Education Expert: Government Schools Warring on Christianity, Deliberately Dumbing Down Students

/3 Comments/in , , /by

Photo Credit: NewscomGovernment schools are warring on Christianity and real education, warns an education expert and one of America’s most influential Christian authors.

Pastor Carl Gallups and educator and author Alex Newman charge there is a deliberate and unified agenda to dumb down U.S. school children and remove Christianity from schools and public life. And both of them place most of the blame at the feet of John Dewey, the godfather of America’s progressive education system. . .

“It is absolutely clear at this point that the militant secular agenda and the Big Government agenda are actually one and the same,” [Newman stated]. “Real Christians have no need for big government. They generally have strong family, work ethic, community, and so on, in addition to high moral standards that should preclude bad behavior.”

Newman added, “But those promoting big government’s so-called solutions understand that a moral people with supreme allegiance to God are infinitely harder to oppress and control with government. Plus, the utopians pushing socialism and secularism know that as long as Americans are loyal to God above everything else, government will never be able to occupy that coveted place in people’s hearts, minds and souls.”

[Gallups also noted,] “We’ve raised up generations of these children who believe they are nothing but souped-up gorillas who think life is an accident, who can’t read well, who don’t possess deductive reasoning, and who can’t think critically. There is a massive, deliberate dumbing down because our public education system was built with the agenda of creating worker bees, not citizens,” he said. . .

“It is going to get a lot worse if Americans do not rise up and put a stop to this lunacy. As long as there exist well-educated, critical thinkers who were raised outside of the indoctrination system, there will always be that little boy to point out that the emperor actually has no clothes. This is why we are seeing the accelerating assault on educational freedom.” (Read more about government schools warring on Christianity HERE)

Majority of Americans See Obama as Incompetent; Believe Terrorists Live Nearby

/2 Comments/in , /by

A majority of Americans believe that the current administration is perpetually incompetent and that even their own neighborhood is not safe from terrorists, according to a new Fox News poll.

A full 60 percent of respondents think it likely that terrorists live in their town, up from 48 percent the last time the network asked the question in 2007. That’s also higher than the 58 percent who believed terrorists lived nearby in June 2002, just nine months after the 9/11 attacks that shook the nation. A record high 29 percent responded they felt it was “very” likely that terrorists are living in their area.

Meanwhile, 6 in 10 believe that the U.S. economy is still in recession, despite the administration’s longstanding assertions that the recession ended in 2009. While still a clear majority, the recent poll numbers are an improvement over last year’s response of 74 percent and the 86 percent of respondents in 2010 who believed the recession was still ongoing. . .

This dovetails with the 53 percent of respondents who believe Obama has not been “competent and effective” in managing the federal government. While only 46 percent approve of his job on the economy, a dismal 32 percent approve of how he’s handling ISIS. (Read more from “Majority of Americans See Obama as Incompetent; Believe Terrorists Live Nearby” HERE)

Secularists are Ecstatic: American Christianity is Finally Dying!

/2 Comments/in , /by

Much has been made of the recent Pew poll that highlights America’s religious landscape. What has drawn the most attention is the apparent decline of Christianity in the U.S. “The Christian share of the U.S. population is declining,” began the piece. Many liberals took gleeful notice. The Institute on Religion and Democracy’s Mark Tooley noted, “Secularists and their fellow travelers are ecstatic. The secular utopia about which John Lennon crooned is impending. Christianity is finally dying!”

Of course, this is far from the case, as Tooley later reveals. Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, points out that it’s not Christianity that’s dying, but rather “near Christianity” that is teetering. “Good riddance,” Moore concludes.

The denominations that have lost the most “near Christians” are Catholic and Mainline Protestant. According to the Washington Times, “for every person who joined the Roman Catholic Church, six others were departing.” Additionally, in the last 50 years, the proportion of Americans belonging to one of the “Seven Sisters of Mainline Protestantism” has plummeted from one in six to one in sixteen. . .

So . . . why have the Catholic Church and Mainline Protestantism seen such a collapse? Moore reveals the answer when he notes that, what the Pew poll really reveals is that we have “fewer incognito atheists” in America. “Those who don’t believe can say so — and still find spouses, get jobs, volunteer with the PTA, and even run for office. This is good news because the kind of ‘Christianity’ that is a means to an end — even if that end is ‘traditional family values’ — is what J. Gresham Machen rightly called ‘liberalism,’ and it is an entirely different religion from the apostolic faith handed down by Jesus Christ.”

