PROVO, UTAH  For generations the United States of America has been widely considered the hope of the world. Because our system of government allowed us to freely think, become, do and have, we have been the envy of good people everywhere. Americans were considered to be pioneers, problem solvers, can-do types who possessed the qualities of courage, creativity, work ethic and personal accountability. Collectively, these things were at the very heart of the American character. America was synonymous with freedom and stability in growth. These are just a few of the reasons that for many years the US dollar has been the peg currency of the world.

However, what the world has seen over the last few years is the rapid decline of American character. A growing percentage of Americans are willing to give up their freedom in exchange for proffered security. As politicians promise all kinds of goodies in exchange for power and as American citizens accept that exchange, the very freedom that allows for the development and maintenance of the American character in a rising generation is being lost.

People the world over know very well what awaits Americans at the end of the path we are now on. They know because they have, in their past, and are now living with the consequences of empowering kings, monarchs, magistrates and savvy individuals. Without the checks and balances of a democratically elected republican form of government, as envisioned and provided by our Founding Fathers, the aforementioned ruling individuals are never more than an election away from becoming socialists, communists, fascists, dictators and despots. An early signal that the transition has begun is when duly elected officials cease to respond to the voice of their constituents and begin to pass laws that benefit (or exempt) the very few in leadership while burdening the people . . . and the voting public allows it. It’s happening now in the United States of America and the people of the world are seeing it.

If Americans exemplify to the world that we are no longer willing (or able) to solve our problems through peaceful debate and the fair elections of leaders who will listen to and be responsive to their constituents, we will loose the confidence of people the world over. It won’t be long thereafter that nations will reject America as an example of how things could be for them and see America as having nothing better to offer than what they now have.

There will be additional pressure exerted upon those who traffic in international financial circles to throw out the American dollar as the world’s currency peg and replace it with a basket of other currencies that are ‘just as good.’ When that happens, the value of the dollar will drop out of sight. The domino effect on nation after nation throughout the world will create a global depression like the world has never seen.

Think it can’t happen? Only those who are either completely ignorant of historical fact, are egotistically and intellectually dishonest, or believe that they will emerge as members of the new ruling class of ‘haves’ verses the ‘have-nots’ will deny the possibility of such an occurrence.

The world is watching. We have the 2014 mid-term elections and the general election of 2016. Again, the world is watching. What will we put on display? Are we willing, as a people to remove from office those who will not listen to the people? Or, will we once again show the world that we can be bought by shallow campaign promises, trading our freedoms and personal accountability for what we think will make us safe and secure.

The world is watching. What will they see?

by John Bingham

A series of videos produced for the National Park Service shows American Muslim students blaming hatred against their faith on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The videos also promoted Islam as a pioneer in women’s rights and addressed a “general ignorance about what Islam is.”

“Islam within itself, Islam itself means peace,” the government video states. “Islam brings nothing but peace if you truly look into it.”

The video was posted on the website for the Women’s Rights National Historical Park. It was filmed at the AnNur Islamic School in Schenectady, N.Y. by a National Park Service intern. According to the park’s website, the three-part series features children as they “discuss their experiences and challenges with negative Muslim stereotypes and assumptions.”

“Since 9/11 happened – before there wasn’t that much hate against Muslims, but since 9/11 happened people saw that and that was a big thing because a lot of people died,” a student said in the video. “They just started believing this is what they do. This is what they know. This is what they’re supposed to do. This is what their holy book tells them. This is what their Prophet told them. They think that ever since.”

The National Park Service tells me no federal taxpayer dollars were spent on the production of the videos. They said the funding came through a donation from the Friends of Women’s Rights National Historical Park.

“The videos are part of the park’s ongoing effort to share the story of the women’s rights movement and show that the fights for human and civil rights – including the freedom to worship – are struggles that continue to this day,” chief spokesman Mike Litterst said.

The National Park Service did not respond to questions about whether they’ve produced videos promoting other religions – like Christianity or Judaism.

