Sunday, April 26, 2009 4:45 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Former Senator, TV star and presidential candidate Fred Thompson tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama is revealing his “naivete, ineptitude and arrogance” as he deals with matters of national security.
The Tennessee Republican, who now hosts a radio show on Westwood One along with his wife Jeri, also said the “dogs of war have been loosed” over left-wing attempts to single out Bush-era officials for prosecution relating to the treatment of detainees.
Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella cited the announcement that the Defense Department is going to release many pictures showing alleged abuse by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked Thompson what purpose that might serve.
“None, other than to serve as propaganda tools for our worst enemies,” Thompson said.
See Video: Fred Thompson Slams Obama's National Security Debacle - Click Here Now
“This was set in motion when the president first decided to release” CIA memos on interrogation techniques used on terrorist suspects, Thompson told Newsmax.
“There was no purpose in doing that except to make him look good internationally and to the left wing here at home,” he said. “It did a lot of damage.
“In one stroke of a pen he declassified top-secret documents that people would otherwise go to jail for releasing. It gave al-Qaida and the Taliban a blueprint as to the outer limits of our interrogation techniques.
“We have to remember that [the techniques were used] in the aftermath of 9/11. Congress was briefed on these techniques. Some of them asked if they were really going far enough to get what they needed to get, and it was approved at high levels in the administration.
“They carefully crafted them as best they could to not go too far, and to provide safeguards when they were carrying out these admittedly rough techniques on these people who had this vital information.
“So now we’re really talking about a war crimes tribunal, which this country has never done. We’ve never brought to criminal court prior administrations in this country.
“Harry Truman could have been accused of war crimes, I suppose, for dropping the bombs. President Obama authorized the killing of those three [pirates] in the Indian Ocean not too long ago. Prosecuting these people under these circumstances is something you hear about in banana republics and third-world countries, not the United States of America.
“The president’s opened up a terrible Pandora’s Box and there’s going to be a price to pay before this thing is ended.”
Martella asked if the Obama administration was acquiescing to its far-left base when it released the CIA memos on interrogation techniques.
“I think in this case, in all probability, they thought that they could cater to their left wing, appease their demands, by releasing these memos and then it might not go any further,” Thompson said.
“Because surely they were able to see that this was bad for them the way it’s going to be bad for the country.
“This is going to have ramifications that are far-reaching. They thought they could put the genie back in the bottle after they opened it, and of course appeasement never works that way.
“There was a firestorm. The attorney general’s received 250 names in a petition to urge the appointment of a special prosecutor for this. The left-wing blogs went nuts. They started running television ads and so forth.
“And then after promising that there would be no prosecutions, [Obama] acquiesced and now opened the door for that. So I think it’s a case of naivete, ineptitude and unbelievable arrogance and lack of experience.
“We elected someone who didn’t have two minutes’ worth of experience with regard to matters concerning national security. Now he’s cast in this position and he’s making decisions that are going to have far-reaching ramifications not only abroad, and not only with our enemies, but in dividing our country even further here at home in ways I don’t think we’ve ever been divided before.
“We’re going to have members of Congress testifying against each other if they go down this road.”
Martella noted that Rep. Peter King of New York has said that if Democrats do go ahead and attempt to prosecute Bush administration CIA interrogation lawyers, the Republicans should “go to war” with them.
“That just gives you an example of the atmosphere on Capitol Hill today,” Thompson observed.
“People are angry. People are upset. You’ve got people on the left, you’ve got the Democrats talking about truth commissions, talking about investigations and Congressional hearings and urging prosecution. They’re fighting among each other on the Democratic side as to just how they should go and how far they should go.”
Some of these Democrats are “the same people who were briefed on these techniques back in 2002,” Thompson said, “including Nancy Pelosi, who’s not telling the truth now, who’s trying to parse words and trying to get around the fact that she knew what was going on, as others did back when this happened.
“That creates a new level of animosity like I’ve never seen before, and I served in the Senate for eight years. The dogs of war have been loosed in this country and I don’t know what is going to happen before we see the end of it. But none of it’s going to be good.”
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Mr. Obama... How far would you go to save an American life?
Posted by Bobby Eberle
April 22, 2009 at 8:00 am
In case you hadn't heard, America is no longer fighting a "war on terror." That's right... Obama and company have decided to drop the phrase along with the term "terrorist." Apparently, it's fine to use the word "pirate," but we can no longer send the "wrong" message by referring to terrorists as "terrorists."
Do Obama and his left-wing cohorts remember what happened on September 11, 2001? I certainly do. Given the fact that Obama felt it necessary to release previously classified memos regarding American interrogation techniques, it seems to me that he is more concerned with the rights of terrorists than the lives of the American people. Yes, that sounds like a harsh statement, but read on, and let's put the facts together. It all comes down to this fundamental question that any American could ponder, "How far would you go to save an American life?"
