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.
Monday, April 13, 2009
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.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
A deafening, partisan silence
Tim Wildmon - Guest Columnist - 3/31/2009 7:50:00 AM
Do you remember a few short years back when Trent Lott was forced to resign his position as Senate majority leader? Lott joked at a private birthday party for aging colleague Strom Thurmond, saying that the country would have been better off had Thurmond been elected president when he was a younger man. But because Thurmond was a segregationist in his earlier years, as were so many politicians who later saw the error of their ways, the liberal media took from that joke that Lott was saying America would have been better off without civil rights for black Americans. Within a day, civil rights groups and the Democrats were calling for Lott to resign. Just a short time later, Lott's own party joined the chorus and so he did, in fact, step down as the leader of the Senate.
What Lott said, with a long reach, could have been construed as insensitive by opportunists, I suppose. But, honestly, what he was doing was simply paying an old man a kind word at his birthday party. He meant no harm towards anyone. But Lott was demonized by the press and treated as if he was a pariah after that.
Contrast that with what President Barack Obama said on national television a couple of weeks back. He was on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno when the subject of the bowling alley at the White House came up. Talking about his lack of bowling skills, Obama made this remark about his game: "It was like Special Olympics or something." And the studio audience laughed heartily.
And the liberal media and Democratic Party leaders had this reaction: Insert sound of crickets here.
Here you had the president of the United States comparing himself in a comical way to developmentally disabled children -- in short, making fun of their awkward physical movements which they can't help -- and no one in the liberal media or the Democratic Party wants their pound of flesh? Why the silence?
It should be noted that the president did call the head of the Special Olympics from Air Force One on the way back to Washington and apologized for his insensitive remarks.
Did Obama intend anything malicious towards Special Olympics participants? No, he did not. It was just an off-the-cuff remark that he should not have made -- especially on national television and especially when he is president.
So Obama gets a pass for his insensitive gaffe where millions of people are watching, a one-day news story -- yet Lott gets hounded for weeks and all but gets run out of town for an innocent remark he made at a man's private birthday party?
So blatant is the mainstream media's affection for Barack Obama that some have called this era the end of traditional journalism. Emmy Award-winning journalist Bernard Goldberg, whom I had the opportunity to interview on radio recently, has a best-selling book out titled A Slobbering Love Affair: The True and (Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media, which documents this in great detail. Goldberg is not a political conservative, but found offensive and unprofessional the manner in which his colleagues have been in bed with liberal politicians, especially Obama. Traditional journalism teaches that the news media should play the role of "watchdog" of politicians and the government, regardless of which political party happens to be in power.
Can you imagine what would have happened to President Bush had he gone on 60 Minutes and laughed out loud when asked about the terrible condition of our economy as Obama did? The interviewer even asked Obama if he was "punch drunk." If that had been a Republican president, the New York Times headline would have read: "Devil Bush Laughs in Face of Suffering Americans."
How about the fact that Obama bashed Bush unmercifully about the war in Iraq and promised emphatically to bring the troops home in 16 months? Then when he gets elected, he changes to 18 months and says he will leave as many as 50,000 troops in Iraq. Leaving 50,000 troops, a third of what we have now, is not ending the war. He is doing nothing more that what President Bush would have done -- specifically, listening to his commanders on the ground. Do we hear a hue and cry from the liberal media about this? No, we hear more crickets.
The one positive in America today is that we have alternative news sources like OneNewsNow.com in what was once an industry controlled by just a few big agencies. Because the national mainstream news media will not be scrutinizing the Obama administration in the same way they would any other president because they are his political and ideological soul mates. And that is not good for our democratic process or for traditional journalism in America.
Do you remember a few short years back when Trent Lott was forced to resign his position as Senate majority leader? Lott joked at a private birthday party for aging colleague Strom Thurmond, saying that the country would have been better off had Thurmond been elected president when he was a younger man. But because Thurmond was a segregationist in his earlier years, as were so many politicians who later saw the error of their ways, the liberal media took from that joke that Lott was saying America would have been better off without civil rights for black Americans. Within a day, civil rights groups and the Democrats were calling for Lott to resign. Just a short time later, Lott's own party joined the chorus and so he did, in fact, step down as the leader of the Senate.
What Lott said, with a long reach, could have been construed as insensitive by opportunists, I suppose. But, honestly, what he was doing was simply paying an old man a kind word at his birthday party. He meant no harm towards anyone. But Lott was demonized by the press and treated as if he was a pariah after that.
