News
All posts tagged News
You just might be interested in knowing that ‘Since the founding, Turning Point USA has embarked on a mission to build the most organized, active, and powerful conservative grassroots activist network on college campuses across the country. With a presence on over 1,000 college campuses and high schools across the country, Turning Point USA is the largest and fastest growing youth organization in America.’ https://www.tpusa.com/aboutus/
However, according to Oklahoma News 4 the ECU president said they had “…moved too quickly” and they “…regret not taking time to pause and thoughtfully consider the request and the results of our actions on all of the students, faculty and community members who we serve.”
‘Pierson said initially the university removed some items to show support for all cultures and religious beliefs. The chapel is used for various religions, student clubs and events.
“This requires a more thoughtful and deliberate approach to the request,” Pierson said. “That will be our next step.”
Pierson said the university will immediately begin convening a committee of students, faculty and community members who represent a diversity of viewpoints to study the issue.
“ECU is committed to diversity and welcomes different perspectives. This is an opportunity to have a thoughtful dialogue,” adds Pierson. “ECU will not take further action, either by putting back the removed items, or by removing further artifacts, including the cross on the steeple, until the committee has had ample time to discuss and establish policies or guidelines for religious expressions in the art, history, architecture, study and areas of worship on campus.”
“Any further actions will be taken after our conversations with the committee and our valued community of students, faculty, alumni and Ada citizens,” Pierson said.’ http://kfor.com/2017/06/30/oklahoma-college-to-remove-crosses-bibles-from-campus-chapel-after-receiving-complaint/
One wonders what a call to prayer from an Islamic minaret does to those in the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State? Also I am waiting for the formation of Americans United for the Separation of Mosque and State?!
With all the hub bub over Confederate monuments, graves etc. it is hard to disagree with the fact that ‘For the ordinary soldiers who fought and died, devotion to the Confederate army did not
arise primarily from a devotion to the institution of slavery (just as most Union soldiers were not fighting primarily to end slavery) but from a devotion to their home states and a sense of honor and duty to defend them from what they considered to be an invading army.’ http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/18/in-defense-of-the-monuments/
If these present day thugs are allowed to continue pushing their agenda all true knowledge of past US history will be totally obliterated and only what the pc leftists deem to be ‘history’ will be allowed. Wake up America!
John Bolton has written that ‘The headlines out of Syria are eye-catching: There are signs the Assad government may
be planning another chemical attack. American pilots have struck forces threatening our allies and shot down a Syrian plane and Iranian-made drones. The probability of direct military confrontation between the U.S. and Russia has risen. Yet the coverage of these incidents and the tactical responses that have been suggested obscure the broader story: The slow-moving campaign against Islamic State is finally nearing its conclusion — yet major, long-range strategic issues remain unresolved.
The real issue isn’t tactical. It is instead the lack of American strategic thinking about the Middle East after Islamic State. Its defeat will leave a regional political vacuum that must be filled somehow. Instead of reflexively repeating President Obama’s errors, the Trump administration should undertake an “agonizing reappraisal,” in the style of John Foster Dulles, to avoid squandering the victory on the ground.
First, the U.S. ought to abandon or substantially reduce its military support for Iraq’s current government. Despite retaining a tripartite veneer of Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Shiite Arabs, the capital is dominated by Shiites loyal to Iran. Today Iraq resembles Eastern Europe in the late 1940s, as the Soviet anaconda tightened its hold. Extending Baghdad’s political and military control into areas retaken from ISIS simply advances Tehran’s power. This cannot be in America’s interest.
Iraq’s Kurds have de facto independence and are on the verge of declaring it de jure. They fight ISIS to facilitate the creation of a greater Kurdistan. Nonetheless, the Kurds, especially in Syria and Turkey, are hardly monolithic. Not all see the U.S. favorably. In Syria, Kurdish forces fighting ISIS are linked to the Marxist PKK in Turkey. They pose a real threat to Turkey’s territorial integrity, even if it may seem less troubling now that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s plans have turned so profoundly contrary to the secular, Western-oriented vision of Kemal Atatürk.
Second, the U.S. should press Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf monarchies for more troops and material assistance in fighting ISIS. America has carried too much of the burden for too long in trying to forge Syria’s opposition into an effective force. Yet even today the opposition could charitably be called “diverse.” It includes undeniably terrorist elements that are often hard to distinguish from the “moderates” the U.S. supports. Getting fresh contributions from Arab allies would rebalance the opposition, which is especially critical if the U.S. turns away, as it should, from reliance on the Iraqi forces dominated by Tehran.
Third, the Trump administration must take a clear-eyed view of Russia’s intervention. The Syrian mixing bowl is where confrontation between American and Russian forces looms. Why is Russia active in this conflict? Because it is aiding its allies: Syria’s President Bashar Assad and Iran’s ayatollahs. Undeniably, Russia is on the wrong side. But Mr. Obama, blind to reality, believed Washington and Moscow shared a common interest in easing the Assad regime out of power. The Trump administration’s new thinking should be oriented toward a clear objective: pushing back these Iranian and Russian gains.
