OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, left, and Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev display a flag showing the new logo of the renamed Organization of Islamic Cooperation. (Photo: OIC)
(CNSNews.com) – The bloc of mostly Muslim-majority states has a new name and logo but, despite the momentous upheavals across the Arab world, “Palestine” and religious “defamation” continue to top its agenda.
Meeting in Kazakhstan this week, foreign ministers of the 42 year-old Organization of the Islamic Conference endorsed a decision to change its name to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
Also being dropped is the OIC logo featuring a red crescent and the words “Allahu Akhbar” (Allah is greater) in Arabic. In its place is a green crescent, a globe, and a representation of the Ka’aba – the cube-shaped structure in Mecca which Islam says was built by Abraham and Muslims revere as their religion’s most sacred site.
The OIC called the move “a drastic positive change in the performance of the organization to uplift its effectiveness as an international system dealing with political, economic, cultural and social development issues.”
The summit host, Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev, described the OIC as “the U.N. of the Islamic world.”
Despite the rebranding, however, OIC secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu’s speech to the gathering made it clear that the key focus remains unchanged for an organization established in 1969 with “liberating” Jerusalem as its primary goal.
Leading the list of situations around the Islamic world addressed in the speech was the Palestinian issue. Ihsanoglu condemned Israeli policies and appealed for all countries to support an initiative at the U.N. in September to secure recognition of a Palestinian state “on the borders of 1967 with East Jerusalem as its capital.”
The OIC head had more to say on the Palestinian question than he did on any other country situation – the civil wars in Libya and Yemen, political turmoil in Syria and Bahrain, the imminent division of Sudan, the conflict in Afghanistan, or calls for reform from Morocco to Jordan. Iran received not a single mention.
Also receiving much attention at the meeting in Astana was the issue that has dominated OIC activism at the U.N. in recent years – “Islamophobia” and the associated campaign to outlaw religious “defamation.”
Ihsanoglu in his speech reaffirmed that it was “a matter of extreme priority for the OIC.”
“Islamophobia represents a contemporary manifestation of racism and the phenomenon must be addressed in that context,” he added, alluding to the OIC’s drive to amend an existing, binding anti-racism treaty, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, so that it also covers religion.
Should the campaign succeed, the amended convention would place legal restrictions on “matters regarded by followers of any religion or belief as sacred.”
The OIC’s new logo features a green crescent, a globe, and a representation of the Ka’aba – the cube-shaped structure in Mecca which Muslims revere as Islam’s most sacred site. (Image: OIC)
Critics say this would silence legitimate criticism of Islamic teachings and authorities, further endanger non-Muslim minorities, and amount to enforcing blasphemy laws similar to those in place in OIC member state like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
During the meeting in Kazakhstan, an OIC body called the “Islamophobia Observatory” released its fourth annual report, stating that the 12-month period ending in April had seen an increase in the frequency and intensity of “Islamophobic events, acts and utterances.”
With the blessings of Allah (swt) Hizb ut-Tahrir America is pleased to announce its Khilafah Conference 2011, entitled ‘Revolution in the Muslim World: From Tyranny to Triumph’. Insha’Allah the conference will be held on Sunday, June 26th 2011.
For the past few months our attention has been transfixed on the events occurring in the Muslim World. From Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Syria people are rising up against the tyranny that has plagued our Ummah for decades. For months now the Muslim Ummah has been coming out on the streets, especially after Jummah salah to account their governments, to call for change and to call for these tyrant rulers to step down.
The shackles that had imprisoned the Muslims have been broken. No longer are the Muslims afraid of these regimes who have oppressed the masses and who have suppressed the call for change. Just a few years ago we could not have imagined the scenes that we see now on our TV screens. These images have brought tears of joy to our eyes, they have brought happiness to our hearts and they have given us a renewed sense of hope.
At such a moment in history where revolution is in the air, we are faced with questions about the future. Questions about where these winds of change will take us and how will they shape the world as we know it? How has the West reacted to these events in the Muslim World? Will the Muslim World rid itself of Western colonial interference? Will these events lead to the application of Islam and the re-establishment of the Khilafah State?
Today we are at a crossroad, where we face choices on how to shape these revolutions. The conference will discuss these issues and illustrate a vision for a future that will bring real change.
