It matters. It matters because Black leaders, like Jesse Jackson say things like:

“Leadership cannot just go along to get along. Leadership must meet the moral challenge of the day.” But there is never a discussion of the definition of “moral challenge.”

One party sees it one way and the other party sees it another way, and the “other party,” Republicans, never seem to get it right in the eyes of most Black Americans.

This is a time to acknowledge the truth: Conservatives cannot say that our President speaks English well, and also speaks “Negro” well. But Harry Reid can. And when he says it, the President calls it a compliment.

One year after Eisenhower was elected, his Vice President, the much maligned Richard Nixon, presided over the Senate and was a staunch supporter of those opposing filibuster on the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

I’m quite frankly sick of Democrats claiming to be the champions of Black America. No one political party should be champion of anyone. Everyone is equal. That’s the proper argument, but the very fiber of the Democrat party and the powerful Black Caucus, think they are saviors, and a large block of Democrat voters see it the same.

Let’s look at some of the facts behind the civil rights acts. They are not what the Left would have you believe. In the discussion of civil rights history, how often do you hear the names of Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois? Not often. How often do you hear the name Senator Robert Byrd in connection to civil rights? Not often, but for very different reasons. Dirksen was a champion for civil rights. Robert Byrd was not. But you do hear the name of Senator Strom Thurmond disparaged when civil rights are on the table, but readers, he was a Democrat in those days – and most people do not know that.

An agenda can be identified by what is NOT being said. The names of Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Everett Dirksen and the many Republicans who fought for, and/or voted for the bill, are never uttered. Neither is it mentioned that Republicans voted for the civil rights bill in a greater percentage than did Democrats.

As President of the Senate, Nixon witnessed Democrat Senator Strom Thurmond (yes, he was a Democrat before he was a Republican) and his single-man filibuster to prohibit Black voting rights…a filibuster which went for 24 hours and 18 minutes straight on the Senate floor. Republicans helped end it.

In the Civil Rights Act of 1964 here’s how the vote counting went down [Source Diane Alden Newsmax]:

Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.

Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Alden describes the importance of conservative Senator Everett Dirksen to civil rights:

He was the master key to victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without him and the Republican vote, theAct would have been dead in the water for years to come. LBJ and Humphrey knew that without Dirksen the Civil Rights Act was going nowhere.

Dirksen became a tireless supporter, suffering bouts of ill health because of his efforts in behalf of crafting and passing the Civil Rights Act. Nonetheless, Sen. Dirksen suffered the same fate as many Republicans and conservatives do today.

Even though Dirksen had an exemplary voting record in support of bills furthering the cause of African-Americans, activist groups in Illinois did not support Dirksen for re-election to the Senate in 1962.

Believing that Dirksen could be forced into voting for the Civil Rights Act, they demonstrated and picketed and there were threats by CORE to continue demonstrations and violence against Dirksen’s offices in Illinois. James Farmer of CORE stated that “people will march en masse to the post offices there to file handwritten letters” in protest.

Dirksen blew it off in a statement typical of him: “When the day comes that picketing, distress, duress, and coercion can push me from the rock of conviction, that is the day that I shall gather up my togs and walk out of here and say that my usefulness in the Senate has come to an end.”

Dirksen began the tactical arrangements for passage of the bill. He organized Republican support by choosing floor captains for each of the bill’s seven sections.

The Republican “swing” votes were from rural states without racial problems and so were uncommitted. The floor captains and Dirksen himself created an imperative for these rural Republicans to vote in favor of cloture on filibuster and then for the Act itself.

As they worked through objections to the bill, Dirksen explained his goal as “first, to get a bill; second, to get an acceptable bill; third, to get a workable bill; and, finally, to get an equitable bill.”

In any event, there were still 52 days of filibuster and five negotiation sessions. Senators Dirksen and Humphrey, and Attorney General Robert Kennedy agreed to propose a “clean bill” as a substitute for H. R. 7152. Senators Dirksen, Mansfield, Humphrey and Kuchel would cosponsor the substitute.

This agreement did not mean the end of the filibuster, but it did provide Dirksen with a compromise measure, which was crucial to obtain the support of the “swing” Republicans.

On June 17, the Senate voted by a 76 to 18 margin to adopt the bipartisan substitute worked out by Dirksen in his office in May and to give the bill its third reading. Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage.

In all, the 1964 civil rights debate had lasted a total of 83 days, slightly over 730 hours, and had taken up almost 3,000 pages in the Congressional Record.

On May 19, Dirksen called a press conference told the gathering about the moral need for a civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, with all 100 senators present, Dirksen rose from his seat to address the Senate. By this time he was very ill from the killing work he had put in on getting the bill passed. In a voice reflecting his fatigue, he still spoke from the heart…[and ended with "it must not be stayed or denied."

Lest it get lost in the discussion, is this important question to Senator Dirksen and his answer:

After the civil rights bill was passed, Dirksen was asked why he had done it. What could possibly be in it for him given the fact that the African-Americans in his own state had not voted for him? Why should he champion a bill that would be in their interest? Why should he offer himself as a crusader in this cause?

Dirksen's reply speaks well for the man, for Republicans and for conservatives like him: "I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind."

On July 2, 1964, the legislation was signed into law by President Johnson - thanks to Republicans in great part.

President Eisenhower appointed prominent Blacks to prominent and important jobs in his administration, and other administrations followed: J. Ernest Wilkens to Assistant Secretary of Labor, Scovel Richardson as Chairman of the U.S. Board of Parole, Charles Mahoney as the first Black full delegate to the U.N. from the U.S., Clifton R. Wharton as Minister to Rumania and George M. Johnson and J. Ernest Wilkens as members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

President Nixon put the "bite" in affirmative action with his revised "Philadelphia Plan," where it was mandated that minority workers in the construction industry be hired.