Start with Iran. Tehran is trying to cement an arc of control from its own territory, through Baghdad-controlled Iraq and Mr. Assad’s Syria, to Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon. This would set the stage for the region’s next potential conflict: Iran’s Shiite coalition versus a Saudi-led Sunni alliance.
The U.S.-led coalition, enhanced as suggested above, needs to thwart Iran’s ambitions as ISIS falls. Securing increased forces and financial backing from the regional Arab governments is essential. Their stakes are as high as ours — despite the contretemps between Qatar and Saudi Arabia (and others) — but their participation has lagged. The U.S. has mistakenly filled the gap with Iraqi government forces and Shiite militias.
Washington is kidding itself to think Sunnis will meekly accept rule by Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government or Syria’s Alawite regime. Simply restoring today’s governments in Baghdad and Damascus to their post-World War I boundaries would guarantee renewed support for terrorism and future conflict. I have previously suggested creating a new, secular, demographically Sunni state from territory in western Iraq and eastern Syria. There may well be other solutions, but pining for borders demarcated by Europeans nearly a century ago is not one of them.
At the same time, the U.S. must begin rolling back Russia’s renewed presence and influence in the Middle East. Russia has a new air base at Latakia, Syria, is involved in combat operations, and issues diktats about where American warplanes in the region may fly. For all the allegations about Donald Trump and Russia, the president truly in thrall to Moscow seems to have been Mr. Obama.
Russia’s interference, particularly its axis with Mr. Assad and Tehran’s mullahs, critically threatens the interests of the U.S., Israel and our Arab friends. Mr. Assad almost certainly would have fallen by now without Russia’s (and Iran’s) assistance. Further, Moscow’s support for Tehran shatters any claim of its truly being a partner in fighting radical Islamic terrorism, which got its modern start in Iran’s 1979 revolution. Both Iran and the Assad regime remain terror-sponsoring states, only now they are committing their violence under Russia’s protective umbrella. There is no reason for the U.S. to pursue a strategy that enhances Russia’s influence or that of its surrogates.
As incidents in Syria and Iraq increasingly put American forces at risk, Washington should not get lost in deconfliction negotiations or modest changes in rules of engagement. Instead, the Trump administration should recraft the U.S.-led coalition to ensure that America’s interests, rather than Russia’s or Iran’s, predominate once ISIS is defeated.’ https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10601/post-isis-strategy
The following is a portion of a speech by Michael Goodwin ‘…delivered on April 20, 2017, in Atlanta, Georgia, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar.’
Michael Goodwin
‘I’ve been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner. Today, all that has changed. For that, we can blame the 2016 election or, more accurately, how some news organizations chose to cover it. Among the many firsts, last year’s election gave us the gobsmacking revelation that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale—that most of what you read, watch, and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close.
It’s not exactly breaking news that most journalists lean left. I used to do that myself. I grew up at The New York Times, so I’m familiar with the species. For most of the media, bias grew out of the social revolution of the 1960s and ’70s. Fueled by the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, the media jumped on the anti-authority bandwagon writ large. The deal was sealed with Watergate, when journalism was viewed as more trusted than government—and far more exciting and glamorous. Think Robert Redford in All the President’s Men. Ever since, young people became journalists because they wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, find a Deep Throat, and bring down a president. Of course, most of them only wanted to bring down a Republican president. That’s because liberalism is baked into the journalism cake.
During the years I spent teaching at the Columbia University School of Journalism, I often found myself telling my students that the job of the reporter was “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” I’m not even sure where I first heard that line, but it still captures the way most journalists think about what they do. Translate the first part of that compassionate-sounding idea into the daily decisions about what makes news, and it is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that every person afflicted by something is entitled to help. Or, as liberals like to say, “Government is what we do together.” From there, it’s a short drive to the conclusion that every problem has a government solution.
The rest of that journalistic ethos—“afflict the comfortable”—leads to the knee-jerk support of endless taxation. Somebody has to pay for that government intervention the media loves to demand. In the same vein, and for the same reason, the average reporter will support every conceivable regulation as a way to equalize conditions for the poor. He will also give sympathetic coverage to groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.