. . .Don’t be surprised to see the decline of Christianity continue. As it becomes more difficult and dangerous to be a follower of Christ, more and more people are going to find the “wide road” described by Jesus quite appealing. This is especially the case when so-called “Christians” are pointing the way. (Read more from “Christianity is Finally Dying” HERE)

Top Staff Left Clinton Foundation Over “Unpleasant” Chelsea Clinton

/17 Comments/in , /by

Chelsea Clinton is so unpleasant to colleagues, she’s causing high turnover at the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, sources say.

Several top staffers have left the foundation since Chelsea came onBoard as vice chairman in 2011.

“A lot of people left because she was there. A lot of people left because she didn’t want them there,” an insider told me. “She is very difficult.”

Onetime CEO Bruce Lindsey was pushed upstairs to the position of chairman of the board two years ago, so that Chelsea could bring in her McKinsey colleague Eric Braverman.

“He [Braverman] was her boy, but he tried to hire his own communications professional and actually tried to run the place. He didn’t understand that that wasn’t what he was supposed to be doing,” said my source. “He was pushed out.” (Read more from “Top Staff Left Clinton Foundation Over Chelsea” HERE)

Redefining “Waters of the United States”: Is EPA Undermining Cooperative Federalism?

/1 Comment/in , /by

On April 21, 2014, without formally consulting with the States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) proposed to redefine the term “waters of the United States” for all Clean Water Act (CWA) programs. The proposed rule generated a purported 1,081,817 public comments. The comments of governors, attorneys general, and various state agencies and departments are nestled among over 1,055,000 mass mail comments, 11,800 generally non-substantive individual comments, 4,500 anonymous comments, and comments from a broad spectrum of businesses, industries, and environmental groups. As the State of Kansas declared, the States were “relegated to the status of interested party, indistinguishable from the myriad” of other commenters. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy recently stated to Congress that “[T]here is no question, I don’t think, that the docket will reflect that we have done significant outreach to the states on this. We have reached out to them through our regions, through headquarters, and we will continue that discussion.” Despite Administrator McCarthy’s assurances, many state comments in the docket describe almost no consultation with states prior to issuing the proposed definition, a rush to finalize the proposal, misleading and confusing outreach to the states after-the-fact and, as a result, a flawed rulemaking.

I. Congress Intended a Robust Clean Water Act Role for the States

The CWA and relevant Executive Orders describe a robust system of cooperative federalism. The CWA provides that it “is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and water resources, and to consult with the Administrator in the exercise of his authority under this chapter.” The Act further provides that “Federal agencies shall co-operate with State and local agencies to develop comprehensive solutions to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution in concert with programs for managing water resources.” Executive Order 13132 reinforces the need for state consultation for rulemakings that have federalism implications.

II. The Agencies Did Not Consult Prior to Proposing the Definition

Despite these requirements, consultation was “certainly lacking prior to the publication of the proposed rule.” The agencies did not believe that they needed to consult, certifying that the rule “will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Not surprisingly, most states do not agree with EPA. Oklahoma submitted a comment, for example, stating that EPA and the Corps “downplay the rule’s substantial effects on the relationship between the national government and states.” The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture stated that “[e]ven a cursory analysis indicates that the revised definition will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and on the States.” The New Mexico Environment Department noted that “the Agencies have failed to fully evaluate state and local level implementation” which “has direct impact on required staffing levels, legislative funding requests, and general agency planning.”

In other settings, EPA has offered even less convincing arguments for their failure to consult. Asked why EPA did not go to the states until after the fact, Administrator McCarthy responded that “These are issues that EPA and the States have been working on literally for decades . . .” This echoes what EPA officials have stated elsewhere. The Governor of Wyoming, for example, stated that “On September 12, 2014, Administrator McCarthy hosted a meeting in Washington, D.C. During that meeting, EPA staff acknowledged that little was done to solicit input from policy makers in state government on the proposed rule. The EPA indicated it viewed public comments related to previously proposed and withdrawn guidance documents as sufficient input to move forward.”

III. The Lack of Consultation Demonstrated a Rush to Finalize the Rule and Disadvantaged the States

In fact, many states implied that the agencies might have been in a hurry to propose and finalize the definition—leaving the states to suffer the consequences. Oklahoma stated that “there was no reason for EPA and the Corps to avoid formal and meaningful consultation with the states over the many years that have transpired since the agencies embarked upon this process.” The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection agreed stating that “[t]his is quite extraordinary, given that it is undertaking to entirely redefine the scope of a decades old enactment.” The lack of prior consultation resulted in insufficient time for states to “assess how the reach of proposed jurisdiction may change under state law” and “an inadequate period” for states “to develop comprehensive comments.” In doing so, the agencies “missed an opportunity to build consensus with the primary implementing entities and prevent controversy.” Failing to consult, EPA created “misunderstandings regarding the intent of the proposal [that] could have been avoided.” Instead, the rule resulted in “mass confusion among the very State partners that have worked with [the] Agencies for decades to accomplish all the water quality gains made thus far.” Worse still, in their rush the agencies finalized the proposed rule before finalizing the connectivity report, allowing “no ability for the public or other stakeholders to review and comment on” any changes. As a result, the state of Michigan, likely among others, suffered a “loss of confidence in the process and the legitimacy of the end result.”