The video praised Islam’s treatment of women – while completely ignoring the violence and discrimination many women are still facing in modern-day Islamic nations.

“People think that Islam oppresses women and there’s no equality but they’re wrong,” one student said. “There’s equity.”

The students said that in Seventh Century A.D. Islam gave women the right to be involved in politics, the right to earn and keep their money and the right to work outside the home.

“Islam gave women the right to own property, Islam gave women the right to divorce, Islam gave women the right to choose who she marries,” a student said.

Another added, “Islam gave women a whole bunch of rights that western women acquired later in the 19th and 20th centuries and we’ve had these rights since the 7th Century A.D. and it’s just not acknowledged worldwide.”

Most of the videos showed images of students sitting in a classroom defending their faith and talking about how Muslims are persecuted for their beliefs in America.

“People always say, ‘You’re Muslims. Go back to your country,’” one student said. “I mean, this is the land of the Native Americans. Everyone should go back to their country if you think about it.”

Another student blamed public perceptions about Islam on a “general ignorance about what Islam is.”

“A lot of people are against us so they’d do anything to make us look bad,” one of the youngsters said. “We’re all human beings. Just because we have a different religion doesn’t mean that we’re all difference from others.”

The videos spent considerable time on the aftermath of the terrorist attacks and how perceptions of Islam changed.

“Islam means peace, too,” a student said. ‘So we all just want to be peaceful with everybody.”
They said the main reason that non-Muslims generalize Islam is because of how the media portrays their faith.

“We’re supposed to represent our religion at all times,” a student said. “That’s something that the Prophet and God ordained on us. But especially after 9/11 we have to be super careful how we act around people, definitely watch what we say.”

The students all agreed that the terrorist attacks had something to do with how they are perceived.

“A lot of people from Christianity and Judaism and a whole bunch of other religions – a lot of them have done stuff wrong, but especially if it’s Muslim, they think of it as we’re terrorists,” one student said.

“If a Christian man does something or a Jewish man does something or an atheist man does something, nobody ever blames their religion,” another student said. “But if you see a Muslim man doing something, their religion is blamed when Islam brings nothing but peace when you truly look into it.”

Erwin Lutzer, the author of “The Cross in the Shadow of the Crescent,” told me he is quite alarmed that the National Park Service would endorse videos that seem to rewrite history.

“Islam has a very poor record when it comes to the rights of women,” Lutzer told me. “In Ontario in 2004, when the premier said Sharia law should be practiced in Muslim enclaves, it was the women from Muslim countries who joined others to oppose it. (They) said Sharia law is legalized violence against women.”

Lutzer said he was puzzled as to why the National Park Service would commend Muslims on this particular issue. He said it has no historical basis whatsoever.

“If you look at the history of Islam, there was no such thing as equal rights between men and women,” he said. “We must be very careful here when history is sometimes made out of thin air.”

Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary heard on hundreds of radio stations and in his weekly podcast. Sign up for his American Dispatch newsletter and be sure to join his Facebook page.

President Obama plans to call for a “pause” Tuesday night in the push for a congressional vote on military action in Syria, senior administration officials told Fox News, as the president waits to see if an emerging diplomatic option can work.

The early details of the president’s national address show he is continuing to back off his “red line” threat to take military action against President Bashar Assad’s regime for its use of chemical weapons. Though his Secretary of State, John Kerry, seemed to push for a congressional vote during testimony on Capitol Hill earlier in the day, officials said Obama is now hitting “pause” on that process.

The pause comes as Kerry plans to meet with his Russian counterpart in Geneva on Thursday to discuss a proposal to have Syria turn over its chemical weapons stockpile to international control.

The administration claims it wants to find out quickly whether this proposal is serious.

Administration officials clarified that Obama is not canceling the congressional votes; but rather, wants to slow them down. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid already has postponed a Wednesday test vote on whether to authorize military force.

One official described the administration’s current approach as a two-track plan – setting up potential votes for military force on the Hill, while also pursuing the diplomatic track.