In other words, not until the Nixon administration did "affirmative action" begin to become synonymous with "civil rights."...

Nixon's civil rights enforcement budget for fiscal 1973 represented an eight-fold increase over Johnson's for fiscal 1969. Enforcement funds for fiscal 1974 doubled those of 1972 with the EEOC budget increasing from $20.8 million to $43 million and the budget for the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department increasing from $10.7 million to $17.9 million....

The Nixon administration 1)desegregated southern schools; 2) significantly increased funding for the enforcement of both group and individual civil rights; 3) achieved court approval of goals in hiring practices rather than quotas; and 4) clearly transformed the power and responsibility for civil rights to a court-enforced approach based on recommendations of permanent government affirmative agencies within the executive branch.

I find this comment especially interesting and well put, from Mountain State University:

Nixon remains the only modern president whose personality, rhetoric, and image can be used with impunity to dismiss or ignore his concrete achievements, especially in the area of expanding civil rights enforcement in particular, and domestic reform in general.

Johnson had a long history of voting with the South against civil rights, and prior to 1957, he voted 100% with the South, including voting against the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960.

After the Civil Rights Acts, the southern Dixicrats who opposed civil rights, dissolved and most returned to the Democrat party, although if you listen to Democrat rhetoric you would think all Dixicrats became Republicans. Some did, but most did not, and to name a few that did not: Richard Russel, Mendell Rivers, William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore, Sr., the father of former Vice President Al Gore.

William Fulbright was the left of the Left, stauch apologist for Stalin, and mentor of the first Black president, Bill Clinton. Fulbright was a Dixicrat and a life-long Democrat. This week we've learned that in 2008 when Hillary was running against Obama, Bill Clinton, fresh from Harlem, quipped to Ted Kennedy "a few years ago, this guy [Obama] would have been getting us coffee.”

It is time for America to wake up and smell the coffee. Conservatives are not the enemy of Blacks. Democrats may be.

The following is a portion of commentary from Paul Weyrich at Newsmax in 2004:

Prior to 1936, those Blacks who could vote generally supported Republican Presidential candidates. The GOP was the party of Abraham Lincoln, after all. Even Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal failed to completely break the bond between Blacks and the GOP. Ike received strong support from Black voters in 1952 and 1956. Then came the 1960 election. John F. Kennedy, no strong civil rights crusader before and even during most of his presidency, did make a special and emotional appeal to the Black community by telephoning Coretta Scott King after her husband, the Rev. Martin Luther King, had been jailed. It worked, helping him to carry a majority of black votes.

Republicans in the 87th Congress were determined to get the Black vote back in the GOP column. It was they, under the leadership of Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-Il.), who drafted a very extensive Civil Rights Bill. They didn’t have the votes to pass the bill and there were some in the Republican Party, such as Sen. Karl Mundt (R-SD), who opposed it.

Still, word was out in the Black community that the Republicans were looking after them. President Kennedy, who contrary to current mythology was not a popular President, worried that the Black vote might return to the GOP. In a close re-election, which he anticipated would be the case, that would be fatal to his chances. So he quickly introduced an alternative bill that some analysts at the time said was not as potent as the Republican bill. No doubt that was an effort to win over some Democrats who were not enthusiastic about the legislation.

It is easy to forget, with the disciplined leftwing Democrat caucus in the current Senate in the 108th Congress, that not only were there Southern Democrats back then who opposed the kind of legislation that Kennedy proposed but such Northerners as Frank Lausche (D-OH.), Alan Bible (D-NV), and Mike Monroney (D-OK), were not enthusiastic about it either.

As Senator, John F. Kennedy had opportunities to vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1957, but instead voted to send it to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Instead, the vote happened and it passed with the help of Republicans, even if the bill was not all it could have been. After becoming president, JFK introduced no new civil rights proposals.

My friend and fellow-blogger, namaste, is a Black American blogging at My Voice on Wings of Change. She said this of the Reid comment:

As for saying Obama is “light-skinned” with no “negro dialect?” So what? He spoke the truth. Political correctness is for LIARS. I suppose this is a painful reminder to the world that the maority of blacks are undereducated and many, including Obama, including the highly intelligent and well-read, prefer to speak in a vernacular of street slang and broken English when they are in each other’s company.

Ah, but we just cannot tell the truth can we? Is it fair to say that some Blacks might sound differently from other Blacks? Of course it is fair, but only if a Democrat says it. Is it fair to say that some Whites might sound differently from other Whites? Of course it is fair, but who cares? The point is, a Democrat White has privileges that a Republican White does not have when it comes to race, and when it comes to pop culture – or maybe the privilege is simply that they can be rude and we cannot. But how is it rude if it is the truth?

It is not okay for a White Republican to say that our President speaks English well, and also speaks “Negro” well. That’s just a fact that cannot be denied, and it is sadly outrageous that our President tells us Harry Reid’s comment was complimentary. Had Mitch McConnell said it, it would not have been complimentary. Enough of the smurf-talk out of the Oval Office.

H/T to Grand Old Partisian and Infidel Bloggers Alliance

Here’s the rest of the story:

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was already known as “The Nigerian” and already suspected of meeting with “terrorist elements” in Yemen at the time of his failed bombing attempt of NW Flight 253. By August 2009, the CIA knew about “The Nigerian.” The CIA did not know “The Nigerian’s” name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. And they did not put the two together when the father went to the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria and met with a CIA agent in November 2009. Who was responsible for connecting the dots? From documents found online, it appears the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) is responsible for gathering and disseminating information to the No-Fly List.

The CIA forwarded the information to the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). The connection was still not made. What does the NCTC do? Here are two pull-out quotes, more below:

…the Director of NCTC is responsible for providing strategic CT plans and for effectively integrating CT intelligence and operations across agency boundaries, both inside and outside the US.