IV. The Outreach After the Proposal was Misleading, Confusing, and Insufficient

Yet, Administrator McCarthy states that EPA has “reached out to [states] through our regions, through headquarters, and we will continue that discussion.” Apart from the fact that consultation described as “after the fact” cannot fulfill the agencies’ consultation requirement, the docket reflects a flawed outreach effort. First, “[i]ncluding the states with all other stakeholders and interested parties in the opportunity for public comment…is decidedly not the robust and meaningful[] state-federal ‘consult and cooperate’ partnership that Congress clearly had in mind.” Second, meaningful state engagement and consultation cannot be boiled down to a “series of meetings, speeches, and webinars seeking to explain the proposed rule and answer questions.” This is especially so given that at least some of these meetings were “not recorded, not for official comment, and only to provide information.” Third, meaningful state engagement and consultation cannot be met by stonewalling. Apparently, “agencies’ staff frequently answer[ed] questions with ‘We don’t know’ and ‘We’ll have to figure that out.’” Montana repeatedly reached out to the Corps for “a representative to discuss the agency’s view of any change in scope of jurisdiction under the rule” and was “met with one response, ‘we cannot discuss the USACE’s view of how the rule will be applied, please submit comments.’” On a related note, meaningful state consultation cannot occur when the Corps is either “silent” or completely absent from the rulemaking process. Finally, meaningful consultation cannot occur in a context where the agencies make the kinds of contradictory and misleading statements that would lead the Governor of Wyoming to declare:

Different messages for different audiences. It is one thing to propose a rule that is excessive, onerous, and in derogation of states; it is another entirely to assure the public that they have misunderstood the proposal and then saddle those same people with the burden of a rule the content and intent of which was misrepresented by the agencies.

V. The Faulty Consultation, Among other Deficiencies, Led to Widespread State Opposition and Significant Implementation Concerns

“Unfortunately, the lack of state engagement is evident.” This faulty process led to a flawed proposed rule that the majority of states directly oppose. Florida’s Attorney General describes the proposed definition as a “raw exercise of a general federal police power.” Many states documented significant “concerns related to the legal rationale for the proposal and implications of that rationale on state programs.” For example, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources stated that the “rule has significant implications for federalism, affects the State’s traditional authority to regulate land and water use, impacts the federal-state framework under the Act, and is unlawful under the Act and the Constitution.” Practically, states were concerned that the proposed definition, inter alia:

· “changes [the] balance to lessen the burden on the federal government marginally, while creating significant additional unnecessary requirements for both state agencies and individual landowners”

· creates “the potential that the states will have to classify the uses of newly jurisdictional waters for application of State water quality standards”

· creates “the potential for a federal veto of State economic development projects” through federal permitting

· “will undoubtedly lead to increased litigation and burdensome resource constraints on our agencies”

· “potentially impacts the stability of Michigan’s wetland program,”

· “could significantly impact the administration of [clean water] programs,”

· “increases uncertainty for many landowners, advances a severe disconnect between permitting and water conservation, and dramatically underestimates the costs”

· “is counter to our statewide vision and current strategic plan of locally derived management”

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection concluded, “As might be expected with a centrally-dictated product that previously had not seen the light of day…the proposed definition presents severe problems in implementation.”

VI. Conclusion

The agencies, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress are at a crossroads. The docket clearly and forcefully describes agency actions that “undermined the cooperative federalism at the heart of the CWA and ignored the substantial direct effects on state governments . . .” The agencies effectively “ignore[d] the role States play as co-regulators,” “encroach[ed] on . . . sovereignty,” and “undeniably excluded” the states’ “CWA co-regulating agencies.” Relegating states “to the status of interested party…dilute[d] their input on the repercussions and consequences of the proposed rule.” The proposed definition is under review by the OMB, and the agencies have indicated that the proposed definition will be finalized. Both the OMB and Congress have one last opportunity to send EPA back to the drawing board before the proposed definition is finalized. Perhaps one or the other will hear and act on the cry of states like Oklahoma that:

[T]he States and the Agencies could have been allies in the effort to clarify WOTUS jurisdiction to the benefit of all who implement the CWA’s many facets. As it stands now, we’ve lost faith in the process and believe that the myriad flaws and points of confusion cannot be resolved satisfactorily through a series of public comment period extensions. The kind of input that our agencies and other State co-regulators seek, not to mention deserve as a matter of mutual respect and as required by law, can only be accomplished through halting the current effort, rolling up our sleeves, and developing regulatory language through a meaningful exchange of ideas and drafts.