A New Dimension
I knew all of this about the media mindset going into the 2016 presidential campaign. But I was still shocked at what happened. This was not naïve liberalism run amok. This was a whole new approach to politics. No one in modern times had seen anything like it. As with grief, there were several stages. In the beginning, Donald Trump’s candidacy was treated as an outlandish publicity stunt, as though he wasn’t a serious candidate and should be treated as a circus act. But television executives quickly made a surprising discovery: the more they put Trump on the air, the higher their ratings climbed. Ratings are money. So news shows started devoting hours and hours simply to pointing the cameras at Trump and letting them run.’ https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/2016-election-demise-journalistic-standards/?appeal_code=MK617EM2&utm_source=housefile&utm_medium=email&utm_content=2016_election_demise_journalistic_standards&utm_campaign=imprimis&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8xC9qvSWV5-xz889Lo2pUynHpbDIeJNdI0N-j9LKB2mTI5Caki20vGUTsvAzQhXcBZKR0gt3XOpDvyC_vrvbTlKbiHlw&_hsmi=53242815
This push for the LGBTQIA agenda will affect all of society and not for the better! All one has to do is see what is happening in the USA with the public restrooms! As one reads in Romans 1: 26, 27 it is “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
No, we are not stating that these who live this lifestyle should be put to death but their lifestyle is against God’s original intentions for man and woman. Therefore what they do in their own home is their business but should not be put forth as natural. It should also be understood that marriage is more than what some flaunt as “love”. Yes, the flying of the LGBTQIA flag in the lobby of the Finance Department has a political agenda and should be addressed.
The following article will (I trust) make you think. Dr. Don Boys writes ‘The allegation is made that present day America has benefited greatly from the slavery of 150 years ago, and consequently it is only reasonable that we should pay the descendants of those who “built this nation.” Hold it. If that is true, then how can
one say that only white Americans have benefited? Haven’t blacks also benefited? After all, American Blacks, as a group, have more money than many of the nations of the world! According to David Horowitz, their income is up to fifty times more than that of Blacks “living in any of the African nations from which they were kidnapped.” So if present-day Whites have benefited from slavery, so have present-day Blacks.
American Blacks had and have incredible opportunities to be successful in our nation for which I am grateful; they have opportunities they would not have had in Africa. It is also a fact that the poorest Black in the roughest U.S. ghetto is many times better off than those Blacks living in totalitarian “nations” in Africa. In fact, if I were a Black, I would thank God that my ancestors were brought here so I would have the privilege to live in such a free country where I had the opportunity to hear the Gospel of Christ instead of living in constant fear of pagan gods, pandemic diseases, predator animals, tribal wars, starvation, cannibals, etc. While the slave trade was horrific and all connected to it were incredible criminals, there are some positive residual effects for which I would be thankful if I were black.
My boyhood hero Booker T. Washington wrote in Up From Slavery, “Then, when we rid ourselves of prejudice, or racial feeling, and look facts in the face, we must acknowledge that, notwithstanding the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery, the ten million Negroes inhabiting this country, who themselves or whose ancestors went through the school of American slavery, are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously, than is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe.”
While we must never slip into the darkness of defending slavery, we must also not veer into the academic crime of inventing history or not revealing the totality of an issue for fear of being thought infamous, incompetent, or ignorant.
It is a fact that the Romans conquered Great Britain (then a gaggle of uncivilized tribes) at an enormous price in savagery; but the basic infrastructure, the foundation for law, and technology that they left behind had much to do with Britain becoming a world-girdling empire upon which it was said, “The sun never sets.”
Julius Caesar invaded Great Britain in 55 and 54 B.C. and installed a local boy as king who was responsible to Rome. Rome permitted the locals to take care of Rome’s business. The empire was ruled from the towns where councils formed of local citizens were responsible for tax-collection and keeping order in the surrounding countryside. It was a masterful plan that worked well for everyone. A great nation was in the making.
While the victims of Roman invasion could not have seen anything positive in the Roman invasion of Great Britain, the present generation would be dishonest or uninformed if the many positive residual benefits were not recognized. The crude villages became replicas of Roman towns with market squares, temples, bathhouses, shopping malls, and hotels. Caesar was very wise to not position foreign overlords to administrate the towns and collect taxes but permitted the locals to rule for them. Everyone was happy as Britain rather quickly morphed into a miniaturized Rome. But Rome was crumbling and under constant attack from pagan tribes and the emperor left Roman soldiers stationed in Britain to fend for themselves. By mid-fifth century, the Roman influence had almost disappeared as the soldiers (not getting paid from Rome) became farmers, laborers, outlaws, and vagabonds in far-away England.
Rome left its mark on Great Britain using their troops (occupied in fighting only 10% of the time) to build water systems, sewage, and sanitation systems, beacons, canals, ports, aqueducts, walls, bridges and roads which are legendary–some even being used today! Even with that, the major contribution of Rome on England was the extent which Roman law played in the development of common law of England and consequently in the United States.
For an Englishman to say that he owes nothing or very little to the Roman invaders (or that they owe him) is foolish and not factual. And for modern Blacks not to recognize that there were major residual effects from slavery is not factual but foolishness and false and has the earmarks of fanaticism.
While no sane person defends slavery, all honest people recognize that modern Blacks are far better off than their ancestors who sat around camp fires with a lifetime threat from cannibals, hunger, pagan religion, and often rival chieftains and slavers.
Yes, Muhammad Ali was right to be delighted his granddaddy “didn’t miss that boat.” Being a rich World Champion boxer was better than sitting around a jungle campfire swatting mosquitos and cuddling with a cobra in a thatched hut.’ http://donboys.cstnews.com/positive-residual-benefits-from-slavery
