Historic Site
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google




«Headlines Updated Daily«
Tuesday September 2, 2014
Made in the USA since 1998

The Questions Aren’t
Ridiculous to Ask Anymore

Frank Salvato
Not too long ago if you supposed that President Obama was sympathetic to his Islamic experience as a child, inside the beltway Republicans would cringe and Progressives would howl. Non-engaged and no- and low-information voters would immediately call you a conspiracy theorist, an Obama-hating racist and other assorted kneejerk labels. But given the incredible inaction and indecisiveness on Mr. Obama’s part with regard to the Islamic State, this question not only needs to be braved, but has become one we all need a definitive answer to. Mr. Obama intended, from the very beginning, to bring a new perspective to the American people about the Islamic culture. His 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt, was titled “A New Beginning.” But as Victor Davis Hanson points out in his article Obama’s Hazy Sense of History: “President Obama doesn't know much about history...” Indeed, we have arrived at the moment in time when some critical questions are not only valid, but desperately need to be asked.

Read Frank Salvato's Blog by Clicking Here


Yes, Mr. Holder, Words Matter
Frank Salvato
In February of 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama spoke to a campaign rally crowd in Wisconsin and declared that “words matter.” In shaping the image that was the centerpiece of the “idea of Obama,” he ginned-up an air of intellectualism using the tactic of manipulating through emotion, a potent tool in the Progressive war chest. “Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” he said. “I have a dream. Just words. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...Just words...just speeches.” Indeed, Mr. Obama is absolutely correct, a rare point where I agree with him. The problem is this. If we hold him to his own words, then the statements of his closest ally, Attorney General Eric Holder, must be taken literally. This is where I find myself very concerned. The events in Ferguson, Missouri, are serious on many levels. We have the death of a young man and the brutal beating of a police officer at his hand. We have a community that exists on the head of a racial powder keg, begging for a spark to light the fuse. And we have perhaps the most politically motivated – and many would say, and rightfully so, divisive – US Attorney’s General in the history of our nation in Eric Holder, injecting himself into this delicate situation and making some statements where words certainly do matter.


Obama’s No-Win Dilemma
Paul R. Hollrah
As sympathetic as I may be to any dilemma that might cause Barack Obama some sleepless nights, I understand that no amount of conventional military power will stop the ISIS onslaught in that region of the world. Any time we spend debating whether or not to commit military forces against ISIS, or how much, is wasted time. Instead, we should be spending our time thinking in terms of how to discredit radical jihadists throughout the Muslim world through the skillful use of information technology, and how we might protect our American homeland. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has recently warned, "If we ignore (ISIS), I am sure they will reach Europe in a month and America in another month." We simply cannot allow that to happen and military power is not the answer. Instead, we must make the Muslim presence here so unpleasant that they will long for a return to whatever hellhole they came from. To do that, we must make membership or participation in any organization advocating the violent overthrow of the US government a major criminal offense.

The Assembly of a New World Order
Henry Kissinger
Libya is in civil war, fundamentalist armies are building a self-declared caliphate across Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan's young democracy is on the verge of paralysis. To these troubles are added a resurgence of tensions with Russia and a relationship with China divided between pledges of cooperation and public recrimination. The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis. The search for world order has long been defined almost exclusively by the concepts of Western societies. In the decades following World War II, the US--strengthened in its economy and national confidence--began to take up the torch of international leadership and added a new dimension. A nation founded explicitly on an idea of free and representative governance, the US identified its own rise with the spread of liberty and democracy and credited these forces with an ability to achieve just and lasting peace.

The Mainstreaming of Liberalism
Robert W. Merry
One of the curious aspects of the TEA Party's emergence during the past four years is the extent to which the mainstream media have fostered the idea that this political phenomenon represents a kind of radicalism. Certainly, some politicians of the so-called TEA Party have tossed out ideas and expressions that have been silly and warped. Does that mean, though, that the TEA Party, as a broad political movement, is radical? The answer is no. The TEA Party is a reactive movement, aimed at protecting the political mainstream from radical ideas, initiatives and policies of the left. Indeed, a review of American politics over, say, the last 50 years reveals that, to the extent America has been grappling with radicalism, it has been coming from the left. Then, as these ideas have gained traction through the agitations of the country's liberal establishment, that establishment promptly labels those who resist as radicals.


   Please Contribute Today!


Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
dedicated web hosting

Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server