rather than saying, as we believe the Gospel requires us to say, that this is the wrong track."
"You are required to abandon it and we, in the Christian fellowship, will help you to…walk chaste, not yield to your besetting temptations," he continued. "And that is God's way for you. We are obliged by the Gospel to say that because the apostle Paul, proclaiming the Gospel to the Corinthians, says explicitly that they mustn't be deceived…and those living in homosexual relationships will not inherit the Kingdom of God."
"In other words, they don't qualify for Christ's salvation in terms of the Gospel that God has revealed."
Please, read the rest of the article by clicking HERE
"That is, whereas the Bible says that same-sex unions are off limits as far as God is concerned, and that the Gospel requires any who have been involved in them to repent of that involvement and to abandon it, this point of view against which we are standing, treats gay unions...as a form of holiness, and encourages, affirms and blesses them, rather than saying, as we believe the Gospel requires us to say, that this is the wrong track."
"You are required to abandon it and we, in the Christian fellowship, will help you to…walk chaste, not yield to your besetting temptations," he continued. "And that is God's way for you. We are obliged by the Gospel to say that because the apostle Paul, proclaiming the Gospel to the Corinthians, says explicitly that they mustn't be deceived…and those living in homosexual relationships will not inherit the Kingdom of God."
"In other words, they don't qualify for Christ's salvation in terms of the Gospel that God has revealed."
Please, read the rest of the article by clicking HERE
What the Bleep?! Chuck Norris
Jesse Jackson (on an off-air mic before "Fox & Friends") and Whoopi Goldberg (and another host on "The View") have raised the cultural language debate to a new level: Who has the right to say the N-word? Their answer: Blacks can, but whites can't. Unfortunately, this derogatory debate has degraded into Don Imus on steroids.
I agree with a lot that Whoopi had to say about the imbalances between the races. But I disagree with her for going off on an intentional N-word marathon, which was bleeped out repeatedly in order to demonstrate her point. There's a reason her diatribe was bleeped and our society still veils our full expression of the N-word: because it still is regarded by most as derogatory and demeaning. (Even among blacks, the N-word obviously can be defamatory, as Jesse Jackson proved when he used it in the same breath he used to describe how he would like to cut off Barack Obama's genitalia.)
To read the rest of Chuck's article click HERE
I agree with a lot that Whoopi had to say about the imbalances between the races. But I disagree with her for going off on an intentional N-word marathon, which was bleeped out repeatedly in order to demonstrate her point. There's a reason her diatribe was bleeped and our society still veils our full expression of the N-word: because it still is regarded by most as derogatory and demeaning. (Even among blacks, the N-word obviously can be defamatory, as Jesse Jackson proved when he used it in the same breath he used to describe how he would like to cut off Barack Obama's genitalia.)
To read the rest of Chuck's article click HERE
Friday, July 18, 2008
UN Resolution on Religious speech debated in Congress
DUIN: Religious speech debated
Julia Duin (Contact)
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Julia Duin
Late last week, I attended a Capitol Hill briefing about an obscure United Nations resolution on "defamation of religions" that some call the "soft jihad."
Lined up in front of a hearing room in the Rayburn House Office Building were six panelists including David Harris, a Canadian who was sued for libel in 2004 by the Canadian branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for remarks he made on a radio show.
Also there was Ezra Levant, the publisher of a Canadian magazine who in 2006 got in hot water - and is the target of several lawsuits - for reprinting the Danish cartoons of prophet Muhammad as part of a news story. "Foreign-born jihadis," he says, "have teamed up with politically correct busybodies to use our own laws to undermine our freedoms, especially our freedom to criticize them."
The chief topic of discussion was a U.N. Commission on Human Rights resolution, backed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, that addresses "the campaign to defame religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities" since Sept. 11, 2001.
Freedom of expression, the resolution says, would be "subject to limitations" to guard the "respect of the rights and reputations of others; protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs."
Those on the panel, sponsored by the Congressional Religious Freedom Task Force, said the resolution, which has yet to pass, already is having a chilling effect. Even now in Canada, "you can't even broach the idea of sharia being problematic," one panelist said.
One of the resolution's backers was Pakistan, home of the dreaded "blasphemy laws" whereby majority Muslims have sent Christians and other religious minorities to jail merely on the suspicion of defaming the Koran. The lone Pakistani panelist, Asma Fatima of the Pakistani Embassy, was asked why Pakistan seems bent on exporting these laws worldwide.