Another official said that during Tuesday’s meetings on Capitol Hill Obama “indicated a desire to pursue the diplomatic option that was put forward yesterday by the Russians.”

He said the president said his administration would spend the days ahead “pursuing this diplomatic option with the Russians and our allies at the United Nations” while his administration worked with members of Congress on authorizing language.

Administration officials also claimed the White House has been working on the chemical weapons hand-over idea with the Russians for up to year. According to the officials, Kerry did accidentally let the news out on Monday – when he appeared to make an off-handed comment that Assad could avert a strike by turning over his weapons. Kerry immediately walked back the remark.

The officials said that because Russia then openly agreed to the idea, the president is willing to see if this will work. If not, officials said, the White House will still pursue a military course.

No matter what course the administration takes, the president was being challenged from all sides Tuesday — with Russia’s Vladimir Putin pressuring Obama to drop his call for a military strike and members of the Syrian opposition warning that a newly emerging diplomatic option would only play into Assad’s hands.

In Russia, Putin reportedly needled the Obama administration to abandon the military option. Putin said the only way diplomacy can work is if “we hear that the American side and all those who support the United States in this sense reject the use of force,” according to Reuters.

But the diplomatic option was running into early obstacles, as an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council was suddenly called off, after Russia withdrew its request.

And members of the Syrian opposition and others voiced concern that the chemical weapons plan is indeed turning into a “stall” tactic that will allow the Assad regime to escalate conventional warfare on its own people.

Among the most outspoken since the emergence Monday of a potential U.S.-Russia plan has been the Syrian Coalition — a leader in the nearly three-year-long effort to oust Assad.

“It is vital to remember that the Assad regime, notwithstanding its use of chemical weapons, continues to use all kinds of conventional weapons against innocent women and children,” said the group, formally known as the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces. “The Assad regime, which has butchered people with knives and burnt them alive, has exhausted all time limits over the past two-and-a-half years.”

More than 100,000 Syrians have been killed in the civil war, including an estimated 1,400 in the sarin-gas attack last month that prompted Obama to conclude on Aug. 31 that the United States should launch a punitive strike and ask for congressional support.

The diplomatic plan appeared to emerge Monday morning in London when Kerry said Assad has a long-shot possibility of avoiding a strike by surrendering the weapons. The plan was promptly endorsed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and by Monday night Obama appeared to make the idea part of his evolving foreign policy.

“I welcome the possibility of the development,” the president told Fox News. “And John Kerry will be talking to his Russian counterparts. I think we should explore and exhaust all avenues of diplomatic resolution of this. But I think it’s important for us to keep the pressure on.”

Syria’s foreign minister embraced the proposal to turn over chemical weapons, saying Tuesday that Syria would declare its chemical weapons arsenal and sign the chemical weapons convention. Kerry, though, said Syria should “go further.”

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain — among Capitol Hill’s most outspoken supporters of efforts to end the Assad regime — said Tuesday he was “very skeptical” about the proposed diplomatic solution, considering Assad had refused to acknowledge having chemical weapons.

Still, he said Congress should wait on deciding on a military strike until the possibility of a U.N. resolution on controlling Assad’s chemical weapons “plays out.”

“To not pursue this option would be a mistake,” McCain told CBS News before making clear he still thinks the best strategy is military support for Assad opposition forces to help overthrow the government.

Meanwhile, Kansas Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo, a member of the Select Intelligence Committee, told FoxNews.com LIVE’s “Power Play” on Tuesday the United States should still strike because the Syrian uprising is a national security concern.

“I don’t trust the president to execute this plan well,” he said. “It’s why I wanted to engage. I was over at the White House yesterday. We had a very direct conversation about what the president ought to say tonight. But more importantly, what the president ought to do if he were to engage militarily in Syria. It’s not enough to fire a couple missiles.”

Many in Congress, though, are against any U.S. military action in Syria. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday joined those opposing a strike. It’s not clear whether Congress will take up a resolution to authorize the use of force.