Hizb ut-Tahrir America cordially invites you to this important conference in a momentous time of Islamic awakening.
Just when you thought the U.N. couldn’t disgrace itself any further or become any less relevant to serious world citizens — it tops itself again.
This time around, the U.N has appointed North Korea, with its nuclear ambitions, to chair of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. You read that correctly. A conference on disarmament is being chaired by a country bent on developing its own nuclear weapons arsenal. Given the U.N.’s history of dubious appointments, however, this may not come as a suprise.
On Tuesday, the United Nations again made itself an international laughing stock – except perhaps to the American taxpayers who continue to foot 22 percent of the bill – by appointing North Korea chair of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. That would be the same North Korea that, according to an article this week by Senator John Kerry, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has “twice tested nuclear weapons…is developing missiles to carry them…has built facilities capable of producing highly enriched uranium for more nuclear weapons” and has defied a U.N. arms embargo by exporting weapons and sensitive technologies to rogue regimes.
Alas, Senator Kerry is also one of the lead champion of the United Nations in the Senate. According to the U.N., “The Conference is funded from the UN regular budget, reports to the General Assembly and receives guidance from it.”
North Korea’s representative of the conference So Se Pyongof, vowed to do “everything in his capacity to move the Conference on Disarmament forward.”
Not surprisingly, the chairmanship was praised by an Iranian delegate who assured Pyongof the Iranian delegation would give North Korea its “full support and cooperation.”
Weekly Standard went on to describe other delegates reaction:
Congratulations also poured in from such upstanding world citizens and U.N. fans as China. China’s Wang Qun “welcomed the presidency of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.”
It was left to the Canadian delegate to speak plainly. Canada’s Marius Grinius said: “[I]n the last 13 years the Conference has failed to move forward on its core disarmament responsibilities, including the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty…[T]he Conference on Disarmament is on life support because it no longer is the sole multilateral negotiating forum for disarmament. Indeed, it is not negotiating anything and has not been for a very long time.”
Summit on the Millennium Development Goals
20-22 September 2010
The UN Summit on the Millennium Development Goals concluded with the adoption of a global action plan to achieve the eight anti-poverty goals by their 2015 target date and the announcement of major new commitments for women’s and children’s health and other initiatives against poverty, hunger and disease. Visit the Summit website!
In September 2000, building upon a decade of major United Nations conferences and summits, world leaders came together at United Nations Headquarters in New York to adopt the United Nations Millennium Declaration, committing their nations to a new global partnership to reduce extreme poverty and setting out a series of time-bound targets – with a deadline of 2015 – that have become known as the Millennium Development Goals.
“Eradicating extreme poverty continues to be one of the main challenges of our time, and is a major concern of the international community. Ending this scourge will require the combined efforts of all, governments, civil society organizations and the private sector, in the context of a stronger and more effective global partnership for development. The Millennium Development Goals set timebound targets, by which progress in reducing income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter and exclusion — while promoting gender equality, health, education and environmental sustainability — can be measured. They also embody basic human rights — the rights of each person on the planet to health, education, shelter and security. The Goals are ambitious but feasible and, together with the comprehensive United Nations development agenda, set the course for the world’s efforts to alleviate extreme poverty by 2015. “
Over the past few months, the antics of liberal advocacy group Media Matters have been chronicled and in some cases have received accolades from the media.
One such report was a March 22 story by The Washington Poston the organization’s boot camp for wonks. But does Media Matters’ political involvement violate the terms for its tax-exempt status?
Baier posed the question to the panel on Tuesday’s “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel. Media Matters has been engaged in a war on Baier’s network. And according to Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, it’s clear that the organization isn’t a “charitable or educational organization” as it is described, but rather a political group.
“Well, it’s obviously is not [a charitable or educational organization,” Krauthammer said. “But is it still within the interpretation of the law? So on the legality of this, I think the strongest argument against them, against Media Matters is that as we heard in the James Rosen report, 12 years ago the IRS ruled that a Republican-run academy to train people to be pundits and speak against the Democrats on the air was ruled non-charitable, and thus not eligible for any charitable exertions.” [emphasis added]
“I think you can strongly argue that Media Matters which ran as a post head reported exactly the same kind of camp, training academy for its liberal advocacy would be subject to exactly the same ruling,” he continued. “So legally speaking I think it would be denied charitable status.”