First a bit of a timeline to bring everyone up to speed. Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the CIA and Bush administration performed a review of interrogation techniques: what was allowed, what was not allowed, etc. Over the course of this review it was determined that additional "enhanced interrogation techniques" could be used on terror suspects under very specific conditions. These enhanced techniques included the use of water boarding (simulated drowning).
CNSNews.com has provided a concise review of one of the interrogation memos dated May 30, 2005. The full memo is available at GOPUSA.
Following the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, the CIA was following leads regarding another proposed terror attack on the West coast of the United States. This attack, known as the "Second Wave," planned to "use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles." KSM and two other top al Qaeda leaders were questioned regarding the Second Wave. KSM's response was, "Soon, you will know."
Here comes the big question... What would you do now? There is intelligence that a terror attack is being planned for Los Angeles. How many hundreds or thousands of Americans could die in this attack? Sitting in front of you are three top-level terrorists whom you believe have vital information on the plans. Traditional interrogation techniques have not worked. What would you do?
The CIA went to the next step and waterboarded KSM and the two others. These were the only three terrorists ever subjected to waterboarding. The memo describes that waterboarding may be used under very strict limitations:
"It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has 'credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent'; 'substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or delay this attack'; and '[o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit the information [or] CIA has clear indications that other ... methods are unlikely to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.'"
The memo notes that "the interrogation of KSM -- once enhanced techniques were employed -- led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles."
There are many moral questions that arise if you really study what went on and what the results were. I remember writing a column back in 2005 about Abu Ghraib and the feedback I received. In that incident, some prisoners were paraded around and humiliated. I received a number of e-mails suggesting that as Christians, we should never resort to "torture." Does that depend on what you define as torture?
In trying to sift through some of the moral questions that arise from America's war on terror (oops, I said it again), I turned to my friend Deal Hudson, who is the Director of InsideCatholic.com. In addressing "torture," Hudson put it in the context of the "just war" philosophy.
Hudson: As with just war theory, there must be a clear threat; there must be reasonable chance for success; there must be a reasonable use of force (in the case [of torture] death or impairment should never be the result), and the consequences should not cause greater harm.
Hudson further explained to me that "the precise issue is whether or not the state can inflict suffering in order to protect the common good. If we say 'yes,' the circumstances have to be tightly prescribed."
So, did the U.S. follow "just war" thinking? Did the U.S. do what it needed to do from a moral perspective? The New York Times apparently does not think so. In a story appearing today, the NY Times describes the enhanced interrogation techniques as "brutal methods" and procedures of "gruesome origins." Barack Obama appears to side with the New York Times, as he is now leaving the door open to prosecuting some Bush administration officials for "torture" violations.
Back to the primary question to Obama and anyone who cares to ponder it. How far would you go to save an American life? Apparently, had Obama been president a few years ago, and given that the CIA had information about a proposed attack on Los Angeles, he would not have given the order to use waterboarding to get the information. Would you? Considering that the plot was thwarted, and hundreds or thousands of lives were saved, was waterboarding three terrorists worth the price? Obama says no. What do you say?
April 22, 2009 at 8:00 am
In case you hadn't heard, America is no longer fighting a "war on terror." That's right... Obama and company have decided to drop the phrase along with the term "terrorist." Apparently, it's fine to use the word "pirate," but we can no longer send the "wrong" message by referring to terrorists as "terrorists."
Do Obama and his left-wing cohorts remember what happened on September 11, 2001? I certainly do. Given the fact that Obama felt it necessary to release previously classified memos regarding American interrogation techniques, it seems to me that he is more concerned with the rights of terrorists than the lives of the American people. Yes, that sounds like a harsh statement, but read on, and let's put the facts together. It all comes down to this fundamental question that any American could ponder, "How far would you go to save an American life?"
First a bit of a timeline to bring everyone up to speed. Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the CIA and Bush administration performed a review of interrogation techniques: what was allowed, what was not allowed, etc. Over the course of this review it was determined that additional "enhanced interrogation techniques" could be used on terror suspects under very specific conditions. These enhanced techniques included the use of water boarding (simulated drowning).
CNSNews.com has provided a concise review of one of the interrogation memos dated May 30, 2005. The full memo is available at GOPUSA.
Following the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, the CIA was following leads regarding another proposed terror attack on the West coast of the United States. This attack, known as the "Second Wave," planned to "use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles." KSM and two other top al Qaeda leaders were questioned regarding the Second Wave. KSM's response was, "Soon, you will know."
Here comes the big question... What would you do now? There is intelligence that a terror attack is being planned for Los Angeles. How many hundreds or thousands of Americans could die in this attack? Sitting in front of you are three top-level terrorists whom you believe have vital information on the plans. Traditional interrogation techniques have not worked. What would you do?
