Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College I’ve gotten some very interesting emails regarding  President Obama’s mandate  commanding Roman Catholics (and many evangelical Protestants) to violate their consciences by providing mandatory contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing pharmaceuticals. The emailers noted that Obama’s action will force Catholics to challenge the president in court, particularly given that bishops are saying they will not comply with the law. It could mean another constitutional showdown over “ Obama-care ,” one that could likewise end up in the Supreme Court. Imagine:  “ The Catholic Bishops v. Obama .” What a fitting capstone to the  Obama presidency . And imagine that a majority of professing Roman Catholics elected this man in  November 2008 . If this issue goes to the high court, I wouldn’t bet my money on Obama, even with the two new “pro-choice,” pro- Roe liberals he added to the bench: Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Even the most “progressive” Supreme Court justice cannot avoid that old freedom-of-religion thing in the First Amendment. All of that is remarkable enough. But I find it especially ironic given two other fascinating current news item relating to the Constitution: Last week, President Obama  did an interview  with NBC’s Matt Lauer. Obama expressed frustration at his inability to be the “transformational political figure” Americans elected. The “change agent” lamented that this was the fault of the American Founders—who Obama refers to as “men of property and wealth”—and their Constitution. Obama told Lauer: What’s frustrated people is that I have not been able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes. But what I have been able to do is move in the right direction. And what I’m going to keep on doing is plot away, very persistent. Ah, that old Constitution again. Obama is quite correct. His primary obstacle is the Founders’ system of separation of powers and checks and balances. His problem is a Congress and Supreme Court that is empowered to say, “No, Mr. President, that isn’t constitutional. You can’t do that in America.” Well, Obama’s mandate to the Catholic Church could be the next such challenge, again impeding his self-perceived rise to transcendent political greatness. A Democrat-controlled Congress approved Obama-care, but the Supreme Court now must scrutinize its provisions. That’s the court’s duty. That brings me to the second news item: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg  gave an interview  to Egyptian television. Ginsburg will likely be the next justice to step down. Once Obama replaces her with a much younger pro- Roe  judge, this nation will have  Roe v. Wade for another 39 years. In the interview, Ginsburg advised Middle East democrats on drafting a constitution. She did not, however, recommend the U.S. Constitution. Ginsburg stated: I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation; and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world… I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, and had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recently than the U.S. Constitution, Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world? Actually, why not take advantage of what’s in the U.S. Constitution? The paradox in Ginsburg’s statement is her dismissal of the U.S. Constitution because it’s “rather old;” in fact, “the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.” Well, why is it so old and still in force? Because it was done right. It is based on timeless values and virtues and universal rights that work; that are true. It has been amended less than 30 times in 220-some years. It is the most stable, successful, remarkable constitution in history, bringing together a vast array of peoples and assimilating them into history’s most prosperous, awe-inspiring nation—a nation that spent the 20th century winning freedom for other nations, so those nations could produce democracies and constitutions. The U.S. Constitution is the perfect model, at once both beautifully broad and specific. And among the things it got right are separation of powers and checks in balances. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and President Obama may be learning that again very soon—compliments of Obama-care and its constitutional assault on the consciences of religious believers. Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College, executive director of  The Center for Vision & Values , and author of the newly released  Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century . His other books include  The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism  and  God and Ronald Reagan .

Go here to read the rest:
The Catholic Bishops v. Obama? President Obama and Justice Ginsburg on America’s ‘Rather Old Constitution’

Tagged with:
 