Earlier in the day, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi claimed there was no need for a congressional vote.

“It is not necessary for Congress to give the president this authority,” Pelosi said. “We are grateful that he has asked for it but if he sees an opportunity we don’t want the Russians to think that his leverage is diminished because of a vote (that) may or may not succeed within the Congress.”

The push-back from Washington and Moscow poses a challenge for Obama, as he finds himself caught between two very different paths on Syria — a missile strike that potentially drags the U.S. into a bloody civil war, and a diplomatic solution that would likely do little to end that war.

The momentum, at least temporarily, appeared to be running in favor of the diplomatic course.

On Capitol Hill, a bipartisan group of eight senators started writing an alternative resolution that would call on the United Nations to state that Syria used chemical weapons and require a U.N. team to remove the chemical weapons from Syria within a specific time period, possibly 60 days. If that can’t be done, then Obama would have the authority to launch military strikes, congressional aides said.

President Barack Hussein Obama taped the following message to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) for its 50th Convention, praising Islamic efforts in this country to help him implement many of his policies.

“My Administration is proud to be your partner in our shared efforts to promote economic opportunity, accessible health care and affordable education in Muslim communities throughout our country,” he said.

Watch video:

PUBLIUS

Internet pioneer Matt Drudge may have had enough of the Republican Party.

Though known to needle the GOP and its leaders from time to time, the founder of Drudge Report let loose over the party’s direction on Twitter this week.

Asking why anyone would vote Republican, Drudge listed his grievances: “Raised taxes; marching us off to war again; approved more NSA snooping. WHO ARE THEY?!”

His tweets referred to Republican leaders, like House Speaker John Boehner, getting behind the president’s military-strike push in Syria and other positions. But Drudge’s comments also touched on the broader internal fight in the party.

Or as Drudge put it: “It’s now Authoritarian vs. Libertarian. Since Democrats vs. Republicans have been obliterated, no real differences between parties.”

But Drudge’s recent tweets are hardly the first time he’s gotten in the middle of Republican Party infighting.

In January 2012, conservative Republicans accused him of catering to the GOP establishment and said he used his influential site as a virtual soap box for presidential candidate Mitt Romney. They were upset that he had taken repeated swipes at candidate Newt Gingrich.

Some fans openly questioned whether Drudge, once the darling of the conservative right, had become an enemy to the “cause” and accused him of using his digital real estate to push a more mainstream message. Politico wrote at the time, “Newt Gingrich better hope voters who lapped up his delicious hits on the ‘elite media’ and liberals don’t read the Drudge Report this morning … If they do, Gingrich comes off looking like a dangerous, anti-Reagan, Clintonian fraud.”

Known for its never-changed spartan look, Drudge Report has become one of the most powerful drivers of political news in the country. The headlines trend toward news that interests conservative readers the most, but news outlets of all stripes relish a link on the heavily trafficked site — and check it regularly.

According to a May 2011 Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism study, Drudge is an “extremely important traffic driver.”

“In other words, the Drudge Report’s influence cuts across both traditional organizations such as ABC News to more tabloid style outlets such as the New York Post,” the study found. “What’s more, Drudge Report drove more links than Facebook or Twitter on all the sites to which it drove traffic.”

Drudge Report started off as an online news group in the ’90s. Its break-out moment came in 1998, when it out-scooped Newsweek on its own story. Drudge reported that the national magazine had information on the inappropriate relationship between then-President Clinton and former White House intern Monica Lewinsky but was sitting on it. Newsweek published the story after Drudge’s report came out.

Not known for his tact, Drudge has been repeatedly slammed by the left for sensationalizing news.

Yet earlier this year, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange hailed Drudge as a “news media innovator” who should be applauded.

Assange claimed that Drudge made his name by “publishing information that the establishment media would not. It is as a result of the self-censorship of the establishment press in the United States that gave Matt Drudge such a platform and so of course he should be applauded for breaking a lot of that censorship.”