…and:

The primary source for all information relating to international terrorist identities in the TSDB is the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) …The NCTC, “serve[s] as the primary organization in the United States Government for analyzing and integrating all intelligence possessed or acquired by the United States Government pertaining to terrorism and counterterrorism,…

As we learned during the 9-11 Commission hearings, Jaime Gorlick’s “Wall of Separation,” specifically built to keep the intelligence community from sharing information, enabled the 9-11 bombers. How high and at what depth is today’s Wall of Separation? The Wall still stands. Here is a statement from the Vice-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, about the Christmas Day bombing:

“We must get better at collecting these bits of information, putting them together at a central point, analyzing them and then acting,” said Lee Hamilton, the vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission.

“We’re sharing information better than we did prior to 9/11, but this incident surely illustrates we’ve got a long ways to go,” Hamilton said

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said after the meeting with the father in November, they worked with the U.S. Embassy to get Abdulmutallab’s name into the “government’s terrorist database:”

We also forwarded key biographical information about him to the National Counterterrorism Center. This agency, like others in our government, is reviewing all data to which it had access – not just what we ourselves may have collected – to determine if more could have been done to stop Abdulmutallab.”

Yet, Abdulmutallab’s name didn’t make it to the No-Fly List. Clearly, someone was not paying attention. Michael E. Leiter’s National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) did…what?…nothing? Leiter is the Director of NCTC and the following are a few comments from his testimony to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in September 2009:

Despite our counterterrorism (CT) progress, al-Qa‘ida and its affiliates and allies remain resilient and adaptive enemies intent on attacking US and Western interests—with al-Qa‘ida’s core in Pakistan representing the most dangerous component of the larger al-Qa‘ida network.  We assess that this core is actively engaged in operational plotting and continues recruiting, training, and transporting operatives, to include individuals from Western Europe and North America. …

The NCTC evolved from legislation creating “a civilian-led unified joint command” for counterterrorism. Is it nothing more than another entity which decided to do nothing?

For the first time, an organization outside the Executive Office of the President was given the responsibility for government-wide coordination of planning and integration of department and agency actions involving “all elements of national power,” including “diplomatic, financial, military, intelligence, Homeland security, and law enforcement activities within and among agencies.”

Pursuant to this authority, the Director of NCTC is responsible for providing strategic CT plans and for effectively integrating CT intelligence and operations across agency boundaries, both inside and outside the US.

Our CIA and FBI works under a President, a State Department and a Homeland Security Secretary that believes there is no war on terror, believes there are no foreign enemy combatants and believes there is no terrorism. Who places a name on the “No-Fly” list, or the “selectee” list, which alerts airline officials of the need for further, and deeper, examination of the person? Is it the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA), the CIA, the State Department, Homeland Security, or all of the above? Since “the government” administers the list, is the civilian NCTC involved at all? Apparently so, and apparently the NCTC is directly responsible for the list. The following is from a declassified Homeland Security document dated July 2009, page 9:

The primary source for all information relating to international terrorist identities in the TSDB is the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) …The NCTC, “serve[s] as the primary organization in the United States Government for analyzing and integrating all intelligence possessed or acquired by the United States Government pertaining to terrorism and counterterrorism, excepting intelligence pertaining exclusively to domestic terrorists and domestic counterterrorism.”…

This information is provided to the NCTC through nominations of individuals made by federal agencies, often with the explicit intent for the record to then be exported to the TSDB [Terrorism Screening Datebase] for watch-listing.

So how many martini lunches and conferences to exotic locations were expensed by the NCTC?

President Obama referred to the attack on NW Flight 253 as an “alleged” attack. He wasn’t specifically talking about the would-be-bomber – he was talking about the attack itself. It is possible to misidentify the bomber and refer to him as allegedly “Abdulmutallab,” but, please, not the attack itself. He characterized the “alleged” attack as the work of an isolated extremist, after al-Qaeda in the Saudia Arabian peninsula had already taken credit for Abdulmutallab’s actions – and yet he was already known as “The Nigerian,” not “a Nigerian,” but specifically “The Nigerian.” His Director of National Counterterrorism knew Abdulmutallab’s name, and so knew that he was connected to Yemen – yet refererred to him as an “isolated extremist.” Knowing all this, at no time did he mention “jihad,” “Islam,” “Muslims,”  or radicals.”

In Obama’ second statement about the attack, the President said there were failures with our intelligence community in piecing the known information together, and then distributing that information. He said it was an unacceptable “systemic failure.”  Abdulmutallab allegedly paid cash for his ticket and had no luggage; the CIA and the NCTC knew about him. At the simplest level, an airline accepted his cash, and checked no luggage, yet he was not tagged for a full pat down. Still yet, the President has not said the words “jihad,” “radical Islam,” or “Muslim.”

If you are interested in additional information on Michael Leiter and the NCTC, the following are snippets from their “implementation plan:”

[Four Pillars]
1) protect and defend against terrorists;

2) attack their capacity to operate;

3) work diligently to undermine the spread of violent extremism and retard radicalization around the world; and

4) prevent terrorists from utilizing WMD. …

According to The NCTC, they are partners with the CIA, the FBI, the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the Department of State, The Department of the Treasury, the departments of Energy, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture, as well as the U.S. Capitol Police, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency – and “foreign partners.”

The Center provides a unique environment to optimize the USG’s collective knowledge and formidable capabilities to identify and counter the terrorist threat to the nation.

What happened to the “formidable capabilities” of the NCTC in the Christmas Day attack?
Read NCTC Transcript View Michael Leiter Video

P.S. just listening to Catherine Herridge on FOXNews and the NCTC is spinning at warp speed.