Krauthammer didn’t say Media Matters should be prevented from engaging in its advocacy, but instead said they shouldn’t be subsidized by the government by not having to pay taxes.
“As a matter of sort of not law, but the Democratic practice, Media Matters is obviously not a media investigative organization that looks at everything,” Krauthammer said. “It’s in a war on Fox. And you’re allowed to do that in a democracy. You can be nasty as you want. The only thing is don’t ask for a government subsidy. Nobody wants to stop them or to shut Media Matters down. It’s a question of whether your tax money and mine ought to be supporting it.”
Media Matters features host Bob McChesney in conversation with a variety of guests. Listeners may call with comments or questions.
Robert W. McChesney is the Gutgsell Endowed Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “The media are central to all our lives,” he says. “Yet the media are the most frequently misunderstood parts of our lives. We want to help people understand the role of media in society.”
*******************
NOW taking this a wee bit further about Bob McChesney:
Robert McChesney is the founder of the “media reform” organization Free Press, and a board member of Norman Solomon‘sInstitute for Public Accuracy. He is also a former editor and current board member of the Marxist magazine Monthly Review,which has a fifty-year history of supporting Communist movements and regimes.
In a 2000 article — titled “Journalism, Democracy, and Class Struggle” — in the socialist periodical Monthly Review, McChesney wrote, “Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism.”
In 2001 McChesney became co-editor (with John Bellamy Foster) of Monthly Review. In 2004 McChesney ceased to be an editor, but he continues to write for Monthly Review and is a director of its tax-exempt Monthly Review Foundation,whichoperates both the journal and its book-publishing arm, Monthly Review Press.
Since 2002 McChesney has hosted his own Sunday radio show, Media Matters, on WILL radio, the campus affiliate of National Public Radio.His guest list there and on another program he hosted from 1995-1999 on the Madison, Wisconsin radio station WORT-FM reads like a “Who’s Who” of the extreme left. Guests have included Barbara Ehrenreich, Z Magazineeditor Michael Albert, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting founder Jeff Cohen, CounterPunch editor AlexanderCockburn, The Progressivemagazine editor Matthew Rothschild, editorial cartoonist Tom Tomorrow (Dan Perkins), and Marxist professor Howard Zinn.
Blaming the media for having “helped anoint a president” in 2000, McChesney referred to President Bush as “the moronic child of privilege.” Wrote McChesney in the spring of 2003:
“[C]onsider the manner in which the press reported President Bush’s ‘victory’ in the 2000 election. It is now clear that the majority of the people in Florida who went to vote for president in November 2000 intended to vote for Al Gore. . . . But Al Gore isn’t president. Why is that? Or to put it another way, why didn’t the press coverage assure that the true winner would assume office? . . . The primary reason is due to sourcing: throughout November and early December of 2000, the news media were being told by all Republicans that the Republicans had won the election and Al Gore was trying to steal it. The Democrats, on the other hand, were far less antagonistic and showed much less enthusiasm to fight for what they had won. Hence the news coverage, reflecting what their sources were telling them, tended to reflect the idea that the Republicans had won and the Democrats were grasping for straws. . . . Once the Supreme Court made its final decision, the media were elated to announce that our national nightmare was over.”
Elaborating further on this theme, McChesneywrote:
“No one should be surprised by the polls showing that close to 90 percent of Americans are satisfied with the performance of their selected President, or that close to 80 percent of the citizenry applaud his Administration’s seat-of-the-pants management of an undeclared war. After all, most Americans get their information from media that have pledged to give the American people only the President’s side of the story.”
The foregoing analysis was made just after a short, almost casualty-free, successful war in Iraq. When consolidating victory proved more difficult and a domestic opposition developed, the President’s poll numbers fell dramatically and media coverage of his administration was overwhelmingly negative. Yet McChesney did not retract his earlier assertions.