Back in November of last year, Glenn Beck heard Freedom Works President Matt Kibbe speaking in South Carolina. One particular line from Kibbe’s presentation stuck with Glenn. Kibbe told the crowd; “I can’t believe we have to go fight the Republicans before we go fight the Democrats.” Tonight on GBTV, Glenn and Matt talked at length about the Tea Parties all across America and how these very diverse groups have the potential to change the direction of the country in the 2012 elections and beyond. Here’s part one. In second part of the interview, Beck and Kibbe drilled down a little deeper into the Tea Party’s beliefs on what makes a good elected official. The Freedom Works President clarified his thoughts: Our thing is constant accountability, transparency, holding everyone to the same standard regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat… It’s based on the issues… it’s based on what you actually do in office. On the topic of the Fall election season, Glenn asked Matt about the Tea Party plans for making certain that the elections are legitimate: I think our whole strategy has to be based on freedom. That the fight against voter fraud is only going to be fought with a very decentralized system where each person takes responsibility in their community to police those voting booths, to volunteer, to actually be there. Despite the current tensions in the GOP Primary process, Kibbe maintains a positive outlook: That’s why I’m so optimistic, I think that a decentralized, freedom-based model can win and will win if each of us take responsibility and focus on the things that matter. The entire second part of the interview with Matt Kibbe is here:

Tagged with:
 

The New York Police Department is taking heat following revelations that a documentary about the threat of radical Islam was screened to nearly 1,500 officers during training.

