Many books have been written regarding the persecution of Christian’s in modern-day Rhode Island, and how liberalism as a whole is intolerant towards traditional religion. An example of this is a recent story at Brown University in Providence, RI. Brown has banned a student-led evangelical Christian group from using campus resources for “violating University guidelines for Religious groups.” However, Brown refuses to say what guidelines were violated. I’m sure Brown would never consider banning a gay-rights group, a feminist group, or a Muslim group. It just goes to show how the elite educational establishment holds Christianity in disdain and doesn’t give it a forum, even under the so-called guise of “Academic Freedom”.
Archive for November 21st, 2006
Posted by Sal on November 21, 2006
Posted by Mike on November 21, 2006
A movement is underway among some Iraqis to televise Saddam Hussein’s execution. Howar Ziad, Iraqi Ambassador to Canada, has even offered to show the execution via closed circuit television at the Iraqi embassy in Canada if enough Canadian Iraqis show interest.
Just about everyone agrees that victory in Iraq requires the cooperation of the Iraqi people. One factor often cited as an obstacle to such cooperation is the fear that Saddam Hussein will return to power. Televising Hussein’s trip to hell would decimate that fear forever. I think it’s a great idea.
Link via Lucianne.
Posted by Sal on November 21, 2006
Newt in an interview given to Nina Easton of Fortune Magazine:
The radical realist who defied conventional wisdom 12 years ago by stealing the House out from under the noses of entrenched Democrats now plans a surprise attack for the presidency. “I’m going to tell you something, and whether or not it’s plausible given the world you come out of is your problem,” he tells Fortune. “I am not ‘running’ for president. I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen.” So he’s running, only without yet formally saying so.
While other potential competitors like Arizona Senator John McCain, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney build staff and hire consultants, Gingrich revealed to Fortune that he plans to create a draft-Newt “wave” by building grassroots support for his health care, national security and energy independence ideas – all of which he has been peddling to corporate audiences over the past six years. “Nice people,” Gingrich says of his GOP competitors. “But we’re not in the same business. They’re running for president. I’m running to change the country.”
In December, Gingrich will launch a 527 group, called “American Solutions for Winning the Future,” that will enable him to raise and spend unlimited money on behalf of this effort. In January, he will conduct a strategy meeting with advisers. By next fall, he’ll decide whether to make a bid official – a late start by any recent historical standard.
It’s a strategy that would be considered far-fetched if this were any other candidate. But Gingrich has to be taken seriously. Polls place him third in the GOP presidential nomination race, behind Giuliani and McCain. And a recent internal GOP poll recently put him second, and ahead of McCain.
I’ll say this about him, his approach is unconventional, and I don’t know if it will pay off, but it could make things interesting. Newt’s a great thinker, and his engineering of the Contract with America and the 1994 take-over of the house defied convention by making congressional races national, and taking the Congress for the first time in 54 years.
In 1974, Reagan defied conventional wisdom and built a movement. He lost that election, but finally won in 1980. Newt continued that movement in the 1990s, and is trying to be bold and unconventional movement for the Presidency today. Maybe he won’t win this time, but I doubt we’ve seen the last of him. His policy ideas are bold and intesresting. Even if I don’t necessarily agree with him on every issue, he comes across as For more on Newt’s policy ideas see his Website “Winning the Future“.
Posted by Sal on November 21, 2006
Michelle Malkin started a thread over at her blog on which newspaper is America’s Worst. The thread originated over at Powerlineblog, which excluded the New York Times, because that paper would most likely automatically win.
I nominate the Boston Globe. The Globe is a poor sibling of the times (owned by the same corporation) that has had some of the most biased and liberal-based reporting since I can remember. Local talk show host Michael Graham of 96.9 FM-Talk (a great Conservative talk show for any of you in the Boston-Metro area) has labeled the Boston Globe the “Boston Globe-Democrat”, which is as accurate a name as I could have thought of. In a recent post on his blog The Natural Truth, Graham speaks of the Massachusetts gay marriage amendment and its coverage by the Globe. In the Globe-Democrat article that I posted yesterday, a professor of law was quoted as saying the following:
A specialist on Massachusetts constitutional law said Romney’s legal appeal is unlikely to succeed, in part because it is premature. Legislators still have one day to vote on the same-sex marriage ban on Jan. 2, the last remaining day for current legislators, said Lawrence Friedman, an assistant professor at the New England School of Law. He also said Romney’s legal argument is wrong.
“That’s a lawsuit that is probably a waste of taxpayers’ dollars,” said Friedman , who filed a legal brief in support of same-sex marriage when it came before the SJC in 2003. He said he is not involved in the current debate. “The constitution doesn’t actually require the Legislature to take a vote. It says that they have to discuss it and debate it, and I don’t think there is any good argument that there hasn’t been a lot of discussion and debate.”
The Globe presented this quote as fact without any refutation, fact-checking, or challenge to that statement. However, Graham points out Article I, Section III of the Massachusetts’s Constitution reads:
Article IV, Section 3: A proposal for an amendment to the constitution introduced by initiative petition shall be voted upon in the form in which it was introduced, unless such amendment is amended by vote of three-fourths of the members voting thereon in joint session, which vote shall be taken by call of the yeas and nays if called for by any member.
What an example of objective journalism.
Posted by Ryan on November 21, 2006
While obviously testing the waters before leaving the Massachusetts Governor’s mansion, Mitt Romney has been very public lately on distinguishing himself from McCain and Guiliani as the “conservative” candidate.
Though late to the pro-life point of view, Romney’s Mormonism seems to be what the press is honing in on– the typical religion baiting on the Left and MSM. Romney seems right on immigration, gay marriage, detainees, and is ARTICULATE on the issues and taking his opponents to task. Let’s see who else joins the fray in the next few months, but for now Romney looks the best to date.