In Professor McChesney’s view, the American media are largely shills for conservatives and the Bush administration, and willing abettors of his unjust wars. As he wrote in 2003:
“What is most striking in the U.S. news coverage following the September 11 attacks of 2001 is how . . . the very debate over whether to go to war, or how best to respond, did not even exist. Tough questions were ignored. Why should we believe that a militarized approach will be effective? Moving beyond the 9-11 attacks, why should the United States be entitled to determine – as judge, jury, and executioner – who is a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer in this global war? What about international law? Most conspicuous was the complete absence of comment on one of the most striking features of the war campaign, something that any credible journalist would be quick to observe: . . . There are very powerful interests in the United States who greatly benefit politically and economically by the establishment of an unchecked war on terrorism. This consortium of interests can be called . . . the military-industrial complex. It blossomed during the Cold War when the fear of Soviet imperialism – real or alleged – justified its creation and expansion. A nation with a historically small military now had a permanent war economy, and powerful special interests benefited by its existence.”
In 2009, McChesney saidthe following about capitalism and the media:
“Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself.”
“There is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.”
“We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimalize it, and perhaps even eliminate it.”
In September 2009, McChesney stressed the importance of reforming the media as a preliminary step along the path toward societal transformation. “No one thinks any more that media reform is an issue to solve after the revolution,” he said. “Everyone understands that without media reform, there will be no revolution.”
Advocates “net neutrality,” which critics depict as a government takeover of the Internet
Founded in 2002, Free Press and its advocacy arm, the Free Press Action Fund, are tax-exempt “media reform” organizations that seek to counteract the power of big media corporations. Robert McChesney (a radical professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign), John Nichols (a Washington correspondent for The Nation), and Josh Silver (who has published extensively on such topics as media policy and campaign finance) co-founded the Free Press groups and currently direct their operations.
In addition to McChesney and Nichols, board members of Free Press includeKim Gandy, President of the National Organization for Women; Janine Jackson of Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR); Olga M. Davidson, a visiting associate professor in the Middle Eastern Studies program at Wellesley College; Marcy Carsey, co-founder of the Carsey Werner Company; and Tim Wu, a professor of law at Columbia University.
Board members of the Free Press Action Fund include McChesney, Nichols, Silver, Tim Wu, and Martin Kaplan (Director of the Norman Lear Center). Previous members have included Linda Foley, former President of the Newspaper Guild and Vice-President of the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, from 1995 to 2008; Cindy Asner, wife of actor Ed Asner, both of whom are activists with the Progressive Democrats of America; and Norman Solomon, Founder and Executive Director of the Institute for Public Accuracy(IPA), on whose board McChesney sits.
Free Press founders McChesney and Nichols have co-authored three books: It’s the Media, Stupid!, Our Media, Not Theirs: The Democratic Struggle Against Corporate Media, and Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy. The authors and their organization received high praise from the late Marxist professor Howard Zinn, who said: ”Free Press is doing the important work of stimulating a national discussion on the role of a free media in this country. It deserves widespread support.”
While Free Press provides research and resources for progressive advocacy, the Free Press Action Fund lobbies in Washington against media corporations. According to Free Press’ website, “the U.S. media landscape is dominated by massive corporations that, through a history of mergers and acquisitions, have concentrated their control over what we see, hear and read.” Free Press’s “Stop Big Media” campaign aims to counter the interests of these corporations, claiming that they “fail local communities,” “ignore diversity,” and “are bad for democracy.”
Free Press offers its so-called Media Minutes podcasts, which are designed to give listeners the “latest news about media and democracy — in 5 minutes.” Media Minutes is also carried by a number of “independent” radio stations and websites, including a number of Pacifica Radio stations, theIndependent Media Center(Indymedia), “Enemy Combatant Radio” in San Francisco, and “Radical Radio” in Seattle.
In November 2003, Free Press organized its first National Conference on Media Reform at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which was keynoted by Bill Moyers. Amy Goodman – host of the national radio program Democracy Now!– was also a featured speaker. Z Magazinereported that this conference prominently featured “El Salvador and Palestine solidarity activists” who “gave updates on their work.”
In January 2007, Free Press sponsored a third conference in Memphis, Tennessee. Featured speakers and panelists were SenatorBernie Sanders, Representative Maurice Hinchey, David Brock, Bill Moyers, Jesse Jackson, Danny Glover, Jane Fonda, Jeff Cohen, and Norman Solomon. Exhibitors at the event included theRevolutionary Communist Party, Mother Jones magazine, Pacifica Radio, Amy Goodman, and a number of representatives of the “9/11 truth movement.” The film Reel Bad Arabs, which argues that Arabs and Muslims unfairly receive negative coverage from the American media and Hollywood, was screened for those in attendance; the film is narrated by Jack Shaheen, who has appeared on Al-JazeeraEnglish TV making charges of anti-Arab media bias. At a panel discussion moderated by Paul Waldman of Media Matters for America, participants argued that the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections had been “stolen” on behalf of George W. Bush.