The New York Police Department is facing intense scrutiny following revelations Monday that a film about the threat of radical Islam was screened to nearly 1,500 officers during training. Critics of the 2008 documentary “The Third Jihad” have denounced it as “anti-Islam” and ” hate-filled .” The Council on American-Islamic Relations called it ” anti-Muslim propaganda .” The 72-minute film exposes what it calls a strategy by radical Muslims to “infiltrate and dominate America,” and features grisly images from jihadist terror attacks, Muslim leaders calling for an Islamic world order, and goes after CAIR, among other organizations, for having radical ties. “Islamism is like a cancer,” one interviewee says. “You either defeat it or it will defeat you.” News that the film was shown during NYPD training first broke in January 2011: NYPD spokesman Paul Browne initially told the New York Village Voice that officers never saw the film, calling it a “wacky movie” that was “reviewed and found to be inappropriate.” Browne later amended that statement, saying that upon further review the film had been shown “a couple of times when officers were filling out paperwork before the actual coursework began.” “It was not approved for the curriculum. It’s not shown for any purpose now,” Browne told the Village Voice. But one year later, documents obtained through the state’s Freedom of Information Law indicated otherwise: The film was shown “on a continuous loop” for between three months and one year of training, and was seen by at least 1,489 police officers, the New York Times reported Monday. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday blasted the police department, saying someone had used “terrible judgment” in showing the film. “Somebody exercised some terrible judgment,” Bloomberg said. “As soon as they found out about it, they stopped it.” Of particular note was the fact that New York Police Department Commissioner Ray Kelly himself appeared in the film as an interviewee: On Monday, Browne said Kelly’s appearance was lifted from old interview footage. But the next day, the police department shifted and confirmed Kelly did participate , after the film’s producer provided the date and time of the interview to the Times. Kelly said he regrets appearing in the film. Others featured include former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, former CIA Director James Woolsey, Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman and about a dozen other intelligence and Middle East experts and activists. CAIR used the NYPD’s admission to call for the resignations of both Kelly and Browne — coming at a time when sentiments between CAIR and the NYPD are particularly inflamed over recent reports that the police department used spy tactics to keep tabs on Muslim groups in an effort to catch terrorists. “This controversy has moved beyond an issue of poor judgment in the use of an Islamophobic training film to an issue of the integrity of public officials,” CAIR said in a statement Wednesday. “The lack of truthfulness exhibited by Commissioner Kelly and Deputy Commissioner Browne means New Yorkers must now question the credibility of every statement they make. This situation necessitates their immediate resignations.” Anti-Muslim? But despite seething objections that the film is anti-Muslim and anti-Islam, “The Third Jihad” explicitly states that it is about radicalism only. “This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are radical,” a statement reads at the beginning of the film. Narrated by Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, the film describes what it says is the true agenda of much of the Muslim leadership in America: A kind of “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within,” based on a 15-page manifesto from the Muslim Brotherhood. Among the strategies outlined in the document, the film says, are to set up mosques and Islamic centers to achieve the ultimate goal of “sabotaging the miserable houses of the West so that Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” Organizations listed that can help carry out these goals include the Muslim Students Association, the Islamic Society of North America and the Islamic Association for Palestine — a Hamas-linked organization whose three officers founded CAIR in the 1990s. “Islam will dominate….We want to see Shariah here, and it will be,” a member of the New York-based Islamic Thinkers Society vows in one clip. The film shows several images taken from Muslim websites: An Islamic flag flying over the White House, an hourglass depicting the inevitability of countries around the world falling to Islam and an American flag with the words “Under Shaytan Authority.” In Islamic theology, “shaytan” is the term for “devil.” “When groups like these talk about wanting to create a global Islamic state and Islam dominating the world, you realize that they hold some of the same goals as Al Qaida and millions of radicals around the world, and that’s what make them dangerous,” Jasser narrates. ‘A slander against the film’ In a telephone interview with The Blaze, Jasser — who has been a repeat guest on Glenn Beck’s show — said the media’s treatment of the film as “anti-Muslim” shows “the death of journalism.” “[The film] is a wake up call to the threat that is in our community,” he said. “Not one report has attacked the facts in the documentary. To call it anti-Muslim is slander against the film.” He said CAIR’s announcement Wednesday that it’s calling for the NYPD commissioner’s resignation shows the organization only wants to use the situation “as a tool to attack Commissioner Kelly.” “What type of documentary does CAIR want shown?” he asked. He said he finds it curious that it’s suddenly become “a major federal crime” that the film was shown to a group of police officers when it’s been available online for the past several years. “The more [CAIR] can take up the bandwidth of the discussion about the threat of the radical Islam with victimization issues…the less work they have to do for reform,” Jasser said. “They don’t want anybody becoming educated about the slippery slope of political Islam, which is the movement of trying to put into place their own Shariah law…they look upon us as not just a faith group but as a global political movement.” Alex Traiman, a spokesman for the Clarion Fund, which financed the film, said he also sees the response to the current media controversy as “CAIR trying to take down the New York Police Department.” According to its website , the Clarion Fund is a nonprofit organization that “produces and distributes documentaries on the threats of radical Islam” and lists former Reagan deputy defense secretary and Center for Security Policy founder Frank Gaffney Jr. among its advisory board members. In a telephone interview with The Blaze, Traiman referred to CAIR’s response as “their tried and true method of demonizing anyone who asks real questions by just labeling it Islamophobia.” “CAIR is targeted specifically in our film for doing exactly what they’re doing now,” he said. Despite the controversy, Jasser said he stands firmly behind the film. “The reason I agreed to narrate is that there are many of us within the Muslim community that are a part of, if you will, a “jihad against jihad,” he said. “I’d much rather have people see that a Muslim is part of the solution. The solution has to come from within.” Watch an abbreviated version of “The Third Jihad” below:

Excerpt from:
‘A Slander Against the Film’: Narrator Says Documentary Shown to NYPD Officers Isn‘t ’Anti-Muslim’

Tagged with:
 

If you watched the debate last night, you likely noticed that the audience was eerily silent. They had been asked/admonished by Brian Williams not to be hootin’ and hollerin’ like they have in past debates. Regardless your thoughts on Williams and NBC and the liberal media and their desire to silence the Right, this was a major problem for ONE candidate: Newt Gingrich. It was the rowdy crowd — in both the Fox News debate when Newt took on Juan Williams’ race-related questions and the CNN debate when he lectured John King for the media’s “shameless” use of the interview with his second scorned ex-wife, Marianne Gingrich. Because Newt knows that without the rowdy crowds his campaign suffers, the gentleman from Georgia has decided that if the rules can be HIS rules, then he’s not going to play . Newt Gingrich insists his fans will not be silenced. Mr. Gingrich, a former House speaker, on Tuesday morning threatened not participate in any future debates with audiences that have been instructed to be silent. That was the case on Monday, when Brian Williams of NBC News asked the audience of about 500 people who assembled for a debate in Tampa to hold their applause until the commercial breaks. In an interview with the morning show “Fox and Friends,” Mr. Gingrich said NBC’s rules amounted to stifling free speech. In what has become a standard line of attack for his anti-establishment campaign, Mr. Gingrich blamed the media for trying to silence a dissenting point of view. Sounds a lot like Tinkerbell, who also required audience applause to survive:

The rest is here:
What Newt Gingrich and Tinkerbell have in common

Tagged with:
 

Is it debate fatigue or was CNN’s pre-South Carolina primary debate intensely boring? Thank God for THE BLAZE’s live chats. Here are the kibbles and bits: 1. How awesome was the audience? It forced John King , who moderated, to get with the program and allow Ron Paul to answer a question about abortion, given Paul’s background as a medical doctor. If it weren’t for the audience, King would have coasted by the obvious choice of letting a doctor talk about health care. 2. But speaking of Paul, someone get him a new tie. This was the third debate in a row in which he wore same terrible 1970s-patterend necktie. On the other hand, Paul called Rick Santorum “overly sensitive” at one point , and that was pretty funny. 3. Santorum did very well for himself. “Grandiosity has never been a problem with Newt Gingrich . He handles it very well,” Santorum said, responding to a question about a suggestion by Gingrich that Santorum should drop out of the race. It’s about time someone called Gingrich out on that, am I right? He also accused Gingrich of not having “cogent thoughts.” 4. Gingrich consistently performs well in the debates. He sticks it to the moderator(s) and the audience loves it. But his outrage over being asked about the new interview his ex-wife granted to ABC News was a bit of pious baloney . Most Americans care more about jobs, I’m sure. But it was an issue that would have inevitably been brought up and better sooner than later. 5. Finally, Mitt Romney stood up for himself and his record as a CEO at Bain Capital. “I’m not going to apologize for being successful,” he said. But it would have been more impressive had he kept his hands out of his pockets. 6. Rick Perry : Gone but not forgotten.

Original post:
GOP debate on the surface: S.C V.2.0

Of course Herman Cain would rush to the defense of Newt Gingrich in light of an interview by Gingrich’s ex-wife, who claims he wanted their marriage to be an open relationship. Cain himself was the subject of allegations from four separate women that he engaged in sexual misconduct with them, thus leading him to suspend his own presidential campaign in December. “I loved Newt Gingrich’s response because that’s the same crap that they pulled on me, and that’s what’s wrong with politics,” Cain told Fox News on Friday morning. He was commenting on the fiery response Gingrich gave to CNN’s John King during Thursday’s Republican debate when King asked about Gingrich’s ex-wife’s claim. Gingrich told King that he had offered up friends who could refute the claims but ABC News, which aired the interview also on Thursday, was “not interested.” ABC Senior Vice President Jeffrey W. Schneider told the Washington Post that isn’t true: “His daughters were in our story last night and we sought interviews with Gingrich or surrogates very aggressively starting Tuesday morning. Would have been happy to interview anyone they put forward.” Someone here is lying. But at least we can assume it’s not Herman Cain. h/t Politico

Continue reading here:
Herman Cain: ‘That’s the same crap’ the media did to me

The campaign hopes to blunt any potential damage from his ex-wife’s ” bombshell interview ” with ABC News, scheduled for Thursday on Nightline .

