Now that the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to ban "under God" from the pledge of allegiance has been protested all over the landscape, perhaps we might step back and consider the broader implications of the fact that such a decision could have been made in the first place.
These are amazing times. While federal courts collaborate with atheist zealots to expunge every innocuous mention of religion from the public square under the guise of protecting the fragile self-esteem of unbelievers and their vulnerable children, taxpayers are forced to pay for "sex positive" propaganda spread from public streets to public schools.
You had us worried there for a while. In the wake of your inspiring and brilliant speech this week, one feels a little sheepish to have doubted you. Yet your trumpet on the Middle East had been, let's face it, a little uncertain during the past few months.
On the eve of our great national birthday party and in the aftermath of Sept. 11, when millions of us turned to God and prayed for forgiveness of individual and corporate sins and asked for His protection against future attacks, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has inflicted on this nation what many will conclude is a greater injury than that caused by the terrorists.
Anyone who has ever been dissatisfied with his driver's license photo will have to admit there is something to be said for Sultaana Freeman's approach. In her picture, nothing is visible except her eyes and the bridge of her nose. The rest of her head is covered by a black veil.
Happily, the number seven was not lucky on Thursday for the disgustingly determined and mostly liberal people who oppose extending to poor parents the right of school choice that is routinely exercised by middle-class Americans, including many liberals.
The economy is doing fine, but the stock market is slumping. So far, the blame has rightly been placed on corporate corruption, dishonest accounting practices and some ill-advised protectionist trade moves by the Bush administration. But these, it seems, are only partly to blame.
JUNE 2005, JERUSALEM -- I'm writing to you from Jerusalem, where I recently interviewed Israeli Prime Minister Effie Eitam. Eitam entered the Israeli government as minister-without-portfolio in the government of Ariel Sharon in 2002 and as a member of the National Religious Party.
The president's speech on the Middle East this week unveiled a radically new idea that goes far beyond the ``Arafat has to go'' headlines. Of course Arafat has to go. He has spent his eight years in control of Palestinian society encouraging and glorifying violence.
The sagging stock market is diverging significantly from the rising economy. It's a puzzling and very unusual event. Much of this disconnect can be traced to a loss of investor trust due to corporate corruption and the breakdown of accounting standards.
The question is rarely asked. It is simply taken for granted that the left -- Europe, the Western news media, the universities, the liberal churches, the arts world -- supports the Palestinians and the larger Arab/Muslim worlds in their war against Israel.
"When sorrows come, they come not single spies, But in battalions," said Hamlet. If President Bush has time left over from defusing a war between India and Pakistan, and preparing a plan for Mideast peace, he best take a quick glance south. From Tijuana to Tierra del Fuego, democratic capitalism is in deepening peril.
Whether the Palestinians know it or not, President Bush has paid them a high compliment. He has judged them, in his Monday Rose Garden remarks, capable of moving beyond Yasser Arafat, onto the higher slopes of participatory democracy and free elections.
President Bush's strong response to the Sept. 11 attacks has formed a Texas-size advertisement for his re-election. Less noticeable has been Bush's betrayal of the conservative ideals that were supposed to animate his domestic policy with meaning.
Hardly a week goes by without at least one reader asking a really tough question. The latest tough question dealt with a recent column which said that, in a war for survival, the government has not only the right but the duty to intern groups whose loyalties are to our enemies.
Last Thursday, President Bush announced the first recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom in his presidency. This is an award inaugurated by President Kennedy to honor civilians who have served their country in the arts, literature, sport, politics and other endeavors.
On one recent morning, Jose Pinera, the world's leading Social Security reformer, wore a blue windbreaker and spoke energetically to an American visitor of growing up "one of six children, with a mother who believed in savings.
NYT Journalist Wonders: "Free Speech Aside" Why Would Anyone Hold A Contest to Draw Muhammed? | Katie Pavlich