Contrast that with what President Barack Obama said on national television a couple of weeks back. He was on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno when the subject of the bowling alley at the White House came up. Talking about his lack of bowling skills, Obama made this remark about his game: "It was like Special Olympics or something." And the studio audience laughed heartily.
And the liberal media and Democratic Party leaders had this reaction: Insert sound of crickets here.
Here you had the president of the United States comparing himself in a comical way to developmentally disabled children -- in short, making fun of their awkward physical movements which they can't help -- and no one in the liberal media or the Democratic Party wants their pound of flesh? Why the silence?
It should be noted that the president did call the head of the Special Olympics from Air Force One on the way back to Washington and apologized for his insensitive remarks.
Did Obama intend anything malicious towards Special Olympics participants? No, he did not. It was just an off-the-cuff remark that he should not have made -- especially on national television and especially when he is president.
So Obama gets a pass for his insensitive gaffe where millions of people are watching, a one-day news story -- yet Lott gets hounded for weeks and all but gets run out of town for an innocent remark he made at a man's private birthday party?
So blatant is the mainstream media's affection for Barack Obama that some have called this era the end of traditional journalism. Emmy Award-winning journalist Bernard Goldberg, whom I had the opportunity to interview on radio recently, has a best-selling book out titled A Slobbering Love Affair: The True and (Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media, which documents this in great detail. Goldberg is not a political conservative, but found offensive and unprofessional the manner in which his colleagues have been in bed with liberal politicians, especially Obama. Traditional journalism teaches that the news media should play the role of "watchdog" of politicians and the government, regardless of which political party happens to be in power.
Can you imagine what would have happened to President Bush had he gone on 60 Minutes and laughed out loud when asked about the terrible condition of our economy as Obama did? The interviewer even asked Obama if he was "punch drunk." If that had been a Republican president, the New York Times headline would have read: "Devil Bush Laughs in Face of Suffering Americans."
How about the fact that Obama bashed Bush unmercifully about the war in Iraq and promised emphatically to bring the troops home in 16 months? Then when he gets elected, he changes to 18 months and says he will leave as many as 50,000 troops in Iraq. Leaving 50,000 troops, a third of what we have now, is not ending the war. He is doing nothing more that what President Bush would have done -- specifically, listening to his commanders on the ground. Do we hear a hue and cry from the liberal media about this? No, we hear more crickets.
The one positive in America today is that we have alternative news sources like OneNewsNow.com in what was once an industry controlled by just a few big agencies. Because the national mainstream news media will not be scrutinizing the Obama administration in the same way they would any other president because they are his political and ideological soul mates. And that is not good for our democratic process or for traditional journalism in America.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Lights go out on Saturday in carbon-conscious cities
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 3/27/2009 6:00:00 AM
Mississippi is joining the ranks of states whose cities are observing Earth Hour.
Select businesses and government buildings in Tupelo will be dimming their lights in observation of Earth Hour this coming Saturday at 8:30 p.m. local time. Tupelo will be joining cities around the world that have pledged to participate in this event designed to curb carbon emissions and bring awareness to so-called "manmade global warming."
Travis Hunsicker is the sustainability director for Tupelo and the main organizer of the local event. OneNewsNow asked Hunsicker what his stance was on the issue of climate change.
"Um, really, I steer clear of the subject in general, to be honest with you. It's a very sensitive issue -- and scientists, whether it's the [IPCC] or here locally, I haven't read a concise report that declares that climate change is as serious as the media makes it out to be," he admits. "Now it may have adverse effects 10-to-15 years down the road. But like I said, that's not my expertise."
Seeking out a city leader who might have an understanding of the issue, OneNewsNow asked Tupelo Mayor Ed Neely -- who fully supports the upcoming local observance -- about his stance on climate change. "Uh, I think anything that affects our environment is a big issue," Neely says. "I'm not smart enough to know the answers about global warming."
To get some answers, OneNewsNow turned to the country that started Earth Hour -- Australia. Viv Forbes, chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, says the notion that carbon dioxide is dangerous and needs to be curbed is ridiculous.
"All of [the manmade global warming theory] is based on computer modeling. It's not based on science; it's not based on observed past records; it's not based on observed relationships. It's based on computer models," he contends. "And the models are based on assumptions -- and guess who puts the assumptions in?"
For those who are skeptical about manmade global warming, an alternative celebration is being held during Earth Hour. That event, called Human Achievement Hour, is designed to celebrate the technological achievements of mankind that have improved the quality of life for humans. Participants of Human Achievement Hour will celebrate by reading by electric lights, using their cars to go out to eat and watch movies, and enjoying an evening with their families while keeping the lights on.