While many of its conferences have featured speakers advocating a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, Free Press has focused its efforts on advocating for “net neutrality,” progressive legislation that would allow the government greater regulatory control over the Internet.
“Useful idiot” is often used as a pejorative term for those who are seen to unwittingly support a malignant cause through their ‘naive’ attempts to be a force for good.
BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) — Ronald Reagan never visited Hungary, but his efforts to end communism endeared him to many Hungarians – and now have earned him his second statue in Budapest.
The new statue. (Photo: AP)
Less than five years after erecting a bust of America’s 40th president in a park, Hungary’s capital is honoring Reagan with a full statue in Freedom Square, just a couple blocks from parliament and home to the U.S. Embassy.
The bronze 2-meter (7-foot) likeness, placed on a thin block of granite, shows Reagan in mid-stride, making it seem as if he’s is taking a walk in the square.
“The statue is meant to reflect the ease he had in connecting with people and his close relationship with them,” sculptor Istvan Mate told The Associated Press as he put the finishing touches on the statue in his workshop in Csongrad, a small town 150 kilometers (93 miles) southeast of Budapest.
Mate modeled his statue on a series photographs and has depicted Reagan wearing a suit and moccasins. His hands are open so people will be able to pretend they are locked in a handshake with the former actor and California governor.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban recently wrote about Reagan’s “undying merits” in the liberation of Europe from Soviet dictatorship.
“In the 1980s, he gave us hope that despite the difficulties we should persist in the struggle for freedom and independence,” Orban wrote in the foreword to a book about the U.S. president. [emphasis added]
The new statue will be unveiled Wednesday by Orban and numerous dignitaries from the United States, including former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and Ed Meese, attorney general during the Reagan administration.
The event is part of a series of commemorations of the 100th anniversary of Reagan’s birth being held across Europe – including a memorial mass Monday in Krakow, Poland, and the renaming of a street after Reagan in Prague, the Czech capital.
Mate has more than 140 works on display around Hungary – many of them done in collaboration with his wife, Gyorgyi Lantos – but the Reagan statue will be his first in Budapest.
Mate had to work fast to meet his deadline, first preparing a mold from a clay model sculpted around a metal core, then casting seven separate bronze pieces weighing a total of 180 kilograms (400 pounds) and welding them together.
“It was a big challenge to prepare a statue of the president of the United States, the world’s leading power,” Mate said. “It will be a relief to finally see it in its place.”
(CNSNews.com) – According to White House visitor logs, President Barack Obama hosted a “DNC event” in the White House on Feb. 25, a Democratic National Committee event that was not on the schedule for that day.
The logs list 16 people, all of whom arrived between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on the afternoon of Feb. 25 for a “DNC Event” held on the State Floor of the White House, a room where foreign dignitaries are entertained.
The logs did not list in which room on that floor the event was held. However, the State Floor includes the East Room, State Dining Room, and the Blue Room, site of another DNC event.
The logs also confirm that each of the 16 guests were to meet with President Obama, using the acronym “POTUS,” or President of the United States.
The event was not on the official schedule for that day and appears to have been impromptu, with the logs indicating that the guests scheduled the meetings with the president individually, often minutes before they arrived at the White House.
However, each guest listed “DNC Event” as their reason for being there, as well as listing “state floor” as the location and “POTUS” as the person they were there to see, indicating that all 16 persons were attending the event.
In response to CNSNews.com’s inquiries about the event, the White House answered by e-mail, stating, “This was a reception for the DNC members who were in town for the DNC yearly meeting, which kicked off the day before.”
“We’ve often used the DNC Christmas Party (similar to this one) and as an example of events political parties routinely sponsor at the White House,” said the e-mail.
The Feb. 25 meeting is not the only time the DNC has hosted a political event at the White House. In March, the DNC scheduled an event in the White House’s Blue Room – also on the State Floor – with Wall Street “bundlers” and other major fundraisers, sparking controversy over the use of the White House for political fundraisers. [emphasis added]
[snip]
According to a Washington Postreport, Obama is currently engaged in a large, behind-the-scenes push to win over such bundlers, needing them to fund an early roll-out of his national reelection campaign.