The CIA went to the next step and waterboarded KSM and the two others. These were the only three terrorists ever subjected to waterboarding. The memo describes that waterboarding may be used under very strict limitations:
"It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has 'credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent'; 'substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or delay this attack'; and '[o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit the information [or] CIA has clear indications that other ... methods are unlikely to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.'"
The memo notes that "the interrogation of KSM -- once enhanced techniques were employed -- led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles."
There are many moral questions that arise if you really study what went on and what the results were. I remember writing a column back in 2005 about Abu Ghraib and the feedback I received. In that incident, some prisoners were paraded around and humiliated. I received a number of e-mails suggesting that as Christians, we should never resort to "torture." Does that depend on what you define as torture?
In trying to sift through some of the moral questions that arise from America's war on terror (oops, I said it again), I turned to my friend Deal Hudson, who is the Director of InsideCatholic.com. In addressing "torture," Hudson put it in the context of the "just war" philosophy.
Hudson: As with just war theory, there must be a clear threat; there must be reasonable chance for success; there must be a reasonable use of force (in the case [of torture] death or impairment should never be the result), and the consequences should not cause greater harm.
Hudson further explained to me that "the precise issue is whether or not the state can inflict suffering in order to protect the common good. If we say 'yes,' the circumstances have to be tightly prescribed."
So, did the U.S. follow "just war" thinking? Did the U.S. do what it needed to do from a moral perspective? The New York Times apparently does not think so. In a story appearing today, the NY Times describes the enhanced interrogation techniques as "brutal methods" and procedures of "gruesome origins." Barack Obama appears to side with the New York Times, as he is now leaving the door open to prosecuting some Bush administration officials for "torture" violations.
Back to the primary question to Obama and anyone who cares to ponder it. How far would you go to save an American life? Apparently, had Obama been president a few years ago, and given that the CIA had information about a proposed attack on Los Angeles, he would not have given the order to use waterboarding to get the information. Would you? Considering that the plot was thwarted, and hundreds or thousands of lives were saved, was waterboarding three terrorists worth the price? Obama says no. What do you say?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Bill to Clamp Down On Federal Reserve Gains Steam
By Bob Livingston • Apr 13th, 2009 •
Rep. Ron Paul is pushing a bill (H.R.1207) that calls for the comptroller general of the United States to audit the Federal Reserve. And the bill is gaining steam as more members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, sign on.
The bill is called the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, and it requires an audit of the Fed’s Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve Banks be completed and reported to Congress by the end of 2010.
The Federal Reserve is a government-established private entity that can enter into agreements with foreign central banks and foreign governments. However, no agency has oversight over the Fed and the Government Accounting Office is prohibited from auditing or viewing any agreements. So no one, except for the Fed’s Board of Governors, truly knows what’s going on there.
According to reports, Paul says every problem with the American economy from the Great Depression to the current crisis results from Federal Reserve policy. It’s true. The Fed’s manipulation of money has led to inflation and a devaluation of the dollar that’s robbed the American people of their wealth.
No less an expert than former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan agrees. In a 1966 essay entitled Gold and Economic Freedom, Greenspan wrote:
“In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.”
The Constitution gives Congress the right “to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures” in Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 5.
The Fed is a non-constitutional institution created in 1913. It was given a monopoly on the issue of all bank notes, and national and state banks could only issue deposits redeemable in Federal Reserve Notes or gold (gold ownership was outlawed 20 years later then reinstated in 1975). All national banks were forced to become members of the Federal Reserve.
The U.S. Government is out of control in many respects, and the Federal Reserve is one of them. Congress’ policies of increasing spending to prop up failing businesses, fund entitlements and expand government and pay for it by having the Fed print fiat money (money no longer backed by gold) are responsible for the loss of trillions of dollars of wealth around the globe.
This bill by Paul—now co-sponsored by 28 legislators—is a step toward fiscal responsibility. Perhaps, if it passes, the bill will show the masses the great fraud that has been perpetrated on them for the last 96 years.
Once that is done maybe, just maybe, a loud hue and cry from the masses will ensue, our country will go back to a gold standard, and some of the madness will end.
Rep. Ron Paul is pushing a bill (H.R.1207) that calls for the comptroller general of the United States to audit the Federal Reserve. And the bill is gaining steam as more members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, sign on.
The bill is called the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, and it requires an audit of the Fed’s Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve Banks be completed and reported to Congress by the end of 2010.
The Federal Reserve is a government-established private entity that can enter into agreements with foreign central banks and foreign governments. However, no agency has oversight over the Fed and the Government Accounting Office is prohibited from auditing or viewing any agreements. So no one, except for the Fed’s Board of Governors, truly knows what’s going on there.
According to reports, Paul says every problem with the American economy from the Great Depression to the current crisis results from Federal Reserve policy. It’s true. The Fed’s manipulation of money has led to inflation and a devaluation of the dollar that’s robbed the American people of their wealth.
No less an expert than former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan agrees. In a 1966 essay entitled Gold and Economic Freedom, Greenspan wrote:
“In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.”