Just as this column is published, the Senate will vote, and pass, the final health care legislation that will then be merged with the House bill, in some fashion. That vote is slated on or before the one year reign of Barack Obama on November 20th, 2010.

Along with passage of health care, comes outrageous language that binds Congress from EVER changing certain sections of legislation in the House or the Senate. Remember the “task force,” or the Independent Medical Advisory Board, that Sarah Palin rightly referred to as Death Panels?  Well, the Senate has written in language stating that no Congress in the future may change or repeal the mandate for Death Panels to approve and design your future medical treatment. A new Senate Rule change will be created along with a new law to make it unrepealable. Why would the majority party not put this in every bill, DeMint asks. Why would the majority not want to rule by binding future Congresses on every issue? Read more and watch Senator Jim DeMint question the right of the Senate to create new Senate Rules without a two-third majority vote. Notice that DeMint says this has never before happened, and the presiding Senate President, Jeff Markey, calmly says it happens all the time.

Immediately after the passage of health care, the Senate will vote to increase this country’s debt limit to astronomical limits, and then summon their private aircrafts for a ride back home for the holidays:

Democratic leaders had hoped to raise the limit by at least $1.8 trillion, enough to ensure they would not have to revisit the issue before the November 2010 congressional elections. But they were unable to agree on measures that lawmakers had hoped to attach to the legislation to control the debt. The two-month hike provides more time to reach a deal.

Numerous senators tried to stop the onslaught of health care, but were impotent: Senator John Ensign wanted to “examine the constitutionality of the mandate to purchase health care or be fined, and possibly be imprisoned for up to five years, but that was rejected. Senator Jim DeMint wanted an amendment banning earmarks in the legislation. You know what happened to that one. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison argued the bill would infringe state regulations of health insurance – no one cared. The Congressional Budget Office continues to pummel the Democrat claims that the bill will be budget neutral, as President Obama has promised it must be for him to whip out the pens and sign the thing:

As the Senate prepares for a crucial vote before final passage of a massive overhaul bill that Democrats argue will reduce the deficit by $132 billion over 10 years, Sen. Jeff Sesssions, R-Ala, said the nearly $500 billion in cuts to Medicare actually will add $300 billion to the deficit

“The real score on this legislation is that it would cause the deficit to increase, and not be a surplus as the president has promised,” Sessions told Fox News. “And a lot members of our Congress have said I won’t vote for this bill unless it’s deficit neutral. It’s not deficit neutral. It will add to the debt. That’s clear today.”

According to Sessions, the math goes something like this:

Sessions reached his calculations after speaking to CBO Director Doug Elmendorf.

In his letter to Sessions, Elmendorf wrote that government counts money two ways, either through trust fund accounting, in which money is borrowed from future Medicare payments to pay for existing Medicare programs but is like a revolving line of credit, or unified budget accounting, in which the trust fund money is borrowed from Medicare but then spent on other health care programs that don’t generate money to be be paid back into Medicare later.

“The key point is that the savings to the (Hospital Insurance) trust fund under the (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs,” Elmendorf wrote.

“To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government’s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government’s fiscal position,” he wrote.

Sessions said the cuts to Medicare can extend the government program or create money for a new entitlement program — but not both.

“Either you’ve weakened the Medicare substantially or you’re going to have no money to spend on the new program that’s being created,” he said. “You cannot spend this money twice.”

If none of the above dampens your Christmas Eve spirit, and why should you escape the frustration and despair when I feel it so intensely,  think once more before sitting down with your loved ones for Christmas Eve dinner (which is a tradition of chili in my house) that these scoundrels, above all else, are taking away the ability of your elected officials in both the House and the Senate to represent your best interests by changing a previous action. In otherwords, the 111th Congress lives forever.

Actually, my spirits are not dampened and I do not want yours to be either. We are celebrating the birth of our Savior which we are still free to do in America. Hallelujah! This is a holy time and nothing is bigger than the grace of God, including our Senate although they would laugh at the idea that their actions are subject to His to word, if not to our Constitution.

We still have time to contact our legislators as they vacation in their home districts until about January 18th. Our last chance has arrived. If the House and Senate do not convene until after mid-January, there will be only a few days for them to meet the requirement from Barack Obama to give him  health care before his one-year inaugural anniversary. There will be  no time for discussion. We must make our threats good while they tarry at home. They must know that we will work to unseat them in their next election. They must have no doubt that we will vote them out of office if they vote for this unconstitutional legislation. We must stand up, and we must make a difference in our backyard. No one else can do it for us. Merry, merry Christmas Grizzly readers.

Oral Roberts

There are so many stories to tell about Oral Roberts from a Tulsan’s perspective but I will start with his Abundant Life Building where he began the stuff of legend-making. The Abundant Life building is a windowless six-story, white marble structure. It was mysterious, and odd tales of miraculous healings ushered forth, and the stories were indeed abundant.

Oral Roberts’ Abundant Life Building

A few years later, in 1962, ground in south Tulsa was broken for the Oral Roberts University. The Prayer Tower at the University was like no other tower. The observation deck overlooking the campus is sometimes described as reminiscent of Christ’s crown of thorns. The 196′ tall Tower was the home of the Abundant Life Prayer Group, where volunteers sat 100′ above the ground, tending faithfully to phone banks, and fielding millions of calls from people all over the world requesting prayer. After the “ORU scandal” in 2007, that saw the dismissal from the presidency, and complete disassociation from the University of Richard Roberts, Oral’s son, the Abundant Life Prayer Group relocated in May 2009 and for a short while the Prayer Tower was inactive. Today, the phone banks are gone but the tower serves as a quiet place of prayer for students and faculty. The main room of the original prayer room accommodates numerous of those seeking refuge, as well as small rooms for individuals needing some solitary space.