According to background information provided by the White House, Obama is doing what previous presidents have done, courting big-money donors and party big-wigs, noting that Republican presidents have hosted similar events for large donors and party officials.
The White House noted that then-Vice President Dick Cheney hosted Republican Party donors at his official residence in 2001, an event that George W. Bush’s press secretary, Ari Fleisher, defended as a way to say “thank you” to those who had helped elect President Bush.
However, the DNC meeting hosted by Obama came well after he was elected in 2008 and only months before he would announce his reelection bid, suggesting that instead of saying thank you, the meetings were focused on the president’s reelection.
Among the attendees at the Feb. 25 even were several DNC super-delegates, the chairman of the Mississippi Democratic Party, the executive directors of the New Jersey and Louisiana Democratic parties, and the grandson of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
(See U.S. Office of Special Counsel “Hatch Act for Federal Employees”)
Permitted/prohibited activities for employees who may participate in partisan political activity
These federal and D.C. employees may:
be candidates for public office in nonpartisan elections
register and vote as they choose
assist in voter registration drives
express opinions about candidates and issues
contribute money to political organizations
attend political fundraising functions
attend and be active at political rallies and meetings
join and be an active member of a political party or club
sign nominating petitions
campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, municipal ordinances
campaign for or against candidates in partisan elections
make campaign speeches for candidates in partisan elections
distribute campaign literature in partisan elections
hold office in political clubs or parties
These federal and D.C. employees may not:
use official authority or influence to interfere with an election
solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with business before their agency
solicit or receive political contributions (may be done in certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee organizations)
be candidates for public office in partisan elections<<<–
engage in political activity while:
on duty
in a government office<<<<<———-
wearing an official uniform
using a government vehicle
wear partisan political buttons on duty
Agencies and employees prohibited from engaging in partisan political activity
Employees of the following agencies (or agency components), or in the following categories, are subject to more extensive restrictions on their political activities than employees in other Departments and agencies:
The Fourth of July may be just a holiday for fireworks to some people. But it was a momentous day for the history of this country and the history of the world.
Not only did July 4, 1776, mark American independence from England, it also marked a radically different kind of government from the governments that prevailed around the world at the time — and the kinds of governments that had prevailed for thousands of years before.
The American Revolution was not simply a rebellion against the king of England, it was a rebellion against being ruled by kings in general. That is why the opening salvo of the American Revolution was called “the shot heard ’round the world.”
Autocratic rulers and their subjects heard that shot — and things that had not been questioned for millennia were now open to challenge. As the generations went by, more and more autocratic governments around the world proved unable to meet that challenge.
Some clever people today ask whether the United States has really been “exceptional.” You couldn’t be more exceptional in the 18th century than to begin your fundamental document — the Constitution of the United States — with the momentous words, “We the people.”
Those three words were a slap in the face to those who thought themselves entitled to rule and who regarded the people as if they were simply human livestock, destined to be herded and shepherded by their betters. Indeed, to this very day, elites who think that way — and they include many among the intelligentsia, as well as political messiahs — find the Constitution of the United States a real pain because it stands in the way of their imposing their will and their presumptions on the rest of us.
More than 100 years ago, so-called “Progressives” began a campaign to undermine the Constitution’s strict limitations on government, which stood in the way of self-anointed political crusaders imposing their grand schemes on the rest of us. That effort to discredit the Constitution continues to this day, and the arguments haven’t really changed much in 100 years.
The cover story in the July 4th issue of Time magazine is a classic example of this arrogance. It asks of the Constitution, “Does it still matter?”
A long and rambling essay by the magazine’s managing editor, Richard Stengel, manages to create a toxic blend of the irrelevant and the erroneous.
The irrelevant comes first, pointing out in big letters that those who wrote the Constitution “did not know about” all sorts of things in the world today, including airplanes, television, computers, and DNA.
This may seem like a clever new gambit but, like many clever new gambits, it is a rehash of arguments made long ago. Back in 1908, Woodrow Wilson said, “When the Constitution was framed there were no railways, there was no telegraph, there was no telephone.”
In Mr. Stengel’s rehash of this argument, he declares: “People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today.”