The Constitution gives Congress the right “to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures” in Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 5.
The Fed is a non-constitutional institution created in 1913. It was given a monopoly on the issue of all bank notes, and national and state banks could only issue deposits redeemable in Federal Reserve Notes or gold (gold ownership was outlawed 20 years later then reinstated in 1975). All national banks were forced to become members of the Federal Reserve.
The U.S. Government is out of control in many respects, and the Federal Reserve is one of them. Congress’ policies of increasing spending to prop up failing businesses, fund entitlements and expand government and pay for it by having the Fed print fiat money (money no longer backed by gold) are responsible for the loss of trillions of dollars of wealth around the globe.
This bill by Paul—now co-sponsored by 28 legislators—is a step toward fiscal responsibility. Perhaps, if it passes, the bill will show the masses the great fraud that has been perpetrated on them for the last 96 years.
Once that is done maybe, just maybe, a loud hue and cry from the masses will ensue, our country will go back to a gold standard, and some of the madness will end.
Monday, April 13, 2009
U.S. Expecting Clash With Netanyahu
The Obama administration is preparing for a possible confrontation with new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over his reluctance to support the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
U.S. officials have briefed senior Democratic congressmen in recent weeks about the possibility of deep differences between the U.S. and Israel over the peace process.
The briefings are intended to “foil the possibility” that Netanyahu may attempt to bypass the White House by rallying support in Congress, the Israeli paper Haaretz reported.
Administration officials have made it clear to congressmen that while President Obama is committed to the security of Israel, he considers the two-state solution central to his Middle East policy.
In his speech before the Turkish parliament last week, Obama declared, “Let me be clear: The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.”
After the speech, a senior Israeli official in Jerusalem said, “You’d have to be blind not to be able to see the writing on the wall,” ynetnews.com reported.
Obama intends to ask Netanyahu to fulfill the commitments made by previous Israeli governments, including the acceptance of a Palestinian state, the freezing of settlement activity, evacuating illegal settlements and providing economic assistance to the Palestinian Authority.
However, new Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman insists Israel is not bound by previous agreements. He said on Wednesday: "Those who think that through concessions they will gain respect and peace are wrong. It's the other way around — it will lead to more wars."
American officials say they will listen to Netanyahu’s position when he meets with Obama in Washington next month, according to Haaretz.
But the U.S. and Israel could also be headed for a clash over Iran and its nuclear program. Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday issued a warning to the Israeli government, saying it would be "ill-advised" to carry out a military strike against Iranian nuclear sites
U.S. officials have briefed senior Democratic congressmen in recent weeks about the possibility of deep differences between the U.S. and Israel over the peace process.
The briefings are intended to “foil the possibility” that Netanyahu may attempt to bypass the White House by rallying support in Congress, the Israeli paper Haaretz reported.
Administration officials have made it clear to congressmen that while President Obama is committed to the security of Israel, he considers the two-state solution central to his Middle East policy.
In his speech before the Turkish parliament last week, Obama declared, “Let me be clear: The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.”
After the speech, a senior Israeli official in Jerusalem said, “You’d have to be blind not to be able to see the writing on the wall,” ynetnews.com reported.
Obama intends to ask Netanyahu to fulfill the commitments made by previous Israeli governments, including the acceptance of a Palestinian state, the freezing of settlement activity, evacuating illegal settlements and providing economic assistance to the Palestinian Authority.
However, new Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman insists Israel is not bound by previous agreements. He said on Wednesday: "Those who think that through concessions they will gain respect and peace are wrong. It's the other way around — it will lead to more wars."
American officials say they will listen to Netanyahu’s position when he meets with Obama in Washington next month, according to Haaretz.
But the U.S. and Israel could also be headed for a clash over Iran and its nuclear program. Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday issued a warning to the Israeli government, saying it would be "ill-advised" to carry out a military strike against Iranian nuclear sites
Obama Appoints Pope-Basher to Religious Panel
President Barack Obama has appointed a gay-rights activist and a critic of Pope Benedict XVI to the federal government’s faith-based initiative board.
Harry Knox has been appointed to Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Knox is director of the religion and faith program at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a homosexual activist organization.
He has referred to the Pope as a “discredited leader” and attacked the Catholic Knights of Columbus because of the group’s support of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that passed last November and defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.
“The Knights of Columbus do a great deal of good in the name of Jesus Christ, but in this particular case they were foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression,” Knox told the San Francisco-based Bay Area Reporter on March 19.
The newspaper reported, “Knox noted that the Knights of Columbus ‘followed discredited leaders,’ including bishops and Pope Benedict, ‘a Pope who literally today said condoms don’t help in the control of AIDS.’”
During his trip to Africa, Pope Benedict said that distributing condoms was not the answer to the problem of AIDS, and asserted that the best strategy was the church's efforts to promote sexual responsibility through abstinence and monogamy.