Michelle Minton is a policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which initiated Human Achievement Hour.
"And now the way I looked at Earth Hour, when you boil it down, is that it is not so much pro-earth as it is anti-man, anti-industrialism, [and] anti-human achievement," she notes. "So we wanted to point out the hypocrisy of this one-hour event by having our own event in which we appreciate the things that are the products of human innovation like lights, television, radio, cars -- all these things that we consider to make life easier to live."
However, Viv Forbes believes Earth Hour is a necessary event.
"Earth Hour, it's got another benefit. It's going to let people know what the future may hold because if we persist in trying to generate our electricity from windmills and solar panels, we are going to go into a world of brown-outs and black-outs," he says. "And every night at 8:30, when everybody turns on their coffee machine to make a coffee, the lights will go out. Because they might not have noticed, but there is no power from the sun at 8:30 at night. It's usually quiet and there is no power from the wind either. So Earth Hour is a good dose of what the future may hold."
Mississippi is joining the ranks of states whose cities are observing Earth Hour.
Select businesses and government buildings in Tupelo will be dimming their lights in observation of Earth Hour this coming Saturday at 8:30 p.m. local time. Tupelo will be joining cities around the world that have pledged to participate in this event designed to curb carbon emissions and bring awareness to so-called "manmade global warming."
Travis Hunsicker is the sustainability director for Tupelo and the main organizer of the local event. OneNewsNow asked Hunsicker what his stance was on the issue of climate change.
"Um, really, I steer clear of the subject in general, to be honest with you. It's a very sensitive issue -- and scientists, whether it's the [IPCC] or here locally, I haven't read a concise report that declares that climate change is as serious as the media makes it out to be," he admits. "Now it may have adverse effects 10-to-15 years down the road. But like I said, that's not my expertise."
Seeking out a city leader who might have an understanding of the issue, OneNewsNow asked Tupelo Mayor Ed Neely -- who fully supports the upcoming local observance -- about his stance on climate change. "Uh, I think anything that affects our environment is a big issue," Neely says. "I'm not smart enough to know the answers about global warming."
To get some answers, OneNewsNow turned to the country that started Earth Hour -- Australia. Viv Forbes, chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, says the notion that carbon dioxide is dangerous and needs to be curbed is ridiculous.
"All of [the manmade global warming theory] is based on computer modeling. It's not based on science; it's not based on observed past records; it's not based on observed relationships. It's based on computer models," he contends. "And the models are based on assumptions -- and guess who puts the assumptions in?"
For those who are skeptical about manmade global warming, an alternative celebration is being held during Earth Hour. That event, called Human Achievement Hour, is designed to celebrate the technological achievements of mankind that have improved the quality of life for humans. Participants of Human Achievement Hour will celebrate by reading by electric lights, using their cars to go out to eat and watch movies, and enjoying an evening with their families while keeping the lights on.
Michelle Minton is a policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which initiated Human Achievement Hour.
"And now the way I looked at Earth Hour, when you boil it down, is that it is not so much pro-earth as it is anti-man, anti-industrialism, [and] anti-human achievement," she notes. "So we wanted to point out the hypocrisy of this one-hour event by having our own event in which we appreciate the things that are the products of human innovation like lights, television, radio, cars -- all these things that we consider to make life easier to live."
However, Viv Forbes believes Earth Hour is a necessary event.
"Earth Hour, it's got another benefit. It's going to let people know what the future may hold because if we persist in trying to generate our electricity from windmills and solar panels, we are going to go into a world of brown-outs and black-outs," he says. "And every night at 8:30, when everybody turns on their coffee machine to make a coffee, the lights will go out. Because they might not have noticed, but there is no power from the sun at 8:30 at night. It's usually quiet and there is no power from the wind either. So Earth Hour is a good dose of what the future may hold."
Thursday, March 19, 2009
On April 15, be part of the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party rally in your community
What a terrifically clever idea...
On the day you pay your taxes, Wednesday, April 15, join others across the country and in your hometown who will be participating in TEA party rallies in front of their city halls. The TEA party rally will begin at 12 noon.