Maybe that kind of talk goes on where he hangs out. But most people have enough common sense to know that a constitution does not exist to micro-manage particular “events” or express opinions about the passing scene.
A constitution exists to create a framework for government — and the Constitution of the United States tries to keep the government inside that framework.
From the irrelevant to the erroneous is a short step for Mr. Stengel. He says, “If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it certainly doesn’t say so.”
Apparently Mr. Stengel has not read the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey Says She is Very ‘Proud’ Of The Anti Israel Activist
************************
Gaza Flotilla II – The Audacity of Hope
Pay attention starting at 5:25 min–Medea Benjamin of Code Pink talks
***Did YOU notice the BABY at 5:29****?
***********************
Six members of Congress ask Secretary Clinton to ‘ensure the safety of all American citizens on board the Audacity of Hope’
SUBMITTED BY KATE GOULD ON 24 JUNE 2011
For Immediate Release
June 27, 2011
Media Contacts:
Athens/en route to Gaza: Robert Naiman, U.S. Mobile: (217) 979-2857
Washington, DC: Kate Gould, (202) 657-4882 press [at] justforeignpolicy.org
WASHINGTON, DC: On Friday, June 24, six members of Congress wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asking her to “do everything in your power” to help “ensure the safety of all American citizens on board The Audacity of Hope.” The letter, which was initiated by Representative Dennis Kucinich, notes The Audacity of Hope’s willingness to open its cargo to “international inspection” and their commitment to “nonviolence and the tenets of international law.”
The letter was signed by Representatives Dennis Kucinich [OH-10], William Lacy Clay [MO-1], Sam Farr [CA-17], Bob Filner [CA-51], Eleanor Holmes Norton [DC], and Barbara Lee [CA-9].
Rashid Khalidi and Mona Khalidi are friends of Obama.
Is Obama feigning support of Israel even though he knows Rashid and Ismail Khalidi are involved in the Gaza II flotilla?
Is Obama directing Hillary Clinton to warn the Gaza II participants as to NOT HAVE HIS HANDS or VIEW on the Gaza II flotilla? As in playing both ends against the middle?
Bill Ayers and Valerie Jarrett’s mother are friends.
Valerie Jarrett’s mother, Barbara Taylor Bowman, co-founded the Erickson Institute in Chicago and still serves on its Board of Trustees. Tom Ayers, the father of Bill Ayers, was a one-time fellow trustee of the Institute.Accordingto WorldNet Daily’s Brad O’Leary, the Erickson board also included Bill Ayers’ wife, Bernadine Dohrn. For his part, Bill Ayers called Bowman “a neighbor and friend” in his 1997 book A Kind and Just Parent, noting that his neighbors also included Louis Farrakhanand “writer Barack Obama.”
Investigations are in process of whether Bill Ayers either wrote or edited Obama’s book; Dreams From my Fatherand possibly The Audacity of Hope.
Cashill, who acquired a copy of Andersen’s new booktoday, told WND the author “lays out the scenario just as I envisioned it.”
Andersen, in “Barack and Michelle: Portrait of a Marriage,“ writes that Obama was faced with a deadline with the Times Books division of Random House to submit his manuscript after already having canceled a contract with Simon & Schuster. Confronted with the threat of a second failure, his wife, Michelle, suggested he seek the help of “his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers.”
Obama had taped interviews with relatives to flesh out his family history, and those “oral histories, along with a partial manuscript and a truckload of notes, were given to Ayers,” writes Andersen.
The author quotes a neighbor in the Hyde Park area of Chicago where Obama and Ayers lived, who says of the two, “Everyone knew they were friends and that they worked on various projects together.”
“It was no secret. Why would it be? People liked them both,” the neighbor said, according to Andersen.
Billionaire George Soros spends tens of millions each year supporting a range of liberal social and political causes, from drug legalization to immigration reform to gay marriage to abolishing the death penalty.
But a less well-known Soros priority — replacing elections for judges with selection-by-committee — now has critics accusing him of trying to stack the courts.
Most non-federal judges around the country are selected by voters in elections. But some states use a process called “merit selection” in which a committee – often made up of lawyers – appoints judges to the bench instead.
Soros has spent several million dollars in the past decade in an attempt to get more states to scrap elections and adopt the merit method. Supporters say it would allow judges to focus on interpreting the law rather than on raising campaign funds and winning elections.