"We're protesting against hate crimes, stuff that encourages feelings of hatred, that makes people feel bad," she said. "There are many critics of the blasphemy law in Pakistan and we are working on it."
Angela Wu, a panelist from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, pointed out the burning of Danish embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran and the torturing of religious minorities in Pakistan - especially those who convert from Islam - hurt plenty of feelings as well.
In the West, one has to prove that one has been harmed physically, mentally or materially in order to win a court judgment. With the kind of worldwide blasphemy laws suggested by this resolution, anybody anywhere could sue for merely having hurt feelings.
"When we talk of injuring religious feelings, what is that?" said a lawyer on the panel. "Is saying 'God has no son' on the Dome of the Rock an excuse to riot? Or dipping a crucifix in urine?"
Maybe it is, said the Pakistani representative.
"The ideal of freedom of speech is precious to you, but it's not value-neutral," she said. "You don't have to hurt peoples' sentiments and bring them to the point where they have to react in strange ways."
Congress has introduced three bills to protect America's interpretation of the First Amendment and protect citizens from being sued in a foreign court if their speech or writings do not constitute defamation under U.S. law. For the moment, those bills are in committee.
Julia Duin's column "Stairway to Heaven" appears on Sundays and Thursdays. Contact her at jduin@washingtontimes.com.
Julia Duin (Contact)
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Julia Duin
Late last week, I attended a Capitol Hill briefing about an obscure United Nations resolution on "defamation of religions" that some call the "soft jihad."
Lined up in front of a hearing room in the Rayburn House Office Building were six panelists including David Harris, a Canadian who was sued for libel in 2004 by the Canadian branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for remarks he made on a radio show.
Also there was Ezra Levant, the publisher of a Canadian magazine who in 2006 got in hot water - and is the target of several lawsuits - for reprinting the Danish cartoons of prophet Muhammad as part of a news story. "Foreign-born jihadis," he says, "have teamed up with politically correct busybodies to use our own laws to undermine our freedoms, especially our freedom to criticize them."
The chief topic of discussion was a U.N. Commission on Human Rights resolution, backed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, that addresses "the campaign to defame religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities" since Sept. 11, 2001.
Freedom of expression, the resolution says, would be "subject to limitations" to guard the "respect of the rights and reputations of others; protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs."
Those on the panel, sponsored by the Congressional Religious Freedom Task Force, said the resolution, which has yet to pass, already is having a chilling effect. Even now in Canada, "you can't even broach the idea of sharia being problematic," one panelist said.
One of the resolution's backers was Pakistan, home of the dreaded "blasphemy laws" whereby majority Muslims have sent Christians and other religious minorities to jail merely on the suspicion of defaming the Koran. The lone Pakistani panelist, Asma Fatima of the Pakistani Embassy, was asked why Pakistan seems bent on exporting these laws worldwide.
"We're protesting against hate crimes, stuff that encourages feelings of hatred, that makes people feel bad," she said. "There are many critics of the blasphemy law in Pakistan and we are working on it."
Angela Wu, a panelist from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, pointed out the burning of Danish embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran and the torturing of religious minorities in Pakistan - especially those who convert from Islam - hurt plenty of feelings as well.
In the West, one has to prove that one has been harmed physically, mentally or materially in order to win a court judgment. With the kind of worldwide blasphemy laws suggested by this resolution, anybody anywhere could sue for merely having hurt feelings.
"When we talk of injuring religious feelings, what is that?" said a lawyer on the panel. "Is saying 'God has no son' on the Dome of the Rock an excuse to riot? Or dipping a crucifix in urine?"
Maybe it is, said the Pakistani representative.
"The ideal of freedom of speech is precious to you, but it's not value-neutral," she said. "You don't have to hurt peoples' sentiments and bring them to the point where they have to react in strange ways."
Congress has introduced three bills to protect America's interpretation of the First Amendment and protect citizens from being sued in a foreign court if their speech or writings do not constitute defamation under U.S. law. For the moment, those bills are in committee.
Julia Duin's column "Stairway to Heaven" appears on Sundays and Thursdays. Contact her at jduin@washingtontimes.com.
Bush Never Lied To Us About Iraq
To many of you, this is not news. What makes it news is that the author is the assistant editor of The New Republic, a very liberal web news site.
