Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Pres. George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (509)	3/4/2003 12:15:41 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 601

Cal Thomas March 4, 2003 URL:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20030304.shtml Under God? Let's see the proof There are two ways to look at the decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upholding its ruling last June in which it declared the Pledge of Allegiance clause "One nation, under God " violates the constitutional prohibition against government established religion. One way is for politicians of both parties to demagogue the ruling for votes. Many of them don't pay much attention to God when it comes to the great moral issues of the day, but they find Him a convenient tool to persuade people they are doing His will in Washington. Yes, the unelected and still mostly liberal federal judges continue their four-decades-old nasty habit of dismantling our institutions, symbols and beliefs for the sake of a microscopic minority. The courts demand that every religious person must accommodate a single atheist who might be "offended " at the favorable mention of God's name (unfavorable or blasphemous mentions, we are told, are protected by the same First Amendment that prohibits favorable mentions). But no atheist can be forced to accommodate a single religious person who might be offended by the atheist's unbelief, or who wants to be part of the pluralism and diversity about which liberals regularly speak, but which is not broad enough to embrace people who believe in God. Why do people who believe in and teach their children about God at home and in church put them in government schools that often undermine those beliefs? If parents would not put their children in a religious environment that does not reflect their faith, why do they send them into a school system in which faith and secularism so often collide, often to the detriment of faith? The second way to look at the court decision is to ask where is the evidence that this nation is truly "under God "? If there is little evidence, then perhaps the late Justice William Brennan was right when he observed that such expressions of divine fealty are merely "ceremonial deism. " They might make some people feel good about the country, but are they objectively true? What kind of nation that is "under God " would abort 40 million of its own children? Turn on the television at almost any hour - from daytime soap operas and shows that glorify the lurid and the wicked, to prime-time programs full of sexual situations, crude jokes and four-letter words - and ask yourself if this is reflective of a nation "under God. " Are rampant pornography and child abuse an indication of God's influence on America? What about the poor? The same Scriptures some conservatives selectively quote, or misquote, in pursuit of various agendas (against homosexual practice and abortion, for example) are ignored by many of them when those Scriptures speak of other things. God expects the "godly " to take care of the poor as a means of sharing His love with them. Now we are told the government should be doing this through the Orwellian-named "faith-based initiative. " What faith? What about family breakups? The divorce rate remains high and so do the number of unmarried people cohabiting and the number of babies born outside marriage. Younger kids are having sex and stories about oral sex on school buses and in school hallways compete for our attention along with the provocative clothing parents buy for their pre-teen daughters. The magazine racks at supermarket checkout lines are consumed with stories about sex. Are such things reflective of a nation that is "under God "? America has a record number of people in prison. Are large numbers of lawbreakers indicative of a people who obey the great Law Giver? The 9th Circuit's latest ruling takes effect in nine Western states on March 10. Attorney General John Ashcroft has pledged to appeal to the Supreme Court, which is good. The high court should decide to allow the pledge to be recited as is. Psalm 33:12 says, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. " Is God the "Lord " of the United States? Do we act like it? Should our government formally say so if it isn't true? Saying so will not make it true. Only a change in behavior and focus will. ©2003 Tribune Media Services

To: calgal who wrote (509)	3/4/2003 12:17:24 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 601

Brent Bozell March 4, 2003 URL:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20030304.shtml Hollywood's geopolitical geniuses The United States is on the brink of war with Iraq. As Saddam Hussein begins to brace for the whirlwind, he's got few weapons left. One of them is very predictable: Hollywood. A group called "Artists United to Win Without War" planned a "virtual march" on Washington for Feb. 26, an electric blitz of phone calls, faxes and e-mails calling for delay, delay, delay -- the complete set of Tariq Aziz talking points. But wait a minute. Just how can one take these "artists" seriously when they give themselves a name like that? Just how does one "win without war"? We accomplished zilch-o with U.N. "enforcement." Now we're going to "win" by giving in to more of the same. Kumbaya. To get the Hollywood campaign going, the "artists" put out 30-second TV ads featuring ... themselves. Martin Sheen, NBC's fake president, declares, "Don't invade Iraq ... Inspections work. War won't." The ad does not include a laugh track. In a different ad campaign, sour-pussed "comedian" Janeane Garofalo informs viewers of a U.N. estimate of half a million casualties "if we invade Iraq." She asks, "Do we have the right to do that to a country that's done nothing to us?" Celebrity Garofalo has been on news channels everywhere decrying how news channels only want to talk to celebrities instead of real experts. If only she had the decency to abide by her own argument and shut up! Hollywood plasters itself all over the public policy debate, and after being picked up by news media, then they slam the press for being shallow. They're right. As the Iraq threat grows more serious, these cultural ambassadors just get sillier. On last week's Sunday "news" shows, while NBC poked at an actual acid-flashback sixties retread, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, CBS and Fox sank into silliness by inviting on celebrity Iraq "experts." Can you imagine being one of the roughly 500 members of Congress who never get invited? If you want to match furrowed brows with Bob Schieffer, it would have been smarter to work first on the sets of "MASH" or "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." CBS matched savvy National Review editor Rich Lowry with radical-left actors Mike Farrell and Susan Sarandon. This is one week where liberals might have complained about the imbalance to the right, one conservative heavyweight and two leftist lightweights. It was painful to watch, and we were all in trouble when Schieffer began his interview with Farrell by chatting like a smitten fan about how much he loved him as "the other doctor" on "MASH." I loved that show, too, but it doesn't stop me from wanting to stomp on Farrell's wacky political agenda. On "Fox News Sunday," Tony Snow was wading warily through the gaseous fog that is Janeane Garofalo's mind. This woman makes Joe Biden look sophisticated. It's apparently riveting TV to match geopolitical wits with the star of "The Truth About Cats and Dogs" as she talks about "Operation Desert Fox." Maybe she's seen James Mason play Nazi Field Marshal Erwin Rommel in the 1951 movie "Desert Fox." Or maybe she was just thinking about appearing on Fox. Maybe she is a fox. I don't know. In yet another appearance on MSNBC, host Mike Barnicle asked Garofalo who was more dangerous, Saddam or President Bush. She claimed, "they are both very threatening to world peace, and to deny that is to be incredibly naive." Really? Well, sure. "There has been a war on the people of Iraq since 1990. The plan to go into Iraq for hegemony over the region has been in play for a very long time, and the ideologues in this administration want to go in." Spare us. Garofalo here is merely chanting the mantras of America-loathing crackpots like Noam Chomsky and Ramsey Clark, who spent the 1990s blaming the United States for starving Iraqi children with an embargo, even as Saddam Hussein made food unavailable to his people while he loaded up on weapons manufacturing. Giving these "artists" a little room to rant quickly reveals the lie behind their campaign's claim to be a "mainstream voice" for "patriotic Americans." Anyone taking the "artists" seriously must be prepared to deny the truth that the Sheen-Garofalo-Farrell-Sarandon crowd represent a hard-left fringe, decidedly outside the American mainstream on war and peace, and nearly everything else. I believe the challenges we face are too serious to play jokes on the American people. But then I consider that on the brink of war, we deserve a few laughs to ease the pressure. So I look forward to the next Garofalo interview. Brent Bozell is President of Media Research Center, a TownHall.com member group. ©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.