On April 6, Knox told the Cybercast News Service’s Web site CNSNews: “The Pope needs to start telling the truth about condom use. We are eager to help him do that.
"Until he is willing to do that and able, he’s doing a great deal more harm than good — not just in Africa but around the world. It is endangering people’s lives.”
Knox posted a statement on the HRC Web site on Monday saying that as a member of the 25-member Advisory Council, he “will support the president in living up to his promise that government has no place in funding bigotry against any group of people.”
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, told CNSNews that the appointment of Knox “is exactly the kind of bastardization of common sense that the Obama people are putting forth. Quite frankly, I would prefer to see the entire faith-based initiative closed down . . .
“I’d rather people simply be honest and say we don’t believe in faith-based initiatives as they were initially intended by the previous administration, and what we’re going to do is thoroughly politicize them with these gay activists.”
President George W. Bush’s faith-based efforts focused on religious non-profit organizations, while Obama “has changed the focus to target community groups, religious and secular,” CNSNews reported.
Other members of Obama’s Advisory Board include the Rev. Otis Moss Jr., whose son replaced the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as pastor of Obama’s former church, the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago; the Rev. Jim Wallis, who has been called the “leader of the religious left” by The New York Times; and Rabbi David Saperstein, who denounced the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007 for upholding the federal ban on partial-birth abortions.
Harry Knox has been appointed to Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Knox is director of the religion and faith program at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a homosexual activist organization.
He has referred to the Pope as a “discredited leader” and attacked the Catholic Knights of Columbus because of the group’s support of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that passed last November and defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.
“The Knights of Columbus do a great deal of good in the name of Jesus Christ, but in this particular case they were foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression,” Knox told the San Francisco-based Bay Area Reporter on March 19.
The newspaper reported, “Knox noted that the Knights of Columbus ‘followed discredited leaders,’ including bishops and Pope Benedict, ‘a Pope who literally today said condoms don’t help in the control of AIDS.’”
During his trip to Africa, Pope Benedict said that distributing condoms was not the answer to the problem of AIDS, and asserted that the best strategy was the church's efforts to promote sexual responsibility through abstinence and monogamy.
On April 6, Knox told the Cybercast News Service’s Web site CNSNews: “The Pope needs to start telling the truth about condom use. We are eager to help him do that.
"Until he is willing to do that and able, he’s doing a great deal more harm than good — not just in Africa but around the world. It is endangering people’s lives.”
Knox posted a statement on the HRC Web site on Monday saying that as a member of the 25-member Advisory Council, he “will support the president in living up to his promise that government has no place in funding bigotry against any group of people.”
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, told CNSNews that the appointment of Knox “is exactly the kind of bastardization of common sense that the Obama people are putting forth. Quite frankly, I would prefer to see the entire faith-based initiative closed down . . .
“I’d rather people simply be honest and say we don’t believe in faith-based initiatives as they were initially intended by the previous administration, and what we’re going to do is thoroughly politicize them with these gay activists.”
President George W. Bush’s faith-based efforts focused on religious non-profit organizations, while Obama “has changed the focus to target community groups, religious and secular,” CNSNews reported.
Other members of Obama’s Advisory Board include the Rev. Otis Moss Jr., whose son replaced the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as pastor of Obama’s former church, the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago; the Rev. Jim Wallis, who has been called the “leader of the religious left” by The New York Times; and Rabbi David Saperstein, who denounced the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007 for upholding the federal ban on partial-birth abortions.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Socialism vs. Capitalism... And the Winner is...
Posted By Bobby Eberle On April 10, 2009 at 6:07 am
America is a great nation, not by luck or chance or geography, but because of the American spirit... the belief that we can accomplish anything if we work hard. Those who fought to create this new country believed in limited government with unlimited potential for its citizens. Capitalism was the key. By letting free markets work and keeping government out of the way, Americans have the opportunity to grow as much as their drive, determination, and intellect will take them. That is the American way.
As we all know, the American way is under attack. It is under attack not from organizations like Al Qaeda or the Taliban and not from countries like Russia or China. It is under attack from within... from those elements that seek to bring America down through socialist policies. With the combination of liberal bombardment at most of America's universities, a left-wing media, and a federal government led by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, we face a challenge like never before. It is socialism vs. capitalism, and socialism is gaining ground...
In a stunning new poll released by Scott Rasmussen, the pollster asked a simple question, "Which is a better system -- capitalism or socialism?" In response, only 53% of American adults said capitalism. Yes, that's a majority, but this is America, right? The number should be much higher.
Twenty percent of the respondents said socialism is better, while 27% were not sure. Not sure? Do these people have no grasp of the countries that have turned to socialism? Check out a classic video by economist Milton Freidman: Milton Freidman
What is really scary is to look at poll results below the surface. As Rasmussen tells us in his report, adults under 30 are "essentially divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided." This is truly frightening. For those under 30, it's basically a toss up? Capitalism, socialism... socialism, capitalism... who cares? That is the attitude, and it's one that will drive this country to ruin.