Finally the liberal news is seeing the fallacy of "Bush lied, people died". It is especially meaningful coming from the left.
"In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."
Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program."
Read Bush Never Lied To Us About Iraq
Finally the liberal news is seeing the fallacy of "Bush lied, people died". It is especially meaningful coming from the left.
"In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."
Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program."
Read Bush Never Lied To Us About Iraq
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Iran believed to test missiles for attack on U.S.
Since the 1960's or prehaps even earlier, the effect of a mid air nuclear explosion has been known. However, as the technologies have emerged and our dependency upon them has increased, the danger has become greater. Yes, there have been some attempts to take action to minimize the danger such as shielding and dispersing of business assets from major urban areas which are believed to be targets of opportunity. There is a site that has an in depth report on the subject but be warned....it could put you to sleep. It is The Electromagnetic Bomb - a Weapon of Electrical Mass Destruction
For additional information please read The Electromagnetic Pulse Commission Warns of an Old Threat with a New Face
Interestly enough our Israeli tour guide remarked that it is widely believed in Israel that when they are attacked the US will be "silent" because we will be unable to help. Perhaps that was "prophetic" or perhaps being retired military he keeps up with the more important aspects of world events.
Congress examines EMP threat
Iran believed to test missiles for attack on U.S.
In 2005, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security chaired by Kyl, held a hearing on the electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, threat.
"An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack on the American homeland, said one of the distinguished scientists who testified at the hearing, is one of only a few ways that the United States could be defeated by its enemies – terrorist or otherwise," wrote Kyl "And it is probably the easiest. A single Scud missile, carrying a single nuclear weapon, detonated at the appropriate altitude, would interact with the Earth's atmosphere, producing an electromagnetic pulse radiating down to the surface at the speed of light. Depending on the location and size of the blast, the effect would be to knock out already stressed power grids and other electrical systems across much or even all of the continental United States, for months if not years."
The purpose of an EMP attack, unlike a nuclear attack on land, is not to kill people, but "to kill electrons," as Graham explained. He serves as chairman of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack and was director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Graham told WND he could think of no other reason for Iran to be experimenting with mid-air detonation of missiles than for the planning of an EMP-style attack.
"EMP offers a bigger bang for the buck," he said. He also suggested such an attack makes a U.S. nuclear response against a suspected enemy less likely than would the detonation of a nuclear bomb in a major U.S. city.
A 2004 report by the commission found "several potential adversaries have or can acquire the capability to attack the United States with a high-altitude nuclear weapons-generated electromagnetic pulse (EMP). A determined adversary can achieve an EMP attack capability without having a high level of sophistication."
"EMP is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences," the report said. "EMP will cover the wide geographic region within line of sight to the nuclear weapon. It has the capability to produce significant damage to critical infrastructures and thus to the very fabric of U.S. society, as well as to the ability of the United States and Western nations to project influence and military power."
The major impact of EMP weapons is on electronics, "so pervasive in all aspects of our society and military, coupled through critical infrastructures," explained the report.
"Their effects on systems and infrastructures dependent on electricity and electronics could be sufficiently ruinous as to qualify as catastrophic to the nation," Lowell Wood, acting chairman of the commission, told members of Congress.
Please read the rest of the article
Congress examines EMP threat
For additional information please read The Electromagnetic Pulse Commission Warns of an Old Threat with a New Face
Interestly enough our Israeli tour guide remarked that it is widely believed in Israel that when they are attacked the US will be "silent" because we will be unable to help. Perhaps that was "prophetic" or perhaps being retired military he keeps up with the more important aspects of world events.
Congress examines EMP threat
Iran believed to test missiles for attack on U.S.
In 2005, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security chaired by Kyl, held a hearing on the electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, threat.
"An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack on the American homeland, said one of the distinguished scientists who testified at the hearing, is one of only a few ways that the United States could be defeated by its enemies – terrorist or otherwise," wrote Kyl "And it is probably the easiest. A single Scud missile, carrying a single nuclear weapon, detonated at the appropriate altitude, would interact with the Earth's atmosphere, producing an electromagnetic pulse radiating down to the surface at the speed of light. Depending on the location and size of the blast, the effect would be to knock out already stressed power grids and other electrical systems across much or even all of the continental United States, for months if not years."