Oral Roberts University Prayer Tower

Once the University was standing tall, Oral switched his denomination from Pentecostal Holiness to Methodist. The talk around town was that he needed the mainstream respectability of Methodism to encourage parents to send their students to ORU.

The University itself has been a Tulsa treasure, and no matter how you feel about Oral Roberts, the University is looked upon with respect. There has now been a taint on the top leadership – in fact, a huge taint that brought down Richard Roberts, but from my perspective, the quality of the student body and the quality of the diplomas issued have always been seen as remarkable. True, the University asks students to sign a pledge to abstain from alcohol, drugs and premarital sex while in school, and many on the “outside” find that amusing, but students say they welcome the pledge; it grounds them and they came to ORU for the quality of the education and the spiritual guidance. Christianity is at the heart of the ORU student.

While Oral Roberts was a traveling evangelist, moving around the world leading revivals and touting the numbers of converts in the thousands, he spent a good deal of time in Tulsa. I remember one member of a Rotary Club where Oral also belonged, saying that in all the years Oral had participated with the Club, he had never solicited funds from other Rotarians. Those were the days when the funds rolled in by the millions for the University, mostly from middle-class families who tried not to miss a public word that Oral Roberts said. When I first met my in-laws, they were among those middle-class families, living in another state, who sowed their seed faith with Oral and his University.

Oral’s healing powers were always under the microscope. I wish I could find a video to show you how, ‘back in the day’ he put the heel of his palm on the forehead of the afflicted and thundered, “heal heal,” (at least that’s what I think he said). No gossip or outrage could daunt Evangelist Roberts. He healed people, through God’s grace and if you didn’t believe it, that was your problem.

Then God told him to build a massive medical center across the street from the University. Tulsa’s medical community said we had enough hospitals, and we didn’t need another. Nevertheless, we got the City of Faith, with the intent of being a Christian hospital where staff would pray by your bedside if you wanted. The claim of more than abundant hospital rooms ready and available in the city, didn’t stop Roberts. He said he had a “vision,” and he was doing God’s bidding. In 1980, he said he saw a 900′ Jesus standing on the property. “His eyes…Oh! His eyes! He stood a full 300 ‘ taller than the 600 foot tall City of Faith.” Tulsans were not impressed, and again from my perspective as a local,  that’s when Oral’s stock diminished in the eyes of many of his followers. It wasn’t just his claim of seeing a magnificently tall Jesus Christ, it was the city fighting against him, and the feeling that he was irresponsible and wreckless at a time when the U.S. economy was in deep recession. It was just too much for followers everywhere.

I’m not one to question when one sees a vision of Christ, but Tulsa was jaded about Oral. We rolled our eyes, and it wasn’t about a giant Jesus…it was about the folly of the City of Faith. We did not believe Jesus told him to get into that mess. It had nothing to do with the very desirable opportunity to have medical staff praying over you in a time of need. It was about a monumental undertaking in very hard times, and support dwindled, although most of the City of Faith was paid for as it ascended skyward.

The City of Faith closed after eight years in operation, but the books began showing a huge loss as early as 1986. As Oral predicted, patients-followers had come from the hinterlands for treatment, but even that dwindled as the cost of traveling for treatment, and the need for loved ones to come with you, was too much to bear for most patients. Lawsuits on the sale of the property dominated for years.

The City of Faith, today the Citi-Plex Towers, is three buildings, the tallest 60 stories, and from the top, there is a fine view of the Arkansas River, and occasionally an small aircraft cruising by a window just below the observer. An orthopedic hospital operates on the first floor of the tallest building, but largely the complex is business offices and call centers. It has not enjoyed capacity rental, or even close.

Outside the City of Faith, in the days of the hospital, a giant 60′ tall bronze sculpture of praying hands marked the entrance. In the summer of 1991, the Hands were relocated to the entrance drive of ORU.

Oral Roberts Praying Hands

Oral’s impact on Tulsa, a truly beautiful city, was no doubt powerful enough to shape at least a portion of the world image of it, but remember, we were more than Oral Roberts, we were the Oil Capital of the World. The International Petroleum Exposition (IPE) named Tulsa as home and the first exposition was held here in 1923. That prosperity continued through 1930, laid dormant until 1948 when the really, really big oil show brought more than 300,000 visitors to the city for one event. During the 1950s and 1960s the venue continued to draw in excess of three hundred thousand visitors. “If this world class event was to have a suitable venue one would have to be constructed.”

In 1966 a $3.5 million bond issue was passed and all the old IPE buildings were demolished and a ten-acre Exposition Center was constructed. The center provided 354,000 square feet (32,900 m2) of column-free space under a cable-suspended roof. The building spans 448,400 total square feet on two levels, connected by side ramps and stairs, allowing for a variety of show floor plans.The Expo Center became home to the International Petroleum Exposition.

The 1966 IPE housed in the new facility attracted the largest attendance in the history of the IPE. The future of the International Petroleum Exposition seemed assured. But in the early 1970s the oil slump struck…After a dismal attendance of twenty-six thousand people in 1979, the fifty-seven-year-old International Petroleum Exposition was canceled for all time.

The IPE visitors, however, rubbed elbows in the 60′s with those thronging to Tulsa to see Oral Roberts University. It was a favorite tourist site for the world’s oil producers when they were in town, if you can imagine that. Note in the top one-quarter of the photo below, the giant Golden Driller which still stands guard today over the mammoth and legendary IPE building.