Are you fed up with a Congress and a president who:
vote for a $500 billion tax bill without even reading it?
are spending trillions of borrowed dollars, leaving a debt our great-grandchildren will be paying?
consistently give special interest groups billions of dollars in earmarks to help get themselves re-elected?
want to take your wealth and redistribute it to others?
punish those who practice responsible financial behavior and reward those who do not?
admit to using the financial hurt of millions as an opportunity to push their political agenda?
run up trillions of dollars of debt and then sell that debt to countries such as China?
want government controlled health care?
want to take away the right to vote with a secret ballot in union elections?
refuse to stop the flow of millions of illegal immigrants into our country?
appoint a defender of child pornography to the Number 2 position in the Justice Department?
want to force doctors and other medical workers to perform abortions against their will?
want to impose a carbon tax on your electricity, gas and home heating fuels?
want to reduce your tax deductibility for charitable gifts?
take money from your family budget to pay for their federal budget?
If so, participate in the TEA party rally, the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party.
Bring your cell phone and call Congress and the president while attending the TEA party rally (Representative and Senators, 202-224-3121; President, 202-456-1414). Tell Every American about this effort by forwarding this invitation to your friends. Together we can make a difference.
On the day you pay your taxes, Wednesday, April 15, join others across the country and in your hometown who will be participating in TEA party rallies in front of their city halls. The TEA party rally will begin at 12 noon.
Are you fed up with a Congress and a president who:
vote for a $500 billion tax bill without even reading it?
are spending trillions of borrowed dollars, leaving a debt our great-grandchildren will be paying?
consistently give special interest groups billions of dollars in earmarks to help get themselves re-elected?
want to take your wealth and redistribute it to others?
punish those who practice responsible financial behavior and reward those who do not?
admit to using the financial hurt of millions as an opportunity to push their political agenda?
run up trillions of dollars of debt and then sell that debt to countries such as China?
want government controlled health care?
want to take away the right to vote with a secret ballot in union elections?
refuse to stop the flow of millions of illegal immigrants into our country?
appoint a defender of child pornography to the Number 2 position in the Justice Department?
want to force doctors and other medical workers to perform abortions against their will?
want to impose a carbon tax on your electricity, gas and home heating fuels?
want to reduce your tax deductibility for charitable gifts?
take money from your family budget to pay for their federal budget?
If so, participate in the TEA party rally, the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party.
Bring your cell phone and call Congress and the president while attending the TEA party rally (Representative and Senators, 202-224-3121; President, 202-456-1414). Tell Every American about this effort by forwarding this invitation to your friends. Together we can make a difference.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Bucking the media trend on global warming 'crisis'
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 3/9/2009 8:15:00 AM
NEW YORK CITY - Speakers at a conference on climate change are making the case that the alarmism behind the global-warming bandwagon is politically motivated, has nothing to do with science, and could affect the sovereignty of the U.S.
The second annual International Conference on Climate Change hosted by The Heartland Institute is well under way in New York City. More than 700 registrants have gathered in the Big Apple to hear more than 70 scientists -- representing the views of tens of thousands of their colleagues -- make the argument that media and environmental advocacy groups have it all wrong, that global warming is not a crisis.
One of the headlining speakers to open the event Sunday evening was European Union and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, who was welcomed with a standing ovation. Klaus, one of the most outspoken critics of manmade global warming in Europe, says those who propagate global-warming hysteria are like the communists of old Europe. Like global-warming alarmists, he stated, the communists did not listen to opposing views.
"They didn't even try to argue back," said Klaus. "They considered you a naïve, uninformed and confused person, an eccentric complainer....It is very similar now."
Klaus believes that politicians who propagate global warming hysteria only have one goal in mind: control of the public. "It is evident that the environmentalists don't want to change the climate," he said. "They want to change our behavior...to control and manipulate us."
And he warns that those same politicians wish to engage in energy rationing -- all because of a problem that he believes does not exist. Klaus concluded his speech with this remark.
"The environmentalists speak about saving the planet. We have to ask -- From what? And from whom?" said the EU leader. "I think I know [those answers] for sure. We have to save the planet, and us, from them."
Opposition an 'uphill battle' (audio report)
Dr. Richard Lindzen, who has been Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT for over 25 years, was one of the keynote speakers on the opening day. He said global warming hysteria is more about a political agenda and has nothing to do with science.
"I think [there is] one point you should notice as one discusses the science, and that is that global warming alarm -- as far as I can tell -- has always been a political movement, a highly organized one," Lindzen observed. "And although it took me a while to realize this, opposing it has always been an uphill battle."
The MIT professor, one of the world's most respected atmospheric physicists, said that many of his good friends and colleagues have subscribed to global warming alarmism because they either fear for their jobs or see it as a way to get funding for scientific projects. He also discussed the use of supposed "climate models," and quipped that as scientists debate intelligent design, climate models are an example of "unintelligent design."
Lindzen contends that climate models are being fed erroneous information in order to get the results that global-warming alarmists want.