The purpose of an EMP attack, unlike a nuclear attack on land, is not to kill people, but "to kill electrons," as Graham explained. He serves as chairman of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack and was director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Graham told WND he could think of no other reason for Iran to be experimenting with mid-air detonation of missiles than for the planning of an EMP-style attack.
"EMP offers a bigger bang for the buck," he said. He also suggested such an attack makes a U.S. nuclear response against a suspected enemy less likely than would the detonation of a nuclear bomb in a major U.S. city.
A 2004 report by the commission found "several potential adversaries have or can acquire the capability to attack the United States with a high-altitude nuclear weapons-generated electromagnetic pulse (EMP). A determined adversary can achieve an EMP attack capability without having a high level of sophistication."
"EMP is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences," the report said. "EMP will cover the wide geographic region within line of sight to the nuclear weapon. It has the capability to produce significant damage to critical infrastructures and thus to the very fabric of U.S. society, as well as to the ability of the United States and Western nations to project influence and military power."
The major impact of EMP weapons is on electronics, "so pervasive in all aspects of our society and military, coupled through critical infrastructures," explained the report.
"Their effects on systems and infrastructures dependent on electricity and electronics could be sufficiently ruinous as to qualify as catastrophic to the nation," Lowell Wood, acting chairman of the commission, told members of Congress.
Please read the rest of the article
Congress examines EMP threat
Honey, I Shrunk the Congress
This is a Chuck Norris column that bears consideration. The premise is: Let's reduce the number of representatives per state!
"I think it's time to let Congress feel our election fury this November. As reflected in the latest Rasmussen Reports, "Just 9 percent (of Americans) say Congress is doing a good or excellent job." It is the first single-digit approval rating for Congress in Rasmussen's history, and it makes Bush's 30 percent approval rating seem like a stat to boast. The study went on to explain: "Just 12 percent of voters think Congress has passed any legislation to improve life in this country over the past six months. That number has ranged from 11 percent to 13 percent throughout 2008."
Even The Associated Press reported last week, in the story "Congress mostly going through the motions for now," that "some fights of the 110th Congress have lost their oomph in the waning months before the November elections, with both parties content to run out the clock on messy matters."
If members of Congress are not relevant or improving Americans' lives, why do we elect and re-elect them into office?!
If you ever have heard the saying "too many cooks in the kitchen," then you know how I feel about Congress. We have more representatives than we need and even many more than the Constitution requires. What many might not realize is that there is nothing ultimately sacred about the present number of people we have in the House of Representatives. Actually, the proper number of representatives from each state has been debated since our Founders' time. The Constitution endeavors to assure fairness and equity by requiring each state to have at least one representative, two senators and representation in the Electoral College. (At the other extreme, it states, "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.") So why not go with the fewest number allowed? It seems to me that in our day, in both House and Senate, fewer representatives by area would be more reasonable and effective than more representatives by population."
Please read the rest of the article: Honey, I Shrunk The Congress
"I think it's time to let Congress feel our election fury this November. As reflected in the latest Rasmussen Reports, "Just 9 percent (of Americans) say Congress is doing a good or excellent job." It is the first single-digit approval rating for Congress in Rasmussen's history, and it makes Bush's 30 percent approval rating seem like a stat to boast. The study went on to explain: "Just 12 percent of voters think Congress has passed any legislation to improve life in this country over the past six months. That number has ranged from 11 percent to 13 percent throughout 2008."
Even The Associated Press reported last week, in the story "Congress mostly going through the motions for now," that "some fights of the 110th Congress have lost their oomph in the waning months before the November elections, with both parties content to run out the clock on messy matters."
If members of Congress are not relevant or improving Americans' lives, why do we elect and re-elect them into office?!
If you ever have heard the saying "too many cooks in the kitchen," then you know how I feel about Congress. We have more representatives than we need and even many more than the Constitution requires. What many might not realize is that there is nothing ultimately sacred about the present number of people we have in the House of Representatives. Actually, the proper number of representatives from each state has been debated since our Founders' time. The Constitution endeavors to assure fairness and equity by requiring each state to have at least one representative, two senators and representation in the Electoral College. (At the other extreme, it states, "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.") So why not go with the fewest number allowed? It seems to me that in our day, in both House and Senate, fewer representatives by area would be more reasonable and effective than more representatives by population."
Please read the rest of the article: Honey, I Shrunk The Congress
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)