International Petroleum Building – Tulsa, Oklahoma

Through the years, my position on Oral Roberts as he aged and left the healing tents, has been that he had a great skill for preaching. I say that in admiration, and not sarcasm. He did have a message of God’s love and redemption and it was worth listening to in the later years. I never donated to him, or sat in his audience, but he was a magnificent speaker in the years when he toned down the rising and falling bellows. He could definitely preach the Bible and he generally stuck to true scripture. I believe he has helped many, many people and if his methods were suspect to me, they were appreciated by thousands and more. I do not believe that he healed all those he claimed to heal, and I believe he knew that he didn’t. I believe he changed lives for the positive, of some needing what he had to offer. I would never question whether or not God spoke to him in the very direct manner that he claimed. That is between him and the Almighty.

The last time Mr. Roberts was in Tulsa was in September 2009 for the inauguration of the new ORU president, Mark Rutland. Roberts died in Newport, California. A public memorial service will held at ORU in the Mabee Center on Monday, December 21st at 2 p.m. No matter his relationship with his Maker, I feel certain his heart was broken over the problems with his son and his beloved University. Roberts remained the University’s Chancellor at the time of his death.

I want to close on a comment about another of Tulsa’s attributes. We are conservative, and we are very conservative in Congress. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) made the news today as he forced the august body to read out-loud a 700+ page single-payer amendment to the health care bill introduced by self-identified Socialist, Barney Sanders (I-VT). Senator Jim Inhofe has fought the ClimateGate scandal almost from the start, although he was a believer before he was a denier, and is a valiant soldier for freedom and liberty and the support of our Military. I am proud to be from Oklahoma, and am proud of Oklahoma for sending these two men to the Senate. Besides Tulsa’s beautiful homes, green rolling hills (don’t think red earth and dust bowls – that’s Oklahoma City), gorgeous lakes and Senators Coburn and Inhofe, we are the reddest state in the Union – John McCain won every single county, so you can’t blame us for Barack Obama.

Photos of Abundant Life Building and IPE building courtesy of Tulsa Historic Society and Bill Miller’s, Historic Tulsa Blog.

The short story, and a portion that seems to be confirmed, is that at least one Muslim man misbehaved on the plane before and while the plane was preparing for takeoff. The Captain returned to the gate and he and his “interpreter were removed from the flight. Eleven traveling companions also got off the flight, but then reboarded and continued with the flight to the Houston destination – but before the flight could take-off, approximately 12-15 passengers – all unconnected to the group of 11 Muslims, refused to continue with some of the offending Muslim men back on the airplane.

The first thing to know is that initial reports refused to identify the men as Muslim. Although AirTran said the problem arose from the main perpetrator not speaking English, they did not mention that the man spoke Arabic. No one at AirTran other than the flight crew, seemed to be bothered that the man could not understand the flight attendant when she told him to turn off his cell phone. Let’s face it – if you are speaking on a cell phone on an airplane and the attendant tells you turn it off, and gestures a bit so that you get the message…you get the message.

I have found two sources that seem to be credible: 1) Doug Hagman writing and investigating for CanadaFreePress and a video just out today on WSBTV.com.

Doug Hagman at CanadaFreePress (CFP)  said he was contacted two days after the incident by a passenger on the flight. His organization spent several days thoroughly investigating the claims, and there was indeed more of an incident than a man refusing to turn off his cell phone (or take photos with a cell phone – it is unclear what he was doing, but his cell phone was turned on).  According to Mr. Hagman, all of the men in the Muslim group knew each other. They all have a connection to an Islamic center, that according to the report, is under some kind of investigation. That is a very important bit of information, and no where have we seen this in the mainstream media. All were dressed in “Muslim attire”. Two of the men were seated in first class and the remainder were scattered thoughout the plane. There was loud speaking in Arabic and some singing in Arabic. Now friends, if that isn’t scary, what is? The original flight crew refused to continue on, and the flight was delayed about two-and-a-half hours until a replacement crew arrived.

CFP says after the flight was in the air and on its way to Houston, the flight “was not without its curious incidents by the very same Muslim men who caused the initial delay and disturbance.”

Without apparent legitimate purpose, one Muslim passenger moved a stowed bag from one part of the aircraft to another, well away from his seated position. Another spoke loudly in Arabic, with all appearing to interact in one form or another.

CFP says they  interviewed seven people directly involved in the incident. The interviews included two law enforcement officers:

…”who handled the after action reports, the situation pertaining to the initial 13 and remaining 10 or 11 Muslim men allowed to continue their travels was far greater than an incident involving the unauthorized use of a cell phone that resulted in a minor flight delay, as reported by the mainstream media. According to one airline security official, “This was a deliberate, well planned attempt to disrupt a domestic flight that was organized in advance of the boarding of these [Muslim] passengers. The purpose of their actions appeared to be multi-faceted, not the least of which was an attempt to change their status from passengers to victims of religious profiling.

So why would the AirTran corporate office say that most of the stories circulating are “urban myths?” Here is an explanation by Hagman:

…the TSA and other government agencies want to keep very quiet.  The reasons, I have been told, is fear of predatory lawsuits, negative publicity from accusations of religious profiling, and the obligatory subjugation to mindless mandatory Muslim sensitivity training that make a mockery of our American system of values. Interestingly, one airline official told me “we don’t want to become another flight 300,” which is a reference to a very similar scenario that took place aboard US Airways Flight 300 exactly three years ago.

Read the entire story at CanadaFreePress.

There is another eye-witness that Snopes is reporting. The man’s name is Chaplain Dr. Keith Robinson. He put his story in a pdf, and Snopes linked to it. Robinson said he was booked on AirTran 297 but arrived late for his connection and could not board. He was re-booked on a later flight and was settled in at the departure gate when he noticed that AirTran was back at the gate. He approached the desk and asked if he could board the flight. He could see officials approach the plane, and a flight crew deplane. The attendants behind the desk were concerned but not willing to tell him what was going on.  He says a passenger who refused to continue on told him that there was Arabic singing and dancing on the flight before the cell phone incident. Robinson was allowed to take the flight to Houston with this looney bunch. He said conditions were tense. You can read the pdf document at Snopes. Understand that I have no way to know if Robinson is real.