When looking at the poll results from a partisan perspective the differences are clear. As Rasmussen notes, "Republicans -- by an 11-to-1 margin -- favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism."
It seems clear to me that many people simply don't understand what they are asking for. In their zeal to turn away from Republicans for their broken promises of less spending and smaller government, they turned to a group of leaders bent on destroying the foundations of America. Now, we have a president who wants to spend, tax, institute social programs, and tell the world that America is not so special. And we have a Congress that is more than willing to help.
In a well-written piece published in 1999 by the Heritage Foundation, author Balint Vazsonyi does a terrific job explaining the American way and the path to socialism. Vazsonyi describes the "Constitutional compass" which has the following four points: Rule of Law, Individual Rights, Guarantee of Property, and Common Identity.
Here is how it works. Every time somebody proposes a new law, a new statute, or an executive order, you ask whether it passes muster when held against the standard of the Four Points. The answers are easy, because either they do or they don't. If they don't, then they have no place in the United States of America. Without that compass, what would make us American?
Vazsonyi goes on to describe "the other compass," one that is being seen more and more in American society. It is one in which the four points of the Constitutional compass give way to four others: "the pursuit of social justice; instead of individual rights, it promotes group rights; instead of the guarantee of property, it advocates redistribution through entitlements; and in place of our common American identity, it favors what it calls multiculturalism."
The new compass, comprised of social justice, group rights, redistribution, and multiculturalism has a name, and that name is socialism.
Socialism, I believe, is the appropriate, scholarly, utterly unemotional designation of a grand philosophical idea in Western civilization. Ever since Descartes started thinking about thinking, and other French philosophers followed in the 18th century, and then Germans picked it up where the French had left off, socialism has been in the making. For a long time, then, socialism has been with us as "the other grand idea" of Western civilization, and it will remain with us as long as there is an "us."
It deserves to be taken seriously, and it needs to be engaged on philosophical grounds. In every sense of the word, it holds the opposite view of everything this country was built on.
Investors Business Daily also recently put out a poll showing the numbers of Americans who embrace a socialistic agenda. With the government and the media bombarding Americans on the virtue of income redistribution, government-run health care, and on and on, it's now wonder this mindset is starting to sink in.
We have to do a better job of letting America know what the "American way" really is and reveal the true agenda of Obama and his cohorts. As Vazsonyi notes in his report, "Millions of ordinary Americans appear to have accepted, and to be promoting, the socialist agenda. There is every reason to believe that many minds would be changed if they were brought face-to-face with socialism as the doctrine they are following and advocating."
I can't help but be sad and frustrated that the Republicans helped contribute to the state we are in now. People are turning to socialism simply because they wanted "change." Yet, they have no idea what that change really means. The Republicans were in control and had the opportunity to really set forward a conservative agenda that is based on the principle of capitalism. Yet the lure of big government and power stalled the movement. Policies that gave us even more spending and more government were the result.
We are at a crossroads, and we must fight to get America back on track. The American way is not an easy way. No one ever said it was. It's not about what the government can give you. The government can't give a person ANYTHING that it does not first take away from someone else. The American way is about respecting the rights of the individual and promoting an economic and political system that has opportunity for all. Obama may be ashamed of that America, but it's the America I believe in. Don't you?
America is a great nation, not by luck or chance or geography, but because of the American spirit... the belief that we can accomplish anything if we work hard. Those who fought to create this new country believed in limited government with unlimited potential for its citizens. Capitalism was the key. By letting free markets work and keeping government out of the way, Americans have the opportunity to grow as much as their drive, determination, and intellect will take them. That is the American way.
As we all know, the American way is under attack. It is under attack not from organizations like Al Qaeda or the Taliban and not from countries like Russia or China. It is under attack from within... from those elements that seek to bring America down through socialist policies. With the combination of liberal bombardment at most of America's universities, a left-wing media, and a federal government led by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, we face a challenge like never before. It is socialism vs. capitalism, and socialism is gaining ground...
In a stunning new poll released by Scott Rasmussen, the pollster asked a simple question, "Which is a better system -- capitalism or socialism?" In response, only 53% of American adults said capitalism. Yes, that's a majority, but this is America, right? The number should be much higher.
Twenty percent of the respondents said socialism is better, while 27% were not sure. Not sure? Do these people have no grasp of the countries that have turned to socialism? Check out a classic video by economist Milton Freidman: Milton Freidman
What is really scary is to look at poll results below the surface. As Rasmussen tells us in his report, adults under 30 are "essentially divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided." This is truly frightening. For those under 30, it's basically a toss up? Capitalism, socialism... socialism, capitalism... who cares? That is the attitude, and it's one that will drive this country to ruin.
When looking at the poll results from a partisan perspective the differences are clear. As Rasmussen notes, "Republicans -- by an 11-to-1 margin -- favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism."