“Merit selection would end the money race and get judges out of the fundraising business,” Lynn Marks, executive director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts — a group that has received money from Soros’ Open Society Institute — told FoxNews.com.
But critics say that if judges are picked by committee — often, a committee of lawyers — that will give left-wing judges the upper hand.
“The left can’t get their agenda through the legislatures anymore … so they think they can get their agenda through by taking over the courts,” attorney Colleen Pero, author of a new report titled “Hijacking Justice,” told FoxNews.com.
Pero’s report found that Soros, through his Open Society Institute fund, has given $45 million over the last decade to “a campaign to reshape the judiciary.” But that number is hotly contested by Justice at Stake, the group that got the most Soros money.
“It’s a horrendously bogus distortion of numbers,” Charlie Hall, a spokesman for Justice at Stake, told FoxNews.com. Hall said the $45 million figure included groups that dealt with legal issues but had no position on merit selection. He added that he could only identify $2 million from Soros that went to groups that actively support replacing elections with “merit selection.”
In an analysis of the Open Society Institute’s tax returns from the last ten years, FoxNews.com found more than $5 million was explicitly earmarked for projects about either “merit selection” or “judicial selection.”
For example, OSI reported giving $90,000 to Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts in 2007 to “expand and grow a coalition in support of merit selection.” It also reported giving $50,000 to Justice at Stake in 2006 to support “public education regarding merit selection.”
OSI gave another $7 million-plus to Justice at Stake, or to partner organizations with specific directions to support JAS’s activities.
Some recipients of Soros’ money were eager to defend “merit selection,” and said they only wished Soros would give more money to the cause. “We are very grateful for their support of our efforts,” Marks said. Her group received more than $500,000 over the last decade, but has not received money from OSI since 2008.
Elections, she added, discourage competent lawyers from becoming judges just because they aren’t good politicians. “They don’t put their name in for nominations because they think they don’t have the political connections or access to dollars.”
And judges, she said, should be kept apart from political forces. “Judges should resolve disputes based on evidence — they’re not supposed to be responsive to public pressure.”
But Pero pointed to a study by prominent law professors that found elected judges were, if anything, more independent and took on larger workloads than judges appointed by committee.
“The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards;it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.”
The Environmental Protection Agency has doled out nearly $100 million in grants to foreign groups and governments over the past decade, according to a new congressional report.
The report from Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee shows the pace of foreign grants has quickened under the Obama administration, with $27 million in EPA funds going abroad since early 2009 — not counting projects in Canada and Mexico.
The report said an unknown amount of EPA grant money has also gone overseas “indirectly” via grants to U.S. universities and organizations doing work in other countries.
“At a time of record debt and soaring unemployment here in the United States, the committee has discovered that EPA has intensified its foreign grants program,” the report said.
EPA defended the projects, noting that pollution is a global problem and describing the foreign initiatives as in the United States’ interest.
“Pollution doesn’t stop at international borders, and neither can our environmental and health protections; the local and national environmental issues of the past are now global challenges,” EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said in a statement.
“For instance, many of these grants are related to EPA’s Global Methane Initiative — which aims to limit pollution before it can cross U.S. borders and promote the development of commercial opportunities for U.S. environmental technologies and services business in foreign markets.”
The 320 grants over the past decade have been dedicated to projects around the world.
According to the list, since 2009 $718,000 went toward “air pollution” efforts in China; $191,638 went toward “clean cooking technology” in Ethiopia; $299,468 went toward “methane recovery” in Ecuador; and $170,000 went toward “liquefied gas extraction” in Poland. A $7.6 million grant went toward “technical assistance” in Russia. Several million dollars went toward international groups like the United Nations.
Citing the EPA mission to “protect the environment and public health” via grants and other agreements, the GOP report said: “EPA has clearly adopted a fairly expansive understanding of this mission.”
$27 million in EPA funds going abroad since early 2009>>>>Could communities WITHIN the US use this money for food pantries and soup kitchens……say in cities like Detroit, Michigan?
OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, left, and Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev display a flag showing the new logo of the renamed Organization of Islamic Cooperation. (Photo: OIC)
The OIC’s new logo features a green crescent, a globe, and a representation of the Ka’aba – the cube-shaped structure in Mecca which Muslims revere as Islam’s most sacred site. (Image: OIC)
