Politically Correct Morons Cartoon

'Slap in the face!': University drops pledge, flag from Veteran's Day service

Patriotic students are infuriated after the Pledge of Allegiance and the Presentation of Colors were removed from Seattle Pacific University’s Veteran’s Day chapel over fears they might offend people.
The university’s Military and Veteran Support Club was outraged by the chaplain’s decision. They called it a “slap in the face” of every soldier who fought, sacrificed and died for our freedoms.
Click here to join Todd’s American Dispatch – a must-read for American Conservatives! http://toddstarnes.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=e0507c4c1980fd9357fa63803&id=92d26c77ee
SPU is a Christian university of the Free Methodist tradition – but the student population includes a diverse group of denominations – including some that ascribe to pacifism.
“The organizers decided not to include the pledge of allegiance and the presentation of colors during the November 10^th chapel, given that there are diversity of views on campus whether such elements should be part of a Christian worship service,” read a statement from the university to Q13 Fox.

“By removing the presentation of the flag and the pledge of allegiance, SPU would not only disrespect students from the military and intelligence community on campus, but also eliminate any reference to the values and freedoms that make it possible for University Ministries to assemble at a chapel in the first place,” student Sarah Martin said.

University Chaplain Bo Lim had originally included both the pledge and the presentation of colors – but reversed his decision over concerns from a handful of students and faculty.
“If the purpose of the service was in part, an opportunity for the entire SPU community to grow in solidarity and support for our military community, I believe including the pledge and flag would work counter to that,” he wrote in an email obtained by Fox News and first reported by The College Fix.
Chaplain Lim pointed out that a large number of the faculty are from Anabaptist traditions.
“This Christian tradition is pacifist, and would object to Christians serving in the military, holding military Christian services, and having military or political symbols in church sanctuaries,” he wrote.
He went on to write in a lengthy letter than he would rather have people focused on supporting the veterans rather than whether or not there was a flag present in the chapel.
“Perhaps some of you have come from communities where there wasn’t a diversity of views on Christians serving in the military, the flag or the pledge,” he wrote. “But such is not SPU.”
Tell that to the Military and Veteran Support Club.
“As several veterans have already noted, their friends did not die for our country so that Americans could be ashamed of or made uncomfortable by their own flag,” they wrote in a Facebook message. https://www.facebook.com/spumvsc/
Sarah Martin, 21, founded the group when she was a freshman. She was also on the original planning committee for the Veteran’s Day Chapel.
“The pledge and the presentation of colors were in our original plans and then they took them out,” she told me.
Miss Martin wrote a powerful message urging the chaplain to reconsider his decision.
“By removing the presentation of the flag and the pledge of allegiance, SPU would not only disrespect students from the military and intelligence community on campus, but also eliminate any reference to the values and freedoms that make it possible for University Ministries to assemble at a chapel in the first place,” she wrote. “Furthermore, you are stripping the chapel of a deeper meaning that glorifies God.”
She went on to lecture the university’s chaplain that pledging and presenting does not mean they are worshipping the flag.
“I believe that eliminating the pledge will rob Christians of the opportunity to give God the glory for the blessings of our freedoms, which were preserved by our veterans and are symbolized by our flag,” she added.
Miss Martin told me in a telephone interview that she’s perplexed over their reasoning to remove the flag and pledge.
“It’s called the Veteran’s Day Chapel,” she said. “No one is forced to participate. No one is forcing them to stand and place their hand over their heart and recite the pledge.”
She said her phone lines have been flooded with students who took offense about the accusations they were not being sensitive to diversity.
“We want them to bring back the flag as they originally planned to do,” she said. “It’s a Veteran’s Day Chapel and if someone is uncomfortable with the flag, it is unlikely they would go to the chapel in the first place.”
Amen, Miss Martin. Preach!

Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. His latest book is "God Less America: Real Stories From the Front Lines of the Attack on Traditional Values." Follow Todd on Twitter@ToddStarnes and find him on Facebook.