It seems clear to me that many people simply don't understand what they are asking for. In their zeal to turn away from Republicans for their broken promises of less spending and smaller government, they turned to a group of leaders bent on destroying the foundations of America. Now, we have a president who wants to spend, tax, institute social programs, and tell the world that America is not so special. And we have a Congress that is more than willing to help.
In a well-written piece published in 1999 by the Heritage Foundation, author Balint Vazsonyi does a terrific job explaining the American way and the path to socialism. Vazsonyi describes the "Constitutional compass" which has the following four points: Rule of Law, Individual Rights, Guarantee of Property, and Common Identity.
Here is how it works. Every time somebody proposes a new law, a new statute, or an executive order, you ask whether it passes muster when held against the standard of the Four Points. The answers are easy, because either they do or they don't. If they don't, then they have no place in the United States of America. Without that compass, what would make us American?
Vazsonyi goes on to describe "the other compass," one that is being seen more and more in American society. It is one in which the four points of the Constitutional compass give way to four others: "the pursuit of social justice; instead of individual rights, it promotes group rights; instead of the guarantee of property, it advocates redistribution through entitlements; and in place of our common American identity, it favors what it calls multiculturalism."
The new compass, comprised of social justice, group rights, redistribution, and multiculturalism has a name, and that name is socialism.
Socialism, I believe, is the appropriate, scholarly, utterly unemotional designation of a grand philosophical idea in Western civilization. Ever since Descartes started thinking about thinking, and other French philosophers followed in the 18th century, and then Germans picked it up where the French had left off, socialism has been in the making. For a long time, then, socialism has been with us as "the other grand idea" of Western civilization, and it will remain with us as long as there is an "us."
It deserves to be taken seriously, and it needs to be engaged on philosophical grounds. In every sense of the word, it holds the opposite view of everything this country was built on.
Investors Business Daily also recently put out a poll showing the numbers of Americans who embrace a socialistic agenda. With the government and the media bombarding Americans on the virtue of income redistribution, government-run health care, and on and on, it's now wonder this mindset is starting to sink in.
We have to do a better job of letting America know what the "American way" really is and reveal the true agenda of Obama and his cohorts. As Vazsonyi notes in his report, "Millions of ordinary Americans appear to have accepted, and to be promoting, the socialist agenda. There is every reason to believe that many minds would be changed if they were brought face-to-face with socialism as the doctrine they are following and advocating."
I can't help but be sad and frustrated that the Republicans helped contribute to the state we are in now. People are turning to socialism simply because they wanted "change." Yet, they have no idea what that change really means. The Republicans were in control and had the opportunity to really set forward a conservative agenda that is based on the principle of capitalism. Yet the lure of big government and power stalled the movement. Policies that gave us even more spending and more government were the result.
We are at a crossroads, and we must fight to get America back on track. The American way is not an easy way. No one ever said it was. It's not about what the government can give you. The government can't give a person ANYTHING that it does not first take away from someone else. The American way is about respecting the rights of the individual and promoting an economic and political system that has opportunity for all. Obama may be ashamed of that America, but it's the America I believe in. Don't you?
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Rick Warren disavows support for Prop. 8
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 4/8/2009 7:00:00 AM
California mega-church pastor and author of The Purpose Driven Life Rick Warren says he apologized to his homosexual friends for making comments in support of California's Proposition 8, and now claims he "never once even gave an endorsement" of the marriage amendment.
Monday night on CNN's Larry King Live, Pastor Rick Warren apologized for his support of Prop. 8, California's voter-approved marriage protection amendment, saying he has "never been and never will be" an "anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist."
"During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never -- never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop. 8 was going," Warren claimed. "The week before the -- the vote, somebody in my church said, 'Pastor Rick, what -- what do you think about this?' And I sent a note to my own members that said, I actually believe that marriage is -- really should be defined, that that definition should be -- say between a man and a woman."
However, just two weeks before the November 4 Prop. 8 vote, Pastor Warren issued a clear endorsement of the marriage amendment while speaking to church members. "We support Proposition 8 -- and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8," he said.
The following is a complete transcript of Warren's comments just weeks before the Prop. 8 election:
"The election's coming just in a couple of weeks, and I hope you're praying about your vote. One of the propositions, of course, that I want to mention is Proposition 8, which is the proposition that had to be instituted because the courts threw out the will of the people. And a court of four guys actually voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for 5,000 years.
"Now let me say this really clearly: we support Proposition 8 -- and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues I come out very clear.
"This is one thing, friends, that all politicians tend to agree on. Both Barack Obama and John McCain, I flat-out asked both of them: what is your definition of marriage? And they both said the same thing -- it is the traditional, historic, universal definition of marriage: one man and one woman, for life. And every culture for 5,000 years, and every religion for 5,000 years, has said the definition of marriage is between one man and a woman.