At the least, I believe Doug Hagman’s story. There is a very important lesson to learn here. Now imagine that you were on that flight. And imagine that AirTran valued the perception of their corporate image more than they valued your peace of mind. Imagine that AirTran let these men back on the flight to travel right along with you. This is what we are facing today.

The option would be to get off of the flight, since passengers were fortunate that a very astute  Captain took them back to the gate. Yet, you needed to get to Houston. You paid your money and you were faced with a group of radicals who at the very least, wanted to create an environment that would allow a lawsuit against AirTran. We saw what happened with the case of the Flying Imams. They won. The airline lost. So I have empathy for AirTran, but there is a time when you must value your passengers, not your intruders. And never must we forget that it was radical Muslims who flew into the World Trade Towers, the Pentagon and radicals who caused a flight to go down in Shanksville. If we are going to discriminate against someone, as happened in this incident, it should not be law-abiding passengers.

The video below was posted today by WSBTV.com in Atlanta. It features a very compelling story by a passenger of Flight 297, Brent Brown, who runs a security consulting company. He says the Muslim men roved the aisles and were on their phones. Brown felt relieved when the Captain returned to the gate, which Brown saw as a move to secure the cabin. Unfortunately, the men got off…but 10 of the 12 got back on.

I would have been one of the customers deplaning. I’ve never instigated a lawsuit in my life, but had I been on that flight, I think I would consider suing AirTran for failing to protect my rights to a “normal” flight, when they could have easily done so, instead of protecting their own behinds from a lawsuit carried forth by CAIR – the Council on American Islamic Relations – an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holyland Foundation terror funding, and believed to be a front for Hamas. CAIR enjoys non-profit status in this great country of ours. We need to take back our airways.

See the Video here—>Click here

Thanks to Bloviating Zeppelin for the video.

Phil Jones

A short background of the genesis of this story: The scientific institute that governs the world climate data is the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the East Anglia University in Britain. Dr. Phillip Jones heads the CRU and he is responsible for two of the four key data sets used by the U.N. to drive their climate change program. Of the four data sets, Philip Jones’ two are the most important. Philip Jones is “the” climate change czar, and that is especially true now that James Hansen’s data, Hansen of NASA fame, has been discredited.

Last week, a hacker or an inside-whistleblower, released thousands of emails and documents. Numerous emails were between Phil Jones and his fellow, few, global warming scientists. These few run the show, and tell the world what is happening with the earth’s surface temperature. Through the emails, we know that this bunch of con-artists have adjusted temperatures from many years ago downward, and adjusted more recent years’ temperatures upward to show a dramatic change and…global warming.

We know that Phil Jones directed his “few” warmist scientists not tell anyone that Britain has a Freedom of Information Act, and if the Act should be initiated, he told his friends how to manuever to avoid the release of documents.

Steve McIntyre, a Canadian statistician, began to call Jones’ hand some years ago. McIntyre has been a major thorn in the side of those swearing by climate change. He asked Dr. Jones recently for his basic climate change data, and his request was refused. Through the emails, we also learned that the original data does not exist. The latest story is that it was just simply lost somewhere along the way. Another story is that “the dog ate global warming.”

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now has no credible data from the world’s chief science czar. This will not trouble the U.N., though, and we must understand that dynamic. For the U.N., this is not about climate change. It is about money – trillions of dollars that the U.N. will control if they can make the world buy climate change as a reality. Most of the trillions will come from the U.S. This is a case of America’s economic liberty vs. ClimateGate.

After the revelation that global warming is, indeed, fradulent, the head of the U.N.’s IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, said this:

There is “virtually no possibility” of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN’s top global warming body, its chair said today.

The dirty little secret is, there are only a “few” scientists who have ever been listened to, consulted and trusted to forward the agenda for climate change. There are about 8 scientists working closely with the U.N. – only 8-or-so advising the U.N. Everyone other than these 8-or-so, sing in the choir. They champion what the 8-or-so tell them. They have no original data. They cannot use science to defend their position, because the science is fatally flawed. But then, Pachauri doesn’t think you know this.This from the CATO Institute on Pachauri:

The latest gem comes from none other than Rajendra Pauchari, the climatologically untrained head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Without the IPCC there would be no cap-and-tax legislation awaiting debate in the Senate. There would be no meeting in Copenhagen, where, next month, world leaders will attempt to globalize cap-and-tax. There would also be no pledge from President Obama to emissions reductions that have never been passed by the Senate.

Pachauri, by the way, believes “western lifestyle is unsustainable.” As a hotel guest, you should have your electricity monitored. He wants “hefty” aviation taxes to deter you from flying – he wants taxes on all modes of transportation, as if there are not any now. And because of the flatulence of cattle, he wants no meat on your table.

Professor-Doctor Philip Jones says he will “step down” while the investigation is underway. Jones has received over $22 million in grants since 1990. For that, the citizens of the world got a liar and a cheater running-up the temperature of global warming. In his own words, he said he used his friend and peer, Michael Mann’s, “nature trick,” which he referred to as “Mike’s Nature trick” of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years from 1981 onwards and from 1961 “to hide the decline.” Michael Mann is the originator of the infamous and already discredited “hockey stick” graph indicating climate change. Mann is one of the 8-or-so accepted into the U.N. IPCC good-’ol-boys club.

The ClimateGate pyramid reveals these scientists as the known global warming bullies. I’m sure there are others, but we have these implicated by their own words, or implicated by the word of their peers: Philip Jones, Mick Kelly, Michael Mann, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Thomas R. Karl, James E. Hansen and Gavin Schmidt.

