Mar 30, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
According to the NYSun's editorial ["One Nation, Under God," March 24, 2004], in 1954 Congress added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in order to distinguish America from the godless Soviet Union. But today America's main foes are theocracies, so what if we update the pledge once again, replacing the words "under God" with "under no God"?
By NYSun's argument, parents of religious children would have no right to complain, since "no school can compel students to say the pledge. Students may be quiet, remain seated, or even say the whole pledge without the words 'under [no] God.' It's hard for us to see how this amounts to an unconstitutional establishment of [atheism]."
Is that really so difficult to grasp?
Mar 30, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From "Psychic tip grounds Florida flight" (March 27, 2004):
A self-described psychic's tip that a bomb might be on a plane prompted a search with bomb-sniffing dogs that turned up nothing suspicious, but forced the cancellation of the flight. American Airlines Flight 1304 at Southwest Florida International Airport was canceled Friday because some crew members had exceeded their work hours by the time the search was finished, officials said.
Comments CM reader Chris Weed:
We have the most sophisticated weapon/bomb screening devices ever created, but I doubt they are much good when controlled by new-age mystics.
Mar 30, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
From CNN last Friday: Iraqi cleric calls 9/11 'miracle from God'Al-Sadr railed against the United States' occupation of Iraq. "I seek the spread of freedom and democracy in the way that satisfies God," he said. "They have planned and paved the ways for a long time, but it is God who is the real planner -- and the proof of this is the fall of the American twin towers." He then referred to the September 11 attacks as "a miracle from God."
"As we say, 'The rain starts with a drop,' " he said. [Emphasis added]
From yesterday's Washington Post: Shiites Organize to Block U.S. Plan.Sheik Sahib Abdullah Warwar Qureishi is a wakil, or religious representative. He is one of about 200 in Baghdad who answer to Sistani, many of them providing the organizational power behind the campaign's momentum. [...]
Some of the youngest of the sheik's followers pleaded for more direct action. "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line," said Jawad Rumi, 33. "The shortest distance from Earth to Heaven is jihad." [...]
Jassim Jazairi, a 35-year-old cleric in a black turban, runs the branch of the Murtada Foundation on Baghdad's Palestine Street, one of two in the capital.[...]
"Even now, when we hold forums and we talk about [Sistani's] reservations, the people almost respond with violence," Jazairi said. "They're emotional, and they're ready to act."
Jazairi predicted that protests would come next, to force amendments to the constitution. He insisted they would stay nonviolent -- "peaceful resistance," as he put it. To him, they were another step in the politicization of the Shiite community, led by the clergy. [Emphasis added]
On the possibility that an Islamist government might be formed in Iraq, The Ayn Rand Institute's David Holcberg recently commented at Capitalism Magazine:The United States should demand that the new Iraqi constitution include an explicit separation of state and Islam. The threat posed by a new regime in which Islamic fundamentalism has political power is unacceptable. It makes no sense to have gone to war to overthrow a secular tyranny only to replace it with a religious one that is potentially far more dangerous to America. But to make such a demand would require the current administration to identify Islamic fundamentalism as our ideological enemy and to recognize that the separation of state and religion is a crucial requirement of freedom not only in Iraq, but here in America as well.
On the former point, at least one administration official seems to have moved in the right direction. Daniel Pipes recently noted this exchange at the 9/11 commission: Who Is the Enemy in the War on Terror?.JAMIE S. GORELICK, commission member: And would you agree that our principal adversary right now is Islamic extremists and jihadists?
COLIN L. POWELL, U.S. secretary of state: I would say that they are the source of most of the terrorist threats that we are facing.
Pipes recalls that just after 9/11, Powel insisted that the attacks "should not be seen as something done by Arabs or Islamics; it is something that was done by terrorists."Mar 29, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
Harry Binswanger had an letter in the Sun on Mayor Bloomberg's holding back third graders who haven't passed their courses:
In "Mayor Forces End of Social Promotion," an unidentified "student representative" announces, "People shouldn't be fired for what they believe in." Oh, really? So then the Pope shouldn't be fired if he decided that Catholicism was wrong? And Democrats shouldn't vote for Kerry, because then we'd be firing Bush because of what he believes in?
A person should be judged by what he believes in. Unless he is a hypocrite, he acts on his convictions. When someone's beliefs and actions place him in irreconcilable conflict with the institution that has hired or appointed him, he should be summarily dismissed. That was the case with those on the education panel who would have voted to continue the nefarious practice of "social promotion." Mayor Bloomberg showed courage and integrity in firing those panelists.
Social promotion? How can someone call himself an educator when he believes that ignorance doesn't exist as long as we don't call it ignorance?
Mar 29, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
The deliberate ambiguity of America's "one China" policy can't last, as Ellen Bork makes clear from a recent example:
[L]ast Saturday, China was working hard to keep Washington from allowing the freely expressed sentiments of the Taiwanese to influence American policy. China's foreign minister,Li Zhaoxing,called Secretary of State Powell on the telephone, pressing him "to stick to the one-China policy." According to a Chinese government spokesman, Mr. Powell "reiterated U.S. support for Beijing's insistence that Taiwan is a part of one China, governed by the mainland," deliberately misstating American policy.
A rebuttal from Washington would be helpful. The "one China" policy America adheres to does not accept that Beijing governs Taiwan. American policy seeks the peaceful resolution of the conflict and neither supports nor opposes Taiwan's independence.
Wasn't it George W. Bush who's been saying we're going to support free nations across the globe? So much for that idea.Mar 28, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
This cartoon was inspired by a comment by Instapundit reader Jon Henke:I've noticed the Democrats are calling the Administration's response to Clarke "character assassination". Odd, considering the response has largely consisted of pointing out Clarke's own words. Wouldn't that more accurately be called "character suicide"?
As CNN reports, the Democrat making that accusation was none other than John Kerry.On Clarke, Kerry said: "Every time somebody comes up and says something that this White House doesn't like, they don't answer the questions about it or show you the truth about it. They go into character assassination mode."
Leave it to Democrats to cry foul when their own words used against them.
A good op-ed about Dick Clarke by Mark Steyn, Bush has nothing to fear from this hilarious work of fiction:I don't know how good Clarke was at counter-terrorism, but as a media performer he is a total dummy. He seemed to think that he could claim the lucrative star role of Lead Bush Basher without anybody noticing the huge paper trail of statements he has left contradicting the argument in his book.