"Now here's an interesting thing. There are about two percent of Americans [who] are homosexual or gay/lesbian people. We should not let two percent of the population determine to change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years.
"This is not even just a Christian issue -- it's a humanitarian and human issue that God created marriage for the purpose of family, love, and procreation.
"So I urge you to support Proposition 8, and pass that word on. I'm going to be sending out a note to pastors on what I believe about this. But everybody knows what I believe about it. They heard me at the Civil Forum when I asked both Obama and McCain on their views."
During his CNN interview on Monday, Warren expressed regret for backing Prop. 8. "There were a number of things that were put out. I wrote to all my gay friends -- the leaders that I knew -- and actually apologized to them. That never got out," he admitted.
Additionally, Pastor Warren said he did not want to comment on or criticize the Iowa Supreme Court's decision last week to legalize same-sex "marriage" because it was "not his agenda."
Bryan Fischer with the Idaho Values Alliance says Warren is abdicating his biblical role as a pastor. "For Pastor Warren to say that shoring up marriage is not something that's on his agenda is just something that's hard to believe for somebody who believes the Bible is our rule for faith and practice," Fischer notes.
Dr. Jim Garlow, the senior pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in the San Diego suburb of La Mesa, helped spearhead the Prop. 8 effort in California. Garlow admits he is confused and troubled by Pastor Warren's decision to apologize for supporting Prop. 8
"Historically when institutions and individuals back away from convictional biblical truth, it is driven primarily by one single factor -- and that is the respectability of other people. In other words, much more caring about what other people think about them than what God thinks about them," he concludes.
Pastor Warren did not respond to a request from OneNewsNow for an interview.
California mega-church pastor and author of The Purpose Driven Life Rick Warren says he apologized to his homosexual friends for making comments in support of California's Proposition 8, and now claims he "never once even gave an endorsement" of the marriage amendment.
Monday night on CNN's Larry King Live, Pastor Rick Warren apologized for his support of Prop. 8, California's voter-approved marriage protection amendment, saying he has "never been and never will be" an "anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist."
"During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never -- never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop. 8 was going," Warren claimed. "The week before the -- the vote, somebody in my church said, 'Pastor Rick, what -- what do you think about this?' And I sent a note to my own members that said, I actually believe that marriage is -- really should be defined, that that definition should be -- say between a man and a woman."
However, just two weeks before the November 4 Prop. 8 vote, Pastor Warren issued a clear endorsement of the marriage amendment while speaking to church members. "We support Proposition 8 -- and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8," he said.
The following is a complete transcript of Warren's comments just weeks before the Prop. 8 election:
"The election's coming just in a couple of weeks, and I hope you're praying about your vote. One of the propositions, of course, that I want to mention is Proposition 8, which is the proposition that had to be instituted because the courts threw out the will of the people. And a court of four guys actually voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for 5,000 years.
"Now let me say this really clearly: we support Proposition 8 -- and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues I come out very clear.
"This is one thing, friends, that all politicians tend to agree on. Both Barack Obama and John McCain, I flat-out asked both of them: what is your definition of marriage? And they both said the same thing -- it is the traditional, historic, universal definition of marriage: one man and one woman, for life. And every culture for 5,000 years, and every religion for 5,000 years, has said the definition of marriage is between one man and a woman.
"Now here's an interesting thing. There are about two percent of Americans [who] are homosexual or gay/lesbian people. We should not let two percent of the population determine to change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years.
"This is not even just a Christian issue -- it's a humanitarian and human issue that God created marriage for the purpose of family, love, and procreation.
"So I urge you to support Proposition 8, and pass that word on. I'm going to be sending out a note to pastors on what I believe about this. But everybody knows what I believe about it. They heard me at the Civil Forum when I asked both Obama and McCain on their views."
During his CNN interview on Monday, Warren expressed regret for backing Prop. 8. "There were a number of things that were put out. I wrote to all my gay friends -- the leaders that I knew -- and actually apologized to them. That never got out," he admitted.
Additionally, Pastor Warren said he did not want to comment on or criticize the Iowa Supreme Court's decision last week to legalize same-sex "marriage" because it was "not his agenda."
Bryan Fischer with the Idaho Values Alliance says Warren is abdicating his biblical role as a pastor. "For Pastor Warren to say that shoring up marriage is not something that's on his agenda is just something that's hard to believe for somebody who believes the Bible is our rule for faith and practice," Fischer notes.
Dr. Jim Garlow, the senior pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in the San Diego suburb of La Mesa, helped spearhead the Prop. 8 effort in California. Garlow admits he is confused and troubled by Pastor Warren's decision to apologize for supporting Prop. 8
"Historically when institutions and individuals back away from convictional biblical truth, it is driven primarily by one single factor -- and that is the respectability of other people. In other words, much more caring about what other people think about them than what God thinks about them," he concludes.
Pastor Warren did not respond to a request from OneNewsNow for an interview.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