Stephen McIntyre is only one of thousands of scientists and mathematicians who have debunked global warming for many years. Perhaps these people can be heard now. Marc Sheppard, for instance, has found “the fudge factor,” and has decoded the CRU source code. Here’s a pullout quote from Sheppard, about a very technological analysis that even I can understand:

But here’s what’s undeniable: If a divergence exists between measured temperatures and those derived from dendrochronological data after (circa) 1960, then discarding only the post-1960 figures is disingenuous, to say the least. The very existence of a divergence betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. If it’s bogus beyond a set threshold, then any honest man of science would instinctively question its integrity prior to that boundary. And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result.

And to do so without declaring as such in a footnote on every chart in every report in every study in every book in every classroom on every website that such a corrupt process is relied upon is not just a crime against science, it’s a crime against mankind.

Bottom line:  CRU’s evidence is now irrevocably tainted. As such, all assumptions based on that evidence must now be reevaluated and readjudicated. And all policy based on those counterfeit assumptions must also be reexamined.

Read the entire fudge factor here.

If these radical warmists are allowed to perpetrate their warming hoax, and our country commits to the international treaty, you and I will lose our economic liberty – lose to world-governmental regulations, which will destroy this country’s sovereignty. We will see prosperity diminished to limits that will not be recoverable for years, if ever, assuming we could withdraw from a treaty designed to cut America down-to-size, and fund third world dictators. ClimateGate is the best thing that could have happened to this country, outside of the destruction of radical Islam. We need to make the most of it.

Our family prayers always include the protection of our troops and our country’s leaders, the hand of God over our country, and the children everywhere who never have a joyous feast, and go to bed hungry almost every night.

This year, I cannot utter a prayer for Barack Obama’s policies to be successful – because to do so, is to abandon all founding principles of this great Nation. Do I ask that the heart of this administration be changed? Do I ask for the miracle of a successful impeachment? I will be asking for both.

Most presidential speeches from years past, at this time of the year, are about the tradition of Thanksgiving, but two of our U.S. presidents issued proclamations that speak to the jeopardy we are in today:

In 2001, just two months after 9-11-01, President George W. Bush talked about defending the enduring principles of freedom that form the foundation of the Republic, and reminded us that “despite great adversity” we “always have reason to hope and trust and in God.”

On Thanksgiving Day in 1961, President John F. Kennedy spoke of “the productivity of our farms, the output of our factories, the skill of our artisans, and the ingenuity of our investors,…and “those millions who live without the blessings of liberty and freedom.”

Today, our farms, factories and investors are torn asunder. With government regulations, mandates, unions, and the maneuvering of a greedy political body in Washington, D. C., America’s industry in almost all sectors is struggling to survive, and even a rout in the 2010 elections are not likely to tamp-down the political corruption.

In 1963, JFK suggested that we offer thanks for “the ideals of honor and faith we inherit from our forefathers – for the decency of purpose, steadfastness of resolve and strength of will….” We have incredible resolve and strength of will on the Democrat side of the aisle.

We see, in the resolve to push a health care program, no temptation to tell the truth about these Bills, or to listen to voters. We see politicians being bought-off with hundreds of million of taxpayers dollars – your money and mine, to one state, and probably more to come, for a vote of ‘yea’ on this obscene bill. Where is the decency of purpose in Congress today?

In the time of JFK, we did take for granted, the ideals of honor and faith. Today, Congress has no honor. Today, there is no decency of purpose in the hallowed halls of Capitol Hill, with the exception of a few who began beating back Socialism and Marxism far too late. In the Time of Obama, we face a dire future with a president wanting to control everything, take everything and worst of all, get inside the minds of our children.  We have our work cut out for us and much is at stake. I leave you with the words of President Bush: we must “defend the enduring principles of freedom,” and “we always have reason to hope and trust in God,” and to lighten the mood on this day…a very funny video (borrowed from Cao’s Blog). Thanksgiving blessings to you and yours.

‘Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

Click here to view the embedded video.

About me: On a very icy January morning in 2007, I knew I would not be venturing outside. My driveway was impossible to negotiate and had been that way for days. I had recently sold a business, had some time on my hands, and it seemed the perfect time to find out what blogging was all about.

My blog, Maggie’s Notebook, has moved along ever since – obsessively most of the time, excluding a 7 month hiatus in the first year to catch my breath. It has been a life-changing experience – just having the opportunity to have my say – and someone actually read. It was exhilarating to add my small voice to a political landscape which was already leaning dangerously left in January 2007.

I am married to a man I describe as a super-hero. We share a passion for conservatism, love of God, home, family and country. We like to think we balance each other. When he rants and shakes his fist at the television, I remain calm and suggest he send an email to the appropriate TV personality or politician. When I am livid at the latest Republican to extol the magnificent speaking prowess of Barack Obama, or see Newt Gingrich touring with John Kerry…well, my hubby steps in to make it all better. He points out newspaper articles, checks the Internet on his MacBook and keeps me up-to-date,  because there is so very, very much to read.

I have learned that you do not have to meet a person face-to-face to determine a person’s integrity, or lack thereof. When you read a blog with some regularity, you see a clear picture of the author.  When someone is writing everyday, they cannot hide their heart. You can write a book and hide who you are, but not a blog. So, this is what I see the blogosphere doing: lending voices of integrity – or not, and it doesn’t take long to separate the wheat from the chaff. As a reader and a blogger, I have found the most amazing friends among conservative writers, and faithful readers, who also lend their voices to the discussion. I am grateful for the experience.

So here I go…and we go, into this new venture, at the most dangerous time in my lifetime. I am terrified, at the same time that I am determined, that Liberalism will not destroy the Founding Father’s vision for me and my family.