Such an approach could “lead to a more successful outcome than the protracted litigation that would result from adoption of the current rule.” After consultation, “the Agencies should propose a very different rule, which respects the States’ primary responsibility over the lands and waters within their borders and gives farmers, developers and homeowners clear guidance as to when the CWA’s requirements apply.” (See “Redefining “Waters of the United States”: Is EPA Undermining Cooperative Federalism?”, originally posted HERE)

Iraqi forces, civilians flee as ISIS gains control of Ramadi

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Fear of a possible Islamic State bloodbath sent tens of thousands of Iraqis fleeing Ramadi on Monday after government forces abandoned the city — just 80 miles from Baghdad — in what one U.S. military official conceded was a fight “pretty much over.”

Some 25,000 people have fled the embattled streets of Ramadi as thousands of ISIS fighters seized the key Iraqi city, killing some 500, and reportedly going door-to-door looking for Iraqi government troops and police to run out of town.

“There have been executions in the streets of Ramadi,” Muhannad Haimour, a spokesman for the Anbar provincial government, told NBC News Monday. ISIS extremists used vehicles, bulldozers rigged with explosives and suicide bombers to overrun the city after weeks of battles in the street. . .

Although there were a large number of Iraqi security forces occupying Ramadi, most troops fled after ISIS fighters began their assault on the city center Sunday, leaving behind Humvees and armored vehicles supplied by the U.S. military, a separate senior U.S. military official told Fox News.

“The Iraqi security forces were pushed out by a much smaller [ISIS] force,” the official said. (Read more from “ISIS gains control of Ramadi” HERE)

John Kerry: Internet Needs Stronger Regulations to “Work Properly”

/4 Comments/in , /by

In a speech in South Korea, Secretary of State John Kerry said that the Internet needs heavier regulations to “be able to flourish and work properly.”

Touting the Obama administration’s new policy on the Internet, Kerry insisted that without strict government regulation, the Internet could not reach its potential, and he couched his comments as a way to respond to threats of cyberattacks.

Kerry claimed that his “universal concepts” and “five principles” were necessary to protect the world’s Internet:

First, no country should conduct or knowingly support online activity that intentionally damages or impedes the use of another country’s critical infrastructure. Second, no country should seek either to prevent emergency teams from responding to a cybersecurity incident, or allow its own teams to cause harm. Third, no country should conduct or support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, trade secrets, or other confidential business information for commercial gain. Fourth, every country should mitigate malicious cyber activity emanating from its soil, and they should do so in a transparent, accountable and cooperative way. And fifth, every country should do what it can to help states that are victimized by a cyberattack.

But even with these “five principles,” Kerry said that there is still more work to do to “develop a truly reliable framework—based on international law—that will effectively deter violations and minimize the danger of conflict.” (Read more about John Kerry asserting that the Internet needs stronger regulations HERE)

The Progressives’ Thug Agenda

/1 Comment/in , /by

If you think that government is force, you probably don’t think much of President Obama’s deceptive line about government being the name for things we do together. “Government is the name of things we do by force,” you retort.

But everyone understands that government is all about force, so we lie about it. When we propose more government we either claim we are fighting injustice, or we hide the fact that we are advancing a thug agenda based on force; we say it’s for the children.

So let’s look at the recently published “Progressive Agenda” and see what we find. . .

It is a demand for government favors: higher mandated wages, higher mandated benefits, more free baby-sitting. And never mind where the money is coming from; enforcement officers will deal with that.

Progressives like to talk about the glory days of good union jobs and good wages in the 1950s, and how Reagan ruined it in the 1980s. What they don’t like to talk about is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. You know what it is; it’s right there in the Progressive Agenda: immigration. If there’s one thing that has been creating income inequality in America it is immigration. If you want to know what is hurting the low paid it is high immigration legal and illegal. It’s simple supply and demand: increase the number of workers by opening the spigots on immigration and wages will go down.

The Progressive Agenda tells us that progressives really don’t care about low-wage people, for their agenda is a mess of thug politics that won’t really help anyone.

Enormous, “Bulletproof” Cross Arises in Pakistan

/0 Comments/in , /by

A Pakistani businessman who is building a 14-story cross in the heart of Pakistan’s largest city claims he got the idea when God came to him in a dream.

