Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton

Made with NoteTab

September 20, 2005


Joshua Muravchik
The U.N.'s terrorism gap

The most shocking outcome of last week's U.N. summit was the failure, once again, of the world organization to take a definitive stand against terrorism. It was scarcely surprising that the 191 member-states could not come to agreement on adding members to the Security Council or on sweeping management reforms or on foreign aid, however disappointing these failures were to some. But a long-overdue declaration on terrorism had seemed well within reach.

That it was needed in the first place will surprise many. The sad fact is that the U.N. has never spoken clearly on this issue, thanks to the stubborn efforts of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, or OIC, made up of 56 states — nearly 30% of the U.N.'s membership.

After 9/11, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan took it upon himself to secure a blanket condemnation of terrorism, but it was beaten back by the OIC. Last year, after the attack that killed hundreds of schoolchildren in Beslan, Russia, Annan tried to get a resolution of this kind through the Security Council but was forced to settle for equivocal language in order to secure the votes of OIC members Pakistan and Algeria.

Mike S. Adams
Sugar Mountain

Last winter I went to an actual place in North Carolina called Sugar Mountain. The occasion was a youth ski trip organized by a local church. I was a chaperone. One of the other chaperones was a former hippie from the 1960s. He’s not really a hippie anymore, although he’s still a liberal. Now he’s raising four kids.

I learned a lot about both the 60s and liberalism, just by spending four days in the mountains with that former hippie. I wrote this column to pass on what I learned. I would hate for my readers to have to experience such a trip firsthand in order to get the knowledge I obtained through so much frustration.

There's no way I could offer a snippet of this piece that would do it justice. You absolutely must go and read the whole thing. It's great.

Bill Murchison
That very ‘so-called’ right to privacy

Well, we sure know by now, thanks to the John Roberts hearings, what the great issue of our times is. It's stare decisis, which is code for "the right to privacy," which is code for Roe vs. Wade, which is code for "the right to choose," which is code for abortion, which is code for keep the government out of my bedroom!...

The Constitution, it almost seems, exists to make sure no woman has to have a baby she doesn't want. No sucker game of this magnitude was ever before played on the citizens of a great democracy. It all comes down to abortion. Oh, boy....

One trouble -- there were many -- with the make-it-up-as-you-go approach to constitutional law is that it lacks proper constitutional roots. The court can say that red is somehow better than yellow or that two plus two equals five-and-a-half. Yet in the absence of a fact-grounded, objective basis for such conclusions, a later court may well feel entitled to peer down its spectacles and exclaim, "What???!!!" If it does, precious precedents won't cut much ice, such as those that reinforced the old, now-fallen segregation regime.

What earns abortion, and Roe vs. Wade, the presumption of immunity from such discipline? Little else but the jut-jawed determination of "women's rights" organizations to have Roe though the heavens fall -- and their altogether impressive success at intimidating male senators into agreeing with their viewpoint. Roe doesn't have to be right. It needs only to be sacred. Which it is; and if you don't think so, you didn't watch the Roberts hearings.

Posted by Danny Carlton at September 20, 2005 06:21 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.