Archive for the ‘National’ Category
Professors in higher education have become notably more liberal during the past 25 years, according to a recent study, and academics predict that the trend isn’t likely to slow any time soon.
During the past quarter-century, academia has seen a nearly 20-percent jump in the number of professors who identify as liberal. That increase has created a lopsided ideological spread in higher education, with liberal professors now outpacing their conservative counterparts by a ratio of roughly 5 to 1.
In 2014, 60 percent of professors identified as “liberal” or “far left,” according to the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA, as reported by The Washington Post’s “Wonkblog.”
Compare that with 1990 survey data, when only 42 percent said the same.
Read mmore by Natalie Johnson at DailySignal.com
…which later became Black History Month. The month of February was chosen in honor of two Republicans, Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln, who were both born in that month.
Too often, we settle for the idea that Lincoln fought to save a mythical union. He really fought for opportunity
The United States has just concluded a five-year observance of the sesquicentennial of the Civil War. As in the past, most new books about the period have focused principally on matters military, reexamining the familiar major battles or offering new biographies of generals of the war. A few have explored new aspects of Lincoln’s life and presidency and the political conflicts immediately preceding and during the war.
For all the merits of these recent volumes, too few have provided satisfying answers to an essential question: why was the Civil War really fought? This subject still cries out for serious and informed exploration and analysis. The prevailing arguments—that the war occurred to preserve the American Union for its own sake, to defend or destroy slavery, or to expand or restrict federal authority—fall short because they do not embrace the full vision for the future held by those engaged in the conflict. The most illuminating way to begin this essential conversation is to focus on the commander in chief who chose war rather than cede the democracy to those who would divide it rather than recognize its legitimacy. That ever-compelling figure, of course, is Abraham Lincoln.
–SNIP– More than is often realized, the Civil War was fought not over the morality of slavery or the abstract sanctity of the American Union, but over what kind of economy the nation should have. It is difficult to grasp the degree to which the United States, on the eve of the Civil War, had truly evolved into what Lincoln called, quoting scripture, a “house divided”: virtually two separate nations based on very different economic structures. More than anything else, the secession crisis and the Civil War became a clash over expanding the economic and social system of either section. The question became: which economy and society would define the future of America as it migrated westward, that of the North or that of the South?
Excerpted from “A Just and Generous Nation: Abraham Lincoln and the Fight for American Opportunity” by Harold Holzer and Norton Garfinkle.
The silence of the so-called ‘feminists’
Where are the girls? The answer should shame us all. Abortion for sex selection is practised so regularly in this country that it’s led to a shortfall in the population of girls. Thousands are “missing”, especially in certain immigrant communities. Aborting babies because they are female has been widespread in India and China for generations: there are as many as 120 boys for every 100 girls there. Now the practice has come to distort British demography – and values.
Sex-selective abortion remains a crime in Britain, but, as the Telegraph investigation last year revealed, it is increasingly common. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has ruled that guidance for doctors in this area should be updated – but did not prosecute the two doctors exposed in the Telegraph investigation.
When parents can abort a baby because it’s a girl, they are guilty of the worst kind of sexism. Rape, porn, the tyranny of beauty that compels little girls to perform plastic surgery to attain perfection: these are nothing in comparison to the mindset that will not allow for girls to be conceived in the first place.
Read more by Cristina Odone at blogs.telegraph.co.uk
Commemorating the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, the largest Nazi death camp, on January 27, 1945.
Late in October 1973, grassroots prolife leaders became concerned that January 22, 1974, might come and go without properly memorializing the Supreme Court’s infamous abortion decisions and without petitioning Congress for redress.
No established right-to-life organization was prepared to undertake the planning, financial and operational responsibilities for a high impact prolife March on the U.S. Capitol. But, grassroots prolifers wanted to march! About thirty prolife veterans resolved themselves into a committee and began making plans for the first March for Life.
On January 22, 1974, the first March for Life was held on the West Steps of the Capitol. An estimated 20,000 committed prolife Americans rallied that day on behalf of our preborn brothers and sisters.
In 1974, the March for Life was incorporated as a non-profit, non-partisan, non-sectarian organization.
Read more at http://www.marchforlife.org
SPEAKER: Peggy Shapiro, Stand with Us
TOPICs: Middle East Politics Abroad and On Our Campuses
At: The Anchorage/Holiday Inn | 4700 N. Port Washington Rd, Glendale
TIME: 11:30 A.M. Social/Sign In | 12:00 P.M. Luncheon
The year of 1938 was one that should have taught us a lot. Unfortunately, we did not learn as much as we could have and are paying for that today. StandWithUs is an international, non-profit organization that believes education is the road to peace. StandWithUs is dedicated to informing the public about Israel and to combating the extremism and anti-Semitism that often distorts the issues. Come hear Peggy Shapiro, Midwest Director, explain facts about common Arab-Israeli conflict prejudices being spread on our campuses, as well as policies that can help promote peace in the region.
Read more at SRWC
President Obama has mocked Martin Luther King by policies and actions that judge people by the color of their skin and not by the content of their character.
Martin Luther King, Junior’s “I Have A Dream Speech” was one of his more eloquent and moving speeches. His words have resonated with all Americans for the past five decades and will do so for many decades to come. Among his dreams was an America where his four children would be judged not “by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”
Of course, he was not just referring to his own children or to children at all. He meant to heighten the disgrace of racism by picturing innocent children as the victims. What he truly meant — as was made clear during the rest of his oration — was that his dream was that all people would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
The man who campaigned on the theme that there was no “white America” or “black America” has used his powers as President to practice identity politics on a scale never before seen in America. Barack Obama has overtly chosen top officials on the basis of their skin color and not on the content of their character. Moreover, he has enacted policies that overtly favor “people of color” over “people of pallor” regardless of the merits of the individuals impacted by his programs.
What were we expecting from a man whose moral compass was the race-baiting Pastor Jeremiah Wright, whose views of white people and America would have repulsed Martin Luther King, Jr.?
Read more By George Picard in AmericanThinker.com