Parvez Henry Gill, part of the small Christian minority in predominantly Muslim nation, is believes his 140-foot-tall cross will be a source of comfort and inspiration for the country’s followers of Christ, who often face persecution and violence.

“I said, ‘I am going to build a big cross, higher than any in the world, in a Muslim country,’” Gill told the The Washington Post. “It will be a symbol of God, and everybody who sees this will be worry-free.”

The cross is being built at the entrance to the largest Christian burial ground in Karachi, Gora Qabristan Cemetery, in the southern section of the city. Made of concrete and steel, the massive monument will boast a 42-foot wide crosspiece and will be the largest in Asia.

Tombstones in the graveyard are often defaced, but Gill hopes the cross while be a beacon of hope in his country for minority Christians and encourage them to remain in Pakistan. (Read more from “Enormous Cross Arises in Pakistan” HERE)

Dems Put Americans at Risk, Push to Extend Afghan Visas

/0 Comments/in , /by

Once again, liberals in Washington are pursuing a dyslexic approach to national security and immigration. Instead of focusing on homeland security, they are continuing to center their attention on nation building in Afghanistan. Ironically, the continued engagement in Afghanistan is leading to more immigration from this volatile region – the very security risk that serves as the impetus for engaging in military operations there in the first place.

As Conservative Review pointed out last year, tens of thousands of refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan have been admitted over the past decade. The lack of proper vetting has led to numerous cases where refugees immigrated to the U.S. only to be outed as terrorists or potential security risks. Now, Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) has inserted a provision into the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2016 (NDAA) – the very bill that reauthorizes much of our continued presence in Afghanistan – which would extend the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program and allow 3,000 more immigrants into the country from this hotbed of Islamic terror.

The Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program, just like its Iraqi counterpart, provides green cards to Afghanis who work for the U.S. military in Afghanistan. They can come over with their families under this process if they meet certain qualifications. Generally speaking, it is a good idea to provide this status to those natives who help the U.S. in foreign wars because they often need protection as a result of their work with the military. But as American citizens have witnessed over the past decade, the rampant spread of radical jihad throughout the Middle East has made it arduous to distinguish friend from foe in the region.

From 2007-2014, the U.S. government has admitted 16,380 translators, interpreters, and contractors from Iraq through this program and 13,015 from Afghanistan [See Congressional Research Service for more information]. These numbers do not include the amount of refugees that have been given green cards because the Special Immigrant Visas are counted as employment-based immigration. Roughly 15,000-20,000 refugees have emigrated here from Iraq each year. With ISIS’s cyber Jihad successfully penetrating so many Muslim communities, especially those who hail from the Middle East, why should the U.S. welcome such needless risk and continue to admit thousands more? It’s important to remember that each interpreter or contractor can bring in an unlimited number of family members. It is very conceivable to have an honest interpreter who has children that are being swept up in the growing Jihadist fervor.

Where is the common sense?

There have been numerous tragedies of our brave soldiers killed in Afghanistan at the prime of their lives because they were double crossed by an Afghani contractor or interpreter. One such “green-on-blue” attack killed U.S. Major General Harold Green in 2014, the highest-ranking casualty in a theater of war since Vietnam. Attacks from supposedly friendly Afghanis accounted for 15% of coalition soldier deaths in 2012.

Last week, an individual who immigrated here in 2009 through the Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa program was arrested near Dallas for travelling to Syria and attempting to join ISIS. According to the New York Times, Bilal Abood served as a translator for the U.S. military in Iraq and has since become a naturalized citizen. Now he faces, at most, up to eight years in prison. On top of that, thanks to the refusal of Congress to bring up Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) Expatriate Terror Act, Abood will keep his citizenship.

This story comes on the heels of an endless stream of American Muslims caught fighting for ISIS or engaging in other activities for terrorist organizations. Just last week, federal officials arrested an entire Lebanese Muslim family in Cedar Rapids, Iowa – yes, in the heartland of America – for allegedly smuggling weapons into Lebanon that were likely headed to Hezbollah.

Think about the dyslexic policies that have been pursued since 9/11. In response to the horrible terror attack that was rooted in imprudent immigration policies, our military was dispatched to engage in endless operations in Afghanistan and Iraq…only to bring in more security risks through immigration from some of the most dangerous parts of the world.

The entire purpose of passing a defense authorization bill is to keep this great nation safe. At the very minimum, this bill should not make security matters worse. If nobody offers an amendment to strip out this Afghani immigration provision, conservative members should have no qualms about voting down this year’s NDAA. (See “Dems Put Americans at Risk, Push to Extend Afghan Visas” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.