Carson campaign pushes back at published report questioning candidate's West Point claim

Ben Carson's presidential campaign pushed back Friday at a published report questioning a seminal moment in the personal narrative of the Republican candidate -- that the top U.S. general in the Vietnam War had been so impressed during a dinner with the young Carson that he was guaranteed a "full scholarship" to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.
Academy officials, responding to the POLITICO report Friday, confirmed that there is no record of Carson ever applying to the elite military academy, much less gaining entrance or a scholarship offer.
But in Carson's 1996 memoir "Gifted Hands," he appears to tell a different story: that the young Carson, a 17-year-old top ROTC officer from Detroit, had dined with Gen. William Westmoreland, who was a fresh out of his command in Vietnam, in 1969. He said he was immediately offered a full scholarship by West Point. He has said in the retelling of the story that that he turned down the supposed offer because he wanted to be a doctor. He later graduated from Yale University in 1973.
A West Point spokesperson told POLITICO that that it was "certainly possible" that Carson spoke with the general, and the four-star may have even encouraged the teenager to apply, but the school has a rigorous entry process that would not have allowed Westmoreland to guarantee anyone entry. Furthermore, there are no "full scholarships" to the academy.
According to Westmoreland's schedule, he wasn't even in Detroit at the time.

More on this...

• Jeb Bush: I trust Ben Carson

• Carson's storied past questioned: A media hit-job?

Carson's campaign responded Friday saying that Carson did meet with Westmoreland, and West Point officials told him he could get in based on his high school grades and performance in the ROTC. But in the end, he did not seek the application.
"There are 'Service Connected' nominations for stellar High School ROTC appointments," said campaign manager Barry Bennett. "Again he was the top ROTC student in Detroit.  I would argue strongly that an Appointment is indeed an amazing full scholarship. Having ran several Congressional Offices I am very familiar with the Nomination process."
"Again though his Senior Commander was in touch with West Point and told Dr. Carson he could get in,  Dr. Carson did not seek admission."
The campaign later took issue with POLITICO's allegation that the campaign admitted the claim was false, calling the charge  "irresponsible... an outright lie."
Republican strategists who spoke with FoxNews.com following the revelations Friday said this could be more than just a hiccup for the Carson campaign. The candidate's backstory has come under increased scrutiny as he enjoys the top slot in many of the latest primary polls.
"When you're not a politician and you don't have a voting record, and you are running on your own narrative (like Carson) .. then this is all fair game," said media strategist Pete Snyder.
"I think people realize that people who run for office tend to embellish, but they don't take kindly to fabrication of military service or West Point applications," he added. "This is dangerous ground for Ben Carson."

Obama rejects Keystone XL pipeline bid

President Obama announced Friday that he has rejected Canadian energy giant TransCanada's application to build the Keystone XL pipeline, saying that the pipeline was not in the U.S. national interest.
"The State Department has decided the Keystone XL pipeline would not serve the interests of the United States. I agree with that decision," Obama said at a White House press conference.
The announcement caps a 7-year saga that has become one of the biggest environmental flashpoints of Obama’s presidency. It comes just days after the State Department refused to agree to TransCanada’s request to suspend the review process on the controversial project, which has seen enormous opposition from environmental groups.
Killing the pipeline allows Obama to claim aggressive action on the environment. That could strengthen his hand as world leaders prepare to finalize a major global climate pact next month in Paris that Obama hopes will be a crowning jewel for his legacy.
Alberta-based TransCanada first applied for Keystone permits in September 2008 -- shortly before Obama was elected. As envisioned, Keystone would snake from Canada's tar sands through Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska, then connect with existing pipelines to carry more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day to specialized refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast.

More on this...

• State Department defends Keystone pipeline rejection

Democrats and environmental groups latched onto Keystone as emblematic of the type of dirty fossil fuels that must be phased out. Environmentalists chained themselves to construction equipment and the White House fence in protest.
But Republicans, Canadian politicians and the energy industry touted what they said were profound economic benefits -- thousands of U.S. construction jobs and billions injected into the economy. They argued transporting crude by pipeline would be safer than alternatives like rail, and charged Obama with hypocrisy for complaining about the lack of investment in U.S. infrastructure while obstructing an $8 billion project.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Jan 10, 2015: Activists hold a rally against government approval of the planned Keystone XL oil pipeline, in front of the White House in Washington. (Reuters)