The following revelation will likely cause an uproar among Mitt Romney supporters and bring significant heat on his detractors. The integrity of the “King of Bain” — a political movie which claims to tell the story of the former Massachusetts Governor’s time at Bain Capital – is being called  into question after two men interviewed for the film claim that, not only were they unaware  the film was about Romney or Bain Capital, their interview clips were taken grossly out of content. So egregious was the alleged spin, according to UniMac workers Tommy Jones and Mike Baxley, that both men claim the clips in which they are seen talking about personal hardships were in fact references to incidents that came long after their time at Bain Capital. According to the interview subjects, the hardships they speak of in the film refer to a time when they decided to strike it out on their own by starting an independent business. Fox News Insider adds: In part of the film, Jones was featured talking about the fear of losing insurance, and he added, “We weren’t even talking about Bain or Mitt Romney.” In fact, once Bain Capital took over UniMac, Jones said he had no issues because everyone at the company received raises. He also received two promotions while they were in charge. Baxley agreed and went on to say that he made it clear to the filmmaker that he was not saying anything about Bain during his interview and said, “I just think they did not want to use it as we were stating it, and decided to turn it around towards Bain.” Watch the latest video at video.insider.foxnews.com Jones and Baxley wanted to set the record straight, saying they were told this was a documentary about big corporations taking over small businesses. According to reports, the movie was paid for by a Newt Gingrich Super PAC and paints Romney as a greedy, corporate raider.

Originally posted here:
Men Interviewed for Anti-Romney Bain Movie Tell Megyn Kelly They Were Taken Grossly Out of Context

Actor Mark Wahlberg likely surprised viewers when he appeared on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight” last Friday to discuss a variety of issues — his faith, the importance of family, his work in the community and more. Wahlberg, who spent time in jail as a teenager, has overcome many barriers — poverty and crime, among others. In fact, he calls his time behind bars after assaulting two individuals a wake-up call that led him to take positive steps to improve his life. Below, watch Wahlberg address his jail time on Anderson Cooper’s daytime show late last month: video platform video management video solutions video player In his interview with Morgan, the actor, a Roman Catholic, was more than open about his faith, as he claimed that it was the single more important element in his life that has led to restoration. “My faith has really allowed me to overcome a lot of things — and hard work. You know, nothing comes easy…especially when you’ve got your back against the wall and you’ve got a lot going against you,” he told Morgan. “But I wanted to prove to people through my actions — not my words — that I was going to change and that I was going to make a positive impact on the community that I come from,” Wahlberg continued, as he delved into the activities he participates in to help those in need. ”I could not forget about where I came from and find myself in this position without helping and giving back.” Morgan then asked him about his participation in church. Considering that he’s a busy and successful actor, Wahlberg’s answer was surprising. “If I don’t go to mass necessarily every day…I definitely go to church every day,” he said. “That’s how I start my day. I like to get in there for about 15 or 20 minutes — say my prayers.” Clearly curious by this response, Morgan asked, “What does it bring you?” Wahlberg explained that church provides an opportunity for him to focus his day, while expressing his gratitude. Additionally, it allows him to clear his head so that he can focus upon his actions as well as the elements in his life that he needs to avoid. Prayer, too, is extremely important to the entertainer. “I pray to be a good servant to God, a father, a husband, a son, a friend, a brother and uncle, a good neighbor, a good leader to those who look up to me and a good follower to those that are serving God and doing the right thing,” he said. Watch this portion of his interview, below: (H/T:  Greg Hengler at Townhall )

Continued here:
I ‘Go to Church Every Day’: Actor Mark Wahlberg Credits Faith for Turning His Life Around

Tagged with:
 

President Barack Obama ‘s reelection campaign is a little disappointed that it didn’t get to be the one to make a big issue of Mitt Romney ‘s record at Bain Capital. “I would have preferred to wait, yes, to keep the bottle of whup-ass fresher,” an unnamed campaign strategist told Talking Points Memo. Rick Perry , Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman have all been hacking away at Bain Capital’s restructuring of businesses (aka “laying off workers”) while Romney was a private equity CEO at the company throughout the ’80s and ’90s. Many have argued that the attacks from Republicans will later be used by Obama’s team during the general election, should Romney secure the Republican nomination Romney still receives money from Bain through a retirement agreement made between him and the company in 1999.

View post:
Obama campaign sets to open ‘bottle of whup-ass’