Throwing money away (audio report)
Dr. Michael Coffman is the CEO of Sovereignty International, a U.N. watchdog organization. During an interview at the conference with OneNewsNow, he explained that the basis of his skepticism regarding global warming comes from research he himself has conducted.
"During the 1980s and early 1990s, I lead a multimillion-dollar research effort on global warming and found that the data that was being collected just didn't support the hypothesis that man was causing global warming," says Coffman.
Therefore he concludes that any money thrown at fixing the alleged problem is a waste.
"Any amount of money that we spend on it is not going to change any temperatures whatsoever," he observes, arguing that every family in America will be affected. "Because depending upon what legislation is passed, it will actually cause every American family to spend at least two- to five-thousand dollars more a year...to try to support this effort to curb carbon-dioxide emissions."
Coffman warns that politicians are moving towards having an international tribunal established which will regulate carbon emissions.
"Which means basically since carbon dioxide is involved in all elements of business in the United States, ...whoever does this controls the economy of the United States, and therefore our sovereignty," he cautions.
Later Monday a keynote speaker from Congress will be discussing the political aspect of global warming in greater detail.
NEW YORK CITY - Speakers at a conference on climate change are making the case that the alarmism behind the global-warming bandwagon is politically motivated, has nothing to do with science, and could affect the sovereignty of the U.S.
The second annual International Conference on Climate Change hosted by The Heartland Institute is well under way in New York City. More than 700 registrants have gathered in the Big Apple to hear more than 70 scientists -- representing the views of tens of thousands of their colleagues -- make the argument that media and environmental advocacy groups have it all wrong, that global warming is not a crisis.
One of the headlining speakers to open the event Sunday evening was European Union and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, who was welcomed with a standing ovation. Klaus, one of the most outspoken critics of manmade global warming in Europe, says those who propagate global-warming hysteria are like the communists of old Europe. Like global-warming alarmists, he stated, the communists did not listen to opposing views.
"They didn't even try to argue back," said Klaus. "They considered you a naïve, uninformed and confused person, an eccentric complainer....It is very similar now."
Klaus believes that politicians who propagate global warming hysteria only have one goal in mind: control of the public. "It is evident that the environmentalists don't want to change the climate," he said. "They want to change our behavior...to control and manipulate us."
And he warns that those same politicians wish to engage in energy rationing -- all because of a problem that he believes does not exist. Klaus concluded his speech with this remark.
"The environmentalists speak about saving the planet. We have to ask -- From what? And from whom?" said the EU leader. "I think I know [those answers] for sure. We have to save the planet, and us, from them."
Opposition an 'uphill battle' (audio report)
Dr. Richard Lindzen, who has been Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT for over 25 years, was one of the keynote speakers on the opening day. He said global warming hysteria is more about a political agenda and has nothing to do with science.
"I think [there is] one point you should notice as one discusses the science, and that is that global warming alarm -- as far as I can tell -- has always been a political movement, a highly organized one," Lindzen observed. "And although it took me a while to realize this, opposing it has always been an uphill battle."
The MIT professor, one of the world's most respected atmospheric physicists, said that many of his good friends and colleagues have subscribed to global warming alarmism because they either fear for their jobs or see it as a way to get funding for scientific projects. He also discussed the use of supposed "climate models," and quipped that as scientists debate intelligent design, climate models are an example of "unintelligent design."
Lindzen contends that climate models are being fed erroneous information in order to get the results that global-warming alarmists want.
Throwing money away (audio report)
Dr. Michael Coffman is the CEO of Sovereignty International, a U.N. watchdog organization. During an interview at the conference with OneNewsNow, he explained that the basis of his skepticism regarding global warming comes from research he himself has conducted.
"During the 1980s and early 1990s, I lead a multimillion-dollar research effort on global warming and found that the data that was being collected just didn't support the hypothesis that man was causing global warming," says Coffman.
Therefore he concludes that any money thrown at fixing the alleged problem is a waste.
"Any amount of money that we spend on it is not going to change any temperatures whatsoever," he observes, arguing that every family in America will be affected. "Because depending upon what legislation is passed, it will actually cause every American family to spend at least two- to five-thousand dollars more a year...to try to support this effort to curb carbon-dioxide emissions."
Coffman warns that politicians are moving towards having an international tribunal established which will regulate carbon emissions.
"Which means basically since carbon dioxide is involved in all elements of business in the United States, ...whoever does this controls the economy of the United States, and therefore our sovereignty," he cautions.
Later Monday a keynote speaker from Congress will be discussing the political aspect of global warming in greater detail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