Obama dismissed the claims that Keystone would be a major job creator.
“If Congress is serious about wanting to create jobs, this is not the way to do it,” he said, before calling for a bipartisan infrastructure plan that he says would make a more significant impact on job creation.
Republicans called the decision disappointing.
"President Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline is a huge mistake, and is the latest reminder that this administration continues to prioritize the demands of radical environmentalists over America's energy security," said. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum condemned the decision in a tweet.
“It [is] ironic that after delaying construction for more than seven years – postponing the jobs, revenues and other benefits that would result from the project – the president now finds it pressing to make a decision just as the company is asking for a pause to resolve any concerns," Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D. said in a statement.
Some Democrats, such as Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., praised the decision as a positive step in protecting the environment.
"I want to thank the Obama Administration for protecting the health of the American people and the health of the planet by rejecting the ill-advised Keystone tar sands pipeline, which would have brought the filthiest oil known to humankind into our country in large amounts,” Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said.
Meanwhile 2016 hopeful Bernie Sanders called support for the pipeline "insane."
"It is insane for anyone to be supporting the excavation and transportation of some of the dirtiest fuel on earth. As someone who has led the opposition to the Keystone pipeline from Day 1, I strongly applaud the president’s decision to kill this project once and for all,” Sanders said.

 

 

Hillary Clinton signed non-disclosure agreement to protect classified info while secretary of state

On January 22nd, 2009, Hillary Clinton signed a Non-Disclosure agreement, or NDA, where she agreed to protect highly classified information, and a failure to do so could result in criminal prosecution.
"I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in my termination of my access to SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) and removal from a position of special confidence,"  the NDA reads.
"I have been advised that any authorized disclosure of SCI by me may constitute violations of United States criminal laws, including provisions of Sections 793, 794, 798 and 952, Title 18 United States Code..."  These are provisions of the Espionage Act, and as Fox recently reported, 18 USC 793 subsection (f) is of special interest to the FBI investigation as it includes "gross negligence" in the handling of national defense information.
The NDA was first obtained through a federal lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or CEI, which says on its website that it is a "...non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty."
The NDA signed by Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State is significant because the State Department has never publicly acknowledged that she signed documents, confirming she was "advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling" of top secret material was a punishable offense.  
The use of a private server for government business, on its face, is a clear violation of the NDA agreement.
The NDA goes on to say -- "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by foreign nationals."
This summer the intelligence community's inspector general or ICIG reviewed a random sample from Clinton's server used for government business. The rules are straight forward:  the agencies that obtain the intelligence have final say on classification matters, and the affected agencies confirmed to the ICIG that four emails contained classified information that did not originate with the State Department.  Two of the emails contained Top Secret/SCI material -- the most highly classified. "Sensitive Compartmented" material has limited access, and requires security clearance holders to sign additional paper work, "to be read in, and off" the project. This second NDA is designed to reinforce how important it is to protect the information as well as sources and methods.
On Friday, based on anonymous sourcing, Politico reported that "the U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clinton’s private account contained top-secret information,"
A spokeswoman for the ICIG, Andrea. G. Williams, told Fox the classification had not changed, and no formal notification had been received by her office.  The State Department requested a second review of the emails by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence who oversees the 17 agencies. A statement was expected Friday from the ODNI, that no such determination had been made and the review was ongoing.
The Clinton campaign seemed quick to seize on the Politico report, in light of the now public NDAs.   A second NDA for classified information, not specific to special programs, signed by Mrs. Clinton also became public.
Clinton aides had countered the NDA by referring to the Politico report.
The NDAs played a significant role in the prosecution of former CIA Director David Petraeus for wrongly providing highly classified information to his mistress and biographer Paula Broadwell.  Petraeus, like Clinton, signed NDAs and a statement of fact filed in his case with the federal court stated that his "criminal conduct" was based on violations of the NDAs signed with the Defense Department and CIA.

Candidates ramp up attacks on Rubio’s finances -- but will it work?

Critics may think Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., has some explaining to do over an old Republican Party-issued charge card with a load of his personal expenses on it, but whether this rises to the level of “scandal,” is still up for debate.  
It’s more like a tempest in a teapot, argue campaign strategists who spoke with FoxNews.com on Friday.
“If this is all (the other campaigns) are coming at him with, then he is going to be in good shape,” offered Republican media analyst Pete Snyder.
This week, Donald Trump raised the question of Rubio’s finances in a scrum with the press, calling out his old “credit card” with the Florida GOP specifically.
“All you have to do is look at his credit card. I mean, he is a disaster with his credit cards,” Trump said during a news conference in New York. “And I’ll tell you what: I love Florida. I’m in Florida all the time, and for years I’ve been hearing that his credit cards are a disaster.”
Trump is referring to claims that Rubio charged thousands of dollars worth of personal expenses on his Republican Party-issued American Express card during the time he was a GOP leader in the Florida House of Representatives from 2005 to 2009. The party released detailed records of his expenses from 2007 to 2009 years ago, but there remains a gap in what he expenses he might have put on the party’s tab in 2005 and 2006. His campaign has promised to release those records in the coming weeks, according to The Washington Post.
For his part, Rubio has told the press that the party “never paid a single personal expense of mine,” noting that since it was an American Express card, he was required to pay the balance of his personal charges back each month.
“If there was a personal expense, I paid it. If it was a Party expense, the Party paid it. Now I recognize in hindsight I would do it different to avoid confusion. But the Republican Party never paid a single personal expense of mine,” he told Good Morning America Nov. 4.
Those charges, according to the Tampa Bay Times, which reviewed the available records in 2010, ranged from meals and beverages to “supplies” at the local Apple store and a lumber company. Rubio was questioned in 2010 about the $1,000 charge to fix his family’s minivan -- he said it had been damaged at a political event. He was also asked about charging travel expenses for a family reunion on the card -- he explained he paid with the American Express by accident.
In total, records show he made $16,052 in personal charges.
The Florida Ethics Commission, looking into his expenses in 2012, found no cause to charge him with a violation, but one inspector had strong words. "The level of negligence exhibited by Respondent's confusion between the (Republican Party of Florida) American Express card and his personal MasterCard, together with his failure to recognize the error when reviewing the months' statements, and his signature on the reimbursement requests, is disturbing," the commission’s prosecutor wrote.
It is not entirely clear whether Rubio’s spending ways were sanctioned by the party or not. As the Washington Post’s Fact Checker points out, the Florida GOP has made conflicting statements over the years. On one hand, party spokesman Katy Gordon told the Tampa Bay paper in 2010 that, "the RPOF American Express card is a corporate card and is meant to be used for business expenses" and not personal expenses, but a month later, she seemed to dial back, saying that personal expenses were expected to be “paid through a reimbursement, or in some cases directly to American Express."
Which is exactly what Rubio did, he claimed this week, lashing out at Trump in the process. “I find ironic,” he said to Fox Friday morning,  “Donald Trump had four bankruptcies in his businesses … who is he to talk to anyone about finances?”
Former Republican Rep. Joe Scarborough, who also served in the Florida state house, said Friday that there were no “clear lines” in the way Republican leaders were spending taxpayer money and the party’s money in Florida in those days. Lawmakers were investigated, and at least one of his friends went to jail. However, he doesn’t think the Rubio story has legs in 2015.
“I’ve been hearing since 2010 that the other shoe was going to fall,” Scarborough said in regards to Rubio’s charge card. “If the other shoe is even going to fall, I have to say this is the longest five-year step I’ve ever seen in my life. There is a lot of smoke but you never really find the fire.”
That doesn’t mean that Rubio should ignore his critics, says Craig Shirley, conservative strategist and Reagan biographer.
“It will hurt him if he allows it to hurt him,” Shirley told FoxNews.com. “Questions about your finances are inevitable. So if he allows it to define him that is a problem. If he changes the subject and mounts a counter offensive, it won’t become an issue.”
GOP strategist Mark Corallo says short of Rubio spending the party’s money on luxuries, or worse, not repaying it, he doesn’t think the voters will care much. If anything, they may empathize with Rubio as another American debt holder.
“This is just typical political opposition research stuff,” said Corallo. “And it’s being dumped early enough that it won’t have much chance of hurting his chances of winning the nomination.”